What made Luther a heretic and not a schismatic?

Luther and the Church

It must be said that Martin Luther was originally a servant of the Church, and prior to posting his 95 theses, he expressed loyalty (at least superficially) to the Pope.  Despite his frequent battles with spiritual depression, Luther proved himself to be a very intelligent man, was ordained a priest, and became a doctor of theology.

Initially, he was so maniacally in favor of the papacy that he professed his desire to be “the most brutal murderer” on the pope’s behalf and “to kill all who even by syllable refused submission to the pope.”(1) Of course, this was also while he was also disregarding the guidance of his confessor, the rules of his monastery, and traditional Catholic teaching in his excessive forms of self-prescribed penance and refusal to believe that he had been absolved of sin.

Stemming from an abusive childhood relationship with his German occultist Father(2), Luther suffered from frequent God-fearing, self-judgmental panic attacks. He could not look upon a crucifix. He tried to avoid performing Mass or being in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. His life was one continual terror of damnation.

Then came his “thunderbolt” revelation, and he felt he had broken free of his own sinfulness, not by the sacraments of the Church, but by faith alone. As Luther says, rather arrestingly:

  “Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice
  in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for
  a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin
  must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you
  acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the sin
  cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a
  hundred times a day and commit as many murders.”(3)

When Luther posted his 95 theses on the church door in Wittenberg in 1517, his immediate cause of protest was the sale of indulgences by a Dominican friar named John Tetzel whose mission was to raise money, in part, for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica. Tetzel was renowned for packing in the peasant faithful with his preaching. His commercial pitch, however, went far beyond the bounds of propriety and canon law, if not common practice. Ironically, it echoed, in a way, Luther’s own doctrines of salvation by faith alone - Tetzel merely gave that saving faith a monetary value and material form. Anything could be forgiven, said Tetzel, if a punter paid his money and bought a papal indulgence. Luther struck at this inviting and disreputable target. While it was not an unusual occurrence for churchmen and academicians to publicly post theses and then debate them, this time a rhetorical firestorm erupted.

Historian H.W. Crocker III sums up Luther’s separation from Rome(4):

  Luther had not, at this point, entirely broken with Rome. While he
  dismissed Julian II and Alexander VI as inferior popes, he wrote to
  Pope Leo X in loyalty and submission to Church discipline. In this,
  however, Luther was less than honest. He swore he would accept his own
  death if the pope ordered it. But when Leo beckoned him to Rome,
  Luther shied away. Nor did Luther confide in the pope that in his
  private correspondence he was already linking the office of the papacy
  with the Antichrist.

  ...[L]eo took the initiative in reforming the Church precisely on
  the point Luther had attacked. In 1518, the pope clarified Catholic
  practice on indulgences, reminding the faithful that they could not
  buy their way to Heaven; indulgences were merely forms of penance,
  alms offered for forgiveness of temporal punishment, and certainly not
  a blank check for sins to be committed or to buy the freedom of a soul
  in Purgatory. A papal emissary ensured that Tetzel was disciplined,
  and Luther again affirmed his submission to the pope, while concealing
  his continuing doubts about “whether the pope is the Antichrist or his
  apostle.(1)

  The full break came when, in a debate, Luther denied the
  primacy of the pope, held the Council of Constance in error, and even
  praised some of the doctrines of Jan Hus. He had now moved from being
  one of the many vocal Church reformers - though easily the most
  politically powerful because of anti-papal sentiment among the people
  and princes in Germany - to being a Hussite heretic.

  By 1520, Luther was penning such reformist tracts as his “Epitome,”
  which openly declares “that the true Antichrist is sitting in the
  temple of God and is reigning in Rome - that empurpled Babylon - and
  that the Roman curia is the Synagogue of Satan….[T]here will be no
  remedy left except that the emperors, kings, and princes, girt about
  with force of arms, should attack these pest in the world, and settle
  the matter no longer by words but by the sword….[W]hy do we not attack
  in arms the Roman Sodom which has without end corrupted the Church of
  God, and wash our hands in their blood?”(2) (emphasis added)

  Quoted in Durant, p. 349
  Ibid.

In Luther’s mind, the religious hierarchy of the Church deserved no special esteem and no independence under its own canon law from the state. Canon law, in Luther’s view, was merely the law laid down by the Antichrist in Rome. The real church, according to Luther, was an invisible institution, held only in the faith of men. The state - the German princes, the German “Reich” - was the only true, temporal reality, and it was to it, not to the Church in Rome, that men and law should be subordinate.

In Luther’s words:

  No one need think that the world can rule without blood. The civil
  sword shall and must be red and bloody.(5)

Luther’s political platform was earthly, populist, and nationalist - completely at odds with the ideals of Christendom, which were historical, hierarchal, and Catholic, with all nations unified under Christ’s Church, resting on the bones of St. Peter in Rome, with the pope, the Vicar of Christ, a monarch set over kings by Christ. The German people and their rulers were more than ready, by this time, to throw off the power of the Italian Pontifex Maximus.  This secular seizure of localized power not only enthroned Lutheranism as the state religion, but also nailed the lid on the coffin concerning the communion of Luther's Germany with St. Peter's Rome.

Interestingly, Germany can claim credit for being the birthplace of Protestantism, as well as Nationalism, both of which have survived to this day. German nationalism, as we know, came into its own fullness at the turn of the 20th century, but was drastically deflated by the end of the second World War.

By 1525, Germany had been launched into a state of revolutionary turmoil. In less than 10 years Luther’s spiritual disposition had radically evolved from a masochistic Augustinian monk into a Germanic-tribe religious Chieftain.  It goes without saying that Western Christianity has never been the same.

The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes Luther’s theological wake:

  Luther the reformer had become Luther the revolutionary; the religious
  agitation had become a political rebellion. Luther's theological
  attitude at this time, as far as a formulated cohesion can be deduced,
  was as follows:

  • The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary
  inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental
  character.

  • Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man,
  accordingly, is deprived of free will. Whatever he does, be it good or
  bad, is not his own work, but God's.

  • Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently
  believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a
  full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its
  penalties.

  • The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or
  necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or
  useful. Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications,
  monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the
  soul nothing.

  • All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and
  penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith.

  • The priesthood is universal; every Christian may assume it. A body
  of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God
  is needless and a usurpation.

  • There is no visible Church or one specially established by God
  whereby men may work out their salvation.

Luther and the Eucharist

By 1521, Luther had vehemently replaced the doctrine of transubstantiation (which He considered to be the pagan brain child of Aristotelian Scholasticism) with consubstantiation. He taught that there is a change of the substance of the bread and wine, but emphasized that it is symbolical of our union with the spiritual body of Christ. This change must be interpreted not only sacramentally but spiritually and is aimed at the change of the natural man by a common life with Christ.  The sacramental change finds its fulfillment in the incorporation into Christ and fellowship with all Christians. However, all further considerations of just how the presence of Christ comes about are purposely omitted by Luther.

In his The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he labels the doctrine of transubstantiation as the "second captivity,” which the Roman Church imposes as a matter of faith.(6) Luther rejects it because it lacks the support of Scripture, of an approved revelation and of reason.  For himself, the literal sense of Scripture imposes the belief that the species do not change. He maintained that there is no peril of idolatry in the fact that the substance of bread remains because it is Christ that is adored and not the bread.

To show the reasonableness of his stand against transubstantiation, Luther appeals to an example: "Fire and iron, two different substances, are so mingled in red-hot iron that every part of it is both fire and iron. Why may not the glorious body of Christ much more be in every part of the substance of the bread?"(7)  He sees a further analogy in the Hypostatic Union.9 The Divinity is not present under the accidents of the human nature in Christ.

In short summary, Luther’s argumentative reasoning for the rejection and denial of the Catholic definition of the Eucharist are as follows:

Transubstantiation is not in accord with the Scriptures.
This dogma is a philosophical explanation based on Aristotelian metaphysics.
It is unnecessary in view of the analogy with the Hypostatic Union and the omnipresence of the humanity of Christ.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm
Ibid
Ibid.
See H.W. Crocker III, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000-Year History
See Phillip Hughes, A History of the Church: An Introductory Study, vol. 3, p. 520
Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. October, 1520
Ibid.


Is St. Adalbert venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy?

At least in Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church saint Adalbert is not venerated. I had a friend that was a member of PAKP from a mixed (catholic-orthodox) family. His mother wanted to name him "Wojciech", but the parish priest disagreed. So he had the name "Wojciech" written in secular documents but was baptised with name "George" and thus he was known for people from orthodox parish in Poznań.
The possible reason why he is not venerated byt PAKP was his negative attitude towards cirylo-methodian tradition. There is an ancient chronicle which states:

zniszczył wiarę prawdziwą i słowiańskie pismo odrzucił i zaprowadził pismo łacińskie i obrządek łaciński; obrazy wiary prawdziwej popalił, biskupów i księży jednychpozabijał, drugich rozegnał
destroyed the true faith and rejected the slavonic script introducing the latin script and latin rite; the icons of true faith he burned, from the bishops and priests, he killed some and banished the others

I don't know if there are any other reasons that Saint Adalbert is not accepted by PAKP. I never read any official declaration of the Holy Council of PAKP about Saint Adalbert.


The book of 1 John explicitly makes the case that loving Jesus, and by extension loving others, is the fundamental sine qua non of a Christian life.  In chapter 4, John writes:

  Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

Loving others is the natural outflow of loving Jesus. Indeed, the Gospels argue that all right behavior is supposed to stem, not from conviction, but from love. As Jesus states this plainly in John 14:15 as such:

  If you love me, keep my commandments.

Note the conditional is the love - If you love, then obey.  It is explictly not, Obey so that i will love you.

When Jesus was asked to choose the greatest command in Mark 12, he continues this theme of linking the law as an outgrowth of love:

  One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these

Paul is also consistent with the witness that we love because of Jesus' love for us. Romans 5:6-8 says:

  You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Love is thus the action first of God. The natural response of love, is then to return (or spurn) the love of the initiator.  If my wife comes up to me and kisses me, for me not to return that love would be weird at best.  Worship is that natural response of love to the One who first loved us.


What is the origin of 'omnipotence' as an attribute of God in the ecumenical councils and other Christian authorities?

The omnipotence of God is affirmed in the Creed set forth at the first Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 325: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [παντοκράτορ - pantokrator] ..."

As the Creed further affirmed that the Son and the Holy Spirit were of the same substance (ὁμοούσιον) as the Father, the Creed affirmed that all three persons of the share in the omnipotence of God.


What is the proper use of money in Luke 16:1-13?

Your question is based on a misunderstanding.  Rather than addressing the base question, I'm going to address the misunderstanding on which the question is based.  Once the misunderstanding is cleared up, the question itself becomes moot.

Before doing so, I'd like to remind you that this site isn't about what we believe, but rather what Christianity teaches.  We're not here to convince you that any particular part of Christianity, or Christianity as a whole is true, we're here to ask about and teach what Christianity teaches, separate from personal opinions on Truthfulness.

The Parable of talents is not generally understood to be about money.  Parables are not meant to be literal.  They are stories that teach a lesson, and they are often figurative.

From Wikipedia (Not my favorite source, but it'll do here).

  Jesus' parables are seemingly simple and memorable stories, often with
  imagery, and all convey messages. Scholars have commented that
  although these parables seem simple, the messages they convey are
  deep, and central to the teachings of Jesus. Christian authors view
  them not as mere similitudes which serve the purpose of illustration,
  but as internal analogies where nature becomes a witness for the
  spiritual world.

So the question becomes, what is the analogy being taught here. Most Christian teachings agree that the message is simple:  Those who show that they are responsible are trusted with more responsibility.

Example from https://bible.org/seriespage/parable-talents-matthew-2514-30-luke-1912-28:

  We should carefully note the outcome of faithful service, and of
  unfaithful service, in this parable. Faithful service led to increased
  responsibilities in the kingdom of heaven, and eternal joy in the
  presence of the Master, Jesus Christ. Unfaithful service led to
  condemnation, the removal of one’s stewardship, and an eternity of
  weeping and gnashing of teeth in outer darkness, away from the
  presence of our Lord.

  One must surely conclude that this parable is not just an interesting
  story, but a message of eternal significance. Let us listen carefully
  then, looking to God’s Spirit to enlighten our hearts and minds, and
  to empower our service, to the glory of God and our eternal good.

This parable isn't about materialism.  It's not about money.  It's about that one undeniably true lesson - that responsibility is something that is given to those who can handle it.  This is true in real life, on the job, in public service, in volunteer work, and in life in general. People in charge give responsibility to those who show that they can handle it.

Therefore, the idea that this teaches materialism is inaccurate.


How old is the idea of premillenial rapture?

I don't know how much weight should be put on this reference, but it does give different information:

  It may come as a surprise but the doctrine of the Rapture is not mentioned in any Christian writings, of which we have knowledge, until after the year 1830 C.E. Whether the early writers were Greek or Latin, Armenian or Coptic, Syrian or Ethiopian, English or German, orthodox or heretic, no one mentioned it before 1830 (though a sentence in Pseudo-Dionysius in about 500 C.E. could be so interpreted). Of course, those who feel the origin of the teaching is in the Bible would say that it ceased being taught for some unknown reason at the close of the apostolic age only to reappear in 1830. But if the doctrine were so clearly stated in Scripture, it seems incredible that no one should have referred to it before the 19th century.


From Eusebius' Canons, one of the earliest church histories (early 300s AD) we have:

  Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.593 It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews,594 saying that it is dis
  puted by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place.596 In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul,597 I have not found them among the undisputed writings.598

Interestingly, Eusebius' view is not really accepted anymore in this regard, but he also rejects 2 Peter, so its not like he's infallible. As Phillip Schaff (the editor of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, from whom this is taken, explains as follows:

  τινες ἠθετήκασι. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul is now commonly acknowledged, and may be regarded as absolutely certain. It does not itself lay any claim to Pauline authorship; its theology and style are both non-Pauline; and finally, external testimony is strongly against its direct connection with Paul.


Question: Where do we put the explosion of Thera in the biblical stories (of the Exodus)?

Opinions vary as to the date of the eruption of Thera.  One source places the event anywhere from 1645 B.C. to 1500 B.C.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Thera

Another source says this:

  In 1646 B.C. a massive volcanic eruption, perhaps one of the largest ever witnessed by mankind, took place at Thera (present day Santorini), an island in the Aegean not far from Crete.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption

With regard to when the Exodus happened, my NIV Study Bible gives 1446 B.C. as does this other source:

  The date of the exodus was 1446 B.C., in the 18th dynasty of Egypt, 480 years before Solomon built the Temple: 1 Kings 6:1. Source: https://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-goshen-red-sea.htm

In other words, the crossing of the Red Sea happened long after the eruption of Thera.

Although one Egyptologist (Dr. Hans Goedicke of John Hopkins University) came up with the idea that the Exodus coincided with the volcanic eruption at Thera (in 1477 B.C.) the date of the Exodus (1446 B.C.) does not coincide with the supposed date of the eruption at Thera.  Until somebody can come up with a verifiable date for the eruption at Thera, it is a waste of time to speculate further.

As the author of this article says at the end of this paper, “The Thera theories are not only bad science, they are bad theology.”  https://www.blogs.hss.ed.ac.uk/science-and-religion/2014/02/26/thera-egypt-exodus/


According to Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. II, "ascended" in John 3:15: "Equivalent to hath been in. Jesus says that no one has been in heaven except the Son of man who came down out of heaven; because no man could be in heaven without having ascended thither" (italics in the original).

It appears that Jesus' emphasis was not the trip to heaven, but being in a place of heaven that only He has entered. I don't know where Elijah ended up, but it evidently wasn't in the same localized area where Jesus was.


What is the process of conversion to Orthodoxy from Anglicanism/Catholicism

When I converted to Orthodoxy (from Roman Catholicism) at the age of 27, the following process took place:

As part of a special service created for this kind of thing, I had to renounce the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (thrice if I remember correctly).
Then I had to state the acceptance of the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Side note: There was no need for a godfather or an immersion into water as the Roman Catholic baptism is recognized as being Trinitarian (I was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit).
And lastly, I was annointed with the Holy Myrrh on my hands, feet, back, chest and forehead, the same as babies are after the baptism itself. This annointment is not performed in Roman Catholic baptisms.

With Anglicans being Trinitarian as well, I would expect the same procedure to take place.

If you want minute details of the conversion service, I think it's public on the Web. In Romanian it is for sure, and most probably in other Orthodox majority languages. Not sure though if you can easily find it in English. Good luck!


What is the origin of the idea that Miriam, sister of Moses, was a virgin?

About the time of Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa wrote the following in which he speculates about her virginity.

  Thus, Miriam’s timbrel being a dead thing, and virginity being a deadening of the bodily passions, it is perhaps not very far removed from the bounds of probability that Miriam was a virgin. However, we can but guess and surmise, we cannot clearly prove, that this was so, and that Miriam the prophetess led a dance of virgins, even though many of the learned have affirmed distinctly that she was unmarried, from the fact that the history makes no mention either of her marriage or of her being a mother; and surely she would have been named and known, not as “the sister of Aaron1477,” but from her husband, if she had had one; since the head of the woman is not the brother but the husband.
  Gregory of Nyssa

His reference to "many of the learned" and who they are may only be speculated, but clearly by his time, there was teaching that Miriam was a virgin that the tad bit later Chromatius had picked up.


Is St. Joseph the greatest saint after the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Yes, since the 16th century this has become the more common teaching.cf. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life, ch. 7 "The Predestination of St. Joseph and His Eminent Sanctity"
Leo XIII, Quamquam pluries, August 15th, 1899, argues that St. Joseph's eminent sanctity is due to the graces of the sacrament of matrimony:

The dignity of the Mother of God is so elevated that there can be no higher created one. But since St. Joseph was united to the Blessed Virgin by the conjugal bond (maritale vinculum), there is no doubt that he approached nearer than any other to that super-eminent dignity of hers by which the Mother of God surpasses all created natures. Conjugal union is the greatest of all (coniugium societas necessitudoque omnium maxima); by its very nature it is accompanied by a reciprocal communication of the goods of the spouses. If then God gave St. Joseph to Mary to be her spouse He certainly did not give him merely as a companion in life, a witness of her virginity, a guardian of her honor, but He made him also participate by the conjugal bond (coniugali fœdere) in the eminent dignity which was hers.

(source)


How do deniers of Jesus preincarnate existence handle all the personal pronouns in John 1, particularly verse10?

1. Hold that the personal pronouns up to John 1:11 or 1:14 refer to the Logos but not Jesus.
In the particular line you are quoting, John 1:10, the pronouns can be understood to refer to the Logos. It can be translated as

"The Logos was in the world, and the world came into being through the Logos, and
the world did not know the Logos."

Logos is a masculine noun, and so fits the pronouns here. If you think the Logos is not = to Jesus, then this line isn't stating Jesus pre-existed.
Indeed, this is basically how the Revised English Version translates this line, where they use 'it' instead of 'he' or 'him'. In commentary on John 1:10 they say

"John 1:10 shows that the logos, God’s express purpose and plan was in
the world, and it also repeats in a different way what had been stated
in John 1:3, that it was through the logos that God made the world.
However, John 1:10 adds that the world did not know the logos and thus
by implication the world did not know God."

It is possible to hold that the masculine pronouns are referring to the Logos right up to John 1:14's introduction of the 'only begotten'.
In the case of the Revised English Version commentary, they hold that John 1:1-10 is "a kind of inclusio," and then at John 1:11 John switches from the Logos to 'the Logos made flesh'.
2. Hold that the pronouns referred to above may or may not refer to Jesus, but also hold that the 'beginning' which is being talked about in John 1 isn't the beginning of Genesis, but the beginning of Jesus' ministry and the 'new creation'.
You see this with the Racovian catechism (p. 63).

"As then the matter of which John is treating is the Gospel, or the
things transacted under the Gospel, nothing else ought to be
understood here besides the beginning of the Gospel; a matter
clearly known to the Christians whom he addressed, namely, the advent
and preaching of John the Baptist, according to the testimony of all
the evangelists, each of whom begins his history with the coming and
preaching of the Baptist. Mark indeed (chap. i. 1,) expressly states
that this was the beginning."

Compare John 15:27 ("you have been with Me from the beginning.") or John 16:4 ("from the beginning"). So what is being described at John 1:11 according to this is the new creation which has come into being.
3. Hold that John 1:1-5 refers to God's word, Jesus is referred to first at John 1:7, and is the referent straight through to John 1:18. This is the approach Anthony Buzzard takes in The One God, the Father, One Man Messiah Translation: New Testament with Commentary.

"1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the
word was fully expressive of God Himself. 2 This was with God in the
beginning. 3 Everything came into existence through it, and without it
nothing of what came into being existed. 4 In it there was life and
that life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness
and the darkness does not overwhelm it.
6 There came on the scene of history a man sent from God. His name was
John. 7 This man came as a witness so that he might bear witness to
the Light and that everyone might believe through him. 8 He was not
the Light himself, but he witnessed concerning the Light.
9 This was the genuine Light which enlightens every man coming into
the world. 10 He was in the world and the world came into existence
through him, and the world did not recognize him, the Light. 11 He
came to his own land and his own people did not accept him. 12 As
many, however, as did accept him, to these he gave the right to become
children of God — namely the ones believing in his Gospel revelation.
13 These were born not from blood, nor from the desire of the flesh,
nor from the desire of a male, but from God.
14 And the word came into existence, a human being, and tabernacled
among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory such as a uniquely
begotten Son enjoys from his Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John
gave his witness concerning him and cried out with these words, "This
was the one of whom I said, 'The one coming after me has now moved
ahead of me, because he always was my superior.'" 16 For from his
fullness all of us have received grace and more grace. 17 For the Law
was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus
Messiah. 18 No one has seen God at any time. A uniquely begotten Son,
one who is in the bosom of the Father — he has explained God."

I have preserved the paragraph formatting from Buzzard's translation, as it helps highlight the flow of ideas.
Note the lower-case 'light' until John 1:7, which indicates the shift to a reference to Jesus (the logos made flesh). A key here is that the 'beginning' of John 1:1 on a straightforward reading refers to Genesis' beginning, but John 1:10 which seems largely a repetition is rather a development of John 1:3, applying the idea to the 'new beginning' which is the ministry of Jesus. So the 'world came into existence' at John 1:10 is referring to the new creation brought about through Jesus, not the original creation in Genesis.
Buzzard's translation is the first of John 1 (whether trinitarian or unitarian) I have read to make sense to me, as a whole and in terms of how it develops the narrative through John 1.


Why did Jesus say he came to create division?

Man was created for a loving relationship with God, therefore the first and greatest commandment:

  Mark 12:30 …thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Why do we love God?

  1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

We know this:

  Revelation 1:5 …from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

The division Christ speaks of is between those that love God and those that will not.  Those that want what God wants for their lives and those that want what they want for their lives.


What does Lumen Gentium 25 mean about submission?

Exegetical Commentary on the [1983] Code of Canon Law (PDF pp. 3271-2) describes what obsequium* religiosum means:
*p. 916 (PDF p. 948) of New Commentary on the [1983] Code of Canon Law: "An exact translation of obsequium is difficult, but 'submission' is not the best one because it exaggerates the force of the Latin. Such English terms as 'respect,' 'deference,' 'concurrence,' 'adherence,' 'compliance,' or 'allegiance' would be better translations of obsequium."

2. Clarification of the response of the faithful using positive and negative terms
If classifications of the magisterial acts being studied here cannot avoid using negative terms to distinguish them from infallible magisterium, the same thing arises in describing the attitude with which the intellect and will of the faithful are to receive teaching presented in a universal and non-infallible magisterium: the faithful are to accept it with religiosum obsequium, which is not exactly the same as the assent to the divine and Catholic faith with which the faithful, under c. 750, are to accept the infallible acts of magisterium described in c. 749.
In order to grasp the exact meaning of obsequium religiosum, which is the [new] term used by Vatican II (LG 25) to describe how the faithful should receive teaching expressed in the acts of magisterium in question, it is necessary to appreciate both the similarity and differences between obsequium religiosum and obsequium fidei.
The Church, since St. Paul's teaching in 2 Cor 10:5-6, which describes the faithful's personal response to God who reveals Himself as "in captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi ['bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ']," has found no better way to express the loving and submissive acceptance by the intellect to divine revelation and to the dogmas of the magisterium than to repeat the Apostle's words, i.e., by plenum intellectum et voluntatis obsequium. By this reception, the obedience and submission of the intellect and will to revelation, "se totum libere Deo committit ['freely commends all to God']" (DV 5), and the body of the faithful glows brightly "per commune omnium obsequium erga Ecclesiæ mysterium ['through the common obsequium of all with respect to the mystery of the Church']."
Unlike obsequium fidei, obsequium religiosum, with which the faithful are to receive doctrine expounded in non-infallible authentic magisterium of universal scope, means that it "must be accepted reverently as supreme magisterium and the faithful must sincerely obey it in their intellect and will" (LG 25).
As can be seen, sincerely obeying with one's intellect and will does not imply "bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor 10:5-6) as does obsequium fidei. Yet acceptance of this authentic, universal, and supreme magisterium as such requires obedient assent, i.e., a loving and submissive acceptance by one's intellect, will, and conduct, "with one's mind and will in accord" (LG 25) with a non-infallible act of magisterium. Obsequium religiosum "cannot be just external or a matter of discipline, but must be seen with logic and from the perspective of faith."8 Doctrine expounded in these magisterial acts is not only consistent at all times with doctrine taught in dogma, but also, by virtue of divine assistance with which these magisterial acts always have an intimate relationship with the truth. Therefore, the hallmark of religious assent is obedience.
Religious assent recognizes that the universal non-infallible magisterium exercises a divinely assisted function, that it protects the deposit of revelation by promoting and unifying its teaching and application to certain historical and cultural circumstances. The constant flux in circumstances ensures that the type of magisterium described here (unlike statements of dogma) cannot and should not avoid so many historical, local, and ephemeral references. This is the "original limitation"10 of the non-infallible magisterium and at the same time its special usefulness, so that each Christian generation may find up-to-date guidelines to direct their apostolic acts in their own times and places.

Obsequium religiosum does not mean one is free to dissent:

In contrast to the obedient assent to be given this type of magisterium in submission and love, there have been a number of opinions over the last several decades that take the "original limitation" of this type of magisterium as grounds for an alleged right of the faithful to dissent from such a magisterium. By equating "original limitation" with an alleged possibility of "error," they claim that the faithful may dissent from it out of an alleged maturity acquired by better and surer ways. The model of protesting governmental authority taken from civil society would express the attitude of the faithful to this type of magisterium.
This perversion of obsequium religiosum is not acceptable even for an attitude on the part of those who dedicate themselves to the sacred sciences whose just liberty to do research and express an expert opinion in their areas of expertise should still be duly submissive to the magisterium of the Church (c. 218). This type of magisterium is still open to possible definitive statements in the future and needs the special contributions of students of the religious sciences whose assessments, made in accordance with the principles and methods of each discipline, are awaited and invited by the magisterium itself, "received with an accepting mind and will" (LG 25; cf. VSp 109-113).

cf. Humani Generis §20, quoted in this answer to "What does 'authentic magisterium' entail in Lumen Gentium?"


If Christians believe that Christ was a God and immortal (or resurrected), why do some avenge his killing in his name?

Nnowhere in scripture, or any Christian theology that I know of, are Christians commanded to avenge Christ's killing. In fact there is good evidence to say that God opposes it: "'Vengence is mine', sayeth the Lord". So any Christians who are taking revenge on any group because they believe them to be responsible for Jesus' death are not acting according to Christian principles. I'm not of course saying it hasn't happened - but since it's not in accordance with Christian principles then you aren't going to find any logical or theological justification.


Black and white races are equal - in the New Testament?

As far as the Jews were/are concerned, the most significant difference between differing people groups in the Bible was/is the distinction between Jews and Gentiles.  All other distinctions, such as wealth, colour of skin, etc, are as nothing compared to this difference.  This was the chief difference in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament, in that Jew and Gentile are brought together as equals in the Gospel Age it follows that all other differences are also to be treated as irrelevent.
So in Ephesians we are told that the Gentiles are "fellowheirs, and of the same body", (Eph 3:6).  "Fellow" here means "equal": the Gentiles are equally heirs along with the Jews.
The Apostle continues into the next chapter, "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all", (Eph 4:4-6).
Seeing we all who are in Christ have "one ... Father of all" and "one baptism" it follows there is equality between all who are in Christ, irrespective of their roots.
And I am minded to add
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28); and
"where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all." (Col 3:11).
Also, everyone who repents and believes in Christ "puts on Christ" (Romans 13:14), they put on the righteousness of Christ, like a piece of clothing.  God the Father now sees the believer as having the complete righteousness of His own Son: this righteousness, being not ours but His Son's, is the same measure of righteousness for all believers: of course it must be, because it is precisely the same righteousness, being Christ's.  All then are equally righteous.
Finally, early in John's Gospel we have our Lord speaking to two very opposite kinds of sinners:
The first is Nicodemus.  This sinner is:
A man.  A Jew.  A member of the Sanhedrin.  Reputed as very knowledgeable in the Bible that at that time existed, viz the Old Testament.  A teacher of religion. Probably rich.  Held in high regard by the Jewish people.  But all these advantages are no good to him. They will not bring him into a right standing before God, he will still spend eternity in the flames of hell unless something happens.  Jesus says he "must be born again" (John 3:7). He needs to be born of the Spirit of God to change him and make him a new creature.
The second is the woman of Samaria.  This sinner is:
A woman. A Gentile. A member of the Samaritan nation and religion which was despised by the Jews.  A follower of false religion.  She is poor.  She is held in low esteem even by the despised Samaritans because she is living with a man who is not her husband.  But all these disadvantages will be no hindrance to her becoming a child of God: all she needs to do is see her spiritual need and ask the right person for the living water.
The point I am wanting to make is that the opposite from the outwardly moral Nicodemus is not a black person or any other kind of person: the opposite is a person of low reputation because of her lifestyle which blatantly disregards accepted moral standards.
Despite their obvious outward differences these two sinners have precisely the same need: faith in Christ and in his taking their punishment for their sins at the cross; they both need the Holy Spirit to give them the new birth; they both need a new start in life.  The human heart is a deep well.  They do not need to tie a few apples onto the thorn bush of their souls to make them appear outwardly fruitful.  God needs to change them and us deep within our souls by giving us that living water that bursts out into a changed life.
The only important difference between people is if we are born again of the Spirit.  If we have the Spirit of Christ then we are spiritually minded and at peace with God; if we have not the Spirit then we are carnally minded and are at enmity against God,
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:6-9).
There is no halfway house here: you are either born again and pleasing to God, or you have not the Spirit of Christ and are at enmity against God.  This is the only truly important difference.
Outward differences are immaterial.  The human heart is the same the world over.
Faith in Christ, being born again, is the only difference that really counts.


Do any major denominations refuse to recognize Holy Baptism in other denominations

There are a number of different cases with regard to accepting baptisms carried out in other denominations.

Catholics Contrary to some perceptions, Catholics actually accept most baptisms carried out by other denominations. "if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really "intends to perform what the Church performs" the baptism is undoubtedly valid." (Catholic Encyclopedia) The matter and form require that the person be baptized using water, and that the words "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (or equivalent) be used. This actually includes almost all Protestant sects. The major exclusions would be sects that do not believe in the Trinity, and those that explicitly baptize in "Jesus name only".
Major mainstream Protestant denominations follow similar rules to Catholics, and thus accept both Catholic and most other Protestant baptisms.
Protestant denominations that exclusively practice adult baptism almost always consider infant baptisms to be invalid, and require rebaptism of people baptized as infants. This isn't technically a rejection of the baptisms of other denominations (adult baptism of any denomination is usually accepted) but for practical purposes most baptisms by an paedobaptist denomination would be rejected.
Certain denominations have tight restrictions on method of baptism, for example insisting on immersion. A subset of those denominations will consider invalid any baptism carried out by another method, even if done as an adult. The Fellowship Baptists are an example.
Restorationist churches, such as Latter-Day Saints or Jehovah's Witnesses, consider all other baptisms to be invalid and will baptize any new convert regardless of previous baptism.


What is the Dispensational Interpretation of Daniel’s Stone Kingdom?

The classical Dispensational understanding is that since each part of the image represents an actual political and tangible kingdom, the best understanding is that the rock that becomes a mountain must refer to a future tangible Messianic kingdom where Christ reigns visibly on the earth. If we examine the details of Zechariah 14 combined with Revelation 20 we see how this kingdom has economic, political, military and even meteorological factors and lasts 1000 years.


Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?

Yes. I have been able to find two letters, one related to the calling of the Council of Nicea and the other related to the judgment of the Council of Constantinople, where the word "persons" is used to describe the relations within the Godhead.

Council of Nicea (325)

First, some background. Alexander of Alexandria's conflict with Arius was the impetus for the council, as described by Khaled Anatolios in Retrieving Nicaea (page 42):

  Arius and Alexander could not reconcile their differences over how to conceive the relation between the Father and the Son, however, and Arius was excommunicated from the Egyptian church sometime in the early 320s. Both Arius and Alexander appealed to surrounding bishops for support, and in response to the expanding controversy, the emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325.

One of Alexander's appeals mentioned above, a 324  letter to fellow bishop Alexander of Constantinople explicitly affirmed the personhood of the Son and implied the personhood of the Father:

  But that the Son of God was not made "from things which are not," and that there was no "time when He was not," the evangelist John sufficiently shows, when he thus writes concerning Him: "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father." [John 1:18] For since that divine teacher intended to show that the Father and the Son are two things inseparable the one from the other, he spoke of Him as being in the bosom of the Father. Now that also the Word of God is not comprehended in the number of things that were created "from things which are not," the same John says, "All things were made by Him." For he set forth His proper personality [another translation says, "He also shows that he is a unique person"], saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made." [John 1:1-3]

Later in the same letter, he appears to affirm the personhood of both:

  "I and My Father are one," [John 10:30] which indeed the Lord says, not as proclaiming Himself to be the Father, nor to demonstrate that two persons are one; but that the Son of the Father most exactly preserves the expressed likeness of the Father.

Later still, he strongly implies the personhood of the Spirit:

  Besides the pious opinion concerning the Father and the Son, we confess to one Holy Spirit, as the divine Scriptures teach us; who has inaugurated both the holy men of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New.

Council of Constantinople (381)

A letter written by the bishops gathered at Constantinople uses the term "persons" and affirms its consistency with the original Nicene Creed:

  What we have undergone -- persecutions, afflictions, imperial threats, cruelty from officials, and whatever other trial at the hands of heretics -- we have put up with for the sake of the gospel faith established by the 318 fathers at Nicaea in Bithynia. You, we and all who are not bent on subverting the word of the true faith should give this creed our approval. It is the most ancient and is consistent with our baptism. It tells us how to believe in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit: believing also, of course, that the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit have a single Godhead and power and substance, a dignity deserving the same honour and a co-eternal sovereignty, in three most perfect hypostases, or three perfect persons. So there is no place for Sabellius's diseased theory in which the hypostases are confused and thus their proper characteristics destroyed. Nor may the blasphemy of Eunomians and Arians and Pneumatomachi prevail.

The above translation of the bishops' letter is originally from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils by Norman Tanner. Read the relevant pages for yourself (hat-tip to Susan), which include the original Greek along with a Latin translation.

Terminology

In the letters quoted above, the word "person" is a translation of the Greek prosopon. R.P.C. Hanson explains in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (pg. 183) that "for at least the first half of the period 318-381," which includes the time of the first council, "and in some cases considerably later, ousia and hypostasis are used as virtual synonyms." This led to Nicea's anathematization of those who say that the Father and the Son are "of a different hypostasis." It took the genius of the Cappadocian Fathers to standardize the terminology so that "the distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular," and therefore that hypostasis would become synonymous with prosopon.


If the Holy Spirit is God, and God can not be in the presence of sin, then how can the Holy Spirit dwell in me a sinner?

The idea that God cannot be in the presence of sin may come from the prayer in Habakkuk 1:13.  In the NIV it says, "Your eyes are too pure to look upon evil."

The question, then, is, "Is this teaching the God is unable to look at evil?"  If it is teaching that, then this would need to fit with the whole of Scripture.

Psalm 139 expressly states that God knows and sees everything that occurs, which would include evil.  God also came to Adam and Eve after their sin.  He visited Sodom to see the evil that was there.  He observed the Israelites fashioning a golden calf and worshiping it.  In Job, Satan comes into God's presence and has discussions with Him.  Jesus, too, walked among us and certainly was in the presence of evil His whole life.

So, it seems clear that God does see evil and He does allow sin to come into His presence.  Indeed, if all have sinned (and continue to do so), God must be able to be in the presence of sin to indwell those who have placed their trust in the redemption of Christ.

A key point here is that those who have trusted Christ are, according to the Scriptures, declared righteous in His sight--forgiven.  The debt is fully paid.  No charge can be entertained against us.

Now God's work of redemption will be fully complete when He fully removed that which He hates (sin) from that which He loves (His people).


How did the Catholic Church function logistically/liturgically prior to the invention of the printing press?

From Herbert Thurston's Catholic Encyclopedia article "Missal" (§ "Origin of the Missal"):

  The printed Missal of the present day, reproducing in substance the manuscript forms of the latter part of the Middle Ages, has resulted from the amalgamation of a number of separate service books. In the early centuries, owing to the lack of competent scribes, the scarcity of writing materials, and various other causes, economy had greatly to be studied in the production of books. The book used by the priest at the altar for the prayers of the Mass usually contained no more than it belonged to him to say. It was known commonly as a "Sacramentary" (Sacramentarium) because all its contents centred round the great act of the consecration of the sacrifice. On the other hand those portions of the service which, like the Introit and the Gradual, the Offertory and the Communion, were rendered by the choir, were inscribed in a separate book, the "Antiphonarium Missae" or "Graduale" (q.v.). So again the passages to be read to the people by the deacons or rectors in the ambo (pulpit) — the Epistle and Gospel, with lessons from the Old Testament on particular occasions — were collected in the "Epistolarium" or "Apostolus", the "Evangeliarium", and other lectionaries. Besides this an "Ordo" or "Directorium" (q.v.) was required to determine the proper service. Only by a slow process of development were the contents of the sacramentary, the gradual, the various lectionaries, and the "Ordo" amalgamated so that all that was needed for the celebration of Mass was to be found within the covers of one volume. …

Medieval Books of the Hours (and illuminated manuscripts in general) were common, especially among the wealthy laity, before the printing press.

See also the "Manuscript" Catholic Encyclopedia article for the history of manuscripts and copyists.


Is there Biblical justification for asserting that Satan directly causes natural evil?

Both in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, the answer would seem to be in the affirmative.

The introduction of the Prayer Against Satan and the Rebellious Angels Published by Order of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, makes note that his Holiness Pope Leo
XIII believed that the Devil and his agents can cause violent storms and calamities.

  The following is a simple exorcism prayer that can be said by priests or laity. The term “exorcism” does not always denote a solemn exorcism involving a person possessed by the devil. In general, the term denotes prayers to “curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing harm.” As St. Peter had written in Holy Scripture, “your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.” (1 St. Peter 5,8)

  The Holy Father exhorts priests to say this prayer as often as possible, as a simple exorcism to curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing harm. The faithful also may say it in their own name, for the same purpose, as any approved prayer. Its use is recommended whenever action of the devil is suspected, causing malice in men, violent temptations and even storms and various calamities. It could be used as a solemn exorcism (an official and public ceremony, in Latin), to expel the devil. It would then be said by a priest, in the name of the Church and only with a Bishop's permission. - A Simple Exorcism for Priests or Laity

As for the biblical basis of this belief, we could go to the Book of Job and the Apostle St. Paul for a definitive answer.

  2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. - Ephesians 2:2 (KJV)

Thus we see that for some, St. Paul is referring to the ”Powers” of the air as being no less then the evil spirits of this world.

The fallen spirits also try to impress us with their power of over nature: “The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders” (2 Thess 2:9). St. Paul adduces here the sign for the necessary discernment: “Lawlessness”. The works they do may indeed be impressive, but we have to watch out, first of all, to verify whether the “fruits” are good or bad: Do they submit to the laws? Do they recognize the legitimate authority? Are they obedient, for “the prince of the power of the air… is now at work in the sons of disobedience” (Eph 2:2)?

  From six calamities he will rescue you; in seven no harm will touch you. - Job 5:19

The whole Book of Job deals with God’s servant Job and the calamities provoked by Satan against the Man of God. Job is presented as a good and prosperous family man who is beset by Satan with God's permission with horrendous disasters that take away all that he holds dear, including his offspring, his health, and his property.

  Job's Unparalleled Calamities

  Everything is done to heighten and intensify the impression of Job's calamities. Let us note their salient features.

  I. THEY OCCUR AT A SEASON OF FESTIVITY. It was a feast-day, and Job's whole family was gathered together in his eldest son's house. Then of all times the affectionate father would be least prepared for ominous rumours of calamity. The thunderbolt fell from the cloudless blue sky. Without a note of warning, the fearful storm burnt in an overwhelming deluge. This is a lesson against trusting to prosperity, as though it contained a promise of its own certain continuance. But it is no unmerciful arrangement of Providence that the dark future is hidden from us. We are made sad because

  "We look before and after." If we saw all the future, we could not endure the present.

  II. THEY OCCUR IN RAPID SUCCESSION. So closely do these calamities follow one upon another that, before the first messenger has told his tale, a second herald arrives with more evil news, followed as speedily by a third, and he after no more delay by the last, with his most dreadful message. It has often been noticed how troubles come in batches. In Job's case we can see the reason. One fearful power of malignity is behind the whole series.

  III. THEY COME FROM VARIOUS QUARTERS. Though Satan is the ultimate cause of all the calamities, he does not inflict any of them with his own hand. He keeps that hidden, and finds means to send emissaries from all quarters - Arabs from the south fall on the home farm; lightning from heaven smites the sheep on the downs; three robber-bands of roving Chaldees from the north swoop down on the caravan of camels that carries Job's wealth of merchandise; and, worse than all else, a hurricane from the desert smites and fells the house where Job's sons and daughters are feasting. Who can dwell in security when trouble may come in so many directions? It is impossible for the strongest man to fortify himself against it. None of us can do more than make reasonable preparations, which may all prove useless. But all may trust the providence of him who rules wind and storm and heart of man, and without whose permission not a hair of our head can be touched.

  IV. THEY ARE AGGRAVATED AS THEY PROCEED. The worst comes last. It is terrible for a rich man to see his wealth melting before his eyes in a few moments. This was Antonio's trouble when his fleet of merchandise was destroyed ('Merchant of Venice'), but it was not so fearful as Malcolm's, when all his children were murdered at once ('Macbeth'), or the late Archbishop Tait's, when one after another his children died of an epidemic of fever. Let the impoverished man be thankful if his family is spared to him.

Job’s unparalleled calamities obviously came from Satan, but Satan tries to as usual hide the fact of his involvement.

  Characteristics of Evil Spirits

  According to the prayers of the Church, evil spirits are bodiless, and immaterial created spirits. The Holy Scripture reveals to us what characteristics they possess. Evil spirits have mind and will (2 Corinthians 2:11). They know God, and this knowledge fills them with fear: "You believe that there is one God...the demons also believe and tremble," writes Holy Apostle James (2:19). More than once, evil angels confessed Christ the Savior as the Son of God (St. Matthew 8:29; Saint Mark 1:24, for example).

  Evil spirits know themselves, of course, for if the spirit of man is conscious of what it knows, then certainly the same must be said of evil spirits. Evil spirits know the condition of the present world, as we see in the Book of the Prophet Job. The evil one traversed the world and observed all people, and spoke of this to the Lord. The Lord did not refute these observations as false (Job 1:7-12), though clearly, the devil did not know the soul of Job; just as he and his demons can never approach the nature of our souls and know them. He can only judge from our deeds, actions and inclinations what the condition of our soul is, as the Holy Fathers tell us. Saint John Cassian says, "But the demons cannot possibly come near to those thoughts which have not yet come forth from the inmost recesses of the soul. And the thoughts too, which they suggest, whether they are actually or in a kind of way embraced, are discovered by them not from the nature of the soul itself, i.e., that inner inclination which lies concealed so to speak in the very marrow, but from the motions and signs given by the outward man." (First Conference of Abba Sereneus).

  Saint John the Solitary also tells us:"the devil cannot touch the nature of the soul, nor can he draw nigh it at all to harm it..." The devil does not touch or see the soul, but the members of the body only...and by harming one of the members he disturbs the thoughts which are active within them. For indeed, if he could draw nigh the soul so as to harm it, then he would also be able to harm it after it departed from the body, but this he would have to do while being unable to see it and having no power over it, because his power extends only as far as the body." (Sixth Dialogue With Thomasos).

  The fallen spirits know something of future events, but not from real knowledge or prophecy. They can surmise what will occur when it is going to take place from definite, unchanging causes. The general future is known to them from God's revelation (3 Ki. 22:21-22 Orthodox Bible), and also from the observation of man's character. Once, a demon drew near to Saint Andrew the Fool-for-Christ and told him of the moral disorder of Christians in the last days, "In those days," the demon said, "people will be more evil than I am, and little children will surpass old people in wickedness. Then, I will not teach people anything; they themselves will fulfill my will." Saint Andrew responded: "How do you know this, for a demon does not know anything by prophecy or forevision?" To this, the demon replied: "Our father, Satan, conjectures these things and passes it on to us."

  Though they have a mind, evil spirits have distorted it so much that, instead of the basic quality of the mind striving toward truth the main characteristic of the demon's mind is hatred toward truth. For this reason, the evil one is called "the father of lies" in the Gospel (Saint John 8:44) and "deceiver" in the Book of Revelation (12:9). Having hardened their will in unyielding evil, the demons now direct their activity toward evil alone, but demons also have a certain freedom, because they can select one evil out of many. Instead of love, the being of the devil is filled with irreconcilable enmity toward and His works. We have a constant enemy in the evil one, and therefore the Holy Apostle Paul advises Christians to array themselves in complete armor for struggle against the devil (Ephesians 6:12-17), and Christ commanded us to pray constantly to God, our Father, "...deliver us from the evil one."

  The Dwelling Place of Evil Spirits

  While Satan was an obedient angel of God, he dwelt in heaven. He exalted himself higher than all spirits and thought to become an independent power. Because of this, the Lord cast him down from heaven (St. Luke 10:18), together with the angels which had followed him in his opposition to the Creator (Ephesians 6:12; Rev. 12:7). Since then, the abode of the devil has been the "abyss" or "space", which, in common usage, is called "the air." The correctness of this idea is evident from the Holy Scripture. In the Book of Job, the devil himself testifies that he went round about the whole world, passing through the air (Job 1:7; 2:2). The Holy Apostle Paul speaks of the fallen spirits dwelling in the air: "For we struggle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12). Here is how Saint Athanasios the Great explains this place: "The devil, the enemy of our race, having fallen from heaven, roams in the space of this lower air where, ruling over other demons...with their cooperation, he deceives people with visions and strives to hinder those who struggle higher, or which Saint Paul says, "According to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2). In the interpretation of Psalm 41, Saint John Chrysostom says, "How many demons are borne in this air? How many adverse powers? If God were to allow them to show their countenances, we would all be driven insane" (Works, Vol. 1, p.722). Saint Anthony the Great says simply that "demons are born in the air" (Works, Pt. 3, p.22). If evil spirits fill the air, then it is clear that they surround us from all sides. Saint Theophan the Recluse says of this: "The usual form of translation and understanding of the word "sky" signifies that spirits fly in the air, and just as air embraces us everywhere, so also do the spirits of malice draw near us, like mosquitoes in a damp place" (Interpretation of the Epistle to Ephesians, p. 412). Thus, in the Lord's Prayer, we are taught to pray, "...deliver us from the evil one." - Concerning Evil Spirits and Demons - Internal Demons


Here are some of the ways to interpret the 144,000.

Some of them are from the first century Christians and the remnants are from some  faithful members of Jehovah's Witnesses.
They are the chosen people at the last days who will proclaim the last Gospel to the world.
They are literally from the 12 tribes of Israel. (I endorse this view)

Let's take 144,000 literally that they are from the 12 tribes of Israel.

One important thing to know is that Jews today living in Israel are from one of the 12 tribes of Israel. They are the descendants of Judah, the fourth son of Jacob(Israel). Even during the time of Jesus, there were only Jews, not the whole Israelite. We don't know where are the other remaining tribes of Israel. Ten tribes of Israel are lost till today. If we take 144,000 literally, then it must be from the 12 tribes of Israel only. The Gospel was preached only to the Jews and then to Gentiles. I believe that God wants to save the whole 12 tribes of Israel. This may be the reason why Rev 7 list down the 12 tribes. Even though 10 tribes are lost, I believe that God still knows where they are and God has a complete list of all the descendants of Jacob. There are many theories and studies on who are the lost tribes of Israel but God knows it better.
The descendants of Jacob, especially the Jews will believe in Jesus at the last days through the two witnesses, the last prophets who will convince the nation of Israel that Jesus is the Christ. These two witnesses will preach in Jerusalem and ultimately will be killed by the Antichrist but God will raise them after 3 days(Rev 11).

Why 144,000? There can be two possible views on this.

Total number of Israelites in Heaven: We don't know how many Jews believed the Gospel till today. We don't know whether the number 12,000 allotted for Jews is already completed or not. We also don't know how many from the lost tribes have already believed in Jesus.  But at the last day, all complete 12 tribes will believe Jesus Christ, whether they are lost or not and their will be exactly 144,000 people in Heaven from the descendants of Jacob.
The elected evangelist at the last days: God will chose 144,000 people from the descendants of Jacob in the last days and they will preach the Gospel to all the nations.


Does the Catholic Church have any (quasi) interdiction against the Harry Potter books?

The short answer is no.

Nevertheless some priests have taken a more personal stance within their own diocese or country.

  The Catholic Church has taken no official position on the books, but various Catholics, including officials of the Roman Curia, the hierarchy, and other official bodies have presented mixed views on the subject.

  Beginning in 2001, Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, has occasionally written on the Harry Potter series in his regular column in The Sunday Telegraph. In his columns, he praised the books for displaying values that are "deeply compatible with Christianity." .In his book Be Not Afraid, Pell praised the books as having a "good dose of moral truth" and for being "a good yarn."

  In 2003, Peter Fleetwood, a priest incardinated in the Archdiocese of Liverpool at the time serving as an official of the Pontifical Council for Culture, made comments supportive of the novels during a press conference announcing the release of Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life—A Christian reflection on the "New Age". In response to a question asking if the magic presented in the Harry Potter series should be considered in the same light as some New Age practices warned against in the document, Fleetwood stated, "If I have understood well the intentions of Harry Potter's author, they help children to see the difference between good and evil. And she is very clear on this." He added that Rowling is "Christian by conviction, is Christian in her mode of living, even in her way of writing." This comment was seized on by the media as an endorsement of the novels from the Catholic Church, and by extension, the Pope at that time, John Paul II, though there is no evidence that the Pope officially approved of the novels.

  The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, dedicated a full page to the debate in its 14–15 January 2008 issue. Essayist Paolo Gulisano said the Harry Potter novels offer lessons in the importance of love and self-giving, but Professor Edoardo Rialti described Harry Potter as "the wrong kind of hero" and said that, "Despite several positive values that can be found in the story, at the foundations of this tale is the proposal that of witchcraft as positive, the violent manipulation of things and people thanks to the knowledge of the occult, an advantage of a select few: the ends justify the means because the knowledgeable, the chosen ones, the intellectuals know how to control the dark powers and turn them into good… This is a grave and deep lie, because it is the old Gnostic temptation of confusing salvation and truth with a secret knowledge." However, in July 2009, L'Osservatore Romano praised the moral stance of the sixth Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, saying, "There is a clear line of demarcation between good and evil and [the film] makes clear that good is right. One understands as well that sometimes this requires hard work and sacrifice." It also noted that the film made clear that "the search for immortality epitomised by Lord Voldemort" was morally wrong.

  In Poland, priests from northern city of Koszalin or Gdańsk, publicly burned books and other objects they believe promote magic and sorcery, such as several copies of such books as Harry Potter, Twilight and one about the controversial guru Rajneesh, as well as African tribal masks on April 1, 2019. As a justification, they quoted following biblical passages: A passage from Acts of the Apostles, quoted in by the group, said "many of those who had practiced magic collected their books and burned them in front of everyone. So they calculated their value and found it to be fifty thousand pieces of silver". Another passage, from Book of Deuteronomy, said: "Burn the images of their gods. Don't desire the silver or the gold that is on them and take it for yourself, or you will be trapped by it. That is detestable to the Lord your God."

  In August, 2019, after consulting with exorcists in both the US and Rome, Rev. Dan Reehil, a pastor at the Roman Catholic parish school of St Edward in Nashville, Tennessee, banned the books from the school library on the grounds that "The curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text". - Religious debates over the Harry Potter series


Random babbling isn't "speaking in tongues" as the Apostles did on the Day of Pentecost.  The Apostles preached, and everyone present heard the message in their native language.  This is the purpose of speaking in tongues: to facilitate communication.  In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul warns very strongly about speaking in tongues simply for its own sake, since it doesn't accomplish any useful purpose.

As for modern occurrences, I've heard plenty of stories of missionaries and other preachers in situations where they did not possess sufficient language skills in the language of the people being taught gaining the temporary ability to express themselves clearly when it was necessary.  I don't have any references to cite right at the moment, but yes, it does still happen today.


Is there an explanation in Catholicism as to why it was the Son and not the others of the Blessed Trinity to become man and be crucified for our sake?

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this question in Summa Theologica III q. 3 a. 8 ("Whether it was more fitting that the Person of the Son rather than any other Divine Person should assume human nature?") c.:

It was most fitting that the Person of the Son should become incarnate. First, on the part of the union; for such as are similar are fittingly united. Now the Person of the Son, Who is the Word of God, has a certain common agreement with all creatures, because the word of the craftsman, i.e. his concept, is an exemplar likeness of whatever is made by him. Hence the Word of God, Who is His eternal concept, is the exemplar likeness of all creatures. And therefore as creatures are established in their proper species, though movably, by the participation of this likeness, so by the non-participated and personal union of the Word with a creature, it was fitting that the creature should be restored in order to its eternal and unchangeable perfection; for the craftsman by the intelligible form of his art, whereby he fashioned his handiwork, restores it when it has fallen into ruin. Moreover, He has a particular agreement with human nature, since the Word is a concept of the eternal Wisdom, from Whom all man's wisdom is derived. And hence man is perfected in wisdom (which is his proper perfection, as he is rational) by participating the Word of God, as the disciple is instructed by receiving the word of his master. Hence it is said (Ecclus. 1:5): "The Word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom." And hence for the consummate perfection of man it was fitting that the very Word of God should be personally united to human nature.
Secondly, the reason of this fitness may be taken from the end of the union, which is the fulfilling of predestination, i.e. of such as are preordained to the heavenly inheritance, which is bestowed only on sons, according to Rm. 8:17: "If sons, heirs also." Hence it was fitting that by Him Who is the natural Son, men should share this likeness of sonship by adoption, as the Apostle says in the same chapter (Rm. 8:29): "For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son."
Thirdly, the reason for this fitness may be taken from the sin of our first parent, for which the Incarnation supplied the remedy. For the first man sinned by seeking knowledge, as is plain from the words of the serpent, promising to man the knowledge of good and evil. Hence it was fitting that by the Word of true knowledge man might be led back to God, having wandered from God through an inordinate thirst for knowledge.

The objections to the question and St. Thomas's replies are interesting, too.


The header question is actually a different subject from the body of the question. The body of the question is about 'large groups' and their possible 'objections'.
The head question is a fundamental issue :

Can we be united in prayer ?

I am answering this basic question. I am assuming that the 'we' is persons who confess the name of Jesus Christ among their fellow human beings and that the 'we' is persons who 'depart from iniquity'

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [Romans 10:9, KJV]
Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. [2 Timothy 2:19, KJV]

Jesus Christ, himself, said :

I will build my church. [Matthew 16:18, KJV.]

It is Jesus Christ who builds the church, in any generation. Humanity on earth does not and cannot do this. How could it be possible ? Shall the Church exist, anywhere and at any time, in the absence of he whose name it bears ?
What on earth would be the point ? And what kind of 'church' would it be ?
So, no, we cannot be united 'in prayer'. It is not prayer that unites. It is the living presence of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who unites. That is to say (in the physical absence of him who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven) the Living presence, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, who (alone) conveys the real presence and the Living Person of the Son of God.
Peter said to Jesus of Nazareth :

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. [Matthew 16:16, KJV]

and Jesus said to Peter :

... thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [Matthew 16:18, KJV]

This relationship is what unites Jesus and Peter : a relationship in which each one knows (and names) the other one. They know one another, in a spiritual way. And this unites them in a spiritual union. Which union is as strong and as permanent as rock.
The 'rock' is a relationship with Jesus Christ, a relationship not of flesh and blood (see verse 17) but of Spirit and by faith and by the revelation that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is, as Peter confesses at that very moment of time :

... the Son of the living God.

This is what unites. Not humans gathering together, themselves, and deciding to pray together. That will be a united gathering of disparate human beings. And, especially, it will be a gathering of persons who are deliberately setting aside some very real issues and some very pertinent matters of righteousness.
In other words, a casting away of integrity in order to be 'united'.
But that is not how Jesus Christ builds the church that is really his and the church that truly is worthy of the description : The Body of Christ.
Because what genuinely unites true believers in Christ, one with another, is the real and living and present - Person of Jesus Christ, himself.
And it is He, himself, who gathers them together.


According to the Catholic Church, can you cook food while you're fasting?

Cooking and fasting are two different subjects that have to be considered here. In days gone by when the Church had the Lenten fast for 40 days, no one would question the idea of cooking for your main meal of the day. People have to eat.

There is absolutely no problem in preparing to cook food for after your fast, even if it were animal flesh.

The rules of fasting and abstinence are totally silent on the subject of how, what or when one should cook food. Thus you should be able to prepare your food accordingly. That said, it would seem to be of poor taste to cook a meat dish on Good Friday for the next day. If I had to prepare a meat dish early for Easter I would choose to do it on Holy Saturday.

  The Rules for the Roman Catholic Church

  The Code of Canon Law prescribes (Canons 1250-1252):

  Can. 1250: The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

  Can. 1251: Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

  Can. 1252: The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.


How does Original Sin come back in man even after being washed at the time of baptism?

I think you misunderstood the role of Baptism in Catholicism.

Cathecism of the Catholic Church-1263 says

  [1263] By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal
  sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been
  reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom
  of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of
  sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

It doesn't say original sin is washed away, it says it is forgiven. Forgiven doesn't mean you don't have original sin anymore; it only means your sins are forgiven.

Our sins cannot be washed away by merely washing with water nor any kind of Baptism. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can wash away our sins.

  1 John 1:7 (NIV) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
  we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son,
  purifies us from all sin.

  Revelation 7:14 (NKJV) And I said to him, “Sir, you know.” So he said
  to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and
  washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

  Revelation 22:14 (DRA) Blessed are they that wash their robes in the
  blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and
  may enter in by the gates into the city.


In the Catholic Church, what is the explanation for having, and the history behind Principal Co-Consecrators?

By tradition only one validly ordained bishop is sufficient for an valid episcopal ordination. However the presence of two more bishops this is seen as symbolical to the collegiality of the episcopate. Also it has a practical side to it, that is the church is undoubtedly assured of the validity of the ordination, as three bishops participateSee note 1 in an Ordination Which requires only one of them for validity. (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law Canon  1012 - By John P. Beal)
Who decreed it and when?
The first decree regarding this is found in First Council of Nicæa - Canon 4:

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

It is clear from the above text that it was a preexisting tradition that more than one bishop were present during an episcopal ordination. This practice continues to the present day.

Note 1:
There has been issues raised regarding the functionality of the Co-Consecrators.

Do the co-consecrators equally with the consecrator impart the sacrament to the candidate? Beyond the possibility of a doubt they are not witnesses only but co-operators. They are not mere witnesses to the fact that the consecration has taken place, but, by taking part in it, make themselves responsible for its taking place. It is not easy to see how the assistant bishops can be said to comply with the essentials of a sacramental administration.  - Catholic Encyclopedia

In the current Rite of Ordination of a Bishop, all the bishop who are present participate in Laying on of Hands and during Prayer of Consecration say these words with the principal consecrator:

So now pour out upon this chosen one the power that is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to his holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.

These both satisfy the requirements of form and matter for the sacrament.


Ailments like sickness and bodily weakness are a consequence of the Fall, natural companions to the physical state in which we live. Not all are a punishment or result of sin, but some certainly may be.

James Talmage, a Biblical scholar in the early 1900s, has this to say on the matter (in Jesus the Christ), considering the healing of a man sick of the palsy:

  The incident demands our further study. According to one of the
  accounts, the Lord's first words to the afflicted one were, "Son, be of
  good cheer," followed directly by the comforting and authoritative
  assurance, "Thy sins be forgiven thee." The man was probably in a state of
  fear; he may have known that his ailment was the result of wicked
  indulgences; nevertheless, though he may have considered the possibility
  of hearing only condemnation for his transgression, he had faith to be
  brought. In this man's condition there was plainly a close connection
  between his past sins and his present affliction, and in this
  particular his case is not unique, for we read that Christ admonished
  another whom He healed to sin no more lest a worse thing befall him.

  We are not warranted, however, in assuming that all bodily ills are the
  result of culpable sin, and against such a conception stands the Lord's
  combined instruction and rebuke to those who, in the case of a man born
  blind, asked who had sinned: the man or his parents, to bring so grievous
  an affliction upon him, to which inquiry our Lord replied that the
  man's blindness was due neither to his own sin nor to that of his
  parents.

  In many instances however, disease is the direct result of individual
  sin. Whatever may have been the measure of past offense on the part of
  the man suffering from palsy, Christ recognized his repentance together
  with the faith that accompanied it, and it was the Lord's rightful
  prerogative to decide upon the man's fitness to receive remission of
  his sins and relief from his bodily affliction. The interrogative
  response of Jesus to the unuttered criticism of the scribes, Pharisees,
  and doctors has been interpreted in many ways. He inquired which was
  easier to say, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," or to say, "Arise, and take up
  thy bed, and walk."

  Is it not a rational explanation that, when spoken
  authoritatively by Him, the two expressions were of allied meaning? The
  circumstance should have been a sufficient demonstration to all who
  heard, that He, the Son of Man, claimed and possessed the right and the
  power to remit both physical and spiritual penalties, to heal the body
  of visible disease, and to purge the spirit of the no less real malady
  of sin. In the presence of people of all classes Jesus thus openly
  asserted His divinity, and affirmed the same by a miraculous
  manifestation of power.

(I had to manually add punctuation, and this may not be a perfect transcription; I also inserted some paragraph breaks!)


Papal primacy belongs to the very nature of the Church. No one can change how Christ Himself constituted His Church.

The First Vatican Council defined (Pastor Æternus ch. 2) the dogma that there will be a perpetual line of successors of St. Peter, the first pope, with "Primacy over the universal Church":

  If, then, any should deny…that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church…: let him be anathema.Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse … ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores…: anathema sit.

(taken from my answer here)

Thus primacy is also perpetual.


How can anointing the sick confer forgiveness of sins in Catholicism?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its discussion of this sacrament, quotes the Letter of James:

  Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

(James 5:14–15, emphasis added; quoted in the Catechism paragraph 1510)

The healing of Christ was not restricted to physical ailments; in fact, one of my favorite Gospel stories is the healing of the paralytic:

  People brought to him a paralytic lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Courage, child, your sins are forgiven." At that, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." Jesus knew what they were thinking, and said, "Why do you harbor evil thoughts? Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he then said to the paralytic, "Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home." He rose and went home. When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings.

(Matthew 9:2–8; New American Bible, Revised Edition)

The  Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is a sacrament of healing in this sense, in which we ask God to send down his Holy Spirit,

  who renews trust and faith in God and strengthens against the temptations of the evil one, the temptation to discouragement and anguish in the face of death. This assistance from the Lord by the power of his Spirit is meant to lead the sick person to healing of the soul, but also of the body if such is God’s will.

(Catechism paragraph 1520)

Of course, someone who is specifically impenitent will not be absolved of sin any more than they would be if they went to Confession without penitence. Thus, if the sick person is able, they are encouraged to prepare for and cooperate in the sacrament to the extent that they can:

  The sick should prepare themselves to receive it with good dispositions, assisted by their pastor and the whole ecclesial community, which is invited to surround the sick in a special way through their prayers and fraternal attention.

(Catechism paragraph 1516)

But someone who receives the sacrament in good grace will receive "a particular gift of the Holy Spirit" (paragraph 1520). It is for these reasons that the Church believes that the Anointing of the Sick can confer forgiveness of sins.


Is there a Catholic ceremony for virgins who are not nuns or sisters?

Nuns (contemplatives) or sisters (active life, e.g., teaching, nursing, etc.) belong to religious orders. They take vows required by their order, which include the vow of virginity.
A lay person can make a private vow to observe virginity "under the virtue of religion."¹

a vow of perfect chastity by a lay person…could be a public vow only if it were made in the name of the Church and accepted as such by a legitimate ecclesiastical superior.¹

Although "such a public vow was forbidden by the Holy See in 1927,"¹ it is permitted by the 1983 Code of Canon Law canon 604, as it had been at other times in Church history.
On the difference between public and private vows (and solemn and simple vows), see 1917 Canon 1308 or 1983 Canon 1192 (commentary):

A vow is public if a legitimate superior accepts it in the name of the Church; otherwise, it is private.

A vow is solemn if the Church has recognized it as such; otherwise, it is simple.

Vows are also either perpetual or temporary. Vows differ from promises in that vows bind under the virtue of religion; viz., to break a vow is a sin against the virtue of religion.

ch. 5, "The Manner of Dedication," of The Mystery of Love for the Single: A Guide for Those Who Follow the Single Vocation in the World by Fr. Unger. For an explanation of the 1927 denial, see: "Explanations for the 1927 Denial" (PDF pp. 129-33) of the 2019 dissertation by Judith M. Stegmancf. also Pope Pius XII's encyclical Sacra Virginitas and this informative blog written by a consecrated virgin


According to Jehovah’s Witnesses why did John write the words found in John 1:1?

The reason why is because they like other Christians believe that the context of John's whole gospel is Jesus and his role in salvation. One JW said it this way to me: John wanted to establish Jesus as his agent for creation as well as his instrument for salvation. He wanted to make it clear that Jesus existed in the presence of God as an angel or (lesser god) before he came to be a man on earth.

Now, you're right. It certainly is peculiar for a first century Jew to use words akin to hierarchal duo-theism while his contemporaries were strictly monotheistic. Why didn't he just say out right that he was an angel? That certainly would have cleared up the issue. John like other jews believed in one God and that no other god was formed after him or before him (Isa. 43:10) making this interpretation of John 1:1 problematic.

Having debated many JW's myself over this verse, they find comfort in their logic for the lack of the article making theos indefinite rather than definite, but when applying the same logic to other indefinite thoes's in the same chapter and even in the same book, they do not apply the same logic. In other words their are many places where thoes lacks the definite article but they do not render those passages as 'a god'. Why the inconsistency? In my opinion, it's theological bias.


What is the LDS (Mormon) view of the necessity of Jesus death and resurrection?

That it was "an unfortunate event, and not at all the way God for planned to things to go" is not the teaching of the Mormon Church, as Mormons believe the Atonement happened precisely the way God willed it to happen and that it was perfect beyond our comprehension.

The official doctrinal stance of the LDS church on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is this:

  The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the
  Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was
  buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and
  all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to
  it.

Source: http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/his-life-and-teachings/articles/we-believe

As Mason Wheeler pointed out in the comment above, the symbolism of the cross and the doctrinal belief of the death and resurrection of Christ (the Atonement) are two separate things. While the Atonement is central to the LDS doctrine, the cross is generally avoided as it tends to remind us of the dead Christ rather than the living Christ.

It is not because the death of Christ was disgraceful, per-se, that Mormons do not use the cross. It is just not a symbol of worship the LDS church has chosen to endorse.

Yet I know many Mormons who have a cross in their home. Usually smallish, and only decorative. It has no religious significance and might have even simply been a gift from another Christian friend. I know of no occasion where there has been formal retribution for a Mormon having or wearing a cross, but it is true: you won't find them on or in LDS meetinghouses or temples.


Should a Christian wear clothing of mixed fibers?

As has been stated in answer to other such questions, God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, Israel, etc.  The Mosaic Law is a specific covenant between God and the Jewish people.  This covenant included many things, including the prohibition of wearing clothing with mixed fibers.  This covenant was enacted about 3500 years ago, I think.  Isaiah spoke of a new covenant that was enacted when Jesus died and rose again.  So, the Mosaic covenant was in effect between God and the Jewish nation for about 1500 years, but it is in effect no more.

Certainly, animal sacrifices are no longer required in the new covenant, because Jesus was offered once for all time.

So, for Jewish people living  between 1500 B.C. and about 30 A.D., it was applicable.  But not today.

Today, there are still sins to avoid, because all sin is to our destruction.  While momentary pleasure may be derived from sin, true fulfillment comes as we live in the presence of God.

So, wear whatever fabrics you want, but seek to know God.  That is what the Scriptures call us to today.