Can Bishops give dispensations from certain marriage vows?

What a “dispensation” is

First of all, a “dispensation” is a legal term, in which the competent authority relieves one of its subjects from having to follow a law (or part of a law) in a particular case. The Code of Canon Law describes dispensations as follows:

  A dispensation, or the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case, can be granted by those who possess executive power within the limits of their competence, as well as by those who have the power to dispense explicitly or implicitly either by the law itself or by legitimate delegation (Can. 85).

It is to be noted that a dispensation can be granted only for a strictly ecclesiastical law.

There is no general requirement that a dispensation be written, however Can. 37 says,

  An administrative act which regards the external forum must be put in writing.

Hence, a dispensation that must be made public must be in writing. (A common dispensation of this kind, for example, is the one required for a Catholic to marry an unbaptized person.)

(The implication is that a merely disciplinary dispensation—say, from the obligation to fast on Ash Wednesday—could be given by word of mouth.)

Regarding the particular case in question

Regarding the matter in the original question (getting a vasectomy), the short answer is “no.” Vasectomies are a form of direct sterilization and mutilation, which cannot be justified under any circumstances:

  Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary (Humanae vitae, 14).

A bishop has no power whatsoever to set aside the natural law. (If a bishop ever gave that kind of advice, it would be advisable to notify the competent authority, either the nuncio of the country where he resides, or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directly.)

Moreover, the marriage “vows” (technically, the matrimonial consent) include the will to enter a stable, exclusive, monogamous, and fruitful union between a man and a woman. These are the essential properties of marriage, and they can never be set aside. As the Catechism puts it,

  Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (no. 1664, quoting Gaudium et Spes 50 § 1).

It may be justifiable to delay childbirth, even indefinitely (and a serious health problem on the woman’s part would justify it), but for that purpose a method that does not deliberately disrupt the fecundity of marriage must be used (i.e., natural family planning):

  If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained (Humanae vitae, 17)

It should be noted that since the time of Humanae vitae, there have been great advances in gynecology, which make it possible to use NFP with extremely high efficacy—for example with the Billings Ovulation Method or the Creighton Model. (When the health of the woman is in danger, then extra care should, naturally, be exercised to avoid pregnancy—and when that is done, the chance of pregnancy is very small.)

Regarding the attempted dispensation in question

More apropos to the original question, since giving dispensations from natural law is impossible (and attempting to so would most likely get him in trouble with the Curia), it is unlikely that a bishop who attempted to do so would leave a written record of it.

Moreover, the situation of a married couple (apart from the matrimony itself, which is necessarily in the external form) would in the internal forum (i.e., a private matter), and so it seems that any dispensations (if they were possible) would not need to be written to be official.

In summary

If the bishop (or other authority) were legitimately dispensing from a strictly ecclesiastical law, in a strictly private matter (e.g., regarding fasting in Lent), then no written record would be necessary.

If, on the other hand, the matter were public (in the external form), some kind of formal written documentation would be required (as in the case of disparity of cult in marriage).

However, in the case described (the vasectomy), a dispensation is impossible, and so the question is actually moot: the act was clearly both illicit and invalid.


Does Christianity allow allegorical readings of creation and the deluge?

Seeing as it is almost impossible for bias to not slip into our research, we will always see what we want to see or at least try to. Scientists will find reasons that such things aren't true while we believers will believe because we want to. Until 100% undeniable proof is found we will always debate this question.

As for my opinion on the matter, no we should not try to find a deeper meaning of the scriptures. We should read in the lines of the scriptures and not necessarily between them. There are a few exceptions to this such as the book of Revelation which uses heavy symbolism, but most of it is explained so again I think we should let the bible translate itself. Here is some research into the wording of the days and so on.

In Genesis the day's may or may not have been 24 hours. That doesn't matter because there could have been any length of time after the earth was finished that god made man. If you look at Genesis 2:4-7 we see that there was no time span given between the finishing of earth and the creation of man. Man may have lived for only the past 6000 years, but because of the lack of details the earth may be much older.

My answer then is no, the bible should be read as it was intended and thus as it is written.


Is Levi from Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 referring to the apostle Matthew

It is almost certain that this person is Matthew. In the parallel account of this narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, we see that Levi appears to be "renamed" Matthew.

Matthew 9:9 (NIV)

  9As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

It is unknown why Levi is called Matthew in this gospel. Like all the gospels, Matthew is actually an anonymous document, and our attribution of it to Matthew is based on the consensus of Church Fathers in the 2nd century. However, it appears that whoever wrote the gospel (hereafter called the evangelist) wants to show that Levi is the Matthew listed in the Twelve (cf Matthew 10:3).

This could be "...because the writer believed that Levi was or should have been one of the twelve, or is it perhaps because in writing of himself he preferred the name Matthew to his own pre-conversion name, Levi?" [Hagner, Introduction, lxxvi].

Though there are theories that claim the evangelist is playing with names, it must be said that it is very unlikely that he would get away with substituting the name Levi for Matthew if they were not the same person. It is not unusual for individuals in 1st century Israel to have more than one name. For example, it seems that another member of the twelve is known by two names: Jude, was also known by the name Thaddeus. (See Mark 3:16-19 vs Luke 6:14-16)

Suffice it to say, that the vast majority of scholars suggest that the "Levi" of Mark 2 and Luke 5 is indeed the Matthew of Matthew 9. Why the evangelist sought to enlighten his readers to this is speculative.

Sources:

Hagner, D. A., Word Biblical Commentary - Matthew 1-13, Nelson, 1993.

Cole, A., Mark, IVP, 2008

Nolland, J., Word Biblical Commentary - Luke 1-9:20, Nelson, 1989


Is confessing to a priest the only way to be forgiven?

What is confession? St. John wrote:

  If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
  in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
  our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have
  not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (1 John 1:8-10, ESV).

The verb used for 'confess' is the first-person-plural form of ὁμολογέω (homologeo). The word ὁμολογέω literally means "to say the same thing." It can also mean to "agree with," "acknowledge," or "confess" (source).

People often tend to think of confession as apologizing for our sins, asking for forgiveness. Some as a result believe that they only receive forgiveness for sins of which they ask to be forgiven (and/or apologize for). But confession is less about asking forgiveness for specific sins as it is agreeing with God that our wrong deeds are indeed sinful. It is more of an acknowledgement that what God calls sin is actually sinful. For instance, if we lie, confession means acknowledging that lying is wrong and that you sinned against God. Otherwise, the truth is not in us (and we are living in a state of sin, i.e. unrepentance).

Concerning confessing our sins, St. James says:

  Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another,
  that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great
  power as it is working (James 5:16, ESV).

Clearly it is good to confess our sins to other Christians, indeed it is essential for our healing.

Who is a priest? There are a few ways to look at this. For the sake of the Stack Exchange community, allow me to explain a couple of these views. But before I do that, let's start where (most) everyone agrees: 1 Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a holy and royal priesthood. Thus all Christians are priests before God. Under the old covenant, the faithful needed a priest to approach God, but now under the new covenant this is not necessary. Because of Jesus' sacrifice, all believers can now approach God's throne with confidence (Hebrews 4:16). Most Christians agree with this thus far. Now here is where they start to differ (understand that this must be brief, I cannot offer an apologetic for the priesthood here, I am giving only a cursory explanation).

In ancient expressions of the Christian faith (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, some Anglicans and Lutherans, a few other groups), a priest is usually someone who has been ordained by other appointed Christian leaders for our good, and is an excellent person to whom we may confess our sins. In the early Church, Christians publicly confessed their sins to the entire congregation. This soon became impractical and appointed leaders (elders, who are spiritual fathers, cf. 1 Corinthians 4:15) began hearing people's confessions privately. Priests of course believe that Christians can confess their sins directly to God, but a spiritual father can also give advice and help a Christian heal by praying for them (James 5:16). This has to do with learning humility and acknowledging that we cannot heal ourselves. Some traditions go so far as to say that priests are appointed by God to stand "in the stead" of Christ, having the ability to forgive (or not forgive) sins on God's behalf (cf. "Office of the Keys," Matthew 16:19; John 20:23).

Most evangelical Protestant Christians do not have a functioning priesthood in the historic sense of the term, but they do have the equivalent (a pastor/elder) who will offer advice, but they do not generally view confession of sins to them as any different as to other believers. They do not believe that anyone should function as a mediator between a Christian and God and that the historic Christian priesthood violates this (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5).

So is confessing to a priest the only way to be forgiven? Regardless of which perspective of the priesthood that you adopt, the answer is no. First, remember the meaning of the word 'confession' that was previously discussed. If we die before we had a chance to confess a specific sin, that isn't going to send us straight to eternal torment. It is failure to acknowledge that our actions are sinful (saying a sinful action is not sinful, i.e. not saying the same thing as God) that will jeopardize our relationship with God (this is calling God a liar according to St. John). Even traditions which practice the historic priesthood do not believe that this is the only way to be forgiven (but they do believe that it is a divinely appointed means of forgiveness).


As Christians are we called to convert people who have no Faith in anything or Faith in different religion. Baptist/Methodist

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,(Matthew 28:19)

"All nations" would naturally extend to refer to all people, be they atheists, Buddhists, or of any other religious (or lack of religious) beliefs. Hence, Jesus says "all."

Given that Baptists and Methodists believe that the Bible is God's word, I am confident that this applies to both denominations. However, since you specifically asked for the teaching from the Baptist or Methodist Church, here is a quote from an article from the United Methodist Church: (I chose Methodist because it's easier for me to find stuff on them for some reason.)

  "The concept of missionaries is something that many people struggle with, particularly when we are engaged in more pluralistic circles of friendship or other relationships. We don’t want to offend Muslim or Jewish friends by trying to convert them to Christianity. And we don’t want to be thought naïve or self-righteous by atheist or agnostic friends.  At the same time, we are called as United Methodists to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. We are called as Christians to share the Good News of Christ. So how do we live out our faith authentically in ways that offer an invitation to grace that meets people where they are but doesn’t leave them there?"

We’re on a Co-Mission From God


How did the author of Jonah know about this conversation?

I don't mean to be snarky, but you could ask the same question of how anybody recorded the dialog of George Washington. During the Whiskey Rebellion, when he put on his spectacles, and simply told his men that he had grown old in the service of his country, people remembered it.

Likewise, there are five versions of the Gettysburg address, depending on which transcription of Abraham Lincoln's own writing you use. Of those five versions, there are a few prepositional phrases that are modified, but to call them anything other than the same speech would be to stretch the grounds of credulity. Still, the variation is sufficiently minor to where you'd have to be really, really picky to ask, "How can we be sure of what Lincoln really said.

Before modern recording devices, there was no expectation that these direct quotations would have been the same as a court reporter. People would simply do their best to record, as closely as possible what they heard. To be honest to the text is to say that people pretty well agreed what was said, consistent with a pre-technological understanding of what a quote meant.

Sorry, now I get the point of the question - how does a narrator know exactly what God said to Jonah. Ultimately, there are several valid hypotheses, depending on your understanding of the work

Especially considering how abruptly Jonah ends*, we have no extant information. That said, there is nothing that would preclude the answer from being something as simple as "Jonah saw he was wrong, repented again, and told people how God changed his mind."

Somehow, the narrator would have had to know the events of the story. No eyewitness was with Jonah in Israel, on the boat to Tarsus, and in Nineveh, other than Jonah himself.  As a preaching prophet, it is not unreasonable to assume that Jonah could have given a testimony to an emaneusis who would then have recorded it.

*Commentators have often noted that Jonah ends before we even know if Jonah himself repented.  The Veggie Tales movie really does get it right - Jonah doesn't have an ending!  So, they call out the point - that God is the god of second chances, and that it is up to the reader to decide.
Alternatively, one could call it historical fiction, in which the author, knowing the events of the story, could interpolate the lesson God was giving through Jonah.

This being a book of prophecy, it may not be intended to be taken as history. The Jews did not place the Prophets with the historical accounts. They placed the Nevi'im (the Prophets) after the Ketu'vim (the Writings). Prophets never claim to be historians - they claim to speak the truth that God gave them.

Pastors are exercising the role of prophet, not when they claim to know what is occurring in the future, but rather when they make clear God's understanding of the present. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, is rightly called a Prophet of the Civil Rights movement, and famously drew from Amos - another of the prophets - when saying that justice will rain down like mighty waters.

In the same that [martin Luther King] "had a dream," so too this may have been Jonah's perception. I would ask, for example, whether the detail of MLK actually being asleep and having subconscious thoughts of children of all races playing together on Stone Mountain is as important as the vision that this gives us all. How, after all, did MLK record that "dream?" I odoubt that it arrived completely unformed and then entered his speech improvisationally. So too, it may have been, whether Jonah directly wrote what he learned or another prophet extrapolated the message from the events of his life.

When a prophet uses an illustration, he has a different purpose than an historian.  An illustration should not be demonstrably false, but if details are glossed over (such as whether this was an actual, audible voice or just an epiphany had) that are irrelevant, than it is held to that standard.

When Medger Evers is hailed as a martyr for the cause of Civil Rights, that is a fully valid illustration, even if he was more likely just an unfortunate victim.  The truth is that his death bore witness (marturion!) regardless of whether or not he held discourse with his assailants as docu-dramas have been known to include.

Note also, even if Medger Evers' exploits took on an air of outsized glory, it does not detract at all from the historicity of what he did.

Just as a pastor might create a dialogue within an illustration to set up the historical point, so too the author of Jonah was interested in the theological point, and could thus back into the dialogue that God had with Jonah.  The creeping vine, in particular, was a Persian motif, and would thus have been accessible to the hearer.

tl;dr:  You don't have to take a position on the historicity of the events to get the idea that God's truth is being conveyed in the whole story.


How old is the doctrine of a sinless Mary?

The earliest Christian writings outside the bible are from what are called the Church Fathers, from around the middle of the second century onwards for a few hundred years.

On the Immaculate Conception explicitly, the earliest would appear to be Hippolytus and Origen:

  He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

  This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Origen, Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Earlier writers hint at the doctrine, by comparing Mary to Eve, who was created without the stain of sin:

  [Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, "Be it done unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38) (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

  Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Iranaeus, Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

There are further, later comments where I found those but those are the earliest cited. These four are the earliest of the Fathers.


What is the historical Christian view on the rebuilding of David's Tabernacle?

I think if you read Acts 15:15 you'll see James' perspective on the fulfillment of this prophecy.

  Acts 15:15

  And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written:

So read together I think we can make some logical conclusions.

  Acts 15:15-18

  15 And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written:

  16 ‘Afterward I will return
      and restore the fallen house of David. I will rebuild its ruins
      and restore it,

  17 so that the rest of humanity might seek the Lord,
      including the Gentiles—
      all those I have called to be mine. The Lord has spoken—

  18 he who made these things known so long ago.’

God says through Amos that He will return and restore the fallen house (or tabernacle) of David. So that the rest of humanity can be saved (called his). So if James is saying that the second half of this prophecy is coming true through the Gentiles who were being saved at his time, then it seems to follow logically that the first half of this is already true. Then how was David's house restored? While I don't have sources to back me up I think it's pretty safe to put forward that it was Jesus who restored the house of David.

Mathew 1:1 calls Jesus a son of David:

  This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

And there are numerous other places where Jesus is referred to as the Son of David.

Luke 1:32 might be the best example in this case:

  He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,

I believe based on this that Jesus has already fulfilled this prophecy. I don't know if that answers your question on the historic Christian teaching, but it does appear to be what James taught.


Does the Lumen Gentium dogmatic constitution say that non-Catholic Christians cannot be saved?

Lumen Gentium does indeed state that non-Catholic Christians can not be saved, but there are some important qualifications. First of all, part of the statement in Chapter II, Section 14 states:

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

This is important, because the section only affects Christians who "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ" refuse to become Catholics. It can be  said that anyone who holds this belief would, of course, become a Catholic and that anyone who does not become a Catholic does not hold that belief. Protestants and others are off the hook.
Second, Lumen Gentium must be read in the context of Dignitatis Humanae, also issued by the Second Vatican Council. This states:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.

In Dignitatis Humanae, section 2 grants non-Catholics the absolute right, under Catholic teaching, to religious freedom. But is the exercise of that freedom to be considered as being at the expense of their salvation? For this I turn to section 1:

First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men ...
This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

I notice that the bishops say three times in the space of the above extract that what follows is their "belief" - thus not immutable truth. The council only requires non-Catholics to follow their consciences, not necessarily bound by the teachings of the Church, saying "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth."
So, yes, Lumen Gentium does say that non-Catholic Christians can not be saved, but only if they actually know the requirement to become Catholics. In Dignitatis Humanae, they are to follow their own consciences in reaching the truth as to whether they should be Catholics.


Did John Calvin believe there was no salvation outside the visible church?

The text you quoted is certainly clear teaching of John Calvin on the subject. He believed that there was no salvation by remaining outside of the visible church, although it is necessary to distinguish that by not assuming that one could somehow not be saved unless inside a church building or attending a worship service. Rather, any person who professed to be a believer but somehow detached themselves from the visible body of Christ (the visible church) could have no hope of salvation or forgiveness of sins.

This is elaborated on in Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 1:

  God alone knoweth them that are his. Still he has given marks to
  discern his children.

  These marks are the ministry of the word, and administration of the
  sacraments instituted by Christ. The same rule not to be followed in
  judging of individuals and of churches.

  We must on no account forsake the Church distinguished by such marks.
  Those who act otherwise are apostates, deserters of the truth and of
  the household of God, deniers of God and Christ, violators of the
  mystical marriage.

Here again it is clearly shown that those who forsake the visible church are apostate etc.

And later in the chapter, in section 10:

  Whence it follows, that revolt from the Church is denial of God and
  Christ. Wherefore there is the more necessity to beware of a dissent
  so iniquitous; for seeing by it we aim as far as in us lies at the
  destruction of God's truth, we deserve to be crushed by the full
  thunder of his anger. No crime can be imagined more atrocious than
  that of sacrilegiously and perfidiously violating the sacred marriage
  which the only begotten Son of God has condescended to contract with
  us.

However, if the church that one was attending did not show the marks of the true church (the ministry of the word, and the administration of the sacraments instituted by Christ), then it was permissible and indeed preferable to leave such an institution. Having said that, to be in this church-less state is a most lamentable occurrence, and one which should be remedied as soon as possible by joining once again to a true church.


How would they know if Timothy was circumcised or not?

The physical circumcision alone would not have been sufficient for the Jews.  The Bris ceremony would have had to have been observed, so there would have been a Mohel to testify.

The same traditions are still carried out in Judaism today.  Supporting references:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Conversion/Conversion_Process/Circumcision.shtml

Item #1 covers the basics:

  1.Mohel: Who Is A Qualified Mohel?

  A mohel is an expert in the surgical aspects of circumcision as well
  as knowledgeable in the laws and customs pertaining to a traditional
  circumcision and ceremony. A mohel is a person who is certified to be
  capable and knowledgeable in both the surgical aspects of performing
  circumcision as well as the traditional aspects of performing a kosher
  circumcision and the traditional ceremony.

Item #10 covers an adult circumcision with a link:

  10. Mohel: Can A Mohel Do Adult Circumcision?

  There are experienced mohels who do perform adult circumcision. Aside
  from performing traditional circumcision on newborn children, Rabbi
  Mozes can also be a mohel for older children and adults. For more
  information on an adult Bris by Rabbi Mozes, please click here.


Who was the first Church Father to argue for executing heretics?

Technically, the first ecclesiastical authority to say that heretics should be persecuted was Pope Gregory IX in 1229.  The first Church Father to say that heretics should be compelled to recant would be Augustine around 400 AD.
The first heretic actually put to death (385AD) was killed by the Emperor - and the Pope was very annoyed at the development. It wasn't for another 800 years that the church followed suit.

That said...
The church typically did not execute heretics. Rather, the state, sometimes at the behest of the church or other times of a monarch desiring no discord amongst his subjects, would carry out such persecution and executions.
The earliest Christian heretics were not put to death by the Church, but rather by the Roman Empire. Note for example, the first "heretic" to be executed - Priscillian - was put to death not by the church, but rather the state.  Furthermore, those responsible for getting the state to put him to death were subsequently excommunicated by the Pope for their actions.
Per this article:

The first person to define what heresy was Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (2nd Century).  He simply warned about the dangers of a multitude of opinions on how God works.

The first person to make heresy a crime was Emporer Constantine (320s).  He made the assembling of heretics an offense, the penalty of which was the confiscation of property.

In 380 AD under the Christian Emperor Theodosius I laid down the rule that only the Catholic Christians could define orthodoxy within the confines of the Roman Empire. As noted already, it was under his reign that the first heretic was put to death.

Augustine (AD 354-430) taught that error has no rights. He cited biblical texts, notably Luke 14:16-23, to justify the use of compulsion

Emperor Justinian issued severe laws against heretics in AD 527 and 528. (It should be noted, this was in the aftermath of a severe series of riots that left thousands dead.)

Pope Paschal II (Pope from 1099 and 1118) was the first to say that anyone who disagreed with the apostolic see was a heretic.

Pope Innocent III (1199) was the first to declare heresy to be high treason against God, having already called for the execution of those who persisted in their heresies after being excommunicated.

It was not until 1229 that Pope Gregory IX declared that it is the duty of every Catholic to persecute heretics.

From Justinian:

"Henceforth those who dissented from the authorised line were debarred from public office, forbidden to practice certain professions, prohibited from holding meetings, and denied the civil rights of a Roman Citizen. For them, said Justinian "to exist is sufficient" - for the time being. In the middle of the fifth century Pope Leo the Great commended the Emperor for torturing and executing heretics on behalf of the Church."

Per Wikipedia on heresy:

The first known usage of the term heresy in a legal context was in AD 380 by the Edict of Thessalonica of Theodosius I,[12] which made Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. Prior to the issuance of this edict, the church had no state-sponsored support for any particular legal mechanism to counter what it perceived as "heresy". By this edict the state's authority and that of the Catholic Church became somewhat overlapping. One of the outcomes of this blurring of church and state was the sharing of state powers of legal enforcement with church authorities. This reinforcement of the church's authority gave church leaders the power to, in effect, pronounce the death sentence upon those whom the church considered heretical.
Within five years of the official criminalization of heresy by the Emperor, the first Christian heretic to be prosecuted, Bishop Priscillian, was executed in 385 by Roman officials.
However, his accusers were excommunicated both by Ambrose of Milan and Pope Siricius.[13] For some years after the Reformation, Protestant churches were also known to execute those they considered heretics, including Catholics. The last known heretic executed by sentence of the Roman Catholic Church was Cayetano Ripoll in 1826. The number of people executed as heretics under the authority of the various "ecclesiastical authorities"[note 1] is not known.[note 2]
NOTE 2: ^ Only very fragmentary records have been found of the executions carried out under Christian "heresy laws" during the first millennium. Somewhat more complete records of such executions can be found for the second millennium. To estimate the total number of executions carried out under various Christian "heresy laws" from 385 AD until the last official Roman Catholic "heresy execution" in 1826 AD would require far more complete historical documentation than is currently available. The Roman Catholic Church by no means had a monopoly on the execution of heretics. The charge of heresy was a weapon that could fit many hands. A century and a half after heresy was made a state crime, the Vandals(a heretical Christian Germanic tribe), used the law to prosecute thousands of (orthodox) Catholics with penalties of torture, mutilation, slavery and banishment.[14] The Vandals were overthrown; orthodoxy was restored; "No toleration whatsoever was to be granted to heretics or schismatics."[15] Heretics were not the only casualties. 4000 Roman soldiers were killed by heretical peasants in one campaign.[16] Some lists of heretics and heresies are available. Thousands were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Inquisition, which lasted for nearly seven centuries.[17] From time to time, heretics were burned at the stake by an enraged local populace, in a certain type of "vigilante justice" , without the official participation of the Church or State.[18] Religious Wars slaughtered millions. During these wars, the charge of "heresy" was often leveled by one side against another as a sort of propaganda or rationalization for the undertaking of such wars.


If you take the entire Psalm in context, you'll see that the writer is being punished by God for some sin of which he is guilty.  The situation is described in verses 7-11 (NASB):

  And now, Lord, for what do I wait?My hope is in You.Deliver me from all my transgressions;Make me not the reproach of the foolish.I have become mute, I do not open my mouth,Because it is You who have done it.Remove Your plague from me;Because of the opposition of Your hand I am perishing.With reproofs You chasten a man for iniquity;You consume as a moth what is precious to him;Surely every man is a mere breath.

As you can see, the writer is being "chastened" by God for some "transgression".  He is asking God how long must he wait for the reproof to come to an end.  The "plague" from God is so bad that it makes him feel like he is close even to death.  He describes how God consumes "what is precious to him", so it's possible that the punishment involved the removal of something that he cherished.

Therefore, when in verse 13, he asks God to look away, he is asking God to end his punishment.  He wants God to look away from his sin and to forgive him.  In the first 6 verses, the writer describes what he has learned from the ordeal.  He seems to be saying "see, I've learned my lesson, now please make this stop."

Presuming the author of the Psalm is David, the events described do line up quite well with the death of his first child with Bathsheba.  As likely as that seems, however, it is speculation, since the text doesn't specify.  Here's the account of his child dying, as judgment for his sin:

2 Sam. 12:15-18 (NASB)

  Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.  David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.  The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.  Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, “Behold, while the child was still alive, we spoke to him and he did not listen to our voice. How then can we tell him that the child is dead, since he might do himself harm!”


The new Jerusalem that comes from heaven in Rev 19 is "prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." (emphasis added) However, I would understand why some might think that Jerusalem is Christ's bride. In the Old Testament, Israel (or Judah or Jerusalem) is described as God's wife:

  For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and
  thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall
  he be called. For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and
  grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith
  thy God.
  Isa. 54:5-6

  Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto
  you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I
  will bring you to Zion:
  Jeremiah 3:14

This comparison is the whole purpose of the book of Haggai as well. It's a beautiful way to render God's relationship with his people.

Contrastingly, the imagery that we have with Christ and His Bride is that of a coming Bridegroom and a bride in preparation. As the angel shouts in Revelation 19:7

  "Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of
  the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready."

Paul strengthens this image when he says in II Corinthians 11:2

  ...I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you
  to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

The two metaphors are not contradictory. Jesus uses many contrasting "I ams:" Jesus is the Lamb, the Door, The Good Shepherd, etc. All of them are helpful, but they are only pictures. HOWEVER, this imagery of Christ and His bride persists through all the New Testament, especially in the Revelation. It is meant to typify how an engaged virgin would wait for her promised husband to come for her. That is what Christians are doing today. God was never married to a city. Jesus is not coming back for a city. The city always was a symbol for the collective people of the city, and the Bride is a metaphor for all the Christ's body.


Are the Word and Spirit also called God because the Father isn't made up of parts in accordance with the the doctrine of the Trinity?

Yes, Christians worship the Son and the Spirit as well as the Father.

The Son (the Word) and the Spirit are as much God as the Father is. At any given time a given Christian may be focussing on worshipping only one of the Persons of the Trinity, such as singing a song of worship specifically to Jesus, but none of the Persons are excluded from worship.

Whether the Jews worshipped only the Father is a more difficult question, and it's more about semantics than it is about theology. A Christian would say that by worshipping God the Jews were in fact worshipping the whole of God, in all three Persons. Jews would not see it like that, since they would not believe in the existence of God the Son or God the Spirit. But they would say that they are worshipping 'the whole of God', which to a Christian would include the Son and the Spirit.


200 Denarri sufficient for purchasing Bread?

I'm not sure that there is a contradiction. Using the NIV translation:

They said to him, “That would take more than half a year’s wages [200 denarii]! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?” — Mark 6:37
Philip answered him, “It would take more than half a year’s wages [200 denarii] to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!” —John 6:7

The two verses are not mutually exclusive. Notably, the first doesn't specify how much each person would receive (just saying that the crowd would be given bread).
So putting these two verses together, buying half a year's wages worth of bread would:

Be shockingly expensive (Mark 6:37)
Only be enough for each person to have one bite (John 6:7)

There does not seem to be any contradiction between these two statements.


According to Calvinists, what does "looking back" refer to in Luke 9:62?

From the Calvinist perspective, there is an emphasis on the "Perseverance of the Saints" the idea that if you are genuinely born again. A.K.A saved by God's sovereign Grace. God will not "fail" in his attempt to save you. He will carry out the act of bringing you through this earthly life, having maintained faith in Christ throughout the whole time.

This idea can be bolstered with scriptures such as these

  Romans 8:29-30
   29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

The idea that God from the beginning is the "Author and Finisher of our Faith" (Heb 12:2)

  jude 24  KNJV - Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling,
  And to present you faultless
  Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy,

From the earthly perspective, this looks like the individual keeping the faith, but from the Calvinist vantage, it's God who keeps the true Believers.

Now that we have this framework to understand, we can answer the question at hand. What does it mean to "Look back".

The looking back is abandoning the working of the field, which hopefully we can easily see is the mission of spreading the Gospel/Word of God. (John 4:34-38). (Matt 13 parable of sower etc)

Well to look back is to stray away from the faith in some manner. We can see examples of this with Paul in 2 Timothy

    2 Tim 4 9 Be diligent to come to me quickly; 10 for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica—Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia

Here we see an example of one previously called a "Co-worker" in Philemon 24.

So from the Calvinist perspective, one who does not persevere, or who "Looks back" is one who is "Not Fit for the Kingdom of God".

1 John 2:19 speaking of those who "look back".

  19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

So the Idea being that those who look back, were never fit for the kingdom of God, and their looking back, just reveals that they were not fit from the beginning.

Because if they were fit, they would persevere, by God's grace. And it is God who makes us fit, not ourselves. It is not the looking back that Makes them unfit but rather the looking back which is outward evidence of their being unfit.

Similar to the idea that you will know a tree by its fruit. The tree is the same all along, but when it produces fruit, then you have evidence of what type of tree it was.

John 6:64-65

  But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”


This is not at odds with the belief in God's being triune ('the Trinity'). In fact, 'the trinity creed,' the Athanasian, says this:

(Notice the part highlighted by me)

  Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
  hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and
  undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the
  Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity
  in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
  For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another
  of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of
  the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal.
  Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
  The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate.
  The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy
  Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the
  Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One
  Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three
  Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So
  likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost
  Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

  So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And
  yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is
  Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords
  but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to
  acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we
  forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or
  Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor
  begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but
  begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither
  made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

  So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons;
  One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is
  afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the
  whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in
  all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in
  Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus
  think of the Trinity.

  Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also
  believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the
  right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus
  Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

  God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and
  Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God
  and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting.
  Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the
  Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet
  He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead
  into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not
  by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the
  reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ.
  Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the
  third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the
  right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to
  judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again
  with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And
  they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that
  have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith,
  which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

A man definitionally has a God. Since Christ was and is a man, truly and really, He too had—and has—a God. But His having a God and our having a God is not equivalent, since His is personally, equal with the Father. Any doing of the will of the Father is not subservience, but pure love and obedience.

Since Christ is one Person with two natures, what is said of either of His natures can be said to belong to the one Person. Not that both natures are confused with one another, but that things pertaining to the two natures pertain to but one Person.

Scripture shows they are not at odds

Some examples come to mind to demonstrate this:

"The Lord of Glory" was crucified: 1 Corinthians 2:8. cf. Psalm 24.

"The First and the Last..was dead..and [lives] forevermore." Revelation 1:17-18. cf. Isaiah 44:6.

"God... ... [died]." John 1:1,14; 12:33/19:33. cf. Zechariah 12:10.

Etc. Both 'He is God' and 'He died' can be said of Jesus, while strictly speaking, whereas the Person died because death happened to Him indeed, only one of His natures, the human, can suffer. Similarly, only one of His natures can 'have a God' (Revelation 3:12) as it were—His human nature, "the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tithomy 2:5)


Where can I download the Antwerp and Paris Polyglot Bibles in PDF form?

Having hunted for these myself recently, I don't know of anywhere to download all volumes of either. However, I did find a few places where one can access certain volumes from each:
In Google Books, I found this file which seemed to be primarily for the New Testament, including a short preface. You will note, however, that the text for much of the Old Testament seems to have been appended for some reason (the wisdom literature and the prophets only, I think) - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_XOTP0rctIQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&redir_esc=y
The first volume of the Paris Polyglot, including the text for the Pentateuch and seemingly the front matter for the entire collection, can be found here - https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/712682?show=full
Hope two years isn't too late to be useful. Enjoy!


What is the "gospel" in OT according to the Calvinist?

One has to treat the situation of men who lived prior to the coming of Christ a little differently to those of us who live in the new covenant age after the coming of Christ.

It is certainly true that only those who believe and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ having heard the message of the gospel are saved.
However my understanding of reformed soteriology is that those who lived under the old covenant were also saved by faith, in exactly the same way as those of us who believe are now. Their faith was in the coming Messiah who was revealed to them in the types and shadows of the ceremonial law and the words of the prophets.

Noah and Job were certainly Christians because they trusted and believed in the God that revealed himself to them in their own time. Paul's argument in Romans 4 sets out to show that Abraham was saved by faith because he believed God's promises.
Even though Christ had not yet come and his true nature and mission were still somewhat veiled, yet what was revealed to these old covenant believers was sufficient grounds for them to believe and be saved.


Why, according to the Catholic Church, did the Reformation happen?

The Catholic Encyclopedia actually has a response to the reason for the Reformation:

  The papacy had become the powerful centre of the family of Christian
  nations.  With the ecclesiastical organization fully developed, it
  came to pass that the activities of the governing ecclesiastical
  bodies were no longer confined to the ecclesiastical domain, but
  affected almost every sphere of popular life. Gradually a regrettable
  worldliness manifested itself in many high ecclesiastics. Their chief
  object -- to guide man to his eternal goal-- claimed too seldom their
  attention, and worldly activities became in too many cases the chief
  interest. Many bishops and abbots bore themselves as secular rulers
  rather than as servants of the Church.

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia

While this is just a summary, the same Catholic Encyclopedia also has an extensive and fair representation of other issues that impacted the church during the time prior as well as immediately after the Reformation.


How old was Zedekiah when he became king?

From Contradicting Bible Contradictions we find an intriguing answer.
Zedekiah was a lot younger than his “position” in the line of sons of Josiah because he was actually a grandson via an affair between Jehoikim and Hamutal one of Josiah wives. So his position was immediately after his biological father Jehoikim’s position.

  Zedekiah is called: son of Josiah (verse 15), but he is also called: son of Jehoiakim (verse 16). When we take this information seriously – and we do – we have to reckon with an extramarital affair. Diagram tree of verse 15 and 16 with the mothers of the princes:

                                  King Josiah ￼
                ____________(spouses)________
                |                        |                       |
  Unknown mother ￼    Zebidha ￼        Hamutal ￼ ———→
                |                        |                       |             extramarital son
        Johanan ￼        Jehoiakim ￼     Jehoahaz ￼              |
        (firstborn)            (Eliakim)           (Shallum)         Zedekiah ￼
                                  |            —————————→ (Mattaniah)
                             (spouse)
                            Nehushta ￼
                                  |
                            Jehoiachin ￼
                             (Jeconia)

  1 Chronicles 3:15 says: Zedekiah was a son of Hamutal, a wife of Josiah (2 Kings 23:31 and 24:18).
  1 Chronicles 3:16 says: Zedekiah was also a son of Jehoiakim.
  At the age of about 15 Jehoiakim begot Zedekiah by Hamutal, one of Josiah’s spouses. In fact Josiah became the grandfather of Zedekiah and could be called his father by the rule: the son of a son is a son.
  Hamutal named the boy Mattaniah (2 Kings 24:17), meaning: ‘Gift of God’; but Josiah called him Zedekiah, meaning: ‘God is righteous’.
  Zedekiah was on the list of succession (1 Chronicles 3:15), immediately after his biological father Jehoiakim. When Jehoiakim would die as king, Zedekiah was his firstborn to succeed and that gave him the unusual position on the list of succession.


Are LDS required to take their hats off when they pray?

Just to be sure, I have checked with every resource I am aware of, and there have been no formal declarations even associating the removal of a hat with prayer in LDS doctrine or theology.
From my personal experience, I do not believe this practice is limited to the Church o Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As a youth in the Scouting organization in the US South, it was common for the MC or the one saying the prayer to preface prayers with saying, "A Scout is Reverent."  At that cue, everyone would remove their cap and bow their head.
In the same vein, I know of no teaching regarding arms folded (a typical LDS custom), "prayer hands," or simply clasped hands within the Latter-day Saint faith.  The intent of any method is simply to focus on the divine through prayer.
Latter-day Saints may pray with or without hats on, the greater concern is that whatever those praying do, they do it in reverence.
To quote Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

Prayers of the saints are expected to conform to a prescribed standard of divine excellence; they should fit into the approved pattern of proper prayer. They are to be addressed to the Father; should always be made in the name of Jesus Christ; must be reverential and worshipful in nature, which requirement includes use of the language of prayer (the pronouns thee and thine, for instance, never you and your); and above all they must be offered in sincerity of heart, with real intent and purpose, and must come from the lips of those who have broken hearts and contrite spirits; and finally, they should be closed with the word Amen. As a token of reverence and respect, when occasion permits, they should be made from a kneeling position.
Mormon Doctrine

(As an aside, the word "hat" is not to be found anywhere within Mormon Doctrine and only twice in Gospel Doctrine: Sermons and Writing of President Joseph F. Smith.)


Can I get some help understanding the exact definition of an Idol, and Worshiping an Idol?

Your question has many parts, and its obvious you take the matter seriously.

Highly esteeming objects in general is not idolatry:

Luke 15:9 - Woman and Drachma coin.

Matthew 13:45-46 - Merchant and pearl.

Objects seemingly valuable from man's standpoint can be used for good things:

Luke 7:46 - Woman washes Jesus' feet with expensive oil.

Your already quite versed in the subject, so it doesn't appear you require much explanation -- and the verses you point out have a common denominator:

Anything - person, object, idea, lifestyle --- that is put above devotion to God is an idol.

Compare:

Genesis 25:34 - Esau trades birthright for bowl of stew.

Luke 14:18 - Man finds excuse not to follow Christ, goes back to his newly purchased field.

Philippians 3:19 - Self indulgent people idolize their own bellies/flesh.

EDIT: And as the verses you cite mention, bowing down to idols, making a likeness of anything to be revered -- also idolatry.

Put simply:  Worship the creator. Not the creation.

On that note, I love Linux way more than Windows!


What is the biblical basis for "March for Jesus" or "Jesus Day"?

There seem to be no records of the specific theological basis on which March for Jesus was founded. However based on its priorities and aims it is easy enough to discern general theological principles for the event.

The founders (like many Christians) are coming from a theological traditional where it is not necessary to find specific biblical approval for something as long as it is in accordance with Biblical principles. The general purposes of March for Jesus are well supported in scripture:

Praising God. The main focus of March for Jesus is praise for God. Plenty of scripture attests to the need for this, both in public and private.
Making the name of Jesus known Obviously also commanded as a central part of Christianity.
Prayer Prayer is also a major focus of March for Jesus, specifically prayer for the city the march takes place in. Christians are commanded to pray not just for themselves but for their rulers and cities they live in.

Since there is a 'vast theological basis' for these activities, the founders take the view that there is nothing wrong, and much that is right, with adapting them to a present-day form.


Assumption of Mary (Salvific issue) Catholic

Public Denial of the Assumption Incurs Excommunication
Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, body and soul, into heaven in Munificentissimus Deus (1950):

For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

Dogmas of "divine and Catholic Faith" (also called: de fide, de fide Catholica, or de fide divina et Catholica) are those truths "proposed by the Church as revealed by God."¹
¶45 of Munificentissimus Deus makes it clear that those why deny the Assumption incur the highest theological censure: heresy. This is a "Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited."¹
1. On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J. (Rome, 1951).
The Assumption & Salvation
Mary is properly called Co-Redemptrix because without her fiat ("be it done"; Lk. 1:38), Christ would not have incarnated; and without Christ, there would be no redemption or salvation.
Fr. Hardon defines "Co-Redemptrix" in his Catholic Dictionary:

A title of the Blessed Virgin as co-operator with Christ in the work of human redemption. It may be considered an aspect of Mary's mediation in not only consenting to become the Mother of God but in freely consenting in his labors, sufferings, and death for the salvation of the human race. As Co-Redemptrix, she is in no sense equal to Christ in his redemptive activity, since she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by her Son. He alone merited man's salvation. Mary effectively interceded to obtain subjective application of Christ's merits to those whom the Savior had objectively redeemed.

Thus, there is a very close connection between salvation and the Blessed Virgin Mother.
For more information, see at least Part II (esp. its ch. 1, 2, & 3) of:

Mother of The Savior and Our Interior Life (1948) by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.


How should the Mass be explained to a first time visitor?

Here is the answer I gave to the Japanese person interested in Christianity who said she would be attending Mass tomorrow. Please pray for us.

~~~

There is one being who created our reality. We call this being 'God': Because we think there is no limitation to this being, there is only one god, not multiple gods. Lacking any limitation, God is perfectly happy, but chose to create us so that we could be happy, too.

私たちの現実を作り出した者がいます。私たちはこれを「神様」と呼んでいます。この存在に制限はないと思うので、複数の神ではなく、ただ一つの神があります。どんな限界もなく、神様は完全に幸せですが、私たちも私たちが幸せになれるように創造することを選んだのです。

Mankind is comprised of multiple individuals but all share one human nature, which includes a body and a spirit. This nature became corrupted when the first humans chose to rebel against God. Consequently humans became mortal, suffer, and die. God chose to save them by restoring human nature in the following way: God became a man named Jesus in Israel about 2000 years ago. Jesus has both a human nature (Jesus is human) and a divine nature (Jesus is God). Jesus lived a life without any rebellion against God; he lived a life without any corruption.

人類は複数の人で構成されていますが、すべてが体と精神を含む人間の本質を共有しています。最初の人間が神に反抗することを選んだとき、この性質は崩壊しました。その結果、人間は死に至り、苦しみ、死にました。神は約2000年前にイスラエルでイエスという名の人になったのです。イエスは人間的性質（イエスは人間です）と神の性質（イエスは神様です）の両方を持っています。イエスは神様に対して反逆することなく生きていました。彼は腐敗のない人生を生きました。

Heaven, i.e. life with God, is a far better and more powerful place than Earth. It is both a reward and a privilege. Therefore we must be tested to ensure that we are able to take on the greater responsibility and delight of life there. For this reason we are tested with suffering. Jesus was also tested by suffering innocently, and demonstrated His obedience to God and union with God by choosing to allow Himself to suffer a death sentence from the Roman Empire.

天国、すなわち神との生活は、地球よりはるかに優れた強力な場所です。これは報酬でも特権でもあります。したがって、私たちは、そこでのより大きな責任と喜びを味わうことができるようにするために、テストを受けなければなりません。このため、私たちは苦しんでテストされています。イエスはまた、無邪気に苦しんで試験を受け、ローマ帝国から死刑判決を受けられるように選択することによって、神様への従順と神との結合を実証しました。

There are multiple reasons why Jesus died. Here are two reasons. Because this death sentence was suffered innocently by God Himself, the spiritual consequence of evil being death was overcome. Hence through Jesus we can live in heaven even after we have done evil. Secondly, Jesus chose to suffer this death to encourage us in our suffering. He shows us that although we don't always understand why we suffer, the end result will be worth it.

イエスが死んだ理由はいくつかあります。ここには2つの理由があります。この死刑は神様自身によって無邪気に苦しんでいたので、邪悪な死の霊的帰結は克服されました。それゆえ、イエスを通して、わたしたちが悪を行ったのに、私たちは天に住むことができます。第二に、イエス様はこの苦しみに苦しんで、私たちの苦しみの中で私たちを励まします。彼は、私たちがなぜ苦しんでいるのかを必ずしも理解しているわけではありませんが、最終的な結果は価値があると私たちに示しています。

Consequently, if we stop rebelling against God and unite ourselves to Jesus and partake of his natures, we may share in the benefits of a pure human nature and our spirits and bodies will survive death and live with God in perfect happiness. This life in heaven will be far better than our life on Earth because we will be united to God.

したがって、私たちが神様に反抗して自分自身をイエスに結びつけ、自分の性質を味わうならば、私たちは純粋な人間性の恩恵を分かち合い、私たちの精神と体は死から生き残り、完璧な幸福で神様と共に生きます。この天の人生は、私たちが神様に結合されるので、地球上の私たちの人生よりはるかに良いでしょう。

To unite ourselves with Jesus' pure human nature and God's perfect divine nature, we must stop doing evil and instead do good and be Baptized so that God will live with our spirit. We must also eat Jesus' Body under the appearance of bread so that our body may be included in life in heaven. We also unite our suffering with Jesus' suffering so that God may work good out of the evil we experience.

イエスの純粋な人間性と神様の完全な神性とを結びつけるためには、悪をやめることをやめ、代わりに良いことをして、バプテスマを受け、神様が私たちの霊で生きるようにしなければなりません。また、私たちの体が天の人生に含まれるように、パンの形でイエスの身体を食べなければなりません。私たちはまた、苦しみをイエスの苦しみに結びつけ、神様が経験する悪から良い働きをするようにします。

The Mass enables us to do all this: At the Mass we hear from the messages God gave to us over time (collected in the Bible) to encourage us to stop doing evil and do good. The priest also lectures us to show us how to apply these messages to our daily lives. At the second part of the Mass God makes Jesus' death present to us this day so that we may combine our suffering with Jesus' so that God may do good with it. We eat Jesus' body as He commanded so that our bodies will be included later in heaven. At the Mass we also ask God and previous Christians in heaven to help us solve our problems here on Earth. We also thank God for all the good we experienced the past week. We praise God because it is the respect due to Him, singing is fun, and praising God improves our mental health.

このミサは私たちにこのすべてをすることを可能にします：ミサの時に、悪をやって停止し、善を行うために、神様が私たちに与えたメッセージ（聖書で収集された）を聴きます。司祭はまた、これらのメッセージを私たちの日常生活に適用する方法を教えて下さいます。ミサの第二部では、神様がこの善を行うために、私たちの苦しみをイエスと組み合わせることができるように、イエスの死が今日私たちに提示します。私たちは、私たちの体が後で天に含まれるように、彼が命じたようにイエスの体を食べます。 ミサでは、地球上の私たちの問題を解決するのを手助けするために、神様と以前のキリスト教徒にも尋ねます。 私たちはまた、過去1週間に経験したすべての良いことに神に感謝します。 神様が敬意を表し、歌が楽しく、神様を賛美することが私たちの精神的健康を向上させるので、私たちは神様を賛美します。


According to Catholicism, does Welch’s Grape Juice constitute valid matter for the consecration of the Mass?

In the article "Why Grape Wine?", written for the website catholic.com, David Lang quotes from a clarification to the CDF document you mention:

  THE CONSEQUENCE OF MATTER

  So, how does the Church address the possible problem of alcoholism? Could grape juice from a supermarket shelf be sacramentally adequate? No: A process of maturation or a “time-element” appears necessary from Scripture. After all, Christ came to earth and underwent his Passion in the “fullness of time” (D-R), or the “right time” and “proper time” (RSV), or the “fitting time” (NAB)—see Ecclesiastes 3:1, 8:6; Wisdom 18:14-15; Romans 5:6; Galatians 4:4; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 1:1-2.The

  The prefect [of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] at the time, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, issued a more precise clarification of mustum in a circular letter (June 19, 1995) addressed to presidents of episcopal conferences. He elaborated that for grape juice to qualify as mustum, there must be no interference with its inherent tendency to ferment, even if the actual fermentation process is “arrested at an early stage.” This restriction would, for instance, exclude pasteurization, which entails enzymatic destruction. (So much for supermarket grape juice.)

Thus the priests you saw were not confecting a valid Eucharist, and were possibly committing a sin. (If they had found grape juice bottled straight off the vine they would have been fine.)


Can a Christian believe in Oni  (Japanese Demons)?

Regarding Christianity in Japan, one useful bit of previous experience is the history of Christian missionaries in the 16th-17th centuries. Francis Xavier, founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) was one of them! They encountered particular issues with how best to introduce Japanese people to Christian belief, and one of the biggest problems they faced was the tendency to syncretism - the instinctive attempt to meld Christian beliefs into existing Buddhist and Shinto practice. In 1598, the confessional text Salvator Mundi / Sarobatōru Munji challenged Kirishitan (Japanese Christian) believers by asking:

  Have you worshipped kami and hotoke since you became Kirishitan? If you have, how many times? Have you worried about the punishment of kami and hotoke? Also, have you thought that they could give human beings punishment or providence?Have you, according to pagan practices, performed the worshipping of the sun and the moon (tsuki machi hi machi), or called for a  miko and an onmyōji for prayer ritual (kitō) and incantation?Have you participated in pagan events even if you have remained Kirishitan inwardly?Have you performed fortune-telling for yourself or made others do it? 1

I believe that the oni may be regarded essentially as a special kind of kami 2, at least for our purposes here. These early missionaries certainly saw regard for the kami as problematic, and tried to stop people from worrying about such issues as how to placate them through worship or offerings.

A belief in oni or kami, along the lines of traditional Shinto practice, is not compatible with the Christian world-view, since Christianity has different opinions about the nature and origin of spiritual beings. While Christianity does include a concept of "demon", these are not the same as Shinto "demons"; it's not reasonable to drop oni into the context of normal Christian belief. That is, it doesn't make sense to combine orthodox Christianity with a belief in oni, as oni are traditionally understood in Japanese culture. Indeed, the history of Christianity in Japan shows some problems with this approach. During the suppression of the religion, one form of "underground" Christianity transmuted into a blend of ancestor-worship/Shinto/Buddhism, with a few Christian-looking elements, but without any real connection to the core of the faith. (See this answer by AffableGeek on the Kakure Kirishitan.)

1. From Christianity in Early Modern Japan: Kirishitan Belief and Practice, Ikuo Higashibaba (BRILL, 2001), p 36-37
2. Encyclopedia of Shinto (trans. of Shinto jiten, Kobundo, 1994) under oni, senses 1 and 3, sees oni as a subcategory of kami


Why does the KJV say "people perish" in Pr. 29:18?

The Clementine Vulgate has

  Cum prophetia defecerit, dissipabitur populus ; qui vero custodit legem beatus est.

Which the Douay translates as

  When prophecy shall fail, the people shall be scattered abroad: but he that keepeth the law is blessed.

That's close enough to the KJV to suggest the possibility that they may have consulted the Vulgate to try and help understand perhaps a rare word. But then the question arises, why did the Vulgate translate it that way?  Its possible that its based on a Qere (i.e. Massoretic margin note reading) or alternative vowel pointing, but I don't know.

A search for יִפָּ֣רַֽע on Unbound Bible against the Westminster Leningrad Codex reveals that this word occurs only in this verse.  Searching without points יפרע reveals that it occurs also in Leviticus 21:10, where it says the high priest is to "not uncover his head."

The Geneva Bible (1599) also has

  Where there is no vision, the people decay: but he that keepeth the law is blessed.

And Matthew's Bible (1537)

  Wher no Prophete is ther the people perysh: but wel is hym that kepeth the law.

So that seems to have been the standard translation of this at that time.


If God set the maximum age to 120, then how could Jacob be 130 years old?

There are a number of different theories as to the meaning of Genesis 6:3:

120 years to the flood

One common interpretation is that it's not talking about lifespan, but the amount of time humanity has to repent before the coming of the Flood.1,2

Aside: Genesis 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came, placing the flood 1656 years after the creation of Adam according to the dates in Genesis 5, thus placing the Genesis 6:3 statement at 1536 years after Adam's creation.

120 years left of Adam's life

Another argument is that many versions have slightly mistranslated this verse. If you compare translations you'll see that some have the passage relating to "humans" - all humanity (such as the NIV, which you've quoted), many others use the term "man". This is because the word that's interpreted here as "humans" can also mean "the man"; or, more specifically, "the man Adam". So this argument states that Gen 6:3 is not talking about everyone, but specifically that Adam had 120 years left to live at the time God made this statement.2

Aside: Genesis 5 tells us that Adam lived for 930 years, so this statement would have happened when he was 810 years old. According to the chronology in chapter 5, this places the statement after the birth of Methusela (Noah's grandfather) but 64 years before the birth of Lamech (Noah's father).

Human lifespan of 120 years

This is the way many versions of the Bible are translated, and of course the meaning you have taken from the passage. But as you say, there are several people recorded in the Bible that have lived longer than 120 years since then. It's worth noting of course that we don't know what methods were used for recording the passing of time in those days, and how accurate or otherwise those methods were. Moreover, Dr John Oakes tells us that it's really only a Western culture thing that puts such an emphasis on the exact-ness of numbers. A common example of not using time literally would be the phase “just a minute” or “in a second”.

A quick note on my asides above - here's a footnote from Genesis 5:31 in the Amplified Bible:

  It is now well known that the age of mankind cannot be
  reckoned in years from the facts listed in genealogies, for there are
  numerous known intentional gaps in them. For example, as B. B.
  Warfield (Studies in Theology) points out, the genealogy in Matt.
  1:1-17 omits the three kings, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, and
  indicates that Joram (Matt. 1:8) begat Uzziah, who was his
  great-great-grandson. The mistaking of compressed genealogies as bases
  for chronology has been very misleading. So far, the dates in years of
  very early Old Testament events are altogether speculative and
  relative, and the tendency is to put them farther and farther back
  into antiquity.


Will Elijah return before the final judgement?

In Matthew 11:13-14 Jesus says John the Baptist is "the Elijah who was to come" before the Messiah.


What is The Second book of Homilies mentioned in the Anglican 39 articles of faith?

As per Wkipedia, the Second Book of Homilies is a book of twenty-one sermons written mainly by Bishop John Jewel and published in 1571.

  Thomas Cranmer and other English reformers saw the need for local congregations to be taught Christian theology and practice. Before the English Reformation, the liturgy was conducted entirely in Latin, to which the common people listened passively [...]. Since parsons, vicars and curates often lacked the education and experience needed to write sermons and were often unfamiliar with Reformed doctrine, scholars and bishops wrote out a collection of sermons for them, which were appointed to be read each Sunday and holy day.

In short they were an exposition of Anglican doctrine intended for the general congregation. They are no longer read out, largely because Anglican clergy no longer "lack the education and experience needed to write sermons" and are not "often unfamiliar with [Anglican] doctrine".


Biblical passages that relate to Christian unity versus doctrinal accuracy

God's will is that we Christians would be one and love one another.

  John 17:20-22 (ESV)
   20"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

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

But, even if we should be one, we should not be the same.

  1 Corinthians 12:12-21 (ESV)
   12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
   14For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
   21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."

The passage above makes hints that as we are different, we might start fighting and   excluding different members. This actually had happened in Corinth, and this was one topic in 1 Corinthians.

  1 Corinthians 1:12-13 (ESV)
   12What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

To me it looks as though unity is very important. Of course there is still need for church discipline.


What is the difference between Magisterial teaching and Sacred Tradition in Roman Catholicism?

As Peter pointed out the Church's authority rests upon Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial teaching/interpretation.
Apostolic Tradtion is the root source of Christian revelation. Christ entrusted the message of salvation and doctrinal authority to the Apostles, who in turn handed Christ's revelation through apostolic succession (a.k.a. Sacred Tradition).
The CCC defines Tradition:

THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire
Revelation of themost high God is summed
up, commanded the apostles to preach the
Gospel, which had been promised
beforehand by the prophets, and which he
fulfilled in his own person and promulgated
with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel,
they were to communicate the gifts of God
to all men. This Gospel was to be the source
of all saving truth and moral discipline."
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the
Gospel was handed on in two ways:
orally "by the apostles who handed on, by
the spoken word of their preaching, by the
example they gave, by the institutions they
established, what they themselves had
received - whether from the lips of Christ,
from his way of life and his works, or
whether they had learned it at the
prompting of the Holy Spirit";
in writing "by those apostles and other men
associated with the apostles who, under the
inspiration of the same Holy Spirit,
committed the message of salvation to
writing".
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel
might always be preserved in the Church the
apostles left bishops as their successors.
They gave them their own position of
teaching authority." Indeed, "the
apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a
special way in the inspired books, was to be
preserved in a continuous line of succession
until the end of time."
78 This living transmission, accomplished in
the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is
distinct from Sacred Scripture, though
closely connected to it. Through Tradition,
"the Church, in her doctrine, life and
worship, perpetuates and transmits to every
generation all that she herself is, all that she
believes." "The sayings of the holy
Fathers are a witness to the life-giving
presence of this Tradition, showing how its
riches are poured out in the practice and life
of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."
79 The Father's self-communication made
through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains
present and active in the Church: "God, who
spoke in the past, continues to converse
with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the
Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of
the Gospel rings out in the Church -and
through her in the world - leads believers to
the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ
dwell in them in all its richness."  (CCC, Sect. 1, Chapt. 2, Para. 75-79)

The word Magisterium is just a fancy word for "teaching office." Magisterial teaching is guided by the Holy Spirit to accurately interpret both Tradition and Scripture. The Magisterium is necessary for Sacred Scripture to remain authoritative. Without an authoritative interpreter to interpret Scripture, then Scripture loses its authority. Any one could interpret it anyway they wish. Perhaps this is why there are thousands of denominations.  This is analogous to the necessity of the U. S. Judicial branch  interpreting the Constitution in order to prevent total anarchy that would result from the private interpretation of U. S. citizens. However, unlike the Judicial branch, the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit.
The CCC also emphasizes the necessity of an authoritative interpreter to defend and protect the authority of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture:

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH
The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church
84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the
depositum fidei),contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the
whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy
people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching
of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the
prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that
has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the
bishops and the faithful."
The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic
interpretation of the Word of God, whether
in its written form or in the form of
Tradition, has been entrusted to the living
teaching office of the Church alone. Its
authority in this matter is exercised in the
name of Jesus Christ." Thismeans that the
task of interpretation has been entrusted to
the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to
the Word of God, but is its servant. It
teaches only what has been handed on to it.
At the divine command and with the help of
the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly,
guards it with dedication and expounds it
faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as
being divinely revealed is drawn from this
single deposit of faith."
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles:
"He who hears you, hears me", the
faithful receive with docility the teachings
and directives that their pastors give them
in different forms.
The dogmas of the faith
88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the
authority it holds from Christ to the fullest
extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when
it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian
people to an irrevocable adherence of faith,
truths contained in divine Revelation or also
when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths
having a necessary connection with these.
89 There is an organic connection between
our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas
are lights along the path of faith; they
illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely,
if our life is upright, our intellect and heart
will be open to welcome the light shed by
the dogmas of faith.
90 The mutual connections between dogmas,
and their coherence, can be found in the
whole of the Revelation of the mystery of
Christ. "In Catholic doctrine there exists
an order or hierarchy of truths, since they
vary in their relation to the foundation of
the Christian faith." (CCC, Sect. 1, Chapt. 2, Para. 84-90)

Tradition is the source of both Scripture and the Magisterium. The New Testament wasn't completed until the end of the 1rst cent., and wasn't canonized until the end of the 4rth. The Gospel was transmitted by Tradition and was interpreted by the Magisterium long before the canon was approved by Pope Damasus I. From then on the Church has been supported by those 3 legs.


Do United Methodist Church members really eat ham during Easter?

I think you may be confusing the terms a little. There's a simple solution to your question.

Easter is the joyful celebration of Christ's resurrection.

Lent is the forty-day* period leading up to Easter. It is a time of penitence and fasting.

Many Christians observing the Western-style liturgical calendar (this probably includes your friend) fast in some way—often from meat, if possible—during Lent. This fast is broken on Easter, when lots of rich foods are eaten. Ham is a traditional Easter meal in the West.

When you understand this aspect of the calendar, it actually makes a lot of sense to eat meat on Easter.

You can read more about the church calendar at Ken Collins's web site.

(*) You might notice that Lent is actually longer than forty days. The reason for this is a bit detailed and dry, so read only if you're curious!

The week before Easter is referred to as Holy Week; it begins with Palm Sunday (the commemoration of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem). Holy Week contains Maundy Thursday (commemorating the Lord’s Supper) and Good Friday (commemorating the day of Jesus’ crucifixion). As you can imagine, this week is especially sombre and penitential.

In the Eastern church, Holy Week is not considered part of the forty days of Lent; they last forty days beginning from Clean Monday, with the last day on a Friday. The day after this is Lazarus Saturday, followed by Palm Sunday and Holy Week.

In the West, Holy Week got counted as part of Lent. The extra days are accounted for by making Sundays not count as full fasting days. Lent is then two days shorter than in the East, beginning on Ash Wednesday. Not counting Sundays, there are forty days from Ash Wednesday till Easter.

In both traditions, the season of Easter lasts 49 days till Pentecost. Fasting is not encouraged—in fact, it may be generally prohibited, especially in the first week of Easter, which is called Bright Week.


What are the requirements for joining the Catholic church as an adult?

This looks like a job for... Canon Law 869

Can.  869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.
§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

The gist of it is, there's no need for re-baptism, being baptized by anyone in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is sufficient.
And in time of need, it is valid for anyone to baptize anyone else.  For instance, if you were in a really bad accident and I came upon you and said, "boy, you look pretty rough are you ready to meet the Lord" and you said, "Lord who?" and I, while dressing the wounds of your mangled body, managed to convince you of the truths of the Catholic Church and you decided that you wanted to die a Christian, I could baptize you and even if you managed to live, you wouldn't need to be re-baptized.

The requirements for joining the Church are different for unbaptized folks than for baptized.  Either way, the RCIA process is followed and culminates with all three sacraments of initiation  Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation (with the exception of Baptism for the already Baptized) .
The liturgical part of the process can be found in this book I bought it and read through it because I'd like my dad to become Catholic, but it's not much help really.
What one would need to do in order to become convert to Catholicism, would be largely up to the priest.  I have a friend who is a convert who showed up on a priests doorstep 30 some years ago and the priest gave him one-on-one instruction until he joined the church. But others, Lutherans in particular, say "all the priest said to do was make a general confession", other parishes have RCIA programs led by lay ministers similar to Catechetical instruction for children leading up to their confirmation.


Which persons of the Trinity are attached to which noun in John 1:18

No man has ever seen God[1]; the only-begotten Son[2], who[3] is in the bosom of the Father[4], he[5] has declared [him][6].

θεὸν[1] οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός[2], ὁ[3] ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς[4] ἐκεῖνος[5] ἐξηγήσατο

[1] the Father
[2] the Son
[3] the Son
[4] the Father
[5] the Son
[6] the Father (pronoun not present in Greek, but the ellipsis is appropriately supplied according to the context)

Basically, it's saying that the only-begotten Son, Jesus, is in the bosom of the Father, at all times. Nobdoy has ever seen the Father. The only-begotten Son "exegeted" or revealed the Father to us. The Greek verb ἐξηγήσατο, a conjuagtion of the lexical form ἐξηγέομαι, is where we get the English noun "exegesis" from.


Is there a non-Catholic view of purification of the spirit after physical death?

ON THE TEACHING OF PURGATORY

The idea of purification or cleansing of a saved human spirit after its physical death on earth is a well known idea in all professing Christians. The differences come only because of various interpretations regarding the nature of this life-after death purgation of the saved.

ROMAN CATHOLIC STANCE ON PURGATION

Roman Catholicism teaches that purgation in the next life occurs in a place called "purgatory" wherein a saved human spirit pays for or atones for , not his sins, but rather, the temporal punishment of his sins. There is no exact duration when someone will finally enter heaven but it is said that as soon as the temporal punishment is satisfied, heaven is the surest destiny of the purged spirit.

The sad fact is that the Bible never described nor stated that a saved spirit is in a place of purification wherein he is paying for the temporal punishment of his sins. In fact, none of the people in the Bible ever expected such a place!

BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN STANCE ON PURGATION

Born Again Christians teaches that purgation in the next life is not a place but a state of the saved human spirit. It is a state or condition which the Scriptures describes as instantaneous. When Christ comes again all believers whether dead in body or alive in spirit will be glorified (i.e. bodies changed from mortal to immortal) in just a twinkling of an eye!

  1 Cor. 15:52 "It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when
  the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have
  died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also
  be transformed."

Regarding the disembodied saved human spirits (James 2:26). They do not go to a place called Purgatory but to Paradise itself, in Heaven where Jesus lives. As soon as the body gave up the ghost (i.e. spirit) then it will be with Jesus Christ our Lord.

  2 Cor. 5:8 "we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be
  absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord."

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

1 Cor. 3:15 speaks only of these:
1) If a person's work is burned up ( not if a person is burned up)

2) He will suffer loss ( not suffer loss of salvation but of suffer loss of rewards - v. 14)

3) saved as by fire ( not saved by fire)
1 Corinthians 3:15 is about believers in Christ facing the judgment seat of Christ ( 2 Corinthians 5:9-11). The clearest meaning we can have from the context of 1 Corinthians 3:15 is that if a believer's works are completely judged as worthless even though they have trusted in Christ for their own salvation, it will be like they have been snatched from a fire - they themselves are safe, but everything they labored for is destroyed and unsalvageable.

This interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:15 that is held by Born Again Christians is supported by both the immediate context and greatext context of the Holy Bible.

Old Testament

  "I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. You were
  like a burning stick snatched from the fire, yet you have not returned to me," declares the LORD. ( Amos 4:11 NIV)

  "I destroyed some of your cities, as I destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
  Those of you who survived were like charred sticks pulled from a
  fire. But still you would not return to me," says the LORD." ( Amos
  4:11 NLT)

  "And the LORD said to Satan, "I, the LORD, reject your accusations,
  Satan. Yes, the LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebukes you. This man
  is like a burning stick that has been snatched from the fire." (
  Zechariah 3:2 NLT)

New Testament

  "save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show
  mercy, mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted
  flesh." ( Jude 1:23 NIV)

The phrase "saved as by fire" may also include the meaning that the result of losing rewards is a form of catharsis ( purging of emotions) of the mind into deep realization of the divine plan.

This verse best describes what happens in 1 Corinthians 3:15:

  "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror,
  but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know
  now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything
  completely, just as God now knows me completely" ( 1 Corinthians 13:12
  NLT).

NOTE

  1 Peter 1:6-7 "In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a
  little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various
  trials, 7that the proof of your faith, being more precious than
  gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found
  to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus
  Christ."

It is highly implied here that the works of the Christian out from the trials in life is the "proof or evidence of his/her faith" and that this works is "tested by fire." It is clear that it is not the Christian that is tested by fire but rather, it is the works that is tested by fire.


What is the difference between "Elder led" and "Elder ruled"?

The most significant difference is in how new Elders come into office.

In an Elder Ruled church, existing ordained elders have the responsibility of finding or training equipped leadership and appointing them to office in the local church.
In an Elder Led church, the appointed Elder board may exercise spiritual oversight over the body but ultimately also serves at the pleasure of that body. The current Eldership may bring a recommendation for new appointments, but it is the congregations responsibility to elect them to the board.

The latter concept is actually a variant on congregationalism, in which the final say in major matters (e.g calling a pastor, changing the budget) is put in the hands of the whole church by means of a vote, usually having heard a recommendation from the Elders. On the other hand the Elder board is given authority to handle smaller issues without consulting the congregation. Examples of Elder Led Congregationalism are most "community" churches, many Evangelical churches (including most of the EFCA).

On the other hand Elder Rule tends to be found in in traditions with more ecclesiastical structure, especially Presbyterianism and most Reformed churches.

Bonus: Notably for being absent from my examples above is the Baptist tradition. While "traditionally" most Baptist denominations employ some form of Elder Led Congregationalism, there is also a wide enough variety in what this means and how it is implemented to make them hard to broadly categorize. In recent history, many churches with otherwise baptist doctrine have adopted a much less congregationalist and much more Elder Rule system.