What is the biblical and traditional support for the Catholic Marian devotion?

Below are some links for a comprehensive "Bible study" about the doctrines and devotions of Catholic Marian theology. They also include many passages from the writings of early Church Fathers. I also highly recommend reading "Hail, Holy Queen" written by Dr. Scott Hahn.

The first 6 links establish a foundation for the Catholic doctrines pertaining to the veneration of Mary from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Examples of scripture passages that impliclty/explicitly pertain to “devotion:”

1 Kings 2:19 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.

John 2:7 - Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf, and responds to His mother's request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.
Matt. 2:11 - Luke emphasizes Jesus is with Mary His Mother, and the magi fall down before both of them, worshiping Jesus.

Luke 1:28 - "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you." These are the words spoken by God and delivered to us by the angel Gabriel (who is a messenger of God). Thus, when Catholics recite this verse while praying the Rosary, they are uttering the words of God.

Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase "full of grace" is translated from the Greek word "kecharitomene." This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just "highly favored." She has been perfected in grace by God. "Full of grace" is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Luke 1:38 - Mary's fiat is "let it be done to me according to thy word." Mary is the perfect model of faith in God, and is worthy of our veneration.

Luke 1:42 - "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus." The phrase "blessed are you among women" really means "you are most blessed of all women." A circumlocution is used because there is no superlative in the Greek language. Note also that Elizabeth praises Mary first, and then Jesus. This is hyperdulia (but not latria which is worship owed to God alone). We too can go through Mary to praise Jesus. Finally, Catholics repeat these divinely inspired words of Elizabeth in the Rosary.

Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth's use of "Mother of my Lord" (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used "Adonai" which means Lord God) is the equivalent of "Holy Mary, Mother of God" which Catholics pray in the Rosary. The formula is simple: Jesus is a divine person, and this person is God. Mary is Jesus' Mother, so Mary is the mother of God (Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus' human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures).

Luke 1:44 - Mary's voice causes John the Baptist to leap for joy in Elizabeth's womb. Luke is teaching us that Mary is our powerful intercessor.

Examples of devotion to Mary from  Church Fathers:

"Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God. Do not reject our supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger,[O you] alone pure and alone blessed." Sub Tuum Praesidium, From Rylands Papyrus, Egypt (3rd century).

"Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground." Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 24:11 (A.D. 379)

"Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain?" Epiphanius, Panarion, 30:31 (ante A.D. 403).

"Hail, our desirable gladness; Hail, O rejoicing of the Churches; Hail, O name that breathes out sweetness; Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace; Hail, most venerable memory…" Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily 4:3 (ante A.D. 446).

http://scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-I
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080400.htm
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080300.htm
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/key2mary.htm

The next 6 links are simply compilations of writings from the Church Fathers addressing official Catholic teaching.  The 3rd link down specifically pertains to early Marian devotion, which specifically addresses the question of what the “pre-medieval” Church Fathers taught about devotion to Mary.

Examples:

"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides."
Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin,71:216(ante AD 373),in MCF,106

"Hail to thee Mary, Mother of God, to whom in towns and villages and in island were founded churches of true believers"
Cyril of Alexandria, Homily 11(ante AD 444),in CE

"O Virgin all holy, he who has said of you all that is honorable and glorious has not sinned against the truth, but remains unequal to your merit. Look down upon us from above and be propitious to us. Lead us in peace and having brought us without shame to the throne of judgment, grant us a place at the right hand of your Son, that we may borne off to heaven and sing with angels to the uncreated, consubstantial Trinity"
Basil of Seleucia, PG 85:452(ante AD 459),in THEO,187

"Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, because thou didst conceive Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer of our souls"
Coptic Ostraca (AD 600),in CE  (early form of the Rosary)

Anyone who has attended a Melkite Catholic Divine Liturgy (considered the highest form of prayer in Catholicism) has heard the liturgy that was formulated St. John Chrysostom and has been celebrated in the East since the late 300’s.
The liturgy is saturated with the utmost devotion to The Blessed Virgin Mary.

In the entrance prayers and  1rst 2 antiphons the following prayer is offered to God:

Deacon:
          Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady,
          the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us
          commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ
          our God.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/DILITSJC.TXT

One of the most devoted Church Fathers is St. Augustine.  He is known for composing one of the most beautiful prayers to Mary in the Church (among many other great works):

Prayer of Saint Augustine to the Blessed Virgin

O blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay thee thy just dues of praise and thanksgiving, thou who by the wondrous assent of thy will didst rescue a fallen world? What songs of praise can our weak human nature recite in thy honor, since it is by thy intervention alone that it has found the way to restoration. Accept, then, such poor thanks as we have here to offer, though they be unequal to thy merits; and receiving our vows, obtain by thy prayers the remission of our offenses. Carry thou our prayers within the sanctuary of the heavenly audience, and bring forth from it the antidote of our reconciliation. May the sins we bring before Almighty God through thee, become pardonable through thee; may what we ask for with sure confidence, through thee be granted. Take our offering, grant us our requests, obtain pardon for what we fear, for thou art the sole hope of sinners. Through thee we hope for the remission of our sins, and in thee, O blessed Lady, is our hope of reward. Holy Mary, succour the miserable, help the fainthearted, comfort the sorrowful, pray for thy people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God; may all who keep thy holy commemoration feel now thy help and protection. Be thou ever ready to assist us when we pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it thy continual care to pray for the people of God, thou who, blessed by God, didst merit to bear the Redeemer of the world, who liveth and reigneth, world without end. Amen. (emphasis added)

http://catholicism.about.com/od/prayers/qt/Augustine_BWM.htm

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/assumed.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/immac.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/mary_dev.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/theotok.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/venerate.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm
http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/category/apologetics

Also,the early reformers had a faithful devotion to Mary, and are perhaps good references for understanding Mary's place in salvation history.

"St. Paul says ‘God sent his Son born of a woman, These words which I hold for true, really sustain quite firmly that Mary is the Mother of God." -Martin Luther (Martin Luther’s Works, vol 7, page 592)

"A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph, and had more children after that." -Martin Luther (That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, 1523, LW, Vol. 45, page199)

"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned." -John Calvin {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, page 215; on Matthew 13:55}

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/fr94101.htm

Catholics venerate Mary by keeping the commandment to "honor thy Father and thy Mother.  Christians are the adopted sons and daughters of God.  Jesus honored his Earthly mother perfectly.  Catholics just follow in Christ's footsteps through the Biblically based Tradition of venerating Mary.


How can we apply relying on Jesus in situations where it appears we have to rely on ourselves?

Let me flip the question around a little bit:  Is there anything about going back to school, working hard, and interviewing for (notice I didn't say "getting") a great job that is inherently not relying on God?

There's two sides to this coin: Using the talents God has given you, and being faithful to use them for his glory.

God made you a certain way, and make no bones about it, he is the one who gave you the talents you have.  So when it comes to relying on God in that sense, you already are.  In fact, it takes God to even allow you to breathe.  Everything you have, and everything you are is from God, so in that sense, you're always relying on him.

And there comes a point when we have to realize that working is part of God's will for us.  I am a programmer, but if I sit behind my computer, never write a line of code, and trust Jesus to write it for me, I'll probably get fired, and Paul would say, I'm worse than an infidel for not providing for my family.  Work is still relying on God.  It's the means he's given us that he uses to provide us with the things we need.

Also, in each of our lives, we will each have several opportunities to make bad decisions.  As you go back to school, you have the opportunity to either learn what they're teaching properly, or you'll have the opportunity to cheat on your tests.  Cheat, and you're not relying on God.  Do the best you can, and you are.

You'll also have the opportunity to overwork yourself and neglect your family.  Work so hard that they never see you, and your wife and kids forget who you are, and you're probably not relying on God.  Work as hard as you can without neglecting the roles and responsibilities God has given you, and you probably are.

Ecclesiastes 9:10 says:

  Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no
  work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are
  going.

Whatever your hand finds to do.  In whatever roles you find yourself in, do them well.  If you find yourself in the role of father, do that well.  Of husband, do that well.  Of student, do that well.  Of employee, do that well.

Ultimately, it takes wisdom.  Ask Jesus: Should I take on this role of student?  If you feel you can without irreparably damaging your other roles, and you're open and honest about that, then I think you're in a good place.

I wouldn't over-think the whole "relying on God" thing.  He's given you certain characteristics because he wants you to use them to his glory.  Do the best you can, and trust him with the results.


How do Catholics answer the question of idol worship within the faith?

I understand your concern, as a former Protestant, I'll do my best to be concice.
First of all, the official teaching of the Church concerning worship is as follows.

Idolatry
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires
man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the
one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols,
[of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but
do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their
worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who
trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life
and intervenes in history.
2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a
constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is
not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a
creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example,
satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc.
Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for
not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship.
Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore
incompatible with communion with God.46
2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The
commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him
from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's
innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his
indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."47
-Cathechism of the Catholic Church

However, as you said, Catholics still do pray to saints and use art(including statues) in their religious life. This is not worship because in Catholic theology it is understood that saints are glorified persons in Heaven always ready to help us in our Christian life.
Let me give you a comparaison.
For example, a Protestant when in need of prayer he will ask his Christians friends to pray for him or even to personally help him out. Because he recognizes that adding their prayers to his does make a difference, and that asking them for help personally is completely warrented.
The problem though arises because Protestants, among others, do not understand that the imperfect Christians on Earth are not seperated from communicating with the perfect Christians in Heaven.

Hebrews 12:18-24 King James Version (KJV)
[Old Covenant, hesitation]
For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that
burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice
they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them
any more:
(For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much
as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through
with a dart:
And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear
and quake:)
[New Covenant, boldness]
But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are
written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of
just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new
covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things
than that of Abel.

Emphasis added : Saints in Heaven are spirits of just men made perfect.
We Catholics understand this to be the consequence of being in Christ, of being part of his Mystical Body. That Body being what mediates when we ask the saints. As St. Paul the Apostle explains...

Colossians 1:24 King James Version (KJV)
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Thus far we have seen that it is logical for us to ask(the same as to pray) the saints in Heaven for intercession.
Now what exactly warrents us to use stautes, and to bow down to them, to be devouted to some of them?
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
*One must understand that art aides us in triggering our human sensibility, like when you for instance keep pictures of people you like as for example your mother or even when you keep something symbolical concerning them. You would even be warrented to kiss the image of your mother or pay special attention to a royalty without being guilty of idolatry. Because to be in the sin of idolatry you need to make that person or thing your ultimate standard, your highest master... This distinction is indeed observed in the Bible.
To appeal to the 10 commandments about not making graven images is likewise a misunderstanding of the text as I will demonstrate(go to Catholic Answers for further details).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
If bowing to another human is idolatry, then why did Isaac allow Jacob to say: “May nations serve you and peoples BOW DOWN to you?” (Genesis 27:29)
If bowing is idolatry, then why did King David allow Bathsheba to “bow low and kneel before the king?” (‘What is it you want?’ the king asked. - No rebuke from David, 1 Kings 1:16)
If bowing is idolatry, then why did David bow down to Saul and “prostrate himself with his face to the ground?” (1 Samuel 24:8)
If bowing is idolatry, then why did Abigal “bow down before David with her face to the ground? Why did she “fall at the feet” of David? (1 Samuel 25:23)
I conclude by quoting St. Luke, when Jesus prayed and was transfigured.
Because in that moment there was a supernatural intercession of saints.

Luke 9:28-31 King James Version (KJV)
And it came to pass about an
eight days[8 is the number of new beginnings] after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and
went up into a mountain[hint] to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his
countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and
Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should
accomplish at Jerusalem.


Is an intellectual comprehension of the gospel by the earthly mind required for salvation?

Can such a person still relate to God on a deep level in the
  spiritual/soul plane though facing limitations in the capacity of
  their earthly mind?

  Blesses are the pure in heart: for they will see God. (Matt 5:8)

God does not judge us by what we know. He judges us by what we love, and how much we love.

  We are saved or damned according to what we love. If we love God, we
  shall ultimately get God: we shall be saved. If we love self in
  preference to God then we shall get self apart from God:  we shall be
  damned. (Frank Sheed, Theology and Sanity)

Scripture isn't clear as to how exactly how a mentally handicapped person is saved (using "handicapped" in the modern sense of the word).  From the Apostolic period to relatively recent times mental disabilities and vegetative states of existence were addressed more as some sort of retribution from God.  Today the science of psychology and medicine have revealed much more depth about what causes these afflictions.

The closest Sacred Scripture comes to expliclty addressing the handicap of ingnorance is when Jesus speaks of children.

  Luke 18:17 - Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the
  kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

  Matthew 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be
  converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the
  kingdom of heaven.

  Mark 10:13-16 - And they brought young children to him, that he should
  touch them: and [his] disciples rebuked those that brought [them].
  (Read More...)

  Matthew 21:16 - And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And
  Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of
  babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

The Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church has no official policy about the sacraments and the developmentally disabled as such. The nearest parallel can be found in the principles relating to infant communion, specifically, the age of reason. According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Communion of Children:

  In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase means, not the
  attainment of a definite number of years, but rather the arrival at a
  certain stage in mental development, when children become able to
  discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize in some
  measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the Altar, to
  believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the sacramental
  veils.

Canon 913 states:

  §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires
  that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that
  they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and
  are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.

  §2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children
  in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from
  ordinary food and receive communion reverently.

Outside of Canon Law, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities states that:

  The criterion for reception of holy communion is the same for persons
  with developmental and mental disabilities as for all persons, namely,
  that the person be able to distinguish the Body of Christ from
  ordinary food, even if this recognition is evidenced through manner,
  gesture, or reverential silence rather than verbally. Pastors are
  encouraged to consult with parents, those who take the place of
  parents, diocesan personnel involved with disability issues,
  psychologists, religious educators, and other experts in making their
  judgment. If it is determined that a parishioner who is disabled is
  not ready to receive the sacrament, great care is to be taken in
  explaining the reasons for this decision. Cases of doubt should be
  resolved in favor of the right of the baptized person to receive the
  sacrament. The existence of a disability is not considered in and of
  itself as disqualifying a person from receiving the eucharist.

  It is essential that all forms of the liturgy be completely accessible
  to persons with disabilities, since these forms are the essence of the
  spiritual tie that binds the Christian community together. To exclude
  members of the parish from these celebrations of the life of the
  Church, even by passive omission, is to deny the reality of that
  community. Accessibility involves far more than physical alterations
  to parish buildings. Realistic provision must be made for persons with
  disabilities to participate fully in the eucharist and other
  liturgical celebrations such as the sacraments of reconciliation,
  confirmation, and anointing of the sick (Pastoral Statement of U.S.
  Catholic Bishops on Persons with Disabilities, November 1978; revised
  1989).

Speaking from  a parent's perspective with a child with autism, I have learned more from my son about living the Gospel by loving unconditionally than I ever could from any of the best theologians.  I've observed from working with disabled children in the field of Psychology that the more severely handicapped a child is, the more beatific their disposition - at least in most cases.

For more detailed resources about the implementation of programs that draw people with disabilities visit the National Catholic Partnership on Disabilities.


Which God do Muslims pray to according to Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant tradition?

Realistically, there are just 4 possibilities:

Christians and Moslems are praying to the same God. We all basically believe the same things and believe in the same God.
Christians and Moslems are praying to the same God. One or the other (or both) have wrong and confused ideas about God, but God is understanding of our ignorance.
There is more than one God, and Christians and Moslems are each praying to their own.
Christians are praying to the true God, and Moslems to a false and non-existant God, or vice versa.

Number 1 is very popular today, but is objectively and provably false. One need only read the Bible and the Koran, or listen to Christians describe their faith and Moslems describe their faith, to see that the two contradict each other on many important points.

Number 3 is logically impossible. Both Christians and Moslems believe there is only one God. If there is more than one God, then both Christianity and Islam are false and both are praying to a false God. We can't both be right. Either one is right and the other wrong, or we are both wrong.

That leaves 2 and 4. As this is christianity.stackexchange.com and not islam.stackexchange.com, let me proceed based on the assumption that Christianity is true. Then either Moslems are praying to a false, non-existant God, or they are praying to the true God even though they have many inaccurate beliefs about him.

Clearly God hears the prayers of Moslems in the literal sense, that is, he is aware that they are praying and knows what they are saying. But does he accept them as addressing himself?

I think that's very hard to say. Suppose you sent a letter to the president of the United States in which you made some request or suggestion. Would he reply positively? If you mis-spelled his name or showed ignorance about some unimportant fact about him, I doubt it would make a difference. If you indicated that you thought he was a Republican rather than a Democrat and asked him to do things to further Republican policies and hurt the Democrats, I don't think he'd agree to it just because you wrote him a letter. He'd recognize that the letter was intended for him, but so misunderstanding of his actual self, his plans and goals, as to be largely irrelevant.

In any case, Christians believe that salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. So whether God hears the prayers of Moslems as being to him and not to a false god, if Christianity is true Moslems are not saved, because they very clearly and explicitly reject Christ. That's surely the important point. If a Moslem prayed for God to lead him to truth, I think God would honor that, just as he would if a pagan or an atheist made such a prayer.

Addendum to my answer

After writing this, I happened to read the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. At one point: 'The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "... You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.' [John 4:19-22, NKJV]

Note that Jesus didn't say that the Samaritans worshipped a false God or that their worship was in vain because they had important facts about God wrong, he said, "You worship what you do not know". This seems to imply that God accepted their worship as sincere and legitimate despite their ignorance. I think that indicates that at least some cases of my option 2 above are possible.


Why are there passages in the Gospels where the Apostles are not present?

We know that Jesus said and worked many more miracles than are simply mentioned in the Gospels.

St. John’s last words of his Gospel admits as much.

  25 Now qthere are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that rthe world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - John 21:25

Just because the Gospels do not reveal everything or even how the Apostles became in possession of the events and conversations Our Lord had, when none of the Apostles where present is not hard to imagine.

There are basically just a few ways that the Apostles acquired this knowledge.

Either Our Lord revealed this to them himself and it is not mentioned in Scriptures as such. Or, the possibility that a third party revealed such information to the Apostles.

The Samaritan woman at the well was very talkative as the Gospels point out. She told everyone about Jesus. Perhaps she herself or one of the inhabitants from Sychar told the Apostles what happened. Again perhaps Our Lord told them after his resurrection! We may truly never know, while on earth, but then that is food for contemplation.

  39 Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” - John 4:38-42

As for Pilate’s conversation with Christ, it was not private. There were eyewitnesses! Did one of these tell the apostles what transpired between them or did Jesus mention it after his resurrection we may never know.

There is a tradition within some Christian denominations that Pilate’s wife became a believer and as such could have talked about it to Jesus’ Disciples!

  Pontius Pilate's wife is the unnamed spouse of Pontius Pilate, who appears only once in the Gospel of Matthew, where she intercedes with Pilate on Jesus' behalf. It is uncertain whether Pilate was actually married, although it is likely. In later tradition, she becomes known as Procula (Latin: Procula) or Procla (Ancient Greek: Πρόκλα) and plays a role in various New Testament Apocrypha. At a later date, she acquires the name Claudia Procula in Western tradition, as well as other names and variants of these names. She is venerated as a saint by the Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, and the Ethiopian Church. She has also frequently been featured in literature and film.

There are so many mysteries within the Scriptures and the Gospels in particular, that we have an endless source of contemplation and admiration as to try to even remotely understand how the Apostles know so much!

In the end, the Evangelists were convinced that this information would be useful for our edification and contemplation.

Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus!


Without Hell, from what does Jesus save?

"Liberal Christianity" is a loosely defined and wide-ranging group, and there can be many approaches to salvation, but let me describe a commonly believed approach.

While we often use the word 'salvation' as if it was synonymous with 'rescue', in the original languages it doesn't really mean that in a simple way. The word has connections with both 'healing' and 'wholeness'. It would be as reasonable to say that "Jesus heals us" or "Jesus makes us whole" as to say "Jesus saves us". In fact many 'liberal' Christians are driven by a desire to get away from a 'caricatured' Christianity, in which Jesus' only reason for coming was to make sure that we don't go to Hell when we die, and our only purpose on Earth is to tell other people how they can avoid Hell.

Thoughtful evangelicals will usually admit that Jesus does more than just rescue us from Hell. He restores our relationship with God and with each other; he saves us from the guilt which our sins have brought us; he heals us in body and mind, from broken-ness brought on not just by our own sin, but by others and by the world around us; he restores creation to the state God intended; he gives us "life in abundance". All of those things can be done not just in the future, but here and now, and all fall under the category of 'healing' or 'wholeness', and therefore also of 'salvation'. And he does them personally for each one of us.

Those are the sort of thing you will hear if you talk to a 'liberal' Christian about a Jesus who saves.


What denominations use the Revised Common Lectionary?

Speaking from the Episcopalian perspective, I can say that, a.) We use the RCL and b.) The Book of Common Prayer (BCP) includes a copy of the RCL references as well as a lectionary for the daily office readings. And the BCP is in the pews for sure.

As stated, a lectionary is often simply a list of scripture references. But it can certainly include the readings.


What is Christian about Christian Kabbalah?

As luck would have it, last year I read the theses of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494), who tried to integrate Kabbalah with a broadly Christian worldview. I don't know how much his approach is typical of later Christian use of Kabbalah - it strikes me as rather idiosyncratic, though I wouldn't be surprised if other writers followed his basic line of thought. I'm afraid I don't know enough about Kabbalah to identify specific differences between Christian and Jewish practitioners; my impression is that they are doing the same sort of thing at a broad level, even if their conclusions are different.
For Pico, recall that the scholastic project, associated par excellence with Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, was an effort to provide an integrated system of knowledge encompassing Christian revelation, classical philosophy, and the laws of nature. All of these present aspects of the divine law. Scholastic procedure is based on rational dialogue about texts and authorities, including the Bible, certain truths accessible to human reason, and the world itself. (For the universe as a book, compare Galileo in Il Saggiatore, though the concept is much older.) The method "works" - it allows us to learn true things and reject false things - because our reasoning faculties are founded in the divine order.
One of Pico's aims was to add Kabbalah into the mix. He saw it as a unique and powerful form of knowledge, revealed to Moses by God. It was intimately connected to the structure of the natural world, and to the Bible text, through gematria of the Hebrew language, and other forms of numerology. I think that for Pico, Kabbalah was not about the mystical journey of the soul; it was more like a new intellectual tool that could be applied to philosophical and theological problems. His "Cabalistic conclusions" (the last section of the Conclusiones sive Theses DCCCC) asserts that Kabbalah is a practical form of metaphysics (3rd thesis), and can only be worked through rational intellect (12th thesis). He thought that anyone who follows his procedures would be forced to admit the veracity of Christian doctrine on the Trinity and on Jesus, just as one is persuaded by any argument in scholastic disputation (5th thesis).
An example is the 32nd thesis, deriving a reference to Jesus from three OT texts (with my translation):

Si duplex aleph quod est in textu, Non auferetur sceptrum, etc. coniunxerimus ad duplex aleph, quod est in textu, Deus possedit me ab inicio, et ad duplex aleph, quod est in textu, Terra autem erat inanis, per viam Cabale intelligemus, ibi Jacob de illo vero Messia locutum, qui fuit Iesus Nazarenus.
If we join the double aleph which is in the text The sceptre will not be taken away, etc. [Genesis 49:10] to the double aleph which is in the text God possessed me from the beginning [Proverbs 8:22] and to the double aleph which is in the text But the earth was empty [Genesis 1:2], we may understand by the method of Kabbalah, that Jacob spoke there of the true Messiah, who was Jesus of Nazareth.

We see that the passage in Genesis 49, commonly understood as Messianic, is connected through a "Kabbalistic" hermeneutic to two other verses which both contain two aleph letters. The link is meant to show that the Messiah foreseen by Jacob is identified with Wisdom (the "me" of Proverbs 8:22) and with the creation (Genesis 1); this means he has to be a Messiah on the cosmic level, rather than a mere political hero. I imagine that the numerology of two alephs in three verses is also meant to indicate the two natures of Christ and the three persons of the Trinity - Pico doesn't spell this out, but it's very much the kind of thing he does elsewhere.
Pico also builds Christian interpretations into the Kabbalistic "Tree of Life". I don't know enough about the scheme to give any helpful comment on it. The whole thing is incredibly obscure - one might even say "esoteric".
In summary, this instance of Christian Kabbalah is about incorporating the "vocabulary" and methods of Kabbalah into the service of (1) Christian metaphysics, and (2) apologetics. It is seen as a sort of secret key to the way that the world works, beyond the traditional doctrinal and philosophical sources. Therefore, Kabbalistic practice is held to be useful in supporting Christian doctrine and convincing others of its truth. This obviously differs from the Jewish view.


According to Protestantism, why God did not inspire New Testament writers to explicitly assert Sola Scriptura?

Protestantism, as understood by the reformers and their legacy, were fully comfortable with a systematic theology that proceeds from exegesis. They did not consider it necessary to be able to point to a specific text for every single doctrine if they observed that the Bible as a whole taught a particular doctrine. It actually makes the affirmations weaker if they are taught on a proof-text basis since it implies that the doctrine rises or falls on the interpretation of a single text, which hardly any biblical doctrine really does. It is relatively easy for heretics to create plausible (though invalid) arguments to poke holes in any of the common proof-texts that threaten their views. The systematic theologies of the Reformation tended to uses texts for evidence, but not in an exact text-to-doctrine fashion that misses the big picture in the details.

The doctrine of "sola scriptura" is a pithy formulation to fit into the "five sola" scheme, but to address it more technically they were really addressing the fact that God is only known via his divine accommodation of the creator to the creature through general and special revelation. They would then parse out some clarifications and make their case for the primacy of special revelation above general revelation.

The foundations for sola scriptura come down to the belief that God's revelation is the only way to reliably know about God and how he wishes to be pleased and what he desires from us, and therefore what constitutes a reliable source of divine revelation, which leads to scripture alone.

The problem with questions of the form, "Why didn't God X" is that all of them are speculative. Unless God tells us his motivations, we don't know them and we would be fools to guess or to think that we can draw conclusions from them. There are boundless examples of things that we would think God would have done or not done if he really is this way or that, but those are not the ways that he did it.

Nevertheless, the reformers did not think they lacked a biblical basis for their sola scriptura beliefs. They didn't require explicit biblical statements to draw theological conclusions from the content of the Bible.


In Matt 21, he was talking to those disciples that were with him.  He was giving them a lesson about faith and doubt and that they can see those same results.

In Luke 17 it would appear he was also talking directly to his disciples but there were a lot of people about the place.

Is that the end of the story? no.

Does Jesus suggest that we can do those miracles today? I believe he does

Firstly, the 12 original Apostles were not the only ones doing miracles.  There were others who were sent out to do so.  See Luke 70.  Jesus commisions 70 to go out and...  "And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." - Luke 10:9.  And they did because they came back with a good with Joy saying even the devils are subject to them.

However, John 14 makes it pretty clear. The only qualifier is believe on Jesus. What were the works he was doing? healing the sick, casting out devils, raising the dead.

  12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works
  that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do;
  because I go unto my Father.

  13 And whatsoever you shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the
  Father may be glorified in the Son.

  14 If you shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Also the great commission in Mark 16 "go into all the world"... The only qualification is that signs will follow those who believe.  Some would argue that he's saying "those disciples" that were with him.  In that case, why preach the gospel since by that logic Jesus only told those disciples to do so.  No this is for those that believe.

  17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will
  cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[a] will
  take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no
  means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will
  recover.”

There is also an argument going around that says we have the whole bible so therefore we don't need miracles today. And the bible verse that is used to back that up is:

  1 Corinthians 13:8 - "Charity never faileth: but whether there be
  prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall
  cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know
  in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is
  come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

The claim is that that which is perfect is come and his name is Jesus and he's said on the cross - it is finished, therefore miracles are no longer needed.  However, this doesn't make sense.  Tongues have not ceased, prophesies are not failing and I'm sure everyone would agree knowledge is actually on the increase.

Nope, miracles are definitely for today and I've witnessed some big ones.

I should clarify.  Without God we're nothing. We can't do anything.  It's God doing the miracle, but he uses people.  He works through people.


What Conservative Catholic publication am I looking for?

There is the New Oxford Review, which is available online or in print.  I can imagine it being described by a liberal bishop as a 'defamatory screed,' but I can find no evidence of it on the site.

The National Catholic Register (U.S.) is a kind of conservative/orthodox counterbalance to the lamentably heterodox National Catholic Reporter.  Again, print edition offered.

It might help if you could remember what kind of publication it was -- news, commentary, etc.


Does the Roman Catholic church consider HIPAA to be an unjust law?

There's no clear-cut, doctrinal, or official Roman Catholic stance on HIPAA. In general, Catholic organizations willingly comply with HIPAA. To that point, a quick search shows a lot of Catholic organizations describing their members' rights under HIPAA.

More notably, if there were a doctrinal issue with a national policy like HIPAA on any grounds, that of subsidiarity or otherwise, I would expect to see a statement and/or resistance from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. For instance, there are numerous statements and commentaries opposing portions of the Affordable Care Act. Not so with HIPAA. The only mention on their site is a wellness document, in which the rationale for requiring "new sisters" to provide HIPAA and DPOA forms is summarized like so:

  We bind ourselves to the members of the community, trusting in their
  faithfulness to support us.

So, it seems to me that the USCCB, or whatever subsidiary this is, feels no need to object to these policies. And to the contrary is highly respectful of them, pointing out that the HIPAA release papers demand is justified by the intended level trust and support in their community, which implicitly makes the request a bit extraordinary. Whether that level of respect for HIPAA and medical privacy extends to every "application" may be a different matter.

So, there are two things to keep in mind:

Subsidiary is a single, vague social guideline among many; not an overarching, specific moral precept. Subsidiarity demands that we handle things as close to the issue as possible. But, the motivation to escalate to higher levels of community and government stem from the Catholic principle of solidarity. And both of these principles are meaningless without the context of another moral need or needs: In this case, the right to individual privacy, the responsibilities of a parent, and the obligations of medical practitioners.
The Church explicitly avoids speaking on most matters. You're expected to reason things out and use your conscience. There's a lot to think about. The specific issues you're familiar with may or may not be representative of the broader application. Without overanalyzing, acknowledge the complexity. And vocalize that our judgement if it seems imperative.

There may be moral issues with certain applications of HIPAA. Presently, the moral issues are either isolated or negligible enough in the eyes of the Catholic Church to warrant widespread Catholic compliance.

As to whether HIPAA erodes parental rights, maybe. Maybe not. With respect to parental rights and responsibilities, I would personally be inclined to argue in favor of HIPAA or HIPAA-like legislation for two reasons:

HIPAA allows kids to receive medical care without fear of disproportionate punishment and judgement. It's not all that dissimilar, in my opinion, from the seal of confession. Like every parent, I'm far from perfect. And we tend overreact and punish for more than an offense is worth. I don't want the fear parental overreaction to stand in the way of medical treatment. (Or spiritual treatment!)
My kids will know the Catholic stuff either way. They will make mistakes. Some of them may be downright egregious. But, they'll know my beliefs regardless of whether I'm informed enough to distribute a consequence for every mistake. And because I'm far from a perfect parent, far from an effective disciplinarian in emotional situations, it's probably better in some cases that I don't know what they've done, and rather allow the kids to reflect on their own actions based on what they know I/we believe.

And to the extent that any parent succeeds in charitably correcting their kids' behavior with due mercy, I presume the kids will be open about their lives. To the extent that any parent reacts selfishly, degrading, devaluing, or disproportionately punishing, I suspect that kids will be private about their sins.

HIPAA lets doctors do their work without forcing them to double as spies for parents. And it lets kids seek needed treatment without worrying that their doctor is a spy! And this agreement, I suspect, does not stand in the way of a healthy parent-child relationship.


What does it really mean [not able not to sin] according to Augustine?

"then logically this person still has the ability not to sin."

I think this is the logical answer from scripture as well. Neither X or Y are the correct biblical answer, and not just from the New Testament - from the Old Testament as well, and from the ante-Nicene Church that leans more toward Pelagian, free will and the ability to cease from sin.

Let's start with Man's nature however. God tells us explicitly what the curse was. In the Garden, after the sin of Eve - who then tempted Adam, God curses them in the order of their responsibility. The Serpent (Satan) first, then Eve, then Adam.

Let's go through that to understand the curse placed on mankind. Let's look for key concepts here that Augustine and his intellectual heirs claim.

1) Does God say man has lost free will?

2) Does God proclaim from this point forward that man cannot stop sinning?

The curse on Eve:

  Genesis 3:16 NASB - To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply
  Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet
  your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

the curse on Adam:

  Genesis 3:17-19 NASB - Then to Adam He said, "Because you have
  listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about
  which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed
  is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the
  days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
  And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face
  You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you
  were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

Nowhere in a plain reading of scripture from the curse do we see a loss of free will, and a transmission of sin through semen. (Traducionism) God cursed the women in childbirth, which is why Paul says this:

  1 Timothy 2:15 NASB - But [women] will be preserved through the
  bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity
  with self-restraint.

and God cursed man with labor pains over the now cursed Earth. The Earth was cursed for the sake of Adam's sin. We also see this as a truth in the very next chapter with Abel and Cain.

  Genesis 4:3-4 NASB - So it came about in the course of time that Cain
  brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on
  his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat
  portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering;

Abel brought His best, Cain brought the fruit of the ground - what type of fruit grows on the ground? I don't think the book of Jasher is inspired, but I do think they are correct in their interpretation here - that Cain brought rotten fruit to the alter of God.

In fact, we see the fruit of Abel's effort from Heb 11.

  Hebrews 11:4 NASB - By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice
  than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was
  righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though
  he is dead, he still speaks.

Abel's faith in God and free will moved Him to provide a better sacrifice to God than Cain provided. And Cain was moved toward jealousy of the love God showed Abel and moved toward temptation, evil desire -

  Genesis 4:5-7 NASB - but for Cain and for his offering He had no
  regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the
  LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance
  fallen? "If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And
  if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is
  for you, but you must master it."

According to God, immediately after the fall, and the curse - Cain had the ability to rule over the sinful desire. He had the ability to not sin, to not murder His brother. Any other interpretation of scripture here, denying Cain's God given ability makes God a liar. Let's say for instance, you take a hard determinism approach of the world, and that God causes everything to have foreknowledge. The logical implications of that are dreadful here. It means not only was God lying to Cain, but He had no actual ability to rule over His sinful desire as God told Him, but God ultimately caused Him to murder Abel.

As I stated from the beginning - this idea is not only contrary to the word of God, it's contrary to what the early Church taught and believed.

Tertullian:

  I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of
  his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who
  did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to
  law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin,
  if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his
  will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience of resistance.
  (c. 207, Vol. 3, pp. 300-301)

Irenaeus:

  ”Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
  deeds”…And ”Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things that I
  say?’…All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man…For
  it is in man’s power to disobey God and to forfeit what is good.”
  (c.180, Vol. 1, p. 519)

Ignatius:

  I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but
  all humanity is made the same, sometimes belonging to God and
  sometimes to the devil. If anyone is truly spiritual they are a person
  of God; but if they are irreligious and not spiritual then they are a
  person of the devil, made such not by nature, but by their own
  choice. Pg.61 vol. 1.

Now related to Birth before showing the passage from Clement, let's go to clear scripture on that from two sources, Moses and Ezekiel.

  Deuteronomy 1:39 NASB - 'Moreover, your little ones who you said would
  become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good
  or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall
  possess it.

  Ezekiel 18:20 NASB - "The person who sins will die. The son will not
  bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father
  bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the
  righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will
  be upon himself.

Clement:

  Thus although we are born neither good nor bad, we become on or the
  other and having formed habits, we are with difficulty drawn from
  them. Pg 273 vol.8

As you can see from scripture and the teachers prior to Augustine - the only conclusion is that both X and Y are incorrect. Man is born with free will, and prior to knowledge of sin, we are neither good nor evil - we are born with the ability to cease from sin, and that is what Paul means by being "free from sin" - not just the condemnation, but the desire.

Origen:

  Certain ones of those [Gnostic’s] who hold different opinions misuse
  these passages. They essentially destroy free will by introducing
  ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as
  being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost.

Now as for what Augustine logically meant?

I think He leaned toward the ability to never cease from sin, it's well known He remained in bondage to lust and sinful desires.


According to Catholicism how does a person discriminate between hearing the true word of God versus a hallucination or a demon?

Private Revelations and the Discernment of Spirits?

I am aware that this is a long post, but Fr.William Most does a very thorough job on this subject and it would be best to let him explain things here.

  Principles for the discernment of spirits

  What kind of Spirit is at work when someone receives a vision, a revelation, or a more routine favor? To determine this is called the discernment of spirits. It is of great importance to find the right answer. It is evident that there can be three sources: good spirit, evil spirit, auto-suggestion.

  Five causes of error in revelations

  1. Faulty interpretation of visions by the recipient.

  St. John of the Cross warns about this in Ascent of Mount Carmel II. 19. Thus St. Joan of Arc in prison had a revelation that she would be delivered by a great victory--it was her martyrdom, which she did not suspect.

  Prophecies of punishment, and promises of special favors should be considered as conditional. E.g., the Scapular promise should not be taken to refer to mere physical wearing of the Scapular: it must be, as Pius XII said, the outward sign of consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that is really lived. If it is used this way then even if the vision of St. Simon Stock might not be true, the promise will be fulfilled, as we explained earlier.

  2. Visions of the life and death of Christ, or other historic scenes, must be understood to be approximate only.

  Thus some saw Jesus with three nails, some with four. Blessed Veronica of Binasco saw the whole life of Christ, and so did St. Frances of Rome and Catherine Emmerich. The Bollandists, Jesuit experts in studying the lives of the Saints, tell us there are many historical errors in these.

  NOTE: Pope John XXIII, ordered The Poem of the Man God put on the index, on Dec. 16, 1960. The Index is now abolished, but Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter of Jan 31, 1985 wrote:..."The Index of forbidden books keeps all of its moral authority and therefore the distribution and recommendation of the work is considered improper when its condemnation was not made lightly but with the most serious motivation of neutralizing the harm which such publication could inflict on the more unwary faithful." So the Pontifical Imprimatur claimed for it is bogus.

  3. Human action may mingle with the divine action.

  St. Catherine Labouré foretold many events correctly, but failed on others. It is especially easy for this to happen with ideas that appeal to our own desires or fit with preconceived ideas. Benedict XIV (Heroic Virtue III. 14. p. 404) said: "The revelations of some holy women canonized by the Apostolic See whose saying and writings in rapture and derived from rapture are filled with errors."

  4. A true revelation may later be altered involuntarily by the recipient.

  This happens especially with intellectual locutions which need to be translated into words. Again, God may seem to promise a cure without saying if it is total or partial, sudden or slow, or even physical or moral. Again if a revelation is received in an instant, but it takes long to write it all down. St. Bridget admits such a thing in her own case.

  5. Secretaries may alter without intending to do so.

  The accuracy of the text is disputed in the works of Mary of Agreda, Catherine Emmerich, and Mary Lataste. It has been shown that 32 passages from the latter have been taken word for word from St. Thomas' Summa Theologiae.

  Similarly, compilers sometimes modify them. The first edition of Catherine Emmerich had St. James the Elder present at the death of the Blessed Virgin. When it was seen that this was incompatible with Acts of Apostles, it was dropped from later editions.

  Five Causes of False Revelations

  1. Pure bad faith, fakery.

  Magdalen of the Cross was a Franciscan of Cordova, born in 1487, who entered a convent at age of 17. From the age of 5 the devil appeared to her as various Saints, led her to desire to be considered a saint. At 13 he said who he was, offered an agreement: he would spread her reputation for holiness, and give her at least 30 years of pleasures. She agreed, and it all came true--ecstasies, levitation, prophecies, simulated stigmata. At door of death she confessed. Exorcism was needed.

  2. Overactive imagination.

  We said above that human faculties may mingle with the divine action. Someone may imagine a saint is near him. He may imagine intellectual locutions. Cf. St. John of Cross, Ascent II. 29. St. Teresa said (Interior Castle 6.6) that if one has once had a real vision, he will recognize the deception.

  Hallucinations can come from excess in abstinence, fasting, and vigils.

  3. Illusion in thinking one remembers things that never happened.

  Some may imagine they have had visions. Some invent stories and convince themselves--in good faith. Some relate trips to far lands where they have never been. The line between imagination and reality is dim in young children--something similar can happen later too. This is not rare. If a spiritual director finds his advice has little effect, there is reason for seeing illusion. Some make false charges in courts in this way.

  4. The Devil may give false visions or revelations.

  We saw this in the case of Magdalen of the Cross.

  5. Predictions by falsifiers.

  Some make these at first for their own amusement, then find they have a tiger by the tail. St. Bonaventure (De profectu religiosorum III. 76) said he was fed up with such things, on the troubles of the Church and the end of the world. During the great Western Schism at end of 14th century, there were many holy mortified men who had false revelations, and even thought they would be the pope. At fifth Lateran Council in 1516 Leo X had to publish an order prohibiting preachers from giving public prophecies. There were many during the French Revolution, clear and in detail on the past, vague on the future.

  In 19th century there was an epidemic of prophecy especially on "the great Pope and the great King" inspired by the 17th century commentary on the Apocalypse by Ven. Holzhauser. Pius IX in an Allocution of April 9, 1872 said: "I do not give much belief to prophecies, because those especially that have come recently do not deserve to be read."

  What degree of certainty or probability is possible?

  1. When God so wills, He can give full certainty to the recipient. We who are not the recipients can also be sure of revelations given to another, e.g. , the OT prophets, for they furnished certain signs of their mission. This can be done by miracles worked in a framework in which a tie is made between the miracle and the claim.

  2. Beyond this area, probability is the most that is attainable. We need then to work with various signs. We should: (a) Get detailed information on the person to whom the revelation seems to have been made; and on what facts seem to have been revealed.

  Often we must work by exclusion, i.e. , show that it comes not from the devil, nor from the human mind. But psychology still cannot give full replies on some things that seem supernormal operations of the human mind: hypnotism, somnambulism, telepathy, thought-reading, etc. For data on the uncertainties of psychology see Richard M. Restak, [Neurologist in Washington D. C. ] "See no Evil. The Neurological defense would blame violence on the damaged brain" in The Sciences, July/August 1992, pp. 16- 21.

  3. Inquiries to be made about the alleged recipient:

  (1) If the person is canonized, the Church has already checked--but canonization does not guarantee the truth of any supposed revelation given to the Saint.

  (2) If not canonized:

  (a) What are the natural qualities or defects, physical, intellectual, and moral. Is he sincere, cool-headed, of sound judgment, of perfect mental equilibrium. Or is his mind weakened by poor health, vigils, fasts etc.

  (b) Degree of education of the recipient--what books he has read, what information he may have picked up from other more learned persons.

  Much care is needed. Some say that Mary of Agreda was an ignorant girl. But she could read, knew the Bible well, and Cardinal Gotti showed several of her revelations were borrowed from a 15th century book, The Raptures of Blessed Amadeus. And she admits the help of theologians. Yet she said, in exaggeration: "No human mind could have imagined this work" (III, # 789).

  (c) What virtues does the person have? What was his general level before and after the alleged revelation? If a great advance in holiness is seen, and it seems to have come from the revelation, there is good probability for the revelations. We think of the Fatima children. But if the seer has stayed at the ordinary level of virtue, the visions come under some suspicion, for would God use extraordinary means to lead to a merely ordinary state of holiness? Exception: God might use an ordinary person to help others. The message of Fatima for example would have ample justification even if the children had not become holy: this message God wanted given to the world. And the three things asked for are theologically sound and called for independently of any revelation.

  (d)We need to watch out for the work of satan--he may really promote good things for a while, provided that in the long run he gains. The revelations of Necedah, Wi. seemed to have good fruits, yet were false. Rosaries were said to change to gold. Similarly for Bayside. But disobedience showed them false. St. Margaret Mary was told by Our Lord: (Autobiography, #57):"Listen, My Daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for he has no power over the obedient."

  Sometimes satan urges people to immoderate penances, so that they will in time give up. He may make contemplatives desire the active life, or vice versa. Blessed Jordan of Saxony, second General of the Dominicans, contracted a high fever. He had a prior skilled in medicine who told him to sleep on a soft bed. But satan appeared to Jordan in the night and rebuked his self-indulgence. Jordan gave into this two nights. But the third night Jordan saw that he should obey his doctor, and so did. Jordan had previously put himself under obedience to the doctor.

  (e) Humility is a major key. Satan has the greatest horror of it. (Cf. the above words of Our Lord to St. Margaret Mary.) Yet satan can lead a person to false humility. Pride shows in contempt for others, in an independent spirit as to the Superior and the spiritual director, in obstinacy in opinions, in refusal to submit to examinations (cf. Teresa Neumann), in anger. It shows too in desiring to publish the graces the person thinks he has received--when it is not necessary. Humility leads to wanting to hide them, except in cases of real usefulness.

  (f) Has the person claimed revelations before? Made predictions that were not fulfilled? If there was no reason to suppose the failed predictions were conditional, then they will seem not of divine origin.

  (g) Has the recipient suffered great trials before or after the revelation, such as sicknesses, contradictions, lack of success. Extraordinary graces are very likely to bring great trials, as St. Teresa of Avila remarked, (cited above), in Interior Castle 6. 9. It is specially likely that the recipient will encounter skepticism or hostility. Bl. Juliana of Liege was chosen by God to establish the Feast of the Blessed Sacrament. Visions on it began two years after her entering the novitiate at age 16 in 1208. Only 22 years later did she dare to submit her project to some learned theologians, who approved it, but her enemies got revenge by pillaging her convent. In 1256 the Bishop of Liege established the Feast in one parish in his diocese, but died the same year. The convent was again pillaged. She was calumniated, forced to leave the convent, wandered during the last 20 years of her life, and died at age 66 after fruitless work for 50 years. Finally Pope Urban IV established the feast a century after the start of the revelations.

  Yet not always do such things happen. St. Catherine Labouré had early success with the Miraculous Medal.

  (h) Has the recipient been fearful of deception, open to Superiors or Director, and never desired revelations? St. Teresa of Avila was told in a vision to found a reformed Carmelite house, but yet did nothing until she had consulted four advisors (Autobiography 32). Mary of Agreda is quite the opposite. St. Ignatius in his rules for first Week, 13, says satan tries to keep the person from being open. St. Monica as St. Augustine reports desired revelations about his coming marriage; they were false (Confessions 6. 13). So if a revelation has been desired that alone makes it doubtful. This is especially so if answers of pure curiosity are desired or answers to scholastic questions. Mary of Agreda was imprudent here, and was encouraged in imprudence by her confessors.

  (i) It is probably good to employ the testimony of expert psychologists as to ecstatic states etc. However, psychology is not so solid and exact a science that absolute trust should be placed in their results. - Private Revelations


What place do ritual and ceremony have in the church today? (Non-Liturgical POV)

As a Protestant evangelical under the New Covenant in contrast to Jews under the Old Testament, or various forms of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox denominations, the answer is pretty clear comparatively - ritual and ceremony have almost no place in the church today.

At the top level of the idea this is merely a division between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.  For most Protestants there are only two rituals   enshrined under the word 'sacrament' which force an external observation that would not necessarily occur spontaneously out of worship for God. These two rituals are baptism and the Lord's supper.  In contrast to this I do not know how many sacraments existed under the Old Testament but would imagine if they were counted it would be over a hundred.

So why the transition by God of over a hundred sacraments to two? A common starting point is often traced to Jesus himself who predicted how things would be aft he died, but left it to the Apostles to have those things revealed to them and subsequently taught by them after Christ ascended into heaven.

You will recall that all the ritual and ceremony of the Old Covenant was integrated and based upon worship in the temple of God on Mount Zion. In predicting the new order of things Jesus said:

  Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “ Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. (John 4:20-23, ESV)

Notice Jesus made a contrast between the location of worship and its implied rituals with the 'truth' and 'in Spirit'.  Clearly Jesus was contrasting the 'external form' of religion with the inward 'truth' of it.  This contrast of ritual verses truth, implied that the ritual was within the old order primarily to foreshadow the reality but the worshippers often never had the reality within themselves. That is the point of ritual, it does not rely on the spontaneous sincerity of the people but prescribes an external rule.

This foundational statement of Christ is further established by the church in Acts that broke away from ceremony but in stead practiced brotherly love and community within peoples family homes.  Furthermore the Apostles established this freedom form ritual and the need to have genuine love in the Spirit in their writings and when referring to the God ordained rituals of the past said things like:

  For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. (Hebrews 10:1, ESV)

As far as subsequent traditions and ceremonies that may have been established in churches such as when performing marriage, burial, etc. These are not to be made inflexible rules but for those cultures that find more meaning with more structure around them, let them be free to enjoy such structure and form those who enjoy less structure and ceremony let them enjoy less.  The Apostles always relied on brother love and forbearing with each other's differences and the rule of church government.  It was only later that some denominations took upon the form of pagan governments designed to enforce top down authority as like a Monarchy.

Regarding those churches who do enforce top down government and want to return to many outward forms, most Protestants feel it is a betrayal of the Spirit of Christ and the liberty of the gospel so that it is a denial of the inward reality in accordance with predicted apostasy of the church among many:

  having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. (2 Timothy 3:5)

Therefore although some tradition is alright and may be highly valuable to some, the external forms of tradition rather than the invisible doctrinal forms, are often considered the enemy of Christ if they become abundant and made mandatory as this opposes 'the spirit and the truth' in the gospel.


Jehovah's Witnesses believe adultery is the only appropriate reason for divorce.

"You have heard the law that says, 'A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a written notice of divorce.'
But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery.
Matthew 5:31-32

You stated you had not committed adultrey (before @AffableGeek removed that). Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses would say the divorce is unjustified. This can be grounds disciplinary actions (though it appears your husband has already undergone that).
This is true regardless of the spouse's faith.
If the spouse actively prevents the other from following God, or is abusive, divorce is somewhat acceptable. But in this case, the person may not remarry while the spouse is alive, or else they are guilty of adultery. It is more of a separation than a divorce.


What did the Dominicans have against the immaculate conception?

It's a little bit of medieval politics centered around St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas had a strong connection to the Dominicans, having received the habit of St. Dominic twice (it's a long, unrelated story) and defending them in a dispute between the friars and the University at which he received his Doctorate of Theology. His works became part of the core teachings of the Dominican order, especially after his death.

Now, St. Thomas was commonly believed to have opposed the idea of the Immaculate Conception, stating in the Summa:

  The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a "perfect cleansing," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.

Fast-forward a few years later to when Bl. Duns Scotus starts to formulate the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as we know it today. He provided the biggest defense of the Immaculate Conception to date; or as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:

  He showed that the sanctification after animation — sanctificatio post animationem — demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin.

Gradually, all the universities and orders began to adopt Scotus's position. The Dominicans, on the other hand, were obliged to follow their brother Thomas (who formed much of their order's early theology), rejecting Scotus's "workaround." It took a few hundred more years of interpreting St. Thomas's works until they eventually came around.

In hindsight, it appears that people were working off of different terms, or as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:

  In the thirteenth century the opposition was largely due to a want of clear insight into the subject in dispute. The word "conception" was used in different senses, which had not been separated by careful definition. If St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and other theologians had known the doctrine in the sense of the definition of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders instead of being its opponents.


Are there any other early non-canonical nativity accounts besides the Gospel of James?
There are not many non-canonical nativity accounts from the Early Church, but a few do exist other the the Gospel of James.

Apocryphal Sources for the Nativity
Even with the information in the two Gospels combined, Matthew and Luke provide us with relatively few details about the Nativity event. A curious reader—or an artist wishing to create a Nativity—is left with many unanswered questions. For example, from Luke we learn that there was no room for the family in the “inn” (Greek = kataluma, sometimes translated “guest house”), so the baby was laid in a manger. But was the manger located in a stable, a cave, or perhaps on the ground floor of a house? Since a manger is a trough for feeding livestock, what kinds of animals might have been nearby? How many wise men (Greek = magoi) came to present gifts to Jesus? And what adventures might the family have faced during their flight into Egypt to escape Herod’s persecution?
Answers to questions like these can be found in a group of texts written during the first thousand or so years of Christianity known as the New Testament Apocrypha. As the word apocrypha (“hidden”) suggests, these writings have not been recognized by church authorities as being part of the official canon of the New Testament. In fact, due to their dubious historical content and fanciful tone, the early church often discouraged people from reading them. But the New Testament Apocrypha, some of which were written as early as the second century, maintain many of the essentials of the Christian message, while at the same time providing additional details, color, and drama. In fact, because people were eager for more information about the birth and early life of Jesus, a special genre of apocryphal literature developed, now called “infancy Gospels.” Many of the visual elements we associate with Nativity scenes today come from details provided in these early Christian writings.
For a long time the best known published source for the apocrypha in English was The Apocryphal New Testament: Being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses with Other Narratives and Fragments by M.R. James (1924); this has now been updated by J.K. Elliott with The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (1993). In addition, some of the best known apocryphal texts with information about the Nativity and infancy of Christ are available on the Web in older English translation. Links to three of these are below:

The Infancy Gospel of James (2nd century)

The Arabic Infancy Gospel (5th-6th century)

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (8th or 9th century)

There is also the Gospel of Thomas (130-180 AD).

The Gospel of Thomas (130-180 AD)
This late non-canonical text was first discovered in 1945 as part of a large collection of papyri excavated near Nag Hammadi in Egypt. It is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, written in the Coptic language, and attributed to a conversation recorded by “Didymos Judas Thomas”.
The History of Joseph the Carpenter (400-480 AD)
Like The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and The Infancy Gospel of James, The History of Joseph the Carpenter is another example of non-canonical legend that was created in order to answer questions about the life of Jesus. Many details of Jesus’ life prior to the age of twelve were left unaddressed in the canonical Gospels, and several late non-canonical works were created in order to satisfy the growing desire for additional information. This text is written as a message from Jesus on the Mount of Olives in which he talks about the life of His stepfather, Joseph. The text relies heavily on The Infancy Gospel of James for its content, but not much is known about the exact origin of The History of Joseph the Carpenter. Scholars believe that the text was written in Egypt (as late as the 5th century) and two versions of the text have survived, one written in Coptic and one written in Arabic. In addition to this the text seems to neatly address issues raised in other Nag Hammadi documents such as The First Apocalypse of James.

Apart from the Apocrypha, the Pagan Sibyls of old prophesied about the coming of Christ and his infancy.
The word Sibyl means Prophetess, and this word was originated from Greek. Here follows the five Sibyls in question:

Erythrean Sibyl appears as the one who has prophesied the Redemption in arts.
Persian Sibyl seems to be the priestess who occupied over Apollo Oracle.
Libyan Sibyl was priestess who was the presiding over Zeus Ammon Oracle.
Cumaean Sibyl was the pristess who were the head of the Apollo Oracle at Cumae.
Delphic Sibyl was a figure who made prophecies at Delphi.


How do Christians who adhere to the maxim “in essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; and in all things charity” determine what is essential?

The maxim “in essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; and in all things charity” is widely embraced by many Protestant churches (Church of England/Anglican, Methodist, Evangelical Presbyterian, Moravian, etc.). The phrase in its current form is found in Pope John XXIII's encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram of 29 June 1959, where he uses it favorably.  In the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline, the phrase appears in the doctrinal history section: 57 as "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity." A few lines later, the mandate is emphasized as "the crucial matter in religion is steadfast love for God and neighbor, empowered by the redeeming and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit."  (Taken from the Wikipedia article you based your question on.)
That is possibly the short answer to your question.  However, it’s not as simple as that, more is the pity. Before moving on to doctrinal issues, please be aware that failure by one denomination to accept the essential doctrines upheld by Christian churches does not necessarily “warrant the rupture of the unity”.  What it suggests is that some denominations are perceived to be outside of the unity of Christian churches who uphold fundamental Christian doctrines.  Let’s focus on the main part of your question, “how do Christians determine what is essential?”  We need to compare the earliest Christian beliefs with what we have now to establish what is considered “essential”.
The first documented creed on the Christian faith is known as the Apostles’ Creed, written about 150 years after the death of the apostles.  It in, we have the fundamental beliefs of Christianity:
•   God the Father Almighty, Creator
•   Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord
•   Conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary
•   Crucified, died, was buried, resurrected and ascended into heaven
•   Sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty
•   Will return to judge the living and the dead
•   The Holy Spirit, the Church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body and life everlasting
Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-creed.html
Later, in A.D. 325 comes the Nicene Creed: https://www.gotquestions.org/Nicene-creed.html
Moving on to A.D. 1571 we have the 39 Articles of the Church of England, adopted by Anglicans and Episcopalians.  Below are the main doctrines:
•   Trinity – Three Persons within the Godhead
•   Jesus – the Word or Son of God – from everlasting, begotten, not created
•   The Holy Ghost – proceeding from the Father and the Son
•   Jesus – died, buried, resurrected, ascended into heaven, and will return to judge humanity
•   Sufficiency of Holy Scripture for Salvation
•   Of the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed
•   Of sin, free will, justification (by faith alone), predestination, election and the Church
Source: https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion
More recently, we have the basic beliefs of the United Methodist Church which include:
•   The Triune God – one God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit
•   The Bible – the inspired word of God
•   Sin – all humans are sinners
•   Salvation through Jesus Christ
•   The Grace of Sanctification
•   The Sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion
•   Free will and Social Justice
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church#Doctrine
What Christians have in common is based on the Bible, which all Christians believe is the inspired Word of God.  Essential to Christian doctrine is the holiness of God, our creator, the eternal relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and an acceptance that we are all sinners who can only be saved because of what God, in Jesus, has done to pay the price of sin.  All Christians believe in the virgin birth, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the judgment to come.  Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, those who believe in Him can receive forgiveness and be sanctified by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  They are adopted into God’s family and are spiritually “born again” which results in a transformed life, a life that produces the fruit of the Spirit.  Faith in God, in Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit are foundational to Christianity.
Any denomination that denies the inspiration of Scripture must remain outside the unity of Christianity; likewise, any denomination that denies the sinful condition of humanity, and the need to repent and believe in Christ Jesus as the only way to God.  The last word (written before the end of the first century) belongs to Jude:

I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.  For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.  They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. (Jude verses 3-4; cf. 2 Peter 2:1-3).

Finally, in light of the comment left by Paul Chernoch, I realise that this brief and simple outline is far from complete.  No doubt others will be able to add to it and explain it better.  It is not my purpose to argue doctrine with others, merely to present some of the “essentials” of Christian unity as you have requested.  There is liberty to be experienced with like-minded fellow believers, even though we do not necessarily agree with every point of view.  That’s where we exercise charity, to put into practice the love of God that we have received and experienced.


What are the Six Prophetic & Apostolic Proclamations to the World?

Proclamations from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 1

1841 A Proclamation to the Saints Scattered Abroad source
1845 Proclamation to the Leaders of the World source
1865 A Proclamation of why leaders encouraged destroying the book "Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the prophet and his Progenitors for Many Generations" source
1980 (sesquicentennial anniversary) concerning [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's] progress, its doctrine, its mission, and its message source
1995 The Family: A Proclamation to the World source
2020 The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: A Bicentennial Proclamation to the World 1

1 Prophet Introduces a New Proclamation to the World: “The Restoration of the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”


Who is permitted to write a canon or an akathist hymn to a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and how is it done?

Since the Internet became widespread, in Romania tens, if not hundreds, of new akathists started to circulate on the web.

Many of them are written in praise of many men and women, not sanctified officially yet, most of them priests, monks and nuns but also common people, which were martyred or brutally tortured by the communist regime of the 20th century for not denouncing their faith and embracing state atheism, for aiding christian dissidents, for opposing destruction of churches etc.

The position of the Church on these akathists is not hostile at all, but rather advising restraint and reading them with great care as although they may be rooted in profound faith and goodwill, many of them contain dogmatic errors, and even biographical errors, not to mention that, although they lived saintly lives, most of these people are not officially sanctified yet.

So, to answer your question, no one in the Church should stop you from writing your own akathists. On the contrary, I'd expect quite the opposite. I'm pretty sure that my father confessor would be thrilled if I would tell him I have such inclinations, unfortunately I don't have the skills needed :)

If you plan to go ahead with this, keep in mind the following:

The akathist has to be dedicated to an officially recognized saint or to Jesus, the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary etc.
If you want to publish your akathists (or any writings related to Orthodoxy) in a book approved by the Church (meaning that it will have a prologue containing a blessing by your bishop), it must be verified for dogmatic and biographical consistency. Ask your father confessor where and how to apply for such proofing. (And no, you don't have to be a clergyman to get the blessing from the Church to publish religious writings, there are tons of lay persons out there publishing all kinds of approved Orthodox books).
Don't forget that akathists are prayers. Discuss seriously your intentions with your father confessor, he'll know best how to guide you to achieve the proper spiritual mood needed for such a task.

As for entering liturgical practice, I'm pretty sure that only time and the reader's response will tell. According to the Church's history, the first akathist (of the Theotokos) was written in 626 by Sergius I, Patriarch of Constantinople, and it is widespread throughout the entire Orthodox world. Other akathists are not as widespread and recited in monasteries only. Others, like the ones mentioned above, are widespread throughout Romania only (I'm sure russians, serbs, greeks etc. have similar ones). And finally, many others probably faded away with the passing of time.


What's the main point of supplication prayers?

I think prayer (especially supplication prayer) is one of those things that can't be removed from the context of the Gospel, and then properly understood.

First, God desires to have a relationship with us.  This is the whole reason he sent Jesus.  He loves us enough, even though we are born with our fist to the sky against him, to send Jesus to die.  It's against this context that we look at prayer.  If he loves us this much, doesn't it stand to follow that he wants to have a relationship with us?  (The answer is yes.)  If this is the case, then praying for another person isn't a burden, it's a privilege and a joy provided only to those who can approach the throne of grace with confidence. (Hebrews 4:16)

Next, in this relationship, he wants us to acknowledge his complete and total provision for us.  He, being the creator of everything, has, by definition, given us absolutely every good thing we have (James 1:17: Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.)  It's in this truth that he desires to be glorified, as a God who provides all good things.

Prayer must be seen as more than simply "what we can get by asking", because God gives us several things that we never ask for, such as breath when we're young, friends, sunshine, etc.  So if that's the case, it leads me to a couple of conclusions: First, God desires to bless us (Matt 7:7) (I walk a thin line here... I'm not talking about "prosperity Gospel" here.  He gives us what he knows is best for us, not what we think is best for us.)  And second, God asks us to pray in supplication, because he wants to bless us, and he wants to be seen, rightly, as the one who blesses.  It's a way he can build our dependency on him.

Ask any dad.  They know what their children want before the ask, but they want their kids to ask, so that when the provide their children with what they want, their children are thankful for the provision.  If the provision is given without the asking, the gratitude is far less likely to happen, because we're inherently selfish people.  Christianity is like growing up in reverse.  Instead of us learning to be more independent, we learn to be more dependent upon God.  The strongest Christian is the one who is the most dependent on God, and least dependent on self.

Now for the meat of the question: Why should other people pray for other people, when we can pray for ourselves. I think this again comes down to relationship.  Praying for someone else means you set aside your own selfish thoughts for a while, and think about somebody else.  Praying for somebody else means you come alongside that person and acknowledge that you're "on their side", and you too would like to see God's provision for that person's life, and you're likely to rejoice with that person when God does provide.  It's a way to communally love one another and share in someone else's sufferings.

So prayer is more a tool that changes the one praying than it does the circumstances around the prayer.  It leads us into dependence on God, and into community with one another.  It binds the church to God, and binds the church members to one another, encouraging unity within the church.  Paul's mission, and ours as well, should therefore do more than simply spread the Gospel to the unbelieving, unknowing world, it should also help to grow the Gospel within those who believe. Supplication for others helps that.


How does our work on this earth transfer into the new earth when God returns?

John 3:5,6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus here is instructing Nicodemus, which in verse 10 He says: “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”  The interesting thing here is that Jesus is chastising Nicodemus for not knowing that one has to be “born again” before His (Christ’s) completed work on the cross.
In the book of Hebrews chapter 11 we know that those that lived before the cross received a good report by faith.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
First Corinthians 3:13-15 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The Book of Life appears to be an eternal genealogy, where the “books” seem to record ones life works, either born of the Holy Spirit or conceived and born outside of the will of God the Father and of the Holy Spirit.
So in answer to the question: Fire is the agent that separates eternal substance from temporal substance, this is also true with our life works as well.  Fire typically depicts God's judgement.


Understanding of "clean" and "unclean" animals before dietary laws

God never revealed the basis for His distinction between clean and unclean animals

This is an assumption, and it may well be false. All we know is that such a revelation is not recorded in the Bible. In fact, the passage in question can be seen as evidence that God did revealed dietary laws to individuals such as Noah before revealing it to Moses and the Israelites. Because, as you observed, how else would he be able to understand this instruction?

That the distinction between clean and unclean was written in Noah's heart (and by inference, in our hearts) is only one speculative explanation. That God did explicitly reveal it, another. We  don't know with absolute certainty, since the Bible is silent on this matter.

That Noah received direct revelation in this matter is plausible in light of the fact he is recorded to have received a substantial amount of direct revelation - all of which, presumably, may not be recorded in its entirety.

  Does it mean the understanding of clean and unclean animals is common / written in our hearts?

As we have no certainty about the previous point, you are left to speculation on this point as well. The Bible makes no explicit statement about this question.


Why does LDS teaching say that the Priesthood returned to earth if John never left?

John still held the priesthood during that time (as did the three Nephites who were given the same blessing as John), but the function of the priesthood was limited to his particular, ministerial duties. In other words, the fulness of the Priesthood was not active because its keys did not remain on the earth.

John was not called to be the President of the Lord's church, and thus didn't hold all the keys to the Priesthood. Those keys needed to be restored so that a new prophet (President of the Church) could be called. Peter, James and John together could do this, because they were commissioned by Christ; and Peter, as the president of the primitive Church, held the keys and could confer them.


The chronology of Genesis in relation to language

Genesis 10, called the Table of Nations, gives a long list of the various descendants of Noah and his sons. Christians debate whether we are to understand the various nations as actually being named after Noah's grandsons and great-grandsons or whether they're just representative, but as a whole that's what it indicates. Chapter 10 is not a narrative, it is a genealogy, like chapter 5 before it, and chapter 11:10-32 after it, and more after that.

Chapter 11:1-9, the story of the tower of Babel, is a narrative explaining how the languages were confused and the descendants of Noah dispersed.

Each genealogical section in Genesis is in order, as are all its narrative sections, however these different genres overlap in what they cover. Whether you want to call that "non-chronological" is up to you.