Eastern Orthodoxy: what is the difference in character between each of the 8 modes?

Byzantine Modes

What does each individual mode convey? What are the goals of expression?

First, I have to explain one small part of the music. Modes 1-4 in Byzantine music, are each a unique scale, while modes 5-8 are a derivation of such, being called Plagal modes. Most often the modes are called 1st-4th mode, and then Plagal First mode, Plagal Second mode, Grave Mode, and Plagal Fourth mode. I won't go into why 7th is called Grave mode since that would probably bring in too much music theory. At times and in my sources you might also see the modes called 1st-8th tones. I won't go into that either; suffice it to say some think mode is a better translation of ἦχος while others think tone is. I'm going to stick with modes and use the plagal names.
(Savas 42)

Second, just as a good place to start, I'm going to group the modes into their families:

Diatonic: contains 1st mode, Plagal 1st, 4th, and Plagal 4th.
Chromatic: contains 2nd and Plagal 2nd mode.
Enharmonic: contains 3rd and Grave Mode.

These three families were

  formed by diverse Greek peoples according to the character of each of them. [They were] used by the church in its music, as agreeing wholly with the spirit (pneuma) and character of Christianity. (Savas 41)

It may not have been entirely necessary to group them like that, but I think it groups the overall qualities of the modes as you'll see below, and explains origins a little as well.

Characters of the modes

OK, now while there's no dogmatic character quality for each mode, the general character of the modes can be determined to a point. According to Savas I. Savas (from 53):

Diatonic Modes

1st mode is distinguished by its axiomatic, magnificent, happy and earthly character
Plagal 1st mode is distinguished by its merciful, stimulating and dancing-like character
4th mode is distinguished by its festive, dance-like, and joyous character
Plagal 4th mode: the humble style, the appeasing, the sufferings distinguish this mode

Chromatic Modes

2nd mode is distinguished by its moving, languid, and graceful character
Plagal 2nd mode is distinguished by its funeral-like character and in general its sorrowful tone

Enharmonic Modes

3rd mode is distinguished by its arrogance, bravery, and mature air
Grave mode is distinguished by its manly character and by its strength of melody

If you noticed, Savas grouped the modes into their families. As you can see each of the modes that are related in family, have similar qualities to them.

However, from here things could get a lot more complicated. Each mode can be sung in different styles: sticheraric, heirmologic, etc, changing the tempo of a piece, not through literal rhythm per se, but through a whole change in cadence formula, the amount of notes per syllable, and so on. Often a mode might change from say diatonic to hard chromatic for a certain section.

For a lot of info on musical formulas see the Divine Music Project

We could also go a few other directions, such as aligning each mode with its western mode and thence getting a characteristic interpretation from someone like Guido D'Arezzo. Using this the modes would be:

Diatonic Modes

1st Serious, lends to any feeling, quite happy and very skillful to tame the passions of the soul
Plagal 1st Sad, serious and tearful, much adapted to provoke tears
4th Angelical, belongs to the youth, where pleasure and sadness meet
Plagal 4th The perfect one, to wisdom, has to be very glad

Chromatic Modes

2nd Makes happy, causes happiness and pleasure to those who are in sadness
Plagal 2nd Devout, tearful and pious

Enharmonic Modes

3rd Mystic, Vehement, effective to incite anger
Grave Harmonious, has tender effects

(Savas, Canticum)

However, you can see that these two different interpretations don't line up for every mode. I'm of the mind that this second interpretation is better for Gregorian Chant.

Russian Modes

Here things are quite a bit different. Though there have been several types of Russian Chant (Znamenny chant is a different story), what is used most today has been greatly influenced by the European west most especially during the 17th-18th centuries (Simmons). What has come out is much different in that it is Polyphonic as opposed to the Byzantine Monophonic style, i.e. 4 part harmony as opposed to a single melody line with supporting ison.

While the role of a chanter in the Byzantine style is:

  not to impose on the chant any personal meaning or emotion, but to realize in song the meaning and the feeling that are there in the text and the music. (Melling 26)

Russian chant, influenced by the west is very much about bringing out the physical emotions. It's Renaissance style. As Metropolitan Eugene of Kiev said:

  they have often disregarded the sanctity of the place and subject of their compositions, so that, generally speaking, it is not the music which is adapted to the sacred words, but instead the words are merely added to the music and often in a contrived manner. Apparently, they wanted more to impress their audience with concert-like euphony than to touch the hearts with pious melody, and often during such compositions the church resembles more an Italian opera than the house of worthy prayer to the Almighty. (Drillock)

Now while I find that a little harsh, I'm also finding it hard to speak about the goals of Russian Common Chant in the same way as Byzantine. This isn't just about me not being able to find any sources, though that's part of it. In the Russian modes (maybe in this case more correctly tones), several are in the same scale and there is none of the correlation between modes we see in Byzantine. This means we can't break them into the families or relate all of them to the Western Modes which have general characteristics e.g. per D'Arezzo. Some of them could be shown to have equivalent scales, but I can't do that right now, nor can I find a source that has.


What does "the saints are not keepers of the law, but legislators" mean?

"The Wisdom of God, the Lady Theotokos our Pammakaristos and Conciliation, St. Demetrios Kanavis, St. George the Trophy-bearer of the Phanar, and all the saints of our Church are not keepers of the law but legislators according to St. Symeon the New Theologian."

This answer will be in keeping with Symeon’s perspective!  Symeon identifies himself with the saints contrasting himself (a legislator of the law) with his chief adversary, Archbishop Stephen who was a (keeper of the law).  Symeon’s views were born from an actual encounter with the Holy Spirit (charismatic) as opposed to Stephen’s views which were theoretical yet not personal.

Consider the Gospel of Luke 7:35 “wisdom is justified of all her children”.

“All the saints” are “children of wisdom”, “wisdom” is the Holy Spirit, which legislates the will of God the Father through the hearts of the saints.

When Gabriel prophesies to Zacharias about his son John the Baptist: Luke 1:16,7 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

The "keepers of the law" are watchdogs of the law they are like those that sat in the marketplace claiming John the Baptist had a demon and Jesus was a drunkard:

Luke 7:31-35 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children.

The children of wisdom are the legislators of the law!


How do Roman Catholics understand salvation in light of Romans 3&4?

Essentially it boils down to that we are saved by grace alone, but that salvation results in such a change of heart that good works must result.
From the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Salvation (all emphasis mine):

27.The Catholic understanding also sees faith as fundamental in justification. For without faith, no justification can take place. Persons are justified through baptism as hearers of the word and believers in it. The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him. This new personal relation to God is grounded totally on God's graciousness and remains constantly dependent on the salvific and creative working of this gracious God, who remains true to himself, so that one can rely upon him. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal over against God. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the renewal of life by justifying grace, this renewal in faith, hope, and love is always dependent on God's unfathomable grace and contributes nothing to justification about which one could boast before God (Rom 3:27).

and later in the same document:

37.We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.
38.According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the "meritorious" character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.


How can Pharisees turn someone from God if His grace is irresistible?

The concept of Irresistible grace is summed up this way:

  Although the general outward call of the gospel can be, and often is, rejected, the special inward call of the Spirit never fails to result in the conversion of those to whom it is made. This special call is not made to all sinners but is issued to the elect only! The Spirit is in no way dependent upon their help or cooperation for success in His work of bringing them to Christ. It is for this reason that Calvinists speak of the Spirit's call and of God's grace in saving sinners as being ‘efficacious,' ‘invincible,' or ‘irresistible.' For the grace which the Holy Spirit extends to the elect cannot be thwarted or refused, it never fails to bring them to true faith in Christ! (Steele and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, Defined, Defended, Documented, p 48-49)

The important thing in the passage you quote is that the people are responding not to an inward call, but to an outward one. If they become "twice the child of hell" there could not have been an inward call in the first place.

To answer your addendum, there's no suggestion that the person isn't already a child of hell, they are made worse by the Pharisees. That's the point here. The point of this passage isn't to make a doctrinal statement (so it would be kind of dangerous to infer doctrine from it), but it's to point out the pharisees that their attempts at proselytization are so horrible and backwards they end up pushing their converts further into sin and condemnation than they already were!


How did the Crusades affect the Pope's power and authority?

The era of the Crusades certainly coincides with a dramatic increase in the authority of the Pope, both in practical terms and in the development of doctrine. It is a bit hard to untangle how much of this is due to the Crusades themselves.

First, a word of warning! It is very easy to slip into anachronistic habits when thinking about the medieval papacy. It is often confused with:

the nineteenth-century papacy - with a well-developed bureaucracy, unquestioned disciplinary authority, and infallibility.
the sixteenth-century papacy - the institution that Martin Luther was so upset about. The seeds of later doctrine were present at the time, but were less developed and more contested; and it was in this period that many of the major institutions of the Roman church began.

Another word of warning: it's tempting to imagine that this history is the result of a single papal master plan to increase their power, a sort of conspiracy theory. Actually, individual popes differed enormously in  their personal beliefs about the role of the Church and the Papacy, let alone their ability to implement them.

In the following, I'll explore the relationships between the See of Rome and other  contemporary powers: the Emperor, other rulers, other bishops (as well as abbots and so on) in the Western church, and the patriarchs of the Eastern sees.

The Emperor

The overwhelmingly most important power conflict was with the Emperor. This was the struggle that animated contemporary political theory, as well as the grounding theology of the Pope's temporal power. Both parties claimed a kind of supreme authority (as well as claiming to be the legitimate heirs of the Roman Empire) and so it was quite the puzzle to decide who was allowed to tell the other one what to do, and who appointed new Popes or Emperors. The doctrine of the "two swords" divided their responsibilities - but not like
our modern idea of the separation of the church and the state. In the version of Bernard of Clairvaux (enlisted by Eugene III to preach support for the Second Crusade) there is a spiritual sword, belonging to the Pope, and a temporal sword, in the custody of the Emperor, but ultimately subject to papal authority. The church does not fight, but it commands.

A good example here is Innocent III's decree Per venerabilem (1202) which asserts a papal power to supervise the Imperial election, since he sees the institution of the Empire as a creation of the Church. Innocent III was not only a reforming and monarchical Pope, but also the one who called the Fourth Crusade, and excommunicated Otto IV. Although the Empire became a less relevant political force in later years, the contest between Empire and Papacy (partly driven by the issue of control over the Crusades) did help to solidify the doctrine of papal supremacy.

Other secular princes

In the same way, other rulers were meant to have a duty to fight
for the Church when requested (on pain of deprivation of Communion, at the
least, according to Gratian). This applied to the suppression of heresy,
and to the Crusades in the East. The duty was not the same as the normal
feudal obedience, though; it applied even to those who did not have a cleric
as their feudal lord (such as the papal possessions in central Italy that were
to become the Papal States). But in practice, it's not like a bishop could just turn
up at a castle and start telling the king what to do, especially when the
king considers the bishop to be one of his subjects. Perhaps he even
nominated the bishop to the see, and expected regular tax payments rather than
being asked to pay some sort of crusading tax in the other direction.

So crusades tended to create local political crises of this kind: and in the
long term, the Church was able to negotiate a standard where clergy were
in a sort of parallel legal world. They had their own law (canon law), their
own system of taxation (tithes and so on), and their own hierarchy of loyalty.
Although much of this was systematized at the Fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent III once again, it had been a long time in the building.

Local clerical authorities

It's easy to take for granted, now, the extent to which local diocesan bishops are subordinated to Rome. In the past, bishops (and abbots) were much more independent - legally, in the scope of their ability to make law for their diocese; and politically, in the power they could draw from tithes, assignment of benefices, and so on. During the time of the Crusades, the papal curia developed into an institution that was not just for the Pope's household and his diplomatic efforts, but was a bureaucratic organ for the whole church. Increased centralization was at the expense of bishops' autonomy. It's hard to say if this was "because of" the Crusades, but there are some key points that helped:

The levying of Crusading taxes, payable directly to Rome, on all clergy (not just those in the diocese of Rome, and not passing through the bishop's hands).
Crusade-related indulgences were established by the Pope and universally applicable. This coincides with the expansion of the formal system of penance, wherein the pardoning of certain offences was reserved to the Holy See, and regular standing tribunals were set up in Rome with universal jurisdiction.
Roman control over doctrinal orthodoxy grew. (Even though Peter Damian had asserted as early as 1062 that disagreeing with the Pope is automatically heresy, it took quite a while for this to filter down into actual practice.) Local ad-hoc synods for the judgement of heresy were replaced by (1) the studium generale system for theological training, with universities having a papal mandate and being exempt from local episcopal control, and (2) more standardized canon law. This is more relevant to the later European Crusades, such as the one against the Cathars.

The Eastern churches

The obvious doctrinal roadblock to Papal supremacy is the fact that there were all these other Patriarchs in the East, who thought that the Pope was first among equals, rather than being a level above. Calling a Crusade at all is a direct assertion of a Pope's universal authority, since it invoked papal jurisdiction outside his traditional territory. During the era, there is a shift from the First Crusade (partially justified by the idea that Constantinople had asked for help from the West) to the Fourth (in which Constantinople was sacked); put crudely, people in the West cared less about what the Eastern Church wanted. The ultimate failure of the Crusades to maintain Christian hegemony over the Near East meant that the Patriarchs were in no position to challenge claims of papal authority in the Western Church.

Aftermath

The papacy was no longer a merely local institution, but a prize which was definitely worth fighting over. After the Crusades come the exile in Avignon, the Western Schism, and conciliarism - all of these represent attempts, by one party of another, to control the papacy. In the longer term, the increased centralization and organization of the Church ultimately created its own internal challenges to unfettered papal authority. Among these are:

The Curia: now an institution with real power.
The College of Cardinals: transformed from a body of local helpers and advisors, into a sort of Senate of the most important clerics from anywhere in the Church.
Councils: various versions of conciliar theory saw regular general councils as an alternative mode of governance for the church (carrying papal authority, but possibly without the Pope himself).
Universities: the complexity of theology and law required experts, because Popes couldn't realistically run things on their own.
Chivalric orders: wealthy, powerful, and potentially disinclined to obey papal directives.

Again, there were and are many schools of thought about exactly what the scope of papal power ought to be. The Crusading era saw the emergence of a particularly strong version of the doctrine of papal authority, which the Popes were ultimately unable to maintain, but which is in continuity with the present forms and structures of the Roman Catholic Church.


Do any Christian scholars contrast Islamic eschatology with Christian eschatology?

No doubt there are Christian scholars who have studied Islamic eschatology but, although I have read a small number of books on Islam, I have not read any specifically about Islamic eschatology. However, a search of the internet found at least one interesting example from Joel Richardson, with enough preview information to suggest it could be recommended to the OP for his interest. I find that Richardson is not a scholar in the usual sense of the word, but a Christian preacher and author.

Joel Richardson (Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah) speaks (page xv) of having  Muslim friends all over the world and stresses (page xviii) that 'the purpose of this book is by no means to "bash" Muslims in any way.'

Richardson says (page 22) his book is "first and foremost a study of Islamic Eschatology (end-time belief) and those specific Islamic doctrines and practices that seem to correlate in quite an astonishing way to the biblical descriptions and prophecies of the last-days." He claims (page 23) that his is the first comprehensive popular study of Islamic Eschatology as it relates to biblical eschatology.

On the one hand, Richardson sees Islam as the future of the world, but on the other hand, his theme appears apocalyptic. Islam may be the future, but the future is a dark place.


Where did Jesus' belief in the devil come from?

In Judaism, there most certainly is a devil, first alluded to in Genesis 3. The serpent mentioned that deceived Eve is known to be the devil, and we can specifically see a more direct reference to the devil itself, named a garden cherub, being cast from "the holy mountain of God" starting in Ezekiel 28:15.

Further, the story in the book of Job has its premise in a direct conversation of God with Satan. We know Jesus had read Job, because he was wise in the Scriptures, and the Hebrew writer (someone contemporary with the birth of New Testament Christianity) referenced Job in Hebrews 11:4.

Most definitively, we have the encounter of Jesus with the devil directly as he was tempted in the desert for 40 days. Jesus knows he is the Son of God, and the devil knows it, too, and tries to get him to bow before him, but of course he fails, and leaves upon hearing "Begone, Satan!" in Matt. 4:10.

The Jews of Jesus' time also spoke of demons frequently, even going as far as to question if Jesus' miraculous casting out of demons was by the power of 'the prince of demons', Beelzebub/Beelzebul (Matt. 12:27) (which of course, it was not, because it was done by the authority of God.).

Those are just some of the tangible ways we can see that Jesus could have known about the devil, not the least of which was in Scriptural records and oral tradition. However, do not forget that as Christians, we believe that Jesus is holy and descended from heaven itself, and had all spiritual knowledge needed to teach the world what it needed to know. The demons (sometimes called 'unclean spirits') I mentioned previously also were familiar with Jesus, just as Jesus is familiar with them and the devil they serve, demonstrated in Acts 19:15 when the sons of Sceva unsuccessfully tried to exorcise a demon. The demon, upon hearing the command to come out of a man in the name of 'the Jesus that Paul proclaims', replied "Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?".

In short, the Bible is filled with references to Satan, both in the Old and New testaments. The Old testament, which Jesus evident ally studied much of, references the devil plenty. I am not familiar with the modern practice of Judaism, but in ancient times they still had more than just the Torah, they had the books of the prophets (especially Isaiah). The new testament, that was written concerning Jesus, references interactions with the devil and demons frequently, as proof that Jesus was familiar with, interacted with, and had power over them.

I hope my answer was clear enough.


Is there scriptural basis for spiritual 'growth'?

Spiritual growth, or growing spiritually, is the core of our Christian walk, where the Spirit works in us and transforms us as we understand more of His Word and live according to the Word, and as a result we become more and more like Jesus.
Here is a good article on spiritual growth:
https://biblereasons.com/spiritual-growth/
Often, different spiritual life stages are used to summarize/categorize where people are in their Spiritual journey:
5 Stages of Spiritual Growth
Stage 1, The Spiritually Dead
Stage 2, The Spiritual Infant
Stage 3, The Spiritual Child
Stage 4, The Spiritual Young Adult
Stage 5, The Spiritual Parent
One example is in 1 Corinthians, where Paul called the Corinthians infants in Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:1-3
Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as
people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly–mere
infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still
worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you
not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?

And there are many other verses talking about the spiritual growth -

2 Peter 1:6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your
self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
2 Peter 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of
eternity. Amen.


What Biblical support for praying to the saints is usually cited by those Christians who practice that?

So, this is what DRV suggest. (all Bible quotes in RSV)

Moses and Samuel can intercede:

  Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go! (Jer. 15:1)

Jeremiah does intercede:

  This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God. (2 Macc. 15:14)

Further Raphael hears and intercedes:

  And so, when you and your daughter-in-law Sarah prayed, I brought a reminder of your prayer before the Holy One; and when you buried the dead, I was likewise present with you.  (Tobit 12:12)

(There are misc. references in Revelation of John to saints praying in heaven, the DRV references this:

  And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints; (Rev. 5:8)

The efficacy of these prayers can be seen:

  And the LORD appeared to him the same night and said, "I am the God of Abraham your father; fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your descendants for my servant Abraham's sake."

I don't really see that much which needs to be expounded on after that.


According to the Catholicism, is a conscious denial of the gospel of Christ a mortal sin?

The short answer is “not necessarily”.
“Conscious” denial of the Gospel is not the same thing as denial “with full knowledge.”
“Grave matter” vs. “mortal sin”
In Catholic moral theology, a distinction is made between the objective gravity of an action, and a person’s subjective culpability.
For example (to name an action that everyone agrees is gravely disordered), killing an innocent person is clearly gravely wrong. It is possible, however, that the perpetrator of the crime not responsible, or not fully responsible, for his actions (if, for example, his is not mentally competent).
When the action itself is gravely disordered (gravely immoral), in Catholic terminology, it is called grave matter for sin. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1858.)
For such an action to be a mortal sin (that is, for the person to be fully responsible for that action), three conditions must be met:

The matter must be grave (i.e., the action committed must be, objectively speaking, gravely immoral).
The person must fully understand what he is doing.
The person must freely and deliberately perform the action.

(See CCC 1857, more fully explained  in nos. 1859-1861.)
Hence, someone who honestly and innocently does not know that a certain action is wrong, or acts, say, out of grave fear, then he is not fully responsible for that action (and might even be completely free from responsibility in certain circumstances).
That does not mean that the action itself is not evil; however, determining personal culpability is more complex than simply assessing the objective goodness or evil of an action.
Applied to denying the Gospel
In the scenario described by the O.P., although refusing to believe in the Gospel is certainly grave matter, the person in question is clearly misinformed about the Gospel.
Moreover, there are a number of other factors that probably diminish (and, in my opinion, eliminate) her responsibility:

Prejudices learned from youth against Christianity. (E.g., if you are taught all your life that Christians are “pagans,” you will have a harder time being convinced by them—and this is not your fault, obviously.)
Grave fear of the consequences of converting. Regrettably, in most Muslim societies, there is not much tolerance of those who become Christian (and in many cases, it leads to the convert’s exile or death).

In conclusion, then, it is extremely unlikely that her “conscious” denial of the Gospel would be held against her by God.
Not an impediment to salvation, but not a guarantee, either
Note that we are speaking about a person who is (1) gravely misinformed about the Faith, to the point of thinking that it is evil; and (2) in grave fear of converting. In a case like this, the objectively grave matter of refusing to believe cannot be imputed to the person (although it remains grave matter).
Hence, it is not an impediment to the person’s salvation. It is not, however a guarantee of salvation, and in fact, salvation is (at least objectively speaking) harder to obtain, since the person is deprived of all the helps that being a believer entails.
The Church teaches that God gives the opportunity of salvation to all men:

[W]e ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes 22).

This is not, of course, a guarantee of salvation, but requires the grace of God and at least the implicit acceptance of that grace on the person’s part, which would require that person, among other things, to behave in accord with his conscience.
For a fuller treatment of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation,* and how non-Catholics (and even con-Christians) can be saved, see a document called Dominus Iesus, issued in 2000 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, especially Chapter VI, which reads in part:

[I]t must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”[Lumen gentium, 14]. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation” [Redemptoris missio, 9] (No. 20).
[…]
With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God—which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church—comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself” (No. 21; the quote is from the passage of Gaudium et Spes given above).

* Although it does not directly address the question as asked, it is useful background to address the issue of the contentious dogma Extra ecclesia nulla salus (“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”)
This dogma was first formulated by the Church Fathers of the third century. The Church at the time was conflicted by various heretical and schismatic groups, as well as the pastoral problem of the so-called lapsi (those who caved in to demands to renounce their faith or sacrifice to pagan gods by their persecutors). The first formulation of the dogma appears in the writings of Cyprian of Carthage (d. ca. 258). Hence, Cyprian should be understood to mean, “salvation is not to be found by (deliberately) adhering to heretical or schismatic sects,” but only in the Catholic Church.
This dogma was reaffirmed multiple times, most notably in the Council of Florence, in which the Eastern Orthodox were briefly reunited with the Catholic Church. In the profession of faith Cantate domino, the doctrine is stated as follows:

[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives.

There are a couple of points to keep in mind here:

The Council effected a reunion between groups that had previously considered each other schismatic and (to varying degrees) heretical. It would be absurd for each party to affirm that, prior to the reunion, all  members of the respective faithful in the opposing camp were destined to eternal condemnation, simply because the reunion had not yet been effected. Hence, there is an assumption in this passage that the refusal to be united to the Church is deliberate.

It leaves a way out for those who are acting out of invincible ignorance or grave fear: they must be jointed to the Church before the end of their lives. It does not specify the manner in which they are joined, which could be in a way that is extra-sacramental (as with the Catechumens).

(Note that the Church has a long history—dating back at least to Tertullian—of recognizing the so-called “baptism of desire”—the desire of catechumens for Baptism—and “baptism by blood”—that is, the martyrdom of the non-baptized. In other words, those who explicitly desire Baptism but are not able to receive it, and those who give their lives for the Faith, even before their Baptism, can still be saved. See CCC 1257-1261.)
The dogma was given further scrutiny after the discovery of the Americas. (Recall that the Council of Florence concluded in 1449; Columbus set sail in 1492.) Before that time, most Europeans assumed that the Gospel had essentially already been preached to the whole world. It soon became clear, however, that vast numbers of people had simply never been evangelized. Theologians of time (e.g., Francisco de Vitoria and the School of Salamanca) recognized that it was absurd to affirm that the native Americans were condemned simply because they had not been evangelized.
The Church has specifically condemned a “rigoristic” interpretation of this dogma (i.e., that formal membership in the Catholic Church is a strict and absolute requirement for salvation), most notably in a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith condemning the rigoristic interpretation of Jesuit Father Leonard Feeney.
Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes, mentioned above, goes so far as to teach that God offers the possibility (not the guarantee!) of salvation to all men without exception, as mentioned.
The most current authoritative interpretations of this dogma are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church nos. 846-848 and the document Dominus Iesus mentioned above.
In summary, the Church teaches the following:

Objectively, all men are obliged to avail themselves of the means of salvation, which includes membership in the Catholic Church.
Those who are unable to be full members of the Church through no fault of their own (i.e., the usual mitigating circumstances: invincible ignorance, grave fear, etc.) are nevertheless offered the possibility of salvation in ways known to God alone.
That salvation is in any case mediated through the Catholic Church, even if the person is not initially aware of it. (For Christians, they participate in certain elements of the Catholic Church that are effective for salvation; in particular, they all take part in the one Baptism, and some groups, like the Orthodox, even enjoy all seven Sacraments.)

In this way, we can still affirm that outside the Church there is no salvation, without affirming that God condemns people for actions that are not their fault.


What Christian companies, today, have no name by which they are known?

The only ‘label’ that matters is the ‘label’ of Christian.  A Christian is a person who belongs to Christ Jesus and who obeys Him.  Denominational labels are man-made and of no importance.  Jesus knows who belong to Him and His Church is not a denomination or a building but is a world-wide living entity made up of believers.  The short answer to your question is yes, there are lots of Christians around the world who meet regularly to worship God and study the Bible but who do not belong to any particular denomination.
A denomination is a church organization that exercises some sort of authority over the local churches that comprise it.  There are many Christians who meet together, in private homes or in rented halls, who do not have any identifying ‘label.’  Often, they are categorised as being non-denominational, which simply means they do not come under the authority of a specific denomination.   Non-denominational should never be confused with inter-denominational which is a church or an organization that incorporate different practices from various denominations.  The measure of any church, whether inside or out of a denomination, is not how it is organized nor what name it is called, but rather how faithfully it adheres to the teachings of the Word of God.
It is important to remember that the Body of Christ is interdenominational. We may choose labels for ourselves and others—and such labels have their place—but Jesus never assigned denominational tags. He said, “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37). The Body of Christ is made up of “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord” (Acts 2:21), and the gospel of salvation by grace through faith unites all born-again believers who belong to Christ Jesus.
As for the events, persons and churches recorded in the first three chapters of Revelation, I found a useful article, part of which says this:

"A normal hermeneutic or normal interpretation of Scripture means that unless the verse or passage clearly indicates the author was using figurative language, it should be understood in its normal sense. We are not to look for other meanings if the natural meaning of the sentence makes sense. Also, we are not to spiritualize Scripture by assigning meanings to words or phrases when it is clear the author, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, meant it to be understood as it is written.
A simple outline for the book of Revelation is found in Revelation 1:19. In chapter one, the risen and exalted Christ is speaking to John. Christ tells John to “write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.” The things John had already seen are recorded in chapter 1. The “things which are” (that were present in John's day) are recorded in chapters 2–3 (the letters to the churches). The “things that will take place” (future things) are recorded in chapters 4–22."  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-Revelation.html

Clearly, there is a warning to all Christians today against falling into sin and/or following false teachers.  Christians are identified by their words and deeds, by holding fast to the truth of God's Word and by showing Christ-like love to all persons.  By their fruits (the fruit of the Spirit) they will be known.


Was there silence in heaven when our Lord and Saviour was crucified?

There was a profound silence of contemplation and adoration amongst the heavenly Angels before the august mysteries that were unfolding at Calvary.

Amongst the heavenly hosts or angels, there was a profound sense of awe during the Crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus an eerie silence would have been heard amongst the Angels of God.

There is no biblical basis to answer this question in any direction pro or con. But there may be a few small glimmers of light on this subject that comes from the Scriptures.

In the Book of Kings, we see that God spoke to the Prophet Elijah in a still small voice. The moments of Christ’s Passion truly produced an atmosphere of great reverence as to what was taking place on earth at that moment.

  11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

  12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

  13 And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah? - 1 Kings 19:11-13

We see the Angels administering to the needs of Jesus on at least two separate occasions during his earthly ministry.

When Jesus was about to embark on his ministry, he firstly went into the desert to pray and fast. It is a story, we are all familiar with. Not only was Jesus tried and hungry during this time, but we see the Devil tempting Our Lord three times. After which Jesus was ministered by Angels.

  11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.- Matthew 4:11

  Ministered to by angels

  At this, Satan departs and Jesus is tended by angels. While both Mark and Matthew mention the angels, Luke does not, and Matthew seems once again here to be making parallels with Elijah, who was fed by ravens. The word ministered or served is often interpreted as the angels feeding Jesus, and traditionally artists have depicted the scene as Jesus being presented with a feast, a detailed description of it even appearing in Paradise Regained. This ending to the temptation narrative may be a common literary device of using a feast scene to emphasize a happy ending, or it may be proof that Jesus never lost his faith in God during the temptations. - Temptation of Christ (Wikipedia)

There is yet another occasion where we see the Angels ministering to the needs of Jesus. This time is just before his Passion.

  Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives

  39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

  45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.” - Luke 22:39-46

Now if the Angels appeared to Jesus on the eve of his Passion in order to strengthen him, it would likewise make sense that during his Crucifixion on the Cross, the Heavenly Hosts were supporting the second person of the Sacred Trinity in his human nature through their prayer and admiration of the Divine Sacrifice that being unfolded. This is not the time for rejoicing, but of awe and reverence.

Although Angels are pure spirit, traditional art have them “weeping” at the Crucifixion of Jesus.

  In the Crucifixion, angels are seen lamenting, wringing their hands, averting or hiding their faces.

  In the old Greek crucifixions, one angel bears the sun, another the moon, on each side of the Cross. - Legends of the angels and archangels,
  Mrs. Jameson (Anna)

It makes the most logical sense that during the Most Holy Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ there was in heaven nothing but silence and reverence at that moment.

There is a time for everything and the time for heaven and earth to rejoice would have been first felt is at the Resurrection of Christ. It is not wholly known if the Angels fully knew how the redemption of mankind was going to be transpired here below! God has secrets.

  3 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

  2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

  3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

  4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

  5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

  6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

  7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

  8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. - Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Crucifixion with Mary and John by Michelangelo in 1540

  A modest depiction of the crucifixion. Next to Jesus are two lamenting angels. Mary and John the Evangelist stand besides the cross. Under the cross is a scull, the traditional reference to the location: Golgotha, Place of the Scull.

  In Rome, Michelangelo was befriended to a group of intellectuals who sought a more spiritual approach of religion. That influence may be reflected in this painting without background: the background is irrelevant to the story, so why show it.

When Christ died for our sins, Satan was disarmed and defeated. The one eternally destructive weapon that he had was stripped from his hand, namely, his accusation before God that we are guilty and should perish with him. When Christ died, that accusation was nullified. All those who entrust themselves to Christ will never perish. Satan cannot separate them from the love of God in Christ (Romans 8:37–39).

How can the Angels be rejoicing, when there is a battle going on below?

The mood was very solemn as one would think!


Is it known who first associated the Beast of Revelation with the Antichrist, and when?

Reading the new testament texts within a systematic eschatology, readers could conceivably equate the 'antichrist' of the Johannine epistles with either of the beasts from the Revelation, or the 'man of lawlessness' from Paul, but this is purely reader inference; such connections are not made explicit within these individual texts (e.g. the author of 1 John does not make any verbal references that he has 'the beast' of Revelation in mind).

The earliest known use of the term 'antichrist' outside of the Johannine epistles comes from a letter from Polycarp, a student of John, to the church in Philippi. He wrote some ten or fifteen years after the Johannine epistles, but clearly is working within the teaching represented by 1 and 2 John. With corroborating material from Polycarp's fellow student of John, Ignatius, the context of each of these three men's letters highly suggests 'antichrist' was originally used to describe some manner of docetism.

That I can find, Irenaeus was the earliest one to explicitly connect 'antichrist' to the beast of Revelation. In his Against Heresies, written around 180 AD, Irenaeus says the following:

Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies, and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, according to the Greek mode of calculation by the the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six. (5.30.1)
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. (5.30.3)

Here 'the name of the Antichrist' is identified with some passage of 'the apocalyptic vision'. Irenaeus is talking about the 'name of the beast' from Revelation 13.16-18. Contextually, Irenaeus is clearly talking about the first beast, from the sea, not the second beast, from the earth.
Other points in this chapter of Irenaeus' book also equate 'the Antichrist' with the first beast of Revelation, such as applying Revelation 13.5 or 17.8 to him.


What is the Catholic Church's position on a divorced man attending services

By "divorce" I assume you mean separation from your wife. This is not necessarily a sin; what lead to it might be, which is why you should consult a priest and confess your sins to him. To "remarry" another woman while your wife is still alive is the serious sin of adultery.

Any Catholic can and should confess his sins to a priest in the sacrament of confession. All that's required for a Catholic to worthily receive Holy Communion is to be in the state of grace (no mortal sin on your soul) and to have fasted at least an hour before.


The short answer is "To teach Jacob an important lesson."

This all takes place, of course, in Genesis 32.

First, to your first question: Jacob wasn't "good" by any means.  If you look at Jacob before this, he has stolen the blessing that was Esau's birthright. (Genesis 27).  He had several children with women he didn't love, and was certainly no great father to them.  (Genesis 30-31).

By the time he wrestled with this angel (or with God depending on the translation - I'm going to stick with God) in chapter 32 starting in verse 24, he'd pretty much shown that he was not a "good" man at all.

Yet, God chose him to the the father of the nation of Israel.

To the second question:  was God trying to kill Jacob?  In the wrestling match, Jacob wrestles with God until daybreak (verse 24).  Then God touches the hollow of Jacob's thigh and dislocates it, demonstrating that He could have easily defeated Jacob at any time.  This was a lesson in humility - showing Jacob that compared to God, he was nothing.

That also answers the third question.  Jacob was injured - he was disabled by a mere touch, to show that God is powerful and compared to God, he is nothing.  Whether he was "seriously injured" depends on whether or not you consider a dislocated hip "seriously injured".

Yet, knowing full well that he was nothing, Jacob did something brave and remarkable. He refused to give up until God gave him a blessing.  He continued to fight, but now it was for God, not against God.

I believe that the reason for the encounter was to ensure that Jacob, who became Israel afterward, had the correct motivation, heart, and attitude toward God.  it was a lesson in humility, and Jacob responded by a show of faith and longing for God.


How do churches (specifically WELS) proselytize while barring all forms of fellowship?

I am a WELS Lutheran.  The idea that we refuse to pray with other Christians is a carricature of us.  It is not totally accurate.  My pastor says that public prayer is always off limits but private prayer is something that requires a bit of discretion.

I have a good example of something that happened in our church.  The parocial school that is attached to our church was getting ready to play a basketball game against a Baptist school.  The Baptist school asked us if we wanted to have a prayer before the game started.  We had to decline.  It is not that we think that the Baptist Church is not a Christian church.  It is that we are concerned that we would be giving a false appearance of unity with the Baptists (or whatever other church we are referring to).  There are doctrinal differences between Baptists and WELS.  We have great respect for our christian brethren in the Baptist church but we feel that they error in many different ways.  We feel that by praying with them we are sending them a signal that we are in doctrinal agreement with them.

Private prayers are a bit different.  Each situation has to be discerned.  My pastor says that if I am inviting my friend to my house and we are going to have a meal in my house that I should say to my friend "I like to pray before my meals.  If you want you are welcome to join me or if you do not want to you are not required to".  We leave it up to the individual.  In that situation I am in control of the situation.  It is my house and it is my prayer so I am controlling the message that goes to God.  Now if I go to my friend's house and my friend wants to pray then I am told that I should sit there quietly while my friend says his prayer.  I am to be very respectful and not cause a scene as I have a great deal of respect for my friend.  I just happen to have some differences with him.  It is an act of love because I am letting my friend know that he is in error in his ways.

We do not believe that other church bodies are not Christian or that we are better than anyone else.  We just believe that their beliefs are different and deserving of the same respect that ours are.  Like if a Charismatic Christian is praying I do not think that my Charismatic friend that is a Christian would appreciate his or her prayer to God being dilluted by a person like me that hold a cessationist theological position (this is an example).  My Charismatic friend has a right to have a pure prayer sent to God with a clear signal of what he wishes to pray to God for.  It would be very disrectful on my part to pray with him or her and dillute his or her message to God.

There are situations where this does not apply.  Like if I am praying for a family member that is not WELS who is sick and dying with some other non WELS family members.  Or like say if I am praying with someone that is hearing about Christ for the first time and is interested in learning more.  In those situations my praying with them would not be dilluting the message or giving a false impression of doctrinal unity.

As WELS Lutherans we are told to make our own judgment in each and every situation as to if it is appropriate or not to pray with someone else.  Not each and every WELS member is going to agree on each and every situation each and every time.  There are differences in practice but that is OK.  I have seen some WELS pastors that will say that it is OK to make the dinner prayer in every situation as they do not believe that blessing a meal is showing doctrinal agreement.  They disagree with some others but that is ok.  We do have the general concept in line.


Is repentance of sins possible outside the Gospels?

Is repentance of sins possible outside the gospel?

Yes, since God plants conscience in every person's heart. But see next paragraph below.

What does repentance of sins look like for a non-Christian who dies never having the gospel preached to them?

Since they haven't heard a proper presentation of the Gospel, their repentance will be far from what is needed for Christian conversion.  They may simply repent from being lazy, or even as trivial as repenting from a habit of driving over the speed limit.  I did both when I was young, but those repentance didn't save me because that's NOT the kind of repentance needed for salvation.  Even a self-serving atheist can repent from that kind of "sin".

Does every human being, at least once in their lifetime, have a genuine chance to repent of their sins, turn away from them and start living a righteous life? If so, does this also include people who never hear the gospel?

Again, without proper gospel presentation, it depends on what "righteous life" means.  Every religion has their own version.  It can simply mean living a decent life following the ethical standard that either myself or my preferred society defines for me.  That is NOT what righteous life means to Christianity, which is living according to God's standard, not my own standard.  Genuine chance requires genuine understanding of the magnitude & character of the offense, which in Christianity means:

realizing that we have been following our human made standard, even though it can be very decent and sacrificial
realizing that the main aggrieved party is God our creator, not only our fellow human beings
realizing that the main offense is our failure to center our whole life to honor and love God instead of ourselves, not merely the failure to follow some moral code, even if the moral code is already one of the best (such as the OT code)

So the answer is: Yes, to those who understood properly the gospel message, No to everyone else.
Concluding thoughts
Proper Christian repentance is intimately linked to faith in Jesus Christ (see this article).   But the object of our faith (Jesus Christ) needs to be communicated FIRST by the gospel presentation, which in turn genuinely informs the challenge for proper repentance that leads to faith, which in turn leads to salvation.  So this question is masking an underlying question: Will everyone who has not heard the gospel before they die have a genuine chance to hear it? which has been answered in your other question: What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the eternal destiny of individuals who die never hearing the Gospel?


Which is a greater sin - to eat meat on Good Friday or to spoil it

Regarding whether the Church can impose fasting as a matter of precept, St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica II-II q. 147 a. 3 ad 2):

  It will be a mortal sin to disobey a commandment through contempt of the lawgiver's authority, or to disobey it in such a way as to frustrate the end intended by him: but it is not a mortal sin if one fails to keep a commandment, when there is a reasonable motive, and especially if the lawgiver would not insist on its observance if he were present. Hence it is that not all, who do not keep the fasts of the Church, sin mortally.

If there is no way (which is very unlikely) to preserve the food (e.g., by refrigerating, canning, fermenting, salting, etc.) or feed it to animals—and since letting food go to waste would be a sin of wastefulness, which is against justice—it may be a "reasonable motive" to consume it immediately.


There is a saying that if you need a book to answer a question, the question is too broad.  In this case, the following book Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell is your book.

Briefly, this work of apologetics is pretty well recommended by many Christian churches.  There are several chapters on the authenticity of the Bible.

McDowell has many, many arguments about the authenticity of the Bible, but perhaps the most compelling for me is the sheer number of early manuscripts, when compared against say, Homer, Virgil, or Shakespeare.

As to whether or not the 66 (or 73) books together are "the Bible" (meaning that it represents the full reading list), search this site for 'canon' and 'canonization.'  There are already several questions that address how the various books came to be in the Bible.'

Specifically, I would recommend:

What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?
Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries?
Lineage of Each Verse of Scripture


LDS expected future relationship with God after exaltation

This is just my personal belief (as an active LDS member), but I would imagine that the relationship would be similar to father-and-child.  The distance would probably be much shorter and probably seem more familial.

Will we stop worshiping Him because we are now "equal in glory"?  I don't think so, though I imagine the method of worship might change.  It's worth knowing that simply reaching the highest heaven (the Celestial Kingdom) doesn't automatically turn a Mormon into a God.  There is still a learning and growing process that may take thousands (if not millions) of human years!  (When you have an eternity to do it, though, it doesn't seem so bad).  Our Heavenly Father will still have plenty to teach and instruct, even in the after-life.


Did Abraham have faith in the future coming of Christ?

-OP-Is there biblical evidence that Abraham looked forward to Christ.[?]

The authors of Genesis, Hebrews, and Galatians spell out the promise of God.  This means the answer is yes.

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. Gen. 17:19
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Heb. 11:17
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Gal. 3:16

And so, Abraham looked forward to Christ, to the promised seed.


In Catholicism since when did willfully violating Sunday Mass obligation become mortal sin?

Scriptural basis
Exodus 20:8:

Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.

cf. Kellner's Heortology § 2. Sunday and its Observance as a Day of Rest (pp. 6-13)
Holy Office's March 4, 1679, condemned proposition 52
DZ 1202:

The precept of keeping feast days is not obligatory under pain of mortal sin, aside from scandal, if contempt be absent.

Hearing Mass on Sundays is a precept of the Church.
One of the precepts of the Church is "To hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation." This was codified in the the 1917 Code of Canon Law can. 1247:

§1. Feast days of obligation for the universal Church are: All Sundays […]

and can. 1248:

Mass must be heard on feastdays of obligation […]Festis de præcepto diebus Missa audienda est […]

Canonist Dom Augustine writes (commentating on 1917 can. 1248):

This obligation obliges all the faithful of the Latin Church and the inhabitants of China and other missionary countries under the S. C. P. F. [Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide]5

[…] S. C. P. F. Sept. 12, 1645 (Coll., nn. 126, 189, 114).

The obligation is grievous, binding under mortal sin. One does not comply with this precept by hearing two or even four parts of Masses said simultaneously by different priests.6

S. O., propp. 52, 53 damn., March 4, 1679 […]

Pope Pius VI condemned the errors of the 1786 Synod of Pistoia in his August 28, 1794, constitution Auctorem fidei #74 (DZ 1574). The false council did not even dare abrogating the precept to hear Mass on Sundays.

The deliberation of the synod about transferring to Sunday feasts distributed through the year […] abrogating the precept of hearing Mass on those days, on which according to the early law of the Church, even then that precept flourished; […] a false proposition, harmful to the law of the general Council and of the Supreme Pontiffs, scandalous, favorable to schism.


Were there any Roman Catholic Church martyrs in the 10–15th centuries?

St. Thomas Beckett - 1170 - assassinated at a church for annoying the king who made him Archbishop.

St. Bernard and companions - 1226 - killed by the Moors

Bl. Charles the Good - 1127 - killed at church after stopping black marketers

St. Stanislaus - 1079 - killed after excommunicating a wicked king.

St. Elphege - 1012 - killed by Danish invaders for refusing ransom by selling off his church property.

St Adalbert - 983 - killed evangelizing Prussians.

St. Joan of Arc - 1412 - (not canonized until 1920, but pardoned thirty years after her death) burned at the stake and not really a martyr, but I thought I'd throw her in here.

St Wenceslaus - 929 - killed by his brother while praying in a church.

St. John Nepomucene - 1390 - drowned in the Vltava by a very different King Wenceslaus for refusing to violate the Seal of confession.

I found these folks just by looking through my lives of the saints book there are undoubtably more. I haven't a clue about Luther's knowledge of these particular saints. However, I think it's safe to say that educated people knew about St Thomas Beckett and may have heard about Joan of Arc in Western Europe (From the Canterbury Tales and Joan of Arc is now the patroness of France). As in Eastern Europe they may have known of St. Wenceslaus and St Stanislaus (patrons of Czech Republic and Poland).  Their cults didn't operate in a complete vacuum.


At what level of detail does God lead His children?

I would argue that ideally the Christian life would be fully marked by the leading of the Spirit.  (Don't get too nervous about this - God isn't a taskmaster - His will is not oppressive, contrary to popular belief.)  Here is the Biblical basis for this argument:

The first is a statement from Jesus, our perfect example, our Rabbi of which we are to be disciples and immitators:

  “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." -John 5:30

To clarify our calling as Christians, here is Paul's post-ascension teaching on the matter:

  and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. -2 Corinthians 5:15

In contrast, one of the sins which condemned Saul was not inquiring of the Lord:

  So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, and did not inquire of the Lord. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse. -1 Chronicles 10:13-14

There are many other passages, but this should suffice.  Our mindset needs to be: 100% devotion to the leading of the Spirit, 0% devotion to living for our own purposes.

Now, practically speaking, there are times to rest, times to fellowship, times to have a drink, times to read, times to gaze at the stars, and so on.

At what point should you just make a decision?  Well, technically, at every point.  Everything you do, whether "led by the Spirit" or "led by your flesh" is technically "a decision", so in every case you should "just make a decision" -- with the understanding that in every case you should "be sensitive to the leading of the Spirit", if He is leading, and in every case you should "guard against the lusts of the flesh".


There is no verse in the New Testament stating that we need to punish "heretics". Quite the contrary.
In James 4:12 (NIV) it says:

There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you--who are you to judge your neighbor?

Matthew 5:43-48 (NIV):

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The parable of the tares among the wheat could be applied to this problem. Matthew 13:24-30 (NIV):

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Also, when Peter lopped off the ear of the slave of the high priest (Matthew 26:51-52), Jesus said:

"Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

I know that the context is different, but it shows how the kingdom of heaven is not a militant kingdom.


According to Presbyterianism, is there salvation available for Adam and Eve?

The short response is that it is probable that Adam and Eve were saved.

The Bible does not explicitly state whether Adam and Eve went to heaven.  While Adam and Eve later serve as examples of sinful failure in the rest of Scripture, (Adam in Job 31:33; Hosea 6:7; Rom. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:21-22 and Eve in 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13-14) we do know at least two instances later in the Genesis narrative where Eve exhibited faith in God.

Some allow the possibility in the affirmative.

The Westminster Confession of Faith admits that Adam was saved. See this article in The Presbyterian Review.

Some Presbyterians look on the persons of Adam and Eve as simply mythological persons, such as seen here. After all snakes do not converse with people!

The Irish Presbyterian Mind states the following:

  The Covenant of Works described Adam as head of the human race who gained God’s favour through perfect obedience. As a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, the guilt and punishment for sin were imputed to humanity, who were unable to save themselves from their inherent rebellion against God. God in his grace then entered into a Covenant of Grace that was administered differently in the Old and New Testament.

Now follows the response to the question as it was originally worded prior to it being edited to include only a Presbyterian response.

In general the feelings towards Adam and Eve in other denominations are not at all negative.

The short answer is that both Adam and Eve are saved.

Both Adam and Eve are venerated in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, Oriental Church and other denominations. Both worked out their salvation through prayer, faith and penance for their transgressions.

They are commemorated as saints in the Orthodox Church in mid December.

  In the Orthodox Church Adam and Eve are counted among the saints and commemorated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers, falling between December 11th and 17th. The Synaxarion entry for this Sunday reads:

    Commemoration of Adam and Eve, the first-formed.

Even some Protestant Reformed Church believe that Adan and Eve are saved.

  First, we can say that Eve was saved. God said to the serpent, who is Satan (Rev. 1 2:9), "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15). The “woman" is Eve (cf. 3:1-2, 4, 6, 12-13, 16). Through the Fall, Adam and Eve allied themselves with Satan and joined him in his hatred against God. When God put enmity between Satan and the "woman," Eve, He was restoring the covenant friendship that He had with her before the Fall. Viewed in this light, the "coats of skins" (3:21), which the Lord made and with which He clothed her, speak of the garments of salvation, as the church has traditionally taught. It comes as no surprise that Eve confesses that the sons she later bares came to her from the hand of the Almighty (4:1, 25). Thus God's coming to find Eve (3:8ff.) speaks of His graciously coming to seek and to save that which was lost (cf. Luke 19:10). Clearly, Eve was saved.

  Second, nor only Eve but also Adam was saved. Eve is prominent in acknowledging that God gave her the birth of Cain and Seth (Gen. 4:1, 25), but are we to think that Adam played no role in naming his sons and thus in confessing Jehovah as the God who gives life? Similarly, God clothed not only Eve but also Adam in those "coats of skins" (3:21) that betoken salvation. Furthermore, God came not only to Eve but also to Adam to show them their sin and misery that He might deliver them (3:8ff.). - The Salvation of Adam and Eve

According to the Catholic Church, Adam and Eve are in heaven and considered saints; thus they are held in high regard.

How can any Christian blame Adam And Eve for anything that befalls human nature or human society. Would we have done better in their situation. I guess that would include the actual Coronavirus-19 situation.

If fact the Catholic Church has a great respect for our first parents.

During the Easter Vigil, the Catholic Church will chant (sing) the traditional Easter Proclamation hymn of the Exsultet.

The Exsultet expresses the Church's belief that this is the same night in which the ancient Jews were liberated from their bondage under the Egyptians, as well as honouring Adam (in an indirect manner).

  O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum,
  quod Christi morte delétum est!

  O felix culpa,
  quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!

The English equivalent could be translated as such:

  O truly necessary sin of Adam,
  destroyed completely by the Death of Christ!

  O happy fault
  that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!

As I mentioned above, according to Catholicism, both Adam and Eve are saints. How could there be any negativity in all this?

  It is true that there are no feast days for Old Testament saints in the Church's universal calendar.

  In the beginning, only martyrs for Christ were honored on the anniversary of their deaths. Soon, feast days for our Blessed Mother began to be observed. This gradual process of development in no way implied we should not ask Old Testament saints to intercede for us.

  In fact, the Church does in various ways venerate and ask for the intercession of Old Testament saints.

  In 1600 a liturgical book, the Roman Martyrology, listed all the saints whom the Church had officially recognized up to that point. This listing includes large numbers of saints who do not appear in the Church's general calendar.

  The Roman Martyrology remembers, among others, the following Old Testament saints: the prophet Habakkuk (Jan. 15); Isaiah (July 6); Daniel and Elias/Elijah (July 20 and 21); the seven Maccabees and their mother (Aug. 17); Abraham (Oct. 9); and King David (Dec. 29).

  Meanwhile, in the litanies of the saints we invoke the prayers of "all holy patriarchs and prophets," who are of course Old Testament saints. - Old Testament Saints?

The feast of Adam and Eve is December 24!

  As we have said elsewhere, Adam and Eve are not called saints in ordinary reference, historical or scriptural. But they may be called saints on their feast day, which is the vigil of Christmas, because we know from sound Catholic tradition that they repented of their great sin, lived lives of holiness and are now in Heaven. Adam is the father of the human race. Eve, his wife, was formed from Adam’s body. All of us have descended from these two. Adam was created in a state of paradisal innocence, with no human frailties or weaknesses. Adam sinned by disobeying the command of God not to eat a forbidden fruit. The whole human race inherited original sin because of Adam. Adam personally repented. Adam lived for 930 years. By his sorrow, his contrition, his pleading and his love, Adam finally won God’s full forgiveness for himself. Adam died and went to the Limbo of the Just, which is called “hell” in the Apostles’ Creed. This was not the hell of the damned. It was the place where the Just had to wait for the coming of Christ.... Adam’s feast is the vigil of Christmas, which is also the feast of Eve, his wife, who is with him in Heaven. - Saint Adam and Saint Eve (First Age of the world)

Adam the Patriarch is one of the patron saints of gardeners and tailors.

Eve the Matriarchis one of the Patron saints of tailors also.

Adam and Eve's Feastday is Christmas Eve (December 24)

Adam and Eve by Albrecht Curer

Sancti Ada et Eva, orate pro nobis.

For those who desire to honour Adam and Eve in a small way, why not try the Adam and Eve Pudding someday! Make it a tradition if you want!


Why does the priest say the words of the consecration in a low tone in the EF when Jesus probably did not say it in a low tone?

St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ch. 12 "Not everything in Mass must necessarily be said in a loud voice":

The next question is not much different from the previous one ["On the Kind of Language"], namely on the manner of voice. Our adversaries impugn the Latin Church because it bids many things in Mass to be said in a quiet voice, which was addressed in the Council of Trent, sess. 22 canon 9. There, from the beginning it must be observed that the question is not, “Whether it is licit per se to celebrate the whole Mass in a quiet voice”, for we are not unaware that the manner of voice does not pertain to the substance of the sacrifice, and these things can be changed according to the judgment of the Church. Thus, the whole question is placed in this: “Whether the custom of the Latin Church of pronouncing certain things in a quiet voice is opposed to the institution of Christ, and hence, is bad and necessarily must be corrected.”[…]2) The second objection: Christ did not institute the sacraments in such a way that the action would be visible and public, so the word, which is a special part of the sacraments, should be hidden and buried.I respond: The notion of a sacrament is one thing, and the notion of a sacrifice another; at the present we are arguing properly on the sacrifice. Moreover, the sacrifice does not consist in words, but in the oblation of a thing, words, however, are required in the sacrifice of the Mass, not to be themselves the sacrifice, or part of the sacrifice, but only to show the presence of the victim to us. By the words of consecration, as we showed above, it comes about that the Body of Christ is truly present on the altar; this is why the sacrifice will truly be outward and sensible, even if the words, whereby it comes about, cannot be heard. Add, that in the sacraments, to the essence of which the words chiefly pertain, it is not necessary that the words are perceived by those who receive the sacraments, provided they are perceived by those who minister them; otherwise baptism conferred upon infants, the insane, and the deaf would be invalid, which not even Chemnitz would admit. Consequently, we respond to the argument that Christ did not establish the words so they would be hidden and buried, that he also did not establish them in such a way that they must be pronounced to be heard by all who are present. Rather, he only established them to be really applied, and after him it was left to the liberty of the Church to constitute a manner of recitation. Not only do Catholics teach this, but even Chemnitz the teacher and Luther the prophet, in his book On the Formula of the Mass, where he permits the freedom to pronounce the words of the Supper in a loud or quiet voice.[…][To the objection that Eastern rites use a loud voice at consecration:]I respond: We do not deny that the words of consecration in the Eastern Church are customarily recited out loud, since it is quite certain from the liturgy of Chrysostom. Nor do we condemn this; for we do not contend that these words must necessarily be recited in a quiet voice, rather, that the Church is free to establish the rite, and hence neither the rite of the Greeks nor of the Latins can be condemned, nor should they. But although the words of consecration are uttered in a loud voice among the Greeks, nevertheless, certain others are pronounced in a quiet voice and clearly in secret, as we clearly showed from the same liturgy of Chrysostom. As a result, there is no need to respond to the testimony of Bessarion and Dionysius of Alexandria.

Rev. James Luke Meagher, How Christ Said the First Mass, p. 387:

The synagogue service was sung in a loud tone, while the table Seder was recited in a lower voice. The synagogue worship brought the Passover to the end of what we call the Preface of the Mass. During this first part of the Mass, the celebrant sings in a loud tone, while he recites the Canon in a low voice. Why is this? Some writers say the Canon is thus said in a low voice because of the persecutions of the Roman empire, and that then they said Mass in secret places and in a low voice lest enemies might hear them.But enemies would have heard the first part of the Mass which was always sung from the beginning when possible. The Orientals, not disturbed by Roman persecutions, sang the Mass from apostolic days, and therefore this does not seem a valid reason why the Canon is recited in a low tone. This Canon, found only in the Latin Liturgy, the Mass St. Peter established at Rome, is the most sacred part of the Mass, and corresponds to the sacred Seder of the Passover the Jews said at the table in a lower voice. St. Peter, leader of the apostolic band therefore established the Latin Liturgy with its Canon more according to the Jewish Passover Rite than the other apostles, who established Liturgies of the Mass indifferent languages.


Scriptural arguments against Prosperity Theology

Some of the verses used to support it are taken out of context or are meant to apply the to nation of Israel.

To consider verses that come to bear on prosperity you might want to consider one that shows how prosperity can be a barrier to faith.

  Luke 18:25  For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye,
  than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Another verse focuses on the suffocating and deceptive effects of prosperity.

  Matthew 13:22  He also that received seed among the thorns is he that
  heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of
  riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

Other verses make reference to unpleasant consequences of prosperity.

  1 Timothy 6:9-11  But they that will be rich fall into temptation and
  a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in
  destruction and perdition.  For the love of money is the root of all
  evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith,
  and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.  But thou, O man of
  God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness,
  faith, love, patience, meekness.


What and where are the evidences for the Catholic Church's Apostolic Succession?

First of all, the Catholic Church admits that both Rome and Antioch (Orthodox) have a line of succession starting with St. Peter.

Speaking of the apostolic succession of Antioch, the Catholic
Encyclopedia says :
"The first Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter..."
[...]
Evodius

Second of all, the Orthodox Church, which is not in union with the Catholic Church, also admits that both Antioch and Rome have St. Peter as their first Bishop.

Speaking of the apostolic successions originating from St. Peter,
OrthdoxWiki says :
After the Ascension, the apostles dispersed to preach Christianity to the world. They each founded different patriarchates. Some of the
most prominent disciples of Jesus founded the patriarchates that made
up the Pentarchy.
Jerusalem - James
Antioch - Peter
Rome - Peter
Alexandria - Mark
Constantinople - Andrew
Pentarchy

Third of all, the Orthodox Church has always recognized that technically speaking Rome is superior to all of their churches in view of the Pentarchy. The only reason they go off the rails so to say is that, in a spirit of contradiction, they excommunicated the primate when he disagreed with them.

The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia :
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy
amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to
the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has
separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she
assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office … How shall we
accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us
and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the
lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak,
hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and
even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at
his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what
kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons,
of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of
sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.’
Wikipedia relates to us that :  Pentarchy (from the Greek Πενταρχία, pentarchía, from πέντε pénte, "five", and ἄρχειν archein,
"to rule") is a model of Church organization historically championed
in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It found its fullest expression in the
laws of Emperor Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire. In the model, the
Christian church is governed by the heads (patriarchs) of the five
major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.[2]
[...]
The greater authority of these sees in relation to others was tied to
their political and ecclesiastical prominence; all were located in
important cities and regions of the Roman Empire and were important
centers of the Christian Church. Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were
prominent from the time of early Christianity, while Constantinople
came to the fore upon becoming the imperial residence in the 4th
century. Thereafter it was consistently ranked just after Rome.
Pentarchy

In other words, both Catholics and Orthodox believe the Pope is the successor of St. Peter. The difference being that Rome makes the difference between mere succession and the dispensation of the keys which would be considered final and most important succession. Therefore you cannot assume there is a bias in the lines of succession. By the way, Orthodox believe that the Bishop of Rome is the original Primus Inter Pares, a title of primacy which has now been usurped by Constantinople, although if unity is regained Constantinople will lose the title :

The Eastern Orthodox Church also uses the term "first among equals" in
regard to the Bishop of Rome during the first thousand years of Christianity.
Whereas the Patriarch of Constantinople is now
considered first among the Orthodox patriarchs, the Orthodox Church
considers the Bishop of Rome (regarded as the "Patriarch of the West")
the "first among equals" in the Pentarchy of the Patriarchal Sees
according to the ancient, first millennial order (or "taxis" in Greek)
of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
established after Constantinople became the eastern capital of the
Roman/Byzantine Empire. The Bishop of Rome no longer holds this
distinction in the Orthodox Church because, following the East–West
Schism, he is no longer in communion with the Orthodox Church.
Primus inter pares (Wikipedia)

Lastly, the list of Roman Bishops can be found easily but if you want to verify the validity of every individual instance of succession you'll obviously need to consult more precise ressources, like the Catholic Encyclopedia for all the instances of succession.


Why did God relent on killing Moses when Zipporah circumcised their son?

The Bible "stories" teach us about the nature of God.  They sometimes serve as a warning and other times they encourage a closer relationship with God.

These stories are not casual happenings; they are recorded in the Bible as an everlasting message to God’s children.  So in the case of Uzza, the Ark is the presence of God on Earth.  When Uzza reached out to save the Ark this is in complete contrast to the “truth”, God saves man, man does not save God.  So while this seems harsh and Uzza may have reacted out of instinct the eternal-stakes were much greater than Uzza’s life.  We also must realize that just because God took Uzza’s life it does not follow that Uzza went to Hell, but may have gone to be with the Lord.

Once Moses’ son was circumcised God no longer sought to kill Moses.  God instructs Moses to tell Pharaoh that Israel is God’s first-born son.  Israel ultimately bore the “only begotten Son” Jesus Christ.  Obviously Moses’ neglect regarding his own son was inexcusable and compromised the validity of God’s full message to humanity.  God will not compromise; He is not tolerant but patient (long-suffering), which is an attribute of God’s love.

The same is true with the people of Beth Shemesh that compromised these sacred articles of God, by looking into the Ark of the Covenant.  All of these stories send a message even to this day.


What is the biblical basis for a one world religion in the end times?

There's a lot of discussion and debate about this especially due to the nature of the end-time prophecies, but one verse that does back a one world religion at least implicitly.

  Rev 13:8

  And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They
  are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before
  the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was
  slaughtered

If everyone is worshiping the "beast" then in essence the religion is the same, whether it is actually one religion or not.


Why do today's Christians never express any kind of criticism against other religions?

My experience has not been similar to yours, in that I do hear church leaders criticise other religions. In addition, as a young man I don't know what things were like a few decades ago to compare it too. Nevertheless, I want to attempt to answer the question.
This article, from a prominent Evangelical source, discusses the way in which the author suggests Christians interact with other religions. While we could debate whether the author is correct, I would say this is a common view. The author generally tries to hold together two opposing views: a) belief in Jesus is the only way to salvation, and therefore we must criticise other religions, b) we must do so in a way that helps our cause, rather than hinders it.
The Apostle Paul says a similar thing in Collosians:

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. Collosians 4:5-6 (NIV)

Exactly what being wise and gracious means will depend on the circumstance, the people involved, and the nature of the society we live in. I suspect every Christian will have a different idea were that line is, and I've heard many say our modern (in particular, Western) Christianity are a bit too generous with this line.
However, I understand why a Christian radio station in particular would choose to avoid criticism of other religions. They have chosen to perform a particular role, and leave other functions up to the church. For comparison, consider the way this Stack Exchange runs. Two thoughts that immediately jump to mind:
Firstly, a public radio station needs to cater to a wide range of Christians. There are denomination here on Christianity.SE that I strongly disagree with, and feel ought to have their beliefs criticised - but I recognise this isn't the platform for doing so.
Secondly, a pubic radio station has no ability for personal discourse. If I disagree with the pastor of my church, I can go talk to him after the service (and on occasion have done!), and he can get to know my particular objection and life situation. A radio broadcast doesn't allow for this. Again, this SE has made similar decisions, albeit about a slightly different topic.
In conclusion, I would say that the reason some Christians publications choose not to openly criticise because:

They believe there is biblical precedent for being wise towards other religions
They believe in our current climate, "wise" means avoiding public, impersonal criticism
They have chosen to perform one specific function, and leave the rest of the church's responsibility to the church.

Whether one agrees with this logic, I would say that is the decision being made. I would hope that an individual church would recognise the need to expose the un-truths in other religions, and would seek to do so in a clear but wise manner.


How and when did the water come into being?

Well, you see, when two atoms of hydrogen love an atom of oxygen very much...

When I was a literalist (and it seems you are looking through those glasses) my interpretation was that when God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."), that would have included the waters. Since the waters and the lands and the waters above the heavens and the waters on the earth were not separated yet, then it is a bit difficult to nail down the dimensionality of it all, but simply because we cannot conceive of a world where there is little boundary between gaseous and liquid state that does not means that it could not exist. Of course, fog exists, so it is quite possible that water was originally created as a liquid suspended in air.

You might be reading too much into "over". To say that God is literally and exclusively "over" something is as nonsensical as saying he is literally and exclusively "under" something. Time and space are never literal in such a context.


Are non-Catholics allowed to go to confession?

Perhaps surprisingly, Canon Law appears to allow it.

  Can.  959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

So who are "the faithful"? Naturally, that question is answered, too:

  Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.

The issue, therefore, is whether the penitent regards the priest as competent (in the legal sense of that word) — does he regard the priest as a priest and able to forgive sins? Many in other denominations would not; it may well be that they do not regard such an earthly representative of the heavenly as necessary at all.

Supplementary issue: if the penitent does regard the priest as competent, and presumably does not wish to approach clergy of his own denomination, why is he not a Catholic? That may be a basis for another question.

Disclaimer: Although I know where to find things in Canon Law, I'm not a lawyer. We could do with a Catholic priest in these hallowed halls.


Beatification/canonization process in Eastern Orthodox Church

I can tell you of the Russian Orthodox Church.

There is a Synodal Commission which examines the issue and has the authority to glorify the person as a saint.

There are locally venerated saints, which are venerated in a eparchy, and commonly venerated saints, which are inserted to the calendar common to all the church.

The eparchial veneration is sanctioned by the Patriarch and common veneration is sanctioned by the Сouncil of Bishops.

The main criteria are:

righteous life
irreproachable orthodoxy
popular veneration
working of miracles
imperishable relics
martyrdom

After the material confirming a person's sainthood is submitted to the Synodal Commission by the Eparchy or other body, it checks if there are evidences of a righteous life by the contemporaries, documented and verifiable miracles, if relics are present and if the claimed genuinely professed Orthodox Christianity and was in communion with the Patriarchate Church, and it recommends the Patriarch or the Council to affirm the claim.

Also, there are different titles to the saints in Orthodox church, describing their life position - clergymen/laymen/marthyrs etc. See Wikipedia

There is a source in Russian:

What i wrote is from the Internet, I have no personal expertise or experience in canonisation process, so use this info with "limited warranty".