What was the purpose to animal sacrifices?

There were two main meanings to this.  The first was as a symbol of Christ, whose blood makes it possible for everyone to have their sins forgiven.  The second is as a sacrifice in the more traditional sense: willingly giving up something important and valuable.  And when your animals are both your livelihood and the food on your family's table, giving the best of your flocks to the Lord (and the sacrifices were required to be the best, not just any old animal) is quite a sacrifice indeed!  By the Law of Sacrifice, the Lord teaches us to have faith and trust in him instead of getting too attached to material possessions and trusting in them to bring us happiness and success in life.


Can the faithful receive Holy Communion on repenting after committing a grave sin?

"my blood of the covenant, which is poured forth for many for the forgiveness of sins" refers to the purpose of the giving of Christ's blood. It does not refer to the effects of recieving it in Communion.

This is the very simple answer.

However, we do believe that the body and blood of Christ give us spiritual life. As Christ lives by the Father, so we will live because of Christ, and will be raised, like Him, on the last day. Theses are the promises of Christ on the Eucharist.

St. Paul teaches that we must have a clean conscience before Holy Communion:

  1 Corinthians 10:16-22. . . 11:25-29

  The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the
  blood of Christ? The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of
  the body of Christ? . . . Are not those who eat the sacrifices
  partakers of the altar?* . . . But you cannot drink the cup of the
  Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord** and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord? Are we
  stronger than He? . . . [about misconduct at the Lord's Supper] . . .

  For I recieved from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the
  Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and having given
  thanks [eucharistēsas] He broke it and said, This is My body, which
  is [given] for you; do this in commemoration of Me. In the same way,
  having supped, [took] the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in
  My blood; [and] as often you might drink it, do it in commemoration of
  Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you
  proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. Therefore WHOEVER EATS
  THE BREAD OR DRINKS OF THE CUP OF THE LORD UNWORTHILY WILL BE GUILTY
  OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. Therefore let a man examine
  himself, and then let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For
  he who eats and drinks not recognizing [for what it is] the body/flesh
  [of the Lord] eats and drinks DAMNATION unto himself: for which reason
  many of you are weak and sick, and many of you fallen asleep.

* Hebrews 13:10.

** table of the Lord refers to the altar of sacrifice referred to in the Old Testament:

  Malachi 1:7

  You offer polluted bread upon My altar. And you say, Wherein have we
  polluted Thee: in that you say the table of the Lord is contemptable.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following:§

  To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great
  and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience:
  "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in
  an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of
  the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink
  of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the
  body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."216 Anyone conscious of a
  grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming
  to Communion.

216 1 Cor 11:27-29.

§ CCC 1385 | See also Council of Trent, Session 13, Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, cap. VII.


What is the significance of position of fingers in Jesus' hand as shown in his images?

From: What does this hand gesture mean in Icons? (Wordpress.com)

  The fingers spell out “IC XC”, a widely used four letter abbreviation
  of the Greek for Jesus (IHCOYC) Christ (XPICTOC). It is by the name of
  Jesus that we are saved and receive blessings: “At the name of Jesus
  every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and
  things under the earth;” (Phil 2:10).

I am not Orthodox but have learned a lot about that faith, the local priest here has said the same thing.

From the Orthodox Church of America site, "Placement of fingers in icons," I would assume an authoritative source.

You see this in a lot of Eastern Orthodox icons:


How can we be with Christ when we die, if Christ has a glorified body and we won't until the resurrection?

Like God, we humans are spiritual beings. Unlike God, we are not just spirit; we are physical, corporeal bodies which are animated by spirit.

Imagine, if you will, a living body. Picture this body standing upright, but perfectly still. Every system in the body is functioning as it should: the heart is beating at 72 times a minute; the oxygen-carbon-dioxide exchange is going as it should as the lungs fill with air and oxygen from the air infuses the blood cells; the brain's synapses are firing and data of all sorts coming from both the inside of and outside the body are being processed properly--smells, sights, tastes, touches, sounds; blood pressure is 120 over 80; the exchange of nutrients and the elimination of waste products are fully functioning; in short, every system is performing optimally.

One thing is missing, however, and that is a spirit. Impossible, you say. Well, yes, but--but, if someone outside of that body I've just described were to pierce the heart of that living body in such a way that the heart stopped beating, the body would begin to die. Within minutes, it would experience brain death and the bodily systems I've just described would cease to function. The body would then begin the steady and inexorable process of decay and decomposition.

A materialist who happens to be observing the phenomenon I've just described would likely say, "Well, we've just witnessed the life/death cycle at work whereby the chemicals comprising the living body are simply rearranged and become part of other chemicals in the ongoing process of life and death--the Great Mandella (wheel of life)." In a playful mood, the materialist might even say, "The dearly departed is in the process of becoming  plant food for daisies, which in turn will decay and die, providing food for other life forms."

A Christian, on the other hand, would insist that life does not end with physical death, nor does a dead body, through decomposition, simply provide fertilizer to the soil. To the Christian, physical death ushers the believer into what might be called a segue to eternal life.

Early believers and the apostle Paul referred to deceased brothers and sisters in Christ as those who had fallen asleep in Christ (see 1 Corinthians 15:18, 20, 51). This "falling asleep" was not just a euphemism, but it was a way of describing the transition from the perishable, mortal, and physical body to the imperishable, immortal, and spiritual body.

Regardless of their eschatology, most Christians believe that that transition will be completed with the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, when the dead in Christ shall rise with spiritual, heavenly bodies, like unto our Lord Jesus' body. Regardless of when that return for his own may be, we are assured that our Savior

  will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to himself (Philippians 3:21).

Or as the apostle John put it,

  See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is” (1 John 3:1-2 NASB Updated).

In the interim between a Christian’s death and subsequent resurrection, which will occur when Christ returns for his own, the Christian’s spirit lives on and is in some way “present with the Lord,” the “proof text” of which is 2 Corinthians 5:8, which follows, along with its context:

  Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lorde—for we walk by faith, not by sight—we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to the Lord (vv.6-9).

A somewhat parallel passage is in Paul’s letter to the Philippian believers,

  For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better, yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake (1:21-24 NASB Updated, includes italics).

Besides the metaphor of sleep to describe the transition from death to resurrection, Paul also uses the metaphor of nakedness (or being unclothed) and the metaphor of a tent and a house (or dwelling):

  For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge (2 Corinthians 5:1-5 NASB Updated, includes italics).

When we combine the teaching in all the above passages, one thing becomes very clear: In death, every believer is alive and in the presence of the Lord. As for what “form” that presence will take, the Bible does not tell us. As the apostle John, whom I’ve quoted above, says,

  . . . it has not appeared as yet what we will be . . . (1 John 3:2, excerpt).

Nevertheless, we do know at least two things: 1) that to die is to be in Jesus’ presence, and 2) that to be in Jesus’ presence is to be a living spirit. That spirit may be disembodied (or unclothed), but since Christ through his resurrection is the first fruits of our resurrection (see 1 Corinthians 15:20 and 23) we are simply awaiting that day when our spirit and our glorified and sinless body will be united, which was God’s original design for his image bearers.

From that day forward we will never again be subject to death, which will be swallowed up in victory (Isaiah 25:8; 1 Corinthians 15:54), but we will live forever and "bear the image of the heavenly" Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:49), who loved us and gave himself for us.


What happens to a rejected grace? What happens to the merits of one's prayers for a person who is not ready to accept it or does not accept? Does God use one's prayer for a different individual?

First of all, we have to look at the subject as best we can. There are several points to be taken into consideration here.

What is grace?

  Grace is the supernatural gift that God, of his free benevolence, bestows on rational creatures for their eternal salvation. The gifts of grace are essentially supernatural. They surpass the being, powers, and claims of created nature, namely sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and actual grace. They are the indispensable means necessary to reach the beatific vision. In a secondary sense, grace also includes such blessings as the miraculous gifts of prophecy or healing, or the preternatural gifts of freedom from concupiscence.

  The essence of grace, properly so called, is its gratuity, since no creature has a right to the beatific vision, and its finality or purpose is to lead one to eternal life. - Catholic Dictionary

Here is what Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., surnamed the Sacred Monster of Thomism has to say on this:

  MEANINGS OF THE WORD “GRACE”

  There are of course three acceptations of this word “grace” even used in human affairs. For grace (χάρις) originally refers to something, which is not due or is freely bestowed; this meaning is very common in both profane and biblical writings. Hence even in purely human matters the term “grace” has a threefold application, as follows:

  The love of benevolence conferring a gift, which is not due; for example, we say: This soldier has the grace of the king.
  The gift itself freely bestowed; thus we say: I grant you this grace.
  Gratitude for a benefit received; thus: I render you thanks for your benefits.

  Moreover, these three significations may be transferred to the supernatural order, whereupon the word grace applies to the following.

  The love of benevolence on the part of God, conferring supernatural, life. This love of God is uncreated grace.
  The supernatural gift of grace itself freely bestowed and ordained to eternal life; this is created grace, of which we are now treating, whether it is interior or exterior, such as the preaching of the gospel.
  Our gratitude to God. - Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas

As Geremia's answer explains to us, the Church has yet to make a decision if efficacious grace can be rejected?

In the seminary, we were taught that when we pray for a soul in purgatory or when a Mass is said for the repose of a soul (in purgatory) and that particular soul is in heaven, God will apply those prayers and merits (of the Mass) to another soul in need.

We might not be able to know for certainty if grace can truly be rejected, but it does seem possible. I would like to give here one example of a possibility that could fit that bill. Perhaps not the best, but it gets the point across. It comes from The Cleaving of Christendom by Warren Carroll, chapter 12, page 626. It contrasts the rejection of faith (as a free gift from God) and the reception of that same gift by others (at the same moment in history).

  The conversion of Mexico was by far the greatest and most complete in all missionary history, and Mexico remains one of most Catholic countries in the world today. And most of that conversion [of nine million souls] took place in the years when Henry VIII was taking England out of the Church. What the Church had lost in the old world, she regained in the new.

Prayer and graces are never in vain, God will see to it that they are used and accorded to and by someone in need, even if that grace is one of final repentance on one's deathbed. We may pray for someone's conversion, while not being able to see the promptings of the Holy Spirit at work in that soul. While we can not know if in fact grace has been rejected or not, keep on praying, you may be awakening a future St Augustine of Hippo!


Are the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang now binding to Catholics and to be held as true?

There is no official Church teaching on evolution, but this wikipedia article has a very nice summary of the Catholic Church and evolution and provides a history of statements from Church leaders and some theologians. [cf. Catholic Church and evolution | Wikiwand.]

It should be realized that the dedication of a bust is not an occasion where some new Church teaching is going to be given. You go could into how Church teaching comes about. A Pope can speak ex cathedra, but that has only been done twice in history and it is made very clear that he is speaking in this way. For non-dogmatic Church teaching the Pope would issue a document such as an encyclical. If something is going to be required by Catholics then it will be stated in a clear and formal way.

However, this explanation is unnecessary because a careful reading of the statements will show that about the only thing that could be considered as a new teaching would be the idea that the scientific theories of Evolution and the Big Bang do not rule out the idea of creation and can even presuppose the idea of creation.

The Pope does not endorse evolution. He says that evolution does not rule out the idea of creation. "The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.” So, the theory of Evolution could not be considered as here being taught.

The Pope does not endorse the Big Bang when he says, "The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it." He is simply saying that the Big Bang, a currently accepted scientific theory posited as the origin of the world, does not rule out a creating God, but requires it. So, the Big Bang theory could not be considered as being taught.

The Pope realizes he is not a scientist and does not debate with scientific theories. He addresses these theories the scientific community has provided from a philosophical and theological perspective and makes conclusions, e.g. they do not rule out the idea of a creating God.

Even statements such as "... And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today...", and "The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.", are not meant to be taken as Church teaching. His remarks are not focused on these scientific descriptions as being something true, but he uses the description that the theories provide in order to show that they do not rule out the idea of creation.

A careful reading of his remarks will show that this is the reason for his remarks, to show that these scientific theories do not rule out the idea of creation, and this is the only new thing in his remarks that could be likened to a teaching. You can not teach something just by mentioning it, or accepting it for the sake of showing something else.

Popes write books, they answer reporters questions, they make speeches at various events. Not everything a Pope says is 'official'. When a Pope wants to provide anything that would be official teaching it is done in a way to make clear to all that this is the case.


What is masturbation, according to the Catholic Catechism?

I must preface this with the fact that I'm not an expert on this subject (meaning the Catechism, not masturbation).

However, the text itself seems to show very clearly that it's the intention that matters ("in order to derive sexual pleasure."). Clearly, ejaculation isn't required, merely the act of beginning (or continuing) something that is pleasurable.

It seems clear that "deliberate stimulation" is the sin.  Meaning that it has to be deliberate and it has to be stimulating.  If you unintentionally stimulate yourself, it's not a sin.  Also, if you intentionally do something but it's not stimulating, that's also not a sin  (that would just be weird).

The definition seems obvious to me.

Having said this, the  culminating sentence of this section states:

  To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

So while the definition is obvious and clear (per the question), there is some leniency given to this situation.


Why was God not angry with Solomon's Census

Maybe it was because Solomon took a census of all the foreigners, while David numbered the children of Israel without making this offering:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls. [Exodus 30:11-15 KJV]

God wanted the children of Israel numbered only so that they would know how much to give to the Lord. David just wanted to know, with Satan's influence, how big his army was; he was putting his trust in his military might rather than in the promises of God.


What is the meaning of "rigid Catholic" according to the mind of Pope Francis?

Here are his usages of the word "rigid" (and its derivatives) from the Pope Francis Little Book of Insults, with citations:

  Rigid Christians!
  They call themselves Christians, they call themselves Catholics, but their rigid attitude distances them from the Church!
  They are men who are locked in their calculations! They are slaves to their rigidity!
  Those who take refuge in the slavery of rigidity and know nothing of God's mercy!
  The closed, legalistic slave of his own rigidity!
  God does not love rigidity!
  A rigid idealism that prevents reconciliation between each other!
  The rigidity of the laws and an idealism that harms us!
  Jesus frees us from the chains of the law's rigidity and tells us: ‘But do that up to the point that you are capable!’
  Escape from all rigidity!
  People will try to block you, to make you think that God is distant, rigid and insensitive!
  Behind an attitude of rigidity there is always something else in the life of a person!
  Rigidity is not a gift of God!
  Rigidity conceals the leading of a double life, something pathological!
  It is not easy to walk within the Law of the Lord without falling into rigidity!
  Those who think that by becoming rigid they are following the path of the Lord!
  Unchanging, rigidity…the Law is about moving forward, the Kingdom of God is moving forward, it is not standing still!
  A rigid person only has masters and no father!
  But to make themselves important, intermediary priests must take the path of rigidity!
  They are rigid, [they are] those rigid ones that load upon the faithful so many things that they do not carry [themselves]!
  Rigid Intermediaries!
  ‘This cannot be, this cannot be ...’. And so many people approaching, looking for a bit of consolation, a little understanding, are chased away with this rigidity!
  Rigidity – which wrecks one’s interior life and even psychic balance – goes hand-in-glove with worldliness!
  About rigidity and worldliness, it was some time ago that an elderly monsignor of the curia came to me, who works, a normal man, a good man, in love with Jesus – and he told me that he had gone to buy a couple of shirts at Euroclero [the clerical clothing store] and saw a young fellow - he thinks he had not more than 25 years, or a young priest or about to become a priest - before the mirror, with a cape, large, wide, velvet, with a silver chain. He then took the Saturno [wide-brimmed clerical headgear], he put it on and looked himself over. A rigid and worldly one. And that priest – he is wise, that monsignor, very wise - was able to overcome the pain, with a line of healthy humor and added: ‘And it is said that the Church does not allow women priests!’
  Instead of opening their heart to the gift, they hid, have sought refuge in the rigidity of the Commandments, which they had multiplied up to 500 or more!
  These rigid characters were afraid of the freedom that God gives us: they were afraid of love!
  The rigidity of the closed Commandments, that are more and more safe – with emphasis on the scare-quotes!


Why call men on earth 'father' when Christ forbids it?

In Matthew 23:1-12 Jesus denounces the Jewish scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy in elevating themselves above others.  They wanted the common people to look up to them and address them as teacher and master, as father, as if they were the source of truth.  Jesus, however, taught that the source of all life and truth is God, and that no-one should seek a title that belongs only to God.  God as Father will not share his titles with mere mortals.

In Matthew 23:7-10 Jesus explains why it is wrong to call men “father”:

  7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. (Matthew 23 7-10 KJV 1900)

Therefore, for any religious leader to ignore Jesus’ words is to suggest they want their followers to look to them as the source of life and truth, instead of looking to God.  There is but one Father, who is in heaven.  There is but one Master, Christ.

All Christians who have been born again are adopted into God’s family, and all are equal.  They all have one heavenly Father, whom they are privileged to address as “Abba” (Romans 8:15), and they all have one Master, Christ Jesus, who bought them at a price (Acts20:28).

Within the context of Jesus' words, it is clear he is not referring to a physical, earthly, biological father, but to religious leaders who seek to elevate themselves above Christ who is their Master.


Between August and November 1532 Luther delivered a series of lectures on psalm 45, part of a longer series on  selected psalms. Rorer took notes, using shorthand and these were later published, though Luther said he spoke to his students as the words came to him, and so the published record was not as polished as he would have liked.

The prelegomena to psalm 45 are in volume 12 of the St Louis edition of Luther's Works, to which I cannot find a link. The relevant part, on page 198-9, is qouted by Westerholm as follows:

  Even if this language [Hebrew] were useless otherwise, one should still learn it out of thankfulness. It is part of religion and divine worship to teach and learn this language through which alone we can learn anything of the divine. In it we hear God speak, we hear how the saints call upon God and achieve the mightiest deeds; thus study directed toward learning this language might rightly be called a kind of mass or divine service.

The Latin can be seen in the Weimar edition, volume 40 part 2, page 474, from line 18.

Although Luther believed strongly the Bible should be available in the German of the ordinary people, he did not think that German could fully convey the original meanings, or was adequate for ministers.


How could Jacob wrestle with God if no one can see God and live?

So first off, this story of Jacob "struggling with God" (in Hebrew Isra - el) is one that has puzzled people for years.  There is little agreement amongst scholars about what this means.  Some interpret this is a vision, others as a theophany, and still others suggest that it was simply a metaphor for the striving and struggling that Jacob had been doing all along.

Beyond that, however, the exact question is, 'Why didn't Jacob die after seeing the face of God (the Pen - el)?'  After all, as you pointed out, when Moses asked to see God's face 430 years later, he was told that if he did, he would die.

Two theories:

God was disguised

What is different, however, is that Moses wanted to see God's full Shekinah Glory. He wanted the unmediated experience of seeing God in his fullness.

In contrast, here God is clearly not revealed in his full glory.  Remember that when the three visitors came to see Abraham, they were disguised. When the angel came to visit Samson's father, he was disguised.  When there was the fourth in the furnace, shining brightly as a 'son of God,' he too could have been considered to be disguised.

For a trickster who had disguised himself once to fool his own father, Jacob would have understood a disguise.  There's nothing supernatural here in being able to realize that someone is way more than he looks like on the surface.
It was a miracle.

Jacob himself is shocked that he saw God and lived. He was in fact, left crippled by the experience, it was that powerful.  Remember, he was blessed, though its hard to understand how being crippled is a "blessing," unless if compared to the certainty of death for seeing God face to face.  That his life was preserved and he still got to be with God in the same way Adam once talked to him is an amazing gift.


Will we experience heaven (or hell) with our consciousness?

Memories:

  Romans 14:12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to
  God

I am under the impression that yes we will have memories of our lives (because without such memories how could we give account?). We would not be able to give an account if we did not have consciousness.

Conscious Experience:

I think that this Scripture gives us a clear answer:

  Revelation 6:9-11 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar
  the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and
  the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice,
  “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the
  inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” Then each of them
  was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer,
  until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and
  sisters, were killed just as they had been.

Not only did they have the ability to ask a question, they also remembered the way that they were killed and that they deserved justice. They also felt longing, which also supports that there is conscious experience in Heaven.

"Earthly" (Physical) Experience:

Please also keep in mind that when Revelation describes heaven there are references to many physical things. I don't believe such language would be used if we were just going to be spiritual beings returning to our source. Please read Revelation 21 & Revelation 22:1-5

I am sure that there are more evidences of this, but I am yet to search them out. I am convinced that Heaven will is not just some holding tank for souls, but rather a beautiful restoration of all creation.

God Bless!


The Chimera is of pagan origins, but the interpretation as to what it may symbolize in a Christian perspective is an open question.

The mythological Chimera is a terrifying creature that features a fire-breathing lion’s head attached to a goat's body and ending in a serpent tail. There are varying versions of what a Chimera actually looks like with some iterations giving the creature three heads—a lion, a goat, and a dragon—among other interesting interpretations. According to Greek mythology, the Chimera is the offspring of the monster Typhoeus and his partner, Echidna, who was half-woman half-snake.
In scientific terms, a chimera is an organism with two or more genotypes; a fetus that has absorbed a deceased twin, for instance, is a chimera. Some believe that the chimera is actually a personification of Mt. Chimera, a long-gone mountain that was always on fire, in Turkey. Based on its gnarly anatomy and fire-breathing abilities the Chimera sits in the top three on our list. - Chimera

With the origins of the Chimera out of the way, there seems no biblical basis, or occultist basis for this mythical beast.

Chimera, in Greek mythology, a fire-breathing female monster resembling a lion in the forepart, a goat in the middle, and a dragon behind. She devastated Caria and Lycia until she was slain by Bellerophon. In art the Chimera is usually represented as a lion with a goat’s head in the middle of its back and with a tail that ends in a snake’s head. This matches the description found in Hesiod’s Theogony (7th century BC). The word is now used generally to denote a fantastic idea or figment of the imagination.

Nevertheless, Dragons sometimes symbolize the Devil in the Scriptures and in Christian art. So one could easily see a relationship in the imagery of the Chimera to symbolize a dragon and thus Satan, but I have found no real evidence of this.
Christians have for many centuries employed ancient mythological creatures in Christian art and imagery.

By A.D. 200, Tertullian called the unicorn a symbol of Christ. Ambrose, Jerome, and Basil agreed. The late-antiquity bestiary known as Physiologus popularized an elaborate allegory in which a unicorn tamed by a maiden stood for the Incarnation. This became the basic–and universal–medieval notion of the unicorn, justifying its appearance in every form of religious art.
The unicorn also acquired positive secular meanings, including chaste love and faithful marriage. (It plays this role in Petrarch’s Triumph of Chastity.) It was a heraldic motif, appearing on the national arms and coins of Scotland. The royal throne of Denmark was made of “unicorn horns” (actually narwhal tusks). The same material was used for ceremonial cups because the unicorn’s horn was believed to neutralize poison.
As for other fabulous beings, Jerome’s Life of St. Paul the First Hermit includes a friendly centaur and a God-fearing satyr. Dante’s Divine Comedy shows a griffin drawing the triumphant chariot of the Church. The monster-slaying Bellerophon mounted on Pegasus was an early Christian symbol of Christ’s victory over Satan.
Dragons adore the Christ Child in a fourteenth-century French treatise, The Life of Our Blessed Savior Jesus Christ. The infant Jesus blesses them for honoring the divine command “Praise the Lord from the Earth ye dragons” (Ps. 148:7). Mermaids, giants, sphinxes, chimeras, and other fabulous creatures from pagan myth and folklore have decorated churches and other vehicles of religious art.
And let’s not forget the four creatures which traditionally have represented the four Evangelists: a winged man (Matthew), a lion (Mark), an ox (Luke), and an eagle (John). - Source

Thus mermaids, giants, sphinxes, chimeras, and other fabulous creatures from pagan myth and folklore have decorated churches and other vehicles of religious art. The word Chimera is now also used to denote any fantastic, mythological and grotesque imaginary beast.
If the Chimera are simply considered ornamental art pieces, logic would indicate that a Chimera on a leather jacket is simply a form of art displaying the grotesque!

What's In a Name: Gargoyle, Chimera, or Grotesque?
Chimera are ornamental-only sculptures. They are the statues often depicted as monsters or mythical beasts such as birds, hybrid creatures, or monsters.
Thus, the statues that are pictured in this article were from the Notre Dame Chimera Gallery, located 150 feet (46 meters) above the Paris streets. Some of the more famous type of chimera:
Wyvern - a winged, two footed dragon
Stryga - the most famous Notre Dame chimera, often referred to incorrectly as the "Spitting Gargoyle." It faced the Eiffel Tower. (See photo below.)
Gargoyles, on the other hand, are carved drain spouts designed to carry rainwater away from a building to protect the masonry from water damage. They adorned the cathedral for more than 600 years.5 Ornate carvings of creatures with water coming out of their mouths are examples (see photo). As architectural elements, gargoyles serve a functional purpose, whereas chimeras are merely decorative.
Grotesques is the generic term for such stone carvings, regardless of whether they carry water.
Gargoyles Are Rain Diversion Devices With Spouts

Gargoyles Are Rain Diversion Devices With Spouts


What is the biblical basis for the Dual Nature of Man as opposed to the Tripartite Nature?

Wayne Grudem's defense of dichotomism in his Systematic Theology, chapter 23 is particularly helpful in this regard.  He lays out several kinds of biblical evidence, cleanly organizing the arguments made by previous Reformed theologians.  His points are:

Scripture uses soul and spirit interchangeably

"Soul" departs and "spirit" departs
Man is "body and soul" as well as "body and spirit"
"Soul" can sin and "spirit" can sin

The actions of the soul are also the actions of the spirit, and vice versa

(All scripture cited is from the ESV unless otherwise noted)

Scripture uses soul and spirit interchangeably

Grudem points to a number of passages that he argues are examples of the interchangeable use of soul and spirit.  For example:

  John 12:27: "Now is my soul troubled"
  John 13:21: Jesus was troubled in his spirit

He sees Luke 1:46–47 as an example of Hebrew parallelism:

  "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior"

And those who have died are described as both spirits (Hebrews 12:23, 1 Peter 3:19) and souls (Revelation 6:9, 20:4).

He makes a simmilar argument for three main areas: the departing of soul and spirit at death, the formula "body and soul/spirit," and how both soul and spirit can sin.

Departure at death

A number of passages use "soul" to describe what departs when man dies:

  Genesis 35:18: And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni
  1 Kings 17:21 (NKJV): “O Lord my God, I pray, let this child’s soul come back to him.”
  Isaiah 53:12: because he poured out his soul to death
  Luke 12:20: 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you’

But elsewhere, "spirit" is used similarly:

  Psalm 31:5: Into your hand I commit my spirit
  Ecclesiastes 12:7: the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
  John 19:30: he bowed his head and gave up his spirit
  Acts 7:59: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

In response to the argument that these passages refer to different entities, Grudem notes that the Bible never says that a person's "soul and spirit" departed; always one or the other.  Biblical writers don't seem concerned that one or the other might be left on earth with the body, suggesting that they are one and the same.

"Body and soul/spirit"

Grudem argues that biblical passages regularly refer to "body and soul" or "body and spirit" to describe the whole nature of man, not leaving out any parts.  For example, Matthew 10:28:

  And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

The same thing occurs with spirit, for example, 1 Corinthians 5:5:

  you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Other passages along these lines include James 2:26, 1 Corinthians 7:34, and 2 Corinthians 7:1.

Both soul and spirit can sin

The sinfulness of the spirit is often denied by trichonomists, but Grudem points to scriptural evidence for the sinfulness of both soul and spirit.  Regarding the soul, he points to 1 Peter 1:22 and Revelation 18:14, while passages indicating the sins of the spirit include 2 Corinthians 7:1:

  let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit

Similarly, Deuteronomy 2:30 refers to the hardened spirit of the king of Heshbon, and Psalm 78:8 refers to the faithlessness of the spirits of the people of Israel.  Other passages like Proverbs 16:2, Psalm 32:2, Psalm 51:10, and Proverbs 16:32 suggest that our spirits can be sinful.

Identical capabilities

Grudem finally argues that the soul and spirit are shown to have the same capabilities in the Bible.  Trichonomists attempt to draw distinctions between the spirit's actions (such as worship and prayer) and the soul's actions (such as thinking, feeling, and deciding), but this distinction is not maintained by Scripture.

Feeling is described of the spirit in John 13:21 and Acts 17:16, the latter of which says:

  Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.

Thinking too is a function of the spirit in Mark 2:8, Romans 8:16, and especially 1 Corinthians 2:11:

  For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him?

On the other side of things, the soul is often said to worship God.  Among many examples are Psalm 103:1, 146:1, and Luke 1:46, and the Bible teaches that souls pray and long for God (1 Samuel 1:15, Psalm 42:1–2, Psalm 119:20).

Grudem concludes:

  Scripture does not seem to support any distinction between soul and spirit.  There does not seem to be a satisfactory answer to the questions that we may address to a trichotomist, "What can the spirit do that the soul cannot do?  What can the soul do that the spirit cannot do?"

Counterarguments

Grudem addresses a variety of trichonomist arguments, including that of Hebrews 4:12.  Full explanation of his counterarguments is beyond the scope of this answer, but in brief:

1 Thessalonians 5:23, "may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless": Grudem argues that this is best understood as a "piling up" of synonyms, similar to Matthew 22:37's heart, soul, and mind.  Treating that passage and Mark 12:30 the same way would seem to indicate five or six parts of man.
Hebrews 4:12, "piercing to the division of soul and of spirit": Soul is not separated from spirit here, says Grudem, but both are said to be penetrated and divided.  For more on this, including other approaches, see How do proponents of the dual nature of man address Hebrews 4:12, “dividing soul and spirit”?

Summary

Grudem admits that arguments for trichotomism have "some force" but finds that:

  the wide testimony of Scripture [shows] that the terms soul and spirit are frequently interchangeable and are in many cases synonymous.


Can non-inifinite beings make logical deductions about infinite properties of God?

Steve gives a good answer, but in regards to those things Christians do profess, such as God's infinite goodness.  That question is not answered by science but through simple philosophy.  One may ask for instance, "is it possible for God to be both good and bad?".  CS Lewis covers this in depth in Mere Christianity in the opening chapters.

Basically, the ying yang view of the world does not work, good and bad are not opposites like black and white, that is a misrepresentation.

It is more accurate to say there is good (or holiness, or love, or whatever you want to call pure goodness)and then there is the curruption of good.  In other words evil does not exist alone, it can not exist alone, for it is nothing except the absence of love or goodness, not something alone by itself.  Read Lewis for an in depth answer.

These things could be debated one by one, but as Steve mentions in his answer, the way God is portrayed in the Bible is as the "hidden God".

The clues we have about His nature are almost all related to how He loves us.  You will find over and over again God defined as perfect Holiness.

In the end Christians see God as a being (horrible word) who is fully and completely aware of our sufferings.  God cares, it He takes sides, He is Love.  The metaphor Jesus uses is "father".  He loves us like a perfect father.


How do paedobaptists address the argument that infants are incapable of doing what those of Cornelius' household did?

On a controversial issue like this, we need to be careful about the approach we take and the assumptions we bring to the discussion. As a person who supports infant baptism, I will do my best to lay out my understanding of how Acts 10 is read in this issue.

I'm going to start by looking at two issues:

What does the text itself tell us about who was present?
How does our answer to the first issue relate to the other more theological elements of the question?

The text has various markers indicating who may have been present.
In 10.1-2 we are introduced to Cornelius. We learn that he is head of an oikos, which is usually translated in English as either family or household. We don't know in this particular case the details of the household. But we do know that the piety of Cornelius is extended to the whole household.

In 10.3-8 Cornelius has the dream and in response he sends people to summon Peter. We learn from this section that the household includes at least two servants and a soldier/attendant (verse 7 NIV).

In 10.9-23 the focus is on Peter and his dream about the clean and unclean animals.

In 10.24-45 Peter arrives at Cornelius' home, gives his message and watches in amazement as the Spirit is poured out. Who is present? We know that Cornelius is present. We know that his relatives and close friends are present (verse 24). We don't know if his immediate household is present, but given the opening narrative and the focus on family throughout, it's a reasonable assumption.

We also know that Peter is present, and we find out in verse 45 that he has come as the leader of a group of circumcised believers. This is a detail not made clear till the final sentences of this long story. So it should alert us to the literary pattern of referring to Peter and Cornelius not just as individuals but as representatives of the two groups involved: circumcised believers and Gentiles. So we cannot assume that, at any point in the story where Peter or Cornelius alone are referred to, no one else is present.

So in summary this is a story where Cornelius and his family, household, friends and relatives are present. Peter and his fellow Jewish believers are also present. We do not and cannot know the precise make up of those two groups. All we can say is that children are quite possibly included in a household group such as this, but we don't know definitely one way or the other.

What then do we do with verses 44-46, and the statements about the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentile group, who responded with praise and speaking in tongues. In my view a reasonable answer would be that to even ask the question is to read back into this text categories that don't apply. We have seen that the two key groups are the Jewish believers (headed by Peter) and the Gentiles (signified by Cornelius); and that we don't know the precise membership of the two groups. So the climax is not that the Spirit is poured out on adults. It's that the Spirit is poured out on Gentiles. To rule out children because children can't respond in intelligent faith is to miss the key theme of this text. It's also to make an assumption about the nature of faith which is irrelevant to the text. Why is adult faith required for those who are other than adults?

If this is a correct reading of the text, then there is another corollary. It is not a text that explicitly supports infant baptism. We can't use this text either way. We don't know conclusively if children were either present or absent. The best infant baptist view on this matter is a combination of two elements:
(1) Theological - such as the idea that baptism embraces the covenantal meaning of circumcision, and is therefore applicable to the same range of people.
(2) Historical - rather than look at one particular proof text such as Acts 10, the baptismal stories in the New Testament show a wide diversity of individuals (Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch), households (Cornelius and the Philippian jailer) and mass groups (Pentecost). This diversity is wide enough to embrace the faith of individual believers and the faith of parents and the church at large.


From BibleHub:

  Pierced his side - Which side is not mentioned, nor can it be certainly known. The common opinion is that it was the left side. Car. Frid. Gruner (Commentatio Antiquaria Medica de Jesu Christi Morte, 30-36) has attempted to show that it must have been the left side. See Wiseman's Lectures, pp. 161, 162, and Kuinoel on John 19:34, where the arguments of Gruner are fully stated. It is clear that the spear pierced to the region of the heart.

The link really says it all.  John 19:34 only said that his side was pierced.  Beyond that, there is speculation (and a source commentray making the point) but nothing can be ascertained for certain.


No, it does not mean that at all.  We cannot assume that everything Jesus ever said to anyone applies to all people in all times.  Jesus gave this specific commandment to this specific person at that time.

Other places in Scripture, Jesus acknowledges that there are wealthy people and gives instructions to them--not condemnations.

  As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. 18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.  1 Timothy 6:17-18 ESV

The Old Testament acknowledge that God does bless with material things at times, though this is not His greatest blessings.

  Honor the Lord with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce;
  10 then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.  Proverbs 3:9-10 ESV

So, no, this is not a condemnation of wealth or capitalism or anything like that.  It is a specific command to a specific person who perhaps had made an idol out of his wealth which needed to be removed.


Is there a New Testament parallel to cities of refuge?

Yes.

  Hebrews 6:16 (KJV)
  That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Matthew Henry's commentary on this verse points to Jesus as our present refuge:

  They are such as have fled for refuge to the hope set before them.
  Under the law there were cities of refuge provided for those who were
  pursued by the avenger of blood. Here is a much better refuge prepared
  by the gospel, a refuge for all sinners who shall have the heart to
  flee to it; yea, though they have been the chief of sinners.


Is every Roman Catholic Church saint also an Eastern Catholic Church saint (and viceversa)?

Yes, recognised in the sense that they can never be rejected as a saint.

A saint is someone in heaven.

Therefore St. Isaac of Nineveh is either in heaven or not. The Catholic church is "one", that would mean that St. Isaac of Nineveh cannot be a saint in the Catholic Church in Damascus and cease to be a saint in Paris.

St. Isaac of Nineveh is either in heaven or not, and if one part of the one Church declares an individual in heaven, it would make no sense for a church to call itself "one" and have conflicting irreversible supernatural declarations.


Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws?

Yes - but which of them is a matter of debate

Since I already did a lot of work to answer To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply? I'm going to adapt that answer here, too. Similarly, I'll list and briefly describe some of the more common views along with sources.

Catholic

The Catholic Church teaches that the Law of Moses (the Old Law) is a preparation for the Gospel, and as such no longer binding. The New Law (the Law of Gospel) is a perfection of it, given through faith in Christ.

The Law of the Gospel, which applies to Christians, is presented in the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew 5-7), but also in the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc.

God's Law has always remained the same, and has always been available as the natural moral law (e.g. through conscience), but only Jesus could express it perfectly.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second edition. Paragraphs 577-582 and 1950-1986. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc2.htm

Reformed

The reformed teaching is that the law was given in three parts:

The moral law, which God gave first to Adam, and later to Moses on Sinai (the Ten Commandments).
Ceremonial laws, given to the people of Israel, prefiguring Christ.
Judicial laws, given to the State of Israel.

The moral law is eternal, binding Adam, the first man, as well as any Christian today.  Ceremonial laws were abolished in the New Testament. Judicial laws only concerned the State of Israel.

As noted, the moral law was delivered to Moses as the Ten Commandments. Thus the Ten Commandments apply to Christians today as such. Of other laws in the OT, the moral component applies. Moral laws given in the New Testament are also part of the eternal moral law, and meant for Christians of today.

Source: Westminster Confession, chapter XIX. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XIX.html

Theonomy

Theonomy literally means "God's law". It is the notion that God's law is eternal and universally binding. That is, the entire Bible applies to Christians today. Every law God has given us is meant to be obeyed.

This doesn't mean that salvation comes by keeping the law, as theonomy is often misrepresented. Salvation is granted "solely by grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ".

Psalm 119:97-98 (KJV) is a good verse to show what theonomy is about:

  O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
  Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.

Source: Duncan, T.M. Theonomy: What it is; what it is not. http://www.ipc.faithweb.com/documents/THEONOMY.htm

Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism makes a distinction between Israel and the Christian church in God's plan. Its major objective is to be able to interpret the Bible consistently literally.

Dispensationalists recognize seven dispensations in the Bible:

Innocence (Genesis 1:1–3:7)
Conscience (Genesis 3:8–8:22)
Human government (Genesis 9:1–11:32)
Promise (Genesis 12:1–Exodus 19:25)
Law (Exodus 20:1–Acts 2:4)
Grace (Acts 2:4–Revelation 20:3)
The millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6)

The different dispensations are different ways that God has related to people. Salvation has always been through faith.

As today's Christians are living during the dispensation of grace, or during the New Covenant, the old laws or the Old Covenant do not bind them. Because God and His will do not change, the moral law of the New Covenant hasn't notably changed from the Old Covenant.

The Old Testament thus is not for Christians. Laws expressed in the epistles are part of the dispensation of grace, and thus apply to Christians. Laws stated by Jesus are not, and thus are not really meant for Christians but for Jews. (Though I expect there to be a small minority of dispensationalists saying otherwise.)

Source: What is dispensationalism and is it biblical? http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensationalism.html (I'd like to find a better/more original source)


From the link you gave:

"In February, a report was sent to Cardinal Tisserant. It concluded that the Syrian rite was seen as foreign to many members of the community. The Cardinal referred to the Pope who gave permission to use the Latin rite with some parts of the mass in Hebrew (including the readings)."

So, the Epistle and the Gospel (and the homily) must have been in Hebrew.  But probably not the Canon, otherwise it would not be the Roman Rite. Just a guess.


I believe it is because Job's complaining went beyond merely complaining and went into self-justification and questioning God.

Job 40:1-5

  Then the LORD said to Job,
  "Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty?
  Let him who reproves God answer it.

  Then Job answered the LORD and said,

  "Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You?
  I lay my hand on my mouth.
  "Once I have spoken, and I will not answer;
  Even twice, and I will add nothing more."

and verse 8:

  Will you really annul My judgment?
  Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?"

and finally, Job's confession of his own wrong-doing in his over-complaining:

  Then Job answered the LORD and said,
  "I know that You can do all things,
  And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
  'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?'
  Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand,
  Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."
  'Hear, now, and I will speak;
  I will ask You, and You instruct me.'
  "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear;
  But now my eye sees You;
  Therefore I retract,
  And I repent in dust and ashes."

God is also angry at Job's "friends" (sidebar - with friends like those, who needs enemies?). And yes, God does say Job has spoken rightly about him as well - but there's some point beyond the right speaking that Job exceeded, too - as I understand it.


Are Christians still persecuted in Afghanistan?

Yes it is.  Open Door lists Afghanistan as the 4th 'worst' place in the world for Christian persecution.  While the population of Christians there is small relative to the total population, the persecution is still listed as 'extreme'.


Why were the people of Exodus so stubborn?

Ultimately, I believe scripture would say that they were stubborn because they were people.  Their education and position had nothing to do with their rebellion against God.  They were rebellious simply because it was in their character.

This nature isn't limited to the Jews only, but also to everyone in the world.  As Paul says in Romans 3:9-18:

  What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
    “None is righteous, no, not one;
        no one understands;
        no one seeks for God.
    All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
        no one does good,
        not even one.”
    “Their throat is an open grave;
        they use their tongues to deceive.”
    “The venom of asps is under their lips.”
        “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
    “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
        in their paths are ruin and misery,
    and the way of peace they have not known.”
        “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

This rebelliousness and stubbornness of people is the foundation for why Christ came to die.  We were rebellious and did not love Christ, but He loved us anyways, so he came to die to pay the penalty for our sin.


Does Luke 6:30 imply that the person asking has a genuine need?

I don't see that there's a definitive answer to this.  There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consensus on this one.  Even the major commentaries, which usually find some common ground, disagree.

A few examples:

  Clarke's Commentary on the Bible  (This agrees with the teachings I've heard on this verse.)

  Ask them not again - Or, Do not beg them off. This probably refers to
  the way in which the tax-gatherers and Roman soldiers used to spoil
  the people. "When such harpies as these come upon your goods, suffer
  the injury quietly, leaving yourselves in the hand of God, rather than
  attempt even to beg off what belongs to you, lest on their part they
  be provoked to seize or spoil more, and lest you be irritated to sue
  them at law, which is totally opposite to the spirit and letter of the
  Gospel; or to speak bad words, or indulge wrong tempers, which would
  wound the spirit of love and mercy." Of such as these, and of all
  merciless creditors, who even sell the tools and bed of a poor man, it
  may be very truly said: -

  Wesley's Notes

  6:30 Give to every one - Friend or enemy, what thou canst spare, and
  he really wants: and of him that taketh away thy goods - By borrowing,
  if he be insolvent, ask them not again. Mt 5:42.

So, having said that there may not be a definitive answer, in context, the principle seems to be that we should assume the asker has a real need.  This has the obvious implications of leaving us open to fraud, scam artists, and the like.  Christ seems to be, in this case, telling us to put the principles of love and faith first, showing the love of God, giving sacrificially, trusting that the asker has a true need, even if we can't know for sure.  In other words, it's better to give willingly and be taken by a con artist than to try to be shrewd and not give at all.  And if we get taken, not to be bitter about it.

This is hard to take for a lot of us. (Me included.)  It's very easy to be bitter about being taken advantage of, and it's very easy to have the mindset that we're not doing thieves a favor by letting them profit by taking advantage of trusting individuals.

However, this verse is smack dab in the middle of a slew of verses that teach the same basic principle:  Show meekness, mercy, and kindness to those that do not deserve it.  In my Bible, this section is under the heading "Love thy enemies":

  Love for Enemies (NIV) Like 6:27-36

  27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to
  those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who
  mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the
  other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt
  from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what
  belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would
  have them do to you.

  32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even
  sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who
  are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34
  And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit
  is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid
  in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them
  without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be
  great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind
  to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is
  merciful.

This tells me that this passage, taken in context, tells us to trust, even when it may be foolish to do so.  After all, the things of this world are temporary.

In short, there may be no definitive answer, but taken in context with the surrounding verses, the answer seems to imply that we are to assume there is a genuine need, even if we are skeptical.  It doesn't imply that a genuine need must exists.  It implies that we are to assume that such a need is genuine.  We are to trust, rather than doubt, and show God's love by extending mercy where undeserved.  (And isn't that what the central message of Christianity is all about?  Showing love and mercy where it's not deserved?)


What is the difference between a Bible College and a Seminary?

In the US, a Bible college is typically a 2 year or 4 year school that specializes in Christian undergraduate education. (typically with programs like Biblical Studies, youth ministry, things like that, rather than traditional math/science/teaching programs you'd find at say a Christian liberal arts school)

A seminary is typically a graduate school that specializes in training people for the ministry (pastorate, counseling etc).

A school that advertised as both may offer a double degree or cater to people seeking either a four year degree in something bible related, or people heading into the ministry. Doing both is good synergy and they may be able to save a pastor some time (get under grad and seminary done in 5 years instead of 6 or something).


What are some criticisms of "Spirit-filled" church soteriology?

I know some people may tar all Charismatics and Pentecostals with the same brush, but the reality is that 'Spirit-filled' is a description that crosses nearly all denominational boundaries and soteriological perspectives (eg there are Charismatic Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and Baptists and there are even some 'Reformed' believers who claim to be 'continuationists'). A legitimate critique should be focused on particular groups and their associated doctrines and praxis - to lump all in together is unhelpful and obscures the reality of the situation.
Nevertheless, it is true that "Spirit-filled churches" do attract a range of both internal and external critcism associated with the distinctive (and broadly in common with each other) doctrines and practices they promote ranging from mild rebuke over displays of 'zeal without knowledge' - akin to Paul's instructions to the Corinthian church regarding their disorderly meetings - right through to asserting they are a completely false demonically-empowered religion - preaching a false gospel and therefore leading people astray from 'the simplicity of Christ' (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3) and into damnable error. These last, of course, with clear soteriological implications.
These issues are not exactly new - in fact they've been around since the early church and in particular the days of Montanus - but more recently following the Charismatic renewal and especially the Third Wave Movement, criticism has been far more vocal, forceful and organized. One of the most prominent critics at the centre of this 'push back' is John McArthur whose 1993 book Charismatic Chaos argued for an acceptance of Cessationism and corresponding rejection of Charismatic theology and practice. More recently (Ocotber 2013), McArthur hosted the Strange Fire Conference dedicated to this purpose. Of particular relevance to your question is the following question and answer posted on this site:

Should I respond to charismatic people as straying brothers in Christ or as unbelievers?
I agree that the sign gifts have ceased.  But how should I deal with charismatics when I encounter them?  Do I treat their error as no big deal and ignore it or as a significant issues and address it with them as brothers in Christ?  Should I see their supposed gifts as coming from another god and treat them as unbelievers in need of the gospel?
There is so much variation within the charismatic movement that we shouldn’t pick one set method of approaching them.  Some charismatics are truly born again but many are not.  Some hold largely to sound doctrine, but many hold to doctrines which are seriously flawed.  So a one-size-fits-all method will likely be inappropriate most of the time.
Yes, there are many unbiblical and dangerous teachings in the charismatic movement, but our attitude toward charismatics and our conversations with them must be full of love, patience, and biblical truth.  Emotional overreaction and biblically weak argumentation will only hinder our efforts to help them see the truth.  On the other hand, calm but serious discussion of biblical teaching regarding the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts can bring them to an understanding of the truth.
Whether a person is born again or not, his need remains the same—he must learn the truth of God from Scripture.  Paul’s advice about how to approach those who teach false doctrine gives us guidance: “The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Timothy 2:24–26). (source)


I've been able to find exactly two explanations:

The anomaly is because two separate Pauline letter collections were merged, one of which ended with Galatians and the other of which began with Ephesians.
The canonical order was modified from pure length order to emphasize the imprisonment theme common to Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians.

The truth could be one of these two explanations, or a third option. The evidence, in my opinion, is not conclusive.

Option 1 is put forward by David Trobisch, in Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins (read chapter 1 here), as part of his broader theory of the development of the Pauline canon. Basically, he believes that there were three independent or semi-independent collections of Paul's letters circulating: one collection consisted of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians; another consisted of the other nine epistles traditionally attributed to Paul; and another (if you can even call it a "collection")  consisted only of Hebrews, which in the early days was commonly attributed to Paul.

According to the theory, these three collections were later merged into one. There is no direct evidence of their separate circulation, but Trobisch's theory comes from analysis of the earliest extant collections of New Testament books (starting with the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). Among the manuscripts which contain the Pauline letters, there is remarkable uniformity in the ordering of the books. The order is substantially the same for all 14 letters (including having Galatians before Ephesians), with the following exceptions: Hebrews sometimes is between Romans and 1 Corinthians, sometimes between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy, and sometimes at the end, and one outlier manuscript swaps Philippians and Colossians.

I found option 2 in the introduction to Christopher Seitz's commentary on Colossians. It's fairly self-explanatory.

One thing to note is that even if Ephesians came before Galatians, the Pauline letters would still not strictly be in order of length. In our modern Bibles, there are two (or three if you count Hebrews) divisions of Paul's letters: 1) his letters to churches, arranged in descending order of length with the exception of Galatians/Ephesians; 2) his letters to individuals (note here that the letters to Timothy are longer than the letters to the Thessalonians); 3) the probably-not-Pauline letter to the Hebrews.

So take your pick. Either there were multiple letter collections circulating, and the Galatians-Ephesians order is an artifact of the collections' merger, or someone decided early on that the imprisonment theme was worth emphasizing. Either way, I strongly suspect that the reason the books have remained in the same order has more to do with inertia than with any scribe's particular preference.


Is it sinful to prophesy using the Bible?

There are two important aspects to this:
1) We are not allowed to attribute meaning to a Biblical prophecy that is different from God's intended meaning:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. -2 Peter 1:20-21

2) We are supposed to pay attention to prophecy, understand it, and recognize it when it begins to be fulfilled:

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. -Revelation 1:3
But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.  -Mark 13:23
Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. -Mark 13:29

Conclusion: Every prophecy of Scripture originated with God, who had a specific meaning in mind when He gave it.  The only appropriate interpretation is the one which retains His original intent.  If a prophecy is truly being fulfilled, we would do well to recognize it.  However, it is inappropriate to make guesses about the meaning based on current life circumstances and then teach it as if it were God's original intent.


Why didn't Jesus write books of his teachings but charge his apostles to spread the Gospel?

God wants us to do it.

Deuteronomy 31:19

  Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of
  Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me
  against the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 17:19

  he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to
  fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these
  statutes, to do them

All the preachings will lead into one single point → 'God loves us all'.

John 21:25 says - 'And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen'


When did senescence enter the animal kingdom?
To speak openly we may not know the exact moment when they became dying? But we have a few key points that the Scriptures can help in giving some perspectives on the question.
Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, we are told that they made clothing for themselves.

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. Genesis 3:7 ESV

However, after God comes into the garden, He also makes clothing for them.

And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. - Genesis 3:21 ESV

This seems to indicate that animals seemed to die immediately after the fall of Adam. But we do not know definitively in this was actually the case.
When one asks the question whether animals ”become dying at the time of the fall of Adam and Eve or had it happened earlier at the fall of Satan, which may be what Romans 8:20 is hinting at?”

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope. (Rom 8:20)

The material universe was created by God and when man was created, he was given dominion over God’s creation; but when Adam and Eve sinned, sin and death entered the world.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. - Romans 5:12-21

St. Paul alludes to this in Romans:

For we know that the whole creation groans together and travails in pain together until now. - Romans 8:22

Ultimately we may never truly know or understand when animals become dying?
Many Catholics, Orthodox and other fellow Christians  may believe in evolution. In this scenario, it would be obvious the animals died before sin entered the world. What  percentage of Christian hold to this theory I am not aware of.
The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation and that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.
To say the least, the fact is that the Church has been very comfortable with evolution as a scientific theory since at least the pontificate of Pius XII and his encyclical Humani Generis (1950). Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI in particular have made strong statements in favour of evolution and its compatibility with Christian teaching about God and creation.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

This evolution theory is to some degree accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church (United States), and some other mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham.
See: Acceptance of evolution by religious groups.
For further information, one may peruse the following articles at one’s leisure:

Did Animals Die before the Fall?
Death before Sin?
Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?


What is the original appearance and sound of the Nicene Creed?

Disclaimer: I am neither linguist or a Greek.

Since Koine Greek was used in that era, you could compare it with the current language rules.

There are two versions: Creed of 325
and Constantinople Creed of 381
so you are probably looking for original version.

Original (325) Greek version:

  Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα
      πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν·
      καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
      τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
      γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ
      τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρος
      Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ,
      Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός,
      Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
      γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα,
      ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί,
      δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο
      τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ,
      τὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ
      διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν,
      κατελθόντα,
      καὶ σαρκωθέντα,
      καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
      παθόντα,
      καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,
      ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς,
      ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.
      καὶ εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.
      Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν,
      καὶ Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν,
      καὶ ὅτι Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εγένετο,
      ἢ Ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς φάσκοντας εἶναι
      ἢ κτιστόν
      ἢ τρεπτόν
      ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
      τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

English translation of the 325 version:

  We believe in one God,
      the Father almighty,
      maker of all things visible and invisible;
      And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
      the Son of God,
      begotten from the Father, only begotten,
      that is, from the substance of the Father,
      God from God,
      light from light,
      true God from true God,
      begotten not made,
      of one substance with the Father,
      through Whom all things came into being,
      things in heaven and things on earth,
      Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,
      and became incarnate
      and became man,
      and suffered,
      and rose again on the third day,
      and ascended to the heavens,
      and will come to judge the living and dead,
      And in the Holy Spirit.
      But as for those who say, There was when He was not,
      and, Before being born He was not,
      and that He came into existence out of nothing,
      or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,
      or created,
      or is subject to alteration or change.
      - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

Here is comparison between 352 and 381 versions.

All I could find was this video claiming to be in Koine Greek: ΤΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΛΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ (The Symbol of Faith)


May divorced men become Roman Catholic priests?

Divorce doesn't actually exist in the Roman Catholic Church, so the simple answer is No: they can't.

There is annulment, where a marriage ceases to have canonical effect — it is almost as though it had never been (see this answer — it's complicated). Married people who divorce and whose marriage is annulled can marry in church; it's likely that the same applies to ordination. I couldn't find anything in the Code of Canon Law either: it can't cover every eventuality explicitly, but see below.

Without an annulment, the man is still canonically married and cannot be ordained priest: see Canon 1042(1). Following ordination, they cannot marry and remain in orders; I know someone who relinquished his orders in order to marry. Even deacons cannot marry after ordination — they take a vow of chastity on ordination; but if they are already married they can be ordained deacon.

There are a few married priests in the Church, but they have to have had individual permission from Rome to be ordained (Canon 1047(2)(3)), and if their marriage ends (by annulment or widowing) they cannot remarry. The same applies to married deacons: they cannot remarry while in orders.

There is an interesting supplementary question about annulment which arises though. Imperfect intent is grounds for annulment — that is, if one of the parties never really intended the marriage to be a real marriage, then the Church can annul it. If a man contracts marriage but never intended it to last because he felt called to ordained ministry, would that be valid grounds for annulment, and if so, could he still be ordained?

It seems it may well be valid grounds for annulment because of the lack of good intent. However I guess that from the statement in Paragraph 72 of ARCIC's document Life in Christ, the Church might consider that serious psychological defects exist. In that case Canon 1041(1) provides a reason not to proceed with ordination.

This might even obtain for a man whose marriage ended in annulment through no fault of his own.


How have Eastern liturgies changed in the past century?

If we take liturgy, the customary public worship performed by a religious group, to include public worship practices originating in the laity in stead of the clergy, then in Russian Orthodoxy the most similarly obvious and controversial change in liturgy would be the popular worship and iconography of Stalin.

The Bolsheviks oppressed the Orthodox Church after seizing power in Russia in 1917. In 1943, during WWII, Stalin met with three chief hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, allowed the clergy to perform religious services, celebrate Easter and Christmas, and even promised to give the church back some of its monasteries (confiscated after 1917) and release imprisoned priests.
The three hierarchs, led by Sergius Stragorodsky, thanked Stalin after their meeting in a letter:

“In each of your words… we felt the heart that burns with paternal
love for all his children... The Russian Orthodox Church venerates you
feeling with your heart that it lives together with all Russian
people, by the will to victory and sacred duty to sacrifice anything
for the sake of the Motherland. God save you for years to come, dear
Iosif Vissaronovich.”

The reason underlying Stalin's actions was the invading Nazi army, who in an attempt to gain support with the population, re-opened churches that were closed by the Bolsheviks, is obvious: the only way to keep the nation united against the Nazis was to do the same.
This act of "re-legalization" made the dictator immensely popular with the laity, resulting in religious iconography, calendars and hero worship that permeates to this day. The last petition to declare Stalin a saint dates from 2015. It was rejected by the church patriarchs. Since the fall of the USSR, the Russian Orthodox leaders have vehemently denounced Stalin and other Bolsheviks, but the laity to this day retains the practice of iconic veneration of Stalin and Putin.

The Kremlin has been using the politics of memory regarding Soviet times (in particular the victory over fascism) as a fundamental instrument of legitimization of its power and control over society, thus ensuring continued social support and the preservation of the present model of power. You can find similar iconography for Putin throughout modern Russia.


The Greek vocabulary and grammar of the so-called longer ending of Mark is subtly different from the part that concludes "for they were afraid."  And it is indeed missing from some of the most ancient sources.

We can speculate on why.  Without either of the two disputed endings ("shorter" or "longer") the Gospel concludes with these words:

  So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had
  seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Gulp. That's it?  Is it possible that a scribe sometime in history really wanted an ending with a more exhortatory flavor?

A definitive answer to your first question is difficult, but the evidence points to "yes, it's a later ending."  As to your second question, "should it be in the Bible?" with respect that's above your pay grade and mine.  It is in the Bible.


Is the Sacrament of Confirmation really necessary to complete baptism?

There are a number of approaches to answer this question. I chose to answer from St. Thomas Aquinas' SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The number of the sacraments (Tertia Pars, Q.65).

Article 1 tackled whether there should be seven sacraments and answered Confirmation was one of the sacraments instituted  by which the Holy Ghost is given to strengthen us.

In Article 4. Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?, St. Thomas answered that there is a twofold necessity of end:

First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for human life.
Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is necessary for a journey. (Adding: But this is not simple necessity of end.)

He then continues to answer that Baptism is necessary in the first way, simply and absolutely, while Confirmation which perfects Baptism is necessary in the second way.

cf. CCC 1285

  Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together
  constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must
  be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the
  reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the
  completion of baptismal grace.1 For "by the sacrament of
  Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church
  and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence
  they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread
  and defend the faith by word and deed."2

  1. Cf. Roman Ritual, Rite of Confirmation (OC), Introduction
  1.

  2. LG 11; Cf. OC, Introduction 2.

Borrowing loosely from St. Thomas' examples, heaven/one's salvation is the destination one needs to get to, being born would be the absolute and simple necessity toward that end, and confirmation would be the necessary horse  that one would require to get to heaven/be saved. To get onto a horse, one must first be born. Being born is the first necessary step, but one must get onto the required mount to get to their destination.

(PS and from CCC 1285, the Eucharist would be the food required for the journey).

The preceding answers: is the Sacrament of Confirmation really necessary to complete baptism?

CCC 1290-1292 should resolve the rest of your post.


What is the significance of dead saints being resurrected to life at the crucifixion of Jesus?

If we read the words carefully one interpretation has it that the graves were opened at his death but they were not raised out of them appearing to many people until ‘after Jesus’ resurrection’.

  At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. (NIV, The New International Version. (2011). Mt 27:51–53)

This is how Lange takes it:

  The rising was the result, not the immediate accompaniment of the opening of the graves, and is mentioned here by Matthew in anticipation, but with the qualifying insertion: after His resurrection, to preven misunderstanding. Christ’s death opened their tombs. His resurrection raised them to life again, that He might be the first-born from the dead (Lange, J. P., & Schaff, P. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Matthew ,p. 528)

If we follow this logic is seems to fit well. There is an earthquake; it strikes the temple curtain symbolizing the breaking of the death that separated man from God and subjected him to the separation and curse under God’s holy laws. Removed the curse of law and death is opening a way to a new heaven and a new earth. The earthquake comes across the earth, including rocks and tombs, shattering the death that bound us. After his resurrection, whereby he presented the merits of his death and righteousness to God as our high priest, some sample saints come from out of the tombs, to symbolize the guarantee of our future bodily resurrection into life forever and ever.


What is the biblical basis to say it is the duty of every minister to know his congregation?

My opinion is to look at the life of Paul.

Paul's ministry was the largest and covered a wide geographical area. He met many different people along the way, many towns and cities. When I read the epistles of Paul, I'm surprised to see how well he remembered the believers from different corners of the region and his intimate relationship with them. In most of his letters, at the end, Paul included greetings to the church members by name and their activities that he remembered. I think this indicates how well Paul knew his church members. Here is an example.

  Romans 16  (NIV)

  [....]

  6 Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you.

  7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison
  with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in
  Christ before I was.

  8 Greet Ampliatus, my dear friend in the Lord.

  9 Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys.

  10 Greet Apelles, whose fidelity to Christ has stood the test.
  Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus.

  11 Greet Herodion, my fellow Jew.
  Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord.

  12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord.
  Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in
  the Lord.

  13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a
  mother to me, too.

  14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the other
  brothers and sisters with them.

  15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all
  the Lord’s people who are with them.

  [.....]

Conclusion: Inspiration from God is the most important factor for delivering effective sermons and additionally, it is also important for the minister to know the state of his sheep and have an intimate relationship with them, just as Paul did with his church members.


What date to place the patronal feast day of St. Mary’s Church?

Your hunch "that it is the Feast of the Assumption" appears correct, at least according to

Rev. W. J. Wiseman, “The Titular Feast,” The Pastor 3, no. 5 (March 1885): 129–36.

In the § "Practical Directions" (p. 131), he writes:

  Blessed Virgin is a general title. […](a) If the titulus is simply B. M. V., the titular feast is to be celebrated on the feast of the Assumption, where everything remains as now in the Ordo.

That's interesting it's the Assumption and not the Immaculate Conception (whose dogma Pius IX defined 31 years prior to this article, in Ineffabilis Deus). Of course the feast of the Assumption was celebrated even before Pius XII defined the dogma in Munificentissimus Deus in 1950, too. They're both great (1st class) feasts.


Can a physically healthy, married couple honor God without having children?

Short Answer: Yes. Just as a person can honor God without getting married, a couple can honor God without having children.

From a Biblical perspective, Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 7:17-35 is highly relevant:

  Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. . . . Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. . . . Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. . . . Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. . . .
  I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned . . . . Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none . . . and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.
  But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. . . . This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

Here we see Paul encouraging the saints in Corinth to stop worrying about trying to fit some external form and just serve the Lord. He lists off a whole series of questions where a person might be inclined to think that they need to "do" something different in order to please the Lord, and Paul's response is two-fold:

"I want you to be free from concern." The form of this world is passing away, so don't worry about it -- just remain as you are and serve the Lord
We are not talking about matters of "sin" here, so if you choose not to "remain as you are" (or, of course, if God leads you in another direction) that's OK too.

The reason this is a great passage to use in addressing your question is that God also created marriage for a specific purpose, which the Catholic teachings would also affirm. However, God created this before man fell into sin, and in the fallen world we live in, Paul suggests that his readers remember that this world is passing away, and so at the end of the day all that matters is devotion to the Lord.


How did Martin Luther justify the separation from the Catholic Church?

Martin Luther had not intended to separate from the Catholic Church. His 95 theses, and his conduct immediately after he posted them, were intended to achieve reform in the Catholic Church. When he was excommunicated by Rome, he had to either give up his quest for reform or continue to pursue it outside the Catholic Church.

Bear in mind that there may never have been a single Christian Church, and there certainly was not just one Church in the time of Luther. We know from Paul's epistles that there were already divisions even in his own time, and of course we now know of the Gnostic Christians. Luther would have known of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church and possibly even the Nestorian Church. Perhaps Matthew 16:18, in which Jesus says "... I will build my church", suggests that there should only be one church, although others may say that this is not the only possible interpretation of the passage when read in context.

Martin Luther justified his actions because he believed they were right, in the context of the Church in western Europe at the time he took those actions. If at any time in the future the  Catholic Church wishes to reunite with the Protestant Churches, it is open to the Church to initiate dialogue with those Churches, but for this to succeed it must accept the possibility of genuine change both within and outside the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther would have welcomed any such action by the Catholic Church.


At what point would a sin become mortal if you learned about it through self-study?

Mortal sin (from mors = death) forfeits sanctifying grace and is the supernatural death of the soul. St. Augustine defines it as "something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law."

To be a mortal sin, these conditions must be satisfied:

Knowledge (either natural or supernatural) of the act's sinfulness (offense to God).
Freely performing the sin.
Grave matter

If you didn't know your act was an offense to God at the time of committing it, then it isn't a mortal sin.

Still, in cases of doubt, you should confess it to a priest, who can help judge if it was mortal.