What was it about the death of Jesus that allows God to forgive us?

Let's start with your question title. For the sake of argument let's turn it around and ask "Why would God not be allowed for forgive us?" The problem lies in God's idea of justice. We could spend a lot of time one this one, but let's keep it it simple:

  Isaiah 61:8 (ESV)
  For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong [...]

In order for Him to actually be just, he has to administer justice. In order for justice to be adminstered the proper recompense has to be made for any wrong-doing. We know that the only way to pay for sin is death:

  Romans 6:23 (ESV)
  For the wages of sin is death [...]

So we have to die. Or somebody has to die for us. The only person qualified to do that is Christ. The why is a subject for another question. Let's skip to what Christ did. When he was on the Cross he took upon himself the full wrath of God against all our sins.

  Isaiah 53:4-5 (ESV)
  Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

God chose to crush Him. The pain inflicted by the Romans was nothing compared to the weight of that wrath. Even humans can endure the torture of crucifixion for the amount of time Christ did ... longer in fact. The difference was that while the physical act was in progress he also bore an infinite amount of punishment from His own Father. How does that work out for those who believe in Him?

  Romans 5:9 (ESV)
  Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

To round this out I would point out that from a Reformed Protestant perspective, the notion that anything the hands of men could inflict upon Christ, no matter how brutal the Romans were could do anything to change God's ability to do or not do something is considered heretical. What Christ endured at the hands of the Romans an in crucifixion is both symbolic of a spiritual reality that was going on behinds the scenes, but also real in that that it put the rulers and authorities of this world to open shame while at the same time setting the stage for his physical resurrection to demonstrate his victory over death.

  Colossians 2:14-15 (ESV)
  [God] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.


Who pays for Protestant seminary education for aspiring ministers?

In Baptist circles, seminary is just like college for secular students. The student pays for his or her own tuition.  (O.K. for Pastors in conservative Baptist Churches I may as well just say "his own tuition".)

As an example... In my neck of the woods, most Baptist pastors-to-be attend Maranatha Bible College.  their tuition and costs page is found here, explaining what a student needs to know.

And just like secular schools, there are scholarship and financial aid options available.


What is the significance of colour purple in the robe that Jesus was made to wear?

Purple in the Roman Empire was associated with triumph, and came to be associated with the Emperors specifically. Along with the crown of thorns, the purple robe was a mocking symbol of Jesus' royalty.


How does the New Apostolic Church compare to evangelical christians?

The difficulty in arriving at a meaningful comparison between the NAC and Protestant Christianity (whether they are evangelical or not) is that the NAC declare they are neither Protestant nor Catholic, even though they came out of the Catholic Apostolic Church.

The Catholic Apostolic Church was a religious movement which originated in England around 1831 and later spread to Germany and the United States. While often referred to as Irvingism or the Irvingian movement, it was neither founded nor anticipated by Edward Irving. The church was organised in 1835 under the lead of self-proclaimed apostles.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Apostolic_Church
Readiness for an expected immediate Second Coming of Christ was the central aim of the congregations; the restoration of perfect institutions by the Apostles was deemed necessary to prepare the whole church for this event. The doctrines of achievable personal holiness, attainable universal salvation, the true spiritual unity of all baptized persons, living and dead, in the 'Body of Christ', the possibility of rapture without dying, and the necessity of the fourfold ministry directed by Apostles for perfecting the Church as a whole, formed the cornerstones of the theology.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Apostolic_Church#Theology_of_the_Second_Advent

Like the Catholic Apostolic Church, the New Apostolic Church believes in apostolic succession, that their leaders are the successors of the twelve apostles.  Most evangelical Protestant churches refute this teaching although I have been informed that "Anglicans, Presbyterians andsome Lutherans and Pentecostals trace theirordinations back to the early church and apostles." I don't know if that means they believe in apostolic succession, however, in the same way the Catholic Church does.

It is the view of most evangelical Protestants that apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.  See Acts 17:10-12; 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).  This is the ‘Scripture alone’ sola of the Protestant Reformation.  See: https://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

The New Apostolic Church believes they have restored the continuity of the early church.  Protestant churches refute this claim.  Here is an extract from an evangelical Protestant source:

[Restorationists] have in common that true Christianity had died out many years ago and it needed to be restored to its original New Testament form. Some of these groups believe they alone are the embodiment of true Christianity, some going so far as to teach that all other groups, including mainline Protestant denominations, are not really Christians at all, having lost their way over the centuries to complete apostasy. They are convinced that the drift from Christian principles is so extreme as to render the church irredeemable, and, therefore, it must be completely rebuilt. https://www.gotquestions.org/restorationism.html
A distinctive and controversial feature of the New Apostolic Church is its doctrine about the dead. A special divine service of remembrance and intercession in prayer takes place three times annually. In such divine services the apostles also administer the sacraments to a living subsidiary minister. Regarding this, New Apostolic Christians refer to several biblical texts such as 1 Corinthians 15:29. There are no limitations to whom in the beyond may be baptised by apostles.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Church#Beliefs_about_death_and_beyond

Protestant churches do not consider prayers or baptisms for the dead to be biblical.  Here is an extract from an evangelical Protestant source on praying for or baptising the dead:

Praying for the dead is not a biblical concept. Our prayers have no bearing on someone once he or she has died. The reality is that, at the point of death, one’s eternal destiny is confirmed. Either he is saved through faith in Christ and is in heaven where he is experiencing rest and joy in God’s presence, or he is in torment in hell. The story of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar provides us with a vivid illustration of this truth. Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied (Luke 16:19-31)...  The writer to the Hebrews tells us, “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). Here we understand that no change in one’s spiritual condition can be made following his death—either by himself or through the efforts of others.  https://www.gotquestions.org/praying-for-the-dead.html

If the NAC practice baptism for the dead (like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) then this would be denounced by Protestant churches.  I do not know if this is what happens in the NAC, so I will simply leave a link to an article that briefly discusses this: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-dead.html
Regarding conversion, however, the NAC belief that water of baptism is an essential part of rebirth and entitles the believer to the sealing of the Holy Spirit is not the view of most evangelical Protestant churches. The NAC view that the Holy Spirit is given by the act and authority of an apostle, which makes the believer a child of God and incorporates him into the body of Christ is not the view of most evangelical Protestant churches.
Conclusion: The doctrines of the New Apostolic Church bear similarities to many evangelical Protestant churches. The virgin birth, sinless life, and atoning death of Jesus Christ, the need of personal repentance and confession for forgiveness of sins, and the literal return of Jesus Christ to earth are all held by this church.


Was the Last Supper not the Passover meal?

My new understanding of the Last Supper is mostly based on the information at http://www.therefinersfire.org/celebrating_passover.htm.
The key verses which indicate that Christ was actually crucified on the day before the Passover feast are John 18:28 and John 19:14.

John 18:28 NIV
Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.
John 19:14 NIV
It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.
“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

The day of preparation would be when they slaughter the Passover lamb, which would then be eaten that night.


I grew up in a bilingual English/Hebrew house and I think that wholehearted is the correct definition. It's also my son's name so I take the analysis seriously (maybe a bit too much, LOL). Caleb definitely does not mean dog in Hebrew, but when two words have the same root in Hebrew there is a connection. So the theory I understand is that Caleb has a second definition of having attributes like a dog.
In other words, people named Caleb have a name that means Whole-Hearted and have the characteristics of loyalty, boldness, friendship, etc., things that we associate with man's best friend.
P.S. - I understand that in the comments, Caleb is discussed as Whole-Hearted, but in reference to the comment: "Etymologically "whole-hearted" would be impossible since the name would have to be כֻּלֵּב Kulleb to have that meaning". The wrong vowel was called out and therefore the conclusion is inaccurate. In the quote above, there are three diagonal dots (a kibbutz) under the cuff (equivalent for "C"), which is not how Caleb, nor how Kol (whole/all) are spelled in Hebrew. Kol, meaning whole/all, is spelled with a cholam which is a dot in the upper left corner of the cuff for the "C" (כֹּל).
Caleb is spelled with a kamatz (looks like a partial plus sign), a different vowel, but gives the same sound when the words are put together (כָּלֵב). The correct pronunciation of heart in Hebrew is Kol (and heart is Laiv). Caleb is pronounced Kolaiv. So when spelled correctly and pronounced correctly, it's entirely possible (and likely) that Whole-Hearted is the correct definition.
Just arguing the vowel in the reference. I give full acknowledgment that in the conversation, people recognize the meaning as whole-hearted.
Side note: The Hebrew word for dog is pronounced Kelev, not Keleb. The Hebrew letter for "B" alternates between the b and v sounds depending on if there is a dot in the center or not. Kind of like how an h changes the s or c sounds in English.


Are these LDS scriptures consistent with LDS doctrine?

The premise to your question is that "the word eternal might mean continuing forever from some point in time." Just so you know, this is a fairly ambiguous starting point.

There are some contexts and perspectives where the meaning of the word eternal is only no end, but others where eternal means no beginning and no end. And this is not necessarily specific to LDS theology.

For example: from our perspective as mortals, one's eternal life and salvation begins after the resurrection. Thus, eternal life, in a sense, has a beginning. Theologically, you might argue that that "beginning" is in Christ, who is without beginning and without end, and from God's perspective, it has always been that way and will always be that way because it is an absolute truth.

You see, there are many ways to perceive eternity and to try to understand it and learn from the scriptures. For instance, where one scripture says that God is the same forever, and another says that there is eternal progression, are talking about two different things. One way to approach the scriptures is to try to find contradicting passages, and if you find some, then they must not be true. Another way to read scriptures is to believe that they are true and then adjust our learning according to what they say.

Ultimately, eternity is a concept that our mortal minds cannot fathom, so precise and universal definitions are hard to come by. These minutia do not matter too much to Latter-day Saints. The scale of eternity is humbling to consider, and even being able to comprehend that we cannot comprehend it is enough to help us learn about God.

In short, yes, those scriptures are consistent with LDS doctrine.


Can ministers of other denominations marry people in a Catholic church?

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,

  It’s popular, and acceptable, for an interfaith couple to invite the non-Catholic spouse’s minister to be present at the wedding. But it’s important to note that, according to canon law, only the priest may officiate at a Catholic wedding. A minister may offer a few words, but he or she may not officiate or preside at a joint ceremony.

While I wouldn't say a non-Catholic marriage in a Catholic church has never happened (and if I did, it would be hard to prove :), but it would be rare at best, akin to holding services for non-Catholic faiths in a Catholic Church.

FYI, for the a Catholic marriage to be considered sacramental, both must be Catholic, and for the marriage to be performed at all requires at least one to be Catholic. (Source)


Do non-christians of other religions have salvation or not beacuse they don't believe Christ is Lord?

The book of Romans touches on the subject of those who do not have the law. The law itself does not make a person holy. The righteousness even being written on the heart. Their conscience bearing witness

> God’s Righteous Judgment

  1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone
  else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning
  yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we
  know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on
  truth. 3So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet
  do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or
  do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and
  patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to
  repentance?

  5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are
  storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his
  righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God “will repay each person
  according to what they have done.”a 7To those who by persistence in
  doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal
  life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and
  follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and
  distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then
  for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does
  good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show
  favoritism.

  12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law,
  and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is
  not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is
  those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14*(Indeed, when
  Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the
  law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the
  law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their
  hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts
  sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)*
  16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets
  through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

  > The Jews and the Law

  17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and
  boast in God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior
  because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you
  are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an
  instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you
  have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then,
  who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against
  stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit
  adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob
  temples? 23You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking
  the law? 24As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the
  Gentiles because of you.”b

  25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the
  law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26So
  then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements,
  will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one
  who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn
  you who, even though you have thec written code and circumcision, are
  a lawbreaker.

  28A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision
  merely outward and physical. 29No, a person is a Jew who is one
  inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the
  Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from
  other people, but from God.


Did medieval European monasticism provide a release from certain societal pressures?

Monasticism is frequently associated with "the contemplative life", as opposed to "the active life". While there are many different kinds of monastics, an important subset is those who are chiefly engaged in maintaining a simple, prayerful life in an enclosed community, and are therefore found much more towards the contemplative end of the spectrum.

The contemplative life was often characterized as being more "elevated" than the active: a pursuit that not all were capable of sustaining. Isidore of Seville writes:

  The active life is the innocence of good works; the contemplative life is the regarding of higher things. The one is common among the many; but the other among the few. 1

It is a common observation that the contemplative life was most suited to those given to contemplation - for example, being capable of thinking about one thing for a long time. Further, those with attachments to business affairs, or who sought marriage, were advised to embrace the active life. Gregory the Great associates the contemplative life with those who are dissatisfied with common life, having "troubled souls" (in amaritudine animae) as they are "crucified to the world" (Galatians 6:14) and suspicious of earthly rewards. 2

The active and contemplative lives are frequently allegorized by the figures of Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29ff), or by Martha and Mary of Bethany (Luke 10). Augustine writes, and is followed by many others:

  [Leah's fertility] represents all the useful result of a laborious life exposed to the common vicissitudes; a life which many avoid on account of its troublesome engagements, because, although they might be able to take the lead, they are bent on study, and devote all their powers to the quiet pursuit of knowledge, in love with the beauty of Rachel. 3

This characterization, very common in the medieval period, associates the contemplative life (and therefore monastic seclusion) with people who are attracted to quietness, concentration, and intellectual study; but not attracted to the to and fro of making their way in the world at large. So monastic institutions could indeed function as a haven for "misfits", assuming they were misfits who were acceptable to the institution. (One does not generally just turn up and say, "Hey everybody, I want to be a monk", job done. Of course this is enormously variable by time, place and social status, but as a rule, one has to have an extended trial period before being accepted as a full member of the community. Unruly people might also be expelled.) Indeed, this applies not just to monasticism but to becoming a member of the clergy, at least in the case of male misfits.

I don't want to give the impression the medieval monasteries were populated entirely by docile introverts. On the contrary, many monks were not cloistered (even in theory), and maintained colorful social relations.

1. Isidore of Seville. Sententiae book 3, chapter 15, De contemplatione et actione. From Migne Patrologia Latina vol. 83: "Activa vita innocentia est operum bonorum, contempliva speculatio supernorum; illa communis multorum est, ista vero paucorum."
2. Gregory the Great. Moralia in Iob book 5, chapters 1-5.
3. Augustine. Contra Faustum book 22, chapter 56. "in qua est omnis fructus laboriosae atque inter incerta tentationum periclitantis actionis: quam plerique bono ingenio praediti studioque flagrantes, quamvis idonei regendis populis esse possint, tamen vitant propter turbulentas occupationes, et in doctrinae otium toto pectore, tamquam speciosae Rachel feruntur amplexum."


How is the New Covenant consistent with Deuteronomy 4:2?

The simple answer is that the New Testament neither adds nor subtracts anything from the Old Testament, the New Testament is the more perfect and fulfilled Word of God. For example, John 8:3-11.

And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Notice that Jesus said "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more." rather than "Thou hast no guilt, wrongly accused were thee". Of course, there are very defined things that contrast Judaism and Christianity, things that were changed by Jesus, such as the view of the Sabbath day and clean and unclean foods.

It must be taken into account that the verse shown (Deuteronomy 4:2) says "YE shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall YE diminish ought from it...". This meaning that the Israelites, and mankind as a whole for that matter, shall not add unto nor diminish from the holy word of God, and not that he is not allowed to. God the father said for hundreds of years by means of prophets, that the day would come when the Messiah would come to earth and make a new and improved covenant with Jew and Gentile alike. That is what He did through His Son, Jesus. Jesus was a representative of the father and embodied that new and wonderful Covenant (John 10:30, Matthew 3:17, Romans 1:4, etc.).


According to dispensationalists, does the "secret rapture" include a bodily resurrection and new earth?

Dispensationalists believe that in the secret rapture, believers will receive their new, glorified bodies.  This rapture occurs prior to or during the tribulation, meaning that the current earth will continue, and only later will the new earth be made.
Glorified bodies
Dispensationalist John MacArthur, while discussing 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 and what he believes is its teaching of a secret rapture, says:

It’s at that moment that the transformation takes place.  We who are alive and remain are here and all of a sudden we’re snatched in the moment, in the twinkling of an eye. [...] In a moment, we’re transformed into a glorified body like the resurrected body of Christ. (source)

MacArthur here uses the language of 1 Corinthians 15:52, as he and other dispensationalists believe that that passage also refers to this secret rapture:

in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [ESV]

For example, Thomas Constable writes:

The fact that Paul included himself, in the group living at the time of the Rapture, shows that he expected that event to take place imminently. [...] The dead will rise in bodies that are not subject to corruption, and the living will receive immortal bodies, too. (source)

This understanding is also expressed by the Moody Bible Commentary and is the typical view dispensationalists: believers will be taken up (raptured) prior to final judgment, and at that time will receive their glorified bodies.
New earth
With respect to the timing of the new earth, Constable writes:

The "new earth" and "new heaven" will come into existence after the Millennium and the Great White Throne judgment. (source)

That is, following the secret rapture, the literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth, and the final judgment, the new earth will be made.  John MacArthur concurs:

Following the Lord's return, following the defeat of Antichrist, following the banishment of Satan at the beginning of the Kingdom, following the Kingdom, following the release of Satan and his destruction, following the Great White Throne comes the new heaven and the new earth. (source)


Authentic reasons to leave Roman Catholicism?
If a Roman Catholic desires to leave the Latin Rite and join an Eastern Rite Catholic community permanently, he or she is obliged to obtained permission from the bishops of both Rites concerned.
If one desires to transfer to an Eastern Rite Catholic Church because you are attracted to the spirituality of the Byzantine Church, then your request will almost always be granted.
This answer may surprise you, as Catholics are generally unaware that they have millions of coreligionists who are not themselves part of the Roman Catholic Church.
In a point of fact, the Catholic Church directly under the jurisdiction of Rome is properly and canonically termed the Latin Church. All official Church documents simply use the term, "Catholic Church." And contrary to popular belief, most of the day-to-day work preformed by the Holy Father is not in his role as pope and pastor of the Universal Church but in his position in the Latin Church as the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of the West.
So who are these "other" Catholics? They have their own hierarchies and liturgies, as well as their own distinct apostolic lineages. They may look and act like Eastern Orthodox churches, but they recognize the pope of Rome as the head of the visible Church on earth and have suffered for the cause of that unity.
There’s nothing wrong with changing rites if you so desire. It’s a bit of a hassle and really isn’t necessary. You can join an Eastern-rite parish without changing rites. However, if you still want to change rites, check with the pastor of the Eastern-rite parish you wish to join.

To change from the Latin Church to the Byzantine Church, you must first be involved in a Byzantine parish for at least a year. You need this time to become acquainted with Byzantine spirituality and liturgical life. You should then discus the matter with the Byzantine pastor. He will then guide you in writing a letter to the Byzantine bishop, asking to join his eparchy. The Byzantine bishop will then contact the Latin bishop, who will investigate the matter. If you are cleared, the Latin bishop will turn you over to the care of the Byzantine bishop, and you will officially become Byzantine Catholic. The entire process only takes a few months.
You will only be refused if one of the bishops suspects that you have the wrong motivation. If you want to transfer because you are attracted to the spirituality of the Byzantine Church, your request will almost always be granted. But if you want to transfer because you don’t like the Latin Church, and you say this in your letter, your request will be refused.
This is a big step to take, and should be treated with great seriousness.  But if you find yourself falling in love with the Byzantine Church, and begin to think of it as home, then go for it. - Roman Catholics becoming Eastern Catholic

It is more difficult for Eastern Rite Catholics to become members of the Latin Rite and permission of the Holy See is also required.
The transition of a Eastern Catholic to the Latin church is ruled by cann. 31 - 38 CCEO. Only relevant is here can. 32:

Can. 32 - § 1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See.
§ 2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

So a Eastern Rite Catholic man can be transfered either with the consent of the Apostolic See ("Rome") and with the consent of the local Latin and Eastern bishops (if there are both).
If one has a good reason for changing the Church sui iuris this will succeed normally but with some paperwork. The process is not too easy because in the history of the church often Eastern Catholics were pressed into the Latin Church. Because of that can. 31 CCEO states:

Can. 31 - No one can presume in any way to induce the Christian faithful to transfer to another Church sui iuris.

The reason that Rome makes it harder to transfer to the Roman Rite from an Eastern Rite is because Rome desires to preserve the historical Eastern Liturgies.


Should the words to prayers said in private be changed to fit the company?

Don't get hung up on words; prayer should come from the heart.

I believe that prayer needs to originate from the heart.  Because of that, we shouldn't get hung up on words.  I believe that rote prayers and repeated prayers can be just as effective and just as "heard by God" as prayers that are unscripted.  It's about the state of your heart whether God hears you.

Because of that, I don't think that words in and of themselves should be the primary concern of prayer.  Clearly, you need the words to communicate what's in your heart ("Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks" and all that), but it's more about the state of your heart than the singularity/plurality of the words.

My advice is this:

If the prayer feels awkward to you, change it.  Use the words that are most comfortable to you.  The worst thing you can do is to use words that distract you from the prayer of your heart.


The Toronto Blessing is described as a "Revival". The term "revival" means different things to different denominations, and can even mean the different things within a denomination.

In this case, the term describes an outpouring of the Holy Spirit from a Charismatic point of view.  The Toronto Blessing consisted of signs accepted by Charismatics as evidence of the Holy Spirit's blessing, including:

Falling and resting in the Spirit
Holy Laughter
Shaking and Crying
Crunching (a vomit-like heaving to "cleanse" and "release" negative experiences)
Others

These events drew controversy, of course, centered around the usual arguments over the Charismatic definition of "Gifts of the Spirit" with one side claiming that this was clear evidence of God's hand at work, and others claiming that it's self-centered, emotionalism, demonic, and all of the other charges that Churches that don't believe in these charismatic gifts.

From Wikipedia:

  The Toronto blessing began at the Airport church when pastors John and
  Carol Arnott were inspired by a revival in Argentina led by Claudio
  Freidzen and in South Africa.2 They invited Randy Clark of St.
  Louis, Missouri to minister at the church in January 1994. Randy Clark
  had been influenced by the ministry of Rodney Howard-Browne, a South
  African preacher, founder of the Rodney Howard-Browne Evangelistic
  Association in Louisville, Kentucky, and the earliest known proponent
  of the "holy laughter" revival phenomenon. Clark preached at the
  Airport church for two months starting January 20 and introduced some
  of Howard-Browne's approach into TACF practice.   In that first
  revival service, there were about 120 people in attendance. Arnott
  recalled that most members fell on the floor "laughing, rolling, and
  carrying on".2 During that first year, the church's size tripled to
  1,000 members and meetings were held every night except on Mondays as
  the revival's influence spread. Reports of similar revivals emerged
  from Atlanta, Anaheim, Saint Louis, several Canadian sites, Cambodia,
  and Albania. It was common for visitors to carry the influence of the
  revival back to their home congregations – two notable British cases
  in point being Holy Trinity, Brompton and Holy Trinity, Cheltenham.
  Areas that have become known for Toronto Blessing type revivals
  worldwide include Pensacola, Florida, home of the Brownsville Revival,
  and Bath, England.

The Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship claims that this continues, and  Churches across the globe claim similar events to this day. The Toronto Airport Christian fellowship changed their name, and of course, they have a website (apparently with video of these events), so that you can see it from their perspective.


What are the Catholic arguments for God having a free will?

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this in his Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 1 article, "Whether God has free-will?" He answers (c.):

  We have free-will with respect to what we will not of necessity or of natural instinct. For our will to be happy does not appertain to free-will, but to natural instinct. Hence other animals, that are moved to act by natural instinct, are not said to be moved by free-will. Since then God necessarily wills His own goodness, but other things not necessarily, as shown above (a. 3), He has free will with respect to what He does not necessarily will.


How do the reformed theologians understand Hebrews 3:14?

John Piper comments on the passage here: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/do-not-harden-your-heart-in-the-day-of-trouble

He contends that the "if" clause means something other than what you might think at first. Instead of holding your assurance (persevering in faith) until the end to become a partaker in Christ, you prove that you already are a partaker in Christ by persevering. Here is a quote:

  Now jump ahead to verse 14 to confirm that this is the way the writer
  is thinking. In verse 14 we have an "if" statement very much like the
  one in verse 6: "We have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast
  the beginning of our assurance firm until the end." Being "partakers
  of Christ" in verse 14 is virtually the same as being "partakers of
  the heavenly calling" in verse 1. And both are the same as "being
  God's house" in verse 6.

  But notice the wording carefully here in verse 14, because it is a
  strong confirmation that we are on the right track. It says, "We have
  become partakers of Christ, if we hold our assurance to the end." The
  condition is future: "If we hold fast assurance to the end." But the
  effect of the condition relates to the past: "We have become partakers
  of Christ." So it's clear that the point here is not: hold fast to
  your assurance in order to become in the future a partaker of Christ.
  The point is: hold fast to your assurance in order to show (prove,
  evidence, demonstrate) that you are a partaker of Christ.

This article makes reference to Spurgeon, whose sermon on the topic is dense and hard to pull a cogent quote out of. The article, however, does make the point concisely.
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-studies/book-of-hebrews/warning-part-2/

A brief quote:

  Hebrews 3:14 says that those who become Christians will continue until
  the end. The Greek tense of “have become” is a perfect. This means
  that real Christians start as Christians and continue being
  Christians. Real Christians continue in the faith – “if we hold fast.”
  Did the Spirit change His mind when He came to Hebrews 6:4? Is it
  possible to start as a real Christian and then not continue? Hebrews
  4:10 also says that Christians rest from working for their salvation
  just as God rested. The message in Hebrews 3 and 4 is that if you are
  real, you are real until the end. If we do not hold fast, we were
  never Christians from the start.

The Spurgeon sermon on this verse: https://www.spurgeongems.org/vols16-18/chs1042.pdf

The following paper by Dan Sanders discusses Jonathan Edwards' views on assurance:

https://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/126/Cman_126_2_Saunders.pdf

Here is a quote (not of Edwards, but of the author):

  Finally, Hebrews 3:14 uses βεβαίαν with ὑποστάσεως. 29 We hold firm
  to our ‘first confidence’, or rather the ‘beginning of the reality’,
  referring directly to Christ (3:14a) or possibly to ‘the hope’ of the
  parallel confidence (3:6).30 We share in Christ and hold firm to
  Christ—the ὑπόστασις, the divine reality—by reflecting on Jesus
  (3:1) with a faithful heart not hardened by sin. Therefore, God is the
  author of our growth, richly providing everything needed for
  godliness. Jesus strengthens believers as the gospel is strengthened
  in the church. As we hold firm to Christ and our hope, we share in
  Christ. Hence, assurance, already existing in faith, grows as we do
  works of faith.


Did Jesus undergo another temptation in the the garden?

The Bible does not definitively state whether or not Jesus was tempted in the garden or not, so for us to be definitive where the Bible is not must be speculative at best.

What we do know is that Jesus was tempted during His life in all ways, just as we are, yet was without sin.

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
  weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,
  yet without sin.  (Hebrews 4:15 ESV)

This doesn't mean that Jesus experienced every temptation anyone has ever experienced, but that He was tempted in the same ways that we are.

It should also be noted that Satan is not the only source of temptation.  There are, of course, other demons, but temptation also comes from our own sinful flesh, apart from demonic influence.  Now, in this case, if there were any demonic temptation, Satan himself would probably have thought it worth his time.  Yet, we just don't and can't know for sure.

So, Jesus experienced distress, as the Scripture tells us, but we don't know for sure whether or not He experienced temptation at this particular moment, although it's quite possible and perhaps even as much as probable.


Justification of perpetual virginity of Mother Mary

I am not a Catholic so I guess I cannot give you the best answer, but here's my answer from an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, which might be quite different from the Catholic one (or not?):

The ultimate purpose of marriage is actually the salvation of the bride and groom together. Bearing children is not a purpose in itself, but a consequence. Having children is encouraged but not 'mandatory'. Not bearing children was seen as a damnation in the Old Testament, but nowadays Orthodox fathers teach that it is fine if married couples choose to live together, but in chastity. See the works of Romanian Orthodox Fr. Arsenie Papacioc.


Is there a Catholic bishop with jurisdiction over space?

The 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council at Chacedon in 451 ceded jurisdiction of all Dioceses "among the barbarians" to the See of Constantinople.  The text of the Canon reads:

  Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

In 1995, Pope John Paul II affirmed in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint declared, that "the Church must breathe with her two lungs" and recalled the "unity which, in spite of everything, was experienced in the first millennium."  This might be interpreted to mean that the same authority granted to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the first millennium (i.e. prior to the 1054 Schism) still exists in some semblance today.

Given the above, it would seem to me that the one bishop with any sort of claim of ecclesiastical authority over space with at least tentative assent by the Roman Catholic Church might be the current Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I.

Given, however, the number of Russian Orthodox cosmonauts that have been and are currently in space, such authority might be disputed by the current Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill I, who has lately himself improved relations with Pope Francis.  (Interestingly, the Patriarch of Moscow himself was once under Constantinople's jurisdiction, since the Russians were considered to be "among the barbarians" until 1589).

It may be that ceding jurisdiction over space to the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople - something that seems proper under the ancient canons of the Church -  may end up being the first small step on the long path to full re-unification with Rome.


Who believe that innocent children will also go to Hell?

Jesus' remarks were that those who would receive his teachings would be like little children. Also see the Beatitudes, which provides more detail about the simple childlike faith (my words) of those that would receive him (meek, pure in heart, peacemakers, etc.).

The Kingdom of God belongs to those who can accept Christ in the same way a little child simply believes an elder.

On the topic of original sin, Protestant teachings (although there are obviously exceptions) from approximately Martin Luther onward are along the lines that Christ's blood atones for children until the age at which they are capable of making a conscious decision to accept or reject His Grace. This is commonly referred to as the Age of Accountability. The doctrine of Age of Accountability is that there comes a point in your life when you must make a choice for which you will be judged (see Romans 14:12); the actual point in a child's life at which one becomes capable of decision making is not specified in scripture, and in my opinion would differ for each individual. Prior to this age, Christ's blood atones for "original sin" having paid the price "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10).

Romans 14:12 -
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Roman Catholic teachings, on the other hand, states that those who die without first being baptized remain under original sin, and therefore descend to hell (or Limbo, in some interpretations).

Council of Lyons II: “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence: “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.— (Denzinger 693)

Pope John XXII: “It (The Roman Church) teaches… that the souls… of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denzinger 493(a).

"It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: "In my father's house there are many mansions"(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :"Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God"(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left" (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

Note that current Roman Catholic church doctrine makes allowance for the possibility of cleansing from original sin for unbaptized children. Source.

In the documents of the magisterium in the Middle Ages, the mention of “different punishments” for those who die in actual mortal sin or with original sin only (“As for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, they go down immediately to hell, to be punished, however, with different punishments")[66] must be interpreted according to the common teaching of the time. Historically, these affirmations have certainly been applied to unbaptised infants, with the conclusion that these infants suffer punishment for original sin. It must be observed however that, in a general way, the focus of these Church pronouncements was not on the lack of salvation for unbaptised infants, but on the immediacy of the particular judgment after death and the assignment of souls to heaven or hell. These magisterial statements do not oblige us to think that these infants necessarily die with original sin, so that there would be no way of salvation for them.


The Christian position is this:

The Old Testament is just as much God's Word as the New Testament is.
There are differing Christian positions on how much we should consider the Old Testament to be history. The majority position would be that most of it is considered roughly historical. A substantial number would consider it all to be 100% historical, and a minority would consider it all helpful but not necessarily historically accurate.
There are many answered questions on this site and elsewhere about specific Jewish regulations, including dietary restrictions, and why they are not followed by present-day Christians. The distinction between 'cultural' and 'commanded by God' is a false one. God may have given the commend at a specific time and place for a specific reason. Your question about the purpose behind these commands should be asked separately.
Your other questions also really deserve to be asked separately.
Yes, Old Testament and New Testament are proper names denoting specific collections of books, and so should be capitalized.


Can you be a Christian and serve in the Military?

This is a question on which Christians are divided. The vast majority adhere to the belief that fighting in a war is entirely justifiable for a Christian. They draw on several biblical sources for this, including Paul's writings in Romans that the State is a legitimate authority charged with preserving order, that Christians should submit to; and also the fact that Jesus interacted with several soldiers and yet never commanded them to leave their profession. Most Christians would place limits on what kind of war is allowable, and what conduct is allowable within war, gathered together under the Just War theory.

A significant minority of Christians believe that fighting and killing are entirely incompatible with Christianity. Their basis is that commands such as "love your neighbour as yourself" and "turn the other cheek" cannot be compatible with attempting to kill your neighbour. While acknowleging that the State has the right and power to defend itself, they would say that Christians should play no part in such a war. Denominations that espouse this belief includes the Quakers and the Mennonites. Many of these have refused the draft and gone to jail for their beliefs; others have volunteered for non-combatant (but often still dangerous) war tasks such as stretcher bearers.


Did St. Thomas Aquinas deny the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father alone?

Before we are exploring whether or not St. Thomas of Aquinas deny the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father alone, firstly it is important to establish that by the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son no Catholics deny the Father alone to be the principaliter of the Holy Spirit. Any Catholics associated the Father together with the Son as the one principle of the Holy Spirit without denying that the Father alone is the principaliter1 while the Son is a principle2, a distinction developed by St. Augustine of Hippo.

Therefore, the Father alone is called author [of both the Son and theSpirit], even though the Son be called principle [of the Spirit] conceptually. [I]deo solus pater auctor dicitur, quamvis etiam filius principium dicatur notionaliter.
St. Thomas of Aquinas, Sentences I:d29:q1(a1).

There are two texts from Summa Theologia that we will be focusing primarily. The first one is from the first book on question 36 at article 2,

For when the Lord says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded.
St. Thomas of Aquinas, Summa Theologia, I:36:ii(a1).

In here we find a positive affirmation from the Angelic Doctor whereby there will not be any theological difficulty "even though it be added that [the Holy Spirit] proceeds from the Father alone." He is especially respected by his opponents particularly because he honor the interlocutors by representing them with their best arguments. He did this by showing that no contradiction can be found by those insisting that the Holy Spirit in a sense is eternally proceeding from the Father alone and in another sense to be from the Son as later will be shown to be clear.
To put to rest the two extremities among his interlocutors who emphasized the involvement of the Son in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit at the expense of the sole monarchy of the Father and against those who attributed the procession from the Son in the economy alone to combat diarchy, Aquinas maintain an important distinction. A distinction that was introduced by Augustine to keep the involvement of the Son in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit in balance with the sole monarchy of the Father who alone is the principaliter of the Holy Spirit. The second important text that explicitly address this distinction is from the same question 36 at article 3,

So, if we consider in the Father and the Son the power whereby the spirate (virtus qua spirant) the Holy Spirit, there is no mean (medium), for this is one and the same power (virtus est una et eadem). But if we consider the persons themselves spirating (spirantes), then, as the Holy Spirit proceeds both (communiter procedat) from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father immediately (immediate), as from him, and mediately (mediate), as from the Son; and thus he is said to proceed from the Father through the Son (per filium), which has the same meaning.
ibid, ST, I:36:iii(a1).

In this second text, he addressed two important points. The first is the unity of father/son as the one spirator of their Holy Spirit. This is an important point that shows the unity not shared by father/spirit or son/spirit. This unity between the Father and the Son distinguishes the two from their Holy Spirit.3 At the Council of Florence the language "as from one principle" is a reflection of this unitive spiration from the Father and the Son, whereby the Holy Spirit is their Holy Spirit.
The second important point is the crux of the debate whereby he distinguished the immediate procession from the mediate. Had he has in mind that the procession from the Son is identical and in the same sense as from the Father, he would be enforcing the diarchical filioque or the eternal procession immediately from both. The mediation of the Son is a reflection to the fact that the Son is spirating His Spirit as He is receiving Him from the Father, or in another way to see it is that the Father is begetting the Son in order to send His Spirit to rest in the Son. Hence, the spiration of the Holy Spirit is not an after thought but rather inherent in the generation of the Son that He is being begetting so that through the mediation of the Son in that generation the Holy Spirit also proceeding in Him.
To remove any possible misrepresentation or misinterpretation on the doctrine of filioque, St. John Paul II in 1995 commissioned Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to release an authoritative magisterial statement:

On the basis of Jn. 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit "to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" ("who takes his origin from the Father"). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner.
The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's Monarchy," and the Western tradition, following St. Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father principaliter, that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, P.L. 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or Principle (Principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as Principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusis by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusis, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusis" (Discourse 39. 12, Sources chretiennes 358, p. 175). Even if St. Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusthai to the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (c.f. Commentary on St. John, X, 2, P.G. 74, 910D; Ep 55, P.G. 77, 316D, etc.). Even for St. Cyril, the term ekporeusis as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai), can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.
That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon [an unwisely proposed translation of "who proceeds from the Father and the Son"] and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou [and the Son] to the formula ek to Patros ekporeumenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins. ...
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit. ...
We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts.
PCPCU, The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions (1995). Emphasis by the authors.

In 2003 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published an addendum to earlier 1995 Clarification on the Doctrine of Filioque,

No clear record exists of the process by which the word Filioque was inserted into the Creed of 381 in the Christian West before the sixth century.  ... None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being. ...
Much of the difference between the early Latin and Greek traditions on this point is clearly due to the subtle difference of the Latin procedere from the Greek ekporeuesthai: as we have observed, the Spirit’s “coming forth” is designated in a more general sense by the Latin term, without the connotation of ultimate origin hinted at by the Greek. The Spirit’s “procession” from the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his “procession” from the Father, ...
[T]he Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.
USCCB, The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement (2013).

Expanding upon its statement 'all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being,' it affirms that '[t]he Spirit’s “procession” from the Son, however, is conceived of in Latin theology as a somewhat different relationship from his “procession” from the Father.'
In regards to Medieval fathers, Dennis Ngien wrote:

Thus the filioque, far from dividing the Godhead into two separate sources, safeguards its fundamental unity. Even though the Spirit does not proceed from the Son in the same way as from the Father, it is vitally necessary that we name the Father and the Son together in affirming his procession; otherwise we might exclude the Spirit from the ontologically fundamental unity.
Dennis Ngien, Apologetic for Filioque in Medieval Theology, 31-2.

While there is only one spiration the procession is differentiated between immediate from the source and mediate through the channel, similar to how water propagate from the fountain through the river.4 St. Anselm of Canterbury says:

The Son and the Holy Spirit have their being from the Father—but each in a different way: one by generation, the other by procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another. ... For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Spirit distinct, this alone would suffice.
St. Anselm of Canterbury, De Processione Spiritus Sancti, I

1 The Father as the principle without principle in Latin is principium non de principio.
2 The Son is a principle from the principle, in Latin is principium de principio.
3 Because the Holy Spirit does not have the property to spirate, He has no paternal/filial namesake but rather called as a neuter common to the Father and the Son as their Holy Spirit.
4 Ss. John of Damascus and Anselm of Canterbury illustrated the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son with an analogy of water flow from the spring through the river to the lake.


What is the official status of the person of Philomena who at one time was liturgically canonized by Pope Gregory XVI?

What are the physical, archeological and scientific historical supports that the Vatican used to suppress her status as a saint in 1961?

On May 24, 1802, in the Catacombs of Priscilla on the Via Salaria Nova, an inscribed loculus (space hollowed out of the rock) was found, and on the following day it was carefully examined and opened. The loculus was closed with three terracotta tiles, on which was the following inscription: lumena paxte cumfi. It was and is generally accepted that the tiles had not been positioned in the sequence of the words, and that the inscription originally read, with the leftmost tile placed on the right: pax tecum Filumena ("Peace with you, Philomena"). Within the loculus was found the skeleton of a female between thirteen and fifteen years old. Embedded in the cement was a small glass phial with vestiges of what was taken to be blood. In accordance with the assumptions of the time, the remains were taken to be those of a virgin martyr named Philomena. Her name means 'daughter of light'. Philomena is the patron saint of infants, babies, and youth. - St. Philomena (Wikipedia)

Archeological basis and people who oppose

The belief that such vials were signs of the grave of a martyr was still held in 1863, when a December 10 decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites confirmed a decree of April 10, 1668. But this view has been rejected in practice since the investigations of Giovanni Battista De Rossi (1822–1894).[6]
The questions were raised in particular by Orazio Marucchi, whose conclusions won the support of Johann Peter Kirsch, an archaeologist and ecclesiastical historian who is the author of the article on Philomena in the Catholic Encyclopedia,[6]

Who is Orazio Marucchi?

Orazio Marucchi (1852 - January 1931, Rome) was an Italian archaeologist and author of the Manual of Christian Archaeology. He served as Professor of Christian Archaeology at the University of Rome and director of the Christian and Egyptian museums at the Vatican Museums. He was also a member of the Pontifical Commission of Sacred Archaeology and was a scrittore of the Vatican Library.

And what are the findings of Peter Kirsch?

The inscription on the three tiles that had provided the Latin name "Filumena" ("Philomena" in English) belonged to the middle or second half of the second century,[6] while the body that had been found was of the fourth century, when the persecutions of Christians had ended.[8] Not only the name but also the leaf, the two anchors and the palm that decorated the three tiles, and which had been believed to indicate that Filumena was a martyr (though the necessary connection between these symbols and martyrdom has been denied), had no relation to the person whose remains were found.[6]
Kirsch, Johann Peter. "St. Philomena." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 29 Apr. 2013 - St. Philomena (Wikipedia)

Problems with the question of the OP

The Vatican in 1961 did not suppress the status of St. Philomena as a Saint.

The Vatican in 1961 did not suppress the cult of St. Philomena.

The Vatican thru the Congregation of Rites in 1961 published the Congregation's decision in Acta Apostolicae Sedis "ordered the feast of St. Philomena Virgin-Maryr to be expunged from all liturgical calendars. The Congregation's did not order to suppress St. Philomena's status as a saint and the did not order to suppress any devotion to Her cult that a Supreme Pontiff had clearly proclaimed.

To know more about Acta Apostolicae Sedis here is some pertinent information;

Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Latin for "Register of the Apostolic See"), often cited as AAS, is the official gazette of the Holy See, appearing about twelve times a year. It was established by Pope Pius X on 29 September 1908 with the decree Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones, and publication began in January 1909. It contains all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The laws contained in it are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue, unless a shorter or longer time is specified in the law.

The AAS also contain the "decisions of the Roman congregation". The Latin text cited was a decision not by Pope St. John XXIII but by the Congregation of Rites only.
Is the Congregation of Rites decisions superior over the decision or declaration of the Supreme Pontiff? The answer is No. The Pope is the Supreme Interpreter, Legislator and Guarantor of Faith and not the Congregation of Rites.
The Latin text cited above and published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis was a decision coming only from the Congregation of Rites and does not bear the decision or the prudential judgement or even the approval of Pope St. John XXIII. In contrast to the Congregation of Rites in the year 1837 where the decision of the Prefect of the Congregation of Rites bears the approval of Pope Gregory XVI.

In 1837, the Prefect of Congregation of Rites publicly asserted that Pope Gregory XVI had approved the Congregation's decision permitting the local recitation of the Office,and celebration of the Mass of the Virgin-Martyr, in honor of Philomena in August 11. - Source

Here, we can see the force of authority of the Congregation of Rites issued in Acta Apostolicae Sedis has been put into question because it does not bear the approval of Pope St.John XXIII that had cause confusions among the faithfuls in the year they issued the Congregation's decision in 1961.
In fact, when one of the faithful who had a deep devotion to St. Philomena asked St.Pope Paul VI about the issues & confusions sorroundings the Congregation's decision, simply said "Just don't mind it, continue your devotion".
St. Pius X declaration raising the cult of St. Philomena to Universal Archconfraternity cannot be alter by any future Popes much more by a mere Congregation of Rites decision.

The Confraternity of Saint Philomena was raised to the rank of Archconfraternity by Pope Leo XIII, November, 1886
On June 16th, 1907, the Supreme Pontiff Pius X, receiving in audience Father Petit, from Paris, the director of the Work of Saint Philomena, exclaimed: "Ah, Saint Philomena! It is very sad to read what has been written recently against her" (The Holy Father was referring to certain detractors of the cult of Saint Philomena who dared to maintain that our Little Saint did not even exist.) "It is incredible," continued the Holy Father, "that such things can come about without them (the detractors) looking at the great argument in favor of the saint, the Holy CurÉ of Ars. By her, in her name, and through her intercession, he obtained innumerable graces and continual prodigies."
To definitively affirm the cult of Saint Philomena and to give the final word, on May 21, 1912, Pope Pius raised the Venerable Archconfraternity of Saint Philomena into the Universal Archconfraternity with the Apostolic Brief, "Pias Fidelium Societates," in which he states very clearly: "We decree with the present words that it shall remain always stable, valid and effective, that it receive and obtain its effects fully and completely, in this way it must be regularly judged and defined, and if it proceeds in any other way, it will be null and without value, whatever the authority might be…" - The History of the Universal Archconfraternity of Saint Philomena

St. Pius X had made a decree in May 21, 1912 with a very clear statement that no future decision can alter the decision they had made raising the cult of St.Philomena to Universal Archconfraternity.
Did the Congregation of Rites in 1961 oppose this decree of St.Pius X? The answer is No.
or the better question is;
Can the Congregation of Rites has a canonical power to oppose the Decree made by St. Pius X in May 21, 1912?
The clear answer is NO.  Therefore, the devotion to the Cult of St. Philomena stays and the status of St. Philomena as a saint remain because the Congregation of Rites in 1961 cannot also oppose the Congregation of Rites decision in 1837 to celebrate the Office and offering of the Mass in honor of St. Philomena Virgin Martyr because it has the expressed public approval of Pope Gregory XVI, while the latter has none.


What countries today have severe restrictions against Christianity as state policy?

North Korea has severe restrictions against Christianity as state policy, with imprisonment and forced labour the penalty for even being a committed Christian, but not only Christians face persecution.  Margaret Stutley reports, in Shamanism that North Korean persecution of shamanism has caused the religion to go underground.

China has placed some restrictions on Christianity, including on the building of new churches, a restriction that has forced the existing churches visibly to overflow with worshippers on Sundays. The Vatican is not permitted to nominate bishops in China, so the official Catholic Church in China is somewhat disconnected from the worldwide Catholic Church. Both these policies, which have their origins in the humilities of the nineteenth century, have resulted in the development of underground churches. In spite of this, Christians can worship quite openly, as I have observed.  The greatest religious persecution is against the Falun Dafa, which is banned in China, with adherents subject to imprisonment and possible execution.

Islam recognises Christians as "people of the book", so in Muslim-majority nations there tends not to be overt state restrictions on Christianity as a matter of policy, although more subtle persecution may exist, and in some countries there is hostility from the Muslim people. The World Watch List list the fifty countries where persecution of Christians is most rife, with most of them being Muslim-majority countries. Again, the existence of persecution is not always due to overt state policy but may be societal. For example, in Somalia, second on the World Watch List, the government is impotent, but grave danger exists in the form of the militant Islamist group al-Shabaab.


What is the Catholic Church's view on curses and their after-effects?

What is the Catholic Church's view on curses and its’ after-effects?
First of all, there are different types of curses.
For example in the Old Testament , we see God cursing Adam and Eve. In the Gospels we can see Jesus cursing the fig tree.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the subject of cursing.

In its popular acceptation cursing is often confounded, especially in the phrase "cursing and swearing", with the use of profane and insulting language; in canon law it sometimes signifies the ban of excommunication pronounced by the Church. In its more common Biblical sense it means the opposite of blessing (cf. Numbers 23:27), and is generally either a threat of the Divine wrath, or its actual visitation, or its prophetic announcement, though occasionally it is a mere petition that calamity may be visited by God on persons or things in requital for wrongdoing. Thus among many other instances we find God cursing the serpent (Genesis 3:14), the earth (Genesis 3:17), and Cain (Genesis 4:11). Similarly Noah curses Chanaan (Genesis 9:25); Josue, him who should build the city of Jericho (Joshua 6:26-27); and in various books of the Old Testament there are long lists of curses against transgressors of the Law (cf. Leviticus 26:14-25; Deuteronomy 27:15, etc.). So, too, in the New Testament, Christ curses the barren fig-tree (Mark 11:14), pronounces his denunciation of woe against the incredulous cities (Matthew 11:21), against the rich, the worldling, the scribes and the Pharisees, and foretells the awful malediction that is to come upon the damned (Matthew 25:41). The word curse is also applied to the victim of expiation for sin (Galatians 3:13), to sins temporal and eternal (Genesis 2:17; Matthew 25:41).
In moral theology, to curse is to call down evil upon God or creatures, rational or irrational, living or dead. St. Thomas treats of it under the name maledictio, and says that imprecation may be made either efficaciously and by way of command, as when made by God, or inefficaciously and as a mere expression of desire. From the fact that we find many instances of curses made by God and his representatives, the Church and the Prophets, it is seen that the act of cursing is not necessarily sinful in itself; like other moral acts it takes its sinful character from the object, the end, and the circumstances. Thus it is always a sin, and the greatest of sins, to curse God, for to do so involves both the irreverence of blasphemy and the malice of hatred of the Divinity. It is likewise blasphemy, and consequently a grievous sin against the Second Commandment, to curse creatures of any kind precisely because they are the work of God. If, however, the imprecation be directed towards irrational creatures not on account of their relation to God, but simply as they are in themselves, the guilt is no greater than that which attaches to vain and idle words, except where grave scandal is given, or the evil wished to the irrational creature cannot be separated from serious loss to a rational creature, as would be the case were one to wish the death of another's horse, or the destruction of his house by fire, for such wishes involved serious violation of charity.
Curses which imply rebellion against Divine Providence, or denial of His goodness or other attributes, such as curses of the weather, the winds, the world, the Christian Faith, are not generally grievous sins, because the full content and implication of such expressions is seldom realized by those who use them. The common imprecations against animate or inanimate objects which cause vexation or pain, those against enterprises which fail of success, so, too, the imprecations that spring from impatience, little outbreaks of anger over petty annoyances, and those spoken lightly, inconsiderately, under sudden impulse or in joke, are, as a rule, only venial sins — the evil being slight and not seriously desired. To call down moral evil upon a rational creature is always illicit, and the same holds good of physical evil, unless it be desired not as evil, but only in so far as it is good, for example, as a punishment for misdeeds, or a means to amendment, or an obstacle to commission of sin; for in such cases the principal intention, as St. Thomas says, is directed per se towards what is good. When, however, evil is wished another precisely because it is evil and with malice prepense, there is always sin, the gravity of which varies with the seriousness of the evil; if it be of considerable magnitude, the sin will be grievous, if of trifling character, the sin will be venial. It is to be noted that merely verbal curses, even without any desire of fulfilment, become grievous sins when uttered against and in the presence of those who are invested with special claims to reverence. A child, therefore, would sin grievously who should curse father, mother, or grandfather, or those who hold the place of parents in his regard, provided he does so to their very face, even though he does this merely with the lips and not with the heart. Such an act is a serious violation of the virtue of piety. Between other degrees of kindred verbal curses are forbidden only under pain of venial sin. To curse the devil is not of itself a sin; to curse the dead is not ordinarily a grievous sin, because no serious injury is done them, but to curse the saints or holy things, as the sacraments, is generally blasphemy, as their relation to God is generally perceived.

Curses can have very serious effects on both people and animal!
I like to recall the phrase that an exorcist once told when we were discussing the topic of cursing and malediction: ”Be careful what you pray for. Both good and evil could be answered in a way you could regret. People should not wish true evil on others. After all the Devil can hear those curses!”

2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. - Ecclesiastes 5:2

Holiness is in the power of tongue.

Malediction in the form of hurling epithets is not as simple as it may at first appear, however. There is, for example, a fundamental difference between the utterances “You bastard!” and “Go to hell!” The first expresses malevolence or ill will, with reference to an imputed personal characteristic that bespeaks illegitimacy. The second, as watered-down and secularized as it may be in colloquial usage, refers to a supernatural and cosmological domain that remains deeply resonant across religious traditions and even in secular settings. In short, the malediction “You bastard!” is an insult. The malediction “Go to hell!” is a curse. The difference is not only one of degree, but one of kind.

Fr. Gabriele Amorth S.S.P. (1 May 1925 – 16 September 2016), the major exorcist of Rome stated several times in his books, An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories demonstrates that cursing someone may, but not always lead to diabolic possession by the Demon.
Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas answers the question: Whether it is lawful to curse anyone?:

To curse [maledicere] is the same as to speak ill [malum dicere]. Now "speaking" has a threefold relation to the thing spoken. First, by way of assertion, as when a thing is expressed in the indicative mood: in this way "maledicere" signifies simply to tell someone of another's evil, and this pertains to backbiting, wherefore tellers of evil [maledici] are sometimes called backbiters. Secondly, speaking is related to the thing spoken, by way of cause, and this belongs to God first and foremost, since He made all things by His word, according to Psalm 32:9, "He spoke and they were made"; while secondarily it belongs to man, who, by his word, commands others and thus moves them to do something: it is for this purpose that we employ verbs in the imperative mood. Thirdly, "speaking" is related to the thing spoken by expressing the sentiments of one who desires that which is expressed in words; and for this purpose we employ the verb in the optative mood.
Accordingly we may omit the first kind of evil speaking which is by way of simple assertion of evil, and consider the other two kinds. And here we must observe that to do something and to will it are consequent on one another in the matter of goodness and wickedness, as shown above (I-II:20:3). Hence in these two ways of evil speaking, by way of command and by way of desire, there is the same aspect of lawfulness and unlawfulness, for if a man commands or desires another's evil, as evil, being intent on the evil itself, then evil speaking will be unlawful in both ways, and this is what is meant by cursing. On the other hand if a man commands or desires another's evil under the aspect of good, it is lawful; and it may be called cursing, not strictly speaking, but accidentally, because the chief intention of the speaker is directed not to evil but to good.
Now evil may be spoken, by commanding or desiring it, under the aspect of a twofold good. Sometimes under the aspect of just, and thus a judge lawfully curses a man whom he condemns to a just penalty: thus too the Church curses by pronouncing anathema. On the same way the prophets in the Scriptures sometimes call down evils on sinners, as though conforming their will to Divine justice, although such like imprecation may be taken by way of foretelling. Sometimes evil is spoken under the aspect of useful, as when one wishes a sinner to suffer sickness or hindrance of some kind, either that he may himself reform, or at least that he may cease from harming others.

Here follows most causes of demonic possession as recognized by the Church:

Causes of Demonic Possession
According to the Catholic Church, the chief causes of possession are the following:
• making a Pact with the Devil or Demons
• participating in occult or spiritualist rites, including playing with divination devices such as a Ouija™ or doing automatic writing
• offering or dedicating a child to Satan
• being the victim of a witchcraft spell or Curse
Engaging in these activities, as well as leading a deliberately sinful life, give Demons the right and license to take up residence, according to the church. Mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder are not considered to be caused by Demonic possession.
The church teaches that God allows possession to happen for a variety of reasons:
• to Demonstrate the truth of the Catholic faith
• to punish sinners
• to confer spiritual benefits through lessons
• to produce teachings for humanity


Your question can be asked using the theological terms of complementarianism and egalitarianism. The crux of the question is this - Did God make all humans the same or did He give each "separate but equal" roles to uniquely fill within the church?

This, like most real issues of substance, is not one where a single proof verse can answer it. (Although, watch me violate this in a minute!) Rather, one needs to pit the whole of Scripture and discern what the whole of God's heart on the matter is.

A whole lot of good ink has been shed on this subject, and entire books can only begin to scratch the surface of a fully biblical answer to that question.

For a deeper understanding of the 1 Corinthians 14 passage in particular, this article references Gordon Fee, one of the preeminent experts on how texts should be read. It is a solid summary (albeit 3 long pages) that really should be consulted. Finally, as to the "women should keep silent in church," verse in Corinthians, I have heard it argued that this is actually a return to the subject of Chloe and Scynthe, two women in the church at Corinth who were fighting a lot, but I cannot source this claim. This wiki article also does a good job of summarizing the role of women in the Bible, using these headings.

The implication of complementarianism would be that women were not created for this role, but rather were to be nurturers rather than leaders. Egalitarians, on the other hand, stress passages like Galatians 3:22 (In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.)

Biblically speaking, the opening of 2 John makes it difficult for me to say that a "woman should keep silence" in church. After all, it is directly addressed to "the elect lady and her church," which indicates to me that in New Testament times, there were churches in which which women were in charge.

This said, as a guy, I'll admit, I'm not convinced this is a matter that should divide Christians. It could be one of those "tyranny of the weaker brother" questions, in which the Christian freedom afforded to women could cause others to stumble. Likewise, in churches that have accepted it, keeping women out of the pulpit could be a major stumbling block to those who see this as blantly unfair.

As Romans 14:5 says,

  Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.


What is the role of the British monarch?

The role of the monarch in the Church of England, while technically its head, is limited strictly to the selection of bishops.  Even here, involvement is limited, as the Monarch chooses from one of three candidates sent by the Prime Minister, from a list that was created by a synod of bishops.

Article 37 (of the 39 Articles) explicitly defines the role as follows:

  "The King's majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other of his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction ... We give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments ... but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoer ... The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England."

This makes him specifically not a priest, but as a sovereign with the prerogative of establishing ecclesiastical order, it does give him the power to appoint bishops.

One of the titles of the Queen or King of England is "Defender of the Faith," but Charles has publicly lobbied to change that to "Defender of Faith," so as to remove the last vestigial tie to Christianity. Initially, Henry VIII won this title for his apologetics.  The Pope revoked that Title in the 1530s, but Parliament conferred it on him via its authority.


Biblical reference that if someone is saved through someone else, that creates a "reward" or "treasure" in heaven?

There are rewards promised in the Bible.

"Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each
person according to what they have done. (Revelation 22:12, NIV)
The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they
will each be rewarded according to their own labor. (1 Corinthians 3:8, NIV)

According to Bible scholars, there are Five Crowns in Heaven.

Crown of Righteousness - for those who wait for the Lord's appearing
Incorruptible Crown - for those who discipline themselves
Crown of Life - for martyrs
Crown of Glory - for the faithful leaders
Crown of Rejoicing - for those who win the souls

Our interest here is on the Crown of Rejoicing. This crown is reserved for those who win the souls to Christ.

For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in
the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you? (1 Thessalonians 2:19, NIV)
Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and
those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and
ever. (Daniel 12:3, NIV)

So, if you want to receive the Crown of Rejoicing, start bringing people to Christ. May God bless you.


What Apostles-Creed affirming groups claim priesthood of Melchizidek?

The LDS Church uses this phrase.  They divide the priesthood into Melchizedek Priesthood and Aaronic Priesthood.

Melchizedek Priesthood is described on their site as follows:

  “There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek
  and Aaronic” (D&C 107:1). The Melchizedek Priesthood, which is “after
  the Order of the Son of God” (D&C 107:3), is the greater of these. It
  “holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all
  the offices in the church” (D&C 107:8). It also holds “the keys of all
  the spiritual blessings of the church” (D&C 107:18). It is named after
  a great high priest who lived during the time of the prophet Abraham
  (see D&C 107:2-4; see also Alma 13:14-19).

  The offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood are Apostle, Seventy,
  patriarch, high priest, and elder. The President of the High
  Priesthood is the President of the Church (see D&C 107:64-66).

  Men in the Church must be worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holders in
  order to receive the temple endowment and be sealed to their families
  for eternity. They have the authority to administer to the sick and
  give special blessings to family members and others. With the
  authorization of presiding priesthood leaders, they can bestow the
  gift of the Holy Ghost and ordain other worthy men to offices in the
  Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods.

  When a man receives the Melchizedek Priesthood, he enters into the
  oath and covenant of the priesthood. He covenants to be faithful,
  magnify his calling, “give diligent heed to the words of eternal
  life,” and “live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of
  God.” Those who keep this covenant will be sanctified by the Spirit
  and receive “all that [the] Father hath.” (See D&C 84:33-44.)

Specifically, John Taylor is quoted as saying  (Emphasis mine)

  Seventh—That while the power of the higher, or Melchizedek, is to hold
  the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church; to have the
  privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have
  the heavens opened to them, to commune with the general assembly and
  church of the firstborn and to enjoy the communion and presence of God
  the Father, and Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to preside
  over all the spiritual officers of the church, yet the presidency of
  the high priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, have a right to
  officiate in all the offices in the church, both spiritual and
  temporal.


Why doesn't the Bible tell us that Jesus was a virgin?

The Bible does emphatically state that Jesus was without sin.

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
  weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,
  yet without sin.  Hebrews 4:15 ESV

Since Jesus was never reported to have been married in the Bible, a sexual relationship would have been a sin.  Since Jesus is and was and forever will be sinless, we can know for certain that Jesus was also a virgin.

This is implicit rather than explicit, but no less certain.


Did Jesus die on the cross or on the tree?

First, understanding that this is not a site to learn about Truth, but rather to learn about Christianity - what the various teachings are from an academic perspective, the question "Which is true" is off-topic.  However, we could take a couple of approaches that would be within the bounds of the site:

Answering what various denominations believe about the subject
From an apologetics approach, how do we resolve the apparent conflict?

I'm going to take the latter, and provide the answer the is probably the most commonly accepted.

Before we can address the potential discrepancy, it's important to clarify a couple of key concepts: Mainly what "Biblical inerrancy" means, and what guidelines are used for resolving alleged discrepancies.

First, the basic rules for resolving Biblical discrepancies are documented here: Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies

Next, the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration of Scripture allows for authors to use their own literary style, including using allegory, and figures of speech while still allowing for Biblical inerrancy.  This means that there can be verses within the Bible that are true on a general common-sense, easy to understand level, yet not technically true.  Example:  "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse" is a phrase that anyone can easily see is a figure of speech.  Anyone can see that it simply means "I am very hungry", but realizes that the "I could eat a horse" is an exaggeration for effect.

The point of the above is that it's sometimes a mistake to be hyper-literal when interpreting individual passages of Scripture.  Further, from the perspecrtive of inerrancy, the doctrine is not meant to defend the idea that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, it teaches that the Bible is a reliable source of truth and doctrine.  That said, doctrinally, whether Christ was hung on a tree or a cross isn't doctrinally significant.

One method for resolving this apparent conflict is based on the basic principle outlined above.

It's quite possible that the word "Cross" and "Tree" were used interchangeably, like "Cool", "Neat", and "Awesome" are used in modern slang.  In our modern slang, those words have completely different meanings, techically, but in the way we use them, they can mean the exact same thing.  Since a cross is made of wood, taken from a tree, it is not unreasonable to assume that either people called crosses "trees".  It also be that they called anything that someone was crucified upon a cross, just because the Romans generally did use a cross of one sort or another.

However, all of that said, the historical evidence suggests that Jesus was probably hung on a cross as we'd normally think of it, since it was the normal method of execution at the time, and also based on internal Scriptural evidence.  More here: http://www.gods-word-first.org/jesus-christ/jesus-crucifixion-stauros.html

A small snippet of the article, which shows a small bit of possible internal evidence:

  The beam that Jesus was made to carry (John 19:17), and that Simon
  from Cyrene carried for him after Jesus collapsed in exhaustion (Luke
  23:26), was most likely the crosspiece that was later affixed to an
  upright pole that was already in place.


What did Jesus mean by 'going for a second mile '?

This was a reference to a law by which the Roman could force a Jew to carry some goods for one mile and one mile only. Therefore, here Jesus meant that, if you just go one mile, there is nothing special, as that is the law. You must go further than that, by will and love. It might also have been an indication that the new covenant does not revolve on following the law, but in a new measure of love.

You can read it much better in this book, and the relevant quote below:


According to Catholicism did Pope Linus know that he was the Pope and Head of the Church?

Would he have been aware of the role as defined today by Catholicism?

I'm not an expert in Church history. But as far as I know, one of the problems that lead to the great schism in 1054 was that the bishop of Rome saw himself as leading bishop of the Church while the eastern bishops were claiming that the bishop of Rome never had more power than the other bishops.

If I understand the information in the article about that schism in the German Wikipedia correctly, this difference was caused by changes in the former western part of the Roman empire.

If my understanding is correct, this would mean that the western bishops (which includes the one of Rome) had the same opinion than the eastern ones before those changes took place.

In other words: Before those changes (beginning with the split of the empire in the year 395) the bishop of Rome would have shared the opinion of the eastern bishops: He would have claimed that he does not have any special role.

  ... the "vicar" of Christ ...

According to the sermon held by a priest in the parish I was living some years ago, it was some pope in the renaissance (this is only about 500 years ago) who claimed that he had this title.

The priest also said that the Church denies that any pope ever legitimately had this title - at least in the way it was understood by that renaissance pope.  All  of this predates Linus.