In light of the many changes in regulations, what is the purpose of the Roman Catholic altar and is it neccessary for a valid Mass? The following has been compiled from several CSE questions (and comments); here, here, and here as well as Wikipedia and an article from Slate magazine.
At the second council of Nicaea 787, Catholic authorities passed a law stating that every church should have a relic at its altar.  Failure to obey resulted in excommunication.  The consecration of an altar was accomplished when the altar had within it or under it the 1st degree relics of two different saints, one of which was required to have been martyred.
A first degree relic is the bone, hair, blood, or tears of a saint.  Some believe this tradition of relic veneration began with the collection of ashes following the death of Polycarp, who was burned at the stake in 156 AD.
Up until Vatican II a priest could only celebrate the Mass on a properly consecrated altar.  Following the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960's (in 1969 to be precise) the church officially laid to rest the 787 ruling at Nicaea by no longer requiring Catholic churches to posses a holy remnant at their altars.
Altars within churches must be of stone and there are many regulations regarding their construction and use.  Movable altars are allowable (hence the birth of the portable altar stone) and an altar used outside of a Catholic Church need not be of stone but of any "suitable" material.
1983 Canon law regarding altars and relics is, in part, as follows:

Canon 1236 §1. According to the traditional practice of the Church,
the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone, and indeed of a single
natural stone. Nevertheless, another worthy and solid material can
also be used in the judgment of the conference of bishops. The
supports or base, however, can be made of any material.  §2. A movable
altar can be constructed of any solid material suitable for liturgical
use.

Canon 1237 §2. The ancient tradition of placing relics of martyrs or other saints under a fixed altar is to be preserved, according to the norms given in the liturgical books.

In "The Order of Dedication of a Church and an Altar " it is written:

The tradition of the Roman Liturgy of placing relics of Martyrs or of other Saints under the altar is fittingly to be retained. Nevertheless, the following should be noted:
a) Relics for deposition should be of such a size that they can be recognized as parts of human bodies. Hence, enclosing excessively small relics of one or several Saints is to be avoided.
b) The greatest care must be taken to determine whether relics intended for deposition are authentic. It is better for an altar to be dedicated without relics than to have relics of doubtful authenticity deposited under it.
c) A reliquary must not be placed on the altar or in the table of the altar but under the table of the altar, in a manner suitable to the design of the altar.

Given that

altars consecrated by relics were not required for the celebration of the Mass for 700 years and then were required for 1100 years and now are not required again

there are regulations in place regarding the use of relics as pertaining to altars (which are no longer required for their consecration)

portable altars were not always commonly used but now a suitable table (with or without a relic) may be used always with the use of a cloth, a corporal, a cross, and candles.

What exactly is the purpose of the altar in a Roman Catholic Mass?  Is it necessary or is it just a table?  If it's just a table, does that mean the cloth, corporal, cross, and candles are the necessary parts?

In light of many changes in regulations over the centuries, what is the purpose of the Roman Catholic altar and is it neccessary for a valid Mass?
The purpose of an altar is to have a noble material upon which a priest may celebrate the the Eucharist.
The Mass celebrated not on an altar is valid, but illicit.
As the Eucharist stands at “the apex” of all Christian prayers, so too the altar is the central feature within our churches be it is where the priest consecrates the bread and wine into the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The use of fine bronze or cast iron, beautifully carved wood, or various stones may all be appropriate. In all cases the Church has a longstanding preference for stone, especially for the mensa or top. Pope Saint Sylvester (314-335), who was the patron of Saint John Lateran, is said to be the first to have made stone altars obligatory. Saint John Chrysostom writes that “this altar is an object of wonder: by nature it is stone, but it is made holy when it receives the body of Christ”.6 It is this mensa that is anointed at the time of dedication, much like Christ’s body was anointed with oil both before and after His death. Because it is a holy object, we also incense the altar. Just as the altar represents Christ, the stone material represents “Christ the rock” and “the stone that the builders rejected which has become the cornerstone” (Ps 118:22).
The question for us is, how can the design of the altar (and by extension, the area around it) indicate its sacredness and the honor it deserves? People are quite intelligent about these things, and an altar that is a simple wooden table or an abstract metal structure will not be approached with the awe and reverence it actually deserves. An abstract or minimalist object may be fine to read a book on, or eat sandwiches off of, but it can never fully hold our attention.
Instead, the design of the altar should be such that it portrays the theological truths we wish to express. And if we have a beautiful altar, then should we not make the sanctuary and the church beautiful as well?
The mensa, or top stone, receives relics of the saints, following the early tradition of celebrating Mass over the tombs of the martyrs. As the Eucharist is a joining of the Church in Christ’s sacrifice, it can be expressed in the body of a holy man or woman who exhibited that sacrifice in their life. That is, the body or relic of the saint is a material reminder of Christ’s one immemorial sacrifice and bodily death. Saint Ambrose explains that in this way “the triumphant victims may occupy the place where Christ is victim: He, however, who suffered for all, upon the altar; they who have been redeemed by His sufferings, beneath the altar”.7 This is why altars have been dedicated or named after saints, the relics of whom are often placed therein. For instance, in Saint Peter’s Basilica each altar has a dedication to the saint or saints buried underneath. It is imperative for us to recover this cult of the saints and martyrs, especially after the twentieth century, which saw the greatest persecution against Christians since Roman times. - The Altar as the Center of the Church

Modern liturgists may claim that certain changes in the liturgy bring us closer to the way the first Christians worshipped. This may be true, but as it has to be pointed out: The early Christians worshipped in the way they did using a table, for example because they were a persecuted minority, forbidden to build places of worship. Once the persecution ended, they built churches which were a fitting setting for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which was offered in an increasingly elaborate rite inspired by the desire to render the greatest possible glory to God, to whom all honor is due. The way one worships in a time of persecution cannot be considered the norm for a time of freedom.
Now let me address your three point in reference to altars:

Altars consecrated by relics were not required for the celebration of the Mass for 700 years and then were required for 1100 years and now are not required again.

There are regulations in place regarding the use of relics as pertaining to altars (which are no longer required for their consecration).

Portable altars were once not allowable but now a suitable table (with or without a relic) may be used always with the use of a cloth, a corporal, a cross, and candles.

Firstly, altars are consecrated with relics placed into the burial chamber to the mensa or top altar stone. If the altar is placed over the tomb of a saint this burial chamber is not required.
One more point, I would like to clarify here is that a relic of a saint, preferably a martyr. In fact, as you pointed out: Canon Law makes this an obligation.

Canon 1236 §1. According to the traditional practice of the Church, the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone, and indeed of a single natural stone. Nevertheless, another worthy and solid material can also be used in the judgment of the conference of bishops. The supports or base, however, can be made of any material. §2. A movable altar can be constructed of any solid material suitable for liturgical use.
Canon 1237 §2. The ancient tradition of placing relics of martyrs or other saints under a fixed altar is to be preserved, according to the norms given in the liturgical books.

Secondly relics are still required in consecrated altars.
Thirdly portable altars were once not allowed, but now a suitable portable altar may be used if it is equipped to receive a actual “portable” altar stone.

Here is an example of a small moveable altar stone which is place into a portable altar. Thus Mass may be celebrated outside of Catholic Churches.
However the way one worships in a time of persecution or war cannot be considered the norm for a time of freedom.
The Early Church used simple wooden table in the homes of the faithful or in the catacombs in times of persecution.
During World War II, military chaplains were granted the privilege of using an Antimension in lieu of a portable altar stone. This was granted as an indult and as such is not a norm to be followed. Think it as an emergency measure in times of war!

During the Second World War, the Holy See granted to military chaplains the privilege of using for the celebration of Mass, instead of the Latin-rite portable altar stone, "a veil which had enclosed, and well fastened, authentic relics." This was later extended to peacetime military activities. Since it was not always possible to obtain a veil with authentic relics, the use of an Eastern-rite antimension was considered an acceptable alternative.
Finally, Paul VI's "Pastorale Munus," a letter issued "motu proprio" (on his own initiative) in November 1963, gave to all local ordinaries of the universal Church (of all rites, Western and Eastern) the faculty to grant, for a just and serious reason, to all priests subject to them, who enjoy the faculty of the portable altar, the faculty of substituting for the portable altar stone the Byzantine or the Latin forms of the antimension.

Another point I would like to make here is about how the celebration of the Eucharist is celebrated by priests the are seriously persecuted for their faith and some are even been imprisoned for simply being a priest or bishop. I have heard how some have said Mass secretly while in Communist prisons simply using the actual ground as their altar. Many made wine using raisins! Faith finds a way!

Example of a portable altar with a portable altar stone in place.(Have Altar – Will Travel)

In the 14th century the portable altarstone become common.

Addendum:
According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, it seems that “”the celebration of the Eucharist in a sacred place is to be carried out on an altar; but outside a sacred place, it may be carried out on a suitable table, always with the use of a cloth, a corporal, a cross, and candles.”

The Altar and Its Appointments

The altar on which the Sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs is also the table of the Lord to which the People of God is called together to participate in the Mass, as well as the center of the thanksgiving that is accomplished through the Eucharist.

The celebration of the Eucharist in a sacred place is to be carried out on an altar; but outside a sacred place, it may be carried out on a suitable table, always with the use of a cloth, a corporal, a cross, and candles.

It is appropriate to have a fixed altar in every church, since it more clearly and permanently signifies Christ Jesus, the living stone (1 Pt 2:4; cf. Eph 2:20). In other places set aside for sacred celebrations, the altar may be movable.

An altar is called “fixed” if it is attached to the floor so as not to be removeable; otherwise it is called “moveable.”

The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.[116] The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.

An altar whether fixed or movable is dedicated according to the rite prescribed in the Roman Pontifical; but it is permissible for a movable altar simply to be blessed.

In keeping with the Church’s traditional practice and the altar’s symbolism, the table of a fixed altar is to be of stone and indeed of natural stone. In the dioceses of the United States of America, however, wood which is worthy, solid, and well-crafted may be used, provided that the altar is structurally immobile. The supports or base for upholding the table, however, may be made of any sort of material, provided it is worthy and solid.

A movable altar may be constructed of any noble and solid materials suited to liturgical use, according to the traditions and usages of the different regions.

The practice of placing relics of Saints, even those not Martyrs, under the altar to be dedicated is fittingly retained. Care should be taken, however, to ensure the authenticity of such relics.

In building new churches, it is preferable to erect a single altar which in the gathering of the faithful will signify the one Christ and the one Eucharist of the Church.


Which prophecies are fulfilled outside of Scripture? In thinking over the "fulfillment" of certain prophecies in AD 70, it struck me that this is really the only prophecy (other than the Second Coming) that isn't fulfilled in Scripture.

Even the general prophecies about gospel proclamation and evil abounding are partially fulfilled in Acts, as we see things spinning into motion.

So, other than the AD 70 prophecy (assuming you believe that's the fulfillment, which I'm beginning to doubt) and the Second Coming, are there any prophecies in the Old Testament (or the New?) that (regardless of their fulfillment status) are not fulfilled in Scripture?

To clarify, I'm not looking for extra-biblical support for prophecies; rather, I'm looking for prophecies which are only fulfilled outside Scripture and whose fulfillment is never mentioned in the Bible.

In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream. Daniel interprets the dream, even though Nebuchadnezzar first insists that Daniel tell him the details of what he saw.  He responds:

31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth. ...
44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands —a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

The interpretation is then clearly identified as those kingdoms which will rise up after Babylon - and historically speaking, these can be very closely ascribed to the Medeo-Persian, Macedonian, and Roman empires. Indeed, the prophecy is so good that many scholars refuse to date Daniel to the time of Nebuchadnezzar because of it.  Within the Protestant canon, there is no mention of Alexander the Great, nor of the rise of Rome.
The point of this vision, and the prophecy as a whole, however, is NOT the statue.  Indeed, so much ink has been spilt over exactly what the kingdoms represent, etc... - but notice that the point of the dream isn't the statue.  It is the rock, not hewn by humans, that destroys all the Kingdoms of the world.
What is this rock? Well, I think its pretty clear that upon that rock, Jesus built his kingdom, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.  Rome, even divided into East and West, and later into many kingdoms, was clearly succeeded, not by an earthly kingdom, but an ecclesiastical one.  It was not made by human hands. And while we may have witnessed its birth in Acts 2, its full flower was clearly not understood until well after the canon was closed. John the Revelator may have understood that the church would be triumphant - but it certainly wasn't going to be in his lifetime.
Want a prophecy that isn't attested to by Scripture alone? Look no further than the church, my friend.


Are faith and proof mutually exclusive? Must something be unprovable to permit faith in it? Is it possible to have faith in something which is certain provable fact? If something is proven beyond any doubt can you still have faith in it? How?

The much used ode to faith in the NT book of Hebrews tells us a little bit about what faith is. Here are the first couple verses:

  Hebrews 11:1-3 (ESV)
  Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

The passage goes on to give many examples, but this bit helps us scope out a definition of faith that is somewhere between the two extremes you suggest in your question. First of all we see that there is assurance. True faith is not blind, it is based on evidence and knowledge. It is a kind of trust. Trust between two parties is established in past encounters but looks forward to the future knowing what to expect from the other party. Secondly it is a conviction. This doesn't have to be without any doubt (in fact many of the people listed as examples in the passage experienced doubt) but it does have to come to a conclusion and really believe/trust.

Faith is built on evidence and knowledge as well as a trust that enables us to be sure the parts we don't fully understand will work out.

Faith and proof are not mutually exclusive -- faith projects evidence of past events into the future.


What is the decree that Pope Gregory IX issued in 1231? I came across this in an article about the inquisition:

  In 1231, Pope Gregory IX published a decree which called for life imprisonment with salutary penance for the heretic who had confessed and repented and capital punishment for those who persisted. The secular authorities were to carry out the execution.
  The Inquisition - The Galileo Project

I've searched in a number of places and the closest I've gotten is Parens scientiarum, which is referenced in the Wikipedia article on Pope Gregory IX, but the short description on Wikipedia doesn't sound like the same thing and I cannot find the text of this incipit. Searching for the text of the above quote shows that many people are copying from a single source, but I cannot find that either.

It may be incorrect information. Pope Gregory had other bulls (assuming this referenced "decree" is a bull). It might be Ille humani generis of 1232 or Licet ad capiendos of 1233, but I cannot find anything on those either.

I want to read the text of this "decree". So that is my question: What is this "decree" and where can I read its original text (in English)?

I believe that I have the text you need, more or less at any rate.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope Gregory IX states:

In February, 1231 ... the pope enacted a law for Rome that heretics condemned by an ecclesiastical court should be delivered to the secular power to receive their "due punishment". This "due punishment" was death by fire for the obstinate and imprisonment for life for the penitent.

I've added the emphasis to demonstrate that the pope did not intend this to be the case universally, but simply as a law for the area controlled by the diocese of Rome.
After some research, I've found the original text in Latin. The passage in question begins with the phrase "Excommunicamus et anathematizamus" and ends with "irritum et inane".

Here is my (own) translation of the document, to the extent that my Latin allows it:

We excommunicate and anathematize all heretics, Cathars, Patarenes, Poor Ones of Lyons, Passagines, Joseppines, Arnaldists, Speronists and others by whatever name they are known1; indeed their appearances are different, but they agree in the fact of their falsity, with their tails tied to each other. (?) Those who are condemned by the church, indeed, ought to be left to secular law and punished with the punishment they owe; clerics should first of all be removed from their orders. If however those from the aforesaid [groups], after they were detected, wish to return to fulfill a suitable penance, they should be cast into prison forever (?). We pass judgment on those believing in heretics or their errors similarly.
In the same way, we have recognized those who conceal, defend, or honor heretics as subject to the sentence of excommunication, holding firm, so that if anyone at all has been marked out by excommunication, he will not exercise care over anyone in his stubborn errors. By the law itself may he become disreputable; nor may he be admitted to public offices, nor to councils, nor to choosing anyone for such things, nor as a witness in court. Indeed let him be intestate, so that he may not have the right of making a will, nor may he accede to hereditary succession. None of these people may receive any power for any business reason at all; nor may any be permitted legal hearing of any cause whatsoever. If [the heretic] has been a lawyer, he absolutely may not be admitted to his clients. If a scribe, his completed documents are by that fact [the fact of his excommunication] made of no legal weight, but are condemned as their author is condemned; and in similar circumstances we command the same sort of thing to be observed. And further, if [the heretic] has been in clerical orders, he is to be removed from every office and benefice. If however any of these sorts of people, after they have been pointed out by the church, do not fear to avoid [that is, perhaps, "do not fear to avoid such a sentence" - but the Latin is not clear to me here], let them be struck down by sentence of excommunication, and of punishment with other penalties, as appropriate.
On the other hand, those who are found to be infamous only on suspicion (unless following consideration of the suspicion as well as the quality of the person, they demonstrate their innocence by a fitting penance), shall be struck with the sword of anathema, and are to be shunned by all until they make appropriate satisfaction. This shall continue until, if they have persisted in their excommunication for a year, from then on they are to be condemned [as] heretics. Thus, legal declarations and appeals of this sort of person are not to be heard.
In the same way, none of them may exercise the office of judges, advocates, and notaries; let them be deprived of any other such position perpetually. Again, do not offer the Church's sacraments to pests of this sort, nor may they accept alms and offerings; similarly with hospitallers and templars and members of a religious chapter: let them be deprived of their official status of any sort, to which they can never be restored except by special permission of the Apostolic See [i.e. the Pope]. As well, whoever presumes to hand over [the bodies of] such people for a Church burial, until they acknowledge that they lie under an appropriate penalty of the sentence of excommunication, [the sense of this is unclear] they shall not merit the benefit of absolution, unless they publicly dig the grave with their own hands, and throw in the bodies of these sorts of condemned people. And that place shall forever lack a burial. [I.e. no one else shall ever be buried there.]
Furthermore, we strongly set down as a rule, that it is not permitted to debate the Catholic faith with any lay person at all, either publicly or privately; and whoever does otherwise, let him be held in the chains of excommunication.
Next: if someone who knows heretics, or any others who hold secret meetings, or who are at variance with the common practice of the faithful in life or in habits, let him take care to point [these people] out to his confessor or to someone else, through whom he can be reasonably sure that [the matter] will be brought to the notice of the bishop; otherwise let him be punished with the sentence of excommunication.
Now the descendants of heretics, or those who shield or defend them, may not be admitted to ecclesiastical office until the second generation [i.e. the children may not hold such offices, but the grandchildren may].
Whatever is enacted to the contrary, we declare null and void.

1These are names of various heresies which were apparently prevalent in Rome in the early 13th century.


Does this scripture shed light on the humanity of the unborn child? As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman
  with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.
  Ecclesiastes 11:5 (ESV)

This quote states clearly that the "spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child". This spirit, in my understanding, is the child's human spirit, as opposed to the Spirit of God that comes to a person to do the work of regeneration and the many blessings that flow out of that work.

The spirit "comes to the bones", which implies that it does not come until bones are formed, beginning at around 9 weeks.

Can this scripture be used to determine the beginning of a human life? Also, what do various denominations teach about the beginning of a human life in relation to this verse?

There can be no definitive answer on this. The easiest way is to compare all the different translations  and make your own conclusion, for yourself and not for others.

Examples: Ecclesiastes 11:5

  NIV - As you do not know the path of the wind,
  or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand
  the work of God, the Maker of all things.

  KJV - As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how
  the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou
  knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

  GW - Just as you don't know how the breath of life enters the
  limbs of a child within its mother's womb, you also don't understand
  how God, who made everything, works.


How are the persons of the Trinity distinctively active in a Christian's prayer? Another way of asking this question is by saying, "When God interacts with praying Christians, how do the persons of the Trinity interact in ways that neither of the other two persons do?" I'm asking from a biblical, Protestant perspective.

My understanding from growing up in an Anglican church:

We pray to God the Father. He is the one that answers our prayers. Not a perfect verse for this, but the only one I could think of:

  “Again, truly I [Jesus] tell you that if two of you on earth agree
  about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in
  heaven" (Matthew 18:19 NIV)

We pray through Jesus. He is our Great High Priest.

  Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into
  heaven, Jesus the Son of God (Heb 4:14 NIV).

Think back to the old testament, the High Priest was the one who could go into the holy of holies in the temple and gave access for the people to talk to God.

The Holy Spirit prompts us to pray, and directs us to pray for certain things - e.g.

  We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself
  intercedes for us through wordless groans. (Romans 8:26 NIV)


What is the justification of disallowing women to become Roman Catholic priests? We all know Jesus had chosen his apostles who are all men. But is there any passage in the bible that says Women cannot become priests?

The closest Scriptural verse that could support why the Sacrament of Orders cannot be conferred on a woman is 1 Tim. 2:12: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence."

Plus, is there any biblical precedent for priestesses "according to the order of Melchisedech" (Psalm 109/110:4)?

Here's St. Thomas Aquinas's explanation for why "the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders:"

  Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being
  requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be
  lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the
  sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity
  of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the
  sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the
  reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is
  required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the
  first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all
  that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for
  since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification
  of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was
  stated above (Question [32], Article [2]) that in
  Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to
  signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in
  the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the
  state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament
  of Order. Some, however, have asserted that the male sex is necessary
  for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament, because
  even in the Decretals (cap. Mulieres dist. 32; cap. Diaconissam, 27,
  qu. i) mention is made of deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess
  there denotes a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who
  reads the homilies in the Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a
  widow, for the word "presbyter" means elder.

Thus, a female cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders just like a priest cannot baptize with motor oil or consecrate a dorito chip.

Every sacrament requires the proper:

Matter (e.g., unleavened bread for the Eucharist or water for baptism)
Form (the correct words pronounced to effect the sacrament)
Intention (to do what the Church does)

If any of these are lacking, the sacrament is not valid.


How many distinct Biblical canons are there? I've noticed recently on this site there is a push to enforce the rule that, in one's questions, one ought to state "which Bible" one is interested in learning about—whether that is the "Catholic Bible", "Protestant Bible", "Mormon Bible", etc.

Although I knew there were many translations of "the" Bible, I didn't realize that the various denominations of Christianity were using different books.  Sure, there must be appreciable overlap among them, but there must also be appreciable differences, too, for this rule to be in place.

So, questions in this vein might be:

How many different Bibles do experts tend to agree there are?
How do they differ? (provide a summary or key differences)
In what ways do those differences matter to the adherents to those denominations?

By the way, I would not count The Book of Mormon as "part of" the Mormon Bible; I would see it as its own book in that denomination (but maybe that is wrongheaded in the Mormon tradition?).

There are two major variations in the Bible which has caused rifts over time:  translation and canon.
Translation
It's important to not underestimate the value of translation.  The New World Translation, for example, is a translation used exclusively by the Jehovah's Witnesses.  This "Bible" can be considered the Jehovah's Witness Bible.
Other denominations have exclusive translations as well, such as the Inspired Version, which is a partial translation exclusive to Mormonism (although, being a partial translation, is not their primary Bible).
Canonization
There are also many, many canons of the Bible.  See here for a list.  Some of these were for doctrinal purposes, such as Luther's attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelations from the canon.  Others were from political reasons, such as the Ethiopian Christians accepting a different canon from the Roman Catholics.  Then there's the authentic reasons for excluding particular books.
Regardless how you come at it, these different canons have resulted in differences in Bibles.  The Bible as used by Roman Catholics, for example, contains the Deuterocanonical books, which are not part of the Protestant Bible.  The varying Orthodox canons include text that are not found in the Roman Catholic canon.
Summary
Unfortunately, there are many different "Bibles"--a separation caused by both the translation and canonization processes.
Historical translations and canons also broaden the spectrum to an extreme (such as Luther's canon).
If you're looking for a raw list, start with a list of canons and a list of English translations.


Do the notes in the NABRE accurately reflect the Catholic Church's understanding of biblical inerrancy? The NABRE is largely a product of the Catholic Church, and it is approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It's even available online at the USCCB website. So I was surprised to find that many of the notes in the translation propose that the bible contains errors - not just transcription or translation errors, but legitimate errors in the original.

Let me focus on a particularly flagrant example, in Matthew 21. Here is the text that the notes discuss:

  (Matthew 21:1-7, NABRE) When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me. And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, 'The master has need of them.' Then he will send them at once." This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled:

    "Say to daughter Zion,
    'Behold, your king comes to you,
    meek and riding on an ass,
    and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'"

  The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them. They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them.

And now the notes in question:

  (Note on verse 2) An ass tethered, and a colt with her: instead of the one animal of Mk 11:2, Matthew has two, as demanded by his understanding of Zec 9:9.

  (Note on verses 4-5) The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts, Is 62:11 (Say to daughter Zion) and Zec 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).

  (Note on verse 7) Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew’s misunderstanding of the prophecy.

The editors seem to believe that Matthew has invented the details of the story of Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem, and furthermore that the chosen details reflect a misunderstanding of Zechariah 9:9.

Does the Catholic Church's understanding of biblical inerrancy really allow for the possibility that these notes are correct?

The footnote apparatus in the NABRE consists mainly of philology, that is describing how the extant text developed into what we have today. Mixed within are some details regarding Catholic doctrine, but the footnotes do not comprise religious or theological commentary. Except for a very few cases where Catholic interpretation is briefly presented, the footnotes consist mainly of technical transmission and translation data, providing a mixture of methodological data, hypothesis, and scholarly theory.

That being said, the footnotes in question are meant to be read in the context of the technical discussion begun in the NAB introduction to Matthew, namely that the final work as we have today suggests that it was put into final form by someone other than the apostle Matthew.

As an example of this, these comments in the footnote apparatus are offered as some of the data that leads some scholars to this conclusion. The actual apostle Matthew would have been an eye witness to the events of Jesus' entry to Jerusalem, but the text reads as if the author was not there, mentioning two animals being used instead of one as do the other Gospels. These statements read as if the author is using a technique (midrash?) that is here attempting to demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled everything written of the Messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures, down to the last detail. The author of this section of Matthew seems to "misread" the prophecy as if there are two donkeys being spoken of, and adds this into the account.

"Matthew" in the footnotes of the NABRE refers to the author(s) of the book, including any redactors, editors, and even perhaps the original saying source that tradition claims was composed by St. Matthew. This composite "Matthew" is spoken of in the footnotes, so at first blush it can read as if the apostle Matthew is being described (which again the introduction makes clear is not the case).

Finally, it should be noted that the apparatus has been found problematic by many Catholics due not to offering unsound scholarship but being somewhat confusing in its presentation (not to mention impractical in its application). They seem to take no consideration of the fact that the average reader cannot make heads or tails of when philological theory is being offered or Catholic doctrine instead. They offer little in the way of application as well, explaining what the data means and its value to the everyday Christian. The recently revised Old Testament of the NABRE has improved somewhat in this regard, and the New Testament is currently being revised along the same lines. Projected for release in 2025, it is believed that the footnotes of the New Testament revision will show similar consideration in redeveloping its footnotes.


Italian Version of St. Maxilmian Kolbe writings I am looking for a digital version of the Italian translations of St. Maxilmilian Kolbe's writings. Where can I find them in digital form? Does that even exist? If not where then can I find hard copies? Would I have to go to Italy? (not a problem, BTW)

I can't help you with the digital version; the closest things seem to be the selections of texts that can be found in some websites (for example, visit the site of the Missionarie dell'Immacolata).

However, you might find some hard copies in specialized bookstores like this one, which defines its availability as "usually available for shipping in 2 weeks" ("normalmente disponibile per la spedizione in 2 settimane").

God bless you as well.


Were the debates between Gnostics and orthodox Christians recorded and preserved? Gnosticism was an early Christian sect that taught mysticism, rejected Jewish scriptures, such as the Hebrew Bible, and felt that Jesus' teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection were mere appearances. Jesus' true mission, they said, was to teach mysticism to his few devotees. One of those teachings was in the belief (if we compare it to Zorostriaiam which is similar) of an imperfect creator[1] (Ahriman) who created the world and humans and that of the supreme G-d (or, Wise Lord) who sent Jesus (Zoroaster) to teach the ancient, mystical teachings. As a result, the Gnostics and bishops held many debates, no less fierce as debates between later Christian Catholics and Jews[2]. For example, many bishops called Gnostics "empty ditches" which lacked water of truth flowing from within. The Gnostics similar called the bishops "wolves" who preyed on Christ's flock. The early bishops struggled against Gnostic "ravings," barring Gnostic writings from the New Testament.

My question is:

Where can one find debate(s) of early Gnostic and Chaotolic writings? I am aware of the Disputation at Barcelona between Jewish sage Nachmanides and Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani in 1263 before the king of Aragon, James I. Do similar recorded debates exist between Gnostics and bishops?

[1] These were also the views of the pagan Greek philosopher, Plato.

[2] Or, we might compare the Gnostic and bishops' feud to the ancient Jewish sects called Sadducees and Pharisees who argued over the authenticity of Oral Law (Oral Torah).

The surviving church fathers's writings contained the still-united Church's defense against one of the earliest heresies: Gnosticism.  But we only read the church's side of the argument.  Not until the Nag Hammadi discovery 75 years ago that we are now able to learn the Gnostic's own voice through their own writings.

St. Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202) wrote extensively about this heresy in his Against Heresies books (c. 174 - c. 189).  See also the wikipedia entry.  I found a good commentary and annotated text of the first 3 books at these series of blog articles: Book 1, Book 2, Book 3.  The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Gnosticism under the section "Refutation of Gnosticism" mentioned other early church fathers writing about it, both extant and non, partly informed by Eusebius's indispensable earliest church history written between AD 324 (last date mentioned) and AD 340 (his death).

For the full treatment of what we now know about Gnosticism after the Nag Hammadi discovery, you can watch the highly acclaimed Teaching Company's Great Course Gnosticism: From Nag Hammadi to the Gospel of Judas published in 2015, taught by David Brakke, Ph.D., M.Div., a professor of History of Christianity and History.  I found the course notes here and the lecture videos here.


How did these people see God's face? (Catholic perspective) In John 1:18, it seems no one has seen God's face:

  No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

And in Exodus 33:20, it is also mentioned that you cannot see God's face as you will die if you see his face.

  "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

Now we know that it is impossible to see God's face as you won't live after it, but somehow Moses saw his face and lived. Exodus 33:11:

  The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

So did Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders of Israel. Exodus 24:9-11:

  Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Oh, and Abram too. Genesis 12:7:

  Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him.

According to the Catholic Church, how did these people see God's face and live even though he clearly says no one can see his face and live?

Usually, in the old testament, when people are said to have seen God, this is referring to an angel sent by God. The case for Abraham is a good example. When Abraham saw God, he was looking at an angel sent from God, because God had not taken human form before Jesus. You can also see this when this angel goes to destroy the sodomites and his identity is made fairly clear. Manoa is also a good example of this. When the angle revealed himself to him and his wife, he says ...

  We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God

More in the context

  21Now the angel of the LORD did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. 22So Manoah said to his wife, "We will surely die, for we have seen God." 23But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have let us hear things like this at this time."…

People die when they see God because they are unclean and defilement cannot stand in the holiness and the glory of the lord. This is why there are exceptions. Isiah chapter 6 is good example:

  In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory. 4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. 5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” 6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it, he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

When people are holy, they can stand in God's presence.


Where do I go to get official Catholic answers? If a Catholic had questions, where should he or she go for answers other than the Bible (and the catechism)? Specifically, I'd like to know where to get answers on topics I find divisive, intolerant or racist. [This cuts out the fat, but turns it into a "list" type question, like a long list of URLs.]

The bishop, or at least the Ordinary of the particular church, is the one who has ultimate pastoral care over all the people in his diocese:

In exercising the function of a pastor, a diocesan bishop is to show himself concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to his care, of whatever age, condition, or nationality they are, whether living in the territory or staying there temporarily; he is also to extend an apostolic spirit to those who are not able to make sufficient use of ordinary pastoral care because of the condition of their life and to those who no longer practice their religion.
A diocesan bishop ... is bound to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be believed and applied to morals.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 383 section 1 and Canon 386 section 1)
Because under typical circumstances a bishop simply doesn't have sufficient resources to provide adequate pastoral care to each and every person in the diocese, priests are appointed to care for those in particular areas, including to counsel them in matters such as those you describe.
Unfortunately, it does occasionally happen that priests do let their personal understandings get in the way of official Church teaching. If you are concerned that this may be happening, or if you just want to get more understanding of a particular issue, you may be able to get help from your diocese, which may have an office of evangelization or something similar (here, for example, is a link to the Evangelization Office of the Archdiocese of St. Louis).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is also an important resource, of course; but it isn't primarily intended as a direct source for answering questions. Instead, it's intended as a reference for those who will pass on Catholic teaching to others:

This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 12)
In addition, there are many books and websites which will give Catholic answers to questions. Only a relative few, however, can be considered as containing content which is specifically concordant with the official Magisterium of the Church; so I will refrain from specifying even those which I personally have found most useful.


Did it reflect poorly on St. Francis De Sales that he offered a bribe to convert Beza? St. Francis De Sales offered a 4,000 dollar pension to Theodore Beza. Source. It is very difficult to see this as anything other than "Oh boy, none of my arguments are working. Here! I'll make one last-ditch effort by appealing to greed!" Isn't this kind of embarrassing for Catholics that they canonized a man who thought that you could buy someone to conversion?

Theodore de Beza was a close friend of, and collaborator with, Calvin. When Calvin died, in 1564, he became his successor as the spiritual leader of  the Republic of Geneva. Although Beza was not quite ten years junior to Calvin, he survived him by over forty years.

He was a scholar and a very influential Protestant who had travelled widely in France and Germany as well as Switzerland. By the late 1590s he had relinquished most of his public duties and was in his late seventies (he was born at Midsummer in 1519).

St. Francis de Sales was, in April 1597, not quite thirty. He had already had some success in converting Protestants to Catholicism and had received permission from the Pope to read Calvin's Institutes and other works.

The Protestant cause in Europe  had been weakened by the conversion to Catholicism of Henry IV of France, in 1593. He was said to have remarked  "Paris is worth a mass."

St. Francis de Sales and his friend Esprit de Beaume conceived a plan to convert Beza to Catholicism. Beaume was to obtain from the Pope assurances that Beza would be welcomed if he converted to Catholicism.  Sales was to use his skill and zeal to persuade Beza that his Protestantism was in error.

The renunciation of Protestantism by such an influential figure as Beza might be expected to cause a collapse in confidence in Protestantism, and not only in France. Sales and Beaume did not seek to convert Beza solely out of a concern for Beza himself, but for the weakening of the Protestant cause generally, and so indirectly for the conversion of many.

De Sales met with Beza in Beza's  home, which had been Calvin's home, in Easter Week 1597, and again later that month. Both had been born into minor nobility. Both were keen and zealous exponents of their respective beliefs. Beza was 77 and Sales 29. Neither man converted the other. Sales was initially hopeful in that Beza conceded some of his points, but that did not mean Beza accepted Sales conclusions. Neither man converted the other.

In July, realising that Beza was not about to change his beliefs, De Sales offered him, on behalf of the Pope, a lump sum and a pension for life, if he would at least abandon Geneva. Beza refused to hear any more.
Beza had been in receipt of a pension from Henry IV which ceased on the latter's conversion, and still had his pastor's salary.

De Sales would have liked to  convert Beza, but failing that bribing him to abandon Geneva, or to renounce Protestantism insincerely (the terms which might have been agreed cannot be known since Beza drew the discussion to a close) would also weaken Protestantism and so was a good thing, from a Catholic perspective.

Having failed to convert Beza, or to induce him to leave his post, the next best thing was to convince people that he had done so, or was about to do so. Rumours were circulated that Beza and the Republic of Geneva were returning to Rome. The people of Sienna, in Italy, were convinced Beza would pass through Sienna on his way to Rome and gathered to welcome him at the time he was due.

Rumours then began that Beza had died on the way to Rome, or had converted on his deathbed in Geneva.  Beza himself assured people he was alive and Protestant.

De Sales did not believe that he could buy Beza's conversion, but did hope to buy his influence.

Whether this reflects poorly on him is ultimately a matter of opinion, and will depend on how important one feels it was to weaken Protestantism, and in so doing bring many to the Catholic Faith.

This article describes the matter from Catholic sources. See also this.


What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that artificial birth control is wrong? I understand that the original commandment to be fruitful and multiply involves reproduction.  However, planning to wait a little bit here and there seems reasonable enough.

So, what is the reasoning or the basis from which the Catholic Church teaches that any artificial birth control is immoral/sinful?

Since sexual intercourse is the defining act of marriage, it's helpful to look at what the Catholic Church says about marriage. Traditionally, Catholic theologians have identified three purposes of marriage, which I present here in no particular order:

Mutual help of the spouses (which I believe has developed more recently into the notion of  the union of the spouses)
Procreation and education of children
Relief of concupiscence

Generally speaking, I think the prohibition of artificial birth control follows from the principle that married couples should use their sexuality in a way that always respects all three of the basic purposes of marriage. But the use of artificial birth control implies the ordering of a particular act of sexual intercourse in such a way that it is intrinsically incapable of procreation. Before he was Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla argued further, in Love and Responsibility: that choosing to withhold one's fertility in sex is also to work against the unity of the spouses.

All told then, the Catholic philosophical view could be summed up thus: artificial birth control makes marriage one-dimensional, by deliberately limiting its defining act to the service of the least noble of the three purposes of marriage.

Plenty of objections arise on the way from the principle to the conclusion, of course -- particularly in the articulation of how abstinence-based methods can be morally legitimate while artificial methods and sterilization cannot -- but I'm not sure if this is the right venue for considering and responding to all of those.

One thing I'd like to try to clear up, though, if I might. In your question you said:

  However, planning to wait a little bit here and there seems reasonable enough.

Of course, and this is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches, at least as I understand it. The clearest official statement of this point that I've seen is Gaudium et Spes paragraph 50.

The Church certainly does not require its faithful to have as many children as they're capable of, nor does it require every act of sexual intercourse to be aimed at procreation -- just to set aside two very common misunderstandings. One has to bear in mind that one of the purposes of marriage, in Catholic thought, is the "procreation and education [or bringing-up] of children". Every married couple must discern for themselves the right balance between fruitfulness and their responsibility for the children they already have.

The main thing is that any "waiting a little bit here and there" be achieved by morally acceptable means. This is of course what the comments on your question were getting at.


How is it just that Jesus, an innocent, would be punished for our sins? From the perspective that Jesus' suffering on the cross was in fact a punishment for our sins, how is punishing an innocent (Jesus) for the sinners justified?

Jesus was innocent but the people were sinners. A person must be punished for his own crime, but punishing an innocent is wrong. How do adherents of this doctrine explain this problem?

This doctrine is called penal substitutionary atonement and is one of several theologies that explain why Jesus had to die and how that benefited humanity.

This is certainly a challenging question.  I'll rely on the writings of two prominent reformed theologians, Louis Berkhof and Charles Hodge, who are strong supporters of this doctrine.  It's important to note, for reasons that will become clear, that they defend their position in the face of arguments made by opponents who believe in a just God.  Those who reject the existence of a just God due to the problem of evil, for example, are not in view.
Briefly, the arguments are 1) there are certain circumstances in which human judges can transfer criminal punishment, and those circumstances apply to Jesus, 2) the testimony of the Bible demonstrates that it is just, and 3) it is presumptuous to put one's own sense of justice over that of God's.
Human analogies
Berkhof begins his treatment by recognizing that "[t]here is undoubtedly a real difficulty here," particularly because the idea of a just God pouring out judgement on an innocent party rather than the guilty party "seems to be contrary to all human analogy."  Along these lines Berkhof does suggest a few examples from the secular world, such as substitution in the case of mandatory military service.
Berkhof's main argument here, however, is that even in the case of criminal law, there are circumstances in which substitution is legitimate.  He quotes Amour's Atonement and Law:

"[L]aw, as understood and administered by men in all lands, provides that the penalty may be met by a substitute, in all cases in which the penalty prescribed is such that a substitute may meet it consistently with the obligations he is already under."

Berkhof lays out some of the criteria under which a human judge might permit substitution: (1) the guilty party is not able to bear the punishment, (2) the substitution does not infringe on the rights of any innocent third parties, (3) the substitute is not already indebted to justice, and (4) the guilty party retains consciousness of guilt.  Saying that "[i]t is perfectly evident that the law does recognize the principle of substitution," he admits difficulty but defends the position, saying,

In view of all this it will be understood that the transfer of penal debt is well-nigh, if not entirely, impossible among men.  But in the case of Christ, which is altogether unique, because in it a situation obtained which has no parallel, all the conditions named were met.  There was no injustice of any kind.

He continues:

[T]he fact that it is impossible to find men who meet these requirements, is no proof that Jesus Christ could not meet them.  In fact, He could and did, and was therefore an acceptable substitute.

Testimony of the Bible
With respect to the Bible's teachings, Charles Hodge succinctly defends the doctrine from attack as follows:

If the Bible teaches that the innocent may bear the guilt of the actual transgressor; that He may endure the penalty incurred in his place, then it is in vain to say that this cannot be done.

This argument will fall flat to any who do not accept the Bible as divinely inspired, but Hodge's point is that the teachings of Scripture overwhelming support this doctrine, leaving "us no alternative but to receive them as the truths of God, or to reject the Bible as his word."
As a side note, some of the points along these lines are the expiatory and substitutionary nature of Old Testament sacrifices (Leviticus 1:4, 16:20-22, and 17:11), the teaching of our sins being laid upon Christ (Isaiah 53:6, 53:12; Galatians 3:13;  Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24), and that the prepositions used in these and other passage must mean "instead of," not "on behalf of," upon thorough evaluation of all uses of these words in the New Testament. (see Berkhof for more on this)
God is Justice
Addressing those who find the last argument unconvincing, Hodge calls on his opponents to consider:

Rejecting the Bible does not help the matter.  We cannot reject the facts of providence.  Where is the propriety of saying that the innocent cannot justly suffer for the guilty, when we see that they actually do thus suffer continually, and everywhere since the world began? [...] In teaching the doctrine of legal substitution, [...] the Bible asserts and assumes no moral principle which does not underlie all the providential dealings of God with individuals or with nations.

The point, Hodge says, is that men foolishly attempt to judge God for his supposed injustice, instead of recognizing that God defines what justice is.  "Men," he says, "constantly deceive themselves by postulating as moral axioms what are nothing more than the forms in which their feelings or peculiar opinions find expression."  If all these opinions are left unchecked,

[t]here would be no end of controversy, and no security for any truth whatever, if the strong personal convictions of individual minds be allowed to determine what is, or what is not true, what the Bible may, and what it may not, be allowed to teach.

He summarizes:

[T]here is nothing in the nature of things, nothing in the moral nature of man, nothing in the nature of God as revealed either in his providence or in his word, which forbids the idea that this obligation may on adequate grounds be transferred from one to another, or assumed by one in the place of others. (532)

Berkhof addresses these objections similarly, and also emphasizes that Christ's substitutionary work was voluntary, part of "a solemn agreement between the three persons in the Godhead."  Furthermore, he argues that those who deny substitutionary atonement are forced to defend God's injustice for unnecessarily subjecting his Son to suffering and death.
Closing points
Obviously, as mentioned at the beginning, the arguments made by these two theologians will not be found particularly satisfactory to those who object to the existence of God based on the problem of evil.  Without the common ground of belief in a just God who reveals himself in the Bible, arguments to defend the justice of penal substitution will be ignored for the same reason as arguments to defend God's justice in allowing pain and suffering in the world.
However, for those who believe that a just God exists, Berkhof and Hodge argue that human analogies for penal substitutionary atonement are available, that rejection of the doctrine requires rejection of the clear teaching of the Bible, and that our understanding of the nature of justice must be informed by God's revelation, not merely our intuitions.

References:

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 3.3.4
Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2.3.7.7


Why did the KKK "light" aka burn crosses? So, the KKK claimed itself to be a "Christian" organization, originally based on a lot of anti-Catholic and obviously anti-Black sentiment.  Famously, one of their intimidation techniques was to burn a cross, making others aware of their presence.

This surprises me - that any organization that claimed the name of Christ, no matter how bogus the claim - would do what appears to me to be sacrilege to its most potent symbol.  I have heard the claim that the KKK was 'lighting' the cross, not burning it, but that seems a bit of a stretch.

Is there any evidentiary / primary source material that corroborates this explanation, and more importantly, provides some form of theological or biblical justification for the practice?

The Knight's Party website appears to be the official voice for the KKK today. Their FAQ contains the following question and answer:

  Q. Why do you burn the cross?

  A. Many have been led to believe the Klan burns the cross as an act of
  desecrating a Christian symbol. Nothing could be further from the
  truth. The lighted cross is an old symbol used on the hillsides of
  Scotland. Many churches today use the lighted cross as a symbol. The
  Methodist church uses the cross with flames at its base sweeping up
  and around the cross. The Lutheran church uses the symbolism. When the
  Klan was founded there was not electricity. They could not light up a
  cross the way we light up a Christmas tree. Fire was used. The fire
  was used to symbolize the fiery light of Christ – a metaphor often
  used in the Bible. The Cross obviously is a symbol of Christianity.
  The Cross lighting ceremony gives honor to Jesus Christ.

and

  It is no more a desecration of the cross than it is for the American Legion to respectfully lay to peace an American flag by setting it on fire – which is the correct procedure.

Other references echo the sentiment that, instead of destroying, they feel that they are honoring the cross. The reasoning appears to be primarily based on tradition rather than a particular scripture passage.


Why is Freemasonry considered by many evangelicals to be incompatible with Christianity? Many Protestant and Evangelical churches and Christians view Freemasonry as incompatible with Christianity and teach that a Christian should not be a member of the group. What is the basis, biblical or otherwise, for this position?

I want to preface this by saying that I have never been a Freemason, and this answer, necessarily will include items that are likely to be disputed by those within Freemasonry.  This can't be avoided if I'm to answer the actual question.  The question is "Why do Evangelicals consider it to be incompatible".  It's not asking if it really is, just why they think it is.

In order to answer that, I need to post the things that those who oppose Freemasonry believe.  I have absolutely no idea if those things are true or not, and I'm not here to claim they are or aren't.  I'm just repeating what's in the literature and what's believed of Freemasonry by Christians.

I'm going to use, as my primary resource, a site that's been put up by someone claiming to be an ex-Mason.  It contains much of the same in formation that can be found in other literature.  I've read several books on "cults" and Freemasonry is listed in several of them.  For example, while it's not listed as a cult in this book, the book What's the Difference lists Freemasonry in a section called "Nothing New Under the Sun...  Eleven more viewpoints that undermine, challenge, or attack Biblical Christianity".  At any rate, the claims on this site are compatible with most of what I've said.

With all of that out of the way, here are several points about Freemasonry that are incompatible with Christianity:

Freemasonry requires each Mason to believe that there is only one God and teaches that all men worship that one God, simply using a variety of different names.  In the case of the Wiccan, he satisfies the requirement for belief in A Supreme Being by believing in the Horned god of Witchcraft.  The Hindu may satisfy the requirement with faith in Vishnu.

From a Christian perspective, this is utter nonsense.  This is also, just about the only point you'd need to show that Freemasonry is incompatible with Christianity.  Any attempt to say that the God of the Bible is the same as (or even functionally equivalent to for some people) the pagan gods, Allah, or any other is blasphemy, pure and simple, from a Christian perspective.

Freemasonry has a plan of salvation, which is not based on Christ at all.
There is some concern about the oaths made in Freemasonry.

Follow this link and you'll find an extensive treatment on several issues that show Freemasonry to be incompatible with Christianity

Another site lists other reasons, again, which I've heard before, but can't personally verify.  Again, I'm just answering why some Christians are opposed to Freemasonry.

  In Freemasonry the god of the secret societies is covertly substituted
  for the One True God. This false god is identified in the Masonic
  lodges as "the Great Architect."
  Masons think that through masonry one can chisel away layers of oneself, similar to how one creates a beautiful statue out of rough
  stone.  And they think the end result will be no need for God; because
  they think the perfect Mason is like God. Pages 50-51 of the Mason
  handbook makes this quite clear - but not to the initiate. Masons are
  lied to about everything in the 1st three degrees.
  Masons repeatedly are directed to the "Mystery Religion" and the time man found God in nature.  Almost none of Masonry's teachings come
  from Christianity.  This 'mystery religion' Masons have joined
  originated from pagans in ancient Egypt, Chaldea, and in China. The
  Mystery Religion, Freemasonry and all 'ancient' secret societies have
  one thing in common. They string you along, just to finally tell you
  that there is no God; and you are a god, because you follow their
  teachings, which are:

And finally...

  In the Masonic Lodge everything is symbolic of something else. The
  name "Lucifer" means "Light Bearer" or "Light Bringer".  Masons point
  out that the MORNING STAR is Lucifer.  When Masons speak of the "light
  of Masonry", they actually refer to Lucifer bringing forth the light.
  During the lecture for the 32nd degree, Masons are told that the
  triliteral name for god is composed of three Hindu gods: Brahma,
  Vishnu and Siva. Siva is a synonym for Satan! Lucifer is honored and
  revered by Masons as the TRUE GOD!


Is it really true that Orthodox Prosphora (unconsecrated, of course) can not be sold or bought? I like to buy and eat protestant/catholic altar bread sometimes. It is those small, round-shaped hosts of unleavened wheat bread, they are sold in our local protestant book-shop in package of 100 hosts (with price tag around 1.25$). Usually I eat whole package at once, it is very tasty.
I am now looking for Prosphora bread to buy and taste in the similar manner. I have found so many web pages with recipes, there are lot of prosphora stamps for sale on ebay and Amazon and any other place. But I have not found any single webpage which would offer Prosphora for sale!
Is it really prohibited to sell and buy Prosphora? Generally - there are no such rules for protestant and catholic altar bread which is not consecrated. I understand that it may be a bit more tricky with Prosphora, because is is (more or less strictly) required to use holy water for baking. But anyway - quasi-Prospohra (baked with the usual water instead of holy water) is definitely the good without any meaningful restrictions, but I can not find them either.
So - why Prosphora is not available for sale or any other transaction (e.g. against donation)?

No, prosphora is not intended to be bought or sold! Prosphora is an offering, prayerfully baked by a parishoner, never for pay. Part of the bread becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, and part of the bread is set aside for antidoron and distributed after Divine Liturgy. Sometimes some of this bread is taken home and eaten by those who offered it.

How should prosphora be eaten?
Prosphora  is  blessed  bread  and  should  be  handled  and  eaten  with  due reverence.  Those eating it should take care not to drop crumbs on the floor, and the paper in which it was wrapped should be burned rather than thrown in the rubbish.  Any crumbs that fall should be collected and either eaten or burned  with  the  paper.    Children  eating  prosphora  should  be  carefully supervised.  From ancient times it has been the custom to eat prosphora on an  empty  stomach,  often  with  Holy  Water  or,  if  appropriate,  a  little  sweet red wine.
Who may take the wrapped prosphora at the end of the service?
The  wrapped  prosphora  may  be  taken  by  those  who  offered  them.    When this has been done, any prosphora left over may be taken by those who wish to have them.

(Link to source, Saint Panteleimon Russian Orthodox Church, West Gosford, and Saint Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church, Wallsend, Australia)


From where does the tradition come that Mary rode on a donkey to Bethlehem prior to the birth of Jesus? It seems that most every movie or depiction of Mary and Joseph on the way to Bethlehem depicts Mary as riding on a donkey.  However, I don't recall any place in Scripture from which this idea could be founded.  The only place where the trip is mentioned in in Luke:

  And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.  Luke 2:4-5

So, is there any source for why this is assumed almost universally or any particular reason?  It seems that she could have just as well walked or ridden a camel.

The Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 145, Says that Joseph used a donkey to bring Mary to Bethlehem

The day of the Lord shall itself bring it to pass as the Lord will. And he saddled the ass, and set her upon it; and his son led it, and Joseph followed.
Protoevangelium of James:17

So we know, that from very early times, Christians had the image of Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem before Christmas.

Why not walking?
The distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem is 70-80 miles. A fit man can travel perhaps 20 miles a day. Normally it would take about 4 days to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem (assuming travel only during day time). Some Christians say that Joseph was a older man, and also as per tradition Mary was heavily pregnant and so she could not walk this long distance. There is fear of miscarriage too. This makes the journey longer than normal.

Samaria lay between Galilee and Judea which had Bethlehem in it.See map There was much ill feeling between the Samaritans and the Jews.John 4:9 Any lone traveler crossing from Galilee into Samaria would be at risk of not receiving any lodgings or any other type of assistance on the journey. The family would have had to travel east, cross over into modern-day Jordan and then travel south on the eastern side of the Jordan River, before crossing back into Judea. This makes the journey much longer.
Could she have used a different ways of transportation like a camel?
Common means of transportation in those times other than walking were donkey (ass), camel, horse, cart drawn by horse or donkey.
I personally don't see a women in her late stages of pregnancy, riding a camel. That would be too difficult. I am not a doctor, but I don't think it would be good for that child too. We also see that people using donkey when they are not in a position to walk like in the parable of the good SamaritanLuke 10:34
Some people say St. Joseph was very poor and could not have afforded a donkey. I personally disagree. St. Joseph was not rich, but he was also not so poor that he could not have afforded to borrow a donkey for his pregnant wife. He was a carpenter, he had a job.
So to answer your question why it is assumed almost universally, I think it is common sense.


What is God's shape or form? How do we describe God? Does He have a shape or form? Is He human-like, a light, or something else? Does He have a shape? What does Christianity say about it?

Mainstream Christianity - Catholicism, Orthodox, and the various Protestant denominations, God doesn't have a form. He is spirit, omnipresent, and not confined to a single place.  He doesn't have a form. (Although He could manifest one and speak through it, such as a burning bush...)

Of course, when He came to earth as Christ (as mainstream Christianity believes) He had a body of flesh.

The above is true of most denominations and traditions within Christianity.

A few denominations do, however, believe that God has a physical body. (One such example, the LDS Church teaches that He has a perfected physical body of flesh and bone).

  God is the Father of our spirits.3 He has a glorified, perfected body
  of flesh and bone.4 We lived with Him in heaven before we were born.5
  And when He created us physically, we were created in the image of
  God, each with a personal body.6


Definition of "Prince" in Bible? Quite often "prince" and "princes" are mentioned in the scriptures. Of particular interest are expressions such as these:

"Prince of Persia"
"Prince of Peace"

And similar expressions - especially those found in Daniel.
I've always known a "prince" to be a future king.
Is this the definition in the scriptures? Or is "prince" a title denoting a different sort of authority?
In essense: Does prince = future king?

A "prince", literally speaking, is not necessarily a "future king". He is the son of a king, and so MAY be a future king, but may not. If a king has two sons, they are both princes, but it is quite possible that one will become king and the other never will. In English the word "prince" is also used for the husband of a queen when it is the queen who holds the power. Like the husband of Queen Elizabeth of Britain is called "Prince" Phillip.

By extension, the word "prince" is often used, in the Bible and elsewhere, as a general term for a person with power or authority.

I am not aware of any more specific meaning in the Bible as the word is used in general. Of course one could examine specific uses of the word and discuss exactly what sort of power is being described, but then we're not really talking about the word "prince", but rather about a specific person who is called a prince.


Why did the Catholic Church adopt the use of Latin, the language of the crucifiers of Jesus? While reading on Wikipedia I got to thinking why the church uses Latin as a language.

  According to the canonical Gospels, Jesus was arrested and tried by
  the Sanhedrin, and then sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged,
  and finally crucified by the Romans. 1

Why would the church adopt a language that was used by Pilate and the Roman soldiers?

This has been boggling my mind for a while now. Is there any reason beyond being the most widespread language of the time for its use?

My question is Why did the Catholic Church adopt the use of Latin, the language of the crucifiers of Jesus?

If rewording is necessary feel free to edit as long as the format is the same. If this question is bad and can be fixed, help me out.

Why has the Catholic Church adopted the use of Latin, the language of the crucifiers of Jesus?

Before going on I would simply like to point out two things.

First of all that the Language that Pontius Pilate communicated to Jesus during his trial was Greek. After all it was the language of commerce at that time throughout the Mediterranean world.

Secondly, let us not forget that Pilate's inscription on the Title of the Cross was written in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. "This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin" (John 19:20). Thus if one of the bystanders did not understand one language, he would hopefully be able to comprehend one of the other two languages.
 Each of these languages are to this day considered a liturgical language: Latin for the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church; Konia Greek for the Greek Orthodox Church and Hebrew for the Jewish nation.

During the course of the first three or four centuries the sacred liturgy in Rome was Greek not Latin.

  Ecclesiastical Latin differs from classical Latin especially by the introduction of new idioms and new words. (In syntax and literary method, Christian writers are not different from other contemporary writers.) These characteristic differences are due to the origin and purpose of ecclesiastical Latin. Originally the Roman people spoke the old tongue of Latium known as prisca latinitas. In the third century B.C. Ennius and a few other writers trained in the school of the Greeks undertook to enrich the language with Greek embellishments. This attempt was encouraged by the cultured classes in Rome, and it was to these classes that henceforth the poets, orators, historians, and literary coteries of Rome addressed themselves. Under the combined influence of this political and intellectual aristocracy was developed that classical Latin which has been preserved for us in greatest purity in the works of Caesar and of Cicero. The mass of the Roman populace in their native ruggedness remained aloof from this hellenizing influence and continued to speak the old tongue. Thus it came to pass that after the third century B.C. there existed side by side in Rome two languages, or rather two idioms: that of the literary circles or hellenists (sermo urbanus) and that of the illiterate (sermo vulgaris) and the more highly the former developed the greater grew the chasm between them. But in spite of all the efforts of the purists, the exigencies of daily life brought the writers of the cultured mode into continual touch with the uneducated populace, and constrained them to understand its speech and make it understand them in turn; so that they were obliged in conversation to employ words and expressions forming part of the vulgar tongue. Hence arose a third idiom, the sermo cotidianus, a medley of the two others, varying in the mixture of its ingredients with the various periods of time and the intelligence of those who used it.

  Origins

  Classical Latin did not long remain at the high level to which Cicero had raised it. The aristocracy, who alone spoke it, were decimated by proscription and civil war, and the families who rose in turn to social position were mainly of plebeian or foreign extraction, and in any case unaccustomed to the delicacy of the literary language. Thus the decadence of classical Latin began with the age of Augustus, and went on more rapidly as that age receded. As it forgot the classical distinction between the language of prose and that of poetry, literary Latin, spoken or written, began to borrow more and more freely from the popular speech. Now it was at this very time that the Church found herself called on to construct a Latin of her own and this in itself was one reason why her Latin should differ from the classical. There were two other reasons however: first of all the Gospel had to be spread by preaching, that is, by the spoken word moreover the heralds of the good tidings had to construct an idiom that would appeal, not alone to the literary classes, but to the whole people. Seeing that they sought to win the masses to the Faith, they had to come down to their level and employ a speech that was familiar to their listeners. St. Augustine says this very frankly to his hearers: "I often employ", he says, "words that are not Latin and I do so that you may understand me. Better that I should incur the blame of the grammarians than not be understood by the people" (In Psal. cxxxviii, 90). Strange though it may seem, it was not at Rome that the building up of ecclesiastical Latin began. Until the middle of the third century the Christian community at Rome was in the main a Greek speaking one. The Liturgy was celebrated in Greek, and the apologists and theologians wrote in Greek until the time of St. Hippolytus, who died in 235. It was much the same in Gaul at Lyons and at Vienne, at all events until after the days of St. Irenæus. In Africa, Greek was the chosen language of the clerics, to begin with, but Latin was the more familiar speech for the majority of the faithful, and it must have soon taken the lead in the Church, since Tertullian, who wrote some of his earlier works in Greek, ended by employing Latin only. And in this use he had been preceded by Pope Victor, who was also an African, and who, as St. Jerome assures, was the earliest Christian writer in the Latin language.

  Development in the liturgy

  Hardly had it been formed when church Latin had to undergo the shock of the invasion of the barbarians and the fall of the Empire of the West; it was a shock that gave the death-blow to literary Latin as well as to the Latin of everyday speech on which church Latin was waxing strong. Both underwent a series of changes that completely transformed them. Literary Latin became more and more debased; popular Latin evolved into the various Romance languages in the South, while in the North it gave way before the Germanic tongues. Church Latin alone lived, thanks to the religion of which it was the organ and with which its destinies were linked. True, it lost a portion of its sway; in popular preaching it gave way to the vernacular after the seventh century; but it could still claim the Liturgy and theology, and in these it served the purpose of a living language. In the liturgy ecclesiastical Latin shows its vitality by its fruitfulness. Africa is once more in the lead with St. Cyprian. Besides the singing of the Psalms and the readings in public from the Bible, which made up the main portion of the primitive liturgy and which we already know, it shows itself in set prayers in a love for rhythm, for well- balanced endings that were to remain for centuries during the Middle Ages the main characteristics of liturgical Latin. As the process of development went on, this love of harmony held sway over all prayers; they followed the rules of metre and prosody to begin with, but rhythmical cursus gained the upper-hand from the fourth to the seventh, and from the eleventh to the fifteenth, century. - Ecclesiastical Latin (Catholic Encyclopedia)

It is all too obvious that the Church's decision to make Latin the language of the Roman Rite had nothing to do with the fact that executioners of Jesus Christ were Romans and spoke Latin.


Why Christians wear some elaborate costumes which sometimes outshine those of the pre-Christian epoch? What is the need to use elaborate costumes at services and on other occasions? Costumes of some Christian confessions much outshine those of some other religions, including the pre-Christian ones.

Some of the elements can hardly be traced to pre-Christian times and seem to be Christian inventions, while others can be clearly traced to polytheistic religions of Romans and Greeks or even ancient Egypt, like the Crosier:

Yet it seems that pre-Christian dress of the Roman and Greek priests were much simpler, functional and ascetic.

In Orthodox Christianity they use for service a headware called mitre .

The corresponding prayer when putting it on mentions "expensive jewels" which is probably a requirement for this kind of vestment. If it is used to show respect to God as some answerers put it, my question is whether wearing expensive Rolex watches will also show one's respect to God?

So what the purpose of those elaborate costumes, especially in Catholic and Orthodox church?

In short:

Dressing nicely in front of God is a good thing.
Priests do not actually dress in an "elaborate" way, but they do dress in a formal way.
Some people see pictures of the pope during very special ceremonies, and assume that all priests dress this way, which is simply not true. The pope is required to dress in a way that fits his status as pope. He is the Vicar of Christ, and Catholics expect him to dress like it. This does not mean that his garments must always be ornate, but that they should be appropriate. But this question is about priests, not the pope.

So why should priests wear "special" or "nice looking" clothing? Some of the basis for this is:

  John 12
  3 Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
  4 Then Judas the Iscariot, one [of] his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said,
  5 “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?”
  6 He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.

We should not hesitate to make our priests match their position. They are serving God. We dress nicely when we go to meet someone important to us, and priests should do the same. Sometimes, the Catholic priest acts in Persona Christi, which means "in the person of Christ". The priest does not become Christ, and he does not become a high priest, but he exercises certain very sacred powers that have been granted to him by God. We should have respect for that, and we should think of the eternal heavenly service of the High Priest Jesus during Mass, especially during the Eucharistic Prayer. From the Baltimore Catechism:

  365. Who said the First Mass?
  Our Divine Saviour said the first Mass, at the Last Supper, the night before He died.

The vestments themselves are not actually "ornate", even when the are on the more-elaborate side of the scale. They are simply formal. For example:

The dress goes a long way towards communicating the importance of religious life, and the commitment of the priest to living that life. Appropriate priestly vestments lend dignity to the office of the priest, and they lend dignity to the services themselves:

Catholics generally like to see that sort of formality. It is beautiful, and beauty praises God. Not your taste? That's fine, there are smaller Catholic parishes. But there is nothing wrong with giving praise to God in this way. Jesus might wear humble clothes, but that does not mean that we should wear our most "humble" clothes when going to see Him. He is the King of Kings, the Lord of all creation.


Why has "Devil's advocate" office been changed? Pope John Paul II abolished* reduced the power and changed the role of the Promotor fidei (Promoter of the Faith) office, better known as Advocatus diaboli (Devil's advocate) in 1983, thereby the number of saint has increased since then a lot.

* -  The misconception about the abolishment of the office comes from incorrect information in Wikipedia article

What was the reason of this action? Is the unnatural rise of saint only a side-effect, or it was meant this way? Why?

Was the office of Advocatus diaboli considered as bad or just dead-handed? Why?

Are there any other impacts caused by this decision?

  Pope John Paul II eliminated the position of promoter fidei in 1983,
  ending 400 years of tradition. Since then, saints have been canonized
  at a rate about 20 times faster than in the early part of the
  twentieth century. Apparently it's now like the multiple Who's Who
  reference guides. If you're nominated, you're in. There's no
  opposition, thus it's lost it's meaning. And with no opposition, your
  great idea may not be developed to be of much importance.

from AskCatholic.com

Pope John Paul II abolished the Promotor fidei (Promoter of the Faith) office, better known as Advocatus diaboli (Devil's advocate) in 1983
No, he did not abolish this office. There is still one Promoter of the Faith for every cause of canonization. What Pope John Paul II did was to reduce his power to a great extent and change his role in the process of canonization.

Before the reform their job was not only to point out problems, but to actively seek them out. Furthermore, the canonization process could not move forward until every one of the Promotor Fidei's objections were answered to his satisfaction, giving him an effective veto power on the whole canonization.
In the modern procedure, the Promotor Fidei does not actively seek out problems, and no longer has anything close to a veto power over the process; his influence is reduced to presenting a report and being on hand as an "expert" whose opinion may be solicited, but there is nothing in the modern procedure where the Promotor Fidei submits a list of objections that must be answered by the Postulators. src

What was the reason of this action?
Because many bishops complained that the process of canonization was way too much cumbersome.
Is the unnatural rise of saint only a side-effect, or it was meant this way? Why?
Changing the role of this office was not the only cause for rise in canonizations. There are other factors too.

Previously four miracles were required for canonization. Now only two.
Also modern communication systems meant faster process.
Transporting of evidences and documents between diocesan bishops and the roman curia became faster.
Improvement in medical sciences and recording of medical history by default for all patients now allow more incidents to be taken for consideration of a miracle.

Are there any other impacts caused by this decision?
Other than the process becoming faster than before, I do not think there are any other impacts. After-all canonizations are infallible proclamations by the Pope.


What is the role of "Sign of the cross" gesture in Catholicism? Catholics make this gesture during or after prayer, by using their right hand to touch the forehead, then the middle of the breast, then the left shoulder, and finally the right shoulder.

Is this the sign of the cross?

Does it symbolize Trinity?

What is the role of this gesture?

The gesture you describe is indeed the Sign of the Cross. Making that gesture is called "crossing oneself".

The Sign of the Cross is called a sacramental. These are "sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church." [CCC 1667]

When crossing oneself, one is blessing (or, strictly, invoking God's blessing) on oneself. A blessing is not reserved to clergy, laypeople can bless; and particularly can bless themselves.

  Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings...

CCC 1671 deals specifically with the Sign of the Cross.

  Among sacramentals, blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first. Every blessing praises God and prays for his gifts. In Christ, Christians are blessed by God the Father "with every spiritual blessing."175 This is why the Church imparts blessings by invoking the name of Jesus, usually while making the holy sign of the cross of Christ.

The sign is not representative of the Trinity per se, even though it normally accompanies the Trinitarian formula "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (with each of the capitalised words of the Persons coinciding with the ends of the arms of the cross in the gesture). It represents the Cross, the symbol of Christ's triumph over death.

CCC 617 says

  His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us.450

and thus we use that symbol of his passion as the symbol of justification and the sign of blessing.

175: Cf Ephesians 1:3
450: Council of Trent: DS 1529.


"Blessed Virgin" - not Saint? Probably the most common Catholic title for Mary, mother of Jesus, is "The Blessed Virgin" or "The Blessed Virgin Mary". But "Blessed", in Catholic hagiology, is typically used to denote people who are not saints yet:

  Blessed is the title for someone who has been beatified. ... an earlier step in the process toward sainthood.

(US Conference of Catholic Bishops, How To Cover The Catholic Church)

Catholics consider Mary the holiest of all human beings:

  By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and... wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 967, quoting the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium, paragraphs 53 and 63)

This being the case, why is it that Mary is not—or at least not usually—given the (apparently highly appropriate) title "St. Mary"?

To add to the other answers given here, in the Catholic liturgy (Mass, Liturgy of the Hours), it is common to address the saints as “blessed.” It is not exactly a title, but a term of respect that recognizes their condition of beatitude in Heaven.

For example, the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) says two paragraphs before the epiclesis (the invocation of the Holy Spirit), “In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, [...] blessed Joseph, her Spouse, your blessed Apostles and Martyrs [...].” It is similar with the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Similarly, on memorials and feast days of saints, whenever the saint is referred to in a prayer, he is addressed as “blessed” (beatus or beata). Here, for example, is the collect for today’s feast (July 3), the feast of St. Thomas the Apostole:

  Grant, almighty God,
  that we may glory in the Feast of the blessed Apostle Thomas,
  so that we may always be sustained by his intercession
  and, believing, may have life
  in the name of Jesus Christ your Son,
  whom Thomas acknowledged as the Lord.
  Who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
  one God, for ever and ever.

That is probably the most direct reason that in English we have tended to use the term “Blessed Virgin Mary” rather than “Saint Mary.” As Raphael Rosch pointed out, in many other languages (especialy Romance languages), the etymologically equivalent word for “saint” simply means “holy,” and so it is more commont to hear expressions such as “Sainte Marie” or “Santa Maria.”