How do priests choose who is going to be the main celebrant at Mass? When there's lots of priests in a parish or visiting priests, how do priests decide which one is going to be the main celebrant and which one is going to concelebrate (or just appear before Communion)?

I was thinking about this answer where it was asserted that it was not priests, but elders who presided over early Masses.  That if there were multiple presbyters present, they'd have to chose one to be the president, and maybe the modern practice of concelebrating has some ancient roots

This question has many facets in it and may be a little intermingled in it explication for some, but I will give it my best effort possible.

Let us start by stating who (which priests) can say Mass.

  Can.  905 §1. A priest is not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law permits him to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day.

  §2. If there is a shortage of priests, the local ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

  Can.  906 Except for a just and reasonable cause, a priest is not to celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice without the participation of at least some member of the faithful. - The Ministers of the Most Holy Eucharist

How do religious priests (Benedictines, Dominicans and so on) know who is going to be the Main Celebrant at Mass?

For priests of Religious Orders this question is quite simple.

Priests of Religious Orders take turns being the Main Celebrant at Mass. Each week a different priest has a turn at being the hebdomidarian. This liturgical function starts at Matins on Sunday morning and concludes at compline on Saturday evening. Priests will take turns as being the weekly hebdomidarian by order of rank and seniority. For example the prior will be the Main Celebrant one week and then followed by the sub-prior, who in turn would be followed by priests according to their date of solemn professions.
The Hebdomidarian will, in addition to being the Main celebrant at Mass, will also perform the liturgical duties laid down in the Collectarium. Benedictine abbots will be the Main Celebrants at High Masses like Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, Annunciation, Assumption and so on. They will also be the Main Celebrant at the funeral of one of their community. If the abbot is impeded for some reason, the prior will take his place.

  The Collectarium, a book for the use of the hebdomidarian, which contained the texts and the notes for the prayers, chapters, and blessings. - Wikipedia

As for the liturgical life in a particular diocese, the Bishop would normally be the Main Celebrant at a concelebrated Mass, but not always. When the local bishop is present at Mass, he is the Presider of the Mass. The bishop will not concelebrate Mass as a concelebrant in his own diocese unless there is one of greater rank present than himself, such as the pope.

  There are several occasions when the diocesan bishop could participate in Mass without concelebrating. For example, if a bishop attends a Mass celebrating a priest's jubilee anniversary, or a funeral for a priest's parent, he will often not concelebrate because the bishop would have the obligation to preside at the Mass.

  "The liturgical norm in force, which carries with it a theological principle rooted in the wisdom of the Fathers, confirms with all evidence the necessity that the Bishop preside at the celebration, whether he celebrates the Eucharist or not.

  "The Ceremonial of Bishops in n. 18 says 'In every community of the altar gathered together under the Bishop as its sacred minister, the symbol of that charity and unity of the mystical Body, without which there can be no salvation, is shown. It is most fitting, therefore, that when the Bishop is present at a particular liturgical action, where the people is gathered, that he, as the one signed with the fullness of the sacrament of Order, presides at the celebration. This is not done to increase the exterior solemnity of the rite but to signify in a more vivid light the mystery of the Church. It is fitting also that the Bishop should join presbyters with himself in the celebration. If, however, the Bishop presides at the Eucharist but does not celebrate it, he himself takes charge of the liturgy of the word and concludes the Mass with the rite of dismissal.' - When a Bishop Doesn't Concelebrate at a Mass

In parishes the Main Celebrant of the Eucharist is generally the parish priest as he is the highest ranking priest in charge of the salvation of all the souls in the parish. This privilege may be deferred to a different priest for a number of reasons, such as marriages, funerals, silver anniversaries of priesthood and so on.


Latin Lyrics for Gregorian Chants Does the Catholic Church have a particular book that contains the Latin lyrics for Gregorian chants? I suppose most of these chants are sung as part of a liturgy.

One such chant is named Communio: Omnes qui in Christ (video link)

I suppose it's sung for Communion.

The books you want are the "Kyriale" and the "Graduale".  The former contains the words and music for the ordinary of the mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei), and the latter contains the words and music for the variable parts of the mass (Introit, Gradual, Alleluia verse, Offertory, and Communion verse).


Is there a systematic theology resource based solely on the words of Jesus? Numerous Bibles have a "The Words of Christ in Red Letter" feature. Understandably, there is some debate concerning which verses and words should be in red (but this question is not about that.)

This question is: What is a good resource on systematic theology that only looks at the verses in red -- i.e., instead of being based on the entire Bible, is based only upon the words that Christ says?

I'm pretty sure that there is no source that looks at only Jesus words. However there are certainly theological approaches that place a much greater emphasis on Jesus words. For a start you might want to look at Red Letter Christians, a group that attempts to redress what they see as an imbalance in North American Evangelicalism, which they believe has seriously de-emphasised Jesus' words in favour of Paul's writings and selected Old Testament teachings. However the members of that group do pay attention to other parts of the Bible, and do treat them as inspired and authoritative.


Can blood disinfect a house from plague according to Leviticus? We know blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, as well as toxin. But Leviticus, Ch. No.14, Verse No.49 to 53 - tells a way for disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy.

It states ‘Take two birds, kill one bird, take wood, scale it - and the other living bird, dip it in water and under running water - later on sprinkle the house 7 times with it.
Does it work and how?

Edit: per above comment, see here: Is Leviticus 14 describing a cure for leprosy?

Leviticus 14:1-9

  14 And the Lord said to Moses,

  2 This shall be the law of the leper on the day when he is to be
  pronounced clean: he shall be brought to the priest [at a meeting
  place outside the camp];

  3 The priest shall go out of the camp [to meet him]; and [he] shall
  examine him, and if the disease is healed in the leper,

  4 Then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed
  two living clean birds and cedar wood and scarlet [material] and
  hyssop.

  5 And the priest shall command to kill one of the birds in an earthen
  vessel over fresh, running water.

  6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood, and the
  scarlet [material], and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living
  bird in the blood of the bird killed over the running water;

  7 And he shall sprinkle [the blood] on him who is to be cleansed from
  the leprosy seven times and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let
  go the living bird into the open field.

This very likely has nothing to do with literal sanitation, but like many things of the law, its a reflection of heavenly things, heavenly benefits, and quite often the things involved are symbolisms * although the people of their day took it literal.

Looking at verse 2-3 it appears this is a ritual  upon being pronounced clean - not on the cleansing itself.

The law is a reflection of heavenly things:

Hebrews 8:5

  5 [But these offer] service [merely] as a pattern and as a
  foreshadowing of [what has its true existence and reality in] the
  heavenly sanctuary. For when Moses was about to erect the tabernacle,
  he was warned by God, saying, See to it that you make it all [exactly]
  according to the copy (the model) which was shown to you on the
  mountain.


Is suffering a proof against intelligent design? An atheist has argued with me that suffering is going against "intelligent design" in humans and animals.
He would agree that pain is vital for our nature to indicate when something is wrong, but he is saying that people are experience deep suffering which can change someone entire life and some people can never recover (like huge depression, mental illness etc.)
Also there are unnecessary suffering like, why suffer when someone dies?
He said that if God is perfect in creation we shouldn't have this experiences...
I was defending in two ways:

original sin
unknown reason God may have to allow this, since he is all knowing, we cannot argue that we are imperfect, because we do not see the entire picture and we cannot understand fully what is the purpose we were made for... Therefore our current features could actually be perfect for a specific purpose.

I'm wandering how would you answer this question;
Is suffering a flaw in intelligent design?

No
I don't really have references for this I will just answer it by logic alone. The atheist is making quite a few assumptions to make the leap from suffering to no Intelligent Designer (or indeed God).
e.g.

The Designer's morals are the same as his, and by extension the Designer's desire is to have no unnecessary suffering (from a mortal point of view).

Actually, we have no idea what the motives of the Designer is. We have our own idea of what is right and wrong but it might not be the same as the Designer's. There is no reason to be sure that they don't want people to suffer. It certainly doesn't preclude their existence.

Life on Earth is a major part of existence

However, assuming that there is an afterlife, an eternal one in fact, one's life on Earth is just an insignificantly tiny part of our overall existence, being less than a 100 years out of, well, infinity! Trillions of epochs from now, that short period of suffering will seem like less than that itch you scratched when you were 3.

It is within the Designer's ability to prevent suffering.

But the Designer might not be the almighty/all-knowing God of the Bible that we're so familiar with. The point of Intelligent Design "theory" is that it's more of a generic theory stating that an entity powerful and intelligent enough to create a planet or universe and life, did so. They may have been able to invent sophisticated life-forms, but not been able to rid them of all "bugs", as it were. Just because they can create life doesn't mean they can wave a magic wand and make all disease disappear.


What particular action that is in excess to God's Permissive Will did Satan commit in the Garden of Eden? Reading God's judgement on Adam & Eve and Satan would allow us to see and understand that Satan had done something in excess that merited not just a punishment but a "curse".
We can see from the Book of Job, God sets the limits on what Satan was allowed to do.
Job 1:8-12 New International Version (NIV)

8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

We can see from Book of Job, God sets limits to what Satan can do, otherwise as St.Augustine said if God had given Satan a freehand no man shall be alive.
So, back in the Garden of Eden, surely Satan under God's permissive Will had given access to tempt Adam & Eve but the judgment of God implied not just a punishment but a curse towward Satan action, which basing on the Book of Job should not be the case as Satan is clearly instructed on the limits.
God's judgment or the "cursed punishment" goes like this;

So the LORD God said to the serpent: “BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THIS, Cursed are you above all livestock, and every beast of the field! On your belly will you go, and dust you will eat, all the days of your life. (Genesis3:14)

My question is, what is the meaning or the so called overly done action does the serpent had committed for God to said the words "BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THIS"?
My impression is, if Satan just followed the limits of whatever God's instructions had given to him in tempting Adam & Eve, satan would have not merited a "curse".
I'm looking for a Catholic perspective although a biblical explanations from Christian faith would also be helpful.

No one can ever do anything God does not permit
That is what is meant by God's "permissive" will. God's permissive will exists in cosmologies wherein God's sustaining presence is such that without God's present sustaining action literally nothing would happen. Rocks would not fall, people would not be able to move their arms, the earth may or may not (depending on theologian) continue to possess any sort of physical extent or even exist at all, etc.  Literally everything that happens, in this view, must be actively allowed by God because were it not the will of God, permissively, then it could not happen.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that Satan took (or could take) any action God did not or would not permit, but rather and only that Satan did something contrary to the active will of God (viz. the sort of thing God would say He willed/wanted if you asked Him), that is, something which offended God.
Given, then, that there is no sort of 'special' sin being committed here (nor could there be; sin may be greater or lesser in gravity but it is all the same sort of stuff), the apparent difficulty is removed: the 'curse' is no different than any other sort of God-imposed punishment for sin, special in the case of Adam and Eve only in that prior to it they had not yet sinned, and not notable in the case of Satan any more than any other of his multitudinous iniquities.  To ask what the 'this' in 'because you have done this' is is merely to ask what Satan did prior to the statement which was morally wrong, which is pretty evident in the text.


Hippolytus’ difference between hearing the Word and hearing the Gospel? In Apostolic Traditions, Hippolytus (starting at section 15 through section 20 (it is too much to copy and paste)) lines out the qualifications that a catechumen must meet for acceptance as such and a 3 year period that accepted catechumens must undergo prior to being baptized.

Accepted catechumens will hear the word for 3 years so long as they faithfully retain accepted catechumen behavior.

  Catechumens will hear the word for three years. Yet if someone is
  earnest and perseveres well in the matter, it is not the time that is
  judged, but the conduct.

Having successfully completed the catechism and been presented as baptism candidates they are allowed to hear the Gospel.

  When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be
  examined, whether they have lived honorably while catechumens, whether
  they honored the widows, whether they visited the sick, and whether
  they have done every good work. If those who bring them forward bear
  witness for them that they have done so, then let them hear the
  Gospel.

Paul seems to have presented the Gospel to Corinth as of primary importance.

Hippolytus relates catechumens in 3rd Century Rome being required to "live right' and then, if it was proved that they have for three years, they could then hear the Gospel.

My question is: Why would the methodology of presenting the Gospel have changed  from Paul's 'presenting it as of primary importance' (see also Phillip and the Eunuch) to that of 'prove you are worthy for 3 years' and then you can hear it?

(A related question is: How could a 3 year instruction in the word be such that the Gospel is not yet heard?  I understand this is probably unanswerable but I can't avoid it.  Say the word and I will edit this out.)

What is Hippolytus’ difference between hearing the Word and hearing the Gospel?

To understand this nuance, we have to take a little trip down memory lane and try to understand what Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the life of the Catechumens meant in the Early Church?

The Mass in the Early Church as well as the modern Mass of the Ordinary Form are made of various parts.

The first part of the Mass was historically called the Mass of the Catechumensand is now simply called the Liturgy of the Word.

  The Mass (or Liturgy) of the Catechumens is an ancient title for the first half of the Catholic Mass or Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy. In the Mass of Paul VI of the Catholic Church, it is referred to as the Liturgy of the Word. It was originally called the Mass of the Catechumens, because the Catechumens, or candidates for Baptism, were required to leave the ceremony before the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, or Mass, proper.

  This exclusion was enforced on the grounds that until Baptism, persons were not fully members of the Church and should not participate in the communal sacrifice that symbolizes and embodies the spiritual union of the Faithful, according to Catholic belief.

  In the earliest liturgy there was a service consisting of readings, a homily (explanation of the readings and how to apply them to one's life) and petitionary prayers based on the readings and homily (bidding prayers or prayers of the faithful).

From the Wikipedia article we can understand that the Liturgy of the Word was in reality both the entire Sacred Texts as well as the Gospels. Since both were employed at Mass it would simply be referred to as the Word, in Hippolytus’ day.

Hearing the Word should be always understood as hearing the Gospel also. Although, the following article is unsure what Hippolytus meant by ”to hear the Gospel”? It would make sense that he was referring to certain mysteries of the faith that were taught by Christ in the Gospels and were thus explained towards the end of their probation as Catechumens, most notably the Eucharist.

  The Ancient Catechumenate

  The catechumenate was the ancient church’s process for Christian initiation, leading up to baptism and climaxing with first Eucharist. The earliest post-apostolic picture of the catechumenate comes from The Apostolic Tradition, written by Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235 AD). When newcomers came to the church, Hippolytus insisted that they be interviewed, along with those who brought them, later called sponsors. Sponsors would be questioned whether their guests were “capable of hearing the word” (Cuming 15). These questions were less about motive, and more about lifestyle: Did these inquirers have mistresses? If slaves, did they serve their masters faithfully? Were they gladiators, charioteers, idol-sculptors, actors, brothel-keepers, theatre producers, city magistrates or employed in some other immoral trade (Harmless 41)? If so, they would be required to make the costly choice to “cease or be rejected” (Cuming 15-16).

  Once admitted, catechumens would “hear the word” for three years of instruction, about which little is known. After this period, catechumens and their sponsors would be re-examined, again with attention primarily to lifestyle: “Have they honored the widows? Have they visited the sick? Have they done every good work?” (Cuming 17). If successful, they would be permitted to “hear the gospel,” again a phrase that raises uncertainties about its meaning. Presumably on the weekend leading up to Easter, catechumens would bath, fast and hold vigil in preparation for Baptism and the Eucharist. Following this ritual climax, Hippolytus prescribed further private instruction for the neophytes.

  The fourth century saw the golden age of the catechumenate as a flood of new converts streamed in as a result of Constantine’s endorsement of Christianity. Not surprisingly, this had a marked affect on the nature of the catechumenate. Whereas the few catechumens of the third century could be closely watched regarding attendance and their lifestyles carefully scrutinized, this was no longer feasible in the fourth century (Harmless 58). Moreover, examinations shifted to questions of motivation due to opportunists seeking political advantages (Harmless 58). Importantly, the doctrinal debates within the church and apologetic rhetoric directed at Gnosticism and Arianism resulted in shift to increased catechesis in doctrinal issues. Finally, three stages of the catechumenal process were distinguished: The catechumenate period, Lent and Mystagogy. By 400 AD, an additional stage, Evangelization was added to the beginning of this process indicating that some instruction was appropriate prior to enrollment.

  Ambrose of Milan, the fourth century bishop and catechist who oversaw Augustine’s initiation, described the purpose of the Lenten period as moral education. Ambrose believed that “in order to learn this way of life the competentes needed two things: (1) appropriate models to imitate, and (2) basic moral principles” (Harmless 95). For Ambrose, both of these needs were satisfied with Scripture: the Patriarchs were his chosen models, and the Proverbs were his source of principles. Later, as a catechist himself, Augustine conceived of Lent as a period of “boot camp or Olympic training” “to purge the poisons out of one’s system, to root out slovenly habits, and to sober up with other who sought recovery from an addiction to the world” (Harmless 380).

  Mystagogy was the period that followed baptism. While Cyril emphasized the liturgical significance of this period—the Eucharist was now open to the neophyte—Chrysostom stressed the moral nature of this stage. The “gleaming” baptismal robes were to image their “godly conduct and strict discipline” (Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction, 4.18 and 6.24). In a lament that resonates with the contemporary scene, Chrysostom wrote: “I see many after their baptism living more carelessly than the uninitiated, having nothing particular to distinguish them in their way of life” (Chrysostom, In s. Matthaie evanglium, 4.14). One suspects this sad and familiar state was the outcome of the fourth century prioritization of orthodoxy over orthopraxis.

  As this select review of features of the ancient catechumenate suggests, early Christian initiation gave significant, if not primary, attention to moral and behavioral formation. Thus, its success should be judged by its ability to produce people marked by a Christian way of life.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers a few insights into this subject matter as follows:

  The catechumens were divided into mere inquirers (audientes, akromeni) and catechumens properly so-called; and in each stage there was a three-fold preparation — **catechetical, ascetical, and liturgical **.

  (1) If a pagan wished to become a Christian he was given some elementary instruction in the fundamental doctrines and practices of the Church. He had to show by his conduct that he was in earnest about the step he was about to take. So far, he was only in the stage of inquiry, and was not counted as a Christian at all. He was allowed to be present at the first part of the Mass, but he was dismissed immediately after the sermon.

  (2) As soon as his instructors were satisfied that he was likely to persevere, the inquirer was promoted to the rank of catechumen. He was now entitled to be called a Christian, though he was not looked upon as one of the "faithful". "Ask a man, 'Are you a Christian?' He answers, 'No', if he is a pagan or a Jew. But if he says 'Yes', ask him again, 'Are you a catechumen or one of the faithful?'" (St. Augustine, Tractate 44 on the Gospel of John, no. 2).

  In the early ages the rites of admission to the catechumenate were quite simple, but in the course of time they became more elaborate. At first the candidates were merely signed on the forehead with the sign of the cross, or hands were imposed on them with suitable prayers; and sometimes both ceremonies were used. Thus St. Augustine in his model of an instruction to an inquirer says: "He should be asked whether he believes what he has heard, and is ready to observe it. If he answers in the affirmative he should be solemnly signed and treated according to the custom of the Church" (solemniter signandus est et ecclesiae more tractandus.-- De Cat. Rud., xxvi, P.L., XL, 344). Eusebius mentions the imposition of hands and prayer (Vita Constantini, iv. 61, P.G., XX, 1213). Among the Latins, and especially at Rome, breathing accompanied with a form of exorcism and placing in the mouth a little exorcised salt, was employed in addition to the signing with the cross and the imposition of hands. Other rites were the opening of the ears (Mark 7:34) and anointing. See Martène, "De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus" (Rouen, 1700), I, where several ordines ad fasciendum Christianum, or catechumenum, are given; Chardon, "Hist. des Sacrements", in Migne's "Theol. Cursus Completus", Paris, 1874, XX, 31 sqq., 149 sqq.

  Catechumens when present at Mass were not dismissed with the inquirers, but were detained while a special prayer was recited over them. They then also withdrew before the Mass of the Faithful began. The instruction which they received is described in the article Christian Doctrine. As to their standard of living they had to abstain from all immoral and pagan practices, and give proof by their virtue and works of penance that they were worthy to begin a more immediate preparation for baptism. The duration of this stage was not fixed. In general it lasted long enough to test the dispositions of the catechumen. The council of Elvira alludes to the custom of making it last two years and the civil law fixed it at this (Justinian, Novel. cxliv). But the causes which ultimately led to the abolition of the catechumenate (see above) tended also to shorten it. Thus the Council of Agde (506) allowed even Jews (with regard to whom special caution was required) to receive baptism after eight months preparation; and later on St. Gregory reduced the term to forty days. On the other hand the duration of the catechumenate might be extended, and the catechumen might be reduced to the rank of the audientes, if he was guilty of grave crimes (fifth canon of Neocæsarea, fourteenth canon of Nicaea). What seems extraordinary to our modern notions is that the catechumens themselves put off their baptisms for many years, sometimes even till their last illness. Constantine the Great is an example of this extreme delay. St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. John Chrysostom were not baptized till after their thirtieth year. A question much discussed was the fate of those who died in this stage. As we have seen, they were looked upon as Christians, but not as belonging to the "faithful", because the cleansing waters of baptism had not been poured over their souls. St. Gregory describes his terror during a storm at sea lest he might be taken away unbaptized (Carmen de Vita Sua, 324, sqq., P.G. XXXVII, 994). However, St. Ambrose has no doubt about the salvation of Valentinian the Younger, who has asked for baptism, but had died before the saint could reach him ("De Obitu Valentini.", n. 51, P.L. XVI, 1374). Hence the common teaching was that the defect of baptism might be supplied by desire. This was especially held with regard to those who were in the later stage of immediate preparation, to be described presently. On this whole question see Franzelin, "De Ecclesia" (Rome, 1887), 414 sqq.

  (3) When the catechumens had completed this stage of preparation and trial, their names were inscribed among the competentes; i.e. those seeking to be baptized. The Greeks called them photizomenoi. This might mean that they were being enlightened in the mysteries of the faith; or, more probably, that they were being baptized, for the Greeks commonly spoke of baptism as "light" (cf. Hebrews 6:4; 10:32). In this advanced stage they were sometimes called fideles by anticipation (e.g. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., I, 4; V, 1; P.G., XXXIII, 373, 505). Lent was the time when the three-fold preparation — instructive, ascetical, and liturgical — was carried on. The ascetical preparation was severe. Prayer and fasting naturally formed part of it; but the competentes were also exhorted to keep silence as far as possible and, if they were married, to observe continence. (St. Justin, "Apol.", lxi, P.G., VI, 420; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., I, sub fin., P.G., XXXIII, col. 376; St. August., "De Fide et Op.", ix, P.L. XL, 205). Confession was also enjoined (Tertullian, "De Bapt.", xx, P.L. I, 1222 where he quotes Matthew 3:6: "they were baptized, confessing their sins". See also St. Cyril, ib.; Eusebius, Life of Constantine IV.61). The instruction given at this time is described in the article [Christian Doctrine, where an account of St. Cyril's "catecheses" will be found.

Catechumens were allowed to be present at the first part of the Mass, but he was dismissed immediately after the sermon. And "Catechumen," in the early Church, was the name applied to one who had not yet been initiated into the sacred mysteries, meaning the mysteries of the Sacred Sacrifice of the Mass, but was undergoing a course of preparation for that purpose. The word occurs in Galatians 6:6: "Let him that is instructed in the word, [ho katechoumenos, is qui catechizatur] communicate to him that instructeth him [to katechounti, ei qui catechizat] in all good things." Other parts of the verb katicksein occur in 1 Corinthians 14:19; Luke 1:4; Acts 18:24. Thus it is not inconceivable that the phrase of hearing the Gospel may have been simply a way of meaning the Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus after their baptism the neophytes were in fullness and understanding of what the words of Jesus Christ meant in regards to the Sacred Mysteries of the faith.

  In the Early Church, catechumens were dismissed after the liturgy of the word because the sacraments, the Sacred “Mysteries,” were a carefully guarded secret open only to the initiated. - The Catechumenate and the Law: A Pastoral and Canonical Commentary

Thus it is more than obvious that St. Hippolytus of Rome was writing in a veiled manner in order to preserve the truths of our holy religion by explaining things in the Early Church thus and guarding the Sacred Mysteries as such. Only after baptism, would the neophytes understand the Gospels properly and without nuances.


At what age should my daughters start wearing a head covering when they pray? Catholic tradition has generally dictated that women wear a head covering - be it a veil, mantilla, etc. - while at Mass. First and foremost, the 1917 Code of Canon Law stated: "...women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed, ..." The abrogating 1983 code seems to have eliminated this requirement, and so many women today do not wear a veil to church anymore. However, I believe that it is still required, as 1 Cor. 11:4-6 says:

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

In addition, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, and Nancy Reagan, all wore short veils (not only during mass times, but all throughout the Vatican) during their visit with the Pope:

That's because the State Department makes sure that all American dignitaries follow the protocols and customs of the foreign governments they visit. So, clearly there is a requirement - or at least expectation - that women wear a veil to church, as the State Department clearly advised Michelle Obama to do so, and would not have had there been no expectation. Vatican canon law also says that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law only when this is made explicit and that, in cases of doubt, the revocation of earlier law is not to be presumed; quite the opposite. Based on this, we can assume that the tradition is still alive:

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

I remember my mother wearing a veil when she took our family to church in the 1970's, but all of our family stopped going after I entered high school when my father lost his job. I never wore a veil to church. So now, in the present, I am married and I currently have two daughters, one is high school age and the other one is a toddler. I would like to have them wear veils at some point, as I remember my mother wearing one and I believe that it is my duty to pass this custom onto my children, especially since I never wore one when I was young. However, I am wondering if it is appropriate. The Bible and Christian traditional only requires that a "woman" wear a veil. So at what point does a girl become "woman" enough where wearing a veil would be appropriate, and what type of veil should be worn?
I've looked this question up online, and answers vary. Some parents have their daughters wear a chapel veil or bonnet as soon as they can hold their heads up while wearing one (around two or three maybe). Other families believe after First Communion, some say puberty, others say age eighteen (the age of majority in the Catholic Church), and yet others say marriage. Some say no veil at all, which I don't support. Many others that I have asked personally say that it shouldn't be done because it is no longer required. But, what do tradition, Catholic teaching, and the Bible say about this? What is a good age to begin my children with a veil?

There is currently no requirement in the Catholic Church that women or girls wear a veil. This has technically only been the case since 1983, when the current code of canon law was promulgated.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law did enforce this as a rule:

Viri in ecclesia vel extra ecclesiam, dum sacris ritibus assistunt, nudo capite sint, nisi aliud ferant probati populorum mores aut peculiaria rerum adiuncta; mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt.
[Men, either in the church or out of the church, ought to have heads bare while they assist at the sacred rites, unless otherwise justified by established traditions of the people or by particular circumstances. Women, on the other hand, certainly should approach the Lord's table with head covered, and modestly dressed. – my translation]

(1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1262, section 2; emphasis added)
The 1983 code, however, abolished this rule along with the rest of the 1917 code of canon law and associated rules:

When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

(1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 6, section 1)
(Note: you do state that "Vatican canon law also says that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law only when this is made explicit"; this seems pretty explicit to me.)
If it is not a rule of canon law, is it perhaps addressed by Catholic belief? If so, one would expect to see something about it written in the Catechism, or perhaps addressed by the bishops. I don't see anything to that effect, though. A search through the Catechism reveals no results for "mantilla", and nothing for "veil" as an article of clothing. A quick search through the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for "mantilla" as an article of clothing yielded only a few references, mostly on the Spanish-language pages discussing wedding clothes. I conclude that it is not at all a requirement anymore, certainly not since 1983.
Note: Traditionally, it appears, protocol for papal audiences—particularly for private audiences—has been quite strict and has required among other things that a woman wear a black mantilla; you can see this on Mrs. Obama's head in the picture you post. I cannot find an authoritative statement on whether this is still required as protocol; however, even if it is, it applies simply to visits to the Pope, not to Mass-going in general.
Various cultures and geographic areas—particularly Italy, Spain, and Latin American countries and peoples—have a tradition of wearing a mantilla (chapel veil) independent of any rule of canon law. Since wearing one is certainly not "contrary to the prescripts of this Code" (there's nothing in the current code that says wearing one is wrong), it is an option which Catholic women (and girls) may choose, but which they need not. Under such circumstances it seems understandable for the Church not to legislate an age at which one might consider such a thing, and thus Catholic teaching says nothing at all about the age at which one might begin wearing a chapel veil.
As for tradition and the Bible: certainly Paul does refer to "women" in the passage you cite, but of course he offers no definition for "women". Current canon law sets 18 as the age of majority in the Church (canon 97 sec. 1), 16 as the minimum age at which a person can be affected by penalties in Church law (canon 1323 note 1), 14 as the minimum age at which a woman can marry (canon 1083 section 1—note, dioceses may set a higher minimum), and 7 as the age at which they are responsible for their own acts (canon 97 sec. 2). Any of these might be reasonably considered appropriate to decide whether a young lady is "old enough"; but again there is no official standard.


Committing a sin by eating animal's flesh According to the Holy Bible, are we committing a sin by eating animal's  flesh?
If No, Why?

Paul deals with exactly this matter in his first epistle to the young minister, Timothy :

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

[I Timothy 4:4 KJV]

I think there is no need for me to add any further words.
I have simply highlighted what is most relevant to the question.


Are all things possible with God? Every Christian knows the saying that "With God all things are possible." But is this actually a fact?

I listened recently to a speaker, who said, that God cannot come in contact with anything unclean, or commit any sin.

Also, everyone knows the question asked by Believers and non-believers alike, "Since God can do everything, can he make a rock that he can't lift?" Obviously, this is a little bit hard to answer, for Yes or No, will both conclude that God cannot do everything.

So my question is, are all things possible with God, and what reasons do you have if they are/are not? As a little supplement, maybe you could tell me how we are supposed to answer that one question?

First of all, the assertion that "With God, all things are possible" is valid and scriptural.

Matthew 19:26 (NIV)
26  Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

However, it would be a mistake to assume that God's omnipotence means he can act against his nature.  Hebrews tells us:

Hebrews 6:18 (NIV)
18  God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie,  we who have fled to take hold of the hope  set before us may be greatly encouraged.

This is not a contradiction.  When Jesus says that "with God all things are possible", he does not intend to suggest that God can act outside of His nature - and His nature is righteousness.  Similarly I, as a physical creature, am by nature bound to operate within the confines of a physical universe (i.e., I am bound by physical laws).
As to the other part of your question, no - God cannot make a rock so big that he can't lift it.  That doesn't contradict His omnipotence.  The question itself is silly and irrational.  Another thing God can't do is make a circle with four corners.  If he did, then it would no longer be a circle would it?  By definition, it would be a square.  C.S. Lewis addresses this eloquently:

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.
If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.'


What are the practical applications of "two will become one flesh"? Mark 10:8 (NIV)

  and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

What does this mean for a marriage?  What are the practical applications of this?  Obviously, this is an analogy, but what is it trying to signify?  Does sex play a role in this "becoming one flesh"?

a hint:

Does this mean that the needs of one will become the needs of the other?  Or that the happiness or sadness of one will become the happiness and sadness of the other?

It seems that "the two shall become one flesh" is regarding sex, although it could have other connotations as well.

In 1 Corinthians 6:15-17, it says

  15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall
  I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a
  prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one
  who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says,
  “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” 17 But the one who joins himself
  to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

Here, it obviously refers to a sexual context, as it refers to joining with a prostitute.  However, the fact that it refers to sex should not down-weight the significance of "becoming one flesh", but "becoming one flesh" should up-weight the significance of the sex act, considering that the term "the two shall become one flesh" is used in the context of marriage.  The fact that it is also used in reference to engaging with a prostitute means that the act of sex is a very significant thing.


What is the means of forgiveness in Purgatory? And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven,
  but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven,
  either in this age or in the age to come.

  Matthew 12:32 (ESV)

Catholicism teaches that purgatory is "a place where the soul is cleansed of unforgiven venial sin" (source).

Based on the New Testament, forgiveness of sins done by those who are "in Christ" is received through confession and from it, cleansing from all unrighteousness ensues.

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
  and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

  1 John 1:9 (ESV)

If forgiveness on earth is received through confession, then, forgiveness in purgatory is received through what?

The means of any forgiveness is penance. The following is taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

ARTICLE 4: THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION

  1422 Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion.

Aquinas notes the following:

  Punishment is proportionate to sin. Now sin comprises two things. First, there is the turning away from the immutable good, which is infinite, wherefore, in this respect, sin is infinite. Secondly, there is the inordinate turning to mutable good. In this respect sin is finite, both because the mutable good itself is finite, and because the movement of turning towards it is finite, since the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly, in so far as sin consists in turning away from something, its corresponding punishment is the "pain of loss," which also is infinite, because it is the loss of the infinite good, i.e. God. But in so far as sin turns inordinately to something, its corresponding punishment is the "pain of sense," which is also finite.

When man sins mortally, they enact a debt both infinite and finite (if they commit venial sins, they enact only the latter). The infinite debt for our sins has the opportunity to be overlooked in the penance Christ offers for original sin. But the finite punishment is still existent, and even necessary in the process of attaining salvation. The finite punishment is still relevant to the human condition, and through Christ's penance, it is made to be satisfactory in nature (meaning the finite punishment can achieve merits as founded in the perfect and primary merits Christ achieved through His own penance on the cross). The finite punishment, as far as it is satisfactory, and thus voluntary, is a specific type of penance, the other being confession.

So believing in Christ, which includes confession, is certainly the primary means of penance, but the other half consists of a different kind of penance, namely the willingness to go through finite punishment in order to discipline and reshape the fallen finite aspect of our will. The fullness of our will, in other words, even after asking for forgiveness, is still subject to sin and its tendencies. Though we ask for forgiveness, we are still imperfect creatures, not in a judicial sense, but in a practical sense. Thus is it that although we can be justified solely in perfect contrition or more commonly in the forgiveness achieved through the priesthood from God, further penance is required for our will to be fully aligned to God, which is itself salvation. And thus is it that Catholics firmly assert purgatory is not a place/process of opportunity for any souls to gain the 'judicial ticket' of entering heaven which can only be gained by believing in Christ on earth, but rather is a process in which the aspects of the imperfect soul becomes cleansed 'as through fire' before entering heaven (1 Corinthians 3:15). Purgatory is a process for the already elected Church; it is not a process for those who are not of the elect at the moment of death. It is a process for the elected Church (those with no unforgiven mortal sins) to have purged their unforgiven venial sins through finite punishment. So the Catechism states:

ARTICLE 12: "I BELIEVE IN LIFE EVERLASTING"

  1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately,-- or immediate and everlasting damnation

...and...

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

...and finally...

  1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire.

AN ANALOGY

The idea that it is necessary for souls to go through finite punishment consists in an understanding of the nature of sin and what is truly meant by 'punishment'. In sinning, man offends God by not offering all of the obedience that is rightly due to God. So, while infinite punishment has no opportunity of being satisfactory because it is involuntarily gone through, finite punishment does have the opportunity of being satisfactory, both because of the penance of Christ and because souls can willingly choose to enter it. This still doesn't address why the punishment itself gains merits. And the point here is to realize that 'punishment' in its most basic sense is actually the satisfaction made for a debt of sin, which robs God of the obedience He is owed. In short, 'punishment' is simply a thing that engenders greater obedience. Think about a court case. Let's say a man has committed a crime that at least deserves a minimal retribution, but which also deserves prison in life. If the man deemed guilty of this crime enters his punishment willingly, he is thus complying to the will of the judge himself, and to some degree making his own satisfaction. Of course, the ultimate end of being locked in the jailhouse forever can only be justly prevented if there is one who makes full satisfaction for the man's debts, which the guilty himself cannot do. For in entering the punishment of imprisonment for life, the man can gain nothing of it for himself, since he shall in no case be freed. Thus satosfaction cannot be made for his own life through himself, where satosfaction could be made for his own life if he were free. So one who is perfect and greater than the law itself must make satisfaction for the guilty. So a benefactor who decides to take mercy on the guilty man pays for his release at the cost of his own luxury. But the man guilty of breaking the law can still offer something, and indeed must offer something, if he is to share in the satisfaction made for him through his benefactor. If he doesn't, than he refuses to partake in the same spirit that is of the satisfaction made for him, and so he is still condemned by his own doing. The guilty man must go through rehabilitation and actually allow this sacrifice to change his own behavior and tendencies. He must go through the minimal punishment that he is actually able to go through to make satisfaction as a productive and free man. If not, than he is not offering the full obedience thay is owed to God, and so defeating the very purpose for which he was freed from the fate of prison. This analogy is meant to display the nature of Christ and the nature of the penance we must offer in light of Christ's sacrifice. Just like the guilty lawbreaker, if we do not offer whatever we can in our own way and turn away from our sins, than we are not fully in union with God. This entire process is what is going on in penance, both in confession and in finite punishment. Confession is the admitting of our faults and recognizing the sacrifice made for us, while finite punishment is the going through rehabilitation and adjusting our behavior in order that the entirety of our will is made righteous, which is what is owed to our benefactor.

CONCLUSION

So the answer is both basic and complicated. The souls have been forgiven of mortal sins that are in purgatory (hence their existence in purgatory rather than in hell). They are not going through a means of 'forgiveness', which is only one form of penance (the more primary, albeit), but are going through another form of penance just as necessary for the attainment of salvation; finite punishment. It is this punishment that is necessary for the means of amending the debts of venial and otherwise imperfect tendencies. Christ did not abolish finite punishment for the believer as he did eternal punishment; he allowed it the opportunity of being satisfactory. It is this satisfactory punishment that souls in purgatory go through in order to achieve the merit of perfection, not in judicial terms (which is achieved through Christ), but in active terms (which is existent within the free, independent will of the person).


How do Christian theologians view and/or use Jewish commentators? I've been wondering about the status of Jewish commentators on the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Rashi, Ibn Ezra, etc.) and other post-Biblical Jewish authors (e.g. Josephus) in Christianity. Are there prominent modern Christian scholars or strains of thought that make use of the writings of these figures? Are there examples of them being cited by well-known Christian exegetes?

Note: I'm not interested in the status of the Christian Bible itself as a commentary on the Hebrew Bible. I'm only interested in examples of purely Jewish sources being used in post-Biblical Christianity.

Jewish commentators like Rashi, Ibn Ezra, etc. write comments on the Old Testament(Torah). Jews only have the Torah while Christians have one more set of books, the New Testament. Jewish commentators write explanations based on Jewish traditions and oral traditions, some of which are unknown to Christians.

There are also Christian Bible commentators. For instance, see this site, biblehub.com  for reading Christian Bible online, it has Commentaries. Sometimes they also take the help of Jewish commentators to better understand the background, culture, history and the context.

For Christians, the New Testament explains the Old Testament. For instance, Rashi wrote that Isaiah 53 is speaking about Israel nation while the New Testament says that it speaks about the suffering of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah.

  Rashi's commentary on Isaiah 53:3

  Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to
  illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held
  him of no account. (Isaiah 53:3, Jewish Bible)

  [RASHI'S COMMENTARY] Despised and rejected by men: was he. So is the custom of this prophet: he mentions all Israel as one man, e.g., (44:2), “Fear not,
  My servant Jacob” ; (44:1) “And now, hearken, Jacob, My servant.” Here
  too (52:13), “Behold My servant shall prosper,” he said concerning the
  house of Jacob. יַשְׂכִּיל is an expression of prosperity. Comp. (I
  Sam. 18:14) “And David was successful (מַשְׂכִּיל) in all his ways.”

  Acts 8:30-34 (NIV)

  Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the
  prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How
  can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited
  Philip to come up and sit with him. This is the passage of Scripture
  the eunuch was reading:

  “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
      and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
      so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
      Who can speak of his descendants?
      For his life was taken from the earth.”[a]

  The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking
  about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very
  passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

  [a] Isaiah 53:7,8 (see Septuagint)


Is there a converse of "judge not, lest you be judged?" One New Testament exhortation is "judge not, lest you be judged."

On the other hand, Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God."

Is there any Christian sect, or school of thought believes the converse of the first line, something like "Judge and let yourself be judged?"

The core belief here would be something like, "You are a wicked, evil, sinful (wo)man--and so am I." (That's per the Romans passage.)

Put another way, is it possible to pass judgment on e.g. Adolf Hitler, knowing that "in his shoes, you or I might have done the same or similar things?"

Some commenters below believe that a Christian can, and should judge the actions of others, while refraining from judging the "righteousness" of the person. Another opined that the admonition is against "hypocrisy," that the "converse" is OK, if you realize that "as you deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal." Are either of these ideas in line with what the Scripture says?

Proverbs 27:17 says:

  As iron sharpens iron,
      so one person sharpens another.

Hebrews 10:24 says:

  And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds,

And, the whole concept of mutual exhortation essentially reinforces the notion that

  We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. (Romans 15:1)

So, in general, yes, the duty of one Christian to another is to exhort and encourage one another to live a life worthy of the calling we were given.

This is more of a thing for believers to call one another too, however, rather than an injunction to tell the world to shape up.


Which Christian denominations do NOT believe that Jesus existed prior to his conception? Basically the title: Which Christian denominations do NOT believe that Jesus existed in some manner before his conception? If there are way too many, a reasonable answer listing the most notable ones would be a fair compromise.

Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) has ~2.3 million adherents and is the 3rd largest religious group in the Philippines.

"But we do not subscribe to the belief that Christ is a God-Man or
both God and man. He is man in nature according to His own testimony
(John 8:40) and the teachings of His Apostles (I Tim. 2:5; Matt.
1:18)." The Lord Jesus Christ

More specifically, a letter to the editor of Iglesia ni Cristo's publication God's Message asked

"Why is it that your  religion does not teach these three basic
doctrines (divinity, pre-existence, incarnation) about Christ?"

and the answer was in part

"What is spoken of in John 1:1, 14 as being with God in the beginning
is the "Word." Hence, in order to understand the real message of John
1:1, 14, we should first clarify the meaning of the term "Word." Does
it  really  refer to a 'pre-existent Christ' as others allege? No.
The Holy  Scriptures prove instead that the "Word"  refers to God's
"promise" to send His  Son, which He "announced" before[.]"

Christadelphians number ~60,000 adherents.

"Jesus Christ is a man, Christadelphians say, not God. He did not
exist prior to his earthly incarnation." Christadelphian beliefs and
practices

Church of God, General Conference has ~5,000 adherents.

"Jesus is the Christ. Existing from his mother’s womb, he is the
virgin born son of God (Luke 1:34-35, Gal. 4:4)." Our Beliefs

I'm sure there are more, but verifying non-English churches becomes tricky.
BiblicalUnitarian.com and the Revised English Version Bible translation (including commentary and appendices) is by the Spirit and Truth Fellowship, a non-denominational ministry. I do not know the number of people affiliated with the organization (I presume it is small), but the resources they provide seem the most comprehensive and easily accessible of Biblical Unitarian groups. They hold that Jesus pre-existed only in the sense of being part of God's plan. I believe this would qualify them as denying Jesus' pre-existence per the OP.

"The Jewish worldview was that something planned (that is, foreknown
in the counsel of God) existed notionally or ideally, but not yet in
actuality upon earth in our experience. [...] When this paradigm is
applied to those texts which seem to our Western understanding to
imply that Jesus personally did consciously exist (as God) before his
physical appearance on earth, confusion disappears." Jesus'
Pre-Existence - Literal or Ideal?

Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) has ~100,000-400,000 adherents, and might seem to qualify as it holds Jesus is a man.

"Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared [...] Jesus is the
name of the man who, more than all other men, has presented Christ,
the true idea of God[.]" Christian Science Beliefs quoting
Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy

Christian Science isn't a creedal denomination (see here), but the founder Mary Baker Eddy held to universal pre-existence in some sense, referring to "man's spiritual preexistence as God's child". As the article continues, commenting on this:

"Christian Science teaches that man's identity, his real being, is the
reflection of Spirit, and therefore wholly spiritual, and that his
existence as the child of God, who has existed with his Father-Mother
God "from the foundation of the world," is eternal.

According to Christian Science, when Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" the 'I am' was referring to a universal Christ of man's true spiritual nature.

"When Christ Jesus made the startling declaration, "Before Abraham
was, I am," he not only referred to the eternality of universal Truth,
but also to his own pre-existence as the individual son of God, an
individual instance of divine reflection. It will be readily seen that
these words apply to all the individual sons of God, just as they did
to Jesus, the Christ." Before Abraham Was

So, it seems this denomination believes Jesus pre-existed, as all humans have in their 'real being'.


An explanation from Calvinist about why Cain's offering is not accepted by God? This question is following the question before, where Calvin said :

  We must, however, notice the order here observed by Moses; for he does
  not simply state that the worship which Abel had paid was pleasing to
  God, but he begins with the person of the offerer; by which he
  signifies, that God will regard no works with favor except those the
  doer of which is already previously accepted and approved by him

The bold sentence from Calvin's quotation above, lead to a conclusion that :
1. God elect Abel before the foundation of the world.
2. He regenerate Abel in time and give him faith, don't know when but before the offering event.
3. Those 2 points above causing Abel do a correct offering.
4. Now God has a reason to look with favor on Abel + his offering.
5. and now God can give him approval as righteous through his offering.

So, "God begins with the person of the offerer" as in this case is number 1 and number 2.

The logical conclusion about Cain is :
Because God did not elect Cain and God did not regenerate Cain in time and give Cain faith then Cain offering is not accepted by God. He had no regard for Cain and his offering as mentioned in Gen 4:5.

My question : (according to the Calvinist)
1. What is the cause of Cain's offering is not accepted by God ?
2. Has God regenerated Cain and gave him faith by the time God speak to Cain as read in verse 6 and 7 ?

Why does God approve of Abel as righteous because of his offering?
You stated this in point 5 of your question, and though it wasn’t explicitly asked, I wanted to address it because it is contrary to our first principles. Conversely, God approves of Abel’s offering because of his righteousness- a righteousness, like all godly righteousness, that comes to him by faith. When Calvin says, "God begins with the person of the offerer" he means that the value of the offering is that it is an expression of adoration, and not that it is an attempt to gain approval; the value of the sacrifice exists solely in the heart of the offerer, because the approval of God cannot be earned, except so perfectly.
What is the cause of Cain's offering not being accepted by God ?
In Book 2 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin discusses the episode of Cain and Abel. He offers an interpretation of Genesis 4:7 that is not common, even among modern translations of the passage, acknowledging the error of Catholic translators.

They adduce the passage of Genesis, “Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him,” (Gen. 4:7). This they interpret of sin, as if the Lord were promising Cain that the dominion of sin should not prevail over his mind, if he would labour in subduing it. We, however, maintain that it is much more agreeable to the context to understand the words as referring to Abel, it being there the purpose of God to point out the injustice of the envy which Cain had conceived against his brother. And this He does in two ways, by showing, first, that it was vain to think he could, by means of wickedness, surpass his brother in the favour of God, by whom nothing is esteemed but righteousness; and, secondly, how ungrateful he was for the kindness he had already received, in not being able to bear with a brother who had been subjected to his authority.

Now, it helps to remember that the Reformers, among other complaints, rejected the teaching of the Roman Church that justification is a consequence of godly living. The concern of the Catholic presbyters was the moral living of their congregants and their dedication to the authority of Rome, and their teaching reflected that concern. It is not surprising that a person with such a perspective regarding righteousness would naturally adopt an interpretation that God spoke to Cain, saying that he ought to overcome his temptation through labour. To the contrary, Calvin posits that God was prophesying the very domination over Abel that Cain was later to display, in a similar way that He demolishes the pride of the wicked throughout the narrative that follows Genesis, which culminates in his demolition of all wickedness.
Calvin continues, giving the objector the benefit of the doubt by supposing that 4:7 does refer to sin. He posits then that the words constitute either an order or a promise, and examines both cases. In so doing, he addresses your second question.
Has God regenerated Cain and gave him faith by the time God speak to Cain as read in verse 6 and 7 ?
If God had regenerated Cain, he would have been able to speak the words in that passage as a promise, that is, offering assurance. It is common throughout the scriptures for God, through visions, prophets, or apostles, to offer the assurance of justification- a promise- to the elect. Calvin considers this as he continues.

If so, his words contain either an order or a promise. If an order, we have already demonstrated that this is no proof of man’s ability; if a promise, where is the fulfillment of the promise when Cain yielded to the sin over which he ought to have prevailed?

Because Cain fails, Calvin concludes that the passage cannot be a promise, lest the word of God fail, and must therefore be a command, then makes a statement that I believe answers your question.

For, if the dominion spoken of refers to sin, no man can have any doubt that the form of expression is imperative, declaring not what we are able, but what it is our duty to do, even if beyond our ability. Although both the nature of the case, and the rule of grammatical construction, require that it be regarded as a comparison between Cain and Abel, we think the only preference given to the younger brother was, that the elder made himself inferior by his own wickedness.

But surely Cain had faith. One might ask, how could a man such as Cain, who heard the voice of God, lack faith? What is the difference between the faith of Cain and that of Abel?
In the third book of Institutes, On Faith, Calvin answers.

But since the heart of man is not brought to faith by every word of God, we must still consider what it is that faith properly has respect to in the word. The declaration of God to Adam was, “Thou shalt surely die,” (Gen. 2:17); and to Cain, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground,” (Gen. 4:10); but these, so far from being fitted to establish faith, tend only to shake it. At the same time, we deny not that it is the office of faith to assent to the truth of God whenever, whatever, and in whatever way he speaks: we are only inquiring what faith can find in the word of God to lean and rest upon. When conscience sees only wrath and indignation, how can it but tremble and be afraid? And how can it avoid shunning the God whom it thus dreads? But faith ought to seek God, not shun him. It is evident, therefore, that we have not yet obtained a full definition of faith, it being impossible to give the name to every kind of knowledge of the divine will.

It is not the practice of faithfulness or measure of faith that is concomitant with the approval of God, but indeed a faith with a specific object and nature. God did not approve of Cain’s sacrifice because with it he sought the favor of God, and even to surpass the favor of his brother. Abel on the other hand loved God and did not seek righteousness with his sacrifice, but offered it as an expression of his adoration. Cain’s heart was hard, and so though he had “faith” in the sense of knowledge of the existence and identity of God, he lacked faith in the sense of knowledge that God himself is the sole source of righteousness by favor, that is, by grace, and that his favor is not obtained as recompense by sacrifice and labor, but a gift given according to trust and love that are the product of illumination by his Spirit.
Calvin returns to the episode in his commentary on Hebrews 11:4, saying,

The Apostle’s object in this chapter is to show, that however excellent were the works of the saints, it was from faith they derived their value, their worthiness, and all their excellences; and hence follows what he has already intimated, that the fathers pleased God by faith alone.
Now he commends faith here on two accounts, — it renders obedience to God, for it attempts and undertakes nothing, but what is according to the rule of God’s word, — and it relies on God’s promises, and thus it gains the value and worth which belongs to works from his grace alone. Hence, wherever the word faith is found in this chapter, we must bear in mind, that the Apostle speaks of it, in order that the Jews might regard no other rule than God’s word, and might also depend alone on his promises.
He says, first, that Abel’s sacrifice was for no other reason preferable to that of his brother, except that it was sanctified by faith: for surely the fat of brute animals did not smell so sweetly, that it could, by its odor, pacify God. The Scripture indeed shows plainly, why God accepted his sacrifice, for Moses’s words are these, “God had respect to Abel, and to his gifts.” It is hence obvious to conclude, that his sacrifice was accepted, because he himself was graciously accepted. But how did he obtain this favor, except that his heart was purified by faith.


According to the LDS church, when was the priesthood lost? I suppose this has no definitive answer, but maybe I am wrong, so:

From an LDS view, when was divine authority in the early church lost? From all I have read and heard so far about the early church, I would expect this to be a rather quick process starting right with the death of the early apostles. Is there any other teaching I am not aware of? Or is this a case of "we don't really know"?

It wasn't a quick process, it took a while. The Church was not 'extinguished' with the loss of the Apostles, it 'dwindled' away, like a fire burning out without anyone left to tend it.

James E. Talmage does an excellent job of describing the process in his book The Great Apostasy.

It began with the deaths of the apostles. They held the keys to administer in the government of the Church, when they died, those higher priesthood keys were lost, but this did not mark the end of priesthood authority on Earth. The Churches that had been established by the apostles were still led by ordained priesthood holders, such as Linus, who was the bishop of the Church in Rome. These priesthood leaders continued to teach and preach, but without continued direction by revelation, the doctrines of men began to enter the Church. The addition of ceremony was one of the factors that contributed to leading the Church into Apostasy, simple worship services were (and in many cases still are) unusual to many people. Worshiping God was popularly associated with elaborately decorated halls, expensive robes, symbols, and ceremonies. Without inspired direction from the head of the church, these things crept into Christian worship services.

Not having the authority to ordain new Priesthood holders was another significant factor that led to the Apostasy, as higher priesthood authorities died off, the church lost the ability to ordain new bishops and priests. This is why I think Bishops hold such high status in the Catholic Church today, as the higher authorities died, the Bishops became one of the higher positions of authority that remained in the Church.

This mingling of the doctrines of men with the Church continued to the point where there was much contention over the identity of the Church and it's doctrine, this is what influenced the creeds. If there is to be a marker for when the Church truly ceased to exist, and the Great Apostasy was complete, then I suppose you could consider that time to be the creation of the creeds, when the very identity of God was lost.

There was a lot more going on, but the short answer is; The priesthood was slowly lost as leaders died, unable to pass along all of their priesthood keys.


From a Fundamentalist Church standpoint, what is its equivalent of a catechumen? From a Fundamentalist Church standpoint, what is its equivalent of a catechumen? In many denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian), there is a concept called a catechumen, who takes religious education course called a catechumenate, that is taught by a catechist. So, what is the equivalent of such a role in a Fundamentalist/Bible Church? How do Fundamentalist Christians deal with prospective Christians (i.e. teaching church history, official doctrine and practices, etc.)? For Fundamentalist Christians, does that include teaching prospective Christians about the Scopes trial?

"From a Fundamentalist Church standpoint, what is its equivalent of a catechumen?" In my experience in several Protestant churches, Sunday School is the place of catechumen for young ones. The parents drop off their children in age-appropriate classrooms and the children are taught Bible stories/lessons by teachers from a church-approved lesson plan.

The plan may include any mixture of Bible stories, memorization of verses, Q&A, singing, puppets, dress-up, skits and other lively interactions, all to help bring the Bible stories to life and help the children see the lesson is for them.

This takes place as the parents are edified by the pastor in the main sanctuary.


What is the biblical basis for the doctrine of Eternal Security? The Doctrine of Eternal Security (also called the Perseverance of the Saints) teaches that once a person truly experience salvation, that person's eternal destiny of eternal life is immutable.
What is the biblical basis or biblically-based argument for this doctrine?

Oh, how I dislike the expression "once saved always saved"!  It gives a wrong impression that if you just make some sort of “sinners prayer” and ask Jesus to accept you (like you’re doing Jesus a big favour), then you are saved.  Nothing else required.  Just pat yourself on the back and carry on.  Any such notion of “easy believism” is utterly false and misguided.
Let us be clear from the outset – salvation is a sovereign act of God whereby an unregenerate sinner is washed, renewed, and born again by the Holy Spirit:

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.  But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.  He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:3-7).

Here are some Bible verses in support of the Christian assurance of salvation:

I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.  Before long, the world will not see me any more, but you will see me.  Because I live, you also will live.  On that day you will realise that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.  Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.  He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him. (John 14:18-21)

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.  And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.  But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.  And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. (Romans 8:9-11)

And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. (Romans 8:30)

Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. (Romans 8:33-34)

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38–39

There are plenty other Bible verses that confirm the assurance born-again Christians have of their eternal salvation.  But no person who turns round and denies Christ Jesus as their Lord and Saviour can say they were ever born-again by the new, spiritual rebirth or that they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
I hope the Scriptures I've quoted show that there's more to being a Christian than simply making some sort of "sinners' prayer" and saying you will accept Christ Jesus.  Commitment is called for.  Obedience is called for.  A transformed life is called for.  You have to BELONG to Christ Jesus and follow Him, regardless of the price.
Once the believer has experienced this rebirth the Spirit that indwells them gives assurance of their salvation.  They can cry out, "Abba, Father", confident they have been adopted into God's family.  It's a done deal.
Edit: In answer to your comment, “can the done deal get undone along the way (theoretically)?” here is how it works.  Genuine repentance results in genuine forgiveness.  Once you get up off your knees and dry your eyes you are overwhelmed with the reality of God’s love.
Once God chooses the repentant believer (N.B. God does the choosing) he is justified, not by anything he does, but because God purposed it.  Is God about to change His mind and, further down the road say, “Woops, made a mistake with that one.  Better cross his name out of the Book of Life”?
The believer who has been reborn has been regenerated.  Is he to be un-regenerated because God got it wrong and didn’t know what was round the corner?  Where in the Bible does it say the new birth can be taken away?  Nowhere – so don’t bother looking.
John 3:15 says that whoever believes in Jesus Christ will "have eternal life."  Not, “might have eternal life” or “if you slip up that’s it – you’re history”.  If you believe in Christ today and have eternal life, but lose it tomorrow, then it was never "eternal" at all. Therefore, if the born-again believer loses their salvation, the promises of eternal life in the Bible would be a pack of lies.
Jesus made this promise to all believers who turn to Him in faith:

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.  For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John6:39-40).

No if’s, not but’s, no hidden default clauses, no traditions of men to follow, no man-made rules to adhere to.  God keeps it simple.  Humans complicate things in order to control and manipulate.
I’m not about to call God a liar.  He is faithful and true and we can depend upon His promises.  Bottom line is that God is Sovereign, and He draws us to Him.  End of.
Concluding Summary:
I have been saved – in the past – from the penalty of sin – by a crucified Saviour: “For in this hope we were saved" (Romans 8:24). “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Romans 2:8).
I am being saved – in the present – from the power of sin – by a living Saviour: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
I shall be saved – in the future – from the presence of sin – by a coming Saviour: "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!"  (Romans 5:9)


Where is the sermon in a Mormon church service? So, I'm on vacation in Utah (and still compulsively thinking C.SE!), and so I attended an LDS service. In the morning, I heard a reading from one of the Presidents of the church during the "Quorum of the Elders," then went to Sunday School, and finally witnessed the Sacrement of the bread and water. (I guess it makes sense there was no wine, but it did make me go "Huh!") After that, there were testimonies from missionaries and some music - but nothing that struck me as a sermon.

Was I missing something, or was this an atypical service? I guess I was trying to understand what the "pastor"s role in the service was supposed to be - or again, is it just that Mormons are even more Baptist than baptists?

If someone could explain how instruction and exhortation are primarily conferred in the LDS church Id appreciate it.

I'm surprised this hasn't been asked here yet. Mormon services are a bit different, as you discovered. In the United States, there is generally a block of 3 meetings back-to-back including a sunday school, a mens' and women's time for instruction, and a sacrament meeting where the general congregation meets together. It sounds like the first meeting you attended was Priesthood meeting where the brothers study the words of scripture and modern Church leaders. Those classes usually have a single instructor each week. [Source]

Sacrament meeting is where any equivalence of a sermon would be heard. The primary difference between Mormon services and some others is the focal event of church meetings. The purpose behind holding a sacrament meeting is to take the sacrament and renew covenants made at baptism. The actual administration of the sacrament is the most sacred public meeting to Mormons. Hearing people speak and even interpersonal communion (socializing) is only secondary, though important. [Source]

Members of a ward, or local congregation, are invited to speak by the bishop or his counselors (the basic equivalent of a pastor) and will have some time to prepare a talk. Talks should draw from the scriptures, personal experience and testimony, and focus on the Savior. Note that comments made by church members over the pulpit at a sacrament meeting do not necessarily reflect the Church's official position on a topic or even Church doctrine.

The talks are meant to urge, inspire, and exhort all in attendance to come to Christ, to give them an opportunity to feel the power of the Spirit, and to strengthen their faith. Often, members will come with questions in their hearts and find answers in the words that day.

Counsel from leaders like a bishop sometimes occur over the pulpit, but usually this is private and individual, based on personal circumstances. The bishop and his counselors are supposed to meet with members regularly in interviews. There is no paid clergy, so all the service is volunteer.

Each member is also assigned two "home teachers" which visit their family once a month to share a gospel message, check on well-being, and be a friend and support especially when needed.  [Source]  In this way, instruction is given which might also help replace a typical sermon pattern. The bishop, his counselors, and others he calls on help organize these efforts. (It has also proven to be very quick and effective during disaster response, as home teachers immediately report in on who they teach, and bishops coordinate an effort if needed. [Source 1, Source 2)

So what you saw was apparently quite normal. Even once a month (the first Sunday), a fast and testimony meeting is held during sacrament meeting, where members forgo preparing talks and instead bear their testimonies about Christ and the gospel for the hour as they feel a desire to do so. Instruction is very member-to-member, you might say, but is guided by the direction of a bishop and other church leaders who also inspire and instruct. [Source]


What was Adolf von Harnack's case that Priscilla wrote Hebrews? One of the theories about the authorship of Hebrews is that Priscilla (the wife of Aquilla) wrote Hebrews.  While it is by no means universal (indeed many suggestions have been made), and at least in my estimation not even the most persuasive case, some have suggested female authorship for this epistle.

What factors, other than simple desire on the part of some that there is a female author in the Bible, led people like von Harnack to believe that Priscilla was the author.  While the wikipedia article mentions why a female name would have been blotted out, it doesn't really point to any evidence for the case.  What textual clues led von Harnack to even make the case?

The authorship of Hebrews cannot be known for certain, but we can know several things about the author.

The early church counted Hebrews among the letters of Paul, even though it does not bear Paul's name. Clement of Alexandria and Origen noted that the writing style did not match Paul's, but did not consider it a forgery. This indicates that they believed Hebrews contained teaching from Paul and likely was written by someone who traveled with him.
The author quotes extensively from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible) and has an extensive Greek vocabulary. This indicates a highly educated Jew who was also a Roman citizen.

The Book of Acts provides us with several names that fit this profile:

Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36)
Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew (Acts 18:24)
Aquila, native of Pontus (Acts 18:2)
Priscilla
Luke, the author of Acts

The original intended audience of Hebrews also may provide clues as to its authorship. Harnack (among others) suggested the original recipients were in Rome, for the following reasons:

Of all Paul's letters, Romans is the most similar to Hebrews in terms of its treatment of Jewish law and customs.
Second century Roman Christians quoted Hebrews much earlier than Christians in other locations.
The mention of the recipients' previous suffering, persecution, imprisonment, and confiscation of property (Hebrews 10:32-34) appears to be a reference to Nero's persecution of Christians after the fire in Rome.
The reference to "those from Italy send their greetings" in Hebrews 13:24 Harnack took to refer to Christians who had been exiled from Rome by Claudius (Acts 18:2)

If the letter was addressed to Roman Christians, Priscilla and Aquila are the most natural candidates for authorship. They had hosted a house church in Rome (Romans 16:3-5).

They were also known to have "explained the way of God more fully" to Apollos (Acts 18:24-26). Furthermore, the author of Hebrews sometimes uses the pronoun "I" and sometimes "we", which would make sense if Priscilla and Aquila both had a hand in organizing the material.

Finally, Harnack argued that because of the lower status given to most women in ancient times, Priscilla would have had a greater incentive to have written anonymously than any of the other possible authors. (Or alternatively, that the original recipients would have had a greater incentive to delete her name from the beginning of the letter before distributing it.)


Does Jesus say that he is God? Where in the Bible does Jesus actually say He is the LORD God and that men should worship Him?

Jesus says, in front of the scribes and Pharisees, something that they all plainly recognize, and it is something that they feel is worthy of killing him for "blasphemy" over.

What Jesus said is "Before Abraham was, I AM."  By saying this, Jesus called Himself, the LORD God Almighty, and the Jewish teachers, scribes and Pharisees recognized it immediately because they wanted to kill him because of it.

John 8:48-59King James Version (KJV)

48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

(stoning here was a method of capital punishment, and the fact that they began to do it, meant that they had judged what He said as worthy of death, since He had called Himself God.) King James Version (KJV)

(Before Abraham was, I AM is a direct reference to God as the Jews knew Him, and is how God expressed Himself when He spoke to Moses and told him whom to say, 'sent Moses' to Pharoh / Ramses)


Can a prospective Catholic convert skip the RCIA by self-teaching? Main Question: Can a prospective Catholic convert skip the RCIA by self-teaching the entire corpus of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Sub-questions: What parts of the RCIA would the prospective Catholic convert miss out? Would there be a rigorous factual examination of the CCC to confirm that the individual has truly read the material? Also, does the prospective convert really have to believe that the doctrines are true, or will the factual knowledge of the CCC be sufficient for baptism by the Catholic church?

From Code of Canon Law Can.  865 §1., for one to be baptized, one must have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of faith.

  Can.  865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have
  manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed
  sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian
  obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the
  catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for
  personal sins.

This has a basis in Church Tradition and history.

In the early Church those who desired to be baptized and become followers of Jesus engaged in a lengthy period of preparation and instruction.

  In the early Church those who desired to be baptized and become
  followers of Jesus engaged in a lengthy period of preparation and
  instruction. They were called “catechumens” and their process of
  initiation formed them in the ways of discipleship, incorporated them
  into the Christian community and culminated in the sacraments of
  initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist (Holy Communion). In
  recent years the Catholic Church has reclaimed this process now called
  the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, often referred to as the
  RCIA process. Initiation is a journey of conversion that is gradual
  and suited to individual needs. It is a process rather than an
  educational program and this process takes place within the community
  of the faithful, the local Church. - Source: A Look at the Christian Initiation Process | Diocese of Manchester.

The Church through her dioceses establishes a norm called RCIA to achieve this.

A good program in fidelity to the Church and her teaching will by must include the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I am not aware of a program within the Church where a prospective Catholic convert can skip the RCIA by self-teaching the entire corpus of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Since skipping RCIA is not an option, the Sub-questions have not been answered.


How much authority does a father have over his wife and children? Some people might claim that a wife must do what her husband says in every situation and they will site the Bible as it being the Divine order of things.

It does seem that the Bible gives authority to fathers over their wives and children but to what extent? What does the Bible say about the father's authority over the wife and the children?

Typically, the most prominent example of how "men should have authority over women" stems from Ephesians 5:22, in which Paul admonishes wives to submit to their husbands.
That said, a contextual reading will bear much fruit:

21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

In a nutshell, a few facts are pretty plain:

Husbands are to love their wives

Verse 21 & 22 can be read separately or independently

If one is going to base a headship claim in 5:23, then one cannot ignore 5:24 - 25 without being seriously inconsistent.

Traditionally, 5:22 is often read "Wives, submit to your husbands."  Note, this is not a blanket invitation to tyranny, however, as there is clearly an equal and separate obligation to the husband to love and care for his wife.
This has, especially as society at large has changed, led many theologians to read verse 21, not as a separate sentence, but as an introductory clause.  In the Greek, as there is no punctuation, it is this equally possible that the text reads as follows:

Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

This concept of mutual submission in love also squares well with the general concept of all being equal before a sovereign God.
Note, however, that an understanding of "headship" is by no means universal across denominations.  Even within the Catholic Church, there is a wide spectrum of understanding what exactly the rights and responsibilities of authority entail.
Regardless of the exact nature of authority, however, it is also important to understand that any right of authority is, by definition to be tempered with love.  While it would be easy to point out that Ephesians 6 picks up the theme saying, "Fathers, do not exasperate your children,"  I'd suggest rather that there is more fruit to be had in looking at what love means.
Love, in 1 Corinthians 13, is pretty straightforward:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Even if one chooses to equate headship with authority, the fact that it is to be exercised in love should naturally proscribed certain abuses inconsistent with love in any event.