Is there any evidence to support the authenticity of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

Just from a cursory examination of the subject it appears that none of the bodies which gathered to consider the canon of scripture - the Catholic gathering at the Council of Trent in 1546, the Church of England's convocation resulting in the thirty-nine articles in 1563 and again resulting in the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647, and the Orthodox counsels at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 - none of these even considered, it would seem, the supposed 'testaments' of the twelve patriarchs.

This would indicate either that there was general agreement that the documents did not deserve consideration to be added to the canon of scripture, or else that the documents did not then exist (in whatever is their present form) until after the seventeenth century.

Since neither Jesus Christ nor any of the apostles' validated writings quote from the documents, or make reference to the documents as such (in the way in which evident reference is made to the Septuagint and to the 'law and the prophets' and to Isaiah and so forth) this would again point towards either rejection of their authenticity (or value) or to their non-existence at the time of the apostolic writings, in the form in which they have now been presented.


Are there any Tridentine Rite Catholic communities that also use the Liturgical Calendar of 1970?

To the best of my knowledge, the decree "Summorum Pontificum" designating the (more-or-less) traditional rite as the "extraordiary form" of the Roman rite says that it must be celebrated according to the liturgy and calendar of 1962.


What Bible passage does this $1,000,000 dollar bill reference?

The first part is short for John 3:16 which reads (KJV):

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The second part is short for Do You Believe, with 3 in the place of E, and is asked in reference to the aforementioned verse.

The second part is referring to the invitation to believe on Jesus for eternal life, asking, "Do you believe?"


When did the LDS church begin teaching the Word of Wisdom?

In January 1833, a group called the "School of the Prophets" began meeting in a small second-story room in the Newel K. Whitney store in Kirtland, Ohio. Brigham Young reported later that Joseph Smith felt that there was something wrong with  teaching of elevated truths in a thick cloud of tobacco smoke, and his wife Emma couldn't get the floor adequately clean from tobacco spittings.  He apparently felt strongly enough to make it a matter of prayer, and the Word of Wisdom was written on February 27, 1833. It was then presented as divine counsel, not a binding commandment. It was first published as Section 89  of the the "Doctrine and Covenants, of the Church of the Latter Day Saints" in 1835 as  and its observance thereafter was strongly encouraged but not considered obligatory until about 1921. The linked article on the Word of Wisdom on the Church History section of LDS Church web site refers to original documents.


The bible is pretty clear.

John 16:7 (NLT)
But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don't,
the Advocate won't come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you.

Jesus left so that the Holy Spirit would come.


Looking for the source of a Cardinal Ratziger quote regarding the liturgy

The following occurs in Joseph Ratzinger: Collected Works Vol 11, Theology of the Liturgy, p.568, quoting a paper given by the then Cardinal which is cited as "Translated by Henry Taylor. From Alcuin Reid OSB, ed., Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger: Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference (Farnborough, Eng.: St Michael's Abbey Press, 2003), 145–53." JRCW is published by Ignatius Press.

For the future, we ought to think—it seems to me—in terms of enriching the Missal of 1962 by introducing some new saints; there are now some important figures among the saints—I am thinking, for example, of Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, the martyrs of Spain, the martyrs of the Ukraine, and so many others—but I am also thinking of that little Bakhita in the Sudan, who came from slavery and came to freedom in her faith in the Lord; there are many really lovely figures whom we all need. Thus, opening up the calendar of the old Missal to new saints, making a well thought-out choice of these, that seems to me something that would be appropriate at present and would not have any destructive effect on the fabric of the liturgy. We might also think about the Prefaces, which also come from the storehouse of wealth in the Church Fathers, for Advent, for example, and then others; why not insert those Prefaces into the old Missal?
Thus, with great sensitivity and by showing a great deal of understanding for people's fears and preoccupations, maintaining contact with their leaders, we should be able to understand that this Missal is also a Missal of the Church and under the authority of the Church, that it is not an object preserved from the past, but a living reality within the Church, very much respected in its particular identity and for its historical stature, but also considered as something that is living and not as a dead thing, a relic of the past. The whole liturgy of the Church is always a living thing, a reality that is found above us and is not subject to our decisions and our arbitrary intentions.

This does not explicitly show that users of the 1962 Missal (or earlier versions; the Cardinal is explicit elsewhere in his rejection of discontinuity) should adopt the 1969 calendar wholesale, as the question assumes. But it does point clearly to his assertion earlier in the article that the 1962 Missal should not simply be abrogated:

What was until 1969 the liturgy of the Church, the most sacred thing for all of us, cannot become after 1969—with an incredible positivism—the most unacceptable thing. If we want to be credible, even with this slogan of modernity, we absolutely must recognize that what was fundamental before 1969 remains fundamental afterward: the realm of the sacral is the same, the liturgy is the same.

While this clearly led to Summorum Pontificum, the Cardinal (as Pope Benedict XVI) did not enact his prior ideas of a limited reform of the associated calendar.


What would the Catholic Church's hierarchy look like without the Vatican?

Most of the cardinals don't live (most of the time) in the neighborhood of the Vatican. So, probably, once the Church as a whole got over the shock, they'd convene the college of cardinals in some appropriate place and elect a new Pope.

Now if (as Caleb hypothesizes in his comment) the college of cardinals were largely or entirely wiped out as well, then we'd probably need to appoint new cardinals. Typically, of course, this is reserved for the Pope; but in this case we'd obviously have to work in a new way.  One might consider the Code of Canon Law:

  Can. [i.e. Canon] 335. When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.
  Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer [sic, i.e. "over"] the universal Church.

Now it's arguable whether this is enough to allow the college of bishops to appoint cardinals if the see is vacant and there are none; but I'm guessing that it probably is.

It's highly unlikely that all the cardinals would be in Rome at once; I'm not sure that they always are even for a conclave. If there are any cardinals at all left, the college of bishops might only have to indicate that the restriction on voting for cardinals over the age of 80 has been lifted; then a new conclave can be called. If there are no cardinals left at all, then as I said I think you could use Canons 335 and 336, or something similar, to argue that the college of bishops must in these extraordinary circumstances receive the ability sede vacante to appoint new cardinals. From there the process would proceed as usual.

A council of bishops might be needed to determine where the Holy See would be, but the new Pope would be able to appoint new heads of the various congregations and the other structures of the Holy See. It would certainly be a great blow to the Church, but the Church has a widely dispersed power structure and would be able to pick itself up fairly easily, I think.

One other note: I'm not familiar with the governance of the Eastern Catholic Churches, nor with the canon law regarding them, so I've left them out; but presumably their patriarchs would not have been affected by a catastrophe such as you imagine. Unless you want to specify that there were quite a number of simultaneous catastrophes in different places.


Why is Jesus very implicit regarding his identity?

By providing an extensive list of passages to buttress the legitimacy of your question you show yourself astute in biblical matters.
Rather than attempting to wow you with a list of my own, I will simply suggest three inescapable principles behind Jesus's modus operandi regarding his identity.

Jesus was guided in each of his waking hours by his Father. What his Father wanted him to do, he did.

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him (John 8:29 KJV).

If Jesus seems at times to be hedging, the reason is that he is being led by his Father to do so.

Dovetailing with the above reason are the times when Jesus neither said nor did anything which would unnecessarily alter the timetable regarding his glorification at the cross. In Cana of Galilee where Jesus performed his first public miracle, he said to his mother,

“Woman,[The Greek for Woman does not denote any disrespect.] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come" (John 2:4 NIV).

That pre-miracle comment by Jesus was a teaching moment, in which he cautions his mother against being out of step, so to speak, with his Father's will. Jesus went on, of course, to perform the miracle, but the cautionary remark to his mother was to appear in different forms and situations throughout his public ministry, leading up to the cross. For example,

Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ (Matthew 16:20).

Interestingly, as if to explain why he cautioned his disciples against revealing his Messiahship, we then read in the next verse in Matthew 16,

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

In other words, while Jesus's face was set like a flint going toward Jerusalem (see Isaiah 50:7 NKJV), the timing of his final arrival in the city of Peace was perhaps just as important as his determination to get there.

Jesus's modus operandi included instances in which he was deliberately cryptic, primarily, I believe, to weed out the looky-loos and hypocrites from the truly sincere and committed followers. What you could call a proof text for this assertion is found in Matthew 13 (cf. also Mark 4 and Luke 8):

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive . . .(vss. 13-14).

If Jesus seems to have been a bit cagey about his identity, which I personally believe he was not, really, he may have been because he never engaged in braggadocio or cockalorum. In the instances in which he was more direct in revealing his identity, he meant to get his audiences to think seriously about the implications for them regarding his Deity and Messiahship. He had no need to trumpet his greatness, as did Mohammed Ali in my day, who said frequently, "I am the greatest."


It's clear that God formed our bodies in our mothers' wombs.

  Job 31:15 NIV

  Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one
  form us both within our mothers?

  Isaiah 44:24

  “This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the
  womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the
  heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself,

  Psalm 139:13

  For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s
  womb.

There really is no more scripture other then this one mention of God knowing us prior to our earthly state. Here is the one mention.

  Jeremiah 1:5

  “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I
  set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

This mention could easily be interpreted that God is not limited by time, thus could very well have known exactly how He wanted to create you.

I would say that it boils down to this. God created mankind on earth, thus He created their souls at the same time.

  Isaiah 45:12

  It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands
  stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.


What is the Justification of a priest acting in persona Christi?

In the Person of Christ

In the Catholic Church, the priest serving at the altar is considered to be acting in persona Christi Capitis, that is, "in the person of Christ, the Head [of the Church]." By this, the Church means that the priest and the bishop, when they carry out their priestly functions, do so as Christ's representatives (Benedict XVI, Munus docendi, General Audience, 14 September 2010). The belief that the priest acts in persona Christi Capitis  when carrying out the sacraments is old. There are dozens of excellent teachings from the Popes on this subject.

Pope Benedict XVI was careful to point out that priests do not represent Christ as if he was absent, for Christ is always present in the Church, but rather, the priest represents Christ as Christ represented the Father (Munus docendi, paragraphs 2, 3). Consider that Jesus "... is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being..." Hebrews 1:3a. (All Bible passages are taken from the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, of the Bible.) Also, "He is the image of the invisible God..." Colossians 1:15. Jesus, speaking about his teaching, said, "My teaching is not my own but his who sent me" (John 7:16). Moreover, in his High Priestly prayer, Jesus stated to the Father, with respect to his apostles who were soon to face severe trials upon his arrest and execution:

  Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; for the
  words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received
  them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed
  that you sent me. John 17:7-8.

Speaking to his apostles, Jesus said, "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" Luke 10:16. Because Jesus is truly present in and with his apostles as they teach and make disciples, wherever they go (Matthew 28:16-20), any act for or against the apostle is an act for or against Jesus. (In a way, Matthew 28:16-20 applies to all believers, which is why Jesus could say to Saul on the Damascus Road in Acts 9:4, "Why are you  persecuting me?" Nevertheless, Jesus did not give all believers the authority that he gave the apostles in Luke 10:16, nor are all believers called to the ministerial priesthood.)

Furthermore, Jesus gave his apostles his own authority over sin when He said:
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20:21-23.

We can see this reflected in St. Paul's second letter to the Church at Corinth, when he wrote, "Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:10). The phrase "in the presence" uses the Greek word prosōpon (pros=towards; ops=an eye, literally, towards the eye or face), which can be translated as appearance, presence, or person. Modern English translations of this passage mostly use "in the presence of Christ," but many older English translations used "in the person of Christ" (for example, the King James and Douay-Rheims translations). The idea St. Paul gives is that Christ is truly present in the act of forgiving the sinner. That is, Christ forgave the sinner through Paul for the sake of the sinner and for the sake of the Corinthian Church.

Finally, returning to the High Priestly prayer, Jesus told the Father that he had imparted the glory of the Father to all believers, and he prayed for perfect unity of all believers with each other and with the Father and the Son, as the Father and the Son unite perfectly in each other.

  ... that they all [all believers in Christ] may be one. As you,
  Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us,so that the
  world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given
  me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in
  them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the
  world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you
  have loved me. John 17:21-23.

Thus, returning to Pope Benedict XVI, "The Lord makes his own action present in the person who carries out these gestures [the priestly consecration of bread and wine at Eucharist, absolution for sins]" Munus docendi, paragraph 4. In other words, the priest is not the ambassador of a distant king, but being united fully with Christ in his office as priest, Christ is in the priest, and the work of the priest is the work of Christ, not symbolically, but in reality, because of the mystical union of the priest at the altar with Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), the specific paragraphs you should read are 1548 – 1551; however, the context for those four paragraphs is in paragraphs 1539 – 1553, and you might want to read all of them (about 4.5 printed pages in my copy of the Catechism).

  1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ
  himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of
  his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth.
  This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of
  the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:

    "It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister
    truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal
    consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high
    priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of
    the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi)."

    "Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was
    a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person
    of Christ."

  CCC, paragraph 1548.

Paragraph 1548 cites Lumen Gentium, paragraphs 10 and 28; Sacrosanctum concilium, paragraph 33; Christus Dominus, paragraph 11; and Presbyterorum ordinis, paragraphs 2 and 6, as authority for that statement. Moreover, the first block quoted passage in paragraph 1548 comes from Acta Apostolicae Sedis, volume 39 (1947), page 548, which cites St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, 22, 4c. The second block quoted passage in paragraph 1548, cites the same section from Summa Theologica. Furthermore, almost identical language is used by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei, which is referred to with respect to the quotes from Summa Theologica.

In CCC 1549, the Catechism explains that priests and bishops are the visible sign of the presence of Christ as head of the church "... in the midst of the community of believers", citing Lumen Gentium, paragraph 21. In this paragraph, the Catechism also refers to St. Ignatius of Antioch's statement that the bishop is "the living image of God the Father" (citations omitted).

As paragraph 1550 of CCC makes clear, the human minister is not preserved from all sin, error, or human weakness. Rather, in all of the sacraments, the Holy Spirit guarantees "... that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace..." In his other acts, the minister is not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be free of human weakness and may "... leave[] human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church" (CCC 1550).

As I stated, there are numerous teachings on this subject by various popes and doctors of the Church. Much of the material is available on the Vatican website in English. Various Catholic apologetics sites also have bits and pieces of this material. I pulled from all of them in assembling this answer. I hope it helps answer your question adequately.

In Christ,
Hreodbeorht


Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a five-point Calvinist?

There is no doubt but that Spurgeon was a five point Calvinist:

http://weecalvin1509.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/chsindex.html

Spurgeon's own quotes affirming all the 5 points together and each of the 5 points individually. As for Andrew Fuller - In the foreward of his book on the Sovereignty of God, AW Pink described Fuller as "eminent and honored." See:

http://weecalvin1509.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/carey.html

Hope this helps.


When and how was the doctrine of the one divine will established?

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390) in his Fourth Theological Oration gives an early defence for the doctrine of the one divine will. The context of this paragraph is John 6:38.

  Let them quote in the seventh place that The Son came down from Heaven, not to do His own Will, but the Will of Him That sent Him.  Well, if this had not been said by Himself Who came down, we should say that the phrase was modelled as issuing from the Human Nature, not from Him who is conceived of in His character as the Saviour, for His Human Will cannot be opposed to God, seeing it is altogether taken into God; but conceived of simply as in our nature, inasmuch as the human will does not completely follow the Divine, but for the most part struggles against and resists it.  For we understand in the same way the words, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; Nevertheless let not what I will but Thy Will prevail.  For it is not likely that He did not know whether it was possible or not, or that He would oppose will to will.  But since, as this is the language of Him Who assumed our Nature (for He it was Who came down), and not of the Nature which He assumed, we must meet the objection in this way, that the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own, besides that of the Father, but that He has not; so that the meaning would be, “not to do Mine own Will, for there is none of Mine apart from, but that which is common to, Me and Thee; for as We have one Godhead, so We have one Will.”  For many such expressions are used in relation to this Community, and are expressed not positively but negatively; as, e.g., God giveth not the Spirit by measure, for as a matter of fact He does not give the Spirit to the Son, nor does He measure It, for God is not measured by God; or again, Not my transgression nor my sin.  The words are not used because He has these things, but because He has them not.  And again, Not for our righteousness which we have done, for we have not done any.  And this meaning is evident also in the clauses which follow.  For what, says He, is the Will of My Father?  That everyone that believeth on the Son should be saved, and obtain the final Resurrection.  Now is this the Will of the Father, but not of the Son?  Or does He preach the Gospel, and receive men’s faith against His will?  Who could believe that?  Moreover, that passage, too, which says that the Word which is heard is not the Son’s but the Father’s has the same force.  For I cannot see how that which is common to two can be said to belong to one alone, however much I consider it, and I do not think any one else can.  If then you hold this opinion concerning the Will, you will be right and reverent in your opinion, as I think, and as every right-minded person thinks.


What is the origin of hands lifting in worship?

It goes all the way back to Genesis 29:35 at least with Leah raising her hands in praise to YHWH in naming Judah. As a Biblical Hebrew professor thinking in Hebrew, I find the Old Testament full of hand raising. After the most frequent verb for spoken praise HaLeL (Strong's #1984 & 8416), the word most translated (53 times) as "praise" is the verb YaDaH (Strong's #3034) derived from the word for hand/forearm YaD (Strong's #3027). It's also translated (40 times) as "thank" and (18 times) as "confess".

Praise has always been demonstrated physically as well as verbally, even though often religiously repressed. I was worried of being branded as a heretic when I first tried it in my Baptist church, but it caught on like it was the most natural way to express praise. Once freed, the congregations I've been a part of haven't gone back to suppression. Good enough reason to get your hands up.


How is the LDS churches belief on a pre-mortal existence different than other Christian religions?

Most Christians believe that your spirit is created the same time as your body when you are conceived (or sometimes born depending on who you ask). LDS believe that before the Earth was even created, everyone's spirit was already created and we all lived together with heavenly father as spirit children. When we are conceived on Earth, our spirits enter the body. LDS also believe that we are literally spirit children of God the Father and are literally spiritually related to each other. LDS also believe that Jesus Christ is our oldest spirit brother (the first born of God) and that even Lucifer (Satan) was also our brother. There are a lot more. If you really want to know more, tackle one of those missionaries as they ride past on their 10 speeds and ask more. It really is an interesting concept even if you don't believe in other Mormon doctrine.


Complementing Kris's and Nigel's answer, I'd like to add 2 resources; one is an answer to a similar question from gotquestions.org.  Another is from an exegetical commentary on Philippians by Dr. Bob Utley.  Commentary on the phrase "and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name" of Phil 2:9-11

  “and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name” This special exalted name is “Lord” (cf. v. 11). The verb (echarisato) in v. 9 means “graciously given” as in 1:29. The term “Lord” is an allusion to the OT covenant name for God, YHWH (cf. Exod. 3:14; 6:3), which the Jews were afraid to pronounce lest they break one of the Ten Commandments (cf. Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11). Therefore, they substituted the name Adon, which meant Lord, owner, husband. Jesus, who came in the form of a servant, was returned to His cosmic Lordship (cf. John 17:5; Col. 1:15–20). “Jesus is Lord” was the public, personal confession of faith for the early Church (cf. Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:3). Jesus of Nazareth is given the supreme title of deity (cf. Eph. 1:21 and Heb. 1:4).

In both of the above resources as well as in Kris's & Nigel's answer, the name is Lord (Greek Adon), which in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament signifies the God of Israel (there are countless texts where the same word is used for God).

This is the highest name (a.k.a title) that a being can have.  God the Father gave this title & honor to Jesus because he was obedient to death, and not only raised him from the dead but also places him at his right hand side (another sign of honor; no other being is honored thus, higher than angels, see Heb 1).

Within the book of Philippians, the above phrase is part of an early Christian hymn that Paul quoted in his letter to the Philippian church (which he founded) to encourage them (and us) as Christians to emulate (see the larger context of Phil 2:1-11).


How can a particular trade of modern times get a patron saint?

In 2002 the Church selected St. Isidore of Seville to be the official patron of computer programmers.

Write a simple letter laying out the reasons why a particular saint would be a good patron for a profession, industry, or hobby and find co-signatories. Then begin sending your letter to Rome. In a big institution there are lots of doors and you should knock on all of them repeatedly. As appropriate try:

Pontifical Council for the Laity: www.laici.va
Pontifical Council for the Family: www.familia.va
Pontifical Council for Culture: www.cultura.va
Pontifical Council for Social Communications: www.pccs.va
The Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization Year of Faith: www.annusfidei.va
Pontifical Academy of Sciences: www.casinapioiv.va
Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences: www.pass.va
Congregation for the Causes of Saints: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/

Also write to your bishop's office.

As for a place to find cosignatories, you might try a place where likeminded folks are likely to be present. I work in IT and know what you mean - there aren't that many Christians running around, and few of us are Catholic. But where is the intersection? Set logic:

Catholic /\ IT = IT workers at Catholic institutions?

Try canvassing computer science departments, IT and IS departments, and so on at local Catholic schools, hospitals, Catholic Charities, etc. Contact them with a brief intro to gauge interest.

Maybe build an online petition they can sign and submit it, with all due respect, to the possibly relevant departments. Make noise. And be patient. Nothing moves quickly in Rome.

But then, since computer scientists already have at least one patron saint, maybe we're all cool.

St. Isidore of Seville, pray for us.


Do Mormons believe that marriage is eternal?

Not automatically, but Latter-Day Saints do believe that marriage, and the family unit that it forms the foundation of, can and should be a sacred, eternal covenant that lasts "for time and all eternity" rather than simply "till death do you part."  Like other things of this life that touch on eternity, an eternal marriage has to be set up under Priesthood authority.  This is done in a holy temple, in a ceremony known as a sealing, where the marriage is "sealed" upon them under the same authority that was given to Peter in the New Testament, that what he should bind on earth would be bound in heaven.

This can be done as part of a wedding ceremony, or at a later point if the couple was already married before coming to the temple.  In the latter case, it is also possible to bring any children of theirs into the same covenant, to be sealed to their parents as an eternal family.  (This is not necessary for children born after the parents are sealed in marriage; they are considered "born under the covenant".)

See LDS article on Marriage


Do any early Church Fathers record the event of the ceasing of spiritual gifts?

As bradimus has indicated, this is a tricky issue, because projecting the modern debate of cessationism vs. continuationism onto church fathers is anachronistic.  That said, some figures in the early church do talk about or infer a decline or end in at least some types supernatural occurrences, sometimes to what are often referred to as "spiritual gifts."
For this answer I'm leaning on two books for sources.  The first, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, is written by a continuationist, Ronald A. N. Kydd.  The second, Counterfeit Miracles, is by cessationist B. B. Warfield.  They actually agree that spiritual gifts came to an end during the early church period, though they disagree on precisely when – Kydd suggests the middle of the third century, while Warfield argues for the first century.
We'll look at two categories of evidence – early church figures who indicate signs of a decline in supernatural gifts, followed by those who say that they have ended.
Decline
Kydd identifies two third-century figures who indicate that the use of spiritual gifts, once common and accepted, had begun to decline.  The first is Cyprian, who relates objections to dreams and visions in his Epistle to Florentius Pupianus (no. 68, dated to about AD 254):

For I remember what has already been manifested to me, nay, what has been prescribed by the authority of our Lord and God to an obedient and fearing servant; and among other things which He condescended to show and to reveal, He also added this:  “Whoso therefore does not believe Christ, who maketh the priest, shall hereafter begin to believe Him who avengeth the priest.” Although I know that to some men dreams seem ridiculous and visions foolish, yet assuredly it is to such as would rather believe in opposition to the priest, than believe the priest. (§10, emphasis added)

The second writer is more explicit.  In several places in Against Celsus (AD 248), Origen refers to "traces" of workings of the Holy Spirit:

And there are still preserved among Christians traces of that Holy Spirit which appeared in the form of a dove.  They expel evil spirits, and perform many cures, and foresee certain events, according to the will of the Logos. (1.46)
For they have no longer prophets nor miracles, traces of which to a considerable extent are still found among Christians, and some of them more remarkable than any that existed among the Jews; and these we ourselves have witnessed, if our testimony may be received. (2.8)
Moreover, the Holy Spirit gave signs of His presence at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, and after His ascension He gave still more; but since that time these signs have diminished, although there are still traces of His presence in a few who have had their souls purified by the Gospel, and their actions regulated by its influence. (7.8)

Thus we see that both of these authors believed that visible supernatural workings of the Spirit were still occurring in their day, but they indicate that a decline had taken place.
End
B. B. Warfield cites several authors who speak of an end to supernatural gifts, two of which are Augustine (354–430) and Chrysostom (349–407).  In On the Profit of Believing, Augustine lists a variety of miracles done by Jesus, and says:

Why, say you, do not those things take place now? because they would not move, unless they were wonderful, and, if they were usual, they would not be wonderful. [...] They were done at a very suitable time, in order that, by these a multitude of believers having been gathered together and spread abroad, authority might be turned with effect upon habits. (§34)

Similarly, in On True Religion, 25.47:

When the Catholic Church had been founded and diffused throughout the whole world, on the one hand miracles were not allowed to continue till our time, lest the mind should always seek visible things, and the human race should grow cold by becoming accustomed to things which when they were novelties kindled its faith. (Augustine: Earlier Writings, Library of Christian Classics, 248)

In his Retractions, written significantly later in life, Augustine qualifies these statements, though he still says that some gifts have disappeared, specifically mentioning tongues and some healings:

For not even now, when a hand is laid on the baptized, do they receive the Holy Spirit in such a way that they speak with the tongues of all nations; nor are the sick now healed by the passing shadow of the preachers of Christ.  Even though such things happened at that time, manifestly these ceased later. (1.12.7)

Warfield identifies numerous places that Chrysostom refers to the ceasing of miracles.  For example:

Why, saith one, are there not now those who raise the dead, and perform cures? Yes, then, why, I say: why are there not now those who have a contempt for this present life? Do we serve God for hire? When man’s nature was weaker, when the Faith had to be planted, there were even many such; but now he would not have us to hang upon these signs, but to be ready for death. [...] For this cause it is that there are none such now; because that (future) life hath seemed to us honorless, seeing that for its sake we do nothing, whilst for this there is nothing we refuse to undergo. (Homily 8 on Colossians)
Even now there are some that seek them and say, Why do not miracles take place also at this present time? If you are faithful, as you ought to be, and lovest Christ as you ought to love Him, you have no need of signs, they are given to the unbelievers. (Homily 25 on John)

But, as mentioned in the beginning, we have to be careful not to conclude too much.  Warfield writes:

Chrysostom fairly teems with expressions implying that miracle-working of every kind had ceased [...] and yet he records instances from his day! (47)

Conclusion
We see here several prominent examples of early church writers who indicate both a decline and end to visible workings of the Holy Spirit, such as prophecy, healings, and tongues.  But we must be cautious so as not to conclude too much on this evidence alone.  Warfield writes of the challenges involved:

It is a very disturbing fact further that the very Fathers who record long lists of miracles contemporary with themselves, yet betray a consciousness that miracles had nevertheless, in some sense or other, ceased with the Apostolic age. (46)

On the other hand, Ronald Kydd is comfortable marking an end of the period of charismatic gifts, based on this and other evidence.  He writes:

[In the first half of the third century] it is clear that the importance granted to spiritual gifts was passing. [...] There came a point around AD 260 at which they no longer fitted in the highly organized, well-educated, wealthy, socially-powerful Christian communities. (87)


On what basis is Genesis 1 said to be Hebrew poetry?

Genesis 1 is constrained writing, and most poetry is a kind of constrained writing. My guess is that this is what has led a lot of people to say that Genesis 1 is a kind of poetry. But not all constrained writing is poetry, and Genesis 1 is very dissimilar from the typical Hebrew poetry of the rest of the Bible (ie., the Psalms, most of the prophets etc.)

To explain how Genesis 1 is constrained writing, I'll quote this list from John Dickson explaining all the ways in which the number seven and multiples of seven are used in the chapter:

  The first sentence has 7 Hebrew words
  The second sentence has 14 Hebrew words
  The words for 'earth' and 'heaven' each occur 21 times
  God is mentioned 35 times
  'and it was so' occurs 7 times
  'God saw that it was good' occurs 7 times
  The chapter is structured around 7 days

The number seven symbolises wholeness and perfection, the very quality of the completed creation. Genesis 1 reinforces the goodness of the creation both through what it teaches, but also how it teaches, using these subtle (and invisible in English translations) constraints on its writing.


What is the origin of the Catholic Pope in the Bible?

The section "Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in blessed Peter" of the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Pastor Æternus) quotes these Scripture verses:

  We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: 'Thou shalt be called Cephas,' [St. John 1:42] that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' [St. Matthew 16:16] addressed these solemn words: 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.'[St. Matthew 16:17-19] And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after his resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words: 'Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.' [St. John 21:15-17] At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.

St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, the greatest Doctor of ecclesiology, wrote a De Romano Pontifice or On the Roman Pontiff (part of his De Controversiis or On the Controversies series) in which he shows—in more detail, against the errors and heresies of Calvin, Luther, et al.—how the above scriptural verses support the papacy.


According to the Protestant denominations that hold to the doctrine of clarity of scripture, is trinitarianism clear?

The section of the Westminster Confession you have quoted, Chapter I, section VII, explains how there is no limiting factor within the scripture, regarding those things necessary for salvation, which gives advantage to the learned over the unlearned.
Just prior to that Chapter 1 Section VI reads (in part):

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.(m) Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word

And again in Section X:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

In short the spiritual truths necessarily relating to our salvation are spiritual truths recorded in a physical media and are thus to be discerned in both ways.  The natural man cannot, by nature alone, apprehend the things of the Spirit:

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Cor 2:12-14

For one example, Peter confessed Jesus to be the Son of the Living God and Jesus declared that Peter did not come by that knowledge through flesh and blood.  Another example is Nicodemus' complete ignorance regarding the new birth even though he was 'the' teacher of Israel.
Trinitarian belief is necessary for salvation (according to Trinitarians) for two major reasons outlined in the confession:

Chapter VII, section 1 - The gulf between Holy God and creature is so unbridgeable and immense to man that reconciliation must be an act of God:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although
reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet
they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and
reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He
hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

Chapter VIII, section II - Jesus Christ is that voluntary condescension of God, taking upon Himself the nature of a created being to accomplish as a man and for mankind, what man is utterly incapable of doing:

The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

The Holy Spirit is said to be eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son in Chapter II, section III:

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

This is that Spirit that searches all things, even the deep things of God; who has been sent into the world to convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgement; severally referred to as the Spirit of God, the Spirit from God, the Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Christ and who dwelt in the flesh of Jesus without measure.  This same Spirit was present and active in creation, inspired and illuminates Scripture to human hearts, regenerates and adopts the lost, lives and strives within the redeemed to produce conformity to Christ, and guarantees the inheritance.  It is the same eternal Spirit by which Christ offered Himself without blemish to God on our behalf and who Jesus promised to send to be with us and in us forever.
Simply put Trinitarians are convinced from Scripture by natural apprehension and spiritual illumination of what is written that a Jesus who is not the only begotten Son of God, the Logos who was God in the beginning and never ceased to be God during the incarnation, is not capable of providing salvation to all mankind because the chasm between God and Man is uncrossable to Man.  Therefore trinitarian belief is considered necessary for salvation because a merely human Jesus cannot save and man, unaided by the Holy Spirit, cannot apprehend salvation.
This is not to say that full doctrinal understanding is necessary in advance.  Indeed, all (in whatever condition they currently exist) who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.  Following the new birth, however, the Holy Spirit will never illuminate scripture and enable understanding of that which is untrue.  A saved individual, then, who from a sincere heart desires to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ can reasonably expect, over time through prayer, study, and a heart of obedience, to increase in apprehension of the Triune God.


Jehovah's Witnesses claim Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE. What is the evidence?

This exact question was posed by a reader of the Watchtower magazine published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
It led to the printing of a two-part article: When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?
Part one main points are
“Seventy Years” for Whom?
When Did “the Seventy Years” Start?
When Did “the Seventy Years” End?
Classical Historians —How Accurate?
The Canon of Ptolemy
The Conclusion Based on This Evidence
Part 2 main points are
What the Clay Documents Really Show
Why Trust the Bible?
As time permits I will return to add a salient point of interest from each of the above headings.

Part 1: Watchtower, October 1, 2011, page 26
Part 2: Watchtower, November 1, 2011, page 22


What are other explanations for Malachi 4:5-6?

The Bible teaches that the Spirit of Elijah would be sent to the earth a total of 5 times (5 is the number of grace1). By Spirit of Elijah, I mean God's spirit anointing a man to bring a message, in the same way that the first Elijah was anointed (a straight shooter, hard hitter, come out of the wilderness, etc).

First, Elijah Himself

An examination of Elijah's traits may be beyond the scope of this question. If requested, I can revisit later.

Second - Elisha

  II Kings 2:9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that
  Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be
  taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double
  portion of thy spirit be upon me.

  II Kings 2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at
  Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha.
  And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before
  him.

Third - John the Baptist (Forerunner to Jesus' First Coming)

  Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the
  way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his
  temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in:
  behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

  Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,
  to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient
  to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the
  Lord.

  Matthew 7:11-13 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly
  shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That
  Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him
  whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of
  them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Fourth - Forerunner to Jesus' Second Coming

Reading Malachi 3 as referring to John the Baptist's fore-running of Jesus' first coming, Malachi 4 can be read as another fore-runner preparing the way for Jesus' second coming. This man will turn the hearts of the children (the believer's of today) to the original faith preached by the early church apostles (fathers), just as John turned the hearts of the fathers of Israel to the "children" that received his message of the coming Christ. Malachi 4:5 predicts that this messenger will come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord, and if his message is rejected, the earth will be smitten with a curse.

Luke 1:17 specifically states that John would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children (Jesus' first coming), but does not include the Malachi 4:5 reference to turning the hearts of the children to the fathers (Jesus' second coming). This is similar to how Jesus, in the synagogue, began to read from Isaiah 61:1-2, but stopped halfway through verse 2 before he got to "and the day of vengeance of our God". He would fulfill that part of that verse at his second coming, but not his first.

Fifth - One of the Two Witnesses to Israel

  REVELATION 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they
  shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in
  sackcloth.

See my response to this related question: Who Are the Two Witnesses?

To briefly summarize that more detailed response, the characteristics of the two witnesses are so similar to Moses and Elijah that we can conclude that the anointing of the two witnesses will be the same that was with Moses and Elijah. This is the fifth and final time that the spirit and power of Elijah will be manifest on earth.

1 See EW Bullinger's Number in Scripture, on the number five.


According to Catholicism, can you hit someone in self defence?

Yes, especially if someone is trying to kill you.
On the Vatican's website it states:

Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."


What is the current Catholic church's view on Haitian Vodou?

The voodoo is frowned upon by the Catholic Church, but (in practice) it is tolerated as many other pagan practices, especially in underdeveloped countries.
This is what We call "religious syncretism".

In 2011, Benedict XVI blasted "occultism and evil spirits" in an audience of priests, seminarians, religious and laity in the St. Gall Seminary in Ouidah.

  "The love for the God who reveals himself and for his word, the love
  for the sacraments and the church, are an efficacious antidote against
  a syncretism which deceives,” the pope said this morning in Ouidah.

  “This love favors the correct integration of the authentic values of
  cultures into the Christian faith,” he said. “It liberates from
  occultism and vanquishes evil spirits, for it is moved by the power of
  the Holy Spirit.”

  When John Paul II visited Benin in 1993, his trip coincided with a
  major national celebration of the country's voodoo heritage titled
  "Ouidah 92." The pope met a voodoo high priest, with a picture of that
  encounter splashed across the front page of L'Osservatore Romano, the
  daily Vatican newspaper.

  That encounter has long been controversial in more traditional
  Catholic circles, who regarded it as tantamount to a papal endorsement
  of heterodox worship. On this trip, Benedict has expressed admiration
  for elements of traditional African religion, but has also been
  careful to condemn "syncretism" and to condemn what he sees as its
  negative elements.


Who was the first person on record who was killed by a Christian or group of Christians for religious disagreements?

Your question starts with a couple of assumptions that don't hold up.  First, the earliest Christians had plenty of heated disagreements, starting with doctrinal conflicts over the extent to which the Law of Moses was binding (or not) on Gentile believers.  Chapter 15 of Acts, and the whole of Paul's letter to the church at Galatia, record those issues.  Second, even at the peak of the Inquisitions, only a very small percentage of accused heretics were sentenced to death.

(Please note, I bring these up not to justify anything -- even one killing by the church for heresy was one too many.  I just want to correct some common misconceptions, ones that I used to share until I dug more deeply into the facts.)

That said, the specific you're seeking, THE first person to die for heresy, may be a detail lost to history.  Based on my own very limited research, the earliest major, fatal action against a heretical movement was the persecution of the Donatists during the time of Augustine: Donatism.

It seems there were strong political factors involved, not merely the suppression of a heresy.  And according to the article, even though Augustine argued that the use of force was justified, he later protested the extremes that the Roman authorities were going to.

So to sum it up, TL;DR style:  the use of violence against heresy seems to have come about in conjunction with the church becoming a political force rather than a strictly spiritual organization.


What is the Catholic interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3?

The commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (that Antichrist "sitteth in the temple of God") of the very anti-Protestant Original Douay-Rheims Bible says:

St. Augustine therefore li. 20 de civit. c. 19 and St. Jerome q. 11 ad Algasiam. do think, that this sitting of Antichrist in the temple, doth signify his sitting in the Church of Christ, rather than in Solomon's temple. Not as though he should be a chief member of the Church of Christ, or a special part of his body mystical, and be Antichrist and yet withal continuing within the Church of Christ, as the Heretics feign, to make the Pope Antichrist (whereby they plainly confess and agnise [recognize] that the Pope is a member of the Church, & in ipso sinu Ecclesia, and in the very bosom of the Church, say they:) for that is ridiculous, that all Heretics whom St. John calleth Antichrists as his precursors, should go out of the Church, and the great Antichrist himself should be of the Church, and in the Church, and continue in the same. And yet to them that make the whole Church in revolt from God, this is no absurdity. But the truth is, that this Antichristian revolt here spoken of, is from the Catholic Church: and Antichrist, if he ever were of or in the Church, shall be an Apostate and a renegade out of the Church, and he shall usurp upon it by tyranny, and by challenging worship, religion, and government thereof, so that himself shall be adored in all the Churches of the world which he list to leave standing for his honor. And this is to sit in the temple or against the Temple of God, as some interpret. If any Pope did ever this, or shall do, then let the Adversaries call him Antichrist.

This passage makes it clear that a true pope cannot be Antichrist, but Antichrist will be an anti-pope, and anti-popes are not members of the Church.

Cardinal Manning, the most prominent father at the First Vatican Council who was responsible for the definition on papal infallibility, said in his Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ 2nd part (4 lectures), "The Perpetual Conflict of the Vicar of Christ", pp. 81-173 (available in printed form from TradiBooks as The Pope and The Antichrist):

We have here [2 Thessalonians 2:3-11] a prophecy … of a [spiritual*] revolt, which shall precede the second coming of our Lord … The authority, then, from which the revolt is to take place is that of the kingdom of God on earth, prophesied by Daniel [cf. Daniel 2] as the kingdom which the God of heaven should set up … in other words, the one and universal Church, founded by our Divine Lord, and spread by His Apostles throughout the world. In this one only kingdom was deposited the true and supernatural pure theism, or knowledge of God, and the true and only faith of God incarnate, with the doctrines and laws of grace. This, then, is the authority from which the revolt is to be made, be that revolt what it may.

[*"St. Jerome, with some others, interprets this revolt to be the rebellion of the nations or provinces against the Roman Empire. … They have revolted, and no manifestation has appeared." Thus, the revolt is spiritual, not temporal.]


Did God accept a sacrifice that was against His own law?

Jesus was not 'burnt'.

Jesus was not offered to Molech or any other god.

Jesus offered himself, voluntarily. He was not 'offered' by another.

The "commandment of the Father is everlasting life" (John 12:50) ergo, the sacrifice was not a contradiction of Deity in any way, as that sacrifice was the only possible way to fulfill that commandment.

The events in the garden of Gethsemane, and the involvement of the Father in those events, clearly demonstrate that the will of the Father was being fully satisfied by the course that Jesus took.

In the gospel (not in the law) the righteousness of God is revealed (Romans 1:17). The righteousness of God far exceeds the law that was delivered to men to keep. His righteousness is a justifying righteousness. And justification is through redemption (Romans 3:24). And redemption is through (and only through) the shedding of blood. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22).

God's name was not profaned by this, nor his name dishonoured. Much to the contrary, in all of this, God is greatly glorified, and that for all eternity.


Was it a miracle of God that the Jews incriminated themselves and their children in the blood of Jesus?

This is not seen as a miracle - but rather an acceptance of the choice they were asked to make.  The Torah specifically disallows children to be punished for the sins of the father - Dt 24:16, so this is nothing but bravado.  In responding "his blood be upon us," they are, in actuality just saying, "there will be no consequence."

When he is being martyred (in Acts 7), however, Stephen picks up on the theme.  He says:

  You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

In other words, even if the vocalizations were not "His blood be upon our children," the sentiment is still the same - Everybody calling for Jesus' execution is acting the same from generation to generation.  They didn't believe the prophets, they didn't believe Jesus.  This is true in every generation, and the sentiment is that in calling for Jesus' death, they expected no different.


In order to understand the meaning of any text, you must understand it's purpose. If you don't understand why a bit of text was written, you are quite likely to come away with a bad understanding of what it means.

In this case your question assumes a mis-understanding of the purpose of the two texts in question. If you correct that understanding, it becomes apparent that there is actually no contradiction and nothing that needs resolving from an inerrancy standpoint.

The two chapters you quote from in Genesis serve slightly different purposes. It is quite common on ancient Hebrew literature to repeat parts of a story in different ways to draw out different points. In this case one passage tells us something about the Chronology of events, the second goes on to give us another event that happens to be sandwiched inbetween the last steps of the first event that includes some additional commentary.

If you want to know in what order things were created, Genesis 1 should be your guide.

In Genesis 2, we find out that that (presumably about day 6) God was trying to show Adam that his own personal help-mate was going to be a different kind of creature than the animals, so after he makes Adam but before he makes Eve he parades the rest of the created order before Adam and demonstrates that none of them are like he is. The animals are not made on the spot, there is just a bit of commentary that reminds us that they were created out of the ground. In the process, all the animals get names.

But then we go on to the creation of Eve, made not out of the ground but out of Adam's flesh. This second chapter helps us establish some order or rank to creation as well as lay the foundation for its purpose, not re-sequence the events of creation.


What role did the Donation of Constantine have on the development of the doctrine of Papal supremacy?

My interpretation is that the answer is, "doctrinally, effectively, none." While I will definitely say that it seems like there was a good deal of effect on the politics of Italy (and, to a lesser extent, France) in the High Middle Ages, from a doctrinal perspective, it does not really seem to be terribly significant. And I say this for two particularly important reasons:

The doctrine was already in place:

The claims and assertions about the primacy of the Papacy had been around since before Eusebius who died in 339.
Leo the Great is generally considered the major proponent of the doctrine, and died centuries before the document was written.

They were disproven:

The documents were disproven 70 years before Luther, 100 years before Trent
While that was not published until the 16th century, it was certainly widely known when the doctrine of infallibility itself was defined at Vatican I

The major challenger to Papal authority in when those were written was the See of Constantinople, but it is apparent that these documents were known only to the west. (And when it was shown in the East, it contributed to the Great Schism)


If someone is forced to take the punishment for sin (Jesus), doesn't that mean that God never forgives?

Not only is God loving, merciful and forgiving, He is also just. God will not allow sinful deeds to go unpunished:

He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord. (Psalms 33:5)
Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne;
steadfast love and faithfulness go before you. (Psalms 89:4)
I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work. (Ecclesiastes 3:17)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Romans 1:18)
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." (Romans 12:19)
For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:4)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Colossians 3:35)

At the same time, God is loving, and as such He does not want us to suffer. In keeping with His loving and just nature, God chose to willing take on human flesh and take the punishment that we all deserve:

Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13-14)
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

Because Jesus is God, who is eternal, and lived a sinless life, He is capable of justly paying the price for our sins in our place. Additionally, His sacrifice parallels Adam's original sin; where as Adam's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so Jesus's one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21)


How did people know that their visions of God were not false before the Bible was as a book compiled?

The first means is fulfilled prophecy.

Methusaleh's name was a prophecy: it means "When he dies, it will come". The year he died, the flood of Noah arrived.
God told Abraham that he would have a son. Twenty-five years later, he did.
Elihu announced the coming of God to Job, and God came.
Job uttered at least two dozen prophecies, which ultimately came true.
Joseph had dreams, interpreted them correctly, and the events came to pass.
Moses asked God for a sign that he would succeed in rescuing his people from Egypt:

  12 And God said, “I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you
  that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out
  of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.” (Exodus 3:12)

The second means is miracles.

Enoch did not die, but was taken up into heaven
The wombs of all the women in Pharaoh's household were first shut, then opened because of how he treated Abraham
The plagues against Egypt certified what God told Moses
Job's healing and the restoration of his fortune and long life certified what God told Job

The third means is righteous character and loyalty to God in the midst of suffering and persecution:

Joseph refused to sleep with his master's wife while a slave.
Job was already a righteous man, yet when he suffered, he did not curse God.
Lot maintained his character and hospitality though surrounded by a completely wicked culture.
Abraham refused to accept the spoils of war from the unrighteous kings he was forced to ally himself with.

A consistent message, regardless of the medium of communication emplyed by God. In my study of Job, I counted thirteen different means of communication employed by Job and God to communicate with one another, and the different pieces assembled from all those means fit together harmoniously.
Faith in God despite impossible circumstances.

Abraham waiting all those years for a son, then being asked to sacrifice him
Jacob, enduring years of false dealing by his uncle Laban
Joseph in prison, believing God would set him free
Job, on the verge of death, believing that God will raise him from the dead
Moses before Pharaoh, believing God would set his people free

The Holy Spirit. The Spirit grants wisdom and many other gifts. When a life displays that fruit, it is persuasive.


What exactly is Peter's connection to Rome according to Catholic dogma?

Was Peter ever in Rome and did he die there?

There is no doubt that Matthew's Gospel tells us that Jesus nominated Peter as the rock on which he would build his church. So, whatever city could claim Peter as its patron would have a huge advantage over other cities in the Christian world. Tradition has credited various of the apostles with remaining a a number of important Christian cities, sometimes two or three at the same time, and leading the church there. One tradition is that Peter became the bishop of Antioch, but in the end Rome, the eternal city, became established as the apostolic city of both Peter and Paul.

Yet another tradition is found in The Apostolic Constitutions (VII.xlvi), which purports to provide evidence that Peter was in Rome and appointed Clemens as successor to Linus, who was actually appointed by Paul:

  Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first [bishop], ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter.

The Liber Pontificalis contains purported biographies of all the early popes, listing Peter in first place, but in no sense was this ever held to be an official document of the Church. It says that Peter went to Rome when Nero was emperor (54-68) and occupied the chair for 25 years, 2 months and 3 days. On this evidence, Peter was indeed bishop of Rome, although he was not executed by Nero.

Decrees of the First Vatican Council (1868), clearly defensive in nature, talks at length about the primacy of St Peter, bestowed on him by Jesus, of the pope as successor to Peter and of the "see of Saint Peter," an implied reference to Peter as the first bishop of Rome. Session 4, chapter 2 says of the Holy See, "which he founded and consecrated with his blood," so the bishops meeting in synod did not need to state that Peter had been in Rome, although they believed this to have been the case.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a good overview of the Catholic position, at clause 936:

  936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth"

From 877 to 892, the Catechism frequently refers to the bishop of Rome as Peter's successor, but once again does not directly claim that Peter was ever in Rome.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

  It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

The Encyclopedia goes on to briefly explain the existence of second-century traditions that Peter had gone to Rome. There is undoubtedly a second-century tradition that Peter went to Rome and died there, but at such a great distance from the apostolic era, this is not indisputable evidence. Moreover, there are minor contradictions between these traditions. The Encyclopedia refers to the fourth-century "Chronicle" of Eusebius as stating that Peter and Paul died in 67 CE, but also notes the "Chronograph of 354" to say that they died much earlier, in 55 CE. The general tradition is that peter, as bishop of Rome, appointed Linus as his successor, but Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon towards the end of the second century, saw things a little differently in Against Heresies, III.3.2-3, where he wrote that Peter and Paul jointly appointed Linus. Irenaeus was trying to convince his gnostic opponents in Lyon that he represented the true legacy of Jesus, so it may be unsurprising that he claimed that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome and that the bishop of Rome was appointed by both "glorious apostles."

It appears that the best evidence that has been put forward to prove that Peter really did go to Rome is from 1 Peter 5:13, which says that Peter was writing from "Babylon."  John W. O’Malley, S.J. says, in A History of the Popes, page 8, that no one piece of evidence states in straightforward and unambiguous language either that Peter either went to Rome or that he died there and, even when relying on 1 Peter, he acknowledges this might not have been written by Peter himself, but claims it was at least written under his inspiration.

The acknowledgement that 1 Peter might not have been written by Peter himself opens a can of worms, as it introduces the scholarly view that the epistle was actually written in Peter's name long after his death. Bart D. Ehrman says, in Forged, page 68, scholars have long realised what this reference to ‘Babylon’ means.  Babylon was the city that was seen as the ultimate enemy of God among Jews, as it was Babylon that had defeated Judah and destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple in the sixth century BCE.  By the end of the first century Christians and Jews had started using the word Babylon as a code word for Rome, the city that was the enemy of God in their own day, which also destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple in the year 70.  Peter, or even a secretary, would not have called Rome "Babylon" before the Romans had destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70, so on this ground alone 1 Peter is pseudepigraphical and can not be relied on as evidence for Peter in Rome.

A site under St. Peter's Basilica  includes several graves and a structure said by Vatican authorities to have been built to memorialise the location of St. Peter's grave. If authentic, this would prove beyond doubt that Peter had gone to Rome and been buried there. Between 320 to 327, Constantine built a  basilica over the early Christian necropolis that was purported to be Peter's resting place. In 1942, the Administrator of St. Peter's, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, found previously overlooked remains in the monument and, having little understanding of correct archeological procedures, secretly ordered the remains stored elsewhere for safe-keeping. In doing so, he destroyed any certainty that the bones actually originated in the tomb as claimed. Based on bone tests that showed the remains belonged to a man in his sixties, Pope Paul VI announced on June 26, 1968 that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered. As Pope Paul was not speaking ex cathedra, his statement is not regarded as infallible.

Was Peter ever a bishop?

As mentioned previously, we have a tradition that Peter was bishop of Antioch, a role that would haver required him to remain in the city for some years, and we also have tradition that Peter was bishop of Rome. The first tradition is antithetic to the Roman Catholic position and receives little support, at least in the West.

Francis A. Sullivan S.J. says, in From Apostles to Bishops, page 15, that  most Catholic scholars say that the church of Rome was most probably led by a college of presbyters until well into the second century, with no evidence of a ruling bishop in the first century. He does not speak for the Church as a whole, but in that statement does identify the position of prominent Catholic scholars. I have carefully read the arguments in his book and find them convincing. Father Sullivan does not contradict Church doctrine that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, but it seems inconceivable that Peter would lead the church in Rome, as its first bishop, and appoint a successor as bishop, only for the Christian community of Rome to ignore this precedent for up to a century after the death of Linus.


In what ways is the term "priesthood" used in Catholic tradition?

In what ways is the term “priesthood” used in Catholic tradition?
Traditionally, there are only two ways that term priesthood is used within the Church as well as one in the Ancient Covenant of the Jewish people of the Old Testament, known as the  Aaronic priesthood.
The priesthood of the New Covenant is distinctly different from the priesthood of the Old Testament.
Yet other priesthood definitions are on the horizon.

The Jewish priesthood
In the age of the Patriarchs the offering of sacrifices was the function of the father or head of the family (cf. Genesis 8:20; 12:7, etc.; Job 1:5). But, even before Moses, there were also regular priests, who were not fathers of family (cf. Exodus 19:22 sqq.). Hummelauer's hypothesis "Das vormosaische Priestertum in Israel", Freiburg, 1899) that this pre-Mosaic priesthood was established by God Himself and made hereditary in the family of Manasses, but was subsequently abolished in punishment of the worship of the golden calf (cf. Exodus 32:26 sqq.), can hardly be scientifically established (cf. Rev. bibl. internat., 1899, pp. 470 sqq.). In the Mosaic priesthood we must distinguish: priests, Levites, and high-priest.
The Christian priesthood
In the New Testament bishops and priests are, according to Catholic teaching, the sole bearers of the priesthood, the former enjoying the fullness of the priesthood (summus sacerdos s. primi ordinis), while the presbyters are simple priests (simplex sacerdos s. secundi ordinis). The deacon, on the other hand, is a mere attendant of the priest, with no priestly powers. Omitting all special treatment of the bishop and the deacon, we here confine our attention primarily to the presbyterate, since the term "priest" without qualification is now taken to signify the presbyter. - Priesthood (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

The Church also speaks of the Royal Priesthood of the Faithful.

The share in the high priesthood of Christ received by everyone at baptism and strengthened by confirmation and the Eucharist. Essential to this priesthood is the right to receive the other sacraments, of participating in the Church's liturgy, and of being united with Christ the eternal priest as he offers himself, with the members of his Mystical Body, to the heavenly Father in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. - Priesthood of the Faithful

The terms simply do not end here. As the Church moves forward, new ways of expressing the term may be on the horizon.
The priesthood of Mary is seen as being part of the universal priesthood of the faithful, but at the same time needs a clearer understand which may come to light in future years.

After the council, the priesthood of Mary is still spoken of, but it is no longer linked to the ministerial priesthood nor to the supreme priesthood of Christ, but rather to the universal priesthood of the faithful. As figure and first fruits of the Church, she possessed in a personal way that "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), that all the baptized possess in a collective way.
What can we retain of this long tradition that associates Mary to the priest and what meaning can we give to the "closeness " between Mary and the priest affirmed by John Paul II? It seems to me that what remains is the analogy or the correspondence between the different dimensions of the mystery of salvation. What Mary was once and for all times on the plane of historical reality, the priest is ever anew on the plane of the sacramental reality. - Mary, Mother and Model of the Priest - Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap, Pontifical Household Preacher

What terms the Church will ultimately use to express Mary’s unique role within the priesthood of the faithful remains to be seen!
The Blessed Virgin Mary United to the Victimal Priesthood of Her Son
Marie Deluil Martiny presents the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of Christ the Victim Priest and of all who are called to follow Him in the way of His Victimal Priesthood. By her most intimate and perfect participation in the Victimal Priesthood of her Son, the Blessed Virgin Mary is both Coredemptrix and Mediatrix. She is the Virgo sacerdotalis, sacerdotal, not by virtue of sacramental ordination, but by virtue of her unique and entire adhesion to the Sacrifice of Christ. - A Life Offered for Priests
The term that I heard some theologians employing
the term of the priesthood of Mary as a ”priesthood  by association to the Passion of her Son” on Cross at Calvary. The term has yet to be defined.

Naming Mary's Sacerdotal Role
If the name "priest" cannot be fittingly applied to Mary, by what name should she be called?
Mary occupies a unique place between Christ and the rest of the human race. Philosophers tell us whatever is individual is inexpressible. This presents the difficulty of expressing the various functions of Mary in precise words. History records instances when, only after long discussion and multiplied distinctions, was agreement on certain proposed formulas attained. For the uninitiated, the expression "Mother of God" would signify quite normally that Mary gave birth to the Holy Trinity; or the word "co-redemptrix" would indicate that she redeemed us by a title equal to Christ's. It is not surprising then, that a formula sufficiently clear to everyone and capable of stating exactly Mary's role in Christ's priesthood has not been discovered. Since Mary's priestly role cannot be explained either in terms of the priesthood of Christ or in terms of the ordained ministers of the altar, some writers fall back on the "royal priesthood" mentioned by St. Peter. In comparing the disciples of Christ with unbelievers, St. Peter tells them, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own."23 This royal priesthood enables all the faithful to offer God "spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."24 This concerns sacrifices in the broad sense of the term, and not with the sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. In virtue of their union with Christ in the Mystical Body, all the faithful participate in Him perfections and in Him priesthood. They share in Him priesthood in as much as they offer to God the divine victim, whom the words of consecration uttered by the priest, make present on the altar. They also offer themselves as victims in union with Christ. But they do not participate in it by immolating the divine victim, an act possible only to the ordained minister of Christ at the time of consecration. It is this royal priesthood exercised in the highest degree, these writers conclude, that must be attributed to Mary.
But Laurentin and Neubert ask how anyone can subscribe to such an abasement of the sacerdotal role of her who was called by God to be Christ's associate in the divine sacrifice. Those writers reduce Mary's role to a common category and forget that she is absolutely unique in her functions. These functions are not identical with those of Christ; they are analogous to them. But neither are they identical with those of other persons. Mary's are of a transcendent order.
What term, then, can express this unique function of Mary? The best and clearest is the phrase derived from the term socia Christi, applied to her by Pseudo-Albert; that is the associate of Christ, our High Priest (socia Christi sacerdotis).
The word socia in itself is not clearer than the word consors, or the word particeps, and could indicate an equality in the priesthood of Christ and of Mary. Some associates are able to occupy the same rank. However, since the time of Pseudo-Albert, the expression socia Christi has a clearly-defined meaning in the history of theology. It designates a secondary action, analogous and united to that of Christ, the action of a "helper like himself." It is equivalent to the phrase employed by Blessed Pius IX, divini sacrificii socia.
The feminine form socia and the allusion to Eve, the first woman and the mother of the living, refer to a priestly role performed by a woman, by a mother. The sacerdotal aspect of Mary's mission consists in being mater et socia Christi sacerdotis. - Priestly Dimension of Mary

Thus it may deduced that there are five manners in which the term priesthood seems to be used within Catholic tradition:

Aaronic priesthood of the Ancient Israelian tradition.
Priesthood of Jesus Christ
Ministerial Priesthood of the Catholic Hierarchy.
Priesthood of the Faithful
Priesthood of Mary as yet to be officially defined as socia Christi sacerdotis.


How did the threefold distinction of Deacon, Priest and Bishop come about?

The first century writing known as the Didache only mentions apostles, or missionaries. However, Paul's use of the Greek term for deacon ('servant') indicates that this office dates from the early years of Christianity. Commentators continue to debate whether the role of priest also arose during the apostolic era. Certainly, the Shepherd of Hermas talks of 'elders' -- priests -- presiding over each of the churches early in the second century, but makes no mention of bishops.

Bishops are mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, but almost all New Testament scholars believe that these epistles were written pseudepigraphically early in the second century. The word ἐπισκόποις (overseer) is also found in Philippians 1:1, but many scholars believe that the word was not used in the sense of 'bishop' in this epistle. Philippians 1:1 also mentions Timothy, who is closely associated with the role of bishop in the two epistles that bear his name, so the verse could even have been redacted in later centuries.

Francis A. Sullivan SJ has closely examined a range of first and second century Christian writings and, from these, argues in From Apostles to Bishops that the role of bishop did not arise until the second century. He says (ibid, page 15):

  There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as those of Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church.

By the end of the second century, Christian tradition held that the apostles themselves had appointed the first bishops by laying on of hands, and that bishops could only be appointed by existing bishops laying on hands, so that there is a continuous succession all the way back to the apostles themselves.