How did the "wise men" become known as 3 kings?

It is mentioned from The Catholic Encyclopedia website:
In reference to there being three kings:

No Father of the Church holds the Magi to have been kings. Tertullian
("Adv. Marcion.", III, xiii) says that they were wellnigh kings (fere
reges), and so agrees with what we have concluded from non-Biblical
evidence. The [Catholic] Church, indeed, in her liturgy, applies to the Magi the
words: "The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents; the
kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring him gifts: and all the
kings of the earth shall adore him" (Psalm 71:10). But this use of the
text in reference to them no more proves that they were kings than it
traces their journey from Tharsis, Arabia, and Saba.
...
[About there being three]
Among the Latins, from the seventh century, we find slight variants of
the names, Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar; the Martyrology mentions
St. Gaspar, on the first, St. Melchior, on the sixth, and St.
Balthasar, on the eleventh of January.

Another reason that there are traditionally Three wise men / Magi is because there were three gifts brought (Gold, Frankincense, Myrrh).
It should also be considered, the significance of the number three in scripture:

In some cases the number three may signify completeness or finality. Thus Pope observes that the number three “naturally suggests the idea of completeness—beginning, middle, end.”34 Beyond this natural expectation, however, is the realization that “the figure three is an evocative image, filled with connotations” so that “three consecutive occurrences of an event serves as a rhetorical signal indicating special significance.


Here is an excerpt from the writings of Martin Luther, a reformer and founder of Protestantism, that I think that you will agree serves as a prime example of the phenomena that you have observed. In the quote, Luther is discussing two sermons delivered from God, the first at Sinai, where the children of Israel are given the tablets of the Law, and the second at Pentecost in the New Testament, where the Gospel is preached in many tongues by the disciples of Christ. Emphasis is added by me.

Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is the law of God. The second is the gospel. These two sermons are not the same. Therefore we must have a good grasp of the matter in order to know how to differentiate between them. We must know what the law is, and what the gospel is. The law commands and requires us to do certain things. The law is thus directed solely to our behavior and consists in making requirements. For God speaks through the law, saying, “Do this, avoid that, this is what I expect of you.” The gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do or to avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law, does the very opposite, and says, “This is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, has let him be put to death for your sake.” So, then, there are two kinds of doctrine and two kinds of works, those of God and those of men. Just as we and God are separated from one another, so also these two doctrines are widely separated from one another. For the gospel teaches exclusively what has been given us by God, and not—as in the case of the law—what we are to do and give to God.

We can interpret Luther's use of the first person plural pronouns "us" to mean we, even all mankind.
Included in the Book of Concord, the doctrinal authority of the Lutheran Church, is the Augsburg Confessions. Article 28 includes this passage:

For it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be preserved in the churches, namely, that the bondage of the Law is not necessary to justification, as it is written in the Epistle to the Galatians 5:1: Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. It is necessary that the chief article of the Gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain grace freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain observances or acts of worship devised by men.

It is clear in the doctrinal documents that the Protestants after Luther did not consider the Law to be only applied to Israel, but that it was indeed a pattern of a Supreme Divine Law by which all men are judged, both Jew and Gentile.
Even among the Gentiles, the Jewish people acknowledge that there is a standard of law by which their deeds are measured, which is the Noahide Covenant, since we are all descendants of Noah, though the Jews come from Abraham by Shem and the gentiles from Japheth. In his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeus comments on our shared patronage, saying,

Now the blessing of Japheth is on this wise: "God shall enlarge unto
Japheth, and he shall dwell in the house of Shem, and Ham shall be his servant." That is to say:
In the end of the ages he blossomed forth, at the appearing of the Lord, through the calling of the Gentiles, when God enlarged unto them the calling; and their sound went out into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. The enlarging, then, is the calling from among the Gentiles,
that is to say, the Church. "And he dwells in the house of Shem"; that is, in the inheritance of the fathers, receiving in Christ Jesus the right of the firstborn. So in the rank in which each was blessed, in that same order through his posterity he received the fruit of the blessing.

Poignantly in his letter to the Church in Galatia cited in the above, Paul says to them,

Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Paul says this after Jesus, who taught us that (Matt 22:36-40),

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

In Romans 2:9-16, Paul confirms that while all men are not responsible to the Law of Moses, they are all responsible to this summary of the Law. Those who do not love God or their neighbor transgress, and those who are righteous according to this, even if they are Gentiles and do not know the Law, still obey the law with their righteousness.

There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

And so even without hearing the Law, the one who does the Law is justified, and the one who hears the Law and does not do it is condemned. But can a person who does not know the Law and is wicked be considered righteous because he has not heard it? Of course not. He will parish without the Law just as the wicked man who did have the Law. As a summary of the Protestant position, consider another passage from Romans 3:21-31 as Paul continues,

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction [between Jew and Gentile]; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith [that is grace]. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith, is One.

So while both Jew and Gentile alike might have been condemned by God, because righteousness does not come by hearing the Law but by doing the Law and all fall short of doing the Law, God has rescued us from our bondage to condemnation under the law and justified those who were condemned, and justified them through Jesus Christ who believe on him since righteousness does not come by the law, but by faith in Him.


Tithing and excommunication question (LDS)

"Those who pay tithing do not do so under the duress of legal compulsion. No one is disfellowshipped or excommunicated because he fails to pay."
—Gorden B. Hinkley, "My Testimony", General Conference, October 1993.

Declaring yourself a full tithe payer is one of the qualifications for holding a recommend to enter the temple.
Tithing is defined by the following:

In 1838 the Lord reiterated this commandment through the Prophet Joseph Smith:
“My people … shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever” (Doctrine and Covenants 119:3–4). Interest is understood to mean income.
—Tithing and Fast Offerings


Does Pope Francis want Catholics to pray both new prayers at the end of the Rosary or just one or the other?

It is obvious by the text that the Holy Father is encouraging the faithful to recite both prayers at the end of the Rosary. However, the pope is simply making this a recommendation in order to help end the pandemic of the covid-19 situation. The faithful may say one or the other, maybe even both of them or neither one at all.

Some are already praying the Holy Rosary to help end the coronavirus pandemic, without these two suggested prayers of Pope Francis. Some will no doubt continue to do so as that is what they are accustomed to do.

As for myself, I will be making the invocation (3 times) Sancta Corona, ora pro nobis (St. Corona, pray for us) at the end of each decade during the Marian Month of May. St. Corona’s Feast day fall mid way during this month (May 14).

For myself, I prefer something that is simple and neither has to be read or memorized.

Nota Bene: On May 3,2020, Pope Francis asked ‘believers of all religions’ to pray, fast, engage in charitable works on May 14 (Vatican Press Office) which happens to be the feast day of St. Corona!

Pope Francis never mentioned any connection that the May 14th date was also the feast day of St. Corona.


How did the Virgin Mary's title "Mirror of Justice", used in some Catholic prayers, originate?

Introductory History of the Litany of Loreto

  The Litany of the Blessed Virgin--also called the Litany of Loreto--is
  one of the many Marian litanies, or praises of Mary, composed during
  the Middle Ages. The place of honor it now holds, in the life of the
  Church, is due its faithful use at the shrine of the Holy House at
  Loreto, which, according to tradition, was the small cottage-like home
  where the Holy Family had lived and which was miraculously transported
  by angels, in 1291, from the Holy Land to its present location in
  Loreto. It was definitely recommended by Pope Clement VII and approved
  by Sixtus V in 1587, and all other Marian litanies were suppressed, at
  least for public use. - Source: The History of the Litany of
  Loreto.

One meaning of the Marian Title Mirror of Justice is found in the Presentation Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mirror of Justice given July 31, 2010 by His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, D.D., J.C.D. at Queen of the Americas Guild Annual Meeting, Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, La Crosse, Wisconsin.

  The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mirror of Justice

  The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, teaches her children
  obedience to the Church’s discipline. [...]

  One of the titles by which we address Our Blessed Mother in the Litany
  of Loreto is Mirror of Justice, Speculum Iustitiae.  Simply put,
  the title reminds us that we see in Mary the image of how to live in
  obedience to God’s law and so grow in the likeness of Christ, that is,
  grow in the pure and selfless love of God and of our neighbor.  It
  should not surprise us that, when the faithful have a strong devotion
  to the Blessed Virgin Mary, they are also strong in their obedience to
  Christ and to those who act in His person as Head and Shepherd of the
  flock in every time and place, namely, the Holy Father and the Bishops
  in communion with him, together with the priests, their co-workers. -
  Source: Obedience to the Magisterium and the Responsibility of Bishop toward the Laity | Cardinal Burke | Marian Catechist
  Apostolate.

History of the Symbol of Mary Mirror of Justice (Speculum justitiaé)

This article Litany of Loreto | campus.udayton.edu says

  Its origin [of the Litany] is believed to be a medieval rimed litany (see Paris
  manuscript Nat. lat. 5267, fol., 80r) influenced by Eastern Marian
  devotion, in particular by the famous Hymnos Akathistos. Contrasting
  with the older Litany of All Saints, the Loreto Litanies are purely
  ad- or invocational litanies. As can be observed, for example, in the
  so called Officia Mariana, many more Marian litanies were and are in
  use but destined for private devotion.

This mentions when the litany originated and under what influence.

The article continues to explain the structure of the litany and under 4. Symbols of Mary it says:

  We then have thirteen symbolic advocations, mostly taken from the Old
  Testament and applied to Mary which highlight her virtues and her
  eminent role in salvation history:

  (1) Mirror of Justice (Speculum justitiaé)
  [...]

Elsewhere on the website it explains the meaning

  Speculum Justitiae
  Mirror of Justice

  The various symbolic meanings of the mirror highlight: (1) purity of
  the soul, (2) self-knowledge and moral integrity, as well as (3) its
  ability to reflect reality.  Mary's soul is holy and pure.  She
  reflects the Sun of Justice, meaning God's perfection and holiness.
  She is the mirror without blemish of God's majesty (Wisdom 7:26).
  The Sun of Justice is reflected in the image of Mother and Child.  The
  angel with balance and sword, usually a symbol of justice, signifies
  God's perfection.  There is a second and oval mirror whose surface is
  tainted and marred.  In it, three shadowy silhouettes can be barely
  perceived, featuring Adam or sinful humanity between Good and Evil,
  that is Satan, beckoning and tempting, and the guardian angel watching
  over his protégé.  This mirror does not reflect light and perfection
  but darkness and sin, or at least the blurred human vision of God and
  eternity.

  Thus Paul reminds us that "at present we see indistinctly as in a
  mirror, but then face to face" (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Further Reading: Litany of Loreto | New Advent and Mirror of Justice | salvemariaregina.info.

Please listen also to: Audio from Advent recollection with Father Austin Dominic Litke, OP.


When an offense has been committed, is it OK to talk to the other person through an intermediary or should it be direct?

Answer
The Bible does indicate that an intermediary can be used in a confrontation with an offender if. . .

The offender is a believer.
AND
The offender will not listen to you in private.

The Bible does indicate that an incorrect use of intermediary is one that is. . .

Out of order according to Jesus' teaching in Matt. 18:15-20, or the intermediary is used before a private encounter with the offender.
OR
One that is judged by unbelievers. A lawsuit would be a good example of this. 1 Cor. 6:1-8.
OR
One that is physically violent or spoken with harsh words. 1 Tim. 5:1-2, Matt. 5, etc.

Supporting Details
In this answer, the following passages will be used:

Matthew 18:15-20
Matthew 5:38-40
1 Corinthians 5:11
1 Corinthians 6:1-8
1 Timothy 5:1-2, 19-20

I. Jesus' Teaching
You already mentioned Matthew 18 in your question, so you've likely read it. Jesus lines out a procedure of confrontation with a brother[0].

15 “If a believer does something wrong,[a] go, confront him when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have won back that believer. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you so that every accusation may be verified by two or three witnesses. 17 If he ignores these witnesses, tell it to the community of believers. If he also ignores the community, deal with him as you would a heathen or a tax collector. 18 I can guarantee this truth: Whatever you imprison, God will imprison. And whatever you set free, God will set free. 19 “I can guarantee again that if two of you agree on anything here on earth, my Father in heaven will accept it. 20 Where two or three have come together in my name, I am there among them.”
Matthew 18:15-20 (GW)

Jesus' outline for confrontation with a brother:

Confront the offender privately.
(You + Offender)
Move on to step 2 if the offender does not listen to you.
Confront the offender privately with one or two additional people.
(You + Offender + Witness 1)
or
(You + Offender + Witness 1 + Witness 2)
Move on to step 3 if the offender does not listen to the witnesses.
Bring the offense up to the gathering[b].
(You + Offender?[c] + Gathering)
If the offender does not listen to the gathering, treat the offender as a "heathen" or "tax collector".

From here, someone else may need to go in-depth about how a "heathen", or "unbeliever" and a "tax collector" was treated. A basic summary would be Paul's statement:

11 Now, what I meant was that you should not associate with people who call themselves brothers or sisters in the Christian faith but live in sexual sin, are greedy, worship false gods, use abusive language, get drunk, or are dishonest. Don’t eat with such people. 1 Corinthians 5:11 (GW)

To move on in the confrontation procedure, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and classic teaching is used:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to oppose an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well. 40 If someone wants to sue you in order to take your shirt, let him have your coat too."
Matthew 5:38-40 (GW)

Jesus calls His followers to be perfect. "Turning the other cheek" is a classic example of how Christians are expected to act. This would apply to both believers and unbelievers, but one must begin (and end) here if an unbeliever has committed an offence against them since an unbeliever skips the believer confrontation process.
II. Paul's Teaching
Paul teaches that a lawsuit against a fellow believer is "wrong" and "cheating" because the world does not judge people as God judges them. A man-made judicial system does not equal God's judgement. Even if a judge hearing the case was a believer, the judge would still be following man-made statutes, laws, rules, procedures, etc.

1 When one of you has a complaint against another, how dare you go to court to settle the matter in front of wicked people. Why don’t you settle it in front of God’s holy people? 2 Don’t you know that God’s people will judge the world? So if you’re going to judge the world, aren’t you capable of judging insignificant cases? 3 Don’t you know that we will judge angels, not to mention things in this life? 4 When you have cases dealing with this life, why do you allow people whom the church has a low opinion of to be your judges? 5 You should be ashamed of yourselves! Don’t you have at least one wise person who is able to settle disagreements between believers? 6 Instead, one believer goes to court against another believer, and this happens in front of unbelievers. 7 You are already totally defeated because you have lawsuits against each other. Why don’t you accept the fact that you have been wronged? Why don’t you accept that you have been cheated? 8 Instead, you do wrong and cheat, and you do this to other believers. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Paul's guidelines to Timothy support Jesus' teaching from Matt. 18 detailed above. If an offense is not corroborated by two to three witnesses, it should not even be considered.

19 Don’t pay attention to an accusation against a spiritual leader unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. 20 Reprimand those leaders who sin. Do it in front of everyone so that the other leaders will also be afraid. 1 Timothy 5:19-20

Footnotes:
[0] "Brother" will be defined here as "a fellow Christian", or "one who claims to be a follower of Christ".
[a] Matthew 18:15 Some manuscripts and translations add “against you.”
This would need to be addressed in the Biblical Hermeneutics site rather than here if it was to come up as an issue. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/
[b] Ecclasia -- the gathering, congregation, assembly, or church.
[c] It is not clear if the offender needs to be present while the offense is brought up to the "gathering".

Further: Paul gives guidelines on how to confront certain believers. Addressing Timothy, Paul advised him to discuss problems with fellow believers as if they were Timothy's family members. Though it does not answer the question, vs.1-2 help differentiate between different scenarios in which one might consider confronting an offender. Paul does seem to suggest gentle words with certain people and a reprimand with more influential spiritual leaders.

1 Never use harsh words when you correct an older man, but talk to him as if he were your father. Talk to younger men as if they were your brothers, 2 older women as if they were your mothers, and younger women as if they were your sisters, while keeping yourself morally pure. 20 Reprimand those leaders who sin. Do it in front of everyone so that the other leaders will also be afraid. 1 Timothy 5:1-2, 20


Purgatory for those who are saved outside the Church?

I thought I would share some relevant words from 'The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich':

  “I was present when God passed sentence on notorious sinners. Great is
  His justice, but still more inconceivable is His mercy. He damns only
  those who are determined not to be converted; they who have a spark of
  good will are saved... I have seen in Purgatory Protestants who were
  pious in their ignorance; they are very desolate, for no prayers are
  offered for them... I saw that by our prayer and suffering, many a
  soul who labours not during life, can be converted and saved at the
  hour of death.”

It is important for us to remember the Church's doctrine: they are saved who die in a state of grace. Who knows how many accept God in their final moments e.g. through an act of perfect contrition.

Revelation 21:27

  but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any[one] who does abominable
  things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in
  the Lamb’s book of life.

Matthew 5:26

  Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the
  last penny.


In Catholicism, what are some examples of views considered opinio tolerata?

Before going into some examples of some tolerated opinions in Catholic theology, it would be beneficial to understand a few terms first.

What is a tolerated opinion in the eyes of Catholic doctrine?

  In Catholic theology, opinio tolerata refers to pious beliefs with a low degree of theological certainty, but which are tolerated by the magisterium of the Catholic Church. These are ranked less certain than sententia probabilis and hold the least degree of certainty in the hierarchy of dogmatic teachings for Catholics. - Opinio tolerate (Wikipedia).

What are pious beliefs, or as some call them popular beliefs?

Did the Annunciation and Good Friday coincide?
Some Catholics believe that Mary did not see death when she was taken up to heaven. In the Apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. However, Pope Pius XII deliberately left open the question of whether Mary died before her Assumption.
Catholics are free to believe that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces since this too is at the present moment an undefined dogma in the Catholic Church.
Some Believe that Jesus was crucified  near the tomb of Adam at Calvary.
Before 1854, when Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus, some Catholics were of the opinion that Mary was conceived without sin, while others doubted this privilege as being given to Mary. Once this decree was promulgated on December 8, 1854, Catholics must believe that the Immaculate Conception is dogma.
Some of the faithful honor Mary with the title of Co-Redemptrix and as of the present moment it has not been defined as Catholic dogma. Catholics are permitted to hold this opinion. Pope Benedict XVI was not in favor of the dogmatization of this subject.

These are just a few of the many piously held opinions of some of the Catholic faithful.


What's the right terminology here for what God's allowing something, but not blessing it?

I think that's considered His passive will as opposed to His active will

  ...the will is the intellectual appetite. But in the intellect there are two powers--the active and the passive.

Summa Theologica Question 83 article 4 objection 3


What is the Catholic Church's answer to a woman/women claiming that God has called them to the Priesthood?

Whether the women "heard God correctly" is largely irrelevant. The Church simply doesn't have the authority to ordain women.

For more information, see Women and the Priesthood.

My intuition is that "The Church" wouldn't claim, on any case-by-case basis, whether or how God was speaking to "a woman called to the priesthood." An individual spiritual advisor might suggest they've "misheard." But, "The Church" has a longstanding habit of avoiding official interpretations of individual, private revelation.


What is the biblical basis for All Saint's Day?

No, there are not references to All Saints Day in the Bible.

The tradition of All Saints Day originated long after the books of the Bible were written.

From Catholic Online

  The origin of the festival of All Saints celebrated in the West dates
  to May 13, 609 or 610, when Pope Boniface IV consecrated the Pantheon
  at Rome to the Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs; the feast of the
  dedicatio Sanctae Mariae ad Martyres has been celebrated at Rome ever
  since. There is evidence that from the fifth through the seventh
  centuries there existed in certain places and at sporadic intervals a
  feast date 13 May to celebrate the holy martyrs.[4] The origin of All
  Saints' Day cannot be traced with certainty, and it has been observed
  on various days in different places. However, there are some who
  maintain the belief that it has origins in the pagan observation of 13
  May, the Feast of the Lemures, in which the malevolent and restless
  spirits of the dead were propitiated. Liturgiologists base the idea
  that this Lemuria festival was the origin of that of All Saints on
  their identical dates and on the similar theme of "all the dead".[5]

  The feast of All Saints, on its current date, is traced to the
  foundation by Pope Gregory III (731.741) of an oratory in St. Peter's
  for the relics "of the holy apostles and of all saints, martyrs and
  confessors, of all the just made perfect who are at rest throughout
  the world", with the day moved to 1 November and the 13 May feast
  suppressed.[6]


How are doxologies formed for common prayers?

and 3. I guess it has just historical reasons, and it will probably be corrected someday. In most languages, there's just one version of Gloria Patri.
In Liturgy of Hours it should still be Gloria Patri, and if you pray it by yourself, the translation shouldn't be important. On the other hand, it shouldn't be replaced by other, though similar, prayers (but I've seen much bigger tresspasses against liturgical rules and AFAIK it doesn't make the whole prayer useless). In Rosary and other uses, it's even more free.


Relationship between God's power and God's will

Usually when these sort of statements are made it is due to the infinity of God. The concept works like this.  As God has no boundaries he has no parts or pieces of personality. He is only one boundless being, no more loving then just, no more holy then wise but infinite in all his qualities. In this sense you could say all his properties are identical in that all his properties are acting in a perfect unbounded and undivided unity.  It's a basic conclusion of assuming the infinitude of God and is at the same time inserting that God is incomprehensible by the finite due to this quality.

Note: Oh about the illogical things, it's a side issue. Maybe we can just say finite logic and it's associated failures are outside God's wisdom and knowledge as they are a result of death, whereas God is infinitely alive.


How was the Catholic Easter calendar established, despite this passage?

The Days of the Week

First, note that according to the Jewish calendar that the "day" begins in the evening, so that the "day" of "Friday" would comprise Thursday night, Friday morning, and Friday afternoon; "Saturday" would comprise what we call Friday night, Saturday morning, and Saturday afternoon; and "Sunday" would comprise Saturday night, Sunday morning, and Sunday afternoon.  This is why, for example, Jewish synagogues hold Sabbath services on Friday evening.  When I was in Israel (in Haifa), I heard horns throughout the city announcing the end of the Sabbath on Saturday night, not Sunday morning.

This still doesn't completely reconcile your question regarding three days and three nights.  Theophylact's commentary on this passage (11th century Byzantine) implies that "three days and three nights" did not imply three complete days and three complete nights, but rather that the event would take place over the course of three (Jewish) "days", as defined above.

The early Church observed the same scheme and the Orthodox Churches continue to do so.  The troparia and kontakia (Byzantine-style hymns) that are sung in commemoration of the saints during the evening Vesper services are for those commemorated on the following calendar day.

 Day on Which Easter is Celebrated

When I started to research the answer to your question, I thought that it would be fairly straightforward.  It was anything but.

The day on which Easter was celebrated - called Pascha by the early Church (and still - even in English - in the Orthodox Church) was not consistent throughout the Church until the 1st Ecumenical Council at Nicaea came to agreement in 325 AD.  Very early on, it seems that Easter may have been celebrated on the same day as Passover, but at one point this was forbidden by the Apostolic Canons:

  If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon celebrate the holy day of
  Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed
  (Apostolic Canon VII).

Up to the Council, it seems that the Sees of Rome and Alexandria had one formula, while those of Constantinople and Antioch had another.  Constantine I, in a letter to those not present at the Council, wrote:

  By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the most
  holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the
  same day

Although the method to be employed seems not to have been explicitly included in the Acts and Canons of the Council, it was documented elsewhere by Eusebius, Chrysostom and others and is described in a deceptively simple formula:

  Pascha [Easter] is the Sunday immediately following the first full
  moon after the vernal equinox.

How the precise date was determined each year in antiquity, however, was a very complicated process, described in detail by James Campbell in an article he published in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly (Vol. 28, No. 4), "The Paschalion: An Icon of Time".

The situation was further complicated by the introduction of a new calendar in the Christian west by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, which resulted in a completely different calculation of the date of Easter by the Roman Catholic Church.  The Orthodox east declined to adopt the new calendar for a number of reasons, one of which was the fact that it violated Apostolic Canon VII, since it allowed Easter to occasionally coincide with the Jewish Passover.

Due to the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Easter now only coincide once every several years.  Most Orthodox jurisdictions that have adopted the Gregorian calendar for practical, civil reasons still celebrate Great Lent, Pascha (Easter), and Pentecost on the same dates as those on the Julian calendar, in order to comply with the decision of the 1st Nicene Council.


Why are Christian books not Public Domain?

The reason why Christian books (and music) are valid objects to have copyright protection is simply because the great deal of effort in making them and in some cases a livelihood based on them.

  For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. (NIV 1 Corinthians 9:9-10)

A book is just a sermon in print so the laborer deserves wages for his work.  Having said this any good part of these works is God in them and not properly objects of copyright, but the copyright is for the effort of the person in the work regardless of quality. Additionally publishers make available old works providing new translations in modern language and other enhancements which qualify as a service worth payment.

Very good books will eventually be read long after their copyright expires, so in a sense God does provide them all free.  The best ones actually are free.


How to reconcile Kierkegaard's model of worship with Existential authenticity?

You are misunderstanding the point being made in the article linked to. The 'drama' description is being used as an analogy to what people are doing in the worship service, not to whether they are 'pretending'.  In other words some people are 'directors' (telling others what to do) some are 'actors' (doing stuff) and some are 'audience' (watching stuff being done). When they talk about people being 'actors' they don't mean they have to pretend - it means they have to do stuff rather than just watch (that's the original meaning of the word actor - one who takes action).

The point being made on the web page, and presumably by Kierkegaard (though there isn't any reference to back it up), is that there are churches where the congregation are mere audience - watching what is happening without taking any part. He believes this is wrong, and that the congregation should take an active part in the worship. It doesn't mean they have to 'pretend'.


Is there consensus between Christian commentators about how Jesus came to be atop the temple when being tempted by Satan in the wilderness?

To answer the question from a Jehovah's Witnesses perspective, this question was asked by a reader of the Watchtower, and it was answered in the following way in the March 2016 study edition of the Watchtower "Questions From Readers" section:

Did Satan physically take Jesus to the temple when tempting him?
Put simply, we cannot be certain whether Jesus actually stood in the temple or he did so only by means of a vision. At times, both possibilities have been presented in our publications.
Consider first what the Bible record says. In his Gospel account of this event, the apostle Matthew was inspired to write: “Then the Devil took him [Jesus] along into the holy city, and he stationed him on the battlement  of the temple.” (Matt. 4:5) Luke’s parallel account puts it this way: “He then led him into Jerusalem and stationed him on the battlement of the temple.
Some have stated that, as a non-Levite, Jesus was not authorized to stand on top of the temple sanctuary. So it was assumed that Jesus may have been ‘taken along’ to the temple by means of a vision. That is similar to what happened centuries earlier to the prophet Ezekiel.—Ezek. 8:3, 7-10; 11:1, 24; 37:1, 2.
However, if this temptation occurred only in the form of a vision, the following questions arise:

Was the temptation real or imaginary?
If the other temptations were efforts to lure Jesus into carrying out physical actions such as turning literal stones into bread or performing a real act of worship before Satan, would not this temptation have been similar—requiring Jesus physically to jump from the temple?

On the other hand, if Jesus did stand physically on the battlement of the temple, other questions arise:

Did Jesus violate the Law by standing on top of the sanctuary?
How did Jesus get from the wilderness to Jerusalem?

Further research helps us to see some possibilities that may answer these last two questions.
First, Professor D. A. Carson notes that the Greek word hi·e·ron’, translated “temple” in both accounts, “probably refers to the entire complex, not the sanctuary itself.” So Jesus would not necessarily have had to stand on top of the sanctuary itself. He could have stood, for example, on the southeastern corner of the temple area. From that location, there was a drop of some 450 feet (137 m) to the floor of the Kidron Valley. The southeast structure had a flat roof with a parapet and was the highest in the temple. The ancient historian Josephus stated that if a person stood there and looked down, he “would become dizzy” because of the height. As a non-Levite, Jesus would have been allowed to stand in that location, and his doing so would not have caused any commotion.
But how could Jesus have been taken along to the temple when he was in the wilderness? The basic answer is that we cannot know for certain. The brief description of the temptations does not state how long a period was involved or where Jesus was in the wilderness. We cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus may have walked back to Jerusalem, even though doing so may have taken some time. The account does not specifically say that Jesus remained in the wilderness throughout the time of the temptations. Rather, it merely says that he was taken into Jerusalem.
What, though, of the temptation wherein Jesus was shown “all the kingdoms of the world”? Obviously, he did not literally see all the kingdoms; there is no literal mountain from which all of them can be seen. So Satan may have used some sort of vision to show these to Jesus, similar to the way a projector and a screen can be used to show someone pictures of various places on earth. However, although a vision may have been used, the “act of worship” would have been real, not imaginary. (Matt. 4:8, 9) It could be argued, then, that the temptation to jump off the battlement of the temple involved a real action with real consequences—adding a greater seriousness to this temptation than would be the case were it a mere vision.

The Jehovah's Witnesses position on the question seems to agree with other religious commentaries on the subject. Basically, we can't say for certain that this temptation actually happened atop the temple or not, but it is certain that, as was the case in the other 2 temptations, Jesus would have had to take some real action that would have been contrary to almighty God's purpose and would have constituted a sin. We can be inspired by the fact that Jesus was able to conquer the Devil on each occasion.


What does Paul mean when he says "rather we uphold the law"

As believers, we are obligated to obey God’s moral law and should desire to do so, since that law reflects God's nature, as seen in 1 Peter:

  14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your
  former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be
  holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy,
  for I am holy.” (ESV)

When Paul says, 'We uphold the law', he is concerned some believers might say: ‘Since Jesus met the requirements of the law for us when he died on the cross, we can ignore the law and do what we want.’ To counter such thinking, Paul expounds on this further in Romans 6:

  What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may
  abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3
  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ
  Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with
  him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised
  from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness
  of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we
  shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We
  know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body
  of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be
  enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.

*


Is there an Arabic translation of the Book of Mormon?

Yes, the Book of Mormon is translated into Arabic (كتاب مورمون), as well as the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. A scanned PDF of the Arabic Book of Mormon can be found here, and a physical copy can be purchased from Store.LDS.org. A list of other LDS materials in Arabic can be found on LDS.org.

The full Book of Mormon is currently available in 88 languages, including other Middle-Eastern languages like Persian (Farsi) and Turkish. A full list, with links, is available here:
http://scripturetools.net/availability


What denominations, besides JWs, hold that the Star of Bethlehem was sent by Satan?

With this old question popping up again due to current interest in a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter about to happen in a few days’ time, I read the answers and comments here, noting that nobody has yet suggested any denomination apart from the Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming the Star of Bethlehem was satanic. Thus it is not surprising if there is no other religious group having a similar view. It is eyebrow-raising, though, that it seems that Satanists link the Pentagram to the Star of the Magi and to the Star of Bethlehem. As you quoted from a JW article giving JW beliefs about the star and the Magi, my answer links in with that, too.
I looked at related Stack questions on this, and found a later one, (Did the Wise Men see the Star of Bethlehem at the east?) to be relevant.  It shows various views about the Star of Bethlehem. As I answered it myself, I will just refer to that instead of repeating details about how a triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter three years before Herod the Great’s death was said by David Hughes, Professor of Astronomy at Sheffield University to possibly account for the Magi appearing some time after Mary gave birth to Jesus.  Another answerer gave this relevant link https://wagingwisdom.com/2018/12/21/re-enchanting-the-star-of-bethlehem/
What I want to add here is information from Wikipedia that shows how astronomy and astrology are bound up in the on-going matter of the Star of Bethlehem and, from a Christian point of view, the astrological ones are worrying. Yet, even if the Magi were ‘into’ astrology, it needs to be remembered that God would know that and use their amazing knowledge of periodic movements of the heavenly bodies to carry out his will. After all, it was God who set them all in motion and he knows every movement and every date, and that the timing of the Word of God becoming flesh as Mary’s child was utterly in his control, determined from before creation started.
From this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_conjunction#%E2%88%926

“When studying the great conjunction of 1603, Johannes Kepler thought
that the Star of Bethlehem might have been the occurrence of a great
conjunction. He calculated that a triple conjunction of Jupiter and
Saturn occurred in 7 BCE (astronomical year numbering -6).  A triple
conjunction is a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn at or near their
opposition to the Sun.  In this scenario, Jupiter and Saturn will
occupy the same position in right ascension (or ecliptic longitude) on
three occasions (due to apparent retrograde motion) over a period of a
few months. The most recent triple conjunction occurred in 1981, and
the next will occur in 2239…
As well as being a triple conjunction, the great conjunction of 7541
will feature two occultations of Saturn by Jupiter, the first since
6856 BC (although the accuracy of planetary positions this far into
the future cannot be calculated, and so sources differ as to the exact
nature of these occultations)…
Despite the inaccuracies and some disagreement about the beginning of
the cycle the belief in the significance of such events generated a
stream of publications which grew steadily up to the end of the 16th
century. As the great conjunction of 1583 was the last in the watery
trigon it was widely supposed to herald apocalyptic changes; a papal
bull against divinations was issued in 1586 and as nothing really
significant had happened by 1603 with the advent of a new trigon, the
public interest rapidly died.  [Diagram shown of Kepler’s trigon,
showing great conjunctions from his 1606 book ‘De Stella Nova’]”

Note how speculations about much earlier conjunctions have been going on for centuries, waxing and waning – but now waxing once more. Also, that the conjunction of 21 December this year (2020) is not a triple conjunction. The next will be in 2239, and possibly thereafter in 7541. Note also the papal bull against divinations regarding such events. Christians should rightly be careful to distinguish between astronomy and astrology, and not merge the two. Astronomy explores the work and wonders of God’s creation in the universe and although rarely credits God, Christians do. This is not to relegate the Star of Bethlehem to mere ‘natural phenomena’, but to uphold God as the only one able to time every material object he made to fit in with the supernatural incarnation of Christ. After all, Numbers 24:17 foretold, “A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel”. And God used a wayward prophet who tried (in vain) to curse the people of Israel to make that prophecy about a future Messiah. The risen Christ himself says, “I Jesus… am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star.” (Revelation 22:16)
Just because some groups claim Satan caused the Star of Bethlehem to lead the astrological Magi to the house where Jesus, Mary and Joseph were, is no reason for Christians to give that evil one such undue honour. The Magi defeated Satan’s intentions by heeding God’s warning to them in a dream not to return to Herod (Matthew 2:12), though they knew it not. God knew all along.


What is the basis for Calvinist double predestination, as opposed to single predestination?

To begin, let's be sure that we understand what double predestination means in Calvinism.  You have it right, that God chooses both who is elect and who is non-elect, but it's important to note that in Calvinist double predestination, God actively saves the elect, but passively passes over the reprobate:

God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation.  The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts.

This quote comes from Chosen by God, chapter 7, by R. C. Sproul, a leading Calvinist theologian.  This book is a well-known introduction to Calvinism, particularly the difficult issues of God's sovereignty, original sin, predestination, and assurance, and I'll continue to refer to it below.
So what is the basis for this view?  First R. C. Sproul argues that double predestination is logically necessary:

If there is such a thing as predestination at all, and if that predestination does not include all people, then we must not shrink from the necessary inference that there are two sides to predestination.  It is not enough to talk about Jacob; we must also consider Esau.

Here Sproul is referring to the story of Jacob and Esau, beginning in Genesis 25.  This opens up the second line of reasoning – that double predestination is taught in Scripture, particularly in Romans 9:10–18:

when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (ESV)

Sproul summarizes, pointing to verse 18:

Some people get mercy, others get justice.  The decision for this is in the hand of God.

A few more verses in Romans 9, verses 21–24, "clearly" teach double predestination, in Sproul's eyes:

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (ESV)

Summary
To summarize, Sproul argues that double predestination is 1) logically necessary, if we accept that only some are elect, and 2) biblical, particularly in light of Romans 9.


Why Sarah was angry to Abraham about Hagar

Many Biblical scholars believe that Sarah was upset that Hagar perceived herself more important for Abraham than Sarah. She wanted to become the "main" wife of Abraham.

  (Gen. 16:4) "... When she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes."

Some commentaries from http://biblehub.com/genesis/16-4.htm:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

"(4) Her mistress was despised.--Hagar, we are told in Genesis 16:3, was to be, not Abram's concubine, but his wife. She was to be Sarai's representative, and though now she would hold the highest place in the household next to Sarai, because of this relation to Abram, yet she would continue to be Sarai's maid. But no sooner had she conceived, than, proud of her superiority over her mistress, she wished to overthrow this arrangement, and, at all events, acted as if she was Abram's wife absolutely, and thrust Sarai aside."

Pulpit Commentary

"Verse 4. - And he went in unto Hagar. בּוא אֶלאּ, a linguistic peculiarity of the Jehovist, occurring Genesis 29:21, 30; Genesis 30:3, 4; Genesis 38:2, 9, 16 (Vaihinger, Davidson); but by some partitionists Genesis 29. and 30. are assigned to the Elohist (Tuch, Bleek, De Wette). And she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. As Hannah by Peninnah (1 Samuel 1:6); barrenness among the Hebrews having been regarded as a dishonor and reproach (Genesis 19:31; Genesis 30:1, 23; Leviticus 20:20), and fecundity as a special mark of the Divine favor (Genesis 21:6; Genesis 24:60; Exodus 23:26; Deuteronomy 7:14). Whether Hagar imagined Sarai to be through her barrenness "tanquam a Divino promisso repudiatam" (Lyra), or anticipated Sarai's displacement from her position as Abram s wife (Inglis), she, immediately on perceiving her condition, became insolent (cf. Proverbs 30:23)."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived,.... The formality of the marriage being over, he enjoyed her as his wife, and she immediately conceived by him:

and when she saw that she had conceived; when she perceived that she was with child:

her mistress was despised in her eyes; she thought herself above her, and treated her as her inferior, with contempt, and reproached her for her barrenness, as Peninnah did Hannah, 1 Samuel 1:6; and it was the more ungrateful, as it was at the motion of her mistress that she was given to Abram for wife."

Matthew Henry Commentary

"16:4-6 Abram's unhappy marriage to Hagar very soon made a great deal of mischief. We may thank ourselves for the guilt and grief that follow us, when we go out of the way of our duty. See it in this case, Passionate people often quarrel with others, for things of which they themselves must bear the blame. Sarai had given her maid to Abram, yet she cries out, My wrong be upon thee. That is never said wisely, which pride and anger put into our mouths. Those are not always in the right, who are most loud and forward in appealing to God: such rash and bold imprecations commonly speak guilt and a bad cause. Hagar forgot that she herself had first given the provocation, by despising her mistress. Those that suffer for their faults, ought to bear it patiently, 1Pe 2:20."


"Spirit"of God the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit?

Jesus said :

Pneuma 'o Theos [John 4:24 TR]
Spirit the God  (literally)

This is an equivalence. He is saying that 'God' means 'Spirit'. The nature of deity is a spiritual nature. The scripture (written by Paul the apostle) also says (of the Son of God, Jesus Christ) :

... being in form, of God ... Philippians 2:6 (literal)

The form of God is spirit. God is a spirit.
This is a matter of the nature of Deity.
This nature is shared. From the beginning the plural (or 'composite') term Elohim is used in Genesis to express Deity. It is a matter of union. A perfection of unity within Deity.
The term 'Spirit of Christ' is used in scripture (I Peter 1:11, for example) and the term 'Spirit of the Father' is also used (Matthew 10:20, for example). But the term 'Spirit of the Holy Spirit' is never used.
Thus we learn that the Holy Spirit acts on behalf of the Father and on behalf of Christ.
By carefully observing such expressions we may understand more of the revelation of God by his own word.


Is there any evidence that people of Jewish descent came to the Americas before the birth of Christ Jesus

No overwhelming evidence that people of Jewish descent came to the Americas, but there is some. No evidence for Jesus Christ bringing the gospel to native people living in the Americas besides the Book of Mormon itself.

As a quick note the Church of Jesus Christ does not believe or teach that the people recorded in the Book of Mormon were the only residents of the Americas.

Also, like the Bible, the Book of Mormon isn't meant to prove itself scientifically but was written "to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations"

Some evidence:

DNA: there is no way to prove or disprove Native Americans descended from Jews using DNA. 1
Language (oral/written):

indian language is the very idiom and genius of Hebrew2
similarities between Uto-Aztecan and Hebrew3

Traditions/rites/beliefs:

there is a common belief in one supreme God/Great Spirit
divided into tribes (12 tribes/indian tribes)
their manner of counting the months through the lunar year
their fasts and religious rites which they believed helped cleanse them of their sins
their laws of uncleanliness and marital separation during a women’s menstrual period
their ritual purification after touching the dead
their cities of refuge
their manner of burial of and mourning for the dead
their perpetuating the name of a deceased brother through remarriage of his wife2

1 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

2 The History of the American Indians, by James Adair 1775

3 Lets Void the Void, by Brian Stubbs


On what basis does Thomas Aquinas say that the Church existed since the time of Abel?

Abel was the first to offer sacrifice pleasing to God.
cf. You Shall Worship One God: The Mystery of Loving Sacrifice in Salvation History by Fr. Philippe, O.P., ch. 1, §"Sacrifice Before the Law"
Adam did offer sacrifice (to offer sacrifice as part of our nature), but it seems it was not pleasing to God on account of his Original Sin. According to St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica II-II q. 85 a. 1 ad 2),

Perhaps the reason why we read of no sacrifice being offered by Adam may be that, as the origin of sin is ascribed to him, the origin of sanctification ought not to be represented as typified in him.

Also, "the time of Abel" ("tempore Abel") needn't exclude Adam.
One can only offer pleasing sacrifice to God in His Church.
St. Thomas quotes 1 Cor. 10:20 in Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum article 1, when discussing four different motives that lead man to worship false gods:

the things which the heathens [gentes, έθνη] sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.

St. Paul distinguishes heathens/gentiles (gentes, Έλλησιν) and Jews from members of the Church of God ("ecclesiae Dei", εκκλησία του θεού) in v. 32.
Thus, the Church could be defined as that group of people which offers pleasing sacrifice to God.


See https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/understanding-the-book-of-daniel/daniel-9/
This article quotes the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary. The 70 years was “the exact number of years of Sabbaths in four hundred and ninety years, the period from Saul to the Babylonian captivity."

Disobedience to the Ten Commandments was judged by forty years of wandering in the desert.
Disobedience during the times of the judges was punished by periodic oppressions by neighboring peoples like the Moabites, Philistines, Canaanites, etc.
The exile was specifically a judgement against the kingdom of Israel/Judah, which began with Saul.

The cited article makes an interesting point: there were two overlapping 70-year exiles.

Seventy years from first deportation to Cyrus' edict permitting return.
Seventy years from destruction of Solomon's temple until the construction of a new temple.


When the humans' freedom of choice was firstly stated in Christianity?

The exact meaning of "free will" is greatly contested, especially as it interacts with the sovereign power and foreknowledge of God. I understand your question as seeking evidence for early Christian thought, other than in the content of the Bible itself.

In the early church, several authorities wrote on the topic, in support of human freedom, including the following.

Justin Martyr in his First Apology (written at some point between 147 and 161AD), says: "But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. [...] Unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. [...] For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made."
Irenaeus in Against Heresies 4.37 (c. 180 AD) says: "God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. [...] All men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it. [...] It is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. [...] And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control."
Origen devotes the third book of De Principiis (c. 212 - 215 AD) to the free will doctrine. At the beginning of the Latin text is the firm statement, "It is undoubtedly indicated that it is within our own power to devote ourselves either to a life that is worthy of praise, or to one that is worthy of censure."

Aside from these philosophical treatments, there are writings of the post-apostolic generation which indicate of a role for human will in choosing to do good or evil.

The letter of Clement to the Corinthians (c. 70 - 96 AD?) exhorts readers to live a virtuous life; in 62.1 he characterizes the faithful as "those who are willing to make [the journey]" (τοις θελουσιν ... διευθυνειν [την πορειαν αυτων]), where the Greek θελουσιν comes from the verb ἐθέλω or θέλω, indicating wishing/wanting/desiring.
The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (date very contested, perhaps 50 - 120 AD) contrasts "the way of death" with "the way of life" and suggests that it is up to the individual not to be led astray from the true teaching. Didache 6.1-2 is translated by Robert Kraft as "Beware lest anyone cause you to wander from this way of teaching, since such a one teaches without regard to God. For if you can bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can."
The letter of Barnabas (70 - 131 AD) says that the one who follows God's commands will be rewarded, but the one who chooses the opposite will be destroyed (21.1). The word for this chooser is "ἐκλεγόμενος", from "ἐκλέγω" (pick/select/choose). It may still refer to God's choice, though; compare Ephesians 1:4 where the same word is used for God's foreordained choice of the elect.


What is the difference between a pastor, a priest, and a minister?

Catholic version

Priest The biblical order of presbyters. One who conducts sacrifices

Vicar, a priest who is the bishop's helper
Dean (arch-priest) a priest who is designated by the bishop to oversee a number of parishes
Monsignor, a title given by a Bishop to an exemplary priest.

Pastor The priest who is in charge or a parish, he may have associate pastors - recently ordained priests start as associate pastors.

Minister Ordinary ministers are the bishops, priests and deacons who administer the sacraments to the faithful.  Extraordinary ministers are laypersons appointed by the priest to help in the administration of the sacraments.

Chaplain An ordained person whose vocation is specific to their task (i.e. hospital chaplain, military chaplain etc..) not to a parish.

Preacher Not a specifically Catholic term.

Reverend A title given to any priest deacon or bishop (to varying degrees)

Deacon An ordained person in the order below priests.  Deacons cannot celebrate Mass or administer the sacrament of reconciliation (strictly speaking, they can hear your confession - but they can't do anything about it).  Deacons come in two flavors.  The permanent deaconate (people ordained specifically as helpers to the priests) and transitional deconate (seminarians ordained a few years before their eventual ordination to the priesthood)

Elder Not a specifically Catholic term.

Bishop The successors of the apostles who oversee their diocese or bishopric (in the Eastern Catholic churches). Together with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, they are the top of the Catholic hierarchy. They are the ones who can confirm with the Holy Spirit (or appoint priests to do so in their stead) and only they can ordain priests.

Primate the Bishop of the first diocese in a nation (the primate of the U.S. is the archbishop of the diocese of Baltimore)
Archbishop a bishop of a larger diocese
Cardinal a title, given by the pope generally to a bishop to serve as an elector of the next pope.


As noted above by Igantius Theophorus, there exist some early Christian documents that attempt to deal with the conflict between the presence of Jesus' siblings and the perpetual virginity of Mary—Joseph as a widower seems to have been a favorite. So, for example, the Flight to Egypt as depicted artistically often includes Jesus' brother James leading the donkey—since he was putatively from an earlier marriage. That said, there is nothing in the biblical text that demands that Mary remained a virgin, was immaculately conceived, or assumed into heaven.

Of course, such doctrines are matters of faith and perfectly fine to hold to, but no serious biblical scholar would argue for the historical reliability of such documents—whatever the reality may have been.


Why did Our Lady of Lourdes say "I am the Immaculate Conception" and not "I am immaculately conceived" or "I am the Mother of God"?

Our Lady of Lourdes appears to St. Bernadette and tells her "I am the Immaculate Conception".

Joan Cruz's See How She Loves Us: 50 Approved Apparitions of Our Lady, § "Our Lady of Lourdes":

  Members of the family and countless visitors had implored Bernadette several times to ask the identity of the Lady. Bernadette had done so, but the Lady had not responded. During the sixteenth apparition on March 25, 1858, the Feast of the Annunciation, Bernadette asked once more. This time the Lady responded in the Bigourdane dialect, “Que soy era Immaculada Conceptiou,” which means, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”

  In the year 1854, four years before the start of the apparitions at Lourdes, Pope Pius IX had declared [in Ineffabilis Deus] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary to be an “article of faith” to be believed by all Catholics. The doctrine was neither understood nor discussed among persons of Bernadette’s station in life,* so it was reasonable that Bernadette did not understand the words spoken by the Lady.

*Her family was extremely poor, living in a barn with a window facing a dunghill.

St. Bernadette—who was 14 years old, unlettered, and failed her catechism exam—couldn't even pronounce "Immaculada Conceptiou" when she told others this was who the Lady said she was. However, priests certainly knew that the Immaculate Conception is the Mother of God. There is no way St. Bernadette could have fabricated this, which proves the miraculous nature of the Our Lady of Lourdes apparitions.

Why she said "I am the Immaculate Conception" and not "I am immaculately conceived"

Fr. Karl Stehlin's Who Are You, O Immaculata? p. 114 (PDF p. 132) explains:

  At Lourdes the Immaculate Virgin answered St.
  Bernadette: ‘I am the Immaculate Conception!’ With these
  words she clearly stated that she is not only immaculately
  conceived, but is the Immaculate Conception. In the same
  way, a thing that is white is something other than whiteness
  itself, and a perfect thing is something other than perfection
  itself. When God spoke about Himself, He said to Moses,
  ‘I am Who am,’ that is, it belongs to My essence that I
  always have my being from Myself, without beginning.
  In contrast, the Immaculate Virgin has her beginning in
  God, is a creation, is a conception. Nevertheless she is the
  Immaculate Conception.

She is, as St. Maximillian Kolbe put it, "the quasi-incarnation of the Holy Ghost." She and the Holy Ghost can both be properly called the Immaculate Conception (ibid. pp. 50-51, PDF pp. 68-69):

  We can say likewise that she is the greatest, most excellent, purest Temple of the Holy Ghost. Mary herself corroborates this truth when she defines herself at Lourdes: “I am the Immaculate Conception” and thus assigns to herself the title that in the strict sense is an attribute of God (“I am...”) and is applied in particular to the Holy Ghost, who within the Trinity is the eternally perfect, “immaculate” conception of the Father and the Son.

    If among creatures a bride takes the name of her husband by the fact that she belongs to him, unites herself with him, makes herself like unto him and together with him becomes the source of new life, how much more should the name of the Holy Spirit, "Immaculate Conception", be the name of her in whom He lives with a love which is fruitful in the entire supernatural economy?4

  4. Final article of February 17, 1941, KR 212-213

(taken from this answer)


Are people who light those candles (votive candles) supposed to take a vow?

In Catholicism, a votive candle signifies literally that the lighting is done in fulfillment of a vow (Latin, votum), although in most cases the intention is merely to give honor and to seek help from the saint before whose images the candle is lit.
Roman pagan culture used candles in religious practice. Lit candles were used in religious and military processions, showing the divine presence, aid, or favor of the gods. With the development of emperor worship, candles were also lit near his image as a sign of respect and reverence. The emperor was considered divine and even given the titles Pontifex Maximus (High Priest) and Dominus et Deus (Lord and God).
Christians adapted the use of lit candles (or even oil lamps in the Eastern Roman Empire) for Mass, liturgical processions, evening prayer ceremonies, funeral processions, and to show reverence.


Can annulments be granted after a marriage has received a Radical Sanation?

A marriage may be declared null (granted an "annulment," although Canon Law does not use that term) after a sanatio in radice for the same reasons that any marriage is declared null: either because of impediments or because of a defect in consent. (See my answer to Is a Catholic annulment divorce in a Catholic way?.)

However, the process would be, so to speak, doubly difficult, because the invalidity of the marriage would have to be established both at the time of the exchange of consent (that is, at the wedding) and at the time of its convalidation (in this case, by means of a radical sanation).

(There is, of course, reason to suspect that the marriage was invalid until the time of its convalidation: that is why a radical sanation was sought. The case of nullity would probably have to rest on some other factor that the radical sanation did not take into consideration.)

A little background for the benefit of readers

If a Catholic couple discovers that there could be something rendering their marriage invalid (some impediment or a defect in consent), the Church offers various ways to regularize their situation. (These are found in the Code of Canon Law, can. 1156–1165.) Such a regularization is needed, because if the marriage is, in fact, invalid, the couple does not benefit from the graces that come from the Sacrament of Matrimony.

The simplest way is what is called a simple convalidation: the couple simply exchange their vows in the usual way before an authorized witness (usually a priest or deacon). It is effectively a new, albeit simple, wedding ceremony.

In some cases, however, a simple convalidation is not necessary, because the Church can take advantage of the consent already exchanged. In that case, the proper procedure to use is the sanatio in radice, which is essentially a decree on the part of the competent authority (the local ordinary) that all impediments to the marriage have been removed. Once the sanatio is given, the consent originally exchanged is sufficient for the marriage to be valid.


Does the Catholic Church teach that it has the authority to change what is morally right and wrong?

As regards God's Laws, NO! as regards her laws, YES!

In each generation, the Church receives from the previous generation, preserves it intact, and passes onto the next generation depositum fidei1, the Sacred deposit of the faith that consists of Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, entrusted to her by the Apostles to whom Jesus said in Matt 28:18-20:

  18 [...] “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
  19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20
  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am
  with you always, to the close of the age.”

Can the Church err in what she teaches?
The Church cannot err in what she teaches as to faith or morals, for she is our infallible guide in both.2

1. cf. CCC 84 and APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].
2. cf. Article 9 of Apostle's Creed | PENNY CATECHISM, 100.

Thus as regards teaching faith and morals, the Church teaches that she cannot err, and she cannot err because with the charism of infallibility Christ endowed her with, her mandate is to receive in each generation, the deposit of faith she received from the Apostles, keep it intact in that generation, teach it without error, and pass it on intact to the next generation.

The Unity and Indissolubility of Marriage and Worthy Reception of the Sacraments belong to this deposit of faith.

As part of the morals for a Catholic is that they are bound to obey the Church, because Christ has said to the pastors of the Church: 'Anyone who listens to you, listens to me: anyone who rejects you rejects me'. [Lk 10:16] One of the commandments of the Church is to keep Sundays and Holy days of Obligation holy, by hearing Mass and resting from servile works.3 What constitutes a Holy day of Obligation can change, the day of its keeping can move, and also it may not even be the same from country to country.

3. cf. Precepts of the Church | PENNY CATECHISM, 228 and 229 (1.).

Please note only the person who makes a law can change it, dispense with it, determine and adjust the penalty for its transgression, etc. no authority lower than they can do it.

Endnote

That doctrine cannot change is even affirmed by Cardinal Kasper. What he wants to do is [reaffirm] Catholic doctrine while offering pastoral overtures.

  Cardinal Kasper’s proposals in favor of communion for
  divorced-and-remarried persons are an illustration of what we blame on
  the Council.  In the talk that he gave to the cardinals during the
  Consistory on February 20th of this year, he proposed doing again what
  was done at the Council, namely:  reaffirming Catholic doctrine while
  offering pastoral overtures.  In his various interviews with
  journalists he harps on this distinction between doctrine and pastoral
  practice.  He says that theoretically doctrine cannot change, but he
  introduces the notion that concretely, in reality, there are some
  situations in which the doctrine cannot be applied.  Then, in his
  opinion, only a pastoral approach is capable of finding solutions… at
  the expense of doctrine. - cf. Interview: SSPX's Fellay Speaks on
  Meeting with Cardinal Müller - Kasper's consistently following Spirit
  of the Council to its logical end | RORATE CÆLI.

Please note Doctrine = teaching.
An example of a lower authority unable to amend a law cf. Pope St. John Paul II [the Great]'s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis - itself a doctrine - "The Church does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination." When asked about women ordination Pope Francis remarked that door is closed (because of Pope St. John Paul II). OP's commentary: That door was never open, actually, there was never even a door.
For the Unity and Indissolubility of Marriage cf. CCC 1609 - 1617, CCC 1644 and 1645, and General Audience, Wednesday 5 September 1979 | Pope St. John Paul II.


This question is so speculative it would make St Michael flinch.

First of all we know that Moses died at Mt. Nebo (Jordan) and that he was not permitted to enter the Promised Land because he failed to trust in God when he struck the rock twice  instead of speaking to it in order to bring forth water (Numbers 20: 8-12).
Now in the List of Burial Places of Biblical Figures we can see that the burial place of Moses is somewhere near Mt. Nebo, but not Enoch or Elijah. The exact place where Moses is buried remains unknown in order to prevent idolatry.

Now if St Michael and the Devil argued  over the body of Moses, it was because the Evil One believed he had some sort of rights over it.  If the body of Moses were in heaven, this debate would be futile for the Devil and would make no sense.

We know that both Enoch and Elijah were taken out of this world and did not taste death. Moses died, that is sure.

The Vicariate of St James (Israel) celebrates the Feast of Moses the Lawgiver on September 4 each year. The same Vicariate, along with the Carmelite Order, celebrate the Feast of St Elijah on July 20. In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass the rubrics for the Mass permitted the Carmelites to celebrate this feast with red vestments. Both the Armenian Orthodox Church and the Armenian Catholic Church commemorate the Patriarch Enoch on July 30.

As for the Transfiguration of the Lord, it was a vision and as such is not  proof that Moses is in heaven, body and soul.  There are simply too many examples of saints appearing to people in visions to prove this. St Catherine appearing to Joan of Arc is just a single example.

Thus I conclude that Moses is in heaven and his body remains in an unknown location.


How do the Father and Son differ if they have the same particular essence?

I think the traditional Trinitarian answer would be that (prior to the incarnation) the three persons of the Trinity do not differ by any properties; instead they are distinguished by their relationships with each other. The three persons of the Trinity all share the one singular divine essence. Faculties such as the will and mind belong to the divine essence, so there is one single divine will which each person possesses, one single divine mind which each person possesses. Attributes like God's omniscience, omnibenevolence, justice, impassibility, transcendence, these are all attributes of the divine essence.
Without implying that the Son is in any way non-eternal, created, or subservient, the Father is first, and the Son comes from the Father; he is the eternally begotten Son. Likewise the Spirit comes from the Father (and possibly the Son, depending on who you ask). Likewise, in their relationships with each other, the persons of the Trinity cooperate in their creation of the world, and in their salvation of humanity, but in their cooperation they each assume a particular role. This has been called the Economic Trinity. But the traditional Trinitarian position is not that we should think the roles each person assumed are arbitrary or interchangeable; though we do not fully understand how the persons of God relate with each other, it was not chance that the Son became incarnate, but it is infinitely fitting that the Son, as the Word of the Father, would become the incarnate Word to fully reveal God to us. Likewise it is fitting that the Spirit of God would indwell us, breathing new spiritual life into us. (Spirit and breath are one word in both Hebrew and Greek.)


Do Anglo-Catholics encourage closed Communion?

Some more conservative Anglo-Catholics may prefer a policy of closed communion, but in the Episcopal Church there is a policy of communion being offered to all who are baptized.


Why did Jesus confront the official who had slapped Him in the presence of the High Priest?

The question asked by the official is rhetorical, because he wasn't really expecting Jesus to answer. It was a statement: "That's no way to speak to the High Priest!". You often hear parents ask questions like, "Is that any way to treat your sister?" or teachers, "Is that any way to behave?" It is a technique used by those in authority to give the impression they're not giving orders or exercising dominion over those in their charge.

The question having been asked, however, invited a response from Jesus. He took the opportunity to give his interrogators something to think about in regard to the legitimacy of their proceedings.

If the OP's intent was to challenge Jesus' behaviour as an example of not practicing what he preached, then I am prepared to expand this answer.

Conclusion

Jesus wasn't confronting the official, but simply took the opportunity provided by the official's question to move his interrogators to more carefully consider their actions. You know, to give their consciences a chance to ask, "Does this man really deserve to be treated this way?"

There really is no avenue of escape from guilt for those who participated in Jesus' trial. He gave them every opportunity to change their minds.


Is there a standard version of the Bible?

The standard resides in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  While there are, admittedly, small variances in the Greek manuscripts (New Testament) in particular, these variances are completely insignificant, consisting mostly of spelling variances for proper names, word order, and very slight verb tense differences, which happen to translate the same into English anyway.

Most advanced students of the Bible will learn Greek at least and oftentimes Hebrew as well and reference the original languages.  My pastor translates each passage from scratch whenever he preaches on a New Testament text.


If a person undergoes an emergency baptism, then recovers, do they need a "non-emergency" baptism?

A baptism is a baptism. There is no such thing as a "temporary baptism".

The key part of the Canons is as follows:

  An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay. (Canon 867 §2)

There is no provision for any kind of "rebaptism" or anything similar: indeed "only [a person not yet baptized] is capable of baptism" (Canon 864).

There are other rules about baptisms in case of necessity (imminent danger of death being the most common necessity). For instance, any person with the correct intent may baptize in necessity, not only a priest. None of these rules, however, suggest the emergency baptism is anything other than full, complete and efficacious.


Is the King James Version Bible in the Public Domain

Yes, it will. Quote away, without fear of being attacked for not footnoting what you are quoting.

In the Wikipedia article on the KJV, you'll find the following: "The Authorized Version [i.e., the KJV] is in the public domain in most of the world."

In your memoirs, just make sure your quotation corresponds to the correct chapter and verse. A personal pet peeve of mine is the frequency with which I go to the reference provided in a writing and fail to find the verse that is quoted and cited.

On the plus side, however, that kind of erratum makes me appreciate all the more the miraculous job performed by generations of faithful and meticulous scribes and transcribers who all did their part in providing us with the Bible we have today. PTL!


We will judge angels? But we are lower than the angels

The simplest way to reconcile these passages is to dispute the KJV's translation of βραχύ as "a little." This is, in fact, what most other translations have done, including those that have no interest in internal harmonization. The NET renders Heb 2:7 as follows:

  Hebrews 2:6–8a (NET)

  6 Instead someone testified somewhere:

  "What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him?

  7 You made him lower than the angels for a little while.

  You crowned him with glory and honor.

  8a You put all things under his control,"

The NRSV, ESV, NASB, and CEB all translate this verse similarly, as "for a little while" or "for a short time"—a meaning well within the word's semantic range. The NIV is the only major modern translation that interprets βραχύ as a hierarchical rather than a temporal statement.

Here's the full entry from BDAG:

  βραχύς, εῖα, ύ (Pind., Hdt. +) prim. ‘short’.

  ①pert. to having little length, short, of space: βραχύ (so
  Thu. 1, 63, 2; 2 Km 16:1) διαστήσαντες_a little farther on_Ac
  27:28.

  ②pert. to being brief in duration, brief, short, of time: β.
  (τι) for a short time (Ael. Aristid. 13 p. 276 D.) Ac 5:34; Hb
  2:7 (quotes Ps 8:6, which refers to rank; in Is 57:17 β. τι denotes
  time), 9;**μετὰ β. a little laterLk 22:58.**

  ③pert. to being low in quantity, little, small (1 Km 14:29,
  43; Jos., Bell. 1, 597, Ant. 9, 48 ἔλαιον βραχύ): _a small amount_β.
  τι_a little_J 6:7 (cp. Thu. 2, 99, 5). διὰ βραχέων_in a few words,
  briefly_Hb 13:22 (besides the exx. in FBleek ad loc., s. also
  Just., A I, 8, 3; Tat. 41, 3; Ocellus Luc. 35; Ptolem., Apotel. 1, 1,
  3; Lucian, Toxaris 56; Ps.-Lucian, Charid. 22; Ael. Aristid. 13 p. 183
  D.; Achilles Tat. 7, 9, 3; PStras 41, 8 διὰ βραχέων σε διδάξω; EpArist
  128; Jos., Bell. 4, 338). LTrudinger, JTS 23, ’72, 128–30.—1 Pt
  5:12 P72.—B. 883. DELG. M-M.

As you can see, the KJV's translation uses the third definition, but even then it's a bit of a stretch. Based on the information here, βραχύς seems to be more a quantitative than a qualitative term. "A little lower than the angels" implies that we are created with a substance that is intrinsically lower in rank or quality than angels. I don't think the text suggests anything like that.


Why are some people born into famine and starvation?

I believe this is one of the most challenging questions to answer because it's so painful to see such terrible suffering in the world that occurs especially when it's at no fault of the suffering soul.  Therefore, this question requires a sincere answer in response to the emotions it invokes as well as the possible contradiction posed by Epicurus.

In response to Epicurus; he makes a fatal error in his logic by not considering the possibility that God has a sufficient reason for allowing such suffering in the world.  If this is even possible it completely eliminates any logical contradiction concerning the existence of a good God and the existence of evil.  In God's omnipotence He can choose to allow terrible things to occur in order to bring about a greater good later.  Think about the story of Joseph (Gen 37-50),  or, most importantly, the betrayal of Christ which brought about atonement for our sins.  In this past century alone, our world has seen the most despicable dictators such as Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein to name a few.  Even in the face of the massive killings of China people are rushing to the Lord at a rate faster than any where else in the world.  In Pakistan you can receive the death penalty for conversion yet they still are unable to stomp out the forest fire of belief in Christ.  In Africa, from the early 1900's to date, the population has gone from less than 5% Christian to around 50%, in the face of famine, raping and brutal murders.  God exchanges the suffering of the world, not only for many good things, but also for His most cherished affection, which is us.

Some may say if God is Omnipotent (all powerful) then why not just eliminate evil altogether and let us live in happy harmony.  I suggest this premise has not been thought through very carefully for if God's standard is perfection He would ultimately have to either revoke our free will or eliminate all mankind since we have all fallen short of His glory (Rom 3:23) and deserve death (Rom 6:23).  Even the atheist must admit that he has committed some evil according to God's standards, thereby qualifying for elimination.  But as we have seen, God doesn't want to eliminate us but wants all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

What about the children who die before being baptized, where do they go.  I would first like to say that although Jesus commands a professing Christian to be baptized, he never requires it for salvation.  In fact, he tells the criminal on the cross next to him who had a repented heart, "Truly, I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).  This thief did not have the opportunity to be baptized yet Christ is telling him he will be in heaven.  I would also like to point out in contrast to the Christadelphian claim, that the bible indicates here and in Luke 16:22 that believers will indeed be in heaven immediately after dying.  Romans 10:9-13 tells us how to be saved and baptism is not part of it.  Furthermore the bible indicates that a child who dies goes to be with the Lord.  (2 Sam 12:23) When Davids son dies he says, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me", meaning David will see him again in heaven.  And again in Ezekiel 16:21 God calls the young children of Israel who were being sacrificed by fire, His children, and we know from John 1 that to be a child of God is to be saved.

Lastly, about the people who are unreached by the gospel before there death.  Read Romans 1 and 2 very carefully and you will find that although a man may not have heard the gospel he still has the testimony of God's existence from creation and an inner conviction (also see John 16:8).  This conviction is the same conviction that drives any person to repentance.  Christ is not limited to just using people to share the gospel, he can do so by coming Himself to a believing and contrite soul, in a vision, as he has done for so many people already.  Many Muslims who have come to Christ will testify that they were met by Christ having never heard the gospel a day in there life, Amazing!! Read Acts 10 and you will see the story of a man who loved God but never heard the Gospel, and God sent Peter to him so that He may hear.

I hope this makes sense, I know it's very long answer but these are questions that many have written entire books about.  I really hope and pray that you would reconsider your disbelief.  Think about this, you lost your faith because of all the injustice going on, meanwhile the people being treated unjustly are gaining such strong relationships with God.  James 1 was written just for these people to remain strong during trials, and I plead with you to do the same.


Exorcisms: effective remedy or historical curiosity?

This answer wants to be objective and won't give a plaidoyer pro or contra exorcism.
First some words about the biblical foundation of exorcism.
OT
The idea of an evil power didn't actually play a role in ancient Israel because of the sole and universal power of JHWH – except for two pericopes:

1 Sam 16:14-23: Talks of the expulsion of a demonic power that tortures King Saul
1 Tob 8:1-9: Talks of a ritual expulsion of demons

The evil doesn't lay in any demonic power but rather in the weakness of man … until in the postexilic period a belief in demonic power develops (but still they don't have any dualistic principle which assumes an equivalent power beside God).
Biblical passages are:

Ijob 1:6 – 2:7: Describes Satan as a man at the court of God
Sach 3:1-7: Satan as an adversary and accuser of God
1 Chr 21,1: The Hebraic word for Satan evolves to a name which represents God's wrath but is not God himself
Wis 2:24: Satan as the adversary of Israel

But nevertheless – the appearance of Satan in the OT is a marginal phenomenon.
Today's image of Satan as a spirit being of divine power is later developed in the non-biblical Jewish literature.
NT
Things are different in the NT – e.g. in the Gospel of Mark: Here we find four exorcistic traditions:

1,23–27
5:1-20
7:24-30
9:14-27

They all say: Jesus had the ability to heal from illness and possession. Similar passages can also be found in the other synoptic Gospels (of Matthew and Luke).
From the three summaries in Mark's Gospel 1:34, 1:39 and 3:11 we know that Jesus did perform exorcism and gave this ability the twelve apostles.
Alright, enough Biblical evidence – what about exorcism today? What do say …
… Catholics?
Catholic authors (Dr. Holböck, Pater Rodewyk, J.M. Hartmann, Corrado Balducci, a Bishop of Trier (Franz Rudolf Bornewasser), Pope Benedict XVI.) emphasize that there are cases of real possession that cannot be explained by medical doctors and psychologists.
I quote Joseph Ratzinger:

The evil is not only a psychic component, it's rather an oncoming, independent power that accrues humans. [...] Where HE [God] is, appears he [the devil] as void.

Exorcism is still an official doctrine of the Catholic church.
And what do say …
… Protestants?
Luther developed – as part of his Christology – a massive idea of the devil.
But nevertheless an idea of exorcism is practically not present1 in the Protestant Church – there's also no ritual like the Catholic "Rituale Romanum".
There are even some who want to erase an idea of an evil demonic power saying it's superstition, like Rudolf Bultmann:2

The church shall hurry up to exterminate it [the idea of demons]

1: With some exceptions, e.g. Christoph Blumhardt
2: Rudolf Bultmann, ''Kerygma und Mythos'' (1948), p.150


The NIV Bible does not contain the Deuterocanonical Books, which for study purposes should do no harm. It also does not contain Catholic material such as Additions to Esther and Daniel, and these differences could cause some confusion. Finally, all translations involve 'interpretation', although a young child is unlikely to notice the occasional subtle differences in interpretation.

In the end, Bibles say the same thing so, subject to the above comments, you could allow your child to participate in this program, with a clear conscience.


Why do Catholic laity cross themselves three times before the Gospel is read?

Before the Gospel is read, a Catholic makes signs of the cross, with the thumb, on his or her

forehead,
mouth, and
heart,

which represents that the Catholic must

understand the Gospel,
proclaim it, and
"take it to heart," i.e., put it into practice, with charity.

Dom Prosper Guéranger's Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of the Holy Mass (hardcover ed. p. 32-33) says:

  [While the priest] makes the sign of the Cross upon the Book, and at the place where begins the text of the Gospel…[, the priest and the faithful] at the same time, signs himself on the forehead, the lips, and the breast, asking, in virtue of the Cross, which is the source of all grace, that he may always have the Gospel in his heart, and on his lips, and that he may never be ashamed of it.

(I've edited what Dom Guéranger said to apply also to the faithful, not just the deacon. Dom Guéranger is describing a Solemn High Mass, where a priest, deacon who sings the Gospel, and sub-deacon, along with altar servers, assist. The deacon in such Masses does the three signs of the cross to himself just as the faithful do to themselves in all types of Masses, High or Low, before the Gospel. The reason for the three signs of the cross is the same.)


If a Catholic priest absolves my sins without taking a confession, does it still count?

Without a doubt, no.

Intention, Form and Matter

The Church teaches that a sacrament of the Church consists in three necessary things:

The intention to effect the sacrament according to the mind of the Church on the the part of the minister thereof (i.e. not with some other intention alien to the purpose of the sacrament and to the Church).
The valid form (i.e. the prescribed words used during the administration of the sacrament: e.g. "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" for the Sacrament of Baptism).
The matter of the sacrament (the 'stuff' involved in constituting the sacrament validly: e.g. unleaved bread and grape wine for the Sacrament of Holy Communion).

In the case of the priest, he needs to use the valid form (words) of absolution. We can assume your priest knew the form and said it correctly. However, he did not have the matter of the sacrament, which are, in the case of confession: contrition for the sins committed (regret and sorrow for having sinned against God) and auricular confession of those sins.

A Few Reasons This Needs to be the Case

Scripture says, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity" (1 John 1:9). Stopping by for the priest to pray over you is not the sacrament of confession, since he can't grant God's absolution without a confession; for the same reason a man or woman cannot bring about the sacrament of Matrimony without the equal consent of their partner. This is better understood when one realizes that the priest is a mediator of God's mercy, which implies that he has one hand to Christ and the other to you: you must participate—that's why you are there.
When Christ endows the Apostles with this priestly power of forgiving sins, he notably says "whose sins you shall hold bound, they shall remain bound" (John 20:23). This necessitates a discrimination between a confession for which he can grant absolution, and one for which he cannot—which requires his hearing the sins. Such an example might be if the penitent isn't... so penitent, since clear indication that the penitent is sorry for his sins is required for the priest to give absolution.

This is something about which the bishop might need to be alerted. This is quite a serious problem.


To what extent (if any) does the Catholic Church recognize adoption?

…without any secular legal process, would the Church recognize the adoption?

No.

Canon Law defers to civil authorities for the legal recognition of adoption. For example, adopted children must be legally recognized as such before adoptive parents can baptize them (Can. 877 §3).

1983 Code canon 110 deals with adoption:

  Children who have been adopted according to the norm of civil law are considered the children of the person or persons who have adopted them.

Regarding

  why does secular law have such an impact on Church teaching?

see:

  Can. 22 Civil laws to which the law of the Church yields are to be observed in canon law with the same effects, insofar as they are not contrary to divine law and unless canon law provides otherwise.

It's possible that in the future the Church might devise a "mechanism or procedure…to secure the institute of adoption."

For more information on the divine, natural, civil, and ecclesiastical laws aspects of marriage, see How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments: The Sacramental Theology of Marriage From Its Medieval Origins to the Council of Trent by Philip L. Reynolds, §16.5 "Thomas Aquinas on Marriage in Law" pp. 686-715 (PDF pp. 718-747).