Is the Catholic Church NOT against all birth control?

The Roman Catholic Church has always supported Fertility Awareness methods of family planning - previously the Calendar method as a form of birth control. The church is not opposed to family planning - only to methods they would consider equal to killing children who have already been conceived or otherwise frustrates the unitave marital act. Being open to what God would do in a marriage, even if precautions such as a calendar method are used, is important. Hence, Kaspar's very deft retort:

  Kasper responded, “Well, the Church is not against birth control at all. … It’s about the methods of birth control.

This document in particular talks about Family Planning in the Catholic church.

As they state:

  At the first stage of life, centers for natural methods of regulating fertility should be
  promoted as a valuable help to responsible parenthood, in which all individuals, and in
  the first place the child, are recognized and respected in their own right and where every
  decision is guided by the ideal of the sincere gift of self. (EV, #88)

What they oppose is:

  It is therefore morally unacceptable to encourage, let alone impose, the use of methods
  such as contraception, sterilization, and abortion in order to regulate births

Indeed, surprisingly perhaps for some, the church discourages abstinence for married couples, recommending instead Love and Life in the Divine Plan - which means sex, even sex for pleasure, as long as it is truly good sex - meaning within marriage. The church has long noted God's command to procreate.  It just needs to be done responsibly.


How did Swedenborg interpret 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins"?

Preface: 1 John 2:2 in Swedenborg's writings
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) does not comment directly on 1 John 2:2 anywhere in his published or unpublished theological writings.
He does quote 1 John 2:2 in one of his unpublished notebooks, traditionally titled Scripture Confirmations, which served as a specialized Bible concordance for the composition of his final comprehensive work of systematic theology, True Christianity. In that single quotation of the passage, he translates the Greek word ἱλασμός (hilasmos) into the Latin word propitiatio, which is the standard Latin word for "propitiation." You can see his original Latin here (it occurs in the fourth line of text), and an English translation here.
Introduction: Swedenborg's general approach to "propitiation"
Although Swedenborg does not comment directly on 1 John 2:2 anywhere in his theological writings, he does discuss the concept of the propitiation for sins, mostly in his explanation of the meaning of the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant in the ancient Jewish tabernacle, and also in explaining the meaning of various Old Testament sacrifices and rituals of atonement.
Swedenborg largely skips over the traditional Christian theology that had grown up over the centuries around the concept of Jesus as the propitiation for sins. Instead, he draws his explanation of the meaning of this concept directly from the biblical text. And rather than relying upon later Greek- and Roman-derived philosophical concepts of "propitiation," he seems to assume that the use of the Greek word ἱλασμός and its related forms in the New Testament draw their meaning primarily from the terms in the Hebrew Bible that are commonly translated in the Septuagint using various forms of ἱλασμός—and that this Old Testament usage is the primary referent of the term ἱλασμός as used in the New Testament. The writers of the (Greek) New Testament drew heavily on the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures produced two or three centuries before the birth of Christ.
To understand Swedenborg's interpretation of Jesus as "the propitiation for our sins" as used in 1 John 2:2, then, it will be necessary to delve into the Hebrew word כָּפַר (kaphar) and its derivatives, which are the words most commonly translated in the Septuagint as ἱλασμός and its derivatives, and which therefore provide the primary meaning of ἱλασμός as used in the New Testament.
This we will do below. But first we must cover Swedenborg's view of the traditional Christian understanding of Christ as a propitiation for our sins.
Swedenborg rejected the traditional notion of propitiation as appeasing the wrath of God the Father
Swedenborg was aware of, but rejected, the traditional philosophically-based interpretation of "propitiation" as meaning to appease the wrath of God the Father through the literal shedding of blood and death of the Son of God on the Cross. In Apocalypse Explained, his massive unfinished and unpublished exegesis of the Book of Revelation, he comments on the traditional Christian belief about the meaning of propitiation for sins:

In respect to the first proposition, "That there is propitiation, that is, a propitiation of God the Father by the passion or by the blood of His Son." This involves a rejection or alienation of the human race because of some anger or vengeance, that is called vindictive justice, which was laid upon His Son by God the Father, to the end that by the passion of His cross He might be reconciled to the human race, and thus be propitiated. But who does not see that for God the Father to reject from Himself the human race, or from justice to revenge their alienation, is contrary to the Divine essence itself, which is love itself, mercy itself, and goodness itself? Such vengeance, indeed, could not exist in any angel, and scarcely with any well disposed man, much less with God. Who does not also see that it is difficult to think that such vengeance was laid upon the Son by His Father, or that the Son took such vengeance upon Himself, and that God the Father has mercy from seeing or recalling this, and not from the Divine love itself, which in its essence is infinite, eternal, and immediate towards the whole human race? I do not know, therefore, whether anyone can think from God and with God that he has been rejected of God, and therefore that by the will of the Father the Son was condemned, and was thereby made a propitiatory and a throne of grace. Moreover, justice is a Divine attribute, but not vindictive justice, and still less can it be in one on another's account; and if it is not justice neither is it according to Divine order for one to be saved on another's account, though it may be by means of another. Nor can God be reconciled by any other means than by the repentance of the man himself. To be saved by means of the Lord, and also by means of the passion of His cross, thus by the Lord, is propitiation and expiation, as will be seen in what follows. (Apocalypse Explained #805:3)

The primary points Swedenborg makes here in rebutting the traditional Christian divine wrath- and justice-based concept of "propitiation" are these:

It is contrary to the nature of God's love, mercy, and goodness for God to reject humanity.
It is contrary to the nature of God's love, mercy, and goodness for God to execute vengeance upon God's Son.
God's infinite love and mercy go out directly to the entire human race.
Divine justice is never vindictive justice.
Divine justice does not save one person due to the actions of another person (in this case, the Son of God), although that other person may be the means of saving the person.
The only way for a human being to be reconciled to God is for that person to repent from his or her sins.

Atonement in the Old Testament
As stated in the Introduction above, Swedenborg draws the meaning of "propitiation" primarily from its usage in the Hebrew Bible.
Although there are a two or three Hebrew words that are translated into English as "propitiation" and "expiation," the most common one by far is כָּפַר (kaphar).
כָּפַר is a Hebrew root word whose primary, concrete meaning is "to cover over." Its first use in the Hebrew Bible is in the story of the building of Noah's ark:

Make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. (Genesis 6:14, italics added)

Here the Hebrew word for "cover" is a form of כָּפַר. And in a play of words not reproducible in English translation, the Hebrew word for "pitch" is כֹּֽפֶר (kopher), "pitch" being something that covers things over. This gives a sense of the original, concrete meaning of the relevant Hebrew word.
It is from this concrete meaning of כָּפַר that it derives its more figurative and abstract meanings: "to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel:—appease, make an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile(-liation)" (from Strong's definition of כָּפַר).
The original meaning of the Hebrew word, then, does not point to the appeasement of an angry God, but rather to God "covering over" sins, which is a Hebrew idiom for forgiving sins out of mercy. It also has the sense of purging or cleansing away sins.
This leads to Swedenborg's understanding of "propitiation" in the Old Testament and in the Bible generally.
The mercy seat, or propitiatorium
Swedenborg's most extensive discussion of "propitiation" comes in his exegesis of the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, whose description first appears in Exodus 25:17–22. Here is the first half verse of that description:

Then you shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. (Exodus 25:17)

The Hebrew word here translated "mercy seat" is כַּפֹּרֶת (kapporeth), which is derived from the Hebrew word כָּפַר.
The common Latin translation of this word, which Swedenborg uses in his exegesis, is propitiatorium (see the Vulgate translation of this verse), which, obviously, is derived from the Latin word for "propitiation."
Swedenborg's exegesis of the mercy seat
This, then, is Swedenborg's key reference in the Bible for his explanation of the meaning of "propitiation" throughout the Bible. Here is the opening summary from Secrets of Heaven (Arcana Coelestia) #9506, where Swedenborg comments on the first half of Exodus 25:17. (For his full exegesis, click the number link just above.)

"And you shall make a mercy-seat from pure gold" means the hearing and reception of all things that belong to worship arising from the good of love. This is clear from the meaning of "the mercy-seat" as the cleansing from evils or forgiveness of sins, consequently the hearing and reception of all things that belong to worship, dealt with below; and from the meaning of "gold" as the good of love. (Secrets of Heaven #9506, italics added)

He then goes on to speak in more detail about the meaning of the mercy seat as hearing and receiving everything related to worship because God spoke to Moses and the priests from between the cherubim on the mercy seat. And he states that only people who have been cleansed from evils and sins can hear and receive these things from God, as symbolized by the requirement that Aaron, the high priest, engage in rituals of purification and atonement before entering the Most Holy Place where God would speak to him from between the cherubim.
So in Swedenborg's theology, the primary meaning of "propitiation" draws on the key meaning of the original Hebrew words, in which "to cover over" is taken as a metaphor for mercy and forgiveness of sins, which happens only when worshipers of God repent from their sins according to God's commandments, and are thus cleansed from their sins by God.
For additional passages in which Swedenborg comments on the meaning of "propitiation" in relation to sacrifices for atonement prescribed in the Old Testament, see Secrets of Heaven ##10122, 10124, 10127.
Swedenborg's general understanding of "propitiation"
Here is Swedenborg's brief summary of the meaning of "propitiation" and other traditional Christian concepts that are related to sacrificial worship in the Old Testament:

Sacrifices and burnt offerings in general served to mean the regeneration of a person by means of the truths of faith in the Lord and forms of the good of love to Him, both received from the Lord . . . . The pardoning of sins, expiation, propitiation, and redemption are nothing other than purification from evils and falsities, the implantation of goodness and truth, and the joining together of these, which is regeneration. (Secrets of Heaven #10042:5)

"Regeneration" here means spiritual rebirth, or in New Testament terms, being born again. Swedenborg saw this as a process that involved repenting from our sins, reforming our desires, thoughts, and actions, and becoming a new person motivated by God's love, guided by God's truth, and doing good deeds for our fellow human beings ("the neighbor," in biblical terms) from the power of God's love and truth flowing through us.
So although Swedenborg does use the traditional word "propitiation," his understanding of it is not derived from traditional Christian theology, nor from the more philosophical definitions of it that have developed over the centuries, but rather from the key words and passages in the Bible itself that define the concept.
These key words are occasionally used in the Bible to speak of appeasing someone's wrath, such as in the story of Jacob reuniting with his estranged brother Esau in Genesis 32:1-21, 33:1-17, as seen specifically in this verse:

For he [Jacob] thought, "I may appease him with the present that goes ahead of me, and afterwards I shall see his face; perhaps he will accept me." (Genesis 32:20)

However, these words are used far more often in the sense of forgiving sins out of mercy. And it is this primary meaning that Swedenborg draws upon in his understanding of "propitiation."
And he insists that although God does indeed forgive all of our sins out of pure love and mercy, the only way we can receive that forgiveness is to repent from our sins and live a new life of love and service to our fellow human beings, as Jesus Christ and the entire Bible command us to do.
Summary and conclusion
"Propitiation," as Emanuel Swedenborg understands it, has nothing to do with appeasing the supposed wrath of God the Father at our sins, as understood in traditional Christian theology. So it does not mean God being appeased by the shed blood and the death of his Son on the Cross.
There is no need for such appeasement, Swedenborg says, since such wrath and vengeance cannot be attributed to a God of pure love and mercy. God's "wrath" and "vengeance," when encountered in the Bible are, rather, metaphors for how God's love strikes people who are in opposition to it because they are actively engaging in evil desires, thoughts, and actions. For more on this, please see my article, "What is the Wrath of God? Why was the Old Testament God so Angry, yet Jesus was so Peaceful?"
Instead, Swedenborg says, "propitiation" has to do with God "covering over" our sins, meaning forgiving them out of pure love and mercy—which forgiveness we receive when we repent from our sins and live a good life instead, as God commands us to do throughout the entire Bible, both Old Testament and New.
And this, Swedenborg says, we cannot do by our own power, but only from the power of the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ working in us and through us—as Jesus himself said:

I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)


Bible changed? Example from Arminianism vs Calvinism

Between God's speaking and our hearing, many steps intervene:

The prophet hears from God, either face-to-face (Moses), or through dreams, or visions
The prophet speaks
The scribe records
Other scribes copy
A translator reads and renders the Word in a new language in which the words and idioms do not correspond exactly to their original intent
That language changes over time
Translations are revised to accommodate the change in language
Printers typeset and reproduce the Word
You hear preachers, family and friends explain the English language (or some other), the Bible and its ideas,
You read the Bible
The sum of all you have been taught and experienced and are reading and the Holy Spirit's whispers combine to supply a meaning to you

Theories of Biblical inspiration have something to say about each of these steps. However, no matter which one you subscribe to, it is apparent that at the level of individual words, the Bible is an approximation of God's original message. However, by reading the whole Bible and how the same truths are expressed in different ways throughout its pages, you can narrow down the magnitude of the difference between what God said and what you are hearing. The will's and should's will and should sort themselves out. The Spirit, the Church, godly friends and prayer should clarify things in time.


After resurrection, which one (if any) of the Mormon heavens will be here on earth?

Your first question:

  Is the Kingdom of God that is expected to rule the earth the same
  ("politically" speaking) as any (or all) of the 3 heavenly kingdoms
  (celestial, terrestrial, and telestial)?

In Mormonism (and even other faiths) the Kingdom of God/Heaven can mean different things in different contexts.  Specifically the Kingdom of God on Earth can mean His Church as it is established now (speaking of the Restored Church in the LDS belief).  This is an excerpt from the above linked page:

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God
  on the earth but is at the present limited to an ecclesiastical
  kingdom. During the millennial era, the kingdom of God will be both
  political and ecclesiastical (see Dan. 7:18, 22, 27; Rev. 11:15; JST
  Rev. 12:1–3, 7 [Appendix]; D&C 65) and will have worldwide
  jurisdiction in political realms when the Lord has made “a full end of
  all nations” (D&C 87:6).

We also believe (I am LDS) that Christ will appear to all on the Earth (the Second Coming) and at that time many things will take place.  I won't go into all the specifics but after this Second Coming, Christ will rule on Earth for a thousand years.  This time is called the Millennium.  At his coming all that were less valiant will be consumed in fire and those that remain will be worthy of either Celestial or Terrestrial glory - in other words the telestial will be consumed.  This is also a Kingdom of God.

After the Millennium the Earth itself will receive Celestial Glory and only the Celestial will remain. This answers your second question, in that yes, we believe that the Celestial Kingdom will be here on earth. This is a continuation of the previous Kingdom of God.  All of the Plan of Salvation for Mormons is to continue on to Eternal Progression and as they progress they continue forward in God's Kingdom.

It has not been revealed to us where the other kingdoms will be but they will also be on a physical world.


How has God destroyed the wisdom of the wise?

Paul explains what he means when read in context.

  I Corinthians 1:18-27 For the preaching of the cross is to them that
  perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of
  God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
  will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the
  wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath
  not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the
  wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the
  foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews
  require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach
  Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks
  foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks,
  Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. *Because the
  foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is
  stronger than men.* For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not
  many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are
  called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
  confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to
  confound the things which are mighty;

In other words, the world believes that 'Christ crucified' is foolishness, when it is in fact the wisdom of God. By their wisdom (their learning and reasoning) they reject the wisdom of God, which is so simple that it confounds supposedly learned men.

The scribes, being the few that could actually read the Old Testament scrolls, should have been the ones to recognize Jesus. But instead it was simple fishermen (not many noble, not many wise) that recognized who He was.

Paul's point is that the approach to God is not found through intellectual reasoning and man's wisdom, but God is revealed in such simplicity that the wise of the world stumble.


If Hell does not exist would God have sent Jesus to die?

It depends on how you interpret the word "perish" in John 3:16.

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
  (John 3:16, NIV)

Physical death: To say that the word 'perish' here means physical death would mean that the moment we believe in Jesus Christ, we will become immortal and we will never die; which is obviously false. One might also interpret this as the resurrection at the last day, which would mean that non-believers will never be raised again, they will remain in the dust forever, which is again in contradiction to Revelation 20:5, which has resurrection of the unjust after the Millennium.

"Hell/Lake of fire/ Second death:" We will go to Hell after we die if we do not accept the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Revelation 20(NIV) has something to say about this.

  [4-6] I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given
  authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
  because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God.
  They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received
  its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and
  reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not
  come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first
  resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first
  resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will
  be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand
  years.

  [11-15] Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it.
  The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no
  place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before
  the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is
  the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done
  as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it,
  and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each
  person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and
  Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the
  second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of
  life was thrown into the lake of fire.

I was born and brought up in the Assembly of God Church. Most of the preachers always interpret John 3:16 as,

  Those who believe in Jesus will not go to Hell. After the fall of Adam and Eve, everyone is destined to go to Hell because we no
  longer belonged to God and we are now children of Satan. When God saw
  that all men are going to Hell, He could no longer stay where He was. God then came down from Heaven to earth, to pay the death penalty of sins for
  us, so that we may escape the fire of Hell by accepting Jesus Christ as our savior.

No wonder why the Apostles' Creed states  "Jesus descended into hell".


On ferias, feria 2, feria 3?

First of all the word feria comes from the Latin meaning free day.

Historically the term by which the Church has used for the days of the week has undergone several changes in it’s usage. The nuances of the term  is not always completely clear either. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on this subject:

  A day on which the people, especially the slaves, were not obliged to work, and on which there were no court sessions. In ancient Roman times the feriae publicae, legal holidays, were either stativae, recurring regularly (e.g. the Saturnalia), conceptivae, i.e. movable, or imperativae, i.e. appointed for special occasions. When Christianity spread, the feriae were ordered for religious rest, to celebrate the feasts instituted for worship by the Church. The faithful were obliged on those days to attend Mass in their parish church; such assemblies gradually led to mercantile enterprise, partly from necessity and partly for the sake of convenience. This custom in time introduced those market gatherings which the Germans call Messen, and the English call fairs. They were fixed on saints' days (e.g. St. Barr's fair, St. Germanus's fair, St. Wenn's fair, etc.)

  Today the term feria is used to denote the days of the week with the exception of Sunday and Saturday. Various reasons are given for this terminology. The Roman Breviary, in the sixth lesson for 31 Dec., says that Pope St. Silvester ordered the continuance of the already existing custom "that the clergy, daily abstaining from earthly cares, would be free to serve God alone". Others believe that the Church simply Christianized a Jewish practice. The Jews frequently counted the days from their Sabbath, and so we find in the Gospels such expressions as una Sabbati and prima Sabbati, the first from the Sabbath. The early Christians reckoned the days after Easter in this fashion, but, since all the days of Easter week were holy days, they called Easter Monday, not the first day after Easter, but the second feria or feast day; and since every Sunday is the dies Dominica, a lesser Easter day, the custom prevailed to call each Monday a feria secunda, and so on for the rest of the week.

  The ecclesiastical style of naming the week days was adopted by no nation except the Portuguese who alone use the terms Segunda Feria etc. The old use of the word feria, for feast day, is lost, except in the derivative feriatio, which is equivalent to our of obligation. Today those days are called ferial upon which no feast is celebrated. Feriae are either major or minor. The major, which must have at least a commemoration, even on the highest feasts, are the feriae of Advent and Lent, the Ember days, and the Monday of Rogation week; the others are called minor. Of the major feriae Ash Wednesday and the days of Holy Week are privileged so that their office must be taken, no matter what feast may occur.

Here follows an example of a medieval liturgical calendar, which may be helpful in understanding the above nuances.

  Perhaps the oldest ecclesiastical calendar, in the proper sense of the word, which still survives, is the one which was in the possession of the Englishman St. Willibrord, Apostle of the Frisians, who has left in it an autograph note of the date of his consecration as bishop (A.D. 695). The calendar was probably written in England between 702 and 706. As it has never been printed it may be interesting to give here the entries made in the original hand, omitting the interpolations made by others at a slightly later date. The manuscript which contains it is the well-known "Codex Epternacensis", now Latin manuscript 10837, in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.

  January

  1 Circumcision

  3 St. Genevieve of Paris

  6 Epiphany

  13 St. Hilary

  14 St. Felix of Nola

  17 St. Anthony, Hermit

  18 St. Peter's Chair at Rome and the Assumption of Holy Mary

  20 St. Sebastian

  21 St. Agnes (Virgin)
  24 St. Babilas, Bishop and Martyr
  25 Conversion of St. Paul at Damascus
  29 St. Valerius, Bishop, and St. Lucy (Virgin) at Treves

  February

  1 St. Denis, St. Polycarp and St. Brigid (Virgin)

  2 St. Symeon, Patriarch

  5 St. Agatha

  6 St. Amandus

  16 St. Juliana

  22 The Chair of Peter at Antioch

  March

  1 Donatus

  7 Perpetua and Felicitas

  12 St. Gregory at Rome

  17 St. Patrick, Bishop in Ireland

  20 St. Cuthbert, Bishop

  21 St. Benedict, Abbot

  25 The Lord was crucified and St. James the brother of Our Lord

  27 The Resurrection of Our Lord

  April

  4 St. Ambrose

  22 Philip, Apostle

  May

  1 St. Philip, Apostle

  5 The Ascension of the Lord

  7 The Invention of the Holy Cross

  11 Pancratius, Martyr

  14 Earliest date for Pentecost

  31 St. Maximinius at Treves

  June

  2 Erasmus, Martyr

  8 Barnabas, Apostle

  9 St. Columkill

  22 James the son of Alpheus

  24 Nativity of John the Baptist

  29 Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome

  July

  15 St. James of Nisibis

  26 St. James, Apostle, Brother of John

  26 St. Symeon, Monk in Syria

  29 St. Lupus

  August

  1 The Machabees, seven brothers with their mother

  5 St. Oswald, King

  6 St. Syxtus, Bishop

  10 St. Laurence, Deacon

  13 Hippolitus, Martyr

  16 (Sic) [erasure] St. Mary

  25 St. Bartholomew, Apostle

  28 Augustine and Faustinus, Bishops

  29 Martyrdom of St. John the Baptist

  31 St. Paulinus, Bishop at Trier

  September

  7 Sergius, Pope at Rome

  9 (Sic) Nativity of St. Mary at Jerusalem

  13 Cornelius and Cyprian

  15 St. Euphemia, Martyr

  19 Januarius. Martyr

  21 Matthew, Apostle

  22 Passion of St. Maurice

  24 Conception of St. John the Baptist

  27 Cosmas and Damian at Jerusalem

  29 St. Michael, Archangel

  October

  1 Remedius and Germanus

  4 Sts. Heuwald and Hewald, Martyrs

  14 Paulinus, Bishop in Canterbury

  18 Luke, Evangelist

  28 Simon and Jude, Apostles

  31 St. Quintinus, Martyr

  November

  10 St. Leo, Pope

  11 St. Martin, Bishop at Tours

  22 St. Cecilia

  23 Clement at Rome

  24 Crisogonus

  30 St. Andrew, Apostle

  December

  10 St. Eulalia and seventy-five others

  20 St. Ignatius, Bishop and Martyr

  21 St. Thomas, Apostle in India

  25 Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ

  26 St. Stephen, Martyr

  27 John, Apostle, and James, his brother

  28 The Innocents

  31 St. Silvester, Bishop

  This list very well illustrates the arbitrary choice of saints to be commemorated, which is observable in most early calendars. The mention of the Nativity of our Lady on 9 September instead of 8 September is interesting in view of the Eastern practice, attested by the Naples marble calendar, of celebrating the Conception of Our Lady on 9 December. - Christian Calendar


Why did John Wycliffe oppose papal authority in the 14th century?

There are whole books to be written on the subject of John Wycliffe's early Reformations, and even the Wikipedia article on the conflict is pretty substantial.  As such, this is just a brief summary of three influences (in chronological order) that should be understood:

Duns Scotus first helped to diminish the idea of "universals". Universals - the hallmark of scholasticism - were concepts that had real essence in and of themselves. As Scholasticism declined, philosophers less willing to study the "ideal notion" of a thing and look more at the specifics of an individual.  Its an overstatement to say that a scholastic didn't care about "the Pope" and only thought of "the Papacy," but Duns Scotus helped the idea that one could separate the individual from the instution.
William of Occam and his writings against papal authority.
William of Occam was a philosopher who championed the idea that "Universals should not be propogated needlessly" or more simply "The simplest explanation is usually the best," probably the most succint way of describing Scotus...  Occam also began to write about the abuses of power in general, and the need for a separation of church and state in particular.  Later the concilliar movement would take these ideas as the bedrock of liberal democracy in general.
Wycliffe's own mendicacy
Wycliffe himself, like St. Francis of Assisi before him, more or less rejected wealth and power, and therefore became increasingly vocal in his dislike of the papacy.  It should also be noted that by the time of Wycliffe's death, there were two people claiming to be Pope, one in Rome, the other in Avignon, and would soon be a third in Pisa.  This enabled one to remain in the church and write a little more openly. Even the modern Roman Catholic Church admits this was a real low point in the Papacy, and abuses were rife.  Simony and Indulgences, and all the things Protestants still think of as "Catholic" were fairly normative at this time, and it wasn't until the 1540s that these abuses would be rectified.

This doesn't mean Wycliffe's own writings escaped the notice of the 15th Century Popes, however.  In 1415, Wycliffe's remains were exhumed and burned, and he was excommunicated.  Still, the relative disorder of the period gave Wycliffe space to write.


What is known about the Apostle Paul's family?

Any speculation about Paul's wife (or lack thereof) is just that, speculation.  Unless there is some authoritative extra Biblical source, we know only that he is, at the time of his writing of I Corinthians, unmarried and the inference is that he has never been married (But each man has his own gift from God. I Cor. 7:7).  As for 'Pharisee of the Pharisees', it is emphasizing that he is/was the "best of the best" as can be seen in the context.  Paul did not brag but did not exhibit false modesty either.
Finally, pertaining to his Roman citizenship, one could be born a citizen, purchase his citizenship or earn his citizenship through some service to Rome.  Paul was born a citizen because his father was a citizen.  The speculation is that his father performed some service for Rome but that is only speculation.


What is the view of Islam within the Catholic Church?

Muslims have an incorrect view of God, as they do not recognize the Trinity, nor the divinity of Christ. Muhammad was not a true prophet like Moses, Isaiah, etc.

However, Muslims do worship the "same" God, and Catholics should treat Muslims with love and appreciate the good things they believe.

The most authoritative and well-recognized doctrine comes from the Catecism of the Catholic Church, 841 (Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 3, III):

  The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

The  United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’
Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs published in 2013 a detailed explanation Understanding Islam: A Guide for Catholic Educators. A few excerpts:

  Muslims and Christians share many
  common beliefs in their worship of a single Creator God who loves creation and who commands
  that His most cherished creations, human beings, love Him, one another, and His creation.

  Christians do not accord
  Muhammad the same status as the biblical prophets, but may regard him as a prophetic figure on
  such issues as charity and the protection of the poor, widows and orphans.

Pope Paul VI issued the Declaration on
the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions in 1965, which included references to Jews, Hindus, and Muslims.

  The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

  It is...the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

  The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.

More recently, Pope Francis said in Evangelii Gaudium 252-3.

  The sacred writings of Islam have retained some Christian teachings; Jesus and Mary receive profound veneration and it is admirable to see how Muslims both young and old, men and women, make time for daily prayer and faithfully take part in religious services. Many of them also have a deep conviction that their life, in its entirety, is from God and for God. They also acknowledge the need to respond to God with an ethical commitment and with mercy towards those most in need.

Your question is rather broad, but I think I have covered the most important points, with authoritative sources.


Joseph reveals himself to his brothers, why the elaborate ruse?

I am six months late answering this, but this same question, particularly, the "elaborate ruse", have been nagging me a long time; and this was the reason for me googling the topic, again, and this time stumbling to this site.

For if I imagined myself in Joseph's shoes, it seems only natural and human to declare who you are to your brothers the moment you realise who they are; but this was precisely not what Joseph did, and thus the BIG question, WHY? And then did Joseph schemed the entire elaborate ruse from the onset or was he led by the Spirit to do what he did?

My view at this moment is that Joseph did not scheme the ruse, in that he did not plan nor forsee every action and their chain of consequences to eventually lead to his brothers' repentance and his father coming to Egypt, but rather each step he was led by the Spirit, not entirely sure what the outcome would be.

In other words the ruse was designed by God for a purpose.

(And there are implications here for what it means to be led by the Spirit.)

And this purpose seems to be to demonstrate to the brothers the meaning of power, absolute power. For Joseph has the power to do anything he wants to his brothers, even to falsely accuse them and to concoct false evidence to prove such accusations. Joseph is literally life or death for his father and brothers: he can give them grain, or not, or put them to death on any whim or fancy.

For absolute power is completely arbitrary, and God wants the brothers, and Jacob too, to understand that. And such absolute and arbitrary power, that Joseph is, is but a mere reflection of the authority of God, and who God is. And in bowing to Joseph, Jacob and his brothers are, truly, worshiping God.

But it is this very same power that is for, and not against, the people of Israel.

And this same lesson, to know God, was played out again when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt.


What actions does the LDS church (Mormon) take when a member does not pay tithing?

All quotes in this post are taken from "A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings" by Elder M. Russell Ballard (an LDS apostle) in the September 1990 Ensign, an official LDS publication.
There are two levels of discipline in the Church: informal discipline (at a Bishop's discretion) and formal discipline (which is recorded). Formal discipline requires a disciplinary council.
Informal discipline:

When a bishop learns of a transgression, usually through the confession of the member involved, he first counsels with the member. When the sin is not grievous, the bishop may decide, through inspiration, that no disciplinary action is needed. He may continue to give counsel and caution, helping the member resist temptation and avoid further transgression.
Another option the bishop has is to place the member on informal probation, temporarily restricting his privileges as a Church member—such as the right to partake of the sacrament, hold a Church position, or enter the temple. The bishop may ask the member to surrender his temple recommend temporarily. In addition, he may require the member to make specific positive changes in attitude or behavior. No official record is made or kept of informal probation. The bishop maintains close contact with the member and may terminate the probation period when he is prompted to do so.

Formal discipline:

Decisions of [a disciplinary council] are to be made with inspiration. A council can reach one of four decisions: (1) no action, (2) formal probation, (3) disfellowshipment, or (4) excommunication.

Non-payment of tithing only merits informal discipline:

Disciplinary councils are not held for such things as failure to pay tithing, to obey the Word of Wisdom, to attend church, or to receive home teachers.

When are such councils held?

The First Presidency has instructed that disciplinary councils must be held in cases of murder, incest, or apostasy. A disciplinary council must also be held when a prominent Church leader commits a serious transgression, when the transgressor is a predator who may be a threat to other persons, when the person shows a pattern of repeated serious transgressions, when a serious transgression is widely known, and when the transgressor is guilty of serious deceptive practices and false representations or other terms of fraud or dishonesty in business transactions.
Disciplinary councils may also be convened to consider a member’s standing in the Church following serious transgression such as abortion, transsexual operation, attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, intentionally inflicting serious physical injuries on others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, child abuse (sexual or physical), spouse abuse, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, theft, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, or false swearing.

Thus, according to official LDS policy, members can only receive informal discipline (such as loss of a recommend) for not paying tithing.


Did Origen support the idealist view of Christian eschatology?

One place where Orgien's belief in eschatological idealism can be found is in De Principiis, 2.11, where he criticizes those who literally interpret prophecies to mean that resurrected bodies will be like current bodies, the heavenly city will be made of precious stones and metals, and that Christians will rule like earthly kings do now.

On resurrected bodies:

  Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body.

On heaven:

  [They imagine] to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, its foundations laid in precious stones, and its walls constructed of jasper, and its battlements of crystal; that it is to have a wall composed of many precious stones, as jasper, and sapphire, and chalcedony, and emerald, and sardonyx, and onyx, and chrysolite, and chrysoprase, and jacinth, and amethyst.

On rulers:

  Then, again, agreeably to the form of things in this life, and according to the gradations of the dignities or ranks in this world, or the greatness of their powers, they think they are to be kings and princes, like those earthly monarchs who now exist.

Summarizing his criticism, he says that these people, "while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises."

Instead of this, he argues that we should interpret Scripture "in conformity with the spiritual view of things."  Regarding eating by resurrected bodies, he writes:

  Those, however, who receive the representations of Scripture according to the understanding of the apostles, entertain the hope that the saints will eat indeed, but that it will be the bread of life.

Gregg R. Allison summarizes Origen's view this way:

  Moving beyond a literal interpretation, Origen approached Scripture to find its spiritual meaning.  [...] Christians could still hope for the fulfillment of the promises of the future, but the hope was not for physical goods but spiritual blessings. (Historical Theology, 687)


How much are we personally responsible for the salvation of someone else?

How much ? We can't know. Only God knows. We don't necessarily have to know.

Our christian faith teaches us that :

there IS free will and personal responsibility (or else we are not free creatures but mere puppets)
none of us is fully "free" since our decisions are affected by many factors : health, education, culture, past experiences, other creatures etc.
we are responsible for ourself and each other as far as we can. God respects our dignity and doesn't "assist" us like babies. It does however take care of all of us to ensure our personal growth through what we call "Providence". But we have to freely respond.

Recent social studies show that we are all influencing each other more than we may have previously thought. For example, divorce and suicide have been shown to be "contagious", i.e. a person doing it greatly increases his relatives chance to do the same.

It seems also that God leaves to us the task of propagating knowledge of Him (at last up to a certain mesure) though He could reveal himself to all people if He wanted to.

So we are definitely at last partially responsible for each other salvation, at last the part that doesn't depend on their own free will.

But evaluating "how much" we affect each other would require a full understanding of human mind and social interactions. We are VERY far from such knowledge.

Saints testimones (ex. st Joan of Arc) show that they honestly and genuinely didn't dare to presume that they were "in God's grace" which can be understood as "contributing to their own salvation and other's salvation". So saints didn't know either.

On the other hand, since Christian faith is about our personal, loving relation to God, such "how much" questions can be seen as irrelevant. Evaluating "how much" may imply the desire to "do only one's share" or "evaluating one's contribution", so introducing some kind of "due" or "contract". This is not how a love relation is supposed to work.

So a way of answering for a christian may be "I don't now, I can't know, I don't need to know. I just want to do the best for my brother humans out of love for God and them, without counting. I'm definitely not doing all I could but I'll do my best to sincerely and creatively help everyone's growth and have confidence in God's help and forgiveness on that matter." This is how saints like St Theresa or St Vincent of Paul expressed it.


According to reformed theology, does Satan know who the elect are (during their time on earth?)

After reading so many books by reformed theologians and never encountering such an idea - 'I don't think so.' Reformed theologians generally do not speculate about things 'within the kingdom of darkness' and maybe there is no value in truly knowing. From what limited information we do have from scripture, I sometimes think the Devil may be in a sense, insane in his sin.  Even though he must have known the scriptures better than anyone else; simply considering his direct interest in them, and how long he had been alive, and how powerful his mind must be, one would think he would have known how Jesus would destroy him, but did not. It seems he failed to realize that in killing Christ, he was killing himself.  He seemed to have thought that destroying Christ would be to his benefit.

This makes me think that the Devil is partially insane in sin, or does not believe everything that is written. He may not even believe in election, he may try to keep people from faith in Christ, thinking that he actually achieves something.  Having actual knowledge of who are the elect, seems way outside of his knowledge even if he thought clearly about God.

In some ways the Devil is the personification of hatred. When you hate someone you do not see them as they actually are, but you have created a false person in your mind, a lie.  Love is truth. Only when you love someone, by faith in Christ's love for us, do you see who they are in truth.  Since the Devil therefore lives in a lie of hate, all that he sees is a lie, even when in form his logic may have correct parts. He is the 'Father of lies', and hates God. Therefore he can't properly understand God. To love God is to understand God. What I am saying is that since Satan is a slave to lies, even if he understands things we do not, there is no guarantee that he understand anything properly.


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible?

Without much detail, here is an overview of how different Christians view the Bible. These are major categories, and there is going to be some grey area between all of them.

The Bible is inerrant on all matters it addresses, and should be taken to speak the literal truth unless the Bible itself says otherwise. Also called Biblical Literalism. Adherents to this view believe that Genesis is a literal historical description of the creation of the world, for example.
The Bible is inerrant on all matters it addresses. This is usually called Biblical Inerrancy. It differs from Biblical Literalism in that it admits of the possibility that the Bible may use non-literal descriptions even when that is not explicitly stated. It is the view of many churches (especially but not only Evangelical churches) who do not explicitly hold to the Literalist viewpoint. The Catholic church holds approximately this view, and says ""the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."
The Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and Christian practice. Also called Limited Inerrancy. This would mean that the descriptions of God, and commands to his people, are infallible, but that the history of early Israel (for example) might not be completely accurate.
The Bible is an accurate enough description of God and his interactions with his people in order for us to know him. Some adherents to this would attach special weight to the Gospels and to the sayings of Jesus.
The Bible is a helpful book.


Are Catholics allowed to believe that the EF or OF is objectively more reverent than the other?

Intrinsic value of the Mass infinite
Fr. Chad Ripperger, in his Summer 2003 Latin Mass Magazine article "Merit of a Mass", argues that Masses using 1962 Missals and earlier have greater extrinsic merit, while their intrinsic merit (Christ's infinitely meritorious sacrifice) is the same. He quotes Pohle, J. (1911). Sacrifice of the Mass. In The Catholic Encyclopedia:

we must also sharply distinguish between the intrinsic and the extrinsic value of the Mass (valor intrinsecus, extrinsecus). As for its intrinsic value, it seems beyond doubt that, in view of the infinite worth of Christ as the Victim and High Priest in one Person, the sacrifice must be regarded as of infinite value, just as the sacrifice of the Last Supper and that of the Cross. […] But when we turn to the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and expiation, the case is different. While we must always regard its intrinsic value as infinite, since it is the sacrifice of the God-Man Himself, its extrinsic value must necessarily be finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The scope of the so-called "fruits of the Mass" is limited.

Extrinsic value of the Mass
Pohle expands upon this in The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (vol. 2): The Holy Eucharist, part 3, ch. 3, §2.1 "Value of the Mass":

As regards the extrinsic value of the Mass, we must first of all distinguish between sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving on the one hand, and sacrifices of impetration and propitiation on the other. The first two are directed to God alone and cannot be applied to man, and hence a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered by the Son of God Himself (in the name of humanity) must be infinite, since God cannot but take infinite pleasure in the praise and thanksgiving of His only-begotten Son.b) The case is different with sacrifices of impetration and propitiation.α) Theologians generally4 agree that in itself (in actu primo) the Mass, as a sacrifice of impetration and propitiation, has infinite power, because impetration and propitiation performed by the God-man must have the same infinite value as praise and thanksgiving, though they may not attain their full effect on account of the limitations of human nature. It follows that intensively (intensive) the external value of the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration and propitiation can be but finite. This is confirmed by experience, and also by the fact that the Church allows many Masses to be offered for the same purpose. We may fairly ask, however, whether in its application (in actu secundo) and extensively (extensive) the value of the Mass is also merely finite. Or, to put it somewhat differently,—Can the value of the Mass, which is intensively finite, be applied to an unlimited number of persons in such a manner that its efficacy is in no wise diminished? Or do the individual beneficiaries share in the fruits pro rata? Rather than answer this question in the negative, many theologians prefer to hold that the Mass is of infinite value also extensive, and that the amount of the fruits each beneficiary receives, varies in proportion to his piety, worthiness, and devotion, in short, depends on “the work of the agent” (ex opere operantis). Surely, indeed, he would be a poor Christian who would expect wonders from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in spite of his own indifference.5β) Nevertheless, the question must be answered with a distinction.6 In addition to the active there are also passive participators in the Sacrifice of the Mass. These are the persons in whose favor,—it may be without their knowledge and against their wishes,—the Holy Sacrifice is offered. As regards the active participants, i. e. the celebrating priest and the attending faithful, the distributive value of the Mass does not depend on the number of those who take part in it. If this were the case, it could be truly said that the fewer the people who attend, the greater the fruits derived by those actually present. But this is contrary to the mind of the Church and the belief of the faithful. Each active participant receives as much of the fruits of the Mass as his personal worthiness and devotion entitle him to. It is not possible to assign a definite limit.4. With but few exceptions, among them Bellarmine, De Eucharistia, VI, 4.5. See No. 2, infra.6. Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 79, sect. 2.


What are legitimate reasons for a Catholic priest to take a sabbatical?

1) Nothing. Canon law is silent on sabbaticals. It's a completely discretionary thing.

2) Priests' sabbaticals can be many things. Some go on to write a book. Others indeed do study -- one of my university friends was a Catholic priest from Australia who came to Oxford, on a sabbatical, to study for a doctorate. During a sabbatical, at least for reasons of study, their faculties remain intact, but they should in general restrict themselves to co-celebration of Mass. Then there are sabbaticals for health reasons -- usually, policies there tend to be subject to diocesan policies on safeguarding the health (mental, physical and spiritual) of priests. Finally, there are sabbaticals for 'other reasons', these tend to be either giving priests some time to think things through (especially if they somehow were affected by a serious incident or experience a crisis in faith, which happens even to priests!) or as a 'lite' version of suspension. The ordinary has pretty unfettered discretion in this area, subject to, of course, not really having much of a choice where a priest is subject to incapacitating illness. Lately, given the recognition that priests are under an enormous amount of stress and need some care themselves, policies are arguably such that they're more likely to give priests some time if they so need. Sorry that's a bit of a disappointing answer, but sadly that's the best one can do when something's up to the about 400 or so dioceses that make up the Church!


Jesus called God his own Father, and this is supposed to mean that Jesus is equal with God. Why?

TLDR;

In this passage, Jesus uses language claiming God as a personal father; a begetting father, rather than in an abstract, "God is the Father of Humanity" sort of way.

From here, the Jews performed simple deductive logic; the son of God is a god, therefore Jesus is claiming to be a god.

More specifically, Jesus was claiming to be as divine as God, and therefore endowed with the same authority and doing the same kinds of works.

God the Father doesn't rest on the Sabbath and therefore neither does his son and only God can heal, and Jesus performed a healing, etc

Background:

The issue at hand for the Jewish leadership was that Jesus was widely perceived by the people as a prophet; a sentiment which was backed by his continuous miracle working and moral teaching. However, the common understanding was that God does not hear sinners:

  Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does
  His will, He hears him. - John 9:31, New King James Version

In healing on the Sabbath, Jesus was performing a forbidden "work" for which the Jewish Leaders sought to rebuke Him. (See John 5:16-17)

Worse still, in commanding the man to carry his bed upon being healed, Jesus was causing another man to sin. In the perception of the Pharisees, Jesus was guilty of at least 2 sins.

How then could Jesus perform these works if he was a sinner, they wanted to know? In an effort to discredit Him, the Jewish Elders came forward with their accusation and questioned Him.

Interpretation

On the whole, this passage is interpreted by commentators as being a claim of Divinity by Jesus Christ; either by virtue of doing a "divine work," or by his claim to being the Son of God or by virtue of a combination of these factors.

The traditional Patristic interpretation of this passage sees this as Jesus revealing himself to be a partaker of the divine essence, sharing in the power and authority that accompanies it. Basically, if God is not human, but divine, his son must be divine as well.

  "Were He not the Son by nature, and of the same substance, this defense would be worse than the former accusation made. For no prefect could clear Himself from a transgression of the king's law, by urging that the king broke it also. But, on the supposition of the Son's equality to the Father, the defense is valid. It then follows, that as the Father worked on the Sabbath without doing wrong: the Son could do so likewise." - St. John Chrysostom, quoted in Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain)

In this quotation, St. John Chrysostom is suggesting that it would not be a strong enough defense for Jesus to simply say "God doesn't rest on the Sabbath, so why should I?" The King as a prerogative and authority that transcends the rights of his subjects. However if Jesus was equal in privilege to by being of the same nature as God, He would not be guilty of an offense.

What St. John Chrysostom implies in his exegesis of the passage, St. Augustine makes more explicit:

  "The Jews however did not understand from our Lord that he was the Son of God, but only that He was equal with God; though Christ gave this as the result of His being the Son of God. It is from not seeing this, while they saw at the same time that equality was asserted, that they charged Him with making Himself equal with God: the truth being, that He did not make Himself equal, but the Father had begotten Him equal." - St. Augustine of Hippo, quoted in Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain)

Being the begotten Son of God, Jesus shares in the divine nature so is "equal" by nature, entitled to the same privilege and thus exempted from the regulations of the Sabbath.

This same position is held by more recent (relatively speaking) Protestant Commentators:

  "rightly gathering this to be His meaning, not from the mere words "My Father," but from His claim of right to act as His Father did in the like high sphere, and by the same law of ceaseless activity in that sphere. And as, instead of instantly disclaiming any such meaning—as He must have done if it was false—He positively sets His seal to it in the following verses, merely explaining how consistent such claim was with the prerogatives of His Father, it is beyond all doubt that we have here an assumption of peculiar personal Sonship, or participation in the Father's essential nature." - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown

In addition to affirming that Jesus is claiming to participate in the divine nature, notice  that the commentators call attention to the "peculiar personal Sonship" which Jesus is claiming as evidence for this participation. In this, the commentators are calling attention to the fact that the language Jesus used to refer to God as His father was much the same as a human would use to refer to their own biological father; this was not an abstract statement of "God as father of humanity" but rather a claim of divine descent.

The commentators also draw attention to the fact that due to His Father's example, and His participation in the divine nature Jesus was exempt from the Sabbath regulations, and like His Father would to continue working.

The sentiment is shared by both John Calvin, and Patristic Authors:

  "But it is chiefly concerning himself that Christ speaks, to whom the Jews were more hostile. He declares that the soundness of body which he has restored to the diseased man is a demonstration of his divine power. He asserts that he is the Son of God, and that he acts in the same manner as his Father." - John Calvin, Commentary on John - Volume 1

John Calvin returns to this theme more than once in his commentary on this passage, that the act of healing is a divine work, and that the Son of God is divine, therefore Jesus as the divine Son of God was and authority beyond the regulations of the Sabbath.

  "not in the secondary sense in which it is true of all of us, but as implying equality. For we all of us say to God, Our Father, Which art in heaven. And the Jews say, You are our Father. They were not angry then because He called God His Father, but because He called Him so in a sense different from men." - St. Augustine of Hippo, quoted in Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain)

In this passage, St. Augustine shows his interpretation of Jesus' choice of language as being a demonstration of a "peculiar personal sonship."

  "The words, My Father works hitherto, and I work, suppose Him to be equal to the Father. This being understood, it followed from the Father's working, that the Son worked: inasmuch as the Father does nothing without the Son." - St. Augustine of Hippo, quoted in Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain)

In this passage we see St. Augustine referencing the divine act of healing as another claim to equality of divinity and therefore of authority regarding the Sabbath regulations.

  "Christ defended His disciples, by putting forward the example of their fellow-servant David: but He defends Himself by a reference to the Father. We may observe too that He does not defend Himself as man, nor yet purely as God, but sometimes as one, sometimes as the other; wishing both to be believed, both the dispensation of His humiliation, and the dignity of His Godhead; wherefore He shows His equality to the Father, both by calling Him His Father emphatically. (My Father), and by declaring that He does the same things, that the Father does, (And I work). Therefore, it follows, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father." - St. John Chrysostom, quoted in Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain)

And finally St. John Chrysostom touches on both themes in the above single passage.


Melchizedek was the King of Salem and a high priest of God.

Genesis 14:18-20
18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,
19 and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High,     Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

Although he was a priest of God, he was not Jesus.


Does believing Christ died make you saved?

Romans 10:9  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

"believe" = pisteuō = trust

Faith is more than an intellectual acknowledgment of a fact. It is a trust in and reliance upon something.

If you were a slave in first century Roman times, you might be sent on an errand to pick something up or carry out some task. If while doing this someone wanted to mess with you, you could say something like, "I belong to Cassius", and the other person would realize that they might be in trouble because they could not mess with someone else's property.

Romans 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

If we trust in Jesus so much that we call on his name, we are saved.

Trusting in and calling on are actions that are emblematic of a close relationship. It is this relationship (new life in Jesus) that is the basis of salvation.


Has the Catholic Church responded to the apparent implausibility of a census as described in Luke?

The matter of which census Luke referred to requires knowing the year Jesus was born. The Bible does not specify which year and problems with this are written about in the ‘Concise Sacramentum Mundi Encyclopedia of Theology’ (1981) edited by renowned Catholic Professor Carl Rahner. On page 732 Catholic scholars Ingrid Maisch and Anton Vogtle write:

  The year of Jesus’ birth is also uncertain. The difficulties can only
  be briefly indicated: Jesus is said to have been born under Herod the
  Great when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Lk 2:1). But there is no
  evidence that Quirinius was governor during Herod’s lifetime. None of
  the explanations of this contradiction so far suggested is
  satisfactory. All that is generally accepted is that Jesus was born
  before 4 B.C. (death of Herod). More precise details cannot be drawn
  from the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke.

However, there are biblical clues about when John the Baptist was born, which is significant because John was six months older than Jesus. See http://taylormarshall.com/2012/12/yes-christ-was-really-born-on-december.html for Catholic reasons for a 25 December birth, based on their view that John the Baptist was born in the summer (argued for further down the article).  Some Protestants argue for him having a spring birth, meaning Jesus would have been born around September/October and conceived the previous December but either way, they fit in with the 7 B.C. census theory which now follows.

The year 7 B.C. was a rare one in having a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, which could fit in with the account of Magi from Persia seeing a significant star. David Hughes, Professor of Astronomy at Sheffield University, discovered that, three years before Herod's death, there was a rare series of alignments of Jupiter and Saturn. They came together three times over several months. The first conjunction was in May, he said, giving them plenty time to plot the next two conjunctions (in September and November) and travel the very long distance to Jerusalem, over which the second conjunction appeared at the time of Jesus' birth. Herod the Great summoned Jewish religious experts who told him and the Magi that a prophesied King would be born in Bethlehem. By the time the third conjunction happened, it brought the Magi to Bethlehem, to the very house where Mary and the child were. This implies a bit of a time lapse between Jesus' actual birth in a stable and being a child in a house in Bethlehem. Clearly, the stable accommodation had only been temporary (undoubtedly much to Mary’s relief). The Bible shows that Mary and Joseph stayed local as Jesus was circumcised on his eighth day in the temple, and Mary went to the temple for her purification.

Zoroastrian Magi viewed Jupiter as representing a new king; Saturn the old. The planets coming together would signify a change of ruler. This happening in Pisces would speak to them of Israel as they associated Pisces with Israel. This triple conjunction would make the planets involved appear to be travelling backwards and, on specific days, to have actually stopped. All planets do this, but it is very rare when two do so at the same time. This accounts for a special light appearing to stand still over Bethlehem in November that year. Thus goes the explanation according to Professor David Hughes. I have no idea if he is a Catholic or not, or even if he has any religious faith, but he claims his theory is based on cosmological events.  An article on this was in 1 September 2009 ‘Weekend’ magazine which was reviewing a BBC2 documentary on Christmas Eve that year. Now, here comes the link to Luke’s census.

There was a census in 7B.C., written about by 5th century historian Orosius. He said Augustus ordered a census of each province everywhere, with all men to be enrolled to show allegiance to Caesar Augustus. Josephus notes that "When all the people of the Jews gave assurance of this goodwill to Caesar, and to the king's government, these very men [the Jewish Pharisees] did not swear, being about six thousand." This census took place in 7 B.C. and was for non-Romans. Romans wouldn't need to be registered as showing allegiance to Caesar but Joseph would need to be registered, which accounts for him taking Mary to Bethlehem where he'd been born. That census mentioned by Orosius could have been that little known one Luke referred to, for Jewish men to swear allegiance to Augustus, which the Pharisees refused to do. It seems to have been for non-Romans, to boost Augustus's inflated ego and calm his nerves about disloyalty. The vanity of the Roman emperors knew no bounds and they would not care how much money was spent / lost in demanding people sign up to their rules. The wealth of Rome was fabulous. A census was nothing to them. Besides, it was the poor people forced to travel who would lose out and since when did Rome ever care about poor people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius supposes Luke’s account is wrong but then gives information on Quirinius’ later rule and the later census. Official Catholic views on this triple conjunction happening the same year as this little-known census mentioned by Orosius have not come to light in my research.


I think Jesus is trying to say a few things here.

Given the context, I think he's warning against hypocrisy. He calls his listeners a "brood of vipers" - they are hypocrites for trying to sound good when, at the heart, they are evil. They are painting their bad fruit to look good.
Watch your mouth. Like James, ("the tongue is a fire"), he warns that even a careless word of spite or a biting remark is a sin, a sin against a holy God, and as such it warrants punishment. On an eternal scale, sinful words are no different from sinful deeds.
Heart ⇒ Mouth. What you say comes from what you think, which comes from who you are. Ultimately, evil or unkind words only come from an evil person.

So Jesus isn't contradicting salvation by grace; rather, he's proving its premise: depravity. Everyone says things they shouldn't, and if evil words really come from an evil hard, everyone is sinful at heart and deserves God's wrath and condemnation.

But grace offers a change of heart. Because Jesus had a perfect heart, he never spoke a wrong word. He always spoke good, and his record of righteousness is transferred to us. Not only do we get a clean record (so God looks at our words and sees Christ's), we also get a new heart so that we begin to speak without evil.


Do Christians have "secret" (handshakes for example) ways of knowing who other Christians were?

The Sator square was likely used to secretly advertise a house as Christian to other Christians in the first century.


Should a wife of permanent deacon candidate be a Catholic?

According to the St. Joseph Foumdation posting on EWTN forums, there is no universal rule.

There is no requirement in the universal Church that a deacon's wife be baptized.
St. Joseph Foundation via EWTN forums

But like many other rules concerning the permenant diaconate, the family commitment to the deacons ordination process is up to the diocesan bishop.  Furthermore, a wife must be give her consent that her husband become a deacon.

A candidate for the permanent diaconate who is not married may be admitted to the diaconate only when he has completed at least his twenty-fifth year; if he is married, not until he has completed at least his thirty-fifth year, and then with the consent of his wife.
Can. 1031 §2

So, presumably, the wife is not going to be a dyed in the wool devil worshipper.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses exclude pagan influences from their doctrine?

Based on this 15 December 2007 article from The Watchtower, called Can a Pagan Holiday Be Made Christian?, the answer comes from 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 (New World Translation).

  14Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? 15Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Be´li·al? Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever? 16And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” 17“‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’”; “‘and I will take YOU in.’”


How many languages did apostle Paul speak?

We know that he spoke Greek, Hebrew, and maybe Latin. The Latin conjecture is based on the fact that he was Roman and the official language of Rome was Latin.

Proof text for Hebrew:

  And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ (Acts 26:14, ESV)

Proof text for Greek:

  As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek? (Acts 21:37, ESV)


Do Pentecostals believe that they are speaking real languages or that God purposely uses gibberish?

I've heard at least two lines of thought on the issue back when I was in the Charismatic movement, attending Full Gospel churches etc.

A minority of folks seem to cite the verse of saint Paul that mention "the tongues of Angels" and claim it as a kind of heavenly language.
Romans 8:26:

  In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

The majority however see this as being a proof text for modern glossalia being "gibberish", most of the time.   However many Charismatics will point out many anecdotal tales where people who believe they are just speaking the groans of the spirit/gibberish are in fact speaking actual languages that they never studied!   (There is someone in the congregation that studied the language that recognizes the speech as being a language in an ancient or modern tongue and can even translate the message, which is often a praise to God or some other similar message.)


According to Reformed theology, when did the New Covenant start?

Reformed theology's view of the "covenants" of scripture is that they are administrations of a single covenant, a covenant of grace.  Thus the "new covenant" that Christ talks about is seen as something that in many ways had existed long prior.  As Louis Berkhof writes:

The covenant of grace, as it is revealed in the New Testament, is essentially the same as that which governed the relation of Old Testament believers to God.  [...] If it is sometimes spoken of as a new covenant, this is sufficiently explained by the fact that its administration differs in several particulars from that of the Old Testament. (Systematic Theology, 2.3.5.C)

The differences that Berkhof sees in the "new covenant" are its universal nature, its greater emphasis on grace, and its richer blessings.  But in essence it is the same covenant as that given to Abraham, Moses, and others.  So strictly speaking, while the "new covenant" begins in the New Testament with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, it is essentially the same covenant as the "old covenant" that preceded it.
Robert Reymond agrees, and quotes John Murray:

The blessings of the covenant of grace which believers enjoy today under the sanctions of the New Testament economy are founded upon the covenant which God made with Abraham.  Said another way, the "new covenant" itself is simply the administrative "extension and unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant." (ST, ch 14)

Reymond refers to Hebrews 8 to argue that the Mosaic tabernacle foreshadows the "true, heavenly Tabernacle into which Christ himself entered with his own blood as the redeemed man's High Priest."  Reymond specifically sees the incarnation and crucifixion as foundations of the "new covenant":

Christ's "entrance into the heavenly sanctuary" occurred when he assumed his high priestly role as Mediator of the new covenant at the incarnation, and the Most Holy Place was his cross! (ST, ch 14)

John Frame helpfully explains how this "new covenant" is "time transcending" – how it has beginning in Christ but its efficacy extends into the past:

The new covenant does have a temporal inauguration.  Covenants are typically inaugurated by the shedding of blood, and that is certainly the case with the new covenant, by the blood of Christ, the blood that fulfills all the blood of bulls and goats in the other covenants. [...]
Nevertheless, as we saw earlier, the efficacy of the new covenant, unlike that of previous covenants, extends to God's elect before Jesus' atonement.  When believers in the OT experienced "circumcision of the heart," or when they were Jews "inwardly," they were partaking of the power of the new covenant. (ST, 80)

So to summarize – Reformed theologians see the "new covenant" as an administration of the more general "covenant of grace," and in essence identical to the covenants laid out in the Old Testament.  But while it applies to all of redemptive history, the "new covenant" has its historical inauguration in the life and particularly the death of Christ on the cross.


Should we 'let our light shine' and tell people the good works that we do?

1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matthew 6:1)
In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:16)

God is telling us not to be prideful and boast in front of others. In other words, don't go "Look at what I've done. I'm so great." But rather, "Look at what God has allowed me to do, isn't God awesome?!"
One is self glorifying, where as the other attributes the glory to God. One statement can easily turn other people off, the other one (may) lead people to be curious about God. This is not to say that we shouldn't feel happy regarding the things that God is doing through us, but rather that we should remain humble and always remember that it is through God's grace that we are able to do such things for His kingdom.


What is the origin of closing one's eyes during prayer?

Closing the eyes in prayer is for the same reason as one may fast in association with prayer.
It is to detach oneself from the things of this world, from the things of the flesh and from the things that can be seen.
But, like fasting, it is purely voluntary. There are no 'instructions' as to when to pray, or how often to pray anywhere in the bible (only examples to follow, if one  wishes).
Nor are there 'instructions' about fasting. It is purely voluntary, though it is encouraged in scripture and, again, there are examples to follow.
Likewise there are examples to follow, round about us, as to closing the eyes. Every congregation I have ever worshiped with, has done so.
And so do I, personally, every time I 'shut my closet door' and pray to the Father in secret, where none else can see me.


I'd like to break down your questions into parts

  My question is this: With the abundance of Biblical passages, in both the Old and New Testament, how do Christians rationalize the specific stress and emphasis on only certain sections of the Bible?

It is understood that the laws laid out in the old testament were part of the 'old covenant' or the old promise and that God through Jesus has made a 'new covenant' with mankind.

Peter, in the book of Acts, see a vision of many of the foods that it is forbidden for a Jewish person to eat, and hears God telling him to eat it. Afterwards he is invited into the home of a Roman general, which pious Jewish person would never enter. Peter understand that this is God lifting many of the restrictions on Jewish law. This is later formalized in Acts.

  For instance, people often quote Leviticus on denouncing homosexuality, and yet Leviticus also writes against eating shellfish and wearing cotton/polyester blend clothing

This is one of the sins that Paul mentioned explicitly in the new testament in a couple of places (see The Preacher's answer). I am not sure why people quote the O.T. as much as the N.T.

  Judeo-Christian stance on women and slavery has changed over the past few millennial.

Galatians 3:28

  There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This is a RADICAL shift in thinking about the nature of people's place in society, in particular the treatment of women and slaves. I believe that it has taken us this long to even get our heads around this concept and accept is as a larger concept (in the west). We still have a long way to go, if we really get this notion ingrained in us the world would be unimaginably better, closer to what God intended for us.

  Beyond that, the Bible has been translated by hand between multiple languages, and been reviewed, revised, cut, and supplemented by several religious authorities. If the entire Bible is the infallible word of God, how can his followers assert their own judgement over his by themselves choosing which parts of the Bible are true or applicable?

It should be noted that their are many Christians who do not believe that the Bible is infallible. The infallibility doctrine is a very prominent belief among evangelicals in the United States, but please do not think this is necessarily the same among ALL Christians, especially those that would consider themselves 'Liberal'.

I think it is dangerous to rest your entire faith on something like the infallibility doctrine. Because many, when they go to college or investigate themselves learn things like, for instance the story of the adulterous woman in John, is probably a later addition to the text, and this shakes their faith.

  how can his followers assert their own judgement over his by themselves choosing which parts of the Bible are true or applicable?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:7

  Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

If you read the text as it was intended you will find a consistent message of a loving God, who is asking us to seek after him in righteousness. I believe that if you earnestly seek after him, as Jesus said you will find what you are looking for.


What is the significance of one-third in Revelation?

As with any part of Revelation there are primarily four main theories.  Coincidentally most of them take the 1/3 literally regardless of the view as represented a significant judgment but minority (only 1/3) implicated result on the things in this world that otherwise sustain life. Here are the main views very briefly and overly simplified as pertaining one example:

  The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down on the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. (NIV Revelation 8:7)

Historicist

When barbarians attacked Rome in ~AD 410, there was burning or destroying everything in their path. Approximately 1/3 of the Roman Empire was ravaged.

Preterist

Similar to historicist but everything sandwiched around the sacking of Israel by Rome. Therefore destruction of actual vegetation in the land around Jerusalem. Let's assume around 1/3.

Futurist

The most literal of all views with everything in the future, probably a literal 1/3 of the earth destroyed by nuclear bombs or something like it in whatever kind of bombs that might exists in the unknown future.

Symbolic/Spiritual

Basically the obvious symbolism that can be imagined. For example 'whatever' kind of destruction which at any time damages the earth such as what we see on the news.  Maybe 1/3 is actually greater then what is actual but symbolism does not need to literally match the figure employed.

Note: I am a rare bird these days as I have unexpectedly switched from Symbolic to the Historicist view, which is really not that popular anymore. I started out in my teens as a futurist, moved to Symbolic, almost became a Preterist just before resting in my current view, Historicist. This is how I have became familiar with them over the last 25 years.


When a word isn't spoken, all you have to go by is its written representation.  Unfortunately, the written representation is incomplete, as ancient Hebrews only wrote consonants.  You were supposed to be able to infer the rest of the word from context, and you'd be familiar with them because you used most of them in day to day speech.

Oops!  Since the name of the Lord was not spoken aloud, the context needed for interpolation ended up being lost, and now we can only guess at it.  The theory is that "Jehovah" is the tetragrammaton with the vowels from adonai ("Lord", used in the place of the ineffable name) mixed in.  "Yahweh" is a guess based on trying to reverse-engineer the name into ancient Hebrew roots.  It may or may not be correct.


What's the principle in the eyes of God behind Leviticus leprosy and unclean law?

To understand how to contextualize the meaning of various rules of eating food, or Priesthood medical inspections  under the Mosaic we need to understand the overall purpose.  In a nutshell the reason why these laws were added was to bring about an awareness of sin. This was achieved partly through symbols (non sinful things represented symbolically as sin) and partly through listing actual sins directly in a codified legalistic compilation, i.e. the moral laws.

If there was actually any practical benefit of some obscure ritual or dietary restrictions is secondary to the principal purpose -- of making an awareness of sin. In some cases there need not be any practical benefit at all. In the case of the seemingly medicinal inspections for mold in the camp and the quarantine of contagious diseases, there does seem to be a practical element wrapped within the symbolic purpose, but really it is the symbols of filth and disease of sin that counts.  Although a rule may have no practical meaning, Wthnrespect to the medicinal inspections a practical rule was surely warpped in the symbol.  In the case of leprosy where white formations covered the whole body but there were not any open sores it was a sign that it was not leprosy but another non contagious disease. Nobody declared clean was highly contagious that was part of the reason for the inspection. Also no symbolic rite was positively harmful.

  The third case is looked upon according to differing medical views, either as a different disease, the lepra vulgaris, which “scarcely affects the general health, and for the most part disappears of itself, though it often lasts for years” (Clark); or as a case of the true leprosy in which “the breaking out of the leprous matter in this complete and rapid way upon the surface of the whole body was the crisis of the disease; the diseased matter turned into a scurf, which died away and then fell off” (Keil). Patrick compares it to the eruptions in measles and small pox, when there is safety in their full development. The suspected person thus either had a harmless disease, or he had had the leprosy and was cured. In either case sentence of cleanness was to be pronounced. (Lange's Commentary on Leviticus)

The main symbolism of arbitrary diet laws or obscure rites, whether having practical benefit or not, was in 'externally' symbolizing the need to 'separate oneself' from the world or separate the world from Israel.  As Abraham 'cut' himself off from the world, leaving his people by faith, so did his children cut away the flesh of their foreskin. In the same way many foods and practices among heathens, were cut away, like the foreskin, as a symbol. Also defiled things in the camp of Israel was to be cut away or quarantined from infecting the rest. This separation of things and restrictions even encompassed the removing of perfectly useful objects such as yeast during the passover feast.

In addition to this need to be 'separate', 'cut away from' and 'holy' in a somewhat 'figurative sense', a livid awareness of the external impurity of sin, ultimately the cause of all disease, mold, corruption and death was to be made.  The entire result was an increased awareness of sin. Anyone burdened with constant rites of 'do not touch', 'do not eat' and of 'purifications' etc., often under the threat of capital punishment would become aware of sin for sure! In addition to the awareness of sin, the moral commands and their serious threatenings established a full sense of guilt, requiring atonement. This goes hand in hand with the levitical sacrificial rites.  All this sin, guilt, death and sacrifice was meant to increase awareness of sin and increase sin itself.

  The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more (Romans 5:20, NIV)

By becoming more wicked and aware of it, an unbelieving Jew would find solace in the promise of a Messiah, become a believing Jew like Abraham, a born again Jew having faith in Messiah. In other words, the purpose of the law was to lead us to Christ as a harsh school master. This leading included every obscure rule that separated the Jew from the world and enabled their communal life under the theocracy in an awareness of sin, guilt and death.

  So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Galatians 3:24-25, NIV)

Guardian in this verse is παιδαγωγοσ paidagogos; a servant whose office it was to take the children to school. In other words a tutor,  instructor, or schoolmaster. The idea is that while under the shadow of the mosaic law the people of God were not treated as real full sons with responsibility, knowledge and authority in the family, but as mere toddlers managed under a servant of the home. Schoolmasters are often considered harsh in that they do not have the natural affections of a parent and since their rod of disciple in this sense was to instill terror, guilt and the increase of sin.


Can a non-Catholic be Canonized by the Catholic Church?

The present regime for canonization comes from Divinus Perfectionis Magister, an apostolic constitution of John Paul II (25 January 1983). More detailed rules for the diocesan stages are in Sanctorum Mater (17 May 2007).

At first glance, it would seem that the present process does not allow for a non-Catholic to even be considered, since SM article 4 says:

  The cause of beatification and canonization regards a Catholic who in life, in death and after death has enjoyed a reputation of holiness by living all the Christian virtues in an heroic manner; or enjoys a reputation of martyrdom because, having followed Christ more closely, he has sacrificed his life in the act of martyrdom.

Following the Code of Canon Law, "a Catholic" would be someone described by Canon 205: "Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance." This is more specific than "the Christian faithful", meaning "those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God" (Canon 204). Since C. S. Lewis was baptized as an Anglican, and did not join the Catholic Church, he counts as a member of the Christian faithful but not a Catholic.

This in itself does not exclude him from being a saint, since the Church recognizes the possibility of salvation even for someone outside the visible structures of the Church (in certain circumstances). The language in DPM is all about "followers of Christ" (Christi asseclae; qui Christi exemplum proximius secuti; qui Christum fidelitur sunt secuti). The issue, then, is not whether he really is a saint in heaven, but whether the Church would recognize him as such, given that part of her purpose is described in DPM as follows:

  Faithful to the serious duty entrusted to her of teaching, sanctifying and governing the People of God, she proposes to the faithful for their imitation, veneration and invocation, men and women who are outstanding in the splendor of charity and other evangelical virtues and, after due investigations, she declares them, in the solemn act of canonization, to be Saints.

Since saints are meant to be imitated, the Church would have to be satisfied that Lewis was outstanding in virtue and doctrine. I don't think the Church would be ready to admit as an example of heroic virtue somebody who didn't join her when presented with the option. The theological test (which involves detailed examination of everything the candidate ever wrote) would surely also be difficult for a non-Catholic to pass - especially one who sometimes publicly disagreed with the Church, and who held some opinions that were distinctively Protestant, alongside others that were fairly idiosyncratic or even heterodox. So I think there are other people the Church is more likely to canonize first.

The second part of your question is about whether anyone who was not in communion with the Church has ever been canonized. I think this hasn't happened. The closest examples would be:

Individuals who gained some degree of local recognition, but who were never actually recognized by the proper authorities. Curiously, one Saint Josaphat, who had a degree of recognition, was actually Gautama Buddha (Josaphat = Bodhisattva).
Certain figures from years BC have feast days and are sometimes called saints, as well as featuring in the liturgy (see for example the Litany of the Saints). Abraham's day is 9 October, for example (in the 1749 Martyrology: memoria sancti Abrahae, Patriarchae et omnium credentium Patris).
Angels, like Saint Michael, may be called Saints but aren't in quite the same category as human believers.

Somewhere else where this might crop up is if there's anyone who one of the Eastern Catholic Churches recognized as a saint, between the Great Schism and their reunion with Rome, who was separated from the Roman Catholic Church during his or her lifetime and who remains venerated today. I don't know of an actual example but perhaps this has happened.