How old was Jesus when the Magi visited him?
Possibly one year old! Possibly a little younger or maybe a little older! We do not know with any absolute certainty.
Scriptures tell us that after the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple the Holy Family went to the town of Nazareth.
The Magi would have visited Jesus only after his presentation in the Temple. Had they done so earlier, Joseph and Mary would have been able to buy a lamb with the gold that they got as a present from the Magi!

39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. - Luke 2:39

Assuming the Holy Family left the next day journey from Jerusalem to Nazareth would have taken anywhere from 4 to 7 days depending on variables. But this is only one interpretation proposed by Catholic theologians and others do exist.

It is about 120 Km from Narareth to Jerusalem and another 10 Km from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. (About 80 miles in all) If Mary had not been feeling very well it could have taken nearly a week to do the journey. - Nazareth to Bethlehem

And what are the variables that could make a trip from Jerusalem to Nazareth go faster or slower?

Galilee is north of Jerusalem; Bethlehem is to the south. The shortest route, 70 miles more or less as the crow flies, is through Samaria. Given the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans, Joseph and Mary likely skirted the area and went around the longer way.
Assuming an average pace of 2.5 mph, 20 miles a day, would mean a trip of four 8-hour days. Some speculation puts it at seven days, or ten. I think four days is about right. Mary in her late teens, strong, healthy peasant stock; even pregnant and near delivery she could have managed walking it.
That is if they didn’t bother with a donkey. With a donkey, no question, it was a seven- to ten-day trip. Yes, all the images depict Mary seated on a donkey. I suggest they are wrong.
I’ve hiked with pack burros; it is slower. A donkey will pretty much set its own pace and not usually the one you would like. You may be in front tugging a lead, but the donkey is in charge. You get to walk ahead and pretend you’re in command.
Even if they did have a donkey, I bet she walked. Donkeys aren’t fit for riding (again, yes, there are people who enjoy it over short distances; I’m not one of them at any distance). Eighty miles riding a donkey, picturesque as might be, still works out to, oh, let’s see, yes, 80 miles riding a donkey. Sensible people that they were, they walked. - Biblical travel: How far to where, and what about the donkey?

Now settled in at Nazareth, the Magi would have visited the Holy Family in their home town.

The Magi Visit the Messiah
2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will shepherd my people Israel.’ ”

7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

From the above passage we can notice several points that can easily go unnoticed. The Magi visited the Holy Family in a house and not a manger. The Gospel does not state that the Magi actually went to Bethlehem; only that Herod had told them that the Newborn King was to be born in Bethlehem. Thus it is very conceivable that the Magi found the Holy Family at Nazareth and not Bethlehem. The Holy Family could have returned to Bethlehem after the presentation and found a house to remain in. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the interpretation of these variables in unknown and unsure!

Time and circumstances of their visit
The visit of the Magi took place after the Presentation of the Child in the Temple (Luke 2:38). No sooner were the Magi departed than the angel bade Joseph take the Child and its Mother into Egypt (Matthew 2:13). Once Herod was wroth at the failure of the Magi to return, it was out of all question that the presentation should take place. Now a new difficulty occurs: after the presentation, the Holy Family returned into Galilee (Luke 2:39). Some think that this return was not immediate. Luke omits the incidents of the Magi, flight into Egypt, massacre of the Innocents, and return from Egypt, and takes up the story with the return of the Holy Family into Galilee. We prefer to interpret Luke's words as indicating a return to Galilee immediately after the presentation. The stay at Nazareth was very brief. Thereafter the Holy Family probably returned to abide in Bethlehem. Then the Magi came. It was "in the days of King Herod" (Matthew 2:1), i.e. before the year 4 B.C. (A.U.C. 750), the probable date of Herod's death at Jericho. For we know that Archelaus, Herod's son, succeeded as ethnarch to a part of his father's realm, and was deposed either in his ninth (Josephus, Bel. Jud., II, vii, 3) or tenth (Josephus, Antiq., XVII, xviii, 2) year of office during the consulship of Lepidus and Arruntius (Dion Cassis, lv, 27), i.e., A.D. 6. Moreover, the Magi came while King Herod was in Jerusalem (vv. 3, 7), not in Jericho, i.e., either the beginning of 4 B.C. or the end of 5 B.C. Lastly, it was probably a year, or a little more than a year, after the birth of Christ. Herod had found out from the Magi the time of the star's appearance. Taking this for the time of the Child's birth, he slew the male children of two years old and under in Bethlehem and its borders (v. 16). Some of the Fathers conclude from this ruthless slaughter that the Magi reached Jerusalem two years after the Nativity (St. Epiphanius, "Haer.", LI, 9; Juvencus, "Hist. Evang.", I, 259). Their conclusion has some degree of probability; yet the slaying of children two years old may possibly have been due to some other reason — for instance, a fear on Herod's part that the Magi had deceived him in the matter of the star's appearance or that the Magi had been deceived as to the conjunction of that appearance with the birth of the Child. Art and archæology favour our view. Only one early monument represents the Child in the crib while the Magi adore; in others Jesus rests upon Mary's knees and is at times fairly well grown (see Cornely, "Introd. Special. in N.T.", p. 203).

It seems most logical that the Magi certainly visited the Holy Family after the Presentation. As we know the Magi presented gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. We also know that Mary offered “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” If they had had enough money they would have offered a lamb as was the Jewish custom in those days. Besides, Jesus is the real Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

…7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” - …7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”- …7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” - Leviticus 12:7-8

To further show that the Church does not know exactly how to explain the Biblical texts surrounding the events of Our Lord’s birth, I am going to let Fr. Ryan Erlenbus explain the differences in the various time scenarios proposed by Catholic theologians. It is impossible to know for certain when the Magi actually visited the Holy Family.

The Magi must have arrived shortly after Christ’s Nativity
There are several points which must be recalled from the biblical narrative: The Magi visit Christ in Bethlehem; the Magi visit Christ in what Matthew calls a “home,” which may be different from the “stable” where Luke states the Child was born; after the Presentation in the Temple (forty days after the Birth), Luke tells us that Jesus was taken to Nazareth; it seems that Joseph took his family to Egypt fairly soon after the Magi departed; when Herod realized he was deceived he had the children in Bethlehem and the surrounding towns killed.
In the previous article, we have seen that the Child was born in a stable and adored that night by the shepherds. However, the Magi probably came shortly later, after the Holy Family had received hospitality in some home in Bethlehem (hence, Matthew speaks of a house). Thus, we can be reasonably certain that the Magi came to Bethlehem at least a day or two after the Nativity. However, it is most certain that they did not come any later than forty days after Christ’s birth, since then the Holy Family would not be in Bethlehem, but in Nazareth (since Luke states that they returned to Nazareth after the Presentation in the Temple which, according to the Law, took place forty days after birth). Hence, we can reasonably conclude that the Magi arrived in Bethlehem somewhere between the second and the fortieth day after Christmas – why not accept the tradition of the thirteenth day?
The star appeared on the day of the Nativity
St. Thomas knew of two opinions about the apparition of the star seen by the Magi: Chrysostom (or the author of the Opus Imperfectum in Mtt.) and Augustine seem to state that the star was first seen by the Magi two full years before the birth of Christ, and that it took these two years for the wise men to make the journey and arrive in Bethlehem (on the thirteenth day after the birth).
On the other hand, St. Thomas mentions “others” who hold that the star first appeared only when Christ was born. According to this opinion, the Magi set off on their journey only on the day of the Nativity and were able to travel a long distance “owing partly to the Divine assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries.” This is Thomas’ own opinion (ST III, q.36, a.6, ad 3).
Yet, it may be the case that the star appeared on Christmas day and the Magi arrived thirteen days later on account of the fact that they were not from the far East, but only from a nation a little to the east of Israel – this is the opinion of Cornelius a’ Lapide, and I share it as well.
A good reason to maintain that the star had not appeared to the Magi until the time of Christ’s birth is that, on the presumption that the Magi saw the star two years before the Nativity, the Magi would have learned of the Incarnation even before the Blessed Virgin Mary had! How strange this would be, for the Magi to know of the coming of the King before even the Mother!
Moreover, it seems that Christ should not have been made manifest to the world until after his birth, for until the Nativity he was hidden in the virginal cloister of his Mother’s womb. It is for this reason that the Nativity is celebrated with greater solemnity than the Annunciation (the Incarnation) – it was only in the Nativity that God’s Love was revealed openly to the world. Hence, Christ should first come into the world openly (by his birth) before he is manifested to the wise men. Therefore, we ought to conclude, as a matter of fittingness, that the wise men did not see the star until the very night of the Nativity. In this way also, Christ’s birth was heralded first to the Jews (to the shepherds) and then to the Gentiles (to the Magi).
The massacre of the Holy Innocents seems to have been nearly two years after the first Christmas
The primary reason why some (both of the past and of the present) hold that the star appeared two full years before the Nativity is based on the following line from Matthew 2:16, “Then Herod killed all the men children from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.” This time inquired from the wise men seems to refer to Matthew 2:7, “Then Herod, privately calling the wise men, learned diligently of the time of the star which appeared to them.” Hence, it is quite clear that Herod’s massacre of the Innocents was determined (in relation to the age of the children killed) by the time when first the Magi saw the star. The slaughter takes place about two years after the star first appeared.
However, while it seems that we ought to maintain that the star had indeed appeared two years before the slaughtering of the Innocents, this does not determine the relation of the appearance of the star to the Nativity. For indeed, it is quite possible that the slaughtering of the Innocents did not occur until nearly two years after the Nativity. In which case, the star would have first appeared on the night in which Christ was born; and Herod would have (over a year later) killed the children of two years, since he knew that the Child could not be older than the star which marked his birth.


Does Malachi 4:1 and Jude 7 prove that hell is temporary?

Before we delve into what Malachi and Jude said, remember that two verses plucked out of the Bible can never establish whether a doctrine is right or wrong. These things have to be put into context and many other Scriptures must be consulted before a full picture emerges.
Malachi carries on from where the prophets Haggai and Zechariah left off.  The setting is the return of the Jews to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple. The time is about 445 years before the birth of Jesus. Malachi rebukes the Jews who doubt the love of God and the faithlessness of both people and priests.  After promising to send his messenger to prepare the way (John the Baptist) for God’s messenger of the covenant (Jesus), Malachi warns the Jews of the judgement to come.  Remember that this prophecy of judgment is directed first and foremost to God’s own people, to those who would reject the messenger of the covenant.
Malachi uses a literary device to paint a word picture of what this day will be like.  When he says “it will burn like a furnace” and “every evildoer will be stubble” and “not a root or a branch will be left”, we can visualise a field that has been burned after the crop has been gathered.  Nothing will be left.  Malachi is not speaking about the eternal destination of the wicked on the final Day of Judgment.
Almost 500 years later, after the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (the messenger of the covenant), Jude writes to the very first Christians to remind them of how God delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.   He speaks of how the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were killed because of their immorality and perversions.

In a similar way... They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

The fire that came down from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah was not eternal, but it utterly destroyed the wicked inhabitants of that region.  Jude refers to historical events as an illustration.
The two Bible verses you quote do not suggest that hell is either temporary or eternal.   The book of Revelation has much to say about the Day of Judgment and the final destination of those people who fail to repent and who continue to blaspheme God.


Will we still feel affection towards others when we are in heaven?

We are not quite sure how our affectivity (emotions, passions, and so on) will work in Heaven before the General Resurrection, however the Church teaches dogmatically that all human beings will receive their bodies at the General Judgment. As the Nicene-Constantopolitan Creed (the one said at Mass nearly every Sunday) says

  I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

See also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 992-1004 and 1038.

Being in Heaven, therefore, does not destroy our human nature—including the corporeal aspects of that human nature, which is necessary for there to be affectivity in the strict sense—but rather perfects it.

It follows that there will indeed be emotions and affection in Heaven—not exactly the same as on earth (for one thing, there is no marriage in Heaven—see Matthew 22:30 and the parallel passages), but more perfect and more intense.

UPDATE (because of expansion of question)

When the Church teaches that human beings will impassible in Heaven, it specifically means that we will be unable to suffer (i.e., experience pain). It does not mean that we will be incapable of experiencing passions (emotions, affections, and so on). Passions, understood in this latter sense, are part and parcel of human nature, and so they will not be destroyed by the Beatific Vision—indeed, they will be intensified. (See, for example, Catechism No. 1044.)

Of course, they will not be disordered, as they frequently are here on earth. Moreover, the conditions will be different, because the persons in Heaven will be before the very source of all their longings—namely, God. In Heaven, therefore, we will be in the condition of having all our longings—our very deepest longings—perfectly fulfilled.

(God, on the other hand, is impassible in every sense—not because He lacks love, but because His love is constantly active—as the O.P. points out. God cannot experience emotions in His Divine Nature, because one needs a body for that; however, since He is the Creator of the emotions, He experiences something even better than our emotions.)

In short, all of our faculties will be operating at their “maximum” in Heaven: through our will, we will love God (and our neighbor) intellectually; through our sensitive appetites, we will be drawn to Him, they will be actuated at their maximum intensity, and hence we experience affection for Him (and our neighbor).

In short, we will experience all the types of love that are characteristic of man—active and passive, intellectual and sensitive—but at their maximum intensity and without disorder.

Sources for more information

The best source for more information is the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Regarding the faculties of the soul—intellect, will, and sensitive appetites—have a look at I, qq. 79-82

Regarding the passions (Thomas’ term for emotions, feelings, and similar phenomena), the entire Ia-IIae (first part of the second part) is relevant; but especially qq. 22-25. Also interesting are the questions regarding the passion of love, qq. 26-28.

Regarding heavenly beatitude, see I, q .26, especially Article 4.

Also, see St. Thomas on the Christ’s glorified body (which applies also to our own body after the General Resurrection): III, q. 54, a. 3.


Who was the first to reject the historicity of Adam?

Philo

The first-century Jewish theologian Philo may not have been the first Jew to reject the literal historicity of the creation stories, as it is my understanding that educated Alexandrian Jews had long understood the creation accounts to be allegories. According to Jean-Louis Ska (The Book of Genesis, page 20), Philo (prior to Josephus and the Talmud) was the first to attribute authorship of Genesis  to Moses.   In Concerning Noah's Work As A Planter, Philo appears to attribute the story of Adam to Moses alone - implicitly without divine guidance or recourse to more ancient records:

  VIII ... For there is absolutely no one at all who is represented as inhabiting the Paradise, since Moses says that God removed the first man who was created out of the earth, by name Adam, from his original place, and placed him here.

In Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender(page 42), we read that Philo believed that Genesis chapters 1-2 provided two creation stories because there were two creations, and that he explored the allegorical dimensions of chapters 2 and 3 and the symbolism of Adam and Eve.

As to the historicity of the story, Philo says (Concerning Noah's Work As A Planter):

  VIII For it is stated, "God planted a Paradise in Eden, towards the east; and there is placed the man whom he has Made." Now, to think that it is here meant that God planted vines, or olive trees, or apple trees, or pomegranates, or any trees of such kinds, is mere incurable folly. For why should he have done so? any one may ask.
  ...
  IX We must therefore have recourse to allegory, which is a favourite with men capable of seeing through it;

Origen

The Church Father Origen appears to have been the first Christian theologian who explicitly taught that Genesis 1-3 tell us nothing about what really happened in history, so that we cannot know if there was a real Adam:

  De Principiis, Book 4.1.16: as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally...

Jean Meslier

Jean Meslier,  a French Catholic priest who lived 1664-1729, was discovered, upon his death, to have written a book-length philosophical essay promoting atheism.

In his 'Testament', Meslier said:

  The extravagances recorded in the Bible are no more worthy of credit than the miracles. Hence, to hold with Genesis, the primal paradise, the talking serpent, the story of the apple -- or of the plum, writes Meslier -- the tree of life, of knowledge, a first man and a first woman, an original sin, its transmission to all the descendants of Adam and Eve. Fable, fable, fable . . .


Wouldn't evil have already existed on Earth before Adam and Eve?

Earth was created specifically with men in mind. Adam and Eve were given dominion over all the creatures over the earth.

  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26)

Therefore when man fell, the earth and everything under their dominion fell as well. Satan was permitted on earth to test them, but the earth was not cursed until men betrayed their allegiance to God. And even then, in a sense, God cursed the earth for our sake, since idleness can easily lead to temptations for a sinner.

Therefore Satan was an usurper of Adam's dominion, he is referred to as "the prince of this world" (John 12:31). However, this dominion was never Adam's to give away, it rightfully belongs to God. As soon as man sinned, the plan of salvation was put in place (Gen 3:15). The earth, although under the curse of sin, was flooded with grace (Rom 5:20). Because Jesus, "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" is the rightful ruler.


Can any catholic rite call themself Roman Catholic?

This is a bit of a difficult issue; the truth is that the Catholic Church herself does not usually define herself as "Roman Catholic Apostolic Church;" Most usually you will find simply "the Church", but sometimes "the Catholic Church" when needing to differentiate between the herself and the Eastern Patriarchates, or the Protestant Churches. For example:

Orientalium Ecclesiarum, the Vatican II conciliar document which deals with the Eastern Rites, only uses the adjective "Roman" in reference to the Roman Pontiff.
The Code of Canon Law also uses the term "Roman" basically to refer to the Roman Pontiff, Roman Curia, Roman See/Roman Church (here referring to the particular Church of the Diocese of Rome), and once the "Roman Synod" of Vatican II in the introduction.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions the term Roman to refer to:

The Roman Catechism, created under the orders of the Conciliar Fathers of the Council of Trent, a predecessor to the modern CCC;
The Roman Rite, which is the Latin Rite developed in the City of Rome itself, as opposed to the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Gallican, Dominican, Carthusian, and other Rites and Uses in the Latin family both past and present (see Paragraph 1203);
The Roman Missal, Roman Canon, and Roman Liturgy, the books, prayers and liturgy which the Roman Rite makes use of.

In all cases, these documents avoid the use of the term "Roman Catholic", which is in any case a term born of the interplay between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches, in order to emphasize (either positively or negatively) the communion with the Bishop of Rome. In this sense, the Eastern Rites are Roman due to communion, but not Roman due to liturgy. Since the term is thus ambiguous, we're better off avoiding it for more precise terminology.


As is common, it largely comes down to how you define morality. If (as per the question) one doesn't believe in God or follow God, then there is no reason to accept some of the things that are only declared "moral" due to being divinely stated. We all know the obvious ones... they have come up here often enough, so I won't get distracted mentioning them.

But yes: one could choose to adopt the same morals as the Bible, but I think everyone should be able to qualify the reasons for their morals; and if you don't have a divine crutch to support them, then there are a few Biblical morals that are pretty hard to justify otherwise.

Re the examples: I would wager that those things are equally challenging for people of all creeds and none, but both society and law generally cover most of them - for example, we don't act in a vigilante way. Likewise "honour one another" and "love those who hate you" generally fit very well with a Humanist outlook, which places emphasis on the rights, human value, and equality of all people.

The "do not conform to the pattern" one cited is interesting, though; if I understand your explanation (comments), then this is "don't worry about earthly things". Now, if we put aside the notion of God (as per the question), completely denying earthly things is... Stupid. The view is "this world (this wonderful, amazing, beautiful world) is all we have". If we don't take the time to enjoy it (with our friends and families etc), then we are missing all that we have. So: while I do not support overt materialism, I absolutely am going to try and enjoy this world and my time on it (but hopefully not to the exclusion of others).


How did Luther's view of Mary change after his new birth experience?

Originally Luther loved to pray to Mary:

  “I chose twenty-one saints and prayed to three every day when I celebrated mass; thus I completed the number every week. I prayed especially to the Blessed Virgin, who with her womanly heart would compassionately appease her Son.  (Luther's Works V54.340)

After being what he called born again, which is often referred to as his Tower Experience, he began to see Mary as someone the church used to commit many blasphemies in holding idolatrous esteem of her:

  I was as deep in it as all the rest, that we were plainly taught to hold Mary in Christ’s place and office. We held Christ to be our angry judge and Mary to be our throne of grace, where all our comfort and refuge lay, if we did not wish to despair. Was that not a horrible innovation? Where were the bishops who rebuked such new blasphemers and betrayers of Christ who took away Christ’s office and gave it to Mary, who taught us to flee from Christ and fear him as a whipmaster, and directed elsewhere our confidence which we owe to him as the true divine service? We have learned nothing but idolatry from these traitors! (Luther's Works V34.27


According to Catholicism, does reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit protect against demon possession?
Actually Catholics believe anyone could be possessed by evil if the circumstances are there. That includes Catholics and any other Christians.
First of all let us clear up the notion of “born-again” in the mind of Catholic thought. I do this not out of desire to create an argument, but rather to stress how Catholicism sees things, after you quoted my comment here.
The Early Church Fathers understood born-again as having being baptized. This is the way my comment should be interpreted, and was my though when I responded to it. Has the term “born again” always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church? It is basic Catholic theology that when one is baptized, he or she receives the graces of sanctifying grace and becomes an dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. This holds, in Catholic thought, for anyone baptized whether Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant or any other validly baptized Christian.
Historically, we know that the Devil has possessed Catholics, even canonized saints have been possessed through no fault of their own.
Most diabolical possessions occur because someone is dealing with the occult, or has been cursed by someone. Possession may occur because of any number of reasons. In fact, one of the few questions an exorcist must ask the Demon is the reason for the possession itself.
As a title of example there is Saint Mary of Jesus Crucified who was possessed by the Devil twice. The last time was for 40 days. In her biography, it read almost like the Book of Job, where the Demon asks Jesus to possess this nun in order to make her fall into sin. It failed! In fact the Devils wanted to leave before their time was up. In the end, St. Mary of Jesus Crucified gained more graces and her love of the Divine Saviour increased.

She continued to experience supernatural events. She fought off a demonic possession for 40 days, received the stigmata, was seen to levitate, had the gift of prophecy and knowledge of consciences, and permitted her guardian angel to speak through her. Helped found the missionary Carmel of Mangalore, India. Returned to France in 1872. Built a Carmelite monastery in Bethlehem in 1875. Supernatural gifts aside, she was known for her devotion to the Holy Spirit, even sending word to Pope Pius IX that the Spirit was not emphasized enough in seminaries. - Saint Mary of Jesus Crucified

Here follows how most causes of demonic possession are achieved (The Source is not the best and this list is not the best in it’s English explication, but for the present moment it will do. It basically is what the famous exorcist Gabriele Amorth states in his books):

Causes of Demonic Possession
According to the Catholic Church, the chief causes of possession are the following:
• making a Pact with the Devil or Demons
• participating in occult or spiritualist rites, including playing with divination devices such as a Ouija™ or doing automatic writing
• offering or dedicating a child to Satan
• being the victim of a witchcraft spell or Curse
Engaging in these activities, as well as leading a deliberately sinful life, give Demons the right and license to take up residence, according to the church. Mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder are not considered to be caused by Demonic possession.
The church teaches that God allows possession to happen for a variety of reasons:
• to Demonstrate the truth of the Catholic faith
• to punish sinners
• to confer spiritual benefits through lessons
• to produce teachings for humanity

Any Christian, whether a Catholic or a “Born-Again” Christian who deliberately plays around with the occult, is in serious threat of being diabolically possessed. We are all human and capable of doing very serious offences against God and our neighbour. We are all able to bless those who bless us, but one bad egg in the group could actually curse another.
Therefore, let us live up to St. Paul’s desire and become saints in all our ways.

Throw Out the Evil Person!
5 It is actually reported that there is sexual sin among you. I’m told that a man is sleeping with his father’s wife. Even people who don’t know God don’t let that kind of sin continue. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you be very sad instead? Shouldn’t you have thrown out of your church the man doing this? 3 Even though I am not right there with you, I am with you in spirit. And because I am with you in spirit, I have already judged the man doing this. I have judged him in the name of our Lord Jesus. 4 So when you come together, I will be with you in spirit. The power of our Lord Jesus will also be with you. 5 When you come together like this, hand this man over to Satan. Then the power of sin in his life will be destroyed. His spirit will be saved on the day the Lord returns. - 1 Corinthians 5:1-5

St. Augustin of Hippo warns the faithful to keep a good distance from the Devil.

He (the devil) is tied up like a dog on a chain, and can only bite someone who, deathly sure of himself, goes near him. Wouldn’t you think a man a fool who let hiimself be bitten by a chained up dog?
He can only bite those who willingly let him. It is not by force, but by persuasion, that he harms: he asks for our consent, he does not drag it from us. Augustine on the binding of the devil


What are the essential components of a Protestant evangelical church?

Robert Warren has written the Healthy Churches Handbook, which provides a checklist for identifying the health of a church. The Seven Marks of a Healthy Church are listed in Appendix 4 and have been summarised by the Diocese of London:

  Energized by faith

  rather than just keeping things going or trying to survive

  • worship and sacramental life: moves people to experience God’s love
  • motivation: energy comes from a desire to serve God and one another
  • engaging with Scripture: in creative ways connect with life
  • nurtures faith in Christ: helping people to grow in, and share their faith.
  Outward-looking focus

  with a 'whole life' rather than a 'church life' concern

  • deeply rooted in the local community, working in partnership with other denominations, faiths, secular groups and networks
  • passionate and prophetic about justice and peace, locally and globally
  • makes connections between faith and daily living
  • responds to human need by loving service
  Seeks to find out what God wants

  discerning the Spirit’s leaning rather than trying to please everyone

  • vocation: seeks to explore what God wants it to be and do
  • vision: develops and communicates a shared sense of where it is going
  • mission priorities: consciously sets both immediate and long-term goals
  • able to call for, and make, sacrifices, personal and corporate, in bringing about the above and living out the faith.
  Faces the cost of change and growth

  rather than resisting change and avoiding failure

  • while embracing the past, it dares to take on new ways of doing things
  • takes risks: and admits when things are not working, and learns from experience
  • crises: responds creatively to challenges that face the church and community
  • positive experiences of change: however small, are affirmed and built on.
  Operates as a community

  rather than functioning as a club or religious organisation

  • relationships: are nurtured, often in small groups, so people feel accepted and are helped to grow in faith and service
  • leadership: lay and ordained work as a team to develop locally appropriate expressions of all seven marks of a healthy church
  • lay ministry: the different gifts, experiences and faith journeys of all are valued and given expression in and beyond the life of the church.
  Makes room for all

  being inclusive rather than exclusive.

  • welcome: works to include newcomers into the life of the church
  • children and young people: are helped to belong, contribute and be nurtured in their faith
  • enquirers are encouraged to explore and experience faith in Christ
  • diversities: different social and ethnic backgrounds, mental and physical abilities, and ages, are seen as a strength.
  Does a few things and do them well

  focused rather than frenetic

  • does the basics well: especially public worship, pastoral care, stewardship and administration
  • occasional offices: make sense of life and communicate faith
  • being good news as a church in its attitudes and ways of working
  • enjoys what it does and is relaxed about what is not being done

There is almost certainly a significant overlap between these "marks" and the list you have formulated, but his number 4 and number 7 might be slightly surprising. Your list identifies some of some of Warren's bullet-point evidences of the major underlying characteristics.


What significance did the "heart" possess in the ancient cultures contemporary with the biblical era?

In ancient thought, at least with respect to the Hebrews, the "heart" (לב) was considered to be the locus of one's thoughts. Today, most might say that thoughts originate from the brain and/ or mind.

Nevertheless, the idea of "to think to one's self" is expressed by the phrase לאמור בלב, which means, "to say in the heart" (cp. Gen. 17:17). This proves the connection they gave between "thought" and "heart."

To circumcise the foreskin of one's heart is to remove all the excess and unnecessary thoughts from one's thoughts and life and to devote one's entire attention and self to serving God. The foreskin signified pleasure and excess.

Were there any specific verses you had in mind?

Wilhelm Gesenius covered the topic well in his entry on the word לב in his lexicon, pp. 507-508.


Many religions are attempts to please a god or "gods" in order to gain their favor.
Many religions focus on becoming more like a god ourselves, elevating man in some way or another
Others deny God or the Supernatural at all (often viewing man as already being the ultimate being)
Many focus on using or harnessing powers of the universe to improve our lives (Wicca, and other new-age religions)

The primary difference between Christianity and other religions that I've either "dabbled in" or studied is this:

Christianity is unique in stating that we cannot possibly hope to please God by being "good enough", and that God reached down and made the ultimate sacrifice for us.  Our good works can do nothing to please Him.  All we can do to please Him is to accept His gift and love Him.

In other words, all of the other religions that I'm aware of are man-centered, focusing on improving or glorifying man, whereas Christianity is about glorifying God alone.  Instead of trying to appease Him in some way or other, which encourages pride, we are grateful to a God that loves us in spite of our own unrighteousness.  Christianity gives all the glory to God, and leaves no room for us to take any credit on our own.


(LDS perspective) How would people before Mormonism have entered heaven since they would not have known the masonic handshakes?

The whole point of having temples is to receive saving and exalting ordinances for ourselves and for our ancestors. After one has received temple ordinances for themselves, he/she goes back to the temple and does ordinances by proxy for those who have died. Then the person who has died can choose to accept it or not.

President David O. McKay wrote about the purpose of the temple in 1972:

  Where did Christ’s spirit go while his body lay in the tomb? The apostle Peter tells us that he went to preach to the spirits who were in prison, who were once disobedient in the days of Noah when the ark was being prepared. (See 1 Pet. 3:19–20.) Those who died thousands of years ago were still living in the spirit world, and the gospel was taken to them as it will be taken to all of our Father’s children.

  This, then, is another purpose of the temple. You may have the opportunity of gathering the names of your ancestors, who, being baptized by proxy, may become members of the kingdom of God in the other world as we are members here.

Each time an ordinance is performed by proxy, the name of the individual for whom the ordinance is being performed is assigned/given to the proxy on a piece of paper and that proxy does the ordinance for that person, keeping the paper with them until complete. It is then recorded on the computer. It's one-by-one and very individual (efficiency is not the purpose or the goal). It doesn't matter how that person lived; their work is done nonetheless, and everyone -- every person who ever lived -- will eventually have the opportunity to accept the ordinances if they choose to.


Had the Catholic Church a tradition of commemorating Abraham's sacrifice?

The only Catholic Church tradition of commemorating the sacrifice of Abraham (Gen. 22:1-18) is at the Easter vigil with the second reading being the actual account of Abraham taking his son Isaac to the land of Moriah to be sacrificed to God.

It is not the tradition of the Church to commemorate Old Testament events in themselves, but rather to associate them in the liturgy in light of the Church's faith in her Savior Jesus Christ.

It could also be noted that the Patriarch Abraham is commemorated on October 9 in the Vicariate of St. James (Hebrew Catholics) in the Holy Land.

  Saint Abraham is remembered on a feast day of his own – in the Orthodox Church on October 11 and in the Catholic Church the feast has been transferred to October 9. The fact that the date is shared in the Eastern and the Western Church proof of the antiquity of this feast that dates back before the schism between East and West in the eleventh century. However, this is not surprising when one considers the importance of Abraham our father – who is our father in body and spirit. - Feast of Saint Abraham – October 9

Abraham offering his son Isaac to be Sacrificed

Of further interest here is a related question I asked on Mi Yodeya SE: Are there any Jewish or Hebrew traditions that hold that the Passover and the binding of Isaac were on the same day (15 Nisan)?


Does the seal of confession apply even when the sin is intended and there is no desire to repent?

I can't find an explicit statement that the seal of confession applies (or not) to the "confession" of a sin to be committed in the future, but all the evidence suggests that it does not.

Canon 983 and 984 are most relevant regarding the seal of confession:

  Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is
  absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent
  in words or in any manner and for any reason.

  §2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way
  have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe
  secrecy.

  Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge
  acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when
  any danger of revelation is excluded.

  §2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner
  for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received
  in confession at any time.

  Code of Canon Law

However, this presupposes that the confessor acquired this knowledge during a valid confession.

Regarding the essential parts of a valid confession, the Council of Trent taught that

  the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction, constitute the matter of this sacrament, which acts, inasmuch as they are by God's institution required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and complete remission of sins, are for this reason called the parts of penance.

  ...

  Contrition, which holds the first place among the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind and a detestation for sin committed with the purpose of not sinning in the future. This feeling of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the forgiveness of sins and thus indeed it prepares one who has fallen after baptism for the remission of sins, if it is united with confidence in the divine mercy and with the desire to perform the other things that are required to receive this sacrament in the proper manner. The holy council declares therefore, that this contrition implies not only an abstention from sin and the resolution and beginning of a new life, but also a hatred of the old...

  Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent

Contrition in the penitent is required for the integrity of the sacrament, and contrition is obviously lacking in the case at hand since the "penitent" is not actually sorrowful and intending to avoid the sin in the future. Since it is not a valid confession it follows that the seal of confession does not apply. After all, if a priest overhears the villain disclosing his criminal plans outside of the confessional (e.g. discussing plans with an accomplice) he is obviously not bound to secrecy just because he happens to be a priest.

Even if the seal of confession did apply the priest is able to take certain measures to prevent the crime without violating the seal. I found an interesting blog post about the seal of confession (supposedly written by a canon lawyer) which explores some hypothetical situations similar to the one posed, the most relevant of which is:

  If the penitent is not willing to cooperate, there are sometimes
  situations in which priests can find ways to help the authorities
  without revealing the content of a person’s confession. If a penitent
  has indicated, for example, that he fully intends to kill or harm
  Person X, a priest may be able to warn the police that Person X is in
  danger, but without fully explaining how he obtained this information.
  I personally know of a case in which police received a phone call from
  a priest, warning them that two teenaged sisters were in danger at
  that very moment. The police understood that the priest was not
  permitted to give them more specific information, and simply located
  the girls, notified their parents, and made sure they were protected.
  It is quite likely that some horrible crime was averted by this
  priest’s action, yet he did not violate the sacramental seal—in fact,
  nobody was really sure if he had learned the information in the
  confessional or in a confidential conversation outside of it. Once
  again, such collaboration between the authorities and the clergy
  happens more often than we may realize.

Although the seal of confession probably does not apply in this situation, the penalty for violating the seal of confession is so severe that the priest may nonetheless choose to remain silent in order to make sure he does not violate the seal of confession.


Do I have to attend church every Sunday?

After watching "What is the Church?" , I posed myself a question: "What happens if my Church (the building) was taken down? Or my cell group being taken away? Would there still be Church?"

Answer is simply Yes. For the Church exists in each and everyone who believes, trusts, and acknowledges our Saviour - simply because each of us is a part of Christ's body. Even if the building is gone, even if our cell group is taken away, even if there is no hymns or Sunday services, Church still exists.

The reason why Church attendance is important is to

To meet and affirm our faiths together
To study more about God's Word (through sermons and Bible studies)
To participate in healthy activities.

Quoting from the one of the comments on the video written by Tom Smith, Pastor at Mt. View Southern Baptist:

  I have a friend that has gone though the same problem as Stan. He say's he will never find a church to attend, so why try. However, every Sunday Morning he and his wife play a round of golf with the same group of people, and then retire to their home for a brunch and fellowship, which eventually comes around to studying The Bible. I recently told him that even though he doesn't realize it, he has a Home Church, and he is it's Pastor. All this time he thought they were just getting together to enlighten each other about God, Jesus, and The Bible. Don't look now, but that is what a church is.


Who was affected by the plague in Numbers 25?

I can only express my own opinion as the account is not specific regarding the question.

It is stated that evil was done (verses 1-3). It is stated what the Lord said to Moses about the matter (verse 4) and what was to be done to the heads of the people (the translation quoted in the OP states 'chiefs' but other translations infer it was the actual heads of the offending persons).

It is stated what Moses said to the judges (verse 5).

Despite all this, still, one man at least paid no heed. And there is afterwards a mention of a plague. I would suggest the plague began when there was lack of absolute and unanimous response to the Lord's words and to Moses' words.

And I would suggest that it was Phinehas' righteous action that stopped the plague, as it is written. I assume that his action - so public and against such a high-ranking Israelite - was the pivot point for the whole congregation of Israel to turn from the evil.

My reading of the passage is that the plague began because of a less than unanimous repentance. And that the action of Phinehas (and the effects of that action on the whole congregation) brought the plague to a halt.

This is a very important passage with regard to justification by faith and is mentioned again in Psalm 106, in even more emphatic terms.


Should the Catholic rosary be recited in Latin or the vernacular language?

In the Catholic Church, there are two "types" of worship. On the one hand, there are the public liturgies of the Church (primarily the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours); on the other hand, there are all other devotions. These are known as private devotions, and, for the most part, are not subject to rules specifying how they are to be prayed.

We see this described in the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium:

  Popular devotions of the Christian people are to be highly commended,
  provided they accord with the laws and norms of the Church, above all
  when they are ordered by the Apostolic See.

  Devotions proper to individual Churches also have a special dignity if
  they are undertaken by mandate of the bishops according to customs or
  books lawfully approved.

  But these devotions should be so drawn up that they harmonize with the
  liturgical seasons, accord with the sacred liturgy, are in some
  fashion derived from it, and lead the people to it, since, in fact,
  the liturgy by its very nature far surpasses any of them.

The Rosary is in this second class. In the case of this devotion, there are various guidelines issued, but there are no rules that specify whether or not it is a "valid" Rosary.

It is certainly not a sin to change it according to local or even personal custom, so long as the changes are not contrary to the faith of the Church. It is also up to your personal preference whether you recite it in the vernacular, in Latin, or indeed in Martian if that helped your personal piety. Both are very common.

With regard to your final question, one of the principal advantages of the Rosary is that it is a form of prayer that can be done without complex instruction and is open to various levels of understanding according to the individual's capability.


What is the Full Preterist perspective on ghosts and paranormal activity?

Great question and one I have dealt with as I became a full preterist.

I used to believe in ghosts, departed souls and demons impersonating loved ones through palm readers, etc, but that would mean Biblical verses such as 1 John 3:8 (Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan) would be a hollow statement and actually a lie.  Jesus said the strong man was bound.  (Matt. 12:29). Another hollow victory if Jesus only bound the strongman and not his little demons.

The word "Destroy" has a different meaning in the context of usage elsewhere in Scripture than to mean just crush.  The only other time Jesus used the word was when He said he could destroy this temple and he would rebuild it in three days.

The word he used had the meaning of taking all the remaining parts, pounding them into small particles similar to grain, then removing all the particles so that they could never be reassembled.  This was the same "Destroy" that John mentions Jesus did to Satan's kingdom.

If that was so, then there is no element of Satan's realm left or Jesus and John were wrong or lied.  I choose to believe both were right and we have/are misinterpreting Scripture.

Summary

If Jesus said he bound the enemy and John Said Jesus destroyed Satan's work, and Jesus said after his resurrection that He possessed all authority and power (none left to share with Lucifer), but he didn't say that before the Resurrection, then it would necessarily cause one to accept that there really is nothing for Satan to reside over.


Does the Catholic Church have a list of Good Books?

Yes. They're called the Biblical Canon. The books of the Holy Bible were originally a number of separate documents that the Church leadership officially agreed to be the authoritative collection of documents on their faith.


What is the relationship between commandments and salvation in Roman Catholicism?

Mortal Sin is explicitly tied to the Ten Commandments in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Failure to resolve a grave breach of the commandments puts the person at risk of exclusion from God's kingdom.  I recommend a review of articles 1852 - 1864 to get the full flow of the sequential argument.

(I also recommend that you check out Matthew 221 to understand why Jesus didn't list all ten commandments in that discussion with the young man.  He was obviously summarizing).

In brief, the view of the Roman Catholic Church:

If you die with the stain of mortal sin upon your soul, salvation
will not be your reward.
Mortal sin is a grave transgression directly related to the Ten Commandments.

Being in a state of mortal sin vacates the hope for salvation unless admitted, confessed, and reconciled.

Thus, salvation (and its opposite, damnation) are directly related to the Ten Commandments.

Following the ten commandments will predispose a person to not fall
into sin
Failing to follow the ten commandments will    predispose a person to
fall into sin, and in some cases mortal sin.
Minor breaches are classified as venial sin, which is related to the
scripture that states that "there is sin that is not mortal." (1 John
5:17)

  from CCC 1852/1853: There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture
  provides several list ... {works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing ... those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."(Gal 5:19-21)

  Sins can be distinguished according to their objects ... or according
  to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the
  commandments they violate. ...

  CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met:
  "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also
  committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

  1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments,
  corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not
  kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness,
  Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."

  1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It
  presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its
  opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently
  deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of
  heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of
  a sin.

  1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love
  itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of
  sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not
  redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from
  Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has
  the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.

From elsewhere in the Catechism ... a person receives the state of grace upon Baptism, wherein all sins are washed away.  Losing that state of grace is possible, and happens when mortal sin is committed.  Restoration of the state of baptismal grace requires the sacrament of penance and reconciliation (confession and penance). (There are books written on this subject; this is the short version).

1 If we review the "the greatest commandment" scene between Jesus and the Parisees (book of Matthew) the church's teachings fits cleanly with both general and more specific commandments.

  Matthew 22:35-40
    35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
  38 This is the first and great commandment.
  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
  40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


It appears that Augustine believed that purgatory was real, but didn't believe the matter was settled.
His agnosticism seems clearest in this passage:

It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. (Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love, 69 [421-422])

He appears to affirm it while recounting his mother's death:

To us both [my brother and I] she says, "Lay this body anywhere, let not the care for it trouble you at all. This only I ask, that you will remember me at the Lord's altar, wherever you be."
I then, O my Praise and my Life, Thou God of my heart, putting aside for a little her good deeds, for which I joyfully give thanks to You, do now beseech You for the sins of my mother. Hearken unto me, through that Medicine of our wounds who hung upon the tree, and who, sitting at Your right hand, "makes intercession for us." ... Forgive her, O Lord, forgive her, I beseech You; enter not into judgment with her. Let Your mercy be exalted above Your justice. (Confessions, IX.27,35 [397-401])

But he then goes on to say, "And I believe You have already done that which I ask You," (36) which is not entirely clear, but could be interpreted as a statement against purgatory.
At any rate, however, he makes many statements in his writings either in direct support of a "purgatorial fire" or of making "intercession for the dead." In The City of God, he makes statements supporting both within a few paragraphs of each other (see below), indicating that the ideas were connected in his thought.
For more on the development of Augustine's thought with regard to the doctrine of purgatory, see The Birth of Purgatory by Jacques Le Goff, in particular the chapter on the church fathers.
Purgatorial fire

The man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of his land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 2:20 [388/389])
Cleanse me in this life, and make me such, that I may after that stand in no need of the cleansing fire, for those "who are to be saved, yet so as by fire." (1 Corinthians 3:15) ... For all that, though we should be saved by fire, yet will that fire be more grievous than anything that man can suffer in this life whatsoever. (Exposition on Psalm 38, 2 [date unknown; 396~420)
Of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment. (The City of God 21:13 [413-427])

Prayers for the dead

The souls of the pious dead are not separated from the Church, which even now is the kingdom of Christ; otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the altar of God in the partaking of the body of Christ. (The City of God 20:9 [413-427])
The prayer either of the Church herself or of pious individuals is heard on behalf of certain of the dead; but it is heard for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not for the rest of their life in the body do such wickedness that they might be judged unworthy of such mercy, nor who yet lived so well that it might be supposed they have no need of such mercy. (The City of God 21:24 [413-427])
In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Howbeit even if it were no where at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the Commendation of the dead has also its place. (On the Care of the Dead, 3 [420-422])
Church custom has it that at the place where the names of the martyrs are recited at God's altar, we don't pray for them, while we do pray for the other departed brothers and sisters who are remembered there. It is insulting, I mean, to pray for martyrs, to whose prayers we ought rather to commend ourselves. (Sermon 159:1 [417])
There is no doubt that the dead are helped by the prayers of holy Church, by the saving sacrifice, and by alms dispensed for their souls; these things are done that they may be more mercifully dealt with by the Lord than their sins deserve. The whole Church observes the custom handed down by our fathers: that those who died within the fellowship of Christ’s body and blood should be prayed for when they are commemorated in their own place at the holy sacrifice, and that we should be reminded that this sacrifice is offered for them as well. (Sermon 172:2 [date unknown; 393~430])

Dates come from this book list, other than for sermon 159, which comes from the linked book.


Are Catholics obligated to follow the 4th Commandment in Heaven?

Strictly speaking, Catholics are not 'obligated' to keep the 'Sabbath' (on earth, let alone in heaven):

  2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ: "Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death"106 - Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis added)

  ...

  106. St. Justin, I Apol. 67:PG 6,429 and 432.

For further clarification on the Catholic view of the correct attitude to the moral law (which includes the commandment to observe the Sabbath) refer to the Catechism's teaching on the moral law.

Earthly sabbaths under the Old Covenant were a prefigurement of the true Sabbath rest that we fore-taste upon regeneration and that will be fully manifested in heaven:

  3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

  “As I swore in my wrath,
  ‘They shall not enter my rest,’”

  although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this passage he said,

  “They shall not enter my rest.”

  6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

  “Today, if you hear his voice,
  do not harden your hearts.”

  8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God[a] would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

  11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. - Hebrews 4:3-11 ESV

In heaven, it is arguable that 'obligation' will be an even less appropriate term to be applied to the saints generally as they are made perfect and manifest pure worship in Spirit and Truth - beholding the Lord in beatific vision in perpetual sabbath rest.


Does Eucharistic Adoration fulfill the Obligation of Penance required of all Catholics on Fridays throughout the year?

It seems to me that there is nothing preventing Eucharistic adoration from fulfilling the obligation of penance.
Let's have a look at the document that regulates the Friday obligation in the United States: the 1966 Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence. It remarks on the history of the Friday abstinence from meat and explains why it may not be appropriate in the modern age as the best way to unite ourselves with Christ's passion. For example, in paragraph 20, the bishops say

Accordingly, since the spirit of penance primarily suggests that we discipline ourselves in that which we enjoy most, to many in our day abstinence from meat no longer implies penance, while renunciation of other things would be more penitential.

They go on to say that the obligation is altered in the following way (22 and 23):

Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year, a time when those who seek perfection will be mindful of their personal sins and the sins of mankind which they are called upon to help expiate in union with Christ Crucified.
Friday should be in each week something of what Lent is in the entire year. For this reason we urge all to prepare for that weekly Easter that comes with each Sunday by freely making of every Friday a day of self-denial and mortification in prayerful remembrance of the passion of Jesus Christ.

Finally, in urging people not to criticize others for not abstaining from meat, they say (paragraph 26)

We should warn those who decide to keep the Friday abstinence for reasons of personal piety and special love that they must not pass judgment on those who elect to substitute other penitential observances. Friday, please God, will acquire among us other forms of penitential witness which may become as much a part of the devout way of life in the future as Friday abstinence from meat.

So the key points are that it should preserve a sense of penitential witness, that it should be elected by the individual, that it should be an act of self-denial and mortification, that it should be a prayerful remembrance of Christ's passion, and that people should not pass judgment on people who observe the Friday penance in ways that differ from their own.
I would argue that Eucharistic adoration would be a worthy way to follow these observances, as long as they fulfill the individual requirements. It should be a free devotional act, so there are unlikely to be a strict list of options.
In the document Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (PDF), we can see the following about Eucharistic adoration (Supplementary Appendix, paragraph 3):

Eucharistic devotion fosters a deeper participation in the paschal mystery. The faithful are more closely associated with the grace of salvation effected by Christ in his death and resurrection.

This seems to me very much to fulfill the requirement of "remembrance of Christ's passion", and if it fulfills the other criteria, it is satisfactory.


What is the Biblical definition of "prophecy"?

Perhaps two of the most famous minor prophets will illustrate that prophecy is not so much about telling the future as the present.

Jonah, for example, only issues a single proclamation about the future:

  "Forty days, and Nineveh will be overturned," (Jonah: 3:2 RSV)

this does come to pass.  Nineveh was overturned.  They sat in sack cloth and ashes.  Their hearts were overturned.  If they had not been repented to God then they would have been destroyed but they were indeed overturned.  Amos, another prophet, makes very few predictions about the future, but again, the thrust of his message is that God's people need to shape up!  This is true of Hosea, Malachi, and many others.

The non-writing Prophets - Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, share the same distinction.

Indeed, we say that Martin Luther King, Jr. was "prophetic" in many of his missives against segregation in the United States.

The point is that a prophet is one who is given a message by God.  (Indeed Malach-i means "My Messenger") The prophet is then told to deliver this message to His people, however God chooses.  When Jeremiah refuses, he says it burns in his bones.  When Ezekiel does what God says, his wife dies and he can't mourn, he ends up lying on his side for years at a time, and generally looking like a nut.  Indeed, when Jesus drives the moneychangers out of the Temple, he is simply called a "prophet" for the act.

The point is simple that a prophet is a messenger of God.  If that message says something about the future, then it is because God wishes to give a message about consequences.  (Indeed, John the Revelator is apocalyptic, not prophetic!).


Do Calvinists believe that God does not love the world, but only the elect?

If any famous Calvinist could be accused of not believing God loved everyone it would be John Owen one of the foremost Calvinistic theologians. Owen (like Calvin as well) can be misunderstood as those 'who did not believe Christ died for all'. However the more I have read of their works the more I have become convinced that actually nobody has ever-believed that God does not love all men (that is nobody 'truly Calvinistic')

This is really confusion over terminology. It has to do with the way we think of the elect.  Since God is some sense sent his Son for the elect only, as they alone will benefit by his death, we must define 'love' in different senses.  God may love sinners who reject him, but in what sense is that love present when the sinner is bound under everlasting burnings? It is with this in mind that different Calvinists and in some way all Christians grapple with different meanings of the word love, and some accuse others of not believing in love based on the way they define this 'universal love'.  In my case I would simply say as a Calvinist, God loves all men equally but from His eternal planned salvation only loves the elect effectually. But I am not fixed on my current expression. Faith believes in God's love so does not desperately seek exact terms for everything but can repose and rest in faith.

In any case here is what Owen say's when accused on believing God did not love all: (All quotes from John Owen's Works, P555-557, CHAPTER XXXI Of election and universal grace—Of the resurrection of Christ from the dead)

He notes the following verses implies a general love for all in some sense: John 3:16, 17, 6:33, 4:42; 1 John 4:14; John 12:46, 47; Mark 16:15, 16; Col. 1:23, 28; 1 Tim. 2:1–4; 2 Pet. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:1, 2.

Then he says:

  That God is good to all men, and bountiful, being a wise, powerful, liberal provider for the works of his hands, in and by innumerable dispensations and various communications of his goodness to them, and may in that regard be said to have a universal love for them all, is granted; but that God loveth all and every man alike, with that eternal love which is the fountain of his giving Christ for them and to them, and all good things with him, is not in the least intimated by any of those places of Scripture where they are expressed for whom Christ died, as elsewhere hath been abundantly manifested.

Then he says that actually it is our faith in God's general love for all that that we are saved by not our faith in his love for the elect, because the Bible does not give us faith in who is exactly elect (not saying that after we are saved we do not have full assurance that we are inn deed elect):

  This is indeed the only true and solid ground of coming unto God by Christ, that God hath infallibly conjoined faith and salvation, so that whosoever believes shall be saved; neither doth the granting of the pretended universality of God’s love afford any other ground whatever; and this is not in the least shaken or impaired by the effectual love and purpose of God for the salvation of some...We say, though God hath chosen some only to salvation by Christ,—yet the names of those some are not expressed in Scripture, the doing whereof would have been destructive to the main end of the word, the nature of faith, and all the ordinances of the gospel,—yet God having declared that whosoever believeth shall be saved, there is sufficient ground for all and every man in the world to whom the gospel is preached to come to God by Christ, and other ground there is none, nor can be offered by the assertors of the pretended universality of God’s love. Nor is this proposition, “He that believeth shall be saved,” founded on the universality of love pleaded for, but on the sufficiency of the means for the accomplishment of what is therein asserted,—namely, the blood of Christ, who is believed on.

But after establishing God's love for all Owen reminds us of some facts about those predestined to glory which might lead some to the confusion:

  Some are chosen from eternity, and are under the purpose of God, as to the good mentioned. Those some are some only, not all; and therefore, as to the good intended, there is not a universal love in God as to the objects of it, but such a distinguishing one as is spoken against: Eph. 1:4, 5, “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Here are some chosen, and consequently an intention of God concerning them expressed, and this from eternity, or before the foundation of the world, and this to the good of holiness, adoption, salvation; and this is only of some, and not of all the world, as the whole tenor of the discourse, being referred to believers, doth abundantly manifest.

He also reminds us that others are predestined to hell:

  Yet farther to evidence that this purpose of God or intention spoken of is peculiar and distinguishing, there is express mention of another sort of men who are not thus chosen, but lie under the purpose of God as to a contrary lot and condition: “The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil,” Prov. 16:4. They are persons “whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb,” Rev. 13:8; being “of old ordained to condemnation,” Jude 4; being as “natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,” 2 Pet. 2:12. And therefore the apostle distinguisheth all men into those who are “appointed to wrath,” and those who are “appointed to the obtaining of salvation by Jesus Christ,” 1 Thess. 5:9

Conclusion: Nobody really believes God does not love the whole human race:

  As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. (John Calvin on John 3:16)

Notes:

All of John Owen's works can be found here.
Here are a couple posts I have made before about this subject before but when I wrote them I had never found these little nuggets posted here:

"God desires all men to be saved" from a Calvinist perspective?

Does God hate unborn children?


How does the Catholic church distinguish between the human soul and spirit?

Regarding "spirit", the New Catholic Encyclopedia states:

  For those of the Christian tradition, spirit is always personal and subjective, and all other
  manifestations of spirit can be reduced to their source in
  the person. Within this tradition, the radical and essential
  manifestation of spirit has been variously singled out as:
  creative activity, self-consciousness, interiority or subjectivity, intelligence, reason, knowledge of universals,
  love, freedom, and communication (dialogue). These are
  activities by which the presence of spirit may be known,
  and they furnish a clue to the nature of spirit in itself as
  a form of subsistent being.

  Christian thought also recognizes three main kinds
  of spirit: (1) the human soul, incomplete in its mode of
  subsisting and extrinsically dependent on the body; (2)
  pure finite spirit, i.e., the angel, perfectly subsisting and
  independent of matter; and (3) Absolute Spirit, or God,
  infinite, utterly pure, and fully actual being (subsistent
  existence) without any limitation. Man’s primary apprehension of these forms of spirit is gained through self-
  knowledge. The spiritual being most proportionate to his
  way of knowing is his own soul, manifesting its nature
  through activities that are immediately present to his consciousness. His knowledge of other spiritual realities is
  in turn based on such knowledge (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, C. gent. 3.46).

So, human beings, because have body, and the soul is the form of the body (e.g. here), have souls. The soul is the spirit.

Angels, it seems, have no soul because have no body. In effect, the encyclopedia states regarding angels:

  The Church has defined as dogma that besides the visible world God also created
  a kingdom of invisible spirits, called angels, and that He
  created them before the creation of the world (Lateran Council IV, 1215, ch. 1, H. Denzinger Enchiridion symbolorum [Freiburg 1963] 800; repeated at Vatican Council I, 1870, ibid. 3002; cf., earlier, the Nicene Creed of 25, ibid. )

Same seems to apply to God. Being immaterial, It has spirit, but no soul.

PS: unless the dogma that the soul is the form of the body refers to human souls only, it might be possible for angels to have another form of soul. I haven't found a definitive teaching on this.


What is the biblical basis for spiritual encounters leading to instant deliverance from addictions?

I think it will be hard to draw a straight line between biblical accounts which are most often painted with a brush of possession and things which nowadays are labeled addiction.  The closest I've been able to come is with behaviors categorized as self-harm which Psychiatrists are beginning to understand as a form of addiction.  If that is the case then the demoniac of the Gadarenes, if examined today, may well be labeled with a self-harm addiction:

Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. - Mark 5:5

This man is described in the bible as having an unclean spirit and also as being indwelt by many demons.  Luke tells us that this man had often been captured, bound, and kept under guard but that he always broke the bonds, escaped the guards, and returned naked to the wilds to wail and cut himself (Mark):

For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. (For many a time it had seized him. He was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the desert.) - Luke 8:29

If a line can be drawn between this man's behavior and what modern Psychiatry would consider self-harm addiction then the resolution of his affliction may be an example of the biblical basis you seek:

Then people went out to see what had happened, and they came to Jesus and found the man from whom the demons had gone, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid. And those who had seen it told them how the demon-possessed man had been healed. - Luke 8:35-36

Note:  I am not suggesting that all mental illnesses or addictions are demon possessions nor am I suggesting that all biblical demon possessions are actually mislabeled mental illnesses.
If it can be accepted (with biblical basis) that Jesus has been granted power and authority to raise the dead, cast out demons, give sight to the blind, restore the lame, heal the sick, etc. and if it can be accepted that the biblical catalogue of miracles that Jesus performed is not a limiting comprehensive list, there should be little difficulty to accept the notion of instant deliverance from heroin addiction (for example) by the power of God.


Have sons of Orthodox priests often taken over their fathers' ministries?

Kislova's "Latin" and "Slavonic" Education in the Primary Classes of Russian Seminaries in the 18th Century cites Matison to say:

  The parish was, de facto, a hereditary holding; therefore, the education of future priests became the responsibility of their fathers.

Bremer's Cross and Kremlin: A Brief History of the Orthodox Church in Russia, pp. 78, contributes:

  De facto, parishes could be inherited, a practice in Russian (but not Ukranian territories), supported by the hierarchy until the second half of the nineteenth century. It led to the creation of something like a "caste of priests", a social class that frequently had little connection with the rest of society and whose social mobility was extremely limited.... After a reform of seminaries in 1867, sons of priests had an opportunity to choose other professions.

So the answer seems to be, parish inheritance was common at least in Imperial Russia.


The original number of The Beast is 616 not 666; previous Bible prophesies effected?

If we assume copying 666 as 616 is an unlikely scribal error, and I believe this to be the case, then it means there must be an explanation as to why in some manuscripts it is written as 616. If we understand the reason as to why it might have been re-written as 616, then this reason would be hugely influential in our understanding in biblical prophecy.

If the reason for the discrepancy is a result of (for example) Nero's name having two different potential spellings, and it can be shown that these two different spellings add up to either 666 or 616, then it would be very difficult for anyone (on TV or otherwise) to argue that that prophecy finds it's fulfilment in anything other than (for example) Nero. Except for perhaps an argument that shows that the scriptures were changed as a result of encountering a new "anti-christ" who's name added up to 616. What I mean by this is, for example, a line of copies that were deliberately changed to 616, which the readers would have recognised as a deliberate change, indicating to them that someone is conveying that a later "anti-christ" is being deemed as fulfilling this prophecy as well.

That however is a big if. If instead it can be shown to be scribal error, then there is obviously no impact on biblical prophecy except that someone has made a copying mistake.


What were the motivations of the Council of Trent?

For the same reasons as the councils before it, the Council of Trent was held to address current heresies and prevent schisms. Councils are held for the unity and benefit of the Church. Specifically, the Council of Trent was organized and held to address the budding Protestant Reformation and was part of a series of events and actions by the Catholic Church that some historians have dubbed the Counter-Reformation.

Pope Paul III addresses exactly what he hoped to accomplish with the council in his Bull of Indiction.

Among other things, the most notable item is in the first few paragraphs:

  Whereas we deemed it necessary that there should be one fold and one shepherd, for the Lord's flock in order to maintain the Christian religion in its integrity, and to confirm within us the hope of heavenly things; the unity of the Christian name was rent and well-nigh torn asunder by schisms, dissensions, heresies.

And this thought continues just a few sentences later (emphasis mine):

  Wherefore, having been, as we have said, called upon to guide and govern the bark of Peter, in so great a tempest, and in the midst of so violent an agitation of the waves of heresies, dissensions, and wars; and, not relying sufficiently on our own strength, we, first of all, cast our cares upon the Lord, that He might sustain us, and furnish our soul with firmness and strength, our understanding with prudence and wisdom. Then, recalling to mind that our predecessors, men endowed with admirable wisdom and sanctity, had often, in the extremest perils of the Christian commonwealth, had recourse to ecumenical councils and general assemblies of bishops, as the best and most opportune remedy, we also fixed our mind on holding a general council; and having consulted the opinions of those princes whose consent seemed to us to be specially useful and opportune for this our project; when we found them, at that time, not averse from so holy a work, we, as our letters and records attest, indicted an ecumenical council, and a general assembly of those bishops and other Fathers whose duty it is to assist thereat, to be opened at the city of Mantua, on the tenth of the calends of June, in the year 1537 of our Lord's Incarnation, and the third of our pontificate; having an almost assured hope that, when assembled there in the name of the Lord, He, as He promised, would be in the midst of us, and, in His goodness and mercy, easily dispel, by the breath of His mouth, all the storms and dangers of the times.

Other items were addressed, or at least were meant to be, such as reforms, but the Council was mostly held to address and condemn the practices of Protestantism.

The History Learning Site concurs:

  The Council had been called to examine doctrine and reform. Charles V had wanted abuses looked at first in an attempt to please the Protestants and hopefully tempt them back to the church. Once they were back they could look at doctrine. Paul III did not want this as reforms could financially damage him and concessions could diminish his authority.


Why did Joseph Smith return the golden plates to the angel to be buried?

First, to clarify, the ancient record was recorded on plates, bound by rings, not on tablets. I've never seen official or first-person historical sources refer to them as tablets and have only seen that term used in sources which have either strong or subtle sentiments against the Mormon church, or a political agenda. From every reliable source I have ever seen, plates is the proper term. (The distinction is important because the Book of Mormon was actually a book, not a slate. Tablets are not plates. Plates are thin, light, and can be bound together. Tablets are like what the 10 Commandments or Hammurabi's Code were written on... the plates were bound into a codex.)
Joseph was instructed from the beginning to the end that the plates held a very singular purpose: to bring to light great truths which were otherwise lost. From Joseph Smith—History, Joseph Smith was warned not to use the plates for gain.

46 By this time, so deep were the impressions made on my mind, that sleep had fled from my eyes, and I lay overwhelmed in astonishment at what I had both seen and heard. But what was my surprise when again I beheld the same messenger at my bedside, and heard him rehearse or repeat over again to me the same things as before; and added a caution to me, telling me that Satan would try to tempt me (in consequence of the indigent circumstances of my father’s family), to get the plates for the purpose of getting rich. This he forbade me, saying that I must have no other object in view in getting the plates but to glorify God, and must not be influenced by any other motive than that of building his kingdom; otherwise I could not get them.

As for the follow-up question, pondering on "the street value of the gold" actually caused delay in the Restoration process and Joseph was punished for entertaining the thought (see heading: "Joseph Smith—History 1:50–53. Joseph’s First Visit to the Hill Cumorah):

“As Joseph approached the Hill Cumorah, he had thoughts about the poverty of his family and the possibility that the plates or the popularity of the translation would produce enough wealth to ‘raise him above a level with the common earthly fortunes of his fellow men, and relieve his family from want’ [Oliver Cowdery, in Messenger and Advocate, July 1835, 157]. When he reached down for the plates he received a shock and was thus prevented from taking them out of the box. Twice more he tried and was thrown back. In frustration he cried out, ‘Why can I not obtain this book?’ Moroni appeared and told him it was because he had not kept the commandments but had yielded to the temptations of Satan to obtain the plates for riches instead of having his eye single to the glory of God as he had been commanded [Cowdery, in Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1835, 198].
“Repentant, Joseph humbly sought the Lord in prayer and was filled with the Spirit. A vision was opened to him, and the ‘glory of the Lord shone round about and rested upon him. … He beheld the prince of darkness. … The heavenly messenger [Moroni] said, “All this is shown, the good and the evil, the holy and impure, the glory of God and the power of darkness, that you may know hereafter the two powers and never be influenced or overcome by that wicked one.” … You now see why you could not obtain this record; that the commandment was strict, and that if ever these sacred things are obtained they must be by prayer and faithfulness in obeying the Lord. They are not deposited here for the sake of accumulating gain and wealth for the glory of this world: they were sealed by the prayer of faith, and because of the knowledge which they contain they are of no worth among the children of men, only for their knowledge’ [Cowdery, in Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1835, 198]. Moroni concluded by warning Joseph that he would not be allowed to obtain the plates ‘until he had learned to keep the commandments of God—not only till he was willing but able to do it’ [in Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, 81; italics added]” (Church History in the Fulness of Times, 40–41)

And the fate of the plates?
It has not been mentioned that the plates were then buried. Rather:

When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight.

So to answer the question... why did he return the plates? Because he was commanded to do so. Why? We're not entirely sure... the Lord does mention that He would try the faith of His people:

6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;
7 But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.
8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.
9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.
10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.
11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.

And to answer the next question from your comment, both the Large and Small Plates (which were concatenated by Mormon) were full, so Joseph Smith could have written no more on them:
Omni 1 (small plates)

30 And I, Amaleki, had a brother, who also went with them; and I have not since known concerning them. And I am about to lie down in my grave; and these plates are full. And I make an end of my speaking.

Mormon 8 (large plates)

5 Behold, my father hath made this record, and he hath written the intent thereof. And behold, I would write it also if I had room upon the plates, but I have not; and ore I have none, for I am alone. My father hath been slain in battle, and all my kinsfolk, and I have not friends nor whither to go; and how long the Lord will suffer that I may live I know not.


How does free will fit with the doctrine of predestination?

First of all, Calvinists do believe in free will. This point is often mis-understood by non-Calvinists; but the position that men don't actually have free will and control over their own choices is not Calvinism but hyper-Calvinism -- a deterministic view that goes far beyond that of it's namesake Calvin and the general constituency.

With that out of the way, the most important thing about the Calvinistic understanding of free will is that men are free to make choices, but only capable of making choices according to their nature. We can make any choice we like inside the scope of the kind of beings that we are but cannot make choices outside the scope of that nature or that defy it.

This is essentially the same sense in which we are limited physically. As humans we have finite power. The ability to levitate or spontaneously generate fire is reserved for the heroes of the Silver Screen. As humans we can affect our surroundings only insofar as we have the power to do so. But that power cannot change our nature. We can choose to eat healthy and exercise and not jump in front of moving trains -- and thus possibly extend our lives -- but we are still mortal and we cannot prevent our own eventual death. Whether through old age or sickness, we will die. Statistics are clear on this point. Our free will may allow us to live longer than if we had made other choices, but it will not allow us to not die at all. It is according to our nature.

In a similar sense, Calvinists believe that man has free will and is sovereign over the aspects of his life insofar as he has been granted these rights by God. However, we believe that man is, by nature, dead in sin. This means that it is not within the realm of possibility to "choose" salvation. A sick man may choose to take medicine and thus affect his own healing, but a dead man can do nothing to change his fate. This is the doctrine of total depravity and outside the scope of this question.

Calvinists believe that God is sovereign over salvation. That is his domain and for him alone to choose. The how that God chose to use, however, is quite interesting. First he extends us Grace. He sent his Son, he paid the price, he made a propitiation, he died for the ungodly, he ... he ... he. Then he holds all this out in front of us and he calls us. This call may be heard by many but only those who have been chosen are given the grace to respond to it, and through the hearing of the call are given faith and literally made into new beings -- resurrected from death to life -- born again as spiritual sons. This birth process isn't something we choose, it's something that is done for us. It's grace: unmerited favor. Something we could not do and would not choose to do had not God done something on our behalf first.

Calvinists may believe that God predestines people to be saved but they believe that man's limited scope means that we don't know who those people are. Furthermore as recipients of Grace we are called to share this news -- this free grace -- the Gospel, with all. We don't only preach to some. We preach it to all. Who God chooses to change into people that respond to the call is his business, but our business is inform everyone of the choice. Jesus called people to make choices, so do we.


Where did Roman Catholicism connect modern heresies with the Reformation?

Pope St. Pius X mentions Protestantism in §13, §25, and §§38-39 of Pascendi Dominici gregis,* his 1907 encyclical condemning Modernism, "the synthesis of all heresies" (§39). For example, at the end of §39, "Modernism and All the Heresies," he writes:

  …by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.

The idea of "steps" from modernism to atheism is illustrated, albeit in a Fundamentalist Protestant context, in "The Descent of the Modernists" by E. J. Pace, Christian Cartoons, 1922:

*Here is some audio of Fr. Thwaites, SJ, reading Pascendi: part 1, part 2, part 3