Why are Catholic bishops styled as archbishops?

Inspired by a link in Ken Graham's answer I read the Wikipedia article on Archbishops. That contains a paragraph germane to the question but which Ken doesn't quote:

  Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops are styled "The Most Reverend" and addressed as "Your Excellency." In English-speaking countries, a Catholic archbishop is addressed as "Your Grace", while a Catholic bishop is addressed as "Your Lordship". Before December 12, 1930, the title "Most Reverend" was only for archbishops, while bishops were styled as "Right Reverend." [18]

  Canon Law Digest, Bouscaren, Vol. 1, Page 20. Rt. Rev. Dominic Laurence Graessel. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore. Retrieved on 2016-11-19.

The article on Graessel says

  Before December 31, 1930, the title "Most Reverend" was reserved for archbishops; the other bishops were given the title of "Right Reverend." After that date, "Most Reverend" became general for all archbishops and bishops. (Canon Law Digest. Bouscaren, Vol. 1, P. 20).

Thus there are two potential dates for the introduction of "Most Reverend" for bishops.

I then searched for "31 December 1930" decree "Most Reverend" and found the Wikipedia article on the honorific Excellency which gives further details:

  By a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonial of 31 December 1930[5] the Holy See granted bishops of the Roman Catholic Church the title of Most Reverend Excellency (Latin, Excellentia Reverendissima). In the years following the First World War, the ambassadorial title of Excellency, previously given to nuncios, had already begun to be used by other Catholic bishops. The adjective Most Reverend was intended to distinguish the religious title from that of Excellency given to civil officials.  ...

  In some English-speaking countries, the honorific of Excellency does not apply to bishops other than the nuncio. In English law, Anglican archbishops are granted the title of Grace (Your Grace, His Grace, as for a duke), and bishops are granted the title of Lordship. The same titles are extended by courtesy to their Catholic counterparts, and continue in use in most countries that are or have been members of the Commonwealth. An exception is former British East Africa (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania).

  Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1931, p. 22; L'Osservatore Romano 24 January 1931.

The Acta are available online, although only in OCR form and thus do contain reading errors. The relevant decree is from what is usually called the Sacred Congregation of Rites and was indeed published on 31 December 1930:

  SACRA CONGREGATIO CAEREMONIALIS
  DECRETUM
  DE TITULO « EXCELLENTIAE REVERENDISSIMAE »

  Ssmus D. N. Pius Papa XI , eo consilio ut dignitas eorum, qui cum in
  Ecclesiae gubernatione, tum in ipsa Pontificis Maximi Domo principes
  habent partes, maiore cotidie in honore sit, Purpuratorum Patrum percontatus
  sententiam, qui sacris caerimoniis regundis praepositi sunt, die
  11 mensis Decembris huius anni, arcessito viro hac in pagina subsignato,
  qui Sacrae Congregationi Caerimoniarum est a secretis, decrevit: Excellentiae
  Reverendissimae titulum, praeter quam Patriarchis et Latinae et
  Orientalis Ecclesiae, praeter quam Praelatis qui a flocculis vulgo appellantur,
  praeter quam Nuntiis et Internuntiis Apostolicis, tribuendum
  quoque esse Archiepiscopis atque Episcopis sive residentialibus sive titularibus
  tantum, itemque Magistro Pontificii cubiculi, Praelatis qui assident
  vel sunt a secretis in Sacris Romanis Congregationibus, Secretario
  Supremi Tribunalis Signaturae Apostolicae, Praelato Decano Sacrae
  Romanae Rotae ac denique Substituto Secretariae Status. Contrariis
  quibuslibet non obstantibus.

  Datum Romae, ex aedibus Sacrae Congregationis Caerimonialis, die
  31 Decembris 1930.
  gg-I. Card. GRANITO PIGNATELLI D I BELMONTE,
  Ep. Ostiensis et Albanensis, Praefectus
  B. Nardone, Secretarius.

That is:

  THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR CEREMONIES
  DECREE ON THE TITLE "MOST REVEREND EXCELLENCY"

  So that the dignity of those who have the primary part of the governance of the Church, and especially of those in the house of the Pope itself, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius XI, after inquiring the opinion of the Purple Fathers who have been placed in charge of the rules for sacred ceremonies [i.e. the members of the Sacred Congregation for Ceremonies], has decreed by this advice, given on the 11th of December of this year, and undersigned on this page by the representative called for from those set apart for the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonies:

  The title of "Most Reverend Excellency" (except for Patriarchs of the Latin and Oriental Churches, and for Prelates who are given that name by courtesy, and except for Apostolic Nuntios and Messengers), is to be given to Archbishops and Bishops, both [bishops] by residence and [bishops] by title, as well as to the Master of the Papal Household, and to Prelates who assist at or are members of the Sacred Roman Congregations, the Secretariat of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Prelate Dean of the Roman Roat, and finally the Substitute Secretary of State. Anything at all to the contrary notwithstanding.

  Given at Rome, in the offices of the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonies, on the 31 December 1930.

  gg-I [sic] Cardinal GRANITO PIGNATELLI DI BELMONTE, Bishop of Ostia and Albano, Prefect
  B. Nardone, Secretary

  (translation Matt Gutting)

This says that the title "Most Reverend" tribuendum quoque esse Archiepiscopis atque Episcopis sive residentialibus sive titularibus tantum, "shall be given also to archbishops and bishops who are residential and also titular."

Thus my first hypothesis is correct and prior to this decree bishops were Right Reverend, as they still are in the British Isles and most Commonwealth countries.

The question still remains as to why the decree was not taken up within the Catholic hierarchy in Britain and the Commonwealth, although the cryptic reference to "English law" in the Excellency article is probably the reason. If I find that before someone else does, I'll update this answer.


Who will judge the 12th tribe of Israel?

Why are you assuming a one to one correspondence? The Greek here says "y'all" will judge them. The idea is that collectively you will bear witness against all of Israel.

In Greek, the verse is:

  ἵνα ἔσθητε καὶ πίνητε ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου, * καὶ καθήσεσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς κρίνοντες τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.

κρίνοντες is a verb (to judge - from which we get 'criminal') which is in the 2nd person plural, meaning that "You" is "y'all" (aka plural) and not singular.

If you need a one to one correspondence, take your pick between Matthais or (my personal bet as the real 12th apostle) Paul. But there's no reason too.

One person can judge multiple people, and multiple people can judge one.


Are there Christians that try to change the date of Second Coming through their actions?

Please see this FMS' answer to What are the different views regarding the order of events for end-times prophecy? It would appear that on the list, the first two are the ones a person or a group can influence.

  the full number of the Gentiles come into the Church
  the "full inclusion of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of the full number of the Gentiles" (#2 will follow quickly on,
  in the wake of, #1)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 674 begins by saying

  The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history
  until his recognition by "all Israel".

Therefore if full number of Gentiles come into the Church and all Israel recognize the Messiah, the fulfillment of these two things will be two less things suspending the LORD's return.

Some Jews upon coming into the fullness of their religion in the Catholic Church, realize this perhaps with a clarity that say even cradle Catholics don't. One such convert is Alphonse Ratisbonne who after his conversion,

  [...] moved to the Holy Land and with his brother Theodor founded a
  congregation of nuns --  the Congregation of Our Lady of Sion -- to
  pray for the conversion of the Jews.

The other thing that must happen before the LORD comes is the gospel is to be preached to ALL nations. This is the mission of the Church.

The Church, full of hope also prays,

  Maran atha ("Our Lord, come!") or Marana tha ("Come, Lord!") - "Amen Come Lord Jesus!" cf. CCC 451 and the prayers of the Advent Season.

Therefore the Church's preaching to the Nations, The Church's hopeful prayer and those of her children imploring the LORD to come and not delay, and her apostolate and those of some groups within the Church for the conversion of the Jews, is what the Church does to advance or at least to prepare for the glorious coming of the Messiah.

Endnote

Of course all those who also pray the LORD's prayer also join the Church in praying for the coming of the Kingdom

  Thy Kingdom come.


What does "give that which is holy to dogs" mean?

In context, Jesus just taught his disciples not to judge in Matthew 7:1-5. The kind of judgment Jesus meant is the judgment of a critical and censorious spirit. That kind of judgment seeks to impute motivations to behaviors one person observes in another person. Since quite frequently, people have a tendency to project their own failings onto other people, Jesus had to teach his disciples that that kind of judgment is wrong.
On the other hand, there are times when Christians are to USE good judgment, particularly since they have a mandate to preach the gospel and make disciples. Times come, however, when the audience to our witnessing to the truth in Christ Jesus will confront us with hostility, hatred, and even occasionally violence. In situations such as those, Jesus does not expect us to continue being his witnesses to such hostile audiences.
The analogy Jesus uses is phrased in chiastic form (i.e., A-B-B-A, or A-B-B'-A', a form of inverted parallelism). In other words, in the form of a Miller's analogy, holy is to dogs which turn and tear you to pieces, as pearls are to swine who trample (i.e., holy:dogs that tear::pearls:swine that trample).

the dogs are analogous to people who are antagonistic to a disciple's witness for Jesus. Since dogs in Jesus' day were primarily of the wild, feral type, if you were to throw them a scrap of meat, they would eat the scrap, and when they had finished it they just might turn and attack the source of the meat! So it is with a person (or group of people) whose reaction to the gospel is not only antagonistic but even borders on being violent. From such a one, Jesus warned, steer clear.

the pigs are also analogous to people who are antagonistic to a disciple's witness for Jesus. Instead of expressing violence toward the Christian, they treat with contempt the pearls of wisdom they hear coming from the lips of Christians. A modern pig of this sort would be Bill Maher, who instead of "playing fair" when debating Christians will "fight dirty," calling the Christians names (the old ad hominem fallacy), making Christians' pearls of wisdom sound narrow-minded, old-fashioned, outmoded, outdated, stupid, idiotic, irrational, and on and on and on. Instead of debating issues intelligently, rationally, and fairly, he simply casts aspersions on people of faith.

Jesus used this kind of good judgment, for example, when his reading of Isaiah and his brief commentary on that reading in the synagogue in his home town caused his audience to be "filled with rage." Rather than letting the mob have their way with him--they wanted to throw Jesus to his death from the brow of the hill on which Nazareth was built, Jesus simply vanished!

"But passing through their midst, He went His way. And He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and He was teaching them on the Sabbath; and they were amazed at His teaching, for His message was with authority" (Luke 4:301-32).

What a difference between Jesus' audience in Nazareth and his audience in Capernaum! Matthew gives us some additional information about Jesus' experience in Nazareth:

"And they took offense at Him . . .. And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief" (13:57-58, excerpts).

Regarding these two kinds of audiences, the receptive audience and the hostile audience, Jesus told his disciples to use good judgment when they see they are getting nowhere with a hostile audience. That is, they are not to stick around and get into a harangue with an obviously hostile audience. Rather, they are to go to another audience who might be more receptive to the gospel of Christ.
Elsewhere in the Gospels, prior to sending his disciples out two by two, Jesus encouraged them to "shake the dust off their feet" as they left a town if the townspeople would neither receive them nor listen to what they had to say (see Matthew 10:14; Mark 6:11; and Luke 9:5).
In conclusion, judging people for their motives and for their faults as we see them, is the kind of judgment Christians are to avoid. On the other hand, using good judgment is the kind of judgment Christians (and churches, for that matter) are to use, whether in their interactions with unbelievers outside the church, or in their interactions with fellow believers within the church. The "sinners" outside the church, God will judge one day. The sinners inside the church, the leaders of the church are to judge, particularly is there are two or three witnesses to the sinful behavior of a brother or sister in Christ (see 1 Corinthians 5, especially verses 12 and 13).


Where did all the water come from and go during the flood?

This subject is dealt with, in impressive detail and in a scientific manner, by Morris and Whitcombe in their famous book 'The Genesis Flood'.

They draw attention to the mention of waters 'above the firmament' Genesis 1:7 and I agree that it is very likely that it was a protective canopy of water vapour around the earth - at a distance.

Other protective measures can be seen in the asteroid belt (between Mars and Jupiter) which may well be a capturing point for harmful missiles, in the existence of the gas giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) which may well have a protective gravitational effect - maybe the reason for the cluster of asteroids - and in what is termed the 'Oort' cloud, which is believed to be a very large cloud of icy particles circling the solar system beyond Pluto.

The magnetic field around earth is well documented in its protective effect from solar wind which conveys radiation and high velocity particles from the Sun's combustion.

The water canopy would have protected from cosmic radiation and if it is the case that the judgement of God removed this protection then the rapid shortening of human lifespan on earth may well be due to the removal of this protection. Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 contrast the longevities of humans on earth before and after the Flood and it is clear that there was a rapid and permanent reduction in lifespan due to the Flood.

Not only would there be a lack of protection from radiation, there would have been a disastrous change in climactic conditions. What may well have been a humid, temperate and moderate climate, globally - one highly conducive to longevity - might well have become what we experience today, almost immediately after the Flood's recession.

Thus it would be the case that God's judgement was twofold - the removal of the protective layer and the flooding of the earth to remove all flesh. (Except that flesh which was under subjection to faith and, thus, had a provision provided during the judgement of Flood.)

It is worth remarking that anyone could have followed Noah's example and could have built a suitable vessel. They did not need to worry about animals - Noah looked after that - they just had to save themselves in a very much smaller vessel than the ark. But none did. Jesus said they 'were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark' Matthew 24:38.

After the Flood it is clear that the water took time to soak into the earth and Noah had to remain in the ark until it did so, Genesis 8:13,14. There was, presumably, much greater oceanic volume afterwards, than prior to the Flood.

The earth's crust contains truly enormous amounts of water, dispersed widely throughout the planet. It is secreted in sedimentary rock, in aquifers below ground and it floods every mine ever dug below ground. See more information on Wikipedia - Aquifers

The topography of the seabed indicates vast fractures across both the Atlantic floor and the Pacific floor. It would be reasonable to suppose that the weight of water had this effect. 'The fountains of the deep were broken up' may refer to this. Genesis 7:11. This disruption would enable vast quantities of water to gravitate to subterranean levels.

So Morris and Whitcombe suggest - and I agree - that, as to the question posed, the water came from a canopy of water vapour above the earth and it is now visible in the oceans and also to be found below ground, wherever and whenever the earth is penetrated to any depth.


How is the George Lamsa translation of the Bible (from Aramaic) viewed by Evangelical scholars?

The Bible scholars involved in the translating of the English Standard Version say this:

Acts 20:28 (ESV): “to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”  Refers to the blood of Christ... the blood of God’s own Son, which would be a legitimate alternative reading of the Greek.  Some Greek manuscripts read “the church of the Lord.”

The Bible scholars involved in the translating of the New International Version say this:

Acts 20:28 (NIV): “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”  Literally “the blood of his own one” referring to his own Son.  Many manuscripts say the church of the Lord.

The Bible scholars involved in the translating of the New Living Translation say this:

Acts 20:28 (NLT): “Feed and shepherd God’s flock – his church purchased with his own blood.”  Or “with the blood of his own [Son]”

I have no idea whether those Bible scholars and translators would wish to be labelled as Evangelical Christians, though.  However, they are in agreement that there is nothing wrong in translating the Greek into “the blood of God’s own Son” or similar.
One Bible translation (the New World Translation) renders Acts 20:28 as “the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.”  The Bible translators are not named but it is highly unlikely that they would wish to be identified as either Evangelical Protestants or Evangelical Catholics.  They are, however, unanimously anti-Trinitarian.
As for Iglesia ni Cristo, they believe that Jesus was created by God the Father and is not a deity and the Holy Spirit is the power of God and also not a deity, being sent by God the Father and Jesus Christ to guide God's people.  However, the manner in which that one verse in the Bible is translated neither proves nor disproves the Trinity, although it is understandable why anti-Trinitarians prefer the Lamsa translation of Acts 20:28.
EDIT: As requested, here are the Study Bibles I quote from:
English Standard Version (2008) page 13-17 for names of scholars/translators
New Living Translation (2008) page A29-30 for names of scholars/translators
New International Version(2000) page xx for names of scholars/translators
New World Translation (2006) No scholars/translators are named


Does Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" state a position on predestination?

Here is an argument in favor of Pilgrim's Progress supporting predestination.

The names of the characters defines their behavior.

Faith, Christian, and Hopeful made it to the heavenly kingdom.

Timid, Athiest, Ignorance: not so much.

Furthermore, characters do not change their name. [For example, there is, afaik, not a section which details how "Christian" used to be named "Unbeliever" and then later changes his name.]


Matthew/Luke Generations missing between Rahab and David

My study bible (The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan) notes that it was a common ancient practice to "telescope" a genealogy -- i.e. to skip over generations when building the list.  In the introduction to 1 Chronicles (where you'll also find a number of "missing" generations in its numerous genealogies), it states:

  The most common type of fluidity in Biblical materials is telescoping,
  the omission of names from the list.  Unimportant names are left out
  in order to relate an individual to a prominent ancestor, or possibly
  to achieve the desired number of names in the genealogy.

Another point to note is that the Hebrew and Greek words commonly rendered in English as "father" & "mother" and "son" & "daughter" did not always refer to the direct parent or the direct offspring of an individual.  Based on context they could and did refer to more distant ancestors or descendants.

In our own time, lacking knowledge of these ancient historical and literary conventions, we have a tendency to be overzealous in our literalism and create difficulties or contradictions where they don't exist.  It's similar to the way we assume an ancient history is presenting a purely sequential chronology of events, when in fact ancient authors would often organize their material out of time sequence to put interrelated or thematically-similar events together in the account.


Is there any Biblical answers to what condition our bodies will be in after the resurrection?

The scriptures tell us that in the resurrection we will be "changed" to be "like the angels" with spiritual bodies that are imperishable and powerful:

Luke 20:34-36 NIV

  34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:35-58 NIV

  The Resurrection Body

  35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

  42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

  If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

  50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

  55
  “Where, O death, is your victory?
      Where, O death, is your sting?”

  56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

  58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

From this, it seems that our bodies will not be merely returned to the state when we were at our best, but will become something qualitatively better.


What is the reason that intercourse is required for a valid marriage?

Intercourse is not necessary for the validity of a marriage.
The essence of marriage is the matrimonial consent (exchange of vows), not sexual intercourse.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 42 a. 4 that carnal intercourse is not an integral part of marriage; in Summa Theologica III q. 29 a. 2 he explains how Sts. Joseph's and Mary's marriage was a true marriage, despite being a virginal marriage.
However, the ability to have intercourse is necessary for the validity of marriage. Permanently impotent people, for example, cannot validly contract marriage; impotency is an example of a diriment impediment, which is

A condition, circumstance, or situation that makes an action null and void in its intended effects. Thus an existing marital bond nullifies any attempt to enter a second marriage.

Canons 1083 ff. list all the diriment impediments that render marriage invalid.
Consummated vs. Unconsummated Marriages
These can both be valid marriages.
Consummated
A consummated marriage is

A marriage in which after the matrimonial contract is made husband and wife have marital intercourse. Contraceptive intercourse does not consummate Christian marriage. (Etym. Latin consummare, to bring into one sum, to perfect.)

In canon law, such a marriage is called ratum et consummatum ("ratified and consummated"). Only death dissolves the bond:

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Unconsummated
An unconsummated marriage is called ratum sed non consummatum ("ratified but not consummated"). Unconsummated marriages can be dissolved by the Pope if either or both parties decide to enter religious life. This is the so-called Petrine Privilege, because it requires the Pope's permission:

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.


Do any denominations read Matthew 24:5 as meaning believers in Christ using his good name to deceive many?

For many will come in my name, saying, "I am the Christ," and they will lead many astray. (Matt 24:5, ESV)

In addition to the account of Jesus' words in Matthew, we have parallel accounts in both Luke (21:8) and Mark (13:6). These both lack "the Christ", and the meaning of the claim is therefore somewhat less certain. The Lukan passage has occasionally been interpreted along the lines of what I think you're getting at:

  ἐγώ εἰμι (lit. "I [emphatic] am") has most often been taken to mean "I am the Christ," but by some to mean "[that] I am here" (announcing Jesus’ secret presence), or as a mark of prophetic possession in which the speaker becomes the mouthpiece of the deity... The predominant view is the correct one. (Nolland).

Nolland does not explain here why "I am the Christ" is correct. (Here and elsewhere he refers us to his unpublished PhD dissertation, which apparently discusses at greater length the  incorrect interpretations.) However, in the Matthew passage this is clear from the Greek.

Absence of ὅτι (*hoti)
The identification of the referent of "I" (imposter vs. Jesus) in Matthew's report of Jesus's citation of the words of the imposter rests on the distinction between direct and indirect speech. You probably realize that there are no quotation marks or commas in the original Greek of the New Testament. Instead, Greek has other ways to mark off reported speech. Unlike English, the language itself is unambiguous here.

Most commonly, reported speech is introduced in Biblical Greek with a form of "to say", usually a participle ("saying..."). Direct speech may be introduced with or without hoti ("that"); however, in Koine Greek indirect speech requires this word.1,2  When it is absent (as here), the words immediately following the participle λεγοντες (legontes, "saying") are direct speech. The word legontes  may as well be translated (as it is in many modern versions): saying,"....".

Commentaries on the Matthew passage agreeing that this refers to the claims of the deceiver to be the messiah include Nolland himself, France, A.B. Bruce,  Hagner, Plummer, Blomberg. I did not find any in disagreement. This interpretation is supported not only by the grammar but also by the context, where the claimants are again mentioned in verse 24:

  For false christs (pseudochristoi) and false prophets pseudoprophetai) will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

It's hard to imagine that the pseudochristoi are envisioned as anything other than "bogus Messiahs" (BDAG).

OP:

  In many Protestant Eschatological systems, secret Rapture enthusiasts tend to associat[e] this verse as a false Christ proclaiming to be in fact Christ.

Although it is clear from the passage that affectations of messiahship are in view, several commentators point out that "Christ" here is likely not a name (= Jesus Christ, impersonated) but rather a title (= the m/Messiah).

  The first "false alarm" is in the form of messianic claimants. A Christian reader, prompted by the specific mention of the parousia in v. 3, might think that those who will come "in Jesus’ name" claiming to be Messiah are claiming actually to be Jesus, returning at the end of the age. But the declaration "I am the Messiah" would not be the most natural way to make that claim; it sounds more like a would-be liberator presenting himself to the Jewish people for the first time. He would be coming "in Jesus’ name" not because he is impersonating Jesus but because he is claiming the role and title which properly belong to Jesus. (France)

And again,

  'In My Name' or 'on the basis of My Name'...means that a claim to the title of Messiah was the ground of their pretensions: it is not meant that they would call themselves 'Jesus.' (Plummer)

France and Plummer were both Anglican (the former ordained in the Church of England). It's not clear to me that any of the other commentators consulted would disagree with the quotes above, although it's true that many, particularly Carson, stress the eschatological nature of the claim in a way that France and Plummer do not. France does not deny that the claim is eschatological, but he does explicitly deny that this passage may be used as a pattern by which to work out eschatology, an idea which may resonate with the OP's concerns:

  It is remarkable how often occurrences such as those mentioned in these verses are appealed to by those who are trying to work out a pattern for eschatological events, whereas in fact they are mentioned here precisely in order to discourage such speculation and to assert that the events described are not part of an eschatological scenario, but rather routine events within world history which must not be given more weight than they deserve.

1. This is the converse situation as English, where direct speech is more flexible (hence the OP's quandary), presumably due to the additional clarity offered by quotation marks.

2. The rule as described here a bit oversimplified, following the linked introductory grammar. It's actually possible to put an infinitive in that position to represent indirect speech (e.g. Matt 22:23: "saying not to-be resurrection" = "saying that there is no resurrection"). In our passage, though, "I am he" is a finite verb and can not have a subject other than the reported speaker. Of note, the clarity of this participle + quote construction is owed to Matthew's Semitizing style; ancient Greek (and, in fact, the parallel passages in Luke and Mark) generally used ὅτι to introduce both indirect and direct speech, making the distinction more complicated.


What properties does Christianity attribute to God

This is a pretty broad question, and you have to understand that there are varying views within Christianity.  There's no one, single understanding, but here is a fairly comprehensive list.  Assume in this list that it applies to most groups within Christianity unless otherwise noted.  I'm going to ignore such groups a s "Christian Atheists" (Who would answer with one attribute: "Imaginary".) or "Christian witches" and focus on more mainstream commonly accepted Christian circles.

Also, in the interest of brevity, I'm going to NOT directly include "what is the basis" for each.  Instead, I'm linking on each to an article that explores each attribute in further detail.  The basis for each attribute is, ultimately, Scripture.  Most of the articles linked to offer several verses supporting each attribute.

Omniscient:  God is all knowing, without limitation - even as far as past/present go.  He knows all that has ever happened and all that will.  He knows each star that he created, by name.
Omnipotent:  God is infinite in His power.  He can do anything.

Some would say that this means Intrinsically possible.  Misunderstandings of the definition of "Omnipotent" lead to foolish questions like "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?"
Others believe that this limitation doesn't apply, and God id limited only by His own perfect nature ans will.

Omnibenevolent - God is purely good.  There is no evil in Him.  Note that this doesn't mean purely kind.  He is not limited to our personal understanding of what "good" is.  Put simply, God knows more than we, in our limited capacity do.  What we might consider "cruel" or "not fair" may be good.  Just like a child might not understand why his parents discipline him for dangerous behavior, we may not understand why God does what he does.

  Side note #1: Taking a break in the list here, many atheists use the above three attributes to come up with arguments that God couldn't
  possibly be all three, or evil wouldn't exist.  That's addressed
  here.

Sovereign:  God is completely sovereign.  he answers to nobody, and everybody answers to Him.

There is some debate on what this means for free will.  Some say that free will is an illusion because if we had any free will, Cod's sovereignty would be nullified  In other words, He is in complete and total control.  Others say that He grants us free will, but he could assert His sovereignty at any time.  There are other views as well.
Some also use god's sovereignty to show that God is evil because He allows suffering.  Again, see side note #1.

Infinite:  God is without limits.  He is limited only by His will and what is intrinsically possible.
Patient (aka longsuffering):  God is slow to anger, quick to forgive.  Which is good, because when I look at my own behavior over my lifetime, I can't help but think that, were I in God's place, I'd have been a crispy critter long ago.
Holy: God is separate from sin and is completely, utterly, incorruptible.
Impeccable:  Strongly related to holiness, God is completely unable to sin.
Immutable: God Cannot change.

Side note, skeptics sometimes point to verses that showed that God repented and decided not to smite this group or that.  That's addressed here.

Omnipresent: God is everywhere, always, all at once.
Transcendent: God exists outside space and time or anything else he has made.  he is not limited by either.
Immanent: Closely related to "Omnipresence":  God is always near.
Jealous:  God is jealous of glory due Him being given to another god, and righteously so.  This is to be distinguished from petty jealousy (envy).
Righteous: God is completely Right, or Just.  It is His righteousness that demands that sin not go unpunished.  (Would you consider a judge to be righteous if he let a murderer go free out of love?  No, you'd call that a corrupt judge.  in the same way, God cannot be righteous if he allows sin to go unpunished.)
Wrathful:  God's wrath, when unleashed, is unparalleled. His wrath is directed toward sin, evil, unrighteousness.
Love:  While God's wrath is terrifying, his love is amazing.  It is his love that is expressed in the fact that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  The cross is the ultimate expression of his love for us.
Incorporeal: Scripture tells us that god is spirit, and has no physical body.

Note that this is something that some groups, such as the LDS church disagree with.

Triune: God exists in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Pretty much undisputed in mainstream Christianity, understood differently in LDS theology, and refuted utterly by other groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses.

And finally....

Incomprehensible: God is so far above us that we can never know or understand Him fully.  All we can know or understand is what He has revealed, and even that is filtered through our own interpretations.


In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, is Paul really saying to avoid the immoral? (Catholic perspective)

Well, the question went a week. I did some additional research and  I'm offering a plausible response, maybe.

From the Catholic Study Bible, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul in 55 or 56 A.D. Early Christian practices, particularly Communion, weren't codified until the early second century [Wikipedia]. Paul speaks of "the breaking of the bread" as the main part of the Eucharist. It seemed like this caused a point of contention among the early Jewish converts. Afterwards, Paul converted mostly Gentiles [Wikipedia].

However, there was a phase where most catecheses were within synagogues. Peter called the Jersulam Jews of Jesus's time a "crooked generation" [Acts] but the Apostles didn't seem to be ashamed of their Jewish-ness, and their early actions could be seen as reform movements with the Jewish religion--the coming of the Messiah or Massiach--where man and God would once again walk together [Psalm 91].

The Pharisees knew the Mosaic Law, to be sure, but in order to really impress catechesis, they had to use the existing Pentateuch (Torah). In order to do this, they had to find deeper, metaphorical meaning within the Law. Much of this work would have been completed with the Babylonian Talmud (sort of the equivalent of the Catechism) [Wikipedia]. The Pharisees became quite proficient and comfortable with the use of metaphor, especially in spiritual matters.

Perhaps Paul was communicating in such a way. Perhaps he was speaking of the "breaking of the bread" ceremony in which early Christians communed with Christ. I suppose he wished forthe equivalent of taking a blessing or staying in one's seat during modern Communion for those with mortal sin on their soul.

Thus, Paul wasn't literally meaning to avoid one's neighbor, but he was speaking metaphorically to disallow a Eucharistic ceremony for the sinners until ... when, we're not really told when.

Granted, this is an opinion-based answer, but I learned a lot of neat stuff in the process!


What did the original Christian writings look like during the 1st century CE?

The earliest Biblical manuscripts were almost certainly written on papyrus. We know of over 130 Biblical papyri dating from the second to the eighth century. These were written in majuscule case, and I think usually without spaces or much punctuation. They were not written in the uncial script as it was developed only in the fourth century for use on parchment and vellum, not papyrus.


What is according to the RCC the creation story in Genesis?

The Catholic Church teaches, in the decisions of the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission (Latin original), that

  The first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives that correspond to objectively real and historically true events [rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant], no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends.


Should we love Satan since he is our greatest enemy?

Our command to love our enemies is intended for our human enemies, whom God also loves.  God's love for us is shown through His sacrifice on the cross, and also in the statement that it is His desire that every man come to repentance.

Satan, on the other hand, cannot come to repentance, and there is no hope for his redemption.

A good answer with scripture references can be found here: Should We Love Satan?

The following is copied directly from the article:

  A young girl asked me this question: "Should we love Satan?" She
  clarified her question by saying Jesus taught us to love our enemies
  (Matthew 5:44-45) and that Satan is our enemy (1 Peter 5:8).

  After careful consideration of the question, I answered something like
  this. All of mankind has hope; the apostle Paul said he had a goal or
  an aim to "... present every man perfect in Christ Jesus" (Colossians
  1:28). We are to seek every man's highest good -- that is to love him
  that he might be saved. On the other hand, Satan's eternity has been
  sealed, there is not anything that man can do or should do to change
  that. We are told that Satan has gone forth with great wrath because
  he knows that he has but a short time (Revelation 12:12). Jesus tells
  us that he has prepared a lake of fire for the devil and his angels
  (Matthew 25:41).

  What should be our attitude towards Satan? We should follow the
  example of Michael the archangel who refused to get involved with
  Satan, even in a discussion. Michael was willing to leave Satan in
  God's hands. He said, "The Lord rebuke thee" (Jude 9). Our attitude
  towards Satan should be to resist him. God said, "Resist the devil,
  and he will flee from you" (James 4:7). We are to be on guard and
  watchful because Satan is our enemy trying to devour us (1 Peter 5:8).

  Satan has many devices; he is tricky. He is trying to lead us to the
  grave separated from God (2 Corinthians 2:11). He is trying to blind
  our minds to the word of God through unbelief (2 Corinthians 4:4).

  We are not instructed in the inspired scripture to love Satan, but to
  overcome him. The only way we can do this is to fill our hearts with
  the word of God (1 John 2:14). Jesus is our example; Satan threw
  everything he had at Jesus -- the lust of the flesh, the lust of the
  eyes, and the pride of life -- and each time Jesus would answer, "It
  is written." He defeated Satan with the word of God, and He did not
  try to convert him (Matthew 4:1-11) because Satan's eternity in the
  lake of fire had already been sealed.

  In the context of Matthew 5, when Jesus said, "Love your enemies," He
  was discussing our relationship with our fellow man and not with
  Satan.

  Roy Dunavin West-Ark Church of Christ, Fort Smith, AR

In addition to the above, your question ignores the context.

The verse is in the midst of a series of "You have heard it said" statements that show that the Old Testament law is the bare minimum of what is required for righteousness, and in this example, the statement that we should love our enemy was "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'"  The essence of the verse is (like the surrounding verses) that the law says to do this, but the true requirement for perfect love and righteousness is to do this more perfect fulfillment of the law of love...

In the context of this verse, "thy neighbor" was clearly meant to denote human relationships.  There is no reason, other than to set up a straw-man argument, to believe that "your enemy" is meant to be viewed in a different context.


Is choosing to commit sin a possibility in Heaven?
The short answer is no.
There is no possibility of sinning in Heaven and thus offending Our Creator further. All will desire to do what is pleasing to God. The desire to sin will no longer exist in heart of the elect.

Will we be free to sin in heaven?
Here is another dilemma. If we answer no, we seem to lack something: free will. If we answer yes, we lack something else: moral perfection. The Heavenly question thus lands us squarely into an earthly and present issue concerning the nature of freedom and of morality and may help us to puncture one of modernity's most pervasive and destructive illusions: the association of freedom with rebellion and of obedience with unfreedom.
Suppose we change the question so as to avoid the ambiguity of the word freedom. Are we able to sin in Heaven? If not, it seems we are programmed and determined rather than free. If so, if temptation is possible in Heaven, Heavenly security against sin is gone. One of the best things to look forward to at death, say the saints, is that "he who has died is freed from sin". If there is even a possibility of sin in Heaven, that possibility may be actualized, for if the actualization of a possibility is impossible, then it is not a possibility but an impossibility.
How can we preserve both free will and sinlessness in Heaven? Once again, God is our model and solution: we solve this pseudoproblem in the same way God does. He is both free and sinless. How? Let us judge our freedom by His, rather than vice versa.
What do we mean by "freedom"? Sometimes (1) political freedom, freedom from tyranny, oppression, or the denial of our rights; sometimes (2) physical power, ability to act, freedom from hindrance; and sometimes (3) spiritual power to choose ("free will"). Of course we will have all three in Heaven, but why won't we be able to sin, since we will have free will?
Because we will also have a fourth freedom, the most important one of all: freedom from sin, from what makes us not ourselves. We will be free to be the true selves God designed us to be, free to be determined by God. This determination does not remove our freedom but is our freedom, for even now freedom is not simply indetermination; it is freedom to be determined by final causes (purposes) rather than efficient causes (things and events that already exist and act upon us). Our free will means that our present is determined by our future rather than by our past. Final causes are at present only mental pictures and desires. To say we are determined by final causes means that we, like God, create by knowing; that as creative artists our knowledge antecedes and determines the truth of its object, the work of art, rather than conforming to its object, as scientific and empirical knowledge does. But we are objects to God (though subjects to the world); we too, therefore, are true only when we conform to God's knowledge of us, God's artistic plan for our identity. Since our highest freedom means freedom to be ourselves, we are most free when we are most obedient to God's will, which expresses His idea of us. Thus freedom and obedience coincide. To obey God is to be free in the most radical sense: free to be me, free from inauthenticity, free from false being, free from the alien within, not just free from the alien without, the oppressor.
This explains a paradox frequently met in earthly experience: that at the moment of freest choice it feels most like destiny, and at the moment of most destined choice it feels freest. Caesar's crossing the Rubicon, choosing someone to marry, a conversion decision - these all feel both more free and more destined than ordinary choices. C. S. Lewis' explanation of this principle is that it is all of us that chooses; nothing is left over.bTherefore there is nothing in us that opposes the choice; it is certain; it is wholly determined. But it is also wholly free because it is wholly self-determined. The whole self chooses, the divided will is healed.
The answer to our question, then, is that "freedom to sin" is a self-contradictory concept. Sin is inauthenticity and freedom is authenticity; sin is our false self and freedom is our true self Sin is part of Hell and freedom is part of Heaven. The question cannot be resolved, only dissolved, because it confuses Hell with Heaven.

Once in Heaven, our will desires only to do the greater glory in His Presence.
Scripture teaches us that in Heaven no sin is no longer existent.

Rev. 22:4 – “And there shall be no curse any more, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him. And they shall see his face: and his name shall be on their foreheads.”
I Cor. 13:12 – “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.”
Matt. 5:8 – “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”
I John 3:2 – “Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” - Source

According to Catholicism, the Blessed in Heaven enjoy the gift of Impeccability.

Impeccability is the absence of sin. Christianity teaches this to be an attribute of God (logically God cannot sin, it would mean that he would act against his own will and nature) and therefore it is also attributed to Christ.
Impeccability and Heaven
Early Christians questioned whether the victorious saints in heaven could sin. The widely influential Eastern Church Father and theologian Origen of Alexandria maintained that they could. Official Roman Catholic doctrine holds that they cannot. Although Catholics believe in the gift of free will, saints in heaven already see God face to face and are incapable of sinning (see Pope Benedict XII and beatific vision), i.e., they will necessarily remain in God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (emphasis added):

1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been "in the nature of sacrament." Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, "the holy city" of God, "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb." She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community. The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion. 1060 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. Then the just will reign with Christ for ever, glorified in body and soul, and the material universe itself will be transformed. God will then be "all in all" (⇒ 1 Cor 15:28), in eternal life.

Impeccability and Purgatory
The 13th-century, Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas taught that souls in Purgatory cannot sin (Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 83, Article 11, Reply to Objection 3), let alone the saints in heaven. This is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, although there are different opinions on the reasons for the impossibility to sin.


What is the Roman Catholic Church doctrinal justification of its perceived opposition or support of the independence of Catalonia?

the Holy See is against all self-determination moves that are outside decolonization processes.

The Catholic reason for this is fairly simple. The people don't have a right to overthrow or revolt against legitimate rulers. The reason that decolonization processes are good is that they take away a nation's unjust claim to another sovereign peoples. IE, the colonized land was gained via unjust military action. Those are illegitimate rulers.

The syllabus of errors, a papal encyclical listing statements to be condemned, contains this statement:

  It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.

That is, the above statement is condemned by the Catholic Church as false.


Which encyclical talks about the Mass as a sacrifice?

Chapter 1 of the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent directly states that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which is re-presented in the Mass, replaces the Levitical priesthood (that is the sacrifices of the Old Testament in the temple) as well as "various types of sacrifices, during the period of nature, and of the law," so not just the Jewish temple sacrifices, but also, e.g. the sacrifice of Melchizedek is a prefigurement of the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass.

  CHAPTER I.

  On the institution of the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

  Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony
  of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness
  of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of
  mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to
  the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might
  consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be
  sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to
  offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by
  means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption;
  nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished
  by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was
  betrayed,--that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church,
  a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that
  bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be
  represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the
  world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those
  sins which we daily commit,--declaring Himself constituted a priest
  for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God
  the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine;
  and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own
  body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then
  constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this
  in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the
  priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always
  understood and taught.

  For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of
  the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of
  Egypt, He instituted the new Passover, (to wit) Himself to be
  immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through (the ministry
  of) priests, in memory of His own passage from this world unto the
  Father, when by the effusion of His own blood He redeemed us, and
  delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into his
  kingdom. And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be
  defiled by any unworthiness, or malice of those that offer (it); which
  the Lord foretold by Malachias was to be offered in every place, clean
  to his name, which was to be great amongst the Gentiles; and which the
  apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, has not obscurely indicated,
  when he says, that they who are defiled by the participation of the
  table of devils, cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord; by the
  table, meaning in both places the altar. This, in fine, is that
  oblation which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices, during
  the period of nature, and of the law; in as much as it comprises all
  the good things signified by those sacrifices, as being the
  consummation and perfection of them all.

You can also refer to the Encylical, Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII, especially at numbers 16-20 (of which the following is a part):

  Thus we observe that when God institutes the Old Law, He makes provision besides for sacred rites, and determines in exact detail the
  rules to be observed by His people in rendering Him the worship He
  ordains. To this end He established various kinds of sacrifice and
  designated the ceremonies with which they were to be offered to Him.
  His enactments on all matters relating to the Ark of the Covenant, the
  Temple and the holy days are minute and clear. He established a
  sacerdotal tribe with its high priest, selected and described the
  vestments with which the sacred ministers were to be clothed, and
  every function in any way pertaining to divine worship.[11] Yet this
  was nothing more than a faint foreshadowing[12] of the worship which
  the High Priest of the New Testament was to render to the Father in
  heaven.
  No sooner, in fact, "is the Word made flesh"[13] than he shows Himself to the world vested with a priestly office, making to the
  Eternal Father an act of submission which will continue
  uninterruptedly as long as He lives: "When He cometh into the world he
  saith. . . 'behold I come . . . to do Thy Will."[14] This act He was
  to consummate admirably in the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross: "It is
  in this will we are sanctified by the oblation of the Body of Jesus
  Christ once."[15] He plans His active life among men with no other
  purpose in view. As a child He is presented to the Lord in the Temple.
  To the Temple He returns as a grown boy, and often afterwards to
  instruct the people and to pray. He fasts for forty days before
  beginning His public ministry. His counsel and example summon all to
  prayer, daily and at night as well. As Teacher of the truth He
  "enlighteneth every man"[16] to the end that mortals may duly
  acknowledge the immortal God, "not withdrawing unto perdition, but
  faithful to the saving of the soul."[17] As Shepherd He watches over
  His flock, leads it to life-giving pasture, lays down a law that none
  shall wander from His side, off the straight path He has pointed out,
  and that all shall lead holy lives imbued with His spirit and moved by
  His active aid. At the Last Supper He celebrates a new Pasch with
  solemn rite and ceremonial, and provides for its continuance through
  the divine institution of the Eucharist. On the morrow, lifted up
  between heaven and earth, He offers the saving sacrifice of His life,
  and pours forth, as it were, from His pierced Heart the sacraments
  destined to impart the treasures of redemption to the souls of men.
  All this He does with but a single aim: the glory of His Father and
  man's ever greater sanctification.

Pope Pius XII draws extensively on the Letter of St. Paul to the Hebrews in discussing the Mass as sacrifice.

I would note that it's somewhat broader than how you put it. Christ doesn't exactly take the place of the animal sacrificed on the altar of the Temple, rather the animal sacrificed on the altar of the temple is a prefigurement of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross (and in the Mass), so His sacrifice is something more.


Who first addressed a religious male or female with "brother" or "sister," respectively?

It may be possible that St. Benedict of Nursia (480-547) in his Holy Rule is the first recorded instance of maintaining the fact that his religious should not address one another simply by their names.

Chapter 63 states the following:

  Let the junior brethren reverence their seniors, and the seniors love their juniors.

  In calling each other by name, let no one address another by his simple name alone; but let the seniors call the juniors Brothers, and the let the juniors call their seniors Fathers, by which is understood paternal reverence. But he Abbot, since he is looked upon as representing Christ, be called Lord and Abbot; not that he has taken it to himself, but for the honor and love of Christ. He himself is so to consider it, and so to act as to be worthy of such a dignity.

  Wherever the brethren meet one another, let the junior ask a blessing from the senior.  When the senior passes by, let the junior rise and give him place to be seated; nor let the junior presume to sit down unless the senior bid him do so, fulfilling thereby what is written: "With honor anticipating one another." - CHAPTER 63 of the Rule of St. Benedict.


Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints in Light of 1 Corinthians 8:11 (Calvinism)

The answer to Paul's question :

  Shall the weak brother perish ? (I Corinthians 8:11 - KJV - απολειται ο ασθενων αδελφος)

is ... no he shall not perish.

The reason that the weak brother will not perish is :

  ... for whom Christ died. (I Corinthians 8:11 - KJV - δι ον χριστος απεθανεν)

The brother will not perish (or 'be destroyed') because Christ died for him and Jesus Christ loves him and Jesus Christ will not permit the sin of one brother to cause the other - weak - brother to be overcome and to be cast away.

Thus He sends a messenger to instruct both the 'strong' brother and the 'weak' brother - and we have the documented record of the messenger's epistle, proof positive that Jesus Christ is risen, and ascended, and ministers as a Priest at the right hand of the Father in the heavens.

And thus Paul addresses the errant - 'strong' - brother (so full of his superior knowledge and so sure of his own 'strength') and questions him. Because of you and your superior knowledge, will you damage your brother ?

Will you cast a stumbling block - a 'scandal' - in his path ? Will you trust in your own strength of knowledge and care nothing for the weaker composure of your brother who will be tempted to do what is - actually - against his own conscience ?

For the weak brother might be emboldened to follow suit but, afterwards, his conscience will smite him (for his knowledge is not strong) and he will be overcome of guilt.

And Paul questions him to the ultimate - because of you and your attitude, will this brother ultimately perish ? Will he commit sin against his own conscience and be overcome of guilt and be destroyed ?

But the question of that weak brother's ultimate destiny is not up to the errant 'strong' brother.

Nor is up to the weakness of himself (else would we all perish).

It is ultimately a matter of what God, in Christ, will or will not do.

For the Lord (I Peter 3:9) is not slack ... but is long-suffering to us-ward (that is to say to the 'them', also, who have obtained like precious faith with 'us' - see I Peter 1:1) not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[And I do respect what (I think) prompts the OP question - that repentance is necessary, else we perish. And I do not respect the attitude of those who think that a knowledge of doctrine is carte blanche to commit sin.]

The Lord is not slack. He sees every sparrow which drops to the ground in the forest, Matthew 10:29. He knows the number of the hairs of the head of them that seek him, Luke 12:7. He is aware of every single thought - not one is withheld from him, Job 42:2.

And he will not let one single one perish, for whom sacrifice was made and for whom righteousness has been satisfied . . . it cannot be.

Otherwise, righteousness would be no more righteousness.

Note : I do not subscribe to 'tulip' myself. Jack Glass, in Glasgow, conveyed it to me fifty years ago when I was seventeen but I found it to be not a sufficiently spiritual expression of the gospel for me to embrace it. But I have answered the question as one who believes that the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ are effectual and are not dependent on the works of men to supplement them.

But I do believe that all for whom Jesus Christ suffered and died shall be brought to repentance and shall be brought to faith and that they shall be fully justified and, ultimately, glorified.

And in that, some might call me a follower of John Calvin and I would not disagree.

I would say that the argument of the posed question falls down because the argument has left Jesus Christ out of the process and has considered only the two brothers and their relevant 'strength' and 'weakness'.

It is the Lord who is above all.


What is the best interpretation of Matthew 24:29, from the perspective of an evangelical Christian?

An evangelical understanding of scripture would affirm that the words of Jesus are accurately recorded in Matthew 24:29 and that they are infallible and inerrant. Therefore, evangelicals would not accept explanations like, "Jesus was wrong," or, "Matthew got it wrong."

Most Evangelicals interpret this verse metaphorically and the rest interpret it phenomenologically. The metaphorical explanation understands that the cataclysmic, universe-shaking language of Jesus is tapping into the apocalyptic/prophetic tradition of the Old Testament where it was perfectly common to use the language of "creation coming to an end" to signify real-life events that were complete reversals or "turning the world upside down."

The Evangelicals who interpret the verse phenomenologically would consider it to be describing events that would seem to an observer like the events described were happening, regardless of what was literally happening (e.g. saying "The sun rose" when really the earth just rotated revealing the sun). So the phenomenological interpretation would say something like, "it will be completely dark and the stars will seem to have disappeared (or firey star-like substances will fall to the earth!)" This kind of interpretation generally stems from evangelicals of more dispensationalist leanings who tend to think that unless there is a specific biblical indication that the verse is metaphorical it should be interpreted literally as the most faithful interpretation. In this case, the phenomenological approach is the closest to literal that is reasonable.


At what age and how do young Catholics know or be notified that they have committed a mortal sin or a venial sin?

Ordinarily, people (children and adults) simply tell the priest in confession what they did. The priest will determine whether the sin was mortal or venial (or perhaps no sin at all), possibly after asking the penitent some questions to get a clearer idea of the penitent's intention and state of mind, or of the circumstances surrounding the sin.  The priest might but need not tell the penitent explicitly whether he considers the sin mortal or venial.


Who has the power to annul marriages in the Catholic Church?

An annulment, strictly speaking, is not "performed", and this is a very common misuse of terminology. There is not a marriage that is made null, but a judgment is issued that the relationship in question was never a marriage. This judgment is typically called "a writ of nullity".

There is a quite complicated procedure to go through to obtain a writ of nullity for a marriage. This procedure is dealt with primarily in canons 1671–1707 of the Code of Canon Law. In 2015, Pope Francis, who as pope is the Supreme Legislator of the Church, issued a letter titled "Mitis Iudex" ("The Gentle Judge") updating some of these canons in an effort to make it easier to obtain a decree of nullity, particularly when the nullity of the relationship is obvious or where the load of cases is heavy. What it amounts to is this:

In keeping with Vatican II's emphasis on the bishop as the primary shepherd of the diocese, the bishop is recognized as the primary judge of such cases. (Canon 1673 section 1, as amended by "Mitis Iudex")
He may exercise his power either on his own, or through a panel of judges (Canon 1673 section 3)
If both spouses agree that the relationship is not a valid marriage, and there are circumstances which make this obvious, the bishop has power to execute a briefer annulment process and make the declaration on his own (Canons 1683–87)
Otherwise, the case is referred to a tribunal of three judges, led by a member of the clergy (Canon 1673 section 3). This tribunal is constituted by the judicial vicar, a legal official appointed by the bishop. This tribunal will be the agency that hands down a writ of nullity.
Before this letter was issued, a judgment by a tribunal that the relationship was not a marriage would be automatically appealed to a second tribunal. This made the process significantly longer, without necessarily changing the final judgment. An appeal from the first tribunal's decision can still be made, but is no longer made automatically. The appeal will be made to the metropolitan archbishop, unless the decision was made by the tribunal of the metropolitan archdiocese, in which case the appeal will be to the Roman Rota. In theory, of course, a final appeal could be made to the Pope.

All canon law citations refer to the updated canon law found in the body of "Mitis Iudex". Similar updates were made to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches by a letter issued at the same time as "Mitis Iudex" and titled "Mitis et misericors Iesus".


Are there any churches that claim to be Sola Sciptura that also are pro gay-marriage?

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) elected an openly gay bishop earlier this year.  On their website, they claim to "hold to the basic principles of Luther’s theological teachings, such as Grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone."


Do the church fathers ever include quotes of Jesus that aren't from the Bible?

There is a well-researched 2016 article from National Catholic Register Blog addressing precisely your question, which also includes "extra credit" by describing a Catholic framework for evaluating the credibility of "lost sayings" of Jesus: Are There "Lost Sayings" Of Jesus?
The technical term is Agrapha, and the wikipedia entry has candidates for consideration (under the section "Patristic Citations"):

Clement of Rome, First Epistle of Clement, 13: "For thus He spoke: 'Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it shall be measured to you.'"
Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 2, "but being mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: 'Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again;' and once more, 'Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.'"
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 47: "Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ said, In whatsoever things I apprehend you, in those I shall judge you."
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, I, 24, 158: "For ask, he says for the great things, and the small shall be added to you."
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, I, 28, 177: "Rightly therefore the Scripture also in its desire to make us such dialecticians, exhorts us: Be approved moneychangers, disapproving some things, but holding fast that which is good."
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, V, 10, 64: "For not grudgingly, he saith, did the Lord declare in a certain gospel: My mystery is for me and for the sons of my house."
Origen, Homily on Jeremiah, XX, 3: "But the Saviour himself saith: He who is near me is near the fire; he who is far from me, is far from the kingdom."


It is doubtful that St. Francis would have prayed what we know now as the contemporary rosary consisting of five decades of Hail Marys.  The two saints were contemporaries as St. Dominick lived  AD 1170- AD 1221 and St. Francis lived AD 1181- AD 1226. St. Dominick was a Spanish Priest and founder of the Dominican orders. St. Francis of Assisi was the son of a very wealthy Italian merchant who heard a call to "Rebuild My Church" and lived his life in poverty.  He enjoyed preaching in the countryside, avoiding the parish churches and preached the Gospel in common Latin rather than ecclesiastical or church Latin. (REF: "Roaming Catholics: ending the wandering to embrace the wonder" by Kenneth Behr, Xpyria Press 2015 page 155)

Based on historical research, the development of the practice of using beads in prayer has a very significant connection to the practice of the early monks in their Liturgy of the Hours that included reading through the 150 Psalms. This practice was abbreviated into the Breviary (from the Latin 'brevis' meaning short or concise) and associated with knots in a cord and ultimately prayer beads.  The 150 knots or beads were reduced to multiple decades of tens.  For the common people that could neither speak nor read Latin, a poor man's Breviary was introduced to keep track of their chants, and the difficult-to-memorize Psalms were changed to that of the Paternoster (Our Father).

The modern day rosary was most likely introduced in the 14th century by groups of Christians who had a deep devotion to the Virgin and modified the poor man's Breviary into five decades of Hail Marys rather than the Our Fathers.  (REF: "Roaming Catholics, page 82)

The association of St. Dominick, the rosary and the Virgin Mary, while retold often has really no historically verifiable basis.  The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent comes to a similar conclusion (REF: H. Thurston and A. Shipman, the Rosary, in The Catholic
Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1912), New Advent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm.)


What does Revelation 21:5 mean by "everything"?

According to the book of Genesis God created the heavens and the earth. God gave form to the universe. God filled the earth with living beings. God created light. God created us.

Scripture doesn't state that He will duplicate his children's toys.

That which God has created, He will create anew (including us).

In Revelation 21 it continues with a thorough description of the new Jerusalem. In verses 22-23 it describes;
22)No temple could be seen in the city, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23)And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light.

(Doesn't sound like headlights will be necessary.)


Was the washing of feet of the disciples by Jesus, part of a Jewish tradition?

On the contrary, the towel and basin were there for feet to be washed by themselves (Genesis 18:4 & 19:2, Judges 19:21, 1st Samuel 25:41 and others). In that culture (and as an externality of wearing sandals), it was custom to have the feet of people who entered one's home washed. It had nothing to do with Passover specifically, but rather out of both respect and general desire for cleanliness. For example, look at the other known foot washing incident:

  Luke 7:37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she
  learned that he was at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an
  alabaster flask of ointment, 38 and standing behind him at his feet,
  weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with
  the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the
  ointment.

then later

  Luke 7:44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see
  this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my
  feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her
  hair.

Emphasis mine. It was a custom to have the things around for anyone entering the room - that a person entering the home would wash their own feet, or perhaps a servant would wash it for them. In addition, in Luke's account of passage at hand, you'll notice a different reason for Jesus getting his wash on, emphasis mine:

  Luke 22:24 A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be
  regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, "The kings of the
  Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them
  are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the
  greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who
  serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who
  serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one
  who serves.

While the disciples jockey for whomever is the best, Jesus lowers and humbles himself, stripping down like a servant to wash those same disciple's feet. John records this dialogue as well, emphasis mine:

  John 13:12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and resumed
  his place, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? 13
  You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I
  then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to
  wash one another's feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you
  also should do as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you,
  a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent
  greater than he who sent him.

There was no tradition here, until this point. This actually starts a Christian tradition, a sense of inward and outward humility. Paul's letter 1st Timothy 5:10 included "washed the feet of the saints" in instructions for the selection of widows who wish to be provided by the church. Paul also writes in Philippians 2:7 that Jesus took "the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." Peter objected to this because he didn't understand what Jesus was trying to do (Jesus says this to his face in John 13:7), which is totally within his character.

(all references in RSVCE)


On what basis do Protestants extend the New Covenant to include gentiles?

1. The New Covenant is the Gospel of the Cross

Luke 22:19-20: And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

From these verses we can see that the Lord's Supper was instituted as a sign of the New Covenant, and the New Covenant is Jesus' giving of his own body and blood on the cross. The New Covenant is the Gospel: the good news of the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God through being united to Jesus in his death and resurrection. And as the New Testament clearly teaches in so many places that the Gospel is for all peoples, including Gentiles, so we know that Gentiles are included in the New Covenant. But the mechanisms by which Gentiles are included is a little less clear, so let's look at that now.
2. Adopted as Abraham's spiritual children
There is a lot of disagreement among Christians over the relationship between the Church and Israel, ranging from the Church completely replacing Israel, to the two existing in parallel with little to connect them. I won't try to give a full overview of this issue, instead I'll just focus on one chapter, Romans 4. In this chapter Paul highlights that Abraham was declared righteous before he was circumcised, meaning that faith is prior to law. The true heirs of Abraham are not his physical descendants, but his spiritual descendants, who share his faith. If this is true for the Abrahamic Covenant, then even more so for the New Covenant.

Romans 4:11-13: He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:16-17: That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

3. United with Christ in his death
A third way in which we can understand Gentiles being part of the New Covenant is our doctrine of Union with Christ. More than any other covenant, the New Covenant is the covenant of Jesus Christ. We are united to him in his death and resurrection, so the life of the Christian is the life of Jesus. As Jesus was in every sense a Jew, both spiritually and biologically, the Gentiles who live in Jesus share his Jewish life and participation in the New Covenant.

Romans 6:1-11: What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.


What is God's good news before Jesus's death and resurrection?

The Good News is that the promised Messiah - God's annointed - has returned. The Kingdom of God was to be established.

When Jesus begins to preach in Luke 4, he overtly references himself as the promised Messiah of Isaiah.

  16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

  18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
     because he has anointed me
     to proclaim good news to the poor.
  He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
     and recovery of sight for the blind,
  to set the oppressed free,
     19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

The Kingdom would have had connotations of return to power and re-establishment of the "ancient order." The Kingdom announced in Isaiah 40 - 66 would have indicated a new social order, one in which there is equality and goodness of all, and that the throne of David would be re-established.

Luke in particular understood this reversal - the oppressed would no longer be on the bottom, the poor would be rich, etc... Look to Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:48 - 52) to see this.

To many, the idea was conflated with political liberation from Rome, but the Good News preached was actually just the new social order of Isaiah 40 - 66.

What made Jesus' teaching unique was precisely the fact that Jesus redefined the notion of Messiah as applying personally and not just politically.


Did Jesus know from the outset that He was the Son of God or did Mary tell Him?

Number 79 in the the YouCat asks if Jesus has a soul, a mind and a body just as we do.  I don't think you're going to find a Catholic answer that speculates on what Mary may or may not have said to Him outside of scripture, although there are early extra-biblical accounts of Jesus' miracles during His hidden life.  Some are spontaneous and some are at Mary's prompting, but you don't have to believe them and most Catholics don't even know of them, which is probably a good thing.

So, back to the YouCat, it says Jesus "had a soul and developed psychologically and spiritually."  So, in part, what He knew seems to be constrained to His human faculties.  But, the Doctrine of the Hypo-static union says that His soul is Human and Divine.  So... "In this soul swelled the human identity and his special self-consciousness."

Furthermore, "Jesus new about his unity with his heavenly Father in the Holy Spirit, by whom he allowed himself to be guided in every situation of his life"

So, I think the answer is that Mary didn't need to tell Him, although there's no reason to suppose that she did and one reason to suppose that she didn't (Our Lady had a tendency to hold things and ponder them in her heart).


According to Catholicism, does the Eucharist have all the same physical and chemical properties, and physiological effects, as bread and wine?

The short answer is “yes.” The appearances of bread and wine left after the Consecration have all of the physical characteristics (“accidents”) of bread and wine, including the ability to be incorporated into the body.

(Obviously, the quantities are insufficient for someone to live off them, but they are metabolized by the body in the normal way. If we are to interpret the passage from Isaiah given by the O.P. as applying to the Eucharist, then we would have to interpret it more metaphorically. Food, drink, and nourishment could easily be metaphors for the grace that the faithful obtain by receiving the Eucharist, which is actually more important—in and of itself—than physical nourishment.)

What changes is what theologians—using Aristotle’s terminology—call the substance (what a thing is simply because it exists). In this case, the substance of the bread (or wine) is converted into the very substance of Jesus Christ.

However, all of the physical properties and characteristics, or accidents, remain the same. There is no physical or chemical test that could distinguish the Corpus or Sanguis from bread or wine.

The Eucharist is one of those few phenomena in which faith alone can tell us the difference (in the words of the Eucharistic hymn attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas, Ad firmandum cor sincerum / Sola fides sufficit, “In order to strengthen a sincere heart [to believe this mystery], faith alone suffices.”)

Note that the substantial presence of the Lord remains only for as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain. Hence, the Real Presence stops once the Eucharist has dissolved in the body.

The Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist (which is essentially the same as that of the Eastern Orthodox and the other apostolic churches) is summed up in numbers 1373-1381 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


From a Calvinist perspective, does Limited Atonement make the Gospel offer empty?

You perception of what limited atonement means is incorrect, therefore, your analogy is flawed.

Limited atonement is not a declaration that the atonement is not enough to cover the world. On the contrary, Christ's death is infinitely sufficient. Limited atonement is a declaration that the world will only receive atonement in limited number (i.e. the elect).

You analogy portrays the atonement as bankrupt, when it is actually superabundant. What it did get right is that some will never receive it. Only the elect receive the atonement, therefore, the atonement is limited to the elect.

If we were to make a proper analogy similar to yours, you would have to be a mint with an infinite supply and ability to make legitimate money. Now your friend would come to you saying he needs money, and upon finding that you have it, he still refuses to take it. Though your money is sufficient to cover his debts, it is limited to only those to whom it is actually paid out1.

You must also remember that Calvinism works in tandem with the other four points. Inevitably, every discussion of one point leads to discussion of the others, because they are so tightly linked. Calvinism's approach to theology in general is a kind of "theory of everything of salvation" meant to be understood as a whole rather than piece-meal. Focusing exclusively on one point is where many people run into their objections.

Here are some general references on Limited Atonement:

Wikipedia
CARM (this one helps explain the reasoning "only the elect are atoned, therefore atonement is limited")
Theopedia (getting a little more involved)
Some of the sources on Wikipedia's article are very involved if you want to really delve into this.

1. With this explanation, I've actually argued that everyone believes in Limited Atonement, because there is surely no infinity of transgressions. They can certainly be counted. Opinion, that's why it's a footnote.


How does Jesus fulfill the offices of Prophet, Priest and King?

Prophet: In the old testament a prophet was typically one that communed with God to get revelation for the Israelites and was head of the 'church.'
I.E. Moses

  Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Since Christ was head of the church while he was here on earth and received all the revelation from God during that time and passed it on to the 12 apostles he then would have the title of prophet.

King: One of the reasons that Christ was actually rejected by the Jews was because the Messiah of the old testament was supposed to be King of the Jews and come in Glory and overthrow those that oppressed the Israelite nation. Christ was (and is) the Messiah but the scriptures talked of 2 comings of the Messiah one in meekness (as the Son of Man) and one in Glory (his second coming see Malachi 3,4 Also see the whole book of Isaiah. Isaiah talks about both the first and second comings of the Lord and it can be confusing at times to know which he is talking about. Isaiah is also the one who most often refers to Christ as a King or descendant of kings:

  Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Referring to the fact that Jesus through His mother Mary and His adopted father Joseph He is descended from King David. The Jews, of course, were looking for a mighty descendant of David to overthrow the Roman rule of the time.

Priest: Priest has a lot of meanings depending on the denomination, but they often have duties to minister unto the members of a church. If you look at the life of Christ then it is easy to see that He fits this definition of a Priest.


When did the Oriental Orthodox Churches start being called 'Orthodox'?

The Greek adjective orthodox (ὀρθόδοξος) is dated to the late third/early fourth centuries, and the derived Latin word (orthodoxus or ortodoxus) was also first used at about that time. There is an earlier verb ὀρθοδοξεῖν, meaning "to have correct beliefs", used by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics. As far as I know, Aristotle's coining is original, not based on any other language.

In Christianity, the term originally became popular to describe those groups that adhered to the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), even though the Oriental Orthodox churches that you mention are exactly the opposite, not accepting the Chalcedonian dogmatic definition. The Oxford English Dictionary (under orthodox, 3) suggests that this is due to a later assumption that "Orthodox" refers to anybody who was not on the Catholic side at the time of the Great Schism (1054). So it seems that "Orthodox" was first associated with the Eastern Orthodox churches, and only later became applied to the Oriental Orthodox.

For the reasons set out below, I think that the group term "Oriental Orthodox" was invented or at least popularized in the 1960s; and that at least some of the churches in question had Orthodox in their name for some years before that, though probably not earlier than the eighteenth century.

It is a bit hard to distinguish between a church that uses Orthodox as part of its name, and one that merely describes itself as orthodox. Certainly, people have been calling themselves small-o orthodox for centuries, and in some cases that shifted from "we are orthodox" to "we are the Orthodox". The unambiguous use of Orthodox in the name is comparatively recent, in all cases.

"Orthodox" as a title of the Eastern Orthodox churches

From what I can see, the term "Orthodox" was not used as a distinctive term until many years after the Schism. The more normal way was to talk about the Eastern Church and the Western Church. The everyday usage was "the Greeks", though this is of course inaccurate since not all Greeks are Orthodox and not all Orthodox are Greek. Meanwhile, Christians in general could be called orthodox or catholic for some centuries, regardless of their east-west allegiance.

For example, in the proceedings of the Council of Basel (1431-5), we read "the Greeks" as the standard term for the Greek Orthodox delegates, as opposed to "the Romans"; but "the orthodox faith" and "the catholic church" are both used to mean Christianity in general.

The Orthodox churches were certainly using the term as part of their identity by 1672, since the record of the Synod of Jerusalem contains many references to Orthodoxy as a tradition and as a communion (eg, talking about "our Orthodox religion", "Orthodox bishops", etc.). They were undoubtedly trying to use the term to distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholics, and to a lesser extent the Protestants. But even then, "Orthodox" was not part of the name of the church: the synod talks of "the Eastern Church", which holds "the Orthodox faith", but they don't use the title "Orthodox" for the church itself.

So at least in this period, the Orthodox placed additional emphasis on themselves holding to Orthodoxy as an ideal, in opposition to other groups. I suspect that the position of the Feast of Orthodoxy in the liturgy helped to establish this as a critical part of their identity. However, it seems that it may not have been used as a church title until a bit later. It was definitely established by the time of Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, who used it in The Rudder (1800). Tentatively, I would say that it became used as a distinctive title at some point in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century, though as set out above, there is a much longer history of the use of the word in the eastern Christian tradition. (The first OED appearance of "the Orthodox Church" is 1772, with "the Orthodox Confession" in 1679. Of course, that says nothing about non-English sources).

The Oriental Orthodox

As mentioned above, the application of "Orthodox" to these churches is quite unusual! There's even some evidence that the Eastern Orthodox deprecated the use of "Eastern Church" because they didn't want to be confused with non-Chalcedonian people (heretics!) who happened to also live in the east. Probably they were quite annoyed when those same groups started calling themselves Orthodox too.

I would assume from the chronology that the individual Oriental Orthodox churches only started using the title a while after the Eastern Orthodox did. That would place the earliest use probably no sooner than the eighteenth century, and perhaps quite a bit later. Again, it may be that other people called them that, partly out of confusion as the OED suggests, before they called themselves that. So a 19th century date, in the case of the Syriacs, certainly makes sense.

Confusingly enough, "Oriental Orthodox" was also used as an exotic synonym for the Eastern Orthodox. The Oxford History of Christian Worship (Geoffrey Wainwright, 2006) says that the umbrella term "Oriental Orthodox" for the Syriac, etc., churches, was established in the 1960s, as a replacement for calling them "Monophysite". It certainly seems that pre-1950 references to "Oriental Orthodox" that I've found are actually talking about the Eastern Orthodox. Moreover, I imagine that the term "Oriental Orthodox" would only be invented if several of the churches in question were already calling themselves Orthodox.


The catholic church, especially through JPII and Pope Francis, stress that there are many saints, even the "regular" saints. Catholic church recognizes, in this way, only a tiny fraction of the saints.

Saints are witnesses to the faith, to the truth. This world badly needs it, so the answer to this, is to "expose" more of those witnesses of faith.

It is not adding saints to get a higher saint-score, it is recognizing what already is.

It is likely that the better communication and documentation of the modern times, helps identify candidates for sainthood.


Basis for the concept of an "Age of accountability"

There are two aspects to the Biblical basis for this doctrine.

1) Rationale

There is a rationale, theological argument that God is just, and would not impute sin where there was no knowledge of sin or no opportunity to choose Him.  This is based on Old Testament passages like Proverbs 24:12, as well as New Testament passages such as:

  sin is not imputed when there is no law -Romans 5:13

2) Precedence

But the main argument comes from a story in 2 Samuel 12:14-31 in which God takes the life of David's newborn son as punishment for his sin.  After his son is dead, David makes the following statement:

  But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” -v.23

This is generally taken to mean that David expected to see his son again in Heaven some day, even though he died as an infant, and never had the chance to accept or reject God.

The obvious question though, is why did David expect to see his son again?  The popular answer, of course, is that all such children go to Heaven.  After all, the alternative is unthinkable - surely God would not judge an infant with eternity in Hell if they never had a chance to hear the gospel.

Assessment

For what it's worth, I think the doctrine of an "age of accountability" is based on a lot of misunderstandings and bad hermeneutics.  However, we can rest assured that God is perfect in His love, justice, and wisdom.  For an alternative view to the "age of accountability" see my post here.