What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed?

The phrase "God-breathed" is a translation of the etymological roots of the Greek θεόπνευστος. Most English versions of the Bible translate this Greek word as "inspired by God". ("Inspire" is derived from the Latin word inspiratio, which like πνευστος, originally denoted breath or spirit.)

There is no consensus on what it means to say that all Scripture is inspired, even among Evangelical Protestants. In an essay titled How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? Evangelical Anglican scholar N.T. Wright dispenses with the notion of the Bible as a collection of "timeless truths", in which each verse is authoritative on its own.

  A regular response to these problems is to say that the Bible is a repository of timeless truth.  There are some senses in which that is true.  But the sense in which it is normally meant is certainly not true.  The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is culturally conditioned.  It is all written in the language of particular times, and evokes the cultures in which it came to birth.  It seems, when we get close up to it, as though, if we grant for a moment that in some sense or other God has indeed inspired this book, he has not wanted to give us an abstract set of truths unrelated to space and time.  He has wanted to give us something rather different, which is not (in our post-enlightenment world) nearly so easy to handle as such a set of truths might seem to be.

Rather, Wright recommends reading each Bible book as a book, rather than a set of verses. Only in this way can we understand the context of what God has to say to us.

  In private reading, and in informal group meetings, we need again to experiment with new ways of reading scripture.  Anyone who has heard an entire biblical book read, or even acted (think of Alec McCown on Mark, or Paul Alexander on John; I have heard the same done with Galatians, and very impressive it was, too) will realize that such things as chapter-divisions, or almost any divisions at all, can be simply unhelpful.  We need to recapture a sense of scripture as a whole, telling and retelling stories as wholes.  Only when you read Exodus as a whole (for example) do you realize the awful irony whereby the making of the golden calf is a parody of what God wanted the people to do with their gold and jewels . . . and only by reading Mark as a whole might you realize that, when the disciples ask to sit at Jesus’ right and left hand, they are indeed asking for something they do not understand.

Wright argues that thinking of inspiration in terms of inerrancy or infallibility can lead us into traps, but that we can avoid these traps by taking the Bible seriously as a whole.

  If we really engage with the Bible in this serious way we will find, I believe, that we will be set free from (among other things) some of the small-scale evangelical paranoia which goes on about scripture. We won’t be forced into awkward corners, answering impossible questions of the ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ variety about whether scripture is exactly this or exactly that. Of course the Bible is inspired, and if you’re using it like this there won’t be any question in your mind that the Bible is inspired. But, you will be set free to explore ways of articulating that belief which do not fall into the old rationalist traps of 18th or 19th or 20th century. Actually using the Bible in this way is a far sounder thing than mouthing lots of words beginning with ‘in—’ but still imprisoning the Bible within evangelical tradition (which is what some of those ‘in—’ words seem almost designed to do).

But rather than giving a single answer about how God speaks to us through Scripture, Wright insists that whenever we truly engage with the Bible and seek to understand what God has to say to us, we find that God not only speaks to us but transforms our lives.

  The Bible, clearly, is also to be used in a thousand different ways within the pastoral work of the church, the caring and building up of all its members.  Again, there is much that I could say here, but little space.  Suffice it to note that the individual world-views and God-views of Christians, as much as anybody else, need to be constantly adjusted and straightened out in the light of the story which is told in scripture.  But this is not to say that there is one, or even that there are twenty-one, ‘right’ ways of this being done.  To be sure, the regular use of scripture in private and public worship is a regular medicine for many of the ills that beset us.  But there are many methods of meditation, of imaginative reading, ways of soaking oneself in a book or a text, ways of allowing the story to become one’s own story in all sorts of intimate ways, that can with profit be recommended by a pastor, or engaged in within the context of pastoral ministry itself.  Here, too, we discover the authority of the Bible at work: God’s own authority, exercised not to give true information about wholeness but to give wholeness itself, by judging and remaking the thoughts and intentions, the imaginations and rememberings, of men, women and children.


Does Jeremiah 8:8 imply that the scriptures were corrupted?

You are starting from three incorrect postulates:

Scribes are just copyists, not interpreters of the law.
The doctrine of preservation of scripture is the same as inerrancy.
Variants have semantic importance

All three of those need to be true for your statement to make sense. Unfortunately, none of them are.

1. Scribes aren't just secretaries.  They are teachers, who in this case, were corrupt

In context, Jeremiah 8 is clearly inveighing against "false" teachers of the law.  This a common theme throughout the Old Testament generally, and the prophets specifically. (It is also picked up in the New Testament for that matter - Jesus seems to be more annoyed with "religious" teachers than with sinners.)

The text says:

  “‘How can you say, “We are wise,
      for we have the law of the Lord,”
  when actually the lying pen of the scribes
      has handled it falsely?
  9 The wise will be put to shame;
      they will be dismayed and trapped.
  Since they have rejected the word of the Lord,
      what kind of wisdom do they have?

Note the antecedent of "they" is those who are saying "We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord."  Notice these same people are being said to have rejected the word of the Lord.

This is very common throughout the OT - those who are claiming to speak for God but are not. Malachi calls them out, Amos calls them out, and Jeremiah calls them out.  It was a recurring theme.

Note that scribes are not just writers of the law - they are teachers too. Especially at this time, there was a hefty oral tradition of interpretation that had added much to the Torah.

In the New Testament, Jesus makes the same charge (Matthew 23):

  13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14] [b]

  15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

  16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

  23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Note: Some translations will even say "scribes and Pharisees" rather than "teachers of the Law and Pharisees."  The King James, for example, says:

  13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

  14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

A scribe was also a teacher of the law.  More modern translations clarify that aspect of the culture we no longer have.

It isn't the pen, it is the oral additions.

2. Preservation of Scripture != Inerrancy

There is a wide spectrum of belief about how literally one takes the Bible.

The Ezekiel verse you quote is pretty clearly metaphor, for example, clearly written as such. The Divine moment preserved, however, is the vision of a God who is restoring Israel. Ezekiel is dealing with a people who have "forgotten" the law, in that they have chased other gods. The idea of adultery to which the metaphor alludes captures very well both the problem and the divine response.

Preservation of Scripture says only that God communicates his Law to all men.  It doesn't depend on the mechanism.  Even if you could find somebody who tried to misprint the Bible, the doctrine of Preservation says that the transmission isn't the point anyway.

3. We know the "variants" in Scripture, and trust me, they are a lot less "variant" than you think.

It is true that there are over 5000 manuscript fragments from which we arrive at what we believe the "Scriptures" to be.  You can see these variations yourself by consulting a biblical apparatus.  It is true that prior to the invention of the printing press in 1453, documents were copied by hand.  It is also true that minor variations existed as a result.

It also should be understood that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were rediscovered in 1947, we found out how very, very small the differences were. Great care was taken to preserve the manuscripts.

In seminary, it was stated that no major doctrine hinges on a variant.  Many Christians would argue there are no significant differences when it comes to doctrine.

Finally, Mark Twain probably said it best:

  It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.

Read the whole thing and you'll see there is no "conspiracy," there is no "power grab."  There is a reason people have been following this book for thousands of years.  It does a pretty good job of conveying who these people think God is.  Food for thought.


How does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reconcile 3 Nephi 15:23 with Jesus visiting Joseph Smith?

If you look at the Bible Dictionary for Gentile:

The word Gentiles means “the nations” and eventually came to be used to mean all those not of the house of Israel. It is first used in Genesis with reference to the descendants of Japheth (Gen. 10:2–5). As used throughout the scriptures it has a dual meaning, sometimes to designate peoples of non-Israelite lineage and other times to designate nations that are without the gospel, even though there may be some Israelite blood therein. This latter usage is especially characteristic of the word as used in the Book of Mormon. ...

So there are 2 cases:

Joseph Smith was a descendant of House of Israel (Not a Gentile, scripture doesn't apply):

In Of the House of Israel it says

President Young identified Joseph Smith as a “pure Ephraimite” in the above quotation, so far as the Prophet’s family or blood lines were concerned, Brigham Young and others have recognized that (1) Joseph Smith was from a Gentile nation and (2) some of Joseph Smith’s progenitors may have come from bloodlines other than that of Ephraim. (See Journal of Discourses, 2:268.)

As this may bring up other potential contradictions about Joseph Smith not being a Gentile please continue reading said article

Thus, Joseph Smith was of the house of Israel so far as his family or blood lines were concerned, but he came from a Gentile nation and thus might also be considered a Gentile in the political or geographical sense.

2. Joseph Smith was/wasn't a descendant of the House of Israel AND was missing the gospel (Gentile-scripture applies)
Expanding the scripture 3 Nephi 15:23-24

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.

24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.

I will now offer some speculation or alternate interpretations as I can't find anything by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically about this verse and how it ties to Joseph Smith.
Jesus is saying he will not speak directly to those who haven't been converted or felt the Holy Ghost first. If they have been converted(touched by the Holy Ghost) then Jesus can speak to them. From JSH 1:12 one can see Joseph Smith was moved by the Holy Ghost after reading James 1:5

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart....

and after his prayer Heavenly Father and Jesus appeared and spoke to him, proving that Joseph Smith (if initially a Gentile) was no longer considered one because he had faith and acted on prompting of the Holy Ghost (so Jesus could appear to him).
In 3 Nephi a similar situation can be seen, some of the survivors before Christ appeared were not faithful followers of Christ (see 3 Nephi 9:24-25), but Jesus appears and teaches the people because they repented.


Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means?

The short answer to your question is yes.
Matthew 7:28-29

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

What do you suppose it means, "as one having authority, and not as the scribes"? (Think how the scribes learned what they knew of the law.)
Galatians 1:12

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Cool how Paul learned the gospel, isn't it? The disciples describe similar experiences thus:
Luke 24:32

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

The burning of the bosom is a sensation described multiple times in scripture as a possible way to know/recognize spiritual truth.
Paul describes the process of revelation by spiritual means to know God:
Ephesians 1:17-18

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Clearly, it is by spiritual means that a personal testimony is gained.
Jesus directly told the disciples that the Holy Ghost will teach them/us all things:
John 14:26

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Also, Romans is instructive:
Romans 8:16

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

How is this spiritual truth learned? Spirit to spirit. I believe this is the only way to gain a true understanding and/or testimony of certain doctrines.
So what are we to do?
Jeremiah 29:13

12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

This promise is perhaps one of the most oft-repeated promises in all of holy scripture (for example, see Luke 11:9 or Matthew 7:7), and I think many, if not all, Christian faiths abide by this.


Was any of Flavius Josephus' work relevant to the Council of Nicea?

The most important early Church documents that relate to the history of the First Council of Nicaea written by contemporaries of the period are, I think, the Acts and Canons of the Council; the Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius (263-339); and the writings of Athanasius (296-373).

Most of the Acts of the Council have not survived (the Nicene Creed is an example of a portion that did).  There is no mention of Josephus in the portion of the Acts that we have, nor in any of the Canons.

You have already pointed out that Josephus was mentioned in Eusebius.  References to him occur in least once in Books I, II, III, IV, IV, VI, VII, but as far as I can tell, nothing that is written is relevant to the Arian controversy, which was the subject of the Council.

Most, if not all, of Athanasius' works related to the Arian controversy, and hence the Council, can be found in the CCEL Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers collection, but I cannot find a single reference to Josephus by Athanasius in any of the documents available.

We might consider also the Church Histories of Socrates of Constantinople (380-439), Sozomen (400-450), and Theodoret (393-458).  All three of these wrote on the Council of Nicaea.  Socrates mentiones Josephus in Book V of his history, but on an unrelated matter (the celebration of Easter).  Sozomen mentions him twice, but again in completely unrelated contexts.  Theodoret does not seem to mention him at all.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT presently possess blood in his incorruptible body?

Adam in the Image of God
In Genesis 1:27:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

We later learn that Adam had a body of flesh and bones (not flesh and blood) in Genesis 2:23:

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

The first mention of blood in the Bible is after the fall, in Genesis 4:10—11:

And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.
And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;

It can then be concluded that one of the changes to Adam and eve was the change from bodies of flesh and bones in the image of God to bodies of flesh and blood.  Blood then becomes the source of life in the flesh (and not the Spirit) as explained in Leviticus 17:11:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

The Body of Christ
In Matthew 16:17, Christ explains that no one with a body of flesh and blood had revealed who Jesus was to Peter–thins knowledge came from a different source:

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

In prophesying his future state (in Luke 13:32), He told the Pharisees to tell Herod:

Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. [emphasis added]

After His resurrection, He distinguishes Himself from being only a spirit and having a body of flesh and blood in His testimony about Himself (Luke 24:39)

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. [emphasis added]

Paul, in referencing the Christ, to the Ephesians reiterates that we will not become part of Christ's body of flesh and blood, but rather (Eph 5:30):

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Future State of Resurrection
In discussing the resurrection, Paul teaches the differences between mortal and immortal bodies (1 Cor. 15:44–54), he specifically states with blood will experience a change:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

This change, to be consistent with the other immortal bodies we know about, would be bodies of flesh and bone.


Were there other people with camel hoof knees from praying?

St. Emiliana was said to have skin as hard as the hide of a camel at her death.

  St. Gregory the Great had three aunts, sisters to his father, Gordian the regionarius, who led an ascetic religious life in their father's house. Their names were Tarsilla, who was the eldest, Emiliana and Gordiana. Tarsilla and Emiliana were more united by the fervor of their hearts and the bond of charity than by blood. They lived in their father's house on the Clivus Scauri as in a monastery and, encouraging one another to virtue by discourse and example, made great progress in spiritual life. Gordiana joined them, but she was often impatient of silence and retirement and, being called to another way of living, married her guardian. Tarsilla and Emiliana persevered in the path they had chosen, enjoying divine peace and love until they were called to receive the recompense of their fidelity. St. Gregory tells us that Tarsilla was visited one night with a vision of her great-grandfather, Pope St. Felix II (III), who showed a place prepared for her in heaven, saying, "Come; I will receive you into this habitation of light". She fell sick soon after, and as her friends were crowding round her bed, she cried out, "Away! Away! My Saviour Jesus is coming!" After these words she breathed out her soul into the hands of God on the vigil of Christmas. The skin of her knees and elbows was found to be hardened, "like the hide of a camel", by her continual prayer. A few days later she appeared to Emiliana, and called her to celebrate the Epiphany in heaven. Emiliana in fact, died on January 5. Both are named, on the respective days of their death, in the Roman Martyrology. Her feast day is December 24th. - St. Emiliana


Do Rob Bell and Tullian Tchividjian represent sides of any prior Christian controversy?

Having read both of these authors, I can confidently say that Bell and Tullian are significantly different in their approaches to scripture, and in their interpretations thereof.  I align myself strongly with Tullian's approach, but disagree strongly with Bell's belief.

Historically speaking, Bell's theology aligns well with historical Universalism, or Universal Reconciliation.  He would state that all people, regardless of belief, will ultimately be going to heaven.  To accomplish this, he redefines sin's effects as being bad not because it is an offense against an infinitely good God, but because of what it does to us.  Sin damages us, but does not condemn us.  And since it does not condemn us, the cross of Christ cannot solve a condemnation problem, but instead becomes a good example by which we live our lives.

Tullian's position falls pretty clearly along the lines of Calvinist Protestant Theology.  He believes that the law of God is clear and extensive, and that the consequence of disobeying the law of God is eternal condemnation.  Likewise, he believes that Christ's death on the cross fully paid the penalty that we owed for our sin, so that, through Christ, we might be able to experience fellowship with God.  He believes that Jesus death on the cross grants positional righteousness to all who believe, thus justifying them in the eyes of God, and removing from them all condemnation.

Bell focuses on grace in the absence of the law, and in the absence of prior condemnation, but Tullian focuses on grace in the presence of the law, and in the presence of prior condemnation.  The problem with Bell's theology is that grace cannot truly be real if the problem of condemnation doesn't exist.  It would be as though you threw a life preserver to someone walking down the street in order to save them from drowning.  Being on the street, they were never in any real danger of drowning, so they have no need for a life preserver.  Tullian's theology, in contrast, offers a real problem, and then offers a real solution to the problem.  We are condemned to hell, but Christ came and paid the penalty of condemnation, so that we might be free from that penalty.  It's like throwing a life preserver to someone who is drowning.  It makes Christianity needed and useful.

In short, Bell takes a real, deadly problem, denies it exists, and thus makes Christ nothing more than a symbolic, but unnecessary, solution.  Tullian does not.

As a side note, it's important to that Tullian is mainly concerned with justification's effect on sanctification, while Bell is mainly concerned with defining justification, so objections to each of them are pointed at these two approaches.  Piper's objection to Bell is objecting to Bell's view of justification, while Murray's objection to Tullian is objecting to his view of sanctification in light of justification.  So in this sense, Piper objects to Bell saying that Bell is not defining Christianity right, while Murray objects to Tullian saying that Tullian doesn't define how we are to live out the Christian life right, yet he would agree with Tullian on his view of justification, and even says so in his objection.


What is the Authoritative Catholic explanation of why the Magi get a pass, yet Catholics are to reject astrology?

The Magi used their Magian astrology to recognize what was happening now. But astrologers use astrology to find out what is going to happen in the future. Note that Magi's saw Jesus in a house (Mat 2:11) not in the birth place of Christ.

//It appears that the stars have a knowledge.//

Stars do not have knowledge on their own. But God uses nature to instruct gentiles to recognize the birth of the Messiah.

//Why would the Catholic Church require Catholics to reject astrology//

The answer to this is in CCC 2115:

  God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it.

That is, future is in God's Hand and humans have no business in there.


In Catholicism, do the teachers more truly constitute the "church" than the hearers?

Short answer: no, it's not a fair assessment, particularly in light of what the Church itself professes.

The assertion being made is much like asserting that the Soldiers aren't really the Army, but that the Generals are.  As such, it takes on the character of a false dichotomy and is a flawed premise, since the Church as it exists isn't an either-or proposition.  It is a both proposition.  The two bodies require each other. (I am not sure if symbiosis is the proper term here for the relationship).

Without the leadership, the Church would not be what it is, due
explicitly to the stated Apostolic Succession as a basis of the Roman Catholic Church.  (See the Creed, among other points of doctrine on that score).  The Magisterium, the teaching body, operates in a continuum over time  going back as far as one needs/desires to go.
Without the faithful, there is NO church to lead.  "We are the body
of Christ" is more than a metaphor, from the point of view of the
Church.

Part of what makes the Church as an institution subject to such analysis is that its life lasts far beyond the lifespan of a given believer.  That said, the body of believers remains, in aggregate, even as each believer is born, lives, and then dies.  This has been true since the Church was founded.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 752, supports the points above:

  752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical
  assembly141 but also the local community142 or
  the whole universal community of believers.143These three
  meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God
  gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is
  made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She
  draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself
  becomes Christ's Body.

Footnotes / citations from the Catechism is as follows:

141 1 Corinthians 11:18; ⇒ 14:19, ⇒ 28, ⇒ 34, ⇒ 35.
142 1 Corinthans 1:2; ⇒ 16:1.
143 1 Corinthians 15:9; ⇒ Galatians 1:13; ⇒ Philippians 3:6.

A recent document (Sensus Fidei in the life of the Church) likewise minimizes any distinction between these two bodies within the Church:

  The importance of the sensus fidei in the life of the Church was strongly emphasised by the Second Vatican Council. Banishing the
  caricature of an active hierarchy and a passive laity, and in
  particular the notion of a strict separation between the teaching
  Church (Ecclesia docens) and the learning Church (Ecclesia discens),
  the council taught that all the baptised participate in their own
  proper way in the three offices of Christ as prophet, priest and king.
  In particular, it taught that Christ fulfills his prophetic office not
  only by means of the hierarchy but also via the laity.

Thanks are due to @MattGutting for raising the point about Sensus Fidei addressing the matter this question refers to.

For an analyst "outside the church" to assert what the church "really is" invites error.  To say that "in practice" only part of the church is "really the church" is an error.  The Church only exists with both.

This statement in particular is at odds with what it means to be In Communion with the rest of the Church:

  but the former is adorned with them only indirectly. (5.2.A.1; bold added)

The Seven Sacraments are available to all of the Faithful, with the notable exception being that for deacons, priests, and bishops their accepting ordination will limit or preclude the Sacrament of Marriage.   The Sacrament of Ordination is a calling to service and sacrifice at the individual level, for the good of the whole; the other Sacrament of Service, Marriage, is (per the church) a calling to service and sacrifice at the individual level for the good of the whole from the family on out.  At this point, I am straying well into another topic / question.

Full Disclosure/Caveat: my experience with the Church is post-Vatican II. This answer relies on writings rooted in Vatican II deliberations.  The conflict between what the Church now professes and the broad sweep of historical Christian thought on the point raised in the cited article in the question means that this answer is limited to current teaching.  The article from which the question is derived covers quite a bit of ground.  The terms in question are terms of art used in Catholic documents: ecclesia docens and ecclesia discerns can be found in John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, or in The Catholic Encyclopedia.  Interestingly, the term without specification, ecclesia, has the following definition: (Per Hardon)

  ECCLESIA. The unchanged Latin rendering of the Greek ekklesia,
  meaning assembly or community. The Bible uses the term in the
  Septuagint translation of the Hebrew kahal in both a secular and a
  religious sense. In the New Testament the word is used of the whole
  community of the believers in Christ (Matthew 16:18) and of a
  singly community of the faithful (Romans 6:5). The Catechism of
  Trent defines Ecclesia as the Church, which is the faithful of the
  whole world (I, 10,2). (Etymology. Latin ecclesia, universal or an
  individual Church; from Greek ekklesia, assembly of people called
  together.)

It is reasonable to argue that the inherent meaning in both terms remains rooted to the "single community of the faithful" and the modifiers connote roles within the greater body of the faithful aka the universal/catholic church.  At this point I think I hear some angels putting on their ballet slippers ...


Does the fact that Joseph was a *tekton* require that Jesus was as well?

There is much disagreement as to whether the word translated 'carpenter' in:

  Matthew 13:55  Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

and,

  Mark 6:3  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

is properly translated or not. In my Interlinear copy that word is actuall in dout as to whether it is:

5045 [e]

tektonos

τέκτονος  ?

carpenter

N-GMS

or not, as you can see it is marked with a question mark.

In ancient days they were mostly known as builders, and were not as specialized as they are today. The word tektonos actually refers more to an artisan in wood more than what we consider Carpentry today. That is to say that that particular word is more descriptive of someone who carved wood rather than a builder. Builders were skilled in more than wood as stone was actually more common in buildings of that era. There is a common belief that the word originally used was:

τέκτων    tektōn

Thayer Definition:

1) a worker in wood, a carpenter, joiner, builder
1a) a ship’s carpenter or builder

2) any craftsman, or workman
2a) the art of poetry, maker of songs

3) a planner, contriver, plotter
3a) an author

Part of Speech: noun masculine.

If the original word was tekton rather than tektonos, it would explain Joseph's skill in both wood and stone. Many of the old manuscripts are not in very good shape due to the materials written on and the inks used, which are much less permanent than those of more modern times.

As for the term Rabbi it's connotations are much the same as our use of the word 'Pastor' today;

ῥαββί    rhabbi

Thayer Definition:

1) my great one, my honourable sir

2) Rabbi, a title used by the Jews to address their teachers (and also honour them when not addressing them)

Part of Speech: noun masculine.

In referring to Jesus it appears that is in reference to his teaching the meaning of the Scriptures:

  John 1:38  Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

and:

  John 3:1 and 2 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:  2  The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

Hope this helps.


What is the significance of what Jesus ate after his resurrection?

Some commentators do employ a bit of speculation on this question, including Augustine himself.  The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture summarizes Augustine, saying that the fish "represent the faith of the martyrs that have gone through the fiery trials of suffering." With respect to a similar passage in John 21, Augustine writes that "[t]he fish roasted is Christ having suffered" (Treatise 123).

With respect to the honeycomb (which some manuscripts do not mention), Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write that it is simply "common frugal fare" (Commentary).  Matthew Henry likewise calls it "mean" (in the sense of "humble") and suggests that a lesson can be drawn from its inclusion:

  The honey-comb, perhaps, was used as sauce to the broiled fish, for Canaan was a land flowing with honey. This was mean fare; yet, if it be the fare of the disciples, their Master will fare as they do, because in the kingdom of our Father they shall fare as he does, shall eat and drink with him in his kingdom. (Commentary)

The more important point, attested by both church fathers and more modern commentators, is that Jesus is proving to his disciples that he is truly resurrected and that he has a real body.  As John Calvin writes:

  During the whole course of his life, he had subjected himself to the necessity of eating and drinking; and now, though relieved from that necessity, he eats for the purpose of convincing his disciples of the certainty of his resurrection.


Did Mary and Joseph become rich with the presents given to them by the magi?

Marc's answer and curiousdannii's comment are correct. I went to a study series where the flight into Egypt was made into an epic tragedy of escaping, being afraid, homeless and barely scraping by. Now, that's possible, but I would hope that God would be a bit more generous. So I told the group that the gold, frankincense and myrrh were enough to get the Holy Family to Alexandria, where there was a sizeable Jewish community, where they could be somewhat comfortable and to support them while Joseph did what he could. I was scolded for being so optimistic, so I never went back.


According to Protestantism, what is the significance of Jesus and the Mount of Transfiguration?

John 5:39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me...

A common refrain in sermons (and I've used this myself!) on the Transfiguration is that Jesus is being shown to be "the Word."

Historically, Jesus referred to the Scripture as "the Law and the Prophets," referencing a common idiom of the time.  Of these,

Moses is clearly the "Lawgiver," in that he is identified with the Covenant most closely.
Elijah is the "Prophet," the first in a line and the prototype of many.

By appearing with "the Law" (Moses) and "the Prophets" (Elijah), Jesus is shown to be fufilling all of Scripture.


Does the Catholic Church say which is the correct rendering in english of The Glory Be (The Doxology)?

An Official version is available On Line from the Vatican

This link takes you to the compendium of the catechism of the Catholic Church which is hosted at the Vatican's web page.  In Appendix A, Common Prayers, the Gloria Patri is rendered with Latin next to English.

English:

  Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now, and ever shall be world without end. Amen.

Latin

  Glória Patri et Fílio et Spirítui Sancto. Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc et semper et in sæ´cula sæculórum. Amen.

Given the source, it's about as official as one can ask for.

Note:

In this prayer's case, unlike the Hail Holy Queen, Te Deum, Magnificat, and Benedictus prayers, the Vatican did not break it into "UK English" and "US English" versions.  This indicates that they went to some trouble to render it to the best of their ability.
Given the 2011 changes to the Liturgy, in English, to get closer to literal translations from the Latin into the English, there may be a change in time (the RCC moves slowly, when it moves at all) to render that prayer more literally.  Since the date for the Compendium seems to be the year 2005, there may be an update coming.  Or not.


Can Prince Harry marry his fiancée by the Church of England's precepts?

The original question was whether a member of the C of E can marry a Roman Catholic in an Anglican ceremony, in a C of E church, according to C of E precepts. As it transpires Meghan is not RC so the example is irrelevant to the basic question. Purely according to C of E rules, so ignoring any RC precepts, the answer is yes. A Protestant and a Roman Catholic can marry in the C of E, however this does not depend on any inter-faith agreement. It is a corollary of the fact that anbody can mary in the Church of England.  It is not necessary for either the bride or groom to be Christians of any kind.

There are Christian prayers, said by the vicar, but a Hindu can marry a Muslim, if they wish, in the C of E. A couple can choose to be married in the parish where either of them lives, or has previously lived, or where they have some other qualifying connection.

The right to marry in church is related to the role of the C of E as national church.

There are some exceptions, where a couple can marry according to civil law, but where a vicar is not obliged to marry them, though he has the legal power to do so if he chooses. One example was introduced by the Deceased Wife's Sister Act, 1907, which changed the law to allow a widower to marry his sister in law, but gave clergy the right not to officiate. By far the most common exception though is in the case of divorcees. A vicar has the civil power to marry divorcees, the civil right to refuse to do so, and the ecclesiastical expectation to do so only in exceptional cases.

Some clergy will simply refuse unless the couple are regular church members, in which case they may wish to ensure the divorcee understands what went wrong, was the innocent party, and understands and intends to make the appropriate commitments. Others are very accomodating.

There is a concept known as the Pauline Privilege which is based on 1 Corinthians 7 15, where Paul says that in the case where an unbelieving spouse leaves a believing spouse the believing spouse is free to remarry. In Roman Catholic canon law a person newly baptised, who married prior to baptism,  and whose spouse has left, is free to remarry. The C of E has no such legalistic application, but it is a factor which may be taken into account, at the discretion of the vicar.

When Princess Anne remarried she did so in the Church of Scotland,  which is less restrictive. Prince Charles and the Duchesss of Cornwall married in a civil ceremony, followed by a church blessing.  Although this would have been discussed at the highest level (ie his Mum, the Archbishops and Commonwealth leaders) the reasons were confidential. Prince Charles was no longer a divorcee but, technically,  a widower but Camilla had made very definite commitments in a sacramental context to her former husband. Furthermore it is possible their divorce was a result of the relationship with Charles. With Meghan's previous marriage it would not be difficult to argue that her previous marriage was not intended to be the lifelong commitment which the Church understands marriage to entail. She was not baptised, her ex-husband is Jewish,  although, as the marriage took place at a beach resort in Jamaica it was under the auspices of the Queen of Jamaica, aka the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, or Harry's Granny.

In recent years same-sex marriage has been introduced in England,  but no vicar or other minister of the C of E can officiate. This will not, of course, be a problem for Harry and Meghan.

Until 2015, if Prince Harry had married a Roman Catholic he would have lost his place in the succession.Of course, it is still the case that if any children were brought up Catholic they could never be monarch. The change follows a similar change in Sweden in 2000.

A final complication is that the Queen can veto any of the top six in the succession from marrying for dynastic purposes. If she did veto then the marriage can go ahead, but any children would be inelligible to become king or queen. Harry is currently fifth, behid his father, brother, nephew and niece. Happily Her Majesty shows no intention of objecting.


According to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are there any doctrinal barriers to Christians sharing places of worship with non-Christians?

According to current Catholic Canon Law, sharing a space in the manner proposed would pose problems.
Canon 1205: "Sacred places are those which are designated for divine worship or for the burial of the faithful by a dedication or a blessing which the liturgical books prescribe for this purpose."
Canon 1210: Only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place; anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden. In an individual case, however, the ordinary can permit other uses which are not contrary to the holiness of the place.
While it might be justifiable for a non-Catholic Christian group to use a Catholic space in accord with their customs as long as in the church "cleanliness and beauty are preserved as befit a house of God and that whatever is inappropriate to the holiness of the place is excluded." Canon 1220, that would be much harder to support for a religion entirely distinct and theologically at odds with Catholicism.
The comparison to Auschwitz is unsuitable. One case is making due with the best which is possible given the circumstances (i.e. the alternative would be not having Mass at all) and the other would be an ongoing situation. Canon Law, like civil/common law has a general, but not absolute law principle along the lines of necessity not obligating strictly (or you are not bound to the impossible).


How does a biblical literalist interpret the tale of David and Goliath?

When I was a literalist, I believe my take was simply that the text does not demand that it was chronological (and having studied Hebrew since, one does have to admit that the use of the word "wa" similarly does not demand chronology, only some form of relationship between the two). So, if the narrative is taken as,

16 Saul needs a musician and is told about David.
17 is a story about how David and Saul first met.
18 continues from 16.

This actually does make some sense: how would the servants of the king have known of the harp abilities of a shepherd from Bethlehem unless they had some relationship with the boy already?

Addendum:

This position is supported with this article on creation which (while overall supporting an old earth mentality) does make one comment that is on topic here:

  in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.


Why in the Roman Catholic Church does the sixth commandment differ between languages?

The official Catechism in Spanish for the 6th commandment starts in the same way as the version in English:

«No cometerás adulterio» (Ex 20, 14; Dt 5, 17).
«Habéis oído que se dijo: “No cometerás adulterio”. Pues yo os digo: Todo el que mira a una mujer deseándola, ya cometió adulterio con ella en su corazón» (Mt 5, 27-28).

(The version in English):

You shall not commit adultery.
You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

In fact, the whole chapter about the sixth commandment is the same in Spanish an in English in terms of content: the same doctrine is taught in Spanish as in English.  It must also be emphasized that the chapter on the sixth commandment includes more prohibitions than the bare and technical act of adultery (a married person voluntarily having sex with someone other than said person's spouse).  The Catholic Church has always held that the lesser crimes against sexual purity are implicitly included in the graver formulation of the commandment, and the entire chapter thus unpacks what is held to be implicitly there.
HOWEVER, more to the point of the question: right before the section on the ten commandments (that is, right before the Section two of the Third Part) there is a triple formulation of the commandments as a list.  The first column shows the formulation of the commandments in Exodus, the second column their formulation in Deuteronomy --- the books in the Bible have different wording for them --- and then "A Cathechetical Formula".  It is in this Cathechetical formulation that the Spanish and the English have the wording discrepancy that the question is asking.  The English has "You shall not commit adultery", whereas the Spanish has "No cometerás actos impuros" (which translates to 'you shall not commit impure acts').
First, it must be pointed out that the difference in wording does not somehow change the underlying prohibitions.  The chatechetical formulation is meant to be a short-hand for the fullness of the commandment, which the Catechism will expound at length in the corresponding chapter for said sixth commandment.
Nonetheless, why the difference?  Why is the Spanish version more broad --- and therefore more descriptive of the fullness of the commandment --- while the English version is much more specific?
A comparison with the wording of the same commandment in the Catechism in other languages will be helpful.  In French the sixth commandment reads "La pureté observeras en tes actes soigneusement" (which translates roughly as 'You will observe purity in your actions conscientiously').  In Portuguese it reads "Guardar castidade nas palavras e nas obras" (which is roughly 'You will guard chastity in your words and in your actions').
So, languages other than English are more broad in their statement of the sixth commandment than English, but all of them have slightly different wording for it.  What gives?
Let's speculate!  A clue is given by a reference in the Spanish & French translations which is not given in the English translation: in the Spanish version to "Catecismo Católico, preparado bajo la dirección del Cardenal Gasparri (Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1933, pp. 23-24)", and the French one to "P. Card. Gasparri, Catechismus Catholicus, Vatican 1933 p. 23".  Obviosly this is a reference to a Catechism prepared by Cardinal Gasparri, published in 1933.  Very likely that catechism was published in Latin, and then was translated into different languages.  And probably the different translations of that catechism served as the template for the wording of the commandments in the translations of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church (which was officially promulgated in 1992, in Latin).
Why was the wording of the sixth commandment expressed in the way it was in the translations of Cardinal Gasparri's Catechism other languages to begin with?  Probably the translators relied on traditional forms of the commandment that had grown over centuries in the particular languages into which they translated.  After all, it would be somewhat unsettling for some to go to sleep with one version of the commandment and wake up with another version of it.
This still doesn't explain why all of the translations mentioned above expressed the prohibition in broad terms, while the English expressed it in narrow terms.  It seems that the broad expression is more in keeping with the aim to explicitly indicate that the commandment is more general and covers much more than a married person having sex with someone else other than said person's spouse --- as the Catholic Tradition holds.  In other words, why was the English version of the commandment narrow?  It seems that the English version is the one that is the odd one out.
A hint is given by the heading of that third "catechetical formualtion" column in English.  The complete heading is "A Traditional Catechetical Formula".  Where might this traditional catechetical formula have come from, if not from Cardinal Gasparri's translation?  My guess is that the reason for keeping the narrow formulation in English is the same as the reason for the variation of the formulations in other languages: the desire not to cause unease by a possible perception of having changed the commandment.  In other words, the English version of the commandment had always been "You shall not commit adultery", and therefore that version was kept.
Why was the English version of the commandment "you shall not commit adultery"?  Blame the Reformation for that one.  After the death of King Henry VIII --- who took the Anglican Church out of communion with the Catholic Church because he wanted to divorce his wife --- the English government decided to abandon the Liturgy in Latin, and the first ever Book of Common Prayer was published in 1549.  The Book of Common Prayer was revised in 1552 to move the Church in a more Protestant direction.  Of note, in this second edition a recitation of the Ten Commandments was added to the communion service.  And the sixth of those commandments was "Thou shalt not commit adulterie".  Then Queen Elizabeth had the Book of Common Prayer revised once again in 1559 to chart a "middle ground" between the Catholic and Protestant sensibilities of the time, and again the sixth commandment given as part of the communion service reads as "Thou shalt not committe adultery".
The Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer had great influence in the Empire.  It was in force for about 100 years.  And while there might have been earlier published versions of the ten commandments, I think it can be argued that the (enforced) widespread use of the Book of Common Prayer helped cement the formulation of the ten commandments in use in the English language today.  Thus the sixth commandment in English --- by virtue of hundreds and hundreds of years of traditional use --- is "You shall not commit adultery".
Why did the editors of the Book of Common Prayer choose that formulation, instead of a broader one, like the Catholic Church ended up doing?  I bet it had to do with Protestant sensibilities: they were not going to rely on the authority of any "Popish" church (as they might have put it), and instead were going to rely solely on the authority of Holy Scripture.  And since the Bible mentioned the specific form of "You shall not commit adultery", they went with that.

One final note about the different versions of the Ten Commandments in particular --- and about documents issued by the Catholic Church in general.  The note can be motivated by the following question: so, which of the versions of the ten commandments is the "correct" one?  In some respects, it does not matter, because the catechetical lists are merely short-hand expressions for all the implications of the commandment, which the Catechism amply expounds in all languages.  But in case it were to matter for some reason, the answer can be given: the "correct" version of any document (including the Catechism) is in whichever language the official version of the document was  published --- which is usually Latin (but not always so!).
In the case of the Catechism, the official version is in Latin, and the quoted bible passages likely come from The Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Septuagint), or its updated edition, the Nova Vulgata.  Therefore, the official version of the sixth commandment, as articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is "Non moechaberis".  Everything else is translation.


What mainstream denominations (if any) hold a Young Earth Creationist view?

Typically, any congregation professing the YEC viewpoint are going to be non denominational. Though the name implies there is an unspecified disagreement among non denominational churches, the vast majority are biblical litetalists. This means they will naturally take the YEC view.

As Mawia pointed out in a comment, the date of the creation, and even the very process, is considered a matter of opinion in most denominations and not a doctrine.

Specifically, 7th Day Adventists are biblical literalists and therefore young earth creationists. They are the only denomination that I know of that explicitly holds that view.

Considering their shared roots with 7th Day Adventism, some think that Jehovah's Witnesses are Young Earth Creationists. Instead, it seems they are not. They are Progressive Creationists, which is a variety of Old Earth Creationism that excludes Evolution.


What is the Eastern Orthodox view on Protestants and Catholics

The Orthodox Church, in my opinion, makes it very clear that they believe it is the One, Holy, Orthodox, Catholic, Apostolic Church established at Pentecost and continues today.  Yet, it recently has broadened its willingness to talk with other sects.

In keeping with the church's teaching on universality and with the Nicene Creed, Orthodox authorities such as Saint Raphael of Brooklyn have insisted that the full name of the church has always included the term "Catholic", as in "Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church".[18][19][20] The official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the "Orthodox Catholic Church".[5][6][7][8]
Wiki

They put ecumenicism this way.

Why have the Orthodox churches decided to be involved in the ecumenical movement for the unity of God’s Church, and how does this involvement relate to their claim to be the embodiment of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
-source-

There is the belief that God's Spirit still works in the sects.

The belief of St. Cyprian that outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church there is no salvation must be respected as a strong urge to maintain and respect the unity of God’s Church. However, today’s needs require it to be supplanted with the theology of schism advanced by St. Augustine. For St. Augustine, schismatic and heretical communities, in spite of their formal separation from the una sancta, continue to maintain bonds of unity with it. All the separated Christian churches are related to each other and in communion, however imperfectly, with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The recognition of this relationality is warranted by the fact that there are many still unbroken bonds whereby the schismatic communities are held in certain unity with the One Church. These bonds, in the words of Florovsky, include " right belief, sincere devotion, the Word of God, and above all the grace of God, which ever heals the weak and supplies what is lacking." There is thus in every schismatic and heretical community something of God that connects them with the life of the God’s Church. "What is valid in the sects is that which is in them from the Church, that which remains with them as their portion of the sacred inner core of the Church, that through which they are with the Church. "
-ibid-

So, to answer the OP, it appears to me that the Orthodox view Catholics and Protestants as "separated brothers and sisters in Christ" who have fallen from the truth, but who nonetheless retained some validity and are thus part of the Church.


What is the earliest indication of controversy regarding the anarthrous θεός in John 1:1?

The earliest mention of controversy appears to be in the writings of Origen of Alexandria, in the third century.  He indicates that some debate already existed on the matter in his time, and he attempts to resolve it by saying that the lack of the article implies that the Word of God is inferior to and dependent on the "True God":

We next notice John’s use of the article in these sentences.  He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue.  In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it.  He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only.  He uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God.  [...]
Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity.  They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.  Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.
To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true God;” but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article).  And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.”  [...]
The true God, then, is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.  But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father. (Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2.2; paragraph breaks and bold added)

A century later, John Chrysostom argued the opposite side, noting other biblical texts supporting the full divinity of Christ, and remarking on the grammatical issue:

“Yet observe,” says he, “the Father is named with the addition of the article, but the Son without it.” What then, when the Apostle says, “The Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Tit. ii. 13); and again, “Who is above all, God”? (Rom. ix. 5.) It is true that here he has mentioned the Son, without the article; but he does the same with the Father also, at least in his Epistle to the Philippians (c. ii. 6), he says, “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God”; and again to the Romans, “Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. i. 7.)
Besides, it was superfluous for it to be attached in that place, when close above it was continually attached to “the Word.” For as in speaking concerning the Father, he says, “God is a Spirit” (John iv. 24), and we do not, because the article is not joined to “Spirit,” yet deny the Spiritual Nature of God; so here, although the article is not annexed to the Son, the Son is not on that account a less God. Why so? Because in saying “God,” and again “God,” he does not reveal to us any difference in this Godhead, but the contrary; for having before said, “and the Word was God”; that no one might suppose the Godhead of the Son to be inferior, he immediately adds the characteristics of genuine Godhead, including Eternity, (for “He was,” says he, “in the beginning with God,”) and attributing to Him the office of Creator. (Homilies on the Gospel of John, 4)


Sources for Luther and Calvin quotes supporting geocentrism

Although this quotation is not included in the online document titled The Table Talk of Martin Luther, it would seem to be genuine.  First of all, evidence of Luther's beliefs can be found in paragraph DCCXCVII of that document:

  Astronomy is the most ancient of all sciences, and has been the introducer of vast knowledge; it was familiarly known to the Hebrews, for they diligently noted the course of the heavens, as God said to Abraham: "Behold the heavens; canst thou number the stars?" etc. Haven's motions are threefold; the first is, that the whole firmament moves swiftly around, every moment thousands of leagues, which, doubtless, is done by some angel. 'Tis wonderful so great a vault should go about in so short a time. If the sun and stars were composed of iron, steel, silver, or gold, they must needs suddenly melt in so swift a course, for one star is greater than the whole earth, and yet they are innumerable. The second motion is, of the planets, which have their particular and proper motions. The third is, a quaking or a trembling motion, lately discovered, but uncertain. I like astronomy and mathematics, which rely upon demonstrations and sure proofs. As to astrology, `tis nothing. [My emphasis]

Christopher B. Kaiser (Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science), page 185, tells us  Luther's comments were based on dinner table conversations. He says Anthony Lauterbach, who dined with Luther, recorded the following comments from Luther:

  So it goes now.  Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something on his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Josh. 10:12]

Kaiser says

  Clearly the issue for Luther was not a technical question of the merits of the heliocentric theory, but the seeming ambition ofthe astronomer and the possible disruptive effect his teachings might have on a Christian society.

Calvin's comments are attrbuted to his 'Sermon on 1 Corinthians 10:19-24'.


What happened to Ananias and Sapphira after death?

We don't know
The Bible doesn't tell us.  The only answer I can give is a tautology - if they were saved, then they went to heaven.  But the Bible doesn't tell us whether they were saved.
However, it should be noted that the nature of their punishment does not rule out the possibility of their salvation.  Consider 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 (NASB):

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Although the meaning of "destruction of his flesh" is debated, one possible interpretation is that this person was being sentenced to death.  Yet it is made clear that, despite the severity of the punishment, the man himself was saved.
But the question remains of whether Ananias and Sapphira were saved in the first place, as nothing in the text rules out their salvation, or indicates their possession of it.


Christomonism is the heresy of identifying Christ as the singular representation of God.  It is a heresy because it denies the Trinity, which has been the traditional foundation of orthodoxy.

Douglas John Hall writes:

Christomonism and the exclusivity that attends it represents, I believe, a failure of trinitarian theology. For a triune understanding of God, the western tradition especially was always tempted to substitute an undialectical monotheism heavily informed by a christology emphasizing the divinity principle and downplaying Jesus' true humanity. The result, in the hands of the simplifiers, is what H. Richard Niebuhr rightly named "a new unitarianism of the second person of the trinity"—or, in the plain and oft-repeated slogan of popular evangelicalism, the simple declaration: "Jesus is God." If all we can say of Jesus and of God is that Jesus is God—all the God of God there is—then we have effectively ruled out all other attempts of the human spirit to glimpse the mystery of the ultimate; and this is all the more conspicuously the case when our understanding of "Jesus," in the first place, is really a dogmatic reduction of his person, his "thou-ness," to the "it-ness" of christological propositions that, most of them, enshrine little more than our own religious bid for authority.

Barth responded to the criticism thusly:

Question: "In what specific way, Professor Barth, does your theology avoid being Christomonistic?"
Answer: "Sound theology cannot be either dualistic or monistic. The Gospel defies all isms,' including dualism and monism. Sound theology can only be 'unionistic,' uniting God and man. Christomonism (that's an awful catchword!) was invented by an old friend of mine whose name I will not mention. Christomonism would mean that Christ alone is real and that all other men are only apparently real. But that would be in contradiction with what the name of Jesus-Christ means, namely, union between God and man. This union between God and man has not been made only in Jesus Christ but in him as our representative for the benefit of all men. Jesus Christ as God's servant is true God and true man, but at the same time also our servant and the servant of all men. Christomonism is excluded by the very meaning and goal of God's and man's union in Jesus Christ."

Personally, I find most examples of supposed christomonism to be off-the-mark.  It seems to me that a deep understanding of Jesus as Christ is required to have a deep understanding of the Triune God.  Jesus put Himself at the center of God's plan to reconcile with humanity, but also predicted the Holy Spirit will continue the plan when Jesus ascended to heaven.  (See John 14.)  When I seek out what Barth, MacArthur, and Bonhoeffer actually wrote or said, I find a heavy emphasis on the idea that "Jesus is God", but no denial of the idea that the other persons of the Trinity are also God.  It would be remarkable if I did, since the New Testament, and Jesus Himself, had a thoroughly trinitarian theology.


When was Satan cast out of heaven according to Catholics?

At the moment of Creation, evil was separated from Righteousness.

In Ephesians chapter 3, Paul writes about the eternal plan of God: "v10 (God's) intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms (Satan and other angels in Job ch 1&2 etc.), v11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. v12 In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence." (NIV; parenthetical notes are mine)

The 'when' of Satan's fall must be viewed in the context of God's eternal plan. Timing is a tricky thing. If you are viewing Satan's fall from a heavenly perspective, outside of time, it is like a lightening flash (Luke 10:18). If you are viewing it from a 'Creation' perspective, it's like a sequential argument (Job 1 and 2...) or a series of timely events (Revelation 12). Notice that Satan was created as Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12 KJV), the greatest created moral being. He became Satan when he rebelled against God. Before Creation, the only thing that existed was God... Perfection...! In Creation God made 'space' for something 'not God' to exist. Creation is not Heaven, and moral beings are not God; but we (and angels) have the ability to 'know God'; and involve ourselves with God... So in Creation we are suspended between Perfection... on the one hand, and abysmal imperfection, evil... on the other hand. This conflict between good and evil works itself out, in time, in the perfecting of our faithfulness. So in Job, God has provided the means for Job to 'maintain his integrity'; in the sin offering. In Job there is a poetic conflict between integrity and iniquity; blessings and cursing; self righteousness and the Righteousness of God, good and evil...(etc.)

Before Creation, according to His eternal plan, God knew the implications of Creating moral beings with the capacity to choose or refuse Him. And in the Atonement, the Sin Offering, the Messiah... the Creator provided the means by which moral beings can be 'right' before Him. There was no 'plan B'. So, from a heavenly perspective, at the moment of Creation, there is a separation of good and evil, like a flash... and God himself is there to provide for man and angels... From a Creation perspective, evil is at work, in Satan,  persuading Adam and Eve, and Judas and Peter... And Jesus instructs us to pray: "...deliver us from the evil one..."


How long, and in what cases did Catholics participate in the Black Fast?

You are right. Eastern Orthodox still practice this in a way, though it is not called the "Black Fast". As I am an Orthodox Christian I can tell you that we do fast every Wednesday and Friday, though not as strictly as the Black Fast. It's more like eat vegan, basically the same as you listed, but we get 3 meals at the regular times, though some people may do it more strictly including monastics. Also don't eat as much.
Then we also have as we call it the Great Fast, or Great Lent, that starts 40 days before Holy Week. Basically we eat the same as on Wednesdays and Fridays, also trying more then normal to abstain from sin (that's the whole goal right?). Then during Holy Week the rules change and it is a little more strict, namely maybe 1 meal a day, on special days (Holy Friday: the crucifixion) eating nothing at all. Check out wikipedia for more info.
We also have fasts before the Dormition (two weeks long called the Dormition Fast), a fast called the Apostles Fast, and A fast before Christmas, called Advent. According to Wikipedia, Advent starts on the fourth Sunday before December 25, which is the Sunday between November 27 and December 3. According to my Orthodox Calendar, this year it will start on November 15.
Also I forgot to mention, that on the first week of Great Lent we have a strict fast from Monday to Wednesday, thats a strict fast meaning no food at all. For the weak, (Children, Elderly, Pregnant) there are exceptions.
Of course thats not all the fasts that we do. Check this link for more info.
OK, just checked back at your question and saw that you asked why it is done.
Um, kind of for the whole going to heaven thing that we're doing as Christians. Depriving the body of food is supposed to help with repentance and to humble the body to the Spirits will.
Hope that answers your question! If not I can say even more.


According to Catholic teaching; how long do we go to Hell for?

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church statement on hell, we find the following:

  The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

The 'In Brief' recap summarizes this as:

  Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

So yes, Catholic teaching is the traditional view of hell, that which is described as 'eternal conscious torment'.


When was the early Christian apology "Dialogue with Trypho" written?

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho is usually dated toward the end of his life, after AD 155.  According to Craig D. Allen, this is largely based on evidence that it was written after his First Apology, which can be dated with some confidence to 151–154.  The line of reasoning is as follows:

Justin mentions the First Apology in his Dialogue with Trypho, so the latter work must come after the former.
The First Apology calls Lucius Pius, born in AD 130, a "lover of learning" and a "philosopher," suggesting a date after AD 145
The First Apology mentions the popularity of Marcion, and he was in Rome between 139 and 142, again suggesting a date after AD 145
The First Apology makes reference to Felix the governor of Alexandria, who appears to have held office between 151 and 154.

Allen concludes:

  If 1 Apology lies between 151–154, and because the Dialogue mentions the Apology it is certain that the Dialogue was composed after that date.  Any conjecture regarding a more exact date than 155–167 is only that.  We must, therefore, be satisfied with an imprecise date for the Dialogue with Trypho. [Revelation, Truth, Canon, and Interpretation, 34]

That said, Susan Wendel suggests a tighter range, citing other scholarship:

  Scholars generally agree that Justin wrote the Apologies around 150–155 CE and produced the final form of the Dialogue with Trypho at a slightly later date (~155–160 CE). [Scriptural Interpretation, 11]

Wendel cites Eric Francis Osborn, who indicates the same range of 155-160 (Justin Martyr, 8) and Leslie William Barnard, who suggests circa 160 (Justin Martyr, 23).

So our best bet appears to be around AD 155–60, with a bit greater confidence on the first of those numbers than the second.


Is God still in the process of creation?

The traditional Christian view on this is that God completed the work of creation in six days (whether you take that literally or metaphorically). However he is still in the business of sustaining his creation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in 301:

  With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence:

In other words, without God's continual work, nothing could continue to exist. It's a separate kind of work from the work of Creation.

As Ryan Frame says, the discovery of new stars does not mean that they were created recently. Also the birth of new stars (or animals, or people for that matter) doesn't imply new creation. God had set in motion at the time of creation the mechanisms by which they are created (coalescing matter clouds, sexual reproduction). That was the work of creation. The bringing-to-birth is the work of sustainment.

Additional references to show that this view is not limited to Catholics:

Answers in Genesis
Mennonite Articles of Faith
Brethren in Christ
Anglican Catechism


Why did Pilate insist on writing 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews'?

Crucifixion was more than a method of execution; it was a public execution, and a long, slow, exceptionally painful one at that.  Half the point was to make an example of the condemned so they could act as a deterrent.

Part of the process was to identify the person and their crime, which was done by putting a sign on the cross.  Thing is, Pilate couldn't actually identify any crime that Jesus had committed.  But the Jewish leaders were adamant about sending him to the cross, and when they threatened to raise complaints with Caesar--which they could have done, successfully, as he was not the best of governors--he backed down.  Writing "The King of the Jews" on his sign as the reason he was being executed appears to be one last, somewhat passive-aggressive, act of protest against their unfair execution they were forcing him into.


How does the Catholic Church reconcile the holy Catholic Church with (the) Pope(s) asking for forgiveness?

The Church is holy, but it is an institution which is populated by human beings, who can and do sin. This can be seen in the first few chapters of the book of Revelation where the Angel catalogs the sins of the seven churches.

In his apology, the Bishop of Rome is merely acknowledging the sinfulness, individually and collectively, of members of the church, even though the Church itself, as the Body of Christ is preserved Holy by the Spirit of God.

Perhaps this is a novel analogy. In my "day job", I work with shipping pallets, those devices constructed of wood (and other materials) which are used to unitize freight to make for easier handling. Now, some constituent parts of some wood pallets are defective: incomplete, broken, or rotten. But a Master Carpenter can take broken, defective, incomplete, and rotten members, and construct a pallet which, notwithstanding the apparent inadequacy of the parts, still performs the function it is intended to perform. So it is with the Church. The Master Carpenter takes the materials at hand, and combines and attaches them in a way to make a creation that admirably performs the mission to which it is called because the strong parts of one member compensate for the weak parts of another. Or, to put it another way, a fully functional pallet is made from less than functional parts.

In just the same manner, the Master Carpenter takes human sinners, and uses them to make a Holy Church.


Did Pelagius or Pelagians in General Deny Orthodox Christology

After a careful re-reading and actually looking at the footnotes of the work I found the answer myself. St John combated a developed form of Pelagianism put forth by Leporius in his own area:

  Leporius was apparently a native of Treves who propagated Pelagian views in Gaul, ascribing his virtues to his own free will and his own strength; and going to far greater lengths than his master in that he connected this doctrine of human sufficiency with heretical views on the Incarnation; thus combining Pelagianism with what was practically Nestorianism, teaching that Jesus was a mere man who had used His free will so well as to have lived without sin, and had only been made Christ in virtue of His Baptism.

This footnote is on pg 552 of the second series of the Nicene-Post Nicene Fathers (same reference as the question).

So Pelagius himself did not ascribe to these views, but the brand of Pelagianism that St. John dealt with seems to have taught this. St. John goes on in the same chapter to mention how Nestorius's own writings betray a sympathy for the views of Pelagius.

It seems to be for this reason that St. John views the Pelagian and Nestorian heresies as linked, where one will naturally lead into the other after a period of time, because if you isolate the human from the divine you inevitably start postulating that man can operate by his own power alone to attain godliness.

It is worthwhile to note that Leporius's letter of repentance and rejection of Pelagianism is included in part on the next page in which Leporius makes no mention of free-will or God's sovereignty, but only talks about the Incarnation:

  Therefore the God-man, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is truly born for us of the Holy Ghost and the ever-virgin Mary. And so in the two natures the Word and Flesh become one, so that while each substance continues naturally perfect in itself, what is Divine imparteth without suffering any loss, to the humanity, and what is human participates in the Divine"

I think that perhaps this view was what St. John viewed as foundational to our understanding of salvation from which implicit rebukes of Pelagianism, Nestorianism, and I would think also Augustine's more extreme views can be drawn.


Are there any known Eastern Catholics who have received the stigmata?
There is at least one.
Saint Mariam Baouardy, known a in religion as Mary of Jesus Crucified. She is affectionately called by many as the Little Arab.

Mariam Baouardy was born on 5 January 1846 in Ibillin, a small village of Galilee, between Nazareth and Haifa, in a Greek-Melkite Catholic family. Before Mariam’s birth, her parents had seen twelve children die in infancy. In their deep sadness and confident in God, they had decided to make a pilgrimage to Bethlehem to pray at the manger and to ask for the grace of a daughter. Finally Mariam was born and one year later her brother Boulos arrived.
In 1865 she was in Marseille where she met the sisters of St Joseph of the Apparition. Although she was 19 years old, she looked only 12 or 13; she spoke very bad French and her health was also bad. But she was accepted into the noviciate and was very happy that she could finally give herself fully to the Lord. Always working hard, she spent most of her time in the kitchen or the laundry. But she relived every week the Passion of Jesus. She received the stigmata (but she was so simple that she believed it was an illness), and all kinds of extraordinary graces began to appear. Some sisters were quite disconcerted, and at the end of the two years of noviciate she was not admitted into the congregation. Eventually, she found her way to the Carmel of Pau, in south western France.
Mariam joined the Carmel of Pau in June 1867 and here she always found the love and understanding to sustain her in her sufferings. As a novice, she received the name of Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified. She asked to become a lay sister, because she wanted to serve others and also she had difficulties in reading the Divine Office. - St. Mary of Jesus Crucified

Although St. Mary of Jesus Crucified was of the Greek Melkite Catholic Rite, she made profession in the Carmelite Order within the Latin Rite because this Order did not exist within her Rite of origin. Nevertheless, she remained of Greek Melkite Rite all her life. Although she received the sacraments for the most part from priests of the Roman Rite, she never disowned her Eastern Catholic heritage and remained as such all her life.

An ecstasy and the first appearance of the stigmata
Her fellow sisters were always amused by her broken French, but they were most impressed by her remarkable virtues and piety. Fortuneately for Mariam, two women of great virtue were directing the Capelette at that time, the Superior General, Mother Emily Julien, and Mistress of novices, Mother Honorine Piques. They were excellent spiritual guides for Mariam and to their surprise they soon began to notice some strange phenomena in little Arab. The ecstasies of the church of St. Nicholas were multiplied, with some disturbing peculiarities. Thus it happened that in January 1866 - the postulant was twenty years of age - Mother Honorine came upon Mariam in the dormitory, prostrate, with her face to the floor and her left hand covered with blood. From Wednesday evening to Friday morning each week, to the ecstasies there soon was added another remarkable phenomenon, the stigmata.
The stigmata of the heart was the first to be manifested. She was twenty years of age, and it happened in August, 1866 at Marseille. She was praying in the chapel one evening, when, in the tabernacle she saw Jesus, who appeared to her with His five wounds and the crown of thorns. It seemed to her she saw coals of wrath in His hands. She heard Jesus say to His Mother prostrate at His feet: "Oh, how My Father is offended!" The little postulant then sprang toward Jesus, she put her hand on the wound of His Heart, exclaiming: "My God, give me, please, all these sufferings, but have mercy on sinners." Coming out of the ecstasy, she saw her hand covered with blood, and she experienced a severe pain in her left side: the latter would bleed every Friday.
On March 27, 1867, the other stigmata appeared. The privileged one of the Crucified confided to the mistress of novices: "It seemed to me that I was gathering roses to decorate Mary´s altar: these roses appeared to have thorns on both sides, and the thorns were thrust in my hands and into my feet. When I came to myself, my mouth was very bitter, my feet and hands swollen: in the middle of my hands and on my feet there were black bumps." The following day, Thursday, the sufferings continued to increase until Friday. It was the Feast of the five wounds of Christ. In the morning, about ten o'clock, the black scabs fell off, the crown of thorns appeared on her forehead, blood flowed from her head and feet. The prodigy was renewed during the months of April and the first two weeks of May. It ceased upon an order of the mistress of novices. This latter, in order to put an end to the rumors that were circulating in the community, asked the postulant to obtain from God that nothing would appear exteriorly. To the great joy of the stigmatist, the wounds closed and healed up.
Faced with such facts, Mother Honorine acted with as much prudence as understanding in regards to both the ecstasies and also the stigmata. Obedience being, in such cases, the litmus test of the Church, she thus forbade Mariam to have ecstasies during the day and in the presence of the religious. Even during the night she was not to get up, and she was not to attract attention. Mariam obeyed, and God, Whom loves obedience, seconded and approved of her actions . The Mistress of novices, seeing that she was dealing with a person extraordinarily fashioned by the Holy Spirit, asked the child to relate for her what she remembered of her childhood and adolescence. Everything was put in writing. One copy would later be sent to the Carmel of Pau with this note of Mother Honorine, "I am sending you copy of what I myself have gathered together from what she related to me, not without much resistance, but complying solely through obedience. She asked of me the greatest secrecy which I have guarded until this day... I have omitted everything I did not entirely understand, because of the difficulty this dear child experienced in explaining herself in French."
Mother Honorine fell ill, and was replaced in the novitiate by Mother Veronica. This religious was to hold a large place in the life and heart of Mariam. She was English and a convert from Anglicanism. After seventeen years of religious life with the Sisters of St. Joseph, she was later to enter the Carmel of Pau with Mariam, and it was in her arms that “the little Arab” would die, at the Carmel of Bethlehem. Mariam, had foretold that, contrary to all expectations, Sister Veronica would become mistress of novices at the Capelette. She held this office for one month, until the reception of the Indult permitting her to enter Carmel. And it was at Mother Veronica’s wish that Mariam`s stigmata disappeared at Marseille, and in accordance with Mariam’s prophecy at that time, the stigmata would not reappear until the following Lent, at Pau. - Saint Mariam Baouardy (St. Mariam of Jesus Crucified) -The Lily of Palestine

The cause of canonization started on 18 May 1927 and would culminate with the decree of heroic virtue on 27 November 1981. Baouardy was beatified by Pope John Paul II on 13 November 1983 and was canonized on 17 May 2015 by Pope Francis. She became the second Greek Catholic to be canonized a saint of the Catholic Church. Her feast day is August 26 and she is the parron saint of peace in the Holy Land.

Saint Mariam of Jesus Crucified
We all have favourite saints and St Mary of Jesus Crucified is my favourite saint.


How Does the Copper Serpent Relate to Jesus?

According to 2 Kings 18:4, the serpent of Moses was subsequently placed in the Jerusalem temple, where it was known as Nehushtan and remained until smashed by King Hezekiah.

The Jewish Encyclopedia says that modern exegesis holds that the biblical Hebrew word Nehushtan, by which the bronze serpent is referred in 2 Kings 18:4, is explained either as denoting an image of bronze or as a lengthened form of naḥash ('serpent'), and thus as implying that the worship of serpents was of ancient date in Israel.

Referring to the Canaanite heritage of the Jewish people, Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger say, in Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, page 274, that we can no longer determine whether the copper snake was a genuinely Canaanite element or was Egyptian instead. They say that its Canaanite provenance was more likely because Hezekiah was quite receptive to Egyptian symbols of the day.

The Exodus tradition is perhaps less informative than the action of King Hezekiah. The Bible describes him as a strong monotheist who brought many reforms to Judaism. His destruction of Nehushtan means that he saw the idol as incompatible with Judaism. It would therefore also be incompatible with Christianity. It could not represent Christ, or have any symbolic meaning for redemption.


Theologically speaking, the first two verses of this Psalm give away the whole point:

  1 Do not fret because of those who are evil
     or be envious of those who do wrong;
  2 for like the grass they will soon wither,
     like green plants they will soon die away.

It is so tempting to see "the wicked prosper," and forget that even Jesus said that his Father causes "the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike."  The author of Ecclesiates frets that the wicked propser. The author of Psalm 73 cries out with the same question.

Habbakuk even demands that God answer, "How long, O Lord?!"

  How long, LORD, must I call for help,
     but you do not listen?
  Or cry out to you, “Violence!”
     but you do not save?
  3 Why do you make me look at injustice?
     Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?
  Destruction and violence are before me;
     there is strife, and conflict abounds.
  4 Therefore the law is paralyzed,
     and justice never prevails.
  The wicked hem in the righteous,
     so that justice is perverted.

The Psalmist is not blind to the present situation. Indeed, he is all too aware of the problem that doing good doesn't seem to help out!  As we would say nowadays, no good deed goes unpunished.

But the Psalmist also knows what Peter will put into words later on (2 Peter 3:8-9)

  But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

It may not be today, but it will happen.  There will be a time when the evil are defeated.  And when that occurs, it will be as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount:

  Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

The righteous - the meek - those who could match injustice with power, but will not - they will eventually get it all. In God's time, the unrighteous will be destroyed, and the just will have everything that's left.

Is the planet on which we stand? Well, that might be part of it - but the point is that evil will be defeated, and the righteous will prevail, if only we stick to God.

It's going to feel like an eternity, but justice will be served.


What is the Scriptural support for the Catholic Church's "depositum fidei"?

The term "depositum fidei" is just another way of saying Revelation.

St. Paul charges St. Timothy to keep and preserve Revelation (1 Timothy 6:20):

  O Timothy, keep the depositum, avoiding the profane novelties of voices, and oppositions of falsely called knowledge.

The original Rheims New Testament commentary says:

  Depositum. ] The whole doctrine of our Christianity being taught by the Apostles, and delivered to their successors, and coming down from one Bishop to another, is called the Depositum, as it were a thing laid into their hands, and committed unto them to keep. Which because it passeth from hand to hand, from age to age, from Bishop to Bishop without corruption, change, or alteration, is all one with Tradition, and is the truth given unto the holy Bishops to keep, and not to laymen. See the notable discourse of Vincentius Lirensis upon this text li. cont. profan. har. Novationes. And it is for this great, old, and known treasure committed to the Bishop's custody, that St. Irenaeus calleth the Catholic Church Depositorium dives, the rich treasury of truth. li. 3 c. 4. And as Clement Alexandrinus writeth li. 2 Strom. this place maketh so much against all Heretics who do change this Depositum, that for it only such man in his days denied this Epistle. The Heretics of our days challenge also the truth, and say it is the old truth but they leap 14 or 15 hundred years from it over men's heads to the Apostles.  But we call for the Depositum, and ask them in whose hands that truth which they pretend, was laid up and how it came down to them. For it cannot be Apostolical, unless it were Depositum in some Timothy's hand, so to continue from one Bishop to another until our time to the end.

Please see also:

  Matt 28:19-20 (RSVCE) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of
  all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son
  and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I
  have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the
  age.”

And

  2 Thess 2:14-16 (RSVCE) 14 To this he called you through our
  gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

  16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,

And

  Gal 1:7-9 (RSVCE) 7 not that there is another gospel, but
  there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of
  Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach
  to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be
  accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one
  is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let
  him be accursed.

Even the Angels and the Apostles are not to depart from the deposit of faith.