Contradiction between God's mercy being greater than ours and Jesus' harsh words about who will end up in hell

The Apostle Paul outlined for us a definition of Love. Mercy falls under that larger category. So can we measure the degree of Christ’s love by that standard? If Jesus perfectly exemplifies love by his actions, then we must conclude that the motive behind his admonitions about Hell was one of Love.

  Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it
  is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it
  is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not
  delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects,
  always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7,
  NIV)

Patience. While hanging on the cross, did Jesus call for legions of angels to rescue him and destroy his enemies? No, he prayed for forgiveness. How long has Christ’s patience persisted? 2,000 years! Yet he says that he will return and execute judgement at that time. Why the delay? Saint Peter told us:

  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. 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. (2 Peter 3:8-9, NIV)

Kindness. A pastor once told me that kindness is seeing someone else in need and acting to meet that need. What did we need? A savior to take our place, pay for our sins, and rescue us from Hell. We did not need someone telling us lies, like God is not just and will overlook all our sins without anything being done about it. Jesus did the most that anybody can do for another person: he gave his life. No greater sacrifice can be made. No greater mercy can be shown.
Envy, boasting, pride. Jesus refused the devil’s tempting appeals to pride: you deserve an easy life, well protected, in command of the kingdoms of the world. He was silent before his accusers. As Paul said in Philippians:

  Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
  something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself
  nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human
  likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself
  by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! (Philippians
  2:6-8, NIV)

Who ever gave up so much privilege to serve others as Jesus? That is humility.

Honoring others. Whom did Jesus honor? A tax collector. Women of ill-repute. Peter, who denied him, yet was appointed head of the church, and Paul, a persecutor Of Christians.
Unselfish. Christ was not self-seeking. First, he sought to accomplish his father’s will. Second, he said:

  Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s
  friends. (John 15:13, NIV)

Jesus told us how to measure Love. He lay down his life for his friends, thinking not of what it would cost him (selfishness), but what it could accomplish for those he loved (selflessness). He demonstrated ultimate love in two ways: he gave all his life away, and that life, being the life of God, is the most valuable life in the universe.

Protects. I skip ahead to get to the point of the discussion. Jesus protects. What do we ask for in the Lord’s Prayer? Deliver us from evil. The church is always at prayer, saying “protect us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day...” Those who trust in Jesus are protected from the destructive evil within our souls by the sanctification purchased for us. We are also protected from the evil of all who reject that sanctification, hence remain a source of deadly peril. God’s mercy to us is to protect us from all who cling to evil. Imprisoning the unrepentant in Hell enhances God’s mercy, it does not take away from it.

The final question is always: but maybe if people were given just a little more time?

  “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But
  for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.
  (Mark 13:20, NIV)

If the wicked are given too much time, then the suffering they cause will become so severe for God’s children that some of them will fall.  In engineering, we call this the point of diminishing returns. God will not let that happen.

On a personal note, when I was younger, a Christian urged me to stop rebelling against a God and warned me about the consequences: I would go to Hell. I needed that warning, and I heeded that warning. Those harsh words saved my soul and set my life on a new path. Which would be more merciful, to be polite and leave me to die in my sins? Or “rejoice with the truth”?


Was David aware that his words were prophetic according to any doctrines, traditions, or exegesis?

No one could know for sure what David knew or was thinking when he wrote, for example, Psalms 22 (one of my favorite) which can clearly be taken as entirely prophetic of Christ, but also refects David's own personal experiences. Jesus quoted (part of) verse one from the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", and the soldiers fulfilled verse 18, "They parted my garments..." (having no idea that they were doing so) indicating that it was indeed prophetic.

Ps 49:15 "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he will recieve me" shows a little that David did know for sure, and trust in, and again it was Jesus who redeemed David's soul.

Saul also prophesied in I Sam 10:11-12 and in 1 Sam 19:24, and in Num 22 God even opened the mouth of a donkey! 2 Pet 2:16

One thought is that David's own experiences as a rejected king for so many years allowed him to experience some of the same emotions and feelings that Jesus would eventually feel, giving him a personal insight into the Christ that hadn't come yet.


Do any Lutheran denominations (or parachurch reform groups) successfully represent "repristination theology"?

According to Wikipedia's Neo-Lutheranism article, repristination theology beget Confessional Lutheranism.  There are two major churches in America which describe themselves as "Confessional Lutherans."  They are the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

A Wikipedia article lists some (albeit debateable) differences between non-Confessional and Confessional Lutheranism.


Is there any theological basis for the eating of lamb at Easter?

It seems that the Catholic tradition of eating lamb at Easter was first documented in the 7th century:

  “The oldest prayer for the blessing of lambs can be found in the seventh-century sacramentary (ritual book) of the Benedictine monastery, Bobbio in Italy. Two hundred years later Rome had adopted it, and thereafter the main feature of the Pope's Easter dinner for many centuries was roast lamb.” - Easter Symbols and Food (Catholic Culture)

Eating lamb at this time of the year has religious significance, not only for Christians but also for Jews.  It goes back to the year 1446 B.C. on the night before Moses led his people out of Egypt.   To this day the Passover (Pesach in Hebrew) is the most widely celebrated Jewish festival where a lamb is roasted then eaten.  It is called the Passover because the angel of death passed over the homes of the Israelites who had obeyed God’s commands to kill a lamb and then mark their doorposts and lintels with its blood:

  “Then Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go and select lambs for yourselves according to your clans, and kill the Passover lamb. Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood that is in the basin. None of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning. For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you. You shall observe this rite as a statute for you and for your sons forever.” (Exodus 12:21–24).

The theological significance for Christians is that on the night he was betrayed, Jesus and his apostles gathered together in a room in Jerusalem to prepare for the Passover.  As you have mentioned, there is a connection with Passover and Jesus, who is seen by Christians as the Lamb of God who was sacrificed and his blood shed to atone for the sins of the world.  That is the theology behind eating lamb on Nisan 14, which is the night Jesus was betrayed.

In Western countries, Passover is celebrated in early- to mid-April and is always close to Easter since that was the time when Jesus was crucified.  Passover and the story of the exodus have great significance for Christians, as Jesus is our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7; Revelation 5:12). He was killed at Passover time, and the Last Supper was a Passover meal (Luke 22:7–8).  That is the theology behind the eating of lamb and it is traditional among Catholics and Protestants alike.


What are Babylon The Great and the scarlet coloured beast according to Mormons?

What does the beast represent?

From the New Testament seminary manual:

[The] beast described in verse 3 may represent Rome in John’s day as well as corrupt kingdoms and nations in the last days (see Revelation 17:8–13).

Further explanation can be found from the New Testament Student Manual

Scholars have historically interpreted the beast with seven heads as an allusion to the city of Rome because Rome was founded upon seven hills, as well as a reference to a number of Roman emperors in the first century A.D. Though these are possible meanings, a broader interpretation may be that Rome represented a seat of corruption in John’s day. As such, this worldly city may be likened to similar centers of corruption in all eras.

Earlier in Revelations 12:3,9 there is a red dragon with seven heads and ten horns which represents the Devil/Satan, this could be the same beast.

Whom does the woman symbolize?

The seminary manual references verse 18:

18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

And then explains:

[The] "great city" (verse 18) refers to spiritual Babylon (see D&C 133:14). Because of the worldliness and corruption of ancient Babylon, and because it was a place where the children of Israel were captive, Babylon is often used figuratively in the scriptures to represent sin, worldliness, the influence of the devil on the earth, and spiritual captivity (see also 1 Nephi 13:1–9; 14:9–10).

From the student manual:

she is the "mother of harlots," which indicates that she gives birth to other prostitutions—organizations, governments, and ideologies that spew forth wickedness

On the verses as a whole the student manual states:

One possible meaning of John’s description in these verses is that in the last days, a lifestyle of sexual immorality, wealth, and violence would permeate the world. Institutions, governments, and people who embrace this lifestyle can be seen as part of Babylon.

On Babylon Elder David R. Stone says:

There is no particular city today which personifies Babylon. Babylon was, in the time of ancient Israel, a city which had become sensual, decadent, and corrupt. ...
That sensuality, corruption, and decadence, and the worshipping of false gods are to be seen in many cities, great and small, scattered across the globe.


It may depend on whom you ask. According to the Calvary Chapel website regarding the History of the Calvary Chapel, the church was founded in 1965 in Costa Mesa.

  What began as a small local church has now grown into an international ministry of over 1600 fellowships throughout the world, all in the last 40 years.

And you can search their church locator to find a church within this 1600 church network.

According to their page about the Calvary Chapel Association,

  The Calvary Chapel Association (CCA) is the administrative connection point for the Calvary Chapel Movement of churches. It keeps a record of associated Calvary Chapel senior pastors. One of the functions of CCA is to promote official Calvary Chapel regional, national and international events. CCA also serves in various support roles to local Calvary Chapel churches and senior pastors. It is overseen by the Calvary Chapel Association Council, which consists of over 20 seasoned Calvary Chapel senior pastors from around the world.

The CCA has a published philosophy of ministry, statement of faith, and statement of faith.

In this regard, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. On the other hand, Under the Calvary Chapel's "What We Believe" page from 2011, it states,

  We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.

According to Donald Miller in Reinventing American Protestantism: Christianity in the New Millennium, Pastor Chuck Smith, the founder of the movement,

  ...was not attempting to create a denomination; rather, what emerged was a loose fellowship of like-minded people.... Asked about what is preventing the a movement the size of Calvary Chapel, Smith emphatically answers, "Me," and then clarifies how a relationally based movement was ensured "by being fiercely independent and implanting this independence in them [the offspring churches]; by each of them incorporating independently; by not requiring reports; by keeping the affiliation [of churches] just a very loose affiliation." He states that there are no requirements, no calls, no letters from headquarters, unless there are major deviations from Calvary Chapel philosophy, at which point there might be a call from "Dad" to inquire what is going on.

And so in this regard, the Calvary Chapel distinguishes between a denomination and an association of churches and considers itself the latter.


Scripture reference on quoting scripture in a hurtful manner

First, consider your own integrity and maturity and decide if the words you want to speak are ones you should listen to yourself. Matthew 7 says:

  “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay
  no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your
  brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time
  there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the
  plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the
  speck from your brother’s eye.

Second, check your attitude. The key phrase is "speaking the truth in love". Ephesians 4 says:

  As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of
  the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be
  patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep
  the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body
  and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were
  called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of
  all, who is over all and through all and in all.

  7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.
  8 This is why it says:

  “When he ascended on high,
      he took many captives
      and gave gifts to his people.”[b] 9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He
  who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the
  heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 So Christ himself
  gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and
  teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the
  body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the
  faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature,
  attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

  14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the
  waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the
  cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15
  Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every
  respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16
  From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting
  ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its
  work.

Third, become wise and well-informed through careful study. 2 Peter 3 says:

  Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our
  dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16
  He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these
  matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,
  which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
  Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Fourth, decide based on your knowledge of the other person whether there is any chance that they will respond favorably, or if you are needlessly risking harm to yourself. Matthew 7:6 says:

  6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.
  If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear
  you to pieces.

Fifth, do not despair of being helpful. James 5 says,

  19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth
  and someone should bring that person back, 20 remember this: Whoever
  turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death
  and cover over a multitude of sins.

Update:

While not as focused as the OP's question demands, I did come across this Proverb:

  26:7 Like the useless legs of one who is lame is a proverb in the
  mouth of a fool.

  26:9 Like a thornbush in a drunkard’s hand is a proverb in the mouth
  of a fool.

If silence were required, that is probably a good description of someone who can't shut up.


What are the best ways to refute the position that Paul started Christianity?

If you read the book of Acts, you get the impression that the beginning talks about the Apostles and what is happening in Jerusalem and ends with the focus on Paul and what is happening outside of Jerusalem. Many people see in this a hijack of Christianity, a diversion of Christianity, and even a repackaging of Christianity to a new market by Paul.

Jesus told his disciples that he was giving them the new covenant.

  Mark 14:24  and he said to them, `This is my blood of the new
  covenant, which for many is being poured out;

Jesus told his disciples that they would be bringing the good news (gospel) of the Kingdom to the whole world.

  Mark 16:15-18  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
  preach the gospel to every creature.   He that believeth and is
  baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
  cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;   They shall take
  up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
  them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The original plan was for Israel to receive her King and spread the gospel over the whole earth. However unlike the first covenant when the entire nation of Israel accepted the covenant, this covenant was not received by the nation.

Paul writes that one of the reasons salvation had come to the gentiles was to provoke the Jews to jealousy.

  Romans 11:11  I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?
  God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the
  Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

One can also see that Paul was not instructed like the other Apostles. He himself calls himself the Apostle to the gentiles.

  1 Timothy 2:7  Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I
  speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in
  faith and verity.

Paul did perform an occasional baptism (cited in the commission of Jesus to his disciples), but it was not part of what he was called to do.

  1 Corinthians 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach
  the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should
  be made of none effect.

Paul had every hope and expectation that his ministry would be short lived and that the Kingdom would come to Israel. We can see his expectation in his use of the word "we".

  1 Thessalonians 4:17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be
  caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the
  air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I think we can take from the words of Jesus in what is called the great commission that his kingdom was always intended to be worldwide.

Paul was called to go to the gentiles. The failure of Israel to receive the kingdom for the last 2,000 years makes the ministry of Paul seem larger. As a result, many make claims about Paul's work and motivation that are difficult to substantiate.

The book of Revelation describes a future where a faithful remnant of Israel will receive her King and the prophecies for Israel will be fulfilled.


"καὶ στρατείας κλῆσις" - Cyril, Procatechesis, §1

One example of military items in the service of the Lord occurs in the Epistle to the Ephesians:

6 10   Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16 besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.  [RSV-2CE]

The helmet of salvation is found in the traditional prayers a priest makes while vesting for Mass, specifically, putting on the amice:

Impone, Domine, capiti meo galeam salutis, ad expugnandos diabolicos incursus.
Lord, set the helmet of salvation on my head to fend off all the assaults of the devil.

The metaphor is carried through to modern times too. The Church of England baptism service introduced in 1980 had:

Name,    I sign you with sign of the cross.
Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified.
Fight valiantly under the banner of Christ against sin, the world, and the devil,
and continue his faithful soldier and servant to the end of your life.

The Church is often described as the Church militant, expectant and triumphant, explained by Wikipedia with reference to the above passage from Ephesians:

In Christian theology, the Christian Church, or Church Universal, is traditionally divided into:

the Church Militant (Ecclesia Militans), comprising Christians on earth who are living; Christian militia, who struggle against sin, the devil and "..the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).
the Church Triumphant (Ecclesia Triumphans), comprising those who are in Heaven, and
the Church Suffering, a.k.a. Church Padecent or Church Penitent (Ecclesia Penitens) or Church Expectant (Ecclesia Expectans), which in Catholic theology comprises those Christians presently in Purgatory.


Is Roman Catholic reconciliation with the Orthodox likely (or possible)?

As to the differences from a Catholic man's perspective:

The metaphysical dispute over the Filioque, wherein is asked "whence comes The Holy Spirit"?  A Catholic person says, when reciting the Nicene Creed, that The Holy Spirit "proceeds from The Father and The Son".  Unofficially, this wording brings to mind the theory of procession put forth by St. Augustine (namely that The Father's contemplation of Himself is ontologically creative, becoming The Son; and that The Love between The Father and The Son is similarly ontologically creative, becoming The Holy Spirit).  The Orthodox Church would see this formulation as diminishing the fullness of Godhood of The Holy Spirit, feeling that it subordinates The Holy Spirit to The Son and The Father---that is making Him less than co-equal with Them.  The Catholic Church would deny that this is the intent of the formulation as adopted by Her, although it allows the formulation of St. Augustine as a perfectly valid one.  More fruitful discussions between the two Churches has centered on asking what Each means by "comes" in the question "whence comes The Holy Spirit?"

Furthermore, the Orthodox Church is quite upset that the Catholic Church unilaterally decided to insert "and The Son" into the Nicene creed, when it was not there before.  They believe that modifications to the ancient creeds can only be done through the participation in an Ecumenical Council.  In fact, one of the Popes in the Middle Ages agreed with this complaint from the Orthodox Church, but was ineffective in changing the practice of the West.

On Church governance & the role of the Pope vs. Bishops.  Both Churches could fully agree, in principle, that the Bishop of Rome is "first among equals" regarding his relationship to other Bishops.  But whereas the Catholic Church emphasizes "first" and regards this designation to mean that the Pope has "ordinary and immediate" jurisdiction over every parish (bypassing the Bishops altogether, in principle), the Orthodox Church emphasizes "equals", and thereby would place supremacy over the faithful on their Bishop, regarding the designation "first among equals" as a matter of honour only.  Thus, the Orthodox Church sees the Pope's claim to supreme governance as a power grab which diminishes the dignity and office of the Bishop.  It doesn't help matters at all that, historically, the Orthodox Church has felt slighted, disrespected in their laws and traditions, and imposed upon by the Pope over the centuries.  While the Catholic Church firmly defends the prerogatives of the Pope's power of governance, She denies that such exercise diminishes the dignity and office of the Bishop, and continues to uphold that the office of the Pope (when it comes to governance) is a necessity of the communion of Bishops, and that the Pope is only the "first among equals".  The difference in governance which causes so much ecumenical trouble between these two Churches can be summarized as the difference between a monarchical republic versus a true confederacy.
"Cultural" differences.  For these two Churches to be united, they must agree that they follow the same Faith of times immemorial.  From the Catholic perspective, this is easy enough: except for questions of the filioque, they see themselves as following the same Faith (that is, the same teaching).  On the other hand, the Orthodox Church places a great deal of more emphasis on liturgy as part of Faith than the Catholic Church does.  To the Orthodox Church, if a liturgy is recent, it is inferior.  To them, the best liturgies are the ones that go back to eons ago, and if possible, to the very beginning.  They barely put up with liturgical translations. They see the Catholic Church as having succumbed to the times in adopting novel---and therefore not good---things in their liturgy (beginning with the filioque in the Middle Ages and continuing to the recent changes in their liturgies to make them "more modern").  If the Catholic Church is seen as parochial for trying to keep a semblance of homogeneous liturgical practice by other Christian groups, then they certainly have not taken a good look at the Orthodox Church.  Thus, to achieve union between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, these issues of "culture" wherein the Catholic Church is seen as "modernist" by the orthodox Church must also be resolved.

So, is it likely that these two Churches will reunite?  It is the hope and prayer of every Catholic person that they will.  It should be the hope and prayer of every Christian that 'all [Christians] may be one', such as The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are.  At the same time, both of these Churches do believe that a union without a consensus on the deep issues that divide them is artificial, and not a real union at all.  Thus, they both believe that they need to work on these fundamental issues beforehand.

And herein lies one of the problems.  For, while the Pope can speak for all Catholic Bishops, ratifying their declarations, there is no one in the Orthodox Church that can similarly speak for everyone.  If, and when, reunification takes place, there will always be a substantial amount of Orthodox Bishops which will renounce the reunion as heretical and will refuse to reunite.

Another problem: there are some teachings that the Catholic Church deems as irrefutable, due to the dogma of infallibility.  To go back on these teachings would amount to a declaration that the Catholic Church is not infallible, which I fear She cannot do.  The best The Catholic Church can do is to recast (re-explain) those same infallible teachings on a new light, perhaps making it logically possible to come to a formulation of the teaching which is also acceptable to the Orthodox Church.  Given that both Churches have very gifted and careful theologians who feel themselves in the right, it is very difficult to see how this might be possible.

THEREFORE, what are the chances that both Churches would unite?  Very unlikely, if you ask me.  History may force them to reunite (and force them to work out those differences), if a world-wide effective persecution of both Churches should occur, but other than that, all we can do is hope and pray.


What biblical and historical support is there for the practice of child communion?

Here's what my denomination, the United Methodist Church, says about child communion:

May young children receive Communion?
Certainly. As The United Methodist Book of Worship puts it, “All who intend to lead a Christian life, together with their children, are invited to receive the bread and cup.” We remember that when some of Jesus’ disciples tried to keep children away from him he said: “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs” (Mark 10:14 NRSV).
But do young children know what they are doing when they receive Communion?
Do they understand the full meaning of this holy sacrament? No, and neither do any of us. It is a wonderful mystery, and children can sense wonder and mystery. Children cannot understand the full significance of family meals, but we feed them at our family tables and at Christ’s family table. Young children experience being loved by being fed. They sense the difference between being included and excluded at a family meal. They have the faith of a child, appropriate to their stage of development, which Jesus recognized and honored. Indeed, he said to adults: “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15 NRSV).

I understand that other denominations have children wait until they have a better understanding of communion.  I'm sure they have good, scriptural reasons for their belief.


(Catholic view) What was the scriptural basis for the existence of limbo?

Addressing the question "Whether the limbo of hell is the same as Abraham's bosom?," St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a few scriptural verses:

  The place whither the beggar Lazarus was taken is called Abraham's bosom [Luke 16:22-23]. Now he was taken to hell, for as a gloss [*St. Gregory, Moral. xx] on Job 30:23, "Where a house is appointed for every one that liveth," says: "Hell was the house of all the living until the coming of Christ." Therefore Abraham's bosom is the same as limbo.


I cannot answer for those who might think "the bosom of Abraham" is literal because I believe the condition of those who have died is spiritual, not physical and, therefore, not literal. Many Christians appreciate that Jesus used the strongest words possible in Luke chapter 16 to describe things that are beyond our understanding this side of glory, in the state after physical death. He used adjectives like 'fire' and 'torment' or 'bliss' and 'comforted', with 'chasm' between the two places of torment and bliss. When it comes to Luke chapter 16, where Jesus spoke about the  beggar Lazarus dying then finding  himself in bliss in "Abraham's bosom" [or, side] we ought to know that we have entered another realm that is unknowable to us, except by divine revelation.

This revelation Jesus gave was in response to religious zealots who loved money. They despised Jesus for warning them that we cannot serve God and Mammon. This is significant for the account of Lazarus and the rich man in the after-life. The rich man found himself in torments. It wasn't that being rich, in itself, brought him the torments of hell any more than being poor brought Lazarus the joys of being besides Abraham. It was disregarding the suffering of the poor at his gate that was the rich man's problem, which he chose to ignore, until it was too late. Jesus was warning us all about that.

"Was Abraham believed to be the ruler of this place?" you ask. Back in the day, when Jesus spoke, we can discover what religious Jews thought about that. There were two Jewish rabbinical schools that believed in "Abraham's bosom" as a 'place' where good Jews who had died awaited in spirit form for the future Day of Resurrection when their departed spirits would be 'clothed' with resurrection bodies, for judgment before God. They believed that 'bad' Jews would be in torments in hell, awaiting that Day of Resurrection, and judgement. These were the schools of Shammai and Hillel, in existence before Jesus appeared on earth and for some time after. Jesus knew this, and spoke accordingly.

"The Life And Times of Jesus The Messiah" by Alfred Edersheim (1971) Appendix XIX, On Eternal Punishment, according to the Rabbis and the New Testament" (see vol. II Book V ch. vi):

  "... For the views held at the time of Christ, whatever they were,
  must have been those which the hearers of Christ entertained; and
  whatever those views, Christ did not, at least directly, contradict
  or, so far as we can infer, intend to correct them... the first
  Rabbinic utterances come to us from the time immediately before that
  of Christ, from the Schools of Shammai and Hillel. The former arranged
  all mankind into three classes: the perfectly righteous, who are
  'immediately written and sealed to Gehenna'; and an intermediate
  class, 'who go down to Gehinnom, and moan, and come up again,'... The
  careful reader will notice that this statement implies belief in
  Eternal Punishment on the part of the School of Shammai...

  "Substantially the same, as regards Eternity of Punishment, is the
  view of the School of Hillel... In regard to sinners of Israel and of
  the Gentiles it teaches, indeed, that they are tormented in Gehenna
  for twelve months, after which their bodies and souls are burnt up and
  scattered as dust under the feet of the righteous; but it
  significantly excepts from this number certain classes of
  transgressors 'who go down to Gehinnom and are punished there to ages
  of ages.'...But since the Schools of Shammai and Hillel represented
  the theological teaching in the time of Christ and His Apostles, it
  follows that the doctrine of Eternal Punishment was that held in the
  days of our Lord, however it may afterwards have been modified... The
  doctrine of the Eternity of Punishments seems to have been held by the
  Synagogue throughout the whole first century of our era." (1)

This is confirmed in "Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades" as in "The Works of Josephus" translated by William Whiston, 1980, page 637:

  "Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous
  are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is... a
  subterraneous region... angels are appointed as guardians to [souls]
  who distribute to them temporary punishments."(2)

Then it goes on to describe another part called "the Bosom of Abraham" with a chaos, deep and large, fixed between it and the place of darkness. Souls are in either one part, or the other, awaiting the resurrection of all men from the dead.

Thus, when we read what Jesus said about what happened to the rich man who died, and to Lazarus (the poor beggar), it all makes perfect sense. Jesus was speaking to their beliefs about punishment after physical death, or to bliss in the Bosom of Abraham! Jesus did not say those beliefs were wrong. He went right along with them and taught his listeners the gravity of loving money and the need to believe God's word.

This is not about Abraham being 'ruler' of the place, nor about prayer to him, for he speaks of no longer being on Earth, in the flesh. The rich man speaks to Abraham as is done in another realm, a spiritual realm. Jesus is conveying a revelation about something we can have no knowledge of apart from divine revelation. Jesus uses words we know to teach us about something we have no knowledge of. We have to go beyond mere words to be taught by the Master about what awaits us - either a 'holding place' for those who will enter into the joy of their Master, or a place of torment for those who will never know the joy of the Master - Jesus. If we do not focus on Jesus as the Son of God who died to deliver repentant sinners from the torments of hell, we will miss the point, and miss the bliss of entering into the joy of the Master, the risen Christ.

(1)http://www.ccel.org/ccel/e

http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Josephus%27%20Discourse%20to%20the%20Greeks%20Concerning%20Hades


Issue comprehending Genesis and the Great Flood

Young earth creationists do indeed believe that Adam and Eve's children would have paired up to reproduce. They do not believe that this would have caused deformed offspring because  at that time their DNA was in a relatively good state. YECs believe that genetic decay is a consequence of the fall. Even if each of Adam and Eve's children had a hundred new mutations, they would have each had different ones. Many of the genetic deformities we know today require both parents to have the mutation, so the first generation would have been mostly safe. As long as that generation's children didn't breed exclusively with their own siblings, their mutations would also not match their partners'.

YECs generally assume that Adam and Eve remained fertile for quite some time, with sons like Seth being born after 100 years, and presumably more even later than that. This means that the children of Adam and Eve who married each other may not have been raised together; many could have even been virtual strangers before pairing up. The Westermarck effect thus could have remained in place, and technical incest could have occurred without the social problems that we associate with it now.

As to the nations and 'racial' appearances after the flood, well YECs believe that the Tower of Babel story provides the answer. After the languages were confused the peoples of the world would have spread out, with smaller ones fleeing faster and further in order to escape the chaos and conflict. The larger groups probably remained closer, and would have had more people knowledgable with each technological advance, so that the "cradles" of civilisation we see are centred around Mesopotamia, while nations further away seemed more primitive. As groups spread out, their gene pools shrink, and certain characteristics get emphasised in each. One of the most obvious traits, skin colour, would be caused by the sun: near the equator those with light skin would have died more from skin cancer, while those near the poles with dark skin would have suffered from rickets and other vitamin D deficiencies. Natural selection would thus select the most advantageous skin colour for the climate.


From a Catholic perspective: The primary standard translation of the Bible used by Catholics in the United States is the New American Bible, Revised Edition, which is available on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The translation of Matt. 24:15 reads:

“When you see the desolating abomination spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

There is a footnote to the words "desolating abomination", which reads:

The desolating abomination: in 167 B.C. the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the temple by setting up in it a statue of Zeus Olympios (see 1 Mc 1:54). That event is referred to in Dn 12:11 LXX as the “desolating abomination” (NAB “horrible abomination”) and the same Greek term is used here; cf. also Dn 9:27; 11:31. Although the desecration had taken place before Daniel was written, it is presented there as a future event, and Matthew sees that “prophecy” fulfilled in the desecration of the temple by the Romans. In the holy place: the temple; more precise than Mark’s where he should not (Mk 13:14). Let the reader understand: this parenthetical remark, taken from Mk 13:14 invites the reader to realize the meaning of Daniel’s "prophecy."

Thus, the standard Catholic interpretation is that "the desolating abomination" ("the abomination of desolation" in the translation you use) is used by Jesus to speak of the desecration and destruction of the temple. Luke (21:20) has a similar idea:

When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is at hand.

I'd also be interested in seeing answers from other Christian perspectives.


Are politicians who are integral to passing pro-abortion laws automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church?

Excommunication is not exactly the same as recognizing grave matter.   Excommunications can't simply be overturned by going to confession.  A politician who votes for evil laws, like expanding people's rights to kill babies, may in some people's eyes be accomplices to abortion, but the particular sin they're culpable for before the congregation is scandal.

Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
CCC 2284

That Catechism passage had the word "grave" in it twice, which means it is very bad. It's the thing that Jesus said you'd be better off at the bottom of a lake than doing.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."
CCC 2286

So, not to let anyone off the hook, creating conditions where people want abortions is bad too.

However, to answer your question, it is not excommunication to be guilty of grave matter, but it is scandal upon scandal to allow people who are guilty of something like this to present themselves for communion.
And, for the record, at least one priest has denied Joe Biden, communion. The episcopacy just hasn't been using excommunication as a tool to tell people how to vote. I'd imagine they have reasons and I can only hope that they're being guided by the Holy Spirit.

In 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Church’s doctrinal office, wrote a memorandum to the U.S. Catholic bishops, explaining the application of canon 915 to the question of pro-choice politicians.

The case of a Catholic politician who is “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” would constitute “formal cooperation” in grave sin that is “manifest,” the letter explained.

In such cases, “his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist,” Ratzinger wrote.

If the individual perseveres in grave sin and still presents himself for Holy Communion, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”

CNA News - Analysis: Will anything change on pro-choice politicians and holy communion?

But in the end, the US Bishops said each diocese is going to decide how to approach it.
Bishop Strickland in Texas would be on the side of the communion deniers but he might have it easy since the number of notable pro-choice Catholic politicians in the diocese of 55,000 people is pretty small.


Does God feel and appreciate the resiliency of our suffering?

To experience suffering is to configure one's self to / with Christ

  ... already in the act of Baptism, which brings about a configuration with Christ, and then through his Sacrifice...the Church is continually being built up spiritually as the Body of Christ. In this Body, Christ wishes to be united with every individual, and in a special way he is united with those who suffer.  (Salvifici Doloris, 24)

While this answer begins with what I was taught by a Catholic deacon some years ago, on a more biblical basis you will find in Collosians a complete embracing of suffering

1 Collosians 23, 24,

  Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,

One of the themes that the Catholics teach is that our suffering configures us with Christ, who suffered on the Cross for all of our sins.  There is an extended meditation here in Salvifici Doloris covering the Christian meaning of human suffering.  Pope St. John Paul II observes that

  ... we recall the truth expressed in the Encyclical Redemptor
  Hominis: in Christ "every man becomes the way for the Church." It can
  be said that man in a special fashion becomes the way for the Church
  when suffering enters his life. This happens, as we know, at different
  moments in life, it takes place in different ways, it assumes
  different dimensions; nevertheless, in whatever form, suffering seems
  to be, and is, almost inseparable from man's earthly existence.

That's one take of many on the topic of suffering.

You ask "does God feel and appreciate the resiliency of our suffering?"

I answer: Yes.   God is with us always.

John 14: 16- 17 (NAB)

  And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to
  be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot
  accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because
  it remains with you, and will be in you.

Under the basis of the trinitarian Godhead, the Son felt mankind's suffering on the Cross. Because the Father and the Son are one -
John 10: 30

  The Father and I are one."

... God knows what Jesus feels, what Jesus felt.

What about appreciating the resiliency of our suffering?

The Holy Spirit is sent to us from God to be with us always(see above). Beyond God knowing of our suffering (God knows all) and appreciating our suffering (through the person of Christ and the Cross) the appreciation by God of our suffering is a Christian belief that goes back to the early church; the original Saints were martyrs for Christ.

This Christian belief, that the saints of the early church, most of whom were Martyrs for the Church (just as Christ was martyred for all of us) and thereby earned the reward of Heaven shows but one example of God appreciating the suffering of individuals.  (There have been entire books written on this topic).

From a contemporary Christian point of view ...

... the answer remains Yes.  There is a well known poem: Footprints in the Sand by Margaret Fishback Powers

  “One night I dreamed a dream. As I was walking along the beach with my
  Lord. Across the dark sky flashed scenes from my life. For each scene,
  I noticed two sets of footprints in the sand, One belonging to me and
  one to my Lord.

  After the last scene of my life flashed before me, I looked back at
  the footprints in the sand. I noticed that at many times along the
  path of my life, especially at the very lowest and saddest times,
  there was only one set of footprints.

  This really troubled me, so I asked the Lord about it. “Lord, you said
  once I decided to follow you, You’d walk with me all the way. But I
  noticed that during the saddest and most troublesome times of my life,
  there was only one set of footprints. I don’t understand why, when I
  needed You the most, You would leave me.”

  He whispered, “My precious child, I love you and will never leave you
  Never, ever, during your trials and testings. When you saw only one
  set of footprints, It was then that I carried you.”

The message here is clear: the personal connection with Christ, who cares for us regardless of our condition, and is another perspective on how God will be with us always.   He doesn't just appreciate our suffering, He's there to help when we suffer.  That message is pretty clear across multiple Christian denominations.

Another excerpt from that extended meditation on suffering

  The Redeemer suffered in place of man and for man. Every man has his
  own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that
  suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished. He is called
  to share in that suffering through which all human suffering has also
  been redeemed. In bringing about the Redemption through suffering,
  Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption.
  Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the
  redemptive suffering of Christ.


What was the nature of the miracle experienced by Zacharias & Elizabeth?

so that (sic) here are my stupid questions.
The only stupid questions are the ones one hasn't asked or is afraid to ask, etc.

Q1. When someone is called "barren" due to advanced age, does it mean that she is known to be menopausal?

The pertinent verse is [b]ut they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. [cf. Lk 1:7 (RSVCE)].

Elizabeth was barren and advanced in age (scripture does not say whether she was menopausal or not but  advanced in age may be indicative of it).

Perhaps both are mentioned to show how remarkable the miracle of John's conception was.

Q2. Does the above telling by the angel suggest due physical efforts from Zacharias? or does it suggest that the pregnancy shall be by the Holy Spirit or something else?

Pertinent verses are [a]nd when his time of service was ended, he went to his home. After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived [cf.Lk 1:23-24 (RSVCE)], therefore it seems after Zechari′ah and Elizabeth had marital relations with God intervening because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in age.

The reason I am asking the above ones is to figure out what part of the story is considered a miracle. After the Annunciation, I imagine Mary talking about the Annunciation with Elizabeth enthusiastically because Elizabeth will understand Mary thanks to her own "impossible" experience. But unfortunately, I am not sure about the impossible part of the above story. Just can't imagine what Elizabeth experienced through.

The difference between Mary and Zechari′ah is that Mary believed the angel's message and only inquired how it would be accomplished since she was a virgin and from her words, since her marriage with Joseph was virginal (she knew how babies are ordinarily made). Hence Elizabeth's praise, '[a]nd blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.' [cf. Lk 1:45 (RSVCE)].

By constrast, Zechari′ah doubted the angel's words because even though the angel foretold the birth of John the Baptist, he couldn't see how this was possible since he reasoned that [he was] an old man, and [his] my wife was advanced in years. [cf. Lk 1:18 (RSVCE)]. He wanted proof:  'How shall I know this?'

Please see also: Did Mary have other children?.


What is the historical origin of this hat [image] - worn by Pope Ratzinger

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (formerly known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) is depicted above wearing what is known as a "cappello romano," which is Italian for "Roman hat."

It does not originate from papal attire, but was simply a fashionable hat worn by 17th century clergy.

From wikipedia:

  A cappello romano (literally Roman hat in Italian) or saturno (because
  its appearance is reminiscent of the ringed planet Saturn) is a hat
  with a wide, circular brim and a rounded crown worn outdoors in some
  countries by Catholic clergy, when dressed in a cassock. It is made of
  either beaver fur or felt, and lined in white silk. Unlike many other
  articles of ecclesiastical attire, it serves no ceremonial purpose,
  being primarily a practical item.  The cappello romano is not used in
  liturgical services. Since the general abandonment of the cassock as
  street dress, it is uncommon even in Rome today, though it was quite
  popular there and in some other countries with a Catholic majority
  population from the 17th century until around 1970.

  There are some, mostly minor, differences in the designs of cappelli,
  depending on the rank of the wearer. The pope wears a red cappello
  with gold cords. Cardinals formerly also had the privilege of wearing
  a red cappello, but this rule was overturned by Paul VI, and now
  Cardinals' cappelli are black, as are those of all other clerics.


Matthew 27:3 says that the impetus for Judas' suicide was seeing him be condemned, rather than seeing him being executed or anything else. Jesus' interactions with Pilate, including the possibility of his being freed, are narrated afterwards. Although the gospels do jump forwards and back in time, I take the explicit description of Judas' remorse being because Jesus was condemned as a clear indication that he killed himself before Jesus was executed.

1 Corinthians 15:5 uses the phrase "The Twelve" which was a title for the twelve apostles, and the title was used somewhat regardless of how many of them were still alive. We can see this most clearly by reading the very previous phrase!

While Judas may have been replaced by Matthias, Peter never was, and so although he is distinguished from the other twelve apostles in 1 Corinthians 15:5, that doesn't stop Paul from using the natural title The Twelve for the others.


In LDS doctrine, what is the difference between the Holy Ghost and the Light of Christ?

Short Answer
The Holy Ghost and the Light of Christ are closely related and are often used interchangeably, even in scripture. But there are a few important differences.
The Holy Ghost, in contrast with the Light of Christ:

Is a personage.
Directs and prompts us in specific ways according to God's will.
Can work through the Light of Christ.
Is available to everyone, but is not always present to everyone. His influence is only felt when certain conditions are met.

The Light of Christ, on the other hand:

Is an influence, an essence, or a substance that infuses the universe and emanates from the goodness of Christ.
Gives us a sense of what is right and what is wrong, and influences us to do right and avoid wrong.
Can be ignited in us by the Holy Ghost.
Is always present in all of us, but becomes more difficult to perceive as we act against its influence.

Long Answer
President Boyd K Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the LDS Church gave a discourse that explores the light of Christ and contrasts it with the Holy Ghost. He gives a better and more authoritative explanation than I can. Here are some especially relevant excerpts:

Most members of the Church have a basic understanding of the Holy Ghost. Most have experienced its promptings and understand why the Holy Ghost is called the Comforter.
They know “the Holy Ghost … is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22) and a member of the Godhead (see A of F 1:1).
But many do not know that there is another Spirit—“the light of Christ” (D&C 88:7)—another source of inspiration, which each of us possesses in common with all other members of the human family....
The Holy Ghost and the Light of Christ are different from each other. While they are sometimes described in the scriptures with the same words, they are two different and distinct entities. It is important for you to know about both of them....
The Light of Christ is defined in the scriptures as “the Spirit [which] giveth light to every man that cometh into the world” (D&C 84:46); “the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed” (D&C 88:13; see also John 1:4–9; D&C 84:45–47; D&C 88:6; D&C 93:9).
And the Light of Christ is also described in the scriptures as “the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (D&C 84:45), “the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18; see also Mosiah 25:24), “the Spirit of truth” (D&C 93:26), “the light of truth” (D&C 88:6), “the Spirit of God” (D&C 46:17), and “the Holy Spirit” (D&C 45:57). Some of these terms are also used to refer to the Holy Ghost....
Regardless of whether this inner light, this knowledge of right and wrong, is called the Light of Christ, moral sense, or conscience, it can direct us to moderate our actions—unless, that is, we subdue it or silence it....
The Light of Christ existed in you before you were born (see D&C 93:23, 29–30), and it will be with you every moment that you live and will not perish when the mortal part of you has turned to dust. It is ever there....
It is important...to know that the Holy Ghost can work through the Light of Christ. A teacher of gospel truths is not planting something foreign or even new into [the learner]. Rather, the missionary or teacher is making contact with the Spirit of Christ already there. The gospel will have a familiar “ring” to them. Then the teaching will come “to the convincing of [those who will listen] that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations” (Book of Mormon title page)....
President Joseph Fielding Smith spoke of the teachings of the Holy Ghost and of the Spirit of Christ: “Every man can receive a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, even when he is out of the Church, if he is earnestly seeking for the light and for the truth. The Holy Ghost will come and give the man the testimony he is seeking, and then withdraw; and the man does not have a claim upon another visit or constant visits and manifestations from him. He may have the constant guidance of that other Spirit, the Spirit of Christ.”
The Spirit of Christ is always there. It never leaves. It cannot leave.
Everyone everywhere already has the Spirit of Christ, and while the Spirit of the Holy Ghost can visit anyone, the gift of the Holy Ghost is obtained “by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel” (A of F 1:3), by submitting to “baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; [and the] laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost” (A of F 1:4). It is not automatically present like the Spirit of Christ is present. This gift must be conferred by one holding authority (see A of F 1:5)....
Once a person has received that gift of the Holy Ghost and can cultivate it together with the Light of Christ, which they already have, then the fulness of the gospel is open to their understanding. The Holy Ghost can even work through the Light of Christ....
[W]hy should we marvel at the promise that the Light of Christ is in all of us and that the Holy Ghost can visit any of us?
It should not be difficult, therefore, to understand how revelation from God to His children on earth can come to all mankind through both the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Ghost....
[T]he Light of Christ can be ignited by the Spirit of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter. We are told that then “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” (John 14:26).


Why Many Who Believe That “All Are Born Sinful” Hold That “None Are Born Gay Or Trans”?

I can only speak from a UK context, where there isn't a Christian right like there is in the US. But I think the way the church has handled issues of sexuality is similar. In the last 10-20 years, the church here has come a long way in understanding sexuality. Organisations such as Living Out have been set up within the past few years, helping people to put the pieces of the Bible together.
Unfortunately, I think many in previous years held to traditional Christian ethical beliefs without really holding to other fundamental Christian beliefs (e.g. total depravity) - the morality became divorced from the theology. What you ended up with was a kind of Pharisaism where sexual sin such as this was seen as particularly bad. It was much more common in the mid-20th century to see homosexuality as something that was chosen, and many church leaders have simply inherited this view without thinking through how it fits with theology.
This is why, for example, in Tim Keller's review of Matthew Vines' book, he says:

And when I see people discarding their older beliefs that homosexuality is sinful after engaging with loving, wise, gay people, I’m inclined to agree that those earlier views were likely defective. In fact, they must have been essentially a form of bigotry. [My emphasis] They could not have been based on theological or ethical principles, or on an understanding of historical biblical teaching. They must have been grounded instead on a stereotype of gay people as worse sinners than others (which is itself a shallow theology of sin.) So I say good riddance to bigotry. However, the reality of bigotry cannot itself prove that the Bible never forbids homosexuality. We have to look to the text to determine that.

I think this is what has happened over the past 10-20 years. Many organisations and churches who own the name "Christian" have been shown that, although they may claim to hold to views such as total depravity, do not think it through when it comes to issues of morality.
I should add that I think this is a sensitive and complex area because different people have different views. For example, in the UK, the Core Issues Trust do not describe what they do as conversion therapy, but they believe that it is sometimes possible for someone to undergo change in their attraction. And having a strong view of sin (e.g. total depravity) I don't think is totally incompatible with believing that aspects of our desires, including sexuality, are a choice. But I don't think that's exactly what you were asking!


Did Martin Luther think John Calvin is a "son of the devil"?

I cannot find a reference that he did, but it's possible he may have on a specific issue. From my research there is no evidence that he every called Calvin "the son of the Devil" and in fact those are Calvin's words, not Luther's.

Let's get some facts.

Calvin and Luther were contemporaries, both living in Europe during the early to mid 1500s. However, Luther was born in the 1480s and Calvin was born in 1509. Also, while both men were fluent in Latin, each wrote the majority of their works in their native tongues. Calvin in French, Luther in German.

However, it seems, while they had significant theological differences in many areas. Luther appreciated Calvin and Calvin appreciated Luther.

  Luther and Calvin appreciated each other's work. In a letter to Bucer in Strasbourg in 1539, Luther sent his regards to Calvin. He mentioned that he had learned of a few of Calvin's writings. The Institutes was probably one of them. It is true that in many respects there is no difference between Calvin's ideas and that of Luther's, but it is not true that he is only a duplicate of Luther. Calvin had Luther as a starting point, and without difficulty, he remained loyal to his great predecessor. But at the same time, he also surpassed him, especially in his view of the Lord's Supper and church organization. In the history of church and culture, he has an independent place next to Luther. (1)

I think I may (however) have found the source of the quotation you refer to. These were not Luther's words, but Calvin's own:

  Often have I been wont to declare, that even though he were to call me a devil, I should still not the less esteem and acknowledge him as an illustrious servant of God. (2)

This was a discussion of Luther's possible reaction to Calvin's views on the Lords Supper which were a marked contrast both from Rome's view but also Luther's. This was an acknowledgement both to how indebted he felt to Luther, and his strength of will that he was willing to disagree with Luther and potentially face his notorious wrath.

Likely this fear was motivated by the heated debates between Luther and Zwingli over the presence of Christ in communion.

  At several points the debate was harsh and acrimonious. At other points the parties appeared to seek each other’s forgiveness for namecalling and for their breakdown of charity. (3)

There is little (if any) evidence that Luther ever addressed Calvin's position on the Lord's Supper specifically. However, due to the debates with Zwingli and Calvin's acknowledgement that his position was more similar to Zwingli's than Luther's he recognized that he certainly put himself in position to be the target of heated name calling or other insults from Luther.

Sources:

(1) Martin Luther and John Calvin
(2) Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VII, p. 661.
(3) The Relation Between the Lutheran and Calvin Reformation
(4) Zwingli and Luther: The Giant vs. Hercules


Is there any tradition that informs us of how old Mary was when she gave birth to Jesus?

She was probably between 13 and 14 years old according to the Catholic Encyclopedia in the section entitled "Mary's pregnancy becomes known to Joseph":

  From the age at which Hebrew maidens became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. No historical document tells us how old she actually was at the time of the Nativity.


What are some of the reasons for which Catholics are against gender-neutral secular marriage?

Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on marriage, Arcanum §23, gives a succinct answer to your question:23. Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon—the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded.His argument is, in a nutshell, that the Church has jurisdiction over marriage, not the State, because marriage is sacred and that is the realm of the Church. In other words: there is no such thing (at least for the baptized) as secular marriage divorced from sacramental marriage. Just because the State benefits from marriage, this does not mean it has lawful authority over it.

Also, to call marriage what is not marriage is contrary to objective truth and the Catholic understanding of human law as flowing from and being in-line with natural law and divine law. "The Canonical Nullity of the Marriage Process as the Search for the Truth" by Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke (the last article of the anti-Kasper Remaining in the Truth of Christ) says:Regarding law, in general, there has developed the notion that the law has no relation to objective truth but is constituted by whatever man, usually the judge, decides. Such a theory was proposed in my homeland, the United States of America, already in 1897 by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. [The Path of Law and the Common Law pp. 1-29]


When were the Hades and the lake of fire created?

The Bible gives us no information as to when Hell and the lake of fire were or possibly when the lake of fire will be created.
Hell is first mentioned in:
Deuteronomy 32:22  KJV

For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

and the lake of fire is first mentioned in:
Revelation 19:20  KJV

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

From what I can determine from my study is that Hell existed prior to Deuteronomy 32:22, but as for the Lake of fire there is a possibility that it does not yet exist and may be created just prior to the great white throne judgment since:
Rev 20:10 and 11 KJV

10  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11  And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

The lake of fire most probably does not now exist and will most likely be created as a permanent place for punishment of Satan and the fallen Angels:
Matthew 25:41  KJV

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


Is the Pope the Antichrist or the spirit of the Antichrist?

If I say 'B is that A' it does not exclude the possibility of also saying 'C is that A'.

That the Savoy Declaration (and others that followed it) states the Pope of Rome as being 'Antichrist' does not mean that the authors meant to exclusively define 'Antichrist' to mean 'Pope of Rome'. They were locating what, to them (as Reformers), was the prime example of what they considered to be 'antichrist' in their own experience and in their own times.
The wording is quite precise :

... is that antichrist.

The very definition of the word 'antichrist' (according to the meaning of the Greek prefix 'anti' see Strong 473) is that it is in opposition to  Christ.
It is any form of religion that, rising up in an organised manner, globally, competes with Christ, as the King of Kings, reigning (by divine and angelic power) from the throne of God in heaven and competes with Christ, as the Head of the Church, reigning (in Spirit) over the Body of Christ gathered on earth.
To say, in English, 'that' antichrist does not mean it is 'the' antichrist.
The demonstrative pronoun 'that' does not have the power of the definite article 'the', in English, or in other languages. It locates something as being an example of a concept. It does not define that which is located as being the only example of the concept.
I may point to my pet, if I am displeased with its lack of loyalty to me, and say 'that Judas' meaning it has betrayed me in some fashion. But I am by no means asserting that my pet is the only representation on earth, presently, which bears treacherous characteristics.
I believe the wording of the Savoy Declaration (and its followers) is quite precise and demonstrates your alternative in your question 'an antichrist'.


What bible courses do men take in seminary before becoming an ordained priest?

I am sure it will vary from seminary to seminary.

The Seminary of Christ the King for example teaches at the high school, college and university levels. It is the smallest university in Canada.

Having been a former seminary student here, I could add that depending on the year in question, other electives may be offered in any one academic year. For example if several Ukrainian students were to enter at once, the seminary would include studies in Ukrainian and so on.

It is the only high school seminary in Canada. Here are their high school courses:

  High School Curriculum

  We offer a regular academic high school curriculum:

  English
  Math
  Science
  Social Studies
  Latin
  Religion

  All students are required to take:

  French
  Choral
  Drama
  Band
  Physical Education

Their Faculty of Arts or their Pre-Theology Program includes the following:

  Academic Program
  The concentration is on Philosophy, with a minimum of 18 semester hours. Other courses from the Faculty of Arts are taken, depending on the individual’s needs and interests. A student is expected to carry not fewer than 15 or more than 19 semester hours per semester. No degree or diploma is awarded, but the student will have fulfilled the academic requirements for the Seminary’s Faculty of Theology programs.

  Courses of Instruction

  Philosophy
  History
  Biology
  Education
  English
  Fine Arts
  Geology
  Greek
  Latin
  Religious Studies
  Social Sciences
  Speech – Drama

Their Faculty of Theology or The M.Div. and B.Th. Programs

  As the Seminary accepts only priesthood candidates, it can readily carry out the directive of the Holy See’s Basic Plan for Priestly Formation (#94) that “the pastoral aspect must receive special emphasis in all the subjects which are taught.” During the four-year programme students regularly earn between 120 and 132 semester hours of credit. The curriculum normally includes:

  Sacred Scripture: 24 semester hours
  Dogmatic Theology: 24 semester hours
  Moral Theology: 24 semester hours
  Church History and Patrology: 12 semester hours
  Canon Law: 8 semester hours
  Pastoral and Liturgical courses: 30 to 42 semester hours

  Courses of Instruction

  Sacred Scripture
  Dogmatic Theology
  Moral Theology
  Church History
  Canon Law
  Pastoral and Liturgical Courses

Their Sacred Scripture academic program is as follows:

  SCRI 510

  (3) INTRODUCTION TO THE BIBLE. Inspiration; canon; texts; versions; basic rules of interpretation; biblical geography; Church pronouncements.

  SCRI 511

  (3) WISDOM LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Non-biblical parallels; place of wisdom literature in the development of biblical theology; selected exegesis.

  SCRI 512

  (2-6) THE PSALMS. Literary forms of the Psalms; their place in Hebrew and Christian prayer; exegesis of typical psalms in view of their use in worship.

  SCRI 520

  (3) THE PENTATEUCH. God’s revelation of himself through creation and covenant; the centrality of Exodus in Old Testament history; the concept of People of God and worship by word and sacrifice.

  SCRI 521

  (3) THE FOUR GOSPELS. The Gospels as records of history and faith written by believers for believers; three stages of evolution of the Gospels; the evangelists as theologians; the Synoptics and St John.

  SCRI 530

  (3) OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETICAL BOOKS. Nature of prophecy; the call of a prophet and the difficulty of his vocation; introduction to the individual prophets and selected exegesis.

  SCRI 531

  (3) OLD TESTAMENT HISTORICAL BOOKS. History of salvation from Joshua to the Maccabees; biblical historical forms; king and priests as God’s anointed; Jerusalem.

  SCRI 540

  (3) THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. As portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles; kerygmatic speeches of Peter and Paul; portrait of St Paul.

  SCRI 541

  (3) NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES. Pauline and Catholic Epistles; selected exegesis; justification in St Paul.

  SCRI 590

  (3-6) HONOURS TUTORIAL. In-depth study of an aspect of Sacred Scripture; graduating essay.

The Seminary of Christ the King also has a Spirituality Year or SY Formation Program in place. It is a non-academic program to help develop a Catholic priestly spirituality for students desiring to become priests.

  In the fall of 2018, the Seminary of Christ the King began its Spirituality Year Program (sometimes referred to as a propaedeutic period) for all candidates who enter the seminary. The purpose of the Spirituality Year is to help seminarians “form a priestly heart” in the atmosphere of a Christian community. This involves acquiring a solid foundation for their faith, a habit of prayer, and a deep personal love for the Word of God.  This time of formation (September to May) also prepares candidates to embrace their Christian/priestly vocation with greater freedom of heart. As she states in her most recent guidelines for the training of future priests (2016), the Church now considers programs like the Spirituality Year to be a regular part of seminary formation.

  Meditative Study

  The approach of the program is non-academic and experiential, that is to say, courses are not for credit. It is hoped that, without the pressure of academic performance, seminarians can more easily integrate the readings and discussions into a lived way of discipleship. Classes include: Scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, priestly spirituality, and the liturgy. Presentations on selected formational topics also occur regularly.
  It is expected that the candidates will read the whole Catechism and a major portion of the Bible during their year, be instructed briefly in the spirituality of all the major liturgical feasts and read selected Magisterial and Conciliar documents as well as a few important Catholic spiritual classics.


From the CSI website comes the following (from the drop-down menu "About Us"):

The Church of South India is the result of the union of churches of varying traditions Anglican, Methodist, Congregational, Presbyterian, and Reformed. It was inaugurated in September 1947, after protracted negotiation among the churches concerned. Organized into 24 dioceses, each under the spiritual supervision of a bishop, the church as a whole is governed by a synod, which elects a moderator (presiding bishop) every 2 years. Episcopacy is thus combined with Synodical government, and the church explicitly recognizes that Episcopal, Presbyterian, and congregational elements are all necessary for the church's life. The Scriptures are the ultimate standard of faith and practice. The historic creeds are accepted as interpreting the biblical faith, and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are recognized as of binding obligation.

Based on this excerpt from CSI's website, I'd say you would be safe in visiting churches with the following words in their names:

Anglican

Methodist

Congregational

Presbyterian

Reformed

From the CSI's statement of faith, as quoted by gracelightcity:

“. . . the Scriptures are the ultimate standard of faith and practice. The historic creeds are accepted as interpreting the biblical faith, and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are recognized as of binding obligation.”

Given the Church of South India's emphasis on the Word of God being
the final word in both faith and practice, I'd stick with churches which have a similar commitment to the Bible.
That you are "struggling to find the right church" is a good sign. I recommend you pick out a church with one of the five key words in it (as listed above) and see if that church has a website to which you can go for further information. Does something you read about a given church resonate strongly within you? If so, visit that church. See if you feel comfortable there. Ask yourself if the church members there make you feel welcomed, accepted, and loved. If so, perhaps the Holy Spirit is indicating that that church is for you. If not, try another church.
In conclusion, the matter of choosing a church to be your home church is very important. Church "shopping" can sometimes be a daunting task, but the criteria for choosing should be pretty much the same for any Christian. More specifically, the church you choose to be your home church should be a place where you are fed spiritually, experience true fellowship in the Holy Spirit, and are "put to work" in a ministry in which your spiritual gift-mix can be used to edify that local assembly of believers and bring glory to God.
I wish you well in the process!


What does one do when morality and honor conflicts with solidarity?

Honor is not a particularly Christian virtue. It is mentioned biblically, but not nearly as often as other virtues we are expected to follow, particularly the most important one, Love. You haven't defined honor particularly clearly, but where your definition conflicts with Love,  a Christian should be loving rather than honorable.

As for solidarity with friends and relatives, the Bible (the New Testament) explicitly says  it is forbidden to favour your friends and relatives over other people. While there are certainly commands to honor those close to you ("Honor your father and mother") that does not imply that you should take their side just because they are related to you. "Honor" is not the same as the unthinking solidarity you seem to be talking about. If your father or mother do something terrible you are not expected to shield them from justice. Matthew 5:43-47:

  You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


If Catholics have to be open to new life how can they practice Natural Family Planning?

This sounds like a great question to ask on Catholic Culture but since that's not up, I'll give it a shot here.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
Bl. Pope Paul VI Humane Vitae p16

So, you've got good cause to be concerned.  However, I don't think one ought to level a blanket judgement on any couples motives for using NFP until one gets to know them!  And in getting to know them one can suggest a deep-dive reading into the purpose of the marital act as unitive and procreative.  If at that point you want to "council the ignorant" then, by all means go for it, you'll probably get a better reaction than if they used other forms of contraception!
Dr. Janet Smith says in Contraception Why Not that it is the conversation that couples have each time they make love which makes NFP different.  The conversation around love making and the openness to children each time makes a world of difference. The conversation can include reasons you don't want to have kids right now, reasons you do want them, differences of opinion.  But there's no inherent barrier to baby making, I think that's openness and living in accord with God's plan for your family.
Then, each act is not a question of whether or not to use a condom, but whether or not it prudent to have a baby. And prudence, oddly enough, is the chief of the Cardinal Virtues.


The Rheims translation says (Vulgate translation and Greek in parentheses):

  Luke 16:8And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely (prudenter, φρονίμως): for the children of this world are wiser (prudentiores, φρονιμώτεροι) in their generation than the children of light.

and

  Matthew 10:16Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise (prudentes, φρόνιμοι) as serpents and simple as doves.

Prudens means "foreseeing, foreknowing", and φρόνιμος means "in one's right mind, in one's senses".

St. Thomas explains this prudence/wisdom in his commentary on Matthew 10:

  Be ye wise. The prudence of a serpent consists in that it always wishes to defend its head. The head is Christ, whom He commands them to serve. Hence: “I have fought a good fight: I have finished my course: I have kept the faith” (II Tim. 4, 7). Likewise, they ought to guard the Head, because it is the principle of the whole (I Cor. 11, 3);23 “With all watchfulness keep thy heart” (Prov. 4, 23). Likewise, there is another prudence of a serpent, that when it grows old, it passes through a narrow hole and sheds its vesture, or skin; so we ourselves ought to do in relation to our manner of living. And the Apostles says: “Stripping yourselves of the old man with his deeds,” etc., (Col. 3, 9). Moreover, we ought to have a serpent’s prudence in preaching, because, as it is stated in Gen. 3, on account of the serpent’s shrewdness, the human race was cast down, because he attacked the weaker sex. Likewise, he showed her a tree. So preachers ought to convert sinners through the most apt means. Similarly, they ought to exhort concerning the tree of the Cross, so that just as the devil derived benefit from a tree for an evil end, so these men ought to derive benefit from the tree of the Cross for a good end.


Is "formal schismatic" a useful category in practice?

Your Wikipedia article explains this:

Roman Catholic theology considers formal schismatics to be outside the Church, understanding by "formal schismatics" "persons who, knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism".[8] The situation, for instance, of those who have been brought up from childhood within a group not in full communion with Rome, but who have orthodox faith, is different: these are considered to be imperfectly, though not fully, members of the Church.

It's not that someone knows the Catholic Church is the true Church, but rather that someone knows the true nature of the Church.  For example, if a Catholic refuses to submit to the Pontiff without understanding the Pontiff's role in the Church, he is not a formal schismatic.  If he does understand the Pontiff's role and still refuses to submit, then he is a formal schismatic.  Only in the latter case does he understand the true nature of the Church.
The OP asks, "What's an example of someone who is a formal schismatic?"
See Canon 751 for the definition of schism.  Schism occurs in relation to a specific Church.  If a Catholic leaves the Catholic Church and joins the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, he would be in schism from the first but not the second.  Two simple examples of formal schismatics would be Luther and Calvin:

Thus the schism was well consummated by [Luther and Calvin] before it was solemnly established by the authority which they rejected and transformed by that authority into a just penal sanction.
-Schism, Catholic Encyclopedia


Is Jesus' statement that Satan is the father of the Jews anti-Jewish?

That is exactly not the point he is trying to make. He is trying to say that it's our actions that show whether God or Satan is "our father" in a very figurative sense. He is saying "You are not the righteous just because you descend of Abraham, if you not also behave like that". Reversing that to say Jews are "children of Satan" in general is basically the thing he tries to refute here, in reverse.


Expectation of salvation for the poorly catechized

I believe this concern is explicitly addressed in Lumen Gentium - Chapter 2, paragraph 16:

  Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the  Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

I think we'd only consider an explicit choice to deny God, properly understood (though never fully understood), as a truly damning sin.

Now, we couldn't claim that every atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever is engaged in a sincere quest for truth. But, those that are engaged in sincere truth-seeking (and conformance) are headed in the right direction.

But, this does not relieve our obligation, nor should it relieve our desire, to deliver the truth as we know it, with all due respect -- and tact! It is much easier to lose interest in the quest for truth, or become perverse in that quest, if one is not actually presented with the truth! (in charity)


According to the Westminster Confession, what is the Biblical basis for the belief that the guilt of Adam and Eve was imputed to all mankind?

The closest things we have to an "authoritative" commentary on the Westminster Confession are the two catechisms that were published alongside it.1  Both the Confession and those catechisms have attached to them "scripture proofs" that were appended somewhat hastily after the original writing of the documents, and which are sometimes criticized as being incomplete and/or too simple.
But these are the best we have available with which to answer your question.  On the clause "They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed," the Confession lists the following passages as proofs: Genesis 1:27–28; Genesis 2:16–17; Acts 17:26; Romans 5:12, 15–19; and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45, 49.  Of these, only the Romans and Corinthians passages are relevant to the second half of the phrase.  In the Confession, they read:

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
1 Corinthians 15
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

The verses in italics above (Romans 5:12, 19) are cited in answer 25 of the Larger Catechism, the one that most closely deals with this subject.

Some denominations do have commentaries on the Confession that they regard as authoritative; the RPCNA is one such example.  But the broader body of Reformed theology does not hold that any specific commentator's viewpoint is authoritative, though some are clearly more respected than others.  Commonly cited commentaries include Robert Shaw's (1845) and A. A. Hodge's (1869).