What of Augustine's ecclesiology was rejected in the Reformation?

The ecclesiology of Augustine and the ecclesiology of the Reformers were both very much products of the times they lived in:

In Augustine's case as well as sourcing a basic understanding on ecclesiology from scripture and tradition, any development of his thinking in this area was greatly influenced by the problems the Church had been facing - especially in its dealings with false teachers. When he considered "heretics" and schismatics, it was evident to him that they had wandered into error - their contradictions of the truth guarded by "the one true church" led him to believe that there could be no salvation outside the (visible) Catholic church - to be safeguarded from error, it would be necessary to remain within the fold and consequently submit to the established governing authorities within the visible institution.

The Reformers were faced with an entirely different scenario: In standing for their conviction of what the truth was, they were actually put out of the church. Despite largely agreeing with Augustine on what this truth constituted - especially in respect to soteriology - they found themselves in variance with the authority of the visible established church. This led them to understand that (the Spirit of) Antichrist had not just been in operation within the visible church - leading some into error and becoming heretics and schismatics as in days gone by - but had seized control of the reins as it were - this was a radically different situation. It necessarily generated an ecclesiology that emphasized the invisible nature of the (true) catholic Church organized under Christ's headship against that of a visible human institution lead by men who, while claiming Apostolic succession for their authority, denied this authority through their life conduct and their false doctrine. Consider:

  I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist - Martin Luther

I posit that at least one of the reasons he felt more free is that it helped him clarify his own ecclesiology which in its previous form would have been inadequate to explain the necessity of defending what he saw as essential truth against the attacks of the (visible) Church hierarchy.

Some assert that the distinction between the visible and invisible church is present in The City of God, chapter 35 in particular. I would say that the concept of the (true) Catholic Church being invisible is at best only present in seed form in that passage. It's entirely possible that other doctrines like "the nature of Christ's Church as found in the Bible is one, universal, visible, historical, concrete/locatable/identifiable, hierarchical, sacramental, infallible Church; and as the Creeds state that visible Church is 'One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic';" would completely suppress any such seed growing in to the Reformers' "maturer" version of the doctrine. To what extent Augustine adopted these aspects of (what is now current) Catholic ecclesiology is difficult to determine, but I think in his various arguments against heretics, there is evidence that he had at least enough of these concepts resident in his ecclesiology to prevent the seed from growing to maturity. Furthermore, in Schaff's preface to The City of God, he writes:

  [Augustine] confines the Kingdom of God to the narrow limits of the Jewish theocracy and the visible Catholic Church.

The doctrine Augustine is espousing is basically the implications of the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13) - which the current RC church of course accepts as scripture and is why (though they believe in a salvific nature of baptism) they teach against "assurance of salvation" as evangelicals would understand that phrase. So evidently, accepting the "seed" as true is insufficient for the complete Reformation view to be fully developed - other factors are at play.

It's an interesting hypothetical to ask "what would Augustine do?" given the situation in operation in the 16th century.  We can speculate regarding what he taught regarding his understanding of scripture, tradition and the situation he faced in his day, but the reality is that we just don't know.

Summary: The aspect of Augustine's ecclesiology that promoted an unreflective submission to the authority (teaching and governing) of the visible Church regardless of it's condition (he couldn't conceive that the institution could be corrupted to the extent that ancient Israel had been prior to being carried away into exile) was necessarily rejected by the Reformers as they faced the reality of being put out of the visible church while steadfastly holding to the truth that they saw in scripture. This was the departure point, and the ecclesiology they subsequently developed (although varied in visible forms according to varied interpretions of scripture and reliance on tradition) was based on the understanding of the 'true' catholic Church of Christ being invisible in form.


According to the Catholic Church, could a "Jesus-name" baptism ever be considered a valid baptism?

No, it could not be considered valid in that form.  (Per the current teaching of the church).  Valid baptism (per the Catholic Church) requires use of water and the Trinitarian form.

From the Catechism:

  1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.
  CCC 1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the
  minister's words: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of
  the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In the Eastern liturgies the
  catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: "The servant of
  God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
  the Holy Spirit." At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy
  Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him
  up again.

The shorthand for the above is "use of the Trinitarian form and water."

  CCC 1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all
  Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the
  Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly
  baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the
  Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are
  incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called
  Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the
  children of the Catholic Church. Baptism therefore constitutes the
  sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are
  reborn."

That is a kinder statement than the one from the Council of Trent some centuries ago, which you can find at this link, in a summary from a ruling by The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

  The Council of Trent, confirming this tradition, defined that Baptism
  administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son and the
  Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does
  is true Baptism (cf. DH 1617).

Without all three, and the use of water, the test for validity is not met.

The Code of Canon Law requires that the baptizing official determine whether or not a previous baptism was valid before baptizing someone.  If a person had a valid baptism, a second one will not be administered. (Per the Nicene Creed "I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins ... ").

  (Canon 864)Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized.

Canon Law further states:

  Canon 869 §2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community
  must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the
  matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and
  a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the
  minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity
  of the baptism.

The test of correct matter and form in your question is easily discerned: if it lacks the proper matter and form of water and the Trinity, it does not meet the test of validity in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.

An example mentioned in this question, and included in the previous link shows the detailed treatment given to establish validity or not (example being a Mormon Church).

The conclusion is that the rite/sacrament must meet the test of validity, or it will be held invalid by the Catholic Church:

  Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of
  the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially,
  both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in
  whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the
  relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it
  is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that
  is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by
  the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.


What arguments have been offered as to how Christianity is incompatible with a system of forced collectivism?

Here are some of the reasons I've heard:

In her book Seeking God, Esther de Waal summarizes an aspect of Benedictine (communal) life: the community fundamentally exists for the benefit of the individual, and not the other way around. Yes, the individual contributes to the community, and yes, the individual serves other members of the community, but if these did not serve the purpose of increasing an individual's holiness, there would be no point.

Christians, based on Genesis, consider all people to be made in God's image and thus worthy of certain things for their own sake. The idea of individual dignity seems to be absent from communism - instead the emphasis is on the workers as a group.

I heard a talk from (now Bishop) Robert Barron (can't find the mp3 online anymore unfortunately) where he discusses the Catholic Church's teaching on social justice. He discusses the works Rerum Novarum and Centisimus Annus and in particular he cites this passage from St John Paul:

Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative.

On a related note to the above, it is often pointed out that Christian communities, whether the ones depicted in Acts or later Monastic communities or any other since, while all is held in common, all is held in common with a local community. As an example, there is a sense that a piece of land belongs to a Benedictine monastery specifically and not "Christians in general." (Note that this is one of the things that made the Franciscans shocking at the time - they actually didn't own any property, the Pope "owned" it for them.) In many implementations of communism, however, the state is free to re-allocate resources between groups or regions in order to increase overall utility.

There are probably others, but the above are a few common ones.


How does one reconcile belief in objective moral values with the notion of moral progress?

The idea of Moral Progress is actually less compatible with moral relativism than with absolute morality. The very idea of being "on a trajectory towards a better and better understanding of what the right thing to do is" implies that there is an absolute standard of morality that you can progress towards. Without that there is just "moral change" with no standard by which to judge if any change is "better" or "worse".


What do JW, Evangelicals and Mormons believe about hastening the Return of Jesus?

Jehovah's Witnesses have an interesting perspective on this question because they believe the signs of Christ's presence (Matthew 24:7-14) are already visible.
JWs don't believe we can literally "speed up" the end of this system of things, because the Father already knows when it will be (Matthew 24:36). However, they still pray for God's Kingdom to come. Jesus commanded us to pray for God's Kingdom by including it in the model prayer:

Matthew 6:9-13 (NWT)
9 “You must pray, then, this way:
“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth. 11 Give us today our bread for this day; 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.’

But then, why do JWs pray for God's Kingdom to come? Here's the answer:

Why pray for God’s Kingdom to come?
God’s Kingdom is a heavenly government. Jesus told his followers to pray for it to come because it will restore righteousness and peace to the earth. No human government can completely eliminate violence, injustice, or disease, but God’s Kingdom can and will. God has chosen his Son, Jesus, to be King of the Kingdom. Jehovah has also chosen a group of Jesus’ followers to be associate rulers with Jesus in the Kingdom.—Read Luke 11:2; 22:28-30.
Soon, God’s Kingdom will take action against all opposers of God’s rule. So the prayer for God’s Kingdom to come is a request for God’s government to replace all human governments.—Read Daniel 7:13, 14; Revelation 11:15, 18.
Why will God’s Kingdom benefit people?
Jesus is an ideal King because he is compassionate. As God’s Son, he also has the power to provide help for all who cry to God for aid.—Read Psalm 72:8, 12-14.
God’s Kingdom will benefit all who sincerely pray for it to come and who bring their lives into harmony with God’s will. You will never regret learning what the Bible says about God’s Kingdom.—Read Luke 18:16, 17; John 4:23.


Although our Father in Heaven is all-knowing, That can not, or at least should have any effect on us. If we are trying to change fate, then we must believe that we are destined to end up somewhere we don't want to be. Why not trust that our fate lies in the celestial kingdom and shoot for that? If we think that things are already decided, and that we cannot make it anywhere else, we are only going to end up shooting ourselves in the foot (on the eternal scale) by either getting disappointed and discouraged, angry,  trying to "prove God wrong", or spending to much time worrying about these things instead of going out and doing good.

The Following is a quote from the lds.org website: The Fullness of the Gospel: Agency

  We do not believe in a deterministic God—that is, one who determines in advance the eventual fate of His children. Rather, we believe in a God who has perfect foreknowledge of the choices His children will make. He may use this foreknowledge to guide us or even to warn us, but He does not use it to preempt our agency. He allows us to become what we truly desire to become. As Elder James E. Talmage of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote: “[God] knows what each will do under given conditions, and sees the end from the beginning. His foreknowledge is based on intelligence and reason. He foresees the future as a state which naturally and surely will be; not as one which must be because He has arbitrarily willed that it shall be.”

Thus, we do not need to "prove" anything to God, and although he does know what will happen under certain circumstances, and does not already have planned out exactly what will happen to us. If this were true, then the entire plan of salvation, and our time here on earth would be for nothing, and of no use, because he already knows everything, and we would just be his puppets.

If God indeed knew everything, the we would actually have no agency, meaning that he must have chosen everything. Proof against this viewpoint is the lives of wicked people who live contrary to his will, as a loving God would not choose to destroy some of his children, or doom them to go to a lesser kingdom.

@anonymous -- I hope this all helps, if I have not answered your question, please comment on my post to let me know.


In light of Article of Religion XVII, why is teaching predestination a good thing?

First, note that the 39 Articles are a creation of the English reformation of the Sixteenth century, having been put into their present form in 1563, and while they have the force of Law in the Church of England, they have a lesser authority in other political jurisdictions, and have been controversial since the beginning. There have been articles to which various factions objected from the beginning, and I suspect that there would have been Anglicans from the 1500's who might have objected to the Calvinist tone of Article XVII.

Furthermore, in this consideration, the second paragraph (which was supplied in the original question, and which I have replaced with the entire article) should not be divorced from the first paragraph of the article as the context of the second paragraph depends very greatly on the first paragraph, and in particular the opening of that paragraph: "Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God,..."

Second, the question as posed by the original poster presumes that there is a universal Anglican position on this article. There was not at the time it was written, and there still is not today. One can without much difficulty find Anglican divines and theologians on both sides of the question. While there are undoubtedly some Anglicans who might answer in the affirmative, there are others (Arbishop Tutu comes to mind) who would deny that it is the case, and who would ascribe the moral meltdown of society to other influences.


Does Catholicism or any church father make a connection between Eve and Mary in Genesis 2:18 and John 14:26?

First who are the two famous Church Fathers who teaches that Jesus & Mary was the New Adam & New Eve.

  The two famous Church Father are:

  St.Justin Martyr, who wrote within a couple of generations of the apostles. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. A.D. 150),
  St.Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons in the second century. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation.

  The phrase "New Eve"* or similar expressions occur in the early Church Fathers. Take, for example, Justin Martyr, who wrote within a couple of generations of the apostles. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. A.D. 150), Justin explains that Christ destroyed Satan’s work in the same way evil originally entered the world. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin. Each woman willingly participated in the act they performed. Neither was an unconscious instrument. Eve listened to the serpent and conceived death. Mary listened to the angel Gabriel and conceived life. Justin sees this clearly in Luke 1:38 when Mary says, "Let it be to me according to your word." Thus, for Justin, Christ’s becoming a man involved his Mother’s willing cooperation in undoing the tangled web of sin that Eve introduced.

  One of the greatest defenders of Christian orthodoxy, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons in the second century. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation. He teaches that Christ embodied Adam and all his posterity in order to redeem mankind from sin. Basing his teaching on Paul’s inspired doctrine of Christ as the Last Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), Irenaeus viewed Jesus as reversing the effects of Adam’s sin by bringing the life and righteousness that Adam lost (cf. Rom. 5:17, 18). Irenaeus saw the obvious implication. As Eve cooperated with Adam, the covenant head of humanity, so Mary cooperated with Jesus Christ, the covenant head of the new humanity. Thus Irenaeus says that Eve "by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so also Mary . . . was obedient and became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race" (Against Heresies 3.22.4). Later he says of these two virgins, "Just as the human race was subject to death by a virgin, it was freed by a virgin, with the virginal disobedience balanced by virginal obedience" (ibid., 5.19.1).*

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-can-you-say-that-mary-is-the-new-eve

The Catholic Chruch officially declares Mary as the New Eve in CCC975

  975 "We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ" (Paul VI, CPG § 15).

Now let's examine the role God gave to Eve in the Garden of Eden before the Fall the word "suitable helper or ezer in Hebrew".

In Hebrew, the word for “helper” used in Genesis 2:18 and 20 is ezer (pronounced “ay-zer”), and it is always and only used in the Old Testament in the context of vitally important and powerful acts of rescue and support.[2]
The word ezer is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament.

  Twice it is used in the context of the first woman.

  Three times it is used of people helping (or failing to help) in life-threatening situations.

  Sixteen times it is used in reference to God as a helper.

  Without exception, these biblical texts are talking about a vital, powerful kind of help.

  In Exodus 18:4 it says that Moses named one of his sons Eliezer, which in Hebrew means “My God is my helper” (Eli = “my God”; ezer= “helper”). This verse goes on to explain why Moses named his son Eliezer: because God had powerfully delivered Moses from Pharaoh’s sword!

  The word ezer in Hebrew.

  The letters, reading from right to left, are ayin, zayin, and resh.
  Ezer is pronounced “ay-zer”.

  Ezer describes aspects of God’s character: he is our strength, our rescuer, our protector, and our help!

  And ezer was the Holy Spirit’s choice of word to describe the first woman.

  Eve was someone who would provide valuable and vital strength to Adam.[6]

  The word ezer is qualified by the word kenegdo in both Genesis 2:18 and 20. Kenegdo, often translated as “suitable for him”, gives the meaning that Eve was designed to be a corresponding and equal partner for Adam. There is no sense of subordination stated or implied, or even hinted at, in this passage in Genesis 2.[7]

  Ezer kenegdo—”a helper suitable for him”—is used in reference to the first woman without any narrow qualifications, prescribed limits, or carefully crafted cultural restrictions. In other words, it is not specified anywhere in Genesis 2 how the first woman was to express and apply her help towards her husband but, presumably, it was to alleviate the man’s “alone-ness” and partner with him in their joint commission, given in Genesis 1:28.

file:///C:/Users/Acer/Downloads/A%20Suitable%20Helper%20(in%20Hebrew)%20_%20Marg%20Mowczko.html

Now let us look in the scriptures passages on aspects of God’s character: he is our strength, our rescuer, our protector, and our help!

  I lift up my eyes to the hills – where does my help come from?  My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth.  (Psalm 121:1-2)

Eve role as suitable helper looking at the verses attribute to God are: (defender,helper,shield,support,deliverer,warrior, etc.)

  . With his own hands he defends his cause. (Deuteronomy 33:7)
  help against his foes.”  (Deuteronomy 33:7)
  He is your shield and helper and your glorious sword.  (Deuteronomy 33:29a)
  He send help from the sanctuary and grant you support from Zion (.  Psalm 20:2)
  He is our help and shield.  (Psalm 33:20)
  You are my help and my deliverer…  (Psalm 70:5)
  “I have bestowed strength (ezer) on a warrior; (Psalm 89:17)

Now what can we see the from the scripture passages Eve Role was not a domestic role, Eve was to fight the serpent as She will be the subject of attacks of satan in the Garden of Eden not Adam.

After the Fall of Adam & Eve, which we know that Eve was the first cause, Eve was "beguiled" by the serpent.

Now with the scriptural passages defining the role of Eve as combatant warrior before the fall we can now understand why God the Father said the words on Genesis3:15. "I will put enmity". God is the one who declares war 'Woman/Mary vs.serpent/satan.

Douay-Rheims Bible

  "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." (Genesis3:15)

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Woman in Genesis3:15, so we can see that Mary's role like the New Eve according to Church Fathers is a combatant one.

As St. Jerome Latin Vulgate translation is "She" because God given role to Eve in the Garden of Eden was to fight the serpent.

Now,If Christ is the New Adam and Mary was the New Eve.

Is Jesus praying for the New Eve as the "another helper/advocate" in John14:16 & John14:26 pointed to Mary?

The Three Great Marian Saints testifies and had written books to support the Role of Mary as Advocate,Helper,Comforter etc.

With the Teaching of this Three Great Marian Saints all point to Mary as the Advocate and the Fifth Dogma.

1. St. Alphonsus Liguori
2. St.Louis De Montfort
3. St.Maximillian Kolbe

With the above references, scripture passages and Church Teaching let us ponder this passages from Hosea.

  "You are destroyed, O Israel, because you are against Me, against your helper."  (Hosea 13:9)

From the Church Fathers teaching that Mary was the New and from Catechism of the Catholic Church teaching Mary as the Woman in Genesis3:15 (ProtoEvangelium), and God attributes of "a suitable helper" as a warrior to fight Satan/serpent in the Garden of Eden.

We can say that Mary as the New Eve will take over the Role Eve left behind as the "suitable helper or ezer".

In closing the the word "HELPER" pointing to Mary can be traced it's origin from the Patristic Father.

Patristic origins

  There are two inscriptions of the first centuries of Christianity in Greek related to the Virgin Mary: : θεοτοκος (Teotokos, Theotokos, Mother of God) and βοηθεια (Boetheia, the Helper). The Fathers of the Church referred to Mary as "βοηθεια". John Chrysostom used the title in a homily of 345, Proclus in 476 and Sebas of Caesarea in 532. After the Patristic period (5th century), other persons used it like Romanos the Melodist in 518, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius in 560, John of Damascus in 749 and German of Constantinople in 733.

In the view of Fr. Johann G. Roten, SM, the invocation of Mary as Help of Christians is part of the oldest prayer addressed directly to Mary, the Sub tuum praesidium, which was found on a papyrus dating, at the latest, from the end of the 3rd century. Praesidium is translated as "an assistance given in time of war by fresh troops in a strong manner."1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Help_of_Christians

  Truly, Mary is the "HELP" of all Christians.

Godbless


According to Catholicism, what does the Bible teach about sins of omission?

According to Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 72, a. 6 by St. Thomas Aquinas:

  On the contrary, Omission and commission are found in the same species of sin. For the covetous man both takes what belongs to others, which is a sin of commission; and gives not of his own to whom he should give, which is a sin of omission. Therefore omission and commission do not differ specifically.

Read full 'Whether sins of commission and omission differ specifically?' article here: STh, II-II, q. 72 on newadvent.org

Accordint to Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1853:

  Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. the root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man." (Mt 15, 19-20) But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

CCC, The Different Kinds of Sins on vatican.va
(This is the only paragraph indexed under 'omission' in CCC)

Certainly, there is more on this topic in other documents of the Catholic Church and writings of Church Fathers and Doctors.


What is the argument *for* prosperity gospel?

Some verses the prosperity gospel are built on are:

John 10:10 NIV The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
Philippians 4:19 NIV And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.
3 John 1:2 NIV Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well.

While I believe these all do say that Christ's death does allow us to have good in this life, I don't believe they should be our only focus.  As mentioned in your question, there are many verses which say we will also face adversity.
I also believe that the life and prosperity God wants for us is most likely not the prosperity of riches and glory on this earth that is being offered in this movement.
I do not pay too much attention to those that preach only prosperity, because it often seems dry and lacking to me.  I am just guessing, but I would bet that they avoid the passages you provide.  It just wouldn't make people feel good to know that they might have problems.  And of course, when people don't feel good, then it just causes more problems, so that wouldn't be good, right?


Why doesn't the Bible also say a woman should leave her parents to be united to the husband?

Considering Gen 2:24 from a cultural perspective - meaning the suspected culture in the place and time of Genesis being written - the family unit is patriarchal in nature. The man leaves the protection of his family home and, in turn, becomes the protector of the woman. Although the two never leave from being under God's protection the woman's protection shifts from her birth father to her husband. I'm not sure I like using the word protection here but I'm not sure how to broaden/narrow it. I think it is interesting to notice that there is an equality tacitly entwined, not a master/slave, and this two being one flesh is established prior to any mention of the woman being the child-bearer.

For an easy to read introduction to the patriarchal nature in Genesis, refer to: Arnold and Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament, Baker Academic, 2015, Chapter 5, pages 64-65.


Are Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic allowed to break the host?

The official website of the Vatican seems to be silent on this issue. Nevertheless it may be up to the local ordinary to make special norms for the diocese in question!

The following is taken from Redemptionis Sacramentum of the Vatican:

  [160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.


What is the current relevance of Arianism?

To answer this, one must first define what Arianism is. Any denomination which holds that Jesus Christ is a subordinate entity to God. He is not one with the Father. Christ is not truly divine but a created being can be considered as 'Arian'. In Arius's words, "there was [a time] when he (the Son) was not."

Holy Arian Catholic and Apostolic Church in claims to proclaim Arius's teachings, even "canonizing" him in 2006. However, they differ with several major points. AFAIK this is the only known church to explicitly call themselves as Arian.

The Jehovah's Witnesses is often accused of being Arian. JWs even regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of their movement. But they do not call themselves Arian.src The main difference is that they claim that the "Archangel Michael transformed into human Jesus, then after dying transformed back to Archangel Michael again" teaching. That is not in with the historic Arian doctrine.

Some sects like Unitarianism, Mormonism (Latter Day Saint movement), Iglesia ni Cristo etc., hold a form of Arianism, but they all differ with each other and with traditional Arianism in many doctrinal issues.

No remnant of any of the Arian sects established in early days is known to exist today.


What is the Testament of Hezekiah? I know it exists, but I can't locate it

After a bit more research, I found reference to the "Testament of Hezekiah." It appears, that it a component of the larger pseudegraphical text, "Ascension of Isaiah." Perhaps why I couldn't find info at first, is that it is smack in the middle of a Jewish text. "The Testament of Hezekiah" is believed to be redacted into the text by later Christians.

Theories for its dates from 1st to 3rd centuries CE. It may actually be a compilation of multiple texts that were composed at different times and later compiled together.

The overarching content of the "Ascension of Isaiah" concerns the martyrdom of Isaiah, wherein Isaiah warns King Hezekiah that Manessah (the next in line) will not continue to reign in righteousness. Once Isaiah's prophecy proves to be true, Isaiah and other prophets flee to the deserts for safety. Unfortunately, they are encountered by a false prophet, Belkira (inspired by the infaous demon, Beliar), and charges Isaiah of treason, and Manessah condemns Isaiah to death, which Belkira carries out. (Later, Isaiah ascends into the 7 heavens, etc). This is the "Ascension of Isaiah." These are the sections believed to have Jewish origins (with the parallels of the demon Beliar also being present in the Book of Jubilees, fragments found in Qumran of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. The other proposed Jewish parallel is the method of Isaiah's death -- being sawed in half -- as accounted for in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds).

As for "The Testament of Hezekiah" (and back to the question at hand) -- it is projected into the middle of the "Ascension of Isaiah." This is the blatantly Christian portion of the text as it concerns a vision of Christ's "future" coming, the downfall of the Christian church due to corruption, the dreadful reign of Beliar (the demon), and ultimately the Second Coming. Some scholars think there are clear codes pointing to the persecution of the Church by the Roman emperor, Nero (which early Christians thought was the antichrist).

Anyway, I'm sorry for not finding this info before I posted the question. For those interested (if any) in this Jewish-Christian hybrid text, the information was located in James H. Charlesworth's "Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" (Hendrickson Publishers, 2010).


What is the biblical basis for praying to the Holy Spirit?
There is no clear biblical basis for praying to the Holy Spirit. Christians the world over do it, but the Scriptures give us no clear examples of it either.
The Trinity shows us that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God together as one. When we pray to any of them, we pray to God. The most important thing to remember is that God desires to be in relationship with us and that requires prayer.
Who are we to pray to as Christians? Are we supposed to pray to Jesus? Or are we supposed to pray to the Father? What about the Holy Spirit? Can we pray to the Holy Spirit?
The most prominent pattern of prayer in the New Testament is to the Father, in the name of Jesus.

In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you. Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full. (John 16:23-24).

Prayers can be offered to both the Father and the Son. What about the Holy Spirit? While there are no prayers in the New Testament addressed directly to the Holy Spirit, neither are there any prohibitions. Admittedly, both of those statements are arguments from silence. There were really two questions: 1) Are there any Scriptural references about praying to the Holy Spirit? That one’s easy … “No” not that I could find. 2) Is there anything (in Scripture) that suggests we could pray to the Holy Spirit? I would cautiously say, “Yes.”

Should You Pray to the Holy Spirit?
The short answer, I believe, is that there is nothing wrong with offering a prayer to the Holy Spirit, since God the Spirit is, of course, fully God, just as is God the Father and God the Son. However, most prayers in the New Testament and in the church of the second and third centuries were to God the Father, with a few exceptions.
I recently read an article by Boris Paschke entitled: “Praying to the Holy Spirit in Early Christianity.” His conclusions include the following:

This article studied praying to the Holy Spirit in early Christianity, with the following results: While the New Testament neither contains prayers to the Holy Spirit nor references to such prayers, later early Christian sources from the Second and Third Centuries AD contain at the least a few passages that are relevant for the topic. In Tertullian’s De oration 12, spiritus sanctus is envisaged as addressee of Christian prayer. However, it remains unclear if this Latin term refers particularly to the third person of the Trinity or to God in general. In De baptism 8, Tertullian states that spirit epiclesis were components of the baptismal services he was familiar with. At the beginning of his homilies on the book of Leviticus, Origen encourages addressing not only Jesus but also the Holy Spirit in prayers asking for understanding the biblical text (Orig. Hom. Lev. I 1). In Jesus’s hymn and round dance (which is found in chapters 94–96 of the Acts of John) it is probably not the Holy Spirit but rather Jesus who is addressed with the epithet ‘Spirit’. The Acts of Thomas contain two prayers to the Holy Spirit, namely the spirit epiclesis in chapters 27 and 50. However, it is possible that these epiclesis not only ask the Holy Spirit but also Jesus Christ to come. In view of these findings, it seems (1) that prayers to the Holy Spirit were very rare in early Christianity; and (2) that the Holy Spirit was addressed either alone (Tertullian De baptism 8) or together with Jesus Christ (Orig. Hom. Lev. I 1).[2]

So, what about our practice? My recommendation is that, following the biblical pattern and the pattern of the early church, we should normally address our prayers to God the Father, but still allow occasional addressing of prayers to Jesus, that is, to God the Son, as well as occasional prayers to the Holy Spirit, that is, to God the Spirit. But since the common pattern is to address God the Father in prayer, I would suggest that praying to God the Son and God the Spirit should focus more upon the works that are specifically connected in Scripture to those persons of the Godhead. Thus, the occasional prayer to Jesus might look something like: “Jesus, thank you for dying as a substitute on the cross in our place,” or “Lord Jesus, we long for your second coming” (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22 “Our Lord, Come!”). The occasional prayer to the Holy Spirit could be: “Spirit, fill us with power to speak your word with boldness,” or “Illumine your Word as we read it, and help us know how to apply it.”


Vain Repetition in Prayers, What Does it mean?

As far as I can determine from other Scriptures it is not the actual repetition of things, but the fact that there is a lack of sincerity in that way of praying. The full intent of Matthew chapter 6 lies in the fact that Jesus is really warning us that:

  1 God knows our hearts and when we are praying we are talking to God and that we should be seeking his attention and that to the exclusion of all else.

  2 When we pray in a manner that is more to seek the approval of those around us that that will be our reward, not the grace of God.

Notice these Scriptures from Chapter 6 in the King James Version:

  Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

  Matthew 6:5  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

  Matthew 6:6  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

I do not believe that Jesus meant that we should physically go into a closet to pray, but was instead saying to keep our prayers secrets between God and us.

Finally consider this:

Mat 6:7 and 8   KJV

  7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

  8  Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Notice that in the second part of verse 7 he says that they think they will be heard if they repeat their request often enough.

So does that mean that we should only ask for something once, to my way of thinking God can remember your request even though you only ask one time, and if I read the second part correctly it tells me that an all knowing God already not only knows what want, but also what I  truly need. So if something I want is also something I need He will grant it.


Does a Mass intention have any value now, if the Mass will be held, possibly, a year later?

The answer is, unequivocally, 'Yes'.
After we all receive our COVID-19 vaccines and we attend Mass in person again, there will be a huge backlog of intentions for those who suffered illness and death during the quarantine. Churches and God the Father will respect all of these intentions both presently and retroactively. The Bible teaches us that every human life is sacred, and this teaching will most certainly be upheld after we are all vaccinated.
I know that this time is difficult, but please hold on. God is looking down on all of us now, and He will be there for us after the quarantine is over.


Why is "Battle Hymn of the Republic" considered to be a patriotic hymn in the United States?

If you look into the history of the hymn, you'll see that it was published around the time of the Civil War (to the tune of a song about the abolitionist insurrectionist John Brown). The (militant) abolitionist sentiment is clearly expressed in the original line:

  As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free

So, although I could imagine that many Christian people could sing this song and be edified, by taking the militant language allegorically, the historical origins of the hymn, and its subsequent frequent use in American patriotic contexts, creates a strong association with American patriotism.


Does the Chalcedonian Definition mean Christ has two minds?

These are deep questions that are difficult to answer, but I'll give it a shot. Most of what I'm going to say is derived from Oliver D. Crisp's book Divinity and Humanity.

How far is this model to be extended? I have heard it said that not only does Christ have two wills, but also two minds. Is this an accurate interpretation of Chalcedonian theology?

First this particular issue flows out of the later sixth ecumenical council, so technically its possible to accept Chalcedon without also accepting dyothelitism (two wills), but its generally considered that Chalcedon entails the findings of the later council.
If you read the proceedings of the Council of Constantinople, the reasoning flows from a basic principle exposited by Gregory of Nazianzus:

For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.

So the model has to be extended far enough to cover everything that makes a human being a human being. If we take mind to consist of things like "will", "desire", "perception", "reason", etc. Then I think the answer is yes, dyothelitism entails that Christ has two minds, a human mind and a divine mind. For the divine mind is wholly different from a human mind:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Similarly the council takes up several passages from scripture:

our Lord Jesus Christ himself, who is true and perfect God, and true and perfect man, in his holy Gospels shows forth in some instances human things, in others, divine, and still in others both together [...] Thus as man he prays to the Father to take away the cup of suffering, because in him our human nature was complete, sin only excepted, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will, but as you will". And in another passage: "Not my will", but yours be done.
"Not my will", pertain to his humanity; through which also he is said, according to the teaching of Blessed Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, to have become obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. Wherefore also it is taught us that he was obedient to his parents, which must piously be understood to refer to his voluntary obedience, not according to his divinity (by which he governs all things), but according to his humanity, by which he spontaneously submitted himself to his parents.

It keeps going in this fashion. But how can one person have two wills?
Here are two theological concepts which may help:
Perichoresis (mutual indwelling or interpenetration)
This doctrine is often used in discussions of the Trinity about how the 3 persons of the Trinity interrelate to one another, but it has also been used to describe how the human and divine natures of Christ relate.

Christ's humanity is in an intimate, perichoretic relation with the Word, which [...] is of a dgree of intimacy not enjoyed by other creatures

In Crisp's view the interpenetration is the result of "divine omnipresence" and that "penetration is asymmetrical: the relation originates in the divine and moves in the direction of the human nature only."
Because omnipresence means that the divine nature penetrates all of creation, Crisp sees the nature-perichoresis of Christ as "a difference of degree, rather than of kind". He offers this analogy:

A sword could be said, in a loose and non-philosophical sense, to be 'penetrated' by the heat of the blacksmith's furnace as he forges the blade [...] Presumably, if I were to place another sword in the furnace for a moment, it too would be 'penetrated' by the heat of the furnace and would become warm. But it would not be as hot as the first sword, which is being forged, and is a lot hotter than my own sword. The difference is one of quantity of heat, not quality of heat.

Though he's also careful to note that the hypostatic union is more than just nature-perichoresis. At any rate, this suggestion can make some sense out of Chalcedon's:

two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence

(As an aside, Perichoresis has an analogy to the eastern doctrine of theosis and the union we desire with God through sanctification... certainly not to the same degree, for Christ is unique, but it's definitely interesting to ponder)
Divine Krypsis (self-concealment)
In a discussion on divine knosis (self-emptying), Crisp suggests divine kryspis (self-concealment) as a more orthodox way to think about what's going on in the hypostatic union. The divine nature, though having essential attributes like omniscience and omnipresence, chooses not to use them during the period of his earthly ministry.

This krypsis Christology preserves what is required by a full-blooded Chalcedonianism: the Word does not relinquish or abdicate any of his divine attributes for the period of the earthly Incarnation. And it also makes sense of the notion of self-emptying that is alluded to in the New Testament: the human nature taken on by the Word in the Incarnation is limited and does not have access to those divine properties which the Word exercises

Hope that Helps.


If Christianity speaks out against the use of "magic" does this mean "magic" is literally real?

The Bible also opposes idolatry, even though the prophets say that an idol is nothing but a thing made out of wood and precious metal.
as Psalm 135 says:

The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
made by the hands of men.
16 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
eyes, but they cannot see;
17 they have ears, but cannot hear,
nor is there breath in their mouths.
18 Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them.

Or as Jeremiah says,

People who worship idols are stupid and foolish.
The things they worship are made of wood!

Any quick concordance search will show that "worthless" and "idols" show up a lot!  So, if there is no power in an idol, why does God make such a big deal over it? Because of it's effect on the idol worshiper!
The problem with magic isn't so much the "magic," but rather the senseless chasing after another power. When, in Acts 8, Simon the magician wanted to purchase this power, Peters reaction was that he didn't understand what God was.
As Luke writes it in Acts,

 9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10 and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.” 11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw ...
18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.
20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin

To this same end, magic is not an opposing force to God, but is rather a red herring that keeps them from Him.


Is theodicy considered an open problem or a solved one, according to catholicism?

Yes, it is an open question.

Yes, it is a "solved" question.

No, it is not an OR question.

The question you are asking "Is Theodicy an "open" question or a solved one?" is based on a faulty premise.  Namely, "open" does not mean "unanswered" or "unsolved" - it means one that is continually being investigated.  Thus, the opposite of an "open" problem isn't a "solved" one, but rather an unasked one.

At best, one can ask, "Is there a consensus position?" and the answer is "within a fairly broad spectrum, yes."  Yes, there are several "solutions" that theologians have posited that each have a significant consensus behind them.  Go find them - that's a book.

In order to highlight the faulty premise, let's use another question as an example: "Did God create the world ex nihilo or did it evolve?" As contentious as the question is, no one can say there are no "solutions" to it. Non-theists have posed several answers, Theists have posed several answers, and there are even significant groups that seek a "theistic evolution" answer in the middle.  Is it an open question? Sure! People wrestle with the origins question everyday. And is it a solved one? For many people, again, the answer is "Yes!"  They have weighed the evidence and personally picked the "solution" they feel is most compelling.

In theology, there are very, very few "closed" questions. John Dominic Crosson believes the literalness of the Resurrection to be an "open question," despite Paul's very obvious answer to "If there is no resurrection, then we are to be pitied above all men!"  The closest thing I can think of as a "closed" question is the literal existence of a King David. For many years, theologians thought it an "open question" as to whether or not David existed.  When archeologists found a steele mentioning the House of David, the evidence pretty thoroughly closed any further debate, because it is really hard to argue with tangible evidence to the contrary - and yet there are still some who claim it is "open"

Back to the "problem" of theodicy - or "Why does a Good God allow evil?"  There are several solutions to the problem - but that does not mean it is unasked.  It is thus open and solved at the same time.  And frankly, until there is no more evil, or until people see God as not good, it will always be asked. It will and must be open to new queries as long as man asks questions.


According to Reformed theology are the Psalms suitable preaching/prayers/songs for Christians?

Reformed theology includes covenant theology, whereby the nation of Israel is understood to be the church of the Old Testament. In this light, there is no distinction between an Israelite Psalm and a Christian Psalm; they are one and the same.

Not only this, but the Reformers consistently sang almost only the 150 Psalms from the Book of Psalms (as well as the Songs of Simeon, Zachariah, and Mary, the Apostle's Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and a very small number of other hymns).1.2.3.4.

John Calvin, who was the single largest influence on the Reformed understanding on how to worship, said in his Letter to the Reader introducing the Genevan Psalter the following:

  But what St. Augustine says is true, that no one can sing things worthy
  of God unless he has received them from him. For when we have searched
  here and there, we will not find better songs nor ones more appropriate
  for this purpose than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit has
  spoken to him and made. Therefore, when we sing them, we are certain
  that God has put the words in our mouth as if they themselves sang in us
  to exalt his glory. Consequently Chrysostom exhorts both men, women
  and little children to learn to sing them in order that they may be like a
  meditation to associate them with the company of angels (Chrysostom,
  In Ps. 41.1,2).

Calvin was in the habit of preaching from either the New Testament or the Book of Psalms every Sunday afternoon, and it is from these sermons on the Psalms that we get his commentary on the Psalms.

In addition, the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21 Article 5 says the following (emphasis mine):

  The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.

While this is not to mean the exclusion of non-Book of Psalms songs, certainly the creators and users of the Westminster Standards (a classic Reformed summary of what the Bible teaches) primarily sang Psalms and considered them to be appropriate for the Christian church.

I will also note that it is not completely precise to refer to the Book of Psalms as a Jewish book; it is an Israelite book, from before the splitting of the nation of Israel into two kingdoms.


What is the meaning of the parable in Luke 17:7-10?

Increase our Faith! = Make it Easier! (or Lighten the Burden!)

Just before the parable, Jesus says (paraphrasing, for brevity)

Don't be a stumbling block...or else!
Rebuke and forgive your brothers.
Forgive a brother even if he continually sins against you.

The disciples' response is, "Increase our faith!" (πιστις 4102, "trust" "belief" "conviction")

It sounds like the disciples want some help doing what Jesus is telling them to do, because he is not asking them to do something easy. They ask for faith, perhaps because believing better/trusting more would make it easier to endure the difficulties of the life to which Jesus is calling them.

In regards to doing good things, the disciples were at least occasionally at odds with each other about who was better.
The parable about the servant is a way of saying that if you do all these good things, you are still only doing what Jesus has told you to do.

It's almost as if being a heroic Christian is the bare minimum. Increase my faith!


What arguments do the Church Fathers make for nocturnal emissions not being a sin?

Augustine addresses this question in his commentary On the Literal Meaning of Genesis: Book XII, section 31 (or 15 depending on your version).  He ascribes the lack of sin to the involuntariness.  He notes that well-disposed, chaste souls have some merits which "shine out even in dreams," although even chaste people may have nocturnal emissions.

John Cassian takes this up in Conference 22 of his Conferences, but it is hard to find a version that does not omit that conference.


How do Catholics respond to the claims that the cross has pagan origins?

This is a non-starter because it rests upon multiple logical fallacies, meaning it's a non-argument for anything other than one's inability or unwillingness to be logical.

Namely, it commits the Genetic Fallacy: 'x has origins in somone or something evil, therefore, x must be bad in and of itself' (e.g. 'circumcision is evil because pagans invented circumcision').

It also commits the Association Fallacy (Guilt By Association): 'x was done or caused by evil [person] y, and therefore all instances of x implies the evil [of person] y' (e.g. 'pagans used crosses on which to torture people, therefore anything plus sign or cross shaped is evil' or 'all guns are evil because some people shoot humans with them.')

There are probably a few more, but one is sufficient, and you get the point.

But more simply, the crucifying Him on a cross was an evil done to Christ. Just as killing Him was. But the evil done to Him was to our benefit (Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 5:21 etc.).

1 Cor 1:23-24: the cross is a stumbling block and an apparent defeat only to those who are perishing (2 Cor 4:3), but to us it is our salvation.

Gen 50:20: the Romans and Jews putting Christ to death was an evil objectively, but subjectively, we recieve benefit because of it.

Also, God can sanctify that which is pagan (see the above logical fallacies upon which some rest to object to this fact) for His own purpose. An example is circumcision. God doesn't care what other's signified or meant by, since why would He? Only He matters. Romans used the cross to torture criminals. So what? God used the cross to present His salvation to the world, and by definition becomes something holy, in spite of itself.


Under what conditions can a "good" or "charitable" act actually be sin?

The Catholic position holds that for grave (mortal) sins, one must be fully aware of the sinful act and commit it with full intention of doing so. If you have not, then you aren't culpable. Venial (minor) sins, looking at the catechism, doesn't appear to be as clearly specified so I think it's reasonable to assume that these may be committed inadvertently. However, while social ramifications may occur despite your intentions and knowledge, they aren't necessarily incredibly serious offenses either. As mentioned in the Catechism:

1873 The root of all sins lies in man's heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects.

So, if one commits an action that would be sinful, but has not sinned in one's heart (if it was unintentional or accidental through no fault of your own) then you are not culpable for the sin. Conversely, if one performs a good deed yet does so for reasons that are amoral, the person would have sinned.

An example of this would be Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees. They acted according to the letter of the Law because they were commanded to uphold it. However, in their hearts, they harbored pride and greed, among other sinful thoughts. In Matthew 23:27-28, Jesus describes this with a metaphor:

27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful but within are full of dead men's bones and of all filthiness. 28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just: but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Jesus also states earlier in this chapter, in verse 23:

23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint and anise and cumin and have left the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and faith. These things you ought to have done and not to leave those undone.

Here this shows that they have sinned in their attitudes, but even so, their works were good. So what Jesus is calling them to do is to reform their hearts, but continue to do good works as they have been.


There are several passages which employ the metaphor of marriage to describe the relationship between God and His people, and harlotry to describe the relationship between God' people and the false gods for whose sake they often left the worship of the Lord. In the Old Testament, Israel (the nation) is the wife and God is the husband. In these cases, Israel is referred to as she.

Addendum

Since references were politely solicited, I will offer up Jeremiah, chapter 3, and most (if not all) of Hosea.


Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. (Genesis
  2:25, NIV)

The first couple were, at first, roaming about without any clothes on. It was as natural as wearing clothes. Wearing or not wearing wouldn't have any difference at all. Sex was already introduced, as God already told them to multiply (Gen 1:28) but nudity and its shame was never felt. Something awful happened after they ate the forbidden fruit; they were now afraid to meet God for the first time.

  But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” He answered, “I
  heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I
  hid.” And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten
  from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” (Genesis 3:9-11,
  NIV)

Adam had been naked always, but never felt uncomfortable with it. Something made Adam feel uncomfortable with nudity. From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible,

  This also was not the true reason; he was naked from his creation as
  to his body, and it caused no shame in him, nor any dread to appear
  before God; he conceals the true cause, which was sin, that made the
  nakedness of his body shameful, and had stripped his soul of its
  native clothing, purity and holiness; and therefore it was, he could
  not appear before a pure and holy Being:

After paying heed to the Devil's voice, they are now under sin, of whose origin is the Devil. Their souls are now stripped off of holiness, and as a result, imparted with unholiness. Their mind is now sinful, their heart is now sinful. Before the fall, there was no lust in their heart, but now they are overtaken by lustful thoughts, which made them uncomfortable when naked.

Nudity itself is not a sin, we were created naked. Does it mean we should go to church without clothes? If you can stay with a pure mind and worship God without any hindrances, it's totally fine, but that is not easy. We need to cover ourselves modestly, so that our minds should not be distracted by lustful desires.

It is not the nudity which is sin, but it is our lustful eyes which we cannot control, is sin. Sin starts inwardly from the heart, and if not suppressed, manifested through the body and commits sin outwardly.

  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But
  I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
  committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28, NIV)


What is the difference between LORD and GOD?

The all upper-case "LORD" and "GOD" are used where the original Hebrew used the sacred name of god, YHWH (יהוה).

Traditionally, that four letter name (Tetragrammaton) is not supposed to be pronounced except by the high priests on the Day of Atonement.

To avoid accidentally saying it while reading the Hebrew scriptures, incorrect vowel marks are added to the word, specifically the vowels from "Adonai", meaning "lord".  Anyone reading it would know to say "Lord" at that point.

This article, "Why Does the Old Testament Sometimes Capitalize Lord or God?", includes a summary of the general rules that apply:

  When you see LORD, the specific name YHWH is used and it always
  refers to Him.
  When you see lord, the word adonai is used in such a way as to
      refer to a human master or lord.
  When you see Lord, the word adonai is used to refer to the
      true God.
  When you see God, the Hebrew words elohim, el, or eloah
  are used to refer to the one true God.
  When you see god or gods, the Hebrew words elohim, el,
  or eloah are used to refer to idols, spiritual beings, the objects
  of other nations’ worship, etc.
  When you see Lord GOD, the author has used both adonai and
  YHWH together.

So, to answer the original question, there is no real difference between "LORD" and "GOD":

"LORD" means that "YHWH" is supposed to be said as "lord".
"Lord GOD" means that "YHWH" is supposed to be said as "god" (otherwise the first rule would suggest saying "lord lord").


What is the basis for saying that the Gospel of Thomas was accepted as scripture by early Christians?

There is a "Gospel of Thomas" and there is an "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" - they are two different documents.

The former Gospel of Thomas - along with all other non-canonical Gospels - was roundly condemned by Cyril of Jerusalem in his fifth catechetical lecture:

  Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the
  rest have false titles and are mischievous.  The Manichæans also wrote
  a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance
  of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort.

Aside from a possible quote from the book in Clement's 2nd Epistle (whose authenticity Eusebius seems to dispute), there is no evidence that any Church Father considered the Gospel of Thomas or any other apocryphal gospel to be canonical.  It is not included in the list given by Athanasius (Festal Letter XXXIX), nor in any of the lists enumerated by any local or ecumenical council, nor in the later Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, by John of Damascus.

That is not to say that there were not some who called themselves "Christians" who would have considered the book to be Scripture, as historians suggest, but the sects who held these beliefs were considered to be/have been heretical by the Church of the Ecumenical Councils.


How does Catholic Church explain John 1:31?

Commenting on John 1:31, St. Thomas Aquinas explains "the statement of John the Baptist that he did not know Jesus" by saying that he

  […] precludes an erroneous conjecture from his testimony. For someone might say that John bore witness to Christ because of his affection for him, coming from a special friendship. And so, excluding this, John says, And I did not know him!; for John had lived in the desert from boyhood. And although many miracles happened during the birth of Christ, such as the Magi and the star and so on, they were not known to John: both because he was an infant at the time, and because, after withdrawing to the desert, he had no association with Christ. In the interim between his birth and baptism, Christ did not perform any miracles, but led a life similar to any other person, and his power remained unknown to all.


The yoke that Christ is talking about is in direct contradiction to the yoke and burden of the Pharisees.

In Matthew 23:4, Jesus speaks of the Pharisees like this:

  They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's
  shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their
  finger.

That is to say, they ask so many things of the people, and they demand so much of the people who follow them, and yet they're not themselves willing to help those who try to follow their demands.

Attempting to follow the demands is exactly what wears people out.  Any time we try to follow all the rules that are thrown at us, we begin to be weary of the rules that we're carrying.  We realize that the burden is more than we can bear, and we begin to resent those who give us the rules and the burdens.  Those who are weary in verse 28 are those who are drowning in the rules of the Pharisees.  They're those who are tired of trying so hard.

In contrast, Jesus yoke is easy because He Himself carried the yoke.  The demands that he places on us, he himself fulfills, and then goes on to pay the penalty for those of us who cannot fulfill the demands.  It's as if he's saying, "I tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and I lay them on my own shoulder."  Thus, for us his yoke is easy and his burden is light, because he himself carries it, and in this we can find rest for our souls.


Is it just Christian Ministers who are Watchmen, or are we all...Ezekiel 3

This is something I am currently wrestling with. What strikes me is that every Christian has far more knowledge than Ezekiel had. We know what the plans of the the Lord are for the future of every individual we meet - that he has appointed a day when he will judge the world by the man he has appointed, and that he has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead (Acts 17). And we know that the only hope for anyone on at that day is to come to Jesus as Lord and Saviour now before we meet him as our judge.

It is correct that there is little in the New Testament setting out a positive obligation on Christians to evangelise and tell people about the coming judgement. However, that is not as surprising as it might seem because the Bible of the early church was the Old Testament. It was the Old Testament that they went to for training, correction and rebuke so that they were fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3), and the Old Testament through Ezekiel sets out that those who have knowledge from God about the future destiny of a person are responsible for sharing that knowledge.

So, it seems to me that the obligation Ezekiel had to warn people to repent and believe is an obligation that every Christian has, and like every obligation that Christians have, we need to bring our daily failures to carry them out to the Lord, receive his forgiveness and ask for strength to keep going.


How many children did Adam and Eve have?

Less than 1011. More than 7.

Assuming that:

Adam only had one wife (Eve), which is an argument based strictly on a lack of evidence
That Eve's normal gestational period was 9 months and had twins no more than average (1 in 86).
That Eve lived approximately the same amount of time as Adam (again an argument from lack of evidence),

then we can say:

800 years / 9 months per child (assuming no rest between children) = 1000
Twins appear in 1 out of every 86 births = 11

I think we can then establish an upper limit for Adam and Eve having a maximum of 1011 children.

Beyond that, one can only speculate.


Regarding the practice of "cast lots". Was this done by Jews only or did others practice it?

Regarding the practice of “cast lots”. Was this done by Jews only or did others practice it?

The casting of lots was almost universally done in most cultures in the Old Testament times.

  In Judeo-Christian tradition

  Casting of lots occurs relatively frequently in the Bible, and many biblical scholars think that the Urim and Thummim served this purpose. The Hebrew Bible contains several examples of the casting of lots as a means of determining God's will:

  In the Book of Leviticus 16:8, God commanded Moses, "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat."
  According to Numbers 26:55, Moses allocated territory to the tribes of Israel according to each tribe's male population and by lot.
  In Joshua 7:14, a guilty party (Achan) is probably found by lot.
  In the Book of Joshua 18:6, Joshua says, "Ye shall therefore describe the land into seven parts, and bring the description hither to me, that I may cast lots for you here before the LORD our God." The Hebrews took this action in order to know God's will as to the dividing of land between the seven tribes of Israel who had not yet "received their inheritance". (Joshua 18:2).
  In the First Book of Samuel 14:42, lots are used to determine that it was Jonathan, Saul's son, who broke the oath that Saul made, "Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies." (1 Samuel 14:24).
  In the Book of Jonah 1:7, the desperate sailors cast lots to see whose god was responsible for creating the storm: "Then the sailors said to each other, 'Come, let us cast lots to find out who is responsible for this calamity.' They cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah."

  Other places in the Hebrew Bible relevant to divination include:

  Book of Proverbs 16:33: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from Yahweh and 18:18: The lot settles disputes, and keeps strong ones apart."
  Book of Leviticus 19:26 KJV "... neither shall you practice enchantment, nor observe times." The original Hebrew word for enchantment, as found in Strong's Concordance, is pronounced naw-khash'. The translation given by Strong's is "to practice divination, divine, observe signs, learn by experience, diligently observe, practice fortunetelling, take as an omen"; and "1.to practice divination 2.to observe the signs or omens". Times in the original Hebrew is pronounced aw-nan'. Its translation in Strong's is "to make appear, produce, bring (clouds), to practise soothsaying, conjure;" and "1. to observe times, practice soothsaying or spiritism or magic or augury or witchcraft 2. soothsayer, enchanter, sorceress, diviner, fortuneteller, barbarian...". In the Hebrew-Interlinear Bible, the verse reads, "not you shall augur and not you shall consult cloud".
  Deuteronomy 18:10 "let no one be found among you who [qasam qesem], performs [onan], [nahash], or [kashaph]".2 qasam qesem literally means distributes distributions, and may possibly refer to cleromancy. Kashaph seems to mean mutter, although the Septuagint renders the same phrase as pharmakia (poison), so it may refer to magic potions.
  In the Book of Esther, Haman casts lots to decide the date on which to exterminate the Jews of Shushan; the Jewish festival of Purim commemorates the subsequent chain of events.
  In I Chronicles 26:13 guard duties are assigned by lot.
  To Christian doctrine perhaps the most significant ancient Hebrew mention of lots occurs in the Book of Psalms, 22:18 "They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." This came to be regarded as a prophecy connecting that psalm and the one that follows to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, since all four gospels (for example, John 19:24) tell of the Roman soldiers at Jesus's crucifixion casting lots to see who would take possession of his clothing. (That final act of profanation became the central theme of The Robe, a 1953 film starring Richard Burton.) -
  A notable example in the New Testament occurs in the Acts of the Apostles 1:23–26 where the eleven remaining apostles cast lots to determine whether to select Matthias or Barsabbas (surnamed Justus) to replace Judas. - Cleromancy (Wikipedia)

The Jewish Encyclopedia is very clear that other pagan cultures in the Old Testament cast lots:

  Means of determining chances. Primitive peoples, and occasionally those on a higher plane of culture, resort to lots for the purposes of augury. They spin a coconut or entangle strips of leather in order to obtain an omen. Thieves especially are detected by the casting of lots, etc. (Tylor, "Primitive Culture," German ed., i. 78-82). The pagans on a ship with Jonah under stress of a storm cast lots in order to find out who among them had incurred the Divine anger (Jonah i. 7). Haman resorted to the lot when he intended to destroy the Jews (Esth. iii. 7). The Greek heroes cast their lots into Agamemnon's helmet in order to ascertain who should fight with Hector ("Iliad," vii. 171). In ancient Italy oracles with carved lots were used.

  In Ancient Israel:

  The ancient Israelites likewise resorted to the lot for the most varied purposes. Rhabdomancy was known as late as Hosea (Hos. iv. 12); and Ezekiel (Ezek. xxi. 26 et seq.) mentions the arrow-oracle of the King of Babylon, which was still used a thousand years later among the pagan Arabians (Wellhausen, "Reste Arabischen Heidenthums," 2d ed., pp. 126 et seq.; comp. Sprenger, "Leben und Lehre des Mohammed," i. 259 et seq.; Huber, "Ueber das Meiser-Spiel der Heidnischen Araber," Leipsic, 1883). As the priestly lot-oracles are discussed under Ephod, Urim and Thummim, and Teraphim, the present article deals merely with the lot in secular life. Joshua discovers the thief, and Saul the guilty one, by means of the lot (Josh. vii. 16 et seq.; I Sam. xiv. 42; comp. I Sam. x. 20 et seq.). Primitive peoples divide land and other common property by means of the lot. In Hebrew the word for "lot" ("goral") has retained the meaning of "share"; it has also acquired the more general meaning of "fate" (Isa. xvii. 14, lvii. 6; Jer. xiii. 25; Ps. xvi. 5; Dan. xii.). The land west of the Jordan is divided among the several tribes by lot (Num. xxvi. 55 et seq., xxxiii. 54, xxxiv. 13, xxxvi. 2; Josh. xiii. 6, xiv. 2, xv. 1, xvii. 1, xviii. 6-10, xix. 51, xxiii. 4; Ps. lxxviii. 55, cv. 11; comp. Ezek. xlv. 1, xlvii. 22). Jewish tradition, finding offense in this kind of allotment, declared that the land was really divided under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the lot being merely the visible means of confirming the division for the people (Sifre, Num. 132; B. B. 122a). Prov. xvi. 33 and xviii. 18 indicate that lots were cast in legal controversies. The wicked "part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture" (Ps. xxii. 19; comp. Matt. xxvii. 35; John xxix. 24). Booty of war is divided by lot (Joel iv. 3; Nahum iii. 10; Ob. 11; see also Judges xx. 9; Neh. x. 35, xi. 1; I Chron. xxiv. 5, xxv. 8, xxvi. 13 (see Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." 3d ed., xi. 643 et seq.).

  In Talmud and Midrash.

  According to the etymology of the word "goral," the lots were probably small stones, or sticks, as Hos. iv. 12 indicates. They were thrown, or possibly shaken (Prov. xvi. 33, "into the lap"), so that one fell out, whereby the case in question was decided. It can not be ascertained whether a tablet with writing on it is meant in Lev. xvi. 8, as the Mishnah assumes (Yoma iii. 9, iv. 1). At the time of the Second Temple the lot was prominent in the Temple cult, and customs were developed, after Biblical example, whereby the several offices were apportioned by lot. The priests drew lots in all cases where differences might arise (Yoma 37a, 39a-41a, 62a-63b, 65b; Zeb. 113b; Men. 59b; Ker. 28a). In Tamid i. 2 the overseer of the Temple calls for the lot; and Yoma 24b records a discussion whether the priests shall draw lots in holy or in secular garments. Lots were cast four times in succession (Yoma iv. 1). The Prophets increased the four classes of priests that returned from the Diaspora to twenty-four; they mixed up the names of the additional ones and placed them in an urn (κάλπη) and then let each of the four original classes of priests draw five names (Tosef., Ta'an. ii. 1, and parallel passages). The urn was originally made of cypresswood; but the high priest Ben Gamala had one which was made of gold (Yoma iii. 9); hence drawing lots from it created a sensation (Yer. Yoma 41b, below). In the sanctuary the lots were taken out by hand (Yoma 39b, 40a). The lot was either a black or a white pebble (Yer. Yoma iv., beginning), or was made of olive-, nut-, or cypress-wood (Yoma 37a). A third kind, consisting of pieces of paper with writing on them (πιττάκιον), is frequently mentioned.

  Many facts seem to indicate that choosing by lot was common in post-Biblical times. Moses chose the seventy elders (Num. xi. 26) by selecting six men from each of the twelve tribes, and then placing seventy-two pieces of paper (πιττάκιον), of which two were blank, into an urn, one being drawn by each man. He proceeded similarly in determining the 273 first-born who were to pay each five shekels ransom, 22,273 tickets in all being drawn (Yer. Sanh. 19c, below, and parallel passages). Eldad and Medad were, according to Targ. Yer. to Num. xi. 26, among the elders who drew lots. Jacob's sons also drew lots to decide who should take Joseph's coat to their father (Gen. R. lxxxiv.). Achan attempted to bring the casting of lots into discredit when he said to Joshua: "If I order you and the high priest Eleazar to draw lots, one of you will certainly be pronounced guilty" (Sanh. 43b). Nebuchadnezzar's casting of lots (Ezek. xxi. 25 et seq.) is mentioned; but, according to the vernacular of the time, the Greek word κλῆρος is used, which occurs also inActs i. 26 (Lam. R., Preface, No. 5; Midr. Teh. x. 6; comp. ib. x. 5 on casting of lots among the Romans, and Krauss, "Lehnwörter," ii. 545b). - Lots (Jewish Encyclopedia)


a/pre/post Millennialism summarised with bible verses?

There seems to be so many books and internet resources it would take a millennium to read them all. Some short but seemingly inconsistent with each other, some far to long to be useful, and some providing general summaries of the views, but not showing bible verses that lead/support the views of that camp. Is it not possible to get a clear simple answer?

You're right, there won't be any clear simple answer. To some extent there are verses which are claimed to only support one position, but mostly these positions uses the same verses as each other to support themselves, but they interpret them in different ways. This is because these eschatological positions are symptom issues: what you believe about other issues (namely your Biblical meta-narrative, i.e., your Biblical theology framework) largely determines your eschatology. (Baptism is another symptom issue, within Protestantism at least.) Whenever anyone attempts what you ask for without first dealing with the different meta-narratives the result is that the two sides just end up talking past each other.

The two major meta-narrative frameworks within Protestantism are Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. These represent two extremes of a continuum. Dispensationalism emphasises the discontinuities between the Old and New Testaments (and the different eras of history in general) and de-emphasises the continuities. Covenant Theology emphasises the continuities and de-emphasises the discontinuities. There are frameworks which fit in between these extremes, such as New Covenant Theology.

Covenant Theology says that there is one single Covenant of Grace, which encompasses all of the Biblical covenants, which means that there is really only one People of God. The promises that God made to the Israelites are the promises he makes to the Church because Israel is the Church. Dispensationalism however considers each 'dispensation' (system in which God interacted with humanity) to be independent. This means that Israel and the Church are distinct and their promises cannot be transferred.

So when Dispensationalists read about the temple in Revelation 11 they instinctively understand it to be talking about a physical temple located on this earth in the future. They believe that God has unfinished business with the Jews, that there are promises he gave to them which he still needs to fulfil. They need to be given the full extent of their land, the land which God told Abraham to stir up the dust as he walked over it (Genesis 13:17), and they need to be glorified as the world's top nation. When they read about the millennium in Revelation 20 they see this as the fulfilment of God's promises to send the Messianic Davidic king to rule the earth.

But all of this sounds like nonsense to Covenant Theologians. Because they believe that Israel and the Church are the one thing, and because the NT pretty clearly indicates that the promise and inheritance of the Christian is life in the new heavens and new earth, they understand God's promises to Israel to be the same. God may have promised to give Abraham's descendants some land, and he did give them a partial blessing in the land of Canaan, but what he was really promising them was the new heavens and new earth. If that's what God always intended, then why would Jesus delay it so that he could rule on this broken planet for a measly 1000 years?

Now I haven't discussed post-millennialism at all, because to be honest I don't really understand it. There are very few post-mills around now, I really only know of one (Doug Wilson). But I'm sure that, as with the others, those who are post-mill would have a particular meta-narrative which leads them to interpret Revelation as they do.


Somebody was born into a culture that has no knowledge of the Christ - could he still "find him"?

Mormons would be one to say yes. According to LDS belief, any who die without a complete or necessary knowledge of Jesus will be taught about Him in the Spirit World after this life, where they may choose to accept or reject the gospel. (This is why they build temples: to redeem the living and the dead.)

On a related note, they also believe that Christ came to more than just the Jews as in the Biblical record, citing John 10:16 and the Book of Mormon, indicating that there may be more people who know of Christ than we think.


Single Predestination or Double Predestination?
Now before you start thinking "Aw, man!  There are two of them?!?"  Let me explain the difference:

Single Predestination:
God chooses us, solely by his grace, to go to Heaven.  God does not choose people for Hell.  If we go to Hell it is because of our own sinfullness.
Double Predestination:
God has chosen some people to go to Heaven, and some people to go to Hell.

Now that we know what they are, what does the Bible teach?
John 5:21 (ESV)

21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

John 10:28 (ESV)

28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

Romans 8:29-30 (ESV)

29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Ok, that seems to indicate that we are Predestined to Heaven, now what about Hell?
Ezekial 33:11 (ESV)

11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?

Matthew 18:14 (ESV)

14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (ESV)

3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The Verdict:
Based off these verses, it seems clear to me that the Bible teaches Single Predestination and not Double Predestination.


Is there anyone in heaven? (Catholicism)

Yes, there are people in heaven.

Some, who were born before Christ's resurrection are:

Elijah

  2 Kings 2:1-12
  “And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind…And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two stood by Jordan….And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven….And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more…”

Enoch

  Hebrews 11:5
  “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

The Blessed Virgin Mary

  CCC 966
  "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians...

And probably many others.

It is a point of mild contention whether canonisation is infallible, but most theologians agree that a papal canonisation is infallible.
Most notably St Thomas Aquinas (Quodlib. IX, a. 16):

  Since the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.

So, I would say Heaven is 'full' (although it is an immaterial place) of saints. Although not as full as Hell.

Here are some helpful resources.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm - Infallibility section
https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/is-assumption-of-mary-in-bible.html
https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-canonizations-infallible


Why have Christians often had in their possession the Book of John as opposed to other books of the Bible?

There are at least a couple of differnt levels here.

Why are the Gospels different?

The Gospels, Matthew, Mark Luke and John are core to the Christian faith.

Without the life and person of Jesus it is pretty certain that there would be no such thing as Christianity, either in name or in character. For those of us living after the Biblical age the four gospels are the only record we have of that, and it makes them collectively exceptionally important - foundational - to Christianity. If we had never had certain other books of the Bible , Christianity would probably be very different. If we had never had the Gospels (or their equivalent) it would never have happened.

Why is John different?

Three of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke) are called 'Synoptic'. They present a similar view of Jesus, and most of the stories in them are found in at least two of those Gospels. It's reasonable to argue that the picture we have of Jesus would be only somewhat changed, if we lacked any one of them. John, on the other hand, presents a very different (not contradictory) picture. If it was missing we would have a significantly different view of Jesus. It also presents an unashamedly 'evangelistic' view of Jesus, presenting not just the story but making explicit statements about his significance. For example it contains the famous "John 3:16" verse.

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Your experiences

In my experience Christians often give out Gospels because they contain the core of the Christian message. They are also very readable and relatable. You can read one of the gospels in around an hour, and at the end of it you will have a pretty clear picture of the main points of Christianity. John probably gets used more often than others for the reasons above, but not exclusively.

At the time of the Vikings, any written copy of a Gospel was rare, and so considered precious by Christians (for its content, not its monetary value, though that was substantial) and it is that that makes Athelstan value it. It is entirely possible that John was the only Gospel Athelstan owned, and that he would have been equally attached to any of the other Gospels. When Athelstan says "Because without it there is only darkness" he is not referring to the physical book, but to the message written in it.


How does "believe that you have received it" practice in the Christian life?

St. Thomas, in his Catena Aurea (Golden Chain) on St. Mark's Gospel, cap. 11 l. 4, cites St. Theophlyact, who writes:

  For whosoever sincerely believes evidently lifts up his heart to God, and is joined to Him, and his burning heart feels sure that he has received what he asked for, which he who has experienced will understand; and those persons appear to me to experience this, who attend to the measure and the manner of their prayers. For this reason the Lord says, "Ye shall receive whatsoever ye ask in faith;" for he who believes that he is altogether in the hands of God, and interceding with tears, feels that he as it were has hold of the feet of the Lord in prayer, he shall receive what he has rightly asked for. Again, would you in another way receive what you ask for? Forgive your brother, if he has in any way sinned against you; this is also what is added: "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses."


The Names of the Individual Sundays of Lent

In the rhyme quoted:

Tid,  Mid, Misera,
Carl, Paum, Good Pose-Day

the Carl, Paum and Good Pose-Day refer to the 5th Sunday in Lent (14 days before Easter), the 6th Sunday in lent(7 days before Easter) and Easter Day itself.
Carl Sunday or Carling Sunday is more commonly called Passion Sunday, the first day of the two-week season of Passiontide. It is traditional in Northern England to eat cakes made out of brown peas, called carlings. Although many say the food gave the name to the day (rather like Pancake Tuesday), others (including Rev Hudson Baker quoted by @Marc) say it was the other way round. Carl comes from the Old English word cearu meaning suffering, sorrow and grief, relating to the beginning of the Commemoration of the Lord's Passion on that day. This is possibly also related to the German name for Good Friday, karfreitag.
The day after Carling Sunday is known to schoolchildren as Farting Monday, due to the effects of the peas.
Paum, or Palm, Sunday is known throughout the Christian world as the commemoration of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem during which palm branches were waved.
Good Pose-Day, is in some versions of the rhyme Paste-Egg Day and in some Pace-Egg Day. In all cases it is probably a form of pascha, from where the word paschal, pertaining to Easter, also comes. Paste-Egg relates to the custom of colouring eggs, and Pace-Egg relates to the custom of rolling eggs, both Easter customs.
The first line: Tid, Mid, Misera is very obscure. They are usually regarded as the second, third and fourth Sundays in Lent respectively. This is said in the Gentleman's Magazine of 1788, quoted here. The origins of these names are obscure.  Reverend Brady in 1812 said some suggested they related to the old pre-Reformation hymns sung on particular days. The Ambrosian hymn "Te Deum" sung on the second Sunday of Lent, another hymn "Mi Deus" on the third,  and Misera Mei (Psalm 51) on the fourth. However the scholar  J M Neale suggested Misera was a corruption of Reminiscere Sunday, which as Ken points out is a name for the Second Sunday in Lent. He was an expert on pre-Reformation English liturgy but knew of nothing that could explain the "Tid Mid Misera" line.    The Te Deum Laudamus theory is apparently unlikely because the Te Deum was sung all year round except in Advent and Lent, so hardly likely to give its name to any Sunday, least of all one in Lent.
Baker suggests that Tid referred originally to the Second Sunday, it occurring after ten days of fasting, and tid being related to tithe or ten. Mid and Misera were, according to him one name referring to the fourth Sunday and meaning mid-Lent.
Another  explanation is that they may be obsolete counting words. Misera, the fourth Sunday in Lent, bears a slight similarity to methera, a Cumbrian word for fourth.
There is no commonly-accepted derivation for tid mid misera.
The fifth Sunday before Christmas, the Sunday before Advent, is known as Stir-up Sunday, partly because it is the traditional day to stir Christmas Puddings and partly because the Collect for that Sunday begins "Stir up, O Lord, the hearts of thy faithful people ...". The Collect reminding people of the need to stir the puddings.