There seems to be no perfect definition: sources tend to give descriptions or examples. It does not depend on denomination, though different denominations might focus on different things.

The tension is, roughly, between the facts that:

Christ came and redeemed us by His Sacrifice; now we are Christians, living in this present world, with duties to love God and others
Christ has not yet come again, all has not yet come to pass; we are not yet at the end, though as Christians we strive towards it

This tension is not necessarily a bad thing. If there is concern, it is perhaps with directing ourselves properly. For example, a person might focus too much on yearning for heaven, feeling too strongly its absence in this world, and fall into neglecting or even despising worldly Christian duties and life. Or an individual might commit too much to this world, perhaps trying to solve its problems, or feeling too crushed by its problems, and forget where we are all going. Or an individual might feel no tension at all, no pull towards either good thing -- or too much of a pull from both directions. These are just examples: they're a bit at the extreme ends of the spectrum, and might be off the mark in certain contexts.

(end - the rest of this answer gives examples of usage in articles centered on various denominations)

From The Modern Eschatological Debate (pdf), in the Evangelical Quarterly:

  That is just the way in which it is given in Calvin, for with him
  every doctrine entails what we now call the eschatological
  tension.
  [...] That means that the eschatological tension that reached its acutest point in the person and work of the Mediator is enshrined in the tension between justus et peccator and between real presence and bread and wine. To the word of justification the sacraments add the pressure of imminence so that the two together on their Christological basis contain the heart of eschatology.

From an article in the Journal of Lutheran Ethics:

  In Romans 5 Paul writes of the two aeons: the new era that Christ is bringing into the world and the old aeon that is under the rule of law and sin. The same eschatological tension is present in other biblical sources. The new order of Christ is in tension with the old order, yet Christians must live in both. [...] All major Christian religious traditions recognize in some fashion this tension between Christ and the ongoing societal necessities of the world. They are aware that following Christ and living in the world is no easy task.

(The above article makes comments that some might find misrepresent other traditions, or are biased towards the Lutheran view.)

Pope John Paul II discusses the interplay between this tension and the Eucharist. From Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Church of the Eucharist:

  The eschatological tension kindled by the Eucharist expresses and reinforces our communion with the Church in heaven. It is not by chance that the Eastern Anaphoras and the Latin Eucharistic Prayers honour Mary, the ever-Virgin Mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the angels, the holy apostles, the glorious martyrs and all the saints. This is an aspect of the Eucharist which merits greater attention: in celebrating the sacrifice of the Lamb, we are united to the heavenly “liturgy” and become part of that great multitude which cries out: “Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Rev 7:10). [...]
  20. A significant consequence of the eschatological tension inherent in the Eucharist is also the fact that it spurs us on our journey through history and plants a seed of living hope in our daily commitment to the work before us. Certainly the Christian vision leads to the expectation of “new heavens” and “a new earth” (Rev 21:1), but this increases, rather than lessens, our sense of responsibility for the world today.
  [...] Lastly, the Magnificat reflects the eschatological tension of the Eucharist. Every time the Son of God comes again to us in the “poverty” of the sacramental signs of bread and wine, the seeds of that new history wherein the mighty are “put down from their thrones” and “those of low degree are exalted” (cf. Lk 1:52), take root in the world. Mary sings of the “new heavens” and the “new earth” which find in the Eucharist their anticipation and in some sense their programme and plan.


What is the basis for ascribing any fiscal policy to Jesus?

Since Peter answered your first question, I'll attempt to answer your second question.

And, once we've established who conflated the two, what was the biblical rationale for doing so?

Jesus spoke of doing good to others.

Matthew 25:35-40 - ...for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

All Bible quotes in this post come from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
Paul spoke of doing good to others.

Hebrews 13:16 - Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
Philippians 2:4 - Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.

There's no question that Jesus and Paul wanted us to help others.
The contemporary question is whether Jesus and Paul wanted individuals and groups (churches) to help others, or have the government help others.  Generally, United States conservatives favor individual assistance, while United States liberals favor government assistance.
The scripture is not clear on this question.  What we do have is Jesus' words:

Matthew 22:17-21 - Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?’ But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, ‘Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.’ And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, ‘Whose head is this, and whose title?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s.’ Then he said to them, ‘Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’

This scripture has been interpreted to support both individual assistance and government assistance.  Unfortunately, there is no clear cut answer from the Bible.
And that's why the individual assistance and government assistance debate continues and will continue.


Reasons many Christians not reading the Bible both OT and NT?

There are likely scores of words which could summarize why many Christians do not read both Testaments with equal dedication and seriousness. They are lazy, indifferent, distracted, worldly, unspiritual, fleshly, uncommitted, ignorant, unschooled, illiterate (biblically), misinformed, spiritually nearsighted, infantile (milk drinkers, spiritually speaking), confused, and on and on.
Perhaps most significant in my opinion is a general lack of appreciation among Christians for the grand sweep of salvation history, from beginning to end. Scripture is, after all, one book, and while the Old Covenant in many ways looks forward to the fulfillment of its many shadows, types, and prophecies (both veiled and unveiled), the New Covenant, though different in many ways from the Old, is exactly that: NEW. The Old Covenant is filled with shadows and symbols; in the New Covenant the substance is Christ, the fulfillment and embodiment of the shadows and symbols. As Jesus said on the night he was betrayed,

"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20).

By implication, Jesus was saying that the blood of the old covenant has been superseded by the new: the very lifeblood of God's Lamb, Jesus.
If many Christians were to read my last few paragraphs, I suggest there would puzzled expressions on the faces of more than a few readers! According to Sue Bohlin, the author of the "Bible Literacy Quiz,"

"Along with an alarming drop in basic literacy and cultural literacy in the United States, researcher George Gallup has discovered that born-again Christians are woefully ignorant of some very basic, very important Bible teachings. According to Gallup, less than half of the born-again community can list five of the Ten Commandments."

I suppose we could blame our lack of biblical savvy on the failure of preachers and teachers, generally, to preach from the Old Testament on a regular and systematic basis. I have a feeling, however, that many congregants would rebel against such preaching if only because they have prejudged the New Testament to be a kinder, gentler testament, and the Old Testament to be a bit too bloody, violent, and incomprehensible.
The primary reason for our lack of biblical savvy is perhaps very simple, and that is we are a generation of Christians who are simply not in love with God's Word. There are too many distractions and entertaining alternatives to Bible reading. According to a new Barna study, however, there is an encouraging trend among Millennial Christians regarding their high view of Scripture. According to summit.org:

The new Barna study, conducted in partnership with the American Bible Society and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, represents one of the largest studies ever conducted on a single generation’s view of the Bible. Three significant trends emerged. And if properly understood, they may inform churches’ efforts to reach, win, baptize, catechize, and disciple America’s newest adults.
The first insight? Practicing Christian millennials maintain a high view of Scripture. As Barna reports, of those young adults who identify as Christians, attend church at least once a month, and who describe their faith as “very important,” 96 percent say the Bible contains everything necessary to know in order to live a meaningful life. The same proportion say the Bible is the “inspired word of God,” and a plurality (46 percent) say they believe Scripture “should be taken literally, word for word.”
Additionally, researchers asked practicing religious millennials where the Bible ranked in their personal hierarchy of moral authority and truth. Of the 71 percent of respondents who said they believe in absolute truth, more named the Bible as their number one source of truth over any other, including church, pastors, and parents.

In light of this encouraging sign, leaders in churches across this country need to channel the respect Millennials have for the authority of God's word into a deeper knowledge of and appreciation for that word, particularly regarding the unity and affinity between the Old- and New Testaments, and why they both play a significant role in shaping our understanding of the Judeo-Christian faith.
Not that there is anything especially remarkable about the Christian denomination with which I am a member, but a leader within my denomination devised a program for Bible reading which has local churches in my denomination (and perhaps other denominations as well, I hope) reading through the Bible in about two years. It's called "91 Weeks with Jesus.". About 1800 members of my local church have signed up for this project, and I'm one of them. Though I've read the Bible from cover to cover a number of times, I am excited to be a part of this commendable effort to instill a love for God's word in the hearts of believers. Only good things can come of it. Of that I am sure.


Could Jesus’ appearing before Pilate, Herod, and scourging happen in 3 hours?

Historically speaking, it could be possible, but it is doubted by many.

The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely April 7, 30 AD or April 3, 33 AD. Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources. There is no consensus among historians on the exact details.

According to Mark's Gospel, he endured the torment of crucifixion from the third hour, (between approximately 9 am and 3 pm).

  The Crucifixion of Jesus

  21 A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

  25 It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. 26 The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews.

  27 They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. [28] [a] 29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 come down from the cross and save yourself!” 31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32 Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

  The Death of Jesus

  33 At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. 34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). -
  Mark 15: 21-33

There are several details that are only mentioned in a single gospel account. For instance, only Matthew's gospel mentions an earthquake, resurrected saints who went to the city and that Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb, while Mark is the only one to state the time of the crucifixion (the third hour, or 9 am - although it was probably as late as noon) and the centurion's report of Jesus' death. The Gospel of Luke's unique contributions to the narrative include Jesus' words to the women who were mourning, one criminal's rebuke of the other, the reaction of the multitudes who left "beating their breasts", and the women preparing spices and ointments before resting on the Sabbath. John is also the only one to refer to the request that the legs be broken and the soldier's subsequent piercing of Jesus' side (as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy), as well as that Nicodemus assisted Joseph with burial.

Of all the Apostles of Our Lord, only St. John witnessed Jesus’ actual Crucifixion, thus his time frame may possibly be the most accurate. According to the Apostle St. John, Jesus was crucified at about noon.

  13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

  14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

  15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

  16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

  17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

  18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

  19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.

  20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. - John 19: 13-20

In any case, a nine AM time frame for the Crucifixion of Jesus is still physically possible.

  Jerusalem was 500 metres east to west, 1200 north to south.

  Annas and Caiaphas either occupied separate apartments in one building or had separate houses that shared one courtyard. (Compare John 18:12-27; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-71) Assuming this was near the Temple it was about 500 metres or five minutes walk from Gethsemene.

  Luke mentions 1 hour at the Annas/Caiaphas location (22:59) as only part of the time spent there. The Sanhedrin gathered at Caiaphas' house (Mark 14:53) and met formally to try Jesus "when day came" (Luke 22:66) "early in the morning" (Mark 15:1).

  Governor Pontius Pilate lived at Caesarea on the coast but went to Jerusalem during major festivals. The Antonia Fortress stood next to the Temple. But Pilate probably did not stay there but rather in the palace of Herod Antipas. (John 18:28) Herod was ruler of Galilee and had a palace in Jerusalem and was there at the time.

  Herod's palace was about 400 metres or 4 minutes walk from the Temple.

  The questioning of Jesus by Pilate could fit into half an hour, and by Herod less. Time is saved if messengers went ahead to announce Jesus was being brought.

  Whipping and mocking Jesus would require only minutes, perhaps 20. The cross or "tree" would have been ready-made rather than require felling while everyone waited.

  Jesus was crucified outside the city walls, probably outside the northern wall – several hundred metres from the Temple and perhaps 600 metres from Herod’s palace.

  The total distance from Gethsemane to the Crucifixion was about 1½ kilometres. - No Time or Distance Problem

Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus, 33 AD


James: Why don't you ever punish Jesus? Is He your favorite?

Joseph: He never does anything wrong.

James: Jesus always knows the right answer,  its not like He is God or something.

Mary: Actually He is, so go back and try again.

Humor aside, this is illustrative.

We know that He had siblings according to Mat 13:55-56

  “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and
  aren’t his brothers  James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his
  sisters with us? Where then did this  man get all these things?”

So He had at least 4 brothers and 3 sisters based on the grammer.

We also know that had emotions.  He often greeted His friends/disciples with "Rejoice". "Rejoice and be exceeding glad" (Matthew 5:12). Also consider that The One enthroned in heaven laughs (Psa 2:4).  He also cried, see Jhn 11:35-36

  Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

Jesus is fully human and fully God according to many passages; like Hbr 2:9

  But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little
  while, now  crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so
  that by the grace of God  he might taste death for everyone.

Based on all this we can surmise that Jesus did normal childhood things, except he always obeyed and never got in trouble.  There is no recorded history of Him running and playing or having a dirty diaper or scraping His knee but I am reasonable sure He did all of those things and more.  It is important, according to the Bible, that we be able to identify with Him.


How comparable are the concepts of the Teaching Magisterium in the Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses view of their Watch Tower society?

Comparing the Teaching Authorities

Searching JW.org, since JW and WTS say nothing (let alone authoritative) about their Teaching Authority, there is nothing to compare.

The comparison dies right here: The Catholic states 1) that they have Teaching Authority, and 2) what that means; From JW and WTS, to an outsider, there is no Teaching Authority, as they have said nothing about it.

Herein lies the danger: The new member never learning of WTS until after joining, and only now being told the importance of WTS and the dire consequences of disobeying WTS.

What follows is sharing knowledge:

Comparing the Actual claims

Examining some of the pertinent claims of the Catholic Church:

  12. Who gave the Catholic Church divine authority to teach?
  Jesus Christ gave the Catholic Church divine  authority to teach, when
  he said, 'Go ye and teach all nations.' [Matt.28:19]

  88. How do you know that Christ appointed St. Peter to be the Head of the
  Church?       I
  know that Christ appointed St. Peter to be the Head of the Church
  because Christ said to him; 'Thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will
  build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
  And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven'. [Matt.
  16:18-19]

  99. How is the Church Apostolic?
  The Church is Apostolic because it was founded by Christ on the
  apostles and, according to His Divine Will, has always been governed
  by their lawful  successors [in an unbroken succession]. (my
  addition and emphasis)

Jehovah's Witnesses started c. 1870 with Charles Taze Russell, therefore 1) they cannot refute the Catholic Church's claims, and 2) they cannot claim as the Catholic Church claims.

This apologetic tract History of the Jehovah's Witnesses from a Catholic Perspective may be of use. There are additional tracts on Jehovah's Witnesses on the site.

If I were a JW apologist, to defend the Teaching Authority of my organization, I would first define what is was, and how it came to be invested with authority. I would investigate what we say of our own Teaching Authority.

I searched JW.org for The Watch Tower Society and pulled naught. Wikipedia provides this:

  Criticism | Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania |
  Wikipedia

  Critics including Raymond Franz, Edmond C. Gruss and James Penton have
  accused the society of being authoritarian, controlling and coercive
  in its dealings with Witnesses. Franz, a former Governing Body member,
  has claimed the Watch Tower Society's emphasis of the term
  "theocratic organization" to describe the authority structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, which places God at the apex of its organization,
  is designed to exercise control over every aspect of the lives of
  Jehovah's Witnesses and condition them to think it is wrong for them
  to question anything the society publishes as truth. The Watch Tower
  Society has been accused of employing techniques of mind control on
  Witnesses including the direction to avoid reading criticism of the
  organization, frequent and tightly controlled "indoctrination"
  meetings, regimentation, social alienation and elaborate promises of
  future rewards. Apart from life stories, the authors of all Watch
  Tower Society magazine articles and other publications are anonymous
  and correspondence from the society does not typically indicate a
  specific author or personal signature.

This is left to JW to defend.

On JW.org, I searched for other pertinent information, and in FAQ and retrieved this:

  Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe That They Have the One True Religion?
  | JW.org

  Those who are serious about religion should think that the one they’ve
  chosen is acceptable to God and Jesus. Otherwise, why would they be
  involved in it?

  Jesus Christ didn't agree with the view that there are many religions,
  many roads, all leading to salvation. Rather, he said: “Narrow is the
  gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones
  finding it.” (Matthew 7:14) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that they’ve
  found that road. Otherwise, they’d look for another religion.

This reason is subjective. A problem quickly emerges: a broken link. The Watch Tower Society, theocratic, God then them, Jesus missing; reason for true religion references Jesus and the narrow road, no reference to the Watch Tower Society.

JW are welcome to comment.

Closing, as far as I am aware, there isn't an official Church perspective on JW Watch Tower Society. It appears that the Church would have trouble saying anything on something that JW and WTS themselves don't say a thing about.


Why such importance given to the hour of death?

TL;DR Important due to both Particular Judgment and Purgatory

The form of the question.

  Aren't we supposed to be judged by our whole life and not just what happens at the hour of our death? Should our whole eternity be based on what we did at the hour of death and pretend like our whole earthly life didn't matter?

As my answer will show, that isn't how it works.  Your "pretend that it doesn't matter" is a False Assertion imbedded into the question.

The text of the question assumes an answer in the asking of a question (which means the question itself is fallacious in nature). It comes across in this way: (1) I don't know (X), (2) nonetheless it seems to be this way, (3) so why is it this way?  This is not a well asked question anywhere, no less on an SE site.

Regarding the Hail Mary1

There are multiple questions answered on this site covering judgment from the Catholic point of view, to include this one here.  In summary, the Catholic belief is that when you die you face particular judgment right then (CCC 1021).  "When you die" is a time/event that can be called at the hour of our death if one chooses to use that turn of phrase.

It logically follows from Catholic belief that IF

We are to pray for others (we are, see CCC Section IV, Prayer)
And are praying for mercy (we may and should, see CCC, Section IV, Prayer)
And Mary is believed to be an intercessor for us (she is)
And in that office she may appeal to Jesus on our behalf (it is so believed)
And that Jesus is the one who judges us (He does, Please See the Nicene Creed generally and amplified in the CCC2)

THEN it is perfectly rational to make a prayerful appeal for anyone that, upon their death, Mary will intercede and appeal to Jesus to be merciful in judgment upon that person (or collectively to be merciful upon all of us sinners) "at the hour of death" during particular judgment.

  I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT
  CCC 1021 Death puts an end to human life
  as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace
  manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily
  in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming,
  but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately
  after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the
  poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good
  thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny
  of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

Each person is presumed to have sinned at some point in their lives, and thus at risk of damnation.  Not only is that a Catholic belief, it's raw Scripture:

  For all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

All are judged.

  CCC 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at
  the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his
  life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through
  a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting
  damnation.
  - At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love. (~St. John of
  the Cross, Dichos 64.)

About the Sacraments

  There are other sacraments (confession, baptism, the anointment of the
  sick) that guarantee salvation if performed in the hour of our death.

This is an oversimplification that misses the point of Catholic belief and practice.  The one thing Christians do believe is that Baptism does indeed wash away sin, and Catholic belief goes further to aver that one is in a state of Baptismal Grace upon receiving the sacrament of Baptism.  This state removes all sin to include the stain of original sin.

First: Baptism, from which the other sacraments follow.

Baptismal grace is necessary, indeed it is the precondition, for salvation.
Second: Confession.  (CCC 1440-1460 The Sacrament of Penance and
Reconciliation).

Every time a Catholic goes to confession and receives absolution by completing the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, they are restored to the state of baptismal grace.  That, in a nutshell, is the gift of this sacrament.  The general teaching/rule is that a Catholic should be doing this at least once per year3.  (This is often called "Easter Duty").  The encouragement to go to confession monthly is a common position taken by clergy.  So no, you don't wait until "the hour of your death" to reconcile your sins if you follow the teachings of the Church.  It's like car maintenance, but maybe better called "soul maintenance."
Third: The sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick CCC 1449-1532

Particularly for those near death, this sacrament combines three things when performed in full:

Confession and Absolution (restoration of Baptismal Grace, see above)
Healing / Blessing / Spiritual Strengthening
Viaticum (Receiving the Eucharist)

Fourth: Purgatory

Purgatory is believed to be where any residual stain/effects of sin are purified/cleaned away so that the soul may at long last enter the presence of God, into whose presence no impurity may enter.   Put another way:

  Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance
  with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment
  for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely
  free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due
  to their transgressions.

Back to your question

  Aren't we supposed to be judged by our whole life and not just what
  happens at the hour of our death?

According to CCC 1021/1022 and the above, we are indeed so judged on the whole.   IF, regardless of our receiving baptismal grace, making regular confession, and even receiving absolution on our death bed, we still have the residual stain of sin THEN we require further purification upon receiving our particular judgment, which occurs "at the hour of our death."

Put bluntly: No, it isn't like nothing else ever happened.

1Louis de Montfort made further comment on the risks to our souls at the hour of our death.

  (Article 58. "Pray for us now," during this short life, so fraught
  with sorrow and uncertainty; now, because we can be sure of nothing
  except the present moment; now that we are surrounded and attacked
  night and day by powerful and ruthless enemies.

  "And at the hour of our death," so terrible and full of danger, when
  our strength is waning and our spirits are sinking, and our souls and
  bodies are worn out with fear and pain; at the hour of our death when
  the devil is working with might and main to ensnare us and cast us
  into perdition; at that hour when our lot will be decided forever and
  ever, heaven or hell.

  Come to the help of your poor children, gentle Mother of pity,
  Advocate and Refuge of sinners, at the hour of our death drive far
  from us our bitter enemies, the devils, our accusers, whose frightful
  presence fills us with dread. Light our path through the valley of the
  shadow of death. Lead us to thy Son's judgment-seat and remain at our
  side. Intercede for us and ask thy Son to pardon us and receive us
  into the ranks of thy elect in the realms of everlasting glory.  {snip}
  103. Then the devils started screaming:
  104. "Oh, you who are enemy, our downfall and our destruction, why have you come from heaven to torture us so grievously? O advocate of
  sinners, you who snatch them from the very jaws of hell, you who are a
  most sure path to heaven, must we, in spite of ourselves, tell the
  whole truth and confess before everyone who it is who is the cause of
  our shame and our ruin? Oh, woe to us, princes of darkness.
  {snip}
  We have to say, however, reluctantly, that no soul who has really
  persevered in her service has ever been damned with us; one single
  sigh that she offers to the Blessed Trinity is worth far more than all
  the prayers, desires, and aspirations of all the saints. We fear her
  more than all the other saints in heaven together, and we have no
  success with her faithful servants.

2 II. To Judge the Living and the Dead

  678 Following in the steps of the prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus announced the judgment of the Last Day in his preaching. Then will the conduct of each one and the secrets of hearts be brought to light. Then will the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of God's grace as nothing be condemned. Our attitude to our neighbor will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love. On the Last Day Jesus will say:
  "Truly I say to you, as you did it to one > of the least of these my
  brethren, you did it to me."(Matthew 25:40)
  679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world.  He "acquired" this right by his cross. The Father has given "all judgement to the Son". Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one's works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.

3 The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) had mandated, "Every faithful of either sex who has reached the age of discretion should at least once a year faithfully confess all his sins in secret to his own priest. He should strive as far as possible to fulfill the penance imposed on him, and with reverence receive at least during Easter time the sacrament of the Eucharist." For good reason, this mandate became simply known as "the Easter duty."


How, according to the Catholic Church, can God order genocide even though the Church has declared such a situation impossible?

God makes plenty of commands that are recorded in Holy Scripture. Why would Deut. 20:16-18 be an exception?

The original Douay-Rheims translation of Deut. 20 prefaces this chapter with

  Lawful wars are to be undertaken with courage and confidence.

The war is lawful because it is defensive. It is to defend the people against the great spiritual threats of the idolaters, whom the Lord knows would tempt the people of God to violate the 1st Commandment.


Why don't young-earth creationists just explain things (usually considered as miracles) as miracles?

It is always better to admit you don't know than to make something up, especially when it comes to speaking about God!
The idea that God fills in the gaps of our knowledge with his miracle super powers is called the 'God of the Gaps.' It has the problem of making God look like he decreases while our knowledge increases. It also does not adequately account for the doctrine of providence: Christians believe that all that happens is due to the hand of God. Things that happen because of the regular scientific laws are not somehow independent of God while miracles show how God acts; no instead everything is directly the act of God. But because God is an orderly being, he chooses to act in such a predictable way that we can categorise his acts into the laws of nature. The miracles are the irregular times when he decides to act outside his normal patterns, but they are ultimately no different from his other acts.
The YEC movement arose after evolution and scientific naturalism became the dominant scientific paradigm. The movement does not disagree with any data gathered by scientists, or with any real scientific laws/theories/models. Their disagreement with mainstream science is how to extrapolate from the data we have gathered in the present into the distant past. So they'll say that both sides have data X and theory Y, but their assumptions A & B differ, which is why mainstream science says some rock is 3 billion years old and the YEC scientists say it is only a few thousand years old. So even though they have no direct theological relevance, the YEC movement spends a lot of time developing models they believe are scientifically plausible for the cosmology they believe in. This doesn't mean they never say that miracles have happened, just that when the Bible doesn't explicitly say one did happen, and when they can come up with a model that doesn't need a miracle, they'll usually go with such a model.


The first step in looking for a respected theologian who can propose this view is to define how we know a theologian is respected, and I suggest a minimum requirement is that he or she is a theologian who has written works that are cited by his or her peers; a theologian is also likely to teach theology in a tertiary environment, but perhaps this is not so necessary for our purposes. Such a theologian would need to disbelieve most of the scientific evidence that we have about dinosaurs, including that a great many dinosaur species were quite small - even though popular imagination focusses on the few very large examples -  and that the last of the dinosaurs died out some sixty five million years ago. The theologians we are looking for  would therefore be proponents of Young Earth Creationism.

The author of this blogspot is a Young Earth Creationist, although the absence of a biography suggests he or she is not yet considered a respected theologian. This blog contains theological errors, even citing Genesis 3:14-25 to prove that Noah's bloodline hadn’t been contaminated by the fallen angels' and the Nephilim's genetic tinkering, when the nearest brief reference that could be interpreted in this way is at Genesis 6:9 (These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.) The blog also assumes the nephilim survived the Flood, against God's clear intention when he called down the Flood.

Allen Austin says that nephilim altered DNA to create dinosaurs. Austin has written and self-published (Xulon Press) two books about religion (The Middle of the Earth and The Messianic Temple) but provides no information about his academic status. I can find no online citations of his work by any theologians.

Rev. Daniel F. Owsley has written and self-published (Booktango) several books, including one called Dinosaurs Weren't Created By God, in which he states that the book was not written for Catholics or Protestants, but for Christians who know they are victorious or want to be. Owsley appears to be a  minister of religion but, in spite of the large number of self-published books, I can find no citations of them by any well-known theologians.

I am not personally aware of any respected theologians who offer the possibility that dinosaurs were on the earth at about the same time as nephilim and were the offspring of demon angels, and an online search has come up blank. This is not to say that there is no respected theologian who holds this view.  The nearest my search has come is Rev. Daniel F. Owsley, who has some credentials, as a minister of religion, and appears to believe that nephilim were responsible for the dinosaurs.


At the time of Jesus, and even for many centuries before, Aramaic was the vernacular or common everyday language. The Tanakh is mostly in Hebrew (in particular, the Torah) but there are a few Aramaic sections - notably, in Daniel. Hebrew was therefore the "high" language of religion but Aramaic was the "low" language of normal life. (Hellenized Jews would also have spoken Greek. The Roman occupiers, also being Hellenized, would have mostly used Greek, with a bit of Latin.)

In just the same way, Aramaic was the common language of the neo-Assyrian empire1, while they simultaneously maintained Akkadian as their "high" language. The neo-Babylonians2 followed the same pattern: people spoke Aramaic in the marketplace but used Akkadian, or even Sumerian, for  formal purposes. Koine (common) Greek is distinct from literary Greek, and vulgar Latin from classical Latin. You can also think of European scholars until  recently using Latin as a common written language, while speaking their own English/French/German/etc. in the street.

As far as the languages Jesus knew, we have the following evidence:

In the context of where Jesus grew up, he would undoubtedly have known Aramaic as the default language. Some well-known phrases in the gospels have Jesus explicitly speaking Aramaic, like Eli, eli, lama sabachthani (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34); racha in the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Given that the majority of the people he interacted with would have spoken Aramaic as their first language, it's plausible that he himself spoke Aramaic most of the time.
Luke's gospel also demonstrates knowledge of Hebrew: Jesus reads from the Torah scroll (4:16-20) and even as a child could discuss religious matters with the teachers at the Temple, also probably in Hebrew (2:46-47). The Samaritan woman (John 4) would have spoken Hebrew rather than Aramaic.
There are several occasions when Jesus talks with Romans, including Pilate. These conversations would have taken place in Greek, the customary language of the eastern Empire, rather than Latin; Aramaic is possible instead if the Romans would stoop to it.

So a definite yes to Aramaic and Hebrew, with Aramaic being his first language, and a maybe-to-yes for Greek. Of course, this excludes any languages that he might have been able to use by miraculous means.

1. The Neo-Assyrian Empire had a run of about 300 years of dominance over the Near East, ending about 612BC with the fall of their capital, Nineveh (the place that Jonah really didn't want to go). Their hobbies included coming down like the wolf on the fold, making sculptures of winged bulls, and ruling over their neighbours. They gained considerable prestige from the conquest of Babylon (and failed to conquer Jerusalem) but...
2. ...the Neo-Babylonian Empire overthrew them. This empire didn't have much to do with the original Babylonians apart from being based in the same city; the leadership were all ex-Assyrian. That's why they tried to legitimize themselves by copious use of Sumerian, and giving themselves Babylonian-sounding names. The most famous of their kings is Nebuchadnezzar, who appears in the book of Daniel.


When and how can a pope revoke the decrees of an ecumenical council?

Faith and Morals/Discipline

  Gregory X, to avoid a repetition of the too lengthy vacancies of the papal see, caused it to be decided that the cardinals should not leave the conclave till the pope had been elected. This constitution which inflicted certain material privations on the cardinals if the election was too long delayed, was suspended in 1276 by Adrian V, and a few months later revoked by John XXI

This amounts to a disciplinary matter being decreed, and then revoked. Whereas matters of faith and morals—the Church teaching matters of the Faith, which may, under certain circumstances, enjoy infallibility 1—are by nature irreformable, as they pertain to that which is a truth of the Faith (e.g. the divinity of the Holy Ghost).

The Two Kinds of Decrees by a Council

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article for Infalliblity, references the Council held by the Apostles and bishops in Jerusalem (recorded in Acts 15). There were two aspects to the 'decrees' that came out of this Council. Though it is pre-ecumenical, it has, like other Councils, the following basic 'format':

Issue/Heresy at Hand

15:1 "Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

Meeting of Bishops

15:6 "The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter."

Pope Settles Matter, Ultimately

15:8 "After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them..." 15:12 "All the people kept silent..."

Council Document(s) Crystallizing the Outcome

15:23-29

Council Ratified

15:28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these"

In this Council, as in most, there are the disciplinary matters (or, regulations):

  Acts 15:28-29

  For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.

And the matters of faith and morals (of prime importance—here, how one is reconciled to God by faith; with or without circumcision):

  Acts 15:7-12
  And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to
  them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice
  among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the
  gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave
  testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; And
  put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by
  faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the
  necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been
  able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe
  to be saved, in like manner as they also. And all the multitude
  held their peace...

Of course, since the Holy Ghost approved of their disciplinary decision, and thus is was infallible in that sense, and in this special, explicitly revealed case, it's not necessarily the case that a matter of discipline is the best, is ideal etc. Only matters of faith and morals, as the Pope teaching Christ's flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15-17), can enjoy infallibility (and therefore irreformable) under the respective circumstances.

A Real-Life Example

A real-life example from a real Ecumenical Council, take the first of them all, Nicaea I, canon 20:

  Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and
  in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may
  be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to
  the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

Or canon 4:

  It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the
  bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on
  account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least
  should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also
  being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should
  take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done
  should be left to the Metropolitan.

These are matters of discipline, and do not concern the Faith directly.

This (Creed/Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice):

  ...And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was
  not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not,
  or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a
  different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a
  creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the
  Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

Are matters of faith and morals.

You said,

  In another article, the CE says that John XXI's action was done "with the consent of the cardinals," but it's not clear to me if such consent was strictly necessary.

Such a consent is not necessary for the kind of infallible statement issued by a Pope 'ex cathedra,'2 nor to revoke what is but a disciplinary matter (and therefore reformable by nature).

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Session 4, cap. 4, 9:

  Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the
  beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Savior, for
  the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the
  Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach
  and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff
  speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as
  shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme
  apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals
  to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance
  promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine
  Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning
  faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
  of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

  Under what conditions is it acceptable for a pope to revoke an
  ecumenical council's decrees?

Under any, really: as long as said decrees are concerned with disciplinary matters (not intrinsically defined based on or dependant purely upon some dogma or matter of faith) which are by nature always revokable.

Possible Controversy

A controversial area is where discipline and faith and morals meet or are so connected as to make it unsure just what can be reformed. An example is when Pope Pius V, in a document called Quo Primum, forbade the changing of the Roman Rite of the Mass henceforth and forever, by anyone whoever:

  ...for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass . . . Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

  This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom . . .

  We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal

He considered it important enough a decision that he said:

  ...no one whosoever is permitted to alter this...statute, ordinance,
  command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and
  prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he
  should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the
  Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Or the very much analagous canon of the Council of Trent (Session 7, canon 13):

  "If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used
  in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments
  can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church
  whosoever, let him be anathema."

(Let him be anathema means outside of the Church, excommunicated ipso facto— heretic, not a member of the Church, hence its original meaning—'under God's curse'—applies only to members of the Church who would presume to commit such a heresy etc).

The controversy being that Pope Paul VI did precisely this, in changing the Roman Rite of the Mass. Since it is technically a matter of discipline, though, this amounts to disobedience to Pope Pius V's solemn decree and wish or ("Our...statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition")—("It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it")—and not outright heresy. So goes one side of the controversy among Traditional Catholics:) It could be argued that Pope St. Pius V simply overreached with his power to bind to a disciplinary matter and so it has no more effect than an otherwise mundane disciplinary wish or statute. It could also be argued that there was no sufficient reason to alter said Rite.

However, as in the case of your question and that decree, the disciplinary matter of making sure a Pope is elected quickly to avoid a prolonged period of sede vacante (no Pope) (your question), this is not in question at all. It is clearly a matter of discipline.

Judgement over any confusion (or interpretation of Church teaching in general), however, is left in the hands of the Pope and the Church, of course, not to the individual.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions in the abovementioned article on infalliblity:

  ...the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching
  regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their
  subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case
  of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the
  Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the
  faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of
  infallibility.

1 Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility | Wikipedia, Papal Infallibility (from the teaching of Pius IX, Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus)

2 'ex cathedra,' that is, 'from the chair' [of Peter]—not literally; refers to a specific kind of authoritative statement or decree, or excercising of a certain office as Pope; cf. Matthew 23:1-3


According to Trinitarianism, should prayers always be directed at one Person at a time, or can we pray to the whole Trinity simultaneously?

Jesus taught his disciples how to pray:

Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name... (Matthew 6:9)

In other words, we pray to God the Father (Abba, Father).
“Hallowed be your name” tells us to worship God, and to praise Him for who He is.
Since there has only ever been the One Being of God, in whom subsist the three personages of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, when we pray to God we are praying to all three.
Our prayers are specifically directed to God the Father.  We pray in the name of Jesus, and it is the power of the Holy Spirit that intercedes for us when we struggle to know how to express ourselves:

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness.  We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.  And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. (Romans 28:26-27)

When I pray to the Father, I remember to always thank Him for the greatest gift possible, that of His Son, and also to thank Him for the Holy Spirit which He sent to help us. However, I address my prayer specifically to our Father God in heaven.


What defined a "clean" animal prior to the flood when mankind did not eat meat?

There's no literal indication. Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong on this), the humans knew which animals were pure and which weren't even before of the flood. You can observe this when God tells Noah to take the animals into the ark:

  2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and
  his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his
  female. Gen 7:2

In the following verses Noah doesn't question this order, neither asks God for which animals were pure or not. So, this is an indicator that humans knew some of Moses' Laws (probably all). About this, some people believe that God engraved the Moses' Laws onto the hearts of the humans, but this is just a theory.

About the meat: The biblical text doesn't say God forbid to eat meat before the flood explicitly, according to Gen 1:29-30 (KJV) he gave like herbs and seeds for the human to eat:

  29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
  which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which
  is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
  30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and
  to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I
  have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

He didn't forbid it, neither allowed it. But later, after the flood, He gave the humans authority to eat animals' meat.

Cheers


"How do I get more faith?" - how to understand Jesus' answer?

Jesus was saying to the apostles that they didn't need more faith.

Faith is not an act, although it can be demonstrated by the way you act.  Rather, faith is an attitude, an understanding that things will work out as they should, under God's plan.

There are many places in the Bible that basically say not to try and do things all by yourself.  "Rely not on your own understanding," but on God's.  Faith doesn't require effort; it requires surrender.  Surrender is hard, not because it is something we must "do," but because it is something we do not always allow.

Faith is not something you can "measure."  In a very real sense, there is no such thing as "more faith."  You can not surrender "more," you can only surrender completely.


What is the norm for celebrating First Friday/Saturday Novena Masses on Holy Days of Obligation?

These devotions you speak of are not technically novenas and as such the Mass of the day fulfills the need to complete the requirements of these same devotions.

First of all, we must understand what are the First Friday Devotions, the First Saturday Devotions and holy days of obligation (Solemnities):

  First Friday Devotion

  The First Friday Devotions are a set of Catholic devotions to especially recognize the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and through it offer reparations for sins. In the visions of Christ reported by Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque in the 17th century, several promises were made to those people who practiced the First Fridays Devotions, one of which included final perseverance.

  The devotion consists of several practices that are performed on the first Fridays of nine consecutive months. On these days, a person is to attend Mass and receive Communion. If the need arises, in order to receive Communion in a state of grace, a person should also make use of the Sacrament of Penance before attending Mass. In many Catholic communities the practice of the Holy Hour of meditation during the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament during the First Fridays is encouraged. - Wikipedia

  First Saturdays Devotion

  The First Saturdays Devotion (also called the Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary) is a Catholic devotion which, according to Sister Lúcia of Fátima, was requested by the Virgin Mary in an apparition at Pontevedra, Spain, in December 1925. This devotion has been approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

  When Sister Lúcia experienced the Pontevedra apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she heard her promise to grant great graces, especially at the hour of death, in particular the salvation of the soul, for the believer who for Five Consecutive First Saturdays of Month (5 Saturdays in 5 months) receives Holy Communion and practices the following exercises as an Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Queen of Heaven:

  Sacramental confession

  The confession can take place within eight days before or even after the Holy Communion is received, but the Holy Communion shall be received with dignity, in a state of Grace, keeping in mind that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist (Transubstantiation). The Intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary may be kept to oneself; it is not necessary to notify the confessor priest.

  To receive Holy Communion.

  The Holy Communion has to be received within the 24 hours of the first Saturday of the Month. Attendance to Holy Mass is optional. Receiving Holy Communion as part of this devotion must be consciously intended as an Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart. The devotee need not tell anyone else, but keep it in mind. To avoid omitting the Intention every Saturday, the General Intention for the devotion of the Act of Reparation can be mentally or outspokenly stated before starting the First Saturdays (or in between).

  If a person has a valid reason not to attend Mass (Masses not available on Saturdays, difficult mobilization, other major event), the devotee may consult a priest about receiving Communion privately or on another day with the intention of making this Communion as part of the devotion.

  A 5-Decade Rosary is recited.

  The Rosary must also be recited with the intention of making reparation.

  A 15-Minute Meditation is made on the Mysteries of the Rosary.

  This Meditation should also be done in an Act of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Rosary Meditations can be recited on all 15 of the mysteries or fewer but must last for 15 minutes. This meditation is in addition (i.e. separated) to the recitation of the Rosary. It can be prayed alone or in a group and with or without the aid of sacred scripture.

  The activities of the Five First Saturdays devotions are different from similar devotions on other days in that all should be done with the specific intention in the heart of making reparation to the Blessed Mother for blasphemies against her, her name and her holy initiatives. - Wikipedia

  Holy day of obligation

  In the Catholic Church, holy days of obligation (also called holydays, holidays, or days of obligation) are days on which the faithful are expected to attend Mass, and engage in rest from work and recreation, according to the Third Commandment.

  The expectation is attached to the holy day, even if transferred, as sometimes happens in the Roman Rite, to another date because of coinciding with a higher-ranking celebration. However, in some countries a dispensation is granted in such circumstances.

  The holy days of obligation for Latin Catholics are indicated in canon 1246 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

    Can. 1246. §1. Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.

    §2. With the prior approval of the Apostolic See, however, the conference of bishops can suppress some of the holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday.

  Non-Sunday holy days of obligation all have the rank of solemnity. Accordingly, if in Ordinary Time one of them falls on a Sunday, the Sunday celebration gives way to it; but the Sundays of Advent, Lent and Eastertide take precedence over all solemnities, which are then transferred to another day (but the precept is not). Very occasionally, the Feast of the Sacred Heart may fall on Ss. Peter and Paul's feast day, in which case it takes precedence over the Solemnity of Ss. Peter and Paul; the precept then applies to the feast of the Sacred Heart. - Wikipedia

Seeing that the First (9) Fridays Devotion and the First (5) Saturdays Devotion are exactly that a devotion. If one chooses to perform these devotions in order to obtain the promises attached to them one would have to fulfill the obligation that is mentioned in how to perform the devotion, whether or not a particular First Friday or a First Saturday coincides with a Solemnity or not. This is up to the individual to complete the tasks, practices and prayers regardless of what day it falls on.

A holy day of obligation makes no difference in performance of these devotions. One must do nine (9) consecutive First Fridays or Five (5) First Saturdays in a row. If one misses one day, one would have to start all over again.


How do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain the unique wording of Colossians 1:15-17 in the NWT?

Summary of Jehovah's Witness Teaching: Jehovah God is the Creator (Revelation 4:11).  He is without beginning or end, and he is almighty (Psalm 90:2).  Jesus, on the other hand, had a beginning (Colossians 1:15- 16).  Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God.”
Extracts from the 15 September 2005 Watchtower article (pp. 4-7) ‘Who Is Jesus Christ?’

Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Who was his first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Yes, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself. Therefore, he is called God’s “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16) The firstborn Son also bears the title “the Word.” (John 1:14) Why? Because before being born as a human, he served in heaven as one who spoke for God.
“The Word” was with Jehovah God “in the beginning,” when “the heavens and the earth” were created. He was the one to whom God said: “Let us make man in our image.” (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1, 26) Jehovah’s firstborn Son was there at his Father’s side, actively working with him. At Proverbs 8:22-31, he is represented as saying: “I came to be beside [the Creator] as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time.”  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005681

Jehovah's Witnesses view Jesus as the instrument of Jehovah God, the Creator:

Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures.—Mt 19:4-6; see CREATION.  Source: Insight on the Scriptures volume 2, Jesus Christ - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451?p=par#h=7

Because they see Jesus as a created being, they have added the expressions “by means of him” and “all other things” and “created through him” into the text of Colossians 1:15-16.
It is my understanding that the Christian Greek Scriptures of the New World Translation is based on the Westcott & Hort Greek text.  The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures acknowledges the fact that the NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures is “a translation of the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, first published by them in the year 1881.”
Dr. Hort [1] had leanings towards Unitarianism as is made very clear by his associations and his avid support for Dr Vance Smith, the renowned Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee of 1881. [2]
I am unaware of any other source that would justify the additions made to Colossians 1:15-16 that appear in the New World Translation.
[1] With regard to the Revision Committee, there were two opposite schools of biblical criticism: on the one side Drs Westcott and Hort, and on the other Dr Scrivener.  https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bwkIAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA502&lpg=PA502&dq=Dr+Hort+Dr+Vance&source=bl&ots=tNaIqD89lF&sig=ACfU3U0PgmTidS1zBS5XSwe-MFpPpLrUUw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjX0Lufw9boAhUSY8AKHbdFCCgQ6AEwA3oECAwQNw#v=onepage&q=Dr%20Hort%20Dr%20Vance&f=false
[2] Dr Vance Smith, Unitarian scholar was (controversially) invited to join the revisers.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pZceAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=Dr+Vance+Unitarianism&source=bl&ots=PTdj-RFSi_&sig=ACfU3U0r2riTnZfW8sQmpJ4exyhIjqTiKg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI1Jr-xNboAhV_QEEAHeTBC0kQ6AEwB3oECAsQQQ#v=onepage&q=Dr%20Vance%20Unitarianism&f=false


Legal base for "any male baptized Catholic is eligible to be elected Pope"

What is the legal base for “any male baptized Catholic is eligible to be elected Pope?”

There are a large number of sources that state that "any male baptized Catholic is eligible" to become Pope, yet Canon Law itself is seemingly silent on this fact. Wikipedia for example states the following:

  The pope does not need to be a Cardinal Elector or indeed a Cardinal; however, since the pope is the Bishop of Rome, only those who can be ordained a bishop can be elected, which means that any male baptized Catholic is eligible. The last to be elected when not yet a bishop was Pope Gregory XVI in 1831, and the last to be elected when not even a priest was Pope Leo X in 1513, and the last to be elected when not a cardinal was Pope Urban VI in 1378. If someone who is not a bishop is elected, he must be given episcopal ordination before the election is announced to the people.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

  Though since Urban VI (1378-89) none but a cardinal has been elected pope, no law reserves to the cardinals alone this right. Strictly speaking, any male Christian who has reached the use of reason can be chosen.

Thus it should be note that technically any baptized male can be elected Pope.

The Code of Canon Law (1983) states:

  Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept the election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop. By implication, that would seem to require that a papabile (a) be male,(b) be baptized, (c) and be willing ordained a deacon and then a priest, and finally consecrated a bishop if necessary, and (d) have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders.

Canon 378 should be regarded in the light of requirements concerning bishops only and not the election of a pope. Bishops are named or appointed to dioceses by Rome after the recommendations of local bishops.

  The ultimate decision in appointing bishops rests with the pope, and he is free to select anyone he chooses. But how does he know whom to select?

  The process for selecting candidates for the episcopacy normally begins at the diocesan level and works its way through a series of consultations until it reaches Rome. It is a process bound by strict confidentiality and involves a number of important players – the most influential being the apostolic nuncio, the Congregation for Bishops, and the pope. It can be a time consuming process, often taking eight months or more to complete. While there are distinctions between the first appointment of a priest as a bishop and a bishop's later transfer to another diocese or his promotion to archbishop, the basic outlines of the process remain the same. - How Bishops Are Appointed

Canons 332 and 378 deal with separate subject matters. Since canon 378 deals with the appointment of bishops, Rome has set standards as to what kind of men diocesan bishops should propose to the  episcopacy. Canon 378 deals uniquely with the election of a pope. Nothing more is added to the requirement of a pope so that the Princes of the Church may elect to the office of pope as the Holy Spirit inspires them to do. How can the Church limit the third person of the Trinity, the Paraclete. At the present moment in time the Church sees no need to have further requirements regarding a papal election. Even in Pope St. John Paul II's Universi Dominici Gregis  simply states the same thing:

  After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops. He thus acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church.

  If the person elected is not already a Bishop, he shall immediately be ordained Bishop.

  If the person elected is not already a Bishop, homage is paid to him and the announcement of his election is made only after he has been solemnly ordained Bishop.
  If the person elected resides outside Vatican City, the norms contained in the Ordo Rituum Conclavis are to be observed.

  If the newly-elected Supreme Pontiff is not already a Bishop, his episcopal ordination, referred to in Nos. 88 and 89 of the present Constitution, shall be carried out according to the usage of the Church by the Dean of the College of Cardinals or, in his absence, by the Subdean or, should he too be prevented from doing so, by the senior Cardinal Bishop.

Thus a layman may also be elected pope. If a layman were to be elected pope, the newly elected individual would have to ordained a deacon, then ordained a priest and finally consecrated a bishop. Only at this point, would he be truly the next pope, who is the Bishop of Rome.

The Role of the Holy Spirit is of the great importance in the election of a new pontiff to the see of Rome. In the past, 15 to 20 days after a papal vacancy, the cardinals gathered in St. Peter's Basilica for a Mass invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in electing a new pope. Before the cardinals entered the conclave to select the next pope, they first celebrate a special Mass. Then they chant the “Veni, Sancte Spiritus” (Come Holy Spirit) as they paraded into the Sistine Chapel.  The master of ceremonies then pronounces the words: “extra omnes” (everyone out).

How Is a New Pope Chosen?
The role of the Holy Spirit at the papal conclave


Was Jesus finite or infinite? (human or God?)

It's one of those difficult things to comprehend. In fact, I think we may never be able to fully understand it. Jesus is God and has existed eternally as God (John 1:1, 18) but took on the additional nature of humanity during the incarnation. He fully possesses each nature, much in a sense that each member of the Trinity is fully God. His natures are also distinct much as the members of the Trinity are distinct. For instance, Jesus as man is not omniscient (Luke 2:52, Mark 13:32). Jesus as God cannot experience death. His two natures are completely distinct yet fully and completely unified in His single person.


What is the Catholic Church's position on the relationship between science and religion?

The "'non-overlapping magesteria' model for the relationship between science and religion" is not Catholic. In fact, it is condemned as a part of the heresy of Modernism, what Pope St. Pius X called the "synthesis of all heresies" in his 1907 encyclical condemning Modernism, Pascendi Dominici gregis (my emphases):Faith and Science

16. Having reached this point, Venerable Brethren, we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science, including history also under the name of science. And in the first place it is to be held [according to the Modernists] that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For faith [according to the Modernists] occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be unknowable for it. Hence [according to the Modernists] each has a separate field assigned to it: science is entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter at all; faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissension between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore never be in contradiction. And if it be objected that in the visible world there are some things which appertain to faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this. For though such things come within the category of phenomena, still in as far as they are lived by faith and in the way already described have been by faith transfigured and disfigured, they have been removed from the world of sense and translated to become material for the divine. Hence should it be further asked whether Christ has wrought real miracles, and made real prophecies, whether He rose truly from the dead and ascended into heaven, the answer of agnostic science will be in the negative and the answer of faith in the affirmative—yet there will not be, on that account, any conflict between them [according to the Modernists]. For it will be denied by the philosopher as philosopher, speaking to philosophers and considering Christ only in His historical reality; and it will be affirmed by the speaker, speaking to believers and considering the life of Christ as lived again by the faith and in the faith.

Faith Subject to Science

17. Yet, it would be a great mistake to suppose that, given these theories, one is authorised to believe that faith and science are independent of one another. On the side of science [according to the Modernists] the independence is indeed complete, but it is quite different with regard to faith, which is subject to science not on one but on three grounds [according to the Modernists:]

For in the first place it must be observed that in every religious fact, when you take away the divine reality and the experience of it which the believer possesses, everything else, and especially the religious formulas of it, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and therefore falls under the control of science. Let the believer leave the world if he will, but so long as he remains in it he must continue, whether he like it or not, to be subject to the laws, the observation, the judgments of science and of history.
Further, when it is said that God is the object of faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which while it philosophises in what is called the logical order soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form conclusions concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may become confused with it.
Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in him, and the believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonise faith with science, that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.

Thus it is evident [to the Modernists] that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant.

Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis was primarily about re-condemning Modernism in the form of the heretical "New Theology" that had sowed its rotten seed in seminaries and theological schools since Pope St. Pius X's time.


Is there a verse about "big" and "small" lies being the same in God's kingdom?

This might be the idea you're going for:

  James 2:10-11 ESV For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

"...just one point..." being the key statement. If you tell a "small lie" but don't tell a "big" one, you are just as much a law breaker before God because your heart intended to deceive in either case.


Why doesn't the Roman Catholic church defrock Richard Rohr?

In the Catholic Church, laicization (sometimes called “defrocking”) of a priest is much more complicated and is imposed as a penalty much less frequently than, say, the removal of a minister in other denominations. That is because the Catholic Church has a properly sacramental understanding of the priesthood. According to Catholic teaching, once a man is ordained—whether as deacon, priest, or bishop—he retains that degree of Holy Orders for life. It is an indellible mark or character that no human power can remove, under any circumstances. See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1581-1589.

In the case of a cleric engaged in grossly immoral behavior, the best that the Church can do is to prohibit him from exercising his ministry. That can be done with differing degrees of severity, ranging from simple prohibition, to suspension, to reduction to the lay sate (laicization or “defrocking”). If the delict in question is grave enough, the priest could also have an interdict or excommunication imposed (excommunication being the severest penalty that can be applied).

(Simple prohibition occurs when the competent authority—generally the local bishop—forbids a priest from exercising a given kind of ministry. For example, although a priest with faculties from his diocese of residence can, in general, hear confessions in any part of the world, a local bishop could, for a just cause, forbid him from hearing confessions in his diocese. Similarly, a priest’s own bishop could simply refuse to grant him the faculties to preach or hear confessions. On the other hand, suspension is a censure that entails a cessation of public ministry—either all ministry or only part of it, depending on the severity—without loss of the clerical state. Laicization—which can be voluntarily requested or imposed as a penalty—is the most severe restriction on sacramental ministry, which means that from now on the given deacon, priest, or bishop is to be considered a layperson, as far as the law is concerned, without, however, ceasing to be a deacon, priest or bishop ontologically. See the Code of Canon Law 1331-1335 and 290-293.)

Although laicization can be imposed as a punishment for extremely flagrant crimes, in practice such flagrant crimes are rare, and so “defrocking” is uncommon in the Catholic Church. (For example, nowadays laicization is imposed when there are confirmed and verified cases of child abuse by priests.) However, for less grave offenses, lesser penalties are generally given.

Regarding the case of Richard Rohr, his actions are simply not grave enough to merit a laicization. Fr. Rohr’s mixing of New Age and Christian mysticism is certainly questionable, and one can legitimetely discuss why other forms of disciplinary actions have not taken place, but the proper penalty for a case like his would be administrative (e.g., a revocation of his license to teach or preach), or, at most, a suspension, but certainly not an imposed laicization.


How do various traditions define the term "sufficient grace"?

If you do research on Calvinism, Jansenism, Pelagianism, etc., you might find the term "sufficient grace" bandied about. The trouble is, depending on who's using it, it's defined differently, which makes it a not terribly useful term. So I'll try here to clear up who uses the term and what they mean by it.

Catholics and Arminians use the term "sufficient grace" as a synonym for "prevenient grace" as a way of saying that prevenient grace is sufficient to save if it is cooperated with.
Some Calvinists (such as James White) use the term "sufficient grace" as a synonym for "irresistible grace" as a way of saying that God's grace is always sufficient to save if he intends it to save.
Jansenists (17th century Catholics who were condemned as Calvinists by the Catholic Church) use the term "sufficient grace" in the Catholic sense, but only to critique it. They denounce it as "merely sufficient" (as opposed to effectual), and call prevenient grace "little grace," since it is powerless to save.
Similarly, some Calvinists (such as Charles Hodge in all three volumes of his Systematic Theology) use the term "sufficient grace" in its historic sense in order to describe Arminian teachings on prevenient grace. However, they would still claim that it actually makes grace insufficient to save on its own (see last bullet point).
Augustine, whom Jansenists and Calvinists both claim as their early forerunner, used the term similarly to both groups, drawing a distinction between "sufficient grace," given to all men, and "efficacious grace," given only to the elect.
Catholics and Arminians claim that the Calvinist doctrine of common grace (grace which can lead to conviction of sin, but not to salvation unless accompanied by saving grace) denies the sufficiency of grace for salvation.
Calvinists claim that since Catholics and Arminians believe that grace does not save unless it is accompanied by an exercise of the will (which does not always occur), Arminians functionally deny that grace is sufficient.

In my opinion, due to the diversity of thought, it is better to use the specific doctrinal terms -- prevenient grace, common grace, irresistible grace -- rather than the easily misinterpreted term "sufficient grace."

Sources:

Eastern Orthodox appraisal of Augustine on sufficient grace
Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology on CCEL: Vol 1, Vol 2, Vol 3
Catholic description of the Jansenist heresy
Catholic appraisal of James White's use of the term, along with historical notes on Jansenism (the blog post linked in the question)


At the greater emergence of democracy in Europe during the 'Enlightenment' did the papacy support democracy?

One short answer: 1892

The "Ralliement" of the Catholic Church to democracy is often related to the Encyclical "Inter innumeras sollicitudines" (20 Feb 1892) inciting French Catholics to stop trying to restore a King ruling by divine right. France as the biggest Catholic Nation played a great role. However, during the Enlightenment, since the ideas of universal democracy were mainly carried by Libertines, their scriptures were often forbidden.

Two explanations:  The meaning of democracy has evolved, and it is only a political system.

"Democracy" was seen (until the eve of the 20th century) as what we call nowadays direct democracy, i.e. the Greek model, with a direct imperative mandate. While considered a very nice model by all (including the church), it was seen as inapplicable to modern nations. How would you gather each week several millions of citizens to make public decisions?  How would you use illiterate men elected by their fellow peasants to make a wartime decision?

In Monarchy-ruled France the ultimate national consultative assembly (which also had some power over the Parliaments), the Etats Generaux had not been summoned since 1684 and it took more than a year to gather them in 1788 (the members were elected with an imperative mandate through the "cahiers de doléances" (lists of grievances). A democracy as we know it today seemed very unrealistic, even if it seemed a very good form of government for free cities like the Italian cities).

The famous and very influential Savoyard writer Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) had previously opposed the stammering democracy of France and the United States as a treacherous form of oligarchy.

The expression of a "General Will" could not be made through votes according to him. Maistre thus attacked the base of the Republic; the French theory of "Représentation Nationale" (no need to translate) which forbid every form of Imperative mandate (the origin of the French rejection of lobbyism). He took the example of the French "Terror" (1793-1795) during which the young Republic obviously failed. He hailed instead the Papal electoral system as the best form of "democracy".

So there was no consensus on "democracy" in Europe until the 20th century (if you consider England a monarchy at that time).

To put it together it is a political question which the church did not really debate (which system is the better? Personally I see no reason to be a fan of democracy -specially if you separate it from the state of law- since it favours corruption and short term politics, but it buys social peace and it enables people to fully enjoy their dignity). But the Church always stressed the equal human dignity at least since the medieval time.

I would separate this from the question of papal control, since the popes had been struggling since ever to maintain control over the Catholic Churchs themselves in Europe (most notably England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire).

For example in France a lot of clergymen rallied the Revolution for their own purposes in this struggle, on all sides (the struggle for the control of the church in France since the 17th century opposed mainly the King backed by some French noble bishops, the Pope and his jesuit supporters as well as noblemen opposed to the King, and the Jansenists reformators backed by some noblemen and bourgeois). Catholics seen as overly favouring the Pope over the French Bishops were called ultramontains (looking over the mountains i.e. over the Alps to Rome) and the ones on the other sides were called gallicans (as in Anglican, Gallica beeing the Latin geographical name for France).


Are Roman Catholic priests ever addressed as pastor?

Typically, in the United States, the priest to whom the parish is entrusted is referred to as "the pastor". The Latin word is "parochus", which the Code of Canon Law translates as "parish priest". Other priests at the parish may be referred to more formally as parochial vicars or less so as assistant pastors.
In any case, though, the priest is not addressed as "Pastor" (in the US at least), but as "Father". The Office of Public Affairs of the US Congregation of Catholic Bishops carries on its website a glossary of Catholic terms, for the purpose of media coverage of Catholic events. This glossary includes the entry:

pastor. A priest in charge of a Catholic parish or congregation. He is responsible for administering the sacraments, instructing the congregation in the doctrine of the church, and providing other services to the people of the parish. Pastor is not ordinarily used as a title before the name of a Catholic priest: He is Father John Smith or Msgr. [i.e. Monsignor] John Smith or the Rev. John Smith, depending on your publication's style manual.
(source)


Why are Jesus' sayings about the poor concentrated in Luke?

Attending to the interest in "what any scholar has to say" about teaching on poverty (and, necessarily I suppose, wealth -- the two themes tend to come together) in Luke...

For general context, see Martin Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church: Aspects of a Social History of Early Christianity (Fortress, 1998). Hengel was one of the foremost scholars of the Second Temple Judaism and nascent Christianity, but known as a New Testament specialist.
More specifically, the broad social context for Luke's writing is set in the volume edited by Jerome Neyrey, The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Hendrickson, 1991). None of the chapters are directly on poverty/wealth, but lots about social location which informs this theme.
And more directly yet, see Walter Pilgrim's recently reprinted book: Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts (1981; reprinted Wipf & Stock, 2011). It has been widely cited by later scholars.
A published doctoral dissertation (Glasgow), covers this theme in some detail: Kyoung-Jin Kim, Stewardship and Almsgiving in Luke's Theology (Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).
In shorter compass, here are some articles and/or chapters that address this theme:

a starting point for many recent discussions was provided by J.R. Donahue's survey, "Two Decades of Research on the Rich and Poor in Luke-Acts", in Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson, ed. by D.A. Knight and P.J. Paris (Scholars, 1989), pp. 129-144. [no online sources I can find]
Joel Green, excellent orientation in a section on "The Economy of the Kingdom" in his (very readable) The Theology of the Gospel of Luke (Cambridge, 1995), pp.  112ff.
Peter Liu, "Did the Lucan Jesus Desire Voluntary Poverty of his Followers?", Evangelical Quarterly 64 (1992): 291-317.
Tim Kelley, "Renounce my Possessions? What does Luke 14.33 Mean?", Leaven 6/3.8 (1998): 131-135 [a more popular presentation, but still drawing on scholarly sources]
Thomas E. Phillips, "Reading Recent Readings of Issues of Wealth and Poverty in Luke and Acts", Currents in Biblical Research 1/2 (2003): 231-269 [this one would be a good place to start, in fact]

While that should be enough to provide an orientation to the scholarly discussion, the "Why?" question remains. And that's difficult to answer.

Many note the clear context of poverty out of which Jesus' ministry emerges: this is the clear signal of the offering of "two turtle doves" provided in Luke 2:24 (compare Leviticus 12:8). Not only does Luke use some distinctive Greek vocabulary for "poverty", he uses the standard Greek term (πτωχός = ptōchos, the "beggarly poor"), with ten occurrences, double that of either Matthew or Mark. And the general theme runs into Acts, too, so it is clearly a pronounced theme in Luke's writing, although obviously shared in many ways with the other gospels, Paul, and James in particular.


Does Catholicism teach that there is a cyclic creation of the world?

None of the main parts of Christianity adhere to a cyclic view of creation. The Christian scriptures speak of the creation of the world (meaning the universe) by God "in the beginning" (meaning that nothing happened before that). Christians consider the creation was "Ex Nihilo" meaning that it was from nothing - there was no material from which the universe was made.

Likewise the scriptures speak of an end times of being with God which will last for ever. The "new world" will not be destroyed, not even for another creation.


Does the word ONE in the verses listed below denote a physical oneness of substance or a oneness in unity, purpose and nature?

Regarding the Greek, in all four verses that you cite, the same Greek word is used for "one" -- the Greek word "en".

Of itself that doesn't prove much. In Greek, as in English, you can use a word to have different shades of meaning in different contexts, and two words can be synonyms.

One of the verses that you cite, John 17:11, says, "that they may be one as We are", which would pretty clearly indicate that the oneness of the church is in some way the same as the oneness of the Father and Son. One could debate whether this means that the oneness of the church is exactly the same thing as the Trinity, that it is comparable as a analogy but not the same thing, or that here Jesus is talking about a unity between himself and the Father that is not the same as the unity of the Trinity.

To the best of my knowledge, Scripture does not give a definitive answer to this question. Happy to hear if somebody else can point to verses that could clarify.


How do Young Earth Creationists counter scientific evidence for an old earth?

@El'endia Starman's comment is correct.  One of the common assumptions of the young-earth position is that the dating methods that give us billions or millions of years of history are flawed.  I could give hundreds links to support the statement that this is a well-accepted assumption among YEC-ists, but I'll limit myself.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/dating-methods
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm#11
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm

We'd also counter with "If the dating methods are so accurate, how is it the  coelacanth stayed un-evolved for millions of years?"  and a whole host of other similar questions.

I'd also point out that the article makes no mention of how the author came to the conclusion that the thing is 100 million years old.  It just states it as if it were undisputed fact with no evidence to back it up, which wouldn't even fly here, as there's no supporting references.  We don't even need to bring up the dating methods for this article. We could just ask where that figure comes from.  (Then we'd need to debunk the dating methods.)

The answer could and probably should end with the above, but in the interest of stemming the all-but-inevitable debate in comments, I'd like to add...

None of which proves anything, either way.   All such questions do is lead to endless pointless debate.

Neither side is likely to throw aside our presuppositions to give credit to the opposing side.  To the atheist, the idea of allowing for supernatural explanations is incomprehensible.  For the YEC Creationist, there's nothing less than the entire foundation for Christianity at stake.  And of course, in between those two polar opposite views are hundreds of shades of differences, concern, and apathy.

And note, I did not state that evolution is true or false, I was very careful to stick to "How do YEC defend" not "Is the YEC view true", despite my well-known opinions on the matter.  This isn't the place to debate which position on origins is true.  I answered only because this asked specifically how a certain group within Christianity typically responds to the given statement.  "How they respond" is answerable objectively.  ;-).