This is an anthropomorphism, which according to The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 77:20, page 1288:

  21. (the first of three paragraphs on the subject) The attribution of human features and behavior to nonhuman beings (along with anthropopathism - the attribution of human feelings) is common in both religious and profane literature of all cultures. What makes anthropomorphism worthy of special attention in the OT is the difficulty of reconciling it with the prohibition of images and the explicit denials that Yahweh is like any created being. The fear of a plastic image of Yahweh is in marked contrast to the lack of restraint in employing verbal images. Yahweh has a countenance, eyes, ears, mouth nostrils, hands, feet. He speaks, hears, smells, laughs, hisses, whistles, strikes, writes, walks. He feels delight, joy, anger, hatred, love, disgust, compassion (see e.g., T. E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God [OBT 14; Ph, 1984]. The OT never speaks of Yahweh without attributing human traits to him. There is scarcely any OT anthropomorphism that cannot be paralleled in other ancient Semitic literature; for the gods of other ancient Semitic peoples were personifications of natural forces or social realities to whom were attributed human features and behavior.

So it should be clear God does not literally regret, but this is an anthropomorphism to express an inexpressible idea.


Referring to St. Thomas Aquinas's De perfectione vitæ spiritualis c. 15, Fr. Royo Marín, O.P., in La vida religiosa p. 116, defines "state of perfection" in general:

  States of Christian perfection are those whose members are obliged in a permanent and stable manner, through certain means,* to acquire Christian perfection or to exercise it for the good of others.

  [Son aquellos estados de vida cristiana cuyos miembros se obligan de una manera permanente y estable, mediante determinados medios, a adquirir la perfección cristiana o a ejercitarla en bien de los demás.]

*such as a rule approved by the Church, like St. Benedict's Rule or St. Augustine's Rule

Thus, "state of perfection" can be divided into that for

acquiring perfection

Religious life, whose primary object is God.cf. Summa Theologica II-II q. 186 a. 1 "Whether religion implies a state of perfection?"

exercising perfection for the good of others

Episcopal state, whose object is the good of others out of the love of God.

St. Thomas's articles on the question of the state of perfection in general (Summa Theologica II-II q. 184) are well worth reading. Relevant here are articles

1. Whether the perfection of the Christian life consists chiefly in charity?A thing is said to be perfect in so far as it attains its proper end, which is the ultimate perfection thereof. Now it is charity that unites us to God, Who is the last end of the human mind, since "he that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him" (1 Jn. 4:16). Therefore the perfection of the Christian life consists radically in charity.
4. Whether whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection?properly speaking, one is said to be in the state of perfection, not through having the act of perfect love, but through binding himself in perpetuity and with a certain solemnity to those things that pertain to perfection.cf. II-II q. 186 a. 1 ad 3: "it does not follow that whoever is in the state of perfection is already perfect, but that he tends to perfection." Even those who struggle upholding the 10 Commandments are permitted to enter religion, because "the religious state is a spiritual schooling for the attainment of the perfection of charity," "accomplished through the removal of the obstacles to perfect charity by religious observances" (II-II q. 189 a. 1 co.).
7. Whether the religious state is more perfect than that of prelates [bishops]?As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16), "the agent is ever more excellent than the patient." Now in the genus of perfection according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v, vi), bishops are in the position of "perfecters," whereas religious are in the position of being "perfected"; the former of which pertains to action, and the latter to passion. Whence it is evident that the state of perfection is more excellent in bishops than in religious.It is from the abundance of their love of God that bishops are able to love their flock. This is why Jesus first asked St. Peter if he loved him and then commanded him to feed His flock (John 21:15-17).

cf. Fr. Hardon, S.J.'s definition of "state of perfection" as

  Those stable forms of living in which some of the faithful bind themselves by vows, or promises equivalent to vows, to practice the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They are called states of perfection because those who live in these states agree to follow a particular rule of life, approved by the Church, whose faithful observance will certainly lead to Christian perfection.


Without an annulment, a convert is confirmed and receives first communion

"Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven"

I refer to the second, current marriage.

Your question is both incomplete and nearly incoherent. You mention "all three criteria" yet you do not spell out what you believe them to be.

It is quite possible that the first marriage "lacked form" and thus in the eyes of the church never was.

Caveat: in my experience with RCIA, that situation you describe usually led to a decree of nullity (the short form) if a divorce decree was in the petitioner's possession, and, if the original spouse, even though Catholic, had not married in the Church with this non-Catholic person.

It is the responsibility of the Catholic party to do that for the marriage to be a sacrament.  If she had married outside of the Church in his first marriage, it is really her fault (in the eyes of the Church), not his, that the first marriage was not sacramental.  I have seen multiple variations on this, so it requires a lot more information than you provided to come to a finding.  I will assume good faith on the part of the Msgr in this case and estimate that such an inquiry took place. If it did not, then someone didn't do their job.  Action item 1: Go and talk to the Msgr and find out what happened. The internet can't help you.

Existing marriages have the favor of law

Even if such a decree of nullity was not issued for the first marriage, his second seems to be in good order.  Since the Church typically holds that a marriage has the favor of law unless it is challenged, and, the Church generally holds the marriage of other Christian couples are licit and valid (unless challenged) - there doesn't seem to be a problem beyond (perhaps) a paperwork problem in that diocese.

  Can.  1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

If the second spouse is still this person's spouse, there may be no need to raise any challenge.

Incoherence and Incompleteness

This is what you say:

  He is then confirmed and receives first communion, from the same Msgr.

You then ask:

  Is that man able to receive first communion and confirmation?

He already did, so this question makes no sense.

  Is he in a state of grace?

At the moment of receiving communion, yes. After that, who knows?  We can fall into sin as soon as we walk out of the door of the church.  (Hopefully, we don't)

  Can he be a godfather?

Maybe, probably not for a Catholic baptism.  That is a separate question.  The requirements of being a godparent are a bit more than "received communion once."  Consult with the parish priest and, if ncecessary, the chancery at the local diocese.

Caveat:  If the second spouse isn't Catholic, this will take a ruling from the diocese for this to be favorable, since the usual requirement is a Catholic married couple. (In my experience with RCIA in a US-based diocese).

God parents for baptism, and requirements for that role, are best inquired about at the local parish where the baptism is being performed.  Here are the requirements in the Dioces of Austin, Texas.

  REQUIREMENTS FOR GODPARENTS FOR YOUR CHILD
  As stated in Canon 874 and required by the Diocese of Austin
   - Must be at least 16 years of age.
   - Must be a baptized Catholic who has completed the sacraments of Eucharist and Confirmation.
   - May not be the parent of the child being baptized.
   - If married, must be married in the Catholic Church, regularly attending mass on Sunday, and living their Faith.
   - The two godparents do not have to be married to one another.
   - A baptized non-catholic may not be a godparent but may serve as a witness along with a Catholic godparent.
   - Non-baptized persons may not serve as witnesses or godparent

Short answer: likely can't be a godparent without a special dispensation from the Diocese.

You seem to be asking if the Msgr did the right thing.

What your question seems to be is asking whether or not the Msgr made a mistake, and that can't be answered with the information you gave.

The most likely thing that happened was that, during the conversion process (usually RCIA in a case like this) the marriage history was investigated and a series of 'yes/no' questions were answered per the guidance given by the diocese.  If the Msgr received 'yes' answers, then he was confident that all of the Canon Law requirements were met, and confirmation of the Candidate was completed per the diocesan guidance.

If the Msgr wasn't that thorough, then there may be a problem that can only be resolved in the diocese where this happened.   Once again, contact the Msgr and find out the details. The Internet Can't Help You.


Does Platonism have a denomination/group/following within Christianity?

Saint Augustine, an African theologian who was one of the most significant post-Biblical Christian thinkers in the early church, was heavily influenced by Plato.  His descriptions of God the Father can be connected directly with Plato's Form of the Good, an immaterial, eternal, perfect entity that is the source of all good within the universe.

Given the shaping impact of this line of thought on the church, you might, in some sense, say that we are all Platonists.

With that said, I am not aware of any denomination or sect that specifically adapts the rest of Plato's theory of the Forms to Christian belief.


This lamentation/complaint against Israel's wickedness and their practices of sacrifice is interesting because it is not only found in Isaiah 66 (the last chapter) but also in Isaiah 1:

  3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel
  doth not know, my people doth not consider.

  4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers,
  children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have
  provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away
  backward.

  5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more:
  the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.

  6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness
  in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not
  been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

  7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your
  land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as
  overthrown by strangers.

  8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a
  lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.

  9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we
  should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

  10 Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the
  law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

  11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith
  the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed
  beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of
  he goats.

  12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your
  hand, to tread my courts?

  13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;
  the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away
  with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

  14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a
  trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

  15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from
  you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are
  full of blood.

  16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from
  before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

  17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the
  fatherless, plead for the widow.

  18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your
  sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red
  like crimson, they shall be as wool.

  19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

  20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword:
  for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

The theme is the same at the beginning of Isaiah as at the end of it: frustration.  It could be phrased in modern terms as:

  "You are missing the point," the Lord says.  "I gave you a law of
  sacrifices so that you could repent of your sins, but you aren't
  actually using it to stop sinning!  You are treating sacrifice as 'the
  cost of doing business,' as a price to pay to make sins acceptable,
  instead of as an act of contrition as part of the process of
  repentance, and I'm sick of it!  What I truly want is repentance, and
  a people who make a real effort to follow my commandments, and without
  your heart being in the right place, killing a bunch of animals really
  means nothing to me."

This is consistent with Paul's declaration in Galatians 3 that the Law of Moses was intended as a "schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ".  The sacrifices themselves had no innate cleansing power; their virtue was in the act of obedience to God's will, and in pointing their hearts towards the true sacrifice that they prefigured, the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  If Israel forgot about that, when it was the entire point of the law, no wonder the Lord was annoyed with them!


does sword in Matthew 10.34 mean a branch?

In the context of the Chapter, it seems more likely that here Jesus is actually talking about a sword as in "I bring unrest/war". Observe how he says

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.
(emphasis mine)

He actually talks about giving your life and turning on your family to follow him, so it is reasonably to say this is not a branch, but a sword in the metaphorical sense of non-peace or conflict.


Were exactly three people crucified on Golgotha the night Jesus was crucified?

It is recorded in all four gospels that there were two, and only two, other men crucified with our Lord Jesus:
At that time two rebels were being crucified with Him, one on the right and one on the left. (Matthew 27:38)
And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. (Mark 15:27)
Two others, who were criminals, were also led away to be executed with Jesus.  (Luke 23:32)
So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. (John 19:32)
I don't know how it could be any clearer.


What is considered to be free choice in the context of "choosing to go to hell"?

The statement of "choosing to go to hell" is an over-simplification that really is an example of intellectual laziness, and is a great example of the difference between the "true theology" of a group and the type of pop-theology that springs up and causes great confusion.

Looking at it from any side, saying that people choose to go to hell does not make sense.

First, there are no passages of scripture that specifically mentions a person choosing to go to hell. Rather, multiple passages mention an action by God causing the separation of people, from the allegories of separating goats from sheep, or wheat from chaff, to the judgement scene in Revelations 20. Note that the separation is more of an acknowledgement of a preexisting distinction, but still only happens at the action of God. Then there is Matthew 7:21, in which it appears there is a person who wants entry to heaven, but God turns them away because they did not approach the correct way. Obviously not a choosing of hell, but rather a failure to choose heaven the right way.

Second, even just a casual examination of those who are not "born again", or those who have not "accepted Jesus", clearly shows that they have not seen a black and white choice between a choosing of heaven and a choosing of hell. Almost nobody ever believes in the existence of hell and then deliberately chooses it. As you said in your example, normally people just don't believe; not a choosing for one side versus the other, but rather an absence of choosing either.

So yes, according to the normal Evangelical interpretation there is a choice, but it is a choice to believe in and follow Jesus versus a choice not to believe in Him or not to follow Him. And yes, a choice to follow Jesus results in being allowed into Heaven, whereas a choice to not follow Him results in not being allowed into Heaven, and instead being sent to Hell, but that is a consequence, not the actual choice.

Unfortunately some people boil this down into the statement that a person is choosing to go to hell when they are actually choosing to not believe in Jesus (or at least the Evangelical interpretations).

All denominations/movements, and religions for that matter, are filled with pop-theology - the latest thoughts that spring up, which sound good to those sharing it, but don't hold up under scrutiny based on the group's base theology.


One classical definition widely accepted among Christians : God is a pure spirit, infinitely perfect, creator and ruler of all things and beeings.

1)There are a lot of explanations, please focus on one or some theologies. One would have to start from the original sin. One explanation is that the world had to be somehow prepared. And God doesn't send prophets the same way he sends the Messiah.

2) In the Book of Exodus, God appears in a cloud or in a fire, so why couldn't he take another form ? One could say that God is everywhere, but more particularly in some places of objects (example : a tabernacle). This is not a consensus among christians. If you believe that God is perfect and infinite, you assume taking an imperfect human form doesn't limit his perfection (see my answer to your third point).

In other words, God doesn't stop beeing God by "sending his incarnation on earth".

The Pharaohs didn't claim to be God, but rather one particular deity among other, which God wouldn't say (For a variety of reasons, it is assumed that God doesn't lie). Before calling them liers, we should focus on what they exactly meant by "gods", because it was very clear that they were dying just like other humans.

The question of idols is another complicated point. What is "worshipping" ? Christians worship God as a spirit (or at least spirit-like) beeing, so even if God was in a stone they wouldn't worship the stone, but God, the same way worshipping Jesus doesn't mean worshipping his little finger.

3) First I want to point out the difficulty of defining perfection. I can't because I'm imperfect. If you consider the bodily needs of Jesus, they are no needs for God. Jesus beeing hungry doesn't make God want to eat something. On the other hand, not beeing able to fully feel hunger or experience death can be considered an imperfection.

There is a variety of more or less complicated answers to your point focusing on Jesus: For example, the human and  God in Jesus are separated in essence in Jesus, or Jesus is 50% divine, 50% human. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian point of view is the hypostatic union: Jesus is fully God and fully Human, and (Ratzinger recently wrote about it, I'm trying to express it in English) Jesus is divinely perfect in his following of the will of God (if it wasn't the case there would be no point in a christian religion or worship), and the rest is bit more complicated to analyse.

4) There are occurences of Jesus praying, fasting, and beeing tempted by the devil in the Gospels. The rest of your question is rather sensitive and I can't objectively answer it here because it would be very long. I recommend you read the New Testament and be careful about the Transfiguration, and expressions like "Son of Man" and "Son of God" and their meanings or interpretations. Jesus taught his disciples to pray as himself did, addressing to God as Abba, "Father".


How do the Dead Sea Scrolls impact modern apologetics?

From what I recall, the major impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it validated the accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures.  Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament were dated around 920 A.D.  The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to around 100 B.C.

With this gap of about a thousand years, some supposed there would be massive changes uncovered.  This was not true, however, as the variances were of no significance.

There have been opponents of Christianity that made allegations that Christians had perverted the Old Testament text, introducing and rewriting prophecies to make it appear that there were Messianic prophecies which Jesus fulfilled.  Prior to the discover of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians had a difficult time proving that this did not happen, even though the reality of such an undertaking would have been rejected by Jewish people everywhere and would likely be recorded in history.

Thus, the major significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it verifies the stability of the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts from well before the birth of Jesus and Christianity, and on through modern times.  We can be confident that the Old Testament we read today has been accurately transmitted throughout history from at least a hundred years before the birth of Jesus.

The prophecies of the Messiah that so accurately and specifically point to the time of Jesus and to the specific events in His life were not introduced after the birth of the church, but were there all along.


How was 'years' defined in the book of Genesis?

It is hugely wrong to suppose that there existed poor levels of sophistication in the ancient civilisations before the Roman/Greek era especially when it comes to calculations of the length of the year.
If we accept the Bible's own testimony, then the Pentateuch was written by Moses who died 1406 BC, having been very well educated in Egypt.
Egypt
At the time of Moses the Egyptians used a Civil Calendar of 365 day, with no extra days to make up for discrepancies.  (So New Year's Day would shift about a quarter of a day each year and circle round and back to the same day of the solar year after 1461 years.)  The year had 12 months of 30 days each and 5 extra "epagomenel"/filler days at the end of the year.
The Egyptians used the 365 day year for so long that New Year’s Day drifted round the solar year to cycle back to the starting point almost 3 times.  They used it for almost 4500 years. https://pumas.jpl.nasa.gov/files/04_21_97_1.pdf
Does this mean that Ancient Egypt was unaware of the actual length of the Solar Year?  No. It became apparent to them that the seasons, particularly the beginning of the inundation/flood of the Nile season was falling further and further out of step with the Egyptian Calendar year of 365 days (by roughly 1 day every 4 years, of course). This innundation was important for them to be able to predict. They also found that the star Sirius (they called it Sopdet, the Greeks called it Sothis) was a better predictor of when the innundation would begin (this being because Sirius follows the Solar year very accurately).  When observed from the Egyptian city of Memphis the rising of Sirius in the morning is too close to the Sun to be observable for 70 days of the year from early May to the middle of July.
(Sirius is the brightest true star in the sky, because it is the nearest star.  It is pointed to by Orion's belt and is down nearer the horizon than the belt. If you travelled there on a bicycle [remember the flying bicycles in the film "ET"?] at 10 mph, 24/7, all year round it would only take about five hundred and ninety million years to get there.)
The first morning in July when Sirius became observable after the 70 day break thus became a critical observation for the ancient Egyptian priesthood, because it anchored their lunar months with the Solar Year.  (It also enabled a prediction of the Nile innundation/flooding.) The priests wanted their lunar celebrations to be in harmony with the Solar Year, by which I mean they wanted their lunar months to be as close to the Solar Year as possible.  So they added an extra month every so many years to try to keep their religious celebrations at the same time of the Solar Year.  So even though the New Year's Day of the Egyptian 365 day Civil Calendar wandered around the Solar Year until it was back to where it started every 1461 years, the Priests in the Temples ensured their religious celebrations happened the same time of the Solar Year and the critical anchor for their year was the first summer "Heliacal rising of Sothis/Sirius" (and possibly they thought of this as the New Year's Day of the Religious year). (A heliacal rising is where a star rises in the morning sky before sunrise, sunrise being the appearance of the first segment/blinding ray of the sun's disk.)
God did not want the his people to be observors of the heavenly host because this would have tempted them to worship the heavens
During the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness (Leviticus 18:3) after the Exodus, and more specifically when at the foot of Mount Sinai (Leviticus 27:34), Moses wrote Leviticus, in which was instituted a lunar/solar year.  The Israelites followed a lunar calendar of 12 lunar months (354 days) but (the High Priest) added an extra lunar month to the length of the year if the last harvest of the autumn had not been gathered in by the fifteenth day of month 7 (This is what I think Leviticus 23:39 is saying, i.e. it is my opinion).  So the Israelites between the time of Moses and the Captivity (about 600 BC) were not taken up with attempts to measure the length of the year by astronomical observations, in the way that other cultures around them were, but rather were guided by the timing of the last harvest of the agricultural year in the autumn.  What they did observe was the moon to decide when each month began.
In practice obedience to Leviticus 23:39 would have resulted in the addition, on average over the centuries, of 7 months per 19 years. The extra month could have been an additional month 7 (Tishri) so in a year where a month was added there would have been Tishri 1 and Tishri 2.  Or, more likely, it would have been an additional month 6 where the High Priest would anticipate whether the harvest could be fully gathered in before the set date (15th of month 7), and if not he would add an extra month 6 (Elul) making Elul 1 and Elul 2.
So 12 of the years in the 19 year cycle had about 354 days, and 7 of the 19 years had about 384 days.
(A lunar month is 29.53059 days, so 19*12 lunar months and 7 lunar months is 6939.69 days.  And 19 solar years is 365.2421875 * 19 = 6939.6 days.)
The Babylonians
By the time of the end of the Babylonian Empire (539 BC) a system of adding 7 lunar months every 19 years had been formalised and adopted by the Babylonians to keep the year in step with the solar year to err by about 129 minutes every 19 years. ((A vast improvement on the Egyptian Civil Calendar which erred by about 4.5 days over 19 years.)) Thereafter it was adopted by the Jews from the Babylonians. For religious purposes the Jews still follow the same calendar.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar
The Sumerians
The even more ancient Sumerian city states (more ancient than Babylon) were the first we know in the Middle East to produce a calendar with added intercalary months from at least as far back as 2000 BC. See http://www.projectglobalawakening.com/sumerian-calendar/
But who was first between the Egyptians and the Sumerians I am not sure that we know for certain.
Knowing when the Full Moon would happen was useful for doing many things in the cool of the night when it was also light, such as religious festivals, travelling large distances, or even heavy work around the house or on the farm.  Knowing when there was a New Moon, ie no moon at all was useful to know in order to avoid planning these same activities on a cool night.  In particular knowing about the lunar cycles were valuable for travelling large distances as a trader, and religious festivals, because both of these need at least some amount of long term planning.
Before the time of Moses, and especially before Noah's Flood
It is quite possible that some agricultural societies, well before the time of Moses, measured a year to be the length of time between one annual harvest and the previous one.
The question about the book of Genesis is how did Moses produce it?  Did he receive all the information by a direct revelation from the Lord, or did he receive all or some of the information from previous sources (which we can assume were themselves writing under divine inspiration). If he received them from inspired sources then we would need to know the length of a year understood by those original sources.  For more on this see my answer to:
Who documented biblical events before Moses?
In addition to this we do not know if conditions before the Flood were precisely the same as they are now.  God could have used a natural cause to bring about the Flood which could have had other consequences as well such as the earth's distance from the sun and the orbit of the planet.  Or God could have judged mankind with other changes to the planet by a direct Divine act.  We do not know, unless Scripture tells us, if the earth's orbit and the length of the year were different before the Flood, though it is difficult to imagine such a difference would be anything more than a few days per year.


What is the difference between "catholicism" and "catholic"?

The wording of that creed has caused confusion among untold thousands of people over the past millennium and across scores of languages. For as much consternation as it has spawned, the intended meaning is really very simple.

The word catholic in the a Apostle's Creed is being used as an adjective, not a proper name! A quick English dictionary search will turn up possible meanings like the following:

  Including a wide variety of things; all-embracing
  Of or including all Christians

The Roman capital-C Catholic church used this adjective as a proper name in their official title. In our current times, the word is almost ubiquitously associated with that proper name. The Apostles Creed, on the other hand, was very specifically not referring to the Roman Catholic church but to the church universal. This is why a clear majority of Christian traditions both Catholic and Protestant are able to stand behind the Apostles Creed as a valid representation of their faith.

The various alternate wordings you will find (such as the one you noted: "Christian" or another common alternative: "Universal") are attempts at resolving the confusion by using a less miss-understood word.

Although it would not be a good substitute in the Creeds because it has overtones of diversity rather than unity, another related term is ecumenical. To put it all in context, it would be reasonable to say that "The Apostle's Creed's description of the core tenants of our (catholic) faith rather than a specific (Catholic) tradition makes it useful in an ecumenical context."


According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was Jesus Christ ordained to the Priesthood?

This is not an LDS perspective, but a Biblical one. Hebrews 5:6 states (quoting Psalm 110):

You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.

Then in 7:15-16:

  15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like
  Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis
  of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an
  indestructible life.

Jesus' priesthood was not based on ancestry (he descended from Judah, not Levi or Aaron). And because his priesthood is eternal, it has no beginning. If it has no beginning, there is no need for ordination. Jesus was circumsized, presented to the temple, baptized, transfigured, sacrificed on the cross, and resurrected. His sacrifice is the flipside of what a priest does, and that occurred in time. Any sort of ordination happened outside of time, in eternity.


What do Calvinists teach about the Election of mankind? Is it before or after the Creation?

Since virtually it's formation as a school of thought, Calvinism has disagreed about the logical order of God's divine decrees. Generally there have been two schools with the minority (5% according to wikipedia) espousing the pre-lapsarian (lit. pre-fall) view that God elects to save and condemn prior to even create or allow sin. The majority view is the post-lapsarian (lit. after-fall) perspective which holds that Gods election to save and condemn follows the creation and sin of humanity.

Note that given the determinism of the Calvinist view of the world, and the a-temporal nature of God, it is, strictly speaking, improper to think of time before creation but these have been the commonly espoused views about the logical order in which God's commands about how the world would be made, occurred. This means in a temporal sense God elected before creating, but disagreement exists about whether he logically decreed election before or after decreeing creation and the fall.

This is why the majority of reformed theologians and statements of faith can simultaneously claim that God elected to salvation and punishment (temporally) before creating even while almost none of them have been pre-lapsarian. Therefore, the majority have held that at the very least election is logically subsequent to human sin, even while God's plan was established before the act of salvation.


There is a understanding in Catholic Culture, that most people at the end of their lives, typically die in the same manor that they lived.  For example, A person who lives his life rejecting in his heart the idea of God, will at the end of that life, continue on as when he was living it.  Alternatively, a person who lives a sacramental life of Prayer and adoration will continue to do so at the time of their death.

Redemption, as understood by the Catholic Church, includes stages, initial acceptance into the Church by Baptism, the reception of the Blessed Sacrament and confirmation. Unlike the New Christianity where preachers teach that  if only "once" you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, you are saved.  Christ and his church teaches biblically that a person must persevere to the end.  It is also clear that even a saved person continues to sin and must continually repent of that sin. Furthermore, Sin brings Punishments.  This is a concept that is clearly displayed in the Scriptures. It is essential for a Catholics to maintain there relationship, this is done through the Grace of the sacraments.

It may seem that I'm going off track a little.  I hope to bring it all back into focus at the end.

After a Christian is initiated into the Church through Baptism Eucharist and Confirmation, they are to use the sacrament of Reconciliation to remove the Guilt of sin, and perform Penance in order to repair the damages to their soul caused by sin, and to make reparations to damages caused to others. The Priest will give the confessed sinner, some manor of reparation, either prayer, Charity or fasting, or some other means by which a person repairs the damage they have done to themselves and to others.  If a sinner who commits a mortal sin, and has a valid confession, the guilt of sin is removed from the soul.  If the Penance is not done, the damage caused by the sin will need be repaired in the afterlife by means of purgation.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is not only efficacious, but a preparation for the day of judgement when the soul must answer for all that they have done.  Practice if you will, Humility training for when you stand before the lord.  So like Adam, when God meets you in the Garden and asks "Where are you?" you will have the answer ready on the tip of your tongue

  My God, I am sorry for my sins with all my heart.
  In choosing to do wrong and failing to do good,
  I have sinned against You whom I should love above all.

The Devil, whose tricks do not change, preys on the weak, and none are weaker than those who are suffering and dying. It is for this reason that the Church has the Sacrament of "the anointing of the sick" which includes the Viaticum, the food for the Journey, the bread of life which is Christ, which also has the power on its own to forgive venial sins. A Christian who asks for the Extreme unction is still not out of hot water, the mind weakens from suffering can still be led astray, temptation to end ones life by means of Doctor Assisted suicide is a danger for the suffering.  This is why Catholics pray, some daily for the intercession of the Virgin mother.

  Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee.
  Blessed art thou amongst women,
  and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
  Holy Mary, Mother of God,
  pray for us sinners,
  now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

See this link for a discretion of the Rosary in Sacred Scripture

Especially at the hour of death, this prayer to Jesus, honoring his mother.

  Luke 2:35 "...and you yourself a sword will pierce so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

Faced with the prospects of all eternity in the presence of the One True God, or that of damnation, the Catholic who practices his faith does so with the intention of succeeding in the one and only purpose for our creation.  The Conscious act of which the Lenten Missal addresses is the state of your conscious at the time of death.  Are you concerned with the agony of your flesh or the dispensation of your soul in your last moments.  Will you curse God for your agony or unite yourself to the sufferings of Christ on the Cross.  Will you, in order to relieve yourself of the pain, or the financial burden on your assets which you intend for your children, choose to end your life before its time? Would you under duress, deny Christ?  The Sacraments, the liturgy, the Prayers of the Church, Prepare our conscious for that time and the difficult thoughts and decisions and actions that we must face.

The conscious act is your perseverance to the end, through trials and tribulations, sometimes pain and discomfort. A prepared soul, who has prayed their entire life for the strength to persevere, and given the Grace to do so though the Sacraments of the Church, the intercession to the body of Christ, will have a conscious that acts according to the sacramental prayerful life they lived. Even the mind which seems to sleep will dream of the Scriptures or contemplate the mystery of salvation.

Compare this to a person who simply states that they have absolute assurance of their salvation, the sin of Pride and presumptions, an echo of the fall.

  where are you?


What are modern full-time Catholic proselyting missions like?

Generally Roman Catholics ('Catholics') do not use the term Proselytize due to the connotations associated with that term. I will therefore assume 'proselytize' in your question is synonymous with 'mission work'. (Pope Francis recently raised eyebrows by saying, in an interview, that “proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.”)

"The Church’s missionary spirit is not about proselytizing, but the testimony of a life that illuminates the path, which brings hope and love. The Church—I  repeat once again—is not a relief organization, an enterprise or an NGO, but a community of people, animated by the Holy Spirit, who have lived and are living the wonder of the encounter with Jesus Christ and want to share this experience of deep joy, the message of salvation that the Lord gave us." [Message for World Mission Day, May 19, 2013].

Catholics are not required to do mission work; however, they are generally strongly encouraged to do volunteer work. The prevailing view in Catholicism is simply by the deeds done, people will be drawn to the church. That people will see the good and the love, and people will sua sponte explore the teachings of the Church. (This is one reason why Catholics do not preach 'fire and brimstone'.)

I would divide Catholic mission work into two categories: Lay missions and non-lay or ordained mission work.

Much of the lay work is volunteer work that is organized by larger Catholic organizations. This idea is furthered by other US nonprofits like Catholic Charities USA, which spends nearly 90% of its income on charitable purposes, which are quite extensive.

The second group, ordained mission work, is a bit different. Generally, this mission work is done by religious rites, such as Missionaries of Charity, which was founded by Mother Teresa. Other rites emphasize bringing education to underprivileged areas, much as they did to the US in its early history.


What clues for the "sola scriptura" Church did the Apostles leave behind?

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. -wiki-

Does scripture provide evidence that it is the sole (alone, without other) infallible (incapable of error) rule (plumb line) of faith (things salvific) and practice (faith in action)?

To be clear, this is to say that other things like pronouncements regarding salvation via Tradition or Popes, Patriarchs, and Pastors to the extent such pronouncement is not found in scripture are not necessary for salvation.  For example, some will claim that one must submit to their Pope, Patriarch, or Pastor in order to be saved.  Since that teaching is not in the bible, it is false based on the sola scriptura concept.

So, what does the bible have to say about it being all that's necessary for salvation?

  Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Luke says I too will write things known by eyewitnesses so you will know with certainty what you believe.  This statement eliminates other sources of information as even important to one's salvation.

  John 20:31 But these [signs-of that which distinguished a person or thing from others-Vines] are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John says he wrote so you might believe unto salvation.  How many readers believe the apostles left something out that is necessary for your salvation?  Again, this statement is clearly telling us the apostles wrote all things necessary.  As eyewitnesses, and guided by the Spirit, I wouldn't suggest to hint that they were fallible and left things to chance.

  Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Things important, the apostles had recorded and preserved.

  Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Did God fail to have His will and revelation written down? Did He have it written in any manner but correctly and accurately?

  Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Please note that Paul does not mention unwritten, oral Tradition spoken by such and such so-called infallible person as things necessary for our hope.

  1 John 1:3-4 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.  And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full [complete].

Please note the plural "we".  We write what we witnessed to you that your joy may be complete.  Again, this is scripture alone.

  Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Writing down about the common salvation once delivered.  Hold on to it as they wrote it.

  2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

In this Peter tells us the same thing to which Paul testifies.

  Eph. 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

All things necessary, being the foundation, are found written by the apostles and prophets.

So, these scriptures (and others) were written by apostles who tell us what sola scripture claims.  Scripture is the infallible, sole rule of faith and practice.  It is the plumb line for Christian faith and practice.


When did female missionaries appear after the Reformation?

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching
  them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you
  always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt. 28:19-20)

The normal, "extroverted" role of women in missionary work has existed on a grand scale ever since the Apostolic age. Various religious congregations and orders of both men and women have been established throughout the centuries with the specific purpose of obeying Jesus’ Great Commission. Some of these female congregations, such as those founded by SS. Augustine and Benedict (Augustinians/Benedictines) date back to the 4th and 5th centuries.

Never the less, in order to address the question specifically, I'll briefly focus on the participation and pro-activity of women missionaries on a world-wide scale during and after the Reformation period.

During the Age of Discovery, immediately following the advent of the Reformation, Catholic missionaries – both men and women – set out to evangelize the newly discovered Americas. The Ursuline Sisters were the first Catholic nuns to land in the new world. In 1639, Mother Marie of the Incarnation, two other Ursuline nuns, and a Jesuit priest left France for a mission to Canada. When they arrived in the summer of 1639, they studied the language of the native peoples and then began to educate the native children.(1)  They taught reading and writing as well as needlework, embroidery, drawing and other domestic arts.(2) The Ursuline Convent established by Marie has been in continuous use by the Ursuline Sisters since its construction.

By the end of 1640, there were many Ursulines in Canada who taught the catechism to indigenous children. There is also an Ursuline convent in Quebec City that is the oldest educational institution for women in North America.(3) Their work helped to preserve a religious spirit among the French population and to Christianize native peoples and Métis.

In 1727, 12 Ursulines from France landed in what is now New Orleans. These Ursulines were the first Roman Catholic nuns in what is now the United States. They instituted a convent and school, both of which continue today.(4) Ursuline Academy (New Orleans) is the oldest continually operating Catholic school in the United States and the oldest girl’s school in the United States.

The Ursuline tradition holds many U. S.  firsts in its dedication to the growth of individuals, including the first female pharmacist, first woman to contribute a book of literary merit, first convent, first free school and first retreat center for ladies, and the first free education for female slaves (which continued until abolition). The Ursulines also established the first social welfare center in the Mississippi Valley.

Other notable religious orders that were/are specifically commissioned by Rome to do missionary work during the post-Reformation period:

The Sisters of Mercy was founded by Catherine McAuley in Dublin, Ireland in 1831, and her nuns went on to establish hospitals and schools across the world.(5)

The Little Sisters of the Poor was founded in the mid-19th century by Saint Jeanne Jugan near Rennes, France, to care for the many impoverished elderly who lined the streets of French towns and cities.(6)

In Britain's Australian colonies, Australia's first canonized Saint, Mary MacKillop, co-founded the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart as educative religious institute for the poor in 1866, and by the time of her death her religious institute had established 117 schools and had opened orphanages and refuges for the needy.

The list goes on and on, including contemporaries such as the Missionaries of Charity founded by Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

For much of the early twentieth century, Catholic women continued to join religious institutes in large numbers, where their influence and control was particularly strong in the running of primary education for children, high schooling for girls, and in nursing, hospitals, orphanages and aged care facilities.

Within Protestantism, the participation of women in post-Reformation missionary work sharply contrasts that of Catholicism, in that it was practically non-existent up until the turn of the 20th century. This was mainly because the majority of Protestant churches upheld the traditional position which restricted ruling and preaching roles within the Church exclusively to men until the 20th century.

The Protestant Reformation, by shutting down female convents within the movement, effectively closed off the option of a full-time religious role for Protestant women.(7) Martin Luther himself taught that "the wife should stay at home and look after the affairs of the household as one who has been deprived of the ability of administering those affairs that are outside and concern the state…."(8) John Calvin agreed that "the woman's place is in the home."(9)

In his A Very Short History of the World, the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that, in removing the institution of the convent, the Reformation at first indirectly reduced the power of women, for convents had been places where women could achieve power and influence, as in Zurich where the Benedictine abbesses had helped administer the town.

John Knox (1510–1572) also denied women the right to publicly evangelize, as he asserted in his famous First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.

Baptist theologian Dr. John Gill (1690–1771) comments on 1 Corinthians 14:34,35, stating:

  In Gen 3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule
  over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why
  women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly,
  or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an
  act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary
  to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men.
  The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be
  drawn into a rule or example in such cases.(10)

Methodist founder John Wesley (1703–1791) and Methodist theologian Adam Clarke (1762–1832) both upheld male headship, but allowed that spiritual Christian women could publicly speak in church meetings if they "are under an extraordinary impulse of the Spirit"(11)

Puritan theologian Matthew Poole (1624–1679) concurred with Wesley, adding:

  But setting aside that extraordinary case of a special afflatus,
  [strong Divine influence] it was, doubtless, unlawful for a woman to
  speak in the church.

It wasn't until the founding of the Women’s Missionary Union in 1888 that Protestant women began to effectively facilitate missionary work abroad.

According to historian Patricia Hill, the interdenominational women's foreign mission movement was the largest of the great women's movements of the nineteenth century, eclipsing the more famous temperance movement and women's rights movement.

  Local [women's mission] auxiliaries, like temperance groups and
  women's clubs, offered conservative women a forum for developing
  skills in public speaking, fund- raising and organizational management
  that could be easily transferred from these semiprivate spheres to the
  public arena. And when the women of small-town America embarked upon
  the systematic study of foreign mission fields, their cultural
  horizons were considerably broadened. Women who served overseas as
  missionaries or who headed denominational societies at the national
  level carved out careers for themselves in mission service. Thus,
  paradoxically, this eminently respectable, religiously conservative
  movement fostered a wider sphere of responsibility for ordinary
  churchwomen and opened up new professional opportunities for several
  thousand American women.

  Foreign missions gripped the imaginations and enlisted the support of
  hundreds of thousands of middle-class churchwomen in the late
  nineteenth century. By 1915 there were more than three million women
  on the membership rolls of some forty denominational female missionary
  societies. The interdenominational women's foreign mission movement .
  . . was substantially larger than any of the other mass woman's
  movements of the nineteenth century.(13)

Women have played an indispensable role throughout salvation history. From the Virgin Birth of Christ, down to the present day, women have played a tremendously integral part in the  mission of Christ’s Church. Missionary work is alive and well in today's Church, as both men and women are working together to preach the Gospel to all nations.

http://www.teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23848
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=325
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/The_Ursulines
http://www.pbase.com/septembermorn/ursuline_academy_and_convent_after_hurricane_katrina
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Sisters_of_Mercy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12248a.htm
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3241
Luther’s  Lectures on Genesis 3:11
http://www.covenanter.org/JCalvin/titussermons/srmtts11.htm
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-14-34.html
John Wesley's notes on the Bible, 1 Cor. 14:34,35
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma02/harris/sbc/wmu.html


What characteristics does the Great Tribulation have in JW eschatology?

Forgive me if I am unable to specifically answer your first question because I don’t know what you mean by “spiritual, economical, or something else.”  What I have done is research a Watchtower article dealing with the issue of the Great Tribulation and the events leading up to Armageddon:
Watchtower 15 July 2015: “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”!   http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015523?q=deliverance&p=par

14 What will happen after Gog of Magog starts the attack on God’s people? Both Matthew and Mark record the same event: “[The Son of man] will send out the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth’s extremity to heaven’s extremity.” (Mark 13:27; Matt. 24:31) This gathering work does not refer to the initial ingathering of anointed ones; nor does it refer to the final sealing of the remaining anointed ones. (Matt. 13:37, 38) That sealing happens before the outbreak of the great tribulation. (Rev. 7:1-4) So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11)
16 Once all the 144,000 are in heaven, the final preparations for the marriage of the Lamb can begin. (Rev. 19:9) But something else will happen before that joyous event. Remember, shortly before the remaining ones of the 144,000 are taken to heaven, Gog will attack God’s people. (Ezek. 38:16)...  Together with his 144,000 co-rulers in heaven, Jesus will come to the rescue of God’s people here on earth.

As for any timeline, there is no indication in the following publication as to how long the Great Tribulation will last.  No dates are given, just this breakdown of events leading up to the Great Tribulation, which will culminate in the battle of Armageddon when God’s enemies are destroyed:
God’s Kingdom Rules (2014) Chapter 21 pp 222-230 – Timeline of Events pp 224-225:

”Before the Kingdom comes to put an end to its enemies, several significant events will take place.”

The precursor of the Great Tribulation will be a proclamation of peace and security.  This is to be followed by the final sealing of the remnant of anointed Christians.
The Great Tribulation begins with an attack on religion by the Wild Beast of Revelation (which is the United Nations).
Events leading up to Armageddon include celestial phenomena,  pronouncement of judgment on the enemies of God’s Kingdom by the Son of Man [Jesus], the all-out attack of Gog of Magog [Satan] on Jehovah’s people and then the gathering of the anointed ones.
These things happen before Armageddon, at which point the Great Tribulation ends.  The grand finale of the Great Tribulation is the execution of judgment at Armageddon.
Chapter 21 concludes with the following advice on how to prepare for and survive the Great Tribulation:

Survival will depend on obedience.   Such instructions come to us through the congregation arrangement.  Reference to Isaiah’s Prophecy – Light for All Mankind 1, pages 282-283.


Do Christian concepts of fellowship allow for a congregation to welcome atheists to participate in their community?

In the most general terms, yes - most congregations are open to non-member participation.  Saying that, it is possible different congregations have a nuanced stance in this regard - some of their meetings may be closed and it is best to ask the leaders of an individual community what their stance is.  Another consideration is that while a particular meeting may be open to non-members, some of the practices engaged in may be restricted to member (or visiting Christian) participation - e.g. taking Holy Communion - so your participation may be partial in that respect (as would be appropriate considering you would not believe all that the congregation members believe with respect to those practices).


Why would God permit divorce because of Israel's "hardness of heart"?

The translation is not accurate. Original Greek says "is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife?" Not divorce. The Pharisees would never ask "is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" as it is very clearly stated in Torah that it is (Deu. 24). Rather the question is about a man leaving his wife through separation alone. They ask Jesus why did Moses permit both divorce AND separation. Moses permitted separation, but Jesus reminded them that in separation you continue married and anything you do with another partner is considered adultery.
The greek word in question is apoluo ap-ol-oo'-o from Strong's G575 and G3089 meaning; to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively, depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon or (specially) divorce. It is used many times throughout the New Testament such as when Pilate wanted to APOLUO Jesus (Luk. 23:20), meaning let him go, not divorce him. Or Acts 28:18 when Paul is talking about being let go by the Romans, not divorced by them. Apoluo is referring to being separated from, while bill of divorce refers to a legal divorce of marriage. –


Numbers are wonderfully flexible things that can manipulated into nearly any end result that the manipulator wants to see.

However, I have read of some amazing inferences which the Jewish Cabalists have drawn from the numbers of words, letters and etc. associated with the OT scripture, including some scientific predictions only proved true one and a half millennia later in the 20th century.

So I would approach the area with extreme caution, but not necessarily discard it outright without looking closer.

I found an excerpt from GL Schroeder's book Genesis and the Big Bang online.  Note that I do no subscribe to Cabalist mysticism, but it's intriguing nonetheless.  Cabalism is but a small part of the argument that Schroeder makes too, so don't make the mistake of assuming he all about ancient Jewish mysticism.

  the Cabalists theorized that at the instant of creation, God, filling all eternity, contracted. Within that contraction, the universe expanded.

...

  The Cabalists believed that only four of the ten dimensions are physically measurable within today's world. The other six contracted into submicroscopic dimensions during the six days of Genesis.

There was more in the book, and specifically about the conclusion they drew from the numbers of letters, words, syllable and correlations between verses on this basis.

The relevant books from Schroeder are:

Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible
The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth
The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom

(A word of caution, I have read one critique of Schroeder's Genesis and the Big Bang, stating he is a theistic evolutionist; I didn't see that, but it's been quite a few years since I read G&BB, so it could be his bent.  I am an old-earth creationist, and I still think he is interesting reading).


Is It Possible for a Penitent to Bypass a Refusal of Absolution and If So How?

In the extremely unlikely event that a priest denied me absolution and gave no reason for the denial, I'd confess to a different priest.

But normally, a priest who denies absolution would also tell the penitent why --- perhaps the penitent isn't really contrite ("I'm sorry I stole that money, but I'm going to keep it.") or clearly hasn't done an adequate examination of conscience. In that situation, the penitent should go and remove the reasons for the denial (e.g., return the stolen money) and then confess again (to the same priest or a different one).

Your sins are also forgiven, even before confession, if you have perfect contrition for them, which means contrition based on love of God (not fear, not shame, etc.) but perfect contrition must include the intention to go to confession when possible, i.e., to use the means that God has prescribed for obtaining forgiveness.

So the bottom line is that, to circumvent a refusal of absolution, you should remove the cause of the refusal and then go to confession again to obtain absolution.


What is the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and Pentecostals?

The short version is that they are not related at all. In fact, in many major ways they are quite opposite to each other.

The Jehovah Witnesses are a "reconstructionist" sect that began in the late 1800's. They do claim to be Christian, but the reason I use the label reconstructionist sect is that they believe they are the only true Christian church, and that the rest of Christianity has become corrupt. Their organization is not based on historical Christianity but on new revelation through their prophetic publications, which have in turn guided them in the creation of a special translation of Scripture fixing what they claim to be the issues with other translations.
Pentecostalism, on the other hand, is known as a "renewal" movement. Although they have many doctrines that are distinct from the rest of Christianity, they don't claim that the rest of Christianity is totally devoid of truth. Rather than starting from scratch, they only seek to revise things a bit. Although it is a fairly new movement, dating from just the early 1900's, it has grown and taken many different shapes. Not being centrally organized, it's harder to pin any specific doctrines to Pentecostalism (as it is easy to do with the JWs because their beliefs are so precise and centrally dictated). They use the same Bible translations as other Protestants but certainly have a unique spin on some aspects of it.

There are some similarities in the early roots of Pentecostalism. One of several main roots of the movement can be traced through the Foursquare Church. Although that particular church has since taken a bit more moderate approach, its beginnings are tied up in the affairs of one Aimee Semple McPherson and her teachings, "healing ministry," and other extensive influence. Because it has many roots, and later many branches, the Pentecostal movement is not as organized or definable as a sect, but it does have some characteristic teachings such as an emphasis on continued revelation, spiritual gifts, miraculous healings, and so on.

On the other hand, the JW doctrine tends to be much more concrete. They believe in various specific end times predictions (some of which have morphed as dates come and go), and are very precise about things like terms of service to the church, doing good deeds, and so on.

In summary, while they both began at roughly the same time and some parallels could be drawn in the way they first started, they are completely different entities. Early on they were driven by very different influences, and they have become very different beasts. Their teachings bear little resemblance to each other, and many of their teachings are mutually exclusive.


Do we answer the arguments of fools or not? How are Proverbs 26:4-5 to be understood?

The common understanding of this apparent conflict is that the two verses describe two situations.

One involves answering foolish questions...  The ones that are so foolish they don't deserve an answer.  The ones that people ask to get a rise out of you, or make a point, when there's no real possibility of an intelligent conversation.  The kind we quickly vote to close, downvote, and delete. Don't waste your time on them.
The other addresses rebuking foolishness where necessary. When someone is honestly confused, or their foolishness is causing another to stumble or fall into error.

There's a relevant article on it at Ask the Pastors that spells this out better than I, with the following points.

Wisdom is only acquired by those who want it bad enough to work for it
Every issue has many sides to it
There are exceptions to some rules

and the conclusion of that article:

  In the proverb you cite, there is a time to answer a fool according to
  his folly and a time not to. Jesus talked about not casting our pearls
  before swine (Matthew 7). This describes a situation where the
  receiver of truth despises truth and it is not worth telling it to him
  and may even be dangerous to. Paul is an example, however, of
  answering a fool according to his folly when in 2 Corinthians he brags
  and boasts of his “accomplishments” to the Corinthians because it was
  the only way they could receive him (11:16; 12:11). The wise person
  will learn when and how to respond to the fool in the best way
  possible, though even then he or she may not know which way was best
  until he or she got into it.


Is it possible to be Christian but not interpret the religion as fact?

Yes, it's called "cultural Christianity." It merely means that you live in a culture that has Christian habits, such as celebrating Easter and Christmas.

If you moved to India, you might - without converting to Hinduism - get into the habit of celebrating Holi or Onam or Diwali with your friends and neighbors.

If you do not believe in the tenants of the religion, however, you're not "a Christian" in the sense you mean.


An explanation from Calvinist about why Cain's offering is not accepted by God?

Why does God approve of Abel as righteous because of his offering?
You stated this in point 5 of your question, and though it wasn’t explicitly asked, I wanted to address it because it is contrary to our first principles. Conversely, God approves of Abel’s offering because of his righteousness- a righteousness, like all godly righteousness, that comes to him by faith. When Calvin says, "God begins with the person of the offerer" he means that the value of the offering is that it is an expression of adoration, and not that it is an attempt to gain approval; the value of the sacrifice exists solely in the heart of the offerer, because the approval of God cannot be earned, except so perfectly.
What is the cause of Cain's offering not being accepted by God ?
In Book 2 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin discusses the episode of Cain and Abel. He offers an interpretation of Genesis 4:7 that is not common, even among modern translations of the passage, acknowledging the error of Catholic translators.

They adduce the passage of Genesis, “Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him,” (Gen. 4:7). This they interpret of sin, as if the Lord were promising Cain that the dominion of sin should not prevail over his mind, if he would labour in subduing it. We, however, maintain that it is much more agreeable to the context to understand the words as referring to Abel, it being there the purpose of God to point out the injustice of the envy which Cain had conceived against his brother. And this He does in two ways, by showing, first, that it was vain to think he could, by means of wickedness, surpass his brother in the favour of God, by whom nothing is esteemed but righteousness; and, secondly, how ungrateful he was for the kindness he had already received, in not being able to bear with a brother who had been subjected to his authority.

Now, it helps to remember that the Reformers, among other complaints, rejected the teaching of the Roman Church that justification is a consequence of godly living. The concern of the Catholic presbyters was the moral living of their congregants and their dedication to the authority of Rome, and their teaching reflected that concern. It is not surprising that a person with such a perspective regarding righteousness would naturally adopt an interpretation that God spoke to Cain, saying that he ought to overcome his temptation through labour. To the contrary, Calvin posits that God was prophesying the very domination over Abel that Cain was later to display, in a similar way that He demolishes the pride of the wicked throughout the narrative that follows Genesis, which culminates in his demolition of all wickedness.
Calvin continues, giving the objector the benefit of the doubt by supposing that 4:7 does refer to sin. He posits then that the words constitute either an order or a promise, and examines both cases. In so doing, he addresses your second question.
Has God regenerated Cain and gave him faith by the time God speak to Cain as read in verse 6 and 7 ?
If God had regenerated Cain, he would have been able to speak the words in that passage as a promise, that is, offering assurance. It is common throughout the scriptures for God, through visions, prophets, or apostles, to offer the assurance of justification- a promise- to the elect. Calvin considers this as he continues.

If so, his words contain either an order or a promise. If an order, we have already demonstrated that this is no proof of man’s ability; if a promise, where is the fulfillment of the promise when Cain yielded to the sin over which he ought to have prevailed?

Because Cain fails, Calvin concludes that the passage cannot be a promise, lest the word of God fail, and must therefore be a command, then makes a statement that I believe answers your question.

For, if the dominion spoken of refers to sin, no man can have any doubt that the form of expression is imperative, declaring not what we are able, but what it is our duty to do, even if beyond our ability. Although both the nature of the case, and the rule of grammatical construction, require that it be regarded as a comparison between Cain and Abel, we think the only preference given to the younger brother was, that the elder made himself inferior by his own wickedness.

But surely Cain had faith. One might ask, how could a man such as Cain, who heard the voice of God, lack faith? What is the difference between the faith of Cain and that of Abel?
In the third book of Institutes, On Faith, Calvin answers.

But since the heart of man is not brought to faith by every word of God, we must still consider what it is that faith properly has respect to in the word. The declaration of God to Adam was, “Thou shalt surely die,” (Gen. 2:17); and to Cain, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground,” (Gen. 4:10); but these, so far from being fitted to establish faith, tend only to shake it. At the same time, we deny not that it is the office of faith to assent to the truth of God whenever, whatever, and in whatever way he speaks: we are only inquiring what faith can find in the word of God to lean and rest upon. When conscience sees only wrath and indignation, how can it but tremble and be afraid? And how can it avoid shunning the God whom it thus dreads? But faith ought to seek God, not shun him. It is evident, therefore, that we have not yet obtained a full definition of faith, it being impossible to give the name to every kind of knowledge of the divine will.

It is not the practice of faithfulness or measure of faith that is concomitant with the approval of God, but indeed a faith with a specific object and nature. God did not approve of Cain’s sacrifice because with it he sought the favor of God, and even to surpass the favor of his brother. Abel on the other hand loved God and did not seek righteousness with his sacrifice, but offered it as an expression of his adoration. Cain’s heart was hard, and so though he had “faith” in the sense of knowledge of the existence and identity of God, he lacked faith in the sense of knowledge that God himself is the sole source of righteousness by favor, that is, by grace, and that his favor is not obtained as recompense by sacrifice and labor, but a gift given according to trust and love that are the product of illumination by his Spirit.
Calvin returns to the episode in his commentary on Hebrews 11:4, saying,

The Apostle’s object in this chapter is to show, that however excellent were the works of the saints, it was from faith they derived their value, their worthiness, and all their excellences; and hence follows what he has already intimated, that the fathers pleased God by faith alone.
Now he commends faith here on two accounts, — it renders obedience to God, for it attempts and undertakes nothing, but what is according to the rule of God’s word, — and it relies on God’s promises, and thus it gains the value and worth which belongs to works from his grace alone. Hence, wherever the word faith is found in this chapter, we must bear in mind, that the Apostle speaks of it, in order that the Jews might regard no other rule than God’s word, and might also depend alone on his promises.
He says, first, that Abel’s sacrifice was for no other reason preferable to that of his brother, except that it was sanctified by faith: for surely the fat of brute animals did not smell so sweetly, that it could, by its odor, pacify God. The Scripture indeed shows plainly, why God accepted his sacrifice, for Moses’s words are these, “God had respect to Abel, and to his gifts.” It is hence obvious to conclude, that his sacrifice was accepted, because he himself was graciously accepted. But how did he obtain this favor, except that his heart was purified by faith.


What is the basis for the belief by some groups that a Christian can live a sinless life?

I think you are referring to a doctrine called Entire Sanctification (also Sinless Perfection), which is taught by some Wesleyan and holiness churches.  A Google search on that term will give you more information, but basically, the idea is that it is possible with the Holy Spirit's help to avoid sin completely.  Some Scriptural basis for this belief can be found in Romans 6, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, and 1 John 2:1-2, which talk about Christians being free from sin and blameless.


What exactly did Jesus mean when He said "I am coming soon" and similar phrases?

Some translation details

The passages from Revelation you refer to (3:11, 22:7, 22:12, 22:20) all contain the same Greek phrase:

ἔρχομαι ταχύ

The phrase is translated "I come quickly" or "I am coming soon" in most English translations.

Strong's Concordance has the following definition for ταχύ:

  Neuter singular of G5036 (as adverb); shortly, i.e. Without delay, soon, or (by surprise) suddenly, or (by implication, of ease) readily -- lightly, quickly.

Some claim the correct translation would rather be suddenly. This would be in line with the following three passages, at least:

  2 Peter 3:8-10 (ESV)
   8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9  The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

  Matthew 24:44 (ESV)
   Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

  1 Thessalonians 5:2 (ESV)
   For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.

As for the other passages, I cannot answer. I suspect the all-encompassing answer isn't just a bunch of translation notes but will require some theology, too.


What arguments are used by Protestants who object to the use of marijuana, even where it is legal?

This Protestant (viz., moi) suggests that smoking marijuana is analogous to drinking alcoholic beverages. They are both intoxicating, and they both involve a kind of surrendering to the control of the active drug in each substance.

The most famous verse in the New Testament in this regard is in Paul's letter to the believers in Ephesis:

  And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heard to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father (5:18-20 NASB Updated).

To be sure, Christians can be filled with all kinds of ersatz pleasures (e.g., pornography and sexual immorality, overeating, excessive entertainments and amusements, gossiping, coarse talking and "dirty" jokes, and sensuality, to name but a few), and while God has given us all things richly to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17), he has also given us some pretty clear guidelines on how (and even if) we are to enjoy them.

Moderation is one such principle; legality is another; the encouraging and edifying of one another is a third; the quality of our witness before a watching world is a fourth; the effects that the exercise of our freedoms might have on another believer who may not share our freedom (see Romans 14 and 15, and 1 Corinthians 6:12 ff. in this regard) is a fifth; and the short- and long-term effects of some pleasures on our bodies, which are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), to name but a few principles.

In conclusion, the legality of any behavior is but one of many principles we Christians are to be guided by in the things we do, say, and think. Arriving at a godly balance of these principles may be difficult at times, but God the Holy Spirit is ready, willing, and able to guide us into the kinds of behaviors and thought patterns which accomplish both his purposes for our lives and at the same time bring edification to others and glory to himself. In my opinion, pot smoking is not one of those behaviors.

In conclusion, an anecdote. I have a neighbor who claims to be a Bible-believing Christian. He also claims to have the "liberty" to smoke pot. Interestingly, he is also living with a woman who is not his wife (and who is not his first POSSLQ,** either); he is sporadic in his gathering with other believers for worship and fellowship; and he engages in pot smoking with his unbelieving friends. By the way, he lives in a state in which the possession of pot is a crime. If you were to take away the illegality of what he's doing by smoking pot, would you say the rest of his life is a sterling example to Christians and non-Christians alike as to how a Christian should behave?

An acronym used by the Internal Revenue Service, meaning Person of the Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters


What are the ordinances Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 11:2?

It's hard to say for certain exactly what Paul was referring to.  All he said was, "keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."  What ordinances?  The ones he delivered, of course.  The people he was writing to already know what he was talking about, because they're the ones he delivered them to, so he doesn't need to explain it.

It's a well-understood convention that writers tend to interrupt the main body of whatever they're writing in order to explain things that the audience would not be familiar with, but of course they don't usually bother when covering familiar subject matter.  Unfortunately, we're not the Corinthians.


Why do English-speaking Catholics say 'descended into hell' instead of 'descended into Hades' or 'into Sheol'?

Why do English-speaking Catholics say “descended into hell” instead of “descended into Hades” or “into Sheol“?
It is simply a matter of a bad translation from the Latin word for inferus.
The original Latin goes as such: ”descendit ad inferos” in the Apostles’ Creed.
Inferus has normally been translated as the lower regions or the netherworld.

Infernus
Etymology
From Proto-Italic *enðeros, from Proto-Indo-European *h₁n̥dʰér-o-s, from *h₁n̥dʰér. Cognate with English under, Sanskrit अधर (ádhara). *ð>f is irregular in word-internal position and is either explained as (Faliscan) dialectal influence or by assuming metanalysis as a compound with in.
Adjective
īnferus (feminine īnfera, neuter īnferum, comparative īnferior, superlative īnfimus or īmus); first/second-declension adjective

low

(in the masculine plural) the souls of the dead

(in the neuter plural) the netherworld, the underworld, Hell

References

inferus in Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short (1879) A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press

inferus in Charlton T. Lewis (1891) An Elementary Latin Dictionary, New York: Harper & Brothers

inferus in Gaffiot, Félix (1934) Dictionnaire illustré Latin-Français, Hachette

Carl Meissner; Henry William Auden (1894) Latin Phrase-Book1, London: Macmillan and Co.

(ambiguous) the gods of the upper, lower world: super; inferi

(ambiguous) the world below: inferi (Orcus and Tartarus only poetical)

(ambiguous) to descend to the world below: ad inferos descendere

(ambiguous) to be in the lower world: apud inferos ease

The fact is the phrase just up to very recently employed the word dead for the Latin word inferus. This is a practice I still follow as I believe it is more faithful to the Latin translation.

Roman Catholic Church
The initial (1970) English official translation of the Roman Missal of the Roman Catholic Church adopted the ICET version, as did catechetical texts such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

In 2008 the Catholic Church published a new English translation of the texts of the Mass of the Roman Rite, use of which came into force at the end of 2011. It included the following translation of the Apostles' Creed:

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Apostles' Creed (Wikipedia)

A new translation of the Mass of the Ordinary Form was inaugurated on the First Sunday of Advent in 2011. Surprisingly enough the Apostles’ Creed was overlooked!

The New Mass: Continuities and Changes
The changes (and their continuities with the older form of the Mass) are obvious from the first time the priest says, "The Lord be with you." In place of the familiar "And also with you," the congregation responds, "And with your spirit"—a literal translation of the Latin "Et cum spiritu tuo," found in both forms of the Mass. The Confiteor (the penitential rite), the Gloria ("Glory to God in the highest"), the Nicene Creed, and the dialogue between the priest and the congregation after the Agnus Dei ("The Lamb of God") and immediately before Communion all hark back to the older form of Mass—as well they should, because both forms of the Mass share the same Latin text for these parts.
Still, it would be a mistake to think that the new translation significantly alters the Novus Ordo. The changes put in place by Pope Paul VI in 1969 remain, as do all of the major differences between the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo. All the new translation does is to tighten up some very loose translations of the Latin text, restore a certain dignity to the English text of the Mass, and reinstate a few lines at various points in the Mass that had simply been dropped in the earlier translation from Latin to English. - The New Translation of the Catholic Mass

We may yet need a fourth revision of its’ texts!


Could Jesus have extraterrestrial brothers or sisters?

Firstly, anything and everything regarding "other planets" is speculation. The Bible is entirely silent on the matter. That includes the question of whether or not there is intelligent life on other planets. Scientists disagree on that question, as do theologians; most theologians, I gather, would say that there probably is not. But let's assume for the sake of your question that there is.

We can say unequivocally based on Scripture that the answer is no. Jesus is "God's only begotten son," as he proclaims in the ever-famous John 3:16. The Nicene Creed summarizes Scripture's teaching this way:

  I believe in ...
  one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
  Begotten of his Father before all worlds,
  God of God, Light of Light,
  Very God of very God,
  Begotten, not made,
  Being of one substance with the Father,
  By whom all things were made;

This is very important. Colossians 1:15-20 is a good passage about Christ as the agent of creation. That's a unique role, which he shares with no one. He was not created, nor was he begotten in a moment in time. The trinitarian relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has existed "before all worlds," and is unchangeable.

This being so, you may ask, how would redemption be accomplished for other intelligent life that has gone astray?

That's a question none but God knows the answer to. Nor does any church I'm aware of have an "official stance" on the matter. But some answers will be consistent (as far as they can go) with official teachings, and others won't. A good piece of speculation can be found in C. S. Lewis' Religion and Rocketry:

  Perhaps of all races we only fell. Perhaps Man is the only lost sheep; the one, therefore, whom the Shepherd came to seek.

Lewis raises this as a possibility, but affirms that it is not the only one:

  [But] if we knew that Redemption by an Incarnation and Passion had been denied to creatures in need of it is it certain that this is the only mode of Redemption that is possible? ... [W]e don't know. At any rate, I don't know. Spiritual as well as physical conditions might differ widely in different worlds. There might be different sorts and different degrees of fallenness. We must surely believe that the divine charity is as fertile in resource as it is measureless in condescension. To different diseases, or even to different patients sick with the same disease, the great Physician may have applied different remedies.

In the essay itself, he doesn't go very much further with regard to what these "different diseases" and "different treatments" may be. But an imaginative rendering of his speculation is found in his brilliant Space Trilogy, which I highly recommend. The only concrete piece of further speculation he offers in the essay is that perhaps other species' redemption would come about via Christ's sacrifice on earth. But this, again, is mere speculation.

So that answers (as well as I can) about redemption. What about other species not in need of redemption? Surely they would still need to at least know God. So, would Jesus necessarily visit other planets in order to reveal God to them? Perhaps. Again, speculation. But what we do know is that if these were species that God desired to love as his children, he would not leave them without the Holy Spirit, who Jesus tells us is our comforter and who indwells us for our holiness and renewal.


What does it mean to say an original Greek manuscript did not survive?

Without context more specific than "they say", it is difficult to know what was meant. However, such a statement is likely to be referring to no longer having the original copies of New Testament writings. Only copies of copies are now available.

This is to be expected as wear by use, environment conditions, and the ordinary misplacement and destruction of items. The same statement can be made for other documents of similar age.

Consider this image of one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (as a convenient example):

This is a document that was intentionally preserved without use in a reasonably friendly environment and isolated and hidden enough to avoid destruction by war, accidental fire, etc. Although centuries older than any New Testament documents would be, this still hints at why copying is the most reliable means of preserving information.


Who is the author referred to in the Pope's 4 April 2014 homily?

I don't know for sure who the Pope meant, since he did not give very many clues, but I think he was referring to Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855). His writings criticising the church were placed on the Index during his lifetime, but he was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007. The biography fits the way that Pope Francis describes events, with the possible exception of "not so long ago", depending on how wry he was being (and of course, from the point of view of Church history, it's comparatively recent).
A decree of Pius IX on 30 May 1849, reproduced here as a supplement to an 1841 edition of the Index, lists:

Delle cinque piaghe della Santa Chiesa trattato dedicato al Clero Cattolico etiam con Appendice di due lettere sulla elezione de'Vescovi e Clero e Popolo.
La Costituzione secondo la Giustizia sociale, con una appendice sulla unità d'Italia.
-- Di Antonio Rosmini Serbati. Decret. 30 Maii 1849. Auctor laudabiliter se subjecit.

That Latin remark at the end commends Rosmini for submitting to the listing of his books. The same books are listed in the 1900 recension; I haven't tried to trace the history any more closely than that.
These works carry the English titles Of the five wounds of the Holy Church and The Constitution of Social Justice respectively. Wikipedia summarizes the first as follows:

Of the Five Wounds of the Holy Church presupposes an analogy between the Holy Wounds suffered by the Lord's natural Body pierced on the cross, and His mystical body, the Church, pierced by the sins and errors of men in the ages of Christian history.
The five main evils of his contemporary Italian Church correspond, in Rosmini's view, to the five wounds of the hands, feet, and side of the Divine Redeemer. Beginning with the wound in Jesus' left hand, he likens it to the lack of sympathy between the clergy and people in the act of public worship, which he sees as a result of a lack of adequate Christian evangelical teaching. This is to be accounted for by the wound in the right hand — the insufficient education of the clergy, their secularisation and their alienation from scripture and their bishops. This again was both caused and perpetuated by the great wound in the side, which pierced the Heart of the Divine Sufferer, and which Rosmini sees as a parallel for the divisions among the Bishops, separating them from one another, and also from their clergy and people, forgetting their true union in the Body of Christ. The wound of the right foot is compared to the civil power of the Bishops making them into worldly schemers and politicians, more or less intent on selfish interests. The wound of the left foot is compared to events of the feudal period, when the freehold tenures of the Church were treated as fiefs by an overlord, or suzerain, who saw in the chief pastors of the flock of Christ only a particular variety of vassals or dependants.

As indicated above, Rosmini's contested reputation was eventually rehabilitated. Some recent documents of interest:

Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr Antonio Rosmini Serbati, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1 July 2001. Cardinal Ratzinger of course became Pope Benedict XVI, and was the one to declare Rosmini to be Venerable and later Blessed.
Homily of Cardinal José Saraiva Martins at the Mass for Rosmini's beatification, 18 November 2007.

Aside from the clear continuing interest on the part of Benedict XVI, it's interesting to speculate whether Pope Francis might have found something appealing to him in Rosmini's writings, on social justice and the reform of the church.