How do you reconcile Hebrews 9:27 with Elijah and Enoch?

John Calvin says (Commentarium in epistolam ad Hebraeos, translated by John Owen in 1853):

  Were any one to object and say, that some had died twice, such as Lazarus, and not once; the answer would be this, - that the Apostle speaks here of the ordinary lot of men; but they are to be excepted from this condition, who shall by an instantaneous change put off corruption, (1 Corinthians 15:51;) for he includes none but those who wait for a long time in the dust for the redemption of their bodies.1

Therefore, he reads this text as referring to a general rule: the scope of the passage is not meant to speak about these various special cases. In particular, Calvin thinks the author is primarily addressing the normal case of people who die once and then stay dead for a long time. The cross-reference inserted by Owen is illuminating; Paul writes there:

  Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. KJV

This chimes with other New Testament references to the living and the dead (traditionally, in English, "the quick and the dead") as in Acts 10:42, 2 Timothy 4:1, 1 Peter 4:5. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, we read:

  We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. KJV

The fates of Elijah and Enoch are basically this, but earlier: they were taken up by God in the same way, albeit in anticipation of the coming of Christ, rather than after it. They have been seen as prototypes (in the sense of "characteristic or normative" rather than "rudimentary experiments") for the transformation Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 15.

If we accept Calvin's scoping, then Elijah and Enoch are also explained. Lazarus is not a counterexample to the basic point of the author of Hebrews, and neither are they. In the same way, the judgement of those who are alive at the time of Jesus's return isn't a counterexample either. For one thing, everybody does eventually face a final judgement following the end of their earthly life, whether that period of their existence is terminated by normal death or by something else.

1. Si quis obiiciat, bis quosdam esse mortuos, ut Lazarum et similes: expedita est solutio, apostolum hic de ordinaria hominum conditione disputare, quin etiam ab hoc ordine eximuntur quos subita immutatio corruptione exuet: quia non comprehendit nisi eos qui diu in pulvere corporum suorum redemptionem exspectant.


How can things considered bad when done by humans become good when God does them?

First of all, my original comment about some things being sin for men that are good for God was specifically linked to this answer in which I outline how I think men are required to worship God and it would be sinful for them to worship themselves, but God demands that all things be focused on himself. I did not at all mean to imply that God is somehow allowed to do things which are inherently evil (or unjust).

So how DOES one reconcile the apparent cruel state of men on earth now with a good God? Forgive me the liberty of taking a clip out of context from your question:

  the point where you can call something good ends when real suffering by sentient human beings over extended periods of time is involved

The problem I see is that you are approaching this from the assumption that sentient human beings are inherently good and have a right to a comfortable existence.

Christianity asserts the opposite, that we are inherently bad and have no right to anything less than eternal damnation, destruction, torture, you name it. We as humans by nature fall under the wrath of God, not the love of God, because we have chosen to hate God.

  Romans 3:9b-12 (ESV)
  For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Since God is good and hates evil, and evil hates good and men hate God, God hates men. They are therefore objects of his wrath. The systematic punishment of evil is GOOD.

  Romans 2:8 (ESV)
  but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

If what humans (all of them) deserve is an outpouring of wrath (hell), then the troubled existence with mixed good and bad we experience here on earth is really an undeserved grace that overflows from an abundantly good God, not the result of divine injustice.

  Matthew 5:45b (ESV)
  For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

The real problem with God being unjust is this: that with all men being evil ANY of them should be justified. That God would take beings who hated good and choose to love them rather than hate them is an unfathomable injustice. Rather than complaining about the troubles of this world we should be marveling at how a righteous and just God could POSSIBLY justify the unrighteous.*

  Romans 3:26 (ESV)
  It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

* This would make a good next question.


I think there are four ways one can look at this.
Medical perspective
There are no well-documented cases of demon possession today among vast numbers of illnesses; various mental health problems have been tracked down often to a physical cause (even if we don't understand all the details of how the flaws work).  (See Wikipedia articles on epilepsy, schizophrenia, and so on.)
Historical accounts of people acting weirdly are generally consistent with the illnesses diagnosed (and treated, to some extent) today.  Since there is no evidence for demon possession, and a quite satisfactory alternative hypothesis (allowing for some exaggerations during telling), we should conclude that there never was any demon possession; that the Bible mentions possession is just a historical artifact of how mental illness symptoms were viewed at the time of the New Testament (note that the Old Testament is curiously free of cases of demonic possession).
Orthodox perspective
The Bible says there were demons, for example in Matthew 8:28-29:

Jesus Heals Two Men with Demons
28And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. 29And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

So there were certainly demons then.  No one group can lay completely exclusive undisputed claim to the title "Orthodox", but that this was the historical view seems reasonably clear just from reading the Gospels.  Modern groups that take the title Orthodox also tend to take this view: there are also demons now, even if they're more discreet than they used to be.  Nonetheless, the demons still affect us and need to be battled, and they still possess people (and can be exorcised).
Unification perspective
Demonic possession and mental illnesses are two different ways to look at the same thing.  When we say someone is possessed by jealousy, we don't mean that there is an evil spirit called Jealousy that is taking control of our actions.  Instead, we mean that they are in a particular mood, one which induces them to do things that they might sorely regret were they in a calmer state of mind.
In this view, "demonic possession" is a spiritual perspective on mental illness: mental illness is a flaw ultimately enabled by evil, and so without the perspective of modern medicine, it is entirely reasonable to call states of mental dysfunction "demonic possession" (in the possessed by jealousy sense).
Diversification perspective
There are some mental illnesses and some demon possessions, and if something was called a "demon possession" in the New Testament but sounds like a mental illness, it was probably a mental illness.  (This view blends into the Orthodox view, depending on whether any Biblical accounts of possession can be attributed to non-demonic mental illness instead.  Many Orthodox churches recognize mental illness as a phenomenon.  The Catholic Church in particular clearly recognizes mental illness as well as demonic possession, and I do not know whether doctrine indicates that some apparent cases of demonic possession should be understood as mental illness instead.)
Conclusion
Given a perspective, one can answer whether some/all cases of demon possession were actually mental illness.  In the first and third views, they all were; in the fourth, some were, but picking out which was which is hard to do reliably (would require scriptural support, of which there is none that I am aware).  In the second, no, demon possession was really the problem, just like it says.


A ransom or price is not a payment to the Devil to redeem his slaves but a payment to God’s justice to redeem us from sin, world, law, Devil and death. This payment is owed to Gods law due to the sin of man. This debt needs to be paid.

  the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (The New International Version. 2011, Mt 20:28)

The price of redemption is the blood of Christ, which atones for sin.

  The word ransom (λυτρον) is derived from the Hebrew verb כִּפֶּר “to atone”…The idea is not that of simple freeing from a fault, but of its recognition and expiation in the substitutionary offering. Thus when λύτρον (-α) is used for כֹּפֶר, it always denotes a vicarious gift whose value covers a fault, so that the debt is not just cancelled. Indeed, in the equation כֹּפֶר == λύτρον the offering is always for a human life (ψυχή). (Vol. 4: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (329). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.)

This ‘payment’ is therefore substitutionary ‘life for life’. Christ died to pay the penalty of our sins, and as the law also demands positive and perfect obedience, his perfect righteousness is also included in the payment. His perfect obedience is counted as ours. His obedience is charged as an alien gift to the sinners account so that they are ‘declared righteous and obedient’, even while still sinners.

  While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! (The New International Version. 2011 ,Ro 5:8–10)


It could be the sermon "Spirit Baptism and Sanctification."

Updated to add more information:

The reason I think this is the answer you are looking for is because I listened to it, and it appeared to be matching your criteria of:

Baptism in the Spirit
If you've got it all, where is it?
If you've got it all, why are you so unlike the New Testament Christians?


Was the wine in The Last Supper fermented?

Prior to the advent of pasteurization, fermentation was something which happened in all grape juice whether a fermenting agent was consciously introduced or not (and it happened with relative immediacy). The last supper, then, would have had wine and not plain grape juice.

It is also noteworthy to point out that wine, unless something bizarre has occurred, is not leavened bread.


Have Jehovah's Witnesses' top leadership made a "vow of poverty"?

Yes, everyone working at Bethel facilities has the same vow of poverty, including committee directors and the members of the Governing Body.
The Watch Tower Society is a nonprofit organization, and there are no salaries. The vow of poverty has both a legal and organizational purpose, as it affords tax exceptions as well as allows individuals to have the freedom to accept whatever assignment they may be given in the worldwide organization. Bethel facilities provide most, if not all, of the things needed in order to live at the facility, but a small set monthly allowance is also provided for any out-of-pocket personal expenses.
Here's a direct answer from a Q&A article on page 24 of the December 1, 1990 Watchtower.

Do any of the Watch Tower Society’s officers or members make money
from your extensive printing activities?
Emphatically, no! By law, the Society is a nonprofit corporation. There are no stockholders, no
dividends, not even salaries. Each minister at headquarters, including
the Society’s president and directors, has taken a legal vow of
poverty. He receives food, shelter, and necessary medical care, as
well as a small reimbursement of money for out-of-pocket expenses. If
a Witness travels on Society business, his travel expenses are usually
covered.
In addition, nowhere in the world do our ministers charge for
performing weddings, baptisms, or funerals. And there are no admission
charges or collections at public lectures or conventions.

Even Brother Russell, the first president of the organization (before the Governing Body was instituted), received only a small monthly sum of money.
This is from the book, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom (emphasis mine):

Instead of using religious activity to acquire material wealth for
himself, Brother Russell spent all his resources in the Lord’s work.
After his death it was reported in The Watch Tower: “He devoted his
private fortune entirely to the cause to which he gave his life. He
received the nominal sum of $11.00 per month for his personal
expenses. He died, leaving no estate whatsoever.”
With regard to those who would carry on the work of the Society, Brother Russell stipulated
in his will: “As for compensation, I think it wise to maintain the
Society’s course of the past in respect to salaries—that none be paid;
that merely reasonable expenses be allowed to those who serve the
Society or its work in any manner.” Those who would serve at the
Society’s Bethel homes, offices, and factories, as well as its
traveling representatives, were to be provided merely food, shelter,
and a moderate amount for expenses—enough for immediate needs but “no
provision . . . for the laying up of money.” That same standard
applies today.
Those who are accepted for special full-time service at
the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses all subscribe to a vow
of poverty, as have all the members of the Governing Body and all the
other members of the Bethel family there. This does not mean that they
live a drab life, without any comforts. But it does mean that they
share, without partiality, the modest provisions of food, shelter, and
expense reimbursement that are made for all in such service.

If you factor in inflation since 1916 (which was the year he died), $11 was worth around $260.


What is the difference between "person" and "substance"?

The terms substance and person are (in the context of Trinitarian theology and Christology) Latin translations of the Greek terms ousia and hypostasis.

The background from Greek philosophy.

Plato and Aristotle were the ones who first formulated the terms ousia (substance or essence) and hypostasis (individual substance) in a philosophical sense. Plato did not make any treatises; it was his student Aristotle who was the first to deal with substance (ousia) in a systematic way.

Substance

A lot could be said, but, briefly, a substance is any individual being that exists separately from—and is not merely a characteristic “inherent” in—other beings. For example, an oak tree is a substance; its color, size, weight, location, and so forth, are not substances but accidents. The tree exists “separately” from other substances; the tree’s accidents cannot possibly be separated from it.

As Aristotle famously remarked,

  “Being” (τὸ ὂν) is used in many ways, but referring to one, and one nature only, not ambiguously (Metaphyiscs 1003α32; my translation).

The “one thing” to which being always refers is οὐσία; that is, substance (1003β5). In other words, although the verb “to be” can be used in a lot of different ways, it always refers ultimately to some substance. For example, we say, “The tree is green,” or “The tree is in such-and-such a place,” and so forth, but we can affirm neither greenness nor location without a tree (the substance) to go with it.

Note that for Aristotle (in opposition to his teacher Plato), substance primarily denotes individuals, not universals. That is, for Aristotle, an individual tree is a substance in the primary sense; tree-kind can also be called “substance,” but only in a secondary sense.

In contrast, Plato thought that reality is to found principally in the ideas: hence, for Plato tree-kind is more real than individual trees. (See, for instance Plato’s Phaedo 78c–79a, and 100b–101d.) Not so for Aristotle.

This distinction becomes important when it is applied to Trinitarian theology and Christology, because those who formulated that theology were fundamentally Platonists, not Aristotelians.

Hypostasis and Person

The term hypostasis simply refers to substance in (what for Aristotle is) its primary sense: an individual. The Greek term can refer to any individual with a separate existence: a tree, a human being, a dog, a stone, and so forth.

The Latin term person—according to Boethius’ famous definition—refers to an “individual substance (hence a hypostasis) with a rational nature” (Boethius, Liber de persona et duabus naturis, chapter III, PL 63:1343C). In other words, the term person in Latin has a more restricted meaning than the Greek hypostasis—that is, it is limited to substances capable of intellectual knowledge (men, angels, and God). In a Trinitarian or Christological context, however, the two terms are identical in meaning.

Substance and Hypostasis (Person) in Trinitarian theology

When the Council of Nicaea condemned the heresy of Arius, it affirmed that the Son is one in substance (homousios) with the Father. (See text of the Council of Nicaea in Denzinger-Hünnermann [DH], Enchiridion symbolorum, 125.) The council fathers, however, failed to distinguish well between hypostasis and ousia, as is evidenced by the following condemnation:

  Those who hold that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance [ousia] from God … are anathematized by the Catholic Church (Council of Nicaea, DH 126).

This condemnation is not false, but was written at a time when the terms hypostasis and ousia were not yet used in the technical sense they have today. (The Nicene condemnation reflects the fact that in most of the philosophical discourse of the day ousia and hypostasis were essentially synonyms.)

It was the Cappadocian Father Basil of Caesarea who first made that distinction (probably influenced in part by Origen). It should be noted that Basil’s training was Platonic, not Aristotelian, so he was drawing from the Platonic interpretation of the terms substance (ousia) and hypostasis. Basil, therefore, interprets ousia to mean universal or common nature (e.g, tree-kind, as opposed to individual trees) and hypostasis to mean a concrete individual.

It is, however, very important to note that Basil went to great lengths to explain that in applying these terms, he was not attributing them to God in the same way that they apply to creatures. Among creatures, individuals belong to “genera” or “species” that are constituted by other individuals of the same kind. Thus, for instance, oak trees belong to a species of other trees that are also oak trees; human beings belong to the species called “man,” and so forth.

The Hypostases (Persons) of the Trinity, however, are not “individuals” in the “species” called God; such would be tantamount to tri-theism. Rather, each Hypostasis possesses the Divine Substance (and the very same Divine Substance) in its entirety. (That is possible, as Gregory Nazianzen explains, because each Hypostasis is fundamentally a relation of origin with respect to the other Hypostases [Orat. 31 de Spiritu Sancto, IX, PG 36:141C].)

The Persons (or Hypostases) of the Trinity, therefore, are immanent relations of origin that operate within the Godhead. They are the subjects of God’s action and answer the question Who?

The Divine Substance, on the other hand, answers the question of what kind of being God is.

Again, it should be stressed that the Persons do not “divide” the Divine Substance in any way; God remains utterly simple and undivided.

Substance and Person in Christology

The terms ousia (and its synonym physis or “nature”) and hypostasis also appear in the context of Christology.

The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man; the technical way that Chalcedonian Christians affirm this is to say that Jesus has two natures (physes). Evidently, Jesus’ Divine Nature (or Substance) is the same one that he has always had as the Divine Son; in this regard he is one in substance (homoousios) with the Father. At the Incarnation, he acquired a human nature; in this regard, he is one in substance (homoousios) with man. (See the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, DH 301-303; note that that the Council of Chalcedon, in affirming this, understands ousia in the Platonic sense—even though, of course, it recognizes that the Divine Substance is utterly one had does not have “individual members” the way the human species does.)

However, Jesus is one hypostasis or Person, not two, as was clarified in the Council of Ephesus. (See DH 250-258.) Over the course of the century that followed the Council of Chalcedon (451), it gradually became clearer that the Hypostasis (Person) of Jesus is the very same Hypostasis that is the Son, that is the Second Person of the Trinity:

  there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity (Council of Constantinople II of 553, DH 424).

In Christology, just as in Trinitarian theology, “nature” or “substance” answers the question, “What kind of being is Jesus Christ?” and the answer, is “God and man.”

“Person” or “hypostasis” answers the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” and the answer is, “the Divine Son, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity.”

In answer to the O.P.’s specific questions:

Is the triune God “three separate Persons”?

No, the Persons are in no way separate from each other. The are really distinct (that is, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit, and so forth). However, they cannot be considered “separate” from one antother, because each person is perfectly identical to the Divine Substance. (Each Person possesses the Substance in its “entirety”—which we say very improperly, because God does not have parts—and possesses the very same, undivided Divine Substance as the others.)

Of course, God is infinitely “separate” (in the sense of infinitely independent) from His creatures—which is what makes Him, so to speak, the Substance par excellence. (He is not, however, “separate” in the sense of “distant;” indeed, there is no one more “present” to creation than He is.)

Does this mean the triune God is ”three separate substances”, each existing apart from other substances, consisting of one substance?

No. God is a unique, undivided Substance. He is unique, undivided, and also triune; that is, within the Godhead, there are three subjects that can be the answer to the question “Who?” The Persons (or Hypostases) differ from one another only in relation of origin (Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession); in every other respect—that is, with respect to the entire Divine Substance—they are perfectly identical.


What Does "Not My will but yours be done" mean?

It means that people who profess to be Christians must submit their will, or their desires, to the will of God, just as Jesus did.  Jesus said:

Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother (Mark 3:35).

God’s will is knowable and provable:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — His good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans12:2).

God's will is about us pleasing God and serving Him:

Teach me to do your will, for you are my God! Let your good Spirit lead me (Psalm 143:10).

Delight yourself in the LORD and He will give you the desires of your heart (Psalm 37:4).

It’s true that Jesus said, “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer” (Matthew 21:22). But, even in that statement, we have one condition to prayer: faith.
It isn't about what you think you need, or getting what you ask for.  It isn't about what you perceive to be your "personal freedoms."  It's about following Jesus, and taking up your cross.  It's about humility and serving others, just as Jesus did.


The short answer is "no. it's not fatalism" for most Christians. Most traditions believe and teach that God gave us free will. Without free will, there could be no such things as faith.  Without free will, there could be no good or evil.  Without free will, there'd have been no reason for Joshua 24:15, for example.  We'dsimply be programmed, mindless automatons going through the motions of life.  This would be fatalism.

The fact that God knows what we will do does not negate the fact that we have a choice.  For example, I know right now that if I tell my kids to go clean their rooms, they will resist.  I can predict with a high degree of accuracy what each will say, and exactly how they will resist.  I'm not making them react a certain way, I just know from experience.

God, of course, knows with 100% accuracy what we will do.  This still doesn't mean we don't choose to do it.

The idea of fatalism suggests that we throw up our hands and just let what happens happen, because it's going to happen anyway.  If this were what God intended, entire swaths of Scripture would have to be removed.  And command to obey, repent, any statement that God loves a humble heart and obedience would be rendered meaningless.

  Joshua 24:15 (KJV)  And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which
  your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the
  gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my
  house, we will serve the LORD.


They are transliterated from two different languages: Hebrew and Greek.

מִרְיָם  -- Miriam
Μαρία -- Maria
יְהוֹשֻׁעַ -- Joshua
Ἰησοῦς -- Jesus

The transliterations make sense when compared to the original pronunciations.

Of course Mary and Jesus must actually have had Hebrew/Aramaic names instead of Greek ones. Quite probably their names actually were מִרְיָם and יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. However, they still are only mentioned with the Greek translated versions, so by transliterating from Μαρία and Ἰησοῦς the translators are keeping closest to the original.


What is consumerism and what does the Pope see wrong with it?

"The problem" with consumerism, says a Christianity Today article, is "living to consume." Consumerism "defines our relationships and actions primarily through a matrix of consumption."

In the encyclical, Pope Francis says that consumerism "prioritizes short-term gain and private interest."

Similarly, this blog post by a Lutheran pastor states that consumerism taken to its logical extreme is "being in love with an abundance of 'stuff,' buying goods as a solution for joy, and caring more about material possessions than our neighbor."

The problems with it can probably be most starkly seen when contrasted with its alternatives. The main Christian alternatives to consumerism would be sustainability and charity (in the sense of giving).

Consumerism in contrast to sustainability is the bigger concern for Pope Francis in Laudato si', simply because it's all about care for creation. Consumerist tendencies are not sustainable because natural resources that become the raw materials for consumer products are limited and running out, and in many cases their byproducts pollute the planet. Case in point when Pope Francis identifies consumerism as the "present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption."

But charity also comes into play for Francis (unsurprisingly), even in this particular encyclical, for example when he says, "approximately a third of all food produced is discarded, and 'whenever food is thrown out it is as if it were stolen from the table of the poor.'" quoting an address he previously gave in 2013.


Did Jesus say to preach to Gentiles, or not?

Jesus told the disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations.

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew
  28:19, ESV)

  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and
  you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria,
  and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8, ESV)

Paul wasn't the first one nor the only one who preached the Gospel to the Gentiles. According to Acts, Peter was the first to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Peter received a vision from the Lord and received a command to preach to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius the gentile. The Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit and were baptized.

  While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all
  who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who
  had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit
  was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them
  speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can
  anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received
  the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized
  in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some
  days. (Acts 10:44-47, ESV)

Peter reported this to the believers in Jerusalem and they all glorified God.

  When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God,
  saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that
  leads to life.” (Acts 11:18, ESV)


What Bible passage contains Satan and God where God rebukes Satan?

You may be thinking of Zechariah:

  Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.  And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?"

  Zechariah 3:1-2 (RSV)


Do Catholics have a "profession of faith" in Jesus Christ before baptism?

Do Catholics have a “profession of faith” in Jesus Christ before baptism in older catechisms?

The short answer is yes.

The Baltimore Catechism states:

  Q. 647. What are the chief ceremonies used in solemn baptism, and what do they signify?

  A. The chief ceremonies used in solemn baptism are:

  A profession of faith and renouncement of the devil to signify our worthiness;
  The placing of salt in the mouth to signify the wisdom imparted by faith;
  The holding of the priest's stole to signify our reception into the Church;
  The anointing to signify the strength given by the Sacrament;
  The giving of the white garment or cloth to signify our sinless state after baptism; and
  The giving of the lighted candle to signify the light of faith and fire of love that should dwell in our souls.


At what point did Judaism and Christianity diverge?

tl;dr> It began in the Council of Jersualem (55 AD), but was cemented by the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

1. Gentiles were released from Jewish custom
The divergence is clearly articulated in Acts 15 - at the "Council of Jerusalem," often pegged at 50 AD - roughly 20 years after the Crucifixion.  Acts 15 sets up the situation as follows:

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ... Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

In a nutshell - it's the old circumcision debate: Do converts need to go under the knife?
Prior to this disagreement, Christians were simply Jews that believed Jesus was the promised Messiah.  When the Messiah came, however, he expanded His mission in such a way as to afford salvation to the Gentiles.  (See Matthew 28:19-20)
Peter speaks to this issue, recalling the fact that the Gentiles were being added to the mission - first in Acts 10, and now again in Acts 15:

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.

That they were included, however, necessarily raised the question of whether or not converts needed to follow all the practices of the Jews.  Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and the other apostles were clear that the grace of God implied that Gentiles need not do Jewish custom.

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

It was even suggested that a letter should be written, in which they said:

Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

By exempting the Gentiles from the rest of Jewish practice, a separate identity began to form.
2. The Persecution of the Jews diminished their importance in the Church, and vice versa
With the destruction of the Temple 15 years later, it simply became much harder to become a Jew.  As OzTorah writes:

In the post-destruction Jewish community, re-grouping and greater solidarity moved the Judeo-Christian group to the fringes. The earlier latitude towards separatist and fringe groups had become a luxury, especially when the Jesus party increasingly distanced themselves from their fellow Jews. The Judeo-Christians suffered a diminution in numbers and now, though not without an internal struggle, rebuilt and repositioned themselves as an increasingly gentile group, with new adherents directly coming to the new group without having to go through the old one first. They were not a monolithic community; they included at least four sub-groups (Ebionites A, Ebionites B, Nazarenes, Gnostic Sycretists and Elkesaites) – but they, like the Jews, needed to find sufficient unity to plan a secure future.
After much internal debate it became possible for an outsider to become a Christian without ever being part of Judaism, either through genealogy or choice. Could you be a Jew without the Sabbath, festivals, circumcision (Jews were not the only ancient people to view uncircumcision as shameful) and dietary laws? The answer was no – but you could become a Christian. Could you be a Jew without saying Sh’ma Yisra’el – “Hear, O Israel” and proclaiming the absolute invisibility and indivisibility of God? – again no: but you could become a Christian if you accepted the re-worked status of Jesus (developed and taught by Paul and his supporters though not necessarily required by a reading of Jesus’ own words) as messianic and part of divinity.
Sharper language than ever before began to be used in Judaism – it was a time of crisis when it was necessary to know where people stood – and heretics could no longer be treated with kid gloves. About the end of the century the Synagogue liturgy introduced a prayer which came to be known as Birkat HaMinim, the Blessing (Against) the Sectarians. ...
There was no authoritative decision to expel the Christians from Judaism but their exclusion came about gradually. The gentile Christians never were part of Judaism. The Jewish Christians still met halachic (Jewish legal) identity criteria but were excluded from officiating at Jewish worship because they regarded Birkat HaMinim as directed against them – whatever its motives at the time of its formulation – and their books were deemed to lack sanctity. In consequence they felt increasingly unwelcome. Christians were still found in the synagogues at least until the time of Jerome in the fifth century CE. In the second century CE Justin Martyr agreed that Jewish Christians who continued to follow Jewish usages were still to be considered “brethren” but as time went on, pressure was exerted to discourage the practice of Judaism by Christians.
The final break was due to the Romans when Jews (including Jewish Christians) were prohibited from entering Jerusalem; the re-established Jerusalem Church was thus an essentially gentile one.

With this polarization, rapid growth outside of Israel (Paul's ministry, in particular, was centered in Turkey and Greece, as evidenced by the fact that Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Phillippi, Colossae, and Thessaly all got their own books of the Bible!), and the persecution of the Jews inside of Israel, led to an imbalance of population.
Basically, the "Jews" dwindled and the "Gentiles" grew.  That, coupled with the freedom from the practices of the Jews eventually led to a situation where the church's early identity divested itself of its Jewishness.
3. By the second century, there was hostility
With the firm acceptance of Paul's letters by the end of the first, the anti-Judaizer faction became well entrenched.  By the middle of the second Century, some heretics like Marcion were already trying to remove any vestigial Jewish influence. When Marcion produced his first canonical list, for example, the entire Old Testament was relegated to non-canonical status. (Note - Marcionism is considered heretical nowadays, and rejecting the Old Testament is considered heretical, but I point it as way of evidence that the split had already occurred.)
By this time, "Christ-killer" rhetoric and the like, along with regional chauvinism prevailed, and enmity between the Jews and the Christians was mainstream. Modern Judaism took root in the Pharisitcal and Essene movements and followed its own course thereafter.


What does it mean to be an heir of God and a joint-heir with Christ?

In Jewish thinking, being an heir speaks to adoption into a family.  An adoption would make the adopted one legally eligible for an equal share in the father's estate.
Now Jesus was intended to be the firstborn among many brethren:

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

And we believers are adopted into the family of God:

Romans 8:15
The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

With all the entitlement to an inheritance in the Kingdom of God that that entails.  As joint-heirs with Christ, we have an equal share with him as Sons and Daughters of the living God.
Now, consider this, in the garden Adam an Eve were created in the image of God, with free access to the tree of life, they would have life forever in perfect communion with God... had they not grasped after God-likeness, seeking equality with God on their own terms.
Now, when talking of the resurrection Paul makes some startling statements:

1 Cor 15:42-49
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

So it is that we will be raised in the image of the risen Christ, incorruptible, immortal, redeemed, with a body like to what we have now, yet as different as that of the risen Lord who walked through locked doors and appeared and disappeared at will.
Interestingly, the Catholic church teaches, quite rightly I think, that we will be divinised with Christ in some mysterious way - "may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity" (words of the mass, and direct teaching of John Paul II).
When the bible speaks of our adoption with Christ, it is speaking of the mystery that is God finally making us like him in a more wonderful and transcendent way after the resurrection than we ever dreamed possible when we grasped after it in the garden.

1 Cor 15:24
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

For what else can be the case in a world where all evil, death and pain is removed but that every evil inclination of mans heart has been removed and we have perfect and eternal communion with the living God?  Not one of us will ever sin again - the idea will never even enter our heart.  Yet we will remain separate persons, but our nature will be so transformed as to be unable to sin.  Now imagine what kind of a nature can it be which can last for all eternity forward never self-seeking, never sinning and never having a single conception of so much as an idea in discord with Almighty God.
That's what it means to be an heir of God and joint-heir with Christ.


How do Calvinists explain God's wanting no one to perish and electing some to judgement?

The typical Calvinist response to this question is captured well by Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology:

[1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9] speak of God's revealed will (telling us what we should do), not his hidden will (his eternal plans for what will happen).  The verses simply tell us that God invites and commands every person to repent and come to Christ for salvation, but they do not tell us anything about God's secret decrees regarding who will be saved. (32.D.6)

It's true that some Calvinists take a different approach and suggest that "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 refers only to the elect, and the "all" in 1 Timothy 2:4 could be interpreted as "all sorts of people."  John Piper explains this in more detail in his article, "Are There Two Wills in God?," but like Grudem he too argues for "two ways of willing" in God.  Piper draws on one of the classic proof texts for this idea, Acts 2:23:

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (ESV)

That is, the most heinous crime in all of history, the brutal murder of the Son of God, was part of God's "plan" (his "secret" or "decretive" will).  And despite that, it's clear that the men who killed him sinned – they violated the commandments of God (his "revealed" or "preceptive" will).
Let's look at a few more verses that are used to establish this idea.  First, here are some that describe God's will as fully independent and never failing:

Psalm 115:3: Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. [ESV]
Daniel 4:32: the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.
Romans 9:18: So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

These verses above describe his "decretive" will.  But the following verses show that his "preceptive will" is regularly disobeyed:

Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." [cf. Matthew 12:50]
Ephesians 5:17: Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

For more analysis of this and my answer to a similar question, see How can God be Sovereign (in the Reformed sense) if a man can ignore His call to repentance?  Piper's article also gives a thorough defense of this type of distinction.
One closing thought: it's worth noting that Calvinists argue that this difficulty also applies to Arminianism.  Arminians must also reconcile "God desires that every individual be saved" and their belief that not every individual is saved (at least those who reject universalism and affirm God's omnipotence).  Their explanation, Grudem says, is that God desires humans to have free will more than he wants them to be saved, and that this is a manifestation of the two aspects of his will.  How Arminians would say they deal with this issue is a subject for another question.


Why does the Catholic Church require miracles for someone to be canonized?

Why does someone have to have a miracle (or two) attributed to them before they can officially become a Saint? [...]

Understood as asking,

"Why is there a formal Canonization process within the Church and why are miracles required when 'clear evidence of a righteous [life ought to be sufficient]'?"

The latter part of the question is answered by this article Beatification and Canonization | New Advent:

  The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have
  been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue, and only after
  this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive
  arguments.

Why a formal process?

The answer is in the formula of canonization such as the one below:

  Therefore, today, in a solemn Mass in St. Peter's Square, before an
  immense multitude of the faithful, We have pronounced the following
  formula: In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the
  uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the
  authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter
  and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called
  frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many of our brother
  Bishops, We declare and define Blessed N to be a Saint, and We
  inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that,
  throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the
  Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
  Spirit.

Since raising someone to the altars honors the Blessed Trinity and will be for the uplifting of the Catholic faith and increase of the Christian life, the act was preceded by careful deliberation, calling frequently upon God's help, and with the advice of many Bishops.

Why are miracles required?

People may be mistaken about a person's reputation for sanctity but not God. Before the real Marcial Maciel came to light, if one went by the works he founded, one might think he were a living saint.

The article Beatification and Canonization | New Advent quoted above states:

  the Church [sees] in the saints nothing more than friends and servants
  of God whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love.

After Jesus performs a miracle whereby a man born blind receives sight, the gospels testify that, '[we] know that God does not listen to sinners, but if any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.'

Therefore the miracles wrought through the intercession of the friends and servants of God testify to the now definitive friendship in heaven in God's presence.

Endnotes:

Please note that there are saints in heaven not formally canonized whose Solemnity [All Saints] is celebrated on November 1.
Saint Paul referred to Christians as "saints". This is the calling for everyone.
For canonizations, the pope may, and does, use one of two methods, each constituting a new species of canonization, i.e. formal canonization and equivalent canonization. [cf. the New advent article linked above].

Further reading:

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION DIVINUS PERFECTIONIS MAGISTER | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].
NEW LAWS FOR THE CAUSES OF SAINTS promulgated in 1983 | CONGREGATION FOR THE CAUSES OF SAINTS.

Please note Can. 1403 §1.

  Special pontifical law1 governs the causes of canonization of the
  servants of God.

1. Please see the preceding bullet points.


Did David prophesy "God ruling the nations from a Tree"?

See King David's Psalm 95:10:

  say ye among the Gentiles that our Lord hath reigned*. For he hath corrected the round world which shall not be moved: he will judge peoples in equity.*[Some add here: "from the wood/tree/cross" or "a ligno." See commentary below.]

The Original Douay-Rheims commentary on this verse notes that:

  Diverse ancient Doctors read more in this place: Our Lord hath reigned from the wood [a ligno], to wit, Christ by his death on the cross conquered the Devil, sin, and death, and thence began to reign. St. Justinus Martyr, dialogo aduers. Triphonem. Tertullian li. aduers. Iudæos. c. 9. &. 13.  & aduers Marcionem. li 3 c. 19. &. 21. St. Augustine, in this place, according to the old Roman Psalter Before him Arnobius, and after him Cassiadorus and others, Whereby it is probable, that it was sometimes in the Hebrew text, and blotted out by the Jews.

From the Haydock Commentary:

  Ver. 10. Reigned. St. Bernard says, "the kingdom of Jesus is in the wood." (Du Hamel) --- St. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) accuses the Jews of retrenching apo tou xulou, "from the wood," which all the Latin Fathers, except St. Jerome, acknowledge in their copies. That ancient author, being born among the Samaritans, could hardly be so ignorant of the Hebrew text, and his antagonist does not attempt to refute the charge; so that it seems probable, that they were in the original, (Berthier) and since erased by the Jews, from the Septuagint, who added them, (Worthington) by the spirit of prophecy. (Tournemine) --- But how came Christians to permit this to be done in their Hebrew, Greek, and Latin copies? The words in question may have been, therefore, a marginal gloss, which had crept into the text. (Faber, Justiniani, &c.) --- They do not occur in the parallel passage, (1 Paralipomenon) nor in the Vulgate, though they be retained in the Roman breviary. (Calmet) --- Lindan objects this perfidy of the Jews to the Reformers, not reflecting, that he thus condemns the Vulgate. Genebrard is of opinion, that "the Septuagint were inspired to add these words, which some half-learned critics have thought proper to expunge with an impiety which is now but too common." The Popes have not, however, thought that the cross stood in need of this support. (Amama) --- The Chaldean and Syriac, as well as all the copies of the Septuagint extant, and the Arabic and Ethiopic versions taken from it, and all the Greek interpreters and Fathers, (except St. Justin) with St. Jerome, both in his versions from the Hebrew and Septuagint, omit these words, which are found in the Roman, Gothic, and other psalters. Origen's Hexapla seem to have most enabled the Greeks to discern the interpolation, which the Latins retained longer, not having such easy access to that work. Whatever may be the decision on this important matter, it is certain that the reign of Christ was propagated from the wood, in a wonderful manner, as he there began to draw all to himself, and the prophet seems evidently to allude to the times when Christ proclaimed, the kingdom of God is at hand, and when the conversion of the Gentiles, and the institution of the blessed Eucharist (ver. 8.) would fill all the world with rapture. (Haydock) --- The positive testimony of St. Justin, and the Italic version used by the Latin Fathers, (Berthier) Tertullian, St. Augustine, &c., (Worthington) seems of more weight to prove the authenticity of the words, than the simple omission in the copies of Origen, and St. Jerome, &c., to evince the contrary. (Berthier) --- Corrected. Evil morals and idolatry, (Menochius) rather than the physical order of the globe, Psalm xcii. 1. (Berthier) --- Hebrew, "he hath balanced," (Houbigant) or established. (Haydock) --- The Christian faith shall not be abolished, (Menochius) or corrected. (Haydock) --- "Faith is not to be reformed." (Tertullian) --- Justice. Ancient psalters add, "and the Gentiles in his wrath," ver. 13., and Psalm xcviii. 8.

Here is what St. Justin Martyr says (Dialogue with Trypho ch. 73) about the alleged removal of the words "from the wood":

  Justin: And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: 'From the wood.' For when the passage said, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood,' they have left, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned.' Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: 'Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O you countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him: tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned. For He has established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fullness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth.'

  Trypho: Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.

  Justin: Assuredly, it does seem incredible. For it is more horrible than the calf which they made, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But you appear to me not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had stolen away. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward.


Who is the son in the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:14)?

The Matthew Henry commentary says that this passage is referring to the family of David, including Solomon; it also refers to Christ, who Henry says is sometimes called David or Son of David.

The section in which you're questioning the iniquity is not referring to Christ himself; rather, its talking about His spiritual seed (or believers). Believers have weaknesses, which they can expect to be corrected, but know that they won't be cast out because of them.

My answer is paraphrased from these commentary notes.


How could a seventh-century heretic have possessed papal infallibility?

One could perhaps say that the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility as expressed at Vatican I is the Church's formal way of dealing with this tension. The case of Pope Honorius has of course been debated for centuries and was brought up prior to Vatican I as an argument against papal infallibility. The old Catholic Encyclopedia has a helpful summary of the various positions in the debate.

So let's look at the definition again:

  we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that ... when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is when ... he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,  he possesses ... that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. (Decrees of the First Vatican Council)

The meaning is as plain as can be -- the Pope possesses infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra. The Council notably did not teach that the Pope possesses infallibility at any other time.

Here's just a tidbit from Blessed John Henry Newman, writing in 1875:

  from this Pontifical and dogmatic explanation of the phrase [ex cathedrâ] it follows, that, whatever Honorius said in answer to Sergius, and whatever he held, his words were not ex cathedrâ, and therefore did not proceed from his infallibility. (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, section 8)

He says quite a bit more on the specific controversy of Honorius and then devotes the entirety of the next section to a discussion of papal infallibility and its narrow limits.


The letter of James is believed to have been written in A.D. 45, before Paul began his ministry.  Paul’s writings are dated from A.D. 50 to A.D. 70.  Therefore James’ letter predates Paul’s letters.
I found an article that helps to answer your question about the seeming conflict between faith alone and faith without works being dead:

The Book of James is probably the oldest book of the New Testament, written perhaps as early as A.D. 45, before the first council of Jerusalem in A.D. 50. James was martyred in approximately A.D. 62, according to the historian Josephus.
Some think that this epistle was written in response to an overzealous interpretation of Paul’s teaching regarding faith. This extreme view, called antinomianism, held that through faith in Christ one is completely free from all Old Testament law, all legalism, all secular law, and all the morality of a society.
The Book of James is directed to Jewish Christians scattered among all the nations (James 1:1). Martin Luther, who detested this letter and called it “the epistle of straw,” failed to recognize that James’s teaching on works complemented—not contradicted—Paul’s teaching on faith. While Pauline teachings concentrate on our justification with God, James’ teachings concentrate on the works that exemplify that justification. James was writing to Jews to encourage them to continue growing in this new Christian faith. James emphasizes that good actions will naturally flow from those who are filled with the Spirit and questions whether someone may or may not have a saving faith if the fruits of the Spirit cannot be seen, much as Paul describes in Galatians 5:22-23.  https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-James.html

Another article I found gives a Protestant view on the subject of salvation by faith alone versus faith plus works: https://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-faith-alone.html


What is the significance of Donum Veritatis if applied to Dubia Cardinals and Dissenting Clergy?

Background

The Donum Veritatis is a church document meant to guide the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologians and it also contains the evangelical guidelines in case a Theologian encounters difficulty in assenting to Church Teaching.  The Donum Veritatis does not address the lay faithful who also were expressing dissent.

The Donum Veritatis was approved by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith  and signed by the Cardinal Ratzinger on May 24, 1990 (he was then the Prefect).

To answer the question

The significance of the Donum Veritatis is best seen in the outline of the document in addressing a Theological Dissent below;

  Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

  The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

  When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.
  Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.
  In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.
  Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.
  The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

  Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.
  In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.
  If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

  In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

The full text of Donum Veritatis is available on the Vatican website.

Taking the words "the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", this had been the error if we cite the petitioner "Correctio Filialis" and also the "Dubia Cardinals" who use the media to express a contradictory view. Beyond that, some of the Dissenters even accused Pope Francis of teaching heresy which clearly violated the evangelical guidelines of Donum Veritatis.

It is worth mentioning Cardinal Caffara's words whom before his death met Pope Francis and reconciled. Cardinal Caffara's words is an important reminders to all Bishops who are openly opposing the Pope approved Magisterial Teaching.

  «I was born Papist, I lived as a Papist, and I mean to die a Papist! If a Bishop has a thought contrary to that of the Pope» – he concluded: «he must go away, but really he must go away from the diocese. Because he would lead the faithful into a path that is not the one of Jesus Christ anymore. Therefore, he would lose himself eternally and would risk the eternal loss of the faithful».

  Card. Caffarra: «Let who is against the Pope go away; he will lose himself»

In this article written by Dawn Eden Goldstein and Robert L. Fastiggi describes the failure of petitioner of Correctio Filialis and the Dubia Cardinals to adhere to evangelical guidelines written in Donum Veritatis.

  The supporters of the Correctio and other critics of Amoris laetitia often try to contrast what Pope Francis says in this exhortation to teachings of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is interesting, therefore, to note that many of these same critics fail to follow the guidelines for theologians published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1990 when John Paul II was pope and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Benedict XVI, was prefect of the CDF. These guidelines are contained in the instruction, Donum veritatis (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian) (3) — a document that traditionalist opponents of Amoris laetitia, such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (4), ironically claim to hold in high esteem.

  Donum veritatis was issued to explain the need for Catholic theologians to maintain communion with the Magisterium of the Church. Building upon Vatican II’s Lumen gentium §37 and Canon 212§3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Donum veritatis does recognize that theologians might have problems with certain magisterial teachings (5). If these problems persist, “the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented (6).” The theologian, however, “should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties (7).”

  Critics of Amoris laetitia might argue that, in making their petitions to the Pope and signing the Correctio filialis, they are doing exactly what Donum veritatis charges them to do. In what follows, we hope to show that the critics of Amoris laetitia have not properly followed the guidelines set forth in that document.

  Donum veritatis §24 instructs theologians “to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the [magisterial] interventions (8). The Correctio filialis fails to do this. Instead, it catalogues comments made by Pope Francis in press conferences, private letters, etc., without taking into account the authoritativeness of these statements and their context (9). It also cites statements by papal associates and appointees.

  In loading down their petition with cherry-picked statements bearing little or no magisterial authority, the Correctio authors seem intent upon discrediting the Holy Father and his intentions. Can such an approach truly reflect “an evangelical spirit” and “a profound desire to resolve the difficulties” with Amoris laetitia (10)?

  Pope’s critics ignore Ratzinger’s rules for theological discourse

In closing, the theological dissenters of Amoris Laetetia is also applicable to those theologians who also expressed opposition to changes in the CCC 2267 Death Penalty Doctrinal changes approved by Pope Francis which the Congregation of Doctrine of Faith upheld does not contradicts any previous teachings.

It is also worth mentioning Pope Francis calling all the Dissenters to conversion as the key to enlighten their confusions.  Why conversion? It is biblical citing the Great Dubia of all the Apostles in the Bread of Life discourse on which all of them are tempted to leave Jesus Christ too.

Did Jesus clarified the Great Dubia that the apostles experienced? NO!

Jesus knew that the Holy Spirit role is to pour out Her Sevenfold Gifts and this is the key to clear out the confusions. But, the Apostles can only receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon conversion. And so, we can see in the Book of Acts that the Theotokos led all the Apostles in the spirit of prayer and conversion to prepare their hearts for the gifts. The Pentecost experience is the key and all the Apostles were enlighten as they become docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, Pope Francis imploring conversion to all Dissenters pointed clearly to biblical experienced of the Apostles and must be heed. As the Church Tradition in Luke 10:16 teaches:

  "The voice of Peter is the Voice of Christ and whoever reject the voice of Pope Francis rejected the Voice of Christ Himself." (Luke 10:16)


Genesis 28:18 Where Did Jacob Get the Oil?

Genesis 28:18 (NLT)

  The next morning Jacob got up very early. He took the stone he had
  rested his head against, and he set it upright as a memorial pillar.
  Then he poured olive oil over it.

Olive oil was very important in ancient Israel. It was used for not only as food and for cooking, but also for lighting, sacrificial offerings, ointment, and anointment for priestly or royal office(src).

  Olive Oil in Bible Times:
  Olive oil was considered to be one of the great sources of wealth in the days of King Solomon (cf.
  I Kings 5:11; II Chronicles 2:10). Solomon gave to Hiram each year in
  return for services rendered by his men, among other things, twenty
  thousand baths of oil, one bath being about seven and one-half
  gallons. The prophets Ezekiel and Hosea make mention of the exporting
  of oil to other lands (Ezekiel 27:17; Hosea 12:1). Oil has been used
  for a great variety of purposes in the Orient. It largely took the
  place of butter in eating, and for cooking purposes it was used in
  place of animal fat. Ezekiel mentions three important items of diet of
  which oil is one, and flour and honey are the other two (Ezekiel
  16:13). And olive oil was used almost exclusively for light in lamps.
  The most famous example of this is "the ten virgins, which took their
  lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom" (Matthew 25:1). Also oil
  is used today in Bible lands in the manufacture of soap, and it is
  quite likely that it was so used in Bible days. And oil was often used
  for anointing the body. Naomi told Ruth, "Wash thyself therefore, and
  anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the
  floor" (Ruth 3:3). Then oil was many times used in various religious
  ceremonies. It formed a part of the meal offering (Leviticus 2:1). The
  prophet was anointed with oil when he took over his duties (I Kings
  19:16). The priest was also anointed with oil when he took over his
  duties (Leviticus 8:12). And the king was anointed either by a prophet
  or by the priest (I Samuel 16:13; I Kings 1:34). In New Testament
  times the sick were anointed for the healing of their bodies (Mark
  6:13; James 5:14).  (source)

Where did Jacob get the Oil?

  Matthew Poole's Commentary

  As a monument of God’s great kindness and gracious manifestation of
  himself to him, which might bring this mercy to his remembrance in his
  return, Genesis 31:13. This was an ancient practice among the
  patriarchs, Genesis 35:14; but afterwards, upon the growing abuse of
  it among the heathens, it was forbidden by God, Leviticus 26:1 Deu 7:5
  12:3.

  The oil he brought with him either for food or medicine, or for the anointing of himself, as need required;

  and poured it upon the top of the stone, as a token of his
  consecration thereof to this use to be a memorial of God’s favour to
  him. Oil was used in sacrifices, and in the consecration of persons
  and places, Exodus 30:25,26 40:9.

Though Jacob lived at a very early age of the history of Israel, the use of Olive oil seems to be popular from around that time, as confirmed by Matthew Poole in his commentary. 400 years after Jacob, Moses also used Olive oil for many purposes. Seems like things didn't change much within 400 years.

  Command the Israelites to bring you clear oil of pressed olives for
  the light so that the lamps may be kept burning. (Exodus 27:20, NIV)


Did Jesus need to die, or would mere shedding of blood have been sufficient?

The statement “Crucifixion was not necessary for salvation and that only a drop of Jesus' blood needed to be spilled” could not have been from St. Thomas Aquinas. This is because it obliquely implies that there was no need for Christ to die, which is grossly against the tenets of Christianity.

St. Thomas was one of the supreme advocates of Eucharistic devotion and exponents of the nature of the mysterious process by which the host becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.  Indeed, it was St. Thomas Aquinas who not only explained transubstantiation but also provided for the first time the word for it.

In his famous works “Summa theologiae” several times, St Aquinas stresses the importance of sacrifice of Jesus’ body and blood.

  "The sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion", whereas, "it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth" (Summa, III, 75, 1, c.).

  The Eucharist is, as it were, "the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments" (Summa, III, 73, 3, c.).

  The reason for this, St Thomas explains, lies in the fact that whereas the energy — "vis" or "virtus" — of the Passion of Christ is active in the other sacraments, the Eucharist contains "Christ's own Body" (Summa, III, 73, 1, 3m); ); in Scholastic language, Christ is present as "the common spiritual good of the whole Church... contained substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist" (Summa, III, 65, 3, 1), in order to bring man to full communion with Christ in the Passion (cf. Summa, III, 73, 2, 3m).

St Thomas Aquinas also writes that

  "in our pilgrimage, [Christ] does not deprive us of his bodily presence, but unites us with himself in this sacrament through the truth of his Body and Blood" (Summa, III, 75, 1, c.), always seen in their sacrificial condition".

Therefore, this statement is not in line with Catholic doctrine.

"And how much more does the Crucifixion do for us than a single drop of Christ's Precious Blood?"

While a single drop of Christ’s precious blood could cleans us from all sins, His death and resurrection was necessary for us to overcome the eternal damnation that came on us from our first parents. Our salvation is a result of death and resurrection of Jesus. The whole episode of crucifixion, including the circumstances leading to His crucifixion has been phrased as the passion of Christ and Jesus' physical torture including crucifixion was part of His punishment for our salvation.

The definitive plan of salvation began with the Fall of our first parents and the establishment of animal sacrifice as the one means of dealing with sin. Sin separated God's children from Him. There had to be a means to prevent eternal separation and that “means” became animal sacrifice by killing them and spilling their blood. Leviticus 17:11 explains God’s plan for forgiving sin.

God said to our first parents: For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:17). If we were to take this “death” that God mentioned, as physical death then the same day they were supposed to have died. Here God was telling them about the eternal death not the physical death, which Adam died 930 years later (Genesis 5:5).

Physical death physically destroys the body but it is not an eternal destruction. The eternal death destroys the soul. Christ crucifixion, death and resurrection was necessary to overcome the power of this eternal death. With resurrection of Christ there will be a resurrection of all those who believed in Christ as He overcome the power of eternal death by His resurrection from death.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

  Just as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man who should overcome the devil. And since man deserved death so it should be a man who, by dying, vanquishes death. That is why it is written: 'Thanks be to God who has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ [1 Cor. 15:57]. Summa Theologiae 3:46:4.

P.S. May be what Priest/layman said on Radio Relevant was: Death not necessarily by Crucifixion but by any other means. Or it may  THIS issue.


Does the Church in general need to revisit and revise its strategy in maintaining the faith?

In considering the causes of the lack of in-depth doctrinal and apologetic instruction provided to Christian youth, we might do well to consider the extent to which many, if not the majority of adults who self-identify as Christian are equally untaught.

Some of us are called to in-depth study of the bible; some of us are naturally drawn to a comprehensive study of world religions; some of us are fascinated by human nature, and see the study of religion as providing key historical insights into how the human mind and personality work.

I suspect, however, that the majority of people around the world see the pursuit of entertainment as a more effective use of their spare time, as a way to relax from the stress of life. Add the fact that religious study is -- as with study of most topics -- necessarily academic, and regarded by many as "dry," "stuffy," and even "boring," and one can see how religious study can only be "exciting" to those with a particular way of looking at the world.

This is not to provide an excuse for lack of religious ferver, but simply to acknowledge what, to one way of thinking, is the actual state of things for many.

With reference specifically to Christianity, many would agree heartily with criticism of the instructional methods, or lack thereof, used in many denominations. For example, critical analysis of what is often called the "emergent/emerging church movement" will sometimes describe lack of effective religious instruction as a causal factor in the formation of many of the beliefs espoused by some within the "movement."

All of that being said, I know of no effective ways of resolving the situation. The lack of effective religious instruction of youth can be traced to the lack of effective religious understand in many adults, and is the lack of effective religious understanding in many adults a symptom of anything other than tepid faith -- that is, one that does not present an overwhelming desire to know God, and to love God with all of one's heart, soul, strength, and mind? Exhortation to a more consuming faith, as an attempt to counter lack of religious ferver, is, after all, among the central topics addressed in scripture.


Are questions that begin "Is it ok to ___" of primary theological importance?

We ask "is it okay to _" because many Christians were raised on moral religiosity instead of principles of Christian decision making.  Based on the second greatest commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39), Jesus calls everyone to love every human being they come into contact with (including themselves).  And to love means to seek what is best for myself and to ask what is best for the other, and to be honest if we are lying to ourselves about what we say is "best", while not being intellectually lazy and not examining from as many angles as is possible what is best in any given situation.

And no, these ethical questions may not be the most important because they may be more founded in "how far can I go in this one act before GOD is angry/disappointed?". But the truth is that GOD is not offended by anything that doesn't first hurt us, and that if we really allow a pure love of GOD, self and neighbor to be our new ethic then we might be closer to actually living how we were supposed to.

For a really good discussion of this read Thomas aquinas' summa theogica or kierkegaard's works of love (where he contrasts doing works of the law with doing works of love) or even augustine's comments on how Christians ought to live by the spirit and not by the letter.


What is the Christian position on sleeping with a menstruating woman?

Regarding having sex with a woman during her menstrual period, the topic is not addressed directly in the New Testament, and so the conclusion one draws about the matter depends largely on the method one uses to interpret the Old Testament.

The Law of Moses

There is not universal agreement about how to treat the Law of Moses. Some groups claim that it must be followed (except where impossible or instances where it is superceded—like offering animal sacrifices, because Jesus was/is our atoning sacrifice). Others attempt to distinguish between laws that don't apply and laws that do. The third major camp says that the old law is not binding on Christians, that it was for Jews, i.e. Christians aren't compelled to obey anything in the law.1

A seemingly unstated premise of your question is that Christians read passages from the Law of Moses (like the ones to which you've referred) as being commandments they ought to follow (but don't).

The prohibition of homosexual behavior doesn't come exclusively from the Law of Moses (e.g. Lev 15, 18). It's stated explicitly there, but that is not necessarily the best argument for the idea. English translations of the Bible have New Testament authors prohibiting homosexual behavior (e.g. 1 Co 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10). This is much less ambiguous regarding the source and applicability of the commandment. There is some debate about shades of meaning of the Greek words involved, but it's a more logical place to begin the assertion that homosexual behavior is bad.

Principles for Deciding

In general, the principle by which Christians decide (among those who decide, and not those who automatically accept the conclusion of ordained clergy) goes something like this:

Is the matter (or a related principle) addressed in the New Testament?
Is the matter (or a related principle) addressed in the Old Testament?
Is there some historical (Christian) precedent that addresses the matter?
Is there a logical answer that does not conflict with the New or Old Testaments?

Some groups place less/no emphasis on history/tradition, but nearly all groups place emphasis on the New Testament over the Old (where there might be two mutually exclusive rules—animal sacrifices are one example), and Scripture over history/tradition. Generally, Scripture is the authoritative source, followed by historical precedent. Finally, logical reasoning is fine in the absence of (or to make specific use of) related principles in the Scripture or applicable historical precedent or tradition.

1 This doesn't mean the rule is bad or that it's OK to do what the law prohibits. It's just that because it's in the Law of Moses is not a compelling reason to follow it—just like people in Armenia don't have to obey the laws of Mexico because those laws apply to people in Mexico. Murder is against the law in Mexico, but that's not why Armenians aren't allowed to murder. Murder is illegal in Armenia—and that's why the Armenians aren't permitted to do so.


What is the significance of Judas's name?

As you already stated, Judas (Strong's g2455) is simply a variation of the name Judah. Iscariot (Strong's g2469) translates to "man of Kerioth." Kerioth is one of the cities listed in Joshua chapter 15 as the allotment of the Promised Land for the tribe of Judah. So there doesn't seem to be a literal meaning behind the name, other than likely belonging to the tribe of Judah.
As for a non-literal significance, there is certainly a parallelism between Israel (and the kings of Judah in particular) rebelling and Judas-Iscariot betraying Jesus. Whether or not this parallelism has a further significance, I can't say.


In Romans 16:7, are Andronicus and Junia apostles? AND... is Junia a woman? How did the Church Fathers interpret this?

I'll deal with Junia's gender first. Although the Greek manuscripts are ambiguous as to her gender, Wikipedia says "the consensus among some modern New Testament scholars is that Junia was a woman" and points out that the first known reference to Junia as a male comes from Origen no earlier than the late second century, although from a late medieval copy of Origen's writing. So it seems the Church Fathers accepted Junia to have been a woman and, given the potential for scribal bias, it is even possible that Origen had also believed this. Papyrus 46, a Greek manuscript from about 200 CE, alters the name used in Romans 16:7 from Junia to Julia, which provides some support for her to be a woman, even if this spelling is not original.

Wikipedia (ibid) cites Rena Pederson, who argues "medieval translators such as the 13th-century Archbishop Giles changed her name to Junias, as a reflection of an institutional prejudice against women that stretched back to ancient Greek scholars." Stephen Finlan also writes that "Junia is clearly a female name that was changed to the male "Junias" in the Latin translations of the New Testament."

Rena Pederson (The Lost Apostle, page 164) says multiple database searches found the female name in use in Ephesus, Didyma, Lydia, Troas, Bithynia and Rome during the first century, but not one reference to the masculine form, Junias. She says "the male name was simply not a bona fide name".

According to a Christian blog, cbmw.org, the Church Fathers not only regarded Junia to be a female, but actually identified her as the wife of Andronicus. It says "many patristic exegetes understood the second person mentioned in Rom 16:7 to be the wife of Andronicus, such as: Ambrosiaster (c. 339-97); Jerome (c. 342-420); John Chrysostom (c. 347- 407); Jerome; Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c.393-458)."  The site goes on to list other exegetes holding this view, but they were too late to be regarded as Church Fathers.

The Greek is also somewhat ambiguous as to whether Junia was a prominent apostle or "well-known to the apostles". There is a tendency to limit the use of 'apostle' to the twelve disciples and Paul himself, but Paul did use the term more broadly in the context of being a 'messenger' of Christ.

If Paul did regard Junia as a church leader, she would not be alone. Paul also regarded Priscilla to be a church leader, as we see in:

  Romans 16:3: Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus
  1 Corinthians 16:19: Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 3:5-6, although possibly not part of a work written by Paul, implies that more apostles were appointed after the time of Christ:

  Ephesians 3:5-6: Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
  6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.

Thus there is ambiguity in the text, both as to whether Junia was a woman and whether she was an apostle, but the weight of scholarly opinion is that Junia was a female apostle. The implication is that females such as Priscilla and Junia were leaders of the early church.


Do Roman Catholics regard Orthodox sacraments as valid and/or licit?

Orthodox Sacraments are Valid

It is well-known that Catholics hold Orthodox sacraments to be valid:

  These [Eastern] Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. (Unitatis Redintegratio, 15)

(See also, Faith, Sacraments, and the Unity of the Church, from the Joint Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church)

Are Orthodox Sacraments "licit"?

This is the harder question.  In my opinion it is a question founded on a misunderstanding.  Liceity is a term that means 'legal' or 'lawful', and in general an inquiry of this sort would be referred to the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law.  The Code governs most happenings in the Catholic Church, but of course the supreme lawgiver is the Pope, and he is free to change Church Law as he sees fit.

Liceity is a measure that governs the internal operations of the Catholic Church according to her own laws.  It isn't meant to govern other church bodies, though other Churches or ecclesial communions may well consult Catholic Law in codifying their own systems or adjudicating disciplinary questions in their own sphere.  In essence this means that asking whether an Orthodox sacrament is licit is like asking whether Chinese internet censorship violates the First Amendment.  A non-Catholic Church is subject to Catholic Law no more than the Chinese government is subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore I'm not sure this question makes sense.  You could ask a canon lawyer or the Pope himself, but I don't think they would quite know what to say.  There is no reason for this question to arise in the Catholic legal system, as Orthodox Christians are not subject to Catholic Law.  Only Catholics are concerned about liceity.


What is meant by "the first will be the last and the last will be the first"?

If you look at the context in the parable, in Matthew 20, I believe you will see that Jesus is addressing the issue of spiritual pride.  Those who worked all day thought that they deserved more pay, even though they had agreed to their wages before their work began.  They were comparing themselves to those who came last and were paid what they themselves had agreed to work all day for.
Jesus had the latecomers in the parable being paid first to set up the tension of the situation and evoke feelings about what seemed unfair to the listeners.  It seemed unfair on two counts, that those who worked all day had to wait until last for their wages, and that they didn't receive more than those who only worked after being hired "at the eleventh hour."
The all-day workers prided themselves on their long hours, but forgot their agreement with the boss.  They grumbled.  Their hearts weren't to serve the boss well to please him, but only for what they could get out of it.
The latecomers were grateful for the job and the pay to which they had agreed.  They probably felt a bit sheepish receiving their wages under the scrutiny of the onlooking all-day workers.  They may have felt unworthy to be counted among them, but gladly received their wages from the boss with hearts full of thanks.  They didn't expect anything more than what they had agreed to.
In heaven, there will be people who recognized God's grace in Jesus Christ at an early age and received eternal life.  They will have walked with Him for a lifetime.  There will also be those who only recognize His grace for salvation at the end of their lives.  They, too will enter heaven, but with less works with which to glorify Christ.  His grace to them is no less.  They came last, but are "first" in the sense that all who receive His grace are first.  They don't demand anything, yet He freely bestows eternal life and blessing.
Those who think they deserve salvation should be wary.  If they are working for reward, they may receive it in this life, but the life hereafter will hold nothing for them, because they have rejected what was offered--the free gift of salvation.  They come to the front of the line, expecting a grand entrance, but Jesus says, "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matthew 7:23)
Now that someone has edited the question, to include Matthew 9:35, I include the fuller quote here (verses 31-37):

for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.” But they did not understand the saying, and were afraid to ask him.
Who Is the Greatest?
And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

From this broader, Biblical context of Jesus' words and teaching, it does seem that He is indeed addressing spiritual pride and pride in general.


Tradition holds that all 12 were Jewish, but the Bible affirms the Jewish heritage of many of them. Their names are:

Thomas, Simon the Zealot, Philip, Simon Peter, Matthias, Matthew (aka Levi), Jude, Judas Iscariot, John, James (Son of Alpheus), James (Son of Zebedee), Bartholomew (aka Nathaniel), and Andrew.

Nathaniel. Jesus labeled Nathaniel (also called Bartholomew) as Jewish. When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” (John 1:47)
Simon the Zealot. The Zealots were a fanatical Jewish sect, so his title confirms that he was Jewish.
Matthew. Since Matthew was also called Levi, one of the tribes of Israel, this is evidence that he was Jewish.
Jude and James, son of Alphaeus. The name Jude comes from Judah, the same tribe that King David came from. James was Jude's brother.
Judas Iscariot. Judas also comes from Judah.
Philip, Andrew, Peter. John 1:44 says, "Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida." Bethsaida was on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. In those days, its residents would have mostly been Jewish. Also, when Peter went to the Temple in Jerusalem, the authorities never punished him for desecrating the Temple for being a non-Jew, but for other reasons.
John and James. They were brothers: Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. (Matthew 4:21) Since John had the same name as Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist, we know that it was a common Jewish name. Also, In Mark 1, they accompany Jesus into a synagogue. They would not likely have been welcome there if they were not Jewish.
As a group. In Acts 1:6, the disciples asked this:

  Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this
  time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

That proves that they still had a Jewish mindset, and were focused on their nation, the nation of Israel, not the world. Jesus responds with this:

  7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the
  Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when
  the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in
  Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the
  earth.”