Why does the Mosaic Law demand the death of so many innocent people?

Your real question is really why do the sins in these three instances deserve Death in God's eyes?

Leviticus 20:13,  Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

The answer to that is the same as why God demanded death for when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:17  KJV

  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that
  thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God had created man in his image, and he had created both man and woman. In that original creation God did not give them or any of their prosperity the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:7  KJV

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Eve was created to be Adam's helper:

Genesis 2:18, 21, & 22  KJV

  18  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

  21  And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

  22  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

God created them differently for a reason, and that reason was:

Genesis 1:26 through 28 KJV

  26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

  27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

  28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Man was not created as an after thought God had specific plans for man. When God  created Adam, before he created Eve he gave Adam an assignment.

Genesis 2:5 & 15 KJV

  5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

  15  And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

God had also created Adam as an eternal being.

Genesis 2:16 &  17 KJV

  16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

  17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So when Man disobeyed God and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, lost that eternal life, and also marred what God had already pronounced as good.

Genesis 1:31  KJV

  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

So now that man had given up his eternal life, when Adam died there would be left no one to tend the earth and till the soil.

Therefore in order for those duties to be carried on man had to procreate, and so God told man to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth. So man even though he had given up life eternal on the Earth, God still needed to fulfill his overall plan.

As for the part about homosexuality, For that you have to consider that God meant for man to procreate for several reasons, and one purpose was to have Adams posterity to care for his creation, that is why he gave sex to mankind in the beginning, and his explicit instructions were to multiply and fill the Earth. Sex was given to mankind for that reason, not for his pleasure. God made it pleasant so that man would not think of it as strictly a duty to him, even though it was. And there is no procreation in homosexuality, and it is therefore an abomination to God in that it is relegated to a place of pleasure only and not to fulfill God's edict to fill the Earth.

Leviticus 20:13  KJV

  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
  abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

But you have singled out only one of many sexual deviations for which God has pronounced physical death and all of those are for the same reason and that is the misuse of sex.

As for the punishment of physical death for breaking the Sabbath God gave man a specific command;

Exodus 20:10 & 11 KJV

  10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

  11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

God blessed the Sabbath and made it holy and is to be observed as a covenant to the LORD.

Exodus 31:15 & 16  KJV

  15  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

  16  Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

We do not have the right to degrade the Sabbath and ignore it's significance.

As for the last part of your question, concerning disobedient children.

Again God gave a specific command in the 10 commandments, and with this command, and none of the others, God gave the reward for obedience.

Exo 20:12  KJV

  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy
  God giveth thee.

Deuteronomy 21:18 through 21 KJV

  18  If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

  19  Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

  20  And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

  21  And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

So it only stands to reason that if you do not honor your parents you should expect that your days will not be long, and matter of fact the less you honor them the shorter you should expect them to be right up to the point of not having any more days.


What is the Biblical basis for believing that it is sinful to commit illegal actions?

“Illegal” is not the same thing as “sinful.”

An action is illegal if it contravenes a law established by man, such as the statutes of the Federal, state, or local governments (or whatever juridical order the reader belongs to).

An action is immoral (or objectively sinful) if it contravenes God’s law, which need not coincide in every case with the human law.

Note that, in order for a person actually to commit a sin, he must, evidently, know that what he is doing is wrong (i.e., a contravention of God’s law), and be free to perform that action willingly (e.g., someone who commits a bad action at gunpoint is probably not guilty of a sin).

However, all things being equal, we do have a duty to obey the just laws that are established by our government. That is because, as St. Paul explains, governments receive their authority from God, and when they rule justly, they are actually ruling on behalf of God:

  1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer (Romans 13:1-4, ESV).

However, the submission to authority that St. Paul talks about presupposes that the authority is acting justly. If, on the contrary, a government were to mandate doing something objectively sinful (say, for example, a law that makes it illegal to serve citizens belonging to a certain race), then it would actually be the duty of citizens to disobey the civil law; God’s law is always higher than man’s law. Indeed, an unjust law (such as the one in my example) is not really a law at all. This idea is supported by the following passage in Acts:

  And the high priest [a legitimate authority in Jerusalem] questioned them [the apostles], 28 saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:27-29, ESV).

Note that laws are also unjust if they are excessively burdensome, or if they are impossible to fulfill; for example, a law that declares illegal something that is, in fact, good and holy. In such a case, there is not necessarily a strict duty to disobey this kind of law, but there is also no strict obligation to obey it.

In summary, the relationship between “illegal” and “sinful” can be characterized as follows:

Any action that contravenes God’s law is objectively sinful. Only a small fraction of these actions are regulated by human law at all. In other words, many actions are sinful but not illegal as such.
A just law should in general be obeyed (keeping in mind that no human law is perfect—there might be cases that the legislator did not forsee). Something justly declared illegal in the law would also be sinful.
An unjust law need not be obeyed, and if the law actually promotes sinful behavior, it actually must be disobeyed. In this case, that which is technically illegal is not sinful, and might even be dutiful.

In all these cases, we are referring to the objective sinfulness of the actions in question; the person acting must also have knowledge and freedom in order to commit an actual sin.

UPDATE: I will address some of the other concerns brought up by the original poster.

The origin of right and wrong: the so-called “natural law”

The rightness or wrongness of an action does not have its basis in the legality or illegality of it. As I mentioned, legality and especially illegality depend on the explicit mention of the action in question in statutes.

However, the rightness or wrongness of an action is ultimately determined by God, not by the government. In fact, rightness and wrongness exist even in the complete absense of human law. As St. Paul says,

  For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law (Romans 2:14).

This is the Biblical basis for the so-called natural law: the idea that human nature itself (which is unchanging in time and common to all human beings) provides us with the information we need to know right from wrong. In this case the “law” that St. Paul is talking about is the Jewish Torah (which provided, among other things, the Ten Commandments to help guild the ancient Israelites’ morality), but the principle is applicable to any kind of law. I do not need the government to tell me that murder is wrong, although I am grateful to the government for making it a crime punishible by law. More importantly, it is not the government that makes murder wrong—God does that by creating us the way He does. Rather, the statute merely renders the natural law explicit.

That is why it is so important for laws to be just: if they do not conform to the natural law—to the morality that God has endowed in our very natures (which is what justice entails)—then they cause confusion and misery. And, as I mentioned, non-conforming (i.e., unjust) laws are not even binding, because in making such laws a state abuses the authority that God has entrusted to it.

Regarding some of the particular sins mentioned by the O.P.

Polygamy

Polygamy is a complex topic in the Bible, but it should be noted that it is only present in the early part of the Old Testament. We see it with some of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob), in the Judges, and with the kings of Israel.

However, even in the Old Testament, there was a growing understanding in the People of Israel that polygamy is not in accordance with God’s plan. It was largely due to his polygamy that Solomon apostatized at the end of his life:

  4 For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had done (1 Kings 11:4-6, ESV).

Clearly, part of the problem is that he married foreign women, but the situation would never have arisen if he had not married 700 wives (v. 3).

Moreover, we can see from all of the instances of polygamy in the Bible that it is not favorably seen by the Biblical authors. For example polygamy breeds rivalry among the wives or concubines: consider, for instance, the expulsion of Hagar in Gen. 21; the whole episode of Rachel and Leah in Gen. 29, and their in-fighting in Gen. 30; and finally the mistreatment of Hannah (the mother of Samuel) in 1 Samuel 1.

In any case polygamy seems to have fallen out of use in ancient Israel by the time of Christ, and it was certainly the expectation of all the New Testament authors that marriage was between one man and one woman, exclusively.

Hence, the immorality of polygamy preceeds its illegality. Laws that make polygamy illegal simply reflect the natural law in this regard.

Marriage in general

In a similar way, marriage as such is rooted in human nature, and is ultimately determined by God. The state has no authority to define what marriage is: “What therefore God has joined together [i.e., in marriage], let not man separate” (Mark 10:9, ESV).

The government acts unjustly if it attempts to define marriage in a way that is contrary to the nature of marriage (i.e., the pernament, exclusive union between one man and one woman).

Concentration camps

Likewise, if a government were to stipulate that certain classes of persons should be sent to concentration camps, it would be acting unjustly. Citizens would not be bound by such a measure. (The state might, of course, compel such persons to enter a concentration camp by force, but that would be a most grave injustice, obviously.)

Conclusion: the state does not determine morality

In summary, the state absolutely does not determine the morality of our actions. Rather, when it is acting as it should, it merely reflects the morality that already exists, thanks to the human nature that God has given us.

In some cases, the state does have the authority to make decisions about things that are not set in stone (like which side of the street to drive on), and so in general those types of laws should be obeyed.

But laws can only be obeyed if they are in conformity with God’s law, as expressed in our human natures (i.e, the “natural law”).


Are Catholic priests expert in exorcism?

Not all Catholic priests are specially trained in the sort of exorcism depicted in the film (although a particular form of exorcism is contained in the rite of baptism). Major and specific exorcism is a specialist ministry for which some are more suited than others.

Sacerdos, seu quivis alius legitimus Ecclesiae minister, vexatos a daemone exorcizaturus, ea qua par est pietate, prudentiae, ac vitae integritate praeditus esse decet.
A priest or other legitimate minister of the Church chosen to exorcize a demon should be endowed with piety, prudence and integrity of life.

While all priests are expected to be “endowed with piety, prudence and integrity of life”, only some will exhibit the levels which make them suitable to be “chosen to exorcise a demon”.
There is a manual, De Exorcismis et supplicationibus quibusdam, (Of exorcisms and certain supplications) published in 1614 and revised in 1999. The official edition is in Latin, but at least one unofficial English translation exists. The new edition acknowledges the possibility of mental illness which should not be confused with demon possession, but it does maintain that evil exists, and

The Devil and other demons can not only afflict persons (by temptation and vexation), but also places and objects, and can cause various forms of opposition and persecution of the Church.

A Guardian report on the new manual said that "All Roman Catholic dioceses have an exorcist — a priest specially appointed to the post by his bishop. But the degree to which exorcists are used is said to vary enormously, and Church officials say that in some parts of the world they are scarcely employed at all."


Do any groups of Quakers still disapprove of the fine arts?

There are a lot of different groups of Quakers in the world, see the Friends World Committee for Consultation.

The core values of the Quaker tradition is based are:

Peace
Equality and justice
Truth and integrity
Simplicity and sustainability

So I would say that it's possible that there are groups of Quakers who do not see fine arts as a legitimate occupation. I think it would be more common to find individuals who question whether it is a good use of someone's time and that there might well be a better way to contribute to a better world.


When is the first documented case of making a confession to a priest?

The earliest confessions seem to have taken place in a communal setting, before both whoever was in authority and the wider group simultaneously. The first documented examples are probably the people who came to John the Baptist (first half of first century CE), confessing their sins publicly and being baptised for the purpose of "repentence", which implies remission of sins was the goal (Matthew 3:6, 11; Mark 1:5; cf. James 5:16). But you may not consider them "Christian" - if not, then I'd point to the new Christians of Ephesus. As a result of Paul's preaching, they gathered together publicly, confessed their sins and burned their books of sorcery in a demonstration of their repentance (Acts 19:18-19).

The earliest post-NT sources that discuss confession of sins to a human (as opposed to God) are also vague; two of the earliest appear to be by the Didache and Clement of Rome (written between the mid-1st century and mid-2nd century CE).

The Didache (14) instructs its readers to confess their sins in the congregation (ecclesia) when they meet on "the Lord's Day". It doesn't explicity mention confession for remission of sins, but the purpose of confession is so that the confessor may be "pure" when breaking bread (called the "sacrifice", i.e. the eucharist), so forgiveness of sins as a result of confessing to the congregation is implied.
Clement of Rome (Corinthians  57) instructs the wicked to repent and submit to "the presbyters" and receive "correction." Again, confession is not explictly mentioned as a part of this process, but is implied.

More detail on other patristic sources on the issue, see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the sacrament of penance.

If you're asking for a specific individual, that's a bit more difficult, since examples of individuals are rarely given (unless they are members of a heretical movement). The earliest is probably the nameless "young man" cited by Clement of Alexandria in "Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?" (written early third century CE). In his tale, which may be purely legendary, the apostle John, after the Emperor Domitian's death (96 CE), left his exile on the island of Patmos and returned to Ephesus. A young man who had been baptised fell in with a bad crowd and became a highway robber, and tried to rob John before he recognised the apostle and fled. John pursued and cried out,

  “Why, my son, do you flee from me, your father, unarmed, old? Son,
  pity me. Fear not; you have still hope of life. I will give account to
  Christ for you. If need be, I will willingly endure your death, as the
  Lord did death for us. For you I will surrender my life. Stand,
  believe; Christ has sent me.”

  And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his
  arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching,
  he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could,
  and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand.
  The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find
  forgiveness for himself from the Saviour, beseeching and falling on
  his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by
  repentance, led him back to the church. Then by supplicating with
  copious prayers, and striving along with him in continual fastings,
  and subduing his mind by various utterances  of words, did not depart,
  as they say, till he restored him to the Church, presenting in him a
  great example of true repentance and a great token of regeneration, a
  trophy of the resurrection for which we hope... For he who in this world welcomes the angel of penitence will not repent at the time that he leaves the body, nor be ashamed when he sees the Saviour approaching in His glory and with His army.

The event involves weeping, declamations, lamentations, prayer, fasting, repentance and forgiveness, between the penitent and the apostle. This is of course a far cry from the medieval or modern practices of confession, repentance and penance under the auspices of church authorities, but those practices evolved over centuries to the familiar model we see today.


Can seeking arguments against Christianity strengthen Christianity?

If I may, here is my idea of the scientific view: yes, it can. If you look for arguments against Christianity, thinking that you may find some, but you don't find any, this is evidence in favor of Christianity.

Evidence, you see, is all about correlation. Whether or not your shoes are untied is strongly correlated to whether or not they appear to be untied. So, when you see that your shoes appear to be untied, you can conclude, with great certainty, that they actually are untied.

Likewise, Christianity is correlated with arguments. Whether or not Christianity is true is correlated with whether or not there are good arguments against it. If there are good arguments against it, this is evidence that it is false; if there are not good arguments against it, this is evidence that it is true.


What is so appealing about Christianity?

I think you've missed some key points in your imagined scenario.

It wasn't "a simple message of love" spread by a few ordinary fisherman. Jesus wasn't some hippie revolutionary who got a bunch of followers to parade around telling everybody they should just love each other.

What made Christianity appealing was that it was true. This would have been much more apparent to the early followers. As time went on this has gotten increasingly hard to see, but lets look at the scenario again.

Ordinary fisherman spend a couple years hanging out with this dude Jesus.
Said dude wows some crowds but ends up on the wrong end of the political stick.
Said dude gets executed (in dubious circumstances) for blasphemy/treason.
Ordinary fishermen go back to their nets.

Obviously there are more layers to this. What Jesus was actually teaching during this time, the addition of miracles, and quite a number of other factors are significant and should be given more treatment than I will here. The reason I filtered the scenario down to just these factors is to highlight one significant factor I think is underestimated.

The return to fishing is not an unexpected move. The fisherman were disillusioned, nobody really wanted to get strung up for association with a recently executed rebel and they didn't really have anywhere else to go. Bread wasn't going to put itself on the table and they no longer had (in their own estimation) a message that was going to change the world. Their own leader had failed — even let them down — and who were they to take up his mantle?

Then the resurrection happened.

  Acts 2:22-24 (ESV)
  22  “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23  this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24  God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

These fishermen weren't going to be taken in for a hoax. The real flesh and blood dude that they'd spent three years traipsing around the countryside with had just shown himself master over death itself. They could hear him, touch him and he ate their fish.

  The history of every nation revolves around Jesus of Nazareth. This is really an astonishing claim: to say everything depends on a guy who lived two thousand years ago, ate some fish, and got himself killed. And then ate some more fish. — Telford Work

What happened next is truly epic. After a couple weeks Jesus left the scene, heading back to his father. The disciples were now left with something completely different than what they had after three years of just hearing hearing the guy teach.

This time instead of heading back to their nets, they committed themselves to telling the world about this dude at the cost of hardship, torture and eventual death. To the last man.

These men would not have thrown their lives away for anything they were not absolutely convinced was true. In some circumstances it is possible to be absolutely convinced that a lie is true, but these men were were in a position to know if the guy was a fraud. And quite honestly they had their doubts for a while, but in the end nobody, least of all themselves had a motivation to perpetrate a lie.

The leading Jewish religious leaders would liked nothing more than to have pointed to his grave.
The Roman solders guarding his tomb would want to keep their heads. Attached to their bodies.
The disciples who the Jewish leaders tried to blame with a conspiracy would have the least reason of anybody to actually pull one off. And if it had been them, which of them would have gone to his death defending something he knew to be a lie that would have netted a fortune to revel.

Of course the power of God through his Spirit made this possible. But at heart it wasn't a "message of love" that was irresistible. It was truth.

  Acts 2:36 (ESV)
  36  Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”


Are Catholics free to disagree about whether it is prudential to not forbid abortion by law?

I believe the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has anticipated your question to help Catholics to think about public policies and to vote accordingly within the United States political system.  I can see how other current Western democracy-like political systems like those of Canada, Britain, and most European countries are covered by the principles espoused by this 2015 document called Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.  The 42-page PDF version can be downloaded here.

Some quotes [bold is mine, to highlight portions relevant to this question]

[From "Introduction"]

  In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom
  to vote. Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God’s truth.
  We recognize that the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in
  light of a properly formed conscience, and that participation goes well beyond casting a vote in a
  particular election.

[From "How Does the Church Help the Catholic Faithful to Speak About Political and Social Questons?  - Making Moral Choices"]

  Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing
  legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times
  this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught
  that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely
  overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life,
  “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible
  (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps
  toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral
  requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until
  natural death
  Prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy
  choices in areas such as armed conflict, housing, health care, immigration, and others. This does
  not mean that all choices are equally valid, or that our guidance and that of other Church leaders
  is just another political opinion or policy preference among many others. Rather, we urge
  Catholics to listen carefully to the Church’s teachers when we apply Catholic social teaching to
  specific proposals and situations. The judgments and recommendations that we make as bishops
  on such specific issues do not carry the same moral authority as statements of universal moral
  teachings. Nevertheless, the Church’s guidance on these matters is an essential resource for
  Catholics as they determine whether their own moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel
  and with Catholic teaching.
  Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important
  to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among
  moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an
  intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting
  workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its
  essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such
  cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter
  should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or
  inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
  There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position
  even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that
  candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly
  grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a
  fundamental moral evil.
  When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the
  conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not
  voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate
  deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other
  authentic human goods.
  In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed
  conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral
  obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our
  consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s
  commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a
  decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.


Is cross dressing immoral or forbidden by the bible

The only Bible passage that comes to mind is this quote from Deuteronomy:

  A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing,
  for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. (Deuteronomy 22:5,
  NIV)

Feel free to ask God if He has changed his mind on this issue.


Why is Easter celebrated on a different day every year and Christmas is not?

The date of Easter follows similar rules as the date of Passover, and is determined using those rules because of that tradition. (The death of Jesus on that day is significant because of his connection of his death to the sacrifice of the passover lamb.)

In the western church, Easter falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the nominal northern-hemisphere vernal equinox. (I call it nominal because it's considered to be on March 21, rather than at the moment of the astronomical equinox.)

In the eastern church, it's based on the old Julian calendar, and so sometimes is on a different date.  Hopefully somebody who understands this can contribute.

In Lutheran Christianity, the date chosen for celebrating Easter is the archetypal adiaphoron, or a good example of a thing that doesn't matter.  The reformers considered that it was more important to go along with the rest of the Christendom of the time in choosing this date, than it was to somehow get the date "right."


Which denominations allow abortions, and why?

Protestant Denominations

Wikipedia states that Protestant denominations that support abortion rights include the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopalian Church, and the United Presbyterian Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), The United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, and the Lutheran Women's Caucus. It says the American Baptist Churches USA, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and The United Church of Christ consider abortion permissible under certain restricted circumstances. The United Church of Canada has opposed legal sanctions against abortion since 1990, and the Uniting Church of Australia has accepted the right to abortion since 1992. The Church of Latter Day Saints states, "Some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth."

Catholic Church

Although the Catholic Church is firmly opposed to abortion from the time of conception, this was not always the case. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) stated that a monk who had persuaded his mistress to have an abortion was not guilty of murder as long as the foetus had not yet been animated, which took place 40 days after conception for a boy, 80 for a girl, a definition Roman Canon law maintained until 1869. Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585) declared that it was not murder to abort an embryo of less than 40 days, although this was overturned by his successor, Sixtus V. A few years later, Gregory XIV modified the Apostolic Constitution Effraenatam (‘without restraint’) of Pope Sixtus V so that the penalty for abortion did not apply until ensoulment at 40 days. Pope Pius IX restored the penalty to the time of conception.

Religious Tolerance, while not a primary source, states, "Various church authorities and popes placed the time at:

At a specific time into pregnancy (40 days, 80 days, 116 days), or
Quickening (when the woman first feels the fetus move), or
At conception."

Readily accessible online Vatican references include:-

This link which is the fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions (Book VII) - written as if by the apostles - published by the Catholic Church. Under the heading 'The Prohibition of Conjuring, Murder of Infants, Perjury, and False Witness', in the context of abortion, it states "everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged ..." This is a reference to ensoulment, which I mentioned above: the thinking was that ensoulment took place when the foetus developed human shape or quickened (began to move in the womb).

Under the heading Abortion, New Advent, denies that the rules have ever changed, states that the Church 'has made it [prohibition] more definite. As to the penalties she inflicts upon the guilty parties, her present legislation was fixed by the Bull of Pius IX "Apostolicae Sedis".' The second paragraph states, "It was long debated among the learned at what period of gestation the human embryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates man above all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever. The keenest mind among the ancient philosophers, Aristotle, had conjectured that the future child was endowed at conception with a principle of only vegetative life, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later; his followers said on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female, child. The authority of his great name and the want of definite knowledge to the contrary caused this theory to be generally accepted up to recent times."

Johannah Haney says in The Abortion Debate, at page 24, 'In the fourth century A.D., Saint Augustine said, "Abortion could be viewd as murder only if the fetus was judged a 'fully formed' human. [Forty] days for males and 80 days for females. This meant that abortion was not murder but "a grave form of birth control."' Pope Innocent III said that abortion before quickening was still wrong, but a lesser sin. In the fifteenth century, St. Antonius, archbishop of Florence, said that abortion should be permitted in early pregnancy to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Wolfgang Müller says in The Criminalization of Abortion in the West that abortion was first defined as a 'crime' in the modern sense in the writings of twelfth-century teachers at the emerging schools of ecclesiastical (or canon) and Roman law. Gratian authored the oldest canonistic textbook, circa 1140, that the killing of a human foetus would constitute homicide and warrant identical punitive measures. Gratian said the humanity of unborn life was not the immediate result of conception but occurred when the embryo acquired limbs and human shape. At page 84, Muller says,  "Gregory XIV fully restored Gratian's distinction between two phases of life in the maternal womb and varying penalties for each of them, ending a moment of apostolic rejection that lasted for two and a half years, from 1588 to 1591.

Merritt and Merritt say in When Does Human Life Begin?, at page 22, that "as late as 1261 CE, Pope Innocent III wrote a letter ruling on the case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The pope decided, consistent with canon law, that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not animated."

Biblical References

Norman L. Geisler gives biblical arguments in support of abortion in Christian Ethics at pages 136-7, but does not necessarily endorse them:

Genesis 2:7 declares that man “became a living being” only after God gave him life. Since breathing does not occur until birth, it is argued that the unborn are not human until they are born.
Job 34:14-15 says that if God “withdrew his spirit and breath, all mankind would perish.”  Here again, since life is connected with breath, it is reasoned that there is no human life before breath.
Isaiah 57:16 refers to “the breath of man that I [God] have created.”  This also seems to make the beginning of breath the point of the creation of a human being.
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 declares that “a stillborn child” comes into the world “without meaning, it departs in darkness, . . . it never saw the sun nor knew anything.” This is taken to indicate that the unborn are no more than the dead, who also know nothing but lie in the darkness of the grave (9:10).
Matthew 26:24 records Jesus' statement about Judas that “it would have been better for him if he had not been born.”  The implication drawn from this is that human life begins at birth.  Otherwise, Jesus would have said it would have been better for him never to have been conceived.


Can an Orthodox Christian of one diocese receive sacraments at a coterminous one, e.g. a Greek Orthodox at an OCA parish?

The short answer is yes. I converted into an OCA parish. When i had to move, the closest Orthodox parish was an Antiochian one. On occasion, I have also attended srevices in a Greek parish. The important thing for me was to establish a Parish as my home parish.


There's a great analysis by Dave Armstrong that goes into a lot more detail, but it comes from trying to best capture the point of the Lord's Prayer—as it's rendered in the Bible—in English.

There are two forms of the Lord's Prayer found in the Bible: one in Matthew and another in Luke.

In Matthew 6:9–13, the Lord's Prayer is rendered as (emphasis mine):

  9“This is how you are to pray:

  Our Father in heaven,
  hallowed be your name,
  10your kingdom come,
  your will be done,
  on earth as in heaven.
  11Give us today our daily bread;
  12and forgive us our debts,
  as we forgive our debtors;
  13and do not subject us to the final test,
  but deliver us from the evil one.

But in Luke 11:2–4, it's rendered as (emphasis mine):

  2He said to them, “When you pray, say:

  Father, hallowed be your name,
  your kingdom come.
  3Give us each day our daily bread
  4and forgive us our sins
  for we ourselves forgive everyone in debt to us,
  and do not subject us to the final test.”

Given it's more fleshed out, most Christians favor Matthew's version. In the original Greek, the word used in Matthew 6:12 is ὀφειλήματα, which means "debts". The word used in Luke 11:4 is ἁμαρτίας, which means "sins".

So, to be in line with the original manuscript, "debts" is the correct word, and indeed, most Christians (including all non-English Catholics) use "debts".

In English, however, "debts" and "debtors" usually refer to a loan: a monetary debt to a bank, for example. But later on in Matthew, it says:

  14If you forgive others their transgressions1, your heavenly Father will forgive you
  15But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions1.

So while the actual word is "debts", it's clear the point of the Lord's Prayer is to say that one ought to forgive those who wrong us, just as God forgives us our sins and transgressions, not that we ought to forgive loans made upon us (i.e., God doesn't "loan" us sins).

To make clear the point of the prayer,"debts" was replaced with "trespasses". This translation became popular in 16th century England, even making it into the Book of Common Prayer. The Roman Catholic version of the Lord's Prayer is almost identical to the Book of Common Prayer's version at the time, and has not been changed since then.

Interestingly, the English version of the Missal recently underwent a fairly dramatic change as things were retranslated to better correspond to the original meaning of words, but the Lord's Prayer was skipped. I could not find any explicit justification for the omission, which suggests to me that the Vatican still considers the use of "trespasses" to accurately convey the intent of the prayer.

Note 1: Also translated as trespasses, depending on the translation.


What do non-Calvinists believe about Proverbs 21:1

This verse does not stand alone.  As is the case with many of the proverbs the entire thought is expressed in two (or more) verses:

The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will. Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. - Proverbs 21:1-2

These verses highlight two critical features.  1) The ability of humans to choose for themselves, 2) God's sovereign ability to judge and use those choices as He wills.
The King's heart is like a stream of water; it has an energy and a direction.  The way that he directs that energy is what he has determined (in his own eyes) to be right.  However, it is God and not man who is in charge of the ultimate outcome.
We see this very clearly demonstrated in the story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50), whose brothers sold him into slavery.  Years later those same brothers found themselves standing before Joseph who was now high in command of Egypt.  Through all of the difficulties he endured due to his brother's evil intentions Joseph was able to see that the sovereign hand of God had orchestrated a plan to rescue his father's household from devastation by famine, and he famously said to them:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. - Genesis 50:20

And we now can look back and see how this deliverance from famine became slavery in Egypt, which became deliverance from Egypt, which became the establishment of Israel, which became the advent of Jesus Christ, the world's Savior.
Evil was intended and God brought forth good, indeed.


What did Jesus mean by seventy times seven?

In my experience, Jesus is generally understood to have used “seventy times seven” in poetic opposition to a small number: “seventy times seven” means “an impossibly large number”.
Matthew 18:21-22 is referenced at three places in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in each place it supports this view (I've emphasised the relevant parts). The Church teaches that forgiveness should be limitless, and "seventy times seven" effectively means "infinity".

982. There is no offence, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest.527 Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.528
2227.  Children in turn contribute to the growth in holiness of their parents.36 Each and everyone should be generous and tireless in forgiving one another for offences, quarrels, injustices, and neglect. Mutual affection suggests this. the charity of Christ demands it.37
2845. There is no limit or measure to this essentially divine forgiveness,146 whether one speaks of "sins" as in Luke (11:4), "debts" as in Matthew (6:12). We are always debtors: "Owe no one anything, except to love one another."147 The communion of the Holy Trinity is the source and criterion of truth in every relationship. It is lived out in prayer, above all in the Eucharist.148

This is a theme Pope Francis took up with the Bull of Indiction for the Jubilee Year of Mercy, in which he exhorts the faithful to be merciful and forgiving. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy" which has a parallel in the Lord's Prayer itself, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." If we are to trust in the limitless forgiveness of God, we must emulate that ourselves.

In the parables devoted to mercy, Jesus reveals the nature of God as that of a Father who never gives up until he has forgiven the wrong and overcome rejection with compassion and mercy. ... Jesus affirms that mercy is not only an action of the Father, it becomes a criterion for ascertaining who his true children are. In short, we are called to show mercy because mercy has first been shown to us. Pardoning offences becomes the clearest expression of merciful love, and for us Christians it is an imperative from which we cannot excuse ourselves. At times how hard it seems to forgive! And yet pardon is the instrument placed into our fragile hands to attain serenity of heart. To let go of anger, wrath, violence, and revenge are necessary conditions to living joyfully. Let us therefore heed the Apostle’s exhortation: “Do not let the sun go down on your anger” (Eph 4:26). Above all, let us listen to the words of Jesus who made mercy an ideal of life and a criterion for the credibility of our faith: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (Mt 5:7): the beatitude to which we should particularly aspire in this Holy Year.A

36 Gaudium et Spes 48 #4
37 Cf. Mt 18:21-22; Lk 17:4
146 Cf. Mt 18:21-22; Lk 17:3-4
147 Rom 13:8
148 Cf. Mt 5:23-24; 1 Jn 3:19-24
527 Roman Catechism I, 11, 5 (Catechism of Trent)
528 Cf. Mt 18:21-22
A Misericordiae Vultus 9


Which, if any, Protestant bodies affirm punishment in the afterlife for the unrighteous prior to the general resurrection and the Day of the Lord?

I am going to answer your question as best I can even though someone will inevitably mark my answer as bogus and chime about my being on the site long enough to know not to answer truth questions. I do not understand your question as a truth question, but a basis for true confusion. That being said here goes and if the powers that be do not like my trying to help you they can throw me off the site, which is not a threat to me since they are of no help anymore anyway.

The thing which appears to be the main stumbling point for you is the Cross and the resurrection. The real key to understanding the difference is in understanding BC as compared to AD. The cross is not only a dividing line on our Earthly time line it is a significant happening in the Spiritual realm in that all things changed at that point.

Until Jesus death and resurrection there was no salvation. There was no way that man could be justified and gain access to the Kingdom of God. What that actually means is that there was no forgiveness for sin, and sin separates us from God.

Until Jesus provided an avenue for our return to purity man was prohibited from the presence of God, in much the same way as a child is not prepared for bed until after their bath. So is man unclean not ready for Heaven (the spiritual realm of God(; until he is washed in the blood of Christ. Therefore mankind from Adam to the sacrifice of Crist was not clean and not ready for the kingdom of God. And so those who had passed before were not eligible for heaven, and also not eligible for judgment since there was no standard for judgment until Jesus sacrifice.

Therefore not being eligible for any permanent disposition they were placed in what we often call a state of suspended animation. That is why Jesus himself spoke of people being asleep:

  John 11:11 through 15 NKJV  These things He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up." 12  Then His disciples said, "Lord, if he sleeps he will get well." 13  However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14  Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead. 15  And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, that you may believe. Nevertheless let us go to him."

His disciples, much as we today; did not realize that Jesus was referring to two differing forms of Lazarus. Even though Lazarus' physical body was dead, as is indicated by Mary's statement that by now he would stink. When Jesus spoke of awakening him he was referring to arousing Lazarus soul. The physical body was no more than a physical repository for that Spirit, which Jesus could heal at will.

There are two great lessons in these Scriptures:

There is a part of man which is in perpetuity; the Soul.
Jesus has powers which reach beyond the grave.

As far as your reference to Lazarus and the rich man parable; Jesus must have been referring to what would be after the cross, since the hot tongue, shows some sort of punishment is taking place, and until the cross there was no basis for judgment.

Just to deflect some of the arrows which must invariably come, my answer is based on my Southern Baptist belief which is Bible centered, and the belief that the Bible explains itself.


Who first said, "We are all born Pelagians?"

Roger Nicole was certainly not the first to say this.  The quote can be traced to two 17th-century English authors, Thomas Manton and Nathaniel Culverwell.

Culverwell's version of the quote appears in his 1652 work, published one year after his death, An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature.  He writes that Augustine's attack on Pelagianism led it to "cover its nakedness" and "dress itself more handsomly in Arminianism":

  This spreading error leavened the great lump, and generality of the world, as the profound Bradwardine sighs, and complains, "Totus pene mundus post Pelagium abiit in errorem": for all men are born Pelagians; Nature is predominant in them: it has took possession of them, and will not easily subordinate itself to a superior Principle.1 [script and spelling modernized]

Thomas Manton's commentary on Jude was published a few years later, in 1658.  He writes:

  We have all a heretic in our bosoms, and are by nature prepared to drink in all kinds of errors and lies [...] We are born Pelagians, and Libertines, and Papists.2

He provides an interesting citation, however, that allows us to push the origin of the quote back several more years.  He cites Friedrich Spanheim as his source, who said in Latin:

  Pelagiani omnes nascimur et cum supercilio pharisaico.

The first three words of this translate to our phrase: "We are all born Pelagians."  The location of this quote in Spanheim's works has so far eluded me, but he died in 1649, and his main theological works were published in the 1630s and 1640s.

We can thus trace the quote in English to Nathaniel Culverwell's use of it in 1652.  Its Latin equivalent predates it by at least several years, in the writings of Friedrich Spanheim.

References and Notes:

An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature, pages 165–66.  Culverwell's quote of Bradwardine comes from the preface of De causa Dei contra Pelagium and can be translated, "Almost the whole world went into error after Pelagius."
An Exposition, with Notes, upon the Epistle of Jude, in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, Volume 5, page 114.


What is the biblical basis for Jesus' pre-incarnate existence?

Jesus repeatedly says things to the effect of having come from the Father, being sent by the Father, having come from the Father and into the world:

I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father. - John 16:28

If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. - John 8:42

Folks will argue that verses like these indicate the creative source only, i.e. "Came from God" means created by God at the incarnation.  However, the verses connect separate ideas.  I came from the Father and have come into the world, (and) now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.
Leaving one location and coming to another is mirrored in the return:  Came from God to the world, leaving the world and going to God  The parenthetical and above which appears in some English translations is actually again in the Greek and indicates a renewal or repetition of the action.  He's repeating Himself so that we get it.
The same mirror principle is related in Acts 1:11:

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

Another example of Jesus returning to where He was before is found in what He asked his disciples:

Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? - John 6:62

"Son of Man" being Jesus' favorite self designation.  And there is direct confession of pre-existence with the Father from Jesus Himself:

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. - John 17:5 ESV

And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee - YLT

Regardless of how "before the world was" is understood it is evident that Jesus is claiming to have had existence prior to that event and to have been in possession of shared glory with the Father.  As long as "before the world was" is placed prior to the incarnation (where else could it be placed) Jesus is claiming His own pre-incarnational existence.


Are there Old Testament Scriptures that mention salvation for the Gentiles?

YES, there are!

The footnote in my NLT Bible for Acts 11:1 has a list of Old Testament verses that say that salvation is for all people, not just the Jews. Below, I've reproduced the list and for two of them, I've directly quoted them because they're the clearest and most direct with regards to this topic.

Genesis 12:3
Psalm 22:27
Isaiah 42:4
Isaiah 49:6

  Isaiah 49:6 (NLT)
  6      He says, “You will do more than restore the people of Israel to me.
               I will make you a light to the Gentiles,
               and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”

Isaiah 56:3-7
Isaiah 60:1-3
Jeremiah 16:19-21
Zechariah 2:11

  Zechariah 2:11 (NLT)

  11 Many nations will join themselves to the Lord on that day, and they, too, will be my people. I will live among you, and you will know that the Lord of Heaven’s Armies sent me to you.

Malachi 1:11
Romans 15:9-12 (These are different wordings of Psalm 18:49, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, and Isaiah 11:10.)


Why did early Christians believe in the Real Presence?

J. N. D. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines) contends that the early conception of the real presence was the result of a connection made between the OT sacrificial system and the eucharist.

Citing the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, he writes:

  Malachi's prediction (1, 10 f.) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the eucharist. (196)

Others made the connection as well, like Clement and Ignatius.  Kelly argues that this was "natural":

  It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfilment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, 'Do this', must have been charged with sacrifical overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, 'Offer this'. (196)

From here we need to identify what they considered the sacrifice to be.  In the case of Justin, the eucharist is clearly "much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection":

  Altogether it would seem that, while his language is not fully explicit, Justin is feeling his way to the conception of the eucharist as the offering of the Saviour's passion. (197)

Irenaeus's take is similar:

  The idea of the passion pervades this approach too, for Irenaeus identifies the gifts with Christ's body and blood and describes them, in language reminiscent of the Lord's words at the Last Supper, as 'the oblation of the new covenant'. (197)

Thus the eucharist is seen as a sort of continuation of the OT sacrificial system under the new covenant, and as such it makes sense that such sacrifices would need to be more than mere bread and wine.

Another potential factor, mentioned by Kelly in passing, is the early church's fight against Docetism, the idea that Christ did not have a real body.  He notes Ignatius's defense of the real presence in that context:

  Ignatius roundly declares that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised'. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. (197)


If a sin is not intentional but due to psychological or physical reasoning, will Jesus Christ still count that act as a sin?

Circumstances can definitely diminish the culpability of a sin in an individual and in some cases it may be negated completely of any culpability.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on this subject:

  1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.


Overview on the Theology of Forgiveness vs Reconcillation

From a protestant perspective I think the teaching is clear.  We are to never withhold forgiveness towards an offending brother or sinner.

Peter asked this question to Jesus himself:

  Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”
  Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy- seven times. (NIV Matthew 18:21-22)

The 'seventy seven' phrase implies unlimited, for as Alfred Edersheim notes, it responds to a 'quantitative question' with a 'qualitative answer'. The whole concept of turning the other cheek and not judging our brother implies walking in constant forgiveness.

However, although this ensures continual personal reconciliation and prevents us from personally 'judging' (which is implicit in every unforgiving thought which wickedly resents the sins if others) - this is not meant to imply social reconciliation.  On the contrary. For the sake of the benefit of the sinner and society, the murderer, though possibly 'personally' forgiven and reconciled to the families of Christian survivors, must still face prison to be reconciled to society.  The same goes within the church for those who commit scandalous sins which they remain unrepentant of. Such should face excommunication from the local church. With such people, while in that state, we must do our part in opposing reconciliation, while holding no personal judgment or resentment:

  But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. (NIV 1 Corinthians 5:11)

By separating the personal from the social, we can follow the subject of forgiveness an reconciliation as proposed in scripture.


Is there an ontological change in human nature after Jesus Passion and resurrection?

Human nature cannot be entirely destroyed by sin, and, as St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica III q. 89 a. 3, man can be restored to his former dignity by penance or even to a lesser, equal, or greater degree of virtue.


How can Heaven exist if we know that people in Hell will suffer?

Short answer: We don't know for sure.  The rest of this answer explores various "Christian answers", but the conclusion is "we don't know for sure".

This is a question that I struggled with when I was an atheist, and it's a question that Christians have grappled with and that has never been answered in a way that would have been intellectually satisfying to me as an atheist.  There are several attempts to give answers, some okay, some blatantly out of line with what we do know of Heaven.

Some have theorized that we will not know of the suffering of the lost.  That God may remove that knowledge from us.  This would be inconsistent with the nature of God, and also 1 Corinthians 13:12, which teaches us that we will have increased knowledge, not decreased.
Some have theorized that Heaven is so wonderful that the thought of our loved ones will seem insignificant.  That hardly fits with the Christian message of Agape (selfless) love being the ultimate expression and reflection of God.

Christianity.ca adds this:

  A second possibility boldly suggests that this awareness will be a
  cause for joy and praise rather than pain. Shocking though it may
  sound, this position has been defended by many theologians including
  Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards and, more recently, J. I. Packer. As
  Edwards put it, the redeemed “will not be sorry for the damned; it
  will cause no uneasiness or dissatisfaction to them; but on the
  contrary, when they have this sight, it will excite them to joyful
  praises.”

  Grisly though this may sound, it has some impressive scriptural
  support. The imprecatory psalms (such as Psalm 139:21-22) seem to
  anticipate with great relish the demise of the wicked. And one might
  reasonably infer that the saints who plead for their blood to be
  avenged (see Revelation 6:10) will extract satisfaction once this
  judgment on “the inhabitants of the earth” is underway.

I don't buy that interpretation, either.

Alwaysbeready.com says this:

  The thought of being apart from your friends and family who do not
  know the Lord is a heart wrenching thought. But God assures us in His
  Word that in Heaven our joy will be absolutely full.

  Psalm 16:11 says, “In Thy presence is fullness of joy; in Thy right
  hand there are pleasures forevermore.”

  All who go to Heaven will experience “fullness of joy.”

  Revelation 21:4 tells us, "He [God] shall wipe away every tear from
  their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no
  longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have
  passed away."

  Quoting C. S. Lewis again, "If you are concerned about your loved
  one's that won't be in Heaven, the most irrational thing you could do
  if you are truly concerned about those on the outside is to remain
  outside yourself."

  The best thing you could ever do is to make sure you’re going to
  Heaven and then do all that you can to help wake up your loved ones!

Finally, this nugget from Ray Comfort is, perhaps, both the least intellectual, but closest to my belief:

  "How can people be happy in Heaven, knowing that their unsaved loved ones are suffering in Hell?" Those who ask question such as these
  fall into the category of those who asked Jesus a similar question.
  They said that a certain woman had seven consecutive husbands, whose
  wife will she therefore be in Heaven (Mark 12:23)? Jesus answered them
  by saying that they neither knew the Scriptures nor the power of God.
  The unregenerate mind has no concept of God's mind or His infinite
  power. If God can speak the sun into existence; if He can see every
  thought of every human heart at the same time; if He can create the
  human eye with its 137,000,000 light-sensitive cells, then He can
  handle the minor details of our eternal salvation.

As for me, personally, my answer would be close to what Mr. Comfort stated.  Quite frankly, I don't know for sure.. And neither does anyone else.

But what I do know is that for the longest time, I thought that God was a lie.  I thought that Jesus was an invisible friend for weak-minded fools that were too weak to face life without some invisible friend helping them along.  I thought that the Bible was a bunch of hooey, made up by a bunch of creeps that wanted to manipulate people for their own gain.

And I was wrong.  God has proved Himself to me in ways that I would have never imagined.  He has earned my trust.  His word is trustworthy, and if His word says we'll be happy in Heaven, even with the knowledge of our loved ones suffering, I trust Him.  I trust His word.

I know that the above is not going to be satisfying on any level to an atheist.  I realize what it sounds like, but for some questions, there are no easy answers.  Sometimes the only correct answer is "we just don't know for sure".  But to make it a "Christian answer" we have to allow for that component of faith that says that even if we don't know, we trust in God.


The closest I can find to an answer to this question is in the final paragraph of this article, which says:

  More was beatified by Pope Leo XIII in 1886, along with other English martyrs, and canonized in 1935.  Had he never met death for the faith he still would have been a candidate for canonization as a confessor.  From first to last his life was singularly pure, lived in the spirit of his own prayer:  "Give me, good Lord, a longing to be with Thee; not for the avoiding of the calamities of this wicked world, nor so much for the avoiding the pains of purgatory, nor the pains of Hell neither, nor so much for the attaining of the joys of Heaven in respect of mine own commodity, as even for a very love of Thee."

(Emphasis mine.)

The implication here is that he was canonized because of his martyrdom, but that even if he had not been a martyr, he may still have been canonized.

This source also supports the theory that he was canonized for his martyrdom:

  St. Thomas More ... [was] canonized for his unfailing devotion.


Are prospective Mormons allowed to be baptized during their menstruation periods?

There is no "official" statement that I know of regarding this.  The Church does not consider those who are menstruating to be unclean. There is no rule against being baptized during that time.

Temples provide tampons for the women who are. As long as they are using one, there isn't a problem. I read what you were referring to from the link you posted. That was the opinion of the temple worker.

In regards to the convert baptisms, I don't know of anything either way. When a woman is baptized they are not asked if they are menstruating, so there is no way to know unless the officiator is told.

Edit
The Church Handbook of Instructions contains nothing concerning this matter. So it is safe to say there is not a big deal. If it was, the handbook would state it.


Christian denominations that believe in salvation for non-Christians

Catholics believe this, in fact recently the Pope said atheists can get into Heaven

Source:
http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned#Catholic

Seventh Day Adventists believe that non Christians can get into Heaven

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology#The_Heavenly_Sanctuary

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (LDS Church) or Mormonism, teaches that those who die without knowledge of LDS theology will have the opportunity to receive a knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit world.

Source: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/EoM/id/4159

Early Christians were divided on this.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165) said, "Those who lived according to reason [the logos] are Christians," even though they did not know about Jesus.

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220) claimed that it had been a common belief since the days of the apostles that Jesus descended to hell and preached the gospel. There was debate, though, as to who benefited from the preaching.

Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200) and Tertullian held that Jesus delivered only the believers of the Old Testament from hell. On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria (mid-100s), Origen (c. 185-c. 254), and Athanasius (c. 296-373) taught that Jesus delivered from hell both Jews and Gentiles who accepted the gospel and that postmortem evangelism continues even today.

Augustine (354-430) rejected such ideas, arguing that before we die we must know about Jesus in order to be saved. Consequently, he believed that all the unevangelized are condemned to hell. Much later, Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74) agreed with Augustine on the necessity of knowing about Jesus, but went further to claim that for those few "brought up in the forest or among wolves," God would send the gospel message through miraculous means.

Source:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/aprilweb-only/12.0a.html

I also found these books in my research on the answer to this question:

No Other Name: An Investigation Into the Destiny of the Unevangelized by John Sanders

A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality Of Jesus Christ In A World Of Religions by Clark Pinnock

ADDENDUM: In response to Caleb's comments I am adding the following quotation from the Cathechism of the Catholic church in support of its official teachings.

  VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

  1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for
  salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to
  all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation
  for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the
  possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know
  of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal
  beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she
  has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are
  "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the
  sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

  1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who
  suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism
  are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of
  blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism
  without being a sacrament.

  1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit
  desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and
  charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive
  through the sacrament.

  1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called
  to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the
  Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in
  a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is
  ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the
  truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of
  it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have
  desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

  1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can
  only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral
  rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all
  men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which
  caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder
  them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for
  children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the
  Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through
  the gift of holy Baptism.


Did God change the DNA and genetics of Adam's rib?

Although I am not comfortable thinking of the account of God's creation of Eve as being in any way allegorical or mythical, I do, however, think of the account as a kind of artistic and symbolic version of what actually transpired when God created another human being--a female human being--in His image who would complement the male of the species whom He had already created.

Several observations:

ONE. While the people of Moses' day could not appreciate the complexities of the double helix and the human genome, they did realize that all living critters, including humans, give birth to other living critters "after their kind."

TWO. Prior to God's making for Adam a "helper suitable for him" (Genesis 2:18), God brought all the critters He had made to Adam and gave him the assignment of naming all the animals. Interestingly (but certainly not coincidentally), among the perhaps tens of thousands of animals Adam named, he found not one "helper suitable for him" (2:20).

THREE. God then "fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man and brought her to man" (2:22). Just as God had fashioned, for example, a male and female sheep, so also He fashioned a human female counterpart to the human male. God made something different, not identical, out of Adam's rib! Part of that difference was a major "tweaking" of the human genetic code. Subsequently, the man and woman would procreate "after their kind."

FOUR. At the exciting "reveal" after God's surgery on Adam,

  The man-person said, "At last! This is bone from my bones

  And flesh from my flesh.

  She is to be called Woman [Hebrew: ishah],

  Because she was taken out of Man" [Hebrew: ish] (2:23 CJB).

Contrast, then, Adam's inability to find a helpmeet among the animals, with his actually finding what he could never have found in the animal kingdom. Notice how the Complete Jewish Bible phrases his first words upon seeing his helpmeet: "At last!" It's as if Adam was saying,

  "Whew, God, I was beginning to think you didn't know what you were doing with all those boring animals you had me name. Don't get me wrong. They were wondrous to behold, but this, this lovely creature you have made is now truly "bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." Thank you, Lord!"

FIVE. Scripture then goes on to tells us,

  "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (2:24)

This part of my answer goes WAAAAAAAY beyond the scope of your question, but it is nevertheless germane in a prophetic and hermeneutically responsible way.

In a seminal passage on marriage, the apostle Paul lays out in Ephesians 5 the duties of wives to husbands and husbands to wives, and in doing so he quotes Genesis 2:24 in verse 31. Why? Because the marriage of one husband to one wife was God's design from the very beginning. And what pattern did God use in creating what we call today the "institution" of marriage? To answer that question I'll quote liberally from John Piper's book, Desiring God, pp.212-213 (excerpts):

  It looks as though Paul uses the relationship of human marriage, learned from
  Genesis 2, to describe and explain the relationship between Christ and the church.
  But if that were the case, marriage would not be a mystery, as Paul calls it in
  Ephesians 5:32; it would be the clear and obvious thing that explains the mystery of
  Christ and the church. So there is more to marriage than meets the eye. What is it?
  The mystery is this: God did not create the union of Christ and the church
  after the pattern of human marriage—just the reverse! He created human marriage
  on the pattern of Christ’s relation to the church.

  The mystery of Genesis 2:24 is that the marriage it describes is a parable or
  symbol of Christ’s relation to His people. There was more going on in the creation
  of woman than meets the eye. God . . . patterned marriage very purposefully after the relationship between His Son and the church, which He had planned from all eternity.

  Therefore, marriage is a mystery—it contains and conceals a meaning far
  greater than what we see on the outside. God created man male and female and
  ordained marriage so that the eternal covenant relationship between Christ and
  His church would be imaged forth in the marriage union. As Geoffrey Bromiley
  has written, “As God made man in his own image, so he made marriage in the
  image of his own eternal marriage with his people.”

  The inference Paul draws from this mystery is that the roles of husband and
  wife in marriage are not arbitrarily assigned, but are rooted in the distinctive
  roles of Christ and His church. . . ..

  This is the foundation of the pattern of love that Paul describes for marriage.
  It is not enough to say that each spouse should pursue his or her own joy
  in the joy of the other. It is also important to say that husbands and wives
  should consciously copy the relationship God intended for Christ and the
  church.

In conclusion, even more significant than God's handiwork in creating a female egg and a male sperm, each of which when united at fertilization brings half the genetic information necessary for the beginning of a new human life, is the profound reason for God's creation of male and female: 1) to reveal to us through the analogy of marriage His grand plan of redemption and His eternal covenant with all true believers; and 2)  to grant to "us in marriage the privilege to image forth . . . divine realities infinitely bigger and greater than ourselves" (ibid.).


God's sovereignty and man's predicament in light of evil forces

I recommend reading the book of Habakkuk, particularly the first two chapters. It deals with this same train of thought. Habakkuk, in a nutshell, asks God why there's so much wrong and injustice, so much murder, etc, and why God is seemingly not doing anything about it.

Habakkuk 1:1-4 The Message (MSG) Version
"The problem as God gave Habakkuk to see it: God, how long do I have to cry out for help before you listen? How many times do I have to yell, “Help! Murder! Police!” before you come to the rescue? Why do you force me to look at evil, stare trouble in the face day after day? Anarchy and violence break out, quarrels and fights all over the place. Law and order fall to pieces. Justice is a joke. The wicked have the righteous hamstrung and stand justice on its head."

God's reply to Habakkuk, in a nutshell, is: brace yourself, because justice coming. This was all on the eve of God using the Babylonian nation as a lightning rod against His people, Israel.

In short, God is not blind. He knows what's going on, sees all the evil, but He is longsuffering, because He doesn't want anyone to perish. He promised to deal with evil and reward righteousness and godliness, and it may seem like He's slacking on that promise, but He's not.

2 Peter 3:9 HCSB
"The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance."

It's just like in the days of Noah:

1 Peter 3:20 KJV
"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

Think on it from this perspective: yes, another day going by means another day evil gets to flourish, but it's also a day wherein the same evil has an opportunity to repent. As for the angels who have fallen, we must simply accept that they are reserved for judgment.

2 Peter 2:4 KJV
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;"

2 Peter 2:4 Young's Literal Translation
"For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast them down to Tartarus, did deliver them to judgment, having been reserved,"

As for our role in this massive spiritual war, don't underestimate our purpose. Yes, this is an incredible battle with some serious beings on the battlefield, but we, though being in the physical right now have been equipped to do some spiritual damage- read Ephesians 6. Remember that as a Christian, you are on a team- the winning team.

consider this incident in the book of Daniel:

Daniel 10:12-13
"Then he said to me, "Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia."

As for the side of good seemingly not winning over evil, Remember the divine perspective. Remember that God is eternal and sees the beginning from the end. Christians do not fight for victory- we fight from victory. We have already won, no matter what things may look like.

Highlights:

God is aware of evil
God is longsuffering, just as he was in the days of Noah, giving man a chance to repent.
God will reward the righteous and godly in due time; the fallen are reserved for judgment
We are in the physical, but we still can make a massive spiritual difference.
Christians are already victories.


Is there a Christology that states that Jesus inherited divinity?

Did Jesus inherit divinity?
...was Jesus originally without divinity and then as the consequence of an event or action
became exalted into divinity by the Father later [?]

No and No - according to scripture, Jesus has always been divine:

  1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

  ...

  14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:1-3 & 14 NIV (emphasis added)

The 'Word' (who from the context is Jesus') 'was God' from 'the beginning'.

...or is Jesus divine as a consequence of his nature or identity?

Yes:

  5In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

  6Who, being in very nature God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; - Philippians 2:5-6 NIV (emphasis added)


According to Mormonism, are there immortals on the Earth?

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about (without seeing the citation I can't be sure)...

Update / preface: I must clarify use of the term "immortal" -- in this answer, I mean it to be living beyond the natural age of life, or in other words, living for very many extended years, and not tasting of death.  Upon further research, I see that Jesus says that John, and for that matter, the three Nephites spoken of below, will be changed from mortality to immortality in the twinkling of an eye and will not taste of death, though that process is, in fact, the death of their technically mortal bodies. Immortality in that sense means the state of being resurrected.

There are, that I know of, four immortal physical beings which have not yet advanced to "heaven" (more specifically, to their exaltation) according to Mormon doctrine.

There's John the Beloved who is an immortal being, still walking the earth (See here in Doctrine and Covenants for where the Biblical uncertainty on the topic is remedied; cf. John 21:20-23).

Mormons also have record, from the Book of Mormon, of three Nephites who were granted the same blessing as John from Christ as He visited the Americas, to walk the earth as physical immortals and minister.

3 Nephi 28:7

  Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death;
  but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the
  children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to
  the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers
  of heaven.

John and the three Nephites will all receive their full exaltation after their mission is complete at return of Jesus.

(Note: the newly-linked-to article on Wikipedia in the question references others, but Enoch, for example, and his family and city were taken from the earth, and we know very little about Moses, Elijah, and Alma and their commissions.)


How can one identify the Anti-Christ; can he be a Bishop opposing the Papacy in relation to 1 John 2:19-20?

How can one identify the Anti-Christ, can he be a Bishop opposing the Papacy in relation to 1 John 2:19-20?
Impossible to say as we do not know who he is as of yet. The Early Church Fathers believe that he would be of Hebrew descent: a Jew. For them it was the only possible way to deceive the Chosen People: a false Messiah.
These type of questions are speculative in nature and the Church never pronounces officially in such matters. Anything is possible.
Prophecy is usually recognized as true while the thing prophesized have run their course. This would apply to the Antichrist also the anti-church and anti-gospel of Pope John Paul II should be seen as something the against the Church and against the Gospels and not as a counterfeit church or a counterfeit gospel, although the Antichrist will no doubt teach a false gospel of sorts.
That said I am sure that one will be able to find a possible interpretation that the Antichrist could be either a bishop or an anti-pope. Do not mean that it is true.
A prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi seems to indicate the that either the Antichrist or one of his satellites could be an anti-pope elected uncanonically. Thus he would be at Last a bishop, if not a cardinal.

Prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226): “There will be an uncanonically elected Pope who will cause a great schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissensions and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.” (Rev. Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, Tan Books, 1974, p. 130.).  Some believe this prophecy referred to the controversy surrounding the election of Pope John XXIII and Cardinal Siri.  But it could refer to the next and last pope (Peter the Roman).  The last pope may just cut Catholics loose from unity and the papacy, causing total disruption and confusion. - Malachy's Prophecies - The Last 10 Popes

In fact, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich speaks of such a possibility in her revelations that the Antichrist could be a false pope.

“Last night, from eleven to three, I had a most wonderful vision of two churches and two Popes and a variety of things, ancient and modern. I shall relate, as well as I can, all that I remember of it. My angel guardian came and told me that I must go to Rome and take two things to the Pope, but I cannot now recall what they were— perhaps it is the Will of God that I should forget them. I asked my angel how I could make so long a journey, sick as I was. But when I was told that I should make it without difficulty, I no longer objected. An odd-looking vehicle appeared before me, flat and slight, with only two wheels, the flooring red with white edges. I saw no horses. I was gently lifted and laid on it and, at the same instant, a snow-white, luminous child flew toward me and seated himself at my feet. He reminded me of the Patience child in green, so sweet, so lovely, and perfectly transparent. He was to be my companion, he was to console and take care of me. The wagon was so light and smooth that at first I was afraid of slipping off; but it began to move very gently of itself without horses, and I saw a shining human figure going on ahead.
The journey did not seem long, although we crossed countries, mountains, and great waters. I knew Rome the instant we reached it, and I was soon in the presence of the Pope. I know not now whether he was sleeping or praying, but I had to say two things to him, or give him two things, and I shall have to go to him once again to announce a third. Then I had a wonderful vision. Rome suddenly appeared as in the early ages, and I saw a Pope (Boniface IV) and an emperor whose name I knew not (Phocas). I could not find my way in the city, all was so different, even the sacred ceremonies; but yet I recognized them as Catholic. I saw a great round building like a cupola— it was a pagan temple full of beautiful idols. It had no windows, but in the dome was an opening with a contrivance for keeping out the rain. It seemed as if all the idols that ever existed were gathered together there in every conceivable posture. Many of them were very beautiful, and others exceedingly odd; there were even some of geese which received divine honor. In the center of the building stood a very high pyramid formed entirely of those images. I saw no idolatrous worship at the time of which I speak, although the idols were still carefully preserved. I saw messengers from Pope Boniface going to the emperor and petitioning for the temple to be changed into a Christian church. I heard the latter declaring distinctly that the Pope should allow the ancient statues to remain, though he might erect therein the Cross to which the highest honors should be paid. This proposal, as it seemed to me, was made not wickedly, but in good faith.
I saw the messengers return with the answer and Boniface reflecting as to how he might in some measure conform to the emperor’s will. While he was thus deliberating, I saw a good, pious priest in prayer before the crucifix. He wore a long white robe with a train, and an angel hovered by his side. Suddenly he arose, went straight to Boniface, and told him that he should by no means accede to the emperor’s proposal. Messengers were then dispatched to the emperor, who now consented to the temple’s being entirely cleared. Then I saw his people come and take numbers of the statues to the imperial city; but still many remained in Rome. Then I saw the consecration of the temple, at which ceremony the holy martyrs assisted with Mary at their head. The altar was not in the center of the building, but against the wall. I saw more than thirty wagon-loads of sacred relics brought into the church. Many of them were enclosed in the walls and others could be seen through round openings covered with something like glass.
When I had witnessed this vision even in the smallest details, I saw again the present Pope and the dark church of his time in Rome. It seemed to be a large, old house like a town hall with columns in front. I saw no altar in it, but only benches, and in the middle of it something like a pulpit. They had preaching and singing, but nothing else, and only very few attended it. And lo, a most singular sight! Each member of the congregation drew an idol from his breast, set it up before him, and prayed to it. It was as if each man drew forth his secret thoughts or passions under the appearance of a dark cloud which, once outside, took some definite form. They were precisely such figures as I had seen around the neck of the illicit bride in the Nuptial House, figures of men and animals. The god of one was short and broad with a crisp head and numerous, outstretched arms ready to seize and devour all in its reach; that of another was quite small with miserable, shrunken limbs; another had merely a block of wood upon which he gazed with rolling eyes; this one had a horrible animal; that one, a long pole. The most singular part of it was that the idols filled the place; the church, although the worshippers were so few, was crowded with idols. When the service was over, everyone’s god re-entered into his breast. The whole church was draped in black, and all that took place in it was shrouded in gloom.
Then I saw the connection between the two Popes and the two temples. I am sorry that I have forgotten the numbers, but I was shown how weak the one had been in adherents and human support, but how strong in courage to overturn so many gods (I knew the number) and to unite so many different forms of worship into one; and, on the contrary, how strong in numbers and yet how irresolute in action was the other since, in authorizing the erection of false temples, he had allowed the only true God, the only true religion to be lost among so many false gods and false religions.
It was also shown me that those pagans humbly adored gods other than themselves, and that they would have been willing to admit in all simplicity the only God, the Most Holy Trinity. Their worship was preferable to that of those who adore themselves in a thousand idols to the total exclusion of Our Lord. The picture was favorable to the early ages, for in them idolatry was on the decrease, while in our days it is just the contrary. I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church; I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds flocking to the city. 2 I saw the ever-increasing tepidity of the clergy, the circle of darkness ever widening.
And now the vision became more extended. I saw in all places Catholics oppressed, annoyed, restricted, and deprived of liberty, churches were closed, and great misery prevailed everywhere with war and bloodshed. I saw rude, ignorant people offering violent resistance, but this state of things lasted not long. Again I saw in vision St. Peter’s undermined according to a plan devised by the secret sect while, at the same time, it was damaged by storms; but it was delivered at the moment of greatest distress. Again I saw the Blessed Virgin extending her mantle over it.
In this last scene, I saw no longer the reigning Pope, but one of his successors, a mild, but very resolute man who knew how to attach his priests to himself and who drove far from him the bad. I saw all things renewed and a church which reached from earth to Heaven. I saw one of the twelve new apostles in the person of the young priest whom the unchaste bride wanted to marry. It was a very comprehensive vision and portrayed anew all that had been previously shown me regarding the Church’s destiny. On another occasion, I had a vision of the Vicar-General’s stanch resistance to secular power in behalf of the interests of the Church. The affair covered him with glory, 3 though upon some other points he was to blame. I was told that I should have to go again to the Pope; but when all this will take place I cannot say.”
Schmoger, Very Rev. K. E.. Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich Volume 2 (with Supplemental Reading: A Brief Life of Christ) [Illustrated] (Kindle Locations 3740-3797). TAN Books. Kindle Edition. - Anne Catherine Emmerich and the Two Popes

Even Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1948) spoke about the possibility of a counterfeit Church:

“[Satan] will set up a counterfeit church which will be the ape of the [Catholic] Church… It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content.”
“We are living in the days of the Apocalypse, the last days of our era. The two great forces – the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of the anti-Christ – are beginning to draw battle lines for the catastrophic contest.”
“The False prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit Church.”
“Christ’s Church the Catholic Church will be one; and the false Prophet will create the other.” - Things Accelerate Toward the End – Prophecy of Archbishop Fulton Sheen

True or false time will tell!