How can Christians be assured they are truly saved and that Jesus won't say "Depart from me I never knew you." on judgement day?

Your "tell us to depart from Him" comes from Matthew 7:23.
But notice what the beginning of the speech says:

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
— Mat 7:21–23

In other words, it's not enough to simply go through the motions of being a Christian; one must truly do the will of the Father.
To expand on @adam's answer, about believing and loving, there is one obvious sign that we are following that advice:

… But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
— Mat 19:17

If you love Me, keep My commandments.
— Jhn 14:15

He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.
— Jhn 14:21

If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
— Jhn 15:10

For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
— 1Jo 5:3

Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
— Rev 14:12

Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
— Rev 22:14


How does Christianity explain suffering that ends in death?

Having buried my mother last week after seeing her go through progressively worse interventions due to complications from her pneumonia, I can only say that I wish more people would ask this question. Any Christianity that ignores the question of suffering neither addresses the reality of the Sin nor the biblical witness.
The question of suffering is central to Scripture. It is both a sign of God at work in us for our edification, and a result of the Fall.
But most importantly, and I say this with all sincerity, it is a light and transitory thing.
Paul says in Romans 8:

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

He goes on to say:

19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

This is a substantial claim to @MasonWheeler's answer that death is preparation for the next.
The concept that this world is bent and fallen is pretty standard in just about every form of Christianity.  That this world is not what God intended it to be is the starting port. But the hope of the Gospel is that this suffering is not the end.
That "death is swallowed up in victory" is central to our hope.  If, as Paul points out, there is no resurrection, then we above all men are most to be to be pitied.  Without the resurrection, then indeed, such suffering would be pointless.
Paul continues, pointing out:

24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

Thus, we see that all suffering produces:

Hope (a theme picked up from Romans 5) and
A Dependence on the Spirit (and this is a good thing)

Thus, Paul can with no guile say:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[i] have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

This suffering conforms and shapes us.  It justifies us, and it glorifies.
Finally, as Christians, we know that this life is simply preparation for God's glory. If it were not, Paul could not say

Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If death were the end, then death could separate us from the love of God.  But it doesn't.  It just brings us closer to Him in the end.


Have any critiques of Lindbeck's principles been offered by academics?

Don't infer that I style myself a theologian or anything of the sort just because I am answering your question (I don't, and am not doing so), but I would suggest there are a few important things wrong with this set of criteria that I can see, and which ought to be considered.

In the first place, the criterion as such coming from George Lindbeck means that it will be at best the greatest way to be closest to George Lindbeck's idea of what Christianity ought to be, and what criteria it ought to meet, not what Christianity is as a matter of fact—if it is claimed to be much more, namely, if it is claimed to be an objective set of criteria, one has admitted they already know Christianity, and can thus affirm that it comports with George Lindbeck's criteria—and thus have no need to arrive at a Christology they already have. I need not point out the insufferable circularity here.

Second, the terms "centered on Jesus" are entirely subjective. What 'breaches' centered on Jesus? Who decides?

"All highest possible significance" is even more subjective.


Why would Jesus begin to be called the Son of God?

The Begetting of the Son in the Virgin

It’s explicit in Luke 1:35 that the Virgin conceives by the Holy Spirit that is why her offspring will be called “God’s Son”.

There was no human father involved. It’s just the Holy Spirit and the Virgin as recorded in the Bible:

“She [Mary, the Virgin] was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18 NIV)

Hence, Gabriel is right when he proclaimed that the Holy offspring to be begotten in Mary will be called “God’s Son” because the one she conceives is the pre-existent offspring of the Father without human father just as John also firmly believes ( John 1:1-18).

Matthew concurs with Luke, the one begotten in the Virgin is “the God [who is] with us” (Matthew 1:23).

The begetting of God’s own Son in the Virgin through the Holy Spirit is a messianic prophecy (Isaiah 7:14).

Again, the reason why the one to be begotten in the Virgin will be called “God’s Son” is because of lack of human father to be involved because it is already having a Father who is God himself.

Gabriel believes that the One the Virgin conceives is without a human father but is conceived only through the Holy Spirit and that the one the Virgin conceives is God’s own pre-existent Son that is why the offspring will be called “ God’s Son” not “Joseph’s son” as soon as it was conceived.

The Son of God was named Jesus just as expected. The One the Virgin conceives and gives birth to is a one person with two unmixed, united and distinct natures: divine and human as the Chalcedonian Creed affirms.


Personally, I am of the opinion that all sins affect those around us in at least the second degree, and they have a third degree effect on the whole world.

Here's the thought. In life you are either walking towards God or away from him. As you walk towards him you gain a docility of the spirit and become more Christ-like. If you walk away, you diminish in this.

So, if I decide that I am going to sin, "in private" that will still mean I have less of a disposition to Christ when in public. The lesser the disposition in public, the more likely I am to be less charitable with those around me, even if the sin is something completely unrelated. Thus, while we may not be hurting people directly, it is causing us to hurt them through second-hand folly.

(But, you say, what if one were to make amends before returning to the public? Well, what if, instead of making amends the same effort were put into prayer after never having sinned to begin with?)

I say that it affects us all in a "third degree" because the sins in the world make the world less righteous. Not only can it be said that you can never catch up to where you were had you not sinned to begin with, and that will carry over in both obvious and direct ways, and in more remote and indirect ways. One example might be that if you snap at someone, it may make that person more inclined to snap at another.

One might try to say, "but it would be but a drop in an ocean," and I would be inclined to agree but for the fact that there are almost 7 billion of us with droppers and all of us are putting a little in every day.


What is "the moon runs down in a purple stream" referring to?

In Joel 2:31 NIV, which says that

  The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

as well as in Mark 13:24-25 NIV

  However, after the tribulation of those days, ‘The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.’

These verses contain the most probable meaning of the verses, especially considering the different fourth line on this website. Seeing that the last line in that version is "King Jesus will be mine", the lines most directly refer to the coming of the Son of Man and the events preceding it. So the second and third lines do not allude to the death of Christ, but rather, the second coming of Christ.

As for the 1st line, "The moon runs down in a purple stream", it refers to two things. First would be the "purple" color referencing the royalty of "Jesus" in the version above. Second would be the "runs down" refers to the moon turning to blood in Joel 2:31, afterward not giving its light as in Mark:13:24-25.


Jesus said he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, so what is their destiny, according to Catholicism?

"Israel" is more than the ethnic Jewish race, according to the New Covenant that was initiated by the death and resurrection of Jesus.  The name originates from the time the patriarch Jacob  wrestled with 'the' Angel and was renamed 'Prince of God'.  It became the identity of the nation that descended from the sons of Jacob, the 'twelve tribes of Israel'.

John the Baptist asserted that God could raise up sons of Abraham from the stones, meaning that an Israelite could be defined by something other than his genetic code (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8).

The 'House of Israel' Jesus came to save referred to anyone who comes to God in faith, who believe in God's (not man's) plan of redemption through Jesus.   Paul goes on to state that ethnic Jews who rejected God's Son were removed from the tree of Israel, and their places were being taken by non-Jews who entered into the house of Israel by faith in Him (Romans 10).

The 'lost sheep of Israel' refers to anyone, Jew or Gentile, who recognized their separation from God, their powerlessness to change it through their own efforts (the law), and accepted God's gracious answer in Jesus.  "But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God." (John 1:12 NLT)


Yes, this is the same as "systematic theology". Systematics looks at the Bible in a logical fashion, whereas biblical theology looks at the Bible in its revealed order and tries to make sense of the overarching flow and history of redemption. Many commentators believe that systematics has nothing to do with exegesis or biblical theology, but nothing could be further from the truth.

If you start from the doctrine that the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant, and inspired (which I do), and that they are the only ultimate rule for faith and practice, then I think the best way to think of both systematics and biblical theology is an ever-evolving, constantly re-calibrating synthesis of all understood passages in Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture (analogy of faith). Whenever a particular interpretation of a passage comes to be known as incorrect, you have to root out all misunderstandings based on that misinterpretation, and then incorporate the better interpretation into your systematics and biblical theology. Systematics and biblical theology both work this way. The difference is in the emphases and the order in which they go about looking at Scripture. a_hardin has posted a useful answer here that gets at what I'm saying.


Why do many bishops oppose the Vatican ban on blessing same-sex marriages?

Why are there heretics? Why don't they think acts of sodomy are sins? Because of sin and ignorance, the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Thes. 2:7).
Specifically, though, because they think condemning homosexual acts (like condemning acts of contraception, adultery, divorce, and concubinage) is not "inclusive", "welcoming", "compassionate", "pastoral", or "civil".
Here is how some U.S. bishops unfaithful to Church teaching on homosexuality or LGBT ideology put it:

Calls it "clericalism":During the 2018 sex abuse crisis, Cardinal Cupich claimed that the real issue was “clericalism” and not homosexuality. Cupich told America, a liberal Catholic newspaper, that blaming the abuse on homosexuality was a “diversion” away from clericalism. (LifeSiteNews)
Opposes Church teaching on intrinsically evil acts:McElroy also said the Church “should not” refer to homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, which he believes is an example of “very destructive language.” Rather, the Church should use “language that is inclusive.” (America)
Supports giving Communion to those in public sin:In July 2017, Bishop McGrath told practicing homosexuals in his diocese that he will not refuse Holy Eucharist or a Catholic funeral to them so long as they request them “in good faith.” McGrath claimed this was the “compassionate and pastoral” thing to do. (LifeSiteNews)
Doesn't think civil law should uphold natural law:Following the Supreme Court’s decision [Obergefell v. Hodges] to legalize gay “marriage” in 2015, [D.C.'s] Archbishop Gregory provided a weak and ambiguous statement, emphasizing how there must remain “obligations of civility toward one another” going forward. Instead of affirming the evil of homosexual acts, Archbishop Wilton Gregory simply said the Church’s teaching does not change, and the ruling merely “confers a civil entitlement to some people who could not claim it before.” (The Georgia Bulletin)

courtesy: Faithful Shepherds


Identifying General and Universal Magisterium

I believe that the OP means: Identifying Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I can understand some confusion on this topic as the terms in use are in no way constant and even are somewhat changeable. The Church has yet to update its' canonical language on this subject.

  The term ‘ordinary magisterium’ was first used by Pius IX in the letter Tuas libenter addressed to the archbishop of Munich and Freising on 21 December 1863.

  Earlier that year, a meeting of Catholic theologians had taken place in Munich. The pope had been told that in the course of that meeting the opinion had been expressed that Catholic theologians were bound to hold only those truths of faith which had been solemnly declared.

  Pius IX replied that “it must not be limited to those things which have been defined by the express decrees of councils or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See, but must also be extended to those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith.”

  Pius IX to Vatican II

  The teaching of Pius IX on ordinary magisterium was later incorporated in the documents of Vatican I, in particular the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius: “Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”

  It was understood that the addition of ‘universal’ to ‘ordinary magisterium’ was meant to relate the phrase to the teaching of the whole episcopate with the pope, and not the teaching of the pope alone.

  Further clarifications

  When the Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983, the ordinary and universal magisterium was dealt with in canons 749 and 750, but without the inclusion of the broader understanding of the ordinary universal magisterium by Vatican II.

  In other words, the canonical language had not been updated yet. -
  “What is the ‘ordinary magisterium’? A brief history of a disputed idea

The article may be of some help: What Are Extraordinary Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium?


Why did Jesus keep some in the dark by using parables?

It's interesting that Jesus often ends the telling of a parable with the phrase "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."  (Matthew 11:15, 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8)  During Jesus' life and ministry, much of Jesus' teaching was, indeed, veiled, but only to those who did not have ears to hear.  Perhaps those who really wanted to follow Jesus would either contemplate the parables until they understood them, or as happened to Peter, God would reveal the meaning of the parables to those who had ears to hear.  The scoffers would not be force fed with the teachings of Jesus, but could cast them away.  As C.S. Lewis noted, God cannot ravage--He can only woo.

The Meaning of Parables was veiled only for a short time

It is really important to note, however, that this veiling only occurred during the three years of Jesus' ministry.  Immediately after the resurrection, the proclamation of Jesus as the risen Lord went out to all people, not veiled in parables, but in clear teaching.  In fact, the more difficult parables that were explained in private to the disciples are now accessible to all people.  In fact, the disciples who freely recorded the meanings in the gospels also likely publicly proclaimed the meaning to all people then as well.

Many for whom the parables had been veiled likely came to faith in Jesus later

On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to the thousands of Jews who had gathered for the feast.  It is quite reasonable to assert that many of these had been among those that had heard the parables of Jesus and had not understood them, and then rejected Jesus and called for His execution.  Peter lays this charge against them as he speaks.  However, we are informed that 3,000 of these people became followers of Jesus on that day alone.

Conclusion

So, the fullness of the Gospel was veiled for a short time.  Some people's hearts were hardened, and Jesus did not overwhelm them to the point of thwarting their own free will to reject them.  Others were perhaps not ready at that time, but did accept Jesus later.  Whatever the reason, the veiling was for a very short time, as today there is no "secret knowledge" in Christianity.  Anyone can read the parables and the explanations given to Jesus' disciples in private.  Indeed, the reader is invited into the most exclusive moments in the life of Jesus.


On the Catholic Perspective on the incarnation of Jesus, according to St.Thomas Aquinas: Two natures, one Person

Check out at least these The Thomist articles:(note: the following is not an exhaustive listing of all The Thomist's articles on this topic)

"Aquinas on Nature, Hypostasis, & the Metaphysics of the
Incarnation"
"Albert the Great & Thomas Aquinas on Person, Hypostasis, &
Hypostatic
Union,"
and especially:Jason L. A. West's "Aquinas on the metaphysics of esse in
Christ"

West also translated part of St. Thomas's Disputed Question: Concerning the Union of the Word Incarnate (De Unione Verbi Incarnati), which is a must-read for St. Thomas's view on the hypostatic union.

St. Thomas addresses the question of Christ's one being and two natures in De Unione a. 4 on "Whether there is only one being in Christ?":

  Objection 1: For there is both a divine and a human being in Christ;
  which cannot be one, because being is not said univocally of God and
  creatures. Therefore, in Christ there is not only one being, but two.

  ...

  I answer that ... Just as Christ is one simply on account of the unity of the supposit, and two in a certain respect on account of the
  two natures, so he has one esse simply on account of the one eternal
  esse of the eternal supposit. But, there is also another esse of this supposit, not insofar as it is eternal, but insofar as it became
  a man in time. That esse, even if it is not an accidental
  esse--because man is not accidentally predicated of the Son of God,
  as was said above [art. 1]--nevertheless, is not the principal esse
  of its supposit, but a secondary [esse]. Now if there were two
  supposits in Christ, then each supposit would have its own principal
  esse. And thus there would be a twofold esse in Christ simply. [Emphasis added]

St. Thomas also writes in his Compendium of Theology c. 212 on "the Unity and Multiplicity in Christ":

  For it is clear that parts divided individually have their own esse,
  but insofar as they are considered in a whole they do not have their
  own esse, but they exist through the esse of the whole. So,
  therefore, if we were to consider Christ as an integral supposit of
  two natures, there would be only one esse of him, just as there is
  also one supposit.


Why aren't there any Baptist monasteries?

In general, Baptists have historically harbored animosity towards anything that smacked of "papistry." Note, for example, John Bunyan's polemics in Pilgrims Progress. Add to that a fear of turning the Gospel into a "work," and you will see that it definitely goes against the grain of traditional Baptist upbringing.

As always, with Baptists, nothing is universal. It's not that we "hate" spiritual discipline, it's just that it usually doesn't occur to us.. The same things that apply to mysticism and spiritual discipline would adhere to asceticism and monasticism too. Often after reading something by Dallas Willard a Baptist might get a notion to have a new "experience," but in the main the historical and theological norms would tend to discount the monastic impulse.


It appears that 21st Sunday of the Year [B Cycle] has at least part of what you are looking for, as Ephesians 5:21-32 has this from the KJV:

 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

 22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

For the rest you can look through http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-OrdinaryA.htm and http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/1998USL-OrdinaryC.htm but these links don't include the readings from the daily mass, which may have some of the verses mentioned that talk about husbands.


Did Jesus have His Last Supper standing?
The Short answer is no
Scripture seems to indicate that Jesus and his disciples were reclined while eatig at the Last Supper.

Institution of the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:26–29)
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the1 covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”
Institution of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:14–23)
22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the1 covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Institution of the Lord's Supper (Mark 14:22–25)
14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it1 until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.2 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of Man goes pas it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” 23 And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this.

The ancients often reclined while eating their meals. Most of us sit around the meal table and even Leonardo Da Vinci's famous picture The Last Supper shows this. But the people of ancient times ate differently.

The Last Supper

Why Were They Reclining During the Last Supper?
While reading  John 13,  it had me wondering why the word “reclining” was used during the last supper when Jesus talked about His upcoming betrayal.  The same word appears in the books of Matthew (26:20),  Mark (14:17),  and Luke (22:14– “reclined”).

During the ancient times, people (especially the Romans and the Greeks), ate while in a reclining position rather than sitting down.  There may be a table in the middle and couches were set up around it.

Reclining in a Roman triclinium
The above image is an example of how the Romans relined at mealtime in ancient Rome.

Most of us who live now think of the Last Supper in terms that are familiar to us. In our imagination Jesus and his apostles sit around a square table on chairs. Jesus is a the center and his apostles arrayed around him. The famous painting of Leonardo Da Vinci is uppermost in most modern minds when thinking of the Last Supper.
But the real Last Supper was different in many significant ways. Some of the following I am about it present is still a matter of debate other aspects of it are undisputed.
1.Jesus and the Apostles did not sit on chairs at a table. Rather they reclined on ground or on mats and pillows, leaning on their left elbow (either forward of back) and eating with their right hand. Their legs were stretched out behind them. (See picture at left, click to get a bigger size) This was the typical fashion for eating in the ancient world. That they reclined to eat is made plain in the Gospel of Mark: While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me–one who is eating with me(Mk 14:18).  It also explains some things that seem strange to us moderns. First of all why did John lean back on Jesus’ chest to ask him a question? (Jn 13:25;  21:20) This would be strange and physically awkward in a modern upright table setting. But reclining on one’s side on a mat meant you had to lean back to talk to the person next to you. There is also another strange scene where Jesus is reclining to eat in the home of a Pharisee and and a woman begins to anoint his feet (Luke 7:38).  In a modern upright table setting this would mean she’s have to be under the table. Strange indeed! But in the ancient setting the posture was such that one’s feet were behind and thus the woman could approach Jesus from behind and begin to anoint his feet without his prior knowledge.
2.The Place of honor in modern western settings  at a typical long rectangular table is either at the center or at one end. Everyone is seated upright and facing in to the center and can generally see all the others well. However, in the ancient meal setting the table was  “U” shaped either as a half circle or with 90 degree arms. Instead of sitting at the center of the table (as in DaVinci’s painting above) the host or honored guest sat at the far left corner. Further, everyone sat on one side on the outside of the table allowing the inside of the table to open for servers.  The picture to the right is from a very early mosaic in Ravenna, probably made well before the 5th Century. At this early time the artists still had access to the memory of the actual practices at the time of Jesus and thus depicts the Last Supper as it was more likely arranged. Notice that Jesus is at the head of the left corner and his disciples are arrayed in a sloping ark behind and sloping to his left. This was the usual setting for the ancient meal and especially something as formal as a passover meal.
3.It would seem that the place of second honor was at the other end of the U shaped table on the right corner. This would help explain why Peter is not at Jesus’ immediate right or left and has to motion to John across the room to lean back and ask Jesus a question (Jn:13:24-25). Since Peter would like have had the other place of honor it makes sense that he would be across the room and unable to ask Jesus himself.
Thus the whole setting of the Last Supper was rather a different setting that most modern people imagine. Leaning on elbows and eating with one hand would all be very awkward to us. But I suppose they’d think what we do strange as well. The question of the arrangement also factors into modern discussions of liturgical orientation and Mass facing the the people vs. Mass facing away from the congregation toward God. I’m sure that this will emerge in the discussion but it is clear from the Ravenna Mosaic that Mass facing east toward God and not toward the people did not offend ancient notions of the Mass as the “Lord’s Supper.” To the ancients formal meals featured the honored guest at one end angled away a bit  from most of the other guests. - The Seating Plan at the Last Supper

Reclining at table seems to be the preferred interpretation as how Jesus and his disciples ate. Their seating places (reclining arrangements) are less sure.


Why did Augustine attempt to stop Christians from walking barefoot?

I think that Henry Chadwick is conflating Manichaeism with Christian asceticism, toward which he appears to have a bias.  He clearly indicates in another work - Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and Charismatic in the Early Church - that he had Manichaeism in mind when he interpreted the passage, but also considered certain non-canonical Christian ritual ascetical practices.  Georgetown Professor James O'Donnell observes (here), however, that although the latter troubled Augustine, he did not think it merited a severe rebuke, as he attests in his Letter No. 55:

  I cannot, however, sanction with my approbation those ceremonies which
  are departures from the custom of the Church, and are instituted on
  the pretext of being symbolic of some holy mystery; although, for the
  sake of avoiding offense to the piety of some and the pugnacity of
  others, I do not venture to condemn severely many things of this kind.
  But this I deplore, and have too much occasion to do so, that
  comparatively little attention is paid to many of the most wholesome
  rites which Scripture has enjoined; and that so many false notions
  everywhere prevail, that more severe rebuke would be administered to a
  man who should touch the ground with his feet bare during the octaves
  (before his baptism), than to one who drowned his intellect in
  drunkenness. My opinion therefore is, that wherever it is possible,
  all those things should be abolished without hesitation, which neither
  have warrant in Holy Scripture, nor are found to have been appointed
  by councils of bishops, nor are confirmed by the practice of the
  universal Church, but are so infinitely various, according to the
  different customs of different places, that it is with difficulty, if
  at all, that the reasons which guided men in appointing them can be
  discovered (XIX.35)

I would submit, however, that although Augustine may have objected (mildly) to
non-canonical ritual Christian ascetic practices, he did not object to Christian asceticism in general.  This is evidenced in how he refers to the Egyptian monk, Antony (Anthony the Great), one of the strictest ascetics of his time:

  A conversation ensued on his [Pontitianus, a Christian] speaking of
  Antony, the Egyptian monk, whose name was in high repute among Thy
  servants, though up to that time not familiar to us. When he came to
  know this, he lingered on that topic, imparting to us a knowledge of
  this man so eminent, and marvelling at our ignorance. But we were
  amazed, hearing Thy wonderful works most fully manifested in times so
  recent, and almost in our own, wrought in the true faith and the
  Catholic Church. We all wondered — we, that they were so great, and he,
  that we had never heard of them.

  Confessions, Book VIII, XII.29

I think further evidence of a bias against Christian asceticism comes out in the way Chadwick chose to translate the Latin, fortissimo dominatori corporis, usque ad Italicum solum glaciale nudo pede obterendum insolito ausu (IX.VI.14).  Chadwick's translation reads, as you cite:

  ... and tamed his body to a tough discipline of extraordinary
  boldness: he went barefoot on the icy soil of Italy.

By comparison, the translation in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers edition of Confessions reads:

  ... being so brave a tamer of the body, as with unusual fortitude to
  tread the frozen soil of Italy with his naked feet.

Other translations:

  ... a most valiant tamer of the body, so as, with unwonted venture, to
  wear the frozen ground of Italy with his bare feet [Pusey].

  ... and was so brave a tamer of his body that he would walk the frozen
  Italian soil with his naked feet, which called for unusual fortitude [Outler]

Augustine attempted during his life to end not only certain ascetical practices associated with Manichaesm, but indeed the cult itself (to which he at one time belonged), as evidenced by the large corpus of work he wrote against it (e.g. On the Morals of the Manichaeans, Concerning Two Souls, Disputation against Fortunatus, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental).  This is not to say, however, that he condemned similar ascetical practices undertaken by Christians for entirely different purposes.

I would submit that the short passage cited, when translated appropriately, shows Augustine's support, rather than disdain, for Christian asceticism.

This apparent bias against Christian asceticism reflected in Chadwick's comment seems not to be unique.  The editors of Augustine's Anti-Manichaean Writings in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series make the following statement, without any further elucidation or support, in their introduction:

  Many Christians were in a position to be attracted strongly by the
  Manichæan theory and practice. The later asceticism as it appeared in
  the hermit life of the fourth and following centuries was essentially
  pagan and had much in common with the Manichæan.


How does 1 John 2:19 fit with the teaching that Christians can lose their salvation

I think we're reading our cultural bias back into this text - namely by saying that it is talking about salvation in terms of "in" or "out" and our soteriological context. That is a very Western concept, and was largely foreign to the apostles. For them, salvation was found only in the Church (referring here to the gathered and 'sent' people of God, not to a building nor an institution), and to leave the Church was to leave Christ. Granted, this has soteriological implications, but only as a consequence of leaving the Church and remaining outside of Her.

As you stated, the context of this passage is indeed that the αντιχριστοι (antichrists) were teaching false doctrine, and they "went out" from the κοινωνια (fellowship, participatory community, mentioned in 1:3). The verb μεμενηκεισαν implies that they did not remain, abide, reside, continue, stay, endure, and/or were no longer present. We don't have a great English term to effectively translate this concept, so you often see it in all of the above forms (and some others as well). μεμενηκεισαν is in pluperfect active indicative (3rd person plural) here, simply implying that their present absence is a "state or condition following a completed action in the past," i.e. they (voluntarily) went out and so they no longer remain.

The apostle's view was that we come to the Church and we remain in the Church because the Church is the Body of Christ, and to be one with Him is to be united to the Church, which is His Body (1 Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:4). Thus there is no salvation outside the Church because there is no salvation apart from union with Christ's Body (which is the Church). This is very sacramental (mysterious) and involves how we are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). Trying to understand this passage within the worldview of Western Christian philosophy compartmentalizes salvation as a divine singular action that can occur outside of the Church if someone confesses Jesus as Lord and believes several historical facts about Jesus, or simply prays a special prayer. James reminds us that even the demons believe correct doctrine about God (James 2:19) and that "faith apart from works is dead" (2:26).

So to clearly answer the question, this passage has little to do with the doctrines of conditional or unconditional security. The meaning is simply that these false teachers left the Church (the apostolic fellowship), and by doing so proved that they also left Christ; for to be one with Him is to be united to the Church, which is His Body.

As a further note, the theological implications of this passage have more to say about the concept of apostolic succession than they do about Western soteriology. The real question it should cause us to ask is whether or not we are part of the Church that has remained faithful to the teachings of the apostles.


The Bible does not anywhere indicate that the ‘most’ evil people are killed directly by God. God rather often, according to the purposes of his will, postpones the eternal judgment for sin a long while.  Even the very worst of criminals may live long and prosperous lives and we must not expect full justice in this world.  The injustice in the world is part of the judgment for Adam’s sin.  It is only in certain situation that God hastens judgment directly to bring attention to certain things that people might otherwise think God is not that concerned about, or for other mysterious reasons according to Him ‘who works out everything to the good to those that love him’. (Rom 8:28).  Things that everybody knows are evil God often overlooks as know special point needs to be made.

It might be asked ‘Why does not God kill more people, or even all people, like in the days of Noah? But God’s postponement of justice is not the absence of justice, which is what hell is for. It is only his mercy and intentions of grace in Christ (signified by the rainbow) that keeps God from killing more swiftly each new generation. Death itself is in a sense God killing mankind.

As it turns out on this earth, it sometimes almost seems ‘random’ who God directly causes to die and he alone knows his sovereign purposes. When God does miraculously step forward to execute sudden judgment he seems to be sending an important message in line with his purposes at that time of history.

For example in the Old Testament he killed Uzzah for Touching the Ark while trying to prevent it from tipping over (2 Samuel 6:6-7) which makes it seem singled out to be made an example. Meanwhile, while others did more wicked things God may have had no direct interest to intervene according to his own purpose.

In most cases however, it seems God takes direct actions when the people involved are committing public, almost symbolic sins, to put fear in the hearts of those observing and to therefore prevent similar sins by others.  For example, Ananias and Sapphira lying to the Holy Spirit in Acts 5:1-10.  In the case of Herod he was busy persecuting the newly founded church and allowing others to worship him as a god, all the while pretending to be a Jew and a king of Jews.  This was simply something, according to God's direct purposes for his church, that God wanted to publicly show as not acceptable.

Furthermore, just because the Bible does not mention God's involvement in killing other wicked men, history is filled with crazy dictators and especially vile public figures  that have all died sudden and horrific deaths at young ages or otherwise killed themselves such as Judas, Nero, Hitler, etc.

I am not aware of God directly killing (or other dramatic judgement) a person for private sins — it seems always related to 'scandalous public affairs' that if gone unpunished in the eyes of men might affront God's purposes among certain groups at certain times.


Were the friends of Job, who came to him when he was in pain, of another religion?

Scripture is not clear, giving us not only preciously few details on Job’s friends, but on Job himself.  Apart from telling us he was from the East (East of what?  How far to the East?), it does not tell us when he lived, nor even when the book itself was composed.

The only hints we have are sketchy circumstantial ones: their names and elements of cultural context, such as customs, material descripions &c.  But even that could easily have been adapted from an older original story, as for instance Adam and Eve names could be Hebrew translations (or evolutions) of their original names in humankind’s universal prediluvian language.

The Talmud is largely irrelevant to Christian opinion, specially on something presumably so much older than itself; it is not authoritative, it is known to contain much incorrect information, sometimes even as anti-Christian polemics.

In Ancient times there were hardly religions as organised, doctrinal systems as we understand them; polytheism was the norm, and it was hardly distinguishable from animism.

What is obvious is that they had at least a concept of Yahweh related to the one Job (and his chronicler) held.  So, yes, it seems that they had more or less the same ‘religion & faith’ as Job.


Can a Catholic marriage be annulled because one doesn't believe to Sacred Trinity anymore?

An annulment means (or at least should mean) that there was no valid marriage in the first place. The grounds for the annulment must therefore be something from the time of the (alleged) marriage.  Later events, including heresy (like denying the doctrine of the Trinity)  or even apostasy, cannot legitimately invalidate a marriage.


How can panentheism be reconciled with Satan?

The theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) is sometimes identified as panentheistic. Swedenborg rejected the idea that the universe is part of God. However, he saw God as pervading the universe and continually maintaining its existence from within and above. Thus God is present throughout the universe, from its tiniest to its largest parts. Here is a succinct statement of this principle, from True Christianity #33:

Every created thing is finite. The Infinite is in finite objects the way something is present in a vessel that receives it.

Swedenborg therefore saw God as present in everything in the created universe, both spiritual and material, as a continually creative inflow that maintains everything in existence each instant.
"Satan," in Swedenborg's theology, is not an individual being, such as an angel of light who fell away from God and became an evil angel and the ruler of hell. Rather, in Swedenborg's theology, Satan is a personification of evil, and in more practical terms, is the combined operation and presence of all of hell, which consists of all human beings who have chosen evil over good during their lifetimes on earth.
So in Swedenborg's theology, the problem of God's immanence vs. the existence of Satan is the same as the problem of God's immanence vs. the existence of evil. Put simply, if God pervades the universe, and God is good, how can evil exist anywhere in the universe?
Swedenborg's answer to this question incorporates the classical answer that human free will requires the possibility of the existence of evil. He states that although God does not create evil, God does create human beings with free will, which makes it possible for humans to bring evil into existence.
In a sense, evil is the rejection and absence of God. However, in Swedenborg's theology, it is not possible for anything to be entirely separated from God, because, according to the principle stated above, everything in the universe depends on God for its ongoing existence from moment to moment.
Swedenborg's solution to this is somewhat complex. A full exposition of it would require presentation of several principles he articulated, including "correspondences" (the precise way in which God is expressed in spirit, and spirit in nature), distinct and continuous levels of reality, and the interaction of human free will in relation to these.
However, here is a simplified version:
Evil exists only in the human spirit. No part of nature can truly be considered evil, though it may provide images that reflect human evil, such as the predator-prey relationship if projected into human relationships. But fundamentally, evil exists only in the human spirit.
This means that from the perspective of Swedenborg's theology, the problem of evil, or Satan, in relation to God's immanence is a problem of how God can be present in evil people, maintaining their existence from within, even while there is no evil in God's own nature.
This is possible, Swedenborg says, because even in the most evil of human beings and evil spirits, there is an uncorrupted and incorruptible part at the core of that human being's or evil spirit's self, or spirit. This part is above the consciousness of that human being or evil spirit, where it cannot be corrupted by that person's or spirit's evil desires. Swedenborg identifies this part as "the soul," in a restricted and technical sense. ("The soul" is also used more generally as a synonym for "the spirit.") God flows into this highest, incorruptible part of the evil human being or evil spirit, maintaining his or her existence from within.
In other words, God directly touches and flows into that inmost part of the evil being—a part that is not evil, but good. Therefore the infinite good that is God does not directly touch or interact with the evil in the evil person or evil spirit. If God were to touch the evil directly, it would be instantly destroyed.
However, as that inflow from God flows further down into the "spirit" or the conscious part of the evil human being or evil spirit, the evil character that that person or spirit has adopted twists that inflow from God, which in itself is good and true, into evil and falsity. This takes place in the finite, created, human part of the human being, and is therefore not a part of God's being, even though it is sustained from within by the life force of God's love and wisdom flowing into the inmost soul of that created being.
Swedenborg uses illustrations from nature to provide a picture of this flowing of God, who is pure love and wisdom, into human evil and falsity, maintaining their existence while not being evil and false itself:

God granted freedom not just to human beings but also to every type of animal; he even granted to inanimate things something analogous to freedom. Each entity receives that gift in accordance with its own nature. He also provides them all with what is good, but the entities themselves turn it into evil.
This can be illustrated by comparisons: The atmosphere gives every human being the ability to breathe, and does the same for every animal, whether domesticated or wild, and also for every bird, whether it is an owl or a dove; it also gives birds the ability to fly. Yet the atmosphere is not responsible for the fact that what it offers is taken up by creatures that are opposite to each other in nature and character.
The ocean offers itself to every type of fish as a place to live and also provides them all with food, yet the ocean is not responsible for the fact that one type of fish eats another, or that a crocodile turns the ocean's generosity into poison that it uses to kill people.
The sun supplies light and heat to all things, but its objects, which are the various types of vegetation on earth, use them in different ways. A good kind of tree or bush uses that heat and light one way; a thorn or a bramble uses them another way. A harmless plant does something very different with them than a poisonous plant does.
Rain from high up in the atmosphere falls everywhere on the ground. The ground then distributes that water to every bush, plant, and blade of grass, and each of them takes up as much of it as it needs. This is what I meant by something analogous to free choice, because these plants freely drink the water in through orifices, pores, and passageways that are open when it is warm. The earth does no more than offer moisture and nutrients; the plants take them in according to their thirst and hunger, so to speak.
It is similar with human beings. The Lord flows into every one of us with spiritual heat, which is essentially the goodness of love, and spiritual light, which is essentially the truth of wisdom. How open we are to these qualities depends on which way we are turned, either toward God or toward ourselves. Therefore in teaching us about loving our neighbor, the Lord says, "You are to be children of your Father, who makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45). Elsewhere we read that "he wills the salvation of all" [1 Timothy 2:4; Ezekiel 18:23, 32]. (True Christianity #491)


Was St. Patrick a really Roman Catholic and did he keep the 7th day Sabbath?

The life of St. Patrick in a nutshell is that he was the son of well-to-do Roman citizens living in Britannia, captured by Irish raiders, sold into slavery, eventually returned to home after finding his calling, was sent to Rome, became a bishop and was sent back to convert Ireland.  None of this well known history passed down through the ages corroborates that he was

Not a Latin Catholic (he was born in Britannia, which was a Roman Province )

  He had for his parents Calphurnius and Conchessa. The former belonged to a Roman family of high rank and held the office of decurio in Gaul or Britain.

Didn't give a hoot about Sunday. He certainly cared about Easter Sunday (which in good Catholic tradition considers the Sabbath to start on Saturday night) because that was the day he threw the gauntlet down with the Druids.

  On Easter Eve, in that year the feast of the Annunciation, and on the summit of the hill kindled the Paschal fire. The druids at once raised their voice. "O King", (they said) "live for ever; this fire, which has been lighted in defiance of the royal edict, will blaze for ever in this land unless it be this very night extinguished." By order of the king and the agency of the druids, repeated attempts were made to extinguish the blessed fire and to punish with death the intruder who had disobeyed the royal command. But the fire was not extinguished and Patrick shielded by the Divine power came unscathed from their snares and assaults. On Easter Day the missionary band having at their head the youth Benignus bearing aloft a copy of the Gospels, and followed by St. Patrick who with mitre and crozier was arrayed in full episcopal attire, proceeded in processional order to Tara.

You can read all about him in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia this movie about him was pretty good (about par for quality when it comes to saint movies).


Q. "If most of the Jehovah's Witnesses today are not a part of the 144,000, then what exactly are they?"

A. While the scriptures show that a limited number of 144,000 have the God given hope of living FOREVER as Kings & Priests RULING in God's Heavenly Kingdom with Christ himself, the overwhelming vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses have the awesome God given hope of living FOREVER on the Biblically foretold paradisaic New Earth as royal subjects of God's Heavenly Kingdom wherein the Scriptures state that such ones will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. (Psalm 37:11, 29; Isaiah 65:17, 20-23; Matthew 5:5; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev 21:3-5).

While the vast majority of the Churches of Christendom teach that there is but only one final destination for the faithful of God's chosen people, the Holy Scriptures teach and show that there is in fact not one but TWO final destinations for the faithful of God's chosen people (Ruling in Heaven or The foretold Paradisaic New Earth). Almighty Jehovah God by means of His Holy Spirit through Christ determines who goes where in accordance to His divine will and everlasting purpose.

~ NOTE: I am a dedicated and baptized member of the unified worldwide Christian Congregation of JEHOVAH'S Witnesses.


Are Catholics obliged to follow scientific evidence that they find disreputable with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic?
The answer seems to be in the negative. But based on the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) guidelines, but the faithful are also bound by government rules and guidelines. The vaccines are a separate matter. Why? The CDF guidelines have a provision for Catholics to not accept the vaccines on personal moral grounds. But, Pope Francis in order to explain that the new vaccines are morally licit and will serve the common good.
Since the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admits that the coronavirus is air born, it would reasonably prudent to take the normal safety measures health officials are mandating: wearing masks and staying 6 ft apart from others and avoid large crowds.
At least Pope Francis is in favour of following governmental health guidelines!

Pope Francis criticized groups protesting coronavirus restrictions and praised medical workers in an op-ed published Thursday in The New York Times.
“With some exceptions, governments have made great efforts to put the well-being of their people first, acting decisively to protect health and to save lives,” the pontiff wrote Thursday. “Yet some groups protested, refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions -- as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom! Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.
Francis, 83, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina, wrote that his own personal health crisis helped him to understand how science can be used to help people recover. The pope said he was 21 in 1957 when he had part of his lung removed, The Hill reported. - Pope Francis criticizes groups protesting COVID-19 restrictions

Maybe not obliged, but Catholics must make an informed decision on this matter. That much is clear.
To say the least, it is complicated!
Catholics should strive to take the vaccine the least morally offensive possible, if possible.
The Vatican’s Note on the morality of using
some anti-Covid-19 vaccines states the following:

The question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion.
Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.

As the Instruction Dignitas Personae states, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility” of cooperation in evil. For example,“in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.

In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent - in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses. Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.

At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

Finally, there is also a moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them. The lack of access to vaccines, otherwise, would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty. - (17 Dec 2020)

On March 2, 2021 Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Doctrine, and Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued a statement on the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine recently approved for use in the United States.

The approval of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine for use in the United States again raises questions about the moral permissibility of using vaccines developed, tested, and/or produced with the help of abortion-derived cell lines.
Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines raised concerns because an abortion-derived cell line was used for testing them, but not in their production.  The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, however, was developed, tested and is produced with abortion-derived cell lines raising additional moral concerns. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged that ‘when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available … it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.’ However, if one can choose among equally safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, the vaccine with the least connection to abortion-derived cell lines should be chosen. Therefore, if one has the ability to choose a vaccine, Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines should be chosen over Johnson & Johnson’s.
While we should continue to insist that pharmaceutical companies stop using abortion-derived cell lines, given the world-wide suffering that this pandemic is causing, we affirm again that being vaccinated can be an act of charity that serves the common good. - U.S. Bishop Chairmen for Doctrine and for Pro-Life Address the Use of the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 Vaccine

There still remains a fair bit of confusion on the data and scientific evidence in regards to vaccines at the present. In order to follow scientific evidence that they find disreputable with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic, we as Catholics have the right to understand what the scientific evidence truly is.

Johnson & Johnson vaccine is not morally compromised and even the Vatican knows it
By tainting the COVID-19 vaccine with its taboo morality, the bishops are not respecting life, they are instead exploiting a grave situation to inject their anti-abortion politics.
Though the Archdiocese of Philadelphia did not make any additional comments about the bishops’ pronouncement, they did share the statement with educators in all Catholic schools in the five-county Philadelphia region, spokesperson Kenneth A. Gavin told The Inquirer’s Marie McCullough in an email.
The truth is, all currently approved vaccines for COVID-19 used cell lines derived from aborted fetuses in their testing phases. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, some antiabortion activists claim, is morally compromised because it also used these cells in its production. The pharmaceutical company has stated unequivocally that there are no fetal cells in its vaccine.

All vaccine companies must give the scientific evidence of research and how the vaccines are actually made, in order that as Catholics, we can follow what the scientific community is claiming.
The Church has not pronounced on the mRNA vaccines as of yet, so Catholics must ultimately make the best informed decision possible, including talking it over with your local bishop.
The following articles may be of interest here:

Coronavirus: CDC acknowledges airborne transmission of COVID-19
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public
Want to Know More About mRNA Before Your COVID Jab?


When were the doctrine and covenants published and distributed to members of the LDS church?

The first revelations were written while Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, beginning about 1828. It was decided in 1831 to publish a compilation as the  "Book of Commandments", at the press that was being established in Independence, Missouri. The printing was in progress but not complete when the printing office was mobbed and destroyed in July 1833. An expanded version was printed two years later (1835) in Kirtland, Ohio. This was the first published version generally available. Subsequent editions included more revelations, until the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, although successors have added a few more sections and a couple of "Offical Declarations".


Were the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John common in the time of Jesus?

The names of the authors of the Gospels have been adapted into English from the Greek of the New Testament.1 However, Hebrew and/or Aramaic were likely the mother tongue(s) of three of the evangelists (Matthew, Mark, and John), and their names reflect this background. Luke's name is Greek.

All of these are normal, common names, and there is no reason to think anyone's name was changed for the purpose of assigning him to a Gospel.

Matthew
Matthew's is a Hebrew name that comes awkwardly into Greek as Μαθθαῖος (Maththaios). When speaking Aramaic or Hebrew, his friends and family likely called him by the Semitic version, מַתִּתְיָ֫הוּ (Mattith-yahu) or several of the available shortned versions thereof (Mattaʾi, Mattiyaʾ, or Mattiyah). These are derived from the Hebrew nātan ("he gave") and mean something like "gift of God". This name and its variants were very common in Hebrew.2

Matthew appears to have also had a second name, Levi (see Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27). Levi (Λευὶ) is, of course, a Hebrew name for one of the twelve tribes: לֵוִי (lēwı̂). It is also a common male name from the OT. Why Matthew had two different Hebrew names and the nature of the relationship between them has been a matter of much scholarly discussion.

Mark (a.k.a. John Mark)
The full Greek names is Ἰοαν(ν)ες Μαρκος (Ioan(n)es Markos). This has two components. Markos is a Greek name (cf. Latin Marcus), one of the most common in both Greek and Latin speaking communities in the Hellenistic period.3

Ioannes is a Greek adaptation of the Hebrew name יוֹחָנָן (yôḥānān, "Yahweh has shown grace"). When speaking Hebrew or Aramaic, it is likely that yōhānān alone was used.4 Among the evangelists' names, only yōhānān ranks among the top six most common male names in Palestine at the time (#5).5

Luke
Luke's is a normal Greek name – Λουκας (Loukás) – by which he likely addressed. Luke was a Gentile whose command of Hebrew and/or Aramaic is unknown, but in any case we are not given a Semitic name.

John
As noted above for Mark's Semitic name, Ioannes is a Greek adaptation of the Hebrew name יוֹחָנָן yôḥānān ("Yahweh has shown grace"). Because this was a common name among Greek-speaking Jews (see above), John is often referred to with the patronymic τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου ("[son] of Zebedee").

1. Of course, the Gospels are technically anonymous. However, the traditional attributions of authorship were clearly identified with particular men who are known to us from within their pages (and Acts).

2. Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (citation below) finds at least ten mattaniah's, in addition to one or more each: mattatha, mattathiah, mattathias, mattattah, mattenai, matthat (all derived one way or another from "gift" and "yhwh") in the Old Testament and Inter-testamental literature, s.v..

3. Paul J. Achtemeier. "Mark, Gospel of" in Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, Ed. David Noel Freedman (Random House, 1992), 4:541.

4. Richard Bauckham Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans, 2006), p 67ff. The author points out that likely many more people than we realize had both Greek and Semitic names, but because only one was generally used in a specific setting, these are often difficult to trace based on the limited texts available.

5. Richard Bauckham, ibid.

Data on Greek-Semitic equivalences are from New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. Moises Silva (Zondervan, 2014).


Did Calvinism borrow its scheme of predestination from Valentinian Gnosticism?

What was predestination according to Calvin?

  Predestination According to Calvin      According to John Calvin, predestination is God’s unchangeable decree from before the creation
  of the world that he would freely save some people (the elect),
  foreordaining them to eternal life, while the others (the reprobate)
  would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal
  death".
  Source: Calvin on Predestination

What led Calvin to teach predestination?

According to this Article - John Calvin: Predestination and Justice -

  [Basing ] his conviction that the Bible is God’s beneficial and
  sufficient revelation for humanity, John Calvin felt constrained to
  teach the doctrine of predestination. To the extent that
  predestination is part of scripture, Calvin thought it should be
  taught for the benefit of God’s people.

Therefore from this and other few articles I perused online, Calvin chose to teach predestination because it was in the Bible, and to him, it ought to be taught because he was convinced the Bible was God's beneficial and sufficient revelation for humanity.


In 1 Samuel 20:30.. Is Saul saying: "SON of a *****?"?

According to BibleHub.com's "Hebrew Text Analysis Page", the Hebrew text is

  בֶּֽן־נַעֲוַ֖תהַמַּרְדּ֑וּתהֲל֣וֹאיָדַ֗עְתִּי

and a literal translation is something along the lines of

  son of the perverse rebellious [woman]

Thus it appears that this is what Saul in fact did say, although he may have meant, as the New Living Translation has it,

  You son of a whore!

or as the New English Translation (NET Bible) says,

  You stupid traitor!

The Douay-Rheims Bible seems to be getting at the same thing the NLT wants to say, though in 16th-century language:

  Thou son of a woman that is the ravisher of a man!

But though Saul may have meant this, there's no indication that he actually said it.


What biblical verses have been used to justify or even inspire working women?

Proverbs 31:10-31 is a famous passage on The Virtuous Woman. In addition to taking care of her family, the passage describes a woman who contributes financially to her household.

Proverbs 31:16-18
She considers a field and buys it;
    out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She sets about her work vigorously;
    her arms are strong for her tasks.
She sees that her trading is profitable,
    and her lamp does not go out at night.
Proverbs 31:24
She makes linen garments and sells them,
    and supplies the merchants with sashes.


What Christmas traditions have roots in Jewish traditions?

The Feast of the Circumcision of Jesus is a Christian celebration of the circumcision of Christ in accordance with Jewish tradition.

This feast is celebrated by Catholics who follow the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass on January 1st. The feast is celebrated on the octave day of Christmas, thus concluding the ancient tradition of celebrating major feast days (Christmas, Easter and Pentecost) for eight days.  This is also the day that Jesus received his Most Holy Name.

There is also the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus , which is celebrated on another date than on January 1st in the Roman Catholic Church.

  The Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus is a feast of the liturgical year celebrated by a number of Christian denominations, on varying dates. In Roman Catholicism the month of January is traditionally dedicated to the Holy Name of Jesus.

  In the Latin Rite Catholic Church it is observed as an optional memorial on 3 January by Catholics following the present General Roman Calendar. Franciscans, Carmelites, and Augustinians kept the feast on 14 January; Dominicans on 15 January; in some localities the date was 8 January, in others 31 January, in some localities in Great Britain on 7 August. The Society of Jesus, i.e., the Jesuits, celebrates the Holy Name of Jesus on 3 January as the order's own titular feast.


If we are to think good things(Phil 4:8) why are there seemingly pointless sinful things in the Bible?

The call to think about good things is not a proposal of turning a blind eye to the wickedness of men but to see it under the light of the gospel which makes even darkness praise God's grace. It may be worth noting that the exhortation starts with thinking about what is 'true'. This in practical terms means think about whatever is in the Bible, including all the dark and evil things that it exposes under its marvelous light.  The difference though is that the scripture does not dwell on evil in and of itself as men do because we have a wicked curiosity in evil, rather through the truth the scripture unveils a clear picture if the evil of men as part of a grand scheme of saving them through the gospel.  This means that the 'truth' includes making known sin and through the law.   For unless a man knows the wickedness of human nature and includes himself in that wickedness he will have no interest in the gospel, for it is the sick that need a doctor not the healthy:

  On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17, NIV)

One can see the gospel rests upon a knowledge of evil and on the sense of guilt and condemnation produced from that offers forgiveness and eternal life.  This essentially paints the order: it is 'truth' to see our great sins, it is 'honest' to admit them and yearn for help, it is 'just' to know that we deserve eternal punishment.  Furthermore it is a revealed 'justice' previously unknown to the church God would punish his own Son that we might be made righteous through grace. The righteousness revealed in the gospel is 'pure' and 'lovely' and of a very 'good report'.  Those who believe it not only see the virtue of God's love but love one another and praise God for the endless favor he has freely given the elect forever to the praise of his grace. So we see all these things are reasonable and in accordance with both the horror of sin and death manifest and condemned by God's law as well as the  meek and mild savior who presented himself as a sacrifice to atone and satisfy that law in order to present a redeemed people bathed in love and the glory of God's grace for all of creation to stand in awe of now and forever more.    The little stories of various people and their sins throughout the bible are a very important part of the glorious truth which it developed until the full glory of the gospel was made known.


Does Ezekiel 28 speak of Satan (as "king of Tyre")?

It's actually both. Bear with me; I'll explain.

In the first half of Ezekiel 28:1-19, Ezekiel seems to be referring to a human man.

  Ezekiel 28:1-10 (ESV)

   1The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord GOD:

      "Because your heart is proud,
     and you have said, 'I am a god,
  I sit in the seat of the gods,
     in the heart of the seas,'
  yet you are but a man, and no god,
      though you make your heart like the heart of a god—
   3 you are indeed wiser than Daniel;
     no secret is hidden from you;
   4by your wisdom and your understanding
      you have made wealth for yourself,
  and have gathered gold and silver
     into your treasuries;
   5by your great wisdom in your trade
     you have increased your wealth,
     and your heart has become proud in your wealth—
   6therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because you make your heart
     like the heart of a god,
   7therefore, behold, I will bring foreigners upon you,
     the most ruthless of the nations;
  and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom
     and defile your splendor.
   8 They shall thrust you down into the pit,
      and you shall die the death of the slain
     in the heart of the seas.
   9 Will you still say, 'I am a god,'
     in the presence of those who kill you,
  though you are but a man, and no god,
     in the hands of those who slay you?
   10 You shall die the death of the uncircumcised
     by the hand of foreigners;
      for I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD."

[Emphasis mine.]

I doubt that Satan (Lucifer) would be called a man or would he be able to die at the hands of humans.

But...the second half seems to refer to a spiritual being.

  Ezekiel 28:11-19 (ESV)

   11Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me: 12 "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD:

     "You were the signet of perfection,
      full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
   13You were in Eden, the garden of God;
      every precious stone was your covering,
   sardius, topaz, and diamond,
     beryl, onyx, and jasper,
  sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
     and crafted in gold were your settings
     and your engravings.
  On the day that you were created
     they were prepared.
   14You were an anointed guardian cherub.
     I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
     in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
   15You were blameless in your ways
      from the day you were created,
     till unrighteousness was found in you.
   16In the abundance of your trade
     you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
  so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
     and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
     from the midst of the stones of fire.
   17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
     you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
  I cast you to the ground;
     I exposed you before kings,
     to feast their eyes on you.
   18By the multitude of your iniquities,
     in the unrighteousness of your trade
     you profaned your sanctuaries;
  so I brought fire out from your midst;
     it consumed you,
  and I turned you to ashes on the earth
      in the sight of all who saw you.
   19All who know you among the peoples
     are appalled at you;
   you have come to a dreadful end
     and shall be no more forever."

[Emphasis mine.]

The third line of verse 16 in particular is similar to a verse in Revelation:

  Revelation 12:9 (ESV)

  9And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

[Emphasis mine.]

So, we have here two passages referring to the king of Tyre that seem to be contradictory as to whether this king is a man or Satan. I'll bet that this is similar to when Jesus rebukes Peter:

  Matthew 16:23 (ESV)

  23But he turned and said to Peter,  "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

  Mark 8:33 (ESV)

  33But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said,  "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

Obviously, Peter is not Lucifer, but he certainly could have been greatly influenced by Satan. Similarly, the king of Tyre may have been a man AND been possessed or greatly influenced by Satan. Thus, the "king of Tyre" just might be both a regular human king and Satan.


What is the oldest historical evidence of the Sabbath commandment?

At the very latest, in Babylonia, which is where exiles from the Kingdom of Judah picked up their own month names as well.

By "in other cultures," I'll take this to mean that you're looking for non-Judeo-Christian answers.
And first off, let's define what we mean by "prior to the Israelites." Per Encyclopedia Britannica:

The earliest record of the reading of a “Torah book” is provided by the narrative describing the reformation instituted by King Josiah of Judah in 622 BCE following the fortuitous discovery of a “book of the Torah” during the renovation of the Temple.

That's our starting point.
Sumeria (~2600-2100 BC?)

[...] there is every probability that [the Hebrew Sabbath] had its origins in Babylonia. In that country, however, it was not the rest-day ending the seven-day week [...] but was due to the festival of the full moon on the 15th day of the month, when the earth's satellite 'rested' for a while at the height of his brilliancy. [...] The word by which the Babylonian Sabbath is designated is the somewhat rare term sappatu or sabbatu [...] u-hut-allum, from the Sumerian u-hul-gala, which they translated by umu limnu, "evil day[,]" [was] the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days of every month, so that, as the Babylonian months had 29 or 30 days each, every month consisted of seven days each, and one of nine or ten days, according to the length of the month. [...] The following is a paragraph given by hemerologies for the observance of the seventh day of the month as a sabbath:

The 7th day is a holy-day (nubattu) of Merodach and Zer-panitu--an acceptable day, an evil day (u-hulgallu). The shepherd of the great tribes (nisi rabati) shall not eat salted meat cooked over the embers, he shall not change his body-clothing, eh shall not be clothed in white, he shall not offer a sacrifice. The king shall not ride in a chariot, he shall not talk victoriously. The seer shall not make a declaration with regard to a sacred place. A physician shall not touch a sick man. It is not suitable to make a wish.

Source: Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, ed.,  page 889-890 of the book/912 of the scan. Forgive me, as there are many accents on the Akkadian(?) words there that I am not able to easily reproduce. (Note: Source is from 1918.)
To me, that last bit sounds strikingly like an Orthodox Jewish Sabbath.
However, I'm wildly unsure of the year here. Wikipedia calls the Babylonian calendar a successor to a 21st century BC Sumerian calendar. The Sumerians were definitely into sevens (source page 1, source page 2):

The Sumerians not only regarded seven as the perfect number, but even recognized seven-day periods, prototypes of the week. As early as 2600 B.C. Gudea, able priest-king of Lagash, built a seven-roomed tower temple and dedicated it with a seven-day festival. [...] Seven-day periods are mentioned also in the Assyro-Babylonian epic of Gilgamish, whose origins go back to the third millennium B.C., or to Sumerian times. [...]

The source then goes on to describe the 7th, 14th, etc. days as evil days, as previously mentioned.
Deir el-Medina, ancient Egypt, ~1550-1080 BC
(Estimated years from Wikipedia)
The Egyptians constructed their year into months of three ten-day periods called decades, plus a five-day intercalary month.

A reconstruction of a festival calendar of Deir el-Medina, however, has been  compiled by Wolfgang Helck by utilizing references to working and inactivity in the  administrative documents pertaining to the royal artisans’ community. [...] Helck  collated  the references to  working  and inactivity into  tables  and,  by  analysing these, he was able to conclude that the ninth and tenth days of a decade were ‘as a  rule’  work-free.

Source, page 39 of the paper/45 of the PDF. The source then lists 17 feasts that would have also been work-free.
However, I'm not sure that this really counts, as I don't see a reference to keeping the 9th and 10th days holy per se.
Assyro-Babylonia, 7th century B.C.
In any case, it seems pretty widely-accepted that the Jewish calendar got their month names after the period of Jewish exile in Babylon (source). Here's part of the text of a "Assyro-Babylonian epic of creation," which includes Sumerian material (quoted here).

Then Marduk assigned to the moon god
Control of the night and said:
'Each month your tiara of beauty
Shall shine on the evening's head.
For you shall measure the cycles;
Six days you shall show horns of light;
The seventh your crown shall be finished;
The fourteenth both halves shall be bright.


If Satan is not omnipresent and supposedly wanders around like a roaring lion, how can he tempt and interact with all humans?

Satan is most assuredly not omnipresent, Satan was and is an Angel (although he be a fallen Angel) and you must remember two things.

Satan (Lucifer) has no more power or ability than any of the other Angels.
When Lucifer was ejected from Heaven one third of the Angels were ejected with him:

Revelation 12:9  KJV

  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 12:4 KJV

  Now the dragon’s tail swept away a third of the stars in heaven and hurled them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born.

These fallen angels are also Devils

Luke 8:30 KJV

  And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

Some of these devils assist Satan in his efforts to tempt man away from God. The reason that they are so successful in their efforts to tempt us is because Satan has disguised Sin as a pleasant and desirable thing to have, and unfortunately having the knowledge of good and evil did nothing for our ability to see sin in its true character. Illicit sex would surely not be as tempting if it was seen ahead of time that it can lead to AIDS, or the many other STD's.

For some reason Satan has been able to disguise sin so completely that man will fall into his traps over and over.

Just consider the undesirable effects caused by not observing the 10 commandments.

It appears that man has been just as blinded to true beauty as when God destroyed the World in Noah's time.

Genesis 6:5  KJV

  And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.


Does God require us to have faith because Adam and Eve sinned?

Original sin began with Lucifer, the “I will” sin. Isaiah 14:13,14 “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

Eve was deceived and placed her faith in the words of the serpent rather than in the Word of God (transgressed faith ).  Mary, in contrast, placed her faith in the Word of God and said: “Let it be as you say”.

Adam sided with Eve, “her will” rather than God’s will.  In contrast, the second Adam, Jesus Christ said “thy will be done” and bore the sins of mankind, resulting in grace being eternally extended to mankind, grace which is apprehended by faith.

The original sin is born from a “self-sovereign" perspective, "My will be done. Do not impose your will upon my life."  Contrast: “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven."

God’s grace is tangible evidence that we should want God’s will to be done in our life.  So where does “me-centeredness" come from?  Originally, Lucifer transmitted to Eve by deception, who then transmitted to Adam by fear, or faithlessness.

Transgressed faith was the window in which man fell out of a relationship with God.  It stands to reason that man must enter into a relationship through that same window of faith.  After all, we are saved by God’s grace through faith.


Are there any Catholic medieval directives (rubrics) about what to do/pray/think during Eucharist Adoration?

Eucharistic Adoration as it is known today didn't exist between the 5th and 15th centuries.  Even Quantore (or forty hours devotions) did not begin until the 16th century.  Apart from religious houses, perpetual Eucharistic adoration did not begin in earnest with the laity until the 18th and 19th centuries in Italy and France. (Wikipedia)


What is an overview of interpretations of "all Israel will be saved" in Romans 11:26? (Catholic/Protestant overview)

There are three principal interpretations of this passage among Protestants and Catholics.  "All Israel" might refer to:

A future large-scale conversion of Jewish people to Christianity
All the Jewish people elected by God
All the people of God, both Gentiles and Jews

The first of these views is easily the most popular, and is widely held by premillennialists (both dispensational and classic) as well as some postmillennialists and amillenialists.  The second and third views are primarily held by amillennialists.

Large-scale conversion of Jewish people

The most commonly held position on this text is that Romans 11:26 is a prophecy of a future large-scale conversion of Jewish people, which is typically associated with the Second Coming of Christ.

This view was popular among the church fathers, as the Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes:

  According to the interpretation of the Fathers, the conversion of the Jews towards the end of the world is foretold by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans.1

Pope Gregory I2 and Thomas Aquinas3 take this view, and George Leo Haydock4 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church5 appear to do as well, though their language may admit alternate readings.

Among Protestants, this view is commonly associated with dispensationalism.  The Moody Bible Commentary says:

  All Israel should probably be understood to refer to the vast majority of the ethnic people of Israel.

Like others, the commentary specifically understands Paul to not be saying "that in the future every Jew will be saved," nor that he means all Jews in history, but rather the "Jewish people at a given point in time."  This interpretation is based on the other uses of "all Israel" in the Septuagint, where the phrase does not necessarily mean every single Jewish person.6

Besides dispensationalists, however, many other protestants also accept this interpretation, including classic premillennialists like John Piper7 and Wayne Grudem,8 postmillennialists like Charles Hodge9 and Greg Bahnsen,10 and amillennialists like John Murray.11

In defense of this position, proponents argue that the surrounding context necessitates interpreting "Israel" as the Jewish people.  As C. E. B. Cranfield writes,

  It is not feasible to understand Ἰσραήλ in v. 26 in a different sense from that which it has in v. 25, especially in view of the sustained contrast between Israel and the Gentiles throughout vv. 11-32. That πᾶς Ἰσραήλ here does not include Gentiles is virtually certain.12

Another argument is that only this view can properly be called a "mystery."  Bahnsen says that proponents of other interpretations "overlook how irrelevant, obvious, unmysterious and anticlimatic Paul's declaration would be made."10

All the Jewish elect

The second view holds that "all Israel" refers to the elect of Israel only—that a future mass conversion of Jewish people, though not excluded, is not taught by the text.  It is espoused primarily by some in the Reformed tradition, such as Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof,13 William Hendriksen, and Anthony Hoekema.14

Proponents of this view argue that the context does not warrant interpreting this passage as prophecy.  O. Palmer Robertson emphasizes that 11:1 and 11:5 "orient this first paragraph of Romans 11 to the question of God's dealing with Israel in the present hour."  This current time emphasis is maintained, Robertson says, in Paul's reference to his present ministry (13–14) and the repeated use of "now" in verses 30–32.15  Similarly, Hoekema argues that these later verses could easily be interpreted as pertaining to Christ's first coming, not only to his second coming.

Hoekema, relying on Hendriksen, also argues that using the phrase "all Israel" to describe an end-times conversion:

  does not do justice to the word all [...]. Does "all Israel" mean just the last generation of Israelites?  This last generation will be just a fragment of the total number of Jews who have lived on this earth.  How can such a fragment properly be called "all Israel"?

To Hoekema, the mystery referred to is the "interdependence of the salvation of Gentiles and Jews."  This interdependence, and the partial hardening of Israel, Hoekema argues, is something that has been happening in the past and will continue to happen, until the Second Coming of Christ.

All the people of God

The third view holds that "all Israel" refers to spiritual Israel, that is, all the people of God throughout history, both Jews and Gentiles.  Like the previous view, it does not necessarily reject the possibility of a future mass conversion of Jews, but does not see this passage as necessarily prophetic in nature.

This view has some early support from at least one church father, Theodoret of Cyrus:

  All Israel means all those who believe, whether they are Jews, who have a natural relationship to Israel, or Gentiles, who are related to Israel by faith.16

Some have also suggested that Augustine shared this view, based on a passage where he uses language from Romans 11 and calls the elect from both Jews and Gentiles "a truer Israel,"17 but elsewhere he emphasizes a future conversion of Jews.18 John Calvin, though apparently also seeing a future conversion of Jews, nonetheless argues that Paul's meaning with "all Israel" is "the whole Israel of God," including both Jews and Gentiles, just as it is in Galatians 6:16.19

Modern defenders of this view include N. T. Wright, who sees Paul switching the meaning of "Israel" midstream as a rhetorical device:

  [Paul] has systematically transferred the privileges and attributes of "Israel" to the Messiah and his people. It is therefore greatly preferable to take "all Israel" in v.26 as a typically Pauline polemical redefinition.20

Another proponent, Lee Irons, challenges the prevailing view's argument that "Israel" in verse 26 should be interpreted the same way as "Israel" elsewhere in the chapter (as the Jewish people) by referencing Romans 9:6, "they are not all Israel that are of Israel," as an example of differing meanings in the same sentence.  He also contends that an overarching theme in Romans is a challenge to the traditional "Jewish-only" vision of Israel (citing 2:26, 2:12, and 9:24), and sees the "mystery" as being the same as that of Ephesians 3:6:

  This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (ESV)

References:

Catholic Encyclopedia, "General Judgment."
Gregory, Morals on the Book of Job, I-30. "[The Holy Church,] having taken in the Gentiles to the full, at the end of the world she converts to herself the souls of the Jews likewise."
Aquinas, Commentary on Romans. "The blindness of the Jews will last up to the time when the full number of the Gentiles will come to the faith [...] when the full number of the Gentiles has come in, all Israel will be saved, not some, as now, but universally all." (also archived via WebCite)
Haydock, Commentary.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1.2.2.7, 674 seems to indicate this view as well, though its language may leave open the possibility of the third view: 'The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles", will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ."'
Moody Bible Commentary on Romans 11:26.  Septuagint examples are Nm 16:34; 1 Sm 25:1; 1 Ch 11:10, 15:25, 19:17; 2 Ch 10:3.
Piper, "All Israel Will Be Saved", February 29, 2004 sermon. "[T]here will be a great and stupendous national conversion of Israel some day." "I don't know the details, but it seems to me that Paul does mean that in connection with the second coming of Christ there will be a great turning of Israel to Christ." (also archived via WebCite)
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1099. "[Paul] says that sometime in the future a large number [of Jews] would be saved."
Hodge, Commentary on Romans, 371–74: "Israel here, from the context, must mean the Jewish people."
Bahnsen, "Gospel Prosperity and the Future of Israel," from Calvinism Today – 4, Vol. III, No. 2 (April 1993). 'By this declaration Paul must have meant by “Israel” what he has meant by the term throughout the chapter: namely, ethnic Jews (his brothers “according to the flesh”).' (also archived via WebCite)
Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, quoted in Bahnsen, "Gospel Prosperity and the Future of Israel." "[I]t is the salvation of the mass of Israel that the apostle affirms."
Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, quoted in Irons, "Paul's Theology of Israel's Future," 8.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 6.3.1.B. "'All Israel' is to be understood as a designation, not of the whole nation, but of the whole number of the elect out of the ancient covenant people."
Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 139–47.
Robertson, “Is There a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11?,” chapter 16 in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, quoted in Irons, "Paul's Theology of Israel's Future", 5–7.
Theodret, "Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans," quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary, 299.
Augustine, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary, 298.
Augustine, City of God 20.29. Hodge cites Augustine in support of this view (Commentary, 374) and so does Meyer (Critical and Exegetical Handbook, II, 234).
Calvin, Commentary on Romans. "When the Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both."
Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 250, quoted in Irons, "Paul's Theology of Israel's Future," 20–21.  See "Romans and the Theology of Paul", section VI.
Irons, "Paul's Theology of Israel's Future," 8, 15–21.