How can a non-Catholic get into state of grace as understood by the Catholic Church?

Generally, the Church declines to comment whether any given person is in Heaven or not — at least not without a laborious inquiry and at least two confirmed miracles — but there are paragraphs in the Catechism we can use to try and understand how someone outside the Church might attain state of grace and retain it.

977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."Mk 16:15–16 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."Rom 6:4; Cf. 4:25
978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them.... Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil "Roman Catechism I, 11,3
979 In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. the Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."Roman Catechism I, 11,4
980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church:

Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers "a laborious kind of baptism." This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.Council of Trent (1551): DS 1672; Cf. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39,17: PG 36,356

So when a person is first  baptised, their sins — both original and voluntary — are removed from them. And, as the Church teaches, any one — Catholic or not — can effect a valid Baptism if they recite the correct formula with the correct intention:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.Cf. CIC, can. 861 # 1; CCEO, can. 677 # 1 In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.Cf. 1 Tim 2:4

However, and this is important, Baptism does not remove one's inclination to sin; and after one sins again, they lose their state of grace and thereafter it cannot be restored to them without the Sacrament of Penance.
The Sacrament of Penance, on the other hand, cannot be validly conferred but by a Catholic priest (cf. Canon 965) and only to baptised Catholics or Orthodox, and ordinarily by individual confession. So, barring specific Divine intervention, a person who is baptised and subsequently sins cannot regain their state of grace unless they are received into the Catholic Church — or another Church with valid Sacraments — and subsequently receives the Sacrament of Penance.
Therefore, a Protestant who dies immediately or nearly immediately after being baptised can generally be considered as having died in a state of grace, even though they might have died outside the fold of the Church. Otherwise, a person will generally sin again and lose their state of grace, and be unable to regain it because the Sacrament of Penance cannot validly be conferred upon them — not least because they generally do not believe in the efficacy of that Sacrament.
That being said, the Church will hesitate to declare that these people are definitely damned because "with God, all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26) and it may be that God will, in His mercy, effect extraordinarily that absolution which He has given ordinarily to His Church through the Sacrament of Penance. Though because such a grace is extraordinary, it must not be counted upon, and the Church calls upon her separated brethren to come into communion and gain ordinary access to the wellspring of graces that is the Sacrament of Penance.


Is a Saint Joseph the patron of men named Osip?

In Russian tradition a man is named after some concrete saint. His name day is then not the day when some saint named the same is celebrated, but only that one, after which he was named. So, if someone's saint is Joseph of Astrakhan', then the celebration of Joseph of Optina isn't his name day.

Otherwise, popular names like Dmitry or Andrew would be having name days for a whole year.


Does the Bible tell us who should be interpreting its message?

Here are two verses that can form an answer to your question (at least they do it for me):

Jeremiah 17:5: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the Lord."

and:

John 16:13: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come"

Regardless of who preaches the Gospel or who translates the Scripture, a child of God must seek spiritual nourishment from his heavenly Father and He will not give a stone to a child who's asking Him from bread.


In what ways do human beings reflect God?

The ways we as human beings should in some way reflect the image of our Divine Creator. This may be done in many ways.

To start with let love Jesus with all our heart.

  For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

God has created the heavens and the earth and as such we should be good stewards of his creations. That means we should do the following:

Do not pollute.
Respect and show dignity to all life.
Do not waste what God has given us, in our daily life and try to maintain the earth in good fashion at all times, in our own little ways.

  6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - John 14:6

We should also imitate Our Lord Jesus Christ to the best best of our ability. He is after all the way to the truth and the life.

  The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9

As God is love, we should not only love one another, but also our enemies and pray for the conversion of sinners. These things God desires us to do and we should with all our hearts!

  St. Athanasius of Alexandria offered a beautiful image for this teaching. He imagined that each human life was a portrait of God. Because of spiritual blindness, most of these portraits were poorly executed. Some even suffered from outside forces that tarnished and damaged the canvas or frame. Instead of discarding the portraits, God sent the son to sit as a model for a second painting. The incarnate son gives us a clearer image of the divine after which to fashion our lives.

  Our great work, then, is to model our lives on the life of Jesus in the Gospels. In today’s Gospel passage, the beatitudes guide our brushstrokes. Each beatitude is a path to grace, and each time we live one out, the image of Christ shines through a little brighter.

  This is no easy task. Although each beatitude promises a different encounter with grace, the path to each of those encounters often comes through suffering. This is the paradox of Christian life. To encounter the grace we desire, we have to face struggles we might otherwise have tried to avoid. Some of these are the struggles of human existence: poverty, grief, humiliation. Others are struggles we take on to advance the kingdom: living righteously, making peace with and among enemies, showing mercy. Although some of these actions might require exceptional effort, none require extraordinary searching. Opportunities to live the beatitudes come our way each day. It is up to us to accept the grace that is being offered.

  These beatitudes are insights from Jesus’ own spiritual life. He struggled in the ways he describes, but in each struggle he found the grace he promises us. Many of the great saints typify one or more of the beatitudes. St. Francis of Assisi, son of a wealthy family, founded an entire spiritual tradition around poverty—Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven! St. Catherine of Siena braved an assassination attempt and worked tirelessly to end division in the church—Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God! St. Ignatius Loyola, whose dynamic interior life both fascinated and frightened him, developed spiritual techniques to keep his attention fixed on God—Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God! St. Thérèse of Lisieux, who lived in obscurity, has shared her love of Christ with people all over the globe—Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land!

  The church understands the fundamental ministry of the saints to be holiness itself. This is holiness as Jesus taught it: to stand with the poor and meek, to mourn and show mercy, to burn with a desire to set the world aright and establish peace, to struggle and suffer for God and for each other, and in so doing to become a little more like God, who became like one of us. - How can we reflect the image of God?

Remember you are man and be faithful to the Gospels.


What is the Catholic view of separation of church and state in terms of war and application of the death penalty?

St. Thomas Aquinas's view on "Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?"

St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II q. 11 a. 3 c., his answer to the question "Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?," shows that although heretics deserve death, the Church must show them mercy, and if they are stubborn, apply disciplinary means like excommunication, only handing them over to the State for capital punishment as a last resort.

  With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

However, he advocates mercy; he continues:

  On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death [as a last resort]. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Answering the Asker's Questions

  I have never encountered a Protestant leader who believed at any point in history that the church should take up arms, acting as a sort of temporary civil power, and engage in military conflict or apply the death penalty to heretics.

The Church during the Inquisition never executed heretics, but rather urged for their conversion, as the "Inquisition" Catholic Encyclopedia article shows. The Church simply pronounced them heretics; the State, who trusted the Church's judgment, oftentimes performed capital punishment on them because the State saw heretics as a threat to civil order.

  I'm sure there might be some odd exception to the rule but in general Protestant churches hold separation of church and sate.

Protestants don't even believe in the visibility of the Church.

  Where there may have been any direct official church involvment in any such action in old Lutherand or Anglican or whaever churches, Protetsants in genral would unanomously denounce those actions as the church is seprated from state functions.

And yet the Protestant revolt led to much bloodshed (e.g., the 30 Years' War).

  Some Protestants think it's ok as a 'citizen' to support the government on civil grounds to war or even to apply the death penalty, but not as a church. At least this is the most common Protetsant view.

You might be confusing separation of Church and State (which is a heresy, condemned, e.g., in Popes Gregory VI's Mirari Vos §20 and Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors §65) from the distinction between Church and State, which has always been held (cf. Pope Leo XII's encyclical "On the origin of civil power," Diuturnum*), even during the Catholic Middle Ages, when Church and State were very close.

*cf. also Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on marriage, Arcanum Divinæ §36, for a description of the distinction between Church and State, how they are two separate "spheres":Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and each power to be free and unshackled in its own sphere: with this condition, however - a condition good for both, and of advantage to all men - that union and concord should be maintained between them; and that on those questions which are, though in different ways, of common right and authority, the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven.

  However I was surprised when I looked up the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Inquisition. It more are less describes it as something that was necessary for the church to do at the time and does not seem to be opposed to that period when Popes lead military conflicts and applied death penalties to perceived heretical Christians. Even as they took the clear lead.

Read the "Crusades" Catholic Encyclopedia article. The crusades were defensive wars.

  So it really leaves me wondering. Does the Catholic Church still think such a thing is OK? Is it OK that at times in history or potentially the future Catholics will bear the sword and become a civil power rather then a spiritual one only?

Why does defending oneself make oneself a civil power? Just as killing in self-defense can be justified for a single Christian (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's famous Summa Theologica II-II q. 64 a. 7 article where he outlines the principle of double-effect and its conditions), so can it be justified for a group of Christians.

Also, more recently, you would be interested in the Papal Zouaves of the 19th century, a multi-national army of 20,000 Catholic men who defended the Pope. See Charles Coulombe's The Pope's Legion: The Multinational Fighting Force That Defended the Vatican.

  I really mean is it considered OK at times to 'take the clear lead' in commanding others to kill people, as they did when killing people through the crusades and bulls against perceived heretics. I do not mean merely Catholic citizens following their kings or government, but the 'command' of those kings or governments 'to kill'. Does the Catholic church separate church and state or assume it is a state with power to declare war and kill if it seems God's will?

According to the "Inquisition" article:

  The ecclesiastical
  ideas of the first five
  centuries may be summarized as follows:

  the Church should for no cause shed blood (St.
  Augustine, St.
  Ambrose, St. Leo
  I, and others);
  other teachers, however, like Optatus of Mileve and
  Priscillian,
  believed that the State
  could pronounce the death
  penalty on
  heretics in case the
  public welfare demanded it;
  the majority held that the death penalty for
  heresy, when not civilly
  criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of
  Christianity.

  St. Augustine (Epistle
  100, n. 1), almost in
  the name of the western
  Church, says: "Corrigi
  eos volumus, non necari, nec disciplinam circa eos negligi volumus,
  nec suppliciis quibus digni sunt exerceri" — we wish them corrected,
  not put to death; we
  desire the triumph of (ecclesiastical) discipline, not the death
  penalties that they deserve. St. John
  Chrysostom says
  substantially the same in the name of the Eastern
  Church (Homily 46 on
  Matthew, no. 1): "To
  consign a heretic to
  death is to commit an offence beyond
  atonement"; and in the
  next chapter he says that
  God forbids their
  execution, even as He forbids us to uproot cockle, but He does not
  forbid us to repel them, to deprive them of free speech, or to
  prohibit their assemblies. The help of the "secular arm" was therefore
  not entirely rejected; on the contrary, as often as the
  Christian welfare,
  general or domestic, required it,
  Christian rulers sought
  to stem the evil by
  appropriate measures. As late the seventh century St. Isidore of
  Seville expresses similar
  sentiments (Sententiarum, III, iv, nn. 4-6).

It's clear the Church sought mercy and conversion, not revenge (only God can avenge). The Church's supreme law and mission is the salvation of souls.

  I always thought the whole world no longer approved of that but now am thinking maybe because Catholics can't admit Papal erros they are sort of stuck approving all those ugly things done in the past by their Popes but am not sure if my instincts are wrong. Maybe Catholics do oppose direct church involvement in killing others?

The Church does not oppose the death penalty justly enacted by the State, but the Church would rather heretics convert and not die unrepentant.

  I really am curious to find a reliable answer on this. I would like to know if Protestants and Catholics generally have a different view.

The difference appears to come down to a difference in understanding what the Church is. Protestants don't believe in the visibility of the Church, which greatly affects their views of how the Church should relate to the state, whereas Catholics do believe the Church is visible.

Also, there are some good books on the Catholic Church and State doctrine:

Catholic Church and Christian State: A Series of Essays on the Relation of the Church to the Civil Power vol. 1 & vol. 2 by a cardinal-archivist of the Vatican Archives, Cdl. Joseph Hergenröther
The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ by Cdl. Manning
Catholic Principles of Politics by Fr. John A Ryan


What does it mean that Jesus was tempted in every way like us (yet without sin)?

Being the nerdy type, I sought out a more technical answer. Apparently the word used for "in every respect" (or as the KJV puts it, "in all points") is κατα παντα, (kata panta). That latter word, πᾶς, (pas) means

1) individually
  a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
  a) some of all types

[source: BLB]

It's the same word used to refer to "all the world" or "the whole world" - passages that we don't necessarily take 100% literally. That is, it could mean he was tempted with 100% all the same temptations we undergo, or, more likely, that he has experienced the same class of temptation and experiences we have, so he is able to sympathize with us.

Additionally, as was implied in RiverC's answer, Christ's "temptations" weren't limited to the showdown with the Devil in the wilderness.

For thirty years, Jesus lived a pretty normal life. He was a carpenter's son. Pure speculation, but I suspect the kinds of people he'd work with wouldn't have the purest of mouths. He was exposed to everything we are exposed to; he both

endured the trials of the human life that we do, and
resisted the temptations that we are exposed to and fail to resist

Ultimately, the point is, he didn't give in. We don't know what other temptations Adam underwent, but the one in the garden was the significant one. Same with Jesus, the second Adam. He was exposed to a nasty temptation like Adam and Eve, and resisted. He was subjected to the same things we were, regardless of what technically "in every respect" means, and he can identify us, but more importantly represent us as a perfect Adam.


How do we know to refer to the Holy Spirit as He?

There is never any indication in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit is a "he". In Greek, gender for normal nouns like "spirit", "rock" or "bread" is a grammatical thing, not a sex thing. This is common in the romance languages as well, if you are familiar with those. The fact that it is neuter does not tell you that it is an "it" as we think in English. The word "day" is feminine, but there is nothing feminine about the daytime. "Death" is masculine, but both males and females die. "teknon", one of the Greek words for child, is neuter, etc... So the fact that the word "spirit" is neuter (and it is, despite what was said in one of the other answers) actually doesn't tell you anything.

People often appeal to things like John 14:16 and 16:7 to prove that the Holy Spirit is male, but this is inaccurate. The word "helper" is masculine grammatically (like the words above). This is why pronouns that refer to "helper" like the "auton" in 16:7 are masculine. To do otherwise would be to commit a grammatical foul.

If you wish to say that the Holy Spirit is a "he", realize that this is an English thing you are doing, not a Greek. Orthodoxy states that the Holy Spirit is a person, so speaking of him/her/it personally entirely makes sense and is appropriate, but personhood in the Godhead need not imply gender. So, theologically, feel free to call him a person. But by arguing about gender you are taking this question beyond what the writers of the New Testament apparently felt like discussing.

Edit 9/11/2015 in response to comments because the response is too long to put in the comments themselves

@bruisedreed I can see where that could be confusing. Let's change the verse to something non-controversial to see my point. In John 19:23, it refers to Jesus' tunic with the statement ἦν δὲ ὁ χιτὼν ἄραφος..., translated by the ESV as "But the tunic was seamless". In the next verse it says μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτόν... "let us not tear it". Grammatically speaking, αὐτόν/"auton" in John 19:24 is just as masculine as the αὐτόν/"auton" in the case we're discussing. Yet there is no debate on the personhood of the cloak and people would question the sanity of the ESV translators if they translated that last bit "let us not tear him". Unless it's one of those cases where we used a gendered pronoun when it isn't actually necessary but is idiomatically okay (e.g., "My boat, she's a sinking!"), in English we would generally choose "it" if something doesn't have an obvious gender and/or agency. So here "it" is appropriate because it would be weird in English to call a cloak "him". But in Greek that's not the case. If someone said μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτό in reference to the cloak, he/she might be chastised for bad grammar because using the masculine is normal for the language in this case. John 16:7 is parallel. Greek has the pronoun as masculine because the noun it refers to is grammatically masculine. That in and of itself implies no gender or even agency. Jesus (or his translator into Greek) essentially had no more choice in the gender of the pronoun than whoever it was that said "let us not tear it (masculine pronoun)."

Now if παράκλητος/parakletos implies gender or agency, that's something else. That is meaningful. It clearly implies agency but it is debatable that it implies gender.

@warren you say "so saying it's merely an English thing to assign gender to persons of the Godhead is false". I agree. However, what I said was "need not imply gender", not "does not imply gender". Perhaps I should have said "doesn't necessarily imply gender".

@Susan That's really interesting. So here's the question I have about this. Idiomatically speaking, when referring to an agent and substantized, is this adjective/noun always masculine? If it is, then there isn't really a choice that can be made here (grammatically speaking) and the "choice" of gender isn't a choice at all and just what is expected in the language. If it isn't, then a masculine παράκλητος here might be useful for arguing gender, which could be useful for those concerned with giving the Spirit a gender. I was hoping the Philo reference in De opificio mundi would be helpful but I don't think so :( I don't know the answer to this but I think it's an interesting question. More usages of the word would be helpful. The form you mention clearly shows that there can be a feminine (in both grammatical and sex senses) παρακλήτρια. But is there enough data to prove that παράκλητος is a dude? Somebody get us all the references to the term in Greek literature and we'll figure it out :)


How does dominion theology affect eschatological views?

Overall, there is no absolute consensus in eschatological views among Charismatic adherents to dominion theology. If a particular group decides to teach eschatology at all, they often teach all the main threads of doctrine and let people learn on their own. Dominion theology, in effect, could fit in most of the popular eschatological timelines.

To use the Assemblies of God's doctrine as a starting point, though, I will compare with some popular eschatologies in the dominionist camp.

Looking at the AG's site, it is evident that they believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. This is a doctrinal point very often argued against by adherents of dominion theology, because of its tendency to create a defeatist attitude among believers. In the dominionist's view, the Kingdom is always advancing towards its ultimate fulfillment, and there is no need for God to remove us from the earth during the Tribulation. God will be doing great works of which we will be a part, and the Church will never give up on influencing the world. For some dominionists, this would mean a post-tribulation premillenial rapture (see IHOPKC's Omega Course).

Other popular eschatologies that fit very well with dominionism are postmillenialism and amillenialism (postmillenialism being a literal interpretation of the millenium, and amillenialism being a symbolic unknown time period). In both, the Church is advancing the Kingdom of God and preparing the earth for the second coming of Christ. The "tribulation" here is figuratively interpreted as God's judgements along the way, of which we participate, as the Church takes complete dominion of the earth for God.

See the book Victorious Eschatology for a little more on some of these views.


Do Lutherans define Justification and Atonement as different things?

Articles 3 and 4 of the Augsburg Confession (part of the Lutheran Confessions) talk about this: The Augsburg Confession (Chief Articles of Faith: Article III: Of the Son of God and Article IV: Of Justification).

Article 3 makes the point that Christ "truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men."  This is the Atonement; Christ died for our sins (in a similar way, the book of Hebrews also talks about Christ as both the High Priest and the sacrifice, particularly Hebrews 9:11 and following).

Article 4 then talks about justification: "... men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4."

So, we are justified before God when we believe that Christ's sacrifice (the atonement) is for us.  That is, we receive the benefits of the atonement, simply by believing that these benefits are for us.

Another way I've heard it put is that it takes one to forgive, but two to reconcile.  God forgives us freely due to the sacrifice of Christ (the atonement).  But, for us to be reconciled to Him (another way of thinking of justification), we must believe that this forgiveness is ours (i.e. have faith).


Luke 11:23 (NASB)
  "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters."

  Mark 9:40 (NASB)
  "For he who is not against us is for us."

There appear to be only two camps.

Though Satan's "kingdom" is not given a thorough treatment in the text, any kingdom that is not God's kingdom cannot prevail against God and is unavoidably doomed.

Declaring another human to be in Satan's kingdom is probably overstepping our bounds. Short of being given a prophetic word, we are not granted the (knowledge or) authority to judge another human's eternal destiny. That is the prerogative of deity who knows the depths of the heart. (2 Ti 4:1, 8, He 12:28)


How does the Catholic Church identify and collect relics?

St. Maximilian Kolbe would be a good example of a saint whom we will never be able to identify any of his first degree relics, since he was burned in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II.  However, there are many 2nd and 3rd degree relics.

Relics are the remains of a saint. They are classified according to degrees. First degree relics are physical remains of a saint. They are most typically bones. Second degree relics are objects or items that touched a saint while he was alive. The relics of Christ's Passion would be second degree relics. Third degree relics include anything that touched other relics. Normally, it is the bones of the saints and the relics of Christ's Passion that are mentioned among the relics.

Catholic Forum - Relics
The perfectly preserved body parts of lots of European saints aren't going to be transferred to the Americas any time soon and we've got a lot of work to do to increase our output of saints.
The Code of Canon Law says:

The ancient tradition of placing relics of martyrs or other saints under a fixed altar is to be preserved, according to the norms given in the liturgical books.

Can.  1237 - §2.
So, what do the liturgical books about the degree of relics for altars?
I skimmed over this liturgical book and you can skim it over yourself, but it doesn't say anything about the degree of the relics.  It does however say that relics of martyrs are preferred and that only recognizable body parts can be placed in sight.  Otherwise, they're put in a box (as a reliquary) under the altar.  The altar must be fixed in place so that everyone knows that the relics are there.
I've got to remember to ask what we've got for a relic in my parish. I hope someone remembers.  Hopefully a priest will show up and give you a better answer.


Jonah and the Whale - Is there any scientific proof that it is possible to survive in the belly of whale?

Cecil Adams (aka "The Straight Dope") did a lot to debunk later-day Jonah stories here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2294/have-any-real-life-jonahs-been-swallowed-by-whales-and-lived

Basically, he says that while many would like to believe this is a phenomenon that has been reproduced, all the stories range from apocryphal to fraudulent. As such, yes, the fact that Jonah was preserved for three days in the belly of the whale, was in fact a miracle.

Theological Import

The fact that Jesus alludes to the same in Luke 11:32 (the sign of Jonah being given instead of a miracle) may lead one to a discussion of the difference between a sign and a miracle - but in both cases the effect is the same. It is a physical situation in which the natural human response is to see God's direct intervention. I would argue that the point of Luke 11:28 (A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miracle, but no miracle will be given it except the sign of Jonah) specifically points to the fact that people wanted a magical reproduction. Nowadays, we are not a magical culture, but rather a scientific one. As such, we ask not for a miracle but a scientific explanation.  I suspect Jesus would say of his own resurrection, that no explanation would be given it, except the sign of Jonah.


What is the basis of Christian belief that criminals should be punished on Earth?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  1898    Every human community needs an authority to govern it. (Cf. Leo XIII, Immortale Dei; Diuturnum illud.) The
  foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for
  the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the
  common good of the society. 1899    The authority required by the
  moral order derives from God:

    “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there
    is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been
    instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists
    what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”  Rom 13:1-2; cf. 1 Pet 2:13-17.

and here

  1909    Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the
  stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority
  should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and
  its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and
  collective defence. 1910    Each human community possesses a common
  good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political
  community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role
  of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society,
  its citizens, and intermediate bodies.

I believe that The Fourth Commandment "Honor thy Father and Mother" can be extrapolated to Honor authority.

From Wikipedia on the Fourth Commandment

  Thus, the fourth commandment's responsibilities extend to the greater
  society and requires respect for "legitimate social authorities". The
  Catechism specifies "duties of citizens and nations", which Kreeft
  summarizes as: "Obedience and honor" to "all who for our good have
  received authority in society from God". "Payment of taxes, exercising
  the right to vote and defending one's country". "An obligation to be
  vigilant and critical", which requires citizens to criticize that
  which harms human dignity and the community. "A duty to disobey" civil
  authorities and directives that are contrary to the moral order. "To
  practice charity", which is a "necessity for any working family or
  society"; it is the "greatest social commandment" and requires people
  to love God and neighbor. "To welcome the foreigner" who is in need of
  security and livelihood that cannot be found in his own country. "An
  obligation for rich nations to help poor nations", especially in times
  of "immediate need". "An expectation for families to help other
  families".[55][64]

It is not a dissatisfaction with the promised divine judgement, it is the governing authority's role from God to "ensure as far as possible the common good of the society."


Origins of the historical shift towards Believers baptism in the Protestant movement?

I found what hopefully is the right paper to answer the question.  I haven't read the paper myself, but the first introductory paragraphs below should provide a taste, or at least pointers for further research.  The 2007 paper is Origins of the Particular Baptists by Gordon L. Belyea, a PhD candidate in Systematic Theology at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, "where the focus of his dissertation will be in the area of Baptist Ecclesiology."  The paper is published in themelios in the 3rd issue, Volume 32, May 2007.  For a short profile of Particular Baptists, gotquestions.org has a short history.
Quote from the introductory paragraphs of the themelios paper:

The English Particular Baptists first appeared as a distinct group in the early seventeenth century. They combined the believers’ church practice of baptism with contemporary Calvinist soteriology. The origins of this movement are somewhat puzzling at first glance, as they combine what would appear on the surface to be contradictory theologies. Their soteriology was similar to that of the bulk of the Church of England at the time, particularly the Puritan stream; yet their practice of baptism and elements of their form of church government paralleled those of the Anabaptists, whom they universally disavowed. It is common today for Baptists to identify themselves with these continental radical reformers. Is this justified?
This paper will seek to establish the identity and origins of the Particular Baptists and delineate their characteristic beliefs, especially where these differed from other believers of their time. I will seek to show that the Particular Baptists find their roots in English Puritan Noncomformity, almost completely to the exclusion of any Anabaptist influence. Theirs were churches whose origins lay in the magisterial Reformation; differences between them and their Puritan contemporaries are primarily a function of their understanding and application of the Scriptures in not so much a different manner, as in one more consistent and complete.

Another resource I found is this Reformed blog article highlighting historic differences between them and the Baptists about infant baptism.  It includes good quotes from various Reformed confessions.  The same author also wrote a related article remarking how the current evangelical practice in the USA (dominated by SBC & Baptist theology) are reversed compared to before the mid 19th century when infant baptism was the norm.


What is the Biblical basis for believing that God punishes Christians for disobedience?

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Hebrews 12:6 (KJV)

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Revelation 3:19

The parable of the talents:

And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Luke 12:47

Ananias and Sapphria:

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
...
And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
...
And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
Acts 5:1-10

Dying because of lying is not an "immediate natural consequence" (or else almost everyone would be dead); it is a punishment of God.

The Bible is clear that God punishes disobedience.


Was Jeanne d'Arc crazy: Did Catherine of Alexandria exist according to the Catholic church?

St. Catherine of Alexandria is very much a recognized saint by the Catholic Church. She was taken off the the General Liturgical Calendar in 1970 due to many legends surrounding her life. But she is very much still recognized as a saint. In fact she is still listed as such in the Roman Martyrology, the official catalogue of saints and blesseds recognized by Rome. We celebrated her feast day on November 25th.

  Her principal symbol is the spiked wheel, which has become known as the Catherine wheel, and her feast day is celebrated on 25 November by most Christian churches. However, the Russian, Polish, Serbian and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches celebrate it on 24 November. The exact origin of this tradition is not known. In 11th-century Kyivan-Rus, the feast day was celebrated on 25 November. Saint Dimitry of Rostov in his Kniga zhyttia sviatykh (Book of the Lives of the Saints), T.1 (1689) places the date of celebration on 24 November. A story that Empress Catherine the Great did not wish to share her patronal feast with the Leavetaking of the feast of the Presentation of the Theotokos and hence changed the date is not supported by historical evidence. One of the first Roman Catholic churches to be built in Russia, the Catholic Church of St. Catherine, was named after Catherine of Alexandria because she was Catherine the Great's patron. A footnote to the entry for 25 November in The Synaxarion compiled by Hieromonk Makarios of Simonos Petra states: "Until the 16th century, the memory of St Catherine was observed on 24 Nov. According to a note by Bartholomew of Koutloumousiou inserted in the Menaion, the Fathers of Sinai transferred the date to 25 Nov. in order that the feast might be kept with greater solemnity."

  The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia describes her historical importance:

    Ranked with St Margaret and St Barbara as one of the fourteen most helpful saints in heaven, she was unceasingly praised by preachers and sung by poets. It is believed that Jacques-Benigne Bossuet dedicated to her one of his most beautiful panegyrics and that Adam of St. Victor wrote a magnificent poem in her honour: Vox Sonora nostri chori. - Catherine of Alexandria

Thus if Catherine of Alexandria is recognized as a Catholic saint, then  Jeanne d'Arc is not crazy and is also recognized as a Catholic saint.

  One of five children born to Jacques d’Arc and Isabelle Romee. Shepherdess. Mystic. From age 13 she received visions from Saint Margaret of Antioch, Saint Catherine of Alexandria, and Michael the Archangel.

  In the early 15th century, England, in alliance with Burgundy, controlled most of what is modern France. In May 1428 Joan’s visions told her to find the true king of France and help him reclaim his throne. She resisted for more than three years, but finally went to Charles VII in Chinon and told him of her visions. Carrying a banner that read “Jesus, Mary”, she led troops from one battle to another. She was severely wounded, but her victories from 23 February 1429 to 23 May 1430 brought Charles VII to the throne. Captured by the Burgundians during the defence of Compiegne, she was sold to the English for 10 thousand francs. She was put on trial by an ecclesiastical court conducted by Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, a supporter of England, and was excuted as a heretic. In 1456 her case was re-tried, and Joan was acquitted (23 years too late).

  “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.” – Saint Joan of Arc, as recorded at her trial.

On February 14,1969 Pope Paul VI in his Moto Proprio Mysterii Paschalis the the New Calendar would go into effect on January 1st, 1970.

  In order to execute this decision of the Ecumenical Council, the names of some saints have been removed from the universal Calendar, and the faculty has been given of re-establishing in regions concerned, if it is desired, the commemorations and cult of other saints. The suppression of reference to a certain number of saints who are not universally known has permitted the insertion, within the Roman Calendar, of names of some martyrs of regions where the proclaiming of the Gospel arrived at a later date. Thus, as representatives of their countries, those who have won renown by the shedding of their blood for Christ or by their outstanding virtues enjoy the same dignity in this same catalogue.

  For these reasons we think that the new universal Calendar, prepared for the Latin rite, is more in harmony with the piety and the needs of our times, and that it better reflects the universality of the Church, in the sense that it proposes the names of the most important saints, who present to all the People of God a shining example of sanctity in a variety of ways. It is superfluous to say that this will contribute to the spiritual well-being of the entire Christian world.


What do Catholics mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

For my part, I can quote the inside flap of the Missal in the pew which says, Catholics believe that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ (not a symbol, but actual fact).

It goes on to say, the Catholic Church permits eastern Orthodox adherents to come to Catholic Mass, celebrate the Eucharist and receive communion. But Catholics are not permitted to go to their Mass unless necessary.

Other Christians are excluded from reception of the Eucharist, mainly because if they hold strong to their professed belief, they do not believe the Eucharist could be what Catholics say it is.  (They may believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but they most certainly don't believe that only a validly ordained Catholic Priest could consecrate the host).

All peoples of all religions are invited to come to Mass and participate in the Liturgy.

Transubstantiation means that the Stuff of the bread and wine is totally replaced with the Body and Blood of Christ.  Catholics don't believe that the wine is His Blood and the bread is His Body, Catholics do believe that what can be seen after consecration is just plain old different, even though there is no perceptible change. In this view, Catholic and Orthodox are the same.

In the Orthodox Church it is common to perform intinction (dip the consecrated bread in the consecrated wine) - but it doesn't change the essential belief.

Both Catholic and Orthodox see each others priests consecrations as valid (on account of a common acceptance of apostolic succession and the Imposition of Hands).


Does Catholicism allow the possibility of new books being added to the Bible?

The very short answer to this question is no.

  Public revelation, or divine revelation, is God revealing himself to humanity. The Church teaches that public revelation, as revealed in salvation history, was perfected and completed in Jesus Christ.

  “The Christian economy … since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” [see Dei Verbum 4; see also 1 Timothy 6:14; Titus 2:13]. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries (CCC, 66).

  The Church has long taught that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, as the Apostles faithfully taught Jesus’ message. The Church carefully guards its deposit of faith, awaiting its fulfillment in the final coming of Christ. - Public versus private revelation

Any saints' writings after the death of the Apostle St. John in ca. 100 AD are to be considered "private revelation" and are not binding to be followed or believed in by any member of the Catholic Church.

  In this respect, let us listen once again to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
   "Throughout the ages, there have been so-called 'private' revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church... It is not their role to complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history" (No. 67). - Public Revelation and private revelations

Let us carefully remember that the Apostles were eyewitnesses to the events surrounding Our Lord Jesus Christ and future writers can not make this claim. St. John concludes his Gospel with the following words:

  This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - Gospel of St. John Chapter 21: 24

Catholic Bibles usually end with The Apocalypse of St. John the  Apostle and although he gives to us a warning not to change anything written in the Apocalypse, it could also be used as a word of caution not to add to public revelation.

  For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. - The Apocalypse of St. John the  Apostle, 22: 18-19


Is the genealogy in Matthew a complete Genealogy, or did he abreviate it for a specific reason?

Many people believe that there are gaps in the Genealogy listed in Matthew.  This article addresses "the primary problems of the Genealogy in Matthew", and lists the gaps as one of the arguments for "unreliability" leveled by critics.

  Section I: What Are The Primary Problems Associated With Matthew’s
  Genealogy And How Are They Reconciled?

  There are 3 main problems associated with Matthew’s genealogy that
  most critics point out. They are as follows:

  The Inference That Joseph Was Actually Jesus’ Father

  The Promise Of God Against Jeconiah Nullified That The Messiah Would Be As A Result Of His Bloodline. (Jer. 22:29-30)

  Too Many Gaps In The Genealogical Succession Of Matthew Against Known References In Other Texts Prove Discrepancies.

The "gaps are explained thus:

  The critic often levies the charge that gaps found within the
  genealogy of Matthew are as a matter of sloppy investigations of the
  facts and proof that Matthew either made the story up or simply
  couldn’t seem to get it right even after he wrote it. These type of
  statements usually claim the historical ignorance of the gospel writer
  and relegate Jesus to the realm of myth, which is another tired
  critical argument refuted over and over down through the last couple
  of centuries. Was Matthew eagerly, erroneously and fallaciously
  promoting information that even he couldn’t seem to get straight? What
  are we to make of gaps in Matthew’s account?

  Once again this type of observation is clearly and certainly
  overemphasized, and has no bearing on the accuracy of the narrative.
  It is a fact that some of the individuals Matthew says “begat”, were
  grandfathers and sometime great grandfathers and not paternal fathers
  and sons. One such example is Mt. 1:8 where Joram is said to have
  “begat” Uzziah. We know that 1 Chron. 3:10-12 states that Joram was
  Uzziah’s great-grandfather not paternal father. 3 generations are
  skipped by Matthew in this case.

The article does go on further, but from just this last paragraph, we can see that this author, at least, believes that there are gaps, and the genealogy is not complete.  This has been my understanding as well, as it's a common explanation in Apologetic literature.


Does The Revelation chapter 20 tell us that the Rapture will take place after the millennial reign of Christ?

A premillenialist would say, "No."

Tim LaHaye, co-author of the best-selling Left Behind series of novels, wrote a book called Revelation Unveiled, a commentary on the book of Revelation from a premillenial, pre-tribulation viewpoint.  The book essentially provides a scriptural basis for the Left Behind series.

There are several chapters in the book devoted to the first few verses in Revelation 20, discussing different viewpoints and defending the premillennial view.  In a chapter titled "The First Resurrection," he talks about this "believer's resurrection" occurring in three phases.

Phase 1 is the resurrection of the church age saints.  These are Christians who have died from the time of Jesus through the time of the Rapture (which he places before the tribulation).  This is the resurrection described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, with the Rapture happening immediately after.

Phase 2 is the resurrection of the Old Testament saints: those who were servants of God before the time of Jesus.  Based on Daniel 12:1-2, he places this resurrection at the end of the tribulation (still before the millennium).

Phase 3 is the resurrection of the tribulation saints.  These are the people described in Revelation 20:4: those that had lived during the tribulation, but were martyred and did not worship the beast.  This occurs shortly after Phase 2.

These three groups, which together make up all believers of all time, are all considered part of the "first resurrection" described in Revelation 20:6.  Mr. LaHaye places the timing of all of these within a 7 year period.

The "rest of the dead" mentioned in Revelation 20:5 are the unbelievers of all ages.  They are not resurrected until after the millennium, when they are judged (Revelation 20:11-15).


Do Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have polar opposite views of wisdom?

I have of late taught that "wisdom" in the book of Proverbs is best understood as the understanding of God's ways or will and the application of such.  In other words, acting and behaving in the manner which God intends for us.  "Knowledge" can be understood in a similar fashion.  This interpretation of wisdom, in my opinion, can be applied to all instances of "wisdom" within Proverbs with the resulting understanding of the passage remaining consistent with all of scripture.  Again, this is my opinion.

However, if we look at Ecc 1:16-18, it would seem the author is boasting that he is responsible for his wisdom and intelligence, not God, and through that he could determine on his own what was foolishness in thought and deed apart from the discernment and direction of God.  But, he knows now such a thing is futile because the more he did what he thought in his own mind as wise, the more trouble he brought upon himself.  So, in this sense, despite both books using the same word the connotation of it is different in these three verses.

To answer the question, then, yes, the two instances of wisdom are indeed polar opposites in that God's wisdom, the understanding and application of His will for our lives, is diametrically opposed to following our own "wisdom" which is selfish, self-interested (Pr 14:2 and others), and governed by a deceitful heart (Jer 17:9).


How do Continuationists discern between genuine and made-up interpretations of tongues?

My godmother spent a lot of time in Charismatic churches. She said that anyone who made themselves the center of attention every week was faking it. That's not based on a Biblical passage but it's remarkably useful.


How was slavery in the U.S. justified by Christianity?

Robert Bruce Mullin says in 'North America', published in A World History of Christianity (edited by Adrian Hastings), pages 437-8, that Southern religious figures claimed not only that was slavery a positive good, but that it was a Christian institution.

This slavery argument gained a specific religious dimension, and the northern Protestants faced a difficult question - how was slavery a sin? Did the Bible ever condemn slavery as sinful in its very nature, and if not, were there actions which were in fact sinful which the Bible did not recognise as sin? A close reading of Scripture demonstrated that the biblical authors seemed to accept slavery as an institution and nowhere explicitly condemned it, and Mullin says this theological question became a troubling aspect of the American crisis. He cites the Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878), who insisted, “nothing is obligatory upon the conscience but what [the Bible] enjoins; nothing can be sin but what it condemns.”


Why did the KJV translate Jeremiah 29:11 as "to give you an expected end"?

This may not be the best answer, but, as @warrend pointed out, I don't think that there's any definitive reasoning.

However, looking at the original Hebrew for the passage, we see:

(from the Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)

The original Hebrew here for that phrase "expected end" is achrith uthque.  The original wording appears to have two words associated with the one concept.

I found some margin notes in the Geneva Bible (1611) that shows that the translators had some trouble interpreting this.  They decided on "expected end", however they realized that the Hebrew would be better translated as "ende and expadation" (in King James English).

Unfortunately, we don't know why they chose "expected end" over "end and expectations".

[pure speculation] I suspect that in English at that time "to give an end" and "to give a future" were probably similar in meaning.

In light of modern translations, it seems pretty clear that "a future and hope" is a much better translation then "an end and expectation" (or even "expected end").

Ultimately, we won't be able to know the minds of the translators and, without serious historical searching, we probably won't understand their usage of these words.  However, there's some idea of where it might have come from.


Does Christianity allow for believing on someone else's behalf?

No, the Bible doesn't teach that one person's faith automatically saves others in your family/household. Rather, it teaches that it will be more likely for someone to be saved if they have a family member who can assist them in acquiring and maintaining strong faith.

Parents can show their children the way to life by instructing their children in God's wise commands:

  Proverbs 6:20-23 (ESV) - My son, keep your father's commandment, and forsake not your mother's teaching. 21  Bind them on your heart always; tie them around your neck. 22  When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you. 23 For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life.

A person is not accountable for the decisions of his father or son:

  Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) - The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

In the experience at Acts 16:31-34, the jailer wasn't the only one who put faith in Jesus. His whole family did. However, the jailer was the first one of his family to put faith in Jesus, and he brought Paul and Silas to the rest of his household so that they would also learn and acquire faith. If the jailer had not believed in God, the rest of his household would not have heard the life-saving message at that time (or maybe ever), so they rejoiced that the jailer had believed.

Being holy is also different from being saved. The Israelites were holy, because God had chosen them to be his people and to give his commandments (Deut. 7:6), but they were not saved from their enemies unless they were trusting in God and being obedient to his commandments.


Is 1 John 5:7-8 (the Comma Johanneum) a Latin corruption?

The authenticity of the Johannine comma, found in 1 John 5:7, has been a subject of debate from the early sixteenth century. Wikipedia says the general consensus today is that the passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies. By the way, the Johannine Comma is not to be confused with the modern punctuation mark (,); rather, the word comma in this sense came to Latin via the Greek word komma, which meant a clause, or a short grouping of words.

The text including the comma (here, in brackets) reads:

  For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
  And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one (KJV).

If the comma is removed, it would read:

  For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one

The editors of the 1808 New Testament in an improved version found the following reasons for rejecting the comma:

This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century.
Nor in any Latin manuscript earlier than the ninth century.
It is not found in any of the ancient versions.
It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity they have cited the words both before and after this text
It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority.
It is first cited by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged.
It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament since the Reformation:—in the two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinaus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach.
It was omitted by Luther in his German version.

As this site notes, the Johannine comma has been ommitted from the United Bible Societies Version 4 (UBS4), widely accepted as representing current scholarly opinion.

Overall, I believe it would be safe to say that 1 John 5:7-8 is a later insertion, and that, as it first appears in the Latin milieu, the evidence strongly supports it being a Latin corruption that was copied back into later Greek manuscripts.


That scripture verse that you mention was used by Arius to maintain that Jesus was not of same nature as Father. However, his objection was resolved.

St. Thomas explains the difficulty you mention in his commentary on the gospel of John 17; on this point he writes:

  Secondly, we should explain the phrase, you the only true God. It is
  clear that Christ was speaking to the Father, so when he says, you the
  only true God, it seems that only God the Father is true God. The
  Arians agree with this, for they say that the Son differs by essence
  from the Father, since the Son is a created substance, although he
  shares in the divinity more perfectly and to a greater degree than do
  all other creatures. So much more that the Son is called God, but not
  the true God, because he is not God by nature, which only the Father
  is.

  Hilary answers this by saying that when we want to know whether a
  certain thing is true, we can determine it from two things: its nature
  and its power. For true gold is that which has the species of true
  gold; and we determine this if it acts like true gold. Therefore, if
  we maintain that the Son has the true nature of God, because the Son
  exercises the true activities of divinity, it is clear that the Son is
  true God. Now the Son does perform true works of divinity, for we
  read, "Whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise"
  (5:19); and again he said, "For as the Father has life in himself,"
  which is not a participated life, "so he has granted the Son also to
  have life in himself" (5:26); "That we may be in his true Son, Jesus
  Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" [1 Jn 5:20].

  According to Hilary, he says, you the only true God, in a way that
  does not exclude another. He does not say without qualification, you
  the only, but adds and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. It is like
  saying: that they know you and Jesus Christ whom you have sent to be
  the one and only true God. This is a pattern of speaking that we also
  use when we say [in the Gloria]: "You alone, Jesus Christ, are the
  most high, together with the Holy Spirit." No mention is made of the
  Holy Spirit because whenever the Father and the Son are mentioned, and
  especially in matters pertaining to the grandeur of the divinity, the
  Holy Spirit, who is the bond of the Father and Son, is implied.

  Or, according to Augustine in his work, The Trinity, he says this to
  exclude the error of those who claim that it is false to say that the
  Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; while
  it is true to say that the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit are one
  God. The reason for this opinion was that the Apostle said that
  "Christ [is] the power of God and the Wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24). Now
  it is clear that we cannot call anyone God unless he has divine power
  and wisdom. Therefore, since these people held that the Father was
  wisdom, which is the Son, they held further that the Father considered
  without the Son would not be God. And the same applies to the Son and
  the Holy Spirit.

Also in Summa Contra Gentiles St. Thomas Aquians sets up various objections (that Arius used) against opinion that Jesus is God here (among objections is one that uses John 17:3.) He resolves them here. It is benifical to read objections and answers for detailed solutions to the objections.

St. Thomas argues that in God there is begetting, fatherhood and sonship in book IV of Summa contra gentiles (see chapters from 1 to 14) where he also refutes opinions of Protinus and Sabellius.


We can't say for sure when angels were created, but can we even say if angels were created at all?

Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of
  heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are
  therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them
  all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

  Nehemiah 9:6

Also

  Praise ye the Lord. Praise ye the Lord from the heavens: praise him in
  the heights.

  Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

  Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

  Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the
  heavens.

  Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created.

  Psalm 148:1-5

And lastly, but probably the best answer:

  For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth,
  visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or
  authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is
  before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

  Colossians 1:16-17

Also about John 1:3 it is explaining that Jesus has always been there and that He is the Creator. All things were made by Him, and if He hadn't been there nothing would've been created.


How could David enter the congregation of the Lord when he was descended from Ruth the Moabitess?

Naomi fled from the famine in Judah to live in Moab with her husband and two sons. Her two sons eventually married Moabite wives including Ruth. Naomi’s husband and sons eventually died and she decided to return to her homeland. Ruth clung onto her with a pledge that ‘your people will be my people and your God will be my God.’ (Ruth 1:16). Though she was a Moabite, Ruth was ‘acquired’/purchased by Boaz, the guardian/kinsman redeemer of Naomi’s family (Ruth 4:9-10).  Scripture says, “the Lord enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son” (see vs 13, NIV) - Obed, who was David’s grandfather. In a short genealogy of David (see Ruth 4:21-22), Boaz is listed as the father of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David. This was in line with Jewish culture where children are the offspring of their fathers and not their mother. Indeed throughout history, Jewish men did marry or produce children from captive or slave non-Jewish women and the off-spring became Jewish because of their fathers. So technically, Obed, the grandfather of David, was the son of Boaz and not Ruth.


What is the source for Tertullian's "woman is a temple built over a sewer" quote?

I have found a source (not of the highest quality) claiming that the quote is taken from a work of Tertullian called "De Cultu Feminarum". Unfortunately, the citations I've seen indicate that the quote is from the first volume of this two-volume work. My usual source for the Latin Church Fathers, Migné's Patrologia Latina, contains only the second volume. I haven't found an online copy of the first volume to verify with, but it does look like the quote may be at least properly ascribed.


How do Christians that advocate libertarian free will interpret Romans 9:14-24?

Here is Aquinas' commentary on Romans:

But if willing does not depend on the man willing or exertion on the man exerting himself, but on God moving man to this, it seems that man is not master of his own action, which pertains to freedom of will. But the answer is that God moves all things, but in diverse ways, inasmuch as each is moved in a manner befitting its nature. And so man is moved by God to will and to perform outwardly in a manner consistent with free will. Therefore, willing and performing depends on man as freely acting; but on God and not on man, as initial mover.

Further:

But two difficulties seem to exist in regard to hardening: first, hardening of heart seems allied to sin, as it says in Sir (3:27): "A hard heart shall fear evil at the last." Consequently, if God hardens the heart, He is the author of a sin—contrary to what is said in Jas (1:13): "God is no tempter to evil." The answer is that God is not said to harden anyone directly, as though He causes their malice, but indirectly, inasmuch as man makes an occasion of sin out of things God does within or outside the man; and this God Himself permits. Hence, he is not said to harden as though by inserting malice, but by not affording grace. The second difficulty is that this hardening does not seem ascribable to the divine will, since it is written: "This is the will of God, your sanctification" (I Th 4:3) and "He desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4). The answer is that both mercy and justice imply a disposition of the will. Hence, just as mercy is attributed to the divine will, so also that which is just. Therefore, the interpretation is that he has mercy upon whomever he wills through His mercy and he hardens whomever he wills through His justice, because those whom He hardens deserve to be hardened by Him, as was stated above in chapter 1.


What are the arguments for the Exodus occuring in 1440BC or 1290BC?

The method of deducing each date, along with the difficulties associated with each method, are documented at cresourcei.org

In short:

The older date (1440 BC) is primarily based on the assumption that the Bible is a reliable historical document, with the passage of time based solely upon dates and time periods given from within Scripture.  Example:

  1) 1 Kings 6:1

  6:1 In the four hundred eightieth year after the Israelites came out
  of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over
  Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to
  build the house of the LORD.

  This verse gives a time period of 480 years between the exodus and the
  beginning of Solomon’s work on the Jerusalem temple. From John
  Bright’s chronology, Solomon ascended the throne around 961 BC, which
  would make the fourth year of his reign and the beginning of temple
  construction about 959-957 BC (see Israelite Kings). If we assume that
  the number 480 is to be taken as a precise number of years much as we
  would count years on a calendar today, working backward from this date
  we arrive at a date around 1440 BC for the exodus.

The more recent date (1290 BC) is primarily based on external archaeological and external evidence.

Excerpt:

  1) Edom and Moab

  Archaeology surveys and excavations on the eastern side of the Jordan
  river (Transjordan), pioneered by N. Gleuck, reveal that there was no
  settled civilization in the Edomite and Moabite areas of the southern
  Transjordan until about the late 14th or early 13th century BC. Also,
  the earliest record referring to the Edomites is an Egyptian letter
  dating to the 13th century. There is scarcely any evidence of
  settlement in these areas in the 15th century BC. Since we know from
  the traditions that Israel encountered settled people in this area
  (e.g., Num 20:14), it seems that a 13th century date for the exodus is
  more likely and less problematic than a 15th century date. Also, the
  Moabite city of Heshbon was the first city taken by the Israelites in
  the Transjordan area, becoming a part of the tribal territory of
  Reuben (Num 21:21-24, 32:37). Thorough excavations at what has been
  identified as this site reveal that the city was not occupied until
  around 1250 to 1200 BC. Allowing for the 40 years in the desert, this
  suggests a date for the exodus at the beginning of the 13th century.

These are not the only evidences for each date. It should be noted that there are various assumptions and difficulties with either date.  I am not about to list them here, as they are all well documented on the page I linked to above.  Suffice it to say that the evidence for each is seen as tenuous, at best by those that hold the opposite belief.

Also, in the sections above, note that I said that each position is based primarily on either internal Biblical evidence or external evidence.  That does not mean the position is based only on those two things.  Each position is just as much based on an understanding of the difficulties of the opposing view.

Which date we hold to is likely to fall along the lines of how much we trust the Bible for historical accuracy, and how much we trust our interpretation of it, as well as where we draw the line on literalism. (Many of the arguments for a more recent date point out scenarios where a given time span can be interpreted as something other than the direct literal reading.  Sounds like another debate about dating certain events that we're all quite familiar with.)


What is the difference between "ransom theory" and "penal substitution"?

This question is a bit old, but there is an omission in the only answer. fi11222's answer states that both ransom and penal substitution theories of atonement view God as needing payment of some form. I agree with the description of penal substitution, but I believe the orthodox ransom theory generally teaches that the ransom was paid to death and not God the Father; this being a key difference between the two theories.

Wikipedia ("Ransom theory of atonement") says that the theory teaches the ransom was "paid to Satan or to death itself, in some views paid to God the Father".

The Eastern Orthodox church would teach that viewing the ransom paid to Satan or God the Father to satisfy him is wrong and perhaps heretical. I know that Protestants usually vigorously affirm that the debt was paid to God the Father, but I don't know how Catholics view it.

To give some historical perspective, let's hear from the church fathers themselves (taken from Christian Classics Ethereal Library, "De Inc. 4.20"):

St. Athanasius:

  He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression.

I believe the above quote is from his work, "On the Incarnation": a great read if you are interested in this sort of thing.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus:

  To whom was that blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and glorious blood of God, the blood of the High Priest and of the Sacrifice. We were in bondage to the devil and sold under sin, having become corrupt through our concupiscence. Now, since a ransom is paid to him who holds us in his power, I ask to whom such a price was offered and why? If to the devil, it is outrageous! The robber receives the ransom, not only from God, but a ransom consisting of God himself. He demands so exorbitant a payment for his tyranny that it would have been right for him to have freed us altogether. But if the price is offered to the Father, I ask first of all, how? For it was not the Father who held us captive. Why then should be blood of His only begotten Son please the Father, who would not even receive Isaac when he was offered as a whole burnt offering by Abraham, but replaced the human sacrifice with a ram? Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice not because he demanded it or because He felt any need for it, but on account of economy: because man must be sanctified by the humanity of God, and God Himself must deliver us by overcoming the tyrant through His own power, and drawing us to Himself by the mediation of the Son who effects this all for the honor of God, to whom He was obedient in everything... What remains to be said shall be covered with a reverent silence. (In sanctum Pascha, or. XLV, 22', P.G., t 36, 653 AB, quoted in Lossky, Mystical Theology, p. 153.)

The important bit of St. Gregory's quote is where he says "the Father accepts the sacrifice not because he demanded it or because He felt any need for it, but on account of economy".


Why is the Jewish Passover on 28 March 2021 but Good Friday is on 2 April 2021?
Actually everything is in its’ proper place.
Easter is a “movable feast” and does not have a fixed date. However, it is always held on a Sunday between March 22 and April 25.
Over a 500-year period (from 1600 to 2099 AD), it just so happens that Easter will have most often been celebrated on either March 31 or April 16.
Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday following the full Moon that occurs on or just after the spring equinox.
According to a Fourth Century ruling, of the Council of Nicea, the date of Easter is set for the first Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon, which is the first full Moon of Spring, occurring on or shortly after the vernal equinox, or spring equinox. March 22 is the earliest Easter can occur on any given year, and April 25 is the latest. If that first spring full Moon occurs on a Sunday, then Easter will be observed the following Sunday.

The Date Of Easter And Its Controversies
Fixing the date on which the Resurrection of Jesus was to be observed and celebrated triggered a major controversy in early Christianity in which an Eastern and a Western position can be distinguished. The dispute, known as the Paschal controversies, was not definitively resolved until the 8th century. In Asia Minor, Christians observed the day of the Crucifixion on the same day that Jews celebrated the Passover offering—that is, on the 14th day of the first full moon of spring, 14 Nisan (see Jewish calendar). The Resurrection, then, was observed two days later, on 16 Nisan, regardless of the day of the week. In the West the Resurrection of Jesus was celebrated on the first day of the week, Sunday, when Jesus had risen from the dead. Consequently, Easter was always celebrated on the first Sunday after the 14th day of the month of Nisan. Increasingly, the churches opted for the Sunday celebration, and the Quartodecimans (“14th day” proponents) remained a minority. The Council of Nicaea in 325 decreed that Easter should be observed on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox (March 21). Easter, therefore, can fall on any Sunday between March 22 and April 25.

The first full moon after the spring equinox of 2021 falls on March 28th, so everything is absolutely normal.
Easter never falls on the exact date of the first full moon of Spring, so as to avoid being celebrated at the same time as the Jewish Passover.


What are the similarities and differences between the LDS and RLDS D&C?

You can copy the link below and see the table below to determine what is the difference between the LDS Doctrine & Covenants and the RLDS Doctrine and Covenants.  One of the differences is that after Brigham Young left with a group of saints the RLDS church was organized and their leaders Thomas Burdick, Warren Parish and Sylvester Smith began to write more sections in the Doctrine and covenants. As far as why the community of Christ Ommitted some of the scriptures, its probably because it wasn't in line with their doctrines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_and_Covenants

Hopefully this wasn't too long.


Is the root of salvation correctly summed up as "Be saved and repent!" or should it be "Repent and be saved!"?

From the limited quote and from the assumption that the article's author is Reformed, probably the author was emphasizing the election part.  I found the magazine's website but Vol 15 Issue 2 is not online yet and even if it is, access is to subscribers only.

In Reformed ordo salutis (see also comparison of schemes in wikipedia article) Election comes first, then Regeneration, which produces the fruits of Repentance & Faith as our response.  So God needs to do Election and Regeneration first to enable us to respond in repentance and faith.  Since in the Reformed tradition the emphasis is on God's action, it makes sense that the author put these Election and Regeneration saving acts FIRST in the logical order of salvation, which ends in glorification.

Therefore in the quote

  "The root is salvation by His election and His grace.  ... The real formula is "Be saved and repent!",

"Be saved" most likely refers to "election" and "regeneration", which God has to do first in order to repair our Total Depravity (our inability to come to faith), which is consistent with the Reformed view of salvation.

But in the formula "Repent and be saved", "be saved" must have referred to the later stages of salvation in the ordo: justification, adoption, sanctification, preserverance, and glorification.

In this way both quotes are compatible with each other within the Reformed tradition.


How do Young Earth Creationists account for the arising of millions of species after the flood?

I started to comment but I think I’ll turn it into an answer

That is illogical.

You cannot take the axioms/constants of one paradigm and use them to argue against another paradigm. By design they will conflict. They have entirely different presupposition and therefore modes of interpretation.

You must prove within a paradigm that the axioms of that same paradigm are conflicting.

Thus far the Christian Young Earth paradigm is consistent both in its claims and its interpretation of the observable data because it doesn’t interpret the data from an evolutionary standpoint.

The proposal Nye is putting forth is preposterous, he is superimposing big bang evolution over Creator and creation and expecting to find what the former claims as axiomatic, to be true in the latter.

I do see his angle and for that reason he needs to correct course because his math is deceiving

Firstly he is counting from the flood, let’s say it’s 4,000 years use round numbers. He cannot include all life forms in the waters because they were not destroyed by the flood.

Also he is including microorganisms, there is no evidence they were destroyed.

Furthermore he is back tracking down to zero/one organism but the flood did not start with zero animals.

Another point even though there is much more to be said from so many other angles, each animal after its kind diversified from 1 to 2 then to 4 then to 8 then to 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1,024, 2,048, 4,096, 8,192, 16,384, 32,768, 65,536, 131,072, 262,144, 524,288, 1,048,576...Its exponential not linear. Within 20 replication cycles you can create whole different variation from the original mother and father genome combinations. Start switching off due to environmental selection or removing certain genes from the gene pool and you’re on you way to selecting one gene over another. You don’t even need 4,000 years.

Factor into the above paragraph that most animals reproduce more than once in a life time and that they may also have many offsprings from the same copulation. That is an even greater climb than exponential growth.

average implies a linear growth when it was most likely exponential

Adding one other detail. YEC starts from the premise that the genome for each kind started whole and with different alleles but with time was selected for certain genes; genes being selected out of the gene pool. That is not very difficult to understand, the process of losing information as opposed to the evolutionary model that necessitates an increase of new information. Granted YEC starts with a Creator but within the paradigm it remains consistent. Evolutionist have not yet proven one example of novel genetic sequence that has not been introduced artificially.

So his premise is wrong. It’s an interesting idea but again intellectually dishonest because he chose not to inform himself of what YEC actually claim but rather strawmans a paradigm using axioms from a paradigm he favors and use a form of sophistry and debate rhetorics to overwhelm or command superiority when in fact it should be unemotional and well informed arguments that disprove the opposition in science not oratory
!


Theology question: why hasn't God stopped Satan and his demons?

It makes more sense when you look at it from an eternal perspective.  Yes, Satan and his followers cause us a lot of trouble in this life, but our life on Earth is not about our life on Earth.  It's essentially a test, to see if we will be faithful and obedient to God's commandments.  But that would be a meaningless question without opposition to provide a (seemingly) good reason to not want to.

That's Satan's role in the plan.  (See the first 2 chapters of Job, for example.  See also 1 Corinthians 10:13, which explicitly reiterates the point demonstrated in Job, that God does not allow Satan to do certain things that we would not be able to bear.)  He rebelled against God and sought to destroy God's work, but God is still able to find a useful purpose for Satan to serve.  But we are assured that after the end of this world, when the time of testing and mortality is over, that Satan will be cast into hell for all eternity. (Revelation 20:10)


According to Catholic doctrine, is every woman that has an abortion automatically going to hell?

Au Contraire

There is no exception to the sin the Church is able to  absolve a penitent from1, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives:

  Catechism of the Catholic Church | ARTICLE 10: "I BELIEVE IN THE
  FORGIVENESS OF SINS" | II. THE POWER OF THE KEYS,
  979
  In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be
  brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church
  has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means
  of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ.
  The Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."[524
  Roman Catechism I, 11,4.]

The only unforgivable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit - matter for another answer.

  Mark 16:8-10
  (RSVCE)
  [...] Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene   9 Now when he rose early
  on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Mag′dalene,
  from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went out and told
  those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

If you heard what you asked from one who has suffered from abortion, the above should be consoling and encouraging for them. The number 7 has a very significant meaning in Judaism. My take is that St. Mary Mag′dalene had sin in its totality [completely under the power of those 7 demons - inciting the seven deadly sins? - as far as God would allow them]. The LORD appeared to her first. First step is go, show yourself to the priest2 = confession [a good shepherd should be able to guide once there cf. MattGutting's answer esp. on excommunication, etc.]: “Take heart; rise, he is calling you.” [cf. Mk 10:49]

  Si 17:24
  (RSVCE)
  Yet to those who repent he grants a return,
  and he encourages those whose endurance is failing.

Rachel's Vineyard: This or the like may be of interest to women suffering after having had an abortion.

1. [cf. CCC 982]↩

2. [Matthew 8:4 (RSVCE)]↩


Who learned that Abraham would even sacrifice his son in Genesis 22:11?

The Patristic View

The Church Fathers teach that the Angel of Lord is God, specifically the Son.

The earliest Patristic reference I know of is Justin Martyr's Dialog with Trypho. Justin says to Trypho:

  And I continued: “It is again written by Moses, my brethren, that He who is called God and appeared to the patriarchs is called both Angel and Lord, in order that from this you may understand Him to be minister to the Father of all things, as you have already admitted, and may remain firm, persuaded by additional arguments. The word of God, therefore, [recorded] by Moses, when referring to Jacob the grandson of Abraham, speaks thus: ‘And it came to pass, when the sheep conceived, that I saw them with my eyes in the dream: And, behold, the he-goats and the rams which leaped upon the sheep and she-goats were spotted
  226
  with white, and speckled and sprinkled with a dun colour. And the Angel of God said to me in the dream, Jacob, Jacob. And I said, What is it, Lord? And He said, Lift up thine eyes, and see that the he-goats and rams leaping on the sheep and she-goats are spotted with white, speckled, and sprinkled with a dun colour. For I have seen what Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God who appeared to thee in Bethel Dialog LVIII

Irenaeus identifies the Son with the Angel that guided Abraham:

  With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man; that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws; Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark] along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac, and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King for ever and ever. Amen. Fragment 53

Athanasius identifies the Angel of the Lord with the Word

  And none other than God blessed Abraham and Isaac; and Isaac praying for Jacob, said, ‘May God bless thee and increase thee and multiply thee, and thou shalt be for many companies of nations, and may He give thee the blessing of Abraham my father.’ But if it belong to none other than God to bless and to deliver, and none other was the deliverer of Jacob than the Lord Himself and Him that delivered him the Patriarch besought for his grandsons, evidently none other did he join to God in his prayer, than God’s Word, whom therefore he called Angel, because it is He alone who reveals the Father. Which the Apostle also did when he said, ‘Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Against the Arians, 3.25.13

and

  But if at any time, when the Angel was seen, he who saw it heard God's voice, as took place at the bush; for 'the Angel of the Lord was seen in a flame of fire out of the bush, and the Lord called Moses out of the bush, saying, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob ,' yet was not the Angel the God of Abraham, but in the Angel God spoke. And what was seen was an Angel; but God spoke in him. For as He spoke to Moses in the pillar of a cloud in the tabernacle, so also God appears and speaks in Angels. So again to the son of Nun He spoke by an Angel. But what God speaks, it is very plain He speaks through the Word, and not through another. And the Word, as being not separate from the Father, nor unlike and foreign to the Father's Essence, what He works, those are the Father's works, and His framing of all things is one with His; and what the Son gives, that is the Father's gift. Against the Arians, 3.25.14


How did the doctrine of the pope having "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" originate?

Paragraph 937 of the Catechism is part of an "In Brief" section that occurs at the end of every topic of the Catechism. The "In Brief" sections are intended to summarize the paragraphs that have gone before. In this case, the paragraph is restating material that occurs in paragraphs 881 and 882. In particular:

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church."
paragraph 881

This is a quote from the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. The Scriptural references supporting the statement are John 21:15-17 (" Feed my sheep") and Matthew 16:18-19.
Similarly, the constitution Pastor aeternus, promulgated by the First Vatican Council, states in Chapter III:

Full power was given to [the Roman Pontiff], in Blessed Peter, by Jesus Christ our Lord, to pasture, to rule, and to govern the Universal Church...

The specific quote that appears in paragraph 937 itself is found in the preface to the decree Christus Dominus, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.


I've found "Judaism 101" at jewfaq.org to be a reasonably sound site when looking for answers to questions about Judaism. Here's their basic definition of Torah:

  The word "Torah" is a tricky one, because it can mean different things in different
      contexts. In its most limited sense, "Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis,
      Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word "torah" can also be used to
      refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old
      Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the
      whole body of Jewish law and teachings.

In everyday usage, speakers commonly use the word "Torah" as a synonym for what Christians sometimes call the Book of Moses.

Worth noting is the fact that the Torah is one of many central texts used in Judaism -- the Talmud, Mishnah, and other texts are also significantly important. Book one of Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah explores the topic in significant depth.


Are there any Antipope Saints aside from Hippolytus of Rome?

Only one other antipope than Hippolytus of Rome is considered a saint in the Catholic Church.

The antipope Felix II has been given the status of a saint in the Roman Martyrology with a feast day of July 29.

  According to the "Liber Pontificalis", which may be registering here a reliable tradition, Felix built a church on the via Aurelia. It is well known that on this road was buried a Roman martyr, Felix; hence it seems not improbable that apropos of both there arose a confusion (see FELIX I) through which the real story of the antipope was lost and he obtained in local Roman history the status of a saint and a confessor. As such he appears in the Roman Martyrology on 29 July. - Catholic Encyclopedia


Can a Bishop forbid some literature to the faithful under his rule?

Yes, as canonist Dom Augustine writes on 1917 can. 1384 (cf. 1983 CIC 823-24),

  § 1. The Church has the right of requiring that books that have not been recognized by her prior judgment not be published by the faithful,1 and that those published by anyone be prohibited for a just cause.2

1. "preventive censorship (praevia librorum censura)," for Catholics only2. "vindicates to the Church the right of prohibiting any and all books which she considers objectionable," even for non-Catholics,

natural law grants "the right to control the reading of her children" to

  Paternal as well as political authorities [who] have the natural right to ward off anything that may endanger the moral and physical welfare of their subjects, and to protect them against bad surroundings, company, literature, etc., in fact anything that is apt to cause insubordination, anarchy, or moral decay. The Church, being an autonomous society, with subjects for whom she is responsible within her own sphere cannot be destitute of the authority and power which enables her to keep her children uncontaminated and to safeguard them against the danger of perversion. Of all the dangers that imperil man's salvation bad literature is perhaps the most destructive. Hence the right to control the reading of her children cannot be denied the Church even from the purely natural point of vantage. Historical facts amply confirm the necessity of preventive censorship in Church and State.11. Cfr. the classical work of J. Hilgers, S. J., Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, 1904.


Did the Quartodecimans perform the eucharist only once a year on Nisan 14?

No, "they" celebrated the Eucharist throughout the year.

I am not sure what your source material is, but perhaps there is some confusion about the term "Passover" in a Christian context.  "Easter" has always been referred to using the Hebrew word for Passover - "Pascha" - in the Christian east and continues to be referred to as such to this day in the Orthodox Church.

I put "they" in quotes above, because I don't think "Quartodecimians" refers to a distinct Christian sect, but rather those ancient Sees who had chosen to observe Pascha on Nisan 14 (see, e.g., Eusebius), which was forbidden by the Apostolic Canons (Canon VII)

James Campbell has written a very detailed essay on the history of the dating of Pascha (Easter) that discusses the above and more.


How do I know that an "Orthodox" theological work is officially Orthodox doctrine?

Official Orthodox doctrine is covered by Orthodox Dogmatics. The good book on it is Orthodox dogmatic theology by protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky. All except written in the book, could not be treated as a real Orthodox Doctrine, but only as intepretations.

There are no simply rogue theological opinion in Orthodoxy, except that is condamned as a heresy on Councils: ecumenical, or local. There are the opinions that can talk about some things in Orthodox Dogmatics, that inagree with the main course, but not declared as a heresy. They called as individual theologic opinion.

One yet is. St. Nilus of Sinai said (in my retell): "We have the Creed, and for laic people it is enough to trust just in it".