According to Roman Catholicism, was the 1054 excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople valid, in light of Leo IX's death?

The short answer is no.

Even in the seminary, all my professors said that the excommunication imposed by the Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida’s day was is invalid because at the moment he pronounced the above said excommunication, Pope Leo IX had already died. Tradition holds that Cardinal Humbert never lost his title of legal standing as a papal legate of Pope Leo upon the death of this same pope.

  Since the jurisdiction of a legate is ordinary, he does not cease to be legate even at the death of the pope who appointed him, and even if he arrived at his post after the death of that pope. - Legate (Catholic Encyclopædia)

Now here is  major problem with Cardinal Humbert’s actions. Only the Supreme Pontiff may excommunicate bishops and sovereigns. Although legate may excommunicate someone in the name of a Sovereign Pontiff, Legate Humbert could not pronounce such a sentence as Pope Leo IX had been dead for three months.

Only the Pope can excommunicate bishops because only he has jurisdiction over them. Pope Leo IX died on April 19,1054 and Cardinal Humbert’s excommunication was executed on the 16th of July, 1054. Although he retained the office of legate after the Pontiff’s death, he lost the ability to excommunicate him in the name of the pope because the Holy See was in a state of sede vacante.

  In a certain sense excommunications may also be reserved in view of the persons who incur them; thus absolution from excommunications in foro externo incurred by bishops is reserved to the pope; again, custom reserves to him the excommunication of sovereigns. - Excommunication (Catholic Encyclopædia)

Thus it is not the fact that he was or was not the legitimate papal legate at that moment in time. It is a fact that he could not excommunicate a bishop in the pope’s name since Pope Leo was dead.

Now let us look at the evidence, if any, more closely.

  Mutual excommunication of 1054

  In 1053 Leo of Ohrid, at the instigation, according to J. B. Bury, of Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople, wrote to Bishop John of Trani a letter, intended for all the Latin bishops, including the pope, in which he attacked Western practices such as using unleavened bread for the Eucharist, and fasting rules that differed from those in Constantinople, while Cerularius himself closed all Latin churches in Constantinople.

  In response, Leo IX wrote the letter In terra pax of 2 September 1053, addressed to Cerularius and Leo of Ohrid, in which he speaks at length of the privileges granted through Saint Peter to the see of Rome. In one of the 41 sections of his letter he also speaks of privileges granted by the emperors, quoting from the Donation of Constantine document, which he believed to be genuine (section 20). Some scholars say that this letter was never actually dispatched, but was set aside, and that the papal reply actually sent was the softer but still harsh letter Scripta tuae of January 1054.

  The advance of the Norman conquest of southern Italy constituted a threat to the possessions of both the Byzantine Empire and the papacy, each of which sought the support of the other. Accordingly, conciliatory letters, the texts of which have not been preserved, were written to the pope by the emperor and Cerularius. In his January 1054 reply to the emperor, Quantas gratias, Leo IX asks for his assistance against the Normans and complains of what the pope saw as Caerularius's arrogance. In his reply to Caerularius, he upbraided the patriarch for trying to subject the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch to himself and for adopting the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, and insisted on the primacy of the see of Rome.

  These two letters were entrusted to a delegation of three legates, headed by the undiplomatic cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, and also including Frederick of Lorraine, who was papal secretary and Cardinal-Deacon of Santa Maria in Domnica, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi. They were given friendship and support by the emperor but were spurned by the patriarch. Finally, on 16 July 1054, three months after Pope Leo's death in April 1054 and nine months before the next pope took office, they laid on the altar of Hagia Sophia, which was prepared for celebration of the Divine Liturgy, a bull of excommunication of Cerularius and his supporters. At a synod held on 20 July 1054, Cerularius in turn excommunicated the legates. In reality, only Michael may have been excommunicated along with his then-living adherents.

  At the time of the excommunications, many contemporary historians, including Byzantine chroniclers, did not consider the event significant.

  Efforts were made in subsequent centuries by emperors, popes and patriarchs to heal the rift between the churches. However, a number of factors and historical events worked to widen the separation over time.

  "Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".

  There was no single event that marked the breakdown. Rather, the two churches slid into and out of schism over a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations. - East–West Schism

Cardinal Humbert acted with impunity when in the presence of the Patriarch of Constantinople to say the least. Having known the pope had died, a papal legate’s authority was seriously diminished and he knew that. Cardinal Humbert deserved to be excommunicated himself for the actions he chose to do!

  Pope Leo IX sent an official delegation on a legatine mission to treat with the Patriarch. Members of the papal delegation were: cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, papal secretary Frederick of Lorraine, who was Cardinal-Deacon of Santa Maria in Domnica, and Peter, Archbishop of Amalfi. Soon upon their arrival in Constantinople, news were received that pope Leo IX had died on 19 April. Since official position and authority of papal legates was dependent upon the pope who authorized them to represent him, the news of Leo's death placed his envoys in an awkward position. In spite of that, they decided to proceed with their mission, but even before any religious discussions were held, problems arose regarding some basic formalities and ceremonies. During the initial audience, Patriarch refused to meet with papal envoys in their official capacity and left them waiting with no further audience for months.

  During that time, from April to July 1054, cardinal Humbert and his colleagues continued with their activities in Constantinople, taking part in informal religious discussions on various issues. Their behavior was seen as inappropriate by the Patriarch. Despite the fact that their legatine authority officially ceased after popes death, cardinal Humbert and his colleagues decided to engage in open confrontation with the Patriarch. On Saturday, 16 July 1054, they produced a Charter of Excommunication (lat. charta excommunicationis), directed against Patriarch Michael of Constantinople, Archbishop Leo of Ohrid, and all of their followers. On the same day, cardinal Humbert and his colleagues entered the church of the Hagia Sophia during the divine liturgy and placed the Charter on the altar.

  Soon after that, Patriarch decided to react. On 20 July 1054, a synod of 21 metropolitans and bishops was held in Constantinople, presided by Cerularius. The council decided to excommunicate cardinal Humbert and his colleagues. Only the three men were anathematized, and a general reference was made to all who support them, but there was no explicit excommunication of the entire Western Christianity, or the Church of Rome. On Sunday 24 July the conciliar anathema was officially proclaimed in the Hagia Sophia Church.

  The events of 1054 caused the Great Schism and led to the end of the alliance between the Emperor and the Papacy, and caused later Popes to ally with the Normans against the Empire. Patriarch Michael closed the Latin churches in his area, which exacerbated the schism. In 1965, those excommunications were rescinded by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras, when they met in Jerusalem. Although the excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbert was invalid, this gesture represented a significant step towards restoring communion between Rome and Constantinople.

  The short reign of the Empress Theodora saw Michael intrigue against the throne. Michael Psellus notes that while their initial relations had been cordial, once Theodora took the Imperial throne, they entered into open conflict, as Michael "was vexed because the Roman Empire was being governed by a woman", and on this topic "he spoke his mind freely.". The historian suggests that Theodora would have deposed Michael for his open effrontery and sedition, had she lived longer.

  Cerularius had a hand in negotiating the abdication of Michael VI Stratiotikos, convincing him to step down on 31 August 1057, in favour of the rebellious general Isaac, for whom the army declared on 8 June. The emperor duly followed the patriarch's advice and became a monk. Having had a role in bringing him to the throne, Cerularius next quarrelled with Isaac I Komnenos over confiscation of church property. Michael went so far as to take the highly symbolic step of donning the purple shoes ceremonially reserved for the Emperor. Michael apparently planned a rebellion, to overthrow the Emperor and claim the Imperial Throne for himself or for his relative Constantine Doukas. Isaac exiled Michael to Proconnesus in 1058 and, as Michael refused to step down, had Psellus drew up the Accusation of heresy and treason against him. Cerularius died before coming to trial. - Michael I Cerularius (Wikipedia)

Did Rome have the right to excommunicate Cerularius?

  The question about whether Rome should have excommunicated Cerularius is a good one. Pope Paul VI thought not, given the choice of words for the mutual 1965 statement. We don't think an excummunication should have happened. There probably was a better way to handle the mess. However, the question about whether the Pope had the right to do it is an entirely different matter, because it calls into question the right of Rome to intervene in matters of extreme importance to the entire Church. It also challenges the primacy of the seat of Peter.

  The Byzantine fathers affirm that Rome has the right and the duty to excommunicate heretics and schismatics. For example, St. Maximos the Confessor writes:

    “If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church.  I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox.  For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world."  (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

  This is a Byzantine forefather –a SAINT of the Orthodox Church.

  It was not Rome’s authority to do so, he had not the office to be able to excommunicate. It is as unlawful  and silly as if a child were to cast his parents out of their own house.

  The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, where over 500 Eastern bishops address Pope Leo the Great and declare:

    “Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head (Pope) also fulfill what is fitting for the children (other bishops)." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.

    "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (i.e., PATRIARCH Dioscorus of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness" --Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3.

  According to the Ecumenical Council of Chalecedon, a Pope of Rome has the right and the power to excommunicate a patriarch (in this case, the Patriarch of Alexandria). So, the position that there was no right of excumminication is not only at odds with the fathers, but with the formal decree of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (Chalcedon), which recognizes the Pope of Rome’s authority to excommunicate a patriarch. This same canon of Chalcedon also says that Peter is the Rock of the Church. The idea of no right to excommunication is at odds with the fathers of this Ecumenical Council that Eastern Orthodoxy claims to accept and to be bound by.

  Was the excommunication against the whole Eastern Church?

  Rome excommunicated Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople and all of his immediate clergy. It did not excommunicate the emperor, or the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, or the bishops of any of the other Eastern churches (especially not in the Slavonic north or Russia). Nor did the Slavs or any of the other patriarchs ever excommunicate Rome. So, strictly speaking, Romans are still technically in communion with most of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And this is especially true because we formally healed the schism at Lyon II in 1274 and at Ferrara-Florence in 1439. Our present schism dates from 1472, when the Greeks renounced the union of Ferraea-Florence -- something the Slavic Churches never formally did. Also, in 1965, Patriarch Atheneagorus of Constantinople and Pope Paul VI nullified the excommunications from 1472, which means that Romans are now technically in communion with Constantinople itself though most Greeks do not recognize this. But, technically, there is no reason why we should not be in full communion today.

More information may be gleaned from the following article(s):

Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I (December 7, 1965)


Why is "She" used in the Douay-Rheims translation of Genesis 3:15?

From an edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible online I found this:

[15]I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
[15] "She shall crush": Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head.

And from the same source we have the Latin...

[15] Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius : ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus.

So, it says "she" because of the Latin "ipsa" which according to Google translate means "she."
I have a favorite metaphor when talking about things like the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ.  Who delivers your mail?  The post office or the postman?  The answer is "yes" because both do, the former having the authority and responsibility to ensure the mail is delivered and the later the duty to put it in your mailbox.
From the perspective of Eve, the only woman standing on the planet at that time, whether you specify "he" in relation to her Son or "she" in relation to her, the consequence remains the same: the defeat of Lucifer.


Was Jesus obligated to answer the High Priest that he was the son of God?

It doesn't posit much difference in the meaning even if you use all the words such as forced, compelled, adjured, demanded, charged, obligated etc. The whole idea is that the high priest was looking for a way to force Jesus condemn himself to death. Many accusers came forward but no one was able to find any appropriate charges to put Jesus to death. The high priest, knowing that Jesus would not lie in the name of God, forced Jesus to confess in public that he was the Son of God. According to Jewish Law, blaspheming God deserved a death punishment. When Jesus admitted that he was the Son of God, the high priest now got the opportunity to sentence Jesus to death.

The sad side of this story is that even though they knew that Jesus would not lie when swearing in the name of God, they took Jesus' answer as blasphemy. Their hearts were hardened. They could not see the Messiah standing before them but they only saw a man claiming to be the Messiah.


Do Christians regard speaking in tongues as necessary?

No, I do not believe that this is the only sure sign of the Holy Spirit.  Also, I would question if someone is truly speaking in tongues when they claim to be.  Can people speak in tongues today?  I have seen people who would claim they were speaking in tongues, but there was no one there to interpret.
Paul lists speaking in tongues as one of the spiritual gifts, but he does say that they are distributed as God determines, not necessarily as we want them.

1 Corinthians 12:7-11 (NIV)
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the
common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of
wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by
that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy,
to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in
different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation
of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he
distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
1 Corinthians 12:27-30 (NASB)
27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And
God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets,
third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps,
administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles,
are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are
they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have
gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they?
All do not interpret, do they?


Sodom and Gomorrah and God's judgement in the Christian age

And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked?

  Genesis 18:2

And,

  if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment

  2 Peter 2:9

The first passage is a reference to Abraham before Sodom, interceding with the Lord.  The second is also speaking of Lot and Sodom.

In one sense, you could say that God is holding off judgment because of those who are and will be righteous because of Christ.  This pattern is seen may times in Scripture.

There are some valid considerations, however.

In Sodom, the judgment was total, from which Lot was saved.  Not all judgment is of the same degree.  Certainly,  God preserves His elect.  But, no matter what it looks like, God is still just and faithful.  One cannot judge adequately in this life what calamities God should and should not save people from, or what calamities are acceptable, or even who His elect even are (without personal insight, that is).

While the general truth is valid, even if God were to destroy the whole Earth with fire today, was He unjust?  His righteous are with Him, whoever they are, and the wicked are consumed.

So, yes, as a general rule, but specific situations can be a little but tricky (e.g., whether God should or should not judge America similarly, which is how it is often raised).


Reconcile God's sovereignty with Satan being the god of this world

This is a great question and one I had to take a few minutes to think through. I am Catholic and I think I have an answer for you- though there may be several others, possibly better ones.

Remember that Satan was one of the most powerful angels when he rebelled, and that he did not get stripped of his nature when he Fell. That means that Satan is an incredibly powerful being who, as seen in the Bible, can exert his angelic power in the planes of existence that humans inhabit (that is to say, the world of spirit and the world of matter). This is probably the way that Satan planned to follow through on his offer of world domination to Jesus.

Also, notice Satan wants Jesus to worship him. This implies that this is something he desires not only from Jesus, but from all humanity. What Satan has been doing since his Fall is pretend to be God Almighty, and treat the world like his playground. If Satan demands worship, this probably isn't the first time he tried to get it. This would be in keeping with St. Paul's comment "the god of this world". Who is the god of this world? Whatever everybody is worshipping. Be that other fallen angels, man's own desires, etc; it all leads back to Satan and his own agenda.

When Jesus comes to Earth, He's coming here like a rightful Prince come to reclaim His Father's throne from the usurper, Satan. God is sovereign, but that doesn't mean others aren't pretending that isn't so.


What is the history of the term "state of perfection" before, during, and after Vatican II?

“state of perfection” in Vatican II's
preparatory documents
Vatican II's preparatory commission drafted two documents related to religious perfection:

De statibus perfectionis adquirendæ (On the states for acquiring [evangelical] perfection), 15 June 1962
De Ecclesia [On the Church] ch. 5 "De statibus evangeliciæ acquirendæ perfectionis", 1 December 1962(English translation PDF pp. 21-23)

council interventions
from Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, S.V.D.'s Inside Story of Vatican II ch. "The Second Session", § "Religious Orders and the Universal Vocation to Sanctity":

The position of the European alliance was based on the arguments advanced by Father Rahner and Monsignor Philips, and submitted to the German-speaking Fathers meeting in Munich in February, 1963. Those arguments were that the inclusion of the chapter on the religious life would “confirm Protestants in their objections, namely, that in the Church, through the religious state, there exist two essentially diverse paths to salvation; that the laity are not called to evangelical perfection and automatically are always on a lower level of sanctity; and that those who are members of religious orders are automatically considered better than those who are joined in marriage.”

promulgated documents
Lumen Gentium
Chapter 5 of Vatican II's 21 November 1964 dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, is on the religious, and, although it includes the phrase "religious state"

From the point of view of the divine and hierarchical structure of the Church, the religious state of life is not an intermediate state between the clerical and lay states. […] the religious state, whose purpose is to free its members from earthly cares, more fully manifests to all believers the presence of heavenly goods already possessed here below.

it does not use the phrase "state of perfection":

religious families give their members the support of a more firm stability in their way of life and a proven doctrine of acquiring perfection. […] The importance of the profession of the evangelical counsels is seen in the fact that it fosters the perfection of love of God and love of neighbor in an outstanding manner and that this profession is strengthened by vows.

Perfectæ caritatis
The 28 October 1965 decree Perfectæ caritatis (PC) dealt with the "adaptation and renewal of religious life".
The Little Catechism of the Second Vatican Council part 8 notes the following innovations in PC:

"Whereas the old 1917 code* divided people into three categories (clerics, religious, laity), the new code of 1983** – applying Vatican II – divides the « People of God » (sic) into three groups ordered thus: the faithful of Christ, the hierarchical constitution of the Church, and the institutes of consecrated life (in which the religious are diluted)."*can. 107: "By divine institution there are in the Church clerics distinct from laity, although not all clerics [possess orders that] are of divine institution; either of them can be religious." (commentary)**can. 207: "§1. By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons. §2. There are members of the Christian faithful from both these groups who, through the profession of the evangelical counsels by means of vows or other sacred bonds recognized and sanctioned by the Church, are consecrated to God in their own special way and contribute to the salvific mission of the Church; although their state does not belong to the hierarchical structure of the Church, it nevertheless belongs to its life and holiness."

PC §15 "erases the hierarchy […] between the lay religious and choir religious":That all the members be more closely knit by the bond of brotherly love, those who are called lay-brothers, assistants, or some similar name should be drawn closely in to the life and work of the community.  Unless conditions really suggest something else, care should be taken that there be only one class of Sisters in communities of women.


Does suffering in this life really matter?

Deriving some formula on your own then trying to figure out whether it "fits" somehow is a dangerous way to live your life. You'll get yourself into all sorts of scrapes of your own making and miss out on most of the blessings God has in store.

Instead, you should learn to use Scripture as a sort of lens or framework by which to understand the world. If you had approached the issue of suffering by starting with the Scriptures then applying what you found there to the world, you would come to a different conclusion about the importance of suffering. Most significatly, I think you would find that it has meaning / purpose.

In Scripture, suffering is not a divide by zero equation, it produces something:

  Romans 5:3-5 (ESV)
  3  Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering  produces endurance, 4  and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5  and  hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

Furthermore we know that besides just some end product, the actual process has value:

  1 Peter 2:19 (ESV)
  19  For this is a gracious thing, when,  mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.

In summary, making suffering out to be of no consequence would clearly conflict with Scripture.

On the math issue, it's probably worth noting the kind of time based math we currently operate in is not the same order that God operates in or that we will eventually be ushered into. This creation (and it's timeline) are just a created capsule sustained by God's will for a purpose for a time. It will have an end. The economy of what survives and is of eternal value and what will perish and will "not matter" is defined by God's rules. Physics, chemistry and even theoretical math do not govern what does and does not have eternal consequences. Neither do any philosophies of men.


What is the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God?

It's a charismatic denomination that has been founded in Brazil, in 1977. Its current leader is the bishop Edir Macedo, founder of this denomination. They affirm to have an orthodox doctrine, Bible-based stance (but close to Pentecostals), but in practice they sell miracles and healings, and the "power" of the Holy Ghost to perform those manifestations (like Simon the Magician, who has been baptised and then rebuked by the Apostle Peter because Simon offered money to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 8:18-24). In some parts of Latin America (or all), this church is known as "Pare de sufrir" ("Stop suffering"). The orthodox Christianity, especially the most-conservative group, agrees that this church is heretic, counted as a sect or cult.

Important info about "Pare de sufrir", in Spanish


Why was Descartes' interpretation of the Catholic transubstantiation not approved by Church and how can it be improved?

As you describe the issue, it seems to be the case that Descartes was completely rejecting the distinction between substance and accident which is the basis for Catholic (and other) belief in transubstantiation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on "Substance" bears this out:

Descartes, like the atomists, believed that matter operates in an entirely mechanical way. There is, therefore, no causal role for substantial form to play and, hence, no need for such forms. His two substances are each defined in terms of one property (extension for matter and thought for mind), hence there is no problem about the relation between substance and the properties in terms of which it is defined. As he does not have substances as individuals made of kinds of stuff, there is no conflict between individuals and stuffs.

That is, Descartes did believe that there was a substance that was "what something was made of", but he didn't believe (as for instance Aristotle and Aquinas had) that there were different kinds of this substance that made different things what they were. Loosely speaking, Aquinas believed that an apple was not a chair because an apple had "apple-ness" (the substance that made it an apple) and a chair had "chair-ness", whereas Descartes believed that an apple was not a chair because an apple was "apple-y" (it had properties, or accidents, peculiar to apples) and a chair was "chair-y".
But believing this, the Church thought, left you unable to believe that the consecrated Host was really Jesus. Surely all the properties that made Jesus "Jesus-y" had vanished with his body; how could the "Host-y" properties become them? Or if the Host's properties (size, weight, taste, smell, etc.) vanished and were replaced with Jesus', how could this happen outside of some sort of illusion or hallucinatory experience?

Some theologians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who inclined to Cartesianism, as E, Maignan, Drouin, and Vitasse, displayed but little theological penetration when they asserted that the Eucharistic appearances were optical illusions, phantasmagoria, and make-believe accidents, ascribing to Divine omnipotence an immediate influence upon the five senses, whereby a mere subjective impression of what seemed to be the accidents of bread and wine was created. Since Descartes ... places the essence of corporeal substance in its actual extension and recognizes only modal accidents metaphysically united to their substance, it is clear, according to his theory, that together with the conversion of the substance of bread and wine, the accidents must also be converted and thereby made to disappear. If the eye nevertheless seems to behold bread and wine, this is to be attributed to an optical illusion alone. ... Both philosophical and theological arguments were also advanced against the Cartesians, as, for instance, the infallible testimony of the senses, ... the striking expression "breaking of bread" (fractio panis), which supposes the divisible reality of the accidents, etc. For all these reasons, theologians consider the physical reality of the accidents as an incontrovertible truth, which cannot without temerity be called in question.
(New Catholic Encyclopedia, "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist")

Because it appears impossible, then, for Descartes' philosophy to simultaneously say that the "accidents" (the properties) of the bread all remain, while the entity itself becomes truly the Lord Jesus, it is similarly impossible for the Catholic Church to accept it as a description of what goes on at the Consecration.
I can't see any way of adapting this Cartesian explanation of transubstantiation without completely changing the Cartesian understanding of "substance" and "property"/"accident"; so I have to conclude there's no way of improving his theory to make it acceptable to the Church.


Yes these are two different cities:

Caesarea Philippi, literally "Philip's Caesarea"; Ancient Greek: Καισαρεία Φιλίππεια Kaisareía Philíppeia) was an ancient Roman city located at the southwestern base of Mount Hermon.

Caesarea Maritima, Greek: Παράλιος Καισάρεια Parálios Kaisáreia), formerly Strato's Tower, also known as Caesarea Palestinae, was an ancient city in the Sharon Plain on the coast of the Mediterranean, now in ruins and included in an Israeli national park


How do you know you are perceiving the same God?

I'm sure you're familiar of the story of the three blind men and the elephant. One of them finds the tail and concludes the elephant is soft, long and round. One of them finds the tusk and concludes the elephant is hard. One finds the side and concludes the elephant is like a wall.

They are all describing the same elephant, but they have caught on to different aspects of it. There is truth in each description of the elephant, but there is error if they assume their description is complete.

So the trick is not to assume your understanding is complete, and this explains the disagreements over the details. But you are all "pointing to" the same thing.


Why was Jesus able to silence his critics simply by pointing out that the Messiah was both Lord *and* son?

Earlier on in Mathew 22 the Pharisees are trying to trap Jesus with what they probably considered paradoxes or no-win scenarios (ie Jesus picks one side he'll anger the other side). I've always imagined these questions are the kinds of questions the Pharisees argued over in the internet forums of their day (Should we pay taxes to Caesar? Matt 22:15, Will the Dead will rise again? Matt 22:23, What's the most important commandment? Matt 22:34).

The question Jesus asks the Pharisees in verse 41 is along the same lines. He shows them something that was probably ingrained in them since they were born (that the Messiah is the Son of David) and called it into question. In a way it challenged their thoughts on God and who the Messiah was really going to be. And exactly like you mentioned in your comments the theological implications were not lost of the Pharisees, who as far as I know, never expected the Messiah to be both God and Man. Imagine your own theology being blown out of the water by your own scriptures to the extent of being irrefutable, by virtue of source and being logically sound. This wasn't something Jesus was just saying (something that could be refuted), he instead pointed them to scripture which is something they all held sacred.

Hence the silence.


When, how, and why did the Moravians stop praying 24-7?

From a Moravian website in the UK:

The industrial revolution and 1870 Education Act brought changes to the settlement' way of life and the sisters' house and schools were closed in the latter half of the 19th century. The additional buildings were then converted into dwelling houses which are managed by the Unitas Estates Company. http://www.moravian.org.uk/index.php/uk-congregations-list-for-the-moravian-church/yorkshire-district/gomersal

Its only referring to the closing of a church school connected with one congregation, but it is most likely also involved in the general downturn.  After all, the inability to keep religious schools running, and their replacement by a secular school system, can very easily make a big dent in a minority denomination's numbers.
Looking up the Elementary Education Act 1870 we find on Wikipedia:

There were ongoing political clashes between the vested interests of Church, private schools and the National Education League followers. In some districts the creation of boards was delayed by local vote. In others, church leaders managed to be voted onto boards and restrict the building of board schools, or divert the school rate funds into church schools.

The vested church interests referred to there are of the Anglican church, not the Moravians.  Losing their own schools and having to send their children to secular or Anglican schools, either one, would undoubtedly have been of great consequence to the denomination's future.
Although divided by an ocean, this article about Bethlehem Pennsylvania seems to tell the same basic story:

Since 1741, Bethlehem has beckoned travelers to experience the warmth and hospitality of this delightful community. In that year, a small group of Moravians settled on the banks of the Lehigh River near the Monocacy Creek.....
On Christmas Eve of that first year, 1741, the Moravians' patron, Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf of Saxony, Germany, visited the new settlement. In their two-room log home that housed both man and beast, the Count christened the community "Bethlehem"....
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Bethlehem became a center of heavy industry and trade....making the city a "melting pot" of cultures, blending one into the other.  http://www.bethlehem-pa.gov/about/history/

And again with LITITZ, PA:

Lititz was established in 1756 by the Moravian Church as an exclusive religious community until 1855, when the town welcomed people of all religious creeds. The town played an active role in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and industrial revolution, and served as an early musical, educational, and commercial hub.  http://www.moravianmanor.org/lititz.htm

Or again :

The cottage industries of the Moravian Settlement were eventually overtaken by the Industrial Revolution and members sought work and business outside the settlement. http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Hidden-past-village-founded-pioneering/story-16865225-detail/story.html#ixzz37ELK0udO

Who has time for 24/7 prayer when you've got to commute?


When and why did the Catholic Church stop the Crusades?

This answer takes from the article

The Real History of the Crusades, by THOMAS F. MADDEN1 | MARCH 19, 2011 Crisis Magazine.

1. (At the time of the article) Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University.

Has the record been set straight on the Crusades?

  No. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the
  Crusades.

So what is the truth about the Crusades?

  Scholars are still working some of that out.

For what purpose were they?

  [The] Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were
  a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or
  defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Why were they deemed no longer necessary? The answer is in bold.

  The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine
  of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus
  leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which
  was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet
  military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was
  neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once
  awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic —
  no longer worth a Crusade. The “Sick Man of Europe” limped along
  until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the
  present mess of the modern Middle East.

Addendum

As a response to a possible misconception implied in the original phrasing: the Crusades are certainly not a monolithic campaign that ended on a certain date. They were a series of campaigns conducted intermittently over two centuries by different levels of authority (the first was called by a Pope; the seventh was almost exclusive to Louis IX; etc.) When we speak of the Crusades "stopping," we are not talking of an ongoing Crusade being called off, but of a new Crusade not being convoked.

Please see also:

Crash Course on the Crusades, July 24, 2012, by STEVE WEIDENKOPF | Crisis Magazine.


Yes, panentheism is heretical. I say this as an Evangelical Christian who was brought up in the Plymouth Brethren tradition, which began as a splinter group that broke away from the Church of England in the late 1820s.
Frankly, I do not know whether Anglicanism/Episcopalianism has given its imprimatur to the doctrine of panentheism, but I can assure you that my religious tradition would not allow for such an imprimatur.
What are the biblical bases upon which Bible-believing Christians say no to panentheism? I'll suggest several.

God's immanence (as opposed to his transcendence) testifies to his nearness to all people at all time, but particularly near to his saints; that is, those who have believed in and received Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, thus becoming children of God (John 1:12-13). To suggest that God's immanence extends in any way or to any extent to the physical creation and the atoms and molecules of which everything is composed, is heretical. Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4):

". . . [A] time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (verses 23-24 NIV).

God is a spirit being, and his Holy Spirit is also a spirit being.

God sustains and maintains his creation by the word of his power. In Colossians Chapter 1 we read of Christ:

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (verses 15-17, my emphasis).

Granted, some Bible versions translate "hold together" as consist and endure, but I suggest all three words speak of the same thing, and that is this: Jesus's word of power brought the universe into existence, and by the same word the universe could also come apart. His word of power is like the glue that holds the universe together. He is Lord of all creation, and as its Lord, his primary task vis a vis that creation is to maintain it, even in its broken state.
By the same word of power, one day Jesus will make all things new, the way things were prior to the entrance of sin into the universe by way of Satan and our first parents. Notice, he will not make all new things, but he will make all things new. There was nothing wrong with the universe as it was originally created by God. He declared it to be good and very good. What makes the world "groan in travail," as Paul puts it in Romans 8:17 and passim), is that God's creation

was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God (ibid).

Those professing Christians who would describe themselves as panentheists might, I suggest, have imbibed a bit too deeply from the wells of unbelief, as found in the teaching of the late Carl Sagan, who postulated,

The cosmos is all there was, all there is, and all there ever will be.

To Sagan, the physical universe was his god. He was in awe of it, not because the one true God made it awe-inspiring, but because random chance did. In other words, slime, time, and blind chance were responsible for the results of evolution we see today. What Sagan failed to see in the remarkable complexity--both macroscopically and microscopically--of God's design, is that the observable patterns were and are evidence of a Master Designer.
In effect, Sagan and others like him, have made gods out of the creation. Like the people of whom Paul speaks in Romans Chapter 1, they,

Claiming to be wise . . . became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles (verses 22-23).

Put differently, Sagan and others ascribe awe and wonder to the creation and not to God. Sagan's oft-repeated "billions and billions of years" was one of his ways of expressing awe and wonder as he pondered and explored the cosmos. The preacher in Ecclesiastes tells us, however, that

[God] has made everything beautiful in its time; also he has put eternity into man’s mind, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end (3:11, my emphasis).

Carl Sagan and many--if not most--avid macro evolutionists believe in the eternality of matter. They could not be more wrong. Matter came into existence by the word of God's power, and the same power that maintains and sustains the material universe will one day call into account those image-bearers who worshiped the creation rather than the creator.


The nature and extent of the atonement of Jesus during the crucifixion

The Greek phrase "wrath of God" is οργη θεου.  The phrase appears only twice in the New Testament.

John writes that the wrath of God will be visited upon those who do
not believe in His Son (3:36).
Paul writes that the wrath of God is revealed against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Romans 1:18).

The same Greek phrase also appears occasionally in the Septuagint, but always in the context of God being angry with Israel (e.g. Numbers 12:9).

It does not appear in New Testamant Scripture that God visited His wrath upon His Son.


What is the translation methodology for the Nueva Versión Internacional (NVI)?

Yes, it was translated from the ancient manuscripts.  The preface of my copy of the NVI is also available online, "Historia de la NVI".  I'll quote and translate key sections of that article here.  First, a summary:

La traducción se hizo directamente de los textos hebreos, arameos y griegos en sus mejores ediciones disponibles.

The translation was made directly from the best-available editions of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

Later, it goes into more detail on the NT:

La traducción [del Nuevo Testamento] se basa en el texto crítico griego actual, que da preferencia a los manuscritos más antiguos. Cuando se dan diferencias sustanciales entre este texto crítico y el texto tradicional conocido como Textus Receptus, la lectura tradicional se incluye en una nota, como variante textual.

The translation [of the New Testament] is based on the current critical Greek text, which gives preference to the oldest manuscripts.  When there are substantial differences between this critical text and the traditional text known as the Textus Receptus, the traditional reading is included in a note, as a textual variant.

And on the OT:

La base de la traducción [del Antiguo Testamento] es el Texto Masorético (TM), pero en algunos pasajes se ha aceptado una lectura diferente. En estos casos, la nota incluye entre paréntesis la evidencia textual (principalmente en las versiones antiguas) que apoya tal lectura; luego se indica lo que dice el TM.

The basis of the translation [of the Old Testament] is the Masoretic Text (MT), but in some passages a different reading has been accepted.  In these cases, the note includes, in parentheses, the textual evidence (mainly in the oldest versions) supporting that reading; afterwards it indicates what the MT says.

Another important thing to note is that the translation includes a moderate revision of personal names:

Otra diferencia entre la Nueva Versión Internacional y las versiones tradicionales tiene que ver con la onomástica hebrea. En el caso de nombres propios bien conocidos, esta versión ha mantenido las formas tradicionales, aun cuando no correspondan con las del hebreo (p.ej. Jeremías, aunque el hebreo es Yirmeyahu). En otros casos se ha hecho una revisión moderada para que los nombres no solamente reflejen con mayor exactitud el texto original (p.ej., la consonante jet se ha representado con j en vez de h), sino también para que se ajusten a la fonología castellana (p.ej., se ha evitado usar la consonante m en posición final).

Another difference between the Nueva Versión Internacional and the traditional versions has to do with Hebrew onomastics.  In the case of well-known proper names, this version has kept the traditional forms, even when they do not correspond with the Hebrew (for example, Jeremías, even though the Hebrew is Yirmeyahu).  In other cases a moderate revision has been made so that not only do the names more exactly reflect the original text (for example, the consonant jet is represented with j instead of h), but also to adjust them to Spanish phonology (for example, to avoid using the consonant m in the final position).


What core, common beliefs are held by all (or most) Christians?

Like Narnian commented, per the definition given by this site, nothing. However, historically most denominations have agreed upon several things.

The first thing that comes to mind is the existence of both God and Jesus. Also, many agree Jesus is God.

Historically, the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed have been generally accepted lists of agreed upon Christian doctrine. They basically say

I believe in God
God created the world
Jesus is his son
Jesus was born to the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit
He was put to death by Pilate on a cross
He was buried, but he rose again on the third day
he ascended to heaven
he'll come again one day
The Holy Spirit exists
the church are God's people
God forgives our sins
We'll be ressurected one day and have eternal life

Again, I say historically - these documents have existed for practically two thousand years with general assent by 97% of Christians (the Chalcedonians).

But again, I stress, precious few doctrine are agreed upon by everyone. There's always someone who may call himself a Christian who disagrees with anything you say. For example, some people call themselves (I say that will all due respect, I'm not saying their not) Christians because they like Jesus's teaching, but don't even believe in a God.

Since "Christian" comes from "Christ" (Jesus), I think the only thing you can safely assume is that all "Christians" have some level of respect for Jesus.


Where to find the up to date catholic missals for each languages?

A search for the Missale Romanum on the Vatican website reveals that it is apparently unavailable, though the General Instruction for the Roman Missal seems to be available in multiple languages. This is in line with the English translation of the Roman Missal, which is unavailable on the websites of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. It's not clear whether this is for copyright reasons or for some other reason.

According to the Union of Catholic Asian News, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Korea has decided only within the last several weeks to authorize a translation based on the editio typica tertia. This decision does not seem to appear on the bishops' conference website.

If your parish pastor is unable to help you find a missal, perhaps you could check with the Bishops' Conference.


I would suggest that you are thinking of :

  ... in my Father's house are many mansions ... John 14:2 KJV.

This is quite clearly a spiritual expression, not a material one, for Jesus clarifies the expression by saying that he is 'going to prepare a place for you', that being evidently after his death and resurrection, not an earthly situation.

As to his personal possessions and property, Jesus left only his garments when he died. Soldiers divided them and then gambled for the cloak, woven without seam, John 19:23 -24.

By so doing, these soldiers unknowingly fulfilled the prophecy spoken by David in the psalms, written about 1,000 years before the event took place :

  They part my garments among them and cast lots for my vesture. Psalm 22:18 KJV.

As has been supplied in comment by @L1R, Jesus says of himself :

  Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Luke 9:58, KJV.


Did Luther believe in gnomish creatures?

Luther's objective was to express the Bible using words used by ordinary Germans. The following is an extract from his Letter on translation:

  We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

The Latin vulgate translates Lilith as "Lamia".  Wycliffe also uses "Lamia", translating the whole verse as

  fiends, and wonderful beasts, like men in the higher part, and like asses in the nether part, and an hairy, shall meet; one shall cry to another. Lamia shall lie there, and find rest there to herself;

There are many interpretations and beliefs concerning lamia. They were  often regarded as demonic or mythological, or both, may eat children and may seduce young men and suck their blood.   They were unnatural beings of the night, and Luther felt that concept was best expressed in German by the German word kobold. Not all kobolds were said to live in mines and not all were bad, some were more akin to brownies (after which Lady Baden Powell named the younger girls in the Girl Guide/Boy Scout movement).

Luther's father, Hans Luder, was a miner and a smelter, so it is likely Luther would have been most familiar with the mine-dwelling kobolds. The standard work on mining for almost 200 years, though not published until after Luther's death, was written by Georgius Agricola.  This contains the following (Book 4, page 217):

  In some of our mines, however, though in very few, there are other pernicious pests. These are demons of ferocious aspect, about which I have spoken in my book De Animantibus Subterraneis. Demons of this kind are expelled and put to flight by prayer and fasting.

Die Animantibus includes the passage:

  "Then there are the gentle kind which the Germans as well as the Greeks call cobalos, because they mimic men. They appear to laugh with glee and pretend to do much, but really do nothing. They are called little miners, because of their dwarfish stature, which is about two feet. They are venerable looking and are clothed like miners in a filleted garment with a leather apron about their loins. This kind does not often trouble the miners, but they idle about in the shafts and tunnels and really do nothing, although they pretend to be busy in all kinds of labour, sometimes digging ore, and sometimes putting into buckets that which has been dug. Sometimes they throw pebbles at the workmen, but they rarely injure them unless the workmen first ridicule or curse them.

Belief in these seems to have been general amongst miners.

In the book of Luther's table talk(section 574) is:

  The devil vexes and harasses the workmen in the mines. He makes them think they have found fine new veins of silver, which, when they have labored and labored, turn out to be more illusions. Even in open day, on the surface of the earth, he causes people to think they see a treasure before them, which vanishes when they would pick it up. At times, treasure is really found, but this is by the special grace of God. I never had any success in the mines, but such was God's will, and I am content.

Ores which appear as if they contain silver may actually contain arsenical-cobalt which is damaging to health. The name for the metal cobalt, which at that time was not known,  comes from the German kobold, as it was believed goblins put it there to trick the miners, raising false hopes and damaging health.  Luther in his table talk seems be referring to kobolds as the devil.

The following article in the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal reviews Luther's demonology and includes the following:

  Luther was convinced, both on the basis of Scripture’s testimony and his own experience, that the devil and his hosts exhibit a real presence and exert an equally real influence on the world of human experience.  Luther believed that there were male and female demons.   He believed that there were goblins and ghosts, spectres and poltergeists, hags and witches.   All of these not only had contact with the world of humans, but were able also, in negative and harmful ways, to impact the lives of men, women, and children.  Haile observes,

  Devils were in evidence everywhere.  Luther’s sermons and private remarks are brimful of tales about that grim, mocking demon, a helpful but ever insolent servant.  He was held responsible for pretty much every trivial inconvenience and monstrous evil in the world, from the sulphur taste clinging to certain beers, to the crazy carryings-on of the radical sects and the unspeakable perversions of the papacy.

,

  “And though this world, with devils filled…”  was not just a hypothetical possibility with Luther.  It was the sober reality.

This refers to his hymn:

  And were this world all devils o’er,

  And watching to devour us,

  We lay it not to heart so sore;

  Not they can overpower us.

It seems then that Luther probably believed in these creatures as some form of demonic manifestation.


Was Mormon a priest according to the LDS?

Almost certainly.  While neither his writings, nor those of his son Moroni, explicitly speak of their ordination to the Priesthood, we know that Mormon served as a church leader in his time, struggling to teach what remained of his people and stave off their encroaching descent into apostasy.  Such leadership requires proper authority and Priesthood ordination.

See Moroni chapter 8, consisting of an epistle written by Mormon to Moroni, in which he mentions his leadership role in the church and speaks to clarify certain points of doctrine, with an explanation which he received by revelation from the Lord.  Latter-Day Saints believe that any person can receive revelation, but only covering themselves or matters which they personally have stewardship over.  Therefore, in order to receive revelation regarding doctrinal matters affecting the entire church, he would have needed to be someone with responsibility for the entire church.

As for the original point raised in the question:

  Before [the restoration of the Priesthood in modern days], there were several figures of note according to the book of Mormon well after the original 12 apostles' time. Not the least of which was Mormon himself.

  Because Mormon existed before the moment where the priesthoods were reestablished though Joesph Smith, I had this question come to mind: Was Mormon himself a priest in the sense that the Aaronic and Melchizedek priests are in the LDS today?

The state of general apostasy that necessitated the restoration of the church and the priesthood was not immediate upon the death of the original apostles, either in the Old World or among the Nephites.  It was instead a gradual process, as described in 4 Nephi.  Mormon mentions how the church prospered for a long time, but then as contentions and divisions began to arise among the people, the church began to decay along with it.  In 4 Nephi verses 24-40, he describes how they went from a state of harmonious unity to societal division and widespread sectarian violence over the course of about forty years, and this was still almost a hundred years before Mormon and Moroni's day, when the apostasy among the Nephite people finally became complete.


How is the ‘Resurrection of the Holy Ones’ in Mt.27:51-53 understood by those who consider it a literal, historical event?

There is geological evidence of two Earthquakes in the middle east between A.D. 26 and 32:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47555983/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/quake-reveals-day-jesus-crucifixion-researchers-believe/#.WA9zTJOAOko

One of these may have occurred at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

The writer of the Gospel of John declares that he was selective in the material he presents. John 21:25:

  Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written
  down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the
  books that would be written.

What he states openly, we may assume that the others practiced implicitly. That is, any event may be found in one gospel but absent in another, should that event not be relevant to the point the gospel writer was trying to emphasize.

So what was Matthew's emphasis? He wrote to Jews, about their laws, prophecies, and hopes, their kings and their messiah. But at the end of the gospel, the curtain of the temple is torn in two, removing the separation between priest and laity. The tombs are split open, removing the separation between living and dead. And when the centurion feels the earthquake and sees the other events, he declares that Jesus is the Son of God- the separation between Jew and Gentile is gone.

In Revelation, John mentions five earthquakes. Preterists and partial preterists would say that some of the events of Revelation have already occurred. One of those earthquakes may be an allusion to the earthquake at the time of the crucifixion.


What is the definition of sons of God in Job 2:1?

What is the definition of son of God in Job 2:1?

For the Chosen People, it usually refers to the Hebrew nation or people in general.

  Although references to "sons of God", "son of God" and "son of the LORD" are occasionally found in Jewish literature, they never refer to physical descent from God. There are two instances where Jewish kings are figuratively referred to as a god. The king is likened to the supreme king God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as "children of the LORD your God".

  When used by the rabbis, the term referred to Israel or to human beings in general, and not as a reference to the Jewish mashiach. In Judaism the term mashiach has a broader meaning and usage and can refer to a wide range of people and objects, not necessarily related to the Jewish eschaton. - Son of God

This may also help:

  Sons of the God (Hebrew: בני האלהים) literally: "sons of the Gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

  Hebrew Bible

  Genesis 6

  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, KJV

  The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1–4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.3

  This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism:

  Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism "Sons of God" usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.
  Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, are  references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

  Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a very common practice in our day and as such the New Testament in the person of St. Luke shows us that the Sons of God were the descendants of Adam.

According to Scripture “sons of God” means “persons who are begotten independently of any creature’s decision”. All angels can appropriately be called “sons of God”, but not all characters called “sons of God” in the Bible can appropriately be considered angels. The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are undoubtedly human, and it is fitting to consider that they were created directly by God through transformation of human-like animals into persons.

  Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. - Luke 3:38


In Genesis, we could read the story of Adam and Eve. They have the free will to choose to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. It was NOT the will of God for them to eat the fruit He has forbade them, but still Adam and Eve ate the fruit. It is clear that humans have free will to choose, and so Mary decided in her own free will to bear the child Jesus. God also knows EVERYTHING what will happen in the future. That is why prophets know things what WILL happen because it came from God. As humans, we DO NOT know what will happen, and so Mary was chosen by God since He knows she will bear the child. It's like this: God knows the world will end because it is written in the Bible (Revelations). But, people don't know when the world will end. So, we have the free will to choose heaven or hell (we are not FORCED to choose). However, God knows what we will choose. If Mary was chosen to bear Jesus, then she will bear Jesus.
4 Even before the world was made, God had already chosen us to be his through our union with Christ, so that we would be holy and without fault before him. (Ephesians 1:4)


Who are the five brothers mentioned in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:28)?

There are a number of views on these brothers and the specific meaning of this passage. We'll try to focus on just the brothers and not the passage, which has a long standing debate around whether it is even a parable or an actual account.

First, we shouldn't be focused on there being five brothers. There are six. The man in torment has five brothers, making a total of six brothers.

They are the brothers of Caiaphas.

One identification is that the man in torment is Caiaphus the High Priest. Josephus tells us that he had five brothers. So we are left the picture that innocent Lazarus is given unto Abraham's bosom, but the Pharisee, and his ilk, are given unto torment because they ignore the law. Considering Jesus attacked the Pharisee hypocrisy regularly, this explanation does make some sense.

They are the brothers of Judah.

Judah had five brothers from Leah, his mother, linking the five brothers reference to the Kingdom of Judah. Why the Kingdom of Judah would be singled out, I cannot say.

The number simply represents completeness.

Each culture has their own references to various things. In this case, five might have been a number that simply meant "whole." The parable of the ten virgins divides two groups into five and then they are judged corporately, not individually. This indicates in the same way that five represents the whole of that group. For the man in torment, "five brothers" represents his whole family, or even all those he loves. I personally find this the more reasonable answer.

The number is arbitrary.

Jesus is telling a story and needs to make a point, which is, that if you do not believe now while you have the law and the prophets, then even someone returning from the grave would not convince you. For this story to make sense, he needs the man in torment to have someone on the other side. Five sounds like a good round number and no one doubts that a man loves his brothers.

The author of this article deserves some credit for this post.


Where does calling Heaven "My True Country" come from?

I am not sure, but it may be a reference to Hebrews 11:

  13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They
  did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed
  them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and
  strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are
  looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of
  the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return.
  16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one.
  Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has
  prepared a city for them.

Also, Philippians 3:

  20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior
  from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables
  him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly
  bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

For reference, I believe this is the C. S. Lewis quote you are referring to:

  “The Christian says, 'Creatures are not born with desires unless
  satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well,
  there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there
  is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such
  a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in
  this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was
  made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it,
  that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly
  pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to
  suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one
  hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly
  blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something
  else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must
  keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not
  find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned
  aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that
  country and to help others to do the same.”


What do Evangelicals who speak negatively of "religion" mean by that?

Evangelicalism is a pretty wide spectrum, and there are certainly many branches of it that have little issue with calling their belief system a "religion."  After all, John Calvin wrote the Institutes of the Christian Religion, and theologians like B. B. Warfield talk about true Christianity as "religion in its purity" (Selected Shorter Writings, I, p. 389).
Many evangelicals, however, particularly those less associated with established denominations, are more likely to accept a "religion vs. relationship" dichotomy, as explained by the evangelical, dispensational, and baptist site GotQuestions.org.  In an article entitled, "Is Christianity a religion or a relationship?" they write that in some contexts, the word religion refers to "man-centered" belief systems:

Most religions are similar in that they are built upon the concept that man can reach a higher power or state of being through his own efforts. In most religions, man is the aggressor and the deity is the beneficiary of man’s efforts, sacrifices, or good deeds.
In that regard, Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God has established with His children. In Christianity, God is the aggressor and man is the beneficiary (Romans 8:3). The Bible states clearly that there is nothing man can do to make himself right with God (Isaiah 53:6; 64:6; Romans 3:23; 6:23).

Given their decentralized, non-denominational approach to the church, it's not surprising that they also associate religion with organized religion:

The grace-based relationship between God and man is the foundation of Christianity and the antithesis of religion. Established religion was one of the staunchest opponents of Jesus during His earthly ministry.
Just as the Jewish leaders made a religion out of a relationship with God, many people do the same with Christianity. Entire denominations have followed the way of the Pharisees in creating rules not found in Scripture.

The article concludes by emphasizing the relational aspects of Christianity, which it contends are not found in religion:

[God] does not ask us to try to attain holiness by our own strength, as religion does. He asks that our old self be crucified with Him so that His power can live through us (Galatians 2:20; Romans 6:6). God wants us to know Him, to draw near to Him, to pray to Him, and love Him above everything. That is not religion; that is a relationship.


According to Mormons, what is the Holy Spirit of Promise mentioned in Ephesians?

The Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit of Promise.

  "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received
  of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this,
  which ye now see and hear." (Acts 2:33)

He confirms as acceptable to God the righteous acts, ordinances, and covenants of men. The Holy Spirit of Promise witnesses to the Father that the saving ordinances have been performed properly and that the covenants associated with them have been kept. 1

When Paul wrote that the Saints had been “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise”, he meant that they had been promised eternal life even though they were still living in mortality. When people are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, the Holy Ghost ratifies them as celestial inheritors even though they are mortal. This doctrine is sometimes referred to as having one’s calling and election made sure or receiving the Second Comforter (see 2 Peter 1:4–19; D&C 132:6–7; Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 2:493–95; History of the Church, 3:379–80).2

1 The Guide to the Scriptures: Holy Spirit of Promise2 Chapter 44: Ephesians. New Testament Student Manual, 2014


Does the Bible command women to cover their breasts?

No, there are no explicit instructions in the Bible to not have bare breasts. Biblical references to modesty are interpreted differently given a particular time and place -- similarly with interpretations of 'nakedness.' There is no explicit verse covering the topic, Christians must infer instructions of modesty on their own. This has been accomplished in a wide variety of ways throughout history. Contemporary women's clothing would be have been considered horrifyingly indecent centuries ago, but they are commonly worn by Christians today.

The only specific article of clothing that a small minority of Christians adhere to is St. Paul's instruction for women to cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:1-16). Many contemporary Christians interpret that instruction to be specific to the congregation he was speaking to due to the context of their time and place (same with the references to gold, pearls, and remaining silent).


What is the position of the United Methodist Church on creationism and evolution

The official statement on Science and Technology says in part, "We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.
The Church also opposes introducing theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into public school curriculum.

http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-united-methodist-churchs-position-on-evolution
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/the-natural-world#science-tech


Why did it take so long for papal infallibility to be defined?

No, it would not be justified.

If papal infallibility was not true and well-established, then defining infallibility ad-hoc in 1870 would have been mortally dangerous for the Church. At that point, there had been 255 popes over the course of about 1800 years. Note that ex-cathedra is not a label; it is basically a clear statement on a particular topic, made by a particular person, and directed at a particular group of people. That's all. If it had turned out that any of these 255 popes had made conflicting ex-cathedra statements, then the doctrine of infallibility and seat of Saint Peter would have been undermined. It does not take much to speak ex-cathedra, and though it is not an everyday occurrence, many clear ex-cathedra statements have been made. Why would the Church bet the house on papal infallibility in the (rather plain and sensible) form of ex-cathedra? Why not rely on other organs such as Ecumenical Councils or some form of consensus among bishops in order to get infallibility?

Because the outcome was known in advance. The Church was certain that no two popes would be found to make conflicting ex-cathedra statements, because it was known all along and for a very long time that the pope was indeed to be considered infallible in this way.

It's actually too bad that it was not defined "ad-hoc" in 1870. That would  constitute a clean scientific test of infallibility. The prediction would have been: no two papal statements of a particular form shall be found to contradict each other. Not a trivial prediction! Oh well. I think I prefer long-standing tradition to a confirmed scientific test.

The section Proof of the Church's infallibility in the Catholic Encyclopedia, the source of the quote in your question, lists much evidence and many proofs for papal infallibility. I will not repeat them, since that would make the answer tedious. I think the above is a much cleaner argument.


Have there been any Christian writings on the genetics of Jesus?

Ron Wyatt, a researcher who was a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, claimed that he had discovered the blood of Jesus on the Ark of the Covenant and that it had only 23 chromosomes (i.e. that Jesus was haploid and literally didn't have any DNA contribution from a father).

Wyatt's claims seem to not be very well respected in mainline and even fundamentalist Christian circles. For example, Answers in Genesis, a Creationist organization, rejects Wyatt's findings.

Regardless of whether you accept Wyatt's actual findings as true, the fact that he has a following indicates that the idea that Jesus might have been haploid has been considered plausible by some Christians.


How does Catholic Church explain the reference to Christ at 1 Cor. 10?

they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them

This follows immediately after:

all drank the same spiritual drink

which itself follows after:

all ate the same spiritual food

which is preceded by:

all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea

Now, if the latter is to be taken as a figure of (Christian) baptism, then the two in the middle are most likely a type of the Eucharist (John 6 : 31-35, 41-42, 48-58); in which case, whether the water stemming from the rock is meant to symbolize baptism (in Christ's name : see Matthew 28:19; John 4:1-2; Acts 2:38, 8:12-16, 19:4-5; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 1:12-15; Galatians 3:27) or the water and blood that poured forth from his side at the crucifixion on Golgotha (John 19:34; 1 John 5:6-8), it stands to reason that, even from this perspective alone, the rock in question is a symbol of Christ.

at the time of the Exodus, one would hear of Yahweh

Furthermore, throughout both Testaments, various metaphors expressing solidity and stability are applied to God Himself, one of them being the word rock (1, 2); then, since sons resemble their fathers, the same should logically hold for Christ as well, since he is the son of God (Matthew 16:15-18). In fact, let us analyze the latter passage a bit: Why is Peter called a rock in the first place ? Because of the profession of faith coming from his lips. That profession of faith constitutes the (bed)rock of the entire Christian faith, which is why the person uttering it was granted that specific title or surname to begin with. Thus, to summarize, God the Father is the ultimate Rock; Christ, his only-begotten son, is then also a Rock, since He was born of the Father; faith in Him, by extension, is also a rock; as is the person uttering this statement, Simon.

Chrysostom wrote a commentary on almost every New Testament book, including Corinthians, so it would only be common sense to consult him on this matter as well:
(Note that, in the Christian East, sacraments are called mysteries).

And wherefore says he these things? To point out that as they were nothing profited by the enjoyment of so great a gift, so neither these by obtaining Baptism and partaking of spiritual Mysteries [Sacraments], except they go on and show forth a life worthy of this grace. Wherefore also he introduces the types both of Baptism and of the Mysteries [Sacraments].
But what is, "They were baptized into Moses?" Like as we, on our belief in Christ and His resurrection, are baptized, as being destined in our own persons to partake in the same mysteries [sacraments]; for, "we are baptized," says he, "for the dead," i.e., for our own bodies; even so they putting confidence in Moses, i.e., having seen him cross first, ventured also themselves into the waters. But because he wishes to bring the Type near the Truth; he speaks it not thus, but uses the terms of the Truth even concerning the Type.
Further: this was a symbol of the Font, and that which follows, of the Holy Table. For as you eat the Lord's Body, so they the manna: and as you drink the Blood, so they water from a rock. For though they were things of sense which were produced, yet were they spiritually exhibited, not according to the order of nature, but according to the gracious intention of the gift, and together with the body nourished also the soul, leading it unto faith. On this account, you see, touching the food he made no remark, for it was entirely different, not in mode only but in nature also; (for it was manna;) but respecting the drink, since the manner only of the supply was extraordinary and required proof, therefore having said that "they drank the same spiritual drink," he added, "for they drank of a spiritual Rock that followed them," and he subjoined, "and the Rock was Christ." For it was not the nature of the rock which sent forth the water, (such is his meaning,) else would it as well have gushed out before this time: but another sort of Rock, a spiritual One, performed the whole, even Christ who was every where with them and wrought all the wonders. For on this account he said, "that followed them."
Do you perceive the wisdom of Paul, how in both cases he points cut Him as the Giver, and thereby brings the Type near to the Truth? "For He who set those things before them," says he, "the same also has prepared this our Table: and the same Person both brought them through the sea and you through Baptism; and before them set manna, but before you His Body and Blood."


How old were Joseph & Mary when they marrried?

One common source of knowledge about Joseph and Mary is the Protoevangelium of James. This non canonical gospel was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. It is very known in most churches, including oriental churches. Of course, it is of dubious source, but it has been well known and illustrated in whole Christianity.

  And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them (= the Mary's parents); and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. The Lord will protect you. Source

I have seen this episode in the decoration of lot of old churches, in Europe. Even if we do not have to trust it as part of the Holy Revelation - it is by no way a canonical scripture - I usually have no difficulty to follow this representation.

Also consider what "old" means. It is a relative concept. Today, we could say that someone is old when he/she reaches its 70th birthday. But in ancient times, health was much weaker, and we usually married as young as possible. At Joseph's era, the life expectancy was around 20–30! So one may see himself as an "old man", even a widower with grown children... and being 35...

This is also the earliest text that explicitly claims that Joseph was a widower, with children, at the time that Mary is entrusted to his care. This feature is mentioned in a known Origen's text, who adduces it to demonstrate that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.


Is there any reference regarding the use of these extra-biblical sources in Mennonite congregations?

Having been a Mennonite for all my adult life, and attending a Mennonite Brethren church for the last 8 years or so, I have never heard of The Shepherd of Hermas, or any of the other books you mentioned.

However, Mennonites, and many other denominations, often use written resources in sermons, corporate worship (recitations, hymns, songs), etc, that are extra-Biblical.

The official stand of the U.S. Mennonite Brethren Church on the use of such teachings is summed up in Article 2 of the Confession of Faith:

  The Holy Spirit continues to make God known to individuals and the church; this revelation is always consistent with the Scriptures.

According to this, any extra-Biblical teaching which claims to be revelation of God ought to be permitted, so long as it is consistent with the Scriptures.


Does the Westminster Confession affirm or deny Luther's predilection for Paul's writings?

First of all, it's important to recognize that "Reformed theology" does not mean "theology of the reformers" – the terminology is a bit confusing, which is why the tradition is often referred to as Calvinism, even though Calvin was just one of many theologians in this tradition.  Other commonly cited "Reformed" confessions are the Belgic Confession and the 1689 Baptist Confession.
We can find the answer to your question in the Westminster Confession itself, chapter 7, "Of God's Covenant with Man."  Paragraphs 2 and 3 describe the "covenant of works" (or "covenant of life") that was made with Adam, and the "covenant of grace," which God instituted following Adam's failure to keep the first covenant.
The confession describes the covenant of grace as follows:

The Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe. (§3)

Some might assume that the reference to Jesus Christ means that this covenant only went into effect after Jesus's sacrifice, but that's not what is meant.  Instead, the covenant of grace has been in place ever since Adam's fall, but has manifested itself in different ways:

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament. (§5)

So "the time of the law" (the Old Testament) is still part of the "covenant of grace," and God's people of that time were saved by Jesus, even though he had not yet come.  But the manifestation of the covenant during that time was substantially different from "the time of the Gospel":

Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations. (§6)

Luther's view of all this is a matter of some debate.  It's generally accepted, however, that he spoke less of the idea of "covenant" than Reformed theologians did, and that he focused more on a Law/Gospel distinction that was more closely associated with the division between the Old and New Testaments (or between Moses and Christ), not between a "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace."
These distinctions are seen in Chapter 5 of the Formula of Concord, written by Lutherans a generation after Luther:

We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is to be maintained in the Church with great diligence as an especially brilliant light, by which, according to the admonition of St. Paul, the Word of God is rightly divided. (§1)
Everything that reproves sin is, and belongs to, the preaching of the Law. (§3)
The Gospel is properly such a doctrine as teaches what man who has not observed the Law, and therefore is condemned by it, is to believe, namely, that Christ has expiated and made satisfaction for all sins, and has obtained and acquired for him, without any merit of his [no merit of the sinner intervening], forgiveness of sins, righteousness that avails before God, and eternal life. (§4)

There are certainly significant differences between the Lutheran and Reformed views of the covenant, but some have argued that the Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction is more a matter of differing emphasis than major disagreement.  Still, these quotes make it clear that there are differences in how the two traditions approach the Law and the Old Testament.


According to Catholicism, can the saints be given the title "co-mediator of Grace"?

Mediation is a relative term. That is you can't mediate something from yourself to someone else per se. For example, Christ mediates between God and man (being Himself both).

Thus, any of us can mediate (go between or relay something/be the instrument of confering something to someone else):

  1 Timothy 2:2

  First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions,
  and thanksgiving be offered on behalf of all men for kings and all
  those in authority, so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in
  all godliness and dignity.

Mary is said to be Mediatrix of all graces in a relative sense, since she is only said to mediate from Christ to the rest of us.

[That Mary is Mediatrix of all graces is not as yet Catholic dogma; and it is very much debated among Catholics—you may believe or not believe Mary is Mediatrix of all graces, although it would be prudent, seeing the consistency with which it has been taught, to consider it something worthy of belief—it has not been definitively settled by the Magisterium/teaching authority of the Church. This quasi dogma is closely linked to Mary's being Co-Redemptrix (see below), and so many who reject this her being Co-Mediatrix with Christ also reject the former.]

For example, Pope Leo XIII said:

  ...it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary
  through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies
  gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.
  Thus as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no man goes to
  Christ but by his Mother. §

§ Leo XIII, Encyclical on the Rosary Octobri mense, September 21, 1891

But Blessed Pope Pius IX implies Mary is not exclusively the only Mediatrix, only that she is the ultimate, you could say, "among women":

  ...with her only-begotten Son,* is the most powerful Mediatrix and
  Conciliatrix in the whole world †

† Pius IX, Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854. [the same papal document defining the Immaculate Conception of Mary]

[note mine—1 Timothy 2:5]

This is powerful stuff. Note that he is speaking objectively. Like how Abraham didn't know he was actually going to the Father but through the Son. You mustn't strictly be aware that God has thus arranged the economy of His grace, but accept it once known.

She doesn't breach or usurp Christ's ultimate Mediatorship a) because 'usurp' implies a certain violence or a hesistance or reluctance or unwillingness to share your perogative, which we do not know Christ does with Mary, and expect that for His blessed mother He loves her much indeed b) that she is Mediatrix does not imply she doesn't need the grace from God & c) nowhere is it implied she can 'go past' Christ to get grace from God the Father: thus she is only an instrument of Christ (in a more loving way than that sounds).

Mary is an aqueduct which God has chosen, freely, to channel His graces through. Simply out of love, and in His eternal wisdom.

"Is it possible to say the saints are "Mediators of certain graces", according to Catholicism?"

In every way, yes. But they are not the exclusive mediators of any grace. Any more than Christ cannot chose to grant graces to anyone He wishes in an otherwise fashion than through His beloved mother, which we hold with a pious faith that He is not wont to do.

But yes, because if this is the case that God gives all His graces through Mary, then the saints may be the special mediators for certain graces, but only to a relative degree: no saint has a monopoly over one kind of God's graces.

Appendix

Mary as Co-Redemptrix

This is closely linked and is very much analagous to the other doctrine of Mary's being Mediatrix with Christ, of all graces.

The core underlying link is that Mary is the Eve to Christ the New Adam:

Adam utlimately was responsible for the Fall.

Christ, called in Scripture "the Last Adam," was utlimately responsible for the Redemption.

Adam renames the Woman "Eve" ('Life') because "she was to be the mother of all the living," Christ, who exclusively called His mother "Woman," and named her "mother of all the living" in Christ: "behold thy mother" (Rev 12:1,5,17).

Etc.

But Eve did play a part in the Fall. She "instigated" it or in any event without her it might not have played out the same way. Thus Mary is viewed as a major part of God's plan in the Redmption. Mary "encourages" or "instigates" Christ's ministry and ultimate Redemption of mankind in asking Him to 'start the timer,' as it were, on His Passion and death by working His first miracle at Cana: Eve began the work of the first Adam, Mary began the work of the "Last Adam," Jesus Christ.

Scripture records that Mary also suffered by way of "sword" through her soul. Which doesn't sound very nice: that's because being hoyl and knowing that her Son was divinely holy, and innocent, nonetheless watched as His precious blood dripped down His unrecognisable body. And we believe that her sufferings God put into a kind of 'treasury', as all sufferings of good people do, wherefrom God can bestow them justly on others who said saints are willing that they should be bestowed.

Thus Mary's sufferings,though absolutely inferior and categorically separate from that of Jesus', may be, in a real way, the difference between some people getting graces for her sake than if she had not suffered. So she contributes for certain sinners a mini passion. Not to be diminished in reality, but, out of protection of the uniqueness and absolute superiority of Jesus' Passion, we ought to be very careful in speaking about.

Thus, they are kind of 'in it together' at the Garden, Adam and Eve. And there is a certain continuity with Christ and Mary, except Mary is not God or divine in any way, but she wants only what Christ wants and so to ask of Mary is to ask Christ. Because He won't refuse her anything nor do anything for her which would breach His justice. yet He is happier and more glad to fulfill the request of His mother as aparticularly exemplary "spiri[t] of the righteous made perfect".

Thus she is the greatest advocate for us with Christ for graces, and thus with God.