What is the Biblical basis of the idea that a deceased person has "entered into eternal rest"?

Among Christians the concept of eternal rest for the deceased comes especially from several statements in the New Testament, but it does also draw on Old Testament themes and passages.

Old Testament themes

The very first mention of "rest" in the Bible occurs on the seventh day of creation:

  Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation. (Genesis 2:1–3, italics added)

This passage sets the tone throughout the Bible for the idea of rest after labors.

Though there is very little in the Old Testament about any afterlife, the concept of the deceased being "at rest" is present there.

The Old Testament commonly speaks of death as "sleeping with one's ancestors." Here are just a few examples:

  Then David slept with his ancestors, and was buried in the city of David. (1 Kings 2:10)

  Solomon slept with his ancestors and was buried in the city of his father David; and his son Rehoboam succeeded him. (1 Kings 11:43)

  The time that Jeroboam reigned was twenty-two years; then he slept with his ancestors, and his son Nadab succeeded him. (1 Kings 14:20)

  Rehoboam slept with his ancestors and was buried with his ancestors in the city of David. His mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonite. His son Abijam succeeded him. (1 Kings 14:31)

And Job poetically speaks of the dead as being at rest:

Why did I not die at birth,
    come forth from the womb and expire?
Why were there knees to receive me,
    or breasts for me to suck?
Now I would be lying down and quiet;
    I would be asleep; then I would be at rest
with kings and counselors of the earth
    who rebuild ruins for themselves,
or with princes who have gold,
    who fill their houses with silver.
Or why was I not buried like a stillborn child,
    like an infant that never sees the light?
There the wicked cease from troubling,
    and there the weary are at rest.
There the prisoners are at ease together;
    they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster.
The small and the great are there,
    and the slaves are free from their masters.
                                    (Job 3:11–19)

And the Psalms speak of the faithless and disobedient Israelites whom God had miraculously brought out of slavery from Egypt not entering into God's rest:

O that today you would listen to his voice!
    Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah,
    as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
when your ancestors tested me,
    and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work.
For forty years I loathed that generation
    and said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray,
    and they do not regard my ways."
Therefore in my anger I swore,
    "They shall not enter my rest."
                                           (Psalm 95:8–11)

Though the original meaning of "not entering my rest" here was not being allowed to enter the Holy Land, where the Children of Israel would settle down and be at "rest" from their long wanderings, in the New Testament this passage is given a deeper meaning related to God's promised spiritual rest (see the quotation from Hebrews just below).

New Testament themes

The New Testament also speaks of those who have died having followed the Lord during their lifetimes as being "at rest."

The Letter to the Hebrews ties together Old Testament themes of rest with the inner rest that the faithful will experience:

  Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest is still open, let us take care that none of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For indeed the good news came to us just as to them; but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,

"As in my anger I swore,
'They shall not enter my rest.'"

  though his works were finished at the foundation of the world. For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." And again in this place it says, "They shall not enter my rest." Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he sets a certain day—"today"—saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,

"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."

  For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day. So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.

  Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account. (Hebrews 4:1–13)

Though this passage does not explicitly connect God's promised rest with death, the theme of judgment and of rendering accounts in the final two verses suggests a connection with God's eternal judgment of human souls after death.

That connection is made explicit in the Book of Revelation:

  And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this: Blessed are the dead who from now on die in the Lord." "Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them." (Revelation 13:14)

And one more reference, from the Gospel of Luke, in which Jesus is speaking of entering through the narrow door (Luke 13:22–30), here in a very literal translation:

  and they shall come from east and west, and from north and south, and shall recline in the reign of God (Luke 13:19, Young's Literal Translation, italics added)

The Greek word for "recline" here, commonly translated "sit down," is ἀνακλίνω, (anaklinō), "to lay down, to bid recline." This refers to the ancient custom of reclining on couches to eat. Luke's imagery is of people who have entered the kingdom of God reclining, or resting, at the metaphorical banquet of God's kingdom.

These are some of the Bible passages on which the idea that the deceased have "entered into eternal rest" is based.


According to theistic evolutionists, at what point did humans evolve enough to be considered special to God?

My lay, minimally-researched Catholic understanding may not necessarily qualify, since Catholicism doesn't require a belief in evolution. But ... well, here I go:

In my understanding, it would be the first creature capable of bearing God's image. That is, it would be the first creature capable of love, but with freedom of will, and capable of contemplating the divine mysteries.

  The human person participates in the light and power of the divine
  Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of
  things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of
  directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in
  seeking and loving what is true and good.” (Catechism of the Catholic
  Church)

The whole chapter on The Dignity of the Human Person explains in great detail the aspects of being human make us "special" or "in his likeness." But, the summation, I think, is the capacity for Godly things.

And, perhaps more of a side note, another "qualification" for human "God likeness" would be a creature capable of dominating all other earthly creatures.

  Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our
  likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds
  of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the
  creatures that crawl on the earth. (Genesis
  1:26)

In any case, if you're after a particular point in time or creature to which we could say, here's the baby that broke the barrier, I'm not sure that's a wholly religious discussion. If we did venture such a guess, it would be whenever the anthropologists told us it was! But, I think the general criteria apply to both the creationist and evolutionist-leaning perspectives.


How does the existence of the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary fit with the Assumption of Mary?

The Catholic Church teaches as dogma that the Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. The Church's tradition on this matter is that Mary did physically die. But Pope Pius XII left this point an open question.

  On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII spoke these words, which kindled Catholic hearts around the world:

    We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heaven."

  "Having completed the course of her earthly life." This phrase displays the prudence and precision employed in the definition of dogma. There was no pronouncement on the exact nature of Our Lady's death, or even as to whether she died at all. The common consensus holds that the Mother of God did, in fact, experience physical death, but we must be careful here to state unequivocally that the death of the "Immaculate Conception" was an event as unique as the Lady herself:

    For Mary's death was to be neither an expiatory death [like that of Christ on Calvary] nor a death of punishment [like that of human beings born with original sin]. Moreover, under the cross she had been a sharer in the sufferings of Christ's death.... Her death came in the form of a dissolution resulting from the supernatural power of divine love, as a consuming of the natural vital strength by the languishing of her love, or by the violence of an ecstasy of love which separated the soul from the body, or because by her love Mary prevailed upon God not to maintain her bodily life any longer.

    Hence, Mary's death appears as a holocaust of love. The sacrifice, made under the cross in the greatest spiritual sorrow, was thereby outwardly completed in a sweet and loving manner as in a slumber of love." (Rev. M. J. Scheeben, Mariology, Vol. II.)

  "A slumber of love." The ancient Church knew well that the death of the Mother of God was a singular event, and they referred to this "slumber of love" as her Dormition, her "falling asleep," a clear indication that the close of the Virgin's earthly life was peaceful, unaccompanied by any anxiety or pain. On earth, Mary lived for Jesus and for Him only. When her earthly race was run, Mary's burning desire to be reunited forever with her Son found its fulfillment. "Now, since it is certain that the Son died of love and that the Mother died of the death of the Son," wrote St. Francis de Sales (+1622), "we must not doubt that the Mother died of love."

  Where did the Assumption take place?

There are two places that traditionally mark Mary’s Assumption both in Jerusalem and in Ephesus. From the Scriptures we do not learn about the end of Mary’s life or that of many of Christ’s apostles.

  Today there is a Greek Orthodox Church near Gethsemane in which there is a tomb where it is claimed Mary was placed after she died. However there is a stronger tradition that Mary spent the last part of her life in Ephesus in Turkey and died and was assumed into heaven from there. Two centuries ago the German mystic and stigmatist, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, in visions which she received between 1818-1824, saw an image of Mary’s house on a hill near Ephesus. Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich was  beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2004. The zeal of a French nun,  Sr. Marie DeMandat-Grancey, resulted in the expedition that located the remains of the house in 1891, on Mt. Nightingale very near ancient Ephesus, exactly where Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich said it was. (Fr. Eugene Poulin was also on the expedition but desires that posterity give the gratitude to Sr. Marie) The shape of the house and all other details exactly matched the description of Sr. Anne Catherine Emmerich, and it was the only stone house on the hill. Now that house on Mt. Nightingale very near ancient Ephesus is restored and venerated as the house where Mary came to spend the last years of her life to avoid the persecution of the Church in Jerusalem. It is in the care of the Franciscans and each year receives one and a half million visitors. The first church ever dedicated to Our Lady was built in Ephesus in the second century and Christians had a principle in the early Church that they only built a church in someone’s honor if that person lived and died or was martyred there. When Jesus was dying on the cross he asked his close friend and disciple John to look after his mother (John 19:26-27), and St. John also spent time in Ephesus and is buried there. In 431 AD a big council of the Church was held in Ephesus which declared Mary to be the Mother of God. Naturally the council declaring Mary as Mother of God would not have taken place there if they did not believe Mary had been there. Those who visit the house of Mary say they feel the presence of Our Lady there very strongly. Many graces and healings are received there and you can see many crutches left there by people who were miraculously healed there. The house is also visited by many Muslims because Muslims also have a strong devotion to Our Lady. In it excerpts about Our Lady from the Muslim holy book, the Koran, are plainly seen. It is the only place in the world where Muslims and Christians pray together peacefully. That is what Our Lady as a mother and the New Eve would want, all peoples praying together peacefully. On July 26th 1967, Pope Paul VI visited the house; on November 30th 1979, Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass nearby, and in 1991 he called it “the material home of Mary.” (Subsequent to my preaching this homily  Pope Benedict also celebrated Mass there on November 29th 2006). - The Assumption of Our Lady and her house in Ephesus

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich in her revelation mentions that she believed the actual tomb of the Ever Blessed Virgin Mary will one day eventually be discovered, not far from where she dwelled at Mt. Koressos (Ephesus), Turkey with St. John the Apostle.

  In 1895 Pope Leo XIII removed the plenary indulgence for Mary’s tomb in
  Jerusalem for all time. Pope Pius X granted a one time plenary indulgence
  to a 1914 pilgrimage to Mary’s House. In 1951, Pope Pius XII declared
  Mary’s House an official sanctuary for pilgrims. That same year he also granted permission for the celebration of the Votive Mass of the Assumption
  at Mary’s House. Finally, Pope John XXIII granted a plenary indulgence
  for Catholic pilgrims to Mary’s House for all time on August 18, 1961.

  Three Vicars of Christ have also blessed Mary’s House with their presence.
  Pope Paul VI came to pay his respects to the Virgin Mary at Ephesus on
  July 26th 1967. He entered the shrine, prayed for a long time in front of the
  altar, and he himself lit the sculpted lamp he had brought. In memory of Sr.
  Marie de Mandat-Grancey, he gave the Superior of the Sisters of Charity a
  gold chalice for their oratory inscribed with her name.

  Pope John Paul II also came to Meryem Ana Evi on November 30, 1979
  after an official visit to Ankara. He celebrated Holy Mass there before a
  crowd of pilgrims. The open air altar was erected on this occasion. He
  offered to the Capuchin Friars, who celebrate the Holy Eucharist every day
  at the shrine, precious liturgical clothes and vessels. - Mary’s House & Sister Marie

The House of the Blessed Virgin, Mary (Selçuk, Turkey)

According to the meditations of Sister Catherine Emmerich (d. 1824), compiled and published in 1852, the Blessed Virgin died and was buried not at Ephesus but three or four leagues south of the city or one and a half hours of carrying the litter of the Virgin Mary by two Apostles from Mary's house to her tomb. She is followed by those who accept her visions or meditations as private revelations.


Can a person prove that Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament without going to the New Testament?

In Luke 24, Jesus says this to the two men walking to Emmaus:

  25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all
  that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer
  these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses
  and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the
  Scriptures concerning himself.

It appears that Jesus was capable of proving the point. That does not mean that we possess sufficient clarity concerning the meaning of the scriptures to do what he did, but we can through prayer, careful study, and experience approach that goal.


Does being a Christian necessitate a belief in the supernatural?

Yes! It is written, “Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people.” (Revelation 14:6, NIV)

That people includes many scientists who believe as you describe. Now Jesus described what becoming a Christian means:

  After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee, preaching the good
  news of God:  “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come
  near. Repent and believe in the good news!” (Mark 1:14-15, HCSB)

Repenting means to change your mind, to agree with God about certain things that you did not believe before, both to agree that your behavior and morals are imperfect and need to change, as well as form new ideas about God.

Jesus promised his disciples that after he rose from the dead, he would send the Holy Spirit. This happened in the Book of Acts. A prominent emphasis in Acts is the baptism by the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus told Nicodemus, to become a Christian, you must be born from above, aka born again. That is what the church taught and teaches still.

Jesus said that every blasphemy will be forgiven - even blasphemy against his name - but not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (See Matthew 12:31-32.)

Therefore, the proof of necessary repentance is God’s gift of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is supernatural. Thus the scientist who does not believe in the supernatural can become a Christian, but in the process, they will as a consequence of God’s activity in their life repent of their unbelief and acknowledge what God has done.

In other words, dry things can become wet if you pour water on them. Unspiritual people can become Spiritual if the Spirit is poured on them.

  “For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from
  yourselves; it is God's gift — not from works, so that no one can
  boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9, HCSB)


According to Catholicism, does an individual bishop have the safeguard of Infallibility or Indefectibility?

According to Catholicism, do individual bishops have the safeguard of Infallibility or Indefectibility?

The short answer on both counts is no.

First of all what is indefectibility?

  Indefectibility

  Definition

  Imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time. The First Vatican Council declared that the Church possesses "an unconquered stability" and that, "built on a rock, she will continue to stand until the end of time" (Denzinger 3013, 3056). The Church's indefectibility, therefore, means that she now is and will always remain the institution of salvation, founded by Christ. This affirms that the Church is essentially unchangeable in her teaching, her constitution, and her liturgy. It does not exclude modifications that do not affect her substance, nor does it exclude the decay of individual local churches or even whole dioceses.

By definition the local ordinary of a diocese does not enjoy the  safeguard of indefectibility since it’s definition states clearly that it is accorded to the Church in its entirety. It is not the pope or a bishop that is indefectible, but the Holy Catholic Church itself. Whole dioceses can vanish and no longer exist.
Historically, this has already happened many times over. However the Church will last until the consummation of the world.

Dioceses that no longer exist are generally referred to as titular sees.

  A titular see in various churches is an episcopal see of a former diocese that no longer functions, sometimes called a "dead diocese".

  The ordinary or hierarch of such a see may be styled a "titular metropolitan" (highest rank), "titular archbishop" (intermediary rank) or "titular bishop" (lowest rank), which normally goes by the status conferred on the titular see.

  The term is used to signify a diocese that no longer functionally exists, often because the diocese once flourished but the territory was conquered by Muslims or no longer functions because of a schism. The Greek–Turkish population exchange of 1923 also contributed to titular bishoprics. The see of Maximianoupolis along with the town that shared its name was destroyed by the Bulgarians under Emperor Kaloyan in 1207; the town and the see were under the control of the Latin Empire, which took Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Parthenia, in north Africa, was abandoned and swallowed by desert sand.

Do individual bishops have the safeguard of infallibility?

This part of the question needs some clarification before going on. On their own, an individual bishop does not enjoy the privilege of infallibility. Only the pope and only when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church". Most bishops never teach erroneous doctrine and many are saints. But nevertheless they do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility in their episcopal office. It belongs to the Successor of St. Peter the Apostle.

  Infallibility

  Definition

  Freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals. As defined by the First Vatican Council, "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church" (Denzinger 3074).

  The bearer of the infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. But the Pope alone is infallible, not others to whom he delegates a part of his teaching authority, for example, the Roman congregations.

  The object of his infallibility is his teaching of faith and morals. This means especially revealed doctrine like the Incarnation. But it also includes any nonrevealed teaching that is in any way connected with revelation.

  The condition of the infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required that: 1. he have the intention of declaring something unchangeably true; and 2. he speak as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment of the Church of God.

  The source of the infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit, who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error and therefore from misleading the people of God.

  As a result, the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope are unchangeable "of themselves," that is, not because others in the Church either first instructed the Pope or agree to what he says. (Etym. Latin in-, not + fallibilis; from fallere, to deceive: infallibilis, not able to deceive, or err.)

If individual bishops in union (at the same time) with the Supreme Pontiff were to make an infallible teaching within the Catholic Church, they would enjoy this privilege, uniquely by virtue of being united to and in union with the pope at that exact moment would they be infallible. Apart from this unique perspective, generally speaking, bishops are not infallible. They can make theological errors.

A bishop in full communion does not have the grace of infallibility. Bishops do not have the grace of infallibility, that is they do not have the safeguards of the assurance that they will always be infallible.

Thanks be to God, the vast majority do not.

Deo Gratias.

It should be noted that bishop who writes a theological work must still obtain an imprimatur. He can not grant an imprimatur to his own works! Papal encyclicals do not carry an imprimatur! There is no need to do so.


What is the biblical basis for Christians NOT to quit their jobs, sell all their possessions, and preach the gospel?

You seem to be alluding to the account of the rich young man in the Gospels:

Matthew 19:16-22

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Mark 10:17-22

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

First, in these Scriptures we note that Jesus is speaking specifically to one particular individual whose attachment to his wealth was an impediment to his faith.  As the Church Fathers pointed out, although it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:23), it is not impossible.  Joseph of Arimathaea is an example of a rich man who was Jesus' disciple (Matthew 27:57).

Second, in the accounts of the rich young man, Christ does not urge the young man to "preach the Gospel".  He is asked, rather, that he take up his cross (Mark 10:21) and follow Jesus (Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21) - not to preach.
Throughout the New Testament, the importance of truth is emphasized.  Christ is the Truth (John 14:6).  Jesus taught that one must worship in Spirit and Truth (John 4:24).  The Church itself is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).  Like Paul immediately after his conversion (see below), many may feel "inspired" to begin preaching the Gospel, without really being prepared to do so.  The result is spiritual delusion, leading to heresies and schisms (1 Corinthians 11:19).  The fact that there are so many Christian "denominations" (a term more suited to currency than the Church) with conflicting beliefs attests to the fact that many, many persons throughout history must have preached another Gospel (1 Galatians 1:18):  When conflicting doctrine is taught by multiple sects, either all or all but one of the sects must have been teaching falsehoods.

Third, many understand that to follow Jesus means to preach the Gospel.  This belief has no basis in Scripture.  To follow Jesus means to obey Him (John 14:23), not to preach, unless specifically directed to do so.  The famous "Great Commission" was given specifically to the eleven remaining Apostles, who alone were assembled by Jesus (Matthew 28:16), and were commanded to baptize and to teach all nations ... to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you (Matthew 28:20).  It was not a commandment that was given to all disciples or believers in general.
A close reading of the Acts of the Apostles will show that when the disciples went forth to preach, they were sent either directly by the Apostles or by one(s) who were appointed by the Apostles or by others who were successively appointed to preach.  One exception was Paul, who appeared to begin preaching shortly after his conversion without being so appointed (Acts 9:20), but very quickly had to be rescued (Acts 9:25).  The next time we see Paul beginning a ministry, it will be under the direct supervision of an Apostle (Barnabas; see Acts 11:25).


God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their grievous sins along with other towns in the plain of the Jordan, except Zoar.

  Genesis 18:20-21 (NIV) Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down
  and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has
  reached me. If not, I will know.”

There were five cities in the plain of the Jordan - Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim and Zoar.

  Genesis 14:8 (NIV) Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboyim and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) marched out and drew up their battle
  lines in the Valley of Siddim.

After Lot and Abram were separated, Lot chose to live in the plain of Jordan.

  Genesis 13:11-13 (NIV) So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the
  Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company: Abram
  lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the
  plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. Now the people of Sodom were
  wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.

The four cities - Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim were destroyed but Zoar was spared because Lot pleaded the two angels to spare the town of Zoar as he wanted to run there for safety.

  Genesis 19:23-24 (NIV) By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen
  over the land. Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and
  Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.

  Genesis 19:29 (NIV) So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he
  remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that
  overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

The city of Sodom was known for sodomy and that is exactly how we get this English word. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded by prophet Ezekiel, ~1500 years later -

  Ezekiel 16:49-50 (NIV) “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did
  not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable
  things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded by apostle Jude in the New Testament, ~2000 years later -

  Jude 1:7 (NIV) In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and
  perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the
  punishment of eternal fire.


It is generally accepted that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome.  Tertullian and Origen attest to this.

From WikiPedia:

  According to the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Peter labored in Rome
  during the last portion of his life, and there ended his life by
  martyrdom.[17] The death of St. Peter is attested to by Tertullian at
  the end of the 2nd century, and by Origen in Eusebius, Church History
  III.1. Origen says: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head
  downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer."[17] This is why an
  upside down cross is generally accepted as a symbol of Peter, who
  would not have considered himself worthy enough to die the same way as
  his Savior.[35]

Whether or not Peter was bishop of Rome is still debated, although it is a belief held by the Catholic church.


How has Roman Catholic Confession changed throughout the centuries?

I know that this question deals with the 16th century on, but I would like to give a little background first.

  According to the Council of Trent, the consensus of all the Fathers always understood that by the words of Christ just cited, the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles and their lawful successors (Sess. XIV, c. i). It is therefore Catholic doctrine that the Church from the earliest times believed in the power to forgive sins as granted by Christ to the Apostles. Such a belief in fact was clearly inculcated by the words with which Christ granted the power, and it would have been inexplicable to the early Christians if any one who professed faith in Christ had questioned the existence of that power in the Church. But if, contrariwise, we suppose that no such belief existed from the beginning, we encounter a still greater difficulty: the first mention of that power would have been regarded as an innovation both needless and intolerable; it would have shown little practical wisdom on the part of those who were endeavouring to draw men to Christ; and it would have raised a protest or led to a schism which would certainly have gone on record as plainly at least as did early divisions on matters of less importance. But no such record is found; even those who sought to limit the power itself presupposed its existence, and their very attempt at limitation put them in opposition to the prevalent Catholic belief.

  Turning now to evidence of a positive sort, we have to note that the statements of any Father or orthodox ecclesiastical writer regarding penance present not merely his own personal view, but the commonly accepted belief; and furthermore that the belief which they record was no novelty at the time, but was the traditional doctrine handed down by the regular teaching of the Church and embodied in her practice. In other words, each witness speaks for a past that reaches back to the beginning, even when he does not expressly appeal to tradition.

  St. Augustine (d. 430) warns the faithful: "Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God has power to forgive all sins" (De agon. Christ., iii).
  St. Ambrose (d. 397) rebukes the Novatianists who "professed to show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He bestowed. . . . The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that for both the power should be equal" (On Penance I.2.6).
  Again he teaches that this power was to be a function of the priesthood. "It seemed impossible that sins should be forgiven through penance; Christ granted this (power) to the Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of priests" (On Penance II.2.12).
  The power to forgive extends to all sins: "God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to all and to His priests He granted the authority to pardon without any exception" (On Penance I.3.10).
  Against the same heretics St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona (d. 390), wrote to Sympronianus, one of their leaders: "This (forgiving sins), you say, only God can do. Quite true: but what He does through His priests is the doing of His own power" (Ep. I ad Sympron., 6 in P.L., XIII, 1057).
  In the East during the same period we have the testimony of St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 447): "Men filled with the spirit of God (i.e. priests) forgive sins in two ways, either by admitting to baptism those who are worthy or by pardoning the penitent children of the Church" (In Joan., 1, 12 in P.G., LXXIV, 722).
  St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) after declaring that neither angels nor archangels have received such power, and after showing that earthly rulers can bind only the bodies of men, declares that the priest's power of forgiving sins "penetrates to the soul and reaches up to heaven". Wherefore, he concludes, "it were manifest folly to condemn so great a power without which we can neither obtain heaven nor come to the fulfillment of the promises. . . . Not only when they (the priests) regenerate us (baptism), but also after our new birth, they can forgive us our sins" (On the Priesthood III.5 sq.).
  St. Athanasius (d. 373): "As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ" (Frag. contra Novat. in P.G., XXVI, 1315).

  These extracts show that the Fathers recognized in penance a power and a utility quite distinct from that of baptism. Repeatedly they compare in figurative language the two means of obtaining pardon; or regarding baptism as spiritual birth, they describe penance as the remedy for the ills of the soul contracted after that birth. But a more important fact is that both in the West and in the East, the Fathers constantly appeal to the words of Christ and given them the same interpretation that was given eleven centuries later by the Council of Trent. In this respect they simply echoed the teachings of the earlier Fathers who had defended Catholic doctrine against the heretics of the third and second centuries. Thus St. Cyprian in his "De lapsis" (A.D. 251) rebukes those who had fallen away in time of persecution, but he also exhorts them to penance: "Let each confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession can be received, while satisfaction and the forgiveness granted by the priests is acceptable to God" (c. xxix). (See LAPSI.) The heretic Novatian, on the contrary, asserted that "it is unlawful to admit apostates to the communion of the Church; their forgiveness must be left with God who alone can grant it" (Socrates, Church History V.28). Novatian and his party did not at first deny the power of the Church to absolve from sin; they affirmed that apostasy placed the sinner beyond the reach of that power — an error which was condemned by a synod at Rome in 251. - Catholic Encyclopedia

In the Early Church, confessions was done publicly.

  Three kinds of penance are to be distinguished canonical, prescribed by councils or bishops in the form of "canons" for graver offences. This might be either private, i.e., performed secretly or public i.e., performed in the presence of bishop, clergy and people. When accompanied by certain rites as prescribed in the Canons, it was solemn penance.

  Public penance did not necessarily include a public avowal of sin. As St. Augustine also declares, "If his sin is not only grievous in itself, but involves scandal given to others, and if the bishop [antistes] judges that it will be useful to the Church [to have the sin published], let not the sinner refuse to do penance in the sight of many or even of the people at large, let him not resist, nor through shame add to his mortal wound a greater evil" (Sermo cli, n. 3). - Catholic Encyclopedia

It was the the Church in Ireland in particular followed by the Churches in the British Isles that the notion and practice of private confession and private penance first became the the norm that the Catholic Church took up as the preferred way to administer the sacrament of confession.

  In the British and Irish Churches

  The penitential system in these countries was established simultaneously with the introduction of Christianity, was rapidly developed by episcopal decrees and synodal enactments, and was reduced to definite form in the Penitentials. These books exerted such an influence on the practice in Continental Europe that, according to one opinion, they "first brought order and unity into ecclesiastical discipline in these matters" (Wasserschleben, "Bussordnungen d. abendlandischen Kirche", Halle, 1851, p. 4. — For a different view see Schmitz, "Die Bussbucher u. die Bussdisciplin d. Kirche", Mainz, 1888, p. 187). In any case, it is beyond question that in their belief and practice the Churches of Ireland, England, and Scotland were at one with Rome. The so-called Synod of St. Patrick decrees that a Christian who commits any of the capital sins shall perform a year's penance for each offence and at the end shall "come with witnesses and be absolved by the priest" (Wilkins, "Concilia", I, p. 3). Another synod of St. Patrick ordains that "the Abbot shall decide to whom the power of binding and loosing be committed, but forgiveness is more in keeping with the examples of Scripture; let penance be short, with weeping and lamentation, and a mournful garb, rather than long and tempered with relaxations "(Wilkins, ibid., p. 4). For various opinions regarding the date and origin of the synods, see Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils", II, 331; Bury, "Life of St. Patrick", London, 1905. The confessor was called anmchara (animae carus), i.e., "soul's friend". St. Columba was anmchara to Aidan, Lord of Dalraida, A.D. 574 (Adamnan's "Life of St. Columba", ed. Reeves, p. lxxvi); and Adamnan was "soul's friend" to Finnsnechta, Monarch of Ireland, A.D. 675 (ibid., p. xliii). The "Life of St. Columba" relates the coming of Feachnaus to Iona, where, with weeping and lamentation, he fell at Columba's feet and "before all who were present confessed his sins. Then the Saint weeping with him, said to him: 'Arise, my son and be comforted; thy sins which thou hast committed are forgiven; because, as it is written, a contrite and humble heart God doth not despise,'" (ibid., I, 30). The need and effects of confession are explained in the Leabhar Breac: "Penance frees from all the sins committed after baptism. Every one desirous of a cure for his soul and happiness with the Lord must make an humble and sorrowful confession; and the confession with the prayers of the Church are as baptisms to him. As sickness injures the body, so sin injures the soul; and as there is a cure for the disease of the body, so there is balm for that of the soul. And as the wounds of the body are shown to a physician, so, too, the sores of the soul must be exposed. As he who takes poison is saved by a vomit, so, too, the soul is healed by confession and declaration of his sins with sorrow, and by the prayers of the Church, and a determination henceforth to observe the laws of the Church of God. . . Because Christ left to His Apostles and Church, to the end of the world, the power of loosing and binding."

Slowly but surely the the Church in the medieval period developed this wonderful sacrament into the shape and form we see today.

That said the administration of this sacrament since the 16th century has seen very little changes in the form of administration of this sacrament of reconciliation.

In the question mentioned above the OP mentions that it is the common practice to go to whatever confessor (priest) that is present at a Catholic school for confession.

Just because this is the most common way to go to confession, that does not mean that that this is an absolute norm.

A priest who has the faculties to hear confessions can also carry the title of confessor, especially if the penitent sees a particular priest on a very regular bases for this sacrament.

Religious more often than not have a unique confessor to confess their sins to. Having a single priest to hear one’s sins has more benefits than going to just a random priest. A true confessor in this case can help the faithful (most often a Religious as laypeople generally go to their local pastor or chaplain) advance in holiness, avoiding the occasions of temptations and much more as the priest in this case the know the soul of the penitent much more intimately.

The practice is not limited to Religious and I would highly recommend this to everyone.

It is also true that he confessors of Religious are generally appointed to a particular convent or Religious Order, it is not an absolute rule or guideline. Generally speaking Benedictine Religious (monks or nuns) will have a number of spiritual confessors that are also Benedictine priests also typically called a spiritual director.

This is the type of confessor that St. Theresa of the Child Jesus and St. Gemma had. This option has always been available to go to confession to a priest in whom one is more comfortable with and in whom one is at ease in gaining more spiritual insights on how to become a saint.

Another manner to confess one’s sins is called as St. Francis de Sales and other saints is a general confession.

  A General Confession  as understood by St. Ignatius of Loyola is a form of Confession whereby one spends 3 to 10 days preparing for a confession of all one's 'sins up to that time.' The main goal of the "general confession" is to turn one's life from one of sin to a more devout one. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius have done much to popularise this form of confession, with such a confession being the significant end-point of the First Week of his Spiritual Exercises.

Although not necessary for eternal salvation, this is the practice of many Religious prior to taking simple vows.

In closing I would like to simply add one more point. And this is new (1986). This sacrament is so important that in the Code of Canon Law, the Church allows the faithful to go to confession to non-Catholic priests with valid sacraments such as in the Orthodox Churches in the case of an emergency.

  Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.

  §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Thus since the 16th century very little has truly changed in form of this sacrament. We should simple be aware that other forms in the administration of this wonderful sacrament have always traditionally existed.


Is it possible to get a divorce (not an annulment) in the Catholic Church?

Valid, consummated marriages of the baptized are indissoluble.

Can.  1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum (ratified and consummated*) can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.
*This means "the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh." (Can. 1061 §1).

Non-consummated marriages of the baptized can be dissolved.
One way a valid (ratified or ratum) marriage between two baptized persons or between a baptized and non-baptized person can be dissolved is if it is non-consummated (ratum et non consummatum) and

one makes a solemn religious profession

or

one or both parties seek a dispensation from the Apostolic See (Petrine privilege).

See: Can. 1142
Marriages of the unbaptized can be dissolved if a spouse converts.
Legitimate marriage of the unbaptized, even if consummated, can be dissolved in favor of the faith by the Pauline privilege, after 1 Cor. 7:15:

But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude [i.e., of the marriage bond] in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.

This can occur, for example, when one spouse converts to Catholicism but the other spouse "does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without affront to the Creator" (Can. 1143 §2).


For most Christians the most special day of the week is Sunday. It was the day on which Jesus was raised from the dead, and Christians have held a weekly worship service on that day for many centuries. In countries with a Christian heritage Sunday is a day off to allow Christians to celebrate.
While Sunday is normally the day of worship, many Christians believe it to be a matter of tradition rather than a requirement of God. Christians that live in countries where where religious services are usually held on another day, such as Saturday in Jewish countries or Friday for Islamic countries, will often hold services on those days because it is easier to attend. ("On that day" may mean "the evening before" in countries where the traditional day runs from sundown to sundown).
One church that treats Friday specially is the Roman Catholic church. Friday is a special fast day, on which people abstain from meat. Canon law says:

Can.  1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.
Can.  1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Other denominations like Anglicans and Methodists do similar. See Friday Fast.


How did the Holy Spirit come into existence?

According to mainstream Christianity, the Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity - loosely speaking a part of God. Therefore he was not created. He is eternal, without beginning and without end. This is best (though not necessarily most understandably) summed up in the Athenasian Creed:

  Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated.

Something around 98% of Christians adhere to this view.

For those that do not believe in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is usually considered to be an 'impersonal force', or the action of God, or simply another way of referring to God (as opposed to a separate person). In these cases there is also no question of "who created the Holy Spirit". He has always existed.


What Bible verses suggest that humans can become angels?

No.

The general accounts of men, angels and the interaction between the two makes a pretty clear distinction that they are different KINDS of beings. Both are created by God but each has a different purpose and different destiny. We understand some things they do not. They are not bound by some of the physical limitations we are.

One interesting note is that angels were never offered salvation. The 1/3 of the angels that sided with Satan in his rebellion were cast out of Heaven and every indication is made that they will never see it again.


What might the Bible mean by "marital unfaithfulness," other than adultery?

"Marriage unfaithfulness" is not a term used in the Bible, so one would have to define it in order to determine a biblical answer. Where did you get the words from, and how were they used?

Since you ask "What MIGHT the Bible refer to as marital unfaithfulness," then I would consider what the husband is supposed to do for the wife and fails to do it as unfaithfulness. Eph. 5:25 tells the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church. No one can do that perfectly, but at least we can aim our (husbands') love in that direction. To point his love away from his wife would be "unfaithfulness" to God's command here.

1 Peter 3:7 tells the husband to dwell with the wife, giving her honor. He should make an effort to understand who she is and deal with her in her weaknesses (the "weaker vessel"). Is it honorable treatment to treat her as a slave, to place greater burdens on her than she should bear, to demean her with controlling commands that turn her into a slave instead of a person made in the image of God? To deliberately treat the wife with dishonor or with less than chivalrous motives is to act in "unfaithfulness" to commands in the scriptures.

These are areas the Bible might consider actions as marital unfaithfulness to the scriptural role the husband is called to uphold. I do not mean to imply that these are the same as sexual sins and worthy of divorce. I do mean to state that these are potential areas of abuse (emotional or physical) that would be considered wrong if they are practiced against the wife with evil intent.


Is Cain saved or he will go into the eternal perdition?

The same question can be asked of Judas, Goliath, or any other "villian" in the Bible. According to Scripture:

"The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

The same could also be said of Saul of Tarsus, however, prior to his conversion.

Cain's curse, in particular, is known:

  Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.

Note how the entire curse is restricted to this life, and not the next. (Many would argue that the Old Testament does not have an afterlife, based on somethings that David, Job, and Qoheleth write - but that's a different question.) There is nothing that bears on the afterlife or eternal destiny, so no conclusion can be rightly drawn from Scripture to anything that extends beyond the earth.

Depending on one's soteriology, there are Christian positions that range from "God chooses whomever he wants" to "God will accept whoever turns to him."  The point in all of this is that:

a. We don't know, because we don't have enough evidence
b. We don't know, because God is ultimately in charge
c. We don't know, because we don't know how God chooses.

In short, we don't know.


What musical liturgical melodies could Jesus have sung in the synagogues of his day?

I posted a similar question on the Jewish Mi Yodyea site asking what religious music would have been sung in Israel after the time of David and Solomon.   One commentator gave a Wiki link, part of which says this:

The Book of Psalms (/sɑːmz/ or /sɔː(l)mz/ SAW(L)MZ; Hebrew: תְּהִלִּים, Tehillim, "praises"), commonly referred to simply as Psalms , the Psalter or "the Psalms", is the first book of the Ketuvim ("Writings"), the third section of the Hebrew Bible, and thus a book of the Christian Old Testament. The title is derived from the Greek translation, ψαλμοί, psalmoi, meaning "instrumental music" and, by extension, "the words accompanying the music".  The book is an anthology of individual psalms, with 150 in the Jewish and Western Christian tradition and more in the Eastern Christian churches.
Psalms are used throughout traditional Jewish worship...  According to the Talmud, these daily Psalms were originally recited on that day of the week by the Levites in the Temple in Jerusalem.  From Rosh Chodesh Elul until Hoshanah Rabbah, Psalm 27 is recited twice daily following the morning and evening services. There is a Minhag (custom) to recite Psalm 30 each morning of Chanukkah after Shacharit: some recite this in place of the regular "Psalm for the Day", others recite this additionally.  Source: The Ancient music of the Psalms

Jesus was intimately acquainted with all of the Law, the Prophets and the Wisdom Literature, and since the Psalms were set to music, it is almost certain Jewish people living 2,000 years ago would sing Psalms as part of their worship.

Many scholars believe the individual Psalms were redacted into a single collection in Second-Temple times. - Editorial agenda (Palms)
Despite the frequently heard view that their ancient music is lost, the means to reconstruct it are still extant. Fragments of temple psalmody are preserved in ancient church and synagogue chant, particularly in the tonus peregrinus melody to Psalm 114. Cantillation signs, to record the melody sung, were in use since ancient times; evidence of them can be found in the manuscripts of the oldest extant copies of Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls and are even more extensive in the Masoretic text, which dates to the Early Middle Ages and whose Tiberian scribes claimed to be basing their work on temple-period signs. (See Moshe ben Asher's 'Song of the Vine' colophon to the Codex Cairensis).
Several attempts have been made to decode the Masoretic cantillation, but the most successful is that of Suzanne Haïk-Vantoura (1928–2000) in the last quarter of the 20th century. Although some have dismissed Haïk-Vantoura's system, Mitchell has repeatedly defended it, showing that, when applied to the Masoretic cantillation of Psalm 114, it produces a melody recognizable as the tonus peregrinus of church and synagogue. Mitchell includes musical transcriptions of the temple psalmody of Psalms 120–134 in his commentary on the Songs of Ascents.  Regardless of academic research, Sephardic Jews have retained a tradition in the Masoretic cantillation.  Source: The ancient music of the Psalms

Aryeh posted an excellent answer to my question, quoting from sources which show that the Levitical priests would sing in the Temple.  One quote presents a construction of a daily Temple service.  The answer concludes by saying:

Scholars infer what parts of what this Levite music sounded like from the Hebrew text of the Psalms, which might show call-and-response forms or refrains, the use of an unclear instrument (such as the alamot in Psalms 46), or the name of a forgotten scale (e.g., the shminit in Psalm 6).

Here is the link to the question I asked so you can read Aryeh’s answer in full: What religious music would have been sung in Israel after the time of David and Solomon?
Ancient Echoes has done recordings with melodies done in what they believe to be sung at the time of Jesus.

On a new CD, Ancient Echoes, SAVAE has once again turned to history for inspiration, this time in the ancient music of the Middle East. The recording is a collection of tunes, songs and prayers that date from the time of Jesus and Jerusalem's Second Temple, when Jews were returning to the holy city from exile in Babylon.
Before recording Ancient Echoes, SAVAE founder Covita Moroney and her husband, artistic director Christopher Moroney, spent a year and a half learning Aramaic, a language spoken in the Middle East 2,000 years ago. They also studied the proper pronunciations of ancient dialects of Hebrew and Arabic.
The prayers and lyrics on Ancient Echoes draw on a variety of sources, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Torah, the New Testament and an engraving on a Greek gravestone dating from the first century. The Moroneys based most of the musical compositions on the work of Jewish musicologist Abraham Idelsohn. Living and working in Jerusalem early in the 20th century, Idelsohn studied the music and stories of the early Jews returning from exile. He then compared their songs and tales with those of Jews moving back to Palestine in the early 1900s. - Music from the Time of Jesus

One can listen to the commentary about the making of this CD here.
If you find it helpful, you might want to give Aryeh’s answer an up-vote.  I don’t know anything about Gregorian or Early Byzantine Chants, but the Wiki article on the ancient music of the Psalms may be of use to you.


Is Cecil B. DeMille's narration of Moses in the desert based on the Bible?

No.

This is simply dramatic prose to summarize what what assumes Moses was feeling. It is completely made up by DeMille.

The full extent of Moses' flight to Midian is a few verses in Exodus 2

  15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well. ... (an interlude about Moses' father-in-law) ... 21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. 22 And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.

The closest thing to getting to the text is that the interlude has Moses drawing water for Jethro's livestock and talking to his daughters. And that's just about it.  Perhaps also, one could surmise Moses' state from knowing what God was concerned about:

  23 And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

The 10 Commandments takes much liberty with the text - naming Pharoah as Ramses, creating a love affair with a royal courtier, and the like.  This dramatic insertion is no different.

<snark>
All that said, however, Charelton Heston matches every picture of Moses we were given in the Bible to a T.  The inspired illustrations of Heston parting the Red Sea and starting the plagues matches the film precisely.
</snark>

In all seriousness, whenever I preach Moses, I know half the congregation has his picture in their minds.


Absent apostolic succession, what is the argument for the authority of the church?

This is a great question.

In the Presbyterian churches I have participated in they have had the following structure:

Denomination - An organization (often national) that oversees many different regional bodies (in my denomination called Presbyteries). It is a representative democracy, where each Presbytery has a representative and they vote to determine policy.
Presbytery - A regional group of churches. This is also a democracy, each church has representatives (typically elders) who are elected or hired by the members of the church.
Church - A church is a local congregation of consisting of voting members and non-voting attendees (there are vows etc for members). The Members vote for people to become elders and deacons, and pastors.

Thus in the Presbyterian system, much like the government of the United States the power of the church and its officials is derived directly from the members of the congregation. If the members are unhappy with their pastor or elders there are procedures in place to remove them from their positions. The congregation is considered to be the "Body of Christ" and thus the source of the Church's operational authority.

The Presbyterian church accepts only the Bible as an infallible doctrinal standard, but also points to the Westminster Confession of faith as a concise statement of their beliefs. The Bible is not amendable, however there are circumstances under which the confession can be amended.


Why do we have to go to organized institutions to practice our beliefs?

This is a question which is going to have several different answers, according to different denominations. Bear with me while I go over the main ones.

According to Roman Catholic theology, the church (specifically the institution, which became the Catholic church) is the inheritor of the promises Jesus made to his disciples. Specifically the church is the guardian of the truth of the faith, and one of the main means through which the grace of Jesus is dispensed to his followers. In particular this is done through the Mass, which can only be carried out by priests of the Church. Thus to be detatched from the church is to be detached from one of the main ways that Jesus provided that his followers down the ages could receive grace, strength and spiritual blessing. This is not to say that a Christian cannot exist outside of the church, but to wilfully reject the church is to reject the provision that Jesus has made for your spiritual growth and sustainment - in effect to say to Jesus "Thanks for setting up this organization to give me what I need, but I'm going to do it on my own".

The Orthodox churches hold similar views, although there is somewhat less emphasis on the structure and heirarchy of the church.

In the Protestant churches, there is (mainly) no belief that the church (in the sense of an organization) is required or necessary for God to dispense grace, strength, understanding and wisdom. There is much more emphasis on the individual's relationship with God. However even in those churches meeting with other followers of Jesus is extremely desirable for mutual support, encouragement and teaching. Again, to attempt to live a solitary Christian life is to reject the provisions that God has made for your spiritual well-being. In Protestantism this provision does not (mainly) come through the organization of the church. Instead 'the church' is defined to be 'the body of true believers', which may or may not overlap with members of any specific organization. The Protestant belief here is based mainly on the example set by Jesus and his followers, who operated in community and met together regularly.

All of the above is stated in the full knowledge that any given organization of believers will be imperfect and flawed, but that working through these imperfections together is a means of growing the Christian living. There is an old saying that no church is perfect - and if you find a perfect church, don't join it - because you'll spoil it.

Nothing here is to say that a Christian who is prevented from meeting with other Christians, for example by isolation or imprisonment, is less of a Christian, but to cut yourself off from other believers voluntarily is to deny yourself many supports, which Jesus has provided for your benefit.


Theistic evolution (TE) is the belief that we should look to the Bible to learn about God, and rely on scientists to inform us about science. As someone once put it, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go. Science can give us the age of rocks; the Bible can give us the Rock of Ages."

This view holds that there is no conflict between faith and science regardless of the conclusions the scientists reach. This viewpoint has been labeled "theistic evolution" because about 98% or 99% of all scientists in the life science fields accept evolution as the best theory to explain the variety of life forms found on our planet.

TE differs from old earth creationism (OEC) in that OEC generally accepts modern geology and cosmology but not evolution.

TE differs from intelligent design (ID) in that ID proponents hold that science can uncover ways in which God is active in the creation process; TE proponents hold that God has been active, but can accept the "how" of God's involvement as a mystery.


What was the purpose of creating the world?

We don't know!

Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't tell us why he created the world, simply that he did create it.

Lonely
One speculation (and it is pure speculation) is that he created the world in order to have other beings with free will that would love him.  We can see this in the fact that there are things we can do to please God. From that concept, we can expand it a bit to assume that the things he finds pleasing is the reason that he actually created us.  So, in essence, the speculation is that he created us so that we could love him and choose to follow him.

Self-glorification
Another theory (eg speculation) is that he wanted to bring glory to himself.  The argument goes that all created things reflect God's glory (per Psalm 19:1 for example), in particular mankind (per Genesis 1:26);  since the creation reflects His glory, then he must have created them for the purpose of reflecting his glory.

The problem with these theories is that they use the process of logical induction to come to these conclusions.  In fact these thoughts are a very weak induction.  It's like saying "I've only seen a green frog, therefore all frogs must be green."

These theories attempt to attribute thoughts to God based on our understanding of his creation. This, in my opinion, is a very dangerous road.

Summary  (TL;DR)
We don't know why God created the world because he never told us.  We do have ideas including the two I mentioned above. However, these ideas, as I mentioned, are pure speculation and we must be careful not to presume that we know the mind of God.

  Isaiah 55:8 NWT
  “For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah.


The overwhelming majority of Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God spiritually, bodily, and every other way. We believe that he was conceived miraculously within the virgin Mary by the power of the Spirit of God, and so God is his father not in only a figurative sense, but concretely. Most Christian groups consider this to be a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.
Jesus said he is the Son of God.

Luke 22:66-71 (NASB) When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask a question, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”
Revelation 2:18,26-28 “The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this... "He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from My Father; and I will give him the morning star.

The Apostles also taught that Jesus is the Son of God.

Acts 9:20-22 Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, and immediately he [Saul of Tarsus] began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” All those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, “Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.
1 John 5:5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Regarding the OP's comment: I took a look at the site you linked to, which I have visited before. I disagree with their statement, "nowhere in the Bible does it say that God had relations with anyone to produce a literal son, nor has Christianity taught that God produced a son through any physical act whatsoever."
While the scriptures do not describe any act of intercourse, the teaching of which would be considered obscene, the Scriptures do indeed teach that God did act, by which he caused Mary to conceive. She did not only become spiritually pregnant, but physically pregnant with the Son of God, as God told her that she would. Mary was obedient and consented, and so she has been blessed among all women.

Luke 1:31-38  And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Jesus did not teach that he was only the Son of God in a spiritual sense, and the Apostles taught us that he was the Son of God without any qualification. That is what we first heard and believed.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that people must have children?

I remember reading in a magazine once years ago that people in poor countries had lots of children because that was their investment in the future, sort of their retirement program. They contrasted this with people in wealthy countries who have few children because the productive years of their children are taxed to support the state. The implication was that there was no incentive to invest the time, money, and toil if you would not reap any reward.

The rise of the nation state and the accumulation of wealth to facilitate this view are only widely available since the industrial revolution. The Bible is written by and to people who only know the more natural way of family and children. In a similar way, there is no biblical basis for saying that we must breathe, it is just a natural process that is taken as a given.

The option of avoiding children is now available using various chemical and mechanical technologies of birth control measures including abortion. To consider the biblical basis for not making use of this technology. We need to derive a doctrine from various verses;

  Psalm 127:3  Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit
  of the womb is his reward.

Here we should consider that if children are from the Lord, then acting to prevent this would seem in opposition to the will of God.

  Genesis 9:1  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be
  fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

If God has a general plan for humans to fill the earth, then acting to avoid this may also place us in opposition to the plan of God.

  Psalm 22:10  I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from
  my mother's belly.

If God gives us life before birth, terminating that life may bring retribution.

  Revelation 18:24  And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of
  saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

  Psalm 106:38  And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons
  and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan:
  and the land was polluted with blood.

It may be that one of the oral contraceptive mechanisms (implant failure) actually causes an abortion. However, even if the extinguishing of unborn life is avoided, the problem remains of setting a course in life apart from that God would have us walk.

  Isaiah 53:6  All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every
  one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us
  all.

The Bible describes a final accounting. The Christian will stand before Jesus and may have to explain why he decided that his own plans and purposes were more important to him that what Jesus would have for him.

  1 Corinthians 3:13-15  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for
  the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and
  the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.   If any man's
  work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he
  himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

For the unsaved, their accounting will be according to their works.

  Revelation 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
  God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is
  the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which
  were written in the books, according to their works.

While the Bible does not specifically say the people must have children (which would be difficult for the infertile), The two most intimate relationships we can have (husband / wife, and parent / child) are integral to the process of having children. These relationships are considered so fundamental that the Bible often makes use of these relationships to illustrate other points.

The choice not to have children while often cloaked as being prudent or responsible often is used to allow two people greater personal indulgences. This mind-set is rebuked when it is applied to prayer.

  James 4:3  Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may
  consume it upon your lusts.

One might want to consider if the technology of birth control and abortion can be used as any other technical innovation such as the electric light with little regard to biblical relevance.


Do I need to confess the sins I committed before becoming Catholic?

The Catholic Church requires that one go to confession for any mortal (serious) sin one has committed after baptism. If the one entering the Church has never been baptized, there is no need to go to confession since the sacrament of baptism cleans the soul of all sin, regardless of its gravity. One could still do so in order to be more at peace with oneself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism


Commandment about idols and idolatry in OT

Normally, I don't link to my own sermons.  But in this case, I'm going to make an exception.  As a Baptist pastor, I wrote this sermon specifically to address this question - Why would God prohibit making graven images?

The upthrust of the answer is that images stick the thing of which the image is made in a fixed point in time.  And, the truth is, that as humans change, our images need to change with us.  Idols don't do that. But our perception of our God does. My image of parents is not the same image I had when I was 5. If it were, something would be seriously wrong.

Unlike Muslims, we don't have a prohibition on images per se - only on images that we would worship.  The Seventh Ecumenical Council in particular clarified that images of Jesus weren't sinful - indeed, God himself had incarnated and taken an image.

The Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant were decoration - indeed, they were only said to "adorn" the Mercy Seat.  The Ark itself was not something to be worshipped, but rather the God who sat there.  To have prohibited any adornment would have been to diminish from the grandeur afforded any monarch.

Christians may have images that remind us to worship, but we are specifically not worshipping the thing itself.  Crosses and crucifixes can, incorrectly, be viewed as idols to the unitiated. But the theology behind it (again see the Seventh Ecumenical Council), is clearly not idol worship any more than a To Do application on my phone dictates my life or a telephone is the thing to which I talk.  It may be a medium that reminds me, but it is not the thing in and of itself.

But to make an image of God specifically is an affront to his character and our own.  By fixing an image of God, it becomes too easy for that to become our only image of God.  And, no one image can capture the full magnificence of his splendor.

As an example, I have, on my desk, this picture I took of the Grand Canyon.

I took that one my way down.  The Canyon itself hasn't changed in thousands of years, but as I walked, my perspective of it changed dramatically.  The deeper I got, the more amazing it got.  I can't give you one picture of the Canyon that captures its full essence - and no one can give you one picture of God that communicates his full majesty.  We just aren't equipped for it.

This is God's motivation - he wants us to experience His fullness and not settle for a single image.  As such, the prohibition on making his image isn't because he doesn't want us to imagine him at all - but rather because he doesn't want us to settle for limited scope.  I can show you what Ganesh looks like.  There are pictures of other "gods" that abound.

But the God that Christians serve is

  "able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us.

When we

  ... exchange the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:23)

then we know that our foolish hearts will be darkened (Romans 1:22) and that we become sinful and stuck. (the rest of Romans 1).

tl;dr> In short, the prohibition on images isn't for God's protection, but our own.


Bible evidence in favour of creationism?

On Creation
The main text on the subject of creation is the Genesis account. The first few chapters are there to present how God created the world, not to present a twenty-first century scientific thesis. So God provided a simple explanation. A bit like saying that the sun rises instead of talking of the rotation of the earth around the sun.
This being said, this part of the Bible is regarded in many different lights. The first position is the literal position, which says that the heaven and earth were created by God in 6 twenty-four hour periods. This position is held by Answers in Genesis for example.
Another position is that the first few chapters of the Bible are poetry. Then you can believe anything you want on the subject of creation, because the author of Genesis uses poetry as he opens his book.
Then there are positions between the two poles described above:
The rest of the Bible and creation
The six days of creation are quoted elsewhere in the Bible:

Exodus 20:11 (ESV)
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 31:17 (ESV)
It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

The Bible present Jesus has the author of creation in a few verses. (This make biblical sense because Jesus is the word of God, and in creation the only tool used is the word of God.)

John 1:1-4 (ESV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

The passage in Job you mentioned is

Job 40:15-18 (ESV)
“Behold, Behemoth [The ESV study Bible comment on the Behemoth is 'A large animal, exact identity unknown'], which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.

Conclusion
From my reading of scripture the Bible supports a literal six-day creation. When did that happen? There are different theories about this as well.
Some argue against a six-day creation, requesting proof. There is no way to prove creationism, but the same is true for evolution. Your position is a question of faith. This being said, it does not mean that you don't ask questions about your position. The starting point of reference in your thinking system, today's science or the Bible, will greatly influence your position.
This might not help you with your discussion with your agnostic friend, but I hope that it helps you in your personal thinking on the subject. Your question is a valid one, but answering it in a few sentences is hard.


Christians meet on Sunday in remembrance of Jesus's resurrection, which was on the first day of the week.  Historical evidence shows that this has been Christian practice since early times, perhaps even since the very beginning of Christianity.  The 2nd century apologist Justin Martyr certainly believed so:

  But why is it, you ask, that we gather on the Lord's Day to celebrate
  our solemnities?  Because that was the way the Apostles also did.

  -- De Fuga in Persecutione, XIV: 11


According to Catholicism, is the existence of God self-evident?

You're not going to find one answer on this.  To some, the existence of God is self-evident, to others it's not.  Then you get into "what does self-evident mean".

Some of those who say God is self-evident claim so because the complexity of creation screams "an intelligent designer made me". But that's not self-evident, it's evidence from creation.

Others claim Romans 1 and 2 - the existence of God is clearly known because He wrote it on our hearts, but that's not self-evident, either.  The may point to 2 Peter chapter 3 as support that we know God, but are "willingly ignorant" because we'd rather walk after our own lusts, but that's not "self-evidence" either.

St. Thomas Aquinas addressed the question is his Summa Teologica, however, and gives a good answer (that also meets your requested criteria for a quote from a reputed theologian).  emphasis mine in the passage below

He does an excellent job of defining what self-evidence is, and therefore showing how the existence of God meets (or doesn't meet) those definitions.

  First Article

  Whether the Existence of God Is Self-Evident?

  We proceed thus to the First Article:—Objection 1. It seems that the
  existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be
  self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in
  us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says
  (De Fid. Orth. i. 1, 3), the knowledge of God is naturally implanted
  in all. Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

  Obj. 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are
  known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster.
  iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when
  the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized
  that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the
  signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that
  God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which
  nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and
  mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore,
  since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it
  also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God
  exists" is self-evident.
  **
  Obj. 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever
  denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and,
  if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist"
  is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God
  is truth itself: I am the way, the truth, and the life (John xiv. 6).
  **Therefore "God exists" is self-evident.

  On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is
  self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv., lect. vi) states
  concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of
  the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: The fool said in
  his heart, There is no God (Ps. lii. 1). Therefore, that God exists is
  not self-evident.

  I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways; on
  the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other,
  self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident
  because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as
  "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If,
  therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all,
  the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard
  to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are
  common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being,
  whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the
  essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will
  be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the
  meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it
  happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether
  all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts
  self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are
  not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of
  itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject;
  because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q. 3, A.
  4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is
  not self-evident to us; but needs to be, demonstrated by things that
  are more known to us, though less known in their nature—namely, by
  effects.

  Reply Obj. 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is
  implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man
  naturally desires happiness and what is naturally desired by man must
  be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely
  that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not
  the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter
  who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect
  good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures,
  and others in something else.

  Reply Obj. 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God"
  understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be
  thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted
  that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified
  something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it
  does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word
  signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can
  it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there
  actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought;
  and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not
  exist.

  Reply Obj. 3. The existence of truth in general is self-evident but
  the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.


A key verse in regard to the imagination is 2 Corinthians 10:5”:

  “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”

The imagination allows us to see what is physically unseeable.  The imagination is to be given to truth (Christ) not to the Father of lies (Satan).

  Mark 8:17,18 …have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

In contrast the imagination has been so overrun with un-truth that we associate the imagination with fiction.  We tell our children “you were just imagining that” and believe an overactive imagination is to blame.  God equipped man with an imagination so that man might be able to see things of eternal substance, in order to comprehend His eternal reality.

The truth in our imaginations are critical to our relationship with God; the problem is our imaginations have become slums neglected and ignored because we have convinced ourselves that it is the residence of superstition.

Most of the soul’s battlefield is within the imagination of the heart.

  1 Chronicles 29:18 “O LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee”


On what basis does the Catholic Church oppose penalisation of women guilty of abortion?

Canon Law already punishes Catholics involved in abortion with automatic (latæ sententiæ) excommunication:

  Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latæ sententiæ excommunication.

This includes all Catholics involved: the woman, her family, the abortionist, assisting nurses and doctors, and even those on medical ethics boards who approve of the direct killing of the unborn (cf. the 2010 case of the excommunication of Sr. Margaret McBride).cf. canonist Dom Augustine's commentary on those who perform abortion.

The question the Polish bishops are dealing with is whether those involved in abortion should be penalized by civil authorities. When Church and State were not so separated as today, Catholics guilty of a crime could choose whether to be tried in an ecclesiastical court or a civil court. Perhaps the Polish bishops believe Catholic women who procure abortions do not need to be tried twice when the Church has already judged and punished them with excommunication. Non-Catholics cannot be tried in ecclesiastical courts because the Church only has jurisdiction over Catholics. Thus the question becomes: Can Church authorities tell civil authorities how to punish non-Catholics involved in abortion?

This is related to the question St. Thomas Aquinas addresses in the Treatise on Law of his Summa Theologica I-II q. 96 a. 2: "Does it belong to the human law to repress [as with punishment or coercion] all vices [e.g., abortion]?." He answers (c.):

  [H]uman law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder [e.g., abortion], theft and such like.

Thus, human law should repress abortion. Exactly how it should be repressed inside the civil sphere is outside the jurisdiction of leaders of the Church and must be left to the prudence of civil authorities (cf. St. Thomas's Summa II-II q. 67 a. 1 question "Can a man justly judge one who is not subject to his jurisdiction?").


Do Catholics regard the wine at The Wedding at Cana as "holy" wine or "normal" wine?

The wine was just wine, but it was very good wine.

  the steward called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves
  the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have
  become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” John 2:9-10

The wine no longer exists so it is not a relic. The wine was not sacramental, so it was not holy in that sense. There is no teaching that I know of that says the wine was blessed. The fact that it was consumed as any other wine would be suggests there was nothing special about the wine other than it being created miraculously and being good in the sense of being a good wine.


Have any prominent theologians written on what the ascension looked like?

I took a quick survey of mentions of the word ascension at CCEL.org, and got a few comments from theologians.
From Augustus Johann Neander, Life of Jesus Christ in its Historical Connexion and Historical Developement [sic], section 306:

... Christ did not pass from his earthly existence to a higher through natural death, but in a supernatural way; ... he was removed from this globe, and from the conditions of earthly life, to a higher region of existence in a way not conformed to the ordinary laws of corporeal existence or to be explained by them.

From Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, Part III, Chapter XIII, section ii:

From these accounts it appears, (1.) That the ascension of Christ was of his whole person. It was the Theanthropos, the Son of God clothed in our nature, having a true body and a reasonable soul, who ascended. (2.) That the ascension was visible. The disciples witnessed the whole transaction. They saw the person of Christ gradually rise from the earth, and “go up” until a cloud hid Him from their view. (3.) It was a local transfer of his person from one place to another; from earth to heaven. Heaven is therefore a place.
... In opposition to this Scriptural and generally accepted view of the ascension of Christ, as a transfer from one place to another, from the earth, as one sphere of the universe, to heaven, another, and equally definite locality, the Lutherans made it a mere change of state, of which change the human nature of Christ was the subject.

From John Gill, [Doctrinal Divinity], Book V, Chapter 7:

this ascension of Christ was a real motion of his human nature, which was visible to the apostles, and was by change of place, even from earth to heaven; and was sudden, swift, and glorious, in a triumphant manner: and he went up as he will come again, in a cloud, in a bright cloud ...

All these, except Neander, were Reformed theologians, as I understand it (Gill was a Baptist, Hodge a Presbyterian—but correct me if my understanding of the divisions of Protestant denominations is lacking), and all three seem to have the idea that Jesus did in fact physically "rise up on high" (though Neander's "removed from this globe" is subject to interpretation on this front). Though Hodge mentions the Lutherans in particular as interpreting the Ascension more analogically than literally, he does state that this is a less accepted interpretation.