What is the history and explanation as to why the "diaconate" was MIA in the Western Church over a certain period of time?

It was not deacons, but "permanent deacons," who disappeared for a while. In this answer I will summarize and quote from an article titled Called to Serve: The Mission of the Permanent Diaconate by Deacon Michael Chesley.

  Although the permanent deacon is a relatively new occurrence
  experienced on the altars of many U.S. dioceses around the country,
  deacons in general are nothing new to the Church.

Chesley summarizes the early development and documentation of the role of deacons. As the catechism says (1570), "Among other tasks, it is the task of deacons to assist the bishop and priests in the celebration of the divine mysteries, above all the Eucharist, in the distribution of Holy Communion, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in the proclamation of the Gospel and preaching, in presiding over funerals, and in dedicating themselves to the various ministries of charity."

  However, by the time of Pope Gregory the Great in 595 A.D, many of
  these duties already began to be heavily curtailed or delegated to the
  minor orders.  Although it is beyond the range of this article to
  cover a detailed account of the reasons for the decline of the order,
  suffice to say that their [sic] was a gradual occurrence of men who
  preferred not to remain a deacon all their lives, and wanted to
  advance to the higher orders.  By the middle ages, the order of deacon
  as a permanent rank in the hierarchy of the Church all but disappeared
  in the West, and became nothing more than a stepping stone for
  preparation to the priesthood.  Although not widely known, the Council
  of Trent (1545 – 1563) called for the restoration of the permanent
  deacon. Unfortunately the idea was never followed through, and it was
  not until the Second Vatican Council that the Church in the West took
  up the wishes of Trent some 400 years later.

  ...

  Although the Latin Rite Church had "transitional" deacons, the Council
  goes on to say that the Church envisions what it hoped would be a
  permanent rank reestablished within the Latin Church.  One could ask
  why did the Church desire to restore the order of deacon as a
  permanent rank at this point in church history? The Directory for the
  Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons addresses this question as
  follows: "One of the fruits of the Second Vatican Council was the
  desire to restore the diaconate as a proper and stable rank of the
  hierarchy". On the basis of the "historical circumstances and pastoral
  purposes noted by the Council Fathers, the Holy Spirit, protagonist of
  the Church's life, worked mysteriously to bring about a new and more
  complete actualization of the hierarchy which traditionally consists
  of bishops, priests and deacons. In this manner the Christian
  community was revitalized, configured more closely to that of the
  Apostles which, under the influence of the Paraclete, flourished as
  the Acts of the Apostles testifies."*

  ...

  Although for many centuries the deacon ascended to higher orders after
  ordination to the diaconate, there still exist "transitional" deacons
  and "permanent" deacons. However, there is no sacramental difference
  or function between the two.  Under normal circumstances, when the
  permanent deacon path is chosen, the deacon remains in his chosen
  vocation.

Also at Vatican II, married men were permitted to become deacons. Unmarried men becoming deacons are still required to take a vow of celibacy, however.

* Chesley's source for this quote is given as: Congregation for Catholic Education; Congregation of the Clergy; Directory for the Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons. ( Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1998), Chapter III.


This is where the doctrine of the hypostatic union is essential. Jesus the Son of God is one person, but he has two natures: the divine nature, and a human nature. The two natures cannot be divided, but neither are they mixed in the union to become hybrid natures.

The divine nature cannot die, but the human nature can. Jesus died completely in his human nature. But we do not say that only the humanity of Jesus died - because it is a union in one person we must say that whole person of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, died.

Jesus is definitely God, and so there is validity to saying that "God died", but when most people hear that they will understand it as meaning that the divine nature died. I would recommend not to say "God died" and instead say "Jesus Christ the Son of God died".


What is the biblical basis for the Athanasian Creed's statement that believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation?

Jesus himself equates salvation with knowing God:

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. - John 17:3 NIV

Elsewhere, the scriptures negate the idea that this could be a mere intellectual knowledge about God:

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. - James 2:19 NIV (cf. in context)

Instead, examining the preceding context (cf. John 14, 15 & 16) we must understand this knowing of God in terms of a relationship that includes intimate familiarity with His nature, which is revealed in the persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and consequently includes "believing in the Trinity":

7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?  - John 14:7-9 NIV
15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. - John 14:15-20 NIV
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. John 15:15 NIV
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. - John 15:26 NIV
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you. - John 16:13-15 NIV
29 Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.” - John 16:29-30 NIV

In summary, in much of his extended discourse following the last supper, Jesus teaches his disciples regarding the persons of the Trinity with the expressed intent that they may know God; and in the midst of his "High-priestly prayer" in chapter 17, he equates knowing this God (ie the Trinity) with eternal life.


What are the steps and permissions required to add more "patronages" to saints?

What are the steps and permissions required to add more “patronages” to saints?

Apart from having a group of faithful that invoke a particular saint for for a particular cause, there are no official rules or norms in order to establish a certain Catholic saint the patron saint of something in particular.

In other words, the faithful remain free to add more “patronages” to particular saints as their own particular devotion, needs or circumstances deem it necessary.

On very, very rare occasions, the Holy See will name someone a patron saint for of certain cause or people. This actually happened to St. Thomas More:

  On 31 October 2000 Pope John Paul II declared More "the heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians". More is the patron of the German Catholic youth organisation Katholische Junge Gemeinde. - Thomas More

As you noted in your question, St. Isidore of Seville, is the patron saint of the internet. This also is one of those very rare circumstances when Rome intervenes in the naming of a patron saint:

  In 1997 Pope John Paul II declared Isidore of Seville the patron saint of the internet. Saint Isidore died in the year 636, long before the first host-to-host ARPANET connection in 1969. But Isidore did try to record everything ever known in an encyclopedia that was ultimately published after his death.

  From The Telegraph:

  Saint Isidore wrote a 20 book opus Etymologies, also known as the Origins, in which he tried to record everything that was known. Published after his death in 636, it was for a thousand years considered the encyclopedia of all human knowledge.

  Written in simple Latin, it was all a man needed in order to have access to everything he wanted to know about the world but never dared to ask, from the 28 types of common noun to the names of women’s outer garments.

  It was a tool by those seeking wisdom much like the internet is used now. - The patron saint of the internet is Isidore of Seville, who tried to record everything ever known

With all this said, there still is the glooming question as to why a particular Catholic saint could become the patron saint of something that did not exist during the saint’s day. Generally speaking, there should be some sort of connection between the two, either on a personal level or on some sort of physical level.

This is what happened in the cases of both St. Thomas More and St. Isidore of Seville. The case of St. Thomas More is obvious! But in the case of St. Isidore of Seville the connection is a little harder to understand.

The Franciscan Media has this to say about this subject:

  An amazingly learned man, he was sometimes called “The Schoolmaster of the Middle Ages” because the encyclopedia he wrote was used as a textbook for nine centuries. He required seminaries to be built in every diocese, wrote a Rule for religious orders, and founded schools that taught every branch of learning. Isidore wrote numerous books, including a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a history of Goths, and a history of the world—beginning with creation! He completed the Mozarabic liturgy, which is still in use in Toledo, Spain. For all these reasons, Isidore has been suggested as patron of the Internet. Several others—including Anthony of Padua—also have been suggested. - Saint Isidore of Seville

Popes generally do not name patron saints as the faithful often are inspired to have their own local patron saints. How Pope John Paul decided to have St. Isadore as the patron saint of the Internet is unknown. How he became (by what individuals) the patron saint of computer programmers is equally unknown. But it is a logical step after the internet patronage question was made.

  In 1997, Pope John Paul II decided that the internet could use a patron saint to guide Catholics in its proper use. He chose Saint Isidore of Seville (560-636), Doctor of the Church, and last of the Latin Fathers. His twenty-book opus (called Etymologia, after the subject title of one of the books), made him an easy choice. The word “etymology” was Isidore’s own coinage. It means “the study of origins.” Today, the term is limited to the history, or origin, of words. Interestingly enough, three other words that I know of owe their invention to saints: “utopia” and “integrity” to Saint Thomas More and “soliloquy” to Saint Augustine.

  Here is a prayer to Saint Isidore that should be said before logging in on the internet:

  Almighty and eternal God, who created us in Thy image and bade us to seek after all that is good, true and beautiful, especially in the divine person of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that, through the intercession of Saint Isidore, bishop and doctor, during our journeys through the internet we will direct our hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee and treat with charity and patience all those souls whom we encounter. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

  Source: Patron Saint for the Internet, Isidore of Seville

It seems that St. Isidore of Seville became the patron saint of the internet because he try to catalog all known existing information into book form. If computers were available in his day, he would have used the internet!

On a personal note: There is no patron saint for recycling or those involved in recycling. I do a lot of recycling, but for years I did not have a patron saint for it. Then one day, I came across the following article: Relic of St Clement found in trash settles into Westminster Cathedral. Ever since that day, Pope St. Clement became my patron saint when I am recycling. There are no rules or norms forbidding my choice in patron saint! For myself.

The following may be of interest to some:

Carlo Acutis is on path to becoming patron saint of the internet


According to the Trinity doctrine was the Son created by the Father?

Short answer: no he wasn't. That would be the heresy of Arianism.

In Trinitarian theology the Son is said to be "eternally begotten" by the Father. Admittedly this is conceptually sorta like being created by the father, with the additional caveat that there was never a time when the son did not exist (hence he is begotten "from eternity"), but metaphysically being begotten is completely different to being created because the son is not part of creation: he has always existed.

It's a hard topic to discuss though. Language starts to get very wonky and inexact when you start talking about transcendant stuff that fundamentally can't be talked about. God is ineffable after all

See the Nicene creed, which was formulated in the fourth century in order to condemn Arianism. It has the line

  [I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

Where it says "begotten, not made" you can read that as saying "begotten, not created".


Evangelical view of the inerrancy of Bible does not necessarily imply strict apostolic authorship, but rather the certainty that:

  Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

(Short Statement #4 in the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy signed by more than 200 evangelical leaders (see wikipedia).

Even B.B. Warfield, a key figure in the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy, wrote in his 1892 article The Formation of the Canon of The New Testament (emphasis mine):

  Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the “canon.” Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the “canon” of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as “law.”  Hence Tertullian’s name for the “canon” is “instrumentum”; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded — as their “Instrument,” or “Law,” or “Canon” — can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18 with Deuteronomy as equally “Scripture” with it in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book of as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books, — of “The Gospel and the Apostles,” — Justin tells us, were “written by the apostles and their companions.” The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church, was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law, not merely in those they themselves had written.

For more details on how Evangelicals grappled with inerrancy of the Bible and the rather fluid canon formation in the early church, see a good introductory article Evangelicals and the Canon of the New Testament. This talks about how Warfield's distinction specifically relates to Hebrews:

  The practical effect of this subtle distinction is to allow for the inclusion of books such as Mark, Luke, James, Jude and Hebrews which were not actually penned by the apostles, but were, according to tradition, written under apostolic sanction.

For a 2010 conservative evangelical attempt to establish the authorship of the Book of Hebrews, see Brian Wagner's paper Another Look at the Authorship of Hebrews from an Evangelical Perspective of Church History published in the Journal of Dispensational Theology, where he "decisively stated" that Barnabas was the author.  This should make the Book of Hebrews very close to Pauline authority, which in my opinion should make conservative evangelicals believing in inerrancy to be much more comfortable.


What is the meaning of Holy Spirit in Mark 3:28-29?

The Holy Spirit is the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost)

Book of Mormon, Alma 39:6 gives us further insight on this scripture:

  6  For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

What does it mean to deny the Holy Ghost?

Moroni 8:28

  28 Pray for them, my son, that repentance may come unto them. But behold, I fear lest the Spirit hath ceased striving with them; and in this part of the land they are also seeking to put down all power and authority which cometh from God; and they are denying the Holy Ghost.


Where can I find an English translation of St. Augustine's Questions on Heptateuch?

The passage can be found in Book 4 paragraph 33.5 of St. Augustine commentary on the Heptateuch (first seven books of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis to Judges) commonly referred to as Quaestiones in heptateuchum VII (Seven Questions Concerning the Heptateuch).  Book 4 is his commentary on the Book of Numbers.
The English translation of Seven Questions Concerning the Heptateuch is part of Volume 1/14 (Writings on the Old Testament) of "Works of Saint Augustine: A translation for the 21st Century" which can be purchased from New City Press (hard copy) or from Logos (digital version).  The translation is done by Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J.  From the publisher blurb:

In 1990, New City Press, in conjunction with the Augustinian Heritage Institute, began the project knows as The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century. The plan is to translate and publish all 132 works of Saint Augustine, his entire corpus, into modern English. This represents the first time in which the works of Saint Augustine will all be translated into English. Many existing translations were often archaic or faulty, and the scholarship was outdated. The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century will be translated into 49 published books. To date, the Complete Set includes 44 containing 93 of Augustine's works.

The Latin passage in question (Book 4 paragraph 33.5) is St. Augustine's commentary on Numbers 19:5 (ESV):

And the heifer shall be burned in his sight. Its skin, its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall be burned.

Numbers 19:5 in Latin (Vulgate):

comburetque eam cunctis videntibus, tam pelle et carnibus ejus quam sanguine et fimo flammae traditis.

The complete Latin of Quaestiones in heptateuchum VII can be found here (click "Liber 4" for the Book of Numbers).  Here's the quote you're looking for with italic text referring to the phrases he commented on:

Et cremabunt eam in conspectu eius. Puto quia concrematio ad signum pertinet resurrectionis. Natura est quippe ignis ut in superna moveatur, et in eum convertitur quod crematur. Nam et ipsum cremare de graeco in latinum ductum verbum est a suspensione. Quod vero additum est, in conspectu eius, id est in conspectu sacerdotis, hoc mihi insinuatum videtur, quia illis apparuit resurrectio Christi, qui futuri erant regale sacerdotium. Iam quod sequitur: Et pellis eius et carnes et sanguis eius cum stercore eius comburetur, id ipsum expositum est quomodo concremabitur: et significatum est quod non solum substantia mortalis corporis Christi, quae commemoratione pellis et carnium et sanguinis intimata est; verum etiam contumelia et abiectio plebis, quam nomine stercoris significatam puto, converteretur in gloriam, quam combustionis flamma significat.

I cannot yet find a freely available English translation online (will update this answer if I can find it), but the Google Translate result should give you some idea:

He burned it in front of him. I think that the signal belongs to the burning of the resurrection. Since the nature of the fire to move higher, and in turn it is burned. It is far different from the Greek word is derived from the floor. But what is added is to say, in the sight of her, that is, in the sight of the priest, is this to me was insinuated into the account, that he appeared to them came also the resurrection of Christ, who were going to be a royal priesthood. Now as to what there follows, And its skin and its flesh, and its dung, shall be burned up, and the blood was made like, that in itself has been explained in what way they concremabitur: mortal, and it hath been signified that it is not only the substance of the body of Christ, which is notified to the commemoration of the skin, and with the flesh and of the blood; but also the insult and the outcast of the people, as in the name signified 'dung, I think, would be changed into the glory, which is signified by the burning of a flame.


What is the origin of "This is the Word of the Lord" and "Thanks be to God?

"Thanks be to God" is, in its Latin form "Deo gratias", used after the epistle reading in the traditional Catholic (Latin) mass, which was codified by Pope St. Pius V in the 16th century, but which actually goes back much farther.  I'm not sure how much older this particular usage is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went back another thousand years or so.  In the traditional mass, this "Deo Gratias" is not said aloud by the whole congregation (though we may, and I do, "say" it mentally) but by the altar servers.

"This is the Word of the Lord", on the other hand, seems to have been introduced in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's, though it may have been in use earlier in some Protestant denominations.


What is the biblical basis against the idea of luck?

Proverbs 16:33 (New Living Translation)
We may throw the dice, but the Lord determines how they fall.

Another translation:

NIV:
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

Apparently, therefore, luck as such does not exist but providence does.


Who was the Blessed Virgin Mary's guardian angel?
Being the Queen of Angels, Mary certainly had many Guardian Angels, probably including St. Gabriel and St. Micheal.
Mary is superior by order of grace, not nature - angels are superior to Mary according to nature, and thus would have been afforded her as everyone else, as guardian.
Mary, Queen of Angels was born like all mankind in the physical sense of the word. By a singular gift from God She was preserved from all stain of original sin at the moment of conception. St. Thomas says that all men receive a Guardian Angel at birth. Mary is no exception and received her Guardian Angel(s) as is the condition of living here on earth.

As Origen observes (Tract. v, super Matt.) there are two opinions on this matter. For some have held that the angel guardian is appointed at the time of baptism, others, that he is appointed at the time of birth. The latter opinion Jerome approves (vide A, 4), and with reason. For those benefits which are conferred by God on man as a Christian, begin with his baptism; such as receiving the Eucharist, and the like. But those which are conferred by God on man as a rational being, are bestowed on him at his birth, for then it is that he receives that nature. Among the latter benefits we must count the guardianship of angels, as we have said above (Articles 1 and 4). Wherefore from the very moment of his birth man has an angel guardian appointed to him. - Article 5. Whether an angel is appointed to guard a man from his birth?

Although privileged with the grace of an Immaculate Conception, Mary still had to work towards her own salvation, albeit in an exceptional manner.

Maria Agreda, the visionary, taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary had hundreds of guardian angels, including St Michael and St Gabriel. - Here are 7 Interesting Facts about Guardian Angels

The Venerable Mary of Agreda The Mystical City of God states the following:

It was ordained therefore by the Most High, that the sovereign Child should voluntarily keep this silence during the time in which ordinarily other children are unable to speak. The only exception made was in regard to the conversation held with the angels of her guard, or when She addressed Herself in vocal prayer to the Lord. For in regard to interaction with God, the Author of speech, and with the holy angels, his messengers, when they treated in a visible manner with Her, this reason for maintaining silence did not hold good: on the contrary it was befitting, that, since there was no impediment, She should pray with her lips and her tongue; for it would not be proper to keep them unemployed for so long a time. - Her Childhood Years
She invited her own angels to help Her to return proper thanks, and in union with them She alternated new songs of praise. Then She asked the same favor of the rest of the angels and saints in heaven; but during all this time the divine love so inflamed Her, that the Lord was obliged to strengthen Her, lest all her natural forces be consumed and death ensue. - Her Devotion to the Passion of Christ and to the Holy Eucharist-HowShe Celebrated the Immaculate Conception and other Feasts
For this purpose the most blessed Trinity despatched the archangel Gabriel with many others of the celestial hierarchies, who should announce to the Queen when and how her mortal life should come to an end and pass over into the eternal.
The devout Queen resolved to take leave of the holy places before her departure into heaven, and having obtained the consent of saint John She left the house with him and with the thousand angels of her guard. Although these sovereign princes had always served and accompanied Her in all her errands, occupations and journeys, without having absented themselves for one moment since the instant of her birth; yet on this occasion they manifested themselves to Her with greater beauty and refulgence, as if they felt special joy in seeing themselves already at the beginning of her last journey into heaven. The heavenly Princess, setting aside human occupations in order to enter upon her journey to the real and true fatherland, visited all the memorable places of our Redemption, marking each with the sweet abundance of her tears, recalling the sorrowful memories of what her Son there suffered, and fervently renewing its effects by most fervent acts of love, clamors and petitions for all the faithful, who should devoutly and reverently visit these holy places during the future ages of the Church. On Calvary She remained a longer time, asking of her divine Son the full effects of his redeeming Death for all the multitudes of souls there snatched from destruction. The ardor of her ineffable charity during this prayer rose to such a pitch, that it would have destroyed her life, if it had not been sustained by divine power. - Saint Gabriel brings notice of Death

The original unabridged Spanish edition has a whole chapter (23) dedicated to De las divisas con que los Santos Ángeles de guarda de María Santí- sima se le manifestaban, y de sus perfecciones. In can be read here: Mistica Ciudad de Dios
St. Micheal the Archangel seem a good choice as one of Mary’s Guardian Angels.

According to tradition, it was the holy archangel who led the Virgin Mary to heaven during her Assumption.
While little is known about the nature of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven, various traditions have been passed down over the centuries that relate the historical event and reflect on what could have happened.
For example, there are many different traditions, both from the East and West, that state St. Michael the Archangel was the principal angel in charge of leading the body and soul of Mary into heaven.
This is an ancient tradition, in accord with a belief that St. Michael was the angel who weighed the deeds of a deceased person and led them into eternal life. For this reason St. Michael is frequently depicted in statues or paintings holding scales. The liturgy of the Church appears to confirm this role of St. Michael with the following offertory chant said during a Requiem Mass.

O Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory,deliver the souls of all the faithful departed … let the standard-bearer holy Michaellead them into that holy light.

A medieval text known as the Golden Legend relates an encounter Mary had with an angel prior to her death, preparing her for her assumption.

Then behold, an angel stood before her amid a great light and greeted her reverently as the mother of his Lord. “Hail, blessed Mary!” he said, “receive the blessing of him who bestowed salvation on Jacob. See, Lady, I have brought you a palm branch from paradise, and you are to have it carried before your bier. Three days from now you will be assumed from the body, because your Son is waiting for you, his venerable mother.”

The angel’s name is not immediately revealed, but later on when Mary “died,” Jesus comes into the narrative and gives instructions to the holy archangel.
Christ nodded his consent and immediately Michael the archangel came forward and presented Mary’s soul before the Lord. Then the Savior spoke and said: “Arise, my dear one, my dove, tabernacle of glory, vessel of life, heavenly temple! As you never knew the stain of sin through carnal intercourse, so you shall never suffer dissolution of the flesh in the tomb.” Thereupon Mary’s soul entered her body, and she came forth glorious from the monument and was assumed into the heavenly bridal chamber, a great multitude of angels keeping her company.
While these legendary stories likely have no historical basis, they do provide for us a piece of meditation and invite us to consider how the Virgin Mary was welcomed into heaven by her Son and a company of angels. In particular, it would make sense for the “Prince of All Angels” to be at the forefront of those who welcomed the “Queen of Angels” into heaven. - How St. Michael the Archangel led the Blessed Virgin Mary to heaven

The following may be of interest to some:

Is the Angel of Portugal Actually Saint Michael the Archangel?


Where can we find the official records of canonizations?

If one were to look with some difficulty and in very specific Catholic libraries, such as some traditional monastic or seminaries, you may be able to find a copy in the reference section the source you are looking for.

The following book published by the Vatican (Congregatio pro Causis Sanctorum) every so many years has the information you desire:

Index ac Status Causarum Beatificationis Servorum Dei et Canonizationis Beatorum

The status of every single person proposed for sainthood is in there. When cults of saints are suppressed, it will state why. Every canonization and beatification is alphabetically listed. It is however only in Latin and is hard to find.

The Holy See is not a fan of putting all their richness of information online. Thus many researchers must make use of the now slower method: books and other documents!


Why do JW think other faiths are unbelievers?

I think this is a question of terminology as well as being a question of theology. I’ll try to address both.

The vast majority of branches of Christianity will divide the world up into groups which look roughly like this:

Us (the people who agree with us theologically, and associate with us);
People we disagree with on minor matters;
People we disagree with on fairly major matters, but whom we still accept as Christians;
People who are completely wrong (“Heretics” / “people who claim to be Christian, but aren’t”);
Non-Christians / members of other religions (“people who don’t even claim to be Christian”);
Atheists.

(Many won’t see any need to distinguish between those last two groups, of course.)

One important difference between the Witnesses and mainstream Christianity is the sizes and memberships of the various groups above. Jehovah’s Witnesses are very united, and believe that acting as a group is important. As such, they do not accept the Christianity of anyone outside their faith. At least, not in modern times. They accept that others will have glimpses of the truth, and have said complimentary things about Luther, Calvin, and other luminaries of the Reformation, but they think that since their own organization started God has uniquely blessed it.

As such, the second group (“people we disagree with on minor matters”) is pretty much non-existent to the Witnesses, unless you count the very small differences within the faith. (As I said, the Witnesses are a very united group, but the leadership don’t pin down every single theological question; just most of them. Witnesses can differ from each other on minor matters, but are cautioned not to hold any such belief as an actual teaching, just as a personal hypothesis. That’s acceptable.)

The third group (“other Christians”) is also pretty much non-existent in the modern day. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept anyone other than themselves as Christians. (To be fair, other Christian groups usually return the favour.)

While you might expect to fall into that third group as far as the Witnesses are concerned, in fact you fall into the fourth: you would be seen as a member of “Christendom” (this is another word which has a different meaning in Witness theology to its normal geopolitical meaning). “Christendom” (false Christians), non-Christians, and atheists are all lumped together as “non-believers”.

Note that if you were to pursue a romantic relationship with a Witness, this would be regarded as dating outside the faith, becoming “unequally yoked” with an unbeliever, and strongly disapproved of by his fellow Witnesses.

Summary

Theology: Witnesses regard modern-day non-Witnesses as non-Christian.
Terminology: Witnesses lump all non-Witnesses together as “non-believers”, whatever they actually believe in.


When did the term "evangelical" first start being used?

Having done some more research, the Wikipedia article on Evangelicalism and this overview by the Gospel Coalition suggest the following timeline for the term coming into use:

1500s: Protestant reforms use the word "evangelical" in its literal meaning: the greek word meaning "gospel". This was to emphasise their message based on what they saw in the Bible.

1600s: In the wake of the reformation, a number of different movement appeared across Europe, such as Pietism and Calvinism, each emphasising different aspects of the reformation.

1700s: British and American reformers start to combine elements from all these different movements into movement, and take on the word "evangelical" that was used by the original reformers. In part, this movement was motivated by a renewed assurance in their faith, and in part a natural outcome of the changes happening in wider society.

I suspect this brushes over much of the historical nuance, but appears to serve as a general overview.


Why does Jesus not want people to repent and be forgiven in Mark 4?

Your Bible is missing the double quotes.  Jesus is quoting Isaiah:

  Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” “Here I am,” I said; “send me!” And he replied: Go and say to this people:
  Listen carefully, but do not understand!
  Look intently, but do not perceive!
  Make the heart of this people sluggish,
  dull their ears and close their eyes;
  Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,
  and their heart understand,
  and they turn and be healed.

Isaiah 6:8-10 (NABRE)

I think He's describing the process shown in the OT and exemplified throughout human history, not issuing a command.

According to the intratext in the NABRE, this is also quoted in

John 12:40; Acts 28:26; and Romans 11:8.

I can't say that I particularly understand the meaning of Jesus' words, but hopefully it'll point you in the right direction.


What is the biblical basis for elder disqualification?

I think that you are confused about the purpose of the deacon or bishop ordination. They are not ordained for their own benefit, but for the benefit of all the church. Therefore it is important that they are not a reason for scandal and offence.

The fact that someone isn't found fit to be ordained as deacon, presbyter or bishop doesn't mean that he can't repent, is unforgiven etc.


What role does hymnody play in non-Western churches?

DISCLAIMER: I am from the USA, but I happen to live in a part of the country that has over 20 Eastern Orthodox churches in a close radius, representing numerous nationalities and distinct ethnic expressions of the faith (for instance, we have multiple Romanian, Serbian and Greek Orthodox churches, and we also have Macedonian, Serbian, Ethiopian, Coptic (Egyptian), and American Orthodox churches).

Eastern Orthodox typically have chanting and sung liturgy, and also choirs - usually a capella but sometimes including simple instruments or a "church bell." You must understand that EVERYTHING centers on the Divine Liturgy in Orthodox worship. It is "the work of the people." The traditional expression concerning Orthodox liturgy is "Always everyone, always together." The OCA website says it well:

  "The Divine Liturgy is the common action of Orthodox Christians officially gathered to constitute the Orthodox Church. It is the action of the Church assembled by God in order to be together in one community to worship, to pray, to sing, to hear God’s Word, to be instructed in God’s commandments, to offer itself with thanksgiving in Christ to God the Father, and to have the living experience of God’s eternal kingdom through communion with the same Christ Who is present in his people by the Holy Spirit....

  Because the Divine Liturgy exists for no other reason than to be the official all-inclusive act of prayer, worship, teaching, and communion of the entire Church in heaven and on earth, it may not be considered merely as one devotion among many, not even the highest or the greatest. The Divine Liturgy is not an act of personal piety. It is not a prayer service. It is not merely one of the sacraments. The Divine Liturgy is the one common sacrament of the very being of the Church Itself. It is the one sacramental manifestation of the essence of the Church as the Community of God in heaven and on earth. It is the one unique sacramental revelation of the Church as the mystical Body and Bride of Christ."

It is important to understand this, because they do not have a "disconnected" view of worship. In other words, they do not view worship as a conglomeration of singing, reading, etc. It is all one Divine Liturgy. Worship is a participatory experience for all Orthodox Christians gathered. Orthodox tend to view Protestant worship as being a show; something that professional worshippers perform as a service for the people. This runs counter to Orthodox theology, where Divine Liturgy is the common work of the people "on behalf of all and for all." You must also understand that the building carries much significance (oblation and altar tables, icon screen, etc.) and this all ties into Orthodox theology. It seems that Protestant worship is disconnected from its theology. It is acceptable to sing songs with little theological content and preach on any chosen topic. Orthodox follow the Church calendar which prescribes what readings from scripture will occur and many aspects of liturgy will tie in to this "theme" or focus for each gathering. Everything in the service is united, and the Church calendar is designed to teach the entire Christian Orthodox faith to participants over time and then reinforce it. It globally unites Orthodox believers because they can go to a different Orthodox church across the world and they will pick up where they left off. I know that in many Protestant churches, even if you go to the same "denomination" down the street it may be a different message and scripture verse being taught. In Orthodox Christianity this is not so - thus the churches are truly united in belief and practice.

  "The living experience of the Christian sacramental and liturgical life is a primary source of Christian doctrine. In the liturgy of the Church, the Bible and the Holy Tradition come alive and are given to the living experience of the Christian people. Thus, through prayer and sacramental worship men are “taught by God” as it was predicted for the messianic age (Jn 6:45).

  In addition to the living experience of the liturgy, the texts of the services and sacraments provide a written source of doctrine in that they may be studied and contemplated by one who desires an understanding of Christian teachings. According to the common opinion of the Orthodox Church, the sacramental and liturgical texts—the hymns, blessings, prayers, symbols, and rituals—contain no formal errors or deformations of the Christian faith and can be trusted absolutely to reveal the genuine doctrine of the Orthodox Church." (OCA)

Concerning style, here is a source that says it well:

  "Eastern Christianity (the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches) have a very rich and ancient hymnographical tradition.

  Eastern chant is almost always a cappella, and instrumental accompaniment is rare. The central form of chant in the Eastern Orthodoxy is Byzantine Chant, which is used to chant all forms of liturgical worship. Exceptions include the Coptic Orthodox tradition which makes use of the sistrum, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which also uses drums, cymbals and other instruments on certain occasions."

The Orthodox Church has been reevaluating the role of music in worship as of late. One source says,

  "Russian Orthodox church music has its particularly unique development. Byzantine music remains basically monophonic (single-line unison singing). But part-singing appeared in Lvov and began to spread in Southern Russia and the Ukraine as early as the 15th Century. From this we can trace early experiments with harmonization, and in the 17th Century the influence of the Kievan schools of harmony on Moscow. Choirs of sorts began to be schooled in the Imperial Court, although they sang in small groups and were made up of male singers only.

  It was Peter the Great in the 18th Century who gave rise to the Imperial Chapel Choir. The movement to introduce Western European harmonization and the chorale style spread very quickly, initiating the new period of concert-like choir singing. Bortniansky, under the patronage of Catherine the Great, still remains the best example of the composer-conductors and their church choirs of the choral tradition.

  By the beginning of the 20th Century there was already a great interest among Church musicians to return to the traditional roots of the canonical chant systems. Kastalsky particularly stands out among them. While choral compositions and choir singing remain popular to this day, among serious students of Church music more and more is sacred singing looked upon as a discipline of liturgical theology rather than simply as a musical art.

  This is particularly so in America, as we accept the responsibility for an Orthodox inculturation of a new land, a new language and a new people. As we attempt to find our own style in response to new needs and situations (especially those of the small missions), above all we seek to be anchored to the great Tradition.

  This great Tradition, however, insists neither on a rigid formalism nor a return to a hypothetically more primitive practice. There is room in Orthodox culture for both choir singing and congregational participation, for ancient chants and familiar harmonized works, as well as perhaps for new adaptations based on the timbre of the English language, developed from the local materials of our own particular time and place. All of this is possible so long as none of it contradicts our ecclesial identity as the Orthodox Church."

I also found a video showing some 4th-century-style Orthodox worship in Africa. The video features the koboro drum and the sistrum. Here is another video with some chanting/singing like you might hear in an Orthodox church. The Russians have some beautiful chanting as well, listen here. It is heavenly. It should also be noted that Orthodox incorporates all the senses, not just hearing and seeing, but also smell, touch, and taste.

I know I quoted a lot of sources, but I felt they said things better than I could. I know the original question was related to hymnody, but I wanted to make it clear that hymnody is merely a part of the Divine Liturgy in Eastern Orthodox understanding - it is not a separate discipline but an integrated part of the whole. It is difficult to fully answer this question without first discussing all aspects of Worship in the Orthodox faith (of which Divine Liturgy is only one). The hymns tie into the greater Liturgy and worship experience, which are informed by Holy Tradition and centered on Christ, Who is our Song.


Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it
  was founded?

The shortest and simplest answer is: yes.

The longer and significantly more complex answer would fill many volumes of an encyclopedia.

But, to very briefly scratch the surface...

The Church maintains that, although her fundamental doctrine hasn't changed, it has developed over the centuries.

Catholic apologists compare the Catholic Church's growth and development to that of an acorn. An acorn, in its smallest and simplest form, is genetically the same as a 200 year old Oak tree. An acorn looks nothing like an Oak, even though it fundamentally has everything it needs to grow and develope into a giant 200 year old tree.

In the same way the early primitive Church and her depositum fidei was planted by Christ through Holy Spirit. Of course the Church had to grow and develope in order to preach the Gospel to all nations.

  The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of
  the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure
  these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the
  spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of
  those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of
  truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly
  moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.  (Dei Verbum 8)

Over time the Church has developed various doctrines and dogmas that aren't explicitly displayed in Sacred Scripture. Some examples are the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Hypostatic Union. These doctrines are fundamental to the Faith, yet haven't always been as clearly defined as they are now.

Most of the Church's development of doctrine has been brought on by the assaults of heresies such as Arianism and Monothelistism. Various councils and synods have been called to develope these crucial doctrines in order to protect her fundamental truths.

See: DENZINGER

Finally, its important to distinguish between the true teachings of the Church and the abuse of the teachings of the Church. Many Christians have been scandalized by false representations of the truths of what the Church teaches.

Martin Luther posted his 95 theses primarily because the Church's indulgences were being fraudulently abused.  The true purpose of the granting of indulgences is simply to help Catholics grow in holiness, but millions of people have been scandalized because the abuses of men like Johann Tetzel.

The same goes for marriage. Marriage is, by definition, a holy and righteous sacrament institiuted by Christ.  Millions of people are scandalized everyday because marriage is abused.

  The abuse of a good does not diminish the good of a good.
  (Matthew Kelly, Rediscovering Catholicism)


What is the earliest appearance of the expression "swallowed up in God"?

I believe you are looking for 2 Corinthians 5:4 "mortality might be swallowed up of life.", as further elaborated and interpreted by Irenaeus of Lyons, who said

  For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must
  put on immortality. So, when this mortal shall have put on
  immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying which is
  written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy
  sting? O death, where is thy victory?” Now these words shall be
  appropriately said at the time when this mortal and corruptible flesh,
  which is subject to death, which also is pressed down by a certain
  dominion of death, rising up into life, shall put on incorruption... becomes immortal and incorruptible, not after its own proper substance, but after the mighty working of the Lord, who is able to invest the mortal with immortality, and the corruptible with incorruption. And therefore he says,[9] “that mortality may be swallowed up of life. He who has perfected us for this very thing is God, who also has given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.” ... Now, what is mortal shall be swallowed up of life, when the flesh is dead no longer, but remains living and incorruptible
  Against Heresies 5.13

  For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and
  immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and
  immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and
  immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had
  become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be
  swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that
  we might receive the adoption of sons?
  Against Heresies 3.19

I realize this has a bit of a different cast than "swallowed up in God", but I think the line of thought is evident. Irenaeus actually comes closest to referring to being swallowed up in God in reference to Christ, saying "the human nature [of Christ] being swallowed up in it (the divine)" Against Heresies 3.19

I appear to have largely retraced your steps in looking for the phrase "swallowed up in God" itself in later texts, which appears in:

Bernard of Clairvaux "On Loving God" (ca. 1115) Chapter 10
Isaac Ambrose "The first things, in reference to the middle and last
things, or, the doctine of regeneration, the new birth" (1674)
"Meditation" Chapter 8, section 7, page 203
George Whitefield, letter to Lord R., (28 September 1741)
John Wesley, Letter is to Miss Loxdale, (9 March 1782)

Similar thoughts, although not this phrase, are expressed in, eg. Angela of Foligno. (see McGinn, Bernard. "Lost in the Abyss: The Function of Abyss Language in Medieval Mysticism." Franciscan Studies 72.1 (2014): 433-452.)


Tackling Catholic philosophy and theology

Read St. Thomas Aquinas, especially his Summa Theologica or his own briefer introductory summary of it, the Compendium Theologiæ.
From Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Essence & Topicality of Thomism pt. 1, §2 "The Excellence of Thomism":

St. Robert Bellarmine similarly speaks of St. Thomas in the introduction of his treatise on the Holy Trinity:

Certainly, if everyone proposes with such order, facility, and brevity to us, as I venture to affirm, that he who diligently studies a few of St. Thomas’s questions finds nothing difficult either in Scriptures, the Councils, or the future Fathers of the Trinity; he will make more all-around progress in two months devoted to the Summa than in several months’ study of the Scriptures and the Fathers.

Pope John XXII also said:

He (St. Thomas) has illuminated the Church more than all the other Doctors; to read his books for a year profits man more than to study the doctrine of others for his whole life.

All good, orthodox, Catholic theology is merely footnotes to the Angelic Doctor. Every pope since the 13th century has endorsed his work as thoroughly Catholic; see the magisterial endorsements quoted here. His Summa Theologica was even placed on the altar, alongside Holy Scriptures, as an authority at the Council of Trent!


How do soul sleep adherents explain Lk 23:43?

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the soul dies when the body dies.
The condition of the dead is like sleep.
Without a resurrection there would be no hope for a soul to live again.
That may be enough to qualify us as soul sleepers. At any rate we do have an explanation for why Luke 23:43 is not in conflict with our view on what happened to the repentant evildoer upon his death.
The Insight on the Scriptures book
Vol 2 on the subject of Paradise talks about this very topic

Luke’s account shows that an evildoer, being executed alongside Jesus Christ, spoke words in Jesus’ defense and requested that Jesus remember him when he ‘got into his kingdom.’ Jesus’ reply was: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” (Lu 23:39-43) The punctuation shown in the rendering of these words must, of course, depend on the translator’s understanding of the sense of Jesus’ words, since no punctuation was used in the original Greek text. Punctuation in the modern style did not become common until about the ninth century C.E. Whereas many translations place a comma before the word “today” and thereby give the impression that the evildoer entered Paradise that same day, there is nothing in the rest of the Scriptures to support this. Jesus himself was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the resurrection. (Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:20; Col 1:18) He ascended to heaven 40 days later.—Joh 20:17; Ac 1:1-3, 9.
The evidence is, therefore, that Jesus’ use of the word “today” was not to give the time of the evildoer’s being in Paradise but, rather, to call attention to the time in which the promise was being made and during which the evildoer had shown a measure of faith in Jesus. It was a day when Jesus had been rejected and condemned by the highest-ranking religious leaders of his own people and was thereafter sentenced to die by Roman authority. He had become an object of scorn and ridicule. So the wrongdoer alongside him had shown a notable quality and commendable heart attitude in not going along with the crowd but, rather, speaking out in Jesus’ behalf and expressing belief in his coming Kingship. Recognizing that the emphasis is correctly placed on the time of the promise’s being made rather than on the time of its fulfillment, other translations, such as those in English by Rotherham and Lamsa, those in German by Reinhardt and W. Michaelis, as well as the Curetonian Syriac of the fifth century C.E., rendered the text in a form similar to the reading of the New World Translation, quoted herein.

So our belief is that the evil doer did not go to heaven on the day he died but his soul died. His hopes for living again rested on God’s power and promise to resurrect humans back to the living. Jesus’ promise was to resurrect him to life in paradise at some future date. The same unknown date spoken of in Acts 24:15 .


What are some situations documented outside of the Bible in which God intervened in human affairs?

It is challenging to get all Christians to believe in anything together; with all the different denominations each has their own particular views of God, of the Trinity, of the validity of each of the various stories in the Bible. Did the flood actually happen? Or is an anecdote, simply there to teach us a lesson? Can a man really live inside of a really big fish? Or was it a whale? Which translation is most accurate?

The learned Christian finds that although all Christian men of faith believe in the same God, they vary in the extent of their beliefs. That said, some particular beliefs may be shared more widely than others; for example, the idea that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving is a belief that is probably shared among the great majority of Christians, regardless of denomination. Regarding the question being asked here—whether there is any generally shared belief involving God's intervention in human affairs that is outside Biblical documentation—the simple answer is "No". There is no widely shared belief in any event in which God revealed himself or otherwise intervened in human affairs that is documented outside the Bible. There are some denominations, however, that do profess such beliefs, but they make up a relatively small minority of the Christian whole and as such cannot be taken as representative of the "average" person of Christian faith.

source: dancek


Strange take on the Parable of the 10 talents - Kids book

Oh, dear! Once we realise that this parable is about the coming kingdom of God, whose King is Christ Jesus, then any suggestion that “the king was angry and greedy” should ring spiritual alarm bells!  The parable contains warnings that Christians should heed, but trying to “soft-pedal” the message simply detracts from the reality that if we claim to be subjects of the coming King, then we have a responsibility to give him of our very best.
Remember that it is the nobleman who leaves in order to be made King.  During his absence his servants are given responsibility for making a financial profit on the money he gives them.  When the nobleman returns, he has become King.  Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem, knowing full well that he was going to die there (Luke 18:33).  He used this parable to show that the long-awaited kingdom was not going to happen any time soon, that it was some time future.  During the absence of the nobleman his servants and his subjects react differently. Here is one take on the parable:

In this parable, Jesus teaches several things about the Millennial Kingdom and the time leading up to it. As Luke 19:11 indicates, Jesus’ most basic point is that the kingdom was not going to appear immediately. There would be a period of time, during which the king would be absent, before the kingdom would be set up.
The nobleman in the parable is Jesus, who left this world but who will return as King some day. The servants the king charges with a task represent followers of Jesus. The Lord has given us a valuable commission, and we must be faithful to serve Him until He returns. Upon His return, Jesus will ascertain the faithfulness of His own people (see Romans 14:10–12). There is work to be done (John 9:4), and we must use what God has given us for His glory. There are promised rewards for those who are faithful in their charge.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-ten-minas.html

The moral of the story is that when Christ Jesus returns as King he will judge those who scorn and reject Him but reward those who faithfully and gladly obey His instructions.


How to contemplate without the urge to have to comprehend

Note: This answer was written before the OP was edited. A more direct answer is marked below, the following is build-up.

The Psalms are a great place to go for this. Psalm 143:5 says

  I remember the days of old; I meditate on all that you have done; I
  ponder the work of your hands. (emphasis mine)

A few verses down David implores God:

  Teach me to do your will, for you are my God!

He's meditating on God's actions and word, but he's still asking God to teach him. He's marveling, wondering, thinking upon the truths of God's covenant with him and Israel, but he certainly doesn't have it figured out.

Also, by technical definition, contemplate does not mean comprehend

Additionally, the Bible talks numerous times of the mystery of God's nature and plan...

  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
  declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so
  are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
  Isaiah 55:8

  Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How
  unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who
  has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who
  has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" - Romans
  11:33-35

So don't worry! You don't have to figure it all out. It's quite mysterious and amazing, but, we can learn. After all, we've been given the entire Bible to study.

Also, we're going to be in heaven for eternity learning about God. If it takes an eternity to learn about God, don't worry that you don't understand it all right now.

How to stop trying to figure it all out

This borders on a pastoral concern, naturally, but I think we can take cues from the verses cited above. In my experience a good attitude is to

Try to remember I can't figure it out. This is hard, because it's a fundamentally different from the narcissistic mindset we naturally have. You have to start knowing that no matter how hard you or anyone else tries, you won't figure it all out.
Try to figure out as much as possible anyways. We're supposed to learn about God (how can you worship someone you don't even know?).
When you hit a paradox, stop. When you encounter something that the Bible doesn't explain, don't try to reason it out. The Bible leaves it alone for a reason. Don't try to compress the Trinity into the phases of water; the analogy fails miserably. (though it can be a helpful illustration). Paradoxes are there both because God is greater than us and to remind us of that.


Is it permitted for a priest say a Mass of Pope Pius V for new saints while employing the prayers taken from the Mass of Paul VI?

Is it permissible for a priest say a Mass in the Extraordinary Form for new saints (canonized after 1962) while employing the prayers or the orations (of the Opening Prayer or Collect, Prayer over the Offerings and the Prayer after Communion) taken from the Mass of Paul VI?

The short answer is yes.

Permission was given by Ecclesia Dei in 1993.

The “Common” in #4 is the ones as taken from the Mass of Pope Pius V. This has been the practice of the Benedictine monasteries of Fontgombault, Randol, Triors, Gaussian, Clear Creek (USA) and Saint-Paul de Wisques. Both Cardinal Paul Augustin Mayer and Mgr. Pearl have visited the Abbey of Fontgombault in the 1990s.

Further more Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger visited the Abbey of Fontgombault in July 2001 and said the following while there:

  For the future, we ought to think—it seems to me—in terms of enriching the Missal of 1962 by introducing some new saints; there are now some important figures among the saints—I am thinking, for example, of Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, the martyrs of Spain, the martyrs of the Ukraine, and so many others—but I am also thinking of that little Bakhita in the Sudan, who came from slavery and came to freedom in her faith in the Lord; there are many really lovely figures whom we all need. Thus, opening up the calendar of the old Missal to new saints, making a well thought-out choice of these, that seems to me something that would be appropriate at present and would not have any destructive effect on the fabric of the liturgy. We might also think about the Prefaces, which also come from the storehouse of wealth in the Church Fathers, for Advent, for example, and then others; why not insert those Prefaces into the old Missal?

  Thus, with great sensitivity and by showing a great deal of understanding for people's fears and preoccupations, maintaining contact with their leaders, we should be able to understand that this Missal is also a Missal of the Church and under the authority of the Church, that it is not an object preserved from the past, but a living reality within the Church, very much respected in its particular identity and for its historical stature, but also considered as something that is living and not as a dead thing, a relic of the past. The whole liturgy of the Church is always a living thing, a reality that is found above us and is not subject to our decisions and our arbitrary intentions. - Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger: Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference


What is the biblical basis for the idea that God stores our prayers?

What you're learning about are advanced topics, which we discuss in a church full of prayer warriors. We're advanced in our Christian journeys in life with God.

The angels have abilities to transport items from Earth to Heaven. Prayers are taken up in bowls. Bottles are for storing tears, which people cry when they pray. Our lives are recorded in books in Heaven. Each person has a book with their name on it. It contains the deeds of what you've done in your life. All of them. When you ask Jesus to forgive you for your sins, He has angels take your book from a library & wipe over your sins with His blood. Thus God can't see your sins, because all He'd see in your book is His blood & your good deeds, which remain. If you become a prayer warrior, you can actually see Heaven & hell before death. You may not want to believe now, but when you start to experience supernatural things through prayer & faith, then you'll understand & believe.

Here are some scriptures for you:

Psalm 56:8 (NKJV) talks about tears being put into a bottle & a book

  You number my wanderings; Put my tears into Your bottle; Are they not
  in Your book?

Both Revelation & Daniel discuss the books with our deeds in them:

Revelation 20:12 (NKJV)

  And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books
  were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.
  And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which
  were written in the books.

This is also found in Daniel 7:10 (NKJV)

  A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand
  thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood
  before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened.

Regarding prayers, which angels carry to God:

Revelation 8:3-4 (NKJV) discusses those.

  3 Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the
  altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the
  prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the
  throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the
  saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand.

To find the bowl, we use this verse from Revelation 5:8 (NKJV):

  Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the
  twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and
  golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

So we see that prayers are stored in golden bowls in Heaven. Our deeds are stored in books. Our prayerful tears are stored in bottles.

Whenever you're ready, check out some of the prayer warrior testimonies at: http://www.divinerevelations.info

God bless you! I hope that you'll continue to learn about Him! Someday, you'll find rewards in Heaven!


How would Matthew 24:36 be explained from a Post-Tribulation perspective?

You are really asking two questions here:

Do post-tribulation premillennialists believe that the Bible prophesies any events that can be used to make an exact prediction of the timing of Christ's Second Coming?
If so, how do post-tribulation premillennialists square this with Matthew 24:36?

The question that needs to be primarily addressed is actually the first one, not the second.  Two prominent post-tribulation premillennialists, George E. Ladd and Wayne Grudem, argue that the signs prophesied in the Bible are not of a nature that we can draw firm conclusions regarding the timing of Christ's return.

Non-dispensationalists like Grudem do not find that Daniel 9 and related passages provide evidence of a literal, fixed-length peace treaty with Israel.  Rather, the signs he sees taught in Scripture that must be fulfilled prior to Christ's Second Coming are the following:

Preaching of the Gospel to all nations (Mark 13:10)

Probably not fulfilled, but possible in light of Paul's language in Colossians 1:5–6, "in the whole world."

Great tribulation (Mark 13:7–8)

Probably not fulfilled, but possible that it was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem (AD 66–70).

False prophets (Mark 13:22)

Probably not fulfilled, but it may have been fulfilled in the many examples of false prophets that have arisen throughout Christian history.

Signs in the heavens (Mark 13:24–25)

Almost certainly not fulfilled.  However, "they could occur very quickly," on the order of minutes or hours, and thus this does not suggest that Christ could not return at any time.

Appearance of the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:1–10)

Probably not fulfilled, but it is still possible that the "man of lawlessness" could refer to a historical figure, whether a Roman emperor or a Hitler/Stalin.

All Israel to be saved (Romans 11:26)

Probably not fulfilled, but perhaps Paul referred simply to the kind of Jewish conversion to Christianity that we have seen throughout church history.

Given this analysis, Grudem concludes that Christ's return is imminent, and that the only the unfulfilled "signs in the heavens" could be used as a predictor.  However, because they may last only an extremely brief time, we must admit that Christ could return at any time, and we cannot predict his coming:

  The only sign that seems certainly not to have occurred, the darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars, could occur within the space of a few minutes, and therefore it seems appropriate to say that Christ could now return at any hour of the day or night. (Systematic Theology, chapter 54)

Ladd's approach is similar.  Dealing with Jesus's predictions in the Olivet Discourse, he writes:

  The Olivet Discourse describes no signs by which the end can be calculated. [...] False messiahs will arise; wars will occur; "but the end is not yet" (Mark 13:7).  These events are not signs of an imminent end; they will occur, but the end delays.  Rather than being signs of the end, they are only "the beginning of woes" (Mark 13:8) which will mark the entire age. (The Presence of the Future, 326–27)

Ladd thus sees "no conflict between the Olivet Discourse and Jesus'saying that the end will come without signs which can be calculated." Other signs that he accepts, like that of the Gospel being preached to all nations, can't be used for calculations either, since it is difficult to know when they are fulfilled.

Summary

Post-tribulation premillennialists, and more generally most non-dispensationalists, are hesitant to literally interpret the Bible's apocalyptic passages.  Thus, they typically do not see any of the events signalling the return of Christ to be sufficiently specific as to allow anyone to calculate the date of Christ's return.

Thus, Matthew 24:36 and similar passages do not need to be explained: "Post-tribs" hold that Jesus is clearly teaching that no man can know the day or the hour, and neither can any man predict it on the basis of the fulfillment of signs.


Are Catholic Bishops the successors of the Apostles alone or the Elders too?

The answer you seek is here: Bishops Are Successors of the Apostles | General Audience of Pope St. John Paul II [the Great], 8 July 1992.

"Presbyters" (= elders cf. Priest | New Advent), first subordinate rank of the hierarchy, were among the "various helpers" who assisted the Apostles in their ministry.
From the article, that the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles, is in this sentence, quoting the Second Vatican Council:

  The Council says: "Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who
  were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors
  down in our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested and
  preserved 1 " (LG 20).

  1. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, 3, 1; cf. Tertullian, De
  Praescr., 20, 4-8: PL 2, 32; CC 1, 202


Part of the problem is the history of that particular book.  Published in 1852, when the Iron Curtain fell over East Germany all religious books published 1920 and later had to be destroyed.  Though it had to be smuggled into the country, the Soviet government generally allowed the 1852 edition to be kept and used.  This over-use of the edition made it a rare LDS book.  Available editions are now valued at $110,000.  Most of the existing editions today are held by libraries.

The University of Utah and Brigham Young University both have microfilm copies and may be able to produce a duplicate for you.  Stanford University Also appears to have this ability, but it's not 100% clear from the page I've listed.

There's undoubtadly a copy in Church Archives, but it's less likely they'll have the facilities to reproduce the book.


Why did Israel under Moses take a longer route to Canaan?

The account in the Bible book of Exodus gives the answer. Chapter 13 verse 17 begins to explain the wilderness detour, and I quote from the New Living Translation:

"When Pharaoh finally let the people go, God did not lead them along the main road that runs through Philistine territory, even though that was the shortest route to the Promised Land. God said, 'If the people are faced with a battle, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.' So God led them in a roundabout way through the wilderness toward the Red Sea."

They themselves were totally inexperienced in warfare, so when they saw the Egyptian army chasing after them while they were trapped by the Red Sea, they were panic stricken and knew they could not even defend themselves. That was when they witnessed God fighting on their behalf, in spectacular and miraculous fashion! God displayed his glory and they did not have to lift a finger - Moses only had to lift his arms! Thereafter, they experienced God's miraculous provisions of food and water in the wilderness. God was teaching them to trust him. Yet chapter 16 verse 2 describes how they complained at God, a developing pattern as time went by.

Even by the time God knew they were ready to do battle to enter the Promised Land, it was their continued lack of trust (faith) in him that caused God to send them back into the wilderness, for forty years! The ten spies had spent forty days checking out the land of Canaan, with only Joshua and Caleb urging the nation to enter. So God decreed that for every day spying, they would spend a year in the wilderness. The reason for that length of time was for the generation who lacked faith to enter to die off. Only their children (plus faithful Joshua and Caleb) finally entered the Promised Land. Read Numbers 14 vss 26 to 35.

It wasn't Moses who directed the routes for their wilderness wanderings. The pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night determined where they were to go and for how long they had to stay camped. This was God directing the route. See Exodus 13 vss 21 to 22.

Catholic scholar Benedict Schwank agrees with the biblical account of this early period in Israel's desert wanderings. He writes, "In the wilderness the tribes, who were once in bondage, feel themselves to be the chosen people of God. Henceforward Israel is conscious of being the vassal people of Yahweh... From now on Israel and Yahweh are united by a sacred covenant... Henceforward this practical monotheism sets Israel apart from all other peoples of the Near East. Although it is uncertain which route the people took at the exodus from Egypt, there are sound reasons for believing that the crossing of the Red Sea took place at the southern end of the Salt Lakes." (Encyclopedia of Theology pp 1096-7, edited by Karl Rhaner, Burns & Oates, 1981)


According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by the phrase "in the age to come"?

Catholics see this passage as evidence for the existence of Purgatory (i.e. there are sins that will be pardoned after death).

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

  1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of
  the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the
  damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory
  especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the
  Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a
  cleansing fire:

  As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that
  whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we
  understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but
  certain others in the age to come.

CCC on Purgatory


How does Catholicism biblically defend purgatory in a way that upholds the sufficiency of Christ's work?

The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of Purgatory while also teaching the sufficient and superabundant merits of the Passion of Christ.
The first component to understanding this is the dogma that not all temporal punishment is remitted by God with the guilt of sin and the eternal punishment. This is based upon a number of examples in Scripture where despite the guilty party being forgiven, they receive a temporal punishment for their sin. For example:

And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.  (2 Samuel 12:13-14)

The Church has connected this to Christ's admonition to take up your cross (do penance)

And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:38)

Christ's atonement is fully adequate and superabundant:

For you are bought with a great price. ( 1 Corinthians 6:20)

Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled, Foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you, Who through him are faithful in God, who raised him up from the dead, and hath given him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God. (1 Peter 1:18-21)

Now the law entered in, that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. (Romans 5:20)

Thus, the Church teaches that Christ's death merits sufficient grace to cover every sin, yet Divine Justice requires temporal punishment to make amends for the harm due to our sins. Our enduring temporal punishment has value because of the merits of Christ.
Finally, Purgatory as a necessity derives from Scripture:

And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Machabees 12:42-46)

Emphasis mine. If they were thought to be damned, no prayer could help. If they were thought to be saved, no prayer would be necessary.
2 Machabees is the most explicit as far as describing a practice with its theological implication, but there are New Testament passages which also have implications of Purgatory.

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. (Matthew 12:32; emphasis mine).

The "in the world to come" was interpreted by both Pope St. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine as referring to the possibility of some sins being remitted after death, hence a middle state of Purgatory.
Similarly, in 1 Corinthians:

According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in 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 burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:10-15)

Here there is a distinction between the man whose works abide (who shall receive a reward) and the man whose works burn (who shall be saved "by fire"). The latter case is understood as referring to purgation of the effects of their sins.

Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing. (Matthew 5:25-26)

"repay the last farthing" was understood as referring to smaller offenses and the context suggests a time-limited rather than eternal penalty.


Marriage between syrian catholics and roman catholics?

The short answer is that any two Catholics, of any rite, have the right to marry one another (provided the usual conditions are met; i.e., that the couple consists of one man and one woman, and that both are free to marry).

The groups mentioned by the O.P. are simply autonomous churches that are both part of the Catholic Church, hence in full communion with one another.

Syrian Catholics vs. Latin Catholics

The Catholic Church, in addition to the Latin or Western Church that is the best well known, also has 23 autonomous Eastern churches in full communion with the universal Church. Among these are the two largest Eastern churches in India, the Syro-Malabar Church and the Syro-Malankar Church. Since both churches use a liturgy that is derived from the Syriac liturgy, they are sometimes called “Syrian Catholics.”

The O.P. used the term “Roman Catholics,” but that term is now seldom used in official Church documents. The more precise term for the largest group of Catholics is “Latin” or “Western” Catholics, to distinguish them from those who follow Eastern liturgical traditions.

However, in terms of their belonging to the universal Church, and being in communion with the Bishop of Rome (that is, the Pope), there is no difference between Western Catholics and Catholics from the Syro-Malabar or Syro-Malankar Church.

Marriage between Catholics of Different Catholic Churches

The Churches in full communion with the Catholic Church enjoy complete freedom to celebrate all the Sacraments in common, including matrimony.

That members of different autonomous churches may marry is implied by various canons of the Code of Canon Law, including the following:

  Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:

  [...]

  2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;

  3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.

  Can.  1109 Unless the local ordinary and pastor have been excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended from office or declared such through a sentence or decree, by virtue of their office and within the confines of their territory they assist validly at the marriages not only of their subjects but also of those who are not their subjects provided that one of them is of the Latin rite.

Similarly, the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches says

  Canon 33 A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.

  Canon 34 If the parents, or the Catholic spouse in the case of a mixed marriage, transfer to another Church sui iuris, children under fourteen years old by the law itself are enrolled in the same Church; if in a marriage of Catholics only one parent transfers to another Church sui iuris, the children transfer only if both parents consent. Upon completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children can return to the original Church sui iuris.

  Canon 829 §1 From the day of taking canonical possession of office and as long as they legitimately hold office, everywhere within the boundaries of their territory, local hierarchs and pastors validly bless the marriage of parties whether they are subjects or non-subjects, provided that at least one of the parties is enrolled in his Church sui iuris.


Is an out-of-the body-experience (OBE) possible according to the Catholic Church?

Etymologically, "ecstasy" means "to stand outside of oneself," which could be what's meant by "outer body experience."

Ecstasy is, according to Fr. John Hardon, S.J.'s Catholic Dictionary:

  In general, the state of being beside oneself through some overpowering experience. As a mystical phenomenon, it includes two elements, one interior and the other exterior. The invisible element consists in the mind being riveted on a religious subject. The corporeal aspect means that the activity of the senses is suspended, so that not only are external sensations unable to influence the soul, but these sensations become very difficult to awaken. Many saints have received ecstasies as a supernatural gift from God, although ecstasy of itself is not a criterion of holiness. (Etym. Greek ekstasos; from ex, out + histanai, to cause to stand: existanai, to derange.)

(cf. also the Catholic Encyclopedia's "Ecstasy" entry)

Many saints (e.g., St. Teresa of Ávila, St. Catherine of Siena, et al.) have experienced ecstasy where their bodies look as though they are dead, but they are really rapt in divine contemplation. St. Paul, for example, seems to have had an ecstasy, and he seems to have described a man who had ecstasies (2 Corinthians 12:2-4):

  I know a man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth): That he was caught up into paradise and heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter.

(cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on these verses)


Do all Christian views need to have a Biblical basis?

A good reference on the reformed, evangelical position on this is from chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession

We speak of the Bible as God's Word because in it he speaks to us (2 Tim 3:16). He speaks to us personally in the Bible through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:12). Because the Bible is considered as God's Word it is his definitive words to us, the only infallible source of knowing him. It is also sufficient for everything we need to know about him. This means that in theory we don't need to look anywhere else to know God's will.

Some points to note:

The Bible won't tell us about absolutely everything that there is to know. It isn't particularly concerned about things like mathematics. The Bible is the final authority on matters of faith. Often it may not even answer your personal questions about God and his will. In this situation, either it means that we need further reflection, or that we're asking the wrong questions which means we may need to realign our concerns with the Bible's.
The Bible won't state everything down explicitly. Often our understanding of God is derived as a consequence of what we read in the Bible. E.g. the Bible doesn't mention the Trinity, but we can certainly see the ideas (e.g. John 17). This has implications on contemporary issues or things which we think the Bible doesn't deal with. We can draw principles and doctrines and apply them to different contexts. But you likely won't find specific answers to decisions in your own context such as whether you should do X or Y.
Not everything in the Bible is easy to understand. Often the difficulty in understanding lies in our own hardness against God, which is why God has given us the Holy Spirit to help us. Often it is because of the difficulty in understanding the actual meaning. The reformers also derived the principle that Scripture should interpret Scripture, which upholds the authority of the Bible while recognising its difficulties. Often the difficulty in understanding is not in individual statements but in the message as a whole and in the emphases. E.g. many parts of the Bible teaches us to love, but it is not the biggest teaching. The biggest teaching is that we need God's salvation because without it we cannot love anyway.

It's commonly recognised that there are at least 3 other sources: reason, tradition, experience. These are part of God's common grace to everyone. They can be helpful, but these should only be considered as secondary sources. They are ultimately flawed because people are flawed.

Reason. We use reason in deducing a lot of things, even reading the Bible. But we know that our capabilities to reason are limited, and people contradict themselves anyway. From a philosophical perspective, we can't know God by sheer reason. Our senses have limited scope, and by nature we deny God anyway (Rom 1:19f). God needs to reveal himself to us and tell us about himself and what he desires. E.g. he needs to tell us that there is only 1 of him. Anything else is just a guessing game. E.g. "I think God is like ..."
Experience. Can we know God from experiencing a vision? We don't particularly need it if the Bible is his revelation to us. A vision doesn't make us more anointed. Neither do we need such a vision or revelation to supplement the Bible since the Bible is sufficient. But if we do get such a vision, it should still be weighed up against Scripture (e.g. 1 Jn 4:1-3). Besides, the Holy Spirit is the important subjective, experience of God. I don't mean speaking in tongues, and it doesn't need to 'feel' particularly spiritual. The fact that we can repent and believe in Jesus is evidence of it already.
Tradition. Can an individual (such as the Pope) have more authority to give a special revelation from God? People may have particular gifts from God, e.g. Eph 4:11. The Apostles carried a unique authority because they were eyewitnesses to Jesus (Acts 1:21). But no one has a special phone line to God. All Christians have the same direct line to God, i.e. the Holy Spirit. Even the Apostles needed that before they could start preaching (Acts 2). Having said that, the teaching of church leaders, books or each other can be helpful. Even non-Christian teachings/writings can be helpful. But that's not to say that they're always right. Neither can they carry the same authority as the Bible, because they are ultimately man's words.

So we can have secondary sources to help us know God, but the ultimate authority is the Bible because of the special authority that the Bible carries as the Word of God. The implication is that everything else is either wrong or inadequate, which means that we do need to come back to the Bible in the end. And because of the difficulty of understanding the Bible sometimes, we need to continually be going back to Scripture. You may even be surprised by what you find.


Is every Doctor of the Church a Saint? What are the requirements to be made a Doctor of the Church?

Why the titled is conferred

  Certain ecclesiastical writers have received this title on account of
  the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine.

Who confers it

  To these great names others have subsequently been added. The
  requisite conditions are enumerated as three: eminens doctrina,
  insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio (i.e. eminent learning,
  a high degree of sanctity, and proclamation by the Church). Benedict
  XIV explains the third as a declaration by the supreme pontiff or by a
  general council. But though general councils have acclaimed the
  writings of certain Doctors, no council has actually conferred the
  title of Doctor of the Church. In practice the procedure consists in
  extending to the universal church the use of the Office and Mass of a
  saint in which the title of doctor is applied to him. The decree is
  issued by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and approved by the pope,
  after a careful examination, if necessary, of the saint's writings. It
  is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to
  a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the
  Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are
  not wholly immune from error. No martyr has ever been included in the
  list, since the Office and the Mass are for Confessors. Hence, as
  Benedict XIV points out, St. Ignatius, St. Irenæus, and St. Cyprian
  are not called Doctors of the Church. - Source: Doctors of the Church | New Advent


Did John Bunyan believe in predestination and irresistible grace?

It's clear from the writings of John Bunyan that he believed in the Reformed doctrines of predestination and irresistible grace.  He makes an extensive defense of these and related doctrines in his work, Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ, in which he analyzes John 6:37:

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. [KJV]

Demonstrating his belief in predestination, he writes that the "all" of this verse are the elect:

Those, therefore, intended as the gift in the text, are those that are given by covenant to the Son; those that in other places are called “the elect,” “the chosen,” “the sheep,” and “the children of the promise,” &c. These be they that the Father hath given to Christ to keep them; those that Christ hath promised eternal life unto; those to whom he hath given his word, and that he will have with him in his kingdom to behold his glory. (5; 8)

He sees the "giving" of this verse as not only something happening in the present, with the transformation of individual sinners, but also something that God did long ago:

this gift was bestowed upon Christ when the covenant, the eternal covenant, was made between them before all worlds. (6; 11)

Turning now to the doctrine of irresistible grace, we see that Bunyan also clearly teaches it in this work.  He spends many pages expounding on the "shall come" of John 6:37, arguing that it is an absolute promise of God that cannot be circumvented by anything, not even the will of man:

The Father’s end was, that they might come to him, and be saved by him; and that, says the Son, shall be done; neither sin nor Satan, neither flesh nor world, neither wisdom nor folly, shall hinder their coming to me. (9; 19)

But what of the one who insists that he will not be saved?  Is it possible for him to resist God's will?  Bunyan says no:

Here, then, is the case; we must now see who will be the liar, he that saith, "I will not"; or he that saith, "He shall come to me." "You shall come," says God; "I will not come," saith the sinner. Now, as sure as he is concerned in this Shall-come, God will make that man eat his own words; for "I will not," is the unadvised conclusion of a crazy-headed sinner; but Shall-come was spoken by him that is of power to perform his word. [bold and quotation marks added] (22; 51)

How will this be done?  Will such people be dragged into the kingdom against their will?  On the contrary, says Bunyan:

The obstinacy and plague that is in the will of that people, shall be taken away; and they shall be made willing; Shall-come will make them willing to come to thee. (22; 52)

Summary
John Bunyan's formulations of predestination and irresistible grace do not diverge from the historical teaching of the Reformed faith.  It's true that he differed with Calvinists on some matters related to ecclesiology and the sacraments, but his understanding of salvation corresponds neatly with theirs.

Quotes come from Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ, a PDF published by bunyanministries.org.  The first number after each quote indicates the page number in that edition.  The second number after each quote refers to the page number in a 1774 edition of this work.