How young do children start to receive communion regularly in Eastern Catholic/Orthodox churches?

In the Orthodox church, communion is seen as a thing to be obtained as often as possible (since it is seen as truly the body and blood of Christ), though not more than once per day. In monasteries there will often be Liturgies every day. In most churches, though, the liturgies will normally take place only once a week. This being said, every Orthodox christian, of any age, will partake of The Holy Mysteries (unless they have not confessed their sins to their spiritual father recently, and think that they are not worthy. Note: At monasteries, the rules for confession may be more strict: confession before every communion, confession within at most the past week, etc.).

So, in the Orthodox Church, most Believers will receive Holy Communion roughly once a week from the time they are baptized, until the day they die. Note: It is seen as a great blessing to receive communion on or right before the day you die.

As far as the Catholic church goes, things are relatively the same; do not receive Communion if you have not confessed any mortal sin you may have done recently, et cetera. They also share the belief in transubstantiation.
However, in the Roman Catholic Church, infant and children communion is much less common than in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches. According to Wikipedia:

  Infant Communion (also Paedocommunion) refers to the practice of giving the Eucharist, often in the form of consecrated wine, to infants and children. This practice is standard in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches; here, communion is given at the Divine Liturgy to all baptized and chrismated church members regardless of age. Infant communion is less common in most other Christian denominations, including the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

For more on the Catholic's view of who can receive communion, see here.


In Proverbs 19:20 whom should one hear, receive from, and accept? God or any wise man?

Moral: A Wise Man Listens to Advice, Instruction, and Correction

A straightforward interpretation of this proverb has more to do with who we should be rather than who we should listen to. All throughout the book, and especially the beginning, the writer urges the reader to choose wisdom instead of foolishness. This maxim is in that vein. It is saying that we should be the kind of people who will listen to counsel, instruction, and correction, because those people will become wise (for having done so).

This aphorism isn't attempting to tell us where we should get advice. Rather it is saying that if we want to be wise, we need to be willing to take it. Far too often, we are not even willing to listen to correction, instruction, or counsel.


What evidence is there that Peter was a bishop in Rome?

The Bible does not mention Peter as ever going to Rome, and there is no early Christian record of this being the case. Even at the end of the first century, the author of 1 Clement appears unaware that St. Peter ever came to Rome. Written from Rome, 1 Clement mentions Peter's 'many labours' and makes a general comment about Peter's death, without mentioning Rome: "There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory." Rex Wyler, in The Jesus Sayings, page 252, says the legend that Peter visited Rome appears in the non-canonical Acts of Peter, composed in about 185 CE. Eusebius embellishes this report two centuries later by adding that both Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during Nero's persecutions, but he cites no source and gives an erroneous date, casting doubt on his research.

John W. O’Malley, S.J. says, in A History of the Popes, page 8, that no one piece of evidence states in straightforward and unambiguous language either that Peter either went to Rome or that he died there, although O’Malley finds the circumstantial evidence is persuasive. Part of the evidence O'Malley relies on is in 1 Peter, which he acknowledges might not have been written by Peter himself, but claims it was at least written under his inspiration.

Francis A. Sullivan S.J. says, in From Apostles to Bishops, page 15, that there is a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones,  that the church of Rome was most probably led by a college of presbyters until well into the second century. He says there is no evidence of a ruling bishop in the first century. Now, it seems inconceivable that Peter would lead the church in Rome, as its first bishop, and appoint a successor as bishop, only for the Christian community of Rome to ignore this precedent for up to a century after the death of Linus.


How do deniers of Jesus' preincarnate existence interpret John 17:5?

Ancient Jewish culture had a concept of notional pre-existence. See Jesus’ Pre-Existence – Literal or Ideal? Something could exist in the mind of God (God's plan), and be talked about as existing but in a different sense from how we normally talk about existence - it exists or existed notionally.
So, the question is if Jesus had notional pre-existence but not literal pre-existence, then how can that be squared with the phrase

"with the glory that I had with you before the world was."

at John 17:5. That is, how can something that doesn't have literal existence have glory?
But again, if someone can exist notionally, what makes one think glory can't exist notionally? That is, why can't Jesus existing notionally in God's plan have glory in God's plan? There seems to be no reason why not. It is simply an imposition of our modern ways of thinking upon an ancient Jewish text to say he couldn't. As commentary on John 17:5 in the Revised English Version Bible says

"Jesus was praying that the glory the Old Testament foretold he would
have, and which had been in the mind of God the Father since before
the world began, would come into concretion."

Addendum: the debate about pre-existence is to a large extent a proxy debate which is actually about whether Jesus is God. Unitarians say Jesus is not God, and usually say Jesus did not have literal pre-existence. Trinitarians say Jesus is God, and therefore did have literal pre-existence.
It is interesting to note that almost immediately prior to the verse about Jesus' glory, at John 17:3, Jesus says "You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent." It's pretty clear - two entities, God on the one hand and Jesus on the other. If Jesus did pre-exist, according to John's Gospel he wasn't God pre-existing.


Do Christians foresee contradicting Government requirements in prolonged 'lockdown' conditions?

Christians around the world have been forced to meet in secret at various times and places throughout history, and even today there are many countries where Christians must hide to avoid persecution.
Different countries have different levels of religious freedom. In the United States, we have a constitutional guarantee that the federal government will not make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If this is tested, you can expect many Christians in the US to challenge it. Those in other countries may have a harder time being able to continue to worship.


Since sin is in essence any act of disobedience towards God or disbelief and we know that God is good1 we can conclude that there are no evil acts which are not sins.

1In fact good and evil are defined by and measured against His nature.


Why do people call Mary Magdalene the "Black Madonna"?

Mary Magdalene is known as the "Black Madonna" and conflated with a fertility goddess (Isis, the Black Goddess) in Gnostic thought, popular among Templars and Cathars back in the day and with more written about it in the Gnostic Gospels found more recently at Nag Hammadi. You can read an article about the Gnostic cult of Mary Magdalene here.


Do curses have any impact or effect on Christians?

There are many kinds of curses, and Christians are certainly affected by some.

The first curse against any humans is found in Genesis 3:17:

  To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

  “Cursed is the ground because of you;
     through painful toil you will eat food from it
     all the days of your life.

Clearly all humans, including Christians, live under this curse.

Another type of curse is the so-called "Generational Curse:"

  Our ancestors sinned and are no more,
     and we bear their punishment. Lamentations 5:7 (NIV)

I think it's clear that this affects Christians, too.  Not only in the way scripture talks about these generational curses, but in every-day life.  Drug-addicted parents tend to have children with drug addictions--or other related social problems.  And the cycle is very hard to break!

I think the question you're really getting at is, are curses "cast" by one person on another, effectual against Christians.

Proverbs 26:2 says:

  Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow,
     an undeserved curse does not come to rest.

Proverbs is not always considered to be "hard and fast truths," though, and more "words to live by," so this may not mean that "undeserved curses" are never effectual. It's also unclear (at least to me) what type of curse this is actually referring to.

This article contends that Christians can be affected by curses (or other demonic/occult practices, such as fortune telling), especially when they open themselves up to such influences.  But that through Christ, we can always overcome these attacks and negative influences.

As a personal side note, for which I have no references yet (I'll try to add some later):

Most Christians believe in spiritual warfare in one form or another.  If spiritual warfare is a reality, then surely calling upon demons to harm Christians would be an act of spiritual warfare.  And while I believe Christ can always overcome these attacks, I don't believe that always means Christians will never experience the effects of these attacks.


Why do Seventh-day Adventsists believe in a great end of days conflict about the Sabbath day?

This idea primarily comes from the teachings of Ellen G. White, whom the Seventh-day Adventists consider a modern-day prophet.
Early Writings, p 65:

The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first
day. He has thought to change the very commandment that was given to
cause man to remember his Creator. He has thought to change the
greatest commandment in the decalogue and thus make himself equal with
God, or even exalt himself above God. The Lord is unchangeable,
therefore His law is immutable; but the pope has exalted himself above
God, in seeking to change His immutable precepts of holiness, justice,
and goodness. He has trampled underfoot God's sanctified day, and, on
his own authority, put in its place one of the six laboring days. The
whole nation has followed after the beast, and every week they rob God
of His holy time. The pope has made a breach in the holy law of God,
but I saw that the time had fully come for this breach to be made up
by the people of God and the waste places built up.

This is based on her interpretation of Daniel 7:25 (ESV):

He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the
saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law;
and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half
a time.

In the same vein as many Premillenial Dispensationalists, White identifies the 4th beast in the above passage as the Antichrist who will appear before a great tribulation prior to the return of Christ and a subsequent 1000-year reign.
But although Adventists are not the first regarding the interpretation of the Papacy being identified as the Antichrist (prominent protestants, such as Luther, Calvin, Knox, and others have held that position), they do understand this in the context of what they call the Great Controversy (more on this below).
The important phrase relevant to the question is "shall think to change times and the law;" which is understood to specifically by the Seventh-day Adventists to mean changing Saturday worship (one of the Ten Commandments) to Sunday worship.
There are plenty of SDA books regarding the Sunday/Sabbath conflict, the most important being White's "The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan", published in 1911. There she also talked about the role of the United States of America in the final conflict (identifying it as the Second Beast of Revelation 13) . This view is also present in other popular, more modern books, like Jan Marcussen's, National Sunday Law.
Some background facts which make this an especially important point to the Seventh-day Adventists:
1. Spirit of Prophecy
Ellen G. White is regarded as the modern day SDA prophet having the "spirit of prophecy" referred to in Rev 19:10. See also Rev 12:17.
This leads the SDA church to regard themselves as a special "last days" remnant (because only they properly keep the commandments) and having their own special revelation (Ellen White's writings).
2. The Great Controversy
The Great Controversy is a very important theme in the SDA church. National Sunday Law (the pope changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday) is an acute representation of this larger conflict.  According to the SDA church, Sunday keeping will be forced by civil laws all over the world, separation of State and Church will be lost (even in the USA), and the Papacy will lead the final movement against God's Law.
3. Sabbath Day
Although the Ten Commandments are all of equal importance for the SDA Church, keeping the Sabbath holy is considered of special importance during the final conflict, due to the following reasons:

It's the only Commandment of the Ten that is not universally shared by other Christians, not even Protestants. That will make the Sabbath very difficult keep in the final context described in the Great Controversy.

According the SDA beliefs, God's law must be kept as a whole (whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it - James 2:10). So Sabbath can not be negotiated, not even for the sake of union with other Christian denominations.

For the SDA church, the mark of the Beast during the final days (Rev. 13:16-17) is Sunday's observance, as a system instituted by men (the Papacy), in contrast to God's real Commandments (Sabbath observance).
Conclusion
Put these three facts together, and you get a great end-times controversy over the Sabbath commandment which the faithful remnant follow because they alone have the "Spirit of Prophecy."


Why does God punish us when He gives us free-will?

I would not call it punishment but rather, the RESULT or OUTCOME of freewill.

Let's give an example.

  You tell your little son not to touch the hot iron on the
  table. But, out of curiosity, the boy touched it anyway and the little
  hands burned. The child exercised his own freewill even if a strict
  warning was given by you. This is a result of freewill.

The same thing apply to Adam and Eve. They were strictly warned not to eat the fruit from the tree at middle of the garden.

  Genesis 2:17 (NIV) "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

God did not say "I will punish you" but rather, the tragic result of it was given as a warning, "Death". Death is the result by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve knew very well what she was doing. Instead of listening to God, she listened to that serpent who was inferior to her. Adam also followed his wife and they both transgressed. The effect of the fruit immediately fell on them. All was cursed, the ground was cursed, man was cursed, sin and death entered the world!

  Romans 5:12 (NIV) Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one
  man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people,
  because all sinned

But God in His mercy prepared a way out, the one and only way out, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the death penalty of sins, offered his blood for atonement of sins and became the one and only way to God. He is now the remedy from death.

  John 14:6 (NIV) Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the
  life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

Now, this is again another freewill exercise. IF you chose to receive Jesus Christ, you will get eternal life, ELSE, you prefer to reject Him, you remain in your sins and never receive the remedy from death.


According to Jehovah's witnesses, why does an active force have a name?

I made some research on their site : wol.jw.org. Based on this verse, here is an article from their 03/15/2010 Watchtower, titled "Baptized in the Name of Whom and What?".

The part under "In the Name of the Holy Spirit" should interest you. Here is the most relevant part :

  What does it mean to be baptized in the name of the holy spirit? As
  noted earlier, those hearing Peter on the day of Pentecost were aware
  of the holy spirit. In fact, they could see proof right before their
  eyes that God continued to use the holy spirit. Peter was one of those
  who had been “filled with holy spirit and [who had] started to speak
  with different tongues.” (Acts 2:4, 8) The expression “in the name of”
  need not imply the name of a person. Today, many things are done “in
  the name of the government,” which is not a person. They are done by
  the authority of the government. Similarly, one who is baptized in the
  name of the holy spirit recognizes that the holy spirit is, not a
  person, but Jehovah’s active force. And such baptism means that one
  acknowledges the role the holy spirit plays in God’s purpose.

Hope this helps


Your question is one that I frequently encounter especially from teenagers. And usually I find that the real question they want answered is 'Is there someone God created to be my soul mate for life?' Of course neither I nor anyone else except God himself can answer that question. However I will be happy to tell you what Scriptures say about the subject.
Mar 10:6 through 9  King James Version

6  But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8  And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So what point is Jesus making with that statement? He is telling us that God's intent was that when two people marry it is God's intention for that marriage to last a lifetime. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to select our mate very carefully.
The reason that selection is so important is that as we see in verses 7 and 8 That mate whom you select and you become one and the same, from that time on what one does effects the other whether it be how to spend money or who gets up in the middle of the night when the baby cries.
So does God create a specific person for you to the exclusion of all others? I cannot imagine that that would be the case since God gave us free will, and with that free will we are free to choose any partner we want, and if God only gave one person to choose from where would our free will be?
I in fact believe that for some people, it is God's intent that those persons mot have a mate and that they dedicate themselves to his service. The Apostle Paul for instance said:
1st Corinthians 7:1 and 2  KJV

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

And:
1st Corinthians 7:6 through 9  KJV

6  But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7  For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8  I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Here Paul is saying that it will please God if you decide to remain single and remain totally dedicated to his service, but he is also aware that it is very difficult to control your emotions, and that it is far better to marry than to go against God's commandments.
This precept is the reason for Priest and Nuns not to marry and join their chosen profession of dedication to service of the LORD.
Finally; Let's examine why god created Eve.
Genesis 2:18  KJV

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

So we learn from this Scripture that God created  woman so that man would not be alone. But not just to be a companion as we see in the second part of this verse she was to specifically be his helper, or in other words they were intended to work together to secure the blessings of God whether they be tangible or intangible.
These are some things you need to keep in mind when making a decision who to marry, and as a Christian one very important thing is to find someone who will work together with you to secure God's blessings. That is the reason for the following Scripture;
2nd Corinthians 6:14  KJV

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?


Did Satan really not understand God's salvation plan?

No I don't think he was surprised at all. But that doesn't mean he wasn't disappointed. I'm sure he held out a false hope that things might go his way.

Satan is not omnipotent and could not have known exactly what God was planning, but he would have known and been able to understand the prophecies as well or better than men and it was never any secret that he was going to be crushed. However we must remember how he got to be Satan in the first place. His pride blinded him to think that he could rise and challenge the living God. That kid of pride is debilitating to comprehension and it deludes one into thinking an outcome could be  different than the obvious.

I think this can stand as a warning to Christians because we have the same root of pride in our nature. If we willfully object to the sovereignty of God in our personal lives we will be blinded by this pride.


What vehicle did God use for Jonah to receive this word?

Jonah chapter 4 does not say, but suggests strongly, that God spoke to Jonah audibly while Jonah was awake, so it was not a dream.

  4 But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. 2 He
  prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at
  home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew
  that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and
  abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now,
  Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

  4 But the Lord replied, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

  5 Jonah had gone out and sat down at a place east of the city. There
  he made himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what
  would happen to the city. 6 Then the Lord God provided a leafy
  plant and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to
  ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant. 7 But
  at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so
  that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east
  wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He
  wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to
  live.”

  9 But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the
  plant?”

  “It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”

  10 But the Lord said, “You have been concerned about this plant,
  though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and
  died overnight. 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of
  Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand
  people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many
  animals?”

The evidence is that the Lord caused a miracle - the growth and death of the plant - so the communication was in the phycical realm, not a dream or vision. Certainly Jonah is speaking aloud. There is no mention of a whirlwind, fire, earthquake, smoke, cloud, or other physical phenomena associated with messages received by Moses, Elijah or others. Yet these physical details are give - the hot wind, the sunrise, the tree Jonah is sitting against. Since so many details of the setting are given and no mention of a visible form is described for God, then an auditory event is the most likely. Jonah heard God speak while awake but did not see a vision of Him.

(For completeness, the only other mention of Jonah in the Old Testament is in 2 Kings 14:25, but nothing there seems to shed light on this question.)


What is the Roman Catholic Church's views about Luke 14:32?

Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J.'s commentary on Luke 14:32 says:

Ver. 32.—Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, &c. This verse gives completeness to the parable, but is not to be taken as the teaching of Christ, for we may not bargain with either the evil spirits or our vices; against these we must wage ἄσπονδον πόλεμον, an irreconcileable war.
This verse may however be interpreted in this way—
“He that desires to follow me perfectly in poverty and in the preaching of the gospel, must make an entire surrender of self, and give up parents, friends, and possessions, thus making them enemies.
“But if he see that he has not strength enough for this, let him make conditions of peace with them, and bind himself by the gospel precepts only, leaving for others the counsels of poverty, obedience, and the preaching of salvation. For this is that which Christ would teach, as is clear from the following verse; hence he makes mention of two armies, two leaders, and two banners, one His own, and the other that of Lucifer. Wherefore the Apostles and their successors have need to bear in mind that they are engaged in actual warfare against the devil and his angels.” S. Cyril.


How does mainstream Christianity view "Heaven is for Real"?

There are many, many things out there that claims similar events happening in their lives.
Obviously, it is common sense not to believe all those stories.
One story consists of someone visiting hell; one story consists of person going heaven and back.Some stories even tell the tale of being on footsteps on heaven.

How do we deal with these stories?
Here is the general answer:
Use Bible as Reference.

Check every aspect of the story to the Bible. If they disagree on certain aspects, than the story is definitely wrong.

Bible is not just some sort of story we consult. Bible is The Word.

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1.

Everything in the Bible is true, and will be proven true.

  "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:18


What is the biblical basis for tithing money instead of agricultural produce or animals?

After the fall harvest, people would travel to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles.
People would reserve a tenth of their harvest for what, in addition to being a religious experience, was like an annual week-long holiday.
For those that lived far from the city, bringing a tenth of their harvest would be impractical, so they sold it locally and instead carried their tithe as cash.

“You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year.
And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you,
then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses.
And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.
— Deuteronomy 14:22–26


When did the older English spelling of the endings of Isaiah and Elijah stop being used in the Catholic Church?

I think you'll find the question is not how -jah came to be -ias as how -ias came to be -jah.

For example you could look at the Greek rendering of the name Isaiah as see that it is Ἠσαΐας (pronounced Ēsaïās) which is a pretty clear indication that at one significant point in history the name was pronounced closer to the old/alternate English rendering of Isaias.

In general you will find names mutilated morphing from language to language and in a language over time as it gets to some persons ears and doesn't sound quite right. It's quite possible that at some point an Englishman's ear told him that ending a name with -ias sounded foreign and so he adapted it, however...

Pushing farther back however you will find the Hebrew name was יְשַׁעְיָהוּ (Yəšạʻyā́hû) so it might be that the more modern English rendition is actually an attempt to render an English name closer to the original rather than following the long tail of languages in between.

A similar story can be told for Elijah who's Hewbrew name would be אליהו (Eliyahu) but in much more modern usage is rendered إلياس, in Arabic (Pronounced Ilyās).

As for WHEN the change happened, it would see that for Isaiah, Isias might actually be a trendy thing started by a couple of writers in the mid 1900's. However the majority usage dating back to at least the 1600's KJV text is undoubtedly "Isaiah".


It's one of many shorthand names for "Jesus"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram

In the Latin-speaking Christianity of medieval Western Europe (and so among Catholics and many Protestants today), the most common Christogram became "IHS" or "IHC", denoting the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, iota-eta-sigma, or ΙΗΣ.
The Greek letter iota is represented by I, and the eta by H, while the Greek letter sigma is either in its lunate form, represented by C, or its final form, represented by S. Because the Latin-alphabet letters I and J were not systematically distinguished until the 17th century, "JHS" and "JHC" are equivalent to "IHS" and "IHC".


How does Christianity work with all the biblical covenants?

Answering from the Reformed perspective:

There are essentially two covenants. The first covenant was with Adam, and is called the covenant of works. Adam was bound to obey the command not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If he obeyed, he would live. If he disobeyed, he would die. Adam disobeyed, and his sin, because of Adam's representative nature (see Romans 5), is passed on to all people by ordinary generation (that is, everyone but Jesus Christ).

The second covenant is the covenant of grace. Most of the Bible is spent in tracing out this second covenant. Most of the OT covenants (except that of works) are in this line. They just keep getting bigger and bigger in scope. So you have:

Adamic Covenant (second one): Individual
Noahic Covenant: Individual + family
Abrahamic Covenant: Individual + family + descendants
Mosaic Covenant: Nation
Davidic Covenant: Kingdom

Finally, you get to the New Covenant in the grace line, which is so powerful it's retroactive.

So what to do with all these covenants? Well, first of all, I would point out that if anyone could perfectly keep the terms of the covenant of works, that person would be saved. Big if. The fact is, Adam's sinful nature is passed on to us, which rules this possibility out from the get-go. How many sins does a person have to commit in order to go to hell? Zero, because of the sinful nature.

So if we can't get to heaven with the covenant of works, that leaves the covenant of grace. Now, the New Covenant that Jesus instituted rather supercedes the previous ones, and indeed is the covenant to which all the other OT covenants in the grace line were pointing. It fulfills them. Therefore, because Christ is the perfect sacrifice, it would actually detract from His sacrifice to continue offering up the OT sacrifices.

The definitive work on the subject, so I'm told (I haven't read it, but I've heard it's good), is The Christ of the Covenants, by O. Palmer Robertson.


According to Calvinism, if Catholicism might lead to salvation, why to remain a Calvinist? (Henry IV story)

The Calvinist answer to the question "is there salvation in the Catholic Church" is "yes and no." It is "no" because there is nothing salvific in being affiliated with the papacy. We deny the legitimacy of the office of pope, in addition to many other unbiblical offices and deny sacerdotalism entirely as a scheme of salvation. A person whose hope for a basis of salvation is placed in the pronouncements or presumed dispensation of grace at the discretion of Roman Catholic priests is someone a Calvinist would consider unsaved or at least very confused and saved in spite of it.

The "yes" part of the question is based on the belief that salvation is found in Jesus alone and it is fully possible to be a member of a corrupt church and yet be a sincere believer.

The idea that a person would be a Catholic "just to be safe" would imply that they are not trusting in Christ for forgiveness but rather in their church membership or placing their hope in men. The Calvinist position is that salvation is by direct faith in Jesus Christ alone, not faith plus works, nor faith plus membership/blessing by a priest. We don't recognize apostolic succession as a legitimate biblical concept except in the succession of apostolic doctrine.

Reformed confessional documents rarely even offer the name "Roman Catholic" as a courtesy, preferring names like "papcy" and "papist" due to a lack of desire to grant the premise that "Catholicism" is "catholic" (i. e. the universal church). The Westminster Confession of Faith in the chapter on marriage forbids marriage with "papists and other idolators" (chapter 24).

The default posture of Calvinism towards Rome is to view them as a mission field in the form of a true church that has been corrupt (hence we recognize Roman baptisms as legitimate baptisms whereas the baptisms of heretical churches like LDS or Jahovah's Witnesses we would not recognize and would judge that the person would need to be baptized for the first time).


What was the intended meaning of the quotation marks around "sinners" in the old NIV?

This is not addressed in the Preface to the 1984 NIV, so we must look elsewhere for clues.

The best explanation I've found comes from Craig S. Keener's commentary on Matthew:

  Some take sinners here to mean the 'am hā'āres common people whom the Pharisees despised for their lack of adherence to Pharisaic food laws (as in Jeremias 1972:132; thus the quotation marks in the NIV); more scholars today lean toward the view that it means sinners in a more blatant sense. (source)

So the NIV translators make a judgment call – when the word sinners is used to mean something more like "despised by Pharisees" than "those who violate God's law," they put the word in quotes.

James A. Brooks, in The New American Commentary, explains the matter similarly, regarding Mark 2:15:

  The NIV is quite correct to put the word "sinners" in quotation marks to indicate that it is being used with an unusual meaning.  The reference is not to immoral or irreligious person but to those who because of the necessity of spending all their time earning a bare subsistence were not able to keep the law, especially the oral law, as the scribes thought they should.  As a result the scribes despised them.  Perhaps a better translation would be "outcasts" (GNB). (source)

But, as Keener notes, this is an interpretive decision and there's some disagreement over it.  Thus it shouldn't be surprising that other translations, including the NIV 2011, don't adopt this stylistic approach.


What are the major differences between the NKJV and the ESV translations?

The New King James version is meant to be an update (circa 1975) of the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and literary beauty of the original 1611 KJV version. 130 translators used the original King James version as well as Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The translators have sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call "complete equivalence" in contrast to "dynamic equivalence" used by many other modern translations. The task of updating the English of the KJV involved significant changes in word order, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. One of the most significant features of the NKJV was its abandonment of the historic second person pronouns “thou”, "thee", “ye”, “thy”, and “thine”. Verb forms were also modernized in the NKJV (for example, "speaks" rather than "speaketh").

The English Standard Version (ESV) of 2001 is a revision of the of the 1971 Revised Standard Version, which traces it's origins to William Tyndale's New Testament translation of 1525 (the first English translation of a Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, which was also a significant influence on the original KJV).  Work on the ESV began over the perceived looseness of style and content of recently published English Bible translations. Many alterations designed to correct or improve the text were made to satisfy the objections of conservative Protestants who had considered the RSV to be theologically liberal, for example, changing the translation of the Hebrew almah from "young woman" (used in the RSV) to "virgin" (in the ESV) in Isaiah 7:14. The language was modernized to remove "thou" and "thee" and replace obsolete words (e.g., "jug" for "cruse").

Relative Differences: the biggest practical difference that I can see is that the ESV is newer. The RSV, upon which the ESV is based, was primarily a project to update the Bible to the English language of the current time (mid-20th century) as an improvement over the old KJV.  By the time the ESV was published the New King James Version -- which also had as its goal to modernize the language -- had been published twenty years earlier.  It seems to me (a Catholic who primarily uses the Challoner revision to the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate) that the both the ESV and NKJV are projects which in their history are based on the same work (Tyndale's Bible) with the same general goals (modernized language) and which have both achieved this goal with negligible qualitative differences.


How do Quakers know when to start and stop their church meetings?

Each Weekly Meeting (that is, each congregation) has a clerk who is regularly elected by the members of the Meeting to lead all business conducted by the Meeting. Some weekly meetings (such as the School Meeting described by the Friends School of Minnesota) have the clerk of the Meeting or another elder chosen by the Meeting begin the meeting by rising and stating a Query (that is, a question for reflection) which will be the topic of the meeting. Sometimes, on the other hand (as according to this Canadian reference) the Meeting for Worship (the worship service) is considered to begin as soon as even one worshiper enters the meeting room. As Meetings for Worship vary distinctly by Weekly Meeting, there may be other approaches as well.

Typically, the Clerk of the Meeting (or another elder appointed by them) will keep track of the meeting's length, and will stand at the end of the appointed time (45 minutes or an hour in most meetings) and close the meeting (usually with a handshake that then propagates around the room), thanking everyone for coming.

NOTE: Your question, and my answer, relate to the procedure at what are called unprogrammed meetings. Certain branches of the Society of Friends have a very different style of Meeting for Worship called a programmed meeting. These meetings look much like a typical Protestant worship service1, with readings, songs, and a worship leader.

1In my Catholic understanding.


Does the passage in Luke 9:49-50 support the diversity of denominations?

There is a good sermon that was given on this subject actually:

http://www.christianuniverse.com/sermons/forbidnot.htm

But, basically, Jesus didn't want the in-fighting, which may be similar to having more denominations, it depends on how you define denominations, as you will see that there may be disagreements within the same denomination so we have fighting within, even within the same physical church.

For example, there are people that claim to be following Jesus but then opening profess hatred of others.  This we need to stand against, as that violates what Jesus taught, and invalidates his entire message.

But, we shouldn't be fighting against each other, and using valuable resources/time, when there are so many things in this world that could be helped if we focused on our mission of sharing Christ with the world.

Now, if someone is claiming to be doing work in Jesus' name, and you feel that there is some teaching that is suspect, then go by yourself, first, and try to share your concerns with them, but in all things it should be done with love.

This follows the teachings in Matthew 18:16-20.

By going by yourself, your ego is less involved, if you haven't told anyone what you are going to do, but just do it in a way so that only God is the other witness.


How do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 1:10?

Calvinists from Calvin to the present day have interpreted this verse as relating to man's assurance, not God's will.

John Calvin specifically responds to those who say this verse implies that the "stability of our calling and election depends on good works," saying:

  [P]urity of life is not improperly called the evidence and proof of election, by which the faithful may not only testify to others that they are the children of God, but also confirm themselves in this confidence, in such a manner, however, that they fix their solid foundation on something else.1

That is, good living can be correctly called proof of election, in that it is a testimony to others and to oneself of one's election, but this does not imply that good living is the foundation of election.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown argue that God's steadfast will needs no assurance, but man does, and good works provide it: "There is no uncertainty on His part, but on ours the only security is our faith in His promise and the fruits of the Spirit."2

Louis Berkof likewise uses this verse as evidence that "believers can in this life attain to the assurance of salvation."3 Similarly, John Frame cites this verse and says,

  Calling is a gracious act of God, but it inevitably produces good works in the believer, works that demonstrate that one is in fact called.4

Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles
Jamieson, et al. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4.11.C
Frame, Systematic Theology, p940


Is Latin considered a holy language in the Catholic Church?

Yes, prior to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass finished by 1970, Latin was the language used at Mass throughout the world.  The change to the vernacular didn't change the official language of the Catholic Church which is Latin.
Many parts of the Mass are still (or can be) proclaimed in Latin.  If you've got some time, watch or listen to the Mass on EWTN.  I think there's a lot more Latin in that Mass than there is in the average town's parish.  I think there are at least two reasons for that:

It is beautiful

They've got a handful of priests who are familiar with the language.

Beyond that, it was obviously the desire of Mother Angelica to have a more traditional (and therefore holy, beautiful and sacred) liturgy.  But it doesn't make it more "meaningful"; Christ isn't less present at Masses proclaimed in the vernacular.

In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued a Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (only in Latin) in which he said that it was OK by him if people used the old Roman Missal (only in Latin), which incidentally is less than 10 years older than the new one, for their Mass.   This lifted the responsibility from the Bishops to say yes or no and made a few Traditional Catholic groups happy.
But he made it clear that this is the "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass, not the Ordinary one.  And, every time you hear the word "Extraordinary" in the Catholic Church, it indicates something that is not really necessary for salvation in general, but good for some circumstances.  (Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, Extraordinary means of Baptism, etc...)

It's not more holy, in the sense that it is "special in God's eyes". But it certainly is more holy in the traditional sense of the word "set apart", more so today than in the hey day of the Holy Roman Empire.
But, it is the official language of the Church and as long as the Pope is in Rome, it always will be:

The Latin language has always been held in very high esteem by the Catholic Church and by the Roman Pontiffs.
Pope Benedict XVI - Latina Lingua


Has the Catholic Church ever attempted a local substitute for the word Amen?

The short answer is Yes.

Some French speaking communities often employ the Ainsi soit-il ending at the end of some of their prayers. Although the use of Amen is by far the norm, many people who speak French still use this alternative ending to their prayers.

  For those who wanted prayers: here's the "Hail Mary.

  Je vous salue, Marie, pleine de grâce.
   Le Seigneur est avec vous. Vous êtes bénie entre toutes les femmes, et Jésus, le fruit de vos entrailles, est béni.
  Sainte Marie, mère de Dieu, priez pour nous pauvres pêcheurs, maintenant et à l'heure de notre mort.
  Ainsi soit-il. - Hail Mary Prayer

The word Amen simply means so be it.

It would not be a surprise to me if some Native American languages have adopted a local variation to the endings of some of their prayers. Being simply a traditional way of ending prayers, Rome would not interfere with a local custom. Here is an example of the Our Father in Quiripi:

  Quiripi translation

  Noûshin aûsequamuk terre
   wérrettepantammunatch wòweztâuonatch kowésewunk
   Peamoutch' kúkkussootúmmowunk,
   kòrantàmmowunk neratch
   sket'ôkke nenar âusequamuk terre,
   Mèsonah èa kèsuk kónkesekatush noméetsounk,
   petúkkenêag akquantamínah nomàtchereúnganansh
   nenar tàkquantaminan ewojek nomàtcherehéaqueàguk,
   Asquonsàkkongonan rame-re mítchemôuretounk,
   webe kûppoquohwhèriggamínah wutche madjk'
   wutche kèkatah kètassootómoonk,
   quah milkèssowunk quah àíttarwejanúnguesówunk
   michème quah michème: Ne râtch.

  English version

  Our Father, who art in heaven,
   Hallowed be thy Name.
   Thy kingdom come,
   Thy will be done,
   On earth as it is in heaven.
   Give us this day our daily bread,
   And forgive us our trespasses,
   As we forgive those who trespass against us.
   And lead us not into temptation,
   But deliver us from evil.
   For thine is the kingdom,
   and the power, and the glory,
   For ever and ever. Amen.

Algonquian and Iroquoian Uses:

  Also called "Indian Masses", a number of variations on the Roman Rite developed in the Indian missions of Canada and the United States. These originated in the 17th century, and some remained in use until the Second Vatican Council. The priest's parts remained in Latin, while the ordinaries sung by the schola were translated into the vernacular (e.g., Mohawk, Algonquin, Micmac, and Huron). They also generally featured a reduced cycle of native-language propers and hymns. At present they are rarely used. - Latin liturgical rites

Historically, Soþlice was used in Old English which could be translated Truly/Amen/So be it.

  AD 995, Old English

  Fæder ūre, ðū ðē eart on heofonum,Sī ðīn nama gehālgod.Tō becume ðīn rice.Gewurde ðīn willaOn eorþan swā swā on heofonum.Urne gedæghwamlīcan hlāf syle ūs tōdæg.And forgyf ūs ūre gyltas,Swā swā wē forgyfaþ ūrum gyltendum.And ne gelæd ðū ūs on costnunge,ac alȳs ūs of yfele. Sōþlice.

The oldest Our Father in French ends with Issi seit.

More examples may be found here using an alternative ending to prayers other than Amen, including Token's Quenya language of the Our Father .


Why is everything created spiritually before physically?

Technically, we are not first created as spirits. This is a simplification. We existed as intelligences, which are not clearly explained, and later formed into our spirits by God.

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of
truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. D&C 93:29

Speaking of this topic, Marion G. Romney has said:

In origin, man is a son of God. The spirits of men “are begotten sons
and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24). Through that birth process,
self-existing intelligence was organized into individual spirit
beings.

After that physical form was created to house the spirits.

Our bodies, my brethren, our minds, are the tabernacles of our
spirits. - Gordon B. Hinkcley

By extension, it is reasonable to believe that all life also came from intelligences, which may not have been suited to become human. Therefore things are created or organized spiritually first, because without the spiritual existence there is no purpose in the physical creation.
For further reading, I recommend the article on Intelligences in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism


If you do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person, then what is it? What do Bible verses that reference the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God mean?

When reading translations of scripture, it is important to remember that the original Greek and Hebrew text didn't use capital letters to personify the "holy spirit" expression.
It is the translators, inspired by the Trinity doctrine, that decided to add the capitalization.
Similarly, the use of "he", "who", etc. rather than "it", "which", etc. in reference to God's spirit is also a decision of the translators.
For instance, Jewish translations of the Hebrew scriptures do not capitalize "spirit" nor refer to it as "he".
Compare the passage quoted in the question:

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.
He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.
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.”

with what it looks like without personification:

But when it, the spirit of truth, comes, it will guide you into all the truth.
It will not speak on its own; it will speak only what it hears, and it will tell you what is yet to come.
It will glorify me because it is from me that it will receive what it will make known to you.
All that belongs to the Father is mine.
That is why I said the spirit will receive from me what it will make known to you.”

Both translations are equally correct, but depend on the influence, or lack thereof, of the Trinity doctrine.
Anyone reading the second version would have no reason to even suspect that "spirit" refers to a sentient living being.
It doesn't, but the "spirit" in this passage could just as easily be referring to "The Bible" in the way the words are used here.
Read in this way, God's spirit is simply a spiritual force that belongs to God and through which God acts.
The expression is treated no differently than "God's finger" or "God's judgement" would be.

Allowing preconceived ideas to influence one's understanding is known as eisegesis (using scripture to confirm what one knows).
Looking at scriptures without the influence of preconceived ideas is known as exegesis (using scripture to derive what one knows).

In terms of strengthening one's existing faith, eisegesis can help and exegesis can hurt.
But in terms of objective translation, eisegeis is bad and exegesis is good.


What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that abortion is immoral/sinful?

The Catholic catechism has a section on abortion (2270-2275).  It starts with this:

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before
you were born I consecrated you.

 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret,
 intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.7

ccc 2270

Essentially, the position is that at the moment of conception, the embryo is fully human, that it should be "treated from conception as a person" (CCC 2274).  Because of that, destroying the embryo (or worse, the fetus) is murder.  Therefore, the ban against abortion is based on the fifth commandment (do not murder).


Did they ever have power? Relics, like people, do not have power. The power comes from God. If you have faith that God can heal, He will reward your faith.

  And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it
  upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten,
  when he looketh upon it, shall live.

  And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came
  to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the
  serpent of brass, he lived.

  Numbers 21:8-9

In the middle of the desert, people began to doubt God and speak against Him and His servant Moses. And so, God retired His divine protection from them, giving open way for the beasts of the desert to attack. Then God gave Moses the command to make a serpent. Was there anything special about the handcrafted serpent? No. Was there any power in it? No. Why have them look at it then? Because those who believed (had faith) in God and in the words of His servant Moses looked, and were healed by God. Those who did not and looked for their own remedy died.

The power is not in the relic. The power is not even in a person. The power comes from God Himself.


At what age should my daughters start wearing a head covering when they pray?

There is currently no requirement in the Catholic Church that women or girls wear a veil. This has technically only been the case since 1983, when the current code of canon law was promulgated.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law did enforce this as a rule:

Viri in ecclesia vel extra ecclesiam, dum sacris ritibus assistunt, nudo capite sint, nisi aliud ferant probati populorum mores aut peculiaria rerum adiuncta; mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt.
[Men, either in the church or out of the church, ought to have heads bare while they assist at the sacred rites, unless otherwise justified by established traditions of the people or by particular circumstances. Women, on the other hand, certainly should approach the Lord's table with head covered, and modestly dressed. – my translation]

(1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1262, section 2; emphasis added)
The 1983 code, however, abolished this rule along with the rest of the 1917 code of canon law and associated rules:

When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

(1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 6, section 1)
(Note: you do state that "Vatican canon law also says that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law only when this is made explicit"; this seems pretty explicit to me.)
If it is not a rule of canon law, is it perhaps addressed by Catholic belief? If so, one would expect to see something about it written in the Catechism, or perhaps addressed by the bishops. I don't see anything to that effect, though. A search through the Catechism reveals no results for "mantilla", and nothing for "veil" as an article of clothing. A quick search through the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for "mantilla" as an article of clothing yielded only a few references, mostly on the Spanish-language pages discussing wedding clothes. I conclude that it is not at all a requirement anymore, certainly not since 1983.
Note: Traditionally, it appears, protocol for papal audiences—particularly for private audiences—has been quite strict and has required among other things that a woman wear a black mantilla; you can see this on Mrs. Obama's head in the picture you post. I cannot find an authoritative statement on whether this is still required as protocol; however, even if it is, it applies simply to visits to the Pope, not to Mass-going in general.
Various cultures and geographic areas—particularly Italy, Spain, and Latin American countries and peoples—have a tradition of wearing a mantilla (chapel veil) independent of any rule of canon law. Since wearing one is certainly not "contrary to the prescripts of this Code" (there's nothing in the current code that says wearing one is wrong), it is an option which Catholic women (and girls) may choose, but which they need not. Under such circumstances it seems understandable for the Church not to legislate an age at which one might consider such a thing, and thus Catholic teaching says nothing at all about the age at which one might begin wearing a chapel veil.
As for tradition and the Bible: certainly Paul does refer to "women" in the passage you cite, but of course he offers no definition for "women". Current canon law sets 18 as the age of majority in the Church (canon 97 sec. 1), 16 as the minimum age at which a person can be affected by penalties in Church law (canon 1323 note 1), 14 as the minimum age at which a woman can marry (canon 1083 section 1—note, dioceses may set a higher minimum), and 7 as the age at which they are responsible for their own acts (canon 97 sec. 2). Any of these might be reasonably considered appropriate to decide whether a young lady is "old enough"; but again there is no official standard.


According to Calvinism, when and what happen during the Lord's Passover in the time of Moses?

Calvin's view of the 14th or 15th of Nisan observance is inferred, rather than explicit, but there's no reason not to conclude that Calvin thought Christ died on the 15th of Nisan a Passover Friday.
He believes that Christ ate the Passover on Thursday night with that night being the start of the 15th with Friday day the 15th until sunset being the day of crucifixion.  The Jews, he thought, would postpone their Passover by one day to the 16th a weekly Sabbath.  This is so such that they would not observe two non-working days (Sabbaths) in a row.  This view assumes (infers) that the first day of Unleavened Bread, the 15th, was considered a feast Sabbath.
As well, Calvin explicitly believes that Christ never violated the Law.  This too infers that Calvin thought the initial Mosaic observance of Passover occurred on the 15th.
So, in Calvin's view Friday the 15th Passover was a Sabbath and on which Christ died.  It was followed by the 16th weekly Sabbath when the others observed Passover.
From Calvin's Harmony of the Gospels

But hence arises a more difficult question. How did Christ observe that ceremony on the day before the whole nation celebrated the public passover? For John plainly affirms that the day on which Christ was crucified was, among the Jews, the preparation, not of the Sabbath, but of the passover....
First, it is beyond a doubt that Christ was put to death on the day before the Sabbath; for he was hastily buried before sunset in a sepulcher which was at hand, (John 19:42,) because it was necessary to abstain from work after the commencement of the evening. Now it is universally admitted that, by an ancient custom, when the passover and other festivals happened on Friday, they were delayed till the following day, because the people would have reckoned it hard to abstain from work on two successive days....
Even the Jews themselves unquestionably will not deny that, whenever the Sabbath immediately followed the passover, it was on one day, instead of both, that they abstained from work, and that this was enjoined by the Rabbins. Hence it follows that Christ, in departing from the ordinary custom, attempted nothing contrary to the Law.

This view incidentally that Friday was the 15th of Nisan is traceable through the Roman Catholic Church back to about 100-200 years before Christ's time, though not all the way back to the first in Exodus.  So, it is not accurate to state that the alternate view that Christ died on Passover proper the 14th is not Christian.  There are historically numerous Christians (Polycarp, Polycrates, Clement of Alexandria, etc) who taught this accurate understanding of the day and date of Christ's death and burial.
As to answering how the first Passover was observed in the time of Moses, the commandment was to slay the Passover at sunset between the evenings as the 13th ended and the 14th began.  They would eat it on the 14th at night.  The death angel would come through at midnight of the 14th.  In the 14th at day, they gathered at Ramses.  They left Egypt at night on the 15th the morrow of the Passover (Num. 33:3).


Biblical references telling us we should be angry

Scripture gives several examples of righteous anger.  This is anger towards sin, or injustice.

Most of these show God being angry.  Since God is without sin, it follows that if we in agreement with God, we are safe being angry with the same things He is angry with.  Examples:

God the Father is angry with sin

All verses KJV

  Psalms 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

  1 Kings 11:9,10 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had
  appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing,
  that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the
  LORD commanded.

  2 Kings 17:18 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them out of his sight. None was left but the tribe of Judah
  only.

Likewise, Jesus displayed anger at unrighteousness.

  Mark 3:4,5 And he [Jesus] said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they
  were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their
  hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He
  stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

  John 2:13-16 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.  In the temple he found those who were selling oxen
  and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And
  making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the
  sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and
  overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take
  these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”

One other passage speaks of being angry, and the context seems to say that it's O.K. to be angry, but not to let your anger provoke you to sin, and is followed immediately by a warning to not let your anger consume you - and to forgive as Christ forgives us.

From Ephesians 4

  26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

  27 Neither give place to the devil.

  28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour,
  working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to
  give to him that needeth.

  29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that
  which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto
  the hearers.

  30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto
  the day of redemption.

  31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil
  speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

  32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one
  another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


Why does Justin Martyr say that those who are unworthy of seeing God will become imprisoned in animal bodies?

First, keep in mind that Trypho is (almost certainly) a fictional character. He takes the statement in stride because it suits Justin's purpose.

To answer your question, transmigration of the soul  was a common belief in many Hellenistic philosophies. Note that Trypho stated at the beginning of the dialog that he studied under Corinthus the Socratic in Argos. It is not unreasonable that he would be familiar with if not accept the concept.

Now the question becomes ' Did Justin teach transmigration?' Read on. It seams to me that he is leading Trypho to reject the idea. The section closes with

  Trypho: Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can perceive that God exists, and that righteousness and piety are honourable, I also quite agree with you.

  Justin: You are right.


How does the Catholic Church interpret Galatians 2:7?

From the Catholic Haydock Commentary:

  Ver. 7. As to Peter was that of the circumcision. Calvin pretends to prove by this, that St. Peter and his successors are not head of the whole Church, because St. Peter was only the apostle of the Jews. But St. Paul speaks not here of the power and jurisdiction, but of the manner that St. Peter and he were to be employed. It was judged proper that St. Peter should preach chiefly to the Jews, who had been the elect people of God, and that St. Paul should be sent to the Gentiles; yet both of them preached both to Jews and Gentiles: and St. Peter, by receiving Cornelius, first opened the gate of salvation to the Gentiles, as he says of himself, (Acts xv. 7.) that God made choice of him, that the Gentiles by his mouth should hear the gospel, and believe. That St. Peter was head of the Church, see the notes on Matthew xvi. and John xxi. (Witham)

See also St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on this verse.


Origin of the (mis)translation "Ten Commandments"

"Ten Commandments" is not a mistranslation of עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים, but is justified based on the Hebrew and Greek Bibles themselves.
The meaning of דָּבָר in the Hebrew Bible
In the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), though the word דָּבָר commonly means "a word," it has a wide range of meanings based on its root meaning (on which see the next subheading below). Here are the meanings given for דָּבָר in the Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon:
(1) word, often collective: words, speech, discourse
   (a) a promise, something promised
   (b) a precept, an edict
   (c) a saying, a sentence (as of a wise man), especially the word of the Lord, an oracle
   (d) a counsel, proposed plan
   (e) rumor, report
(2) thing, thing done, affair, business
(3) anything, something
(4) a cause, reason
(5) cause (in a forensic sense)

Clearly the text in Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 cannot be described literally as "ten words." There are far more than ten words in these passages. At minimum, דָּבָר in this context means a saying of the Lord. But these are more than "sayings." They are, in fact precepts or edicts, in line with definition (1)(b).
This is the basis on which עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים is commonly translated into English as "the Ten Commandments" where it appears in Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4. (עֲשֶׂרֶת is a form of the Hebrew word עֶשֶׂר (`eser), "ten.")
Further, this is not the only context in which דָּבָר is translated as "commandment." As seen in its definition in Gesenius linked above, the King James Version translates it as "commandment" twenty times. The search algorithm used at the linked site to identify those occurrences is flawed, giving many more results than it should. Here are the actual verses in which the KJV translates דָּבָר as "commandment":

Exodus 34:28
Deuteronomy 4:13
Deuteronomy 10:4
Joshua 8:8
1 Samuel 15:11
1 Samuel 15:13
2 Samuel 12:9
1 Chronicles 28:21
2 Chronicles 31:5
Esther 1:12
Esther 1:19
Esther 2:8
Esther 3:15
Esther 4:3
Esther 8:14
Esther 8:17
Esther 9:1
Psalm 103:20
Daniel 9:23
Daniel 9:25

The first three are the familiar "Ten Commandments." The instances in Esther refer to commandments of King Ahasuerus. Most of the rest refer to commandments of the Lord. In each case, though דָּבָר could be translated as "words" or "sayings," its most natural and reasonable meaning in context is that of a "commandment" of the Lord or of a powerful human being such as a king. These are "sayings" that are meant to be obeyed. In other words, they are edicts, or in more common English, commandments.
The root meaning of דָּבָר
The word דָּבָר is a noun form coming from the root דָּבַר, whose core meaning is not "word" but rather "setting in a row, ranging in order." As a verb it is used of leading, guiding, ruling, directing, and of course in its most common meaning of "speaking," or "putting words in order."
This derivation of דָּבָר shows that both in its verb form and as a noun it has more force than the more informal (and also very common) Hebrew word אָמַר, referring to common conversation and speech. דָּבָר has more of a sense of directed, purposeful speech intended to arrange things and bring them into order.
In short, based on its root meaning, דָּבָר lends itself to being used of "words" that are edicts, precepts, and commandments.
Support in the Greek Bible
The term "Ten Commandments" or "Ten Words" does not occur in the Greek Bible (the New Testament).
However, in the Gospels Jesus does refer to various of the "sayings" in the Ten Commandments as "commandments":

Then someone came to him and said, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"
And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
He said to him, "Which ones?"
And Jesus said, "You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:16-19, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added)

Here, when Jesus is asked which commandments are to be followed, he lists five of the Ten Commandments, plus one other commandment from Leviticus 19:18.
See also the parallel passages in Mark 10:17-19 and Luke 18:18-20.
The Greek word for "commandment" used here is ἐντολή, which is a basic Greek word for an order or command.
A similar usage occurs in the Epistles:

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (Romans 13:8-9, KJV, emphasis added)

Many newer translations supply "commandment" where the Greek more literally reads "For this" in verse 9. However, "commandment" (ἐντολή) does appear where I have added emphasis, showing that Paul also referred to the "sayings" of the Ten Commandments as commandments.
These examples from the New Testament show that as early as the first century, the "sayings" of the Ten Commandments were referred to as "commandments."
Conclusion
It is not necessary to look to subsequent Christian history to find the basis for translating עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים as "the Ten Commandments."
The word דָּבָר itself carries that meaning and force based on its root meaning and on its usage in various contexts in the Hebrew Bible.
Further, the directives comprising the Ten Commandments are referred to as "commandments" in the New Testament, suggesting that in the first century this was already a well-established common understanding of עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים.
Later English translations of עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים as "the Ten Commandments" are therefore neither mistranslations nor innovations, but draw on a usage long established in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles themselves.


What is meant by "atheism is a religion"?

Atheism is a belief system which makes claims about spiritual things. Atheism says there are no gods, but so do other belief systems which no one denies are religions, such as some forms of Buddhism. Atheism contrasts with religions, rather than social or political movements like egalitarianism, anarchism, communism, so it makes sense to classify it as a religion. In a way, atheism is the religious parallel of anarchism - just as anarchists deny political structures as being valid, atheists deny spiritual beings as valid. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be classified as political and religious systems respectively.

There are some belief systems which are harder to classify as a religion or a philosophy, such as Confucianism. Compared to that there is no doubt which box atheism belongs in: the truths it claims are solely about spiritual things, and there is no shared philosophical or ethical framework among atheists.


Did any church fathers after Chrysostom believe that Mary committed sin?

Besides Chrysostom and Cyril, not taking into account those who lived earlier than them, we could point to:

1) Theodoret of Cyrus (393 – 458) defending the two natures of Christ, gives an example of on the one hand Mary giving birth to Jesus (thus proving his human nature) and on the other hand him rebuking her (thus showing his divinity as her Master):

  "If the Word became flesh, therefore, not by changing, but by taking
  flesh, and if both sets of predicates apply to the Word as incarnate
  God (for you just said this), the natures were not mingled together,
  but remained unmixed. If this is our understanding, we shall also see
  the harmony of the evangelists. For one proclaims the divinity of the
  one only-begotten one, that is, Christ the Lord, while the other
  proclaims the humanity. And Christ the Lord himself teaches us this
  way of understanding. For sometimes he calls himself Son of God, and
  at other times Son of Man. At one time he honors his mother as the one
  who bore him, while at another time, as master, he rebukes [her]
  (greek: και ποτέ μέν ώς γεγεννηκυΐαν την μητέρα τιμά, ποτέ δέ ώς
  Δεσπότης επιτιμά). On one occasion he approves those who call him son
  of David, while on another he teaches those who lack knowledge that he
  is not only David's son, but also David's Lord. He calls both Nazareth
  and Capernaum his homeland, but he also cries out, "Before Abraham
  was, I am."You will find divine Scripture filled with many examples
  like these. And they reveal, not one nature, but two." (Eranistes 2,
  Migne PG83: 144-145).

2) Presbyter Ammonius of Alexandria (VI c.) likewise pointed out that Mary acted in such a way, that she deserved to be rebuked by her Son:

  "He [Jesus] chides his mother for having importunely reminded God, who
  has no need to be reminded of anything. It is as if he had said, 'Do
  not regard me only as a man but also as God. Not yet has the time of
  my manifestation come. Not as yet is it known who I am." Greek: Τῇ δὲ μητρὶ ἐπιμέμφεται ὡς ἀκαίρως ὑπομνησάσῃ θεὸν ὑπομνήσεως
  μὴ δεόμενον, ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν μὴ νόμιζέ με μόνον ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ
  καὶ θεόν. οὔπω δὲ ἦλθεν ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς φανερώσεως, οὐδέπω ἐγνωρίσθη
  τίς εἰμι. (Expositio in Evangelium S. Joannis 57,
  Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche 211).

As to Augustine, whom you mentioned, although he did not speak of her sinning anywhere, he definitely spoke of her being born under sin and her dying as a consequence of being of Adam:

  "And what could be more undefiled than that womb of the Virgin, whose
  flesh, even if it derived from the propagation of sin [here Edmund
  Hill comments: "The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary had
  not even begun to be formulated in Augustine's time" (On Genesis,
  Vol. I/13, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st
  Century, New City Press 2002, page 417)] still did not conceive from
  the propagation of sin? [...] Accordingly the body of Christ was
  indeed assumed from the flesh of a woman which had been conceived from
  that propagation of the flesh of sin; but because it was not itself
  conceived there in the same way as that flesh had been conceived, it
  was not in its turn the flesh of sin, but the likeness of the flesh of
  sin (Rom 8:3)." Latin: Et quid incoinquinatius illo utero Virginis,
  cuius caro etiamsi de peccati propagatione venit, non tamen de peccati
  propagatione concepit; [...] Proinde corpus Christi quamvis ex carne
  feminae assumptum est, quae de illa carnis peccati propagatione
  concepta fuerat, tamen quia non sic in ea conceptum est, quomodo
  fuerat illa concepta, nec ipsa erat caro peccati, sed similitudo
  carnis peccati. (Genesi Ad Litteram 10.18.32, Migne PL34: 421-422).

  "We do not hand Mary over to the devil because of the condition of her
  birth, but we do not do this precisely because that condition is
  removed by the grace of rebirth." Latin: Non trascribimus diabolo
  Mariam conditione nascendi; sed ideo, quia ipsa conditio solvitur
  gratia renascendi. (Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 4.1.22, Migne
  PL45: 1418).

  "Mary, descended from Adam, died because of sin. Adam died because of
  sin, and the Lord's flesh, derived from Mary, died to abolish sins."
  Latin: Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter
  peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata.(Enarrationes in Psalmos 34 (2), 3, Migne PL36: 335).

Similarly, Fulgentius of Ruspe (about 467 – about 532), a faithful interpreter of Augustine also spoke of Mary's sinful flesh (which is compared with Jesus' likeness of sinful flesh):

  "This is the grace by which it came about that God (who came to take
  away sins because there is no sin in him) was conceived from sinful
  flesh and born as man in the likeness of sinful flesh. To be sure, the
  flesh of Mary had been conceived in iniquity in accordance with human
  practice, and so her flesh (that gave birth to the Son of God in the
  likeness of sinful flesh) was indeed sinful. [...] When it is said
  that truly the likeness of sinful flesh is in the Son of God, or
  rather that the Son of God is in the likeness of sinful flesh, one
  must believe that the Only-begotten God did not take the defilement of
  sin from the mortal flesh of the Virgin, but that he received the full
  reality of its nature so that the Source of truth might arise from the
  earth, the Source whom the blessed David announces in a prophetic
  word, saying: “Truth has sprung out of the earth.” Truly, therefore,
  Mary conceived God the Word, which she bore in sinful flesh, which God
  received."

  Latin: Haec est gratia qua faetum est ut Deus, qui venit peccata
  tollere, quia peccatum in eo non est, homo conciperetur atque
  nasceretm in similitudine carnis peccati, de earne peccati. Caro
  quippe Mariae, quae in iniquitatibus humana fuerat solemnitate
  concepta, caro fuit utique peccati, quae Filium Dei genuit in
  simìlitudinem carnis peccati. […] Similitudo vero carnis peccati cum
  in Dei Filio, vel potius Dei Filius in similitudine carnis peccati cum
  dicitur, credendum est Unigenitum Deum de Virginis carne mortali non
  traxisse peccati sordem, sed accepisse naturae integram veritatem, ut
  veritatis ortus de terra existeret, quem prophetali sermone beatus
  David insinuat dicens: Veritas de terra orta est. Were igitur Deum
  Verbum Maria concepit, quod in carne peccati peperit, quam Deus
  accepit. (Epistula 17.13, Migne PL65: 458).


What is an overview of the way Adam and Eve ate and became like God?

Notice that in Genesis 3:22, God says "now the man is become like one of us," after Adam had eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God was not equating the angels with himself, so in using the plural he could only have been referring to other gods. Indeed, Keel and Uehlinger say in Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel, page 2 (translated from German by Thomas H. Trapp), that recent Old Testament research, at least so far as this is carried out by German-speaking scholars interested in religio-historical questions, generally assumes that the religion of pre-Exilic Israel and Judah is to be characterised as thoroughly polytheistic.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was more than just, say, an apple tree placed there to see if Adam and Eve would disobey God and thereby experience sin. The ancients divided the entire world into that which was good and that which was evil, so to have knowledge of good and evil was to know everything, just as the gods did. Adam had become like the gods, except that he was still mortal.

So that Adam would not now eat of the Tree of Life which God had also planted in the Garden of Eden, and thus become immortal like the gods, God sent Adam and Eve from the Garden and placed cherubim and a flaming sword to keep (block) the path to the Tree of Life (3:24).


Do Christians receive the same inheritance as Messianic Jews?

Most Christians will likely agree on the basic principle that the Children of Israel, down to the present day have a special relationship with God, but that at this stage, we don't know what that relationship is, exactly. Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard (cf. Matthew 20:1 ff.) might apply here, with the Children of Israel representing those hired earlier in the day, and Gentile Christians representing those hired at the eleventh hour. On the other hand Paul taught the Galatians (3:28-29) that there is "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you're Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring according to the Promise." [RSV]

Besides, Jesus was a Jew. Christians believe nearly universally that we are part of the Body of Christ, which makes us Jews, too.

By the way, it should be noted that depending upon their exact beliefs, most Messianic Jews would be considered Christians.


Different Lectionary Readings For Sundays

The traditional pattern of Anglican worship consists of three main public services: Holy Communion, Matins and Evensong; also called the Eucharist, Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer respectively.  Morning and Evening Prayer are together known as the Daily Office.

One of the great difficulties with choosing a suitable lectionary (i.e. schedule of readings), apart from selecting appropriate passages, is that some people attend church more often than others.

At the Reformation the Church of England's original  plan was that the psalms were divided into sixty portions and each portion was allocated to be sung either at morning prayer or evening prayer on a particular day of the month (1 to 30).  Most of the rest of the Old Testament was allocated to be read once a year, with a different  Old Testament reading assigned to both Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer for each day of the year. Usually the readings were consecutive, so the reading at evensong would start where the reading  at matins finished, and the reading at matins the next day continue  from where evensong had left off.  The New Testament was assigned to be read three times in the year, again with a portion assigned to morning and evening prayer of each day of the year.  In addition smaller, more select,  passages were allocated  as the epistle and gospel readings for Holy Communion, in most cases following the pre-Reformation pattern.

So a person who attended both morning prayer and evening prayer ever day of the year would hear or sing the psalms twelve times, and hear most of the Old Testament once and the New Testament three times.

There were complications even then. In February the last few psalms were omitted and in long months the psalms for the 30th were repeated on the 31st. Special psalms (called   proper psalms) were assigned to Christmas Day, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Easter Day, Ascension Day and Whit Sunday which broke up the cycle. Proper readings were also assigned to some holy days. In the case of fixed holy days this was no problem as the standard calendar readings took account of these e.g. the old testament lesson on 26th December carried on from the one on the 24th, with  special ones on Christmas Day. In the case of movable feasts this meant that certain readings in the standard calendar  were simply omitted in the years they coincided with a movable feast.

The major problem though was that not everybody went to church twice a day, 365 days a year, and so for them the plan didn't really work. Someone who attended only evening service, for example,  would generally hear only every other  chapter and not know what had happened in between, like missing an episode of a soap opera today.  Worse, those who only went on Sundays, effectively heard only random chapters. A particular Old Testament passage fell on a Sunday on average only once in 7 years and sometimes it would be 11 years before a passage came round (due to the effect of leap years), and even then it might be omitted if it fell on Easter Day or Whit Sunday.

It was then decided that, to reflect the fact most people only  went on Sundays  (still to both morning and evening prayer), rather than have them hear effectively random chapters, the most important Old Testament passages should be selected  and assigned as proper lessons for Sundays. This meant that such people would hear every year the most important chapters (or what the authorities believed to be the most important chapters).  It also further disrupted the annual cycle though since  the passages assigned for a particular date would be omitted that year if the date fell on any  Sunday, not just a few movable feasts.

Since that time, both in England and in Anglican churches worldwide, there have been several changes, generally trying to reflect the contemporary churchgoing habits of the majority. It is not possible to suit everybody, from the person who attends one service a year, always  on Christmas Day,  and complains they never hear  what happened when Jesus grew up, to the person who attends every service there is and complains about hearing the same readings again and again.

In The Episcopal Church  (the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, or US branch of the Anglican Church, to be more specific for non-Americans) the most common pattern of  regular Sunday  worship today is to attend one service, Holy Communion i.e. Eucharist. The second most common is to attend a Eucharist and morning or evening prayer. It is less common to attend only morning or evening prayer and not a Eucharist.   For this reason different readings are provided for the Daily Office (morning or evening prayer) because it is assumed that, in most cases, people will already have heard the readings for the Eucharist and not want to hear them again.


Is civil divorce OK for Catholics, are there mitigating circumstances?

As usual the Catholic Encyclopedia is helpful here.

  The Catholic doctrine on divorce may be summed up in the following
  propositions:

In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ
Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never
be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been
consummated;
Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute
divorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith;
Separation from
bed and board (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes,
especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy
on the part of husband or wife.

I would take that last part to indicate that if the marriage is unlivable in (for example if there is violence or other abuse), then civil separation is a viable option. In most jurisdictions civil separation does not need to be followed by a divorce - I have known people who lived in a state of separation for decades. The only practical difference is that a separated person cannot remarry. As I'm sure you are aware, sacramental marriages can be annuled.


Is there scholarly concensus on the historicity of Foxe's Book of Martyrs?

No, there is not general agreement as to the exact historical accuracy of John Foxe's work. The majority of events are considered to be historical and widely accepted to be based on good sources such as eyewitness records, however doubt is often cast on the retelling aspect.

The primary accusation brought against Foxe's Book of Martyrs (originally titled Actes and Monuments) is its strong anti-Catholic bias. The doubt cast on the work is almost always the possible "spin" placed in the selection and retelling in order to elevate Protestantism as the true faith at the exclusion of other Christian sects.

It is widely accepted that Foxe's selection process excluded martyrs of any sort whose primary allegiance was to the Catholic church. The standards for what he considered to be a true martyr were heavily influenced by his own doctrinal position. This doesn't mean that the cases he did select to tell about are actually not real cases, but it does keep his work from being considered a broad treatment of the issue of martyrdom in Christianity.
His doctrinal bias comes through quite consistently in smaller details in the individual telling of stories. It is in this that the historicity is most to be questioned: that the events happened is typically not in doubt but the generous amount of fiction added to the narrative and possibly leaving out relevant details that didn't fit the picture he wanted to paint leave the exact accuracy of the work as suspect.

The Wikipedia article, which notes in the summary section the sometimes polemical tone of Foxe's work, has an entire section devoted to his merits as a historian. Here is one excerpt:

  The author's credibility was challenged as soon as the book first appeared. Detractors accused Foxe of dealing falsely with the evidence, of misusing documents, and of telling partial truths. In every case that he could clarify, Foxe corrected errors in the second edition and third and fourth, final version (for him). In the early nineteenth century the charges were taken up again by a number of authors, most importantly Samuel Roffey Maitland.[42] Subsequently Foxe was considered a poor historian, in mainstream reference works. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica accused Foxe of "wilful falsification of evidence"; two years later in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Francis Fortescue Urquhart wrote of the value of the documentary content and eyewitness reports, but claimed that Foxe "sometimes dishonestly mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence".

The article goes on to cite individual cases of criticism and includes sources identifying the major critics and their works.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, several contemporary church figures were among the first critics of his work. They also give several sources for additional studies critical of Foxe:

  The most careful examination of his methods is to be found in Maitland, Essays on the Reformation in England (1849), and in Gairdner, History of the English Church from the ascension of Henry VIII to the Death of Mary (1903); Lee in Dict. of Nat. Biog. Gerard, John Foxe and His Book of Martyrs (Catholic Truth Society, London), includes the opinions of a number of Foxe's critics.

To be fair, Foxe's critics themselves are not without their own critics. Since the majority of those who oppose his work do so in defense of the Catholic church (often pointing out exacerbating circumstances in some of the deaths that weren't always purely religious in nature or the fault of the Catholic church) we can in fact conclude that there was also some accuracy to his work. While it might only have shown one side of the story, knowing that the primary point made by the other side was that he left out a whole set of martyrs and cast too much blame in one direction, we can actually conclude that much of what he did write is indeed grounded in history even if his telling of it is polemical.

It seems likely to me based on the extended controversy that some or many of the stories told would not pass muster by any credible historian or journalist standards due to the large number of aspects that are dramatized. This does not, however, mean that the actual events were not historical and possibly just as —if not more— dramatic than the re-tellings.

Whatever the exact circumstances, that the basic events happened is not really in question.


What is the highest position a married man can achieve in the Catholic church?

Since the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI has permitted married men to be ordained to the permanent diaconate. Pope Paul's Apostolic Letter SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM was publish on June 18,1967.

Nevertheless married men can under certain circumstances be permitted to be ordained priests in the Roman Rite. It should be noted also that married men of the Catholic Eastern Rites are permitted to be ordained priests as is their tradition.

  In the Latin (Western) Catholic Church, since the Second Vatican Council mature married men who intend not to advance to priesthood may be ordained deacons and are referred to as "permanent deacons", but married men may not be ordained priests or bishops or even as "transitional deacons", nor may anyone marry after ordination. Since the start of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), exceptions may be allowed for married Protestant ministers or Anglican clergy who convert to Catholicism and wish to become priests in the Catholic Church, provided their wives consent. The Catholic Church considers Protestant and most Anglican ordinations invalid, while recognizing Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglican ordinations as valid. In some cases, laicized Catholic priests are allowed to marry by special dispensation. Additionally, dispensations can be granted for deacons whose wives have died to marry a second time, especially if they have young children to look after.

  In Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Catholic Churches (which latter are in full communion with Rome), married men may be ordained to any order except as bishops, and one may not marry after ordination as a subdeacon. Clerical Celibacy (Wikipedia).

The Catholic Church does not permit married men to be ordained bishops and as such they cannot be named cardinal.  In 1962, Pope John XXIII set the norm that all cardinals be ordained as bishops, even if they are only priests at the time of appointment.

But who can be elected Pope?

According to canon law any baptized Catholic male who has reached the age of reason can be elected Pope (woman cannot become Pope because they cannot be ordained as priests). In practice, one of the cardinals in the conclave is elected as the new Pope.

  Canon 332 § 1 of the 1983 Code simply states that one already a bishop (nb: not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop. By implication, that would seem to require that a papabile (a) be male, and be willing (b) to be baptized, (c) ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and (d) have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders. - In the Light of the Law


According to Catholic doctrine, how can an angel be a saint?

By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.
CCC 828

Some angels have been recognized as saints because of their heroic virtue and fidelity to God's grace, and these angels can also fulfill the role of model and intercessor. One particular example is Saint Michael the Archangel, whom we know about from the book of Revelation.
Not all angels are saints because not all angels have heroic virtue and fidelity to God's grace. (Fallen angels are an example of this.) Also, while many angels are in heaven, there are few angels who are saints because we do not know enough about them to canonize them. Saint Michael is one of the few angels that we do know a lot about.
Also note that while we believe all saints are in heaven, simply being in heaven does not mean that a person is recognized as a saint.