Can Catholic works of ‘satisfaction’ (prayer, fasting, etc.) for the removal of temporal punishments of venial sin be credited to others still alive?

The Catechism says:

"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin." The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.
CCC 1471

and I think that answers it.  Every time you bless yourself with holy water, you have a partial indulgence.  A plenary indulgence also requires complete detachment from sin, which in my opinion seems very difficult. Those indulgences can go towards your own sorry life or someone else who is dead, even if they're in Heaven those prayers won't be wasted as prayers are never wasted.
Unless of course you're praying that your delinquent nephew won't be given a just punishment for skinning cats.  In this case you'd want to pray that God gives your nephew the actual grace that you would be given for a meritorious act.  This is what your Catholic mother calls "offering it up".

Also, I'd slightly modify the first sentence if it wouldn't subvert the question.

Catholics believe in something called Reconciliation

and

c) promise to do penance

I was surprised about the use of the term satisfaction here in the Catholic encyclopedia.  It's in the Catechism quite a bit too but I've never seen it defined in my Catechetical instructional materials when covering the Sacrament of Reconciliation.


How does the view of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints about Jesus Christ differ from Protestant Trinitarian Christology?

As far as I can gather from the official LDS website links here, this is what they believe about Jesus:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/god-godhead?lang=eng&letter=g

Father in Heaven: The Father of the spirits of all mankind. Jesus is his Only Begotten Son in the flesh. Man has been commanded to obey and give reverence to the Father and to pray to him in Jesus’ name.

God the Son: The God known as Jehovah [in the O.T.] is the Son, Jesus Christ… he is the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim [who is not the same deity as the one known in the Bible as Jehovah]… it was actually Jesus who was the Creator under the direction of God the Father [Elohim].

Jesus Christ:   https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jesus-christ?lang=eng

Jehovah: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/jehovah?lang=eng&letter=j
They say the name ‘Jehovah’ denotes “the eternal I AM.” Jehovah is said to be the premortal Jesus Christ and came to earth as a son of Mary (Mosiah 3:8; 15:1; 3 Ne. 15:1–5).

Michael the Archangel: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/michael?lang=eng&letter=m
The name by which Adam was known in the premortal life. He is called the Archangel. In Hebrew the name means “Who is like God.”

Adam: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/adam?lang=eng&letter=a   Adam is the Ancient of Days and is also known as Michael (Dan. 7; D&C 27:11; 107:53–54; 116; 138:38). He is the Archangel and will come again to the earth as the patriarch of the human family, preparatory to the second coming of Jesus Christ (D&C 29:26).

They seem to teach that it was Michael who was put on earth as Adam, and Michael was one of three gods who created this planet. Adam is said to be the incarnation of a god who is ‘related’ to man.  Brigham Young said on April 9, 1852

  “When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it
  with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He
  helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel,
  the Ancient of Days about whom holy men have spoken – He is our Father
  and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do… the earth was
  organized by three distinct characters, namely Elohim, Jehovah and
  Michael, these three forming a quorum… (Journal of Discourses
  1:50-51).

It is essential to grasp this, prior to reading the Temple endowment ritual where three LDS priests represent Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, for they depict Jehovah and Elohim to be separate beings; Michael to be a god; Michael made incarnate in the person of Adam, thus, Adam is a god incarnate.

Their teaching about Adam has a direct bearing on their Christology as they claim that Jesus was the natural born child of Adam and Mary:

  “When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus… he was not begotten
  by the Holy Ghost. And who is his Father? He is the first of the human
  family. Jesus our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
  character that was in the garden of Eden.” (Young, in Journal of
  Discourses 1:50-51)

As Adam is believed by them to be a god incarnate, then this god is said to have had sex with Mary, to produce Jesus in the flesh. Their doctrine of pre-mortal existence is needed to make sense of this, but I do not want to digress by launching into that.

Summary: This answers your question, ‘Was Jesus created?’ with an emphatic ‘Yes’.

As for your question, ‘Is Jesus part of the One Being of God?’ it is difficult to answer because LDS Christology has more than one Being of God. As has been shown from their quotes, Elohim existed before Jehovah did; the Archangel Michael is also said to be a god, as is Adam. I can only suggest that the Trinitarian phrase, “the One Being of God” has no place in LDS theology as they have more than one God. “The One Being of God” in Christianity is one Being who subsists in three uncreated, co-equal persons. That is not the LDS understanding although they would say Jesus is “part of” God’s Being! Just not in the Trinitarian sense.

The answer to your question, ‘When Jesus came to earth, was he God incarnate?’ requires knowing what God the LDS speak of here. They say Jesus was the God Jehovah in his pre-mortal existence, so that Jehovah incarnated in the human form of Jesus. Yet because they do not take Jehovah to be the only true God of the Bible, this is seen to be at odds with Trinitarian doctrine.

The answer to your last question, “Was Jesus resurrected as a spirit creature or did he ascend into heaven with a physical body?” appears to be that Jesus has a resurrected physical body, according to their scripture in Alma 11:42-43. Verse 43 speaks of the general resurrection of the dead, saying, “The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form, both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time.” As Jesus’ resurrection is the ‘template’ for all other human resurrections, it would appear that this also applies to his resurrection.


Would the story of Jesus hold more significance if he were a man like us?

The beautiful thing about Jesus is that he was a man, not unlike ourselves. Christians believe that Jesus was fully, 100%, human just like you or I. He walked, talked, had friends, slept, ate fish, wept, bled, hungered, was tempted, and basically lived through all the kinds of things you and I do.

In fact this belief is one of the basic tests of orthodox belief among Christians. Do you believe that Jesus was a real flesh and blood man?

  1 John 4:2 (ESV)
  By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

He even had to grow up physically and mentally.

  Luke 2:52 (ESV)
  Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.”

It is just these attributes of his being fully man that make him able to be OUR high priest.

  Hebrews 4:15 (ESV)
  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Where Jesus was different is that he had a dual nature. He was also fully God, and although he laid aside many of his rights he still did not sin. This does not negate the fact that he was a real man, but he had to not sin in order to be able to make a propitiation for us.

  Hebrews 2:17 (ESV)
  Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

If he had NOT also been God and able to keep himself perfect, he couldn't have have won our salvation for his because he wouldn't have been a perfect sacrifice.

He is still the example we follow. He is model of a life lived to the glory of the Father. Just because we will always fall short of the mark (sin) doesn't invalidate the example. In fact his success as a perfect man gives us all all the more reason to rejoice that he did not fail.

If Jesus were just a really good moral teacher who lived a pretty good life, he would be nothing of note to us. Faith in him would have no power to save.

The thing is Christianity is not about living a good life and making your best effort to emulate some good role model. Christianity is the story of man that ALWAYS fail and needed something more. We needed a savior who could do it for us because we NEVER could.


What planet do Mormons think God the Father was born on?

LDS believe in Worlds Without Number, and that the Earth has been patterned after other worlds. This is not the first time a world has been created for people to dwell on and face trials, and it will not be the last.

As for which planet God the Father may have been Born on, the only clue we have to speculate on is from the Book of Abraham:

  2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them
  was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones
  which were near unto it;

  3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the
  name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am
  the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong
  to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

We are taught that when the Earth has fulfilled it's purposes, that it will receive it's paradisiacal glory, and we will dwell on it. If God dwells near Kolob, then it may be reasonable to assume that he might have been born and lived there (or near there) as a man also, before it received its paradisiacal glory (assuming Kolob is actually a planet an not a star, there isn't a unanimous consensus on which it is).

As with many other mysteries about God, knowing where our Father lived as a man is not pertinent to our salvation. All that matters in this life is knowing that he exists, that he has sent us here for a reason, and that he has told us how to return to live with him in glory.


From a Lutheran perspective, does Hebrews 6 mean that some who fall away can never be restored?

Paul Kretzmann, the son of a Lutheran pastor, wrote his Popular Commentary of the Bible, which "has been a favorite among confessional Lutherans since publication of the first volume in 1921."
In his comments on Hebrews 6, he called attention to the characteristics of the one who is spoken of in the passage: they were once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come. The description, he says, could only apply to those who were actually saved.

If persons to whom this description applies, people that have undoubtedly accepted Jesus as their Savior, placed their trust in His salvation, and anticipated the joys of eternal life by reason of the power given to them through the Word, now fall away in spite of this saving knowledge, by a deliberate denial of that knowledge, then their return to repentance is excluded. The reason for this fact is not to be sought in God, as though His gracious intention and will in their behalf had not been sincere, but in the people themselves. If their apostasy takes place as here described, with a deliberate, malicious denial of the truth, then they crucify to themselves the Son of God and set Him forth to shame and ignominy before men. They purposely and willfully deny all connection with the Lord, who was crucified for them, they brand Him as a criminal, as a false Messiah, who suffered the disgrace of death on the cross. All this they perpetrate against Him whom they formerly acknowledged as the Son of God, whom they knew to be the Savior of the world. They cannot plead ignorance, or that they acted in foolish unbelief. For that reason their behavior brings upon them judgment, eternal condemnation. Therefore the reason why their hearts become hardened, why it becomes impossible for them to return and to be renewed unto repentance, is to be found in the character of their transgression. They steadfastly and persistently persevere in their antichristian, blasphemous conduct, they harden their own hearts against all attempts of the Word to find an entrance, and are thus finally given over into their hardness of heart.
The writer does not say that his readers have reached this stage; he merely states the possibility that it may happen to them as it has to others, thus warning them to beware of spiritual sluggishness, of lack of diligence in the use of the means of grace. ... If, therefore, any persons that have received these blessings harden their hearts and bring forth fruits of blasphemy and malicious denial of grace, they have sealed their own doom. For the behavior here described is the sin against the Holy Ghost, for which there is no forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come.

In other words, the passage is not describing a mere "falling away" -- Kretzmann's position is that "they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame" is not a characteristic of all apostasy, but of a special kind of apostasy: the sin against the Holy Ghost.
Regarding the sin against the Holy Ghost (spoken of in Matthew 12, Mark 3, and Luke 12), he writes:

The sin is committed, not against the person, but against the work of the Holy Ghost, which consists in calling sinners to Christ and giving them the assurance of their salvation. Not the mere blasphemous thoughts, but the actual speaking, the open mockery of the work of the Holy Ghost, is condemned in these passages. If the work of the Holy Ghost is believed to be, and is openly declared to be, the work of Satan, then the blasphemy is directed against the Spirit. Such blasphemy is uttered in full consciousness and with the most perfect comprehension of the import of the blasphemy; the blasphemer glories in his blasphemy. ... Man having gotten into this condition of continual blasphemy by his own fault, repudiates all attempts of God to influence Him for good. The soil of his heart has become cursed, and will bear nothing but thorns. The sin against the Holy Ghost is therefore one which cannot be acknowledged; a confession of sin and a desire for forgiveness is excluded by its nature.
The person living in this sin will continue in his stubborn resistance, with blasphemous, outspoken mockery of the work of the Holy Ghost, until the end. The sin is not unpardonable on account of its greatness, but on account of its nature of rejecting all pardon. No one has committed the sin that still seeks repentance.

Pardon is excluded not by God, but by the apostate himself, as Kretzmann said in both of the sections I've quoted. "Restoration unto repentance" is excluded because such a person will not seek repentance.
So an act of apostasy is permanent if the apostate wills it to be so by continually rejecting and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. An apostate can be restored upon repentance, but one who never repents is never restored.


According to reformed theology: Is loving God a choice? If not, do the elect differ from robots?

You're asking about two different elements of the traditional reformed acronym TULIP:

Unconditional Election - That Christ's elect are called without regard to their own merits.
Irresistible Grace - That the elect are drawn to Christ despite the fact that their sin nature keeps them away and this drawing is actually irresistible.

The crux of your question is not the unconditional election part. You can sort of have that without the Irresistible grace part, but it makes the election virtually meaningless (We'll get to why in a minute).

Irresistible grace is not a method of turning humanity into automatons. It is however, God's way of drawing his people to himself. God is an all powerful being, the fact that we do not desire and worship him is an unnatural state. Much like all things desire to revert to their natural state, God providing even the ability for it to become so causes a human to revert to said state. This is much like shorting a circuit. Electrons are content to mill about in their circuit, but the moment a circuit is shorted they make a beeline for the short. This is what Irresistible grace is like. You're milling about aimlessly, but then the most direct path to fulfillment is opened and you make a beeline for it, without even thinking.

This is how it works on a spiritual level. However, what is apparent in the mind of the person is that it just makes sense, or you feel do down at out that you have no where else to turn. You don't necessarily feel the tug. It just happens. Although some people do feel it more than others (Lewis famously described it as "being dragged kicking and screaming").

I said something at the beginning though that is probably controversial, but it's true. Without Irresistible Grace election is both meaningless and is either impossible or makes God ignorant or impotent. Let me unpack that just a bit. If we start with the assumption that God calls those that he elected, then either he is willingly calling people that he knows will not come or all of those that he calls will come. If not all of the people that he calls do not come, then why does he call them in the first place? If all of the people that he calls do come, don't we have to include that the call itself is compulsive?

If not all that come at God's call then what is the meaning of that call? Isn't it effectively meaningless? Can some come that are not called? are all called? Do those that come when called have some kind of merit that distinguishes those from that that do not? (I'm asking a lot of rhetorical questions, hope that's ok)...

Anyways, in summary: Those that are called must be drawn irresistibly or the call is both meaningless and makes God out to be impotent or ignorant.


How do non-Trinitarians who do not believe Jesus is God Almighty explain how Jesus can effect atonement for all of humanity?

I would imagine that your question may have multiple answers depending on the specific variety of Unitarian that is answering it. For example, from my reading on Unitarian Universalism as compared to what I know about Jehovah's Witnesses, it is unlikely that the Unitarian Universalist perspective is similar to that of a Jehovah's Witness.

The best source I was able to find on the subject is Hosea Ballou in his "A Treatise on Atonement" available here.

The first important detail is that a Unitarian Universalist does not recognize atonement as meaning the same thing as most Trinitarians. This is from Chapter 5:

  I have already entered my protest against the necessity of atonement,
  on the principles upon which Christians have generally believed it, by
  showing the finite nature of sin, and the error of supposing that the
  law of God required the endless misery of mankind as a penal
  requisition.

  Atonement signifies reconciliation, or satisfaction, which is the
  same. It is a being unreconciled to truth and justice which needs
  reconciliation; and it is a dissatisfied being which needs
  satisfaction. Therefore I raise my inquiry on the question, Is God the
  unreconciled or dissatisfied party, or is it man?

He concludes that atonement is a synonym of reconciliation.

  To say that God loved man any less after transgression than before,
  denies his unchangeability; but to say that man was wanting in love to
  God, places him in his real character. As God was not the unreconciled
  party, no atonement was necessary for his reconciliation. Where there
  is dissatisfaction, it presupposes an injured party; and can it be
  hard to determine which was injured by sin, the Creator or the sinner?
  If God were unreconciled to man, the atonement was necessary to renew
  his love to his creature; but if man were the unreconciled, the
  atonement was necessary to renew his love to his Creator. The matter
  is now stated so plainly that no person who can read can mistake.

Assuming your question still stands: "How can Jesus affect atonement for all men?" Then his answer is essentially a statement of faith in scripture (quoted from Chapter 6):

  I next inquire, has the Mediator power or ability, to perform the
  great work of atonement, which is the reconciliation of the world to
  God? Those scriptures, with their connections, which I have quoted to
  prove the Mediator's dependency, abundantly prove the sufficiency of
  his power to accomplish the work in which he is engaged. If all power
  in heaven and earth be committed to Christ, no doubt can be
  entertained of its sufficiency. If the whole system of law in moral
  nature be subservient to the designs of the Redeemer, and if he holds
  in his hands the power of moral government, it certainly must be at
  his option, whether men shall be reconciled to God or not.

From what I was able to gather, he does not make much of an effort to understand the mechanism of how exactly this is accomplished, but given the nature of his understanding of "atonement" I doubt that it would be necessary to question the ability of Christ to effect this change in state.

Again, I would imagine that a Jehovah's Witness would have a very different idea of how this works, presumably based on a more "traditional" understanding of the concept of atonement. However, most sources I can find on the Jehovah's Witness view of atonement are from hostile sources and are therefore not reliable descriptions of what they actually believe.


Does The Book of Mormon contain Jewish literary techniques?

The Book of Mormon is rich with chiasmus, which is a symmetric structure that looks something like ABCDCBA, fairly unique to Hebrew culture. That article outlines several instances of chiastic structure.

Additionally, there are more Hebraisms scattered throughout.

Repetition of possessive pronoun: Possessive pronoun prefixed to each list item, for example, 1 Nephi 2:4, 1 Nephi 2:11, 1 Nephi 3:22 (first quote), Mosiah 4:6 (second quote)...

  22 And it came to pass that we went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.

In English, we would typically omit these extra pronouns.

  6 I say unto you, if ye have come to a knowledge of the goodness of God, and his matchless power, and his wisdom, and his patience, and his long-suffering towards the children of men; and also, the atonement which has been prepared from the foundation of the world, that thereby salvation might come to him that should put his trust in the Lord, and should be diligent in keeping his commandments, and continue in the faith even unto the end of his life, I mean the life of the mortal body—

Repetition of preposition: Similar as above, but needlessly repeating the preposition or prepositional phrase in a list. For some examples, see 1 Nephi 19:11, 2 Nephi 5:15, Jarom 1:8, Alma 31:24, Alma 44:5 (quoted), Helaman 10:5...

  5 And now, Zerahemnah, I command you, in the name of that all-powerful God, who has strengthened our arms that we have gained power over you, by our faith, by our religion, and by our rites of worship, and by our church, and by the sacred support which we owe to our wives and our children, by that liberty which binds us to our lands and our country; yea, and also by the maintenance of the sacred word of God, to which we owe all our happiness; and by all that is most dear unto us—

Cognate accusative: Verbs and related nouns are often built from the same root. You can see this in 1 Nephi 14:7 (first quote), 2 Nephi 3:18 (second quote), Enos 1:13, Alma 1:1, among many others.

  7 For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.

Again, in English, this construct is unusual.

  18 And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.

Suffixed possessive pronoun: The pronoun is suffixed to the thing possessed. For instance 1 Nephi 22:14, 2 Nephi 9:25 (first quote), 2 Nephi 10:8, Moroni 8:20 (second quote).

  25 Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

In English, we would use a different word to rephrase it ("his power" or, for below, "his atonement").

  20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

Construct states (basic/material/possession): In Hebrew, there's two nouns with an implied of, but English uses an adjective and a noun. The basic construct state is seen, for example, in 2 Nephi 25:2 (first quote), or Helaman 5:28 (second quote):

  2 For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations.

To satisfy this first construct state in English, we would say "dark works" or "their works were dark," and "their doings were abominable" (noun and adjective).

  28 And it came to pass that they were overshadowed with a cloud of darkness, and an awful solemn fear came upon them.

We might say "dark cloud."

It's also common to see this with materials, for example 1 Nephi 3:3...

  3 For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.

We would say "brass plates." This appears in several verses including 1 Nephi 8:19, Mosiah 21:27, and Helaman 2:7, to name a few. Compare with Genesis 35:14 (KJV).

The third construct state, then, is possessive, where the word "of" is implied instead of the use of a possessive noun in English. Seen in 1 Nephi 7:4, 2 Nephi 5:14 (first quote), Words of Mormon 1:13, Mosiah 12:33 (second quote), and Helaman 7:10. Compare to Genesis 24:47 (KJV).

  14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, ...

In English we'd say "Laban's sword."

  33 But now Abinadi said unto them: I know if ye keep the commandments of God ye shall be saved; yea, if ye keep the commandments which the Lord delivered unto Moses in the mount of Sinai, saying:...

Compare this one to Biblical references, for example Leviticus 7:38 which uses both forms, "mount Sinai" and "wilderness of Sinai." In English we might say it as "Sinai's mount" or "Sinai's wilderness."

Remember: Mormons will be quick to remind anyone that these scholarly topics, though interesting, have little significance in the LDS Church, which is primarily focused on the spiritual teachings in The Book of Mormon, and that seekers of truth—which we on this site are not—should pursue spiritual, not scholarly, evidence.


How does the Arminian view of salvation account for God's sovereignty?

I can only speak from a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective. A classical Arminian may have a slightly different understanding.

God is both creator and ruler of the universe. As creator he has exercised complete sovereignty; God made all the decisions in setting everything up (Genesis 1), including setting up the means by which we could be saved (Romans 3:21-26). God created everything according to his good pleasure. Out of the whole universe he picked this planet for us to live on. He chose the times and places in which each of us would live, so that we could seek him wherever we are (Acts 17:26-27). In his role as creator, God is completely sovereign.
God created a world that was very good (Genesis 1:31). However, God created humans with the ability to act in ways that were not according to God's will (Genesis 2:16-17, 3:6-7). Rather than following God's will, we follow our own. This is what we mean by free will.
As ruler and judge, God is both just and merciful. Sometimes God may be more merciful than we deserve (Ephesians 2:4-7), but he will never treat us unjustly (Hebrews 6:10).
God has made his grace available to all (Titus 2:11), and desires everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). But God does not force us into submission; rather, God leads us to repentance through his kindness (Romans 2:4) and gives us many chances to turn to him (Ezekiel 33:11).

TL;DR: God is sovereign in that he sets all the boundaries, both in putting each of us in a particular time and place, and in making a way that we might be saved and enjoy eternity with him. But God also gives us the freedom to turn away from him and the grace to turn toward him.


When did a "formal act of correction" of a pope's statement happen in the past?

The Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) collected 40 cases—from Pope St. Peter to Pope Innocent VIII (reigned 1484-1492)—of where a pope or anti-pope was said to have erred in faith (i.e., proclaimed heresy) in the work

De Controversiis Fidei Christianæ (Ingolstadt, 1588),

which has been recently translated as:

Robert Bellarmine, Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes Said to Have Erred in Fatih, trans. Ryan Grant (Mediatrix Press, 2015).

The 36th case of Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) is probably the most famous recent one. Ockham (et al.) accused Pope John XXII of heresy for denying a dogma that had not yet been infallibly defined.

Basically, Ockham et al. thought that Pope John XXII denied the then-material (i.e., not-yet-infallibly-defined) dogma that the souls of the deceased destined to heaven behold the Beatific Vision immediately after death—a dogma which Pope John XXII's successor, Pope Benedict XII (reigned 1334-1342), infallibly defined in Benedictus Deus (1336). (cf. this and the references therein)

St. Robert, although defending Pope John XXII as a valid pope, writes that even cardinals (the vast majority of them!) opposed the opinion of Pope John XXII:

  The Third lie is that no Cardinal opposed the teaching of John. This is clearly false, because neither Gerson, nor any other says this, and because many thought the contrary, as was clear from the definition which was made by Pope Benedict XII after the death of John from the consensus of all Cardinals which is clear in the epistle of Benedict; nor was there a reason why these, who thought the contrary, should fear to oppose John while he was living. Benedict XII, in his Extravagantes, asserts that Pope John severely commanded the Cardinals and others, all teachers, that they should sincerely give their opinion, that the truth could be discovered. Next, John Villanus, who did live at that time, writes the greater part of the Cardinals opposed the opinion of Pope John while he lived. [Histoiria, lib. 10, cap. ult.]


Does a Christian have enemies outside of the world, the flesh, and the devil?

The phrase in question comes from the Book of Common Prayer, from the Litany.

FROM all evil and mischief; from sin; from the crafts and assaults of the devil; from thy wrath, and from everlasting damnation,    Good Lord, deliver us.
From all blindness of heart; from pride, vainglory, and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness,    Good Lord, deliver us.
From all inordinate and sinful affections; and from all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil, Good Lord, deliver us.
From lightning and tempest; from earthquake, fire, and flood; from plague, pestilence, and famine; from battle and murder, and from sudden death, Good Lord, deliver us.

The first edition of the Book of Common Prayer was published in 1549, and being the first church service in English, it had a profound impact on English religious phraseology.  Its also where "till death do us part" comes from.
It might be an interesting exercise, I suppose, to go through the list of things there and cross-reference with a Bible concordance.


Are non-Anglican Protestant churches ever named after extra-biblical saints?

As it happens, my local church is named after a saint who wasn't written up by name in the Bible.  He was the founder of our church and his name was Emmanuel Peterson.  (No prizes for correctly guessing whether the church uses his first or last name.)

I also found a non-denominational Protestant church called San Diego First Assembly.  (That's probably cheating since the church was named after the city named after the saint.)

But as you noticed, naming churches after people (at least people not described in the Bible by name) is remarkably rare for Protestant denominations.  The most likely reason is one you alluded to: Protestants have a different view of sainthood than the Orthodox or Catholic traditions.  We have some reason not to put our trust in the names of people no matter who they were.  As Luther said:

  The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended; for they were but men, and, to speak the truth, with all their repute and authority, undervalued the books and writings of the sacred apostles of Christ.

Therefore, we Protestants are far more likely to name our churches after concepts, especially those found in the Bible.  Alternatively, we use strictly descriptive names (cities mostly).


Why Catholic Saints are said to be in heaven but not yet given their resurrected bodies?

Souls separated from their bodies understand not from their bodily senses but spiritually.

See:

ch. 12 "Knowledge in the Separated Soul" of Life Everlasting by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., which quotes:

Of the Knowledge of the Separated Soul, Summa Theologica I q. 89 by St. Thomas Aquinas:

  Do these souls know what is happening on earth? St. Thomas replies:In the natural order they do not know, because they are separated from the society of those who are still on the road to eternity. Nevertheless, if we restrict the question to the souls of the blessed, it is more probable to say that they, like the angels, do know what happens on earth, particularly what happens to those who are dear to them. This is a part of their accidental beatitude.*[ibid. a. 8 "Whether separated souls know that takes place on earth?"] Those in purgatory too can have love of us, even though they do not know our actual state, just as we pray for them, although we do not know their actual state, their nearness, for example, to deliverance.

*See Life Everlasting ch. 31 "Accidental Beatitude"


Short answer: We don't know.

Speculation: Yes, Satan saw the Glory of God but not necessarily the face of God.

There are two famous verses believed to describe the history of Satan;

Isaiah 14:12-15  and Ezekiel 28:12-18.

Ezekiel described him as a Cherub. Isaiah called him "Morning Star". According to Wikipedia Seraphim are the closest to God and of the highest class, Cherubs are the next. According to Ezekiel, the wicked Cherub (Satan) possessed wisdom, beauty and perfection. The mighty Cherub became proud of his beauty which led to his downfall.

According to Isaiah the mighty angel was cast out of Heaven due to his wicked intention to become like God. He said "I will make myself like the Most High". This could mean that Satan, before his fall, saw the glory of God, His power, His dominion, and Satan wanted all of that for himself. Then, the rebellious angel was cast out of Heaven.

The Seraphs are found only in Isaiah 6:2. They are always praising God and are the nearest to God but they never looked at God face to face, they always cover their faces. Though they are highest class of angels, they dare not look at God. Therefore, we may conclude that even the mighty Cherub (Satan) might never have seen the face of God.


What prompted the change in Christian attitude towards usury?

Evidently it was John Calvin who began the process of changing minds about usury by redefining it from usury to interest and outlining its importance.  Here is a link to his letter.

Chapter XI - Calvin's letter on usury

As to Catholicism, Schaff (who also references Calvin) says this about its change of policy re Canon 17 of Nicea Council forbidding usury.

  "Among Roman Catholics the new doctrine began to be defended about the beginning of the eighteenth century, the work of Scipio Maffei, Dell’ impiego dell danaro, written on the laxer side, having attracted a widespread attention.  The Ballerini affirm that the learned pope Benedict XIV. allowed books defending the new morals to be dedicated to him, and in 1830 the Congregation of the Holy Office with the approval of the reigning Pontiff, Pius VIII., decided that those who considered the taking of interest allowed by the state law justifiable, were “not to be disturbed.” - Excursus on Usury

So, the change was prompted by understanding that money produces money, just as a farm produces crops (money).  If the latter is okay, why not the former?  Calvin: "“And what else is it than to treat God like a child, when we judge of objects by mere words and not from their nature, as if virtue can be distinguished from vice by a form of words."


According to Catholicism which parts of the Bible actually happened historically?

The Catholic Church Magisterium has not committed to reading the first few chapters of Genesis (from Adam to Noah, at least) as historical / scientific account.  Instead, both the Catholic Church and a growing segment of Protestants and Evangelicals, emphasize that scientific truth and the theological truth are compatible with each other.  What has to be taken by faith is what those first chapters teach us about God's nature and our nature, and the Church Magisterium has the authority to interpret them accordingly.
The solution: identifying the genre of the Creation story, Adam and Eve, and the Flood story as theological truth cast in ancient Hebrew cosmology which in turn adopts elements of other mythologies of the Ancient Near East.  Thus, we notice similarities of the Creation Story to Enûma Eliš and the Noah Story to the Epic of Gilgamesh.  For example, this article shows some parallels.
The Hebrew author of Genesis thus was countering the theology embedded in the Mesopotamian myths by recasting the story in terms of Hebrew theology.  In Hebrew theology, the True and Real God of the Universe (who also is the Personal God who chose Israel as His special people) created human being as His Imager In the World.  Notice the big contrast to the Babylonian myth where their gods created human beings to be slaves for the gods.  In the Hebrew author's hand, the story thus highly "upgraded" the status of human beings, and that's one of the key point of the Hebrew theology.  (Note: see LBD entry on 'image of God' why the functional 'God's imager' is a better translation.)
Some quotes from a Catholic apologetics website article How to Read the First Chapter of Genesis quoting Pope John Paul II, Pope, Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, and St. Augustine (emphasis mine):

The confusion over this issue, which Pope John Paul II addressed in 1996 in his highly publicized letter about evolution, boils down to the question of how to read the biblical creation account.  In his letter, John Paul simply reiterated what the Magisterium has argued tirelessly since Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus (1893): The author of Genesis did not intend to provide a scientific explanation of how God created the world.  Unfortunately there are still biblical fundamentalists, Catholic and Protestant, who do not embrace this point.
When Christ said that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds — and it is about the size of a speck of dust — He was not laying down a principle of botany.  In fact, botanists tell us there are smaller seeds.  Our Lord was simply talking to the men of His time in their own language, and with reference to their own experience.  Similarly, the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis ("yom") can mean a 24-hour day, or a longer period.  Hence the warning of Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), that the true sense of a biblical passage is not always obvious.  The sacred authors wrote in the idioms of their time and place.
As Catholics, we must believe that every word of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, a claim the Church will not make even for her infallible pronouncements.  However, we must not imagine the biblical authors as going into a trance and taking automatic dictation in a "pure" language untouched by historical contingency.  Rather, God made full use of the writers habits of mind and expression.  It's the old mystery of grace and free will.
A modern reader of Genesis must bear in mind the principles of biblical exegesis laid down by St. Augustine in his great work De Genesi Ad Litteram (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis).  Augustine taught that whenever reason established with certainty a fact about the physical world, seemingly contrary statements in the Bible must be interpreted accordingly.  He opposed the idea of a "Christian account" of natural phenomena in opposition to what could be known by science.  He viewed such accounts as "most deplorable and harmful, and to be avoided at any cost," because on hearing them the non-believer "could hardly hold his laughter on seeing, as the saying goes, the error rise sky-high."

But the Magisterium did clarify the boundaries of acceptable position in this Catholic Answers article Adam, Eve, and Evolution, specifically ruling that "the human race have to descend from an original pair of two human beings" to preserve the doctrine of original sin:

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).


I'm sure that there are people who think otherwise, but you didn't specify a perspective,so I'm going to go by answering it from what is the most common understanding in my personal experience.  By that I mean not my own personal opinion, but rather the understanding that every sermon I've heard, or every exposition I've read seems to think.

With that qualifier out of the way, I believe that the most common understanding is that it refers to the physical death of the body.

In context it makes sense, since we're looking at a passage talking about the judgment of the resurrected, which implies that they suffered physical death already.

For an external source, I'll use this post form  Moments With The Book

  The First Death

  Let's notice a few facts about the first death. Every person has a
  body, a soul, and a spirit. "And the very God of peace sanctify you
  wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be
  preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1
  Thessalonians 5:23). The human spirit is that God-conscious part of a
  person that distinguishes him from the animals. It includes both
  knowledge and judgment (Mark 8:12; 1 Corinthians 2:11). The soul is
  that part of a person that is the home of the affections—right or
  wrong—of love, hate, lusts and even of the appetites of the body (Job
  23:13; 1 Peter 2:11). The body is the earthly house in which the
  spirit and soul dwell. At death a person's immortal (never-dying)
  spirit and soul leave the mortal (subject to death) body. This is the
  first death, or physical death.

  A believer's spirit and soul go immediately into a place of blessing
  at the time of death. This is evident in the well-known account of the
  thief on the cross. This repentant thief owned that he was getting
  what he deserved, and confessed Jesus as Lord, believing God would
  raise Him from the dead: "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy
  kingdom." The wonderful answer from the Lord Jesus was, "Verily I say
  unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:39-43).
  This blessed truth of the believer being with the Lord Jesus
  immediately after death is also repeated in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 and
  Philippians 1:23.

  It is especially comforting to the Christian to see that the Lord
  Jesus did not refer to the death of the believer as death. The Bible
  speaks of it as the body falling asleep (see John 11:11-14 and 1
  Thessalonians 4:13-18). Death is the penalty of sin. The believer in
  the Lord Jesus does not come under the penalty of sin because the Lord
  Jesus took that penalty when He died on Calvary's cross.

  An unbeliever's spirit and soul go immediately into a place of torment
  at the time of death. The Lord Jesus tells us of this awful torment in
  His account of the rich man and Lazarus (read Luke 16:19-31). "And in
  hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar
  off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham,
  have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his
  finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame"
  (verses 23,24). The rich man was in torments, not because he was rich,
  but because he had not believed God's Word. People may disregard this
  account, but it came from the lips of the One who suffered sin's agony
  and torment on Calvary's cross so that no one ever would need to
  experience this awful judgment.

Also, this article from the Forerunner Commentary goes into great detail about the various meanings of death,and agrees with the above.

  We must always remember that our Creator, the Master Craftsman who
  made everything of the highest quality (Genesis 1:4-31), built death
  into man's design. He did this for good reasons. Surprisingly, there
  really are good and positive purposes behind both the "first death"
  and the "second death" (Revelation 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8). The first
  death is the one with which every person is familiar—the one everyone
  must face. This death terminates the physical life of every human
  being who lives during the 6,000 years allotted to man.

I could find immeasurable other supporting references, but I'll stop there.

I'm not saying it couldn't be any of those other things, but I've yet to run across another interpretation so my final answer is that the most common understanding seems to believe it means physical death.


The ostiarius (or door keeper) evolved after the legalization of the church from existing Roman customs. While initially, (under church persecution) there was a need for protection from persecution, this did not become an official title until well after that need.  It became fashionable, however, to adopt the roman custom. Just about any good house would have had a "bouncer" so to speak.  As the church grew in the Middle Ages, and by fiat the entire populace was assumed to be Christian, the role itself became vestigal.

The death knell for the ostiarious was Vatcian II.

To wit, Wikipedia says:

  The porter was not a part of Holy Orders administering sacraments but simply a preparatory job on the way to the Major orders: subdiaconate (until its suppression, after the Second Vatican Council by Paul VI), diaconate and the priesthood. Like the other minor orders and the subdiaconate, it is retained in Indult Catholic societies such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

In general, Vatican II is often hitched with a view towards opening the doors to the common man.  The early church was a very open and flexible thing - Paul, for example, would say that he became "all things to all men so that by any means I might save some."  Vatican II re-emphasized this, seeking to knock down all barriers that kept people from Jesus. Saying the mass in the venacular (as opposed to Latin), for example, was designed explicitly to knock down a barrier.  The ostiarious was literally one such symbol.
In general, the attitude of what the church is has shifted over the centuries.  In the Middle Ages, it was a powerful thing, and by its own admission, a self-selected elitist club.

The modernization and secularization of the culture has made this stance impossible to hold. Like with excommunication, adding a bar to an voluntary organization is inherently counter-productive, but also not the point of the church in any event. Today, the metaphor now is more akin to the church as a hospital for wounded sinners.  All of this openness is, for many, simply a return to the model of the early church, and hence a Good Thing(TM).


At what date in history was the last papal anathema officially applied through the death penalty in a papal court against a heretic or protestant?

When official papal death sentence end? Never. Because it never started in the first place. Technically such a thing did not exist. Anathema was never officially meant death penalty.

But from your example of Jan Hus, I am assuming your question to be of the executions for holding heretical beliefs. Then the last person to be burned alive at the stake for that was Giordano Bruno, executed February 17, 1600. The last person to die (hanged to death) was Cayetano Ripoll, July 26, 1826.src

BTW the first one was Priscillian (d.385).

That said, I would like to make two points,

Technically Church itself did not kill anyone, they just handed down heretics to secular authorities. (The link about Jan Hus that you mentioned in the comment explicitly mentions that too) The secular authorities wanted to kill heretics to maintain law and order in a city, which in turn will help them to keep up their power. The main aim of those inquisition is to protect the heretics from them and give them a last chance.
Its not just the Catholics, protestants too did the same thing when they came to power. Thirty Years' War, Irish Martyrs, the English Martyrs, Boston martyrs, Salem Witch Hunt etc., are just examples. It is not to justify or defend any side's action, but just to say that the politics and culture is way too much different from ours today. And we cannot comprehend fully of what happened and why it happened to the fullest extend.


Why are verses missing in the Psalms in my Bible?

The issue is most likely the numbering of the Psalms in your Bible.  Your Georgian translation appears to use the Greek (Septuagint) numbering that is common in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles, while the Bibles you are comparing against use the numbering of the Hebrew (Masoretic) text.

Let's look at Psalm 109 as an example.  According to the Hebrew numbering,  Psalm 109 has 31 verses and begins like this:

  Be not silent, O God of my praise! [ESV]

But according to the Greek numbering, Psalm 109 has 7 verses and begins like this:

  The Lord says to my Lord:
      “Sit at my right hand,
  until I make your enemies your footstool.”

In the Hebrew numbering system, this is actually Psalm 110, as you'll see if you click the link.

Why does this happen? The short version is that some psalms are combined (or split, depending on your perspective) in the Greek version that aren't combined (or split) in the Hebrew version.  Here's the numbering breakdown, from Wikipedia:

Hebrew (Masoretic)    Greek (Septuagint or Vulgate)
    1–8                           1–8
    9–10                          9
    11–113                        10–112
    114–115                       113
    116                           114–115
    117–146                       116–145
    147                           146–147
    148–150                       148–150


Do any Christian groups refer to God as "she", "it" or "they"? (Or is it always "He"?)

At least two churches have decided to abstain from referring to God exclusively as "he".
The United Church of Christ.

The Eleventh General Synod instructed that a Book of Worship be developed and characterized by language that is truly inclusive with respect to God and to people. Although the generic use of masculine terms has been accepted practice, it is exclusive and viewed as offensive by many. Further, the use of only masculine nouns and pronouns for God and of masculine generic terms for humankind has hidden the rich feminine imagery for God and God's people in scripture. Scripture contains many gender neutral metaphors for God such as shepherd, rock, or Holy One. The rediscovery of the complementary female and male metaphors in the Bible and the literature of the early church encourages Christians not to settle for literary poverty in the midst of literary riches.

And the Metropolitan Community Church.

Many of us, when we first come to MCC, are so accustomed to using male pronouns for God that even when we come to understand God as beyond gender and other human categories, even when we come to view God as Spirit who is neither male nor female, it is still difficult not to say "he," "him," and "his" for God. This male terminology, however, limits God to our cultural view of the Divine, which is a male-dominant point of view.
~Reverend Dr. Jeffrey Pulling, "More Than Just Words: A Study & Reflection Guide to the Issues of Inclusive Language Within MCC"

wiki


Where in the Bible is the restoration of the nation of Israel prophesied?

In Ezekiel 37, the prophet has a vision of a valley of "dry bones."  When asked if these bones could yet live, Ezekiel wisely says, "You alone know, O Lord." (v3) After this, the Lord miraculously makes the bones come together and come alive.

It is explicitly stated in that chapter, that this refers to the people of Israel being re-established in the land of Israel:

  Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’  Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. - Ezekiel 37:11-12 NIV

Additional context is set in the previous chapter where Ezekiel, speaking for the Lord says:

  “‘But you, mountains of Israel, will produce branches and fruit for my people Israel, for they will soon come home. 9 I am concerned for you and will look on you with favor; you will be plowed and sown, 10 and I will cause many people to live on you—yes, all of Israel. The towns will be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt. 11 I will increase the number of people and animals living on you, and they will be fruitful and become numerous. I will settle people on you as in the past and will make you prosper more than before. Then you will know that I am the Lord. 12 I will cause people, my people Israel, to live on you. They will possess you, and you will be their inheritance; you will never again deprive them of their children. - Ezekiel 36:8-12 NIV

Hal Lindsey, (The Late Great Planet Earth), for instance, explains how he sees this as the restoration of Israel in this video Note: Hal Lindsey is a controversial figure, to say the least, but he is the direct inspiration for many premilennial dispensationalists, such as Tim LaHaye (Left Behind), John Walverood, Ed Whisenant, and others.

Ed Whisenant's well-known work 88 Reasons why the Rapture will occur in 1988 was fundamentally based on the conflation of this event, Jesus' parable of the fig tree (not a generation shall pass away until these things occur) and the restoration of Israel in 1948.


What in New Testament invalidates God’s commandments from the Old Testament?

The Old Testament contains many commandments.
Some of them the New Testament explicitly says are still in force. In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount he addresses some of these, including murder, adultery, and covetousness.
Some of them the New Testament explicitly says are obsolete. That includes all regulations surrounding temple worship. As Jesus told the woman at the well in John 4:

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will
worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You
Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know,
for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now
come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit
and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in
truth.”

The entire Book of Hebrews speaks of the old sacrificial system and how it really pointed to Jesus and his death on the cross. Since Jesus has paid the price once and for all time, no more blood sacrifices are necessary.
Another regulation concerns circumcision. The early church argued fiercely about this, but the Apostle Paul confronted the church leadership over the issue and they agreed that Gentile believers did not need to be circumcised. You can read about this in Acts 15:

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much
discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that
some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear
from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows
the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to
them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and
them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you
try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that
neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe
it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as
they are.”
...
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult
for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to
them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For
the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest
times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The latter part of the quote gives the highlights of what parts of the Law were to remain in force: no idol worship or participation in pagan rituals, humane slaughter of animals, and no sexual immorality.
The Apostle Paul also spoke to the issue of celebrating the Jewish holidays, saying that they were not obligatory. In Galatians 4 he says:

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by
nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known
by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable
forces[d]? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You
are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear
for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

And in Romans 14, Paul says:

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another
considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in
their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the
Lord.

This still leaves many parts of the Old Testament Law that were never rescinded nor commanded. Christians have been debating those rules ever since. However, if you read the New Testament carefully, you will at least find that the Ten Commandments are all still in force, since at one point or another all of them are covered.
However, even those commandments that are still in force are to be looked at in a new light. You are not justified by following them. Instead, having trusted in Christ by faith, as a saved person under the instruction of the Holy Spirit, you will desire to follow them out of love.


Because name forms in Hebrew, are not exactly the same as their literal counterparts, even if the names denote a phrase. Thus, it's not fitting to conflate phrase with name in the English (target language) translation of the Hebrew. Names are a special word in any language, and aren't the same as saying a phrase which denotes what the name is intended to. If not in form, then in syllabic emphasis - and thus in perception.
Case in point: Yahweh (יהוה) (as I tend to think, 'Yehowah'). The name of God is a form of the Hebrew verb "to be" (ehyeh) yet doesn't exactly translate to any particular first, second, or third person form, or tense,  of the verb. It is a name. "He who is" (arguably translated into Greek "ο ων").1
For example, you cite the name Eve (Hawwah). Yet, this would be thought of as neither "Life," nor literally  "Source of Life" (but something approximating a mixture of both) by native speakers of the Hebrew language, since it does not conform to normal verbal or noun forms of "Life." The name Hawwah was given to Eve because she is the mother of "all the living" (kol Haii), just as Yeshua is given to Jesus because "he shall save (yoshia) his people from their sins." It's not the word "Saviour," nor the verb "He shall save," yet conveys identity; even though the best meaning translation is "Saviour."
Thus it's not fitting to translate names into literal meanings where neither the target (e.g. English)  nor source (i.e. Hebrew) language conflates the two, because this betrays, rather than portays, the original language.

1 Cf. Wis. 13:1


The soul's progression through purgatory

The post Bl. John Paul the Great conception of purgatory was that it is a 'state' and not a place. So whatever, private revelation I allude to in the following sentences are not indiciative of universal Catholic doctrine (if you find any please report it to the dept. of redundancy dept)

It would seem that Purgatory is For the soul's purification in the fires of God's love.  The souls in Purgatory are referred to as the Church Suffering and the suffering experienced in Purgatory will take place for a predetermined length (until the last penny is paid). The only way out of Purgatory is up to heaven. The souls in Purgatory do not haunt the living. But the intercessory prayers of the living may reduce the time spent of a soul in Purgatory.  Such Indulgences may be applied either to the person seeking the indulgence, or purposes of lessening their own time in Purgatory or for a soul in Purgatory. A partial indulgence is what one gets when making the sign of the cross or praying a certain prayer or doing a spiritual or corporal work of mercy.

Prayers for souls in purgatory

A plenary indulgence is complete removal of the time spent in purgatory and it can be applied to a soul in purgatory. But it requires a confession with perfect contrition, which is no easy task. Nevertheless an imperfectly attained plenary indulgence is in effect a pretty good partial indulgence.

some more info about saints and others who saw souls in purgatroy

You might also want to check out St Catherine's Treatise on Purgatory I believe it was her who saw souls leaving Purgatory whenever "Lord Have Mercy" was said at Mass.

Someone else'll probably mention it if I don't, but C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce certainly seemed like a souls progression through Purgatory. Even though he denied it was supposed to be that exactly.

Likewise,  The Man Who Was Thursday by G.K. Chesterton is pretty Purgatorial. A lot of folks who suffer quite a bit in this world might also be likely to tell you that they're offering up their suffering so as to spend their Purgatory on Earth.

I'd love to read more old Catholic fiction on the subject, but so I hope someone else answers.
One thing you could do to further your studies is to search the Golden Legend for hints at Purgatory.

One last word, since a soul in Purgatory is not a ghost don't try to talk to them, you're more than likely talking to a demon.


What does "he finds his truth" mean in Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate?

Once we understand the context, we'll be able to work out an answer.  Notice three things:

In this letter, pronouns are not capitalized when referring to God.  There are numerous clear examples where "he" or "his" or "him" must refer to God, but they are not capitalized.  So these words in the sentence in question may apply to men or God, depending on context.
The broader context of this paragraph is on God's love and truth.  God is described as "Eternal Love and Absolute Truth" in the portion you quote, and later in the paragraph, Jesus is said to be "the Truth."
John 8:32, cited here, reads: "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (ESV).  "You" refers to the hearers of Jesus.

With this background, we can take a stab at the sentence in question.  Here it is again:

  Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32).

To make sense of "he finds his truth," we must determine to whom the pronouns refer.  Let's start by identifying the easy ones as either God or Santiago:

  Santiago finds Santiago's good by adherence to God's plan for Santiago, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth Santiago becomes free.

Now, remembering that God has already been called "Absolute Truth," and that God knows everything, it becomes necessary to interpret "he finds his truth" as:

  Santiago finds God's truth

That is, the "truth" here is simply God's truth.  God has a plan for each person, and each person's plan from God involves finding God's truth, and God's truth frees each person who adhers to it.


According to Catholicism what happens after Death on the General Judgment Day?

Particular & General Judgements
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, discussing Article 8 of the Creed ("From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead"), explains the difference between one's particular judgement and the general judgement:

The first [i.e., one's particular judgement] takes place when each one of us departs this life; for then he is instantly placed before the judgment seat of God, where all that he has ever done or spoken or thought during life shall be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. This is called the particular judgment.
The second [i.e., general judgement] occurs when on the same day and in the same place all men shall stand together before the tribunal of their Judge, that in the presence and hearing of all human beings of all times each may know his final doom and sentence. The announcement of this judgment will constitute no small part of the pain and punishment of the wicked; whereas the good and just will derive great reward and consolation from the fact that it will then appear what each one was in life. This is called the general judgment.

Human Relationships

Do we recognise each other in the same relationships as we had on earth?

The marriage relationship ceases at death:

Matt 22:30For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.


Did the Apostles' Creed originate with the Apostles?

It was a creed that was developed by the early church.  It came into existence after the age of the apostles.  However, it finds its biblical basis in the apostles.

The Theopedia article says "its current form" is "more likely post-Nicene Creed in the early 4th Century AD."  The Wikipedia article indicates it was a later form of the Old Roman Creed.

The Nicene Creed (since that's the next question) was first formed at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, while the Old Roman Creed was probably formed before that (in the 2nd century).

However, having said all of this, it seems the exact origins are unknown.  But it seems that this was definitely not something directly from the apostles.


What is the origin of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church is what is known as a universal catechism; that is, a catechism intended to apply for, and meant for the usage of, the entire Catholic Church. The only prior published universal catechism is the Roman Catechism or Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was published in 1566 at the direction of the Council of that name.

Today's Catechism largely follows the organization of the Roman Catechism: it goes through each clause of the Apostles' Creed, then discusses each of the Sacraments in turn (together with certain other liturgical celebrations), then (after a discussion of sin and morality) runs through the Ten Commandments, and finally turns to a discussion of prayer, beginning with prayer in general, and wrapping up with the Our Father/Lord's Prayer.

The edition of the Catechism available on the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops contains the text of the apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum, which accompanied the first publication of the Catechism (in French). This document describes the history of the publication.

In January 1985, Pope St. John Paul II convoked an extraordinary synod of the council of bishops, to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the 2nd Vatican Council. The synod expressed a general desire for a new catechism for the universal Church, and so the following year the Pope organized a commission to draft one.

According to Fidei Depositum, the project went through several revisions, including consultation with individual bishops, with councils of bishops, and with theologians and schools of theology. The French-language version was for some reason the first to be published; in 1993, shortly after its publication, work began on the definitive edition in Latin (the "editio typica"). This was published in 1997, accompanied by the apostolic letter Laetamur Magnopere. All subsequent publications are derived from this edition.

Although the Catechism is new, its contents are not. Nearly every book in the Catholic Bible is quoted at least once; so are most of the Church's ecumenical councils starting with the first council of Nicaea. In addition, many particular councils are cited, and the writings (mostly encyclicals) of 22 popes. The Roman Catechism is often used as a source, as are the Church's liturgical documents (pre-eminently the Roman Missal and Liturgy of the Hours) and the writings of many, many theologians and saints, from Ignatius of Antioch (1st-2nd century) to Blessed John Henry Newman (died 1890). The full list of citations is available here (part 1), here (part 2), and here (part 3).


What is involved in the consecration of a Church?

The solemn ceremony of dedication, or consecration of a church is found in the Roman Pontifical and is performed de jure by a bishop. The simpler rite, which is given in the Roman Ritual, is generally reserved to bishops, but may be also undertaken by a priest with episcopal delegation. I know of cases where a priest have re-consecrated a Catholic Church after the church had been desecrated with permission of the local ordinary.

The whole ceremony can be read in the Dedication of a Church
and an Altar from the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship. It is too long to go into all the details here, so I will leave it here where one can peruse this at one's leisure.

The main highlights that one should be aware of is the actual Prayer of Dedication and the Rites of Anointing, Incensing, Covering, and Lighting the Altar.

You can see Cardinal Seán O'Malley presiding at the Mass of Dedication of the new Saint Bonaventure Church in Manomet, MA. in this YouTube video: Dedication of the New Saint Bonaventure Church.


What did the early church fathers have to say about “eternal security” or “assurance of salvation”

Below is a summary from an article I found on the subject of 'Once saved, always saved' which is as close as I could find to the terms above in regard to the early fathers.
The whole article quotes from :

Justin Martyr 100-165
Shepherd of Hermas 155-180
Irenaeus 120-200
Tertullian 150-220
Origen 185-254
Cyprian 200-258
Augustine 354-430

Based on the quotes listed in the article, the writer comes to this conclusion (and it is my own conclusion also, from what is quoted) :

These men wrote from about A.D. 100 – 250. We do not find any statements to the effect that once a Christian is saved, he or she is always saved. But we do find a consistent belief, except for a few instances, that faith and works go together. This is consistent with the teachings of the Bible.

The earliest statement regarding “once saved always saved” comes from Augustine (A.D. 354-430).

It was left to Augustine to speak a clear word for perseverance in pre-Reformation times. Starting with predestination, he saw that election to eternal life inevitably involves final perseverance. Since salvation is always God’s gift, he entitled his work on perseverance On the Gift of Perseverance. He denied, however, that the believer can have any assurance of his final salvation. Carl F. Henry. Basic Christian Doctrines. Baker Book House, 1962.

It is important to note that the doctrine of “Once Saved Always Saved” did not appear in the literature of the church until the Reformation period. A review of the existing literature from the early church fathers suggests that most of them believed faith and works must both exist for a person to be a true Christian. While no person is perfect, the pattern of life must be present. Only a few seem to believe that a person can lose his or her salvation by disobedience. But it is also possible that they are only observing the biblical truth stated in James 2:17 and 1 John 2:19.

What is most important is, “Does the Bible teach, ‘Once Saved Always Saved.?'” The opinion of the early church fathers does not constitute truth. The early church fathers were not inspired authors. But Jesus and the apostles were. Jesus did not teach and the Bible does not teach that once a person believes in Jesus Christ he or she is going to heaven regardless of what he or she does in the future. James 2:26 captures the truth that faith and works go together. A true Christian will believe and obey. A true Christian will not leave the faith. Someone who claims to believe and lives like the world or leaves the faith is a liar, and 1 John 2:4 says the truth is not in him or her. However, we must remember that only God knows if one has actually left the faith. We do not see as God sees. The statement “Once Saved Always Saved” is misleading. It should be worded as follows, “Saved Only Once” or “Once Truly Saved Always Saved.” Once God selects people for salvation they have been selected and they will not depart from the faith. Those who have been truly saved will never depart from the faith.

The Nicean Creed does not address this subject.

The Primitive Church - from NeverThirsty.org


According the infallibility of scripture, do ancient near east laws (ANE laws) really explain the derivation of the laws of Moses?

If anything, it says that God is both generous and accommodating. There are two scenarios that should be considered:

God granted the same knowledge of what good governance should look like. This says that God's glory will in fact be shown in all nations, as he himself proclaimed.  (Gen 12 and Psalm 2 come to mind, but there are others)
If the other nations derived these laws completely independently of Gods prompting, then it can be argued equally as well that God knew what his people could bear, and strove to make them unique to a point (the sacrifices etc), but also understood that there was a limit to that. When the children of Israel wanted a king, for example, he relented. He knew it was suboptimal, but heard their cries nonetheless.

Either case shows that it would not be inconsistent with God's character to repeat Himself or others in choosing optimal laws.

Indeed, one oft-cited constraint of perfection is immutability. If something is perfect, it cannot change. There is nothing to suggest that optimality behaves differently. There really is a best way to connect two points, for example.


What is the most basic Biblical understanding of the nature of the firmament?

The word "firmament" denotes something firm and strong, referring to the "dome of the heavens" that was believed to make up the top of the sky in King James's day.  It's a rather poor translation of the Hebrew raqiya, meaning "expanse".

Raqiya is derived from the root raqa, which refers to stretching or spreading something out; the term was used in reference to the creation of gold leaf, for example.  The idea is that God put something thin and spread out (the atmosphere) over the surface of the earth.


Were celebrations for the 400th Anniversary of the Reformation held in Germany during World War I?

In 1917, Reformation Day was on a Wednesday. The German theologian Hermann Sasse, a sergeant in the German army at the time, spoke about that day in 1942. His glasses are too amazing for my conscience to allow me to answer without including this picture, taken the year before he died:

In any case, the troops celebrated communion. Given that it was a Wednesday, not a Sunday, we can assume it was in celebration of Reformation Day. Here's what Sasse said:

  I still remember that cloudy, misty Autumn morning in northern Germany. The Divine Service in the open air would be for many of those present their last celebration of holy communion. Straight after the celebration, we were plunged into one of the bloodiest battles of Flanders..Surely that Jubilee deserved something better. But with it there arose a new appreciation of the central article of faith of the Lutheran Reformation. It is as though the tremendous gravity of war, the encounter with death and the experience of God's judgment that it brought, were needed for modern man to grasp again the message of the Reformation: the justification of the ungodly by faith alone.

In an interview, Hartmut Lehmann talked about how the German government used Reformation Day as a political tool:

  The later anniversaries, 1817, 1883 and 1917, were guided by nationalism. Luther's heroisation was mainly directed against Catholic France. Luther was depicted as the typical German, the one who had made possible the national unification and the rise of Germany to a superpower...

  The motivations have changed, but the degree of instrumentalisation has always been extraordinarily high. For example, in 1917, during the final phase of WW1, no phrase was too strong to exploit Luther's memory for the purpose of propaganda in order to make the Germans continue to believe in gaining victory over their enemies.

There was also a different take on the situation. Historian Max Lenz gave a lecture on Reformation Day 1917 in Hamburg, Germany titled "Luther and the German Spirit." He questioned whether the war really was in keeping with the legacy of Luther. Here's what he had to say:

  Would Luther recognize our war as his own? Is there a bridge that leads from Luther's religion to the new Germany, to the life interests and ideals we are fighting for, to the things we hold sacred?


The Southern Baptist Convention is a formal denomination. They have a web site.

So is the American Baptist Convention.  Is that who you mean when you say Northen Baptists?  There's also the National Baptist Convention which happens to be a primarily African-American association. ABC and NBC also have web sites.

Please keep in mind that the Baptist traditions are free church traditions.  They got started in the USA when Roger Williams bailed out of theocratic Massachusetts to found Rhode Island with a driving principle of soul freedom.

Free church?  Specifically, each congregation establishes their own covenant (statement of beliefs and practices).  Therefore, generalizing is quite difficult, and may lead you to unfaithful conclusions.

Any congregation I've ever heard of is honored to talk to a visitor about their covenant. So ask!

Now to your question: Here is one little tidbit of difference between the SBC and the ABC.  A seminary teacher of mine, Prof. Mark Heim, is a member of the American Baptist Convention, and has represented them on the World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission.

He taught very clearly that Holy Baptism is a universal rite for the whole church (across denominations, traditions, languages, and customs) according to Ephesians 4:4-6 ("one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.")  He taught that when one congregation honors baptism administered in another congregation it's good for Christian unity. And the ABC suggests that for their congregations.

On the other hand, the SBC, at least according to an answer here on this site, recommends that congregations sometimes rebaptize.  See Do any major denominations refuse to recognize Holy Baptism in other denominations

So, that is a difference.


According to Catholicism, is going to work on Holy Days of Obligation sinful?

The short answer is “not necessarily.” There can be good reasons to go to work on Sunday or another holy day of obligation. (Note that these reasons do not generally excuse someone from attending Mass on those days, or at least at the vigil Mass the evening before.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses the issue of how to live out Sunday rest (applicable as well to other holy days of obligation), as follows:

  On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health (no. 2185, emphasis added).

Therefore, if the family greatly needs it (e.g., poor families that need money just to make ends meet), or if one’s profession is to provide an important service (e.g., doctors, nurses, police officers, clergy), then it is permissible to work even on Sunday or Holy Days.

(I will observe that, in the United States in particular, some of the holy days of obligation do not coincide with national holidays. In many, if not most cases, taking those days off from work will be too disruptive. In such a case, it is not a problem to work. That is one reason why in the dioceses of of the United States many solemnities that are traditionally celebrated in mid-week have been transferred to Sunday.)

The Catechism even goes on to specify that those whose profession is to help others live out their Sunday rest may also work on Sunday, for it is an important service:

  Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure (no. 2187).

Of course, such persons should be careful to set aside time for leisure (for themselves and their employees) at some other moment.

One final observation: for holy days of obligation that fall on Saturday or Monday, what is abrogated (in dioceses of the United States) is not the holy day, but the obligation to attend Mass. (Incidentally, this norm does not apply to the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.)


How does the Catholic church explain Matthew 19:9, which seems to allow divorce in case of sexual misconduct?

Good question! In the New American Bible (Revised Edition), which is the translation authorized by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops for use in the United States, Matt. 19:9 reads:

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

(Note: you don't specify which translation you're using; that would be helpful information.)
It would be interesting to know what the original Greek says; I may search for or post a question on Biblical Hermeneutics about that.
The NABRE has a note on the verse, referring to a note on Matt. 5:31–32. That note reads:

(Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in Mt 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mk 10:11–12; Lk 16:18; cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s "exceptive clauses" are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18:6–18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.

Thus, it appears that Catholic interpretation of this particular passage considers the statement in Matthew to refer to a specific situation present uniquely in Matthew's community at the time, and thus not applicable generally, and gives precedence to the alternate statements on divorce present in the other synoptic gospels.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees with this interpretation:

Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

(CCC, paragraph 2384. The quoted section is cited as "St. Basil, Moralia 73, 1".)
This is why the Church is so forcefully against divorce.