Did the Apostles “worship Jesus” in Luke 24:52?

There was some controversy over the phrase in the 80's because some minority of manuscripts appeared to omit the phrase which led to some Bible versions removing it or footnoting it. However, earlier manuscripts were found in the 50's that did have the phrase in it which make the later omissions likely scribal errors (mistakes).  It has since been restored to the majority of the versions that had removed it because of this find.  This is likely the reason why your version is missing it - if it's an older version.

Text Note: Luke 24:52

I will attempt to give you the reason the Greek (and now English versions) have the alternative that you stated.

In the best manuscripts the Greek states

  24:52 καὶ αὐτοὶ προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν...

Literally this states, "And they worshiped him..."

προσκυνήσαντες is the aorist, active, participle which means it is a variant. The root would be προσκύνέω.

  προσκύνέω has a range from "to do reverence or homage by kissing the hand" in the OT Septuagint but in the NT it means "to do reverence or homage by prostration (bowing or kneeling)"; to pay divine homage, worship, adore; "to bow oneself in adoration."

  from The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament William D. Mounce

To your question about the Vulgate:

You translated this as "52 And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they were always in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen."

This is what the Vulgate states in Latin

  24:52 et ipsi adorantes regressi sunt in Hierusalem cum gaudio magno

This translates to "And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy."

It appears that whatever English translation you are using just did not translate the Latin word "adorantes" to worshiped but it still came close. If we go back to the Greek this is easier to see.

The operative clause is αὐτοὶ προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν.

In προσκυνήσαντες the ντ identifies it as a participle (participles are verbal adjectives as in they describe an action happening to someone or something)
The "σα" means that it is Aorist tense (a sort of past tense that means that it happened prior to now but doesn't specifiy time in itself)
The "ες" suffix means that it is identifying the adverb as describing the group (αὐτοὶ, "they").
We also know that a participle must modify something since if describes an action happening to someone or something and if there are only 2 nouns in the whole clause αὐτοὶ and αὐτὸν (αὐτὸν is singular and referring to a "him" and by context we know the him is Jesus) and the participle is plural and the only noun that is plural is αὐτοὶ (them) then the object of the participle (who it is being done to) must be the αὐτὸν (him).

In the translation you quoted above it doesn't make sense to say "And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy." Here adoring is also a participle without an object. What were they adoring? If this were a verb, that is just an action the group was performing, then we would not expect this to be a participle and would have just been an plural, aorist, active, indicative (think time) form (as far as I know that form is never used anywhere in the NT).

There seems to be something missing as it is stated in your Vulgate version (not your documentation of it but an issue with the translation within it). Remember that the Vulgate was written by Jerome using the Greek so the priority should also go to the Greek text which clearly states that "they worshiped him..."

(All emphasis mine)


How many resurrections (raptures) will there be?

Looking at the passage you quoted, it seems pretty clear that there are two resurrections.  The first resurrection is the resurrection of the righteous, while "the rest of the dead (the wicked) did not come to life until the thousand years were ended."

It doesn't look to me like it's saying anything about the Rapture; merely that those who were righteous in life will be resurrected quickly and be able to "be priests of God and of Christ and... reign with him for a thousand years," while the wicked remain dead until the second resurrection, at the end of the Millennium.


In what countries is Christianity banned?

There's a list by WWL
http://www.worldwatchlist.us/world-watch-list-countries/

Extreme persecution:

North Korea
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Iraq
Somalia
Maldives
Mali
Iran
Yemen
Eritrea
Syria
Sudan
Nigeria


One of the best (if not the best) Augustinian/Thomistic theologians is Frank J. Sheed.  His great work “Theology and Sanity” is an excellent guide for contemplating questions like these.

Sheed writes:

  What, then, is time?  Philosophers use the word in two closely related
  senses; most of us find that one of these is sufficient for us.  Time,
  say the philosophers, is the duration of that which changes; time, say
  the philosophers again and we with them, is the measurement of the
  changes of the universe. What is common to both statements is the
  relation of time to change.  Where nothing changes, time has no
  possible meaning. Thus time and the universe started together.  God is
  infinite and therefore changeless.  He is “the Father of lights with
  whom there is no change or shadow of alteration” (James 1:17).  He
  possesses the utter fullness of existence, so that nothing can go from
  Him, for He already possesses all.  The universe He created is a
  changing universe.  And because change belongs to it and not to God,
  time belongs to it and not to God. To repeat, time and the universe
  started together: time is the ticking of the universe.

If we say, “Jesus was begotten before the universe was created,” then we are stating something that has no meaning at all.  Before is a word of time, and there could be no time before the universe because time began with the universe.  To say “before the universe” means when there wasn't any “when”; which is to say that it doesn't mean anything at all.  The same is said about the phrase, “how many times was (was is also a time word) Jesus begotten.”

Frank Sheed goes on to discuss processions in eternity:

  There may still remain one error clinging to our knowledge of the
  processions of the Persons in the Blessed Trinity because of our own
  immersion in time.  As far as the statement of it goes, we are not
  likely to make the error of thinking that the Son is in some way less
  eternal than the Father, or the Holy Spirit in some way younger than
  the Father and the Son.  We know that there is no succession in
  eternity, no change in God.  God the Father did not first exist as a
  Person and then become a Father.  God, by the very act of being God,
  generates his Son; God the Father and God the Son, by the very act of
  being God, spirate the Holy Spirit.  As I say, there is not likely to
  be any error in our statement of this: the error will tend to cling to
  our idea in such a way that when we are looking directly at it, we do
  not see it, yet it is profoundly there: and, because time is so deeply
  woven into all our experience, our advance in the knowledge of God
  depends upon our deliberate effort to rid our mind of it.

According to the historical Church's creeds and councils, the only valid answer is, "Christ is eternally begotten only of the Father."

The Nicene Creed was formulated by the Early Church Fathers to authoritatively define the  Christological absolutes that orthodox Christians hold:

  I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
      maker of heaven and earth,
      of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
          the Only Begotten Son of God,
          born of the Father before all ages.
      God from God, Light from Light,
          true God from true God,
      begotten, not made, consubstantial
         with the Father;
          Through him all things were made.
      For us men and for our salvation
          he came down from heaven,
          and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
          of the Virgin Mary,
          and became man.

According to this formula, Christ is "the only begotten Son of God."  While being eternally "begotten from the Father before all ages,"  he was "by the Power of the Holy Spirit incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man." It is precisely because Jesus of Nazareth was eternally begotten/born (fully God and fully Man) before all ages, that the Blessed Virgin Mary can properly receive the coronation of being named "Theotokos," or Mother of God.


Where can I find official documents of Buenos Aires' Eucharistic Miracle?

There is no official Vatican online reference to this alleged miracle, so I did some basic research.

The first thing I noticed is  that the details of the 1996 miracle vary according to the source of the story, with at least three variants as to where the host was found. This is typical of urban myths, but by itself that is not enough to disprove the story. The Australian Catholic Weekly, which is not an 'official' source, was asked whether Pope Francis had approved the miracle, and printed an article that says that Francis had investigated the claim before becoming pope. Whether or not Auxiliary Bishop Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) was impressed with what he was told, it appears that the pope is not moving to have this recognised as a miracle.

This article from Gospa Missions says, "Although this miracle awaits further confirmation in the Church ..." indicating that the Catholic Church has not (yet) accepted the purported miracle.

One source says that Professor John Walker, of Sydney University, had confirmed that the material given to him was human flesh. Sydney University publishes a list of academic staff and, although it reports no Professor John Walker, it appears that a Dr. John Walker had been on the University faculty until 1987, nine years before the supposed miracle, but he worked in medical parasitology. The late Professor
Frederick Zugibe is also credited with having tested the specimen and verified that it came from a living heart. This important investigation is not found in any of the biographies that I have found on Zugibe.

A post on the Catholic Answers forum claims the purported miracle to be a fraud, because the  Higher Council of the World Health Organization, which supposedly confirmed the findings of Dr. Edoardo Linoli, does not exist.

One could ask why God would perform this obscure miracle in just this way, and the most plausible reason would be either to bring people back to the faith, or to assist the finances of a struggling church in Argentina.


Why did God create such complexity in man?

He created such complexity because it exists in Him as well, as we are explicitly created after His own image and in His likeness, as His children.

Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

As for medical problems, those are inherently bound up with death and mortality, which weren't part of the original creation, but were introduced in the Fall.


Baptismal names in the Greek Orthodox Church!

Probably the only entities capable of figuring out the span and frequency of baptismal names, at least since September 1st, 1979 (a liturgical new year), are the Registry Department of each Archdiocese. You could try contacting them individually, although it's possible that their records are not digitized, in which case it would take a lot of effort to figure out your question. My modern Greek is only elementary, I am not sure if this is true outside of the Greek Orthodox church in America, unfortunately.

As you may know, baptismal names are taken from the names of saints. Each saint has a day they're celebrated--often their date of martyrdom, if it is known. Therefore, calendars of "name days" will contain the names that are suitable for baptismal names. The two I have linked two are particular to Greek Orthodox saints. Of course, any Eastern Orthodox saint's name would be acceptable as a baptismal name, but each Patriarchate has its favorites!


What deuterocanonical books are quoted in the New Testament?

There are no direct quotes, at least, not in the sense that, for example, Isaiah is quoted, but there are certainly several allusions and parallel passages. Here is a list of some of them from both NT and OT (and yes, I am well aware that some of those are debatable).

As to "other books quoting them," it should be noted that neither Song of Songs, Esther, or Ecclesiastes are quoted elsewhere in scripture. It should also be noted that the Apocalypse of Enoch is quoted in Jude as well as I & II Peter (and it is fairly obviously quoted in Jude and II Peter) and no one sees that document as canonical.


Does God, according to Catholic theology, precondition His help on other people's prayers and if so, why?

First, you must understand what the RCC teach about grace. Here.
2002

God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created
man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power
to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the
communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the
heart of man...

Following this quote, if a person never responses he might need help from other's prayer. Through the other's intercessions, God can grant him many other opportunities where he can response. God will not violate man's free will and won't force him to response. If a man won't response God can't immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man.
You are saying

Does this mean that God preconditions His aid for sinners on other
people's prayers?

Yes and no. First of all, God gives enough and sufficient opportunities to every man for his conversation. If a person runs out and fails to answer God's calling then other's prayers and sacrifices can bring more and new opportunities.


Do Mormons practice "soaking," and is it an officially sanctioned activity?

College Students Looking for Loopholes...

I would not be surprised if this was practiced by some students at BYU. But if it has happened, then it is a misbehaviour amongst select groups of naive students, it is most certainly not a church practice, as it is a clear violation of the law of Chastity. BYU has a very strict code of conduct, which essentially states, "If you fornicate, you will get kicked out of School."

From the BYU Undergraduate Catalogue:

  Honor Code Statement

  We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. . . . If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or
  praiseworthy, we seek after these things (Thirteenth Article of
  Faith).

  As a matter of personal commitment, faculty, administration, staff,
  and students of Brigham Young University, Brigham Young
  University—Hawaii, Brigham Young University—Idaho, and LDS Business
  College seek to demonstrate in daily living on and off campus
  those moral virtues encompassed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and
  will

  Be honest
  Live a chaste and virtuous life   Obey the law and all campus policies   Use clean language   Respect others   Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and
  substance abuse   Participate regularly in church services   Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards   Encourage others
  in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code

  Conduct

  All students are required to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the Honor Code. In addition, students may not
  influence or seek to influence others to engage in behavior
  inconsistent with the Honor Code.

  Students must abstain from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal
  substances and from the intentional misuse or abuse of any substance.
  Sexual misconduct; obscene or indecent conduct or expressions;
  disorderly or disruptive conduct; participation in gambling
  activities; involvement with pornographic, erotic, indecent, or
  offensive material; and any other conduct or action inconsistent with
  the principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and
  the Honor Code is not permitted.
  Violations of the Honor Code may result in actions up to and including separation from
  the university.

In an attempt to avoid expulsion, and church discipline, some students have tried to find a loophole in the honor code.

This idea of "soaking" is not the first unusual thing I've heard come out of BYU. A few years back there were supposedly a series of excommunications because some BYU kids were allegedly eloping to Vegas, getting legally married in one of those drive-thru chapels, having a quick honeymoon weekend, then getting the marriage annulled before going back to class on Monday. Their theory was, they were married when they were having sex, so it wasn't adultery. They tried to pull a fast one on the church with a technicality.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not sanction ANY form of sexual intercourse outside of the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman.

See Gospel Topics: Chastity

COMPLETE fidelity in thoughts, words and actions is the policy of the church, anything else is the vain attempt of a sinner trying to avoid accountability.

These students ignorantly assume that they can beat the system by adhering to the letter of the law, assuming that the courts in heaven emulate courts of men. God's justice invokes the spirit of the law, there are no loopholes.


John Piper passionately argues in his 2003 sermon Palm Sunday Tears of Sovereign Mercy that this doesn't contradict the doctrine of foreordination:

There is something not quite right about this objection to Jesus’ sovereignty. He can make praise come from rocks. And so he could do the same from rock-hard hearts in Jerusalem. What’s more, all this rejection and persecution and killing of Jesus is not the failure of Jesus’ plan, but the fulfilment of it.
...
The betrayal, the mockery, the shame, the spit, the flogging, the murder – and so much more – was planned. In other words, the resistance, the rejection, the unbelief and hostility were not a surprise to Jesus. They were, in fact, part of the plan. He says so. This is probably why it says at the end of verse 42, "But now they are hidden from your eyes." Remember what Jesus said about his parables back in Luke 8:10: "To you [disciples] it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’" God was handing them over to hardness. It was judgment.
We have seen all this in Romans 9. The mercy of God is a sovereign mercy. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Romans 9:15). But here is the point I want you to see today: This sovereign Christ weeps over heard-hearted, perishing Jerusalem as they fulfilled his plan. It is unbiblical and wrong to make the tears of mercy a contradiction to the serenity of sovereignty. Jesus was serene in sorrow, and sorrowful in sovereignty. Jesus’ tears are the tears of sovereign mercy.
And therefore his sovereign power is the more admirable and the more beautiful. It’s the harmony of things that seem in tension that makes him glorious: "Merciful and Mighty," as we sing. We admire power more when it is merciful power. And we admire mercy more when it is mighty mercy. And, as I said, my prayer is that as you see his mercy and admire his mercy, you will become like him in his mercy.

But still, why would he be moved to tears over things that he divinely foresaw, and even ordained? It's a valid question. Reformed writers have explained it a few ways.
He wept because he was human
John Calvin's commentary says:

As to those who think it strange that Christ should bewail an evil which he had it in his power to remedy, this difficulty is quickly removed. For as he came down from heaven, that, clothed in human flesh, he might be the witness and minister of the salvation which comes from God, so he actually took upon him human feelings, as far as the office which he had undertaken allowed. ... He was God, I acknowledge; but on all occasions when it was necessary that he should perform the office of teacher, his divinity rested, and was in a manner concealed, that it might not hinder what belonged to him as Mediator. By this weeping he proved not only that he loved, like a brother, those for whose sake he became man, but also that God made to flow into human nature the Spirit of fatherly love.

John Gill says:

and wept over it; touched with a tender concern for it, his natural passions moved, and tears fell plentifully from his eyes. This must be understood of Christ merely as man, and is a proof of the truth of his human nature, which had all the natural properties, and even the infirmities of it; and as affected with the temporal ruin of Jerusalem, and as concerned for its temporal welfare; and is not to be improved either against his proper deity, or the doctrines of distinguishing grace, relating to the spiritual and eternal salvation of God's elect; things that are foreign from the sense of this passage.

Bruce Buchanan, an OPC pastor, says:

We need to appreciate Jesus as the Mediatorial Prophet, Priest, and King of his church. It is not fitting to read every statement of Jesus (who is God the Son) during his humiliation, as if he always speaks in his full capacity as the Ascended Lord, according to all his combined powers in hypostatic union, the God-Man. Frequently he speaks as the King of visible-Israel. He has come for the good of this collective portion especially; and they (the leaders, and their followers) are in process of repudiating him who is given them for a blessing. Is this not truly and objectively sad?
The Man, Christ Jesus, is fully capable of appreciating how that rebellion and sin had blinded the eyes and hearts of so many pitiful people, who above all the rest of the people on earth had one of the most extraordinary opportunities to repent and believe in God's saving Promise, and yet refused to do so, and prevented others from doing so; Mt.23:37, "...and ye would not." I cannot think why such an epic tragedy should not wring tears of grief, of sorrow, of frustration, of rage from the heart of One who had a clearer understanding of how this all must eventuate than anyone around him.
Here is One perfectly aware of how the wrath of God will be earned by this "city," by her leadership and by those who persist in identifying with them. He also knows that their blindness is willful, self-chosen. Just because one man's participation is ordained by God and certain, does not mean that he does not also choose and embrace his destiny. This is just that difference between predestination and fatalism. The latter presumes a foiled free-will whose better aims were deflected, and whose better hopes were dashed.
If we only allow a Jesus who always sublimates his ordinary human feeling into a perfect expression of resignation and repose in the ultimate aims of the godhead, then we actually have a less-than-human Christ. We have no explanation for Jesus in Gethsemane. We do not have a sympathetic High-Priest, because his temptations were meaningless. We do not have One who weeps at the door of a tomb from which he intends to summon a dead man to life in mere minutes.

He wept to teach us to weep
Matthew Henry says:

That Jesus Christ wept in the midst of his triumphs, wept when all about him were rejoicing, to show how little he was elevated with the applause and acclamation of the people. Thus he would teach us to rejoice with trembling, and as though we rejoiced not. If Providence do not stain the beauty of our triumphs, we may ourselves see cause to sully it with our sorrows.

Piper, in the sermon quoted earlier, says:

First, Jesus’ mercy is tenderly moved. He feels the sorrow of the situation. This doesn’t mean his sovereign plan has wrecked on the rocks of human autonomy. It means that Jesus is more emotionally complex than we think he is. He really feels the sorrow of a situation. No doubt there is a deep inner peace that God is in control and that God’s wise purposes will come to pass. But that doesn’t mean you can’t cry. ...  Jesus felt enough compassion for Jerusalem to weep. If you haven’t shed any tears for somebody’s losses but your own, it probably means you’re pretty wrapped up in yourself. So let’s repent of our hardness and ask God to give us a heart that is tenderly moved.

He wept so that later he might rejoice
Alan Strange, an OPC pastor, says:

Jerusalem was a mixed multitude containing both reprobate and elect, although many of the elect had not then come to Christ and would do so only at and after Pentecost. ... Given that many Jews will be gathered in, there is no small sense in which our Lord's compassion expressed here will have Jerusalem's deliverance in some sense as its fruition.

Similarly, Gill's commentary, quoted earlier, refers to Isaiah 66:10:

Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice greatly with her, all you who mourn over her.


What does it mean for a society to be moral?

Many religions and societies have a shared core of moral precepts.  For example, the Dalai Lama writes on this topic:

  All religions teach moral precepts for perfecting the functions of mind, body, and speech. All teach us not to lie or steal or take others' lives, and so on. The common goal of all moral precepts laid down by the great teachers of humanity is unselfishness. The great teachers wanted to lead their followers away from the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them to paths of goodness.

A common moral intuition has been posited (with some decent evidence) by some researchers; see Marc Hauser's Moral Minds for an example.  You may not agree with his interpretation of his data, but it is at least clear that a certain subset of morality is widespread (hereafter "common-morality") even among people who profess different beliefs.

Because of this commonality, there is a sense in which we can judge societies as moral or immoral without having to adopt any particular religion (which will unsurprisingly judge societies where different religions are prevalent as relatively less moral).  You can ask--at least vaguely--whether a society promotes as a matter of course and achieves in practice broad adherence to common-morality.  Furthermore, one can ask whether the society (including government institutions) treats its members as if it were an entity that followed common-morality.

For example, one can make a pretty strong case that the sub-societies of Somali pirates or Mexican drug gangs are not particularly moral (obviously: they induce people to kill and steal).  Fine distinctions are probably difficult (is Japanese society more or less moral than Finnish society?).


Does the Catholic Church perform non-civil marriages in the Dominican Republic?

The relevant passages of the Code of Canon Law are (emphasis mine):

Can.  1067 The conference of bishops is to establish norms about the examination of spouses and about the marriage banns or other opportune means to accomplish the investigations necessary before marriage. After these norms have been diligently observed, the pastor can proceed to assist at the marriage.
Can.  1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:
1/ a marriage of transients;
2/ a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law;
3/ a marriage of a person who is bound by natural obligations toward another party or children arising from a previous union;
4/ a marriage of a person who has notoriously rejected the Catholic faith;
5/ a marriage of a person who is under a censure;
6/ a marriage of a minor child when the parents are unaware or reasonably opposed;
7/ a marriage to be entered into through a proxy as mentioned in can. 1105.
§2. The local ordinary is not to grant permission to assist at the marriage of a person who has notoriously rejected the Catholic faith unless the norms mentioned in can. 1125 have been observed with necessary adaptation.

In principle, the people you mention fall into the second case of subsection 1 of canon 1071; which means that the pastor of the people wishing to marry would have to contact his local Ordinary (that is, his Bishop) to obtain permission to assist at the marriage. I don't expect such a permission is difficult to obtain, given the concrete situation, but it does show that "a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law" can still be celebrated by the Church, given the pastor takes a bit of care to prepare beforehand.
So I recommend that those people who do not have any documents to talk to their pastors, and they will advise them on how to proceed in order to contract a valid marriage.


A quick Google search produced this:

  Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths: i.e., the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things'. (goodreads quote)

More searching revealed that this is possibly from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, but I was not able to find where. I am currently looking through the physical copy I have to find it and will update this answer once I do.

Edit: I found this letter, written by C.S. Lewis and addressed to Arthur Greeves on the subject of "the Myth of Christianity". The passage I quoted above is the first sentence of the third paragraph in the letter.


Is There an Exhaustive List of All/Most Common Venial and Mortal Sins?

The 7 capital sins, which give rise to other sins, can be mortal:

Pride
Greed
Lust
Anger
Gluttony
Envy
Sloth

St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II devotes separate questions (collections of articles) to the following, which are or can be sins or vices; for many of them, he discusses whether they can be mortal (many of them can be):

10. Unbelief in General
   11. Heresy
   12. Apostasy
   13. Sin of Blasphemy, in General
   14. Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost
   15. Vices Opposed to Knowledge and Understanding
        1. blindness of mind
        2. dullness of sense
   20. Despair
   21. Presumption
   34. Hatred
   35. Sloth
   36. Envy
   37. Discord, Which Is Contrary to Peace
   38. Contention
   39. Schism
   40. War
   41. Strife
   42. Sedition
   43. Scandal
   46. Folly Which Is Opposed to Wisdom

Treatise on Prudence and Justice

53. Imprudence
   54. Negligence
   55. Vices Opposed to Prudence by Way of Resemblance
        1. prudence of the flesh
        3. craftiness
        4. guile
        5. fraud
        6. solicitude about temporal things
        7. solicitude about the future
   59. Injustice
   63. Respect of Persons
   64. Murder
   65. Injuries Committed on the Person
        1. mutilation of members
        2. blows
        3. imprisonment
   66. Theft and Robbery
   67. Injustice of a Judge, in Judging
   68. Matters Concerning Unjust Accusation
   69. Sins Committed Against Justice on the Part of the Defendant
   70. Injustice with Regard to the Person of the Witness
   71. Injustice in Judgment on the Part of Counsel
   72. Reviling
   73. Backbiting
   74. Tale-Bearing
   75. Derision
   76. Cursing
   77. Cheating, Which is Committed in Buying and Selling
   78. Sin of Usury
   92. Superstition
   93. Superstition Consisting in Undue Worship of the True God
   94. Idolatry
   95. Superstition in Divinations
   96. Superstition in Observances
   97. Temptation of God
   98. Perjury
   99. Sacrilege
   100. Simony
   105. Disobedience
   107. Ingratitude
   108. Vengeance
   110. Vices Opposed to Truth, and First of Lying
   111. Dissimulation and Hypocrisy
   112. Boasting
   113. Irony
   115. Flattery
   116. Quarreling
   118. Vices Opposed to Liberality, and in the First Place, of Covetousness
   119. Prodigality

Treatise on Fortitude and Temperance

125. Fear
   126. Fearlessness
   127. Daring
   130. Presumption
   131. Ambition
   132. Vainglory
   133. Pusillanimity
   135. Meanness
   138. Vices Opposed to Perseverance
        1. effeminacy
        2. pertinacity
   142. Vices Opposed to Temperance
        1. insensibility
   148. Gluttony
   150. Drunkenness
   153. Lust
   154. Parts of Lust
        2. simple fornication
        6. seduction
        7. rape
        8. adultery
        9. incest
        10. sacrilege (in the sense of violating a person consecrated to God such as a priest, brother, or nun)
        11. unnatural vice (sodomy, masturbation, bestiality, etc.)
   156. Incontinence
   158. Anger
   159. Cruelty
   162. Pride
   163. First Man's Sin
   167. Curiosity


What theological statement would be made if the Creeds preceded the homily?

am I opening up a theological can of worms in altering the order of the mass?

Yes. It's not just the change you're talking about, but any change at all. The Mass is the way it is for a reason (tradition). Here's a part of tradition that makes the teaching of Scripture the foundation for the central Eucharistic Celebration. Jesus meets two disciples on the Road to Emmaus. He interprets all the prophets, and they invite Him to stay with them:

  Luke 24:29-31
  29 But they urged him, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
  30 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
  31 With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.

Their eyes are not opened during the teaching, but as soon as Jesus says "the blessing" and they take the Eucharist, they recognize Him. The recognition of Jesus is central, not the teaching. If it helps, as a Catholic, it kind of annoys me that a sermon would ever be emphasized more than the Eucharist. Annoyance aside, the Mass for Catholics goes back a long way, so changes are pretty serious. Priests have to follow the rubrics, so no, they wouldn't be allowed to change it.

  why not say the Creed before we read the Word ... what effect would altering this order have on the theological construct of the order of worship?

The Creed is a profession of Faith and a rejection of heresy. It was put in order after the Gospel because the Faith is based on the Gospel. The Creed is a response to what has been said, like a very detailed "Amen". Agreement isn't what you need before you hear something, it comes after. We are made "ready to be instructed" in part by the other Bible readings, because the words of the prophets make us ready for the words of Jesus.

In the Catholic liturgy, there's already a moment to meditate and internalize. After saying the Homily, the priest pauses and sits in silence (video). There is no singing of an old hymn (do you mean a psalm, or a contemporary song based on a psalm?). After this, Catholics, who would know these by heart, say the 1,632 year old Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed.


Which pre-Nicene Christians who helped shape the trinity doctrine are now considered heretics?

The definition of "heretical" is not universally agreed upon, even by Catholics and Protestants, particularly when applied to views that preceded the final establishment of "orthodoxy."  So rather than attempt to list of trinitarian "heretics" from the early church, perhaps it would be helpful to identify leading thinkers and their contributions, and how those contributions were received.  I'll note five types of thought and their prominent adherents in the first three centuries of the church:

Early imprecision
Economic trinitarianism
Dynamic monarchianism
Modalistic monarchianism
Origen's platonic trinitarianism

Here I'll mostly rely on the 4th edition of Early Christian Doctrines, by J. N. D. Kelly, a standard text in this field.
Early imprecision
In the first century or so after Christ's death, we see a number of authors describing God, but generally not attempting to do so in a systematic fashion.  With the benefit of hindsight, we can identify a number of deficiencies in their thought compared to orthodox trinitarianism.  For example, Ignatius has been accused of economic trinitarianism (see below), and Kelly calls the theology of Hermas an "amalgam of binitarianism and adoptionism." (94)
Regarding the Apologists (like Justin Martyr and Athenagoras), Kelly reports that they are often criticized for failing to teach the eternal generation of the Son, and by extension failing to protect the Son from being subordinated to the Father.  He attributes this more to their "thought-atmosphere" and their lack of a "technical vocabulary adequate for describing eternal distinctions within the Deity" than to an actual failure to distinguish the persons or protect the Son's equality. (101)
Economic trinitarianism
With Irenaeus, recognized as a saint by Roman Catholicism, we have a more nuanced view of the Godhead, though still lacking in several particulars.  Kelly describes his view:

Its second-century traits stand out clearly, particularly its representation of the Triad by the imagery, not of three coequal persons (this was the analogy to be employed by the post-Nicene fathers), but rather of a single personage, the Father Who is the Godhead Itself, with His mind, or rationality [the Son], and His wisdom [the Spirit]. (107–8)

His view is called "economic" trinitarianism, because it emphasizes the unity of God's essential being, and considers the Son and Spirit to be forms or modes that only through the Father's self-revelation are found to be distinct from the Father.  So while Irenaeus sees an eternal relationship between the Father and Son, he still does not teach eternal generation. (106)
Tertullian and Hippolytus stand in this line of thinking and develop it further through their conflicts with monarchians (see next sections).  They introduce the idea of "Persons" in the Godhead, but continue to see the Three as "expressions or forms," and explicitly describe a single divine substance. (114) Both of these men were schismatics, though apparently Hippolytus was reconciled to the church before his death.
Dynamic monarchianism
Next we turn to those who are more typically regarded as having heretical views of the Godhead.  Dynamic monarchianism, also known as adoptionism, is the idea that Jesus was a mere man who was filled with God's spirit.  The earliest proponent of this seems to be Theodotus of Byzantium in the late 2nd century. (116)  He was excommunicated, but others followed in his wake, notably Paul of Samosata, who was condemned for these teachings in AD 268. (117)
Modalistic monarchianism
Now we come to perhaps the best known of the early trinitarian heresies, modalistic monarchianism, commonly known today as simply modalism.  It was influential during its own time as well, and may have even gained some sympathy from a couple third-century popes.
Kelly suggests that some opponents of Justin Martyr held to this view, but identifies Noetus of Smyrna as its first formal proponent.  Noetus affirmed only one God, the Father, and apparently had no difficulty with patripassianism, the idea that the Father suffered and died on the cross. (121)  Another prominent proponent, Sabellius, refined the doctrine and cast it in language similar to that of economic trinitarianism, but continued to see the Son and Spirit as projections of the Father. (122)
Sabellius's contemporaries Tertullian and Hippolytus aggressively opposed this doctrine, and the dispute was far reaching.  Kelly writes that Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus both "sympathized with the widespread popular reaction against the theories of Hippolytus and Tertullian, which they regarded as leading to ditheism," while Hippolytus "considered Zephyrinus an out-and-out modalist." (123)  Kelly concludes that these popes, though sympathetic to modalism, were struggling to develop a compromise approach that would alleviate the dangers they saw in a concept of multiple "persons." (125)  And ultimately, Callistus excommunicated Sabellius. (121)
Origen's platonic trinitarianism
In the East, another strain of trinitarianism thought developed in the context of Platonism.  Origen saw each member of the Godhead as a "distinct hypostasis" from all eternity, going beyond the "economic" view of Tertullian and accepting the idea of eternal generation.  He is criticized for the "strongly pluralist strain" (131) in his trinitarianism, and some have considered him to be virtually a tritheist.  Subordination of the Son and Spirit is also prevalent in his scheme, and was emphasized by some of his followers (like Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in his fight against Sabellianism). (133)
In the early conflicts over Origen's trinitarianism, Kelly sees a precursor to the wider West–East conflict over the proper understanding of the Godhead.  Not merely a debate over terminology, he sees it primarily as theological dispute between the West's sympathy toward monarchianism and the East's more pluralistic approach. (136)
Conclusion
In this brief overview of "trinitarian" debates of the first three centuries, we see a variety of non-orthodox views but also a slow process of refinement that would finally culminate in the Arian controversy and the Councils of Nicea.  Given this progression it seems unfair to label all these thinkers as "heretics," even though they differed in various ways from trinitarianism.  Some clearly diverged from the developing orthodoxy, it's true, but the struggle to clearly communicate the ideas of God's threeness and oneness burdened the church's greatest thinkers of those years, and they didn't get the opportunity to reevaluate their views in light of Nicea.


How did Jesus reconcile his teachings with Judaism?

Clearly Jesus described himself as being within Judaism and not opposing or superceding it. Matt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."

Perhaps the easy answer to your question is to turn it around: What did Jesus ever do or say that contradicted the Hebrew scriptures? What did he say that needed to be reconciled? He never said that he was abolishing Judaism. He never said anything that contradicted anything in the Hebrew scriptures. He routinely quoted scripture to back up his statements, and as I quoted above, he affirmed the scriptures.

Yes, he claimed to be the Messiah and God made flesh, and if that was not true , he was the worst of blasphemers. But if it was true, then he was fulfilling the scriptures.


Religious Offshoots of Christianity Ranked by Population

This is the most comprehensive survey (dated December, 2011) that I could find.  You will need to examine this lengthy report yourself for more detailed information but the following extracts may be useful:

  About half of all Christians worldwide are Catholic (50%), while more than a third are Protestant (37%). Orthodox communions comprise 12% of the world’s Christians. Other Christian groups, which make up the remaining 1%, include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Christian Science Church.   Muslims, the second-largest group, make up a little less than a quarter of the world’s population  http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-traditions/

The following link provides information on how Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and other denominations are categorised: http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-traditions/#defining

Here is a brief statistical summary from the findings within this report:

  Total Christian Population Worldwide:  2.184 billion (31.7% of world population)

  Of which:  Catholic    50.1%
          Protestant  36.7%
          Orthodox    11.9%
          Other       1.3%

  Within Protestantism:
  305 million Charismatics
  279 million Pentecostals
  285 million Evangelicals

  Largest Distinct Protestant Denominational Families:
          Anglican (11%)
          Lutheran (10%)
          Baptist (9%)
          Reformed/Presbyterian (7%)

  Total Muslim Population Worldwide: 1.6 billion (23.4% of world population)

Certainly, this report gives "ballpark" estimates about the largest groups within Christianity.  It is possibly the most detailed and comprehensive survey available, even though these statistics are 8 years old.  I hope this helps you.


Where can I find a simple but complete taxonomy of churches?

Perhaps too detailed for your needs but this one is amazing:

The full-quality version loads dynamically here.


What are the reasons for the Catholic Church's term "ecclesial community?"

Put simply, the Nicene Creed states a belief in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church," and the concept of an apostolic church (i.e., one in the apostolic succession as the Roman Catholic Church defines it, in which each bishop is ordained in an unbroken line reaching back to the Apostles) is key to which churches are capital-C Churches according to the Roman Catholic Church and which are ecclesial communities.

Cf. Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, June 29, 2007 | CDF:

  FOURTH QUESTION

  Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term
  “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full
  communion with the Catholic Church?

  RESPONSE

  The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term.
  “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and
  above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and
  the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very
  close bonds”, they merit the title of “particular or local
  Churches”, and are called sister Churches of the particular
  Catholic Churches.

This category covers the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and a handful of smaller groups such as the Church of the East in which the RCC recognizes a valid line of Apostolic succession and more-or-less "correct" sacraments, but nevertheless are not in communion with Rome.

  FIFTH QUESTION

  Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the
  Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian
  Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

  RESPONSE

  According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy
  apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore,
  deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial
  Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the
  sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral
  substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic
  doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

The classic example of one of these bodies would be the Anglican Communion, which considers itself a church in the Apostolic Succession but for a variety of reasons, including the sacramental form/intent of ordination, is considered an ecclesial community by the Vatican.

However, "ecclesial" means "pertaining to church," and it seems strange that "ecclesial communities" translates to "church communities" but ecclesial communities are not "Churches" under the Roman understanding. It would appear the difference is one of degree; as the response to the Fourth Question above notes, the capital-C Churches have a similar understanding of the sacraments, the apostolic succession, the priesthood, and the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ despite not being in full communion with Rome, while the answer to the Fifth Question points out that the Reformation churches specifically have a much different understanding of the sacraments, the apostolic succession/priesthood, and the Eucharist in addition to lacking communion with Rome. In other words, the RCC recognizes any Trinitarian baptism performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and it is clear groups of people baptized under a Trinitarian formula deserve to be recognized as something, but not as a traditional capital-C Church in the same sense as it recognizes the Eastern Orthodox, et al.

The term "ecclesial community" can also refer to "ecclesial movements" (lay associations of the faithful) like Communion & Liberation, Opus Dei, Neocatechemenal Way, etc.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses interpret verses like Isaiah 9:6 which call the messiah 'God'?

Jesus can be referred to as “a god” even though he is not God Almighty for the following reasons:

http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001729?q=ps+82%3A6&p=par#h=10...

The judges of Israel were called “gods”. At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were “gods” in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah.

Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1...again because he was a spokesman for God.

JESUS identified his role and his relationship with his father at John 10:31-36.  The Jews wanted to stone him. Jesus asked them why. THEY charged he was claiming to be a god, or claiming to be god (depending on the translation you use).  Jesus replied by reminding them that they (the judges of Israel) were called “gods” in scripture (and then reminded them that scripture cannot be nullified). (Jesus was quoting from Ps 82:1,6.) So since THE JUDGES OF ISRAEL WERE CALLED GODS themselves, how could they stone him just for saying he was GOD'S SON?

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1)."

Jesus, even though God's son could prophetically be called a Mighty God because he was:

a) Jehovah Gods spokesman (John 7:16,17)

b) Appointed to become judge to all those who lived on earth. (ACTS 10:42)

So, in summary, since Jehovah God referred to Moses and Israelite judges as "gods" in scripture, Jesus most certainly was a mighty god.


What is the origin of the tradition that priests had a rope tired around them when they went into the Holy of Holies?

Constable quotes Youngblood in this regard, here [Youngblood, Ronald F. Exodus. Everyman’s Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983, p.128]The "popular Jewish interpretation" regarding the rope may or may not have any validity--the thought being that if the priest were to stop moving about for a long time, the bells would be silent and the silence would indicate the priest fainted or even died as a punishment by the LORD for having done something impious. The Levites could then drag the priest out of the holy place.

Even the purpose of the bells which were attached to the priestly robes may not have been to signal the Levites that all was well with the priest who was in the holy place to minister before the LORD. As Youngblood suggests, however, the purpose of the bells could just as easily have been an aural reminder to the priest and his attendants that something sacred was being enacted in the holy place, and they should not minister carelessly or impiously. From Exodus 28:

  [The bells] shall be on Aaron when he ministers; and his tinkling [sound] shall be heard when he enters and leaves the holy place before the LORD, so that he will not die (v.35).

One thing is certain: The protocols attached to the worship of the LORD came directly from God to Moses. The protocols were therefore God's, not man's. To take them lightly or to enact them carelessly was tantamount to holding God in contempt by impugning his character and his commands.

The LORD wanted and rightly expected his servants to hold him in the highest esteem. Anything less than that would be an insult to his matchlessly holy character. Frequent reminders of these concepts, such as the tinkling of bells attached to priestly vestments, served to keep the Levites and priests on their toes and in the right frame of mind as they ministered before the LORD God on behalf of Israel.


According to the Catholic Church, is practicing spiritism moral?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a paragraph specifically referenced as "Spiritism — forbidden" in its index, and which unequivocally and categorically condemns the practice of spiritism.

  2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others — even if this were for the sake of restoring their health — are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.


Were there any OT prophecies that Jesus should be a wood-working carpenter

No. I researched exactly this when working on this answer. This is not mentioned in the Old Testament.


According to Reformed theology, is teaching a false Trinitarian concept considered blasphemy?

These are only limited or weak examples of analogy for Trinity. They are not called as heresy by scholars. Trinity is accepted as mystery by vast majority when it comes to rational explanation. We too must not stretch the emphasis on rational explanation as to condemn the imperfect analogies as heresies. The 3 forms of H2O analogy may be misunderstood as Modalism but it can also be taken as same divine nature of the three persons. It does not necessarily imply Modalism.

We should admit that an analogy is only an analogy which only expresses a limited resembles of the doctrine ; and all analogies would come short of completely describing it perfectly.


God is love, pure, and all good, and omnipotent?

The assertion that God's omniscience, omnipresence, and omnificence somehow means that God must be everything is false.  God's omniscience means God knows all things.  God's omnipresence means that God is everywhere present.  God's omnificence means that He has all creative power.  None of these mandate that God must be both love and evil.

God is certainly not everything.  He is holy--not unholy.  He is just--not unjust.  He is good--not evil.  He is infinite--not finite.

God is truly indescribable, though, in that He cannot be completely defined by words.  Indeed, I'm not sure any person could be completely described by words, even as finite as we are.

God created the physical universe of time, space, and matter, so He is completely outside of those things--beyond space, beyond time, and matter--and is not limited by those things.  Yet, again, that does not mean He is everything--or everyone.  He is only Himself and not His creation.

As an aside, hate is often misunderstood as the opposite of love.  However, apathy seems to be a better candidate for this.  The fact that one does not love a particular person does not necessarily mean he hates the person.  He may not know the person at all, so he would be apathetic towards him.


Did Judas Iscariot participate in the First Holy Eucharist?

The short answer seems to be yes.

Does the Catholic Church categorically teach that Judas Iscariot participated in the First Eucharist instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper?

The short answer is that there is room to doubt, but the Church tends to think that Judas Iscariot was present, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John Chrysostom both say yes to this question.

Dr. Taylor Marshall explain it this way:

  Did Our Lord give the Holy Eucharist to Judas Iscariot at the Last Supper and First Mass? Saint John Chrysostom explains the Apostolic Tradition that Christ did indeed give the Holy Eucharist to Judas Iscariot:

    Judas was not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries. Hence on both sides his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued with such a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because he became none the better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit received, nor from the honor conferred on him.” – Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 82 on Matthew

  Saint Dionysius* says (Eccl. Hier. iii) and Saint Augustine (Tract. lxii in Joan.) also confirm that Judas received the Holy Eucharist.

  What is the theological significance? Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:

    And this would have been quite proper [to refuse Judas the Eucharist], if the malice of Judas be considered. But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church’s prelates might have an example for doing the like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning.
    This reveals that secret sinners continue to receive the Holy Eucharist. But this begs the question. What about public sinners? The Chruch Fathers and Saint Thomas Aquinas say that public sinners should not be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist. For Saint Augustine’s take, see Summa theologiae III q. 80, a. 6.

  Did Judas Iscariot Receive the Holy Eucharist?


If baptism cleanses original sin then why do the children of baptised parents still need to be baptised?

According to the Catholic Church (Council of Trent's Decree Concerning Original Sin):

this sin of Adam…in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation [of the parents' vices, bad example, etc.], is in each one as his own

St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica I-II q. 81 a. 1 ("Whether the first sin of our first parent is contracted by his descendants, by way of origin?") c. describes how original sin propagates:

…granted that some bodily defects are transmitted by way of origin from parent to child, and granted that even some defects of the soul are transmitted in consequence, on account of a defect in the bodily habit, as in the case of idiots begetting idiots; nevertheless the fact of having a defect by the way of origin seems to exclude the notion of guilt, which is essentially something voluntary. Wherefore granted that the rational soul were transmitted, from the very fact that the stain on the child's soul is not in its will, it would cease to be a guilty stain binding its subject to punishment; for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5), "no one reproaches a man born blind; one rather takes pity on him."
Therefore we must explain the matter otherwise by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first parents; even as in civil matters, all who are members of one community are reputed as one body, and the whole community as one man. Indeed Porphyry says (Praedic., De Specie) that "by sharing the same species, many men are one man." Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, are as so many members of one body. Now the action of one member of the body, of the hand for instance, is voluntary not by the will of that hand, but by the will of the soul, the first mover of the members. Wherefore a murder which the hand commits would not be imputed as a sin to the hand, considered by itself as apart from the body, but is imputed to it as something belonging to man and moved by man's first moving principle. In this way, then, the disorder which is in this man born of Adam, is voluntary, not by his will, but by the will of his first parent, who, by the movement of generation, moves all who originate from him, even as the soul's will moves all the members to their actions. Hence the sin which is thus transmitted by the first parent to his descendants is called "original," just as the sin which flows from the soul into the bodily members is called "actual." And just as the actual sin that is committed by a member of the body, is not the sin of that member, except inasmuch as that member is a part of the man, for which reason it is called a "human sin"; so original sin is not the sin of this person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the "sin of nature," according to Eph. 2:3: "We…were by nature children of wrath."

Thus, a child's parents being virtuous or not has no bearing on whether the child inherits original sin or not. For everyone—except Jesus incarnate Himself and His Blessed Virgin Mother, who was preserved from original sin by a special privilege*—belonging to the human race alone makes one contract original sin.
*cf. Council of Trent and Ineffabilis Deus


As a KJV Onlyer I guess I can at least answer what my view is. I go a little stronger than the only English translation. I believe it is the Word of God for this generation. To try to concisely answer the reasons for that view:

Psalm 12:6-7 says that God has promised to preserve His Word unto all generations.
Inspiration without preservation doesn't make sense
If God promised to preserve it to all generations, then at any generation in time there is a place you can turn to get God's Word. In the days of Moses and the Prophets it was in the Hebrew Scriptures, in the days of the Apostles and Acts it was in Greek. In the time of the early church it was in Syriac, etc.
Based on the method of translation, the manuscripts that went into the translation, how God used the translation, the fact that God has allowed English to be a major language across the world today, etc, I believe that English is the language in which you find the pure Word of God today and that it is found in the King James Bible.

EDIT:
I didn't answer the question of how common these views are. That I think is hard to say. It is a popular belief amongst the churches and pastors I fellowship the most with. It is by no means held by everyone I fellowship with. Having said that, I am sure it is a minority view in what in general is referred to as "Christianity" today (just take a look at any "Christian" bookstores Bible section, the KJV is one of the smallest and generally not prominently displayed.)

Another KJO view (the one you mention) is that the King James is the Bible in English (I would say that this is not really KJO but KJO-In-English). I believe that most who hold that view, hold it because of the manuscripts that were used for the translation (the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic text), since all other modern English translations use a different text.


According to Catholics, what is the law placed within the Israelite in the New Covenant?

Here's what the Catholic Haydock Commentary says about those verses:

Ver. 31. Covenant. That made with the captives was not such. Their covenant is grown old, and at an end, as St. Paul shews, Hebrews viii. 8. They were not indeed divided, as they had been, Ezechiel xxxvii. 16.
Ver. 32. Dominion. As a husband, (Hebrew; Calmet) or "Lord." (Haydock) --- "I despised them." (Septuagint) (Hebrews viii.)
Ver. 33. Heart. They were more docile after their return: yet still their service was very imperfect and forced. How many false traditions were received, at the coming of Christ! This of course, regards his disciples.
Ver. 34. Lord. Christ himself came to instruct mankind. The true God was better known than ever, even by the illiterate. Yet God requires us to have recourse to men, in order to know his truths, as St. Paul was sent to Hananias, and the eunuch to Philip. [Acts viii., and ix.] (Haydock) --- The apostles were enlightened by the Holy Ghost, (John vi. 45.; St. Augustine, de Spir.; Calmet) who still guides the flock by his pastors. The private spirit is too fanatical and delusive. (Haydock) --- The most ignorant shall easily become acquainted with the truths of salvation. External preaching is requisite, though of little use unless grace touch the mind and the heart. (Tirinus) --- All will hear successively, (Haydock) or embrace the gospel at the same time, for several years before the last day. (Houbigant, pref. in Prop. 356) (Isaias xi. 9., and xlv. 23., and Sophonias iii. 9., &c.) (Haydock)


What is the case for interpreting the Genesis creation account literally?

The short version is that there are many places in the Bible that quote/reference the creation account in the book of Genesis literally (Exodus 16:16, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, Leviticus 23:3, Deuteronomy 5:13, Luke 13:14, etc).

The most obvious is the "reasoning" given for the 4th Commandment:

  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God .. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day

Furthermore, death was not introduced into creation until Adam sinned (Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 5:12, 8:20-22). Without death, you cannot have fossils.

The first of the genealogies of the Bible, which starts with the first man (Adam) and goes through Noah, is given in concrete years of the age of the father when the son was born. While I suppose you could elect to say that the first 5 days of creation were figurative, certainly from day 6 on is distinctly not figurative - otherwise the reckoning of Adam's age at the birth of Seth would be irrational.


What is the biblical basis for the argument against the Catholic teaching on the primacy of Peter?

The term 'Primacy of Peter' is primarily a Catholic term and comes highly loaded - in it's normal usage, it is inextricably linked to and fundamentally inseparable from the institution of the Papacy. It is worth noting that the original meaning of Primate is:

  one first in authority or rank (source, emphasis added)

While Protestants generally do not deny that Peter was a principal leader in the early church and that Christ specifically gave him responsibility to shepherd the flock, for them to use the term 'Primacy of Peter' to describe this - given the Catholic use of the term - would be highly unusual, and probably a signal that they are looking to leave their current church polity, and submit themselves to the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

The Protestant view regarding the limitations of Peter's role really does hinge on the interpretation of the Matthew passage. Clearly a 'Rock' on which the Church will be built carries immense significance. As important as Peter was in the life of the early church, he eventually died and his legacy in terms of contribution to scriptural canon and role in establishing, nurturing and leading the early churches, seems much on a par with James ("the just", author of the epistle that bears his name, the Bishop of Jerusalem according to tradition, the "brother" of the Lord, not to be confused with either of the two James who were amongst the 12 disciples) and the Apostle John, and significantly less than that left by the Apostle Paul. From this, (ie with the benefit of hindsight) it doesn't seem that the significant terminology of the 'Rock on which I will build my church' accurately describes Peter's personal effect and ministry towards the early church: If the Rock is so important, it either must be pointing beyond the man to the actual role he supposedly embodied (ie a papal system of some kind), or be about something else again.

The case that the latter option should be preferred, is quite strong in consideration of the principle 'scripture interprets scripture': ie if we examine all the scriptures that speak to ecclesiological issues, do we see such a pivotal role as a pope (or a one-of-a-kind primate in Peter) given an important emphais? The answer is an emphatic no!

I will not reproduce all relevant scriptures, but will refer to one of the most significant in terms of this particular argument:

  19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. - Ephesians 2:19-21 NIV

This is clearly taking about the church and it's establishment. In my view, the only way for someone to interpret this particular passage as being consistent with a papacy or even 'the Primacy of Peter' is to employ eisegesis to twist the scripture. On the other hand, if we use this passage to help interpret Matthew 16:18 particularly noting that the Prophets gave revelation concerning the Christ to come, while the Apostles bore witness to him and using 'Christ as cornerstone' as a key to guide us, the interpretation of the confession of Jesus as the Christ being what is referred to as the rock is eminently preferable. In fact, this is the only valid choice to be made if we are operating on the basis of harmonizing scripture.

A final scripture reference to refute the concept of a Primate as being compatible with biblical ecclesiology:

  25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” - Matthew 20:25-28 NIV

As soon as you start naming someone as a 'Primate', you are transgressing this instruction, which is why the early Bishops of Rome were loathe to adopt the formula regarding their office that was used by later successors:

  "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren." - Pope Gregory 'the Great' - see related question.


Did any Church Fathers write anything about mental illnesses?

Perhaps, but not as psychology might understand it today. Mental illness was generally thought to be caused by demonic possession, or by some sort of spiritual shortcoming like falling to temptations or passions. There was of course no thought of a biological basis for mental illness like a chemical imbalance.
Mark 5:1-20
Mark 5:1-20 tells the story of Jesus exorcising a man who had an "unclean spirit," who was constantly crying out and self-harming(!) "cutting himself with stones." The demons asked to be cast into a nearby swine instead, and Jesus does this; subsequently, "about two thousand" pigs ran into the sea. (Bible text)
In the comments to the question, Lesley lamented that it would be difficult to corral Church Fathers on any particular verse. Luckily, I came across a great collection of commentary on Mark on Google Books. (Full disclosure: I discovered this book while looking for sources for the quotations collected in the wonderful Catena app.) It is heartening to read the commentary on this text, for the Church Fathers emphasize Jesus' compassion for the man possessed by demons:

[The man possessed by demons] asked for respite, without deception, in his anguish, and our Lord in his kindness granted this request. His compassion for the demoniac is a rebuke to the demons, showing how much anguish his love suffers in desiring that humans should live.

--St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise

You energumens, afflicted with unclean spirits, pray, and let us all earnestly pray for them, that God, the lover of humankind, through Christ, may rebuke the unclean and wicked spirits, and deliver the faithful from the dominion from the adversary.

--Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
Acedia
It's unlikely that you will find the Church Fathers talk about depression or anxiety using those words, but you do find references to acedia. Acedia has been defined as lack of care, a sort of spiritual listlessness. It was particularly dangerous to monks, Evagrius of Pontius thought; it lead to monks imagining themselves fantasizing about their former lives and other work. Acedia makes them at once restless and the days long, but also lazy and resentful of their fellow monks (source for long quotation):

First of all he makes it seem that the sun barely moves, if at all, and that the day is fifty hours long. Then he constrains the monk to look constantly out the windows, to walk outside the cell, to gaze carefully at the sun to determine how far it stands from the ninth hour [or lunchtime], to look this way and now that to see if perhaps [one of the brethren appears from his cell]. Then too he instills in the heart of the monk a hatred for the place, a hatred for his very life itself, a hatred for manual labor. He leads him to reflect that charity has departed from among the brethren, that there is no one to give encouragement. Should there be someone at this period who happens to offend him in some way or other, this too the demon uses to contribute further to his hatred.

The monastic John Cassian rendered acedia (perhaps more sympathetically) as "weariness or dejection of heart".
Other quotations
The aforementioned Evagrius of Pontius also wrote about sadness (I encourage you to read the whole thing):

"A prisoner of barbarians is bound in irons; a prisoner of the passions is bound with sadness. [...] One who is continuously afflicted by sadness but pretends to impassibility is like a sick person who feigns health. As a sick person is shown up by the colour of his complexion, so one who is caught in the passions is exposed by sadness. [...] The sunrise is pleasant for all people, but the soul caught in sadness takes scant pleasure even in this."

The 4th century St. Ephrahim the Syrian wrote a prayer, frequently recited during Great Lent, whose Slavonic version asks to take from us a spirit of despondency.
St. Luke, Archbishop of Crimea (1877-1961) wrote more about despondency, but perhaps not in a way that's very palatable to modern psychology, saying:

Despondency is a great danger that waylays a Christian on his path to Christ. It is a diabolical temptation. All the saints were subjected to these attacks from the spirits of darkness, and in the vast majority of cases, by prayer, fasting, and vigils Christians have conquered the spirit of despondency brought on by the devil.

Healing
For an excellent reconciliation of the Church Fathers and our modern understanding of psychology and therapy, see here:

The Church Fathers taught that healing takes determination and resolve. St. Gregory of Sinai, for example, noted: “We energize [virtues] according to our resolve ...” Some of the Fathers taught that determination arises from the incensive power of the soul. St. Nikitas Stithatos wrote: “Our incensive power ... serves as a weapon” that provokes determination and resolve and thus is in accord with the will of God. He continued: “When our desire and our intelligence, in a way that accords with nature, aspire to what is divine, then our intensiveness is for both of them a weapon of righteousness ...” (Philokalia IV). For the Christian efficacy is not only “self efficacy” but ‘God-empowered efficacy.’ The words of the psalmist come to mind: “He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Almighty, will say to the Lord, ‘My refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust.’ For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence …” (Ps 90:1–3). The Christian can follow the spiritual wheat that was gleaned from our holy western Church Father, the Blessed Augustine: “Pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on us.”xi
The efficacy of the therapeutic synergy of clinical science and the healing mysteries of Christ is our trust and dependency on the living God who sustains and governs all that occurs in the universe.


How do Congregationalists explain 1st Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5?

Christians who consider each congregation to have no higher authority structures than its own elders or ministers do not think that these verses suggest anything else. These were new churches, having just been started by Paul and his associates, but without sustainable endemic leadership, so they needed to be kickstarted by Timothy and Titus. Once they appointed the first generation of leaders in each congregation, those leaders would be responsible for appointing the next generation. Each generation teaching, training and appointing the next is the model given in 2 Timothy 2:2:

  And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. (NIV)

The same thing happens today when missionary church planters start new churches. At the beginning they will form the leadership, but the goal for many of these church planters is that the churches will become self-sufficient and self-governing. (Though not if they are planting churches for an existing denomination of course.)


How is sinning judged after accepting Christ?

Generally speaking, a sin is a sin, is a sin, whether or not the individual is a believer. The difference is that believers are forgiven and are accepted by God because they have Christ's righteousness "imputed" to them by faith. (See "Sola Fide," "Salvation by Grace through Faith").

Romans 3:23 is one text often offered as proof that, from a biblical perspective, all people are guilty of sin. Many denominations also teach that Christians necessarily continue to sin, even after they are saved (see Mat 5:21-30). (A notable exception to this is found in the Methodist doctrines of "Christian Perfection," taught by the Wesley brothers in the eighteenth century). Romans 7:13-25 is another text often offered as proof that believers continue to sin -- it is frequently interpreted as teaching that Paul recognized sin in himself, post-conversion. See also Romans 6.

The basic notion of forgiveness in Christianity is that all human beings are guilty of sin, and there is no way that we can earn our way into heaven by doing good deeds; once we've committed one sin, we're as guilty as if we had broken every law in the book (see James 2:10). In order to glorify himself, God has chosen to have mercy on some sinners and save them, but since he is perfectly just, someone had to be punished for the sins that had been committed by the people he chose to save, and that person could only be one that had not first incurred his own debt of sin. So, God punished sinless Christ, and -- without getting into doctrines like election, free will, universalism, monergism vs synergism, etc. -- he applied that atonement to believers, who are then seen "in Christ" as sinless and so are accepted by God.

One common point of confusion is the notion that "all sins are equal." There is a wide consensus that such is not the case, though there are those who will argue the point. A simple Google search on "are all sins equal" will return a wealth of results, so I won't elaborate further here, except to clarify the basic idea. (BTW, remember to consult only credible, verifiable sources, whichever perspective they advocate). While some sins are, in God's sight, worse than others, as soon as a person has committed one sin of any sort, they have become "unclean," and are permanently barred from heaven. God takes sin so seriously that all sin must be punished, and the punishment associated with any one sin is such that it could only be paid by Christ. That being said, it is possible for one person to incur a greater "sin debt" compared with another, but in any case, all sin is forgiven when one receives Christ. (Note that there is reference in the NT to something called the "unforgivable sin," which is a weighty and contentious doctrinal issue in and of itself).

See the Westminster Larger Catechism, questions 150 - 153.

Some denominations teach that a saved person can "backslide" and become involved in sin, and that such a person needs to be "restored." Other denominations teach that the presence of "significant," or ongoing, repetitive sin in one's life is a potential indication that one was not truly saved in the first place, since regeneration places the love of God in one's heart, and sin both angers & grieves God. Some teach that once a person is truly saved, he can never become "unsaved" (see "Perseverance of the Saints," "T.U.L.I.P."); others believe that it is possible for a person to "fall away" and "be restored" many times.

It is also commonly taught that the rewards that individual believers receive in heaven will be commensurate with the righteousness of the life they lived on earth. The most commonly referenced reward that I have heard about relates to the "number of cities" that one will rule over in heaven. Some also teach that there are varying degrees of punishment in hell. Some examples of passages that are offered by those who support such teachings are the parables at Luke 19:11-27 and Luke 12:47-48.

Addendum: I thought about this topic some more, and it brought to mind something called the "Lordship Salvation Controversy." It's been some time since I looked into this area of soteriology, but one thing that hasn't changed in the intervening years is the caustic nature of most of the internet discussions on the topic. (Btw, for times like these, it can be useful to bear in mind Paul's exhortation to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:22-26).

"Lordship salvation" refers to one doctrine that claims to describe specifically what God requires of his followers. The alternative doctrine is sometimes called "Non-Lordship Salvation," or, disparagingly, "easy believism." I don't feel qualified to attempt a concise summary of the issues, but here are some links that I've tried to vet for you. I encourage you to use caution in consulting the links that result from a "lordship salvation" internet search, as many of them seem to be filled with invective.

Some useful links:

I'm very familiar with the ministries of John Piper (Desiring God) and RC Sproul (Ligonier) . Both are well educated, compassionate men, with strong understandings of Reformed theology.

John Piper from Desiring God Ministries on Lordship Salvation. (Long list of scripture proofs).
Articles tagged "Lordship Salvation" in the Resources section of Ligonier Ministries' site.
Devotionals tagged "Lordship Salvation" in the Resources section of Ligonier Ministries' site.
More content from Ligonier.

Here's a site called "Monergism." Monergism is actually the name of a doctrine, and the site staunchly advocates in favor of their viewpoint, but does so in an intelligent way. In reviewing their extensive list of links on Lordship Salvation I recognized some credible names with historic significance.

Resources at Monergism.com.

I'm not particularly familiar with Theopedia. A quick look over their pages on Lordship Salvation and Non-Lordship Salvation throws up no immediate red flags. It looks like they link almost exclusively to contemporary teachers for their references, at least for this topic.

Theopedia entry for "Lordship Salvation."
Theopedia entry for "Non-Lordship Salvation."

And here's a link to a discussion from a few months ago (early 2012) that includes what looks like some intelligent comments on the issue:

PuritanBoard.com discussion on Lordship Salvation, Feb 2012.

Hope this doesn't seem overwhelming. There's probably enough resources in this post to get started on a dissertation! The teachings of RC Sproul and John Piper are normally very accessible, and a great place to start if you're new to a topic and like a Reformed perspective. Cheers.


How many bilateral covenants occur in the Bible?

Here is a list of the covenants which the Bible explicitly describes God making. It is possible that there are other covenants (such as with Adam), but the Bible does not use covenantal language to talk about them.

The Noahic covenant, which God made in Genesis 9:8-10 with all humans and land animals/birds, in which he promised to never again flood the earth
The Abrahamic covenant, which God made in Genesis 15:17-20 with Abram, in which he promises to give to Abram and his descendants the land of Canaan for ever
The Mosaic covenant, which God made in Exodus 19:3-8 with the people of Israel, in which he would take them to be his special people if they are faithful to him.

In a way the Mosaic covenant was made and remade a few times. Other important passages include the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the confirmation of the covenant in Exodus 24, the remaking of the covenant in Exodus 34 after the golden calf, and the confirmation of the covenant by the next generation in Deuteronomy

Phinehas' covenant, which God made in Numbers 25:12-13 with Phinehas and his descendants, in which he promises them peace and the priesthood

God made many exclusive promises to the priests in other places, but this is the first time that he makes a covenant with them

The Davidic covenant, which God made in 2 Samuel 7:8-16 (and called a covenant in 7:28) with David, in which he promises that one of David's descendants will always have the throne of Israel
The New Covenant, which God promised to make in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and which he did make through the death and resurrection of Jesus

There are a few references to the New Covenant in the NT, but not many. I would guess that covenants were an outdated cultural artefact by the time of the NT, so that covenantal language is one of the less common ways to talk about the gospel. But there still are some references to the New Covenant, particularly in Hebrews 8-9.


What is the Christian take on reincarnation?

Reincarnation is not an orthodox Christian idea. Resurrection is.1

The most long standing articulation of this belief among Christians can be found in the Nicene Creed:

  I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Nicene Christians (includes all mainstream traditions, excludes some sects) believe that we live once, die once, then are resurrected either to Heaven or Hell. Although there is the idea of a life different from the one we are living now, this eternal existence is quite different from the idea of living life again in the same or similar earthly context that is 'reincarnation'.

  Hebrews 9:27 (ESV)
  27  And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Outside of established historical Christianity the lines get a bit blurry. There are few topics (the nature of Jesus Christ aside) that have generated so many aberrant teachings as the nature of the resurrection of humans. There have been many direct challenges to this (e.g. Annihilationism's belief that some or all beings simply cease to exist) and even comprehensive variant systems (e.g. Mormonism's belief in other worlds and levels of being that can be attained) but I think it is more likely that your friend subscribes to some sort of post modern conflation of religions. There are a large number of folks using the name "Christian" who do not subscribe to it's historical tenets. Most commonly they reject the divinity of Christ and/or the inerrancy of Scripture. Seeing Jesus as only a good moral teacher rather than the Christ, there is no reason not to also pick and choose various doctrines from the worlds other popular religious systems. Enter karma, reincarnation, etc.

Scripture itself contains no support whatsoever for the idea of reincarnation. However in order to come to this conclusion about it you must first agree that it means something. If not just parts but all of it is to be considered true and words are believed to have meanings and the intent of the original authors is to be considered, nothing will support your friends case. However without those a priori assumptions, of course any number of small phrases may be plucked from their original contexts and presented in support of any number of philosophical ideas.

1 See this excellent answer on a related question: What's the difference between resurrection and reincarnation?