How does Western Christian theology explain the doctrine of the Filioque within the context of the Old Testament?

If I understand the question, it seems to be along the lines of "How can Jesus be the one who sends the Holy Spirit, when the Holy Spirit is sent in the Old Testament?"

There's two threads that help answer this.  The first is that Jesus is there in the Old Testament.  The second is that the Holy Spirit was only given to a select few in the Old Testament, not all the people.

Regarding the first thread or point, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God.  He is the same Word through whom God spoke everything into existence in Genesis 1; John makes this point in the opening of his Gospel.  Jesus is also the "angel of the Lord" who appears throughout the Old Testament.  The "angel of the Lord" is the Lord Himself, the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ; this is seen, for instance, in Genesis 22, Exodus 3, and the visit of the three men to Abraham in Genesis 18, one of whom Abraham calls "the Lord." So, Jesus was there in the first act of creation and is with his people throughout the Old Testament.

Regarding the second thread or point, in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit is only given to certain people, mainly the prophets (although the kings such as Saul, David, and Solomon also had the Holy Spirit, see for instance 1 Samuel 16:14 when the Spirit departs from Saul).  In fact, in Numbers 11:29, after the Lord takes some of the Spirit He had given Moses and gives the Spirit to the elders of Israel, Moses says, "Would that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!"  Then, in Joel 2:29, the Lord promises that He will one day pour out His Spirit upon "al flesh."  Peter connects this promise with Pentecost in Acts 2:17-18; this is, in the New Testament Church the Lord is fulfilling His promise to pour out His Spirit upon "all flesh."

Thus, owing to Christ's ascension back into heaven to take his seat at the right hand of the Father, the Holy Spirit is poured out on all believers, not just the select few as in the Old Testament.  This is visually seen in Revelation 5 when John sees Christ, the Lamb "with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth" (Rev. 5:6).  These "seven spirits" symbolize the Holy Spirit who Christ sends in fulfillment of the longing of Moses, the promise of the Lord through Joel, and Christ's own promises (cf. John 14:26, 15:26).

I think the Filioque is just trying to get across the point that the Holy Spirit is sent to all believers due to Christ's ascension as well as stress the essential divine unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  They are "one God in three persons."  The Son does the Father's will and together they send the Holy Spirit to witness to Christ and bring people to faith.


Why is faith so much more important than being a good person?

Who says that faith plays a more important role? As James 2:26 reminds us, "faith without works is dead."

Faith plays a greater role than works in salvation (at the point of "getting saved") simply because none of our works were good enough before God to earn us righteousness. So by faith alone we are saved when we trust Jesus for righteousness.

Then works start to play a significant role as they line up with one's profession of faith. Without works, our faith will be a mere intellectual practice; but God is a God of love and wants to express Himself through those who profess faith in Him, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is on God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7). And so the epistles (and Jesus) encourage good works.

In the end, at the judgment seat, we will be rewarded according to our works (Matthew 25:14-30, the Parable of the Talents). Those works will be an expression of our heart and faith life.


Is God more just than he is love? (Catholic perspective)

St. Thomas Aquinas (Catholic perspecitve) tells us that within God, all His 'attributes' have to be, within Himself, identical. Due to divine simplicity.

Here are my personal thoughts, as a Catholic, in contemplating these two sides of God: the just and the merciful.

I think the issue of the relationship between love and justice.

Firstly, love is to want to do what is good. Justice is to ensure that evil is not done, and that goods are encouraged or supported. Anything which offends or diminishes the morally good state of something or someone is evil and against justice.

Love wants good to be done; and evil not to be done. This means that it wants justice to be done—because justice is that which upholds good and punishes or diminishes evil. Justice being done is love being excercised,in other words.

But justice being a good in itself, and caused by love, implies a certain 'concession' of itself in certain cases. That is, if doing justice would offend the main goals of love, or the greater priorities thereof, then the punishment of justice might serve a purpose contrary to love. In this case, God delays or moves His justice elsewhere, which is called mercy. The example reason mercy is given might be that to give immediate justice might not result in the same love being shown, whereas delaying justice might foster a sense of gratefulness etc,and ultimate conversion.

The sole reason God forgives and does not condemn us all to Hell for any sin ("the wages of sin is death"—to sow sin is to reap Hell), is purely on the basis of the merits of Jesus Christ, who freely took our punishment upon Himself. He satisfied justice due to sin perfectly, and since He did not Himself need any merit, He freely gave us it as a gift. The gift of redemption.

It's for this reason also that if you deny the Son, you cut yourself off from the only source of mercy God can or will offer you! The residents of Hell sent themselves there by losing the fight with justice, who will always win, because it's good that it does. God states Himself that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would have them turn from their wicked ways and live. Calvinist nonsense notwithstanding.

SO love and justice are one and the same within God, we simply describe soemthing like a back and forth motion in God as 'mercy' and 'justice'. But love is what is being achieved overall, and always without exception.

  Psalm 136:1

  Praise the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.

God's mercy endures forever, because He is love, and will always be love.


What is the nature of the theory for Pope Joan and the evidence that substantiates it?

Most scholars dismiss this is as fiction.  Indeed the Catholic Encyclopedia brings up multiple variations on the story, each of which can be easily debunked.

Perhaps the most damning proof that this is a legend would stem from the fact that nobody - including enemies at the time - ever made such accusations. From Wikipedia:

  It is also notable that enemies of the papacy in the 9th century make no mention of a female pope. For example, Photios I of Constantinople, who became Patriarch in 858 and was deposed by Pope Nicholas I in 863, was an enemy of the pope. He vehemently asserted his own authority as patriarch over that of the pope in Rome, and would have made the most of any scandal of that time regarding the papacy; but he never mentions the story once in any of his voluminous writings. Indeed, at one point he mentions "Leo and Benedict, successively great priests of the Roman Church".

This book is a book dedicated entirely to dealing with all the variations on the story, and debunking each.


Are there other explanations of ”right hand” than masturbation (Matthew 5:30)?

Let's look at the narrow context:

  Adultery

  27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit
  adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman
  lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If
  your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.
  It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole
  body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to
  stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose
  one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 5:28 obviously states that an adulterous thought or look is a sin in itself.

Now, an act is of greater significance than thought. Masturbation is an act in line with adulterous thought, furthermore, it implies it most of the time.

I don't know if 'the right hand' had an implication in Hebrew as it does in Croatian (I don't even know if it has a sexual implication in English), so I won't take that as an implication forbidding masturbation.

The whole passage is also a very cautious one. It encourages you to take measures to prevent yourself from sinning. In light of that, we can also conclude you shouldn't masturbate, at least as a precaution since you are having doubts if it is sinful.

If you aren't just interested in Matthew 5, Genesis 38:8-10 clearly implies sexual acts against nature (not leading to procreation), such as masturbation and contraception are sinful.

However, that is just my opinion, so I'll leave you with something of actual worth.
The Catholic Church's binding teaching (not defined here, but condensed in the CCC):

  CCC 2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate
  stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.
  "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant
  tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt
  and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and
  gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty,
  for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to
  its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the
  sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which
  the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the
  context of true love is achieved."

Here is also the passage on contraception:

  2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation
  based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in
  conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods
  respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them,
  and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every
  action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its
  accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences,
  proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation
  impossible" is intrinsically evil:

  > Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by
  an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving
  oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive
  refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner
  truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in
  personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and
  moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle .
  . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the
  human person and of human sexuality.

I encourage you to read the context in the Catechism.


What is God waiting for before He ends the world?

Actually, the Bible does have quite a direct answer to the question What is God waiting for?

  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

  Matthew 24:14 (KJV)


Oftentimes, the simplest answer is the correct one.  So here's the obvious answer:  He spoke and wrote in Hebrew because he was dealing with Hebrew-speaking people at the moment.  Had God spoken to them in English, Latin, or Chinese, they would not have understood him!

God, being omniscient, knows all human languages.  This means that he has no trouble communicating with the Hebrews in Hebrew, or with you and me in whatever our native tongues may be.  So why make it more difficult than it has to be, especially given people's tendency to get his commandments all wrong even when they're spelled out in perfect plainness?

There's a parallel to be found in the Day of Pentecost, where the Gift of Tongues was dramatically made manifest as the Apostles preached their sermon.  People from a wide variety of nations and regions were present, and all heard the sermon in their own language.  But remember that these were people who had traveled to Jerusalem.  It's not at all unreasonable to assume that most of them knew at least enough Hebrew (or whatever language was commonly in use at Jerusalem at the time) to get by.  And yet, the Lord gave them the message in the language that they were most familiar with, to facilitate effective communication.


How do adherents to inerrancy reconcile the fact that some part of the bible were added later?

The belief in biblical inerrancy does not require that the copies or translations of the Bible be completely inerrant.  It is generally accepted that:

(1) Copies are subject to human error

(2) Translations are subject to human interpretation

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the original manuscripts are inerrant.  Unfortunately, we do not have many original manuscripts (if we have any), so we study the copies that we have, compare them, and try to determine the text of the original manuscripts.  We may not be able to do so perfectly, and areas of ambiguity are often noted in modern Bibles (John 8, Mark 16).

However, it stands to reason that we have a reasonably accurate representation of the original manuscripts, with the essentials preserved.


The exact value of a "Sabbath day's walk" is 2,000 cubits, which works out to about 5/8 of a mile, or one kilometer.  Commentator Craig S. Keener explains the logic and biblical basis:

  The figures were natural extrapolations from Exod 16:29 (one must not leave one's place on the Sabbath) and Num 35:5 (identifying one's place as 2,000 cubits square) [Acts, v1, p735]

Numbers 35:5 in particular reads:

  And you shall measure, outside the city, on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits, the city being in the middle. This shall belong to them as pastureland for their cities. [ESV]

Keener confirms that the 2,000 cubit figure matches what we know of the geography of Jerusalem.  He also argues that Luke knew this was the value used by the Pharisees, as recorded in later rabbinic tradition, such as the Mishnah:

  On that day, Rabbi Akiva expounded [the verse], (Numbers 35:5) "You shall measure outside the city on the eastern outskirts, two thousand cubits..." (Numbers 35:5) [...] , and another verse says (Numbers 35:4) "... from the wall of the city and outward, 1000 cubits around."  [...] One-thousand cubits is for the open land, and two thousand cubits is the Sabbath border [the distance one can travel from the city on Sabbath]." (Mishnah Sotah, 5:3)


Are the notions of good and evil different in Christianity and Islam?

This is from the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) entry on Islamic Law (sharia):

  Islam is a lay theocracy. God is head of
  the Islamic community. God alone legislates, and His
  will is carried out by the community of believers. The law
  is what God has made known to the community of believers through revelation to the Prophets (among whom are Moses and Jesus), the last of whom is Muhammad, ‘‘seal
  of the Prophets.’’ The prophets are the obedient instruments of the revelation, passing it on intact to the believing community. In its broadest sense, the law
  encompasses articles of belief, regulating man’s relation to God (religion), as well as rights and obligations regulating man’s relation to his fellow man (law).

  The law is found in scripture and tradition; i.e., in the Quran, which is the sacred
  book of Islam, and in the Tradition of the Prophet Muhammad. God’s revelation ceased with the death of the Prophet.

  A Muslim submits to the law as a precept of faith (the literal meaning of Islām is ‘‘submission’’); in so doing he fulfills his duty toward God. ... Disobedience to the law is a sin committed against God, not only an infringement of the legal order.

  Liberty is the starting point of the law. This is illustrated by the five categories under which the actions and omissions of men are classified: (1) obligatory, (2) recommended, (3) permissible, (4) disapproved, (5) forbidden.

  But liberty cannot be absolute, lest it destroy itself. So the
  function of the law is to set limits on this liberty so as to
  guide it towards the benefit of the individual and society. Good and evil are defined by the law, that is, by God. It is divine voluntarism that characterizes Islamic law; there
  is no question of natural law as a ‘‘supreme reason existing in God,’’ inscribed in the very nature of things. In Islam, there is no question of positive law subordinating itself to divine law and respecting its dictates; they are
  both the same: Islamic positive law is a divine positive law.

  The study of the law became the most respected of all endeavors, assuming a position commensurate with its object: it enabled the community to fulfill the divine precept
  (Qur’ān 3:106) that it ‘‘promote the good and repress evil.’’

Meanwhile, regarding the Catholic doctrine of evil, the same encyclopedia states:

  ‘‘Evil’’ can be defined as that which opposes, or is
  the antithesis of, what is good. There is no precise articulation of the nature of evil in the creeds of the Church, nor is there any explicit or definitive Christian doctrine of evil.

  Traditionally, Christian theologians have referred to the Adamic Fall (Gn 3) for an understanding of the source of evil, the view that evil
  emerges from the misuse of human freedom. While this
  had been foreseen by God, the gift of freedom, nonetheless, was an essential and fundamental gift from God, one that distinguishes humanity from all other creatures and gives man alone the ability to choose good and evil.

  A common division of evil is that into
  metaphysical, physical, and moral. ... In contrast to physical evil, moral evil is that found in a rational and free nature as such. Properly the soul is
  its immediate subject, or more precisely, the will, with its
  power of obeying or disobeying the norms of moral conscience and the divine law. Moral evil is therefore a privation of rectitude required by the natural law, a privation affecting a free will, which through its own fault lacks a
  perfection it ought to have (De malo 2.1–2). ... [M]oral evil results
  from the voluntary activity of an agent who, in depriving
  himself of a perfection to which he is obliged by nature,
  inflicts upon himself a self-mutilation.

With these two texts in mind, and declaring outright my highly incomplete understanding of the topics at hand, there seems to be significant parallels between the two. Both see evil as an act of the will against God. The key difference is in the different degree of codification of these acts into law. Islam seems to have a greater number of religious laws defining evil acts than Christianity. As such, for Islam, the codification seems to be much more "rigid", up to the extent that the legal system must be fully defined by the religious law found in the Quran (and why countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and so on have legal laws strictly founded in religious law, like theocracies). Notice the same might be the case for some forms of Judaism. Conversely, in Christianity, there is no strict codification of evil acts to the extent of merging these with legal codes (even if this might have been the case in some Christian kingdoms in the past). Similarly, the list of things to be forbidden, derived directly from some written law, seem to be much less than that in Islam.


Do the Catholic Church ex cathedra pronouncements about necessity of Catholicism to be saved still apply?

When a Pope is Infallible
The First Vatican Council's Pastor Æternus said, under Pope Pius IX's authority, regarding papal infallibility:

…we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the
Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in
discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by
virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the
divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of
that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his
Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or
morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

Thus, the following critera must hold for a pope's statement to be ex cathedra:
He must:

speak for the whole Church,
invoke all his authority,
intend to definitively define dogma, and
speak regarding the faith and/or morals.

Particular Examples
For example, Pope Eugene IV did meet all these criteria in Cantate Domino (1442):

speaks for the whole Church: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches…"
invokes all his authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull.
intend to definitively define dogma: In this case, he is not defining anything new; he's only relaying what has been said before him (like in Unam Sanctam of 1302) regarding the necessity of the Church for salvation.
speak regarding the faith and/or morals: Yes. In this case, he speaks of both.

A similar analysis can be made for Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam (1302):

speaks for the whole Church: Bulls are addressed to the whole Church.
invokes all his authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull.
intend to definitively define dogma: "…we declare, we proclaim, we define…"
speak regarding the faith and/or morals: Yes. He speaks about what is necessary for salvation, which pertains to the faith.

Francis's statements do not meet these criteria.

speaks for the whole Church: This is unclear. Was he giving the homily only for those present in the Wednesday audience, or the whole Church? Certainly, modern media is able to make everything coming out of a pope's mouth sound like he's speaking for the whole Church.
invokes all his authority: Francis nowhere uses solemn language like, for example, Pope Pius XII used to declare the dogma of the Assumption of Mary into heaven in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950):

For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication
again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of
Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special
affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal
King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase
of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and
exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus
Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own
authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely
revealed dogma:
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul
into heavenly glory.
3. intend to definitively define dogma: Homilies have never been used to define dogma, nor did he express his intent to define dogma.
4. speak regarding the faith and/or morals: Yes, he was speaking about redemption.

Also, John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church is fallible because it contradicts previous Church teaching on some points. See this for an in-depth analysis.

Whether a Pope Making Erroneous or Heretical Statements is Compatible with the Church's Sanctity
The 4 marks of the Church are:

unity
sanctity
Catholic (universality)
apostolic

The first mark, unity, does not just mean a unity of the members of the Church today. It means there must be a continuity in the Church's teachings and dogma from the time Christ founded the Church until today.
The second mark of the Church, its sanctity, means the Church cannot teach error or lead one into error.
What about when a bishop does teach error or heresy? For example, Pope Honorius I is thought to have taught the monothelite heresy (that Christ only has one will) in a private letter (see this for the controversy), and St. Frances de Sales, in his The Catholic Controversy, considered the possibility that he was a formal heretic and, since heretics are outside the Church, thus also an anti-pope. It's worth quoting the beginning of The Catholic Controversy (pp. 305 f.), the chapter on "how ministers have violated their authority", which teaching influenced the First Vatican Council's definition on papal authority quoted above:

Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except
when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the
Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private
opinions, as did John XXII.; or be altogether a heretic as perhaps
Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso
facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must
either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his
Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did : Let another take his
bishopric. [Acts 1] When he errs in his private opinion he must be
instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so
far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life
concerning his opinion, that he died whilst he was making the
examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith,
as his successor [Pope Benedict XII] declared in the Extravagantes
which begins Benedictus
Deus. But when
he is clothed with the pontifical garments, I mean when he teaches the
whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then
there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king
says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king
and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or
of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law
for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form.

Also, the following passage from St. Vincent Lerins's The Commonitory is worth quoting in full, too; it gives the rules for how to deal with a bishop or priest teaching error or heresy: stick to tradition.

Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold
that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that
is truly and properly Catholic, as the very force and meaning of the
word shows, which comprehends everything almost universally. And we
shall observe this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.
We shall follow universality if we confess that one Faith to be true
which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if
we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is plain that
our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent if in antiquity itself
we eagerly follow the definitions and beliefs of all, or certainly
nearly all, priests and doctors alike.
What, then, will the Catholic Christian do if any part of the Church
has cut itself off from the communion of the Universal Faith? What
surely but prefer the soundness of the whole body to a pestilent and
corrupt member?
What if some novel contagion seek to infect the whole Church, and not merely a small portion of it? Then he will take care to cling to
antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any novel deceit.
What if in antiquity itself error be detected on the part of two or
three men, or perhaps of a city, or even of a province? Then he will
look to it that he prefer the decrees of an ancient General Council,
if such there be, to the rashness and ignorance of a few.
But what if some error spring up concerning which nothing of this kind
is to be found? Then he must take pains to find out and compare the
opinions of the ancients, provided, of course, that such remained in
the communion and faith of the One Catholic Church, although they
lived in different times and places, conspicuous and approved
teachers; and whatever he shall find to have been held, written and
taught, not by one or two only, but by all equally and with one
consent, openly, frequently and persistently, that he must understand
is to be believed by himself also without the slightest hesitation.

The Sedevacantist vs. Sedeplenist Debate in the Church Today
Sedevacantists (from the Latin sede vacante = "vacant chair") are Catholics who believe currently there is no pope. They generally consider John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis all anti-popes. They argue that since these men have proclaimed error and heresy in an official manner, they, as St. Francis de Sales said, ipso facto fall out of the Church. (St. Robert Bellarmine, doctor of the Church and "Master of Controversies," says the same.) What is no longer part of the body of the Church cannot be its head; thus, they are not real popes.
Sedeplenists argue that they are true popes. Although they sometimes agree these pope claimants teach error and heresy, sedeplenists do not consider them formal heretics because they judge them as lacking pertinacity in proclaiming error and heresy or as being invincibly ignorant. They say only a future pope or council can depose someone who could be an anti-pope.
There is also the material pope thesis, which essentially says these pope claimants are more like kings than popes.

The Church's Theological Notes or Qualifications
Listed below are the so-called theological notes and their associated censures from the table in Sixtus Cartechini, S.J.'s 1951 work De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Value of the Theological Notes), which confessors have used when dealing with erudite penitents. (It's also available in Italian translation.) The theological notes are a way of classifying the proximity of a theological proposition to revelation. (For a good history of the development of these notes, see The development of the theological censures after the Council of Trent: (1563-1709) by John Cahill, O.P.)
There is only room for "reasonable interpretative variation" in the lowest of the notes (#9 and #10). As Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis:

Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are
disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field;
but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to
discussion [e.g., the Immaculate Conception], no longer now admit of
discussion.

For the Immaculate Conception, the discussion ceased when Bl. Pope Pius IX defined it dogma in Ineffabilis Deus (1852).

Theological note: Dogma.
Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.
Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.
Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
Remarks: A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.
Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.
Remarks: It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.
Theological Note: Truth of Divine faith.
Equivalent term: De fide divina.
Explanation: A truth revealed by God but not certainly proposed as such by the Church.
Example: Christ claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messias.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in faith).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership. May incur a canonical penalty.
Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Theological Note: Theologically certain.
Equivalent term: Dogmatic fact; theological conclusion.
Explanation: A truth logically following from one proposition which is Divinely revealed and another which is historically certain.
Example: Legitimacy of Pope Pius XI.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in theology).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin against faith.
Theological Note: Catholic doctrine.
Equivalent term: Catholic teaching.
Explanation: A truth authentically taught by the Ordinary Magisterium but not as revealed or intimately connected with revelation.
Example: Invalidity of Anglican Orders; validity of Baptism conferred by heretic or Jews.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.
Remarks: The expression Catholic doctrine is sometimes applied to truths of a higher order also, but never of a lower one. In some cases the appropriate censure may be graver than "temerarious".
Theological Note: Certain.
Equivalent term: Common; theologically certain.
Explanation: A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.
Example: The true and strict causality of the sacraments.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Temerarious.
Effects of denial: Usually, mortal sin of temerity.
Remarks: Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition; since it is not completely impossible for all the theological schools to err on such a matter, although it would be highly unusual and contrary to an extremely weighty presumption.
Theological Note: Safe.
Explanation: Affirmed in doctrinal decrees of Roman Congregations.
Example: That Christ will not reign visibly on earth for a thousand years after Antichrist.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Unsafe/temerarious.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin of disobedience and perhaps imprudence.
Remarks: Exterior assent is absolutely required and interior assent is normally required, since, though not infallible, the Congregations possess true doctrinal authority and the protective guidance of the Holy Ghost.
Theological Note: Very common/commoner.
Explanation: The most solidly founded or best attested theological opinion on a disputed subject.
Example: Antichrist will be of the tribe of Dan.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.
Effects of denial: None.
Remarks: Very common or commoner opinions can be mistaken and there is no obligation to follow them though prudence inclines us to favour them as a general policy. It should be noted that an opinion which is "very common" is less well established than one which is "common" which implies moral unanimity of theological schools.
Theological Note: Probable.
Explanation: A theological opinion which is well founded either on the grounds of its intrinsic coherence or the extrinsic weight of authority favouring it.
Example: Judas received Holy Communion at the Last Supper. Judas did not receive Holy Communion at the Last Supper.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: None.
Effects of denial: None.
Remarks: The better founded of two conflicting opinions is referred to as more probable; but Catholics are free to prefer some other opinion for any good reason.


Historical origins of the doctrine of God's self glorification

Although I can clearly see its Biblical precedent, it seems to be a
question that was not explicitly addressed until the Reformation.

This "doctrine of self glorification" can actually be found in the earliest Judaic writings:

"I have fashioned this nation for Myself, they will relate my praise" (Isaiah 43:21)

and

"You are my servant, O Israel, through whom I will be glorified" (Isaiah 49:3)

The majority of Biblical scholars believe that the written books of the Torah were a product of the Babylonian captivity (c. 6th century BCE), based on earlier written sources and oral traditions, and that it was completed with final revisions during the post-Exilic period (c. 5th century BCE). The Hebrew religion out of which Judaism evolved, was polytheistic, becoming officially monolatrous during the late monarchy and monotheistic around the time of the Babylonian Exile.
This means that many of the oldest Torah texts were first written or finalized during the transition from polytheism to monotheism. Many echoes of the "struggle for supremacy" between these (usually city) deities can be found in the OT.
According to the available evidence, Israelite religion in its earliest form did not contrast markedly with the religions of its Levantine neighbours in either number or configuration of deities (See Mark S. Smith: The Early History of God). At some stage Yahweh joined the Israelite pantheon, possibly from Midian, where Egyptian records show that a god called YHW was worshipped. "Self-glorification" as witnessed in the texts of the OT is an obvious way to make Yahweh the top deity.
Yahweh (YHWH) was worshipped during the early, polytheistic centuries of Israel and Judah, although it is thought that Yahweh only entered Hebrew belief some time after the people became established as identifiable groups. So, Yahweh clearly was a polytheistic deity. The Canaanite father of the gods was El (Hebrew: Elohim), but Yahweh became the national god and then syncretised with El as one supreme God above all others. Evidence of this syncretization is easily found in the OT:

(Exodus 6:7)
Many verses take on a completely different meaning if you know of the polytheistic origin of Judaism:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:3)

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (Exodus 20:5)

Clearly these self-glorifying statements make more sense in a polytheistic context before Yahweh became the state deity.
One of the titles that Yahweh calls himself, "El Shaddai" (usually translated as the almighty) takes on a very different meaning in the aforementioned Midian origin of Yahweh:
The biblical account describes the Midianites as worshiping more than one deity, including both Baal-peor and Yahweh. Both of these deities are likewise described as being worshiped by the Israelites themselves, although Baal worship was supposedly forbidden to them. Scholars speculate that the worship of Yahweh may have actually begun among the Midianites and was later adapted by the Israelites. Supporting this theory is the fact that Exodus states that God was known as as El-Shaddai by the Israelites until Moses' encounter with Him at Sinai, after first meeting the Midianite priest Jethro and marrying into his family:

Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You
and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The
work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now
to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You
must be the people’s representative before God and bring their
disputes to him. 20 Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show
them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. (Exodus 18)

After this event we get Mozes' encounter, where Yahweh states:

(Exodus 6:3).
In conclusion, not only does self-glorification clearly predate the Reformation, but its origin is very likely strategical writing to ultimately establish an imported Yahweh as the state deity and to syncretize this deity with Elohim.


How do those who believe in a works or works + faith based salvation interpret Jesus' words to the criminal in Luke 23:43?

According to Emanuel Swedenborg, faith without works does not save a person
(Note: This section can be skipped by those who are interested only in the Swedenborgian interpretation of Luke 23:39-43. The purpose of this section is to establish that Swedenborg, and Swedenborgians, reject justification by faith alone, and believe that good works are also necessary for salvation.)
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) utterly rejected Martin Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone, commonly known as salvation by faith alone.
For example, Swedenborg says:

People who suppose that salvation lies in faith alone, and not at the same time in the life of faith, that is, in the life of charity, believe that anyone can enter heaven and come to the Lord, irrespective of the life he has led. They do not know what the life of man is; and not knowing what this is they imagine that the life is of no importance at all. Consequently if they are asked whether a bad person is able to be among the good, they say that by God's mercy he can be, since it is the work of an almighty power. Indeed if they are asked whether the devil is able to become an angel of heaven, they say Yes, provided that he wishes to receive faith. Nor are they in any doubt about his ability to receive it. But if they are told that evil is not able to be turned into good, nor thus hell into heaven with a person, and that such a conversion is impossible because it is contrary to order, therefore contrary to God's truth, and so contrary to God Himself who is order, they reply that such ideas are false reasonings about salvation that do not interest them. All these and countless other considerations go to show how great a blindness regarding salvation and eternal life is caused by teachings about faith alone. (Arcana Coelestia #8765:2)

And even more pointedly:

It is due solely to the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone that, in accordance with the above prediction, there is at this day such thick darkness in the Christian Churches that there is no light from the sun by day nor from the moon and stars by night. For this doctrine teaches that the only means of salvation is faith; the influx, progress, indwelling, operation and efficacy of which no one has hitherto seen any sign, and into which neither the Law of the Decalogue, nor repentance, nor concern for newness of life, nor charity, nor good works, enter; nor are they in any way connected with it. For it is asserted that these things follow spontaneously, without being of any use either for preserving faith or for procuring salvation. (Brief Exposition #79)

And relevant to the story of the thieves on the cross:

Take as another example a person who believes that faith alone saves and that the works of charity contribute nothing to salvation, a person who also believes that he can be saved even in his final hour before death, no matter what kind of life he has been leading throughout the whole course of his life. If on the basis of these ideas he leads a life devoid of any charity and is filled with contempt for others, enmity and hatred towards anyone who does not pay him respect, the desire for revenge, the craving to deprive others of their goods, lack of pity, trickery, and deceit, these evils too are evils of falsity. They are such because he convinces himself on the basis of a falsity either that they are not evils or that even if they were evils they would nevertheless be purged, provided that before he breathed his last he declared with apparent trust his belief that the Lord is the Mediator and that sins are purged through His passion on the Cross. (Arcana Coelestia #7272:2)

Here Swedenborg rejects the idea that a person can be saved by faith alone through deathbed repentance of the sort that is commonly attributed to the second thief on the cross.
There are, in fact, few traditionally Christian doctrines that Swedenborg assails more frequently and more thoroughly than he does the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Looking from the positive side of what Swedenborg does teach as the essentials of Christian faith and practice, here is his own brief summary of those essentials:

For our part, the specifics of faith are these: (1) There is one God, the divine Trinity exists within him, and he is the Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ. (2) Believing in him is a faith that saves. (3) We must not do things that are evil - they belong to the Devil and come from the Devil. (4) We must do things that are good - they belong to God and come from God. (5) We must do these things as if we ourselves were doing them, but we must believe that they come from the Lord working with us and through us.
The first two points have to do with faith, the second two have to do with goodwill; and the fifth has to do with the partnership between goodwill and faith, the partnership between the Lord and us. (True Christianity #3:2)

Accordingly, the members of the various "New Church," or Swedenborgian, denominations believe that salvation requires not only faith, but also good works done in accordance with the Lord's commandments in the Gospels and throughout the Bible. For more on this, see my articles, "Faith Alone Does Not Save . . . No Matter How Many Times Protestants Say It Does," and "Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach."
Swedenborgian commentary on Luke 23:39-43
Swedenborg comments on Luke 23:43 primarily in the context of arguments for the immediate resurrection into the spiritual world of people who have died, against common traditionally Christian beliefs in a future general resurrection and Last Judgment.
However, in his work Apocalypse Explained #600 he does provide a brief commentary suggesting the meaning and significance of the two thieves:

The two robbers who were crucified, one on the right, and the other on the left of the Lord, have a similar signification to the sheep and the goats; therefore it was said to the one who acknowledged the Lord, that he should be with Him in paradise (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:39-43). And in John:

Jesus said to His disciples who were fishing, "Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and were no longer able to draw it for the multitude of fishes" (John 21:6).

This brief commentary is picked up and expanded upon by the Rev. William Worcester (1859-1939), a Swedenborgian minister and Bible commentator, in his work The Sower, vol. 5, p. 386:

The thieves crucified with the Lord in a manner represent mankind whose trials and temptations the Lord shares. One thief represents those who are not humbled by temptation and do not receive the Lord's help so mercifully offered; the other thief represents those who do receive His help, and through Him find victory and peace. This is consistent with the statement in Apocalypse Explained #600, that by the two thieves crucified with the Lord the same is meant as by the sheep and goats on the King's right and left (Matthew 25:33).

So the primary Swedenborgian interpretation of Luke 23:39-43 is that the two thieves on the cross represent the two general classes of humanity:

Those who do not accept salvation from the Lord
Those who do accept salvation from the Lord

Further, from a Swedenborgian perspective, Luke 23:39-43, seen in its context as a conversation taking place while the three (Jesus and the two thieves) were being crucified, represents the two different ways that human beings respond to the trials, temptation, pain, and suffering of life. Specifically, the two thieves represent:

Those who, despite much trial, pain, and suffering in life, reject God and salvation, vs:
Those who, through the trials, pain, and suffering of life, come to repentance and an acceptance of God and salvation

So the thief who thought only of saving his own skin, and shouted derisively, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" (Luke 23:39) represents people who have no interest in repentance and spiritual rebirth, and therefore no interest in the salvation offered by the Lord.
Meanwhile, the thief who recognized that he was a sinner, witnessed to the other thief, and asked Jesus for mercy represents people who recognize that they have thought, felt, and acted wrongly and sinfully, repent of their wrongs, do good works instead, and turn to the Lord for salvation.
The second thief on the cross is not an example of faith alone
From a Swedenborgian perspective, there is a basic fallacy in thinking that the second thief on the cross is an example salvation, or justification, by faith alone. Understanding this fallacy, and what was really taking place, requires looking more deeply and realistically not only at the vignette presented in Luke 23:39-43, but at its wider context.
Jesus, as Christians universally believe, was "tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin" (Hebrews 4:15). His crucifixion was his final and greatest temptation, and even its terrible agony did not induce him to sin in any way.
The two thieves, by contrast, were quite human, and definitely sinners. Perhaps they were common thieves. Or perhaps, as some believe, they were insurrectionists against Roman rule, who committed violent crimes in the course of their rebellion. Either way, they broke the Ten Commandments and committed evil and sinful actions.
Now they were facing the punishment for their crimes.
And of course, they didn't just suddenly pop up on crosses beside Jesus. They had been caught, arrested, and tried for their crimes, and now their sentence was being carried out.
How did each thief respond to the terrible trial and temptation that he had already gone through, and was now suffering?

One thief remained defiant to the end. Rather than repenting of his
evil actions, he derisively called on Jesus to save them, despite
the fact that he was not at all sorry for what he had done, and
would likely do it all over again given the opportunity.
The other thief had clearly been brought to repentance by his
arrest, trial, and punishment. Yes, all we see of him is what he
said on the cross. But human psychology tells us that this did not
just happen all of a sudden. There was prior thought, and a change
of heart, involved in what he expressed to the other thief and to
Jesus.

The reason the second thief was saved, while the other was not, is that he, unlike the other, repented of his evil deeds. In so doing, he took his first step toward salvation, just as John the Baptist, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples preached many times in the Gospels and the Acts: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven (or God) has come near" (see, for example, Matthew 3:1-2; 4:17; Mark 1:14-15).
Further, the second thief not only repented, but he also acted on his repentance by witnessing to the other thief, even as he himself was enduring the agony of crucifixion:

But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." (Luke 23:40-41)

Witnessing to non-believers, even if it is done through words rather than physical actions, is a good work. It is an action of reaching out to others and offering them the salvation that comes from Jesus Christ.
So the second thief is not an example of justification, or salvation, by faith alone. Rather, he is an example of:

Repentance: in that he recognized that he had done evil and was being justly punished for his sins,
Good works: in that he witnessed to the other thief even in the midst of his own agony, and
Faith: in that he turned to the Lord and asked the Lord to remember him when he came into his kingdom.

It was on the basis of his repentance, good works, and faith, and not on the basis of mere "faith" by itself—especially if this is thought of as mere intellectual belief and verbal profession—that Jesus said to the second thief, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43).
So for members of the various "New Church" or Swedenborgian denominations, the story of the two thieves on the cross is a confirmation of the belief that in order to be saved, we must repent of our sins, do good works instead, and have faith in the power of Jesus Christ to save us and bring us into God's kingdom.


Why did Saul's sins lead to his rejection as King of Israel, but David's sins did not cost him his crown?

The difference between Saul and David was that one offered insincere repentance while the other expressed true repentance. In David's case, we have Psalm 51 as a window into his heart.

It is instructive to look at other Biblical leaders who sinned, and what happened afterwards.

Moses struck the rock in anger, and his punishment was that he would not live to enter the Promised Land. Moses accepted God's punishment and continued to serve. Though he did not enter the land, God's presence remained with him, and that was more precious to Moses than any material reward, showing his heart. See Exodus 33:

  14 The Lord replied, “My Presence will go with you, and I will give
  you rest.”

  15 Then Moses said to him, “If your Presence does not go with us, do
  not send us up from here. 16 How will anyone know that you are pleased
  with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will
  distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face
  of the earth?”

  17 And the Lord said to Moses, “I will do the very thing you have
  asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name.”

  18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

Hezekiah, in pride, showed the emissary of Babylon the treasury of Judah. God pronounced judgment against him and told him that he would die. Hezekiah repented, and God mercifully extended his life fifteen years, but years later, all that wealth was plundered by foreign armies.
The last King before the Exile was Jehoiachin. Here is what Jeremiah had to say about him:

  24 “As surely as I live,” declares the Lord, “even if you,
  Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my
  right hand, I would still pull you off. 25 I will deliver you into the
  hands of those who want to kill you, those you fear—Nebuchadnezzar
  king of Babylon and the Babylonians.[d] 26 I will hurl you and the
  mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you
  was born, and there you both will die. 27 You will never come back to
  the land you long to return to.”

  28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,
      an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out,
      cast into a land they do not know? 29 O land, land, land,
      hear the word of the Lord! 30 This is what the Lord says: “Record this man as if childless,
      a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper,
      none will sit on the throne of David
      or rule anymore in Judah.”

But what happened to this king? He did go into exile, but while there, he humbled himself before God and found favor in the court of the king of Babylon and his life was extended. He did have children, and though none sat on the throne, one descendant did become governor over Judah. This is what Haggai has to say about that man, Zerubbabel:

  20 The word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the
  twenty-fourth day of the month: 21 “Tell Zerubbabel governor of Judah
  that I am going to shake the heavens and the earth. 22 I will overturn
  royal thrones and shatter the power of the foreign kingdoms. I will
  overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders will
  fall, each by the sword of his brother.

  23 “‘On that day,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘I will take you, my
  servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will
  make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the
  Lord Almighty.”

Numbered among his later descendants was Jesus Christ, the eternal king.

The pattern is that God's anger burns against a fallen leader and He pronounces a severe judgment, but if that leader's repentance is sincere, God walks back or delays part of the punishment. There is no guarantee that God's mercy will include retaining the title of kingship, as His purposes vary.

In Saul's case, what would true repentance have meant? Saul would have to acknowledge David as King and cede the throne willingly. That he would not do.

For a longer argument that defends the proposition that Saul's repentance was insincere, see https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/a-false-repentance/

This article refers to arguments made by Matthew Henry in his commentary, here summarized:

But Matthew Henry writes that “it is too evident that he only acts the part of a penitent, and is not one indeed.” To support his case, Henry notes, commenting on 1 Samuel 15:24-29:

Wrong audience. Saul makes his confession to Samuel only. He admits that he “ ‘transgressed the commandment of the Lord and [Samuel’s] words,’ ” but he asks only Samuel’s pardon, and that is not sufficient. He does not seem to grasp that Samuel was speaking for God, that his words were God’s.
Excuses. Saul excuses his fault, saying he feared the people and listened to them. But Henry notes that he never shrank before the people before.
Saving face. Saul is most interested in saving face. He asks Samuel to participate with him in a thanksgiving service and to honor him before the elders. He wants no one to know that God has rejected him as king.

The article goes on to show that by his words, Saul thought of God as Samuel's God, not his own, which is telling. He did not have a personal relationship.


Do Mormons in European countries also sing patriotic American songs?

Latter-day Saints in other countries do not typically sing United States patriotic songs.

The full LDS hymnbook is currently published in 38 languages. The English hymnbook has 341 hymns, including four patriotic songs:

America the Beautiful (USA)
My Country, ’Tis of Thee (USA)
The Star-Spangled Banner (USA)
God Save the King (United Kingdom)

For a short time, the Church also published national anthem inserts for the English hymnbook, labeled as hymn 342:

O Canada (Canada)
Advance Australia Fair (Australia)
God Defend New Zealand (New Zealand)

Hymnbooks in other languages have around 200 hymns from the current English hymnbook, plus a few additional hymns that are optionally chosen by the translators. None of them have United States patriotic songs; however, a few have local patriotic songs:

Finnish: "Finlandia-hymni" (Finlandia) and "Siunaa ja varjele meitä" (Bless and Protect Us)
Italian: "Va, pensiero sull’ali dorate" (Fly, Thought, on Wings of Gold / Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves, from an opera by Verdi)
Norwegian: "Gud signe vårt dyre fedreland" (God Bless Our Precious Homeland)
Samoan: "Lo Matou Atua e, Matou te Fa‘afetai" (Our God, We Raise to Thee, a generic patriotic song not specifically Samoan)
Thai: "เพลงชาติ" (Thai National Anthem) and "สรรเสริญพระบารมี" (Praise to the King / The King’s Anthem)

At the back of the English hymnbook, this guidance is given:

  A few patriotic songs have been included in the hymnbook; with priesthood approval, local national anthems may be added. Members may stand for national anthems in Church meetings according to local custom and priesthood direction ("Using the Hymnbook," Hymns, 381).

Local leaders are able to decide which anthems or patriotic songs are appropriate for Church meetings where they live.

Although Latter-day Saints around the world hold the United States in high esteem – that the United States was uniquely set apart for the latter-day restoration of the gospel, and that the New Jerusalem will be built on the American continent – they are encouraged to honor the law and be actively involved in strengthening their community wherever they live.


Mormons, for how long can I be forgiven of all my sins?

As you've said, being saved is a process more than an event. You can think of repentance as a continual process or something you do over and over again. The definition becomes blurry when you consider something you do over and over again as a process.
Sometimes we look at repentance within the scope of a particular sin, and once we stop doing that thing, it could be said we've repented of that thing. But how long that repentance lasts is up to us. You ask, "How long can I be forgiven of all my sins?" Well, the answer is ultimately the same as any other Christian would give: forever. But that does not come until heaven, and only if we've done our part (2 Nephi 31):

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

Also from 2 Nephi 25:

23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

In Moroni chapter 10, Moroni explains that we can "become holy, without spot" if:

33 ... if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

That is the lifelong quest.
And how do we become "perfect in Christ" (i.e. fully repented)? The previous verse:

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

This is what the lives of Latter-day Saints are all about.
You wrote:

It's kind of hard to believe I can really be 100% clean again because there's always more to repent of.

I don't think the record of our lives are tallied and supposed to sum to 0 at the judgment. In other words, I don't think there really is a "100% clean" compared to God.1 Constant repentance is necessary so that we can become who are we are supposed to become.
In summary, being forgiven is something we must always strive for, because while we live in this fallen world, we will be subject to temptation and also the "natural man" (our carnal desires/habits) that King Benjamin talked about. We will be forgiven as often as we repent, and we must repent until we are "fully ripe" (as the Lord told the Brother of Jared). And if we die or rise perfect in Christ as Moroni talked about, our forgiveness will be everlasting.

1. Consider what Einstein postulated with special relativity: even if you were going 99.9% the speed of light, and something moving at 100% the speed of light passed you in the next lane, it would appear to be going the speed of light as if you were not moving at all.


According to Catholicism what is meant by living in a state of obstinate sin?

Obstinacy in sin is one of six sins against the Holy Spirit and can only be absolved by a priest when the obstinacy in sin stops and the sinner is truly ready to amend his way of obstinacy.

What Are The Sins Against The Holy Spirit?

  1) Despair,
   "By despair, we cease to hope for our personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of our sins.  Despair is contrary to God's goodness, to his justice - for the Lord is faithful to his promises and to his mercy." (CCC  # 2091)

  (2) Presumption of God's mercy,
   "There are two kinds of presumption. Either we presume upon our own capacities, (hoping to be able to save ourselves without help from God), or we presumes upon God's almighty power or His mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit)." (C.C.C. # 2092)

  (3) Watering down the known truth
   To water down the known truth means to weaken it by making all religious truths subjective (claiming that there is no objective truth), to attack it by word or argument, to resist it, to contradict it, or even to oppose the known truth or to challenge it as false.

  (4) Envy the spiritual good of another
   Regarding the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians states, "All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually as the Spirit chooses."  To envy the spiritual good of another is to question the Divine judgment of the Holy Spirit in His distribution of spiritual gifts.  It is to be jealous of another person who has a gift different than one's own gift.  Through envy, one rejects the gift that they have received from the Holy Spirit, determining in their own minds that the gift they have received is not good enough for them and they want someone else's gift.

  (5) Obstinacy in sin
   To be "obstinate" means to resist the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, to be stubborn, to persist in sin, to be unyielding.

  (6) Final impenitence
   "Impenitence" means to be uncontrite, unrepentant, hardened, unconverted, to be without regret, shame or remorse.


"Let this cup pass from me" - What is the cup?

It's the Cup of God's Wrath

Isaiah 51:17+ NIV
The Cup of the LORD’s Wrath
17 Awake, awake!     Rise up, Jerusalem,  you who have drunk from the
hand of the LORD     the cup of his wrath,  you who have drained to
its dregs     the goblet that makes people stagger.
21 Therefore hear this, you afflicted one,     made drunk, but not
with wine.  22 This is what your Sovereign LORD says,     your God,
who defends his people:  “See, I have taken out of your hand     the
cup that made you stagger;  from that cup, the goblet of my wrath,
you will never drink again.  23 I will put it into the hands of your
tormentors,     who said to you,     ‘Fall prostrate that we may walk
on you.’  And you made your back like the ground,     like a street to
be walked on.”

Again in Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 25+ NIV
The Cup of God’s Wrath
15 This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from
my hand this cup filled with the wine of my wrath and make all the
nations to whom I send you drink it. 16 When they drink it, they will
stagger and go mad because of the sword I will send among them.”
...
7 “Then tell them, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel,
says: Drink, get drunk and vomit, and fall to rise no more because of
the sword I will send among you.’ 28 But if they refuse to take the
cup from your hand and drink, tell them, ‘This is what the LORD
Almighty says: You must drink it! 29 See, I am beginning to bring
disaster on the city that bears my Name, and will you indeed go
unpunished? You will not go unpunished, for I am calling down a sword
on all who live on the earth, declares the LORD Almighty.’

It goes on and on in Jeremiah. Of course, Revelation makes the last mention.

Revelation 14:10  (NIV)
10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured
full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with
burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.
Revelation 16:19 (NIV)
19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the
nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the
cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.

Edit
Your condemnation was to suffer God's wrath in hell for all of eternity. Jesus took your law place and was subjected to God's wrath on your behalf. There's nothing else in all of existence that God the Son would have so much stress over that He would sweat blood.


Who is Augustine arguing against in his Confessions, book 12?

My translation of Confessions doesn't have chapters in the books so it was a bit hard to find this.  (using Nelson's Royal Classics edition)

I beleive he is referring to other interpreters of the Pentatuech.

  But in the midst of so many truths which occur to the interpreters of these words.

I think this is meant as a hypothetical intepreter.

Later on the part you quoted, St. Augustine refers to a people who pluck words out of a thicket to justify their own ends.

  They see these things and they rejoice in the light of Thy truth to whatever degree they can

To me, as a Catholic in what I belive to be the tradition of St. Augustine, this sounds like a very generic heresy.  (whoops alsmost said St.) G.K. Chesterton always described heretics as people stuck on a particular truth.

The intro to my translation of confessions also says that Augustine went up against Donatists and (full-fledged) Pelegians.  The movie about St. Augustine, Restless Heart also shows his run-ins with the Donatists, who really seemed to have a good hold on what was then the official Church, but they disdained the organizational structure of the Church.

However, it doesn't sound much like Augustine has disdain for these hypothetical interpretations, and in the intro to Chapter Twelve the editor writes:

  He emphasizes the importance of tolerance where there are plural options, and confidence where basic Christian faith is concerned.

So, it would seem as though, Augustine would prefer people to stay "in tge nest" but if they stray and pluck from the thicket (i.e. Sacred Scriptural Truths)

the footnote says that “they" which in my book is translated "one of these men" refers to the "Thicket denizens mentioned above" which he later goes on to point out are 4 distinct viewpoints, making up the notes whuch must be played together, to make up the real song of creation.

For, as Chesterton says,  the Christian when confronted with two seemingly contradictory truths simply takes the two truths with the contradiction and adds it to the deposit of faith.

So these are simply men Augustine uses to illustrate one point about what might later be coined as "senses of scripture".  If he took the time to take any of their suppositions to their logical ends, he'd probably find some new heresy to squash, but that's not the goal of this book.


Are there any bundles of subsets of the New Testament that are common?

Catholic Bibles are divided into 5 subsets for the New Testament.

The Catholic New Testament is composed  27 books of the New Testament.

  The Catholic Bible is composed of the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament.

  Old Testament

  Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
  Historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees
  Wisdom books: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach
  Prophetic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

  Of these books, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, are the deuterocanonical books of the bible.

  New Testament

  The Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
  Historical book: Acts
  Pauline Epistles: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews
  General Epistles: James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude
  Revelation


According to Catholicism, how can a Christian be freed from the concupiscence of the flesh and thereby possess a sinless body?

In Galatians 2:20, you quoted shows that faith in the Son of God plays the critical role in overcoming concupiscence.  Indeed, we know very well that Ephesians 2:8-9 provide the precise formula for spiritual salvation: we are saved by God’s gift of grace which is a function of faith:

  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. - (Ephesians 2:8-9)

The verses naturally throw up two questions:

What is precisely the faith referred to in Ephesians 2:8?
Given that one’s deed (action or performance, as opposed to words) is not a prerequisite for God’s gift of salvation grace, how then does one say or proclaim this faith and to whom should one proclaim this faith?

We can argue that the Lord's Prayer, authored by no sinful mortal but by Jesus Christ himself, is the foremost proclamation of faith that is referred to in Ephesians 2:8;  that in praying the Lord’s Prayer daily, we are in fact proclaiming our faith or belief that the Son fulfilled the will of the Father. Thus, the Lord’s Prayer encompasses the teachings and exhortations of Paul the Apostle - (Romans 10:8–10, New KJV):

  But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. - (Romans 10:8–10)

An excellent source is the book "The Creed of Christ: An Interpretation of The Lord's Prayer" by Gerald Heard (1889 - 1971). A well-known author, philosopher and lecturer, Heard studied history and theology at the University of Cambridge, graduating with honours in history. He lectured from 1926 to 1929 for Oxford University's extramural studies programme. More information about him can be sourced from Wikipedia.

In the book, Heard describes The Lord's Prayer as the "real creed of Christianity." On page 6 of his book, he writes:

  At the heart of the Gospels there is, however, one other thing. Beside the new Commandments, beside the new Law, more lovely but far more exacting than the old, there is, put more briefly and tersely, a master-instruction, a set of key-rules as to how that Law may be kept. There is only one passage in the biographies more central than the Sermon on the Mount. It is more central because it is the root from which the action ordered by the Sermon must spring, because it shows the source of power without which the Sermon, the Beatitudes, remain a magnificent but impossible demand, a splendid promise which cannot be fulfilled. That passage is therefore rightly called by a supreme title, the Lord's Prayer.

Heard goes on to link faith and the Lord's Prayer (for example, as implied by the following passage, page 94):

  It is so against the grain of our present nature to realize that any right prayer must first and foremost be something which alters the self, a process whereby desire is transcended and the will transmuted."Bread of the Coming Day...My bread is to do the Will of Him Who sent me." How are we to do that will which is so different from ours? Are we not here involved in a vicious cycle? To live as God would have us live His eternal Life we have to do His will, but to do His will we have to become part of his Life. As long as we are self-willed, motivated by our wills, we do our wills, not His.

Through the fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son, Jesus Christ, the Father declared us righteous in His sight. That is, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is our justification, the declaration of God that we are free of guilt and penalty of sin and acceptable to Him - (Romans 4:25, NIV):

  He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - (Romans 4:25)

Our justification also marks the beginning of sanctification, a continual process of being made holy by the power of the Holy Spirit, a lifelong process that makes us more and more like Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the Lord's Prayer is a means to justify ourselves to the Father. Via the Lord’s Prayer, prayed daily, we are led by the Holy Spirit in our daily lives and become more like Jesus Christ – the precise outcome of sanctification.


What is the Catholic interpretation of John 19:26-27?

Patricia Sanchez from the National Catholic Reporter connects the Eucharist and being at one with God with the events that led up to the Crucifixion.

Basically, Sanchez's logic goes something like this. We (Catholics) are in union with God by means of Holy Communion. This union is special, because it helps us become better people, and because it leads us to do the "right thing", even though the right thing may seem illogical and may cost our lives. The events that led up to the Crucifixion (the verses that lead up to John 19:26-27) show that Jesus's willingness to take the punishment for our sins is illogical, hence noble and admirable in an empathetic sort of way.1

A Catholic reference2 offers two likely interpretations of the verse. One is the literal interpretation: that Jesus is concerned for his mother. The other is the symbolic interpretation: that Mary, mother of Jesus, may be perceived to be the mother of all Christians, personified by the Beloved Disciple. Mary may be a representative to those seeking salvation, and she is supported by the disciple who interprets Jesus' revelation, or perhaps, the verses are about Jewish and Gentile Christianity being reconciled.2

I make a note that the National Catholic Reporter has received significant controversy from the Roman Catholic Church, because it promotes beliefs contrary to what the Vatican teaches. It merely gets its name, because it intends to write for progressive-minded Catholics or cafeteria Catholics.

Source:

Sánchez, Patricia Datchuck. "And I In Them." National Catholic Reporter 46.14 (2010): 27. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Jan. 2015.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/19:34


Are there theological differences between the Greek Orthodox church and the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox church?

The basic between the two is over the Christological definition accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where Christ was recognized as being worshiped both 'in' two natures that exist 'inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably'. The Copts and other miaphysites believed that this definition was ambiguous and could be understood in a Nestorian manner. They preferred to speak of Christ being worshiped in one human-divine nature 'out of' two natures. Much of the difficulty here arises from the ambiguity of the term 'nature'-- is it a particular, in the manner the Nestorians used it (equivalent to hypostasis) or a universal (equivalent to 'ousia', essence)? If it is the former, then the story of the Incarnation is the story of the Word of God uniting to a particular human being named Jesus at the moment of his conception, which is in fact how Nestorius and his followers understood the incarnation. If 'nature' is a universal, however, then the Incarnation is the story of the Word of God uniting with human nature and becoming Jesus. That is, in this theology, the person of Jesus is identical to the person of the Word of God who has taken on humanity, not a person who is somehow united to the Word. In any case, the Second Council of Constantinople of 553 affirms the latter narrative as the understanding of the Incarnation accepted by the Greeks as well.

So, at this point, the differences between Coptic and Greek theology become a very subtle game of parsing technical language. However, the Copts do not officially accept any of the ecumenical councils accepted by the Greeks, from Chalcedon on. This leads to the often-overlooked theological difference of Copts speaking of one will in Christ while Greeks, following the Third Council of Council of Constantinople of 680-681, speak of two wills in Christ, human and divine in perfect harmony.


Eastern Orthodoxy, The Trinity & Theology of the Body

In all books about dogmatics, ascetisism and/or mysticism of the Orthodox Church that I've read, or even web articles, there's no such thing as drawing parallels between the human sexual act and the Holy Trinity.

In fact, the only comparisson of the Holy Trinity to something worldly*, that I know of, is made by Saint Athanasius of Alexandria:

Adam is unborn (like God The Father), Seth, his son, is born out of his seed, while Eve is also of Adam, but in another way, not by seed (proceeding).

* - I know I used the word worldly, but it's not quite worldly, as you can see.

He goes on by saying that the comparison is weak, and is only meant for beginners to at least try to grasp the concept of The Holy Trinity and the relations between the Hypostases.

I'm no theologian, and I can't speak for all orthodox christians, but I strongly feel that a comparisson of the Holy Trinity with human sexuality would be seen as blasphemous by the clergy and would raise more than a few eyebrows in the laity. It's certainly something unheard of in the orthodox world.

As another user has commented, given that the Theology of the Body is a Catholic work, it's generally unnoticed among the orthodox faithful, but it could be known and discussed by theologians, as I can see a lot of quotations from catholic and protestant works in orthodox theology books. Still, in my country (Romania) where there is a significant catholic minority, there may be some orthodox priests that have studied the work as part of the inter-faith dialogue.


Were musical instruments alowed in the temple holy and holy of holys?

Except for maintenance, nobody was allowed in the Holy of Holies but the high priest on Yom Kippur and music making was not part of the service.

I Chronicles 25 talks about the musicians who worked in the Temple and their instruments.
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16545


What is the biblical basis for lifetime eldership?

I would believed that this issues falls under church polity. The conduct of the local body of Christ is not always clear in the Bible. There are no verses, that I know of, that state how long the mandate of an elder most be. Historically, an office was hold as long as you qualify to it. A carpenter would be exercising the same profession all his life. This is why I think the Bible does not tackle the question of a term.

In today's thinking, we have the idea that power corrupts, and therefore is almost a sin to hold a position of power, and the influence of our political model might be the reason why we are considering this question.

From a Bible perceptive, as long as an elder fulfills the requirements from Titus and Timothy, I do not see a biblical recommendation on the question of time or term. This question presents another aspect of our Christian liberty.

This being said, elders have a huge responsibility. If an elder does not qualify, not merely as a result of a sin, he should give his resignation (not wait the end of the term) to protect the glory of God in the local body. (The idea I have in mind in this case, could be a young father that cannot take an adequate time with is family. A husband that is always out of the home. These are not sin, but that they are unwise may be patent.)

http://www.9marks.org is a good resource on the question of church polity. I know that I am greatly influenced by them in my thinking on this question.


What evidence is there that Jesus died on the cross?

According to this article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Jesus died from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. The shock, caused by his scourging, was made apparent by his inability to carry the cross member. When the spear pierced Jesus' side, both blood and water were said to come out of the wound. The latter is explained by pleural and pericardian effusions. Furthermore, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, which suggests that there was a "catastrophic terminal event" such as a cardiac rupture.


Does the Catholic word Priest actually mean "Presbyter?" Or is it a conflation of roles?

Priest (sacerdos)

Sacerdos literally means "a giver of the sacred". St. Jerome, in his Vulgate Latin translation, uses sacerdos to translate ἱερεύς, for example in Hebrews 7:17:

  μαρτυρεί γαρ ότι συ ιερεύς εις τον αιώνα κατά την τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ

  Contestatur enim : Quoniam tu es sacerdos in æternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedech.

  For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.

Presbyter (senior)

The OED says this regarding "presbyter":

  The Vulgate regularly renders Greek πρεσβύτερος ["old man"], πρεσβύτεροι  by Latin senior [from senex], (plural) seniores ["ancients"], except in Acts 20:17, 22:5, where it has majores natu ["ancients"], and in Acts 14:22, 15:2, 1 Timothy 5:17, 19, Titus 1:5, James 5:14, where the Greek form is retained as presbyter, presbyteri ["priests"]. The same men who in Acts 15:2 are called apostoli et presbyteri ["apostles and priests"], are called in verses 4, 6, 22, 23 apostoli et seniores ["apostles and ancients"]; the Greek having uniformly ἀπόστολοι και πρεσβύτεροι.


Does Abraham's Bosom (Hades/Paradise) still exist?

This answer is in two parts. Part 1 comes from an Evangelical perspective and attempts to indirectly show that Abraham's Bosom no longer exists by arguing that it never existed to begin with. Part 2 tries to logically show how the definition of Abraham's Bosom is inconsistent with it remaining in existence after Christ's Resurrection.
Part 1: If it didn't exist to begin with...
There's a couple of arguments against its existence. I quote myself (hey, it's the same as just saying it again!)

If all those who died before Christ’s ultimate death were placed
aside in an Upper Sheol (which, by the way, seems to make no sense –
Sheol by definition means “low place”) then what of Enoch and Elijah?
Elijah was taken into heaven by chariots of fire “And Elijah went up
by a whirlwind into heaven.” Is Elijah taken up to heaven, only to be
plunged back down into the depths of the earth? Does the chariot of
fire make a celestial u-turn? Or is Elijah of a special class? An
elite group? Why then did Moses, the greatest prophet of all time
(Deut. 33) not receive this privilege?

To be fair, the language in I Kings about Elijah's "ascension" is quite ambiguous. Calvin talks about it at length in his Institutes, which I won't quote here, but I'll quote my younger and hot-headed self again in summary:

Those who came before Christ were not refused the privilege of Heaven
simply because the physical sacrifice had not yet been made. They had
been redeemed, justified, and purchased. It is not as if God must
await the result of the Crucifixion, hoping that Christ will succeed
but all the while biting divine fingernails; – no, the Sovereign
Yahweh of the Universe is not bound by time and will not be surprised
by His own plan being carried out. The words of Christ echo still
through eternity past, present and future, indeed, Abraham could hear
“It is finished” as clearly as could the those surrounding the cross.
To place the souls of those who precede Christ in a type of Limbo is
to grossly diminish the sovereignty of God and his miraculous grace

That is, why should the Israelites have to wait in Abraham's Bosom for Christ to die? They were God's chosen people too!
Additionally, the whole concept of Abraham's Bosom is biblically rooted only in Luke 16:19-31, the New Testament. Did the Jews not even know about Abraham's Bosom until they got there?
Part II: Regardless, It obviously doesn't still exist
Now, I'm not being technical here. For all I know it's a physical place that, once emptied, remains there, but empty. What I mean by "non-existent" is that it no longer serves any purpose; that no one is there.
First of all, since part of the biblical foundation for Abraham's Bosom is the collection of verses that describe Christ's rescue of its inhabitants, I think we'd need to accept those verses for what they're saying.
Psalm 68:18

You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and
receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LORD
God may dwell there

If Christ rescued the the captives of Sheol when he descended into Hell (as the Catholic church claims), then surely Abraham's Bosom serves no purpose. It's empty now, right?
I suppose one might argue that it's still in use for us, that as we die we go there just as the Jews did, until the last day.
Yet in Acts 7:56, as Stephen is stoned:

“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the
right hand of God.”

So... unless Abraham's Bosom has Christ at the right hand of God in it, it's gone. (Plus, if that's where Christ is, is it really Sheol at that point?)
Answer taken in part from my previous blog post on this


It is possible that Jonah died in the belly of the fish, based on the language used in Jonah 2, but I think most probable that he did not. Notice Jonah 2:5 (2:6 in Hebrew) says "the waters encompassed me up to my neck." That same Hebrew phrase "up to my neck" was used by David in Ps 69:1, “Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck.” The phrase signifies near-death, not actual death. In 2:7, he says Jonah says "my soul was failing me," which again suggests near-death, but not actual death.

Only in 2:6 do you get language that could be taken to mean that Jonah died. It says "To the bottom of the mountains, I went down.  The land, its bars were behind me forever.  You brought up my life from the pit, O LORD, my God." The first phrase is simply a metaphor for the danger he was in, being dragged to the bottom of the sea. The second phrase is a bit obscure, since the word I have translated "land" is the Hebrew word "erets," which usually means "land, earth," but which some translations have here rendered "underworld." If it were underworld, it could possibly suggest he was momentarily on the other side of the underworld, i.e., dead. However, it is so poetic that, when surrounded by the near-death language on either side, it seems best to take it as a poetic description of the fact that he was on the very verge of death. Besides, I think the usual translation of "land" is more appropriate, since there is no adjective modifying "erets" to suggest it's the "land of the dead" or something like that. It was from this state of near-death that God brought up Jonah's life from the pit.

A former Hebrew professor of mine held the view that Jonah died, so I can appreciate the argument. But I think the argument is based on a misunderstanding of Matthew's comparison of Jonah with Jesus. Jesus only says that the comparison is between the "three days and three nights in the belly of the whale." He does not say the comparison extends to death. I think those who want to say Jonah died are trying to make the two stories of Jonah and Jesus align more than they need to for Jesus' comparison to be valid.


The Eucharist and the supernatural Priesthood

From the point of view of Catholicism, the first part of this question might be, "Why does anyone at all need to consecrate the Eucharist?" After all, if no one needs to consecrate it, then a fortiori it is not necessary for a priest to consecrate it.

As usual, I went to the Summa Theologica to check out what the Church's greatest theologian had to say. I wasn't disappointed. The Third Part of the Summa, Question 78, Article 1 discusses the wording by which the consecration takes place. As part of his discussion of the question, Aquinas states that "the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person" (emphasis added); that is, by the use of the words "This is my body ... this is my blood" (cf. Luke 22:19–20, Matthew 26:26–28, 1 Corinthians 10:16).

The wording becomes important in the Third Part of the Summa, Question 82, Article 1, where Aquinas asks "Whether the consecration of this sacrament [of the Eucharist] belongs to a priest alone?"

Aquinas considers a number of objections. Most important, he asks whether it might be the case that any believer could consecrate the Eucharist. There are a couple of reasons why people might believe this is the case. They might be thinking that since the words themselves are the form of the consecration, therefore anyone who can say the words can consecrate the Eucharist. Or they might be thinking that lay people can consecrate the Eucharist by virtue of their participation in "the priesthood of all believers", by which

  the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1279)

But Aquinas concludes that this is not sufficient to allow the believer to consecrate the Eucharist. He says,

  Such is the dignity of this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person of Christ. Now whoever performs any act in another's stead, must do so by the power bestowed by such a one. But as the power of receiving this sacrament is conceded by Christ to the baptized person, so likewise the power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf is bestowed upon the priest at his ordination: for thereby he is put upon a level with them to whom the Lord said (Lk. 22:19): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." Therefore, it must be said that it belongs to priests to accomplish this sacrament.

In other words, what's specifically important about those words in particular are that Christ Himself said them. Thus, only one who is empowered to act as Christ will in fact consecrate the Eucharist by saying those words.

Now the Catholic Church does in fact believe that those in the higher ranks of Holy Orders (priests and bishops, but not deacons) are empowered to act as Christ:

  The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people.

(Lumen Gentium, section 10)

The encyclical letter Mediator Dei, written by Pope Pius XII in 1947, points out John 20:21 and Luke 10:16 in particular as instances where Christ sends out the apostles with his own power and authority; and the Catechism points out the institution of the seventy elders with the spirit that was in Moses (Numbers 11:24–25), in a prayer that is still said at the consecration of priests:

  Lord, holy Father,...
  when you had appointed high priests to rule your people,
  you chose other men next to them in rank and dignity
  to be with them and to help them in their task....
  you extended the spirit of Moses to seventy wise men....
  You shared among the sons of Aaron
  the fullness of their father’s power.

Thus, the Church believes that as God has from early times, he pours out his Spirit on certain men, giving them the power to act as his delegates and ministers in a special way. It is by this outpouring and this grace of the Father that a priest, and only a priest, has the authority to speak in the person of Christ, and thus only a priest has the ability to consecrate the Eucharist.


Does Christianity allow Christians to celebrate other holidays?

Nature worship is considered grave matter (i.e. sinful) because of the first commandment no gods before Me.

Barring that traditions, patriotism and culture are compatible with Christian living.  Christianity grew up out of tradition and takes its form in the various parts of the earth because of the local traditions.

That being said, follow your conscience, intemperate celebration is a good way to forget about God.  If you are required to attend Mass or your services on a holiday, put God first and attend.  We've always worked to Christianize pagan holidays in the past, there's no reason we can't continue to do it in the 'multi-cultural' world.


Is Christianity just a belief system, or is it also a system for organizing and governing society?

Christianity is not, "just a belief system", nor is it "also a system for organizing and governing society".
It is simply the way for imperfect people to get into an eternal relationship with a perfect God, not by our good works but by the gift of Jesus. John puts it better than I can:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Of course, there are consequences of this that affect the individual (e.g. a commitment to honesty and love) which then in turn affect society. (We are also instructed about our duty to society, e.g. "pay your taxes".) But that's a by-product, rather than the central aim.
More directly answering your question, the Bible does not explain how to organise society but it does contain some very light weight (by which I mean, not overly proscriptive) examples of how to organise a church (e.g. mentioning elders).


The following is not meant to be an answer specific to the question, but may help in some research on the subject:

The Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara rites of the  Catholic Church in Kerala, India, which attribute their origin to St Thomas the Apostle,  used to have their liturgy in Syrian language upto the 1950s after which the liturgy adopted the native language Malayalam as its medium. In fact you will find many short prayers still said in Syrian languae  as a part of the liturgy. Besides the Catholic groups, the Catholic Orthodox Churches of Kerala also extensively use Syrian prayers during the liturgical celebrations.  How close the phraseology of those prayers are to the dialect used by Jesus, can be commented on by Syrian scholars only.