Legal base for "any male baptized Catholic is eligible to be elected Pope" A lot of sources (e.g. Wikipedia) mention the fact that "any male baptized Catholic is eligible" to become Pope. I'd like to find the canon law (if any) that states this fact.
Canon 332 states that If the person elected [to be Pope] lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately. So I would take this to mean that a person, in order to be eligible to become Pope, MUST be eligible to become bishop, but Canon 378 states that, to be eligible to become bishop, one must have been ordained a priest. Doesn't this contradict the "any male baptized Catholic can be elected Pope" statement?

What is the legal base for “any male baptized Catholic is eligible to be elected Pope?”

There are a large number of sources that state that "any male baptized Catholic is eligible" to become Pope, yet Canon Law itself is seemingly silent on this fact. Wikipedia for example states the following:

  The pope does not need to be a Cardinal Elector or indeed a Cardinal; however, since the pope is the Bishop of Rome, only those who can be ordained a bishop can be elected, which means that any male baptized Catholic is eligible. The last to be elected when not yet a bishop was Pope Gregory XVI in 1831, and the last to be elected when not even a priest was Pope Leo X in 1513, and the last to be elected when not a cardinal was Pope Urban VI in 1378. If someone who is not a bishop is elected, he must be given episcopal ordination before the election is announced to the people.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

  Though since Urban VI (1378-89) none but a cardinal has been elected pope, no law reserves to the cardinals alone this right. Strictly speaking, any male Christian who has reached the use of reason can be chosen.

Thus it should be note that technically any baptized male can be elected Pope.

The Code of Canon Law (1983) states:

  Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept the election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop. By implication, that would seem to require that a papabile (a) be male,(b) be baptized, (c) and be willing ordained a deacon and then a priest, and finally consecrated a bishop if necessary, and (d) have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders.

Canon 378 should be regarded in the light of requirements concerning bishops only and not the election of a pope. Bishops are named or appointed to dioceses by Rome after the recommendations of local bishops.

  The ultimate decision in appointing bishops rests with the pope, and he is free to select anyone he chooses. But how does he know whom to select?

  The process for selecting candidates for the episcopacy normally begins at the diocesan level and works its way through a series of consultations until it reaches Rome. It is a process bound by strict confidentiality and involves a number of important players – the most influential being the apostolic nuncio, the Congregation for Bishops, and the pope. It can be a time consuming process, often taking eight months or more to complete. While there are distinctions between the first appointment of a priest as a bishop and a bishop's later transfer to another diocese or his promotion to archbishop, the basic outlines of the process remain the same. - How Bishops Are Appointed

Canons 332 and 378 deal with separate subject matters. Since canon 378 deals with the appointment of bishops, Rome has set standards as to what kind of men diocesan bishops should propose to the  episcopacy. Canon 378 deals uniquely with the election of a pope. Nothing more is added to the requirement of a pope so that the Princes of the Church may elect to the office of pope as the Holy Spirit inspires them to do. How can the Church limit the third person of the Trinity, the Paraclete. At the present moment in time the Church sees no need to have further requirements regarding a papal election. Even in Pope St. John Paul II's Universi Dominici Gregis  simply states the same thing:

  After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops. He thus acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church.

  If the person elected is not already a Bishop, he shall immediately be ordained Bishop.

  If the person elected is not already a Bishop, homage is paid to him and the announcement of his election is made only after he has been solemnly ordained Bishop.
  If the person elected resides outside Vatican City, the norms contained in the Ordo Rituum Conclavis are to be observed.

  If the newly-elected Supreme Pontiff is not already a Bishop, his episcopal ordination, referred to in Nos. 88 and 89 of the present Constitution, shall be carried out according to the usage of the Church by the Dean of the College of Cardinals or, in his absence, by the Subdean or, should he too be prevented from doing so, by the senior Cardinal Bishop.

Thus a layman may also be elected pope. If a layman were to be elected pope, the newly elected individual would have to ordained a deacon, then ordained a priest and finally consecrated a bishop. Only at this point, would he be truly the next pope, who is the Bishop of Rome.

The Role of the Holy Spirit is of the great importance in the election of a new pontiff to the see of Rome. In the past, 15 to 20 days after a papal vacancy, the cardinals gathered in St. Peter's Basilica for a Mass invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in electing a new pope. Before the cardinals entered the conclave to select the next pope, they first celebrate a special Mass. Then they chant the “Veni, Sancte Spiritus” (Come Holy Spirit) as they paraded into the Sistine Chapel.  The master of ceremonies then pronounces the words: “extra omnes” (everyone out).

How Is a New Pope Chosen?
The role of the Holy Spirit at the papal conclave


What was St Paul's age at the time of his conversion and what was his age when he died? I think that there are no direct answers for this.
I would like to know the age of the Apostle St Paul when he encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus and how long he lived after that.

It is somewhat impossible to know for sure how old St Paul was at the time of his conversion and death.

The Apostle Paul according to Wikipedia was born between the years of 5 BC and 5 AD. Most websites place his birth between the years 3-5 AD.

As for the Apostle's conversion, it seems to have occurred between the years 33-36 AD. Most websites favor the year 33 AD.

And finally, St Paul died as a martyr between the years 62-67 AD.

Thus St Paul was around 30 years of age at the moment of his conversion and 60 years of age at his death.

Sources:

Paul the Apostle (Wikipedia)

How old was the apostle Paul when he died?

Saint Paul the Apostle (Catholic Saints Info.)

St. Paul (Catholic Online)


Do the LDS believe in the Hypostatic Union? Well, this may seem like a dumb question, but a lot of heads have been knocked around over what is meant by the "Divinity of Christ".  To a Catholic, I don't think one can have the Divinity of Christ without a hypostatic union because it would mean that Jesus was, for a time, not God.

The hypostatic union is the doctrine that Jesus has two natures (at the same time) and was always and is always fully man and fully God.

So, my question is, do the Latter-Day Saints believe Jesus was fully God during His sojourn on earth?

Affable Geek's comment that "my understanding is that Mormons reject the Credal terminology, but accept the upshot" is pretty much on the money.  In my research to answer this question, it seems that the Catholic concept of the Hypostatic Union is mixed in with a lot of Trinitarian implications that LDS theology rejects.  However, the basic concept of the man Jesus of Nazareth having a unique nature--that of being both a mortal man and a divine God during his life on Earth--is readily accepted.

A passage in the Book of Mormon discussing the Atonement, while it does not particularly emphasize Jesus's mortal nature, speaks directly to the issue expressed in the question above as to Jesus's nature as God while in mortality:

  Alma 34: 8-16

  8 And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these
  things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ
  shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the
  transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of
  the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

  9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according
  to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made,
  or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened;
  yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through
  the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

  10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last
  sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of
  any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must
  be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

  11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which
  will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold
  will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto
  you, Nay.

  12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore
  there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which
  will suffice for the sins of the world.

  13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last
  sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should
  be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be
  fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and
  none shall have passed away.

  14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit
  pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last
  sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

  15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe
  on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring
  about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth
  about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

  16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles
  them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto
  repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice;
  therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought
  about the great and eternal plan of redemption.

Here, we see Alma using the divine nature of Jesus as a part of his reasoning: if he was not divine, "infinite and eternal" and something more than an ordinary man, it would not be possible for the sacrifice that marked the end of his mortal life to provide an atonement for the sins of mankind.

In a talk given in 1983, Ezra Taft Benson, who was then the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, (he became President of the Church about two years later,) spoke of Jesus's nature as both God and Man:

  Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

  He came to this earth at a foreappointed time through a royal
  birthright that preserved His godhood. Combined in His nature were the
  human attributes of His mortal mother and the divine attributes and
  powers of His Eternal Father.

  His unique heredity made Him heir to the honored title—The Only
  Begotten Son of God in the flesh. As the Son of God, He inherited
  powers and intelligence which no human ever had before or since. He
  was literally Immanuel, which means “God with us.” (See Matt. 1:23.)

  Even though He was God’s Son sent to earth, the divine plan of the
  Father required that Jesus be subjected to all the difficulties and
  tribulations of mortality. Thus He became subject to “temptations, …
  hunger, thirst, and fatigue.” (Mosiah 3:7.)

  To qualify as the Redeemer of all our Father’s children, Jesus had to
  be perfectly obedient to all the laws of God. Because He subjected
  Himself to the will of the Father, He grew “from grace to grace, until
  he received a fulness” of the Father’s power. Thus He had “all power,
  both in heaven and on earth.” (D&C 93:13, 17.)

So yes, it's safe to say that Latter-Day Saints do believe that Jesus retained his divine nature while living as a mortal man, and do not believe that "Jesus was, for a time, not God."


Was God "unmerciful" to Ananias & Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10? Mercy in the words of the Popes;

“God’s face is the face of a merciful Father who is always patient. Have you thought about God’s patience, the patience he has with each one of us? That is his mercy. … He waits for us; he does not tire of forgiving us if we are able to return to him with a contrite heart. ‘Great is God’s mercy,’ says the Psalm.” — Pope Francis, Angelus, March 17, 2013
“Mercy is in reality the core of the Gospel message; it is the name of God himself, the face with which he reveals himself in the Old Testament and fully in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation of creative and redemptive love.” — Pope Benedict XVI, Divine Mercy Sunday 2008
“And is not mercy love’s ‘second name’ (Dives in Misericordia, 7), understood in its deepest and most tender aspect, in its ability to take upon itself the burden of any need and, especially, in its immense capacity for forgiveness?” — Pope John Paul II, Divine Mercy Sunday 2000

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/a-trove-of-divine-mercy-messages-from-the-popes
And Jesus teaches in the gospel of Matthew;

"Blessed are the merciful,for they will be shown mercy."(Matthew5:7)

But how come in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, God had immediately struck death upon both of them for speaking lies. And the worst part, Ananias & Sapphira perhaps have no idea that when they speak a lie to Peter they also had directly spoken a lie to the Holy Spirit;

Ananias and Sapphira
5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Was God "unmerciful" to Ananias & Sapphira in Acts5:1-10?
The church teaches that speaking a lie is a grave matter that can lead to mortal sin but the Church also teaches that one can avail pardon thru Sacraments of Confession.Why does this narration somehow implied God does not give a second chance for Ananias & Sapphira.
Three significant reflections of the Vatican II Popes on the Infinite Mercy of God to all mankind especially sinners plus Jesus very gospel speaks of God Mercy seems not in harmony with St.Lukes narration in Book of Acts.
The story of Anannias & Sapphira is commonly understood as a harsh judgement by God by never giving them a chance to repent is a complete contradiction to the teaching of Jesus and the reflections of the three Popes on the Divine Mercy.
Looking for answer that support the teaching of Jesus & Popes that Ananias & Sapphira received the Mercy of God.

Is God “unmerciful” to Ananias & Sapphira in Acts5:1-10?

The answer is No, as scriptures tell us that God is Merciful;

  Merciful and gracious is the Lord (Ps. 111:4)

  "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,"(Titus3:5)

  "David said to God, “I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.”(2Samuel24:14)

  "The Lord is good to all, He has compassion in all He has made." (Psalm145:9)

  "Be merciful just as your Father is merciful." (Luke6:36)

  "But because of His great love for us, God who is rich in mercy." ((Ephesians2:4)

  "Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need."(Hebrews4:16)

Even Apostle Peter speaks of the great mercy of God;

  "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"(1Peter1:3)

We can see from scriptures that our loving God is rich in mercy. we have the teachings of St.John Paul II the Great "1980 encyclical Dives in misericordia" and
Pope Francis announced a Year of Mercy with his 2015 Misericordiae vultus.

For more on God Divine Mercy here is a latest article expounding on the coming Divine Mercy Sunday.

  Nothing God Won’t Redeem
  Merciful and gracious is the Lord (Ps. 111:4), who, out of great love with which He loved us (Eph. 2:4) and [out of] unspeakable goodness, gave us his Only-begotten Son as our Redeemer, so that through the Death and Resurrection of this Son He might open the way to eternal life for the human race, and that the adopted children who received his mercy within his temple might lift up his praise to the ends of the earth. In our times, the Christian faithful in many parts of the world wish to praise the divine mercy in divine worship, particularly in the celebration of the Paschal Mystery, in which God’s loving kindness especially shines forth. Acceding to these wishes, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II has graciously determined that in the Roman Missal, after the title “Second Sunday of Easter,” there shall henceforth be added the appellation “(or Divine Mercy Sunday),” and has prescribed that the texts assigned for that day in the same Missal and the Liturgy of the Hours of the Roman Rite are always to be used for the liturgical celebration of this Sunday.
  https://www.hprweb.com/2019/04/the-tender-heart/

Answer

Therefore, the answer based on scriptures and the teaching of the Two Popes of our times is our God is Merciful to all mankind as God desires the salvation of all souls.

  "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."(1Timothy2:3-4)

To answer your specific on the case of Ananias & Sapphira.By the very meaning of the name Ananias it already proclaim that God is merciful or "Yahweh Has Been Gracious".http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Ananias.html#.XL46E4kzZdg

It's clear in the passage that the sin of Ananias & Sapphira was "lying" and they did not "blaspheme" the Holy Spirit, lying and blasphemy are two different sins. Lying although a grave matter as written in the 8th commandment but it is not a blasphemy that the scriptures described in Matthew12:32 like the "unforgivable sin".
Did Ananias & Sapphira committed a "mortal sin"?According to Catholic Church teaching three conditions must be satisfied for it to become a "mortal sin". The answer if we look at the passages is No!, Why? Ananias doesn't know that when he lied to the Apostle he was actually lying also directly to the Holy Spirit as Peter explain it to him. So, the "absence of full knowledge" on the part of Ananias & Sapphira makes their sin not mortal.Although they committed a grave matter with intent but the lack of full knowledge on their part was very clear.

3.Ananias died in the judgement or in the Hands of God. We know that King David stated that it is better to die in the Hand of God rather than hands of man more so in the hands of satan.

  "David said to God, “I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.”(2Samuel24:14)

Ananias & Sapphira might not know that Satan is the one who deceived them and put malice in their heart to withheld portion of the money which as part of the community vows to share whatever they have in full to meet the needs of all the church members.Satan had infiltrated the heart of Ananias & Sapphira like what he did to Judas as St.Peter stated “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit ". St.Peter was familiar to the tragic death of Judas when the malice of satan entered his heart that led to his suicide.

  Why hath Satan filled thine heart?--The narrative is obviously intended to leave the impression that St. Peter's knowledge of the fact came from a supernatural insight. He had that prophetic gift which gave him insight into the hearts of men, and through this outward show of generous devotion he read the baseness and the lie. And that evil he traced to its fountain-head. Like the sin of Judas (John 13:2; John 13:27), it had in it a malignant subtlety of evil, which implied the perversion of conscience and will just at the moment when they seemed to be, and, it may be, actually were, on the point of attaining a higher perfection than before. The question "why" implies that resistance to the temptation had been possible. Had he resisted the Tempter, he would have fled from him (James 4:7).(Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers)
  https://biblehub.com/acts/5-3.htmqgdfghfhgfjhgjghhjgcxfgfdgnnvbmbjuuij

Apostle Peter is not only the Chief Shepherd but he is also a priest and Jesus gave Peter the Keys to God's Kingdom. We can see from the passage that Peter not only identifies the "root of sin", he also explain to Ananias what kind of sin that he committed as Ananias thought it was just a simple sin of lying to the Apostles but he was gravely mistaken when Peter indwelt by the Holy Spirit convicted him of his true sins.
The question is, if you were in the feet of Peter whom Jesus entrusted the care of His flock towards their salvation, will you lead a sinner to seek the Mercy of God after explaining the nature of his sin? The answer is YES, as Ananias "heard" what Peter had explained and he gave up his spirit to God, meaning he embraced the judgement of God. Remember Ananias & Sapphira did not commits mortal sin but God acting on His Mercy prevented Satan to fully corrupt their heart like what he did to Judas. Ananias & Sapphira with the help of the priestly powers of St.Peter had accepted the judgement of God and as King David had said it is better to die in the Hand of God. If St.Peter did not intervene immediately, Ananias & Sapphira's heart might be fully corrupted by satan like Judas and we know the possibility for despair and suicide is immenent.
We can see from this passage that God gave His Mercy to Ananias & Sapphira by revealing and convicting them of their sins before it take roots deeply into their heart. The intervention of St. Peter is an act of mercy of God using the priestly powers of Peter to discern the heart of sinners and the power to give absolution of their sins.

As St.Augustine had said in his commentary on this passage;

  ... There are likewise different opinions among the Fathers, respecting the salvation of Ananias and Saphira. Some are of opinion, that as their fault was great, they died, and perished in their sin. but the ideas we are fond to cherish of the infinite mercy of God, would rather incline us to say, with St. Augustine, "I can believe that God spared them after this life, for his mercy is great ... They were stricken with the scourge of death, that they might not be subject to eternal punishment." (St. Augustine, Serm. cxlviii. olim. 10. et in Parmen.)
  George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary
  https://www.studylight.org/commentary/acts/5-5.html

Lastly, we can see from the Book of Acts that God wanted to preserve the unity of the infant church and God would not allow satan to sow disunity by sowing malice in the heart of church members even if it will cause great fear among the followers. Satan was uprooted early by St.Peter to preserve the unity and God used to St.Peter to set an example to the rest of the followers that one must lived by obedience to their vows in community/church life and point out the importance of obeying their leaders as they are indwelt by the power of the Holy Spirit to fulfill the mission of the church towards the salvation of all souls.

  "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had."(Acts4:32)

To summarize, God is "Merciful" to Ananias & Sapphira as they both died knowing their sins and they died in the presence of a Priest who have the power to absolve their known sins in the hour of death. As we can see Ananias "heard" and Peter called the attention of Sapphira to "listen" stating his concern for her soul.But, most importantly they both died in the Hands of a loving and merciful God who desires their salvation.


According to the Catholic Church, can one be a heretic and still obtain salvation? According to the Catholic Church, can one be a heretic and still obtain salvation? Are there different kinds of heresy that merit different answers?

Heresy is distinguished as follows:

Material heresy

occult (hidden)e.g., privately thinking there are 4 Divine Persons
publice.g., preaching that there are 4 Divine Persons

Formal heresypertinacious adherence to heresy even after corrected by an ecclesiastical superior or tried for the crime of heresy in a canonical trial*e.g., continuing to preach that there are 4 Divine Persons even after having been censured (cf. the theological censures/notes at the end of this answer) or excommunicated*cf. ch. 9 "Proving the Crime of Heresy", pp. 229ff. (PDF pp. 242ff.), of True or False Pope

If one is invincibly ignorant that he holds a material heresy, he can possibly be saved; however, formal heretics cannot be saved, especially if their heresy is against the four truths absolutely necessary to believe for salvation—viz., that

"he [God] is", i.e., that God exists (Heb. 11:6)
God "is a rewarder to them that seek him." (Heb. 11:6)
the Second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature (Incarnation)
God is Three Divine Persons in one God (Trinity)

Note: There is unanimous consent among Catholic theologians that truths #1 and #2 are absolutely necessary to be explicitly believed in order to be saved, but not all theologians (St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, et al. excepted) think that explicit belief in truths #3 and #4 is necessary; cf. True or False Pope p. 113 // PDF p. 128.source


How to propose a change in a prayer? How can I go about proposing a change in a prayer? Or how can I have the change approved by the Catholic Church or their theologians?

I'd like to change the prayer of Hail Mary from:

  Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of
  our death.

to

  Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the time of
  temptation.

The current prayer doesn't cover the time between when we pray(now) and the hour of our death. I think the prayer will be much more effective if we say at the time of temptation instead of at the hour of our death.

I think "at the time of temptation" cover the hour of our death too. I don't think God is an ogre who waits for the hour of death to test us. I don't see much of a significance in the hour of death. If you live your whole life faithfully you should have enough grace for the hour of death. I just don't think that God will judge us based on our decision we make at the moment of death. It is not supported anywhere in the Catholic Chuch teaching either so I don't even understand the reasoning behind putting "at the hour of our death" to Hail Mary in the first place.

I know it was added by someone in the past but it's not clear who added it and why.

How to propose a change in a prayer?

Such a proposal would have to have a considerable following to even to be considered a valid (optional) from of the Hail Mary from the traditional form at the local level. Rome would not be against such a usage as a local tradition.. Praying the Hail Mary in the form you suggest, apart from not being traditional, does not seem inappropriate or pose any problems. It is simply not the form the Church uses in English speaking countries at the moment.

In fact the last part of the Hail Mary was added to the original Hail Mary during the Black Plague.

  The “Hail Mary” prayer that Christians have been praying for centuries is composed of two main parts. The first part of the prayer is derived from the Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel greeted Mary by saying, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” (Luke 1:28) The next part of the prayer is taken from the Visitation, when Elizabeth greeted Mary with the words, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:42)

  At first the prayer was known as the “Salutation of the Blessed Virgin,” and only consisted of the two verses joined together. However, during the Black Plague (also known as the “Black Death”) the prayer was further developed and a second part was added to it.

  This second part (“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death”) is believed by many to have been added during the plague to ask for the Blessed Mother’s protection from the fatal disease.

  Venerable Fulton J. Sheen explains this origin in his book The World’s First Love.

    Since it seizes upon the two decisive moments of life: “now” and “at the hour of our death,” it suggests the spontaneous outcry of people in a great calamity. The Black Death, which ravaged all Europe and wiped out one-third of its population, prompted the faithful to cry out to the Mother of Our Lord to protect them at a time when the present moment and death were almost one.

  How the Black Plague changed the “Hail Mary” prayer

Another example comes from the French form of the Hail Mary contains a few items of interest for us here.

First of all Hail Mary does not conclude with the word Amen, although some French do. While I was living in France, we all said Ainsi soit-il in lieu of Amen.

Second point which I truly love about the French Hail Mary is that they add the words poor sinners (pauvres pêcheurs) to their Ave Maria.

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

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


Why is blasphemy against the Son or Father forgiven but blasphemy against the Spirit isn't forgiven? Matthew 12:31–32 (RSV)
  31  Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32  And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

If the Trinity is real then how come whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven but whoever speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven? Aren't the Son, Father and Spirit equal to God? So is speaking against one speaking against all three?

Fr. Cornelius à Lapide commentates on this verse:

Lastly, theologians—and from them, catechists—out of various expositions of S. Augustine, collect six sins against the Holy Ghost; namely, presumption, despair, striving against known truth, envy of fraternal charity, impenitence, and obstinacy. They say that these are called sins against the Holy Ghost, because they are committed through undoubted wickedness against the goodness of God, which is an attribute of the Holy Ghost. Thus, likewise, sins which are committed through infirmity are said to be done against God the Father, because power is one of His especial attributes. And sins which are done through ignorance, are said to be done against the Son, because of His attribute of wisdom.
Note, therefore, that Christ is here speaking not of every sin against the Holy Ghost, but only of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which may take place by words; and the same reasoning will apply to thoughts and actions, as when anyone reviles works manifestly divine and miraculous, which God works for the salvation of men, by which He confirms faith and truth. Such a work is the casting out of devils; and because such works proceed from the goodness and holiness of God, they are attributed to the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son by procession and inspiration, as Love, Goodness, and Holiness. When, therefore, anyone calumniates such things, and knowingly out of malice ascribes them to an unclean spirit (as these Pharisees did), such an one is said to commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; for such an one directly fights against God and takes from Him His holiness and purity. The whole argument is expressed in the following syllogism:—
The author of the miracles which Christ performs is, according to you, O ye Scribes, Beelzebub:
But God the Holy Ghost is, in truth, the Author of these miracles:
Therefore, according to you, God and the Holy Ghost are Beelzebub.
What more horrible can possibly be said? What greater blasphemy can be imagined? S. Basil adds that there are such persons even now, who ascribe the fruits and actions of the Holy Ghost to the opposing unclean spirit. We many of us do this, when we call earnestness ambition, and impute the calumny of anger to one who is only moved by zeal and righteous indignation. Moreover, Christ opposes this blasphemy against God and the Holy Ghost to that blasphemy against the Son of Man by which some who were offended at Christ’s human conversation, calumniated what He did as man, as when they called Him a wine bibber, and a friend of Publicans and sinners. This was something more excusable, and less unworthy of forgiveness, because it had respect to Christ as Man rather than as God.
Shall not be forgiven: Arab. Shall not be relaxed, i.e., shall with difficulty, and seldom be forgiven. For this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is most horrible, inexcusable, and altogether unworthy of pardon, and, considered simply in itself, takes away and excludes all medicine, and means of obtaining forgiveness. For such a blasphemer places himself in diametrical opposition to the Holy Ghost, and drives Him from him, yea blasphemes Him: the Holy Ghost, I say, by whom alone he could be absolved, healed, and sanctified. Similarly, we call an incurable disease one, which does not admit of medicine, and rejects every kind of food. Nevertheless a blasphemer does not shut up the hand of God, so that God cannot have mercy upon him, although unworthy; and convert him, as He converted S. Paul, who confesses that he had been a blasphemer against God (1 Tim. 1:3).


Does every denomination / sect have a catechism? In Lutheranism, there's the Small Catechism, Large Catechism, and the Book of Concord, with each book in series getting much larger and having more specific doctrinal material.  Even though the practicing theology of Lutherans spans crazy extremes, even the pastor who may be pushing the envelope against traditional doctrines is nonetheless apt to teach the Small Catechism to his or her students with pride.

Does every major faith tradition in Christianity ultimately have a catechism?

No most pentecostals do not have a catechism. Some churches do have introduction to the faith classes but there are no predefined standards.


If we are saved by grace, then why does Jesus say we must be baptized in both spirit and water? Ephesians 2:4-9 says:

  But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He
  loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive
  together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up
  with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ
  Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches
  of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you
  have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the
  gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
  (NASB)

This passage along with various others in the Bible lead us to believe that only by grace we are saved.  Therefore, we are saved when we put our faith in Christ alone, realizing that it was by His blood alone that we have forgiveness of all our past, present, and future sins.  This is known as being "baptized in the Holy Spirit."

However, in John 3:1-5, we see this:

  Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the
  Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know
  that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these
  signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to
  him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot
  see the kingdom of God.”  Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be
  born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s
  womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to
  you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into
  the kingdom of God. (NASB)

So in this passage, Jesus is saying that we must be "born of the spirit" (putting our faith in Jesus alone, as mentioned above) and "born of water" (physically immersed in water as a public profession of your faith)?

I believe--and have seen plenty of strong evidence that supports--that it is by your faith in Jesus alone that saves you, and therefore allows you to live eternally in Heaven when you die or the Lord comes back.  However, this verse has always given me trouble with my previously stated belief, and I can't seem to mesh the two together.

So ultimately I am asking this: How do the above two verses correlate with one another in teaching, and why did Jesus say what He did in the Gospel of John if it is only by our faith in Him that allows us to enter into Heaven?

This is a difficult question - not the question are we saved by grace, because we are - but the question of why does Jesus say "water and spirit".  I am not sure an answer can have any finality to it, because of the nature of deep study that is required, and many top theologians disagree on the meaning of it.

So, what does Jesus mean when he says "born of water". Does he mean necessarily mean baptism? Its important to have the right interpretation so we can know if Jesus is saying we nee to be baptized to be saved.

I get three different interpretations from this scripture (I know there are more).

Jesus is referring to a believers baptism. I am not sure if he would make baptism a requirement, because then it would be a direct contradiction to the thief on the cross going to heaven (there was no time for baptism there)
Jesus is referring to the baptism of John. I think this is plausible because Nicodemus would have known about John's baptism as all teachers of the law. And some thought that baptism of the water is what redeemed them. But of course John just came to prepare the way for Christ, so therefore the statement paraphrased this way, you see John baptizing with water you can't just be baptized with water, but also by the Spirit.
Jesus is referring to natural birth. I think this is also possible, considering we are all in a water sack (placenta) in our mother's womb. This can make sense because Nicodemus says, how can I be born again, can I go back into my mother's womb?, and then Jesus answers (in this interpretations perspective) you must be born naturally (of course you have to be alive first) and born spiritually in order to enter the kingdom of God.

In the verses 7 - 8 Jesus says - 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Jesus drops the born of the water here and just says "So is everyone who is born of the Spirit". So that could provide context to what He said earlier. Meaning that ultimately it is those who are born of the Spirit, and the water is referring to maybe one of the interpretations above, meaning the water is only a start, but the Spirit is what does it.

Last quick note: Mark 16:16 Jesus says - He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Jesus says here that you should believe and be baptized, but only those who don't believe will be condemned. I personally believe you should be baptized if you're a believer, because Jesus commands it and he says those who obey Him are those that love Him. And I also believe the thief on the cross disproves the belief that you have to be baptized in order to be saved. But again... if you are able to be baptized I believe you should be.

Luke 23:42-43 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”
43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Of course that is all just studying this from my perspective, there are probably holes in it, but hopefully that helps a bit.


How do Roman Catholics interpret Luke 4:13, regarding the devil leaving Jesus "until an opportune time"? Luke 4:13 (NIV) reads:

  When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him [Jesus] until an opportune time.

What is the Catholic interpretation of the phrase "until an opportune time"?  We do not find explicit reference to Jesus getting tempted by the devil after the temptations in the wilderness.  Is it that the devil was looking for opportunities, but did not find any? Or, is it that Jesus was frequently tempted to desert His mission all throughout His public life and on the cross? What are the Catholic teachings on such possibilities?

The last paragraph of the note to Lk 4:1-13 in the Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition has:

  [...]
  Jesus defeats the devil here, as he will also do at "an opprtune
  time" (v.13), that is, in his passion and death (cf. the note on
  22:1-6): his filial acceptance of the father's plans will liberate men
  from the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil (cf. Heb
  2:14). Jesus' victory over the tempter serves to encourage his
  disciples: if they trust in God, they will be able to defeat all
  temptation.


How does Christianity respond to scientific theory that Man originated through evolution? Science claims that men originated through evolution. Christianity claims that men originated from Adam and Eves.

How Christianity respond the claims of modern science?

Asking this question against all of "Christianity" turns this into an overview question of a very broad scope. In order to answer such a broad question, one must paint with broad strokes. There are two basic approaches taken.

Deny the validity or applicability of any scientific claims that directly conflict with the origin of man being God's direct creation. In general this position is held using one or more of the following ideas:

Science is based on presuppositions about reality, what kinds of things can be understood through observation/testing, etc. Asserting different presuppositions leads to a radically different outcome even using the same reference material. This relegates science to operate only inside a certain realm and refuses to allow it to draw conclusions about matters outside of that realm. Historically most of Christian theology has taken this approach. *
The actual nitty gritty of the science can be disputed. Facts, measurements, conclusions, methods of reasoning, the way unknowns are filled in, can and are often called into question. Many modern Creationists take this primary approach to the problem.

Explain away the creation account as metaphorical and not relevant to an actual historical understanding and adopt the current understanding of secular science. Those who take this approach usually fall along a scale, but we can still generalize two groups.

Some take the entire body of Scripture to be non-applicable to the physical world, only applying it in a "spiritual" sense. Very often, this position can be summarized as Non-Overlapping Magestaria, a principle which limits the ability of religion and science to make dogmatic pronouncements about each other.
Some take the content and try to reconcile it the content with modern scientific beliefs, producing things such as Theistic Evolution or Intelligent Design.

In between these two extremes lie several genres of belief depending on how much reign science is given, what premises it is allowed to operate under, and how the Scripture is to be understood.

If you would like more details on a particular view, ask a specific question rather than an overview one.

* My personal affiliation is here. By presupposing that the account we have in Scripture is true divine revelation, our understanding of the world as a spiritual reality with an aspect of physical manifestation makes all the pieces fall into place. Science has great value, but can only be trusted when it is based on these same presuppositions, often coming to faulty conclusions when those premises are altered or removed. It serves a very valuable purpose by informing our interaction with the created order, but steps out of bounds when it tries to define its own existence. See also my answer to How do Christians understand the omniscience of God in relation to the Uncertainty Principle


In Reformed Theology, what are seen as the implications of Traducianism versus Creationism (of the soul)? Traducianism says that one's soul is derived from one's parents' souls, but creationism says that God creates a soul for each body.

The Wikipedia articles are a start, but I'm especially interested in learning about the implications for the transmission of the sinful nature and how Jesus is fully man (and God) yet without sin.

It seems this question isn't really an issue in broader Christianity today, but instead is more of an in-house debate in Reformed theology, e.g. W.G.T. Shedd holds to traducianism, but Louis Berkhof holds to creationism, and John Frame thinks that both are wrong. I have this general knowledge about these authors, but I haven't yet read their material.

First, let's have some slightly more in-depth definitions.  Charles Hodge describes what traducianists believe as follows:

Traducianists on the one hand deny that the soul is created; and on the other hand, they affirm that it is produced by the law of generation, being as truly derived from the parents as the body.  The whole man, soul and body, is begotten.  The whole man is derived from the substance of his progenitors.

Creationism, on the other hand, holds:

that the soul of the child is not generated or derived from the parents, but that it is created by the immediate agency of God.

Incidentally, and not surprisingly, both sides argue that Scripture is best understood to support their view.  Among the Reformed, creationism is more widely held: Hodge and Louis Berkhof are among its proponents, while defenders of traducianism include William G. T. Shedd and A. H. Strong.
With that said, let's turn to the implications provided by the opponents of each view.
Traducianism
The issues include: (1) implied divisibility of the soul, (2) unorthodox tendencies of traducianists, and (3) a unity of substance between Adam and all mankind, and by extension, sinfulness of Christ's human nature.
(1) The first significant issue with traducianism, offered by both Berkhof and Hodge, is that it implies the divisibility of the soul.  This, they say, contradicts the commonly held doctrine that the soul is a spiritual, immaterial substance.  Hodge writes that "this is so serious a difficulty" that some proponents attempt to deny that division of the soul is implied in the theory, but Hodge sees only one other option, which is that all mankind is a single essence, and individual men are mere modes of existence—a doctrine Berkhof dismisses as "untenable."
Berkhof relates several other attempts to avoid this problem: (a) the child's soul pre-existed, (b) the soul is potentially present in the parents' sperm or egg or both, or (c) the soul is created in some way by the parents themselves.  (A) implies pre-existence of the soul, (b) implies the materialism of the soul, and (c) implies creative power on the part of humans, and Berkhof accepts none of these.
Hodge, appreciative of the moderates who attempt to avoid these problems, writes:

If [traducianist] theologians and philosophers would content themselves with simply denying the creation of the soul ex nihilo, without insisting on the division of the substance of the soul or the identity of essence in all human beings, the evil would not be so great.

(2) Both Berkhof and Hodge express concern that many traducianists go further than necessary in the defense of their doctrine, and enter dangerous ground.  Hodge first rebukes those who claim that the doctrine of original sin absolutely depends on traducianism:

We see theologians, ancient and modern, boldly asserting that if their doctrine of derivation [...] be not admitted, then original sin is impossible.  That is, that nothing can be true, no matter how plainly taught in the word of God, which they cannot explain. [...] No man has a right to hang the millstone of his philosophy around the neck of the truth of God.

Berkhof and Hodge also warn that traducianists tend to assume that God now "operates only through means."  That is, that God's creative work was finished in six days, and now he rests, and so the ongoing creation of souls is inconsistent with his relation to the world.  But this, Hodge notes, sounds like deism, and imperils the doctrine of regeneration, which, Hodge says, "is due to the immediate exercise of the almighty power of God."
(3) Berkhof and Hodge note that traducianism normally implies the "theory of realism," which Hodge describes as follows:

Adam and his race are in such a sense one, that his act of disobedience was literally the act of all mankind.  And consequently that they are as truly personally guilty on account of it, as Adam himself was; and that the inherent corruption flowing from that act, belongs to us in the same sense and in the same way, that it belonged to him.

This, they write, is problematic for several reasons.  Berkhof notes that it implies the "untenable" position that all mankind is a single identical essence, and that it fails to give a satisfactory reason as to why men are held responsible only for Adam's first sin, and not all his subsequent sins.  But, says Hodge, a greater issue exists: its implication on Christ's human nature.
Traducianists insist, Hodge says, that "Christ was in Adam as to the substance of his human nature as truly as we were," and that in order for him to be our redeemer, both his body and soul had to be "derived from the body and soul of his virgin mother."  But this implies, says Hodge, that,

He must, therefore, be as much involved in the guilt and corruption of the apostasy as other men. [...] It is a contradiction to say that we are guilty of Adam's sin because we are partakers of his essence, and that Christ is not guilty of his sin nor involved in its pollution, although He is a partaker of his essence.

Hodge concludes:

As this seems a legitimate conclusion from the traducian doctrine, and as this conclusion is anti-Christian, and false, the doctrine itself cannot be true.

Creationism
Strong and Shedd raise these issues with creationism: (1) human reproduction becomes inferior to animal reproduction, (2) its difficulty in explaining original sin, and (3) it implies that God is the author of evil.
(1) Under creationism, earthly parents beget only the body of their child.  This implies that beasts "possess nobler powers of propagation than man; for the beast multiples himself after his own image." (Strong)  It also fails to take into account the similarities between children and their parents.
(2) Shedd argues that creationism has difficulty when it comes to explaining original sin:

Sin cannot be propagated, unless that physical substance in which sin inheres is also propagated.  Sin cannot be transmitted along absolute non-entity.  Neither can it be transmitted by a merely physical substance.  If each individual soul never had any other than an individual existence, and were created ex nihilo in every instance, nothing mental could pass from Adam to his posterity.

Shedd remarks that "the creationist partially adopts traducianism" in order to explain the transmission of sin with other theories, like the theory of representative union.
(3) Shedd then turns to the universality of sin, and argues that creationists cannot adequately explain it.  In creationism, he says, "the fall is that of the individual only.  Each soul apostatizes from God by itself."
One possible response, that God withdraws grace at the instant in which he creates the new soul, is inconsistent with God's dealing with Adam, says Shedd: God withdrew grace from Adam only after Adam's sin, not before, but here, the "withdrawing of grace occurs not because of apostasy, but in order to produce it."
A second response, says Shedd, is that the withdrawal of grace is due to Adam's transgression.  This being closer to the traducianist position, Shedd finds it more agreeable, but finds fault with its failure to recognize a unity of substance:

From the creationist position, a newly created and innocent soul that never was substantially one with Adam, and did not participate with him in the first transgression, is deprived of certain created gifts by an act of sovereignty.  There is no reason, upon this theory, why by the same sovereignty men might not be deprived of Divine gifts on account of the transgression of Lucifer.  Upon the theory of creationism, the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit from the newly created soul is an arbitrary, not a judicial act.

The new soul's guilt, Shedd says, is the "product of an act of sovereign will which decides that an innocent person shall be liable to penal suffering because of another's sin."  This, Shedd says, destroys all ethics and dangerously implicates God with unrighteousness:

As in the gospel scheme there is a "righteousness of God," that is, a constructive and unmerited righteousness, when the obedience of Christ is gratuitously imputed, so in this scheme there is an "unrighteousness of God," that is, a constructive and unmerited unrighteousness, when the disobedience of Adam is gratuitously imputed.

To those creationists who attempt to respond to this problem by splitting punishment from culpability and saying that Adam's posterity are punishable for his sin, but not culpable for it, Shedd argues that the two are as inseparable as cause and effect, that punishing one who is not guilty is inherently unjust, and that such separation attempts serve to introduce semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism into the Reformed tradition.
Berkhof admits that this is "[t]he most serious objection" to creationism, as Strong summarizes:

[Creationism], if it allows that the soul is originally possessed of depraved tendencies, makes God the direct author of moral evil; if it holds the soul to have been created pure, it makes God indirectly the author of moral evil, by teaching that He put this pure soul into a body which will inevitably corrupt it.

Monism
John Frame rejects both views on the basis of his position that the body and soul are not distinct metaphysical components of the human person:

[T]he soul is not a separable part of a person.  It is rather the person himself, seen from a particular aspect.  So there is no particular period in time when the body exists without a soul, nor any point in time when a soul is added to a soulless body.  The soul exists from conception, for it is an aspect of the total person, who exists from conception.

This view, a form of monism, is not directly addressed by any of the previously quoted authors, though all of them argue that body and soul are distinct.  For example, Berkhof writes:

In Gen. 2:7 a clear distinction is made between the origin of the body and that of the soul. [...] In these simple words the twofold nature of man is clearly asserted, and their teaching is corroborated by other passages of Scripture.

Conclusion
Berkhof concludes his analysis of these views with the following cautionary remarks:

It must be admitted that the arguments on both sides are rather well balanced.  In view of this fact it is not surprising that Augustine found it rather hard to choose between the two. [...] And because we have no clear teaching of Scripture on the point in question, it is necessary to speak with caution on the subject.

References

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.1.1.B.4 and 2.1.2 (p. 183, 195, 197-201)
Frame, Systematic Theology, 801-2
Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume II, chapter 3 and chapter 5
Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, 29-53
Strong, Systematic Theology, Volume II, 491-93


Is being "sinless" the same as "being perfect"? Jesus taught us to be perfect He also taught us to be without sin.

Furthermore, He came to make us perfect and to take away our sin.

My question is: are these two states identical? If I were perfect, I would presumably be sinless. But if I were sinless, would that in and of itself be enough to be perfect? Or would I just be "not doing some things" but I would need to change other things in my life to meet my redemptive potential?

The word perfect rarely means sinless in the Bible, it generally means well rounded, or mature. The idea of a sinless Christian is foreign to the Bible, except of course those in heaven.

For example Paul uses the words translated into English as perfect here:

  12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. (ESV Philippians 3:12)

Here paul uses the Greek τελειόω teleioō ; to complete, i.e. (literally) accomplish. It means 'to fulfil', 'to carry out' a required course in the sense of a received commission.  As this rare context does actually imply actual sinlessness in that he aims for heaven, Paul, as our example avoids possible confusion saying he has in no way achieved it, but aims for it.

In the case mentioned:

  You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (ESV Matthew 5:48)

The Greek word for perfect is similar, it is τέλειος teleios.  Again it means something similar to complete, it means totality or undivided.  It does not mean sinless. From the context immediately before this verse we can understand the logic. God is unrestricted in His goodness, so according the disciples of should be 'total' in their love, even loving their enemies. The totality has to do with loving, not just some, but all.  This love would never have been presumed to be a sinless, pure love; just a total love in its well rounded and broad application without favouritism.


How do Christians argue about Jewish objections against Jesus being the Messiah Traditional / Orthodox Jews argue that Jesus was not the Messiah, because we don't live in a Messianic Age. In the Messianic Age

All Jews would be living in Israel (Isa. 11:12, 27:12-13);
Israel would also be populated by the resurrected souls who died in previous generations (Isa. 26:19);
The Holy Temple would be rebuilt and functioning (Micah 4:1);
There would be world-wide peace (Isa. 2:4, 11:6, Micah 4:3); and,
The entire world would believe in the God ofAbraham (Isa. 11:9, 40:5; Zephaniah 3:9).

(from: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8857/why-dont-jews-think-jesus-is-the-messiah)
Since Isa and Micah are also prophets of the Old Testament, how do Christians argue about these objections?
I'm interested in the position of the Catholic Church on this topic.

There is no unique argument from the Catholic Church about those objections, but being myself a Catholic I will offer mine. Since IMV this argument has nothing specifically Catholic about it, I will speak just as a Christian. Sure enough, many Christians may disagree with this answer, particularly with the work on the epistemological foundation.
Core of the argument
Christians do not argue about those objections by answering each of them with the Christian interpretation of the corresponding OT passage, as that would be missing entirely the basis of our faith in Jesus as not only the Messiah but also the consubstantial Son of God Who has assumed a human nature. Because we do not hold Jesus to be the Messiah or the Son of God on the basis of believing that our interpretation of the OT is so better than the Rabbinic one, but on the basis of believing the FACT of Jesus' resurrection. Facts trump interpretations, or as Pope Francis says, reality is superior to ideas. If Jesus in fact rose from the dead, then what He claimed about Himself is true and any differing OT interpretation must be discarded, period.
Let me hammer the point again. The logic of the Christian argument is not "The Christian interpretation of the OT is really good, therefore the events in the Gospels must be factual" but the other way round: "Jesus' resurrection is factual, therefore Jesus' words and deeds according to the Gospels are true, i.e. both historically factual and truthful, and therefore the Christian interpretation of the OT is correct."
BTW, the answer in JSE that you linked to not only does not even address the issue of whether Jesus' resurrection was factual, but also gets the issue altogether wrong, as it says "Now, many missionaries tell me that Jesus will rise from the dead and do all the requisite things that Messiahs are supposed to do that he didn't get to." Were those missionaries drunk or speaking in tongues? The point is that Jesus ROSE from the dead, not that He "will rise"!
Epistemological foundation
Now, since the answer so far might be countered with the objection that Jesus' resurrection might just be an instance of the "sign or wonder" supporting the claims of the false prophet predicted in Deut 13:1-5, we must start from a solid philosophical foundation in order to be able to discern correctly whether a sign or wonder is intended to lead people to the one true God or away from Him. For that purpose, I define a Revelatory Epistemological Position as the set of criteria that a person holds to be appropriate for determining whether a purported medium of divine Revelation is actually so. (Or in the case of a particular sign or wonder, whether it certifies that the associated revelation comes from God or it does not.) Thus, the logic in the above statement "Jesus' resurrection is factual, therefore Jesus' words and deeds according to the Gospels are true, i.e. both historically factual and truthful," presupposes a specific Revelatory Epistemological Position which consists of the following:
A first postulate based on infinite divine goodness:
P1. God will perform a miracle that requires the exercise of God's own exclusive power (as opposed to allowing an angel to exercise its own natural power) - in scholastic terms, a miracle which can happen only if God performs it directly as its only cause, not as its primary cause cooperating with a natural secondary cause, whether material or angelic, - hereafter called "a miracle which only God can perform", only to lead people to truth and good.
plus two corollaries of P1:
C1. The possible instances of the "sign or wonder" supporting the claims of the false prophet predicted in Deut 13:1-5 do not include miracles which only God can perform, but are limited to the works that an evil angel can perform by its own natural power when allowed by God.
C2. If God performs a miracle which only He can perform through the intervention of a prophet P, God will be certifying in front of everyone that all that P has said and done as prophet so far has God's "seal of approval" and therefore is true and in accordance with God's will, respectively.
plus a second postulate based on metaphysics:
P2. The resurrection of a human being is a miracle which only God can perform, regardless of whether God performs it through the intervention of a human being, such as prophet Elisha (2 Ki 4:32-35).
plus two further corollaries from P2 and C1 and C2, respectively:
C3. The possible instances of the "sign or wonder" supporting the claims of the false prophet predicted in Deut 13:1-5 do not include the resurrection of the false prophet himself to a glorious state.
C4. If God resurrects a prophet P to a glorious state, God will be certifying in front of everyone that all that P has said and done as prophet up to his death has God's "seal of approval" and therefore is true and in accordance with God's will, respectively.
plus a third postulate based on infinite divine wisdom and goodness:
P3. If God confers his "seal of approval" to the words and deeds of a prophet P by resurrecting him to a glorious state, He will also provide the means to ensure that the words and deeds of said prophet can be known with accuracy and certainty along time and across space. Because it would be against divine wisdom and goodness for God to give us certainty that whatever P said and did was true and good while not giving us certainty about what P actually said and did!
Starting from the above revelatory epistemological position and obtaining, through rational examination of historical facts, a certainty about the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, one arrives at the certainty of the factuality and truth of Jesus' words according to the NT.


According to Catholicism, does intelligence or rationality belong to other animals by participation? In the Summa Theologica, Question 108(5), St Thomas Aquinas writes:

  Therefore, if anything is to be called by a name designating its
  property, it ought not to be named from what it participates imperfectly, nor from that which it
  possesses in excess, but from that which is adequate thereto; as, for instance, when we wish properly
  to name a man, we should call him a "rational substance," but not an "intellectual substance," which
  latter is the proper name of an angel; because simple intelligence belongs to an angel as a property,
  and to man by participation; nor do we call him a "sensible substance," which is the proper name
  of a brute; because sense is less than the property of a man, and belongs to man in a more excellent
  way than to other animals.

So intelligence belongs to man by participation. But does intelligence or rationality belong to other animals by participation?

I read this report, which suggested that apes also have a certain degree of intelligence and rationality:

  According to scientists, “ape intelligence might be a bundling of skills related to learning, tool usage, understanding of quantities, and an ability to reach conclusions based on evidence and reasoning.”

According to Catholic theology in the tradition of St Aquinas, does intelligence or rationality also belong, in complete or partial form, to animals like apes? Or would they not have any "genuine" intelligence and rationality?

Now we define "intelligence" and "rationality" otherwise than Aquinas and other scholastic philosophers did. In Aquinas' teaching, reason or rationality is what we usually mean by intelligence - it's the ability to induce new knowledge by reasoning based on experience we get through senses.

"Intelligence" was slightly trickier. According to Aquinas and his contemporaries, angels don't need reasoning, they just "look and see" (this is metaphorical - they are immaterial, they have no eyes to see), they simply get the knowledge. Angels have some kind of telepathy - they give or get thoughts directly, they don't need to translate it to words, images or other symbols, share the symbols, and than translate them back to thoughts. We are material and our mind is restricted by lack of telepathy and the necessity to induce our knowledge from such symbols, from communication receivable by our senses.

Still, we participate on the simple intelligence of angels somehow. We can simply know something without any previous experience, or at least it was believed in Aquinas' times we can. Examples of this kind of knowledge mostly fail to the spiritual, to God's revelation and to mysticism. Anyway, it's distinct from either normal reasoning, or from instinctive "knowledge" which is animals' ordinary way of thinking.

Another aspect of the participation on the angelic intelligence is our ability to reason knowledge which cannot be derived from material world. Aquinas says that we can derive knowledge of God's existence from our experience with material world, but our knowledge of God's triunity and other fundamental theological aspects can be derived only from God's revelation, so this knowledge is proper to intelligence even though we learned it through reasoning. We can't learn this way anything angels can know, just some basic, easy-to-learn concepts.

Animals normally know things from their senses and instinct, they have no proper reasoning. But similarly as we can participate on angels' intelligence, they can participate on our reason somehow (not on angelic intelligence - it's too abstract for them). Thus they can be "intelligent" in the modern, broad meaning of this word, not in its medieval meaning. Using tools and reaching easy conclusions based on evidence learned through senses is an example of this participation on reason; still, apes can't really understand higher mathematics (AFAIK), so they don't possess our reason fully.

Tell me if you want more evidence; I derived this post mostly from Questiones disputatae 15 and from prologue and comments to its Czech edition.


Why do some Christains feel the obligation to remove their hats during prayer? As far as I know, Judaism has no tradition of removing a head covering / hat during prayer.  Therefore, the Christian tradition started sometime after the split and it is not an inherited tradition.  Where does this Christian tradition come from?  Is it just a western or US tradition for males?

One of my churches used this passage when requesting all men remove their hats during times of prayer:

1 Cor. 11:4

  Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered,
  dishonoureth his head.

In certain cultures, it's possible that the hat is removed and head is bowed as a sign of respect and not necessarily from this verse.


Is there any protestant method how to deal spiritual dryness? In Catholic tradition, there are books on spiritual dryness (Dark Night of the Soul by st. John of the Cross is the most famous) and it is mentioned in Catechism of Catholic Church too. Eastern tradition has other books on this topic. But I wonder whether Protestants have anything more sophisticated than "Just hold on!" or "Read the book of Job, it's written for someone like you!" (or, in a worse case: "If you don't feel God, you must have sinned!").

Is there any Protestant doctrine on this topic? Is it accepted by most denomination, or only by a fraction?

EDIT to clarify what I mean with "spiritual dryness": I understand it as usually long-term (lasting for months, years or even decades) spiritual crisis, when a person doesn't feel "presence of God" or "God's grace" and it is hard to sustain faith. On the other hand, people experiencing this might be very good Christians bearing lots of fruits of Holy spirit. Mother Teresa's case is an extreme example, but many Christians experience some milder form of it and this experience often can't be attributed to a sin or a mental illness.

I never experienced real spiritual dryness (I'm too young in Christ for this, people rarely experience dryness just three years after conversion), but knowing people who experience it, reading books on it and being advised to prepare that it will probably come some day helps me a lot in my spiritual life - to realize that God's grace might become invisible one day is a good reason not to be proud of all that religious enthusiasm and nice feelings and to carefully try to build my faith on more solid ground than this enthusiasm is.

My protestant friends don't understand this; that's why I wonder whether concept of "dark night of soul" is unreflected and more or less unknown in whole or most of Protestantism, or just in some part of its Pentecostal branch.

Joh 10:10  The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

Yes Kenneth E. Hagin who started Rhema and was a major contributor to the beginning of the Word of Faith movement has a series called "What to do when faith seems weak and victory lost". A portion of the doctrine is blame the devil, what does the word say, agree with the word, say the word and you're not supposed to feel anything.


Can we truly know anything about God's character? I've seen a few people casually write about how they know God's character—the features and traits that make up His person or existence—yet I've always been taught the opposite (that we can't possibly comprehend his true nature), and upon thinking about it myself I don't see how anyone can really claim otherwise. Yes, we have the Bible, but the Bible only suggests how God wants us to see him as; it does not necessarily show how He truly is. God is the totality of everything; His awesome magnificence is beyond everything our puny minds can comprehend. I find it an insult to God to suggest that we can begin to define him. Specifically, to attribute characteristics to God is to say He is one thing but not another, which in effect is trying to make God human. I like to think of God as more complete than the universe itself, not some bearded guy in the clouds; something that cannot be named or defined, shaped or molded by mere words.

I would say this is a common view in my area (Boston, MA, USA). Are we just a minority who thinks this way? Can we really know anything about God's character?

Note: To be clear, you can use Biblical sources but I'm not sure they will be of great use here; even if the Bible was written directly by God, we could never really prove that it was more than what He wanted us to think about him, rather than how He really is. This is more of a philosophical question pertaining to epistemology — the source and scope of knowledge in general. In theory, it could be placed in Philosophy.SE, but being about the Christian God it's certainly relevant here, and also I'm particularly interested in what other Christian's have to say on this topic, and why they might think they can conclude anything certain about the nature of God's character.

As I understand it, you are talking about Strong Agnosticism (or similar).

However, this contains an inherent inconsistency. If we say, "it is impossible to know anything about God" we are actually making a statement about God. In other words, to be consistent, we would have to say, "it is impossible to know anything about God excluding this statement."

Therefore, we can learn at least some qualities about God. And, as Christians, we believe He wants us to learn about Him and has given us plenty of information in the form of the Bible.


Orthodox Priest Assignment Here is a thread answering how Catholic Priests get assigned to parishes.

How is this done for Orthodox Priests? What is that process and does a newly ordained priest have any say over his assignment? I'm specifically interested in the process for OCA, but Greek and Antiochian information also appreciated.

Say for instance, his wife had strong family ties in a certain state.  Could he request assignment in a certain state?  How likely is that request to be granted?

From Clergy | oca.org (Orthodox Church in America), the rector is appointed by the Diocesan Bishop and cannot leave his parish without the permission of the Bishop.

Below is the entire section:

  At the head of the parish is its Rector. According to the teachings of
  the Church, he is the spiritual father and teacher of his flock and
  the celebrant of the liturgical worship established by the Church. He
  teaches and edifies the People of God entrusted to his spiritual care
  "with no partiality" (James 2:1) and sees to it that all activities
  within the parish serve the religious goals of the Church.

  The rector is appointed by the Diocesan Bishop and cannot leave his
  parish without the permission of the Bishop. No activities in the
  parish can be initiated without his knowledge, approval, and blessing;
  neither should he do anything pertaining to the parish without the
  knowledge of his parishioners and parish organs elected by them, so
  that always and everywhere there may be unity, mutual trust,
  cooperation, and love. In conformity with his teaching office, the
  Rector shall have final authority over the church school. To be free
  from material preoccupations and wholly committed to his sacred
  ministry, the priest must be compensated by the parish, the amount of
  his compensation being clearly agreed upon at the time of his
  appointment.

See also: Article X: The Parish | The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America.

Answering Say for instance, his wife had strong family ties in a certain state. Could he request assignment in a certain state? How likely is that request to be granted?

I would say first step is for the rector to speak with his Bishop.


Is there any biblical support for copyright law? There are people and organisations that state that copyright is wrong, and that copyright law should be deprecated. I think the same way but as a Christian I want to be sure that such thought is not be against the will of God.

Would being an advocate for the deprecation or abolition of copyright law run contrary to any Biblical or Christian principals? Is there any justification for copyright stated in Bible or other Christian sources?

It's a very good question, and not one which is easy to answer. But we are all called to make use of our talents, which I think may vary from gifts. Information is not necessarily subject to copyright - only literary / dramatic / musical works, films, broadcasts and sound recordings - basically, works where the author/creator has expended skill and effort to create it. And surely we as Christians should support those authors and musicians who clearly have a talent and a gift for their area to continue to write/create so that the greater Church benefits?

As a Christian, personally I feel that copyright should not be abolished, though I do feel the term of protection is rather too long. I would be upset if Christians got into copyright court battles, as it is right if we want something to buy it through the correct and lawful channels, but not if we download it free from a torrent site or similar. There are of course flaws in copyright law - the exceptions, for example, should be wider and allow for non-profit institutions to do more with copyright works, but the general principle of others being remunerated for their work I think fits with the Christian faith insofar as it is not exploited.


Referred to as 'slaves'? So I'm a little confused. While going through my daily reading, I came across this verse in 1 Peter 2:16:

  Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God's slaves.

So we are God's slaves? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean anything derogatory but an image of a slave in my head isn't necessary a good one... Also in 1 Corinthians 7:22 it says:

  For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave.

So I hope someone can clear this up for me because it's making me feel a little uneasy.

Are we God's slaves?

1 Corinthians 6:12-20

12“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”b 17But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.c

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

We are bought as one who is bought from an en-slaver, who asks a ransom be paid for our freedom.  Now that we have been bought from our en-slaver (sin, devil, etc.).  We are now free.  Shall we then take our freedom re-enslave ourselves to sin?  No, we should serve our new master that bought us.  It is like God is saying, look, I know you were in a jam.  You were all bound up to sin.  Look, I will set you free.  Now that you are free, you get to do what you want.  You get a choice.  If you want I can give you a better way to live, do you want to come with me?  Do you want to be yoked with me, to plow though this field of life together?  It is your choice, you now have been set free to choose by me.  I am not going to make join me, but you can if you want.  Enlist in my service, and I will be your leader and protect you.  I offer excellent benefits.  But you don't have to if don't want to.  The choice is yours.

When I enlisted in the military service, I chose to do that.  I then gave up my freedoms as normal citizen to have my rights restricted to a military code.  To operate with in the parameters that the military laid out.  Why would I do this?  The benefits are great and the rewards include the knowledge that my sacrifice causes others in my country to remain free.

I was the government's slave, servant, service member.  They basically owned me.  But it was my choice, my election, my freedom, to choose to serve, enslave myself to their rules.  But before I joined I was enslaved a poor life, poor options, poor outlook for the future.  By enlisting in the service I was set free my old life, free a new life of adventure and challenge and reward.  But at what price?  1 Luke 14:28 advices count the cost.  1 Luke 14:25-27 lets us know, if you want to be his disciple it is going to cost you.  I hated my old life but traded it for a new one both by enlisting in the government's service and the Lord's service.  But fortunately my new master is benevolent and kind.  And the rewards are far greater than the old way.  I have jumped from the fire into the frying pan to become a finally cooked and delicious meal, fit for his consumption.  I have no desire to jump back into the fire.

Joshua 24:15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."


Master of Ceremonies wears purple at High Masses according to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass? Master of Ceremonies wears purple at High Masses according to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass?
I can recall reading in some liturgical book that the Master of Ceremonies (MC) had the privilege of wearing purple (at least the sash) when fulfilling this office at the High Mass in accordance with some norm of rubrics according to the Tridentine Rite. Most MCs would not avail themselves of this privilege. The MC does not have to be a priest, but could be a cleric of lower rank (even a seminarian).
While watching this YouTube video Levithögmässa. 23 november 2019, Göteborg, it is quite apparent that the MC is availing himself of this privilege. It seems equally possible the Master of Ceremonies is a seminarian!
My question is as follows: Can anyone direct me to a reference indicating the use of  a Master of Ceremonies wearing either a purple sash and black soutane or a purple sash and purple soutane?
Once again, I know I have read about it, but I can not recall the source! It may in fact only be a local tradition? I also can recall that the purple sash could be worn.

Was it in a cathedral church?
Nainfa's Costume of Prelates of the Catholic Church (1926) pp. 36-7:

purple is the color of the episcopal Livery. Thus, according to rules laid down by the Ceremonials,4 the Master of Ceremonies of the cathedral church, the train-bearer of the Bishop,1 the cross-bearer of the Metropolitan,2 all the members of the diocesan Seminary, as well as the employees of the cathedral, namely, sacristans, ushers, chanters, etc., all should wear purple cassocks.4. Cær. Episc. I., V., 4. S. R. C, February 29, 1868. — Dec. 14, 1894.1 LEVAVASSEUR-HÆGY, Fonctions Pontificates, II., p. 273. S. R. C., Aug. 2, 1608. Jan. 24, 1660.2. LEVAVASSEUR-HÆGY, Fonctions Pontificates, II., p. 305.

cf. ibid. p. 58 (ch. 4, "Cincture"):

At ordinary times, Bishops and the Prelates di mantelletta are entitled to wear a purple cincture of plain silk over the choir cassock, the ordinary black cassock and the simar. When they wear mourning (black cassock with purple trimmings), they put on a cincture of plain black silk with fringes or tufts of the same color.1 The cincture of the Prelates di mantellone is of no other color than purple.BARBIER de MONTAULT, op. cit., Tom. I., p. 285.

And ibid. p. 60: "the Sacred Congregation of Rites forbids them [altar boys] to wear a cincture."


What did the early church believe about the "rapture"? There are a lot of differing opinions on when the rapture will take place (pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, or mid-tribulation). From my own attempts to research the topic and look at Scripture from outside my presuppositions, I have found good arguments for all sides of the issue.

What did the early church actually believe about the "rapture"?

Note: This question is (obviously) not a duplicate of the question "What view of eschatology did the early church believe?" — I wrote that question and, seeing that I needed to be more specific about the different aspects of eschatology, I wrote this question that specifically dealt with the "rapture."  The other question, by contrast, mentions nothing about the "rapture" in any of the answers.

Thanks to books like Left Behind, the English word rapture often conjures up images of bodies mysteriously disappearing into thin air, followed by several years of severe tribulation, leading up to the final judgment and resurrection.  Such a view is a product of dispensationalism, a relatively new theological framework, and not one that the church fathers espoused.
Does that mean that the church fathers did not believe in a rapture?  On the contrary: they did believe in it, though not in the same sense as the word is commonly understood today.
The word rapture comes from the Latin word raptus, meaning "a carrying off."  This idea is included in non-religious definitions of rapture:

a state or experience of being carried away by overwhelming emotion (MW)

A related Latin word, rapio, is used in the Latin Vulgate's translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up [rapiemur] together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. [ESV]

The rapture, then, is not a concept that suddenly appeared when dispensationalism came along.  The word was used in English and Latin long prior.  However, it was understood differently, so we need to examine what the church fathers wrote regarding this rapio or raptus: a) what is it, b) when does it occur and c) is it secret or visible.
What is the rapture?
Church fathers widely understand the rapture to be a future physical meeting of Christ and Christians in the air.
Origen gives no indication of a hidden meaning in Paul's words in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.  He simply writes that both the dead and alive in Christ will rise:

Those whom we spoke of as dead have special need of the resurrection, since not even those who are alive can be taken up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air before the dead in Christ first rise. (Commentary on John, 20.233)

Rufinus of Aquileia clearly indicates a physical reunion with Christ in the sky:

And do not marvel that the flesh of the saints is to be changed into such a glorious condition at the resurrection as to be caught up to meet God, suspended in the clouds and borne in the air. (Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, 46)

Augustine says that living Christians will "both die and rise again at once while caught up into the air":

And why should it seem to us incredible that that multitude of bodies should be, as it were, sown in the air, and should in the air forthwith revive immortal and incorruptible, when we believe, on the testimony of the same apostle, that the resurrection shall take place in the twinkling of an eye, and that the dust of bodies long dead shall return with incomprehensible facility and swiftness to those members that are now to live endlessly? (City of God, 20.20)

When will the rapture occur?
Church fathers routinely associate the rapture with the physical resurrection of believers following the tribulation, and many see a close connection between the rapture and other eschatological events, such as the final judgment.
Hippolytus, one of the relatively few proponents of a premillennialist view (chiliasm), sees the rapture as following the tribulation and rule of the Antichrist:

These things, then, being to come to pass, beloved, and the one week being divided into two parts, and the abomination of desolation being manifested then, and the two prophets and forerunners of the Lord having finished their course, and the whole world finally approaching the consummation, what remains but the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from heaven, for whom we have looked in hope? (On Christ and Antichrist, 64)

Others connect even more prophecies with the rapture.  For example, Gregory of Nazianzus, using the language of 1 Thessalonians 4:17, writes:

I shall await the voice of the archangel, the last trumpet, the transformation of heaven, the change of earth, the freedom of the elements, the renewal of the universe.  Then shall I see Caesarius himself, no longer in exile, no longer being buried, no longer mourned, no longer pitied, but splendid, glorious, sublime. (Fathers of the Church, v22, p22)

Similarly, Augustine writes that this passage refers to both the taking up of believers as well as the final judgment:

These words of the apostle most distinctly proclaim the future resurrection of the dead, when the Lord Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead. (City of God, 20.20)

Chrysostom and Jerome (quoted below) also connect the rapture with the final judgment.
Will the rapture be secret?
If the rapture corresponds with the defeat of the Antichrist and final judgment, it follows that it will not be secret.  Jerome says the "world shall howl" and "its peoples shall tremble," which is obviously not indicative of secrecy. (Letter 14.11)
Chrysostom uses the analogy of the entrance of a king into a city, arguing that honor is the purpose of this event, thus seeming to emphasize the visible nature of the rapture:

If He is about to descend, on what account shall we be caught up? For the sake of honor. For when a king drives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him; but the condemned await the judge within. [...] Seest thou how great is the honor? and as He descends, we go forth to meet Him, and, what is more blessed than all, so we shall be with Him. (Homily on 1 Thessalonians, VIII)

Summary
We must be careful not to impose our modern understanding of rapture on the church fathers: they believed that 1 Thessalonians 4 refers to a rapture in which living Christians will meet Christ in the sky and be transformed.  They saw this visible event as closely associated with at least the end of the tribulation and the defeat of the Antichrist, and often the final judgment itself.
Dispensational ideas like a "secret" rapture and significant gap in time between the rapture and final judgment are not expressed by the church fathers.  If we wish to say that the church fathers "believed in the rapture," we must be very careful to specify that we are using rapture in the traditional sense—a taking up, a carrying off—not the dispensational sense.


Who are the "little ones" in Luke 17:2? From Luke 17:1-3, NIV:

  Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. So watch yourselves."

One common interpretation of this passage is that the "little ones" refers to children. However, that is not obvious in the context, and there are many other possibilities, including sinners, doubters, everyone, and so on. Indeed, its meaning may also hinge on what "to stumble" means here: whether it is to doubt their faith, to tempt to sin, or something else.

Is there a common agreement on who the "little ones" are in Luke 17:2?

Matthew 18 also cites Jesus' words regarding little ones, and does so more frequently:

  At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest
  in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in
  the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn
  and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
  4  Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the
  kingdom of heaven.

  5  “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6 but
  whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,
  it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around
  his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.  Matthew 18:1-5

In this context, Jesus specifically identifies a child and speaks of children, then refers to children as "these little ones".  So, interpreting Scripture in light of Scripture, it is pretty conclusive that "little ones" refers to children.