This question raises some issues that derive more from popular piety and tradition, than from scripture and/or the authentic Tradition of the Church. Sometimes these issues can place too much emphasis on things that are not essential to our faith, or even distract us from the issues of major importance.

Before answering this question, let's keep in mind two things:

• The angels, regardless of their rank, are creatures of God and meant to serve God. Therefore, interest in them should never overshadow the attention we direct toward God (Father, Son, and Spirit).
• The Word of God, in its fullness, has been spoken to us in the person of Jesus, who is the Word made flesh. Therefore, no utterance of any spiritual being can be more "pure" than what the life, words, and deeds, make known to us.

Now, onto the question...
According to tradition, there are nine levels (choirs) by which the "angels" are ranked:

1. Seraphim
2. Cherubim
3. Thrones
4. Dominions
5. Virtues
6. Powers
7. Principalities
8. Archangels
9. Angels

Of these, the highest ranking are the Seraphim, who are identified as the attendants before God's throne. The book of Isaiah (chapter 6) is the only placed in the scriptures where the Seraphim are mentioned. Do they communicate with humans? This passage indicates that one of the seraphim appeared to Isaiah at the beginning of his prophetic ministry and did indeed speak to him. So the only scriptural reference that we have seems to imply that they can and do (or at least did, in one instance!)

To answer this question we first need to know something about where we get the Lord's Prayer, in it's various forms as prayed by Catholics and Protestants.

What you are referring to as "finishing" the Lord's Prayer is actually a doxology (a prayer of praise) added to the prayer which Jesus taught to his disciples (as recorded in the scriptures.)

The Lord's Prayer is recorded in only two of the Gospels (Mt 6 and Lk 11), and in neither of these versions is the final doxology ("for thine is the kingdom...) included. In fact, the final doxology is actually a combination of several prayers of praise recorded in various parts of the Book of Revelation.

Early on in the life of the Church (within the first century) Christians began concluding the Lord's Prayer with this doxology when they prayed at their liturgies. (An example of this is recorded in the Didache.)

Today, in our Catholic Mass, we retain the version of the Lord's Prayer as it is recorded in Matthew's Gospel. This version divides the Lord's Prayer into seven petitions for which we pray to the Father. The final doxology is separated by a short insertion ("Deliver us, Lord...) which indicates that this prayer of praise (the final doxology) glorifies God for the fulfillment of the first three petitions (hallowed be thy name... thy kingdom come... thy will be done...), which has occurred, but is not yet fully experienced by us on earth ("as we await the coming of our savior...").

This is a great question, but one that doesn't have a very simple answer. Actually, it has more to do with translating from one language to another, rather than differences in faith and belief. We'll try to keep it simple, but we apologize in advance if it seems too complicated.

From the start, there are two things that we want to be sure are understood. First, Jehovah, Allah, Yahweh, are all names used to refer to the same God. These are simply the ways that people from different faith traditions identify the "personal" name of God. Second, referring to God by name (whether that name is Jehovah, Allah, Yahweh, or simply God,) should always be done with utmost respect, and never casually or trivially.

So now to answer the question...
We need to remember that the personal name of God, as it was revealed to Moses, was originally recorded in the Book of Exodus in ancient Hebrew. Hebrew uses an alphabet different than the "western" one we are familiar with. In addition, when words were written in ancient Hebrew, only consonants (no vowels!) were recorded. So immediately we should see that the first problem is how to translate the "letters" of the Hebrew alphabet so the name "sounds" the same in a language using a different alphabet.

Here's where it gets even trickier! You are probably aware that even with the same alphabet, sometimes the same letter has different sounds in different languages. For example, you know what sound the letter "J" has in English, right? Well, in German it sounds more like a "Y", and in French like "zh!" So when modern scholars began working with the scriptures in their own languages, they used the sounds that their language gave to particular letters. If the name began with a "Y" sound, an English speaking scholar would use the letter "Y," but a German speaking scholar would use the letter "J."

Most of the original research regarding the Hebrew name of God was done by German scholars. They used a "J" (their "Y" sound) for the first letter of God's name. But when English speaking scholars saw the "J," they pronounced it with the "J" sound familiar to English speaking people. In more recent years, however, most scholars have come to agree that the personal name of God is probably more accurately translated into English by using the consonants "YHWH." This is where the name Yahweh, which is used by most Catholics, comes from.

St. Michael is one of three archangels (the others are Gabriel and Raphael) whose feast day is celebrated on Sept. 29. Michael is mentioned by name four times in the Scriptures Ð twice in the Old Testament (Dn 10:13ff and 12:1), as helper to the Israelites Ð and twice in the New Testament (Jude v.9 and Rv 12:7-9), as the victorious opponent of the devil. He is most often depicted wearing armor and brandishing a sword, either fighting or standing triumphantly over the devil. Because of his role as protector he is identified as the patron of police officers.

Michael is often depicted holding the scales of "justice", or sometimes even the Book of Life, both which symbolize the Last Judgment. Though Michael is not mentioned by name here, it seems that tradition has associated him with the angel of Revelation who holds the book (Rv 20:1). Likewise, it seems that the defeat of the Devil by Michael, (which is depicted in scripture) may also be equated with the triumph of justice (hence the scales).

Another tradition (alluded to in the letter of Jude) has Michael in the role of "defense attorney." Michael disputed with the devil over the body of Moses, whom the devil claimed because he had killed a man while living in Egypt (Ex 2:12). Michael's great defense won him the body of Moses. Perhaps the scales derive from that tradition.

Your question raises an issue that is misunderstood by many individuals, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. The issue is how "divorce" affects a Catholic's status within the Church.

The truth is that divorce itself does not present the problem. Remarriage after divorce does. In most cases, when a Catholic enters into a marriage it is presumed to be sacramental. Divorce, while it may end the legal obligations of spouses to one another, cannot affect the sacramental nature of the marriage. A Catholic who obtains a divorce from his/her spouse is not considered "free to marry" unless an annulment has been granted by the Church. An annulment is a declaration by the Church that the marriage in question, though legal, was never sacramental. Therefore, the individuals involved are considered free to enter into a sacramental marriage.

What has this to do with serving as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion? In speaking of the requirements of those who are mandated for this liturgical role, the Pastoral Handbook of the Archdiocese of Denver states that if married, a "regular marital situation" is required (Section 5.4.10.2). If the individual has been divorced, but has not remarried, there is no impediment to his/her ability to carry out this role. If he/she has been granted an annulment and has remarried, likewise, there is no impediment. An impediment would exist, however, if the individual has entered into another marriage without the benefit of having received an annulment for the first. ake sure that your beliefs and wishes are clearly made known beforehand.

We sometimes wonder what good can come from pain and suffering. Your last sentence indicates that you have discovered that there indeed can be redemptive value to it. One form that good can take is the knowledge gained from scientific research.

The Church's teaching regarding scientific research upon humans is conditioned by our hope in the Resurrection. Because of this hope, the bodies of those who have died must always be treated in a dignified manner, with charity and respect. This treatment, however, does not preclude scientific research. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that scientific research, and even organ donation, after death can be "morally permitted" and "meritorious" (CCC 2301).

Scientific research can provide the knowledge required to alleviate future suffering, eradicate diseases, and provide for improved healthcare. These are all good and noble goals. The end results, however, do not justify the means by which they are achieved. Scientific research, therefore, must always be carried out in a manner that respects the dignity of human body, both during, and after, that research is carried out.

In regard to this issue, as well as any medical procedures with moral/ethical implications, it is always good practice to make sure that your beliefs and wishes are clearly made known beforehand.

The question you ask actually raises several other questions, all focusing upon the possibility of "interfaith communion" or "intercommunion." Intercommunion is the interdenominational practice of sharing in communion.

Of course, for Catholics, one of the primary reasons for not allowing interfaith communion is our belief in the "real presence" of Jesus. These do not merely represent, nor are they simply of equal significance, to his body and blood. Catholic doctrine has traditionally taught that the bread and wine have been changed in substance (transubstantiation) and are the actual body and blood of Jesus. In some non-Catholic, ecclesial communions this simply is not the belief. In other cases, some ecclesial communions may claim belief in the real presence, but from a Catholic perspective have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders (CCC 1400). In both of these situations intercommunion is not possible.

But belief in the real presence is not the only issue to be considered. Partaking the Eucharist is also a sign of the unity of faith of Catholics, expressing the fullness of communion of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches have maintained valid ordination of their ministers, and also the fullness of the Eucharistic mystery. But, unfortunately, we (Western and Eastern Orthodox) are not yet of one mind and heart, and so full communion is still lacking. Intercommunion may occur, given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority (CCC 1399), but presently is not yet the normal practice.

To sum it up then, although Catholics do not have a monopoly on the real presence in the Eucharist, interfaith communion is not an option when fullness of communion with the Catholic Church is lacking.

From a Catholic perspective, the origin of papacy is rooted in scripture, as well as the tradition and history of the early Christian Church. Usually the scriptural passage most often quoted in support of the papacy is Mt 16:18-19. Here, Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter (Kephas, from the Aramaic word for "rock") and says to him that "upon this rock I will build my Church," and that "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven." This is the clearest reference to the primacy of Peter among the apostles and disciples, though not the only one. The naming of the Twelve (apostles) is related in the Gospels of Matthew (10:2-4), Mark (3:16-19), and Luke (6:14-16), and in each case, Simon Peter is always named first (even though there are some discrepancies with some of the other names!) Likewise, in the Gospel of John (20:3-8) both Peter and another disciple run to the tomb where Jesus had been buried. Even though the other disciple arrived first, he did not enter the tomb until after Peter had arrived and entered. Some scholars have argued that this passage, in conjunction with the others already mentioned, seems to imply that Peter had already possessed a position of primacy among the other apostles and disciples within the early Church. So how does this relate to the pope?

Several of the original apostles and disciples "presided" over local "churches" which had been established in various cities of the ancient world. This position of leadership was basically the same as what we now refer to as the "bishop," who presides over a "diocese." Peter is generally accepted as the first bishop of the church in Rome, and every bishop of Rome since is viewed as his direct successor.

Historically, as the Church grew, disputes and conflicts arose within the various local churches. To help resolve the issues, often these churches turned to Rome for instruction. The influence of the Roman Church, and the authority of its bishop were becoming well established. By the fifth century, the official teaching of the Church recognized that ‘Peter continues to speak to the whole Church through the bishop of Rome.’ With this, the authority of the papacy over the universal church was firmly established.

Ultimately, the only person who can answer this question honestly is the pope himself! However, it seems that the real issue is how the pope determines or "discerns" the will of God for himself and the Church. The answer to this question is simple. The pope discerns the will of God in the same manner as any other believing Christian. He spends time in prayer, reflection, study of the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, and in dialogue with others who practice these same disciplines. None of the popes of recent history have publicly claimed extraordinary visions or revelations, upon which church teaching was then based. Rather, they have nurtured their own spiritual lives through the ordinary disciplines already mentioned. What may seem extraordinary to many of us is the commitment of time and energy they are able to make.
Of course, as Catholics we do believe that the pope, (as well as Church leadership in general) is guided by the influence of the Holy Spirit. We believe that the Church, under the leadership of the pope, has been guaranteed the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised that "upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18).
In addition, we believe that when the pope teaches definitively in a matter concerning faith and/or morals, he teaches infallibly (without error). Such definitions of faith and morals, however, are never declared without extensive prayer, reflection, study and dialogue.

So, the pope prays just as we do. And in his prayer he not only speaks to God, but even more importantly, he listens to God!

The "Great Schism," sometimes referred to as the "great Schism of the Popes," took place from 1378 — 1417 AD. During this period of time, two, and later three men each claimed to be the legitimate pope. The issue was finally settled with the Council of Constance (1414-1418 AD), when the council leaders deposed two of the men, persuaded the third to resign, and then elected a new pope.

This, however, raised a new issue as to whether or not an ecumenical council (such as that of Constance) has greater authority than a pope. Historically this council is seen as the exception, in that the authority of the pope exceeds even that of an ecumenical council.

So did this help the Church grow stronger? At a time in history when many kings and emperors tried to influence church teaching and practice, the emphasis upon papal authority freed the Church from the influence of political leaders.

A more detailed explanation of the events of the Great Schism can be found at www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

Just for the record, officially there has never been a woman in the position of pope. As you can imagine, trying to keep records over a period of 2000 years can be very problematic. Some documents are lost and/or destroyed, while others contain errors made when being written or copied. (Remember, until the fifteenth century all documents were written and copied by hand, and so only few copies ever existed.) As a result, an official list depends upon our ability to compare and compile information from a variety of sources, all which first must be deemed reliable. (No easy task!) Fortunately, historians and other scholars have researched these documents and compiled a list of popes which is generally accepted as historically accurate. (You can find a copy of this list in the front of the New American Bible.)

Having said that, there is an intriguing legend that in the past few years has resurfaced: the legend of Pope Joan. According to this legend, in the ninth century there was a woman who managed to disguise herself as a man, study within theological circles, be ordained, and get elected as pope. Known as Pope John VIII, she supposedly reigned for about two years, between Leo IV and Benedict III. Her identity as a woman was eventually discovered when, while riding through the streets of Rome, she stopped by the side of the road and gave birth to a child. Upon discovering her gender, the people of Rome thereby put her to death.

An initial response might be that the story itself seems too preposterous to believe. But, as with any story, we should probably ask whether or not there are any facts to support it. In this case, historical evidence, if it exists at all, is very minimal. First, though Pope Joan supposedly lived during the ninth century, the first known references to her do not occur until the thirteenth century — some four hundred years later! No contemporary references to her exist. It should also be noted that during this time in history the authority of the pope as universal leader of the Church was often attacked, and attempts to discredit his role were common. In fact, during the sixteenth century, the legend was used by many of the leaders of the Reformation precisely because it provided a convenient piece of anti-Catholic propaganda. In addition to the lack of contemporary references, the short period of time between the reigns of Leo IV and Benedict III (both of whom are historical persons), seems to preclude the reign of another pope between them.

Today, most scholars seem to agree that the legend of Pope Joan is just that: a fictitious story whose existence has no solid historical basis.

"Church Organization" is a very broad term that could and does include several different things. The beginnings of the Church can be traced back to the preaching of Jesus in Galilee. He preached to the masses and then picked the twelve to be His Apostles. As Jesus continued to preach, and the number of His followers grew, He also began preparing the twelve to bear His message to the world. Jesus and His Apostles became inseparable and, as He traveled and taught, they witnessed His miracles, teachings and ultimately, His death and Resurrection. He invested them with the powers He Himself had received and appointed Peter, as their leader. He "officially" established the Church when He changed Peter's name (from Simon to Peter) and stated that His Church is founded on this rock (Mt 16:18). Jesus confirmed that Peter was the leader of the Church after His resurrection when He told Peter to "Feed My lambs...Feed My sheep (Jn 21:15-17). Peter exercised his authority over the Church when, after Jesus' Ascension, he instructed Jesus' followers to select a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15-26).

Early actions and organization of the Church are outlined in the Acts of the Apostles. At Pentecost the founding of the Church was completed by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and disciples gathered in the upper room in Jerusalem. After the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit, Peter began to preach. Peter took the lead and preached to those in the vicinity, and thousands were baptized (Acts 2). These "new converts," along with the Apostles and the disciples of Jesus, formed the first Christian community (Church) in Jerusalem.

Eventually the Apostles gathered together the community of disciples and told them to select a group of "deacons" to accomplish tasks so the Apostles would have more time to preach and pray. Seven were chosen and the Apostles "laid hands on them" (Acts 6:1-7). This established deacons as assistants to the Apostles in service of the community (CCC 874-6; 1536; 1569-71).

In Acts 14:23, "presbyters" were appointed to minister to the communities outside Judea, establishing the "priesthood" as ministerial assistants to the Apostles (bishops). With this the hierarchical structure of the Church, (bishops, priests, and deacons) was complete (CCC 1536).

That is a somewhat brief history of how the hierarchical structure of the Church developed. Today, the organization of the Church remains basically the same.

A particular church, or diocese, is led by the Bishop, who is responsible for all action within it (CCC 833-834). The bishop and/or priest acts "in the person of Jesus Christ" whenever he performs the duties of the Church (CCC 1548). Since it is the bishop who is linked to the Apostles (through Apostolic succession), he is the authoritative teacher and leader of his diocese. Priests within his diocese act as his assistants, and therefore derive their "authority" from his leadership, through the sacrament of Holy Orders.

The Apostles set up particular churches around the world. Each Apostle passed on in succession the "role of leader" for that church to the next "episcopal" leader (Bishop) [CCC1555-1557]. Therefore, each Bishop in the Catholic Church can trace his appointment back to Jesus Christ's appointment via the Apostles.

The Pope (as Bishop of Rome) is the first among equals, just as Peter was first among the Apostles. As the direct successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome acts in his stead to fill the role of earthly leader of the Church. Jesus gave Peter the task of leading His Church when He gave him the keys to the kingdom [Mt16:18-19].

A "holy day" is an important feast of Our Lord, Our Lady or other saints that Catholics are morally obliged to observe by participating in the celebration of the Eucharist, and by abstaining from unnecessary work. These days are "solemn" (as opposed to "festive") because of their special importance and meaning for the Church. In the United States, we observe six holy days each liturgical year, although holy days do vary from one country to another.

The Code of Canon Law (the body of laws and regulations adopted by church authority for government of the church) establishes certain days of the year beyond Sundays as holy days of obligation. The most recently revised Code requires 10 holy days to be observed throughout the liturgical year. Howver, exceptions can be made by the Holy See in special agreements with the bishops' conferences of various countries. The United States was permitted to observe the six holy days (*) originally designated by the U.S. bishops at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884.

After their general annual meeting in 1991, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) of the United States issued the following decree on December 13.

In addition to Sunday, the days to be observed as holy days of obligation in the dioceses of the United States, in conformity with Canon 1246, are as follows:

• January 1, the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
• August 15, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
• November 1, the Solemnity of All Saints
• December 8, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception
• December 25, the Solemnity of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ

Whenever January 1, August 15 or November 1 falls on a Saturday or on a Monday, Catholics are relieved of their obligation to attend holy day Mass.

This decree of the NCCB was approved and confirmed by the Holy See and became effective January 1, 1993.

The feast of the Ascension, originally a holy day on the Thursday of the sixth week of Easter, has been transferred to the Sunday prior to Pentecost. This means that the feast of the Ascension is no longer an "extraordinary" day of obligation, since Sunday is always a day of obligation.

The history of holy days in the United States derives from the complex origins of the Catholic faith in our country. From its beginnings, this nation has been populated by a variety of ethnic groups, each living an expression of Catholicism distinct to its native culture. England, France and Spain were the first three countries to bring Catholicism to American soil, and their definite impact on the liturgical calendar in this country has resulted in a "distillation" of their respective liturgical calendars.

Ash Wedesnday is not a holy day of obligation because it does not commemorate any special event or particular person. Ash Wednesday marks a beginning of a period of preparation for the greater celebrations of Christ's saving work. Although Ash Wednesday is a day of penance, the Church has never chosen to make it or any other specific day the definitive commemoration of repentance.

The Council of Trent (an ecumenical council of the early church) declares that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation after His Resurrection:

"'On the evening of that day, the first day of the week,' Jesus showed himself to his apostles. 'He breathed on them, and said to them: 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.' (John 20:19, 22-23)."

According to apostolic succession in the Church, which is the transfer of Christ's authority to forgive sins to future generations of apostles by the laying on of hands, priests are thus given the authority to stand for the person of Christ when a penitant member of the community comes seeking forgiveness for his or her transgressions.

The Catholic Catechism, paragraph 983, also tells us:

"Priests have received from God a power that he has given neither to angels nor to archangels...God above confirms what priests do here below. Were there no forgiveness of sins in the Church, there would be no hope of life to come or eternal liberation. Let us thank God who has given his Church such a gift."

The "great schism" you are asking about could refer to either of two events in the history of the Church. The first, sometimes referred to as the "great Schism of the Popes," took place from 1378 - 1417 AD. During this period of time, two, and later three men each claimed to be the legitimate pope. How this happened can be briefly summarized as follows.

Due to political tensions in Italy, Pope Clement V, in 1305, moved the papacy from Rome to Avignon, France, and for more than seventy years his successors remained in this city. For various political and theological reasons, and through the influence of Sts. Bridget of Sweden and Catherine of Siena, Pope Gregory XI returned the papacy to Rome in 1378, but died shortly after. Pope Urban V was chosen as his successor, but soon angered a group of French Cardinals by urging reforms within the Church's hierarchy. These cardinals returned to France, denounced Urban V, and elected Clement VII as pope. The Church now had two claimants to the papacy, resulting in a schism (a split in allegiance).

Urban V (Rome) died and was succeeded by Gregory XII, and when Clement VII (France) died, he was succeeded by Benedict XIII. But matters soon grew worse. In an attempt to rectify the situation, a council was held at Pisa, and a third individual, Alexander V, was chosen as pope. Upon his death, John XXIII was chosen.

Finally, in 1414, another council was held in the city of Constance. At this council both John XXIII and Benedict XIII were officially deposed, while Gregory XII formally submitted his resignation. The council then elected Martin V as pope, and the schism had come to an end.

Though this historical tragedy reminds us that not even the leadership of the Church is immune to human frailty and sinfulness, it is our Catholic belief that the Holy Spirit continues to be present within the Church, and continues to guide her leaders.

The second event sometimes referred to as the great Schism is the unfortunate separation between the Eastern (orthodox) and Western (catholic) Churches, which continues to this very day. (It should be noted that "schism" here refers to a division in allegiance to church authority, and is not a judgment on an erroneous belief. The Western and Eastern Churches are still united in the central dogmas of Catholic Christianity.)

Already from the 400's AD there began to emerge two centers of authority in the Church: Rome and Constantinople. As years, and eventually centuries passed, these two centers became separated by language, culture, and traditions. They were, however, united by their acceptance of the basic tenets of Christian faith.

In 1054, political and theological issues led to a formal division between the Catholic Church (recognizing the pope as its earthly head), and the Orthodox Church (led by their patriarchs, such as the Patriarch of Constantinople). Misunderstandings, miscommunication, (and probably some strong personalities) resulted in the formal excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Caerularius, by the representatives of Pope Leo IX, in 1054. The Patriarch, in turn, responded by excommunicating the Pope and his representatives.

Two major theological barriers still prevent unity between these two Churches. The first concerns the authority of the pope. One issue deals with the primacy of the pope. The West (Catholic) believes that the pope has universal governing and teaching authority in the whole Church, while the East (Orthodox) believes that all the patriarchs, including the bishop of Rome (the pope) are equal in authority.

The second deals with the insertion of the words "and the Son," (we believe in the Holy SpiritÄ who proceeds from the Father and the SonÄ) into the Nicene Creed by the Western Church. The Eastern Church does not accept that even the Church has the authority to alter this traditional creed.

On a positive note, some ground has been covered in an attempt to unify these two Churches. In 1965, Pope John XXIII and Patriarch Athenagoras met and removed the mutual excommunications. Even more recently, (October, 2003) in light of the Vatican's affirmation of the "normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the the (Nicene) Creed," a joint committee of Catholic and Orthodox church leaders in North America has recommended that future translations of the Creed used for teaching and liturgical purposes should omit the phrase "and the Son."

There are a few issues that need to be clarified before answering this question. The first is that there could very well have been visions and revelations granted to some of Jesus’ early followers that were, for whatever reason, never recorded in the scriptures. The Gospel of John mentions that many of the things that Jesus himself did were not recorded (Jn 21:25). On the other hand, the scriptures do record "revelations" received by some other individuals – Stephen (Acts 7:55-56), Paul (Acts 9:3-6), and even Peter (Acts 10:9-16).

Another issue pertains to when, where, and why certain books of the New Testament were written. It is important to remember that these books were written by a variety of individuals over a period of about 50-60 years (from approximately 55-110 AD), and most were written to address issues experienced by particular communities (for example, the Church at Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, etc.)
While it is impossible for anyone to say exactly why God chose a particular individual to receive and deliver a particular message, it would be safe to conclude that the person would have to be connected in some way to the community (for which the message was intended).

So, what do we know about the Book of Revelation and its author?

Most scripture scholars agree that the book was written late in the first century (90 – 100 AD), at a time of crisis for the early Christians. The church was experiencing cruel persecution by the Roman Empire, and it is primarily for this reason, to encourage these Christians to remain strong in their faith, that the revelations were recorded. By this time, Peter had already been martyred (mid 60’s AD), and so would not have been a likely candidate for this mission!

With regard to the author of the Book of Revelation, what we do know is this:
The author never identifies himself as the author of the fourth Gospel, but simply as a Christian named John, who was banished for a time to the Island of Patmos as punishment for his Christian allegiance and witness. Although some of the early Church Fathers did identify him with John the evangelist, a significant number of Church Fathers also denied it. He had connection and influence among the seven churches of Asia, which he expects to heed his warning and attend to his message. He claims to be a brother of his readers and a partner in their sufferings, and therefore, speaks to them in familiar terms.
He is a person claiming prophetic and visionary gifts and is led by God to write a message for the churches of Asia Minor.

Whoever this John was, it is clear that he was in a uniquely opportune position to receive and communicate God’s revelation at this particular time and place in Christian history.

To answer you quite honestly, there is no explicit reference to the practice of infant baptism in the sacred scriptures. The most we can hope to do is to show that the practice is at least consistent with what scripture teaches. To do so, I will refer briefly to just four passages. The first is from Psalm 51, verse seven. Here the psalmist admits, "True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me." So the scriptures do not deny that the human condition is one of sinfulness, even from conception, a condition that we Catholics refer to as Original Sin. Second, in the tenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we read of the vision of Cornelius, a gentile, and the subsequent baptism of his entire household. Again, there is not an explicit reference to infant baptism, but at least the question can be raised as to whether or not his household included any infants and/or children. If so, then once again the practice would not seem to be in conflict with the scriptures. Finally, I would like to refer to two passages from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. In Luke, chapter 18, verses 15-16, we read of people bringing children (even infants) to Jesus for his blessing, to which he replies, "Let the children come to me and do not prevent them." Similarly, in Matthew, chapter 18, verse 14 Jesus teaches his disciples "it is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones be lost. Again, I must admit, these are not direct references to the practice of infant baptism per se, but at least we can see that the spirit behind the practice is consistent with scripture.

Your question, however, raises another issue for Catholic Christians. If something is not specifically taught in the scriptures, by what authority do we believe or practice it? Here is where Catholic Christianity differs from most forms of Protestant Christianity. Whereas most Protestant denominations accept only the authority of the sacred scriptures, the Catholic Church also accepts the authority of sacred Tradition, specifically as it is interpreted by the magisterium (the pope and bishops). In fact, the documents of Vatican II refer to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition making up "a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church" (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, #10).

When we look back on how the Church has lived out the faith that has been entrusted to it, we see that very early on in its history the practice of infant baptism became widespread. By the beginning of the fifth century, it had become so much the norm that St. Augustine referred to it in explaining the doctrine of Original Sin, and its distinction from personal sin.

So, is there a significant theological basis for this practice? The Catholic answer is "Yes!" There are indeed two very good reasons for the continued practice of infant baptism. The first refers back to the doctrines of Original Sin, and the free gift of God’s grace. If we accept the fact that all are born with Original Sin, and that baptism is the sacrament by which we are freed from this state, then the logical conclusion is that it is appropriate to baptize even infants. This has been, and remains, a teaching of our Catholic faith (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #403). Those who object to infant baptism, however, often argue that baptism should be the response to an individual’s personal faith, and that this is something of which infants are incapable. While there is some validity to this argument, there is also a significant danger. It is true that when baptism is celebrated with adults it reflects a personal faith response to God’s invitation of grace, but notice that it is God’s grace that is primary. God’s grace is always unmerited… there is nothing we do to earn it! The practice of infant baptism certainly highlights this basic Christian truth about God’s grace.

The other reason stems from a second aspect of baptism. Not only does the sacrament "wash away" original sin, but it also incorporates us into the Body of Christ, the Church (CCC, 1267). The Church is our "family" of faith, and, just like any family, consists of members at various stages of growth and development. Just as an infant enters a family by birth and is really a part of that family even though for a long period of time there is no real capacity for giving human love, but only for receiving it, so an infant may be brought into the family of the Church before (s)he is capable of understanding its significance. In this case, the intentional faith is expressed not by the infant, but by those who bring the infant for baptism (parents, friends, relatives).