Was Mary ceremoniously married to Joseph when she left to serve Elizabeth?

Was Mary ceremoniously married to Joseph before she left to serve Elizabeth?
The short answer is yes.

When the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and declared unto her that she was called to be the Mother of God, as we see recorded in Luke 1, her response would become the cause of the spilling of a whole lot of ink over the centuries: “How shall this happen, since I know not man?” (v. 34, Douay Rheims, Confraternity Edition).
For Catholics this is an indication of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity. It’s really quite simple. If Mary and Joseph were just an ordinary couple embarking on a normal married life together, there would be no reason to ask the question. Mary would have known very well how it could be that the angel was saying she would have a baby. As St. Augustine said it:

Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow (Sermon 225, 2).

There was no such thing as engagement (as it is understood in modern Western culture) in ancient Israel. The text says Mary was “betrothed” or “espoused” (Gr.—emnesteumene), not engaged. Betrothal, in ancient Israel, would be akin to the ratification of a marriage (when a couple exchanges vows in the presence of an official witness of the Church) in Catholic theology. That ratified marriage is then consummated—in the normal course—on the couple’s wedding night. So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation. If this were an ordinary marriage, St. Joseph would then have had a husband’s right to the marriage bed—the consummation.
For those who are not convinced “betrothed” equals “married” for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the “annunciation” of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph’s discovery of Mary’s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still “betrothed.” Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was “with child,” he determined he would “send her away privately” (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?
Further, the angel then tells Joseph:

Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24).

Notice, Joseph took Mary “his wife,” indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be “betrothed.” “Betrothed” is obviously much more than “engaged.”
Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be “betrothed” (see Luke 2:5).
So let’s recap what have we have uncovered. First, Joseph had already taken his espoused “wife” into his home and was caring for her. Second, Scripture reveals him to be her legal husband and to have travelled with Mary to be enrolled with her as a lawfully wedded couple and family. Third, she was called St. Joseph’s “wife” by the angel of the Lord… and yet, they were still referred to as betrothed. - When Were Joseph and Mary Married?

It has also been the constant tradition of the Church that St. Joseph and Our Lady were married in a religious ceremony. This idea has been expressed in Sacred Art and the liturgy as well as in tradition itself.

The Golden Legend, which derives its account from the much older Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, recounts how, when Mary was 14 and living in the Temple, the High Priest gathered all male descendants of David of marriageable age including Saint Joseph (though he was much older than the rest). The High Priest ordered them to each bring a rod; he that owned the rod which would bear flowers was divinely ordained to become Mary's husband. After the Holy Spirit descended as a dove and caused Joseph's rod to blossom, he and Mary were wed according to Jewish custom. The account, quoted in its entirety, runs thus:

When [Mary] had come to her fourteenth year, the high priest announced to all that the virgins who were reared in the Temple, and who had reached the age of their womanhood, should return to their own, and be given in lawful marriage. The rest obeyed the command, and Mary alone answered that this she could not do, both because her parents had dedicated her to the service of the Lord, and because she herself had vowed her virginity to God.... When the high priest went in to take counsel with God, a voice came forth from the oratory for all to hear, and it said that of all the marriageable men of the house of David who had not yet taken a wife, each should bring a branch and lay it upon the altar, that one of the branches would burst into flower and upon it the Holy Ghost would come to rest in the form of a dove, according to the prophecy of Isaias, and that he to whom this branch belonged would be the one to whom the virgin should be espoused. Joseph was among the men who came.... [and he] placed a branch upon the altar, and straightaway it burst into bloom, and a dove came from Heaven and perched at its summit; whereby it was manifest to all that the Virgin was to become the spouse of Joseph.

In fact, neither the Golden Legend nor any of the early apocryphal accounts describe the actual ceremony, and they differ as to its timing, other than that it preceded the "Journey to Bethlehem". It is unclear whether this story was set before or after the Annunciation which, in the New Testament account, occurred after their betrothal but before their marriage. In the Gospel of James it comes after the Annunciation, but in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, the primary source in the West, it comes before it. - Marriage of the Virgin

A feast in honour of The Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary or Marriage of the Virgin Mary was celebrated in certain parts of the Roman Catholic Church among certain congregations such as the Oblates of St. Joseph. It was removed from many local calendars by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. It was formerly generally observed on January 23.

The first definite knowledge of a feast in honour of the espousals of Mary dates from 29 Aug., 1517, when with nine other Masses in honour of Mary, it was granted by Leo X to the Nuns of the Annunciation, founded by Sainte Jeanne de Valois. This feast was celebrated on 22 October as a double of the second class. Its Mass, however, honoured the Blessed Virgin exclusively; it hardly mentioned St. Joseph and therefore did not correspond to the idea of Gerson. Also purely as a feast of Mary it appears in the Missal of the Franciscans, to whom it was granted 21 Aug., 1537, for 7 March (double major). About the same time the Servites obtained the feast for 8 March. The Office of the Nativity of Mary was recited, changing the word Nativilas to Desponsatio. After the religious orders, among the dioceses which adopted the feast of the Espousals of Mary, Arras takes the lead. It has been kept there since 23 Jan., 1556. - Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary

In Matthew 1:16, Joseph is described as the husband of Mary. It is probable that Joseph and Mary were betrothed at Nazareth. The term "betrothal" indicates more than an engagement. It was customary to celebrate marriage in two stages, the first that of the contractual arrangements culminating in consent or "betrothal". After a period of perhaps one year in which preparations were made to establish a new home together, the second stage of actually conveying the wife to that home would be accompanied by a great feast such as that recounted in the Gospel of John as the Marriage Feast at Cana (Jn 2:1-11).

The Marriage of the Virgin (Raphael in 1504)


Why does John the Baptist decide upon water and baptism as the form of repentance (Catholic viewpoint)?

Many forms of baptism have existed in many Middle Eastern religions and they were not necessarily for sin absolving. They were for nation or religion changing or purification.ref

John did not have any of those purposes in mind. His baptism was a physical cleansing as a sign of repentance from sin.ref, paragraph 8 - Josephus

So John's baptism was not the same that Catholics do today. Christ's work had not yet been done. But he came as a foreshadowing or precursor of Christ's work, and as a worker to help others wash and be ready for what was coming.

There is a lot to this question, so I recommend reading the article here straight from the horse's mouth: Saint John the Baptist (catholic Encyclopedia).


What is Typology in the context of Christianity, and how does it help understand doctrinal matters?

From Theopedia:

  Typology is a method of biblical interpretation whereby an element
  found in the Old Testament is seen to prefigure one found in the New
  Testament. The initial one is called the type and the fulfillment is
  designated the antitype. Either type or antitype may be a person,
  thing, or event, but often the type is messianic and frequently
  related to the idea of salvation. The use of Biblical typology enjoyed
  greater popularity in previous centuries, although even now it is by
  no means ignored as a hermeneutic.

  Typological interpretation is specifically the interpretation of the
  Old Testament based on the fundamental theological unity of the two
  Testaments whereby something in the Old shadows, prefigures,
  adumbrates something in the New. Hence, what is interpreted in the Old
  is not foreign or peculiar or hidden, but arises naturally out of the
  text due to the relationship of the two Testaments.

The use of Typology is useful in several applications.

An understanding of typology demonstrates the harmony between the Old and New Testament, as in the phrase "The New is in the Old Concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed"

Typology is also helpful helping us to gain a deeper understanding of important principles.
Typology helps us to understand who Christ was, and bring deeper meaning of Him by understanding the types that prefigured Him.
It is also used in attempts to understand prophetic works.   Again, from the Theopedia article:

  For instance, the promise of Genesis 3:15 is cast in terms of the
  struggle between men and serpents, and yet it contains the Gospel, as
  the Seed of the woman crushes the head of the Serpent once and for all
  on the Cross; it is for this reason that this verse is called the
  Protevangelium.

While Typology is commonly used within Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations, it is discounted by many more liberal scholars:

  Lampe argues that, historically speaking, typology was traditionally
  understood as the real meaning of the Old Testament - a meaning read
  into it by the Holy Spirit, even though no one in the OT could have
  understood it. He concludes that not only is this old fashioned and
  out-dated, but typology is no longer to be pursued.

  Gerhard von Rad, who writes from a rather Neo-orthodox perspective,
  understands typology as just more or less analogical thinking.

For those that do not discount typology, many see it as a validation of the doctrinal concepts of Inspiration of Scripture, and infallibility.  To proponents, the clearly visible types and antitypes revealed in the Old and New Testament show God's handiwork throughout Scripture.  The perfect unity and harmony in books written many years apart from each other, by many different authors, with very different backgrounds, yet in agreement in so many points, with prophetic events is seen as nothing short of impossible if we were to try to imagine such things arising without divine influence.

  Typology represents a vital part of early Christian hermeneutics built
  upon the belief that God is in control and has unified His Word and
  the events in redemptive history.^[6]^ It is questioned whether
  typology is prospective (the OT type as a divinely ordained
  prediction) or retrospective (the NT antitype as analogously related
  but not prefigured in the type). It is likely that the solution lies
  in the middle. The OT authors and participants did not necessarily
  recognize any typological force in the original, but in the divine
  plan the early event did anticipate the later reality. Thus David's
  coronation (e.g., Psa. 2, 72, 110) did indeed foreshadow Jesus'
  enthronement as the royal Messiah, though it was not a direct
  prediction.

Whether it is valid or not as an approach toe eschatology or hermeneutics appears to be, controversial at best, it can be safely said that it is an approach to understanding Scripture that dates back to the earliest days of the Church.  This is no "new idea" that was snuck into Christianity, or was added to it later. The use of typology is as old as the Church itself.

Paul himself found it useful in illistrating certain concepts.  For example:

  1 Corinthians 15:45  (KJV) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
  spirit.

In the above passage, we have a Scriptural use of typology - a standard type that is still preached today - Adam as a type of Christ.


What are the differences between Catholics and the Jehovah's Witnesses

At the most fundamental level, Roman Catholics subscribe to the Nicene Creed, Jehovah's Witnesses do not.  (JWs would call the Creed itself heresy, so this is not a slam.) This means that unlike 98% of the world's Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses deny such things as:

The Trinity
The Divinity of Jesus
The Nature of Salvation
The Communion of Saints / The Role of the Church

and many, many more things.

Additionally, the Jehovah's Witness subscribe only to the New World Translation of the 66 books Protestants put in the canon.  This translation is considered faulty by most Nicene Christians for translations such as:

John 1:1,

  In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god

This implies that God is one god amongst several to Nicene Christians - something that Nicene Christians would reject.

John 10

  I and the Father are One in Unity

This addition is an attempt to reject one of the most obvious prooftexts of the Trinity. As Nicea is explicitly Trinitarian and this is not, it likewise excludes JWs from that category.

Christologically, JWs are essentially Arianist, meaning their Christology also differs.

When most people think of "Christianity" they are thinking of Nicene Christianity. It is entirely fair to say then that Roman Catholics are what most people consider "Christian" and Jehovah's Witness are not.


Book recommendation that goes over how the bible is compiled based on manuscripts

Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament is a well-known book that accomplishes what you asked about.

I'd also recommend procuring some critical apparati. These list the variants and allow the reader to form their own conclusions, for the most part. Two well-known apparati are Nestle-Aland's NA26/ 27/ 28 Greek New Testament, as well as Constantin Tischendorf's critical apparatus.


Why does God say we shouldn't eat Crab & Pork but Jesus says that doesn't really matter

No, Jesus is not 'lessening' the dietery law ('can but shouldn't'). He is explaining that it does not pertain to the New Covenant ('what you eat cannot be a sin intrinsically').

The Law

The Law had several aspects, such as the ceremonial and dietary laws particular to the Jews as a nation (for the purpose of creating a nation humble under the rule of God, typifying the 'grafted in' new "Israel of God," the church 1), not to the New Covenant people which would necessarily adopt the moral-law aspect of the Law (necessarily, since they are intrinsic moral laws, such as "thou shalt not murder," which is universal, not something extrinsically forbidden by God for some purpose other than that it is intrinsically sinful—such as sanctification: a kind of penance).

1 Gal 6:16; Rom 9:6; 11:17

An Important Distinction

Just as St. Paul makes the distinction and clarification that it is not the outward working out of the evil or good that makes a man accountable for evil or for righteousness, but the inward disposition and intention to do such (if it is something that can be 'done' visibly), Our Lord makes the distinction between the outward appearance or result of an evil thought, and the evil within the heart from which it sprang:

  Luke 6:45

  A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that
  which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth
  that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
  speaketh.

  Mark 7:14-23

  And calling again the multitude unto him, he said to them: Hear ye me all, and understand. There is nothing from without a man that entering into him, can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable. And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? But he said that the things which come out from a man, **they defile a man. For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile a man.

A very important truth is taught here, not just about food—even more important than St. Paul's distinction about grace and works (void of or insolation from grace)! And that is that evil is accounted as evil (and good accounted as good) based on the intention of the heart, and not the playing out in space and time of that intention (the work of good or evil).

Consider a Scriptural analogy:

Abraham was considered righteous before he did the act God commanded him to do: on account of his faith that God could raise even the dead, he in an equivalent manner to having recieved back his son from having died, he recieves his son's life from his expected, and from Abraham's perspective, sure death. 3  In this, his intention was to do the will of God, and so as far as God and Abraham were concerned, Abraham was as good as having already fulfilled his intention currently, and so could presently be considered righteous—all without his having physically brought about his intention! This proves that Jesus said, in that a man's evil or good is all in his intention, not in that which is external to him. Not foods. Not physically touching a woman—intending or desiring to, which is equivalent here in God's eyes, and in our conscience, to which the New Covenant gives much focus. 4

3 Heb 11:19

4 Mt 5:28

The playing out of the good or bad intentions of the heart (by which is meant works of whatever kind) are, so to speak, 'additional evils,' in that they create more offense to God than He would have to otherwise bear from your being prevented from having worked out your evil intention: tempting others to the same sin, showing bad example, degrading your body and the temple of the Holy Ghost, etc.

One is reminded of a related Scripture passage:

  1 Samuel 16:7 (cf. Lk 16:15)

  And the Lord said to Samuel: Look not on his countenance, nor on the
  height of his stature: because I have rejected him, nor do I judge
  according to the look of man: for man seeth those things that appear,
  but the Lord beholdeth the heart.

Why Foods Cannot Be Intrinsically Evil

Foods cannot be intrinsically evil any more than Satan was intrinsically evil before he misused his will. Any more than a gun is intrinsically evil. Any more than a sword, etc. It takes an agent (someone with a will) to will evil from the heart, who, if he is not hindered, he will commit an 'additional evil' of actually carrying out that evil intention for which, in God's eyes, he has already murdered.

This is why Our Lord makes gives us the following shocking doctrine, as recounted by St. John:

  1 John 3:15 (from Our Lord's teaching in Mt 5:21-22):

  Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no
  murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself.

This is because God knows that on some level, we sometimes wish our brother were dead, when we hate him. Not in an explicit thought, but as a vague desire in the heat of the moment, as it were. Jesus wants us to avoid have such a heinous, even instantaneous, desire. Which in His eyes, because He sees it for what it is, it is murder.

Similarly, it cannot be sin in and of itself to eat a lobster. But what can be even gravely sinful is directly disobeying God who said (for reasons other than that it intrinsically offends him) you are not to eat this thing.

God made it sinful to eat lobster not because He doesn't like lobsters, nor did God want the life of Isaac. ('Killing Isaacs' isn't a way to be justified, for example). He wants obedience in those things He asks, no matter what they are: even seemingly arbitrary things. And in obedience to God's laws will bring you into right relationship with Him: being justified.


Does the Catholic Church consider not administering a feeding tube passive euthanasia?

Yes, in your example, it would be passive euthanasia.
Food and water are not extraordinary means of life support, so withholding those from someone is as immoral as starving or dehydrating any other person to death. However, there are situations where administering food and water may be difficult and actually hasten death, in which case it would be immoral.
From the 2009 Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services p. 31:

A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life.  Disproportionate means are those that in the patient’s judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.

In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions (e.g., the “persistent vegetative state”) who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care.40 Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be “excessively burdensome for the patient or [would] cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.”41 For instance, as a patient draws close to inevitable death from an underlying progressive and fatal condition, certain measures to provide nutrition and hydration may become excessively burdensome and therefore not obligatory in light of their very limited ability to prolong life or provide comfort.

For ordinary vs. extraordinary means of life support, see §6.7 of Health Care Ethics by Benedict Ashley, O.P.


John Chrysostom was not a Pelagian and the claim that "early synergist fathers implicitly believed same that man can be saved without grace" is patently absurd.
In his initial defense against Pelagius, Augustine took an extreme view that man is saved entirely by grace without any involvement of man's free will whatsoever.  In "On Rebuke and Grace" he wrote:

Will you dare to say that even when Christ prayed that Peter's faith might not fail, it would still have failed if Peter willed it to fail?  As if Peter could in any measure will otherwise than Christ had wished for him to will?1

Several Fathers came out against Augustine's extreme views - which Augustine himself later came to renounce later in life.  Most notably was John Cassian, who wrote in his Conferences:

And so the grace of God always co-operates with our will for its advantage, and in all things assists, protects, and defends it, in such a way as sometimes even to require and look for some efforts of good will from it that it may not appear to confer its gifts on one who is asleep or relaxed in sluggish ease, as it seeks opportunities to show that as the torpor of man’s sluggishness is shaken off its bounty is not unreasonable, when it bestows it on account of some desire and efforts to gain it. And none the less does God’s grace continue to be free grace while in return for some small and trivial efforts it bestows with priceless bounty such glory of immortality, and such gifts of eternal bliss.2

Cassian enumerated a number of Scriptures in support of his opinion in the same Conferences:

Whence human reason cannot easily decide how the Lord gives to those that ask, is found by those that seek, and opens to those that knock, and on the other hand is found by those that sought Him not, appears openly among those who asked not for Him, and all the day long stretches forth His hands to an unbelieving and gainsaying people, calls those who resist and stand afar off, draws men against their will to salvation, takes away from those who want to sin the faculty of carrying out their desire, in His goodness stands in the way of those who are rushing into wickedness. But who can easily see how it is that the completion of our salvation is assigned to our own will, of which it is said: If ye be willing, and hearken unto Me, ye shall eat the good things of the land, (Isaiah 1:19) and how it is not of him that willeth or runneth, but of God that hath mercy? (Romans 9:16) What too is this, that God will render to every man according to his works; (Romans 2:6) and it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do, of His good pleasure; (Philippians 2:13) and this is not of yourselves but it is the gift of God: not of works, that no man may boast? (Ephesians 2:8-9) What is this too which is said: Draw near to the Lord, and He will draw near to you, (James 4:8) and what He says elsewhere: No man cometh unto Me except the Father who sent Me draw Him? (John 6:44) What is it that we find: Make straight paths for your feet and direct your ways, (Proverbs 4:26 LXX) and what is it that we say in our prayers: Direct my way in Thy sight, and establish my goings in Thy paths, that my footsteps be not moved? (Psalm 5:9) What is it again that we are admonished: Make you a new heart and a new spirit, (Ezekiel 18:31) and what is this which is promised to us: I will
give them one heart and will put a new spirit within them: and I will take away the stony heart from their flesh and will give them an heart of flesh that they may walk in Thy statutes and keep My judgments? (Ezekiel 1:19-20) What is it that the Lord commands, where He says: Wash thine heart of iniquity, O Jerusalem, that thou mayest be saved, (Jeremiah 4:14) and what is it that the prophet asks for from the Lord, when he says Create in me a clean heart, O God, and again: Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow? (Psalm 50:12 LXX). What is it that is said to us: Enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge; (Hosea 10:12 LXX) and this which is said of God: Who teacheth man knowledge; (Psalm 93:10 LXX) and: the Lord enlightens the blind, (Psalm 145:8 LXX) or at any rate this, which we say in our prayers with the prophet: Lighten mine eyes that I sleep not in death, (Psalm 12:4 LXX) unless in all these there is a declaration of the grace of God and the freedom of our will.3

Some have painted Cassian's view of synergy - the cooperation of man's will with God's grace - with a broad brush and called it just Pelagianism, plain and simple.  But belief that man is saved through the cooperation of his free will with God's grace is a far cry from belief that man can be saved through his free will alone.  Even the synergistic view - which John Cassian points out has firm support in Scripture - is derided by some as being "semi-Pelagian".
There is nothing anywhere in the writings of John Chrysostom that suggests he holds Pelagius' views that man can be saved without God's grace.  One need only look to his commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:10 to confirm this:

And His grace in me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, and yet not I, but the grace of God with me
Seest thou again another excess of humility? In that the defects he imputes to himself, but of the good deeds nothing; rather he refers all to God. Next, lest he might hereby render his hearer supine, he saith, And His grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain. And this again with reserve: in that he said not, I have displayed a diligence worthy of His grace, but, it was not found vain.4

1.  In The Place of Blessed Augustine in the  Orthodox Church, p.37.
2. XIII.13
3. Ibid., XIII.9
4.  Homily XXXVIII on First Corinthians


In the book of John, is the Holy Spirit not in Jesus until the dove descends on Him?

I'll refer you to Summa Theologica 3.39.6,

  I answer that, As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii): "After
  being baptized, the Lord baptized, not with that baptism wherewith He
  was baptized." Wherefore, since He Himself baptized with His own
  baptism, it follows that He was not baptized with His own, but with
  John's baptism. And this was befitting: first, because John's baptism
  was peculiar in this, that he baptized, not in the Spirit, but only
  "in water"; while Christ did not need spiritual baptism, since He was
  filled with the grace of the Holy Ghost from the beginning of His
  conception, as we have made clear above (Question 34, Article 1). And
  this is the reason given by Chrysostom (Hom. de Bapt. Christi).
  Secondly, as Bede says on Mark 1:9, He was baptized with the baptism
  of John, that, "by being thus baptized, He might show His approval of
  John's baptism." Thirdly, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), "by
  going to John to be baptized by him, He sanctified baptism."

Furthermore, consider that God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are fully present in every place once can be said to be present. Thus, Christ is never without the presence of the Father and the Spirit. It is only for the purpose of sanctifying the human institution of baptism (John's baptism) that Jesus "receives" the Holy Spirit which is already with Him.

And as addressed in Question 6 of the same chapter of Summa Theologica, Christ is not so much receiving the Spirit for Himself, since the Spirit is already fully with Him; He is receiving the Holy Spirit into the sacrament of baptism.


In consideration of Numbers 23:19, can God be a human? (Catholic perspective)

Numbers 23:19 doesn't say Yahweh cannot become a human, only that he isn't like humans, who do lie or fail to keep promises. Yahweh is essentially saying he can be trusted. A Catholic perspective teaches that Jesus is fully divine and fully human, and that these two natures are in hypostatic union.

The sinful state would lead humans to sin, but Jesus' humanity can be thought of as Adam's before he disobeyed Yahweh. Thus, being the incarnation of the divine word, Jesus obeyed perfectly even up to his time of death.


Was the Roman Catholic Church responsible for the change of Sabbath to Sunday as day of rest?

"Already in apostolic times (Acts 20:7) Christians transferred the
  Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week."
  Source: Dictionary: SABBATH, BIBLICAL | Catholic Culture.

cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church: II. THE LORD'S DAY

  This is the day which the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in
  it.1

  The day of the Resurrection: the new creation

  2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."2 Because it
  is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first
  creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the
  sabbath,3 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by
  Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all
  days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera,
  dies dominica) Sunday:

  We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating
  matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus
  Christ our Savior rose from the dead.4

  Sunday - fulfillment of the sabbath

  2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the
  sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of
  the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For
  worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was
  done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:5

  Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a
  new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which
  our life is blessed by him and by his death.6

  2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by
  nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible,
  public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to
  all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old
  Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of
  the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

  1. Ps 118:24.
  2. Cf. Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1.
  3. Cf. Mk 16:1; Mt 28:1.
  4. St. Justin, I Apol. 67:PG 6,429 and 432.
  5. Cf. 1 Cor 10:11.
  6. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Magn. 9,1:SCh 10,88.

Please see also:

Sabbath or Sunday? | Catholic Answers.
Did the early Church move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? | Catholic Answers.
APOSTOLIC LETTER DIES DOMINI | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].
This should be of interest: The Pope Nor the Roman Catholic Church changed Sabbath to Sunday by By Robert K. Sanders.


Didn't Jesus return to Earth after the resurrection when he appeared to Paul?

I think you might be overthinking this. Going by NKJV, Acts 9:1-9, Christ did not necessarily "appear" physically. Verses 3-4 only indicate that Paul heard a voice and saw a light, and that light could have been anything

  As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

That's not really much to go by, and that brings me to my second point: if this was the second coming, why would Paul not write more about it? Typically, when something in the Bible (or really any other documentary) is important in some way, there will be more than a few sentences explaining the importance.
That's not to say this event wasn't important; it is, but for a different reason, and as a matter of fact this importance is elaborated on (at least, more so than anything about the encounter with Christ itself). If we look later in the chapter, we find a part where God explains to Ananias the significance of Paul and why he needs to be healed.

  13 Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much [b]harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.”
  15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children[c] of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

This is the significance of the event: not that Christ appeared (as he has many times to many people since then), but that his appearance changed someone's life and turned them into one of the Lord's most influential followers, if not the most influential.


What distinguishes Christian meditation from the Catholic tradition from non-Christian meditation?

I think the Biblical model of meditation is not to do with emptying your mind, but on filling your mind with the good things of God.

There are plenty examples in Psalms:

Ps 119: 15  I meditate on your precepts . . .
Ps 119: 97  Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long.

Ps 77: 12 I will consider all your works and meditate on all your mighty deeds.

There are more.


Is there any substance to the claim that Origen supported reincarnation?

The challenge in answering this question is that we do not have most of Origen's original work.  Proponents of reincarnation argue that translators and scribes made Origen's works more palatable to orthodox Christianity, and excised the most significant pro-reincarnation sections of his works.

One quote commonly attributed to Origen does not appear to exist in any of his works as we have them today:

  The soul has neither beginning nor end. [They] come into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of their previous lives.

However, there are other portions of modern translations of Origen's writings that proponents say are evidence of his belief in the pre-existence of the soul and in reincarnation.  Opponents of reincarnation often argue that these are taken out of context and do not actually indicate that Origen believed in reincarnation.

Evidence for his belief in the pre-existence of the soul is seen in the following passage, from Against Celsus, I.xxxii:

  Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions?

In the following passage, from De Principiis III.iii.5, he is seen to argue that disembodied souls have free will, and that their natural tendencies to good or evil in this state have bearing on their bodily lives:

  To all which instances, those who maintain that everything in the world is under the administration of Divine Providence (as is also our own belief), can, as it appears to me, give no other answer, so as to show that no shadow of injustice rests upon the divine government, than by holding that there were certain causes of prior existence, in consequence of which the souls, before their birth in the body, contracted a certain amount of guilt in their sensitive nature, or in their movements, on account of which they have been judged worthy by Divine Providence of being placed in this condition. For a soul is always in possession of free-will, as well when it is in the body as when it is without it; and freedom of will is always directed either to good or evil. Nor can any rational and sentient being, i.e., a mind or soul, exist without some movement either good or bad. And it is probable that these movements furnish grounds for merit even before they do anything in this world; so that on account of these merits or grounds they are, immediately on their birth, and even before it, so to speak, assorted by Divine Providence for the endurance either of good or evil.

Similar arguments are made in De Principiis III.v.4:

  I am, indeed, of opinion that, as the end and consummation of the saints will be in those (ages) which are not seen, and are eternal, we must conclude (as frequently pointed out in the preceding pages), from a contemplation of that very end, that rational creatures had also a similar beginning. And if they had a beginning such as the end for which they hope, they existed undoubtedly from the very beginning in those (ages) which are not seen, and are eternal. And if this is so, then there has been a descent from a higher to a lower condition, on the part not only of those souls who have deserved the change by the variety of their movements, but also on that of those who, in order to serve the whole world, were brought down from those higher and invisible spheres to these lower and visible ones.

These quotes (also available in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV), however, only support the pre-existence of souls--not necessarily reincarnation.

For reincarnation itself, proponents refer to other sources.  They cite Jerome's letter to Avitus, section 7 (also in Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers), in which Jerome quotes the (now lost) Greek text of De Principiis:

  And again: "but perhaps this coarse and earthly body ought to be described as mist and darkness; for at the end of this world and when it becomes necessary to pass into another, the like darkness will lead to the like physical birth." In speaking thus he clearly pleads for the transmigration of souls as taught by Pythagoras and Plato.

Similarly, section 15 of the same letter of Jerome, again quoting Origen:

  The following passage is a convincing proof that he holds the transmigration of souls and annihilation of bodies. "If it can be shown that an incorporeal and reasonable being has life in itself independently of the body and that it is worse off in the body than out of it; then beyond a doubt bodies are only of secondary importance and arise from time to time to meet the varying conditions of reasonable creatures. Those who require bodies are clothed with them, and contrariwise, when fallen souls have lifted themselves up to better things, their bodies are once more annihilated. They are thus ever vanishing and ever reappearing."


Where in the Catholic Church is red wine used for mass?

In those areas in which the local community and/or parish priest's choice is to use red wine over white wine for Mass.

Where I live (British Columbia, Canada) red wine is quite popular. Some priests use white wine for Mass here, but most here use the red. A lot will depend on the availability of the Altar wine offered in  a particular area, as well to the personal choice or the priest saying Mass. I have never heard of any bishop insisting on a particular colour for his diocese. I have, one the other hand, known of some religious communities that grow their own grapes and will keep separate the coloured grapes for a particular usage. For example the red wine will be for table wine and the white wine will be for the altar wine or vise versa. I have seen this in French Benedictine communities.

  Regarding the Wine Used for Mass

  Red or White?

  Nothing is specified canonically as to whether the wine is to be a red, a white or a blush. This determination is left to the individual community. The general consensus, however, is that most people prefer a wine that is a bit sweet and fruity. What is indicated is that to be considered valid sacramental matter the wine is to be natural and made from grapes (cf. Canon 924 §3). Wine made from any fruit other than grapes is considered invalid matter.

  Alcohol Content

  A minimum or maximum level has never been specified in canonical literature since the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983; however, in the estimation of canonists, it usually falls somewhere below 20%. Generally speaking, the alcohol content for most commercially produced wines is between 8% and 17%.

  If mustum were to be used it cannot have an alcohol content of less than 1%. Mustum is grape juice in which the fermentation process has begun, but has been suspended. Mustum is reserved for those who suffer from alcohol intolerance and permission to use mustum must be given by the local Ordinary on a case-by-case basis.

  Additives

  Canon 924 §3 states the wine must not be corrupt, i.e. it is to be pure and natural. In the United States there are state-mandated additives to all commercially produced wines to act as an anti-oxidant which preserves the natural good condition of the wine and retards spoilage. Sulfides are added in such small amounts that the Holy See has had no objection to them, since their presence does not corrupt the wine.

  Conclusion

  Any commercially produced wine (red, white or blush) may be used for sacramental wine so long as it falls within the parameters of being naturally made of grapes and having an alcohol content between 8% and 20%. The labeling of wine as “sacramental” or “altar” wine is a marketing strategy similar to that of “organic.” Any good house wine is fine and there are many good wines available in boxes or cubitainers, these have the advantage of lasting several weeks after opening because air is expelled and spoilage is retarded. Bottom line: the finer quality of wine, the better it is. This is an important consideration since the wine selected will become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Of further interest:

What is the largest winery that supplies sacramental wine to the Catholic Church?

Since when is white wine used in the Catholic mass?

A little note for "mustum" usage at Mass:

  Grape juice is not allowed for the Catholic Mass, but the use of "mustum" can be permitted. Mustum is a kind of wine that has an extremely low alcohol content. It's made by beginning the fermentation process in grape juice, but then suspending the process such that the alcohol content generally remains below 1 percent, far lower than the levels found in most table wines. (See: Q-and-A on the Vatican's recent instruction on bread, wine for Communion).


Which sacraments can be administered validly but illicitly?

Any sacrament that is administered by a priest or bishop is administered validly but illicitly if all other requirements for validity are satisfied but the priest or bishop is excommunicated:

An excommunicated person is forbidden ... to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments.
(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1331 section 1)

That covers all the sacraments except marriage, which the priest does not administer.
Suppose however that the minister of the sacrament is not excommunicated. Then the following seems to obtain:
Baptism
In the case where the priest or bishop is not excommunicated, baptism can be administered validly but illicitly if the infant is not in danger of death, and the one baptizing has not obtained the consent of at least one parent:

Canon 868 section 1: For an infant to be baptized licitly:
Note 1. the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
Canon 868 section 2: An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

Confirmation
Confirmation can also be thus administered if the confirming bishop is doing the confirmation in another diocese, to residents of that diocese, without it being reasonable to assume that the bishop of that diocese has given permission:

To administer confirmation licitly in another diocese, a bishop needs at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan bishop unless it concerns his own subjects.
(Canon 886 section 2)

Penance
Confession/Penance/Reconciliation appears to be performed either validly and licitly, or else invalidly and illicitly. It appears that it cannot be valid but illicit.
The sacrament requires permission (a "faculty") from the bishop of the diocese to perform; but a priest without this faculty administers confession not only illicitly but invalidly.

The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
(Canon 966 section 1)

Orders
Ordination is also illicit if a Latin rite bishop ordains a man of an Eastern rite church without permission from the Holy See:

If not impeded by a just cause, the proper bishop is to ordain his own subjects personally; without an apostolic indult, however, he cannot ordain licitly a subject of an Eastern rite.
(Canon 1015 section 2)

Marriage
It appears that marriage can be valid but illicit if the parties are wedded above the age required by canon law (16 for men, 14 for women) but below the age required by the local episcopal conference:

A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.
(Canon 1083 section 1)
The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.
(Canon 1083 section 2; emphasis added)

Eucharist
It appears that a priest who is not under some form of canonical penalty (such as excommunication) celebrates the Eucharist both validly and licitly. Canon law gives a list of canonical provisions to be observed. For example, the priest cannot celebrate the Eucharist all by himself, nor more than once a day without permission of the bishop. But the law does not specify that failing to observe these makes the celebration illicit.

A priest not impeded by canon law celebrates the Eucharist licitly; the provisions of the following canons are to be observed. ...
(Canon 900 section 2)

Anointing of the Sick
I cannot find anything in the Code that specifies circumstances under which the Anointing is celebrated illicitly.
Thus it appears that under ordinary circumstances, baptism, confirmation, orders, and marriage may be celebrated validly but illicitly; and if a priest is excommunicated, any of the sacraments may be thus celebrated.


The seven churches that were condemned; did any of them repent?

First, of the seven churches in Revelation individually addressed, not all are condemned/rebuked.

The church in Smyrna (Rev 2:8-11) is not condemned. Likewise, the church in Philadelphia is not rebuked (Rev 3:7-13).

We do know that those churches no longer exist today, so at some point their candlestick was removed. Whether or not the 5 did repent at least to some degree, we are not told.


How to harmonize teachings of Jesus and Paul about work?

Both Jesus and Paul taught that we should love our neighbor. Paul was addressing a situation where the church had been generous in providing welfare for the needy, but those needy took advantage of this generosity and were becoming lazy and a burden to others. In Galatians 6, Paul says "Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ." We each of us go through seasons when we need others to help us, but we need to not be selfish and eventually resume responsibility for taking care of our own needs.

In 1 Timothy 5, Paul teaches families the same thing, insisting that before the church steps in, all family resources should be exhausted first:

  Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for
  their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an
  unbeliever.

Essentially, this was the first means-tested welfare program.


In the Catholic Church, other than cardinals, are there any other prelates that may don red cassocks?

Yes.

The Archbishops of certain sees are entitled to wear red ex officio, whether or not they are cardinals.

The Patriarch of Venice has this right, as do the occupants  of  sees holding  legatus natus (born legates, or legates as of right) status. Archbishops of these sees have the right to wear red. These include  Salzburg,  Udine, Cologne and Poznan.

Prior to the Reformation, Canterbury was a legatus natus see.


Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?

Eastern Orthodox Old Testament "Apocrypha"

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Old Testament Apocrypha comprises books such as the Assumption of Moses, Ascension of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Elijah, Book of Enoch, and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.  Other traditions sometimes refer to these books as apocrypha and/or pseudoepigrapha.

None of the these books were included in the Old Testament canon confirmed by the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787, nor in any of the preceding related councils (i.e. Council of Carthage in 397, Council of Trullo in 692).  In some other Orthodox traditions that broke away after the 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Ethiopean/Eritrean), the Book of Enoch is also included in the Old Testament and not considered as being part of the Old Testament Apocrypha.

Eastern Orthodox New Testament "Apocrypha"

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition again, the New Testament Apocrypha includes the Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the First Epistle of Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Judas, and the Protoevangelium of James.

Some of the above books (e.g. Gospel of Thomas) were considered truly spurious and heretical (usually gnostic) and were never considered as part of the canon by the Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Some of the books were included in some manuscripts we have of the New Testament used in the early Church (e.g. Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus - the two principal witnesses behind the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text).  These include Clement, Barnabas, and Hermas.  Although eventually excluded form the canon, they were not considered heretical and to this day are part of the written tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Other Orthodox traditions (e.g. Ethiopean/Eritrean) continue to include some of these books (e.g. Clement) in their New Testament canon to this day.

Still others were never included in any New Testament compilation, but neither are they considered heretical.  These include the Didache and the Protoevangelium of James.

The Deuterocanon

Again in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, there are a number of Old Testament books which, though not part of the Hebrew canon, are included in the overall Old Testament canon.  Within the Eastern Orthodox Church, this set comprises:

I Esdras
The portion of II Esdras called the "Prayer of Manasseh"
Tobit
Judith
Portions of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
The portions of Daniel:

Song of the Three Children
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon

Psalm 151
I Maccabees
II Maccabees
III Maccabees

Although "apocrypha" is a Greek word, the Greek Church never referred to any of the above books as apocrypha, which has a derogatory connotation.  They are instead referred to as the deuterocanon (the second canon).  You will sometimes find the books referred to as "Apocrypha" in Orthodox sources nonetheless, but this is largely in deference to non-Orthodox terminology.

Jerome seems to have been the first to have labeled the deuterocanon as "apocrypha" in one of his introductions to his Latin translation of the Old Testament.  He seem to have objected to the inclusion of books outside the Hebrew canon in the Old Testament, but elsewhere he wrote that he felt he must defer to the Church. (He translated all of the deuterocanon and included it in his work.)

Timeline of the Deuterocanon/"Apocrypha"

An overview of how the Old Testament canon developed within the Church is discussed here and here.  A brief timeline would be:

Through 2nd century

There is not consensus on the content of the Old Testament.

Marcion (85-160) holds that that the entire Old Testament - Hebrew or otherwise - should be excluded from the Bible.
Melito of Sardis (d. 180) seems to exclude the deuterocanon from what he considers to be the Old Testament.
Deuterocanonical books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Some early Church Fathers quote from the deuterocanon (e.g. Irenaeus, 130-202), others do not (e.g. Justin Martyr, 100-165).

3rd century

Origen includes Maccabees in the Old Testament canon he enumerates, although it is not clear which specific books.
Canon LXXXV of the Apostolic Canons include a number of deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament, including Sirach and Maccabees.  (These canons are of indeterminate origin.  Some scholars say they may date to the 2nd century, others to as late as the 5th or 6th, though.)

4th century

Hilary of Poitiers (310-368) includes Tobit and Judith in his enumeration of the Old Testament
Jerome (347-420) includes the entire deuterocanon in his Latin translation of the Old Testament (see above)
Virtually every Church Father quotes from the deuterocanon in their works, including John Chrysostom (349-407) (called by John MacArthur "the greatest preacher of the early Church").
The deuterocanon is bound up with the Bible codices of this period (see above)
Canon XXXIII of the 3rd Council of Carthage (397) includes the deuterocanon in the Old Testament

7th century

The Council of Trullo (692) ratifies and adopts many ancient local canons, including the Apostolic Canons.  Canon LXXXV of the Apostolic Canon includes the deuterocanon in the Old Testament (see above).

8th century

The 7th Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (787) ratifies and adopts the canons of both the 3rd Council of Carthage and the Council of Trullo.  This effectively establishes the following Old Testament canon for the entire Chalcedonian Church (i.e. the Church recognizing all 7 Ecumenical Councils to that date):

  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
  Joshua, Judges, Ruth
  1-4 Kings (referred to as 1/2 Samuel and 1/2 Kings in most Bibles today)
  1/2 Chronicles
  Job
  Psalms
  Proverbs
  Ecclesiastes
  Song of Songs
  Wisdom of Solomon
  Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
  The books of the 12 Prophets: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel
  Tobit
  Judith
  Esther
  Ezra and Nehemiah
  1-3 Maccabees

"Great Schism" to the Reformation and beyond

The See of Rome and the other four Sees (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) mutually separated in 1054 as the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of Constantinople mutually anathematize each other.

The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (c 1546) issues a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) re-affirming the canon of the 3rd Council of Carthage, resulting in minimal changes to the canon established by the 7th Ecumenical Council.
The Geneva Bible is published in 1560 with the deuterocanon specified the 7th Ecumenical Council.
The King James Bible is published in 1611 with the deuterocanon specified by the 7th Ecumenical Council.
The Synod of Jerusalem (1692) amends the Old Testament canon to include the Prayer of Manasseh and a 4th Book of Maccabees.  Technically, the canons of this synod only apply to the Jerusalem Patriarchate.  To date, most Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions recognize the Prayer of Manasseh, but not 4 Maccabees.
The deuterocanon begins disappearing from editions of the King James Bible beginning in the early 19th century.


What purpose do angels serve (Protestant)?

From a Protestant perspective, based on what the Bible says:

It is true that angels are spirit creatures, but unlike God, they are created.  Although angels were created as an order of creatures higher than humans, unlike humans, they are not created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26).  Unlike humans, angels do not have to study the past because they have experienced it. Therefore, they know how others have acted and reacted in situations and can predict with a greater degree of accuracy how we may act in similar circumstances.  However, their knowledge is limited.  For example it says in Matthew 24:36:

  But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

One purpose of angels is explained to us in Hebrews 1:14:

  Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

The Bible describes many different functions that angels perform as they serve God.  They praise God (Psalm 148:1-2; Isaiah 6:3). They worship God (Hebrews 1:6; Revelation 5:8-13). They rejoice in what God does (Job 38:6-7). They serve God (Psalm 103:20; Revelation 22:9). They appear before God (Job 1:6; 2:1). They are instruments of God's judgments (Revelation 7:1; 8:2). They bring answers to prayer (Acts 12:5-10). They aid in winning people to Christ (Acts 8:26; 10:3). They observe Christian order, work, and suffering (1 Corinthians 4:9; 11:10; Ephesians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:12). They encourage in times of danger (Acts 27:23-24). They care for the righteous at the time of death (Luke 16:22).

Some angels are designated as "cherubim," which are living creatures who defend God's holiness from any defilement of sin (Genesis 3:24; Exodus 25:18, 20). "Seraphim" are another class of angels, mentioned only once in Scripture in Isaiah 6:2-7, and are described as having three pairs of wings. They apparently have the function of praising God, being God's messengers to earth, and are especially concerned with the holiness of God.

Yes, angels serve God by doing His will, and it is God’s will that his holy angels serve believers.  It is also God’s Will that his holy angels will return, along with Christ Jesus, to judge the world prior to His Millennial Reign.


Why are there so many First Congregational Churches in the US?

Assuming you don't know about Congregationalism

Congregationalism is a system of governance where the local church independently and autonomously runs its own affairs. It does not specify any doctrine or hierarchy, which allows for the existence of 'Methodist Congregational' churches and 'Uniting Congregational' churches. There are two major denominations in the US which are Congregational throughout their structure - the 'National Association of Congregational Christian Churches' and the 'Conservative Congregational Christian Conference'.

Congregational churches are usually Protestant although there are also Congregationalist variants of other religious institutions.

As for the "first" bit

I haven't been able to track down any conclusive evidence.

Wikipaedia lists approximately 100 churches called "First Congregational Church" and only 2 called "Second Congregational Church". They are all in the US.


Some major problems with "KJV-onlyism" lies in the assumptions it makes and some of which you enumerated.

From an evangelical perspective, we accept the idea that the Bible is, indeed, the word of God.  Specifically, "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

  20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from
  someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by
  the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by
  the Holy Spirit.  2 Peter 1:20-21 ESV

  20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any
  priuate Interpretation: 21 For the prophecie came not in olde time by
  the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the
  holy Ghost.  2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV 1611

Preservation via a perfect translation

The problem starts with the third point you enumerated, specifically that the preservation is via a perfect translation, that is one for every language.

Why does the preservation have to be in a translation?  Why can't the preservation be in the original languages and those manuscripts?  How could we know that the KJV is the perfect translation into English?  The KJV was certainly not even the first translation into English, as it was preceded by the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishop and Douay-Rheims translations, among others.

Does it follow that the first translation into any language is a perfect translation and should never be updated, no matter how much the language changes?

In fact, the KJV has been changed quite a few times since it's original release.  No one reads out of the 1611 edition anymore, as our language has changed significantly since that time.

Also, the whole idea that there must be a preservation in each language at all times misses the point that most languages didn't have any translation until recently, and there are many that still don't.

So, this assumption has a hard time fitting reality and even logic.

Sin and error in other English translations

The assumption that only one translation can be accurate in any language for all times leads the KJV-only people to assert that any other translation into English must be somehow imperfect, and many even assert that sin is the reason.  The translators of the KJV must have been the holiest of men, and all other people who ever attempt to translate Greek and Hebrew into English today must somehow be sinful.

That doesn't even make sense.  The English language is different today than it was 400 years ago.  Even if there were a perfect translation at that time, we don't speak that language anymore.

Also, why must experts in Hebrew and Greek today who translate the Scriptures into English be somehow tainted by sin?  Is it not possible that they could also be men and women who fear God as much or more as the translators of the KJV?  There are certainly men and women today who are translating the Scriptures into new languages.  Is it holy and righteous to translate into new languages, but the same people who translate into English somehow introduce sin and error?

Conclusion

The KJV-only teaching is rife with assumptions that are just illogical.  There certainly are poor translations into English.  Translation is not an exact science all the time.  Conveying meaning of one language into another is sometimes quite difficult.  The KJV is an excellent translation, among several others.  If you lived in the 1600's, there was nothing as good as that, even if you wanted to read the Apocrypha (which was in the initial printing).  Today, the language of the KJV is no longer spoken.  The NASB and ESV are probably two of the very best of the bunch, in my opinion.  I also use the NIV.

There are quite a few other allegations from the KJV only crowd.  It could be interesting to address each of these in separate question.  I know James Melton has a booklet entitled "How I know the KJV is the Word of God", which has some statements that are absolutely ridiculous in it.


How has the LDS Word of Wisdom changed since its introduction?

The revelation known as the Word of Wisdom is set forth in section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants.  It speaks of basic dietary and health principles, listing substances that are harmful and should be avoided (mainly addictive drugs) and positive things that should be observed (a healthy diet), and promises blessings of health, strength, knowledge and spiritual deliverance to those who observe its principles.

The only substantial change in doctrine between when the Word of Wisdom was first given and modern times is that it was originally given:

  2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by
  revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of
  God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

  3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the
  weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

whereas today it is considered a commandment to the members of the church.  This change was adopted in a general conference of the church in 1851, almost 20 years after the original revelation was given, under the reasoning that it would have been impractical to ask the general population of the church, many of whom were already accustomed to using substances known to be addictive, to give them up all at once, but that by this time they had had plenty of time to phase out the use of such things.

Today, observance of the Word of Wisdom is necessary before a person investigating the church can be baptized, and continued observance is required for a member to be considered worthy to go to the temple.


Does canonisation make one more meritorious before God?

Canonization does not change an individual's status in the eyes of  God—nothing can change that. What it does is make a declaration about what the Church thinks of them:

By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 828)

In other words, what canonization does is make it official to all Catholics that the Church recognizes, by the power of the Holy Spirit that acts in her and guides her, that a certain person has lived an undeniably holy and grace-filled life; that they may be used as models for our attempt to live out a Christian life; and that we here on Earth may ask them to intercede for us with God, to ask for God's mercy and intervention on our behalf.
It is not always the case, however, that those Christians who are recognized as saints were formally canonized. The Blessed Virgin Mary, for example, has always been thought holy, but never gone through a canonization process (not that she would have an issue!) But usually, in relatively modern times, there's been some process that the Church has put candidates for such great holiness through, not for the candidate's benefit but for the Church's.


What is the evidence that the Angel of the Lord in the old Testament is probably Jesus?

Justin Martyr is probably the strongest early advocate for the view that the "Angel of the Lord" in the OT often refers to Christ.  In his Dialogue with Trypho, he argues that many supernatural appearances in the OT are manifestations of the second member of the Trinity.  One such example is that of the burning bush in Exodus 3:2-4, where reference to the "Angel of the Lord" and "the Lord" appear to switch (in a way similar to the Judges passage you quote).  He says:

  [I]n the vision of Moses, this same One alone who is called an Angel, and who is God, appeared to and communed with Moses. (chapter 60)

In this and other examples Justin equates the angel or mysterious man with God himself.

Justin finds more support from other church fathers when we turn to the mysterious men who are not specifically called "angels" in Scripture, but who appear to be supernatural.  Origen agrees that the mysterious figure in Joshua 5:13-15 is Christ, and bases this argument on the fact that Joshua worships him:

  Joshua recognized not only something from God but that which is God; for certainly he would not have worshiped unless he had recognized God.  For who else is chief of the army of the powers of God except our Lord Jesus Christ? ("Homilies on Joshua 6:2")1

Eusebius of Caesaria suggests that the close parallel in wording between this passage and Exodus 3:4-5 indicates "that this is no other than he who also spoke to Moses," that is, God.1

That said, this text does not refer to this man as an angel, so I don't know if you'd consider it a valid example.  Other fathers and commentators refer to this figure as an angel, do not ascribe deity to him, and explain Joshua's worship as mere "veneration" (John of Damascus).1

A similar episode occurs in Daniel 8:15-17.  I don't have a church father quote, but John Calvin says:

  We ought probably to interpret this passage of Christ, who is now called like a man, as formerly. (Daniel 7:13.) For he had not yet put on our flesh, so as to be properly entitled to the name of a man; but he was here like a man, because he wished to allow the holy fathers a taste from which they might understand his future coming as Mediator, when he should put on human nature as God manifest in flesh. (Commentary on Daniel, Volume II)

Note that Calvin is careful to say that this is not the second person of the Trinity incarnate, but that he is appearing "like a man."

1. Ancient Christian Commentary, page 31


Why does God promise something that satisfies our greed for longevity?

God does indeed promise eternal life. John 3:16 is pretty obvious of that and such plain and simple verses probably explains why there are so few (probably not any) Christian traditions that deny eternal life is part of God's promise.

Generically, God promises restoration continually in the Bible (e.g Acts 3:19-21; Revelation 21:1-5; 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17 1). The very large majority of Christians believe that Eternal life was apparently part of our original state. Even the non-literalists, like Theistic Evolutionists, believe The Fall was something and that the story highlights that we were once in perfect communion with God. The Gospel is the promise of that restoration, the restoration of perfect communion with God and we get to be in communion forever.

Most Christians believe that the wicked will also live forever, if you can call eternal hellfire "living". This further completes the answer for those who believe in an eternal, indestructible soul. The promise is actually restoration of communion with God, not that you get to live forever, per se. However, this leaves Annihilationists with some further explaining to make and I'm not sure how that would make it.

So, I personally do not think the typical Christian sees the promise of eternal life as pandering to our "greed for life", but rather as part of the promise of restoration, leading to a belief that death is unnatural (at least for the Creationist, non-evolutionist variety), or more like "naturally undesirable". I recall reflecting on it many times saying "Death just seems wrong, like it shouldn't be part of our lives." A more naturalist approach, as I suspect you are more familiar with, would likely view death differently, and perhaps as even serving a greater purpose. Cynics have throughout the years, especially since the Enlightenment era, simply agreed. A promise of eternal life is pandering to human fear of death, but even if Christians agree, it doesn't change the fact that the promise is more accurately restoration which includes everlasting life.

Old Testament restoration verses are also plentiful, but seemingly focus on immediate restoration, not lasting restoration. This highlights the Gospel message, rather than diminishes it, showing that with God (literally Emmanuel, God was with us) we have our eyes opened to see how great and powerful God truly is. He can not only restore us for today, but for all eternity.


Is there a way to prove the God of the Bible?

The classic arguments I know are the following :

Cosmological argument: That every thing that has a beginning must have a cause.
Theological argument: The order and the useful setting in a system imply an intelligence and a finality that did the organization.
Ontological argument: That the idea of God itself is a proof for the existence of God. How can a finite being imagine an infinite one?
Moral argument: The conscience of the human is proof of a conscience giver. Or, the morality within man means that there must be a moral law giver.
Congruence argument: This argument maintains that the previous arguments present the best way to understand the person of God. That the belief in the existence of God is the better way to explain our moral nature (mental and religious). Also, it is the better way to explain the material universe.

These arguments work together to form one argument. So please don't work with these as 5 single, independent arguments.


Homiletic directions from the Vatican to the Universal Church?

The Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship has released a Homiletic Directory, designed to help priests improve their preaching.

Introducing the new document at a February 10, 2015 news conference, Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, said: “The Directory was not born without a reason. The aim is to respond to the need to improve the service of ordained ministers in liturgical preaching.”

The introductory Vatican decree was signed by Cardinal Canizares and was actually dated June 29,2014.

An English translation on the preaching directive from the Vatican can be found here: Homiletic Directory.


What does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teach about who Jesus is and where He came from?

The below is pulled from The Araonic Priesthood Manual 3: Lesson 1 The Godhead

  Jesus Christ is—

  The Firstborn Son of Heavenly Father in the spirit.
  The Only Begotten Son of Heavenly Father in the flesh.
  The Creator of heaven and earth under Heavenly Father’s direction.
  The Savior and Redeemer of mankind.

Mormons believe we are all the spirit children of Heavenly Father, Jesus is our older brother in spirit.
Kind of self explanatory
If the Godhead means 3 distinct Individuals, one of them was responsible for the physical creation of the earth. Going further on this point would be a whole different answer.
This is, as far as I know, the common denominator among all christian denominations.

So that is who the Mormons believe he is, as far as created, Mormons believe all spirits are created, thus given #1 above, Heavenly Father Created Jesus. I would like to note though that from what I have learned the definition of Created to a Mormon is a bit different than to many other christian groups.

As far as eternal, President Ezra Taft Benson 13th President of the LDS Church said "Life is eternal. We are eternal beings." If we are eternal then Jesus is Eternal.


Why do some adherents to the Westminster Standards sing hymns, rather than just psalms?

Adherents to this line of the Westminster Standards who nonetheless reject exclusive psalmody argue in three primary ways:

The Westminster divines were divided on the issue
The Confession does not specify that only psalms may be sung
The word "psalms" should not be understood as necessarily referring only to the Book of Psalms

Division at Westminster
J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards, 357ff., points to evidence that at least some of the Westminster divines rejected exclusive psalmody, and would thus have objected to language in the Confession mandating it.  Two of the passages that the Assembly cited in defense of the "singing of psalms" clause are Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19, which refer to "psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs."  These verses were interpreted differently by the two groups: exclusive psalmodists argued that this refers to three divisions of the Book of Psalms, while others saw it as referring first to the Psalms and then to two other types of music.
He quotes Edward Leigh:

The Apostle speaketh of Psalmes, Hymnes and spiritual Songs, Ephes. 5. 19. and Col. 3. 16.  Who can shew any reason to limit his speech to Scripture-psalms?  Why may not one praise God in a Song for our deliverance in 88, or the Gun-pouder treason? (source)

Similarly, the Annotations of Westminster on Ephesians 5:19 read:

But it seemeth most probable that by Psalms he meaneth the Psalms of David—set to the harp or psaltery—by Hymns, certain ditties made upon special occasions—and by spiritual songs, such as were not composed beforehand, and pricked before them with musical notes, but such as men edited by an extraordinary gift. (source)

It would seem, then, that the Confession may have been written in such a way as to permit these views.  Analysis of the Assmebly's proceedings is not possible, as they have been lost, so we must settle the question in other ways.  Those who say that the Assembly did not intend to prohibit exclusive psalmody continue the argument in two primary ways.
Non-psalms not prohibited
John Gerstner sums up the first argument:

[The Westminster Confession] mentions singing of psalms.  It doesn't say psalms exclusively, though the tendency at that time was to sing psalms exclusively. (source; 22:50)

Westminster's Directory of Public Worship goes into more detail but again refers only to psalms:

It is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family. [...] (source)

Fesko concludes:

The DPW states only that the psalms should be sung, not that they should be sung exclusively.  The DPW is silent regarding the use of non-inspired songs in worship.

"Psalms" includes hymns
For the next argument, Robert Rayburn refers to the lack of mention of "hymns and spiritual" songs in the Westminster Confession:

This omission does not mean that we should sing the Old Testament psalms only.  The Confession uses the word in a wider sense to refer to hymns sung to God. (O Come, Let Us Worship, 95)

That is, the argument goes, the word "psalms" in the Confession would have been understood to include more than the Book of Psalms.   Fesko summarizes the work of Nick Needham:

Recent research surveying the views of a number of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century theologians, such as John Daillie (1584–1670), Matthew Poole (ca. 1624–1679), and Thomas Manton (1620–1677), confirms the broad use of the term psalm to denote scriptural and extra-scriptural religious musical compositions.

For example, Poole, citing Luke 24:44, indicates that understanding "psalms" as a general term was not unheard of:

[Others take psalms] more generally, as the genus, noting any holy metre, whether composed by the prophets of old, or others since, assisted by the Spirit extraordinarily or ordinarily. (source)

Conclusion
Fesko concludes:

the most likely scenario is that the Standards promote the inclusive use of psalmody in worship as a necessary element but are silent regarding the use of non-inspired scriptural songs in worship.

Incidentally, both denominations mentioned in the question encourage the singing of psalms in worship, but not to the exclusion of appropriate hymns:

Congregations do well to sing the metrical versions or other musical settings of the Psalms frequently in public worship. Congregations also do well to sing hymns of praise that respond to the full scope of divine revelation. (OPC DPW II, B.2.c; cf. PCA BCO 51-3)


If humans are now genetically tainted by corruption, what was perfection like?

Genesis 1 never calls humans or human bodies "perfect", it does near the end of the chapter call all of creation "very good." We also have no indication from scripture about increasing amounts of genetic imperfections as humanity survived though the ages, so that might infer that we are trying to read into the scripture something it never set out for or was intended to answer, namely what human perfection was like (because it never existed in anyone except Jesus, who also died) and genetics (the bible was written in times when people had no concept for it).


The tulip acronym stands for the following:

Total depravity, the idea that man can do only evil without God.
Unconditional election, the idea that the saved are chosen by God without any consideration for their actions.
Limited atonement, the idea that Christ's death atones only for the sins of the elected saved.
Irresistible grace, the idea that no one can resist God's free gift of grace once God offers it.
Perseverance of the saints, the idea that the elected saved will always be saved.

Generally, these are called the five points of Calvinism. Calvin's theology is very complicated and I've heard some argue that this is just a simple synthesis of his ideas; Calvin did not came up with it himself. Having some familiarity with the theology, I would note that it's missing God's total sovereignty, among some other things, that are vital to Calvinism.

Wikipedia has much to offer on TULIP


Why the word "REgenerate" according to the Calvinist?

As Calvinism became mature, the meaning of regeneration became more specific: what God does to produce spiritual life in a spiritually dead person.  This is to be distinguished from the person's contribution to the whole process of conversion.  Calvinism teaches Total Depravity, meaning that a person is spiritually dead at birth (because of original sin) and consequently do not have the ability to make a decision for faith in Jesus before God performs this regeneration act.  The act is usually preceded by Calling (see Calvinist ordo salutis), which is best likened to Jesus calling Lazarus from the dead.  In this restricted sense, we may wonder why the term is not simply "generation".

But when we survey the theological history of regeneration prior to Calvinism,  regeneration was usually linked to baptism, and that is why the term baptismal regeneration is common in other denominations (see wikipedia).  Baptism clearly implies being reborn: we die to our old self and God resurrects us to the new life.  As we participated in Adam to die spiritually, we participated in Jesus to be resurrected.  With this linkage, the term "regeneration" makes sense.

For scriptural support, theologians cite what Jesus taught Nicodemus of needing to be "born again" in John 3:3-8, as well as what Paul taught in Titus 3:5 which links being born again with baptism.  In Titus 3:5 the word used is palingenesia which originally means re-creation (see wikipedia), which is then translated in theological literature to the Latin word regenerationem from which came the English word "regeneration".


What is the difference between lust and sexual desire?

The bible only discusses lust in the context of adultery, see:

Matthew 5:27-28 KJV

  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
  commit adultery:

  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after
  her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

and

Proverbs 5:20

  Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man's wife? Why embrace the
  bosom of a wayward woman?

However, the bible does mention how you should love your wife:

Ephesians 5:25

  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and
  gave Himself for her,

Ephesians 5:28-33

  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
  loveth his wife loveth himself.

  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and
  cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
  be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the
  church.

  Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife
  even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

There are no better examples in the bible of sexual desire that Song of Solomon.

Song of Solomon 4:7

  You are altogether beautiful, my love;
      there is no flaw in you

and also:

Song of Solomon 7:1-8

  How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince’s daughter! Your graceful
  legs are like jewels, the work of an artist’s hands. Your navel is a
  rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of
  wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin
  fawns of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are
  the pools of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim. Your nose is like the
  tower of Lebanon looking toward Damascus. Your head crowns you like
  Mount Carmel. Your hair is like royal tapestry; the king is held
  captive by its tresses. How beautiful you are and how pleasing, my
  love, with your delights! Your stature is like that of the palm, and
  your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, “I will climb the palm
  tree; I will take hold of its fruit.” May your breasts be like
  clusters of grapes on the vine, the fragrance of your breath like
  apples,

note: if a pastor would teach from Song of Solomon, I'm sure he wouldn't have people falling asleep in the pews

Finally, we should look at:
Matthew 19:5 KJV

  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
  shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

So then, we can see from the bible, how to treat our wives.  I do not know of any biblical example where having too much lust and / or sexual desire for a man's own wife is a sin.  Maybe there is a specific denominational teaching - Quakers being one that comes to mind.  Any further information that I can give you would border on pastoral advice.


What is the difference between a priest and a pastor?

I will first answer the question posed by the O.P. in the title.

Priests vs. pastors

A priest is a baptized man (he has to be a male) who has received the second degree of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. That is, he was previously ordained a deacon (the first degree), and subsequently ordained a second time to the order of the presbyterate (the second degree).* (For this reason, a priest may also be called by the more technical name of “presbyter.” This term etymologically comes from the Greek “presbyteros”—that is, “older” or “elder.”)

Priestly ordination confers upon the ordained the capability of exercising certain functions that are necessary for Catholic worship: in particular the ability to celebrate Mass and confect the Eucharist. (He can also hear confessions, give the Anointing of the Sick, and, in some restricted but fairly frequent cases, give the Sacrament of Confirmation.)

(For an overview of the Church’s teachings on the presbyterate, or priesthood, see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] Nos. 1562-1568.)

On the other hand, a pastor is simply the priest (or in a small number of cases, the bishop) who is in charge of a parish. As the Code of Canon Law (CIC) succinctly puts it,

  A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church [i.e., a diocese or similar structure], whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) [probably better rendered “shepherd”] under the authority of the diocesan bishop.

(For the benefit of those not familiar with the Catholic Church’s organization, parishes are usually territorial—that is, they occupy a geographical area, usually a relatively small area within one city or town—and are typically associated with a single church, called the parish church. Some parishes may support several church buildings.)

In summary: priests are those baptized men that have been admitted to the presbyterate—that is, the second degree of Holy Orders. Those priests that have been chosen as the permanent heads of parishes—that is, the smallest territorial division of the Church—are called pastors.**

Applied to exorcism

When a man receives presbyteral ordination, in addition to the capacity to effect certain sacraments, it also gives him the power to perform certain sacramentals, including solemn exorcism. Nevertheless, he can only perform this kind of exorcism with the explicit permission of his bishop. As the Catechism explains,

  The solemn exorcism, called “a major exorcism,” can be performed only by a priest and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church (CCC 1673).

Hence, any priest—pastor or otherwise—could, in theory, be called to do a solemn exorcism (provided, of course, he has the necessary permission). However, the general practice in dioceses nowadays is to appoint a full-time exorcist who is an expert in these matters.

(Someone who fears that he is possessed, or otherwise suffering from demonic influence, would probably talk first with the pastor or another priest. This priest, in turn, would most likely direct him to contact his local diocese, who would then put him in contact with the exorcist, if necessary.)

* It is technically possible for a layperson to be ordained a priest per saltum—that is, without passing through the diaconate. However, such an ordination would be contrary to Canon Law (see Can. 1031) and the longstanding traditions of every apostolic church.

** There are a few complications that can be mentioned in passing. First, a handful of parishes are personal; that is, they are not associated with a geographical area, but comprise a groups of persons who have freely chosen to become members of that parish. Second, when the post of pastor becomes vacant, the diocesan bishop or ordinary will temporarily appoint an administrator, who has most, but not all, of the faculties of a pastor.


Unitatis Redintegratio: Analogy to describe those in "partial" or "imperfect" communion?

Many Catholics, including Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) find the Mystical Body image to be problematic when discussing such ecumenical issues as you reference here.  This is why Ratzinger pushed for the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium to use "People of God" rather than "Body of Christ" in this ecumenical context.  An understanding of the "People of God" was a main topic of Ratzinger's doctoral dissertation.

  Over the years Ratzinger has had a great deal to say about the dogmatic constitution on the Church. In his earliest observations he contends that it did well to subordinate the image of Mystical Body to that of People of God. The Mystical Body paradigm, much in favor under Pius XII, makes it all but impossible to give any ecclesial status to non-Catholics and leads to a false identification of the Church with Christ her Lord. The image of People of God, he contends, is more biblical; it gives scope for recognizing the sins of the Church, and it indicates that the Church is still on pilgrimage under the sign of hope. (Avery Cardinal Dulles, From Ratzinger to Benedict)

This is a common understanding.  Although certain aspects of his ecclesiology may have changed in his later years, the tension between the Mystical Body image and any positive ecclesial status for non-Catholics seems to have remained.


Ahab was a very wicked king but the source of his wickedness does not appear, to me, to be within himself :

  But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up. I Kings 21:25 KJV.

Yet, even Ahab humbled himself, :

  And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house.

Jezebel was out of control. And the final act of hers, sealed her end - the matter of Naboth's vineyard. Writing letters in Ahab's name, she engineered Naboth's decease through the worst form of slander, see I Kings 21.

Ahab merely went into a sulk when Naboth refused to yield his rightful inheritance, I Kings 21:4, it was Jezebel who actively did the wicked deeds that brought about Naboth's death.

In the text quoted by the OP, Jezebel swore an oath to her own gods, and swore to kill - or to bring about the death of - the prophet of the Lord, Elijah. This indicates a depth of depravity which is wilful, deliberate, malicious and indicates that she is completely given up to a demonic spirit, through the means of idolatrous worship.

Paul warns the Corinthians of the fact that demonic spirits are associated with the worship of idols in I Corinthians 10:20 :

  But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. KJV

Not so Ahab. He was weak and his spirit was stirred up by his wife, rather than being a strong source from within his own self.

I doubt Jezebel was attempting to play psychological tricks with Elijah's mind. I think she was moved, within herself, by a spirit which was very powerful, completely amoral and utterly opposed to the Lord God of Israel . . .

. . . and she was willingly in a spiritual union with that demonic force.


Who were the recepients of Christian monumental sculptures in the early middle ages (10th and 11th century)?

Who could see the Bernward Column in the Benedictine Monastery of St. Micheal in Hildesheim, Germany apart from the clerics? How could it help spread the Gospel and help the conversion to Christianity of the Slavic people?
First of all what is this Bernward Column?

The Bernward Column also known as the Christ Column is a Romanesque bronze column, made c. 1000 for St. Michael's Church in Hildesheim, Germany, and regarded as a masterpiece of Ottonian art. It was commissioned by Bernward, thirteenth bishop of Hildesheim. It depicts images from the life of Jesus, arranged in a helix similar to Trajan's Column: it was originally topped with a cross or crucifix. - Bernward Column

Where was it situatated within the Abbey Church?

Bishop Bernward ordered the column about the year 1000. Therefore its known as Bernward’s Column. It was built for the Benedictine monastery St. Michael’s founded by Bernward and was located behind the rood altar in the eastern part of the nave. - Christ’s Column (Bernward’s Column)

Here is the column in question:

Bernward’s Column is a masterpiece of the highest competence – masterful manufactured, that even with most modern technology a reproduction was difficult. The helical structure is upheld inside by a steel pole and screw connection and both ends are under stress – similar to the spinal column which supports the torso of the human body.
Outwards a story made of pictures is to be found. 28 scenes taken from the public life of Jesus helical lead upwards, to begin with the launching ceremony of Jesus, progressing with his miracle actions right up to his triumphal procession into the city of Jerusalem.
The todays capital is a free reproduction from the 19th century. The top of the column in the first place was a rood. It was aiming point of the pictures, to which the four incarnations of the paradise-rivers look up from their basis.
In the rough-and-tumple during the reformation the rood was melted down in the middle of the 16th century to cast cannons. Not alone this encroachment endangered the masterpiece: about 100 years later also the capital was melted down to pay the bell of the in the meanwhile being evangelic church of St. Michael’s. About 1730 it is considered to convert the whole column into cash. A campaign for donations prevents this step.

The column in itself is a form of a Poor Man’s Bible (Biblia Pauperum).

The term Poor Man's Bible has come into use in modern times to describe works of art within churches and cathedrals which either individually or collectively have been created to illustrate the teachings of the Bible for a largely illiterate population. These artworks may take the form of carvings, paintings, mosaics or stained-glass windows. In some churches a single artwork, such as a stained-glass window has the role of Poor Man's Bible while in others, the entire church is decorated with a complex biblical narrative that unites in a single scheme.

The column being situated in the east transept behind the rood altar would mean that generally speaking the only ones to see the column would be the religious who lived within the Monastery.
The rood altar is such named because the monks processed in and out of a side door when entering and leaving the church and thus did not have to mingle with visitors or guests of the abbey. In other words, the Bernward Column was situated within the monastic cloister.
One has to keep in mind that at this time in history, monastic communities were very large and the vast majority were not clerics but lay brothers or working monks who were often illiterate. For these monks the column was truly a Poor Man’s Bible.
Occasionally, male visitors and guests would be permitted to tour the abbey church with a monk as a guide. These guests could be either members of the faithful or even Pagans.
On rare occasions, such as at an ordinations or professions of one of the monks, the families of these monks and even their extended families and friends would be seated there to witness the ordination or profession. This would include women, mother, sister and so on of the ordinands and/or those who are making monastic profession.