Does Total Consecration to Mary imply a supernatural wisdom?
Generally speaking I believe it does imply a supernatural wisdom coming from God.
The Total Consecration to Mary of Pope St. John Paul II is based on the works of St. Louis de Montfort, notably True Devotion to Mary, which he often mentioned in various talks and communications.
St. Louis de Montfort (1673 – 1716) had a profound devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and wrote extensively on the virtues of Our Lady, what true devotion to her consists in, and how the faithful need to turn to her as the way to her Son, Jesus Christ.
In his classic writings (The Secret of Mary, The Secret of the Rosary, and True Devotion to Mary) St. Louis de Montfort recommends that the faithful formally consecrate themselves to the Blessed Mother.

True Devotion to Mary
Here follows the effects this devotion has on souls as explained by St. Louis de Montfort. In seems to follow that such a Consecration to Jesus through Mary will make one a “great saint” as you asked.

My dear friend, be sure that if you remain faithful to the interior and exterior practices of this devotion which I will point out, the following effects will be produced in your soul:

1. Knowledge of our unworthiness
By the light which the Holy Spirit will give you through Mary, his faithful spouse, you will perceive the evil inclinations of your fallen nature and how incapable you are of any good apart from that which God produces in you as Author of nature and of grace. As a consequence of this knowledge you will despise yourself and think of yourself only as an object of repugnance. You will consider yourself as a snail that soils everything with its slime, as a toad that poisons everything with its venom, as a malevolent serpent seeking only to deceive. Finally, the humble Virgin Mary will share her humility with you so that, although you regard yourself with distaste and desire to be disregarded by others, you will not look down slightingly upon anyone.
2. A share in Mary's faith

Mary will share her faith with you. Her faith on earth was stronger than that of all the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and saints. Now that she is reigning in heaven she no longer has this faith, since she sees everything clearly in God by the light of glory. However, with the consent of almighty God she did not lose it when entering heaven. She has preserved it for her faithful servants in the Church militant. Therefore the more you gain the friendship of this noble Queen and faithful Virgin the more you will be inspired by faith in your daily life. It will cause you to depend less upon sensible and extraordinary feelings. For it is a lively faith animated by love enabling you to do everything from no other motive than that of pure love. It is a firm faith, unshakeable as a rock, prompting you to remain firm and steadfast in the midst of storms and tempests. It is an active and probing faith which like some mysterious pass-key admits you into the mysteries of Jesus Christ and of man's final destiny and into the very heart of God himself. It is a courageous faith which inspires you to undertake and carry out without hesitation great things for God and the salvation of souls. Lastly, this faith will be your flaming torch, your very life with God, your secret fund of divine Wisdom, and an all-powerful weapon for you to enlighten those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death. It inflames those who are lukewarm and need the gold of fervent love. It restores life to those who are dead through sin. It moves and transforms hearts of marble and cedars of Lebanon by gentle and convincing argument. Finally, this faith will strengthen you to resist the devil and the other enemies of salvation.

3. The gift of pure love

The Mother of fair love will rid your heart of all scruples and inordinate servile fear. She will open and enlarge it to obey the commandments of her Son with alacrity and with the holy freedom of the children of God. She will fill your heart with pure love of which she is the treasury. You will then cease to act as you did before, out of fear of the God who is love, but rather out of pure love. You will look upon him as a loving Father and endeavour to please him at all times. You will speak trustfully to him as a child does to its father. If you should have the misfortune to offend him you will abase yourself before him and humbly beg his pardon. You will offer your hand to him with simplicity and lovingly rise from your sin. Then, peaceful and relaxed and buoyed up with hope you will continue on your way to him.

4. Great confidence in God and in Mary

Our Blessed Lady will fill you with unbounded confidence in God and in herself:

Because you will no longer approach Jesus by yourself but always through Mary, your loving Mother.

Since you have given her all your merits, graces and satisfactions to dispose of as she pleases, she imparts to you her own virtues and clothes you in her own merits. So you will be able to say confidently to God: "Behold Mary, your handmaid, be it done unto me according to your word."

Since you have now given yourself completely to Mary, body and soul, she, who is generous to the generous, and more generous than even the kindest benefactor, will in return give herself to you in a marvellous but real manner. Indeed you may without hesitation say to her, "I am yours, O Blessed Virgin, obtain salvation for me," or with the beloved disciple, St. John, "I have taken you, Blessed Mother, for my all." Or again you may say with St. Bonaventure, "Dear Mother of saving grace, I will do everything with confidence and without fear because you are my strength and my boast in the Lord," or in another place, "I am all yours and all that I have is yours, O glorious Virgin, blessed above all created things. Let me place you as a seal upon my heart, for your love is as strong as death." Or adopting the sentiments of the prophet, "Lord, my heart has no reason to be exalted nor should my looks be proud; I have not sought things of great moment nor wonders beyond my reach; nevertheless, I am still not humble. But I have roused my soul and taken courage. I am as a child, weaned from earthly pleasures and resting on its mother's breast. It is upon this breast that all good things come to me."

What will still further increase your confidence in her is that, after having given her in trust all that you possess to use or keep as she pleases, you will place less trust in yourself and much more in her whom you have made your treasury. How comforting and how consoling when a person can say, "The treasury of God, where he has placed all that he holds most precious, is also my treasury." "She is," says a saintly man, "the treasury of the Lord."

5. Communication of the spirit of Mary

The soul of Mary will be communicated to you to glorify the Lord. Her spirit will take the place of yours to rejoice in God, her Saviour, but only if you are faithful to the practices of this devotion. As St. Ambrose says, "May the soul of Mary be in each one of us to glorify the Lord! May the spirit of Mary be in each one of us to rejoice in God!" "When will that happy day come," asks a saintly man of our own day whose life was completely wrapped up in Mary, "when God's Mother is enthroned in men's hearts as Queen, subjecting them to the dominion of her great and princely Son? When will souls breathe Mary as the body breathes air?" When that time comes wonderful things will happen on earth. The Holy Spirit, finding his dear Spouse present again in souls, will come down into them with great power. He will fill them with his gifts, especially wisdom, by which they will produce wonders of grace. My dear friend, when will that happy time come, that age of Mary, when many souls, chosen by Mary and given her by the most High God, will hide themselves completely in the depths of her soul, becoming living copies of her, loving and glorifying Jesus? That day will dawn only when the devotion I teach is understood and put into practice. Ut adveniat regnum tuum, adveniat regnum Mariae: "Lord, that your kingdom may come, may the reign of Mary come!"

6. Transformation into the likeness of Jesus

If Mary, the Tree of Life, is well cultivated in our soul by fidelity to this devotion, she will in due time bring forth her fruit which is none other than Jesus. I have seen many devout souls searching for Jesus in one way or another, and so often when they have worked hard throughout the night, all they can say is, "Despite our having worked all night, we have caught nothing." To them we can say, "You have worked hard and gained little; Jesus can only be recognised faintly in you." But if we follow the immaculate path of Mary, living the devotion that I teach, we will always work in daylight, we will work in a holy place, and we will work but little. There is no darkness in Mary, not even the slightest shadow since there was never any sin in her. She is a holy place, a holy of holies, in which saints are formed and moulded.

Please note that I say that saints are moulded in Mary. There is a vast difference between carving a statue by blows of hammer and chisel and making a statue by using a mould. Sculptors and statue-makers work hard and need plenty of time to make statues by the first method. But the second method does not involve much work and takes very little time. St. Augustine speaking to our Blessed Lady says, "You are worthy to be called the mould of God." Mary is a mould capable of forming people into the image of the God-man. Anyone who is cast into this divine mould is quickly shaped and moulded into Jesus and Jesus into him. At little cost and in a short time he will become Christ-like since he is cast into the very same mould that fashioned a God-man.

I think I can very well compare some spiritual directors and devout persons to sculptors who wish to produce Jesus in themselves and in others by methods other than this. Many of them rely on their own skill, ingenuity and art and chip away endlessly with mallet and chisel at hard stone or badly- prepared wood, in an effort to produce a likeness of our Lord. At times, they do not manage to produce a recognisable likeness either because they lack knowledge and experience of the person of Jesus or because a clumsy stroke has spoiled the whole work. But those who accept this little-known secret of grace which I offer them can rightly be compared to smelters and moulders who have discovered the beautiful mould of Mary where Jesus was so divinely and so naturally formed. They do not rely on their own skill but on the perfection of the mould. They cast and lose themselves in Mary where they become true models of her Son.

You may think this a beautiful and convincing comparison. But how many understand it? I would like you, my dear friend, to understand it. But remember that only molten and liquefied substances may be poured into a mould. That means that you must crush and melt down the old Adam in you if you wish to acquire the likeness of the new Adam in Mary.

7. The greater glory of Christ

If you live this devotion sincerely, you will give more glory to Jesus in a month than in many years of a more demanding devotion. Here are my reasons for saying this:

Since you do everything through the Blessed Virgin as required by this devotion, you naturally lay aside your own intentions no matter how good they appear to you. You abandon yourself to our Lady's intentions even though you do not know what they are. Thus you share in the high quality of her intentions, which are so pure that she gave more glory to God by the smallest of her actions, say, twirling her distaff, or making a stitch, than did St. Laurence suffering his cruel martyrdom on the grid-iron, and even more than all the saints together in all their most heroic deeds! Mary amassed such a multitude of merits and graces during her sojourn on earth that it would be easier to count the stars in heaven, the drops of water in the ocean or the sands of the sea-shore than count her merits and graces. She thus gave more glory to God than all the angels and saints have given or will ever give him. Mary, wonder of God, when souls abandon themselves to you, you cannot but work wonders in them!

In this devotion we set no store on our own thoughts and actions but are content to rely on Mary's dispositions when approaching and even speaking to Jesus. We then act with far greater humility than others who imperceptibly rely on their own dispositions and are self-satisfied about them; and consequently we give greater glory to God, for perfect glory is given to him only by the lowly and humble of heart.

Our Blessed Lady, in her immense love for us, is eager to receive into her virginal hands the gift of our actions, imparting to them a marvellous beauty and splendour, and presenting them herself to Jesus most willingly. More glory is given to our Lord in this way than when we make our offering with our own guilty hands.

Lastly, you never think of Mary without Mary thinking of God for you. You never praise or honour Mary without Mary joining you in praising and honouring God. Mary is entirely relative to God. Indeed I would say that she was relative only to God, because she exists uniquely in reference to him.

She is an echo of God, speaking and repeating only God. If you say "Mary" she says "God". When St. Elizabeth praised Mary calling her blessed because she had believed, Mary, the faithful echo of God, responded with her canticle, "My soul glorifies the Lord." What Mary did on that day, she does every day. When we praise her, when we love and honour her, when we present anything to her, then God is praised, honoured and loved and receives our gift through Mary and in Mary. - Wonderful Effects of This Devotion

Do it the St. Louis de Montfort's Way:
Total Consecration
In the spirit of this devotion, it would like Pope John Paul II giving all the merits of his works as a Supreme Pontiff to Jesus through Mary and thus increasing his own merits when he gets to heaven. Everything he did would be consecrated to Jesus through Mary (Ad Jesum per Mariam)!


Why did Jesuits and Franciscans disagree about indigenous labor in their missions?

The reason the Dominicans and Franciscans were allowed to fill the void when the Jesuits were expelled (and subsequent rebellions put down) was because the Bourbons had taken over rule of Spain from the Hapsburgs in 1700.  The Bourbons hated the Jesuits, but encouraged the other religious orders who filled the void.
"The Medicine of Memory" appears to be about the Missions in California, rather than the ones in Mexico and South America.  St. Junipero Serra gets a bad rap from Indian activists around the time of his canonization; he even received a decapitation.  But there, he didn't take over for the Jesuits. There simply were no Spaniards in the area, there was no military to enforce Californian natives to build missions until 1776 (that year seems important).
When St. Junipero died in 1784 there were "4,500 Indians living in missions".  If at that point things started to go awry, it more likely attests to the degradation in treatment of the native populations in the second generation to the normal decay of things when a popular and respected leader passes from this world with no clear plan of succession (not unlike St. Francis himself).  It takes a while for things to sort themselves out. (For a modern parallel, when Tito died, Yugoslavia went to the dogs).
Nevertheless:

the Spanish government never authorized Indians to be bought and sold, as were the Blacks of Africa.  The Indians were treated as persons, not property
Christ and the Americas, Ch 4

The best argument against the underpinning argument that the Franciscans, and even the Spaniards, were not unjust in their governing was that

for 300 years, during which time Spain governed the New World without professional soldiers or standing military forces, except in a few places on the frontier to protect against raids from uncivilized tribes
ibid.

The book Christ and the Americas says that the denigration of the Spanish achievements in the Americas was due to The Black Legend, an early form of Fake News.   Oddly enough, it was a Dominican, Servant of God Bartolemeo de las Casas, who first spread the word about abuses.  Doubly odd, he is already venerated as a Saint in the Episcopal and Lutheran Church.  Not to cast too many aspersions,  but it would seem that the very same anti-Catholic, anti-Spanish sentiment that prompted the English and the Dutch to promulgate propaganda would extend to the memory of the good Bishop.


Are there any common themes in the dreams so many Muslims have that prompt them to come to Jesus?

I have only heard of this happening en masse in the Muslim world.  The testimonies I have heard from missionaries to Turkey and Iran are these people are seeing Jesus appear to them.

One other notable example I've heard of this happening recently (1996) to a non-Muslim is Joshua Blahyi, formerly known as General Butt Naked in Liberia.  He tells of a man and a woman appearing to him, and the man spoke in his old dialect.  He says the man was Jesus.  I don't know who the woman was.

You can see his story in a piece by the Vice Guide to Travel[possibly NSFW].


The Apostles Creed was written at least 150 years after the apostles had all died. It is called the Apostles’ Creed because it is supposed to be a record of what the apostles taught.  It makes this declaration about the resurrected Christ and future judgement:

He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

Although the Apostles Creed does not mention hell, it acknowledges a judgement to come.
The Athanasian Creed (known in Latin as Quicumque vult) is an early summary of Christian doctrine. It is traditionally believed to have been written by Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria, who lived in the 4th century A.D.  Section 39 to 44 says this about Christ after his resurrection:

“He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire. This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Athanasian-creed.html

NOTE: The word 'catholic' (lower case letter c) means universal.  The final point relates to accepting and believing all points in the Creed.  In other words, if you don’t accept it all then you are not saved.  Those who are saved enter eternal life.  The unsaved enter eternal fire.
I don’t know if this is the earliest doctrinal statement on hell, but I believe it is accepted by the Catholic Church.  However, a lot of Christians are now saying that hell is not real, but is a metaphor for eternal separation from God.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) represents the doctrinal views of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and Presbyterian churches throughout the world.  Chapter 33 deals with the last judgment:

God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.

This article provides useful and interesting information on the history of this doctrinal statement of faith that still holds good for most mainstream Protestant denominations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith
The two partial quotes below come from an evangelical Protestant ministry – not a denomination.  Although not “official doctrine” they may address your points on reconciling hell with a just and loving God.  It’s the “just” part that a lot of people overlook.

John 3:18 explains in the simplest terms who will go to heaven and who will go to hell: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” So, those who go to hell are specifically those who do not believe in Jesus’ name. To “believe” goes beyond a mental recognition of the truth. To believe in Christ for salvation requires a transfer of allegiance. We stop worshiping ourselves, we forsake our sin, and we begin to worship God with our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Matthew 22:36–37; Mark 12:30).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-will-go-to-hell.html
“How can a loving God send someone to hell?” The entire question is wrong. A better wording is “If God is love, then why do some people go to hell?” Romans 1:18–20 lays the foundation for the answer: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (emphasis added).
When answering the question “how can a loving God send someone to hell?” another facet of God’s nature comes into play. God is not only love, but He is perfect justice as well. Justice requires adequate payment for crimes committed. The only just punishment for high treason against our perfect Creator is eternal separation from Him. That separation means the absence of goodness, light, relationship, and joy, which are all facets of God’s nature. To excuse our sin would require God to be less than just, and to allow sin-tainted humans into His perfect heaven would render that place less than perfect. That’s why only the perfect Son of God could go to the cross in our place. Only His perfect blood was an acceptable payment for the debt we each owe God (Colossians 2:14). When we refuse Jesus as our substitute, we must pay the price ourselves (Romans 6:23).
God gave us the freedom to choose how we respond to Him. If He forced us to love Him, we would be robots. To give us no option but obedience would be a violation of our free will. Love is only love when it is voluntary. We cannot love God unless we have the option of not loving Him. Because God honors our autonomy, He will never force surrender or loyalty. However, there are consequences for either choice. C. S. Lewis summarizes this truth in his classic work, The Great Divorce: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/loving-God-send-someone-hell.html

Many denominations reject the concept of a literal place of eternal punishment.  Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) to mention just three.  It would be difficult to find official doctrines on all Christian denomination.


Does Christ explicitly say that this was his first time on Earth?

No, Christ never said it was His first time on earth.  As a matter of fact, many denominations believe that he appeared several times in Old Testament Scripture, often referred to as the Angel of the Lord.

As far as whether Buddha or Krishna could be prior incarnations, it would go against everything Jesus taught. The teachings of these other religions are very different from Christianity.  Christianity is quite unique in several ways, and certainly isn't compatible with Buddhism (which emphasizes man's journey to enlightenment) or Hinduism (a pantheistic religion).  The idea that these figures could be "other appearances of Christ" would need to completely ignore huge differences in philosophy, and teachings on the nature of man, and man's relationship to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (a completely different God than the gods of non Abrahamic religions).


What does "communion of saints" mean in the Apostle's Creed?

Wikipedia has a good article on the concept. The phrase means that Christians are united in the Body of Christ, a teaching based on 1 Corinthians 12 (and some other passages).


Did Philip Melanchthon teach penal substitution?

A great place to look for this is Melancthon's Defense of the Augsburg Confession.  As we'll see, he does not always use language specific to penal substitution, but the themes of Christ's sacrifice appeasing God's wrath and acting as a forensic substitute for sinners are certainly there.
Christ makes satisfaction and his mercy is set against God's wrath:

[Christ] was given for us in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world, and has been appointed as the [only] Mediator and Propitiator. (Part 2)
Thus, because faith, which freely receives the remission of sins, sets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against God's wrath, it does not present our merits or our love (Part 2)
Therefore this Propitiator thus benefits us, when by faith we apprehend the mercy promised in Him, and set it against the wrath and judgment of God. (Part 5)

The appeasement of God's wrath:

The wrath of God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. (Part 5)

The application of Christ's righteousness to sinners:

Moreover, in this passage [Romans 5], to justify signifies, according to forensic usage, to acquit a guilty one and declare him righteous, but on account of the righteousness of another, namely, of Christ, which righteousness of another is communicated to us by faith. (Part 9)
The second matter in a propitiator is, that his merits have been presented as those which make satisfaction for others, which are bestowed by divine imputation on others, in order that through these, just as by their own merits, they may be accounted righteous. [...] Thus the merits of Christ are bestowed upon us, in order that, when we believe in Him, we may be accounted righteous by our confidence in Christ's merits as though we had merits of our own. (Part 26)
to be justified does not mean that a righteous man is made from a wicked man, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense (Part 8)

And Christ as the price for our sins:

But the Fathers knew the promise concerning Christ that God for Christ's sake wished to remit sins. Therefore, since they understood that Christ would be the price for our sins, they knew that our works are not a price for so great a matter [could not pay so great a debt]. (Part 3)

And finally, Christ the victim bearing the punishment of sin on our behalf:

the Law condemns all men, but Christ, because without sin He has borne the punishment of sin, and been made a victim for us has removed that right of the Law to accuse and condemn those who believe in Him, because He Himself is the propitiation for them for whose sake we are now accounted righteous. (Part 6)


Is Mary's human soul pre-existent in eternity?

In 1661, Pope Alexander VII released the Bull "Sollicitudo omnium eccl.," which reads in part:

  The devotion to the most blessed Virgin Mary is indeed of long standing among the faithful of Christ who believe that her soul, from the first instant of its creation and infusion into her body, was preserved immune by a special grace and privilege of God from the stain of original sin. (Denzinger 1100 – Latin "in primo instanti creationis atque infusionis in corpus")

This, combined with the general Catholic teaching in favor the creation of all souls (cf. Pope Pius XII, "Humani generis", "the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God") and the Church's opposition to the pre-existence of souls, indicates that Mary is not an exception to the rule: her soul was immediately created at the time of its infusion into her body, in the womb of her mother.


According to Calvinists, how could Adam and Eve fall? How could Satan fall?

One prominent Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, has written that "[t]he problem of the origin of the evil that is in the world has always been considered as one of the profoundest problems of philosophy and theology." Other Reformed theologians share this assessment.  Charles Hodge suggests that given "the feebleness of our powers" and the "limited range of our vision" that it would be reasonable to "leave this question to be answered by God himself."2 Nonetheless, to answer what he sees as false doctrines, Hodge and others strive to provide an explanation.

We should note that this question is closely related to the general problem of the existence of evil.  I will attempt to focus on the specific questions asked, regarding the fall of Adam and Eve and the demons.

Reformed theologians make several points: 1) that God is not the author of evil, 2) God's creation was good, 3) that Man and demons sinned voluntarily, and 4) God ordained that sin would come into the world.

God is not the author of evil

The first point emphasized is that God cannot be considered the author of evil.  Wayne Grudem writes that "we must clearly affirm that God himself did not sin, and God is not to be blamed for sin."3 Among the many passages cited in defense of this statement is Deuteronomy 32:4:

  The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. (ESV)

Berkhof writes that we cannot "make God the cause of sin in the sense of being its responsible author.  This idea is clearly excluded by Scripture."4

Creation was originally good

Berkhof takes time to explain the original states of the angels and of men.  Citing Genesis 1:31, "God saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good," Berkhof argues that angels had an "original good condition," and notes that the good angels are called "elect" in 1 Timothy 5:21.  These, he says, must have received a "special grace of perseverance," which the fallen angels did not receive.5

Regarding man's original state, Berkhof calls it one of "relative perfection," like a child compared to an adult, "destined to reach a higher degree of perfection in the way of obedience." He was endowed with "original righteousness," but he "could lose it and still remain man."6 This original righteousness, according to Hodge, comes from man being created in God's image, and "includes not only his rational nature, but also knowledge, righteousness, and holiness."7

Covenant of Works vs. Covenant of Grace

One thing worth noting here is that prior to the Fall, Reformed theologians teach that Adam and Eve lived under a Covenant of Works, that is, a Covenant under which they were required to perfectly obey the law.  The punishment for failure was (obviously) death, but the reward for obedience was eternal life. Under this Covenant of Works, says Berkhof,

  [Adam] was not yet raised above the possibility of erring, sinning, and dying.  He was not yet in possession of the highest degree of holiness, nor did he enjoy life in all its fulness.  The image of God in man was still limited by the possibility of man's sinning against God, changing from good to evil, and becoming subject to the power of death.8

However, the reward for obedience in the Covenant of Works was eternal life.  Berkhof calls the time before the Fall a period of "probation, in order to determine whether he would willingly subject his will to the will of God."8  If Adam had obeyed, he and his descendants would have obtained eternal life.

God's relation to Adam under the Covenant of Works is different, therefore, from his relation to mankind under the post-Fall Covenant of Grace, which God made with sinners.  In the Covenant of Grace, say the Reformed, there are elect and non-elect, and the elect are predestined to receive grace ("irresistible grace"). Thus, Adam being "elect" under the Covenant of Grace would only make sense after the Fall.

Man and demons sinned voluntarily

Turning then to Adam's sin, Berkhof says that Adam's transgression was "a perfectly voluntary act on the part of man."9  Explaining God's command to not eat from the tree, Berkhof writes:

  [I]n order that the test of Adam might be a test of pure obedience, God deemed it necessary to add to the commandments of which Adam perceived the naturalness and reasonableness, a commandment which was in a certain sense arbitrary and indifferent.  Thus the demands of the law were, so to say, concentrated on a single point.  The great question that had to be settled was, whether man would obey God implicitly or follow the guidance of his own judgment.8

Other reformed theologians are also quick to state that man and fallen angels sinned voluntarily.  Hodge says that Adam's sinfulness was "self-acquired," and that the fallen angels "kept not their first estate."10 Grudem writes:

  It was man who sinned, and it was angels who sinned, and in both cases they did so by willful, voluntary choice.3

God ordained sin

In light of the previous points, it may seem surprising that Reformed authors continue by saying that God ordained sin to come into the world.  Grudem, citing Ephesians 1:11 and Daniel 4:35, writes that God

  did ordain that sin would come into the world, even though he does not delight in it and even though he ordained that it would come about through the voluntary choices of moral creatures.3

The natural follow-up question to this is, "why?," which gets into the general problem of evil.  I'll briefly mention, however, Hodge's answer to this question.  He argues that the glory of God is the ultimate purpose of creation, and that "there could be no manifestation of his mercy without misery, or of his grace and justice, if there were no sin."11 Citing Romans 9:22-23, where Paul discusses God's creation of vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, Hodge concludes:

  Sin, therefore, according the Scriptures, is permitted, that the justice of God may be known in its punishment, and his grace in its forgiveness.  And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the earth without the light of the sun.11

Conclusion

Ultimately, Reformed theologians admit the difficulty of the problem, but hold these points as the clear teaching of Scripture and thus accept them.  Hodge recommends that we "rest satisfied with the simple statements of the Bible" and "with the assurance that the Judge of all the earth must do right."2 Similarly, John Calvin closes his treatment of the problem of evil by saying that "[o]ur true wisdom is to embrace with meek docility, and without reservation, whatever the Holy Scriptures, have delivered."12

References:

Berkhof, Systematic Theology
Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion
Grudem, Systematic Theology
Hodge, Systematic Theology

Berkhof, 2.2.1, page 219
Hodge, 1.5.13, page 430
Grudem, page 492
Berkhof, 2.2.1, page 220
Berkhof, 1.2.4, page 145
Berkhof, 2.1.3, page 209
Hodge, 2.5.3, page 102
Berkhof, 2.1.4.C, pages 215-17
Berkhof, 2.2.1, page 221
Hodge, 2.5.6, page 113
Hodge, 1.5.13, page 435
Calvin, 1.18.4


There was a militant sect in the first century known as the Kanai or Zealots. One of Jesus' apostles was named Simon the Zealot. Some scholars think he might have been associated with this group, but the best evidence seems to suggest the Zealots as a political organization did not exist until decades after Jesus' time. In any case, he was not the same person as Simon Peter.

A splinter group known as the Sicarii carried concealed daggers to kill Romans and Roman sympathizers. Some scholars have tried to suggest that Judas' second name Iscariot is a Hellenized version of Sicarii, but again the best evidence suggests they were not active until much later.

As for Peter's drawing the sword, the most plausible suggestion I've heard is that he was impulsive and often spoke or acted before considering the consequences, just like when:

he tried to walk on water following Jesus example, but couldn't
he rebuked Jesus for talking about suffering and dying
he promised Jesus that he would never deny him


Do any denominations have official doctrine regarding humans on other planets?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints mentions other worlds in their scripture.
Doctrine and Covenants 76:23-24

23 For we saw him [Jesus], even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

Moses 1:31-35

31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.


Isaiah 25:6 "On this mountain, the Lord of Heavenly Forces"

The epithet "Lord of Heavenly Forces" translates yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt. The phrase consists of the name yhwh – the tetragrammaton –  in construct with the plural noun ṣĕbāʾôt, traditionally "hosts" (e.g. BDB צבא, section 4c beginning at the top of the second column).  According to one commentator:*

  The noun [ṣĕbāʾôt] has probably an abstract meaning such as "plentifulness, numberlessness" and is intensified by plural form. Hence, it refers to numerous entities such as heavenly bodies and earthly armies.

As to where it came from, the first occurrence in our Bibles-as-bound probably also reflects the origin of the term: 1 Sam 1:3:

  Now this man used to go up year by year from his city to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts at Shiloh....

The geographical origin of the term, then, is likely in the context of worship at Shiloh.†  However, the term is utilized most frequently in the Bible by the literary prophets, generally without any direct reference to Shiloh.

The spikes are in Zechariah, Malachi, and Isaiah, where the OP ran across it.‡ My personal favorite usages occur later in Isaiah, the emphatic and frequently interjected: yhwh ṣĕbāʾôt šĕmô ("YHWH of hosts [is] his name!"), e.g. 47:4; 48:2; 51:15; 54:5.

Although the OP only asks where it came from and not where it went later on, you may be interested to note another of my favorite uses:

  Dost ask who that may be?
  Christ Jesus, it is he;
  LORD Sabaoth, his name,
  From age to age the same,
  And he must win the battle

* David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 109-110.

† Even among those who hold that the Biblical origin of the term is the prophet Isaiah in the 8th C. (i.e. because a later date for 1 Sam is adopted), it appears to be mostly accepted that the connection to Shiloh is geographically correct. See Hans-Jürgen Zobel, “צְבָאוֹת,” TDOT, 12:230-232.

‡ Image via Accordance Bible software. Search term at bottom right.


What happens to the Vicar of Christ when Christ returns?

Catholics do not hold to a theology in which there is an allotted sequence of time (such as a 'seven year tribulation' or a 'one thousand year millennial reign of Christ' after the said 'seven year tribulation') for souls to either believe or not believe in the return of Christ. Pope John Paul II referred to such ideas as 'millenarian fantasies', bereft of both common sense and susceptible to biblical cherry-picking. This would mean that the the pope's belief in the return of Christ would have little to do with the pope himself and more to do with the nature of Christ's return.

Matthew 24:29-31

  ... and then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty. And he shall send his angels with a trumpet, and a great voice: and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the farthest parts of the heavens to the utmost bounds of them.

It seems clear that Christ's second coming fulfills the other half of Jewish prophecies that suggest Christ comes in great power and as a king, in which all nations believe. This suggests that 'belief' in Christ, a matter dependent upon the Church and subjective reasoning, shall be universal since Christ is in his power and glory present to the world at this time. This power and kingship was revealed to a select few in Christ's resurrection appearances. It is upon these appearances and testimonies that the Church is founded in faith. The Church typically thus holds that the 'one thousand millennial reign of Christ' is occurring presently in the Church itself. The number, in this case, is not being taken literally, but figuratively (as much of Revelations is typically interpreted by the Church).

Regardless of these points, it is generally understood that the nature of Christ's coming is to gather the elect and to prepare the world for its final judgement. What exactly this means for the structure of the Church as we know it we cannot say. But we can say what shall vaguely happen to the general population that the Church just happens to be a part of. The population shall endure a final judgement, which is prepared by the second coming of Christ. We are given a few verses that indicate the nature of the second coming and how it relates to the final judgement:

Matthew 13:37-40

  He answered and said unto them, He that sows the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Matthew 25:31-35

  But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. "All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

Romans 14:11

  It is written: 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.'

There seems to be judgement due to deeds that are already done, in which there is no opportunity for further justification (hence the final judgement), and judgement due to souls that have little ability to not believe in the greatness of God (though this of course is not justifying belief). Thus, in terms of what happens to a specific man (which the pope is), we are not granted the opportunity to understand, especially since that said pope is not even a real person yet. To assume we could know the judgement God has in mind for a hypothetical person is rather silly, since the Church firmly states that the judgement of a soul's internal and eternal state is not necessarily in our power to discern about any real person.

We can conclude that there are probably a limited amount of possibilities for such a man in this judgement: he can be of the elect or he cannot be. But those two possibilities are about as in depth as we are going to get in terms of knowing what's coming down the pike for a specific man. Although there might be speculation regarding what happens to the office of pope, I think such speculations are rather unfounded and bordering on being entirely irrelevant to what we actually know. This is not to mention how vague and nearly nonexistent the specifics of how Christ shall prepare the world for the last judgement are. Thus, talking about ideas and people in the context of their relationship to the coming of Christ can only be vaguely understood in terms of the general final judgement; specifics and further conversations veer towards foolish banter. In short, the most we can know about the papal office in terms of Christ's second coming, and hence in terms of the last judgement, is that the specific pope, just like the rest of us, shall either see his name written in the book of life or find himself bound to hell.


How to identify the categories of a church?

Most churches identify themselves and their denomination pretty clearly. If a church has a sign outside it generally gives its full name, which usually includes the name of the denomination if it has one. For example a Catholic church called "Saint Anthony's" will usually have a sign saying "Saint Anthony's Catholic Church" outside, and the same for larger denominations like Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran etc.

The same is true of a church website, which generally gives the full name including denomination. It may also give the denomination under a page like "What we believe".

A lot of churches will identify as "Baptist", which probably tells you what you want to know but doesn't identify the denomination exactly, as there are lots of different flavours of Baptist. Their website probably identifies which association of Baptist churches they belong to, if any. Similarly for "Pentecostal".

If a church doesn't identify a denomination then it may be "non-denominational" which means it doesn't belong to any larger organization (though some non-denominational churches form themselves into groups). A church that calls itself "community church" or "Evangelical church" is often non-denominational.

Any church that doesn't identify as Catholic or Orthodox may usually be considered Protestant for practical purposes, although there are some churches that do not identify as any of those three.


What is the source of this numbering anomaly in Ambrose's De Officiis?

CCEL's text comes straight from the 1896 publication of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 10.  In fact, they host an image of the page that was transcribed, and the same page is also on Google Books.
You'll notice that there's no explanation given in the text. Neither is any given in the introduction.  So let's turn now to a modern translation of this work.
An edition edited by Ivor J. Davidson and published in 2001 includes paragraphs numbered 190–199, but a close examination of them indicates that they have the same content as the paragraphs in the Schaff version: the numbers of Schaff are simply offset.  Due to limited availability of the work on Google Books, this may be difficult for some to confirm, but the relevant section begins on page 228.  A few screenshots will suffice for those unable to read these pages.
First, page 228, in Latin:

Note the similarity, for example, in the beginning of §191 above, and the second §200 in Schaff:

In his igitur duobus illa est animi excellentia
In these two points, then, consists the excellency of the soul

From this point forward, the number systems diverge by nine: Schaff's §201 corresponds with Davidson's §192.  We see this in Davidson's §197:

It corresponds very closely to Schaff's §206:

First, I will speak of the people of our fathers. They were ready to fight for the temple of God and for their rights, and when attacked on the Sabbath day by the craft of the enemy, willingly allowed wounds to be inflicted on their unprotected bodies, rather than to join in the fight, so that they might not defile the Sabbath.

Conclusion
Based on this analysis, it seems pretty clear that the issue in Schaff's text, and by extension, CCEL's, is merely a typographical numbering mistake, not a matter of missing content.  Strictly speaking, then, the paragraph numbering of Schaff's edition here is not accurate and should be treated accordingly.  However it's worth noting that its handling of chapters matches that of Davidson's edition.


He's the product of Patricius and St. Monica.
Monica

Augustine's mother's name, Monica, is Berber ... the names Monnica and Nonnica are found on tombstones in the Libyan language - as such Monnica is the only Berber name commonly used in English
From Wikipedia citation of Michael Brett and Elizabeth Fentress, The Berbers, Wiley-Blackwell, 1997, p.71, 293

Patricius
Patricius probably was a Curiale and he was definitely a pagan of the Roman sort, not the tribal African sort.
Conclusion
So, my money is that he looked like his mom, who according to scant evidence was a Berber, like these people:

(source: wikimedia.org)


Why do Protestants hold "prayer services"?

From a Fundamentalist Pentecostal pov, "Prayer Services" are usually geared towards corporate prayer and petitions of God.
These prayer(s) can be very long (over 30mins each).  If any hymns are sung or preaching is preached, it is to prepare the church (congregation) for prayer.
These prayers can be in support of a specific cause; i.e. imprisoned missionaries, warring countries, illness, etc.
This is different from "regular worship services" where the focus is preaching/teaching.
**EDIT:
In the quest to find Biblical standing for "Prayer Meetings", it doesn't seem like there any passages of Jesus explicitly being part of a "prayer meeting", since majority of the time he spent that time alone with God and sometimes invite a few to support Him.
Here are the passages that talk about him being alone:

Luke 15:16 (NASB)
But Jesus Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray.
Luke 22:41 (NASB)
And He withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and began to pray
Mark 1:35 (NASB)
In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there.
Matthew 14:23 (NASB)
After He had sent the crowds away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray; and when it was evening, He was there alone.
Luke 6:12 (NASB)
It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God

Christ Himself advocates that we pray in isolation:

Matthew 6:6 (NASB)
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

It's possible that the Apostles congregated for prayer:

Acts 1:12-14 (NASB)
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is
near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away. When they had entered
the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that
is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas,
Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the
Zealot, and Judas the son of James. These all with one mind were
continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and
Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

Other followers of Christ praying together for a cause

Acts 12:12 (NASB)
And when he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.

Summary of the Biblical references
Although I've been unable to find passages that explicitly talk about Jesus praying with His disciples, we do find the it was done by the early church.


If Adam and Eve were exempt from death, why did they need to eat?

Presumably there is purpose to food other than just maintaining life.

Revelation describes the New Jerusalem, which is generally equated with Heaven, the place where the saved will spend eternity. And according to Revelation 22:2, in this city, "In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month." So there is food in Heaven, even though everyone there is presumably living as an immortal soul.

Likewise at the Last Supper, Jesus said, Matthew 26:29, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” As he died the next day, he must have been talking about something that would happen after his resurrection, when he presumably did not need food and drink to live. Also after his resurrection, he ate food on at least one occasion: Luke 24:40-43, "When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence." (John 21 also describes Jesus having breakfast with the disciples after his resurrection, though I find that on reading it carefully, it doesn't explicitly say that HE ate anything.)

At a minimum, people enjoy eating food. I certainly do. If some pill was invented that would provide all our caloric and nutritional needs more cheaply and conveniently, I think it very likely that most people would still eat food frequently just for the pleasure of the taste and the feeling of fullness.

Beyond that I think we can only speculate. Just because you won't die without something doesn't mean that it doesn't give you other benefits.


What liturgical languages were used in the worldwide church/broad christiandom around 500 AD?

In my studies on Early Church history, I would confirm most of your suspicions describing the broad use of Latin, Greek, and Aramaic/Syriac as the major liturgical languages of Christianity.     But one important issue, is the importance of dialects.  Many world-wide languages start out as a dialect of a major tongue only to grow and develop into eventually being considering being a language in their own right, and the same is true of Holy Languages.

Arabic  Early Arabia had many Christians and Jews living there, many of which came as part of the Diaspora when Rome destroying Israel during "the Jewish Wars".   These people were predominately Aramaic speakers.   Besides that Arabia had been conquered in the Old Testament times by Assyria or Babylon, where the foreign invaders established Aramaic as its native tongue.   In time, however the dialect grew and developed and became what we know as "Arabic".     Depending where you are on the time line of Church History, you might count the Liturgical language of Early Arabs as being Aramaic or Arabic  (500 AD).

Coptic  As an official member of the Church of Alexandria, I can confirm that Coptic also suffers from some of the same category confusion, but does so with koine Greek. In many ways it can be just a dialect of Koine, many things written in Coptic seem identical word for word, and letter for letter. But there are some fine differences, there were two additional letters created for Coptic that go beyond the Koine alphabet (The were borrowed from by an Eastern Orthodox saint, and used for creating the Russian alphabet). But more importantly, certain ancient Egyptian words and phrases were retained. Here is an example from the “Prayer of Hours”, Agpeya.

  Ke nin ke a ee ke ees toos e onas toan e oa noan ameen.

“Now and forever and unto the ages of all ages, Amen.”

But probably the biggest reason why Coptic might be considered its own language is because some Early Church writings were written using the older hieroglyphic alphabet, and the hieroglyphic alphabet is still often taught, alongside the Greek Alphabet if you want to learn Coptic as a Holy Language.

Armenian is an interesting case.   The Armenians were evangelized in New Testament times by Bartholomew and Thaddeus.     But they did not have a written language until 405 AD when saint Mesrob invented their alphabet.   He then began to translate the Bible into their new language (425 AD) and did the same for their liturgy.

I actually attended an Armenian (Oriental Orthodox) church for almost a year and heard a sermon on their history etc.    The priest related that during the transitional time, the Church used Armenian as worship language in church, but when reading from the scriptures, creeds etc. they actually had to use Bibles and other books that were written in Greek or Syriac!      So anyway, Armenian would not really be a full liturgical language until 0425 or so.

Ethiopian tradition

  asserts that Christianity was introduced by the Eunuch who was the Finance Minister of Queen Candace in the beginning of the first century (34 A.D.), the Eunuch being baptized by St. Philip the Apostle. (Acts 8:26-39) He preached the Gospel around the palace in Aksum but the sacrament of Eucharist and Baptism were not performed until the arrival of Frumentius, the first Bishop of Ethiopia.
  The Book of the Contending of St. Tekle Haimanot3 tells us that Frumentius (Sidrakos) and Adesius 4 came from Jerusalem to Ethiopia in the beginning of the fourth century A.D. They were received by the High Priest Anbarom where they grew up learning the life and customs of the country. One day Frumentius expressed how he himself was impressed by the devotional lives of the people towards their God. He then said to Anbarom, ‘My Lord, I admire the life and culture of the people, but you Ethiopians practice neither baptism nor receive communion.” Anbarom replied, “Our Fathers the Levities brought us circumcision and the Finance Minister of Queen Candace (Eunuch) brought us the faith of Christ, yet we do not have an Apostle who can administer the rite of Baptism and the Eucharist, so would you please go to Alexandria.” This he did. Then Patriarch Athanasius consecrated him Bishop and sent him back to Ethiopia. (A.D. 329—356) He was called Abba Selama (Father of Peace). He then administered the sacraments to the people. The High Priest himself, who was after the order of Judaic tradition, was first baptized and ordained Priest. Since then Eucharist and Baptismal sacraments were in practice throughout most of the country.
  There is no clear information on which Liturgy or Anaphora Frumentius had brought with him from Egypt. The Ethiopian Synaxarium states that he translated the Old and New Testaments and other texts from Hebrew, Latin and Arabic into Geez. The Synaxarium continues to say that his work of translation was not completed. It was rather left for the Syrian Monks (Nine Saints) who arrived at Aksum in the 5th century. They are generally audited for the work of translation of the Scriptures and other literature from Greek, Hebrew, Syriac and other languages into Geez, and in propagating the Gospel and setting up the monastic order and schools. There is no clear information concerning the Liturgical work either by Frumentius or by the Nine Monks. Nevertheless the complete work of translation must be attributed to the Nine Monks with respect to the effort made by Bishop Frumentius since the Eucharistic worship was in practice and since the existence of the Liturgy is understood during his time.

The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

Besides this I thought there existed some possibility of an Indian Christian Holy language (since saint Thomas is said to have evangelized India around AD 52).    But I can't find any hard evidence.    There definitely was a Christian presence from early Aramaic Christians living on the spice and silk trail, and later from Missionary Activity from the Eastern Syriac Church.   But it seems like it wasn't until the middle ages where Malayalam was used as a liturgical language.


Under what conditions can a re-married Catholic couple receive the sacrament of the eucharist?

Are there other, perhaps special situation, where such a Catholic - divorced and remarried - may be allowed to receive the Eucharist?

No there aren't
Unless a declaration of nullity [cf.entire Ch 1 (Art 1-7) Code of Canon Law] is issued on the prior marriage, and the current marriage convalidated.

  a. Epikeia and aequitas canonica exist in the sphere of human and
  purely ecclesiastical norms of great significance, but cannot be
  applied to those norms over which the Church has no discretionary
  authority. The indissoluble nature of marriage is one of these norms
  which goes back to Christ Himself and is thus identified as a norm of
  divine law. The Church cannot sanction pastoral practices - for
  example, sacramental pastoral practices - which contradict the clear
  instruction of the Lord.

  In other words, if the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their
  new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the
  sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the
  individual is bound to this norm without exception.2

  2 Cf. Angel Rodríguez Luño, L’epicheia nella cura pastorale
  dei fedeli divorziati risposati, ibid., pp. 75-87; Piero Giorgio
  Marcuzzi, S.D.B., Applicazione di "aequitas et epikeia" ai contenuti
  della Lettera della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede del 14
  settembre 1994, ibid., pp. 88-98; Gilles Pelland, S.J., La pratica
  della Chiesa antica relativa ai fedeli divorziati risposati, ibid.,
  pp. 99-131.

  Source: Objections to the Church's Teaching on the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger | Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith.

Please see also

  CCC 1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful
  spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They
  are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic
  communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating
  their children in the faith.

And

CDF October 22, 2014 response to the Question of a French Priest: "Can a confessor grant absolution to a penitent who, having been religiously married, has contracted a second union following divorce?"

Endnote

OP contained - "civilly" re-married Catholic - wording. If one is re-married, there must have been a prior marriage that ended in a divorce.
A Sacramental marriage is a marriage between two baptized persons. A valid marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is NOT a sacramental marriage.
If a Catholic marries not observing the Church's laws on marriage, that marriage is invalid.

Please see this answer to: Is a Catholic annulment divorce in a Catholic way?


Premillennialist view of 1 Thessalonians 4:16

When taken in full context, I believe the answer becomes a little more clear.

"For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." (1 Thes 4:14-17 NIV)

This states that those who are still alive will be caught up TOGETHER with those who died to meet the Lord.  A simple way of putting the first part is that those that are still alive don't get a head start.  The dead get to rise from the ground first.  Then we're all gathered up in the clouds. God wants to meet all of us at once.  No favorites.

"I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory.'” (1 Cor 15:50-54 NIV)

As for this passage, it is speaking of how we shall give up our earthly flesh for new eternal bodies.  We'll all be instantaneously changed "in the twinkling of an eye".  The dead will raise from the ground in their new bodies and those that are living will be changed instantly.

So putting the two together, in context, says that the change will happen followed by us all ascending to be with the Lord together.


Why do Catholic churches have a red lamp burning inside?

The sanctuary lamp or tabernacle lamp signifies that the Blessed Sacrament is present* in the tabernacle.*cf. Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

If it is extinguished,* it signifies there is no Blessed Sacrament the tabernacle.*(like during the Stripping of the Altar at the end of a Holy Thursday service)

Its origins are Exodus 27:20-21:

  Command the children of Israel that they bring thee the purest oil of the olives, and beaten with a pestle: that a lamp may burn always, in the tabernacle of the testimony, without the veil that hangs before the testimony.

They are placed by the tabernacle

or hung on a wall of the sanctuary:

From Rev. William A. O'Brien's Sacristan's Manual for the Extraordinary Form:

  THE SANCTUARY LAMP. This lamp usually hangs in the center of the sanctuary before the tabernacle. It must be kept burning day and night. This is a strict obligation and the sacristan should see that the lamp is ever ready to fulfill its purpose.


What does "persecute with cups" refer to in Augustine's first homily on 1 John?

“Calcibus” is the ablative or dative plural of calx, which means “limestone” (from which we get the term “calcium”) or, alternatively, “heel.”
I believe the translator mistook “calcibus” for “calicibus.”
If we take the “limestone” meaning, based on the context, the phrase almost certainly refers to the fact that many prophets were stoned to death because what they preached was uncomfortable. (See, e.g., Mt. 23:37.)
Hence,

ut passiones martyrum imitetur, non eos calcibus persequamur!

would be rendered

In order that the sufferings of the martyrs may be imitated, let us not persecute them with stones.

If we take calx to mean heel, we would have:

In order that the sufferings of the martyrs may be imitated, let us not persecute them with [our] heels [i.e., let us not tread them underfoot].

Although the translation is uncertain, it certainly does not involve cups (calices, with an extra I).
Some other translations
A survey of translations favors the “heel” interpretation:
The English translation by Boniface Ramsey reads

And would that it might also dwell in our hearts such that we may imitate the martyrs’ sufferings and not trample them underfoot!

Likewise, the Italian translation on augustinus.it has

Potesse quel nome stabilirsi anche nel cuore, tanto da farci imitare le sofferenze dei martiri e non metterle invece sotto i piedi.
May that name be established also in the heart, so as to imitate the sufferings of the martyrs and not to tread them, instead, underfoot (a rather loose, but valid, translation, as can be seen).

The Spanish translation on the same site makes the same choice:

Y ¡ojalá habite también en el corazón de tal modo que, en vez de ponerlos bajo nuestros pies, imitemos sus pasiones!
May [the word martyr] live in your heart un such a way that, instead of putting them under our feet, we may imitate their sufferings!


Jacob had twelve sons by four women. They are:

From Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun
From Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin
From Bilhah (Rachel's maid): Dan and Naphtali
From Zilpah (Leah's maid): Gad and Asher

Joseph, of course, had two sons - Manasseh and Ephraim.

The tribe of Levi was not given an inheritance, as we see in Joshua 13:14:

  But to the tribe of Levi he gave no inheritance, since the offerings made by fire to the LORD, the God of Israel, are their inheritance, as he promised them.

We see the separation of the 'House of Joseph' into the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in Joshua 14:4 (and a repetition of the Levite's inheritance)

  for the sons of Joseph had become two tribes--Manasseh and Ephraim. The Levites received no share of the land but only towns to live in, with pasturelands for their flocks and herds.

We can read in the rest of Joshua 13 the particular land each tribe was given (note that Manasseh actually became two half-tribes. One half was beyond the Jordan, and eventually disappeared from Israel).

The basis for Ephraim and Manasseh being full tribes is given in Genesis 48:5-6, as Jacob adopts them as if they were his own sons (as Reuben and Simeon):

  And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine. Your offspring whom you beget after them shall be yours; they will be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance.

So the twelve tribes can be listed as:

Reuben
Simeon
Judah
Issachar
Zebulun
Ephraim
Manasseh
Benjamin
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Asher

We see this listing clearly in Numbers 1, and a final note on the separation of the Levites (v47-49):

  The ancestral tribe of the Levites, however, was not counted along with the others. The Lord had said to Moses: “You must not count the tribe of Levi or include them in the census of the other Israelites."


There are not multiple versions of the new Testament. There is one version. The first four books happen to be four different accounts of the the same series of events but there are 27 books in total.

How were the books of the New Testament chosen?
No, there is nothing equivalent to the four perspectives of the Gospel books in the Old testament, there is just one collection of books, accepted by both Christianity and Judaism, compiled in their present form in about 450BC then canonized in about 200BC but was written over a period of several thousand years before that and having gone through several redactions.

When was the OT canon as used by Protestants finalized?

There are a few passages where the same story is told more than once for the purpose of recording it from a different perspective, such as in the books of Kings and Chronicals.

On another note, the Old Testament is devoted to foreshadowing Christ. In that sense all the stories, all the crazy history of Israel and all the prophets are all telling the same story.

Really the best way to get your head around this is to read it through, then ask more questions about what it all means.


Some people think that "God made me that way." is some sort of excuse.

Consider the parable of the talents (Luke 19, John 25). God gave each different talents, and each was judged by what he did with them. What they did cannot be interpreted in any way but choice.

Even a fatalist has to resort to claiming that the choice was fated. The fact of the choice can't be denied.

And it does no good to claim that the choice was fated, because the choice ends up being made. Avoiding choices is choosing not to do things, which is also a choice.

Yes, a talent was money back then, but the varying amounts is symbolic of the varying gifts He gives each of us.

Satan was given great knowledge, and he was given great self-confidence, apparently. The scripture does not say God commanded or caused Satan to rebel. It says he rebelled. The third of the hosts that followed him are not said to have been commanded or caused to follow him, they are said to have followed him.

Concerning temptation, there are many sources of temptation. Some of those are from within. Paul refers to this when he talks about the natural man. Our natural urges are not always good and appropriate, and we should not blame them on the devil.

But if none of my arguments here persuades you that even the devil is responsible for his own choices, consider this:

Given, for the sake of argument only, a god who would make us without choice and punish us for things we did without choice, that is, if such is your assumption, why would such a god make an exception for Satan?


What are the differences in belief regarding Hesychasm between the Chalcedonian (Eastern) and Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental) Orthodox Churches?

As a Coptic Orthodox Christian, many of the differences between the two Churches results in the language and definitions of some key orthodox concepts. In fact, much of the Christology of both Churches is the same.

  Hesychasm may be experienced by ascetic individuals, usually highly
  spiritual monks and nuns. Little is known about such matters as these
  spiritual individuals will not reveal this information voluntarily to
  anyone except their confession fathers, and their confession fathers
  will rarely expose this information until their timely repose.

Source

This source is from the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States and is answered by His Grace Bishop Youssef, the presiding bishop of said diocese


Have Catholic views on Grace and Justification changed?

No, the Catholic understanding of justification not occurring by grace alone has not changed. The 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification has not created any new doctrine, but restates Catholic doctrine on this point.
The Canons of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent include, among others, the following statements:

CANON I. If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. [This, note, is the very first statement made.]
CANON XXIV. If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXXII. If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,—if so be, however, that he depart in grace,—and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

That is, the Council of Trent wanted to underscore that the teaching of the Church regarding justification includes the following points:

Good works alone, without the grace of God, are not sufficient to justify anyone before God.
However, good works are not merely "the fruits and signs" of justification, but activity which can, and must, be done by humans to merit further graces and ultimately salvation.
Furthermore, these good works, though inspired by the grace of God, are not solely attributable to God, but to the doer of good works as well; and these good works will ultimately (all other things being equal) merit for the believer "the reward of eternal life" in Christ Jesus.

All these things are still taught by the Church. The Church still believes that good works do not alone justify anyone before God; this is the work of the Spirit:

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1996)
And that good works are not just "fruits of justification" (though they are at least that), but work necessary for humans to participate in and merit salvation:

Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

(Catechism, paragraph 2010; emphasis added)
And, finally, that these good works we do are referable not only to God but more directly to us:

Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration.

(Catechism, paragraph 2025)
The Joint Declaration arrived at between Catholic and Lutheran theologians in 1999 extends to some very basic truths which both Catholics and Lutherans find acceptable; for example:

"All persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation." (paragraph 19)

"Good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit." (paragraph 37)

None of these statements (nor the others stated in the Joint Declaration) conflicts with current or past doctrinal statements of the Catholic Church.


What is the present attitude of the Church of England towards the 39 articles and the 33 Homilies?

The Canon Law of the Church of England, in point A2, states:

  The Thirty-nine Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented unto with a good conscience by all members of the Church of England.

These articles are actually printed at the back of the Book of Common Prayer, the official prayer book of the CoE.

Finally, whenever a bishop is ordained, the following declaration must be agreed (based on the Ordinal for Australia):

  The Anglican Church of Australia, being an Apostolic Church, receives and retains the Catholic
  faith, which is grounded in Holy Scripture and expressed in the Creeds, and within its own history, in the Thirty-Nine Articles, in The Book of Common Prayer and in the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
  In accordance with the Canons of this Church, I now require you to make your Declaration and
  Assent to this faith.

Now, regarding the Thirty Three Homilies, notice that Article XXXV of the 39 articles, as currently in use in the CoE, states:

  THE second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.

In bold is the text referring to the first and second Books of Homilies, containing 12 and 21 homilies respectively. That amounts to the 33 homilies, endorsed by the CoE as authoritative.


What is the basis for penance (satisfaction) in sacramental confession?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say on satisfaction:

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."
1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."63

The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ ... in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.64

62 DS 1712 (Council of Trent, 1551)
63 ⇒ Rom 8:17; ⇒ Rom 3:25; ⇒ 1 Jn 2:1-2; cf. DS 1690 (Council of Trent, 1551)
64 DS 1691 (Council of Trent, 1551); cf. ⇒ Phil 4:13; ⇒ 1 Cor 1:31; ⇒ 2 Cor 10:17; ⇒ Gal 6:14; ⇒ Lk 3:8.

The Biblical references are [all RSV-CE]:

Rom 8:17 — and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Rom 3:25 — ... Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
1 Jn 2:1–2 — If anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for  the sins of the whole world.
Phil 4:13 — I can do all things in him who strengthens me.
1 Cor 1:31 — Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.
2 Cor 10:17 — Let him who boasts boast of the Lord.
Gal 6:14 — But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Lk 3:8 —  Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

The biblical basis for penance is thus Romans 8:17, the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear to be conformed to Christ who bore his cross for the sin of the world. The penance imposed by the priest is a small suffering in our own life to remind us of Jesus' ultimate sacrifice in his; because of his suffering, he is able to support us in ours. And so, having accepted our own little cross, we might bear the fruits of repentance: the "turning back to God" and the change of life that must engender.


John 14:2: a literal house / temple or heaven

Well, for sure is never really possible, but let me give this a shot.

There is no difference between the two words in Greek—just like the English translations you provided. Both use the generic Greek term for house, "oikos." However, it's important to note that the second quotation (Mt. 21) is itself a quotation from Isaiah 56:7. In Hebrew, the word for house, bêt, is also used frequently to refer to a "temple" (cf. with the archaeological sites of bet shemesh, et al.), and in fact is the word used in Isa 56:7, which is unquestionably referring to the Solomonic Temple. The Greek word oikos does not include this connotation in contexts other than translation. In other words, referring to the temple as oikos in Matthew is a semiticism preserved by a literal translation and is not part of the usual semantic domain.

So, in John 14 there is no reason contextually to assume that Jesus has in mind a "temple" when he says "house" because there are perfectly good words in Greek that do mean temple.


Was defining the New Testament originally condemned as heresy?

It is impossible to know for sure without asking the person that said it,  but I believe it is most likely, given her description of the individual in question,  the historical time frame and the context of the discussion,  that she was speaking of a man named Marcion.
Who was Marcion?

For the first hundred years or so of the Christian faith, documents like the letters written by Paul, and the four histories of Jesus, which we call “the Gospels”, had been circulated and copied throughout the churches for use in teaching. Very quickly, these documents came to be regarded as holy Scripture, of equal importance as the Jewish scriptures, which are referred to today as the Old Testament.
Around 140 A.D. (110 years after Jesus' death), a man called Marcion began teaching a version of Christianity which viewed the God of the Old Testament as a wrathful God incompatible with the loving God of the New Testament. He therefore rejected the theology of the Old Testament. To support his teachings, Marcion published a canon – a list of documents which he considered to be holy Scripture – which included only an edited version of the Gospel of Luke, and 10 of Paul's letters. This situation highlighted the need for consistent understanding in the Church of what documents (or books) were indeed canonical (i.e. accepted as authoritative), and could be used for setting and defending church doctrine. 1

It is a bit anachronistic for the above article and the video’s quote to refer to the “New Testament” since there wasn’t anything by that name at that time. Rather, for Marcion, his “New Testament” was not new in the chronological sense,  but was new for the purpose of replacing the Old Testament.
Why was Marcion a heretic?
Marcion was not a heretic for writing down, or copying, the gospels and letters. He was not wrong,  though perhaps a bit unorthodox, to make a list of books he personally considered authoritative. He was a heretic because he denied many of the major pillars of the faith such as the physical incarnation of Christ and thereby His physical death and resurrection, the authority of the Torah and that the God of the Jews is the one supreme Creator.
Unfortunately for Marcion,  much of the established books of his day had at least some parts which disagreed with his beliefs. So Marcion decided to pick a canon of books,  and then edit them to suit his theology. 2 It was this “writing down” of a “New Testament” that I believe the video is referring to, typically known as "Marcion's Canon."
Ultimately, the church excommunicated Marcion and produced apologetics, such as Tertullian and Irenaeus, against Marcionism. Our New Testament today was arrived at through a process of which Marcion was a quickening influence.
Is the documentary referring to Marcion?

Father James Bernstein, an Orthodox church leader wrote: "The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. ... Many scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that the early Church determined to create a clearly defined canon of its own." (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 7)

This statement,  combined with Marcion’s heresy and excommunication, is most likely what was being referred to in the video.  However,  while the quote is technically true, Marcion really was just the first to claim a definitive canon. All the books he used,  plus more, were already established as authoritative as seen by their use by church fathers. The fact he had an assortment of books from which to pick by name also shows that the core of the four gospels and the Pauline letters were already known and largely accepted.
Is the Documentary's Assertion Correct?

The Christian theologian who came up with the idea of having a New Testament was roundly condemned as a heretic.

In the end, this statement is, at best, misleading, if not a deliberate twisting of the truth. His condemnation as a heretic was not because of his canon. Rather, Marcion's canon was condemned because it removed books that were already accepted and removed the parts it disagreed with even in the few books he kept.
But yes, he did have the idea of a Canon, and yes, he was a heretic. But to say the one caused the latter is false.

1 - Theopedia - "Development of the canon"
2 – “Marcion and the Marcionites”


Who first clearly formulated the penal substitution theory of atonement?

Hard to choose, but probably Martin Luther. Your linked answer has the clearest example, from Luther's Works, Volume 26 (Lectures on Galatians Ch. 1-4).

  He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of men upon Him, and said to Him: "Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men. And see to it that You pay and make satisfaction for them....Whatever sins I, you, and all of us have committed or may commit in the future,
  they are as much Christ’s own as if He Himself had committed them.

However, this is from a 1535 lecture, and so it's not the earliest instance, per se.

In 1530, penal substitution was officially proclaimed as part of the Lutheran faith by the Augsburg Confession at the Diet of Ausburg. (Note the similar phrasing.)

  Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins.

Luther approved a draft of the confession, so it's likely that he supported this view of the of atonement by this time, if not earlier.

Around the same time, John Calvin wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion, which was published in 1536.

  He offered in sacrifice the flesh which he took from us, that by expiation wought he might destroy our guilt and appease the Father's just anger.

It's hard to say who had the idea first. Given that Protestantism relied especially on Paul's works, and this interpretation is best supported by him ("For he hath made him to be sin for us"), it's not surprising that Protestant theologians arrived at this doctrine readily.


What is the main theological point of Philippians?

The Epistle to the Philippians emphasizes the importance of community and unity in the Church.  He congratulates the Philippians for their care towards others (ch 1) and warns against the heresy, particularly the heresy of the Judaizers (3:1-11).

The introduction to the book in the Orthodox Study Bible summarizes:

  Salvation is a dynamic ongoing experience that is not merely personal, but shared among believers.  St. Paul urges the believers in Philippi toward continued unity, humility, selfless generosity, and joy in Christ.


What is the basis of the non catholic denominations to hold catholics as Idolaters

The basis for claiming that Catholicism is idolatry, whether valid or not, is that various Catholic beliefs conflict with Protestant beliefs and doctrines. The list includes the following (and includes a Catholic answer to each claim in the interest of being fair and balanced, and not turning this into a Truth answer):

Catholics pray to saints, and to Mary. Many Protestants equate this to worshiping them.

The Catholic view is that they are asking these saints and Mary to intercede with God for them.

Catholics practice confession to a man (A Priest, etc.) when Scripture tells us we should confess our sins directly to God. They believe that the priest has the power, through the authority of the Church, to absolve sins. Non-Catholics believe this is attributing powers that only God has to the Church, or to a man.

The Catholic position is that this is a delegated authority - delegated to the Church by Christ, and to the Priest by the Church.

Some non-Catholics equate the Eucharist with idolatry, claiming that Catholics worship the transmutated wafer and wine as idols.

This is clearly not how Catholics view the Eucharist. Catholics hold to a very literal interpretation of "Take, eat, this is my body" and "take, drink, this is my blood".

Some Protestants claim that the God worshiped by Catholics is nothing like the God of the Bible. They go so far as to say that all of the additional sacraments, ritual, and mysticism in the Catholic Church borrow from Pagan religions, and that the Church has become polluted, and no longer worships the true God.

Of course, Catholics don't see it this way.

* Note that in the above, it's not only Catholics that practice these things or hold these views. It's phrased that way because the question asks about Catholics only.


Why was John the Baptist not excited at seeing Jesus at Jordan?

St. Thomas Aquinas refers to Lk. 1:41 when commentating on Jn. 1:29:

  Note that after the conception of Christ, when his mother, the Virgin, went in haste to the mountainous country to visit John’s mother, Elizabeth, that John, still in his mother’s womb and unable to speak, leaped in her womb as though performing a religious dance out of reverence for Christ. And as then, so even now; for when Christ comes to John out of humility, John offers his testimony and reverence and breaks out saying, Look! There is the Lamb of God.

Origen does, too (as quoted in St. Thomas's Catena Aurea on Jn. 1):

  After this testimony, Jesus is seen coming to John, not only persevering in his confession, but also advanced in goodness: as is intimated by the second day. Wherefore it is said, The next day John sees Jesus coming to him. Long before this, the Mother of Jesus, as soon as she had conceived Him, went to see the mother of John then pregnant; and as soon as the sound of Mary’s salutation reached the ears of Elisabeth, John leaped in the womb: but now the Baptist himself after his testimony sees Jesus coming. Men are first prepared by hearing from others, and then see with their own eyes. The example of Mary going to see Elisabeth her interior, and the Son of God going to see the Baptist, should teach us modesty and fervent charity to our inferiors. What place the Savior came from when He came to the Baptist we are not told here; but we find it in Matthew, Then comes Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him.


Could a Catholic justify remaining an active member of the Catholic Church if the Pope permits homosexuals to receive Communion?

I will preface my answer by saying that the situation is unlikely, because, as the original poster says, such a disciplinary decision would imply a tacit recognition on the Church’s part that homosexual actions can be legitimate. (Homosexual tendencies are never at issue, only acting on those tendencies.) That is a matter that touches on the Church’s clear doctrine that such acts cannot be approved. (It is not, however, exactly the same as a magisterial teaching of doctrine—see below.)

Moreover, as a pastoral measure, such a course of action would not (in the Church’s view) be very merciful, because it would tend to prolong situations (e.g., homosexual relationships) that in fact are very damaging for the persons involved. Not only that, but (as St. Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 11:29: “For anyone who eats and drinks [the Body and Blood of Christ] without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself”) receiving the Eucharist while at the same time engaging in actions that are clearly immoral is not beneficial.

Nevertheless, in the hypothetical scenario that a Pope were to authorize Communion for persons habitually acting on their homosexual tendencies, there would still be no reason for the rest of the faithful to leave the Catholic Church. Such a change would undoubtedly be an error, from a pastoral point of view (for the reasons explained above), but it is not precisely an error in teaching.

According to the Church’s teaching, the Church in general (and the Pope, when acting in the name of the Church—i.e., ex cathedra) is infallible when it proclaims doctrine (whether that be in matters of faith or in matters of morality). However, it only teaches infallibly when it intends to do so: when the pastors of the Church (the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or, sometimes, the Bishop of Rome acting in the name of the whole Church) declare something as part of the deposit of faith. This is done in different ways, the most solemn of which are the dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils (and on occasion of the Pope himself).

However, in a change in discipline of this kind—however flawed and not recommendable it may be—the Pope does not have the intention to teach doctrine, much less do so infallibly.

The faithful have a duty to pray for their pastors—the Pope included—and even to let him know, respectfully, if one of their disciplinary decisions is not a good idea. However, such a situation would not be the occasion for leaving the Church; rather, for seeking to reform it (always in charity, and in accordance with the Gospel) from within.