How can a Pope be chosen from outside the conclave?

There is a fair bit of precedent, though none of it is very recent. The provisions are found not in Universi Dominici Gregis itself, but in the companion book of ritual, Ordo rituum conclavis (see UDG §90). This 2005 edition is the latest in a series first codified in 1516 and frequently republished.1 I do not know if the 2005 version makes any changes to this rule, but if it did, it would be the first since 1516.

The procedure is actually quite simple. Ultimately, the person chosen has to accept or refuse his election, and so either he has to come to the college, or they have to go to him.

If the person chosen is in or near Rome, then he is summoned to the conclave, and asked if he accepts the election. If it's a yes, then he becomes Pope; otherwise, he doesn't, and the cardinals go on to elect someone else. A notable example of this process - and the most recent example of a non-cardinal being chosen - was the election of Urban VI in 1378. In order to preserve secrecy, the conclave summoned several decoy clerics at the same time.
If he is further away (the text says aliquos dies - a few days' travel) then the election is announced and the conclave breaks up. They draw up documents certifying the election, and send a delegation of cardinals to the person they've chosen. If he accepts, then he becomes Pope, and they all go to Rome for the rest of the usual ceremony. Otherwise, the delegation would return alone, and the conclave would resume - but this has never happened. An example is the election of Gregory X in 1271, who was off crusading with Edward I of England.

In modern times, the second process is quite unlikely to happen. The most plausible candidates for Pope who would not already be in the conclave are (1) cardinals above the age of 80, like Francis Arinze, who might well be in Rome anyway, and (2) bishops of important sees, who would tend to live in major cities that are well-connected to Rome by air travel. But there is no strict dividing line: it's up to the cardinals to decide which procedure would work best in the given circumstances (UDG §5).

The person elected is told why they are being summoned - although it wouldn't be too hard for them to guess. They can't tell anyone else, though! (I don't know if the decoys in 1378 knew they were decoys, or if they had a disappointing surprise.) There is no oath provided, unlike for the electors or their assistants, but if there were any doubt about whether secrecy was required, UDG §5 or Secreta continere (1974) §§7, 10 would seem to give ample scope for imposing it.

Speculation: In the same way, if the cardinals felt it necessary, they could arrange for dummy smoke signals to be sent out. (The white smoke / black smoke system is not prescribed in law: although the ballots must be burned, there's nothing to say what colour the smoke should be.) This would disguise the fact that balloting was not taking place, while they were waiting for the chosen person to arrive, and so the world's media wouldn't be encouraged to start scouring the area, hanging around Da Vinci airport, etc., in the hopes of finding out who had been summoned; and the waiting crowds wouldn't be misled into thinking that the new Pope was going to appear on the balcony quite soon.

1. The 1516 book Rituum ecclesiasticorum sive sacrarum caeremoniarum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae contains provisions on Papal election and coronation, from the work of Agostino Patrizi Piccolomini (1435-1495), who was Master of Apostolic Ceremonies and Bishop of Pienza. He drew on less systematic accounts from as early as the seventh century.


What are the objections to Newton's critique of 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16?

1 John 5:7, 8

The evidence for and against this "comma" is a follows.  The manuscripts are identified, as usual, by their catalogue number according to the Gregory-Aland system with a date in brackets.  See the list in UBS5 and NA28.  See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

01 (4th) omit

03 (4th) omit

02 (5th) omit

048 (5th) omit

024 (6th) omit

044 (800) omit

018 (9th) omit

020 (9th) omit

33 (9th) omit

2464 (9th) omit

1739 (10th) omit

81 (1044) omit

2138 (1072) omit

323 (11th) omit

436 (11th) omit

945 (11th) omit

1175 (11th) omit

1243 (11th) omit

1846 (11th) omit

2298 (11th) omit

2344 (11th) omit

1241 (12th) omit

1505 (12th) omit

1611 (12th) omit

1735 (1200) omit

1852 (13th) omit

1292 (13th) omit

1067 (14th) omit

1409 (14th) omit

1881 (14th) omit

322 (15th) omit

Late (post 15th cent) MSS (undated)

61  include

88  include

221  include

429  include

629  include

636  include

918  include

2318  include

It is NOT included in Wescott & Hort, NA28, UBS5, SBL, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, F35, Jerome's Vulgate (~400 AD), THGNT, NIVGNT.

It is included on the Orthodox text (by edict), TR and Clementine Vulgate.  It is clearly a late addition from the vulgate.

1 Tim 3:16

The difference in this verse is "theos" (= God in TR and majority Byzantine text) vs "hos" (= he or who in NA28, UBS5 etc).  In any case the sense of the verse is scarcely changed.

The problem with Newton's critique is his dependence on a straw-man argument.  Because two texts supporting the Trinitarian view are dubious, then is Trinitarianism dubious?  Hardly.  There are numerous other arguments in favour of Trinitarianism in the NT.


In Catholicism, what are the different kinds of sins?

The most authoritative answers can be found in Article 8: Sin of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is carefully worded and addresses the questions asked. The following is an attempt at a supplement. Other sources include the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Baltimore Catechism.

This is about actual sin (as in "act-ual", from Latin actus) having to do with acts, and not Original Sin. Acts include willful deeds, failures to act (omissions), utterances (speech), desires, and thoughts.

Terminology

The major distinction is between venial and mortal sins: something very serious accompanies every mortal sin, so mortal sins are set apart.

Sin is any act contrary to the eternal law. A sin is a willful act contrary to reason and the moral law inscribed into the conscience of every person.

The object of a sin has to do with the objective (object-ive) elements of the sin, circumstances, etc.

Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments. Grave sin is sin whose object is grave matter
Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter (a grave sin), and which is committed with full knowledge (on the part of the intellect) and deliberate consent (on the part of the will).

  1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Venial sin is any sin that is not a mortal sin:

  1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

The reason we talk about grave sins is that we cannot know if another person truly committed a moral sin without knowing if they acted with knowledge and consent. But we can know on the basis of certain objective qualities that it was a grave sin, so we are able to call it that. There isn't always a clear distinction between grave and light matter. Objectively, some sins "admit of no lightness of matter", such as blasphemy or hatred of God. Other sins admit lightness. For example, intentional theft is sometimes only venial, such as when one wilfully steals paperclips from the office. It is especially difficult for a person to self-evaluate the gravity of one's own sins, which is why the Church trains priests to recognize the gravity of sins during Confession.

Diagram

                         Grave
    SIN:                Matter
           ┌─ ─ ─ ─ ┴ ─ ─ ─ ─┐
           │          venial │
           ┤        ╔ ═ ═ ═ ═╗
 Knowledge │ venial ║ Mortal ║ ⬅"deliberate
 & Consent └─ ─ ─ ──╚═ ═ ═ ═ ╝   sins"
                        ⬆
                   "Grave sins"

  In other words:knowledge and consent + grave matter = Mortal Sin

Effects

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. [... Mortal sin] necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation. [...] Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

  Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. [...] Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

  This sin is called mortal because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation on the soul.

  The effects of venial sin are the lessening of the love of God in our heart, the making us less worthy of His help, and the weakening of the power to resist mortal sin.

There are also capital sins (vices), material and formal sins, and internal sins. For example, mortal or venial sins might be internal. But all that's another question. The major distinction is between mortal and venial sins.


Did the American Constitution and independence from England usher in the first full separation of Church and state?

As a matter of chronology, yes, the United States was the first major Christian country (and it was fairly substantial, even at the time of the Revolution) to not require the establishment of a particular state church.  Not all colonies had established churches (Rhode Island, since 1636!, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, etc...) but most colonies disestablished in the 1780s.  Virginia, for example, disestablished her Anglican church in 1786.  Congress was prohibited from establishing a federal church in 1791 -the same year that France disestablished hers in the midst of the French Revolution.

Different from establishment, however, is the notion of separation of church and state.  The Constitution of the United States bars the U.S. Congress from establishing a state church (Amendment I), but the "wall of separation" developed slowly over the next few centuries, and was not formalized until Lemon v. Kurtz in 1968.  Whether and how this "wall" is supposed to work is an ongoing discussion.

The Netherlands (1795) and Switzerland (1798) disestablished their churches about the same times, but by a strict chronology, the United States was absolutely first. Germany (or more properly the Holy Roman Empire), left it to each prince to decide the status of their particular states prior to all of these, but the establishment of a church was considered important. This chart on Wikipedia gives many more dates.

The problem with disestablishing a church is not as straight-forward as it might seem, however.  In Virginia, for example, the Anglican church was the governmental authority charged with looking after the citizenry. If a person was unable to afford food, for example, it was the established church that cared for that person, using taxes levied and collected by the church.  Until a parallel, secular authority could be instituted to serve the same role, disestablishment would have hit the "least of these my brethren" extremely hard.  Indeed, even the Baptists who hated the established church so much were required to show that they could care for their members before the Act of Toleration in 1786.

Update: Per this article (link) Massachusetts did not disestablish her church until 1833, but as a Virginian, it is very hard to consider Massachusetts a major state (joke).  In all seriousness, that article shows how long and hard the process of disestablishment was - but at the federal level, it was much easier, because technically, it never could begin!


When did Arabic enter into usage as a liturgical language among Christians?

Different communities adopted Arabic at various times. The earliest community to start using Arabic were the Greek Orthodox of Palestine, who started translating the liturgy and theological books into Arabic in the 8th century. For a more general history of Arab Christianity, I'd consult The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque by Sidney Griffith. For evidence of possible pre-Islamic use of Arabic as a Christian liturgical language, browse through the series Byzantium and the Arabs by Irfan Shahid.


Refusing to Baptize Illegitimate Infants

In the Catholic Church, there are indeed a very few cases in which priests are required to delay, not withhold, the Sacrament of Baptism; illegitimacy is not one of them.

Catholicism considers baptism necessary for salvation:

  The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. [citing John 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. [citing Matthew 28:19–20] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. [citing Mark 16:16] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1257)

It is therefore most important to Catholicism that all people be baptized—so important that the Church even recognizes extreme situations in which a lay person can baptize:

  In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

(Catechism, paragraph 1256)

  When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 861, section 2)

Baptism, however, does not ensure salvation, but only the outpouring of God's justifying grace on the baptizand. It is up to the individual, or in the case of a minor up to their parents or sponsors in baptism, to work so as to gain grace and merit before God; this is ultimately what allows them to gain salvation.

It is important, then, for the Church to make sure that a child who is offered for baptism has a reasonable chance of being raised Catholic. Thus, canon law requires the priest to delay baptism if he is sincerely doubtful on this point, while he discusses the issue with the parents:

  For an infant to be baptized licitly ... there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 868, section 1, paragraph 2)

The use of the word licitly in this instance indicates that if a priest violated this canon and baptized an infant in this case, the baptism would still be valid; the Church would still treat the infant as baptized and would believe that justifying grace had indeed been granted to them; but the priest might be in trouble for doing something that he really shouldn't have, and the infant's prospects of growth in faith and grace might be impaired.

All this is to point out that there may be times when the Church might not baptize an infant for whom baptism is requested, and to discuss pretty much the only time when this might be the case. (The only other possible occasions when baptism might not be conferred are when the parents don't assent to the baptism, or when the child has already been baptized in another Christian denomination.) Illegitimacy is not one of those times. That is, illegitimacy is not, and to the best of my understanding never has been, a bar to baptism in the Catholic Church.


According to the Catholic Church, is a marriage consummated if the couple had premarital sex?

Quite simply, in order for a marriage to be consummated, it must first exist. Sexual activity between two unmarried people does not somehow "carry over" after they marry each other. Their activity is the sin of fornication:

Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality, which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2353)

A sinful activity has no relation to an activity which is not only not a sin, but part of the purpose of a state ordained by God.
The difference is that marriage involves a total giving of each spouse to each:

"Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter—appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility."
(Catechism paragraph 1643. The quote is from Pope St. John Paul II's apostolic exhortation "Familiaris Consortio".)

Sex without marriage is not the full mutual giving that marriage demands; it's a different kind of activity than sex in marriage—no matter what the intentions of the participants are at the time. Thus, only sexual activity undertaken after marriage can be considered a consummation of the marriage, and then only a certain kind:

A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated: it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring.... by which the spouses become one flesh.
(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1061 section 1)


Does 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 assume Christian pacifism?

The passage you quote is very near the start of a new topic in Paul's letter.  2nd Corinthians 8-9 covers the topic of giving; particularly giving to the church in Jerusalem.  The context leading into the passage in question in 2nd Corinthians 10:1-2 (ESV):

I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!—I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh.

So the topic Paul is directly addressing is the perception among the Corinthians that he is walking according to the flesh because of the way he writes his letters to them (i.e., boldly).  This thread started back in 2nd Corinthians 7:8-9 (ESV):

For even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it—though I did regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.

Presumably, this is a reference to 1st Corinthians, which is a stark appraisal of the Corinthians.  As usual with Paul, we have to read between the lines a bit to understand what his detractors were accusing him of.  It appears he was accused of being only interested in winning a theological argument by hook or by crook, and not caring for the people of the church in Corinth.
Paul's defense against the charge is the passage quoted in the question and following in 2nd Corinthians 10:3-12 (ESV):

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
Look at what is before your eyes. If anyone is confident that he is Christ’s, let him remind himself that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we. For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed. I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters. For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account." Let such a person understand that what we say by letter when absent, we do when present. Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.

If you follow the logic, the phrase "we are not waging war according to the flesh" is there to emphasize that Paul has a no-holds-barred attitude to attacking false doctrine that threatens the Corinthians salvation.  It's spiritual warfare in a sense, but the manifestation of the warfare is rational argument.

So it seems that reading Christian Pacifism into the text is just that.  However, there is an argument to be made based on the first verse of the chapter which characterizes Jesus as meek and gentle.  As Paul had previously told the Corinthians, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ."  (1st Corinthians 11:1)  So by extension, Paul may be suggesting that we, as Christians, remain meek and gentile in most circumstances.
Paul certainly knew of the story of Jesus cleansing the Temple, which appears neither meek nor gentle.   But it's possible that Paul intends us to recall that moment in Jesus' life since He was uncharacteristically violent for the purposes of opposing unprofitable doctrine, injustice, and corruption.  If Paul is suggesting what we call Christian Pacifism, it is a somewhat nuanced position.
Summary
While this particular passage can be read to support Christian Pacifism, it's certainly not the main point of Paul's argument here.


How do opponents of penal substitutionary atonement theory handle Isaiah 53?

Well I am an opponent of penal substitution and can give an answer that I believe is within the bounds of Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Note the part where the verse says: "yet we considered him punished by God". This phrase implies that it is wrong to consider him punished by God, which is explicitly what penal substitution teaches in the reformed tradition. He voluntarily took our pain; God was not punishing him because he needed some satisfaction. The iniquity was laid upon to accomplish the purpose of transforming man, not of fulfilling some need God had.

Notice that it says "by his wounds we are healed", and not "by his wounds God is satisfied". I personally think this is a very strong argument against substitution theories, because it only talks about Christ's work as healing us, not satisfying God.

My favorite quote to illustrate a more historical perspective of the atonement (as already done by myself here: What is the difference between "ransom theory" and "penal substitution"?) is from Gregory Nazianzus:

  But if the price is offered to the Father, I ask first of all, how? For it was not the Father who held us captive. Why then should be blood of His only begotten Son please the Father, who would not even receive Isaac when he was offered as a whole burnt offering by Abraham, but replaced the human sacrifice with a ram? Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice not because he demanded it or because He felt any need for it, but on account of economy: because man must be sanctified by the humanity of God, and God Himself must deliver us by overcoming the tyrant through His own power

I think the most damaging versions of substitutionary atonement are those that claim Christ's righteousness is a substitute for our own. I think a correct way to explain it is that Christ descended and "took our place" so that we might rise and take his. I think a deeper understanding of "taking our place" lies in understanding it as communion and not as replacement.

To end on a quote that may offend my Protestant brothers and sisters: St. Athanasius of Alexandria once said

  "The Son of God became man, that we might become god"

(https://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis), notice how this view doesn't really fit with a substitutionary view, because we are to actually become like Christ, not just accept his righteousness as a substitution.


This can only be answered from a literalist Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) perspective, because to all other perspectives it's a moot point, so I'll answer from that viewpoint.

I might as well throw in my usual disclaimer that I'm not debating whether the YEC view is true, this is just explaining the YEC view.  Such debates in comments are off-topic and not constructive per site guidelines, and not relevant to the question/answe at hand.  Even though I personally believe in the YEC view, I'm not defending it here, just explaining it.

Given the definition of time, taken from Mirriam-Webster:

  b : a nonspatial continuum
  that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from
  past through present to future

The very first event was in Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

This was the first event.  The universe didn't exist at all before this point. At this point, the universe began, thus, at this  point, the continuum of events began.  By definition, this is when time began.

Genesis 3 would mark the first normal, regular, repeatable events by which could measure time began, but time actually began with space and energy in Genesis 1:1, when God spoke the universe into existence.

This is similar to the answer given on the Answers in Genesis site - a Young-Earth Creation and apologetics organization:

  Although the argument is increasingly common, nowhere in the text does
  it say that time began on the fourth day. Instead, God made the sun,
  moon, and stars, which can be used to measure time. Time actually
  began "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), or else it would not have been
  "the beginning," which is a time reference. In fact, "day" is a time
  reference, and there are three of those prior to day four.

Revision of the first sentence:

This answer would also hold true for proponents of the gap theory, day-age theory, and others. The beginning is the beginning regardless of how long it's been since then.

It should probably be changed to "This can only be answered from tho position that you believe the Genesis account to be true, because to those that don't it's a moot point."


All Nations Call Her Blessed

Mary has been one of the most common names for women throughout the last couple thousand years for good reason: this is the name of the Mother of God. She has been called the God-bearer (Theotokos), the Blessed Virgin/Mother, the Mater Dolorosa, the Second Eve, the Queen of Heaven, the (Black) Madonna, Notre Dame, and the Woman for All Seasons. Her name has been sung on the lips of numerous choirs (Ave Maria), and she has been portrayed in art more than any other woman in history.1 She is a symbol of hope and liberation for many nations. Concerning Hispanic culture, one distinguished commentator has observed that

  ...the Virgin of Guadalupe symbolizes the entire coherence of Mexico,
  body and soul.... [Her] image ... has become the unofficial, the
  private flag of Mexicans.2

Writing c. 305 A.D., St. Methodius extolled her, saying:

  Hail to you for ever, you virgin mother of God, our unceasing joy, for
  unto you do I again return. You are the beginning of our feast; you
  are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongest unto
  the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the bread of
  life. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the
  Son's love for man. Hail, you overshadowing mount of the Holy Ghost.
  You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing mother, of the light of the sun; you
  gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity,
  bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of you before the
  beginning, making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the
  invisible Son of the Father— the Prince of Peace, who in a marvellous
  manner showed Himself as less than all littleness. Wherefore, we pray
  you, the most excellent among women, who boastest in the confidence of
  your maternal honours, that you would unceasingly keep us in
  remembrance. O holy mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our
  boast in you, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will
  ever live, and never fade away.3

Kings and queens have looked to her for comfort and guidance. Mary represents "the unbreakable link between Jewish and Christian history, between the First Covenant within which she was born and the Second Covenant to which she gave birth."4 All generations have indeed called her blessed.5

What Makes Mary So Special?

Luke points out in his Gospel that St. Joseph was of the house of David.6 But theologians and scholars have speculated through the centuries why this was of importance to the narrative, since Jesus was conceived without the seed of Joseph. It is agreed that it is important for Jesus to have this lineage in order to fulfill prophecy as the Jewish Messiah (Christ), but does this 'count' if the lineage is reckoned through the human father, when Jews generally consider the Jewish faith to be matri-lineal and Joseph was not involved in the conception? This led some early Fathers and scholars to propose that Mary is also of the house and lineage of David.7

Early Church Fathers also saw Mary foretold in the Old Testament, especially in the woman of the Song of Solomon (which is where the title 'Black Madonna' comes from) and in the woman of virtue/valor in the book of Proverbs.8 St. Jerome even saw the Song of Solomon 4:12-13 as evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity:

  That which is shut up and sealed reminds us of the mother of our Lord
  who was a mother and a Virgin. Hence it was that no one before or
  after our Saviour was laid in his new tomb, hewn in the solid rock.
  And yet she that was ever a Virgin is the mother of many
  virgins.9

But why was she chosen? Pius IX decreed concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary (and was partially quoted earlier),

  All are aware with how much diligence this doctrine of the Immaculate
  Conception of the Mother of God has been handed down, proposed and
  defended by the most outstanding religious orders, by the more
  celebrated theological academies, and by very eminent doctors in the
  sciences of theology. All know, likewise, how eager the bishops have
  been to profess openly and publicly, even in ecclesiastical
  assemblies, that Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the
  foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to
  original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint,
  and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime.10

Simply put, God found favor with her and blessed her by His grace.

Further Speculation

To further speculate, we can also look at her parents, Joachim and Anna. Early theologians and scholars have speculated that Mary was born to Joachim and Anna as a result of their fervent prayers in their old age.11

Catholic Christians still say these words in the liturgy on the Nativity of Mary:

  Your nativity, O Virgin, has proclaimed joy to the whole universe. The
  Sun of Righteousness, Christ our God, has shone from you, O Theotokos.
  By annulling the curse he bestowed a blessing. By destroying death he
  has granted us eternal life. (Troparion)

  By your nativity, O most pure virgin, Joachim and Anna are freed from
  barrenness; Adam and Eve from the corruption of death. And we, your
  people, freed from the guilt of sin, celebrate and sing to you: The
  barren woman gives birth to the Theotokos, the Nourisher of our Life.
  (Kontakion)

The Catholic Church has historically taught that Mary was presented to the temple and had made a vow of virginity (which is the reason for her protest to the angel in Luke 1:34).

  As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed
  to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ
  the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly
  family.12

Conclusion

From a Catholic perspective, if God chose to preserve Mary from original sin prior to her birth, to what in her life can we point as a reason for choosing her? According to Pope Pius IX, "by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer." This is truly the answer given by the Roman Catholic Church.

1 Jaroslav Pelikan. Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 2.

2 Richard Rodriguez. Days of Obligation: An Argument With My Mexican Father. (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), 16-20.

3 Methodius, "Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna On the Day that They Met in the Temple", XIV, translated by William R. Clark. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Available on New Advent.

Also cf. Philip Schaff. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6: Fathers of the Third Century: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius, and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arn. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1885), XIV, 393. Publicly available on CCEL.

4 Pelikan, 25.

5 cf. Luke 1:48, where Mary sings, "Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed." Some manuscripts of Luke 1:28 also record the angel Gabriel as saying, "Blessed are you among women" in addition to pointing out that she is "favored" by God and that God is with her.

6 cf. Luke 1:27.

7 Pelikan, 24-25. Specifically, cf. St. Augustine and later in history, Annius of Viterbo, who both made similar propositions concerning the lineage of Heli/Joachim/Eliachim.

8 Ibid., 25. cf. Song of Solomon 1:5, which in the Latin Vulgate is rendered 'Nigra sum sed formosa' ("I am black but comely"). Interestingly, the Hebrew text actually says that she is "black and beautiful" (not but), which is also indicated in the Septuagint ("Μέλαινά εἰμι καὶ καλή"). This has made Mary a powerful symbol for many non-white cultures, especially Hispanics.

Also cf. Proverbs 31:10, which in the Latin Vulgate reads 'Mulierem fortem quis inveniet?' ("The woman of valor, who will find?").

9 Jerome. Against Jovinianus (Book I). Translated by W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W.G. Martley. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, 31. Available on New Advent.

10 Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of December 8, 1854, under section entitled "Testimonies of the Catholic World." Available on New Advent.

11 Specifically St. John Damascene, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Germanus of Constantinople, and  St. Fulbert of Chartres. "The [apocryphal] Protoevangelium [of James] gives the following account: In Nazareth there lived a rich and pious couple, Joachim and Hannah. They were childless. When on a feast day Joachim presented himself to offer sacrifice in the temple, he was repulsed by a certain Ruben, under the pretext that men without offspring were unworthy to be admitted. Whereupon Joachim, bowed down with grief, did not return home, but went into the mountains to make his plaint to God in solitude. Also Hannah, having learned the reason of the prolonged absence of her husband, cried to the Lord to take away from her the curse of sterility, promising to dedicate her child to the service of God. Their prayers were heard; an angel came to Hannah and said: "Hannah, the Lord has looked upon thy tears; thou shalt conceive and give birth and the fruit of thy womb shall be blessed by all the world". The angel made the same promise to Joachim, who returned to his wife. Hannah gave birth to a daughter whom she called Miriam (Mary)." cf. New Advent article on Anne/Hannah. An astute reader cannot help but see the similarity with the biblical account of the birth of Samuel.

12 cf. Aug., Consens. Evang., l. II, c. 2


What is considered "The Word of the Lord" in the Episcopal Liturgy

The answer to this question is defined for the Episcopal Church in particular,  and Anglicans more generally,  in the sixth of the Thirty Nine Articles [of Religion].

More particularly, the phrase "The Word of the Lord" is used in the service of Holy Communion, and in the offices of Morning and Evening Prayer to denote the conclusion of a reading from the Bible, the beginning of which was denoted by announcing the source of the reading, for example "A reading from the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians". The chapter and verse at which the reading begins may also be specified.


What is the Biblical basis for testing the truthfulness of every statement made by Prophets or Apostles who have been confirmed as 'real'?

The Bible says a great deal about testing prophets and spirits.

A spirit will confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
  1 John 4

Although this verse says 'spirit' I think it is just as easily applied to prophets. Both are charged with speaking God's words.

This verse also not only says it is okay to test the spirits but implies that you should every time.

A person speaking by the spirit will claim Jesus is Lord

  3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:3

A prophet will not contradict God's word

  20 Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Isaiah 8:20

A prophet will not prove himself with wonders then ask you to worship other Gods

  If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. Deut 13:1-3

The predictions of a prophet must come to pass

  20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
  21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. Deut 18:20-22

These verses imply that an already proven prophet can later be unproven. This backs up 1 John's claim to test them every time and not just the first time. Apparently saying God said something that He did not is a capital offense, so you could argue that a prophet of ancient times was very slow to speak.

A true prophet will live a righteous life

  15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Matt 7:15-20

False prophets will predict Jesus' Second Coming

  23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. Matt 24:23-25

I suppose verse 25 makes Jesus a prophet because it has come to pass.

So the Bible does not only support the idea that prophets and the like should be tested but even tells you how. Furthermore, death was the common punishment for giving false prophecies. It was a very serious crime, therefore, we could argue the reverse that claiming prophecy was a very serious claim that required serious scrutiny. Logically, if a prophet were from God he would almost demand this testing because having God's word heard is his charge from God and the only reason he is speaking. So here I want to define a prophet, at least in the way I am using the word: A prophet does not necessarily predict the future. In fact, more generally, he has a message from God.

As far as following which prophet when two of them disagree, meaning their 'messages from God' are mutually exclusive, you first need to ask if they are speaking from the Lord. If they both say yes then at least one of them is wrong and the tests above should be applied and if either of them is wrong he should never be heard again. If one or both says no then it is clear that his words have only his own authority and you can ignore them if you choose.

Saying a prophet's words are infallible does not seem supported by these verses. However, once proven to be from God, it is logical to say that those words are equal with scripture; the same God made both the scripture and the prophet's message. The distinction should be made that a prophet's words should only be tested as from God if the prophet claims that they are from God; it does not make sense to test as holy that which makes no such claim. This is supported well when Paul made the distinction of his advice and the Lord's commands in 1 Cor. 7. These verses demand that we consider Paul a prophet, by the definition I provided, because he claims to be speaking from God. He is not making a prophecy, per se, but he does claim that the following commands are God's words. Our recourse would be to compare these verses to what is already proven as scripture. Fortunately, for Paul they do match. On all his other writings, however, he rarely made such direct claims so we are left with a small discussion contained in the comments below.

Your questions under note 1 are easily addressed with the verses above, especially the methods for testing. In the Old Testament it is clear that a prophet did not always speak from the Lord; not only would that be a terrible burden for him, but the very idea seems somewhat unscriptural because the people would hang on every word of the prophet rather than worship God and pray for His intersession. This is dangerously close to idolatry, in my opinion, which is strictly forbidden in numerous Old Testament texts.

However, your anecdote illuminates an issue. Your story does not mention that this particular person claims to be speaking from God. Furthermore, there is a difference between healing and prophecy; they are not the same, but you are correct in assuming that they can both be from God or not, as supported in Deut. 13. I submit that a healing is always good even if the motives are wicked. Logically then, if a person only heals and never claims to speak from God then there is no worry that he might be followed as a false prophet. But your story does say that he claims that testing if his healings are real (which there is no biblical way to do so) would lead you to suffer the same illness that was healed. This is a spectacular claim and if he does say it is from God then someone brave or skeptical enough should test the validity of the healing (I suppose with medical tests or something). If that person does not soon suffer that very illness as the 'prophet' claims then he fails at least one of these tests: What he said did not come to pass. (In my opinion things already seem fishy so I would gladly volunteer to perform the medical tests). I cannot find a verse that demands we test validity of healings but we should consider 2 Thes. 2:9 which warns that there will be many false signs and wonders in the last days and Matt. 12:22 where Jesus does not curse the pharisees that say His healings are by Beelzebub instead He merely corrects them, therefore, showing that it is at least odd to say you will suffer the same illness if you test the healing.


Why have conservative Presbyterians objected to chapters on the Holy Spirit and the Gospel in the Westminster Confession?

I'll quote from two notable opponents of these two chapters.  The first is John Murray; his comments on the Confession were published in 1936 in the newsletter edited by J. Gresham Machen, the founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The second is the 2014 report of the study committee of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, which recommended that the two chapters be removed from the denomination's version of the Confession.

These conservative opponents argue in two main ways regarding these chapters:

They are awkward, ambiguous additions to an otherwise carefully organized confessional statement
They implicitly or explicitly reject elements of traditional Reformed theology

Awkward and ambiguous

First, conservatives regularly point to the logical structure of the original Westminster Confession.  The ARP argues that the two new chapters "disrupt the chapter-by-chapter logic of the WCF’s system of Reformed doctrine," and with regards to chapter 34 in particular write:

  The brilliance of the WCF is found in its pervasive treatment of the person and work of the Holy Spirit throughout many chapters.  The added chapter Of the Holy Spirit in its attempt to soften the Calvinism of the WCF provides, at best, superfluous material.  Its contents appear to be ambiguous, if not subtly subversive statements to the more biblical statements on sovereignty of God designed within the whole of the WCF.

Similarly, John Murray calls chapter 34 "inadequate," "superfluous to the extent of being distinctly misleading," and "destitute of that strength that characterizes the Confession."

Rejections of Reformed theology

Regarding chapter 34, the ARP takes issue with several statements that seem to emphasize human agency over divine sovereignty in the work of salvation. Murray devotes relatively little space to that chapter, and like the ARP, is more critical of chapter 35, particularly its failure to uphold a distinction between the efficacious, saving love of God directed toward the elect, and the more general, non-saving love of God directed toward all.  This "studied omission," he says, is "fatal," particularly because the extent of God's love is always "expressly universalized" in the chapter.  The ARP writes about the same chapter:

  Its emphasis on a universal love of God is representative of an Amyraldian view of the decree of God and extent of the atonement that restricts the sovereignty of God.

Specifically, it argues that the chapter's language, "by His Spirit accompanying the word pleads with men to accept His gracious invitation," fails to account for the distinction between the elect and non-elect described in WCF 10.4.  That chapter specifies that the non-elect receive only "some common operations of the Spirit," not an effectual call.

John Murray concludes:

  In brief, the objection to this chapter is that it is not Reformed, indeed, that there is nothing distinctly Reformed in it. [...] How possibly can a formulation so destitute of Reformed truth on so vital a subject be defended in Reformed Confession? There is no defense.

Summary

Conservative opponents to chapters 34 and 35 argue that these chapters are detrimental to the structure of the Confession; ambiguous and confusing in their content; and, especially with respect to chapter 35, at least implicitly opposed to traditional Reformed theology.  As a result these chapters were rejected by the OPC and PCA when the denominations were founded, and removed by the ARP in 2014.

References:

John Murray, "Shall We Include the Revision of 1903 in Our Creed?" The Presbyterian Guardian, Volume 2, Number 2 (1936-09-26).
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, "Report of the Special Committee to Review Westminster Confession of Faith," approved by the denomination at its 2014 Synod. Also preserved on WebCite.

This report includes additional quotes from other opponents, like B. B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen, and a variety of references to other resources.

Westminster Confession of Faith in the Book of Confessions of the PCUSA


Are the services in the Orthodox churches regulated by canon?

This surprised me a lot. I was under the impression that church law prescribes when to hold a service, up to the time at which it must be held - but maybe I am mixing this up with the prescribed prayer times in monasteries. Or maybe there is really such a prescription for Orthodox churches. I grew up in an Orthodox country, but as an atheist, so my knowledge is patchy.
Is there such a prescription?

Yes, there are such prescriptions for the Orthodox church, they are described by several books: generally Typika, then Triodion, and Pentecostarion, and for a few cases Octoechos, and Menaion. They contain the order of the services and prescribed time to do it.

Could an Orthodox priest decide to hold the same Sunday service twice in his church, if he wanted to?

There are a few restrictions on a service: the "Divine Liturgy" (Latin: the Mass) can be served only once per day in a single altar. And the priest can make "Divine Liturgy" only once per day. So, if you require to visit more than single Liturgy per a day, you should visit two churches (or two altars in the single church), with two different priest, but you can take part in Eucharist only once per the day too. The priest shouldn't serve the "Divine Liturgy" in the same church on multiple altars simultaneously.
As far as other services like the Hours, Vespers, Matins, the All-Night Vigil, Small Compline, Great Compline, the Midnight Office, the Moleben: I don't know specific restriction to make then more than once per day. However, it just have no sense.

They appear to offer the same content, just having different times so they can accommodate a larger audience with differing schedules.

Yes, if the church has more than one altar, and more than one priest in a state.


Do prayers offered to anyone but God the Father go unheard?

First of all, God is the one who decides which prayers he answers, not us. I take it for granted that he hears all prayers, and it would be presumptuous to say prayers addressed to X go unheard.

Nevertheless, Christ taught that we ought to pray the Father, in his name. Let's just do it and not wonder whether he will answer other people's prayers or not. Generally, I feel Church doctrine is more about defining what is right, than to define what is wrong. Praying the Father in the name of Christ is the right thing to do, because Jesus said so.

Additionaly, I feel that God deserves the honor that we address him directly.

References:

John 16:23-27

  23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto
  you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it
  you.

  24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall
  receive, that your joy may be full.

  25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time
  cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall
  shew you plainly of the Father.

  26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that
  I will pray the Father for you:

  27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and
  have believed that I came out from God.

And, while not directly related, I'd like to add:

Isaiah 8:19

  And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar
  spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a
  people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

What I am trying to say is this: Do people pray to Saints because they think God himself won't hear/answer them? What are they trying to achieve by this?

Also slightly unrelated, this is part of what the Bible Dictionary has to say about prayer:

  Christians are taught to pray in Christ’s name (John 14:13–14; 15:7,
  16; 16:23–24). We pray in Christ’s name when our mind is the mind of
  Christ, and our wishes the wishes of Christ—when His words abide in us
  (John 15:7). We then ask for things it is possible for God to grant.
  Many prayers remain unanswered because they are not in Christ’s name
  at all; they in no way represent His mind but spring out of the
  selfishness of man’s heart.

Personally, I feel this is far more likely to be the cause of unanswered prayer than some formality coming from being taught one way or the other.


What is the Biblical support for praying for the dead?

Catholics and Orthodox do not subscribe to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is the doctrine that says that the only source of authoritative teaching is Sacred Scripture. Instead, we rely on Apostolic Succession to show that the doctrines we hold onto are those that the Apostles taught, by tracing the teachers and the teaching in an unbroken chain back to the Apostolic era. Regarding the specific issue of praying for the Dead, we have both the Sacramentary of Serapion and a Homily from St. John Chrysostom attesting to the antiquity of the practice already in the Fourth Century.
However, since the question asks for specifically Scriptural support for prayers for the Dead, the most important passage is the end of 2nd Maccabees 12:

39 And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.
40 Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
41 All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
42 Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
43 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
45 And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Here, part of Judas Maccabeus's army died fighting the Gorgias, military governor of Idumea. It was found that those who died had kept Jamnite idols, which is a sin. However, they had fought for Israel and to defend their homeland, so the people prayed that the Lord might forgive them this offense so that they might be raised when the Resurrection came. As verse 44 says, "for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead." But because he hoped for the Resurrection, it is not vain to pray for them.
Of course, your argument is that prayer for the dead is vain because they are all asleep. In fact, the doctrine of Mortalism (sometimes known as "soul sleep") is postulated exactly to justify the vanity of praying for the dead, or of intercessory prayer by the dead. But there are passages in Scripture where we see the dead specifically not sleeping. Particularly, in the passage of the Transfiguration (Mt 17:1–13; Mk 9:2–13; Lk 9:28–36) Moses and Elijah are standing together with Jesus and talking.

Mt 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
Mk 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
Lk 9:30–31 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

Also, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–31), the deceased are shown awake and concerned about things on Earth:

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

In Revelation, too, nowhere are the dead in Christ described as sleeping. Particularly, the twenty-four Elders in Revelation 4:4.10–11:

4 And round about the throne [were] four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.
10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

In the Psalms, a few references to the state of souls after death, for example:

Ps 16(17):9–11 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. 10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence [is] fulness of joy; at thy right hand [there are] pleasures for evermore.

In conclusion, there are many different positions on the nature of the soul and their destination after death in the Old Testament; and in the New Testament, the wide use of the verb κοιμάω "to sleep" to stand for θνῄσκω "to die" causes a misunderstanding (which unfortunately Luther was party to, which caused it to become a widely-held opinion among Protestants) that death is a literal sleep. This was not taught by the primitive Christian communities, as any review of the praxis of these communities will attest.


What is the dating for the last books of the Catholic Old Testament?

Here is the list of Catholic Deuterocanonical books.  For each book, I researched the most accepted dating by scholars, consulting mostly the Dictionary of New Testament Background, IVP Press, 2000 edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, Jr. (indicated by DNTB) and Wikipedia.

Tobit: Story is set in 8th century BC, currently accepted dating is 225-175 BC (source: Wikipedia)
Wisdom of Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus): collection of sayings and instructions by a devout Jew between 196-175 BC, translated by his grandson into Greek for the benefit of the Jewish community in Egypt after he moved there in 132 BC (source: DNTB: "Sirach")
Judith: ancient Jewish novel in the Greco-Roman period, widely accepted date is 150 BC, reflecting the trauma of the Maccabean revolt (source: DNTB, "Judith")
Baruch (1 Baruch): pseudepigrapha originally composed in Hebrew as early as mid-second century BC but appended only to the Greek version of Jeremiah, (source: DNTB: "Baruch, Books of")
1 Maccabees: History beginning with the accession of Antiochus IV (175-164 BC) and ends with the accession of John Hyrcanus (135-104 BC), dating likely 125 BC (source: DNTB, "1 and 2 Maccabees")
2 Maccabees: History beginning with the reign of Seleucus IV (187-175 BC) and ends with the death of Judas Maccabeus in 162 BC, dating most likely 125 BC, matching the letter preface (source: DNTB, "1 and 2 Maccabees")
Additions to Esther: around 114 BC (source: Early Jewish Writings website article)
Additions to Jeremiah (Epistle of Jeremiah):no earlier than 540 BC and no later than 100 BC (fragment found in Qumran Cave 7), (source: Wikipedia)
Additions to Daniel: Greek additions were never part of the Hebrew text, part of LXX (circa 100 BC) (source: David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha)
Wisdom of Solomon: anonymous work of Alexandrian Judaism, dating between 220 BC to 100 AD, most likely within the early Roman principate period (27 BC or later) (source: DNTB, "Wisdom of Solomon") or late 1st century BC to early 1st century AD (source:wikipedia)

As you can see below, most were written before 100 BC with the exception of the Wisdom of Solomon (late 1st century BC or early 1st century AD).


What is the biblical support for the moral-civil-ceremonial distinction of Old Testament laws?

Because this idea is a "Christian-ese" concept that has traditionally been used to explain the heart of the Gospel with respect to the law, any answer here that Biblically explain this view will not necessarily "support this viewpoint." Much like T.U.L.I.P and the seven dispensational epochs, concepts like this tend to oversimplify Biblical truths. This doesn't mean it is unbiblical, but that it should never replace the Biblical foundation it stands on.

Moral Law:
Jesus gave his own interpretation of the law in His Sermon on the Mount, but without the epistles, early Christians only had the Old Testament to deduce what part of God's commands were part of our training toward maturity (our tutor in Gal. 3:24), and what parts reflect the Law of Liberty in Christ (Rom 8:2). Jesus' revelationary [sic] contribution to our understanding of Moses' law tells us that we are not to disregard it completely, but we need to discern which parts of the law were established for our "upbringing," and which they would have to preserve in their new life with Christ. When Jesus said "You know the commandments" to the rich young ruler in Mar 10:19, he was likely talking about the Ten commandments, or more broadly, the "Moral Law" of Moses. Even with our death to the law (see Rom. 7:4), our obligation to be like Christ does not change.
The Prophet David says in Psa 40:6 "Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require," but this sounds contradictory since God literally did require it in Moses' law. But not forever. This example is a good distinction between where Moses' law and the Law of Liberty separate. God calls David a man after His own heart probably in part because he saw the difference. Other verses like this exist. See Micah 6:8:

  He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require
  of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your
  God?

So, the "Moral Law" in our simplified tri-part system we're examining here are any of those commands about which David could not have said "you did not require." Most of these "required" laws, based on our David definition have a broader "Law-of-Liberty" version: Hate is murder (Matt. 5:22), idolatry is covetousness (Col. 3:5), but, as always, God's heart doesn't change.

Ceremonial Law
The letter to the Hebrews (especially chapter nine) reveals that much of Moses' law contained copies or patterns of heavenly truths. Just as there is an altar in Moses' law, there is a version of that in heaven, from the Priesthood, down to the altar and candles. These patterns given to us in Moses are "Shadows of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1), so they are similar to the Moral Laws in that they reveal a bigger truth. In this case however, the truths they reveal are not mandates of holiness. They are symbols of heavenly places.
So the "Ceremonial Law" in our simplified tri-part system, are any commands about which David could have said "you did not require," and were shadows of things to come, and were not primarily commands for civic functions. Not all these are in Hebrews, but it gives us a good starting point.

Civil Law
By process of elimination, I would say that these commands are those which do not adequately fit in the categories above, but, like your question states, called the Hebrew people to form a working society. In my opinion, it's really hard to separate this category from the Ceremonial Law without adequately defining "Civil" and "Ceremonial." Especially in a society where law and faith are never separated. Laws that talk about inheritance, land boundaries, and punishment for crime, might nicely fit here, but couldn't someone also say they point to shadows of things to come, i.e., the judgement and reward of God's people and enemies? Maybe, but again, this three-fold division is never explicitly made in the scriptures.


Does the blessing of Genesis 12:3 extend to Palestine or is it only for Israel (and the church as the spiritual Israel)?

Does the blessing of Genesis 12:3 extend to Palestine or is it only for Israel?
The Bible quite clearly shows the Genesis 12:3 blessing being passed along for several generations, bypassing the ancestors of the Palestinians.
God did provide their ancestors with blessings, but not the specific blessing of Genesis 12:3, which was the beginning of the old covenant.

Modern Palestinians are Arabs, descended from Abraham's son Ishmael (Ishmaelites - Wikipedia).
God told Abraham to pass his blessing on to his second son, Isaac, not to his son Ishmael.  God provided a separate blessing for Ishmael:

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
— Genesis 17:19,20

The Covenant that God made with Abraham was passed to Isaac, not to Ishmael, and so not to the ancestor nations of today's Palestinians.
Similarly, Isaac passed the blessing on to his son Jacob, not to his eldest son Esau, who had sold his right to the blessing to Jacob:

And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.
— Genesis 25:33

Esau (also known as Edom - Wikipedia, possibly the ancestor of modern Turks) also received a blessing, but it was a different blessing (Gen 27:38), not part of Abraham's covenant with God.
Later, because of Reuben's transgression, Jacob (Israel) passed the spiritual blessing to his son Judah, and the physical blessing to his son Joseph, rather than to his eldest son Reuben:

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's)
—  1 Chronicles 5:1

Centuries later, when the kingdom split into two, the Jews (Judea, descendants of Judah) retained the spiritual blessing (the Messiah would come from them), while the name "Israel" went with Joseph's sons:

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
…
The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.
— Genesis 49:10,26


How did Old Testament saints show they were focused on God’s promises even though they did not know when or how their Redeemer/Messiah would appear?

I would start with Deuteronomy 6:4-9 as the ground upon which to build your thesis

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

What God has said is to be held front and center of all living, doing, thinking, and speaking.  Following this there are many exhortations to neither turn from the commands of God to the left or to the right such as Deut. 5:32, Joshua 1:7, and Proverbs 4:25-27.
As the saints of old were commanded to place the Word of God as their focal point and compass so now we current saints are to fixate upon the Word made flesh and lifted up.  We are to fix our eyes upon Jesus, cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the experiential knowledge of God, and take it all captive to obey Christ.  Moses commanded much the same:  Look to God, tear down the high places of man-made worship, obey.
I think Joshua's commission by Moses and the subsequent conquest of the promised land are fertile ground for many examples that are typical of our current experience, both good and bad.  Spend some time in prayer in Joshua.  Peace.


What does the Bible say about giving your life away for Jesus?

The question is a bit vague, and I would be curious as to what verses they were referring to (if any) so I could better answer the question, but I'll take a quick whack at it.

Things were perfect in the garden of Eden. Jesus was the ruler and there was no sin. When Adam and Eve chose to partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they brought sin into the world. Therefore, they lost direct connection to Jesus.

When Jesus died on the cross He once again opened the gateway to God through Jesus (this is the significance of the veil tearing, but that is different story).

God was in control when man was perfect, we gave up that control to ourselves. Jesus knew we couldn't do it on our own so He sent the Holy Spirit to instruct us. The Holy Spirit can't control what happens on the earth unless we, humans, allow it. Jesus will never come against free will. Satan doesn't have that power either, all he can do is trick us into believe wrong things. It is our choice and will always be our choice.

When someone "gives up their life for Jesus", they are asking for Jesus to come and take control of their lives. They are giving up their right to accomplish things on their own strength. Once this surrender happens, Jesus can work in ways unimaginable.

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" - Phil 4:13

To taste that strength, you have to be willing to give up your free will and to give it to Jesus.


How does transubstantiation account for the amount of Christ's body eaten over the last 2000 years?

There are several churches which use the idea of transubstantiation; but the Eastern churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East) share a similar view on how it works. I'll therefore split my discussion into two parts, the "Eastern" and "Western" views.
Eastern View
The Eastern churches have occasionally used the term "transubstantiation"; sometimes (being Greek-speaking in origin) they would use the Greek-derived equivalent "metousiosis". They don't get very specific about how transubstantiation works technically. The Longer Orthodox Catechism (articles 339 - 340) states:

The bread and wine are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ. ...
In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord.

In other words, they're just saying they believe that the bread and wine "become" the Body and Blood of Christ, but they don't know (and really don't care) how; it is a mystery. The Eastern churches in general don't do as much philosophical speculation in their theology as the Western ones historically have; they have an entirely different approach. Certainly, they are aware and believe that the bread doesn't become body parts in some sort of literal sense. Thus, they're not concerned with the possibility that the consecrated Hosts become parts of Christ's body and add to his weight.
The Western View
The most systematic approach we have to an answer here is probably through the work of Thomas Aquinas, particularly his treatise Summa Theologica ("A Summary of Theology"). Unfortunately, it's very difficult to understand what Aquinas says about it simply by reading the book, without knowing a good bit of medieval philosophy, particularly medieval interpretation of Aristotelian philosophy. Aquinas' take on whether Christ's weight (or other aspects of his body) is really present in the consecrated host is this:

As stated above, any part of Christ is in this sacrament in two ways: in one way, by the power of the sacrament; in another, from real concomitance. By the power of the sacrament the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament; for, by the power of the sacrament that is present in this sacrament, whereat the conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread passes away.
Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament.

(Third Part, Question 76, Article 4)
This, like a very dry Host, is rather hard to swallow all at once. Essentially what it means is this: The weight of a physical entity is one of its accidents, one of the things that just happens to be true of it in particular, but doesn't change what kind of thing it is. (So my weight could change without changing whether I'm human or not.) Since transubstantiation changes the substance of the bread and wine, but not their accidents, transubstantiation does not directly give the bread and wine the weight, or height, or eye color, or what-have-you, of Jesus.
However, there's a surprise waiting: the doctrine of concomitance. This simply says that nothing about Christ, including body, blood, and what-have-you, is really separable from anything else about Him, so that if He's present in some sense, he's present in all senses. Thus, through the "real concomitance" approach, his weight is there. The weight of the Host, however, is a different accident—it's "attached to" the other accidents of the bread, which remain the same, and so it doesn't alter the weight of Christ.
Clear as mud? I thought so. Let me know what I can do to clarify it.


What is the nature of the 7 demons in Mary of Magdalene that Jesus cast out?

What was Mary's infirmity
From a hermeneutics standpoint, the text really doesn't specify among the options listed in the OP.  The Greek word used in both places, δαιμόνια, is a pretty generic word for demons. (see here).
Perhaps the most detailed interpretation that could be read into the text comes from the preceding words in the same verse, Luke 8:2.  The verse in its entirety reads:

2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and
infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

This suggests that Mary is one of the women who had been healed of "evil spirits and infirmities", which could be just about anything.
Mental illness
It is not uncommon, as the OP noted, for mental illness to be postulated as an explanation for what the ancients were trying to describe in these circumstances (or at least in some of them).  What vocabulary would they have used to describe psychological infirmities?
For my own take on what the scriptures have to say about mental illness, see here.
For a more in-depth theological discussion of mental illness, SE-Christianity is probably more appropriate.
I will go ever-so-slightly beyond the scope of this site to draw a connection between Luke 4:40:

40 Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with
divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every
one of them, and healed them.

& John 13:15:

For I have given you an example

When Jesus encountered those who were infirm in body or mind He responded with compassion.  Society today often stigmatizes mental illness and would benefit from following Jesus' example.


What is the latest position of Catholic Church on the existence of Limbo?

The belief in a place on the edge of hell goes back a long way. Dante depicted Limbo as the first circle of Hell (in his poem Inferno, from the Divine Comedy).  Some years ago, there was a rumour that Limbo no longer existed and that the Catholic Church had dispensed with the teaching.  However, these rumours were unfounded and it is also worth noting that limbo (for infants) has never been an official doctrine.  Here is an extract from an article on it:

In Catholic theology, Limbo (Latin limbus, edge or boundary, referring to the edge of Hell) is a doctrine concerning the afterlife condition of those who die in original sin without being assigned to the Hell of the Damned. ... However, Limbo of the Infants is not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church.
The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is the hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed actual sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope, although not the certainty, that these infants may attain heaven instead of the state of Limbo.
While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which magisterium is free to accept or reject. Limbo is one such theory.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#Limbo_of_Infants

The same article provides information on the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church with regard to children who have died without being baptised. There is also a detailed official response (2007) to a document originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized."  Part of the article says this:

Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, indicating that he considers it consistent with the Church's teaching, though it is not an official expression of that teaching.  Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo" are thus without foundation...  in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition.  The traditional theological alternative to Limbo was not Heaven, but rather some degree of suffering in Hell. At any rate, these theories are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members, just as is the theory of possible salvation for infants dying without baptism.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#Modern_era

In 2013 Stephen Beale asked ‘Whatever Happened to Limbo?’ and answered “Contrary to what you might have heard, limbo is not dead.”  A 2007 report, issued by the International Theological Commission declared:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of Limbo. … This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

More information here: https://catholicexchange.com/whatever-happened-to-limbo
The article also mentions that the limbo of the fathers of the Old Testament, who died believing in a savior whom they had never met or known, was closed after Christ accomplished His redemptive work on the cross.


How do reformed theologians reconcile John 15:2 with “once saved always saved"?

Within that sentence are two statements.  The first is that the Father (who is the vine-dresser) will take away the branch that does not bear fruit.  The second is that the Father will prune the branch that does bear fruit so that it may bear more fruit.
If this parable was the only place in the New Testament to address the issue of eternal security, then there would be every reason to fear that a lack of “fruit” would result in the loss of salvation.  But it isn’t.  Please read John 6:39-40:

“And this is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Given that John 15 is a metaphor or an allegory, then we do well to consider it in the light of other passages that speak clearly about the assurance of salvation given to those who have come to saving faith in Christ Jesus.  It would be foolish to take three verses alone to support a view, one way or the other.
Isaiah 5:1-7 is a striking Old Testament image of Israel being likened to an unproductive vineyard that is rejected by God and made into a wasteland.  Here, God is rejecting his people because they have rejected his law.  No doubt, Jesus’ audience were familiar with the illustration.  But God has never entirely abandoned his people, and even in the future, all of Israel will be reconciled to God.  Yes, there is a dire warning against any person who claims to belong to God yet proves by their actions (or lack of actions) they have only an outward profession of faith.
In Matthew 13 Jesus gave a parable about seed that fell into different types of soil.  Some plants start to grow but then wither away.  Does that mean the person who has been adopted into God's family has no security, that they must constantly strive to do good works?  No.  If a branch is not receiving the life-giving nourishment it needs from the roots, then it will not produce fruit.  If a person is not genuinely abiding in Christ and living their life to the glory of God but is simply pretending to be a Christian, then they too will wither away like the seed that fell onto stony ground.  Jesus will say to them, “I never knew you.”  If a person does not obey Jesus then they are not a part of the one, true vine.
You ask, does John 15:2 disprove “once saved always saved?”   Frankly, that expression is so misleading I reject it because it gives entirely the wrong idea about the grace of God and the doctrine of salvation.  I put it to you that John 15:2 neither proves nor disproves any false assumption that a person can make a claim to be a Christian without producing evidence of a transformed life, a life that produces the fruit of the Spirit.  Only those who are indwelt by the Spirit will mature and grow in their Christian walk, producing the fruit that brings honour to our Lord and Saviour.  All I can say is it’s a good job Jesus knows who belong to him.
EDIT: Given the extended and currently revived comments that follow my answer, can someone please place these comments into a chat room?  I don't know how to do that.  Thanks.


Does Catholicism teach a physical 'New Earth' or is it only a state of mind?

This section of the Catholic Catechism addresses this issue.

  VI. Hope of the New Heaven and the New Earth
  1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. the universe itself will be renewed:

  The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ. [LG 48; Cf. Acts 3:21; Eph 1:10; Col 1:20; 2 Pet 3:10-13]

  1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, “new heavens and a new earth.” [2 Pet 3:13; Cf. Rev 21:1] It will be the definitive realization of God's plan to bring under a single head “all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth.” [Eph 1:10]

  1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men. [Cf. Rev 21:5] “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.” [Rev 21:4]

  1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been “in the nature of sacrament.” [Cf. LG 1] Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, “the holy city” of God, “the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” [Rev 21:2, 9] She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community. [Cf. Rev 21:27] The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.

  1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

  For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay.... We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. [Rom 8:19-23]

  1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ. [St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 5, 32, 1 PG 7/2, 210]

  1048 “We know neither the moment of the consummation of the earth and of man, nor the way in which the universe will be transformed. the form of this world, distorted by sin, is passing away, and we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, in which happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men.” [GS 39 # 1]

  1049 “Far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come. That is why, although we must be careful to distinguish earthly progress clearly from the increase of the kingdom of Christ, such progress is of vital concern to the kingdom of God, insofar as it can contribute to the better ordering of human society.” [GS 39 # 2]

  1050 “When we have spread on earth the fruits of our nature and our enterprise . . . according to the command of the Lord and in his Spirit, we will find them once again, cleansed this time from the stain of sin, illuminated and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom.” [GS 39 # 3] God will then be “all in all” in eternal life: [1 Cor 5:28]

  True and subsistent life consists in this: the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, pouring out his heavenly gifts on all things without exception. Thanks to his mercy, we too, men that we are, have received the inalienable promise of eternal life. [St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. illum. 18, 29: PG 33, 1049]


According to Anglicanism, is the Pope the Antichrist?

No.

The Article of the Westminster Confession quoted in the question clearly identifies the Pope as the Antichrist. However the Westminster Confession is not a doctrinal standard of the Anglican Churches. In the UK the Westminster Confession is the official doctrinal standard in Scotland, but not in England. The Church of Scotland, however,  is not an Anglican Church.  (There is an Anglican denomination in Scotland, the Scottish Episcopal Church, but it is not the official national Church.)

The Westminster Confession was produced in England during the mid-seventeenth century period of the Civil Wars. It was intended to replace the 39 Articles as the doctrinal standard for the Church of England. Following the death of Cromwell and the Restoration of the Monarchy, in the person of King Charles II, the Westminster Confession was not accepted, and the 39 Articles were restored.

The 39 Articles do not mention that the Pope is the Antichrist. Article 19  state that the Church of Rome, like those of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, has erred. Article 37 affirms that the Pope has no jurisdiction in England.

Article 35 refers to two books of homilies saying they contain a godly and wholesome doctrine and were judged to be read in churches. (At the time the Articles were finalised in 1563 many priests were not licensed to preach but only to read homilies, the reason being lack of education.) It does not imply that everything in the Homilies Books is necessarily to be regarded as an article of faith, having the same status as the Articles themselves.

The question references a document produced by the Church Association, a body formed primarily to oppose Romanising and ritualist tendencies in the Church of England and seems to have been written following the Malines Conferences between Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops in the 1920s. It identifies three references within the homilies which it says  supports the identification of the Pope with the Antichrist.  One refers to the "Romish doctrine of Justification  by human merit as the greatest arrogancy  and presumption that Antichrist could set up". The second says the Bishop of Rome ought rather to be called Antichrist than Vicar of Christ. The third that many popes have been false Christs, together with a reference to Luke 21 v8 ("many shall come in my Name").    It can be argued that the first, while stating the worst thing the Antichrist could do was what the Pope actually did do, can be argued not necessarily to imply that the Pope is the Antichrist, merely that the Antichrist could, in this particular respect, not be any worse than the Pope. The second, in saying the Pope is rather one thing than another is argued not to imply that he is necessarily either. The third by referring directly to Luke 21 seems not to be talking about the Antichrist but the many who falsely come in Christ's Name.

So it is not clear that even in the Homilies is there anything in formal Anglican doctrine that clearly states that the Pope is the Antichrist.

There have at times been special prayers, often to be said annually over many years, that gave thanks for delivery from Popery, but these are no longer observed. (The Anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot was for over 200 years a national holy day of thanksgiving in England.)  Nevertheless even there there seems no specific identification of the Pope and the Antichrist as one and the same person.

The Thirty-Nine Articles, many of which were originally drafted by Cranmer, were approved by Convocations in 1563 but not officially promulgated until 1571. This followed the Pope's excommunication of Elizabeth in 1570. Only in 1571 were they are-approved by the Convocations (of Canterbury and York), the Houses of Commons and Lords, and the Queen. It is thought they were somewhat reticent on the Pope as Elizabeth had no strong wish to antagonise him, at least before 1570.

The official Anglican doctrine then is silent as to whether the Pope is the Antichrist. It was the view of most Protestants in most countries in the early generations of the Reformation and is the official doctrine of the Church of Scotland. But not in the Church of England or other Anglican Churches.

In the seventeenth century most Anglicans held that he was and in the twenty-fist the vast majority hold that he is not; but the Church has no official position on the matter.


Do LDS believe other churches to be the church of Satan?

Yes and no.
Yes
The LDS believe they are

the true Church of Jesus Christ, which was lost through apostasy, was brought back as it originally existed when organized by Jesus Christ 1

1 Nephi 13:1-9 mentions a great and abominable church and LDS manuals explain this with the following commentary:

“In relation to the kingdom of God, the devil always sets up his kingdom at the very same time in opposition to God” (Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 6:364).
Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles defined the great and abominable church: “The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all … organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political, philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 137–38).
One commentator explained that the great and abominable church consists of more than one entity:
“Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: it must have formed among the Gentiles; ... No single denomination or system of beliefs fits the entire description. Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times. …
(Stephen E. Robinson, “Warring against the Saints of God,” Ensign, Jan. 1988, 38–39).2

No
While the LDS believe they are the true restored church they believe other religions and religious leaders have bits of the truth and were often important in the work of the restoration.
Some leaders mentioned in Preach My Gospel (the LDS missionary teaching manual) are: John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, John Calvin, Buddha,
Confucius, and Mohammed.3
A principal teaching is a respect for other religions and beliefs:

I believe that we owe respect to all churches and organizations that lead men to act more righteously than they otherwise might, even if they don’t hold the keys of salvation and even if there is much error in their teachings4

and

The great religious leaders of the world such as Muhammad, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals . . .
Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come . . .
Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father.5

and Article of Faith 13

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

1 https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng
2 https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-4-1-nephi-12-15?lang=eng
3 https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng
4 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/10/respect-for-other-peoples-beliefs?lang=eng
5 https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/god-s-love-mankind