How did Matthew know that Hosea 11:1 was about Jesus?

“I see no clues that this means anything more than the simple fact that God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, freeing them from slavery.”

There appear to be clues in the context of Hosea 11 and the following verses that allude to more than an act accomplished in history, Jon. Read at least through verse 11.

11 they shall come trembling like birds from Egypt,
    and like doves from the land of Assyria,
    and I will return them to their homes, declares the LORD.

This chapter appears similar to Ezekiel 36-37 and Isaiah 40-55 in that it speaks of prophecies concerning Gods covenant love. Hosea was not only speaking of the history of YHWH bringing Israel out of Egypt but was also pointing to a time when He would again rescue Israel and fulfill His promises to her.

In the time of Jesus I don’t think many Israelites believed God had fulfilled his promises. They were in exile to Rome. They were waiting rescue. They were very possibly waiting for the fulfillment of the Hosea 11 prophecy.
When Jesus comes he seems to be saying through his words and actions, “I am the one you have been waiting for. Through forgiveness of sins and following me, I will save you from exile. I am your King”.
When Mathew quotes Hosea and says in 2:15,

“out of Egypt I called my son”,

he is not simply saying that since Israel came out of Egypt and so did Jesus, that therefore Jesus is the fulfillment of this passage. He is saying that Jesus is the embodiment of all that Israel was waiting for within the context of the promise of this Hosea passage.
N.T. Wright gives a persuasive argument in “The New Testament and The People of God.

“What the early church is saying, when telling the story of Jesus’ resurrection and announcing it to the world as the summons to obedient faith, is that the history of, and promises to, Israel had come true in Jesus, that in his death and resurrection he had inaugurated the real return from that real exile.”  (NTPG chp.13 pg. 400)


Is it allowed to receive the Precious Blood before the Body of Christ in a Catholic Mass?

Communion in more than one kind is a relatively recent introduction. The Roman Missal of 1962 does not generally permit it, nor does the Interim Missal published in 1965. Both of those publications have the priest saying only "Corpus Christi" or "The Body of Christ" respectively¹.

As you say, there is nothing in the recent editions of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal to indicate that the order is important. In cases like this, it's useful to go back to the last concrete instruction, which appears to have been given in 1969 in the  Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani in the first post-Consiliar Missal.

This is what it has to say on the matter, with my translation (which is of course open to correction).

  De Communione sub utraque specie

  Ritus Communionis sub utraque specie quando Communionem
  suscipientes directo e calice bibunt.

  Si adest diaconus vel alius sacerdos assistens:

  c) Singuli communicantes accedunt, debitam reverentiam faciunt, et stant coram celebrante. Celebrans hostiam elevando dicit: Corpus Christi, communicandus autem respondet: Amen, et a celebrante Corpus Christi accipit.

  d) Communicandus deinde transit ad diaconum et stat coram eo. Diaconus dicit: Sanguis Christi, communicandus respondet: Amen et diaconus porrigit ei purificatorium et calicem, quem communicandus ipse, pro opportunitate, manibus suis ori admovet. Communicandus, tenens manu sinistra purificatorium sub ore, attendens ne quid Sanguinis defluat, paulum e calice bibit, et postea recedit; diaconus autem partem externam calicis purificatorio absterget.

  Of Communion in both kinds

  The Rite of Communion in both kinds when the recipients of Communion drink directly from the chalice.

  If there is a deacon or another assistant priest:

  c) The communicants approach in single file, make a reverence and stand before the celebrant. The celebrant raises the host, saying "The Body of Christ"; the communicant responds: Amen and receives the Body of Christ from the celebrant.

  d) The communicant then passes to the deacon, standing before him. The deacon says: "The Blood of Christ"; the communicant responds, Amen, and the deacon extends to him the purificator and the chalice, which the communicant himself raises, if appropriate, to his mouth. The communicant, holding the purificator in his left hand under the mouth, taking care so that nothing of the Blood may drip, drinks a little from the chalice, and afterwards recedes; the deacon wipes the outer part of the chalice with the purificator.

There are specific instructions laying down the order in which the Sacrament is received, and even how it is done.

It's interesting to note in passing that this Missal does not envisage Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion: only priests and deacons distribute the sacrament; and that kneeling to receive is at least discouraged (it's never been forbidden and is now explicitly allowed). It's also not envisaged here that the faithful take the chalice themselves, and that's now explicitly forbidden.

¹ The 1965 form in England & Wales was "The Body of Christ". The form for use in Scotland, which has always been more Presbyterian, was still in Latin.


What was the 16th century Catholic doctrine on Greek gods?

The words "all Gods of the Gentiles are demons" is a quote from Scripture;

  For all the gods of the heathens are devils, but the Lord made the heavens (Ps. 96:5 LXX/Vul).

It's most likely meaning in Scripture and here is that whereas the heathens think they worship gods, they serve demons in actual fact, either literal individual demons corresponding to the respective false idols/gods, or simply in the fact that they offer sacrifice to not-God (their fictional gods), and take perverted pleasure in such, or can even gain spiritual authority over such who dabble in such.

I think it would first have to be demonstrated (no pun intended) that a change in the perennial view of false gods had taken place in the 1500s (which from this quote alone is not evident), rather than setting about to produce an explicit interpretation of "the gods of Gentiles are devils" by someone in the 1500s wherein they differed therefrom.

Traditionally, the activity of witches etc. qua (as being, or if) actually supernatural, is obviously to be attributed to devils, since it is not God's doing. Does this mean all false gods correspond to an individual fallen angel (devil)?  I don't think so.  However, the early Church Fathers certainly believed that demons were at least the inspiration for the false religions of pagans, especially those in which there are things which seem to plagiarize the Old Testament, or even imitate something specifically Christian (St. Justin Martyr, a mid-second century Christian, would say that the mysteries of Mithras were plagiarized from the Christian sacrament of the Eucharist):

  [The sacrament of the Eucharist] which the wicked devils have
  imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to
  be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain
  incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you
  either know or can learn.

Much to the gratification of liberals and anti-Christians who consider Christianity 'just another pagan religion.'


Why does Jesus refer to Himself as something distinct from God?

Jesus is not the same person as The Father.

It is a key part of Trinitarian doctrine that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are distinct persons. Therefore is is completely correct and proper that Jesus talks about The Father as someone other than himself.

Likewise it is completely correct to call The Father "God" (just like it is completely correct to call Jesus "God") and so he can do that, although it is rarer than you might think - he usually refers to "The Father" when he is giving his own words and teaching, although he often refers to "God" when he is quoting scripture or the teaching of others.

Incidentally in the passage you quote Jesus is quoting scripture, so he would refer to "God".


Why do the later versions of the Book of Mormon contain added phrases that seem to change the nature of Christ?

Why did Joseph Smith change those verses? For clarity.

The December 1983 edition of the LDS-published Ensign magazine included the article Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon. The article addresses several types of changes including the specific ones asked about by the OP.

  In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the
  text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words
  the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and 13:40. The text would be correct with or without the additional
  words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding.

Eternal Father is a term that can correctly refer to Jesus Christ in contexts such as father of the church (1 Corinthians 4:15, Mosiah 15:11) and father of the creation (Helaman 14:12).

Apparently Joseph Smith, as translator of the Book of Mormon, wanted to clarify that those verses were speaking of Jesus Christ and not Christ's Father. It wasn't a change of doctrine but a change to avert misinterpretation.

For further reading, see this article.


What is the biblical basis for saying that Middle East Region will not have peace?

Jeremiah (who was active between 626 and 586 B.C.) made this prophecy about the descendants of Jacob:

  “These are the words the LORD spoke concerning Israel and Judah... ‘How awful that day will be! None will be like it. It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it...  I will surely save you out of a distant place, your descendants from the land of their exile. Jacob will again have peace and security, and no one will make him afraid. I am with you and will save you,’ declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 30:4-11).

Throughout their history in the Promised Land, the descendants of Jacob have struggled internally, with conflict between the various tribes.  The article in the link below explains in great detail why there has been so little peace.  It concludes:

  “So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day” (1 Kings 12:19). The northern kingdom is called “Israel” (or sometimes “Ephraim”) in Scripture, and the southern kingdom is called “Judah.” From the divine viewpoint, the division was a judgment on not keeping God’s commands, specifically the commands prohibiting idolatry. From a human viewpoint, the division was the result of tribal discord and political unrest. The principle is that sin brings division (1 Corinthians 1:13, 11:18; James 4:1).” https://www.gotquestions.org/Israel-Northern-Southern-kingdoms.html

Conflict in the Middle East has been a reality whenever Israel has existed as a nation. Whether it was the Egyptians, Amalekites, Midianites, Moabites, Ammonites, Amorites, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, or Romans, the nation of Israel has always been persecuted by its neighbours. Why is this? Basically, it is because God has a special plan for the nation of Israel, and Satan wants to defeat that plan.

It all goes back to Genesis 12:5-9 when the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.”  Hebrew Scriptures say Isaac was to be the son of promise, through whom all he nations would be blessed. The Qur’an says it was Ishmael. The Qur’an teaches that it was Ishmael whom Abraham almost sacrificed to the Lord, not Isaac (see Genesis 22). This disagreement over who was the son of promise further contributes to today’s hostility in the Middle East.

However, God has promised a reuniting of the northern and southern kingdoms:

  “He will raise a banner for the nations / and gather the exiles of Israel; / he will assemble the scattered people of Judah / from the four quarters of the earth. / Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish, / and Judah’s enemies will be destroyed; / Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, / nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim” (Isaiah 11:12-13).

The Protestant view is that when the Prince of Peace—Jesus Christ—reigns in His millennial kingdom, all hostility, jealousy, and conflict among the tribes will be put to rest.


What is meant by Living God? Why is Lord Jesus the True Living God?

As @NigelJ commented, the term "Living God" was in common use in the Old Testament, and when Jesus came He was naturally called the "Son of the Living God".

As you indicated, "Living" means alive.  On the other hand, "Non-living God" is usually termed "false god" in the Bible, referring to a god that is a product of human imagination, a corruption of the true God Yahweh, resulting in idol worship.  The prophets seriously warned Israel not to worship those gods because instead of giving life, one of them (Molech) demands child sacrifice! The prophets were relatively silent as to whether there are real demons behind those "gods" but emphatically warned Israel NOT to worship those "gods" because it broke covenant with Yahweh, invited curse and punishment, resulting in death not life.

When Jesus came, Jesus further revealed the true nature of Yahweh, so naturally the NT authors also gave Jesus the adjective "true" and encouraged the believers to beware of false teachers who propagated "false gospels" which corrupted the nature of Jesus and God in the NT period, and similarly broke the new covenant, invited punishment and resulted in death rather than life.

If we look at the range of uses in both OT and NT we can see within the context of those verses several reasons why the Biblical authors attached the adjective "Living":

In the OT:

As the God to be feared (Deuteronomy)
As the God who will win a battle for Israel (Joshua, 1 Samuel)
As the God who will punish foreign nations for their defiance against the God of Israel (2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah)
As the God who can save us (Psalm, Daniel, Hosea)

In the NT:

As Jesus's identity (Matthew 16:16)
When demanding someone to swear most seriously (Matt 26:63)
When redirecting worship to the real God (Acts 14:15)
etc.

Here's a good article going over various verbs that God did as a Living God:  speaks, listens, takes initiative, reacts, saving, which then prompts us as believers to naturally want to serve Him.


What was Esther’s relationship to Mordecai?

There are two views on the relationship between Mordecai and Esther.

That she was his wife, is shown in one translation of the Septuagint.
That she was his adopted daughter, is shown in the Hebrew (per Josephus) and translated Masoretic texts

  Esther 2:7 Septuagint
  And he had a foster child, daughter of Aminadab his father's brother, and her name [was] Esther; and when her parents were dead, he brought her up for a wife for himself: and the damsel was beautiful.

  Esther 2:7 Masoretic
  And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle's daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter.

So, was Esther Mordecai’s wife or daughter?  We will see that the “for himself” in the Septuagint, is a misunderstanding.  Mordecai adopted Esther for his own daughter and yes to bring her to be a wife.

To return to Esther, the king sent out a command that the best virgins were to come to him (2:2-4).  If Mordecai had married Esther, this would exclude her; but, she was included in the search (2:8).  This tells us clearly that they were not married, though Esther was of marriageable age.  Mordecai was bringing her up to be married, though not to him.

We can also find this same line of thought in Josephus.  He was aware of the Hebrew text.  The Greek Septuagint appears to be a mistranslation.

  Preface to Antiquities
  2. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.
  http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/preface/chapter-1.html

  Antiquities Book 11 Chapter 6 Paragraph 2
  So when a great number of these virgins were gathered together, there was found a damsel in Babylon, whose parents were both dead, and she was brought up with her uncle Mordecai, for that was her uncle's name.
  http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-11/chapter-6.html

So, in the Jewish and Christian tradition, the answer is Esther was Mordecai’s adopted daughter.  He was bringing her up in the norms of the day.  She was raised a virgin, was never Mordecai’s wife, and became married to the king.

Notes
For an outline that the Septuagint was variously translated see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

PS I suspect the "married" idea of "old guardian" to "young virgin" Esther 2:7 translation of the Septuagint was made later to conform it to the later tradition from the Infancy Gospel of James of its tale of the "old guardian" and "young virgin".


Are there theological explanations for why God chose the Church to preach the gospel instead of more effective and efficient alternatives?

Your question could be expanded: why did God choose to make the world at all?
The implication of asking your question is that the ultimate thing God is aiming for is efficiency. This is not the case.
God created the universe for his own glory. He has his ways of doing things which are not our ways of doing things:

As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:9)

However, I think we do have some clues as to why God chooses to make the gospel known through frail and flawed human beings rather than in a more 'efficient' way.
2 Corinthians 4:7, "But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us." If you think of us as the 'jars of clay', then the fact that something supernatural happens (i.e. people are converted) by the preaching of the gospel shows that it is God's power at work.
Similarly in 2 Corinthians 12:9, "But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me."
When God's work is accomplished not only despite our weakness but through our weakness, then it shows it can only be his power and not ours.
So I would answer your question, God chooses to make himself known and evangelise the nations through the work of human beings, because it brings more glory to himself in his power being made manifest in weakness.


Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure = concupiscence?

No, St. Augustine doesn't say concupiscence is identical with venereal pleasure.

Although it is true "concupiscence is disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul," one prominent manifestation of this disorder (which is not identical to the disorder) is seeking pleasure against the dictates of reason, which is the sin of lust.

Unlike concupiscence, which is an evil, coital pleasure in itself is morally neutral (Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 31 q. 2 a. 3 co. // suppl. q. 49 a. 6 co.):

  pleasure in a good action is good, and in an evil action, evil; wherefore, as the marriage act is not evil in itself, neither will it be always a mortal sin to seek pleasure therein.[operationis bonae est delectatio bona, et malae mala. Unde cum actus matrimonialis non sit per se malus; nec quaerere delectationem erit peccatum mortale semper.]

However, referencing St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas seems not to distinguish concupiscence and venereal delectation (Summa Theologica II-II q. 153 a. 2 ad 2):

  That venereal concupiscence and pleasure (concupiscentia et delectatio venereorum) are not subject to the command and moderation of reason, is due to the punishment of the first sin, inasmuch as the reason, for rebelling against God, deserved that its body should rebel against it, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii, 13).


How does one address a Cardinal?

When I grew up, we always referred to a cardinal in a formal way with the salutation as follows (as an Example): His Eminence, Joseph Cardinal Tobin. In the seminary this would have been the way to address a Prince of the Church. In fact this is still quite popular and I still employ it.

In an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia which deals with ecclesiastical addresses admits that other countries do have varying rules on the subject of how to address ecclesiastic dignitaries and cardinals are no exception. The Article starts with the rules which apply to Italy only and then moves on to other Catholic nations.

  It is from Italy that we derive rules as to what is fitting and customary in the matter of ecclesiastical correspondence. These rules the different Catholic nations have adopted with greater or lesser modifications, according to local conditions, resulting in differences which will be here dealt with.

Since the article in now somewhat outdated, I will use a more up to date site to show the differences in addressing a cardinal in English speaking counties in our own times.

  A person would greet a Cardinal, for instance Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore, by saying, "Your Eminence" or "Your Lordship" (which is very British). In addressing a letter to Cardinal Keeler, one would write, "His Eminence, William Cardinal Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore" with the salutation, "Your Eminence," "Most Eminent Cardinal," or "My Lord Cardinal." Lately, some people will reverse the word order, saying, "Cardinal William Keeler" instead of "William Cardinal Keeler." The formal word order originated in the time when last names were not common, but individuals were known by occupations or even places. For example, "John, the Smith" (or Blacksmith) eventually became "John Smith." The same evolution occurred with Cardinals: What would have been "William, the Cardinal" would now be, with the use of family names, "William Cardinal Keeler." - How Do We Address Church Officials?

It is interesting to note that during the the Church's Habemus Papam! ("We Have a Pope!") ceremony, the Cardial Protodeacon  uses the former method in annoucing the newly elected pope:

  Habemus Papam! ("We Have a Pope!") is the announcement given in Latin by the Cardinal Protodeacon, the senior Cardinal Deacon, upon the election of a new Roman Catholic pope.

  The announcement is given from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. After the announcement, the new pope is presented to the people and he gives his first Urbi et Orbi blessing.

  The format for the announcement when a cardinal is elected Pope is:

  Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum:
   HABEMUS PAPAM!
   Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum,
   Dominum (first name) Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Cardinalem (last name),
   Qui sibi nomen imposuit (papal name).

  In English, it can be translated as:

  I announce to you a great joy.
   WE HAVE A POPE!
   The Most Eminent and Reverend Lord,
   Lord (first name), Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church (last name),
   Who takes to himself the name (papal name).

  Habemus Papam (Wikipedia)

Here is the 2005 Habemus Papam of Pope Benedict XVI found on YouTube: Habemus Papam: When Cardinal Medina introduced the new Pope.

I personally like traditions and on that note I would like to add the following: As with a Patriarch, you should stand when he enters a room in which you are present (until he invites you to sit) and again when he leaves it. Remove your hat in his presence, and you may kiss his ring during a greeting and/or as he leaves. You are free to kiss his ring out of respect for his office. You may kneel when kissing the ring (though bowing at the waist is also acceptable); however, do not do either if the Pope is present.


In Protestant churches, who is the authority in interpreting the Bible?

Protestants believe in the Priesthood of all Believers, which is to say that protestants believe that all Christians have a direct connection with God--there is no need to go through a Priest.  That's not to say that they don't have Priests or Pastors or other figures of leadership, but they don't fulfill the role of mediator between man and God, that they do in the Catholic tradition.
As such, every protestant believer is essentially expected to read scripture directly--not simply listen to teachings from scripture, presented by priests (as I know many Catholics choose to do).
This leads to two distinct phenomenon:

Some protestants try for a sort of "Lone Ranger Christian" approach, interpreting scripture on their own, sometimes cherry-picking the interpretations they like, discarding others.
This phenomenon is a point of great criticism from Catholics, but I believe is much more spoken about than actually experienced in practice.

The more common and practical experience is that by encouraging all protestants to do their own Bible study and interpretation, the end result is that all protestants interpret scripture.  As the as Proverbs says, iron sharpen iron.  When protestants examine scripture individually, and in groups, and discuss their views and opinions, it allows the group as a whole ownership over the interpretation, which can be a big benefit.

Of course, there can be drawbacks, and all methods of scriptural interpretation can be abused.


Variances in the sacrament of confession

Roman Catholic Understanding

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive
  Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having
  first received sacramental absolution (II.II.II.4.VII.1457)

I do not believe that the Roman Catholic understanding is that one's sins are not absolved if one fails to confess mortal sins in any case, but rather only in the case of mortal sins being knowingly concealed:

  When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can
  remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy
  for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some,
  place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the
  mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to
  show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does
  not know." (Ibid., II.II.II.4.VII.1456)

The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, as it is called, also requires of the penitent "satisfaction":

  Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual
  health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must
  "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is
  also called "penance." (Ibid., II.II.II.4.VII.1459)

 Eastern Orthodox Understanding

Within the eastern Church there is no such enumeration of "venial" and "mortal" sins.  In general the Orthodox Church is less legalistic.  All that is required of the penitent is:

  Contrition for his sins, with a full purpose of amendment of life, faith in Jesus Christ, and hope in His mercy.1

The sacrament, which is referred to as the "Mystery of Penitence", is described as:

  A sacrament in which he who confesses his sins is, on the outward
  declaration of pardon by the priest, inwardly loosed from his sins by
  Jesus Christ Himself.2

There is also a component of penitence in the Orthodox sacrament, but it is seen as less of a "satisfaction" and more of spiritual curative - this despite begin called sometimes by its Greek name, epithemia ("punishment", cf. 2 Corinthians 2:6):

  Under this name are prescribed to the penitent, according as may be
  requisite, divers particular exercises of piety, and divers
  abstinences or privations, serving to efface the unrighteousness of
  sin, and to subdue sinful habit; as, for instance, fasting beyond what
  is prescribed for all, or for grievous sins suspension from the holy
  communion for a given time.3

Although there are a large number of Church canons prescribing recommended epithemia for various offenses, priests have enormous discretion in deciding what sort of epithemia may be required, if any.

Anglican Understanding

My knowledge of Anglican ecclesiology is limited, but I understood that only Baptism and the Eucharist are recognized as Sacraments, as held by the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion that are found in the Book of Common Prayer:

  There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel,
  that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

  Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation,
  Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted
  for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the
  corrupt following of the Apostles.4

1 The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Question 353
2 Ibid., Question 351
3 Ibid., Question 356
4 Article XXV, "Of the Sacraments"


What explanation did the Catholic Church give regarding the incorruptible bodies?

Not every saint is expected to have an incorruptible corpse. Although incorruptibility is recognized as supernatural, it is no longer counted as a miracle in the recognition of a saint (The Incorruptibles).
Embalmed bodies were not recognized as incorruptibles. For example, although the body of Pope John XXIII remained in a remarkably intact state after its exhumation, Church officials remarked that the body had been embalmed (Christianity Today) and additionally there was a lack of oxygen in his sealed triple coffin.
Incorruptibility is seen as distinct from the good preservation of a body, or from mummification. Incorruptible bodies are often said to have the odour of sanctity, exuding a sweet or floral, pleasant aroma.
Incorruptibilty is not reserved to the Catholic Church alone. There are a number of Orthodox Saints who have incorrupt bodies.
Nowadays the Catholic Church is striving to better understand why some Saints are preserved from corruption, thus seeing if the preservation is indeed miraculous or not. "These saints are in a class by themselves. Even though incorruptibility does not automatically confer sainthood upon the subject, it is still properly appreciated by the Church as a supernatural occurrences. The Church thus seeks the help of scientists and other professional to understand this question in a more modern light!

The lack of formal explanations on this subject seems to stem from the fact that this is an area of expertise for the scientific (professional) community and not the Church to investigate.
"Over the last 15 years, however, a new view of the Incorruptibles has begun to emerge. At the Vatican's request, Italian pathologists, chemists, and radiologists have been poring over the bodies of the ancient men and women interred in church reliquaries. Charged with gleaning new information about the lives of the saints and assisting in the conservation of sacred remains, they have also brought science to the altars of Europe's cathedrals. Already, they have examined more than two dozen saints and beati, shedding light on the mystery of their preservation. While some saints were clearly mummified by their devout followers, others were protected from decay by environmental conditions, raising new questions about incorruptibility. "What is a miracle?" asks Ezio Fulcheri, a pathologist at the University of Genoa and one of the leading researchers on the Incorruptibles. "It's something unexplainable, a special event that may occur in different ways." The causes may seem mysterious "but don't exclude [rare] natural processes that are different from the normal course of things." - The Incorruptibles.


The denominations that dedicate their churches in this fashion tend to be those with a more centralized structure. As far as I know the decisions are usually made by consultation between the local congregation and the church authorities. I've been part of one Anglican church where the choice of a name was clearly that of the congregation, with the approval of the central authorities.

Other organizations can also have an input. I was part of one congregation where the choice of name was vetoed (or at least recommended against) by the Fire Department, on the grounds that there was already a church with that name in the town, and the fire trucks might be dispatched to the wrong one. In this specific case "Saint Luke" was the preferred name, since the church was to share a building with a medical centre (St. Luke was a doctor). However in the end "Saint Francis" was chosen.


What did Jesus mean when he said ‘Go and sin no more’ if sinlessness is impossible?

When you look at Jesus' command in light of the whole law, and other instances where He said similar things (such as "be ye as perfect as your father in heaven"), you realize that while this is a command, it's really just a repetition of all the previous commands given by God over thousands of years.  Jesus' command is just a reaffirmation of what God has been commanding us since the beginning of time - or at least of the law.

In a sense, it appears that God is commanding the impossible.  And one wonders why he would do that.  What does he expect to get from all this commanding.  Well, the truth is that the Law, while good, was never intended to be a guide for how to live one's life.  It's purpose is to convict of sin, "that the whole world might become guilty before him".  Why would he do this?  Because the Law of God is not a guide for living life.  it is not a list of things that you MUST do, it is a list of things that you do NOT do, and in not doing them you have become guilty before God.  The purpose of the Law, again, is not lifestyle guide, but schoolmaster - leading man to the cross of Christ.

Because the plan of salvation depends on the works of Jesus Christ, not man.  Man cannot even contribute to this work, for, "if you will build me an alter, you shall do it with uncarved stone (untouched by man), for in the moment that you lift up your tool upon my altar, you have polluted it."

This plan of salvation makes it possible for men to come to God through Christ, but the condition is that you must first be found guilty, in order to take advantage of the court's mercy (Christ).

Jesus' command to "go and sin no more" is simply a reaffirmation that "God is Holy, and Man is Sinful,... flee the wrath to come".  That once you trust Him for salvation, you will always, and must always continue to trust Him and His work done on your behalf, not in your own works.


If our body is the church, why should we go to a place called church?

Our bodies are not the church.

The verse in 2 Corinthians that you quote says that our bodies are temples. In context this is saying that we (rather than a building) are the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. In the OT his presence would rest in the temple and that was considered his dwelling among his chosen people. In the NT this took a new form -- the vail in the temple was torn asunder -- and his spirit actually lives within those who have been called according to his purpose.

It is only together in fellowship that we make up the church. Believers collectively are a body: the church.


Is the Greek word Protoktistos used anywhere in the Bible?

I am quoting from Young's Concordance and therefore looking at the KJV :-
Κτιστης Ktistes 'Creator' occurs once.

... served the creature more than the Creator [Romans 1:25]

Κτιζο, ktizo - the verb to create - occurs fourteen times.
But neither protoktizo nor protoktistos nor protoktistes ever occur in the (KJV) bible.

My 1,700 page special American edition of Liddell & Scott lists both

πρωτοκτιστης protoktistes 'first founder or creator ... and
πρωτοκτιστος protoktistos 'founded or created first'

as occurring in Hellenistic Greek literature, other than the bible.
(Note that the first 'o' is an omega ω, and the second is an omicron ο.)

Πρωτοτοκος prototokos (from the word τοκος tokos meaning 'usury') occurs nine times in the KJV Greek text. In saying 'the Greek text' I mean the belated Scrivener text of 1894, as the KJV translators did not actually produce a Greek text but used - largely - Erasmus and Beza and the Computensian Polyglot.
Tokos is used twice in scripture in parallel passages of the gospel accounts and relates to usury (interest on money loaned) each time. The word 'born' is not actually present in the word, as such.
Any interpretation of the word needs to convey the meaning of the root word tokos as well as the meaning of the prefix, protos, which indisputably means 'first'.
In a generational context, prototokos does not draw attention to the matter of a birth, as such. The word is much more forward looking than that. It is a matter of the 'return' on an 'investment', the initial birth (in the context of birth, which is not essential to the word) being the first 'token' of the success of the entire
'project'.


What are the current views of the Catholic Church on the right to secession?

The morality of secession is related to the tyrannicide (killing of tyrants) thesis of the Spanish scholastic Jesuit Fr. Juan de Mariana, ch. 5 of his De Rege.

The economist Jesús Huerta de Soto, who specializes in Spanish scholasticism, describes Fr. De Mariana's thesis in his article "Juan de Mariana and the Spanish Scholastics" (cf. his related lecture):

  Although Father Juan de Mariana wrote many books, the first one with a libertarian content was, perhaps, the book entitled De rege et regis institutione (“On the King and the Royal Institution”) published in 1598, in which he set forth his famous defence of tyrannicide. According to Mariana any individual citizen can justly assassinate a king who imposes taxes without the people’s consent, seizes the property of individuals and squanders it, or prevents a meeting of a democratic parliament.⁷ The doctrines contained in this book were apparently used to justify the assassination of the French tyrant kings Henry III and Henry IV and the book was burned in Paris by the executioner as a result of a decree issued by the Parliament of Paris on July 4, 1610.⁸

  In Spain, although the authorities were not enthusiastic about it, the book was respected. In fact, all Mariana did was to take the idea that natural law is morally superior to the might of the state to its logical conclusion. This idea had previously been developed in detail by the great founder of international law, the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria (1485-1546), who began the Spanish scholastic tradition of denouncing the conquest and particularly the enslavement of the Indians by the Spaniards in the New World.

  Notes⁷Mariana describes the tyrant as follows:He seizes the property of individuals and squanders it, impelled as he is by the unkingly vices of lust, avarice, cruelty, and fraud … Tyrants, indeed, try to injure and ruin everybody, but they direct their attack especially against rich and upright men throughout the realm. They consider the good more suspect than the evil; and the virtue which they themselves lack is most formidable to them … They expel the better men from the commonwealth on the principle that whatever is exalted in the kingdom should be laid low … They exhaust all the rest so that they can not unite by demanding new tributes from them daily, by stirring up quarrels among the citizens, and by joining war to war. They build huge works at the expense and the suffering of the citizens. Whence the pyramids of Egypt were born … The tyrant necessarily fears that those whom he terrorizes and holds as slaves will attempt to overthrow him … Thus he forbids the citizens to congregate together, to meet in assemblies, and to discuss the commonwealth altogether, taking from them by secret-police methods the opportunity of free speaking and freely listening so that they are not even allowed to complain freely.—Murray N. Rothbard, Economic Thought before Adam Smith, op. cit., pp. 118-119.⁸See Juan de Mariana, Discurso de las enfermedades de la Compañía, imprenta de Don Gabriel Ramírez, calle de Barrionuevo, Madrid, año de 1768, “Dissertation on the author, and the legitimacy of this discourse”, p. 53.

An interesting part of Prof. Huerta de Soto's lecture (@17:54):

  But Mariana insists on another very important idea. He says natural law is vastly superior to the power of each king or ruler. This is an essential idea that is still perfectly applicable today. I believe that we must be aware of and very proud of the fact that when Thomas Jefferson, the founding father of the United States, was considering whether or not to rise up against the king of England, in order to give encouragement to Madison and the rest of the founding fathers of the great American homeland, he says to them: "You only have to read one book: The History of Spain by Fr. Juan de Mariana." And, in fact, Madison even sent him a copy of the book [vol. 2; here's a scan of Madison's copy on Internet Archive], because it is a history of Spain written from the perspective of freedom, unmasking the tyrants.

It indeed is Catholic teaching that natural law is superior to human law. For the relationship between Divine, natural, and human law, see St. Thomas Aquinas's Treatise on Law (Summa Theologica I-II qq. 90-108).

Also, see the article "The Shipwreck of Secession" by Catholic author John Horvat II


What was John Wesley's view of the Lord's Supper?

John Wesley favored the spiritual presence view, as demonstrated primarily through his writings, but also in his hymns.
Writings
First of all, John Wesley explicitly rejected transubstantiation:

[N]o such change of the bread into the body of Christ can be inferred from his words, "This is my body." [...] [T]hat they are not to be taken literally is manifest form the words of St. Paul, who calls it bread, not only before, but likewise after, the consecration [...] [a]nd accordingly these elements are called by the Fathers, "the images, the symbols, the figure, of Christ's body and blood."1

It's also clear that he rejects the "memorial" view.  In his Works is reproduced The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, which reads:

Hitherto we have considered this Holy Sacrament both as a memorial of the death of Christ, and a sign of those graces wherewith He sustains and nourishes believing souls.  But this is not all: for both the end of the Holy Communion, the wants and desires of those who receive it, and the strength of other places of Scripture, require, that much more be contained therein than a bare memorial, or representation.2

Instead, Wesley sees Christ's presence in the sacrament:

I haste to this Sacrament for the same purpose that St. Peter and John hasted to His sepulchre; because I hope to find Him there.2
I come then to God's altar, with a full persuasion that these words, This is My body, promise me more than a figure; that this holy banquet is not a bare memorial only [...] in what manner this is done I know not; it is enough for me to admire.2
And thus His body and blood have everywhere, but especially at this Sacrament, a true and real presence.3

Furthermore, these writings contain no indication of any of the language typical of consubstantiation.  Instead, Wesley draws a distinction between Christ's sacrifice on earth (his crucifixion) and the everlasting sacrifice he makes in heaven:

When He offered Himself upon earth, the vapour of His atonement went up and darkened the very sun [...]. And since He is gone up He sends down to earth the graces that spring continually both from His everlasting sacrifice, and from the continual intercession that attends it. [...] [W]ithout either ascending or descending, this sacred body of Jesus fills with atonement and blessing the remotest part of this temple.3

Some have argued that these quotations are not actually Wesley's original work, as they come from a treatise by Daniel Brevint, and were translated by Wesley.  Thus, the argument goes, they may not accurately convey Wesley's thoughts on the matter.  But such a view doesn't take into consideration how Wesley used the treatise:

This Treatise was deliberately adopted by Mr. Wesley as a formal statement of Eucharistic Doctrine, and carried the sanction of his name into all his Societies from the year 1745 until after his death.4

Hymns
The hymns written by the Wesley brothers are also pointed to as evidence, like the following:

We need not now go up to Heaven
To bring the long-lost Saviour down;
Thou art to all already given,
Thou dost e'en now Thy banquet crown;
To every faithful soul appear,
And shew Thy Real Presence here.5

Some have argued that hymns like this one cannot be admitted as evidence of John Wesley's views, since Charles may have been the one responsible for them:

[T]here are Methodist writers who do not scruple to assert that C. Wesley alone is responsible for them.  The assertion is unfortunate in every way.5

Rebutting these views as spurious, the editor claims that a previous edition with the same hymns carries only John Wesley's name.
Summary
The evidence shows that Wesley held the Reformed spiritual presence view.  He explicitly rejected the transubstantiation and memorialist views, and his writings do not suggest any support for consubstantiation.
Some Methodists have argued that Wesley held a memorialist view, but this is not borne out in the texts.  It seems much more likely that this argument is based in diverging opinions in the Methodist movement attempting to prove Wesley's support for their side.

References:

Popery Calmly Considered, in Works, v. 5, 811
Poetical Works, III, 194–95
Poetical Works, III, 197
John Wesley in Company with High Churchmen, vi
John Wesley in Company with High Churchmen, 13


Is John 3:23 contradicted by 1 John 4:5-6? Does the born again experience happen by the Holy Spirit or by both the word of God/Gospel and Holy Spirit?

The most important thing when interpreting a passage is the context:

John 8:21-23 ESV So he [Jesus] said to them [Pharisees] again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
1 John 4:2-6 ESV By this you [John's disciples] know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

[bracket stuff added by me]
Do these passages contradict? Not at all--in fact their ideas are almost identical.
Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they were from below--from the fallen world. They refused to believe in him and he was identifying that as a belief from below. Contrast this with 1 John, which is saying the same thing to a different crowd. John is saying a belief in Jesus as the savior is a belief (spirit) from above. John is reinforcing Jesus' words.


What do Christianity and Judaism have in common?

Jesus Christ is Jewish. Therefore we are connected to the Jewish faith because it is our faith with the addition of the teachings of Christ.

Maybe better stated, the Jewish faith, is the history of Christianity by way of Christ's Jewish lineage. His faith and physical ancestors was Jewish.


Is there any explanation from the early church Fathers as to why there is no record of the Apostles being baptized?

Tertullian comments on this issue, at some length.  I confess, I don't quite understand what he is saying---if indeed he is saying anything or just blathering on aimlessly---but I will quote him entirely (source):

  When, however, the prescript is laid down that “without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life”), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, “how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom—Paul excepted—we do not find baptized in the Lord? Nay, since Paul is the only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ’s baptism, either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized.” I have heard—the Lord is my witness—doubts of that kind: that none may imagine me so abandoned as to excogitate, unprovoked, in the licence of my pen, ideas which would inspire others with scruple. And now, as far as I shall be able, I will reply to them who affirm “that the apostles were unbaptized.” For if they had undergone the human baptism of John, and were longing for that of the Lord, then since the Lord Himself had defined baptism to be one; (saying to Peter, who was desirous of being thoroughly bathed, “He who hath once bathed hath no necessity to wash a second time;” which, of course, He would not have said at all to one not baptized;) even here we have a conspicuous proof against those who, in order to destroy the sacrament of water, deprive the apostles even of John’s baptism. Can it seem credible that “the way of the Lord,” that is, the baptism of John, had not then been “prepared” in those persons who were being destined to open the way of the Lord throughout the whole world? The Lord Himself, though no “repentance” was due from Him, was baptized: was baptism not necessary for sinners? As for the fact, then, that “others were not baptized”—they, however, were not companions of Christ, but enemies of the faith, doctors of the law and Pharisees. From which fact is gathered an additional suggestion, that, since the opposers of the Lord refused to be baptized, they who followed the Lord were baptized, and were not like-minded with their own rivals: especially when, if there were any one to whom they clave, the Lord had exalted John above him (by the testimony) saying, “Among them who are born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist.” Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly “that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea.” It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion. But that little ship did present a figure of the Church, in that she is disquieted “in the sea,” that is, in the world, “by the waves,” that is, by persecutions and temptations; the Lord, through patience, sleeping as it were, until, roused in their last extremities by the prayers of the saints, He checks the world, and restores tranquillity to His own. Now, whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or whether they continued unbathed to the end—so that even that saying of the Lord touching the “one bath” does, under the person of Peter, merely regard us—still, to determine concerning the salvation of the apostles is audacious enough, because on them the prerogative even of first choice, and thereafter of undivided intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism, seeing they (I think) followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. “Thy faith,” He would say, “hath saved thee;” and, “Thy sins shall be remitted thee,” on thy believing, of course, albeit thou be not yet baptized. If that was wanting to the apostles, I know not in the faith of what things it was, that, roused by one word of the Lord, one left the toll-booth behind for ever; another deserted father and ship, and the craft by which he gained his living; a third, who disdained his father’s obsequies, fulfilled, before he heard it, that highest precept of the Lord, “He who prefers father or mother to me, is not worthy of me.”

Aquinas is much clearer.  He simply believed that John the Baptist's baptism was sufficient.  He wrote (source):

  Further, the apostles were baptized with John's baptism, since some of them were his disciples, as is clear from Jn. 1:37. But the apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism of Christ: for it is written (Jn. 4:2) that 'Jesus did not baptize, but His disciples.' Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ.

You can continue to sift through the earliest sources by searching Google using this site on the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  A similar search on Augustine might be helpful also.


Does the Church of England regard itself as responsible for the behaviour of the general populace?

The Church of England cannot and does not of itself regulate the behaviour of the general British population. Church laws apply only to clergy and to members of the church, and sanctions against ordinary church members are limited to church matters. In other words an ordinary member can be punished only by things like expulsion from the church. Even then such sanctions are used extremely rarely.

The Church of England has some small contributory part to play in British government, in that twenty-six of its bishops have the right to sit in the House of Lords (the upper chamber of the British parliament). It is very rare that their influence is decisive. There are other minor ways in which it plays a part - for example some schools are administered by the Church of England on behalf of local education authorities.

Along with most other Christian groups, the Church considers that there are moral standards that apply to all people, and it is the church's duty to uphold those moral standards both by example and teaching.


How to reconcile both Outer Darkness and Unquenchable Fire as descriptions of Hell

Jesus describes a 'great gulf' when he revealed something of the deceased condition of the rich man, separated by great distance from Lazarus, the beggar who once was left, daily, at his gate, who received nothing from him during life.
In the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, in 14:10-11, John reports the vision concerning the lake of fire :

... he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night ... [KJV]

So there is a great gulf between the justified and the wicked, but the wicked are punished in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb.
Thus a great gulf of darkness separates one from the other. The wicked, who worshipped the Beast and his image (Revelation 4:9) are, in comparison to the justified, in an outer and distant darkness . . .
. . .  where there is an unquenchable fire, and brimstone, and a smoke arising.
The holy angels, and the Lamb, who both have a spiritual existence that is not bound by dimension, are present at the place of torment : and also present (and there is the bodily presence of the Son of man) with the justified in the glory of New Jerusalem, the city of the Great King.
But the justified souls and the wicked souls, both raised in the general resurrection, are separated (the one from the other) by a vast distance of darkness.
So I would suggest that both descriptions ('outer darkness' and 'unquenchable fire') are true and are not incompatible.


"New" in this sense, is as in, "New covenant (or new testament, if you're going by a literal translation of the word covenant)." It is "new" as in it only 1200 (Aquinas wrote it), as opposed to the 4000(?) year old covenant of Abraham and the 2500 year old covenant of Moses.

It means that the believer is able to relate directly to the Godhead through the sacrifice of Christ, as opposed to the defective worship of the Old Testament (where the priest was mortal and sinful and had to offer sacrifice for his own sins in addition to the sins of the people and all of that other quasi-Pauline goodness from the book of Hebrews).


How were the blood globules of Lanciano weighed?

The most thorough study occurred in 1970-71. Pope Paul VI permitted a series of scientific studies on the precious relics to verify their nature. Dr. Odoardo Linoli, professor of anatomy and pathological histology, chemistry and clinical microscopy, and head physician of the hospital of Arezzo, conducted the study. He was assisted by Dr. Ruggero Bertelli, professor emeritus of human anatomy at the University of Siena. The analyses were performed in accord with scientific standards and documented, and Dr. Bertelli independently corroborated Dr. Linolis findings. In 1981, using more advanced medical technology, Dr. Linoli conducted a second histological study.

The Flesh, yellow-brown in color, has the structure of the myocardium (heart wall) and the endocardium, the membrane of fibrous-elastic tissue lining all the cardiac cavities. These have the same appearance as in the human heart. No traces of preservatives were found in the elements.

The blood was also of human origin with the type AB. Proteins in the clotted Blood were normally fractioned with the same percentage ratio as those found in the sero-proteic make-up of normal, fresh human blood. The blood contained these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and calcium.


Does the Bible prescribe any rules for who may attend and "join" a Catholic church?

TL;DR Yes. Everyone is welcome. (Matthew 28:16-20)

The apostles were instructed to teach all nations in the Great Commission. There are many other verses that reiterate that everyone is welcome and I could be here all day going through all of them. One of my favorites on the subject is Paul's statement that he became all things to all men so that he might save some. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

"Joining the Church" can mean one of two things. First, a professed Christian who is becoming a member of a church. Membership generally involves taking on the responsibility to support the church financially and to be an active participant in the operations and ministry of the church. Second, a person going through the process of converting to Christianity.

If you were baptized and confirmed Catholic then you only need to receive the Sacrament of Penance. If you were not baptized Catholic or if you were baptized Catholic but not Confirmed, you will be required to go through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. It involves some classes, receiving the sacrament of penance, making a profession of faith, then Confirmation and the Eucharist. Traditionally this happens during the Lenten season.

It's possible that she meant that you cannot become a member without becoming Catholic or that the process doesn't start until the Lenten season. Either way this is an important process that you need to discuss with the priest.


How do we know that Jesus was crucified at 9:00 a.m.?

We do not know that the third hour was exactly 9:00 AM - that is an estimation for the purpose of providing an understandable translation.

The Jewish day started at dawn and ended at dusk.  There were 12 hours, which were each 1/12th of the stretch between dawn and dusk. (More info.)

For simplicity, if we consider dawn to be roughly 6:00 AM, that would make the 3rd hour about 9:00 AM.


Athanasian Creed article 6, meaning of "the glory equal"

One possible angle is to look at the Latin text, since there is no official adopted Greek text. The article reads:

Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas: æqualis gloria, coæterna majestas.

Though the colon might throw us off, we ought to remember that it did not exist as punctuation in the original, so we might feasibly emphasize the parallelism of this article by reconstructing the passage as follows, followed by my literal translation:
"Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" - "Of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
"est" - is
"una divinitas" - one divinity
"aequalis gloria" - equal glory
"coaeterna majestas" - coeternal majesty
In other words, the Three Persons are said to possess "one divinity" in the same way that they possess the other two qualities. Thus, in this Creed, I would venture to claim that the reference is to the shared glory and majesty of the three persons as one God.
In general, as already mentioned, the "differences" between the Persons are their "ad intra" relations. The "ad extra" actions are of one God.
The larger question--about whether we can refer to a glory particular to the Father or Son or Holy Spirit--is complicated. The most direct Scriptural reference is in the priestly prayer of Jn 17:1-5:

1b Πάτερ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα· δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς δοξάσῃ σέ, 2 καθὼς ἔδωκας αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκας αὐτῷ δώσῃ αὐτοῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. 4 ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὃ δέδωκάς μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· 5 καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.
1b Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 4 I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

In this passage, I would argue that Jesus is speaking of a relational difference in the glory (δόξα) communicated between the Father and the Son. That, however, is a separate question which would merit a separate reply.


The much used ode to faith in the NT book of Hebrews tells us a little bit about what faith is. Here are the first couple verses:

  Hebrews 11:1-3 (ESV)
  Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

The passage goes on to give many examples, but this bit helps us scope out a definition of faith that is somewhere between the two extremes you suggest in your question. First of all we see that there is assurance. True faith is not blind, it is based on evidence and knowledge. It is a kind of trust. Trust between two parties is established in past encounters but looks forward to the future knowing what to expect from the other party. Secondly it is a conviction. This doesn't have to be without any doubt (in fact many of the people listed as examples in the passage experienced doubt) but it does have to come to a conclusion and really believe/trust.

Faith is built on evidence and knowledge as well as a trust that enables us to be sure the parts we don't fully understand will work out.

Faith and proof are not mutually exclusive -- faith projects evidence of past events into the future.


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the eternal destiny of individuals who die never hearing the Gospel?
Many peoples have as yet not been evangelized and are considered uncontacted people!
At first glance, this question is basically straight forward, but it does not address the question of infant baptism or infants that die without the grace of baptism or the souls that died prior to Our Lord’s  first coming. I think that these souls should also be included in those souls who die never hearing the Gospel.
Catholicism
To all of the Catholicism believes that salvation is possible in some circumstances.

Issue:
What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (extra ecclesiam nulla salus)?
Response:
All salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the one Savior of the world (cf. Acts 4:12). His Holy Spirit dispenses those graces through His body, the Church. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk. 10:16).
Response:
All salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the one Savior of the world (cf. Acts 4:12). His Holy Spirit dispenses those graces through His body, the Church. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk. 10:16).
Quoting from various documents of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 776) explains:
As sacrament, the Church is Christs instrument. She is taken up by Him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, the universal sacrament of salvation, by which Christ is at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of Gods love for men. The Church is the visible plan of Gods love for humanity, because God desires that the whole human race may become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one Temple of the Holy Spirit. Discussion: There are two principal errors when it comes to the Churchs teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Some reject this teaching as both incorrect and arrogant. Others interpret this statement to condemn all those who are not visibly united to the Roman Catholic Church. To properly understand this teaching, we must examine it within the context of divine Revelation and Church history. This examination will reveal that the phrase was not formulated to express who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, for only God will judge that. Rather, the phrase expresses an understanding of the Church in relation to her role in the salvation of the world.
Quoting from various documents of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 776) explains:
As sacrament, the Church is Christs instrument. She is taken up by Him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, the universal sacrament of salvation, by which Christ is at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of Gods love for men. The Church is the visible plan of Gods love for humanity, because God desires that the whole human race may become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one Temple of the Holy Spirit. Discussion: There are two principal errors when it comes to the Churchs teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Some reject this teaching as both incorrect and arrogant. Others interpret this statement to condemn all those who are not visibly united to the Roman Catholic Church. To properly understand this teaching, we must examine it within the context of divine Revelation and Church history. This examination will reveal that the phrase was not formulated to express who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, for only God will judge that. Rather, the phrase expresses an understanding of the Church in relation to her role in the salvation of the world.
Translation or Interpretation?
Many people translate the Latin phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus as "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This translation does not seem entirely faithful to the Latin meaning, and contributes to the misunderstanding of the phrase.
The Latin word "extra" is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as "beyond" or "outside of" (e.g., Beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated "without" (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, "Without the Church there is no salvation." This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase.
Scriptural Foundations
In the Gospel of Mark, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Eleven and gave them the commission, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16).
In order to accept or reject the Gospel, each person must have it preached to him. If acceptance or rejection of the truth were based on private revelations given to each man, woman, and child, there would be no need for Christ to commission the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Jesus desired to reveal Himself through His body, the Church. While this passage condemns those who reject the truth, it does not condemn those who have not had the truth offered to them as Christ intends.
The New Testament clearly teaches that salvation is a gift offered by God in various ways to all men. Adam, Abel, and Enoch lived between the first sin and the covenant of Noah. They were bound by original sin. All are considered to be in heaven. Enoch did not even die, but was taken to God before death (Heb. 11:4-5). These men were neither baptized nor circumcised, but nonetheless saved.
When the gentile centurion came to Jesus in Capernaum and asked for the healing of his servant, Our Lord agreed to go to his home, but the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed" (Mt. 8:8). Jesus replied:
"Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from East and West and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth" (Mt. 8:10-13).
Jesus makes a clear distinction between those who are sons of the kingdom (that is, those who have knowledge of and accepted the faith) and those who are not. He includes in the kingdom of heaven many of those who are not. Jesus graces us with His incarnation, and His presence is known through His body, the Church. The Church carries on the work of Christ here on earth. Those to whom the Church has not preached the Good News will be judged by God in a manner known to God and tempered with His mercy. As St. Paul explains:
"When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" (Rom. 2:14-16).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear on this issue:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

Infants are incapable of belief, yet the door of salvation may still be open to them.
Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The entrusts infants born without baptism to the mercy of God.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

As regards the Christian theology about the fate of the unevangelized, there seems to be basically four possible solutions amongst believers. However, some of these positions are fraught with serious biblical and theological challenges.

Views on the Unevangelized

Universalism: This is the view that God will ultimately save all people through Christ’s sacrifice regardless of whether they believed, disbelieved, or had never heard the explicit gospel message itself.

Also called universal salvation, this position reflects what might be defined as an extreme optimism concerning the redemptive grace of God. Its defenders, though always a minority in church history,1 nevertheless insist that various biblical verses can be understood to support this viewpoint.
Universalism has been described, at minimum, as a “revisionist challenge to orthodoxy” (including Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant) because a version of the teaching was condemned as a heresy in church history.3 Historic Christian orthodoxy has rejected universalism because Scripture indicates that some peoplewill suffer eternal divine judgment because they have rejectedGod and specifically Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (for example, Matthew 25:32–33, 41, 46; John 3:36; Revelation 14:11).

Inclusivism: This view holds that people (among other religions and among the unevangelized) can be saved by responding favorably to God even if they have never heard of Christ. The Catholic theology of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) said people of good will who never hear of Christ could be saved by Christ as “anonymous Christians.”4 Thus, the unevangelized are not excluded merely because they have never heard the gospel. However, this view has been rejected by many traditional Christians because it fails to recognize the depth of sin’s bondage on the human will and the potential idolatrous thinking of non-Christians. Also, Scripture clearly teaches that salvation comes through hearing the explicit preached Word (Romans 10:17).

Exclusivism: This position is the traditional Christian view. It asserts that the unevangelized are apparently lost apart from hearing and responding affirmatively to the gospel message because they have sinned in Adam. Therefore, theyhave no right to divine grace but will be judged by the general revelation God has given to all human beings. At this point of tension, exclusivism must account for the Jews and holy pagans who were saved in the Old Testament before hearing about the explicit message of Jesus Christ. Moreover, there appear to be three versions of exclusivism:5

Restrictive exclusivism affirms that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and therefore the unevangelized are definitely lost.
Pessimistic exclusivism affirms that while the fate of the unevangelized is not known with certainty, there is no clear evidence in Scripture that God will perform an extraordinary work of grace to reach the unevangelized apart from the normal means of the preached gospel. So the unevangelized are likely lost.
Nonrestrictive (optimistic) exclusivism affirms that while the fate of the unevangelized is not known, Scripture seems to indicate that God may reach out to those who haven’t heard the gospel in some extraordinary way (dreams, after-death tests, etc.).

Agnosticism: On this view humans can not definitively know the state of the unevangelized and their fate is God’s prerogative.

Protestant interpretation
The doctrine is upheld by many in the Protestant tradition. Martin Luther, the foremost leader of the Protestant Reformation, spoke of the necessity of belonging to the church (in the sense of what he saw as the true church) in order to be saved:

Therefore he who would find Christ must first find the Church. How should we know where Christ and his faith were, if we did not know where his believers are? And he who would know anything of Christ must not trust himself nor build a bridge to heaven by his own reason; but he must go to the Church, attend and ask her. Now the Church is not wood and stone, but the company of believing people; one must hold to them, and see how they believe, live and teach; they surely have Christ in their midst. For outside of the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation.

The Genevan reformer John Calvin, in his Reformation-era work Institutes of the Christian Religion, wrote: "beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for". Calvin wrote also that "those to whom He is a Father, the Church must also be a mother," echoing the words of the originator of the Latin phrase himself, Cyprian: "He can no longer have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother."
Reformed scholastics accepted the phrase so long as the church is recognized by the marks of the church, which they defined as proper administration of the Word and sacrament, rather than apostolic succession.
The idea is further affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 that "the visible Church ... is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." Despite this, it is not necessarily a commonly held belief within modern Protestantism, especially within evangelicalism and those denominations that believe in the autonomy of the local church. The dogma is related to the universal Protestant dogma that the church is the body of all believers, and debates within Protestantism usually center on the meaning of "church" (ecclesiam) and "apart" (extra). - Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

Orthodoxy
For the Orthodox, the question is in God’s hands and thus is an open question.

Regarding God’s mysterious work outside the Orthodox Church, we have nothing to say. We make no judgments about what God is doing there, or about what happens to the souls of those who are not Orthodox or not Christian on earth. It is all we can do to try to “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). - Do All Non-Orthodox People Go to Hell?

Anglicanism

The idea is further affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 that "the visible Church ... is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." Despite this, it is not necessarily a commonly held belief within modern Protestantism, especially within evangelicalism and those denominations that believe in the autonomy of the local church. The dogma is related to the universal Protestant dogma that the church is the body of all believers, and debates within Protestantism usually center on the meaning of "church" (ecclesiam) and "apart" (extra).

Thus extraordinary means of salvation would be at God’s disposal.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Notable because baptism is seen as necessary for salvation, but individuals who die never hearing the gospel are not automatically condemned since before the Final Judgement / Resurrection, there is still opportunity in the after-life for hearing the gospel, accepting Christ, and receiving baptism by proxy.

Does everyone need to be baptized? Yes. Jesus made it clear that being
born of water and of the Spirit is necessary to enter the kingdom of
heaven (see John 3:1–13).
What happens to people who die without baptism? God has provided a way
for everyone to receive all of His blessings—even after death.
Baptisms and other essential ordinances can be performed on behalf of
those who have died without the opportunity. The Apostle Paul spoke of
baptism for the dead in the Bible (see 1 Corinthians 15:29) and
members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continue
that same practice in temples today.
Here’s how it works: Latter-day Saints study their family history to
discover names of people who have died without being baptized. Members
are then baptized on behalf of those ancestors in the temple. This
service for others is offered in love—and because life continues after
death, those who have died are aware of the ordinances and can choose
whether or not to accept them. Common questions

All in all it seems rather interesting that many denominations hold that they hold as saints those who are mentioned in Sacred Scriptures (Bible) as being a saint and thus saved, yet did not know Jesus Christ on a personal level!
Many Old Testament Figures are recognized a saints in various denominations. Obviously, they could not have believed in the Gospels of Jesus Christ.
When we enter eternity, there will be many surprises.


This has happened in early times, but is not something likely to happen now. Pope Felix IV nominated his successor, Boniface II, although his papacy was disputed by some of the Roman electors. Boniface, in turn sought to nominate his own successor, but withdrew after strong opposition.


Where is the sermon in a Mormon church service?

I'm surprised this hasn't been asked here yet. Mormon services are a bit different, as you discovered. In the United States, there is generally a block of 3 meetings back-to-back including a sunday school, a mens' and women's time for instruction, and a sacrament meeting where the general congregation meets together. It sounds like the first meeting you attended was Priesthood meeting where the brothers study the words of scripture and modern Church leaders. Those classes usually have a single instructor each week. [Source]

Sacrament meeting is where any equivalence of a sermon would be heard. The primary difference between Mormon services and some others is the focal event of church meetings. The purpose behind holding a sacrament meeting is to take the sacrament and renew covenants made at baptism. The actual administration of the sacrament is the most sacred public meeting to Mormons. Hearing people speak and even interpersonal communion (socializing) is only secondary, though important. [Source]

Members of a ward, or local congregation, are invited to speak by the bishop or his counselors (the basic equivalent of a pastor) and will have some time to prepare a talk. Talks should draw from the scriptures, personal experience and testimony, and focus on the Savior. Note that comments made by church members over the pulpit at a sacrament meeting do not necessarily reflect the Church's official position on a topic or even Church doctrine.

The talks are meant to urge, inspire, and exhort all in attendance to come to Christ, to give them an opportunity to feel the power of the Spirit, and to strengthen their faith. Often, members will come with questions in their hearts and find answers in the words that day.

Counsel from leaders like a bishop sometimes occur over the pulpit, but usually this is private and individual, based on personal circumstances. The bishop and his counselors are supposed to meet with members regularly in interviews. There is no paid clergy, so all the service is volunteer.

Each member is also assigned two "home teachers" which visit their family once a month to share a gospel message, check on well-being, and be a friend and support especially when needed.  [Source]  In this way, instruction is given which might also help replace a typical sermon pattern. The bishop, his counselors, and others he calls on help organize these efforts. (It has also proven to be very quick and effective during disaster response, as home teachers immediately report in on who they teach, and bishops coordinate an effort if needed. [Source 1, Source 2)

So what you saw was apparently quite normal. Even once a month (the first Sunday), a fast and testimony meeting is held during sacrament meeting, where members forgo preparing talks and instead bear their testimonies about Christ and the gospel for the hour as they feel a desire to do so. Instruction is very member-to-member, you might say, but is guided by the direction of a bishop and other church leaders who also inspire and instruct. [Source]


Do messianic Jews claim to be the beneficiaries of the new covenant now?

I knew a Messianic Rabbi years ago, he and his congregation definitely accepted the New Covenant and the same goes for others I have since met online.  (Meaning they accepted Christ as Savior, accepted the Council of the Book of Acts that gentiles are not bound by the Mosaic law etc.).

Anyway, that rabbi tended to relate Messianic Judaism along the lines of "Wild" and "Natural" Olive Tree branches quoted at the end of this post.   His ambition was to be an evangelistic outreach to traditional Jews, as well as provide a spiritual home for them, and he wanted to be a resource for gentiles that would show them the Jewish context of the Gospel and the rest of the Bible (I think he wanted to do a lot the stuff that Jonathan Cahn currently does).

  Romans 11
  13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

  17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.