What are the soteriological consequences of heresy?

The Catholic Church intentionally does not explicitly define the soteriological consequences of any particular sin, including heresy.  It does distinguish sins on the part of the object (e.g. grave, mortal, venial), but these definitions lack the subjective side that can change in each particular case.  In general that subjective side centers around the will and consent of the individual in the act (See CCC on sin and my answer regarding involuntary tendencies).  So we can say that x is a sin, but we can't definitively say how culpable someone is for x until we have an understanding of their thoughts, knowledge, motives, and will.  Indeed, for this reason God is the final judge (1 Sam 16:7, 1 Cor 2:11).

The most prominent distinction made when talking about heresy is that of formal heresy vs material heresy (See Connotation and Definition).  Material heresy is something akin to accidental heresy: a heresy that one would forsake if they came to knowledge that the Church teaches against it.  Material heresy is therefore rather insignificant.  Formal heresy, on the other hand, is an obstinate and freely willed clinging to a heresy that one knows to be contrary to Church teaching--one knows it to be a heresy, unlike material heresy.  This heresy is much more grave, and may constitute grounds for excommunication.

Finally, New Advent's section on Degrees of Heresy is also important.  It cashes out like this: different Church teachings have different levels of authority and different requirements of assent.  Books like Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma detail a number of different teachings and the Magisterial "level" into which they fall.  For example, Ott points out that while the proposition that Christ is divine carries the highest weight (de fide), the proposition that extreme unction is not of itself necessary for salvation carries a lower weight (sent. certa.).  To deny the former would be graver heresy than to deny the latter.  Indeed, heresy in its strictest sense is limited to those teachings of the Church that hold the most weight.


What is the theological background of the WWJD movement?

There are many scriptures which say we ought to do as Jesus Christ did:

John 13:15 (KJV)
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
1 Peter 2:21 (KJV)
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1 John 2:6 (KJV)
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that those passages are what actually spawned the movement. Wikipedia has details on the origin of WWJD.


How do you know when you are truly saved, and how do you live as a Christian afterwards?

Of course the answer will depend on which Christian tradition the answerer comes from, but since you requested passages from Scripture on the matter, here are a few to consider:
Is Jesus your Lord?

if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved -Romans 10:9

Do you live for Jesus?

He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. -2 Corinthians 5:15

Do you lay down your own will to follow Jesus?

If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. -Luke 9:23

Are you led by His Spirit?

all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. -Romans 8:14
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. -Ephesians 1:13-14


Did Matthew the Tax Collector author the Gospel?

The gospel now known as Matthew's Gospel was originally anonymous. According to Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, Papias attributed a gospel to Matthew early in the second century, but some scholars are uncertain whether the gospel of which Papias spoke was the same gospel as is now widely attributed to Matthew.

As Matthew was a disciple of Jesus, we can at least determine whether our gospel was written  by an apostle by establishing whether it shows signs of having been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed. The late second century Church Fathers not only decided that Matthew's Gospel was really written by Matthew himself, but that it was written in the Hebrew language, which would help establish apostolic authorship.

Modern scholars say that the gospel was definitely written in the Greek language, and that it could not have been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed. Whenever quoting or alluding to the Old Testament, the gospel uses the Septuagint (LXX) and not the Hebrew text. When a Greek version is laid in parallel with Mark's Gospel and Luke's Gospel, it soon becomes apparent that both Matthew and Luke were substantially based on Mark, with Matthew copying some ninety per cent of Mark, often using exactly the same words in the Greek language.  Uta Ranke-Heinemann says in Putting Away Childish Things, page 218, it is incomprehensible that an eyewitness (the Apostle Matthew) would choose to depend so radically on a non-eyewitness (the author of Mark). She adds that the real author of Matthew is unknown.


According to the Catholic Church is the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act an unjust law?

Subsidiarity requires that needs be addressed at the lowest, most local possible level. But, the principle lives in conflict, in a manner, with solidarity, which demands that our concern lie with all people and the common good of all. Hence, while subsidiarity insists that matters are best handled by those closest to the people involved, solidarity insists that we keep a somewhat universal view and readily recognize the need to "escalate" matters. And health care could be argued from either end.

The need for some health care is universal. Whether that need is the same everywhere, I'm not sure. Nor do I know whether enough of the nations needs are similar enough to warrant mixing everything together in the same system -- there's no authoritative Catholic statement that I'm aware of from that perspective.

However, there's plenty to be said about the justness of the Affordable Care Act in other regards. The USCCB has issued multiple statements regarding the infringement on justice and moral freedom that the law as-is currently imposes. One, issued on 6/28/12 highlights (again) the lack of protection for those who wish not to contribute, on religious or moral grounds, to plans including abortion and contraceptive coverage.

There are a fair number of publications from the USCCB to the same regard: See here.

Generally speaking, the attitude of the USSCB has shown that it's not the "universal" nature of the act that Catholics should necessarily oppose, but the nature of it which prevents moral and religious opt-outs. The need for "universal" health care is pretty-well recognized by the USCCB; but the lack of respect for religious freedoms and the explicit inclusion of items which are "not healthcare" is a distinct and highly important problem.


Do any theologians argue that in the Fall, Adam sacrificed himself out of love for Eve?

Augustine's concept of defining all sin in terms of disordered love is certainly applicable:

  for Augustine, rightly ordered love was virtue (City of God 15. 22) and disordered love was vice... the depravity created by disordered love was so deep that no one could extricate or heal him or herself from it.  - David K. Naugle, source

He applies this concept directly to Adam's fall:

  ...it was that sin that happened at the moment Adam, with a misguided will, took pleasure in something inferior, rather than rejoicing in the power of God. - source

In the City of God (14.13), Augustine more directly suggests that Adam was motivated by a desire to not be parted from his wife:

  This falling away is spontaneous; for if the will had remained steadfast [...] the woman would not have believed the serpent spoke the truth, nor would the man have [...] supposed that it was a venial trangression to cleave to the partner of his life even in a partnership of sin. - source

But Augustine uses the clearest language in De Genesi ad Litteram1 (11.42), as one commentator summarizes,

  ...Adam sinned on account of his love for Eve... - source

In book IX of this work, amongst other things, Augustine explains "Why Adam was lead in to sin by Eve, not also by the serpent". He likens Adam to the example of Solomon who was "...unable to resist the love of women dragging him into this evil...", he then proceeds thus:

  In the same way Adam too was unwilling to cross the woman who had taken a bite from the forbidden tree after being led astray, and had given some to him so that they might eat together; he believed that she might easily pine away without him to comfort her, if she found herself estranged from his way of thinking, and might quite simply perish from that conflict. So what led to his downfall was not any lust of the flesh, which he had not yet felt in the law in the members fighting back against the law of the mind (Rom 7:23), but a kind of loving concern for their mutual friendship, which often leads to God being offended, in case friends should turn unfriendly. That Adam should not have done this he was shown clearly by the result - the just sentence passed on him by God. - On Genesis, book IX, page 463

It is certainly arguable that this does not explicitly reference 'sacrifice', but Augustine's argument coupled with the sense of 1 Timothy 2:14 – which asserts that Adam was not deceived in acting the way he did – gives the implication that he acted with deliberate intent after he had been warned that the consequences were death and did so because of (disordered) love – which could fairly be summarized as 'sacrifice'.

On Genesis / The Literal Meaning of Genesis, St. Augustine of Hippo; translated by Edmund Hill, New City Press (reference courtesy of Mr. Bultitude)


Have any major Christian intellectuals responded to Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design"?

God and Stephen Hawking, by John C. Lennox, is a popular direct reply to The Grand Design.

Alister McGrath calls it "a brilliant response," and the book won an Award of Merit in Christianity Today's 2012 Book Awards.

Whether it "makes sense," as you say, to Hawking, is perhaps debatable.  But Lennox is no slouch: he's a Professor at Oxford University, prominent Christian apologist, and author of many books.

Lennox, as well as several other apologists, responded to The Grand Design in article form as well:1

Lennox article (WebCite)
William Lane Craig article (WebCite)
Alister McGrath article (WebCite)

Nonetheless, the most prominent direct response to Hawking's book appears to be Lennox's God and Stephen Hawking.

1. Other similar resources are listed on Apologetics 315.


What reforms did Erasmus seek for the church?

Owen Chadwick, in his book The Reformation, gives a few lists of the vices Erasmus saw in the church:

Erasmus was not fired by a reforming passion or zeal. But his sensible and scholarly nose was otherwise offended by the stink of corruption. He despised ignorance, superstition, obscurantism, and wished to cure them. Because his pen was able to portray those vices in the most entertaining light, he could communicate his own contempt to countless other minds. The diffused effect of writings like The Praise of Folly (1511) or The Colloquies (1518) cannot be calculated.
Educated men were mumbling all these things about the clergy, about monks and popes, corruption and graft, popular superstition and idolatrous practices. Erasmus expressed, and brilliantly, what they were barely articulating; and educated Europe laughed. ... More than any other single man, he lowered the European reputation of popes and clergy, monks and friars, and (above all) of the theologians.
Above all the theologians. He once described a contemporary as 'a scab of a fellow, theology incarnate'. He condemned them as pedants, logic-choppers, manipulators of meaningless notions, constructors of syllogisms, warriors over terms. 'A man might sooner find his way out of a labyrinth than the intellectual mazes of the Realists, Nominalists, Thomists, Albertists, Occamists, Scotists.'
(Chadwick, pp. 32-33)

Erasmus made efforts to simplify theology:

In 1503 he published the Enchiridion militis Christiani (handbook for the Christian warrior), an attempt to expound the lines of this true theology. It was a simpler theology, more primitive, more Biblical, less tangled in logical subtlety and more direct to the human soul, stripped of the layers of glosses and authorities and commentaries.
(Chadwick, p. 38)

He is probably best known for his Bible scholarship. He remains hugely influential in the field of textual criticism, and it was important to him that people be able to read the Bible in their own vernacular. Unsurprisingly then, his hero was Jerome, the great fifth-century Bible translator. Luther and Tyndale based their Bible translations on Erasmus' text. Given his interest in making the Bible accessible to commoners, it should come as no surprise that he also wished for hymnody to be accessible:

Modern church music is so constructed that the congregation cannot hear one distinct word. The choristers themselves do not understand what they are singing, yet according to priests and monks it constitutes the whole of religion.
(Erasmus, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:19)

He disliked when religious extravagance and superstition become substitutes for simple faith:

Erasmus and his fellows were impatient, contemptuous, angry with the superstitions of the people. Those superstitions, cults of statues, visits to Madonnas that rolled their eyes or to bleeding Hosts, seemed to be not mere harmless vehicles of a rude devotion, not merely vulgar and credulous, but the bane of true religion. The people cultivated a religion of external acts and substituted pilgrimage, an indulgence, a relic, for a genuine change in heart and life. It is the better side of Erasmus, the concern for true religion, which turned his satire into the severest form of condemnation. 'Perhaps thou believest that all thy sins are washed away with a little paper, a sealed parchment, with the gift of a little money or some wax images, with a little pilgrimage. Thou art utterly deceived.' 'Without ceremonies perhaps thou shalt not be a Christian; but they make thee not a Christian.'
(Chadwick, pp. 38-39)
We kiss the old shoes and dirty handkerchiefs of the saints and neglect their books, the more valuable relics; we lock up their shirts and clothes in cabinets adorned with jewels, but as to their writings on which they spent so much pains, and which are still extant for our benefit, we abandon them to mouldiness and vermin.
(Erasmus, Preface to Jerome)

He opposed paid indulgences, and in his Right Fruitful Epistle in Laud and Praise of Matrimony he indicated that he believed priests should be allowed to marry. His pamphlet Julius Excluded from Heaven portrays Pope Julius II (1503-1513) as worldly, arrogant, and tyrannical.
It's easy to see how well many of his views accorded with those of the reformers. But of course, he came to oppose them and their teachings.

Like Erasmus, many educated men would have preferred the Church to be ridiculed into good sense and efficiency and purity of life. But a man who is holding property will not be mocked out of it. There were forces more potent at work, both to maintain the existing state of the Church, which would not be altered without violence and illegality, and to ask whether the existing state of the Church was not the symptom of a deep-seated and moral disease. There was a celebrated saying of the sixteenth century: 'Erasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched it.' It is certain, at least, that Erasmus alone would not, and could not, have hatched it.
(Chadwick, p. 39)


What is the Christian Reformed Church in North America's views about Luke 14:32 with regard to the doctrine of discipleship?

Pulpit Commentary
Your BibleHub link missed the Pulpit Commentary which treats verse 32 together with verse 31.  While the Pulpit Commentary editor is Anglican, I think the answer is applicable to the Reformed tradition as well.
After relating a possible historical background of the war simile (which Jesus may have used) and relating a modern version with Swiss contemplating war against France, the interpretation is as follows:

The first of these two little similes rather points to the building up of the Christian life in the heart and life. The second is an image of the warfare which' every Christian man must wage against the world, its passions, and its lusts. If we cannot brace ourselves up to the' sacrifice necessary for the completion of the building up of the life we know the Master loves; if we shrink from the cost involved in the warfare against sin and evil - a warfare which will only end with life - better for us not to begin the building or risk the war. It will be a wretched alternative, but still it will be best for us to make our submission at once to the world and its prince; at least, by so doing we shall avoid the scandal and the shame of injuring a cause which we adopted only to forsake.

My paraphrase of the commentary
As we contemplate whether to follow Jesus or not, the decision has to be all or nothing.  Halfway only causes embarrassment to those who decide to choose all (choosing all means to potentially suffer and die as disciple while warring against the devil).  In other words, if you can only do halfway, you shouldn't be a disciple.  Of course, choosing nothing means making peace with the devil, which is a "wretched" alternative.
Calculating the cost here means weighing our options: do we want to suffer as disciple of Jesus but with eternal life as a reward, or do we want to be comfortable in the world but with eternal damnation as punishment?  Jesus presents the only two honorable options.  Don't go halfway and bring bad name to other Jesus's followers by trying to be saints but quit in the middle.
The Pulpit commentary on Luke 14:28-30 about the builder made a similar point:

So in the spiritual life, the would-be professor finds such living harder than he supposed, and so gives up trying after the nobler way of living altogether; and the world, who watched his feeble efforts and listened with an incredulous smile when he proclaimed his intentions, now ridicules him, and pours scorn upon what it considers an unattainable ideal. Such an attempt and failure injure the cause of God.

Non Reformed Interpretations
The OP disagrees with this interpretation, saying that the other King with 20,000 troops represents God, so making peace to the OP means completely different:

"don't start following Jesus if you are not confident, but negotiate with Him", and sooner rather than later, when He is still far away, rather than when He is near, and notices you don't have wedding garments, or oil for your lamp, or faith.

I cannot find support for that interpretation from a Reformed source.  However, I did find a 1908 Catholic commentary on Luke mentioning how St. Gregory (unlike St. Cyril) thinks that the double army King is Christ:

But S. Gregory (Hom. 37) gives another interpretation. “The king that is about to come against us is Christ, who will come with a double army against a single one. For while we are scarcely prepared in deeds only, He will discomfit us at once, both in thought and deed. Let us send Him therefore an embassy; our tears, our works of mercy, and propitiatory victim.”

I also find a very interesting research article on this parable from the 2nd Temple perspective, with focus on the Hebrew idioms current at the time, plus a redaction theory of how the parable came to the final version in Luke.  (Warning: the website's project is not Christian, it's an attempt to uncover the Hebraism within the Synoptic gospels.  See rebuttal in the next section below.).
One of the 2 goals of the article is to precisely address the question:

What is the meaning of ἐρωτᾷ εἰς εἰρήνην (“he asks for peace”) in the King Going to War simile (Luke 14:32; L18)?

Their conclusion is:

It therefore appears that the original meaning of Jesus’ simile was not that the weaker king negotiated terms of peace, but that his submission to his stronger adversary was expressed in offering a humble salutation. Luke preserved this Hebraism which he found in his pre-synoptic source, but its meaning was not understood by later copyists of Luke’s Gospel. They therefore attempted to make Luke’s sentence intelligible by improving the Greek, which accounts for the variant readings in New Testament manuscripts.
We believe that the Tower Builder and King Going to War similes are an attempt to explain why full-time discipleship is not suitable for everyone. Not everyone had the freedom and the ability to give up their livelihoods and leave their families in order to travel with Jesus from place to place, obligations that were incumbent upon Jesus’ full-time disciples. We believe that these historical circumstances must be recognized in order to appreciate Jesus’ teaching on this issue.
Jesus did not equate becoming a full-time disciple with salvation, nor did he regard non-disciples as hostile to his mission or exclude them from the benefits of his ministry. To the contrary, Jesus recognized that for the vast majority of people it was better that they enjoy his words and deeds as observers and beneficiaries and that they put his teachings into practice in their daily lives—like the crowds who listened to Jesus’ teachings and who held him in high regard—than to leave their homes and communities in order to become full-time disciples with absolute commitments and obligations to Jesus’ mission. Full-time discipleship was for the select few who could set aside their ordinary activities and engagements for a time in order to master Jesus’ message in order that they, in turn, might accurately pass it on to others.
In the Tower Builder and King Going to War similes it is not the willingness or the desire of the men to set about their tasks, but their ability to successfully execute their intentions. Similarly, we believe that the situation the similes address does not pertain to the sympathy of would-be disciples to Jesus’ message, but to their ability to do their job well. Jesus was willing to take on as disciples only those whom he believed were up to the task.

Personal assessment from the Reformed tradition
As we can see from the above, this parable has been interpreted in many different ways corresponding to one's faith tradition / principles of interpretation.  Unfortunately I couldn't find a clear & certifiably Reformed interpretation for the "peace" that the OP wants to interpret.
The 2nd Temple research article is definitely not suitable for Reformed consumption because the Jerusalem school hypothesis has received decisive rebuttal and "discommendation" (his word) in a very well researched and well written 1992 article by Michael L. Brown, an expert in Near Eastern languages and a conservative Bible college faculty member.  The article points out how the Jerusalem School project turns out to advance a theory that the Greek canonized gospels we possess today are corrupted in such a way that they can no longer be considered inspired.  The article discussed at length how the project has deep flaws in their assumptions as well as their bias in NOT presenting a more likely theory based on the widespread use of Septuagint in the time that the gospels were written.  So by extension, their interpretation of the simile should be discarded from the Reformed perspective.
As a side note, I highly recommend studying Michael Brown's 1992 article (pdf version here) in depth to arm believers with critical thinking against the rising tide of attempts (some very subtle) to discredit the trustworthiness of the gospels in the form that we possess today.  This includes other past attempts like the Jesus Seminar or the still influential Bart Ehrman project.  All conservative Christians from all denominations believe that the gospels present faithfully the teaching of Jesus, despite some difficulties in understanding some of the parables.
Reformed tradition is strongly saying that God will provide everything an elect's need for salvation and that the elect is supposed to receive everything with gratitude.  At the same time, the elect has to work hard to discern and defeat any temptation to sin with the grace that God will faithfully provide continuously until we enter heaven.  The elect has to be a disciple, there is no choice.  As long as the elect sides with God by completely trusting Jesus and receiving all grace with gratitude, there is no bargaining for peace needed.  Therefore, it is unlikely that the 20,000 troops King represents God, and to me the Pulpit commentary is quite congruent with the Reformed overall theology.  Therefore, the king with 20,000 troops represents the king of the world, the Devil, and the elect has to engage war with the Devil, with God's help of course.
The Reformed tradition moral lesson is thus: we cannot win against the Devil on our own, we need Jesus to save us.  And please don't embarrass the cause by going halfway because it will damage the "brand".
Then the "halfway believer", the farmer who started the tower or the king who initiated the war but who quit in the middle probably represents someone who isn't one of the elect because God doesn't give him/her the grace to persevere to the end (the "P" in TULIP) while the elect will be able to win against the devil (even if the elect has to die prematurely) and receive the eternal inheritance.


How do the reformed view the "Left Behind" series?

No. The Left Behind series is A) entirely fictional and B) based on Dispensationalism.*

Dispensationalism is almost universally at odds with Reformed theology. The basic problem lies in the understanding of the way God relates to his people. Understanding this relationship in the context of covenants that get renewed with unfolding detail but don't fundamentally change (a defining feature of Reformed and Calvinistic theology) is substantially different and at odds with an understanding it which God's relation to men is set in the context of separate dispensations each with their own distinct characteristics.

Calvanism is not quite as broad a structure as Reformed theology and it is harder to draw a correlation to eschatology just from the points that it considers, but I think it is fair to lump them in together because it basically sets the stage for Reformed theology.

There are a few groups that use the label "Reformed" as an adjective rather than a noun. Rather than being "Reformed" they are "Reformed X" where X is something else. By this they could mean a variety of things, but usually it means they have incorporated some of the doctrines considered Calvinistic or some of the practices developed by Reformed churches, but they still hold onto another identity as their primary doctrinal framework. Among these are some groups who would hold to a Dispensational/Premillenial eschatology, but these are definitely a minority among those using the label "Reformed".

A key aspect of your question is that you asked about the "teachings". Even as somebody who disagrees with the interpretation from beginning to end, as a mental exercise in reading fiction -- reading with the same eye as I would read Tolkien or watch Batman -- it is possible to enjoy the the books as apocalyptic fiction.

However I agree with your labeling them as "teachings" because at the end of the day, without a strong theological background, it is almost impossible to listen to the Bible talked about and real verses analyse and commented on even inside a fictional setting and not take away something. The author is a professing Christian, the books match his own theology and he has made every claim of intending the books as a way to further people's understanding of Christianity.

As such, I think it is fair that the contents be treated with the same scrutiny that a theology textbook would be. It is, after all, more theological than anything many professing Christians will bother to study.

In this light, it is worth noting that even some modern Dispensational Premillenialists take issue with the some of the interpretation work that is scattered between the pages pure fiction. As for anybody with a different eschatology, it is almost inconceivable that they could even stomach the read.

* Please note I am refraining from commenting on whether A==B.


I think you're looking for the Order of Mass

But in General, each Catholic Mass is broken up into 4 parts (It's a little different for Sundays and the few Holy Days of Obligation than it is for weekday Masses; more things are optional for weekday Mass)

Introductory Rite

A. Procession in to the Church

B. Greeting

C. Penitential rite (there are a few ways this can be done)

D. Let us pray... (This is the prayer that changes, if you go to weekday mass it usually has something to do with the saint whose feast day it is)
Liturgy of the Word

A. OT reading

B. Psalm

C. NT reading (not Gospel)

D. Alleluia

E. Gospel (usually connected in some way with OT reading)

F. Homily
Liturgy of the Eucharist

A. Creed (Apostles or Nicene)

B. Intercessory prayers

C. Collection and presentation of the gifts ( bread wine and money brought up)

D. Eucharistic Prayer (This is the part that the priest does mostly, but I'll list the parts you'd do if you were at Mass)

i. Great Amen

ii. Acclamation (what the we say after "the mystery of faith")

iii. Our Father

iv. Rite of Peace (hand shake time)

v. Lamb of God (and then you kneel)

vi. Lord I am not worthy...

vii. Eucharist time!
Concluding Rite

A. Prayer

B. Lame Joke (that might just be in the Footville order of Mass)

C. Mass has ended...

D. Process out.

E. Eruption of noise as everyone suddenly forgets they're still in the presence of The Lord.

That's about the gist of it, the order of mass is what is supposed to happen, some things that aren't supposed to happen are pretty normal ( or at least regional) if you want to see how it's supposed to be done head over to the Guadalupe Shrine outside of La Crosse.


The teachings in James 3 on the relations between language and character are certainly in accord with the rest of LDS teaching and could profitably be more repeated and expounded more than they are.

However, in addition, Nephi mentions speaking with the tongue of angels (2 Ne 31:14 and 32:2) as one of the gifts of the Spirit, one that is not mentioned in the other lists. The injunction "I am God; give heed to my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow" is repeated several times in the early revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants (as well as Hebrews 4:12)

These teachings suggest that the popular notion that crude, vulgar, obscene, or profane speech is especially strong or expressive is entirely wrong.


Was the Tabernacle and its furnishings a copy of things in Heaven?

Hebrews 8:4-5 (NIV)

  If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already
  priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a
  sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is
  why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See
  to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on
  the mountain.”

  Hebrews 9:19-23 (NIV)

  When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people,
  he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and
  branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He
  said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you
  to keep.” In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the
  tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law
  requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without
  the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. It was necessary, then,
  for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these
  sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices
  than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human
  hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven
  itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter
  heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest
  enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.

Moses did not build a Temple with walls and foundations of stone. The tabernacle built by Moses was a movable tent. What the Bible meant by a 'copy' is the design and positioning of the items inside the tabernacle. The tabernacle on earth cannot be equally the same like the one in Heaven but it reflected all the important aspects of the one in Heaven. The design and positioning of the items are same but the material and quality cannot be the same. While the earthly tabernacle was temporary, the heavenly tabernacle is eternal. While the high priest had to offer the blood every year, Jesus offered His eternal blood only once which is for eternity.


Was charging interest on loans ever forbidden to laymen in the Eastern Orthodox Church? If so, when was this promulgated and when was it revoked?

I am glad that you mentioned the ecumenical council vs. local council question. I see that you've tagged it with usury, so I hope you will accept answers based on usury and not just interest in general.
Local Councils
There are a number of local, pre-schism councils that prohibit usury by laymen. Because they are pre-schism they can be understood to be "Eastern Orthodox," but none of the cities in question are particularly Eastern, and again they were local.
In the 4th century there was a Synod of Elvira which predates the Council of Nicaea (source 1 with original Latin, source 2).
One of the canons issued at that Synod says:

If any clergy are found engaged in usury, let them be censured and dismissed. If a layman is caught practicing usury, he may be pardoned if he promises to stop the practice. If he continues this evil practice, let him be expelled from the church.

There are quite a lot of things in the canons from Elvira that the Orthodox church does not follow, such as "pictures are not to be placed in churches" and clerical celibacy. When responding to the iconoclastic claim, one modern-day Orthodox writer has said:

This canon (among the rest at Elvira) were neither ecumenical in scope, nor eternal in application. Like many other encyclicals, epistles, and synods in the history of the Church, the scope was both locally and historically specific.

(For example, Christianity was not yet legal in the Roman empire, so you could see how that would change things.)
Other pre-schism local councils forbade this practice as well,  e.g.:

"The synod of Pavia in 850 excommunicates lay usurers and prescribes full restitution to their victims" (source, page 16 of the paper). The 850 Synod of Pavia is so obscure it doesn't even have its own Wiki article.
"The 12th canon of the First Council of Carthage (345) and the 36th canon of the Council of Aix (789) have declared it to be reprehensible even for laymen to make money by lending at interest." (source)
A few more sources here

Here is a page that lists Christian writings on usury throughout history. I know the site does not look pretty, but the pages it links to are generally sourced.
Saints
Church fathers also wrote against usury; Gregory of Nyssa did so perhaps most thoroughly. (See a homily on the subject.)
Pope St. Leo the Great (who, being 5th century, is also an Orthodox saint) also spoke against usury in his sermons (source), which I believe were given while he was Pope:

the money-lender's trade is always bad, for it is sin either to lessen or increase the sum, in that if he lose what he lent he is wretched, and if he takes more than he lent he is more wretched still

This isn't as authoritative as a council, but I'd certainly think he was speaking ex officio.


As you already understand, the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God, who exists in three persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

From http://carm.org/trinity

  The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same
  person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person
  as Father.  They are not three gods and not three beings.  They are
  three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God.  Each has a
  will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of
  personhood.  They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one
  substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful.  If any one of
  the three were removed, there would be no God.

...

  There is, though, an apparent separation of some functions among the
  members of the Godhead.  For example, the Father chooses who will be
  saved (Eph. 1:4); the Son redeems them (Eph. 1:7); and the Holy Spirit
  seals them, (Eph. 1:13).

I'd like to expand on that, but there's not much I could expand on that hasn't already been covered in depth on this site.  And while it's really not a complex doctrine, all sorts of heretical teachings come about based on a misunderstanding of it, or a rejection of it.   Rather than going into any more detail here, I'd just recommend browsing the various questions tagged "Trinity" here.


How did the tree of life in the Garden of Eden serve its purpose? (Roman Catholic perspective)

Adam and Eve were forbidden from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not from the tree of life before the Fall (Genesis 2:16-17).  In Genesis 2:9, the sense is that both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are in the midst of the Garden; it's the latter tree to which Eve is referring in Genesis 3:2-3.

The tree of life gave life, and it is for this reason that God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden after their sin (the "Fall").  Their sin brought separation among them and between them and God.  So, God prevented them from eating from the tree of life (by casting them out from the garden), lest they live forever alienated from Him and from other people (see Genesis 3:22-23).

However, He promised a Savior who would ultimately undo this alienation by reconciling humanity to God and to each other; this is the promised "seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15).  This is what Christ accomplished on the cross, and at the resurrection we will again be allowed to eat from the tree of life to live forever.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church talks on this subject in the section about Original Sin at this link: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph &: The Fall.

  How to read the account of the fall

  CCC 390 ... Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human
  history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first
  parents.
  THE FALL OF THE ANGELS
  391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.  Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called "Satan" or the "devil".  (skip a bit)
  392 ...  This "fall" consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: "You will be like God."   The devil "has sinned from the beginning"; he is "a liar and the father of lies".
  393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable.
  394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls "a murderer from the beginning", who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father. "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil." In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.  (skip a bit)
  III. ORIGINAL SIN
  Freedom put to the test
  396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. the prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

(Full disclosure: I am a Lutheran pastor and not Roman Catholic)


Does Catholicism consider bisexuality and asexuality sinful?

From the Catholic perspective, the universal teaching is that all persons are called by God to chastity, which is understood as a successful integration, inner unity and rational expression of human sexuality, both within the person as well as in interpersonal relationships (CCC 2337).

The Church helps sinners in a variety of states of life—including those who are married, were previously married, or those who remain single or devote themselves to celibacy—by encouraging them to express chastity in different ways. Each of these is valued, including the friendships offered by and to those not in sexual relationships (CCC 2349 and 2350).

The Church does not teach that having a homosexual or bisexual tendency/orientation/attraction is itself sinful, as sin relates to choices and actions/behavior. However, all sexual acts that are not open to life—i.e., all sexual acts outside of heterosexual marriage—are understood as sinful because they are expressions of sexuality that lack one or more of the essential qualities of the type of sexual expression to which we are called as Christians. So sinful behaviors would include homosexual acts, heterosexual acts outside marriage, as well as acts that are not open to life, even when within a marital relationship. So the Church would most likely say that the bisexual person is called to chastity and to cultivate inner freedom in order to choose either celibacy or heterosexual marriage.

Above, I mentioned that celibacy and singleness are recognized as valid lifestyles, and there are many examples of Christians who are not inclined to marry, often those who remain virgins and/or enter religious life. Additionally, consider this passage of Jesus' teaching:

  Matthew 19:8-12 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Please note that the word eunuch is not restricted to those who are physically castrated, but can also include those not inclined to marry, and the passage also references those who choose to live like eunuchs. So in both these examples (Scripture and the Catechism), virginal or celibate life are promoted as valid and valuable expressions of one's sexual identity, and the church does not teach that all people should seek or participate in a sexual relationship.

So according to Catholicism, both the person who experiences a deep sexual attraction to members of both sexes, as well as the person who does not experience this type of sexual attraction toward either sex have the opportunity to live out either a sinful life or a chaste and holy life, depending on the type of behavior they choose to engage in.

Note:
The church does teach that as part of being human, we all have a sexual identity (CCC 2333). It is possible that the case of someone who chooses to radically reject their own sexual identity, or the case of someone with a deeply wounded identity where the person is not able to bond or form healthy friendships might be considered problematic, but this does not appear to be what you are describing, and this would not likely be described as sinful.

The CCC references I've included are to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you are interested in learning more about what the church teaches about chastity and the nature of human sexuality, I'd recommend reading the first two sections of Article 6. You can easily search for these references online, or follow the links.  Both sections together are only a few pages long.


What is the basis for the Catholic practice of only the priest drinking from the common cup during communion?

Communion is always "valid under both species" as Catholics would say. That means that if you only receive Jesus under the form of wine or under the form of bread, you're receiving the whole of God.

For about 20 years or so (depending where you live) in much of North America it has been common practice to offer the cup to the laity at communion for all masses on every day of the week. This is extra-ordinary, and not necessary and seems to be going away. The diocese of Phoenix was the first to go back to the old norms and my diocese (Madison, WI) just went back starting this past advent.

The rationale out priest gave was that the bishop felt that absence would make the heart grow fonder. And on those occasions when we could recieve from the cup, we'd be more apt to do so.  When half the congregation just passes the Eucharistic minister by like there's nothing in the cup, you get to seeing why absence is necessary for a time. Hopefully, come Holy Thursday or Corpus Christi we can get a few more people considering Who they're passing up.

The other good (well, I think it's good) thing the new reversion in norms does is limit the excruciating number of Eucharistic ministers (I mean extra ordinary ministers) any time you have to have a dispensation to recieve an indult you're looking at an institution within the church that won't last.  Nothing doctrinal about it, the Church is free to let lay people distribute communion and recieve in both species as well as end that practice.

If there were enough priests and deacons to distribute communion in the first place the practice might have continued or even spread, I'd imagine.


What does the quote from the Old Testament in Luke 2: 23 refer to?

The RSV (and KJV and Septuagint) goes on from the general statement of all first-born at Ex. 13:2 to the specific male first-born at 13:12, 13 and elsewhere.  So, the dedication of Jesus at the Temple in Luke 2:23 is based on Scripture.

"Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." Ex. 13:2
you shall set apart to the LORD all that first opens the womb. All the firstlings of your cattle that are males shall be the LORD's. Ex. 13:12
Every firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem. Ex. 13:13

Moreover, the Septuagint confirms this quote.

(as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") Luke 2:23
The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me. Ex. 22:29 Septuagint
that thou shalt set apart every [offspring] opening the womb, the males to the Lord, every one that opens the womb out of the herds or among thy cattle, as many as thou shalt have: thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord. Ex. 13:12


Is there evidence to suggest that John Wesley targeted the bottom third of society?

John and his brother Charles utilized the wisdom of the Holy Scriptures to not only change lives of the bottom third of society, but they also utilized these sacred texts to change the entire 18th-century culture in Great Britain, America and Asia. Their efforts cut across lines of culture and class. That is the obvious byproduct of the Bible- God's manual for humanity. The ideals of frugality, family, capitalism, community, these all are Biblical concepts which uniquely transformed the culture of 18th-century Great Britain. When John's brother taught the masses to memorize his rich hymns, it was just a short time later that these same illiterate individuals were learning to read when they were handed a sheet of paper written with the memorized hymns. The nearly 80% of the population who couldn't read began to read. When the teachings of the Bible taught husbands and wives to love and respect each other, the drunken masses of men and women addicted to gin began to sober up and do likewise.


There are a few angles to answer your question from.

First the Eternal Son of God, who existed before being incarnated into a baby child through a virgin can never be said to not have the Spirit for the Trinity if One God, Father, Son and Spirit.  This is the basic view of God within Christianity.

Second, when the Eternal Son was incarnated the human nature that he incorporated into his person could never be said to not have the Spirit for the Divine nature and the Human nature are inseparable in his person forever.

Third, as a man Jesus needed additional supplies of the Spirit to resist sin and to obey all that his Father has given to him to do.  In this sense of ‘needing’ the Spirit to live a holy life as a man in communion with his Father he must have to be fully human. We can see even in what little record we have of Jesus as a child where the Spirit was mighty in him. In Luke 2 Jesus was separated from his parents and was later found engaging the teachers in the temple courts. When they rebuked him for getting lost while they were worried he said “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”. This implies at an early age he was already deeply aware of his fellowship with the Father which is by the Spirit.  It is then added that:

  And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. (Luke 2:52, NIV)

This obviously implies that the Spirit of God was causing the boy Jesus to develop in ‘spiritual’ wisdom, not just the human kind, meaning the Spirit was deep at work within him.

It is from this third aspect that your question is based and the answer is simple. Of course Jesus as a man always had supplies of grace from the Spirit and communed with his Father, but it was not until his official ministry in preaching the gospel was inaugurated that he received the Spirit in an extra and unusual manner in order for him to perform his earthly ministry.

This is not only true of Christ but of all Christians that ‘receive the Spirit’. It is not something that happens once but over and over again and our needs require and God’s grace supplies.


Should Catholics ignore Hebrews 13:3 if a Prisoner is excommunicated?

Should Catholics ignore Hebrews 13:3 if a Prisoner was excommunicated?

Remember them that are in bands, as if you were bound with them; and them that labour, as being yourselves also in the body. - Hebrews 13:3
Douay-Rheims

The short answer is no.
Does excommunication block Prisoners from prison ministry?
Again the short answer no, unless one is talking about serving at a Catholic mass or reading at Catholic mass in which case the answer is yes.
If a prisoner has been excommunicated, Then Catholics should feel the need to observe Hebrews 13:3!
Having volunteered in prison ministry, both in my own country (Canada) and in super max facilities in the USA, I can affirm to you that no Catholic is blocked from any form of prison ministry whatsoever.
Under current Catholic canon law, excommunicates remain bound by ecclesiastical obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.). "Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty." They are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.

In Latin Catholic canon law, excommunication is a rarely applied censure and thus a "medicinal penalty" intended to invite the person to change behaviour or attitude, repent, and return to full communion. It is not an "expiatory penalty" designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, much less a "vindictive penalty" designed solely to punish: "excommunication, which is the gravest penalty of all and the most frequent, is always medicinal", and is "not at all vindictive".
Excommunication in the Latin Church is governed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC). The 1983 Code specifies various sins which carry the penalty of automatic excommunication: apostasy, heresy, schism (CIC 1364:1), violating the sacred species (CIC 1367), physically attacking the pope (CIC 1370:1), sacramentally absolving an accomplice in a sexual sin (CIC 1378:1), consecrating a bishop without authorization (CIC 1382), directly violating the seal of confession (1388:1), and someone who actually procures an abortion.
Under current Catholic canon law, excommunicates remain bound by ecclesiastical obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.). "Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty." They are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.
In the Catholic Church, excommunication is normally resolved by a declaration of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offense involved heresy) and an Act of Faith, or renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act, i.e., an act of schism) by the excommunicated person and the lifting of the censure (absolution) by a priest or bishop empowered to do this. "The absolution can be in the internal (private) forum only, or also in the external (public) forum, depending on whether scandal would be given if a person were privately absolved and yet publicly considered unrepentant."[37] Since excommunication excludes from reception of the sacraments, absolution from excommunication is required before absolution can be given from the sin that led to the censure. In many cases, the whole process takes place on a single occasion in the privacy of the confessional. For some more serious wrongdoings, absolution from excommunication is reserved to a bishop, another ordinary, or even the Pope. These can delegate a priest to act on their behalf. - Excommunication (Catholic Church)

The Church remains a mother at heart and desires her children to return to the sacramental practice of their faith, whether in prison or not.
Those confined to a penal institution, still retain the possibility of going to mass, but are not allowed to receive the sacraments until they first receive sacramental forgiveness from the Church first.
Thus prisoners are quite free to ask Catholic pastors council on matter of internal forum, the sacrament of penance and advice on spiritual matters.
Prisoners, in general, have the right to access the prison chaplain, whether Catholic or not, for religious literature  and reading material. The security level of a particular offender may make these situations much more complicated. The prisoner on death row has a greater difficulty in getting access to a priest than an inmate in a minimum prison institution, but that is a matter outside the hands of the Church.


What are Presbyters in Presbyterian groups supposed to be?

The word that is translated Presbyter in both places (or elder in some translations) is πρεσβύτερος or presbyteros. (Strong's G4245)

There were four types of leader in the early church:
1. apostles (ἀπόστολος or apostolos meaning delegate or messenger)
2. bishops (ἐπισκοπή or episkopē meaning overseer or guardian)
3. presbyters (πρεσβύτερος or presbyteros meaning elder)
4. deacons (διακονέω or diakoneō meaning servant or minister)

The Presbyterian church takes it's name from the presbyterian method of church governance. It's a "bottom up" approach instead of the "top-down", episcopal method favored by the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Methodist churches. It's a church governed by the presbyters instead of the bishops. It's not always clear from the Biblical texts who had which responsibilities but in the Catholic church, presbyters ended up being called priests. That carries over to the protestant denominations. The presbyter or elder, does what a priest does in Catholicism: lead worship, administer sacraments, council, teach, etc. Churches group together and then groups group together to form a presbytery which is a council of Church elders who govern the churches within their respective groups.

So, I suppose the short answer to your question is that they're both.

Presbyterian Polity


From a Catholic perspective what does it mean for all creatures to fulfill God's will whether they know and want to or not?

God is omnipotent. Nothing can hinder the fulfillment of His holy will.
St. Thomas Aquinas answers the question "Whether the will of God is always fulfilled?" (Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 6 co.) by saying:

The will of God must needs always be fulfilled. In proof of which we must consider that since an effect is conformed to the agent according to its form, the rule is the same with active causes as with formal causes. The rule in forms is this: that although a thing may fall short of any particular form, it cannot fall short of the universal form. For though a thing may fail to be, for example, a man or a living being, yet it cannot fail to be a being. Hence the same must happen in active causes. Something may fall outside the order of any particular active cause, but not outside the order of the universal cause; under which all particular causes are included: and if any particular cause fails of its effect, this is because of the hindrance of some other particular cause, which is included in the order of the universal cause. Therefore an effect cannot possibly escape the order of the universal cause. Even in corporeal things this is clearly seen. For it may happen that a star is hindered from producing its effects; yet whatever effect does result, in corporeal things, from this hindrance of a corporeal cause, must be referred through intermediate causes to the universal influence of the first heaven. Since, then, the will of God is the universal cause of all things, it is impossible that the divine will should not produce its effect. Hence that which seems to depart from the divine will in one order, returns into it in another order; as does the sinner, who by sin falls away from the divine will as much as lies in him, yet falls back into the order of that will, when by its justice he is punished.


Which doctrines are Catholics required to accept?

The degree to which Roman Catholics need to accept doctrines as required is directly related to how certain they are known to be true. There is a range of levels of certitude, from immediately revealed truths (fides divina) and the infallible teachings of the Church (fides ecclesiastica) as the most certain to things commonly believed to be true by most theologians (sententia communis) down to things tolerated by the Church but not really well founded (opinio tolerata).

To wit, there are three classes of dogma:

truths formally and explicitly revealed
truths revealed formally but not explicitly revealed
truths known through their connection to other truths, but not revealed

The first two are what generally constitutes necessary dogma: things every person needs to believe in order to be considered in communion with the Church. These are well-known and binding: things like the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the primacy of the Pope and the Apostolic succession, and so forth.

The third category is where there is some leeway in what is necessary to believe. These are open for debate amongst theologians, and include things like whether the existence of a proof for God exists, whether we can have knowledge of Heaven, etc.

The part which you quote from the pronouncements made ex cathedra is actually procedural and is meant to classify the teaching as formally revealed; the First Vatical Council laid out conditions that need to be met for a teaching to be considered made ex cathedra:

  Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

That is, the formula is:

The Holy Father speaks in his official capacity

  by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own

He speaks definitively

  we declare, pronounce, and define

Anyone who doesn't believe what was taught has left the Church

  Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church

And so to reconcile with the question and answer pair in the Keenan's Catechism, it's important to note that the pope himself is not infallible: he only has the ability to speak infallibly, and only when he speaks ex cathedra. This doesn't happen all the time: it's a very rare occurrence used only in very specific situations (to date, only about the Marian dogmas mentioned in my answer).

Instead, most of the dogma Roman Catholics believe comes directly from the Magisterial teachings of the Church. The pope can speak about those infallible teachings, but he speaks about them in a fallible manner (i.e. he can misunderstand or misinterpret them, as he's only human).

As for lists of necessary dogmata, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the formal collection of what the Church believes. Peter Turner in his answer to the question about the list of teachings considered infallible mentioned another great resource, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which summarizes nearly every dogmatic teaching.


As Daniel pointed out in a comment, the Book of Mormon speaks to this question on the first page:

  And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

This is important to note, as people do make mistakes, and have made some significant ones with the Book of Mormon.  For example, in the original printing, the word "robber" was misprinted as "nobler" as well as a handful of other typographical errors, most likely due to Oliver Cowdery's handwriting being difficult for the typesetter to read.  (See "Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon" for an in-depth look at the subject.)

There also exists in the text itself a rather amusing error:

Alma 24: 19:

  ... and thus we see that they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace.

The work of writing on metal plates would not easily lend itself to erasing errors; you can just imagine Mormon cringing here as he realizes what he just wrote, and then hastily adding a bit of corrective text!

As for significant doctrinal issues, not really.  The Golden Plates may not be easily accessible today, but the original English manuscript is, and it's considered doctrinally authoritative, if not necessarily textually authoritative, given that the English language was not yet standardized at the time it was written, and it was transcribed with less concern for grammar than one might hope for today.  Because an original, authoritative manuscript exists to check against, the types of confusions and disagreements often seen in Biblical scholarship regarding the authenticity of various passages simply doesn't exist in Book of Mormon scholarship.


What Scriptures are used to justify the belief that Christians of Denominations other than a specific one will be rejected by God?

The first scripture that occurs to me in this connection is Galatians 1:8, where St. Paul writes: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."


The Reformed and Lutheran theologians of the late 16th and 17th centuries are often termed "Protestant Scholastics."

Why?

Because they took over the methodology of the Medieval Scholastics and produced vast systematic theologies. Concordia Publishing House is currently publishing one example of this, Johann Gerhard's 16 volume systematic theology.

The Protestant Reformation didn't think the earlier western Catholic tradition got everything wrong: just the doctrine of justification, sacraments, and Church. Everything else was pretty good. Hence, the second generation of Protestant theologians wrote theologies not only to defend the Reformers' doctrinal proposals, but also to integrate the insights of the Reformers with the larger doctrinal and methodological concerns of the western Catholic tradition.


Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:16 that "even though we once knew Christ by means of the flesh [ kata sarka], we know him thus no longer

The question seems to be finding something that simply isn't there.

Consider other translations of this verse, e.g. CSB:

  From now on, then, we do not know anyone from a worldly perspective.
  Even if we have known Christ from a worldly perspective, yet now we no longer know him in this way.

It's talking about how we should relate to other people, at a spiritual rather than physical level.

There's not the slightest insinuation that any of Jesus's teachings are no longer relevant.


Is it ok to pray different prayers in conjunction to one another?

Insofar as the Catholic Church is concerned on this matter: there is no problem with praying different prayers in conjunction to one another.  I personally know many religious (Benedictine monks mainly) who do this very style of prayer daily.

Do not have any reservations about this style of prayer. Go ahead and pray the way the Lord inspires you...


What is the Difference Between ROCOR-MP and ROCOR-A (ROCA)

Prior to the Russian Revolution there were two branches of Orthodoxy in Russia that I am aware of.  The first and largest was the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) under the Moscow Patriarch (MP).  The second was a schismatic group called Old Believers (OB) that split away from the MP due to differences over Liturgical forms.  They are not relevant to the current discussion.

Until 1589, the Orthodox Church in Russia was governed by the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople.  In 1589, Russia was granted autonomy under its first Patriarch, Job.  Tsar Peter the Great forced the ROC to abolish the office of Patriarch in 1721 as part of his overall political reforms.  From that time until the time of the Russian Revolution, the ROC was governed by a Synod appointed by the Tsar that included both clergy and lay men (the "Most Holy Governing Synod").

One of the ironies of the Bolshevik Revolution was that it planted the seed for preservation of the Orthodox Church through Communism by ending all government involvement in the Orthodox Church.  As a result, the ROC was able to reinstate the office of Patriarch in 1917, the office having been vacant for 196 years.

By 1922, however, the Bolsheviks had begun to seriously persecute and infiltrate the ROC.  At that time there were very large number of Russian Orthodox clergy throughout the world, especially in Palestine and Serbia.  Believing the MP to be under undue interference from the Soviet Government, a number of hierarchs in Serbia established on their own a Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA).  At some point the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad or Russian Church Abroad (ROCA) started to be called the "Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia" (ROCOR).

The situation with Russian Orthodox in America, as in other countries with diaspora, was complex.  For some time, individual parishes under ROCOR coexisted with parishes that remained under the MP, known as the "Metropolia".  ROCOR and the Metropolia had a tenuous communion in the United States.

In 1970, the MP granted the Metropolia "autocephaly" in the United States, thus establishing what is today known as the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).  The validity of this autocephaly was contested by ROCOR and other jurisdictions within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

By 2001, ROCOR's concerns about government influence over the MP began to subside. In 2006, ROCUR returned to the MP, leaving the canonical status of the OCA in doubt.

Since 2010, an Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States has been working to resolve, among other things, the division between the MP and the OCA.  It should be noted, however, that the individual jurisdictions are in communion with each other, despite the disputes over administration..


How does John Polkinghorne define the soul?

Introduction
Polkinghorne briefly states his conception of the soul in the introduction to The God of Hope and the End of the World:

The soul ... is conceived of as the information-bearing pattern carried by the matter of the body, a revival in modern dress of the Aristotelian-Thomistic idea of the soul as the form of the body. It is claimed to be a coherent hope that God will hold that pattern in the divine memory following its dissolution at death, and then finally restore a person's full humanity through the re-embodiment of the soul in the final great act of resurrection.

Before we can understand this fully, we'll need to understand his philosophical outlook on the relationship between matter and spirit (which he terms "dual aspect monism") and what he means when he refers to an "information-bearing pattern."
One more note: Polkinghorne does not address whether or not this definition is unique to humanity, but it's worthwhile to note that Thomas Aquinas, to whom he acknowledges his indebtedness, believed that there were three kinds of souls: plant, animal, and human. Polkinghorne only seems to have humanity in view in his discussions of the soul, but he probably wouldn't rule out other beings having souls in a Thomistic sense.
Dual aspect monism
Philosophies of mind are broadly broken down into monism and dualism. Some are hard to classify as one or the other, including Polkinghorne's preferred theory, which is called "dual aspect monism" or "double-aspect theory". In an interview, he offers this description:

"Dual aspect monism" is an attempt to wrestle with the persistent unsolved problem of how mind and matter relate to each other. It differs from classical dualism, which maintains that there are two sorts of substance: mind and matter. Its problem was how they relate to each other. I'm sure that we're not simply matter, and I'm sure that reality is more than just ideas. None of the classical solutions seem to correspond to our experience. Dual aspect monism tries to take seriously both our mental experience and our material experience. It says that they're related to each other in a very deep and complementary way, that there is only one stuff in the world. Dual aspect monism seeks to avoid devaluing or subordinating one side or the other. Sometimes it might seem a little like a subtle form of materialism, but I don't think it is, because it doesn't treat the mental as being just an epiphenomenon of the material.

He gives the subject a much more in-depth treatment in his book Faith, Science and Understanding, pages 95-98. First he describes in what way classical monistic and dualistic conceptions have proved inadequate:

The classical metaphysical strategies of materialism, idealism and Cartesian dualism all exhibit a bankruptcy in the face of the many-layered, and yet interconnected, character of our encounter with reality. This recognition encourages the search for some form of dual aspect monism, an account that would acknowledge the fundamental distinction between experience of the material and experience of the mental but which would neither impose on reality a sharp division into two unconnected kinds of substance nor deny the psychosomatic unity of human beings. Stating this metaphysical aspiration is one thing; its attainment, even in a sketchy and conjectural form, is quite another. ...
Just as relativity theory has integrated matter and energy into a single account, so one might hope for an eventual discovery (at least as revolutionary as relativity, and most probably much more so) that would integrate the triad: matter-energy-information. That achievement would be a significant step in the search for a dual aspect monism. ...
It would, however, be no more than a first move in a direction whose ultimate goal was still over the horizon. A much more important step would have been made if it were ever possible to attain an understanding in which consciousness was taken into an integrated account. Despite many over-confident reductionist claims to the contrary, consciousness is presently both an undeniable experience and also an irreducible mystery.

With that established, he moves on to describe his own conception of dual aspect monism and what it entails:

If a dual aspect monism is on the right track, then there will be entities, such as stones, whose nature is located wholly at the material pole, and other entities, such as ourselves who are 'amphibians', participating in both kinds of polar experience. It would seem entirely reasonable to suppose that there are also entities whose nature is located wholly at the mental pole. (This could provide a metaphysical lodging place for created non-embodied spiritual beings, such as angels, if such there are.) There is another candidate for this end of the metaphysical spectrum, less controversial than angels, namely, the truths of mathematics. There is a widespread conviction among mathematicians (which I share) that the pursuit of their subject involves discovery and not mere construction. Mathematical entities, such as the prime numbers and the Mandelbrot set, are 'out there' in some platonic world of mathematical ideas. Not only can a dual aspect monism accommodate such a belief but also this conviction of the mathematicians would point to an interesting aspect of such a metaphysics.
The material world is a world of process, characterised by temporality and becoming. ... A noetic world containing the truths of mathematics would have a different character. It would be everlasting, in the sense that such truths just are and do not evolve. ... It follows then that, if these two worlds, material and noetic, are but complementary aspects of a larger created reality, then the duality involved in that wider picture is more than just that of material/mental; it must also embrace becoming/being and everlasting/temporal. Once again, humanity is the 'great amphibian', participating in both poles of this complex reality.

Information-bearing patterns
On pages 18-19 of The God of Hope and the End of the World, Polkinghorne attempts to illustrate the need for science to account for an idea of "information as a complement to energy in the description of the process of the world." To that end, he describes an experiment done by Stuart Kauffman originally described in chapter 4 of Kauffman's At Home in the Universe. Here is Polkinghorne's summary:

A physical realisation of his computer model would consist of a large array of light bulbs, each of which has its behaviour of being on or off correlated with the behaviours of two other bulbs somewhere in the array. If they are both on, it is more likely to be on also at the next step of the system's development. If the system is started off in some random configuration, with some bulbs on and some bulbs off, and then allowed to develop according to these rules, instead of just flickering away haphazardly for ever, the system soon settles down to cycling through a very limited number of particular on/off patterns. This unexpected behaviour represents the generation of an astonishing degree of overall orderliness. If there are 10,000 light bulbs in the array, there are about 103000 possible configurations that might in principle occur. In practice, however, the system cycles through only about 100!
This remarkable generation of order out of chaos strongly suggests that if the behaviour of complex systems is to be described and understood adequately, this task will call not only for the conventional 'bits and pieces' account in terms of the interactions of constituents but also for a complementary holistic account in terms of the overall pattern of the whole. In scientific terms, one can say that the conventional picture of energetic exchanges between particles will need to be supplemented by a description of the whole, framed in terms of the effects of information generation (that is to say, the specification of complex pattern).
We see here the prospect of the revival of an antique notion, reclothed in modern dress. Aristotle had spoken of both matter (hyle) and form (eidos). We are just beginning to learn how to speak, in a parallel way, about energy and information. Just as Thomas Aquinas used the revived Aristotelian science of his day as an aid to his theological thinking, so we, in our time, may find theological value in making use of the analogical resource that these scientific developments offer us. In pursuit of our present eschatological task, we shall see later that this method may be of particular relevance to how we may understand the nature of the human soul.

Definition of soul
We should now be ready to understand Polkinghorne's definition of the soul, which he gives on pages 105-106 of The God of Hope and the End of the World and pages 61-62 of Science and Theology. Quoting first briefly from the former work:

The soul must be the 'real me' that links the boy of childhood to the ageing academic of later life. If that carrier of continuity is not a separate spiritual component, what else could it be? It is certainly not merely material. ... What does appear to be the carrier of continuity is the immensely complex 'information-bearing pattern' in which that matter is organized. This pattern is not static; it is modified as we acquire new experiences, insights and memories, in accordance with the dynamic of our living history. It is this information-bearing pattern that is the soul.

Now quoting from the latter for a more complete definition:

A primary human concept is that of the continuing self, linking golden-haired youth to snowy old age. (At least, that is so in traditional Western thinking; Eastern thought has more frequently considered the individual self to be an illusion from which release is to be sought. In this book we shall take the Western view.) One of the attractions of dualist thought is that it assigns to each human person a spiritual component, a soul, which acts as the carrier of the self, defining a unique human identity in this life and beyond it. Yet the tenor of the foregoing argument has been to reject dualism and to treat human beings as psychosomatic unities, 'animated bodies rather than incarnated souls', in a famous phrase. This was the way in which the ancient Hebrews seem to have conceived of humanity and a psychosomatic account of human nature is the dominant, but not exclusive, way of thinking to be found in the Bible. One of the few matters relating to humanity on which there is a substantial degree of contemporary agreement is that men and women are to be treated as unities and not as spiritual beings housed in fleshly bodies.
This does not imply eschewing all talk of the soul - that would be a grave difficulty for much of theology - but a redefinition of what the soul might mean. In essence, it must be 'the real me'. It is clear that this is not simply the material that happens to compose my body at some particular time. The atoms in each of us are continually being changed by eating and drinking, wear and tear. They cannot be the source of our experience of a continuing self but, rather, we may suppose that the self is composed of the immensely complex 'pattern' in which that matter is organized. It is beyond present human power to explicate exactly what are the characteristics of this pattern, what changes (as new memories are acquired, for instance) and what remains the same (defining the continuing life of a specific person). The rejection of a computer model of brain/mind implies that it would be totally inadequate to think of the soul as the superprogramme running on the hardware of the body, but that impoverished analogy would at least point in helpful direction, however much it might require augmentation in order to correspond to the profound complexity of human nature.
As with all attempts to describe humanity, one soon reaches the hand-waving stage of the discussion. Yet the need simultaneously to acknowledge both psychosomatic unity and also the existence of a carrier of human identity is an insight that has had a long philosophical history. Aristotle spoke of the soul as the 'form' of the body; in other words, he too thought of the soul as pattern. This way of thinking was taken up by Thomas Aquinas, who rejected the Platonic dualism that had dominated Western Christian thinking since Augustine.


What is the biblical basis for the immortality of the soul?

First, we must prove that there is a soul within man which can exist outside the body, i.e. disembodied, for there are some who deny that man has a soul, but instead, they assert that he is a soul (which objection is addressed here).
In 2 Cor. 12:2-4, the apostle Paul wrote,

2 I know a man in Christ fourteen years ago (I don't know whether in the body or outside the body; God knows), such a man was caught away unto the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man (I don't know whether in the body or outside the body; God knows) that he was caught away into Paradise, and he heard unspeakable words which are not lawful for a man to utter.
2 οἶδα ἄνθρωπον ἐν Χριστῷ πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων εἴτε ἐν σώματι οὐκ οἶδα εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ 3 καὶ οἶδα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον εἴτε ἐν σώματι εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν 4 ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι

Henry Alford wrote,

The adoption of the third person is remarkable: it being evident from 2 Corinthians 12:7 that he himself is meant. It is plain that a contrast is intended between the rapt and glorified person of 2 Corinthians 12:2; 2 Corinthians 12:4,—and himself, the weak and afflicted and almost despairing subject of the σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί of 2 Corinthians 12:7 ff. Such glory belonged not to him, but the weakness did. Nay, so far was the glory from being his, that he knew not whether he was in or out of the body when it was put upon him: so that the ἐγὼ αὐτός, compounded of the νοῦς and σάρξ (Romans 7:25), clearly was not the subject of it, but as it were another form of his personality, analogous to that which we shall assume when unclothed of the body.
It may be remarked in passing, as has been done by Whitby, that the Apostle here by implication acknowledges the possibility of consciousness and receptivity in a disembodied state.

It's evident from that passage that man can have existence outside the body (ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος), and if not as a sentient soul, then what? Indeed, it was as a soul, or if you wish, a spirit (for the two are sometimes treated as synonymous), that Lazarus, the rich man, and Abraham (who had died long before) were all in Hades, sensible and sentient (Luke 16:19-31).
Having thus proved that the personality can exist as a soul outside the body (disembodied), sensible and sentient, we must now prove that the soul is immortal.
Justin Martyr summarizes this in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (Ch. VI):

For the truth is so; and you would perceive it from this. The soul assuredly is or has life. If, then, it is life, it would cause something else, and not itself, to live, even as motion would move something else than itself. Now, that the soul lives, no one would deny. But if it lives, it lives not as being life, but as the partaker of life; but that which partakes of anything, is different from that of which it does partake. Now the soul partakes of life, since God wills it to live. Thus, then, it will not even partake [of life] when God does not will it to live. For to live is not its attribute, as it is God's; but as a man does not live always, and the soul is not for ever conjoined with the body, since, whenever this harmony must be broken up, the soul leaves the body, and the man exists no longer; even so, whenever the soul must cease to exist, the spirit of life is removed from it, and there is no more soul, but it goes back to the place from whence it was taken.' (Roberts-Donaldson)
τὸ γὰρ ἀληθὲς οὕτως ἔχει· μάθοις δ' ἂν ἐντεῦθεν. ἡ ψυχὴ ἤτοι ζωή ἐστιν ἢ ζωὴν ἔχει. εἰ μὲν οὖν ζωή ἐστιν, ἄλλο τι ἂν ποιήσειε ζῆν, οὐχ ἑαυτήν, ὡς καὶ κίνησις ἄλλο τι κινήσειε μᾶλλον ἢ ἑαυτήν. ὅτι δὲ ζῇ ψυχή, οὐδεὶς ἀντείποι. εἰ δὲ ζῇ, οὐ ζωὴ οὖσα ζῇ, ἀλλὰ μεταλαμβάνουσα τῆς ζωῆς· ἕτερον δέ τι τὸ μετέχον τινὸς ἐκείνου οὗ μετέχει. ζωῆς δὲ ψυχὴ μετέχει, ἐπεὶ ζῆν αὐτὴν ὁ θεὸς βούλεται. οὕτως ἄρα καὶ οὐ μεθέξει ποτέ, ὅταν αὐτὴν μὴ θέλοι ζῆν. οὐ γὰρ ἴδιον αὐτῆς ἐστι τὸ ζῆν ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ· ἀλλὰ ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος οὐ διὰ παντός ἐστιν οὐδὲ σύνεστιν ἀεὶ τῇ ψυχῇ τὸ σῶμα, ἀλλ', ὅταν δέῃ λυθῆναι τὴν ἁρμονίαν ταύτην, καταλείπει ἡ ψυχὴ τὸ σῶμα καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστιν, οὕτως καί, ὅταν δέῃ τὴν ψυχὴν μηκέτι εἶναι, ἀπέστη ἀπ' αὐτῆς τὸ ζωτικὸν πνεῦμα καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ψυχὴ ἔτι, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὴ ὅθεν
ἐλήφθη ἐκεῖσε χωρεῖ πάλιν. (Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca. Vol. 6)

The apostle Paul wrote that only God has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16); therefore, since all else is created by God, all else is not immortal. But, what about those of us who will one day become immortal in incorruptible, spiritual bodies, as the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15:53,

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
δεῖ γὰρ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν

Is not man to be immortal also? Evidently so; thus, we must distinguish between (1) inherent immortality and (2) granted immortality. God alone has inherent immortality, that is, "life in Himself" (John 5:26). But, He grants or gives immortality to those He wills.
For example, in John 10:28, it is written,

And I give them eternal life, and they shall certainly never perish, neither shall anyone pluck them out of my hand.
κἀγὼ ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖς καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου

There is a soul.
The soul is disembodied, sentient, and sensible upon the death of the body.
God grants (gives) immortality to the soul as He wills, but the soul is not inherently immortal.
God alone is inherently immortal ("has life in Himself").

It should be noted that immortality is also granted to the unrighteous, but for the purpose of eternal torment rather than eternal life (i.e., reward) (cp. Dan. 12:2)).

John 5:28: "All who are in the graves shall hear his voice...
John 5:29: And they shall come forth, those who have done good unto the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


In what sense is Jesus understood to be "the only begotten son of God" in LDS teaching?

I had to go do a little looking around to see how the phrase "Only Begotten Son" as it appears in the Bible is interpreted in other denominations. It appears that there is some disagreement.

Within LDS theology, here is how the term is used in the Book of Mormon and also in the Doctrine and Covenants. Usage of the term "Only Begotten Son" is pretty consistent across all these references.

Simply enough, Latter-day Saints understand "Only Begotten Son" to mean that Christ is the only literal, physical Son of God. He is divine and set apart in that very symbolic and important way.

The LDS Bible Dictionary makes an interesting point about the use of the term "Son of God" that makes reference to being The Only Begotten (emphasis my own):

  It does not appear from the Gospels that our Lord frequently applied this title to Himself (but see Matt. 27:43; Luke 22:70; John 5:25; 9:35–37; 10:36; 11:4), though we often find it used by others in speaking to Him (Matt. 14:33; 16:16; Luke 4:41; John 1:49; 11:27); and of Him (Mark 1:1; John 3:18; 20:31). But there is ample proof that He claimed to be the Son of God in a sense that was true of Him and of no one else (see Matt. 11:27 [Luke 10:22]; Mark 13:32). He speaks of Himself as Son of God, and of others as sons of God, but there is not a single passage in which the sonship of others is spoken of as being the same thing as His own. So too He speaks of “my Father” and “your Father,” but never of “our Father.” (The Lord’s Prayer is no exception, as it was intended for the disciples’ use.) There is a consistency in scripture, ancient and modern, that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God the Father, being the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. See Jacob 4:5; D&C 20:21; Moses 6:52, 54, 57.


Why would orthodox Christians consider Christian Science unorthodox if it essentially a mix of Augustine and healing?

This quote from catholic.com sums up why a Catholic group considers it unorthodox pretty well:

  Christian Science purports to be a Christian organization. It borrows
  heavily from the Christian vocabulary but denies all the fundamental
  Christian dogmas. It rejects the belief in a personal God, the
  Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin and the devil,
  the Resurrection, and heaven and hell.

In short, Christian Science denies the fundamentals of the faith. This is how heresy is defined. It has nothing to do with having ideas similar to other Christian writers.

Mary Baker Eddy (Catholic Answers)

Want more details? Mary Baker Eddy's full teachings are found in her book, now online, Science and Health, with Keys to the Scriptures. Here are several extracts with links. As you can see, Mary uses the same terms as the Bible does, but reinterprets them.

25:3-9 tells us that Christ's blood did not cleanse us from sin on the cross:

  The efficacy of Jesus’ spiritual offering is infinitely greater than
  True flesh and bloodcan be expressed by our sense of human blood. The
  material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin
  when it was shed upon “the accursed tree,” than when it was flowing in
  his veins as he went daily about his Father’s business.

from http://www.christianscience.com/the-christian-science-pastor/science-and-health/chapter-ii-atonement-and-eucharist?citation=SH%2025:3-25:12

361:1-3 tells us that Christ is not really God Himself, but only an idea of God:

  The Jew believes that the Messiah or Christ has not yet come; the
  Christian believes that Christ is God. Here Christian Science
  intervenes, explains these doctrinal points, cancels the disagreement,
  and settles the question. Christ, as the true spiritual idea, is the
  ideal of God now and forever, here and everywhere.

from http://www.christianscience.com/the-christian-science-pastor/science-and-health/chapter-xi-some-objections-answered

335:24-30 Tells us that sin and sickness are not real:

  XX. Mind is the divine Principle, Love, and can produce nothing unlike
  the eternal Father-Mother, God. The one divine Mind Reality is
  spiritual, harmonious, immutable, immortal, divine, eternal. Nothing
  unspiritual can be real, harmonious, or eternal. Sin, sickness, and
  mortality are the suppositional antipodes of Spirit, and must be
  contradictions of reality.

from http://www.christianscience.com/the-christian-science-pastor/science-and-health/chapter-x-science-of-being

30:3-12 tells us that Jesus and the Christ were separate entities. Also, He was a way-shower, and not the way Himself:

  Born of a woman, Jesus’ advent in the flesh partook partly of Mary’s
  earthly condition, although he was endowed with the Christ, the divine
  Spirit, without measure. This accounts for his struggles in Gethsemane
  and on Calvary, and this enabled him to be the mediator, or
  way-shower, between God and men. Had his origin and birth been wholly
  apart from mortal usage, Jesus would not have been appreciable to
  mortal mind as “the way.”

from http://www.christianscience.com/the-christian-science-pastor/science-and-health/chapter-ii-atonement-and-eucharist?citation=SH%2030:5-30:13


How much can holy water be diluted?

The short answer is 49%.

The rubrics for Baptismal Water are the same as those pertaining to Holy Water in this circumstance.

  CHAPTER I: RULES FOR ADMINISTERING BAPTISM

  If the baptismal water has so diminished that it is foreseen it will not suffice, unblessed water may be added even repeatedly, but in lesser quantity than the blessed each time this is done. If it becomes contaminated or has leaked out or in any way is deficient, the pastor will see to it that the font is thoroughly cleansed and replenished with fresh water, and proceed to bless it according to the form given below. - Holy Baptism - General Rules

Although these rules are from the 1962 rubrics, they still show that ordinary water may be mixed with holy water and retain its blessing. In other words, it is important to realize that to maintain its sacramental blessing in force, the water added to the original volume is not to exceed 49%. The water added to the holy water must be less than the original volume. Any more than that the holy water looses its sacramental qualities and is to be considered ordinary water.

When adding water a second time to the previous amount of holy water, the water added to that must also be 49% or less of that volume. It should be noted that this is rarely done and that safeguards are generally in place to make sure this does not happen. This should be avoided if at all possible.

This is exact what I was taught in the seminary.

If one desires a large amount of holy water, it would be okay to ask a priest to bless some water in a separate container for personal use at home or elsewhere. I have done this with oil on several occasions.

The 49 %/51% phrase is quite in line with the Church's traditional way of dealing with less than half: 51% Beeswax for example.

  It is safe to conclude that the Pascal Candle and the candles used at Mass must have at least two thirds wax in their composition, 67% would be the minimum. About the other candles, the Sacred Congregation of Rites prescribes that a greater (51 %) or notable part of the candles must be [bees]wax. - The Wax Candle in the Liturgy


What are the classics/giants of Biblical Theology?

This may seem rude but as Biblical Theology as a label is a recent invention and those who willfully take that label are unknown compared to the greats of Christian history, there are none.

There are just a few people within limited circles that feel Biblical Theology is the new way to better explain theology. They include such names as Geerhardus Vos who in some ways is the father of Biblical Theology. Graeme Goldsworthy who is possibly the modern spokesperson of the philosophy. Other names I have seen but have never read are Herman Ridderbos, Meredith and Vaughan Roberts.

From what I can tell this view is more popular among evangelical anglicans and specifically and proactively supported by Moore College, an evangelical anglican college in Australia.

Having said this I think Moore college is pretty good, compared to most. Also there is a lot about the term that carries very good and refined theological ideas. Its only weakness (in my view) is how it tries to argue that we should not really use the word 'new' in the New Testament and that the Laws of Moses were 'gracious'.  That said the good aspects of showing the 'gradual development and progressive and harmonious revelation' of Gods word are possibly better understood by reading Jonathan Edwards History of Redemption, or Alfred Edersheim's
The Bible History, Old Testament, both which show the natural progression of revelation with anointed skill. Although they predate the philosophy of Biblical Theology, to put this philosophy under the best possible terms we could say they are the unrecognized 'greats' of what Biblical theology claims as its modern and  noble aims.