The mercy seat is an incredibly dense and intertextual image, with a long history in Christian culture. Below is an illustration by Michiel van der Borch from a 1332 copy of the "Rhyme Bible" (which despite the name, does not rhyme and is not a Bible), showing many facets of the concept. 1

Here, God the Father sits on a throne that might look a bit like the Ark of the Covenant; he is holding the crucified Christ in his lap, and the Holy Spirit is also present as a dove. This is actually a fairly common artistic motif for showing the Trinity, often called the "Gnadenstuhl" image (German for "grace stool" or "mercy stool"). Anyone who thinks "oh, now that makes total sense" can stop reading now. For everyone else...
Biblically, the original element is the Ark of the Covenant. From descriptions in the Torah2, we learn that the Ark has a golden lid called the kapporeth (כַּפֹּ֫רֶת). The lid therefore covers the tablets of the Law, kept inside the Ark. It also has two angelic figures mounted upon it, who stretch out their wings above the Ark: this space between the wings was particularly associated with the presence of God, and seen as a sort of earthly shadow of God's heavenly throne (see e.g. 1 Samuel 4:4).
Of course, the whole Ark was meant to be kept in a place of sanctity, the summit of the system of ritual purity. Ultimately, only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies in order to offer a sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur - he would sprinkle the blood of a bull on the kapporeth, as the climax of all ceremonies and observances directed towards the seeking of atonement. The similarity between the words "Kippur" and "kapporeth" is no accident: the concept of "covering" is etymologically and philosophically linked to the idea of having sins "made better". In the Greek Septuagint, the word used is hilasterion (ἱλαστήριον), which more directly means something like "propitiation", "atonement", or "expiation", and appears again in the New Testament. (See: "How should ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) be translated in Romans 3:25?" on BH.SE.)
A very direct connection is made by the author of Hebrews in chapter 9. Verse 5 repeats the idea of the hilasterion. But now Christ is come to be both High Priest and sacrifice.

But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.
Nor was it to offer himself again and again, as the high priest enters the Holy Place year after year with blood that is not his own; for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself. (verses 11-12 and 25-26, NRSV)

The mercy seat, which was the sign of God's presence and the place of atonement, is now identified with the ultimate act of atonement performed by Christ, in his own person. If we look back at the illustration above, we can now understand Christ being received as a sacrifice on the throne/altar/Ark. He has replaced the old system of purity under the Law, and is being crucified symbolically "above" the Law.
Moreover, God's presence in the world is now the body of Christ himself - "God with us", the Word made flesh - and for that reason the mercy seat is also sometimes associated with the Eucharist. As Peter Turner points out in a comment above, the Ark may stand for Mary, which is another link to the reality of God's presence due to his Incarnation.
Because the Ark is a sort of earthly throne for God, mirroring the heavenly throne, there is some cross-pollination with other Biblical throne imagery. In Hebrews 4:14-16 is the famous language of the "throne of grace", associated with Christ as High Priest. There is also the throne of Revelation 4. The song lyrics you refer to in the question are clearly drawing partly from this chapter (throne, rainbow, lightning, "Holy, Holy, Holy") as well as the following one. The mercy seat reference is:

Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
Holy, Holy, is He;
Sing a new song to him who sits on
Heaven's mercy seat.

This comes from Revelation 5, where Christ is presented as the slain Lamb:

They sing a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they will reign on earth." [...] "To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" (verses 9-10 and 13, NRSV)

So the one who is sitting on the mercy seat, or throne of Heaven, is God (the Father). The slain Lamb, who is God (the Son), is the offering in his own person - this may also be seen as on the mercy seat, and as well, he is "at the right hand of the Father". But in a way, Jesus also is the mercy seat, as in this sixteenth-century exhortation:

Brethren, we haue Iesus Christ the righteous and aduocate with the Father, he is the mercie seate of our sinnes.3

This makes sense if we read the image, in a more general way, as something like "the locus of God's sacrificing presence".
1. Museum Meermanno (Den Haag), MS 10B21, folio 118r. Scanned copy here. The Rijmbijbel was written in 1271 by the Flemish poet Jacob von Maerlant, based on the twelfth-century Historia scholastica Biblical paraphrase of Petrus Comestor.
2. Exodus 25:18-22, 26:34, 30:6, 31:7, 35:12, 37:6-9, 39:35, 40:20; Leviticus 16:2-15; Numbers 7:89.
3. Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, under "Mercy-seat" sense 2a. John Marbeck, A book of notes and common places with their expositions, 1581, p18.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that life begins at conception?

I'll reference the previous (nearly identical) question's answers:

Exodus 21:22-25

  "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Psalm 139:5

  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.

If man chooses to define when life begins at any point later than conception, then it is logically viable to choose to define life "beginning" at any arbitrary age. For example, if the definition is "viability", then it is reasonably arguable that someone is not "viable" until they are old enough to provide for themselves - therefore, a 6 year old is not "viable" since it would die on its own.

By accepting conception as the moment life begins, you accept the plain, simple reading of God's word over a 'nuanced' reading as being correct. Reading nuance into the verse is not good exegesis, but is rather eisegesis - a dangerous path to be on when considering the Bible is God's word, and not man's!

If you want to look at the medical technology and knowledge of the day in which the Bible was written (and, really, until very recently), it could not be known that a woman was with child until weeks or months into the pregnancy - except by inference of potential symptoms (lack of menses, morning sickness, etc). The law issued to the Israelites regarding what would happen to a man if he struck a pregnant woman and harm came to the baby should show clarity into God's view of how important life is - and how 'early' He considers it to exist!

sidebar: at conception the new person is already a multi-celled organism - amoebae are single-celled organisms, and no one would deny they are alive


When would a Mormon choose to go to the temple instead of the church?

It's not a choice between the two as the question seems to be asking.  The temple is not actually a meetinghouse where ordinary worship services are held.  (In fact, temples are closed on Sundays.)  Latter-Day Saints regard the temple as the House of the Lord, a highly sacred place where, like the temple in the Old Testament, very special, sacred ordinances are performed.

The majority of the work that takes place in temples has to do with the LDS doctrine of salvation for the dead.  Mormons believe that those who died without the Gospel can accept it in the hereafter, as has been discussed elsewhere on this site, but also that certain saving ordinances, such as baptism and confirmation, are necessary for salvation.  This apparent dilemma is resolved by proxy work: in the temple, people can do this work on behalf of those who have passed on, consistent with Paul's mention in 1 Corinthians of baptism for the dead.  As far as I'm aware, ordinances on behalf of the dead cannot be performed anywhere but inside a temple.


Do Protestants accept the doctrine of free-will?

I don't understand the problem here.
(Disclaimer: The following is spoken from a Protestant perspective.)
We are Justified through faith alone, and faith is the free gift of God. Good works are not necessary for faith, but they are the fruit of faith.
We also have free will, which means we can choose whether or not to do good works. (Note that an "evil" person — meaning, a person without faith — might still choose to do good works for various reasons.) So, we could choose to not do good works... but if we have faith, why would we make that choice?
What James 2:20 is saying is that faith without good works is (at best) suspect. I'm not being "forced" to do good works, but through faith, I want to do good works.
Perhaps what you're really asking is if a person can reject faith/grace? If so, then I would say the answer is "yes". The doctrines of Faith Alone and Grace Alone are not, at least so far as I know (YMMV depending on just what denomination you ask) do not mean that faith and grace are "forced" on us.


Does liturgical abuse make a mass invalid?

The short answer is: It will depend on the situation.

I can feel your anguish in your present situation. However the only thing that could possibly make the Mass invalid of the abuses that you mentioned would be if the priest changed the words of the consecration at Mass. Depending on what is changed could invalidate the Mass.

  What is the Effect of the Priest Changing the Words of the Mass? Is There Anything We Can Do?

  Question:

  Our pastor does not read from the Sacramentary and does not say all the words of the Eucharistic Prayer (omitting the word “Father” and changing “mankind” to “humankind” are just two examples). He does not say all the words of the consecration. He says “Take this all of you and eat” instead of “Take this all of you and eat it”. Does this omission affect the consecration of bread into the Body of Christ?

  The Holy See’s 2004 disciplinary document, Redemptionis Sacramentum, states very emphatically:

  The reprobated practice by which priests, deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

  The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002) also says:

  Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass. [GIRM§ 24]

  The GIRM is here quoting the Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22.3:

  Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.

The essentials words of the consecration must not be altered.

  Generally, if the priest fails to say the essential words of consecration, the Mass is invalid and the Eucharist is not consecrated. - What if the priest messes up the words of consecration?

If you think that the abuses are serious enough you can complain to the local ordinary (bishop). If after that and only after you have complained to the local ordinary, you may lodge a complaint to the Apostolic Nuncio of your country. (I did tell the bishop in question I would go through the Apostolic Nuncio if necessary.) I myself have done this once and things do get done quite quickly.

  The Rights of Catholics to Complain about Abuses

  Given that the Supreme Pontiff's authority through the Church is ordinary and immediate, Redemptionis Sacramentum reminds Catholics that they have the right to appeal to the Holy See in any ecclesiastical matter. Good order and charity suggests that complaints in so far as possible be first directed to the local Bishop or to the Religious Superior as appropriate, before being referred to the Holy See. This is consistent with how Our Lord asks us to give fraternal correction (cf. Mt. 18:15-17). Certainly, when such appeals have been shown to be fruitless, direct appeal to the Holy See is justified.

  184 Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

  290 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution, Pastor bonus 52, CIC  1417 § 1

  Pastor Bonus Art. 52 — The Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] examines offences against the faith and more serious ones both in behaviour or in the celebration of the sacraments which have been reported to it and, if need be, proceeds to the declaration or imposition of canonical sanctions in accordance with the norms of common or proper law.

  Code of Canon Law 1417, 1.  In virtue of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, anyone of the faithful is free to bring to or introduce before the Holy See a case either contentious or penal in any grade of judgment and at any stage of litigation. - Liturgical Abuses


Did the Saints commit mortal sin sometimes?

It is difficult to know for certain, because most people do not make their mortal sins public. However, it is likely that many of the saints did commit mortals sins even after their “conversion” to a holy way of life.

In causes for canonization, the Church does not look for perfect people (which—except Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary—do not exist) to hold up as models, just persons who have shown virtue to a heroic degree (and, evidently, who have persevered to the end in their holiness).

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it,

  By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors (no. 828, emphasis added).

The following document shows the steps in the process for canonizing a saint: https://www.ewtn.com/johnpaul2/cause/process.asp.

As can be seen, in the documentary phase, the Postulation (the commission established by the diocese promoting the cause)

  must gather testimony about the life and virtues of the Servant of God. Also, the public and private writings must be collected and examined. This documentary phase … concludes with the judgment of a diocesan tribunal, and the ultimate decision of the bishop, that the heroic virtues of the Servant of God have or have not been demonstrated (op. cit.).

Hence, an occasional lapse—even a grave one—is not necessarily an obstacle to canonization, provided there is sincere repentance and a tendency to virtue and holiness of life.


St. Augustine's views on salvation through coercion

This is a highly controversial topic as there are many people that have a high view of Augustine. However, what He introduced in to the Church is nothing less than Gnosticism. The more I read the ante-Nicean (prior to the council) church writings, the more I see our view of scripture is not nearly as literal as there's was.

Augustine spent years as a disciple of Manichean Gnosticism. This group denied man's free will, man's ability to cease sinning, and that God has pre-determined some for hell and some for Heaven. When Pelagius debated Augustine, Pelagius largely quoted what Augustine believed before he became a disciple of Mani.

Here are a couple of quotes from Church leaders before Augustine;

  I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of
  his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did
  not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law.
  Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a
  contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his
  will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience of resistance. (c.
  207, Vol. 3, pp. 300-301) (Tertullian)

  And again, who are they that have been saved, and received the
  inheritance? Those doubtless who do believe in God and who have
  continued in His love… and innocent children, who have had no sense of
  evil. (Irenaeus)

  There is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts],
  but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to
  the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from
  death, and make choice of life. (Ignatius)

  We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice (c. 195, Vol. 2, p.
  217) (Clement of Alexandria)

  Thus although we are born neither good nor bad, we become on or the
  other and having formed habits, we are with difficulty drawn from
  them. Pg 273 vol.8 (Clement)

  Certain ones of those [Gnostic’s] who hold different opinions misuse
  these passages. They essentially destroy free will by introducing
  ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as
  being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost. (Origen)

This is a common theme in their writings - and all of these opinions of were formed through a plain literal reading of what scripture plainly says.

  Only this have I found: I have discovered that God made men upright,
  but they have sought out many schemes. - Ecclesiastes 7:29

  And the little ones, whom you said would become captives— your
  children who do not know good from evil, will enter the land I give
  them and possess it. - Deuteronomy 1:39

  But if it is unpleasing in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for
  yourselves this day whom you will serve - Joshua 24:15a

  “Why are you angry,” said the LORD to Cain, “and why is your face
  downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if
  you refuse to do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; you are
  its object of desire, but you must master it.” - Genesis 4:6-7

The use of force was precipitated because He denied mankind's God given free will. He denied our ability to choose, and put upon mankind a "ruined nature" that had to be baptized out with a sprinkling as a baby.

As some additional resources I highly recommend checking out the scroll publishing channel on YouTube, that has the majority of their audio CD's. I also recommend using the Early Christian Dictionary and comparing it to scripture and what is taught today.

Let God be true, and every man be a liar.


What does John Wesley mean by this phrase?

The Latin phrase translates as “Athanasius against the world.”  Athanasius was a Christian theologian, a Church Father, and the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism.  He battled against the Arian heresy prevalent in the fourth century and his persistence resulted in the defeat of his detractors.  Here is a brief overview:

In 325, at the age of 27, Athanasius began his leading role against the Arians as a deacon and assistant to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria during the First Council of Nicaea. Roman emperor Constantine the Great had convened the council in May–August 325 to address the Arian position that the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, is of a distinct substance from the Father. Three years after that council, Athanasius succeeded his mentor as archbishop of Alexandria. In addition to the conflict with the Arians (including powerful and influential Arian churchmen led by Eusebius of Nicomedia), he struggled against the Emperors Constantine, Constantius II, Julian the Apostate and Valens. He was known as Athanasius Contra Mundum (Latin for Athanasius Against the World).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

Background Information on John Wesley and the Methodists: Under the direction of John Wesley, Methodists became leaders in many areas of social justice, including prison reform and the abolition of the Slave Trade.  John Wesley’s letter to William Wilberforce was written six days before his death.  From 1739 onwards, Wesley and the Methodists were persecuted by clergymen and magistrates. They were attacked in sermons and in print and at times attacked by mobs because of their stand against slavery.

In 1788, when the abolition campaign was at its height, he preached a sermon in Bristol, one of the foremost slave trading ports. In those days, an anti-slavery sermon could not be preached without considerable personal risk to the preacher and a disturbance broke out.

He maintained an interest in the abolition movement until he died. Wesley also famously said:

"Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is, to every child of man, to every partaker of human nature. Let none serve you but by his own act and deed, by his own voluntary action. Away with all whips, all chains, all compulsion. Be gentle toward all men; and see that you invariably do with every one as you would he should do unto you."  http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_32.html

Background Information on William Wilberforce:  William Wilberforce made many enemies during his campaign to have slavery abolished.  In 1807 he published a 350-page book, ‘Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade’, part of which said this:

That the Almighty Creator of the universe governs the world which he has made; that the sufferings of nations are to be regarded as the punishment of national crimes; and their decline and fall, as the execution of this sentence; are truths which I trust are still generally believed among us … If these truths be admitted, and if it be also true, that fraud, oppression and cruelty, are crimes of the blackest dye, and that guilt is aggravated in proportion as the criminal acts in defiance of clearer light, and of stronger motives to virtue… have we not abundant cause for serious apprehension?… If… the Slave Trade be a national crime… to which we cling in defiance of the clearest light, not only in opposition to our own acknowledgements of its guilt, but even of our own declared resolutions to abandon it, is not this, then a time at which all who are not perfectly sure that the Providence of God is but a fable, should be strenuous in their endeavours to lighten the vessel of the state, of such a load of guilt and infamy?  (Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade, 1807, pp. 4–6)  Source: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/history-art/wilberforce/content-section-5.1

Here is an extract from a link that includes John Wesley’s letter to William Wilberforce:

WRITTEN FEBRUARY 24, 1791 at age 88 from Balam, England, six days before his death, this last letter of Wesley’s was addressed to William Wilberforce. Wesley had spoken out forcibly against slavery, repeatedly referring to the slave trade as the “execrable sum of all villainies”. In 1774 he wrote the influential Thoughts Upon Slavery.  Wilberforce, a Member of Parliament, was active at the time in an unsuccessful attempt to pass abolition. Debate continued for several years and in 1807 the abolition of slavery was effected throughout the British Empire.

The text of the letter is given below and can be used to follow the aged, faltering hand of the still hearty Wesley. The “tract” to which Wesley refers was written by a former slave, Gustavus Vassa, who was born in 1745 in Africa, kidnapped and sold for a slave in Barbados. In 1757 he was sent to England and, according to church records, was soon converted to Christianity.  https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/wesley-to-wilberforce/

Context of “Athanasius contra Mundum” with regard to the anti-slavery crusade:  John Wesley knew, from first-hand experience, that the battle against slavery had made him many enemies.  He also knew that William Wilberforce was fighting against powerful politicians and merchants, many of whom had a vested financial interest in maintaining the slave trade.  That is why Wesley made reference to Athanasius, that fourth century theologian who waged war against the religious establishment in order to root out heresy.  He was acknowledging that Wilberforce was up against the entire establishment, both political and commercial, and that, like Athanasius, he would be fighting against the world in his endeavour to bring slavery to an end.
His prayer for Wilberforce was that God, who had guided him from his youth, would continue to strengthen him in this mighty battle.  Wesley’s prayer for Wilberforce was answered.


What is the scriptural basis for "Love God and do whatever you please"?

Firstly, what is "to love God"?
When you love God, probably you won't do things, which can harm him.
To love God really is so big love, that maybe is better to give you another example also.

When you love your kids, you'll try to please them, help them, protect them and so on. Some laws to protect children in your country are totally unnecessary. You need no laws. Because you're trying best as you can. You won't cause bodily injury, you won't let them without food. On the contrary, when your kids are for you just molecules stack, no laws in your country help. You will harm them and they will go to the foster family very soon.

Another example, when you love you wife (or husband if you're woman), you won't rob her, maltreat her, abase her and so on. You'll give her everything you have, without some knowledge about quote:

  Love your neighbor as yourself.

These laws become natural for you, without some knowledge about them. Because you can't know everything what Jesus and all the saints said, probably is better just love your God and love your neighbor best as you can, and each law will become natural for you.


What is meant by "faith and morals" with regards to papal infallibility?

The First Vatican Council's Pastor Æternus said, under Pope Pius IX's authority, regarding papal infallibility:

  …we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the
  Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in
  discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by
  virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
  regarding faith or morals [de fide vel moribus] to be held by the universal Church, by the
  divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of
  that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his
  Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or
  morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
  irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

De fide

There are three levels of de fide ("of the faith") truths:

  Theological note: Dogma.
  Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.
  Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.
  Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.
  Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
  Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
  Remarks: A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.
  Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
  Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
  Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
  Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
  Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
  Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.
  Remarks: It is a dogma that the Church's infallibility extends to truths in this sphere, so one who denies them denies implicitly a dogma or Divine faith.
  Theological Note: Truth of Divine faith.
  Equivalent term: De fide divina.
  Explanation: A truth revealed by God but not certainly proposed as such by the Church.
  Example: Christ claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messias.
  Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in faith).
  Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership. May incur a canonical penalty.

source: Sixtus Cartechini, S.J.'s 1951 work De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (On the Value of the Theological Notes), which confessors have used when dealing with erudite penitents. (It's also available in Italian translation.) The theological notes are a way of classifying the proximity of a theological proposition to revelation. (For a good history of the development of these notes, see The development of the theological censures after the Council of Trent: (1563-1709) by John Cahill, O.P.)

De moribus

Morals ("Etym. Latin moralis, relating to conduct, mos, a manner, custom") are voluntary acts (i.e., acts pertaining to the will). Since the will follows the intellect by necessarily desiring the good that the intellect presents it (cf. Thomistic thesis #21), morals always have a doctrinal basis.

Pope Pius XI's condemnation of onanism (contraception) in his 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii (spec. §59: "…so long as the intrinsic nature of the [marriage] act is preserved.") is a case study of Fr. Cartechini's De Valore Notarum Theologicarum p. 20 regarding ex cathedra pronouncements of morals:

  De qualificatione theologica sententiæ condemnatoriæ abusus matrimonii in encyclica "Casti Connubii": utrum sit solemnis definitio ex cathedra quod onanismus sit semper peccatum mortale. Quidam affirmabant esse dogma quia Pontifex adhibet verba satis solemnia. Certe ad solemnem definitionem requiruntur hæc elementa: quod loquatur ut supremus pastor et doctor, et quod velit adhibere supremam suam auctoritatem in pleno gradu. Quod hic loquatur ut supremus pastor et doctor patet; inquirendum restat utrum voluerit uti sua suprema auctoritate, ferendo sententiam definitivam. Sed, admisso quod non sit dogma fidei, tamen doctrina ab ea promulgata certe est infallibiliter vera ex hoc capite: quod Papa verbis solemnibus authentice significet doctrinam ex antiquis temporibus ab ordinario et universali magisterio constanter propositam ut tenendam et observandam.

  Regarding the theological qualification of the condemnations against the abuses of matrimony in the encyclical Casti Connubii: whether contraception is always a mortal sin is a solemn ex cathedra definition. Some affirm it to be dogma because the Pontiff uses very solemn words. For a solemn definition, these elements are required: that he speak as supreme pastor and teacher, and that he wants to use his supreme authority in its full degree. It is clear that he speaks as supreme teacher and pastor in this encyclical; it remains to inquire whether he wanted to use his supreme authority, giving a definitive pronouncement. But, even if it is not a dogma of the faith, the doctrine he promulgated certainly is infallibly true because the Pope authoritatively and with solemn words expresses a moral doctrine that from ancient times the ordinary and universal magisterium has constantly proposed must be be held and observed.[my translation with comparison to p. 18 of the Italian]

This answer incorporates this answer to the question "Do the Catholic Church ex cathedra pronouncements about necessity of Catholicism to be saved still apply?"


Does the Catholic church have an officially-sanctioned, organized form of spirituality analogous to Orthodox hesychasm?

I may be incorrect, but my understanding is that this practice and mode of life is fully in line with Orthodox liturgical and spiritual practice, but is not considered the only way to practice the Orthodox faith.

In Catholicism, there are many approved "rules" of life that form the basis of a monastic order or spiritual community that is fully integrated into and in full union with the church, a monastery, for example. There are also many various lay devotions and personal apostolates, as well as consecrations and third orders that indicate a serious commitment to a particular way of living out a life of faith. Examples would include consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, installation into wearing the brown scapular, the Third Order of Franciscans, praying the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration, and the spiritual exercises of Saint Ignatius, among many others.

Because we believe that God made all sorts of people who connect with him in many different ways, we are encouraged to find ways to connect with God that resonate with us. This isn't just my opinion, it's what my bishop told me when I asked him earlier this year.

Some practices that are considered universally helpful, including frequent reading of Scripture, prayer, Eucharist, and Reconciliation.


Epiphaneus: “Martyrdom of Peter and Paul”

The complete works of Epiphanius (as of the end of the 19th century) can be found in the Patrologia Graeca. His works constitute volumes 41 and 42, and part of 43. There are two "analytical" (i.e. topical) indices for his works: one for volumes 41–42 and one for volume 43. I can't see a reference to "martyr", "Peter", or "Paul" in any applicable sense in either index. It appears that either this is a newly discovered work (though I don't see it in, for example, the Wikipedia article on Epiphanius), or there is a mis-attribution of some sort.


Note: This answer comes from the perspective of the Old Testament alone, since the question was in regard to the Ten Commandments and gives no indication that it's seeking a "Christian" perspective, but does give indication that it's seeking a historical perspective (since it references the Ten Commandments).
History of the ten Commandments
Why is rape not included among the these commandments?  Because there are many things (including homosexuality, having sex with your fathers wife, not wearing clothes made of both wool and cotton, etc.) that are not in them.
The Ten Commandments were originally written on stone tablets after Moses ascended Mount Sinai.  Their purpose was to provide a set of basic, simple laws that would hold the nation of Israel over until they got the full Levitical law.
The Levitical law was not given until the book of Leviticus, after the Ten Commandments had been given.  These commandments were not meant to be all-encompassing, but simply meant to give them the top-ten basic laws that God wanted the Israelites to obey until they could get the complete Law.
Rape defined
It is important to note that "rape" during those days was not a crime against a woman, but rather a crime against the head of the household (History of Rape).
To understand how rape plays out in the Old Testament, it is important to understand adultery.  Adultery was a sin that had the death-penalty associated with it.

Deuteronomy 22:22 (NIV)
If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

However, if the man were to rape another man's wife, only the man would die, since he is the one that committed the act of adultery.

Deuteronomy 22:25
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

Note that in Old Testament times, betrothal came after the marriage price had been paid.  The groom and the bride at that point were effectively married, although there was a waiting period before they could live together.
Now, if a man rapes a woman who is not pledged to be married, then he has not committed adultery and did not deserve death.  Instead, he was forced to pay the marriage price, taking the girl/woman as his wife.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives

What these laws are showing is that rape is not "non-consensual" sex as we think of it today.  It's actually a crime against the man who "owns" the woman (for lack of a better term).  The crime committed in the case of a betrothed or married girl is the crime of adultery.  The crime committed in the case of a non-betrothed, unwed girl is the crime of not paying for something that you've taken.
The punishment for rape back then was the same as the punishment for either adultery or stealing, based on the marital status of the girl.
This also means... there is nothing in the Old Testament saying that non-consensual sex with your wife is wrong.
Rape as Adultery/Theft
With the definition above, we see that rape carried the punishment of either adultery or theft, based on the marital status of the girl/woman.  With that in mind, the laws of adultery and stealing were in the Ten Commandments:

Exodus 20:14-15
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.

If we compare these laws established in the Ten Commandments with the rules established in Deuteronomy, we see that rape was considered either stealing or adultery.
Because of this, the root law that is being violated is actually covered in the these commands.
Summary
Rape, from the Old Testament perspective, is either considered adultery or thievery (based on the marital status of the woman).  Those two root laws are specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments.  Therefore, the two laws that might be broken from a given rape are actually written there.


This is a good recent blog post covering Pope Benedict's thoughts on the matter.

The key is the date set for the annunciation (March 25th):

Traditionally held to be the first day of creation
Traditionally held to be the date when Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac after a 3 day journey to Mount Moriah
Extrapolated to be the date of Jesus' annunciation (when the Angel Gabriel came to Mary)
Futher extrapolated to be the date of Jesus' crucifixion (on the Lunar calendar at least) to parallel Abraham's attempted sacrifice and align with the passover.

Therefore, as vsz says wikipedia says, but should say louder, add 9 months, et voila you've got December 25th.

As for the age of the feast as celebrated by Christ's Church, said blog post also notes St. Pope Leo the Great mentioning the feast of the Nativity of Jesus in the winter:

  But this Nativity which is to be adored in heaven and on earth is suggested to us by no day more than this when, with the early light still shedding its rays on nature, there is borne in upon our senses the brightness of this wondrous mystery. (St Leo Magnus, Sermo 26)

I'm not going to say that only stupid people think that Christmas is an attempt to quash pagan solstice shenanigans, but I will say that people ought to think long and hard before believing the Discovery channel over thousands of years of tradition.


May a Catholic have thier cremated remains poured out at sea?

May Catholics have thier cremated remains poured out at sea?
The short answer is no.
Anyone familiar with the Catholic Church knows that over the years, they have changed their policies many times on numerous subject matters. And cremation is no exception. Burial of the human body is still the preferred manner.
In 1917, the code of Canon Law allowed cremation only in times of plague, disaster, or other situations that necessitated a quick disposal of the body.
In 1963, the Vatican said burial of deceased bodies should be the norm, but cremation is not “opposed per se to the Christian religion.” Catholic funeral rites should not be denied to those who had asked to be cremated, the church said.
Human ashes are to be buried at a Cemetery, just like as if the human body of the faithful departed were actually still present.
Catholics may choose to be cremated and has all the funeral rites of the Church, unless the reason for the cremation ”of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith”.

Those to Whom Ecclesiastical Funerals Must be Granted or Denied
Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.
§2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals.
§3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.
Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.
Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

According to new guidelines from the Vatican’s doctrinal office, cremated remains should be kept in a “sacred place” such as a church cemetery.
The following rules were issued on August 15, 2016 by the Vatican:

The reservation of the ashes of the departed in a sacred place ensures that they are not excluded from the prayers and remembrance of their family or the Christian community. It prevents the faithful departed from being forgotten, or their remains from being shown a lack of respect, which eventuality is possible, most especially once the immediately subsequent generation has too passed away. Also it prevents any unfitting or superstitious practices.

For the reasons given above, the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence is not permitted. Only in grave and exceptional cases dependent on cultural conditions of a localized nature, may the Ordinary, in agreement with the Episcopal Conference or the Synod of Bishops of the Oriental Churches, concede permission for the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence. Nonetheless, the ashes may not be divided among various family members and due respect must be maintained regarding the circumstances of such a conservation.

In order that every appearance of pantheism, naturalism or nihilism be avoided, it is not permitted to scatter the ashes of the faithful departed in the air, on land, at sea or in some other way, nor may they be preserved in mementos, pieces of jewelry or other objects. These courses of action cannot be legitimized by an appeal to the sanitary, social, or economic motives that may have occasioned the choice of cremation. - Instruction Ad resurgendum cum Christo regarding the burial of the deceased and the conservation of the ashes in the case of cremation

Ps. Unless one can find a Vatican directive allowing a complete urn to be cast into the sea, in lieu of sprinkling the ashes over the water, this is to be forbidden. Urns will crack and the remains will be scattered in the waters anyway. Without a clear Vatican directive this should not be done, regardless of what some Catholic priest or even Catholic websites states. We can not presume permission to so. They must always be able to back it up in Canon Law! Urns are to be buried in cemeteries.
Articles of interest:

Cemetery aims to 'do the right thing' with free burial
New Vatican Instruction: Cremation Allowed But Strict Conditions Apply
Why does the Catholic Church prefer burials over cremation?


Does the RCC allow confirmation names that aren't based on saints?

It's not even the fullest part of the suggested course at most churches.  The fullest part of what is normally suggested is that one either picks the name of a saint or a virtue (e.g. Patience, Chastity, Hope, Faith, Courage, Wisdom, etc.).  A common and very-much-encouraged divergence from this is to choose someone in your life (typically a dead relative) who inspired you to follow Christ with their example.  This is really very similar to being named after a saint, as the Church professes that the greater number of saints are not found in the earthly records.  Other people (though this is, obviously, less good) just pick a name they like.  The Church reserves the right of judgement over your choice of name (you probably can't get confirmed an obscenity), but anything you pick will probably be allowed unless it's obviously offensive or sacrilegious in some way.


What churches identify themselves as being Modalist?

The label modalist has been so strongly stigmatised over the millennia that we shouldn't expect to find anyone who calls themselves one now. Regardless of whether it is in reality a correct or incorrect understand of God, in our language it is basically defined as a heresy. And no one wants to be known as a heretic.

Sometimes people have reclaimed stigmatised labels (such as the LGBT community reclaiming queer), but those who believe in modalism have instead come up with new synonymous terms, one of which is the Oneness of God. A church which proclaimed that they taught modalism would scare away any potential visitors, but a church which proclaims the Oneness of God? That sounds more enticing.

David K. Bernard is the general superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International. In his book The Oneness of God he plainly and openly teaches modalism, and declares that Oneness is a new synonym for it (emphasis added):

  We also explore the relationships and distinctions
  among the three terms of Father, Son and Holy
  Ghost. Do these terms identify three different persons
  or personalities in the Godhead? Or do they
  indicate three different roles, modes, functions, or
  offices through which the one God operates and reveals
  Himself? (p125)

  In a similar way, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit
  is not a separate person from the Father any more
  than a man and his spirit are separate persons. Holy
  Spirit just describes what God is. First John 5:7 says
  that three bear record in heaven; that is, God has
  recorded Himself in three modes of activity or has
  revealed Himself in three ways. He has at least three
  heavenly roles: Father, Word (not Son), and Holy Ghost.
  Furthermore, these three roles describe one God: “these
  three are one.” (p141)

  The Bible speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
  as different manifestations, roles, modes, titles, attributes,
  relationships to man, or functions of the one
  God, but it does not refer to Father, Son, and Holy
  Ghost as three persons, personalities, wills, minds, or
  Gods. (p144)

  The modalist doctrine is usually explained simply
  as the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy
  Ghost are only manifestations, or modes, of the one
  God (the monarchia), and not three distinct persons
  (hypostases). (p248)

  Basically, modalism is the same as the modern doctrine of Oneness. (p318)

  Thus Oneness is a modern term basically
  equivalent to modalism or modalistic monarchianism. (p321)

  Sabellianism. ... The doctrine is basically equivalent to modern
  Oneness. (p324)

The UPCI website says that one of their doctrinal distinctives is the Oneness of God. It also has a tract arguing for the doctrine. The words 'modalism' and 'modes' aren't used, but clear synonyms are (emphasis added):

  1. Is the word trinity in the Bible? No.

  2. Does the Bible say that there are three persons in the Godhead? No.

  3. Does the Bible speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Yes.

  4. Do these titles as used in Matthew 28:19 mean that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead? No, they refer to three offices, roles, or relationship to humanity.

  13. Who is the Father? The Father is the one God, particularly as revealed in parental relationship to humanity. Deuteronomy 32:6; Malachi 2:10.

  14. Where was God the Father while Jesus was on earth? The Father was in Christ. John 14:10; II Corinthians 5:19. He was also in heaven, for God is omnipresent.

  46. If God and the Holy Ghost are two separate persons, which was the Father of Christ? Matthew 1:20 says that the Holy Ghost was the Father, while Romans 15:6, II Corinthians 11:31, and Ephesians 1:3 say that God was the Father. There is no contradiction when we realize that God the Father and the Holy Ghost are one and the same Spirit. Matthew 10:20; Ephesians 4:4; I Corinthians 3:16.

  56. Can Trinitarians show that three divine persons were present when Jesus was baptized by John? Absolutely not. The one, omnipresent God used three simultaneous manifestations. Only one divine person was present--Jesus Christ the Lord.


Why is the Bible divided into Old Testament and New Testament?

The New Covenant Foretold

The key to the division can be seen in Jeremiah, where God speaks of the old covenant and the new covenant.  Israel had broken the old covenant, so God spoke of a new covenant.

  31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.

  33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”  Jeremiah 31:31-35 NASB

The Breaking of the Old Covenant

The enumeration of covenants includes those with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David, among others.  So, if we were being precise, we might say the "Old Testaments" (plural) and the "New Testament (singular).  However, the primary covenant that governed all of Israel was probably the Mosaic covenant, which the people broke.  The book of Hebrews affirms this:

  6 But now He [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.  7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,

  “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
  When I will effect a new covenant
  With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
  9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
  On the day when I took them by the hand
  To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
  For they did not continue in My covenant,
  And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
  10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
  After those days, says the Lord:
  I will put My laws into their minds,
  And I will write them on their hearts.
  And I will be their God,
  And they shall be My people.
  11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
  And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
  For all will know Me,
  From the least to the greatest of them.
  12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
  And I will remember their sins no more.”

  13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant

Jesus Christ is, thus, the mediator of the New Covenant, as Hebrews 12 affirms:

  But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.  Hebrews 12:22-24 NASB

The Inception of the New Covenant

This division is affirmed in several places. It was introduced by Jesus at the Last Supper.

  23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

Conclusion

So, everything does change with the coming of Jesus. The New Testament is the collection of all the books that being with the life of Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant.


When is earliest mention of the Church tradition that Jesus was born in a cave?

The earliest reference I can find is Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165 AD) who wrote in Dialog With Trypho:

  But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find
  a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave
  near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the
  Christ and placed Him in a manger. (1)


Is there any apocryphal gospel where someone else is crucified?

There are various Gnostic Knowledge Gospels where Jesus wasn't crucified - I won't list them all but here are the most popular.

Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter

  He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living
  Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is
  his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one
  who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.

The Second Treatise of The Great Seth, 56.6-19 in NHL 332

  It was another...who drank the gall and the vinegar
  (on the cross); it was not I... it was another Simon, who bore the
  cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown
  of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height (the hills) over... their
  error. And I was laughing at their ignorance.


Is a Catholic "blessing of a marriage" not a wedding?

"Blessing of a marriage", as explained by a canon lawyer and the staff of a Catholic parish, is a fairly standard laymen's term which can be used for one of two processes recognized by Catholic canon law as allowing a marriage to be recognized as valid in the Catholic Church.
The Church's Code of Canon Law has a whole section on marriage (canons 1055–1165). Among the regulations it lays down are some having to do with how and where the marriage may take place (the form of the marriage), and some having to do with who may and who may not be married. Under certain conditions, the bishop of the diocese to which Catholics belong may waive most of these regulations in a specific case; but if this waiver (called a dispensation) is not obtained, the marriage is considered invalid by the Church, either because of impediment (a "who may and may not marry" rule was broken), or because of defect of form (a "how and where" rule was broken).
This marriage certainly appears to have been considered invalid by the Church (otherwise the priest would not have felt the need to have it "blessed"). Why?
The Church requires that Catholics marry in their own parish (unless they receive a dispensation to marry elsewhere):

Canon 1115. Marriages are to be celebrated in a parish where either of the contracting parties has a domicile, quasidomicile, or month long residence or, if it concerns transients, in the parish where they actually reside. With the permission of the proper ordinary or proper pastor, marriages can be celebrated elsewhere.

Thus, a marriage such as this—in a state ceremony (at a registry office, town hall, etc.) without a dispensation, which appears not to have been obtained in this case—has a defect of form.
In addition, Catholics require special permission to marry non-Catholics:

Canon  1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

This too is a canon which can be dispensed; but again it appears that no dispensation was obtained in this case. Thus the marriage, as well as suffering from defect of form, also suffers from an impediment. Or rather, it originally suffered from it. Since the man was baptised into the Catholic Church, the impediment "ceased" (in technical terms) before the marriage was blessed.
Thus the original marriage was invalid because it suffered from both defect of form and impediment. Later, the couple wants it to be recognized in the Church's eyes. What can be done about that?
The Church has two processes that can be used, as I stated, to restore the marriage to one considered valid, and both of these are typically referred to as "blessing the marriage". It appears that one of these is what was done by the priest.
Simple convalidation is a procedure done when there was no defect of form in the marriage, only an impediment (which has since ceased, or been dispensed). As canon lawyer Cathy Caridi explains:

Speaking generally, this would likely be the method used if (a) the impediment had become a matter of public knowledge; or (b) one or both spouses had known from the get-go that the impediment existed, and had for whatever reason managed to conceal it.

In this case, if only one spouse knew of the impediment, he or she would simply renew consent to the marriage (as one does with wedding vows) in private, without needing to inform the other spouse. If both spouses knew, but no one else, the spouses would each renew consent to the other (effectively re-exchanging wedding vows) in private, before the priest, and that would be it. If the impediment has become public knowledge, then canon law would require public exchange of consent "in canonical form"—effectively, a new marriage ceremony:

Canon  1158 §1. If the impediment is public, both parties must renew the consent in canonical form, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1127, §2. [i.e. subject to any specific rules laid down by the bishop]
§2. If the impediment cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party conscious of the impediment renews the consent privately and in secret, provided that the other perseveres in the consent offered; if the impediment is known to both parties, both are to renew the consent.

In all these cases, simple convalidation results in the marriage being considered valid only from the time when the marriage was convalidated, not from the original wedding.
But that doesn't seem to have been the case here: there was not only an impediment to the marriage, but also a defect of form. In that kind of case a different sort of procedure is called for, also described informally as "blessing the marriage", but technically known as radical sanation.
Radical sanation would require the priest to request a dispensation (ex post facto) from the bishop for the state ceremony, and another for the marriage to a non-Catholic. If these were granted, the priest would ask the couple to declare their vows to each other once more, and then the marriage would be considered valid—not just from that point, but retroactively from the original ceremony.

AthanasiusOfAlex has posted an answer to part of the second question, but because of the already great length of this answer I would prefer to post that as a second response.


Can a Christian choose to walk away from his or her salvation?

This isn't a question that can be resolved indisputably here, as there are different views amont Christians about this. These views are generally in a range of:

Pelagianism - the idea that a man's salvation is an act of his free will only.
Synergysm - the idea that a man needs grace, but has to freely cooperate with it.
Irresistible grace - that grace saves even against human will.

Orthodox christians put more emphasis on free will than Roman Catholics (they are even sometimes called semi-pelagians by them). Jansenism (vide Blaise Pascal) and Calvinism share a belief in irresistible grace, while other Reformed churches vary here (somewhere between Calvin and RC doctrine).


When did the Lion of the tribe of Judah take the book from the One sitting on the throne?

After Darby, most Protestants believe that Christ has NOT taken the scroll/book.  They see it as a future event.  Prior to Darby, Protestants taught that this was historical; it had already happened.  Here's why.

Revelation was written after Christ had been resurrected and ascended.  When John sees the book/scroll in the hand of the one on the throne, he weeps because no one was worthy.  The vision at that point was of the time prior to ascension.  In other words, John already knew, but was as if he had no knowledge of this.

One of the elders tells John not to worry.  There is the Lion of the tribe of Judah.  He prevailed.  Now we are at the time post ascension.  Christ has purchased and redeemed us out of every nation on earth.  John knows this in "real time".

The word "throne" means also "seat".

Throne:

"a throne, a seat of authority," is used of the "throne"
(a) of God, e.g., Hbr 4:16, "the throne of grace," i.e., from which grace proceeds; Hbr 8:1; 12:2; Rev 1:4; 3:21 (2nd part); 4:2 (twice); 5:1; frequently in Rev.; in Rev 20:12, in the best texts, "the throne" (some have Theos, "God," AV); cp. Rev 21:3; Mat 5:34; 23:22; Act 7:49;"
Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

This would be in the holy of holies.  So Christ's sacrifice was accepted.  He was resurrected.  He ascended.  He entered the throne room.  He took the scroll.  He opened it.

To back up a bit to get another time marker, John's vision of the throne "room" begins when John is called up into heaven.  He sees various things, including the seven-fold Spirit of God.

  And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
  Rev. 4:5

The sequence after this is no one is found worthy.  John weeps.  Christ the Lamb slain appears.  When was this?

  And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
  Rev. 5:6

The point is that John first sees the Spirit of God at the throne, but then after ascension, the Spirit was sent forth (perfect tense) on Pentecost CE 30.

  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
  Acts 2:4

That was Pentecost on a Sunday 10 days after Christ ascended.

So, John is viewing Christ as taking the scroll on Pentecost after the Spirit was poured out earlier that same day.


How did Augustine of Hippo feel about Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate)?

Short Answer:
In the least, Augustine did not approve of Jerome's preferred translation of the Septuagint (he actually penned two, at least in part), specifically. At most he may have thought it a sin to even use it as scripture. His greatest fear is that it would lead to apparent discrepancies in opinion between Latin and Greek churches and grievously harm church unity. He did not object to a translation in general (in fact he very much wanted one), but to the source that Jerome choose, the Hebrew versions, instead of the Greek versions.

In a letter from Augustine to Jerome:

  I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job [which was by the Greek texts].

Some of the other translations Jerome provided where acceptable to Augustine. He even said this to Jerome in that same letter, which largely criticized the translation of the Septuagint:

  At the same time, we are in no small measure thankful to God for the work in which you have translated the Gospels from the original Greek, because in almost every passage we have found nothing to object to, when we compared it with the Greek Scriptures.

Despite Augustine's passionate objection, Jerome's translation of the Septuagint from the Hebrew texts is today heralded as his best work and among many protestants (and somewhat Catholics) one of the best translations of the Old Testament.

Long Answer:
The issue that Augustine had with Jerome's translation was with his source material and was most definitely not about Jerome's ability. In fact, Augustine regularly praised Jerome's work.

But concerning news that Jerome was using the Hebrew versions of the text instead of the Greek for the translation, Augustine once stated in a letter to Jerome in AD 394:

  I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint, whose authority is worthy of highest esteem. For my own part, I cannot sufficiently express my wonder that anything should at this date be found in the Hebrew manuscripts which escaped so many translators perfectly acquainted with the language.

Augustine thought it a waste of Jerome's efforts and ability to translate the Septuagint using the Hebrew texts available, believing that the Greek version was Divinely inspired. Using strong language, Augustine urges Jerome to use the same method for translating Job, which he approved of, which was to use the Greek and not the Hebrew text because the Greek was Divinely inspired in his opinion.

Jerome did not heed Augustine's advice, believing that the Hebrew was actually more accurate to the original text. He voiced his objection again to Jerome using the Hebrew in another letter in AD 403, although, he did praise the exhaustiveness of the work, but challenged the motive for the asterisks and obelisks in the translation. See the quote below:

  I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places.

Augustine goes on in the letter, reveling his biggest concern with the source material chosen was a matter of Church unity. He feared that the Latin churches would have scripture that was too different than the Greek churches, which might lead to arguments and schism. He favored the Greek texts, on a logical basis, because it was already wide spread.

  For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version ... For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended.

Augustine even discusses a certain bishop who 'narrowly escaped' a 'calamity' where he might have lost his congregation forcing the bishop to 'correct [Jerome's] version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated.' Augustine's concern for Church unity and reduced confusion is summed up thusly:

  You would therefore confer upon us a much greater boon if you gave an exact Latin translation of the Greek Septuagint version: for the variations found in the different codices of the Latin text are intolerably numerous; and it is so justly open to suspicion as possibly different from what is to be found in the Greek, that one has no confidence in either quoting it or proving anything by its help.

Jerome, however, did not respond favorably and was even somewhat hostile to Augustine's reasoning, which required that Church unity be more important than the exactness of the translation to the original writings. His letter to Augustine in AD 404 states:

  you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen, with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man, especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer. Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.

In AD 405 Augustine replied with the same argument and begged Jerome to deliver the translation to him so that it may not be used in any authoritative church gathering. As far as historians know, Jerome did not respond and continued with the translation.

SOURCES (In order of use)
A selection of the letters between Jerome and Augustine
Septuagint Wikipedia Article - Section on Christian use of
Jerome Wikipedia Article - Section on Translations and Commentaries
Jerome Wikipedia Article - General Reference


Has the impact of a practitioner's theological framework on pastoral counseling methodology been studied?

I'm not sure I would agree that Calvinism is deterministic. Calvinists believe that God is sovereign and man is responsible. Calvinists also believe that the Bible is sufficient for faith and practice. As a result, some Calvinists would tend towards a nouthetic approach, such as Jay Adams and the Tripp brothers advocate.

Indeed, I would definitely say that Jay Adams and the Tripp brothers have thought deeply about how their theological framework and worldview affect counseling. Read Jay Adams's book Competent to Counsel and Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands, by Paul Tripp.

As for institutions, you could look at Adams's group, the Institute for Nouthetic Studies at http://www.nouthetic.org/, or the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation at http://www.ccef.org/.


I regret to say I do not know of a book or website that focuses specifically on extracting moral lessons from stories in the Bible, but I can point you to a Protestant source that helps to explain the Christian perspective and lessons to be learned from the miracles performed by Jesus.

One important lesson to be learned from the account of Peter walking on the water to meet Jesus is that although he literally stepped out in faith, he soon became fearful and began to sink – his faith was short-lived:

  Peter’s exercise of faith does not end in failure. Although he is sinking in fear, he calls out to the Lord, “Save me!” God loves to hear our cry for help. It means we know we can’t save ourselves. Peter helplessly cries out to the only one who can help him. The disciple’s experience reminds us that a lapse of faith is merely a stumble. The Lord is near to raise us back safely to our feet when we call to Him for help.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-walking-on-water.html

Linked to this is the meaning behind Jesus walking on the stormy Sea of Galilee to meet his disciples already in the boat:

  When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the lake, they thought He was a ghost. They cried out, because they all saw Him and were terrified (Mark 6:48–50). And this brings us to the second significant point of this miracle. Jesus always comes to us in the storms of life...  The point is this: fear and faith cannot live in the same heart, for fear frequently blinds the eyes to the presence of the Lord.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/walking-on-water.html

Other important lessons can be learned from the incident when Jesus was in a boat with the other disciples and a storm arose.  The disciples were afraid for their lives, but Jesus quelled the storm:

  The apostles’ lack of faith reminds us that even those who lived and walked with Jesus, saw His miracles, and heard His message still found it difficult to be 100 percent faith-filled all the time. In that way, the disciples were a lot like us.   If Jesus was able to rescue the apostles from the storm, He is also able to rescue us from the storms of everyday life: sickness, job loss, marriage problems, and even the sting of death (1 Corinthians 15:55).   The Lord never promised we will never see a storm in life (as a matter of fact, He has told us to expect trouble, John 16:33). Rather, He has promised that He will be with us in the storm. He will never leave His children alone in the midst of trouble; with perseverance they will overcome (Deuteronomy 31:8; James 1:12).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/calming-the-storm.html

The “moral of the stories” found in the Bible regarding the various miracles has a specific application to Christian faith.  Faith in Christ is never misplaced.  If Jesus can command the elements and calm the wind and the waves with one word, He can calm the storms of life as well.

Allow me to leave you with a link to an article that lists all the miracles of Jesus and points to their spiritual significance:

  The vast majority of miracles recorded in the Gospels were miracles of healing. While those who received the healing were relieved of their physical ailments, the stated purpose of the miracles is rarely ever the simple alleviation of physical suffering. The miracle of healing always points to a greater truth, namely, that Jesus is the Son of God with authority. When He casts out demons, His authority over them is emphasized. When He heals on the Sabbath, His authority as Lord of the Sabbath is emphasized. Likewise, many of the miracles emphasize Jesus’ authority over nature.  Source:  https://www.gotquestions.org/miracles-of-Jesus.html


Can we at some point take on a Divine Nature?

Humans can never become God because God alone is (1) inherently immortal (1 Tim. 1:17, 6:16) and (2) uncreated. God created all things (Eph. 3:9); therefore, anything created (which includes humans) is not God nor can it become God.

However, humans (specifically, Christians) can be "sharers in the divine nature" (θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως) when they receive the Holy Spirit, which is both the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and by means of the Holy Spirit, not only do the Father and Son dwell in the Christian (John 14:23), but the Christian is joined to the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6:17), who himself is God (John 1:1 cp. 1:14; Rev. 19:13, 22:13), and thus the Christian becomes "one spirit" with God Himself and shares in the divine nature, for God is spirit (John 4:24) in nature (φύσις).

I might also share Heinrich Meyer's remarks on 2 Pet. 1:4, wherein he writes,

  As opposed to the mystic “deification,” it must be remarked, with the older interpreters, that the expression φύσις conveys the thought, not so much of the substantia, as rather of the qualitas.

And thus, the thought is not so much that we are deified and our nature is substantially metamorphosed from humanity into deity, but rather, that we share in God's substantial qualities, for example, holiness (Heb. 12:10). This, again, is by virtue of the Holy Spirit indwelling us.


"You are dust and to dust you shall return" versus resurrection of the body (Catholic perspective)

The dilemma is actually resolved in the Old Testament Scriptures.

(St.) Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202) defended against those who objected to the Christian belief of the resurrection of the dead in Book V of Against Heresies, showing how the Christian belief in the resurrection of the dead is supported in the writings of the Prophets.

I think that the passage from Ezekiel 37 is especially relevant.  It is talking about resurrection from bones and not dust, but I think the concepts are affine enough to merit mention.

Your title asks for the "Catholic perspective".  Irenaeus is a respected Church Father, so I think his writings would be considered authoritative in this point (I am Orthodox, not Roman Catholic - anymore - but we share a common early Church tradition).

  Now, that He who at the beginning created man, did promise him a
  second birth after his dissolution into earth, Isaiah thus declares:

    The dead shall rise again, and they who are in the tombs shall arise, and they who are in the earth shall rejoice. For the dew which is from
    You is health to them. (Isaiah 26:19)

  And again:

    I will comfort you,
    and you shall be comforted in Jerusalem: and you shall see, and your
    heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish as the grass; and
    the hand of the Lord shall be known to those who worship Him. (Isaiah
    66:13)

  And Ezekiel speaks as follows:

    And the hand of the Lord came
    upon me, and the Lord led me forth in the Spirit, and set me down in
    the midst of the plain, and this place was full of bones. And He
    caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were many
    upon the surface of the plain very dry. And He said unto me, Son of
    man, can these bones live? And I said, Lord, You who has made them
    knows. And He said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and you shall
    say to them, You dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the
    Lord to these bones, Behold, I will cause the spirit of life to come
    upon you, and I will lay sinews upon you, and bring up flesh again
    upon you, and I will stretch skin upon you, and will put my Spirit
    into you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.
    And I prophesied as the Lord had commanded me. And it came to pass,
    when I was prophesying, that, behold, an earthquake, and the bones
    were drawn together, each one to its own articulation: and I beheld,
    and, lo, the sinews and flesh were produced upon them, and the skins
    rose upon them round about, but there was no breath in them. And He
    said unto me, Prophesy to the breath, son of man, and say to the
    breath, These things says the Lord, Come from the four winds
    (spiritibus), and breathe upon these dead, that they may live. So I
    prophesied as the Lord had commanded me, and the breath entered into
    them; and they did live, and stood upon their feet, an exceeding great
    gathering. (Ezekiel 37:1, etc.)

  And again he says,

    Thus says the Lord,
    Behold, I will set your graves open, and cause you to come out of your
    graves, and bring you into the land of Israel; and you shall know that
    I am the Lord, when I shall open your sepulchres, that I may bring my
    people again out of the sepulchres: and I will put my Spirit into you,
    and you shall live; and I will place you in your land, and you shall
    know that I am the Lord. I have said, and I will do, says the Lord.
    (Ezekiel 37:12, etc.)

  As we at once perceive that the Creator  is in
  this passage represented as vivifying our dead bodies, and promising
  resurrection to them, and resuscitation from their sepulchres and
  tombs, conferring upon them immortality also (He says, For as the
  tree of life, so shall their days be [Isaiah 65:22]), He is shown to
  be the only God who accomplishes these things, and as Himself the good
  Father, benevolently conferring life upon those who have not life from
  themselves.

  Against Heresies, V.XV.1


Where does the word 'Eloheim' originate from?

There seem to be two basic questions here:

  In the original Hebrew manuscripts; the writer uses the word Elohim....From my research it seems 'Eloheim' doesn't exist in the Hebrew nor English vocabulary.

Of course, in the "original Hebrew" manuscripts, no vowels were written, so technically no distinction could be drawn between these two forms. On the other hand, in the Masoretic Text (to which vowel pointings were added in the Middle Ages, and on which all modern translations are substantially based) I can confirm that there is no word that would be transliterated eloheim. In fact, the only word with the consonants אלהים is pointed every time as the OP indicated: אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohîm).

While transliteration schemes differ, neither the Wikipedia article on Romanization nor the SBL guidelines suggest that chireq-yod may be transliterated ei (rather: iy or î). However, as noted in a comment, English spelling was not standardized at the time Joseph Smith wrote this, much less transliteration from Hebrew. This is exemplified in this collection of Smith's writings where Genesis 1:1 is given:

  בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ
  Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits (Smith)
  Bereʾshit baraʾ ʾelohim ʾet hashshamayim weʾet haʾarets (simplified modern transliteration)

There are numerous letter choices in there which don't make sense to me (mostly vowels), but he was obviously working with different standards.

OP further asks:

  Why would the Father be referred to the same as the plurality of Gods?

This is a vexed question about which no few books have been written. The basic answer is that this is just a quirk of how the Hebrew language works. A few supporting points:

This word is not unique. Other words translated as singular include חִטִּים (chittim, "wheat"), מַ֫יִם (mayim, "water"), שָׁמַ֫יִם (shamayim, "sky"), and תַּנִּינִים (tanninim, "dragon"), among others. As one respected Hebrew grammar puts it (p. 468):

  [The plural] used, quite broadly, to designate things which, while having a real unity, also express plurality in some way. Thus in a compound object one may consider the component elements, in an extended object the various parts, in a particularly perfect being the multiplicity or the intensity of the being, or even in something abstract the multiplicity of manifestations. Thus in Hebrew one may distinguish the plurals of composition, of extension, of excellence or of majesty, of intensity, and of abstraction.

The authors include ʾelohîm as a "plural of excellence or majesty". See also the older but still valuable discussion by Gesenius on the topic.
Although plural in form, ʾelohîm, when it unambiguously refers to the God of Israel, is consistently used with singular verbs. Pronouns pointing to ʾelohîm are also consistently singular.1 This is a strong basis on which to tranlate it as singular in English.
The OP quotes an LDS source suggesting that the term should be rendered "Gods". This is based on the false premise that "the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural".

On the other hand, occasionally trinitarians are heard making claims about the plurality of the Godhead based on morphology of this word. From a linguistic and textual perspective, I am aware of no basis for this, and the phenomenon is adequately explained as above.

1 There are rare exceptions, one of which is quoted in the question: Gen 1:26. This text deserves special attention; see the Q&A on Hermeneutics.SE. For the more general issue, see also Why is Elohim translated as God rather than gods in Genesis 1:1?, which covers much of the same ground as this one.


In Mormonism, how is the doctrine of Adam & Eve inability to have children prior to the Fall explained?

Mormons believe both passages,

That Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply (Genesis 1:28).
Unless these partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge Adam and Eve could not have children (2 Nephi 2:23).

Also,

God commanded them not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17).

So really, the contradiction in Mormon belief seems to be in the commandments God gives to them: multiply and don't eat...but you can't multiply until you eat.

God is forcing them into a situation in which they cannot follow his commandments. Is God the author of sin?

Other Christians don't face this contradiction because #2 is unique to Mormonism.

AFAIK, there isn't a direct, clear-cut answer to this in canon, but here are two  scripturally-supported common explanations.

Explanation 1: It was a transgression, not a sin

Mormons consider transgressions and sins differently.

A transgression is violating a law. A sin is violating a law, knowing it to be evil.

Joseph Fielding Smith, a President of the LDS Church said

  I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin...This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin...for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!

Just as Mormons believe little children cannot sin (Moroni 8:8) they believe that Adam and Eve could not sin, as they did not know good from evil.

Thus, God's commandments were not a sadistic trap that forced them to sin. Instead, because they could not sin, he was offering a sin-free choice: live innocently in the garden forever without joy or pain, or leave the garden, know good and evil, and have posterity.

Eve chose the latter and Adam followed.

Explanation 2: One commandment superceded the other (for now)

An example:

Mankind (according to Mormonism and many other Christian faiths) is still under the command to "multiply and replenish the earth".

However, my adult sister is not participating in this commandment. Why? Though she could physically bear children, she is not married, and God has forbidden adultery/fornication. So on the one hand, God commands her to multiply, but on the other hand, another of God's commandments prevents her, at least for now.

This is the situation that Adam and Eve faced. They were to multiply, but another commandment (temporarily) restricted them from doing that. Had Adam and Eve refrained from partaking of the fruit, circumstances would have changed, i.e. God lifts the restriction, they fulfill his commandment to multiply, without repercussion.

Of course, Adam and Eve chose to take the fruit anyway, and God knew they would, but God wasn't contradicting himself then, just as he isn't contradicting himself now.

Additional notes

It is worth noting that rather than viewing the Fall of Adam and Eve as an unfortunate and evil accident, one which if it had not happened, everything would be perfect, Mormons see the Fall as necessary to the purpose of life on earth.

Life is an opportunity to learn to choose good over evil. This could not happen if there was not good or evil. (See 2 Nephi 2.)

The sacrifice of the Son of God was planned from "the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). So also was the Fall -- which necessitated the sacrifice -- known from the beginning. Mormons often describe the Fall as a fall downward, but also forward.


What are the main theological differences between Reformed Baptists and other Baptists?

Both the 2d London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (often called "the 1689" by adherents) and the 1689 Federalism site provide great resources on this inquiry.

In short, the main differences between a "reformed" baptist and a "general" baptist are:

monergistic vs synergistic views of salvation
a generally Calvinistic (ie "reformed") view of the state of man and the doctrine of God (typically shown in the acronym TULIP) vs a typically Arminian view of God and man
a strict view of credobaptism (which, while similar to other baptists, also sets RBs apart in that child "dedications" are rare (though not considered heretical))
a very strong view of the church universal, and as displayed in local bodies
an understanding that there are Christians in other denominations (which separates RBs from Landmarkists or "Grand Ole Church" baptists)
a staunchly-held view of the regulative principle of worship (RPW) which manifests most commonly in highly-esteeming the public reading of God's Word, the centrality of preaching God's Word, public prayer, and an eschewing of the "latest and greatest 'church ideas'" in favor of conservative views of dress, music, translations used (though I have never heard of a KJVO RB church, the tendency is to favor formal equivalence translations to all others in most scenarios)
a rejection of Dispensationalism as both inadequate and aberrant in its teachings, especially with regard to eschatology and the so-called "church age", and its typically-attendant love of charts and graphs outlining when and where biblical prophecies are being fulfilled


From the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary:

  BAAL (Bāʹ ȧl)

  Lord of Canaanite religion and seen in the thunderstorms, Baal was worshiped as the god who provided fertility. He proved a great temptation for Israel. “Baal” occurs in the OT as a noun meaning “lord, owner, possessor, or husband,” as a proper noun referring to the supreme god of the Canaanites, and often as the name of a man.
  According to 1 Chron. 5:5 Baal was a descendant of Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn son, and the father of Beerah. Baal was sent into exile by Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria. The genealogical accounts of Saul’s family listed in 1 Chron. 9:35–36 indicates that the fourth son of Jehiel was named Baal.

  The noun comes from a verb that means to marry or rule over. The verb form occurs in the Hebrew text 29 times, whereas the noun occurs 166 times. The noun appears in a number of compound forms which are proper names for locations where Canaanite deities were worshiped, such as Baal-peor (Num. 25:5; Deut. 4:3; Ps. 106:28; Hos. 9:10), Baal-hermon (Judg. 3:3; 1 Chron. 5:23), and Baal-gad (Josh. 11:17; 12:7; 13:5). See Canaan.

  Brand, C., Draper, C., England, A., Bond, S., Clendenen, E. R., Butler, T. C., & Latta, B. (2003). Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (151–152). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

The basic idea is that Ba'al was a fertility god who showed up all over Caanan.  Pagan gods tend to take on different characteristics and different stories, especially when popular, and so it differentiate them, sometimes specific place names are added.

That Baal is sometimes combined with YHWH stems more from the fact that the Israelites themselves became highly syncretic, moreso than any firm sociological study that says they stem from the same place.

  Baal and Ancient Israel: The cult of Baal was widespread in the Syro-Palestinian world and became the focus of Israelite religious animosity. Baal’s consort in Palestine was not Anat, but Asherah (Judg. 3:7) or Astarte (Judg. 2:13; 10:6). Syncretism had blurred distinctions between Asherah, Astarte, and Anat, while for Israelite writers such distinctions were not of interest. We hear of the cult of Baal in a number of local manifestations: Baal of the Covenant at Shechem (Judg. 9:4); Baal of Peor at Shittim (Num. 25:3); Baal ‘Zebub’ (‘of the flies’; but should Zebul, ‘Prince,’ be read?) of Philistia (2 Kings 1:2-3); and perhaps Baal of Hamon (Song of Sol. 8:11). Jezebel introduced to Samaria the worship of Tyre’s god Baal (1 Kings 18:19). It is not altogether clear whether these local baals were taken to manifest the single great god Baal or whether they were imagined as discrete deities.

  Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (84). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

There have been people who promulgated the theory that Baal and YHWH were the male and female essences of the same pre-caananite god, but this is by no means a universal interpretation.

  The relationship between El and Baal in Canaanite mythology has been a matter of dispute. There is some indirect evidence of antagonism between these important gods, inasmuch as they were competitors for the highest position in the pantheon. Yet there is also evidence of concord between them. Philo of Byblos reported an accommodation whereby Baal ruled on earth with the permission of El; many have seen in this arrangement the pattern of relations between the two most important gods of the Canaanites.

  Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (84). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Interestingly, by the time of Jesus, Baal had morphed into "Beelzebub", a name commonly associated with the devil.

  In the Ugaritic epic material, Baal is pictured as descending into the netherworld, the domain of the god Mot. That descent was evidently part of a cycle intended to coincide with the cycle of seasons. In order to bring Baal up from the realm of Mot and thus ensure initiation of the fertile rainy season, the Canaanites engaged in orgiastic worship that included human sacrifice as well as sexual rites (Jer 7:31; 19:4–6). Sacred prostitutes evidently participated in the autumnal religious ritual. The worship of Baal was strongly condemned in the OT (Jgs 2:12–14; 3:7–8; Jer 19).
  See also Canaanite Deities and Religion.

  By NT times, the name had changed to Beelzebul (KJV Beelzebub), from the Syriac language meaning “lord of dung.” It was a common practice to apply the names of the gods of enemy nations to the devils of one’s own religion. Thus, the title was applied by the Jews to the devil, or Satan, the prince of demons (Mt 12:24, 27).

  Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (135). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.


Does Orthodox theology emphasize "redemptive suffering" as much as Catholicism does?

No there isn't any theology that ever says Christ's sacrifice and redemptive work is lacking anything in order to save us. Suffering and death are a natural result of Sin. As a Christian you put to death your earthly members and you crucify the works and desires of the flesh for the love of Christ and of mankind. Assisi and Bernadette are not recognized as Saints in the Orthodox Church.


Is the “dark night of the soul” mentioned in the Bible?

The phrase “dark night of the soul” comes from a poem by St. John of the Cross (1542-1591), a Spanish Carmelite monk and mystic, whose Noche obscura del alma is translated “The Dark Night of the Soul.”

Its meant to be synonymous with traveling the “narrow way” that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:13-14.

So no, it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Sources:

Wikipedia entry for the peom in general

As well as this book from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.