I'll answer in case this post doesn't get closed...

This is one of the passages used in explaining our perspective:

  Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.  - Colossians 2:16-17

Here is another:

  Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another?... One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind... for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord... But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God... Therefore let us not judge one another anymore... I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.  - Romans 14:1-14

Jesus was criticized several times for His and His disciples' actions on the Sabbath:

  The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”... Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath...” - Mark 2:24-27

In Hebrews we receive some more teaching on the subject:

  Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it... So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. - Hebrews 4:1-11

I was once convinced that Saturday should be "the Sabbath Day" for all Christians.  One day the Spirit pressed me to read Galatians. I considered the book in light of passages such as those above, and I now have a different perspective.  I now believe that while taking a day of rest is part of God's design for healthy living, it is ultimately a foreshadowing of something yet to come.  So, in my view "remember it and keep it holy" relates more to our view of what is to come than our rituals in this life.  I believe that it is good to worship, minister, fellowship and serve on Saturday... and Sunday... and every day.  I believe it is good to remember the coming Sabbath rest for the people of God.  I also believe there is value in taking a day off (without becoming a slave to it.)

However, I am only sharing my views.  I will not attempt to convince you to believe what I believe, because as Romans 14 teaches, each one should be fully convinced in what they do and should not judge the other.


Is the Prophet Jonah the same Jonah as in 2 Kings 14:23-25?

It is quite possible they are one in the same person. But historically it may be impossible to determine one way or another. Most sources are in favour of the interpretation that the two are one in the same person.

  Book of Jonah, also spelled Jonas, the fifth of 12 Old Testament books that bear the names of the Minor Prophets, embraced in a single book, The Twelve, in the Jewish canon. Unlike other Old Testament prophetic books, Jonah is not a collection of the prophet’s oracles but primarily a narrative about the man.

  Jonah is portrayed as a recalcitrant prophet who flees from God’s summons to prophesy against the wickedness of the city of Nineveh. According to the opening verse, Jonah is the son of Amittai. This lineage identifies him with the Jonah mentioned in II Kings 14:25 who prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam II, about 785 BC. It is possible that some of the traditional materials taken over by the book were associated with Jonah at an early date, but the book in its present form reflects a much later composition. It was written after the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC), probably in the 5th or 4th century and certainly no later than the 3rd, since Jonah is listed among the Minor Prophets in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, composed about 190. Like the Book of Ruth, which was written at about the same period, it opposes the narrow Jewish nationalism characteristic of the period following the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah with their emphasis on Jewish exclusivity. Thus the prophet Jonah, like the Jews of the day, abhors even the idea of salvation for the Gentiles. God chastises him for his attitude, and the book affirms that God’s mercy extends even to the inhabitants of a hated foreign city. The incident of the great fish, recalling Leviathan, the monster of the deep used elsewhere in the Old Testament as the embodiment of evil, symbolizes the nation’s exile and return.

  As the story is related in the Book of Jonah, the prophet Jonah is called by God to go to Nineveh (a great Assyrian city) and prophesy disaster because of the city’s excessive wickedness. Jonah, in the story, feels about Nineveh as does the author of the Book of Nahum—that the city must inevitably fall because of God’s judgment against it. Thus Jonah does not want to prophesy, because Nineveh might repent and thereby be saved. So he rushes down to Joppa and takes passage in a ship that will carry him in the opposite direction, thinking to escape God. A storm of unprecedented severity strikes the ship, and in spite of all that the master and crew can do, it shows signs of breaking up and foundering. Lots are cast, and Jonah confesses that it is his presence on board that is causing the storm. At his request, he is thrown overboard, and the storm subsides. - Book of Jonah

Wikipedia has the following to say about the Prophet Jonah:

  In Judaism, the Book of Jonah (Yonah יונה) is one of the twelve minor prophets included in the Tanakh. According to one tradition, Jonah was the boy brought back to life by Elijah the prophet in 1 Kings 17. Another tradition holds that he was the son of the woman of Shunem brought back to life by Elisha in 2 Kings 4 and that he is called the "son of Amittai" (Truth) due to his mother's recognition of Elisha's identity as a prophet in 2 Kings 17:24. The Book of Jonah is read every year, in its original Hebrew and in its entirety, on Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement, as the Haftarah at the afternoon mincha prayer.

  In the Book of Tobit, Jonah is mentioned twice in the fourteenth chapter of the Book of Tobit, the conclusion of which finds Tobit's son, Tobias, at the extreme age of 127 years, rejoicing at the news of Nineveh's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus in apparent fulfillment of Jonah's prophecy against the Assyrian capital.

  In the New Testament, Jonah is mentioned in Matthew 12:38–41 and 16:4 and in Luke 11:29–32. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus makes a reference to Jonah when he is asked for a sign by some of the scribes and the Pharisees. Jesus says that the sign will be the sign of Jonah: Jonah's restoration after three days inside the great fish prefigures His own resurrection.

  The Prophet Jonah is regarded as a saint by a number of Christian denominations. His feast day in the Roman Catholic Church is on 21 September, according to the Martyrologium Romanum. On the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar, Jonah's feast day is on 22 September. In the Armenian Apostolic Church, moveable feasts are held in commemoration of Jonah as a single prophet and as one of the Twelve Minor Prophets. Jonah's mission to the Ninevites is commemorated by the Fast of Nineveh in Syriac and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Jonah is commemorated as a prophet in the Calendar of Saints of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church on 22 September.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says the two are the same person.

  Apart from the book traditionally ascribed to him, Jonah is mentioned only once in the Old Testament, 2 Kings 14:25, where it is stated that the restoration by Jeroboam II of the borders of Israel against the incursions of foreign invaders was a fulfillment of the “word of the Lord the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amathi, the prophet, who was of Geth, which is in Opher”. This last is but a paraphrastic rendering of the name Gath-Hepher, a town in the territory of Zabulon, which was probably the birthplace of the Prophet, and where his grave was still pointed out in the time of Saint Jerome. Mention is made of Jonah in Matthew 12:39 sqq., and in 16:4, and likewise in the parallel passages of Luke (11:29, 30, 32), but these references add nothing to the information contained in the Old Testament data. According to an ancient tradition mentioned by Saint Jerome, and which is found in Pseudo-Epiphanius, Jonah was the son of the widow of Sarephta whose resuscitation by the Prophet Elias is narrated in 1 Kings 17, but this legend seems to have no other foundation than the phonetic resemblance between the proper name Amathi, father of the Prophet, and the Hebrew Emeth, “truth”, applied to the word of God through Elias by the widow of Sarephta (1 Kings 17:24).


Was there doctrinal difference between Lollards and Waldenses?

According to each of their own "statements of Faith" they  actually do contradict each other in big issues. before I lay it out, however, here are my citations:

Waldensian beliefs
Lollard beliefs

The first issue on which they contradict each other is purgatory. Waldensians say there is no purgatory. They say people will go either two ways “(the) good to glory, wicked to torment” which leaves room for purgatory, but then later in their statement they say “For you shall be damned without remedy.” No purgatorial redemption.

They Lollards say that yes, there is purgatory. “(acts)...will have needful purgation or worse.”

The next issue is celibacy. the Waldensians say "That he might likewise keep firm the marriage tie, that noble accord and contract."

In the issue of celibacy, the Lollards say yes, do participate in celibacy.

And the last difference I will talk about is Confession (to priests). Waldensians say "Then he desires the Priest to confess him:
But according to the Scriptures he has delayed too long, for that commands us
To repent while we have time, and not to put it off till the last." They then go on expound on this topic.

The Lollards, however, say confession is necessary to the salvation of man.

Lollards and Waldensians contradict each other in purgatory, celibacy, and confession. Some say that one's view of purgatory and confession will, either positively or negatively, affect their eternal destiny.


Why did John the Baptist exist? Did he have any purpose besides Baptizing Jesus?

I can think of a few reasons but there are probably much more.

First, as Jesus was not ordained by the existing authorities and seemed on the surface to take things in a different direction from the Old Testament, a forerunner which was prophesied to herald his coming, not only fulfills prophecies of Elijah's return but creates a smooth transition from the Old to the New Covenant where the prophets directly lead up to the entire end of all their prophecies in Christ. What I mean is John was like a typical prophet denouncing sin and calling for repentance with a kind of rugged Old Testament asceticism and harshness, somewhat different from the meek and mild Jesus that pronounced peace and grace.  When the Jews questioned Jesus on how he derived his authority to preach and to heal (since he was not recognized by the 'authorities' of tradition) he asked them what they thought of John the Baptists (Mark 11:29). The question was intending to show them that they were so cowardly (not admitting that they did not believe in John the Baptists among the crowd) that they were not worth responding to, but still the connection to the Baptists is made regarding recognition of an 'authority', besides the direct testimony of God the Father of course.

Second, that a great prophet such as John was, in his humbly recognizing Jesus as so much greater, properly introduced the Messiah. (Matthew 3:11)

Third, his baptism of the Jews by John was a kind also used to convert Gentiles to Judaism, so like Elijah he was making a great call to repentance communicating to everyone, even those who thought they were holy, must prepare for full repentance and be prepared to receive the Messiah.  This mission was like Elijah.

Fourth, The idea that Elijah would come just before the Messiah (literally Elijah, not someone like him) was completely expected by rabbinic tradition, so the fulfilled prophecy was no small matter, even though, as many of the other fulfilled prophecies, we're not fulfilled in ways expected, as a whole they became a strong testimony on Christ's authenticity.


Are scientific findings a test to Christians' Faith?

I don't think the world was created in such a complex way that there are always new discoveries to be made just to test our faith.  I would say that God can use scientific discoveries to help us test and fortify our own faith.

I think Proverbs 25:2 can be applied here.  I believe scientific discoveries are really just discovering what God has hidden.

Is it really a surprise that God would create the universe with order in a way that it can be discovered?  While the scientists are undeniably intelligent, God is infinitely more intelligent.  I believe as long as we have this universe there will also be something new to discover, either smaller than the smallest or greater than the greatest.  I'm sure God can create the universe to operate beyond our comprehension.

  Proverbs 25:2 NIV
  2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
      to search out a matter is the glory of kings.


Is there a theological distinction between being a "sinner" and being"wicked?"

Is there a theological distinction between being a “sinner” and being “wicked?”

  James 5:20  Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the
  error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a
  multitude of sins.

  1Corinthians 5:13  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore
  put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

sinner = hamartōlos = one who misses the mark

wicked = ponēros = hurtful, evil, morally culpable, vicious, malicious, derelict

It looks like one could make the case that a sinner gets it wrong and someone wicked is wrong. The distinction being the extent to which the inner character has been corrupted. We should be thankful that the love of Jesus transcends even the lowest state to which we can sink.


In the Church of England, can one accept communion without being confimed?

This comes under Canon B15A. The only essential prerequisite is baptism.

Other than that:

If you're a member of the C of E, you should be confirmed (or at least want to be confirmed) to take communion.
Any baptised person who can take communion in their own church can take communion in the C of E. (Assuming their own church believes in the Trinity.)
If you're about to die, you can go ahead and take communion despite the other rules.
Synod sometimes makes other provisions. In particular, children who have reached the age of reason, and expect to be confirmed when they're older, can take communion if the diocesan bishop permits it.

But see the canon law for the full details. There are also rules going the other way-- for example, Roman Catholics are forbidden by their canon law to receive communion from Anglican priests, even though Anglican canon law would permit it.


Is it true that Martin Luther was calling for killing Hebrew people?

Alright I might be one of the few people on this earth that 1) loves the Jewish people, 2) Has married a true Jew by descent, who converted to Christianity after our marriage. 3) Will publish the worst dirt on Luther that can be found. 4) Will then be so crazy as to defend Luther, not against his sin here but in how it should be viewed in context and as still being a man of God.

Note: It is not possible for me to be brief on handling this question.

First the prosecution of that nasty Luther

Here is the worst of Luther's writings which is naturally seized upon by any wanting to portray Luther as personally hating the Jews if they refused to accept Christ and it is pretty offensive in deed:

  How, then, do we incur such terrible anger, envy, and hatred on the part of such great and holy children of God?
  There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses—namely, that God has struck them with “madness and blindness and confusion of mind.” So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. (Luther's Works, Volume 47.266)

Then Luther goes on to suggest what should be actually done by the government.

  First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them...Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed...Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them...Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb...Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews...Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping...Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. (Luther's Works, Volume 47.268 - 271)

Note: He does suggest they be allowed to live like gypsies in barns or group hostels and thinks the money in 'safekeeping' is there to be returned at least in part if they stop ridiculing the Christian faith and join the national religion, but the rest of these statements can pretty much be understood as is.

He only tones his ranting down slightly to distinguish between government treatment of blasphemers under law and personal vengeance by saying regular persons should not curse them are harm them, just see them as wicked while continuing in their blasphemy. He does also offer reverse sentiments and thinks they ought to treat them as 'brothers' if any become Christian, but these sentiments seem much too little and much too late to excuse his fiendish hate:

  And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do—namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. (Luther's Works, Volume 47.274)

Summary Prosecution statement: Luther was a hateful man that hated the Jews (among others, the Pope being the most hated). Although he did not want people to personally injure them he supported the murder of good Rabbis who refused to stop publicly teaching and supported the heinous inhumane crimes of confiscating or destroying virtually all their livelihood and culture, offering Jews no more than meager slavery in near inhumane conditions. It is simply inexcusable on all accounts, and any Christian worth the name should denounce this part of Christian history forever. In fact Luther might properly be said to have planted early seeds of the Nazi regime, with his attitude leading to the more recently unparalleled crimes of Hitler during the holocaust.

The defense of that oh so lovable Luther

First, as deplorable and terrible as this is we should keep in mind at the time in history this was fairly standard treatment throughout the world for heretics and blasphemers. Before modern history, religious crimes were mixed with civil criminal codes and as a consequence Catholic governments burned Protestant heretics at the stake, and some later Protestant governments did similar evils, not to mention what the Turks and Christians did to each other. There was no proper division of church and state.

Second, this is the worst of Luther's writings and I would not equate his sins herein as necessarily worse than the low points of many godly men. He did not personally make love to his neighbor's wife and then personally orchestrate his murder as King David, the man after God's heart, for example. The truth is that we are so evil, even as Christians, which are still so much more righteous than unbelievers, that if our lives are analyzed by the morals of future generations none of us will smell like roses.

Third, although the Jews still believed in the Laws of Moses, Luther did not go so far as to cruelly propose that they be applied to them. If under the law a person simply picking up sticks on the Sabbath, or a child who is rebellious to their parents should be publicly executed. If under the law idolaters should be killed, their land burned, their houses burned, their woman turned into slaves etc., what would the Law prescribe for those who continued to reject their Jehovah in Christ? No, Luther did think, as every nation did at that time, that some of the Laws of Moses were useful for the state to apply, but he even at his worst held the Christian belief that the full extent of the Law of Moses should not be applied to those who owned it.

Fourth, most of his sentiments came from the common belief that Jewish people were getting unfair favorable treatment from the government, while others were being criminally prosecuted for blasphemy and the like, or other injustices, on smaller matters. This was believed to be due to their great deal of wealth and it did not seem right that foreigners to the country should take advantage of the poor German people through high interest rates, while the poor were being often treated so harshly by the rich. I find this to be a weak point of defense but it must be observed that the German people were prone to racism not 'out of the blue' or from mere religious grounds, but out of general jealousies that the poor often have against the rich, who often oppress them. As Christians are also with many sins, it is not surprising that the world's jealousies of the unbelieving German people, would creep in to some degree into the thoughts of Christians.

Fifth, once the faith of Luther was almost fully stomped out of Germany, the secular majority of Germans (who were never really Christian to begin with) eagerly received humanistic philosophies in the place of professed faith. The result is just like Christ's parable who said that if a demon is cast out (by natural religious reform) seven worse spirits will come back. That is what literally happened. National fake belief in Christ, like any national faith, was replaced with the belief of 'the survival of the fittest'. This lead to the idea that killing the weak was supported by nature. This lead to Hitler and the holocaust. The rejection of the faith of men like Luther resulted in actual mass murder of the Jews. Whereas Luther's momentary rantings did not actually result in anything. Luther may have been expressing the popular view at that time with the greatest amount of charity, so while accused on great sins, he may have actually been the salt that postponed the eventual racism that possessed the nation.

Summary Defense statement: Luther never pretended to be politically correct. He expressed his views quite emotionally. Like most religious leaders of that time in history, he felt some part of Old Testament law could be applied to society that most Western countries no longer believe, or comprehend at all. It is hard for us to understand but we would have probably acted poorer than Luther if we had lived at that time. When looking at all of Luther's writings as a whole, he held out the most loving, peaceful and truthful message that could be found anywhere else in the world. Luther was a man of God, and it is difficult to find anyone in history more worthy of the title. Luther was a man after God's own heart.

Conclusion

Was it true he was calling for the murder of Hebrew people? Yes in a weak sense. He positively lobbied for the charge that preaching the rejection of Christ in the synagogue should be considered to be as bad as heresy or blasphemy. No, in that he did not support personal hate or the harming of their persons. All in all I would say, no. Even in the case of blasphemy as a capital crime, the Bible never considers capital crimes, which people are all equally warned of before enacted by the state, as murder.

Is Luther's attitude in these passages excusable? I would say not at all. There is nothing in them that is consistent with the volumes of sentiments in the rest of his writings, or much more importantly in the New Testament. His attitudes here are not Christian to me. Do I think Luther was a man of God? Yes, without doubt. I can only say that without blinking for about half a dozen people I have read about.

Addendum

I have found something quite unexpected that has somewhat lessened my shock of Luther's point of failure. In quite a shocking discovery I have been surprised to find that Luther's basic fault was not breaking free of a well established common prejudice of his time. Not only did the German people and all of Europe have these intolerant views but Luther's recommendation to the government is actually more or less a repetition of a previous Jew converted to the Catholic faith in Germany just under forty years earlier! He actually thought this harsh and biting attitude would help him reach his fellow Jews as a form of a missionary effort. As nonsensical as this is it shows the public view of how conversions and influence could take place is far different from how we see things today.

The recommendations were first published by the Jew, Johannes Pfefferkorn in 1507.

  In Der Judenspiegel (Cologne, 1507), he demanded that the Jews should give up the practice of usury, work for their living, attend Christian sermons, and do away with the Books of the Talmud.[3] On the other hand, he condemned the persecution of the Jews as an obstacle to their conversion, and, in a pamphlet, Warnungsspiegel,[4] defended them against charges of murdering Christian children for ritual purposes.[3] In Warnungsspiegel, he professed to be a friend of the Jews, and desired to introduce Christianity among them for their own good.[4] He urged them to convince the Christian world that the Jews do not need Christian blood for their religious rites and advocated seizing the Talmud by force from them.[4] "The causes which hinder the Jews from becoming Christians," he wrote, "are three: first, usury; second, because they are not compelled to attend Christian churches to hear the sermons; and third, because they honor the Talmud."[4] (wiki Johannes_Pfefferkorn)

It is hardly objective to consider this subject without considering this unusual historical context. Something very hard I admit to even try to comprehend.


What happens if a host is dropped during communion? (Catholic)

A consecrated host that cannot be consumed will be disposed of by placing it in water. This water, in turn, is to be poured through the sanctuarium (within the sacristy) into the ground.

Source: How should one dispose of a consecrated host which was placed in the mouth of an ill person who, in the end, was unable to swallow it?

I am suprised that it is not stated in the GIRM, but maybe it was obvious for the authors of this document.


Origin of the idea that "demons" and "fallen angels" are the same thing?

As close as I can understand these Scriptures they apply to the fallen Angels:

  Revelation 12:7 through 9 NKJV  And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8  but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. 9  So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

That does not say that those Angels are Demons, However; other Scriptures do lead us to understand they are:

  Luke 11:18 NKJV  If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? Because you say I cast out demons by Beelzebub.

The Scriptures refer to Satan's helpers as both angels and demons:

  Matthew 25:41 NKJV  "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

compared to:

  Revelation 16:13 and 14 NKJV  And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14  For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Even though I cannot give you any verses which say that Demons are fallen Angels these Scriptures taken together along with the description of the Angel opening the gate to the bottomless pit leaves little doubt in my mind that they are the same.

Hope this helps and sorry to not give you something more solid to use.


How were women to serve the church according to the Apostolic Fathers?

The woman Grapte referred to in I.2.IV of the Shepherd of Hermas is understood to have been a deaconess.  The duties of deaconesses, however, are not understood to be equivalent to those of deacons, but involved, rather, ministering to widows and orphans, and perhaps helping to prepare and baptize women.  The above passage is an example:

  You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to
  Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign
  countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so. And Grapte
  will admonish the widows and the orphans.

The Apostolic Constitutions, which may have been published long after the Apostolic Fathers, but is thought by many to represent the teachings of both them and the Apostles, provides additional details about the roles of deaconesses:

  For let the bishop preside over you as one honoured with the authority
  of God, which he is to exercise over the clergy, and by which he is to
  govern all the people. But let the deacon minister to him, as Christ
  does to His Father; and let him serve him unblameably in all things,
  as Christ does nothing of Himself, but does always those things that
  please His Father. Let also the deaconess be honoured by you in the
  place of the Holy Ghost, and not do or say anything without the deacon

  In the next place, let the presbyters one by one, not all together,
  exhort the people, and the bishop in the last place, as being the
  commander. Let the porters stand at the entries of the men, and
  observe them. Let the deaconesses also stand at those of the women,
  like shipmen. For the same description and pattern was both in the
  tabernacle of the testimony and in the temple of God

  Ordain also a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the
  ministrations towards women. For sometimes he cannot send a deacon,
  who is a man, to the women, on account of unbelievers. Thou shalt
  therefore send a woman, a deaconess, on account of the imaginations of
  the bad. For we stand in need of a woman, a deaconess, for many
  necessities; and first in the baptism of women, the deacon shall
  anoint only their forehead with the holy oil, and after him the
  deaconess shall anoint them

There also appears to be a prohibition against women baptizing:

  Now, as to women’s baptizing, we let you know that there is no small
  peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to
  it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious. For if the “man
  be the head of the woman,” and he be originally ordained for the
  priesthood, it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation, and
  leave the principal to come to the extreme part of the body. For the
  woman is the body of the man, taken from his side, and subject to him,
  from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For says
  He, “He shall rule over thee"


How did attitues to the deutero-canonical books in the Western Churches change during the second millenium?

Current Position of the Roman Catholic Church

The current position of the Roman Catholic Church is given in Articles 135 and 138 of the Catechism.

  The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God.

and

  138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.

So the Roman Catholic Church teaches that all 73 books contain the Word of God, and are the Word of God.

Pre-Reformation Position

The attitude of the Church to the 7 books, known as the Deutero-Canon, was that they weren't necessarily equal to the other 66. The Catholic Encyclopaedia has this to say:

  In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.

They were certainly part of the Bible, but their status was somewhat doubtful in comparison to the rest. The Encyclopaedia goes on to say one reason was the prominence of Jerome's opinions in the Ordinary Gloss, the widely used  medieval commentary.  Richard Field , former Dean of Gloucester, wrotegiving a translation of part of the preface to this:

  Many ... suppose that all those books bound up in the Bible are to be in like sort honoured and esteemed, not knowing how to put a difference between books canonical and not canonical.

There is a

  great difference as there is between that which is certain and that which is doubtful.

and

  they that are not canonical are very good and profitable but their authority is not reputed sufficient to prove the  things that are questionable.

This is the point of view which educated persons in the middle ages  read.

Reformation Era

During this period people ceased to regard the 7 books as of doubtful authority. They made their minds up.  Protestants decided quite definitely that they are not authoritative, and Catholics (Council of Trent) decided quite definitely that they are.  (Of course, each claimed to be merely reasserting  ancient understandings.)

After the Reformation both Protestants and Catholics agreed that there were 73 books in the Bible. The difference was that Catholics held all alike and Protestants did not.

Luther, Calvin and King James etc. did not remove the books from the Bible. Luther collected them together in a separate section of the German Bible, a practice followed by the translators for King James (the First and Sixth). This was to assist readers in identifying inspired and uninspired parts of the Bible.

Subsequent to the Reformation

Many Protestants did as described in the first B> in the question. They decided rather than have a 73-book volume containing 66 books regarded as the inspired Word of God, and 7 books which were not the inspired word of God; that it would be better to have a volume consisting solely of the inspired Word of God.  They started printing copies of the Bible which contained only the 66 inspired books. Almost all modern printings of the King James Bible, and most modern Protestant translations, leave out the 7 books altogether.

Summary, in the form of the  Question

Pre=Reformation: We have 73 books but we're not all  100% sure about 7 of them.

Reformation Protestants: Actually, we are sure, the 7 definitely aren't inspired.

Counter-Reformation Catholics: Well, we're sure they definitely are.

Some Post-Reformation Protestants: Hey, wouldn't it be nice to have a book that just had the inspired Word of God.

Other Post-Reformation Protestants: good idea, yes,  lets  leave  the 7 out.

Needless to say, like all history, it was much more complicated than this, but I hope this gives a general overview.


Who are "Communicators" according to Pope Francis?

Who are “Communicators” according to Pope Francis?
The communicators that Pope Francis is referring to are parents and teachers of children. It is so explained in the whole 114th paragraph of his encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti::

The value of solidarity

I would like especially to mention solidarity, which, “as a moral virtue and social attitude born of personal conversion, calls for commitment on the part of those responsible for education and formation. I think first of families, called to a primary and vital mission of education. Families are the first place where the values of love and fraternity, togetherness and sharing, concern and care for others are lived out and handed on. They are also the privileged milieu for transmitting the faith, beginning with those first simple gestures of devotion which mothers teach their children. Teachers, who have the challenging task of training children and youth in schools or other settings, should be conscious that their responsibility extends also to the moral, spiritual and social aspects of life. The values of freedom, mutual respect and solidarity can be handed on from a tender age… Communicators also have a responsibility for education and formation, especially nowadays, when the means of information and communication are so widespread”.

Traditionally, teachers and parents have always been held as the primary communicators of divine truths to Catholic children!
However the text in Italian is somewhat more general as well as more encompassing in what Pope Francis sees as to whom these commentators seem to mean.
In lieu of the English word of commentators the text uses the phrase: Anche gli operatori culturali e dei mezzi di comunicazione sociale.
This implies that those in change of social media and those making use of social media are to ”commentators that are meant in the definition of Pope Francis in the original text of his encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti.
Here follows the Italian full text:

Il valore della solidarietà

Desidero mettere in risalto la solidarietà, che «come virtù morale e atteggiamento sociale, frutto della conversione personale, esige un impegno da parte di una molteplicità di soggetti, che hanno responsabilità di carattere educativo e formativo. Il mio primo pensiero va alle famiglie, chiamate a una missione educativa primaria e imprescindibile. Esse costituiscono il primo luogo in cui si vivono e si trasmettono i valori dell’amore e della fraternità, della convivenza e della condivisione, dell’attenzione e della cura dell’altro. Esse sono anche l’ambito privilegiato per la trasmissione della fede, cominciando da quei primi semplici gesti di devozione che le madri insegnano ai figli. Per quanto riguarda gli educatori e i formatori che, nella scuola o nei diversi centri di aggregazione infantile e giovanile, hanno l’impegnativo compito di educare i bambini e i giovani, sono chiamati ad essere consapevoli che la loro responsabilità riguarda le dimensioni morale, spirituale e sociale della persona. I valori della libertà, del rispetto reciproco e della solidarietà possono essere trasmessi fin dalla più tenera età. […] Anche gli operatori culturali e dei mezzi di comunicazione sociale hanno responsabilità nel campo dell’educazione e della formazione, specialmente nelle società contemporanee, in cui l’accesso a strumenti di informazione e di comunicazione è sempre più diffuso. “


The extent of different approaches to Revelation

I have still not found any good answer to this question. But I post some hints that have been helpful to me. Hoping that it might be helpful for someone else and maybe intriguing to give a better answer. The following is a quotation from Steve Gregg, Revelation - four views, 1997, p. 33-34.

  The contemporary conservative protestant scene

  Conservative Protestants commentaries (those that not follow the
  literary-critical approach) in the 19th and 20th centuries have been
  divided:
    The historicist approach continued into the 19th century in
  the writings of E. B. Elliott (Horae Apocalypticae, 1847), A. J.
  Gordon, Albert Barnes, and others. To my knowledge, the only modern
  commentaries that espouse this view have not come from recognized
  scholars (not that this fact should condemn them), but from
  essentially self-published authors who are desirous to reintroduce
  this viewpoint to a modern readership. Eugene Boring would seem to be
  correct when he writes, "Although widely held by Protestant
  interpreters after the Reformation and into the twentieth century, no
  critical New Testament scholar today advocates this view."   The
  preterist approach was followed in the 19th century by Moses Stuart (1845), and in the early 20th century by James Snowden (1919).
  Preterism has had a recent resurgence in the writings of Christian
  Reconstructionists like David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry.   On of the
  first popular presentations of the futurist approach, and the most
  influential, was that of J. A. Seiss (Lectures on the Apocalypse,
  1909). In the 20th century, the futurist approach to Revelation has
  become most common - especially since the publication of the
  phenomenally successful The Late Great Planet Earth, by Hal Lindsey
  - having its place almost in the very common stock of American pop culture. Futurism has been advocated by sound scholars, such as
  Walvoord, Mounce, and Ladd, as well as by innumerable cranks and
  eschatelogical faddists, who have often given it a bad name by their
  repeated speculations concerning the date of the Second Coming and
  their assigning of correspondences between the symbolic visions and
  specific developments in an ever-changing modern political milieu.
  The spiritual approach has received wide acceptance in modern
  commentaries, though various labels have been attached to it. Since
  Eichhorn, in the 18th century the dramatic nature of the book has
  intrigues many students of the book. In 1939, William Hendriksen
  popularized this view in his book, More Than Conquerors, though it
  was found in a number of works earlier in the 20th century as well. As
  I write, there appear to be more new commentaries published advocating
  a dramatico-spiritual approach to Revelation than there are
  advocating any of the other conservative approaches.

Authors emphasis. All spelling mistakes are (probably) mine. I do, by the way, highly recommend this book (even though I only started).


What is the technical understanding of the assertion of Jesus dying on the cross?

First off, I'm going to answer according to traditional Catholic Christology. This includes the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which took place in AD451, and issued the definition on Christology that most churches follow today. (The Oriental Orthodox form the most significant body that does not.) It also includes the Fifth Ecumenical Council of AD553.

You say:

  When you say Jesus died on the cross, is this referring to Jesus the 3rd person in Trinity? I understand that Jesus is understood as being divided into 2 parts: Human and Divine. So did the divine part die on the cross or the human?

First, the Son (existing before all worlds, only-begotten of the Father) is the second person of the Trinity. The Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Second, Jesus is not divided in two parts, as you say. Traditional (Chalcedonian) Christology says that Jesus has both a human nature and a divine nature, but that he is one person. He is not half-and-half human and divine, but fully human and fully divine. This is called the hypostatic union of Christ. He is one human, with two natures.

Because Christ is only one person, there were no times when the divine nature was absent and no times when the human nature was absent. The two natures were fully united in Christ. As Catechism of the Catholic Church says quoting the Fifth Ecumenical Council:

  Everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."

That is to say, the person Jesus Christ, both God and man, suffered and died upon the Cross.

As Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica:

  as before death Christ's flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the Word of God, it remained so after His death, so that the hypostasis of the Word of God was not different from that of Christ's flesh after death

You go on to ask which nature had to be sacrificed and which was raised on the third day. The answer by now should be obvious and is the same in both cases: it is the one person Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who was sacrificed, died and rose again.


How do the Orthodox and Catholics understand the spiration of the Holy Spirit?

The Catholic Perspective

I first ran across the word "spiration" in the discussion of the Holy Spirit's relation to the Trinity, found in Aquinas' Summa Theologica (First Part, Question 27). Aquinas has just finished talking first about God as an individual being, and then has begun discussing what it means for God to be a Trinity.

He begins by talking about language in the Bible which seems to indicate that the Son and Spirit, whom we recognize as God, have proceeded from God (e.g. John 8:42 "I came from God"). The procession of Son from Father, Aquinas concludes, can be thought of as analogous to the way that a thought or a word proceeds from the mind, and yet is in a sense part of the mind. He considers it to be "generation", in the sense that (just as in sexual generation) what is generated bears a fundamental similarity in essence to what generates.

What about the Holy Spirit? he then asks. First, he establishes that this procession of Son from Father is not the only procession in God:

  Procession exists in God, only according to an action which does not tend to anything external, but remains in the agent itself. Such an action in an intellectual nature is that of the intellect, and of the will. The procession of the Word is by way of an intelligible operation. The operation of the will within ourselves involves also another procession, that of love, whereby the object loved is in the lover; as, by the conception of the word, the object spoken of or understood is in the intelligent agent. Hence, besides the procession of the Word in God, there exists in Him another procession called the procession of love.

(Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 27, Article 3)

That is, "procession in God" comes from God, and terminates in God. The Son is one such procession, just as our words and thoughts proceed from us, and terminate in us. But there is another type of procession, he says. Our intellect produces our thoughts; but our desire—our wants, our ability to choose—produces love. Love also proceeds from us, and terminates in us; though it may influence our actions. In the same way, Aquinas concludes, the Holy Spirit proceeds from God, and terminates in God—from the love the Father and Son have for each other.

So, the last part comes, and the one that directly addresses your question: what should we call this kind of procession? Is it generation, as the Father generates the Son? Aquinas says No:

  We must consider that the intellect and the will differ in this respect, that the intellect is made actual by the object understood residing according to its own likeness in the intellect; whereas the will is made actual, not by any similitude of the object willed within it, but by its having a certain inclination to the thing willed. Thus the procession of the intellect is by way of similitude, and is called generation, because every generator begets its own like; whereas the procession of the will is not by way of similitude, but rather by way of impulse and movement towards an object.

  So what proceeds in God by way of love, does not proceed as begotten, or as son, but proceeds rather as spirit; which name expresses a certain vital movement and impulse, accordingly as anyone is described as moved or impelled by love to perform an action.

  As in creatures generation is the only principle of communication of nature, procession in God has no proper or special name, except that of generation. Hence the procession which is not generation has remained without a special name; but it can be called spiration, as it is the procession of the Spirit.

That is: what's "real" about thoughts, the products of the intellect, are their similarities to what's being thought of—we create a mental image of an apple, and we know it to be a mental image of an apple because it's like an apple. It's this similarity, as I mentioned, that leads Aquinas to call the process "generation". But what's real about the products of the will, Aquinas points out, is not that they're similar to their focus, but that they lead toward their focus. The difference between a mental image of an apple (the product of the intellect) and a desire for apples is that one produces something like an apple, whereas one produces an impulse to go get an apple.

For this reason, Aquinas concludes, it's not appropriate to call this sort of "procession" generation. But, he says, we really don't have any other word for that kind of relationship; so we make up a name, and call it spiration.

A BRIEF NOTE ON THE ORTHODOX VIEW

The Eastern Orthodox Churches, generally speaking, take much less of a structured philosophical approach to details of Church teaching. In particular, they don't worry so much about exactly how it is that the Spirit comes from the Father. Instead, they focus more simply on the Scriptural texts that talk about the Holy Spirit, considering the exact philosophical framework much less important than the personal encounter with the Spirit. Thus, though they developed the concept of "spiration" (which they call προβολή, probolē: "a throwing out"), there's less emphasis in Orthodox theological tradition on philosophical analysis of what this process means and how it takes place, and more emphasis on the sacred encounter with the Spirit in and through the Sacraments.


What is the biblical support for the original sin being an infinite sin?

I don't know if "infinite sin debt" has a more precise definition in some traditions, but as a concept, I'd say that the "infinite debt" alludes to the idea that the debt we owe because of sin is too large ever to be repaid.

  Hebrews 10:4 (NASB)
  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

The Hebrews writer says more about the idea in the entire chapter, but this is the thesis as far the question is concerned. Everyone has sinned (Ro 3:23). There is nothing we can do that will undo or make up for our sins (e.g. animal sacrifices, personal righteousness–Eph 2). In this sense, our sin (and the sin of Adam) could be thought of as infinite.

I don't think the saying you quoted is as much a precise statement of a specialized doctrine as much as it is a memorable, pithy statement in praise of Jesus.


How can one have eternal life by the death of Jesus or by Jesus teachings?

Christians have different views about salvation, but there is one thing that is believed by virtually every denomination - salvation does not come about simply through the teachings of Jesus. Hearing Jesus teaching and putting it into practice may lead you to salvation, but salvation comes through the death and resurrection of Jesus. If this were not so there would have been no need for Jesus to die.

Going into more detail would lead us to disagreement within this forum.


Which German Bible translation was Joseph Smith fond of?

I've always believed and heard this to be the Martin Luther translation of the German Bible.  While I've not yet found a completely authoritative statement on this being the case, I currently believe it to be true.  I think we may need get into his journals to probably get to the root of this. It may be possible that someone has written a research paper on this within the BYU libraries, but I have yet to put my finger on it.
One leading example is from Joseph Smith, Jr.'s journal (Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 1, 21 December 1842–10 March 1843) wherein the footnote references the more correct Martin Luther’s translation of Matthew 24:2 whereas Joseph refers simply to it as the "German bible."  This tacitly gives us a link:
JOURNAL:

...not one stone shall not be thrown down.— German bible says which
shall not be broken...

FOOTNOTES:

[96] Martin Luther’s translation of Matthew 24:2 reads: “Es wird hier nicht ein Stein auf dem andern bleiben, der nicht zerbrochen
werde.” (Die Bibel, Matthai 24:2.)
Die Bibel , oder die ganze heilige Schrift des alten und neuen Testaments, nach der deutschen Uebersetzung D. Martin Luthers. Halle
(Saale): der Cansteinischen Bibel-Anstalt, 1826.

Granted this is not a direct statement, but I think the Martin Luther translation was considered to be the gold standard and most printed version for the German Bible at this time.
Martin Luther is again referenced in Revelation, 9 March 1833 [D&C 91] (Re: Apocrypha); See Historical Introduction:

Martin Luther, in his 1534 translation of the Bible, however, placed
the books of the Apocrypha at the end of the Old Testament and
explained...

Again by extrapolation it puts him in and around the "right place at the right time."
It also appears that Luther's translation was directly used in some other translations and/or influenced other translators, so at the end of the day Luther is the prime mover of the German bible, as per the Wikipedia article to which you referred.
Finally, in one of your quotations above, the author of the wiki article at this site attributes the German translation directly to Martin Luther (yet I see no actual authoritative citation for his source; perhaps basing it off of "common knowledge" such as my sentiment?):

Joseph Smith said of Martin Luther’s German translation, “I have an
old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and
Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the
most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the
revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years.”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 349)

JBH adds an interesting observation in his answer that I thought I'd consolidate into this answer and add a little to assist the content:
Val Hinckley Sederholm's blog notes [Archive]:

I'm intrigued by the Prophet's polyglot New Testament consulted in the 7 April 1844 general conference address (King Follett Sermon) and in a 12 May 1844 sermon. "A Bible in various tongues" is how visitor Josiah Quincy described it. For some Saints the book became an iconic way of remembering Brother Joseph. A lithograph depicting the April 1844 general conference shows the Prophet with his Testament on the pulpit; the book even surfaces in Wilford Woodruff’s dreams: "I met with Br Joseph Smith in the Congregation of the Saints. He had his old Hebrew and Jerman Bible, and preached to the Saints." As the dream continues, Joseph, "thronged by people," lifts a curtain into "another room and there he was going to teach the people" (19 August 1844; 2: 449, in ed., S. Kinney; Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past).
Note what Brother Woodruff calls the book: "his old Hebrew and Jerman Bible."
Thomas Bullock reports Joseph as saying: “I have an old book [Clayton: ‘N.T.’] in the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and German” (7 April 1844). The book comprises “the old German [Luther’s original], Latin, Greek, and Hebrew translations” (Bullock Report, 8 April 1844). The Prophet further terms his Testament “the oldest book in the world” (Woodruff Journal and Clayton Report for 7 April), which matches Samuel W. Richards’s characterization of it as “an ancient German Bible” (12 May 1844). Only one polyglot Testament fits the description and that is Elias Hutter’s Novum Testamentum harmonicum (Nuremberg, 1602).  (emphasis by JBH)

(Elias Hutter can also be found as Elia Huttero (aka Latin: Hvttero) (Archive.org search) and each available scanned book may be viewed here: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Romans
– These were made available November 25, 2014, while the blog post was from March 2, 2010 so these works were not available online at the time of blogging.)
All the arrows, so far, seem to converge on Martin Luther...


What are the various beliefs about the fate of honest atheists?

According to Christian perspectives you mentioned, a person who claims that Jesus Christ was not in any way divine, and that his death was not spiritually meaningful in any way cannot enter into the Body of Christ, Community of Saints, or the Kingdom of God.

Consider the following soteriological perspectives,

Salvation by faith: regardless of other principles or teaching, most self proclaimed adherents to mainstream Christian religions require that a person acknowledges that they believe in the resurrection of Christ and some of its consequences.

Repentance from Sin: While most Christian groups acknowledge that salvation is by faith alone (Reformed, Evangelical, Catholic), some acknowledge that a person should have a life after conversion in which their behavior is altogether different than that of their pre-conversion life.

Decisionalism: Yet other Christian groups, and some of those also mentioned, teach that a person must make a conscious decision to follow Jesus, and that each should be able to point to a moment of realization of the truth and salvation.

Lordship: Others yet claim that Salvation comes when people turn their lives over to Christ, as their Lord and Master.

Sanctification: If a person obtains justification from sin by their sanctification, a person must become holy by living a biblically driven life, their sins being forgiven because of their dedication to godliness.

If an atheist does not fall into any of these categories, most of the Christian groups that operate according to any one of these doctrines, including the Reformed, Evangelical, Catholic, or Orthodox churches, as well as others like Mormonism, would not include such a person among those who, according to many of these groups, will continue to live eternally in communion with God.


According to the Greek Orthodox Church can one marry a Maronite Catholic?

The short answer is yes.

  When getting married in the Greek Orthodox Church, especially interfaith marriages, there are a lot of questions about what may be allowed in the Church, and what may be prohibited. Luckily, as with many practices of the Church, the Church has explicitly stated guidelines for marriage in the Greek Orthodox Church.

  These guidelines outline the official position of the Orthodox Church and simply dictate what is allowed and what is not allowed to take place. They concern the basic rules that must be met, acting as the official canons of the Orthodox Church. They represent the fundamental core of the sacrament of marriage where there is little to no room for negotiation or exception.

  According to the Greek Orthodox Church, first and foremost, the marriage must be conducted in an Orthodox Church. This unfortunately pretty much rules out the romantic beach weddings in the Caribbean that are all over TV. This is not because the Church does not like the beach; rather since Marriage is one of the seven sacraments, it is seen as a sacred ceremony, one that should be conducted in a sacred space—an Orthodox Church.

  This in turn means that an Orthodox priest must celebrate the sacrament with a traditional Orthodox ceremony in an Orthodox Church. The respective Diocese must also grant authorization of the service.

  The engaged couple must meet with the parish priest of the church in which they are to be married. The priest must belong to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese; however marriages that are performed in another Orthodox jurisdiction (Serbian, Russian, Bulgarian etc.) in communion with the Greek Orthodox Church are recognized as valid. Before asking for authorization from the Bishop, it is the priest’s job to verify that several fundamental conditions are either avoided or met adequately. - Getting Married in the Greek Orthodox Church

For the Catholic party, the future spouse must obtain a dispensation from their local ordinary (bishop), in order to make it a valid canonical marriage.

  Can.  1127 §2 If grave difficulties hinder the observance of canonical form, the local ordinary of the Catholic party has the right of dispensing from the form in individual cases, after having consulted the ordinary of the place in which the marriage is celebrated and with some public form of celebration for validity. It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms by which the aforementioned dispensation is to be granted in a uniform manner.
   The Code of canons of Oriental Churches (CCEO) has this to say on Marriage:

  Canon 813 Marriage between two baptized persons, one of whom is Catholic and the other of whom is non-Catholic, is prohibited without the prior permission of the competent authority.

  Canon 814 For a just reason the local hierarch can grant permission; however he is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled: the Catholic party declares that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of falling away from the faith and makes a sincere promise to do all in his or her power to have all the offspring baptized and educated in the Catholic Church; the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time of these promises which the Catholic party has to make, so that it is clear that the other party is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party; both parties are to be instructed on the essential ends and properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either spouse.

  Canon 816 Local hierarchs and other pastors of souls are to see to it that the Catholic spouse and the children born of a mixed marriage do not lack spiritual assistance in fulfilling their spiritual obligations, and are to assist the spouses in fostering the unity of conjugal and family life.

  Canon 835 Dispensation from the form for the celebration of marriage required by law is reserved to the Apostolic See or the patriarch, who will not grant it except for a most grave reason.


What was the role of Apollos in the early church?

Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew, as stated in Acts 18:24 (with following verses indicating that he knew the [Jewish] Scriptures and preached the gospel--"the way of the Lord"--but only knew "the baptism of John" before being further instructed by Priscilla and Aquila).

It is possible that, like Timothy, he had a Jewish mother but a Gentile father; this might explain his being named Apollos. Since Alexandria was a center for both Greek and Jewish cultures, mixed parentage seems plausible.


How do Mormons interpret the warning in Revelation about adding to the book?

Your premise is invalid, as the warning in Revelation cannot be honestly interpreted as referring to anything beyond Revelation itself.  "The Bible" did not exist back then.  The very concept of "the Bible" did not even exist back then.  Each sacred writing was its own book; they weren't compiled into a collection until centuries later.  In addition, John wrote the Gospel of John after he wrote Revelation.  An overly-broad interpretation of the warning at the end of Revelation would invalidate the most beautiful and profoundly spiritual of the four Gospels!


Did Luther say he "might well have entrusted the whole affair of this [Eucharist] controversy to [Calvin] from the beginning"?

Original source
Henry's quote is verbatim from Christoph Pezel's 1590 book Außführliche, warhaffte und bestendige Erzehlung, and he mentions Pezel in a footnote to the paragraph prior to the story. Many sources indicate that the story originates with Pezel.
Credibility
I found a few historians who weighed in on whether the story was credible or not.
Paul Henry says in The Life and Times of John Calvin that the story bears "all the internal signs of truth" and "is wanting in none of the outer."
Julius Kostlin says in Theology of Luther in Its Historical Development and Inner Harmony Part 2 (pg. 191):

Under these circumstances [the cooling of Luther's attitude toward Bucer], there is no internal improbability in the report, that he greeted with rejoicing the tract upon the Lord's Supper which Calvin had meanwhile published, although it is open to question in how far Pezel's account of this incident is trustworthy.

Johann Karl Ludwig Gieseler concludes that the story is credible while discussing a different but related matter in A Text-book of Church History: A.D. 1517-1648 (The Reformation and its Results to the Peace of Westphalia) (pg. 414 n. 43):

As Luther at this time [1539] must have known the Institutions of Calvin, it follows, from the declarations of this letter, that he was then satisfied with his [Calvin's] doctrine upon the Lord's Supper; and, besides, it also fully agreed with that to which the Swiss had declared assent to Luther in 1536. Thus the avowals of Luther about Calvin are trustworthy, given by Christoph. Pezel.

Brian Gerrish hedges on whether the story is reliable, in The Old Protestantism and the New (pg. 286 n. 53):

Mülhaupt ("Luther und Calvin," p. 103) suspects this story of being a mere embellishment of the incident Calvin reported to Farel in his letter of 20 November 1539, where, as we have seen, the writing in question is not identified. But this is mere guess-work, and the story may well be authentic; Pezel relates it with attention to details and also names the witness (one of Luther's table companions) from whom the incident is derived. On the other hand, it is quite plain from two passages in the Table Talk that Luther's attitude toward Calvin in the closing years of his life was a mixture of respect and suspicion: W.A.Tr. 5.51.19 (no. 5303) and 461.18 (no. 6050).

Calvin's letter to Farel and the two Table Talk passages will be discussed briefly below, in the "Luther on Calvin" section.
Rudolph Hospinian also told the story (more briefly) in his History of the Sacraments (1598), though I was only able to find a Latin version and I couldn't locate the story in that edition. Gerrish (on the page quoted above) and Erwin Doumergue say he was an independent reporter, but Gieseler thinks he borrowed it from Pezel. Says Doumergue (Jean Calvin, pg. 573 n. 1):

Hospinian has not borrowed from Pezel because according to his method, he would have cited the main passages verbatim. They probably had two different sources.

It's worth noting also that Pezel was a Lutheran who was under suspicion for much of his life of being a crypto-Calvinist on the sacraments, and Hospinian was Swiss Reformed, so he was either Calvinist or Zwinglian on the sacraments.
Luther on Calvin
Gerrish has elsewhere written an overview of Luther's statements on Calvin, titled "Luther and the Reformed Eucharist: What Luther Said, or Might Have Said About Calvin." James Swan has written a helpful summary of Gerrish's article at his blog post "Luther and Calvin... Friends or Enemies?"
Since Mülhaupt (mentioned above) believed that the incident in question was an embellishment of a claim Calvin makes in a letter to Farel, it makes sense to quote part of Gerrish's treatment of the letter here:

In a letter to Guillaume Farel, dated 20 November 1539, Calvin reports that Luther has asked Bucer to greet his young French associate for him: "Will you pay my respects (salutabis reverenter) to John Sturm and John Calvin. I have read their little books with singular enjoyment." We can forget about John Sturm for the moment. Calvin exclaims with evident delight: "Just think what I say there about the Eucharist! Consider Luther's generosity (ingenuitatem)! It will be easy to decide what reason they have who so obstinately disagree with him." Calvin goes on to say that Philipp Melanchthon has confirmed the good news of Luther's high regard for him, and has instructed the letter-carrier to deliver an oral message, which Calvin reports in these words:

Certain persons, to irritate Martin, pointed out to him the aversion with which he and his followers were alluded to by me. So he examined the passage in question and felt that he was there, beyond doubt, under attack. After a while, he said: "I certainly hope that he will one day think better of us. Still, it is right for us to be a little tolerant toward such a gifted man." We are surely made of stone [Calvin comments] if we are not overcome by such moderation! I, certainly, am overcome, and I have written an apology (satisfactionem) for insertion into my preface to the Epistle to the Romans.

...
The intriguing question is, of course: What book of Calvin's had Luther read "with singular enjoyment"? ... The case for ... the Reply to Sadoleto, it seems to me, is clinched by the fact that the Luther's request to Bucer—"pay my respects to John Sturm and John Calvin," etc.—is followed immediately by the caustic remark, "As for Sadoleto, I wish he would believe that God is the creator of men even outside of Italy."

Swan's and Gerrish's links also contain a brief discussion of the Table Talk entries on Calvin, among other things.
Note on sources
I am indebted to Nathaniel's answer for its alternate translation, which (via Google) was my gateway to Gerrish, who in turn was my gateway to all the rest of my sources.


Does the Bible or Church tradition differentiate marriage from partnerships?

Conservative pastor and OT scholar Gordon Hugenberger of Park Street Church in Boston argues that the biblical view of marriage is less formal and ceremonial than we view it today. It had more economic overtones, less romantic ones (at least at the outset), and generally speaking, engaging in sex automatically created the marital covenant. (See his dissertation published as Marriage as a Covenant and his sermon series on marriage -- MP3s here -- and subsequent Q&A, which calls out the titles of the sermons in the MP3 link.)

In short, I think he would say a male-female sexual relationship is viewed as itself creating a marital bond, whether formalized publicly or not, and dissolution of that relationship would amount to a divorce or breaking of the marital covenant. (A non-sexual partnership or an otherwise prohibited sexual relationship would not create such a bond.)

As a qualification on this, he notes that the issue of "premarital" sex was far less common than it is today in our wealthier, leisurely society with its delayed marriage age:

  Throughout the entire ancient Near East, men and women normally got
  married in their mid-to-late teens. For this reason, there were very
  few individuals around who were old enough to be sexually mature, but
  who were not yet married or at least "pledged to be married."
  (Engagement or "betrothal" gave couples the legal status of marriage,
  even though their marriage was not yet consummated.) This is why far
  more attention is given in the Bible to the problem of adultery than
  to the temptation of premarital sexual promiscuity. There was very
  little in the ancient world comparable to our practice of dating.

As for history, conservative Catholic writer Ross Douthat argues that the Western, Judeo-Christian-derived ideal for marriage

  holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two
  sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the
  mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a
  uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life
  that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in
  intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely
  admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of
  achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of
  rituals, sanctions and taboos.

Marriage in this understanding is "not some universal, biologically inevitable institution" but rather is

  a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition,
  that establishes a particular sexual ideal [and] it was the Western
  understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic,
  more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent
  out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy. [emphasis added]

On the whole Christian tradition has supported the idealistic vision thoroughly, until the mid to late 1900s when a "less idealistic" vision found some supporters among the more liberal members of various branches of the church and the culture at large. It has consequently seeped into more conservative churches in various ways (e.g., in how the church treats divorce), though most still hold out against some trends, such as premarital sex and cohabitation.

As for your updated question about mainline denominations' views: the mainline churches are hardly a monolithic whole, so generalization usually leads to some inaccuracies in comparing between groups (say, the UCC and the PCUSA). The mainlines tend to be relatively "big tent" operations with a wider variety of views than a more theologically conservative denomination, though there are often still a conservative subset within their tents. As a rule of thumb, the more conservative the group as a whole, the less variance there will be in their views.

Views on marriage can and do range widely even within on particular mainline group. Some progressives have abandoned any semblance of a traditional or biblical ethic in setting the parameters for marital relationships, preferring some less stringent "ethic of love" (or whatever). Votes on such matters at the denominational level are often very close, indicating that there is not a strong consensus within the group. Even when a view is adopted, there can be a large minority group within the denomination that does not agree with it.

All that being said, to my knowledge no mainline group officially recommends cohabitation, etc. They still prefer to see a public commitment in the form of marriage, even if their definition of marriage includes differences from the Western ideal described above, such as easy divorce or same-sex couplings.


How did Pope Urban II justify the first Crusade?

It is true that in the Ten Commandments we read that it is not permitted to kill. But we do have a duty to protect ourselves and our neighbors in times of war or persecution. The helpless needed to be defended in Palestine and the Holy Sites liberated from oppression.

We must not forget that the Greek Emperor Alexius Comnenus had sent letters to Pope Urban II asking for "aid against the against the infidels, representing that, unless assistance was extended immediately, the capital with all its holy relics must soon fall into the hands of the barbarians."

Causes of the crusades:

  The reason and cause of the crusades was a war between Christians and Moslems which centered around the city of Jerusalem and the Holy places of Palestine. The City of Jerusalem held a Holy significance to the Christian religion. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem commemorated the hill of crucifixion and the tomb of Christ's burial. Pilgrims throughout the Middle Ages made sacred pilgrimages to the Holy city of Jerusalem and the church. Although the city of Jerusalem was held by the Saracens the Christian pilgrims had been granted safe passage to visit the Holy city.
  Among the early Christians it was thought a pious and meritorious act to undertake a journey to some sacred place. Especially was it thought that a pilgrimage to the land that had been trod by the feet of the Saviour of the world, to the Holy City that had witnessed his martyrdom, was a peculiarly pious undertaking, and one which secured for the pilgrim the special favor and blessing of Heaven. The Saracen caliphs, for the four centuries and more that they held possession of Palestine, pursued usually an enlightened policy towards the pilgrims, even encouraging pilgrimages as a source of revenue. But in the eleventh century the Seljukian Turks, a prominent Tartar tribe and zealous followers of Islam, wrested from the caliphs almost all their Asiatic possessions. The Christians were not long in realizing that power had fallen into new hands. 3000 Christian Pilgrims were insulted and persecuted in every way. The churches in Jerusalem were destroyed or turned into stables.
  The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the preaching of Peter the Hermit, a native of Picardy, in France. Having been commissioned by Pope Urban II to preach a crusade, the Hermit traversed all Italy and France, addressing everywhere, in the church, in the street, and in the open field, the crowds that flocked about him, moving all hearts with sympathy or firing them with indignation, as he recited the sufferings of their brethren at the hands of the infidels, or pictured the profanation of the holy places, polluted by the presence and insults of the unbelievers.
  Whilst Peter the Hermit had been arousing the warriors of the West, the Turks had been making constant advances in the East, and were now threatening Constantinople itself. The Greek emperor (Alexius Comnenus) sent urgent letters to the Pope, asking for aid against the infidels, representing that, unless assistance was extended immediately, the capital with all its holy relics must soon fall into the hands of the barbarians.
  Pope Urban II & the Council of Clermont:
  Pope Urban II called a great council of the Church at Placentia, in Italy, to consider the appeal (1095), but nothing was effected. Later in the same year a new council was convened at Clermont, in France, Pope Urban purposely fixing the place of meeting among the warm tempered and martial Franks. Pope Urban II himself was one of the chief speakers. He was naturally eloquent, so that the man, the cause, and the occasion all conspired to achieve one of the greatest triumphs of human oratory. Pope Urban II pictured the humiliation and misery of the provinces of Asia; the profanation of the places made sacred by the presence and footsteps of the Son of God. Pope Urban II then detailed the conquests of the Turks, until now, with all Asia Minor in their possession, they were threatening Europe from the shores of the Hellespont. - Cause of the Crusades

In 1094 or 1095, Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, sent to the pope, Urban II, and asked for aid from the West against the Seljuq Turks, who taken nearly all of Asia Minor from him. At the Council of Clermont, Urban addressed a great crowd and urged all to go to the aid of the Greeks and to recover Palestine from the rule of the Muslims. The acts of the Council have not been preserved, but we have five accounts of the speech of Urban which were written by men who were present and heard him.

  1. Fulcher of Chartres (notes):

  "For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent."

  2. Robert the Monk

  From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness. They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent. The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it can not be traversed in a march of two months. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.

  3. The Gesta Version

  When now that time was at hand which the Lord Jesus daily points out to His faithful, especially in the Gospel, saying, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me," a mighty agitation was carried on throughout all the region of Gaul. (Its tenor was) that if anyone desired to follow the Lord zealously, with a pure heart and mind, and wished faithfully to bear the cross after Him, he would no longer hesitate to take up the way to the Holy Sepulchre.

  And so Urban, Pope of the Roman see, with his archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priests, set out as quickly as possible beyond the mountains and began to deliver sermons and to preach eloquently, saying: "Whoever wishes to save his soul should not hesitate humbly to take up the way of the Lord, and if he lacks sufficient money, divine mercy will give him enough." Then the apostolic lord continued, "Brethren, we ought to endure much suffering for the name of Christ - misery, poverty, nakedness, persecution, want, illness, hunger, thirst, and other (ills) of this kind, just as the Lord saith to His disciples: 'Ye must suffer much in My name,' and 'Be not ashamed to confess Me before the faces of men; verily I will give you mouth and wisdom,' and finally, 'Great is your reward in Heaven."' And when this speech had already begun to be noised abroad, little by little, through all the regions and countries of Gaul, the Franks, upon hearing such reports, forthwith caused crosses to be sewed on their right shoulders, saying that they followed with one accord the footsteps of Christ, by which they had been redeemed from the hand of hell.

  3. Version of Balderic of Dol

  And turning to the bishops, he said, "You, brothers and fellow bishops; you, fellow priests and sharers with us in Christ, make this same announcement through the churches committed to you, and with your whole soul vigorously preach the journey to Jerusalem. When they have confessed the disgrace of their sins, do you, secure in Christ, grant them speedy pardon. Moreover, you who are to go shall have us praying for you; we shall have you fighting for God's people. It is our duty to pray, yours to fight against the Amalekites. With Moses, we shall extend unwearied hands in prayer to Heaven, while you go forth and brandish the sword, like dauntless warriors, against Amalek."

  4. Version of Guibert de Nogent

  "If in olden times the Maccabees attained to the highest praise of piety because they fought for the ceremonies and the Temple, it is also justly granted you, Christian soldiers, to defend their liberty of your country by armed endeavor. If you, likewise, consider that the abode of the holy apostles and any other saints should be striven for with such effort, why do you refuse to rescue the Cross, the Blood, the Tomb? Why do you refuse to visit them, to spend the price of your lives in rescuing them? You have thus far waged unjust wars, at one time and another; you have brandished mad weapons to your mutual destruction, for no other reason than covetousness and pride, as a result of which you have deserved eternal death and sure damnation. We now hold out to you wars which contain the glorious reward of martyrdom, which will retain that title of praise now and forever."

  5. Urban II: Letter of Instruction to the Crusaders, December 1095

  Urban, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all the faithful, both princes and subjects, waiting in Flanders; greeting, apostolic grace, and blessing.

  Your brotherhood, we believe, has long since learned from many accounts that a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted an laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient. More than this, blasphemous to say, it has even grasped in intolerabe servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified b His passion and resurrection. Grieving with pious concern at this calamity, we visited the regions of Gaul and devoted ourselves largely to urging the princes of the land and their subjects to free the churches of the East. We solemnly enjoined upon them at the council of Auvergne (the accomplishment of) such an undertaking, as a preparation for the remission of all their sins. And we have constituted our most beloved son, Adhemar, Bishop of Puy, leader of this expedition and undertaking in our stead, so that those who, perchance, may wish to undertake this journey should comply With his commands, as if they were our own, and submit fully to his loosings or bindings, as far as shall seem to belong to such an office. If, moreover, there are any of your people whom God has inspired to this vow, let them know that he (Adhemar) will set out with the aid of God on the day of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary, and that they can then attach themselves to his following. - Pope Urban II's Speech Calling for the First Crusade

Pope Urban II also issued a "Crusader's Indulgence" for those partaking in the Crusades.

  The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance.


Why didn't God decide where the temple should be built during the exodus?

God did not reveal everything at once to the Prophets in the past. Revelation from God is a progressive revelation. Lets see some examples-

The Law was a progressive addition: God gave few laws to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9). God then gave circumcision law to Abraham (Genesis 17). At last, the complete law was given in a written form to Moses.
Messiah was not clearly revealed in OT: For the Christians, the New Testament is the truth for interpreting the Old Testament. The NT is the final revelation of who the Messiah is and gives us a clear picture of the Messiah, not a vague and shadowy picture like the OT.  The name of the Messiah as "Jesus" was not clearly predicted in the OT. If the name of Messiah was clearly written in OT, I believe there is higher probability for the Jews to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The OT did not clearly mention that Messiah will be crucified, though the NT says the prophecy is hidden in Psalms 22 and others.

Applying the same concept to the Temple, we can infer that God did not reveal the chosen site for the Temple at once to Moses.

How the Temple site was chosen in Jerusalem: In 1 Chronicles 21, David aroused the anger of the LORD by counting the fighting men in Israel. The Lord sent Gad, David's prophet to inform the punishment from God. God sent a plague on Israel and sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem.

  Then the angel of the Lord ordered Gad to tell David to go up and
  build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the
  Jebusite. So David went up in obedience to the word that Gad had
  spoken in the name of the Lord. While Araunah was threshing wheat, he
  turned and saw the angel; his four sons who were with him hid
  themselves. Then David approached, and when Araunah looked and saw
  him, he left the threshing floor and bowed down before David with his
  face to the ground. David said to him, “Let me have the site of your
  threshing floor so I can build an altar to the Lord, that the plague
  on the people may be stopped. Sell it to me at the full price.” (1
  Chronicles 21:18-22, NIV)

David then decided to built the Temple there at the threshing site of Araunah the
Jebusite.

  Then David said, “The house of the Lord God is to be here, and also
  the altar of burnt offering for Israel.” (1 Chronicles 22:1, NIV)

The Bible doesn't clearly mention why David chose that place for the Temple site. There was probably some divine understanding given to David that God has chosen that site for the Temple or David was divinely inspired because he was a man of God. We can see how God approved the alter built there by sending a fire.

  So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels of gold for the site.
  David built an altar to the Lord there and sacrificed burnt offerings
  and fellowship offerings. He called on the Lord, and the Lord answered
  him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering. (1 Chronicles 21:25-26, NIV)

And later, when Solomon built the Temple there, God approved it.

  The Lord said to him: “I have heard the prayer and plea you have made
  before me; I have consecrated this temple, which you have built, by
  putting my Name there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be
  there. (1 Kings 9:3, NIV)


Is penal substitutionary atonement most prevalent among Calvinists?

The strongest defenders of penal substitution are going to be conservative Calvinists: that is, those who hold to the "five points" of Calvinism and reject modernist approaches to Scripture.  Outside this group, many nonetheless hold to penal substitution, but there is more diversity of opinion.
A few examples of conservative Calvinists who hold to penal substitution are R. C. Sproul, Louis Berkhof, Charles Hodge, and Wayne Grudem.  Harder to find are those that question the theory; one example of a Calvinist who has been criticized for innovation in this area is John McLeod Campbell, a 19th century Scottish theologian.  Even his views, however, are described by some as de-emphasizing the penal aspect of atonement, not jettisoning it.
In the broader evangelical movement, many reject one or more of the "five points" of Calvinism but nonetheless hold to penal substitution.  A prominent example would be Calvary Chapel, an association of churches whose statement of faith says that in his death Christ bore God's wrath on our behalf.  But there are exceptions here as well; for example, C. S. Lewis was not particularly comfortable with this view.
In more Arminian circles, particularly in Methodism, penal substitution is less widely held.  John Miley is a key figure in this respect; he preferred a governmental theory and was highly influential in 19th century Methodism.  Still, even here some who associate themselves with "classical" (i.e., non- or pre-Methodist) Arminianism hold to penal substitution.
And finally, among those influenced by Modernism, penal substitution is often rejected.  Unsurprisingly it is opposed by the likes of Schleiermacher and Ritschl, but even a "conservative Modernist" like Karl Barth was not fully satisfied with penal substitution, though his views on the subject appear to be a matter of some debate.
Summary
In general, you are right: penal substitution is most closely associated with Calvinism and evangelicalism.  Beyond these groups it finds some adherents, but not as consistently.


You might want to look at this question, which is virtually identical. To summarize:

It is a simple matter to search the entire contents of the Bible. Doing so will reveal no occurrences of the words Muhammad or Ahmad or any of their spelling variants. Manuscripts of the New Testament have been found going back to the first few decades after Jesus, and in none of these manuscripts does the name Muhammad or Ahmad appear.

Claims like this, made by Muslims, are usually referring to the Gospel of Barnabas. The Gospel of Barnabas  has never been part of the Christian Bible. It contradicts all of the early Christian documents in many ways, follows a remarkably Islamic point of view, and includes a passage in which Jesus predicts Muhammad. No manuscripts of this gospel, or any description of it, exist from before the 16th Century. (There are mentions of a Gospel of Barnabas from the 6th Century - still much later then the canonical gospels -  but we have no way of knowing if this is the same document.)

To directly address the 'censored' question: No, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the name having been removed from any biblical documents. There are no manuscripts of biblical documents that contain his name; there are no letters referring to such documents; there are no letters discussing such censorship. Also the canon of scripture was established before Mohammed, and we have many copies of the documents that predate Mohammed, so no: this did not happen.


What difference does baptism make when it comes to marriage?

The Sacrament of Baptism is often called "The door of the Church" because it is considered the first of the seven sacraments. According to Catholic Catechism (1212), the Catholic Church sees baptism as the first and basic sacrament of Christian initiation. For most Christians and especially Catholics, baptism is the first sacrament received (often as an infant) after which one becomes a member of the church. Baptism is also required by the Catholic church in order to receive the other sacraments. For example, the Sacrament of Confirmation and the Sacrament of Holy Communion depend on first being baptised.

For such a couple, it would be required by the Catholic Church for baptism to take place before being married otherwise the marriage would not be considered a sacramental marriage, and the church would not be allowed to perform such a marriage.

The Sacrament of Marriage is built on a firm foundation of Baptism. Clearly from the Catholic point of view, marriage cannot take place before both man and woman are baptised. The Catechism (1633) describes a mixed marriage as between Catholic and a baptised non-Catholic that requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors.
It further states "marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person requires even greater circumspection" meaning a marriage to a non-baptized person would create complications and at least raise some tough questions about one's faith. There is a passage in the Bible in 1 Cor 7:14 about being married to an unbelieving spouse and the believing spouse a blessing to the other so there are some allowances for "mixed" marriages, but that is the exception not the rule.

Without a baptism, the commitment of the couple to the faith and church would be in question. When children come into the picture then it becomes even more important to decide whether one is a Christian or not and whether children should be raised as Catholics or not. The Bible clearly talks about "luke warm" Christians (Rev 3:16) and rebukes such attitudes. From the church's perspective, this is very relevant since you next have to ask about the commitment the couple will have to one another.

Of course, a secular stand point would have an entirely different point of view on this topic, but the context here is between two "nominal" Catholics who would like to get married in the church.


Is the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" the same as the "tree of life"?

No. These are two different trees.

  The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:9)

At first, only one was made off limits to humans.

  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die. (Gen 2:17)

Then, after humans disobeyed, God made the other tree off limits, as well.

  And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. (Gen 3:22)

But now... it is under guard.

  After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen 3:24)

In summary: There are two trees (among many) in this story, the fruit of one was forbidden, humans disobeyed God. Now we are locked out of the other tree (from which the humans were allowed to eat in the first place.)