How does the Catholic Magisterium advise the married laity to defend the institution of marriage?

The Magisterium has offered a number of guidelines for how to live the institution of marriage, so as to make it truly life-giving, and indeed a source holiness for married couples. The best “defence” of marriage is the witness of couples who have lived out their vocation in accord with God’s plan for them.

The universal call to holiness

The Church’s recent Magisterium (since Vatican II) has emphasized that all people are called to holiness, not only those who have been called a clerical or consecrated vocation:

  Thus it is evident to everyone, that all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity; by this holiness as such a more human manner of living is promoted in this earthly society (Lumen Gentium 40).

Married couples are no exception: the Sacrament of Matrimony is their particular path to holiness:

  Furthermore, married couples and Christian parents should follow their own proper path (to holiness) by faithful love. They should sustain one another in grace throughout the entire length of their lives. They should embue their offspring, lovingly welcomed as God’s gift, with Christian doctrine and the evangelical virtues (Lumen Gentium 41)

In other words, the grace received in matrimony is the source of their holiness, and it is fundamentally that grace, and the holiness produced by that grace—not something particular that the couples need to do—that will provide the witness that the Church asks.

The fundamentals in holiness of life

The principle “task” of married couples, therefore, is to live holy lives, and in order to do that, couples must first of all place no obstacle to living holy lives: they must, in other words, obey what the natural law tells them is necessary for a happy marriage.

First of all, the fundamental characteristics of marriage must be respected: marriage is by nature indissoluble (it cannot be ended at the discretion of the spouses), exclusive (it can only be with one spouse at a time), faithful (one cannot permit extramarital affairs), and fruitful (children are always to be welcomed). (See Familiaris Consortio, Part 3, chapter I.)

It must be specified nowadays that true marriage can only be contracted between one man and one woman, always considering the sex that they have “originally” had since birth.

The controversy over who is elegible for marriage is only one of the challenges to marriage today. There is also the relative ease with which couples can obtain civil divorce—which can easily lead couples to think that marriage is inherently transitory, not permanent—and the strong temptation to use contraception as a means to limit childbirth.

(We should note that the Catholic Church does not prohibit limiting childbirth for legitimate reasons; she merely says that actions that destroy or forcibly impede our bodies’ ability to procreate—e.g., using hormonal contraceptives or condoms, and obtaining tubal ligations or vasectomies—is immoral, because it tends to undermine both the unity of the spouses and, evidently, their God-given call to bring forth children. See Humanae Vitae, especially numbers 14-15. It is also worth noting that modern gynecology provides excellent and highly reliable alternatives to oral contraceptives, when regulating birth is necessary. See, for example, http://www.creightonmodel.com/.)

It is also important for couples to realize that they are making a very serious and permanent commitment to one another. Even if something should go wrong—either through illness, or even when one spouse is not faithful—the couple have an obligation to regard themselves as married. Separation and civil divorce can be tolerated when the situation warrants it (and when there is grave danger to one of the spouses or to the children, it might even be obligatory); however, “remarriage” is never a legitimate option, unless there is a way to prove in the external forum that the first marriage was, in fact, not a marriage at all. (See Familiaris Consortio 83.)

The first and most fundamental step, therefore, to being faithful witnesses to married love is to follow the Commandments and the natural law regarding matrimony. Nowadays, simply being faithful to the basics of morality constitutes a heroic witness, and for this a married couple can count on the grace that they receive in the Sacrament of Matrimony.

How to grow in holiness

Living a happly and faithful marriage, however, does not reduce to fulfilling the minimum requirements.

Part Three of Familiaris Consortio gives a number of suggestions in which couples can grow in holiness. Among others,

Married couples participate in a unique way in the creative power of God. The Church encourages couples to take part generously in the gift that God has given them to bring new human beings into the world. It is a common misconception that the Church wants couples to have as many children as physically possible. That is not the case: rather, they should take into account their means and abilities. However, the Church does encourage couples—without obliging them—to be generous, not miserly, since such generosity will bring about happiness and fulfillment. (See Familiaris Consortio 28.)
Married couples have an invaluable role in educating their children. In fact, parents (not the state) are the primary educators of their children, and the institutions that exist for that purpose are meant to be at the service of parents. (Schools and governments that usurp parents’ rights to educate their children, especially as regards sensitive matters such as sexuality, commit a most grave injustice.) It is, moreover, parents who first bring their children in contact with the Church and the Sacraments. (See Familiaris Consortio 36-40.)
Strong, stable families are the bedrock of society. Espcially since there is so much upheaval today, Catholic couples are called to be examples of fidelity, and thus offset some of the ills that plague society today. (See Familiaris Consortio 44.)
The family is an image of the Church (See Eph. 5:32), and moreover, the Church’s efforts to evangelize begin with the family. (See Familiaris Consortio 50 and 52.) For example, family members can help each other to come to the Faith, or to a fuller practice of the Faith, and some familes may even feel called to dedicate themselves full time to missionary apostolate, although this will not, of course, be the norm for most families. (See Familiaris Consortio 50 and 54.)
The Sacrament of Matrimony finds its fulfillment in prayer and the Sacraments, particularly in the Eucharist. Families draw their strength from prayer and participation in the liturgy. (See Familiaris Consortio 56-62.)

TL;DR

All Catholics are called to live holy lives, and married persons will find the source of that holiness in the Sacrament of Matrimony. In order not to place an obstacle to that holiness, at the least they need to obey what the natural law tells us about marriage: in particular, that it is the union of one man and one woman, that it is indissoluble and exclusive, that it entails fidelity, and that it must be open to procreation. This is, as it were, the minimum requirement for a happy and fulfilling marriage. Just living marriage faithfully is a powerful and even heroic witness. This, together with actively participating in the life of the Church as a family, constitutes the best “defence” of marriage that Catholics can offer.


This is not clear purely from Church law, but it appears unlikely. Canon 752, section 1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law reads:

  Adultus, nisi sciens et volens probeque instructus, ne baptizetur; insuper admonendus ut de peccatis suis doleat.

That is:

  An adult is not to be baptized, unless knowing and willing, and having been properly instructed; moreover he is to be admonished so that he is sorry for his sins.

This is very nearly the same wording as in the current Code of Canon Law:

  For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

(Code of Canon Law [1983], Canon 865, section 1)

Current canon law thus requires the catechumenate (participation in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults). But the Rite itself was not promulgated until 1972; thus, until that time it would be up to the bishop to decide what exactly constituted "proper instruction".


Why is a distressing spirit said to be from God?

God is Completely Sovereign

All events can be credited to him in the sense that nothing happens without him at least allowing it, even if he is not exactly the agent of delivery. This is not necessarily to say that what happens is his highest preference (e.g. he would have preferred that Adam and Eve not sin), but it conforms to his (permissive) will. He is willing to permit us to sin and hurt other people, even though he could prevent it.

Job assigns responsibility to God for all his adversity. When God rebukes Job, he doesn't correct him for such thinking. He only says, "Who are you to question me?" Later, he says that Job has spoken of him correctly (Job 42:7, compared to his three friends, at least). Even though we know that Satan is the malevolent agent who wanted to destroy Job, he was completely bound by what God would permit.

It is as true to assign responsibility to Satan for performing the action as it is to assign culpability to God for allowing it, for God could certainly prevent/stop it if he wanted to. God is in no way powerless to have his way.


Is my confession valid if I didn't say the Act of Contrition?

Assuming you are Catholic, yes, your confession is valid.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses the penitent's participation in the sacrament around paragraphs 1450-1460.  Your three duties are "contrition", "confession", and "satisfaction" (the latter being the part where you carry out the assigned penance and do your best to sin no more).

If the priest said the words of absolution but asked you not to say the Act of Contrition, that's fine.  Priests will often do this if they have a lot of people waiting in line to receive the sacrament.

The main things that could result in an invalid or ineffective reconciliation would be if you weren't really contrite, didn't really intend to stop sinning, or if you deliberately chose not to reveal some of your mortal sins, or if for some reason the priest forgets to say the words of absolution.


How does Roman Catholicism justify a literal meaning of 'Hoc est meum corpus'?

I will attempt to answer your questions, but I think we need to start with a detour into what the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist actually is. You use a couple of words that lead me to think you misunderstand the doctrine: "digestion" and "literally ... real".
The Catholic doctrine is not that the Eucharist is Christ's body in the same way that you could get a sharp knife and cut a bit of him off. (This isn't The Merchant of Venice!) The doctrine is that

In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶1374)

Similarly, we can read Thomas Aquinas, who answers the question "Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place?"

Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. (Summa Theologia III, 76.5)

That is to say, Christ's presence in the Eucharistic species is not restricted to the Eucharistic species. It isn't "a bit of Christ". It is just "Christ".
I think that answers your first question: "How then, at that instant, could bread have been - literally - his own real body?"
You next say that the bread was not "given" at that moment of time. Well, yes: the sacrifice in question is the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, of which the Last Supper is part and of which the Eucharist is a re-presentation. Again, from the Catechism:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶1367)

Or, from Sacrosanctum Concilium:

At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, ¶47)

The Eucharist is intimately related to the Cross: they are one sacrifice.
Finally, you talk about the question of a "memorial", which you contrast to a "physical re-enactment". The Catholic doctrine is that "memorial" means a lot more than a simple "remembering". Really it's worth reading the entire section of the Catechism entitled "The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church". Here are a few key parts:

The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. ...
In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.
In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶¶1362ff)

So the Catholic view is that a memorial is a much richer thing than you suggest. The Eucharist is about presence, memorial, sacrifice, communion, and a whole host of other themes.


Mitred women in the Catholic Church?
The short answer is: Abbesses of certain very ancient abbeys in the West also wore mitres, but of a very different form than that worn by male prelates.
At times within the history of the Church, abbesses wore the stole, carried the crosier and even wore the mitre and ring, just like their male counterparts!
The Catholic Encyclopedia sets the context:

"The Carthusian nuns have retained the privilege of the consecration of virgins, which they have inherited from the nuns of Prébayon. The consecration, which is given four years after the vows are taken, can only be conferred by the diocesan. The rite differs but slightly from that given in the "Pontifical". The nun is invested with a crown, ring, stole and maniple, the last being worn on the right arm. These ornaments the nun only wears again on the day of her monastic jubilee, and after her death on her bier. It is a consecrated nun who sings the Epistle at the conventual Mass, though without wearing the maniple." - The Carthusian Order (Catholic Encyclopedia)

The Carthusian nun may in some circumstances don the stole and read the Gospel!
Mitred abbesses certainly existed, but some seemed to extend their privileges a little more.

Of Mitres, Mitred Abbesses and Clerical Kings
Discussing the phenomenon of mitred abbesses today it is hard not to bring up issues of women's ordination. The comparison, however, largely serves to underscore the difference between the authority the great abbesses of mediaeval days wielded and that which would-be priestesses desire. The mitred abbess, and her regal Germanic cousin the princess-abbess (Reichsäbtissin, Fürstäbtissin) are creations of medieval Christendom, rather than a mythical feminist early Christianity populated by misunderstood bishops' wives turned by a linguistic trick into bishopesses. While abbesses reportedly signed the canons of the Synod of Whitby ahead of the priests present, there is a long and sizable gap between the obsolenscence of (unordained) deaconesses and the appearance of the first mitred abbess. In the extraordinary instances where abbesses overstepped their bounds and claimed some share of sacerdotal authority, it was more a matter of personal aggrandisement unconnected with their legal feudal rights and unlinked to some wider ideology.
The disappearance of the abbess as a political figure also seems in part accountable to the neo-classical biases of the Renaissance that reintroduced to Europe a pre-Christian Roman legal attitude that barred women from the comparative liberties of the Middle Ages. A queen or duchess ruling in the stead of her absent husband or underaged son fit more clearly into the feudal system than into the absolutist monarchies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The abbess--often ruling over numerous local fiefs, holding sizable feudal rights, and sitting on the local imperial Council of Prelates alongside abbots and the occasional bishop--was a continuation of that custom. The abbess's "official" source of power was as a temporal ruler, which nonetheless testifies to the broad-mindedness of the Middle Ages with regards to female authority. In the few instances where her official power was ecclesiastical (as in the extraordinary case of the abbess-nullius of Las Huelgas in Spain), it was juridical rather than sacramental.
There were comparatively few mitred abbesses as opposed to Reichsäbtissinen; I know of only two for certain--Las Huelgas in Spain, Conversano in Italy. There were at probably quite a few others, such as Nonnburg in Austria, whose abbess may have been mitred at one time if I recall correctly, and wore a ceremonial crown as late as the 1920s. Their rights to partial pontificalia date back to a time when the mitre was itself comparatively new, and confined to the pope and cardinals. Shortly thereafter we find a veritable surfeit of mitred privileges granted to notable foreign bishops, abbots, cathedral canons (whose use actually predates that of abbots, as in the case of the chapter of Besançon that dates back to 1051), and even temporal rulers.
The case of mitred kings is particularly interesting, representing the ideal of close relations between pontiff and ruler, as well as the ruler as serving as an icon of Christ the King. In some cases, the lines between spiritual and temporal started getting blurred in some places, as at least one authority reports that during the High Middle Ages the Holy Roman Emperor would be ordained as a priest before his coronation, a priesthood admittedly without responsibilities, but a priesthood all the same. Incidentally, the Emperor also had the peculiar right to sing the Christmas Gospel with a drawn sword, and also honorary membership in several cathedral chapters.
However, the mitre was usually bestowed on most worthy kings as a sign of fealty to Rome, and did not accompany ordination. The oldest example of such a privilege goes back to Nicholas II, who granted the mitre to Duke Spytihnev of Bohemia, while Alexander II decorated his successor Vratislas in the same fashion. Roger of Sicily purportedly received the right to the mitre, along with crozier, ring, dalmatic and sandals from Lucius II. Regal robes, for that matter, often hinted at the ecclesial, and indeed at the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953, the traditional robes included garments closely patterned on a dalmatic and a stole. This has less to do with women's ordination than the quasi-sacerdotal charisma that attached itself to kingship in medieval days.
It is in this context that one can make the most sense of mitred abbesses. The abbess of Conversano acquired for herself the right to a pectoral cross, ring, crozier and mitre at some point--though the crozier itself is hardly unusual and is still a symbol of their authority today. There was some abuse of this power, as she claimed canonical power over the clergy (not unlike many kings and dukes who interfered in the appointment of bishops), and annually received their homage while solemnly vested in her ornaments. For this she was nicknamed the "Monster of Apulia" and ended up on the receiving-end of numerous clerical complaints. Rome nonetheless agreed that she had a right to the homage and arranged a compromise in 1707 by which the ceremonial was simplified. She was allowed only to place the mitre and crozier on a table by her side, rather than wear them as in days past. Ih 1750, the homage and her jurisdiction itself were completely done away with.
There appears to be a pattern of less tame abuse extending beyond the use of pontificalia to more serious juridical and sacramental infractions. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: Thus, in the Capitularics of Charlemagne, mention is made of "certain Abbesses, who contrary to the established discipline of the Church of God, presume to bless the people, impose their hands on them, make the sign of the cross on the foreheads of men, and confer the veil on virgins, employing during that ceremony the blessing reserved exclusively to the priest," all of which practice the bishops are urged to forbid absolutely in their respective dioceses. [...] The Monastieum Cisterciense records the stern inhibition which Innocent III, in 1220, placed upon Cistercian Abbesses of Burgos and Palencia in Spain, "who blessed their religious, heard the confession of their sins, and when reading the Gospel, presumed publicly to preach."
It appears, though, this was not connected with any organized resistance to males-only ordination. Considering that abbesses had the authority to hear non-sacramental "confessions" (the "chapter of faults") from their charges as a form of disipline, either in private or public, though without absolution and pennance, and lay confession was not unknown even in the days of St. Ignatius Loyola (though even then not without some doubts as to its sacramental efficacy), such outrageous behavior is more easily understood.
There is at least one instance when an abbess was granted some measure of juridical power that was not allowed to cross over into the realm of spiritual abuse. This was the mitred abbess (also called abbess-nullius or abbess-general) of Las Huelgas in Spain, the noble lady, the superior, prelate, and lawful administratrix in spirituals and temporals of the said royal abbey, and of all the contents, churches, and hermitages of its filiation, of the villages and places under its jurisdiction, seigniory, and vassalage, in virtue of Bulls and Apostolical concessions, with plenary jurisdiction, privative, quasi-episopal, nullius diacesis
whose priviledges were confirmed in 1628 by the bull Sedes Apostolicae of Urban VIII. By royal decree, the abbess-nullius held unlimited secular authority over fifty villages, held civil and criminal courts, granted letters dismissorial for ordination and licensed local clergy. This situation persisted as late as 1873, and seems to have not been particularly problematic for Rome. Bear in mind the Spanish crown itself had a fair amount of power over the local Church, and so the non-clerical abbess's powers over clerics may have been less surprising in her day than in ours.
The Reigning Abbess-General's powers are echoed throughout the Germanies in a minor key, though there they are exclusively secular, as they held their principal authority as the rulers of fiefdoms and as members of the unwieldy Imperial Diet. The Abbess of the Princely Convent of Buchau was represented in the Diet and sat on the Swabian Bench of Prelates, and held a fair number of estates. Similar cases of ruling abbesses, often with the title of Princess of the Empire, princely ecclesiastical or spiritual rank (fürstliche geistliche würde), and seats among the Lords Spiritual of the German diet, are too numerous to mention.
In Bohemia, the abbess of a similar institution known as the the Theresian Royal and Imperial Ladies' Chapter of the Castle of Prague had received the right in 1791 to crown the Queen of Bohemia. The last surviving Princess-Abbess, Archduchess Maria Annunziata von Habsburg-Lothringen, died as recently as 1961, though the chapter was dissolved in 1918.
The mitred abbess is an interesting figure; it is unclear to me whether she has anything to teach us today, or whether she is merely a historical curiosity. At Las Huelgas and elsewhere, powerful abbesses operated with the blessing of Rome, while elsewhere, a legitimate juridical authority ended up bleeding, through pride, into an illegitimate quasi-sacramental one.
Nonetheless, even in the instance of the Abbess of Conversano, Rome recognized her priviledges, even if the details were changed. The socio-political conditions that led to the rise of the abbess are not present today, and unlikely to return. (Though, on the other hand, some well-placed Ann Arbor Dominicans staffing certain branches of certain diocesan curias would not be amiss today!) In a more secure age, such as the medieval epoch, such fascinating jurisdictional oddities could flourish without troubling the general frame. These abbesses shows that the Catholic Church has had a place for women in authority in the past--and that she sought, in the best cases, to foster a strong maternal authority not dependent on claims of priestly ordination and uniquely conditioned to the noble charisms of the feminine genius.

Even some Catholic artists have depicted  Our Lady, wearing a classic chasuble and stole, stands at the altar, presumably ready to distribute holy communion. She seems to hold a paten in her right hand, and with her left she holds the hand of the child Jesus. Even those entitled to wear a mitre do not wear the mitre while distributing Holy Communion.

A crosier, a pectoral cross and a stole worn in a deacon’s way by an abbess of the Cistercian Abbey of Santa María la Real de Las Huelgas in Spain. Apart from privileges concerning vestments, the abbess of that abbey had also numerous lay privileges and a real ecclesiastic power; she could e.g. impose excommunications.

The canons of St. Vitus cathedral as deacons assistants during the ingress of the new metropolitan of Prague, archbishop Karel Boromejský Kašpar.


In this passage Paul is quoting from Psalm 32. The King James Version in both cases uses derivatives of the verb to impute. However, other well-respected more modern versions of the Bible do not translate it this way e.g. the NIV or the NRSV.

There is a less common meaning of the word impute meaning "to assign a value to" which is used in finance. In this sense, which may have been in more general use at the time the KJV was written, the verse meaning matches much better to the other translations. Otherwise it seems to suggest that there is a difference between the KJV and modern texts which would likely to be due to the manuscripts used and available to the KJV's translators.


And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith
  unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:
  blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:28)

Besides no one of the prophets before Jesus ever said something like this:

  Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me,
  Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father

  Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me (John 14:9-11)

, which, if not true, would have been a blasphemy.


Does Christianity say that the events that happen to us are from God?

Not all things that happen are from God: Either God has allowed something to happen, or God intervenes and causes something to happen. God accomodates for everything that takes place and has worked it out for His own purpose.

A light turning green or someone saying something to you, does not necessarily mean they are from God.. But that doesn't mean God hasn't intervened with traffic lights before (or more likely the timing in which you come into contact with this light), or not inspired someone to say something to someone else.

  Proverbs 16:4 (Amplified) - The Lord has made everything [to
  accommodate itself and contribute] to its own end and His own
  purpose--even the wicked [are fitted for their role] for the day of
  calamity and evil.


What is the biblical basis for the prohibition of instruments in worship?

I'm familiar with a couple different schools of thought on this.  Doubtless there are others as well.

The first comes from Greek Orthodox tradition.  I can't really speak to it directly, but a quick google search turned up a result indicating that it might have more to do with history and wanting to separate themselves from pagan worship. But there's likely a lot more to it.

The other is from the churches of Christ. This side I can speak to at length. To understand this, you need to know something of their history. The churches of Christ descend trough the Restoration movement of the mid-1800s. This was a movement that strove to throw off all of the excess structure that had arisen over the years since the 1st century and restore 1st century-style worship. The primary means of achieving this goal was through a very careful and strict interpretation of scripture.  "Innovations" from known historical patterns of the first century should only be permitted when there is a clear case for them, shown either through direct command, example, or necessary inference.

The reason for the return to 1st century worship was a reaction to all divisions, and a desire to fulfill the Lord's prayer "that they may all be one." It was a drive for unity, and one part of this was to push away anything a true seeker might possibly see as contrary to scripture, and hold up only those things which meet an exceptionally strict criteria for doctrinal purity (the other two parts are congregational independence/freedom and an strong emphasis on individual study). Don't knock the process too hard, as it met with some success... this is one of the few major groups to begin it's history as the result of a merger of a few smaller groups, rather than as a split from a larger group, and was the only group in existence at the time with a strong presence in both the North and the South to make it through the Civil War without dividing over the issue (sadly, this claim is the result of a prior study for which I no longer have a reference link).

There are four pieces that combine to contribute the general (not universal, but nearly so) use of a cappella music among church of Christ congregations.

The first is a very strict interpretation on the silence of scripture. I don't want to go into this at length, but you can read my answer to this question on faith healing to get a vague idea on how it works. The upshot is we lack explicit New Testament instructions or examples on the use of instruments (while singing or otherwise) in congregational worship — scripture is silent here. However, we do have explicit instructions to sing. Because we have an explicit instruction about how to use music in worship, the silence in this case is prohibitive rather than permissive. This by itself is weak, but remember it's only part of the reasoning.

The second reason is participatory. The command to sing praises is interpreted to mean that music in worship should include everyone as a participant... that if the music portion of your service consists mainly of just a few performers or even a choir, while the majority of the congregation is only listening (even if this is the effect rather than the intent), you're doing it wrong. The entire congregation should take part in producing the music. Instruments are seen as counter-productive to this effort, as history shows they have a tendency to take over and dominate the performance to the exclusion, rather than inclusion, of audience participation.

A third reason is practical. Successful use of a cappella music in worship is something that takes a commitment. If you decide to just try out a cappella music one week in service, or just do one a cappella song in each service, you're likely to fail miserably if few of the participants have done this before. Therefore, as a practical matter the choice to use a cappella music came down to an "all or nothing" approach, where those that use a cappella music in worship tend to do so exclusively. If you see a commandment to sing as a congregation as something to take seriously, a commitment to frequent a cappella worship is something to look at seriously.

The final reason is historical. Remember this group comes out of a movement whose goals were to restore 1st century worship styles. We do know from historical documents that the earliest Christians, without exception, did not use instruments in their worship. At all. In fact, it's already the third century before we find examples of any instrumental accompaniment, and some sources place it as late as the sixth century.1 It's possible there were forces other than doctrine driving this, such as: limited funds, fear of persecution if louder instruments give away a secret service, or simply modeling congregational worship after Jewish synagogue worship (which also did not use instruments). However, the fact of the matter is that the historical record indicates a cappella is the way to go.

1 Not my original source, but I recently came across this article that has more info on the historical sources, with lots of research references:  http://www.housetohouse.com/HTHPubPage.aspx?pub=2&issue=663


Can God reverse the fall of man specifically on earth?

The Catholic answer, as best I can.

Firstly, if your question means to ask, can the current lineage of humanity transition into a state of complete grace, free from the burden of original sin or the fallen nature of the world, the answer is a simple no. The doctrine of original sin precludes it: it's a fallen world. And God has already revealed a different solution.

However, I think that "different solution" is worth digging into a little. Because your question could mean, could God's Kingdom arrive in the universe as we know it, transforming everything and everyone at once, or does it need to occur in a completely new universe?

So in brief, there are two relevant Catholic beliefs that I think provide an answer to the 2nd question, if that's the question you meant.

Firstly, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), we believe in the renewal of all things. This belief, if I'm not mistaken, is taken primarily from The Revelation of John, a few of Christ's own words, and from some OT apocryphal segments.

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

  The Church... will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven,
  when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time,
  together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely
  related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be
  perfectly re-established in Christ.
  - CCC 1042

The renewal is later said in the Catechism to be a sort of transformation.

  The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so
  that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no
  further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing
  their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.
  - CCC 1047

Secondly, we believe all people are born into a state of original sin, with the exceptions of Jesus and His Mother, Mary. The basic concept of orignal is summed up nicely in the CCC:

  Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not
  have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.
  It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature
  has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers
  proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of
  death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called
  “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace,
  erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the
  consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man
  and summon him to spiritual battle.
  - CCC 205

It goes on to imply that Adam's sin has an impact on all mankind, and therefore the world of which he is the steward, because he handed his freedom, to some extent, to the devil, who only then is given real power in the world.

Put these doctrines together and a picture begins to form. Mankind relinquished his power in an appeal to Satan. Satan is thereby given reign in the world, since it's under Adam's (man's) stewardship. And because this affects the universe on a fundamental level, it becomes the nature of the universe. Thus, the only possible solutions are a completely new universe or fundamental transformation of the universe.

Now, since the Catholic teaching seems to lean towards a transformation or a renewal, we can draw some conclusions in light of what we also know about the fallen nature of the world.

Everyone must die. Necessary because no one is born free of original sin, and our bodies and minds are corrupt. So, we need to give them up.
Everyone must then be raised. (Or at least the elect.) If they aren't, we haven't got an eschatology at all! Just a bunch of dead people and a lingering fallen world.
Our new bodies must be made perfect. Refraining from the more speculative ideas as to what that really means, our bodies and souls are in perfect harmony with each other and with God.
The universe must be transformed into perfection. I don't know what this means! The Church, I think, suggests that it frees the universe from the "decay."
Satan must be confined to hell. He no longer gets to operate in the world of the elect.

So, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the fundamental nature of the world changes without changing its immediate appearance. But, it is necessary that we all die. And it is necessary that world-processes be freed from Satan's reign, which likely means that things work somewhat differently.

All things considered, I think the answer to your question is still no.

For, even if the universe is renewed in-place, on-the-fly, we're still dealing with a fundamentally different universe. And we've all had to die, be resurrected with perfected (different) bodies, etc.. We're dealing with something that, in our limited understanding is already very different, even if in God's eyes it's the same material.

Also, it's at least provocative that looking at this creation from a physical perspective everything about it seems temporal.  That is, this universe seems created to die; everything about it seems to speak to a beginning and its ultimate demise, inferring that God never created this universe to be our eternal abode. Coupled with scriptural revelation that it will be "renewed" or "created anew", it would seem to support a totally "new creation" eschtology as opposed to a simple "restoration" of this creation.


What are some comprehensive, reliable resources to learn about the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church?

The Oriental Orthodox Church is comprised of six sister churches all of which are in communion with one another. These six churches include

Armenian Orthodox Church
Coptic Orthodox Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Syrian Orthodox Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church was founded by St. Thomas the Apostle who preached to India in the year 52 AD. It is headed by H.H. Baselios
Marthoma Paulose II. His Grace Bishop Youssef, Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Southern Diocese of the United States, recently went on a Mission Trip and met with the Pope and other clergies, which shows the love between the two churches

Each of these Oriental Churches is Orthodox and accept the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus. They each have the same faith. This is different than the Mar Thoma church. The Malankara church is known as an Orthodox Church while Mar Thoma is not in communion with the other Orthodox Churches listed above.

Each Oriental Orthodox Church holds the same faith in these areas, just to name a few, and therefore are in communion with each other.

The Orthodox Creed
The Divinity of Christ
The Holy Sacraments
Soteriology
Christology

More information about the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church can be found directly from Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Website.

Video of H.G. Bishop Youssef Mission Experience in 2016 with HE Metropolitan Gabriel Mar Gregorios


What is the Biblical evidence that there are ONLY three persons in the "Trinity"?

Our biggest clue is from this scripture:

Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Beyond that, I know of no other verses that limit the Godhead to three persons.


At what age should Christians be confirmed according to St. Thomas Aquinas?

By St Thomas's time, infant baptism would have been the norm for many centuries. However, confirmation has always had to fight for survival, in that it is not necessary for salvation and therefore once it was separated from baptism it was hard to get people to bring their children of any age to receive it on the rare occasions when the bishop happened to be available. (The word children can refer to relationship without restriction to age.) There is no set age when a person receives confirmation, either in St Thomas's day or our own. It depends not only on the readiness of the child/adult but also the availability of the bishop, who is normally the one who administers the sacrament since at least the second council of Lyons in 1274. Often a bishop has historically not been able to visit every parish in his see in a year, or even several years, especially in the days before modern roads. In St. Thomas's time most parishes probably didn't give much, if any, catechesis to prepare people for confirmation either, so it didn't matter so much what age they were when they received it. Education of any kind was a rarity.

In the Latin rite today, after infant baptism, childhood first communion (and first confession) precedes confirmation, usually by several years. No episcopal presence is needed for these earlier initiation rites. Simplified catechesis takes place before first communion, and more complete catechesis precedes confirmation. Of course, for adults in RCIA, baptism, confirmation and communion can all take place in a single ceremony at the Easter vigil, and is preceded by several months of adult catechesis.

A good reference for the history of the sacraments is "Doors to the Sacred" by Joseph Martos.


What would happen if the Pope were to abuse his power?

First of all, it is important to understand the very strict conditions under which a Pope declares things ex cathedra. To begin with, he can only make such a declaration about doctrine.

Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes Papal infallibility:

  891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals." [...] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. [The documents quoted are Lumen Gentium 25 and Dei Verbum 10 of the Second Vatican Council.]

Nothing that is strictly disciplinary would enter under that protection. Even in real praxis, Canon Law is never "forever;" it can be changed by the legislator (the pope) as needed. So, for example, requiring Catholics to wear colanders and to pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (however ridiculous and scandalous that is) cannot be the subject of an ex-cathedra pronouncement.

In this extremely unlikely scenario, there is a basic principle of the Catholic theory of law that would apply: since a law must be for the sake of the common good, an unjust law does not bind in conscience. St. Thomas Aquinas, reiterating a principle already elucidated by St. Augustine, says,

  [Unjust laws] are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says, "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." [See De libero arbitrio, I, v, 11.] Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance... (Summa theologiae, Ia-IIae, q. 96, a. 4, corpus).

A law can be unjust because it is excessively burdensome, or else because it commands people to act sinfully. Imposing the colander would clearly be excessively burdensome; requiring worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be a kind of idolatry (or at best simply ridiculous and hence excessively burdensome).

So no, Catholics would not be bound to follow such decrees. Of course, if any Pontiff were to behave in this way, he would cause untold scandal and damage to the Church. Thankfully, no pope, not even the infamous Renaissance popes, or the (even worse) popes in the era following the fall of the Carolingian empire, has ever attempted anything of the kind. (They certainly abused their power in other ways, of course.)

Declaring the Creeds null and void would, however, enter into the domain of faith and morals. We have to keep in mind that—as the passage from the Catechism explains—when the Pope defines something ex cathedra, he has to

Intend to act as the universal pastor. (I.e., it is not enough for him to give his personal opinion or even to act simply as the bishop of Rome.)
Intend to proclaim whatever it is as to be held definitively by all the faithful.

It is the same intention and conditions that an ecumenical council has when it teaches.

In this case, Catholics believe that the Church as a whole (and therefore the Holy Father, by virtue of his office) is protected from teaching error. Nullifying the Nicene Creed, say, is clearly an error, and so the Church (and therefore the Pope) is prevented from performing that kind of action.

And in fact, no Pontiff has ever attempted such a reversal. (If you think about it, even the most disgraceful holders of the office would have had little motivation to do so.)

Supposing that the constitution of the Church were different, and that the Roman Pontiff were not protected from error, then, naturally, the faithful would not be bound to follow such erroneous decrees. (Such a scenario would, however, make it difficult to determine exactly which doctrines were the "correct" ones; the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, in the Catholic perspective, is an essential guarantee of the infallibility of the Church as a whole.)

(Another question, which perhaps the original poster had in mind is, "Could a pope privately be a heretic?" Could an closet Arian be elected the bishop of Rome? Could he confuse people by expressing his questionable or heretical personal opinions? The answer, at least in theory, is "yes." He would, however, be unable to impose his heresies "officially" as dogma.)

To answer the final question in the original post, in the case of a grossly misbehaved Pontiff, the only course of action would be to bring some kind of moral or political pressure to bear on him. Such a pope would be morally obligated to resign, but he would have to do so freely.


Did St. James write the Divine Liturgy of St. James?

If we consult the Orthodox Wiki here we get a small bit of history about the Liturgy of St James.

  The general scholarly consensus is that this liturgy originated in
  Jerusalem during the late fourth or early fifth century. It quickly
  became the primary liturgy in Jerusalem and Antioch. Although it was
  later superseded in Jerusalem and Antioch by the Liturgy of St. Basil
  and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, it had already spread to other
  areas of the Church. The oldest manuscript traditions are in Greek and
  Syriac, and there are also extant manuscripts in Armenian, Ethiopic,
  Georgian, and Old Slavonic.

  One leading theory today is that of John Fenwick, who argues that the
  similarities between this liturgy and that of St. Basil demonstrate
  their respective developments from a common source, now lost, but
  which is best preserved in the Egyptian recension of the Liturgy of St
  Basil. Fenwick suggests that the Liturgy of St. James was composed by
  St. Cyril of Jerusalem c. 370.

And it continues with this:

  In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the liturgy is now generally only
  celebrated on the Feast of St. James, on October 23rd, and only in
  some parishes and monasteries, particularly in the Jerusalem
  Patriarchate. Two different rubrics are commonly followed; the
  Slavonic liturgy linked to in full below is celebrated in the
  traditional manner, ad orientem, on an altar behind the iconostasis,
  in a manner similar to the contemporary Syriac Orthodox use.

So we can see that although it may not have been written by St James it is clearly dedicated to him through its' ongoing use on his feast day.

I prefer not to take a view that castigates the Church Fathers! :)


What is the basis for the idea that marriage requires a ceremony?

The basis for a marriage ceremony is the elevation that it grants the parties. In Paul's day, for example, only the elite could actually "marry" in the sense we have today.  Sarah Ruden writes:

But for the polytheistic ancients, marriage was not as straightforward a matter. Slaves could not be legally married as free people were, but many had long-term unions that got some recognition, and raised their children together. Freedmen on average must have had less formal setups than the freeborn, since many of these setups started in slavery. In Latin the same slang, “tent-mate” and “shacking up” (literally, “tenting together”), could apply. For aristocratic Romans, the nobility’s separate legal history, along with large dowries, and ceremonies no one else went through, set their marriages apart. Even the Latin words for marriage, husband, and wife are not completely the same across different levels of privilege: uxor, for example, for “wife,” applies mainly to the upper classes; conjunx, on the other hand, can mean a wife, fiancée, concubine, or even animal’s mate, so of course it applies all over the place.

She continues by saying that marriage, as you define it, was more of an agreement than a ceremony.  She writes:

What is more, the ordinary type of Roman marriage was legally defined by consent to be married, which made getting a divorce easy for either party: a husband or wife had only to make known the wish not to be married anymore; and divorce, it appears, was common during the empire. A stricter type of marriage was available, but it was unpopular. This, then, was the array of committed sexual unions allowed among the Greeks and Romans.

Against this basis, she argues that for Paul, it was an elevation of the status of the individual that marriage would be "held in high esteem by all"

In 1 Corinthians 7 (see my discussion of Christian marriage in chapter 4 ) Paul lays down the law for Christians and gives his rationales— partly because, I think, existing laws and customs were too loose, yet nobody in this world had thought much about them.
Ruden, Sarah (2010-02-10). Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time (Kindle Locations 355-367). The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.


Do Lutherans believe that the sacraments are necessary for salvation (similar to Catholics), and if so, how do they reconcile this with Sola Fide?

First, a Lutheran is not likely to recognize the phrase "salvation by faith". The usual construct Lutherans use is "justification by faith". For Lutherans, there is a distinction between the two. Salvation was assured by Jesus' death and resurrection. Justification assures believers that they are made worthy of the salvation secured for them by Jesus salvific act. The essential vehicle for communicating that assurance, for Lutherans, is the means of grace, the Word and the sacraments. So Lutherans do see the sacraments as essential, though not for salvation in the sense that the poster of the question seems to think.


Do any Christian denominations have any policies to prevent nepotism?

Short answer: Yes

The modern Catholic Church does, as of June 22, 1692.

  Pope Innocent XII. Innocent XII gave nepotism a death blow by his
  celebrated Bull "Romanum decet Pontificem," 22 June 1692.

However, it does not appear to have actually ended the practice.

  Romanum decet pontificem was later incorporated into the Code of Canon
  Law of 1917 in canons 240, 2; 1414, 4; and 1432, 1.5 In 1694,
  Innocent XII's series of reforms was capped off with an expensive
  campaign to eliminate the venality of offices while reimbursing their
  current holders.[6]

  However, following Romanun decet pontificem, only three of the eight
  popes of the 18th century did not make a nephew or brother cardinal.

Also, the Assembly of God has this rule: (page 34)

  Nepotism The university may employ persons from the same immediate family when his/her individual qualifications are such that they
  represent the best possible choice for a given position. However,
  members of the same immediate family may not be employed in a
  situation where one member may have direct administrative
  responsibility for the other. This policy applies to all employees,
  whether hired on a full-time or part-time status. For purposes of this
  policy, immediate family shall be defined as father, mother, husband,
  wife, son, daughter, sister, brother, mother-in-law, father-in-law,
  brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, and/or daughter-in-law.

Also, the United Methodist Church requires local Churches to address Nepotism:

  ¶702. Amenability and Program Accountability--

  All official general church organizations, groups, committees, councils, boards, and agencies of The United Methodist Church shall
  adopt a code of ethics, conflict-of-interest, confidentiality,
  whistleblower protection, record retention and document destruction
  and nepotism policies, applicable to both members and employees, which
  embody and live out our Christian values.

I'm sure there's more.  I can't find it, but I'd bet that the major Lutheran divisions have policies, considering that Nepotism was one of Martin Luther's issues with the Catholic Church.


Did Thomas Pearne do anything other than contradict Granville Sharp?

Thomas Pearne, of Peterhouse, Cambridge, was also a Shakespeare critic.

  The article explores the criticism of William Shakespeare by Thomas Pearne in his book review of "Shakespeare," edited by Issac Reed and published in 1785. The review was originally serialized in the 1786 British periodical the "Monthly Review." The author compares Pearne's comments with the editorial glosses which appear in the 1974 edition of "The Riverside Shakespeare."
  Source: http://pdc-connection.ebscohost.com/c/literary-criticism/34685030/thomas-pearne-peterhouse-cambridge-shakespeare-critic

It seems that Gregory Blunt is the pseudonym of Thomas Pearne:

  Gregory Blunt: Pseudonym of Thomas Pearne, of Peterhouse, Cambridge (c. 1753-1827)  B.A.  1777, M.A. 1780, Fellow at Cambridge and a good classical scholar.  Author of “Six More Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq., on his Remarks upon the Uses of the Article in the Greek Testament. London: J. Johnston, 1803”  Address: https://drgregoryblunt.wordpress.com/
  Source: https://independent.academia.edu/BluntGregory

Whether the work of Thomas Pearne (with regard to Shakespeare) is considered worthy, I could not say.  That academic stuff is out of my league and well above my pay grade.


(Per Wikipedia), the evangelical counsels are three counsels (or pieces of wisdom that we should follow) in order to be "perfect".

Matthew 19:21 (NIV)
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

There are three counsels that are considered "evangelical counsels":  chastity, poverty (or perfect charity), and obedience.
Salvation
The evangelical counsels are not considered part of the requirement for salvation.  As James T mentioned, these are often counsels kept by monks, but not by the general population.  A great quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia sums this up well:

To sum up: it is possible to be rich, and married, and held in honour by all men, and yet keep the Commandments and to enter heaven. Christ's advice is, if we would make sure of everlasting life and desire to conform ourselves perfectly to the Divine will, that we should sell our possessions and give the proceeds to others who are in need, that we should live a life of chastity for the Gospel's sake, and, finally, should not seek honours or commands, but place ourselves under obedience. These are the Evangelical Counsels, and the things which are counselled are not set forward so much as good in themselves, as in the light of means to an end and as the surest and quickest way of obtaining everlasting life.
Catholic Encyclopedia

Biblical Basis
The biblical basis for these are:
Chastity:

1 Corinthians 7:1 (NIV)
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

Poverty/Perfect Charity

Matthew 19:21 (NIV)
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Obedience
The idea with this is that we should be obedient to the Catholic church and the people who God has put in authority over us. This is based somewhat on:

Luke 10:16 (NIV)
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Therefore, the people who have been put in place to teach are teaching as if from Jesus himself.  Therefore, we should be obedient to them and their spiritual authority.
Desires of this world -vs- Evangelical Counsels
Essentially, there are three "good things" of this world:

Riches

Pleasures of the flesh and of the appetites (sexual appetite, food appetite, etc.)

Honors and positions of authority, which increases self love

These three things are not, in themselves, bad.  These three things will not deny you heaven.  However, these three things are what the evangelical counsels are attempting to address.
source: Catholic Encyclopedia


How does Protestant Church explain Luke 2:48?

If we accept the bible teaching that Mary/Joseph had children, then they would have been younger than Jesus.  In the question, the age of Jesus was 12.  The oldest sibling was probably no older than 10 at that time.

  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mark 6:3

So there is no sense in saying, your father and me and your younger brothers or sisters are searching for you.  In other words, if you've "lost" one child, you're not going to send out an even younger child to do your searching for you.  Most likely when Mary/Joseph went back to Jerusalem after a few days to look, they would have left their other children with trusted relatives or neighbors.

  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.  Luke 2:48

They wouldn't bring their other children on the journey back to Jerusalem from Nazareth.


Does Daniel 12:1–2 indicate the damned will have physical bodies like the Saints?

Yes, that is the case, in some form or another.

This article gives a good discussion, including some of the other verses supporting this.

  Marvel not at this: for the hour comes, in which all that are in the
  tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
  good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil,
  unto the resurrection of judgment.

  John 5:28-29, emphasis added

And,

  But this I confess unto you, that after the Way which they call a
  sect, so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which
  are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets;
  having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that
  there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust.

  Acts 24:14-15, emphasis added

I appreciate the article because it goes further into discussing the condition of the bodies they will have,

  The term clearly seems to indicate that the body of the wicked will
  reflect a ruined condition, with the beauty of its earthly design
  egregiously diminished, if not extinguished altogether. There is no
  bodily “redemption” (Romans 8:23) for the rogue! One can only imagine
  how horrible the scenes of hell could be.

  The resurrected bodies of the unrighteous will be susceptible to pain,
  together with whatever “conscience” and “memory” torments they will
  experience (cf. Luke 16:27-28).

  From the article cited above.

Other verses that would indicate this would be Revelation 20, the final resurrection, as well as Jesus' description of it in the end of Matthew 25 and 1 Corinthians 15.


In Catholicism, in case of emergency Is it valid to baptise a large assembly of people with a fire hose?

According to the Catechism, any person can perform baptisms in an emergency, but it is doubtful whether the use of a firehose would be considered valid or, more importantly, necessary:

1256: The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59
12:58: The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1281: Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).


Has the term "born again" always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church?

Some Clarification

You question specifically asks if there were any in the Early Church (~2nd to 4th century) who separated "born again" with baptism. Meanwhile, the site you quote claims that this separation took place in the 17th century. Because your question is only concerned with the Early Church, I will not consider any of the possible historical data from the 5th to 17th century.

It is also a bit dangerous to say anyone regards "born again" as being synonymous with baptism. They are two difference terms which have slightly difference meanings--even to those believing in baptismal regeneration. It is similar to how "regeneration" means something slightly different than "born again" despite the fact that most Christians regard them as mostly describing the same event.

Therefore, I take it that when you ask if early Christians all thought that "born again" was synonymous with baptism that you mean to ask if early Christians all thought that "born again" generally describes the event of baptism.

Perhaps a better way to have asked the question would been to ask if there were any early Christians who did not believe in baptismal regeneration. But no worries, I will still answer the question in the terms you've used.

The Answer

The short answer to your question is that there is absolutely no historical data from the Early Church demonstrating that any early Christians understood "born again" as being significantly distinct from baptism. On the contrary, there are a plethora of quotes from the Early Church demonstrating that these Christians understood the two terms to be nearly synonymous. Here are a few.

Theophilus of Antioch in 181 CE

  Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed
  by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future
  time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the
  bath of regeneration -- all who proceed to the truth and are born
  again and receive a blessing from God. (To Autolycus 2:16)

Irenaeus in 190 CE

  "And [Naaman] dipped himself...seven times in the Jordan" [2 Kings
  5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from
  leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an
  indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by
  means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old
  transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even
  as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water
  and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
  (Fragment 34)

Recognitions of Clement 221 CE. Notice in this quote that the author mis-remembers John 3:5 leaving out the critical "and of the Spirit."

  But you will perhaps say, "What does the baptism of water contribute toward
  the worship of God?" In the first place, because that which has
  pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are
  regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your
  former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so ...you
  shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For
  thus has the true Prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath:
  "Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water [sic] he
  shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Recognitions 6:9)

Cyprian of Carthage 200-258 CE

  [When] they receive also the Baptism of the Church...then finally can they be fully
  sanctified and be the sons of God...since it is written, "Except a man
  be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
  kingdom of God." (Letters 71[72]:1)

Conclusion

There are many more quotes I could fish up for you, but I believe I have given you enough of a starting point. While we could never be historically certain that no early Christians thought "born again" and baptism were significantly distinct, it is indeed very odd that there are no surviving documents demonstrating their existence.


What is the Biblical basis for claiming that Paul upholds and teaches the Torah law?

Paul supports the Torah to the extent that he believes it was a valuable and God-given thing in its day. However he very clearly indicates that Christians are not bound by its requirements. Much of the Epistle to the Romans is devoted to this subject, and it gets extensive discussion in other places. I will do no more than quote a couple of important passages. If you are looking for more information on the subject, I recommend any good commentary or Bible dictionary on the subject.

The Law is Good

  What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. (Romans 7: 7-13)

Christians are not bound by the Law:

  Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7 1-6)


Can a non-orthodox layman arrive to Hesychia?

I suppose the answer depends entirely on how you define success.  To be an authentic Hesychast  monk, you would really need to move to Mt. Athos.

But there's no reason you couldn't successfully integrate some Hesychast methods into your current life.  In particular, contemplation, meditation and recital of the Jesus Prayer seems entirely within the reach of all believers and captures the core of the tradition as I understand it.  Being an outsider myself, I can't say if it's possible to reach the sort of peace the tradition sets as the end state, however.

As a word of caution: like other sorts of spiritual gifts and experiences, it seems to me we go off course if we begin to pursue them for their own sake.  As Paul warns:

  If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.—1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (ESV)


See: What Does "Bible" Mean and How Did it Get That Name?

Origin of the word:

  The word Bible itself is simply a transliteration of the Greek word
  bíblos (βίβλος), meaning "book." So the Bible is, quite simply, The
  Book. However, take a step further back and the same Greek word also
  means "scroll" or "parchment." Of course, the first words of Scripture
  would have been written on parchment, and then copied to scrolls, then
  those scrolls would be copied and distributed and so on.

  It is thought the word Biblos itself is likely taken from an ancient
  seaport city named Byblos. Located in modern-day Lebanon, Byblos was a
  Phoenician port city known for its export and trade of papyrus.
  Because of this association, the Greeks likely took the name of this
  city and adapted it to create their word for book.

Application to the Scriptures, Old and New Testament:

  The collection of these writings, including the New Testament, were
  first called the Bible somewhere around the fourth century in the
  writings of John Chrysostom. Chrysostom first refers to the Old and
  New Testament together as ta biblia (the books), the Latin form of
  biblos. It was also around this time that these collections of
  writings began to be put together in a certain order, and this
  collection of letters and writings started shaping into the one-volume
  book that we are familiar with today.

Interesting background info on the city of Byblos: Byblos

Byblos was the religious capital of the Phoenicians, whose greatest gift to mankind was the invention of an alphabet to replace hieroglyphics. That city also was a major producer of papyrus. Thus, the combination of material technology (papyrus), innovation in communications (22 letter alphabet) and being the center of the spread of religious ideas (their own and that of the Egyptians) makes Byblos the perfect city for which to name a book of great importance.


If heaven is not monotonous why would this world be monotonous if God willed to happen in that fashion?

God is Love

  Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

Definition of Ultimate Love

  Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s
  friends. (John 15:13)

Magnification of Ultimate Love

  6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless,
  Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a
  righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare
  to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we
  were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

Christ's Love is Ultimate Love

  This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for
  us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.
  (1 John 3:16)

It was God's Will that Christ Prove God's Ultimate Love

  41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and
  prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not
  my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:41-42)

God is humble. He does not boast about who He is and what He can do, He proves who He is and what He can do. He does this by making a promise and then fulfilling it. Thus the eternal bliss we may enjoy in Heaven is built upon the sure foundation of God's actual, demonstrated love for us. Christ had to die for those God loved, but to be an even greater demonstration of love, the ones he died for had to be sinners. And if there are to be sinners in this world, then there must be suffering and death, God's justice and stern discipline whereby he teaches us wisdom and perfects us through trials.

Our sin and suffering make us suitable objects of Christ's love to display the Glory of God and lay the foundation for a perfect heaven. The cornerstone of the new Jerusalem is Christ and its foundation is the Apostles and Prophets.

Without the evil and suffering of this world, God would lack the proper foundation on which to build the next. Why? Everyone in Heaven will know personally this one truth: If God loved me enough to die for me while I was a sinner, He will never in the eternity spread out before me abandon me or stop loving me now that I am a saint.


Where did the idea of the inerrancy of the King James Bible come from?

Today's "King James-only" movement, and its argument that the KJV is itself inspired, does indeed have historical precedence, though it's debatable if the 20th-century movement can claim a strong link to similar thinkers in previous centuries.
There are two major precedents to today's movement, so we'll look at those first:

Pre-KJV elevations of particular translations (Septuagint, Vulgate, and Luther's Bible)
Nineteenth century elevation of the KJV
Late 20th-century KJV-only movement

Pre-KJV
Before the KJV was completed in 1611, several other translations of the Bible enjoyed particularly high status, with some groups going so far as to identify them as inspired in and of themselves.  Three frequently cited examples are the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and Luther's Bible.
The elevation of the first, the Septuagint, dates back as far as 100 BC, in the Letter of Aristeas.  Much of the letter is rejected as fictitious, but it does describe supernatural guidance in the writing of the Septuagint, and a curse laid on any who dared edit it.  In the early first century, Philo describes how all the translators of the Septuagint independently came to have the exact same text:

They, like men inspired, prophesied, not one saying one thing and another another, but every one of them employed the self-same nouns and verbs, as if some unseen prompter had suggested all their language to them. (Works of Philo Judaeus, III, 82)

Philo's account influenced early church fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and they defended the accuracy and even inspiration of the translation.
Much later, in 1546, the Vulgate was similarly recognized by the Council of Trent, which said that "no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."  When Erasmus published his own critical Latin text, he was opposed by Martin Dorp and Petrus Sutor (a.k.a. Pierre Cousturier), the latter of which said:

If in one point the Vulgate were in error the entire authority of Holy Scripture would collapse. (Quoted in Preston and Jenkins, Biblical Scholarship and the Church, 27)

And similarly, some advocates of Luther's German translation of the Bible, completed in 1534, considered it inspired:

Some indiscreet friends of the reformer, impressed by the beauty of the translation, imagined they could recognize in it a second inspiration. (History of the Reformation, III, 337)

So we see then a very early tendency to elevate particular translations, and thus it shouldn't surprise us that something similar happens in English.
KJV onlyism in the 19th century
The KJV enjoyed dominance in the English-speaking world for many years after its publication, and was not seriously challenged until the 19th century, when the Revised Version was prepared.  This new translation was not undertaken without major debate, during which the "inspiration" argument was adopted by many opponents of a new translation.  Many authors briefly note the existence of such arguments, such as:

Henry Alford, 1866: "Yet this is the version which some would have us regard as infallible, and receive as the written word of God!" (Commentary on Hebrews)
Around 1840: "Some had gone so far as to pronounce the Bible as translated by the distinguished forty-nine, a perfect work!" (Life of Spencer Houghton Cone, page 355)
Armitage, 1850: Some "hinted" that the KJV "had come down from heaven in about its present shape, printed and bound" (History of the Baptists, I, 901)

Thus the idea of perfection of the KJV itself has existed for a long time, at least as early as the mid-19th century.
KJV onlyism in the 20th century
Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder, opponents of KJV onlyism, provide more historical details than I have, and conclude that "no traceable connection exists between those of the nineteenth century who held such a view with those of the later part of the twentieth century" (One Bible Only?, 44)  They find the modern movement's origin to a book published in 1930:

That book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, was written by Seventh-Day Adventist missionary, educator, and theologian Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968).

Wilkinson opposed the English Revised Version, Beacham and Bauder say, because "it robbed him of several favorite Adventist proof texts," but his book was uninfluential until it was discovered by James Jasper Ray, who published a derivative work, God Wrote Only One Bible, in 1955.  And this work, in turn, inspired David Otis Fuller and Peter Ruckman, two highly influential KJV-only proponents.  Ruckman's The Bible Babel (1964) and Fuller's Which Bible? (1970) both rely on Ray, and in 1978 Fuller founded the Dean Burgon Society to promote KJV onlyism.  Both argue that the KJV is an inspired translation and absolutely authoritative, and Ruckman has bombastically claimed that the KJV has new revelation, above and beyond the original scripture.
According to Beacham and Bauder, all notable KJV-only proponents, like Jack Chick, D. A. Waite, Jack Hyles and Gail Riplinger can be linked "back to Fuller or Ruckman or both," though they admit the existence of at least one scholar loosely associated with the movement, Textus Receptus proponent Edward F. Hills, who was uninfluenced by them.
Conclusion
The history of the modern KJV-only movement can be traced primarily to Benjamin Wilkinson and his 1930 book.  But to do so would ignore a long history of claims of inspiration for the KJV and other translations, stretching back as far as the time of Christ.  As the Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America says:

As an identifiable entity, the King James Only movement is rather young, overwhelmingly Baptist, and thoroughly American.  While its ideological roots stretch back to nineteenth-century Britain and the first calls to revise the KJV, the movement is properly a product of the second half of the twentieth century. (source)


In the USA today are there congregations who still follow in the footsteps of J C Philpot?

The closest equivalent to the British Strict Baptists in the US is Primitive Baptists, also called 'Old School Baptists' or 'Hardshell Baptists'. Like the Strict Baptists they practice believer's baptism and closed communion, take the Bible as their only doctrine, and eschew seminary training (they also oppose non-local missions). This theological statement by an Atlanta Primitive Baptists congregation gives more detail.

Related groups include the Missionary Baptists. I've been unable to discover if they have closed communion.

The List of Primitive Baptist churches linked from the Wikipedia page gives a list of around sixty congregations throughout the US. Since the Primitive Baptist movement consists of independent congregations with no control or accountability you may find the congregations very different. You should probably be warned that one of the congregations listed has a bad reputation nationwide for extremist inflammatory hate speech.


According to Roman Catholic teaching, did people who died in Old Testament times spend time in Purgatory?

In short, No. Purgatory did not exist before Christ rose from the dead. They were in the Limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum).

I know it is long, but here is the Catholic teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  632   The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479

  633   Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” — Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.”482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483 (1033)

  634   “The gospel was preached even to the dead.”484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption. (605)

  635   Christ went down into the depths of death so that “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”485 Jesus, “the Author of life,” by dying destroyed “him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.”486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades,” so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.”487

    Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great
    stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth
    trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and
    he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began.... He
    has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep.
    Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow
    of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve,
    captive with him—He who is both their God and the son of Eve....” I am
    your God, who for your sake have become your son.... I order you, O
    sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise
    from the dead, for I am the life of the dead.”488


Can only the priest lead the ritual of washing the feet in Holy Thursday in the Catholic Church?

Can only the priest lead the ritual of washing the feet in Holy Tursday in the Catholic Church?

The short answer is yes, only a bishop or priest may preform the Mandatum.

According to the rubrics only bishops and priests are liturgically permitted to wash the feet of the faithful. It should be noted that the rite of Mandatum remains optional during the Holy Thursday celebration of the Mass.

A decree published on January 6, 2016 modified the liturgical Mandatum:

  In the Roman Liturgy this rite was handed down with the name of the Mandatum of the Lord concerning fraternal charity from the words of Jesus (cf Jhn 13:34), which are sung in an Antiphon during the celebration.

  In performing this rite Bishops and priests are invited to intimately conform themselves to Christ who «came not to be served but to serve» (Mt 20:28) and, compelled by charity «to the end» (Jhn 13:1), to give his life for the salvation of the whole human race.

  In order that the full meaning of this rite might be expressed to those who participate it seemed good to the Supreme Pontiff Pope Francis to vary the norm which is found in the rubrics of the Missale Romanum (p. 300 n. 11): «The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers…», which therefore must be changed as follows: «Those who are chosen from amongst the people of God are led by the ministers…» (and consequently in the Caeremoniali Episcoporum n. 301 and n. 299b: «seats for those chosen»), so that pastors may select a small group of the faithful to represent the variety and the unity of each part of the people of God. Such small groups can be made up of men and women, and it is appropriate that they consist of people young and old, healthy and sick, clerics, consecrated men and women and laity.

  This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in virtue of the faculties granted by the Supreme Pontiff, introduces this innovation into the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, reminding pastors of their responsibility to adequately instruct both the chosen faithful as well as all others so that they may participate consciously, actively and fruitfully in the rite. - Decree: In Missa in Cena Domini

Thus it is clear that only bishops and priests may perform this liturgical action. However those whose feet are to be washed is no longer reserved to men. Women may now be included. The number of persons has been set up to a maximum of 12.

Nota Bene: Girls are permitted to serve as altar servers in Ordinary Form of the Mass.


What is the difference between commandments, testimonies, statutes, precepts, judgements, and law?

1) law - the first five books of the Old Testament; the Torah; the Pentateuch (Psalm 119:44)

2) testimonies - ordinances; God's standard of conduct according to the Ten Commandments (Psalm 119:2)

3) way - the pattern of life required by  God's law (Psalm 119:30)

4) precepts - injunction; requirement; commandment (Psalm 119:69)

5) statutes - things inscribed; enacted laws (Psalm 119:8)

6) commandments - a distinct, authoritative order (Psalm 119:166)

7) judgments - a binding law; judicial decision (Psalm 119:7)

8) word - a general term for God's revelation (Psalm 119:11)

Source: Nelson's NKJV Study Bible page 1003


What, exactly, happened to the good thief on the cross, and why? (Catholic perspective)

Much of the Question has already been answered, so I will address the concern of the OP.

“It would seem that he did no or minimal good works, and it's most likely that he wasn't baptised.”

As to his Baptism:
The CCC defines Martyr as fallows

MARTYR: A witness to the truth of the faith, in which the martyr endures even death to be faithful to Christ. Those who die for the faith before having received Baptism are said to have received a “baptism of blood,” by which their sins are forgiven and they share in the death and Resurrection of Christ

The fallowing passages detail more the benefits to the Martyr as it pertains to Baptism.

CCC 2473 Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude. “Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God.”
CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (2473)
CCC 852 Missionary paths. The Holy Spirit is the protagonist, “the principal agent of the whole of the Church’s mission.” It is he who leads the Church on her missionary paths. “This mission continues and, in the course of history, unfolds the mission of Christ, who was sent to evangelize the poor; so the Church, urged on by the Spirit of Christ, must walk the road Christ himself walked, a way of poverty and obedience, of service and self-sacrifice even to death, a death from which he emerged victorious by his resurrection.” So it is that “the blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians.”

As to His Works:
Now, as every Good Bible Believing Protestant will tell you, the only thing the Good Thief on the did was have faith and he was saved.  Well, if that was true I might be a Protestant.

Luke 23=39-43
One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”  He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

The passage above is the interaction between the Good thief and our Lord, but starts with the ridicule of the bad thief.

"Are you not the Messiah? Save Yourself and Us!"

This behavior was prophesied in the Old Testament, already experienced. See Matthew 27:40, Hebrews 2:8 as it refers to the Temptation by Satan in the desert.

“Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation"?

The words of the God thief, chastising his fellow robber on the Cross, defending the Dying Christ as he suffers with Christ on the Cross. The effort it must have taken to say these words under such conditions.  While dying, he uses his last moments in life to stand up for a suffering man, a man suffering just like himself.

"And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds"

He confesses his sins and accepts his punishment as just for his Crimes: Reconciliation and Repentance said out loud and publicly.

"but this man has done nothing wrong.”

The Thief now recognizes the sinless bridegroom, Proclaims his innocence not only to the Bad thief but to all those who are at Calvary: a public recognition of him being the spotless lamb.

“Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

The thief's final statement, the recognition that Christ is King, but not of this world, but the world to come, and that Christ has the power to save him.  Can you imagine, the Holy Spirit Giving Christ such a gift even as he is suffering and dying, recognition of his Kingdom.
Faith Alone?  I think not.  He suffered with the Christ, in the same manner that Christ himself suffered; he didn't do it silently or without works, he did it in such a way that his very actions saved him.  His works were many, and his baptism was the same as Christ's Baptism unto death.


According to Catholicism, when exactly were the souls of those who died before Christ conducted to heaven?

The souls of those who died before Christ (who were in the Limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum) or "Bosom of Abraham") were conducted to heaven at Christ's Ascension.
Addressing the question of "Whether Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation?," St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

…He took to heaven the souls of the saints delivered from hell, according to Ps. 67:19 (Cf. Eph. 4:8*): "Ascending on high, He led captivity captive," because He took with Him to heaven those who had been held captives by the devil—to heaven, as to a place strange to human nature, captives in deed of a happy taking, since they were acquired by His victory.
*["For the which he saith, Ascending on high, he led captivity captive: he gave gifts to men."]

See also "Does the Catholic Church teach that some who died before Christ are still in Limbo? Why?."


Concept and permanence of hell and the "outer darkness" according to LDS beliefs

Is the hell that is a spirit prison in the lds.org answer, or the place were people learn the truth about God, the same as the hell that is a permanent place for Satan and the sons of perdition?

No, they're different. Alma 40 says:

6 Now there must needs be a space betwixt the time of death and the time of the resurrection.
7 And now I would inquire what becometh of the souls of men from this time of death to the time appointed for the resurrection?
...
13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.

(Alma was not a very concise speaker.)
This refers to a temporary place between death and the resurrection for those who were wicked. (It's confusing that sometimes the terms are used interchangeably, but in the eternal scheme of things, it probably doesn't matter, since the one who is consigned to hell, was always there in the first place (CS Lewis).)

2 . What is the "outer darkness" referred to in both answers?

Those answers refer to a place called "outer darkness" which is permanent.

3 . Is anyone tortured in hell or in the "outer darkness" according to LDS beliefs?

Yes, I think so. The scriptures refer to hell as a state of "weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity" and being led captive by the devil. Sounds pretty torturous to me, anyway. (I should clarify too that Mormon belief sends way fewer people to this hell than "traditional" Christian belief systems.)


Luke's introduction, doesn't seem like he is claiming he was inspired?

Christians do not believe that the Bible was dictated by God in the same sense that Muslims believe the Quran was dictated to Muhammed. They believe that God inspired the writers, through their own knowledge and personalities, to write the things that God wanted his people to know and remember. Because of this it is possible for an author to write inspired scripture without even being aware of it. It is also true that the early church spent hundreds of years in prayer, in research, and in consideration before choosing the books that today make up the Bible, and the belief is that the process was also inspired by God through his Spirit.

The introduction to Luke does not in any way contradict this. Luke (and it's sister book, Acts) is a carefully researched and collated story of the Life of Jesus and the early church. It is also inspired by God, who worked within the life and thoughts of Luke to bring these writing to fruition. This issue is not restricted to Luke. Many of the other books are letters written by Christian leaders to their churches. It is likely that they did not know of God's working through them, or that their writings would one day become holy scripture. However that does not make it any less true.