Are there any Protestant denominations that have specific requirements for baptism?

Generally speaking, many Protestant churches have no other requirement outside of a statement of faith by the individual seeking baptism.  This practice corresponds to various accounts in the book of Acts, and the baptism happens immediately after the people believe.

But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.  Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.  Acts 8:12-13 NASB
And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.  Acts 8:38 (Ethiopian Eunuch)
“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”  Acts 10:47 NASB  (Cornelius)

Some denominations, however, practice infant baptism.  For these, of course, the only requirement is that the parents bring the children to be baptized.
I know the International Churches of Christ once required a certain level of discipleship prior to baptism, as they held to the concept of "disciples baptism" rather than "believers baptism".  Oddly enough, they believed that baptism was essential for salvation, but would encourage some people to delay their baptism until they were really ready for that commitment, which seems counter-intuitive if eternity is, indeed, at stake.
There may be other denominations that require something akin to confirmation prior to baptism, but I think it would be difficult for anyone to know the baptismal requirements for any and all groups.


Is there a standard text of the Litany of Loreto accepted for universal use by the Catholic Church?

The short answer is yes.

The universal standard text for the Universal Catholic Church is in Latin and can be found in the Rituale Romanum (Page 266). For standard texts of the above mentioned litany in other vernacular languages, one simply has to look in an approved Vatican translation of the Litany of Loreto in the appropriate Roman Ritual of any particular vernacular translation.


Does Catholic Church condemn cruelty to animals?

CCC 2415-2418 in the 7th commandment section concerns this.  Note, it is under the 7th commandment (thou shalt not steal) not the 5th commandment (thou shalt not kill) because animals are not people.

Animals are essentially good because they're made good by God.

  Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.

Man has a duty to look after animals

  God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure.

Mankind is justified in benefiting from using them as a means to and end (where this would be illicit use for other people)

  Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

The Catholic Church is against cruelty to animals for it's own sake.

  It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

And she is also against the practice of affluent people who take up resources that would otherwise go towards alleviating human suffering to take care of pets or other animals.

  It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.


Where Catholicism lost influence and property during the reformation,  what did Luther think should be done with the acquired assets?

Considering the intensity of the reformation one might possibly imagine some extreme idea like burning down the monasteries and tossing out the monks as heretics, or even burning them, but such is the opposite of what Luther was about at the personal level. Although Luther has said some of the most harsh language ever recorded against Catholic doctrine,  Luther had a very kind attitude towards Catholics themselves, in terms of their welfare.  As a matter of history, Luther in fact directly sought to ensure their protection and economic welfare.

With regard to rural monasteries, Luther did no suggest they be burned down, but instead to treat kindly those in error through Christian love, even to support them financially for the rest of their lives:

  Since no one is to be coerced into faith and the gospel, those who because of their age, their bellies, or their consciences elect to remain in the monastery should not be ejected or harshly dealt with, but should be supported for the rest of their days just as before. For the gospel teaches us to do good even to the unworthy, just as the heavenly Father sends rain and sunshine upon the good and the evil alike [Matt. 5:45]. We must remember, too, that these persons have drifted into this estate as a result of the blindness and error which prevailed generally, and have never learned a trade by which they could support themselves. (Luther's Works 45.171)

For those monasteries in the cities Luther thought they could be converted to Christian schools. I presume he meant any monks or nuns who wanted to stay would  be relocated to rural locations.

Luther had the same loving approach with respect to bishoprics, foundations, and chapters which have under their control lands, cities, and other possessions, etc. His aim was to build a community chest for the poor, 'for all who were needy among the Christians.'

Where the remaining family which originally endowed the properties to the church were now suffering poverty Luther thought it should be divided between the poor and the original family:

  If the heirs of the founder are impoverished and in want, however, it is fair and in harmony with Christian love that the foundation revert to them, at least a large portion of it, or the whole amount if their need be great enough to warrant it. It certainly was not the intention of their fathers—and should not have been—to take the bread out of the mouths of their children and heirs and bestow it elsewhere. And even if that was their intention, it is false and un-Christian, for fathers are in duty bound to provide for their own children first of all; that is the highest service they can render to God with their temporal goods. But if the heirs are not poor and in need of it, they should not take back their father’s bequest, but let it go into the common chest. (Luther's Works 45.173)

So we see that though Luther strongly condemned the beliefs of Catholics during the reformation his personal attitude to their persons (not their doctrine) was like a caring father desiring to take care of all involved.  This bit of history is somewhat of a surprising liberal and generous position, easily overlooked by the doctrinal passions and battle of the reformation.


"That entire portion of the end of Colossians 2 talks about the danger of legalism and seems to discourage keeping things such as the Sabbath"

Actually, it doesn't talk about that.  In fact it has quite the opposite meaning.

I once used Colossians as an example of exegesis:
 https://rbutterworth.nfshost.com/Management/examples/exegesis

If you aren't going to read that article itself, at least be aware of the importance of the context in which Paul was writing.

The Colossian Church was isolated from the rest of Christianity.  Most of the people there were Ascetics, who believed that the physical body represented evil while its immortal soul represented good.  That soul must be developed by physical suffering, and so, anyone that enjoys themselves, celebrates, eats good food, etc. is obviously an evil carnal person.

The Ascetics were criticising the Christian converts for their religious practices, and Paul was worried that some of them might feel ashamed of their Christianity and revert back to Greek paganism.  He warns them to "continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard".

Here's the section on 2:17:

  2:16-17 resumes the warning about being influenced by the opinions of
  others:

  Therefore let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and
  drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These
  are only a shadow [prophetic symbolism] of what is to come; but the
  substance [what casts the shadow, the eventual kingdom of God on
  earth] belongs to Christ.

  The original Greek did not use punctuation, but relied more on
  sentence structure. This structure is sometimes lost in translation
  into English (e.g. the original word order is no therefore man you
  let-judge in meat …, the single Greek word being translated into let
  and judge with other words intervening). Punctuation was supplied by
  the translators, who also supplied additional words to make the
  English read more smoothly or clearly. These added words are marked in
  italics in the King James version, which translation (with supplied
  words and punctuation omitted) perhaps provides an even better
  interpretation of this passage:

Therefore
    let
        no man
            judge you
                in meat
             or in drink
             or in respect
                        of an holyday
                     or of the new moon
                     or of the sabbath
                  which are a shadow
                      of things to come
        but the body of Christ

  A much more obvious meaning
  immediately becomes apparent: let no one but the body of Christ judge
  you (the body of Christ being the Church). We should not feel bad
  about being condemned by non-Christians for our Christian practices
  such as honouring the symbols of God's promises.

  The food and drink, festivals, new moons (monthly sabbaths), and
  (weekly) sabbaths refer to things that the Christian community is
  expected to practice, and not, as some suppose, to unclean foods and
  pagan festivals. The Ascetics were opposed to any form of physical
  pleasure (often including eating meat of any kind), and such holy
  feasts and celebrations (which, except possibly for the Day of
  Atonement, are a time of joy and pleasure to Christians) were a direct
  insult to their beliefs. But these sabbaths and holy festivals are
  symbols to Christians of God's plan for mankind, and must be
  commemorated despite the objections of non-Christians.

  In keeping God's sabbaths and festivals, a Christian will be subject
  to criticism from others, and in particular that criticism may often
  be of a very morally superior tone, possibly making the Christian feel
  that he himself might be the one in the wrong.


Did this phrase "love the sinner but hate the sin" in this form originate in Christianity and who is credited to have first used it?

Augustine of Hippo is basically universally credited with the coinage of the phrase. It is an idea which can easily be supported by the Bible, but he was the first to say it in a form close to its present proverbial form. He probably didn't think he was coining a cliche, since it was neatly hidden away in a letter to a convent. This blog has a summary of the circumstances:

  Let’s establish this point from the outset: St. Augustine more or less
  coined the phrase “love the sinner but hate the sin” as a description
  of how Christians should behave in the church discipline process. He’s
  (apparently) talking about about those man-chasing “cougar” nuns that
  like to flirt with men and can’t keep their naughty bits covered. It’s
  hard to believe that this was a serious problem in 424AD, but – in
  respect of his sainthood and all that – we’ll give St. Augustine the
  benefit of the doubt.

  In an attempt to better describe the love and wrath of God, the modern
  Christian cliche “love the sinner, hate the sin” has emerged in an
  attempt to capture the often-perplexing paradox of how God can
  simultaneously demonstrate wrath and love for mankind. There are hints
  of Biblical truth within the cliche. In His perfect holiness and
  justice, God is opposed to the open rebellion of sin (Romans 1:18-32).
  Yet, God loved us while we were still sinners and the enemies of God,
  and sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the price for our sin
  (John 3:16; 1 John 4:7-21).

The full text of the letter can be found here. Augustine opens it by saying:

  As severity [i.e. hatred of sin] is ready to punish the faults which
  it may discover, so charity [i.e. love of the sinner] is reluctant
  to discover the faults which it must punish.

And later he says:

  Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton
  looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons
  and hatred of the sin (cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum),
  in observing, forbidding, reporting, proving, and punishing of all
  other faults.

Cliches and proverbs always evolve and mutate. We see in Augustine the pithiness and the exact idea expressed in the cliche. But nobody seems to know exactly how or when it entered English in its exact present form. On the English Stack Exchange one answer notes that it seems to have coalesced and "started appearing everywhere" in the 1820s. Others have found other mentions in the 18th century.

For example, in 1729, the hymnist Isaac Watts wrote in an essay, "[Jesus] hated even the least sin, but loved and saved the greatest of sinners." Similarly, in 1784, William Mason wrote in his commentary on The Pilgrim's Progress, "[God] can love the sinner, as much as he loaths his sin." And the 1779 Charles Wesley hymn Equip Me for the War says, "O may I learn the art / With meekness to reprove; / To hate the sin with all my heart, / But still the sinner love." Internet sources indicate that the idea became more well-known when Gandhi referenced it in his 1927 autobiography: "'Hate the sin and not the sinner' is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world."

In summary, it was first said by Augustine, echoed (coincidentally or not) by Christian writers in English in the 1700s, and it became a proverb in the 1820s for whatever reason. Then in 1927 it became even more popular when Gandhi used it.


What is the biblical basis for group prayer?

When Jesus said to go into your closet to pray, what he was saying is that your prayer is to be between you and your God. Please notice:

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  Matthew 6:1  Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

The long and the short of it is are you praying to God, or to be heard by man. By saying go into your closet, what Jesus was pointing out is that when you are in your closet the only one who can hear you is God himself.

  Matthew 6:5  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

In Matthew 6:5 is an illustration of what Jesus was saying. Our prayers are a personal conversation between us and our Creator, anyone else who hears it is just eavesdropping.

That is not meant to say there is anything wrong with praying in public, but when you do make it between you and God, and not for the benefit of others who are listening.


Should a priest refuse communion to the inappropriately dressed woman when she approaches to receive it?

Should a priest refuse communion to an inappropriately dressed man or woman when they approach to receive it?

That will all depend on the particular circumstances involved. I included men in my response because both sexes can be equally modest in dress and can be also guilty of dressing immodestly.

Caveat: What is considered an inappropriate dress code in some cultures may not be equated with inappropriate dress at all! Inappropriate does not always mean immodest either.

Before going with my response hear, I will admit that the Vatican has at one point published at proper dress code which I remember reading. What I do recall about it, is the simple fact the level was so high that even the most modestly dressed Catholics would be taken aback. Times have changed drastically in the manners of how people dress in modern times.

Culture plays it’s part in this to. For example, it is not deemed inappropriate in Middle East churches, for a woman to breastfeed an infant while at Mass. In some countries this is somewhat frowned on. However Pope Francis sees no problem with it.

  "Babies have their own dialect," he added. "If one starts to cry the others will follow, like in an orchestra." He said that if the babies were "starting a concert" of crying because they were hungry, mothers should "go ahead and feed them," for this too is a "language of love."

  This isn't the first time Pope Francis has encouraged mothers to breastfeed in the Sistine Chapel. Last year at the same ceremony, the Pope made similarly supportive remarks, saying mothers should feed their children as "Mary breastfed Jesus." - Pope Francis Once Again Encourages Mothers To Breastfeed In The Sistine Chapel

There are signs all around St. Peter’s Square explaining the expected dress code when visiting the Vatican. Having visited the Vatican in person I can say that the Swiss Guards are very vigilant in enforcing the dress code on visitors.

The above Vatican sign shows the dress code of both men and women!

As we see in the above pictographs that even men and boys must not wear short. However in some cultures this is not considered an inappropriate dress code at all. Scouts in France will attend Mass in shorts, whether they attend the New Mass or the Old Mass. Having lived in France for over ten years, I can attest to this fact.

There is a Benedictine Monastery about 10 Kilometres from where I presently live and on the doors of the abbey church there is the exact same signage as what is posted at the Vatican a being the standard that the monks desire as a dress code for the faithful to enter the church.

That said, it occasionally happens that some visitors enter into the church with what is considered inappropriate dress. At communion time, I have never seen any priest refusing to give communion to a visitor, uniquely because they were deemed inappropriately dressed. I have seen some of the priests refuse to give communion to someone when the communicant displayed signs that they were not Catholic and have no idea on how to receive Holy Communion, but never for not following the dress code!

In general, a priest will not refuse communion to a communicant simply because they are somewhat inappropriately dressed according to the standards of their cultures. However, if one were to come down the communion isle in his or her Adam’s suit, I imagine a priest would definitely refuse to allow the communicant to receive Holy Communion.

If a priest thinks he see someone inappropriately dressed at communion time, he should not refuse communion to the individual, but rather explain what is wrong with their clothing attire after Mass and in private as to avoid any real  scandal in the future. Some people simply do not understand such things.

Once again, if we were to go by the standards of the Vatican in the 1930’s, many of us today would be deemed as being underdressed, especially in the hot summer months.

Now taking all the above into consideration, we should make a distinction between inappropriate and immodest dress in respect to women’s and girl’s dress. Pope Pius XI has stated that a woman or girl who ”wear immodest clothes are to be prohibited from Holy Communion and from the office of sponsor in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, and in certain cases, they are to be prohibited even from entry into the church.“ Thus according to Pope Pius XI, priests should normally refuse to give communion to such individuals if truly dress immodestly. (How the Vatican reacts to dress in our days has certainly changed as we are aware at any televised Papal Mass bares out.)

  Women and girls who wear immodest clothes are to be prohibited from Holy Communion and from the office of sponsor in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, and in certain cases, they are to be prohibited even from entry into the church.

  THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY IN DRESS

  “A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.” (The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI).

  Marylike is modest without compromise, “like Mary,” Christ’s mother.
  Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching below the knees.
  [N.B. Because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress.]
  Marylike dress requires full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders.
  Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics — laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. — unless sufficient backing is added. However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.
  Marylike dresses do not admit the use improper of flesh-colored fabrics.
  Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not unduly emphasize the parts of the body.
  Marylike dresses provide full coverage — even after the jacket, the cape or the stole are removed.
  Slacks or ‘jeans’ are not to be worn to church.
  Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible rather than reveal it. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as tight fitting slacks or ‘jeans’, sweaters, shorts; shorts which do not reach down at least to the knees; sheer blouses and sleeveless dresses, etc. These Marylike standards are a guide to instill a sense of modesty. Women and girls who follow these standards and who look to Mary as their ideal and model will have no problem of modesty in dress. She who follows these standards will not be the occasion of sin nor a source of embarrassment or shame to others. - A PAPAL DECREE CONCERNING MODESTY

Here we must walk a fine line, for if a genuine scandal were to exist, then yes, priests should refuse to give communion to either a male or female who is immodestly dressed. Remember too, that these are guidelines that many would deem outdated. After all Pope Pius XI did say that “‘jeans’ are not to be worn to church.”

In my seminary days this point was part of the dress code for all seminarians, but it did not apply to the faithful on Sunday Mass (1980’s).  Many wore jeans to Mass and so so did young girls and women. If guess it was a question of what was considered appropriate over inappropriate rather than what was considered immodest in dress.

Let the theologians figure out the nuances and I will do my best to be both appropriate and modest in my dress at Mass.


How can I defend my position of being against homosexuality in front of unbelievers?

None of us is without sin totally.
With the transgender nonsense, we can refer to Genesis 1:27.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their wickedness in Genesis 18-19.

We can argue that the Greek and Roman Empires fell because of their wickedness.

Sadly, we're seeing the same behavior rampant today.

As Christians, we need to show mercy, but not to condone what God clearly states as harmful behavior. We shouldn't "candy coat" bad behavior. But we need to show tact when pointing out flaws. We need to examine ourselves for hypocrisy and pray for our own repentance before approaching the others.

Luke 15:7 states:
7. I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

1 Peter 4:7-9 reinforces this:
7. The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray.
8. Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
9. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.

Contrast the fruit of the Spirit with worldly behavior. Colossians 3 & Galatians 5 are good chapters for this. There are other references, too.

I applaud your stance.
Keep doing what is simply right in the eyes of God & pressing closer to God and He will reward you.

Stay in the Word by reading your Bible often. When you aren't sure about a decision you should take, consult the Bible. There are online studies you can read as long as it is a godly source.


Origin of the quote "If he'd had anything more precious, he'd have given it"

The quote is from the Ascetical Homilies of Isaac the Syrian.  It is found in a note to the section entitled "The Economy of Our Salvation" in Chapter 6 of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.  The quote in full reads:

  God the Lord surrendered His own Son to death on the Cross for the
  fervent love of creation. For God so loved the world that He gave His
  only begotten Son to death for our sake (cf. John 3: 16). This was
  not, however, because He could not have redeemed us in another way,
  but so that His surpassing love, manifested hereby, might be a teacher
  unto us. And by the death of His only begotten Son He made us near to
  Himself. Yea, if He had had anything more precious, He would have
  given it to us, so that by it our race might be His own

  Pomazansky, Fr. Michael. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Kindle Locations
  6187-6191). St. Herman Press. Kindle Edition.


Old Earth Creationism is the belief that the world was created but is contra Young Earth Creationism in terms of age. It does not specify an age, but instead assumes that current scientific dating is at least reasonably accurate.

If one does not literally interpret Genesis 1 in terms of days, we have an uncertain time since the creation of the world. If one does not interpret Paradise (which may have been created in 6 literal days) as the same world that we inhabit (consider other differences as well) then we do not have a certain date from the Bible other than the time at which Adam dwelled on Earth.

Most mainstream Protestant denominations at least support it, and it has support in both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, though it is not considered dogmatic (you have Young Earth Creationists as well.) In general, groups which support Biblical Literalism will be more likely to consider Young Earth Creationism dogmatic or at least doctrinal, whereas other groups tend to leave it open to interpretation.

Among Church Fathers you have some who interpreted Genesis literally and assigned a Young Earth friendly age, whereas others spiritualized the days. The spiritualization of the days as a pattern in interpretation seems to originate with Origen, but probably predates him. Note that Origen is condemned as a heretic in Eastern Orthodoxy, while not all of his interpretive devices are, since non-condemned Fathers supported them.


Why did God create man with the ability to sin?

When you say: “when people get to heaven they are no longer capable of sinning” not all Christians would agree with this response.  There is no evidence that any “free will” creature who has been reborn and experienced the wholeness of God’s love, would then rebel against that love.  Can’t and won’t are two different things.

  Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed…

So a faith relationship enables a loving relationship.  God created man for a loving relationship, thus man was created with choice.  Faith is a choice, whom will I trust, will I trust the serpent or will I trust the Word of God?

So your question: “why did he ever created us with capability of sin and then punish us if we do sin”?  God desires a loving relationship with mankind and the wholeness of love with some is evidently of more value to God than the rejection and damnation of others.

  2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance

God does not want any to perish!


what is the background situation of Paul's vow ? (Acts 18:18)

A theme repeated consistently throughout Acts of the Apostles is that the Jews unfairly attack Paul for not following Jewish religious laws. In each case, Acts defends Paul by providing evidence that he was a loyal Jew, even if the defence sometimes seems contrary to what Paul states in his epistles to be his beliefs, including that Christians are not under Jewish law.

The vow in Acts 18:18 that required Paul to cut his hair would be the Nazarite vow that is stipulated in Numbers 6:1-21.  Referring to claims that Paul taught his followers to abandon the Mosaic laws, Dennis E. Smith and Joseph Tyson say, in Acts and Christian Beginnings, page 225, "Luke intends to show that this is a false charge, and the taking of a vow of special devotion is probably intended to support the image of Paul as a faithful Jew."


How have Protestants explained how Jesus could be born of mankind and be sinless?

The Bible is very clear that Jesus did not begin to exist in the womb of Mary.  As the Second Person of the Trinity, He exists outside of the physical universe of time, space, and matter and with the Father and Spirit created the physical world.

He is holy, was holy, and will always be holy... and sinless and righteous and pure and blameless.

When Mary conceived, the eternal Son of God became flesh and entered into the physical universe.  That act did not require that He become sinful.  He retained His holiness, as He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

His being born of a virgin is an important part of this, of course.  The doctrine indicates that without a human father, Jesus did not inherit the sin nature.

When He was born, He was given the name of Jesus (The Lord saves) because He Himself was the Lord who was saving His people from their sins.


Ascension Mass when traveling between dioceses?
Generally speaking, the obligation is to observe the rules of the diocese you are physically and currently in at that moment. That is why, Catholics must be kept up to date of such things when traveling.

In the United States, Christmas Day (December 25) and the Immaculate Conception (December 8) are always days of obligation. Christmas and Easter (which always falls on Sunday) are the highest-ranking holy days, and the Immaculate Conception is the feast for the United States. However, if any of the other holy days falls on a Saturday or Monday, they aren’t considered holy days of obligation, because they’re back-to-back with Sunday. The concern is that it would be burdensome to many Catholics to have to go to church two days in a row.
To make things even more confusing, some parts of the United States have moved holy days, such as the Ascension from Thursday to the closest Sunday. If in doubt, it’s best to call the local Catholic parish or just go to Mass anyway. Attending Mass is never a waste of time, even if it ends up not being a holy day of obligation.
Europe has four more holy days than the United States observes: January 6 (Epiphany), March 19 (St. Joseph), Corpus Christi (Thursday after Trinity Sunday, which is the Sunday after Pentecost, which is 50 days after Easter), and the Solemnity of St. Peter and St. Paul (June 29). - Holy Days of Obligation in the Catholic Church

If a particular church within a certain diocese does celebrate the Feast of the Ascension on the Thursday (usually some religious communities) and the diocese transfers the feast to the following Sunday. Now let us say that some of the faithful go to mass on the following Sunday after Ascension Thursday and the they go to such a religious community’s Sunday mass which is not the Feast of the Ascension, their day of obligation has been fulfilled, even though they actually missed the liturgical feast of the Ascension. This actually happens every year in my archdiocese.
Canon Law makes this quite clear:

Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.
§2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.
§3. Laws established for a particular territory bind those for whom they were issued as well as those who have a domicile or quasi-domicile there and who at the same time are actually residing there, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 13.
Can. 13 §1. Particular laws are not presumed to be personal but territorial unless it is otherwise evident.
§2. Travellers are not bound:
1/ by the particular laws of their own territory as long as they are absent from it unless either the transgression of those laws causes harm in their own territory or the laws are personal;
2/ by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory.
§3. Transients are bound by both universal and particular laws which are in force in the place where they are present.


A female demon name starting with the letter "S"

You probably mean a Succubus. Wikipedia defines them as:

  a Lilin-demon in female form, or supernatural entity in folklore (traced back to medieval legend) that appears in dreams and takes the form of a woman in order to seduce men, usually through sexual activity. The male counterpart is the incubus.

For example, this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that one of the charges brought about against "witches" was that of "intercourse with incubi and succubi" (where succubi is the plural of succubus).


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not celebrate birthdays?

To begin answering your question let me first begin by saying that the Bible makes only two references to birthday celebrations:

  Gen. 40:20-22 (NWT): “Now on the third day it turned out to be Pharaoh’s birthday, and he proceeded to make a feast . . . Accordingly he returned the chief of the cupbearers to his post of cupbearer . . . But the chief of the bakers he hung up.”

  Matt. 14:6-10 (NWT): “When Herod’s birthday was being celebrated the daughter of Herodias danced at it and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Then she, under her mother’s coaching, said: ‘Give me here upon a platter the head of John the Baptist.’ . . . He sent and had John beheaded in the prison.”

Our view on the matter is take note that God’s Word reports unfavorably about birthday celebrations and for this reason we reject participating in these sort of occasions.

There's no Bible law that says that we must not celebrate birthdays. However, if we think about it principle, then we can discern if celebrating is even close to something that God would disapprove of. After all, everything that is in the Bible is there for a reason. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17)

Also, if we take a look back into history, we can observe that:

  […] "the origins of birthday celebrations lie in the realm of magic and religion. The customs of offering congratulations, presenting gifts and celebrating—complete with lighted candles—in ancient times were meant to protect the birthday celebrant from the demons and to ensure his security for the coming year […] Down to the fourth century Christianity rejected the birthday celebration as a pagan custom.”
  —Schwäbische Zeitung (magazine supplement Zeit und Welt), April 3/4, 1981, p. 4.

  “The Greeks believed that everyone had a protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth and watched over him in life. This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born. The Romans also subscribed to this idea […] This notion was carried down in human belief and is reflected in the guardian angel, the fairy godmother and the patron saint […] The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks […] Honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were placed on the temple altars of [Artemis] […] Birthday candles, in folk belief, are endowed with special magic for granting wishes […] Lighted tapers and sacrificial fires have had a special mystic significance ever since man first set up altars to his gods. The birthday candles are thus an honor and tribute to the birthday child and bring good fortune […] Birthday greetings and wishes for happiness are an intrinsic part of this holiday […] Originally the idea was rooted in magic […] Birthday greetings have power for good or ill because one is closer to the spirit world on this day.”
  —The Lore of Birthdays (New York, 1952), Ralph and Adelin Linton, pp. 8, 18-20.

Sounds familiar? Again, these references are only to show you what birthday celebrations are connected to. In sight of what you find at Deuteronomy 18:10-14, We as Jehovah's Witnesses take our stand against engaging in what the God's word speaks unfavorably of.

Does this mean that we do not celebrate anything? No.


Is there any evidence that Lent used to be a 3 day observance?

From CatholicEducation.com's history of Lent:

  Since the earliest times of the Church, there is evidence of some kind of Lenten preparation for Easter. For instance, St. Irenaeus (d. 203) wrote to Pope St. Victor I, commenting on the celebration of Easter and the differences between practices in the East and the West: "The dispute is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast. Some think that they ought to fast for one day, some for two, others for still more; some make their 'day' last 40 hours on end. Such variation in the observance did not originate in our own day, but very much earlier, in the time of our forefathers" (Eusebius, History of the Church, V, 24). When Rufinus translated this passage from Greek into Latin, the punctuation made between "40" and "hours" made the meaning to appear to be "40 days, twenty-four hours a day." The importance of the passage, nevertheless, remains that since the time of "our forefathers" -- always an expression for the apostles -- a 40-day period of Lenten preparation existed. However, the actual practices and duration of Lent were still not homogenous throughout the Church.

So, I suppose that the answer is that there is evidence that it was 3 days some places, but this was never official policy of the Church Universal.

As a note: the length of Lent is not a doctrine, but a practice. While it is EXTREMELY doubtful that the length will ever change, it is theoretically possible for the Vatican to make some pronouncement changing it.


Are blue rosary beads based on blue ribband (tzitzit) from Numbers 15?
The short answer is no.
Blue is simply a Marian colour.
The colour blue is simply the traditional colour of the Virgin Mary from about the the year 500 on.
For example the colour blue in Mary’s mantle seems to have originated around the year 500 AD and is of Byzantine origin. Most sources seem to point to this date as the Byzantine origin of the color blue of Mary's mantle.

Why Does the Blessed Virgin Mary Wear Blue?
In many artistic portraits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she is depicted wearing a blue mantle. Why blue?
In first century Galilee, Mary’s clothing would probably not have much color. It would have been more flaxen-wool colored. Villagers may have used available plants to produce some modest dyes. Purple and blue were reserved for the rich and ruling classes because plants for those dyes were more rare. Red was used for the Roman army because plants producing red dyes were readily available.
As Mary has appeared throughout the centuries, she has worn different colors and styles of clothing.
•Our Lady of Fatima (1917) appeared to the children wearing a gown and mantle of white with gold trim and a crown.
•Our Lady of Lourdes (1858) appeared to Bernadette wearing a simple gown and mantle of white with a blue sash.
•Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531) appeared to Juan Diego wearing a gown of rose and a mantle of blue with gold stars.
Fr Johann Roten SM, director of the Marian Library-International Marian Research Institute at the University of Dayton (a Catholic college) wrote: “Mary’s dark blue mantle, from about 500 AD is of Byzantine origin and is the color of an empress.”
Blue has been a color associated with royalty, peace, and nature (sea and sky). So it makes sense that artistic renditions of Mary portray the Queen of Heaven and Earth in blue.


Is there a link between Socinianism and Sir Isaac Newton's conclusion to his Principia Mathematica (1687) where he attacks the Trinity doctrine?

It seems to me that Newton is 'sitting on the fence' and acting as a spectator to the arguments regarding the Person and the Deity of Christ. He writes that he can observe in the early Church (due to the presence of what he calls 'Nazarenes') that two camps existed and accepted one another's presence in the early Church, so he maintains :

The Nazarenes, as Newton explains in this manuscript, did not believe
Christ existed before his birth in Bethlehem. Although Newton crossed
it out and chose a passive verb instead, his original words “I do not” are
revealing. He goes on to point out that those “who believed that Jesus
took his beginning from the Virgin Mary” and those “who believed that
Jesus was before the world began … conversed together as brethren &
communicated with one another as members of the Church catholick
till the days of Justin Martyr, without falling out about their different
opinions.”

Isaac Newton - Socinianism and the One True God p281
This is a common argument in many matters of division, to suggest that the argument, does not, in fact, matter and that whichever side of the division one may wish to choose makes no difference to one's spiritual state.
This attitude gives the impression of being 'charitable' - avoiding conflict by argument - but the apostle James discounts this view by making it clear that one is to 'earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints'.
All heresies can be excused if one can argue that both sides of a division were allowed in the early Church and both parties had mutual fellowship and communion.
Further, the article goes on to state that Newton uses an argument which is also used by Socinians, regarding the terms 'God' and 'Lord' expressed in the Old Testament writings.

But this is not all. In the third (1726) edition of the Principia, Newton
added a note on the word “God” that expands his meaning:

Dr. Pocock derives the Latin word Deus from the Arabic du (in the oblique
case di,) which signifies Lord. And in this sense Princes are called Gods,
Psal. lxxxii. ver. 6; and John x. ver. 35. And Moses is called a God to his
brother Aaron, and a God to Pharaoh (Exod. iv. ver. 16; and vii. ver. 1 [sic;
8]). And in the same sense the souls of dead princes were formerly, by the
Heathens, called gods, but falsely, because of their want of dominion.182
In equating the term “God” with “Lord” (a word that straightforwardly
refers to dominion), Newton once again stresses that the chief characteristic of “God” or “gods” is dominion. This attempt to present the
terms “God” and “Lord” as equivalent mirrors the already-quoted lines
from the Racovian Catechism on the God of dominion. The position
that persons other than the True God can be termed “God” is a also
standard Socinian position and it is expressed in the very same chapter
of Crell’s De Deo specified in 1714 by John Edwards.

For both Newton and the Socinians, this conception of dominion also explained how
the Son of God could be called God and not be “very God” in the
Nicene formulation. Three out of the four biblical passages used by
Newton in this note are also utilised by Crell for the same purpose in
the same chapter of De Deo.
184 Additionally, the point about false and
imaginary Gods can be located in similar form in Crell’s Concerning One
God the Father.
185 Finally, the argument on the communicability of the
term “God”, along with the scriptural references used by Newton in
the note on God, can be found commonly elsewhere in the Socinian
corpus.

From my reading of this article, I am left with the distinct impression that Isaac Newton believed both Trinitarians and Socinians fellowshipped together in the early Church and that Isaac Newton appears to regard Deity as monotheistic, yet he does not explicitly say so.
It seems from the article that Isaac Newton did not regard himself under any obligation nor did he have any personal motivation in, himself, declaring his own faith regarding Jesus Christ.
He appears to be stating, that it does not matter and therefore he is not going to reveal what he, himself, believes.


How did the four living creatures become associated with the Gospel writers?

This connection was made by fathers as early as Irenaeus (d. 202).  Here's a table showing the views of several fathers whose writings we have on this subject:

                      Lion       Ox        Man          Eagle
Irenaeus (d. 202)     John       Luke      Matthew      Mark
Victorinus (d. 303)   Mark       Luke      Matthew      John
Jerome (d. 420)       Mark       Luke      Matthew      John
Augustine (d. 430)    Matthew    Luke      Mark         John

A number of church fathers saw a lot of symbolism in Scripture, particularly in Revelation.  Irenaeus first connects the four creatures to aspects of Christ's life and ministry:

  For, [as the Scripture] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,” symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,”—an evident description of His advent as a human being; “the fourth was like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. (Against Heresies, 3.11.8)

He then connects each animal, and its christological association, to the emphases of the gospel writers:

Lion – John ("John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father")
Ox – Luke ("that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character")
Man – Matthew ("Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man")
Eagle – Mark ("Mark [...] commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men")

Subsequent fathers took similar approaches, but often came to different conclusions regarding the specific associations.  For example, Victorinus, and Jerome following him, saw the ox and the man similarly, but swapped the other two:

  The living creature like to a lion designates Mark, in whom is heard the voice of the lion roaring in the desert. And in the figure of a man, Matthew strives to declare to us the genealogy of Mary, from whom Christ took flesh. [...] Luke, in narrating the priesthood of Zacharias as he offers a sacrifice for the people, and the angel that appears to him with respect of the priesthood, and the victim in the same description bore the likeness of a calf. John the evangelist, like to an eagle hastening on uplifted wings to greater heights, argues about the Word of God. (Commentary on the Apocalypse)

Augustine's views are found in his Harmony of the Gospels, where he disagrees with these interpretations, particularly that of Irenaeus:

  It also appears to me, that of the various parties who have interpreted the living creatures in the Apocalypse as significant of the four evangelists, those who have taken the lion to point to Matthew, the man to Mark, the calf to Luke, and the eagle to John, have made a more reasonable application of the figures than those who have assigned the man to Matthew, the eagle to Mark, and the lion to John.


Who are the "Non-Evangelical Protestants"?

You are correct in that "mainline Protestants" is the largest non-evangelical Protestant group in the U.S.  Wikipedia states that "The 2004 survey of religion and politics in the United States identified the Evangelical percentage of the population at 26.3 percent while Roman Catholics are 22 percent and mainline Protestants make up 16 percent."

See this Pew Forum survey appendix that classifies various Protestant denominations into three traditions, "evangelical Protestant churches, mainline Protestant churches and historically black Protestant churches."


According to orthodox Trinitarians, why did Jesus respond that only God is good?

The teaching on this passage from such as Martin Luther (see link below) is that the rich young ruler approaches Jesus as 'good Master'.

The young man sees only a master who can instruct him with legal commandments. All he thinks he needs is the knowledge of good and evil. He thinks he has resource within himself to do all that is necessary - he just needs guidance as to what to do.

He hasn't seen the necessity of a Saviour. He doesn't know of his desperate need within. He has not (yet) appreciated that God has sent One to save - not to legally instruct.

For this is why the Son of God came forth.
He is not a second Moses.

  For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1:17 KJV.

So Jesus responds by speaking to where the young man is. And gives him food for thought according to his present spiritual state.

Why call me good ?
None is good, but God.

The man who thinks he needs only legal commandments is a man who knows only of a distant Deity, unknown, unrevealed. He does all himself (so he thinks). He has yet to discover what Saul of Tarsus discovered :

  O wretched man that I am ! Who shall deliver me ? Romans 7:24 KJV.

Martin Luther "A Treatise on Good Works

  We ought first to know that there are no good works except those which God has commanded, even as there is no sin except that which God has forbidden. Therefore whoever wishes to know and to do good works needs nothing else than to know God's commandments. Thus Christ says, Matthew xix, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." And when the young man asks Him, Matthew xix, what he shall do that he may inherit eternal life, Christ sets before him naught else but the Ten Commandments. …


How can Evangelicals link baptism and circumcision without practicing infant baptism?

Abraham's Circumcision
First of all, we must differentiate between Abraham's circumcision and the circumcision of the covenant that applied to Abraham's descendants and household. They are still the same circumcision, but Abraham is a unique case because he was the first to receive it.
Colossians and the answer you quote are speaking of Abraham's circumcision. His faith preceded the circumcision. In the same way, faith precedes baptism. The comparison they are focusing on is not in the timing of the age of the sign, but in the order.
Circumcision of Old Covenant
However, even when speaking of the circumcision of the covenant, the logic remains consistent. For infants were born into the covenant and then received the sign of circumcision. In fact, anyone wishing to join Israel and God's covenant people had to be circumcised. So whether it was by birth or by choice, the circumcision always followed as a sign of that status.
Baptism of New Covenant
Believers are not born into the new covenant, not with their first birth. Rather we are born again into the new covenant and then receive the sign of the covenant, now baptism, as spiritual infants.
Circumcision of the heart
Remember, even circumcision of the flesh was not enough. Just because one was born an Israelite did not mean they had a circumcised heart, which was the real point all along (Deut 30:6, Jer 4:4). In the same way, we cannot claim baptism to be effectual. It is still only a sign of the new birth. It means nothing without true faith like Abraham's.
Infant baptism neither signifies being born again, nor guarantees future faith. Logically, one could say the first circumcision didn't necessarily signify real circumcision of the heart either, yet they did it anyway. That is to say, it is not wrong to baptize infants, it is only wrong to put your faith in it. Just as Jesus pointed out it was wrong to trust in being a Jew (May 3:9).  A system that allows for both infant christening and believers baptism would be fine, but when we eliminate believer baptism we are changing the order of the sign from what it was in the old covenant.
Conclusion
It is not illogical to say one applies to infants and the other does not. For the first birth applies to the first covenant and the second birth applies to the second covenant.
Rather it is illogical to apply the same requirements of the first covenant to both the first and second covenant's signs, ignoring the differences between the covenants.


What evidence is there that Jewish weddings staged a mock kidnapping of the bride?

Given that Judaism does not believe Jesus was the Messiah or that there is going to be a rapture of the Christian Church, then I think it is safe to say that any comparison between what happens at a Jewish wedding and the Christian view of the rapture has been made by Christians.

However, from the information you provided at section (2) in this link http://www.khouse.org/articles/2011/987  I get a distinct impression that the phrase “All Jewish brides were said to be “stolen, caught up, or snatched up by surprise” is not intended to be taken literally, but is simply a figure of speech.  It illustrates how the bride, who has been waiting for her future husband to return (and who might turn up early and unexpectedly) to her father’s house in order to complete the legalities, would then whisk her away after the contract had been signed to commence her new life as his wife.  I doubt Jewish weddings staged a mock kidnapping of the bride.

However, the comparison between the structure of a Jewish wedding and the “Bride of Christ” and the rapture of His Church, is pleasing to those of us who believe in a future rapture.


What is the case in favour of adelphopoiesis as a relationship akin to marriage?

I have not read Boswell's book, but I have found a number of reviews of it online (1 2 3).
Based on the reviews, Boswell's argument seems to be threefold.
Marriage
First, he points out that the definition of marriage has changed over the centuries. Even today there are different kinds of marriage. A couple can get a civil marriage (performed by a judge) or a religious marriage (performed by ordained clergy). In some countries a clergy person is authorized to sign the legal paperwork so that one ceremony can satisfy both God and the law. In some locations, common-law marriage (a tradition going back to ancient times) is an option allowing a couple to get married without a ceremony.
In many places today a married person cannot marry anyone else without breaking their current contract (and even then, some churches would not allow a second marriage), but in ancient times polygamy was much more widely practiced. Solomon was said to have 700 wives (and also 300 concubines, which was somewhat akin to marriage but was a different type of relationship.)
Yet another type of marital relationship in ancient times was that of Greek soldiers, who were encouraged to pair up--the reasoning being that when they went into battle they would be fighting alongside their lovers, and would therefore fight more valiantly.
On the other end of the spectrum, many early Christians took a view (following Paul's logic in 1 Corinthians 7 to its extreme conclusion) that abstinence was preferable to sexual activity even within a marriage, as far as it was possible.
So Boswell cautions that we can't necessarily take 20th century (well, 21st century, now) preconceptions of marriage and assume that marriage was always like this.
Brothers
Second, Boswell argues that the word adelphopoiesis (literally, "brother-making") was a euphemism for a ceremony analogous to a heterosexual marriage. He notes similarities; for example, the adelphopoiesis ceremony often included hand holding and a kiss, and concluded with a shared communion celebration. (The reviewers also note that there are differences, but don't elaborate.)
Certainly, the term is not intended literally. As one reviewer notes, only your parents can literally make a brother for you. But how it was generally understood by those who took part in adelphopoiesis ceremonies, we can't be entirely sure.
Opposition
Finally, Boswell notes that both the church and the state began to take a stronger stance against homosexual behavior beginning in the 13th century. Boswell quotes 16th century philosopher Michel de Montaigne, who witnessed an adelphopoiesis ceremony: "...the Church of Saint John of the Latin Gate, in which some Portuguese some years before had entered into a strange 'brotherhood.' Two males married each other at Mass, with the same ceremonies we use for our marriages, taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together." Civil authorities, alerted by Montaigne's essay, arrested and punished participants in the ceremony.
By the end of that century adelphopoiesis was banned throughout Europe. The doucments describing it were locked away, and in at least one case, the pages containing the  adelphopoiesis ceremony were ripped from the book.

Summary
In summary, marriage has had many different meanings. So, too, "brotherhood" has another meaning. (But what is it?) Finally, adelphopoiesis was eventually banned by authorities.
Most scholars don't believe Boswell's case is very strong. It does appear that the adelphopoiesis ceremony may have, in the eyes of some couples, been seen as akin to marriage, but there's no clear evidence it was ever viewed that way by the church.


According to Reformed Theology, why did the 70 Jewish translators include the Apocrypha?

It is true that the Jews ultimately did not accept the apocryphal books you listed in their canon, in a gradual process over several centuries at least spanning 1st century BC and 1st century AD.  There was no definitive answer, but a lot of pointers showing the development, shown in the BIBLE CANON article of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.  Especially after the 1st century AD, in opposition to Christian usage of the Greek Septuagint to prove the truths of Christianity (such as how Septuagint translated Hebrew word almah into virgin in Isa 7:14 which the Christians used as one proof of Jesus's divinity), the Rabbinic Jews (whose precursor was the Pharisees) preferred the older Hebrew of the Old Testament, thus abandoning the use of Septuagint.

The early Christians who became more and more gentile in demographics and who understood only Greek (not Hebrew), understandably adopted the Septuagint more and more because they needed the prophetic background as a proof of their "New Testament" beliefs, so in ANOTHER gradual process completely separated from the Rabbinic Jews, the apocryphal books increasingly became part of their canon.  But as this excellent article shows, the acceptance of the apocryphal books were not unanimous among the Church Fathers.

Starting with the Reformation, as a reaction to some abuses in the Catholic church making use of the apocryphal books to support the doctrines which the Reformers opposed (indulgences, purgatory, prayers to saints, etc.), as well as the earlier influence of Renaissance Humanism's ad fontes movement, Protestant communities started to create new editions of the whole Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew sources instead the Latin of the Vulgate, translated into their national languages such as English and German.  Critical self reflection of the canon, coupled with the Protestant movement ethos to go back to the original theology of Christianity, thus formed the background on why the apocryphal books were rejected by the reformers.

The short Introduction to the Old Testament essay by the renowned Bible scholar Bruce M Metzger included in the 1962 Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) is quite valuable to give us a contextual narrative of how the OT books were edited and became Scripture over several hundred-year period and how the apocryphal books were treated differently.  The Preface to the Revised Standard Version is also very helpful to serve as a short history of the Bible in the English language (started with Tyndale's project in 1535).  Archive.org has a clean pdf  of all the essays plus the 39 OT books (without the apocrypha).

As you can see from the articles I referenced above, the list of canonical books varies according to various criteria: holiness (inspired by God), what counted as "Scriptures", what are edifying, what can be used as a source of theology, etc. Consider also the different communities, whose identity development over centuries played into the making of the list: those who produced the Septuagint, Early Christians, Rabbinic Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc. each understandably had varying interpretation of what the apocryphal books meant for their communities.

So by 1561, mere decades from Martin Luther's famous 95 theses, the Reformed Theology "fathers" already enshrined the "new canon" excluding the apocrypha in their Belgic Confession Articles 4-6 with the following reasons:

  ARTICLE 4: We include in the Holy Scripture the two volumes
  of the Old and New Testaments.
  They are canonical books
  with which there can be no quarrel at all.
  In the church of God the list is as follows:

  In the Old Testament,
  the five books of Moses—
  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;
  the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth;
  the two books of Samuel, and two of Kings;
  the two books of Chronicles, called Paralipomenon;
  the first book of Ezra; Nehemiah, Esther, Job;
  the Psalms of David;
  the three books of Solomon—
  Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song;
  the four major prophets—
  Isaiah, Jeremiaha, Ezekiel, Daniel;
  and then the other twelve minor prophets—
  Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
  Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk,
  Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

  In the New Testament,
  the four gospels—
  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John;
  the Acts of the Apostles;
  the fourteen letters of Paul—
  to the Romans;
  the two letters to the Corinthians;
  to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians;
  the two letters to the Thessalonians;
  the two letters to Timothy;
  to Titus, Philemon, and to the Hebrews;
  the seven letters of the other apostles—
  one of James;
  two of Peter;
  three of John;
  one of Jude;
  and the Revelation of the apostle John.

  a “Jeremiah” here includes the Book of Lamentations as well as the Book of Jeremiah.

  ARTICLE 5:
  We receive all these books
  and these only
  as holy and canonical,
  for the regulating, founding, and establishing
  of our faith.
  And we believe
  without a doubt
  all things contained in them—
  not so much because the church
  receives and approves them as such
  but above all because the Holy Spirit
  testifies in our hearts
  that they are from God,
  and also because they
  prove themselves
  to be from God.
  For even the blind themselves are able to see
  that the things predicted in them
  do happen.

  ARTICLE 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books
  We distinguish between these holy books
  and the apocryphal ones,
  which are the third and fourth books of Esdras;
  the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch;
  what was added to the Story of Esther;
  the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace;
  the Story of Susannah;
  the Story of Bel and the Dragon;
  the Prayer of Manasseh;
  and the two books of Maccabees.

  The church may certainly read these books
  and learn from them
  as far as they agree with the canonical books.
  But they do not have such power and virtue
  that one could confirm
  from their testimony
  any point of faith or of the Christian religion.
  Much less can they detract
  from the authority
  of the other holy books.


Are Lutherans comfortable with worshipping a consecrated host or do they consider it to be idolatry?

The Book of Concord condemns the adoration of the elements, though without specifically calling it idolatry:

On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord's Supper;

That the external visible elements of the bread and wine should be adored in the Holy Sacrament. (Epitome of the Formula of Concord, VII, para. 40)

Accordingly, with heart and mouth we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading all Sacramentarian opiniones (opinions) and doctrines which are not in accordance with, but contrary and opposed to, the doctrine above presented and founded upon God's Word:

Likewise, when it is taught that the elements or the visible species or forms of the consecrated bread and wine must be adored. However, no one, unless he be an Arian heretic, can and will deny that Christ Himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper, should be adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the same, as also in all other places, especially where His congregation is assembled. (The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, VII, para. 126)


Catholic marriage between a Catholic and baptised non-Christian

It can be helpful to consider a marriage at the moment of the exchange of consent—i.e., when it comes into existence—and distinguish that from the marriage as it endures through time.

The divisions that you refer to all have to do with whether the necessary conditions are in place in order for the marriage to come into existence in the first place; that is, they have to do with the exchange of consent.

Canonical form, disparity of cult, and mixed marriage

Regarding this, the Church essentially imposes two conditions for the validity of a marriage, which go beyond what the natural law requries: namely, (1) that the couple exchange their vows before a properly delegated witness (also known as the requirement of “canonical form;” see Code of Canon Law [CIC]  1108); and (2) that (assuming that at least one party is Catholic) both parties be baptized. (See CIC 1086.) Failure to comply with these conditions is an “impediment” to marriage: if a couple attempts to marry without complying, the marriage is invalid; that is, it never comes into existence.

(There are actually more impediments, but those two are the most commonly dealt with. Many other impediments can be found in the CIC 1083-1094. Note that these impediments generally apply only when one or both of the parties are Catholic; two non-Catholics are not bound by these requirements.)

Both of the requriements can be dispensed with by the local ordinary of the Catholic party (CIC 1078). Evidently, the second condition can only occur when one party is Catholic and the other is non-Christian, and the first condition ordinarly becomes an issue only when a Catholic wants to marry a non-Catholic.

A Catholic must request permission (licence) to marry a baptized non-Catholic; however, that permission is not necessary for the validity (existence) of the marriage, unlike the dispensations that I mentioned earlier. (See CIC 1124. Note that the text of this canon was changed in 2009.)

Requests for dispensations and permissions are part of the routine paperwork for marriage preparation. When a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, as the O.P. says, the Catholic party must declare that he will remove dangers of defecting from the Church, and must do all in his power (evidently, all that is reasonably in his power) to make sure that the childred are baptized and raised Catholic. There is actually no particular requirement to try to “convert” the non-Catholic spouse, nor must the non-Catholic party specifically promise not to prevent the Catholic party from practicing the faith (although doing so would seem to pose a “danger of defection.”) The conditions are spelled out in CIC 1125.

Note that as far as Church law is concerned, a person who has become a member of the Catholic Church is always considered a member of the Church for the purpose of marriage law, regardless of whether he practices or not, or whether he has joined another church. (See Benedict XVI’s motu proprio from 2009, which addresses this issue.) Likewise, there is no disparity of cult so long as the non-Catholic party is baptized (even if he does not practice any Christian religion). Hence, Church law does not have a special case for baptized non-Christians; they are treated like any other baptized non-Catholics.

(The baptism, however, must be one that is recognized by the Catholic Church as valid: specifically, it must be documented, and it must have been administered using the Trinitiarian formula, with at least the generic intention to do what the Church intends. If there is any doubt, the dispensation for disparity of cult should be sought.)

Sacramental vs. natural marriages

As I mentioned, these divisions have to do with how marriages come about. I think it would be a mistake to think of them as three different “kinds” of marriage. Rather, these distinctions describe three potential obstacles that might need to be overcome in order for a marriage to take place: two common impediments that need to be dispensed with (sometimes both at the same time), and one permission that might need to be requested.

If marriage is looked at as a permanent reality that endures in time, then in that case the Church does distinguish between two (not three) different kinds of marriages: natural marriages (those contracted when one or both of the parties is not baptized) and sacramental marriages (those contracted between two baptized persons, which automatically constitutes one of the seven Sacraments). This is explained very well in CIC 1055.


Four distinct nations

First, it's important to understand that each of the four nations (other than Israel) mentioned here is distinct from the others, though they did have various interrelationships. Here are their origins in the Hebrew Table of Nations, and their territories at the time of the conquest of the Holy Land.

It is surprisingly difficult to find a map online that shows the territories of all four of these nations in a single view. Here is a 1748 map by Emanuel Bowen (source) that gives the general idea of where they were located geographically at the time of the conquest:

(If anyone can point me to a more contemporary freely available map that covers all four of these nations, please do so. Thanks!)

The Amorites

The Amorites were descendants of Ham through his son Canaan:

  The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan. (Genesis 10:6)

  Canaan was the father of Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites,
  Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites,
  Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. (Genesis 10:15-18, italics added)

During their history they had wide-ranging territories both within the land of Canaan (Palestine) and in the Transjordan area, and even projected themselves across the Fertile Crescent into Babylonia. At the time of the Israelite conquest of the Holy Land, they occupied parts of the southern hill country of Canaan, and the area east of Jordan that had been the northern part of Moab's territory and the western part of Ammon's territory.

The Amorites had earlier pushed the Ammonites east from the Jordan, and had pushed the Moabites out of the northern part of their territory at the southern end of the Jordan, so that in addition to the hill country of Judea in southern Canaan proper, they also occupied a swath of land on the other side of the Jordan that separated the Ammonites from the Jordan and the Ammonites and Moabites from each other.

Since they were Canaanites, the Amorites were considered mortal enemies of the Israelites.

The Midianites

The Midianites were descendants of Abraham through his wife Ketura:

  Abraham had taken another wife, whose name was Keturah. She bore him
  Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah. Jokshan was the
  father of Sheba and Dedan; the descendants of Dedan were the
  Ashurites, the Letushites and the Leummites. The sons of Midian were
  Ephah, Epher, Hanok, Abida and Eldaah. All these were descendants of
  Keturah. (Genesis 25:1-4, italics added)

The Midianites lived in the territory south of Moab and Edom, stretching down into the area east of the Gulf of Aqaba, which is the eastern finger of water running northward from the Red Sea.

Moses' wife Zipporah was a Midianite (see Exodus 2:15-22), and Moses had friendly relations with his Midianite family after the Exodus (see Exodus 18; Numbers 10:29-33).

However, starting with Numbers 22:1-7, relations between Israel and Midian deteriorated.

The Moabites and Ammonites

The Moabites and Ammonites were descendants of the two sons of Lot, Abraham's nephew. See Genesis 19:30-38.

The Moabites lived in the area east of the Dead Sea, south of the Ammonites. Their territory had earlier extended north to the southern end of the land east of the Jordan, but had been pushed out of the northern part of their territory by the Amorites.

The Ammonites lived in the area east of the Jordan River, north of the Moabites. However, by the time of the conquest they had been pushed farther east, away from the Jordan. The Amorite territory also separated the Ammonites from their kinsmen, the Moabites.

Presumably because they were relatives of Abraham, Israel was not allowed to attack Moab or Ammon during the initial conquest of the Holy Land (see Deuteronomy 2:9, 18-19, 37).

However, during the period of the Judges, and right through to the period of united kingdom of Israel and the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel, there was frequent conflict between the Israelites and the Moabites and Ammonites.

Now to address the question:

  Why are the Ammonites excluded instead of the Midianites in Nehemiah
  13?

Nehemiah 13:1-3 refers to something "found written in the Book of Moses." This is a reference to this passage from the book of Deuteronomy:

  No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the
  assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. For they did
  not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came
  out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram
  Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. However, the Lord your God would
  not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you,
  because the Lord your God loves you. Do not seek a treaty of
  friendship with them as long as you live. (Deuteronomy 23:3-6)

Notice that there are two reasons given for the exclusion:

"They did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt."
"They hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you."

Hiring Balaam to curse the Israelites

There is no record, aside from Deuteronomy 23:3-6 and the reference to it in Nehemiah 13:1-3, of the Ammonites being a party to the hiring of Balaam. As quoted from Numbers 22:2-5 in the question, it was the Moabites and Midianites who hired Balaam to pronounce a curse on Israel. And the Midianites are definitely not the same as the Ammonites. So the second point applies primarily to the Moabites.

However, it is possible that the Ammonites, who were the close kin of the Moabites, were considered guilty by association.

This is the most likely reason that the Ammonites are excluded instead of the Midianites in Deuteronomy 23:3-6. The Ammonites are closely associated with the Moabites, since they are descended from two brothers.

The Midianites are a more distant foe geographically.

The Midianites are also slightly closer kinsmen to the Israelites, being descendants of Abraham, as compared to the Moabites and Ammonites, whose nearest common ancestor with the Israelites was Abraham's father Terah. This closer kinship with the Midianites might also have contributed to the substitution of the Ammonites for the Midianites in the exclusion from the assembly. See, for example, the first half very next verse in Deuteronomy:

  Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you.
  (Deuteronomy 23:7)

The Edomites were the descendants of Esau, Jacob's brother, and thus were the closest relatives of the Israelites--who were descended from Jacob.

Not meeting the Israelites with bread and water

There is conflicting testimony about whether the Israelites actually passed through Moabite territory on their way to the conquest of the Holy Land. It appears that they at least passed through the edges of Moabite territory:

  Then the Israelites traveled to the plains of Moab and camped along
  the Jordan across from Jericho. (Numbers 22:1)

The plains of Moab were at the northern end of Moab's original territory, east of the southern end of the Jordan and the northern end of the Dead Sea. This territory had earlier been taken from them by the Amorites--whom the Israelites had now defeated. This is the scene of Balaam's three attempts to curse Israel in Numbers 22-24. Technically this was not Moabite territory at that time, but it had historically been Moabite territory.

The events of Numbers 25, in which the Israelite men get involved with Moabite women and their gods, bringing a plague upon themselves, also seems to take place in, or close to, Moabite territory.

And Deuteronomy 2:8-23 tells of the segment of the Israelite's travel "along the desert road of Moab" (Deuteronomy 2:8).

Similarly, the Israelites seem not to have passed through the territory of the Ammonites, though there is conflicting testimony about this as well.

This conflicting testimony is highlighted in the story of Jephthah in Judges 10:6-12:7. Specifically:

  Then Jephthah sent messengers to the Ammonite king with the question:
  "What do you have against me that you have attacked my country?"

  The king of the Ammonites answered Jephthah’s messengers, "When Israel
  came up out of Egypt, they took away my land from the Arnon to the
  Jabbok, all the way to the Jordan. Now give it back peaceably."

  Jephthah sent back messengers to the Ammonite king, saying:

  "This is what Jephthah says: Israel did not take the land of Moab or
  the land of the Ammonites. But when they came up out of Egypt,
  Israel went through the wilderness to the Red Sea and on to Kadesh.
  Then Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying, 'Give us
  permission to go through your country,' but the king of Edom would not
  listen. They sent also to the king of Moab, and he refused. So Israel
  stayed at Kadesh.

  "Next they traveled through the wilderness, skirted the lands of Edom
  and Moab, passed along the eastern side of the country of Moab, and
  camped on the other side of the Arnon. They did not enter the
  territory of Moab, for the Arnon was its border." (Judges 11:12-18)

Here the Ammonites claim that the Israelites not only entered their territory, but seized it.

Jephthah, however, denies that the Israelites took any Moabite or Ammonite territory, and says that the Israelites went around the eastern edge of the territory of Moab. (He is silent on whether the Israelites passed through Ammonite territory.)

The Ammonites seem to have been attempting to get the Israelites to give back the land east of the Jordan that the Amorites had taken from them earlier, which the Israelites then took from the Amorites. Apparently the Ammonites still considered it their land.

This conflicting testimony is also reflected in the description of the tribal allotment of Gad:

  This is what Moses had given to the tribe of Gad, according to its
  clans:

  The territory of Jazer, all the towns of Gilead and half the Ammonite
  country as far as Aroer, near Rabbah; and from Heshbon to Ramath
  Mizpah and Betonim, and from Mahanaim to the territory of Debir; and
  in the valley, Beth Haram, Beth Nimrah, Sukkoth and Zaphon with the
  rest of the realm of Sihon king of Heshbon (the east side of the
  Jordan, the territory up to the end of the Sea of Galilee). These
  towns and their villages were the inheritance of the Gadites,
  according to their clans. (Joshua 13:24-28, italics added)

Whether or not the Israelites actually transited any Moabite or Ammonite land, the first charge against the Moabites and Ammonites was a lack of hospitality, expressed in the words Moses addressed to the Israelites: "They did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way" (Deuteronomy 23:4).

As (somewhat distant) kinsmen of the Israelites through Abraham's nephew Lot, the Israelites could reasonably have expected that the Moabites and Ammonites would be hospitable to them as they passed through their territory, based on the ancient Middle Eastern code of hospitality.

Instead, the Moabites forced the Israelites to skirt their territory, attempted to bring a curse down upon them through hiring Balaam, and (through their women) seduced them into committing adultery and worshiping other gods besides the Lord.

The Ammonites also refused entry into their land, as suggested in various passages quoted above, and in this passage:

  But Sihon would not let Israel pass through his territory. He mustered
  his entire army and marched out into the wilderness against Israel.
  When he reached Jahaz, he fought with Israel. Israel, however, put him
  to the sword and took over his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, but
  only as far as the Ammonites, because their border was fortified.
  (Numbers 21:23-24, italics added)

Clearly although the Israelites approached the border of Ammonite territory, they were not allowed entry. The "fortified border" was closed to them, and blocked them from entering or passing through.

tl;dr answer

Neither the Moabites or the Ammonites were hospitable to the
Israelites as they passed through, even though they were distant
kinsmen. Instead, they blocked the Israelites, opposed
them, and caused them problems.
Though the Ammonites are not mentioned in Numbers 22 as a party to
the hiring of Balaam to curse the Israelites, they may have been
considered guilty by association, given that they were close kinsmen
of the Moabites.

There are many passages throughout the Old Testament recounting a long history of hostility by the Moabites and Ammonites against Israel.

The exclusion of the Moabites and Ammonites from the assembly of the Lord was a result of their lack of hospitality, and even outright hostility, against Israel when the Israelites passed through their territories. This was contrary to the law of hospitality that should have been in effect for their distant kinsmen.

The Midianites were closer kin to the Israelites, and were also initially less hostile to them. This is reflected in the friendly relations between Moses and his Midianite family after the Exodus. However, hostilities did flare up between the two nations, as recorded in the books of Numbers, Joshua, and Judges. These battles seem to have decimated the Midianites to the point that they faded away as a serious enemy.

In contrast, the Moabites and Ammonites continued to be recurring enemies of Israel throughout its history, and there are many diatribes against them in the Prophets.

Deuteronomy and Nehemiah reflect this greater antipathy against the Moabites and Ammonites as compared to the Midianites, as well as the fading away of Midian as a serious enemy early on in the history of the nation of Israel.


Jesus said:

  Matthew 6:16 through 18 NKJV  "Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance. For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 17  But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18  so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.

According my understanding of these verses, what Jesus said was really 'when you do anything which draws attention the fact that you are fasting that is wrong.'

But actually it goes much further than that;

  Matthew 6:1 through 8 NKJV  "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2  Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 3  But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4  that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. 5  "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6  But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. 7  And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8  "Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.

The lesson of all of these Scriptures is that God listens to your Heart, or possibly more accurately to your Spirit, and therefore whatever you do expecting the acclaim of mankind, when they take notice of what you do then you have gotten what you really desired.

On the other hand it seems that Jesus is saying 'After all don't you know that the God who created all things already knows what things you are needing.'

The actual way in which we need to accept the teachings of our Savior, is that what he taught us while on Earth is the bare minimum for how God wants his Children to be.

To put the answer to your question into everyday terms 'Fasting which is a form of worship in that it's purpose is to get nearer to God, If you just fast in the idea that it relieves you of other obligations then when you have your day of rest be happy because you have gotten you heart's desire.'

Those other obligations of which I spoke include work since:

  Genesis 3:17 through 19 NKJV  Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18  Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. 19  In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return."

Hope this helps.


How do Catholics justify confessing to a priest?

Sacred tradition in Catholicism makes the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation the pathway by which life in Christ is possible.  In the United States at least, before receiving first communion, children must first go to reconciliation.  All Catholics who are conscious of mortal sin, must confess their sins before receiving communion.  In fact, the only other way to "have life within you", to a Catholic is to get Baptized, then be hit by a bus (or desire Baptism in some way and be hit by a bus (or to stop someone from being hit by a bus and be hit by a bus *))

In any event, our justification is that Jesus told his disciples to do this:

  John 20:21-23 (NIV)

  21  Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22  And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23  If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

He didn't tell Mary Magdalene to do this, he didn't tell His Blessed Mother to do this, he didn't tell Pontius Pilate to do this, he didn't tell the Pharisees to do this, he didn't tell Lazarus to do this, he didn't tell Jarius to do this, he didn't even tell John the Baptist to do this.

In one sense, yeah, he's telling us to do this, but in another sense.  The sense that the Pharisees knew in Mark 2:7:

  Mark 2:7 (NIV)
  7  “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

He's saying, when you forgive sins, they are GONE.  That's what a priest tells you in confession.  He tells you, that in God's eyes, your sins are no more. You could still be thrown in jail for them,  you may still have to pay up in purgatory for them, but whatever you did is forgiven forever.  Our sin has eternal significance, so do Christ's words in Matt 16:19

  Matthew 16:19 (NIV)
  19  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The power that the apostles confer to their successors, the Bishops and their helpers, the priests, has the eternal significance of both bringing down Jesus to be with us in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar and acting In Persona Christi to forgive sins in the confessional.

Also, priests themselves have no inherent right to hear confessions.  Priests are given the faculties to do so from the Bishop of the diocese they are stationed in. But there are extraordinary circumstances in case of emergency and also times like World Youth Day when priests from all over the world will congregate when any priest will hear your confession.

But, regardless of the priest, the person making the confession must have Contrition which can come in two forms

Fear of God's punishment (imperfect contrition)
Desire to love God and please him (perfect contrition)

If they don't have these things, then they're not truly forgiven, there's no magic involved here.  There is only forgiveness and Jesus. The priest sort of recedes into the background here.  He's incredibly helpful because he often gives you great advice anonymously and freely. But the forgiveness part, that's all the Holy Spirit.

*buses are not sacramental in nature and have no ecclesiastical significance, I bring them up solely for the visual.


What is the Biblical basis for considering Satan the author of evil?

While the Old Testament introduces Satan and portrays him as:

Inciting David to sin by taking an unauthorized census (1 Chronicles 21:1)
Accusing Job of only walking uprightly because of the many blessings he had received from God (Job 1) and tormenting him when given the opportunity (Job 2)
Accusing Joshua the High Priest (Zechariah 3:1-2)

It doesn't go into anywhere near the level of detail that the New Testament provides regarding this particular being. One of the things we can see in Matthew's account of the Temptation of Christ in the Wilderness is that Satan is alternatively identified as "the devil" and described as "the tempter". This identification is also made explicit in the following verses in Revelation:

The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. - Revelation 12:9 NIV
He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. - Revelation 20:2 NIV

"That ancient serpent" is an allusion to the serpent in the Garden of Eden - the original tempter.
Elsewhere, we see references to "the evil one","the god of this age" and "...the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient." (Ephesians 2:2) which from context all refer to the same being. Given that basis, an additional key passage that is relevant to answering your question is John 8:44 -

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

So in summary, the Bible - and more specifically the New Testament - asserts that Satan is "the father of lies", "is now at work in those who are disobedient" and "leads the whole world astray" and by nature "was a murderer from the beginning"; Given this basis, a designation of "author of evil" does seem appropriate for Satan.
Unfortunately your additional questions regarding where and why evil exists go beyond the scope of what can adequately be addressed on this site without resorting to primarily-opinion-based answers.


What is the Catholic teaching on oral sex and impotence?

Canon Law and the Catechism both have something to say on impotence.

If the impotence developed prior to the marriage, the marriage is invalid (Canon 1084 §1).
If the impotence developed after the marriage was consummated, the marriage cannot be dissolved because of it (Canon 1061 §§1–2, Canon 1141).
The Catechism insists that marriage is open to fertility.

  By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."160

    Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning (he) made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.161

  The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.162 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.163
  Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

All of this points to sex being used for the procreation of children. The Catechism is also a little more explicit on sex for its own sake. I'm not entirely sure that the concept of oral sex had reached the hallowed halls of the Vatican when Pope S John Paul II promulgated the Catechism in 1990, but since it's effectively a form of masturbation, particularly in the wide definition the Catechism uses, this appears to be the nearest text:

  By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 ... Here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138

  To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

Consequently the answer is No: they are not permitted to engage in oral sex. There may be circumstances where culpability might be lessened, but that does not mean the practice is allowed.

The Church recognises through the Catechism that childlessness is a great burden.

  Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"163a and Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"164
  Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."165

The Catechism goes on to consider IVF, which has been the subject of other questions here. However, if impotence is merely a matter of erectile dysfunction (as this question implies) then medical interventions to counter that and allow normal sex are not forbidden.

137 Persona humana 9 (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)
138 Persona humana 9 (CDF)
160 Gaudium et Spes 48 §1; 50
161 GS 50 §1; cf Gen 2:18, Mt 19:4, Gen 1:28
162 Cf Gravissimum educationis 3
163 Cf Familiaris consortio 28
163a Gen 15:2
164 Gen 30:1
165 Donum vitae intro 2 (CDF)