What is the biblical basis for Postmillennialism?

Enjoying God Ministries (which I don't know anything about other than the page I will link to) has this summary: The Postmillennial View of the Kingdom of God. They list a number of Biblical quotes which, for completeness, I will add here:

Old Testament: Num. 14:21; Psalms 2:6-9; 22:27-28; 47; 72:8-11; 110:1-2; 138:4-5 (cf. 102:15); Isa. 2:2-4; 9:6-7; 11:6-10; 45:22-25; 65; 66; Jer. 31:31-34; Daniel 2:31-35; Zech. 9:9f.; 13:1; 14:9.
New Testament: Matt. 13:31-33; 28:18-20; John 12:31-32; 16:33; 1 John 2:13-14; 3:8; 4:4,14; 5:4-5; Acts 2:32-36,41; Rom. 11:25-32; 1 Cor. 15:20-26, 57-58; Hebrews 1:8-9,13; 2:5-9; Rev. 2:25-27; 3:7-9; 7:9-10; 11:15; 19:11-21.

One of the more interesting quotes (repeated on monergism (again, I have no other knowledge of the site)) is Psalm 22:27-28:

All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations.

Personal notes:
The verses I've checked so far, like Psalm 22:27-28, could also be pre-millennialism. I don't see any post-millennialism specific verses. The closest I could find is Matthew 28:19:

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

And the second closest is probably John 12:31-32:

Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

To put it more simply: I was a pre-millennialist before I started this study. Now I'm a definite pre-millennialist!
(Another, Psalm 47 appears to be more about military conquest and though it has verses that could be interpreted as millennial, they could just as easily be pre-millennial.)


Alternative Names for Eastertide?

  Eastertide (also called the Easter Season as well as Easter Time) or Paschaltide (also called the Paschal Season as well as Paschal Time) is a festal season in the liturgical year of Christianity that focuses on celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Eastern Orthodox Church calls Eastertide: Pentecost.

The Catholic Maronite Church uses the term Season of Resurrection for Eastertide.

  Eastertide is the period of 50 days, spanning from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday

Occasionally one see the Roman Rite employing this term for Eastertide also.

  Perhaps nothing captures the spirit of Easter more than the “Exultet,” the great Easter Proclamation composed about the fifth century and sung on Holy Saturday night in Catholic churches across 15 centuries.

  The Exultet, an ecstatic hymn of praise of the risen Christ, begins with these powerful words: “Exult, let them exult, the hosts of heaven, exult, let angel ministers of God exult, let the trumpet of heaven sound aloud our mighty King’s triumph! Be glad, let earth, as glory floods her, ablaze with light from her eternal King, let all corners of the earth be glad, knowing an end to gloom and darkness.”

  The stirring words of this proclamation spill over into the liturgy of the Easter season as we call to mind and celebrate the resurrection of Christ from the dead. But Easter is not simply poetry, it is one of the greatest events of history (along with the creation of the world and the Incarnation). - The Easter Proclamation and the Resurrection Season

To a lesser degree Easter is expressed by some as the Season of Hope:

  Easter is a Season of Hope


Did John the Evangelist make a mistake in counting the post-resurrection apparitions of Jesus?

I am unaware of any specific statement by the Catholic Church on this question.
It's possible that this could be interpreted as a mistake, but I think there's a simpler solution:
What is the inner circle of Jesus' closest disciples called?

In the Synoptics they are usually "the twelve"
Luke 6:13 is likely the earliest reference indicating that the twelve were also called "apostles"
John calls them "disciples"

So applying John's terminology consistently, I see John 21:14 calling out that this was the third appearance to the apostles as a group.
John himself acknowledges this wasn't the third appearance in the absolute sense--he records the appearance to Mary Magdalene, who certainly was a disciple in the general sense of the word; just not an apostle.
Putting the Gospels together, we have appearances to:

Mary Magdalene
Mary the mother of James & Joses, Joanna, Salome (and possibly others)
Peter
Cleopas and his companion (could be before #3)
10 of the original apostles (Thomas absent, Judas absent and possibly dead), plus possibly others
11 of the original apostles (Thomas now present, Judas absent and probably dead)
The appearance at the Sea of Tiberius

(The timing of the appearance to James (aka James the Just) is unknown; this theory would suggest that the appearance to 500+ (as recorded by Paul in 1 Cor 15) probably happened after the appearance at the Sea of Tiberius)
I've bolded the appearances to the apostles as a group, and the Sea of Tiberius is indeed #3 on the list.


Why did punishment differ in Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Kings 15:11-12?

Leviticus 20:13 mentions what should be done to Israelites under the Law of Moses. 1 Kings 15:11-12 mentions how a particular King ruled the nations of Israel. It seems from the context that there were some Canaanite idolatry temples within Israel, which practiced cult prostitution. 1 Kings 14:24 indicates that there was actually both male and female prostitutes.  From what I know about these temples it is most probable that the prostitutes and the priests were not Israelites, so the law was not applicable to them. That the King forced them out of Israel seems to have been a move that God approved of.

It should be noted that there are many instances when people are congratulated in the Bible when they move in the 'direction of right', without actually going all the way. So even if this was incorrectly understood as a law that was to be applied to foreigners also, there is actually no contradiction in one person’s example being spoken well of, versus the actual prescription that should have been followed.


How does the Catholic Church understand the priesthood of all believers?

The Catholic Church believes in three different types of priests: (Edited from this Wikipedia article.)

first, the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5–9);
second, the ordained priesthood (Acts 14:23, Romans 15:16, Titus 1:5); and
third, the high priesthood of Jesus (Hebrews 3:1).

The Catholic Church accepts the 'priesthood of all believers' doctrine. This is exemplified in the 'Chaplet of Divine Mercy' prayer (which I personally believe to be a very powerful form of prayer), in which the individual Christian declares: "Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins..."
As Christians, we are all called to evangelize - to spread the love of God, and we have a responsibility towards the preservation and propagation of the faith.
God also chooses a few among us to be 'fishers of men', and these are called to serve as ordained priests through apostolic succession.

So what sacrifice does the priesthood of the laity offer?  What do we lay “priests” consecrate?
St. Paul answers the first question in Romans 12:2: “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God, your spiritual worship.”  As the Lord Jesus offered himself totally for our sake, we are called to lay down our lives for Him and for one another.  In rare occasions, this may mean the “supreme sacrifice” of martyrdom.  But more commonly, it means the living sacrifice, the “white martyrdom,” of denying our own will to embrace His will, “offering up” in love the work we do and the trials we endure, as a sacrifice of praise of God and intercession for others in need.  Studying for exams, changing a soiled diaper, going to work to provide for our families--these are all activities that become opportunities for Christians to exercise their sacred priesthood.  In fact during the Sunday Eucharist, as the bread and wine are carried up to the altar, we are called to consciously place ourselves and all sacrifices of the past week on the altar with the gifts to be united with Christ’s perfect sacrifice to the Father.
So what do we lay “priests” consecrate?  Vatican II gives us the answer to that question in its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity.  We are called to consecrate the secular, the earthy, the nitty-gritty realities of life to God.  When we give thanks over a meal, we consecrate it to God’s glory and sanctify it.  When we offer our work in sacrifice, and live out our Christian witness in the workplace, we consecrate our work and sanctify it.  We lay priests are to be God’s secret agents in every arena of life, in places where ministerial priests and religious may never go, elevating, purifying, sanctifying, blessing.
(from Priesthood of Believers By: Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio | The Crossroads Initiative.)

PS: This is an interesting read - THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE, James Akin | EWTN.


When did the use of formal, seminary-type education begin and why?

First let me correct the assumption that the model you describe is normal for Christian pastors. It is in fact only a minority that follow this. The vast majority of Christian churches, including Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Presbyterians follow an entirely different model. In this model they:

Discern whether or not the person has a calling to Christian leadership
Send them for education as necessary. This will virtually always include some formal education, but not necessarily.
Appoint them to a leadership position

Even among those churches where the model you describe is used, it is not exclusive. I have encountered Baptist, Mennonite and other churches where they will find a person who is gifted in a pastoral or leadership area and appoint them to that role. They may or may not then send them for other training (formal or informal) as part of their duties.

However to start answering your question, which is about when it became normal to give church leaders formal education, it has been normal for Church leaders to receive formal education for as long as there has been formal education. Early universities were started as clergy training institutions, and only later developed into general education institutions.


Why does the Catechism of the Catholic Church abridge the first commandment?

The answer, I think, is straight out of the "training manual" for filtering and interpreting the Catechism:

  Inculturation of the faith, under certain aspects, is a linguistic task. This implies that catechesis respect and value the language proper to the message, especially biblical language, as well as the historical-traditional language of the Church (creed, liturgy) and doctrinal language (dogmatic formulations). It is also necessary for catechesis to enter into dialogue with forms and terms proper to the culture of those to whom it is addressed. Finally, catechesis must stimulate new expressions of the Gospel in the culture in which it has been planted. In the process of eculturating the Gospel, catechesis should not be afraid to use traditional formulae and the technical language of the faith, but it must express its meaning and demonstrate its existential importance. Similarly, it is also the duty of catechesis "to speak a language suited to today's children and young people in general and to other categories of people—the language of students, intellectuals and scientists; the language of the illiterate or of people of simple culture; the language of the handicapped, and so on".

#208 - General Directory for Catechesis

Basically, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is supposed to be a template for all particular Catechisms to follow. It's the official interpretation of scripture.  Not the only interpretation, but certainly the most broadly acceptable

  In virtue of being a catechism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church collects all that is fundamental and common to the Christian life without "presenting as doctrines of the faith special interpretations which are only private opinions or the views of some theological school"

#124 ibid.

So, if you're looking for the Catechism to pick a fight with the Bible, you've came to the wrong place.  In the instance of the Decalogue, the Catechism lists the broad statements that justify each of the commandments as subheads to subsequent sections. Which, from the standpoint of being good literature, makes perfect sense.


Since Jesus death paid our sin debt in full, why do Christians still die?

Gen 2:17 reference is for the second death not the first.

The fact that we are still dying in spite of Jesus dying for us, shows that death is more than what we know it to be in everyday meaning. There is something called "second death" in the Bible.

  Rev.20:6 “Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”

It worth noting how clearly this second death is mentioned at Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8. One of the first things God told Adam was regarding the forbidden fruit. He said:

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

The same day they were supposed to have been paying the penalty for their disobedience; the penalty was death. But they didn't die the same day, because:

  John 3:16 For this is the way   God loved the world: He gave his one and only   Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish   but have eternal life.

A substitute was already planned and therefore the penalty of sin was differed. When Adam died at the age of 930 years he was not paying the penalty of sin. Adam's probationary period of overcoming sin was over at nine hundred and thirty years; his lifespan ended.

In fact the Bible uses another word “sleep” many a time, when talking about the death that comes at the end of a lifetime. Talking about Lazarus' death, Jesus himself called it sleep. He said:

  John 11:11-14 After he said this, he added, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep.   But I am going there to awaken him.”  Then the disciples replied,   “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.”  (Now Jesus had been talking about   his death, but they thought he had been talking about real sleep.) Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died,

This word "sleep" has been used several times, in reference to the first death or the natural death that all have to face in this sinful world. (See Job 14:10-12, 1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16). All the people who ever died on planet earth died only the natural death or the first death; and first death is the consequence (natural result) of sin-because of Adam's fall-and not the wages (punishment) of sin.

The death of Christ and also His resurrection were divine acts, and not natural acts. Death had no power on Him, as He did not sin. For us to die is natural, for Christ it was not. He was doing something that otherwise would not have happened. Just before Jesus could go to Calvary, this is what He said about Satan:

  John 14:30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the ruler of this world is coming.  He has no power over me.

Satan had no power over Christ, as Christ did not yield to temptation. He had to lay His life down as a voluntary act for our salvation, and He did it. He was paying the penalty of the human race on the cruel Cross. He was dying the death that we deserved. Paul wrote: ...so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone. (Hebrew 2:9)

First death and second death:

The death that Christ died was the second death. The first death is a natural consequence of sin. Whether one is a believer or unbeliever, the first death is for all, whether a saint or a sinner. It is the close of probationary time, either to make it or break it to Heaven. When Adam and Eve were told that they would die the day they ate the fruit, it was a reference to the second death (the eternal extinction), not the first death.

The first death physically destroys the body, but it is not an eternal destruction, as there will be a resurrection. But the second death is the eternal destruction of the person. So the second death is the real death, the complete death. The first death has only a part of the second death in it. The second death has the first death and more in it.

  (Rev 20:6, 14, 15; 21:8), and not "first and second death", as the second death is the complete death.

Those who die the second death have no resurrection. But Jesus rose from the dead even though He died the second death. Well, because He was sinless, He was dying a substitution death. He was not dying for His sin (He did no sin), but for the sins of the others (the whole world).

When we die the first death, we can afford to smile and die, and even sing while burning at the stake, because we know it is only the first death, and there is a resurrection. But when Jesus was dying the death on Calvary, He cried in bitter agony:

  My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)

But when we die our natural death, we don't cry that way, as God does not forsake us. It is at the final death, the second death, when people pay the wages of sin, they would feel the bitter agony of being forever cut off from God and from life, and then all will cry and weep and gnash their teeth.

When Christ bore the sins of the world on Him, He could not, for that moment, see beyond the portals of the tomb, as it was total darkness within Him and around Him too. Only by faith He knew that resurrection was possible for Him while He was bearing our sins upon Himself. And that's how He gave hope to the thief, and that's how He committed His breath into the hands of His Heavenly Father and died. And lo! And behold! On the third day our Lord conquered the grave as He conquered death! Listen to the Victor:

  Rev. 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

#Apologies for this long answer.


Is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 the only verse that supports the rapture?

There's also Matthew 24:40-42

  Two men will be out in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left. Therefore, stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come.

and it's friend Luke 17:34-35

  I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left. And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left.”

so long as you leave off the next verse

  They said to him in reply, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather.”

Which rapture folks might be likely to do.

It kind of leaves you thinking that the lucky one is the one who is left, not the one who was taken and eaten by a vulture. If this were pointing to a rapture, the one who was left would be the one eaten by a vulture.


What is the biblical basis for NOT tithing?

The biblical basis for Christians not being obliged to tithe is based on the fact that tithing is an Old Testament concept and applied only to people living under the Mosaic Law. The tithe was a requirement of the Law in which the Israelites were to give 10 percent of the crops they grew and the livestock they raised to the tabernacle/temple (Leviticus 27:30; Numbers 18:26; Deuteronomy 14:24; 2 Chronicles 31:5).
After the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, the Law was fulfilled and God cancelled the written code, with its regulations (the Mosaic Law), and nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14).  The Mosaic Law required that tithes be collected from the people, but no longer:

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:18)

Christians do not have to submit to any legalistic tithe system.  The New Testament nowhere designates a percentage of income a person should set aside, but the early church did collect money to send as a gift to Christians in Jerusalem:

On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. (1 Corinthians 16:2)

Here is the biblical principle that applied to Christians back then and to Christians today:

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, For God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Corinthians 9:7)

Just as the first Christians sold their possessions and willingly shared what they had with those in need (Acts 4:34-35), so today Christians are at liberty to give freely, as they are able.


Should non-believers be allowed in church?

This is also the case among the Eastern Orthodox - if you're not Orthodox you get as far as the narthex but no further. Their practice is not based solely on scripture, but also on tradition. The basic idea is that the Church is unified as the Body of Christ, and this unity is expressed and sanctified by common participation in the Eucharist; it is therefore wrong to allow people who are not part of the Church to take part in the service. It is a more extreme version than, say, the Catholic position that you can be physically present in the church building, but not go up to receive the sacrament.

Scriptural support for unity through the Eucharist is found principally in 1 Corinthians 10-12 and in John 6:25-59, though there are other passages (like Acts 2:42-47) that speak about unity of the community of believers in a general way.

  Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.
  (1 Cor 10:16-17, NIV)

The inference is that believers are united, but believers+unbelievers are not, and so there is no true koinonia ("participation" above, also translatable as "fellowship" or "community") if the celebration of the Eucharist does not reflect the unity of Church membership.


What is the basis for the Catholic teaching that Mary is holy?

From the Gospel of St. Luke:

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 And blessed [is] she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Note that St. Elisabeth is first filled with the Holy Spirit, then speaks the following lines with authority derived from that Inspiration. And she calls Our Lady “blessed,” which in this context means “Saint.”
In the next versicle, the Magnificat starts (46–55), but one part in verse 48 stands out for our purposes:

48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Catholics and Orthodox (and Miaphysites and the Church of the East, as well) all hold that this Evangelic command to “call [Our Lady] blessed” is fulfilled by our counting her as the first among the blessed, and the holiest of all creatures after the Triune God. After all, she was granted that unique privilege to bear the Word of God himself.


Are there any denominations that teach their members how to hear God's voice better, as exemplified by the Apostles in Scripture?

Yes, this is a principle of great importance to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Recent Teachings
In an April 2020 global conference, church president Russell M Nelson gave a discourse entitled Hear Him, including the following remarks:

We also hear Him more clearly as we refine our ability to recognize
the whisperings of the Holy Ghost. It has never been more imperative
to know how the Spirit speaks to you than right now. In the Godhead,
the Holy Ghost is the messenger. He will bring thoughts to your mind
which the Father and Son want you to receive. He is the Comforter. He
will bring a feeling of peace to your heart. He testifies of truth and
will confirm what is true as you hear and read the word of the Lord.
I renew my plea for you to do whatever it takes to increase your
spiritual capacity to receive personal revelation. (see here)

Two years prior he also gave an address discussing how & why to come to recognize revelation from God. See Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives
The April 2020 sermon led to a hashtag among Latter-day Saints #HearHim (referring to hearing God) that has prompted many responses in which people have described what they do to hear Him. My own #HearHim comments are here.
Passages from canonized scripture
One of the Book of Mormon passages most commonly cited by missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Moroni 10:4-5, which specifically calls upon people to seek confirmation from God regarding the book:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye
would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these
things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with
real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of
it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.'
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all
things.

One of the passages used to describe what revelation from God feels like is Doctrine & Covenants 11:12-13:

12 And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that
Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk
humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.
13 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I will impart unto you of my
Spirit, which shall enlighten your mind, which shall fill your soul
with joy;

Conclusion
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that God speaks today as He did in the past, and the church actively teaches its members to seek revelation from God for the areas of responsibility He has given them.


The "lambs/sheep" in this case referred to the whole Church

From one of the notes at the Vatican's web site issue of the New American Bible, for John 21:15 we find the following analysis of verses 15-17 in notes 8 & 9:

  8 [15-23] This section constitutes Peter's rehabilitation and emphasizes his role in the church.

The lambs are addressed in this note:

  9 [15-17] In these three verses there is a remarkable variety of synonyms:
  two different Greek verbs for love (see the note on ⇒ John 15:13 {agape/philios}; two verbs for feed/tend; two nouns for sheep; two verbs for know. But apparently there is no difference of meaning. The threefold confession of Peter is meant to counteract his earlier threefold denial (⇒ John 18:17, ⇒ 25, ⇒ 27). The First Vatican Council cited these verses in defining that Jesus after his resurrection gave Peter the jurisdiction of supreme shepherd and ruler over the whole flock.

A citation(excerpt) from the First Vatican Council:

On the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter (Fourth Session, Chapter 1)

  And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44]{44. Jn 21, 15-17}. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

About lay led retreats and bible studies

It is in my experience common for Catholic lay leaders to have OK, albeit incomplete, explanations for a variety of doctrine and theology.  I have experienced this first hand serving on just under a dozen ACTS retreats.  The enthusiasm of the leaders and team members is often matched by a lack of depth in the grasp of doctrine and various high level Church positions.

Sources used to supplement lay led bible studies vary widely, from articles in faith based magazine, to the Catechism, notes from formal classes in theology or religion, notes used to teach CCD to children, to favorite blogs, to official doctrine and of course Scripture.  I'll offer the suggestion that the lay leader was passing on something they had learned informally.  For a lay led event's purposes it's close enough not to matter.  The original apostles were very much Jesus' sheep, and if not The Whole Flock they represent a very important flock, or a key part of his flock, whom he sent to the rest for our salvation.


What did Jesus mean by "not peace but division"?

Following Christ in many countries carries a significant price to pay in many places of the world.  In fact, the decision to become a Christian often results in being ostracized from one's family and even worse.

Even within some Christian traditions, the decision to leave the tradition of one's family to join another tradition is met with exclusion from the family.

Jesus told His disciples before His death that the world will, in fact, hate them:

  “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.  John 15:18-21

So, there is division and that decision does arise out of one's decision to follow Christ, but the prophecy was that the world would hate Christians--not that Christians would hate the world (the people of the world).

So, no, the passage should not be deleted.  There are millions of Christians who have experienced the hatred of one's own family upon their decision to follow Christ.  These verses predicted that.


Do any of the seven ecumenical councils condemn slavery?

No, none of the ecumenical councils prohibit slavery, or deal with the subject to any significant extent.

The closest connection to slavery that I have found in the ecumenical councils is the Council of Chalcedon (fourth ecumenical council, AD 451), which ratified as ecumenical the canons of the Synod of Gangra (340).  This local council condemned several Manichaean practices, one of which was encouraging slaves to flee their masters.  The third canon reads:

  If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema.

Thus we don't find any specific opposition to slavery here.

Another local council, several centuries later, did speak against one form of slavery – ownership of Christians by Jews.  This council, the Twelfth of Toledo (681), placed a number of other restrictions on Jews as well.  But since it was never ratified by a subsequent ecumenical council, it's only tangentially relevant to your question.

Of course, there are many church fathers during this period who opposed the practice, often vehemently, but nonetheless their views were apparently not widespread enough to be included in any of the ecumenical councils.  Indeed, Wikipedia notes that even as late as the 15th and 16th centuries, several popes continued to call for slavery of non-Christians.


Why do Christians believe Christ's death applies to future sins?

My understanding of the sin offering and guilt offering which Jesus' death rendered no longer necessary was that a person or nation committed an act, and subsequently a sacrifice was made to atone for that act.

I'm going to focus on this bit in particular. It seems that you're suggesting that Jesus' death is a direct replacement for the Old Testament sacrifices, where one (past) sin was atoned for by one sacrifice - and therefore Jesus' sacrifice must work the same way. However, this the New Testament teaches that Jesus' death is completely different to this sacrifice system, and it not a direct replacement but God's plan from the beginning.
Why does Jesus' sacrifice work different the Old Testament sacrifices?
The apostle Paul, on several occasions, describes how Jesus starts of a new line of people who are saved, just as Adam was the first in a line of people who are not saved. Through faith, people are brought from one group into the other.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Romans 5:15-17 (NIV®)

Paul specifically highlights that Jesus death is able to cover over many sins. That Old Testament pattern of one sacrifice for one sin isn't required, because Jesus' death can cover many sins.
The writer to the Hebrews expands on this idea even further, claiming that the Old Testament sacrifices were merely a teaching aide, and didn't have any power to atone for sin at all.

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:1-4 (NIV®)

However, when Jesus comes he does away with OT sacrifices, because he himself is the true sacrifice they pointed towards.

First [Jesus] said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:8-10 (NIV®)

Instead Jesus sacrifice applies to all people at all times, if they have faith in him.

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Hebrew 10:11-14 (NIV®)

And

And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
Hebrews 10:18 (NIV®)


I found it
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine

A classic example of this was the dispute over the nature of Christ that led the Roman emperor Constantine the Great to convene the Council of Nicaea (in modern-day western Turkey) in A.D. 325.
Constantine, although held by many to be the first “Christian” Roman Emperor, was actually a sun-worshiper who was only baptized on his deathbed. During his reign he had his eldest son and his wife murdered. He was also vehemently anti-Semitic, referring in one of his edicts to “the detestable Jewish crowd” and “the customs of these most wicked men”—customs that were in fact rooted in the Bible and practiced by Jesus and the apostles.
As emperor in a period of great tumult within the Roman Empire, Constantine was challenged with keeping the empire unified. He recognized the value of religion in uniting his empire. This was, in fact, one of his primary motivations in accepting and sanctioning the “Christian” religion (which, by this time, had drifted far from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles and was Christian in name only).
But now Constantine faced a new challenge. Religion researcher Karen Armstrong explains in A History of God that “one of the first problems that had to be solved was the doctrine of God . . . a new danger arose from within which split Christians into bitterly warring camps” (1993, p. 106).


How could Adam and Eve have known not to eat from the Tree of Good and Evil?

First, be careful not to conflate the Tree of Life with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  The Genesis narrative makes it clear that they are two different trees, and are in fact in opposition to each other:

  He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat, and live forever.

As for the answer to the question, the tree of knowledge could give Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil in general, but that doesn't mean that they had no concept beforehand that there was something wrong with disobeying God in matters in which they had been given a direct commandment.


Where can I find the Orthodox response to the Augsburg Confession?

Is an English translation of the letter publicly available, and where can I find it?

If you are talking about finding it online, you aren't going to have any luck. These letters, as far as I know, are not available to read online.

However, if you are willing to spend some money, an English book compilation of the letters by George Mastrantonis can be bought from Amazon (published by Holy Cross Orthodox Press, however it seems to be more expensive on their website).

Quoting a review on Amazon by Dusk:

  This book is very meaty, but I recommend it strongly to those interested. The letters provide a deeper understanding of both Lutheran and Orthodox beliefs. They provide a window into the age they were written in: the manners used in disagreement are delightful. They also provide a look into human nature itself. Read carefully or you may injure yourself.

I hope this helps! Have fun...


writing and pronouncing Bible references

I generally use “through” (spoken) or a hyphen (written) for any adjacent verses, and “and” (spoken) or a comma (written) to signify a jump in verses.

Malachi 3:7b-8, 10-11

Malachi three seven bee through eight and ten through eleven.

Or

Malachi chapter three verses seven bee through eight and ten through eleven.


Interesting question.  I managed to find an article, The History of Church Steeples, that actually addresses this.

One reason:  It was simply an architectural style that happens to inspire us to look heavenward.

  These early church architects designed grand cathedrals and churches
  that had intricate, soaring steeples. The vertical lines of the
  steeple helped to visually enhance the lines of the church, directing
  the viewers' eyes vertically to the heavens. Obviously, this
  verticality complements part of the mission of the church, to keep us
  in a heavenly frame of mind, but from an architectural standpoint,
  this vertical lift gives the architecture a more graceful and pleasing
  look. The shorter the building, the more squat the appearance; the
  taller the building, the more graceful it becomes. The early church
  believed that the church could communicate the truth of the Bible in
  pictures and symbols to those who were illiterate, such as using the
  picture in the stained glass to tell stories, as well as the steeple,
  which helped by pointing upwards devotedly to Heaven. Therefore, the
  steeple has a dual role in that it helps the congregant in his or her
  spiritual mindset, and the steeple also helps the architect with a
  design feature that enhances the overall harmony of the architecture.

In short, there's no doctrinal significance, or symbolic other than the pointing to the Heavens. It's simply a beautiful style that, once done, was imitated throughout the ages until it became expected.


What are the differences between cherubim and seraphim?

Strictly Biblically speaking, the Seraphim are only described once in the Bible:

  In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another:

    “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
        the whole earth is full of his glory.”

  At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.
  Isaiah 6:1-4

There really is not much about them. They have six wings and it seems that most of their purpose for existing is to sing praises to God in God's presence. The "doorposts and thresholds shook" at the sound of their voices. These are awesome creatures. No wonder Isaiah was terrified.

Cherubim on the other hand seem to be more simple, having only one set of wings. They are your typical angels and are described in a number of places in the Bible. They appear to look like people with wings. There's a good deal of information on them pretty much everywhere, so I'll neglect to expand on that. It seems their primary purpose for existence is to deliver messages from God to creation, and some suspect from creation to God as well. They also seem to have some multipurpose as soldiers. An example would be the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Outside of the 66 book Protestant canon there is a lot more information. Tons more. Outside of Christianity there is even more. Much too much for a single answer on this site. FMS's answer hints on some of it.


To the Calvinist, does Phillipians 1:29 mean that all the Philippians will go to heaven because all of them have already been elected?

Calvin says in his commentary on Philippians 1:28.

  but Paul in another instance, too, speaks of them as a manifest token or proof, (2 Thessalonians 1:5,) and instead of ἔνδειξιν, which we have here, he in that passage makes use of the term ἔνδειγμα This, therefore, is a choice consolation, that when we are assailed and harassed by our enemies, we have an evidence of our salvation. For persecutions are in a manner seals of adoption to the children of God, if they endure them with fortitude and patience: the wicked give a token of their condemnation, because they stumble against a stone by which they shall be bruised to pieces ... He proves it from this, that the endurance of the cross is the gift of God. Now it is certain, that all the gifts of God are salutary to us. To you, says he, it is given, not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him. Hence even the sufferings themselves are evidences of the grace of God; and, since it is so, you have from this source a token of salvation.

So it would seen that the 'you' are those enduring sufferings on behalf of Christ. It does not seem to necessarily include all Philippians or all the hearers of the letter. Calvin continues that those sufferings and the ability to endure them are a gift from God and evidence of salvation. Since he mentions that ability to endure, it seems to imply that not all of the hearers or even all of those who are currently suffering have evidence of salvation. Only those who are graced to endure to the end may have reassurance of their election.

From what Calvin says, we can not know who is 'you' until later.

  For persecutions are in a manner seals of adoption to the children of God, if they endure them with fortitude and patience.

For the hearers, all the hearers, it is an exhortation to endure. However, knowing who has been graced to endure is not possible during the suffering since it is the endurance to the end that is evidence of grace/election.

Whether or not evanescent grace may appear here does not seem to be addressed.


Did Jesus ever directly say he would die as a voluntary sacrifice? If so, was it double sense?

The most obvious answer is Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper, in Matthew's version:

  this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

(Matthew 26:28, New American Bible Revised Edition)


In what way has belief in the Trinity decreased?

A poll conducted in 2014 by LifeWay Research for Ligonier Ministries might help answer this question. You can read the article here, but according to them...

Most American evangelicals hold views condemned as heretical by some of the most important councils of the early church.

...nearly a quarter (22%) said God the Father is more divine than Jesus, and 9 percent weren’t sure. Further, 16 percent say Jesus was the first creature created by God, while 11 percent were unsure.

More than half (51%) said the Holy Spirit is a force, not a personal being. Seven percent weren’t sure, while only 42 percent affirmed that the Spirit is a person.

These poll results are specifically for evangelicals and American Christians, and it seems to be the only poll of its kind. I've personally heard several heretical analogies used to explain the trinity, such as comparing it to H2O (modalism) or an egg (tritheism). This article does a good job of explaining all the bad analogies that get passed around, by possibly much more than 50% of trinitarians. The article concludes with...

One more thing. I often tell my students that if they say, “I get it!” or “Now I understand!” that they are more than likely celebrating the fact that they are a heretic! When you understand the biblical principles and let the tensions remain without rebuttal, then you are orthodox. When you solve the tension, you have most certainly entered into one of the errors that we seek to avoid.

So 98% of Christains belong to a trinitarian denomination, and if any of them think they understand the trinity, they're a heretic.


In LDS teaching, do gods and goddesses produce spiritual offspring forever?

There is actually very little LDS doctrine on the subject of the specific details of how Exaltation will work.  (Most of the doctrine is devoted to the weightier matter of how to attain it in the first place.)  But it is explicitly said that it will be a life of the same kind that God enjoys, so answers can be inferred by examining LDS cosmology on the current state of the universe.

From Doctrine and Covenants section 76:

  22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, [Jesus Christ,]
  this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he
  lives!

  23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the
  voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

  24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were
  created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters
  unto God.

Verse 24 specifically speaks of a multiplicity of worlds, each home to children of God as ours is.  And again in verse 112, speaking of the destiny of people who have not lived as they should:

  112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they
  cannot come, worlds without end.

This concept is also mentioned in the Pearl of Great Price.  From Moses chapter 1:

  27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast
  his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not
  a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit
  of God.

  28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a
  soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God;
  and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea
  shore.

  29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and
  there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

  30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I
  pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?

  31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses
  stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And
  the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these
  things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.

  32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine
  Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

  33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them
  for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine
  Only Begotten.

  34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

  35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof,
  give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed
  away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and
  innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me,
  for they are mine and I know them.

  36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be
  merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth,
  and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy
  servant will be content.

  37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are
  many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto
  me, for they are mine.

  38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so
  shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my
  words.

The important points here are that God does create multiple worlds, each of which is inhabited by his children, and that it is an ongoing process, that worlds reach the end of their existence and new ones are created, throughout eternity.  It's reasonable to assume that the same will be true for those who reach exaltation.


Did the early church accept lifelong, faithful concubinage?

Pope Calixtus I, who died around 222, permitted the marriage of  high born women to men of a lower class, and even to slaves. This was contrary to Roman law, so the Pope was recognising as validly married people who by law were not married, and could not be married.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia comments:

  Here again Callistus was rightly insisting on the distinction between the ecclesiastical law of marriage and the civil law, which later ages have always taught.

Calixtus was unfortunate in that his principal biographer was his worst enemy, and rival, the antipope Hippolytus. In Book IX, chapter VII of his Refutation of All Heresies  he wrote

  For even also he permitted females, if they were unwedded,  and burned with passion at an age at all events unbecoming, or if they were not disposed to overturn their own dignity through a legal marriage, that they might have whomsoever they would choose as a bedfellow, whether a slave or free, and that a woman, though not legally married, might consider such a companion as a husband. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs  for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth.  Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time!

It is clear that Hippolytus felt able to say that these "marriages" allowed by the Pope were adulterous, presumably as not legal, and also as a matter of consequence often  led to abortions. In deeming Calixtus a pope, and a saint, and Hippolytus an antipope, the later church may be said to have supported  Calixtus.

The seventeenth canon of the first Council of Toledo,(see Edward Landon) near Madrid, in the year 400, forbade any married man, whose wife was faithful, from also having a concubine, on pain of excommunication. However if a man was unmarried, then he could have a concubine. The thrust is restrictive, rather than permissive, it bans having a wife and a concubine, but this does not (of course) apply to single men.

Pope Leo the Great (pontificated from 440 to 460) wrote many letters, including one to the French bishop Rusticus, in which he answers a number of questions put to him, the sixth of which was:

  Concerning those who leave the women by whom they have children and take wives.

and the answer was:

  Seeing that the wife is different from the concubine, to turn a bondwoman from one's couch and take a wife whose free birth is assured, is not bigamy but an honourable proceeding.

It seem that, although lifelong commitment to a concubine was acceptable, it was not required. A single man could keep a concubine and, if he chose to turn her out and marry a wife, then this was an honourable thing for him to do. Still, one woman at a time was the limit. Nevertheless it is clear there was uncertainty and variety of practice during the first few centuries.


Is a Catholic annulment divorce in a Catholic way?

The short answer is "no," an annulment is not a Catholic divorce.
Although the term "annulment" has come into common use, it is somewhat misleading, since it makes it seem as if an existing marriage is "annulled" or "cancelled." In fact, Church law does not use that term, but instead contemplates a declaration of the nullity (or non-existence) of a marriage. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

For this reason [i.e., lack of freedom in giving marriage consent] (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged (No. 1629).

The Church, basing itself on passages such as Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:10-15, and 1 Corinthians 7:39, claims that it has no power to dissolve marriages that are both sacramental and consummated. (See below.)
It is important to note that there the Church actually does contemplate the possibility of dissolving certain marriages under some circumstances: specifically, marriages that lack one or both of these characteristics just mentioned—marriages that are either non-sacramental, not consummated, or both. According to the Code of Canon Law,

Can. 1141 A [sacramental] marriage that is ratum [i.e., validly contracted] et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.
Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the Pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.
§2. The non-baptized party is considered to depart if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without affront to the Creator unless the baptized party, after baptism was received, has given the other a just cause for departing.

A declaration of nullity is very different from the dissolution of marriage contemplated in these canons. The dissolution of marriage could be considered a kind of Catholic divorce, as it were, but a declaration of nullity cannot be so described.
Some Background regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony
To understand the difference, it is helpful to understand the basics of the Catholic teaching about marriage.
The Church describes marriage in this way:

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament" (Catechism No. 1601, quoting the Code of Canon Law, 1055 § 1, which in turn is inspired by Gaudium et Spes, No. 48).

The important point here is that marriage is a natural institution that existed prior to the sacraments. However, the Church claims, Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament, which means that it gives grace to those who participate in it, especially those graces necessary to make the marriage a loving, life-long union.
It is precisely the sacramental character of marriage that makes a sacramental and consummated marriage absolutely indissoluble:

This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy - heavier than the Law of Moses. By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to "receive" the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ. This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ's cross, the source of all Christian life (Catechism No. 1615, emphasis added).

A marriage is considered consummated if the couple has performed the conjugal act together. It is sacramental if it is contracted by two baptized persons; non-sacramental otherwise (Canon Law, 1055 §2). If a marriage is both sacramental and consummated it is considered ratum et consummatum. It is this last type of marriage that is absolutely indissoluble (as the canon cited above states).
A couple enters a marriage through something called "matrimonial consent," popularly called the "exchange of vows" (although in Church law a "vow" is something specific that does not include matrimonial consent). For Catholics, this consent must be witnessed by an authorized sacred minister (a priest or deacon with the necessary "faculties" or permission), a requirement called the "canonical form." (Note that non-Catholics are not bound by this requirement; moreover, in emergency situations, non-authorized clerics and even lay persons may be the witnesses.)
Grounds for the Declaration of Nullity
As mentioned above, a consummated marriage between two baptized persons (i.e., a consummated, sacramental marriage) cannot be dissolved for any reason.
What happens, however, is that a number of factors may arise that make it so that a marriage was never contracted in the first place. These fall into two general categories: impediments and defects of consent.
Impediments
An impediment is some extrinsic situation that makes it impossible for a marriage to be contracted at the time of the exchange of consent.
For example, someone who is already in a previous marriage cannot contract another one at the same time. (Someone in a valid sacramental, consummated marriage can never contract another marriage until his spouse dies.)
This impediment stems from the very nature of marriage, however, the Church has imposed other impediments on its members in order to protect the dignity of the Sacrament of Matrimony. For example, the following situations cause an impediment from contracting marriage:

Murdering someone in order to marry that person's spouse. (The murderer is only impeded from marrying that spouse.)
Attempting marriage with someone who has received Holy Orders (a deacon, priest, or bishop), or who has pronounced his solemn or perpetual vows.
Attempting marriage without following the canonical form (as described above).
Attempting to marry a non-baptized person.

(Note that a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian is not impeded; also the impediments mentioned in numbers 3 and 4 are readily dispensed with. See Canons 1083-1094 for specifics.)
Defects of Consent
Another way that a couple might fail to contract a marriage occurs if there is some defect in the matrimonial consent. For example,

If one or both of the spouses enters the marriage by force or through fear.
If one or both have insufficient use of reason (e.g., small children, severely mentally handicapped persons, or persons in a coma).
Those unable to assume the obligations for psychological reasons (a severe inability to make a permanent commitment, for example).
Exclusion of an essential characteristic of marriage (indissolubility, unity, exclusivity, openness to children) on the part of either.
Error regarding the person (i.e., you thought you were marrying John but it was really Dennis).

There are many others. (See Canons 1095-1107.)
When a tribunal (basically a court) examines a marriage case, it checks to see whether one or more of these conditions is met. If it can be proven that such is the case, then it will give a verdict of invalid. Marriage, however, always enjoys the favor of the law, and so if there is insufficient evidence, or if the evidence shows positively that both parties were free from impediment and gave a valid consent, then it will give a verdict of valid.
As can be seen, this procedure is very different from that followed by civil courts, which simply grant a dissolution of marriage (i.e., divorce).
The only analogous procedure in the Catholic Church is that which grants, under certain circumstances, the dissolution of a marriage that is either non-sacramental or non-consummated (or both), as mentioned.
Regarding the Opinions Expressed by Cardinal Kasper
In the interview, the cardinal says, according to the original poster,

But take the case of a couple who are ten years married and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a reality ...

The statement is somewhat problematic, because here "marriage" is taken in two subtly different ways. There is the marriage bond, which is effected at the moment of consent, and cannot be broken (at least in sacramental, consummated marriages) until the death of one of the spouses; and there is the lived reality of the spouses in question.
The marriage bond either comes into existence, or it does not. As mentioned, it comes in existence when a couple free from impediments validly exchanges matrimonial consent. It becomes absolutely unbreakable once the marriage is consummated.
The lived reality of the marriage, however, may or may not proceed well. A number of factors may cause it to "fall apart." Nevertheless, if the marriage bond is already in existence, the spouses have an obligation to respect it. Although for legitimate reasons such spouses may separate, at the very least neither one may attempt a new union with another person.
(It is important to mention at this point that separated couples are not prohibited from receiving the Sacraments, including Communion. It is only persons who attempt remarriage while ineligible who are so prohibited.)
In pastoral practice, the fact that the lived reality of a marriage has "fallen apart" may very well be a sign that there were conditions impeding the existence of the marriage bond. It is precisely the function of a marriage tribunal to investigate such conditions.
On the other hand, if the marriage bond never came into existence, then in fact a couple in this circumstance has lived a only a putative marriage, even if the situation has lasted for many years. (It must be stressed that the Church makes absolutely no moral judgement on couples in this situation; it is assumed that they acted in good faith.)
Hence, when the cardinal calls the granting of a declaration of nullity after many years of putative marriage a kind of "Catholic divorce," he does not mean that in a technical way. He is suggesting that many declarations of nullity of this kind are dishonest, because they seemingly disregard the lived reality, the many years of what appeared to be normal married life. (This is, however, Cardinal Kasper's personal opinion and not the Church's official position on the matter.)


Are Catholics allowed to drink coconut water during the hour before they take communion?

Have you heard of any catechism lesson FORBIDDING ...

I think your whole question is based on some massive misconception:

As I already wrote in a comment, your question seems to based on the assumption that religion exercise can be done by observing a set of unambiguous rules.

I have often read questions similar to yours in some internet forums where Muslims were discussing. In that religion many faithful seem to have the belief that God wants them to follow a set of unambiguous rules.

In Christian religion (this does not only apply to the Catholics) this is however not the case:

You don't do something because there is some stupid rule somewhere in the canon law or in the catechism. You do something because you love God and you are convinced that God wants you to do something.

So you are convinced that God wants you not to drink anything but water in the hour before the communion?

I think in this case everyone knows that "jelly beans" are not beans, "guinea pigs" are not pigs, ... and "coconut water" is not water.

Why should the catechism explicitly write that? Everyone knows.
You believe the same as the people mentioned in my comment (breakfast before the mass)?

In this case you will deliberately violate Can. 919 CIC because you believe that this rule is not wanted by God.

Why should the church release any kind of text (catechism, CIC rule, ...) intended for that people? They will claim that the text is wrong anyway.

So in none of the two cases a clarification saying that coconut water is something different than water would make any sense.

Why should this clarification be written by anyone?

Because of this reason I doubt that you will find any written text that clarifies that coconut water is not water.


What happened to the resurrected after death?

About this question there is such point of view (close to the Eastern Orthodox tradition).

It seems, that all people, described in your question, were neither in Heaven, neither in Purgatory. They were in Sheol. This is because before Christ's Resurrection, The Heaven was closed, and the hell, as place for unrepentant sinners wasn't. All people who died were placed into Sheol.

This point of view could be confirmed by the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31):
both of them are in the same place, because they can communicate with each other, but there is a great gulf between them (Luke 16:26):

  And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed:
  so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can
  they pass to us, that would come from thence.

In this Parable isn't talked about The Heaven, but about Abraham's bosom, i.e. some place somewhere in Sheol (which is synonymic called "Hell" in all Bible texts), where all righteous men are rested.


Does God need/demand humans' faith for them to be saved? If so, why?

One has to argue the premise - God doesn't necessarily need faith, he might just want it.

A truly compassionate and loving God who understands his people, may simply desire what is best for them. If God is the best, then it would be His desire that his people come to him- willingly and without coercion.

As an analogy, a father may understand that his children learn the value of money. That would entail getting the child's attention, showing correct courses of action, and rewarding desired / punishing undesired behavior. But, before any of this training can occur, the child must first believe that the parent knows how best to deal with money.  Without that implicit faith, nothing can be taught.

Likewise, God demands faith (1) in order that he might help his children to be better.(2)

  (1) Heb 11:6 without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him

  (2) Heb 12:6 - 10 the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
     and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness

Yes, it does sound a little bit like an old Army ad, but its true: God wants you to be all you can be.

In order to accomplish that, however, one must choose (via free will) that God is in fact the best authority you can emulate.


According to the YEC view, did the animals eat the forbidden fruit?

Most adherents to the literal young-earth seven-day creation account believe that when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, God applied the curse to the entire universe, including animals.  Animals didn't need to eat the fruit to be affected by the curse. From the YEC view, whether animals ate the fruit is irrelevant because they weren't made "in God's image"

Supporting example, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/kw/museum-guide-corruption

  God had warned Adam and Eve that if they ate of the Tree, they would
  die. When God came to walk with them that evening, He punished their
  sin. The earth was now cursed. Death was now part of life; both
  animals and humans would now die (Genesis 3:19; Romans 8:20–22). When
  the first humans sinned, it corrupted all of creation. The ground was
  cursed and would produce thistles and thorns (Genesis 3:17–18).
  Animals began to hunt and eat other animals. Man would now have to
  work hard for food, and woman would have pain in bearing and raising
  her children (Genesis 3:16–17).

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) says this:

  The animals, not having moral natures, were not guilty of sin, of
  course, but they also shared in the Curse, for they were—like
  Adam—made of the dust of the ground that God had cursed. Like Adam's
  body, their bodies also must return to the ground. Henceforth, "death
  reigned ... even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
  Adam's transgression" (Romans 5:14). Thus there is death in the world
  only because there is sin in the world.


How much of the Catholic Mass is inherited from the Jewish Shabbat service?

The Jewish Sabbath service is an elaboration on the daily service, and a central element of the daily service is the Amidah, or standing prayer.  The structure of the Amidah in modern Jewish liturgy is built up of 19 blessings (one of which was added after or even because of the split between Judaism and Christianity, so 18 matter here).  The modern order and central content of these blessings seems to have settled into solid form by the 4th century (see Tractate Brachot of the Palestinian Talmud), and it's pretty obvious that the structure of these blessings is a response to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70.

However, the daily prayer cycle is connected to the cycle of sacrifices in the Temple.  It's pretty clear that the synagogue services of 2000 years ago were synchronized to the times of the sacrifices, and even today, two of the daily services and the extra service on the Sabbath are named after the sacrifices they paralleled and then replaced.  My guess is that the Amidah preserves elements of the liturgical structure that was used in the sacrificial ritual.

On the Christian side, it is clear that the Mass takes the place of the sacrificial service -- it's not just a reenactment of the Last supper.  That is why a cycle of daily masses fits tightly into the canonical hours, which are themselves an elaboration on the Jewish daily prayer cycle.

There are parallel structures in text of the Mass and the Amidah.  The "dona nobis pachem" at the end of the traditonal mass parallels the "oseh shalom" at the end of the Amidah, for example.

I strongly suspect that these parallels are no accident.  The Mass and the Amidah as we know them today both developed after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and it's extraordinarily likely that their common ancestor would be found in the synagogue rituals of the first century.

Christians from denominations that have simplified or lost the traditional liturgy, reduced the mass to just bread and wine and forgotten the daily prayer cycle tend not to notice these parallels, but if you read a Catholic Missal that preserves the traditional text, and compare it with the text in a weekday Siddur (read both in English unless you know Latin and Hebrew), the parallels are obvious enough that 12-year-old kids who know one tend to notice them when they see the other.


Why aren't all unbelievers given a "Road to Damascus" moment, according to Catholicism?

TL;DR (1) Because He doesn't need to, and (2) it's not His style.

1 Samuel 3:18

  What is pleasing in the LORD’s sight, the LORD will do.

If you look at how well the Apostle Paul spread the Faith, particularly among the gentiles, how he (and all of the Apostles and Church Fathers) spread the Good News (of Jesus), and if you consider that the Faith remains alive and well 2000 years later then God chose his servant(s) well.  The Good News is now available all over the world, for those who will listen, which it wasn't when Paul had that experience on the way to Damascus.

Demanding that one receive a special message identical to Paul's from God is to deeply misunderstand the relationship between man and God, and in so doing step smartly into the deadly sin of pride.

Paul didn't demand this message; the message Paul got was a gift from God (possibly "undeserved" given Paul's previous opposition to Christians) that fulfilled God's purpose.

  1996  Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives
  us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons,
  partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

If you, or I, or an unbeliever tries to demand a particular form of grace from Him ... good luck with that.  What your question amounts to is: "If I were God, I'd have done it this way..."
You're not God and God does it His way.  We are called to open our hearts and trust God.  Doubting Thomas was chastised for having the wrong attitude. (See John 20:25-29, below).

Catechism Reference on the relationship between God and Mankind

  CCC 42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify
  our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or
  imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God--"the
  inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the
  ungraspable1"--with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God. 43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity.  Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no
  similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude"; and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."

God communicated with Saul of Tarsus (Paul) in a particular way for His own reasons.  God will speak to others in other ways to fulfill His purposes.  Whether or not we are open to, or will listen to, the message is a different matter.   Pride often gets in the way of listening to God.

God's method, shown in Scripture, is to pick certain servants to get His word out to others

There's a whole world full of Christians (Catholic and otherwise) striving to get the Good News of Jesus to the non-believer.  The Great Commission called to the faithful during the Apostolic age, and 2000 years later still calls all Christians to do likewise(CCC 1-3).  Even before the Apostolic age God called certain individuals to go forth and get His words out to others: the prophets.  The Old Testament shows that God's "style" is to pick someone to go forth and do what He needs done.

Entire books of the bible are devoted to the prophets.  One example (often used in homilies and teachings by Catholic clergy) is Samuel (From 1 Samuel 3)

  9... When Samuel went to sleep in his place, 10  the LORD came and stood there, calling out as before: Samuel, Samuel! Samuel answered,
  “Speak, for your servant is listening.” 11  The LORD said to Samuel: I
  am about to do something in Israel that will make the ears of everyone
  who hears it ring.   12  On that day I will carry out against Eli
  everything I have said about his house, beginning to end.   13  I
  announce to him that I am condemning his house once and for all,
  because of this crime: though he knew his sons were blaspheming God,
  he did not reprove them. 14  Therefore, I swear to Eli’s house: No
  sacrifice or offering will ever expiate its crime.*   15 Samuel then
  slept until morning, when he got up early and opened the doors of the
  temple of the LORD. He was afraid to tell Eli the vision, 16  but Eli
  called to him, “Samuel, my son!” He replied, “Here I am.”   17  Then
  Eli asked, “What did he say to you? Hide nothing from me! May God do
  thus to you, and more,* if you hide from me a single thing he told
  you.” 18  So Samuel told him everything, and held nothing back. Eli
  answered, “It is the LORD. What is pleasing in the LORD’s sight, the
  LORD will do.”

Samuel listened.  Samuel was open to God's word.   So have been people of all sorts for the past two thousand years. (The list of Christian mystics is too long to get into here ...)

For a more recent example, Saint Francis of Assisi didn't require a Pauline experience to go forth, change his life, and then do God's work.  Why does anyone else need or require it?

Why didn't He give you, or me, or an unbeliever Paul's experience?

Two ways to answer that question.

You and I don't know that he didn't and that someone completely missed the message.  A variety of people over the years have reported profound spiritual experiences, some of whom are mystics, others of whom have shared or experienced a more basic conversion experience.  How do you or I know that such an experience wasn't the divine message (like the message to Paul) for that person?  We don't know.

The core of the answer you've already touched on: Jesus explains the call to believe, even if you haven't seen, in John 20: 25-29 via doubting Thomas.

  25 So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he
  said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put
  my finger into the nail marks and put my hand into his side, I will not
  believe.” 26 Now a week later his disciples were again inside and
  Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and
  stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”  27 Then he said
  to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand
  and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” 28
  Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29
  Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me?  Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

He didn't need to. He's provided the entire Church (in terms of all of the Faithful, the entire (mystical) Body of Christ) to get His word out and to witness to Him.  All of those who have answered the call to Faith, to be in a state of communion with God (CCC 1-10) are like Samuel (or should be).  Speak Lord, for your servant is listening.

Beyond the Great Commission in Matthew -- which the Catholic Church accepts regardless of secular criticisms of that passage in Scripture -- the spreading of the Good News is the spreading of God's word.  Going forth from the Apostolic age, anyone receiving the Good News is asked to make the leap of Faith, to trust God, to believe.  The vignette about doubting Thomas emphasizes this, and it should be given due weight given that Jesus is the one issuing the rebuke to Thomas ... and through Thomas to any who doubt.

Graces given repaid by the sins of pride and envy

Paul was given a particular Grace, a Gift from God, that took a particular form.  Others are given graces that take other forms.  Among the graces given to us is the people that we know and meet who bring God's word to us, in both word and deed.  If we reject them -- nope, I'm not buying it until Jesus strikes me blind for three days -- how do we know that we have not just rejected God's grace?  We don't.

Parent moment: "You gave Johnny that, why didn't you give me that?" What's that parent's answer?  Because that's what Johnny needed, and you'll get something else that you need.

Issuing Ultimatums to God

The question as asked infers a particular attitude vis a vis the relationship between man and God.

  I won't believe unless you give me a message the way you gave Paul the message

The sin of Pride fairly leaps off of the page.

  Charity  2093 Faith in God's love encompasses the call and the obligation to respond with sincere love to divine charity. The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him.

  CCC 2094 One can sin against God's love in various ways:
  - indifference neglects or refuses to reflect on divine charity; it fails to consider its prevenient goodness and denies its power.
  - ingratitude fails or refuses to acknowledge divine charity and to return him love for love.
  - lukewarmness is hesitation or negligence in responding to divine love; it can imply refusal to give oneself over to the prompting of charity.
  - acedia or spiritual sloth goes so far as to refuse the joy that comes from God and to be repelled by divine goodness.
  - hatred of God comes from pride. It is contrary to love of God, whose goodness it denies, and whom it presumes to curse as the one who forbids sins and inflicts punishments.

    CCC 1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has
    distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great.
    They are called "capital" because they engender other sins, other
    vices. They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and
    sloth or acedia.

The willful decision to ignore the message sent via doubting Thomas in Scripture -- Scripture is God's word to us -- via the Faith handed down to us from the Apostolic age to now = Pride and Arrogance.

Who are you, or who am I, or who is an unbeliever to tell God how to talk to speak to us?  He speaks to us in His own time and choosing, for His own purposes.  We are called to have faith, and to trust in Him.
Jeremiah 29:11

  For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Why didn't I get the same gift/message Paul got?

Because He has other gifts for you, manifestations of His grace.

  The seven capital sins:
   1. Pride ; 2. Covetousness; 3. Lust;  4. Anger;  5. Gluttony;  6. **Envy; 7. Sloth

Aside: the question is lacking in form

The "why didn't someone do something" question form is difficult enough when we are dealing with humans.  It typically requires making a guess or an inference, and is often unknowable. (Personal experience from fatal aircraft accident investigations: why didn't (the pilot) do X?).

When dealing with the Almighty, it's even more difficult to discern if that is even possible.  (See above, CCC ref, about God being "ingraspable" and otherwise mysterious to humans).

You can sometimes work your way back to "why did someone do something?" and so we learn that God did send Paul the message that way for a particular purpose: to get him to apply his considerable energy and talent for Christ.  It worked.  God did pass his instructions to Samuel (and all of the other prophets ...)

1 Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Anaphora.


What does the bible say about interracial marriages?

In the Old Testament the Jews are forbidden from marriage with non-Jews. See, for example, Deuteronomy 7:3-4. However that was on the basis of religious rather than racial purity, as it was clearly stated that the reason was to prevent the Jews from "following other Gods". It is also notable that in the Book of Ruth, Ruth is a non-Jew married to a Jew, and the Bible contains no commentary saying that this was a bad thing, although she clearly also becomes a follower of God. She is the ancestor of King David.

In the New Testament there is no equivalent restriction, since Christians are intended to be of every race: "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile" and "make disciples of all nations".

In the past some Christians have claimed a prohibition on interracial marriage, based on either the Old Testament prohibition or a false understanding of Acts 17:24-26: ( "God ... hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ...").

Recently there has been a strong movement away from such a prohibition. Even ultra-conservative Bob Jones university removed its prohibition on inter-racial dating in 2000.

This article gives more information on the history.

EDIT:I originally said that Bob Jones University continued its ban on inter-racial dating until 2005. In fact it stopped in 2000, and apologized for it in 2005.


How does Mark's Gospel mark the final hours in the life of Jesus

John Shelby Spong describes the structure quite succinctly in Jesus for the NonReligious, pages 101-4.  He says Mark organised the first narrative account of the death of Jesus in a twenty-four hour cycle, neatly divided into eight three-hour segments. A summary of Bishop Spong's explanation follows:

Mark started the story "when it was evening" (Mark 14:17). In this ancient
world, that would mean when the sun went down at 6 pm. [The ancients divided the daylight hours into exactly 12 hours of variable length, instead of a variable number of hours of fixed length.]
Mark knew that the duration of the Passover meal was three hours and that it concluded with the singing of a hymn.  So at the end of his segment he noted, "And when they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives" (14:26). It was obviously about 9 p.m.
Mark then has Jesus and the disciples go to the Garden of
Gethsemane, where his closest disciples, Peter, James and John, were
not able to remain awake. "Could you not watch one hour?” (14:77)
Jesus asked.  The process was repeated two more times.  The
disciples could not watch one, two or three hours.  It was now midnight.
The act of betrayal, the darkest deed in human history, came next,
occurring at the stroke of midnight.
Jesus was led away for a trial before the high priest and other
senior priests and elders. They then judged him, on the basis of his messianic claim, to be worthy of death.  It was 3:00 a.m.
The watch of the night between 3 am and 6 am was called cockcrow. Mark now inserted his account of Peter's threefold denial of Jesus (14:66-72), once each hour until the cock crowed, marking the end of that phase of the night.  It was 6 a.m.
"As soon as it was morning" (15:1), which would be 6 am, Jesus was
led by the chief priests, scribes and elders to Pontius Pilate for
judgement.
Mark told his readers, " It was the third hour" or 9 am “when they
crucified him" (15:25).
When "the sixth hour had come" (15:33) – 12 noon – darkness covered the whole earth for 3 hours, at which time Jesus said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (15:34).
Jesus was buried in the final period from 3 to 6 pm, before the sun went down and the Sabbath began.


Normally these bibles are called red-letter or Dominical words bibles (Dominical meaning "of the Lord" — it's the words of Jesus which are printed in red).

There used to be an ESV red-letter bible but it's out of print. I can't find whether they currently print a red-letter version, but there are some of that leather-bound red-letter edition available via Amazon at the moment.

Two-colour printing is far more expensive than single-colour, so it tends to go with high-end features like leather binding. The end result is sold in such low volumes that it becomes uneconomical to maintain and even second-hand prices remain quite high.

The image you provided is of the New King James Version which obviously also had printed red-letter editions. There's an imitation-leather NKJV edition available quite cheaply at the moment.


What does the Church have to say about the Pope's latest statement?

The statements ascribed to Pope Francis by that article are not true. It is a hoax.

See:

Don’t fall for this Pope Francis hoax: 5 things to know and share
Pope Francis Declares All Religions are True : Facts (Hoax or Fact)


From a Dogmatic Catholic perspective, what is the eternal destination of an unbaptized embryo?

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)- 1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

So, the Catechism follows the teaching of Trent (of course) that all have a fallen human nature and all are in need of water baptism to effect the new birth.

What happens, however, if an infant isn't baptised?

  CCC- 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

To add:

  Before Vatican II, in the Latin Church, there was no Christian funeral rite for unbaptised infants and such infants were buried in unconsecrated ground. Strictly speaking, there was no funeral rite for baptised infants either, but in their case a Mass of the Angels was celebrated and of course they were given a Christian burial. Thanks to the liturgical reform after the Council, the Roman Missal now has a funeral Mass for a child who died before Baptism, and there are also special prayers for such a situation in the Ordo Exsequiarum. Though the tone of the prayers in both instances is noticeably cautious, it is now the case that the Church liturgically expresses hope in the mercy of God, to whose loving care the infant is entrusted. This liturgical prayer both reflects and shapes the sensus fidei of the Latin Church regarding the fate of unbaptised infants who die: lex orandi, lex credendi. Significantly, in the Greek Catholic Church there is only one funeral rite for infants whether baptised or not yet baptised, and the Church prays for all deceased infants that they may be received into the bosom of Abraham where there is no sorrow or anguish but only eternal life.


Is God's sovereignty a term associated with Reformed theology?

While the idea of God's sovereignty is closely associated with Reformed theology, other traditions also deal with it.  Here are a few examples from prominent authors from various traditions.
Lutheran: Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 170:

Scripture describes God a) in His supreme majesty, as independent of anything outside Himself, or as absolutely sovereign in Himself, Rom. 11, 36  Viewed in this manner, God is not moved by anything but by Himself; or we may say, in Him cause and effect coincide.

Arminian: Miley, Systematic Theology, v1, 340:

God, who commands our prayer and promises the answer, is sovereign in the natural as in the spiritual realm.

But Miley argues that in Arminianism, "the principle of freedom" takes a central place, instead of sovereignty as in Calvinism (522).
Dispensational: Chafer, Major Bible Themes, 4, "The Sovereignty of God":

God is supreme over all.  He yields to no power, authority, or glory. [...] When the history of the universe is completed, God's purpose and plan will have been wrought out according to His will even to the last degree.

Catholic:  Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 183:

In the narrower liturgical sense one takes sacrifice to mean an external religious act, in which a gift perceptible to the senses is offered by an ordained servant of God in recognition of the absolute sovereignty and majesty of God.

Admittedly, Ott and Denzinger (The Sources of Catholic Dogma) seem to limit their use of the word sovereign, and often apply it when discussing the Catholic Church, not God.
Eastern Orthodox:  Vladimir Lossky, in Ware, The Orthodox Way:

The Holy Spirit is the sovereign unction upon the Christ and upon all the Christians called to reign with him in the Age to come.

Search reveals no other uses of the term in Ware's book.  I also checked Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, but didn't find this term applied to God.
Modern/liberal:  Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 278:

In order to the realization of our personal continuance in union with him and, at the same time, of the perfection of the church, there is predicated an exercise of the sovereign power of Christ that puts and end to the propagation of the race and to the mingling of the good and bad, so that by one sudden leap the church, heretofore subject to a wavering growth, becomes perfect.

No other uses in this book, and none in Ritschl's Instruction in the Christian Religion.
Summary
The term sovereignty is of course extensively used in Reformed theology, but it's also used in other traditions.  The authors cited above disagree on what God's sovereignty actually means, but for the most part they are willing to use the word.
That said, it seems to be used more in traditions more closely associated with Calvinism, whether because of shared history or because of historical debates – the Lutheran and Arminian authors cited above use the term more extensively than the others.


What is the biblical basis that we no longer need to confess and repent?

This text declares exactly what one must believe to receive salvation.
I Corinthians 15:1-4 -- Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
The "if" is not conditional and could be translated " seeing that..."
Paul also said, "I did not come to baptize but to preach the gospel." ( I Corinthians 1:17).
The Gospel of the Circumcision requires repentance and water baptism, but the Gospel of the Uncircumcision ( I e. Romans) requires only belief.
I believe this verse sums it up for Christians today...
Ephesians 1:13b, 14 -- in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
The exact moment one believes, he or she is sealed with The Holy Spirit. Nothing can add to that or take away from it, especially works if the flesh.