Is the Theology of the Body in line with traditional Thomistic teaching on marriage?

No.

"Theology of the Body," originally called "Catechesis on Human Love," is based on the philosophies of phenomenology and personalism (basically humanism), contradicting Thomistic teaching on several points:

Against Summa Theologica II-II q. 151 a. 1 co., which saysChastity takes its name from the fact that reason "chastises" concupiscence […] the essence of human virtue consists in being something moderated by reason, John Paul II thought St. Thomas incorrectly classified chastity as a virtue of temperance (Petri, O.P. p. 114n118). Cf. ibid. p. 166n12, which cites ToB no. 54: John Paul II "disagrees with Aquinas's conception that purity 'consists above all in holding back the impulses of sense-desire.' See also ibid., no. 130."
Against Summa Theologica III q. 64 a. 1 co. (which pairs the sacrament of "Matrimony," "a remedy against concupiscence in the individual", "to Temperance, being ordained against concupiscence"), John Paul II thinks the remedium concupiscentiæ end of marriage is outdated. Cf. ToB no. 84 §8:Does the Apostle in 1 Corinthians see marriage only from the point of view of a "remedium concupiscentiae [remedy for concupiscence]," as one used to say in traditional theological language?
Against Summa II-II q. 152 a. 4 co. (cf. Trent sess. 24 can. 10), John Paul II thinks the state of virginity or celibacy is not superior to that of marriage (ToB no. 78):Christ’s words reported in Matthew 19:11–12 (like Paul’s words in 1 Cor 7) give us no reason for holding either the "inferiority" of marriage or the "superiority" of virginity or celibacy on the grounds that by their very nature the latter consists in abstaining from conjugal "union in the body."cf. Gustavo Daniel Corbi, “Jovinian '82: The Resurrection of a Heresy,” trans. J. S. Daly, ICTION, Buenos Aires, 1982., whose appendix analyzes ToB no. 78.

John Paul II himself even noted ToB's limitations (Memory & Identity p. 12):

  If we wish to speak rationally about good and evil, we have to return to St. Thomas Aquinas, that is, to the philosophy of being. With the phenomenological method, for example, we can study experiences of morality, religion, or simply what it is to be human, and draw from them a significant enrichment of our knowledge. Yet we must not forget that all these analyses implicitly presuppose the reality of the Absolute Being and also the reality of being human, that is, being a creature. If we do not set out from such 'realist' presuppositions, we end up in a vacuum.

cited at the end of Petri, O.P.'s talk Aquinas & the Theology of the Body; cf. his book of the same title


Does the Russian Orthodox Church venerate the saints of the Orthodox Church in America?

The process, if one can term it that, by which Orthodox recognize certain people as "saints" is radically different from the practice followed in the Roman Catholic Church.

Recognition of saints among the Orthodox begins first with the local faithful who recognize that person who has reposed as someone who had cooperated with God's grace to the extent that his or her holiness is beyond doubt.  As Metropolitan Kallistos Ware writes:

  In private an Orthodox Christian is free to ask for the prayers of any
  member of the Church, whether canonized or not. It would be perfectly
  normal for an Orthodox child, if orphaned, to end his evening prayers
  by asking for the intercessions not only of the Mother of God and the
  saints, but of his own mother and father. In its public worship,
  however, the Church usually asks the prayers only of those whom it has
  officially proclaimed as saints;

  The Orthodox Church, p. 256

The Orthodoxwiki website describes how a saint is usually "canonized" within a given jurisdiction:

  Today, as more clergy and faithful recognize and honor that one
  amongst them had led a virtuous life of obvious holiness this
  veneration becomes widely recognized, and the manner of recognition is
  formalized. This leads to requests, usually through the diocesan
  bishop, for the Church to recognize that person as a saint. Then,
  usually an investigative committee is formed to review the life of the
  person who is being considered for glorification. When the committee
  is assured that the person has led a virtuous and God centered life, a
  process that may take an extended period of time, a report is
  submitted to the Holy Synod of the local Church stating the reasons
  why the person should or should not be recognized as a saint.

  After receiving and considering the report, the Holy Synod decides
  whether or not to number that person among the saints. If the bishops
  agree they then have icons painted and liturgical services composed
  for the glorification of the new saint. If the bishops do not agree,
  the life of the person may again be considered at a future time after
  further study.

  The formal Rite of Glorification begins with a memorial service for
  the person about to be glorified, after which Vespers and Matins are
  chanted with special hymns to the saint, and the icon for the saint is
  unveiled. The feast date for the commemoration of the new saint is
  established, and the life of the saint is published. Finally, the
  glorification of the new saint is made known to the other Orthodox
  Churches so that they can place the name of the new saint on their
  calendars.

As the article indicates, once a particular jurisdiction within the Eastern Orthodox Church formally recognizes a saint, recognition is also extended by all other jurisdictions.  Hence, Sts. Herman of Alaska and Peter the Aleut - which you mentioned in your question - are venerated as saints in Russia, Greece, Georgia, Romania, etc.


How does Christianity view such persons who are Xianpo(s)?
What is a Xianpo?

Various types of shamans can be traced to the [Culture of] Hakka [in China]. There are male sorcerers (PY: shunggong) and their female counterpart (PY: shungpo) who cast out devils and other evil influences. Contact with the spirits of the deceased is conducted through mediums (PY: xianpo).

Thus the xianpo are mediums and the Scriptures are very clear that sorcerers and mediums are not allowed to exist in Israel. They are considered an abomination in the eyes of God.

31You must not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out, or you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God. - Leviticus 19:31
You shall not permit a sorceress to live. - Exodus 22:18
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.n11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. - Deuteronomy 18:10-12

Mediums, magicians, and others who practice occult arts might offer entertainment by means of deception, but some mediums legitimately communicate with either the dead or with demons. The point is that any spirit not from God comes from Satan.

Occultists in the Bible and Throughout History
People have been consulting with the dead for millennia, hoping to find out what is on the other side; believing they can learn the future; desiring control and power.
As the Philistines continued to threaten the kingdom of Israel, Saul sought help from Samuel, but since Samuel was dead, Saul consulted the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28). As a slave, the power of “fortune-telling” was a source of income to her owners (Acts 16:16-19).
Mediums, magicians, and others who practice occult arts might offer entertainment by means of deception, but some mediums legitimately communicate with either the dead or with demons. If there is any doubt that such a thing is possible, one should remember that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the [...] cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil” (Ephesians 6:12).
Whether a medium is speaking to a client’s dead relative or to a demon posing as a deceased loved one, the point is that any spirit not from God comes from Satan.
Why Mediums are Unwelcome in God’s Kingdom
King Saul was already on the way out as the king of Israel, but consulting a medium was “the final step in [his] tragic downfall” because he failed to seek God’s guidance. We are invited to ask God for wisdom. “His way is always best, and He wants to show it to you — because He loves you.”
John Piper designates spiritualism as “the use of psychic or spiritual forces to control another person or the course of events.” People who engage in “divination, soothsaying, augury, sorcery, the use of charms, mediums, wizardry, or necromancy” are doing so in order to “gain […] power over destiny, and for controlling people and events to [their] liking.” “God frustrates” their plans when “directed against His people.” Their plans and the individuals themselves are “abominable in the eyes of God.”
Whether those actions include human sacrifice or merely playing around on the fringes of spiritualism, “every inclination to the deed is evil.” It’s an act of “rebellion” rooted in deception, taking us right back to the garden where the devil tempted Eve by saying “you will not certainly die” (Genesis 3:4).
Piper argues that “we belittle God and exalt ourselves” when we try to discover the unspoken mysteries of our futures and of God’s plans. Jesus is the “Revealer,” appointed by the Father.
Knowing the Difference
Christians need to pay attention because “the coming of the lawless one” will be accompanied by “false signs and wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9). Satan and his retinue are “ravenous wolves” wearing “sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15). These demons seek to lead Christians into chaos and pre-Christians to destruction.
They use mediums and astrologers and others of spiritualism to do their work. Prophecy is a "miracle of knowledge, a declaration or description or representation of something future, beyond the power of human sagacity to foresee, discern, or conjecture." Prophecy is a “human report of a divine revelation.”
Christians are warned to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1). False prophets “reject the word of the Lord” and also say “let us go after other gods” (Deuteronomy 13:2). The gift of prophecy as a revelation directly from God was given “temporarily” in order to “lay the foundation of the early church” and to teach followers before there was a completed bible for reference to God’s “revealed word.” “If someone now claims to have received a ‘special revelation,’ we must test it against Scripture.” Even if it “is consistent with Scripture, then we have to ask why an ‘extra’ word was necessary if its truth is already contained in the Bible.”
The gift of prophecy in today’s church is not a means of satisfying curiosity or easing anxiety about the future, but is understood as “the divine strength or ability to communicate God’s truth and heart in a way that calls people to a right relationship with God.”
Is There Hope for Mediums?
As Piper says, individuals who practice spiritualism are abominable to God, but “not beyond the reach of God’s love.” While preaching in Samaria, “a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic” and had become arrogant with his fame and skill “believed the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:9, 12).


Has the notion of "legitimacy" been abandoned in the Catholic Church?

What is the disadvantage of being illegitimate in the eyes of the Church? That is to say, what is the burden of illegitimacy today?

As far as I can see in the Canons and the Catechism, there is no disadvantage or burden. I can find nowhere in either where it says that the sacraments are to be denied the illegitimate. This might be expected: Canon Law strives to be compassionately just (or justly compassionate) and it's manifestly unjust and uncompassionate to deny a child the ministry of the Church because of an act which it could have absolutely no control over. A child is a gift, and a person from the moment of conception (CCC 2378): how can the Church deny a child of God who is blameless for their situation?

However, the notion of legitimacy hasn't entirely been abandoned, because Canon 1137 specifically defines it. The Canons do not define illegitimacy, nor do they specify what happens when marriages are invalid or annulled (except by implication in Canon 1137).

In the instant case, it appears that the marriage is at least a putative marriage — one that has all the signs of being the real thing. Canon 1137 unequivocally states that children born of a putative marriage are legitimate. Given that there appears to be no way of becoming illegitimate, presumably the annulment will have no such effect. (But your correspondent will need to ask the question of those dealing with the annulment, as they will have access to all the circumstances.)

This is similar to statute law, at least in England. Divorce does not make legitimate children illegitimate. There is a difference in statute law between an invalid marriage and an impeded marriage: a lawful marriage where there is invalid intent does produce a marriage, but can be ended. A marriage where there is a legal impediment is impossible, and is void ab initio; and its children are statutorily illegitimate. However, it appears that the Church would consider its children canonically legitimate.


What analogies have been suggested for kenosis?

Jesus “made himself nothing” (Philippians 2:7 NIV).  When He came to earth “he gave up his divine privileges” (NLT).  Jesus had to enter this world incognito, "his glory veiled". There were brief occasions when the disciples were enabled to glimpse that glory, as at his transfiguration.
He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a slave.  The kenosis was a self-renunciation, not an emptying Himself of deity.  Christians who believe the incarnation, that Jesus was fully divine as well as fully human, understand this emptying took place when the Word or Logos of God agreed to give up the glory he had in heaven and condescended to “become a little lower than the angels” and took on human form.  This required humility and obedience, even to death on a cross.  Christ’s “emptying” of Himself was the laying aside of the privileges of divinity, not divinity itself.  The verb form κενόω (kenóō) means "to empty".
There are unbiblical views of kenosis, and I hesitate to draw attention to them.  However, this one provides you with a form of visualisation:

The equivalent to kenōsis in Gnostic literature is Christ's withdrawal of his own luminosity into himself, so as to cease dazzling his own disciples. At the request of his disciples, "Jesus drew to himself the glory of his light".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis#Gnosticism

Thinking about a suitable analogy, I turn to the death and resurrection of Jesus for inspiration.  In order for a seed to grow it has to be planted in the soil.  There it remains, in darkness, till the process of germination is complete. Then a new plant emerges, and reaches up to obtain energy from the sun.  The old has gone, the new arises.
The Word, or Logos, voluntarily agreed to give up the glory he had in his pre-incarnate existence, and submitted himself to death, in order to accomplish the will of his Father in heaven.  Then the resurrection takes place and Jesus arises from the tomb in a glorified body and the world is transformed because of his glorious victory over death.

In him was life, and that life was the light of men.  The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it (John 1:4).

The light and life of the world was veiled for a short while, but the veil has now been removed.  The resurrected Jesus is no longer “the suffering servant” of Isaiah, but is revealed as “the true light that gives light to every man” (John 1:9).
The following article provide some Christian insights:   https://www.gotquestions.org/kenosis.html


How does a Catholic church support itself without Tithe?

Your question seems to imply there must be some secret source, some behind the scenes force. I'm not sure what you expect to find, but money doesn't grow on trees for Catholics any more than for Protestants.

In fact, if anything, Protestants have a harder time with this than Catholics do. The question you linked to has answers that explain very clearly that Catholics are obligated to give. This sort of obligation tends to be taken much more seriously in Catholicism than in Protestant circles. Even in countries where belief is nominal, fulfillment of such obligations often outpaces other aspects of devotion. In addition, since the Catholic church is centralized, the local ups and downs of giving are averaged out and the expenses are spread out over a larger giving base.

Just because some Protestants define a tithe as a regular 10% offering doesn't mean that actually happens. In practice it is usually much much smaller than this. Since the funds aren't centralized, this often means local churches may have noticeable shortfalls at various times.

  I still feel that only offerings may not be sufficient.

It doesn't matter too much what you feel, the account ledgers say otherwise. Of course they have hard times too and giving shortfalls mean less ability to carry out projects etc, but the fact of the matter is that Catholics do give and these offerings do support the church.

The Catholic church benefits from a large member base and their obligation to give out of their ability to the needs of the church. This is the major source of income for the church. End of story. There isn't some vast hidden business network or other money making scheme.


Romans 1:4 / Resurrection implying Divinity of Christ

There's a difference in quality here.  The widow's son, Lazarus, and the dead girl were all raised from death back to a continuation of mortal life.  They would live out their remaining time and eventually die (again) and be buried.

Resurrection is something different entirely.  Jesus was raised from death to immortality.  In Luke chapter 24, when Jesus appears to his disciples, they're afraid, thinking they've seen a ghost, but he reassures them that he's a fully tangible person and describes the makeup of his body with the unique phrase "flesh and bones".  This contrasts strongly with the more common "flesh and blood," and suggests that although his resurrected body may have looked recognizably like the Master they knew before he died, it was not made from all the same stuff that our mortal bodies are made from.

It was this fundamental change, not having been restored from death back to mortal life, but resurrected, from death forward to immortal life, that showed Jesus's divine nature.  While other passages of scripture, such as the 5th chapter of Revelation, speak of the general resurrection of the dead, showing that this miracle is not confined solely to Christ, the rest of the dead will be raised through the act of an external agency--by the power of Christ--but Jesus, being divine, did not require an external agency:

  17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that
  I might take it again.

  18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power
  to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment
  have I received of my Father.

  -- John 10: 17-18, emphasis added


God said in the Bible: ”I am who am!” What does that expression mean?

God said :

I am that I am. [Exodus 3:14, KJV.]
I am that which I am. [Exodus 3:14, Young's Literal.]

'I am' expresses a personal existence, an individual being.
'That I am' or 'that which I am' expresses a form of being, a mode of existence.
Elsewhere, God reveals that he is eternal, he is the Creator of all things :

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. [Isaiah 40:28, KJV.]

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, states 'God is Spirit' (John 4:24, KJV).
The mode of God's existence is eternal spirit.
As such, he is known by faith, not by human sight or by scientific knowledge.


St Augustine's 5th and 6th Needs - Translation

I think there are a couple of possibilities, at least. If you can provide any more information about the text and its purpose then we could try to narrow it down.

There are a few places where St Augustine proposes a seven-step journey of the soul. However,  the schemes don't match up (which is fine: he actually says in the earliest work that there are many ways to view the topic; also, they have slightly different purposes).

The first one is in De quantitate animae (On the magnitude of the soul), written in 387 or 388. In 33.70ff, the ascent of the soul has the following steps:

The soul gives life to the body.
Experience of the world through the senses.
Reason, language, art, etc.
Approach to the knowledge of God through trying to purify and strengthen oneself.
Perseverance in faith, completing the work of step 4 and preparing for step 6.
Contemplation of God, and submission to his will for regeneration of the spirit.
Perfect joy and peace.

It is noted that step 3 and following are unique to humans. Steps 4 and 5 go together as being primarily about self-transformation, whereas the last two steps are directed towards God completely. This scheme is rather Neoplatonic, as it draws from a tradition of abandoning the material world in favour of seeking pure spirit. (See Augustine's intellectual conversion: the journey from Platonism to Christianity, Brian Dobell, 2009.)

A couple of years later, just before his ordination (390), Augustine wrote about the transformation of the "old man" into the "new man" in seven stages (De vera religione / On true religion, 26.49). These are:

Learning from history.
Abandoning merely human teaching to learn from the divine law.
Withdrawing from sinful behaviour.
Enduring in uprightness despite persecution and other difficulties.
Living in the kingdom of the supreme and incomprehensible wisdom.
Final abandonment of everything worldly, in favour of the coming eternal life in the image and likeness of God.
Perpetual blessedness and eternal life.

The seven-age scheme is numerologically connected to the seven days of creation in Genesis 1 - compare City of God 11. Augustine would later return to this inspiration with his proposed seven ages of history (De catechizandis rudibus / On the catechizing of the unlearned, 400). The fifth age is from the exile in Babylon to the nativity of Jesus. We are presently in the sixth age, and the seventh is the coming reign of Christ.

The last work is De doctrina christiana (On Christian Doctrine). In Book 2, 7.9ff, he presents the seven steps to wisdom: fear, piety, knowledge, strength, the counsel of compassion (consilio misericordiae), purification of heart, and finally the achievement of wisdom. Here is the section on steps 5 and 6 in the James Shaw translation (at New Advent):

  When, to the extent of his power, he has gazed upon this object shining from afar, and has felt that owing to the weakness of his sight he cannot endure that matchless light, then in the fifth step - that is, in the counsel of compassion - he cleanses his soul, which is violently agitated, and disturbs him with base desires, from the filth it has contracted.  And at this stage he exercises himself diligently in the love of his neighbor; and when he has reached the point of loving his enemy, full of hopes and unbroken in strength, he mounts to the sixth step, in which he purifies the eye itself which can see God, [Matthew 5:8] so far as God can be seen by those who as far as possible die to this world. For men see Him just so far as they die to this world; and so far as they live to it they see Him not. But yet, although that light may begin to appear clearer, and not only more tolerable, but even more delightful, still it is only through a glass darkly that we are said to see, because we walk by faith, not by sight, while we continue to wander as strangers in this world, even though our conversation be in heaven. And at this stage, too, a man so purges the eye of his affections as not to place his neighbor before, or even in comparison with, the truth, and therefore not himself, because not him whom he loves as himself. Accordingly, that holy man will be so single and so pure in heart, that he will not step aside from the truth, either for the sake of pleasing men or with a view to avoid any of the annoyances which beset this life.

It is true that all of these are steps, and not really "needs", unless it is implicit that one needs to take a step. If you can give any more clues from the original text, then that could help us to work out which of these, if any, is the intended referent.


Where do Saints go after we return with Jesus (Pentecostal perspective)

I'm not aware of a distinctive Pentecostal perspective on this that differs from any other literal, futurist interpretation. I believe that all such persons become part of Christ's worldwide government:

  And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations—

 ‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron;
 They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’—

  as I also have received from My Father; and I will give him the morning star. (Rev. 2:26-28)

They have authority over all the various places on Earth, while they may certainly be based in Israel, as Paul says that after the rapture and resurrection, "And thus we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:17).


"Actor's idolatry" problem - is it a sin?

You are not describing something that is traditionally considered to be idolatry. However, you may be describing the sin of scandal (beliefs may vary on what constitutes "leading others into sin", but I understand that you're not asking us to get into that).

The Catechism actually addresses this almost directly, in the following:

  2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon." Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast" refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.

Regarding the "simulation of idolatry", the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions:

  Even the simulation of idolatry, in order to escape death during persecution, is a mortal sin, because of the pernicious falsehood it involves and the scandal it causes. Of Seneca who, against his better knowledge, took part in idolatrous worship, St. Augustine says: "He was the more to be condemned for doing mendaciously what people believed him to do sincerely".

The point here is that the "simulation of such worship" is marked as distinct from the actual worship (idolatry), and then explained to be a matter of doing what others believe is done sincerely. So the traditional understanding of idolatry, re-iterated there by St Augustine, is that it requires sincerity. In the same way, our worship of God also requires sincerity, and not merely "outward displays".

So acting out or demonstrating how pagans worshipped is not the sin of idolatry. (Except when it is: if you know you are particularly prone to falling into idolatry, or your acting style very much involves you "getting into the role" mentally, then this may not be the role for you).

But there is actually another part to your question. Most people don't really believe that what is done in the context of theatre or film is done sincerely, except perhaps children (...there was a time when I thought a certain actor really had a disability due to a convincing character portrayal). But what you go on to describe as "actor's idolatry" (action as seen from outside without knowledge of context) is traditionally considered not to be the sin of idolatry, but the sin of scandal.

  2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

There really won't be any basis for this not being a sin. Scripture is very clear, see for example Luke 17:1-2, Proverbs 28:10. The only thing in dispute is whether certain things count as leading others into sin - and that can be a pretty big dispute among people.


Is Hell eternal, or do some/all escape it?

According to scripture, hell is real, and anyone who was not born again will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

  41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
  42For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
  43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
  44Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’
  45Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
  46And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” - Matthew 25:41-46 ESV

  14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
  15If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. - Revelation 20:14-15

This clearly states that anyone who does not follow Christ and accept Him into their heart will go to hell. It's inconvenient, but nowhere does it say that following him will be convenient. Anyone who thinks they have an expert knowledge of God is silly. God is too big for man to understand. We have the gift of prayer and his word to find answers in.

Francis Chan did a wonderful job of explaining this on YouTube.


If unconditional election is true do we worship God in vain?

If we have no control over whether we receive or reject grace, someone
  can never truly know if they are saved or condemned.

Reformed theology teaches the doctrine of assurance of salvation, in addition to the doctrine of unconditional election. This doctrine teaches that we CAN know if we are truly saved or condemned.

The basics of this doctrine can be found in the Canons of Dort:

Canons of Dort, I.12 and V.9.10.11.13

  The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable
  election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things
  of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy
  pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of
  God such as, a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for
  sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.

It can also be found in the Heidelberg Catechism:

  Q21:  What is true faith?

  A21:  True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for
  truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty
  trust, which the Holy Ghost works in me by the Gospel, that not only
  to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting
  righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace,
  only for the sake of Christ's merits.

It can also be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, in Chapter XVIII: "Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation".

Essentially, by seeing in ourselves the signs of salvation, we can know that we are saved. Based on this knowledge, we can from there continue to follow the commandments of God in the assurance that our worship is not in vain.

It could be also argued that it is in every way preferable to continue to worship and obey God even when we doubt our own salvation.


What would happen if a priest venerated Santa Muerte in an RCC church?

I don't know where you got the idea that the Catholic church has taken no position on Santa Muerte. The current official position of the Catholic Church is that honoring Saint Death is heresy.ref  Mexico's Catholic Bishop Conference has accused Santa Muerte devotees of mixing Christianity with devil-worship.ref According to a statement by Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico City on November 3, 2008, popular devotion to the so-called "Saint Death" is not compatible with the Catholic faith.ref The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not issued an official position on this because this is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States.

What would it take for them to do so? If a priest were to acknowledge her, would that be sufficient?

A single priest's action would not force the universal Catholic church to take a stand. If a priest, who holds a position which is responsible for souls, acknowledges her as a saint, then the local bishop will have the duty to correct him. If the local bishop fails to do so, then the pope with the Roman Curia will interfere and instruct the bishop.

How would the church change as a result?

With regard to dogma, faith, and related matters, just as for the past 2000 years, the Catholic Church is not going to change. Not for Santa Muerte, or anything else for that matter. But I have no idea about the cultural consequences. The Church might be persecuted, but it is not going to change its teaching: honoring Saint Death is heresy.

Note: Traditions like Our Lady of Lourdes and The Lady of Guadalupe are about a real person, Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of God. But Santa Muerte is not a real person, nor do her followers claim as such. So your comparison is not correct.


How is the 'New Perspective on Paul' different from Catholicism with respect to good works?

The notion of "good works" comes up multiple times in the New Testament, so I'll limit my answer to the meaning of "works of the law" in Paul's epistles, particularly Galatians. The NPP soteriological system is really just an implication of the NPP's textual interpretation of "faith" and "works" in Paul's epistles. Surprisingly, Catholicism (especially Thomist) and traditional Protestantism are closer to each other than they are to NPP on this point.

NPP proponent James Dunn in The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) defines "works of the law" as "what the law required of Israel as God’s people. Works of the law, in other words, were what Israel’s righteousness consisted of, Israel’s part of the covenant  which Yahweh had made with Israel in first choosing Israel as  his special people.... 'Works of the law' is the Pauline term for 'covenantal nomism.'"

Thus, the New Perspective on Paul sees "the works of the law" as being sociological. But it does not on this basis reject "the works of the law!" Instead, it sees the close connection between sociology and soteriology in 1st century Judaism as a good thing. According to NPP, the problem with the Judaizers is that their sociology was wrong, and so their soteriology was wrongly nationalistic instead of internationalistic. According to Wright, the problem with "the works of the law" was not that they were a system of works-righteousness, but "they are the things that divide Jew from Gentile" (Justification, p 117).

In contrast, both Aquinas and the Protestant Reformers viewed Paul's opponents as rejecting the Gospel by teaching works-righteousness. Aquinas in his Commentary on Galatians identifies "the works of the law" with the ceremonial provisions in the Torah. (Well, until he gets to Galatians 3, as we shall see later.)

  It should be known, therefore, that some works of the Law were moral and some ceremonial. The moral, although they were contained in the Law, could not, strictly speaking, be called “works of the Law,” for man is induced to them by natural instinct and by the natural law. But the ceremonial works are properly called the “works of the Law.”

Thus it would seem he agrees with NPP proponents, who identify the "works of the law" with Mosaic ceremonial laws, because those are the laws that distinguished Jews from Gentiles. Yet Aquinas did not think the Judaizers were wrong because their sociology was too nationalistic. Instead, it was because the Old Testament ceremonies could not confer grace:

  But with respect to being made just by the works of the Law, a man does not seem to be justified by them, because the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace. How turn you again to the weak and needy elements? i.e., that neither confer grace nor contain grace in themselves. The sacraments of the New Law however, although they are material elements, are not needy elements; hence they can justify. Again, if there were any in the Old Law who were just, they were not made just by the works of the Law but only by the faith of Christ “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith,” as is said in Romans (3:25).

The following passages of Aquinas's commentary are difficult, because he offers multiple possible interpretations. In particular, in his interpretation of Galatians 3:10-12, he offers two interpretations. The latter is exactly the traditional Protestant understanding of "the works of the law":

  Furthermore, some works of the Law are ceremonies carried out in the observances; others are works that pertain to morals, with which the moral precepts deal. Hence, according to a Gloss, that which is said here, namely, as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse, is to be understood of ceremonial works and not of moral works. Or it should be said that the Apostle is speaking here of all works, both ceremonial and moral. For the works are not the cause making one to be just before God; rather they are the carrying out and manifestation of justice. For no one is made just before God by works but by the habit of faith, not acquired but infused. (italics mine) And therefore, as many as seek to be justified by works are under a curse, because sin is not removed nor anyone justified in the sight of God by them, but by the habit of faith vivified by charity: “And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise” (Heb 11:39).

To be sure, Aquinas clearly does not hold to the Protestant view of justification as imputed righteousness, but rather the Catholic view as infused righteousness. Yet I would argue that both Aquinas and traditional Protestants interpret "the works of the law" in a way that upholds the grace-fullness of justification, either through sacramental infusion of justice (Catholicism) or through covenantal imputation of justice (traditional Protestantism). In contrast, the New Perspective on Paul sees justification as being attained through "good works", ie socially uniting oneself to God's people, which was Israel in the OT and is the Church in the NT.


What narrative purpose does the Flood story fulfill?

The narrative purpose of the flood account is actually quite simple. It reminds us of one simple truth of God's character: God is just.

To the Jew for whom this exact version of the narrative is written (I can leave aside Gilgamesh because it differs in thrust), there is one overwhelming truth- God will punish the wicked. In a world where the wicked often seem to prosper, this is too easily forgotten. To say, the Jews of the exile, this is actually a very comforting thought - that even though they may be temporarily defeated (and that happened a lot in Jewish history) God is simply "slow to anger" not completely silent or ineffectual on the matter.

In punishing the wicked, the righteous will be protected. To an enslaved and defeated  people, this is good news indeed. There will be an accounting when God's wrath is complete. He is not slow in keeping his promises, as some count slowness to be. Neither is he unconcerned, nor is he Powerless.

Peter (who, it should be remembered, was a Jew) says

  if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven other ... if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. (2 Peter 2:5,9)

For the Christian it holds a secondary meaning, namely that God may be love, but he is more than love. God is not just "nice," but he is also just. It is too easy to forget that because God is good, it doesn't mean he can't be powerful too.


According to Catholicism, how does God expect us to realize the truth of Christianity?

God "expect[s] us to realize the truth of Christianity" through the Church that He founded, which is guided by the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Ghost.(cf. Cdl. Manning's Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost)

The reason Christ founded the Catholic Church is summarized in the Great Commission he gave to the Apostles (Mt. 28:19):

  Going therefore teach ye all nations: Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

The Catholic Church, "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), exists to baptize and teach the truths necessary for salvation.

Pope Pius XII wrote in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi §22, showing what makes one members of Christ's Mystical Body, His Holy Church:

  only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

To be a member of the Church, one must be baptized and profess the true (Catholic) faith.

How does one "profess the true faith"? He must submit to the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church and allow Her to teach him the truths necessary for salvation.


How is it possible that the angels were on hand to witness the earth being created?

You've really answered your own question. God's work of creation in no way had to begin with the physical, material universe. Since angels, like God, are spiritual beings, they were not part of God's work of creation by fiat in Genesis 1 and 2. However, they, like us, were created, unlike Jehovah God, who had no beginning.

  Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God (Psalm 90:2 KJV).

Since only God inhabits eternity, which of course cannot be measured in time, a question remains in my mind: Are the angels' experience and perception of time similar to (or the same as) ours?

We cannot say with any biblical authority that God's creative work began with the angels. That God created the angels is clearly biblical, as is the likelihood they were created prior to God's calling the heavens and earth into existence. As you pointed out in your question, the book of Job seems to indicate the angels existed and were God's witnesses when he said, "Let there be . . ." (Job 38:7). The angels, in a sense, were God's cheerleaders who expressed joyfully their admiration for the wonders of God in creation.

Allow me to go beyond your question for a moment. In human terms, there was a "time" when all there was, was God. God did not need to create anyone or anything in order to complete or fulfill himself. He chose to do so because he is love (1 John 4:8), and the nature of love is to express itself to another person or persons.

From eternity, the Triune God enjoyed sweet fellowship within the Godhead. We can only imagine what that fellowship was like, but since God is love, love must have permeated the relationship that existed between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Muslims balk at such a concept. To their credit, they are in awe of God. They praise his greatness every time they pray. They also ascribe the attribute of mercy to Allah, as well as other attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, goodness (beneficence), immanence, and more. They do not, however, believe God is love. Indeed, how can he be if he does not exist in three persons?

Love cannot exist in a vacuum, and since Allah, as Muslims conceive of him, is not to be associated with any other eternal personage (especially a son!), he may choose to be merciful, but he is in no way loving by nature.

Getting back to the issue at hand. There is an unfortunate expression in theological circles today; namely, that God created all that is, ex nihilo, or out of nothing. I prefer to say that God created all that is, out of the fullness of his being. Not only did God not break a sweat during all his creative work, but he created all that is, not because he had to but because he chose to. And we, his image-bearers, have the privilege of praising him for something the angels will never experience; namely, being saved by God.

The apostle Peter tells us in his first letter that God's angels long to look into the salvation which only we can experience as sinners saved by grace. Perhaps someday in a future eternity, the angels' curiosity will be at least partially satisfied as they witness that great cloud of witnesses to God's grace praising, worshipping, and magnifying their God and Savior.


Was there no word for son in law in Biblical Koine Greek?

In the Bible the Greek word ‘hyuos’ which translates into English as ‘son’ can also mean a legitimate son, a son artificially constituted, a descendant, a son as implying connection in respect of membership, service, resemblance, manifestation, destiny, etc. (Source: Wm.D.Mounce Interlinear)
With regard to Luke 3:23: “Jesus was known as the son of Joseph.  Joseph was the son of Heli.”

NLT Study Bible Note: “If this is actually Mary’s genealogy, then Joseph was Heli’s son-in-law, a possible understanding of the Greek sentence.”
ESV Study Bible Note: “Some commentators have suggested that Heli was Mary’s father, but that there were no male heirs in the family, so Heli adopted Joseph as his “son” when Mary and Joseph were married.”

I hope someone who actually knows Greek will be able to give you a satisfactory explanation as to whether there was a word for "son-in-law."
As far as I know, Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Regarding Matthew's genealogy, this article may be helpful: https://www.gotquestions.org/14-generations.html


What are some of the recent doctrinal controversial matters in the Eastern Orthodox Church?

I think the last great doctrinal "controversy" within the Orthodox Church was probably the Council of Florence of 1438-39, which was to have healed the Great Schism between the See of Rome and the other four ancient Sees and the jurisdictions that had grown out of them.  The controversy arose largely over the differences between the eastern and western doctrines on purgatory and the precession of the Holy Spirit, as well over the issue of papal authority.  In the end, the rift could not be resolved and the Orthodox Church remained separate from the west.

The Pan-Orthodox Meeting you refer to was rejected not only by the Russian Orthodox Church (by far the largest Orthodox jurisdiction in the world), but also the Patriarchs of Antioch, Bulgaria, and Georgia - mostly over the wording of some of the pronouncements favored by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.  Some of these same pronouncements were condemned within the Patriarchate of Constantinople itself, most notably by some conservative monks at Mt. Athos.  A common theme of those protesting the Council was what was perceived as an erosion of "Orthodox identify and self-understanding" and a dilution of Orthodox theology for the sake of "ecumenism".  One respected hierarch, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Greece, for example, protested among other things a reference to Christian traditions outside the Orthodox Church as "Churches" and asked that they instead be referred to as "Christian Confessions".


According to the scripture, when and how is the world destroyed?

If I am understanding St. Paul correctly, he's telling us that there is no way to know when this will happen -- that indeed the angels don't even know -- and that our preoccupation with it is of no consequence if we are not ready to meet and be judged by God on that day.

The following is based on 1 Thessalonians chapter 5:

  "Of the times and moments. That is, of the day of judgment, of the end
  of the world, of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is enough to know
  the time is uncertain, and that death cometh as a thief in the night.
  (Witham) --- When the judgment shall take place the Angels themselves
  do not know. Perhaps St. Paul, when wrapt up to the third heaven, may
  have learnt something on this subject; for he was told many things
  which he could not announce to man; therefore, he says, I need not
  write to you: it is unnecessary for us to know it. (Calmet)"

The second epistle of St. Peter does suggest fire though:

2 Peter 3:10: But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth, and the works that are in it, shall be burnt up.

Some commentary on this:

  The heavens, &c. He puts the faithful in mind not to regard these
  profane scoffers, but to be convinced of the truths revealed, and that
  the world shall be destroyed a second time by fire. Reflect that the
  time of this life, and all the time that this world shall last, is
  nothing to eternity, which has no parts, no beginning, nor end; so
  that in the sight of God, who is eternal, a thousand years are no more
  to be regarded than one day, or one moment. The long time that hath
  hitherto passed, must not make you think that God is slack as to his
  promises, or that they shall not infallibly come to pass at the time
  and moment appointed by his divine providence. God's infinite mercy,
  and his love for mankind, bears patiently with the provocations of
  blind and unthinking sinners, not willing that any of them should
  perish, but that they should return to him by a sincere repentance and
  true penance, and be saved. But watch always, according to the
  repeated admonition of our blessed Redeemer. (Mark xiii. 37. &c.) For
  both the day of your death, and the day of the Lord to judge the
  world, will come like a thief, &c. (Witham)


Is the Trinity, particularly Jesus, considered Homoousios in spirit only or also in matter?

The Bible specifically reveals God as spirit, that is, not physical (John 4:23).  So, Jesus took on flesh (the physical dimension), but this was something new.  God--the Father, Son, and Spirit0--exist outside of the physical universe.  God created the physical universe, so He cannot be inside the physical universe.

So, no, Jesus took on flesh, but neither the Father nor the Spirit did so.

It should also be noted that the law that states matter can be neither created nor destroyed is a natural law and applies to natural things.  Obviously, when God created the heavens and the earth, matter was created.  This was done supernaturally.  So, we have to make sure we apply natural laws only to natural processes and not force them upon God.  Jesus certainly was not bound by natural law when He fed the 5,000, raised the dead, healed the blind and many other things.


Are Catholics required to accept every article of Aquinas's «Summa Theologica»?

Authority of St. Thomas's Summa Theologica

Are all the articles of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica to be accepted as the truth by every Catholic?

The Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas by Fr. Jacobus M. Ramírez, O.P., a famous Thomist, enumerated four "distinct categories of St. Thomas' doctrinal authority, namely, scientific and canonical, philosophical and theological" (p. 74). "II. Canonical Authority of the Doctor Communis of the Church" (p. 20-21) says:

This authority which may also be called dogmatic corresponds to the conformity of a theological or philosophical doctrine with divine revelation. It is measured by the approbation and commendation of the Teaching Authority of the Church whose function it is to judge such conformity. Thus the weight of this type of authority is wholly derived from the authority of the Church. As Thomas himself writes:

The teaching of Catholic Doctors has its authority from the Church; for that reason we must rely upon the authority of the Church more than upon the authority of an Augustine, a Jerome, or any other Doctor. [Summa Theologica II-II q. 10 a. 12. c.]

When the authority of the Church consistently and over along period approves and commends the doctrine of anyone for all the faithful, it makes that doctrine its own, and invests it with its own authority. The Church does not create the force and truth of that doctrine out of nothing but rather supposes its existence and recognizes it, authoritatively proposing it to be followed and imitated. The manner of such approbation is similar to that by which the canonization of one of the faithful by the Church does not create but supposes the sanctity of the person. The Church merely recognizes that sanctity, and authoritatively proposes it for veneration and imitation.

Primarily, the Church approves and commends theological doctrine which deals per se with divinely revealed truths. But secondarily, it can approve philosophical doctrine, which is properly concerned with truths of the natural order, insofar as that doctrine is in conformity with truths of the supernatural order. For this very reason Benedict XV called it "philosophy according to Christ." [Motu proprio, Non multo post, de Romana S. Thomae Academia, AAS 7 (1915), 6, Dec. 31, 1914.] And so the canonical doctrine of St. Thomas should be treated first in the field of theology and then in philosophy.

Regarding "the canonical doctrine of St. Thomas" "in the field of theology", Fr. Ramírez gives this example:

At the completion of the process of canonization, when more than 300 miracles performed by St. Thomas had been recounted, the Pontiff [Pope John XII, who canonized St. Thomas Aquinas] said:

Why should we seek more miracles? He has performed as many miracles as he wrote articles [in the Summa Theologica]. Truly this glorious Doctor, after the Apostles and the early Doctors, has greatly enlightened the Church. [P. Percin, Monumenta Conveiitus Tolosani Ord. Praed. cf. J. Berthier op. cit., 50.]

Also, St. Thomas's Summa Theologica was placed on the altar at the Council of Trent, and several of his teachings became, almost verbatim, defined dogma at that council.
cf. the Testamonies of the Popes here, the 24 Thomistic Theses, and this intro. to them, which quotes several Popes regarding the necessity of Thomism

Criticisms of the Summa Theologica

Are there any criticisms of the Summa Theologica within the Catholic Church?

Accusations of Denying the Immaculate Conception
Many have claimed that he wrote against the Immaculate Conception (cf. Summa Theologica III q. 27 "Of the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin" and the editorial note at the top) and because of this, they claim his entire theology is flawed or outdated. For a defense of St. Thomas on this point, cf. Thomist Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought ch. 37 Mariology", art. 3 "Mary's Sanctity," §1 "St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception." (N.B.: The Immaculate Conception was not defined dogma in St. Thomas's time.)
See also this answer to the question "What is the basis for saying that Aquinas accepted the immaculate conception?"
Anti-Thomist Modernists and "New Theologians"
There are Modernist heretics like Henri Bouillard, S.J., who have criticized St. Thomas's theology as being outdated because, as the Thomist Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., describes it in the beginning of his Essence & Topicality of Thomism:

Certain souls [like Fr. Bouillard] today think that “a theology which is not current is a false theology” and that the theology of Saint Thomas in some of its important parts—e.g., when it conceives sanctifying or habitual Grace as a “form”—is only an application of the notions of Aristotelian physics, of the distinction between matter and form. And it is added: “Renouncing Aristotelian physics, modern thought has also deserted the notions and schemes that have value only for Aristotelian physics. Because theology continues to offer meaning to the spirit and can fertilize and progress with it, it is necessary that it renounces these notions.”

The theology of Saint Thomas, however, from this point of view, would no longer be current. And elsewhere it is also said: “A theology that is not current is therefore false.”

But why, then, would the Church recommend the doctrine of Saint Thomas to the point of insisting that professors of philosophy and theology teach this discipline “ad Angelici Doctoris rationem, doctrinam et principia, eaque sancte teneant”? [“according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor, to which they must religiously adhere”] ([1917] Codice Canonico, c. 1366). [cf. 1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 252 §3: “…students are to learn to penetrate more intimately the mysteries of salvation, especially with St. Thomas as a teacher.…”]

“The Christian truth, it is observed, is stuck in contingent notions and schemes which determine its rational structure. It is not possible to isolate it from them. It is not rendered independent from a system of notions but changing into another. History—nevertheless—does not lead to relativism. It permits the grasping, in the bosom of theological evolution, of an absolute. Not an absolute of description, but an absolute of affirmation. If the notions, methods, systems change; the affirmations that they contain remain, even if they are expressed in other categories.” [Bouillard’s condemned 1941 thesis Conversion et grâce chez S. Thomas d’Aquin]

Fr. Louis Bouyer, a Neo-Modernist, is another anti-Thomist.
The Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology) is an anti-Thomist movement which Pope Pius XII condemned in his encyclical Humani Generis (cf. "The structure of the encyclical Humani Generis" by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., the encyclical's ghostwriter). Nouvelle Théologie—New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II (2010) by Jürgen Mettepenningen is a good overview of battle waged between the Thomists and the New Theologians in ca. 1940s.
Accusations of Misogyny
For an excellent overview of St. Thomas's views of women, see "The Philosophy of Woman of St. Thomas Aquinas" by Kristin M. Popik.
Individual woman as "defective and misbegotten [deficiens et occasionatum]"
Some criticize St. Thomas for being misogynistic, e.g., when he says, in Summa Theologica I q. 92 a. 1 ("Whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things?") ad 1:

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten [deficiens et occasionatum], for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence;

"Occasionatum" means "caused accidentally," i.e., caused besides the intention of nature.
however, he continues:

On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten [occasionatum], but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation [i.e., procreation].

In response to the objection (arg. 1) that God "should not have made woman" because she "would be an occasion of sin to man," St. Thomas replies (ad 3) that

If God had deprived the world of all those things which proved an occasion of sin, the universe would have been imperfect.

Thus, women perfect God's creation. From this alone it's clear that St. Thomas is a philogynist.
"in man [homine] the discretion of reason predominates"
In that same article (Summa Theologica I q. 92 a. 1), St. Thomas writes (arg. 2 & ad 2), in the context of Gn. 3:16: "Thou shalt be under the man's power":

…woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man; "for the agent is always more honorable than the patient," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16). … [W]oman [femina] is naturally subject to man [viro], because in man [homine] the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men [i.e., among humans] excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove (Question [96], Article [3]).

This passage is often misinterpreted as meaning that men are more rational than women; however, it's not so clear from the Latin, where St. Thomas uses two different words (vir = man/husband; homo = human, male or female) that in English are both translated as "man." A better translation would be:

[W]oman is naturally subject to man/husband [viro], because in mankind/humans [homine] the discretion of reason predominates.

In other words: It it is reasonable, to both males and females, that there be an inequality and thus order regarding the relation between males and females.
This is in accord with what St. Thomas says in the body ("I answer that…") of that article, where he discusses how in the plants and animals the distinction and inequality between the sexes is not as pronounced as it is in humans, and this is due to humans being rational creatures.
Accusations that St. Thomas's Argument for a Male-only Priesthood is Misogynistic
St. Thomas, in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 39 a. 1 ("Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders?") c., writes:

Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was stated above (Question [32], Article [2]) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection [cf. Gen. 3:16], it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.

The same criticisms of misogyny levied against St. Thomas here are also levied against St. Paul in, e.g., 1 Tim. 2:12, "I suffer not a woman to teach (in the Church), nor to use authority over the man," and Eph. 5, where St. Paul says that wives be subject to their husbands.
Other Instances Where St. Thomas Demonstrates He is not Misogynistic
Man and woman both created in God's image
Summa Theologica I q. 93 a. 4 ("Whether the image of God is found in every [hu]man?"):

Objection 1: It would seem that the image of God is not found in every man. For the Apostle says that "man is the image of God, but woman is the image [Vulg. glory] of man" (1 Cor. 11:7). Therefore, as woman is an individual of the human species, it is clear that every individual is not an image of God.

St. Thomas's reply:

Reply to Objection 1: The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, "To the image of God He created him," it is added, "Male and female He created them" (Gn. 1:27). Moreover it is said "them" in the plural, as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that "man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man," he adds his reason for saying this: "For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man."

For more information on this, see Dr. Pia de Solenni's award-winning book *A hermeneutic of Aquinas's* Mens through a sexually differentiated epistemology: Towards an understanding of woman as imago Dei (2003); she is a critic of the "New Feminism."
Adam's sin alone, not Eve's, is the reason Original Sin passes onto his children.
Answering the question "Whether if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin?" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 81 a. 5), St. Thomas writes (c.):

The solution of this question is made clear by what has been said. For it has been stated (a. 1) that original sin is transmitted by the first parent in so far as he is the mover in the begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said (a. 4) that if anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it.

Thus St. Thomas in no way blames women, like Adam did, for sin.
Why the Second Person of the Holy Trinity became a man and not a woman& St. Thomas's love for the Blessed Virgin
St. Thomas also addresses the question of why the Second Person of the Holy Trinity became a man and not a woman, in Summa Theologica III q. 31 a. 4 ("Whether the matter of Christ's body should have been taken from a woman?"):

Objection 1: It would seem that the matter of Christ's body should not have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble [nobilior] than the female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that which is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that He should not have taken flesh from a woman but rather from man: just as Eve was formed from the rib of a man.

to which he replied:

Reply to Objection 1: The male sex is more noble [nobilior] than the female, and for this reason He took human nature in the male sex. But lest the female sex should be despised, it was fitting that He should take flesh of a woman. Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "Men, despise not yourselves: the Son of God became a man: despise not yourselves, women; the Son of God was born of a woman."

This is a very balanced teaching that is in accord with Holy Scripture; however, some anti-Thomists still think it is misogynistic.
Also, St. Thomas had a very good relationship with his five biological sisters, whom he taught from a young age and converted; he convinced one of them to become a religious.
St. Thomas's Views on Sex
Some have the misconception that St. Thomas is against sexual intercourse or even marriage; however, his teaching on sex is fully inline with Catholic teaching: sex that is for the procreation and education of children is good and even virtuous, sex passes on original sin, and it is sinful if sought for its pleasure alone (thus, he's against contraception):

I q. 98 a. 2 ("Whether in the state of innocence there would have been generation by coition?")

II-II q. 152 a. 4 ("Whether virginity is more excellent than marriage?")

suppl. q. 41 a. 3-4 ("Whether the marriage act is always sinful?" & "Whether the marriage act is meritorious?")

suppl. q. 49 a. 4-6 ("Whether the marriage act is excused by the aforesaid goods [fidelity, offspring, sacrament]?" & "Whether the marriage act can be excused without the marriage goods?" & "Whether it is a mortal sin for a man to have knowledge of his wife, with the intention not of a marriage good but merely of pleasure?")

St. Thomas on capital punishment
St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II q. 11 a. 3 c., his answer to the question "Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?," shows that although heretics deserve death, the Church must show them mercy, and if they are stubborn, apply disciplinary means like excommunication, only handing them over to the State for capital punishment as a last resort.

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

However, he advocates mercy; he continues:

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death [as a last resort]. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Thus, St. Thomas does not indiscriminately advocate the death penalty for heretics.


What is the first recorded observation of Good Friday?

The Didascalia Apostolorum, dated to AD 230, prescribe activities during Holy Week, including a fast on Friday:

  Therefore you shall fast in the days of the Pascha from the tenth, which is the second day of the week; and you shall sustain yourselves with bread and salt and water only, at the ninth hour, until the fifth day of the week. But on the Friday and on the Sabbath fast wholly, and taste nothing. [v. 19] You shall come together and watch and keep vigil all the night with prayers and intercessions, and with reading of the Prophets, and with the Gospel and with Psalms, with fear and trembling and with earnest supplication, until the third hour in the night after the Sabbath; and then break your fasts. (v18–19)

Something similar is related in the Apostolic Constitutions (dated to 375–380) for Friday, the sixth day of the week:

  But He commanded us to fast on the fourth and sixth days of the week; the former on account of His being betrayed, and the latter on account of His passion. But He appointed us to break our fast on the seventh day at the cock-crowing, but to fast on the Sabbath-day. Not that the Sabbath-day is a day of fasting, being the rest from the creation, but because we ought to fast on this one Sabbath only, while on this day the Creator was under the earth. (5.3.15)

The Pilgrimage of Etheria (or Egeria), dated to a few years later, describes a more elaborate celebration, with five main stages:

Service at daybreak

"And when they arrive before the Cross the daylight is already growing bright."

Column of the flagellation

"they all go at once with fervour to Sion, to pray at the column at which the Lord was scourged."

Veneration of the cross

"The casket is opened and (the wood) is taken out, and both the wood of the Cross and the title1 are placed upon the table. Now, when it has been put upon the table, the bishop, as he sits, holds the extremities of the sacred wood firmly in his hands, while the deacons who stand around guard it."

Station before the cross

"Thus from the sixth to the ninth hours the lessons are so read and the hymns said, that it may be shown to all the people that whatsoever the prophets foretold of the Lord's Passion is proved from the Gospels and from the writings of the Apostles to have been fulfilled."

Evening offices

"And after the dismissal at the martyrium, they go to the Anastasis, where, when they arrive, the passage from the Gospel is read where Joseph begged the Body of the Lord from Pilate and laid it in a new sepulchre."

The excerpts above are taken from the full text of The Pilgrimage of Etheria, which is too lengthy to quote here in full.  The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity briefly summarizes:

  Christians spent the time reflecting upon Jesus’ morning appearance before Pilate (Mk 15:2-15 and parallel texts) and the flagellation (Mk 15:16-20 and parallel texts). At noon, the wood of the cross found by Helena was shown to the faithful; then, for three hours, the people read the account of the passion, along with OT prophecies about Christ.


According to Trinitarianism, is Jesus God Almighty?

Yes. Within the text of the “Athanasian Creed” is the following statement:

Similarly, the Father is Almighty (omnipotent); the Son is Almighty (omnipotent); [and] the Holy Spirit is Almighty (omnipotent). And yet, there are not three Almighties (omnipotents), but one Almighty (omnipotent).
Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens.


Which English translation of the Bible does the Orthodox church use?

As you probably know, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church are particular jurisdictions of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  What follows I think fairly characterizes all jurisdictions in the United States.

There is no official English translation of the Bible recommended for Orthodox in the United States, but as far as I know the guidance is fairly consistent across jurisdictions:

Old Testament

English translations of the Septuagint are preferred over translations of the Masorah.  While there are a few different English translations of the Septuagint available, generally the translation that is in the Orthodox Study Bible is recommended.

New Testament

Despite the fact that the New King James Version is included in the aforementioned Orthodox Study Bible, clergy seem to almost always recommend first the King James Version, then the Revised Standard Version.  As far as I have seen, the New Revised Standard Version is universally condemned.

I should note that for Liturgical use there are special translations in the service books.  The New Testament lectionary comprises a Gospel book that is kept at the altar and an Apostol, which contains the lectionary readings from Acts and the Epistles.  I think, but am not sure, that almost all Gospel and Apostol books used in services are based closely on the King James Version.  There are also Old Testament readings - especially Psalms - and these readings are in the service books themselves (i.e. there is no lectionary version of the Old Testament similar to the Gospel book and the Apostol).

All this is not to say that there are other English translations that some Orthodox Christians use.  There is, for example, the 2-volume Orthodox New Testament -based closely on the 1904 Constantinopolitan Patriarchal Text (very similar to the Majority Text) - which includes extensive Patristic commentaries.  There is also a more modern English translation of the Patriarchal Text that has been compiled by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerk.  Fr. Lawrence Farley prefers to use the New American Standard Bible in his "Coffee Cup Commentaries".  I am sure others can enumerate many other versions that are occasionally used by Orthodox Christians.


Jesus's genealogy: 28 generations or 41 since David?

Matthew and Luke had different purposes for their genealogies. Matthew wrote his gospel to present Jesus as King of the Jews. Therefore, his genealogy traces Jesus' descent from Abraham (father of the Hebrew nation) through the royal line of David and Solomon. Luke presented Jesus as the Son of Man and showed his descent from Adam (the first man).

The difference in purpose explains the answer to both of your questions. The genealogies are different because Matthew gave Joseph's genealogy and Luke gave Mary's. Physically, Jesus was Mary's son, not Joseph's, so it makes sense that Luke, who stressed Jesus' humanity, would show Jesus' physical line in his genealogy. Matthew, presenting Jesus as a Jew and of the kingly line, shows Jesus' adopted father Joseph's genealogy. Wikipedia lists some possible explanations for why Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli.

The gaps are because Matthew only selectively chose noteworthy names for his genealogy; that's how we get exactly fourteen generations between Abraham and David, David and the Captivity, and the Captivity and Christ. Luke lists close to twice as many names in his genealogy because he wanted to show Jesus' humanity by specifically listing all or most of his ancestors.


Is the philosophy of René Girard compatible with mainline Christianity?

Mainline Seminaries
I went to a very conservative seminary and read Girard's Scapegoat, though the overall position of the school disagreed with it. However, that we read it indicates its prevalence in academic institutions. Others I know who went to mainline seminaries, however, are very well versed in Girard.

In Rowan Williams' (former archbishop of Canterbury) stunning book, Resurrection, he writes in the forward to the revised edition, "At the time of writing, I had no knowledge of the writings of Rene Girard on the scapegoat theme; and it was not for a few years after the publication of the book that Girard's ideas began to circulate widely... The first chapter in particular needs to be read alongside Girard..." Given Williams' position as the then-head of the Anglican communion, I would say Girard is pointing toward something important.

Orthodox
This is tricky and depends on where you are coming from. Conservatives will probably disagree. Liberals and moderates may often embrace it. (I can't back that up, though) But I'll point you toward some starting points. First, it strikes at the heart of your working understanding of Soteriology.

(1) Penal Substitution - Crudely defined in legal terms: A crime was committed, a judgement was rendered, Jesus became the saving substitute in the verdict. Adherents to this form of Soteriology are more conservative and will have nothing in common with Girard.

(2) Christus Victor - Jesus conquered sin, or death, or even the Devil with his work on the cross. This view doesn't directly address Girards claims. The beauty of Christus Victor is that it can often compliment other views. Therefore, many who identify very strongly with Girard's work may also hold some form of Christus Victor.

(3) Moral Transformation - Jesus was an example of how we ought to live. This definitely has tracking throughout the Church's history, but its more recent proponents have been fairly liberal. I would argue that proponents of this view feel very at home with Girard. In fact, the weaknesses of the view (apolitical, denies importance of death, etc.) are bolstered with the scapegoat theme.


What is the connection between Charity and Virtues according to Aquinas?

This answer is necessarily a bit long, because it requires some background. Skip ahead to "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" to skip the background.

It is not exactly charity that perfects the virtues into the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit Who gives the Gifts to those who are disposed to receive them.

Some background

Aquinas essentially assumes Aristotle's doctrine regarding virtue and vice. Simplifying the topic a little, virtues and vices are kinds of "habits" (Latin: habitus, Greek ἕξεις); that is, stable dispositions of a person that help him to perform various kinds of actions: if the habitus tends to make one act morally well, then it is a virtue; if evilly, then it is a vice. For Aristotle (as for Aquinas), these habitus are acquired by means of deliberately performing the corresponding actions.

For example, suppose I find $20 sitting on my desk that I know belongs to my co-worker. The first time it happens, perhaps I am tempted to pocket the $20 bill quietly, even though I know it is stealing. However, I decide to do the honest thing and give it back to my co-worker. Aquinas would argue that by doing that, I make it easier for myself to do the right thing the next time; he would say that I am forming the virtue of honesty, which is a species of justice. (On the other hand, if I pocket the money, I make it easier for myself to steal the next time, thus forming the vice of dishonesty.)

In other words, acting morally (or immorally) produces a kind of "residue" in the person who acts—the virtue or the vice—that makes it easier for him to act the same way in the future. (Aquinas' description of habitus is to be found in Summa Theologiae Ia-IIae, qq. 49-89, especially qq. 55, Article 4, and 71.)

Traditionally, the human virtues are divided into four "species" or "cardinal virtues" (also called "moral virtues"): prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.

All this, for Aquinas, occurs on the "natural" level, not yet considering the order of grace; that is, the "supernatural" level, that builds upon and perfects the natural.

Once we enter the domain of grace, we have to take into account the action of God (attributed to the Holy Spirit) in our souls. It is not only our actions that leave a "residue" (habit) in our souls, but the action of God.

It is through God's action alone that we can know Him (through faith) and love Him (though hope and charity). Faith, hope, and charity are called "theological" virtues because God is both their origin and their object. (See Summa theologiae, Ia-IIae, q.62.) However, God also perfects our moral life, infusing moral ("cardinal") virtues that bear the same names as the corresponding "natural" virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance), but which have God as their origin, not our actions (q. 61).

Charity is indeed the queen of the virtues because in it all the other virtues find their perfection. (We believe and hope in order to love God and neighbor; justice is the minimum required, so to speak, for charity; in order to apply charity here and now, we need prudence; and so on.)

Gifts of the Holy Spirit

Here is where the Gifts of the Holy Spirit come in. (See q. 68.) The virtues (both natural and infused) have the function of properly disposing our souls to the action of the Holy Spirit. Notice, however, that the exercise of these virtues, even the theological virtues, requires an action on our part.

(The infused virtues, however, come from God. That does not mean that our actions are indifferent, just that these virtues come about thanks to God's gratuitous gift, not by means of our effort. The "natural" virtues, on the other hand, do come about through our own efforts.)

A properly disposed soul, however, can receive additional motions from the Holy Spirit that do not require a direct intervention on our part; rather they come to us by divine inspiration (as Aquinas calls it). These are the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The difference between the Gifts and the virtues is that it is man who exercises the virtues (even though they come from God); but God who exercises the Gifts.

In summary, to answer your original question, it is not that charity perfects the virtues into the Gifts. Rather, it is the Holy Spirit who infuses the Gifts into someone. He does so when the person has sufficiently disposed his soul by practicing charity (and hence all the other infused virtues).

We could say that the gift of Wisdom is the perfection of charity: it presupposes charity, but through Wisdom, the Holy Spirit moves a man beyond what he could do only with the virtue of charity.


Why does the Eastern Orthodox Church dislike the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Son?

I don't think I could improve upon the summary at the Orthodox Wiki:

Objections on doctrinal grounds

It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.
The justifications for including the filioque in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."
The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.

Objections on canonical and historical grounds

Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of inserting the filioque into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at Nicea and its subsequent revision at Constantinople, the decision to include the filioque in the Creed was not done by an Ecumenical Council. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589).
Rome resisted the inclusion of the filioque for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the filioque began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in filioque. Later, however, Rome contradicted its previous more Orthodox stance by the promulgation of the filioque, thus anathematizing its own spiritual forebears.

Here's more on the ecclesiastical issue:

For Roman Catholics the Nicene Creed is under the Pope, not over the Pope.  When the Pope inserted the Filioque into the Nicene Creed a major realignment of ecclesial authority took place.  The Pope without the assent of the other historic patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and without convening an ecumenical council of bishops, unilaterally altered the Nicene Creed.  This was done even though the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431, Canon VII) forbade the creation of a new creed.  In essence, the Bishop of Rome was claiming a magisterium (teaching authority) equal to or superior to the Ecumenical Councils.  In exerting authority over the first three Ecumenical Councils the Pope was claiming authority over all Seven Ecumenical Councils.  Simply put, the Bishop of Rome, once first among equals, now claimed supremacy over all Christians, a startling departure from Tradition.  The emergence of a papal model of authority would in time clash with Orthodoxy’s conciliar model of authority.  Here we see how the Filioque lies at the root of the West-East Schism.

The Eastern Orthodox view, in contrast to the filioque, is that of the "monarchy of the Father." Here it is described by Fr. John Behr:

According to the Nicene creed, the Son is “consubstantial with the Father.” St Athanasius, the Father who did more than anyone else to forge Nicene orthodoxy, indicated that “what is said of the Father is said in Scripture of the Son also, all but His being called Father” (On the Synods, 49). It is important to note how respectful such theology is of the total otherness of God in comparison with creation: such doctrines are regulative of our theological language, not a reduction of God to a being alongside other beings. It is also important to note the essential asymmetry of the relation between the Father and the Son: the Son derives from the Father; He is, as the Nicene creed put it, “of the essence of the Father” – they do not both derive from one common source. This is what is usually referred to as the Monarchy of the Father.
St Athanasius also began to apply the same argument used for defending the divinity of the Son, to a defense of the divinity of the Holy Spirit: just as the Son Himself must be fully divine if He is to save us, for only God can save, so also must Holy Spirit be divine if He is to give life to those who lie in death. Again there is an asymmetry, one which also goes back to Scripture: we receive the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead as the Spirit of Christ, one which enables us to call on God as “Abba.” Though we receive the Spirit through Christ, the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, yet this already implies the existence of the Son, and therefore that the Spirit proceeds from the Father already in relation to the Son (see especially St Gregory of Nyssa, To Ablabius: That there are not Three Gods).
So there is one God and Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Spirit, three “persons” (hypostases) who are the same or one in essence (ousia); three persons equally God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really God, possessing the same natural properties, yet really distinct, known by their personal characteristics. Besides being one in essence, these three persons also exist in total one-ness or unity.


What is the Calvinist and Hyper-Calvinist understanding of the "whosoever will" from Rev. 22:17?

The term "hyper-Calvinist" is a moving target, due to its pejorative nature, but several historical theologians are widely considered to fall under that label.  I'll examine the views of two of them before moving to the position held by "traditional" Calvinists/reformed theologians.  Both groups see God working to change the will of the sinner, making him desire repentance and salvation.  But their understandings of who God calls to repentance differ.
"Hyper"-Calvinists
Two men commonly considered hyper-Calvinists were John Brine and John Gill.  They lived a century before Spurgeon, but they would have influenced Spurgeon's opponents.  John Brine in particular objects to interpreting the call of Revelation 22:17 universally:

The Offer of Christ [...] is not made to Men, as Men, or to Sinners, merely as Sinners; but it is made to them as convinced, thirsting, hungring Sinners after Christ, and his Righteousness, and his Salvation.
The Elect [...] are the only Persons to whom [Christ] is held forth in the Gospel for Acceptance: Because they only have Desires after him.

Brine's concern is that if the offer of Christ is made to all men, it would impugn the sincerity of God:

If it be said, that such is the Will and Design of God, then it must be allowed, that he is disappointed of his Purpose in making this Proposal, with respect to the far greater Number of those to whom the Offer is made: Which seems to me evidently inconsistent with the Perfections of God. (source)

John Gill's analysis of the verse is similar:

the persons encouraged to partake of it are "whosoever will"; that is, whoever has a will to divine and spiritual things, wrought in him by God, for no man has such a will of himself (source)

Gill thus limits the invitation to those who have the will to do so, as given by God.
"Traditional" Calvinists
Among those commonly considered "traditional" Calvinists (i.e., not "hyper"), it is widely agreed that there is a "universal call," that is, the Gospel invitation is to be presented to everyone, not merely to those who will respond to it.  However, some, like John MacArthur, still see Revelation 22's "whosoever will" as referring to those who have the God-given desire to come:

Whoever wants to, whoever desires to, whoever wishes to. You're thirsty and you wish to have your need met. That, by the way, is an unlimited invitation. Typical of the gracious and wide offer of salvation that you see in Scripture. It is essentially what Jesus said in John 6:37 where He said, "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out." If you're thirsty it's because the Father has begun to move on your heart and you've recognized your need. And if you come because you want to take the water, it's because you've been prompted to come and there's no way the Lord would ever turn you back. So whoever wants to come, He receives. (source)

Others, like Albert Barnes, suggest that the invitation of this passage is truly to "all," even those who do not wish to be saved:

Every one that is disposed to come, that has any sincere wish to be saved, is assured that he may live. No matter how unworthy he is; no matter what his past life has been [...] the invitation is freely made to all to come and be saved. (source)

Charles Hodge cites this passage in his more general argument regarding the extent of the invitation:

The Scriptures, therefore, in the most explicit terms teach that the external call of the gospel is addressed to all men. [...] We are commanded to make the offer of salvation through Jesus to every human being on the face of the earth.

But what about Brine's objection?  Hodge emphasizes the Scriptural evidence pointing to a universal call, and recognizes the incapacity of man to understand God's purposes.  He then responds:

What God’s purposes may be in instituting and promulgating this scheme of mercy, has nothing to do with our duty as ministers in making the proclamation, or with our obligation and privilege as sinners in accepting his proffered grace. If it is not inconsistent with the sincerity of God to command all men to love Him, it is not inconsistent with his sincerity to command them to repent and believe the gospel. (source)

In other words, we may not understand why God invites all but saves only some, but Scripture and experience prove this to be true. And if it is legitimate for God to command all to obey him, but not make them all obedient, then it is certainly legitimate for God to command all to repent but not make them repent.


Explore and Understand on Other Religions

God told Adam that to 'eat' of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was wrong and was deadly :

...of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die. [Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 2:17]

The serpentine spirit later misrepresented those words :

... of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest ye die. [Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 3:3]

It is neither forbidden nor fatal to 'touch' the knowledge of good and evil, that is to say to reach out and handle the knowledge of what is good and what is evil.
But it is catastrophically fatal to partake of such things - as a means of sustaining life, as a means of imbibing into oneself something in order to maintain life.

Great care must be taken in handling such things. One must realise that to 'eat' of them is absolutely dangerous and deadly.
But yes, they can be 'touched'.
Personally, I prefer not to, unless it is very necessary.