What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?

While the word Trinity does not occur in scripture, the concept and idea of the Trinity does, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.  A detailed treatment of the Trinity with linked references can be found on GodAndScience.org.
In the following scriptural quotes, all bold text is my emphasis (in fact, there is no use of italics or bold in scripture), and note I tend to link to the whole chapter so it's easy to see the verses in context).
Fair warning: This going to be long, and even so it is only scratching the surface of an understanding that typically seems to take decades for most Christians to grow into in their understanding of God.  The TL;DR answer begins with the heading for "God is Trinity"
God Is Plural
Let's examine the scriptures to speak to God's plurality, and then see if we can understand the way that one God can also be three.
The first hint you can see is in Genesis 1, at the end of Day 6 when God creates man:

Gen 1:26-27
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in
our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea
and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,
and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,     in the image
of God he created them; male and female he created them.

From this passage we could deduce that in some way, God is in some manner plural.  (We can also see that the image of God is both male and female, even though scripture consistently refers to the Godhead in the male gender).
Actually, though it's not obvious from the English, the first indication of plurality in God is in the very first verse in the Hebrew word for God:

The Hebrew word translated "God" is the word El or Elohim. Elohim is
the plural form of El. The plural form is used 2607 of the 2845 times
the word "God" is used in the Old Testament. Not only is the word for
God usually used in the plural form, but several verses refer to God
as "Us"
An example of how the Hebrew word Elohim is used in the plural is that
it is translated "gods" (referring to idols) 235 times in the Old
Testament. It is exactly the same word that is translated "God,"
referring to the Almighty. An example is given below:
"I am the LORD your God [Elohim], who brought you out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of slavery. "You shall have no other gods
[Elohim] before Me. (Exodus 20:2-3)
Rich Deem (God and Science.org)

The Son is God
There are a huge number of verses in scripture that ascribe the same divine attributes to both the Father and the Son.  But to me, more "obvious" are the scriptures which state Jesus is God, outright.

Mat 1:23
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

John 1 speaks not only to Jesus (the Word) being God, but that all that was created was created through him (Jesus).

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
...
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

And the letter to the Colossians gives us to know that Jesus is fully God, speaking of the risen Lord (notice the present tense):

Col 2:9
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

Many more scriptures that speak to the deity of Jesus can be found here.
The Holy Spirit is God
Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as a person, on equal footing with himself and his Father:

John 14:25-27
25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

(by the way, in case you have ever wondered, this "remind[ing] you of everything I have said to you" is how the disciples recalled and recorded the Gospels so accurately and in such detail; it was through the Holy Spirit.)
And again, in the following chapters:

John 15:26
26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
John 16:12-15
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

For a fuller treatment of the Holy Spirit's deity and person, see here.
God Is One
So, having now seen that there are three persons in this God we serve, why do Christians then claim that there is but one God?  Again, it's because this is what God has revealed in the scriptures:

Deut 6:4-5
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

This verse from Deuteronomy is especially interesting because the same plural-form word for God is used: Yahweh Elohim, followed immediately by the declaration that he is one.
In the New Testament, we read:

1 Cor 8:4
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.

Again, more references can be found here.
But God is Trinity
Although the word "trinity" is not used, scripture does seem to teach three distinct persons who are identified as God, such as:

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
Mat 28:18-20

So, scripture teaches us that God is both one, and at the same time three.  How can this be?  First you must accept that finite man cannot fully comprehend the nature and being of an infinite God.  The Trinity is a mystery - we can wrestle with it, we can approach it, we can apprehend it in our hearts, but ultimately our mind ends up only loosely understanding, like trying to wrap your mind around the concept of infinity.
Of particular concern is trying to explain God by use of analogy, these always break down, and I have never heard one to even remotely adequate to fully picture of the Trinity as alluded to in scripture (they give us a glimpse, but taken alone the picture is nearly always of a heretical understanding).
I have struggled with the idea of the Trinity all my journey, but recently I read Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity, which I found very helpful.  He does not attempt to explain by analogy, but describes God as being one nature shared by three persons.  I will end with some quotes from his book (emphasis Sheed's):

The notion is unfortunately widespread that the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is a mystery of mathematics, that is to say, of how one can equal three.  The plain Christian accepts the doctrine of the Trinity; the "advanced" Christian rejects it; but too often what is being accepted by one and rejected by the other is that one equals three.
...
The short statement of the doctrine is, as we have heard it all our lives, that there are three persons in one nature. But if we attach no meaning to the word person, and no meaning to the word nature, then both the nouns have dropped out of our definition, and we are left of with the numbers three and one, and get by as best we can with these.
...
The doctrine may be set out in four statements:

In the one divine nature, there are three persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father: no one of the persons is the either of the others.

The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

There are not three Gods, but one God.

...
We are not saying three persons in one person, or three natures in one nature; we are saying three persons in one nature.  There is not even the appearance of an arithmetical problem.  It is for us to see what person is and what nature is, and the to consider what meaning there can be in a nature totally possessed by three distinct persons.
...
Nature answers the question what we are; person answers the question who we are.


The name "Lucifer" appears only once in the Bible, in Isaiah (KJV), where he alludes to the tale (which we can assume is already known to his Jewish audience at that time) of the great Lucifer having fallen from heaven, being cast down and looked upon with contempt, in order to draw a parallel to the king of Babylon and his kingdom's impending fall.

Lucifer means "morning star", which is used various times and in various ways in the Bible, including by Christ to refer to himself at one point in Revelation.  But see Job 38 (RSVCE), where it says that when the foundations of the world were laid, "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."  I think this is the closest we have in the Bible to a passage equating Lucifer with an angel.

It's important to note that both of these passages are highly poetic in nature, as is the third, the story of the Dragon in Revelation, who is cast out of heaven and makes war with the Church, who is equated to Satan.  If the dragon cast out of heaven is the same as Lucifer the Morning Star cast out of heaven, then he is Satan.  But it's difficult to say anything for certain, going only on Biblical authority.


How do protestant youth group ministers reach apathetic parents of religious education students?

My Background

That... entirely depends. I am a former Protestant and have spent several years helping in Catholic youth ministry. My wife is a former DRE and now acts as a consultant DRE/retreat coordinator for a couple of parishes. We often talk about how those parishes run their ministry and how it might be improved.

What I did as a Protestant

One major difference: a lot of the youth-oriented ministry happens in parallel or in the stead of Sunday services. Sunday School is something very foreign to the Catholic Church, even when "children's liturgy of the word" is available. Much, if not most, catechesis happens during that period. This model means that if the parents don't go to church, neither do the kids. In that sense, outreach to parents is outreach to kids.

There will often be other ministries which meet and try to bring kids in. In the church I was raised in, it was not unheard of for parents to have limited or no involvement in these groups (or in the church as a whole). Come to think of it, I remember that one's parental involvement could be summarized: "drop the kids off." The impression I got was that the purpose of the ministry was for the kids and the youth minister would do his best to talk with kids outside of that if the kids wanted to.

I remember another ministry that was purely focused on giving kids a safe, drug free place to hang out. There would be a testimony at one point in the evening, but it didn't really exist for the purpose of catechesis.

Why whole-family is particularly important to Catholics

I think that it also might be important to note why there is an emphasis on family catechesis in the Catholic Church. Unlike many Protestant denominations where the accepted doctrine is, "know your Bible," the Catholic Church has a defined set of dogmas which cannot really be disagreed with (well, you can disagree, but you're wrong). This places a special emphasis on getting parents to be aware of what the Church teaches.

Additionally, there are many people who were Catholic at some point, but then faded. However, they still want their kids to receive the sacraments (this phenomenon does not frequently occur in Protestant settings, because, for the most part, there is no major sacrament between baptism and marriage). Whole family catechesis, as a requirement, affords the catechetical ministries of the Church the opportunity to preach to these people and try to get them to at least think about what it means to be Catholic and why they want their kids to receive the sacraments to begin with.

As a final note, the whole-family models are most often associated with sacramental preparation. Many Catholic churches will offer ministries which are similar to the youth ministry I grew up in. While these ministries will actively seek adult volunteers (parents are great at helping set up and tear down, let me tell you), more often the focus is on helping the teenagers grow in their faith, even it the teen is not Catholic (I knew one girl who was baptized because of one of these programs) or does not have Catholic family (all too often).


Who was St. Joseph's Father? The New Testament seems to give two answers

The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can be seen to present Christ as King, Servant, Man, and God (in that order). See E.W. Bullinger's wonderful book Number in Scriptures for more on this topic (the chapter on the number seven).

As Bullinger puts it, a king must have a genealogy, and a man should have one. You'll notice that Matthew's genealogy starts with Abraham and goes down to Joseph, while Luke's genealogy proceeds up from Joseph to Adam and God. Matthews lineage describes the royal lineage through Solomon, while Luke's lineage describes the natural line through Nathan (Solomon's older brother, the third of four sons to David and Bathsheba - see I Chronicles 3:5). The first (Matthew's) is legal, the latter (Luke's) is natural.

Both lines eventually meet when Joseph, the son of Jacob (Matthew) marries Mary, the daughter of Heli (Luke). Luke 3:23 refers to Joseph as being the son of Heli out of the Jewish legal sanction and customary practice to refer to the son-in-law as son.

To summarize, Matthew's is the genealogy of Joseph, son of Jacob. Luke's is the genealogy of Mary, daughter of Heli.

Source: EW Bullinger's Number in Scriptures


The word (λόγος) of John 1 is not a person but the Gospel of eternal life as the Apostle John says in the opening of his first Epistle: "What (ὅ) was from the beginning (cf. John 1:1), what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have beheld, and our hands have reached out for concerning the word (λόγος) of life (cf. John 1:4). And the life was revealed, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father (cf. John 1:2) and was revealed unto us."
Regarding the word being called "theos," it could also be understood as being qualitative here (i.e. the word was "God-like" or "godly"). The idea is that the word is expressive of God.


According to Bible scholar B. F. Westcott, this is likely a Greek to English mistranslation, not a Hebrew to Greek mistranslation. Based on the context of the verse, he believes a better rendering would be: "God is Thy throne" or "Thy throne is God".
He says (bold mine, italics original):

The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho the·osʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·osʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·himʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·osʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’
—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

There is at least one Bible translation which uses this rendering: the New World Translation.

God is your throne forever and ever;
The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.
You loved righteousness, and you hated wickedness.
That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.
—Psalm 45:6, 7
But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
—Hebrews 1:8, 9

Jehovah's Witnesses have also published an article discussing this translation of Hebrews 1:8.

RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)
Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, thy God,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon Jehovah’s throne.” (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.


Why are there Sibyls and Prophetesses in the Sistine Chapel?

There is a history to those Sibyl.
First of all, the word Sibyl means Prophetess, and this word was originated from Greek.

Erythrean Sibyl appears as the one who has prophesied the Redemption in arts.
Persian Sibyl seems to be the priestess who occupied over Apollo Oracle.
Libyan Sibyl was priestess who was the presiding over Zeus Ammon Oracle.
Cumaean Sibyl was the pristess who were the head of the Apollo Oracle at Cumae.
Delphic Sibyl was a figure who made prophecies at Delphi.

In short, they are in a way not related to the Christianity. However, the reason for them to be depicted at the ceiling is because some of their prophecy was in a way related to the prophesying the coming of Christ. For example, Cumaean Sibyl was told to be declaring a new progeny of Heaven would bring about a return of the "Golden Age". This was thought of prophesying the coming of Christ.


According to Catholic Tradition - Was Jesus' experience on Earth scripted? Or did human actors shape it?

First Answering

Q. According to Catholic Tradition - Was Jesus' experience on Earth scripted?
No it wasn't, but it followed a known 'script'.

Q. Or did human actors shape it?
Yes they did.

Q. Specifically: According to Catholic Tradition - Were the people who came into contact with Jesus acting of their own free will?
Yes they were.

Q. Specifically: Or did God "move" them to act in a certain way to fulfill prophecies and lay the foundation for the Gospels?
God moved - but did not force - those acting in accordance to his will, but not those acting contrary to his will. In the latter, the way it is described is 'he allowed' them to act they way they did. In both cases, the actors remain[ed] free.

  [T]here is no predetermination by the Divine of what the human will
  freely chooses; it is not because God foreknows (having foredecreed) a
  certain free act that that act takes place, but God foreknows it in
  the first instance because as a matter of fact it is going to take
  place[.] - Please see below.

[Attempted] Explanation Second

Starting with 'why is man free?'

  cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1743
  "God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel
  (cf. Sir
  15:14),
  so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain
  his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him" (GS 17 § 1).

From Free Will | New Advent please note that:

  (2) Theology studies the questions of the existence, nature and
  attributes of God, and His relations with man. The reconciliation of
  God's fore-knowledge and universal providential government of the
  world with the contingency of human action, as well as the harmonizing
  of the efficacy of supernatural grace with the free natural power of
  the creature, has been amongst the most arduous labours of the
  theological student from the days of St. Augustine down to the present
  time.

The Jesuit school — with whom probably a majority of independent theologians agree, say:

  God knows in the scientia media what Peter would do if in given
  circumstances he were to receive a certain aid, and this before any
  absolute decree to give that aid is supposed. Thus there is no
  predetermination by the Divine of what the human will freely chooses;
  it is not because God foreknows (having foredecreed) a certain free
  act that that act takes place, but God foreknows it in the first
  instance because as a matter of fact it is going to take place; He
  knows it as a hypothetical objective fact before it becomes an object
  of the scientia visionis — or rather this is how, in order to
  safeguard human liberty, we must conceive Him as knowing it. It was
  thus, for example, that Christ knew what would have been the results
  of His ministry among the people of Tyre and Sidon. But one must be
  careful to avoid implying that God's knowledge is in any way dependent
  on creatures, as if He had, so to speak, to await the actual event in
  time before knowing infallibly what a free creature may choose to do.
  From eternity He knows, but does not predetermine the creature's
  choice. And if it be asked how we can conceive this knowledge to exist
  antecedently to and independently of some act of the Divine will, on
  which all things contingent depend, we can only say that the objective
  truth expressed by the hypothetical facts in question is somehow
  reflected in the Divine Essence, which is the mirror of all truth, and
  that in knowing Himself God knows these things also. Whichever way we
  turn we are bound ultimately to encounter a mystery, and, when there
  is a question of choosing between a theory which refers the mystery
  to God Himself and one which only saves the truth of human freedom
  by making free-will itself a mystery, most theologians naturally
  prefer the former alternative. - cf. The Nature and Attributes of
  God | New Advent

PS The Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition note on Mk 14:12-21 (RSVCE) is:

  Jesus' initiative in giving instructions for preparation of the
  Passover (vv. 13-16) and, particularly, the mysterious warning in v.21
  show how intricately God's plan and human actions connect up: "Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate
  coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's
  plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first
  sermon on Pentecost: 'This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the
  definite plan and foreknowledge of God' (Acts 2:23
  (RSVCE)).
  This biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over
  were mere passive players in a scenario written in advance by God"
  (CCC,
  599).


What is an example of a deductive argument that Biblical Unitarians would present to prove that Jesus is not God?

There are a large number of arguments that can be made from a Biblical Unitarian standpoint that Jesus is not God. Although I am skeptical of deductive arguments such as you are looking for (and prefer multiple lines of probabilistic reasoning that point towards a conclusion, instead), here is one that is easily transferred to that format (taken from Jesus is the Son of God; not God the Son, a Biblical Unitarian site).

"Jesus and God have separate wills. Jesus prayed to God, “not my will,
but yours, be done” (Luke 22:42 ESV; cp. John 5:30). If Jesus and the
Father are the same “one God,” then they would have one will."

God cannot have a will different from His own will.
If two persons are both God, therefore those two persons will have the same will.
Jesus and the Father's wills are at times different.
Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Trinitarians of course can respond to this, by saying things like 'Jesus has two wills', one his divine nature and one his human nature. Only the human nature is in conflict. And so on, and so on (as the link referenced above goes on to note).
The question for me isn't whether any one argument is logically seal-proof (virtually no argument is, for anything), but how the arguments taken together weigh against the counter-arguments.
The major line of argument by Biblical Unitarians isn't that there are 100% deductive arguments in their favour (although I think some get pretty close, and requires a 'God is ultimately a mystery we cannot understand' response), but that the scriptural evidence strongly leans in favour of Jesus not being God.
Again, for argument after argument that Jesus is not God, you can see the page linked above. You could transform basically all these points into a more formal style.


What is the Biblical basis against the omnipresence of Satan?

After some study, I can conclude that there is no biblical evidence for Satan being omnipresent.

God is omnipresent

in the sense that where ever we go, He is there:

  Psalm 139:7-8
  Where shall I go, away from Your Spirit, And where shall I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, there You are.

And also in the sense that He fills all in all:

  Ephesians 1:22-23 "And He subjected all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is His body, the fulness of the One who fills all in all."

Satan is not omnipresent

Satan, on the other hand, is cast out of heaven in Revelation 12, showing he has a physical presence which can be limited:

  Revelation 12:7   And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels went to war with the dragon. And the dragon warred and his angels.

  12:8   And they did not prevail, neither was their place found any longer in heaven.

  12:9   And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him.

The Bible also never says that Satan fills all things, but only that he can enter specific people for a purpose, the same as all evil spirits:

  Luke 22:3-4   And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot and was of the number of the twelve. And he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers as to how he might deliver Him up to them.

  Acts 5:3   But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to deceive the Holy Spirit and to put aside for yourself some of the proceeds of the land?


Apostolic Succession in the Catholic church

The other apostles are associated with other Churches. St Mark, for example, was the founder of the Church of Alexandria; St Thomas is believed to have taken Christianity to India; and so on. Only St John the Evangelist did not die a martyr in a far-off place (at least, Patmos isn't as far as India).

Accordingly, most of the other apostles do not have such a place as Peter's within the Roman Church, but they do have a similar position as Patriarchs of the Churches they founded.


Why do Christians thank God for specific things?

I don't know if this is a constructive question per the site's definition.  It is right on the line between being a "Pastoral Advice" question and something that can be answered doctrinally,  but since it can be answered partly based on Scripture (and partly based on subjective reasons) and the fact that these principles are generally applicable and agreed upon my Christians of all walks, I'll give it a shot.

The most probable reason is also the most subjective:  Because we are appreciative and thankful for specific things.

Addressing your request that is simple enough for a child to understand, the above is probably simple enough for a child under the age of five or so.  The rest is probably too much for that age, but may be OK for kids that are older.  It helps if they know the verses, and the rest explains things in more human terms, using the verses as a framework.

It's the same reason my kids thank me when I surprise them with a trip to the park to play, or a trip to the ice cream shop.  It's why I thank my wife when she cleans up a mess the kids made so I don't have to or vice-versa. Because we understand the value of little things, and because we love each other and want each other to know we are appreciated.  If we love God, we'll do the same.  It's just a natural extension of love and a thankful spirit.

As far as reasons that can be backed up Scripturally:  (These Scriptures lay out principles that tie in to the ideas in the more subjective section that follows them.)

  1 Thessalonians 5:18 (King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.))

  In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus
  concerning you.

  James 1:17 (King James Version)

  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down
  from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither
  shadow of turning.

The meat of your question seems to be in this area: If we believe in free will, how can we think that God gave us each individual specific thing, so I'll address that here.

Note that the belief in free will does not nullify the preceding Scripture.  The belief in free will is one of the foundational beliefs in my perspective, but I still believe all good things come from God.

To those of us that believe that sin and suffering are a  result of man's free will, it doesn't nullify the fact that in order for something "bad" to happen, God has to allow it to happen.  There's a difference between allowing something to happen and causing something to happen.  In His sovereignty, He is certainly capable of intervening to stop a situation, or to manipulate the situation to alter our decisions.

We don't deny His sovereignty. Free will isn't incompatible with the Sovereignty of God from an Arminian perspective.

With this, we also accept that the good things come because He has allowed it, or that He has caused circumstances to be such that that the good things have come from Him.

Getting back to more general reasons we give thanks for every little thing, now that the above portion has been addressed...

  1 Thessalonians 5:17   King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

  Pray without ceasing.

The last one may not be obvious to everyone as far as why it's relevant here, but one of the easiest ways to pray throughout the day is to simply get in the habit of praying a quick prayer of thanks for the little things, like the ones you're asking about.  Getting back to the subjective (but remaining in the realm of common sense that most people would agree with)... This is a wonderful way to keep God in your thoughts, to keep your relationship strong.

It also helps us to cultivate that thankful, loving, and kind spirity that we Christians should have.

More subjective - applied psychology or common sense, take your pick

As a side note, keeping God in our hearts and being thankful is a great way to help us to resist temptation to sin.  If we are constantly thinking of how great God is, and keeping an inventory of the good things He has done for us (great and small), when temptation arises, we should be thinking "If God has done all this for me, how can I possibly want to do this and make Him angry.

This is what we should feel for our employers if we think of stealing from them, or what our kids should think of us before they do something that will make us ashamed of them.  It's simply not wanting to hurt/shame/dishonor someone you love.

Saying constant prayers of thanks helps us to remember that He does do those things for us.  And the more we love and appreciate Him, the less we should want to hurt Him, dishonor Him, or know that He is ashamed of us.

Finally, we shouldn't be just thankful for the "good" things in our lives.  We should be thankful for everything, even those things that we don't think are good right now.

  *Romans 8:28 (KJV) King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)*

  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love
  God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

If we truly believe that verse, then we will understand that even the painful things that happen to us are in accordance with His will, and that He will use those things for good.  Keeping that in mind helps us to avoid becoming bitter, it helps us to understand our relationship with Him. (He is God, we are merely created beings subject to His will), and it reminds us to trust Him, having Faith that He will keep His word.  Most Christian denominations teach that trials and tribulation purifies us - they make us stronger.  We should be thankful for that, as well.  That's a bit harder to do.


What traditions fully embrace the concept of a "local parish church"?

The Church of England falls into the "partial" category. There is a parish system of around 13000 parishes in England [that's not Wales or Scotland, which have their own autonomous Churches] each with at least one parish church.
Residents in the parish can be baptised in their parish church; baptised people can be married in their parish church; people who die can have a funeral either in the church of the parish where they die or where they lived.
There are some exceptions which extend these permissions. Residents can be baptised in another church with their parish priest's permission. There are "qualifying connections" which can be made with other churches to allow marriage — for example where your parents have worshipped. And there is nothing stopping you from attending church outside your parish and joining the electoral roll of the church you attend. That effectively makes you a parishioner.
Because the Church of England is a broad church with a variety of liturgical practice [and associated theological belief] it's not uncommon for people to "shop around" to find a church which suits them.
The church where I was churchwarden* had a particular ministry to its little bit of the country, an urban situation with a high population of poor and homeless people.
Shameless plug: Go to this map on A Church Near You and enter your location. The parish of the place you select is highlighted, together with local churches. I'm responsible for some of the coding behind that. If you're very lucky you may even find a parish with more than one non-contiguous area, or a tract of land which is not in any parish at all. Anyone resident in such an extra-parochial place can attach themselves to an adjacent parish. The map is intended to provide a service for potential churchgoers to find their local church, or for engaged couples to find their parish church (in order to simplify the process of a church wedding).

*Churchwarden: an ancient layman's elected office in the Church of England with particular legal responsibilities for finance, buildings, ministry and parochial management.


What reasons does the Bible give for why the tribe of Levi was chosen to have the priesthood and temple duties?

Audrey's answer is correct, and here is the quote. The Levites remained loyal and restored order when the people were worshiping the Golden Calf. They killed 3,000 of their fellow Israelites, which set them apart.

19 When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing,
his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking
them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. 20 And he took the calf
the people had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to
powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.
21 He said to Aaron, “What did these people do to you, that you led
them into such great sin?”
22 “Do not be angry, my lord,” Aaron answered. “You know how prone
these people are to evil. 23 They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will
go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt,
we don’t know what has happened to him.’ 24 So I told them, ‘Whoever
has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I
threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!”
25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let
them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their
enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever
is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.
27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel,
says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through
the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and
friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that
day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You
have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own
sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.” (Exodus 32:19-29)

You are also correct about Genesis 49:5-7 being relevant. This was the time when their violence served the Lord, and the curse upon them was turned into blessing. They received no inheritance of land, but instead inherited the priesthood.


How common were blasphemy accusations and trials among the Jews during the time of Jesus?

Based upon the Talmudic statement that if a Bet Din (high court) convicted one person to death they were a bloody body, it would seem to me that killing someone even for blasphemy was uncommon and loathed.
The Mishnah states that a sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years — or seventy years, according to Eleazar ben Azariah — is considered bloodthirsty.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism

Furthermore in the gospels it is recorded that the Jews had lost the right to capital punishment and that is why Jesus was sent to Pilate.

The Sanhedrin stopped issuing capital punishment either after the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE or alternatively, according to passages in the Talmud and New Testament, in 30 CE when the Sanhedrin were moved out of the Hall of Hewn Stones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism

When Caponius was appointed Procurated (around 7 A.D.), the legal power of the Sanhedrin was restricted and adjudication of capital offenses was lost. Cf. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2:8; Antiquities 20:9.
http://forums.jewsforjesus.org/thread-9793.html


Does the taxpayer take any part in funding Christian Churches in Britain?

It is a common misconception that the Church of England budget comes from the government. In fact, most of their money comes from individual donations or bequests, or from investments (including rent on land they own). The same is true for other UK churches which are not "established".

Churches and their ministers / employees may enjoy favourable tax status - often, they are organized under charity law. They may collect Gift Aid, a scheme where you give money to the charity, and the charity is able to reclaim a proportion of that from the tax you pay. In addition, churches may receive specific government funding for the upkeep of historic buildings, for running schools, and so on. But almost all of this is not specific to their status as churches.


If you request and receive pastoral advice from a priest, are you culpable if the advice is wrong?

This question seems to be a variant on the question of whether ignorance excuses from sin. In this case: "Does ignorance that the priest's advice is conducive to sin excuse one from sinning by acting on his advice?"

St. Thomas answers the question of whether ignorance excuses from sin in his Summa Theologica I-II q. 76 a. 3 c.:

  Ignorance, by its very nature, renders the act which it causes involuntary. Now it has already been stated (Articles [1],2) that ignorance is said to cause the act which the contrary knowledge would have prevented; so that this act, if knowledge were to hand, would be contrary to the will, which is the meaning of the word involuntary. If, however, the knowledge, which is removed by ignorance, would not have prevented the act, on account of the inclination of the will thereto, the lack of this knowledge does not make that man unwilling, but not willing, as stated in Ethic. iii, 1: and such like ignorance which is not the cause of the sinful act, as already stated, since it does not make the act to be involuntary, does not excuse from sin. The same applies to any ignorance that does not cause, but follows or accompanies the sinful act.

  On the other hand, ignorance which is the cause of the act, since it makes it to be involuntary, of its very nature excuses from sin, because voluntariness is essential to sin. But it may fail to excuse altogether from sin, and this for two reasons:

  on the part of the thing itself which is not known. For ignorance excuses from sin, in so far as something is not known to be a sin. Now it may happen that a person ignores some circumstance of a sin, the knowledge of which circumstance would prevent him from sinning, whether it belong to the substance of the sin, or not; and nevertheless his knowledge is sufficient for him to be aware that the act is sinful; for instance, if a man strike someone, knowing that it is a man (which suffices for it to be sinful) and yet be ignorant of the fact that it is his father, (which is a circumstance constituting another species of sin); or, suppose that he is unaware that this man will defend himself and strike him back, and that if he had known this, he would not have struck him (which does not affect the sinfulness of the act). Wherefore, though this man sins through ignorance, yet he is not altogether excused, because, not withstanding, he has knowledge of the sin.
  this may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know. Consequently this ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin. If, however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether.

So, a person asking a priest who is known to permit or advise adultery, for example, is "as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things"—e.g., of how a more faithful priest would advise him. This person would sin in following the unfaithful priest's advice.

But it is a different situation if the person learns what he can about his situation, consults several priests, etc., and acts on the lawful knowledge and advice he obtained from the priests.

Also,

  Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God rather than men."

cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's question "Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 104 a. 5)

Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Libertas:

  …where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God.

and his encyclical Diuturnum:

  The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," [Matt. 22:21.] and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men." [Acts 5:29] And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.

If one seriously does not know his priest's or other superior's command or "pastoral advice" is unlawful, "contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God," then the superior will be more at fault.


Is the ASV Bible public domain in the UK?

Even though KJV is still under UK copyright until 2039, ASV is not.
KJV copyright status according to wikipedia:

Public domain in most of the world. Crown copyright in the United Kingdom due to crown letters patent until 2039, and all countries which have international mutual copyright recognition agreements.

ASV copyright status according to wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Copyright: Copyright expired
...
In 1901, after the 15-year deferral agreement between the American and British Revisers expired, and the Revised Version, Standard American Edition, as the ASV Bible was officially called at the time, was published by Thomas Nelson & Sons. It was copyrighted in North America to ensure the purity of the ASV text. In 1928, the International Council of Religious Education (the body that later merged with the Federal Council of Churches to form the National Council of Churches) acquired the copyright from Nelson and renewed it the following year. The copyright was a reaction to tampering with the text of the Revised Version by some U.S. publishers, as noted above. By the time the ASV's copyright expired for the final time in 1957,5 interest in this translation had largely waned in the light of newer and more recent ones, and textual corruption hence never became the issue with the ASV that it had with the RV.


If Eastern Orthodoxy sees marriage as an eternal and unbreakable bond, why do they permit divorce?

First, it is important to give some context to the allowance in the Orthodox Church for remarriage. Subsequent marriages are always considered "penitential"; only the first marriage is considered to have the high esteem that the Wikipedia article mentions.  In terms that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church would use, only the first marriage is sacramental.  Theologically speaking, the Orthodox Church doesn't approve of subsequent marriages, but merely tolerates them, as a concession to our fallen and broken human nature.

Why does the Orthodox Church tolerate subsequent marriages?  It is hard to escape the conclusion that this practice was foisted upon them by the Byzantine Empire's law, and simply continued to exist to the present day because of historical practice.

But the question doesn't ask about remarriage.  Instead, it asks about divorce.  I think it can be argued that generally the reason why divorce is sought most of the time is precisely so that one of the parties may remarry, and thus my answer above stands: divorce that was a precursor to remarriage was foisted upon the Orthodox Church by an Emperor who wanted to divorce his first wife, and then simply expanded from there.

However, it must be admitted that even the Catholic Church allows divorce in some extreme cases.  One such instance might be if there is significant physical abuse between the spouses and/or their children --- and divorce is the only way to protect innocent lives (or their physical health).  Christian charity demands that in such extreme cases one does what is possible for the protection of innocents.  In such cases, all Christians (including the Orthodox Christians) would have allowances for separation, and even civil divorce if that is the only way to secure important legal rights --- such as child support, etc.  But in the eyes of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches the civil divorce has no effect in the "mystical" marriage itself.  Where the Catholic Church parts ways with the Orthodox Church is in the latter's allowing of remarriage.

So, a partial answer as to why the Orthodox allow divorce: as a precursor to remarriage --- which they have historically allowed, even if grudgingly; as necessary for self-protection --- just like the Catholic Church --- for sure; and what else?  I am sure they would have jurisprudence on what other circumstances would count as serious enough to break the visible union of husband and wife (even if not the sacramental marriage bond between them).


According to Catholics when were names added to The Book of Life?

St Thomas Aquinas covers this question (more-or-less) and I don't think you're going to find this in the Catechism.  I think someone smarter than me will have to interpret it for you.

Therefore those who are ordained to possess eternal life through divine predestination are written down in the book of life simply, because they are written therein to have eternal life in reality; such are never blotted out from the book of life. Those, however, who are ordained to eternal life, not through divine predestination, but through grace, are said to be written in the book of life not simply, but relatively, for they are written therein not to have eternal life in itself, but in its cause only.

So there's two times when the writing takes place once for those who St. Paul called predestined:

For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:29

and once for those who drink the waters of eternal life later on.

but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
John 4:14

And the writing in the book, St. Thomas says should be taken in the Metaphorical sense:

The book of life is in God taken in a metaphorical sense, according to a comparison with human affairs. For it is usual among men that they who are chosen for any office should be inscribed in a book; as, for instance, soldiers, or counsellors, who formerly were called "conscript" fathers


Why is the Nation of Israel called Israel and not Abraham?

God did promise the land of Canaan to Abraham. For example God says to Abram (Abraham) in Genesis 17:8:

  The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will
  give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after
  you; and I will be their God.

However, a few verses earlier, God said that Abraham would be "the father of many nations":

  Abram fell facedown, and God said to him,  "As for me, this is my
  covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer
  will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made
  you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will
  make nations of you, and kings will come from you." (Genesis 17:3-6)

Israel (another name for Jacob) was only one of those nations. It would not give due respect to Abraham, the father of many nations, to name only one of those nations after him. For a chart of the nations descended from Abraham based on the names of his descendants in the Bible, see The Genealogy of Abraham.

Isaac was the father of two nations, the Israelites and the Edomites, so the land of Israel could not be named after him, either.

Jacob, or Israel, was the father of a single nation composed of twelve tribes. In the Bible story, that nation conquered and adopted as its homeland Canaan and the transjordan valley. So his name is applied to that nation rather than the name of Abraham or Isaac.

According to the biblical story, later, when that nation began to fall away from faithfulness to God, it broke up into two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, each of which acted as a separate nation. However, the promise to the Patriarchs--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--is seen as fulfilled in the reign of King David, under whom a unified nation of Israel reached its greatest extent.


What is a year dedicated to a certain saint or something else?

What is a special year of a certain saint?
The response to your inquiry is very closely related to celebrating jubilees!
Every once and awhile, the pope (for the Universal Catholic Church) or a bishop (for the faithful of his particular diocese) may declare a special year dedicated to to a particular saint or Divine Mystery for a number of reasons.
During such years, the pope will outline special devotional practices in order to gain indulgences (either plenary or partial) depending on the will of the Holy Father for the particular year of dedication! As a title of example, the rules for devotional practices which could be gained for the Great Jubilee of the year 2000 can be found in this article: The Gift of the Indulgence.
The most common reason is to draw attention to an historical milestone in since the birth or death of a particular saint, or the centennial or bicentennial of some historical event or to some Divine Mystery such as the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

By far the most well known Jubilee Year in honour of a saint is celebrated in Santiago de Compostela whenever July 25, the day of St. James the Greater, falls on a Sunday.

The Compostela Holy Year
What it consists of and its history:
A Jubilee Year is celebrated in Santiago de Compostela whenever July 25, the day of Santiago the Elder, falls on a Sunday.
A Jubilee Year is celebrated in Santiago de Compostela whenever July 25, the day of Santiago the Elder, falls on a Sunday. This happens with a time sequence of six, five, six and eleven years. The creation of the Holy Year in Santiago goes back to the XV century. It is believed that the first one in history could have been the Jubilee Year of 1428, or perhaps 1434, both convened by Archbishop Lope de Mendoza.
However, before the Holy Year of Compostela became official, during the Middle Ages, the pilgrims could obtain numerous indulgences in Santiago, granted by the Church of Compostela in representation of the Apostle, the advocate of his pilgrims before the Supreme Judge. The indulgences are spiritual benefits for the pilgrim himself or for an ill or a deceased person represented by the pilgrim.
As from the creation of the Holy Year, the same grace could be obtained by the pilgrims who, in a normal year, visited the Cathedral on July 25, the feast day of the Passion of Santiago, or on the feast day of the Dedication of the Cathedral, every April 21, or on the feast day of the Transfer of the Body of the Apostle to Galicia, every December 30. This reduced the pressure provoked by the concentration of pilgrims on one day in summer, July 25, by convening the pilgrims in spring and winter too.
The last four Holy Years were 1993, 1999, 2004 and 2010. The next July 25 which will fall on a Sunday will be in 2021.
During all the year, the pilgrims who wish can obtain the plenary indulgence (forgiveness for their sins) during any day of that year. Achieving the plenary indulgence is what is known as the Jubilee. To do so, the pilgrims must comply with a number of precepts laid down by the Church such as visiting the Cathedral of Santiago, praying and receiving the Sacraments of Penance (Confession) and Communion.

The Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Spain houses the largest largest censer in the world, weighing 80 kilograms (180 lb) and measuring 1.60 metres (5.2 ft) in height.

In the Jubilee Years (whenever St James's Day falls on a Sunday) the Botafumeiro is also used in all the Pilgrims' Masses. Eight red-robed tiraboleiros pull the ropes and bring it into a swinging motion almost to the roof of the transept, reaching speeds of 80 kilometres per hour (50 mph) and dispensing thick clouds of incense.

The swinging Botafumeiro dispensing clouds of incense

Pope declares year of St. Joseph, offering special indulgences

Pope Francis on Tuesday issued a decree launching a special year dedicated to St. Joseph coinciding the anniversary of his declaration as Patron of the Catholic Church, hailing him as a model of fatherhood and a key intercessor in modern times.
Published Dec. 8, on the 150th anniversary of Quemadmodum Deus by Pope Pius IX which declared St. Joseph patron of the Catholic Church, the decree formally instituted a year for St. Joseph, which will run until Dec. 8, 2021.

These special year anniversaries usually carry with them certain indulgences accorded by the reigning pope or a bishop’s permission (with papal approval).
In the year of the Lord 1967, to commemorate the 19th centenary of the martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul, a Year of Faith was proclaimed by the Pope St. Paul VI, “intended to show, by an authentic and sincere profession of the same faith, how much the essential content that for centuries has formed the heritage of all believers needs to be confirmed, understood and explored ever anew, so as to bear consistent witness in historical circumstances very different from those of the past”.
These sort of special years of commemoration are closely connected to Catholic understandings as to what constitutes a jubilee celebration.

Holy Year of Jubilee
The ultimate derivation of the word jubilee is disputed, but it is most probable that the Hebrew jobel, to which it is traced, meant "a ram's horn", and that from this instrument, used in proclaiming the celebration, a certain idea of rejoicing was derived. Further, passing through the Greek iobelaios, or iobelos, the word became confused with the Latin jubilo, which means "to shout", and has given us the forms jubilatio and jubilaeum, now adopted in most European languages.
Old Testament origins
For the Israelites (see HEBREW YEAR OF JUBILEE), the year of Jubilee was in any case preeminently a time of joy, the year of remission or universal pardon. "Thou shalt sanctify the fiftieth year," we read in Leviticus 25:10, "and shalt proclaim remission to all the inhabitants of thy land: for it is the year of jubilee." Every seventh year, like every seventh day, was always accounted holy and set aside for rest, but the year which followed seven complete cycles was to be kept as a sabbatical year of special solemnity. The Talmudists and others afterwards disputed whether the Jubilee Year was the forty-ninth or the fiftieth year, the difficulty being that in the latter case two sabbatical years must have been observed in succession. Further, there are historical data which seem to show that in the age of the Machabees the Jubilee of the fiftieth year could not have been kept, for 164-163 B.C. and 38-37 B.C. were both certainly sabbatical years, which they could not have been if two sabbatical years had been intercalated in the interval. However, the text of Leviticus (25:8-55) leaves no room for ambiguity that the fiftieth year was intended, and the institution evidently bore a close analogy with the feast of Pentecost, which was the closing day after seven weeks of harvest. In any case it is certain that the Jubilee period, as it was generally understood and adopted afterwards in the Christian Church, meant fifty and not forty-nine years; but at the same time the number fifty was not originally arrived at because it represented half a century, but because it was the number that followed seven cycles of seven.
It was, then, part of the legislation of the Old Law, whether practically adhered to or not, that each fiftieth year was to be celebrated as a jubilee year, and that at this season every household should recover its absent members, the land return to its former owners, the Hebrew slaves be set free, and debts be remitted.
The Christian jubilee
The same conception, spiritualized, forms the fundamental idea of the Christian Jubilee, though it is difficult to judge how far any sort of continuity can have existed between the two. It is commonly stated that Pope Boniface VIII instituted the first Christian Jubilee in the year 1300, and it is certain that this is the first celebration of which we have any precise record, but it is also certain that the idea of solemnizing a fiftieth anniversary was familiar to medieval writers, no doubt through their knowledge of the Bible, long before that date. The jubilee of a monk's religious profession was often kept, and probably some vague memory survived of those Roman ludi saeculares which are commemorated in the "Carmen Saeculare" of Horace, even though this last was commonly associated with a period of a hundred years rather than any lesser interval. But, what is most noteworthy, the number fifty was specially associated in the early thirteenth century with the idea of remission. The translation of St. Thomas of Canterbury took place in the year 1220, fifty years after his martyrdom. The sermon on that occasion was preached by Stephen Cardinal Lantron, who told his hearers that this accident was meant by Providence to recall "the mystical virtue of the number fifty, which, as every reader of the sacred page is aware, is the number of remission" (P.L., CXC, 421).
We might be tempted to regard this discourse as a fabrication of later date, were it not for the fact that a Latin hymn directed against the Albigenses, and certainly belonging to the early thirteenth century, speaks in exactly similar terms. The first stanza runs thus:

Anni favor jubilaei
Poenarum laxat debitum,
Post peccatorum vomitum
Et cessandi propositum.
Currant passim omnes rei.
Pro mercede regnum Dei
Levi patet expositum.

In the light of this explicit mention of a jubilee with great remissions of the penalties of sin to be obtained by full confession and purpose of amendment, it seems difficult to reject the statement of Cardinal Stefaneschi, the contemporary and counsellor of Boniface VIII, and author of a treatise on the first Jubilee ("De Anno Jubileo" in La Bigne, "Bibliotheca Patrum", VI, 536), that the proclamation of the Jubilee owed its origin to the statements of certain aged pilgrims who persuaded Boniface that great indulgences had been granted to all pilgrims in Rome about a hundred years before. It is also noteworthy that in the Chronicle of Alberic of Three Fountains, under the year 1208 (not, be it noted 1200), we find this brief entry: "It is said that this year was celebrated as the fiftieth year, or the year of jubilee and remission, in the Roman Court" (Pertz, "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script." XXIII, 889). It is beyond all dispute that on 22 February, 1300, Boniface published the Bull "Antiquorum fida relatio", in which, appealing vaguely the precedent of past ages, he declares that he grants afresh and renews certain "great remissions and indulgences for sins" which are to be obtained "by visiting the city of Rome and the venerable basilica of the Prince of the Apostles". Coming to more precise detail, he specifies that he concedes "not only full and copious, but the most full, pardon of all their sins", to those who fulfill certain conditions. These are, first, that being truly penitent they confess their sins, and secondly, that they visit the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome, at least once a day for a specified time--in the case of the inhabitants for thirty days, in the case of strangers for fifteen. No explicit mention is made of Communion, nor does the word jubilee occur in the Bull--indeed the pope speaks rather of a celebration which is to occur every hundred years--but writers both Roman and foreign described this year as annus jubileus, and the name jubilee (though others, such as the "holy year" or "the golden year" have been used as well) has been applied to such celebrations ever since. Dante, who is himself supposed by some to have visited Rome during this year to gain the Jubilee, refers to it under the name Giubbileo in the Inferno (xviii, 29) and indirectly bears witness to the enormous concourse of pilgrims by comparing the sinners passing along one of the bridges of Malebolge in opposite directions, to the throngs crossing the bridge of the Castle Sant' Angelo on their way to and from St. Peter's. Similarly, the chronicler Villani was so impressed on this occasion by the sight of the monuments of Rome and the people who flocked thither that he then and there formed the resolution of his great chronicle, in the course of which he gives a remarkable account of what he witnessed. He describes the indulgence as a full and entire remission of all sins di culpa e di pena, and he dwells upon the great contentment and good order of the people, despite the fact that during the greater part of that year there were two hundred thousand pilgrims on an average present in Rome over and above the ordinary population. With regard to the phrase just noticed, a culpa et a poena, which was often popularly used of the Jubilee and other similar indulgences, it should be observed that it means no more than what is now understood by a "plenary indulgence". It implied, however, that any approved Roman confessor had faculties to absolve from reserved cases, and that the liberty thus virtually accorded of selecting a confessor was regarded as a privilege. The phrase was an unscientific one, and was not commonly used by theologians. It certainly did not mean, as some have pretended, that the indulgence of itself released from guilt as well as penalty. The guilt was remitted only in virtue of sacramental confession and the sorrow of the penitent. The sovereign pontiff never claimed any power of absolving in grievous matters apart from these. "All theologians", remarks Maldonatus with truth, "unanimously without a single exception, reply that an indulgence is not a remission of guilt but of the penalty." (See Paulus in "Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie", 1899, pp. 49 sqq., 423 sqq., 743 sqq., and "Dublin Review", Jan., 1900, pp. 1 sqq.)

Examples of Jubilees:

Great Jubilee of the Year 2000
In 1953, with the encyclical Fulgens corona, Pope Pius ordered a Marian year for 1954, the first in Church history. It was called to commemorate the centenary of the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
On New Year's Day 1987, Pope John Paul II initiated a Marian year, from June 7, 1987 (Pentecost) to August 15, 1988 (the Feast of the Assumption), in preparation of the forthcoming millennium.
The Carmelites declared a Marian year in 2001 in order to deepen the Order's appreciation of its Marian heritage. Activities differed from province to province. Some held lecture series, others retreats, still others published works on the theme. In particular, there was a focus on the Brown Scapular as a sign of both the protection of Mary, and the wearer's commitment to the Carmelite charism.
In October 2016, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin announced a Marian Year for the Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, following the close of the international Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy in November. In recognition of the centennial anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, the diocesan Office for Divine Worship participated in a pilgrimage to Portugal. A missionary image of Our Lady of Guadalupe visited parishes in the Diocese, with various presentations and holy hours.
Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy of Pope Francis to commemorate the the closing of the Second Vatican Council.


What does the Orthodox church consider to be the defining features of Christian meditation?

I'm a Catholic, so I guess you can take my words with a grain of salt, but I think the defining feature of Christian meditation is the focus on God through Grace.
From my point of view, the physical techniques that the, say, Buddhists use are not wrong per se, but rather are just things humans can do to help them contemplate something. Since Buddhists and Christians are both humans, to focus their minds, regardless on what each is focusing on, would reasonably involve similar techniques. It's not as if a Buddhist's body works differently than a Christian's!
What becomes important then is what that something we are contemplating is. We Christians contemplate God, and Buddhist contemplate "nothing"*. Ultimately, we can only contemplate God by Grace, so Buddhists might get something like a glimpse, but they can't truly experience the "uncreated Light."
Here's some of Dr. David Bentley Hart's (an Orthodox Christian: pray for him. He's have serious health problems right now) thoughts on Zen Buddhism:

Every contemplative tradition necessarily stresses the need to discipline desire, to control the powers of both body and mind, to cultivate dispossession of the self, to learn detachment from finite things, to sacrifice discrete concepts about the truth for the sake of an immediate experience of the truth, and so forth.
Of greater interest to the Western reader, I would claim, is the actual content of the experience toward which Dogen urges his readers. I think there is more than a verbal or affective similarity between some of Dogen’s formulations and, for instance, Traherne’s or Blake’s or Dostoyevsky’s descriptions of seeing eternity within time, or paradise within the world of suffering and death. It would be presumptuous and reckless simply to claim that, when Dogen speaks of seeing that luminous wisdom that precedes, fills, and transcends all existing things, he is speaking of, say, the eternal Logos of Christian belief. But I would certainly insist that he is bearing witness to a genuine glimpse of that reality, in a way both beautifully distinctive and eminently worthy of reverence.
Source: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/12/luminous-wisdom

Here's another article concerning Christian meditation vs Buddhism: http://www.antiochian.org/mindfulness-known-church-fathers
*It's not exactly "nothing" in the sense we Westerners use the word. Buddhists seem to contemplate in part how the reifications of our mind are not based in reality, and that reification is itself deceitful to our consciousness. No-reifications can also be called "nothing" or "no-thing" ("rei" is the Latin word that corresponds with the English word "thing"). By removing the reification fictions of our mind, Buddhists believe they can see reality as it really is. However, I'm willing to be corrected on this point by those with greater knowledge.
Christi pax.


Are the contents of the Jehovah Witness website dogmatic?

The main site of jw.org contains the most up-to-date information on what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, so it's authoritative in that sense, but it isn't as authoritative as the Bible. The website is updated over time, and new clarifications are published yearly.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17 (NWT)
16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

There's a concept Jehovah's Witnesses have called "making the truth your own." Nobody is expected to blindly believe in something just because the website or one of the publications says it. If someone finds something they don't understand or agree with, that's a great opportunity to do more research on the subject.

Matthew 15:7-9 (NWT)
7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: 8 ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”

Acts 17:11 (NWT)
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·niʹca, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.


What is the puropse of the other choirs of angels?

The choirs tend to be considered part of the extra-Biblical tradition of the Catholic church, with some attributes derived from historical Judaism.  While I'd always recommend Aquinas, if you're just curious in an overview, I'd highly recommend our friends over at Catholic Online:

http://www.catholic.org/saints/angels/angelchoir.php

The nature of the choirs seems, to me, to be a way for the fundamentally limited human mind to understand something of the nature of heaven, perfect, and the presence of God.  You asked specifically about Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, and Principalities so I'll delve into those a bit:

Thrones are a relay between some of the other orders of angels and God.  They epitomize humility.

Dominions are a relay from God to some of the other orders of angels.  They epitomize regulation.

Together, Thrones and Dominions provide communication to and from God.

Virtues control the elements.

Powers are the professional warrior class.

Principalities are, in my opinion, a complete theological hornet's nest.  They seem to exist to demonstrate the supremacy of Jesus but are pretty difficult to explain in a single line.  You might want to read up on them in greater detail on your own.

Of course, this is just one interpretation, you may also want to check out Wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy) or track down the verses in question yourself.

Or, of course, you can throw up your hands and just read Aquinas.  The Summa is an immensely rewarding read and I highly recommend it.


Is there any connection between minimum age for marriage in Catholic Church and tradition about Mary's age at Annunciation?

I do not think there is any connection in any Church document or scripture to the annunciation.

However, the sacraments have age requirements attached to them as a "rule of thumb."  A certain level of maturity and knowledge is required to receive a sacrament.  The Church could assign any age it deems necessary.

Even though the ages are 14 and 16 according to Canon Law, I think you would be hard pressed to find a Deacon or Priest in the developed world who would marry a couple this young.


Does Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14 contradict Jesus in Mark 2:17?

Paul means do not be in a relationship with unbelievers such as marriage, business, or other situations where there would be pressure to compromise.  That is different from being friends with unbelievers with a view to win them to Christ.  Jesus himself quoted the Pharisees saying in Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners."


Dialog between Jesus and Peter in John 21: what's going on?

Though not a Greek scholar, I would contend that translating philo as like is a poor translation.  Agape typically connotes the perfect love that God has and to which we can only aspire (though aspire to it we must, just as we aspire to imitate Christ though we can only do so imperfectly). On the other hand, philo connotes the love between two persons which is not eros, the sexual love between a man and a woman.

Our language is inadequate to the task, having only one word for love, which takes on different connotations in different contexts - when I say "I love my brother" I mean quite different love than "I loved my wife last night".

As an aside, why does Jesus "labor the point" three times? It is generally considered to correlate to Peter's three denials; for Peter it was thrice affirming the forgiveness for thrice denying our Lord.


How many New Testament Manuscripts do we have from the period between the first century and the fourth century?

How many early New Testament manuscripts do we have?

You ask about the first four centuries, until about 400 AD. I am inclined to initially answer through 300 AD, because I believe that period is more important for historical* reasons.

This page on Wikipedia lists the 130 papyri of the New Testament that we know of, together with what content each has. For our purposes, we need to sort each of the three tables by date, then count the early ones. Be careful counting, because the same papyrus may appear multiple times in the table.

I count 27 in the first table, 19 in the second, and 22 in the third. The total number of NT papyri in the first three centuries is then about 68.

Very few codices (the other types of manuscripts) were written by AD 300 as far as I know, so that should be close to the total count for all manuscripts.

Another web page has a similar table, but in date order. The result was different, but in the ballpark. On that site, I count:

Manuscripts up to 300 AD: 56 (53 papyri and 3 uncials)

Manuscripts up to 400 AD: 102 (the "versions" are not in Greek)

*About 300 AD, the Emperor Diocletian severely persecuted the Christian church, and probably destroyed a large percentage of the Bible manuscripts extant at that time. There have been disputes whether the best or worst manuscripts were destroyed, and how the Church chose to replace them later. Apparently there was a single order for fifty copies of the Bible later, paid for by the Emperor Constantine if I remember right. Some have suggested changes were deliberately made in those copies.


A common Evangelical answer to your question would be that even though Christ's work on the cross was* to redeem mankind from the effects of the fall, there is a now-and-not-yet-ness in regard to the complete outworking of the victory won at Calvary (*ie 'was' is really 'was'/'is'/'will be') . In particular, the physical creation in general and our mortal bodies in particular will be amongst the last to experience full redemption from the effects of the fall, and will do so only upon Christ's return in glory:

Present Suffering and Future Glory
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. - Romans 8:18-25 NIV

Paul seems to be saying here that because mankind fell and suffered the consequences of sin as a curse, the rest of creation (which had been committed to the stewardship of mankind) was subjected to 'frustration' in order that it's 'groans' could testify to the need for the redemption and glorification of it's fallen race of stewards - this is a theological rationale for the current imperfections in nature.
Compare also 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 which speaks of the Resurrection to come as an overcoming not just of death, but also of the 'perishable' or 'corruptible' nature of our bodies - new resurrected bodies will be imperishable and incorruptible; and further, in the New Jerusalem:

‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. - Revelation 21:4 NIV

So a complete deliverance from pain awaits the passing away of the old order.
An alternative (currently minority) perspective, is that the benefits of Christ's work can largely be appropriated by faith in this present age as:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” - Galatians 3:13 NIV
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” - 1 Peter 2:24 NIV

Note that 'redeemed' and 'healed' are past tense, establishing a basis for belief that Christ's words on the cross of 'It is finished' can legitimately be given a broad application that would cover deliverance from all aspects of the curse, including the pains of childbirth. Under this framework, the Saints of God no longer 'die', but merely go 'to sleep' to awaken at the last trumpet.
Further, although it is part of a difficult passage to interpret, women are given hope that:

But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control. 1 Timothy 2:15 NET

Could well include deliverance not just from death, but also the pain of the curse. If some regard that as a fanciful application of this particular scripture, perhaps they will be more reticent to deny that:

Everything is possible for one who believes. - Mark 9:23b NIV

Can be a legitimate basis for such a belief. In any event, there are many that have dared to believe such a thing and have subsequently testified to encountering God's deliverance in this manner.
PS Your talk of the Old Testament and shrimps is a bit of a red herring with regard to the substance of this question, but the point should be made that Jesus explicitly did not 'revoke' a 'bunch of other stuff in the Old Testament' - He came to fulfill the law perfectly. That laws expressly given to mark Israel, and subsequently the Jews, apart as the Covenant people the Messiah would come through were not mandated holus-bolus on Gentile converts does not constitute a 'revocation' and each law in the Old Testament should be understood in it's proper context and evaluated for utility as a guiding principle (not moral obligation that brings condemnation and judgment by it's transgression) in the life of a New Covenant believer. If Gentile converts had by and large followed the Jewish dietary laws (as a guiding principle for healthy living), particularly with regard to eating pork and shellfish, no doubt countless thousands of them would have experienced consequent benefit in extended and overall more healthy lives.


Why is the interlocking-squares (gammadia) a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood?

Why is the square a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood?

Short answer is because it's on the altar cloth with Melchizedek on the mosaic. I've been unable to find any ancient reference to the eight pointed star referred to or necessarily associated with Melchizedek.

Henry Pelham Holmes Bromwell, a mason, in his book Restorations of Masonic Geometry and Symbolry Being a Dissertation on the Lost Knowlege of the Lodges apparently identifies the eight pointed star the "Signet of Melchizedek" in 1905. 1

The LDS also commonly refer to it as the seal of Melchizedek because of Michael Lyon's caption, The white altar cloth is decorated with ... the so-called ‘seal of Melchizedek,’ two interlocked squares, to a picture in Hugh Nibley's book Temple and Cosmos (the picture and caption are not included in the online version, but is similar to the first in the OP question) in 1992.

  What ancient documents detail this?

None that I can find, though there are several architectural/artworks that have this symbol as part of it, though not necessarily connected to Melchizedek.

Christian Tile Mosaic in Khirbet, Israel
Jewish Bible Leningrad Codex (dated 1008 CE)
Coptic Altar Cloth (2nd to 4th century AD)
Theodora’s Procession with Retinue, San Vitale basilica, Ravenna, Italy (see the garment sleeve, built 547)

In Islam, the symbol is called a Rub el Hizb, or quarter group. 2 The usage of this symbol by Muslims, however, is a moot point since their faith sprung up in the early 7th century AD, and they appear to have adapted this symbol from Byzantine art. CR Clifford mentions:

  The combination of two squares gives us the Mohammedan eight-pointed star, and the five-pointed star is supposed to be a Christian symbol. Yet if we go back to the period of Christian enthusiasm in the Byzantine Empire we will find the Brahman and Mohammedan eight-pointed star in universal use. 3

In Hinduism, the eight-pointed star is called Star of Lakshmi.

  If no ancient documents, then are there Jewish or early Christian graves that somehow convey that the square represents the Melchizedek Priesthood?

I have been unable to find graves that convey the squares or any connection the squares have to Melchizedek.

A few other articles on the seal of Melchizedek (most are from the LDS perspective):

The Seal of Melchizedek? (lots of info)
Seal of Melchizedek - Eight-Pointed Star (also lots of info)
Ornament Symbols (refers to it as the eight pointed Armenian Star or Bethlehem Star)
Symbols in Christian Art & Architecture
Seal of Melchizedek
The Seal of Melchizedek as a Christological Symbol
The Seal of Melchizedek (not part 1)
The Seal of Melchizedek – Part 2
Gammadia on Early Jewish and Christian Garments

1 http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2010/08/seal-of-melchizedek.html

2 http://symboldictionary.net/?p=3106 and http://ldsmag.com/the-seal-of-melchizedek-history-meanings-and-mysteries

3 http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2011/05/seal-of-melchizedek-eight-pointed-star.html and https://books.google.com/books?id=4BroAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=Mohammedan+eight-pointed+star+-lds&source=bl&ots=-iQByaLw0z&sig=ogg2EZjLnTOxg2UzWhdbqcF9-5I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4rdq0p8fSAhWISCYKHcmNBcsQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=Mohammedan%20eight-pointed%20star%20-lds&f=false


Which portion of Revelation is the Rapture?

The rapture itself is not described in the Revelation, and for that reason there are three common conceptions as to when it will occur, of which I am sure you are aware.

There are however some hints we can use to form our own opinion as to when it will occur in Revelation.

As I'm sure you are aware the rapture is a concept formed from being caught up into the air in:

1st Thessalonians 4:17  KJV

  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The first clue we have is in the verse preceding this:

1st Thessalonians 4:16  KJV

  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

The second clue comes from the Revalition.

Revelation 19:11  KJV

  And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

One last clue is in:

Revelation 19:14  KJV

  And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Although my answer is probably not what you are seeking it is the best answer I can give.


Connection between the Jesus Prayer and chanting "Jesus!" during worship?

The Jesus Prayer referenced comes from believers within a structured liturgical tradition - principally the Eastern Orthodox Church - so there would be no connection with the use of the prayer in the sort of spontaneous manner that you suggest in worship.  There is no use of the prayer in any of the eastern rite liturgies, for example (e.g. Liturgies of St. James, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom). Although the prayer is said aloud communally within this tradition on rare occasions (e.g. there is one particular monastery in England that performs it in this manner), it is generally reserved for private, contemplative and usually silent prayer.


When and why did the devil, or Satan, really emerge as a force in Christian belief?

If you mean the idea of Satan (aka "the adversary"), it is mentioned in the Bible, as others have referenced in comments.

The particular image of a creepy guy with hooves, arrow-pointed tail, horns, red skin, and possibly a pointy beard, on the other hand, originated (to my knowledge) in the literature of Dante Alighieri -- specifically his Divina Commedia, or Divine Comedy, in which he narrates a journey between Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven.

While Dante concerns the work largely with medieval (it was written in the 14th century) Christian philosophy and beliefs, he drew from many other cultures in bringing the story alive.  The Bible and other pre-Divine-Comedy depictions don't go into enough detail about "the adversary" to create the concrete images Dante needed for his tale.

Though the common person at the time may not have realized it, much of the symbols coursing around 14th century Italian collective consciousness were derived from the earlier Greek and Roman polytheistic cultures.  Horns and hooves, for example, remained symbols of lust (especially homosexual lust), gluttony, and general excess of a morally-questionable (from the Christian perspective) variety, and so on thanks to the god Pan and his companions the Satyrs.

Dante drew on these and other symbols of older cultures in order to bring his story to life.  He did such a good job of it that his description of Satan remains strong in the collective consciousness of the Christian community despite (or perhaps due to) the Bible giving so much less detail.


Is praying Rosary by listening considered by the Catholic Church to be as effective as reciting?

St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologia II-II q. 83 a. 12 ("Whether prayer should be vocal?") c., writes:

Prayer is twofold, common and individual. Common prayer is that which is offered to God by the ministers of the Church representing the body of the faithful: wherefore such like prayer should come to the knowledge of the whole people for whom it is offered: and this would not be possible unless it were vocal prayer. Therefore it is reasonably ordained that the ministers of the Church should say these prayers even in a loud voice, so that they may come to the knowledge of all.
On the other hand individual prayer is that which is offered by any single person, whether he pray for himself or for others; and it is not essential to such a prayer as this that it be vocal. And yet the voice is employed in such like prayers for three reasons. First, in order to excite interior devotion, whereby the mind of the person praying is raised to God, because by means of external signs, whether of words or of deeds, the human mind is moved as regards apprehension, and consequently also as regards the affections. Hence Augustine says (ad Probam. Ep. cxxx, 9) that "by means of words and other signs we arouse ourselves more effectively to an increase of holy desires." Hence then alone should we use words and such like signs when they help to excite the mind internally. But if they distract or in any way impede the mind we should abstain from them; and this happens chiefly to those whose mind is sufficiently prepared for devotion without having recourse to those signs. Wherefore the Psalmist (Ps. 26:8) said: "My heart hath said to Thee: 'My face hath sought Thee,'" and we read of Anna (1 Kgs. 1:13) that "she spoke in her heart." Secondly, the voice is used in praying as though to pay a debt, so that man may serve God with all that he has from God, that is to say, not only with his mind, but also with his body: and this applies to prayer considered especially as satisfactory. Hence it is written (Osee 14:3): "Take away all iniquity, and receive the good: and we will render the calves of our lips." Thirdly, we have recourse to vocal prayer, through a certain overflow from the soul into the body, through excess of feeling, according to Ps. 15:9, "My heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced."


According to Eastern Orthodoxy, is googling the serial numbers of a software and using cracks a sin?

Again, I am of the mindset that you should seek the advice of a spiritual father in your specific situation, but here is an official statement.

"The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church", adopted at the Sacred Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, § VII(3), elaborates on intellectual property, specifically stating:

  The Church recognises the existence of various forms of ownership....

  The intellectual property, such as scientific works and inventions, information technologies, works of art and other achievements of the creative thought acquires a growing significance. The Church welcomes the creative work aimed at benefitting society, and deplores the violation of copyright.

There are even examples where monasteries in the Russian Orthodox Church (albeit ROCOR in the linked example, but this distinction is no longer relevant) have taken legal action to protect their copyright to religious works (this action was taken in the USA).


On what grounds does the Catholic church reject sacraments of protestant denominations?

I believe that @Justin Y's answer to an earlier question of mine has the key to the answer to your question as well.  My question was "What is the doctrinal or Scriptural basis for a central Church authority"

In his answer, Justin stated this:

  A central church authority is a necessary byproduct of believing that
  certain ordinances are necessary for salvation. Ordinances often have
  rules for who can be administered to as well as how it must be done.
  Church authority is a very orderly and efficient way to regulate those
  requirements. The Old Testament is an excellent example of this.
  Notice that churches who put more emphasis on ordinances also have
  more structure (Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS churches, as well as the
  Jewish faith). And it's not just a good way to regulate the
  ordinances, but also a good way to regulate doctrine.

The simple answer is that the Catholic Church, like Orthodoxy, as well as some other denominations, teaches that authority must be ordained, or passed along from someone who has the authority to do so. The entire governing structure of the church is based upon these concepts.  Therefore, ordinances performed by someone who is not authorized to perform them  would be deemed invalid.

In a secular comparison, only accredited schools have the authority to hand out diplomas that are seen as valid.  If I were to hand you a diploma for a Computer Science degree, I doubt anyone would accept it as valid because I don't have the authority to hand out college degrees.  If you were to apply for a job that required such a degree, they would likely require you to get it from an accredited school, because mine is invalid.