According to the Roman Catholic church, who can baptize a new believer?

In an emergency where there is danger of imminent death, anyone (yes, anyone) who has the appropriate intention can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula.
In all other cases, Catholics are instructed to contact their parish.
(Note that this only concerns who can baptize: not all persons should be baptized. There are certain restrictions regarding the baptism of certain adults, though young children can always be baptized.)

The official Catechism addresses this directly:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

To be very clear: in cases where there is danger of imminent death, anyone can baptize. A person does not need to be male or baptized. Even a child can baptize in an emergency, if an adult is not present or incapacitated, though the child must be able to form the appropriate intention.
When there is no danger of imminent death, baptism is to be handled by the Church. The relevant Canon law is:

THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM
Can.  861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 530, n. 1.

Can. 530 The following functions are especially entrusted to a pastor:
1/ the administration of baptism; [...]

§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
Can.  862 Except in a case of necessity, no one is permitted to confer baptism in the territory of another without the required permission, not even upon his own subjects.
Can.  863 The baptism of adults, at least of those who have completed their fourteenth year, is to be deferred to the diocesan bishop so that he himself administers it if he has judged it Expedient.

These rules are in place to ensure that the baptism is, above all, performed in a valid way, but also to ensure that it is recorded appropriately.
It would be unwise and prideful for a person to perform baptism out of accordance with these rules, for the same reason that it would be unwise and prideful for a person to perform life-threatening surgery without the proper consultation of a trained doctor. Though of course, when a person is dying in front of you and there is nobody better able, you will, can, and are obliged to do everything you can to help save them, if they can be saved.


Jesus's atonement equivalent to sinners' punishments

Since you did not ask for the doctrinal position from any particular denomination, I will answer this question from a biblical perspective.  The Bible does not explain how Christ's sacrifice was sufficient, but it does make clear that it was sufficient.  For instance:

Is 53:10-11 (NASB)

  But the Lord was pleasedTo crush Him, putting Him to grief;If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,He will see His offspring,He will prolong His days,And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.As a result of the anguish of His soul,He will see it and be satisfied;By His knowledge the Righteous One,My Servant, will justify the many,As He will bear their iniquities.

Since the Bible is not clear as to why Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient, believing that it was sufficient is a matter of faith.  There are some helpful explanations which have been given, but they are speculative:

Jesus was Innocent - When an innocent person accepts the punishment for someone else, it softens the wrath of the Judge and the sentenced may be reduced.
Jesus Became Sin - According to 2 Cor 5:21, Jesus became sin for us.  Many people interpret this to mean that Jesus became sinful and was spiritually separated from His Father.  He experienced spiritual death and a loss of communion with the Father.  This change is beyond any specific punishments which might be experienced.
Jesus is Divine - As a member of the Godhead, Jesus' sacrifice is more significant than that of any mere created being.


Did Philip see Jesus turn water into wine?

According to the text in John 2, the only ones who actually witnessed the water turn to wine were the servants.

The Disciples were invited to go with Jesus to attend the wedding per verse 2. However, the only people listed in the back room who actually witnessed the water turn to wine, away from the view of the guests, was Jesus and the servants according to verse 6. This is emphasized in verse 9 where the text says the servants knew and it does not say that the disciples (at that time) knew.

The vessels: the vessels were vessels or stone sinks used for purification. They were not vessels used for drinking water.  They were basically kitchen sinks used for washing hands, washing pots and pans after a meal "vessels for purification."  I would think, since it's mentioned, it is important and meaningful.

This narrative illuminates the reason why Mary told the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them. They were told not only to fill the kitchen sinks with water, but also told to draw the water from a place you would never drink from, let alone give to wedding guests to drink.  However, when the servants, who were obedient, drew the water and served it to the guests, the master of the feast is the one who is the first to let the reader know that the dishwater was turned to wine.

That it was turned from water (water that went into the kitchen sink) into wine was realized by the servants after they drew it and served it per verse 9. I think about the relatively tiny fraction of those privileged enough to actually witness the miracle; specifically, we know it was the servants and of course the Lord because they are the only ones mentioned who filled the vessels then drew the water and served it to the guests.

The Disciples are mentioned nowhere in the entire incident except that they were invited, they attended, and because they too found out about the miracle of water turning to wine (verse 11) they believed in Him.

For me, the blessing is in the details.  Vessels used to clean the outside were used to change the cleansing material (water) in a supernatural way to a material used to cleanse the inside (wine); a picture of the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit, three days after the baptism of Jesus; death, burial, resurrection to new life.

Since it's not specifically stated in the passage yet may be gleaned from other passages in John and in the synoptics, exactly which disciples were invited along with Jesus, (I think all of them were) is not important.


The Church is continually referred to as the 'Bride of Christ' in the NT, Revelation goes so far as to cast the final redemption of the church as the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb". While as an analogy it could have still been valid if Christ was married, I think that a married Christ would lessen the impact of the image and cause confusion amongst His followers. Additionally, many theologians agree that earthly marriage is actually the analogy, and that it represents Christ's relationship with His church as the 'real' marriage.


How many hells did Swedenborg say there were?

G.K. Chesterton is here referring to Swedenborg's common (for him) and somewhat unusual (in general religious writing) expression "the hells."
In his voluminous theological writings, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) spoke both of "hell" in the singular and of "the hells" in the plural, depending upon the context and the point he was making. In fact, based on context and subject matter, there are three general answers to the question of how many hells Swedenborg said there were:

One hell
Three hells
Too many hells to count

This arrangement draws on the philosophical and esoteric concept of "macrocosm and microcosm," which is a fairly common theme in Swedenborg's theological writings.
1. One hell
As in general religious usage, Swedenborg commonly refers to "hell" in the singular. For example, his very first reference to hell in his published theological writings occurs early in his first published theological work:

I have been taught about the different kinds of spirits, the situation of souls after death, hell, (or the regrettable state of the faithless), and heaven (or the blissful state of the faithful). (Secrets of Heaven #5, italics added)

In the opening paragraph of his treatment of hell in his book Heaven and Hell he uses both the singular and the plural in referring to heaven and to hell:

In the earlier discussion of heaven, it was made clear throughout (particularly in #2–6) that the Lord is the God of heaven and that the whole government of the heavens is in the Lord's hands. Since the relationship of heaven to hell and of hell to heaven is like that of two opposites that act against each other, with the action and reaction yielding the state of equilibrium within which everything exists, in order for absolutely everything to be kept in this balance, it is necessary that the ruler of the one be the ruler of the other as well. That is, unless the same Lord controlled the attacks of the hells and restrained their madness, the balance would be destroyed; and if the balance were destroyed, everything else would go. (Heaven and Hell #536, italics added)

In Swedenborg's usage "hell" in the singular refers to the entirety of hell, including all of its regions and parts—which are also individually referred to as "hells."
2. Three hells
In line with Paul's reference to "the third heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:2, Swedenborg stated that there are three heavens, forming three levels one above the other, or three rings of a concentric circle:

There are three heavens, very clearly distinguished from each other. There is a central or third heaven, an intermediate or second one, and an outmost or first. These follow in sequence and are interdependent, like the highest part of the human body, the head; the middle, or torso; and the lowest, or feet; or like the highest, middle, and lowest parts of a house. (Heaven and Hell #29)

Similarly, he said that there are also three hells opposite to these three heavens:

Because there are three heavens overall, there are also three hells overall. There is a deepest hell that is opposite to the inmost or third heaven; there is a middle hell that is opposite to the middle or second heaven; and there is a highest hell that is opposite to the outmost or first heaven. (Heaven and Hell #542)

Note that since hell is a distorted and inverted reflection of heaven, the highest, or least malevolent hell is opposite to the lowest, or least exalted heaven; and the lowest, or most malevolent hell is opposite to the highest, or most exalted heaven—similar to a mountain whose upside-down reflection appears in a lake.
3. Too many hells to count
In addition to speaking of all of heaven and all of hell collectively in the singular as "heaven" and "hell," and in addition to speaking of there being three heavens and three hells overall, Swedenborg also stated that heaven and hell are divided into myriad communities, each of which is referred to as "a heaven" or "a hell" in its own right.
Further, even each individual angel can be referred to as "a heaven," and by extension, each individual evil spirit in hell as "a hell."
About heaven being distinguished and divided into communities, Swedenborg wrote:

The Heavens Are Made Up of Countless Communities
The angels of any given heaven are not all together in one place, but are separated into larger and smaller communities depending on differences in the good effects of the love and faith they are engaged in. Angels engaged in similar activities form a single community. There is an infinite variety of good activities in heaven, and each individual angel is, so to speak, his or her own activity. (Heaven and Hell #41)

About each angelic community and each individual angel being a heaven, Swedenborg wrote:

Each Community Is a Heaven in Smaller Form and Each Angel a Heaven in Smallest Form
The reason each community is a heaven in smaller form and each angel a heaven in smallest form is that the activity of love and faith is what makes heaven. This good activity is in every community of heaven and in every angel of a community. It does not matter that this activity is different and distinctive everywhere, it is still the activity of heaven. The only difference is that heaven has one activity here and another there. So whenever anyone is raised into any community of heaven, they say that he or she has arrived in heaven. They say of those who are there that they are in heaven, each in his or her own. All the people who have arrived in the other life realize this; so individuals who are standing outside or below heaven and looking off into the distance where there is a gathering of angels say that heaven is there—and over there as well.
It is rather like the situation of officials and functionaries and servants in a royal palace or court. Even though they live individually in their dwellings or in their rooms, some higher than others, still they are in a single palace or a single court, each one involved in a particular function in the service of the king. We can see from this what is meant by the Lord's saying that "in my Father's house there are many dwellings" (John 14:2) and by "the stories of heaven" and the "heavens of heavens" in the prophets. (Heaven and Hell #51)

Later he applies the same principle to hell:

Because hell is differentiated into as many communities as heaven is, there are also as many hells as there are communities of heaven. As each community of heaven is a heaven in smaller form (see #51–58), so each community of hell is a hell in smaller form. (Heaven and Hell #542)

Although I am not aware of any place where Swedenborg stated explicitly that each evil spirit in hell is a hell in smallest form, the inverse parallelism that he established between heaven and hell suggests that the same principle would apply to hell as well.
Based on this, if Swedenborg spoke of each community of hell as "a hell" (in smaller form), and by extension, if even each individual evil spirit in hell could be considered "a hell" (in smallest form), then according to Swedenborg there are too many of these smaller and individual hells to count.
This, I suspect, is what Chesterton was referring to in his line:

One small child in the dark can invent more hells than Swedenborg.

If I am correct, Chesterton was using Swedenborg's countless hells as a rhetorical device to convey with a touch of wry humor the idea that small children can conjure up in their imaginations more monsters, bogies, and goblins (to use Chesterton's own words in the immediate context of the quoted line) than it is possible to count.


What were the ages of the Apostles Peter and John when Jesus was crucified?
According to Catholic tradition St. Peter was the oldest person amongst the Apostles; while St. John was the youngest apostle.

John the Apostle (6 AD– 100AD) was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus according to the New Testament. Generally listed as the youngest apostle, he was the son of Zebedee and Salome. His brother was James, who was another of the Twelve Apostles. The Church Fathers identify him as John the Evangelist, John of Patmos, John the Elder and the Beloved Disciple, and testify that he outlived the remaining apostles and that he was the only one to die of natural causes. The traditions of most Christian denominations have held that John the Apostle is the author of several books of the New Testament.

If St. John was born in the year 6 AD, that means St. John was about 24 years old at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, if we take the Crucifixion as been in the year 30 AD.
The Catholic Church does not know with any exactitude the real timeline of the Apostle Peter. So much of this question is simply based on tradition.
For the most part, it is believed that the Apostle St. Peter was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), about the year 1 AD.

St. Peter's true and original name was Simon, sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; 2 Peter 1:1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town. - St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles

As for how and when the Apostle St. Peter died, it is traditionally believed that he died between 64 and 67 AD and was crucified upside down at Rome. That makes St. Peter between 63 and 66 years old when he died. Historical documents are not more sure of anything more exact. One can read what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on this subject. Some even claim he died in 55 AD.
If in fact, St. Peter was born in the year 1 AD that would make St. Peter 29 years old if we hold the Crucifixion as being done in the year 30 AD.
There seems to be little historical evidence to support the ages of any of apostles and that is why the Church tends to follow tradition in this matter.


Was Jesus circumcised and did he eat pork?

From Luke 2:21, we know that Jesus was circumcised, as it states there

  At the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was given the name Jesus...

But we also have Peter's teaching in Acts 10:28:

  "You know yourselves that how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation, But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean".

As to whether Jesus ate pork, we have neither record, nor good reason to presume  that he did, but we don't really know for certain.

We do however, have record of Peter's vision in Joppa (Acts 11:1-9) where, when Peter protested against the eating of unclean things that were on the sheet which was lowered from heaven, by stating that an unclean thing had never entered his mouth, that the voice from heaven rebuked Peter, saying "What God has cleansed you must not call common".

As to why circumcision and the refusal to eat pork in particular, and adherence to Jewish dietary laws in general are not "primary ingredients of Christianity," note that while it is true that the way to be a good Cristian is to be like Jesus, first note that in the teaching on salvation in Matthew 25 (vv 31 ff.), where the King is separating the sheep and the goats, the separation was on what they did for other people. What they ate or whether they still had a foreskin is not reported to have mattered much.

Furthermore, if these external characteristics were "primary ingredients of Christianity", and if to be a good Christian one had to be like Jesus, would it not necessarily follow that to be a good Christian one must become an itinerant, unemployed Jewish carpenter? Or a vertically challenged tax collector (Zacchaeus)? Or an unemployed fisherman (several of the apostles)?


Could a Christian remain in the sect of the Pharisees?

What biblical evidence there is, suggests that there may have been a small window in history (~30-35 years) when this was indeed possible.  As well as the verse you've already cited, the Apostle Paul appears not to have been formally excluded from the sect prior to his appearance before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem detailed in Acts 23 (~57AD). This is seen by virtue of the fact that his appeal to his fellow Pharisees was not dismissed out of hand, but divided the council:

6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)
9 There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. “We find nothing wrong with this man,” they said. “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”

If we look beyond scripture to the writings of Hegesippus (as relayed by Eusebius), it seems likely that this window closed about the time of the death of James the Just in about 62AD (source).


What is this (presumably Catholic) uniform?

She could be of the Order of the Camillians, who takes care of the sick and dying, or she could simply be an altar server after a matyr celebration or Palm Sunday (the red belt).


What is the basis for the belief that the name of the Messiah is יָהוּשׁוּעַ (Yahushua)?

It stems back to Leah calling her 4th son "Judah".  Well, there are no "J's" in Hebrew, which would then bring Judah to Yudah[their letter Yod/Y was converted to J in modern translations].  This Yod/Y is represented as a little apostrophe[the smallest of the Hebrew letters]; you'll notice it above to the right of that Hebrew word for Yahushua. Well Yudah is actually a shortened down form/word that was originally Yahudah.  If we break down Yudah or Yahudah, we get[basically] Yah and dah.   Yah is what He was called according to Psalm 68:4; and dah means praise...We see this in Gen 29:35.  If we take just the Yah or Yahu portion of Judah, and add "shuah", we end up with Yahushua.  Why do we add shuah?  Shuah is Hebrew for Salvation/Saviour.  Jesus could not possibly be enunciated with a "J" sound in Israel 30AD because their alphabet wouldn't allow it.  We look at the scriptural renditions of His appellation and attempt to more closely render an English spelling to a Hebraic word uttered years ago; this is called transliteration.  Additionally, there is a reliance upon the veracity of the Grecian copies of the original scripts, thus assertion is made that "Yahushua" is the gem.


Why are certain non-harmful behaviors considered sins?

The reason that something may be considered a sin primarily because it hurts your relationship with God. When God has ordered the world in a certain way, or decrees that certain things are not to His will, then going against it is a sin. A sin isn't something that is bad for others. It's bad for ourselves. So to judge something as sinful because it hurts others isn't going to get the full picture (though it certainly is one aspect of a sin, as we are also called to love others, by God).

However, there were certain laws that the Jews were told to keep in the Old Testament. As you mentioned Kosher dietary restrictions, I'll use that as an example. The Jewish people at the time were very much in danger of being annihilated by the various nations in the time. They were constantly at war, and they were nomadic, living simply off the land. God desired for them to flourish and prosper, and so certain laws were decreed that ultimately had the result of encouraging good health and hygiene. Kosher laws at the time were very useful in preventing food-born disease and healthy eating habits. Other things, like purification rituals, have a direct correlation to the modern guidance by our parents to wash our hands before we eat. You can imagine that at that time, it was even more important.

There are different kinds of decrees in the Bible. There are things considered outright sins, but also laws and regulations. Many of these (that aren't actually sins) were for certain peoples at certain times, but ultimately a sin is when we go against the will of God, through our own free will.

A good read here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm


Did Jesus mean a truly spiritual man should feel this rewarded NOW, or in the world to come?

What Jesus was doing is telling his disciples that they would become a child of the kingdom, but since they were pre new testament and pre crucifixion, they would have no understanding what the Kingdom of God really referred to.
Remember that these men were under the impression that the Messiah; whom they believed Jesus to be, was going to set up an earthly Kingdom, and a Heavenly Kingdom would never cross their minds until Jesus had arisen and they realized that Jesus was much more than just a man.
So let's us take a look at Scriptures and see if we can determine what Jesus really had in mind.
Once Jesus had been resurrected from the dead the true meaning of the kingdom of God was understood, Paul said in his epistle to the Romans:

Romans 14:17  KJV  For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Even though Jesus had on many occasions tried to explain the Kingdom of God, not only to his disciples but also to the crowds as indicated in the following Scriptures: It was not ever grasp by any of them until his resurrection.
Matthew 13:24  through 33  King James Version

24  Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25  But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26  But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27  So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29  But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30  Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
31  Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
32  Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
33  Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

So let's take a look at the first parable see how it applies to your question. the first parable is contained in verses 24 through 30.
Let's start with verse 24 and 25. Jesus is likening the Kingdom of God to the world.

God created the world in a perfect state and Satan introduced havoc in it, then went happily on his way.

verses 27, and 28.
Here Jesus is telling them that when God talked to him and the Angels they asked if he wanted them go directly to the end times and begin the judgment.
verses 29 and 30 are his answer.
He told them that  no otherwise when the evil ones were destroyed those who would accept Salvation would also be destroyed. So he would wait until  the proper time and then separate the righteous from the unrighteous.
In the second parable verses 31 and 32:
Jesus is telling us that even though the Kingdom of God would start with just those few followers there; that it would grow to include many people from many Nations.
And in the third parable verse 33:
He is describing the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem throughout the World.
So to answer that part of your question about when, the answer is that he was trying to tell them once they entered into the Kingdom of God they would again enjoy the companionship with God lost by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and that once  the Kingdom of God was established through his death and resurrection they would again be a part of the family of God in which all would be of common status.


Who assigned the gospel authors originally?

One of the earliest "assignees" so-called of the same names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to their respective gospel accounts is Irenaeus of Lyons (~130-202 AD) who was a well-known, respected, apologetic writer about Classic Christianity.

Here is his account of the 4 gospels and his reasonings.

  It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, "Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth." For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"-an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; " and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"-pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service.
  -AH III XI 8-

In addition from this, the same gospel names have survived to this day.

I am not aware of any other names assigned to the four gospel accounts besides these four until perhaps circa 1800 as questions from the Tubingen School of Theology arose specifically about why John's gospel supposedly contradicts the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) account of the days and dates of the death, burial, resurrection of Christ Jesus.  Because of that so-called contradiction, ideas that John's gospel really wasn't written by John arose.


Was anyone making a theological point by changing the ending of Jesus Christ Superstar?

The original concept album (on which the stage and film versions are based) was deliberately ambiguous about whether Jesus was, in fact, anything other than a man. Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice came to the Gospel text with a humanistic premise.

"We approached the opera from the point of view of Christ the man, rather than Christ the God," Rice noted. "We had been well-coached in the mechanics of Christianity and its legends and beliefs. That was drummed into us at school. They treated the legends, so we decided to treat the bloke as a man. We read the gospels very carefully and that was it. What we did not read was eighty-three other people's interpretations of Christ because we didn't want to be affected by their views. We stuck to the text and our interpretation of what we think could have happened." [...] "We tried to humanize Christ, because, for me, I find Jesus as portrayed in the gospels as a God as a very unrealistic figure." 1
"We were basically trying to tell the story of Christ as a man," says Tim Rice. 2

Note that the title song Superstar, in which Judas questions Jesus about his actions and motives, was the first one to be written: the rest of the opera is built around it. That certainly comes through in the way that the two creators talk about the work - it's all about that central accusation.
Rice and Lloyd Webber could not agree about how to handle the resurrection:

Webber has been quoted as saying that he and Rice had arguments, "long arguments, in fact, about the basis of the opera and how it should be treated. We had to decide which events in the life of Jesus we were going to write about - and this was the most difficult area of all in which to find agreement. Eventually we chose the last seven days of His life. Even now, I don't go along with some of the things that Tim has written in the opera. The lyrics are extremely good for any composer to work with, but I don't necessarily agree with all of them. I would have liked to have included the resurrection, but it just wouldn't have been worthwhile. We disagree too much about it." 1

Accordingly, the ending of the opera was deliberately made to be open to multiple interpretations, which might be brought out differently in various stage or film versions. For example, regarding the 1971 Broadway production, Rice said:

"I think O'Horgan's production hints more strongly at the resurrection than the record does. The reaction of the crowd below [the cross] - going from hysteria to chaos to a beautiful sort of peace. O'Horgan is saying, 'This is not the end.'" 1

The fact that the stage version will invariably end with Jesus coming back for a curtain call - effectively a resurrection! - also changes the way in which the story is perceived, compared to a film adaptation.
For the 1973 film, director Norman Jewison broke with the two original creators, who had a different opinion about how the movie should be approached. The fact that his film does allow space for a resurrection may spring from his slightly different take on the original text, and the context in which it was made. His idea was to present the events on a human scale (no huge crowds), blurring temporal lines (neither modern dress nor period authenticity) so as to suggest parallels between attitudes then and now. He was also conscious of the possibility of religious offense, especially given that the picture was being filmed in Israel (actually at the same time as the massacre at the Munich Olympics) and previous versions of Superstar had been heavily criticized for anti-Semitism. All of this may lead to a slightly more sympathetic and open-ended view of the story, compared to the accusatory tone of the original libretto. 1
The Gale Edwards version (originally also a stage production in 1996) was made partly because Lloyd Webber himself was dissatisfied with the 1970s productions, and wanted to stage a show that was more true to his own image of what the opera text was about.3 By this time, he had a lot more clout than he did in the early 70s, when he was unable to stop the Broadway and film directors from doing their own thing. 1 Whereas the original album was a compromise between Lloyd Webber (agnostic) and Tim Rice (self-described as "slightly religious"), this version is a purer strain of Lloyd Webber. He is probably not making a particular theological point so much as a dramatic one, thinking the spectacle and the experience would be improved by presenting it in this way.3 A sudden stop is not necessarily saying that there is no more to the story, but it does perhaps startle the audience into thinking about it in a way that a tidier ending might not.
I did not find any direct reference from Jewison or Edwards about their artistic choices, but I do think that what they did was fairly subtle, within the range of interpretations supported by the ambiguous opera text. Essentially, being true to the original vision of what the opera is about means not coming down too firmly on one side or the other. That said, some productions - particularly those sponsored by churches - have added an explicit resurrection scene or song at the end, which certainly counts as making a theological point. 1
1. Rock Opera: the creation of Jesus Christ Superstar from record album to Broadway show and motion picture. Ellis Nassour and Richard Broderick. Hawthorn Books, 1973.
2. Life magazine. May 28, 1971.
3. Billboard magazine. Oct 19, 1996.


"Conciliarism" refers to a movement in the medieval Catholic Church that sought to promote the authority of a council of bishops over that of the Pope; it was eventually condemned at the Fifth Lateran Council.  In this case, the "conciliar folly" being referred to is the Second Vatican Council, which many so-called "traditionalist" Catholics reject on the grounds that the reforms it introduced were heretical, sacrilegious, or impious.  Though of course the Second Vatican Council is in no way associated with the long-suppressed medieval conciliar movement, the author appears to be trying to make such a comparison in order to discredit it.

The Society of St. Pius the X is a Catholic organization formed in the wake of Vatican 2 specifically to resist those changes.


Did Crimen sollicitationis threaten excommunication for victims reporting crimes to the civil authorities?

I've never heard of instruction before you brought up the question, but I figured I'd better actually read a bit of it before making a judgement.  Because I am a Catholic, I always know the Church is teaching the right thing even if it is misunderstood or poorly applied. Here it is, by the way, so you can read for yourself and find out what's not in there.

“A member of the faithful who, in violation of the (aforementioned) prescription of Canon 904, knowingly disregards the obligation to denounce within a month the person by whom he or she was solicited, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, which is not to be lifted until he or she has satisfied the obligation, or has promised seriously to do so”

So, one is excommunicated if they don't report the crime to church authorities
However, a little farther down you might read:

Before the one making the denunciation is dismissed, he is to be administered the oath to maintain confidentiality, as above, if necessary under pain of excommunication reserved to the local Ordinary or to the Holy See

And think, that if someone reported the same crime to the police that they reported to the church that they would incur excommunication. But, why on earth would someone report the crime to both places?  Nothing in the document says that it is a crime for the laity to report a crime to the police.  However, in the time of this writing sexual harassment and a whole host of other perversions were not dealt with by the police the way they do now, so this may have been the only recourse some people had (and this is a global document and a translation of one at that) so it may have greater weight in more Catholic countries than the USA and Australia.
But, as for implementation, the National Catholic Register has a good interview with priest who says:

A: A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts. But this was not so. Secrecy during the investigative phase served to protect the good name of all the people involved; first and foremost, the victims themselves, then the accused priests who have the right - as everyone does - to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Church does not like showcase justice. Norms on sexual abuse have never been understood as a ban on denouncing the crimes to the civil authorities.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/promoting_justice_prosecuting_paedophiles#ixzz29YkcXKcv

So, there it is, it's never been understood as a ban on denouncing crimes.


Who were the Sons of God who seem to have begat the Nephilim?

Dr John Millam, on the Reasons to Believe website, has this to say on the Nephilim (about 1/2 way through, the section entitled The Sons of God/Giants):

  Historically, the most popular way of understanding this passage was
  that the "sons of God" refer to angels or to the descendents of the
  godly line of Seth, Adam's son. The translators of the Septuagint,
  however, biased interpretations toward one standpoint by substituting
  "angels" for "sons of God". (The sons-of-God-as-angels view was
  fashionable in Jewish circles at that time. It appears in the
  apocryphal Book of Enoch, so the translators of the Septuagint were
  simply reflecting popular thinking.) This helps explain why the angel
  interpretation held exclusive dominance in the church for the first
  two centuries. A second example can be found in this same passage
  where the Septuagint translated Nephilim (literally "fallen ones") as
  "giants" (Greek gigos). As a result, the view that the Nephilim were
  "giants" was rampant in the early church.

Most people I have read on the matter agree that it is highly uncertain who these "Nephilim" actually were, and as a result, speculation abounds.  In my thinking it seems problematic to consider that angels, who are purely spirit beings could mate and produce offspring with humans who are a distinct creation of body into which God breathed spirit.

From the wikipedia article:

  Some individuals and groups, including St. Augustine, John Chrysostom,
  and John Calvin, take the view of Genesis 6:2 that the "Angels" who
  fathered the Nephilim referred to certain human males from the lineage
  of Seth, who were called sons of God probably in reference to their
  being formerly in a covenantal relationship with Yahweh (cf.
  Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5); according to these sources, these men had
  begun to pursue bodily interests, and so took wives of the daughters
  of men, e.g., those who were descended from Cain or from any people
  who did not worship God.

While the ca. 6th century The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (a Christian pseudepigraphical work found in Ge'ez) says:

  Certain wise men of old wrote concerning them, and say in their
  [sacred] books, that angels came down from heaven, and mingled with
  the daughters of Cain, who bare unto them these giants. But these
  [wise men] err in what they say. God forbid such a thing, that angels
  who are spirits, should be found committing sin with human beings.
  Never, that cannot be. And if such a thing were of the nature of
  angels, or Satans, that fell, they would not leave one woman on earth,
  undefiled... But many men say, that angels came down from heaven, and
  joined themselves to women, and had children by them. This cannot be
  true. But they were children of Seth, who were of the children of
  Adam, that dwelt on the mountain, high up, while they preserved their
  virginity, their innocence and their glory like angels; and were then
  called 'angels of God.' But when they transgressed and mingled with
  the children of Cain, and begat children, ill-informed men said, that
  angels had come down from heaven, and mingled with the daughters of
  men, who bare them giants.

Which seems to make sense to me.  Both wikipedia articles contain numerous references which may be of interest for further research and reading.

A second reference to Nephilim occurs in Numbers 13:32-33, but since all of mankind was destroyed in the flood of Gen 9 ff, I don't see how they could be of the same bloodline.  So that suggests that Nephilim might be more of a general than specific descriptive term.  It may be significant that both groups of men are described as "giants" (note also that Goliath and his kin, "descendants of Rapha in Gath" were described as having six fingers and six toes, which indicates some sort of genetic deformity).


Popes confess to another priest, like any other priest. Pope Francis' long-standing confessor is a Croatian Franciscan priest in Argentina, Fr Berislav Ostojic.

People get to choose their own confessor whom they are comfortable with and trust to give good advice. The Pope is no different to anyone else.

I'm not sure that confession can be conducted by telephone, so presumably one goes to see the other.


It's a role-delineation, not a "hierarchy" (at least, not in the way it is used in common English).

God has distinct persons making up His one self - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

They have distinct roles, as revealed in the Bible (more I'm sure can be added):

Father

Creator (Genesis 1:1, Romans 1:25, etc)
Judge (Genesis 15:14, Genesis 18:25, 1 Samuel 2:10, Job 21:22, Psalm 7:8, Luke 18:7, etc)
Initiator of Covenants (Genesis 3:15, Genesis 8:21-12, Genesis 9:9-17, Genesis 12:1-3, etc)
Elector of the those who will be Saved (Luke 18:7, John 6:65, Romans 8:33, Romans 9:13, etc)

Son

Instrument of Creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, etc)
Way to the Father (John 10:9, John 14:6, 1 John 5:20, etc)
Propitiatory Sacrifice for Salvation of Man (Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10)

Holy Spirit

Enabler of Creation (Genesis 1:2, Psalm 104:30, etc)
Comforter (John 14:16-17, John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:7, Romans 8:26, etc)
"Component" of God who lives in the Elect (John 14:17, Philippians 2:12-13, etc)
Revealer of Truth (John 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 2:16, etc)


What does it mean that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature but different personas?

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Deity. This is a matter of nature, just as we are one humanity.
But in our humanity we cannot (you and I) be a single humanity. Even if we be conjoined twins, there is only a partial unity.

But since God is Spirit and since 'fulness' is an attribute of divine nature, the persons of Deity are divinely one, in nature and form, in a perfection of union that is indivisible - one God.

See the First Council of Nicea. But some definitions are difficult to understand as they use terminology from outside of scripture or scriptural words (like 'hypostasis' and 'substance' and 'essence') which are not quite as scripture uses them.
What I have stated above ('unity', 'Spirit', 'fulness' and 'form' ) is in terms which are used in scripture.

I and my Father are one.[John 10:30 KJV]

God is Spirit [John 4:24, KJV]

For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [Colossians 2:9, KJV]

... being in the form, God ... [Philippians 2:6, KJV]


What is the understanding between the Genesis account and the book of Abraham account of creation? (LDS)

God
LDS worship one God, the Father, and that we must not have any other gods before Him.  [God the Father, Exodus 20:3] God is also referred to as Elohim, the father of Jesus Christ and our spirits.  Teachings: Joseph F. Smith
Godhead
The trinity consists of 3 distinct and separate beings, united with one common purpose.  God (Father), Christ (Son), Holy Ghost. [Godhead]
The Creation
When the book of Abraham references "the Gods", saying, "they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth," [Abraham 4:1] it refers to those who participated in forming the earth.  LDS believe that Elohim (God) created the world through the son, Jehovah (Christ) [Moses 2:1] and that others participated including Michael (Adam), and a "host of noble and great ones."  [Christ and the Creation] "The noble and great ones" were spoken of as a subset of the group of intelligences [Abraham 3:22], which the prophet Spencer W. Kimball clarified "That assemblage included us all."  So, in the context of the creation, "the gods" refers to two or more of Elohim, Jehovah, Michael, and some of us (the noble and great ones).
Four accounts of the creation
The LDS church believes in 4 scriptural accounts of the creation: Genesis, Book of Moses (Pearl of Great Price), Book of Abraham (Pearl of Great Price), the temple account.  This may seem like too many, but the Book of Mormon warns about not being accepting of more revelation in 2 Nephi 29:3-13.  The articles of Faith suggests that the modern bible we have is not translated 100% correctly Article of Faith 8 and for that reason the book of Moses was written through revelation to Joseph Smith [Four accounts of the creation] . Brigham Young taught that "no revelation is ever received in its fullness," in other words, "no revelation can be defined by any single combination of words."
Additional References
There is a great talk by LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland about the godhead [The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent]


Is there any evidence that some Christian leaders discourage lay Christians from reading the whole OT or NT?

What is/are the Christian denomination/denominations that most encourage reading the whole NT?

Baptists often place a high value on Biblical literacy. However, there can be a large variation within a particular denomination.

I was once in a business meeting 20 years ago where the subject of having our manufactured products labeled with the "CE" mark for European distribution was raised. Someone said that we "would not be able to sell without the mark".

Later I was talking with a man who I knew to be Christian (Lutheran) who had been in the same meeting. I was commenting that although I knew the Biblical use of the phrase did not apply to the CE mark, it was still interesting to hear the phrase used. He responded that he did not know what I was talking about. I then asked him if he had ever read the book of Revelation in the Bible. He said his pastor had told his church that they should not read the book of Revelation because only a pastor could understand it.

When you consider that there are many people limited in the ability to understand the Bible by either ability or interest as well as religious leaders who may wish to avoid difficult questions altogether, it should not be surprising that there are many instances of Biblical illiteracy.


Why are the first five books of the old testament named differently in some translations?

The first five books are closely linked together - they are the "Torah" (Hebrew for "teaching" or "instruction") traditionally attributed to Moses. This explains why they can be called "The Five Books of Moses"; the Greek "Pentateuch" means "five books" and is another title for this section of the Bible.

Calling the books after Moses makes sense, and avoids some awkwardness with the more specific titles - Genesis and Exodus are good names, but Numbers really isn't, given that most of the book isn't about the census. Another reason is to stress the unity of these five books.

In Hebrew, the books are named after the first words in the text (the "incipit"):

Bereshit - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Shemot - "These are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob"
Vayikra - "And the LORD called to Moses"
Bamidbar - "The LORD spoke to Moses in the tent of meeting in the desert of Sinai"
Devarim - "These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel"

This is a common practice in many languages, for texts that don't come with their own titles. However, I don't think that languages other than Hebrew use these titles for the Bible books.

The standard names used in English derive from the Greek titles in the Septuagint. These are based on the content of each book:

Genesis - How it all began
Exodus - Leaving Egypt
Leviticus - Concerning the Levitical priesthood
Numbers - Starts with a census
Deuteronomy - "Second law", or "a copy of the law"

I don't know why they did this as opposed to using the Greek incipits. That would have given us Arche ("the beginning") for Genesis, Onomata ("the names") for Exodus, and so on, matching the Hebrew. Nevertheless, these are the traditional titles that have come down to us, and which many translations have followed.

Most other Old Testament books have basically the same name in translation, since they tend to be named after people - Isaiah is Isaiah in any language. But there are differences too:

Psalms is called Tehillim ("praises") in Hebrew; the Greek "Psalmoi" means "pieces of music"
Ezra and Nehemiah used to be called 1 Ezra and 2 Ezra; even earlier, they were a single book of Ezra
1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings are called 1 Basileion through 4 Basileion in the Septuagint. Hebrew formerly just had a single book of Samuel (Sh'muel) and a single book of Kings (M'lakhim).
1 and 2 Chronicles are called the Paraleipomena in the Septuagint, which means "supplementary"

In the New Testament, I think there is much more cross-language agreement about what to call the books. The only one that looks different is Revelation, which in many languages (including Greek) is called Apocalypse. But this means just the same thing as the English word "revelation" (and is "Offenbarung" in German, etc.).


According to Lutherans, do angels pray for us?

Most assuredly they do.
The traditional doctrinal standard for the Lutheran Churches is the Book of Concord. One of documents in the BoC is the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, also called the Defense of the Augsburg Confession. It is an explanation of one of the other documents in the BoC, the Augsburg Confession. The Apology was written by Luther's chief collaborator Philip Melanchthon rather than Luther himself.
From the 9th Article of the Apology defending the 21st Article of the Augsburg Confession:

Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1:12, where an angel prays:

O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on  Jerusalem?

Although concerning the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general

In addition to believing that the angels intercede for the Church, Lutherans also believe that the saints at rest do the same. The answer you mentioned does not represent the Lutheran position. I doubt it represents the current Anglican position. Asserting that it represents Protestants in general is overreaching.


What are the six OT quotes in the NT, which are not from the Septuagint?

Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
https://www.catholic.com/qa/in-which-passages-does-jesus-quote-the-septuagint-and-where-does-the-new-testament-allude-to-the


Lutheran response to non-literalist interpretation of the Lord's Supper

I believe Martin Luther would have just said that it was a divine mystery, and something that we as mere mortals are not supposed to be able to completely comprehend:

  I do not ask how Christ can be God and man, and how his natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments, as for example, that a large body could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics, and his words are to be adored and observed with awe. God, however, commands: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. I request, therefore, a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say. (Marburg Colloquy, 1529)

For Luther, Faith goes beyond reason.


What evidence is available that Mt. Moriah is actually the Temple Mount?

The obvious answer to the question is yes, the first Temple was built on Mount Moriah.  II Chronicles 3:1 says as much:

Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. (ESV)

and there is no particular reason to doubt that was the real name of the place the Temple was built.  Of course, that isn't really the question being asked - the real question is, is "Mount Moriah" the same place as 1) where the Dome of the Rock now sits and 2) the place where Abraham offered up Isaac as a sacrifice.
Dome of the Rock site?
On the first question, the only clue in the text is that the Temple was built on the "threshing floor of Ornan".  In ancient times, threshing floors had to be in open spaces and were usually on high ground.  These two traits allowed the people to maximize the power of the wind to help separate the the grains from the chaff.  The hill of the Dome of the Rock would be an excellent place for such activity.  Because it is reasonable to think the people of Israel accurately remembered the place of their sacred temple, the fact that there is no alternative tradition, and the fact the hill matches the description

the majority of scholars, archaeologists, and rabbinic authorities [locate] the Temple in relation to that rock.1

This view has not been universally held by scholars, however.  Nineteenth century archaeologist Charles Warren suggested the correct site was 50 meters to the southwest, at the Mount of Olives.  This view has significant difficulties and is not supported today.  A more recent theory is that the Temple was to the north of the Dome of the Rock under what is now the Dome of the Spirits.  This theory was endorsed by some evangelical Christians, but seems to be too small of a site and has been roundly criticized by archaeologists.1
Another recent alternate proposed that the Temple was further south than Warren's location.  In this theory, the Wailing Wall remnants that survive are not part of the Temple complex, but rather an effort by Hadrian to install a temple to Jupiter in the second century.  This theory has been utterly refuted by archaeological finds at the Wailing Wall which include a stone inscription apparently describing the Sabbath and by the absurdity of this hypothesis' reliance on a site 50 feet lower the current platform and 30 feet lower than the remaining wall.1
Sacrificial site?
On the second question, the evidence is much more mixed.  Looking solely at the Biblical text is inconclusive.  Genesis 22:2 says simply that Abraham went up "one of the mountains" in the "land of Moriah".  The Septuagint version is even vaguer:

And he said, Take thy son, the beloved one, whom thou hast loved—Isaac, and go into the high land, and offer him there for a whole-burnt-offering on one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.2

The three extant Targums (which are interpretative translations into Aramaic) read:

...get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains
...go into the land of worship (in a variant: "vision") and offer him before Me there, a burnt offering, upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee.
...go into the land of worship, and offer him there, a whole burnt offering, upon one of the mountains3

Interestingly, the fragmentary "Jerusalem" Targum does preserve "at Mount Moriah" but without any of the surrounding context.3
This suggests to me that the tradition that the two were the same place was at minimum not deeply entrenched into Hebrew thought when the translations were made.  Additionally, there is a good reason translations often do not treat "Moriah" as proper name in Gen 22:2:

This is probably due to the definite article with Moriah (el eres hammoriya, lit. "to the land of the Moriah"), which is uncommon for a proper name.4

Additionally, there are logistic problems.  The city of Jerusalem had apparently been founded by the time of Abraham.  This can be seen by Genesis 14:18, which talks about "Melchizedek king of Salem".  Salem is known to me an older form of Jerusalem;5 see for example Psalm 76:2 ("His tent is in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion.", NIV).  Archaeological evidence confirms that the city was inhabited in c. 3000 BC, and possibly earlier.6  According to the Biblical account, Abraham lived in the vicinity of 2000 BC,7 which means he would be making his sacrifice in plain view of the city, and also means it is unlikely there would be a wild goat.
In favor of the association there is Josephus, writing around 100-200 after the Targums:

Accordingly [God] commanded [Abraham] to carry [Isaac] to the mountain Moriah, and to build an altar, and offer him for a burnt-offering upon it: for that this would best manifest his religious disposition towards him, if he preferred what was pleasing to God, before the preservation of his own son.8

In the Talmud, we find:

What is the meaning of “Mount Moriah?” Rabbi Levi bar Chama and Rabbi Chanina disputed this point. One said: “The mount from which teaching (הוראה) went out.” The other said: “The Mountain from which fear went out to the idolaters.”9

which apparently both suggest Jerusalem as a location.  However, a different interpretation is offered elsewhere in the Talmud:

I heard a different interpretation: “Mount Moriah” – that is Mount Sinai. “Fear to the idolators” – at the giving of the Torah, as it states (Psalms 76:9): “The world heard and was quiet.”9

This Rabbi associates Moriah, not with Jerusalem, but instead with Mount Sinai.
Conclusion
The tradition on the site of the Temple being the same spot that now houses the Dome of the Rock is very strong.  And the tradition matches the physical evidence.
In contrast, the tradition on the site of Abraham's sacrifice is variant.  The association with the site of the Temple also doesn't match the physical evidence very well.  Therefore, I think the Temple site and the site of Abraham's sacrifice are most likely different sites.
What then to make of Chronicles
It has been suggested that the author of Chronicles "inserted" the name Moriah into the Temple account to give the Temple a symbolic link to Abraham.  However, this view is unlikely for a number of reasons:10

The writer of Chronicles is generally uninterested in the history of Israel before the founding of the monarchy
There is no evidence the term "Moriah" was strongly linked to Abraham
If it is a reference, it is a very vague.  If the writer of Chronicles wanted to draw the the parallel, he has left us no clues in the text (in contrast to the explicit reference to David).   Why not write "Moriah, the site of Abraham" or something similar, or at least provide some clue, if that was the intent?

An alternative suggestion, is that the term was inserted into Genesis.  This seems even less likely, as why then would the scribe insert into into the "land" part of the passage and learn "one of the mountains".
The normal solution offered to explain the two clearly different uses of the term is that term Moriah referred to a large expanse of mountainous land which included the specific hill on which the Temple was built.4  Thus, both passages are accurate, but do not refer to the exact same patch of land; Mount Moriah is part of the land of Moriah, but not the mountain God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on.
An alternate hypothesis of my own is that the Israelites chose to name the Temple Mount after Abraham.  A place doesn't have an intrinsic name, after all...  Perhaps the easiest solution of all is that it is simply a coincidence.  The uncertainly of the translation of Gen 22:2 (see Septuagint & Tarmud translations above), makes coincidence a perfectly plausible suggestion - if the terms had different meanings, then their use to describe different places it not at all surprising.
None of these hypotheses can be strongly argued for, but the "scribal alteration" idea can be argued against.  All we can say with confidence is that the exact meaning of "the lands of the Moriah" is probably lost to time.  This does not, however, change the basic conclusion that 1) Mount Moriah is the site of Dome of the Rock and 2) it is most likely not the site of Abraham's sacrificial offering.

1Contested Holiness by Rivka Gonen
2Brenton's translation
3Jewish Publication Society
4Genesis 11:27-50:26 by K.A. Matthews
5See this SE answer for more details
6History of Jerusalem from Its Beginning to David by the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies
7See this SE question for details on various dating theories
8Josephus, Antiquities, I, 13
9TheTorah.com
10Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity


What major views are there on the question of whether God shares moral responsibility for our deeds, good and bad?

You say "our deeds". What are our deeds?

My nose is mine but I did not create it because God created all things. I inherited my D.N.A. which made my nose. So things become ours not because we create them but because we are given them. We inherit our nurture and nature

they make us who we are
we don't choose them.

  1 Pet 4v5 we give back[apodo] an account of the life He first gave us.

If I give an account of the 1st World War that does not make me responsible for it.  So far I have been describing a Determinist way of reading the Bible in which there is no free will and no human responsibility.

A chair does not have to make itself to be a chair. We choose. We
choose on the basis of who we are. We do not choose who we are.
Choose you this day whom you will serve is a choice which we will
make solely on the basis on how God first made us.

On the other hand the Libertarian view is that Adam disobeyed God only because he had the free will to do so, and all human behaviour is down to free will. Here we need to think about whether God's Laws are given to be obeyed or to prove that we can't.
Compatibilism says that Determinism {God is sovereign} is compatible with free will.
Pelagius was a Libertarian and Augustine inclined towards determinism I understand. So these positions have been under scrutiny for a long time. Responsibility has two aspects:

Instrumental.e.g. who betrayed Jesus? Judas or someone else? Who did
it?
Ultimate responsibility. Why did Judas betray Jesus? Was it because
he had free will or because this destiny was given him by God who
determined his actions?

Luke 22:22 says Jesus went as it was determined but "woe unto that man" that betrayed Him. This means that Judas would be punished even though his actions were determined for him.
We are instrumentally responsible for all our deeds. If I sit in a chair I have done it.
But that does not make me ultimately responsible if God decided before it happened that He would make me do that. So two sorts of responsibility exist and in my experience of Christianity these are frequently treated as one.  I am not sure your question strictly defines in which sense you use the word.


Did any ancient source believe in more than four gospels?

Unfortunately we don't have a particularly great documentary record when it comes to non-canonical books.  That said, there is some clear evidence that at least some people in the early church accepted other "gospels" as Scripture.
Gospel of the Hebrews
Let's first turn to early church historian Eusebius.  He divides the existing books into three groups: widely recognized, disputed, and heretical. (Histories, 3.25) His "widely recognized" canon largely agrees with our own, but the "disputed" category is worth noting.  These are works that he didn't simply dismiss, but suggests that at least some in the church accepted them.  In this list, one in particular can rightly be called a gospel – the Gospel of the Hebrews.
According to the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, among those who knew and used the book are Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus the Blind, Cyril of Jeruslaem and Jerome.  And Klijn, "Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition," argues that Hegesippus accepted it, based on Eusebius's mention of him (Histories, 4.22).
The Gospel of Truth
Perhaps even clearer evidence for the existence of someone holding to more than four gospels in the earliest centuries is found in the writings of Irenaeus.  He attacks a prominent gnostic, Valentinus, over the matter:

But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing “the Gospel of Truth,” though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. (Against Heresies, 3.11)

Others
Eusebius specifically mentions several more "gospels" in his "heretical" category – the gospels of Peter, Matthias, and Thomas.  These and others like them don't have much explicit evidence for their acceptance by some in the church, though presumably Eusebius wouldn't have even mentioned them if no one accepted them.  And indeed, their relative prominence is used as evidence for acceptance: see, for example, What is the basis for saying that the Gospel of Thomas was accepted as scripture by early Christians?
Summary
So yes, there were people who associated themselves with Christianity – some typically considered "orthodox," some not – who seem to have accepted more than four gospels.  Two of the best documented "fifth gospels" are the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Truth.


Is Christianity an experiential practice?

Yes, I think it is.  Though, with an emphasis on "necessarily".  Well, beyond the core tenants, anyway.

If you are a Christian but have never experienced God's love, then something is missing.  I'm not talking about charismatic or pentecostal "gifts of the Spirit", I'm just talking about... feeling that God loves you.

Miguel de Unamuno: "Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God Himself”

Disclaimer: this is my understanding, and probably mine only.  I do not speak for any congregation, demonination, or any other -ation.


Do any Christian versions of 'Just War Theory' address cases in which foes exploit the principles of Just War to their own advantage?

Summary: No, the Just War doctrine is not intended to provide guidance at this level of detail.

First a brief summary of what the Just War Doctrine is. It's intended to be an answer to the question of whether a Christian can morally fight in a war, and the very brief summary is: "A Christian can fight in a war, as long as it is 'Just'". Many Christian groups hold to this view, with the main alternative positions being the Pacifist one, which says that a Christian can never fight in a war, and the one that says that a Christian can and should fight if ordered to do so by a secular authority.

The doctrine also provides some guidelines for when a war is considered 'Just'. There are two main parts to that. The first is when a war may justly be begun - for example it must not be a war of aggression, it must be fought by a legitimate authority, and only if all other means have been exhausted. The second is the conduct of the war: for example it should be a proportionate response to the evil the war is intended to prevent, and it should involve only what is militarily necessary to achieve its objectives.

The first rules for a Just War were set out many hundreds of years ago, including those of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and  Stanisław of Skarbimierz (1360-1431). While there have been variants on these rules, the approach has always been to set out principles rather than to prescribe detailed responses to specific situtions. The principles has been applied to wars from the bow-and-arrow era to that of nuclear weapons.

Because of the level at which they are laid down, it makes little sense to try and address specific situations that have arisen only in the last few decades. It is also worth mentioning that none of the forumlators of the Just War guidelines intended them to be applied only in cases in which the other side also 'played by the rules', and it's widely believed that "do good to other people only when they are being good to you" is foreign to Christian belief. Medieval warfare, the norm when these rules were being set down, was at least as nasty as modern 'asymmetric' warfare.


What are the memorized lines people are reciting in church?

Liturgical Christians

I grew up as a member of the denomination that is now known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and attended an Episcopal Church when I was in college.

The spoken or sung portions of the service that are not hymns or customized prayers is called the "liturgy".

Christians that have a liturgy as part of their church services (such as Roman Catholics, Episcopalian/Anglicans, and Lutherans, and to a lesser extent Presbyterians and Methodists) are called "liturgical Christians", although the term is sometimes restricted to Protestants who are liturgical Christians.

What Is The Protestant Liturgy?

The Protestant liturgies are derived from one of several "vernacular" (i.e. in the local language rather than Latin) translations of the Roman Catholic mass as it existed at the time of the Protestant Reformation, with very slight substantive alterations (most notably the omission of the word "transubstantiation" from the language related to the sacrament of communion and the omission of several of the sacraments than are found in the Roman Catholic church).

There were three main translation efforts involved: One, originally into German, by the Lutherans; one in English by the Anglicans (this is closer to the Catholic mass as the Anglican church left Roman Catholicism mostly so the King could divorce as opposed to out of deep ideological disputes with the Pope); and a third by the Calvinists (whose successors in the U.S. include Presbyterians and the "Reformed" church).

The Methodist Church split off from the Anglican Church about two centuries after the Anglicans split from the Roman Catholics and diluted many of the Anglican church's more high church practices. So its liturgy is derived from the Anglican one. (The Episcopal Church is the Anglican church in the United States that rebranded itself after the American Revolution when identifying with the English was out of favor.)

Following Vatican II and other reforms in the Roman Catholic Church, starting around the 1970s, when vernacular translations of the Roman Catholic mass from the historical Latin version were much more widely used, many people were surprised to learn how similar that had remained despite roughly 500 years of separation. (This is also the historical moment that Latin began its long and relentless decline in the high school and higher educational curriculum.)

Other Protestant denominations such as Presbyterians and Methodists use somewhat abbreviated liturgies (and are much less likely to sing them).

In "high church" liturgical Protestant Congregations, the liturgy is sung with a pastor or a "cantor" (i.e. someone, not necessarily ordained, who sings the liturgy if the pastor can't carry a tune) leading the liturgy after which the congregation responds. Roman Catholics and some high church liturgical Protestants not only sit and stand but also kneel and sometimes genuflect at designated moments in the worship service.

In the more common "low church" liturgical Protestant Congregations, the liturgy is spoken with the pastor leading and the congregation responding, kneeling is dispensed with, incense is not used during the service, and genuflection is also omitted.

Locating the liturgy

Most liturgical churches have copies of the liturgy in a hymnal or prayer book available at every pew. Usually a church bulletin points you to the right page to read from although it goes by very fast. Finding the right page is trickier than it seems because there are several seasonal variations on the liturgy that are subtly different and you have to make sure you are reading the right version for the current service.

Some Congregations and Parishes, particularly in locations or at times when they are prone to having newcomers, will publish a church bulletin that actually reproduces all of the liturgy language that the members of the congregation need to recite and the text of all the hymns that will be sung in the bulletin itself, rather than merely a list of what parts of the liturgy will be used (which varies somewhat with the season of the church over the course of a year) and what hymns will be sung.

Congregations of liturgical Christians and some Roman Catholic Parishes have also emulated the usual practice of large non-denominational churches of displaying the liturgy and the text of the hymns on large screens visible to the congregation.

While many regular church goers in all forms of Christianity that use a liturgy memorize the liturgy, the social expectation that you memorize it is much greater in the Roman Catholic church than in most Protestant liturgical churches. I assume, but do not know, that this is a part of the Confirmation process that adolescents go through which is more rigorous in the Roman Catholic church than for Lutherans. (The Roman Catholic Catechism is the size of a thick paperback novel; the Lutheran version runs about 80 mini-sized pages.)

The Lutheran Liturgy

ELCA Lutherans use hymnals including one called the Lutheran Book of Worship (I grew up with the green 1978 edition with gold lettering on the exterior shown above) that contains both the liturgy which has page numbers in the front portion, and hymns which have sequential hymn numbers and are placed in order of season and purpose in the back portion of the book.

  In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the LBW is sometimes
  called the "green book", as opposed to With One Voice, a blue-covered
  supplement; or the previous Service Book and Hymnal, bound in red; or
  The Lutheran Hymnal, which is also bound in red, but with a simple
  gold cross.

The Lutheran Book of Worship was drafted as a joint effort of four North American Lutheran denominations including the ELCA and the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) starting in 1965, although the LCMS dropped out of the venture right around the time it was completed and produced an alternative in 1982.

You can get a used copy on Amazon.com for about $8, or buy a new one from the Augsburg Fortress Press. As far as I know, there is no free version online. But, you can hear some of it sung in high church fashion in this You Tube video.

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod subsequently adopted the Lutheran Service Book in 2004, published by Concordia Publishing House, for which a substantial sampler with many portions of the liturgy is available. The Lutheran Service Book retains more of the smattering of Latin words held over from the Roman Catholic Latin mass than the ELCA.

Lutheran church music is usually melodically simple (although some efforts were made in the LBW to adopt a bit more musical complexity) and homophonic (i.e. a single melody supported by simple cords, as opposed to having the intertwined melodies of polyphonic music).

Many of the most well known Lutheran hymns were adapted by Martin Luther and his early colleagues from decidedly low brow 16th century German drinking songs in the era before it became the government sanctioned established church for most of Northern Europe.

The Episcopal/Anglican Liturgy

The Episcopalian liturgy is contained in a book called the Book of Common Prayer (created independently of the Lutheran liturgy) which has the most familiar version of the liturgy and turns of phrase to most Americans because the Book of Common Prayer also forms the basis of the liturgies of several other denominations of Protestants in the United States (usually with simplifications from the Episcopal/Anglican version and usually rejecting the more modern additions to it that for example reference interstellar space in some prayers), most notably the Methodists.

The most stereotypical version of the wedding service, for example, is from the Book of Common Prayer.

The most recent edition of the Book of Common prayer is available online here.

Episcopalians generally have a separate hymnal from the Book of Common Prayer, which can make for quite a bit of juggling of books during a service.

For what it is worth, the Episcopal musical arrangements of the liturgy and hymns are more sophisticated musically (and choice of language is also more sophisticated in many cases) than the Lutheran, Presbyterian or Methodist versions which are either second order translations from an intermediate language that was in turn translated from the original Latin, or were deliberately dumbed down, as the Methodists did, to accommodate the limitations of life on the American frontier.

Liturgical v. Non-Liturgical Protestants

Many Evangelical and "fundamentalist" churches do not use a liturgy, a practice that dates back at least to the Puritans in the 1600s who rejected the liturgy on the grounds that it was part of the Roman Catholic tradition accumulated over time, rather than being something that was used by Christians in the early Christian church before it was organized into a more or less unified bureaucratic organization.

For liturgical Christians, however, the liturgy and traditions around the seasons of the church calendar (see below) in which it is embedded provide a comforting rhythm of life and connection to an ancient shared Christian heritage.

Roman Catholics and some very high church Lutherans and Episcopalians also celebrate some "Saint's Days".

For them, rather than representing a corruption of the early church, the Western religious tradition provides an answer to the question "what has God been up to since the 4th century?", which is a vacuum without the Roman Catholic and successor Protestant church tradition such as the liturgy, holy orders, and saints.

The main seasons of the church calendar are, in order, Advent (the month before Christmas), Christmas (Christmas until early January), Epiphany (early January until Mardi Gras), Lent (40 days before Easter), Holy Week (the week before Easter), Easter (in the Spring but floating a bit to coordinate with the timing of Passover in the Jewish lunar calendar), and Pentecost (one of the longer seasons starting in the summer 40 or 50 days or so after Easter).


How do we know that death has no mastery over Christ?

Lazarus and others died of the "first death" and were raised back to the same earthly body as before they died. Their ultimate fate was still to be determined, be it everlasting life or the "second death" on judgement day.

Jesus died of the "second death" to pay the penalty of death for believers. He was raised up in full glory as a conquerer, and it is through Him that we have hope in the same eternal resurrection.

On a deeper note, death never had mastery over Jesus per se, except that He allowed it willingly to pay our debt. Jesus says,

  "I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it again" (John 10:18)


What is the basis for saying rock music is sinful?

After reading several of the comments, it appears that many are taking the original question, "Is rock music sinful / immoral" and rewriting it in their heads as "If I listen to rock music, does that make me a rank sinner?"

As Paul put it...

  I Corinthians 6:11-13 And such were some of you: but ye are washed,
  but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord
  Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful unto me,
  but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I
  will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and
  the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the
  body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the
  body.

Is it expedient to listen to a song that contains lyrics about traveling down the Highway to Hell? As one commenter noted, this song may be theologically accurate, but the lyrics are that "I'm on the highway to hell". No thanks. That's not expedient for me to sing along to.

Jesus admonished us to remember Lot's wife, who was so in love with the things of the world (Sodom) that, as fire fell from heaven, she had to turn back around to get one last look.

  LUKE 17:32 Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life
  shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

  GENESIS 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah
  brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those
  cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and
  that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind
  him, and she became a pillar of salt.

As Paul said, "but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." Sanctification brings separation.

I believe true sanctification produces a difference between what you used to be, and what you are today in Christ. The difference between what you used to do, and what you do now, should be so obvious that anyone can see it, and you become a living testimony to all men.

  I Corinthians 3:1-2 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need
  we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of
  commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known
  and read of all men:

Summary:
To say that listening to rock music makes you a sinner is legalism. On the other hand, make sure you are washed, sanctified, and set apart, and aren't turning back like Lot's wife.


What is the biblical basis for the freedom of religion?

In Revelation 22 it says:

  Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person
  continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right;
  and let the holy person continue to be holy.”

Christianity is not by nature a conquering faith.

In 1 Corinthians 5:

  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral
  people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral,
  or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have
  to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not
  associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is
  sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or
  swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

  What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you
  not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the
  wicked person from among you.”

The church is to regulate its members' conduct, not the conduct of outsiders.

Romans 12 says:

  If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with
  everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for
  God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”d
  says the Lord.

Persecuting others is discouraged, because we are to love our enemies.

Above all, to not respect the religions of others would be contrary to the ways of servant hood. As Matthew 23 says:

  The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt
  themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be
  exalted.

I believe the example of ancient Israel in Joshua 7, when they lost a battle because Achan took plunder, is a good illustration. The Old Testament is used by some to justify Holy wars, and by others to attack Christianity. God is perfectly free to employ people to fight Holy wars, but he holds those soldiers to a high standard: you must serve God and not greed. Centuries later, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain - even those that had converted to Christianity - was not an act of piety, but one of greed. They wanted to confiscate the wealth of those they despised.


Which, in Catholic belief, is the higher form of prayer - the Lord's Prayer/Our Father, or the Eucharist?

Short Answer: there isn't a contradiction

A reference to the larger treatment of both Prayer and the Eucharist in the Catechism, and not taking out of context the official teaching should prevent seeing a contradiction in what the Pope said (which conformed to the agenda of the 2005 Ordinary Synod).

Amplification

The answer is within the brief quote from the Pope (per @AndrewLeach's entry that you linked to) if we look at the whole quote.

  The Eucharistic Celebration is the greatest and highest act of prayer, and constitutes the centre and the source from which even the other forms receive "nourishment": the Liturgy of the Hours, Eucharistic adoration, Lectio divina, the Holy Rosary, meditation. All these expressions of prayer, which have their centre in the Eucharist, fulfil the words of Jesus in the priest's day and in all his life: "I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep" (Jn 10: 14-15).

For starters:  the Church teaches through the Catechism (1324) that

  1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."

The Catechism as a whole addresses all elements of Christian life, as the Church sees them.  This includes prayer: all of Section IV of the Catechism covers Prayer.  Prayer in general is thus a subset of the larger thing, Christian life, as addressed in all 2865 articles.

The "apparent" contradiction looks like taking things out of context. I've fallen into the context problem myself more than once.

It is worth noting that the context of the Pope's remarks is an address to clergy, who have a further obligation for more and daily prayer than the laity.

There isn't a competition between the Eucharist and the Our Father, nor does the Pope's message and commentary imply that, nor will you find an "in church" source that agrees that there is a conflict.

The two are in harmony. (See Catechism 2770-2772 below).   This is ably demonstrated during the Mass, since one of the prayers included is the Our Father, during the Liturgy of the Eucharist (cf Roman Missal, 3d edition).

In describing the Eucharist as a prayer (per the Pope's citation) rather than as a rite or a celebration of thanksgiving, Pope Benedict names it both an act of prayer and then discusses other forms of prayer.  His meaning (in context) is that the Eucharist is also a a form of prayer.  (Usually, a great collective prayer).

The authority of a Pope: his utterances, encyclicals, and commentaries can be authoritative without having to be ex cathedra.   He is the Head of the Church, and the Head of the Magisterium of the Church, which is the church's ultimate teaching authority. That this quote is in accord with a previous proceeding of the Synod argues that there isn't a conflict.

The Our Father as the Perfect Prayer?  Sure it is.  Why wouldn't it be?

It was passed down from Jesus to his Disciples, so you can (from the Trinity perspective) say that God(The Son) gave this prayer to His People/The Faithful -- since He is perfect, the prayer is perfect.

From the Catechism

  2765 The traditional expression "the Lord's Prayer" - oratio Dominica - means that the prayer to our Father is taught and given to us by the Lord Jesus.  The prayer that comes to us from Jesus is truly unique: it is "of the Lord."  On the one hand, in the words of this prayer the only Son gives us the words the Father gave him: he is the master of our prayer. On the other, as Word incarnate, he knows in his human heart the needs of his human brothers and sisters and reveals them to us: he is the model of our prayer.

The harmony is confirmed in the Eucharistic celebration itself.

  After the chalice and paten have been set down, the Priest, with hands joined, says:
  At the Savior’s command and formed by divine teaching, we dare to say:
  He extends his hands and, together with the people, continues:

And everyone says the Our Father.  (Ref = Liturgy of the Eucharist, Roman Missal, 3rd edition)

Bottom line:

There isn't a conflict
There are multiple forms of prayer.
When the Eucharist is seen as a prayer, it is consistent with the position of the Eucharist in the Faith (source and summit of the faith) that it is the highest form of prayer, or as the Pope said it, the highest act of prayer.
The Pope has sufficient authority to make such an observation as amplification of the teachings in the Catechism.
That the Eucharistic celebration includes the Our Father looks like a strengthening of that statement: the highest act of prayer should include "the perfect prayer" within it.

  2770 In the Eucharistic liturgy the Lord's Prayer appears as the prayer of the whole Church and there reveals its full meaning and efficacy. Placed between the anaphora (the Eucharistic prayer) and the communion, the Lord's Prayer sums up on the one hand all the petitions and intercessions expressed in the movement of the epiclesis and, on the other, knocks at the door of the Banquet of the kingdom which sacramental communion anticipates.

  2771 In the Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer also reveals the eschatological character of its petitions. It is the proper prayer of "the end-time," the time of salvation that began with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and will be fulfilled with the Lord's return. The petitions addressed to our Father, as distinct from the prayers of the old covenant, rely on the mystery of salvation already accomplished, once for all, in Christ crucified and risen.

  2772 From this unshakeable faith springs forth the hope that sustains each of the seven petitions, which express the groanings of the present age, this time of patience and expectation during which "it does not yet appear what we shall be." The Eucharist and the Lord's Prayer look eagerly for the Lord's return, "until he comes."


What is the specific meaning of "die" in Genesis 2?

The death promised and that Adam experienced the moment he chose to sin was not a ceasing to exist or a physical stopping to breathe, it was a separation: a rending apart of two things that were once closely joined. On the day that Adam ate the fruit, he died1. He was separated from God. The fellowship between them was broken.

The reverse of this death happens when we are 'born again'. The fellowship is restored, and we are born into new life -- the power of the cross is that it reverses death!

The alternative, for those who are not born again into a new life, is that they will experience a 'second death'. This is partly a contrast between physical and spiritual death. It happens sequentially after physical death (making it second) but is also the point at which spiritual separation  becomes permanent (having died once with Adam, they will be judged to permanent death). The reverse is true for believers: we will be raised into life even though we die.

This is an important doctrine to understand in light of many popular culture understandings of death as some kind of annihilation or ceasing to exist. Never in Scripture do we find an indications that any humans well cease to exist, but we do find lots of information about the change in our relationship before God.

This understanding of death as a separation or rending apart of two things once joined is also the sense of 'death' that Romans and 1st Peter use when they speak of believers being dead to sin. We are no longer bound to it as a slave is to his master. Believers relationship with sin has been severed and we have been cleaved to a new master.

When we physically die, our spirits are separated from the bodies that we have been one with2. Our bodies don't cease to exist nor do our spirits, but they part ways3. Our bodies then decay and return to dust, but even the material in this world doesn't cease to exist. Our spirits meanwhile continue, either in eternal life (unity with Christ) or eternal death (separation from Him).

  Genesis 2:17 (ESV)
  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat1 of it you shall surely die.”

  Genesis 35:18 (ESV)
  And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.
  James 2:26 (ESV)
  For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

  Ecclesiastes 12:7 (ESV)
  and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.