What are the teachings of Catholic Church on the implications of gender-change by individuals, in their life-after-life?

"Sex-change operations" are mutilations of the body, changes in the accidents (not substance) of a human.(The soul doesn't have a sex; St. Ambrose On Virginity ch. 15: "anima enim sexum non habet", "for the soul doesn't have a sex".)

Only scars of wounds, not lost limbs or major mutilations, can remain in resurrected bodies, as St. Thomas writes in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 82 a. 1 ad 5:The scars of wounds will not be in the saints, nor were they in Christ, in so far as they imply a defect, but as signs of the most steadfast virtue whereby the saints suffered for the sake of justice and faith: so that this will increase their own and others' joy (cf. q. 54 a. 4 ad 3). Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii, 19):We feel an undescribable love for the blessed martyrs so as to desire to see in that kingdom the scars of the wounds in their bodies, which they bore for Christ's name. Perchance indeed we shall see them for this will not make them less comely but more glorious. A certain beauty will shine in them, a beauty though in the body, yet not of the body but of virtue.Nevertheless those martyrs who have been maimed and deprived of their limbs will not be without those limbs in the resurrection of the dead, for to them it is said (Lk. 21:18): "A hair of your head shall not perish."

∴, the sex of humans with their resurrected bodies will be that in which God created them.


What is the biblical basis for allowing atheists to speak openly and freely in society?

On basic human psychology
Censoring someone doesn't change their beliefs; it just prevents them from expressing those beliefs where they will be caught. However, censoring someone will absolutely harden their heart against you. As someone who grew up atheist, I can absolutely tell you that I would have spent my entire young adult life in prison, protesting against such discrimination, and I would not have converted.
A change of heart does not occur in the face of force, but with love. Further, a change in behavior does not mean that a change of heart has occurred, but a change of heart will always result in a change of behavior.
On finding lost sheep

John 21:15
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
Romans 10:14
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

If our goal is to convert as many people as possible to Christianity, one of the first steps has to be to find the non-believers. When I was in college, this was really easy: put up fliers for a Christian event, and you would be accosted. Give out free coffee on a cold day in the name of our Lord, and you would be accosted. My most productive conversations with non-believers occurred during interactions like this. But what if it was literally illegal to express their views to me? Those interactions would never have occurred, and there would be fewer Christians today.
What would Jesus do?
Usually, when trying to find out what Jesus would do in a particular situation, we have to get abstract about his character and nature. This is not the case now; we know exactly what Jesus would do:

Find the sinners.
Engage the sinners in dialog.
Engage in very public dialog with anyone and everyone, especially sinners.
Eat with the sinners.
Feed the sinners.
Heal the sinners.
Perform miracles for the sinners.
Save the sinners from being stoned to death.
Get accused of being a sinner by associating so much with them.
Die for their sins.
Forgive those who killed him as they were killing him.
Conquer death.

(If necessary, I can chase down all the verses for those, but I shouldn't think it necessary.)
Jesus was all about engaging in very public dialog with people who were spiritually lost. At no point in the Bible does he try to censor anyone.
Samaria

Acts 1:8
"...you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
John 4:9
For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.
Alternate: For Jews do not use dishes Samaritans have used.

On first reading of Acts, it seems odd that Jesus specifically mentions they have to witness in Samaria. But, in John we learn that Jews were extremely prejudiced against the Samaritans, to the point where they refused to even share dishes. In the ancient world, when Jews made their pilgrimage to Jerusalem, they would travel miles and miles out of their way just to avoid Samaria. In Acts, Jesus is essentially anticipating an argument. "The Lord said to the ends of the earth, but he surely didn't mean also those dirty Samaritans." Yes, we must love even our enemies (Matthew 5:44). Censorship is about as unloving as one can get short of physical violence.
Witnesses, not enforcers
Acts 1:8 also tells us our role, which we can also see in the Great Commission:

Matthew 18:19-20
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

We are to be witnesses, disciplers, baptizers, and teachers. We are not enforcers of God's law. We are not judges. And even if we were, the only instance of censorship I remember from the Bible is when God ordered Joshua and the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, and domesticated animal in Canaan who wasn't an Israelite because their pagan beliefs would corrupt the Israelites, and I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that we are not called to genocide.
Paul in Athens

Selections from Acts 17:22-34
22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill."
32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed.
-1 And then Paul and his followers destroyed all the pagan altars in the city.

Clearly, that last line is not in the Bible. Paul was: courteous regarding their beliefs ("I see that in every way you are very religious"); firm in his own convictions; and in a public debate with non-believers. After stating his position, some people sneered, and he let them. He converted those he could, taught them what he could, but recognized that it was not his responsibility to try and force anyone into a change of heart, or to censor them in any way.

Matthew 10:14
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.


Was knowledge of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton a component of the "deposit of faith" entrusted to the apostles and their successors?

The answers to the O.P.'s questions are simple:

No, the pronunciation of a word would not enter in any meaningful way into the contents of the faith. Faith has to do with God and those truths revealed by Him. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 156.) The revelation of God as “I Am Who Am” (see Ex. 3:14), which is deeply linked to the Tetragrammaton, does enter into the deposit of faith, but not the way those concepts are expressed linguistically.
Hence, the question of the correct pronunciation is for linguists, and the Church takes no official position. (As a practical matter, there does not seem to be any way to find out what the correct vowel pattern is, since vowel marks were added to Hebrew only after the Tetragrammaton had long ceased to be pronounced.)
The pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was not entrusted to the Apostles precisely because it is a linguistic question, not a theological one. It is not essential (or even important) for understanding the mysteries revealed by God.


What is the "Holy place" Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:15?

2

*When the power of the holy people is broken *

  7 Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of
  the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven,
  and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time,
  times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been
  completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

Daniel 12:7

  For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this
  mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a
  partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the
  Gentiles has come in; and then all Israel will be saved; just as it
  is written,

  “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from
  Jacob.” 27 “This is [i]My covenant with them, When I take away their
  sins.”

It is believed and has been believed by many Christians, that at a point before the return of Christ, the Nation of Israel, as a nation, will turn en-mass to Christ. This belief is taken mainly from Romans chapter 11. Paul goes to great lengths in this chapter to explain what he calls a 'mystery'.

A book By Ian Murray called 'The Puritan hope'(Banner of truth trust), is a good twentieth century exposition of this chapter in Romans. The author puts together the history of this teaching particularly from the the 16 century to this day.

Some of the people who hold this view, namely that immediately before the return of Christ there will be a an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on a scale not seen before in history! It will be sparked by the conversion of Israel as a nation (The redeemer will come from Zion). Their conversion as a nation will result in a world wide revival. This belief is taken from Romans 11:11

  11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it
  never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the
  Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is
  riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how
  much more will their fulfillment be!

In other words if the effect of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews results in riches of knowledge and grace for the Gentiles, what will be the outcome of the Jews accepting the Gospel as a nation? Paul says it will be "Life from the dead". Many Christians deduct from this that not only will Israel turning to Christ bring incredible blessing to the nations, it will also signify the time of the end and of Christs return, ("LIFE FROM THE DEAD")

To put it simply. There will be a turning of the whole World to Christ. Then the abomination or the beast will arise again to destroy this body of believers.

  5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to [a]rule all the
  [b]nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and
  to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she
  *had a place prepared by God, so that there [c]she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

The final outcome after the beast has ravaged the follows of Christ and a third of the stars are cast to the Earth(Rev 12:1-6), the nations will finally gather together at Jerusalem, what is considered 'The Holy city',

  Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel
  stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and
  those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside
  the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the
  Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two
  months.  And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will
  prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in
  sackcloth.”

  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of
  by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let
  him understand:)

It is possible that the "Temple of God, and the alter do signify the Spiritual worship of God in prayer and therefore, the holy people, not an actual temple or alter! The beast will trample the people of God! The last stronghold in the World will be Jerusalem where the Two Witnesses will smite the beast and his followers with famine  and plauge,

  Rev 10:4-6

  These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before
  the God of the earth.  And if anyone wants to harm them, fire proceeds
  from their mouth and devours their enemies. And if anyone wants to
  harm them, he must be killed in this manner.  These have power to shut
  heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they
  have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth
  with all plagues, as often as they desire.

Daniel 12:5 NASV

Then I, Daniel, looked and behold, two others were standing, one on this bank of the river and the other on that bank of the river.  And one said to the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be until the end of these wonders?”  I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.

It would be difficult, not to see, the two witnesses, in Revelation as here in Daniel. Parallel prophecies from the Old and the New testaments regarding one event..the Revelations of John.

The end. Their will be a slaughter of horrible proportions, a slaughter of Christians. But in order for their to be a mass slaughter their must be a mass conversion.

  Matthew 24:22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)  Unless those days
  had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake
  of the elect those days will be cut short.

Romans 11:11 NASV

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,  if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.  For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?  If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too."

Mathew 24:

  “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and
  you will be hated by all nations because of My name.  At that time
  many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.
  Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.  Because
  lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.  But the
  one who endures to the end, he will be saved.  This gospel of the
  kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all
  the nations, and then the end will come.

Again the bible teaches a great apostacy,

2 Thessalonians 2
New King James Version (NKJV)

The Great Apostasy

  "Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our
  gathering together to Him, we ask you,  not to be soon shaken in mind
  or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us,
  as though the day of Christ had come.  Let no one deceive you by any
  means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first,
  and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,  who opposes and
  exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so
  that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is
  God."

Let me suggest, that there could only be a great apostasy, if there had first been a great revival of Christianity. What caused this great apostasy? A great persecution, for father will betray son and son father. True Christianity is not in any way compatible with the present world system. When hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people turn to Christ, such people who are presently employed in many services, companies etc who's moral standard will not be compatible with their new minds, will no be able to continue in any employment which is corrupt, or of the nature of the beast's system. "Come out from her my people," will be Gods call to them, and do not participate in her sins for she has corrupted the Earth with her luxuries and vanity. The merchants will cry when they see Babylon destroyed and the Merchants **of the earth will wail because the great city that made them rich **is no more. This will mean massive economic and socialogical upheaval. Jobs where persons are employed in making weapons of war, or of gambling (financial services) or of any other employment that destroys and pollutes the Earth and Gods people, will be abandoned by Christ call to the elect, causing massive disruption to this present corrupt system Babylon(Confusion is the nature of this World system. There is no justice here or truth or righteousness and our thoughts are only sin continually(Gen 6:5). The number of the beast, 666 , is the number of a man, the man that serves numbers or mammon!

It is said of the Beast that..

  Revelation 17 English Standard Version (ESV) The Great Prostitute and
  the Beast

  "Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said
  to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who
  is seated on many waters,  with whom the kings of the earth have
  committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual
  immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” 3 And he carried
  me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on
  a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven
  heads and ten horns.  The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet,
  and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a
  golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual
  immorality.  And on her forehead was written a name of mystery:
  “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's
  abominations.” 6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the
  saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus."

  When I saw her, I marveled greatly.  But the angel said to me, “Why
  do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the
  beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her.  The beast
  that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless
  pit and go to destruction.

I would like to draw your attention to the words "was, and is not, and is about to rise"
The present world system and its ruling families will be almost shattered by the revival that is coming. Initially the world rulers will stumble and fall (was), they will see their power dramatically reduced and dying.(is not)(for Christ will rule the world through his people and the gospel will be preached in all nations.) it will be like a millennium of peace(Rev 20: 1-3). Their only recourse will be force. To crush the opposition*(is about to rise)*.

This they will do, in a terrible display of the wickedness of man and sin. Unless those days had been cut short..

  Matthew 24:22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

  Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved;
  but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.


How does one become a "lay-minister" in the Catholic Church?

How does one become a “lay-minister” in the Catholic Church?
First of all, what constitutes a Lay minister varies according to the definition employed by pastors and dioceses.
That will depend on the type of lay ministry one is involved in. Depending on the field of work the requirements for ministry vary. All dioceses require that the minister has a sense of calling. In regards to training, dioceses vary in their requirements, from those that emphasize natural gifts to those that also require advanced tertiary education qualifications, for example, from a seminary, theological college or university.
If one is considering becoming a ”Catholic Lay Minister” it is best to approach one’s local pastor (parish priest), local ordinary (bishop) chancery office or some other well informed Catholic in this matter or one’s National Conference of Bishop’s secretary (This can be done on line.) for more details.

The term lay ecclesial ministry reflects certain key realities. Lay ecclesial ministry is: Lay because it is service done by lay persons. The sacramental basis is the Sacraments of Initiation, not the Sacrament of Ordination. Ecclesial because it has a place within the community of the Church, whose communion and mission it serves, and because it is submitted to the discernment, authorization, and supervision of the hierarchy. Ministry because it is the work by which Christians participate in the threefold ministry of Christ, who is priest, prophet, and king and continue his mission and ministry in the world. Lay ecclesial ministers are women and men whose ecclesial service (lay ecclesial ministry) is characterized by: Authorization of the hierarchy to serve publicly in the local church Leadership in a particular area of ministry Close mutual collaboration with the pastoral ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons Preparation and formation appropriate to the level of responsibilities that are assigned to them The following understandings should be kept in mind: The term "lay ecclesial minister" is generic. "Lay ecclesial minister" is not itself a specific position title. It is not used in order to establish a new rank or order among the laity. It is the responsibility of the bishop, or his delegate, ign accord with the norms of canon law, to identify the roles that most clearly exemplify lay ecclesial ministry. Application of the term may vary from diocese to diocese. - What is lay ecclesial ministry? Who are lay ecclesial ministers?

Obviously a principal of a Catholic school needs to be properly educated to meet both state and ecclesiastical requirements.

Formation for Lay Ecclesial Ministers:
The Church has always required proper preparation of those who exercise a ministry. In the same way, CIC, canon 231, states that "lay persons who devote themselves permanently or temporarily to some special service of the Church are obliged to acquire the appropriate formation which is required to fulfill their function properly." Lay ecclesial ministers, just like the ordained, need and deserve formation of high standards, effective methods, and comprehensive goals. . .

"To set high standards," said Pope John Paul II, "means both to provide a thorough basic training and to keep it constantly updated. This is a fundamental duty, in order to ensure qualified personnel for the Church’s mission." . . .Lay ecclesial ministers need:

Human qualities critical to form wholesome relationships and necessary to be apt instruments of God's love and compassion.

A spirituality and practice of prayer that root them in God's Trinitarian life, grounding and animating all they do in ministry.

Adequate knowledge in theological and pastoral studies, along with the intellectual skill to use it among the people and cultures of our country.

The practical pastoral abilities called for in their particular ministry.

What do Catholic lay ministers do?
Parish Lay Ministers:

Director of Administrative Services
Director of Religious Education
Pastoral Musician
Pastoral Associate
Adult and Family Minister
Liturgist
Parish Director (Parish Life Coordinator)
Youth Minister (Director of Youth Ministry)
Human Concerns Minister (Social Justice Minister)
Parish Secretary (Administrative Assistant)
RCIA Coordinator
Chaplain (Director of Spiritual Care)
Campus Minister
Retreat Director
Spiritual Director
Lay Missionary
School Principal
Catholic Elementary or High School Teacher

The idea of Catholic Lay Ministers is a rather new concept in most dioceses. These “lay ministers” are required to work a minimum of 20 hours a week in their field of service and it is a paid position.
According to the above definition, what has been stated, those serving at the alter, Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, readers and ushers are not considered “lay ministers”.
These new terms can create some confusion amongst Catholics as the definitions seems to imply things that they are not. Lay ministers are not ordained for example.
However, traditionally altar servers, lector and acolytes are considered minor liturgical ministers.
To a lesser degree ushers are included also.  Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist may also be considered ministers’but not in a traditional sense, as it is a rather new practice within the Church.
The Church in modern times also includes lay readers and ushers as liturgical lay ministers.

In a general sense, any Christian exercising a ministry is a minister. Since all the baptised are part of the universal priesthood, whenever they engage in their vocation to evangelize the world and to help those in need, they are ministers.
In addition, the Church calls people to the responsible stewardship of their time and talent in support of the Church. This often takes the form of volunteering for a specific lay ministry, most of which are liturgical, catechetical, or involved in pastoral care and social justice.
Liturgical lay ministries include lectors (Ministers of the Word) who proclaim scriptural (the Bible) passages during the Eucharist, altar servers and acolytes who assist the presider at the altar, cantors and music ministers who lead the singing, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who serve during Mass and/or who take Holy Communion to the sick and homebound, and ushers or ministers of hospitality who direct the seating and procession of the assembly.
Catechetical lay ministries include catechists (Sunday school teachers and teachers at Catholic schools), dismissal leaders (ministers who lead RCIA catechumens on Sundays), retreat leaders, youth group leaders, and Scout religious emblems counselors.
Other lay ministries include those who work with charitable activities, pastoral care and outreach, or advocacy for social justice. - Minister (Catholic Church


Prior to the burning bush event - what was Moses's knowledge of God?

There is only speculation as to who told moses what, and when. The bible doesn't say whether there was any contact between moses and his biological family after he was weaned and taken back to Pharoah's daughter (until he was joined by his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam in Egypt, when he went to face the Pharoah). He did know that the Israelite slaves were his brethren; but who told him? Pharoah's daughter knew Moses' sister, Miriam, and possibly her mother. One of them could have visited him and told him his family history and of God.

Jethro was the priest of the Midianites. Midian was one of Abraham's six sons by Keturah, whom he married after Sarah died. Jethro was most likely a priest of the God of Abraham, being one of his direct descendants. It is very likely that Jethro told him about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their God, when he lived with him for 40 years.


Finding Ancient/Byzantine Greek texts used by choirs from Mount Athos

I heard the Mount Athos chants recently as well. I'm not familiar with the Greek Orthodox liturgy at all, nor the Greek language, so I'm also having a terribly hard time trying to find reference for the lyrics. This won't be a very satisfying answer, but I thought I would just share the info I found so far.
From what I can gather, the first video you linked is a Τροπάριο (short hymn?) which is called Ανοιξαντάρια. The Greek wikipedia entry for Τροπάριο contains a reference to that specific chant, giving the first four words: "Ανοίξαντός σου την χείρα" (open your hand). I found various lyrics for this chant online, but they don't seem to match up very well with the video you linked. (I don't understand Greek though, so I could be wrong). The only other phrase I could catch being sung was "Δόξα Σοι ο Θεός Αλληλούια" (Thanks/Glory be to God, hallelujah) in various parts, like at the very end (timestamp 6:12).
The second video you linked contains chants for Holy Saturday, (the day before Easter). The first is "Holy Saturday Apolitikia", "Apolitikia" (Ἀπολυτίκιον) being the chant sung at dismissal. I could find at least the beginning of the lyrics here:

Ο ευσχήμων Ιωσήφ, από του ξύλου καθελών, το άχραντόν σου σώμα, σινδόνι καθαρά ειλήσας και αρώμασιν, εν μνήματι καινώ κηδεύσας επέθετο.

Good luck finding the texts. I think it would be easier for someone to find the lyrics who is familiar with the Greek Orthodox Liturgy. If you or anyone else finds more information, I'd love to hear about it.


Nobody in ancient times could have imagined that the earth was billions of years old, so you won't see any explicit attempts to reconcile the Genesis creation stories with an old earth. However, the early Christians did see discrepancies that made them question how literally the creation stories should be understood.

Second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr wrote in his Dialogue with Trypho, chapter LXXXI:

  For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.

You can see already the seed of the notion that the "days" of Genesis 1 do not refer to 24-hour periods.

Third century scholar Origen of Alexandria went further in De Principiis IV.16 [emphasis mine]:

  For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

Even ancient scientists understood that "evening" and "morning" were meaningless without reference to the sun, moon, and stars; Origen interpreted Genesis in light of the scientific knowledge of his day, paving the way for later generations to reconcile faith and science.

The influential 5th century scholar Augustine of Hippo, in The City of God, 11.6, refused to speculate about what "day" meant in Genesis 1 [emphasis mine]:

  For that which is made in time is made both after and before some time,— after that which is past, before that which is future. But none could then be past, for there was no creature by whose movements its duration could be measured. But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!

In The Literal Meaning of Genesis (PDF), 1.19, Augustine gave advice for interpreting the Scriptures' statements about the physical world [emphasis mine]:

  Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

Lest he be misunderstood, Augustine continued [emphasis mine]:

  The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Later in the same book, Augustine laid out his hermeneutic for reading Genesis (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 2.9, no online link available, but quoted in Wikipedia, Allegorical interpretations of Genesis [emphasis mine]:

  With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

So although old earth creationism is a modern view, it draws (as does theistic evolution) on the ancient tradition of understanding Genesis in light of our current knowledge about the universe.


The usages you give here are varied and not necessarily related. In today's English would could use the word hand as in to 'offer a helping hand' or to 'hand something over' or 'hand something out' or any number of other expressions. In the same way not every instance of the word 'thigh' necessarily refers to the same thing.

The first two cases you give in Genesis have to do with oaths. Placing a hand on the thigh of someone while you made a promise was a sign of submission and the seriousness of the oath. Such an action could also be taken on ones self as a sign of remorse. There several other examples of these two usages throughout the OT.

In your Leviticus passage the meaning is entirely different and you need look no farther than the prices of different cuts in your local butchers shop for an explanation. Some cuts of meat are considered more valuable. Breast and thighs were considered the best portions.

I don't know what the significance in Revelation is. For this one the suggestion to ask on Judaism.SE might be a good one because It think it has to do with a specific piece of clothing, the Tallit. The tassels have significance and where on the garment the name is inscribed corresponds to something about the tassels.


Is there any manuscript or historical evidence to support the final 13 verses of Genesis 50 that appear in the Joseph Smith Translation?

To start with, it might be helpful to clarify the terms used here.

Manuscript Evidence

Manuscript Evidence is a term that is well defined outside of Christianity, in the field of Textual Criticism.

  Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary
  criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of
  transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes made
  errors or alterations when copying manuscripts by hand. Given a
  manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original
  document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text
  (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same
  processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions,
  or recensions, of a document's transcription history. The ultimate
  objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a
  "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the
  original.

The basics are covered in another post on this site: What is “Manuscript Evidence” and how is it useful?, and it would be redundant cover the same ground here.  The short version is this:

The more copies we have of a text the more confident we can be that our current translations are true to the original text.
Older copies are less likely to contain unintentional/copyist errors than newer ones, so the more old manuscripts we have, the better.

Historical Evidence

This would be external evidence such as works written by historians of the time, or close to the time, corroborated by accepted historical evidence - documents recording the events at the time, archaeology, etc.

Answer, now that the terms have been clarified:

When it comes to the final verses of genesis, we have *no strong manuscript evidence*.  The evidence we do have is very weak, using the accepted forms of textual criticism.  It is all recent, and all stems from the translation of one author, and a translation of original brass plates that are not available to study.  We can only believe, with no external evidence, that they ever existed at all.  All that we have at this time is the translated verses.  We have no ancient copies of any texts that corroborate these verses.  All we really have is the word of the founder, and other believers within.

When it comes to historical evidence, we also have very little.  Before Joseph Smith, we have no historians referring to these verses, no Church sermons referring to them, nothing.

Of course, to the believer, lack of proof is not proof of lack.  It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something.  The answer to this question could, conceivably, be rendered null and void by the discovery of such manuscript or historical evidence.  The lack of external evidence doesn't constitute proof that the verses are invalid.  it just means that we have no corroborating evidence.  All we have is the word of Joseph Smith and a handful of witnesses, whose trustworthiness is affirmed in the LDS Church, but questioned outside it.


Is it Christian Doctrine to say that macroevolution is not the same as microevolution?

Doctrine does not make claims about the definitions that biologists (or others) use.

If someone wanted to assert that the earth is billions of years old, then someone's doctrine may contradict that assertion, but it is not a doctrinal assertion to argue about what is meant by macro- or microevolution.

If someone has an issue with macroevolution (e.g. because its logical implications contradict their doctrine), it is more likely that they claim that there isn't much in the way of proof that macroevolution has actually happened and that it is very, very improbable. Microevolution has been observed, whereas macroevolution is a theory imposed upon historical science.


What encyclical upheld God's sovereignty over the regularity of natural laws?

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Dei Filius on faith & reason, canons on God the Creator of all things:

Canon 5. If any one confess not that the world, and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by his will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby he loves himself [e.g., a logical necessity]; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

Cf. also Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis ¶¶16-17.

Addressing your specific questions:
Yes, St. Thomas Aquinas's philosophy and theology has great authority in the Catholic Church, as testified by numerous popes; his Summa Theologica was even placed on the altar, alongside the Bible, at the Council of Trent!
The notion of a physical law is explained very well in ch. 10 "Physical Laws" of The Physical System of St. Thomas (1893) by G. M. Cornoldi, S.J.
The Catholic physicist Pierre Duhem (1861-1916) describes modern physics's narrower conception of "physical law" in Aim & Structure of Physical Theory (La théorie physique: Son objet, sa structure 1906) pt. 2, ch. 4.On how more modern philosophers of science conceive physical laws, cf. Aristotle's Revenge (2018), §3.3 "How the laws of nature lie (or at least engage in mental reservation)" by Thomist philosopher Ed Feser.
Neither definition turns the laws of physics into logical necessities. God is free to create however He chooses (as long as it does not imply a contradiction); cf. Summa Contra Gentiles II ch. 23 "That God does not act by natural necessity".
Ancient Greek philosophers didn't distinguish theology from natural philosophy, thinking that the universe was an extension of God (pantheism). This led to believing that the universe (and its laws) could only be one way. Catholics believe that God and the universe are distinct, so theology (the study of God) and natural philosophy (the study of the physical world) are distinct disciplines, too; this freed ancient thought from its closed-minded dogmatism, enabling science to progress and not be "stillborn" (as physicist and theologian Stanley L. Jaki, O.S.B. calls pre-Christian-era science in Savior of Science).
See also Fr. Jaki's Miracles & Physics and St. Thomas's Summa Contra Gentiles, lib. 3 cap. 101 on the three types of miracles, miracles being "works that are sometimes done by God outside the usual order assigned to things".


What is the biblical basis to say that prophetic words spoken today are equivalent in authority to scripture?

I can't speak for all non-cessationists but the LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) believe:

  in both ancient and modern prophecy (source)

Revelation or prophecy from a prophet, inspired men called to speak for the Lord, is equivalent in authority as the scriptures.

Doctrine and Covenants 1:38

  What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-5

  Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
  For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

See also

Doc&Cov 1:14-16
Prophets
Amos 3:7


For most of a year following his trial at Worms in April 1521, Martin Luther was in seclusion.  During this time his associates at Wittenberg were implementing practical changes in the church there.  One of Luther's closest associates, Philip Melanchthon, was reluctant to move forward on some changes in fear that they might tend toward sin.

  If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are in this world we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13). It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day (cited in Hendrix, Martin Luther, 121-122).

The quote in question was in a letter of response to Melanchthon in which Luther encouraged him to decisive action.  The quote is often taken out of context because Luther's pessimism regarding mankind's ability to rise above sinful behaviors is often underestimated.  This pessimism, though, is what drove Luther to so elevate the grace of God extended towards us in Christ Jesus.

Luther was not encouraging Phillip to commit sin.  Luther was saying, in effect, whether you act or not you are likely to commit sin so you may as well be bold in acting and bolder still in your reliance upon the grace of God.


In context:

  21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how
  that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders
  and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the
  third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be
  it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23 But he turned,
  and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence
  unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those
  that be of men.

The context here is that Peter was suggesting that Jesus take a course of action other than the one that He was predestined to fulfill.  Jesus knew His destiny, and he knew the will of the Father.  What Peter was suggesting was that Jesus go against the will of the Father.

As such, Peter's words were the words of an adversary of God.  Not consciously, I'm sure.  I have no doubt that Peter sincerely didn't understand what he was suggesting - He just wanted Christ to live.  He loved Jesus, and didn't want to see Him die.  Nonetheless, his suggestion was in direct opposition to the will of God.  The word translated Satan here is usually applied to Satan as we think of him, but it literally simply means "adversary".

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

  Get thee behind me, Satan - The word "Satan" literally means "an
  adversary," or one who opposes us in the accomplishment of our
  designs.

  It is applied to the devil commonly, as the opposer or adversary of
  man; but there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this
  term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that
  he used the term in anger. He may have used it in the general sense
  which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may
  be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him
  and his plans. His interference was improper. His views and feelings
  stood in the way of the accomplishment of the Saviour's designs. There
  was, undoubtedly, a rebuke in this language, for the conduct of Peter
  was improper; but the idea which is commonly attached to it, and
  which, perhaps, our translation conveys, implies a more severe and
  harsh rebuke than the Saviour intended, and than the language which he
  used would express.

This is also the understanding in Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:

  Get thee behind me, Satan - Υπαγε οπισω μου σατανα. Get behind me,
  thou adversary. This is the proper translation of the Hebrew word שטן
  Satan, from which the Greek word is taken. Our blessed Lord certainly
  never designed that men should believe he called Peter, Devil, because
  he, through erring affection, had wished him to avoid that death which
  he predicted to himself. This translation, which is literal, takes
  away that harshness which before appeared in our Lord's words.


Wikipedia has a decent article on this subject. There are a few places in the Bible where lists of spiritual gifts occur, which are, according to Wikipedia, as follows:

Romans 12:6-8:

Prophecy
Serving
Teaching
Exhortation
Giving
Leadership
Mercy

1 Corinthians 12:8-10:

Word of wisdom
Word of knowledge
Faith
Gifts of healings
Miracles
Prophecy
Distinguishing between spirits
Tongues
Interpretation of tongues

1 Corinthians 12:28:

Apostle
Prophet
Teacher
Miracles
Kinds of healings
Helps
Administration
Tongues

Ephesians 4:11:

Apostle
Prophet
Evangelist
Pastor
Teacher

Note that Wikipedia lists those last two as one entry: Pastor-teacher - but they are more commonly listed as separate items.

1 Peter 4:11:

Whoever speaks
Whoever renders service

It could be argued that not all of these are spiritual gifts - some might be better referred to as roles or activities; also different versions of the Bible will use slightly different wording for some of these so it's important to look into the context and meaning of the relevant passages.

In addition, there are other places in the Bible where spiritual gifts are mentioned, but not necessarily as part of a list. A good example is this:

  Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of
  Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him
  with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with
  knowledge and with all kinds of skills— to make artistic designs for
  work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in
  wood, and to engage in all kinds of crafts.

--Exodus 31:1-5 (NIV)

And then there are other gifts, in such as abilities, talents and more (a good example being someone who is musically gifted); it's next to impossible to really give a definitive list because:

  Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

-- James 1:17 (NIV)


What is the earliest instance of Eucharistic adoration?
The first recorded instance of Perpetual Adoration antedates Corpus Christi, and occurred at Avignon, on 11 September 1226.
Catholic devotion towards the Blessed Sacrament started in the 11th century:

Toward the end of the eleventh century we enter on a new era in the history of Eucharistic adoration. Until then the Real Presence was taken for granted in Catholic belief and its reservation was the common practice in Catholic churches, including the chapels and oratories of religious communities. Suddenly a revolution hit the Church when Berengarius (999-1088), archdeacon of Angers in France, publicly denied that Christ was really and physically present under the species of bread and wine. Others took up the idea and began writing about the Eucharistic Christ as not exactly the Christ of the Gospels or, by implication, as not actually there.
The matter became so serious that Pope Gregory VII ordered Berengarius to sign a retraction. This credo has made theological history. It was the Church's first definitive statement of what had always been believed and never seriously challenged. The witness came from the abbot-become-pope, whose faith in the Blessed Sacrament had been nourished for years in a Benedictine monastery.
Gregory's teaching on the Real Presence was quoted verbatim in Pope Paul VI's historic document Mysterium Fidei (1965) to meet a new challenge to the Eucharist in our day--very similar to what happened in the eleventh century.
From the eleventh century on, devotion to the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the tabernacle became more and more prevalent in the Catholic world. At every stage in this development, members of religious orders of men and women took the lead.
Feast of Corpus Christi
There was nothing startling, therefore, when Pope Urban IV, in the thirteenth century, instituted the feast of Corpus Christi. When establishing the feast, the Pope stressed the love of Christ who wished to remain physically with us until the end of time.
In the Eucharist, said the Pope, "Christ is with us in His own substance." For "when telling the Apostles that He was ascending into heaven, He said, 'Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world,' thus comforting them with the gracious promise that He would remain and be with them even by His bodily presence" (August 11, 1264).
Urban IV commissioned Thomas Aquinas to compose the Liturgy of the Hours for the feast of Corpus Christi, to be celebrated annually on the Thursday following Trinity Sunday.
Aquinas, like the Church, never separated the Eucharist as Sacrifice, Communion and Presence. But, with the Church, he also realized that without the Real Presence there would be no real sacrifice nor real communion. Aquinas assumed that God became man so He might offer Himself on Calvary and continue to offer Himself in the Mass. He became man that He might give Himself to the disciples at the Last Supper and continue to give Himself to us in Holy Communion. He became man to live in flesh and blood in Palestine and continue to live now on earth as the same Jesus Who died and rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of His heavenly Father. - The History of Eucharistic Adoration: Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Church

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say on the subject:

No trace of the existence of any such extra-liturgical cultus of the Blessed Sacrament can be found in the records of the early Church. Christian Lupus, indeed, argues that in the days of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine it was customary for the neophytes to adore, for eight days following their baptism, the Blessed Sacrament exposed, but no sound proof is adduced. It first appears in the later Middle Ages, about the beginning of the thirteenth century. It certainly may be conjectured that such adoration was really connoted by the fact of reservation in the early Church, especially in view of the evident desire to have the Eucharist represent the unity and continuity of the Church, as it is unlikely that there should not be some continuation of the adoration evidently given to the Host at the Synaxis. But such conjecture cannot be insisted upon

in view of the remarkable fact that no trace of any such adoration is to be found in the lives of saints noted for their devotion to the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Communion; thus it is remarkable that St. Ignatius in "The Spiritual Exercises", when directing attention to the abiding presence of God with His creatures as a motive for awakening love says not a word of the Blessed Sacrament;

because of the practice of even the present-day Greek Church which, although believing explicitly in transubstantiation, has never considered Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament "our companion and refuge as well as our food" (Thurston).

The slowness with which the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament came into vogue, and the also slow development of the custom of paying visits to the Blessed Sacrament [Father Bridgett asserting that he had not come across one clear example in England of a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in pre-Reformation times (Thurston, ib.)], render it increasingly difficult to make out a case for any adoration, perpetual or temporary, outside the Mass and Holy Communion, as these various forms of devotion are closely linked together. Most liturgists rightly attribute the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and its special adoration to the establishment of the Feast of Corpus Christi. But it is worthy of note that the first recorded instance of Perpetual Adoration antedates Corpus Christi, and occurred at Avignon. On 11 September 1226, in compliance with the wish of Louis VII, who had just been victorious over the Albigensians, the Blessed Sacrament, veiled, was exposed in the Chapel of the Holy Cross, as an act of thanksgiving. So great was the throng of adorers that the bishop, Pierre de Corbie, judged it expedient to continue the adoration by night, as well as by day, a proposal that was subsquently ratified by the approval of the Holy See.
History
It is interesting to note the propagation in France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of the Perpetual Adoration in all the churches and chapels of certain dioceses. The earliest mention of this practices is in 1658, when the churches in the Diocese of Chartres were opened for this purpose from six o'clock in the morning to six in the evening and wherever there were religious communities possessing a chapel the adoration was continued day and night.  - Perpetual Adoration


Did Jesus tell us that we should give a tenth to The Church and then give of the excess to the poor?

TL;DR

We're not commanded to give to The Church. Giving to the poor is giving to God. Giving is about demonstrating our thanks to God for providing for us in the past and our trust in God to provide for us in the future.

In what way are we commanded (or even urged) to give?

I don't see a command in the NT mandating details (quantity, timing, etc.) of giving. Some attributes of the method are given, but certainly not anything regarding quantity. The object of our giving isn't necessarily prescribed either. I certainly don't see a precedent for saying that we ought to give our money to The Church.

The closest example I see of giving as it's typically done in American churches is found in 1 Corinthians 16.

  1 Corinthians 16:2a (NASB) On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper,

This instance is speaking about a specific need that the saints in Jerusalem had. I don't think this is the same as "giving to the Church." The local assembly of believers was giving the money to help starving people in Jerusalem. You could perhaps argue that Jerusalem is where the Church leadership was centered, but I don't read the text as emphasizing any special use the leaders had for the gift. It seems more likely that they would just immediately hand the money to one of the deacons (i.e. "servants"; Acts 6:2b (NASB), "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.") and not use it for any special "Church work" or administration.

Paul was the recipient of some gifts, and said that supporting apostles (maybe even evangelists?) was acceptable.

  Philippians 4:16 (NASB) ...for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.

Again, I don't see this (and perhaps I'm predisposed to think so) as supporting the Church as a whole, but a specific individual or a specific need.

Neither is tithing a command under the new covenant. At least, it is not said to be so by Jesus or the NT authors.

How should we give?

Secretly—or Not Ostentatiously

Our motives should not be for selfish glory.

  Matthew 6:1-4 (NASB) Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Also confer: Acts 5.

Cheerfully

  2 Corinthians 9:7 (NASB) Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Generously

  2 Corinthians 9:6 (NASB) Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.

There's no limit on how much (or little) we're supposed to give.

  Luke 21:1-4 (NASB) And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering ; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on."

In fact, the greatest value in giving is in the quality of the sacrifice on our parts.

  Philippians 4:17 (NASB) Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account.

This harmonizes with what Jesus said about the widow who gave a small amount of money.

Conclusion

Jesus says:

  Acts 20:35 (NASB) "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

Like nearly every other requirement of Christianity, giving is about our hearts. Do we give freely out of generosity (without selfish motives)? Do we give out of love for God or someone else? These are the essentials of Christian giving.

God doesn't need our money. He doesn't seem to care about balancing his bank account. In terms of what he can do, there's always "more where that came from," no matter how much he has already given.

I don't see the Biblical authors prescribing the object of our charity, nor do I see that we have any sort of minimum standard of giving to maintain.

It's very simple (though difficult): Everything I have is God's to do with as he wishes. When I know of a need, I ought to do something about it.


Does God shape your destiny by the genes you inherit?

Calvinists are famous for their belief in double predestination.

  Double predestination

  Calvinistic predestination is sometimes referred to as "double predestination."2 This is the view that God has determined the eternal destiny of every human being. He has chosen some to eternal life to be saved through the finished work of Christ, and foreordained others to everlasting punishment for their sin.

Hyper-Calvinists believe in Equal Ultimacy, which states that God actively forces everything to happen. I think this is what your question is asking about. In Equal Ultimacy, God would be forcing your genes into certain conformations and making you exactly what you are.

The opposite view of Calvinism is Arminianism. No version of Arminianism has God directly forcing people to do anything. It leaves the responsibility of the most weighty thing - salvation - on the individual; likewise with the less weighty things. Your genetics would be said to come from your parents through a system which God started and continues by His power which is resisted by the devil.

  Psalm 139:13
  For you created my inmost being;
     you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

From an Arminian perspective God's work in the earth and his ability to answer prayer also has something to do with your genetics.

I'm Arminian so I blame my negative genetic traits on my parents and occasionally the devil, and I attribute my positive genetic traits to God as answered prayers.


Why does Jesus refer to himself as the "Son of Man"?

From "The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels"

Thus: “When E. Hiyya ben Adda died … R. Levi received his valuables. This was because his teacher used to say: ‘The disciple of bar nāšâ is as dear to him as his son.’ ” Here the expression plainly refers to the group of teachers
It is suggested that the idiom was used as a form of self-reference in cases where the speaker wished to show modesty or to speak of matters (such as his own death) which were distasteful—in any case in sayings where he wished to avoid speaking directly in the first person.
--Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (779). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

There are several theories about what Jesus was alluding to in calling himself son of Man (literally son of 'a-dam'):

A re-affimation of his authority to forgive sin (which entered via Adam).
An allusion to the suffering that he will undergo
A kindredness that will be evident at his return, in which he will come not just as a conqueror, but as a redeemer who is coming (back) to his own.
An allusion to his Messianic role, since the Messiah would be "the Son of Man"
A reference to the inheritor of the world, per Daniel 7.  The last beast to have authority was "like a Son of Man"

With any of these motives, by speaking of himself in the third person, he is making an audacious claim (the power!) but couching it in the most humble terms he can.


At what time did the scourging at the pillar take place on Good Friday?

The scourging of Jesus happened immediately after Barabbas had been released, so it would have been about 7 or 8 am on Friday morning.

When harmonizing between the book of John, and the synoptic gospels, it is necessary to bare in mind that John used 'Roman time' and the others used 'Jewish time.'  So, the following references show "the 6th hour" (roman) as 6am, and "the 3rd hour" (jewish) as 9 am.

FRI 6 am: Pilate’s decision:

  It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, "Behold your
  King!" They cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!"
  Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests
  answered, "We have no king but Caesar." So he delivered him over to
  them to be crucified. (John 19:13-16)

FRI 7:30 am (approx): Jesus scourged:

  So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas,
  and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. (Mark
  15:15)

FRI 9 am: Jesus crucified:

  And it was the third hour when they crucified him. (Mk 15:25)


What is the position of the Episcopal Church on the evolution of man?

In 2006,  the General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirmed its support for the theory of evolution, resolving by Resolution 2006-A129:

That God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and
the ancient Creeds of the Church; and
That the theory of evolution
provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the
emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of
origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an
acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and
living Christian faith; and
That Episcopalians strongly encourage
state legislatures and state and local boards of education to
establish standards for science education based on the best available
scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific
community; and
That Episcopal dioceses and congregations seek the
assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what
constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.


According to the Catholic Church, why does God hurt others to punish David in 2 Samuel:24?

Why does God hurt innocent people to punish King David?
The people were not innocent. According to the Law,

Exodus 30:12 (KJV)
12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.

The mandate is an individual one, so during a census, each person is responsible to give a sacrafice to account for his soul (life). No such sacrifice was undertaken during David's census, and so while David was the king and elected to undertake the census contrary to the Law, it was not only he that broke the law, but he led the whole nation into sin.

2 Chronicles 12:3 And Joab answered, The Lord make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
ibid. v.7
And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.

Why God would give a punishment not understood by the person supposed to be punished.
According to the covenant of the Law into which Israel entered with Yahweh, ignorance and innocence are not synonymous, even -perhaps especially, for the nation as a whole. Sins due to ignorance must still be atoned for.

Leviticus 4: 13-15 KJV
And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty: When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord.

In short, they should have known. The fact that they did not, if they did not, does not excuse their trespass. It appears, however, that at least Joab of the king's officers was aware, and warned David, and David continued with his command to take the census in a manner not ordained by the Law.


Is a confession valid if I only voice the sins I'm comfortable sharing and confess the rest in my heart to God?

You must confess all mortal sins that you're aware of and any venial sins you feel compelled to confess. You are not absolved of any mortal sins you withhold, and intentionally withholding mortal sins not only invalidates the whole confession, but is a mortal sin itself. (catholic.com) And, if left in a state of mortal sin, you're expected not to receiving the Eucharist. The Eucharist is life-giving for those in a state of grace; it's a condemnation for those in a state of mortal sin. (See how to confess for the basic details and process.)

So, be less afraid of how your priest might react than making your reception of the Eucharist into a condemnation against yourself! And don't worry! Just about every priest I've heard speak on the matter says pretty much the same thing: You can't confess something I haven't already heard.

Furthermore, a priest may not withhold absolution on the condition that you reveal your sins to another person. The only valid reason for withholding absolution is insincerity of the penitent. (catholic.com Q&A)


Only God is perfect, and (except for Mormon teaching) we will never be God. Ergo, we will never be perfect.

Going a bit deeper into the word, however, when the Bible uses the word perfect, it is typically the Greek word telos. Telos does not imply a state of being, but rather a direction toward the end for which a thing is made. It has the sense of a target, minus the actual arrival.

Note: This doesn't mean our bodies won't be a heck of a lot better - our new bodies will be glorified.  That which was sown perishable is raised unperishable.  Our bodies will not be affected by sin, and that makes them way better than we can imagine now.

But perfect is a different level entirely.

Think of it as two ants and looking at my belly and saying "Its the largest thing ever!"  No, it's pretty massive, but there are larger things. (Until I eat them)


According to Roman Catholicism, at what point does original sin affect the human soul?

Human soul created and united to the body simultaneously
Pope Pius IX, in his dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, stated that the Blessed Virgin Mother's soul was free from original sin

in primo instanti creationis atque infusionis in corpusin the first instant of [its] creation and infusion into (union with) the body

"Creation" and "infusion" are simultaneous.
"Instanti" here is the singular ablative of "insto" (instant); there is one instant (not one for creation and another for infusion
This is St. Thomas's teaching, too (Summa Theologia I q. 118 a. 3 co.):

we must simply confess that souls were not created before bodies, but are created at the same time as they are infused into them.simpliciter confitendum est quod animæ non sunt creatæ ante corpora, sed simul creantur cum corporibus infunduntur.

Thus, since there is no duration of time between the soul's creation and union with the body, there is no immaculate soul first and later, once united to the body, a soul stained by original sin.
This doesn't mean God taints the soul with original sin when He creates it, though; God is not a cause of sin.


What did Pope Francis mean when he said "who am I to judge" homosexuals?

Pope Francis means that those with same-sex attraction who refuse to act on their impulses for the sake of the Kingdom should not be judged. Those with heterosexual attraction often judge a homosexual attracted person based on his or her feelings he/she cannot control, even if the person doesn't act on them. Pope Francis is saying that we shouldn't condemn same-sex attraction, as it is not something a person can control. I would go so far as to say that Pope Francis implicitly means that we should show mercy and compassion to those who, through weakness, fell into the trap of acting on homosexual feelings.

What Pope Francis is NOT saying is that homosexuality as in the lifestyle, and in particular sodomy, should be condoned. He's also not saying that homosexual feelings are good; a person who has such feelings cannot sin for have such feelings, because they are out of his control, but the feelings are still a temptation and "disorder." People often get annoyed by the Church's use of "disordered," but most don't realize that, to the Church, a heterosexual sexual feeling aimed at someone who is not your spouse is disordered as well, but neither homosexual attraction or adultuous feelings are a sin in themselves unless a person entertain them and act on them (through sodomy or adultery respectively).

Basically, Pope Francis has in mind the ancient distinction between the will and the passions/emotions: we have free will, but our passions or emotions (which we have in common with other animals) are not entirely up to our control, due to our fallen nature (this war between the reason and the passions over the will is called concupiscience). As such, Pope Francis distingishes between homosexual actions (controlled by the will) and homosexual feelings (controlled by the passions), and points out that homosexual feelings alone cannot be a sin, period, and that a person who suffers from them cannot be blamed or thought of as "lesser" because he possesses the temptation: we all have our temptations.

Most importantly, we should pray that all who suffer from sexual temptations, whether they be hetersexual or homosexual, emerge victoriously over their temptations in the Kingdom of God.

Christi pax.


How should a Christian deal with destructive higher criticism of the Bible?

You need to deal with them on a case by case basis. For one, it is helpful to understand that all claims of authorship are always uncertain, even and especially those made by textual critics. As Christians we accept a tradition about who wrote the books along with whatever authorship may be claimed therein.

In the case of the Gospel writers, we can take note of two problems in 'identifying' the author using textual criticism:

The authors shared material and did not have a notion of 'plagiarism' - so some stuff may have been shared directly. Additionally there is believed to have been a 'Document Q' which was an early record of many of Jesus' sayings written down by his disciples. It did not survive though most or all of it may actually just be in Matthew, Mark and Luke. This could make analyzing the text for style and origin difficult and subject to a lot noise that would make precise identification impossible.
In the case of John, it is traditional that he did not write his Gospel (or Revelation) by hand but in the prior case, the witness - the Gospel - is John's account. The end of the Gospel communicates this, not necessarily that John is sitting there writing (he was old at the time, it is believed that Prochoros was the actual writer) but that he is the witness of these things. With Revelation we know for sure he was having the vision and telling Prochoros about it, who was writing it down. So the result would be a mixture of John and Prochoros, not John alone.

With Hebrews, Paul is traditionally accepted as the writer. Textual critics, in their attempt to identify authorship, may forget that an extremely learned man such as Paul was fully capable of concealing his identity in his writing, as well as utilizing different styles for various purposes. Perhaps they assume that ancient people were all non-self conscious and didn't have the ability to choose words and phrases that were different than their normal style or pattern for some purpose of their own.

For Isaiah, we must remember again the problem of scribes - so to say Isaiah didn't 'write' Isaiah doesn't say much! How could a prophet write his vision while having it? So with Isaiah we may easily have a collection of works from different eras in Isaiah's life written down by different scribes. Trying to be exact about it simply makes it less clear.

In general, Christians must remember that 'Sola Scriptura' is a recent invention and is not the basis for traditional faith. Even the original holders of Sola Scriptura held to various oral and written traditions about the scriptures - such as the ever-virginity of Mary - that are not directly witnessed by the scriptures themselves.

Consider the case of the books of Moses - given the potential age of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy - plus the history itself witnessed by the scripture - we cannot be fully certain (ever) that what we have is word-for-word of what Moses either dictated or wrote. Our trust is in the witness of the Spirit, not in the inerrant words of this or that human (guess what, no humans are inerrant.) If you learn a bit about how human beings interpret visionary works (such as prophecy) it becomes clear that perfect word-for-word accuracy does not necessarily mean accuracy on many points.

Thus it becomes nearly impossible to debunk the scripture - all attempts have failed really - because on the points on which our faith hangs, such as the divinity of the Son of God, the incarnation of Him, his death, resurrection, ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit, the witness doesn't vary. It is possible that Genesis 3 was added later during the Babylonian captivity (Genesis certainly reflects two different writings, but whether they come from the same person or not cannot be established) but whether it did or not doesn't matter. One reason for this idea is that it attempts to undermine the Christian belief in the fall. But consider how it fails to do so: If it was added in the Babylonian times, that indicates that the teaching of the Fall of Man has been in the people of God since before then, and it is also consistent with other teachings in the scripture.

Textual Criticism - inasmuch as it is a tool to undermine Christian faith - can really only undermine faith based on literal scriptural inerrancy. Those who hold to a tradition (kergyma) about scripture may or may not find such things interesting, depending on their background and talents, but they do not pose a challenge to the faith, since the faith is not just the Bible, but the people (the Church) who have been witnesses of God since the beginning of time. Even if the fall part of Genesis is a later addition, it is consistent with the teaching of the Church and is thus part of the faith anyway. Those 'additions' if they were, were just as inspired as the text they added to.

It also helps to remember that nobody is going to rediscover the 'real faith' of the Bible at any time. It still exists and continues and most attempts to radically reinterpret the scripture are, as they have been since the time of Christ, the work of Gnostics.


According to the Catholic magisterium, are sedevacantists by definition schismatics?

Bishop Ngô Đình Thục, a sedevacantist, was declared excommunicated, but not considered schismatic. (He did not die in the state of excommunication, though.)

On how excommunication does not necessarily imply schism, cf. p. 60 of An Open Letter to Bishop Clarence Kelly on the "Thuc Bishops" and the Errors in The Sacred and the Profane by Mario Derksen, M.A..


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that angels are doing the talking between God and mankind?

This could probably be a lengthy answer, but it would be better to summarize one core belief, which should easily answer the remainder of your question.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe by a number of scriptural proofs that Christ himself is an angel, the highest ranking one, and he is the primary means that through which the speaking between God and man occur.

Since "angels" are the subject here, there is for instance Jude 1:9 [Amplified Bible]:

  9 But when [even] the archangel Michael, contending with the devil,
  judicially argued (disputed) about the body of Moses, he dared not
  [presume to] bring an abusive condemnation against him, but [simply]
  said, The Lord rebuke you!

This of course is stated on the basis that Jehovah's Witnesses understand that Michael is the same person as "Jesus" (Michael being his pre-earthly angelic name).

Contrast this to how God himself deals with Satan's taunts regarding one of his servants in the first chapters of Job - the reaction is far more authoritative and altogether different. Simply, there is a stark difference between how God (not an angel) and Jesus (an angel) deal with Satan's challenges.

So if Jesus, the "Firstborn of creation" (Proverbs 8:22) is an angel, and he is also called "The Word", the primary means of which God's word is transmitted to us, then that is probably the first and foremost answer to your question.

Then there is Hebrews 2:2:

  2 For if the message given through angels [the Law spoken by them to
  Moses] was authentic and proved sure, and every violation and
  disobedience received an appropriate (just and adequate) penalty,

Without a complicated run-down of every scripture, Jehovah's Witnesses understand that God's angels are very obedient (indeed perfect) and just like human copyists of scripture, have transmitted messages exactly as directed. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses do not put a huge amount of undue attention on angels themselves, and follow the example angels set in directing glory go God alone. Revelation 19:10:

  10 Then I fell prostrate at his feet to worship (to pay divine honors)
  to him, but he [restrained me] and said, Refrain! [You must not do
  that!] I am [only] another servant with you and your brethren who have
  [accepted and hold] the testimony borne by Jesus. Worship God! For the
  substance (essence) of the truth revealed by Jesus is the spirit of
  all prophecy [the vital breath, the inspiration of all inspired
  preaching and interpretation of the divine will and purpose, including
  both mine and yours].

In a looser sense, the word angel also means "Messenger" and indeed many messengers are involved in the transmitting of God's word - including humans in the spreading of the word throughout the earth.

I have no doubt that there is a more complete answer than this to be made, but this is a general overview. Its most important to state that Angels are not the focus of JW beliefs, and they do not receive undue attention.


Approximate amount of money per year the Catholic church spends for charity?

Kind of depends on your definition of charity.

I consider 100% of my donations to my parish and diocese to be charitable donations.  100% of them go to building upkeep, promoting and sustaining religious vocations, proclaiming the gospel, instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, prison ministry, running hospitals, schools and catechism programs.

The church has no income other than what is given to it through charitable donations and it's investments, which go up and down with everyone elses'.

If your only definition of charity is providing for the immediate needs of people, then the Catholic Church isn't a slouch in this area either.

The closest I could find is the financial statements of Caritas, which is official  European charitable org and Catholic Relief, which is the US charitable org.

You can check out their financial statements here and here.

Beyond that, the Catholic Church has no obligation or duty to divulge what she does with her money any more than your mom does.


Should a Church call out False Prophets who claim to speak with God's word?

Yes, there is a responsibility for the Church (Body of Christ), to call out and denounce these false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. - Ephesians 5:11

Pastors are the undershepherds of God's people. They have an onus to warn the sheep about the wolves.


Sponge in water vs water in sponge how to understand St. Teresa properly?

The key understanding for this is that God is present everywhere (omnipresence) but He is not Present (capital intentional) everywhere. That is, God doesn't make His Presence manifest everywhere.

With that in mind, the quote becomes a bit clearer. At the outset, a sponge doesn't have any water. Put it in some water though, and the water will start seeping into the sponge. The water fills up the tiny voids present all throughout the sponge and at the end, the sponge is saturated. (Note also that the sponge expands a little; it doesn't drastically change size.) Similarly, most human souls (Christians included) are dry like a sponge, but if we spend time in the Presence of God, His Divinity will slowly fill us up until we are saturated.

There are many, many attributes of God that we don't have vocabulary for, so we say it is like this or like that, which typically implies that the two are not the same (nor do they even have to correspond fully). St. Teresa here uses "as" in the same function. She says God's Divinity filling up the soul is like water filling up a sponge, which is her intended comparison. She didn't intend to imply that God's Divinity had other characteristics of water or that God fills up the world like a sponge; both are out of the scope of this metaphor.


Are there non Catholic/Orthodox churches that use a Crucifix?

Lutherans

Lutherans consider the crucifix to be a powerful reminder of the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation. The Apostle Paul says in 1st Corinthians, chapter 1: “We preach Christ and Him crucified.”

The history of Lutheranism demonstrates that the crucifix was a regular and routine feature of Lutheran worship and devotional life during Luther’s lifetime and during the period of Lutheran Orthdoxy. It was also the case among the founding fathers of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

  It was a good practice to hold a wooden crucifix before the eyes of the dying or to press it into their hands.40 This brought the suffering and death of Christ to mind and comforted the dying. But the others, who haughtily relied on their good works, entered a heaven that contained a sizzling fire. For they were drawn away from Christ and failed to impress His life-giving passion and death upon their hearts.

  Luther's works, vol. 23 : Sermons on the Gospel of St. John: Chapters 6-8

  And I say at the outset that according to the law of Moses no other images are forbidden than an image of God which one worships. A crucifix, on the other hand, or any other holy image is not forbidden. Heigh now! you breakers of images, I defy you to prove the opposite!”

  Luther's Works. Vol. 40 (Vol. 40, Page 85-86)

Some Lutherans began to move away from crucifixes during the age of Lutheran Pietism, which rejected much of Lutheran doctrine and consequently many Lutheran worship practices. At the time, Lutheran Pietists, contrary to the clear postion of Luther and the earlier Lutherns, held that symbols such as the crucifix were wrong. This was never the view of historic Lutheranism.


What does heaven look like for Protestant vs LDS?

This is a Partial Answer, because I know absolutely nothing about what the Protestant heaven looks like, but I can explain what the LDS church believes.

Our spirits are children of a father, who lives in heaven, and sent us down here to find out who's worthy to have his glory. We believe that according to our faithfulness in this life, we will find ourselves in one of three kingdoms, or outer darkness (hell).

Telestial Kingdom

The Lowest of the three kingdoms of glory (Hell has no glory), is the Telestial Kingdom. A scriptural (D&C, so scripture for us) explanation of this kingdom can be found here. We really don't know what happens to these people throughout all eternity, but they have the Holy Ghost with them, but not Christ or the Father, and can be visited by those in the Celestial Kingdom. Whether they will again go to earth, stay there forever, set up society, etc, we don't know. What we do know is that those in this kingdom have no families, regardless or earthly "marriages". This will be all those who did not accept the gospel, but also did not rebel openly against God, or deny the Holy Ghost after knowing God.

Terrestrial Kingdom

This kingdom is basically for those who accepted and were part of the church but were halfheartedly in it, and were deceived by the world (riches, power, hate, greed, etc) and were thus not valiant in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A detailed explanation can be found here. Again we do not know what they do, and whether, or when they can progress, but we do know again that they cannot have families, marriage, etc. and that they can be visited by thos from the Celestial Kingdom.

Celestial Kingdom

A Detailed explaination can be found here and here, but basically we believe that this is the best, and this is what we are all looking towards. Those who make it here, will recieve the Glory of the Father (our Heavenly Father, or God) and become like him. We will become Gods like him, and we will be able to continue onward with eternal families. We believe that we will eventually be the Gods of our own worlds and have our own spirit children. Although we become Gods, we believe that he will still be our Father, and that we will still respect and worship him as a father.

Ultimately we believe that Family is at the center, and that our eternal Goal is to be fathers, and mothers.


Can Saints in Heaven Refuse to Pray for us?

The Mortal Sin Issue

I can see where the premise of this question comes from.  We always have free choice, even for those in heaven. And the first letter of John tells us to not pray for those who have committed mortal sin:

  I John 5:16-18

  If anyone sees his brother committing a sin that is not a deadly sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not deadly. There is sin which is deadly; I do not say one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly. We know that anyone born of God does not sin, but He who is born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

Impetus for Praying

But according to Timothy, we are meant to pray for all people:

  1 Timothy 2:1-2

  I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

What is meant to be understood here is that we should pray for God to give the person the grace of repentance so that they can once again be in communion with us once again.

A look into the saints

With this impetus for constructive prayer in mind, the saints want to constantly pray and intercede for us.  Those in heaven are in an elevated state, away from the desired of the flesh.  And when it comes to the saints in particular, the merits they got on earth came from Jesus.  So they will intercede with the father because they have strong fraternal concern for our weaknesses, as that is how they attained their state. And that is their core motive in heaven:

  I want to spend my heaven doing good on earth – St. Therese of Lisieux: Her Last Conversations, Tr. John Clarke, O.C.D., Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1977, p. 102

Answer

All the saints want to do is to pray for us.  Yes they have free will, but they are in such a spiritual state that the only thing they ever want to chose is to pray for us.


Did anyone who was a part of the Counter reformation consider Luther to be the Antichrist?

There was no significant attempt to portray Luther as the Antichrist.  For most of the Counter-Reformation, he was dead, and other Protestant leaders were appearing all over Europe, often disagreeing with Luther. Also Luther made no personal claims and was not directly powerful in Church or State.

Well before the Reformation the theory that a Pope, the Pope, or the Papacy was or might become the Antichrist was proposed in various times and places. Rival popes at Avignon and Rome accused each other of being the Antichrist; and Wycliffe,  on this if little else, agreed with them both. In the Reformation Era there was only one person or institution suspected of being the Antichrist.  If the Antichrist was not to be seen in the chair of St. Peter, then he was nowhere to be seen.

An analogy may help illustrate this. Suppose it was alleged that someone in Australia today was falsely pretending to be the Queen's representative and, in some sense, standing in her place, and that many believed this. If there really is such an impostor, who could it be?  The only feasible suspect is Sir Peter Cosgrove, the Governor General.

If challenged General Cosgrove would not deny making the claims, but would prove that, in fact, he really is the Queen's representative. In the same way the Counter Reformers claimed that the Pope really was the Vicar of Christ and not merely pretending to stand, in some sense, in place of God. In that case the Papacy was not the Antichrist.  On the other side, the belief that the Papacy was the Antichrist was generally accepted in Protestant countries for several centuries, and enshrined in many doctrinal standards. It was the opinion of Huss, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox, Wesley and others.

The Counter-Reformers disagreed, but who did they think was the Antichrist?  Two Jesuits studied all the associated prophecies both in the New Testament and in Daniel, and came up with differing conclusions. Luis de Alcazar argued all the prophecies had already been fulfilled in the early Christian centuries. Francisco Ribera, while agreeing some had, concluded most would be fulfilled in the last few years before Christ's Return. Ribera taught the Antichrist,  a very nasty man indeed, would base himself in Jerusalem. Ribera's Antichrist is the basis for the Antichrist of a certain genre of modern fiction,  but this was not the Reformer's understanding.

So no, Luther was not accused of being the Antichrist.  The Antichrist was either in the past or future, according to the Counter-Reformation.  Any false teacher however can be considered an antichrist so it is likely his oponents may have said that.


What is the Biblical basis for the concept of 'balance' between 'two extremes'?

Ecclesiastes 7 is even more direct:

  In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:
  the righteous perishing in their righteousness,
      and the wicked living long in their wickedness.
  16 Do not be overrighteous,
      neither be overwise—
      why destroy yourself?
  17 Do not be overwicked,
      and do not be a fool—
      why die before your time?
  18 It is good to grasp the one
      and not let go of the other.
      Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.

That said, the Golden Mean is primarily Aristotelean in origin. That alone does not exclude it from Christianity, becuase much of Aristoltelean thought was incorporated into the Church's doctrine in the first few centuries of the early church.

Galileo, for example, was really having quibbles with Aristotlean cosmology, moreso than anything in Scripture itself.  The notions of perfect spheres and earth-centricity are not found in Scripture, but had been accepted as dogma by the Church, and as such were defended.


What verified, uniquely Christian principles support scientific approach?

A couple things come to mind with this, and I will need time to get quotes and references.

First is the scientific method was founded and formulated by Catholic monks.  This is often attributed to several groups (some non Catholic and not monks) depending on the method and such.  I know it was in the 1600s that the scientific method was perpetuated.  It makes sense that some orders of monks had been doing the same thing for centuries before and continue to this day regarding rituals and routines and such.  There is a method to their reasoning. So it is conceivable that a group this dedicated to order and regiment that was tough such through the Bible and Christian teachings to only extend that in other things they do like studies and research.

Along those lines, the Catholic Church had most of the education institutions for a long time.  The education system as we know it is the foundation for research, sceintific  findings and process, deeper knowledge and more, which is established by the Catholic Church.  Before Christianity and in other non-christian countries you don't see the same education system by a long shot.  The overwhelming majority of private schools (college and grade schools) are Christian or were originally Christian.  They are often regarded as having better education standards and being more knowledge based and can somehow still compete with public schools at a college level from a financial standpoint.

My last thought is split into two, kinda.
First is that I know there were debates before Christianity and through Socrates, Plato and other philosophers those debates would become the foundation for some general thoughts.  This was also the case for early Christians, but with heresies and debates they needed to settle these disagreements and have one line of thought for some things.  The need to settle meant a different approach and a different finish than philosophers.
Also, the Catholic Church started the whole Devil's advocate thing.  To prove a deceased member was a saint would mean to prove beyond reasonable doubt and a Devil's advocate would help do just that.  The process wasn't democratic or a vote.  Rather it was a heated debate with someone saying the opposite or to "prove it" all the time.  If the debate didn't get past the devil's advocate phase, then the person was probably not a saint.  Those people who were devil's advocate were also very faithful and devout and often didn't necessarily believe in the counter points they made but wanted to push things forward and prove it.  We still see that today with devil's advocate and people trying to prove it beyond a doubt in order to practice science in any form.