Would you be able to give up everything you own and follow Jesus? Our will is not enough for salvation, instead the Grace of God and the Sacrifice of Jesus and our belief in him. But, however, our actions and our own will which dictate our works will be judged, examples our transgressions and sins and good deeds. Therefore, is life just to be lived for pleasure and is ignorance really bliss? Or is the limited time we have on earth a test back to God? Our world is all about material on earth and human nature cannot get enough wealth (temptation and greed which corrupt), one of my favorite verses in the New Testament is - Matthew 19:21-24 King James Version (KJV) Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. In the movie the Greatest Story Ever Told the reply was 'who could do such a thing?"

In John 19:39, we read that Nicodemus brought 75 pounds of (34 kg) mixture of myrrh and aloes to prepare the body of Jesus for burial. That is more than half the body weight of an average man of those days. Going by today's standards, 34 kg was on the higher side. ( As per biblestudylessons.com ,the value of the mix , as per present-day market rates would have been between 150 and 200 Thousand dollars !) It is possible that, as Sabbath was ensuing, Jesus' friends wanted to compensate for the lack of opportunity to anoint the body by adding an abundant measure of spice mixture at the burial. It is also possible that they had taken, in right earnestness, Jesus' foreword of the resurrection and wanted to preserve the body at any cost. Unfortunately, John does not explain, but the very fact that the Evangelist mentions the exact weight of the mixture suggests that it was more than what was ordinarily required. **As per traditions, did Nicodemus use an unusually large quantity of spice mixture to anoint Jesus' body on burial?** Inputs from scholars of any denomination are welcome.

Given that Ralph McInerny's book *What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained* has recently been bandied about (see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96550/who-said-god-did-not-become-man-in-order-for-man-to-become-a-theologian and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96557/what-is-meant-by-catholic-truths-in-otts-fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma) , I would like to point out that at the beginning of that book on pg. 7, one finds: >It is forgotten now that early in his papacy he [Pope John XXIII] issued a directive requiring Latin to be fully restored as the language of instruction in seminaries and pontifical institutions. QUESTION: Specifically, what was the directive of the said Pope fully restoring Latin as the language of instruction in seminaries and pontifical institutions; and was it ever followed? What is its status today?

[Monasticism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/monasticism) (or the practice of being a monk) is practiced by the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox faiths. It is not as much practiced by protestant groups. Are there any verses that support Monasticism? Or is it merely a traditional practice?

I was reading this Wikipedia article and I reached this part: > Jehovah's Witnesses assert that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 BC and completely uninhabited for exactly seventy years. This date is critical to their selection of October 1914 for the arrival of Christ in kingly power—2520 years after October 607 BC. 2520 years after October 607 BC was October 1913. Why did they say it would be 1914?

Based, in part, on some rather passionate comments regarding theologians made by user Geremia in the post "Who Said: 'God Did Not Become Man in Order for Man to Become a Theologian'? ", I have been enticed to look a little further into Catholic theology. After thumbing through some of the section that Geremia alludes to in Ralph McInerny's *What Went Wrong with Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained* p. 96 , I have decided, for purposes of this post, to take as my starting point Dr. Ludwig Ott's *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* . Therein (§ 6. "Catholic Truths", pp. 8-9), I have extracted (eliminating the Latin and adding some bold) the following: >Those doctrines and truths defined by the Church not as immediately revealed but as intrinsically connected with the truths of Revelation so that their denial would undermine the revealed truths are called Catholic Truths or Ecclesiastical Teachings to distinguish them from the Divine Truths or Divine Doctrines of Revelation. These are proposed for belief in virtue of the infallibility of the Church in teaching doctrines of faith or morals. > >To these Catholic truths belong : > >1. **Theological Conclusions** properly so-called. By these are understood religious truths. which are derived from two premises, of which one is an immediately revealed truth, and the other a truth of natural reason. > >2. **Dogmatic Facts.** By these are understood historical facts, which are not revealed, but which are intrinsically connected with revealed truth, for example, the legality of a Pope or of a General Council, or the fact of the Roman episcopate of St. Peter. > >3. **Truths of Reason**, which have not been revealed, but which are intrinsically associated with a revealed truth, e.g., those philosophic truths which are presuppositions of the acts of Faith (knowledge of the supersensual, possibility of proofs of God, the spirituality of the soul, the freedom of will), or philosophic concepts, in terms of which dogma is promulgated (person, substance, transubstantiation, etc.). Can someone clarify for me, in a little less technical language, what Catholic theology means by "Catholic Truths"; and especially, "Truths of Reason"—which I find the most difficult to understand in the above list.

There are plenty of questions in this site about infallibility (e.g. [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15547/which-roman-catholic-doctrines-are-infallible) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/list-of-papal-teachings-considered-infallible) , and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34712/does-the-pope-teach-infallibly-only-when-he-speaks-ex-cathedra)) . All of them take for granted a certain definition of "faith and morals", which is the area upon which doctrines are to be potentially considered infallible. But, **what precisely is meant by faith and morals?** In other words, **which is the precise and demarcated scope of infallibility?** The [Catholic Encyclopedia](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IV) on this same topic is far from clear. Faith and morals are words that can be colloquially stretched significantly, so it is essential to me that there is theological clarity on what exactly the Church means. Having a precise demarcation we can then analyse the full range of **potential** areas of infallibility. For example, regarding "moral" issues like paying taxes, polluting the environment, being in the army, gambling, etc; or "faith" issues like the number of wings of angels (if any), the day Moses died (for a potential "Feast of Moses"), whether the rich go to heaven or not, etc.

Here's something the Pope said recently: > Tutti siamo fragili e bisognosi, ma lo sguardo di compassione del Vangelo ci porta a vedere le necessità di chi ha più bisogno. E a servire i poveri, i prediletti di Dio che si è fatto povero per noi : gli esclusi, gli emarginati, gli scartati, i piccoli, gli indifesi. Sono loro il tesoro della Chiesa, sono i preferiti di Dio! Translating (Google translate) > We are all fragile and needy, but the compassionate gaze of the Gospel leads us to see the needs of those who are most in need. And to serve the poor, the beloved of God who made himself poor for us: the excluded, the marginalized, the rejected, the little ones, the defenceless. They are the treasure of the Church, they are God's favorites! Well, does God really have favorites? Does He love some people more than others? Is there any biblical evidence for this?

I have read that incense is a bad thing and it can bring demons to your house. However others say it will create a clean house. Rabbi Keduri, some say, did smoke incense, but he did not inhale it, and when asked, said it was supposed to keep the demons away. What does the Catholicism say about it? What is so special about smoke, candles and crystals? Could any Catholic experts give me a good source?

I've been reading on some of the Apocrypha lately and a question arose. Why would people make forgeries of such important texts? I understand that the writers were trying to gain followers to their own theological views, but didn't they feel any remorse on creating false texts? If someone would spend so much time on forging a fake "Gospel according to X" or a fake "Acts", or the "Epistle of Pilate to Tiberius" (which is the one forgery that made this question to arise in my mind) then this person would take his faith seriously enough as to justify such an effort. But then again, how come this author doesn't worry about falsifying what Jesus really said, or what his contemporaries thought about Jesus? I'm really puzzled about this. Thanks to all of you for your replies and God bless you.

I recall reading some years ago in some Christian publication that "God did not become man in order for man to become a theologian." The quote has stuck with me but I cannot recall who said it. Does anyone know what the exact quote is and who said it?

Is there any good book on the history of the heresy of Modernism (=synthesis of all heresies )? I am interested in how modernism came to be and how it survived St. Pius X attack on it. It would be good to have a detailed account.

If the Father is the only God who is True, than what type of godhood is the 2nd person of the trinity? John 17:3 (Jesus speaking to his God and Father) > And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the ***only true God***, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

I heard a Catholic Bishop talking about William of Ockham (Robert Barron) but I'm still not quite sure of some things: What is the contribution of William of Ockham to the Church? What would sum up his work? And how does it help us today? Also (for Catholics) how is he seen in the Catholic Church today?

In Luke 10:1 (NAB), we have: >After this the Lord appointed seventy[-two]* others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to visit. The gloss therein, indicated by the asterisk says: > Seventy[-two]: important representatives of the Alexandrian and Caesarean text types read “seventy,” while other important Alexandrian texts and Western readings have “seventy-two.” In the D-R (Luke 10:1), there are no brackets: > And after these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two: and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come. Can anyone explain the gloss a bit further, indicating how or why a difference in numbers appears between two versions of the Bibles? Undoubtedly, there is a *significance* to the exact number of disciples Our Lord sent out, but it will be difficult to infer if the exact number is not known.

> Romans 11:32
For God has bound **everyone** over to disobedience so that > he may have mercy on them all Is the "everyone" including Adam and Eve before they are created ?

Late Pope John Paul II said, "Byzantine Church is the other lung of Catholic Church." Does this mean these two churches are united together now? Does the Catholic Church, the bride of Jesus (according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church), accept all the teachings of the Byzantine Church?

According to the 1980 edition of *Modern Catholic Dictionary* by S.D. John A. Hardon, S.J., a *relic* is defined as follows: > An object connected with a saint, e.g., part of the body or clothing or something the person had used or touched. Authentic relics are venerated with the Church's warm approbation. They may not be bought or sold. Those of a martyr are placed in the altar stone at the consecration of an altar. Relics are of three classes: the first is part of the saint's body and is the type placed in the altar stone; the second is part of the clothing or anything used during the saint's life; and the third is any other object, such as a piece of cloth, that has been touched to a first-class relic. I purchased the aforementioned dictionary from a second-hand book seller by mail and it arrived yesterday. I marvelled at the very good condition that the book was in for its age, except for a signed note that was handwritten on the first blank page. When I later took a look at the note, I saw that it had been written and signed by "John A. Hardon, S.J." His cause for Sainthood has already been opened; and so, Fr. Hardon is officially recognized by that Catholic Church as a *Servant of God.* **Question**: Though S.D. John A. Hardon has not been declared a Saint yet by the Church, and though the book which contains his signed handwritten note was purchased by me (not expecting such a note), may this book still be considered to be a *relic* of his? If so, should I have it blessed by a Catholic priest?

Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say “two robbers” were crucified with Jesus. Luke 23:32 says “two criminals” were crucified with Jesus. John 19:18 says only that “two others” were crucified with him. At the trial of Jesus, instead of releasing Jesus, who was innocent of any crime, the crowds asked for Barabbas to be released – a known activist against Rome “who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder” (Luke 23:25). John 18:40 says Barabbas had taken part in an uprising. Barabbas was an enemy of the state. You can understand why Rome wanted Barabbas crucified, but two common robbers? My NIV Study Bible says this about the criminals on either side of Jesus being described as robbers (Mark 15:27): >***According to Roman law, robbery was not a capital offence. Mark’s term must signify men guilty of insurrection (like Barabbas), crucified for high treason.*** There is also the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:23-35) who was thrown into prison until he repaid the huge debt he owed his master. Indeed, the Law of Moses was clear that any person found guilty of stealing had to make recompense to the victim by repaying more than the amount taken. Common theft or robbery could be dealt with under Jewish law. ***Pilate had sentenced Barabbas to death by crucifixion, but were the two criminals alongside Jesus just common criminals, robbers?*** If so, then there would have been no need for them to be brought before Pilate for sentencing. This was not a capital offence and could be dealt with under Jewish law. Or were they, like Barabbas, guilty of treason against Rome? We know how ruthless the Romans were – after all, you don’t get to be the biggest Empire in the world by being soft on crime. ***If we accept the NIV comment in Mark 15:27 that robbery was not a capital offence and that the two criminals being crucified next to Jesus were guilty of high treason, then why do the Gospel accounts not make this clear?***

When our Lord died on the Day of Preparation (for the Sabbath) that is Friday, there was an urgency to get his body into the tomb before sunset, because at sunset the sabbath day would begin and any work would not be permitted. Why then did the women disciples not go to the tomb on Saturday at/after sunset? If the sabbath day started at sunset on Friday then it ended at the Saturday sunset. Why did they wait for the dawn on Sunday morning?