Manage Account

Jesus appeared to engage in rioting when he <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-jesus-sin-in-cleansing-the-temple">made a whip of cords and drove out the moneychangers</a> from the temple in Jerusalem. Does that mean it&#8217;s okay to riot and loot businesses to protest the murder of George Floyd? Trent Horn explains why the two situations are completely different.

Jesus Was Not a Rioter

Karlo Broussard, the author of <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/purgatory-is-for-real/">Purgatory is for Real</a>, addresses an email correspondent who asks: &#8220;Isn&#8217;t eternal punishment unfair for finite sins?&#8221;

Is Hell Unfair?

Thanksgiving is, in many ways, the quintessential American holiday. Its origins—an English non-conformist Protestant sect’s celebration with pagan Indians—hardly seems the stuff of Catholicism. Is the author then going to try to wedge a Catholic angle into Thanksgiving?
No. I’m going to argue that Thanksgiving is the quintessential Catholic celebration.
Why? Because we do it every day (except for <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/no-communion-on-good-friday">Good Friday</a>), when we celebrate the Eucharist. Eucharistia (εὐχαριστία) literally means “thanksgiving.” (No trademark infringement proceedings against Pilgrims anticipated.)
Whenever Catholics celebrate the Eucharist, they celebrate “thanksgiving”—thanksgiving that, in his sacrifice on the cross made present again here on the altar, Jesus Christ rescued us from death and gave us the opportunity for life everlasting. He restored to us what Adam had lost for us. Now the only reason to be lost is that you want to be.
That’s a lot to be thankful for.
And, I’d add, something to be constantly thankful for. It’s a paradox that the Pilgrims and certainly the Puritans—but to a large extent, most Protestants—actually marginalized the Eucharist. Yes, Catholics ideally have celebrated the Eucharist every day. But let’s make one thing perfectly clear: the Eucharist was the focus of what Christians gathering in churches every week for centuries celebrated. Up until the sixteenth century, the celebration of the Eucharist was the Sunday liturgy. It was what Christians East and West gathered for on the Lord’s Day.
It is only after the Protestant Revolution that the Eucharist was displaced by Bible reading and preaching services. That’s not to say that Protestants “recovered” the Bible, because they didn’t: the Christian Sunday liturgy was always composed of “the Liturgy of the Word” and “the Liturgy of the Eucharist.” In the ancient Church, the Liturgy of the Word came first, because catechumens (those preparing for baptism) gathered with Christians to hear it. But they were then dismissed. Only those “initiated in the mysteries”—i.e., baptized and not serious sinners—took part in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. What John Calvin et al. did was amputate the central act of the Church’s weekly liturgy—her liturgy of “thanksgiving”—reducing it to a monthly or quarterly occasional “service.”
Besides being historically ungrounded, the marginalization of the Eucharist arguably undermined what Karol Wojtyła (the future St. John Paul II) called the Christian “attitude of thanksgiving.”
In his pre-papal book, Sources of Renewal, Wojtyła speaks of “consciousness” and “attitudes.” “Consciousness” is an awareness of certain realities (like “creation”) seen explicitly through the Christian lens. “Creation” is a “consciousness,” an awareness of all that we have that didn’t have to be, even if it is; that it did not come about randomly or accidentally, but by the design of a loving intellect and will (however that intellect and will arranged for it to happen); and that it is good. We can see how that “consciousness of creation” is at odds with secular presumptions of random chance, lack of design, and lack of intrinsic value. The man who is conscious of creation has already made an incipient act of faith.
“Attitudes” then define how we look at what we are conscious of. If we regard creation as gift, good, and intended, our attitude should be one of thanksgiving. As everything that exists is created and depends on God—not just for a one-time creation from which he is now on permanent leave (deism), but rather his constant sustaining presence (since contingent being is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/an-acorn-for-atheists">not self-sufficient</a>)—man can never evade creation. And since he can never evade something that did not have to be, but is, and is good, how can his attitude be anything but a constant act of thanksgiving?
We should not be surprised, therefore, that the Church’s tradition from its earliest days (e.g., Acts 20) was to celebrate the Eucharist (i.e., “break bread”) on “the first day of the week.” (Please spare the tendentious attempts to claim that this was just a farewell supper for Paul.) Neither should we be surprised that, in her best spiritual tradition, the Church sought to celebrate Eucharist as often as she could, even daily. She could not avoid sacramental thanksgiving when thanksgiving is the essential attitude of Christians—not just for the creation that constantly surrounds them, but in consciousness of redemption from sin and death through Jesus’ death and resurrection, a reality made present in the Eucharist.
Familiarity sometimes breeds forgetfulness, and so perhaps we sometime forget thanksgiving for creation and redemption. But circumstances also sometimes make human beings particularly aware of what they have to be thankful for. Those Pilgrims still alive in the fall of 1621—roughly half—had reasons to be thankful. They had not succumbed to disease. They had not landed among hostile Native Americans. They managed to produce an initial harvest. The darkest months seemed arguably behind them. They had reason to be thankful and, in that act, also bequeathed to a nation they would know nothing of a tradition it still keeps four centuries later.
But the Christian origins of thanksgiving go back not to a harvest festival. They go back to a Last Supper.

A Catholic Approach to Thanksgiving

Did the prophet Elisha command a bear to maul a group of boys who mocked him? Jimmy Akin gives the Catholic Answer.

What’s with 2 Kings 2:23-25?

<div>Why did Vatican City end up in Rome, as opposed to another location, like Jerusalem?</div><div>It is not Rome that &#8220;inherited&#8221; the primacy of St. Peter, it is St. Peter&#8217;s successor who inherits the primacy. St. Peter died in Rome, and that is where he was succeeded by Pope St. Linus. At one time in Church history, valid popes were stationed in Avignon, France. The successor of St. Peter is where the primacy subsists, not the location.
Rome is where the successor of St. Peter has traditionally been bishop, because that is where Sts. Peter and Paul died, and it is historically where he has almost always been (except for the Avignon years). Early Church Fathers often referred to Pope St. Linus as succeeding Peter in Rome.
The bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem cannot claim to have succeeded St. Peter, because St. Peter was still active after leaving those cities. The bishops of Rome were seen as the high authority in the early Church, evidenced by Pope Clement&#8217;s letter to Corinth in which he has no doubts that he has the authority to intervene in the local Church dispute. And by the third century, St. Cyprian made no hesitation to refer to Rome as the chair of Peter and the principle Church.
</div>

Why Is the Vatican in Rome?

RuslanKD is a very respected YouTuber in the Evangelical space, and recently he made a video explaining why he wasn&#8217;t Catholic or Orthodox. Joe responds to his video explaining why he SHOULD BE CATHOLIC!
Transcript:
&nbsp;

THIS is Why Ruslan Should BE CATHOLIC…

On the kids-only edition of Catholic Answers Live, Fr. Hugh Barbour explains how God is made, and how &#8220;made&#8221; means something different with God than it does with everything else.

Kids’ Show: How Was God Made?

Today marks the three hundred and thirtieth birthday of the Frenchman François-Marie Arouet, better known by his nom de plume, Voltaire (1694-1778).
Born into a bourgeois family during the reign of Louis XIV, the “Sun King” (r. 1643-1715), Voltaire suffered tragedy at a young age when his mother died. Never close with his father or brother, Voltaire exhibited a rebellious attitude toward authority from his youth. His brilliant mind was fostered in the care of the Society of Jesus, who introduced him to the joys of literature and theater. Despite his later criticisms against the Church, Voltaire, throughout his life, fondly recalled his dedicated Jesuit teachers.
Although he spent time as a civil servant in the French embassy to the Hague, Voltaire’s main love was writing—an endeavor where he excelled in various genres, including poetry, which led to his appointment as the royal court poet for King Louis XV. Widely recognized as one of the greatest French writers, and even hyperbolically referred to by historian Will Durant as “the most brilliant writer that ever lived,” Voltaire produced novels, plays, and histories. His first love was theater, a passion he cultivated during a stay in England with exposure to Shakespeare’s works, but he is mostly known for his satirical, witty, and critical commentaries on politics and religion. His satirical novel and philosophical fantasy Candide is still read and admired nearly three centuries after its publication in 1758.
Voltaire may have remained just a gifted French writer of the eighteenth century if not for his association with the intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment came to the forefront of European life in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and comprised numerous philosophes, who contributed to the so-called “Age of Reason.”
Enlightenment intellectuals were not a monolithic group, but they shared a general critical and even inimical attitude toward organized religion. Voltaire, and other philosophes, condemned organized religion generally and the Catholic Church particularly. They believed that society was happier without the influence of the Church, which they argued contained selfish, ruthless clerics who demanded unconditional obedience from the superstitious multitude and enforced societal conformity through violent persecution. Faith enslaved the mind, and it was only reason that could “enlighten” the intellect and free it from the darkness of faith.
Enlightened thinkers examined other topics besides religion and questioned nearly every aspect of society, including humanity in general. Many Enlightenment intellectuals viewed humans in different groups and advocated that some ethnic groups were different species and less human than others, especially the natives of America and Africa. Voltaire delved into these discussions and argued that Africans were a completely different species of humans, destined for slavery.
Enlightenment intellectuals were not content just to discuss their ideas. They desired radical change in society, where “reason” reigned supreme and political, economic, and moral actions were unencumbered by Christian influence. The achievement of that goal depended on controlling the institutions of higher learning in Europe, which required weakening the Catholic Church’s role in society in general and the eradication of the Society of Jesus in particular.
At the end of the eighteenth century, the Jesuits controlled hundreds of universities and seminaries in Europe. Enlightened philosophes embarked on a campaign to expel the Jesuits from European countries so that royal and secular control of their institutions of higher learning could occur, which would allow the cult of reason to become dominant.
Voltaire led the charge against the Church and the Jesuits by actively campaigning for their suppression. He recognized that if secular rulers could be convinced to expel the Society and confiscate their colleges and universities, it would be an easier task to convince those same rulers to suppress the Church and its influence in society. In 1773, he wrote, “Once we have destroyed the Jesuits, we shall have our own way with the infamous thing [l’infâme — i.e., the Church].” Once the Jesuits were suppressed, Voltaire wrote, “in twenty years there will be nothing left of the Church.” And indeed, Voltaire’s dream was realized twenty years later in his homeland, when the French revolutionary government persecuted Catholics, confiscated the property of the Church, and suppressed it.
The Enlightenment attack against the Jesuits began in Portugal, when King Joseph I (r. 1750-1777) signed a decree ordering their expulsion from Portugal and Brazil in 1755. A few years later, in 1764, King Louis XV (r. 1715-1774) expelled the Jesuits from France and all its dominions. The Spanish king Charles III (r. 1759-1788) followed suit and in 1767 ejected the Society from Spain and its territories.
Pope Clement XIV (r. 1769-1774) was under intense political pressure from the leading monarchs of Europe to enact ecclesiastical penalties against the Jesuits. The pontiff acquiesced on July 21, 1773 in the bull Dominus ac Redemptor, which suppressed the Society of Jesus after 239 years of faithful service to the Church. Although the pope did not pass judgment on the Society in terms of the charges brought against it by secular rulers, his shameful surrendering to political pressure caused the Jesuits to cease existing for a generation, until the Society was re-established by Pope Pius VII (r. 1800-1823) in 1814.
Freed from the “clutches” of the Jesuits, the colleges and universities of Europe were ripe for the influence and control of Enlightenment thinkers to take root. The age of faith had succumbed to the “age of reason,” which produced skepticism, moral relativism, and secular humanism.
Although many Enlightenment thinkers focused their attack mainly on the Church, they also sought the re-interpretation of academic subjects, including history. History, for the philosophes, provided an example of the barbarity and cruelty of humanity influenced by religion. Voltaire utilized historical events and persons as weapons against the Church by re-interpreting them through a lens of negativity and cynicism. He wrote that the Crusades were “marked by every cruelty, every perfidy, every debauchery, and every folly of which human nature is capable.” The Spanish Inquisition was the ultimate expression of religious intolerance; in the 1764 Philosophical Dictionary, Voltaire described one inquisitor as the “embodiment of fanaticism.” And perhaps no greater martyr of intellectual freedom existed than the seventeenth-century Italian mathematician Galileo, who, according to Voltaire, “groaned away his days in the dungeons of the Inquisition, because he had demonstrated by irrefutable proofs the motion of the earth.” Apparently, the fact that Galileo’s most strident critics were fellow scientists, and that he did not irrefutably scientifically prove the earth’s motion, did not sway Voltaire from championing Galileo’s cause in his efforts to discredit the Church.
Interestingly, Voltaire’s public vitriol for the Church did not correlate to his private life. He built a chapel on Ferney, his estate; asked the pope to send relics for the altar; and etched the inscription, “Voltaire erected this to God” on the façade. Voltaire allowed his estate workers to attend Mass and provided instruction in the Catholic faith for their children. He expressed deep admiration for the Sisters of Charity and their work.
Toward the end of his life, Voltaire stated his desire for Christian burial upon his death, which was granted. Although he worked for the eradication of the Church’s dominance in political affairs, he appreciated the contribution of individual Christians to society and the necessity of personal faith in a Supreme Being for the general welfare.
Voltaire died a decade before the beginning of the French Revolution, but many contemporaries, along with modern scholars, credit his political and philosophical works for laying the foundation for that cataclysmic event and its catastrophic impact on the Catholic Church. However, those who ascribe credit to Voltaire for the Revolution fail to recognize that he would not have supported the radical elements who overthrew the monarchy and the Church. Voltaire desired an intelligentsia free from the supposed suffocation of the Church, but he certainly did not subscribe to the notions of democracy and rule by the common people.
Nonetheless, the Revolutionary government disinterred his remains from the Abbey of Selliéres in July 1791 and brought them to Paris in a wagon train, where they were interred in the Panthéon for veneration of the masses and the ultimate expression of gratitude from the “democratic” government. It is an ironic end to the story of one of the most indefatigable enemies of the Church.

Kill the Jesuits, Kill the Church

<div>When and why were the popes based in Avignon, France?</div><div>The Popes were in Avignon from 1309 to 1377.
In short, the influence of the French government resulted in the movement of the papal headquarters from Rome to Avignon. A clash between Pope Boniface VIII (r. 1294 -1303) and “Philip the Fair” of France (King Philip IV, r. 1295-1314) set in motion the events that would lead to the relocation, which took place during the pontificate of the French Pope Clement V (r. 1305-14). Clement V acceded to Philip IV’s demand to move the papal residence to Avignon.
St. Catherine of Siena was instrumental in ending the Avignon papacy. For more on this period in the Church, see <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-st-catherine-brought-the-pope-back-to-rome">this article by Steve Weidenkopf</a>.
</div>

When and Why Were Popes in Avignon?

It’s that time of year again, when many Christians encounter claims that <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/is-catholicism-pagan">pagan</a> deities predating <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/jesus-christ">Jesus Christ</a> were born on December 25. In popular films, internet videos, and other media, you can find long lists of gods who were supposedly born on the same day.
This idea is not limited to unbelievers. I have heard many Christians claim that the date of Christmas was intended to provide an alternative to pagan celebrations. In some ways, it has become a pious legend. On the other hand, some Fundamentalist denominations refuse to celebrate Christmas for this reason.
Of all the deities of whom people make this claim, only three can be found to come close: Saturn, Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/exposing-the-mithras-myth">Mithras</a>.
<h2>1. Saturnalia</h2>
Saturnalia was the feast dedicated to the Roman god Saturn. Established around 220 B.C., this feast was originally celebrated on December 17. Eventually, the feast was extended to last an entire week, ending on December 23. The supposed connection to Christmas is based on the proximity of the two festivals to each other.
This can be found repeatedly on the internet. In his article &#8220;<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20120426224842/http://voices.yahoo.com/saturnalia-reason-we-celebrate-christmas-december-11973.html?cat=37" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Saturnalia: The Reason We Celebrate Christmas in December</a>&#8221; (also available <a href="https://www.stepbystep.com/Saturnalia-The-Reason-We-Celebrate-Christmas-in-December-135883/">here</a>), columnist Mark Whittington explains:
<blockquote>It has been suggested that Christians in the fourth century assigned December 25th as Christ&#8217;s birthday (and hence Christmas) because pagans already observed this day as a holiday. In this way the problem of eliminating an already popular holiday would be sidestepped, thus making the Christianizing of the population easier.</blockquote>
If the suggestion were correct, one would expect to find at least a single reference by early Christians to support it. Instead we find scores of quotations from Church Fathers indicating a desire to distance themselves from pagan religions.
<h2>2 (and 3). Sol Invictus and Mithras</h2>
The feast of Sol Invictus was the attempt by the Roman emperor Aurelian to reform the cult of Sol, the Roman sun god, and reintroduce it to his people, inaugurating Sol&#8217;s temple and holding games for the first time in 274. Not only was this festival not annual, but it also cannot be historically documented as having been established on December 25 by Aurelian (see Steven Hijmans, Sol Invictus, The Winter Solstice, and the Origins of Christmas, Mouseion, Series III, vol. 3, 377-398).
According to inscriptions on candle votives and other ancient works of art, there is a link between <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/exposing-the-mithras-myth">Mithras</a> and Sol Invictus. In some cases, it appears the Mithraists believed that Mithras and Sol were two different manifestations of the same god. In others, they appear to be two gods united as one. These connections are difficult to understand, given our limited knowledge of the Mithraic belief system, but they are important because they help to explain why skeptics claim that the birthday of Mithras was celebrated on December 25.
A manuscript known as the <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chronography_of_354_00_eintro.htm">Chronography of 354</a> shows the birth of Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25. Given the fact that the Mithraists equated their god with Sol in one way or another, it is understandable that they may have appropriated the date as their own. The problem for the skeptic is that no evidence exists to suggest that Aurelian was a Mithraist, or that he even had Mithraism in mind when he instituted the feast of Sol Invictus. The connection of Mithra to December 25 is only coincidental.
The deathblow to both the Mithras and Sol Invictus parallels is that the Chronography of 354 is the earliest mention of any pagan god being celebrated on December 25. The celebration of the birth of Christ by Christians is also mentioned on the calendar as having been celebrated on that day, which diminishes the likelihood that the pagan feast came first. At the very least, it negates the claim that it can be proved from the historical record that any December 25 pagan festival predates the Christian tradition.
Although the date of Christ’s birth is not given to us in Scripture, there is documented evidence that December 25 was already of some significance to Christians prior to 354. One example can be found in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome, who explains in his Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. 204) that the Lord’s birth was believed to have occurred on that day:
<blockquote>For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls.</blockquote>
The reference to Adam can be understood in light of another of Hippolytus’s writings, the <a href="https://tcschmidtblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/schmidt-calculating-december-25-as-the-birth-of-jesus-in-hippolytus1.pdf">Chronicon</a>, where he explains that Jesus was born nine months after the anniversary of Creation. According to his calculations, the world was created on the vernal equinox, March 25, which would mean Jesus was born nine months later, on December 25.
Nineteenth-century liturgical scholar Louis Duchesne explains that “towards the end of the third century the custom of celebrating the birthday of Christ had spread throughout the whole Church, but . . . it was <a href="https://archive.org/details/christianworshi00mcclgoog/page/n4">not observed</a> everywhere on the same day” (Christian Worship, Its Origin and Evolution: A study of the Latin liturgy up to the time of Charlemagne, 260).
In the West, the birth of Christ was celebrated on December 25, and in the East on January 6.
Duchesne writes, “One is inclined to believe that the Roman Church made choice of the 25th of December in order to enter into rivalry with Mithraism. This reason, however, leaves unexplained the choice of the 6th of January” (id., 261). His solution, therefore, was that the date of Christ’s birth was decided by using as a starting point the day on which he was believed to have died. This would explain the discrepancies between the celebrations in the East and West.
Given the great aversion on the part of some Christians to anything pagan, the logical conclusion here is that one celebration has nothing to do with the other. In his book <a href="https://www.ignatius.com/The-Spirit-of-the-Liturgy-P2310.aspx">Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict XVI</a> explains,
<blockquote>The claim used to be made that December 25 developed in opposition to the Mithras myth, or as a Christian response to the cult of the unconquered sun promoted by Roman emperors in the third century in their efforts to establish a new imperial religion. However, these old theories can no longer be sustained. The decisive factor was the connection of creation and Cross, of creation and Christ’s conception (105-107).</blockquote>
These explanations of how December 25 came to be the date of Christmas are all plausible. But we know one thing for sure: the evidence that this day held a special significance to Christians predates the proof of a supposed celebration of Sol Invictus or other pagan deities on that day.
Nor was the Christians&#8217; choice of a date so close to the winter solstice done to mimic pagan festivals. The various pagan religions all had festivals spanning the calendar. Whatever month the early Christians might have otherwise chosen would still place Christmas near some pagan celebration, and oppositional theorists would still be making the same claims.
The solstice was important to everyone for agricultural reasons in the same way water is important to the survival of human beings, and so we see rituals involving water showing up in various religions. That doesn&#8217;t prove that one borrowed the idea or theme from another.

Why is Christmas on December 25?

During the time of World War I, a controversial series of extraordinary events is reported to have occurred in Portugal. Most Christians today either are unaware of the events or don’t appreciate their significance.
This article is not about the 1917 Fatima apparitions by the Blessed Virgin Mary. The little-known events described here occurred earlier.
According to three young children, supernatural beings were encountered between 1915 and 1916. Lucia dos Santos (age eight) and her cousins Jacinta and Francisco Marto (ages five and seven) claimed to have been visited by an angel prior to 1917 the Fatima apparitions. Although the type of interaction was different for each child, the messages were the same.
An investigative approach commonly used in science and criminology was undertaken to determine the validity of these claims. Evidence based on firsthand testimony was divided into categories: direct and circumstantial. This evidence was assessed by examining the trustworthiness of these children and simple logic, as well as any potential psychological, sociocultural, and environmental influences.
In the backdrop of World War I, hardship and despair plagued Portugal, but a glimmer of hope arose when several shepherd children in the village of Fatima claimed to have been visited by angels. Fatima, a poor, out-of-the-way mountainous community of no sociopolitical consequence, is located on the slopes of the Serra Do Aire mountains, approximately 80 miles north of Lisbon.
During these times, the general political landscape in Europe was one of revolution and war. The assassination of Portugal’s king resulted in the abolishment of the monarchy. The controlling political party, dominated by Freemasons, embraced progress and science. Religion was seen to be outdated. Many religious were arrested and expelled; religious activities were outlawed and seen as a threat; and in 1911, a series of anti-Catholic laws were instituted under the slogan of “Separation of Church and State.” Spreading news of angelic visions would be seen as dangerous and not tolerated.
Most people in Fatima were peasants, who raised animals and farmed to survive. They had a simple and devout faith in God, with a Catholic church being a main building. Beyond religious instruction at the church, there were no schools, so children were instructed at home. Between 1914 and 1918, Portugal reported a 70-percent illiteracy rate, suggesting a higher level in the remote regions, such as Fatima.
Multiple peasant children from the village of Fatima claimed to have been visited by a supernatural being between 1915 and 1916. The visits’ purpose was to prepare the children for the suffering to follow and the need for man to repent of sin.
The most significant aspects of Lucia’s testimony are summarized below.
<h2>1915 Appearance</h2>
Lucia, while tending the family flock with some friends, explains, “Around noon they ate lunch and then invited her companions to say the rosary. We just started and saw a figure, like a statue of snow suspended in the air above the trees.” Lucia told no one, but the other children told their families.
When Lucia’s mother heard of the incident and asked, Lucia’s response was that it looked like a person “wrapped in a bedsheet.” Her mother dismissed the event as “childish foolishness.”
Similar events occurred two additional times. Hearing of the event from other village families, Lucia’s mother became very angry with her.
<h2>1916 Appearances</h2>
Francisco and Jacinta were now allowed to take their families’ herds with Lucia to graze.
<blockquote>We ran through the rosary and began playing. A strong wind shook the trees. Raising our eyes we saw a figure above the olive tree walking toward us. It was a young man fourteen or fifteen years old, white like snow, whom the sun made transparent as crystal and of great beauty.
When he got near to us, he said, “Fear not! I am the Angel of Peace, Pray with me.” Kneeling, he bowed his head all the way to the ground and made us repeat three times, “My God! I believe, I adore, I hope, and I love thee. I ask thee for forgiveness for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope, and do not love Thee.”
Rising, he said “Pray like this. The ears of Jesus and Mary are attentive to the voice of your supplications.”</blockquote>
On another occasion, the children were playing, and the visitor identified himself as the Angel of Portugal and said, “Above all accept and bear with submission the suffering that the Lord send you.”
<h2>Final Appearance</h2>
Lucia states that the children went to their knees and started to pray, “My God, I believe, I adore, I hope, and I love thee . . . ”
<blockquote>A light shined upon us. We stood up and saw an angel, in his left hand was a chalice over which was suspended a Host, from which a few drops of blood were dripping into the chalice. The angel left the chalice suspended in the air, knelt next to us, and made us repeat three times:
Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I adore thee profoundly and offer thee the most precious body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ present in all the tabernacles on earth in reparation for the insults, sacrileges, and indifferences with which he is offended. And through the infinite merits of his most sacred heart and the immaculate heart of Mary, I ask thee for the conversion of poor sinners.”
The angel then stood up and gave me the sacred host and the precious blood to Jacinta and Francisco and said,
Eat and drink the body and blood of Jesus Christ, horribly insulted by the ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.
Prostrating himself again to the ground he repeated with us, “Most Holy Trinity . . .” and disappeared.”</blockquote>
The following direct evidence is based on Lucia’s testimony. Circumstantial evidence is related to the event.
Direct Evidence: Lucia and some unrelated friends in 1915 observed a being like a statue suspended above the trees. Lucia kept this event to herself; however, the other children reported the experience to their parents.
In 1916, Lucia and her cousins encountered visitors identified as the Angel of Peace and later the Angel of Portugal. Only Lucia spoke with the angels. Jacinta heard all the responses, and Francisco had only visual interactions. Yet they all provided the same description of the visits.
Circumstantial Evidence: The sophistication of words and phrases repeated by the children indicate an advanced level of theology—for example, “Eat and drink the body and blood of Jesus Christ, horribly insulted by the ungrateful men. Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.”
Although Lucia instructed her cousins to secrecy, Jacinta told her mother. Word spread, reaching Lucia’s mother, who demanded that Lucia stop spreading lies. Animosity in her family grew, and yet, subject to these unpleasant conditions, Lucia’s account never changed. Amid hostility and ridicule, the children were unwavering in their belief and their description of the events.
Trustworthiness of an Eyewitness: Details from their upbringing indicate that Lucia was pious, obedient, and not one to lie. Yet she disobeyed her mother. Francisco was described as passive and quiet, whereas Jacinta, the youngest, was strong-willed. Given their family life, upbringing, and age and the fact that honesty was instilled in them early, there isn’t any indication that they could have fabricated and maintained such a complex story.
Psychology and cognitive science have demonstrated that our memory is malleable. Extraordinary events, especially those surrounded by strong emotional or spiritual significance, are often reconstructed to align with expectations. Since angelic visits were unexpected, isolated events, any influence of expectation is unfounded.
Suggestions that the children’s visions could be related to the religious environment of the country also seem improbable, since they had no interaction with the outside world. Further, the information provided by the visitors was theologically too sophisticated for illiterate children to naturally dream up. Life in these remote hamlets was focused on survival and not on supernatural appearances.
Finally, the people of the town, fearful of potential governmental retaliation, reported nothing of these events to the outside world until after the apparitions of 1917 became public. The possibility of a sociopolitical agenda must therefore be excluded.
In general, people under forty are either unaware or skeptical of these events, and believers tend to focus only on the “wow factor” of the final apparition, the Miracle of the Sun, not fully appreciating what had occurred already in Fatima. The critical message delivered by the angelic visitors clearly emphasized the hurt, insult, and blasphemies toward our God by humanity. However, as a result of God’s infinite mercy and forgiveness, salvation is available those who pray and repent.
This message is even more urgent today, as evidenced by the number of global conflicts over the last hundred years, the lack of respect for the human person, the growth of individualism, and the outright indifference toward God. In light of the ingratitude and blasphemies committed directly against the Lord, the loss of salvation for many is at hand.
The secular fascination with UFOs, aliens, and other paranormal phenomena has missed or neglected the real supernatural phenomenon that has already occurred. I hope this short article will raise awareness of the 1915-16 angelic apparitions in Fatima, highlighting the urgent need to return to prayer and repentance for the salvation of souls.

What You Didn’t Know About Fatima

In this video, Catholic Answers Live Host, Cy Kellett, asks apologist Jimmy Akin what Catholics must believe about Demons.
Transcript:
Cy: There are topics where people would like to know, well, what do I have to believe as a Catholic? What is certain about a topic as far as the Catholic faith goes? And one of those is demons. We get a lot of questions about demons. There&#8217;s actually a lot of Internet conversation about demons among Catholics
Jimmy: A lot of which is poorly informed.
Cy: Yes, that&#8217;s right. And so that&#8217;s why we get this situation where there&#8217;s a lot of conversation. But do people actually know the basics of what the Church teaches on the topic? So, and then we&#8217;re gonna take this segment, the Bottom Line, and we&#8217;ll make it available on social media to help people who might need the basic Catholic teaching.
Jimmy: So thank you very much for taking the time to talk with me about demons. Before we go this afternoon, the first thing I would like to ask, I&#8230;
Jimmy: Would say you used two different concepts at the beginning of this segment. One of them was what does the Church teach? And the other is what is certain. And I would take what is certain to mean what&#8217;s infallible. And not all Church teaching is infallible.
Cy: That&#8217;s a good point.
Jimmy: So I will tell you what the Church teaches. I&#8217;ll also tell you if something&#8217;s infallible, and I&#8217;ll tell you what my opinion is on matters the Church does not have a teaching on, but are subject to opinion.
Cy: Very good. Very good. Well, is this a permitted opinion? Could I just say, because I do think lots of people in the modern world do say, look, all this New Testament, particularly talk about demons is really, you can interpret it metaphorically that we&#8217;re talking about human evil, the tendency towards evil and selfishness and all that. So can I, as a Catholic, hold the view that really demons are metaphors?
Jimmy: Well, the Christian Church has always held that they are not metaphors, that they are intelligent creatures of God. They are different than we are in that they don&#8217;t natively have physical bodies the way we do, although it&#8217;s been held very commonly as a matter of theological opinion that they can assume, like angels can assume, temporary physical bodies. These are sometimes called aerial bodies. The idea was that they would condense them out of air and then the air would dissipate when they were done using it. That&#8217;s not Church teaching. Like I said, that was theological speculation. But the Church has always understood that they are not metaphors, but are other creatures of God that are different than us.
Now, after the early 20th century and the mid-20th century, there was, you know, some&#8230; There was a period of doctrinal confusion, particularly after Vatican II. And there were some individuals who were promoting this metaphor idea. But when the Catechism of the Catholic Church came out, the Church reaffirmed its historic position. And so the Church teaches that demons are intelligences that God created without bodies. And they are not simply metaphors. So that is Church teaching.
Cy: I&#8217;m not going to ask you about what they are because I think most people do have the basic understanding that a demon is a fallen angel.
Jimmy: Well, there&#8217;s actually some interesting discussion there in biblical circles because it depends on how you use the word angel. It depends on what value you give to various Second Temple Jewish sources. In the Second Temple Jewish world, it was common to understand&#8230; Now by angel you just mean it&#8217;s not a human being. Well, okay, there&#8217;s&#8230; There was some discussion in early Second Temple Judaism about demons. And they weren&#8217;t actually always identified with what we would call a fallen angel, but with a subset of creatures that were the ghosts of individuals that were human-angelic hybrids. And this is found in the book of Jubilees and in First Enoch. And it seems to be the common understanding in Second Temple Jewish sources.
But eventually the term angel came to be used for any non-human creature that has smarts and is here on earth. And so by that understanding, demons would be fallen angels, regardless of whether they would have been classified under that term in the first century.
Cy: So I guess the question that people have then is why would they fall though? I mean, what could possibly have tempted a creature who&#8230; an intelligent creature that presumably has knowledge of the good? Why would they choose permanently to be separated from God?
Jimmy: Well, let me ask you a question. Why would you choose to be permanently separated from God? Is there any reason good enough to justify that?
Cy: No, no, there&#8217;s not a good enough reason. But there are reasons, I can see, I guess, where you could choose something lower and just say, I want power, I want money, or I want, you know, pleasure.
Jimmy: Or we&#8217;re in a similar situation with the demons. Ultimately there is no good reason. There&#8217;s nothing sufficient to justify turning your back on God. And so sin makes you stupid. And the demons did something stupid, even though they&#8217;re otherwise very smart, they could still do stupid things. Just like King Solomon, he was very smart, but he did stupid things.
In terms of what specifically was it that the demons fell over? We don&#8217;t know, because we&#8217;re not told in Scripture. And that&#8217;s led both Jews and Christians to speculate on what it would have been. One early speculation is that it involved mankind. And according to a Second Temple work known as the Life of Adam and Eve, the reason the devil fell was because God created man in his image. So God is the image of man. Sorry, man is the image of God. And what do you do with the image of a God? You reverence it. I mean, that&#8217;s what they did in the ancient world. They made images of God and then they would reverence them.
Well, okay, in the book of the Life of Adam and Eve, that&#8217;s the explanation. God makes man in his image. Michael, a good angel, tells all the other angels, okay, now we&#8217;re gonna all reverence the image of God. Together, we&#8217;re gonna reverence man. And the devil thought man&#8230; he&#8217;s this puny little thing, and I&#8217;m older than man. I shouldn&#8217;t be reverencing him. And that&#8217;s what led him to rebel.
There are also other speculations. A more particularly Christian speculation is kind of connected to that one. But it&#8217;s that the devil knew that Jesus was gonna incarnate as a human being, and he couldn&#8217;t put up with the idea of someone like Jesus incarnated as a mere lowly human. And that&#8217;s what caused the Fall. Then there&#8217;s the idea that it was pride on the devil&#8217;s part that he wanted to be like God. And this is based on a passage in Isaiah that&#8217;s actually talking about a human prince, a human leader. But many people have applied it to the devil and speculated that he wanted to knock over the establishment and take over heaven for himself, which, of course, he could never do since God is omnipotent.
So I&#8217;m a little personally skeptical of that idea. But there are various speculations on what may have been the cause of the Fall, but they are all just theological opinions.
Cy: All right, so then the practical question I&#8217;ll end with, then how do I avoid these demons and stay out of their evil clutches?
Jimmy: Well, you could try wearing a special, you know, a hazmat suit.
Cy: I&#8217;m willing if it&#8217;ll keep them away!
Jimmy: Failing that, I would pray to St. Michael the Archangel and say the St. Michael prayer and entrust yourself to God and not really think about him too much.
Cy: All right, Jimmy, thanks for giving us the bottom line on demons. As always, things that surprised me in what you have to say and very, very helpful. Thank you.
Jimmy: My pleasure.
Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel:
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen

What Must Catholics Believe About Demons?

To support this channel: https://www.patreon.com/counseloftrent

[NEW] Counsel of Trent merch: https://shop.catholic.com/apologists-alley/trent-horn-resources/

Be sure to keep up with our socials!
https://www.tiktok.com/@counseloftrent
https://www.twitter.com/counseloftrent
https://www.instagram.com/counseloftrentpodcast

Do Catholics believe Mary created God?

<div>How does one refute the assertion that Numbers 5:11-31 means that abortion is okay?</div><div>A little background on <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5&amp;version=RSVCE">Numbers 5:11-31</a> is in order, because this is a rather unusual passage. It is a situation in which a husband suspects his wife is an adulterer but has no evidence. He could then bring her before a religious tribunal, and she would drink a concoction that would either prove or disprove the charge of adultery. There are no other such trial/ordeals in the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/old-testament">Old Testament</a>. While there is the occasional drawing of lots to determine guilt, this is the only time that someone must undergo some kind of trial where the results are believed to reveal the truth.
Such practices were more common among non-Jews in the ancient Middle East. Many scholars think that this practice was adopted to prevent women from becoming victims of jealous husbands and misogynist judges. We need to remember that ancient Judaism had a deep distrust of human judgment and human justice. In situations where the ancient Jews felt a judgment must be rendered and it did not have sufficient “checks and balances” on human prejudices, they would turn to ways of perceiving divine judgment.
To condemn someone for adultery, there had to be two witnesses, and the perpetrators had to have been warned in advance. But situations in which a husband was “sure” that his wife had committed adultery but could not prove it created such a strain on the marriage and the local community that they felt something had to be done to bring closure and resolution to the matter. Given the Jewish distrust of human notions of judgment and justice, having a group of men make the judgment probably seemed like a bad idea to them. It appears that they adopted, in this one instance, a sort of ordeal/test for the wife to go through if she insisted on her innocence.
Given that it&#8217;s generally assumed that the concoction is not actually a threat to health, the only way a bad reaction would occur would be because of psychological reaction due to a guilty conscience.
As strange as this matter is in the Old Testament, it also has no real attestation from the biblical period. It&#8217;s never mentioned again in the Bible, and it&#8217;s mentioned by only a few historical figures and writings—but always as something that they have heard about, never about an actual case they witnessed. Some of the recollections of the procedure also differ from the biblical method. And the Mishnah states the practice was stopped. So there is some question of whether this was ever actually used.
But it is in the Bible, so what would happen if she was guilty? Well, that depends on your translation. Some translations state that if she is guilty her &#8220;uterus will fail&#8221; or &#8220;shrink,&#8221; which would mean that she would become infertile. A few translations do translate that if guilty she will &#8220;miscarry,&#8221; but this is a distinct minority of translations.
It is important to note that the &#8220;reward&#8221; for innocence is that she will be able to conceive children, which seems to imply that even if she was infertile she would no longer be.  This would also seem to imply that miscarriage is not what is being referred to as divine punishment but rather infertility.
</div>

Does Numbers 5 Mean Abortion Is OK?

On Friday, March 28, 2025, a small group of self-described Satanists plan to hold a “Black Mass” outside (or inside?) the Kansas Capitol Building in Topeka. The group in question, called the Satanic Grotto, originally were given a permit to hold their blasphemous service within the Capitol, but after a great deal of public outcry, the governor, Laura Kelly, ordered that it be moved outdoors (claiming that the group’s presence would pose a fire hazard). In response, organizer Michael Stewart announced that “the Satanic Grotto’s leadership intends to enter the Capitol Building and perform the ritual under the threat of arrest.”
A few things are worth pointing out. First, this doesn’t appear to be a “real” Black Mass, inasmuch as a Black Mass (allegedly) involves the desecration of the Eucharist. Such a Black Mass had been proposed in Oklahoma in 2014 but was successfully thwarted when the Archdiocese of Oklahoma sued to recover <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/oklahoma-catholic-bishop-drops-suit-over-planned-black-mass-idUSKBN0GM00Y/">the stolen consecrated host</a>. The Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas did the same thing this time, but Michael Stewart (who had previously boasted online that it was a consecrated host) was able to get the lawsuit thrown out by showing a receipt for unconsecrated hosts that he had <a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article302526039.html">purchased on Amazon</a>.
Just as their Eucharist appears to be fake, so is their religion. Whereas the term Satanist connotes in the popular imagination dark images of people making offerings to Satan, the reality is that most “Satanists” today are edgelord atheists <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/LARP">LARPing</a> as demon-worshipers. That includes Stewart, <a href="https://youtu.be/rWzZeIc49QA?t=499">an atheist who insists</a> that the only two criteria for being a Satanist are that “you&#8217;re rebellious” and that “you venerate and identify with Satan in some way.”
This points to the complicated “denominational” system of Satanism, with various groups appropriating Satan for contradictory purposes. On the one hand, there are “theistic Satanists,” like the members of the <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Satanism/BFLNEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=Michael+Aquino+(Temple+of+Set),+The+Book+of+Coming+Forth+by+Night+(1975)&amp;pg=PA237&amp;printsec=frontcover">Temple of Set</a> (a splinter group from the Church of Satan), who literally worship Satan or Set, believing him to be the one true god. But most Satanists are like Stewart: atheists and anti-theists who have seized upon Satan as a symbol of rebellion, or of their political views, or of their desire to shock and mock Christians.
Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan and author of The Satanic Bible, famously <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contemporary_Religious_Satanism/fcKoDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=1&amp;dq=%22just+Ayn+Rand%27s+philosophy+with+ceremony+and+ritual+added%22&amp;pg=PT59&amp;printsec=frontcover">described</a> his “religion” as “just Ayn Rand&#8217;s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added.” Saul Alinsky, though not a Satanist himself, famously included in his <a href="https://chisineu.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/saul-alinsky-rules-for-radicals-1989.pdf">Rules for Radicals</a> a dedication to Lucifer, praising him as “the very first radical.” And the <a href="http://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq">Satanic Temple</a>, founded in 2003 by Lucien Greaves and Malcolm Jarry, says that “to embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions.”
By <a href="https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/campaigns">presenting their political agenda as a religion</a>, these Satanists attempt to take advantage of the U.S. Constitution’s protections for religious rights:
<blockquote>The Satanic Temple religiously objects to many of the restrictions that states have enacted that interfere with abortion access as well as other related issues that affect members&#8217; religious rights. TST is taking many steps to address reproductive laws that violate our religious conscience by inflicting guilt and shame in one&#8217;s decision and being inconsistent with necessary health and safety standards.</blockquote>
Instead of just calling themselves pro-choice atheists, these atheists present their abortion advocacy as part of their fake religion so that they can claim that their “religious rights” and “religious conscience” are being violated by laws protecting the unborn.
This is very much in the same vein as the Satanic Grotto’s “Satanism.” Michael Stewart was a <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/kansas/comments/1jbe2dc/comment/mhvj3wt/?context=3">chapter head for the Satanic Temple</a>, which (again) was founded not out of any authentic religious quest, but as an attempt to make a political point. As <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/a-mischievious-thorn-in-the-side-of-conservative-christianity.html">The New York Times reported back in 2015</a>,
<blockquote>“The first conception was in response to George W. Bush’s creation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,” said Mr. Jarry, who was raised by irreligious Jews. “I thought, ‘There should be some kind of counter.’” He hit on the idea of starting a faith-based organization that met all the Bush administration’s criteria for receiving funds, but was repugnant to them. “Imagine if a Satanic organization applied for funds,” he remembered thinking. “It would sink the whole program.”</blockquote>
Stewart recently explained the idea behind the Kansas Capitol Black Mass this way: “I&#8217;ve studied Saul alinsky and community organizing. My goal is to shed light on the religious takeover of our state legislature. I to defy the goveners order even if it means my arrest [sic].”
It is, in fact, difficult to see how either Saul Alinsky or Anton LaVey would approve of the Satanic Grotto’s plan. On community organizing ground, Alinsky argued:
<blockquote>If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psychological barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair. If I were organizing in an orthodox Jewish community I would not walk in there eating a ham sandwich, unless I wanted to be rejected so I could have an excuse to cop out.</blockquote>
To put it mildly, the proposed Black Mass is a good deal more needlessly offensive than the ham sandwich, and intentionally so. The Kansas Legislature responded to the provocation with a <a href="https://www.kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/measures/documents/hr6016_00_0000.pdf">House resolution</a> denouncing “the planned satanic worship ritual scheduled to take place on the grounds of the people&#8217;s house, the Kansas state capitol grounds, on March 28, 2025, as a despicable, blasphemous and offensive sacrilege to not only Catholics but all people of goodwill.”
Even the Satanist LaVey, who lamented that “no other single device has been associated with Satanism as much as the black mass,” argued that whereas “in the Middle Ages, blaspheming the holy church was shocking,” this is no longer the case. In fact, he conceded that the rebellious thing today wouldn’t be mocking religion, but defending it:
<blockquote>A black mass, today, would consist of the blaspheming of such “sacred” topics as Eastern mysticism, psychiatry, the psychedelic movement, ultra-liberalism, etc. Patriotism would be championed, drugs and their gurus would be defiled, acultural militants would be deified, and the decadence of ecclesiastical theologies might even be given a Satanic boost.</blockquote>
So on either the grounds of political or community organizing or killing sacred cows, this proposed Black Mass seems like a failure. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg: These Satanists don’t really worship Satan, their religion isn’t really a religion, and their “Eucharist” isn’t even consecrated. Instead of devil-worshipers desecrating the Eucharist, their proposed “Black Mass” is just going to be atheists acting rudely toward what both they and we realize is bread.
To be clear, that doesn’t mean that these Renaissance-faire “Satanists” aren’t putting themselves in grave spiritual danger: You can invite the devil in, even if you’re an atheist just doing it to “prove” he doesn’t exist. Plus they’ve promised to desecrate a Bible and a crucifix. So how should we respond to these provocations?
First, by recognizing in this confirmation of the truth of the Mass. As Jesus says, “every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?” (Matt. 12:25-26). The fact that real and fake Satanists, and the real Satan, hate the Mass so much is strong evidence that it’s of divine origin.
Second, by remembering St. Paul’s admonition from Ephesians 6:11-12:
<blockquote>Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.</blockquote>
Our war is a spiritual one, and our enemies aren’t the “flesh and blood” people who disagree with us, or mock us, or mock our religion. Our enemies are the spiritual forces behind those people. St. Thomas Aquinas, quoting an earlier commentary, put it vividly: “Evil men are horses, and the demons the riders; hence, if we kill the riders, the horses will be ours.” To that end, the best response isn’t to panic, but to pray. In particular, <a href="https://archkck.org/statement-on-the-outcome-of-court-proceedings-over-alleged-stolen-eucharist/">Archbishop Naumann is asking us</a> to “pray for the spiritual conversion of those who promoting and participating in the satanic worship ritual.”

A Black Mass in Kansas?

The idea that Scripture is the sole rule of faith is central to the thinking of man Protestants, who see Tradition as a watering down of scriptural purity. But Catholics have good reason to reject this view. Author Casey J. Chalk explains.

Why Catholics Reject Sola Scriptura

<div>How do I tell my Methodist sister-in-law that I don’t want to attend her Protestant retreat or Bible studies without offending her?</div><div>You don&#8217;t have to give your sister-in-law a reason for not going to these events; instead, you can say something short and sweet such as, &#8220;Thank you so much for inviting me, but I think I&#8217;ll pass.&#8221; Keep your response warm and friendly, and leave it at that. If she presses you for a reason, you can politely give her your reasons for not going (e.g., there are Catholic Bible studies and retreats you can attend), or just repeat your original response and then change the subject.
Don&#8217;t feel guilty for being honest. Your sister-in-law might be disappointed to hear you aren&#8217;t interested in attending these events, but a warm smile and a kind word will soften her heart.
Further reading <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/should-catholics-go-to-non-denominational-bible-studies">here</a>.
</div>

How Do I Beg Off Protestant Activities?

What to Make of Unapproved Marian Apparitions

Does the trial of Pope Formosus disprove Papal Infallibility?

Does time exist in the Church triumphant and the Church suffering as it does for the Church militant?

How can we explain to an animal rights activist that humans have greater value and dignity?

What’s the morality of interacting with algorithms that can influence others to encounter questionable material?

I want to start defending the faith. How do I defend the words “Praying to” when referring to Mary?

What is the Catholic perspective of the orthogonality thesis within general purpose intelligence research?

In your recent debate with James White on Sola Scriptura you argued the different ways “Word of God’ was used. What resource did you use to build that argument?

My wife and I both grew up Catholic but never got married in the Church. Do we have to get our marriage blessed by the Church? We now live like brother and sister.

My son is in college and questioning whether God is real. How do I start a conversation with him without scaring him away?

Ask Me Anything

<div class="page" title="Page 258">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 248
CHALLENGE
</div>
<div class="column">
“The Bible contains many passages that say something close to the truth but are still not quite accurate.”
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DEFENSE
This confuses truth with precision.
Perhaps you’ve seen the Star Trek episode “Errand of Mercy,” where the following exchange occurs:
Kirk: What would you say the odds are on our getting out of here?
Spock: Difficult to be precise, Captain. I should say, approximately 7,824.7 to 1.
Kirk: Difficult to be precise? 7,824 to 1?
Spock: 7,824.7 to 1.
Kirk: That’s a pretty close approximation.
Spock: I endeavor to be accurate.
This illustrates the different levels of precision expected by humans and vulcans. Something similar occurs when modern audiences read ancient texts. We live in an age in which things are rigorously measured and recorded. But the ancient world was very different. There were few and imprecise measuring tools, no audio or video recorders, and most people could not read or write.
Consequently, the ancients expected a lesser degree of precision than we do. They would have rolled their eyes at us the way we roll our eyes at Mr. Spock and his absurd overprecision.
This has implications for how we read the Bible. We can’t hold its authors to a higher level of precision than they used. They expressed truths according to the level of precision expected in their day, not ours.
Statements of truth regularly involve approximation. When we say the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second or that pi is 3.14, we are expressing truths, but in an approximate manner. Approximation is so common that scientists even speak of the different “orders of approximation” they use in their work. At some point, it becomes foolish to try to be more precise, and this judgment must be made based on the situation in which we find ourselves.
We must thus respect the circumstances in which the biblical authors wrote and not expect more precision of them than their situation alone. If we want to charge them with error, then we need to show that they weren’t using the degree of precision expected in the ancient world.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Truth versus Precision

What would make someone a heretic?

How can we defend the claim that we are not worshiping icons?

Could you explain What is means not to judge intent and motivation?

Is it a sin to have suicidal thoughts?

Regarding the woman caught in sin, how would I anticipate a response from a protestant who argues faith alone?

Luke 12:1-8 I don’t understand why they use the example of buying sparrows. What did they use sparrows for?

What is the meaning of Acts 2:38 and how does it align with the Church’s teaching on baptism?

What’s the legitimacy for using intellectual arguments to come back to the faith?

How can I better explain the need for confession before communion? Did Judas receive communion?

Ash Wednesday is here, and—whoops!—you still don&#8217;t know what you&#8217;re doing for Lent. Not to worry! I asked my colleagues at Catholic Answers to share some ideas. What follows is a comprehensive list of their replies. Perhaps one will catch your eye!
Here are the responses (some edited for clarity):
<ul>
<li>Really pray. For instance, I will repeat a bead or mystery on the Rosary if I haven’t meditated upon it because I was distracted.</li>
<li>Suffer in silence. Pray for souls who attack, degrade, or mock you in person, in the silence of your heart. Don&#8217;t answer fools with their folly. In a word, hold your tongue for forty days.</li>
<li>Give up alcohol.</li>
<li>Give up listening to secular music.</li>
<li>Give up social media.</li>
<li>If leaving social media cold turkey is too hard, limit yourself to fifteen minutes per day across ALL platforms.</li>
<li>Put your phone <a href="https://www.theverge.com/23637672/grayscale-iphone-android-pixel-samsung-galaxy-how-to">in greyscale</a>.</li>
<li>Wake up an hour earlier.</li>
<li>Read the daily Gospel and pray before getting ready for work.</li>
<li>Before watching TV/movie each day, read a spiritually efficacious book for a designated time. For instance, read for half the time you plan to watch. Before a ninety-minute movie, read for forty-five minutes.</li>
<li>Consume Catholic media instead of watching your favorite TV show.</li>
<li>Say a short prayer before a fun activity (a fasting of time rather than a fasting of food). I think there is something to be said for adding a spiritually efficacious act prior to normal activities instead of giving up the normal activity altogether.</li>
<li>Give up earbuds. I left them on a plane and I quickly realized how I relied on them to escape. I’m replacing that action with more concerted prayer time—specifically the Litany of Humility and the Surrender Novena, at least in the beginning.</li>
<li>Give up YouTube.</li>
<li>Giving up wearing jewelry (except wedding rings).</li>
<li>Give up clothes you never wear and donate them. I&#8217;m going for forty pieces of clothing.</li>
<li>Fast <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/hate-fasting-try-fasting-more">according to the norms before 1966</a>.</li>
<li>Bring back the frustulum and the collation. (Check out canon 1251 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).</li>
<li>Make/renew the Total Consecration to Jesus through Mary.</li>
<li>One easy one I’m doing is to pay attention to all the people that cross my path this day, and find a quality I can spot in them (truly they are the image of God). Even if I don’t mostly see it—there is something there. This morning, the cashier at McDonalds knows I appreciate his morning cheerfulness! It’s not just a complement—it is recognizing God’s image in the other!</li>
<li>Pray the rosary on your commute.</li>
<li>Ask others how you can pray for them.</li>
<li>Gratitude-journaling each morning and night.</li>
<li>Tune into Catholic Answers Live and share something you learned with a friend/family member.</li>
<li>Reflect on an image of one mystery of the holy rosary each night. There are twenty so it&#8217;s a good marker for the halfway point of Lent before repeating.</li>
<li>Don’t tell anybody what your penances are.</li>
</ul>
I leave you with one humble suggestion. If your gut reaction upon reading an idea is, &#8220;Oh man, I could never do that,&#8221; then . . . that&#8217;s probably the one you should do. That&#8217;s part of the spirit of fasting, after all: forcing ourselves to recognize that we depend far more on God than we do on music, caffeine, or Instagram.
Obviously, we shouldn&#8217;t do things that are actually harmful—don&#8217;t eat only bread and water for forty days if you&#8217;re pregnant, or give away forty pieces of clothing if you only own ten. But I think if we&#8217;re honest with ourselves, we all know the one legitimate pleasure that we cling to just a little too tightly.

The Last-Minute Lenten Penance Guide!

A common pop-culture assertion is that if there are intelligent extraterrestrials then Christianity is ruined. The idea is that such a discovery would disprove the Bible. Is that true? We asked astro-chemist Karin Oberg to give us her view.

Would Aliens Destroy Christianity?

Could we employ some of your arguments against the Evil God Challenge against atheistic naturalism?

I like the argument against sola scriptura that scripture doesn’t say everything has to be in scripture. But Protestants respond that Old Testament Jews didn’t have a magisterium, yet they still knew, more or less, what books were canon. If Old Testame...

Are those who go to Hell likely to eventually go mad from all their suffering?

In light of the recent story of the man declared brain dead from whom they were harvesting organs, but then the man showed signs of life: how should Catholics consider organ donation?

Convince us that abortions are evil without using religion.

Why is the purpose of the uterus disanalogy in the violinist argument successful in refuting it?

Is 1 Cor 15:29 a good proof for purgatory?

How do we answer the ethical dilemma: a robber comes to your house and makes you choose a family member for him to kill, or else he will kill your whole family.

What Fathers and Councils should I read that support the Papacy?

Who led the parting of the Orthodox church with the Catholic church? What was the key disagreement?

How can I respond to someone who feels that they are being led from Catholicism into Orthodoxy?

Do some Orthodox traditions allow for more than one marriage?

Are we allowed to take communion if a Catholic attends an Eastern Orthodox Church?

Does it affect our Salvation if we don’t believe in a Catholic church teaching?

What is the difference or similarity between Eastern Orthodox or Catholics disagree with their leaders’ teachings?

&#8220;Do Some Orthodox Traditions Allow for Multiple Marriages?&#8221; This episode explores the nuances of Catholic and Orthodox relations, addressing questions like which Church Fathers and Councils support the Papacy, the historical split between the two churches, and how to respond to those drawn to Orthodoxy. Tune in for a thoughtful examination of these important topics.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

Do Some Orthodox Traditions Allow for Multiple Marriages?

A common question raised in interfaith dialogue is whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God. In this excerpt from Catholic Answers Live, Karlo Broussard addresses this complex issue, explaining the Catholic Church&#8217;s position as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 841. He discusses the concept of sufficient philosophical knowledge of God and how it applies to Muslims, even with their differing beliefs.
Transcript:
I&#8217;m a recent convert to Catholicism from Protestantism. So I&#8217;ve had to overcome a couple hurdles. I was going through the catechism and something, a little stumbling block, 841 paragraph, the church&#8217;s relationship with Muslims. And it says basically that we worship the same God as the Muslims do. Not trying to be scandalized by that at all, but just my brief familiarity with Islam is that Allah deals in deception. So I mean, I kind of find that hard to square away with our Christian view of who God is in terms of them being the same person. So I was hoping you could maybe square this away with me.
Yeah, Andrew, it&#8217;s a great question, my friend. First of all, I want to recommend a resource to you. Philosopher by the name of Ed Fazer has an article online that I found was very helpful and very well written and clear and it&#8217;s entitled Christians, Muslims, and the Reference of God. And I think he does a good job articulating the church&#8217;s position here in paragraph 841 in the catechism, which it says, these Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham and it states, &#8220;Together with us, they adore the one merciful God mankind&#8217;s judge on the last day.&#8221; And so there you have the church making a judgment that the reasonable or philosophical knowledge that Muslims have of God as the infinite reality, creator of heaven and earth is sufficient such that they are directing worship to the proper object, to the same object, that reality to which we as Christians direct worship, even though they get many things wrong about that same reality to which they are directing worship.
Is it the case that you can have such error, you can have enough error about a reality to which you&#8217;re directing worship that you would no longer be directing worship to the same reality? Yes, that&#8217;s possible. And that&#8217;s a little bit difficult to discern and to know where that boundary is, but at least what we can say here, Andrew, is that the church is making a judgment that given their philosophical knowledge of the infinite reality as the uncaused cause and the creator of heaven and earth, that that reasonable knowledge, that philosophical knowledge, what we can know about God through the natural light of human reason is sufficient such that they are directing worship to the same reality that we are directing worship to, even though they get some things wrong about the very nature of God. And so that&#8217;s what I would say about that. 
Again, I would recommend Dr. Fazer&#8217;s article where he does a really good job articulating sort of what constitutes enough error to where you&#8217;re no longer referring to the same person and a sufficient enough knowledge, a sufficient amount of knowledge, even though it&#8217;s mixed with error such that you would still be referring to the same person. And so he does a good job of navigating in between those parameters in order to show and elucidate the church&#8217;s teaching here in paragraph 841 of the Catechism.

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?

How did Protestant lose the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

What is the status of the devotion of Jesus King of all nations?

How would you word the Divine Simplicity of God not having a body without it becoming a heretic?

What proof do we have that the Catholic church was founded by Christ?

Having a hard time understanding why Mary is immaculately conceived but no else?

The Pope and Trump have differing views on building a wall, who am I supposed to believe?

how did protestants go from the catholic belief that faith without works is dead to faith alone?

in a protestant bible study who is going to argue with her about confession… why do we have to confess to a priest?

The author of <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/purgatory-is-for-real/">Purgatory Is for Real</a>, Karlo Broussard, explains the reality of indulgences and why they are effective in paying off debts.

Are Indulgences a Scam?

When it comes to the possibility of losing salvation, Catholics have their Bible passages—John 15:1-5, Galatians 5:4, Matthew 10:22. But Protestants aren’t short on comebacks.
One such comeback is employed by Protestant apologist James White. Whenever the above passages, and others like them, are brought up, White argues that such passages don’t necessarily have to be read prescriptively; they can be read descriptively.
A descriptive reading merely describes what is the case. Prescriptive readings describe what ought to be or, in the case of action, what should or must be done. The implication for a prescriptive reading is that what ought to be might not come to pass, or what ought to be done might not be done.
One occasion where White tried to use this argument was in his 2017 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72TRODe8BdA">debate</a> on eternal security with Trent Horn. Trent had a good response to defuse White’s rebuttal. But given the limitations of the debate, Trent could say only so much.
So I’d like to offer just a few complementary thoughts here—as I sit before my computer with time to think through this issue. (Kudos to Trent for his ability to think on his feet!)
First, regardless of whether we read the texts descriptively or prescriptively, we still arrive at the same conclusion: it’s possible for a Christian to lose his salvation.
Consider Jesus’ description in Matthew 10:22: “He who perseveres shall be saved.” Remaining faithful to the end is a condition that must be met to receive final salvation. But this means it’s possible that the condition might not to be met—that’s to say, a person may freely turn away from Christ and not persevere unto the end. That’s all we need to prove the view that it’s possible for a Christian to lose his salvation. There’s no need for the prescription “we must persevere” (a prescriptive reading).
What about John 15:2? Jesus says, “Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, [the Father] takes away.”
Consider that the description of some branches being part of the vine necessarily implies that those branches once were living with the life of the vine, but then, for whatever reason, they ended up dead, thereby failing to produce fruit.
As applied to Christians, some were living with the life of Christ (the vine), which means they were true believers who were truly saved (contra White—“These branches were not the ones in which true salvation had taken place”). Indeed, that’s a description. It’s also a description that they’re cut off from Christ, thereby no longer living with the life of Christ, and thus are spiritually dead. That Jesus describes some Christians in fact spiritually dying and thus being cut off from him logically entails that it’s possible for a Christian to spiritually die and thus be cut off.
The same line of reasoning applies to Galatians 5:4, where Paul tells the Galatians, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”
Describing how these Christians in Galatia in fact have been severed from Christ (“You are severed”—the Greek katērgēthēte is an aorist indicative, which signifies past time) implies that they were once in Christ and thus saved (contra White—“Who is being addressed there? Those who are seeking to be justified by their keeping of the law, not true believers”). Given that they are no longer in Christ, they are no longer in a state of salvation. And that these Galatians have lost their state of salvation logically entails that it’s possible to lose salvation.
So White’s contention—that a descriptive reading of these texts avoids the interpretation that it’s possible for a Christian to lose his salvation—doesn’t pan out.
A second thought is that, for White, the descriptive/prescriptive distinction is not the real issue. Rather, it’s what the possibility of a Christian losing his salvation necessarily entails. This becomes evident when White comments on the above passages individually. (All the emphases below are supplied.)
Consider, for example, his take on Matthew 10:22. When commenting on the prescriptive reading of the text, he states,
<blockquote>“He who endures to the end shall be saved”—and so by your enduring to the end you bring about your salvation.” That’s a prescriptive way of looking at things.</blockquote>
He then comments on what he takes to be a descriptive reading:
<blockquote>The descriptive way allows for the passages I presented to be true and then applies them to the application passages as to how Christians live the Christian life. And so what you then have is, “He who endures to the end shall be saved.” Amen, I agree a thousand percent, but it is not my enduring to the end that brings about my salvation, and God is not helpless unless I somehow work up an enduring faith.</blockquote>
For White, on the view that a Christian doesn’t end up being saved, God is “helpless,” and the final perseverance of a Christian is due solely to him “working up an enduring faith.”
In his comments on John 15, he argues, “It’s not my abiding in him that brings forth fruit; he’s the one that brings forth the fruit in me,” as if the view that a Christian can lose his salvation entails that the fruit comes solely from the Christian, without God.
Finally, when he directs his comments to Galatians 5:4, he argues that reading such a text as if a Christian can lose his salvation “adds to the finished work of Christ.”
Notice that in all these responses, White thinks that reading these texts in support of the view that a Christian can lose his salvation undermines God’s universal causality (and thus God’s sovereignty), excluding God and Christ’s work on the cross from the calculus of whether someone is finally saved or not.
There are two things that we can say in response. First, a Christian might challenge White’s assumption that God must be the cause of man’s free choice in attaining salvation, arguing that White’s prior view of divine causation, which he uses to interpret the above texts, is false, and thereby should not be a reason to reject the interpretation that these texts reveal the possibility for a Christian to lose his salvation.
Second, White’s concern that God’s causal influence (and thus his sovereignty) would somehow be excluded from the picture on the belief that a Christian can lose his salvation can be alleviated if we adopt a Thomistic/Augustinian view, where final salvation is attained by God causing the will, without doing violence to it, to freely choose him and thus be saved. And if a Christian falls from a saving relationship with God, such a fall can happen only if God permits it, a permission that’s infallibly known from all eternity, antecedent to any sin.
On this view, God is not “helpless” and excluded from the question of whether a Christian is finally saved or not. God is in the picture all the way through, causing man’s free choice when he chooses God and permitting man’s rejection when he freely rejects God, whether such choices are made before initial salvation, during one’s saving relationship with Christ, or in the end at death.
In sum, neither reason that White gives in his debate with Trent succeeds in justifying a rejection of the above texts as support for the belief that a Christian can lose his salvation. This belief can be arrived at even with a descriptive reading. And at least on some Christian views of divine causation and human freedom, such as those of Aquinas and Augustine, there’s no need to think the belief that a Christian can lose his salvation excludes God’s universal causality (and thus sovereignty) from a Christian achieving final salvation.
Now, White might contend that the above passages don’t prove the possibility to lose salvation on other grounds. That’s fine. But he can’t employ his prescriptive-versus-descriptive tactic, or his “God is helpless” charge, to undermine our appeal to these passages for proving it’s possible for a Christian to lose his salvation.