Manage Account

What Are Some Similarities Between Catholics and Orthodox Christians?

He Was a Satanic Priest Who Became a Saint!

Gary Zimak recommends spending time as often as possible in the presence of God, especially in Eucharistic Adoration, to anyone who worries about what God&#8217;s plan is for his life.
Transcript:
Host: Let&#8217;s go to Mike in Dalton, Ohio, listening on Living Bread Radio. Mike, your question for Gary Zimak.
Caller: Hi guys.
Gary: Hi Mike.
Caller: Great show, thanks for taking my call. I&#8217;m a recovering worrier&#8211;not so recovered, but anyways, my question&#8211;and I have a lot of questions about worry, but my main one was pretty specific&#8211; basically, I got a bunch of racehorses. I inherited them from my family, and I love them but I worry that not what God wants for me in my life, to have a bunch of racehorses. Because they take a lot of time, they take money. I mean I&#8217;m hoping someday to make money with them, but that&#8217;s&#8230;it&#8217;s basically a big gamble. and I worry a lot about&#8230;just&#8230;does God have&#8230;is He definitely making sure that I&#8217;m doing His will in my life? You know what I mean?
Gary: I do. Mike, that&#8217;s&#8211;I&#8217;m gonna tell&#8211; first of all, I&#8217;m going to congratulate you; the fact that you care to do God&#8217;s will, that&#8217;s really, that&#8217;s impressive, you know. And that&#8217;s gonna really please Him. He wants that. The fact that you care, &#8220;Am I doing God&#8217;s will?&#8221; How do you know whether you&#8217;re doing God&#8217;s will or not? This is something that I have dealt with. I continue to deal with it, almost on a daily basis. I would say: spend some time with Him every day. Ask Him&#8211;you know, if you can go to Eucharistic Adoration, that&#8217;s been one of my&#8230;the most helpful things to me, to spend time with the Lord in His presence, and you get that feeling. &#8220;Lord, am I doing this? Is this what you want me to do? Make your will obvious to me.&#8221;
It takes time sometimes. In my case, He doesn&#8217;t give me an answer right away, but ultimately&#8211; if the Lord wants you to do something, if He wants you to maybe get rid of some of the racehorses and give more money to the Church, He&#8217;s going to make you aware of this. And the fact that you&#8217;re having that feeling, He might be saying that. But just see what happens. Continue to ask Him, and see if that feeling to do this or to do that remains. And He&#8217;s going to let you know.

I Worry That I’m Not Doing God’s Will in My Life

Even though we cannot attend Mass while we shelter in place, we can experience real liturgy in our homes by praying the Liturgy of the Hours— and it&#8217;s more accessible than you might think. Fr. Hugh Barbour explains how, even during the suspension of public Masses, you can still not just watch but participate in real liturgy.

Experience Real Liturgy in Your Home

Get more Shameless Popery on Patreon!
https://www.patreon.com/ShamelessPopery

Listen to Shameless Popery on Catholic.com:
https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp

How Should We Share the Gospel with Trans People?

How could we be happy in Heaven knowing souls are in Hell?

<div>Which came first, the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed?</div><div>The original creed is the threefold profession of faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Both of these creeds are modeled on this baptismal profession of faith that we still have in the church at baptisms.The Council of Nicea simply adopted a baptismal creed and made it more precise to confront the Arian heresy. The Apostles&#8217; Creed is probably older than the Nicene Creed, since it is based on the baptismal profession of the early Roman Church. Both creeds, however, have the same ancient origin. The Nicene Creed is definitely the more important of the two in Church history as a dogmatic definition of the faith and a frequent liturgical form.
</div>

Which Creed Came First, Apostles’ or Nicene?

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

Did they really find Jesus’ tomb? 👀

Jimmy Akin joins Cy for a conversation about the historicity of the Joseph story in Genesis. Is the biblical depiction of Egypt believable? What does modern scholarship add to the story?

Joseph in Egypt

<div>If the Eucharist is really Christ, shouldn’t it heal sick or wounded people who receive it?</div><div>Not necessarily. By that reasoning, the sacrament of baptism should accomplish the same thing, because we receive God in his divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in receiving baptism. And while baptism washes away our sins and gives us the gift of sanctifying grace—and there is nothing greater than that—the healing of sick or wounded people typically doesn’t accompany reception of baptism.
Similarly, in the Eucharist, we receive Jesus Christ in his divinity as well as his glorified body, blood, soul, and divinity, but physical healings don’t typically accompany reception of the Eucharist. And yet, again, we receive an increase of sanctifying grace and grow closer to our Lord Jesus, and so we truly experience a foretaste of heaven.
</div>

Shouldn’t the Eucharist Heal People?

The Most Evidence for a Marian Apparition Ever!

The founder of <a href="http://shamelesspopery.com">shamelesspopery.com</a> defends the Catholic understanding of the interior life and shares tips for developing yours.

Interior Life

The nature of marriage has been a subject of much discussion and debate over the last couple of decades. Receiving somewhat less attention are the differences among religions over marriage, particularly the differences between Islam and Christianity. In many respects, Islam and Christianity share a common view of the importance of marriage, but there are some significant differences that all Christians should understand.
The Catholic faith teaches that marriage is an unbreakable bond between a man and a woman. The foundations for this understanding can be found in both the Old and New Testaments:
<blockquote>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” . . . Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Gen. 1:27-28, 2:24).</blockquote>
<blockquote>Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church (Eph. 5:28-33).</blockquote>
The Catechism builds upon God’s call to this fruitful, loved-filled, and unbreakable bond:
<blockquote>The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament (1601).</blockquote>
Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God, from whom comes our help (CCC 1605a).
To Catholics, marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament, which has the meaning of oath or covenant. This covenant bond is a lifelong exchange of persons with God as witness. This exchange forms the basis for a community of love that reflects the sacrificial and holy love God has for his people and is ordered for the good of the man and woman and toward the begetting and education of children. We heed Christ’s words—“Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Mark 10:9)—so, after a baptized couple consummates a validly contracted marriage, it is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-jesus-say-adultery-is-grounds-for-divorce">impossible</a> to break that union except by death. (Non-sacramental marriages, where one or both spouses are unbaptized, are also ordinarily indissoluble except in certain <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-marriages-between-unbaptized-people-be-dissolved-by-divorce">rare cases</a>.)
Like Christianity, Islam values marriage as an important institution for the building of family and society and an integral part of salvation. Various hadiths (traditional religious sayings) bear this out. For example: “There is no foundation that has been built in Islam more loved by Allah . . . than marriage. . . . Allah loves no permissible like marriage, and Allah hates no permissible like divorce” (Mustadrak al-Wasa’il). “Whoever gets married has safeguarded half of his religion” (Wasa’il al-Shia).
The Quran and tradition give further guidance and reasons to marry:
<blockquote>And marry off the single among you and among the righteous of your male and female slaves. If they are poor then Allah will supply their needs from his generosity. And Allah is expansive, knowing. And let those who do not find marriage hold back until Allah grants them of his generosity (Quran 24:32-33).</blockquote>
<blockquote>O young people! Whoever among you can marry, should marry, because it helps him lower his gaze and guard his modesty, and whoever is not able to marry, should fast, as fasting diminishes his sexual desire” (Sahih al-Bukhari).</blockquote>
<blockquote>Whoever chooses to follow my tradition must get married and produce offspring through marriage (and increase the population of Muslims), so that on the Day of Resurrection, I shall confront other Ummah (nations) with the (great) numbers of my Ummah (Wasa’il al-Shia).</blockquote>
Marriage is so important within Islam that no other option is recognized as praiseworthy. Unlike Catholics, who view celibacy for the sake of the kingdom as a high calling, Muslims <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-islam-says-about-chastity">see the permanent celibate life as unnatural</a>, given men’s sexual needs and the community’s need to grow. Muslims are encouraged to marry early in life in order to avoid forbidden sexual relations (known as zina).
The Arabic word most often associated with marriage is nikah, which means “contract.” A widely quoted definition from influential Salafi cleric Ibn ‘Uthaimin states that marriage is “a mutual contract between a man and a woman whose goal is for each to enjoy the other, become a pious family and a sound society.”
Now, a contract is a promise regarding an exchange of goods. A Muslim marital contract is brokered between two men—the husband-to-be and a representative for the wife-to-be. The contract stipulates the exchange of a mahr, or “bride price,” in exchange for the woman’s hand. It dictates that married life be conducted in accordance with the Quran and requires consent by the woman and two witnesses.
The first and most common category of marriage is the nikah between one man and one woman.  A second category, though, is called a nikah mut’ah, or temporary marriage. This type of “marriage” is common in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam">Shia Islam</a> and is designed to make otherwise illicit sexual acts licit by a short-term legal arrangement. Although most <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam">Sunni Muslims</a> reject nikah mut’ah, they accept nikah misyar, in which both prospective husband and wife agree to give up certain normal marital rights, like living together, equality between wives, rights to income, and rights of homekeeping, in order to be married. This can be understood as a middle ground between a nikah and a nikah mut’ah.
In addition to these different types of marriage, in Islam, one man can have multiple wives and contract several different types of marriages at the same time. “And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four” (Quran 4:3). This verse and others like it condone polygynous relationships (between one man and multiple women—but not one woman and multiple men). Men are allowed to marry up to four women, provided that they can treat them all equally (see Quran 4:129).
Classically, Muslim men were also allowed to conduct sexual relations with their female slaves, a practice that was brought back recently by ISIS and is found in the Quran: “And they who guard their private parts except from their wives and those their right hands possess [concubines] . . . they will not be blamed” (23:6).
Divorce by either party is allowable within Islam, though it is discouraged. “And when you divorce women and they fulfil their term [of their ‘Iddah, or post-divorce waiting period], either keep them according to reasonable terms or release them according to reasonable terms, and do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them]” (Quran 2:231).
If either party violates the conditions of the signed marital contract or if they have irreconcilable differences, they can obtain a wide variety of types of divorces: from khul’ (mutual contractual divorce initiated by the wife) to talaq (a variety of simple ways for the husband to repudiate the wife, usually requiring a waiting period before the divorce is finalized) to three different types of divorce oaths and finally judicial divorce. Historically, this last right was given to men only, but recently, in some places, women have been given the right to divorce as well.
So although from a distance Christian and Muslim marriages may look a lot alike, there are major differences. Marital contracts within Islam elevate marriage above the mundane while allowing for the reality of man’s frailty, but Islam&#8217;s allowance for multiple wives, temporary sexual arrangements, and partial forms of marriage expose a baser contractual view of marriage that falls far short of God’s plan for lifelong covenantal relationships.

Marriage: Christianity vs. Islam

Psalm 91 says that the one “who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Almighty, will say to the Lord, ‘My refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust.’”
It’s a powerful and profound psalm asking for God’s protection.
But will the psalm itself protect you?
Some people are saying that this psalm has unusual protective abilities. And that you should leave your Bible open to it if you want protection. But is that true—or is this a matter of superstition?
The answer is that we need to approach this psalm in a balanced way.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that superstition “can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary.”
The Catechism says, “To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition” (CCC 2111).
So if you think that Psalm 91 is a magical text that will somehow protect you all by itself, that would be superstition.
It’s also superstition if you think leaving a Bible open to Psalm 91 will somehow protect you.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t pray Psalm 91 for protection.
After all, it is a prayer.
So if you pray Psalm 91 and ask God to protect you, that’s just fine. Because it’s God that you’re asking for protection. It’s him that you’re putting your trust in—not the words of the psalm.
In the same way, if you want to leave a Bible open to Psalm 91 as a kind of enacted prayer—
Like saying to God, “O Lord, please look down on the words of this psalm. They are my prayer to you. Please protect me.”
Then you are again asking God for protection and trusting in him to provide it.
This doesn’t mean that you’ll be protected from any and every danger.
God allows us to face difficulties in life.
As St. Paul says in Acts 14:22, “It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.”
But we can also trust God to help us get through those hardships.
He will guide us, he will protect us, and he will make sure that we arrive in heaven at the end.
But it is in him that we need to put our trust.
Not in a particular set of words—including the words of Psalm 91.
So don’t trust in words.
Trust in God.
He loves you.

Psalm 91: Prayer for Protection vs. Superstition (Let’s Debunk)

In 1971, Irish band the Dubliners had a hit with &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoCagUKAhik">Hand Me Down My Bible</a>&#8221; about a hard-living sinner who repents. The refrain of the song is:
<blockquote>Oh oh glorio,
Now I’m the Lord’s disciple 
Oh oh glorio, 
Now hand me down my Bible</blockquote>
That’s a good jumping-off point to talk about Sacred Tradition, which is all about “hand-me-downs.”
<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/tradition">The word comes from</a> the Latin tradere, to deliver or hand over, which is itself a compound word made up of dare, “to give,” and the prefix trans, “over.” (That’s also the origin of the word traitor, which was used to describe Christians who cooperated with the Romans in handing over sacred things—or other Christians). Of course, the New Testament word for tradition isn’t from Latin but Greek, but it’s remarkably similar. The Greek word <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&amp;strongs=g3862">paradosis</a> also means to hand on, and <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3860">the verb form</a> also has the secondary meaning of betrayal.
In both Latin and Greek, it’s handing something on . . . or handing someone over.
I mention all of this because something gets lost in our English word tradition. Both the Latin and Greek nouns come from verbs, but English doesn’t have a verb form of the word. So we end up thinking of a tradition as “the way we tend to do things,” when it actually is a thing handed on.
With that understanding, you see why Catholics and Protestants often talk past one another on this topic. Protestants tend to hear “custom or rule,” whereas Catholics mean “something passed on.” And it’s too bad, because you simply can’t have Christianity without Tradition.
Think about it this way. How do we:
<ul>
<li>Have the biblical texts?</li>
<li>Know that the Bible is trustworthy?</li>
<li>Know which books belong in Scripture?</li>
<li>Understand how they’re to be interpreted?</li>
<li>Know information about Jesus, Mary, and the apostles that isn’t spelled out in Scripture?</li>
</ul>
The answer in every case involves trusting those who came before us: those who handed down the words of Scripture, handed down which books were inspired, and handed down how to interpret them. Each part is Tradition.
Jesus didn’t place a leather-bound New Testament directly into your hands. He created a Church, in which these texts were written, preserved, and passed on, under the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit. In other words, Jesus transmitted divine revelation via Tradition, so if you can’t trust Tradition, then you can’t trust the revelation.
Since Sacred Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition, that means Tradition is bigger. It tells us things about the Bible that the Bible doesn’t say about itself (for example, there’s nothing in the Bible that tells us which books belong in the Bible). The apostles recognized this about their own writings—that they were part of a broader transmission of the Faith.
That’s why, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, St. Paul instructs his readers to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” The mode of transmission—written or unwritten—is irrelevant. It’s all Tradition.
The Second Vatican Council describes this relationship between Scripture and the rest of Tradition beautifully:
<blockquote>The apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3). Now, what was handed on by the apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.
This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. [&#8230;.] The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of his beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).</blockquote>
As “one sacred deposit of the word of God” and “flowing from the same divine wellspring,” Scripture and Tradition “merge into a unity and tend toward the same end”—the reliable handing-on of the Faith.
Of course, not every theological hand-me-down is divine revelation traceable to Jesus through the apostles. Some things come from other sources, and these “man-made traditions” are fine if they help us understand the gospel, but they become a problem when they interfere with it. In Mark 6:7, Jesus accuses the Pharisees of abandoning God’s commandments in favor of the tradition of men. Some cite this verse as anti-Tradition, but it’s not. Rather, it’s against man-made tradition . . . when it interferes with the commandments of God.
The New Testament uses the word paradosis in exactly this dual way. In some cases, like 2 Thessalonians 2:15, it’s used for revealed, apostolic Tradition, and there it’s treated as sacred and binding. In other cases, like Mark 7:8, it’s used to refer to things handed on from other sources—and there it’s condemned if and when it interferes with adherence to the gospel. But a lot of Protestants don’t understand that Sacred Tradition is good, or even that there’s a difference between Tradition and man-made traditions.
One reason is the Protestant bias against the word tradition that is reflected in some Bible translations. The popular NIV, for example, translates paradosis as “tradition” any time it’s used negatively. But when paradosis is used positively, the NIV tends to change the word to “teachings” (even though that’s not really what paradosis means). So, for example, it renders 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as “stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
And in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, where Paul warns the Thessalonians to “keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us,” the NIV again changes the word to “teaching.”
It’s important to realize and, when discussing Tradition with Protestants, to point out to them, that the biblical word to describe good hand-me-downs that we should accept is the exact same word used in all the places where bad, man-made hand-me-downs are rejected (when they obstruct the gospel).
The Bible doesn’t reject Tradition as inherently evil. Some Bible translations seem to, but that’s because translators put their own theological tradition over faithfully translating the sacred texts.

The Bible Against Tradition?

<div>How many archangels are there?</div><div>The only archangels mentioned in the Bible are Michael (Rev. 12:7), Gabriel (Luke 1:19), and Raphael (Tob. 12:15). How many there are besides these three is unknown. Scripture refer to the numbers of angels only as &#8220;hosts&#8221; and &#8220;a multitude&#8221; and &#8220;thousands upon thousands.&#8221;
</div>

How Many Archangels Are There?

Patrick Madrid lays out the general conditions and situations in which missing Mass on a Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation does or does not constitute a mortal sin.

How Bad Is it to Miss Mass?

<div>Why did the Council of Laodicea not reaffirm the same canon of Scripture from the earlier Council of Carthage? It specifically doesn’t include the deuterocanonical books.</div><div>The &#8220;Council of Laodicea&#8221; was a regional synod and not an ecumenical council. Therefore, it is useful in terms of ascertaining practices of the time period but nothing it decided is considered an infallible decree.
Canon 60 of the synod deals with the books of Scripture. This canon is not held by anyone to be a definitive list. The canon&#8217;s listing of the New Testament omits the book of Revelation. It also would not be entirely accurate to say that it does not include the deuterocanonical books. It&#8217;s listing of the Old Testament includes the normative Jewish canon plus the book of Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah.
However, all of the debate over canon 60&#8217;s listing of books is most likely for naught. The authenticity of the canon is considered spurious. It is missing from many ancient manuscripts and is believed to have been added on at a later time.
</div>

Council of Laodicea and Scripture

<div>Has there been any changes in the Church in the past few years that would allow a pastoral associate to give a homily even though he has about two more years before becoming a deacon?</div><div>Someone studying to become a deacon is considered a layperson. Therefore, all rules that apply to preaching and the laity apply to him. The laity do not preach during liturgical services.  
Laity are generally permitted to give spiritual reflections at retreats, prayer meetings, and when bringing Communion to shut-ins.
Canon 766 does permit the laity to occasionally preach in church outside of Mass, but this requires the permission of the bishop, and this permission can only be granted if such an arrangement is necessary.
</div>

Can the Non-Ordained Preach?

Just War Theory (JWT) is not a teaching designed to justify hostile actions against another country. It exists to help us preserve as many goods as possible when states have failed to promote, preserve, and defend peace. After all, our Lord did not say, “Blessed are the war-makers.” Rather, his injunction to all of us is to gift to others the very gift of peace that he breathed upon the disciples at Pentecost. “Blessed are the peacemakers.”
To understand JWT, it has to be framed properly. We have to understand that it is one means by which the common good can be preserved. This is why the provisions of JWT all focus on the preservation of some corporate good that aids the flourishing of the individuals within belligerent nations. It is not a way to give cover to those who would make war for the sake of some personal or corporate end that is either hidden or merely self-serving. The goods sought must include those with whom war is being made. Yes! Even in war, you are required to love your enemies.
In our attempt to accomplish this moral expectation we evaluate three stages of warfare: ius ad bellum, ius in bello, and ius post bellum. 
Most of people’s energy is spent discussing the justice of going to war (ius ad bellum). However, the manner in which war is prosecuted (ius in bello) and how belligerent states deport themselves following hostilities (ius post bellum) are also of grave concern. Each of these “parts” of warfare is treated as morally distinct. This is important, because in the past, some atrocities were committed against soldiers or civilians of one country by another due to a consensus that the ius ad bellum of the former’s nation was illicit.
Separating each of these parts allows us to preserve more common and individual goods than it does by creating inextricable causal links among them. Put simply, if you were fighting on the side of an unjust aggressor, you do not lose your right to be treated fairly. In other words, you cannot be summarily executed simply because you fought on the wrong side. However, there remain some connections. One example is that it becomes the responsibility of the victorious nation to aid the rehabilitation of the defeated nation. Generally speaking, there is some relationship among these three parts of warfare, but it is also limited. Both the connections and limitations are subordinated to the promotion of the common good.
In our time, it seems as if certain nations, particularly the so-called “superpowers” of the world, are perpetually in all three stages of war. The world has become significantly smaller since Cicero, Augustine, or Aquinas treated the matter. Even Vittoria or Grotius could not fathom the manner in which power is projected in our time.
For them, warfare was fairly straightforward. It involved the overt movement of troops to a border, invasion, the manifest destruction of a nation’s goods or properties, or some clear excess of a tyrant against his own people. Today, however, belligerence is not so clear.
Setting aside the obfuscating terms that are often used today, presumably for legal rather than moral reasons, JWT considers all of these under the classical definition of war. We can observe this by how recent scholars, such as Michael Walzer, GEM Anscombe, and John Finnis, have included non-standard forms of conflict into their own analysis of the matter. But among nations, the reasons to engage in war and the means to prosecute it are ever evolving. If we are attentive to the real world, then our analysis of what constitutes a just war must grow and develop in step.
It is also important to understand that when the term “Just War” is used, not everyone is talking, precisely, about the same thing. Those who rely on Augustine or Aquinas may not accept the conclusions of Vittoria, Grotius, Walzer, Finnis, or others. Those who rely on modern thinkers may not accept the premises upon which classical considerations of Just War are established. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not represent the totality of thought within the academy (whether Catholic or not) on the matter. For instance, it departs from classical thought (and some modern thought) on the possibility of punitive war, expansion, and preventative actions. It expresses a position that war is always to be defensive in nature. However, this unnecessarily excludes many segments of the debate that may hobble important modern considerations of warfare.
We have to be able to ask:
<ul>
<li>“Can prevention of the development and proliferation of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons be a just reason for engaging in warfare?”</li>
<li>“Is a cyber-attack targeting the Linux kernel, which would grant unfettered access to worldwide defense and infrastructure assets, as nearly happened in 2016, an act of war?”</li>
<li>“How do we deal with proxy wars?”</li>
<li>“Does funding terrorism constitute an act of war?”</li>
</ul>
Certainly, as Catholics, we must reject any form of utilitarian or consequentialist justifications. However, answering these sorts of questions is precisely what is necessary today. Most of the wars that we see are billed as preventative or even punitive (consider the current action in Iran and the recent action against Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela by the United States). Both types of actions could be allowed according to the thought of Vittoria, but not, it would seem, of Finnis.
There are at least two hidden variables that affect the way in which JWT is treated by different scholars. The first is the definition one may be using for “international law.” The second is the definition used for “natural law.” It is unclear if these terms, used by various authors, are the same, or even similar. For instance, it is not clear that the New Natural Law theories proposed by Finnis easily comport with traditional notions. Related to this confusion is the definition of international law and who is the arbiter of such a body of law, written or unwritten. Even something that should be clear—“who can authorize war”—is a subject of dispute. These are just some of the questions that cause significant debate among scholars and pundits.
One strategy to navigate this labyrinth is to focus on the primary intent of JWT: to preserve and promote the common good. At its heart is the ardent concern for human flourishing. It is obvious that the state of chaos warfare causes does not immediately provide for that. This is true of any conflict, even if it is merely defending oneself against an aggressor.
However, warfare, defensive, punitive, or otherwise, can only possibly be justified if the common good is under threat. Consider the classical position that one sovereign may have an obligation, assuming other necessary conditions are met, to invade a tyrant’s land to bring that tyrant to justice. This is because the care of the common good extends beyond one’s own borders to the whole of humanity. Those tasked with the care of the common good must take the universal brotherhood of man into consideration.
On this account, JWT cannot champion nationalism. However, it is also not a license to wantonly invade lands. There must be a reasonable hope of success, legal authorization, a consideration of proportional effects, etc., if there is to be a just cause for war. Honest diplomacy, economic sanctions, and other tools of statecraft must precede any military action.
Heads of state must always keep in view the axiom that peace is always preferable to war. Peace through strength cannot be accompanied by a heavy trigger finger. Rather, and this may seem odd to many readers, the decision to go to war must stem from a love of one’s neighbor, along with the just defense of oneself and those under his care. It must not stem from fear, a desire for vengeance, or merely some foreseen threat. It must seek to restore justice, promote peace, limit harm, provide for stability, and secure all of the necessary goods to aid the flourishing of the people. To depart from this disposition and these ends is to depart from right reason, sound morals, and the laws of God.

Just War in the Modern World

Leviticus is an uncommon choice for the Mass lectionary, but today’s selection has a direct connection with the Gospel story about the healing of a leper.
To understand something of this man’s situation, we have to understand the status of leprosy in ancient Israel. It was more than just a neurological disease affecting one’s outward appearance; it represented a necessary break from common life, including the life of worship in the Temple. To be a leper was a tragic, isolating experience. As such, it has often been viewed as a symbol of sin—not that, even in ancient Israel, it was viewed as a moral affliction in itself, but its infectious disfigurement is a profound analogy for the way that sin disfigures the human person and cuts him off from fellowship with God and neighbor.
To think about leprosy in this way leads us to wonder if there is some modern equivalent or analogy. Progressive Christians have a habit of asserting that this is how we ought to think about morally objectionable states of life. We should get rid of this concept of “uncleanness” once and for all, they say, privileging instead a concept of unconditional welcome and acceptance. So we have even very high-ranking prelates who cannot be bothered to describe things as moral or immoral; we have only regular and irregular, as if the habitual practice of mortal sin should be imagined as no more significant than filling out the wrong form at the DMV.
The trouble with this view is twofold. First, even if leprosy itself wasn’t morally objectionable, it was still dangerous. St. Damien of Molokai’s death in 1889, as what we sometimes call a “martyr of charity,” is a testament to the fact that leprosy is no joke; he knew quite well that the leper colony in Hawaii needed and deserved his love and pastoral care, but I don’t think he ever imagined that this made him safe. Second, if we look to the example of our Lord, his response to leprosy, more than once, isn’t to say, “Oh, hey, you’re fine as you are, go and be well!” No, he heals the disease. Indeed, in our story today, he asks the healed man to follow the procedures of the law to make sure he is reconciled to the community through the judgment of the priest.
So I think we should be wary of associating leprosy too closely with any modern controversial state of life. Surely the closest thing, in practical terms, is our recent memory of COVID. There we faced a culture of “clean” and “unclean” in more ways than one. Although no one that I can think of ever labeled the virus as a moral sickness, it became in many places an adjacent moral issue. In other words, the decision to wear a mask or not became a sign, depending on whom you were with, of you being on the side of the good guys or the bad guys. People were shunned or publicly pilloried for either their lack of seriousness about the virus or their overreaction to it.
And I think what we saw—and, frankly, what we still see—with COVID is symptomatic of a broader culture that defines itself in terms of “clean” and “unclean.” We don’t use those words. No one wants to really use those words, even if we use various other words that mean the same thing. But the ideology of “taint” is all over the place.
There is a difference between a principled objection to a thing and thinking that seeing it, or being near it without throwing a fit, is somehow sinful. Never mind that a lot of people think they do not believe in sin. But seeing something, being able to process it and understand why it is bad, or worthy of our pity, is part of the moral development of us and our children. And this is where I think our Lord—and, again, St. Damien—can show us that there is a way of being compassionate without denying the presence of something evil, whether it’s natural disease or immorality. The leper needs healing. What some of our modern interlocutors do not seem to grasp is that the leper approaches Jesus with this specific desire. He doesn’t want Jesus to just affirm him as he is. He wants to be made whole.
The whole concept of healing—wanting it, requesting it, lacking it—requires a rational order in which there really are intrinsic goods that should be valued. The principal reason that some of the big popular causes—like “reproductive health” or “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/women-men-means-and-ends">gender-affirming care</a>”—are so false is that their concept of good and healing are completely cut off from any objective content apart from what an individual perceives to be good and real. Modern popular medicine would, if it were at all consistent with itself, demand that we “affirm” the leper and treat his disease as simply one equally valid approach to the human nervous system; we might as well go to the next stage and “affirm” the neo-Nazi who thinks that all races other than his own should be annihilated. That we are not allowed to make these comparisons in public without weeping and gnashing of teeth is a testament to our chronic inability as a culture to be rational.
St. Paul tells us that we should avoid giving offense. He also tells us to imitate him as he imitates Christ, and neither he nor Christ is exactly known for never having offended anyone. So this isn’t some blanket theology of niceness, as if all disagreements can be solved by a frozen casserole and a nonverbal like on Facebook. He has to mean something, though. Let’s not take the easy way out and imagine that his words are completely without challenge for us. The key goal isn’t niceness for its own sake, but the greater end of saving souls.
Above, I painted a picture of nonrepentance — symbolized by the leper who thinks leprosy is the new normal. That can be disturbing, to say the least, and it’s fair to say that we’re bombarded with this attitude on a daily basis, whether from politicians or celebrities or people we see at school or work or the grocery store. But it’s not the whole picture. The fact that there are some loud lepers out there demanding that we all celebrate Leprosy Pride Month doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of others who think this is all nonsense and want the grace of God to help them in their struggle, whatever it is.
This in particular is where we need to take Paul’s advice, and our Lord’s example, seriously. Maybe we aren’t all called to go, like St. Damien of Molokai, to live in the leper colony. But we meet all sorts of people, people whom popular culture would want us to categorize and sort into clean and unclean, our sort of people or not our sort of people. That’s nonsense, too, because our sort of people, according Paul just a little earlier in 1 Corinthians, include “the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers.” That’s quite the list, but, says the Apostle, “Such were some of you” (1 Cor 6:9-11). Emphasis on were, because the point of the passage is that these behaviors have no place in the kingdom of God. But we all have to start somewhere, and usually the best place to start is where we are.
Perhaps that’s where I should end, too: with a reminder that all these thoughts on lepers aren’t just about “us” and “them.” Sure, we need to think carefully about how to follow our Lord’s proclamation of the good news. But we always have to remember to hear that call ourselves. What healing do I need? Do I even recognize the places where I need healing?
As we head into Lent, there’s really no time like the present for a checkup. And let the healing of the sacraments help us all to better meet the world’s hurting people and bring them to Jesus.

Lepers Need More than Good Feelings

<div id="cs_control_3683" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<h3>Monday of the Fourth Week of Easter
Lectionary: 279</h3>
</div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<div id="cs_control_3684" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Reading 1<a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/acts/11:1">ACTS 11:1-18</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
The Apostles and the brothers who were in Judea 
heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. 
So when Peter went up to Jerusalem 
the circumcised believers confronted him, saying, 
‘You entered the house of uncircumcised people and ate with them.” 
Peter began and explained it to them step by step, saying, 
“I was at prayer in the city of Joppa 
when in a trance I had a vision, 
something resembling a large sheet coming down, 
lowered from the sky by its four corners, and it came to me. 
Looking intently into it, 
I observed and saw the four-legged animals of the earth, 
the wild beasts, the reptiles, and the birds of the sky. 
I also heard a voice say to me, ‘Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.’ 
But I said, ‘Certainly not, sir, 
because nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 
But a second time a voice from heaven answered, 
‘What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.’ 
This happened three times, 
and then everything was drawn up again into the sky. 
Just then three men appeared at the house where we were, 
who had been sent to me from Caesarea. 
The Spirit told me to accompany them without discriminating. 
These six brothers also went with me, 
and we entered the man’s house. 
He related to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, saying, 
‘Send someone to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter, 
who will speak words to you 
by which you and all your household will be saved.’ 
As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them 
as it had upon us at the beginning, 
and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 
‘John baptized with water 
but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 
If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us 
when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
who was I to be able to hinder God?” 
When they heard this, 
they stopped objecting and glorified God, saying, 
“God has then granted life-giving repentance to the Gentiles too.”
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="cs_control_228452" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Responsorial Psalm<a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/psalms/42:2">42:2-3; 43:3, 4</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
R. (see 3a) Athirst is my soul for the living God. 
or: 
R. Alleluia. 
As the hind longs for the running waters, 
so my soul longs for you, O God. 
Athirst is my soul for God, the living God. 
When shall I go and behold the face of God? 
R. Athirst is my soul for the living God. 
or: 
R. Alleluia. 
Send forth your light and your fidelity; 
they shall lead me on 
And bring me to your holy mountain, 
to your dwelling-place. 
R. Athirst is my soul for the living God. 
or: 
R. Alleluia. 
Then will I go in to the altar of God, 
the God of my gladness and joy; 
Then will I give you thanks upon the harp, 
O God, my God! 
R. Athirst is my soul for the living God. 
or: 
R. Alleluia.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="cs_control_228454" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Alleluia<a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/john/10:14">JN 10:14</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
R. Alleluia, alleluia. 
I am the good shepherd, says the Lord; 
I know my sheep, and mine know me. 
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="cs_control_228453" class="cs_control CS_Element_Textblock">
<div class="CS_Textblock_Text">
<div class="bibleReadingsWrapper">
<h4>Gospel<a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/john/10:11">JN 10:11-18</a></h4>
<div class="poetry">
Jesus said: 
“I am the good shepherd. 
A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 
A hired man, who is not a shepherd 
and whose sheep are not his own, 
sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, 
and the wolf catches and scatters them. 
This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep. 
I am the good shepherd, 
and I know mine and mine know me, 
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; 
and I will lay down my life for the sheep. 
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. 
These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, 
and there will be one flock, one shepherd. 
This is why the Father loves me, 
because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. 
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. 
I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. 
This command I have received from my Father.”
</div>
Source: <a href="http://cms.usccb.org/bible/readings">cms.usccb.org</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Daily Holy Mass: Monday, May 4, 2020

<h2>The Case</h2>
Stan filled the fireplace and lit the oak logs to make the living room cozy for the arriving guests. The Bible study had been announced at Mass, and now suddenly it was here. Stan and Suzie had been Catholics all their lives, but they had never really studied the Bible for themselves, so this was a new venture for them. They had just come home from work and had a few moments to wolf down last night’s leftovers and send the kids to the neighbors’ before prepping the living room.
They both hoped everything would go well. Since Catholics are generally uninterested in the Bible, they didn’t expect many to attend.
The doorbell rang. As Stan stepped toward the door, he noticed his large crucifix on the wall and quickly decided to take it down and set it behind the couch. He didn’t want to offend the guests.
Greetings were extended, and the guests settled into their seats. They had an interesting mix of participants. More than half were from the parish, but there were also a Presbyterian couple, a young woman who had left the Catholic Church, and a “non-denominational” couple.
Stan and Suzie thought a good mix of religious backgrounds was good. The pope had encouraged ecumenical activity, so they wanted several Christian traditions represented to keep the study balanced, ecumenical, and open-minded.
Stan started: “We haven’t had much time to prepare for this study, but I hope it’ll go well. As agreed, we’re all going to use the same translation so we can all be on the same page, so to speak. We’ll use only the Bible, avoiding other materials so the Holy Spirit can lead us.” Everyone agreed. Bible study should be fresh and open-minded—unhindered by “dogma” and denominational trappings.
Suzie had earlier removed the Catechism from the coffee table. She and Stan had also removed the crucifixes from the wall and the statue of Mary on the shelf to avoid any offense to the non-Catholics.
Without further ado, they all opened to the Gospel of St. John. “Who would like to read the first verse? Okay, Richard, go ahead.” Richard read, and everyone smiled. Stan cleared his throat. “Well, who would like to begin? What does this passage mean to you? Let’s keep it simple and not offend anyone by being too opinionated. Sarah, why don’t you begin? How do you feel about this verse?”
Sarah shared her impressions of the passage, and everyone followed in turn. Another verse was read, and again they went around the room to discover what each person felt about it.
Time just flew, and before they knew it, they had discussed the whole first chapter of St. John’s Gospel.
Everyone ate his coffee cake, and then the study ended. Stan thanked all of the guests for coming as Suzie retrieved their coats. Stan and Suzie shut the door behind the last guest, hung the crucifix back on the wall, and put the Catechism back on the table. Without a doubt, they felt that the Bible study had been a great success.
<h2>The Investigation</h2>
Grab your detective hat and magnifying glass, and let’s see how many fatal flaws you can find.
<ol>
<li>How should Stan and Suzie have prepared for the Bible study (2 Tim. 2:15)? Was creating a cozy atmosphere adequate preparation for a study of Scripture? Did they pray at the start or close of the Bible study (Ps. 119:17-19, CCC 2653-54)? Was the Sign of the Cross invoked (CCC 2157)?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="2">
<li>How did they misunderstand the Church’s teaching on ecumenism (CCC 816)? Is being non-offensive to people’s denominational sentiments the primary goal of a Bible study (Titus 1:9)? Are a good feeling and smiling faces proof of a successful Bible study (2 Tim. 4:3)? Should Catholics set aside their Catholic faith in order to “get along” with others in a Catholic Bible study (John 6:60-61, 66; Acts 20:27)?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="3">
<li>Is biblical truth relative and open to private interpretation, or did the authors have a definite meaning and intent to their writings (2 Pet. 2:20-21, CCC 109)? Which is more important: what we feel about the passage or what the author intended to say (Mark 12:24, 2 Pet. 3:16)? How important are the cultural and geographic surroundings, the original languages, authorial intent, and the context of the passage (CCC 110)?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="4">
<li>Does dogma kill Bible study? Does the Holy Spirit work only apart from dogma, facts, and authority? (1 Tim. 3:6-14, CCC 89)?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="5">
<li>Is it wise to use only one translation when studying Scripture? Or would several good translations facilitate a deeper appreciation of the text?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="6">
<li>Is it true that Catholics are not interested in the Bible (1 Pet. 2:1-3)? Should Stan and Suzie have had higher expectations of their fellow Catholics and prayed for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit to create a great thirst for the written word of God?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="7">
<li>Is the basis for Bible study an open-minded, democratic approach (CCC 85, 119)? Are the scriptures always easy to understand (2 Pet. 3:15-16)? What is the best way to discover the Bible’s meaning (CCC 109-119)? Does the use of commentaries and Church documents stifle Bible study? How do these sources protect the student of the Bible (1 Tim. 3:15)? Is the Bible opposed to Sacred Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6; CCC 80, 120)?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="8">
<li>And lastly: Was it wise to send the children away? Maybe, maybe not—but in many instances, well-behaved children and teens would profit greatly from listening to adults intelligently and joyfully discussing the Bible (Deut. 6:6-7, Eph. 6:4).</li>
</ol>
Expert Witnesses
<ol>
<li>“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (Origen [c. 185-c. 254], The Fundamental Doctrine).</li>
</ol>
<ol start="2">
<li>“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21).</li>
</ol>
<ol start="3">
<li>“So Philip ran to [the Ethiopian eunuch], and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him” (Acts 8:30-31).</li>
</ol>

You Judge the Bible Study

Get the JOE NOTES, sources for this episode, and more Shameless Popery on Patreon!
https://www.patreon.com/ShamelessPopery

Listen to Shameless Popery on Catholic.com:
https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp

You WILL NOT find the CANON in SCRIPTURE ALONE!

In September I had the privilege of attending the 2024 Catholic Answers Conference where I heard talks by many of my favorite apologists like Joe Heschmeyer, Trent Horn, and Cy Kellett. A recurring theme across their talks was how to do proper apologetics. Specifically, they emphasized that good apologetics centers more on <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/winning-the-person-not-the-argument">conversations than arguments</a>. This is because the Catholic faith is not just one of many philosophies that can be proven by debate, but the most transformative and fundamental truth we can encounter.
It is tempting, especially online, to reduce the faith to a series of talking points and proofs. Since it is now possible to speak to hundreds of new people a day about the faith, it becomes easy to use the same spiel about why this or that person should become Catholic. The apologist makes a checklist in his mind about topics to cover: baptism, the Eucharist, apostolic succession, sola scriptura, and the like. He checks this box and that box, and expects the other person to convert upon hearing the logical arguments just provided. 
But the truth is that conversion begins with the heart, not the mind. Only someone that has <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/blog/answer-endless-objections-with-this-one-weird-trick">opened his heart to God</a> will allow himself to freely hear the truth about the faith. By treating the faith as the subject of a mere intellectual debate—and not the true transformative belief that it is—the apologist forgets the need for the assistance of grace and the Holy Spirit in apologetics. 

Not only is this type of apologetics ultimately ineffective, but it also leads to serious repercussions for the apologist. Each new non-Catholic he encounters is reduced to a subject to receive a checklist of arguments. The apologist no longer perceives him as a fellow sinner in need of God’s grace but as an adversary to intellectually conquer. Scripture is no longer the living, inspired word of God but simply a collection of prooftexts to wield against non-Catholics. The Church is no longer the bride of Christ but is simply an institution of great historical proof and significance.
Throughout my time in online apologetics, I have had to take multiple breaks to re-center myself after falling into these errors. I knew I had crossed a line once I noticed that I couldn’t interact with non-Catholics without being overcome by thoughts of how to prove the truth of the Catholic faith to them. Instead of allowing God’s grace and the Holy Spirit to work in their hearts, I felt the burden of proving everything to everyone. 
So what do we do if we find ourselves inside this same trap? We must look back to the greatest Catholic apologist: Jesus Christ. Jesus debated with others—often in Socratic fashion by asking a series of questions to his opponents. This approach served to reveal the wisdom of Christ and the truth behind his ministry, leading to the conversion of many sinners. Certainly, then, debate has its place in apologetics and conversion.
However, Christ’s ministry did not consist solely of debate. Many of his most healing and transformative interactions came not as a result of debate but of mercy, compassion, and love. This should always be at the heart of apologetics: not simply giving the “right answer” to religious questions, but giving hope and mercy in a world filled with hopelessness and condemnation. Only then can true, long-lasting conversions take place.

Don’t Reduce Faith to Arguments

In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes Trent Horn to discuss why some individuals, like Randy from Alberta, choose not to identify as Catholic. Trent continues with details on how historical injustices do not negate the truth of religious beliefs, particularly the existence of God.
Transcript:
Caller: Yeah. Being a Canadian, it can never be a Catholic or a Christian just for the fact of the way North America was kind of stolen and the persecution that the Native Americans suffered when the Christians and Catholics came here by the millions and took their land.
Trent Horn: What do you, what do you mean that, by that, do you mean when people settled here two or 300 years ago, you wouldn&#8217;t, you can&#8217;t adopt the belief they have now because of their actions back then?
Caller: You bet
Trent Horn: you, yeah. Okay, would you. So I&#8217;m also guessing you wouldn&#8217;t belong to any Native American tribe that stole land from another tribe. Well, I am part Native. Native American there, but you are. Okay. Have Native American tribes ever taken land from other tribes? I&#8217;m sure they have, yeah. Okay, does that prove that everything they believe in their tribe is false?
Caller: Well, yeah, but Native people, you know, kind of came here for tens of thousands of years and then the Christians and Catholics, that is the Europeans came by the millions.
Trent Horn: Right. Well, so, so Randy. Overran their lands. Right. So Randy, what it seems to be is that, you know, 10,000 years ago there was a land bridge. Then people from Asia came here to North America. Various tribes engaged with one another, sometimes peacefully, sometimes not peacefully. Then you had European settlers that came here that engaged with these tribes, sometimes peacefully, sometimes not peacefully. But to me it doesn&#8217;t seem like the actions of someone in the past prove whether what someone believes now or the belief system as a whole is false or not. You know, for example, whatever settlers did 300 years ago, like when it comes to the question of just being a Christian, that doesn&#8217;t prove whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. Right. So what do you identify? What is your belief system? Now? How would you describe yourself?
Caller: Well, I&#8217;m not a believer in any faith area.
Trent Horn: Okay, well what would it take for you? So do you believe in God? No. Okay, so right off the bat, well, you know, why don&#8217;t you believe like the existence of God doesn&#8217;t depend on Christian behavior in, you know, in a certain context. So why don&#8217;t you believe in God? Well, that&#8217;s. Well, because there&#8217;s so many and it&#8217;s all human beliefs there. But again, it gets back to how the Native Americans were treated. Right? The so called Gods, God forbid, people came here by the millions and pushed them off their lands and there&#8217;s a trail of tears. Okay, well Randy, let&#8217;s assume, I think that&#8217;s a more complicated scenario you&#8217;re making it out to, but let&#8217;s just assume that you&#8217;re right, that Christians acted horribly 300 years ago. Can a bad person still believe true things? Okay, I&#8217;m just asking you a question. Can a bad person still actually have true beliefs?
Caller: Sure.
Trent Horn: Okay. Should we have true beliefs? We as in who? You and I? Should we try to make sure that what we believe is true? Well, yeah. And I believe there&#8217;s no God, so I know I&#8217;m right. You believe there is. So how do you do?
Caller: Sure.
Caller: And then I want to ask you about that. How do you know there is no God? How do you know that?
Caller: Well, it&#8217;s. It. It&#8217;s. Man made
Trent Horn: Okay, but you&#8217;re just saying the same thing again. You&#8217;re saying, I believe there&#8217;s no God because God was made up, which is the same as saying there is no God because there is no God. Where&#8217;s your evidence? Okay, well, I&#8217;m pretty sure I haven&#8217;t seen a God or you haven&#8217;t seen a God, you know, so. Okay, you may. You can&#8217;t see God because he&#8217;s immaterial, but you can know God exists based upon effects in the world. So, for example, if a. Let&#8217;s say a car showed up in your driveway with a card in the windshield wiper and it says, you know, happy birthday, would you say that someone gave you that car or that it just kind of popped into existence from nothing? Sure. Somebody built it and somebody gave it to me. Okay. Why would you think that? Well, because it&#8217;s in your yard. Right. And it&#8217;s not just going to pop. You know, things don&#8217;t just pop into existence from nothing like that. Sure. So the same. So the same would be true for the universe. If we have scientific evidence and also we have philosophical evidence that the universe came into existence, there was nothing, and now there&#8217;s a universe, which is much more impressive than a car that came into existence, you know, 13, 14 billion years ago, Then shouldn&#8217;t we apply that same logic and say, hey, there&#8217;s a cause behind this, something greater than the universe itself? So where would God come from? Obviously, somebody must have created God. Well, that intuition of yours is helpful. You&#8217;re saying, so if something exists, it needs a cause. So that shows us the universe has got to have a cause. Now, what if I asked you this question? Let&#8217;s say there&#8217;s a bunch of boxcars going down a train, right? In order for a boxcar to go down a train track, what has to pull it? Well, locomotive. Okay, but what&#8217;s pulling the locomotive? Well, an engine, right? What&#8217;s making the engine go? So my point Here with the analogy is when you ask the question, who made God? That&#8217;s sort of like asking what&#8217;s pulling the locomotive. God is very different from the universe, just like the locomotive is different from the boxcar. That if something exists or it moves and it changes, or we need a reason to explain that. But our reasons, we just can&#8217;t have an infinite number of reasons. Because in the end, if you have an infinite number of reasons, this did this, then this, and this and this, and there&#8217;s an infinite chain, you actually don&#8217;t explain anything at all. Instead, you need some kind of ultimate explanation that is the cause of everything, but itself is not cause. And that&#8217;s kind of the fundamental argument for the existence of God. So. So I tell you what, Randy, we&#8217;re going to have to go to a break here soon. Why don&#8217;t you stay on the line and our call screener will get your contact information, and I&#8217;d like to send you a copy of my book, why We&#8217;re Catholic. And you can start right at the beginning. I talk about why you should believe in God, then why you should believe in Jesus, then why you should be Catholic, and you can go through that and see what you think of the reasons. I&#8217;ll probably be back on air in, I don&#8217;t know, probably about a month or so. And if you read through, you can always call me back and you can discuss what you think of the arguments in there. So please stay on the line and I&#8217;d like to send you a copy of why We&#8217;re Catholic.

I’m Not Catholic Because I’m Canadian…

When it comes to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture as the only rule of faith), Catholics must remember: the first Christians did not have a Bible to call their only rule of faith!
The last book of the New Testament, Revelation, was not written until about the year A.D. 68. That leaves a thirty-five-year gap between Jesus’ ascension and the completion of the Bible as we know it. Can an incomplete Bible be the sole rule of faith?
Furthermore, if the doctrine of sola scriptura were true, then the Church would have existed for a time without its sole infallible rule of faith. During this time, there would have been controversies, doctrinal disputes, and other difficulties that could not be resolved. On the individual level, believers would have lacked the fullness of divine revelation. Both of these facts demonstrate a fatal flaw in the doctrine of sola scriptura.
[A note on Gospel dating: Some modern scholars assign a date of A.D. 90-100 for the Book of Revelation. But in the informed opinion of this author, the earlier dates given by Jimmy Akin and other Bible scholars are more trustworthy. Moreover, if the later date is accurate, it would mean that the Church existed even longer without the New Testament as the final authority, thus weakening the Protestant position even further.]
The first few decades of the Church’s existence were turbulent. Persecutions had already begun, and more were imminent (Matt. 10:16-18, Luke 21:12, John 15:20-21, 2 Tim. 3:11-12, Rev. 2:10). Believers were being martyred (Acts 7:54-60, 12:1-2). The apostolic teaching was met with resistance (Acts 5:17-18, 27-28; 17:5-6, 13), and false teachings had already appeared (Acts 20:29-30, Gal. 1:6-9, 1 John 4:1). If the Bible was the Christian’s only rule of faith at that time, and if the Bible was not fully written, by the earliest reckoning, until decades after Christ’s ascension, how did early Christians deal with immediate threats to the new faith?
The New Testament answers this question. In Acts 15, we read about the Council of Jerusalem. The issue at hand was whether a believer had to be circumcised according to the Mosaic Law in order to be saved (v. 1). Luke tells us that “Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them”—that is, those who were insisting on circumcision—but since the issue was still not settled, these two men were sent to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles and presbyters to put it to rest. “After there had been much debate,” Peter stands up and delivers his ruling on the matter (vv. 7-11), after which “all the assembly kept silence.”
This is a telling account, because conspicuously present is Peter’s teaching authority, and conspicuously absent is an appeal to Scripture. In fact, those in favor of circumcision were the ones appealing to Scripture (vv. 1, 5), but Peter overruled them on the basis of his own power to teach on matters of faith. The Magisterium functioned exactly as Jesus had designed it to.
At this point in the life of the Church, none of the New Testament had been written yet. But there were still Christians who wanted authoritative Christian truth, who wanted to be saved. God didn’t abandon them as casualties of a sola scriptura system that wouldn’t be functional until long after they were dead. It doesn’t seem reasonable, therefore, to think that even after Jesus revealed the fullness of the Father’s plan, imparted his teachings to the apostles, and established his Church to be the means by which those teachings were brought to the world, there would be one group of people who lacked a rule of faith (no New Testament) and another group, much later, who had it once the New Testament was complete.
A Protestant might object: “Christians necessarily had to wait until the completion of the New Testament. The apostles may have been the authority during that time, but once the New Testament was written and the Bible was complete, it replaced the apostles as the only rule of faith for believers.”
And here is how a Catholic can respond: “This claim is pure supposition and has no support in the New Testament. Aren’t the important teachings of Scripture—like what transpires in the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles demonstrate their binding authority—sufficiently clear, as Protestants claim? If sola scriptura is a central doctrine, why would it be based on inference at best and supposition at worst rather than being explicitly stated in Scripture?”
Faced with the time gap between the Ascension and the completion of the New Testament, Protestants are left with three possibilities regarding temporary sources of Christian authority for that period: (1) nothing, (2) the Old Testament, or (3) the apostles.
Of course, having nothing as a rule of faith for Christians is untenable. It contradicts the passages where Jesus clearly gives his authority to the apostles, it leaves the Church vulnerable to the kinds of difficulties mentioned above, and it leaves no court of final appeal to settle the Church’s internal and disciplinary matters.
The Old Testament by itself cannot serve as the rule of faith because it needs to be interpreted, as evidenced by the scenario just mentioned in Acts 15—or Luke 24, where Jesus has to explain to the two disciples walking to Emmaus “the things concerning himself” in “all the [Old Testament] scriptures” (v. 27) as well as to the disciples in Jerusalem (vv. 44-45). It functioned alongside the Jews’ tradition and the seat of Moses, showing that in practice, it was not a sole authority. And if it were sufficient for Christians, then the New Testament would not have needed to be written.
That leaves us with apostolic authority. Nowhere does the Bible indicate that it would be temporary—still less that it would give way to the authority of Scripture alone. On the contrary, we see that the apostles chose successors, who, in turn, possessed the same authority to “bind and loose” (render authoritative decisions) that they had. This is why Matthias was elected as a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-26) and why Paul passed on his apostolic authority to Timothy and Titus (2 Tim. 1:6, Titus 1:5). If anything, pointing to the apostles to solve the authority gap supports the Catholic position: since Jesus intended his Church to exist until his return, he intended apostolic authority (the Church’s Magisterium) to exist, as clearly evidenced by the selection of successors to their office.