Manage Account

Here is a question a reader asked me recently:
<blockquote>I have a friend who says the Catholic Church has never actually condemned the idea of final apokatastasis, or the final salvation of all at the end of time, as taught by Origen in the second century. He claims there are only the alleged “anti-Origenist” canons from II Constantinople, in 553, that condemn this teaching, but they have been demonstrated to be interposed and not authentic. Is that true?</blockquote>
This is a classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
To start with, there are plenty of <a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholic.com%2Fmagazine%2Fonline-edition%2Fare-there-souls-in-hell-right-now&amp;data=05%7C02%7Cdbelsky%40catholic.com%7C24fd83a66f9e4817e2bf08dc550bf1d1%7Cdd9faf74765b495cac09cabd182c95a7%7C0%7C0%7C638478757024545272%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=v4O8tnuXgsTv12FPgsxvBrXS4Q4c03Uo3joIby1QudE%3D&amp;reserved=0">other magisterial reasons</a> for Catholics to know that hell is eternal. But to answer the question at hand, the claim of “anti-Origenist” interpolation regarding II Constantinople and what it teaches is false, at least in part.
Granted, at least some of these canons, alleged to be from the council, were later interposed—that is, added in after the fact—and included wrongly as part of the canons of II Constantinople. But that does not mean they are not authentic and authoritative. The truth is, at least nine of these canons were licitly promulgated at a validly convened synod at Constantinople in 343, about ten years before the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II. And very importantly, these canons, too, were confirmed by Pope Vigilius.
As we will see below, the Church cites nine of the famous anti-Origenist canons as authoritative. (There are fifteen others that are generally not considered authoritative.) The error people commonly make is to go to an excellent work like Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, edited by Norman Tanner, S.J., and there discover that these canons were not original to II Constantinople. That is not the error, because it is true that these canons were not original to Constantinople. But some conclude from this that the canons themselves are bogus, or at least not magisterial.
But a work like Tanner’s is not where you want to go for this kind of information. He is only dealing with what documents constitute the actual documents of ecumenical councils. And it is correct to say, as the above inquirer’s friend does, that these anti-Origenist canons were not original to the council.
But if you want the whole story, you have to go to Heinrich Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, which I recommend for your normal go-to source even with regard to ecumenical councils. The Church cites Denzinger as its general go-to in its magisterial documents. (At least when considering sections of the councils, you can use Denzinger. Because the councils are not exhaustively cited there, you’ll have to supplement with Tanner or Flannery.)
At any rate, here are four points to consider:
First, In paragraph 1035 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, footnote 617, we find anathemas #7 and #9, from the Synod of Constantinople, as authoritative (DS 409, 411), which explicitly condemn Origenism with regard to final apokatastasis:
<blockquote>If anyone says or holds that the Lord Christ in the future age will be crucified in behalf of the demons, just as [he was] for the sake of men, let him be anathema.
If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema.</blockquote>
Second, according to Denzinger, we have evidence from Cassidorus’s Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning indicating that Pope Vigilius did indeed confirm the Synod of Constantinople (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, p. 114). And so
(a) the condemnation of Origen’s position of final apokatastasis has papal, magisterial authority, and
(b) in its “Index of Citations,” the Catechism, under the heading “Particular Councils and Synods,” cites and acknowledges “the Synod of Constantinople” (543) to be magisterial.
As far as the magisterial authority of this teaching is concerned, it is not because of this declaration from the Synod of Constantinople alone. Rather, this teaching represents the universal and ordinary teaching of the Church and is infallible. That is, the teaching of the final salvation of all angels, including the demons, and all men, including the impious, is infallibly condemned.

Yes, Hell Is Still Eternal

It stands out that sola scriptura, one of the core doctrines of Protestantism, did not exist prior to the fourteenth century (with John Wycliffe), and it did not become prevalent until the sixteenth century (with Martin Luther). To put it bluntly, sola scriptura simply did not exist before about 1,200 years after the last of the apostles had died.
Protestants claim that the Bible teaches sola scriptura and that the doctrine goes back to Jesus. This claim amounts to an attempt to introduce the belief back into the pages of Scripture, in the process jumping over fourteen centuries of Church practice and belief. A review of historical continuity—or lack thereof—shows whether or not a belief originated with Jesus and the apostles or if it appeared later in time.
Let’s look at some of the more popular passages that Protestants cite to establish sola scriptura’s ancient pedigree. It is beyond the scope of this article to conduct a systematic refutation of sola scriptura from a biblical perspective, but this list—and a Catholic response to the items in it—can get us to a working understanding of Protestant proof texts and how they fall flat.
1) Matthew 4:1-11: “It is written . . .”
Jesus is here being tempted in the desert by the devil. He responds to the devil three times by saying, “It is written . . .” and then quotes Scripture.
But Jesus is not quoting just any Scripture. In all three instances, he is quoting from Deuteronomy (8:3, 6:16, and 6:13), and these passages are specifically about the Israelites’ experience in the desert when they were unfaithful to God and failed to trust him. Jesus was recalling the Israelites’ failures so that he could demonstrate absolute trust in and fidelity to God where they did not.
In other words, in a decisive and particularly relevant blow to the devil, Jesus was redeeming and transforming the Israelites’ failure. The underlying issue has nothing at all to do with sola scriptura, but rather with man’s relationship to God. Jesus was demonstrating that he is the perfectly obedient Son, as the Israelites should have been, and when the devil realizes he can’t get Jesus to fail God, he departs.
2) Acts 17:10-11: “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
It might look as though “Scripture alone” is the sole rule of faith for the Bereans. But it is important here to understand the broader context.
Paul was preaching in Thessalonica for three weeks and gaining converts in the process. But because some of those converts were coming from the synagogue where Paul was preaching, the Jews there were not pleased about losing members of their congregation and hence stirred up a commotion. They attempted to bring Paul and Silas before an assembly to accuse them of causing problems, but when they couldn’t find these two at Jason’s house, where they were staying, they instead dragged Jason and some other Christians before the city’s magistrates. Word was sent to Paul and Silas that they were in danger, and so the Christians in Thessalonica had them leave the
city under the cover of darkness and go to Berea. There, Paul went to another synagogue and preached about Jesus. But, as a counter to the aggressive response Paul experienced in Thessalonica, the Bereans received his message “with all eagerness.”
So the Bereans were “more noble” not because they searched the scriptures, but because they did not treat Paul and Silas harshly, as the Thessalonians had. They were truly open-minded in the sense of being willing to consider what Paul was telling them. That is hardly a matter of supporting the idea that Scripture is the only infallible authority.
Furthermore, there are absolutely no Old Testament passages (“the scriptures” to which Paul was referring) that clearly state that “the Messiah had to suffer and die and rise from the dead on the third day.” It is Paul’s authoritative, apostolic teaching that “connected these dots” for the Bereans. But if sola scriptura were true, no examination and searching of the scriptures would have been necessary, because the teaching in question is the central teaching of the Christian faith.
But Acts 17 shows that this teaching was not sufficiently clear to the Thessalonians or the Bereans, who came to understand it only after Paul expounded on the Old Testament. If anything, this passage supports the Catholic position that Scripture is always coupled with official magisterial teaching.
3) 1 Corinthians 4:6: “I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.”
Protestants are quick to emphasize the “not going beyond what is written” part, as Catholics allegedly do when they employ Sacred Tradition. A lot could be said about this verse, but consider at least the following.
The first Protestant leaders did not see this verse as helpful to their sola scriptura cause. None of them used this verse to establish the doctrine. John Calvin even <a href="https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xi.ii.html">said</a>,
<blockquote>The clause above what is written may be explained in two ways—either as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which he has brought forward. As this, however, is a matter of small moment, my readers may be left at liberty to take whichever they may prefer.</blockquote>
If Calvin felt that this verse was “of small moment,” whose interpretation was left to the reader’s personal preference, clearly he did not intend it as a proof text for sola scriptura.
In this same letter, Paul explicitly affirms the believers in Corinth for having adhered to Sacred Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (11:2). He is not going to advance one principle to the Corinthians in chapter four only to flatly contradict it in chapter eleven.
Bible scholars readily admit that the meaning of “what is written” is obscure, so how useful can this verse be in support of a central Protestant belief? If anything, Protestants would be guilty of eisegesis—reading something into the passage—instead of exegesis, pulling something out of the passage.
To give the reader some idea of the difficulties inherent in this verse, apologist Karlo Broussard <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/meeting-the-protestant-challenge/">offers the following possibilities</a> as to what is meant by “what is written” (60-61):
<ul>
<li>the scriptures in general concerning conduct for preachers;</li>
<li>the Old Testament passages Paul already quoted in 1 Corinthians 1:19, 31; 2:16; 3:19-20;</li>
<li>the metaphors of planting and building used in 1 Corinthians 3:15-17, the implication being that we should avoid false teachers who add to the gospel;</li>
<li>more generally, to everything Paul himself wrote in the preceding chapters of the same epistle concerning Christian conduct;</li>
<li>a Christian slogan or proverb used to address those causing discord in the community, a slogan that meant something akin to “keep within the rules”; or</li>
<li>a public document for the Corinthian church that Paul modeled on cultic bylaws in order to lay out guidelines and principles necessary to preserve peace and prosperity.</li>
</ul>
The only clear thing seems to be that not going “beyond what is written” cannot possibly refer to sola scriptura.
There are many other proof texts we could discuss, but these suffice for our purposes. That is to say, if sola scriptura cannot be found until over a thousand years after Jesus’ earthly life, then the doctrine must lack the historical continuity intrinsic to apostolic teaching. Worse, in practice, we see that it initiated a radical break with the Christian past.

3 of Protestants’ Favorite Bible Verses

How Does Islam and Christianity Differ on Jesus?

If God could have forgiven humanity without the cross, what makes the cross a more fitting means of salvation than simply forgiving sinners?

What do you think of the idea that Muhummad had the strength of 30 men?

Are there Messianic Muslims — Muslims who believe in Jesus?

It is in the Koran that Jesus said he was going to send a messenger.

Does Islam teach that Christians must be destroyed?

Isn’t it disingenuous to dismiss all of Islam culturally? It seems like people try to trash the whole religion when we could build bridges instead.

How do you explain the Catechism’s teaching that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, when Islam is so different than Christianity? Also, early church fathers used the quick spread of the faith around the world as an argument for its truth. But...

&#8220;How Does Islam and Christianity Differ on Jesus?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the distinct perspectives each faith holds about Christ. Additionally, the conversation touches on whether God could have forgiven humanity without the cross, the concept of Messianic Muslims, and the implications of the Koran&#8217;s teachings regarding Jesus and messengers.
<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>

How Does Islam and Christianity Differ on Jesus? Salvation and God

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

How do you know which books belong in the Bible?

<div>Would it have been a sin for Mary to say no at the Annunciation?</div><div>Theoretically, a no from Mary at the Annunciation could have been sinful, though it’s also possible that she could have said no without sinning.
More to the point, in actuality, we know that Mary didn’t sin. Still, it’s theoretically possible Mary could have said no at the Annunciation, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLUOuVKJ4No">Jimmy Akin addresses this issue in a radio response</a>, as do I in an online answer regarding <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-mary-forced-to-be-the-mother-of-god">whether Mary was forced to be the Mother of God</a>.
</div>

Would Mary Have Sinned by Saying No to God?

Full disclosure: I am not a fan of AI.
But not everything that I dislike is demonic. Though I detest hot dogs (haven’t eaten one in decades) and am suspicious of how they are made, I doubt that their origin or use is demonic.
Can we say the same of AI? Or is AI demonic?
The short answer to the latter question is no. It is similar to asking if electricity is demonic. But electricity is a process that exists in the physical world, and therefore, it is not inherently demonic. AI is exponentially more complex, but it is also a process that exists in the physical world.
Fears of the dangers and potential evil uses of AI are legitimate—self-driving cars that crash, students and academics plagiarizing papers, and individuals being all the more absorbed in their computers. Electricity can also be used for sinful purposes: fifty years ago, mass media used electricity, not computers, to blaspheme, spread lies, and promote immorality. Computers and the internet made these evils even more pervasive, and AI may well be another leap forward.
If we grant that AI itself is not demonic, what, nonetheless, can demons do with it? Consider that good angels have the ability to move physical objects and to manipulate physical processes like electricity, and a guardian angel may do so on occasion to protect a person. But we do not count on our guardian angels to do this every time we are in harm’s way. Demons also have the inherent ability to move physical objects and manipulate physical processes, and apparently, they really do exercise this ability, as in moving the plastic pointer when a person is using a Ouija board or even interfering with the physical process of speaking when controlling a possessed person.
But clearly, demons do not wreak physical havoc on every human being every minute of every day. On the contrary, it is extremely rare to see an example of some harmful happening that can be explained only by demonic activity. God’s providence, including the protection of good angels, constrains them. God’s laws regarding physical processes such as disease, natural disasters, and human choices explain almost all physical harm. So there is no reason to think that with the invention of AI, demons are suddenly going to be permitted to use their inherent spiritual power to increase their physical attacks and manipulation.
So is it possible for a demon to use AI, as a physical process, to lead a person astray? Let’s admit that it is possible. But is this something for us to be especially afraid of? No more than we should fear demonic control of electricity, or the human voice, or any other physical process. There is nothing new under the sun.
AI does not create new sins outside the Ten Commandments. Rather, like any technology, it may give us new ways to commit the same categories of sins. Our concerns about AI should consist of being aware of these and, with God’s help, avoiding them.
This is where we can be much more productive in our apprehensiveness—not looking under computer terminals for demons, but rather being watchful for new traps in which our own sins can ensnare us.
Here is a short list of three concerns I have regarding the use of AI.
First is the illusion of AI knowing and caring about us. We want and expect children to outgrow the idea of a real relationship with a stuffed doll. AI may allow adults on computers to fool themselves into believing that they have a relationship, even a friendship, with something as inanimate as a doll, but much more complex. This illusion of real relationship will only get worse if AI and computers are combined with a lifelike appearance in the form of robots.
A second concern is a consequence of the first: mental and emotional well-being. I predict a future correlation between time spent engaging with AI and mental and emotional struggles. Our human relationships are one of God’s ways of expressing and giving to us his love and peace and joy. It is true that human relationships typically cause many struggles, but working through them gives us the ability to improve. AI does not: it is not a person and does not have free will or actual intelligence. Rather than challenging us, as human relationships do, its purpose is to adapt itself to our desires and behaviors.
Third and most important is the spiritual concern. AI, like other inventions, may give us a little momentary happiness as a distraction. Nothing wrong with that in moderation, but the temptation to spend more and more time with AI may deprive us of time with God and practicing the virtues that come with human relationships. I believe that this temptation already increased with the inventions of television and the computer: it can be easier to sit in front of a screen than to set aside time for prayer and for corporal and spiritual works of mercy. With the growth of AI, we should be all the more vigilant in having prayer time and works of mercy embedded in our lives.
Demons have no winning strategy for the long term. They know that in the end, they will be in hell for eternity. In their envy and spite, they want us to spend eternity in hell with them. Demons are great opportunists, and they will use just about anything to tempt us to sin and keep us sinning. Satan used a piece of fruit to tempt Eve, and he tried to use stones in the desert to tempt the Son of God himself, Jesus Christ.
No matter how amazing or frightening the latest technology may be, our means of resisting temptation do not change. Receive the sacraments and make use of sacramentals, keep to our prayers and fasting, and avoid the unnecessary occasions of sin. And do not be afraid.

The Artificial Intelligence Demon

Mormons and Catholics believe in two different Gods. Both call God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but each means a totally different thing from the other.
In Catholicism, God is three persons in one divine nature. God is immaterial and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-divine-simplicity">absolutely simple</a>. In Mormonism, the three persons are <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/do-latter-day-saints-believe-in-the-trinity">distinct in substance and essence</a>. They are made of material and exist in a material world.
There are many issues we could focus on, like the “three gods or one God” issue, or how Christ must be equal to the Father, but if we did, we would simply be talking past Mormons. The differences are not semantic. If we want to break any ground with Mormons, we must look to the roots of reality; Catholicism and Mormonism explain existence in completely different ways.
In Catholicism, God created everything <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/creation-ex-nihilo">ex nihilo</a> (from nothing). He brings everything into existence, and all existence is contingent on him. God is the uncaused cause—the ultimate explanation of all things.
In Mormonism, God does not bring all things into existence from nothing. Instead, he organizes eternally existing matter. This matter has existed forever, and all things, including god, are made by it (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng">Abraham 3</a>). This view, Mormons argue, gives us a more realistic grasp on reality. It is concrete. It avoids the confusing idea of creation from nothing and explains reality in a way we can more easily understand.
Regardless of how concrete an idea is, the question remains: is the Mormon view a sufficient explanation for why anything exists at all? It is not. Eternal matter cannot explain its own reason for existence, let alone existence itself. Only a theology where God is the very act of being can explain reality fully.
<h2>Existence as Act</h2>
This is precisely what the Thomistic framework <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/what-is-god/?searchid=12728832&amp;search_query=what+is+god">describes</a>. It begins with the distinction between essence (what a thing is) and existence (that a thing is). A circle has a definable nature—it&#8217;s a circle. A human being has an essence. But neither must exist; their existence does not explain itself.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that whatever does not have existence of itself must receive it from another. Thus, if everything has a finite essence distinct from its existence, then something else must be the cause of its existence (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm">Summa Theologica</a><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm">, Prima Pars Q2</a>). A causal chain cannot regress infinitely while providing any satisfactory answers about existence. There must be a being whose essence is the same as its existence—a being that is existence itself.
This, Aquinas says, is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/actus-purus">actus purus</a>, pure act. This is the trinitarian God, a being without composition, limitation, or dependency. He is the cause of all existence, not merely one being among others. All existence ultimately depends on him.
Thus, creation from nothing is necessary. All things are radically dependent on God for their existence. He didn&#8217;t create us, then forget about us or let things happen. He is the source of all things.
This means, when compared to Mormon theology, something like matter cannot be uncreated. It must receive existence from somewhere.
<h2>Mormon Material</h2>
Mormons disagree. They posit an entirely different system of reality. Matter is eternal and does not depend on anything for its existence (<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131?lang=eng">D&amp;C 131</a>). God does not create or sustain matter, but organizes and structures it.
From an Aristotelian standpoint, eternal matter is the material cause, whereas God is the efficient cause, shaping pre-existing matter into the forms we see today.
Mormons tout this as a <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng">far more understandable</a> and realistic explanation for existence. Afterall, Mormons are right to say that creation from nothing and a God without parts or passions is difficult to comprehend. We cannot comprehend a being who exists outside time and has no parts or passions, but we can comprehend a sculptor who forms David out of marble.
But comprehensibility does not mean likelihood. Mormonism&#8217;s explanatory adequacy is dependent on whether organization from eternal material can suffice as the ultimate explanation for existence.
<h2>Insufficient Explanation</h2>
From a Catholic perspective, eternal matter does not explain existence, but postpones the question of why this material exists at all. Mormonism&#8217;s answer is that it is necessary.
But simply declaring something material as necessary does not make it so. Since material cannot explain its own existence, an explanatory demand persists.
This is what&#8217;s known as the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-the-universe-must-have-a-cause">principle of sufficient reason</a>: whatever exists must have a sufficient explanation for its existence. Mormon theology rejects this, and ultimately looks toward brute facts (facts that exist without further explanation) at the foundation of existence.
The problem with allowing brute facts to be the fundamental answer for existence is that explanation itself becomes arbitrary. If reality is at bottom unexplained, why do any explanations matter at all? Why bother looking for answers?
Although brute facts give Mormonism internal consistency, it is an insufficient explanation for existence. It leaves many questions unanswered. It also opens the door for worrying consequences: if God is ultimately not the source of all existence, how can we trust that he will sustain ours?
We can&#8217;t—at least not in the same way we can in Catholic theology. If we accept the brute fact that matter must exist without further explanation, we must blindly trust that existence will continue in that substrate. There is no real explanation for why it must.
<h2>The Trinity Is True</h2>
Catholic theology leaves no such door open. Since God is existence itself—and is all good—we have fully explained reasons to trust him to continue our existence.
Ironically, the lengths to which Mormons go to make God knowable create a less succinct and less understandable existence.
Though we can&#8217;t say Mormonism is impossible, just as many strange ideas aren&#8217;t, we can ask which explanation of reality is more likely: a fully material existence where one must accept the brute fact that that&#8217;s simply how things are, or a God who is the cause of all creation and the ultimate explanation for all things?
The Trinity is far more likely. It requires far fewer assumptions to accept, and it results in a God we can absolutely trust without deferring blindly to brute facts. All existence must be accounted for. If there is to be a complete answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, it can be found only in that which is existence itself.

How Mormons Explain Existence

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 we even recognize evil anymore?

Both Mormons and Catholics believe that Jesus Christ established a visible Church and tasked Peter to lead her. Both also believe that Peter&#8217;s successor still has authority over that Church. Catholics, however, believe that Peter&#8217;s line has continued unbroken from Peter until today. Mormons believe in a Great Apostasy: an 1,800-year gap when Peter&#8217;s authority, and the very institution of Christ&#8217;s Church, was removed from the earth and didn’t return until it was <a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/youth/learn/yw/apostasy-restoration/joseph-smith?lang=eng">restored by their first prophet, Joseph Smith</a>.
For the prophet, rather than the pope, to be the authentic leader of Christ’s Church, Mormons must show that both Scripture and history indicate the Great Apostasy and necessitate a restoration. They cannot do this. Indeed, both Scripture and history point to an unbroken line of apostolic succession from St. Peter to <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/we-have-a-pope-leo-xiv-in-brief">Pope Leo XIV</a>.
<h2>Scripture</h2>
The New Testament constantly indicates that Christ established the fullness of truth in his Church and that the Church will endure until the end of time.
<ul>
<li>&#8220;And behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age&#8221; (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/28"> 28:20</a>).</li>
<li>&#8220;I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also&#8221; (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/14">John 14:16-17</a>).</li>
<li>&#8220;To him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, for ever and ever, Amen” (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/ephesians/3"> 3:21</a>).</li>
</ul>
These verses support Catholicism&#8217;s claim that Christ&#8217;s presence endures both in the Church&#8217;s authority (the Magisterium) and in the Eucharist (the authority to consecrate).
Mormons don&#8217;t disagree that the Church endures; they simply place an 1,800-year apostasy break before ultimate endurance. They also use scriptures to indicate their claim:
<ul>
<li>&#8220;I know that after my [Paul&#8217;s] departure fierce wolves will come in among you&#8221; (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/acts/20">Acts 20:29-30</a>).</li>
<li>&#8220;Let no one deceive you in any way&#8221; (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/2thessalonians/2">2 Thess. 2:3</a>).</li>
</ul>
Mormons correctly identify these verses with apostasy. The Ephesians (the people Paul was talking to in Acts) were led astray by false preachers soon after he left (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/revelation/2">Rev. 2:4</a>). The wolves Paul speaks of in Thessalonians are necessary before the Second Coming; many of the faithful will fall.
However, small apostasies do not necessarily entail a large one. The question isn’t whether Christians sometimes fall away, but whether Christ allowed his Church and its authority to be completely taken from the earth.
The broader scriptural context of Christ promising endurance means small apostasies are more plausible than a large one. Historical evidence adds more support to this idea.
<h2>History</h2>
If there were a Great Apostasy, you would expect to see an early, radical shift from what the apostles taught to what the Church teaches now. This would plausibly be accompanied by a visible structural collapse and evidence that doctrine was lost. Yet history shows the opposite.
There’s lots of evidence showing that the Catholic Church, along with the pope’s primacy, began with Christ and has persevered for 2,000 years. The early Church Father St. Irenaeus of Lyons gives a list of bishops descending directly from the apostles to fight Gnosticism in the second century (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm">Against Heresies</a><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm">, III.3</a>). St. Clement, in his first epistle, discusses apostolic succession at length in the first century (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm">Clement I</a>). The evidence shows the visible Church growing, not shrinking or apostatizing, quickly following Christ’s resurrection.
Additionally, history shows that theological ideas like the Trinity and the Real Presence were widespread as early as the first century A.D. St. Ignatius of Antioch (110), for example, strongly affirms that Jesus is both human and divine—a teaching that wouldn&#8217;t be formalized until Nicaea I in 324 (<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/srawley/ephesians.html">Eph. inscr, 15:3, etc.</a>). Other of Ignatius’s writings, along with the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/071https:/www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm4.htm">Didache</a> (late first, early second century) treat the Eucharist as Christ’s literal flesh and blood.
<h2>Doctrinal Development</h2>
Since then, the Church has developed her understanding of these and other ideas but never changed them. The entire deposit of faith was revealed by Christ and his apostles. All doctrine can be traced in an organic development from principles present in the Apostolic Age. (St. John Henry Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine shows this well.)
Mormons do not reject the evidence of early Christian beliefs in the Trinity and the Eucharist. Instead, they believe that the Trinity is a result of prideful men infusing Greek philosophy into the pure gospel and tarnishing God’s identity beyond recognition. The Eucharist is merely symbolic—just as Christ intended. The early prevalence of these ideas only proves the rapidity of the Great Apostasy; early Christians fell so deeply into apostasy that Peter&#8217;s authority was taken from the earth and didn’t return until Joseph Smith in 1830 restored Christ’s original teachings and received the authority to lead the church.
In other words, Mormons tacitly accept doctrinal development’s positive historical evidence, and they place the burden of proof on their theology. On this, they have even less evidence: the philosophical probability of the Trinity is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-mormons-explain-existence">much higher</a> than Mormonism’s theology of an embodied, material god.
<h2>Need for a Prophet</h2>
Although there are some scriptures that indicate a Great Apostasy, and historical evidence that shows certain Christian areas falling away, the culmination of all evidence points away from Mormonism and to Catholicism—particularly if you include theology. Yet Mormons reject the evidence.
Instead, they appeal to the Holy Spirit assuring them that the prophet is correct, and so believe whatever their prophet says and whatever the church teaches. Although the Holy Spirit does reveal truth through feelings, private spiritual experiences cannot overturn public historical evidence, apostolic continuity, or prior revelation. Catholicism affirms that faith transcends reason but never contradicts it; as St. Thomas Aquinas <a href="https://isidore.co/aquinas/ContraGentiles1.htm">taught</a>, since God is the author of both reason and revelation, a genuine contradiction between faith and reason is impossible.
For a Mormon to reasonably believe in a prophet, they must reject all evidence in favor of feelings. But that is not how God directs us to find him.
The good news for Mormons is that they’re right that Christ established his Church on Peter. The evidence shows that their prophet does not have Peter’s authority, but they can become part of the Church whose papal office has possessed it in continuous succession since Christ gave it to his chief apostle.

Mormon Prophet vs. Catholic Pope

It is not from Fundamentalist TV preachers that we should receive direction on how to pray. We should learn how to pray from heaven itself and the divine instructions provided in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Both heaven and divine revelation teach us how to pray—and the practice of repetition is part of that instruction.
Prayer is more than just asking God to give us things or do things for us. It’s an attitude of heart, by which we “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17). The Catechism <a href="https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/896/">defines prayer</a> as “the elevation of the mind and heart to God in praise of his glory; a petition made to God for some desired good, or in thanksgiving for a good received, or in intercession for others before God.”
We can assume that in the heavenly realm—inhabited by God, his angels, and his saints—prayer and worship are conducted correctly and serve as a model for us. After all, in the Our Father, Jesus taught us to request that “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” So let’s start by looking at some of the prayer patterns in heaven from which we can take instruction.
In Revelation 4, a door to heaven stands open. The author steps in to behold the throne of God surrounded with indescribable glory, filling the celestial realm with prayers and praise. “And the four living creatures . . . day and night they never cease to say, &#8216;Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!’” (v. 8).
This prayerful praise is repeated around God’s throne twenty-four hours a day, without ceasing. God receives this perpetual praise; in fact, everything in heaven is done according to his will. God desires that his will be done not only in heaven, but also on earth. Heaven endorses repetitive prayer.
Prayer is not just a heavenly activity. The Temple in Jerusalem swelled with prayer and psalms as the Israelites followed the prescribed forms of worship. The Psalms are called the “Hymnbook of the Hebrews,” and the Catechism says, “The Psalms constitute the masterwork of prayer in the Old Testament” (2596). These masterworks of prayer give us proper instruction on how to pray.
Stop for a moment and read Psalm 136 . . . if, of course, you are not hesitant to recite a repetitive prayer. As the great Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon wrote, “from the striking form of [Psalm 136] we should infer that it was a popular hymn among the Lord’s ancient people.” Of all the psalms, it is referred to as the “Great Hallel” or the “Great Praise,” which was regularly used in Jewish celebrations and daily worship. It was sung in the Temple of Solomon, and therefore also by Our Lord.
Psalm 136 could be considered the biblical epitome of repetitive prayer. In its twenty-six verses, it repeats the prayer refrain “for his mercy endures forever” twenty-six times. Anyone refraining from repetition in prayer should certainly avoid Psalm 136.
Jesus repeated himself in prayer and encouraged us to do the same. While experiencing great agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39).
In verse 42, it says “for the second time” Jesus prayed the exact same words, and then in verse 44, he “prayed for the third time, saying the same words again.” If Jesus was opposed to repetitive prayers, why would he be redundant with “the same prayer again” three times in succession? Didn’t his Father hear him the first time? Did he really need to repeat himself over and over again?
Did Jesus encourage us to be persistent with our petitions as well? Yes. Let’s look at a few examples. Jesus instructs his followers to “ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you” (Matt 7:7). “The three imperatives in this verse are in the present tense and could also be translated ‘keep asking,’ etc.”<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> The imperatives or commands “are in the present tense because asking should be continual.”<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> In other words, Jesus tells us to be asking continually, persistently, repetitively.
Our Lord again emphasizes this in the parable of the unjust judge who “neither feared God nor respected man.” He ignored a widow who pursued him to obtain justice. He finally retorted, “‘This widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’ And the Lord said, ‘Hear what the unrighteous judge says. And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night?’” (Luke 16:1-8).
Jesus told his disciples not to pray like the gentiles, who “heap up empty phrases” who “think they will be heard for their many words” (Matt 6:7). The King James Version renders this “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-catholics-pray-vain-repetitions">vain repetition</a>.” Most commentators relay this back to Elijah’s mocking of the prophets of Baal, who “raved on” until evening with no response from the pagan god. Their babbling and vain repetition, the heaping of words-upon-words, was to no avail. The Greek word used by Jesus is battalogeō, which means to stammer, babble, prattle, utter meaningless sounds, or speak incoherently.
Jesus says we are not to prattle on or babble like the incoherent pagan prophets of Baal, who “think they will be heard for their many words.”
Immediately after commanding us not to babble with words-heaped-upon-words, Jesus tells us to pray like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name . . . ” This prayer he taught us is not only a model of prayer, but the perfect prayer, a prayer revealed from the heart of God. It is a prayer to be repeated often and from the heart, not just empty words while our mind drifts elsewhere. Can one pray this prayer too frequently? Would God be displeased if we repeated this prayer often? I think not.
The early Christians repeated the Our Father frequently, based on Jewish patterns of prayer. In the Didache (an ancient manual for Christian prayer and liturgical worship, written as early as A.D. 60) we read, “Nor pray like the hypocrites but, as the Lord has commanded in his gospel, pray in like manner: Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be your name . . . ” After reciting the prayer in full, it concludes, “Pray this prayer three times a day” (8). The early Christians, therefore, were in the habit of repeating the Our Father at least 1,095 times a year, and probably more often if we include its use in the liturgical prayers of the Church.
So we can conclude, based on heaven, Divine Revelation, the teachings of Our Lord, and the practice of the early Church, that we are not forbidden from repetition in prayer, but we are actually instructed to do so. However, it is not necessarily the words that are important to God, but a sincere prayer from our heart welling up with praise, intercession, and requests uttered with a deep love for God, even if we use words and they are repeated.
“Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thess. 5:16-18).

Jesus Wants Repetitive Prayer

When it comes to biblical evidence for Purgatory, Catholics <a href="https://www.catholic.com/bible-navigator/purgatory/1corinthians315">know to turn to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15</a>. There, Paul writes,
<blockquote>For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.</blockquote>
Paul describes a saved Christian on the day of judgment being purified by “fire” after death in a state of existence that’s neither heaven nor hell. <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/purgatory">That’s got to be Purgatory</a>, right?
Well, some Protestants argue, “Not so fast!” There’s nothing here, so they say, about suffering that discharges the debt of temporal punishment, which is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/are-indulgences-a-scam">part and parcel</a> of the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.
For example, the late Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Catholics-Evangelicals-Agreements-Differences/dp/0801038758/ref=sr_1_1?crid=174A574X9Y98Z&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Aukvl2JfzDONJyHQIlzbk5Abvfc6a4bF1_JbUkh8tDrGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.0bVFcj7im9Lq0Qb3v4mdh3Leylm7yNgjC3aP_74YiRc&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=geisler+and+mackenzie&amp;qid=1733332522&amp;sprefix=geisler+and+mackenzi%2Caps%2C141&amp;sr=8-1">state</a>, “There is absolutely nothing here about suffering for our sins or their consequences after death.” For Geisler and MacKenzie, Paul’s comment “he will suffer loss” merely refers to “a loss of reward [in heaven] for not serving Christ faithfully.”
How should we respond?
Notice how, for Geisler and MacKenzie, “there is absolutely nothing here about suffering for our sins.” Yet Paul makes it clear that the individual who “suffers loss” (v.15) suffers loss because his works, represented by wood, hay, and straw, are “burned up”—that’s to say, he suffers for his sins.
The suffering may be caused by the distress of losing a reward in heaven. But that’s beside the point. The individual still suffers on account of past sins. And to suffer on account of sin, even if the suffering is due to a deprivation of some good, is the meaning of punishment. That the punishment is temporary, or not everlasting, is evidenced by the fact that the soul in question is saved.
We can also look to the Greek for evidence of a punitive dimension to this passage. The phrase “he will suffer loss” translates the Greek word zēmiōthēsetai, which is a future indicative of the Greek verb zēmioō. The <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Greek-English-Lexicon-New-Testament-Semantic/dp/0826703437">definition</a> of zēmioō is “to be punished, with the implication of suffering damage.” Zēmioō can be understood without a punitive character, in the sense of simply losing something (Phil. 3:8). But even if we understand it that way in 1 Corinthians 3:15, the context reveals that the loss is on account of the bad works, thus punitive in character.
It’s interesting to note that in the Septuagint, zēmioō (corresponding to Hebrew anash) is used in several places as a monetary fine (Exod. 21:22; Deut. 22:19; Prov. 17:26) and punishment for an evil deed (Prov. 19:9, 21:11, 22:3).
Finally, the punitive character can be seen in that the individual is temporarily detained from receiving the reward of heaven on account of his bad works. He has to go through fire in order to be saved. As mentioned above, deprivation of a good on account of sin is an essential aspect of punishment. And since this is a temporary deprivation, it’s a temporary form of punishment.
So 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 supports not only the purification of the individual, which would involve the purging of any moral defilement remaining in the soul, but also suffering on account of venial sins, which by its nature discharges the debt of temporal punishment.

Biblical Evidence for Purgatory

More than 500 Belgians have <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/259903/over-500-belgians-demand-removal-from-baptismal-registry-after-pope-s-remarks">signed an open letter demanding</a> to be “debaptized.” The letter was addressed to the papal nuncio (ambassador), the primate of Belgium, and seven Belgian dioceses.
The demand follows <a href="https://cruxnow.com/2024-pope-in-luxembourg-belgium/2024/09/pope-has-a-tough-day-in-belgium-facing-blowback-on-multiple-fronts">a recent tense visit</a> that Pope Francis paid to the country, which is historically Catholic but which has become highly secular and has a strained relationship with the Church today.
During the visit, Belgian prime minister Alexander De Croo publicly but diplomatically <a href="https://cruxnow.com/2024-pope-in-luxembourg-belgium/2024/09/pope-has-a-tough-day-in-belgium-facing-blowback-on-multiple-fronts">scolded</a> the pope for the priestly sex abuse scandals that have hit the country: “Numerous cases of sexual abuse and forced adoptions have undermined trust. You’ve committed to a just and fair approach, but the path is still long,” he said, adding, ‘Ministers of the Church work with conviction and charity, but if something goes wrong, cover-ups are unacceptable.’”
At the University of Louvain, the pope offered a critique of feminist ideologies, <a href="https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2024/09/pope-says-men-and-women-not-rivals-wants-discussion-free-of-ideology">stating</a>, “What characterizes women, that which is truly feminine, is not stipulated by consensus or ideologies, just as dignity itself is ensured not by laws written on paper, but by an original law written on our hearts.” He also stated, “It’s ugly when a woman wants to be a man; no, she’s a woman!”
This prompted an angry response from university officials, who expressed “incomprehension and disapproval of the position expressed by Pope Francis regarding the role of women in the church and in society,” calling it “deterministic and reductive.”
On the flight back to Rome from Belgium, the pontiff was asked by a Belgian reporter about a tribute he had paid to the country’s former King Baldwin, who had resigned for a day rather than sign a law authorizing abortion.
In part of his response, the pope <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2024/september/documents/20240929-belgio-voloritorno.html">stated</a>, “Women have the right to life: to their own lives and the lives of their children. Let us not forget to say this: abortion is murder. Science tells you that within a month of conception, all the organs are already there. A human being is killed. And doctors who engage in this are—permit me to say—hitmen. They are hitmen. This cannot be disputed. A human life is killed. Women have the right to protect life.”
Currently Belgium is considering a law that would further liberalize abortion, allowing it up to eighteen weeks. Though Pope Francis was speaking about the former king and did not allude to this law, his remarks were taken as a commentary on it, with De Croo <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/259635/belgian-prime-minister-criticizes-pope-francis-for-statements-on-abortion">calling it</a> “absolutely unacceptable for a foreign head of state to make such statements about democratic decision-making in our country.” He stated that Belgium “does not need lessons on how our parliamentarians pass laws democratically. . . . Fortunately, the time when the Church dictated the laws in our country is long gone.”
Citing these factors, some Belgian organizations began calling for people to join in the “debaptism” movement, and the open letter was drafted. Within three weeks, 524 had signed.
There is no Church ritual for debaptizing a person. Baptism makes an “indelible spiritual mark” and cannot be undone (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1272), but advocates of “debaptism” demand that their names be removed from the records that the Church uses to keep track of who has been baptized.
The Church’s standard practice when such requests are received is to provide a marginal note of the request in the baptismal records but not to remove the person’s name. This is in part in case the person wishes to re-embrace their faith in the future, since baptism can be administered only once.
However, this has not satisfied some, and Europe’s data protection laws have been invoked regarding the matter, both in Belgium and in other countries. Thus far, the results from the courts have been <a href="https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/belgian-church-fights-order-to-erase">mixed</a>.
Although the permanence of baptism is a settled point of Catholic doctrine, the issue of disassociating oneself with the Church <a href="https://jimmyakin.com/2022/06/once-a-catholic-always-a-catholic.html">is more complex</a>, and the Church does not presently have clear rules governing this area. It is possible that situations like this one—especially if the matter is taken up at the level of the European Union—might prompt the Church to clarify the matter and what is and is not possible.

De Facts About De-baptism

In this episode Trent responds to atheist Youtubers who claim the thousands of existing biblical manuscripts aren’t anything to brag about.

How the Bible Beats Every Other Ancient Book

“Praying to the Saints,” “Omniscience,” and Jordan Cooper

Do I have to worship Mary if I become Catholic?

I’m Protestant and am engaged to a Catholic. Where do I start on Mary?

Why do some Protestants fail to see Mary as the Mother of God? Why is intercession seen as satanic?

Why is the Protoevangelium of James accepted as source for the Mariology even though it’s rejected by earlier Church sources?

My Lutheran wife can’t get on board praying to Mary and the saints. How do I help her open up to better understand this teaching?

How to Talk to Protestants About Mary and the Saints

What “Manosphere Bros” and OF Girls Have in Common

Do Catholics treat Mary like a God?

Was Mary the guide for the writing of the Gospel of John?

How do I get across that Catholics don’t worship Mary, and that this is not a threat?

Can you explain Mary as the new Eve?

Why does William believe there has been so many Marian apparitions and not others?

There is not one example in the Bible to pray to Mary, so why do we pray to Mary? Abraham is called the father of faith and not even he has an example of people praying to him.

&#8220;Do Catholics treat Mary like a God?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the role of Mary in Catholicism, addressing misconceptions about worship. The conversation also touches on whether Mary guided the writing of the Gospel of John and clarifies how Catholics view her as the New Eve, alongside the significance of Marian apparitions and the practice of praying to her.
<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 Catholics Treat Mary Like a God? Gospel of John, New Eve

Episode 111: Year C &#8211; The Epiphany of the Lord
This upcoming Sunday is The Epiphany of the Lord, for which the readings are the same as the previous two years. The first reading is taken from Isaiah 60:1-6. The second reading is taken from Ephesians 3:2-3a, 5-6. And the Gospel is taken from Matthew 2:1-12. Given that we’ve already covered much of the apologetical material present in these readings for Years A and B, in this episode we provide a brief survey of the material already covered and simply highlight two extra details that we haven’t covered thus far: the identity of the magi and the dating of Christ’s birth.
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/010525.cfm">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Epiphany of the Lord: Revisiting Key Themes and Exploring the Magi and Christ’s Birth Date

In this episode Trent comments on rhetoric from politicians and judges designed to crush religious liberty and shows why tax exemption for Church’s is necessary to protect that liberty.

The Church vs. the Transgender State

Critics who reject the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception often cite the 1966 “Pontifical Commission on Birth Control” to justify their dissent. They say Pope Paul VI ignored the research of the commission he directed to determine if contraception is immoral. <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/it-is-time-to-revisit-chu_b_11879144">According to Celia Wexler</a>, author of Catholic Women Confront Their Church,
<blockquote>the commission, which included Catholic married couples and physicians, reportedly voted overwhelmingly to lift the Vatican’s blanket ban on artificial birth control, and to permit married couples to prudently plan their families. But that hope was dashed in 1968, when Paul VI, writing in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, once more declared artificial contraception “intrinsically wrong.”</blockquote>
Critics like Wexler say the faithful were harmed by the pope’s fear of rejecting tradition when he should have listened to “the best theological minds” in the Church. Catholics for Choice <a href="https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/resource-library/humanae-vitae">puts it this way</a>: “Humanae Vitae marked a turning point for the Catholic church, as Pope Paul rejected the theologically sound findings of his own Papal Birth Control Commission in favor of a turn to rigid orthodoxy.”
For many Catholics, Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii laid the issue of contraception to rest. Pope Pius XII <a href="https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12midwives.htm">said</a> his predecessor’s condemnation of acts done to hinder the procreation of new life within the conjugal union “is in full force today, as it was in the past and so it will be in the future.” But by the 1960s, millions of American women, including many Catholics, were using the new FDA-approved birth control pill.
Some theologians claimed that, unlike condoms and diaphragms, the Pill did not create a physical barrier between the spouses during intercourse, so it could be a legitimate way to space children. They also said the Pill was needed to stop population increases that would, according to environmentalists like <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/B0CXJKNK17/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QDEMLQB692B&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.xIAglqU324IVh2fv2w0nCL8DgmUqG5Mvet3YUphYG7y9f38mv5Fi1solBCh4o_aF5l8NM-9HACX70UoMC1JcgBg_8CEl8kGs66nFevIg4QSzgnTmzJT0VaQKuXkkdgzdxshCwlF_uzxBtATi4yyHyv_c5sSk7WmjfsHseKVkQP4YqklNWZTxybibdpTgv_DeYljgrAtc70KfHDAOXNBH4q7YCRcmOtAbsyr0kkFi128.uTVmaDx_8gStSq54T8s3q7zDjdwwP8peb1t53cKnksg&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=population+bomb&amp;qid=1716898578&amp;sprefix=population+bomb%2Caps%2C109&amp;sr=8-1">Paul Ehrlich</a>, kill hundreds of millions through global famines (a threat that, by the way, never materialized for the Pill to neutralize).
In response, Pope John XXIII created a committee to discuss the issue whose first meeting reaffirmed the conclusions of Popes Pius XI and XII on contraception but said the mechanics of the birth control pill required greater study before any conclusions about it could be reached. However, some bishops in Europe were teaching that couples could follow their conscience regarding use of the Pill precisely because the Church had not reached a definitive conclusion about it. In response, Paul VI reconvened the Pontifical Commission for the Study of Population, Family, and Births and added seven members, some of whom were notorious for their dissent against Church teaching.
When people speak about the commission, they often assume that the pope simply selected the best theologians in the Church, and so he should have followed whatever they recommended. But there is evidence that the pope wanted a commission that would give him arguments to test rather than advice to follow. The late moral theologian Germain Grisez, who worked behind the scenes to help future commission member Fr. John Ford defend Church teaching, <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new-documents-reveal-inner-workings-of-papal-birth-control-commission">told</a> the Catholic News Agency,
<blockquote>[Paul VI] was perfectly happy to have a lot of people on the commission who thought that change was possible. He wanted to see what kind of case they could make for that view. He was not at all imagining that he could delegate to a committee the power to decide what the Church’s teaching is going to be.</blockquote>
The committee eventually grew to over seventy members, though some members, like the future Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla, could not attend due to Soviet travel restrictions. Two notable attendees were Patrick and Patty Crowley, the Catholic founders of the Christian Family Movement. The Crowleys said surveys they conducted among married couples showed that the rhythm method “did nothing to foster marital love” and provided no greater unity between the spouses. Colette Povin, another married woman invited to the commission, slammed temperature-based rhythm methods: “When you die, God is going to say, ‘Did you love?’ He isn’t going to say, ‘Did you take your temperature?’”
By this point, the commission had moved far away from its original focus on the mechanics of the birth control pill. A majority of theologians, many of whom were moved by the stories of Catholics who felt that the prohibition on contraception harmed their marriages, claimed that contraception is not intrinsically evil, and they drafted an eleven-page report summarizing their position. Meanwhile, Fr. John Ford, along with a handful of other commission members, drafted their own 9,000-word defense of the Church’s teaching. (This would later be called the “minority report,” even though it was not an official document.)
The commission’s main report (now called the “majority report”) claimed that contraception is not intrinsically evil. It and the minority report were given to Paul VI on June 28, 1966. Four months later, the pope commented on the majority report, saying it carried “grave implications . . . which demanded logical considerations.” Some members worried that the entire report would be buried, so they leaked it to the National Catholic Reporter.
Robert Kaiser, a journalist who reported extensively on the commission at the time, <a href="https://archive.org/details/encyclicalthatne0000kais">said</a> that because of the leak, “people would have proof positive that authorities in the Church were not only divided but also leaning preponderantly to a new view of marriage and the family that did not condemn couples to hell for loving each other, no matter what the calendar said.”
Does the commission’s report include irrefutable arguments, or a “new understanding” of marriage that overturns what the Church has always taught about the need not to eliminate the procreative end of the conjugal act? Not by a long shot.
The commission claimed that “developments” in the Church’s teaching on sex (such as the primacy of expressing love) and social developments such as lower infant mortality rates make contraception acceptable even though it was condemned in the past. Testimonies such as those compiled by the Crowleys also made an indirect appearance in this statement from the majority report: “Then must be considered the sense of the faithful: according to it, condemnation of a couple to a long and often heroic abstinence as the means to regulate conception, cannot be founded on the truth.”
But the intrinsic morality of an act is not dependent on demographic facts or societal opinions. For example, the commission steadfastly rejected abortion as a way to space children, but modern dissidents say the Church should change this teaching, too, because women’s place in society has changed and many Catholics who identify as pro-choice find it impossible to follow a complete ban on abortion.
According to Catholic philosopher Paul Gondreau, liberal descriptions of the traditional teaching on sexuality are <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/contraception-cant-be-reha-pill-itated">a caricature</a>. Furthermore,
<blockquote>Few know that the “consciences”—and subsequently the votes—of the nine bishops labored under an erroneous understanding of the science of contraception. They believed that the birth control pill acted not as a block or inhibition of the natural procreative process, but as a kind of medication that “helped nature” by prolonging the woman’s natural period of infertility. (We know this from the testimony of Georges Cardinal Cottier, a close friend of the Swiss Dominican who served as the secretary of the papal commission.)</blockquote>
Gondreau also takes issue with reducing the traditional teaching on sexuality to just a concern about the marital act being procreative in nature. He says that although our existence as animals means that the sexual act is obviously ordered toward procreation (as it is in all other animals), human bodies exist not merely for animal purposes. He writes,
<blockquote>[Because] we are not pure bodies, but incarnate (rational) spirits with an ordering to interpersonal love, human sexuality also owns an essential ordering to interpersonal unitive love. In brief, God has endowed us with a sexed design for the joint purpose of procreation and unitive love, as HV makes plain.</blockquote>
The traditional view of Catholic sexuality recognizes that sex is for the expression of marital love and it is unitive precisely because it involves the full gift of the spouses, including the gift of their respective fertility. That’s why Pope Francis said in <a href="https://catholicherald.co.uk/pope-francis-upholds-catholic-ban-on-contraception">an address</a> to a conference on natural family planning that “there is a need always to keep in mind the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act. . . . When these two meanings are consciously affirmed, the generosity of love is born and strengthened in the hearts of the spouses, disposing them to welcome new life.”

Church and Contraception: The History

In the first part of my series on the biblical roots of the Mass, we examined how Jesus’ one sacrifice of Calvary didn’t end on the cross, but rather <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/when-did-jesus-finish-his-sacrifice">culminated</a> in everlasting glory in the heavenly sanctuary. In part two, we saw how Christ’s one selfsame sacrifice becomes present here on earth through <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-mass-beats-the-4th-of-july">biblical remembrance</a>. In part three, we showed how Jesus <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-the-point-of-a-priest">is a priest</a> according to the order of Melchizedek, and thus how he enables his Church to make present—and offer anew—his one sacrifice under the appearances of bread and wine, carrying out the ritual he instituted at the Last Supper (Matt. 26:26-28; see Gen. 14:18-20).
In this final essay of the series, we will address the miracle of how Jesus can make his finite human body present in innumerable places—i.e., whenever and wherever the Church offers anew his one sacrifice in a sacramental manner, fulfilling Christ’s command, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).
By virtue of his triumphant resurrection, which we celebrate especially during the Easter season, our Lord Jesus Christ <a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a5p2.htm">has attained</a> “a glorious body&#8221;—that is, one “not limited by space and time but able to be present how and when he wills” (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 645, emphasis added).
<h2>The Wonder of a Glorified Human Body</h2>
Thus, Jesus can pass through closed doors (John 20:26) and make sudden appearances at will (Luke 24:36). St. Paul calls the resurrected body a “spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44). Here we understand how Jesus is “made perfect” (Heb. 5:9; see 2:10)—not in his divine personhood, which is necessarily omnipotent and therefore perfect, but in his human nature, which does admit of perfective change (even though Christ is sinless), and which Jesus attained in redeeming the world <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-the-point-of-a-priest">through his one sacrifice of Calvary</a>.
Consequently, Jesus’ human nature is not automatically perfected in the Incarnation, but the Incarnation—through which Christ’s human nature is united to his divine Person—makes that humanly possible (see <a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p1.htm">CCC 460, 470, 474</a>).
Further, what happens in the Eucharist is something far more profound than the glorification of Christ’s natural body. Christ’s body cannot be in more than one place by the power of that same human nature. In other words, a limited human body can never be in more than one place by virtue of its own human power. Also, as noted above, being joined to Christ’s divine Person via the Incarnation does not mean that his human nature will thereby automatically partake of his divine power to be present throughout the world. But the Incarnation does make wondrous things possible for Christ’s body, blood, and soul—namely, the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which the substance of the bread and wine offered is transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ at Mass (<a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#V">CCC 1376</a>).
<h2>The Miracle of the Eucharist: Finite Body, Divine Personhood</h2>
So how does Jesus Christ become humanly present in the Eucharist around the world and yet remain in heaven? Though his body never ceases to be human, let us first consider that Christ enables it to be present after the manner of a spirit in the Eucharist. That is, Christ is present in the eucharistic elements like how our human souls are diffused throughout our bodies: in a whole and undivided manner, not in <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-catholics-cannibals">a carnal</a>, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/the-real-presence-and-cannibalism">cannibalistic way</a>. So Jesus’ body remains a body, but, like a spirit, his body becomes miraculously present in a whole and undivided manner in each and every eucharistic host, and thus <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/size-matters-when-does-the-bread-and-wine-lose-the-real-presence">in each and every part</a> of each host, “in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ” (<a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#V">CCC 1377</a>).
In the Eucharist, Jesus wills his body to go beyond its limited human nature and become a participant in his divine attributes, all the while retaining its substance as his human body and blood.
To be clear, Christ’s body does not become omnipresent through the sacrament of the Eucharist, but Christ does omnipotently enable his body to have “a share” in his divine omnipresence. Specifically, Jesus enables his body to become sacramentally present wherever <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-mass-beats-the-4th-of-july">the sacrifice of the Mass is offered</a> and wherever he—our eucharistic Lord—is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/o-come-let-us-adore-him-in-the-eucharist">reposed in a tabernacle and worshiped in adoration</a>.
Fr. Matthias Scheeben helps make the Eucharistic Mystery more accessible:
<blockquote>Because the body of Christ is the body of the Son of God, it receives through the power of the divine Person inhabiting it the unique privilege, similar to the prerogative of the Person himself, but in limited measure, of being present indivisible and undivided in many places and in the innermost recesses of things. Not formally through the hypostatic union, but still because of it and on the basis of it, the Son of God raises the body he has assumed to a share in the simplicity, universality, and pervasive power of his divine existence (The Mysteries of Christianity, 474).</blockquote>
According to the natural mode of existing, Jesus always sits at the right hand of the Father. Yet, through the miracle of the Eucharist, his body becomes sacramentally present everywhere the sacrifice of the Mass is offered, as the Council of Trent <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/thirteenth-session-of-the-council-of-trent-1479">affirms</a> in its Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.
This concept is not a simple one to grasp. Christ helps us understand the Eucharist through his other miracles, specifically the multiplication of loaves and fish, which he performs early in John 6. Some Christians who affirm this miracle will counter that the crowd ate many different loaves, not from one. Still, we must remember that the many loaves that fed thousands had their origin in a mere five loaves (John 6:1-15). That is, Christ temporarily suspended the laws of physics and divinely ‘‘stretched’’ the five loaves to become many so that the crowd could be fed.
<h2>Human Communication as a Means to Better Understand the Eucharist</h2>
If Christ can do that with regular bread, why can’t he do something much more extraordinary with his glorified body, so that he can feed the world supernaturally? Scheeben sheds additional light on the eucharistic miracle by means of an analogy. Similar to how a single thought can become present to many people through the means of sound waves, so too God can make himself present in many eucharistic hosts in the sacrifice of the Mass. Here Scheeben cites the work of Guitmund of Aversa, an eleventh-century bishop and theologian:
<blockquote>We are aware from everyday experience that our thought, that is, the word of our mind, can in a certain way be clothed with sound, so that the thought which was concealed in our mind and was known to us alone can be uttered, and thus manifested to others. Even while it remains wholly in our own mind, it can be wholly made known to a thousand persons through the agency of the sound it has assumed, so that it not only simultaneously illuminates the minds of them all, but at the same time, still whole and entire, strikes the ears of all with the sound in which it is embodied.
If, then, God has conferred such power on the human word that not only the word itself, but the sound wherewith it is it clothed, can at the same time reach a thousand people without any cleavage of its being, no one ought to refuse to believe the same, even if he cannot understand it, of the only and omnipotent and co-eternal word of the omnipotent Father, and of the flesh in which he is clothed, so that the Word himself may be known to us [in the Eucharist].
Neither can we understand the matter as regards the tenuous and fleeting word of a man, and the sounds which scarcely hover in existence for a second, and yet we accept it on the basis of daily experience (The Mysteries of Christianity, 515-16).</blockquote>
Scheeben wrote in the late nineteenth century, before the invention of radio and television. The analogy he cites becomes even more compelling when we consider the worldwide impact broadcast technology can have on a single uttered word.
In summary, the body of Christ can be both in heaven and on earth because the omnipotent Christ wills it for our salvific benefit. Although Christ’s human body is limited in itself, it can share in God’s divine power by Christ’s will.
Afterword: In the Eucharist, the various properties of the bread and wine, including the wine’s power to intoxicate, remain even though the fundamental substance of the bread and wine have become the sacramental body and blood. And thus the admonition not to abuse the Precious Blood.
In addition, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/eucharistic-miracles-evidence-of-the-real-presence-0">eucharistic miracles</a>—which can rightly be termed “a miracle upon a miracle,” or a secondary eucharistic miracle—are visible affirmations that the eucharistic consecration is true (see <a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c3a1.htm#III">CCC 156</a>). Further, these miracles illustrate that the Eucharist includes the materiality/physical realm of Christ’s body and blood; however, again, considered as a sacrament, these realities exist after the manner of a spirit—i.e., in a whole and undivided manner. Finally, for how Jesus is substantially present in such visible eucharistic miracles, despite their outward appearance, <a href="https://www.cathedralstm.org/the-eucharistic-miracles/">see this article by Roberto Coggi, O.P.</a>, which elaborates on St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching in the Summa Theologiae (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article8">ST, III, Q. 76, art. 8, resp.</a>).