Manage Account

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

Is the Catholic Church a CULT?

<div>Would God for some reason rescind a person's salvation? </div><div>To be clear, if someone falls out of grace and ultimately goes to hell, it’s the person’s fault, not God’s. God will judge us accordingly for such unrepentant mortal sin, but we will have refused God’s gift of salvation:
<blockquote>We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: &#8220;He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.&#8221;612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613
<blockquote>To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God&#8217;s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called &#8220;hell&#8221; (<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm">CCC 1033</a>, emphasis added).</blockquote>
&nbsp;</blockquote>
For more on this subject, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/search?q=salvation">please see our various online resources</a>.
</div>

Losing My Religion (and Salvation)

<div>How did the polar bears and penguins reach Noah’s ark?</div><div>That’s a good question. The answer depends on what actually happened in history.
The Catholic Church does not prohibit interpretations of Genesis 6-8 that include a worldwide flood, but neither does the Church require there to be a worldwide flood in all interpretations of these passages. Instead, according to Pope Pius XII, “in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured,” the first eleven chapters of Genesis “both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people” (Humani Generis 38).
Consequently, the flood could be understood as impacting the entire world, or possibly a large region of the world. If it did impact the entire world, animals in distant regions would likely have been miraculously transported to the ark.
On the other hand, if the flood was more regional, a view which has gained increasing traction in recent centuries because of scientific findings, then all the animals of the world would not have been destroyed, and thus polar bears and penguins would not have been affected.
For more on this topic, please see this <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-catholic-perspective-on-a-new-attraction">article</a> in Catholic Answer Magazine Online.
</div>

Two Views of the Flood

<div>What is the Church’s teaching on atonement?</div><div>The eminent theologian Ludwig Ott defines atonement in the following way:
<blockquote>By atonement in general is understood the satisfaction of a demand. In the narrower sense it is taken to mean the reparation of an insult. This occurs through a voluntary performance which outweighs the injustice done (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 186-187).</blockquote>
Ott distinguishes between full value atonement and incomplete value. If the reparative act completely counterbalances the grievousness of the guilt, then the act is adequate and complete (full value). If the act is not commensurate with the grievousness of the offense but is graciously accepted as sufficient, then the act is inadequate and not of complete value. Finally, if the act of atonement is not performed by the offender, but by another in his stead, then the act is one of vicarious atonement.
The Church teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is one of vicarious atonement that is complete with full value for the redemption of the human race. Concerning the vicarious nature of Christ’s sacrifice, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
<blockquote>By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin,” when “he bore the sin of many,” and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous,” for “he shall bear their iniquities.” Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father (615, emphasis original).</blockquote>
The Catechism articulates the full and complete value of Christ’s atoning sacrifice in this way:
<blockquote>Christ’s death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men . . . and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the &#8220;blood of the covenant” (613, emphasis original).</blockquote>
The Church’s teaching on atonement is consistent with what Jesus himself taught: “The Son of Man is come . . . to give his life as a redemption for many” (Matt. 20:28).
</div>

A Primer on Atonement

<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
Join Catholic Answers Live as Cy Kellett interviews Fr. David Michael Moses on reaching young people through social media and evangelization in today’s digital age!
</div>

Why Evangelize on Social Media? – Fr. David Michael Moses (Encore)

As I showed in <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/john-calvin-the-gnostic-protestant">Part 1</a> of this series, not only Calvin, but various Protestant sects argue for the sixty-six-book canon of Scripture on explicitly and undeniably gnostic grounds.
In this article, I will show just how thoroughly gnostic Calvin’s argument is by examining his Institutes of the Christian Religion, in which he doubles down on his claim that the means of knowing the correct canon of Scripture is the “inward illumination” and “secret testimony of the spirit.”
In addition to this, he also disclaimed the need for the witness of others (i.e., the Church) to any particular canon of Scripture. He wrote as follows in <a href="https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.iii.viii.html">Book 1, Ch. 7, §5 of the Institutes</a>:
<blockquote>Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.
Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgment or that of others, that the scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God.</blockquote>
Not only does knowing the correct canon come through an “inward illumination” of the “secret testimony of the spirit,” but this “illumination” is taught “in a way superior to human judgment.” Note once more the sleight of hand: Calvin simply labels the judgment of the Church as to the canon “human judgment,” but his own judgment he labels the “inward illumination” of the Holy Spirit. Yet he has made zero argument for why we should believe that his “inward illumination” is from God, whereas the judgment of the Church is a merely “human judgment.” The devil truly is in the details, all of which Calvin assumes rather than argues for.
Calvin thereby not only claims that the knowledge of the canon comes in a gnostic fashion, but has locked the individual inside his own ego—an ego superior to all external witness and authority. The canon is no longer a public revelation imparted by God by means of duly authorized representatives (i.e., apostolic authority), as the Christian faith had always been understood to be. Rather, it is an “inward illumination” that requires no witness from others, no duly authorized representative, and no public testimony to its veracity. Quite contrary to many of his claims about the necessity of ecclesial authority (which was virtually always his personal authority), and its role in speaking for Christ, when it comes to the canon of Scripture, Calvin argues like a Gnostic and maintains his ground like a Gnostic.
What can justify this? Apparently just the word of Calvin, and his purely subjective conviction that he (and those who agree with him) are “enlightened” by God.
Incidentally, whereas Calvin claims that only the elect receive this “inward illumination,” many of those who agree with him on the canon (other Protestants) vehemently disagree with him on other doctrines he claims are necessary for salvation. One wonders why God would give an “inward illumination” to the “elect” to know with perfect and unchallengeable certainty the canon of Scripture, but not the actual doctrines it supposedly taught. Calvin never addresses such blatant incoherence.
The next few sentences of the same section make his gnostic approach even clearer:
<blockquote>We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our judgment, but we subject our intellect and judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge.
Hence, God most justly exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he” (Isa. 43:10).</blockquote>
This is a remarkable statement from a man who claimed to be “reforming” the Church.
First he disclaims entirely the need for arguments—“proofs or probabilities,” as he says—a strange assertion for a man writing a treatise hundreds of pages long explaining why his particular doctrines should be believed. He asserts that his conclusion is based on truth that is “too transcendent for us to estimate.” Upon what basis does he claim this? We don’t know. He denies that he owes anyone any arguments.
But he then proceeds to make one: his sixty-six-book canon of Scripture is correct because he and those of his persuasion “have a thorough conviction” that it is “unassailable truth.” Those who disagree with them are enslaved to “superstition,” he claims. He and his followers, on the other hand, are not merely certain of their conviction, but “feel a divine energy living and breathing” in the canon they have identified—a remarkable appeal to what can only be described as a sort of physical sensation.
The fact that so many Christians throughout the ages had included other books in the canon of Scripture never seems to enter Calvin’s mind. These great saints could no doubt, likewise, claim to experience “an energy by which [they] are drawn and animated to obey it [Scripture], willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge.” Yet they often believed that the canon of Scripture included seven additional books that Calvin excluded.
So which one is right? Those with the stronger “thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth”? But even by this “standard,” would not the conviction of so many centuries of saints—especially martyrs—count on the scale far more than that of just Calvin, who was just one man at the head of a small sect, who did not die a martyr?
Calvin concludes his “argument” as follows:
<blockquote>Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality.
I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church “shall be taught of the Lord,” (Isa. 54:13). This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by the mouth of Moses, thus demands to be heard: “It is not in heavens that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart,” (Deut. 30:12, 14).
God having been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no wonder that so much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the generality of mankind. In the generality, I include even those specially chosen, until they are ingrafted into the body of the Church.
Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the prophetical doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also to the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God, subjoins the reason, when he asks, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (Isa. 53:1). If at any time, then, we are troubled at the small number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand, call to mind, that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.</blockquote>
The gnostic nature of Calvin’s argument could not be clearer, as he applies it not only to the canon of Scripture, but to the Christian faith itself. It bears a disturbing resemblance to religious and secular ideologies of succeeding centuries that disavowed the need for reason, argument, and logic to defend their positions.
Calvin speaks of “knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons”—a gnostic claim that cannot be countermanded.
Calvin describes this knowledge: “Every believer experiences in himself.” So now “experience” is the criterion of dogmatic veracity—just not, apparently, the “experience” of countless generations of Christians over the preceding 1,500 years that contradicts him. And who can ever contradict that which is experienced “in himself”? No one.
Calvin says to whom this knowledge is given: “This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind . . . God having been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children.” So once again, every one of the countless Christians and saints who identified a different canon from Calvin are apparently not among the “elect” or the “children” of God—not among those “specially chosen”—even while those who apparently qualify are at the same time at odds with Calvin on many other doctrines.
Should Calvin or those who follow him be disturbed at how few have ever believed anything like what he proposes? No, he says, because “none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.”
Calvin has thus sealed himself and the “elect” of his sect off from not only the Christian public witness of apostolic authority from the first century onward, but from argument, reason, and logic, all while very selectively appealing to a set of subjective experiences, namely those of his sect.
It is impossible to imagine anything more circular and gnostic than this. Calvin claims that God reveals the canon only by an inward illumination of the individual, and then he locks the ego of that individual in a self-sealed container that has no need to appeal to any other witness, testimony, or authority, satisfied in the assertion that God speaks directly to him, but the perennial witness and authority of the Church is mere “human judgment.”
Is anything like this found in Christian history? For that matter, is anything like this found in Scripture?
The answer to both is a firm “no.” With respect to the canon, Calvin has invented his own religion in order to guarantee that he arrives at his own conclusion, and that religion is nothing less than a revival of a novel form of Gnosticism under a veneer of Christianity.

Trapped in the Mind of John Calvin

“Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening.”
In both the call of the first disciples in John 1 and the call of 1 Samuel 3, we see an emphasis on personal encounter: the Lord sees people and calls them by name. In the case of Peter, he even gives a new name.
Names are intimate things, words of power. The fact that naming is so central in the magical systems of countless fantasy worlds stems from a basic reality that we all know. We notice when people call our name. Maybe we don’t want our name to be called, so this is not a power that is intrinsically good.
Learning to recognize our names is an important part of growing up. When a child responds to her name, we rightly understand that her sense of identity is developing; she begins to see the world not just as light and dark, Mom and not-Mom. She begins to know that she is a person.
When God reveals his name to Moses in Exodus 3, we see a radical development in human knowledge. God’s personal character is already implied with his call of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, his promises of blessing. Yet to reveal his name suggests that this covenant, while not exactly between equals, is nonetheless a covenant between persons. The God who meets Moses is not merely some force who happened to interact with his ancestors; he has a name. The fact that pious Jews have always recognized this name as holy—set apart, unpronounceable—is not mere superstition or magical thinking. It is awe and gratitude in the face of an unimaginable gift: that the transcendent God who is the source of all being would want a relationship with us.
For that really is the heart of these call stories in Samuel and in John. God doesn’t call people just to become transmitters of certain choice pieces of information. He calls them by name so that he can communicate to his people by means of a personal relationship. To say this is to touch on a whole bundle of mysteries, chief of which is that the incarnate divine Son leaves us not a body of writing or ideas, but a group of men charged with inviting others into the same school of discipleship. They have ideas, to be sure, but the heart of their mission <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-secret-ingredient-to-evangelizing">involves persons</a>.
A recurring theme of implicitly anti-Catholic rhetoric involves emphasizing Jesus’ personal call at the expense of what is usually labeled religion. At heart, I find these statements rather sad in their ignorance, for the heart of Catholic religion is a relationship with God. If it is not, it is not the Catholic religion. We are all called by God and named in baptism. Further, we must all at some point continue in maturity to recognize this call in a more personal way.
Indeed, religion in its core sense involves nothing but relations. That is what the word means. If it has been dumbed down and reduced to something like a set of rules abstracted from relationship, that is the fault of modernity and its antagonism to tradition, not of the Catholic religion as it is actually taught and practiced. In any case, it would be ridiculous to say that Jesus’ personal call is somehow opposed to rules or to exterior practices. Otherwise, instead of “come and see,” he would have told Andrew and Peter to go back to their homes and think nice thoughts about how God loves them. A God who gives us relationship without any content, boundaries, or goals is not the God of Samuel or of Jesus Christ.
That is how we must understand St. Paul’s call to sexual morality in 1 Corinthians 6. I suppose we could say here that Paul has abandoned the relationship at the heart of Christianity for a set of rules—and there are those today, in various progressive Christian pulpits, who would. But again, this would be to misunderstand both what Paul taught and what Jesus said. The reason that the body matters is precisely because of the relational call at the heart of Christianity. God calls us each by name to follow him. He doesn’t just call our souls. He calls persons who are body and soul. I cannot follow Jesus with just my mind and my heart. If I am invited to someone’s house for dinner, I cannot spit on his table, light fire to his couch, and make fun of his children, all the while saying that what really matters is the relationship. The body and its actions are meaningful. Everyone knows this, even though modern culture takes great pains to convince us otherwise. We cannot escape from this reality.
Because bodies have meaning, when Jesus tells us that he gives us his body and his blood, it doesn’t take a full grasp of the Mosaic Law’s understanding of blood to sense that he is giving us something intimate and personal. His body is his self, and his blood is his life. Once again, the invitation is completely personal. He isn’t, like some spiritual guru, pointing us to a path of enlightenment that has nothing to do with him. He is asking us to join our life to his so that our lives—our souls and bodies—can share in his own goodness. This is so much more than following a set of rules. But there are rules in a very natural sense: if you want to share the life of a person, you have to configure your own life so that it is capable of doing so. I can say that I love my children, but if I order my days so that I never see them, or that I always prioritize other things, I am not doing a very good job of it.
We may be inclined to insist, as an immature child might insist, that the relationship must happen on our own terms as we define them. But such a relationship will only become disordered. In his meditation on 1 Samuel 3, Peter Kreeft points out that, when faced with someone wiser than ourselves, we should always listen more than speak. Eli wisely instructs Samuel not to unload his thoughts and feelings to the mysterious voice, but rather to listen.
How hard that is for us in our relationship with God! We just want to explain everything, justify everything, frame everything on our own terms rather than simply listening at the times when he tells us to listen: in the proclamation of Scripture, in the breaking of bread, and in the silence of our hearts in his presence. The problem with so much modern theology—call it “contextual” or “from below” or whatever—which wants to start with us and move to God, is that we never actually get to God. We just get to pseudo-divinized versions of ourselves, which it turns out aren’t really capable of salvation, just of endless introspection.
The opposite temptation, I suppose, is to listen in such a way that we cannot take a step without direction. Should I brush my teeth tonight? Let me pray on it. That, too, is the wrong posture, for it places the voice of God in competition with our ordinary natural life, suggesting that any decision I make on my own is somehow apart from God’s providence.
The virtue of religion—there’s that word again—might be described as the virtue of right relations, the virtue of listening and acting well with God, neither becoming automatons who need strict programming nor agents of chaos who value ourselves over the relationship. A right relationship remembers the past, appreciates the present, and looks forward to the future. I’d suggest that we need all three of those things for a healthy relationship with God: diligence over what he has revealed in the past, patience and attentiveness to his presence today, and a willingness to grow more fully into the life he intends for us. May we hear his call to us and respond, like Samuel and the first disciples, with faith. “Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening.”

God Wants More of You

<div class="page" title="Page 228">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 218
CHALLENGE
“Christians are a bunch of hypocrites.”
DEFENSE
Yes. And?
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Consciousness of the fact that we don’t think and act the way we should is a human universal. So is the desire for others to think well of us. Everyone wishes to save face and, at one time or another, either shades the truth or flat out lies to appear better than he is. This makes hypocrisy another human universal, and it applies to Christians and everyone else.
When confronted with the fact that we don’t live up to our moral standards, we have several options. One—which is not good at all—is to abandon our standards. Reviewing them to make sure they are correct is one thing, but tossing them aside so we can indulge in im- moral behavior is another. It also will not work in the long run, for we cannot escape the moral law written on our hearts. We can only temporarily suppress it.
A second choice—also not good—is to pretend we are better than we are. This is the option of hypocrisy. It is not good because it’s an offense against the truth. Hypocrisy is a form of lying—specifically, lying about our own behavior, using either words or deceptive actions (CCC 2483). Hypocrisy is also risky, because in the long run the truth tends to be found out, and people will see you for the hypocrite you are. For Christians, hypocrisy takes on added gravity because it can push people away from God (Rom. 2:23–24).
The third choice—and the only good one—is the hardest. It means maintaining our moral standards, being honest about the fact that we don’t live up to them and seeking God’s grace to do better in the future. This doesn’t mean telling everyone everything we’ve done wrong (CCC 2489). Frequently, it is none of their concern, and in some situations knowing could even hurt them (e.g., marriages can be harmed by a naive and imprudent sharing of information about one’s sexual failings). However, it does mean being humble and willing to admit the fact that we are sinners.
Christians may share the universal inclination to hypocrisy, but that doesn’t mean Christianity is false. Christianity teaches that we are all sinners. The good news is that there is mercy, even for hypocrites like us.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Christian Hypocrisy

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

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

Which came first: the Bible or the Church? Let’s talk about it.

<div>Is being a good person selfish if I am doing it in fear of being sent to hell?</div><div><a href="http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson18.htm">The Baltimore Catechism</a>:
<blockquote>Q. 767. What is imperfect contrition?
A. Imperfect contrition is that by which we hate what offends God because by it we lose heaven and deserve hell; or because sin is so hateful in itself.
Q. 768. What other name is given to imperfect contrition and why is it called imperfect?
A. Imperfect contrition is called attrition. It is called imperfect only because it is less perfect than the highest grade of contrition by which we are sorry for sin out of pure love of God&#8217;s own goodness and without any consideration of what befalls ourselves.
Q. 769. Is imperfect contrition sufficient for a worthy confession?
A. Imperfect contrition is sufficient for a worthy confession, but we should endeavor to have perfect contrition.</blockquote>
It is obviously better to be sorry for sin solely because it is wrong and is an offense against God&#8217;s love but being sorry primarily because we are afraid of hell is still a good thing.  It shows that we trust what Jesus has taught us about the effects of sin and that we respect his judgment.  Imperfect contrition is a good starting point to help us focus on why sin separates us from God and one another and deepening our relationship to God.
</div>

Am I Selfish If I Fear Being Sent To Hell?

<div class="page" title="Page 348">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 338
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Unanswered prayer disproves Christ’s teaching on prayer. Jesus said, ‘If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, “Move from here to there,” and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you’ (Matt. 17:20b). But experience shows that we can’t do such things by prayer.”
DEFENSE
Jesus’ teaching is more complex than this challenge suggests. It doesn’t involve a promise that we’ll always get what we ask.
First, Jesus makes the statement when the disciples have just failed to exorcise a demon. When they ask why they were unable to drive it out, he says, “Because of your little faith” (Matt. 17:20a). If the apostles, who were accustomed to working miracles, including driving out demons (Matt. 10:1, 5–8), could have inadequate faith, then we may, too. (Also, in this instance the disciples were trying to cast out a particularly powerful type of demon; Mark 9:29).
Second, the statement that having faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains does not mean that faith has some magical power of its own. The point is that it is God who performs miracles, and he is omnipotent. The size of the miracle is therefore not dependent on the size of the person’s faith but on God.
Third, this means that we do not have a promise that simply anything we pray for will happen. It must be the will of God (cf. Luke 22:42; James 4:13–15; 1 John 5:14).
Fourth, the fact that mountains usually do not move in response to prayer indicates it is usually not God’s will for this to happen. That’s why Jesus uses this example—because of how striking it is. He is using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point). The point is that our prayers are dependent on God, not the size of our faith; Jesus is not issuing a promise that simply anything we ask for will be granted.
Fifth, elsewhere Jesus indicates that in some cases we will need to believe without doubting (Matt. 21:21; cf. James 1:6–7).
Sixth, the New Testament indicates that our individual dispositions can affect the outcome of our prayers in other ways, particularly with regard to whether we are living in a way pleasing to God (John 15:7; James. 4:3, 5:16; 1 Pet. 3:12; 1 John 3:22).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Unanswered Prayer

The earliest Christians believed the Eucharist is a true sacrifice  ✝️

<div class="page" title="Page 276">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 266
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Religion is intrinsically hostile to science.”
DEFENSE
This is a gross caricature that itself exhibits hostility to religion.
There have been conflicts involving science and religion (e.g., the Galileo affair, the Scopes Monkey Trial). There are religious individuals who are hostile to science, but there also are scientifically oriented individuals who are hostile to religion. Looking down on something as “unscientific” displays hostility in the same way dismissing it as “irreligious” does.
The supporters of both religion and science are flawed human beings who are sometimes unjustly hostile, but this does not make the two fields intrinsically hostile to each other.
Religion is a diverse phenomenon. When one thinks of all the different religions in the world, all the diversity of viewpoint and attitude that can exist within a single religion, and all of the scientists who belong to different religions, it is a gross caricature to assert that religion is somehow fundamentally opposed to science.
Christianity, in particular, understands God as a divine lawgiver who embedded certain laws in nature. These laws can be investigated by humans, and it has been argued that this understanding has played an important role in the rise of modern science, in which many Christian scientists were prominent.
Religion, science, and philosophy each ask fundamental questions about the world, and sometimes the areas investigated by the three disciplines overlap. However, this does not make the three disciplines intrinsically hostile to each other.
From a Christian point of view, all truth is God’s truth, and he is glorified when humans use their divinely given intellects to discover what God has done, regardless of which field makes the discovery.
The Catholic attitude toward science is expressed in the Catechism:
The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers (CCC 283).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Religion Hostile to Science?

A special Christmas Day episode of Focus with Catholic Answers President Christopher Check.

Christmas Day with President Chris Check

<div>So what if a fetus is alive and human? Every cell in my body is alive and human. Is every cell in my body a human being? Are sperm and eggs human beings too?</div><div>Sperm, egg, fetuses, and toddlers are all human in the adjective sense of the word, since they possess human DNA. Unlike sperm and egg, however, fetuses and toddlers are also human in the noun sense of the word. Specifically, they are human organisms, or individual members of the human species. But what do we mean when we say the unborn is an organism?
An organism is a collection of biological parts, or organs, that function together to sustain the existence of a whole being that possesses the qualities of life. If I can give a living thing time, nutrition, and a proper environment, and it is able to develop toward becoming a mature member of its species, then it is an organism and not a mere body part.
Because body cells such as skin, sperm, and egg can never—even given time, nutrition, and a proper environment—develop into an adult human, they are not organisms. In contrast, you and I are <a href="https://www.catholic.com/video/when-does-a-fetus-become-a-person-0">organisms</a>, because if we are given time, food, and the proper environment (i.e., not on the moon or at the bottom of the ocean), we will continue to develop into mature members of the human species.
Likewise, an unborn child, when given time, nutrition, and a proper environment (i.e., not outside the uterus) will develop into a mature human being if he does not die prematurely. Embryologist E.L. Potter points out, “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition” (Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 7).
The fact that some <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/an-embryo-is-a-living-being">embryos</a> and even other born children die before they become adult humans does not negate the fact that they are human beings. They still are human beings because they have the intrinsic capacity to develop into a mature human being even if their development is cut short.
</div>

So What if a Fetus is Alive and Human?

<div class="page" title="Page 55">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 45
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Why should we confess our sins to a priest? We should go to God directly.”
DEFENSE
We can and should ask God directly for forgiveness, but Scripture also reveals that it is his will—in some cases—that we approach his ministers in confession.
Prayer may be sufficient for the forgiveness of daily, venial sins, but Jesus indicated that some sins are more serious by instituting the sacrament of confession to deal with them.
After rising from the dead, he told the disciples, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” Then he breathed on them, and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are for- given; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21–23).
Previously, God had sent Jesus to forgive sins on earth (Matt. 9:6), and people glorified God “who had given such authority to men” (Matt. 9:8). Now Jesus shares this authority with his ministers.
Notice that he gives them the power to forgive or retain (not for- give) sins. The decision whether to forgive or retain a sin is serious, and Christ’s ministers must not make it in an uninformed manner. To perform their role, they need to be properly informed.
In particular, ministers need to know: (1) that we have committed a particular sin, and (2) that we are genuinely repentant. Since they have no way of knowing these things apart from our informing them, we are obliged to confess. Thus we have the sacrament of confession.
John 20:21–23 is also the background we need when reading the same author’s affirmation that, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
TIP
Historically, penance has been celebrated in different forms. Early in Church history, it was common for it to be celebrated publicly, with Christ’s minister presiding over the service. Such public confession is envisioned in the exhortation, “Therefore confess your sins to one another” (James 5:16), which is done in the presence of “the elders of the church” (James 5:14)—the elders being the priests. In Greek, “elder” is presbuteros, from which we get the English word “priest.”
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Confessing to a Priest

Pope Francis Died. What Happens Now?

<div>Can going to Mass on a weekday substitute for Sunday Mass?</div><div>No. Our obligation is to attend Mass on Sundays (or Saturday evening). If someone is unable to fulfill his Sunday obligation for valid reasons, then his obligation to attend is simply abrogated.
If someone has missed Mass due to laziness or some other illegitimate reason, then he cannot make up for missing his Sunday obligation by attending a weekday Mass.
</div>

Can I Attend a Weekday Instead of Sunday Mass?

<div class="page" title="Page 226">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 216
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Religion is inherently violent, producing countless wars.”
DEFENSE
This claim does not withstand scrutiny.
War is not unique to humanity. Other species—including ants, bees, and chimpanzees—wage war, understood as the organized, collective use of lethal violence against external enemies (such as for control of territory). Yet these species do not have religion. War’s roots are thus non-religious.
Religion is a human universal, and historically there have been no atheist societies. It is thus impossible to argue that non-religious societies were less violent than religious ones. The officially atheist societies that arose in the Communist world in the twentieth century were not more peaceful than others. They warred, exported revolution, and killed tens of millions of people, including their own citizens.
If religion predisposed people to violence, we should see this on the small scale, yet violent criminals don’t usually seem to be devout churchgoers.
Like non-religious viewpoints, religions have differing attitudes toward violence, ranging from advocating violence for a variety of causes to advocating it only in self-defense to thoroughgoing pacifism. One cannot tar all religious viewpoints with the same brush. If religion can inspire people to kill, it can also inspire them to refrain from killing (“You shall not kill,” Exod. 20:13; “Love your enemies,” Matt. 5:44).
Similarly, if lack of religious zealotry deprives one non-religious person of a motive to kill, another non-religious person may go on to slay because he is not constrained by religious values against killing.
Ultimately, religions don’t go to war. Governments do, and they usually must convince an ambivalent populace of their decision to do so. In this, they may use religion as a motivating factor (whether or not the religion of the enemies is different), but that doesn’t make religion the cause of war.
Often wars are fought when there is no difference in religion. In the bloodiest war in U.S. history—the Civil War—the North and the South had the same religion.
Most wars are not fought over religious goals such as converting, subjugating, or killing people because they have a different religion. Instead, they are fought over secular goals such as control of territory and resources, self-determination, defending national prestige, or seeking revenge for perceived wrongs.
TIP
For more, see the book The Myth of Religious Violence by William Cavanaugh.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Religion and War

Resurrection Debate Debrief

<div>Did Adam and Eve have sex in the garden that created original sin? My mom and aunt said this is what they learned in Catholic school in the 1940s and ’50s. They say "eating the apple" really meant they had sex. I say no. Please help. </div><div>You are right. According to the Fathers of the Church and St. Thomas, Adam and Eve did not have intercourse until after the fall. There are precise theological and moral reasons for this teaching, too complex to go into here. The original sin was an act of disobedience followed by Adam&#8217;s ignoble blaming of Eve for his sin. Whatever eating the fruit (it was not an apple that was depicted in Genesis) means, it does not mean having intercourse, because that is something God commanded them to do, not something he forbade them to do. The first sin was doing something forbidden, not doing something commanded. When you reflect on this you see how incoherent this opinion is.
</div>

Was Having Sex the Original Sin?

In this episode Trent appears as guest on a podcast for the Christian Research Institute and helps their mostly Protestant audience better understand the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Sharing Aquinas’s “Five Ways” with Protestants

The passage most associated with the Immaculate Conception is Luke 1:28-30, where Gabriel addresses Mary with the title (or proper name) of full of grace or highly favored one (Greek: Kécharitôméne). Kécharitôméne is the passive perfect participle form of the verb charitoo, expressing a completed action or definitive perfection. The verb’s root is charis, Greek for grace or favor. The full literal translation of Kécharitôméne would be oh, one who is completely graced or favored. It is followed by “You have found favor [Greek: charis, grace] with God.”
In the fourth century, Jerome translated Kécharitôméne as gratia plena—full of grace—since God had blessed Mary “in Christ with every spiritual blessing,” having chosen her and us in Christ “before the foundation of the world . . . [to] be holy and blameless [Latin: immaculati]” (Eph. 1:3-4).
If God fully favored or graced Mary, she needed to be free of sin, of any alienation from God. Mary is fully graced, as she is fully a virgin. Had she been “unvirginal” in any moment of her existence, then she would not be fully a virgin. Likewise, had Mary been disfavored (i.e., in sin) at any moment, then she would not have been fully graced by God or “filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:19).
Light is an image for grace. Being clothed with the sun indicates that Christ shared with Mary his glory, favor, and grace in God, just as he will with all Christians: “The righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:43), when we shall be full of grace. God did this with Mary in anticipation of the redemption, of her becoming the Mother of God. This fulfilled his promise: to pour out his Spirit upon his maidservants and handmaids—upon the handmaid of the Lord.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[i]</a> The Spirit both purified and filled Mary at her conception so she could be called full of grace and most blest of women. As Gregory Nazianzen (d. 390) explains:
<blockquote>He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermo 38.13).</blockquote>
Mary was more blessed, spiritually holy, clear, pure, and spotless than Lady Wisdom from the Old Testament (Wis. 7:23-24). God sought Mary—as he does every Christian—to be Christ’s pure bride (2 Cor. 11:2-3), just as Abraham sought a pure bride for his son Isaac (Gen. 24:3,37; 28:1-2): she must not be a daughter of Canaanites—of sinners descended from Cain. No, Christ’s bride must be immaculate: spiritually holy, spotless, without blemish or wrinkle (Eph. 5:25-27), just as every Christian must be washed clean of any stain so as to form the spotless bride. So it is impossible that Mary had any sin affecting her relationship with God.
God goes to great lengths to preserve women from defilement, prefiguring how God would preserve Mary from the spiritual defilement of sin.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[ii]</a> Sinful and defiled women are antithetical to Mary. Sin is linked to shame. We contract sin at conception and experience shame as we grow. Scripture praises Susanna, in the Book of Daniel, “because nothing shameful was found in her” (13:63). In fact, she freely faced death rather “than to sin in the sight of the Lord.” (v. 23). God vanquished the tempting adversaries of Mary, more blessed than Susanna. So describing Mary as immaculate, free from all sin, best fits Scripture.
Key to understanding the Immaculate Conception is how Scripture prefigures Mary in Eve. Exploring early Christian writings, John Henry Newman (d. 1890) noticed how God created both Adam and Eve fully graced and favored, with no stain of sin or shame. This meant their human nature could reflect God’s image and likeness perfectly. The New Adam typology suggests that the New Eve would also be fully graced and immaculate. In fact, God calls all of us, “before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless [Latin: immaculati] before him” (Eph. 1:3-4). Human nature doesn’t necessitate sin: God calls all to be immaculate, free from sin and its effects. So Mary could be.
As the Word of God and source of all grace (John 1:14-17), Christ was conceived in Mary without sin. Since he is eternally God, he is also eternally holy and without sin. This radically differs from Adam, Eve, and Mary, all of whom had the capacity to sin, whereas Christ did not. Although her immaculate conception differs from her son’s, Mary is more blessed than Eve, even before the Fall! “Blessed is the man [or the woman] to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit” (Ps. 32:2).
Justin Martyr (d. 165) compares Mary to the immaculate, undefiled virgin Eve (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 100). In Scripture, virginity affirms something beyond the physical: it represents freedom from sin. (Scripture does not say that every person who is sexually a virgin is free from sin or immaculately conceived. The Bible makes only a negative assertion: the loss of virginity is connected with sin and impurity.) Where there is sin, there is a loss of virginal love of God and a loss of the wholesome relationship with God the Father. As more blessed than Eve, Mary is more fully a virgin and free from sin; she is fully graced with a favorable relationship with her heavenly Father (Luke 1:28-30).
Ill favor is sin. For St. John, sin and virginity are mutually exclusive:
<blockquote>Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who . . . have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste . . . and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless (Rev. 14:1-5).</blockquote>
Adam and Eve lose this immaculate grace and shamelessness when they freely disobey God.<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3">[iii]</a> God curses Eve’s sin: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16). Eve, and all women stained with original sin, are cursed with birthing pain and menstrual and birthing bloods, associating these with sin and a need for purification.
As God puts enmity between the devil and the Messiah’s mother (Gen. 3:15), so Satan does not break through God’s protection of Mary. Pope John Paul II explains:
<blockquote>The absolute hostility put between the woman and the devil thus demands in Mary the Immaculate Conception, that is, a total absence of sin, from the very beginning of her life. The son of Mary won the definitive victory over Satan and enabled his mother to receive its benefits in advance by preserving her from sin. As a result, the son granted her the power to resist the devil, thus achieving in the mystery of the Immaculate Conception the most notable effect of his redeeming work . . . the beginning of a new order which is the result of friendship with God and which, as a consequence, entails a profound enmity between the serpent and men.</blockquote>
Mary is blessed because of her faith (Luke 1:41-45), and “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). So fullness of faith means fullness of sinlessness and grace. Christ’s mother is “a lily among brambles, so is my love among maidens” (Song of Sol. 2:2), oh, blessed among women!

What It Means to Be ‘Virgin of Virgins’

Let’s begin with a quick recap of this famous parable, whose name varies with the emphasis—the parable of the prodigal son, the parable of the two brothers, the parable of the loving father.
This is explicitly recounted in the Gospel as a parable, not a real story, so the Lord himself invites us into the multiple layers of symbolic meanings. Perhaps the first layer is the immediate dynamic among the righteous, sinners, and God. Much like the story of the prophet Jonah, where God rebukes the prophet for his elder brother-like whining, the point is that God’s mercy is his own prerogative, not some sort of calculation where we get to sit around and fret about who deserves it. Jesus tells this parable in the context of the scribes and Pharisees complaining about his mercy toward sinners, so it also contains a subtle nod to the Lord’s own divinity. As with so many of the parables, although there is a great deal to learn about ourselves, perhaps the larger and more important message has to do with God.
A second layer would be the relationship between the lost northern tribes of Israel—the prodigal son who wastes his inheritance—and the more faithful southern tribe of Judah, the elder brother of the parable. Here, too, the story says something about Jesus himself. By this point, many Samaritans—descendants of those less faithful northern tribes, scorned by the Judeans—had begun to follow Jesus, no doubt turning many heads, not just of the scribes and Pharisees.
A third layer is closely related to the second, and that is the relationship between Israel and the world—or the Gentiles. Most of the peoples of the earth, since the days of Noah and Abraham, had run away from their inheritance. But Israel had been preserved as a righteous and faithful remnant. At this point, Jesus is still largely preaching to the Jews, and we don’t really see clearly the full weight of his universality until Pentecost, but already he had a reputation of both consorting with Gentiles and implying through many of his other parables that the elder brother, the people of Israel, has squandered his inheritance. In other words, despite their outward fidelity to the law, their hearts were not at all different from those of the Gentiles. The elder brother in the parable, despite his outward respect for his father, reveals in the end that he is not so different on the inside.
We could perhaps go on, but I want to mention one final layer of meaning—this time less a straightforward allegory than a resonance with our first reading from the book of Joshua. The people of Israel had been wandering the wilderness for forty years as a punishment for their rebellion. Just before this scene, the people cross the Jordan into the promised land. Tradition sees this wandering as a sign of the wandering of human nature in this present life before we are finally able to enter the kingdom of heaven. Connect that as well, of course, with these forty days of Lent as we look to Easter. At this moment, hope becomes reality. The manna from heaven—always seen by the Church Fathers as a type of the Eucharist—gives way to the produce of the land itself, which is to say the beatific vision.
In the end, whereas we might identify more with the prodigal son or the elder brother at different moments in time, the thing that matters most about the parable is the love and mercy of the father. He represents a new kind of family, a new kind of economy, a new creation—that true and final promised land—where grace and mercy reign. And the catalyst ushering in that new world is his heartbreak and longing for communion with his sons.
The heartbreak and longing are critical. This isn’t some cold, calculating father who looks at his accounts again and says, “Well, son, it’s been a good year for me, so I guess I can afford to give you another chance.” He doesn’t worry about the cost. This is God’s love for us: a selfless choice to tie his life to ours. He knows that it will hurt, and he does it anyway
Peter Kreeft writes, “If you want to avoid suffering at all costs, then the stupidest thing you can possibly do is to love someone, to give your heart to someone, because it will certainly be broken, many times, in many ways.” There is a great mystery here, wrapped up in the mystery of the Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation, one that we can fully digest only when we cross the Jordan of this life. But we don’t have to understand everything about how this makes sense in terms of nature and theology and atonement to receive and grasp on some level the description of God’s character; as we say and as I often quote from our Prayer of Humble Access, our gracious Lord’s “property is always to have mercy.”
In other words, this is just who God is. It is just who Jesus is. We don’t have to understand it. We don’t even have to like it. At times we might be like the prodigal son, overwhelmed and confused at how the Father could possibly receive him back. At times we might be like the elder son, angry and envious, and also confused as to how all this works, unsure of whether his choices were in the end the right ones when the mercy seems so ridiculously free. But the father in this story, who is really more akin to the divine Son, stands at the crux of history, literally allowing his body to be beaten, his soul to be anguished, and his heart to be pierced because he would rather die a thousand deaths than see his brethren and children separated from him.
The old collect for today reminds us that though “for our evil deeds” we “do worthily deserve to be punished,” we can confidently ask God to be “mercifully relieved” by the comfort of his grace. Modern consciousness (and liturgy) shrinks back from that rather stark description of our plight, worrying that it makes God into some angry, punishing despot. But this is exactly opposite the point: God, despite all that we do, is more grieved than angry. The Sacred Heart isn’t bound by some kind of external law demanding punishment; God is rather bound to his own sovereign decision to give us freedom. He bears the cost of that decision himself in a way more infinite and total than any punishment we might ever imaginably bear in this life. He is not, in other words, standing around looking for ways to condemn us; we are quite capable of doing that for ourselves. He is rather always looking for ways to pardon us, to revive us, to restore us to the good.
This is the God who wants to share his life with us. Let us then leave the old world and go with him into the promised land.

Which of the Two Brothers Are You?

My father received last rites and went to confession. The priest said that if he were to die, he wouldn’t have to go to purgatory. Is this true?

What did it mean when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary?

What are legitimate reasons to not have kids?

What’s the Church’s official teaching on the Nephilim?

Do you have to believe in all doctrines of the Catholic Church in order to be appointed a priest or bishop?

1 Corinthians 4:6 says to “not go beyond what is written.” Is this evidence for sola scriptura?

&#8220;Can you avoid purgatory after last rites?&#8221; This episode explores the nuances of last rites and their implications for purgatory, alongside intriguing questions about the meaning of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, the Church&#8217;s teachings on the Nephilim, and the reasons for not having children. Tune in for a thoughtful examination of these important topics.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub">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>

Can You Avoid Purgatory After Last Rites? Nephilim and Mary

Why the Kansas Black Mass (satanism) shows Catholicism is true…

<div>Did members of the Nazarene sect believe in Jesus as God?</div><div>In the ancient Church, all the way until the Middle Ages, Nazarene was used to describe those Christian sects that maintained the observance of the Old Law but also accepted the divine Sonship of Christ, his Virgin Birth, and his Resurrection. It is clear that they all accepted that Jesus is the Son of God. Whether, given the imprecision of the formulations of earlier times, they professed his full equality with God the Father in the mystery of the Holy Trinity would be hard to establish.
In any case, the Fathers, including St. Augustine and St. Jerome, and of course the ever-vigilant St. Epiphanius, all are aware of this sect&#8217;s continued existence in Palestine and in Asia Minor. The word Nazarene is used now also of modern Christian denominations that flow originally from aspects of the Methodist movement. These have nothing to do with the Judaising traditions of the ancient Nazarenes. To this day Jews and Muslims tend to call Christians &#8220;Nazarenes&#8221; in Aramaic and in Arabic.
So the name has a certain renewed nobility in these past years since Islamists have killed so many Christians for their faith as &#8220;Nazarenes.&#8221;
</div>

Did Nazarenes Believe Jesus Was God?

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

The mystery of the Incarnation 👀

In light of the war between Israel and Palestine, accusations of anti-Semitism in the fight between Ben Shaprio and Candace Owens, and some of your own comments&#8230; how SHOULD Christians think of biblical Israel, the Jewish people, and the modern nation-state of Israel? What role, if any, does the Old Covenant play today? And is it heretical to speak of the Jewish people as still the &#8220;people of God&#8221; in any sense?

What Should Catholics Think About Israel and the Jews?

<div class="page" title="Page 138">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 128
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The resurrection of the dead is absurd. An ancient might believe that God could reanimate dead bodies, but after death our bodies are broken down into their constituent elements. Further, particles from one person’s body can end up in another person’s body.”
DEFENSE
Belief in the afterlife is a human universal. This is a sign that it exists. The question is what form it takes. God has revealed that the afterlife includes an eventual bodily resurrection. He has demonstrated this by raising Jesus from the dead (on the connection between Jesus’ Resurrection and ours, see 1 Cor. 15).
The idea that the ancients could believe in the resurrection of the dead because they were unsophisticated is chronological snobbery. They were as aware as we that the body decomposes into tiny particles. In the first book of the Bible, God proclaims to man: “You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19).
In Jesus’ day it was customary to entomb a body and then, once the flesh had rotted off the bones, to return, clean the bones, and place them in a container known as an ossuary. People were thus brought into immediate contact with the decay of their loved ones’ bodies. Nor were the ancients ignorant of the fact that—through cannibalism or less direct means—matter from one person’s body could end up in another’s. The medieval philosophers explored this question in detail.
The fundamental part of man that guarantees personal identity over time is the soul, which is the “form” of the body (CCC 365). How- ever, over the course of our lives, the matter that makes up our bodies changes dramatically.
The International Theological Commission notes: “The Church has never taught that the very same matter is required for the body to be said to be the same. But the cult of relics, whereby Christians profess that the bodies of the saints who were living members of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit must be raised and glorified by Christ, shows that the resurrection cannot be explained independently of the body that once lived” (Some Current Questions in Eschatology 1.2.5).
Christian theology thus holds that the resurrected body is connect- ed with the one that previously lived but not that it contains all the matter that was ever part of it in life.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Objections to the General Resurrection

4th Sunday of Advent, Year B 
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic word, we focus on two details in the Gospel reading for this upcoming 4th Sunday of Advent, which is taken from Luke 1:26-38. One of the two is read in tandem with the first reading, taken from 2 Samuel 7:1-5, 8b-12, 14a, 16. The apologetical topic that it relates to is Jesus’ Messiahship. The other detail deals with the Blessed Mother, particularly her perpetual virginity.
&nbsp;
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/122423.cfm">Click Here</a>
&nbsp;
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
&nbsp;
Hey everyone,
&nbsp;
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
&nbsp;
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
&nbsp;
In this episode, I’m going to focus on two details in the Gospel reading for this upcoming 4th Sunday of Advent, which is taken from Luke 1:26-38. One of the two is read in tandem with the first reading, taken from 2 Samuel 7:1-5, 8b-12, 14a, 16. The apologetical topic that it relates to is Jesus’ Messiahship. The other detail deals with the Blessed Mother, in particular her perpetual virginity.
&nbsp;
Let’s get started. Luke records,
&nbsp;
The angel Gabriel was sent from God
to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, 
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, 
of the house of David, 
and the virgin&#8217;s name was Mary. 
And coming to her, he said, 
&#8220;Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you.&#8221; 
But she was greatly troubled at what was said 
and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 
Then the angel said to her, 
&#8220;Do not be afraid, Mary, 
for you have found favor with God.
&#8220;Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, 
and you shall name him Jesus. 
He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, 
and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, 
and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, 
and of his kingdom there will be no end.&#8221; 
But Mary said to the angel, 
&#8220;How can this be, 
since I have no relations with a man?&#8221; 
And the angel said to her in reply, 
&#8220;The Holy Spirit will come upon you, 
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. 
Therefore the child to be born 
will be called holy, the Son of God. 
And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, 
has also conceived a son in her old age, 
and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; 
for nothing will be impossible for God.&#8221; 
Mary said, &#8220;Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. 
May it be done to me according to your word.&#8221; 
Then the angel departed from her.
&nbsp;
The first detail is Gabriel’s announcement that Jesus would sit on the throne of David and that his kingdom would have no end. This announcement can only be appreciated against the backdrop of a portion of the first reading, verses 11-14a, and verse 16:
&nbsp;
The LORD also reveals to you 
that he will establish a house for you. 
And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors, 
I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins, 
and I will make his kingdom firm. 
I will be a father to him, 
and he shall be a son to me. 
Your house and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; 
your throne shall stand firm forever.&#8221;
&nbsp;
Given this background, Gabriel is announcing that Jesus is the Messiah, and Luke believes it to be true. So, Jesus’ Messiahship is front and center for this upcoming Sunday’s Gospel.
&nbsp;
Now, there are a few details here that concern the Blessed Mother. One of them is Gabriel’s announcing Mary to be “full of grace.” This normally ties into Mary’s sinlessness. I’m going to pass over this detail in this episode. For a great treatment of this, I recommend Tim Staples’s Behold Your Mother.
&nbsp;
The detail concerning our Blessed Mother that I want to focus on here is Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel’s revelation that she would bear the Messiah. Mary says, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (KJV). In Scripture, the term know (Greek, gin ōskō) commonly refers to sexual relations (see Gen. 4:1; Matt. 1:25).
&nbsp;
The angel tells Mary she will conceive a child, but Mary is puzzled as to how that could possibly happen. Why would Mary inquire as to how she is going to conceive a child if she were in a normal, soon-to-be-consummated marriage with Joseph? Luke 1:27 has already told us that Mary was “betrothed” to Joseph.
&nbsp;
Her question suggests that she isn’t planning on a normal marriage. This is why Gabriel’s response explains the miraculous nature of the conception that will take place: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35).
&nbsp;
The idea of having a vow of virginity within marriage would not have been totally out of bounds for the ancient Jews. In Numbers 30 we find instructions given for a woman still living in her father’s house (vv.3-5)—a married woman (vv.6-8) and a widowed or divorced woman (v. 13)—concerning her oath to “afflict herself.” According to Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom, this is an idiom among ancient Jews that refers to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[i]</a>  And as the context bears out, in the case of the married woman her vow remained if the husband did not object.
&nbsp;
So, if Mary had made such a vow after their betrothal, and Joseph didn’t object, then the instructions in Numbers chapter thirty would provide a historical basis for such a situation. And even if Mary made the vow before betrothal, the instructions would still provide a historical context that would make her vow intelligible.
&nbsp;
Now, as I point out in my book Meeting the Protestant Response, Protestant James White offers a counter to this reading. He argues that the angel was “speaking about an immediate conception,”<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[ii]</a> and therefore Mary’s response has to do with her being a virgin at the time Gabriel announces to her that she is to bear the Messiah. To quote Ron Rhodes, her response basically amounts to, “I am a virgin, and my upcoming marriage will not take place for close to a year. So how will this pregnancy you speak of come to fruition?”<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3">[iii]</a>
&nbsp;
White gives two reasons for his claim. First, he says Mary was “only engaged to Joseph, but not married.” From this he infers that “at that time [Mary] could not possibly conceive in a natural manner, since she did not ‘know a man.’” He thinks that’s what prompts Mary’s question.
&nbsp;
White’s second reason is “the present tense, ‘I do not know a man.’” For White, if Mary had a vow of perpetual virginity, she would have said, “I have pledged never to know a man,” or “I will never know a man.” Since Mary doesn’t say such things, White again concludes she must be thinking of not conceiving a child at that time.
&nbsp;
As I show in my book, we can refute each of the reasons behind this argument. Let’s take first the claim that Mary was “only engaged to Joseph, but not married.” This simply is not true.
&nbsp;
Consider, for example, Matthew 1:18. There Matthew writes, “When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew uses the same Greek word for “betrothed” (mnēsteuō) as Luke does in Luke 1:27, right before Gabriel makes the announcement to Mary.
&nbsp;
For Matthew, this “betrothal” was a real marriage. Immediately after, in verse 19, Matthew tells us Joseph sought to divorce Mary quietly. Why would Joseph seek to divorce her if they were not legally married? Couldn’t he just leave her with no qualms about it?
&nbsp;
Furthermore, in verse 19, for example, Matthew refers to Joseph as Mary’s “husband” (Greek, anēr). Anēr also means “man,” but the context concerning Joseph’s contemplation of divorce confirms its marital sense. Then in verse 20, Matthew quotes the angel: “Do not fear to take Mary your wife (Greek, gunē<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4">[iv]</a>).”
&nbsp;
Now, some translations (ESV, NIV, NLV) translate verse 20 as “take Mary as your wife,” allowing for the meaning that Mary is not Joseph’s wife yet. But this directly contradicts verse 19 where Joseph is said to be Mary’s “husband,” a translation that both the ESV and NIV agree on. The NLV (The New Living Translation), however, renders verse 19 as “Joseph, to whom she was engaged.” But this is clearly an interpolation, since, as mentioned above, the Greek word for husband, anēr, is used to describe Joseph, and it’s within the context of Joseph contemplating divorce. Joseph is Mary’s “husband.” Mary is Joseph’s “wife.” That’s language of a real and legally binding marriage.
&nbsp;
The point of Matthew’s narrative is that Mary was found to be with child during the interim period between vows and consummation. It was customary in ancient Israel that a man and woman would become legally married, the husband would go off to prepare a place for his bride, and then come back to take his wife to begin their life together in one household, at which point consummation would occur. It’s this interim period that both Matthew and Luke describe as “betrothal” (mnēsteuō).
&nbsp;
Now that we have shown that Mary was legally married to Joseph at the time of the Annunciation, the significance of her question, “How shall this be?” comes into greater focus. Apologist Tim Staples explains the significance this way:
&nbsp;
Think about it: If you were a woman who had a ratified marriage and someone at your reception said— or “prophesied”— that you were going to have a baby, that would not really be all that much of a surprise. That is the normal course of events. You marry, consummate the union, and babies come along. You certainly would not ask the question, “Gee, how is this going to happen?” Mary never doubted; she simply asked a very valid question. She believed the message of the angel— that she was going to have a baby— but she did not know how it was going to happen. If she had been betrothed in the normal course, she would know precisely how it would happen because St. Joseph would have had a right to the marriage bed. Her question indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events in her future with her husband.<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5">[v]</a>
&nbsp;
What about the second point, regarding the present tense of know?
&nbsp;
One response is that although Mary’s statement, “I do not know man,” is in the Greek present tense, it’s a present tense that indicates an ongoing or permanent state of affairs (known as the habitual present).<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6">[vi]</a> On this reading, Mary’s statement that she does not know man would suggest that she expects to remain a virgin on an ongoing basis. So, rather than the present tense undermining an appeal to this verse for support of Mary’s perpetual virginity, it converges with it.
&nbsp;
A second response is that the only way it would have entered into Mary’s mind that the angel was speaking of an immediate conception is if the angel indicated she was to conceive immediately, or at least before she and Joseph consummated the marriage. But there’s no such evidence. In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction. The angel places everything he says prior to Mary’s response (and even after) in the future:
&nbsp;
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:31-33).
&nbsp;
It would be strange for Mary to think the angel was referring to an immediate conception when the future tense is used seven times and there’s no revelation yet as to the supernatural nature of the conception. Mary would have every reason to think the angel was thinking of a regular conception that would occur after the consummation of her marriage with Joseph. The supernatural character of the conception doesn’t come until after she queries, “How shall this be?”
&nbsp;
Even if Mary’s statement, “I do not know man,” referred to her not knowing man during the interim period between the vows and consummation, still her question as to how she’s going to conceive a child wouldn’t make sense, given the fact that in normal circumstances, she would eventually consummate the marriage, after which a child would be conceived.
&nbsp;
In the end, the Protestant who denies Mary’s perpetual virginity is forced to read into the text something that is not there—namely, that Gabriel indicated an immediate conception (that is, one before she and Joseph begin living together as husband and wife). This is not stated by the text. You’d have to go beyond what the text says for this argument to work.
&nbsp;
Well, my friends, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year B, equip us for the topic of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
&nbsp;
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.com.
&nbsp;
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
&nbsp;
I hope you have a blessed Fourth Sunday of Advent. Until next time, God Bless!
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
<a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[i]</a> See Jacob Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. Brant Pitre, “A Biblical Basis for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity,” March 13, 2008, <a href="http://www.the">www.the</a>sacredpage.com.
<a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2">[ii]</a> James White, Mary—Another Redeemer? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), Chap. 3, Electronic Edition.
<a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3">[iii]</a> Rhodes, Reasoning with Catholics from the Scriptures, 297.
<a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4">[iv]</a> Gune also means simply “woman,” but like marital context indicates “wife” as the appropriate translation.
<a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5">[v]</a> Tim Staples, Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines (El Cajon, CA: Catholic Answers Press, 2014), 134-135.
<a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6">[vi]</a> See Daniel B. Wallace, 521–522; cf. Manual Miguens, The Virgin Birth, an Evaluation of the Scriptural Evidence (Westminster, MD, 1975), 81; William H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. I (Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1985), 310.

Biblical Evidence for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

In the gallery of canceled Catholics, pride of place is given to Marie Antoinette (1755-1793), queen of France. There is perhaps no other Catholic in history who was maligned just as much during her life as she was after her death.
Marie’s main crime was that she was not born in France. Despite her deep love for her adopted homeland, she was treated as a foreigner and reviled in the most grotesque manner in the Parisian media.
Perhaps the most damning propaganda against Marie specifically and the monarchy in general was the “Affair of the Diamond Necklace” in 1785. Years before, the aged King Louis XV had ordered Charles August Böhmer, a Swiss jeweler, to make an elaborate and exceptionally expensive necklace, consisting of 647 diamonds of 2,800 carats, worth 1.6 million livres ($25 million today).<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> The old king died before the necklace was completed, which left the Swiss jeweler distraught (and in debt). Louis XVI offered to purchase the necklace for Marie to give as a future wedding gift to their daughter, but Marie refused and said the money should be used instead to construct a warship. Böhmer demanded that the queen buy the piece, or he would commit suicide. Marie did not give in to the jeweler’s hysterics and suggested he break the necklace into smaller pieces in order to expedite its sale.
At this stage, the saga turned bizarre, with the introduction of a “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Citizens-Chronicle-Revolution-Simon-Schama/dp/0679726101">cast of characters</a>” who “seemed perfect symbols of a regime worm-eaten with corruption” (205). The archbishop of Strasbourg, Cardinal Louis de Rohan, a gullible man desirous of the queen’s attention and favoritism, thrust himself into the story by offering to buy the necklace. The cardinal told Böhmer that the queen now wanted the piece and that he had been sent to acquire it for her. De Rohan had been convinced by Jeanne de La Motte, a charlatan, who hired an actress to portray the queen in an elaborate nighttime skit, where Marie supposedly told the cardinal she wanted the necklace. Additionally, de La Motte hired a forger to craft a letter from the queen to de Rohan about the necklace. Both duplicitous actions persuaded the cardinal that Marie needed him to acquire the precious piece.
Ultimately, Böhmer gave the necklace to de La Motte, acting on behalf of the cardinal, who then fled to England and sold it. When the jeweler came to Versailles to demand payment, the plot was discovered, and de Rohan was publicly arrested as he processed to the Royal Chapel to celebrate Mass. King Louis XVI was irate and ordered the cardinal imprisoned in the Bastille. Eventually, the duped cleric was tried by the Paris Parlement but, to the surprise of Louis and Marie, found not guilty and acquitted.
The public, kept abreast of the affair by press reports during the trial, blamed the queen for the entire episode. Opponents of Marie Antoinette used the “Affair of the Diamond Necklace” to transform public opinion against her so that she was seen by the people of France, both nobles and commoners alike, not as the beloved queen but as the “Austrian whore” who was concerned only about riches and ostentatious pieces of jewelry. Not only was the sordid affair a stain on Marie’s reputation, but it seriously damaged the legitimacy of the monarchy and the Church in popular opinion, as one councilor of the Paris Parlement <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/214913.Marie_Antoinette">remarked</a> that the situation was a “nice little smear of dirt on both crown and crozier” (83)
Propaganda directed against the queen during her lifetime manifested into later myths about her concern for the French people suffering during the height of the financial crisis in the 1780s. The secular historical attack continues to posit <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/5-myths-about-the-french-revolution/2015/07/09/6f27c6f0-25af-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html">the myth</a> that Marie, when told about the plight of her French subjects, callously remarked, “Let them eat cake.” The phrase itself is poorly translated from the French, which includes the word brioche rather than gâteau (cake). Brioche was a pastry made with flour enriched with eggs and butter and thus more expensive than ordinary bread.
But the difference between brioche and bread must be seen for the distraction that it is. The infamous quote remains fixed in the modern mind about Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI despite the fact the queen never uttered it. The insensitive remark was never attributed to her during her lifetime or the French Revolution. Post-Revolution secular historians used the false quote to portray a corrupt, evil, and morally decadent monarchy linked with the Church to preclude a return of the crown.
The phrase first appears in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions, which was published in 1769, a year before Marie ever set foot in France. It is possible that the quote originated with Maria Theresa of Spain (1638-1683), the first wife of Louis XIV, who died seventy-two years before Marie Antoinette was born!
The truth is that the queen was very concerned with the health and well-being of her adopted subjects and established soup kitchens in Paris to feed the hungry during the difficult financial times in France. But the propaganda against the queen created a negative environment toward the monarchy so that when the kingdom was beset by severe financial problems in the late 1780s, people turned against Louis and Marie and viewed the Church and its wealth as a means to end the national suffering.
It is difficult to find a more perfect example of the Catholic scapegoat than Marie Antoinette. “To the memory of no other woman, and few of either sex, has the verdict of her time and of history been so <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Against-Christendom-History-Vol/dp/0931888808">unjustly and vindictively destructive</a>” (117).
For more profiles of good Catholics done dirty by secular history, buy Canceled, available in the Catholic Answers <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/canceled-twelve-catholic-heroes-that-history-turned-into-villains/?searchid=9188990&amp;search_query=canceled">shop</a>.

Marie Antoinette and the Diamond Necklace

Is the Bible &#8220;self-attesting&#8221;? In other words, can we tell which books belong in the Bible from the Bible itself, or do we need the Church? Protestant Reformers like John Calvin argued we only needed the Bible (and the &#8220;internal witness&#8221; of the Holy Spirit). Here&#8217;s why they&#8217;re wrong.

Is the Bible “Self-Attesting,” or Do We Need the Church?

Which Gospel Was Written First

Why is the True Presence of Jesus Absent in Protestant Communion?

<div>Is it possible for a parent to undo a godparent for a child? </div><div>Classically, the godparent-godchild relationship was ended if the two married each other, or if one or both entered the clerical or religious state, although even these cases were not universal but more regional and cultural. The godparent-godchild relationship gave rise to what was understood as a &#8220;spiritual affinity&#8221; that was incompatible with sexual relations on the one hand or celibacy on the other. Thus, in the previous discipline there had to be a dispensation for a godchild and godparent to marry, and clerics and religious were generally not allowed to function as godparents.
Nowadays in the West, the obligations of this role are not as great as they were in previous times. Current discipline does not provide for ceasing to be a godparent or godchild. So it would seem that this would be left up to the will of the persons involved. Of course, this would be a horrible thing, akin to a father&#8217;s saying to his son, &#8220;I am no longer your father, &#8221; or a son&#8217;s saying, &#8220;I am no longer your son.&#8221; It would seem also that loss of the Catholic faith would also remove a godparent from his role, since one who does not have the Catholic faith would ordinarily not strive to protect the Catholic faith of another. But even this is not strictly the case.
</div>

Can the Godparent Role Be Rescinded?

In this video, Cy Kellett and apologist Tim Staples sit down with rising Catholic creator Adrian Lawson from Sips with Serra. Adrian shares how Tim played a key role in his conversion to the Catholic Church—and how he’s now helping lead the next generation to the faith through online evangelization.
Transcript:
Cy: Adrian from Sips with Serra, thank you very much for being here with us!
Adrian: Thank you for having me. Thank you for clearing up how to say the name. I often get Sips with Sierra, so I appreciate you saying that.
Cy: Oh, yes, right. My father is a longtime member of the Sarah Club. They pray for vocations. And he said, people always think it&#8217;s the Sierra Club, but no. Well, we&#8217;re delighted to have you here. You yourself are a convert to the Catholic faith?
Adrian: Yes. Coming up this Easter will be one year since I have been a confirmed Catholic.
Cy: Oh, congratulations. God bless you!
Adrian: Thank you.
Cy: Tell us a little bit about that. How did that happen that you came into the Catholic Church?
Adrian: Well, it&#8217;s quite a long story with some false starts and some runaround. But in short, I was going to an evangelical church, which is kind of the tradition I grew up in. Fell away when I went into atheism, came back to Protestantism, started to learn about the early church and realized, hey, they have some beliefs that really don&#8217;t line up with what my church is teaching, particularly about the Eucharist and Baptism. And that led me to look into more traditional forms of Christianity. Catholicism was obviously high on that list. And then some family scared me out of it. I was about to join RCIA. Some family scared me out of it. So I thought, like-
Cy: Like with a shotgun? What kind of family do you come from? How are they scaring you out of it?
Adrian: There were just some strong words. No weapons.
Cy: Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Catholics are pagans or Catholics are idol worshipers or what kind of thing?
Adrian: Yeah, they worship Mary. Idol worshipers. You won&#8217;t really be a real Christian, so on and so forth. You&#8217;ll go to hell. Thankfully, those same family members have now come around a little bit more to Catholicism. Not in the sense that they&#8217;re going to convert, but in the sense that they&#8217;re more accepting. And I&#8217;m very grateful for that.
Cy: You don&#8217;t know We can hope life is long. You don&#8217;t know. But at some point, despite the fear, you turned towards the Catholic Church. What happened?
Adrian: Yeah, so after spending two years in the Lutheran tradition, I just kept feeling this tug towards Catholicism. And a lot of it had to do with some of the work you guys are doing. A ton of it had to do with you guys, actually, especially Tim Staples. I was reading *Behold Your Mother* at that time. He got me, and I talked about this. I talked about this recently on another channel, but I read a couple of chapters of that book, and I was like, I don&#8217;t need to finish this. Everything the church says about Mary is probably true. I don&#8217;t even need to finish this. I&#8217;m so convinced because it was just so well reasoned. Whereas before I thought they just made this stuff up. They don&#8217;t know what they&#8217;re talking about. And then just seeing how well reasoned just the first few chapters were, I was like, oh, this stuff is actually pretty well founded. Very well founded in scripture and in the early church. So from there it was just a matter of time until I became a Catholic.
Cy: So tell us about your channel, Sips with Serra. People can get you on YouTube. You&#8217;re posting all the time there on YouTube. So tell us about what you do there and how that came about.
Adrian: Yeah, so I actually. So what I do there is just Catholic apologetics, but I generally just talk about topics that are interesting to me, topics that are commonly misunderstood about Catholicism. And really the way this started was I was actually on TikTok a couple of years before I became a Catholic, and I was actually doing Protestant apologetics on that channel or on that TikTok account. And then I became a Catholic. I took some time off of TikTok because I thought maybe I should just keep my mouth shut if I&#8217;m not really sure what I believe at this moment. Came back to TikTok after becoming a Catholic or soon before I became confirmed. And then I just felt like, you know, a lot of these topics need to be kind of fleshed out in more detail in longer form videos. So I brought it over to YouTube and saw pretty quick success with it. So I&#8217;ve been dedicating basically all of my time into it now.
Cy: So who&#8217;s your audience? Is it Catholics or people who are considering the Catholic Church? People who disagree with you, agree with you. What is it?
Adrian: I get a lot of converts and a lot of people who are currently in OCIA on their way into the church.
Cy: Oh, wonderful. And so their path is similar to your path.
Adrian: Yeah. In fact, just last night I was talking to one of the guys who&#8217;s a big supporter of the channel, and he had basically the same story as me. Grew up Protestant, became an atheist, came back to the faith, but was not really comfortable with Protestantism because he felt like something was missing there. We have a very similar path. So a lot of the people that I&#8217;ve encountered through the channel have that same story.
Cy: So what are you working on now? Like, what kind of topics are you working on now?
Adrian: Oh, man, I talk about a lot of different things. I mean, any given week I&#8217;ll be covering a couple of different subjects. Lately I&#8217;ve been getting into the authority of the church, which is one of the main things that attracted me to the Catholic Church at first because, yeah, I know it puts a lot of people off, especially in an American context, to say I have to submit. I don&#8217;t really like that, but for me it just made sense. You know, I was, at the time, I was in a Lutheran church and I had bounced around a couple of different Lutheran churches because some of them were just not very faithful. Some of them were doing basically open communion, which even Lutheranism is just not cool with. And I just felt like if there was a church authority that could just, you know, say, hey, stop doing that. If you want to continue to be a valid church, that type of authority makes a lot of sense. So just seeing the practical benefits of having a church structure the way that the Catholic Church has really made that a much stronger case to me.
Cy: Would you like to be Tim Staples someday? Like, learn all that he has learned and make a profession out of it?
Tim: Say no! No, you don&#8217;t want to be.
Adrian: I could only hope. I could only hope.
Cy: But is that something that&#8217;s of interest to you? Like, would you like to pursue this as a professional path?
Adrian: Yes. Yes. In fact, I don&#8217;t, I don&#8217;t. Not to like make a whole sob story or whatever, but I got laid off of my job recently, which is happening a lot right now, unfortunately to a lot of people. But because of that, I&#8217;m treating this. I&#8217;m like, okay, this is my full-time job now. So that&#8217;s kind of, that is the goal.
Caller: God bless you. Wonderful. Wonderful.
Tim: I have a very important question. Did you finish my book?
Cy: No. He said he didn&#8217;t have to.
Adrian: I didn&#8217;t, I didn&#8217;t finish.
Cy: What?
Adrian: I gotta be honest.
Cy: You need to finish that book. What are you talking about?
Tim: No, you know,
Adrian: It&#8217;s such a good book.
Tim: It&#8217;s really cool though, that you&#8217;re sharing as you are, because you do hear this side from converts. The authority of the church is really the linchpin for so many folks. I know for me, I can remember getting to the point where I saw it and it was like, man, it ought to be true if it&#8217;s not. But I had so many other questions that I just couldn&#8217;t buy it yet. And so I had to deal then with the individual issues, you know, works and sacraments and Mary and the rest. Was that similar for you?
Adrian: Yeah, although for me, it was Mary was the first. I guess the Eucharist, baptism, and Mary were like the first three things that I came to accept. And then from there I accepted the church&#8217;s authority. And I think the last thing that clicked for me was the papacy itself. So, yeah, that was not the same exact trajectory as you, but it was a domino effect.
Tim: Right, got it.
Cy: You know, Tim and I, a lot of gray hair between the two of us. I mean, a lot. And a lot of product making holding it all together, but. So you got no gray hairs yet. What do you find works with? I assume that you have a younger audience. I think that&#8217;s fantastic. They&#8217;ve been through a lot. People your age. You&#8217;re what, early 30s, right? So people your age have been through a lot. They&#8217;ve been through the pandemic. They grew up with the war on terror. You were little kids when the World Trade Center, as far as Christianity goes, scandals and upsets and frankly, a kind of the rise of the social media world, all of that is what your generation went through. What do they need to come to Christ and to his church?
Tim: Yeah.
Adrian: Oof. That&#8217;s a big question. I mean, I think a lot of what people my age are fed up with nowadays is the age of, or the philosophy of relativism that we kind of grew up in, where everybody&#8217;s opinion is valid. And that&#8217;s your truth, and this is my truth and that whole thing. And we&#8217;ve seen how that&#8217;s resulted in a lot of different strange things happening in society today. But I think a lot of people my age are kind of tired of that, and they&#8217;re looking for what is something solid I can stand on, what is something solid I can base my life off of, rather than just living in this kind of vacuum of purposelessness where there&#8217;s no sense of objective truth. I think people are looking for something that is opposite of what they grew up with, and that&#8217;s obviously very easily found in the Catholic Church.
Cy: What a beautiful answer and what a beautiful work you&#8217;ve undertaken, Adrian. We&#8217;re really grateful that you took the time with us.
Adrian: Thank you so much.
Tim: And next time you come back, I&#8217;ll be asking if you finished my book.
Adrian: So I have to do it now?
Tim: That&#8217;s right, you do.
Cy: You do have to finish the book. It took him long enough to finish it. Now you should finish it.

From Protestant to Online Catholic Evangelist, Sips With Serra | Creators in Focus

Christmas Questions (Encore)

The Lord&#8217;s Prayer or &#8220;Our Father,&#8221; is the most famous prayer in Christian, given to us by Jesus himself. But did you know that there&#8217;s a deeply Catholic meaning to this prayer, in what it reveals about formal prayer, about the Church, about the Eucharist, and about the impossibility of &#8220;salvation by faith alone&#8221;?

4 Surprising Catholic Implications of the “Our Father”

Many Protestants object to praying to Mary and the Saints because they think (1) it&#8217;s impossible to reach them (are they even conscious in Heaven?); (2) they can&#8217;t hear all of our prayers, in various languages, simultaneously; and (3) it&#8217;s sinful to try to reach them (how is this any different than a Ouija board?). These objections are reasonable enough&#8230; but they&#8217;re all wrong. Here&#8217;s why.

Proving that the Saints in Heaven Hear Our Prayers

Christians who believe that Mary is the mother of God often employ a three-step argument that runs as follows:
P1: Mary is the mother of Jesus.
P2: Jesus is God.
C: Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
It’s as simple as that, right? Some Protestants say, “Not quite!”
In his <a href="https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/there-is-a-logical-fallacy-in-the-argument-that-mary-is-the-mother-of-god/">article</a>, “There is a logical fallacy in the argument that Mary is the mother of God,” Protestant apologist Matt Slick argues that the above argument involves the fallacy of equivocation, which is when a word, or words, changes meaning within an argument.
Which word does Slick think is being used with different meanings? God. He writes,
<blockquote>When we say that Jesus is God, we are affirming that Jesus has a divine nature as well as a human nature. Therefore, the word “God” here must refer to the divine nature, the divine essence.</blockquote>
Slick then asks how Catholics are using the term God in the conclusion:
<blockquote>In what sense is the term “God” used here? Does it mean God in the divine essence? . . . In what sense is the word “mother” used here? Does it mean that she is the mother of the divine nature?</blockquote>
Slick rightfully infers that “God” cannot be used to refer to the divine nature, since that would entail Mary being prior to the divine nature, which is absurd. We might even bolster Slick’s reasoning and say that mothers aren’t mothers of natures, but rather mothers of persons, and that the idea that Mary is the mother of the divine nature isn’t even what the dogma entails.
Slick is left to ask, “So, how is [God] meant?” Given the ambiguity, he concludes, “The lack of clarity is the problem.”
To strengthen Slick’s argument, it’s not merely a lack of clarity that is the problem, but the seeming switch in meaning of the term God. Given that the term can’t mean the divine nature in the conclusion, per Slick’s reasoning above (and ours), the conclusion must switch the meaning from the divine nature, as applied to Jesus in premise two, to something else, thereby committing the fallacy of equivocation.
So what might we say in response?
Well, Slick misses the mark when he thinks the term God in premise two is being used in reference to the divine nature. Maybe that’s how Christians use the term in other contexts, when speaking of Jesus’ divinity. But that’s not how it’s being used in this context, when arguing for Mary as the mother of God.
Indulge me for a moment!
Slick is right in thinking the term God can be and is used to refer to the divine nature, which just is the divine reality itself, or the divine being itself—ipsum esse subsistens (subsistent being itself), which all three persons are identical to.
Where Slick goes wrong, however, is to think that God is used solely in reference to the divine nature, or at least to think that’s how defenders of the Mother of God are using it in the above argument.
But the term God can also be used in a personal sense—that’s to say, it can be used to refer to the person to whom we offer prayers, adoration, and worship, the personal agent who brings about certain created effects, and the person who stands in a certain relation to the other persons in the Trinity. In this sense, God can be ascribed individually to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
The reason is that all three persons are identical to the divine being. So the term God, which initially refers to the divine nature, is transferred over to refer to the persons of the Trinity to signify that they are all divine, given that they all are identical to the divine nature.
For example, Jesus says of the Father, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17). Thomas says of Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me” (John 20:28). When speaking of the Holy Spirit who gives a variety of gifts, such as knowledge, prophecy, tongues, miracles, etc. (vv. 7-11), Paul says, “It is the same God who inspires them all in everyone” (1 Cor. 12:6).
So God can be used to refer to a specific person of the Trinity without rigidly identifying the divine nature itself.
Keep in mind, however, that for some things, we must use God in reference only to the Divine Son, such as “God” suffered, “God” laughed, “God” died, and “God” was born (see Gal. 4:4). This is so because only the Divine Son took upon himself a human nature.
So, in our argument above, when we say, “Jesus is God,” God is being used specifically to refer to the Second Person of the Trinity, the Divine Son, such that the statement “Jesus is God” means “Jesus is the Divine Son.”
Consequently, in our conclusion, “Mary is the mother of God,” God is used specifically to refer to the Second Person of the Trinity, the Divine Son, such that the statement “Mary is the mother of God” means “Mary is the mother of the Divine Son.”
And since we’ve already established that it’s appropriate to ascribe the term God to the Divine Son in a personal sense, it’s appropriate to call Mary the mother of God, since she is the mother of the Divine Son, Jesus.
I think we can all learn a lesson from Slick’s challenge. First, we need to be careful to clarify the meaning of our terms when we run our argument, lest there be confusion. Secondly, we need to be careful to discern precisely how a term is being used by a community in an argument before we critique it.
Of course, these are lessons not just for arguments defending Mary, the mother of God, but also for any and all arguments. Let’s not let this opportunity to grow as apologists pass us by.