Manage Account

<div class="page" title="Page 252">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 242
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“We shouldn’t believe anything that can’t be verified by science.”
DEFENSE
Authentic science does not maintain this.
Science involves the use of a particular method (i.e., “scientific method”), the principal steps of which are:
<ol>
<li>Observing some aspect of the world</li>
<li>Formulating hypotheses to explain the observed data</li>
<li>Making predictions about further observations based on the hypotheses</li>
<li>Performing experiments to test the predictions (particularly by trying to falsify them).</li>
</ol>
This general method has proved useful for investigating many subjects, but, as we cover elsewhere (see Day 333), there are limits to what can be investigated by science.
Sometimes the reason is practical, as when an experiment cannot be performed without affecting the behavior of the phenomenon to be observed. This situation is frequently encountered in studying the behavior of subatomic particles, leading to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (according to which we cannot measure both the position and the momentum of a particle).
Other times the limit is due to a matter of principle. Science—like every other field—cannot get off the ground without using truths of logic that are fundamental to all reasoning. Yet these principles cannot be verified by the scientific method. Instead, they are assumed.
Science also presupposes other principles that it cannot demonstrate, such as the lawlike behavior of natural phenomena and the extension of those laws into the past and future. It also must assume that the data that has been observed is representative of the way things are and not just a misleading set of fluke observations. Repeating experiments to gain more data is good, but the new experiments also could involve fluke observations, so there must remain an assumption that the observed data is representative of the way things really are.
Most fundamentally, the claim that we should not accept anything that cannot be verified by science does not meet its own test. In view of the limits of science we have covered, the hypothesis proposed in the challenge does not fit the observed data. It is a bad hypothesis and therefore something that authentic science does not support. Authentic science recognizes its own limits and does not claim to be the single tool needed to prove every type of proposition.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Nothing but Science?

The Demonic Case for Catholicism

Recently, CBS News <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/u-s-baptisms-gen-z-faith/">reported</a> on what it called “the world’s largest synchronized water baptism,” an event named Baptize America. Participants from some 650 churches nationwide gathered throughout the country for the occasion, with an estimated 30,000 people baptized in a single day. The report focused in particular on baptisms taking place in Southern California and situated the event within a broader spiritual surge among Gen Z—especially Gen Z men—who are seeking deeper meaning in Christian faith.
As someone who recently <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/baptism-now-saves-you/?searchid=10373797&amp;search_query=baptism+now+saves+you">wrote a book</a> on the subject, I found several aspects of the report worth reflecting on, especially the remarks made by Pastor Mark Francey of Oceans Church in Orange County, who was interviewed during the segment.
When asked about the inspiration behind the event, Francey explained, “[We want to] respond to the Great Commission in Matthew 28, which is to go into all the world to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them.”
To that, we Catholics can only say a hearty “Amen!” Whatever differences exist among Christians regarding baptism’s meaning and effects, the fact remains that all who baptize do so in obedience to Christ’s command. This is why the Catholic Church recognizes baptisms performed in other Christian communities as valid—provided they use the proper form and matter—even when their theology of baptism differs from ours. The essential intention to “do what Christ commanded” is enough.
But this raises an important question: what did Francey think was actually happening for those baptized on that sunny California day?
At first glance, his words seem to suggest something more than mere symbolism. When asked about the significance of water baptism, he said, “Water baptism is identifying in the death, the burial, in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This language echoes Romans 6:3-4, where St. Paul teaches,
<blockquote>We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.</blockquote>
One might take the pastor’s allusion to this text as an affirmation of baptism’s interior, transformative power, since Paul goes on to say that through baptism we are “justified” (Gk., dikaioō) from sin and set free from its slavery (Rom 6:7, 17-18).
But Francey’s choice of words is ambiguous. To “identify” with Christ’s death and resurrection could mean no more than participating in a symbolic ritual of immersion. Or it could mean that baptism effects a real, grace-filled union with Christ’s saving work. His meaning is left unclear.
The ambiguity continues when the reporter, Lisa Ling, asks, “How does baptism change people’s lives?” Francey responds, “The Holy Spirit changes people’s lives.”
True enough. As Jesus teaches in John 3:5, new birth comes “by water and Spirit.” But the pastor’s response again leaves us wondering: did he mean that the Holy Spirit works through baptism or independently of it, with baptism functioning merely as a sign?
Our Lord is far clearer than this. In John 3:5, he insists that both water and Spirit constitute the new birth. The material element is not excluded simply because the rebirth is spiritual. Christ himself frequently joins the spiritual and the material: his words are “spirit and life” (John 6:63), yet they reach us through the material sounds of human speech. Likewise, the spiritual gift of baptismal regeneration is communicated through the material element of water.
The CBS segment also highlighted the testimony of twenty-year-old Reagan Heslin, who described a conversion to Christ that began well before his baptism. He had repented of sin and started attending church long before being immersed in the Pacific Ocean. Does this prove that he was already regenerated, and that baptism only confirmed it?
Not necessarily. As I explain in my book, what some interpret as signs of regeneration may in fact be signs of what theologians call imperfect faith—faith not yet enlivened by charity. Acts 10:2-4 describes Cornelius as a man who feared God and prayed regularly before the Holy Spirit descended upon him (Acts 10:47-48).
Moreover, Christians who hold to “once saved, always saved” should be cautious about appealing to external signs as evidence of regeneration. If someone later apostatizes, many within that tradition conclude that such a person was never truly saved to begin with—meaning the supposed “signs of regeneration” were illusory. By that logic, even impressive pre-baptismal signs of conversion cannot be taken as definitive evidence of true regeneration.
Finally, this argument risks begging the question. Pre-baptismal experiences count as evidence against baptismal regeneration only if Scripture does not, in fact, teach that baptism saves. But Scripture does. Jesus affirms it in John 3:5, and Peter explicitly declares it in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism, which corresponds to [Noah’s ark—see vv. 18-20], now saves you.” With these biblical data in hand, we are compelled to interpret conversion experiences accordingly: as cases of imperfect faith, as preparatory graces, or as extraordinary exceptions—such as when God poured out his Spirit upon Cornelius and thereby regenerated him before Peter baptized him.
The deeper issue is this: do we interpret God’s revelation through our experiences, or our experiences through God’s revelation? The consistent Christian answer must be the latter. Experiences are important, but they must be judged in the light of revealed truth.
Interestingly, one participant in the CBS segment seemed to intuit this truth better than the pastor himself. She remarked, “I can leave all my sins in the water, and I can be made new.” Her words resonate with Paul’s teaching that baptism frees us from sin (Rom 6:6-7) and makes us new creations in Christ (2 Cor 5:17; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13).
In the end, I’m grateful that CBS chose to cover this event. That tens of thousands of Americans—many of them young men—are seeking Christ through baptism is a sign of great hope. The report also gives Catholics an opportunity to reflect anew on the sacrament Christ himself instituted as the gateway to eternal life.
Whether one views baptism as a mere symbol or as the true instrument of regeneration, the fact that so many are turning to Christ is cause for rejoicing. But as Catholics, we can affirm with confidence that the deepest meaning and fullest effect of baptism is nothing less than new life in Christ—a life that begins in the waters of regeneration and leads to eternal communion with God.

Just Admit It: Baptism Saves

<div>Jskh1993 q1: how was the skull of Jesus pierced when none of his bones were broken?</div><div>You ask a worthwhile question, given that Jesus’ head was undoubtedly wounded by his crown of thorns (John 19:2-5; Matt. 27:27-31), and yet John 19:36 conveys that none of Jesus’ bones were broken, because he is the New Covenant fulfillment of the Passover lamb (see Exodus 12).
However, one’s head can be wounded significantly without one’s skull being broken. Consider a concussion, even a severe one that knocks a person out. There is not necessarily an associated  fracture of the skull. In addition, the skin of the scalp is the thickest on the human body, meaning it can be pierced and experience great trauma without the skull/bone beneath it being fractured. The scalp has <a href="https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/834808-overview">five layers</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalp_reconstruction">with the skin being the thickest</a>.
In this light, Christ experienced great head trauma in his Passion, and it’s possible his skull may have been bruised, but definitely not broken as Scripture makes clear.
</div>

Did the Crown of Thorns Break Jesus’ Skull?

How does the Jubilee Year and forgiveness apply to my divorce and financial situation?

How can Catholics believe Genesis is an allegory and a genealogy at the same time?

How can I better defend against the claim “Catholicism is too complex”?

The Vatican suppressed the Miles Christi order recently. What does that mean for the order and the faithful associated with them?

Could pursuit of knowledge of the faith ever be an idol?

What is the difference between the particular judgment and general judgment?

How can God forget sins forgiven in Confession if He is All-Knowing?

I’m cradle Orthodox; what is the best, concise argument against Eastern Orthodoxy? Why should I become Catholic?

I’m in OCIA, my spouse is attending a Protestant Church. Am I allowed to continue attending Protestant services with him?

I heard that God allows us to go to Hell because we would not be able to stand the beatific vision if we had mortal sin on our soul. Is this true?

How did the Lord atone for our sins?

If God is omniscient, how can He &#8220;forget&#8221; sins forgiven in Confession? Jimmy Akin explains this theological mystery and answers more questions on Genesis, Catholic complexity, and divine judgment.

Does God Really Forget Our Sins If He Is All-Knowing?

Can Non-Catholics receive ashes?

I’m in OCIA. How do I sum up the differences between a Catholic mass and a protestant service and why it’s important?

In the new calendar we removed feast days of saints. Why did that happen and did it undermine papal authority?

How can the bread turn into the body and the wine turn into the blood?

Iowa Catholic Radio. Why does the priest add a drop of water into the wine?

Are the SSPX in communion with Rome? What do you say to someone who goes to those masses?

Can you emphasize why our Catholic rituals have meaning?

Why does the eucharist have to be celebrated at every mass if it’s only required once a year?

My priest changes words during the mass. What are your thoughts on that?

&#8220;Can non-Catholics receive ashes?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the significance of rituals in the Catholic faith. Other topics include the differences between Catholic Mass and Protestant services, the removal of certain feast days from the calendar, and the meaning behind the priest adding a drop of water to the wine.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

Can Non-Catholics Receive Ashes? Mass and Ritual Meaning

In this episode, Trent shows how Protestant attempts to explain away Catholic miracles mirror atheist attempts to explain Christian miracles.
&nbsp;
Transcript:
Welcome to The Counsel of Trent Podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
All I need is a miracle, all I need is you. True wisdom from a 1985 hit by Mike + The Mechanics. Indeed, the truth of the Christian faith is guaranteed by a miracle, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And miracles have also been used as evidences for the truth of the Catholic faith in particular. So how should Protestants respond to Catholic miracles? That&#8217;s what we&#8217;ll be talking about today here on The Counsel of Trent Podcast with me your host, Catholic Answers apologist, Trent Horn. Hi, glad that you&#8217;re here. Before we do that, though, please hit the like button and subscribe to our channel. It will be a miracle if we hit a million subscribers by next month, but it&#8217;s actually quite possible by natural means to reach a hundred thousand subscribers next month. You can help us get there, so please hit the subscribe button.
All right, so in the Summa Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the topic of miracles. And he says miracles were more common in biblical times because their testimonial power was needed to establish God&#8217;s different covenants. Aquinas did not deny, however, that miracles continued after the apostolic age. Aquinas even cites these later miracles as evidence for the truth of Catholicism saying, quote, &#8220;Yet it is also a fact that, even in our own time, God does not cease to work miracles through his saints for the confirmation of the faith,&#8221; end quote. This led early Protestants to ask, &#8220;How could the Catholic Church be in league with the antichrist if God had performed so many miracles through the saints?&#8221; The answer for some Protestants was that God did not perform these miracles at all. They were either pious frauds or demonic deceptions. John Calvin, for example, called them frivolous and ridiculous, so vain and false. Other Protestants became skeptical of any post-apostolic miracles, even miracles that allegedly occurred among other Protestants.
The scholar Thomas Kidd describes how a woman named Mercy Wheeler was healed at a Protestant revival service in the 1740s. She had an infirmity that prevented her from walking. Kidd says that many Protestants could not believe this miracle really happened because, as he writes, quote, &#8220;To 18th century Protestants, miracles were too closely associated with Catholicism, and anti-Catholicism served as an essential component of British Protestant identity. Opponents of the revivals attempted to associate the revivals with Catholic superstition whenever extraordinary claims surfaced,&#8221; end quote. So as a result, some Protestants adopted the same skeptical attitude atheists have long had against the miraculous foundations of the Christian faith. Now, to be fair, some Protestants are skeptical of all post-apostolic miracles, be they Catholic or Protestant. Among Protestants, there is a debate over whether miraculous gifts have continued into the present, this is called continuationism, or whether they ceased with the deaths of the apostles. This is called Cessationism.
An example of the latter view that strongly denies any post-apostolic miracle is the Calvinist author B. B. Warfield&#8217;s 1918 book, Counterfeit Miracles. Warfield dismissed Catholic miracles as being the byproduct of people he said were conditioned to believe miracles are common because of doctrines like transubstantiation. He writes the following. &#8220;The worldview of the Catholic is one all his own and is very expressly a miraculous one. He reckons with the miraculous in every act. Miracles suggest itself to him as a natural explanation of every event, and nothing seems too strange to him to be true,&#8221; end quote. For example, Warfield explains the way the healings at Lourdes as being the product of suggestion. And he says Medieval miracle stories came from, quote, &#8220;The thought of an age so little instructed in the true character of the forces of nature, and especially its deeply-seated conception of the essentially magical nature of religion and its modes of working,&#8221; end quote.
Hopefully, you should see the giant problem with a Christian saying things like this. If you replace Catholic with just Christian in these excerpts, you might think B. B. Warfield was actually the atheist Richard Dawkins. The Protestant author L. Philip Barnes notes the same thing and says, quote, &#8220;If the same considerations induced by Warfield in his dismissal of post-apostolic miracles were applied to some biblical stories, then a similar negative verdict would be required in the latter cases as the former,&#8221; end quote. You see the same parallel with atheistic arguments when comparing the evidence for Christ&#8217;s resurrection and the evidence for Marian apparitions. One common atheistic explanation for the resurrection is that the disciples hallucinated the appearances of the risen Jesus. However, the Protestant apologist Mike Licona says it would be, quote, &#8220;A mind-boggling coincidence that every one of the 12 disciples would have the same predisposition to have a hallucination.&#8221; This, he says, makes group hallucinations essentially impossible.
However, if early testimony from groups of eyewitnesses is enough to show that Jesus Christ was seen alive after his death, then why wouldn&#8217;t the same kind of evidence be good enough to show that the blessed Virgin Mary was seen alive after the end of her life in the form of Marian apparitions? Even atheists raise this point, albeit to discredit Protestant arguments for the resurrection. The atheistic biblical scholar Hector Avalos, for example, says that Marian apparitions, quote, &#8220;Form the closest parallel to the Jesus apparition stories. Marian apparitions have been reportedly witnessed simultaneously by millions of people, but most evangelical apologists do not see that as proof that Mary is alive,&#8221; end quote. The agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman provides similar evidence for Marian apparitions, and he writes the following. &#8220;Protestant apologists interested in proving that Jesus was raised from the dead rarely show any interest in applying their finely-honed historical talents to the exalted blessed Virgin Mary,&#8221; end quote.
In my debate with Doug from Hein Creek on the resurrection, an audience member asked me about the miracle of Fatima. That was where three children claimed to have seen an apparition of the Virgin Mary in Fatima, Portugal in 1917. After they reported their encounter, a crowd of thousands of people gathered on October 13th. Many witnesses claim the sun moved in extraordinary patterns across the sky, that it changed color, and that the ground and clothes that had been soaked by rain had become bone dry in a matter of minutes. Here&#8217;s what I said about the appearances of Fatima.
I don&#8217;t believe the sun or earth changed their normal rotation, but I think it&#8217;s very possible that God caused an optical effect to occur to make it appear what normally you would not have naturally seen that they saw that. I also think that we have&#8230; And what&#8217;s interesting here is we actually have better evidence for Fatima than for even the resurrection because we have contemporary newspaper reports describing the event right the day after that it purportedly happened of contemporary accounts talking about puddles drying up and multiple witnesses describing it. So I do think there&#8217;s very strong evidence for that.
Doug:
The quote of the day here in this live stream is that we have better evidence for Fatima than the resurrection. I can&#8217;t believe Trent said that.
Trent Horn:
In some respects, yeah. Notice I said that the evidence is stronger in some respects. For example, the apostles&#8217; wrist suffering and death to proclaim Jesus rose from the dead, but the witnesses of Fatima didn&#8217;t do this. But just because the miracle of Fatima has more recent evidence does not mean the resurrection of Christ has insufficient evidence. Doug acted as if this were a concession, and it might&#8217;ve been for someone who denies Marian apparitions. In fact, Protestant apologists who have looked at the evidence for Marian apparitions don&#8217;t dismiss them as mere hallucinations. Instead, they&#8217;re convinced that the people involved saw some kind of extramental or actually existing phenomena. Mike Licona addresses the evidence for Marian apparitions that Bart Ehrman includes in his book on Jesus. And Licona says that Ehrman has not disproven Christ&#8217;s resurrection by talking about things like Marian apparitions. That&#8217;s because he hasn&#8217;t disproven the Marian apparitions.
Mike Licona puts it this way. &#8220;Ehrman merely assumes without any argument that visions of Mary are hallucinations. He states that groups had seen her. He admits that many of those experiencing the visions were educated professionals including doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, engineers, and lawyers. Even Muslims apparently saw her. And the person perceived as being Mary was even photographed.&#8221; And in his book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Licona admits the following. &#8220;For myself, I am not prepared to adjudicate on the matter of Marian apparitions. Because I am Protestant, I carry a theological bias against an appearance of Mary. However, I am not predisposed to reject the reality of apparitions in general.&#8221; It makes sense that Protestants would not explain Marian apparitions as being something like an improbable group hallucination, because that explanation would undercut their own arguments for Christ&#8217;s resurrection. Perhaps that&#8217;s why one popular Protestant response to Marian apparitions is that they are actually demonic impersonations of the Virgin Mary.
Licona writes, &#8220;Other supernatural forces, such as demons, could be behind some supernatural events in other religions.&#8221; This response goes all the way back to the 16th century counter reformation when authors such as Johann Marbach denounced stories of Marian apparitions as simply being encounters with the demonic. He wrote the following. &#8220;She was a false Mary whom the Jesuits conjured up with a form and the appearance of the Holy Virgin Mary. This they performed through their sorcery, and the company that they keep with the devil,&#8221; end quote. In my debate on the resurrection with the atheist Matt Dillahunty, I said we should operate on the assumption that reality is as it appears unless evidence suggests otherwise. Dillahunty refused to accept that principle. But if you do that, that would lead to all kinds of radical skepticism. But if you do accept this common sense principle, it seems clear that it at least appears Jesus rose from the dead. And if that&#8217;s true, then one is justified in believing that conclusion unless evidence suggests otherwise.
Even during Jesus&#8217;s ministry, his critics rejected this very principle by denying he was a wonder working prophet of the true God. They instead said Jesus casted out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, or it was the devil doing it. In response, Jesus told them every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided house falls. And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? In other words, claiming Jesus was diabolical or demonically possessed violates basic principles of reason. Jesus&#8217;s healing of the sick and his firm commitment to serving the God of Israel means that he at least appeared to be a prophet. And in the absence of any evidence for Jesus&#8217;s demonic nature, such an explanation, on par with modern claims like that Jesus was just some technologically advanced alien, is just a weak way of explaining away the historical data instead of providing a genuine explanation for it.
So if it appears that Jesus was actually the son of God and raised the dead and rose himself, then we should accept that explanation. Merely because there&#8217;s a possibility that he was demonic, that doesn&#8217;t mean that that is a real possibility that we should entertain, especially in the absence of evidence for it. And the same thing should apply to Marian apparitions. Just because it&#8217;s possible this is a demonic impersonation doesn&#8217;t mean we should take that seriously unless there actually is evidence for it for any particular Marian apparition. And also, there&#8217;s evidence against the claim that Jesus was operating under demonic powers. Because why would an agent of the devil use miracles to motivate people to adopt a belief system that&#8217;s ordered toward rejecting the devil?
If that explanation works for justifying the miracles of Jesus, then it works for other Catholic miracles, including Marian apparitions. When it comes to approved apparitions, such as those of Fatima, we can ask why would the devil impersonate Mary in order to encourage people to belong to a church whose members promise in their baptismal vows to renounce Satan and all his empty works and all his empty show? Now, another objection would be that, if Catholic miracles prove Catholicism, then miracles performed by Protestant pastors prove Protestantism. For example, Craig Keener&#8217;s two-volume work, Miracles, describes Protestant missionaries and pastors who are claimed to have performed miracles like healing people, and in some cases, even raising the dead. Some early Protestants even said that images of Martin Luther were incombustible, they wouldn&#8217;t burn even when thrown into fires that were being stoked with Martin Luther&#8217;s books. Now, some of these stories and accounts may be apocryphal or never happened, but that&#8217;s also true of some Catholic miracle accounts, especially those that were written centuries after the events that allegedly happened.
But to say no Protestant miracle claim is authentic because Protestantism is false would be to engage in the same kind of prejudice that Protestants like B. B. Warfield practice when they say that no Catholic miracle claim could ever be authentic. And they say that, at the outset, that&#8217;s prejudicial. Does that mean miracles or mighty works, if we&#8217;re reluctant to always call these things miracles, can&#8217;t tell us anything about the agents performing them? Well, if these acts involve the suspension of the laws of nature, then at a minimum they tell us the agent&#8217;s message should be taken seriously because there is a supernatural power behind it. In some cases, this might be a malevolent power bent on deceiving people. And that could be the case with some non-Christian mighty works or miracles. But we shouldn&#8217;t rush to a demonic explanation unless evidence suggests it. God may be the power behind a miracle, but his divine act does not constitute an endorsement of everything in the miracle worker&#8217;s theology.
The Apostle John told Jesus, &#8220;Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.&#8221; In response, Jesus said, &#8220;Do not forbid him, for he that is not against you is for you.&#8221; In other words, the exorcists who did not follow Jesus were ignorant of his true identity, but that did not prevent God from giving those exorcists spiritual gifts so they could do good in the world. So that means that God might perform miraculous deeds in order to confirm some aspects of Protestant theology, the ones that all Christians affirm, like the need to repent and believe in the gospel or the deity of Christ.
But what&#8217;s more difficult for Protestants to explain are miracles that involve things like the Eucharist or relics. Miracles that seem to confirm not just Christian theology but distinctly Catholic theology. So in that respect, if it appears that God is revealing that Catholic practices such as offering the mass or venerating relics have faithfully handed on what was first given to the apostles, then unless evidence suggests otherwise, we should believe that this is what has happened and is being confirmed in Catholic miracles.
The Catholic philosophers Tyler McNabb and Joseph Blotto make this point as well in the context of the events such as Fatima. They write the following. &#8220;We should expect that if a figure who represents a specific Christian tradition appears, then it would give credence to the truth of that tradition, assuming the figure does not denounce said tradition. For instance, if Martin Luther appeared with a message from God, then many would consider this to be evidence that the Protestant tradition is correct over the Roman Catholic tradition. Or if John Calvin showed up with a message from God, then this would serve as evidence that the reformed Protestant tradition is correct over other Protestant traditions, and Roman Catholicism as well. Likewise, the fact that God chose Mary to reveal his message in a Roman Catholic context, that is, a context where heavy Marian devotion is both common and seen as biblical, gives us evidence that the Roman Catholic tradition is correct,&#8221; end quote.
In conclusion, Protestants should not be dismissive of Catholic miracles, lest their approach be used to dismiss biblical miracles as well. And Catholics should not crow about the alleged lack of Protestant miracles, lest they undermine their own case also. Instead, Protestants should be open to the existence of Catholic miracles and seriously consider and discern what God is revealing through those miracles, especially miracles that occur in uniquely Catholic contexts, such as the Eucharist miraculously becoming flesh or apparitions of the blessed Virgin Mary or incorruptible saints. Hopefully, they&#8217;ll conclude that God has continued to bless his people with signs and wonders for the new covenant he has made with them through Christ&#8217;s one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Thank you so much for watching this episode and I just hope that you have a very blessed day.
&nbsp;
If you liked today&#8217;s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member-only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.
&nbsp;

Protestantism vs. Catholic Miracles

“How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!”
This is one of those passages whose interpretation varies pretty predictably—which is to say, no one thinks that Jesus could possibly be talking about him. If anything, this is about someone else. One of the marks, perhaps, of the decadence of the modern West is that no one seems to understand his own wealth.
There are reasons for this confusion—we’ve all heard of the famous 1 percent, and it’s true that the ultra-rich are so staggeringly rich compared to the rest of us that it is difficult to conceive of any other form of wealth.
Still, it’s worth recalling a basic distinction once made to me by someone working with those in real poverty: if you’re not worried about whether or not you’re going to eat, you’re well off. That was, and remains for me, a useful reminder. Although I have known serious financial problems in my life—crippling student loans, credit card debt, etc.—I have never honestly worried about whether or not I would eat or have my basic needs met. Of course, that has less to do with my particular financial situation than with my known safety net of family and friends.
But what we make of our current economy, or the availability or lack of a safety net, isn’t really the point of the Gospel. The point is quite clear, and often re-echoed in what tradition calls the “preferential option for the poor”—material comfort can be a barrier to entering the kingdom of God.
This is not to say that we must all take vows of poverty. It’s clear in other passages, and of course in the wider tradition, that this is what the Church refers to as a counsel of “perfection.” That is, it is not required of everyone. But it is, objectively speaking, a higher form of life to reject all material possessions for the sake of the kingdom—just as it is, objectively speaking, a higher form of life to reject married life and embrace celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. This is not to say that material things, or marriage, are bad, but merely that they pose their own unique temptations as well as opportunities.
So if we can put aside the question of these more radical vocations—what tradition calls the “counsels of perfection”—it’s still worth wondering about the general principle of material life and its challenges. Perhaps we are not the 1 percent, but we are still, in the grand scheme of things in this world, pretty wealthy. What are we to do? Is there any hope at all?
The words of the Gospel, though they begin in a hard way, soften almost at once: “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.” This doesn’t, exactly, free us of all responsibility or sense of urgency, but it gives us hope that we may, whatever our material status, go through the eye of the needle.
. . . if, that is, we rely on God. If we try to do it ourselves, there is no hope.
That is why, in the end, poverty is in many cases—though not automatically—a clearer path to salvation. If you have nothing, it is easier to throw yourself on the mercy of God and recognize that you bring nothing to the table besides yourself. But if we have something—maybe it is not a lot of money, but it’s a talent, or a passion, or a bit of property, or a set of brilliant ideas—it is always tempting to convince yourself that you can bargain, so to speak, with God, that you bring something to the table that will be useful to the transcendent and eternal creator. This is and always will be an absurdity. As St. Paul says, “What do you have that you have not received?” This is not a denial of the reality and legitimacy of human work and effort and, even, merit—but it’s all relative. You can be the most brilliant, beautiful, talented, rich, philanthropic human being; you can give your entire life to others; but all becomes meaningless, from an eternal perspective, because your life cannot take away sin.
There is only one life that can do that—the life of the God-Man. And although the Catholic tradition may speak over and over about the merits of the saints, it is also insistent, at the same time, that all these merits and graces are ultimately meaningless apart from the merit and grace of the Son of God, whose unique and singular sacrifice made it possible for us to have fellowship with God.
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,” then, as our Lord says in the Sermon on the Mount. Because to be in a state of poverty means, in effect, to be in a state of reality before God. To be poor in spirit means to see God, because to see God truly means to see ourselves truly, to understand that our entire existence is a gift, our accomplishments a work of mercy, our merits the outpouring of grace.
The history of the Church is full of dramatic examples of this realization. You have, on the one hand, saints who give up their wealth—like St. Francis of Assisi, whom we remembered last week—to better embrace Christian discipleship. But just as often, honestly maybe more so, if more quietly, you have those who give extravagantly because they realize that their wealth cannot be, ultimately, theirs, or even their children’s. Go to any great city, and you’ll see churches and institutions all over that were built by the singular devotion of a person who understood that his prosperity was not ultimately his own. Often, too, such people realized that their money is most valuable, most profitable, when used for the sake of their souls.
We can build great works here on earth, but how long can they last? As St. John Henry Newman taught us, our vocation in this life is to move out of the shadows into the truth. But we cannot do this if we are in love with shadows, or if we imagine that we ourselves can come up with the right amount of light to banish them.
Wherever, whoever we are, we must seek the mercy of God, and ask for the grace to amend our lives and follow him with a pure heart. With God all things are possible—whether that’s being happy with very little or being saved with very much.

A Glimmer of Hope for the Rich

How Evangelization Can Strengthen Your Own Faith

Do you have trouble with the Sacrament of Reconciliation? Not sure about? Don’t know quite what to say? Father Hugh Barbour gives a brief lesson on what really happens in confession, and offers tips on how to make confessing part of your life.

The Surprising Thing That Brings Jesus Joy

A student of mine recently was troubled by a challenge that a Protestant pastor posed to him and a group of teenagers. The pastor claimed that the denial of the “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/once-saved-always-saved">once saved always saved</a>” doctrine—that’s to say, the Catholic belief that it’s possible to lose your salvation, isn’t good news, it’s bad news. And he didn’t mean this in the sense that the denial of such a doctrine is incompatible with what the Bible reveals (although he’d probably make that argument as well). He simply meant that such a belief isn’t something to rejoice in and thus doesn’t make us happy, so we should reject it.
What should we make of this kind of objection?
Well, there are two approaches we can take in response. One exposes the double standard at play in the objection; the other argues that the denial of “once saves always saved” is actually “good news.”
To begin our first approach, let’s specify what Catholics mean by “it’s possible to lose your salvation.” This is simply another way of saying it’s possible to reject the gift of salvation after we’ve already received it.
Now, there’s another time it’s possible to reject the gift of salvation: before conversion, when it is initially offered. When 3,000 people asked Peter on the day of Pentecost what they must do to be saved, Peter responded, “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). The people repented and were baptized. But they didn’t have to do that. They could have said, “To heck with that. I’m out of here.”
But notice Protestants don’t dismiss this as “bad news.” So, the question arises, “Why?” If the possibility to reject the gift of salvation before conversion isn’t bad news, how come the possibility to reject the gift of salvation after conversion is bad news?
There seems to be a double standard here. For the objection to succeed, a Protestant would have to give a principled reason why only the possibility to reject the gift of salvation after conversion is bad news—especially when it’s possible, at least according to Catholic and Orthodox belief, to get the gift back (through the Sacrament of Reconciliation). Until that’s done, the objection doesn’t hold water.
On to our second approach: the denial of “once saved always saved” is good news.
There are two senses in which we can take this. One is that the denial of such a doctrine is compatible with the “good news” in the sense of Christ’s and the apostles’ teachings in the Bible. The other is that the denial of such a doctrine entails a good thing. While both senses are true, it’s the latter sense that we have in mind here.
Consider that if it’s possible to reject the gift of salvation after our initial conversion, this implies that it’s also possible to choose to continue our commitment to living for Christ. Now, isn’t the choice to commit to a loving relationship with Christ a good thing? I think every Christian would say yes.
So, we could ask, “If it’s not bad news to say we can choose to commit to living for Christ initially at the time of conversion, why would it be bad news to say we have the possibility of making the same choice later on? What would make the commitment to continue in our relationship with Christ bad news?” Again, there would be double standard if this were so. There’s no principle that makes one bad news and the other good.
So, if a Christian believes it’s good news to have the possibility to commit to Christ at the beginning of conversion, then he must believe it’s good news to have the possibility to choose to continue in that commitment after initial conversion. But since the former necessarily entails the possibility to reject the gift of salvation at the time it’s initially offered, the latter also necessarily entails the possibility to reject the gift of salvation after initial conversion.
Given that Christians recognize the former is a good thing, it follows that the latter is a good thing (good news) as well.
I’m sure our pastor friend had good intentions in preaching to the students. He just needed to think things through a bit more to perceive the “good news” in our ongoing renewal of commitment to Christ having real value.

‘But That Sounds Like Bad News!’

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

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

Let's unravel the 'Islamic Dilemma'...

<div>Is there a patron saint of marriage or relationships?</div><div>There are several patron saints of marriage and aspects of marriage. The patron saints of marriage include:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/adelaide-saint">Saint Adelaide</a> of Burgundy (second marriages)</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangulphus">Saint Gengulphus of Burgundy</a> (difficult marriages)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/joseph-saint">Saint Joseph</a> (married people)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/monica-saint">Saint Monica</a> (married women)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/prisca-saint">Saint Priscilla</a> (good marriages)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/rita-of-cascia-saint">Saint Rita of Cascia</a> (difficult marriages)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/thomas-more-blessed">Saint Thomas More</a> (difficult marriages)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/valentine-saint">Saint Valentine</a> (happy marriages)</li>
</ul>
</div>

Is There a Patron Saint of Marriage?

When I wrote an entire chapter on masturbation in my first book, Raising Chaste Catholic Men, it was a bit surreal. As I mentioned at the start of that chapter, I had never in my life envisioned that I would be writing extensively on such a subject, and I’m guessing that most folks—at least my Catholic friends and relatives—would not generally choose to read about it!
Because the topic came up in conversations with friends as they asked what I was writing that week, I heard many clever jokes and puns about this particular activity. But whereas most of the jokers were faithful Catholics, a secular friend responded to the topic of masturbation with a simple “Ick.” Even non-religious people can sense that there is something deeply wrong with this allegedly normal and healthy behavior. Sex with a partner (even sinful sex) is one thing, but the concept of having “sex” with oneself doesn’t even make sense.
Though human beings have a distorted view of sex, deep down, there is a subconscious understanding that sex is for uniting people and begetting children. <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control">Contraception</a> seeks unity without babies, and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-hardest-teaching-of-them-all">IVF</a> seeks babies without unity, but masturbation strips sexual activity of both of those purposes. Instead of sex as self-gift between spouses, masturbation is a solitary act of self-centeredness.
Some might argue that masturbation is simply a feel-good release, like having a good sneeze or clearing one’s nose and breathing better. But if masturbation is just another way of “scratching an itch,” then why do masturbatory acts almost always occur while fantasizing about another person? This is just more evidence that sex is made to unite persons, and masturbation perverts this meaning.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus called God’s people to a new standard of holiness. From now on, they wouldn’t just be held accountable for their actions—they would also be held accountable for the content and intention of their hearts. He taught, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28).
This makes sense because our actions and choices spring from what we keep in our hearts, be it good or evil. If we grow evil thoughts in our hearts, they will sprout into a weed that chokes our spiritual life and keeps us away from God forever. Jesus goes on to say:
<blockquote>If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell (Matt. 5:29-30).</blockquote>
Did Jesus condemn masturbation? Some biblical scholars have proposed that Jesus refers to it in this part of the Sermon on the Mount, and it’s not hard to see why. First, Jesus says that lust is equivalent to adultery. Then he warns us about our right eye causing us to sin (e.g., lustful thoughts) and our right hand causing us to sin (e.g., lustful actions, masturbation). The qualifier “right” refers to “all we hold dear”—anything we see or touch that is an occasion of sin. But the same language also parallels similar descriptions among Jewish rabbis and, according to Anglican priest Andrew Angel, “provides good reason for reading the stumbling with the right hand in Matthew 5:30 as a reference to masturbation.”
But should we literally pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands? No. Jesus is using hyperbole, a rhetorical device that was common among rabbis of his time, to show that sin is serious and that we must always strive to avoid it. That’s why the Catechism says of masturbation, “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action&#8221; (2352).
The Church also teaches that we must have compassion for people, especially youth, whose anxieties and difficulties adjusting to puberty can affect their judgment. But with God’s grace, parents can lay the groundwork throughout childhood that will protect their little ones and preserve their joy and innocence.
Remember . . .
<ul>
<li>The Church teaches that pornography perverts the sacredness of the marital act and harms those who consume it as well as those who produce it.</li>
<li>Those who use porn and/or masturbate are conditioned to value sex not as fulfillment of marital vows to another person, but as a selfish way to use another person as a means to base sexual pleasure.</li>
<li>Jesus told us we’d be accountable not just for sinful sexual behavior, but even for sinful thoughts. That’s why we must rely on his grace in order to protect our families from sexual sin.</li>
</ul>