Manage Account

I constantly hear that God knows everything that’s going to happen, but in the Old Testament He changed His mind. It sounds like a contradiction.

How seriously should I take the ancient church fathers given that they are not sacred scripture?

How do I get atheists/agnostics to recognize the bible as a legitimate source?

On the assumption that God is all-powerful, merciful, etc. Then why would he make us if he knew we were going to go through all this suffering and anguish?

Is heaven empty until Jesus returns? If not, then how can Catholics believe that we all go to sleep and enter heaven until the second coming?

In the Our Father, what is the true meaning of” thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven?”

How is it possible for Satan to stand in the presence of God in Job if evil can’t withstand the presence of God?

Why doesn’t Mary appear more in the Bible for all the reverence we give her?

Debating with a Christian who claims Eucharistic miracles are demonic; how do I respond to them?

Why should I care if there is a God?

If the writings of the Church Fathers aren’t part of the Bible, why do they matter? We explore their authority and role in understanding the faith, plus tackle questions about God&#8217;s omniscience, Eucharistic miracles, and why Mary doesn&#8217;t appear more often in Scripture.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

Why Should I Take the Church Fathers Seriously If They’re Not Scripture?

Why are marriages a Catholic sacrament?

Do you have any empirical evidence that Catholicism is true?

How can there no longer be public revelation but we still accept private revelation?

How come the Church can reject their own baptism if they were done wrong but can accept protestant baptisms on a whim?

Why should we call priests father if the bible specifically says not to call a man father?

I’m a catechist. Why does the Church not follow Lev. 19:28 and when it comes to tattoos?

Which Catholic Doctrine Troubles You?

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent examines the sad fates that have befallen towns decimated by environmental disasters like unquenchable coal fires and buried toxic waste.

FFAF: Environmental Ghost Towns

What should we think of Pope Pius’ legacy?

How does a conservative Catholic view Gaza?

Can you help me meditate on the fourth and fifth glorious mysteries?

Did Sedevacantism start after Pope Pius XII?

Where is Pope Pius in the canonization process?

How do we make the United States Catholic?

Debunking Lies About &#8220;Hitler&#8217;s Pope&#8221; In this episode, Cy Kellett discusses the legacy and myths around Pope Pius XII with Michael Knowles.
<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>

Debunking Lies About “Hitler’s Pope” w/Michael Knowles

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent shares how he gets his hands on uber-expensive academic books and articles and how you can do that too – with a clean conscience!

FFAF: How I Get Academic Sources Without Going Broke

In this episode, Trent reveals the first lesson in his new course on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you’d like to view future lessons become a premium subscriber at <a title="http://www.trenthornpodcast.com" href="https://gate.sc/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trenthornpodcast.com&amp;token=d6b5e1-1-1607486345923" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener ugc noreferrer">www.trenthornpodcast.com</a>. You can also sign up your high schooler to take the full course at <a title="http://www.homeschoolconnections.com" href="https://gate.sc/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.homeschoolconnections.com&amp;token=83c886-1-1607486345923" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener ugc noreferrer">www.homeschoolconnections.com</a>

Back to Basics (and my new Catechism course!)

<div>Can I miss Mass because of the flu going around? My husband and I are in the at-risk age and are worried about receiving communion from someone’s hands.</div><div>Missing Mass due to serious health concerns is considered a legitimate reason.
You stated that your fear is interaction with the hands of the minister of communion.  You could attend Mass and make a spiritual communion instead of receiving communion. You can also politely smile and express a verbal sign of peace instead of shaking hands.
I always recommend people discuss their health and the risks of attending Mass with their medical doctor and make a prudential judgment.
</div>

Can I Miss Mass Because of the Flu Going Around?

<div class="page" title="Page 180">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 170
CHALLENGE
</div>

</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Matthew says that Judas hanged himself (Matt. 27:5), but Luke says that “falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18).”
DEFENSE
The accounts preserve different aspects of the event, but they do not contradict each other.
Both agree Judas died shortly after the Crucifixion. Matthew says Judas hanged himself after returning the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests, while Luke has Peter speaking of the event during the period between the Ascension and Pentecost (between forty and fifty days after the Crucifixion). The fact that they agree on the timing, but describe the death differently, shows independent traditions in circulation that affirmed Judas’ death very shortly after the Crucifixion. That indicates Judas did die at this early date.
Judas probably began accompanying Jesus while in his twenties (Jesus began his ministry when about thirty; Luke 3:23). This suggests Judas died a sudden and remarkable death (i.e., not an ordinary death due to old age). Matthew’s report of his suicidal hanging accounts for this, leaving us to explain Luke’s reference to him falling and bursting open.
The earliest explanation is found in the second-century historian Papias, who wrote around A.D. 120. His works are lost but partially preserved in other writers. According to the fourth-century writer Apollinarius of Laodicea, Judas survived the hanging by being cut down before he choked to death, but he quotes Papias as saying Ju- das suffered severe swelling (edema) of the head and body, eventually causing him to burst open (see Monte Shanks, Papias and the New Testament, chapter 4, fragment 6). We now know that edema of the neck and body can be a consequence of strangulation, so Papias’s account may be based in fact.
Others have proposed that Judas remained hanging on a tree branch until his body began to decompose and swell due to the gases decom- position produces. The rope then broke or slipped, causing his body to burst from the force of impact.
Some have noted that the traditional site of Judas’s death features trees along a high ridge where strong winds occur. The winds may have caused the rope to slip, and the height of the ridge may have added to the force of impact, causing the body to burst.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

How Judas Iscariot Died

Good apologetics is not just a quest to have the right answer. It is, instead, one tool in a larger struggle to win souls. This means that it involves spiritual battle. Our guest, Dan Burke, explains spiritual battle for apologists.

Spiritual Warfare for Apologists

For much of my life, I struggled to trust in God’s love. I had a firm belief that God loved me because the Bible told me so, but I strove to feel an unshakable confidence in that love. Since my conversion to Catholicism, I have understood more of God’s tenderness, and often that experience comes through Mary. When Jesus shared his mother with us, he was gifting us someone gentle and attentive who would help us experience his love in the uniquely feminine way that infants and children do.
When I was Protestant and miscarried a baby, I felt deeply troubled that my baby wouldn’t have a mother. I knew that the child would be safe in the arms of my heavenly Father, but I couldn’t shake the nagging anxiety that all babies need their mother. Through <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/when-womanhood-feels-pagan">my miscarriage last January</a>, I turned to Mary and asked her to hold my baby. It was the only prayer I had energy to pray.
Later that week, a friend, who is a gifted artist but not at all Catholic, texted me a sketch she had drawn of me kneeling before Mary with my head in her lap while she cradled my baby. I was stunned. I asked my friend what made her draw it, and she said simply, “I don’t know. I just couldn’t get the image out of my head.” I knew that it was the tender reassurance of my mother, that she hadn’t ignored me and certainly wouldn’t neglect mothering my child.
When my husband and I decided to try conceiving again, I asked my rosary study group to appeal to Mary with me. As always, she answered with overwhelming kindness . . . and we conceived twins!
This Advent, I am heavily pregnant with those boys, and it gives me many opportunities to remember the tender sacrifices of Mary. Jesus gifted us his Mother because he knew that we would need her kindness in the trials of this life and that she would care for us the way she cared for him. <a href="https://www.abebooks.com/9780898705973/Worlds-First-Love-Sheen-Fulton-0898705975/plp?ref_=ps_ms_267691761&amp;cm_mmc=msn-_-comus_dsa-_-naa-_-naa&amp;msclkid=3101f34f3d6018099aff942b10210d20">Her suffering</a> gives “courage to those whose burdens are heavier than their pleasures—to those who have children destined for death when they are hardly launched on the sea of life, to those who find their love&#8217;s surrender betrayed and even despised” (105). Mary, in her immaculate conception, was free to refuse, but instead she gave her fiat. She stood before the creator of the universe in complete purity and chose the path of sacrifice without pleasure because of her complete love for God. When we enter into Christ through baptism, we are adopted into that same depth of a mother’s love.
This reality is made tangible in the maternity reflected by the Church, where we receive the nurturing that a child requires from his mother. We come and are fed. We come to receive graces from the Holy Spirit and teaching from our spiritual fathers. All this is given to us through the image of a mother, in the same way the whole world received God through the motherhood of Mary.
Advent is a season of anticipation and quiet. Christ grew inside his mother in the most ordinary way, and it is through the ordinary that we see him in our own lives. We submit our joys and struggles to Christ the same way Mary submitted her life with Joseph to give him his humanity. Like Christ, we encounter our mother and her kindness most clearly when we settle patiently into the humility of the daily work that is required of us. Through our encounters with Mary, we learn to submit ourselves to the process of sanctification and become like Christ. Mary’s love changes us all into the image of her firstborn so that we can share in his inheritance of eternal life.
As we delve into Advent, I encourage you to look over your life and notice the kindnesses of Mary toward you. I found it in the pain and sorrow of miscarriage—something so common that almost every woman I know has also endured it. Your encounter may be different from mine, but it will almost certainly be found in the quiet, ordinary struggles of human life. There are likely many hidden moments of a mother’s love that are changing you into the image of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/jesus-as-firstborn">her firstborn</a>.
<blockquote>If we have <a href="https://www.avemariapress.com/products/The-Reed-of-God">truly given our humanity</a> to be changed into Christ, it is essential to us that we do not disturb this time of growth. It is a time of darkness, of faith. We shall not see Christ’s radiance in our lives yet; it is still hidden in our darkness; nevertheless, we must believe that He is growing in our lives; we must believe it so firmly that we cannot help relating everything, literally everything, to this almost incredible reality. This attitude it is which makes every moment of every day and night a prayer (42).</blockquote>
When Jesus came to the end of his suffering, he looked and saw pain and confusion in his disciple. In love and compassion, he gifted us the one who stayed by his side and cared for him through his own struggles—the one who gave him his humanity even as he gives us our deity. “Behold, your mother.”

The Kindness of Our Mother

In this episode, Trent responds to atheist Matt Dillahunty&#8217;s claim that &#8220;claims aren&#8217;t evidence&#8221; when used against doctrines like the Resurrection.

Matt Dillahunty and “Claims Aren’t Evidence” (REBUTTED)

Was the Gospel of Mark really the first Gospel written—and when exactly did it happen? In this thrilling episode, Jimmy Akin puts on his detective hat, sifts through the clues, and narrows its writing to a stunningly early date in the A.D. 50s—possibly as early as 53! Using ancient sources, Paul’s letters, and clever detective work, Jimmy pins down the decade Mark became Peter’s interpreter and changed history. Mind-blowing evidence that will shake up what many think they know about the New Testament!
&nbsp;
TRANSCRIPT: 
Coming Up
The Gospel of Mark is widely regarded by scholars today as the first of the Gospels to be penned.
But when, specifically, did that happen? When was it written?
Let’s get into it!
* * *
Howdy, folks!
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get early access to new episodes—by going to <a href="https://patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast">Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast</a>
 
Was Mark First?
For many centuries, it was commonly held that Matthew was the first of the Gospels to be written, and that Mark then abridged Matthew to make it shorter.
This view is known as the Augustinian Hypothesis, since St. Augustine proposed it.
As the author of a book on the Church Fathers, I take the views expressed in early centuries seriously.
In fact, I used to tentatively hold the idea that Matthew wrote first.
But after a careful study of the issue, I was forced to conclude that the Augustinian Hypothesis is incorrect, that Mark wrote first, and then Matthew expanded it.
I explain the reasons I came to this conclusion in Episode 61 of the podcast, so you can check that out for more information.
&nbsp;
Mark’s Relationship to Luke
It is widely recognized that Luke—like Matthew—used Mark as one of his sources.
Luke even refers to prior written sources in his prologue, telling his patron Theophilus that  “many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us.”
And the fact that Mark was one of those narratives is confirmed by the fact that Luke uses about 55% of the material in Mark. B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, p. 160.
This means that we can place the composition of Mark sometime before that of Luke.
In Episode 63, we saw that there are good reasons to hold that Luke was written around A.D. 59, which would then be the latest possible date for Mark.
However, it is probable that it was written some time before that.
How much before?
&nbsp;
Mark’s Life Story
We first meet Mark in Acts 12:12, when Peter visits the house of his mother in Jerusalem while he’s on the lam after being miraculously freed from prison.
This most likely happened between April and September of A.D. 43
In Acts 12:25, Barnabas and Paul take Mark with them when they return from Jerusalem to their home base in Antioch.
This most likely happened in October of A.D. 43.
In the next chapter, in Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit calls Barnabas and Paul to embark on the First Missionary Journey, and they take Mark with them.
The First Missionary Journey likely began in early A.D. 44.
However, we learn in Acts 15:38, Mark had turned back early in the journey, when they reached Pamphylia on the southern coast of modern Turkey.
Thus when Paul and Barnabas were preparing to set out on the Second Missionary Journey, a dispute arose between them:
Acts 15:37-39
Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.
So Paul and Barnabas actually dissolved their partnership—which had lasted for years at that point—over Mark.
Barnabas no doubt felt protective of Mark, because Mark was his cousin, so he was family.
Barnabas then took Mark on an otherwise unrecorded missionary journey including Barnabas’s native island of Cyprus. “Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus”.
This likely happened in March of A.D. 49.
We know from 1 Peter 5:13 that Mark later formed a close bond with Peter, who refers to him as “my son,” meaning his spiritual son, and who was with him during his ministry in Rome, which Peter calls “Babylon” in this passage.
It’s harder to estimate exactly when 1 Peter was written, but—unlike 2 Peter—it does not show signs of being written close to his death.
A plausible suggestion is that it was written around A.D. 62 or 63.
We also learn that Paul eventually reconciled with Mark. In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul tells Timothy,
2 Timothy 4:11
Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you; for he is very useful in serving me.
So, even though Paul once dissolved his partnership with Barnabas over Mark, the work Mark did afterward proved his worth, and Paul says he is very useful to him.
2 Timothy was written a number of months before Paul’s death, which likely occurred in A.D. 67.
It likely was written in the summer of A.D. 66. So the two of them had already been reconciled by then.
In fact, we know they were reconciled earlier, because in Colossians 4:10 and Philemon 24, Paul sends greetings on behalf of Mark, indicating that Mark was with Paul when these letters were written. He also says that if Mark comes to you, receive him, and he says that Mark is one of his fellow workers.
Colossians and Philemon were likely written between A.D. 58 and 60, when Paul was under house arrest in Rome.
So we know they had been reconciled by then.
&nbsp;
When Was Mark Written?
The part of Mark’s life story that is important for our purposes is the period he spent with Peter.
This is significant because the first century source John the Elder reveals that Mark based his Gospel on Peter’s reminiscences. The Elder is reported to have said:
John the Elder (in Eusebius, Church History 3:39:15)
Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.
Earlier we saw that Mark was a source that Luke used, so the probable date of Luke—A.D. 59—is the latest possible date for Mark.
What’s the earliest possible date?
Well, if John the Elder is correct that Mark is based on the preaching of Peter—and I think he is—then it had to be after Mark met Peter.
We don’t know when that happened, but it would have been in the A.D. 30s or 40s, because Peter visited the house of Mark’s mother in A.D. 43.
However, Mark was quite young then, and this is not the period in his life that John the Elder is talking about. He says that Mark became the interpreter of Peter and he followed Peter.
That means that Mark’s Gospel is based on Peter’s preaching from a period when Mark was a companion of Peter in ministry.
We do not know when this period began, but the journey that Mark took with Barnabas would have occurred in A.D. 49.
Mark thus likely became a companion of Peter in the 50s.
We next have clear chronological references to Mark in Colossians and Philemon, in the period between A.D. 58 and A.D. 60, when Paul was under house arrest in Rome.
Mark was likely serving as Peter’s interpreter in Rome during this time, and he also re-entered the orbit of Paul.
If we know that Mark didn’t become Peter’s traveling companion until the 50s, and if he had to have written before Luke was published in 59, then this means Mark must have written his Gospel sometime in that decade.
We should thus allow some time (1) for Mark to absorb (or re-absorb) Peter’s preaching after becoming his companion and (2) some time for Mark’s Gospel to come into Luke’s hands and be absorbed by him.
We can therefore estimate that Mark’s Gospel was written sometime in the mid 50s, say around A.D. 55.
This gives us a buffer of a few years for Mark to serve as Peter’s companion and then a few years for Mark’s Gospel to come into Luke’s hands—something that likely happened no later than when Luke arrived in Rome with Paul in A.D. 58.
I thus commonly estimate that Mark was written sometime around A.D. 55.
&nbsp;
Even Earlier?
However, it is possible that it could have been written slightly earlier.
There’s a very strange passage in 2 Corinthians 8:16-19, where Paul tells the Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 8:16-19, LEB
Thanks be to God, who has put in the heart of Titus the same devotion on your behalf, because he not only welcomed our request, but being very earnest, by his own choice he went out to you.
And we have sent at the same time with him the brother whose praise in the gospel has become known throughout all the churches. And not only this, but he was also chosen by the churches as our traveling companion together with this [monetary] gift that is being administered by us to the glory of the Lord himself.
Here Paul says he is sending the brother whose praise in the gospel has become known throughout all the churches.
What’s strange about this is that Paul almost always names specific individuals he refers to in his letters. For example, he just mentioned Titus, and as far as I can remember, this is the only occasion where Paul mentions a traveling companion of his without naming him.
What’s going on here?
One of the things a lot of people don’t know about ancient letter writing is that letter writers who had literary aspirations not only sent a copy of what they had written, they also kept a copy for their own archive.
Later, when they published a collection of their letters, it was composed from letters they selected out of their archive.
And we have evidence that this is what Paul did. As David Trobisch points out in his book Paul’s Letter Collection, the evidence points to there being a first edition of Paul’s letters that Paul himself published during his lifetime.
This collection consisted of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians—or what scholars have called the Hauptbriefe, a German term meaning = Chief Letters.
Later, Paul’s letter collection was expanded after his death by one of his collaborators—perhaps Luke—to give us the Pauline letters we find in the New Testament today.
We can talk about why the evidence suggests this in a future episode.
But what people also don’t commonly know is that when an author published a collection of his letters, he could edited them.
Thus, when Paul published his own letter collection, he may have made small edits to them, and one of those edits could have been the name of someone he’d had a falling out with.
So let’s get back to the brother whose praise is in the gospel. Could that be Mark? After he wrote 2 Corinthians, could Paul have had another falling out with Mark so that he didn’t want to recommend him by name and changed “Mark” to “the brother.”
Well, Mark was known for writing a gospel. And Mark would have been praised for this throughout all the churches.
The churches may have even chosen Mark and encouraged Paul to take him as a traveling companion—perhaps to spread the gospel around the Christian world.
The fact he was chosen by the churches could also indicate some reluctance on Paul’s part to take him.
That would be consistent with Paul’s previous refusal to work with Mark on the Second Missionary Journey.
So perhaps Paul reluctantly took Mark on his current trip, which was the Third Missionary Journey, and then after he wrote 2 Corinthians, he had another falling out with Mark.
He thus didn’t want to recommend Mark by name when he published the first edition of his letter collection, though he and Mark later reconciled, as illustrated by the letters found in later editions of Paul’s letter collection.
If so, what would that say about when the Gospel of Mark was written?
Well, 2 Corinthians was most likely written in late A.D. 54 or early A.D. 55.
So Mark’s Gospel would have had to be written before that.
Since we still need to allow some time for Mark to become Peter’s interpreter and absorb his preaching, we might estimate that Mark was written around A.D. 53 on this theory.
Now, I want to point out that—as interesting as this theory is—I am not convinced.
It is not a standard theory that scholars have devoted much attention to, and you won’t even find it mentioned in most scholarly commentaries on 2 Corinthians.
I think it’s interesting to consider, but there are too many other possibilities for what it means.
Having one’s praise in the gospel does not have to mean that you wrote a gospel. It could mean that you did good work preaching the gospel message of Jesus or that you served the gospel in some other way.
Also, the fact the brother is unnamed doesn’t mean that Paul had a falling out with him. Another possibility is that the churches in Macedonia—the area where Paul was writing from—had not yet chosen the brother they were going to send with Paul.
He knew they were going to pick such a person, but he didn’t yet know who it was, so he just said “the brother” instead of using a name.
I thus think that it’s possible that Mark wrote as early as 53, and that the argument from 2 Corinthians is interesting, but it’s not certain enough for me to alter my estimate.
&nbsp;
Conclusion
I thus think that we have good evidence that the Gospel of Mark was written sometime after Mark became the traveling companion of Barnabas in A.D. 49 and before Luke was written in A.D. 59.
That puts Mark sometime in the A.D. 50s, and while the argument from 2 Corinthians is interesting, I don’t think it’s enough to confidently estimate Mark as being written around A.D. 53.
I thus continue to split the decade in half and estimate that Mark was written around A.D 55.
We’ve now estimated the dates when the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts were written.
But what about the Gospels of Matthew and John?
We’ll turn to them in future episodes of the podcast.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for year into the future—and can get early access to new episodes—by going to <a href="https://patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast">Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast</a>
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!

When was the Gospel of Mark written?

In the Bible, Marian types are identified in relation to those prefiguring Jesus. A well-developed type for Jesus is Adam. The name Adam is Hebrew for man (Gen. 1:26-27; 3:17), making him—prior to eating the forbidden fruit—the father and archetype for all men. Christ replaces Adam as man’s archetype. As in this archetype, whenever Scripture compliments, praises, or blesses any human being, it implies that Jesus is even more blessed and worthy of praise.
As Eve was an important protagonist, although secondary to Adam (Gen. 2:18-25), early Christians saw Mary as Jesus’ helper and partner. Thus, Mary was the Lord’s handmaid (Luke 1:38,48) just as Eve was Adam’s. Eve’s name is also important. Originally, Adam named her Woman (Gen. 2:23), Ishshah in Hebrew, revealing that she was the archetype for woman prior to the Fall. She is renamed Eve (Gen. 3:20), losing her archetype role.
Jesus renames his mother Woman as woman’s new archetype. This first occurs at the wedding feast of Cana (John 2:1-12), on <a href="http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/John_Gospel/Chapter%202.htm">the seventh day</a> of the new creation. Mary draws Jesus’ attention to the lack of wine, and Jesus says to her, “Woman, what is this to me and to you, my hour has not yet come?” (John 2:4, literal translation). This phraseology seems a bit awkward and impersonal, both in English and in Greek. However, if we replace Woman with a proper name, it reads better: “O Eve, what is this to me and to you?” As Woman, gyne in Greek, Mary helps to launch Jesus’ public ministry.
Jesus again identifies his mother as Woman while on the cross as he looks upon the apostle John and his mother: “Woman, behold, your son!” (John 19:26). Again, we resolve the awkwardness of this phrase by substituting Woman with a proper name, making it read better: “Mary, behold, your son!” Mary is Woman because our Lord’s hour is also her hour of travail. Woman stands at the cross without uttering a word. She stands. She watches. She fulfills Jesus’ command: watch and pray (Matt. 24:42, 26:41, etc.). She listens to Jesus, and she receives his beloved disciple, given her as a son.
As woman is made for man—that is, for Christ (1 Cor. 11:8-9)—feminine roles, figures, and types, especially in supporting men, can give us salient insights into Mary. Tertullian (d. 250) also identifies Mary as the archetype of Woman:
<blockquote>The apostle [Paul] also restricts the term [woman] to the same meaning it has in Genesis . . . when he calls the Virgin Mary “woman” (cf. Gal. 4:4), just as Genesis called Eve “woman.” Writing to the Galatians, he says, “God sent his Son, born of a woman,” which establishes that she is a virgin (De virginibus velandis, 6.1).</blockquote>
How is the virgin Eve the antithetical type of the Virgin Mary? Eve is disobedient, Mary obedient; a fallen angel tempts Eve to transgress God’s will, whereas a faithful angel calls Mary to do God’s will; Eve brings death, Mary brings life—Christ’s incarnation and redemption. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202) also used this parallel: “Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Adversus haereses, 3.22.4). Justin Martyr (d. 165) also identified Eve as the antithetical type of Mary (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 100).
Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202)—a disciple of John’s disciple, Polycarp—develops this parallel: Eve was betrothed to Adam, Mary to Joseph; Eve disbelieved, Mary believed; Eve leads humanity into bondage, Mary loosed those bonds through her faith.
The typology linking Mary to Eve was no innovation. The apostle John started it in the book of Revelation:
<blockquote>Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. . . . And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun . . . on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.</blockquote>
When God reveals the heavenly ark, it appears as a pregnant woman clothed with the sun. This is a great sign in heaven, in whom the male child who will rule the nations dwells. Parallels between this passage and Genesis 3 suggest that Woman is the New Eve: in this passage God clothes Woman with the sun, whereas God in Genesis 3:21 clothes Eve with skins. God curses Eve with birth pangs (Gen. 3:16); the Messiah’s mother is with birth pangs as in Micah (5:2-3).
(This is not to say that Mary’s “travail” is literal labor pains; rather, it is her suffering and groaning for the fulfillment of her son’s mission. Woman’s travail comes as the curse for Eve’s sin. It also prefigures Jerusalem’s destruction (Jer. 6:1-9, 22-26), the end of the world [Isa. 13:4-8], and its redemption [45:9-14]. Matthew links this travail to Bethlehem’s at the slaughter of the infants [2:16-18]; Jesus links it to his disciples’—including Mary’s—suffering at his crucifixion [Isa. 53:10-11, John 16:20-22, Gal. 4:19]; Paul links it to our suffering, the world’s longing for the Messiah, and his redemption over sin [Rom. 8:18-23].)
In both Genesis and Revelation, the serpent battles the woman and her seed. In both, God curses the serpent. God promises to put enmity between the serpent and the woman in Genesis and fulfills that promise in Revelation by giving her “the two wings of a great eagle that she might fly from the serpent.” Eve is “mother of the living” (Gen. 3:20) according to the flesh, yet Woman is mother of the true living, the mother of those who keep God’s commandments (Rev. 12:17). We are Woman’s children because we are brothers and sisters of Christ, “doing God’s will” (Mark 3:33-35) by keeping his commandments.
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="84">Gen. 3</td>
<td width="516">Parallels</td>
<td width="85">Rev. 12</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 1</td>
<td width="516">Serpent (dragon) is subtle (slithery, cunning) . . . pours out a serpentine river</td>
<td width="85">vv. 9,15</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 1</td>
<td width="516">Serpent confronts Woman</td>
<td width="85">v. 4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 8</td>
<td width="516">Woman hides from God vs. being in the center of God’s temple</td>
<td width="85">vv. 11:19</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 14</td>
<td width="516">God curses serpent . . . banishes him from heaven</td>
<td width="85">vv. 8-9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 14</td>
<td width="516">To crawl on its belly, to eat dirt (below animals) . . . to the earth</td>
<td width="85">vv. 9-10, 12-13</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 15</td>
<td width="516">God puts enmity between the serpent and Woman . . . on eagle’s wings</td>
<td width="85">v. 14</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 15</td>
<td width="516">Between Woman’s and the serpent’s seeds . . . he tries to devour her seed</td>
<td width="85">v. 4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 15</td>
<td width="516">Serpent snipes at . . . pursues Woman and wars against Woman’s seed</td>
<td width="85">vv. 13,19</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 15</td>
<td width="516">Salvation: serpent’s head is crushed . . . by the seed’s blood and testimony</td>
<td width="85">vv. 10-11</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 16</td>
<td width="516">God curses Woman with birth pangs . . . pangs in birthing Messiah</td>
<td width="85">v. 2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">vv. 17-19</td>
<td width="516">Ground is cursed against Woman vs. protects Woman</td>
<td width="85">v. 16</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 20</td>
<td width="516">Woman becomes mother of the living . . . of those alive in Christ</td>
<td width="85">v. 19</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="84">v. 21</td>
<td width="516">God clothes Woman with skins . . . with the sun</td>
<td width="85">v. 1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Mother of God, Mother of Everyone

Episode 72: Year B &#8211; Divine Mercy Sunday
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on three details that are relevant for apologetics in this upcoming Divine Mercy Sunday readings. The first comes from the first reading, which is taken from Acts 4:32-35, where we’re told the early Christians didn’t claim any possessions to be his own but had everything in common. Of course, the relevant topic is whether this provides biblical justification for socialism. The remaining two details are taken from the Gospel reading, which is taken from John 20:19-31. The relevant topics that we focus on are the apostolic power to forgive sins (and its corresponding Sacrament, the Sacrament of Reconciliation), and the early Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus.
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
The Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/040724.cfm">Click Here</a>
</div>
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
</div></div>

Were the Early Christians in Support of Socialism?

Bishop Chad Zielinski is the 6th bishop of Fairbanks Alaska, a diocese of 11,000 Catholics spread across an area of more than 410,000 square miles. He shares what it is like to minister in America’s largest, and coldest, mission diocese.

Missionary to the Top of the World

In this episode Trent critically examines Bible Flock Box’s recent video “10 Facts About the VIRGIN MARY You&#8217;re Not Being Told (Especially If You&#8217;re Catholic)”.

Bible Flock Box’s 10 “Facts” About Mary

In this episode Trent updates us on his potential long-term jury service and shares an interview with Brandon Vogt on how to share the faith with atheists.

Evangelizing Atheists with Brandon Vogt (and Jury Duty!)

In this episode Trent examines the arguments of Fr. Daniel Horan who claims that Catholics should seriously consider that some animals are people and also claims it is a sin to misgender someone.

Priest Says Animals are People and Misgendering is a Sin

Was Revelation written in the A.D. 90s . . . or the explosive 60s? In this gripping episode, Jimmy Akin tackles one of the Bible&#8217;s hottest debates: the true date of Revelation! He dissects early Church Fathers&#8217; ambiguous clues, the still-standing Jerusalem temple, and the beast&#8217;s seven heads that may nail it close to Nero&#8217;s chaotic final days. Get ready for mind-blowing evidence that could transform how you read the Apocalypse! Don&#8217;t miss this detective-style dive!
&nbsp;
TRANSCRIPT: 
Coming Up
The most controversial book in the Bible is the book of Revelation.
One of the controversies is when it was written.
This is an important question because when you date the book of Revelation affects multiple issues regarding how it is to be interpreted.
So . . . can we figure it out? Can we determine when John wrote it?
Let’s get into it!
* * *
Howdy, folks!
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get early access to new episodes—by going to <a href="https://patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast">Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast</a>
&nbsp;
Two Schools of Thought
The book of Revelation was written during the apostolic age, but precisely when is debated.
Today, there are two principal schools of thought.
The first school of thought dates Revelation to the reign of the emperor Domitian, which was between A.D. 81 and 96.
Advocates of this school tend to date Revelation toward the end of his reign, say around A.D.  95.
The second school of thought places Revelation earlier, in the A.D. 60s.
Currently, the first view—holding that Revelation was written in the 90s—is the most common. It gained popularity in the twentieth century.
However, in the nineteenth century, the earlier date of the A.D. 60s was the most common view.
So, which school is right?
&nbsp;
The A.D. 90s? 
The view that places Revelation in the 90s is based on statements in some of the early Church Fathers that John was banished to Patmos during the reign of Domitian.
This view is thought to have been held by Irenaeus of Lyons around A.D. 180.
In his 5-volume work Against Heresies, Irenaeus wrote:
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3
We will not . . . incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of the Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision [i.e., the book of Revelation]. For it was seen no very long time ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.
That translation makes it sound like John saw the vision that Revelation contains toward the end of Domitian’s reign in the A.D. 90s.
However, there is ambiguity in what Irenaeus said. Irenaeus’s Greek can be understood to say that “it”—meaning the vision of John—was seen during the reign of Domitian.
But it can also be translated as saying that “he”—meaning John himself—was seen during this time.
If that’s the case, Irenaeus is commenting not on when the book was written but on how long John lived.
&nbsp;
Which Emperor?
You’d think that we might be able to clear up when Revelation was written based on John’s legal circumstances, because we know that he was in exile on the small Greek island of Patmos off the coast of modern Turkey when he wrote it.
In Revelation 1, John writes:
Revelation 1:9-10, ESV
I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet . . .
He then goes on to describe the vision he had.
Many people mistakenly think that Patmos was a prison colony, and that John was in prison when he saw the vision, but this isn’t true. Patmos was not a prison colony.
Instead, John had been exiled or banished to the island. Banishing people to islands was a common way of dealing with people who the Romans didn’t want to execute but also didn’t want running around causing problems on the mainland.
So John was being punished by being confined to the island, but he wasn’t confined to a prison. He had free run of the island.
Early Christian literature indicates that he was banished by one of the Roman emperors, but this doesn’t let us figure out the date of the book because there is confusion in early Christian sources about which Roman emperor banished John to Patmos.
David Aune writes:
David Aune, Word Biblical Commentary, Revelation 1:9d
According to the confused tradition in Epiphanius (Pan. 51.12.1–2), John left Patmos when he was over ninety years old during the reign of Claudius Caesar (A.D. 41–54). Some confusion results from the fact that Claudius was one of the names of Nero, who is referred to both as Nero Claudius and as Nero Claudius Caesar. There is therefore general agreement that John was banished to the island of Patmos by a Roman emperor, and some agreement that this emperor was Domitian. Some notices are ambiguous (e.g., Clement of Alexandria and Origen) and make it possible to argue that the emperor who banished John was Nero rather than Domitian.
If it was Nero who banished John, then he would have been on Patmos much earlier, for Nero reigned between A.D. 54 and 68.
As we will see later, including in future episodes, there are strong connections between Nero and Revelation.
&nbsp;
The Temple of God
A piece of evidence supporting an earlier date is the fact that Revelation describes the Jerusalem temple as still operating, for in Revelation 11, John says,
Revelation 11:1-2, NAB:RE
Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Come and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count those who are worshiping in it. But exclude the outer court of the temple; do not measure it, for it has been handed over to the Gentiles, who will trample the holy city for forty-two months.
This depicts “the temple of God” in Jerusalem (“the holy city”) in a state of operation.
“Those who are worshipping in it” is a good literal translation of the Greek.
But the temple was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70 when they conquered the city and it was “handed over to the Gentiles,” who trampled it.
The passage thus depicts the temple before its destruction and suggests a date for the book prior to 70.
&nbsp;
The Seven Heads
The most precise clue to Revelation’s dating may be the interpretation it gives of the seven heads of the beast that John sees.
In chapter 13, John sees a beast with seven heads rising from the sea, and in chapter 17, these heads are interpreted for us. John writes:
Revelation 17:9-10
The seven heads are seven mountains. . . . They are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while.
The seven mountains have been identified since ancient times as the seven hills of Rome, and so the seven kings involve a reference to Roman emperors.
This fits with other information in the book of Revelation. We are elsewhere told that—like the Roman emperors—the beast blasphemes God, persecutes the saints, rules the world, and receives worship from all but Christians. For example, see chapter Revelation 13:6-8.
If the seven heads are the line of first-century emperors, the five who “have fallen” would be
<ol>
<li>Augustus,</li>
<li>Tiberius,</li>
<li>Caligula,</li>
<li>Claudius,</li>
<li>and Nero.</li>
</ol>
The one who “is” would be Nero’s successor,
<ol start="6">
<li>Galba,</li>
</ol>
and the other who “has not yet come” would be
<ol start="7">
<li>Otho,</li>
</ol>
And Otho did—indeed—reign “only a little while.” His reign lasted just three months.
This calculation would place the composition of Revelation during the reign of Galba, which was between June 9, 68-January 15, 69.
This also agrees with the fact we saw earlier that the Jerusalem temple was still in operation, since Galba reigned before the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.
This supports the older view that Revelation was written in the A.D. 60s.
For my money, this is the correct date for revelation: Most likely, it was in second half of A.D. 68 or—just possibly—in the first two weeks of 69.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for year into the future—and can get early access to new episodes—by going to <a href="https://patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast">Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast</a>
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

How do we support the use of relics when Protestants see it as idolatry?

I’m in OCIA. How are Catholics different from Gnostics and Protestants?

The bible tells us not to seek mediums or speak to the deceased. How is it then you can speak to the saints?

My protestant sister asked me, why do they call it Good Friday if that was the day Jesus suffered and died? Who gave it that name?

Why do Catholics take John 6 literally but John 6:58 sounds more metaphorical?

How do we know that Marian apparitions are not taking away attention from Jesus? How do we get the title of Queen of Heaven for her?

Many Protestants see relics as idolatrous—but are they? We explore the biblical and historical support for relics in Catholicism, and also answer questions on praying to saints, Marian apparitions, and what makes Good Friday &#8220;good.&#8221;
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

How Do Catholics Defend the Use of Relics Against Claims of Idolatry?

In this free-for-all-Friday, Trent reveals the secrets behind so-called &#8220;reality&#8221; TV shows.

FFAF: How Reality TV Gets Faked

What is the Catholic perspective on cynicism and anger?

Why do y’all have so many titles for Mary?

In Leviticus 10 two dudes are killed for doing something liturgically wrong, but later two other dudes did something liturgically wrong but were not killed. What’s the deal with that?

How do I deal with spiritual attack without being superstitious?

I want to go to a Protestant Bible study to promote the Catholic faith? Is it a problem for me to pray with them? I heard something like if I pray with them I might be excommunicated.

Do I need to go to confession for rooting for Ohio State over Notre Dame?

We have a Christian understanding of baptism, but what was the understanding of baptism by the Jews at the time of Jesus’ baptism?

AMA: Mary’s Titles, Spiritual Attack, and Baptism in Jesus’ Time

The Incredible Shrinking Book of Mormon

In Purgatory, are human memories saved in the soul or in the body?

I’m Protestant and it seems to me that scripture indicates that upon death one immediately either goes to Heaven or Hell. Is that not the Catholic view?

How did people come up with the idea of Universalism when it seems clear in scripture that people will be lost?

I want to pray for people in purgatory, but there’s so many people I know who have died, some from long ago. How do I know who I should be praying for, or if that person is even still in purgatory?

My Protestant friend thinks purgatory is very legalistic or transactional, in that mortal sins send you to hell but venial sins only to purgatory. How can I answer him?

Life After Death: Heaven, Hell, & Purgatory

<div>Does God have emotions?</div><div><a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/god">God</a> is the cause of the human nature, which has emotions that always and necessarily flow from our knowledge, which for us is dependent on the senses. Emotions are the impulses that flow from knowledge in a bodily nature. Without a body, there are no emotions in the strict sense, since emotions are bodily reactions toward or away from the things we sense as good or bad. Thus, neither God nor angels (who are pure spirits), nor the human soul separated from the body in death, properly have emotions.
What non-bodily beings do have, however, is an appetite for what is good and an aversion to what is evil. So, in order to speak of how God and the angels &#8220;feel&#8221; about good and evil, we necessarily use the language of the emotions.
We must remember, however, that the attitude of spiritual beings is more intense about good and evil than our emotions are. When we say that God and the angels do not have feelings, what we really mean is that their nature gives them an even more intense experience of good and evil than the one we have in our bodies. So God is not &#8220;unfeeling&#8221; because he has no emotions; rather, he loves the good and hates evil with an infinitely greater intensity than we do.
When <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/scripture">Sacred Scripture</a> speaks of God being angry or sad or rejoicing, what it means is that we experience God&#8217;s actions as though they were the actions of one who has emotions as we do. But in a true sense, we could say that our anger or sorrow or joy are weak in comparison to his love of justice and the good and his hatred of evil.
</div>

What We Mean When We Speak of God’s Emotions

Why should we care about the Filioque?

What is the Kingdom of God mentioned in the bible?

How do we make sense of freewill when we die?

Where does Limbo and purgatory fall especially when looking at the time before Jesus?

How authentic is the Letter of Pilate to Tiberius?

. Julie… Rochester, MN… I’m a cradle Catholic and I have a two-part question about baptism:  I’ve had relatives who wished to have their children baptized by a priest, but the priest denied them because of their living situations and lack o...

Questions from Society 315

On Monday Trent was invited to speak to students at Benedictine College about his new book Why Catholics Can’t be Socialists. In this talk Trent explains what socialism is, the “incentive” and “knowledge” problems that undermine it, and why the Church has always opposed this economic system.cou

My Socialism Talk at Benedictine College

In this episode Trent breaks down a conspiracy about Jesus that even fringe atheists reject.
Transcription:
Trent:
There are weird conspiracy theories and then there are Bonker crazy ones. Today we&#8217;re going to refute one such conspiracy about Jesus that even fringe atheist scholars think is insane. But documentaries supporting this theory get over a million views on YouTube so it counts as extremely popular low hanging fruit to rebut, namely the claim that Jesus Christ never existed because he was invented by the Roman Empire. The main book peddling this theory is Joseph at Will&#8217;s, Caesar&#8217;s Messiah, the Roman conspiracy to invent Jesus according to at will Christianity was invented by Emperor Titus sometime after the Jewish revolt that took place between AD 66 and 73. Jesus was invented in order to promote a pro-woman, peaceful Jewish Messiah who would suppress further revolts against Rome. In order to accomplish this goal, the Romans had Flavius Josephus, a former Jewish freedom fighter who defected and became an advisor to Titus create. What we now know is the New Testament. There&#8217;s a lot wrong with this argument, so let&#8217;s go through the key parts of the documentary that try to support it.
CLIP:
It&#8217;s during this period that a new literature enters history which describes a peace loving turn, the other cheek preaching Jewish Messiah named Jesus Christ. But if the Flavian wrote the gospels, how could a Roman family know how to write Jewish literature that refers to Jewish prophecy? The answer lies in the flavian collaborations with a number of Jewish intellectuals beginning with their own court historian Josephus,
Trent:
No, Josephus did not write the gospels. You can tell they&#8217;re written by different authors. Mark is not. Luke is not John is not Matthew, et cetera, and Mark wrote before the temple was even destroyed. But even if per impossible, Josephus did write the gospels, that still doesn&#8217;t explain the Jesus story because the documentary never mentions the writings of St. Paul. Paul says that he saw the risen Lord and he knew Peter the other apostles and James one of the Lord&#8217;s relatives. If Jesus Christ never existed, then who were these people? Even Jesus Mythicist like Richard Carrier agree. Paul existed and other skeptics agree with the historical consensus about St. Paul.
CLIP:
In almost 2000 years of intense scholarly scrutiny, seven of these 13 letters have withstood and emerged virtually unanimously as all being by the same author whom historians pragmatically identify as the Apostle Paul. These so-called undisputed letters are Romans first and second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians one, Thessalonians and Philemon.
Trent:
So while scholars disagree about some of St Paul&#8217;s letters, they agree the major letters were written by him and that he knew the apostles. The documentary simply ignores this massive problem with their thesis that Jesus was invented by the Roman empire.
CLIP:
So the Roman plot to invent Christianity is just so clever when you think about it through the Pope who is God&#8217;s representative on earth, they no longer needed expensive standing armies, wars and punishment of disobedient peasants. They could through religion rule their subjects.
Trent:
Okay, so the Romans create Christianity in the first century so they can better rule their subjects. But if that&#8217;s true, why did they kill people for belonging to the religion that they wanted them to belong to? Like the persecutions that took place under Emperor Nero? In Emperor Trajan&#8217;s letter to the Roman governor Pliny the younger written around the year one 12, he doesn&#8217;t say anything about this plot or that Christianity was something the Roman empire invented. Instead, he writes the following, these people are not to be sought for, but if they be accused and convicted, they are to be punished. But with this caution that he who denies himself to be a Christian and makes it plain that he is not so by supplicating to our gods, although he had been so formerly maybe allowed pardon upon his repentance. So the only reason Christian literature existed during this time period was because the Roman government allowed it to exist as part of a grand conspiracy.
This reminds me of the South Park episode, which said that the ultimate nine 11 conspiracy theory was that the government created all the nine 11 conspiracy theories in order to make people think the government was in control of everything. However, as Dirk Roman notes in his article book, burning is Conflict Management in the Roman Empire Book Burning in the early Imperial period was rare, generally despised and inefficient. The New Testament doesn&#8217;t take an overtly anti-woman position, and this isn&#8217;t due to it being created by Rome. Jesus and his followers simply worked within Roman rule to change society from within. But the bigger mistake which many conspiracy theories make about Christianity is the assumption that Christianity only came into existence through people reading the Bible. As I noted in a previous episode on a neglected argument for Sola scriptura, the primary way people learned about Christianity in the early church was through preaching oral tradition and obedience to the priests and bishops of their local church.
During this period, the New Testament documents were authoritative, but they had not reached the level of esteem given to the Old Testament scriptures, which is why the earliest Apostolic fathers usually did not cite them as scripture. Instead, you have people like Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome commanding Christians to follow their bishops and elders. So in order for Christianity to be a Roman invention, the Roman government would had to have enlisted untold numbers of people to pretend to be Christians and start this myth and then be willing to die for it in the coming persecutions. I call that unlikely to say the least.
CLIP:
Further, there had never been any archeologic evidence of Jesus Christ that had ever been discovered.
Trent:
So what? There isn&#8217;t archeological evidence for 99.9% of people who have ever lived and yet they lived. The lack of archeological evidence is concerning if we&#8217;re talking about something like the supposed existence of huge civilizations in the new world as described in the Book of Mormon, but this is typical for single individuals who were not famous rulers. There wasn&#8217;t even archeological evidence for Pontius Pilate until the Pilot Stone, which bears his name was discovered in Caesar Maritima in 1961. Next, the document claims Jesus was simply copied from earlier Jewish and Pagan themes.
CLIP:
A lot of the ethics of Christianity actually were around before Christianity do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is in fact from the Old Testament. Jesus didn&#8217;t make that up.
Trent:
That&#8217;s true. Leviticus 1918 says, you shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. But Jesus&#8217;s teaching fulfilled the Old Testament law by expanding the definition of neighbor to include every single human being because God loves and wants to save every single human being. This is why the Parable of the Good Samaritan was such a powerful teaching. The neighbor was the man who loved his neighbor. The sublime beauty of this story smashes the idea. Some Roman propagandist wrote the gospels and it fits nicely within the idea that this is simply divine wisdom incarnate. Also, I want to point out a double standard in hypercritical scholarship. If Jesus says something in the gospels that sounds Jewish, it must have been taken from the Old Testament, but if Jesus says something that sounds Christian, then the early church must have put those words in Jesus&#8217; mouth, and if he doesn&#8217;t sound like the Old Testament or the early church, then he must be a pagan ripoff. This is yet another example of heads I win tales you lose.
CLIP:
If you look at the elements which we found in the pagan mystery school myths, you find the story of a dying and resurrecting son of God who&#8217;s born of a virgin, has 12 disciples, turns water into wine at a wedding, it brings a new religion of love, is accused of heresy or of provocation by the authorities, is put to death sometimes by crucifixion, and then if you want to commune with the God man, you take bread and wine and then you can come to eternal life.
Trent:
So this is basically the zeitgeist argument that the story of Jesus was stolen from paganism. I&#8217;ve already debunked that in a previous episode on zeitgeist, which shows that many of these parallels are either trivial or the pagan God didn&#8217;t actually do what Jesus did, or it was the pagans who stole elements of Christianity centuries later. So check out that episode if you want to get the full rebuttal. I will say that I&#8217;m really amused. Timothy Frecker is in this documentary because he co-wrote an awful book on the subject called the Jesus Mysteries, which features an amulet on the cover called the Orpheus Amulet that he and his co-author claim is an image from late antiquity of a pagan deity being crucified just like Jesus. The men write as the final pieces of the puzzle were falling into place, we came across a small picture tucked away in the appendices of an old academic book.
It was a drawing of a third century CE amulet. We have used it as the cover of this book. It shows a crucified figure which most people would immediately recognize as Jesus. Yet the Greek words name the figure Orpheus BCUs, one of the pseudonyms of Osirus dionisis. The chance discovery of this amulet made us feel as though the universe itself was encouraging us to make our findings public. However, James Hanna, author of God&#8217;s Philosophers, how the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science went to the original source material of the old book these authors cite and it provides evidence that the amulet is a fake. You can also see this because the figure has bent legs popular in medieval depictions of crucifixion, not straight legs that were popular in ancient depictions. Richard Carrier, who remember, doesn&#8217;t even believe Jesus existed, even says the Jesus mysteries will disease your mind with rampant unsourced, falsehoods and completely miseducate you about the ancient world and ancient religion.
CLIP:
The final connecting point between the Flavian family and Christianity is that in the fourth century, Flavius Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome.
Trent:
When you hear a supposed academic or expert on Christianity say that Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, that&#8217;s a sign they are anything but an expert on the faith. That&#8217;s because Constantine only granted toleration to Christianity in the Western Roman empire through the edict of Milan in three 13, Christianity did not become the religion of the empire until Emperor Theodosius edict of Thessalonica in the year three 80. Next Atwell claims that one of the early Popes Clement of Rome actually belonged to the Roman Flavian family.
CLIP:
The Flavian family is connected to early Christianity in a number of unusual ways. So many members of the family were recorded as having been among the first Roman Catholic Saints. These include Flavia do Mattila, who is either Titus&#8217;s sister or his niece, and there is an inscription honoring Flavia for donating the land that became the first Christian catacomb and Flavia do. Mattila was the first Christian saint. Her son Clement is recorded as having been the first Roman Catholic pope after the Apostle Simon.
Trent:
There were some converts to Christianity among Roman elite, but that does not prove the Roman elite invented Christianity. But the more egregious error is that Clement of Rome is not the son of Flavia. Dooma Little is known about his life except that he was the fourth pope, not Peter&#8217;s immediate successor who was called Peter, not Simon at this time. Later legends give his parents the names Palestina and Maceda. The Catholic encyclopedia gives an explanation that probably explains at Will&#8217;s slipup and confusing to Clements in the middle of the 19th century, it was the custom to identify the Pope Clement of Rome with the console of 95 T Flavius Clemens, who I&#8217;ll add was Dooma till&#8217;s husband, not her son who was martyred by his first cousin, the Emperor Domitian at the end of his console ship. But the ancients never suggests this, and the Pope is said to have lived on until the reign of Trajan.
It is unlikely that he was a member of the Imperial family, the continual use of the Old Testament in his epistle. First Clement has suggested to Lightfoot funk, Nestle and others that he was of Jewish origin. Finally, we get to the part of the documentary that claims to reveal the secret codes Josephus left in the Gospels to prove he wrote it and that the stories are actually allegories about Roman control of the Empire. According to at Will&#8217;s book, what seems to have alluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus&#8217;s ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of Emperor Titus Flavius as described by Josephus. This is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern. So how did modern scholars miss all of this? At Will writes the following, many of the parallels are conceptual or poetic, so they aren&#8217;t all immediately obvious. After all, the authors did not want the average believer to see what they were doing, but they did want the alert reader to see it. An educated Roman in the ruling class would probably have recognized the literary game being played. The Roman Caesars left us a kind of puzzle literature that was meant to be solved by future generations, and the solution to that puzzle is we invented Jesus Christ and we are proud of it. Atwell offers many alleged parallels or secret codes, but here is a typical absolutely absurd one.
CLIP:
Jesus comes to the Sea of Galilee at the beginning of his ministry. He gathers his disciples to him and he says, do not be afraid. Follow me and become fishers of men. In the gospel of Luke, Jesus actually says catchers of men. Titus comes to the same location to the Sea of Galilee. He gathers his troops, his disciples together and he says, don&#8217;t be afraid. And then he leads them. They follow him and they attack a group of Jewish rebels. They sink the Jews boats. The Jews attempt to swim to safety, and the Romans use their spears to catch them. They become fishers of men.
Trent:
You heard him right at Will says that when Jesus calls the disciples to be fishers of men, this is a secret code written by the Roman authors of the Gospels related to a scene in Josephus history of the Jewish war against Rome, which took place shortly before the destruction of the temple between 80 66 and 80 70. Specifically, it&#8217;s a scene describing how Emperor titus&#8217;s troops would kill Jews who would escape them in the Sea of Galilee by cutting off their hands or their heads and shooting them with darts or arrows. At Will says Jesus has called to become a fisher of men, is a reference to when Romans caught Jews like fish in the battle of Lake Tiberius. Now, this is a case of what the biblical scholar Samuel Sandel called parallel mania finding parallels where none actually exist. It&#8217;s also an example of the importance of following this age old proverb.
When you hear hoofbeats think horses before unicorns, if something sounds like a simple story without a crazy hidden meaning, then it probably is unless evidence suggests otherwise. And really good evidence, I would say. And even the scholars who believe Jesus never existed, even they think that atwell&#8217;s argument is terrible. Robert Price, one of the only scholars in the world with a doctorate in New Testament studies who also denies Jesus existed is sympathetic to Atwell but writes, one hates to be so severe in the analysis of the work of an innovative thinker who gives us the gift of a fresh reading of familiar text, but in the present case, it is hard to euphemized. The reading given here is just ludicrous, ludicrous indeed because of Atwell&#8217;s thesis is right. Then not only did Jesus never exist, neither did Peter James or Paul. In fact, there would&#8217;ve been no Christians at all before the destruction of the temple in 80 70.
But we know this is not true because the Roman historian TAUs records in his annals that emperor Nero blame the great fire in Rome which took place three years before the Jewish revolt on a group called Christians. Even if TAUs were in on the act, how could the Romans have fabricated the existence of churches such as those in Corinth or Thessalonica that were supposed to have existed? According to the Book of Acts for decades before the Jewish revolt, when the first Jews who joined the Christian Church realized something was not quite right about a movement that literally spr up overnight that was supposed to have been around for decades. Finally, the author of First Corinthians admits that the cross a dying Messiah represented a stumbling block for the Jews. Now, Paul, the real author of First Corinthians, just had to accept that fact and preach it because Jesus&#8217;s crucifixion really did happen.
However, if the entire story was made up in order to appeal to Jews to get them to believe in Jesus, then why create a fake Messiah whose death would be so unique and unexpected, it would be rejected by the Jewish elite and instead be primarily embraced by the Gentiles who weren&#8217;t even a part of the conspiracy to begin with. Why create lots of other contradictory apocryphal gospels like the Gospel of Thomas that compete with your fake religion that you hope the future church will not deem to be canonical? None of it makes sense, which is why Richard Carrier writes, I gave him a fair shot, but at will never has any defensible examples, rarely knows what he&#8217;s talking about, gets a lot wrong, makes stuff up, never admits an error, and is generally in my experience, a frustrating delusional fanatic. So an even fringe scholarship rejects your view. To whom can you go? By the way, if you want to learn more about how to defend Jesus against similar conspiracies as well as more substantive objections, check out my book Counterfeit Christ, finding The Real Jesus Among the Imposters, linked In the Description below. Thank you all so much for watching and I hope you have a very blessed day.

The Most Absurd Conspiracy About Jesus (REBUTTED)

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent break down the elements that make up modern musicals and shares some of his favorites, with a few of his own renditions to share!

What I Love About Musicals

In this episode Trent answers skeptical arguments that claim post-crucifixion sightings of Jesus are cases of collective delusion like Bigfoot or other unusual sightings.

Was the Resurrection a “Collective Delusion”?

Episode 115: Year C &#8211; The Feast of the Presentation of the Lord
In today’s episode, we focus on several details from the first and second readings, along with the Gospel, for this upcoming Feast of the Presentation of the Lord that are related to apologetical discussions. One detail comes from the first reading, taken from Malachi 3:1-4, and the related topic is Purgatory. Another detail comes from the second reading, taken from Hebrews 2:14-18, and the apologetical topic that this detail relates to is the theory of penal substitutionary theory. The remaining details, three in total, come from the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 2:22-40. The relevant topics are Jesus’ Messiahship, Jesus’ Divinity, which will be seen in connection with the first reading, and Mary as Co-redemptrix.
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/020225.cfm">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

Feast of the Presentation: Purgatory, Penal Substitution, and Mary as Co-Redemptrix | Year C

The Seven Last Words of Jesus Christ Livestream: April 10, 2020

The Weirdest James White Debates I’ve Seen

In this free-for-all-Friday, Trent shares why he loved the realism of Top Gun: Maverick and bemoans the lack of realism in modern CGI-driven storytelling.

How CGI Ruined Movies

The Passion of Joan of Arc

The Flowers of St. Francis

Apocalypto

Stand By Me

Before Sunrise

Casablanca

Lawrence of Arabia

Alfred Hitchcock

Eric Rohmer

Lightning Round: Summer movie recommendations

Tolkien

Faith and Movies

Wasn’t Jesus speaking symbolically when He said, “This is my body”?

Wouldn’t Jesus’ command to ‘eat my flesh and drink my blood’ violate Jewish law against consuming blood?

Didn’t Jesus say, “Do this in remembrance of me”? Doesn’t that clearly indicate the Eucharist is a memorial, not a literal sacrifice?

Doesn’t the Book of Hebrews teach that Christ’s sacrifice was ‘once for all’? How can the Catholic Mass be a true sacrifice without re-sacrificing Christ?

Wouldn’t Jesus’ command to ‘eat my flesh’ be cannibalism

&#8220;Is the Eucharist a Literal Sacrifice or a Symbolic Act?&#8221; This episode delves into the nature of the Eucharist, addressing questions like whether Jesus spoke symbolically when He said, “This is my body,” and how His command to ‘eat my flesh and drink my blood’ aligns with Jewish law. We also explore the implications of Jesus’ words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and the teachings of the Book of Hebrews.
<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>

Is the Eucharist a Literal Sacrifice or Just Symbolic? Body, Blood, and Sacrifice (ENCORE)

I’ve heard some folks claim that Hell is where God isn’t present, but isn’t that impossible if God is omnipresent?

Did Jesus’s guardian angel have the easiest job?

I have a question on resurrection and whether resurrection requires our bodies to be the same as our earthly bodies. I recently finished a fictional story (Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure: Steel Ball Run) where the characters receive powers from having some i...

My daughter wants to know: what would happen if you dropped a skyscraper-size piece of tungsten onto a nuclear armory (where they are stored), would all the bombs go off? How big a fallout would it be? And would it be a deterrent for nuclear weapons?

Assuming that Nephilim is literally the result of human women somehow mating with fallen angels, what sort of nature would they have? Could they be baptized?

Is there a scientific reason behind automatic writing? What might be happening outside of supernatural causes and assuming no mental health issues as well?

Where would the Pope go if Rome was nuked with a nuclear bomb designed for maximal radiation damage over an area? The Vatican is largely intact but is rendered unlivable for millennia due to fallout. Would the church make a new St. Peter’s Basilica? Wo...

With Jesus being perfect, did His guardian angel have an easy assignment, or was there more to it? Jimmy Akin explores this curious question and tackles more topics, including the nature of Hell, the resurrection of the body, and what would happen if Rome became uninhabitable.

Did Jesus’s Guardian Angel Have the Easiest Job Ever?

Episode 116: Year C &#8211; 5th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In today’s episode, we focus on five details in the readings for this upcoming 5th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. The first two details are found in the first reading, taken from Isaiah 6:1-2a, 3-8. The related apologetical topics are repetitious prayer and the theme of purification by fire, which relates to the doctrine of Purgatory. The next two details come from the second reading, taken from 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. The apologetical topics that come to the fore are the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection and man’s cooperation with grace. Finally, the fifth detail comes from the Gospel, which is taken from Luke 5:1-11. The apologetical topic of focus for this Gospel is Peter’s headship among the apostles.
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/020925.cfm">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

Repetitious Prayer, Purgatory, Jesus’ Resurrection, Grace, and Peter’s Headship | Year C

What did the Early Church say about Mary?

Was Mary ordinary and made extraordinary because of her actions or was she extraordinary from the beginning? Does Simeon’s prophecy that the hearts of many would be revealed mean she would hear all of our prayers?

Besides the book of Revelation, what other evidence for the Assumption of Mary?

I’m reading St. Louis de Monforte, and he mentions a group who didn’t care to talk about Mary. I think it was the Pelagianists. What happened to them and their denial of her?

I was taught that ever since the flood there was no evil seed. And that sin was passed on through man seed in conception. How can the Catholic Church claim she was preserved from sin if she was conceived through ordinary means?

To what extent did Mary know about the sufferings that Jesus would endure at the passion?

Can we accept the apparition of Our Lady of La Salette or did the later issues with the children taint the whole message?

How do we refute the Protestant claim that the title Queen of Heaven is not of a pagan goddess from the Old Testament?

&#8220;What did the Early Church say about Mary?&#8221; In this episode, we explore the significance of Mary in early Christianity, addressing questions about her extraordinary nature, the evidence for her Assumption beyond Revelation, and the historical context of groups like the Pelagianists who downplayed her role. Tune in for a rich discussion on these pivotal 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>

What Did the Early Church Say About Mary, Her Assumption, and More

In this free-for-all-Friday, Trent examines the creepy uncanniness of liminal spaces and how they manifest in online memes.

FFAF: The Mystery of Liminal Space

In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes Karlo Broussard to discuss the role of the priesthood in light of Jesus&#8217; fulfillment of the Old Testament laws. Dr. Karlo dives into the significance of the torn veil and how it impacts our understanding of the New Covenant. Don&#8217;t miss this enlightening conversation that challenges common beliefs!
Transcript:
Caller: I was raised a Catholic and I went to Catholic school, and I ended up converting to non-denominational Protestant beliefs because I am convinced from my study of Scripture that the Old Testament requirement to have a priest as an intermediate back then you would take your sacrifice to the priest.
And it could be for your whole family, that transgressions of your entire family. And God the Father came down once a year.
And he interacted with the priests behind the veil. We know that Jesus fulfilled all of the laws and the prophets, and there were 600 and something rules, including the 10 Commandments that were all mandatory behavior and rules. When he hung on the cross and he said, &#8220;It is finished,&#8221; that is the point where the Old Testament ended when the veil was rent and the New Testament began.
Karlo: Yeah.
Caller: Question number one, can you give me any New Testament scripture justifying why we still need an earthly priest?
Karlo: Oh great. Okay. Okay. So if the question has to do with ministerial priesthood, the question ultimately is did Jesus give us such ministerial priests? Okay, because I understand your line of reasoning that there were priests, there was a ministerial priesthood in the Old Testament with the Old Covenant. And according to your line of reasoning, it seems as if you&#8217;re arguing that because Christ has come, there is no longer any ministerial priesthood whatsoever. But notice that the conclusion there doesn&#8217;t necessarily follow from the premise.
I would agree with you that the Old Testament priesthood no longer exists. Because as the author of Hebrews says in Hebrews 7, when there is a change in the priesthood, there&#8217;s a change in the law. So Christ is our one high priest according to the book of Hebrews. Right? Christ is our one high priest.
But consider this, Keith. St. Peter in First Peter, chapter 2, verses 5 and 9 refers to the Christians as a priestly nation, a kingdom of priests. So St. Peter affirms that we&#8217;re all priests in and through the unique priesthood of Jesus. But notice St. Peter is drawing a parallel or alluding to explicitly Exodus chapter 19, verse 6, where the Israelites are referred to as a kingdom of priests.
And so notice how you have a match or a parallel between the bottom rank of priestly ministry, namely the universal priesthood of the Israelites and baptized believers in the Christian Church. You also have a parallel with the top rank of priestly ministry, because for the Israel of God in the Old Covenant, Keith, just because you had a universal priesthood of Israelites, it didn&#8217;t follow that you did not have a higher priestly rank of Aaron and his sons.
And so likewise in the New Covenant, we not only have a parallel with the bottom rank of priests in Christ, the universal priesthood, we also have the parallel with the highest rank, the top rank of Jesus. But just as they had a middle rank in the Israel of God in the Old Covenant, namely the sons of Aaron who ministered with Aaron, so too, at least we can see it&#8217;s plausible, biblically speaking, in light of St. Peter&#8217;s allusion to the Israel of God in the Old Covenant, drawing a parallel that there would also be a middle rank of priestly ministry to minister with Christ, not apart from Christ, but in and through the one priesthood of Christ.
So in light of that parallel, I think we at least have some biblical plausibility. But for the evidence that Christ constituted the apostles as priests, consider this, Keith. Consider that in John 20:23, which I&#8217;m pretty sure you&#8217;re familiar with, I would assume you&#8217;re familiar with if you&#8217;re a student of the Word, when Jesus tells the apostles in the upper room, &#8220;Whosoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Whosoever sins you retain, they are retained.&#8221;
Now, as you already mentioned, Keith, you&#8217;re well aware that in the Old Testament, those who God associated with the forgiveness of sins and making atonement for sin were his ministerial priests. So to be associated with administering the forgiveness of sins for the Old Covenant was to be a priest. That was a priestly function to minister on behalf of people to God for the forgiveness of sins.
And here in John 20:23, Jesus clearly is giving the apostles authority to not only offer sacrifice and atonement for sin, to request God to forgive, but to actually make a judgment to forgive or to retain, and that they have this ministry of administering the forgiveness of sins in, of course, the name of Jesus, because Jesus says he breathes on them and gives them the Spirit to do so.
&#8220;As the Father hath sent me, I now send you.&#8221; So too, these apostles are ministerial priests because Jesus is associating them with the reconciliation of people back to God. And so in essence, that&#8217;s a priest, a mediator. But more specifically, they&#8217;re associated with reconciling people back to God by forgiving sins. And that&#8217;s revelatory of their priestly nature.
You could look at the Last Supper. Jesus says, &#8220;Do this in remembrance of me.&#8221; The Greek there for &#8220;do this&#8221; is *poeo*, which has sacrificial overtones, suggesting that Jesus is commanding the apostles to offer the Last Supper as a sacrifice. And inasmuch as it&#8217;s a sacrifice, that suggests that he views them as ministerial priests. For the role of a priest is to offer sacrifice.
And then finally in Romans 15, Keith, Paul refers to his ministry as a priestly service. And the Greek word that he uses there, the root is *jerus*, which is the Greek word that&#8217;s used for the Jewish priests of the Old Testament. So Paul himself views his ministry as a priestly ministry. So those are just a few examples. What do you think of that, Keith?
Caller: I agree with just about everything you said because we do take on priestly roles as&#8230;
A born-again&#8230;
Christian, as a saved&#8230; I think we agree on the saved term. The plausibility that it could very well be like that does not outweigh the fact that when you look at what that veil represented and he did away with the veil at his death, I go to God now with my sins. There&#8217;s no veil that I can&#8217;t go behind anymore. There&#8217;s no veil that requires me to go to the priest.
Karlo: All right, all right, let me just jump in right here real quick. Keith, your position would make perfect sense in saying, well, if the veil is rent and therefore there&#8217;s no priest, but you have to face the fact that Jesus actually reveals to us that he gives the apostles a ministry of reconciling people back to God by forgiving and in some cases not forgiving, in which case people wouldn&#8217;t be reconciled back to God.
So rather than focusing simply on the limited information that we have with that one instance of the veil being rent, you can&#8217;t read that. I would encourage you not to read that in isolation and exclude it from what Jesus says elsewhere.
And a Catholic can read the renting of the veil in that the union between God and the human race is now restored through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. And rather than approaching God for the forgiveness of sins through the ministers of the Old Covenant, Keith, what the renting of the veil reveals is that we can only approach the Father and receive his mercy in and through the one high priest, Jesus Christ.
And he is the one mediator between God and man. Any other forms of mediation, like our mediation, Keith, when we pray for each other or from the Catholic view, the mediation of the priests in forgiving sins and who are successors to the apostles, and when the apostles are forgiving sins, that mediation is in and through the unique mediation of Jesus. And that&#8217;s what the renting of the veil represents. Christ is now our access to the presence of God.
Caller: I see that the apostles were given the ability to forgive and as he put or not. Okay, but that still sort of segues right into my second question. And let me just put it this way. I heard mention a couple of callers ago, several times he mentioned the infallible teachings. And sometimes I have issue with that. If you don&#8217;t have a scripture to back it up, then how is it infallible? And I agree that his rationale and his line of thinking is very reasonable. Very reasonable.
Cy: Let&#8217;s let Karlo respond to that, because I think the point he&#8217;s making about if you don&#8217;t have a scripture to back it up is exactly the challenge that we&#8217;re&#8230; it&#8217;s at the root of much of the conversation.
Karlo: Okay, so concerning the evidence for the infallibility of the church, if Keith is asserting that we must provide a biblical text, a text from the inspired word of God, that the church of Jesus is infallible, well then that brings up the question. Well, you need an infallible voice in order to rely on an infallible testimony in order to know that these documents are inspired to begin with, in order to begin deriving knowledge about divine revelation, right?
So if the claim is, well, the Bible&#8217;s inspired, so we need some evidence from the inspired word of God for infallibility. Well, your claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God presupposes or assumes there&#8217;s already an infallible testimony that you can rely on. And you got a problem there if you only look into the New Testament historical evidence.
Because neither Jesus nor the apostles ever tell us which documents are inspired by God and thus consequently infallible. But what we can do is we can look at these documents as historical documents, right? And we can say, well, historically speaking, Jesus had a group of 12, among which was one that he appointed to be the leader, Peter. And we can defend that with Matthew 16:18. It makes him the rock or the visible foundation of his church. He gives him the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Right? And in that conversation with Peter, when he&#8217;s making him the visible foundation of his church on earth, he says the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Right? So that indicates that the church which Peter&#8217;s the foundation of, which Peter represents in his ministry, is not going to ever fall prey to Satan overcoming it, which would be if the church ever officially taught something heretical and erroneous contrary to God&#8217;s revelation, then Satan would have overcome the church.
But Jesus promised Satan will never overcome the church. Therefore, whenever the church teaches something as coming from divine revelation in a definitive way, it follows from that that it&#8217;s going to be protected from error. It&#8217;s going to be protected from Satan.
Right? Furthermore, we could look to Luke 22:29-32. That&#8217;s where Jesus tells Peter, he&#8217;s telling the apostles, &#8220;Satan desires to sift all of you.&#8221; You all in plural there in the Greek. But then he prays directly for Peter. &#8220;But I pray for you that once you have turned, strengthen the brethren.&#8221; I pray that your faith may not fail. Jesus makes an exclusive promise to protect Peter from the sifting of Satan when Satan&#8217;s desiring to sift all of them.
So from that we can infer a special protection of Peter and by way of extension his successors, that they would be protected from the sifting of Satan concerning teaching us things about what God has revealed to us, that through his Son Jesus, and by the Spirit leading the apostles in the apostolic age.
Right? And then of course, in 1 Timothy 3:15, St. Paul says, &#8220;The church, which, remember Peter&#8217;s the foundation of, is the pillar and bulwark, or ground of truth.&#8221; Well, if the Church, the ground of truth, that implies that the Church is immovable in the truth. It can&#8217;t be tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine, right?
But if Peter is the visible foundation of that Church, well, then it follows that Peter too is immovable in the truth, the ground of truth, because he&#8217;s the representative of the Church. So when we look at that historical evidence and we follow the historical trail subsequent to the apostolic age and other historical writings, seeing that there were successors to St. Peter and the bishopric of Rome, then we have historical evidence that those same promises Jesus made to Peter and to the Church as a whole whom Peter represents would apply to his successors as well.
And so thus we have historical evidence that there is an infallible testimony that we can rely upon to know that those historical documents are indeed inspired by God and to give us definitive, infallible teaching concerning what pertains to God&#8217;s revelation, whether faith or morals. And so that would be the Catholic approach for establishing the infallibility of the papacy and, of course, the Church united to the papacy.
Cy: Keith, I&#8217;m really grateful that you took the time to call and to visit. I really could listen to a conversation between two men who know their scripture so well and go back and forth all day. But however, I have a bunch more callers on the line, so I have to continue on. So I&#8217;ll just say thanks, Keith, I hope you will call again.

I’m Not Catholic Because Every Christian is a Priest!

Episode 32: Year A &#8211; 13th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on three details that are relevant to explaining and defending the Faith. The first comes from the second reading, which is taken from Rom 6:3-4, 8-11, and the relevant topics are the salvific efficacy of Baptism and the nature of justification. The remaining two details come from the Gospel reading, which is taken from Matthew 10:37-42, and the relevant topics are Jesus’ Divinity and the authority of the apostles.
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/070223.cfm">https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/070223.cfm</a>
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday</a>

Apostolic Authority

<div>What does Jesus mean when he says we must eat and drink his body and blood to be raised on the last day?</div><div>What Our Lord means is that, in order to reach eternal life, each person must be linked to his death and resurrection through an active faith and love. We would say in traditional language that the fruits of his Passion must be applied to souls individually. The means Our Lord established in order to apply these fruits to individual souls are the sacraments, which are saving signs that link us to Christ&#8217;s death, and the present grace he gives, and the reward of eternal life.
The greatest and most powerful of the sacraments is the Eucharist. This sacrament is thus the paradigm of salvation here below, and so Our Lord relates eternal salvation in the resurrection to our eating and drinking his body and blood by our faith and love for him in this holy sacrament of sacraments. Even if you are unable to receive him physically in the sacrament, you still eat and drink him spiritually by believing in his presence and by loving him. Thus, St. Thomas teaches that even little children who are as yet unable to receive the Eucharist nonetheless eat and drink of Christ by their faith and love for him in the holy sacrament.
</div>

How Does the Eucharist Link to Our Resurrection?

Did Pope Julius II sell Indulgences?

Catholic Answers Focus – Hope for Catholic Addicts

<div>What is the Catholic Church’s position on organs for humans generated on a 3D printer?</div><div>There is no moral problem with this as long as it is safe for the patient and the human cells used in the process are not taken from aborted embryos&#8217; stem cells, which is unlikely in any case.
</div>

Are 3D Organs for Humans OK?

<div>Is "The Interpreter’s Bible" a good resource? Can you recommend a better one?</div><div>While The Interpreter’s Bible has merits, we cannot recommend it, because it is a Protestant biblical commentary and thus to one extent or another does not conform with Catholic teaching.
A worthwhile commentary is the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament. Ignatius Press expects to publish an Old Testament study component within a couple of years. The Didache Bible is another we recommend. <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/search.php?search_query=bible%20commentary&amp;section=product">You can purchase both online at shop. catholic.com</a>.
</div>

Do You Recommend ‘The Interpreter’s Bible’?

In case you were too immersed in the recent flaps over <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/blog/scott-hahn-bishop-barron-and-guilt-by-association">whether Scott Hahn is a schismatic</a> (TLDR: he’s not) or whether conservative American Catholics are backward-looking (we are: to Jesus and the apostles) to notice: Bishop Robert Barron and papal biographer Austen Ivereigh had their own recent dustup.
First, Ivereigh <a href="https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/francis-world-youth-day-lisbon-ivereigh-catholic-vatican-synodality?_ga=2.82660563.478251029.1693600592-801038572.1693600592">criticized Bp. Barron’s World Youth Day talks</a> as being over-concerned with persuasion-toward-conversion rather than simple evangelization. The good bishop, in response, <a href="https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/when-did-conversion-become-a-dirty-word/">cautioned against a weak-sauce approach</a> to evangelization that accompanies someone to such an extent that we leave out evangelization’s end goal: conversion to Christ and his Church.
Into the exchange stepped Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter, who<a href="https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/why-does-bishop-barron-keep-attacking-pope-francis-allies"> knocked Bp. Barron’s approach to evangelization</a>—marked by patient, rational dialogue and appeals to truth and beauty—as “semi-Pelagian.” He quoted approvingly Ivereigh’s follow-up charge that Barron was crossing the line from true evangelism (good) to the awful, impermissible proselytism—the most dreadful thing the Church has concocted since the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2ncJ6ciGyM">Comfy Chair</a>.
Now, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-by-your-own-bootstraps-heretic">semi-Pelagianism</a> is the ancient heresy that claimed we can make the initial act of faith or movement toward God solely by our own free will, without the aid of his grace. Winters doesn’t really believe that Bp. Barron is a semi-Pelagian; he is using the term loosely to refer to an over-emphasis on human devices (to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit) in the work of evangelization. And this charge is directly connected, apparently, with that of proselytism, which means . . . well, we’ll get to that.
Let’s look at those two points real quick.
First, I’m sure that Bp. Barron would be the last to claim that conversion is properly our work, not God&#8217;s. But it’s a false dilemma to say that either a) God draws people to himself by grace or b) we draw people to God by reason—or friendship, or beauty, or charity, or anything else we do. Instead, we have a both/and. As the <a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1993.htm">Catechism</a> puts it, the work of salvation is a “cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom.”
No one can have faith unless God first gives him grace. At the same time, God wills that we cooperate with him as instruments of our own salvation and each other’s. When it comes to others, we do this in a number of ways, but we might boil them down to three P’s:
Prayer: we ask God to do for others what we can’t
Proclamation: we tell other people the Good News
Persuasion: by word or deed, we make Christ and his truth attractive and understandable
In none of these do we forget that God’s grace is the first and necessary motive power in conversion; but at the same time, in all of them we recognize that we have a legitimate role to play. This isn’t Pelagian or semi-Pelagian or three-quarters Pelagian—it’s Catholic.
Now what about “proselytism”? This has become an especially dirty word over the last decade or so, but it has never been clear to me why, since at root it just means an effort to bring someone to a new religious point of view (see: the Great Commission). Some say that Pope Benedict XVI, who warned against it in an address to a Brazilian audience in 2007, had in mind an aggressive and coercive form of faux-evangelization that seeks to manipulate people into professing belief rather than letting them come to it in freedom—as had been practiced, at times, in the missionary field and is said to occur among the “sheep-stealing” sects of Latin America and elsewhere today.
If so, that’s a good definition and a good warning. None of us should be doing that.
But to let the definition of proselytism creep so much that it now refers, in Ivereigh’s words, to “means of persuasion, strategies, theological explanations, and apologetics programs”?? That’s going way too far. As with the false charge of semi-Pelagianism, this leaves out the role of human cooperation in the work of getting people saved.
Pope John Paul II, in fact, hit this nail right on the head. In his 1990 encyclical <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio.html">Redemptoris Missio</a>, he rebuked those who dismiss or decry the missionary “call to conversion” as “an act of ‘proselytizing.” Everyone, he said, “has the right to hear the Good News,” and so it’s not enough to “help people to become more human or more faithful in their own religion.”
Whose job is it to tell people about this Good News? It’s ours—the whole Church’s. And not only to tell people about it, but to model it for them in the way we live; and not only to model it, but to clear away their mental obstacles to it and help explain the tricky parts. And, ideally, to do it with a skill and zeal that Ivereigh &amp; co. shouldn&#8217;t dismiss as mere illicit cleverness.
Catholic Answers exists to do just this job, in a specially direct and focused way. May it please God to continue allowing us to be his humble cooperators in the salvation of souls.

No, Not the Dreaded Proselytism!

Joe Heschmeyer addresses the question of how to effectively evangelize Mormons. He emphasizes building common ground by focusing on shared beliefs in Jesus&#8217;s founding of a visible structured church and then delving into the key difference: whether or not the church experienced an apostasy.
Transcript:
Anyway, I&#8217;ve been approached by Mormon missionaries and they think they&#8217;re evangelizing me, but I really evangelize them. And I&#8217;ve realized that they&#8217;ve got a very similar view of authority to us, which I really respect. And you&#8217;ve also raised a great point that Mormonism is the logical conclusion of their Protestant Reformation.
I&#8217;d like to know what you would think is the best plan of attack, so to speak, to evangelize the Catholic faith to them.
Yeah, so I mean, I did several episode series on Shema Spopri on this, so I&#8217;m going to give you the very short answer. And I think it already sounds like you know where to go for the long one. But the first thing, I think it&#8217;s good to build up some common ground so that you don&#8217;t just come at it as enemies. Because if someone comes at any topic as your enemy, it&#8217;s very hard to listen to them, very hard to learn from them. So there&#8217;s two things that I find helpful. The first is focusing on, as you point out, that we have a similar kind of conception of authority. We both believe that Jesus founding the church is incredibly important, that there is a visible structured church to which we are called to be members. And then the entire question turns on a really specific question of fact and theology, which is, did the church founded by Jesus Christ go into an apostasy or not? And as a matter of history, and as a matter of Jesus&#8217;s divine promises in Matthew 16, we say no. And Mormons say yes.
So I would start with that because there&#8217;s many Mormons who will say, well, it&#8217;s either us or Catholics who are right. Because either the church went into apostasy and was restored by Joseph Smith or didn&#8217;t go into apostasy, in which case we&#8217;re looking for a 2000 year old church and the Catholic Church is the obvious contender.
And I&#8217;ve had plenty of Mormons kind of agree to those terms at the outset. Now, we would say it&#8217;s possible, you know, like it isn&#8217;t as if the Catholic Church going into apostasy would automatically make Mormonism true. So we wouldn&#8217;t be facing the same binary in the other direction. But that is a helpful way of framing it, where it shows a common, we&#8217;re asking the same questions, would be maybe a way to say that even though we&#8217;re coming to very different answers, we&#8217;re at least taking the issue of the church as, you know, the kingdom of God on earth very seriously and pursuing that inquiry. And then the second thing is, anytime you can build from the common ground, even in the differences, that can be really good. So I&#8217;m going to give you just one example for the sake of time. On abortion, most Mormons are incredibly pro-life and praise God, you know, it&#8217;s wonderful they are. When you read the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints website, they permit abortion in certain cases. The bishop can approve abortions and the church is very hesitant to use the term murder to describe what&#8217;s happening, even though they don&#8217;t give any explanation for why they wouldn&#8217;t be. And that exposes a sort of hypocrisy within their church in a way that I think many Mormons are often surprised. So a lot of times the Mormons you&#8217;re talking to are 18, 19 year old kids who are coming to your door. And so for many of them, this is their first time realizing that their church allows abortion in some cases, even though by all logic and reason, this would seem like it&#8217;s permitting murder if the bishop says it&#8217;s okay. So I have found that to be a particularly poignant kind of point that I&#8217;ve, more than any other single point that has been the one that I can tell kind of sticks with missionaries, leaves them wondering like, what is going on there? And that can be a good thing just to kind of begin that conversation. Because once you lay out, you know, here are the stakes, if your church is wrong, you should take this one very seriously and then give them good reasons to doubt that their church is right on major issues.
Let God do the rest from there.
Hey, thanks for watching. If you like this Catholic answer, be sure to like, subscribe, and check out our live streams Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 p.m. Pacific, or find the episode after on YouTube, your favorite podcast platform, or our Catholic Answers app.

How to Evangelize Mormons (When They Evangelize You)

<div>If the Lord’s Prayer is changed by the Vatican, will the Latin wording and translation be altered also?</div><div>There are no plans on the part of the Vatican to change the Lord&#8217;s Prayer. The Latin will stay the same and the vernacular versions also.
</div>

What If the Lord’s Prayer Is Changed?

On the kids-only edition of Catholic Answers Live, Fr. Hugh Barbour explains to a six-year-old why God&#8217;s supreme goodness led him to create the world.

Kids’ Show: Why Did God Make the World?

Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer joins Cy Kellett to tackle a common concern among Protestants regarding the significance of Marian dogmas in Catholic teaching.
Transcript:
Caller: Having been a born-again Christian since 2015 and having even done some pulpit fill at our church on apologetics, the biggest hang-up that I have always kind of had is the relevance of the Marian dogmas. I don&#8217;t understand why it&#8217;s almost made sateriological, meaning you have to believe in these four or you&#8217;re not saved. It&#8217;s like, why can&#8217;t we just call her blessed and move on? It&#8217;s almost a turn-off because you tend to see more focus there than you do.
Joe: Sure, I get the idea. Let me suggest a two-part answer, if I may. Part one is going to be not about Mary specifically, but about dogma in general. Because one of the ways to phrase your argument is: even if the stuff you&#8217;re saying about Mary is true, why make a dogma out of it? Is that a fair kind of presentation of your concern?
Caller: Yes.
Joe: Okay, great. So this is going to come down to how we understand dogma, closely related to the idea of infallibility. Here&#8217;s why. If dogma is just fallible Christians doing the best they can to come up with what we all think Scripture says, then number one, we probably don&#8217;t have any right to be dogmatizing things and making other people believe in our reading of Scripture because it&#8217;s still kind of majority rule where maybe 90% of us read the Bible this way and so we&#8217;re telling the other 10% they&#8217;re wrong.
I&#8217;m a little skeptical whether we should be doing that if it&#8217;s just my reading versus your reading, even if I&#8217;ve got more people on my side. So that&#8217;s already, I think, a red flag that the whole notion of dogma without infallibility becomes a real problem. And so this results in just this judgmentalism of, &#8220;Oh, you read the Bible differently than me, so I think of you as less Christian.&#8221; That&#8217;s a problem too.
On the other hand, if you don&#8217;t have infallibility necessarily, and I think even in a healthy way, you tend towards a dogmatic minimalism—what is the least we can say that you have to believe so that we&#8217;re not unnecessarily excluding anybody from Christian communion? The problem, though, is that that is fundamentally unbiblical.
Meaning, in Acts 15, when a theological controversy comes up—the Judaizer heresy: are you required to be circumcised to be saved?—these were two different groups of Christians who were both reading the Bible in opposite ways. You know, the Old Testament clearly describes circumcision as a perpetual covenant. It&#8217;s very easy to see why some would say, &#8220;Hey, perpetual means perpetual.&#8221; They weren&#8217;t just coming up with this out of whole cloth. Two different groups of Christians were interpreting the Bible the same way.
So if you take a minimalist view, the church should have said, &#8220;We&#8217;re not going to touch this. Just respect each other as Christians and do your thing.&#8221; But no, the church in Acts 15 comes together at council and says, &#8220;It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us,&#8221; and speaks in this definitive, authoritative, infallible way, ensured that it&#8217;s protected by the Holy Spirit and speaking on behalf of God.
That kind of vision, if that&#8217;s your idea of the visible church, that it can do that, then dogma no longer becomes this burden, but instead becomes this incredible aid. Now, instead of wanting the least dogma imaginable, I want to know more because I want to know more about the truth. And every time I come to a point where it&#8217;s like, &#8220;Well, maybe it means this, maybe it means that,&#8221; here&#8217;s this controversial thing. If the church clarifies that, now that&#8217;s really good because I understand the message Jesus has given me better than I would have in an unaided sort of way.
So to that first point about dogma, it comes down to what we think dogma&#8217;s doing, which is closely tied to whether we take the biblical model of an infallible church that can speak on behalf of God in certain circumstances, or whether we take the modern Protestant notion that it&#8217;s just people kind of doing majority rule of, &#8220;Here&#8217;s what we think it means.&#8221; If you take the biblical, historic Christian model, more dogma is good, not bad, as long as it&#8217;s coming from God. Then it&#8217;s not a burden for me to say, &#8220;I better understand the Christian faith now than I would have left to my own devices.&#8221;
Second, why is Mary involved in any of this? I would point you back to Genesis 3:15. The spiritual battle described by God is put in these terms. He&#8217;s speaking to Satan: &#8220;I&#8217;ll put enmity, strife, conflict between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel.&#8221;
So the seed is clearly Jesus. And the reason that the seed is described as the seed of the woman, *zerah*, usually is measured by the man. It&#8217;s the man&#8217;s contribution to making a baby. That&#8217;s not the word used here. It&#8217;s not the *zerah* of Adam; it&#8217;s the seed of the woman. And you might assume that the woman there is just going to be Eve. But Eve has an offspring named Cain, and that doesn&#8217;t go well. Instead, this is referring to Mary and Jesus.
So right there in Genesis 3:15, we&#8217;re told that there&#8217;s going to be this spiritual conflict between the devil and the woman. And if we understand Genesis 3:15 as foretelling the virgin birth of Christ, which is how the earliest Christians read it, then it&#8217;s also foretelling that the spiritual battle is between the devil and Mary.
And so then taking Mary seriously really does become part of the whole spiritual life of Christians. I would then tie that in with Revelation 12, where the mother of Jesus is described as being at war with the dragon, who, in case we missed the connection, is also referred to as the ancient serpent (Revelation 12:9).
So it again presents the battle between the woman and the dragon. And now it tells us the woman is enthroned in heaven. She&#8217;s clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of 12 stars. And she gives birth to the one destined to rule the nations, namely Christ.
So the mother of Jesus is the Woman of Genesis 3:15. Revelation 12 tells us that and is at war with the serpent, who is the dragon. And then in verse 17, Revelation 12:17 says the dragon was angry with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.
This tells us two things. Number one, if you hold to the testimony of Jesus, you&#8217;re a son of Jesus&#8217; mother, so that&#8217;s one reason to care about her. Number two, the devil hates her, and a lot of the spiritual battle is against her. That&#8217;s another reason to care about her.
So if you understand it in those ways—and by the way, I&#8217;m fine in saying Revelation 12 is also telling us something about the church and about Israel—but missing that the part about the mother of Jesus refers to the mother of Jesus seems like a big miss.
And so Genesis 3 and Revelation 12 point us to the fact that we should take Mary&#8217;s role seriously, not in a way that replaces Jesus, but is rooted in what he has come to do.
And then, sorry, I know I&#8217;m going long on this. But the very last thing, the early Christians were really emphatic on this when they would talk about Mary&#8217;s role. You go back to the 100s and you&#8217;ve got Christians like St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus of Lyon talking about Mary&#8217;s role even in salvation in a way that to Protestant ears probably sounds blasphemous, saying things like, &#8220;The same guy who tells us Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the four gospels also tells us that what Eve tied by disobedience, the knot she tied by disobedience, Mary untied by her obedience.&#8221;
Those kinds of claims that Mary&#8217;s the new Eve as Christ is the new Adam, that&#8217;s not some late Catholic invention from 1950. This is all built into how Mary is understood in the story of salvation from as far back as we find Christians talking about it.
Cy: I will have to leave it there because I am late for the break. Right back with more &#8220;Why Aren&#8217;t You Catholic?&#8221; with Joe Heschmeyer on CATHOLIC Answers LIVE.

FORCED Marian Beliefs are Why I’m Not Catholic…

Over the last year, I have dug deep into studying a number of proofs for God’s existence. I started my search with St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs found in the <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3">Summa Theologica</a>. It was a worthwhile journey that taught me a lot. I learned that in order to engage meaningfully with Aquinas’s proofs, we first have to engage with the great philosopher Aristotle.
The problem is that most people today have never engaged with either Aristotle or Aquinas. So my search continued, and it led me to what I consider to be my favorite proof for God’s existence: a proof from human suffering.
The secular culture believes that human suffering is the greatest argument against God’s existence. However, when investigated, human suffering becomes a strong argument in favor. This argument is marvelously presented by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi.html">Spe Salvi</a>. In order to take in the totality of Pope Benedict XVI’s argument, you will want to read Spe Salvi start to finish. But don’t worry—it’s a short encyclical. For a summary of his argument, you can refer to sections 43-44.
Our newest Doctor of the Church, St. John Henry Newman, was familiar with an argument like Benedict XVI’s, as evidenced by the fact that Newman mentioned the argument in passing in his book the <a href="https://www.abebooks.com/Essay-Aid-Grammar-Assent-Newman-John/22566694599/bd">Grammar of Assent</a> (244). However, Newman’s favorite argument for God’s existence comes to us from his reflection on the human conscience.
This one is an argument from natural theology. That means that whether we are talking to a fellow Catholic, a Protestant, or even an atheist, we can engage this argument in a meaningful way. Our interlocutors don’t need to hold the same belief as Catholics do about the inerrancy of the Bible, because Newman’s argument doesn’t appeal to the Bible’s authority. He doesn’t appeal to the authority of Apostolic Tradition or later developments in Catholic Church teaching, either. Instead, his argument is rooted in his observations about the human conscience.
Newman first makes it clear that everyone, Christians and atheists, has first principles. First principles cannot be proven. They are assumed to be true, and they operate as the starting point from which we begin to reason. For his argument, the first principle from which Newman begins his proof for God’s existence is the idea “that we have by nature a conscience” (87). “This being taken for granted,” Newman continues, “I shall attempt to show that in this special feeling, which follows on the commission of what we call right or wrong, lie the materials for the real apprehension of a Divine Sovereign and Judge.”
Newman argues that the fact that some people have malformed consciences does not take away from the fact that there are millions of human beings who have a sense that there is right and wrong conduct.
Newman names two parts to our conscience. One part is the intellectual understanding that can develop a moral code. We can use our reason to make judgments about what is right and wrong. For example, I can reason that it is wrong for me to steal your car because you bought it and I didn’t.
The second part of our conscience operates differently. Rather than being a process of reason alone, our conscience commands us, as if someone from outside were judging our choices and actions. This judge (who for Newman is God) labels our actions either good or bad, and that comes with accompanying feelings that are either pleasant or painful. Newman explains, “Conscience is ever forcing on us by threats and by promises that we must follow the right and avoid the wrong” (89).
Our conscience is not our own worldview or ideas that we are subjectively superimposing on our decisions. Conscience extends beyond us to someone else as its source. Someone else is dictating to us what is right and wrong. It is for this reason that we have become accustomed to speaking about our conscience as “a voice, or the echo of a voice, imperative and constraining, like no other dictate in the whole of our experience.” The voice of our conscience isn’t something feeble and under our control. Instead, it tells us what we should do and what we should avoid.
Our actions lead to two sets of feelings. On the one hand, when we do bad, we feel “self-reproach, poignant shame, haunting remorse, chill dismay” (90). On the other hand, when we do good, we feel “self-approval, inward peace, lightness of heart, and the like.” Newman acknowledges that the negative feelings of a guilty conscience are stronger than the good feelings of a healthy conscience. But nothing can compare to what Newman states about a peaceful conscience: “It sheds upon us a deep peace, a sense of security, a resignation, and a hope, which there is no sensible, no earthly object to elicit.”
Newman then focuses his reflection on our feelings of guilt when we do wrong. If there is nobody to witness our corrupt actions, why are we afraid when we have a guilty conscience? Newman explains:
<blockquote>“The wicked flees, when no one pursueth”; then why does he flee? Whence his terror? Who is it that he sees in solitude, in darkness, in the hidden chambers of his heart?
If the cause of these emotions does not belong to this visible world, the object to which his perception is directed must be supernatural and divine, and thus the phenomena of conscience, as a dictate, avail to impress the imagination with the picture of a Supreme Governor, a Judge, holy, just, powerful, all-seeing, retributive, and is the creative principle of religion.</blockquote>
The reason we feel guilt when we do wrong is that we intuitively know that God is witnessing our choices and that he is judging them.
Newman saw additional support for his proof in his reflection on how easily some children understand conscience. Of course, a child who is not taught the Faith may have a difficult time recognizing and understanding their conscience, if he recognizes it at all. However, some children who are taught the basics of the Faith have the image of God as lawgiver and judge remarkably impressed into their minds. Newman remarks that conscience comes to that child
<blockquote>like an impulse of nature to entertain it. . . . Supposing he has offended his parents, he will all alone and without effort, as if it were the most natural of acts, place himself in the presence of God, and beg of him to set him right with them” (93-94).</blockquote>
Newman’s point isn’t that every child has a healthy conscience. His point is that there are some children who internalize what they learn about God so profoundly that it naturally develops into something far deeper than what they were taught. We should expect to see in Christian children a basic understanding of God. Newman points out, though, that there are some children in whom basic lessons about God strike a chord. Their knowledge quite naturally evolves into a profoundly personal relationship with the living God.
Now, from this point, that faith-filled child can take two paths. Newman places us in that child’s shoes. It is certain that whether our conscience
<blockquote>grows brighter and stronger, or, on the other hand, is dimmed, distorted, or obliterated, depends on each of us individually, and on his circumstances. It is more than probable that, in the event, from neglect, from the temptations of life, from bad companions, or from the urgency of secular occupations, the light of the soul will fade away and die out. Men transgress their sense of duty, and gradually lose those sentiments of shame and fear, the natural supplements of transgression (96).</blockquote>
Our choices have a real and tangible impact on the health of our conscience. If we choose to act against our conscience repeatedly, it will likely fade away and become silent. However, if we are obedient to our conscience, our image of God “may expand, deepen, and be completed . . . in the course of life.” According to Newman, education, social intercourse, experience, and literature can all contribute to a healthy conscience.
Here we’ve analyzed St. John Henry Newman’s proof for God’s existence from his reflection on the human conscience. It’s true that some people do not hear the voice of their conscience. This could be the result of poor education, a negative environment, or our own choices over time. I would even add that the ability to hear our conscience is a grace from God that he gives to some people and not others.
However, millions of people do hear their conscience. That inner voice is the voice of a sovereign judge. It is the voice of God speaking to us and guiding us through life. For Newman, this is the strongest argument for God’s existence.

That Voice You Hear? It’s 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

Did I say Catholics WORSHIP Mary?!

Through my marital difficulties I coped with it through doing art.

After going through all of that, how did you pick up the pieces and move on after your husband passed?

I’m civilly married to my wife. We’re both Catholic. She and her first husband have tried to go through the annulment process but one of the witnesses died. Another time another witness would not cooperate. We’d like to try again but a little reluctant...

I can relate to your story and had a similar experience. I had to learn to detach with love when he went from alcohol to crack.

I’m having a problem with patience with my spouse. I’m married to a schismatic. I don’t think I’d call myself bitter, but I’m getting tired of it. I’m a former schismatic myself.

To get through our difficulties I increased my adoration time.

&#8220;How can couples avoid bitterness?&#8221; Respect and patience are essential in nurturing relationships. In this episode, Rose Sweet shares her personal journey and offers insights on seeking understanding, addressing disrespect, and maintaining perspective. She also discusses coping strategies through art and the challenges of navigating annulment processes within marriage.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

How Can Couples Avoid Bitterness? Respect and Patience Tips

In her new book, Awake, Not Woke: A Christian Response to the Cult of Progressive Ideology, Noelle Mering argues that our &#8220;woke&#8221; moment is, in fact, a surrender to the age-old temptation to take the place of God. It is also the direct consequence of the sexual revolution. She joins us to explain how an awake Christian can help free the world of the destructive ideology of &#8220;woke&#8221;.

What’s Wrong with Woke?

<div>Can you please give me some information on the alleged Marian apparitions in Jacarey, Brazil?</div><div>Bishop Dom Nelson Westrupp issued a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/347481989/Carta-Circular-de-Dom-Nelson-Westrupp-Jacarei-Aparicao-00">circular letter in 2011</a> rejecting any supernatural element to the messages of Marcos Thadeu Teixeira:
<blockquote>Although it is evident that Marcos Thadeu has a deep devotion to the Heart of Jesus and Our Lady, the messages which he claims to have received from Jesus and Mary are not of a supernatural nature. There are several expressions that flatly contradict this possibility by showing that these messages / locutions come from the author&#8217;s own thoughts and feelings (<a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/347481989/Carta-Circular-de-Dom-Nelson-Westrupp-Jacarei-Aparicao-00">Letter from Diocese of Santo Andre</a>, Feb. 11, 2011).</blockquote>
</div>

Marian Apparitions in Brazil?

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

Does Catholicism base the papacy on Matthew 16 alone?

Catholic Answers Focus: Hope for Catholic Addicts

St. Peter and St. Paul were, as St. Augustine said, two men who were one man, but it may be truer to say that they were one man who were two, bearing in their dual persons a single purpose with combined strength of mind, body, and voice. Although people tend to think and say freely that two is better than one, the Lord has a way that must be preferred of uniting his friends to him and to each other.
Though Peter and Paul were not martyred on the same day, they lived and died as twin giants for one Church and share a feast day, befitting their friendship and their leadership. There is something wonderful in these two holy heavyweights sharing a feast, forever shouldering each other like brothers in their zeal for the Father.
Surprise and reversal often follow those who follow the Lord. There was something of the young man’s fire in Peter’s old bones, and something of old man’s wisdom in Paul’s youthful vigor. Together they embodied and balanced the power and presence of the honest poet or the headstrong laborer, which often flung them equally into the extreme of action, error, and love.
When Peter met God on the seashore, he begged him to depart, only to go with him. When Peter saw the Christ walking on water, he vaulted over the side of the boat to join him, only to sink like a rock. Peter refused to have Jesus wash his feet but then begged him to wash his hands and head as well. Peter slashed with his sword in the garden like a hero, but like a fool, he hewed at a servant instead of a soldier. At supper, Peter swore to be faithful to the last drop of his blood; after supper, he swore three times over that he didn’t know his friend. Then, when asked three times over if he loved his Lord, he answered with tremulous distress each time at having to answer at all—but thereby he went from feeding lambs to feeding sheep, assuming a complete pastoral scope from the Good Shepherd himself.
Paul pursued a similar path of shocks. When called Saul, making to strike down the Christians, he was struck down by Christ and rose up as Paul, ready to pour the energy of his hate and persecution into love and devotion. He spoke like a good rabbi in order to be a good priest, settling squabbles while setting a bedrock theology. Paul founded many churches so that there might be one Church, and his trade as a tentmaker proved ironic for one who was to live out of tents to spread the gospel. Paul lost his head in death, and he lost it occasionally in life as well, driving out devils with the force of his irritation, even rebuking his pope in the famous <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/pauls-rebuke-and-peters-infallibility">Antioch affair</a>, showing the kinship of comrades in arms. Paul boldly fixed the hearts and the heads of Jews and Gentiles on Christ—at the price of his own head, but never his enduring heart.
Peter was called Fisher of Men, yet he dangled <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-upside-down-cross-satanic-or-symbolic">upside-down</a> from his crazy cross like a fish. Paul was a chieftain among the apostles, yet he never knew Christ in the flesh, and he dangled for his life in a basket like a bit of laundry.
In all their adventures, Peter and Paul lived passionately and precariously between heaven and earth, dependent upon the man they knew was the Son of the living God, a thing they knew by a strange instinct or intuition—by faith. The great teachers are often depicted with a dove whispering in their ear and the great conquerors astride a noble charger. The first pope should be depicted with a cock crowing with the thunder of dawn in his ear, while the first preacher should be depicted tumbling from his horse down the road to Damascus.
Peter and Paul learned that the Messiah came to bring not peace, but a sword, and that to be a disciple of Jesus Christ was not something that made a great deal of earthly sense—but it made a great deal of heavenly sense. Following in the footsteps of our Lord has never been a simple or even a reasonable task—much more so for his friends. It made no practical sense for either of these practical characters to adhere to a man who promised to give his flesh and blood as food and drink for the life of the world. Yet they did, unto their salvation.
These are the kind of counter-intuitive proposals our Lord challenges his disciples to believe, and thickheaded, brilliant Peter and Paul met their master’s challenge sufficiently to be, together, the first among the apostles. Together, they understood that Christ sometimes asks that we act against what right reason seems to dictate and trust in a higher reason that may not seem reasonable at all. For many, this is a fearful mandate, but Peter was ready to walk on water if it meant walking with his God, and Paul was ready to travel the known world and write to the rest of it if it meant resting with his God.
Peter and Paul are pillars that hold up the doorway of the Church, and a pillar must always have a partner. So staunch are they that the rest of the faithful must celebrate their feast days together as one. They shared their life for the Faith, and so, to this day, they share it also in the observation of their glorious entrance into life eternal.

The Magnificent Peter and Paul

Tim Staples clears up a misconception about the transmission of original sin for a caller on Catholic Answers Live.

Is Original Sin communicated to us at birth?

Do Catholics Give Honor to Mary?

<div>Was Jesus dead before or after the spear to the side? I’ve heard both explanations. </div><div>According to the Gospel of John, Jesus had already died:
<blockquote>When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.”And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit. . . . <a>So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and then of the other one who was crucified with Jesus.</a> But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs, but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out (John 19:30, 32-34).</blockquote>
Some have argued that the flowing of blood and water from Jesus&#8217; side is proof that he did not die until pierced with the lance. However, if the author of the Gospel was making that point, it would run contrary to the explicit theology he had already set forth in the Gospel.
The Gospel of John makes quite clear that Jesus was not merely a victim of social violence or injustice but that Jesus willingly gave of himself (John 10:18, 19:11, 19:17). Therefore, the Gospel makes clear that Jesus had already died and freely handed over his spirit prior to the piercing of the lance.
</div>

Did the Soldier’s Lance Kill Jesus?

The Catholic world is atwitter this week with the news that, in July, Pope Francis responded to five dubia (official questions seeking clarification on matters of faith or morals) posed by several cardinals. Shortly after word of this transpired at the beginning of October, Cardinal Victor Fernandez—prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) and widely presumed main author of the pope’s responses—<a href="https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-10/pope-francis-responds-to-dubia-of-five-cardinals.html?fbclid=IwAR2I6svclh9a2GULSNjXy0n8qgj79J3wiAWhgqCqk1EihPtkquNGlWf8zRU">published</a> the whole thing.
The dubia concerned topics familiar to anyone following debates within the Church: doctrinal change, the Synod on Synodality, women’s ordination, etc. But the one regarding official Church blessings for same-sex couples (to which question the DDF just two years ago <a href="https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2021/03/15/210315b.html">delivered a “negative” response</a> that has since been flouted in <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253842/german-synodal-way-approves-same-sex-blessings-lay-preaching-and-reexamination-of-priestly-celibacy">Germany</a> and <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/blog/bishop-bonny-same-sex-unions#:~:text=Bishop%20Bonny%20and%20the%20other,on%20the%20Family%2C%20Amoris%20Laetitia.">elsewhere</a>) is getting most of the press, with news outlets around the world <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/10/03/1203170334/pope-suggests-blessings-for-same-sex-unions-may-be-possible">teasing that a major change may be close</a>.
After outlining Catholic teaching on marriage and confirming that only a union between a man and a woman can fulfill that definition, the response says that “the Church avoids any type of rite . . . that might contradict this conviction and suggest that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.” It then adds that we must “discern” whether there could be a kind of blessing for same-sex couples that “does not convey a mistaken concept of marriage.”
This kind of language, though perhaps perfectly fine in a vacuum, continues a trend I&#8217;ve been noticing in Catholic commentary on same-sex unions: an emphasis on bracketing off marriage—or even more narrowly, “the sacrament of matrimony”—from such unions, whatever else we may call them.* As if the main or even the only important thing we have to do is keep the word or concept of man-woman Christian marriage separate from same-sex couplehood.
As if to say: There’s a raging debate over homosexuality and same-sex unions? As long as we don’t call them “marriages,” mission accomplished.
Why do we <a href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:i2iMfgrwrnIJ:https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/10/23/bishops-pope-francis-civil-union-change-catholic-church-teaching-marriage&amp;cd=24&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us">keep</a> <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252640/cardinal-hollerich-church-blessings-for-same-sex-unions-not-a-settled-matter">hearing</a> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/flemish-catholic-bishops-defying-vatican-approve-blessing-same-sex-unions-2022-09-20/">variations</a> of this <a href="https://www.newwaysministry.org/2020/01/03/german-cardinal-key-bishop-endorse-church-blessings-for-lgbtq-couples/">line</a> from Catholic leaders? Maybe because they find it a strategically safe place to retreat to? It keeps us on the secure home turf of religious freedom and distinctive Catholic dogma. This is just a special thing that Catholics believe, see? Please let us keep it.
But it’s such an inadequate response, from a pastoral perspective and even the strategic perspective.
From a pastoral perspective, I think, because by refusing to come out from behind the ramparts of religious doctrine, this response fails to meet people on the front lines. It is there we face the question: do same-sex relationships of the pseudo-conjugal kind (that is, marriage-like relationships: with sexual intimacy, common living, unity, fidelity, even parenting) represent morally and spiritually healthy paths to human flourishing, according to God’s commandments and the natural law? Or to put it more crisply, are they ordered to happiness?
If they are not, if same-sex mimicry of marriage (we just won&#8217;t call it marriage) doesn’t lead to flourishing, even where it may exhibit certain laudable qualities of friendship or charity, then our main concern shouldn’t be whether blessing such relationships sows confusion about marriage. Our concern should be whether those blessings harm the people who receive them. For, although the dubia response claims that the purpose of such blessings would be to ask God for help “to live better,” everybody and his cat knows that their effect, both for the persons blessed and for the watching world, would be to affirm both the union and the (ultimately unhappy) lifestyle. No doubt, for some proponents of such blessings, this is the goal.
No middle ground here. Bestowing the sacramental of ritual blessing upon same-sex couples as couples, however much you want to nuance it, will be taken as a sign of Catholic approval of their pseudo-conjugal union, and of homosexuality itself. In no universe can we reasonably say that this is actually a form of pastoral accompaniment, part of a long-term plan to lead them out of that union and toward fidelity to Catholic teaching and the correct, healthy, happy ordering of their sexuality.
From the strategic perspective, retreating to the borders of “marriage” while conceding the field of same-sex blessings might buy time and temporarily make the world like us more, but longer-term, it will only encourage those who want nothing less than full surrender from the Church.
What person in a same-sex relationship would be satisfied with the half-a-loaf solution of blessings?
How cruel and schizophrenic would it seem to persons in same-sex unions to bless those unions with one hand while withholding marriage, which alone justifies sexual activity, with the other?
What outside observer with any powers of reason would not ask why, if the Church can bless (affirm as good) same-sex relationships as seemingly marriage-like in every way, it cannot take the final step and just call them marriages?
The cognitive dissonance would be stark, people would notice, and something would have to break.
Conjugal love, which has its sole expression in marriage (CCC 2360), requires sexual complementarity. Same-sex unions aren’t parallel versions of marriage (except for the name!) or necessary accommodations for sexual minorities who are just made differently. For natural reasons stemming from our human design and revealed reasons that stretch from Eden to Calvary, the conjugal relationship—that exclusive, intimate thing that is different from friendship, different from family ties, different from universal charity—is achievable only between one man and one woman.
With all necessary gentleness and care, our defense of traditional marriage and Christian sexuality must affirm this reality. Otherwise, we will embolden the Church’s enemies and fail those who have a right to the truth with love.

Dubious Defenses of Marriage

Tim Staples discusses why, even though Jesus says we are &#8220;a kingdom of priests,&#8221; we still go to ministerial priests for the sacrament of Confession.