Manage Account

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

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

Are Protestants under an anathema? 🤔

Although our salvation doesn’t depend on knowing the exact date of Christ’s birth, nor is the Church likely ever to make a dogmatic definition regarding this date, it is a matter of interest to anyone who knows and loves Jesus Christ. In this article, <a href="https://cybersky.software.informer.com/">modern</a> astronomy <a href="https://store.simulationcurriculum.com/products/starry-night-pro-8">software</a> and ancient historical documents (including but not limited to the Bible) will offer one perspective on the star of Bethlehem that heralded our Redeemer’s birth.
The three scholars who deserve the most credit for this research are <a href="https://bethlehemstar.com/">Frederick Larson</a>, <a href="https://a.co/d/6kaOiNC">Timothy Norris</a>, and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/the-star-of-bethlehem-and-astrology">Jimmy Akin</a>. What follows is a partial timeline of the Christ Event, from his conception in Mary’s womb to the adoration of the Magi. Powerful new software and the regularity of Kepler’s planetary motion laws offer a plausible case for the precision of each date. After this timeline, verses from the Bible and other ancient documents will provide historical support for each claim.
<h2>September, 3 B.C.</h2>
Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. After a close conjunction of Jupiter and Venus on August 12, Jupiter (the King Planet) began a rare triple conjunction with Regulus (the King Star), essentially crowning it with a halo pattern. The conjunction dates were Sep. 14, Feb. 17, and May 8. The celestial coronation took place in the constellation Leo. Just after sunset on Sep. 11, the constellation that rose in the east behind Leo was Virgo, the Virgin, literally “clothed with the Sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 12:1). It was a new moon at her feet, coinciding with the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah). The Magi, familiar with Jewish prophecies of the Messiah, definitely took notice.

<h2>June, 2 B.C.</h2>
Nine months after his conception, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. When Jupiter had finished crowning Regulus in May, it formed a close conjunction with Venus (the Mother Planet) on June 17, such that the separation between the two would have been imperceptible to the naked eye. Light from each planet added to the other, forming the most brilliant star that had ever been seen. (The Jupiter-Venus conjunction of June 17, 2 B.C. has been the brightest such conjunction in human history.) The Magi departed in haste from Babylon towards Bethlehem.
<h2>December, 2 B.C.</h2>
The first Epiphany: the Magi arrived in Bethlehem and adored the Christ child. Jupiter had proceeded ahead of the Magi, first leading them westward toward Jerusalem and then stopping (in full retrograde motion) on December 25 over the town of Bethlehem. Jesus would have been a six-month-old baby by this time, no longer in a temporary cave-stable but now in a small house built by Joseph.
At this point, let’s make the case for the claims above. The first fact to demonstrate is that King Herod died in 1 B.C., not 4 B.C. This is extremely important, because if Herod died in 4 B.C., as is widely believed, the star of Bethlehem would have appeared before then. In fact, the great mathematician and astronomer, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), wrote two books on the subject, De stella nova (1606) and De anno natali Christi (1614). Unfortunately, he didn’t find much in the stars of 7, 6, and 5 B.C. His careful calculations could reproduce the celestial map with astonishing accuracy, but he sadly missed the star because he was searching in the wrong years.
Kepler’s mistaken idea that Herod had died in 4 B.C. was based on the historical scholarship of his time. Historian David Beyer has argued that a widely accepted reading of Josephus, which suggests that Herod died in 4 B.C., came from a transcription error introduced in a 1544 printed edition of Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, chapter 4, section 106; see also David W. Beyer, “Josephus Re-examined,” available <a href="https://www.book-info.com/isbn/0-86554-582-0.htm">here</a>.) According to Beyer, nearly all the pre-1544 editions and manuscripts he reviewed in the British Library and Library of Congress stated that Herod Philip (who succeeded Herod the Great) died in the twenty-second year of Tiberius&#8217;s reign. The 1544 edition, however, changed this to the twentieth year of Tiberius. The “twentieth year” reading would place Herod the Great’s death in 4 B.C. Presumably working from a post-1544 edition of Josephus, Kepler would have accepted the 4 B.C. death date.
Besides the transcription error, there are more important reasons to reject the 4 B.C. date of Herod’s death. Historian Gerard Gertoux has published a tour de force of research <a href="https://www.academia.edu/2518046/Herod_the_Great_and_Jesus_Chronological_Historical_and_Archaeological_Evidence">here</a>, and Jimmy Akin’s findings agree with Gertoux’s. Although historian Emil Schürer’s claim that Herod died in 4 B.C. has retained widespread acceptance over the last hundred years, it rests on weak foundations. Akin critiques these foundations based on the following key points from Josephus and related evidence. He also builds a case for Herod the Great dying in 1 B.C. (specifically between the lunar eclipse on January 10, 1 B.C., and Passover on April 11, 1 B.C., likely closer to the latter).
1. Herod&#8217;s appointment as king in 40 B.C. leading to a thirty-six- or thirty-seven-year reign:
Josephus states that Herod was appointed king in the 184th Olympiad (ending mid-40 B.C.) during the consulship of Calvinus and Pollio (which began late 40 B.C.). This creates an impossible contradiction, as the dates do not overlap. External Roman sources (Appian and Dio Cassius) place the appointment in 39 B.C. Josephus reckons reigns non-inclusively (not counting partial first years in this period). Starting the count from the first full year (38 B.C.) and then adding thirty-seven years leads to a death in 1 B.C.
2. Length of reign after conquering Jerusalem (thirty-four years):
Josephus states that Herod died thirty-four years after obtaining his kingdom by slaying Antigonus (i.e., conquering Jerusalem), but he provides contradictory dates for the conquest. Some details point to 37 B.C., whereas others (e.g., exactly twenty-seven years after Pompey&#8217;s conquest in 63 B.C., and the end of 126 years of Hasmonean rule starting in 162 B.C.) point to 36 B.C. This inconsistency undermines using 37 B.C. as a firm anchor for a 4 B.C. death. However, using non-inclusive reckoning of the thirty-four-year period, we can infer a possible death date in either 2 B.C. or 1 B.C.
3. The lunar eclipse shortly before Herod&#8217;s death and Passover:
Josephus places Herod&#8217;s death between a lunar eclipse and Passover, with numerous events (requiring significant time and travel of many different people) in between. Advocates of a 4 B.C. death cite a partial lunar eclipse on March 13, 4 B.C., twenty-nine days before Passover. The twenty-nine-day gap is too short to accommodate all the events and travel Josephus describes between the eclipse and Herod&#8217;s death (estimated minimum forty-one days, more realistically sixty to ninety days). However, a total lunar eclipse occurred on Jan. 10, 1 B.C., eighty-nine days before Passover, which better matches Josephus&#8217;s description due to the sufficient time gap. Additionally, since Josephus does not specify a partial lunar eclipse, a total eclipse aligns better.
4. Evidence that Herod&#8217;s sons assumed office in 4 B.C.:
This does not prove that Herod died then, as it was common for aging rulers to appoint successors as co-rulers during their lifetime to ease succession and reduce pressure. Historical evidence shows that Herod did grant his sons governing authority before his death.
5. Testimony of the Church Fathers:
Many Church Fathers asserted a birth date of Christ in 3/2 B.C., necessitating a death date of Herod later than 4 B.C. and around 1 B.C. These Fathers included St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, with Tertullian and Origen joining them.
Now that we’ve proven a 1 B.C. date for Herod’s death, let’s demonstrate the dates of the infant Christ’s timeline. We will proceed in chronological order:
<h2>September, 3 B.C.</h2>
The Magi weren’t just random stargazers. Most likely they were descendants of Daniel, the prophet brought to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible provides plenty of clues for this. In Daniel 2:48, Nebuchadnezzar makes Daniel the chief wise man (magus) of his court. In Daniel 5:11, Belshazzar’s queen reminds the king that Daniel, the chief magus, can interpret dreams and visions. In Daniel 6:28, we see that Daniel prospered in the reigns of Darius and Cyrus, implying his tremendous influence on the kingdom (including the school of magi). Daniel’s famous prophecy of weeks of years (sixty-nine sets of seven years each) in Daniel 9:24-27, predicted both the coming of Christ and the destruction of the Temple.
The point is that Daniel, a devout Jew whose God was respected and protected by King Cyrus, would have trained magi to watch the stars for signs of the Messiah. This is why the Magi took notice of the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus in the constellation Leo, representing the Lion of Judah (a type of Christ mentioned in Gen. 49:8-10, 2 Sam. 7:12-14, and Rev. 5:5). It also explains how they knew the prophecy of Micah and why they wanted to worship the newborn King:
<blockquote>In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.” When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.  They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel” (Matt. 2:1-6).</blockquote>
<h2>June, 2 B.C.</h2>
The Gospel of Luke notes that John the Baptist began his ministry in the “fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1). Tiberius assumed the throne after Augustus died in August A.D. 14, but Roman historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius typically started counting an emperor’s regnal years from the following January 1, ignoring any partial year. Using this standard method, the fifteenth year of Tiberius would run through what we know as A.D. 29. (A regnal year is counted similarly to a person’s age: the “fifteenth year” spans from the end of the fourteenth year to the end of the fifteenth.)
Jesus began his own ministry shortly after John’s, so his public work probably started around A.D. 29 as well. Luke adds another key detail: at the start of his ministry, Jesus was “about thirty years old” (3:23). Counting back roughly thirty years from A.D. 29, and remembering there is no year zero in the transition from B.C. to A.D., we are brought to 2 B.C. as <a href="https://jimmyakin.com/2013/04/what-year-was-jesus-born-the-answer-may-surprise-you.html">the most likely birth year</a>.
<h2>December, 2 B.C.</h2>
In Matthew 2:9, we read, “When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was.” This was the town of Bethlehem, five miles south of Jerusalem. Jupiter was in full retrograde motion that night, the first Epiphany, on December 25. This is not why December 25 was chosen to celebrate Our Lord’s Nativity each year, but it is an interesting coincidence demonstrated by modern astronomy software.
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
Although history and science can never dictate our faith, it is always helpful to see that neither history nor science can contradict it. This is because truth can’t contradict truth. If Christ entered human history through the Incarnation, it is not surprising that he would allow us to use history and science to discover his birth date.
In any case, the most important thing to contemplate as we celebrate Christmas is that “the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

A Modern Take on Christ’s Birth Date

How is it that we can call Mary, our life, our sweetness and our hope in the Hail Holy Queen?

As a Latin rite Catholic attending a Byzantine church. Should I follow the customs of the west or of the east when it comes to my children receiving the sacraments?

Could there be other creation aside from angelic beings that have knowledge and reason?

When the teaching on infallibility was declared during Vatican 1, they sighted hundreds of instances of infallibility being used. Now we hear that infallibility has only been used twice. Why is there a discrepancy?

What platform should you vote for if one supports the death penalty and the other supports abortion?

Is it a sin of omission if someone passed away and I never offered masses for them if I knew they did something wrong?

Ask Me Anything

Will our heavenly Father still hold us to account for the sins we’ve confessed?

If someone was raised Catholic but no longer practicing, does that mean that they’re doomed?

What are the earliest documented records of the Immaculate Conception?

What’s the best argument against atheism?

What does the Church teach about speaking in tongues?

In 2003, Pope St. John Paul II, quoting the 1971 General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours, wrote, “We need silence ‘if we are to accept in our hearts the full resonance of the voice of the Holy Spirit and to unite our personal prayer more closely to the Word of God and the public voice of the Church.’” The value of silence in the liturgy has nevertheless remained a controversial and misunderstood topic.
In the Church’s liturgical tradition, the use of silence, or the recitation of texts very quietly, can have four distinct functions. First, for the celebrant to recite a text silently can be a sign that the text is addressed not to the people, but to God. This is why the “priestly prayers” such as the Lavabo (“Wash away my iniquity . . .”) are said silently in both the traditional and the reformed versions of the Mass.
Secondly, the celebrant may say certain texts silently to allow singing to take place. The Offertory prayers are said silently in the traditional Mass, and they may optionally be said silently in the reformed Mass. All or part of this time can be used for singing.
Thirdly, from at least the fifth century, the Eucharistic Prayer (the Canon) came to be said silently. (This practice is not followed in the reformed Mass.) In this case, the silence is a marker of its special holiness, like the disappearance from view of the clergy, behind the icon screen or iconostasis, in the East. If singing a text gives it greater solemnity, then saying it silently is a sign of a still greater level of importance.
Fourthly, there is silence as pause, a silent interval for the worshiper’s private prayer between texts that are proclaimed aloud. This is a feature of the rubrics of the reformed Mass and was introduced in some situations in liturgical reforms before Vatican II, in 1955 and 1960.
When silence in the liturgy is promoted in the context of the reformed Mass, as by John Paul II quoted above, it is most likely that this last type of silence is intended. Another kind of silence that John Paul felt the need to defend was the silence of the congregation, when this is called for: “Active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness, and listening” (address to the bishops of the northwestern United States, 1998).
The liturgical reform greatly limited the place of silence in the Mass, in theory, and still more in practice. (The silent Offertory option is not widely used.) Pope St. Paul VI noted that with the reform, “pious persons” and “even priests” would have to adjust their way of participating in Mass: “They will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others” (general audience, November 26, 1969).
One way of understanding the liturgical reform, then, is this. Instead of having texts recited in silence, to establish a kind of background to our prayers, the texts are to be read aloud, and we are to be silent while listening intently to them, or else we are to reflect on them in a short pause after they have been recited. We will be obliged to follow the thoughts of others.
This, however, is not quite right. As the passage from the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours, promulgated by Paul VI only two years after the general audience already quoted, indicates, it is not only our own thoughts that are allowed play by periods of silence, but also those of the Holy Spirit. A longer quotation from this document illustrates the dilemma faced by the liturgical reformers.
<blockquote>In order to receive in our hearts the full sound of the voice of the Holy Spirit and to unite our personal prayer more closely with the word of God and the public voice of the Church, it is permissible, as occasion offers and prudence suggests, to have an interval of silence. . . .
Care must be taken to avoid the kind of silence that would disturb the structure of the office or annoy and weary those taking part (General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours 1971, 202).</blockquote>
One the one hand, there is a danger that a torrent of words actually impedes the worshipers’ engagement with the liturgy, which is not, in the last analysis, about following the thoughts of the liturgy planning committee or even those of the composers of the liturgical texts; rather it is a matter primarily of listening to the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, attempting to avoid this problem can lead to another: a series of awkward, artificial gaps interrupting the flow of the liturgy, begetting annoyance or weariness: “molestiam seu tædium.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church returns to this problem in its section on prayer, where it compares contemplative prayer with liturgical prayer:
<blockquote>Entering into contemplative prayer is like entering into the eucharistic liturgy: we “gather up” the heart, recollect our whole being under the prompting of the Holy Spirit, abide in the dwelling place of the Lord which we are, awaken our faith in order to enter into the presence of him who awaits us (2711).</blockquote>
As the Catechism points out, contemplative prayer is the highest form of prayer, and though it may take its starting point from a text, it is not about following anyone’s thoughts; rather, it is about allowing the Holy Spirit to lead you where he wants to take you. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, put it, with great force, referring to the traditional Mass,
<blockquote>anyone who has experienced a church united in the silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer (The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 215).</blockquote>
It seems that the Church’s conversation about silence in the liturgy has not yet drawn to a conclusion.

4 Benefits to Silence in the Mass

<div>Where in the Old Testament is it prophesied that the Messiah will be a Nazarene, as Mathew states in the beginning of his Gospel?</div><div>These words, as you indicate, are asserted in Matthew 2:23. No Old Testament prophecy corresponds to these precise words. There are two different, yet related, main scholarly explanations to illustrate what St. Matthew is attempting to say in this passage.
According to the first, Matthew apparently paraphrases in summary form the words of several prophets. The paraphrase is based on Jesus’ boyhood home, Nazareth, and a similar-sounding Hebrew word netser, which is translated as “sprout,” “shoot,” or “branch.” Recall that the Holy Family fled to Egypt because of the murderous machinations of Herod the Great, who feared the Christ Child as a potential royal competitor and thus slaughtered every male child under two in Bethlehem and the neighboring area (Matt. 2:16-18). They returned to reside in Nazareth after word came that Herod the Great had died (Matt. 2:19-20).
Scripture affirms that Jesus came to restore the throne of his ancestor King David (Luke 1:31-33) and that he is “the King of kings” (Rev. 17:14). Isaiah prophesizes that a “branch” (netser or netzer) will sprout from the stump of Jesse (the father of David), indicating that the kingdom of David that had been destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. would one day be restored. Subsequent prophets such as Jeremiah use this same branch image to speak of the anticipated Messiah-king (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:14-16).
According to the second interpretation, Jesus’ Nazareth residence is the providential fulfillment of the Messiah’s mission not only for the Jews but all nations, i.e., “Gentiles” (Matt. 28:18-20, Is. 66:18ff., Amos 9:11ff.). Nazareth is in Galilee, which in Jesus’ day was known for having a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles.
In both cases, the argument is that had Matthew intended to cite an exact prophetic quotation from the Old Testament, he would have cited a specific prophet, instead of saying summarily, as he does, &#8220;the prophets&#8221; (Matt. 2:23).
</div>

“He Shall Be Called a Nazarene:” Where in Old Testament?

How can the Catholic Church teach that our justification is a process when the Letter to the Romans says that our justification is a one-time event? Karlo Broussard can&#8217;t help himself, he just has to keep meeting Protestant challenges to Catholic belief.

What Justifies a Christian?

<div>Who--or what--is the Holy Spirit? Is He truly the Spirit of God--a God Who Himself is a spirit? Is the Holy Spirit a spirit of a spirit?</div><div>The Holy Spirit is a divine person, one of the three members of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). The Holy Trinity is three divine persons in one God, with each person wholly possessing the same divine nature—thus their unity.
Each member of the Trinity is a divine spirit, but one member is named the “Holy Spirit,” clearly revealed to us by God the Son in the New Testament. Jesus, God the Son who is also known as the Incarnate Word, sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (John 16:13; see Acts 2), which is known as the birthday of the Church, i.e., the day “the Church was made manifest to the world” (CCC 1076).
For more information on the Holy Spirit, please see CCC 687ff.
</div>

Who Is the Holy Spirit?

1 Sam 18:10 says “an evil spirit from God rushed upon Saul.” How are we supposed to interpret that when nothing evil can come from God?

Can you help me understand in what sense Jesus is God? How can a thing have two natures? Is it the same way the Burning Bush, or the Eucharist, is God?

What are the reasons a person might hear voices?

My spiritual director has been cautioning me against treating novenas and relics like magic. But in last Sunday’s gospel we hear of the woman who was healed because she believed if she touched Jesus’ clothes she would be healed. How can one have that k...

Does Matthew quote the Septuagint?

What’s the difference between black magic and white magic?

I had an experience in early youth that led to my conversion later in life. Have you heard anything like that before? What kind of experience is this?

A Former Protestant’s Journey to the Catholic Church. Joshua Charles is one of the rising stars of the Millennial generation. A bestselling author, historian, researcher, and international speaker, he is a passionate defender of America’s Founding Principles, Judeo-Christian civilization, and the Catholic faith, to which he converted in 2018. He loves telling, and helping others tell, great stories that communicate great truths.

How the Church Fathers Made Me Catholic

“I beheld water issuing out from the temple, on the right-hand side, alleluia: and all to whom that water came were saved, and they shall say: Alleluia, alleluia.”
Blood and water. It doesn’t get much more basic than that. St. Faustina’s image of the Divine Mercy, which Holy Church brings to our sight today, shows us the overflowing love of the Sacred Heart in the simplest terms we can imagine. The heart of Jesus is, in the words of our missal, the “shrine of heavenly bounty” that pours forth for us “floods of grace and compassion” (from the Preface of the Sacred Heart). According to that same prayer, the shrine was “manifest” when pierced by the spear on the cross—so again, blood and water.
St. John’s epistle also emphasizes blood and water. This is in part a reference to that scene at the cross, witnessed by St. John.
What’s the deal with blood and water? At major festivals, prior to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, there was so much animal blood from the altar of sacrifice that a series of channels was designed to drain the blood off the side of the Temple Mount down into the neighboring Kidron valley, where it would eventually mingle with the water of the brook—a brook that many people would cross when entering into the holy city.
So when we speak of the flow of blood and water “manifesting” Christ’s sacred heart, part of what the tradition means is that this moment reveals most perfectly his identity as the new Temple. Jesus already hinted at this in his teaching—“he spoke of the temple of his body” (John 2:21). But here we get another confirmation, as well as an eschatological identification of Jesus with the new temple prophesied in Ezekiel 47. That prophecy forms the core text of the Vidi Aquam version of the Asperges that we sing in Eastertide: “I beheld water issuing out from the temple . . . and all to whom that water came were saved.” Jesus is this new temple, and the saving water is the sacrament of baptism.
But water is only the beginning. We also need the blood.
If I can jump ahead to the conclusion, we should remember that full sacramental initiation in the Church consists of three sacraments: baptism, confirmation, and Holy Eucharist. Confirmation is an extension and strengthening of baptismal grace, so we could group it with baptism here. The point is the blood: not just water, but water and blood.
In the offertory rites of the Eucharist, wine is mixed with water. Maybe you know the beautiful ancient prayer accompanying this action. It goes like this:
<blockquote>O God who didst wondrously create, and yet more wondrously renew the dignity of man’s nature: grant that by the mystery of this water and wine we may be made partakers of his divinity, as he vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, even Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord.</blockquote>
The ancient and medieval commentators love meditating on this symbolism of wine and water. One of the reasons they think it so important to include water in the offertory rites is that it stands for humanity: to skip the mingled water and wine would be to skip the union of Christ’s divinity and humanity. The substances remain distinct, yet they cannot at this point be separated; they remain together in a single cup. But, in another layer of meaning, the wine and water also recall—because the wine is destined to become the Precious Blood—the profusion of blood and water from the side of Christ. So the integrity of the offertory rite is tied to the integrity of the sacrifice, which is also tied to the integrity of our sacramental initiation: baptism is what it is only when it leads us into the mystery of communion with Christ. And we cannot commune with Christ until we have been born again. As one twelfth-century writer puts it, “these ought to be joined, therefore, because the font of baptism is of no profit without the blood of Christ, nor the blood without baptism; both flowed from the side of Christ. He who removes one does not imitate the mystery of the passion.”
Through these natural, traditional, and sacramental signs, we see again the fundamental message of the Lord: mercy. As Faustina puts it, “you expired, Jesus, but the source of life gushed forth for souls, and the ocean of mercy opened up for the whole world.” Amazing that this simple, uneducated nun could intuit this concept so clearly. Blood and water are both signs of life. Jesus wants to give us life. His life. The life of God.
God is merciful. That is one of the most prominent divine descriptions we read in Scripture. It is the first word used to describe God the Father in the Roman Canon, which has been used since time immemorial: “Therefore, most merciful Father . . .” (Te igitur, clementissime Pater).
Mercy is a stance of pity or forgiveness toward another party. We should therefore pause a bit before attributing it to the Godhead in a simple way, lest we imagine that God’s nature requires people to forgive for him to be God. Perhaps the more precise thing to say is that mercy is a temporal aspect of God’s eternal charity. Mercy is God’s sharing of himself with us in time. “Source of life” and “ocean of mercy” are the same divine reality. In other words, although we associate mercy most directly with the forgiveness of sins, God’s mercy is not an act of external justice, where the judge applies a law that stands outside himself. It is, rather, an opening of the divine life. Absolution from sin isn’t a strict judge relenting from the appointed punishment so much as it is that the divine Son performs a kind of CPR on our souls, breathing his own breath back into our being.
I wanted to say something more about our readings from Acts and 1 John, but I think I’ve already tried to say too much. In passing, let me suggest that we think about the early Church’s common life, so memorably depicted in Acts, and in 1 John’s insistence on the unity between love and obedience, as the practical outcome of a people who have experienced the Divine Mercy.
This brings us at last to Thomas. (See <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/its-okay-to-doubt-but-doubt-correctly">here</a> for another take on his doubts.) This Gospel has long been the reading for “Low Sunday,” also known as Quasimodo Sunday, also known as the Octave Day of Easter. Note that it begins with the Lord’s institution of the sacrament of penance: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” So we start with the most normal kind of mercy, the forgiveness of sins. We can also see the Lord’s particular mercy to Thomas in his doubt.
But what is his doubt, exactly? Normally, we assume that his doubt primarily concerns the Resurrection, and the idea that Jesus has appeared to the disciples. And I’m sure that’s true. But maybe that doesn’t tell us everything. After all, Thomas doesn’t tell us exactly what he won’t believe unless he sees and touches the nail marks. So I wonder if he also has doubts about the Lord’s mercy—about this whole business in forgiving sins.
Maybe he accepted, on some level, the Lord’s own ability to forgive sins. That was, after all, a subject of some controversy during his public ministry. But delegating that authority—delegating, if you will, the power of God himself, the power to directly share the divine life—is something else entirely, something astounding.
In this Thomas would be in the good company of quite a few dissenting Christians over the years, including most of our Protestant friends, who balk at the idea of Jesus actually handing on this specific authority to his apostles and their successors. It is, after all, a crazy act of generosity. I know that people sometimes look at it otherwise, acting as if sacramental confession were somehow limiting. But that, I think, misunderstands the alternative, which is that if you can confess your sins only in some generic spiritual way to God himself, you can receive only generic, theoretical absolution. What we have instead is this incredible richness in mercy, where God’s grace is available not just in some general way, but specifically, personally, whenever we need it.
Anyway, suppose that this was part of Thomas’s doubt. And what satisfies it? A direct encounter with the wound from which flowed blood and water, the proof of God’s new temple, the fount of Divine Mercy. It’s no chance that Jesus offers Thomas his wounds as the proof not just of his resurrection but of his goodness. For here is proof not just that Jesus is alive, but that his life has been opened and poured out for the life of the world.
“My Lord and my God,” says Thomas. We can say the same when we see our risen Lord veiled in the Eucharist. But we can also, contemplating his wounds, recognize in the blood and the water, the mercy and the life, he wants to give us, if only we will trust in him. “Do not be faithless, but believing.” Like Thomas, let us approach our Lord and God with faith, saying, with St. Faustina, “Jesus, I trust in you!”

Blood and Water and Mercy

What do you think about the supposed references to Jesus in the Talmud?

Please explain how does the process work when a priest earns the title of Monsignor I’d like to understand how that whole process works.

Who is the “destroyer” / angel of death in Exodus? An actual angel?

Do you think the Jewish faith was reinterpreted after Jesus’s death and resurrection 25:10 - Why is the word Holy Ghost said instead of Holy Spirit?

Why are there so many people who say that the Catholic Church is evil? The red shoes are evil. The room that looks like a serpent, at the Vatican. And other claims…?

I was recently challenged on the papal bulls allowing conquest and enslavement, followed by the bull Sublimis Deus forbidding enslavement, which I take as an abrogation of the prior. The interlocutor asked 1) how can one infallible bull overrule anothe...

Can you explain how the Godhead and the Trinity are not conflicting ideas or doctrines. I get SO MANY people who challenge the Trinity and say that Catholics try to replace the Godhead with the “false doctrine” of the Trinity.

Let’s say a person was properly baptized as a child but didn’t remember. They grow up and live a secular life until finding the faith later. They go through RCIA and, not remembering that they had been already baptized, are baptized and con...

Jimmy Akin, what’s your most recent and thorough reflection on Numbers 12?

Do we have one guardian angel for our whole life?

What are your thoughts on the “manna machine”?

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

Two Views of the Flood

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

The Eucharist is the most Christian act.

Would it be accurate to say the Nicene Creed is part of the deposit of faith?

What is palmarian church

Can there be a pope from one of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

How can one be a liberal Catholic and still believe in the teachings of Christ

Is it wrong to love God because you fear Hell?

Do we need to confess venial sins that were taken away by our last communion? Or does that show doubt in the efficacy of communion?

I see people often wondering if a life decision is God’s will. But as long as one is loving God fully, and loving their neighbor, isn’t everything that falls under that God’s will?

IS the Sabbatine privilege for wearing brown scapular endorsed by Catholic Church ?

is it true that God loves some people more than others?, hence why certain people have more graces, are chosen to be priests or even have a better fulfilled purposes in life. thank you.

What is your commitment when it comes to honoring/respecting parents or grandparents when they refuse to communicate to you and tell blatant lies about you regarding serious sins?

Regarding Harrison Butker’s recent <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/news/harrison-butker-speech-at-benedictine">commencement speech at Benedictine College</a>, I’m inclined to agree that a great deal of the controversy surrounding the talk wasn’t over what the Kansas City Chiefs kicker said, but over <a href="https://emilystimpsonchapman.substack.com/p/the-heresies-of-the-manosphere-part-db1">what exactly he meant</a>. (Full disclosure: Butker is my favorite player on my hometown team, and he deserved the MVP award in every Super Bowl the Chiefs appeared in. Yes, including the one they lost.)
For instance, were his remarks about there being “nothing natural about Catholic birth control” a reference to <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/catholic-contraception">contraception or NFP</a>? When he said that his wife &#8220;would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother,&#8221; was he implying that every woman&#8217;s life doesn&#8217;t truly start until that point? It’s so easy for people to read or hear the same words and come to different interpretations.*
But I think that all Catholics can agree on the true theme of the speech: vocation. From the Latin word for “calling,” vocation is Catholic jargon for the idea that God is inviting you to live in a certain way. As <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/vocations/documents/20230430-messaggio-60-gm-vocazioni.html">Pope Francis</a> has observed, there’s always something invitational about God’s call:
<blockquote>Vocation is “the interplay between divine choice and human freedom,” a dynamic and exciting relationship between God and the human heart. The gift of vocation is like a divine seed that springs up in the soil of our existence, opens our hearts to God and to others, so that we can share with them the treasure we ourselves have found.</blockquote>
We respond to God’s call in our life not because we’re forced to, but because we believe that God knows and loves us perfectly and has good plans for us. As Butker put it, “I have seen it firsthand how much happier someone can be when they disregard the outside noise and move closer and closer to God’s will in their life.”
We can think about “vocation” in three levels. At the broadest level, it’s easy to discern God’s vocation for our lives: each of us is called to love, to be holy, and to be saints (CCC 1533, 1998, 2392). More particularly, some of us are called to pursue the vocation to holiness by a particular vocation like marriage, or priesthood, or celibacy, or religious life (CCC 908-945). And at the most granular level, we should be discerning God’s will in our life each day.
Pursuing our vocation is rewarding but it’s often not easy. In <a href="https://youtu.be/Qm1jR2b398k?t=198">interviews</a>, Butker has described some of the sacrifices he has experienced as a working father: from putting the phone away in order to be present to his family, to getting up early on Sundays to  have Mass and family time before the afternoon game.
Often, vocation includes our career pursuits. But other times, being faithful to our vocation can require professional sacrifices that the world doesn’t understand. I left behind a career as a lawyer to go to seminary to discern priesthood. And—in an experience to which I know many homemakers can relate—I had well-meaning people who worried that I would “waste” my law degree. That’s a bad view of both education (a college education should be more than job training) and vocation. Pursuing God’s call may be costly, but it’s never wasteful.
Those of us similarly tempted to judge smart women who choose to marry, have children, and stay at home should resist that temptation. In his 1910 book What’s Wrong with the World, G.K. Chesterton observed a strange paradox: that society praised women for caring for other people’s children (for instance, as a schoolteacher) while denigrating women who care for their own children. This led him to ask,
<blockquote>How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.</blockquote>
In different words, <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html">Pope St. John Paul II cautioned</a> us against this same type of thinking:
<blockquote>The mentality which honors women more for their work outside the home than for their work within the family must be overcome. This requires that men should truly esteem and love women with total respect for their personal dignity, and that society should create and develop conditions favoring work in the home.</blockquote>
Some women are called to work outside of the home, and in doing so, they’re serving God and their families. That’s wonderful. Other women desire, and are called to, serve God and their families within the home, and this fidelity is something that should be praised and encouraged.

Harrison Butker and Vocations

<div>Why did Jesus weep before he raised Lazarus from the dead? </div><div>It’s likely that Jesus wept out of love and sympathy for Lazarus and his family. It occurs within the context of Martha and those Jews who came with her weeping (John 11:33). John tells us that in response to their sorrow Jesus was “moved in spirit and troubled” (v. 34). The people present took his weeping to be a sign of friendship: “So the Jews said, ‘See how he loved him&#8217;” (v. 36).
Another possible explanation is that Jesus wept because of human death that sin wrought within his creation. According to W. Leonard in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, when Jesus says, “Take away the stone,” the Greek verb used suggests that Jesus felt angry. The implication is that Jesus was angry with death, an effect of the original sin of Adam and Eve.
Such a detail on the surface seems frivolous. But it reveals a profound theological mystery: “Jesus, who became man in every respect except sin, experienced a full range of human emotions” (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, 184).
</div>

What Moved Jesus to Tears?

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent looks at the explanations for why millenials don&#8217;t seem to be aging in comparison to their parents at the same age.

FFAF: Why Do Millennials Look so Young?

During Lent, many Catholics gather in their parishes to pray the Stations of the Cross, moving from image to image as they meditate on Christ’s journey to Calvary. The devotion is deeply familiar to Catholics, but it sometimes raises both questions and eyebrows from Protestant friends. A common objection sounds something like this: “Where are the Stations of the Cross in the Bible?”
It’s a fair question. Some of the stations—such as Simon of Cyrene helping Jesus carry the cross—come directly from Scripture (Matt. 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26). Others, such as Veronica wiping the face of Christ and Jesus falling three times, are not explicitly described in the Gospels. Because of this, some conclude that the Stations must be unbiblical or represent a later invention added to the story of the Passion. And Catholics are left to answer.
But this conclusion asserts a framing of devotion that misunderstands both the purpose of the Stations and the way Christian piety actually works. Far from competing with Scripture, the Stations of the Cross are a structured way of meditating on the biblical story of Christ’s passion, enriched by the Church’s long tradition of prayerful reflection on those events.
<h2>Most of the Stations Come Directly from Scripture</h2>
To begin with, it is worth noting that most of the traditional fourteen stations are firmly rooted in the Gospel narratives.
The condemnation of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is recorded in all four Gospels (see Matt. 27:24-26, Mark 15:15, Luke 23:24-25, John 19:16). Jesus carrying his cross is described in John 19:17. Simon of Cyrene helping carry the cross appears in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Jesus speaking to the women of Jerusalem is recorded in Luke 23:27-31. The Crucifixion, Christ’s death, and his burial are described in detail across the Passion narratives.
When Catholics pray the Stations, therefore, they are not stepping away from the Bible. They are retracing, step by step, the central events of the Gospel story.
In fact, the devotion encourages something Scripture itself repeatedly calls us to do: contemplate the suffering of Christ. The Letter to the Hebrews urges believers, “Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted” (Heb. 12:3). St. Paul likewise tells the Corinthians, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).
Meditating on the Passion lies at the heart of the Christian message. The Stations of the Cross provide a concrete structure for doing that.
<h2>What About the Non-Biblical Stations?</h2>
Still, some stations do not appear explicitly in Scripture. Jesus falling under the weight of the cross, his encounter with his mother along the way, and the story of Veronica wiping his face are examples.
Does this mean the devotion adds fictional details to the Gospel? Not quite.
First, some of these elements are reasonable meditations based on what the Gospels tell us. The evangelists record that Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry Jesus’ cross (Luke 23:26). This strongly suggests that Jesus, after severe scourging and physical exhaustion, was struggling under the burden. Reflecting on him stumbling along the road to Calvary is hardly an implausible invention; it is a prayerful contemplation of what the biblical account implies.
Second, other elements reflect ancient Christian tradition or theological reflection. The meeting between Jesus and his mother, for example, is not described in the Gospels, but it flows naturally from the Gospel portrayal of Mary’s role in Christ’s suffering. When the infant Jesus was presented in the Temple, Simeon foretold Mary’s sorrow: “A sword will pierce through your own soul also, that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:35). The Church has long meditated on how that prophecy reached its fulfillment during the Passion. And if Mary was present at his crucifixion, it feels reasonable to conclude she was very likely somewhere on his way to Golgotha.
Similarly, the story of Veronica expresses a spiritual truth about compassion toward Christ. Although the specific figure of Veronica comes from later tradition, the Gospels do record women among those following Jesus on the way to Calvary (Luke 23:27). The devotion gives a face to that compassion and invites believers to imitate it.
In other words, the Stations do not claim to be additional Scripture. They are devotional reflections that grow out of the biblical narrative and help believers enter more deeply into its meaning.
<h2>Devotion and the Authority of the Church</h2>
This leads to a deeper point that is often overlooked in discussions about Catholic devotions. The Church has always encouraged forms of prayer that help believers live the Gospel more fully. These practices—known as sacramentals and devotions—do not replace the sacraments or add to divine revelation. Instead, they apply the truths of the Faith to the daily lives of the faithful.
The Stations of the Cross fall squarely into this category.
Throughout history, Christians have found various ways to remember and meditate on the events of Christ’s passion. One early form of the devotion developed through pilgrimage. Christians traveling to Jerusalem walked the path believed to be the route Jesus took on the way to Calvary, pausing at different points to pray and reflect.
Over time, this practice spread throughout the Christian world, especially as the literal journey to Jerusalem was impossible for many. Since most believers could not travel to the Holy Land, churches began creating visual representations of the Passion so that the faithful could spiritually “walk” the same journey. Eventually the Church standardized the number of stations and encouraged the devotion as a powerful means of contemplating Christ’s sacrifice.
Seen in this light, the Stations of the Cross are not an addition to the Gospel story, but a pastoral tool. They help Christians remember what Scripture proclaims: that the Son of God suffered and died for our salvation.
<h2>The Incarnation and the Use of Images</h2>
Another reason the Stations are fitting for Christian prayer is that they reflect a profoundly biblical principle: the Incarnation.
Christianity is not a purely abstract religion. As the Gospel of John proclaims, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” (1:14). The story of salvation unfolds through real events in time and space—events that can be remembered, depicted, and contemplated.
Because of this, the Church has long used visual reminders of the Gospel to aid prayer. Just as stained-glass windows and sacred art depict biblical scenes, the Stations of the Cross visually guide believers through the Passion. The images direct our attention to the saving work of Christ.
In this way, the devotion engages both mind and imagination, helping believers enter the drama of redemption more fully.
<h2>A Scriptural Meditation on the Cross</h2>
When viewed through this lens, the question “Are the Stations of the Cross biblical?” can be answered with confidence. The devotion is rooted in the biblical accounts of the Passion. It reflects the Church’s long tradition of meditating on those events. And it fulfills the scriptural call to contemplate the suffering love of Christ.
Far from distracting from Scripture, the Stations lead believers directly back to it. They invite us to slow down, to follow Christ step by step along the road to Calvary, and to remember the price of our redemption—precisely what the Gospels ask us to do.

Are the Stations of the Cross Biblical?

In this episode, Trent reveals how &#8220;based&#8221; people can cut themselves off from God because they want to own other people.
Transcription:
<div>
<div>
Trent:
Many people define being based as having the courage to speak unpopular truths. In a previous episode I showed Pope Francis being based when he said women can&#8217;t be priests or deacons.
</div>
<div>
CLIP:
For a little girl growing up Catholic today, will she ever have the opportunity to be a deacon and participate as a clergy member in the church? No.
Trent:
</div>
<div>
But just because hard truths are often unpopular, that doesn&#8217;t mean everything that&#8217;s unpopular is a hard truth. Sometimes it&#8217;s unpopular because everybody knows that it&#8217;s wrong. In today&#8217;s episode, I want to talk about how some people relish the backlash that comes from being based and they love it so much they&#8217;re unable to see that they aren&#8217;t being holy, they&#8217;re being heartless, and this kind of heartless mentality can send you to hell. First, there are people including self-described Christians who harbor a deep resentment towards women that leave pornography to become Christian. Here&#8217;s an example. Brie Soad used to create pornography, and I even blocked her account because of it, but one of her friends asked me to unblock her because she repented and she now fully embraces the Catholic faith. I asked Brie to send me some screenshots of how people treated her after her conversion, and it&#8217;s tragic to see the bitter anger in these people&#8217;s hearts.
They write former porn, actress, you are a disgrace and not welcome in my church. No matter how hard she prays, it won&#8217;t help her. God bans porn stars from heaven. God won&#8217;t take you in so hell will be waiting for you. I&#8217;ve seen lots of similar comments online as well as people bashing me because I told Pearl in our debate that it&#8217;s possible for women who leave porn to have healthy marriages and Pearl thinks no man should ever marry a woman who&#8217;s done this. People who think that say that these women are just permanently damaged goods who should be shunned. I saw similar reactions covering fitness, nala&#8217;s conversion to Christianity, which I&#8217;ve discussed in a previous episode. There&#8217;s this idea that these women, especially those who made a lot of money on OnlyFans, haven&#8217;t paid the price for their sins and so they still need to suffer for what they&#8217;ve done.
But if you think a person needs to pay the price before God can forgive his or her sins, then you do not know the gospel of Jesus Christ. And if you complain about people who got to sin and were still saved, even though you followed all the rules, you know what you sound like. You sound like the bad guys in Jesus&#8217;s parables. That&#8217;s what the older brother and the parable of the prodigal son complained about when his pride kept him from rejoicing over his brother&#8217;s salvation. That&#8217;s what the workers in the vineyard complained about when they objected to the workers who showed up for the last hour being paid the same as them. Being a Christian means you don&#8217;t view salvation as a transaction or a deal. Salvation is a merciful gift of God. We accept through God&#8217;s grace. It&#8217;s something we desire for every single person because God desires the salvation of every single person, but our heart cannot be open to God&#8217;s mercy if we withhold mercy from other people.
Jesus said on the sermon on the Mount, blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy, which implies that those who are not merciful will not obtain mercy. Jesus makes this same point in the parable of the unforgiving servant. When he sums up the lesson, then his Lord summoned him and said to him, you wicked servant. I forgave you all that debt because you besought me and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant as I had mercy on you and in anger his Lord delivered him to the jailers till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you if you do not forgive your brother from your heart. As I noted in a previous episode, that doesn&#8217;t mean we should not be on the lookout for false converts trying to get attention. It also doesn&#8217;t mean that brand new converts should be a public face of the faith, but it does mean we can&#8217;t be Christians if we close off our hearts to certain people, like if we treat former female porn producers differently from other sinners and consider them permanently damaged goods.
And as I noted in my episode on Father Radcliffe, this also happens among liberals who treat sinners. They detest more than others like neo-Nazis, for example, as being irredeemable and permanently unsafe. Both the far left and the far right can treat people as being beyond the love of God. But in this episode I&#8217;m focusing on when this happens among the right, especially those who want to be based. For example, Calvin Robinson is a conservative commenter who previously served as an Anglican priest but is now a priest in the old Catholic church, a denomination that is not in communion with the Pope. Back in August, he posted a clip with the following caption, migrant dingy, crushed by Spanish police boat. It can be done. The Spaniards know how to reconquista. Now I have defended a nation&#8217;s ability to deport people and police its borders. You can hold that view while still having a heart that grieves when situations like this happen to migrants.
Back in February, drug traffickers ran over a police speedboat in Spain and killed two officers. This kind of maneuver can kill people and so to gloat over it being done to migrants instead of soberly discussing it expresses a heartlessness that is unbecoming of a Christian. But one of the most heartless things I&#8217;ve seen people, including Christians Express, has been a hatred of interracial marriage. This post on X got over 3 million views and thousands of likes for showing an interracial family and simply saying, Misco generation race mixing is a sin or this meme saying the brightest people support abortion for certain races, which is just eugenics. Many of the people saying miscegenation is sinful. Don&#8217;t give a reason for why it&#8217;s sinful except their own reactive disgust towards interracial children. You can see this in people like John Men ii, a ii, a k, a handsome truth who bates people with racist tirades. Here&#8217;s an incident where he berates a white mom with a mixed race child who men calls a mud shark.
</div>
<div>
Oh my God, the mud shark, mud shark alert, you made a mistake. Are you
</div>
<div>
You mud shark? My
I truly believe someone with this attitude would walk right out of heaven and into the racially segregated parts of hell because heaven with its different races and people who are of mixed race worshiping God altogether that would be hellish to that person. That&#8217;s why we should pray for God to rescue those whose hearts have been captured by hate and racial idolatry. Pope 11 said, those who make an idol out of race are far from the true faith in God. Nazi Germany, for example, was not trying to promote Christianity but a kind of paganism and part of this heartless racism comes from a revival of neo paganism. Consider this response to the expost saying race mixing is sinful. It says, Misco generation was always traditionally considered one of the most grievous sins against your family, caste and ancestors prior to Christianity, which introduced its plebeian values everywhere.
Christianity is hardly the sole arbiter of what is or is not sinful. I only have six words to say to that cope harder. Pagan Jesus is Lord. What makes Christianity and especially its expression in the Catholic church so beautiful is that it&#8217;s universal. The word Catholic even means universal kata holos according to the whole, our faith is not confined to a culture, a nationality, or a race. It is one faith for the entire human race and there is only one human race made up of many different and equally dignified ethnicities. That&#8217;s why the church has never taught that interracial marriage is sinful. The Bible even records an episode where God punished a critic of an interracial marriage. In numbers 12 one it says, Miriam and Aaron, Moses&#8217; siblings spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married for. He had married a cushite woman.
Kush is another word for Ethiopia, and it refers to black Africans who lived south of Egypt. The Bible recognizes they had unique skin color when it uses the same Hebrew word for cushite. In Jeremiah 1323, it says, can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? But in numbers 12, God becomes angry at Miriam for criticizing Moses. It says The anger of the Lord was kindled against them and he departed. And when the cloud removed from over the tent, behold Miriam was lepers as white as snow, and in fact, God was saying, you prefer light skin to dark skin. Miriam here you can have the lightest skin of all. Now, that is a based move. The Catholic church was actually one of the leading advocates to overturn bans on interracial marriage in the United States. In 1948, Catholic couple, Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis sued to overturn a California law that said no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a negro mulatto, Mongolian, or member of the Malay race.
Perez was considered white under California law in spite of her Mexican heritage, and she and Davis sued California by claiming that the law inhibited their freedom of religion because they were free to marry in the Catholic church that they both attended. The US Supreme Court didn&#8217;t strike down all interracial marriage bans until loving versus Virginia in 1967. During this period, moral theologians like Father Joseph Dougherty addressed this issue in works like his 1949 thesis, moral problems of interracial marriage. Doherty points out that even theologians who personally discouraged interracial marriage considered bans on the practice to be immoral violations of the natural right to marry. But Doherty goes further. Some Catholics claim that while interracial marriage isn&#8217;t a sin, the church discourages it and people have a general duty to marry within their own race in order to preserve it. But that&#8217;s not true. The church doesn&#8217;t teach that you can value your own ethnicity as long as you don&#8217;t idolize it and you&#8217;re free to marry someone of your own ethnicity.
But the church does not teach that this is the ideal and the church does not discourage interracial marriage. Some church leaders may have discouraged it in the past in historical context where interracial families experienced severe racist hardship because of unjust laws, but that doesn&#8217;t mean the interracial unions themselves were undesirable. However, the church does have teachings on other kinds of mixed marriages. For example, the church discourages interfaith marriages when Catholics marry non-Catholics or even non-Christians. This is why permission or a dispensation is needed for those marriages to take place. They are not ideal, but the marriages themselves are not sinful. However, no such permission is needed for interracial marriage. People who defend the view that it&#8217;s discouraged by the church, they usually end up citing individual theologians or priests who personally discouraged race mixing, but this wasn&#8217;t official church teaching, or they&#8217;ll quote church fathers that say You should prioritize your own kin over strangers, which has nothing to do with marrying someone of a different race and is just talking about the principle of subsidiarity.
That&#8217;s why Doherty says, A careful search has failed to reveal any official documents of the church bearing specifically on the morality of interracial marriages as such. So if you care more about being based than about having a merciful heart, then your heart is not prepared to receive God&#8217;s love for all eternity in heaven. That&#8217;s true for all of us, which is why we need God&#8217;s transforming love. We long for the promise of God In Ezekiel 36 26, A new heart I will give you and a new spirit I&#8217;ll put within you and I&#8217;ll remove from your body, the heart of stone and you a heart of flesh. When I see someone getting angry at interracial families or porn stars converting, I see someone with a heart of stone and I pray for God to change his or her heart. And by the way, throughout this episode, I&#8217;ve mentioned the human heart a lot and there&#8217;s a reason for that.
Pope Francis just released a wonderful and cyclical called Delex nos Latin, for he loved us and it calls us to a deeper understanding of the sacred heart of Jesus. Some Protestants in even Eastern Orthodox find this devotion strange, but the Pope assures us that quote, devotion to the heart of Christ is not the veneration of a single organ apart from the person of Jesus. What we contemplate and adore is the whole Jesus Christ, the Son of God, made man represented by an image that accentuates his heart. That heart of flesh is seen as the privileged sign of the inmost being of the incarnate son and his love, both divine and human more than any other part of his body. The heart of Jesus is the natural sign and symbol of his boundless love. It also says, when St. Theres was 15, she could speak of Jesus as the one whose heart beats in unison with my own.
Two years later, speaking of the image of Christ&#8217;s heart crowned with thorns, she wrote in a letter, you know that I myself do not see the sacred heart as everyone else. I think that the heart of my spouse is mine alone, just as mine is his alone, and I speak to him then in the solitude of this delightful heart to heart while waiting to contemplate him one day face to face. If you&#8217;re jealous that you followed all the rules, but other people got to sin and had a conversion later in life, you need to spend some time with Jesus. The real jealousy comes from people like me who lived a life apart from God for years or decades and missed out on so many graces. So trust me, St. Theres is not jealous that St. Augustine got to have a wildlife. Instead, St. Augustine has a holy jealousy and admiration, if you will, that St.
Therese always knew the heart of God even when she was a child. Many people become heartless on the internet because it&#8217;s an inhuman depersonalizing space. It reduces other people to images and avatars to argue with and dunk on, but that&#8217;s not what we were made for. I&#8217;ll leave you with these wise words from Pope Francis. In this age of artificial intelligence, we cannot forget that poetry and love are necessary to save our humanity. No algorithm will ever be able to capture, for example, the nostalgia that all of us feel, whatever our age and wherever we live. When we recall how we first used a fork to seal the edges of the pies that we helped our mothers or grandmothers to make at home, it was a moment of culinary apprenticeship somewhere between child play and adulthood when we first felt responsible for working and helping one another.
Along with the fork, I could also mention thousands of other little things that are a precious part of everyone&#8217;s life. A smile we elicited by telling a joke, a picture we sketched in the light of a window, the first game of soccer, we played with a rag ball, the worms we collected in a shoebox, a flower we pressed in the pages of a book. Our concern for a fledgling bird fallen from its nest, a wish we made in plucking a daisy. All these little things, ordinary in themselves, yet extraordinary for us can never be captured by algorithms. The fork, the joke, the window, the ball, the shoebox, the book, the bird, the flower. All of these live on as precious memories kept deep in our heart. This profound core present in every man and woman is not that of the soul, but of the entire person in his or her unique psychosomatic identity. Everything finds its unity in the heart, which can be the dwelling place of love in all its spiritual, psychic, and even physical dimensions. In a word, if love reigns in our heart, we become in a complete and luminous way. The persons we are meant to be for every human being is created above all else. For love in the deepest fiber of our being. We were made to love and to be loved. Thank you so much and I hope you have a very blessed day.
</div>
</div>

How Being “Based” Can Send you to Hell

I’m in a civil marriage that needs an annulment on behalf of my wife. How do you get a non-Catholic to support the annulment process?

I went through an annulment. I found it easiest to focus on writing out a draft and presenting it

My annulment was the best thing that has happened to me. It allowed me to fully recognize my now Catholic Marriage.

What do you think about the idea that more attention needs to be placed on the person who is not seeking out the annulment?

I’m a good practicing Catholic and I don’t want a divorce, but I can’t handle the abuse, he’s a narcissist. What should I do?

I’m 59 and my ex-husband remarried civilly. Should I seek out an annulment to help him out?

Is it ok for me to receive communion even though I left the annulment process incomplete?

I married my husband, we got a divorce and then got back together. Do I need an annulment?

What does the Church say about receiving the Eucharist if your annulment hasn’t been finalized? We explore this important question and also discuss healing after divorce, reuniting with a former spouse, and how to approach annulments with non-Catholic partners.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

Can I Receive Communion If My Annulment Process Is Incomplete?

A priest told me that we should never hire a psychic to find a missing person. Is this a teaching directly from Jesus or does it come from the catechism?

How does Aquinas’ view on predestination differ from Calvin’s?

Can you clarify what this new document on Mary means?

If Jesus comes tomorrow, what happens to the souls in purgatory and the souls on earth who are in friendship with Christ but have the stain of sin?

What are the logical arguments for affirming that Jesus was who he said he was?

&#8220;Can we hire psychics for missing persons?&#8221; This episode explores the Church&#8217;s stance on seeking psychic help, addressing whether this teaching stems from Jesus or the catechism. Additionally, we delve into Aquinas&#8217; views on predestination versus Calvin&#8217;s, the implications of a new document on Mary, and the fate of souls at the Second Coming.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

Can We Hire Psychics for Missing Persons and Other Teachings?

“A Very Pagan Christmas” (SHAMELESS REBUTTAL)

What happens when we die? Answers are limited, but the news is generally good. Father Hugh Barbour shares insights into the feasts of All Saints and All Souls.

Saints and Souls in the Next Life

<div class="sc-type-small sc-text-body">
<div>
In this episode Trent sits down with Catholic YouTuber Keith Nester to bust the myths perpetuated by fundamentalists and atheists that Catholicism is nothing more than recycled paganism.
</div></div>

Is Catholicism Pagan?

Is there a correlation between couples not using birth control and the success in raising catholic children?

I am Catholic, but my husband is Protestant. I find it hard to bring the Faith, especially the Rosary, in our household in ways that are non-threatening to my spouse. Any advice for parents in this situation?

What can we do for the the 85% of kids who are raised Catholic who don’t practice?

What advice do you have for grandparents for their children’s children?

My wife is Catholic but has a superficial faith. How can I approach her about this without pushing her away?

Raising Kids Who Stay Catholic

Too often, Catholics take the sacraments for granted. Many see them as simply rites of passage, a photo opportunity, even something to “go through” to make Grandma happy. Now, making Grandma happy is certainly meet and just, but the sacraments are about so much more than that.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the sacraments as “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (1131). The manner by which Jesus Christ intended to dispense divine life to us is no simple rite of passage!
More and more dioceses throughout the United States are giving the sacraments renewed attention. Marriage preparation courses are being reinvigorated and taken more seriously, opportunities for the sacrament of confession are growing, and more than a dozen dioceses have returned to the ancient order of the sacraments of initiation: baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist.
The restored order of the sacraments may be puzzling to some. Why change what has been working perfectly well for more than a century? Well, that prompts another question: is it really working well? Are people receiving the sacraments when they need them? And how did we get to this state of affairs in the first place?
First, let’s be clear about something: “Because that’s how it used to be done” is not a sufficient reason to restore the ancient order of the sacraments of initiation. There are many theological and pastoral reasons for the restored order, which we will come to later. But it is important to have a sense of how we came to this point in the first place.
For the first 500 years of the Church’s history, the sacraments of initiation were received together, even in the case of infants. This practice has been maintained in the Eastern churches, both <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/eastern-catholicism">Catholic</a> and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/eastern-orthodoxy">Orthodox</a>, as well as at the Easter Vigil in the Latin rite.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church released a catechism titled “Christ—Our Pascha” in 2011. This beautiful tome provides some insight into the question of the order of the sacraments of initiation:
<blockquote>As a person after birth begins to breathe and then receives nourishment in order to live, so the newly baptized, born to new life in the baptismal font, begins to breathe by the Holy Spirit and receives the nourishment of Holy Communion in order to grow in Christ. . . . [The reception of the sacraments of initiation is] a single, unified action of God’s grace (408).</blockquote>
Over time, the timeline of reception of the sacraments changed in the Western Church. Infants still received baptism, but confirmation was not received until the age of reason (around seven), and the Eucharist sometime thereafter. Eventually, both confirmation and Holy Communion were received in adolescence, at an even older age.
In the mid-1800s in France, the bishops delayed confirmation until after First Holy Communion in order to allow for a greater period of catechesis in preparation for confirmation. When the pope found out, he asked them to restore the sacraments to their original order, which was never done—and the French practice spread throughout Europe and around the world.
In 1910, Pope St. Pius X issued the decree Quam Singulari Christus, which stated that reception of Holy Communion should not be delayed beyond the age of reason. However, when this change was made, the pope did not address the age at which confirmation is received, which, in practice, cemented the current order of reception.
According to the Catechism, “the holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation&#8221; (1212). The traditional order of reception of the sacraments of initiation reflected this: first baptism, followed by confirmation, and finally the Eucharist. These sacraments “lay the foundations of every Christian life&#8221; (emphasis in original). There is a natural and sensible rhythm to these sacraments. “The faithful are born anew by baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life.”
In his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI wrote,
<blockquote>It must never be forgotten that our reception of baptism and confirmation is ordered to the Eucharist. Accordingly, our pastoral practice should reflect a more unitary understanding of the process of Christian initiation (17).</blockquote>
Even the name itself calls to mind that Holy Communion completes initiation into the Church. Through baptism we are made members of the Body of Christ, through confirmation we are strengthened in grace and put on the armor of the Holy Spirit, and finally we are in full communion with the Church and are called to receive the Blessed Sacrament in union with (communion) our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Many people have an erroneous or, at best, incomplete understanding of the sacrament of confirmation. This leads to a great deal of confusion when it comes to confirmation’s place in the sacraments of initiation.
Many do not see confirmation as a sacrament of initiation at all; rather, they see confirmation as a sort of re-baptism. They view the sacrament as a rite of passage, a personal acceptance of membership in Christ’s mystical body, as if this is when they really enter the Church. This cheapens baptism and the profession of faith made by the parents and godparents on behalf of the child, and it also cheapens confirmation itself. Confirmation is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, a strengthening.
The Archdiocese of Denver’s “<a href="https://denvercatholic.org/a-brief-catechism-on-the-restored-order/">Brief Catechism on the Restored Order</a>” addresses this point: “Contrary to widespread misconception, confirmation is not the sacrament of adult commitment to the faith. It is a cause of spiritual maturity, not recognition of physical maturity.” Note: It is a cause of spiritual maturity. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit strengthens us and prepares us to face the world. It is not some sort of ratification of baptism. We cannot “forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need ‘ratification’ to become effective.’”
Apart from the theological reasons for the restored order, there are also pastoral considerations. In this country, young people are bombarded by various forms of “entertainment” that lead them into sin and, worse, into habits of sin. Our culture sees itself as post-Christian, in many ways shunning what it sees as having a religious basis. Traditional sexual morality, gender roles, weekly church attendance—all of these are important to Christian moral life, and the culture mocks them all. We need to be strengthened, fortified, and prepared to do what is right, even in the face of such pressure.
Indeed, one of the reasons the Archdiocese of Denver gives for restoring confirmation to its original place is that “children need more grace at an earlier age to become saints in our increasingly secular world.” This is a response to calls made in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Benedict XVI’s Sacramentum Caritatis, and more.
Another diocese that has recently reinstated the restored order of the sacraments of initiation is the Diocese of Gallup, in New Mexico. Bishop James Wall wrote a pastoral letter called “<a href="https://dioceseofgallup.org/restoring-the-order-of-the-sacraments-of-initiation/">The Gift of the Father</a>” explaining that the sacraments of initiation have a natural unity, which is made less visible when they are not ordered in the ancient way.
“Receiving the sacrament of confirmation long after the reception of Holy Communion tends to weaken the understanding of the bond and relationship that the sacraments of initiation have with one another,” he wrote. Baptism “immerses us into the Divine Trinity,” while the grace of confirmation “confirms and strengthens the supernatural life we have received in baptism, and it also enables us with its grace to live in a more mature way our lives as Christians giving witness to Christ in all that we do.”
The sacraments are the primary means by which the Church brings the grace of God to his faithful, and they should not be taken for granted. There is nothing inherently wrong with the current order of the sacraments of initiation, but there is a very good case to be made for restoring the ancient and Eastern practice.

Restoring the Order of the Sacraments

Does the Church allow for reception of the Eucharist outside of Mass? How has the Eucharist affected you personally?

I got into a conversation with Baptists and after some back and forth they asked, from a Catholic perspective if it’s okay to be Baptist. How should I answer?

What methodology do you use to know what parts of the bible to take literally?

How would you respond to the question, who or what created God?

AMA: Eucharist Outside of Mass, Catholic View on Baptists, Interpreting Scripture, and Who Created God?

George Weigel&#8217;s newest book, The Fragility of Order: Catholic Reflections on Turbulent Times, offers a diagnosis of how the world, and the Church, got into the situation of disorder we face today. Join us, as Weigel discusses the book, the world, and his chats with Pope Francis.

The Fragility of Order

How One Argument Against Islam Backfires

Even if I concede that Revelation 5:8 proves the Christians in heaven are aware of our specific requests and intercede for us on account of those requests, it doesn’t give us any sort of instruction to invoke them. Therefore, we shouldn’t do it.

Maybe we don’t need an explicit instruction to invoke the saints. But you’d think that if it were appropriate to ask the saints to pray for us, then at least we’d have some examples of the first century Christians doing this. Since we don’t, we shouldn...

But Karlo, we don’t have any evidence of Christians invoking the saints’ intercession for the first two hundred years plus of Christianity. The earliest evidence we have is the mid third century. Since this belief and practice is a historical accretion...

Perhaps the lack of evidence for Christians invoking the saints in the New Testament and the first two hundred years is because Christians believed it was wrong to communicate with the dead, given that Deuteronomy 18:12 forbids necromancy and calls it ...

Let’s say I agree that the invocation of the saints isn’t necromancy. But we still ought not to do it because it’s idolatrous. Don’t Catholics say, “we pray to the saints”? Prayer is something that we offer to God alone.

It still seems that Catholics make “gods” out of the saints because by invoking them you’re implying that they can do only what God can do—namely, know the hearts of men. 2 Chronicles 6:30 says, “God alone knows the hearts of men.

Okay, maybe God can give some knowledge to the saints. But the amount of knowledge involved with the Catholic belief and practice would require omniscience. How could Mary hear 8 billion prayer requests, say, at the same time? She’d have to be God to d...

Maybe there’s nothing wrong with invoking the saints in principle. But because it has led to so many abuses and violations of the Gospel that we should not do it.

Practically speaking. Why would I invoke the saints when I can just go straight to Jesus? &nbsp;

In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Karlo Broussard goes beyond proving that the saints in heaven are aware of our prayers—he tackles the deeper question: Should we actually invoke them? Karlo answers key Protestant objections such as the absence of early Christian practices, claims of necromancy or idolatry, and the charge that saints would need to be omniscient to hear so many prayers. With Scripture, Church history, and careful reasoning, Karlo shows why invoking the saints is not only legitimate but spiritually powerful—and not a substitute for going directly to Jesus, but a biblical expression of the communion of saints.
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
Help us reach our goal by donating! <a href="https://give.catholic.com/campaign/689122/donate">Catholicanswersradio.com</a>
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>
</div></div>

Should We Pray to the Saints? A Scriptural and Historical Defense