Manage Account

Discover

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

Does James 2:10 say all sins are equal?

Get the JOE NOTES, sources for this episode, and more Shameless Popery on Patreon!
https://www.patreon.com/ShamelessPopery

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

How to Worship God Every Day:

In this episode Trent shows how rhetoric about repealing the 19th amendment is inconsistent and even harms Christian social activism.
Transcription:
Trent:
After socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral race with the support of 82% of young women. Some people on the right have talked about repealing the 19th Amendment that gives women the right to vote. They say this is the only way to restore goods, like the true meaning of marriage and legal protection for the unborn. But in today&#8217;s episode, I&#8217;ll show why this kind of rhetoric has the opposite effect and will make it harder to push back against evils like sodomy and abortion. First, let&#8217;s take a look at a common argument in favor of repealing the 19th Amendment. Here&#8217;s Protestant Pastor Dale Partridge in a clip that has been seen over 4 million times on X.
CLIP:
Is it good that women can vote in America? I don&#8217;t think so, and here&#8217;s why. Nearly every legalized moral atrocity of the last a hundred years was made possible by the female vote. Abortion and homosexuality would likely still be illegal if not for the female vote. Mass immigration and the welfare state wrote on the backs of the female vote. Nearly every modern Democrat, including Obama and Biden were elected because of the female vote. Even last night, the new Muslim, New York City Mayor Mond won specifically because of the female
Trent:
Vote. However, many people who make this argument against women voting aren&#8217;t consistent. They say women tend to vote for bad things like pro-abortion, liberal politicians, and so they shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to vote. However, young people as a whole are much more likely to vote for these bad things than women as a whole. Mamdani won because of his support among young people, not women in particular. Two thirds of men under the age of 45 voted for him on par with the rate of women between the ages of 30 and 45. Women under 30 went from Mamdani at a higher rate, but they aren&#8217;t a very large voting block. We can also see this in previous presidential candidates, including Donald Trump who did not win the youth vote in any of his elections even in 2024, young men under 30 were basically split between Harrison Trump.
So by that logic, should we repeal the 26th amendment and raise the voting age to 45 or 60 to make sure liberals don&#8217;t win? African-Americans are much more likely than women to vote for pro-abortion. Liberal politicians, the racial gap is way more prevalent than the gender gap in elections. So by that logic, should we repeal the 15th amendment and only allow whites to vote? Now, there are anonymous online accounts who would say yes, but who cares what anonymous trolls think. What&#8217;s more interesting are people like Dale Partridge or Joel Wein who publicly say, we should repeal the 19th Amendment. So I message them the following question, since people under the age of 40 and African-Americans support liberal pro-abortion politicians at higher rates than women, do you support repealing the 15th and 26th amendments to eliminate their right to vote? Webb didn&#8217;t reply to me, but Partridge answered my question and said, this men of every color should have the right to vote and represent their household within a republic.
So he didn&#8217;t support repealing the 15th amendment when it comes to age. Partridge said this, as for the 26th Amendment, I believe age alone is a poor standard for determining voting eligibility. A wiser approach would consider factors such as marital status, children land ownership, education years as an American citizen, and ideally religious affiliation. So unless you&#8217;re willing to be a full-blown racist who denies black people the right to vote, you can&#8217;t consistently say that women should be denied the right to vote simply because in the past few decades, their demographic tends to vote for liberal policies. You need an argument based on applied principles, not an argument from estimated outcomes to show women should not be allowed to vote. I cover some of those arguments in a previous episode I&#8217;ll link to below, including the claim that men risk more for society and dangerous jobs, and so only they should be allowed to vote. But this doesn&#8217;t explain why men with cushy jobs should still get the right to vote or why women who take on bodily risks like giving birth shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to vote when they&#8217;re the ones who allow society to perpetuate over time at all. When it comes to arguments I didn&#8217;t cover in that episode, Andrew Wilson has claimed feminism is incoherent when it says rights don&#8217;t really exist and that women have the right to vote. Here&#8217;s how we put it on the whatever podcast back in May.
CLIP:
Forced doctrine is a doctrine which I came up with, which tries to describe a phenomenon which you yourself are going to have to concede is true that half of the world right now, if men decide to, they can basically exterminate every single woman inside of their nations and there&#8217;s not a damn thing women can do about it. And because of this forced doctrine application, women&#8217;s rights all come from men not inherently from themselves. Therefore, feminism is a lie, complete lie that&#8217;s forced doctrine.
Trent:
And just to be clear, Wilson is not saying he endorses men, annihilating women. He&#8217;s making an internal critique of feminism. His argument is that if we don&#8217;t have inherent rights, then rights come from the state. Specifically, they come from the men who protect the state in law enforcement in the military. Therefore, feminists can&#8217;t complain if the source of their rights takes away their rights. Now, I agree with Wilson that it&#8217;s incoherent to say we have no natural rights, and that outlawing abortion violates the presumably natural right to control one&#8217;s body. But a feminist could just tell Wilson that unlike natural rights, social rights don&#8217;t have to come merely from a bureaucracy or rule by the strong. They can be part of a collective social contract that everyone, even the strong recognizes better than bureaucracy. For example, in a true bureaucracy, the rights of the weak come from the will of the strong regardless of sex in such a society, the rights of physically weaker men like the elderly, the disabled, or even men who aren&#8217;t in the top tier of strength and can&#8217;t open a random pickle jar like Wilson, their rights would come from stronger men who can do things like open a random pickle jar.
But the strongest 10% of society couldn&#8217;t unilaterally control the weaker 90% because even if you are individually weak, there&#8217;s still strength in numbers. As noted in this great scene from the 1998 film, A Bug&#8217;s Life,
CLIP:
Those puny ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life.
Trent:
Given this reality, everyone might prefer a social contract where more people have a say in government, which reduces the need to have to constantly threaten force over other people to get your way. So neither the argument from bad voting outcomes nor the internal critique argument show women shouldn&#8217;t be allowed the right to vote. What about a more principled argument? Some who advocate for Christian nationalism say women shouldn&#8217;t vote because there is a natural order where only households can vote and households are represented by husbands and fathers. Well, the Bible doesn&#8217;t have a teaching on voting rights since those are a recent part of history. Likewise, the Catholic church was originally wary of voting at all, be it for men or women since male voting is also a recent phenomenon in human history. But once women gained the right to vote, this was something that church supported as can be seen in Pope Pius, the 12 who said in 1945 that it is a strict obligation on all entitlement and women to take part in elections. Household voting would be something you&#8217;d have to support with a prudential argument. It&#8217;s not something from divine revelation or church authority. Partridge tries to support this argument by saying men must lead because women are more susceptible to making bad decisions.
CLIP:
Women are twice as likely to men to be seduced into an affair. They are 26% more likely to be financially scammed online. They&#8217;re three times more likely to fall prey to psychics and tarot card readings and astrology and mediums. The same emotional vulnerability that shows up there also shows up in politics,
Trent:
But you can make the same argument against men being trusted with the right to vote. Some studies say that men and women get equally scammed while others show that men are more likely to be scammed. Other studies show that because men are bigger risk takers, when they are scammed, they lose more money than women. Men being more likely to take risks is a good thing. It fosters exploration and discovery, but it&#8217;s a bad thing when men are more likely than women to end up in the ER or the morgue because of their risk taking. So the argument for men and women&#8217;s capabilities also isn&#8217;t persuasive, but even if you did implement household voting, it wouldn&#8217;t change much. Married women are only slightly more liberal than married men. The real problem with Western countries is that unmarried women and unmarried men are both more likely to support wicked policies and politicians.
However, if only households are allowed to vote, then what is the difference if these unmarried households still vote? This is why I asked Partridge the following question. Do you believe an unmarried man or an unmarried woman living on their own outside their parents&#8217; home would qualify as a household that is allowed to vote? To which he responded? No, I do not believe an unmarried man constitutes a household. However, I do think that there should be an exception for unmarried qualified men serving in the military as their service demonstrates duty and responsibility worthy of representation. And of course, partridge thinks unmarried women don&#8217;t constitute a household either. My point though is that it&#8217;s ironic that nearly all the unmarried men who supported partridge&#8217;s video online would be unable to vote under his ideal system of government. But here&#8217;s my bigger concern. How do you convince 50% of the population or probably 80 to 90% under partridge&#8217;s plan to vote to give up their right to vote?
Partridge says, if we can overturn Roe v Wade, we can repeal the 19th Amendment. But while over 200 Supreme Court cases have been overturned in history, only one constitutional amendment has ever been repealed. Specifically the 18th Amendment, which banned alcohol sales. It was overturned 14 years later because the law couldn&#8217;t be enforced at organized crime, and the government really needed tax revenue from alcohol sales during the Great Depression. Realistically, you&#8217;d have to spend several generations converting people to a traditional view of Christian society until a super majority, at least 80% would vote for it. But by that point, you would need to take away people&#8217;s right to vote because most people, men and women could be counted on to vote for the right thing. The problem with repealing the 19th Amendment to address our social problems is that it cannot be implemented when its defenders say that it&#8217;s needed and when it could be implemented, it&#8217;s no longer needed to achieve its defenders goals.
So I&#8217;m asking online Christians, please stop saying stuff like this. It&#8217;s not going to lead to the social change that you want. All it does is give ammunition to our ideological opponents. Christians who talk about repealing women&#8217;s right to vote are like liberals who talk about abolishing the police or abolishing prisons. Their practically impossible proposals make it easier for critics to write off the more practical proposals that are out there and say they&#8217;re all just rantings of a lunatic fringe group. Also, it just makes us look like a bunch of whiners. I can&#8217;t win in the marketplace of ideas, so I need to outlaw the competition. The most practical thing we can do as Christians is to encourage men and women to get married and have children because this naturally moves people towards conservative positions on issues related to life and sexuality. But it&#8217;s hard to do that when you spread rhetoric online about how women are too dumb to be a public part of society.
This stuff makes men and women think that their lives are better off without each other. When God made men and women to be complimentary reflections of his divine love through their matrimonial bonds. So instead of trashing other people made in the image likeness of God as Christians, we should trash the lies that our culture has been feeding us. This includes the lies pedal to women that men in marriage inhibit their happiness. As I cover in my previous episode on the Real Problem with Childless Cat Ladies and the Lies pedal to men, by far right grifters, that marriage will lead them to a life of misery, as I showed in my debate with Pearl. Thank you so much for watching, and if you want to be part of a great event for Catholic men and women who want to build up our culture, then register today for the Council of Trent Conference in Dallas. On April 11th, we&#8217;ll have speakers like Brian Holdsworth, myself, Joe Hess Meyer, Evan Ragga, Lila Rose, and over two dozen Catholic creators who will equip you to evangelize a world in need of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Register today@conferenceoftrent.com. Thank you so much for watching, and I hope you have a very blessed day.

Should Women Lose their Right to Vote?

Did God abandon Jesus?

Catholicism doesn’t make sense to me because it says God moves a sinner to repentance by grace and yet he doesn’t do that for the damned. If God were all-loving, then wouldn’t he move the damned to repentance and forgive them?

How do Catholics make it to heaven?

Why do we say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son and why do the Orthodox disagree?

If this is the Church Jesus founded, how is it that the Church has done so much evil in Canada, the crusades?

I’m getting baptized this Saturday. What is the meaning of picking a saint’s name for baptism?

Why go to general confession and why repeatedly confess the same sins over and over again?

&#8220;Why does God call sinners to grace and not the damned?&#8221; This question raises important theological discussions about divine mercy and justice. Other topics addressed include how Catholics believe they can attain heaven, the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the significance of choosing a saint&#8217;s name for baptism.
<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>

Why Does God Call Sinners to Grace and Not the Damned?

Your argument just backfired…

<div>What does the Catholic Church teach about BDSM? If someone is aroused by this behavior and does NOT want to act on these thoughts, what should that person do?</div><div>Given the fundamental nature of our sexual nature within our human nature (the two are so close as to be almost identical), there are few needs and desires, fears and hopes, pleasures and pains, that do not have some expression on the level of our sex, whether we are male or female. So it is not surprising, given the weakness of our fallen nature, that some things can become associated with our sexual nature that don&#8217;t in fact have anything to do with it in its healthy functioning.
To be sexually aroused by an object or activity that is not related to the union of male and female and the procreation of human nature is an indication of an imbalance, more or less grave depending on the individual, of a psychological and often moral nature. The key to upright sexual desire and pleasure is the personal good of the one with whom we engage in sexual activity. This one should be our lawful spouse of the opposite sex, and our sexual activity should be a sign of the recognition of our union as man and woman in a personal way. Abusive gestures or postures or clothing do not represent a true and free relation between the sexes; rather, they act out sexually other psychological aspects of the relationship of the sexes that suffer from the exaggerations and misperceptions of fallen human nature.
God told Eve, &#8220;Your desire will be for your husband, and he will lord it over you.&#8221; This domination is not part of the complementary order of man and woman but rather an exaggeration of the man&#8217;s role, and an exaggeration of the woman&#8217;s. So, simply put, bondage, sadism, dominance, and masochism (BSDM) are abuses of the simple equality in procreation and union in licit pleasure that should belong to every legitimate human couple.
A Catholic who is tempted by these thoughts must first of all avoid all entertaining of them (most people would have little idea of these things unless they had found them online, for example) and meditate on the mysteries of the Lord&#8217;s own conception and birth and bodily life by praying the holy rosary. Our soul longs to be united to the incarnate Lord and his Blessed Mother. Their assistance and their bodily and spiritual struggles will give us the grace to resist our unruly thoughts and desires and teach us to love those to whom we are attracted and committed.
</div>

The Attraction of Aberrant Behavior

In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes Tim Staples to discuss the imperfections of the papacy. Tim continues with details about the historical context of popes, the presence of saints, and the role of free will in leadership within the Church.
Transcript:
CAller: I am not Catholic because of the papacy being less than perfect. Within the house of God. Yes. And in the house of God, wouldn&#8217;t everything that God touches be closer to being perfect?
Tim Staples: Right. Oh, such a good question. Yes. You know what, brother? This is a very important question. I really thank you for calling. And there&#8217;s a couple of things I would say to this. Number one, as a matter of historical fact, in the papacy, we have something like, and I could be wrong on this, 82, I believe, saints among the popes, we have about, what, 265. And we have 82 saints. Now, there were a lot more who were extraordinarily holy, but that&#8217;s just the number that are actually saints in the church. We have some great men, courageous men, who aren&#8217;t saints yet. Some are in process and whatnot. And so, Peter, while there were some, let&#8217;s just say, choice ones. Right. Who were the famous Alexander vi, who happened to have six kids, obviously out of wedlock, and many more like that. Now, when I say many, you know, you&#8217;re talking about in a particular period of time, roughly a little less than 10% of the popes over the 265 years. Now, that&#8217;s at the high end. 265 popes, not years. 265 popes. Yes. Did I say years? Oh, I meant popes. So, I mean, more likely you&#8217;ve probably got about 10 or so who were morally corrupt. That&#8217;s a very low number. In fact, that&#8217;s a lower percentage than what you had among the apostles, because you had one out of 12 that were bad. And if we&#8217;re talking about 10 at the most. Now, I know some argue a little higher number than that 10. You&#8217;re talking less than 10%, which would be a less percentage than what you had among the apostles. So I&#8217;m just tossing this out, my friend, that just because. And this becomes the most important thing Peter and I want to hear, and I love the fact that his name is Peter. Peter, that I want you to consider. When Jesus established the Church, he did not establish the papacy and the bishopric on the basis of the holiness of the persons that he chose. Jesus was too smart for that, Peter. And why is that? Because God has deigned to give us free will. Just because you are made pope does not mean God is going to override his will for you to have freedom. Look, Peter, God respects our freedom. He respects it so much, he will let us go to hell if we want to. And it doesn&#8217;t matter if you&#8217;re a pope. A nun, a priest, or if you&#8217;re the host of a radio show or the guest on a radio show, God will allow us to walk away from him if we so will it. But what he did do among. Now we&#8217;ll focus on the papacy. And we could talk about the bishop&#8217;s in union with the Pope. But your question is about the Pope, is he protected them whenever they function as Pope and declare a teaching to the universal church. And you&#8217;ll find this in Matthew 16, 18 and 19. Jesus says it. He says, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. In fact, the context is kind of cool here, Peter. The context was Jesus asking the apostles, who do men say that I am? And the apostles respond, well, some say, you&#8217;re Jeremiah, or you&#8217;re Elijah, you&#8217;re this prophet, that prophet. But who do you say I am? And it&#8217;s Peter who responds and says, thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. And it&#8217;s then that Jesus says, I say to blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father is in heaven. And I say to you, you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. Notice Peter&#8217;s not going to build the church. Jesus is, through Peter, he says, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heave. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And we believe Peter because the church is a kingdom. This royal authority given to Peter did not die. With Peter, it continues as long as the kingdom continues on this earth. We have successors of St. Peter. Now, Peter, I&#8217;m talking to you, Peter, about Peter. We know Peter the apostle, our first pope, was not perfect. He denied Jesus three times. And even after the resurrection, he had to be rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:9 for not even living up to his own teaching. But when Peter declared something like he did at the Council of Jerusalem, In Acts chapter 15, especially there, verses 7 through 12, he declares the truth. Everybody shuts up because Peter has spoken. And we see that down through the centuries that the popes, when they exercise the keys of the kingdom, which means when they declare something bound on this earth, right, they declare, I say. And they have to use language to make that clear. They&#8217;re basically saying, thus saith God, it doesn&#8217;t matter where they are in their moral life at that time. Whoever the Pope is God uses him as his instrument to build his church, not based on the person of Peter and his successors, but based on the promise and power of Jesus Christ. That is so crucial for us to understand, because that&#8217;s the way God has deigned to preserve free will. He&#8217;s not going to force popes to be good, but he will preserve them from error when they declare truth, like I just said, for the protection of the entire body of Christ. That is the great gift of the papacy. So don&#8217;t allow. Here&#8217;s my advice. Don&#8217;t allow the corruption of an Alexander VI or a Julius II or Julius iii, who are also famously wayward in their moral lives. But understand that this great gift is for the preservation of the unity of the faith, so that all can know the truth. Because without it, my friend, what do you see in Protestantism? Without a magisterium, you end up now with tens of thousands of denominations. In fact, nobody even knows how many denominations there are anymore because there&#8217;s new ones started every year. In fact, multiple are started every year because they don&#8217;t have anyone that can say, thus saith God. You can have the Scriptures, but if there&#8217;s no one to say, thus saith God, this is what the Scriptures mean. You. You have utter and absolute chaos in the Catholic faith. We have one Lord, one faith, one baptism for 2,000 years because of this great gift of the papacy. Does that make sense, Peter?
Caller: Yeah.
Tim Staples: You see why Jesus was smart enough not to build his church upon some dude, but rather to use the dude and his successors as his instruments. That means everything. Otherwise, you&#8217;ve got no certainty. You&#8217;ve got nothing as a church. I&#8217;ll tell you what, if you&#8217;d like, Peter, we have a book called Pope Peter which reflects on this doctrine by our colleague Joe Heschmeyer. If you&#8217;d like. Hang on the line, we&#8217;ll send it to you. All right?

I’m Not Catholic Because of Corrupt Popes…

<div>How is the Eucharist consecrated?</div><div>The Eucharist is consecrated by the power of the Holy Spirit and the presiding priest’s saying the essential words of consecration (CCC 1353).
The approved and minimally necessary words [for the Roman/Latin Rite] that must be said for a valid consecration are “This is my body” in offering the bread and “This is my blood” or “This is the chalice of my blood” in offering the wine. If a priest omits any of these essential words, the consecration is invalid.
From Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff:
<blockquote>[As] the theologian Joseph Ratzinger put it so well: &#8220;In order that an event that occurred in the past is made present, the words must therefore be pronounced: This is my body—this is my blood. But in these words it is assumed that the I of Jesus Christ speaks. Only he can say these things; they are his words. No man can pretend to declare the I of Jesus Christ as his own. No one can say here are many communities can transmit, rather it can only be founded on the &#8216;sacramental&#8217; authorization given to the whole Church by Jesus Christ himself. . . . And this is exactly the &#8216;priestly ordination&#8217; and the &#8216;priesthood'&#8221; (20).</blockquote>
</div>

How Is the Eucharist Consecrated?

<div class="page" title="Page 372">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 362
CHALLENGE
“Why can’t there be a multiplicity of gods?”
DEFENSE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The answer depends on what you mean by “gods.”
In classical paganism, the gods people typically worshipped were not infinite, eternal beings. Instead, they were understood to be superhuman but finite beings who came into existence at some point. (Thus Osiris’s father was Geb, Zeus’s father was Chronos, Thor’s father was Odin.)
It is possible for there to be multiple superhuman beings. That could be the case even in the natural world. There might be creatures in the physical universe who are more intelligent, more powerful, and longer lived than man.
The same is true of the supernatural world. In fact, the Judeo-Christian view holds that there are superhuman, supernatural beings. Angels are immaterial beings who display miraculous abilities. It is therefore possible for there to be a multiplicity of finite, superhuman beings.
This does not provide evidence for the existence of any set of pagan deities. Much less does it provide reason to worship them. On the Judeo-Christian view, whatever respect may be due a finite being, it does not amount to the worship due the infinite Creator.
One might ask whether a more elevated polytheism is possible, whereby there is more than one ultimate, infinite God. It is not clear that any religion proposes this. Not even Zoroastrianism, which is often said to be dualistic, does so. It is ultimately monotheistic because it holds that its fundamental deity, Ahura Mazda, will eventually defeat his opponent, Angra Mainyu.
We have a strong intuition that, whatever the ultimate reality may be, it is one, and thus there could not be more than one ultimate, infinite God.
If one did propose the existence of two such beings, then they would need to exist within some kind of framework that contained them both. This framework would then be more fundamental than either. However, if there is something more fundamental than a being, then that being cannot be the ultimate, infinite God proposed on the Judeo-Christian view but must be a being of a lesser order.
According to Judaism and Christianity, God is the fundamental basis of all that is real, and, properly understood, there cannot be two or more fundamental bases of reality.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

A Multiplicity of Gods?

<blockquote>Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly (Matt. 1:18-19).</blockquote>
So writes the Holy Spirit through the Evangelist, St. Matthew, in describing the virginal conception in the womb of the Holy Mother of God, Mary, and the ensuing, though temporary, decision of St. Joseph, her husband, to “send her away” quietly.
“Why was Joseph going to separate himself from Mary?” The immediate response may well be that he suspected her of adultery, but did not want to make this publicly known lest she be shamed and, indeed, stoned to death. Surely, as St. Thomas Aquinas references in his famous Catena Aurea, this was the response of some of the great Fathers of the Church to this question—e.g., John Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine (see Catena Aurea, Volume I, The Saint Austin Press, 1997). Given the scriptural data, as well as these corresponding interpretations from such great authorities, we might consider this question settled.
However, not so fast . . . for there are some other considerations to be made in order to more conscientiously answer this question. This theory—the “Suspicion Theory”—is not the only “game” in town!
Aquinas, in his masterful commentary on the Holy Gospel according to Matthew and the aforementioned Catena Aurea, points out that in addition to the Suspicion Theory, there are two other interpretations of Matthew 1:19’s reference to Joseph’s decision to dismiss Mary.
The first, which we will call the “Confusion Theory,” holds that Joseph was not suspicious of Our Lady, but rather was simply confused as to how she was with child.
The other of these alternative interpretations, the one upon which we will focus here and which we shall call the “Reverence Theory,” holds that Joseph knew exactly what was going on—i.e., that this child was the promised Messiah and that Mary, the Holy Virgin Mary, his betrothed, was none other than the promised Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear as son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Proponents of this theory include such great ones as Jerome and Origen, as Aquinas references both in the Catena Aurea and in his commentary on this Gospel:
<blockquote>According to Jerome and Origen, he had no suspicion of adultery. For Joseph knew Mary’s chastity; he had read in the Scriptures that a virgin will conceive (Isa. 7:14) and, and there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root (11:1); he also knew that Mary was descended from David. Hence he more easily believed that this had been fulfilled in her than that she had fornicated. And therefore, considering himself unworthy to live with such great sanctity, he wished to hide her away, just as Peter said, depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord (Luke 5:8). Hence he did not wish to hand her over, i.e., to take her to himself, and receive her in marriage, considering himself unworthy (see chs. 1-12).</blockquote>
Some may be inclined to think that this interpretation is an “overly pious” stretching of the true meaning of the Scriptures on this matter, ignoring the obvious meaning of divine revelation on this question. But is this so?
Before we answer that directly, we must remember that in order to interpret the Scripture properly, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches (see 112-114), we must be attentive to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church, and be attentive to the “analogy of faith”—i.e., the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of revelation. It is only by employing these three principles that we can interpret the Scriptures properly, especially difficult passages.
We can now say that the Reverence Theory given by Jerome and Origen (and seemingly gaining popularity in the Church as time goes on) is hardly “far-fetched.” For if we utilize the aforementioned three principles of scriptural interpretation given in the Catechism, with the aid of the development of dogma, we today can realize just how holy the Mother of God is—i.e., that she is the Immaculate Conception (as she herself told St. Bernadette at Lourdes and as the Church has infallibly defined).
Furthermore, as the centuries progress, the Church seems to be very much growing in her appreciation of the holiness of St. Joseph. “The opinion that St. Joseph is <a href="https://www.ecatholic2000.com/lagrange/saviour/mother.shtml">the greatest of the saints</a> after Our Lady is one which is becoming daily more commonly held in the Church” (p. 277). In recent centuries, numerous papal documents have been written about him, greater importance has been given by the Church to his feasts, he has been given greater titles (e.g., “Patron of the Universal Church”), his litany has been expanded, and his name was added both to the Roman Canon and to the other Eucharistic Prayers. Consider, too, this strong statement made by Pope Leo XIII concerning Joseph: “As Joseph has been united to the Blessed Virgin by the ties of marriage, it may not be doubted that he approached nearer than any to the eminent dignity by which the Mother of God surpasses so nobly all created natures” (Quamquam Pluries 3).
Thus, as the centuries roll along, Holy Mother Church’s eyes are penetrating more keenly into the holiness of these two key figures, Mary and Joseph, so closely connected to the incarnation of Our Lord. With that penetration, the Church is gradually coming to see that their holiness surpasses—far surpasses— the holiness of other saints.
This is an important point to make for our question. For, as Aquinas teaches (see Summa Theologia IIa-IIae, q. 60), the nature of suspicion is such that the more pure one is, the less inclined he will be to be suspicious of others.
Given all of this—the employing of the previous principles of scriptural interpretation given by the Catechism, the development of doctrine that the Church has undergone over the centuries on the high level of holiness of both Mary and Joseph, and the nature of suspicion—we can now simply ask an alternative question: “Would Joseph, being as holy as he is, ever suspect Mary, being as holy as she is, of adultery?”
Even if one still holds to the Suspicion Theory, such a one should, at the very least, be able to see that it is hardly unreasonable to hold to the Reverence Theory.
But if we in fact do hold to the Reverence Theory (as, in fact, the author of this article does!), we get a very different “picture”—one much “warmer”—of the great St. Joseph. We see a man who, contrary to being suspicious of the Immaculate One, is much more inclined to believe that she was, indeed, the promised Virgin of Isaiah 7:14 (a prophecy that Joseph himself helped fulfill—see Matt. 1:22-23). Further, it is his humility—not suspicion, but humility—that moves him to regard himself as unworthy of Mary (whom he would know to be the bride of the Holy Spirit) and her divine son! Further, if we hold to this theory, we can only imagine the joy that Joseph must have felt when he was told by the angel that he indeed was worthy to be the husband to the Mother of God and the virgin-father of her divine son: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife” (Matt. 1:20).
St. Joseph, worthy husband of the Holy Virgin Mary, pray for us!

Why Did Joseph Want to Put Mary Away?

Did the Catholic Church remove the 2nd commandment?

In 1 Timothy 4:1-3, St. Paul speaks of a time when some will turn away from the faith and “give heed to…doctrines of demons,” which he identifies as the forbidding of marriage and the consumption of meat. Some Protestants see this passage as a condemnation of the Catholic disciplines of consecrated celibacy for clergy and mandatory abstinence from meat on Fridays during Lent.
Are Catholics heeding doctrines of demons? No, and here are some reasons why.
First, Paul can’t be condemning consecrated celibacy because in the next chapter he gives Timothy instructions on proper implementation of consecrated celibacy with regard to “enrolled” widows (v. 9-11). And Paul indicates that such enrollment involved vows when he gives instruction to forbid enrollment for widows less than sixty years of age lest they desire to marry again and violate their first pledge (v. 11-15).
Also, Paul can’t be condemning all abstinence from meat, since he was part of the decision-making process at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 that decreed Gentile Christians abstain from meats offered to idols.
What Paul is condemning is the idea that nobody should marry, and the idea that one should always abstain from meats, because both were considered evil. This becomes evident in the subsequent verses where Paul counters those forbidding such things and reaffirms that they’re good. For example, he says, “God created [them] to be received with thanksgiving” (v. 3), and “everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” (v. 4). Paul’s instruction indicates that those forbidding marriage and meats were doing so because they considered such things evil, ideas that would later become dominant in <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/whats-gnosticism">Gnostic</a> beliefs.
So, to my Catholic friends, I say, fear not! We’re not heeding doctrines of demons. We’re in good company with Paul in thinking <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/celibacy-and-the-priesthood">celibacy</a> and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-do-catholics-practice-fasting-and-abstinence-during-lent">abstinence</a> from meats, when done with the proper motive, are permitted Christian practice.

These Doctrines Aren’t Demonic

<div>Is it proper for a celebrant to ad lib the Nicene Creed during Mass? </div><div>No, the presider at Mass may not deviate from the Creed in the text of the Roman Missal. The presider may lead the congregation in either the Nicene Creed or Apostles Creed but may not ad lib his own version.
<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html">Sacrosanctum Concilium</a>:
<blockquote>22. 3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
26. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the &#8220;sacrament of unity,&#8221; namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops</blockquote>
</div>

It’s Not Called the Presider’s Creed

<h2>The Case</h2>
Stan filled the fireplace and lit the oak logs to make the living room cozy for the arriving guests. The Bible study had been announced at Mass, and now suddenly it was here. Stan and Suzie had been Catholics all their lives, but they had never really studied the Bible for themselves, so this was a new venture for them. They had just come home from work and had a few moments to wolf down last night’s leftovers and send the kids to the neighbors’ before prepping the living room.
They both hoped everything would go well. Since Catholics are generally uninterested in the Bible, they didn’t expect many to attend.
The doorbell rang. As Stan stepped toward the door, he noticed his large crucifix on the wall and quickly decided to take it down and set it behind the couch. He didn’t want to offend the guests.
Greetings were extended, and the guests settled into their seats. They had an interesting mix of participants. More than half were from the parish, but there were also a Presbyterian couple, a young woman who had left the Catholic Church, and a “non-denominational” couple.
Stan and Suzie thought a good mix of religious backgrounds was good. The pope had encouraged ecumenical activity, so they wanted several Christian traditions represented to keep the study balanced, ecumenical, and open-minded.
Stan started: “We haven’t had much time to prepare for this study, but I hope it’ll go well. As agreed, we’re all going to use the same translation so we can all be on the same page, so to speak. We’ll use only the Bible, avoiding other materials so the Holy Spirit can lead us.” Everyone agreed. Bible study should be fresh and open-minded—unhindered by “dogma” and denominational trappings.
Suzie had earlier removed the Catechism from the coffee table. She and Stan had also removed the crucifixes from the wall and the statue of Mary on the shelf to avoid any offense to the non-Catholics.
Without further ado, they all opened to the Gospel of St. John. “Who would like to read the first verse? Okay, Richard, go ahead.” Richard read, and everyone smiled. Stan cleared his throat. “Well, who would like to begin? What does this passage mean to you? Let’s keep it simple and not offend anyone by being too opinionated. Sarah, why don’t you begin? How do you feel about this verse?”
Sarah shared her impressions of the passage, and everyone followed in turn. Another verse was read, and again they went around the room to discover what each person felt about it.
Time just flew, and before they knew it, they had discussed the whole first chapter of St. John’s Gospel.
Everyone ate his coffee cake, and then the study ended. Stan thanked all of the guests for coming as Suzie retrieved their coats. Stan and Suzie shut the door behind the last guest, hung the crucifix back on the wall, and put the Catechism back on the table. Without a doubt, they felt that the Bible study had been a great success.
<h2>The Investigation</h2>
Grab your detective hat and magnifying glass, and let’s see how many fatal flaws you can find.
<ol>
<li>How should Stan and Suzie have prepared for the Bible study (2 Tim. 2:15)? Was creating a cozy atmosphere adequate preparation for a study of Scripture? Did they pray at the start or close of the Bible study (Ps. 119:17-19, CCC 2653-54)? Was the Sign of the Cross invoked (CCC 2157)?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="2">
<li>How did they misunderstand the Church’s teaching on ecumenism (CCC 816)? Is being non-offensive to people’s denominational sentiments the primary goal of a Bible study (Titus 1:9)? Are a good feeling and smiling faces proof of a successful Bible study (2 Tim. 4:3)? Should Catholics set aside their Catholic faith in order to “get along” with others in a Catholic Bible study (John 6:60-61, 66; Acts 20:27)?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="3">
<li>Is biblical truth relative and open to private interpretation, or did the authors have a definite meaning and intent to their writings (2 Pet. 2:20-21, CCC 109)? Which is more important: what we feel about the passage or what the author intended to say (Mark 12:24, 2 Pet. 3:16)? How important are the cultural and geographic surroundings, the original languages, authorial intent, and the context of the passage (CCC 110)?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="4">
<li>Does dogma kill Bible study? Does the Holy Spirit work only apart from dogma, facts, and authority? (1 Tim. 3:6-14, CCC 89)?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="5">
<li>Is it wise to use only one translation when studying Scripture? Or would several good translations facilitate a deeper appreciation of the text?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="6">
<li>Is it true that Catholics are not interested in the Bible (1 Pet. 2:1-3)? Should Stan and Suzie have had higher expectations of their fellow Catholics and prayed for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit to create a great thirst for the written word of God?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="7">
<li>Is the basis for Bible study an open-minded, democratic approach (CCC 85, 119)? Are the scriptures always easy to understand (2 Pet. 3:15-16)? What is the best way to discover the Bible’s meaning (CCC 109-119)? Does the use of commentaries and Church documents stifle Bible study? How do these sources protect the student of the Bible (1 Tim. 3:15)? Is the Bible opposed to Sacred Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6; CCC 80, 120)?</li>
</ol>
<ol start="8">
<li>And lastly: Was it wise to send the children away? Maybe, maybe not—but in many instances, well-behaved children and teens would profit greatly from listening to adults intelligently and joyfully discussing the Bible (Deut. 6:6-7, Eph. 6:4).</li>
</ol>
Expert Witnesses
<ol>
<li>“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (Origen [c. 185-c. 254], The Fundamental Doctrine).</li>
</ol>
<ol start="2">
<li>“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21).</li>
</ol>
<ol start="3">
<li>“So Philip ran to [the Ethiopian eunuch], and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him” (Acts 8:30-31).</li>
</ol>

You Judge the Bible Study

A group of students recently protested one of Trent’s pro-life talks so in this episode Trent shares how he’s dealt with protesters over the years, including in videos recorded at his protests.

How I Handle Protesters on Campus

The Political Hypocrisy of Rep. James Talarico

Why are there twelve stars on the Miraculous Medal?

Why would the teaching that the dead donor rule not apply to the unborn?

Who would elect the Pope if all the Cardinals died?

How can I explain Psalm 82:6 in a Trinitarian way to a Mormon friend who believes it relates to them becoming gods?

Can Revelation 21:12 be applied to the miraculous medal crown since it describes the image?

Can the God that walked with Adam and Eve or came to visit Abraham be considered the pre-incarnate Jesus based on Colossians 1:15?

What’s the meaning behind the twelve stars on the Miraculous Medal? We explore the biblical symbolism connected to Mary, Revelation, and the Church, along with insights into papal elections, Christ in the Old Testament, and explaining Catholic beliefs to Mormons.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

Why Are There Twelve Stars on the Miraculous Medal?

Last month, the <a href="https://opeast.org/2024/11/st-thomas-aquinas-on-tour/">Dominican Friars of the Province of St. Joseph</a> announced that “St. Thomas Aquinas is making his first ever U.S. tour 750 years after his death.” But surely <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article4">St. Thomas would object</a> that this isn’t strictly accurate, since “it belongs to the notion of man to be composed of soul, flesh, and bones,” and it’s only his skull that is touring the United States as a relic, while his soul enjoys the yet-greater glory of Heaven.
And notably, it’s only his skull on tour, while other parts of his body are on display in churches across Italy (and beyond). There’s a bone from his left arm in his old priory in San Domenico Maggiore, a rib bone at the cathedral in his hometown of Aquino, and so forth. Such news raises a natural objection: isn’t it hypocritical for the Church to forbid Catholics from having their cremated ashes scattered, and then “scatter” the body parts of the saints around the world?
But this objection misses the mark. As the (then-Congregation, now) Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith explained back in 2016, there are a few reasons why the Church prohibits the scattering of ashes. One is to remind us that “by death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul.” In other words, when we pray in the Creed that we “look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come,” we’re announcing our belief that death isn’t the end. It’s not the end of our existence, and it’s not even the end of our bodily existence. It’s for this reason that we take the body very seriously, even in death. It’s why we want to avoid anything that treats the body in a disrespectful manner, as well as any appearance of us “discarding” our dead bodies.
But there’s a second reason, as well:
<blockquote>The reservation of the ashes of the departed in a sacred place ensures that they are not excluded from the prayers and remembrance of their family or the Christian community. It prevents the faithful departed from being forgotten, or their remains from being shown a lack of respect, which eventuality is possible, most especially once the immediately subsequent generation has too passed away.</blockquote>
You can pray for the faithfully departed wherever you like, but being by their graveside in a cemetery helps to underscore the reality of death and of our hope for the resurrection. If, instead, you scatter the ashes of your loved ones over the water (or worse, <a href="https://www.sfgate.com/disneyland/article/spreading-ashes-shuts-down-disney-rides-19362025.php">in Disneyland</a>), that place is gone.
Contrast this with the example of saints like St. Thomas Aquinas. The relics of the saints are preserved in various churches (and even travel around from church to church) not because we think the body is trivial, but precisely because we know it’s not. The relics of the saints are placed in sacred places, churches, and the faithful can come and ask the saints’ intercession. Instead of having one place dedicated to their body and their memory, a particular saint may have many. But their relics are still strikingly (and to some, unnervingly) bodily. The body isn’t discarded, but remains in its proper place in our prayer and contemplation.
So rather than a contradiction, what we really find is a coherent view of the dignity of the human person and the human body. St. Paul reminds us that “Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). As Christ rose bodily from the dead, the saints (not only the canonized, but all of those who die in friendship with God!) will likewise rise bodily from the grave one day. And so we treat our bodies with dignity, even in death, and with a special reverence for the bodies of those who we know to be saints.

Why Relics, but No Scattered Ashes?

Here&#8217;s a skeptical meme I recently came across:

There are three problems with this (admittedly kind of funny) picture. Let’s take the first: Christians neglect the poor. 
This hardly seems worth the trouble to rebut. More than any other group you can identify, for centuries Christians have fed the poor, sheltered the homeless and orphan, tended to the sick, protected the refugee, comforted the afflicted, supported the widow and unwed mother, and generally lifted up the down and out. This includes official Church charities, parishes and religious orders, independent charities related to Christian groups or motivated by Christian conviction, and individual Christians who give their time, talent, and treasure to improve the lot of others in the world who need help. Christians do this because their Lord commands it, and a lot of his followers take him very seriously.
It&#8217;s not hard to Google websites that track nonprofits and see the enormous efforts undertaken by Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities, Caritas, and Food for the Poor, to name just a few of the big ones that spring immediately to mind. And they’re just the tip of the iceberg.
So any meme that starts with the ridiculous premise that Christians neglect the poor hardly deserves consideration for that reason alone. But let’s take a look at the other two assumptions anyway.
Are cathedrals useless? There are two ways we can respond here.
One is point out that the claim begs the question against Christians. This claim would be true if and only if God didn’t exist. If there were no God, it would be futile—and a big waste of time and effort—to erect enormous buildings for glorifying and worshipping him. But if God does exist, then he deserves the best, most beautiful, most sacred things we can make. (And believers deserve places that help lift their hearts and minds to him.) This objection assumes there’s no God to persuade someone to give up on believing in God. That’s classic circular reasoning—begging the question.
Finally, the third assumption: Christians who build cathedrals do so to feed a disordered desire to have expensive and ornate structures. Though this may be true for some, it doesn’t follow that it is true for all. Building ornate structures to glorify the Creator is an appropriate end-goal. If some Christians lose sight of that purpose, building cathedrals (for example) to indulge vanity or for personal profit, the problem is not with building cathedrals—it’s with those Christians’ disordered motives.
The meme may be cute and creative in its own way (when is Elmo not cute?). But trying to score cheap points against Christians and the ancient practice of building cathedrals is a waste of cuteness and creativity.

Quit Snorting Cathedrals! (and Other Atheist Admonitions)

<div>What's the Church's stance on the legitimacy of The Book of Azariah?</div><div>The Book of Azariah is written by Maria Valtorta, who has shown herself to be an unreliable author on Catholic matters. Her multi-volume work, The Poem of the Man-God , <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-can-you-tell-me-about-the-poem-of-the-man-god">has been discredited by the Holy See</a> on more than one occasion, as then Cardinal Ratzinger, serving as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reaffirmed in 1993:
<blockquote>The “visions” and “dictations” referred to in the work, The Poem of the Man-God, are simply the literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus. They cannot be considered supernatural in origin.</blockquote>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Azariah">The Book of Azariah </a>is based on an alleged series of dictations that Valtorta said came from her guardian angel, whom she referred to as “Azariah.” This book, like Valtorta’s multi-volume Poem of the Man-God, has never received any Church approval. Consequently, stick with the four gospels and the works of approved Catholic authors for genuine edification.
<div data-olk-copy-source="MessageBody">In a <a id="OWAd1d5cb8c-2889-9959-6ced-e69d546bf6a1" title="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250222_comunicato-scritti-valtorta_en.html" href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250222_comunicato-scritti-valtorta_en.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable" data-linkindex="0">February 2025 press release</a>, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) reaffirmed the Church’s position:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>It should be reiterated that alleged “visions”, “revelations,” and “messages” contained in the writings of Maria Valtorta—or, in any case, attributed to them—cannot be regarded as having a supernatural origin. Rather, they should be considered simply as literary forms that the author used to narrate the life of Jesus Christ in her own way.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div>In its long tradition, the Church does not accept as normative the apocryphal gospels and other similar texts since it does not recognize them as divinely inspired. Instead, the Church refers back to the sure reading of the inspired Gospels.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>

Steer Clear of Maria Valtorta’s “The Book of Azariah”

<div>If a man who denies any Church teaching is ordained a priest by a valid bishop, is his ordination invalid? If a man in a state of mortal sin is ordained a priest, is his ordination invalid?</div><div>There is very little that would invalidate a priest&#8217;s ordination. Pope Pius XII, in <a href="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/p12sacrao.htm">Sacramentum Ordinis</a>, set forth the requirements for a valid ordination. These requirements were very simple:
<ul>
<li>The laying on of hands</li>
<li>The words of ordination set forth by the Church</li>
<li>The proper intention by the bishop</li>
<li>A recipient who is not receiving the sacrament against his will</li>
</ul>
These requirements are interpreted in the broadest possible sense. It would be chaos in the Church if any little thing could invalidate an ordination. Every priest&#8217;s sacraments could be called into question, and countless confessions, anointings, and Masses would be questioned.
Being in a state of mortal sin does not invalidate the reception of a sacrament. Marriage and confirmation can both be validly received in a state of mortal sin. It is a great offense to the sacrament, but does not invalidate the sacrament. A priest who is ordained in a state of mortal sin should confess it, but he is still a priest.
Someone who rejects a teaching of the Church is also validly ordained. Such a person should not be ordained, but once ordained he is validly a priest. After all, the Eastern Orthodox and several ancient Christian communities explicitly reject certain Catholic teachings, yet the Church has always accepted their ordinations as valid.
</div>

What Invalidates an Ordination?

How are we doing as a country after 250 years?

Is the 4th of July the actual birth date of the U.S.?

How has Catholicism influenced the idea of inalienable rights?

Does America becoming a Catholic country mean she has reached her fullest potential?

The theory that the Cold War actually kept America together.

How has America done after 250 years, and what role has Christianity—especially Catholicism—played in shaping the nation&#8217;s ideals? In this special episode of Catholic Answers Live, Dr. Chad Pecknold reflects on the 250th anniversary of the United States, examining the country&#8217;s founding principles through a Catholic lens. The discussion explores whether July 4 is truly America&#8217;s birthday, how Catholic thought influenced the concept of inalienable rights, and whether America could reach its fullest potential by embracing the Catholic faith. The episode concludes with an intriguing look at the theory that the Cold War helped preserve American unity and what that might mean for the nation&#8217;s future.
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<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>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
</div>

Catholicism, Patriotism, And America

The rector of St. John Fisher Seminary in the Diocese of Bridgeport, CT, explains how virtues are real powers that allow for fullness of life.

Virtue, Part 1, True Powers

What do you tell someone who says my faith is faltering?

Someone in my family lost their Catholic faith and went to a non-denominational church. What can I do to help bring them back?

I recommend people keep praying even though they might not feel like it.

I’ve drifted away from practicing my faith. How did you come back? Do you have any advice for me?

My 16 year old daughter is leaving the faith because she sees the Bible as not respecting women.

I’m starting to explore Catholicism, but I feel like I’m getting stuck on the intellectual aspect. How do I make room for the faith side of things?

What would you say to someone sympathetic to the SSPX in their current situation?

&#8220;What do you tell someone who says my faith is faltering?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the importance of prayer and support during challenging times. Additional topics include how to help a family member who has left the Catholic faith, advice for someone drifting away from their practice, and addressing concerns about the Bible&#8217;s portrayal of women.
<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>

What To Do When Your Faith Is Faltering? Prayer and Support

<div class="page" title="Page 324">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 314
CHALLENGE
</div>

</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“If the deuterocanonical books were doubted by some early on, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution and omit them rather than risk adding to the word of God?”
DEFENSE
This is based on a faulty premise that would lead to dramatic consequences.
First, the deuterocanonicals weren’t the only doubted books of the Old Testament. At least five additional books were disputed in the Pharisee tradition but later included in the canon of modern rabbinic Judaism (see Day 255). These books—Esther, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Ezekiel—are sometimes referred to as the Old Testament Antilegomena (Greek, “spoken against”). Applying the above principle would result in their also being taken out of the Bible.
Second, some Jews (the Sadducees), only accepted the Torah as Scripture, meaning the other protocanonical books were disputed by some Jewish authorities. Thus the principle could lead to the truncation of the Old Testament to just its first five books.
Third, the New Testament would not remain untouched, for some New Testament books were also disputed in the early Christian community. Eusebius famously labeled James, 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, and potentially Revelation as Antilegomena (Church History 3:25). We also know from other sources that Hebrews was also doubted. The principle under consideration would thus truncate the New Testament canon.
Fourth, the principle is faulty, and not just because it would truncate the canon. It is also faulty because omitting a doubted book is not “erring on the side of caution.” In doubtful cases, one would assume risk either way. Including a doubtful book would entail the risk of “adding to the word of God,” while excluding it would entail the risk of “subtracting from the word of God.” The book of Revelation con- tains a warning against either adding to or taking away from the words of that book (Rev. 22:18–19), and that principle can be extended to the canon as a whole.
Finally, the principle is faulty because we are not in the position of early Jews or Christians having to decide which books belong in the Bible. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth (John 16:13), and the Spirit has led the Church to recognize the books of Scripture. This is not an individual decision but a divinely guided historical process.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Omitting Doubted Books

In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Cy Kellett is joined by Tim Staples to explore the question of why Catholics claim to have the &#8220;fullness of the truth&#8221; and complete Gospel.
Transcript:
Cy: I grew up Mormon and one of the big things that Mormonism teaches is that it has the full, the fullness of the Gospel of Christ, which is something that has been said on this session of Catholic Answers Live a few times. And I&#8217;m curious what sets Catholicism apart in the way of knowing that this is what has the fullness of the Gospel? Because Mormonism has, oh, we have modern day prophets and there&#8217;s the Book of Mormon and all these things. What does Catholicism have in order to run with that? Hey, I know that I&#8217;ve got the fullness of Christ God.
Tim: Great, great question, my friend. And of course, the big problem we have with the LDS, the Latter Day Saints, is the fact that revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle in the first century. And of course, Jesus warned there would come false prophets. As you know, in Matthew chapter 24, he warned that false prophets would come. And of course, Joseph Smith was one of those false prophets who claimed to have new revelation. And of course, revelation ceased, as I said before.
But what makes the Catholic Church separate from all the others, my friends, is the papacy. That is, Jesus Christ chose 12 apostles, which by the way, the LDS agree with us on. They believe in the 12 apostles. But of course, they came up with their separate quorum of the 12; they have the prophet, which of course is nowhere to be found in the New Testament. Because in the New Testament, you have 12 apostles, Peter being the chief of the 12.
More problems with Mormons when it comes to the New Testament. But the bottom line is we see clearly in the New Testament he established the 12 apostles, their successors, according to Acts chapter 1, verse 21 and 1 Peter 3, one are called bishops, the successors of the apostles. But among those 12, you have one that Jesus chose to make the visible head of the 12, and indeed the visible head of the Church to him and him alone.
You&#8217;ll notice that in Matthew 18:15-18, he gives to all the apostles the authority to bind and loose in tandem with Peter. But two chapters before, he gave to Peter and Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, a singular authority. And in fact, in other places where Jesus communicates the authority to all the apostles, he always singles out Peter as having a unique authority.
For example, in Luke 22:29-32, he says to all the apostles, well, he says to Simon in the context of all the apostles, &#8220;Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to destroy all of you.&#8221; In the Greek text there, it&#8217;s &#8220;Humas&#8221; in Greek; he wants to have you, to destroy all of you. But I have prayed for you, &#8220;Su&#8221; in Greek, singular, so that when you are converted, strengthen the brethren. And all the other apostles know that if they want to be protected from the divisions that come by the devil, they have to stay in union with Peter.
And of course, the apostles&#8217; successors are the bishops, and all of the bishops of Rome. In fact, we can trace from Pope Leo XIV all the way back to St. Peter, just as we can trace every bishop in the world, their ordinations, all the way back to Peter and the apostles. We can do the same with the popes.
And really, it&#8217;s the papacy that makes us distinctive because that&#8217;s the principle, what Saint Cyprian of Carthage called the principle of unity for the entire people of God in a work he wrote in the third century, 250 A.D., called *On the Unity of the Catholic Church*. It&#8217;s Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome, that are that principle of unity. That&#8217;s why we have one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, because all must be in union with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.
And that&#8217;s why, my friend, we have had one Lord, one faith, one baptism. As Ephesians 4:5 says, for 2000 years you cannot find one example of how any pope or any ecumenical council, any infallible teaching whatsoever in the Church has ever contradicted another in 2000 years.
And as you know, my brother, when you look at the Latter Day Saints, even in matters of basic morality like abortion, as you probably know, the prophet back in 1973 declared it&#8217;s okay to have abortions in certain situations like rape, incest, and life of the mother. Whereas before, the LDS were strictly against abortion all the time. Well, guess what? The Catholic Church has never wavered, never will. It&#8217;s impossible.
Because when Jesus communicated the power of the keys to Peter there in Matthew 16:18-19, my brother, he said, &#8220;I will give to you, Peter, the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.&#8221; But he also said this, &#8220;I will build my Church,&#8221; right? And so he&#8217;s building his Church on the foundation of Peter and the bishops of Rome. He&#8217;s building his Church with the foundation being the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone in Ephesians chapter 2, verse 20.
So all the apostles or the bishops in union with Peter are that foundation, but Peter having that unique authority, it&#8217;s the hinge upon which all, all, all, you know, is based upon, but ultimately the power of Jesus Christ.
Listen, I wish we could talk all day, my friend. You stay in touch with us because we&#8217;d like to see you come to the fullness of the gospel that we have in Christ.
Cy: Let&#8217;s give him why we&#8217;re Catholic. If you&#8217;ll hang on the line, we&#8217;ll give him why we&#8217;re Catholic. Because I want to go back to a little bit of fundraising for just a quick minute and then we&#8217;ll get back to chatting with people.

Why Do Catholics Say They Have the Full Gospel?

<div>In many prayers and novenas, virginity is described as glorious, undefiled, pure, etc. Can't marriage be just as glorious, undefiled, and pure? That language seems to look down on marriage as second rate.</div><div>No doubt marriage can and should be holy. Thus the term “holy matrimony” (see Eph. 5:21-33). And thus <a href="https://churchpop.com/2017/07/07/10-holy-married-couples-who-were-both-saints/">saintly married couple</a>s like <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20011021_beltrame-quattrocchi.html">the Quattrochis</a> (now Blessed) and <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-pope-married-couple-saints-20151018-story.html">the Martins</a> (canonized in recent years), the latter the parents of St. Thérèse of Lisieux.
And yet, as St. Paul writes in I Corinthians 7:32ff., the unmarried are freer to serve the Lord with single-mindedness.
Bottom line, each person should rejoice over his God-given vocation, whether to single life in service of the Lord or holy matrimony, and strive to live it in an abundantly fruitful way (see John 10:10).
</div>

Is Marriage “Second Rate” to Celibate or Consecrated Life?

<div class="page" title="Page 95">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 85
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Jesus’ genealogies contradict each other. Matthew says that Jesus descended from David’s son Solomon (Matt. 1:6), but Luke says it was David’s son Nathan (Luke 3:31). Similarly, Matthew has him descended from Zerubbabel’s son Abiud (Matt. 1:13), whereas Luke says it was Zerubbabel’s son Rhesa (Luke 3:27).”
DEFENSE
Jesus was descended from David and Zerubbabel by more than one line.
Normally, a person has two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. But this doubling pattern does not go back indefinitely. Marriages usually occur within the same community (a village, region, tribe, or nation). People in a community tend to be related. Consequently, the number of ancestors is less than what the doubling pattern would predict. In a small community, an individual may occupy more than one slot in a family tree.
Suppose William has a son named Henry, who has descendants,
and several generations later, one named Elizabeth is born. Suppose William also has a daughter named Adela, who also has descendants. Because of intermarriage in the community, Elizabeth is also one of Adela’s descendants. Genealogists would say Elizabeth is descended from William by the Henry “line” and the Adela “line.”
This describes the British royal family. Queen Elizabeth II descends from William the Conqueror (c. 1028–1087) by the line of King Henry I and the line of St. Adela of Normandy, both of whom were William’s children. In fact, Elizabeth II is descended from William by multiple lines (at least eight through Adela alone). William the Conqueror thus appears in multiple slots in Elizabeth II’s family tree.
The same was true for David and Zerubbabel concerning Jesus, who descended from David by both the Solomon and Nathan lines and from Zerubbabel by both the Abiud and Rhesa lines. This is not unexpected. David lived a millennium before Jesus. Matthew records twenty-seven intervening generations, so according to the doubling pattern, Jesus would have at least 67,108,864 ancestors in David’s generation.
There were not that many Israelites alive in David’s generation, so, since David was one of Jesus’ ancestors, David filled multiple slots in Je- sus’ family tree, and Jesus was descended from David by multiple lines. The same is true of Zerubbabel, though to a lesser degree, since Zerub- babel lived only half a millennium before Jesus (for more, see Day 95).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Descended from David How?

Protestants, Stop Saying THIS About Catholicism

Did Vatican II introduce harmful changes to the Catholic Church, and does Catholic theology go too far in defining mysteries like the Eucharist? In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Catholic Answers apologists respond to major Orthodox objections to Catholicism, covering theology, Church history, and doctrine. The discussion examines Catholic teaching on remarriage and original sin, the necessity of the Immaculate Conception, and the Christological differences between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Additional topics include whether transubstantiation “overdefines” the Eucharist, why Orthodox and Catholic biblical canons differ, and whether Catholic theology lacks the Orthodox essence–energies distinction. A thoughtful and charitable look at some of the deepest divisions between East and West.
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<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>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
Objections Covered:
<ul>
<li>02:12 &#8211; Vatican II introduced harmful theological and liturgical changes. </li>
<li>05:51 &#8211; Catholic teaching on remarriage is too rigid. </li>
<li>13:36 &#8211; Catholic original sin wrongly teaches inherited guilt. </li>
<li>17:14 &#8211; The Immaculate Conception is unnecessary and unfounded. </li>
<li>28:52 &#8211; What does one say about the Christological differences between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Catholic. They claim they hold to the early definitions of Ephesus that we have abandoned. </li>
<li>36:14 &#8211; Transubstantiation overdefines the Eucharistic mystery. </li>
<li>39:57 &#8211; Why do Orthodox Churches differ with us on the canon of Scriptura? </li>
<li>47:57 &#8211; Catholicism lacks the essence–energies distinction. </li>
</ul>
</div>

Every Orthodox Objection to Catholicism—Answered Part 2

What did the early church believe about the Eucharist?

The Catechism says it’s a mortal sin to let a child die of starvation if you have the financial means to feed them. I don’t know anyone who does this. Is this really Church teaching?

Why does it seem that the Church is coming down unfairly on those who hold a more orthodox/traditional stance of church teaching and allows those who take a more liberal take on the faith run freely?

&#8220;What did the early church believe about the Eucharist?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on foundational beliefs, while also addressing the serious implications of Church teaching on moral responsibilities, such as the obligation to care for those in need, and the perceived disparities in how the Church treats traditional versus liberal interpretations of faith.
<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>

What Did the Early Church Believe About the Eucharist and Sin?

Does the Bible teach the invocation of saints?

Where in the Bible is the end of animal sacrifice? And why was it ended?

Where are the archangels in the Bible?

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have Judas kissing Jesus. John does not. Which one is true?

2 Cor.5:8 says to be absent with the body is to be present with Christ. Do protestants think that they all go to heaven? What about Purgatory?

Is the Deuterocanon read in the same way the rest of the Old Testament is?

Regarding Isaiah 37:36 records the siege of Jesusalem by the Assyrians. Was the Angel that was sent to save Jerusalem actually a pharaoh from Egypt? Is it possible that the bible recorded the pharaoh and his army as an angel from God?

&#8220;Does the Bible teach the invocation of saints?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the role of saints in Catholic belief, alongside inquiries about the end of animal sacrifice in Scripture, the presence of archangels, and the interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:8 regarding Purgatory. The conversation also touches on the differences in Gospel accounts of Judas&#8217;s betrayal.
<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>

Does the Bible Teach the Invocation of Saints and Purgatory?

Can we lose our salvation?

Are we just saved and lost over and over again? How do Catholics view this? How does it work in the day to day?

My brother is talking to his protestant friend who claimed you lose your salvation if you don’t accept the prophecy from a current pastor. How does one respond to that?

I’m a convert, what does salvation mean from the Catholic position?

I’m protestant and believe you can not lose your salvation. Missing sunday service doesn’t cause you to lose salvation.

Regarding Matthew 7:21-23 Not everyone who says Lord, Lord… What does this quote mean for salvation?

&#8220;Can we lose our salvation?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the Catholic understanding of faith and grace, addressing concerns about the nature of salvation. Other topics include the idea of being saved and lost repeatedly, responses to claims about prophecy and salvation, and the implications of Matthew 7:21-23 for believers.
<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 Lose Our Salvation? Catholic Views on Faith and Grace

SEEC (the Shroud Educational Endeavors Corporation)’s first International Scientific Shroud Conference since COVID had just started when the New York Post published <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/08/01/science/shroud-of-turin-never-wrapped-jesus-body-its-just-art-study/">a story</a> on a new “study” debunking the Shroud of Turin. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
The conference was held at the new Augustine Institute Center in St. Louis, with scientists from around the world gathered to present new research, evidence, and studies on the Shroud of Turin. I was greatly honored to be invited to speak on my environmental and climate research providing supporting evidence to the Gospels with connections to Jesus’ shroud and sudarium. At the conference, I joined key Shroud scientists from the STURP team that studied the Shroud in 1978. We quickly realized that this story was another erroneous attention-grabbing, money-making claim.
Sadly, certain media groups continue to run headlines to incite attention, because reporting the truth or the complete picture to debunk this “study” doesn’t make money, get more subscribers, or earn promotions.
This recent study was done by a Brazilian designer, Cicero Morares, who produces 3D digital models on computers. He uses free software to see how cloth would drape over shapes and detects all contact points between the cloth and the created shape. His computer-made shape was flat—a low-relief sculpture. Morares digitally created the top part of a human shape and saw the cloth making full contact.
The study was published in the journal Archaeometry, showing how cloth and other fabrics form impressions on a human body compared to a sculpture. Morares claims that his results demonstrate that the contact pattern generated by the low-relief model is more compatible with the Shroud’s image, compared to a three-dimensional model of a human figure. Therefore, Morares suspects that a medieval artist made a sculpture of a human body from wood, stone, or metal and pigmented only the areas of contact.
This far-from-complete evaluation created headlines such as “Brazilian 3-D expert, Cicero Morares, says that he can prove the Shroud never wrapped a real human body let alone the body Jesus Christ using state-of-the-art digital” and “Turin Shroud imprint might not be from human body, says groundbreaking new study.”
So what do the final results of this study prove?
The fact is that this study is erroneous and doesn’t come close to addressing all the known facts about the Shroud of Turin. Thus, the study doesn’t really prove anything. But what it implies is rewarding for a few, and detrimental to the education and enlightenment of the world.
One main factor ignored is that the Shroud’s image has a correlation as regards image density. In other words, lights and darks of the image on the Shroud are in direct correlation to the body’s distance from the cloth. The closer the body was to the cloth, such as at the nose, the darker and more enhanced its image is on the Shroud. It is my understanding that the computer model Morares studied has an image like the Shroud’s, but created only at the contact points. The Shroud of Turin has an image, although fainter, even when the body is not touching the cloth, such as several millimeters away.
Morares also stated that a medieval artist would have used a pigment at the contact points. This raises the question—what pigment? The Shroud of Turin is the most studied artifact in the world, and no pigment made by humankind has been found on it. Yes, some remnants totaling to an amount of pigment that could paint one strand of hair were found, but this is attributed to artists hired by the Savoy family to paint copies of the Shroud. These painted copies were then venerated by having them touch the actual Shroud. The royal House of Savoy in Italy had ownership of the Shroud from 1578 to 1983, when the Shroud was transferred to the Holy See.
The Shroud of Turin is approximately 14 feet by 3.5 feet and shows the full frontal and dorsal images of a crucified man. Forensic scientists who studied the real Shroud estimated that the body image was about 5 feet, 11 inches tall and weight about 170 pounds. The image on the Shroud is that of an anatomically correct human body.
But a historical fact about medieval times states that there was no knowledge of correct anatomical proportions for the human body. Thus, no medieval artist had the knowledge to carve wood, stone, or metal into a perfectly anatomically correct figure. This knowledge came about hundreds of years later, during the Renaissance period.
The study does not address the bodily fluid around the blood of the spear wound—bodily fluid that is invisible to the naked eye but visible under ultraviolet (UV) light. What medieval artist would have modern medical knowledge to paint invisible bodily fluid, anticipating the future discovery and scientific use of UV light?
Now here is the most erroneous deletion: When the image from the Shroud of Turin is placed in a VP-8 analyzer, we receive a full-detailed three-dimensional image. No artwork of any kind made by humankind does that; only two-dimensional information is provided. Morares’s image, printed out from his 3-D computer model, fails to present the three-dimensional data from a VP-8 analyzer.
The Shroud of Turin has not been debunked. It is Morares’s study that has been debunked, by a plethora of international scientists. Sadly, that fact will never make the headlines.
As the Northeast regional leader for SAGE (Shroud Apostolate Group English) under Othonia, started by Fr. Pascual from the Pontifical Institute of Science and Faith in Rome, I have been assigned (see <a href="https://www.faithandreasonrevival.org/">here</a>) to share the truth about Jesus’ burial Shroud. Taking on the Morares study is just one way to do so.

A New Attack on the Shroud of Turin

Far be it from me to bemoan the authentic development of doctrine. It is a truly underrated gem of Catholic theology that shows how the Church, because it is the living body of Christ, includes a mind as well. However, theological development has also been messy. (See the early Christological controversies.)
One area in Christian theology that always seems under messy construction is the area of eschatology, traditionally classified as the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/memento-mori-why-you-should-remember-to-die%C2%A0">four last things</a>: death, judgment, heaven, and hell. Of these, hell may be the most popular, precisely because it is the least popular for Christians to believe. It is less becoming lately for a Christian to think the God of love, mercy, and forgiveness would banish someone to the outer darkness (Matt. 8:12), to wailing (13:15), gnashing of teeth (22:13), fire (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/9">Mark 9:43</a>), brimstone (Rev. 20:10), etc.
These descriptions of hell, or judgment of the wicked, come from the Bible, and many directly from the mouth of Jesus. It is not as though Christians who deny hell are unaware of these verses. Like with every controversy, those who stoke controversy (and drive the development of historical, orthodox Christian teaching) do so with contradictory Bible verses aplenty to support their own case. The Arians had plenty of biblical knowledge and support in their own case to deny the divinity of Christ.
Therefore, it might be worthwhile to consider a different approach.
C.S. Lewis famously said that our souls “demand purgatory” (<a href="https://archive.org/details/letterstomalcolm0000csle/page/108/mode/2up?q=demand">Letters to Malcolm</a>, 108). As much as Catholics wanted this to be Lewis revealing his crypto-Catholicism, it was far from a submission to Rome on his part. It was merely a recognition that the concept of personal purification should make sense to a Christian before perfect union with Goodness itself. A Christian of any stripe should want purgation, even if he struggles with purgatory.
Similarly, our souls demand hell. This does not mean we want any individual person, let alone ourselves, to be in hell. We do not demand that God create a place to put our enemies. Our souls demand hell because our souls, specifically the power of the intellect, recognize abstract realities from which the natural consequence include what Christian doctrine calls hell.
If we assume that hell is purely punishment, then it is God’s eternal time-out corner of shame. God is just so mad and disappointed in you. Also, there is torture. So be on your best behavior, or else. God becomes the fear-mongering disciplinarian whom we are also supposed to love tenderly. This is confusing at best and abusive at worst.
But what if hell is more of an ontological reality than a moral reality? What this means is that hell describes an “is” before it describes any “ought.” The “is” in this case is the perfect goodness of God. This is not sentiment; it flows directly from God’s being. If any individual example of goodness exists, a statement with which virtually every Christian agrees, then it exists on a standard of goodness that encompasses and transcends all goodness—Goodness itself (see St. Thomas Aquinas, <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3">ST I, Q2, A3</a>). There is Perfect Goodness, God, and everything else, not God, that is not Perfect Goodness. This means that there is the possibility for non-goodness.
However, everything “not God” is not automatically hell, thankfully. Fortunately, there is the possibility of participation in goodness. Everything that exists, by existing, participates in goodness. Something with more good built into it has a greater capacity to participate in goodness. Because we can choose morally good actions, we have a greater capacity to participate in goodness than a rock, which has no capacity to choose at all.
Participating in moral goodness is not the same as getting dessert because you ate your vegetables. You got dessert only because your parents decided to reward you. Participating in goodness is like having a healthy body because you ate well. This natural consequence is built into the act itself. An even greater good would be to develop a taste for healthy food and enjoy eating it. Now you participate in both the consequence of health and the enjoyment.
The next reality we must consider allows for the rejection of God. It is also near-universally acknowledged by Christians: free will. Free will is built into the rational soul and allows for participation in moral goodness. However, it also allows for the rejection of goodness, un-participation.
To reject goodness is its own punishment. No, it does not always feel or look as though vice is painful; neither does eating junk food always immediately give us a stomachache, or heart problems, or obesity with its many comorbidities.
One of the most important concepts in Christian tradition is that participation in virtue is its own reward, and rejection of virtue is its own punishment. If this is true in the temporal sense, why would it be less true in the eternal sense?
The last reality shared by Christians is the incorruptibility of the soul. There are plenty of places one can find philosophical and biblical arguments that the soul continues, for everyone, after death. Because it has been assumed by most Christians in history, we will assume it here.
One argument most often used against hell is the temporality of the crime compared to the eternity of the time. It does not seem fair that my mere “breath” (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/psalms/39">Ps. 39:6</a>) of a life accounts me for an eternity of torture or bliss. Setting aside the fact that physical time does not compare to non-physical time anyway—a day like a thousand years and all (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/2peter/3">2 Pet. 3:8</a>)—this too misunderstands hell’s primary substance by seeing it as a punishment.
God does not condemn for eternity the same way a judge sentences a criminal, and then a parole board mitigates that punishment for good behavior. When we choose, we form ourselves into that choice. Many saints have expressed this point using images and metaphors. St. Augustine famously said, “My weight is my love,” showing that what we choose draws us closer to it (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110113.htm">Confessions</a><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110113.htm">, XIII.9</a>). St. Clare of Assisi, too, was clear when she said, “<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8540750-we-become-what-we-love-and-who-we-love-shapes">We become what we love.</a>” This is true for our rejection of God. If we choose to reject Goodness, we become a rejection of Goodness. If our soul, the thing that chooses, goes on forever, then it forever chooses to reject Goodness.
To forever choose to reject Perfect Goodness is about as sound a description of hell as we can find, whether we’re holding a bible or not.
Ultimately, at the risk of psychoanalyzing, it makes sense that the concept of hell is so baffling to so many. Sin is literally unreasonable. We are not naïve; the existence of sin should not surprise us in practice, because we are familiar with fallen human nature. But sin as a concept, in theory, should surprise us. To freely choose, with full knowledge, something less than love or goodness for all eternity should baffle us as much as horrify or sadden us. It made someone else who gets it a lot better than we do weep, too (<a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/9">see Luke 19:41-44</a>).
No, sin does not make sense, but it is real. Therefore, hell is real. Yes, the Bible says so, but our soul says so, too.

Hell Makes Sense

My co-worker asked: Why do we even need the apostles?

I’m in OCIA but I’m having trouble with Mary and the saints. To be Catholic do we need to pray to Mary and the saints?

How do I respond to the claim that Catholics focus on religion and don’t have a relationship with Jesus?

I just returned to the Faith and my son isn’t Catholic. How do I explain F.r James Martin giving the sacraments to two gay men?

I’m coming into the Church. What does ‘confessing your sins to one another’ mean? My non-Catholic uncle raised the objection?

&#8220;Why do we need the apostles?&#8221; This episode explores the vital role of the apostles in our faith, along with questions about the necessity of praying to Mary and the saints, and how to address concerns about the relationship between Catholics and Jesus. Tune in for a thoughtful discussion on these important topics and more.
<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>

Why Do We Need the Apostles, Mary, and the Saints? – Why Aren’t You Catholic?

This proves confession is in the Bible!

In this episode, Trent Horn shares four simple but powerful ways to defend the divinity of Christ when talking with Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, or anyone who denies that Jesus is truly God.
To support this channel: <a href="https://www.patreon.com/counseloftrent">https://www.patreon.com/counseloftrent </a>
[NEW] Counsel of Trent merch: <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/apologists-alley/trent-horn-resources/">https://shop.catholic.com/apologists-alley/trent-horn-resources/ </a>
Be sure to keep up with our socials!
<a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@counseloftrent">https://www.tiktok.com/@counseloftrent </a>
<a href="https://www.twitter.com/counseloftrent">https://www.twitter.com/counseloftrent </a>
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/counseloftrentpodcast">https://www.instagram.com/counseloftrentpodcast</a>
Trent Horn (<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/AZf9ZxFCz1B4umJDG_col_tFWc9pMZyEr-JIiiJ4kSQ7ttvifoF5_WrwtIcjA4gd-bkeDWgaH5q3eGceEOr1RO0FaWE?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=0.14">00:00</a>):
Most faithful Christians will tell you Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God. But in a conversation with a Muslim or Jehovah&#8217;s witness, they might stumble when asked to prove this from the Bible. So in today&#8217;s episode, I&#8217;ll share with you my four favorite ways of showing Jesus as God when I&#8217;m in these kinds of conversations. But a few caveats before we continue. First, don&#8217;t forget to like this video, subscribe to our channel and support us at Trenthornpodcast.com to help us create even more great content. Second, these aren&#8217;t knocked down arguments so don&#8217;t go into a conversation with overconfidence like you have an indestructible proof for Christ divinity. These are meant to help you in average conversations when someone asks, where does the Bible say Jesus is God, or why should I believe Jesus is God? Remember that critics always have something to say in response to an argument, but these are four good ways to get started and I find the replies to these arguments aren&#8217;t overwhelmingly strong or confusing to engage.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/tKMnLEjUAqCRcS2AiR8ABgIPbFmDnB1ylWPjv1ASID6_M7nPQ05XF4ZnGLm9P6ds1TXHcxRRH0kxGHHDYoKe0PdHxrA?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=55.5">00:55</a>):
And finally, there are some fan favorite verses that won&#8217;t make today&#8217;s list, but not because they&#8217;re bad. This includes the famous opening of John&#8217;s gospel in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. This is great evidence for the deity of Christ, but a regular person might have a hard time wrapping his head around the concept of Jesus being God&#8217;s word and a seasoned critic might try to trip you up on the absence of the definite article in Greek in the passage and try to say that it means Jesus is a God and not the almighty true God. Once again, it is a good piece of evidence for Jesus&#8217;s divinity, but today I&#8217;m going to share four simple but still effective ways to demonstrate that important doctrine starting with number one, John 20:28. Instead of focusing on the beginning of John&#8217;s gospel, I like to focus on the end of it.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/vgzjlCIQv3_HhwFWabeZtZa28f7Pc6a-rACP55aYmp1IpvBdazQ0RoV72ax-FpFlD2D-cVYlMXP25AyezCB9gChuCOs?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=101.9">01:41</a>):
Here&#8217;s the passage and context. Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them and said, &#8220;Peace be with you. Then he said to Thomas, Put your finger here and see my hands and put out your hand and place it in my side. Do not be faithless but believing.&#8221; Thomas answered him, &#8220;My Lord and my God.&#8221; Jesus said to him, &#8220;Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.&#8221; The proof comes not so much from what is said by Thomas, but by what is not said by Jesus. In the New Testament, whenever an apostle is mistaken for God, the apostle corrects those who are worshiping him. This includes Paul and Barnabas being worshiped in Acts 14 and Revelation 19:10, where the apostle John falls at the feet of an angel to worship him, but the angel tells him, &#8220;You must not do that.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/bSmEAorwqToIWNI0Kscc0yadHIzv-wkzYH8Nn9Ps2NXlJr79-J3-My7KODauHRj_y1L0lgzhtCc1xrkB9gl2PfgYKhU?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=151.26">02:31</a>):
When Herod a gripa, the grandson of Herod the great who tried to kill Jesus when he was a baby. When he gave an address to the people of Tire and Sidon, they shouted in response, the voice of a God and not of man.&#8221; Luke then tells us immediately an angel of the Lord smoked him because he did not give God the glory and he was eaten by worms and died. But in John chapter 20, Jesus did not correct Thomas and he did not tell him to give God the glory instead. Also, no angel smoked Jesus for receiving Thomas&#8217;s worship. That&#8217;s because there was nothing for Jesus to correct. And if that&#8217;s the case, then we should imitate Thomas and not be afraid to address Jesus Christ as our Lord and God as well. Now, some Unitarians who deny the Trinity say Thomas was just so overcome with joy, he didn&#8217;t know what he was saying.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/jSIpNdHOwXQDfnQHbNWCQJlQVvPJPi2aLs33j92fdBVpLyAWL5LLpCmYq6TWv93uJV6SscLH6bbfd4Hp7alE0HU2jlM?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=197.5">03:17</a>):
But in other scripture passages, we are told explicitly when the apostles say something they don&#8217;t mean. After Jesus&#8217; transfiguration, for example, Peter says impulsively that he will build tents for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. In response to this exclamation, Luke describes Peter as not knowing what he said. While Mark says that Peter did not know what to say for they were exceedingly afraid. Unitarians also can&#8217;t say that Thomas was merely making an exclamation, like how some people say, &#8220;Oh my God, when they&#8217;re surprised.&#8221; Even in the Jehovah&#8217;s Witness&#8217;s new world translation of the Bible, John 2028 says, &#8220;In answer, Thomas said to him, My Lord and my God. So Thomas didn&#8217;t merely exclaim my Lord and my God. He said it to Jesus because Jesus is his and our Lord and God. In 1989, the founder of Catholic answers Carl Keating debated an apologist for Iglesiana Cristo, a Unitarian religion like Jehovah&#8217;s witnesses that emerged in the Philippines in 1913.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/nsh7YcjX4fJoMFz3AwbLMP6x4rlHnthPFpuL4dHH04PAyxkfANWZkHLj9bM-e98MgFhF7yUQ2xjY5d158xnwS5VXVLc?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=256.25">04:16</a>):
When he presented John 2028, the apologist he debated Jose Ventelasion claimed that Thomas was just wrong about all of this. Did Jesus tell that to Thomas? Don&#8217;t do that. I&#8217;m just a man. No, he did not. Because he&#8217;s not just a man, he is God. Now he said, why don&#8217;t you believe I&#8217;m Thomas? Because Thomas was wrong. In order to get around this verse, some critics, including Ventelasion, go back a few verses earlier to John 2017. When Jesus told Mary Magdalene, &#8220;I am ascending to my father and your father, to my God and your God.&#8221; All right. Well, how can Jesus be God if he calls another person God? Well, Jesus can do that because God is one infinite act of being, not one solitary person. Moreover, if one of these divine persons such as the son became man and possessed a fully human nature, then as a man, he would give worship to the father and recognize the father is his God.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/e8KzQ_t2FthuRCq61MI3aDbjTnKiZxTADJEbbXlspNYDmR-oifx-vtR0PcLYAuB8YGet3dktKPCiE0mH8YzkFpeDuw4?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=314.03">05:14</a>):
So there&#8217;s nothing contradictory in Jesus being the God ma who prays to the Father and recognizes that the Father is his God. But notice that even in his exchange with Mary Magdalene, Jesus makes a distinction between my father and your Father and my God and your God. Instead of just saying our God or our Father. This implies that God is a father to marry Magdalene and the apostles in a different way than he is a father to Jesus. Specifically, they and us have God as an adoptive father. As Romans 8:15 says, &#8220;Whereas Jesus has the Father as his true Father because he is the only begotten son of God,&#8221; as John 1:18 says. Number two, Titus 2:13. Here&#8217;s the context of the verse. &#8220;For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions and to live sober, upright and godly lives in this world awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/SYI0Gey7vDDUSCQJdERdqGJbHAVRIxq6bebPFnEJ0XINak6lU8nsnKv2-ObnX-28yoZyq41mOFPOxHGKbCzTAXSHyZE?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=380.27">06:20</a>):
Those who claim Titus 2:13 does not call Jesus God say the passage should be translated this way. The appearing of the glory of our great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ. This would mean only the title of Savior belongs to Jesus, not great God, but there&#8217;s two things we should consider. First, although it&#8217;s true humans can be saviors in a limited sense in the Bible, only God can save humanity from sin, which is the salvation being talked about in this verse. And second, a good case can be made that both terms apply to Jesus based on a similar construction in two Peter 1:11, which says this. &#8220;So there will be ritually provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Most critics would connect Lord and Savior in that verse to Jesus Christ so there&#8217;s no good reason not to connect the similar titles of savior and great God to Jesus Christ in Titus 2:13.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/4_HPbBcYhpw-7OV0JFc6Vn5zLhjPpSCgzvfWpZijQh10u4YFhbPT8HSHBO6PId7YNQdmU7vCkn9KQr_CTreNaNMqwk0?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=433.39">07:13</a>):
There&#8217;s also more evidence for this translation in a Greek grammar rule called Granville Sharp&#8217;s rule. It basically says if you have two nouns that are not proper names and the first noun has an article in front of it, but the second does not and both nouns are connected by the word and in Greek ki, then both nouns refer to the same person. So in two Peter 1:11,&#8221; Lord and Savior are not proper names. The Greek word translated as Lord has an article, but the Greek word translated as Savior does not, and both words are connected by the word and. So we can conclude from Sharp&#8217;s rule that both Lord and Savior refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. And since Titus 2:13 has an almost identical sentence structure to two Peter 1:11, it makes sense to translate it the same way and say that Jesus is both our savior and our great God.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/RXc_dQqDlqVbSA3CdbRQF77v_O6ujlebZ82GzCJVV6JaTa8uobk0Gy1O21cYKRNzl_fCqV0wrRk4-_SG63ugRPoO1c8?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=483.49">08:03</a>):
Now be careful though, you don&#8217;t want to overcrank Granville Sharp&#8217;s rule to say this is a proof beyond all doubt. Critics have found exceptions to Sharp&#8217;s rule, which requires narrowing the rule a bit. So for more on that, see New Testament scholar Daniel Wallace&#8217;s article, Sharp Radivius, a reexamination of the grandfall sharp rule. But at the very least, I find in average conversations, the comparison to two Peter 1:11 is helpful in getting someone to see what feels to be the more natural reading of Titus 2:13. Number three, Jesus&#8217;s implicit teachings about himself. Many times Muslims and other non-Christians will demand proof in the form of where does Jesus say, &#8220;I am God, worship me. &#8221; Now you can go to passages like John 8:58 where Jesus applies the divine name of God I am to himself. But I like to take a subtler approach and show how Jesus demonstrated his divinity implicitly, which also answers critical scholars who say that belief in Jesus&#8217;s divinity was not part of the earliest traditions about Jesus.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/L0OUZf7uwz_SXkRowPTJufRC6VjdLp7c8qjbW4NU443aSWdQ5qou5mVNvaEN69ovn5rze0mJtwxel_i8jKuzTgu-llE?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=542.71">09:02</a>):
For example, in the early synoptic gospels, Matthew Mark and Luke, Jesus affirmed, as he does in John, by the way, his divine identity by gathering 12 disciples who symbolize the 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus could have only called 11 disciples and allowed himself to represent one of the tribes, like the tribe of Levi, which had a claim to the priesthood. Instead, Jesus stood apart from the 12 disciples. He gathered them together in the same way that God called the 12 tribes of Israel together. So we see Jesus&#8217;s self identity and how he chooses his disciples. And in Mark chapter 12, Jesus tells a parable about a vineyard whose wicked tenets kill the servants the owner has sent. The parable is similar to other illustrations from the prophets who identified the vineyard with Israel and the servants with the prophets that Israel had previously rejected. But in Jesus&#8217; parable, the owner&#8217;s last action is to send his son, whom the wicked tenants also kill.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/LnWUy9A46kvVlWvJc7smM9AERNFQGvqK5YRC7GzREDJ8uksoZnFXJK3XUjNGAf-CSaMH8c4tVRXsi0KEx_ycb9HTNaI?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=599.79">09:59</a>):
But notice how Jesus identifies himself not with a servant of the owner of the vineyard, that is one of the human prophets, but with the son of the owner of the vineyard. And just as the son of the vineyard owner was killed because of his relationship to the father, so too would Jesus be killed because of his claim to having a unique relationship with the heavenly father in being the son of God. Finally, in Mark&#8217;s gospel, we see Jesus do things that only God can do. Like Mark two: eight where it says of Jesus, he was perceiving in his spirit that they, the religious leaders, thus questioned within themselves. Jesus knew the thoughts of their inner hearts, which one Kings 8:39 says only God can do. And in Mark 4:35- 39, Jesus calms the storm and the apostles ask, &#8220;Who then is this that even wind and sea obey him?&#8221; Well, Psalm 107 gives us the answer.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/C61VGzQr8PnVBpdg5iabFBM0CZ3SFiC-CoGolCmZY-ezJANINl6V-W4n1DWqTtOxAOgHH7FXykDVwjbA6T7k4H6VRQk?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=651.46">10:51</a>):
&#8220;Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble and he delivered them from their distress. He made the storm be still and the ways of the sea were hushed. And finally, we have number four, the witness of the early Christians. This isn&#8217;t a strict biblical proof, but who says we need to bind ourselves to solo scriptura? When proving Christ&#8217;s divinity to a non-Christian, any Christian should see the value in appealing to the early church&#8217;s explicit belief in Christ divinity and that this was not something that was added later like some da Vinci code conspiracy theory. In 810, Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Ephesians about, &#8221; Being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ, our God. &#8220;He also said,&#8221; For our God, Jesus Christ was according to the appointment of God conceived in the womb by Mary of the seed of David but by the Holy Ghost.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/f863aT9U1IMR3A4TH4p_o69V7eZ4_spaO_HNhcRz_k68hk_Mi-1Kwm-hW2tYumFdI7ACk7Fv9VQ5HngKIRKq_0G5-eI?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=703.98">11:43</a>):
&#8220;30 years later, the Christian writer, Aristides wrote,&#8221; And it is said that God came down from heaven and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh. Jesus&#8217; divinity is also why writers like Ignatius value the Eucharist as Jesus&#8217; true flesh that has saving effects. Ignatius writes in his letter to the Ephesians of Jesus Christ being both the son of man and the son of God and that Christians should obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one in the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but which causes that we should live forever in Jesus Christ. Although I need to give a word of caution about appealing to the church fathers. They didn&#8217;t have a precise theological vocabulary to explain the incarnation like later Christians who lived around the time of the council of Calsadon.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/rMENO8hbK8SDBjXHITO1465CBHDMolQxMbAWZJDJ8FC17msCe2sBO-gk55olI5Y1jQvYQxSKwM44YRfNmhqzoPAeuhE?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=755.26">12:35</a>):
So critics will sometimes quote mine the early fathers to say they did not believe Jesus was God or didn&#8217;t believe in the Trinity, but that still doesn&#8217;t explain these clear citations. Instead, a better explanation is that we see a trajectory of the early church refining its language to proclaim Jesus is not just a man or an angel, but that he is the God who made men and angels. Finally, we also have evidence from non-Christians that Christians believe Jesus was not just a prophet but God himself. Plenty of the Younger, the second century governor of the Roman province of Bythenia interrogated Christians who refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods. In a letter to Emperor Trajian, he observed that Christians &#8220;were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before Dawn and sing responsibly a hymn to Christ as to a God. Lucianisamusada was a second century playwright who thought Christians were gullible.
(<a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/Nx0bdDGZxp1S39geEiFpeFXQOVRMCOLBDsyew85_oMRJYHYOtUeV4_tDEz9k9oDUHlXbSEoLSkhx1tH2LOHOHTXk1Dc?loadFrom=DocumentDeeplink&amp;ts=808.38">13:28</a>):
In his work, the passing in Paragrinis, he says Christians sinned by &#8220;denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.&#8221; Finally, a third century drawing called the Aleximanos Graffito shows a Roman soldier worshiping a man with a donkey head being crucified. The drawings caption reads, &#8220;Aleximanos worships his God.&#8221; If you&#8217;d like more resources on this topic, I recommend Bowman Jr. And Komazewski&#8217;s book, Putting Jesus in his place, The Case for the Deity of Christ, Brant Petri&#8217;s the Case for Jesus and my book, Counterfeit Christ. Thank you all so much for watching and I hope you have a very blessed day.
&nbsp;

My Four Favorite Ways to Prove Jesus is God

Most Christians I know attribute ghost stories either to natural phenomena or demonic activity. But are these the only two options?
The Church has never definitively settled this question—in fact, some of its greatest theologians have disagreed with one another. But the Church has affirmed numerous apparitions of deceased saints as well as the messages they bring. That gives us something to go on.
Ghost comes from an Old English word related to the German geist, meaning “spirit,” and Christians certainly believe in spirits: God, angels, and the souls of deceased humans all qualify. Many say that the souls of the dead shouldn’t be roaming around among the living, since upon death the immaterial soul separates from the material body until the resurrection (Rev. 20:5, 12-13). But is there good reason to believe that human spirits appear on Earth?
In Sacred Scripture, we read of spirits of humans appearing to the living. For example, the witch at Endor calls up the ghost of the prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 28:3–25). The fact that the witch was shocked by the event suggests that her previous claims of raising spirits were probably false, but Scripture presents this as an actual event without qualification. We are also told that Judas Maccabeus met the ghost of Onias the high priest in a vision (2 Macc. 15:11-17).
In the Gospel of Matthew, the disciples saw Moses and Elijah (who had not yet resurrected) with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (17:1–9). Prior to this, the disciples thought Jesus himself was a ghost (14:26), indicating that they at least had an idea of ghosts. Appearing after his resurrection, rather than correct the idea of ghosts, Jesus simply says he isn’t one (Luke 24:37-39).
Scripture, then, gives us clear examples of spirits manifesting immaterially on Earth and doesn’t record Jesus debunking the idea when he had a chance to. The issue, then, seems to be not one of possibility, but of likelihood.
Some Church Fathers rejected the existence of ghosts, and some explained the Samuel incident as demonic activity. St. Augustine attributed most ghost stories to angelic visions, but his concern seems to have been more about fighting pagan beliefs than considering metaphysical possibilities. Indeed, he allowed that God could in some cases bring spirits back to visit and <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1316.htm">admitted that</a> “if we state that these things are false, we shall seem indifferently to go against the writings of certain of the faithful and against the senses of those who affirm that such things have happened to them.”
St. Thomas Aquinas disagreed with Augustine on the question of ghosts, concluding in the supplement to the third part of the Summa that &#8220;it is absurd to say that the souls of the departed do not leave their abode.” Claiming that Augustine was “speaking according to the common course of nature” in denying the possibility of ghosts, Aquinas asserted that
<blockquote>according to the disposition of divine providence, separated souls sometimes come forth from their abode and appear to men. . . . It is also credible that this may occur sometimes to the damned, and that for man’s instruction and intimidation they be permitted to appear to the living.</blockquote>
Further, he said, souls “are able to appear wondrously to the living when they will.&#8221;
Not only did Aquinas believe in the possibility of ghosts, but he seems to have encountered them himself. On two recorded occasions, deceased souls visited the Angelic Doctor: Brother Romanus (who Aquinas did not realize had died yet!), and Aquinas’s deceased sister.
But if souls can appear at will, why don’t they do it all the time? This was part of Augustine’s reasoning against the possibility. Aquinas answers, “Although the dead be able to appear to the living as they will . . . they are either wholly conformed to the divine will, so that they may do nothing but what they see to be agreeable with the divine disposition, or else they are so overwhelmed by their punishments that their grief for their unhappiness surpasses their desire to appear to others.”
The possibility of visits from deceased souls does not, of course, explain every spiritual encounter. Although demonic activity in Scripture is mediated through living, physical beings (even animals), there is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that would limit them to these kinds of activities. Angels have appeared to, and interacted with, physical objects and people, and demons are fallen angels. Catholics who deal with the paranormal typically say violent or evil hauntings may very well be demonic in nature.
So, although it’s wrong and unbiblical to assume that all ghost-like manifestations are demonic in origin, it’s also unwise to assume that none of them is!
That said, if a ghost is simply understood to be a deceased human’s spirit that appears on Earth, either by its own power or according to some special divine purpose, we cannot simply write off ghost stories as delusions or demonic.
We therefore need to be careful not to judge too swiftly. Such experiences could be from God, angels of all kinds, or deceased spirits—and our reactions to these should differ widely. God alone is due worship; good angels should be given reverence (Rev. 22:8-9) and bad angels a wide berth. As for deceased spirits: although the Church affirms proper veneration of and prayer with the saints, along with Scripture it forbids divination or necromancy—summoning the dead or other practices meant to seek forbidden knowledge (e.g., Deut. 18:11; Lev. 19:31, 20:6, 27; CCC 2116).
If you see a ghost, then, the best thing to do is probably the same thing we do to (and for) the deceased souls—our fellow Christians on the other side of the veil—that we don&#8217;t see: pray.

What Are Ghosts?

I was raised southern baptist and looking into Catholicism. Why does the Church only give the people only the eucharist but not the precious blood?

I’m a fallen-away-Catholic. Why does God allow people to be conceived outside of marriage?

If a Catholic commits a mortal sin and dies instantly, can they go to heaven. What are your thoughts on why?

&#8220;Why only the Eucharist?&#8221; addresses the Church&#8217;s practice of offering the Eucharist without the precious blood, providing clarity for those exploring Catholicism. The discussion also touches on why God allows conception outside of marriage and the implications of mortal sin on salvation, offering a range of perspectives on these important topics.
<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>

Why Some Masses Have Only Bread? Mortal Sin and Gods Plan

<div>My friend was talking about drinking in church, and when I joked that Catholics drink wine in the open, she said I was being blasphemous. I wasn’t disrespecting our sacrament, nor was I misbehaving while taking the sacraments, so how is this blasphemy?</div><div>We Catholics believe that what we receive from the chalice, despite its wine-like appearance, is actually the blood of Christ. The Church teaches that at the words of the priest &#8220;This is my blood,&#8221; the wine becomes Christ&#8217;s blood and is no longer wine.
While you intended no disrespect, you referred to the Lord&#8217;s precious blood as mere wine. Merriam-Webster defines blasphemy as &#8220;irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.&#8221; It&#8217;s understandable your friend thought you had blasphemed.
</div>

My Friend Says I Blasphemed—Did I?

Why was the Ascension “necessary”?

Some saints were said to have levitated. Will our resurrected bodies have abilities like levitation, telekinesis, etc.?

What if the pope breaks the seal of confession? Is he excommunicated? Who would he be excommunicated from?

Is the war in Israel/Hamas prophesied in the Bible?

I’d like to know the church’s view on the union dock worker strike? Is it ok to stop working in this situation/what roles does the union play in society?

After the bodily resurrection, do we live in Heaven, the new Earth, or some combination of the two?

Hi Jimmy. Why were there guards stationed at the tomb of Jesus if Jews only believed in Resurrection at the end the world? Doesn’t this imply that the Jewish authorities at least thought Jesus’s followers believed Jesus could rise from the ...

Jimmy Akin. Do you think that Jesus received any grace when he ate the Eucharist? I know He is the source of grace, but He was strengthened by an angel in the Agony in the garden. Curious to hear your thoughts on what is happening in both of these inst...

Are there instructions or limits to cursing? My intuition is that it is bad… but Jesus did curse a fig tree and said woe to whom betrayed Him. Was it OK because He’s God? Furthermore, would it be bad to curse a war and what would be the eff...

When death occurs suddenly and the incident is faster than the brain can comprehend (as in the case of a submarine implosion) does God give a grace of awareness to the victim, or is it possible for the soul to be confused at the judgment seat of Christ?

AMA: Ascension, Excommunication and the Israel-Hamas War Prophecy

Trent and Brandon continue their discussion of atheism with a look at common arguments atheists make in online forums. Trent also shares the nature of the trial he almost served on as a juror.

Jury Duty Update and Evangelizing Atheists

The election of Pope Leo XIV brings to a close a period of furious speculation that began in earnest with Pope Francis’s hospitalization last fall, accelerated upon his death, and reached giddy levels in the leadup to the conclave. Billions of pixels were spilled in online jawing and wagging over the mood of the cardinal-electors and their presumed dealmaking and alliance-building in the days before they were locked in the Sistine Chapel.
Now we have a pope, and like a flock of birds, the journalists and social media keyboard-jockeys have veered in unison to the equally furious effort to find clues, in the cardinal formerly known as Robert Prevost, as to what sort of a pope Leo XIV will be.
Leo’s predecessor, however, reminded us that a pope’s positions can be unpredictable and his ways inscrutable, and therefore how much of a fool’s errand is this business of pigeonholing him on day two. So we’re not going to try.
I did want to briefly reflect, though, on the conclave and its immediate result. And since papal elections begin to resemble major sporting events a little more each time­—with global online <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/should-we-gamble-on-the-next-pope">odds-making and betting</a>, and ubiquitous memes breaking down the field into brackets, March-Madness style—I thought I would reach for that mainstay of sports-journalism analysis and offer some Winners and Losers.
<h2>Winner: His Holiness Pope Leo XIV</h2>
As with the team that hoists the trophy or the prospect who goes number one at the draft, you can’t omit the cardinal who comes out of the conclave wearing white. Uniting the factions in the College and emerging from a brief and seemingly placid voting period backed up by statements of praise and confidence from the likes of both <a href="https://x.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1920536623176982839">James Martin, S.J.</a> and <a href="https://x.com/cardinalrlburke/status/1920597510059389096">Cardinal Raymond Burke</a> is no small feat. Viva il Papa!
<h2>Winner and Loser: That seagull on the roof</h2>
You had your moment of fame, little guy! But, sic transit gloria birdie.
<h2>Loser: Catholics (and others) who wanted a radical pope</h2>
A lot of the pre-conclave chatter focused on the divergent and extreme aims of two groups. On the one side were progressive Catholics and non-Catholic fellow travelers who wanted the next pope to take what they imagined was the progressive program of Pope Francis and put it on steroids. On the other were those who desired nothing less than a point-by-point repudiation of Francis’s writings, statements, and regulations, and a full-throated return to traditional formulas.
Without straying on the fool’s errand I mentioned above, it sure seems so far as though neither side got what it wanted. Pope Leo was created a cardinal by Pope Francis. He speaks positively of synodality, of accompaniment, of peaceable witness to the world, and of other things that evoke the perspective of his predecessor. Yet he appeared on the loggia of St. Peter’s wearing the traditional red mozzetta that Francis had pointedly omitted, along with an ornate stole. It is whispered that he has often celebrated the traditional Latin Mass in private. Nothing in the record of this theologically serious and substantive new pope says that he is fixing to sow doctrinal/moral revolution or even soft doubts. And there had been quite a few papabili—even reported frontrunners—about whom you couldn’t say that so confidently.
<h2>Winner: American Catholics</h2>
It took more than a few blinks to process the shock of hearing the name of an American announced by Cardinal Dominique Martini on Thursday. For everyone’s lifetime, it has been a truism that there could not be an American pope. A vicar of Christ from a world superpower would create resentment and an imbalance of interests. An American pope in the age of divisive Donald Trump would be even more outrageous. Besides, we just had a holy father from South America. Surely it was time to return to an Italian, or somebody within train distance of Italy. Or make history at the peripheries again by tapping an Asian or African cardinal.
Yet here we are. Although Pope Leo has the qualities and experiences of a global citizen, speaking multiple language and having spent many years in mission territory and in Rome, he was born and raised in suburban Chicago and is American without any asterisk. What does this mean for the United States and for American Catholics?
Surely it doesn’t mean that American political or ecclesial interests are going to get specially favorable treatment. (<a href="https://x.com/drprevost/status/1886469097560719594?s=46&amp;t=lbgTgs3AIIJsYI51PVJfTA">Certainly not</a> the immigration policy of the current administration!) But an American bishop of Rome is a win for Americans because the birth nation of a pope enjoys a special affinity for and connection with the holy father. He’s one of their own.
And I think it goes deeper than simple national identification. Now Americans have a pope who is a <a href="https://x.com/JoeBinder/status/1920958255553020067">White Sox fan</a>; a pope who has spoken at high school graduations in our neighborhoods; a pope who speaks English with a flat Midwestern accent that, to tens of millions, sounds like home. He has probably eaten fried chicken at a parish potluck. He gets us. It’s a small thing that could be a big deal—especially in light of the still-strong faith of American evangelicals, from whose ranks many great converts have come and who might now be prompted to look to Rome with new interest.
<h2>Loser: The “St. Malachy Prophecy”</h2>
This infamous alleged medieval “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-francis-the-last-pope">Prophecy of the Popes</a>” purports to describe, through brief epithets, every pope until the end of the age. We were down to the wire with Pope Francis, whose reign aligned with the last of the epithets and by a plain reading should have corresponded with the “final persecution” of the Church and ended with the destruction of Rome and the Last Judgment.
Well, Rome is still there, the world remains unjudged, and we are now plus-one on popes. So either this “prophecy” is definitively falsified, or its defenders have to devise a technical workaround of the sort that the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/history-of-the-jehovahs-witnesses">Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed</a> when Jesus repeatedly failed to return on schedule in the early twentieth century.
<h2>Winner: Catholics who want clarity and reform</h2>
This is still quite speculative, of course. But the new pope’s CV suggests an intellectual and legal rigor (he is a Dominican-educated doctor of canon law) that is incompatible with fuzzy thinking or imprecise expression. It also provides cause for hope that Leo may have the stuff to succeed in advancing needed financial and legal reforms at the Vatican.
<h2>Loser: Anybody who would have enjoyed a prolonged conclave</h2>
For many people, the election of a new pope is a bit like a holiday or hall pass. The longer it lasts, the more fun it can be. This one was short, and now it’s over.
Journalists and influencers who had been happily sampling Roman trattorias on expense accounts: time to go home. Secular media mischief-makers for whom more black smoke meant more clicks on headlines like “Still No Pope as Deadlock Among Feuding Cardinals Deepens”: time to find some other way to push your agenda.
And lay conclave-watchers the world over: time for us to come down from highs of chimney-gazing and prediction-swapping, and go back to the regular work of daily conversion to Christ, under the leadership of his new vicar.
<h2>Winner: The office of the papacy</h2>
It keeps going, and it’s still relevant to the world.
<h2>Loser: Satan</h2>
See above. The devil hates that.

The Conclave: Winners and Losers

The rosary is a standout “double” sacramental. The Catholic Church considers the chain of beads that make up the rosary a sacramental, and as a form of popular devotion, the chaplet we say also qualifies as a sacramental. The rosary is unique in this way. It is also one of the oldest sacramental devotions in the Church—being a cherished Marian devotion for more than 800 years!
St. Louis de Montfort couldn’t have been clearer about the rosary’s merits: “When the holy rosary is said well, it gives Jesus and Mary more glory and is more meritorious than any other prayer.” After Saint Dominic received and promoted the sacramental in the thirteenth century, devotion to the rosary spread like wildfire and continues to this day. But despite its widespread popularity, many Catholics do not fully appreciate the proper uses and care of the rosary.
The rosary is both a physical object and a pious devotion. Because of this, it comes in many forms and has multiple uses.
The most practical and popular version of the rosary is the long string of beads divided into five sections of ten, known as decades. Why five decades? Because that’s just enough beads to pray a full set of five mysteries for the day. Separating each decade is a bead for the Our Father. Off this string dangles a “tail” with five more beads for the introductory creed and other prayers, plus a crucifix at the end.
There are smaller versions, too. The single-decade rosary, for instance, usually consists of just ten beads, sometimes with a larger bead marking the Our Father and Glory Be. Other versions might include a holy medallion, a cross, or another Christian symbol at the center of the ten beads. These are great to wear on your wrist or carry in your pocket, without fear of them getting tangled with your keys, your loose change, or—let’s be honest—your snack wrappers.
Some religious orders, such as the Franciscans and Dominicans, incorporate the rosary into their habit, so it’s always within reach. It’s both a functional prayer tool and a mental reminder that prayer is never far away. You’ll notice that these rosaries are significantly larger than your average one; this is because they typically contain enough decades to pray multiple sets of mysteries. The original mysteries included three sets of five (fifteen decades in total), so these larger rosaries aid the religious in praying all of them in a single day. In some cases, they carry rosaries with twenty decades, ensuring they’re always prepared for a marathon prayer session with all four sets of mysteries: the luminous, joyful, sorrowful, and glorious.
The rosary’s primary purpose is to pray the devotion it’s named after, but it can also be used for other devotions. Catholics may use a standard rosary to pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet, the Chaplet of St. Gertrude, the Chaplet of the Adorable Sacrament, the Chaplet of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and several others. So it’s a multitasker—think of it as the Swiss army knife of Catholic prayer!
All rosaries (and physical sacramentals in general) can—and should—be blessed. This can be done with a short prayer by the priest, or you can choose a blessing from the Book of Blessings or the older Roman Ritual. Since the rosary can also be used as a chaplet for other prayers and devotions, these blessings apply to those uses as well.
Now, let’s address a frequently debated question: should the rosary be worn—for example, like a necklace? This is a big question, given that in many cultures, wearing a rosary is a well-established practice. For some, it’s a comfort, a reminder of faith, and an outward expression of devotion. Others of a stricter persuasion might not like this idea.
To help put this in perspective, think about the religious who are required to wear their rosary as part of their habit. It’s both a functional tool—ready for prayer at a moment’s notice—and a visible sign of their faith. One could argue that wearing a single-decade rosary as a bracelet has a similar dual purpose: it’s there for private devotion, and it can also be a nice little accessory.
Oftentimes, Catholic will hang rosaries on walls within the home or from their car’s rearview mirror as a faithful gesture or a reminder to pray (in the case of the car, to pray for safety—because we all know what it’s like out there on the roads when you need a bit of humility to control the urge to give someone a tongue lashing).
With the right intention, wearing the rosary around your neck is perfectly acceptable as a sacramental. However, it is a sacred object, and it should absolutely not be worn like a piece of jewelry or an accessory meant to enhance a wardrobe. The rosary should not be worn just for looks or as decoration. After all, its primary function is spiritual, not fashion-forward.
Rosaries, like all sacramentals, are more than just sentimental heirlooms or charming home décor. They are sacred objects, and some are even consecrated to serve in the Church’s highest liturgies. This means that we’re responsible for treating them with dignity—by our conscience and, for good measure, by canon law. According to canon 1171, “Sacred objects, which are designated for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated reverently and are not to be employed for profane or inappropriate use, even if they are owned by private persons.”
This means we should avoid anything that might trivialize these objects or put them at risk of breaking. No tossing your rosary into the bottom of your purse like a forgotten receipt. It’s sacred, after all. When it’s in your pocket or purse, try to treat it like you would your favorite pair of sunglasses—only holier, and with less likelihood of getting scratched by your keys.
It’s not just the physical sacramentals that require careful handling. Our actions with non-physical sacramentals—like blessings and exorcisms—need to be just as intentional. The sign of the cross, for instance, is not a casual “flick” of the wrist or a half-hearted wave, as if we were shooing away a fly. We ought to treat our rosaries with a similar mindset, fingering the beads nicely and remaining in a good posture throughout the prayer.
Now, the Church has some firm rules about sacramentals—and one of them is that we are not permitted to sell blessed sacramentals. Selling a blessed sacramentals falls under the practice of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/mass-stipends-and-simony">simony</a>. One is certainly allowed to offer a donation for a special blessing or exorcism—think of it like giving a little gift to a priest for his time, like how a family might offer a donation at a baptism—but the Church doesn’t put a price tag on the things of God.
Of course, things wear out over time. Rosaries break, crucifixes chip, candles burn down to nothing, and scapulars tear like the pages of an old book. It happens.
When a sacramental reaches a state where it’s beyond repair or has outlived its purpose, it should be disposed of properly. This doesn’t mean tossing it in the trash, as you would a broken pen or bits of cereal the kids have dropped—and my kids, too, have broken rosaries, so don’t feel as though you’re the only one. Even in its tattered state, the sacramental has been blessed, so it deserves reverent treatment.
The proper way to dispose of a sacramental is either by burning it or burying it in the soil of the earth. Burning is particularly fitting because fire purifies. And burying it is a quiet, respectful way to lay it to rest. Both of these ensure that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands—hands that might not treat it with the same reverence. And don’t forget: if the sacramental has been desecrated, it should be blessed once more. Regardless, it still needs to be disposed of in the same way. The dignity of the object remains, even if its peak physical form and beauty have taken a hit.
The holy rosary is among the most unmistakable images of Catholicism, and there is no shortage of popes and saints who recommend its frequent use. I sincerely hope this short guide is one of use to many readers who love their rosaries and wish for many years of faithful devotion and joy.
Remember that even if you’ve not dusted off your rosary in years, the prayers are like riding a bike. And if you’re at all concerned about the shape of your rosary, don’t overthink it—just bring it to your next Mass or confession (or the next opportunity) and ask the priest or deacon to give it a blessing.

The Care and Feeding of Your Rosary

<div>The Bible condemns communicating with the dead, such as the necromancy King Saul engaged in when he had the witch of Endor conjure the spirit of the prophet Samuel. How can the Catholic Church teach that praying to the saints is any different?</div><div><h3 style="text-align: center;"></h3>
<h3>Short Answer:</h3>
Necromancy is gravely wrong, because it involves communicating—apart from the Lord Jesus Christ— with those who have died, e.g., through seances and other forms of divination. In marked contrast, prayer to the saints is in solidarity with our Lord Jesus and thus couldn’t be accomplished without Christ. The saints are God’s collaborators, not his competitors, and therefore they are our heavenly friends whom Jesus has given to help us attain eternal life.  
<h3>Longer Answer:</h3>
Necromancy is a form of divination, which includes conjuring the spirits of humans who have died to gain knowledge, whether about the present or future. In addition, these spiritual interactions are done apart from—and therefore at odds with—the Lord Jesus Christ and his kingdom. Consequently, all forms of divination, including “practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers,” are clearly wrong, because “they contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone” (CCC 2116-2117, emphasis original; see Deut. 18:10-14).
The Philistines had encamped at nearby Shunem, and, in his fear, King Saul seeks the Lord’s guidance, including through his own personal prayer and the intervention of his prophets (1 Sam. 28:5-6). However, Saul does not receive God’s counsel, because he did not carry out the Lord’s will against the Amalekites (1 Sam. 28:18; see 15:1-34). Instead of repenting and beseeching the Lord anew, Saul in his desperation seeks clarity and reassurance apart from the Lord, namely, through the help of a medium, the witch of Endor, who helps him conjure the prophet Samuel, who, in turn, chastises Saul for this additional misdeed and predicts the imminent death of Saul and a number of his sons (1 Sam. 28:7-25).
In marked contrast, when Catholics pray to the saints in heaven, they do so through the power and person of Jesus, in whom all of Christ’s disciples are united, whether in heaven (the Church Triumphant), on earth (the Church Militant), or in Purgatory (the Church Suffering (CCC 954-959; see 1 Cor. 12:12-26; Rom. 8:37-39). So when we prayerfully intercede with the saints in heaven, we are not seeking knowledge and power apart from Jesus, but rather united with Christ and his kingdom.
In addition, St. Paul urges us to pray for each other, not simply for each of us to pray to God alone (1 Tim. 2:1-5). St. Paul thereby illustrates that asking for the prayers of our fellow Christians is not an offense against the one mediatorship of Jesus, precisely because—in doing so—we are united in Christ and therefore his mystical body, which is the Church. And if we can ask our friends on earth to intercede for us with the Good Lord, why not our friends in heaven? Scripture teaches that the prayer of a righteous man on earth avails much (James 5:16–18), so how much more does the prayer of a righteous man in heaven avail? Scripture shows that some Christian elders who have died are in heaven. They are distinguished from the angels and therefore must be humans who have died and gone to heaven; and they clearly bring the prayers of those on earth to the throne of God (Rev. 5:8).
<h2>Heaven-Sent: “The Spirits of Just Men Made Perfect” (Heb. 12:23)</h2>
Regarding the saints in heaven, Scripture refers to them as “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23). Consider therefore the righteous man James references who is living on earth (James 5:16), but who then would die and go to heaven. He’s made perfect before entering heaven, and it logically follows that his prayers would have even greater effects, given the perfection of his soul and thus his greater union with Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit in heaven. This reality aligns with Jesus’ words about the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom had died: “He is not God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32; emphasis added).
Those who have died but are now alive in Christ include Moses and Elijah, who appear to Jesus at the Transfiguration and speak to him about the paschal mystery he will accomplish in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31; 28-36; Matt. 17:1-8). If communicating with those who have died were an intrinsic moral evil, then Jesus would be guilty himself.
Also, when one prays to the Blessed Mother or another saint, he makes the sign of the cross when he starts and ends his prayer, a reminder that the efficacy of the prayer stems from his being one in our Lord Jesus Christ. Apart from Jesus, the saints’ intercessory prayers couldn’t benefit us. Ditto with our prayers on earth for each other.
Consider further the Blessed Mother. Because of God’s tremendous blessing on her, and her cooperation with God, she is in a preeminent place to intercede among those in heaven (Rev. 12:1–2). Indeed, she is the spiritual mother of all believers on earth. As Scripture provides, the devil “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” (Rev. 12:17, emphasis added).
Some Christians might reply that the woman of Revelation 12 is Old Covenant Israel, who “gave birth” to the Messiah, or perhaps the Church, which is the New Covenant Israel and mystical bride of the Son. Arguments can be made for both of these typological fulfillments of “the woman,” and yet Mary is the most obvious fulfillment, because she actually gives birth to Jesus and so is the queen mother in the New Covenant, adorned with her crown in heaven (Rev. 12:1–-2).
For more information, see Karlo Broussard’s Q&amp;A on the Bible’s opposition to necromancy vs. praying to the saints in Christ and Jimmy Akin’s Daily Defense.
In addition, see our tracts on praying to the saints and the what the early Church taught regarding the saints’ intercession. See also two of our related articles, in which Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J., and Karlo Broussard explain the Church’s teaching in light of Protestant Christian counterclaims.
</div>

Is Catholic Prayer to the Saints the Same as the Necromancy Condemned in Scripture?

Most of us take for granted that the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/who-wrote-johns-gospel">John</a> were in fact written by <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-matthew-mark-luke-and-john-really-write-the-gospels">Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John</a>, respectively. In times past, this would have been the obvious assumption, and questioning this assumption would have been seen as an absurd waste of time.
However, no assumption is safe today, and the identity of the authors of the Gospels is now hotly debated by some scholars.
So let’s take a look at this question. Who did write the Gospels? And why does it matter?
Briefly, we should begin by setting the parameters of the question. When talking about who wrote the Gospels, we should clarify which gospels we are talking about. There are only four canonical Gospels, those purported to be written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are considered authentically part of the New Testament by all Christians the world over. There are a great number of so-called “gospels.” Among others, there are the “Gospel of Judas,” the “Gospel of Mary,” the “Gospel of Thomas,” the “Gospel of Philip,” the Protoevangelium of James, and many more.
These are all recognized as having been written a century or more after the death of Jesus, sometimes several centuries later, and not attributable to those closest disciples of Our Lord, or even to their disciples. While these facts in and of themselves do not mean that they are unreliable historical records, we know that the authors were not divinely inspired, as the Church has discerned and declared the canon of Sacred Scripture, and the canon is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/john-calvin-the-gnostic-protestant">closed</a>. Scripture is public revelation from God, and such public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle (see Dei Verbum 4, CCC 66-67, 73). So these so-called “gospels,” though they may be historically interesting documents, are not part of that canon. The authorship of those documents is not at issue here.
The four canonical Gospels were all written during the first century A.D., most likely in the second half. Jimmy Akin, in his book <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/the-bible-is-a-catholic-book/">The Bible Is a Catholic Book</a>, writes that the Gospels “came to be known by these names within living memory of the time they were written, when people were aware of who the authors were, and therefore we need to take the authors’ names seriously.”
There is good evidence that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses, and the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written by close associates of apostles, according to Akin. Additionally, there is little to no evidence to the contrary—not even ancient claims of different authorship. We must avoid the temptation to ignore earlier generations’ conclusions simply because those conclusions are now ancient and the temptation to accept blindly the conclusions of modern scholarship simply because it is fresh. Such chronological snobbery has no place in an honest pursuit of the truth. So although some today might say that we can’t know for certain that the Gospels were written by the men they are attributed to, we have every reason to believe that they were.
So who were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Two of the authors of canonical Gospels—Matthew and John—were apostles of Our Lord. Matthew, also known as Levi, was a tax collector who was called by Jesus and left his life behind. John and his brother James, the sons of Zebedee and nicknamed “Sons of Thunder,” were fishermen along with Peter and Andrew. John is often referred to as “the beloved disciple” and was given charge of Our Lady as Jesus hung dying on the cross.
The identities of Mark and Luke are a little harder to nail down, but longstanding tradition tells us that Mark the evangelist is the “John Mark” from the twelfth chapter of Acts of the Apostles, a companion of Paul and Barnabas. Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, according to Paul’s letter to the Colossians (4:10). He is referenced many times throughout the letters of Saint Paul. The Gospel of Mark is considered by some to be St. Peter’s Gospel, as tradition holds that Mark essentially served as a scribe, recording the teachings and recollections of Peter.
Luke was a follower of St. Paul (Col. 4:14), and we have references identifying him as the author of the third Gospel dating all the way back to St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century A.D. He is also identified as the author of Acts of the Apostles and is noted by St. Paul as being a physician.
The identity of the authors of the Gospels is more than a point of historical interest. For many people, the question of authorship of the Gospels affects how they view the historical reliability and authority of the Gospels. If the Gospels were not actually written by the apostles (or their disciples), they might say, it is not eyewitness testimony and thus is not reliable. In fact, critics of Christianity often point to this authorial ambiguity precisely to try to undermine the Gospels’ authority. They claim that anonymous, non-apostle Christians compiled hearsay reports and legend, and these were passed off as authentic eyewitness accounts and can thus be summarily dismissed.
But the Gospels cannot be dismissed, and they must not be dismissed. They are the most important documents in the history of the world, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Historical and textual evidence points to the traditional identities of the Evangelists; the authority of the Gospels comes from their divine inspiration. But for those who do not accept that premise, their historical reliability can be demonstrated based on authorship. And the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or others who recorded the eyewitness testimony. They are historically reliable documents, and of unfathomable import.
We cannot say with any degree of certainty that every word contained in each Gospel came from the hand (or mouth) of the attributed author. But the evidence shows that the ancient tradition of the Gospels’ authorship is reliable and worthy of belief.

Who Really Wrote the Gospels?

Episode 70: Year B &#8211; Palm Sunday
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on nine details found in this upcoming Sunday Mass readings for Palm Sunday, Year B. The first two details come from the Gospel reading for the procession with palms, which is taken from Mark 11:1-10. The relevant apologetical topic is Jesus’ Messiahship. The next set of details come from the second reading, taken from Philippians 2:6-11. The relevant apologetical topics that arise with these details are Christ’s divinity and Christian universalism, the idea that all we will be saved in the end. The last few details come from the Passion narrative, which is taken from Mark 14:1-15:47. The relevant topics that we will focus on are the timing of Jesus’ death (and consequently the timing of the Passover meal), and the timing of Jesus’ trial.
The Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/032424.cfm">Click Here</a>
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
&nbsp;

Is Christian Universalism Biblical?

In this episode, Trent shows how scandals in the Protestant world call into question their doctrine of eternal security.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KWFxqjiG1o&amp;t=530s"> 4 Awful Christian Best-Sellers</a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSzl2wSh9OY&amp;t=645s"> 3 Reasons to Confess Your Sins to a Priest</a>
Transcription:
Trent:
Recently Dallas based Trinity Baptist Church fired Pastor Steve Lawson because of what they called an inappropriate relationship with a woman. Lawson was fairly well known in Calvinist circles and served as one of the deans of John MacArthur&#8217;s the master Seminary. In today&#8217;s episode, I&#8217;m not going to dunk on a Protestant pastor for being caught up in a scandal. As a Catholic, I&#8217;m depressingly familiar with having to hear about scandal. Instead, I want to focus on how scandals like these undermine the popular Protestant doctrine of eternal security, the belief that you can&#8217;t lose your salvation. While not all Protestants hold this view, it is common among Calvinists, but even many non Calvinists accept it. The late Protestant apologist, norm Geisler called himself a moderate Calvinist, but he wrote an anti Calvinist book called Chosen but Free in an anthology on eternal security. He wrote, there is literally nothing in all creation that can separate a believer from Christ on their website.
Trinity Baptist Church says under the heading, security, we believe that all the redeemed once saved are kept by God&#8217;s power and are thus secure in Christ forever. But in their statement about the Lawson scandal, the church said, let us always be mindful of the words of one Corinthians 10, 12. Therefore, let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. What kind of fall are we talking about? Is this a metaphorical fall from grace or a literal fall from grace like the one that St. Paul talks about regarding the Judaizers In Galatians five, four, you are severed from Christ. You have fallen away from grace. You&#8217;ll see that even defenders of eternal security still act like Catholics and other Christians who believe we can forsake our salvation through gravesend. But before I talk about that, I want to point out that we aren&#8217;t entirely sure what Lawson did.
A lot of people assume he committed an act of adultery, but that might not have been the case. Two years ago, Matt Chandler temporarily stepped down as pastor of the popular village church on the grounds of having an inappropriate relationship with a woman, but it turned out it wasn&#8217;t romantic or sexual. His wife knew about it, but the church considered his actions unwise and unguarded. So we don&#8217;t want to make assumptions, but these kinds of scandals involving graves sin do happen and how people respond to them in the Protestant world really shows the unworkability of eternal security in spite of Protestants who say that this is much more reassuring than the Catholic view of salvation. You see, Protestants often caricature the Catholic view of salvation as can be seen in this animation from the documentary American Gospel as making it seem like a person needs to do a bunch of arbitrary good deeds in order to be saved and they don&#8217;t know how many they need to do.
And because of this, a Catholic can never really have assurance that they will go to heaven. Their salvation depends on what they do, and so if they do the wrong thing, they won&#8217;t be saved, which from their perspective is not just false but pitiable. However, those who say salvation cannot be lost claim to follow a simple plan of salvation that gives assurance. They say they have true assurance because salvation doesn&#8217;t depend on what they do. And by the way, if you want to see my rebuttal to American Gospel, check out the link in the description below. They even claim that if it depended on us and what we did, we&#8217;d inevitably mess it up. So it&#8217;s good that we have nothing to do with our own salvation. John MacArthur is often credited as saying, if you could lose your salvation, you would redeem Zoomer puts it this way, if my salvation depended even 0.0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0 0 1% on my works, I&#8217;d be going straight to hell.
And in a 2020 post, Steve Lawson said, if you could lose your salvation, you definitely would, but you cannot, so you will not. You are eternally secure in Christ, although the Catholic view is not that we have to do an arbitrary number of good deeds in order to be saved, you only have to do one good work to be saved. Do not die in a state of mortal sin. We are saved by grace alone. When we receive baptism, our initial salvation has nothing to do with any works. All we must do after that point is not remain in grave sin. And if we do engage in grave sin, we must seek God&#8217;s forgiveness and be restored to friendship of God. That&#8217;s it. And eternal security Protestants believe the same thing, even though they aren&#8217;t willing to admit it specifically, they follow the same three steps that Catholics follow in the church&#8217;s plan of salvation.
Number one, they take steps to avoid grave sin. Nate Picowitz, the author of Why We Are Protestant, somebody I should really sit down and chat with soon writes regarding the Lawson scandal. A pastor belongs at home every night sleeping next to his wife. It&#8217;s time to kill the conference circuit. Setting aside the issue of whether travel contributed to Lawson&#8217;s inappropriate relationships, since that&#8217;s not clear, Picowitz is really promoting the Catholic concept of the near occasion of sin. This is something that isn&#8217;t objectively sinful but has the potential to lead to sin. Also, they recognize there are two types of sin, major and minor Catholics call this mortal and venial, but it&#8217;s really the same thing Trinity Baptist Church said in its statement about Lawson. In light of this, we may be reminded that we are all sinners and Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners and Christ remains head of his church, which is bigger than any fallen man.
But if we are all sinners, then why can&#8217;t Lawson remain a pastor, especially if he&#8217;s no longer engaged in this sin? Part of the reason is that some sins are incompatible with the Christian life. Protestants know this. They&#8217;re what Catholics call mortal sins. And so a person cannot be a pastor if they engaged in these serious grave sins or even briefly succumb to them because of the scandal they caused through their behavior without the mortal venial sin distinction, you get extremely unhealthy scrupulosity in his book. Absolutely. Sure Steve Lawson writes, conversion does not mean we can no longer sin, but that we can no longer sin and enjoy it. But this creates two problems. First, what about if you enjoy incredibly minor sins like stealing a few chocolate almonds from the grocery store, does that mean you are not saved? Or number two, as long as you feel bad about persistent grave sin, like say viewing pornography, does that mean you are saved even if you don&#8217;t change your behavior?
Now, Picowitz and others may say that just because our salvation is secure, that doesn&#8217;t mean we won&#8217;t sin. He might say we should still be prudent, and even with the best of intentions, we may still fall into sin. But according to Lawson and other eternal security advocates, the difference is that a true Christian will not remain or persist in grave sin. He or she will eventually repent. But this brings me to my next similarity. Number two, they ask God to forgive the grave sins they&#8217;ve committed and they seek to amend their behavior. When Catholics engage in mortal sin, they ask God to forgive this specific grave sin in the sacrament of confession. They know by committing this sin, something has changed in their souls through their disobedience to God. And now they must return to God to be healed. And deep down, defenders of eternal security know this happens when they sin. Consider the Jimmy Swaggart prostitution scandal. In 1986, Swaggart, a popular televangelist minister accused fellow minister Marvin Gorman of engaging in affairs and Gorman said the accusations ruined his ministry. Gorman then sued Swaggart, but the matter was settled out of court for about $2 million, the equivalent of 40,000 gifted copies of Swagger&#8217;s Saturday night in Memphis preaching tapes.
CLIP:
But when God speaks to you, I know he&#8217;ll bless you if you will, to respond and if you could send a gift of $50, we want to send you this video called Saturday Night in Memphis,
Trent:
Gorman then hired his son and son-in-law to spy on Swaggart at a motel where Swaggart met a prostitute. Gorman used the evidence to blackmail swaggart into publicly admitting he lied about Gorman&#8217;s alleged affair. But when Swaggart did not get a reinstated to being a pastor, Gorman went public with the evidence. In 1988, Swaggart made this famous public speech about the incident now called the I have Sinned speech. Here&#8217;s one news channel covering the incident.
CLIP:
Jimmy Swaggart is the top rated preacher on tv. He leads a multimillion dollar evangelical empire. Now he&#8217;s confessed to a moral mistake and he&#8217;s pulling away from the pulpit For a while,
I have sinned against you, my Lord, and I would ask that your precious would wash and cleanse every stain until it is in dece of God&#8217;s forgetfulness. Thank you. Thank you.
Trent:
But Swaggart has said on other occasions that Christ&#8217;s death atone for all our sins past, present, and future. But does he sound like setting aside the question of whether he&#8217;s acting to get sympathy? Do the words he say, do they sound like a man proclaiming that his sin was already forgiven or a man petitioning God to forgive him now to cleanse him now of his sins? And when most people who hear this, wouldn&#8217;t they intuit that we must ask God to forgive us and not just recognize that God has already forgiven us. Now, some Protestants will say that grave&#8217;s sin doesn&#8217;t mean you&#8217;ll lose your salvation, but it can affect your soul and it can affect it in a way that God will punish you for this bad behavior. This makes sense given that Hebrews 12, seven says, God is treating you as sons for what son is there whom his father does not discipline. In fact, here&#8217;s Lawson in an older clip saying how God would punish him if he were to fall into sin.
CLIP:
And I needed a healthy, holy fear of God, of what God would do to me if I fell into that sin, the discipline of the Lord, he would&#8217;ve taken me to the woodshed and it would not have been pretty. It would&#8217;ve been painful.
Trent:
Now, the idea we are saved, but we still have to suffer for our sins. Kind of sounds like purgatory, doesn&#8217;t it? But some Protestants will say that this suffering, it&#8217;s just the psychological feeling of being distant from God, even though we are still saved. It&#8217;s what they call a lack of fellowship with God. Here&#8217;s how Protestant author Charles Stanley puts it.
CLIP:
You&#8217;re not disconnected from him. The feeling is disconnecting. So what do we do? We acknowledge our sinful acts, whatever there may be that&#8217;s causing these feelings, we ask him to forgive us of our sin. We repent of that sin and by faith we accept his forgiveness.
Trent:
But is it just a feeling of being disconnected from God or is that feeling rooted in the actual reality of our souls being disconnected from God because of sin that destroys the love of God in our hearts, which makes more sense, although some people say you cannot lose your status as a child of God, so you cannot lose your salvation just as you can&#8217;t lose your status as being the biological child of your own parents, but you can be disinherited by your parents. And the Bible frequently talks about salvation as being a kind of inheritance, including one we can forsake. St. Paul gives a warning in Ephesians chapter five that applies to those within the church, not just a statement for those outside the church, he says, no immoral or impure man or one who is covetous, that is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God, let no one deceive you with empty words.
For it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. The point of the parable of the prodigal son is that the son was spiritually dead when he was estranged from the Father, even though he was still that man&#8217;s son. That&#8217;s why his father says, my son was dead and is alive again. He was lost and is found, which applies to all Christians who repent of grave sin. This is also why in the second century, St. iis said Those who do not obey him being disinherited by him have ceased to be his sons. Wherefore they cannot receive his inheritance. And number three, eternal security Protestants worry about the salvation of unrepentant Christians. Steve Lawson&#8217;s ministry One Passion Media says that he has confessed his sin and regrets the damage he caused. So it appears that he&#8217;s repentant, but other fallen pastors don&#8217;t repent of their sin. In my previous episode on terrible Christian bestsellers, I covered how popular youth pastor Joshua Harris, author of the book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, left the Christian Faith recently, and now some Christians say this means he was never saved in the first place.
CLIP:
In terms of Joshua Harris, I don&#8217;t believe that you can be a Christian for 20 years and all of a sudden decide, oh, I don&#8217;t want to be a Christian anymore and kick the Holy Spirit out of your body and become unsaved. I believe that people that leave the faith and say, oh, I want nothing to do with it anymore after being a part of it for years and years, I don&#8217;t think they were a Christian
Trent:
In the first place. Catholics say that if a person is in grave sin and he refuses to repent and reject that sin, then he has forsaken God and he could die apart from God for all eternity. And Calvinists and other eternal security protestants really do say the same thing, except they would say that that person rejected God, not when he committed his grave sin. But throughout his entire life, his unrepentant sin simply reveals that he was never saved in the first place, even if many other people thought he was saved because he was a popular pastor, even if he thought that he was saved, he was never saved in the first place. So notice that all Christians basically do the same thing. They receive salvation by grace alone. They strive to obey God, and they ask God to forgive grave disobedience. Eternal security advocates just complicate this process with claims about having never been saved in the first place to redescribe how things actually seem to appear.
But this robs people of their assurance. It doesn&#8217;t give it to them in his book. Absolutely. Sure Lawson writes, as a pastor for the past 20 years, I have had to answer many questions on a variety of subjects, but without a doubt, the question I&#8217;m asked the most is how can I know I&#8217;m saved? But what contributes to this uncertainty that people ask Lawson about are statements like this from pastors like Steve Lawson. He writes, assurance never comes from looking to a past event but to a present reality. Now, Catholics agree that the question of whether we are saved at this very moment or whether we are now in a state of grace and friendship with God that can only be known by doing an examination of conscience and looking at our lives right now, but we don&#8217;t do an examination of conscience to determine if we were saved in the past or if our initial salvation was genuine.
That&#8217;s why Catholics don&#8217;t have to constantly worry about this question. Am I a true Christian who has just backslid in his behavior or am I a false Christian who was never saved in the first place? Lawson writes, if you can answer yes to these nine questions, then the assurance of salvation should be yours to enjoy. Wow, only nine questions. What a deal, right? And the questions deal with things like desiring communion with Christ, confessing sin, reading scripture, compassion for fellow believers, changing desires, learning more truth, becoming Christ-like being confident in prayer and living a life that is in conflict with the world. I&#8217;m sorry, but if a Catholic said that you have to have all of these things in order to be saved, Lawson would condemn that as works-based salvation, but he gets a free pass because he just says that these are merely signs that you were already saved.
But this leads to people worrying and saying stuff like this, I gave my life to Christ when I was 13, but I&#8217;ve been a pretty mediocre Christian since then. I don&#8217;t have all nine signs that Pastor Lawson mentions. Maybe I wasn&#8217;t truly saved then maybe I need to give my life to Christ all over again. Or what about people who become ensnared in their sin and feel like their repetitious sin proves they were never really saved in the first place and so now they want nothing to do with God? That&#8217;s why I&#8217;m so grateful for the sacraments of Christ Church. I know beyond a reasonable doubt that 22 years ago my soul was forever changed when I was baptized, I became a child of God at that moment and I will never have to be baptized again, and I don&#8217;t have to appeal to some standard like Lawsons that basically says Mediocre Christians aren&#8217;t true Christians, so we&#8217;re never saved in the first place.
In addition, I can examine my conscience and reasonably know if I am in a state of mortal sin, and if I am, I can respond to God&#8217;s grace that convicts me of my sin, and then approach a minister of the church to be reconciled with God through the sacrament of confession. Just like I approached a minister of the church to be first reconciled to God through the sacrament of baptism, I can be reconciled to God through the sacrament that Christ gave. The apostles when he told them who sins you forgive are forgiven, and who sins you retain are retained. I say all this to point out that eternal security Protestants and Catholics aren&#8217;t that far apart from each other when it comes to the issue of salvation. We both agree that Christians must be obedient to God, and if we gravely disobey God, then we must repent and return to God or we&#8217;ll be lost. Catholics and other Christians just describe this process as it appears. They don&#8217;t use an overly complicated description in service of an unbiblical doctrine like eternal security. I hope this was helpful for you all, and I hope that you have a very blessed day.

How Scandal Unravels Protestantism’s “Eternal Security”

The Old Testament struggled with articulating a theology of the afterlife during most of its formation. It initially came at the problem through the lens of justice. God is both good and just. Many people are neither. Sheol, the abode of the dead, is not heaven: it is the place to which all the dead go, a kind of shadowy (hence the word “shades”), inchoate existence. So, at first, the Old Testament tried to do justice in this world: God rewards the good with long life, health, and children. Only the bad die young (and suffer, which is why the Sanhedrin wanted a certain thirty-three-year-old to hang on a tree. It’s also why the first reaction of the apostles to the man born blind is “Who sinned? Him or his parents?”
As nice as that theory sounded, experience did not bear it out. Job and Qoheleth attest to that. At that point, it became a matter of faith. Since you weren’t there to counsel God when he laid out the world, trust him to do what is right and just, even if you don’t understand it.
Good advice, but not wholly satisfying.
The Old Testament finally began to shape a clear notion of the afterlife only with the Book of Wisdom, a book that was written maybe a century before Christ—i.e., at the very end of the Old Testament. Wisdom articulates an understanding of eternal life by starting with not justice (though its vision of reward and punishment is eminently just), but love. If what binds us to God is love, it assures us of life because God is faithful and would not let love aim for the futile. Love by its nature seeks to endure. Would God—who is Love—make that an illusion?
I mention this because it leads to a great film you should (re)watch: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/amzn1.dv.gti.14b465e1-ad00-f78d-9d2e-417bf079ecf0?autoplay=0&amp;ref_=atv_cf_strg_wb">The Jeweler’s Shop</a>. Based on Karol Wojtyła (Pope St. John Paul II)’s play of the same name, it’s “a meditation on the sacrament of matrimony, passing into a drama.” That’s often what happens to marriage, too.
The film version of “The Jeweler’s Shop” takes liberties with the play’s storyline. That’s largely due to two factors: the demands of a worldwide audience and the context of the original play. More concrete detail is needed to make the story clear to an audience of global viewers. And, although Wojtyła wrote “The Jeweler’s Shop” in 1960, I have the impression he remained under the influence of the “Rhapsodic Theater,” a theatrical form which accented the primacy of the word, in which he participated during the War. A word-focused play does not readily transfer to visual film.
“The Jeweler’s Shop” examines three marriages. Teresa and Andrzej deeply love each other. He dies shortly after their marriage, but not before they conceive a son, Krzysztof. Anna’s and Stefan’s love is initially more superficial and decays into a loveless marriage. They have a daughter, Monika. Krzysztof and Monika eventually marry, bringing to their marriage the baggage of their parents’ marriages, the marriages they have known.
The liberties of the film version of “The Jeweler’s Shop” do not, in the end, interfere with Wojtyła’s original storyline. The changes: Anna and Stefan escape World War II in Poland—in which Andrzej dies—by emigrating to Canada. They eventually sponsor Teresa and Krzysztof, where she carries on a profession as a pianist. Monika and Krzysztof are college-age: she an aspiring ballerina, he a college student.
The Jeweler, played by Burt Lancaster, symbolizes God. Fr. Adam, who is the first of the protagonists to be seen with the Jeweler, is clearly God’s representative. The young people—like the students Wojtyła used to take on hikes—fall in love, albeit with different motivations. Andrzej seeks someone who completes him. Stefan wants to impress Anna and would not necessarily have been bothered if she had slept with him. Andrzej grapples with the “crossroads” that the decision to marry Teresa involves; one gets the impression Stefan runs into or away from things most of his life. Watch how both men deal with women during the forest hike: Stefan ostentatiously “assists” them to descend a hill; Andrzej’s watchful eye is less focused on how she sees him than on what she needs.
I would highlight three scenes in the film: Andrzej’s proposal, Anna’s attempt to sell her wedding ring, and Krzysztof’s proposal.
Teresa and Andrzej walk the streets of Old Town Kraków when they both look at the rings in the Jeweler’s shop window. For a moment, their mutual gaze is reflected in the window along with the Jeweler looking at them—but only for a moment: God leaves room for our decision. Andrzej’s way of proposing marriage is unusual (but faithful to the text): “Will you be my life’s companion?” Before she answers, Teresa runs into an adjacent store, where she quickly buys white, high-heeled shoes. Upon returning to Andrzej, she makes clear that his question required her to “be as tall as you” to face the demands of a lifetime. But before she assents, she asks why he wants to marry her, and he makes clear that, while there were “many other choices,” grace made clear that this woman was she who completed him. Every word in that scene deserves reflection.
Much later, when Anna finds herself in a loveless marriage to Stefan, she tries to sell her ring. She takes it to a jeweler, who declines to buy it because he says it weighs nothing: “Your husband must be alive,” in which case neither ring without the other weighs anything, because they are not “the weight of metal, but the proper weight of man.” Shocked and perhaps angered, she rushes down the street, apparently ready to throw herself at any man who exhibits interest in her. A car trails her. The male driver invites her to “join him.” She reaches for the door handle, but, when she looks again, she sees not the man who flirted with her, but the face of Stefan, from which she recoils. Moments later, when she encounters Fr. Adam, he makes clear to her that “the Bridegroom could have no other face for you” and challenges her, despite her crushed faith, that love is not a moment, but a lifetime and can be rekindled.
Monika and Krzysztof labor under the heritage of their parents’ marriages. Krzysztof suffers from the lack of a male image at home and a mother whose fate was loneliness. Monika labors under the form of her parents’ loveless marriage. She initially repulses Krzysztof’s proposal, which—together with Anna’s encounter on the street—gets the elders talking. Krzysztof, while giving her space, also recognizes that life cannot be indeterminate: he proposes again, this time saying they should marry in Kraków, making clear that he will not leave her and that his having given her time shows he cares. But “time’s up.” “I want more,” says Monika—meaning more than what her parents have—but takes the risk of love and says, finally, “Yes.”
The play grapples with the fact that man is “poor,” with a limited life but a desire for love that lasts. For Wojtyła, the only way to resolve that paradox is to make a choice, to take a risk and, in freedom, pick love, which is what takes us to God. Because, as the Jeweler observes in the film’s final shot, as he closes the door of his shop (just as the Bridegroom calls time on the virgins), “the future depends on love.”

That Time John Paul II Wrote a Play

I recently stumbled upon a disturbing pro-abortion TikTok video. It was simply a photo with text over it stating: “When a mother during pregnancy knows that her child will be born with some malformation or incurable disease and still decides to have it, it is not an act of nobility, it is an act of selfishness.” If that wasn’t bad enough, the video had over one million likes with thousands of supportive comments. 
This reaction is no surprise, however, since many people in modern society assume that those with disabilities live unhappy lives filled with constant suffering. But is this assumption true?
In my response to the video, I discuss <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110224121911.htm">a study</a> of people with locked-in syndrome (LIS), which is a medical disability that leaves people paralyzed completely – except for movement in their eyes. In the study, researchers assessed the mental and emotional wellbeing of those with LIS. Although we might assume their lives are filled with suffering and sadness, most respondents (72%) reported being happy, and only a small percentage reported having suicidal thoughts.
So the assumption that those who live with NIL (and similar conditions) have miserable lives is not aligned with scientific findings. Not only this, but encouraging abortion to prevent these so-called “miserable” lives is nothing but closeted <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism">ableism</a>. In an age where discrimination is condemned widely and loudly, such beliefs should be firmly rejected. Nevertheless, because of our society’s rampant diminishment of the sanctity of life, many people do not think twice about supporting eugenics (disguised as mercy) for those with disabilities. It is up to us to recognize this disguise, and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-if-the-babys-going-to-die-anyway">expose it</a> with the charity and light of Christ.

When “Pro-Abortion” Is Just “Pro-Ableism”

One of the biggest “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill">red pills</a>” behind my conversion was realizing that the vast majority of Protestants (including myself) had virtually the same theology of history as the Latter-day Saints church (the Mormons), and we didn’t even realize it. I found the consequences of this to be extremely disturbing.
<a href="https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-restoration/the-great-apostasy?lang=eng">The LDS church teaches</a> that after the death of the last apostle, the authority of the priesthood and the keys was lost. As a result, Christians fell into deeper and deeper error, and the true faith was lost. They call this the “<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/in-search-of-the-great-apostasy">Great Apostasy</a>.”
Many Protestants—often prevented from realizing it by historical ignorance—believe basically the same thing. This was one of the most sobering conclusions I came to in my final days as a Protestant, and it helped lead to my conversion.
Here’s why.
To have any religion whatsoever, you must, at minimum, have three doctrines:
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">How you join the religion (initiation)</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">How the members of the religion govern themselves, who has authority, etc. (government)</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">How the religion worships whatever deity/deities it acknowledges</li>
</ol>
Without these three, it’s arguably impossible to claim you even have a religion.
On these three matters, the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/who-were-the-church-fathers">Church Fathers</a>—the Christian leaders of whom we have any record from the earliest days of the Church through roughly the first millennium—are UNANIMOUS.
They UNANIMOUSLY believed in:
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-necessity-of-baptism">baptismal regeneration</a> (how we become Christians),</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession">apostolic succession</a> (how the Church is governed), and</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-sacrifice-of-the-mass">the sacrifice of the Eucharist</a> (how Christians worship).</li>
</ol>
Giving as much credit as possible, Anglicans and (some) Lutherans are the two biggest sects who believe in items one AND two. However, even if we say ALL of them believed in both (which is not true), together, they constitute only about twenty percent of worldwide Protestantism.
All Protestants reject item three (some Anglicans and Lutherans will quibble with this, but that’s for another article).
Thus, the vast majority of Protestants reject all three of these fundamental Christian doctrines upon which the ancient Church was unanimous and which are absolutely essential to having a religion of any kind whatsoever.
That means the vast majority of Protestants (including myself at one time) must necessarily believe—whether they realize it or not—that from the very first generation after the apostles forward, all Christians got it wrong on how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how Christians worship. In other words, they must believe that Christians got the essence of their religion wrong, that it got worse and worse through time, and that this began right after the death of the last apostle, since every Church Father of which we have any record is squarely opposed to Protestantism on these three fundamental doctrines.
While these Protestants do not claim to believe this is what happened, this is nonetheless the necessary conclusion if their doctrines are true, making their theology of history virtually identical with that of the LDS Church.
This is absurd for various reasons, but here is where it gets very disturbing.
If this is true—that the fundamentals of Christianity were essentially lost from the first post-Apostolic generation, but have been available in one form or another for the 500 years since the Reformation—then this conclusion necessarily follows: what God in the flesh established in the first century was weaker than what men like Luther, Calvin, and others re-established in the sixteenth century.
I made the same objection to Mormon missionaries who visited me for several weeks. “If your religion is true,” I said, “then what Christ himself established was weaker than what Joseph Smith re-established.”
As disturbing as I found this conclusion about the nature of my own Protestantism, it was nonetheless true in light of the facts of history.
I realized I had been deceived by a religious system that had surreptitiously claimed to achieve something greater than even the apostles.
I explore this subject in greater detail in <a href="https://www.joshuatcharles.com/blog/2023/8/18/becoming-catholic-38-protestantisms-mormonism-problem">this article</a>.

The Protestant-Mormon Problem

Why do Christians worship on Sunday???

As a young Catholic journalist serving The Catholic Observer (Diocese of Springfield, Mass.), I reported on how Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre broke with the Church in 1988 by ordaining four new bishops for the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), including Bishop Richard Williamson, who was stationed in nearby Ridgefield, Connecticut, and whom I interviewed. Thirty-eight years later, the SSPX has gone into schism again <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-went-down-with-the-sspx">with four more illicit episcopal ordinations</a>.
The decision by the SSPX reminds me of something I wrote in 2004, when the Church had not yet lifted the excommunications. In the first version of my book on the biblical roots of the Mass—Worthy Is the Lamb (Ignatius Press)—I made an observation that might seem counterintuitive, given the apparent reverence with which SSPX priests offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass and with which their lay adherents assist them. However, given that the Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity (1 Cor. 10:15-17), and that Jesus established St. Peter and his papal successors <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/pentecost-and-the-papacy">as primatial leaders in maintaining the unity of his Catholic Church</a> (Matt. 16:18-19; see John 17:20-23), and because the Society has embraced schism anew in disobeying Pope Leo XIV, I hope and pray that SSPX clerics think twice when they seek to offer Mass and administer the other sacraments.
Eucharistic Prayer I of the Mass, historically known as the Roman Canon, presumes a valid consecration when it provides,
<blockquote>
In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God:
command that these gifts be borne 
by the hands of your holy Angel 
to your altar on high 
in the sight of your divine majesty, 
so that all of us, who through this participation at the altar 
receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son, 
may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing. 
(Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)
</blockquote>
In other words, as I wrote in 2004,
<blockquote>
one cannot presume that the Father will accept the sacrificial participation in his Son’s one offering of a particular priest and his congregation. In summary, the petition for the Father’s acceptance is no idle plea. The petition is not on behalf of Christ’s offering, which has already been accepted. The plea is for accepting our participation in that one offering, which cannot be taken for granted, similar to the way Old Covenant priests could not presume that their offerings would be automatically accepted by the Father (emphasis original).
</blockquote>
In a related footnote I commented on “priests who have recently and formally gone into schism,” namely, then as grievously now, SSPX priests:
<blockquote>
A Mass offered by such a schismatic priest, when done with full knowledge of the grave wrongdoing and with complete consent of the will, is a grave offense against unity (cf. CCC 1854-1861), for it is deliberately offered against the express directive of the pope (cf. Matt. 16:19), the earthly leader of Christ’s Church, and thus not in full communion with Christ and his Church (Worthy Is the Lamb, pp. 178-180).
</blockquote>
Thus, to reaffirm, formal schism and all it gravely entails, should be rejected.
<h3 style="font-weight: 400;">Infernal Chess Master: How the Devil Can Dupe Even the Most Pious Catholics</h3>
The overwhelming number of people who commit mortal sins are not excommunicated for their transgressions, and yet they are in grave need of repentance and absolution. In addition, it’s possible that one whom the Church excommunicates is not in mortal sin. But an excommunicant who thinks he is in a state of grace should think again, lest he also commit the grave sin of presumption (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 2092).
Further, as a friend once wisely said, the devil has something for everyone, ready to harness one’s strengths in such a way that he concludes he’s choosing to do good, when, in fact, he’s choosing moral evil. In that light, regarding members of the Society, Satan is more than happy to make major concessions to the truth, provided those who affirm those truths end up going into deliberate schism. Regrettably, SSPX leaders seem oblivious to their grave wrongdoing, deluding themselves into thinking that they are the true defenders of the Faith.
Instead, the SSPX argues that it upholds Apostolic Tradition (inclusive of papal primacy), except for decades—in actual practice—the Society has not been docile to the Christ-ordained primacy of several popes; and their latest schismatic ordinations have only gravely deepened the disconnect between what they profess and how they live the Faith. In fact, the Society has once again set up a parallel church.
A true emergency or “state of necessity” would entail a directive from the Holy See to commit actual sin, which would justify the Society’s disobedience. In marked contrast, the pope has simply asked SSPX members to remain obedient to the Successor of St. Peter—whose office Jesus has ordained and sustains—and so trust in our Lord’s words that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against his Church, even in the worst (real or perceived) circumstances (Matt. 16:18).
Consider also that, months before the ordinations, the superior general of the SSPX illustrated that a reconciliation with Rome was unlikely, when Fr. Davide Pagliarani <a href="https://fsspx.news/en/news/interview-superior-general-priestly-society-saint-pius-x-57064">called into question</a> the fidelity and ministry of non-SSPX priests across the world:
<blockquote>
It is sad to acknowledge, but it is a fact that, in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation. Missing, in particular, are both the integral preaching of Catholic truth and morality, and the worthy administration of the sacraments as the Church has always done. This deprivation is what constitutes the state of necessity. In this critical context, our bishops are growing older, and, as the apostolate continues to expand, they are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the faithful worldwide (emphasis added).
</blockquote>
In making such a statement, Fr. Pagliarani implies that Leo XIV—and the bishops and priests in full communion with him—should be seeking reconciliation with the SSPX, not vice versa. To be fair, Fr. Pagliarani is not calling into question the Church’s charism of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-constitutes-valid-consecration">indefectibility</a> outside the SSPX and other parishes that celebrate only the Tradition Latin Mass (TLM). Nor is he necessarily falling into the heresy of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/donatism">Donatism</a> (see CCC 1128). Still, he has deep contempt for the great majority of his brother priests outside the Society, basically saying that they are unwilling to communicate and defend the saving truths of the Faith, including in administering the sacraments to which Jesus has normatively bound salvation.
Are there priests, e.g., who will not convict—both in their homilies and in the confessional—their flock regarding sins against chastity, which tend to be the more popular mortal sins committed by the faithful? Yes, sadly, such priests exist. However, is that the type of priest Catholics normally encounter in their parish? No. As one who has closely observed the Church in America (and elsewhere) for more than forty years, I can happily say that Fr. Pagliarani is mistaken about ordinary parish priests in today’s Church, priests who preach the truth and, correspondingly, faithfully administer the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-go-to-confession">sacrament of confession</a> (and the other sacraments), whatever other problems their parishes may have. He seems to be basing his conviction on the worst of what he’s observed in certain Western countries.
In any event, Fr. Pagliarani and his SSPX confreres would do well to examine their own consciences.
<h3 style="font-weight: 400;">The Second Vatican Council Remains a Sticking Point, Even though Archbishop Lefebvre Approved All Sixteen Conciliar Documents </h3>
Despite Pope Benedict XVI’s lifting of the excommunications in 2009, the Society continued to refuse to recognize that the documents of the Second Vatican Council could be read with a hermeneutic of continuity with Apostolic Tradition (see CCC 75-79), not a rupture therefrom; and that refusal has long prevented the Society from being restored to full communion with the Church. As the SSPX states on its website, “The fact remains that the actual texts of Vatican II contradict the perennial teaching of the Church on the questions of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality.”
Ironically, SSPX founder Archbishop Lefebrvre, who participated in Vatican II, <a href="https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=857">signed not only the Declaration on Religious Liberty</a>, but <a href="https://www.ewtnnews.com/vatican/archbishop-lefebvre-signed-every-one-of-vatican-iis-documents">all sixteen of the Council’s documents</a>, including the Decree on Ecumenism, which teaches that “all should be fully incorporated [into the one Catholic Church] who belong in any way to the people of God” (no. 3), and also the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which unequivocally affirms papal primacy in addressing episcopal collegiality—and thus teaches that “the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter, as its head” (no. 22; see nos. 21; 25).
Here we see that Archbishop Lefebvre personally affirmed that the documents of Vatican II are in conformity with the deposit of faith (CCC 84), and that his later denunciations really had to do with the misrepresentation and misapplication of the Council’s teachings by post-conciliar dissidents.
There is no doubt that other leaders in the Church—clerical and lay alike—are themselves in grave need of repentance and discipline, and yet the reality of their wrongdoing can neither justify nor excuse the SSPX’s own grave disobedience. Let us pray for all concerned, that we may all be receptive to the transforming grace of our merciful Lord Jesus Christ, in whom all things are possible (Matt. 19:26).

Lamenting Anew the SSPX’s Grave Disobedience

<div>How should I go about evangelizing my atheist, homosexual friend back into the Catholic Church and to being heterosexual?</div><div>First off, be a true friend, sticking with your friend even if he does not come around quickly. Winning him back to Jesus Christ and his Church may take years, so realize you need to persevere as a friend and ask the Lord to help you do so. Never condone his morally problematic actions, but don’t abandon him either. Jesus never abandons a lost sheep (see John 10:1-21, Luke 15:3-7), although at the end of his life a person may reject Christ.
In the process, make sure you share the Faith in a charitable manner (see 1 Peter 3:15), and don’t always make that the focus of your discussions lest your friend pull away from you. There’s a maxim about the fraternal correction of adults that a priest friend of mine often shares and that is based on the wisdom of St. Thomas Aquinas: It should be done privately (so as not to embarrass), charitably (in emulation of Our Lord), and rarely (given that frequent correction will likely be counterproductive since you’re speaking to an adult and not a child).
Regarding the issues at hand, your goal should not necessarily be to persuade him to date women (or men, if your friend is a woman). It should be to help him live a chaste life, regardless of whether he ever dates or marries a woman. In that regard, we highly recommend Courage, a <a href="https://couragerc.org/">faithful Catholic apostolate</a> serving those dealing with same-sex attraction. Even if there is not a Courage chapter in your area, your friend could establish solidarity with Courage members from afar.
There may be a good counselor or others locally who can accompany your friend in his walk with the Lord. In addition, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/search?q=homosexuality">here are some online links to our free resources on homosexuality</a>. And here also are <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/search.php?search_query=homosexuality&amp;section=product">some resources for purchase.</a>
Regarding atheism, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/search?q=atheism">here are some links to our free resources on atheism</a>. And here also are <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/search.php?search_query=atheism&amp;section=product">some resources for purchase.</a>
</div>

Evangelizing an Atheist Homosexual Friend

If you found yourself face-to-face with what appeared to be an intelligent being from another planet, how should you respond as a Catholic?

Why is the Eucharist not only a meal but also a sacrifice?

I’m LDS but am starting to question the Great Apostacy. There doesn’t seem to be a strong historical basis for it. What is the historical evidence for the Catholic claim of apostolic succession?

My friend is an evangelical Protestant but he won’t consider Catholicism unless we give him answers about eschatology. He is a dispensationalist.

I don’t understand this distinction between hyperdulia and worship of Mary.

I saw this video “New Evidence for Early Popes” that talked about how in the early church history would be dated according to who was pope at the time. Is this a good argument for the papacy?

I grew up in the Southern Baptist church believing that baptism is just a symbol. I’m starting OCIA soon. It sounds like the Catholic Church is going to accept my baptism as valid. This doesn’t make sense to me because I believed it was just a symbol.

“How should Catholics respond to aliens?” This intriguing question opens a discussion on faith and the unknown, while also touching on the significance of the Eucharist as both a meal and a sacrifice. Other topics include the historical basis for apostolic succession and the distinction between hyperdulia and a worship of Mary, showcasing a diverse range of theological inquiries.
<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 Should Catholics Respond to Aliens? Eucharist and Mary

One Million Youths Gathered with The Pope

Are we getting Ruder?

Over 1 Million Young Catholics Gather for Pope Leo!
It&#8217;s another Flannel Panel, join Cy, Chris, and Joe as they talk about what&#8217;s going on in the world today!
<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>

Over 1 Million Young Catholics Gather for Pope Leo! | Flannel Panel

This year’s Solemnity of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption">the Immaculate Conception</a> was especially confusing. No, I am not referring to the widespread (?) misunderstanding that the day celebrates the conception of the infant Jesus. (I learned recently that some clergy are so afflicted.)
The confusion this year derives in part from the practice, since the liturgical reforms of Pope St. Paul VI, of transferring the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception when it falls on a Sunday <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/must-i-go-to-mass-on-monday">to the Monday immediately following</a>. In the 1962 missal, Sundays of Advent have pride of place, if you will, over feasts in the liturgical calendar, with one exception: the Immaculate Conception. It was not always thus. Trads (like me) may be surprised to learn that the practice of Immaculate Conception superseding any Sunday in Advent in the universal calendar is a twentieth-century liturgical innovation.
In the United States, however, we have a unique opportunity to resolve the confusion, and, more importantly, honor Our Lady. The Immaculate Conception is patroness of the United States. She has been since 1846. The USCCB should simply declare that her solemnity supersedes the Sunday of Advent on which it should it so fall and no matter in which rite. This act will give emphasis in our imaginations to her patronage and loving care of the faithful of the United States.
It will also clear up any confusion about whether assisting at holy Mass on this day is obliged or not. The American bishops agreed some time ago that when the solemnity fell on a Sunday in Advent and, consequently, observation was transferred to the Monday immediately following, the faithful’s obligation to assist at Monday’s Mass was dispensed. I’m going to say flat out: bad decision! But look, I see the unhappy fruit of bad decisions that I make on a quotidian basis. The grace is recognizing the miss and correcting it. Mary is our patroness, for goodness’ sake.
Oh, and while I’m on the topic, let’s just do away with the practice of dispensing or transferring any holy day of obligation—and I mean all ten. Yes, ten. Don’t believe me? Check out Canon 1246 of the 1983 Code. Epiphany, St. Joseph, Corpus Christi, and St. Peter and Paul are holy days of obligation. Think ten is a lot? That “progressive,” Pope Saint Pius X, reduced the number from thirty-six!
In fact, I’ve long held that Annunciation should be a Holy Day of Obligation. So, let’s turn it up to eleven!

Immaculate Conception or a Mass of Confusion?

Where do we see the Mass in Acts of the Apostles?

How do we defend the baptism of infants? My co-worker says you just need faith and it’s not necessary to baptize babies.

In Mark 12:30ff Jesus quotes the great shema. In Deuteronomy it says to love God with your whole heart, soul, and strength. Why does Mark add the word “mind” to that?

Why do some people feel reluctant to go to confession?

Is the papacy so tied to Rome that it could never be somewhere else? If Islam took over Europe could the pope be based somewhere else?

Why isn’t the book of Maccabees in the King James Bible? I’m trying to talk about the faith with my Seventh Day Adventist family members.

Mt 10:3 calls James son of Alpheus, and Mk 2:14-17 calls Levi the son of Alpheus. Could they be brothers?

My grown children think we are living in a simulation. How can I counter this?

You said the King James did not translate the deuterocan books. But I have two KJV Bibles that include the deuterocanonical books.

I’ve been getting along with my new coworkers because they are Christian. But today Mary came up and they really attacked Catholic teaching on Mary. What can I say to them?

&#8220;Where do we see the Mass in Acts of the Apostles?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the early Church&#8217;s practices, alongside topics like defending infant baptism against claims of its necessity, and the significance of Jesus&#8217; addition of &#8220;mind&#8221; in Mark 12:30. Other questions touch on the nature of confession and the papacy&#8217;s ties to Rome, showcasing a rich variety of theological inquiries.
<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>

Where Do We See the Mass in Acts? Baptism and Confession

Where did the Church Fathers get their copies of the Hebrew scriptures?

How do I best defend the Trinity against someone who calls it heresy specifically in regards to eternal subordination of the son?

Would the ghostbusters need ecclesiastical permission to do what they did in the movies?

Is it ever ok to lie from the Catholic perspective?

When did it become a custom for religious people to change their names?

Does Romans 4 (particularly Romans 4:5) conflict with Catholicism’s doctrines faith, works, and a love?

What is the church’s position on simulation theory?

&#8220;How do I defend the Trinity?&#8221; This question leads to a discussion on the eternal subordination of the Son and how to address claims of heresy. Additionally, the episode touches on where the Church Fathers sourced their Hebrew scriptures, the need for ecclesiastical permission in fictional scenarios, and the Catholic perspective on lying.
<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>