Manage Account

Today is February 29—that extra day in February that turns every fourth year into a leap year.
Why do we have a leap day? Well, that question comes back to why we have a year at all. The seasons, the day, and the year are the primordial units of time, mentioned as part of the structure of creation in Genesis 1:14.
The Genesis writer doesn’t reflect on how those units of time come about and recur. He takes their repetition as a divine gift.
But our faith is not blind, ignoring reason. Not only did man experience the recurrence of those fixed times, but he eventually also asked why they recurred.
That led to man looking at the heavens, “the work of [God’s] hands” (Ps. 8:3), “declaring the glory of God” (19:1-2) not only in their magnificence, but also in their workings and order. The day was not just the daily commute of Helios across the sky, nor the seasons just some eternal cycle . . . because the year saw those “cycles” repeat themselves through advancing time.
That idea of time’s advance, not just its eternal recycling, is necessary to any concept of history. Without it, “all the world’s a stage” on which all men and women are reincarnated players, or . . . well, “life is hard, and then you die.” The Christian (and Jewish) concept of time rules out re-incarnation (an eternal return). But it does make possible the Incarnation—not just of Christ, but of every man, given freedom and a gift of time, to create (or fail to create) a unique work of art called love.
Eventually, those Jews and Christians also got to the how of the days, seasons, and years. The day is the product of rotation. The year is the product of revolution of the earth around the sun, while the seasons are how a particular piece of geography stands in relation on its earthly axis to the sun. The earth’s revolution from point A back to point A was taken as 365 and one quarter days, so, voilà: a quarter of a day every year added up to an extra day every four.
Alas, the earth’s revolution is not quite 365.25 days—i.e., 365 days and 6 hours. It’s 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds—a little more than 11 minutes short of a quarter-day. That may not seem like much to man, whose life is “seventy years, or eighty for those who are strong” (Ps. 90:10), but over those seventy years, the calendar outruns the sun by about twelve hours—half a day.
Again, that might not seem like much. Julius Caesar started leap years in 45 B.C. By the time we get to Pope Gregory XIII, of Gregorian Calendar of 1582 fame, those 11 minutes per year had accumulated to 12.5 days. That meant the sun and the calendar were out of alignment by nearly two weeks, resulting in the sky saying “spring’ but the calendar “winter,” both facts relevant for <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-pope-vs-tradition">fixing Easter</a>. If you want proof of the problem, consider the dissonance between feasts like Easter and Christmas in the Catholic Church and those Orthodox churches (e.g., Russia’s) still clinging to the Julian Calendar, now about fifteen days out of solar alignment.
Pope Gregory XIII <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-day-the-church-altered-time">applied faith and reason</a> through a minor modification to the leap year rule. A leap year is any year evenly divisible by four. Gregory added a corollary: no centennial year can be a leap year unless it’s also divisible by 400. So 2000 was a leap year; 2100 will not be. That little trick will keep calendar and sun aligned for several thousand more years.
So faith, reason, and the calendar have a lot to do with leap year. But so does calendar “reform.”
As noted above, the day, seasons, and years are experienced as primordial units of time, connected to the sun, the “greater light to rule the day” (Gen. 1:16). The “week” is a bit less obvious. It more or less approximates half-phases of the moon, “the lesser light to govern the night.” But the week acquired its fixed dimensions in the Genesis 1 creation account as the unit of time marked by the recurrent “Lord’s Day” every seventh.
The year—365 or 366 days—is not evenly divisible by seven, one consequence of which is that dates are moveable in relation to days. February 28 was a Wednesday this year; it’ll be a Friday next year. That means calendars need to be changed annually. Afficionados of efficiency don’t like that.
There have been proposals to create something called a “perpetual calendar,” where particular dates would always fall on the same day. One version would start every quarter of the year (e.g., January, April, July, and October 1) on a Sunday, each quarter having ninety-one days. That gives 364 days. To keep day and date aligned, the 365th (and, every four years, 366th day) would be some sort of “universal” dates, days independent of the week. They would be dates, but they would not correspond to any week-days.
The “Appendix” to Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) declares a willingness to accept a perpetual calendar, provided two conditions are honored: retention of the seven-day week and no dates outside the seven-day week.
The history of the calendar has been marked by conscious attempts to eliminate the week, primarily out of animus toward its religious origins. That was the driving force in both the French Revolutionaries’ and Bolsheviks’ calendars. The question today is whether Christians, for whom the distinctiveness of the “Lord’s Day” has withered, can withstand any organized push against creating a more “efficient” calendar not arranged by “non-inclusive” vestiges of once-dominant religions. In that regard, the protection of the seven weekdays of a seven-day week is important. It’s why we should thank God it’s Thursday . . . February 29!

The Lowdown on Leap Years

<div>When did celibacy become a discipline of the church? My Syrian Orthodox friend says it was "invented in the Middle Ages" and not biblical.</div><div>Jesus Christ, the great high priest of heaven (see Heb. 8:1-3), lived celibacy as a man and recommended celibacy for those who would serve him in the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:10-12). In addition, St. Paul, one of the earliest apostles, also extolled the virtues of celibacy, both for those devoted to serving the kingdom like himself and for Christians in general (1 Cor. 7:6, 32-40). So far from being invented in the Middle Ages, Christ exhorted the practice of celibacy in serving the kingdom and the early Church accordingly preached and practiced it.
Celibacy has long been allowed as a tradition in the East, of which the Syrian Orthodox and other Orthodox Churches have their ecclesiastical roots, though with certain provisions (e.g., no marriage after ordination and no married bishops). However, the Church’s <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html">disciplinary actions at the ecumenical councils of Lateran I and Lateran II in the 1100s were reforming disciplines re: priestly celibacy, not innovative ones</a>.
For more on celibacy and the priesthood, see <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html">this historical overview posted on the Vatican website</a>, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/celibacy-and-the-priesthood">our Catholic Answers tract</a> and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-argue-for-priestly-celibacy">this article by Jason Evert</a>.
</div>

Was Priestly Celibacy “Invented in the Middle Ages?”

<div>Can the Annunciation be moved to a permanent date out of the shadow of Divine Mercy Sunday?</div><div>The date of the Feast of the Annunciation is March 25. In 2018 March 25 was Palm Sunday and then Holy Week, and the Octave of Easter took precedence over the feast, and so it was moved to April 9.
You might also recall that the feast was moved in 2016 because Good Friday fell on March 25.
While this happens occasionally, the feast usually is able to remain on March 25. Over the next twelve years the feast will need to be moved only three times (in 2024, 2027, and 2029).
In the Latin Church, it has been almost always and universally celebrated on March 25, with evidence going back the seventh century.
</div>

On What Date Do We Celebrate the Annunciation?

Maybe you&#8217;ve heard the claims that Christmas is on December 25th because of some pagan festival: either Saturanlia, or Sol Invictus, or the birthday of Mithras, or some such. But is that really true? Joe unpacks the lies and falsehood spread by the &#8220;Living Church of God&#8221; in their video &#8220;Christmas Is Pagan—Here&#8217;s Why It Matters &amp; What You Should Do About It.&#8221;

Christmas Is Pagan Rebutted

In this thought-provoking clip, Cy Kellett engages with Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin as they tackle a challenging question about the morality of sacrificing a child to God, drawing parallels to the story of Abraham. Jimmy skillfully navigates the complexities of this inquiry, highlighting the horror of such an act while encouraging deeper reflection on the nature of faith and morality. Join them as they explore this sensitive topic with clarity and insight.
Transcript:
Cy: Should I kill my child as a sacrifice to God? If God will ask me to do that, like he asked Abraham. This is a question I once got from an atheist, and I never found a good answer.
Jimmy: So there are a number of ways we could approach this question, and it&#8217;s basically being used. It&#8217;s probably not a sincere question coming from the atheist. It&#8217;s probably being used as an attack on Christianity and Judaism.
And one way of dealing with it, which is not actually the answer I&#8217;m going to propose, but one way of dealing with it would be to turn the situation around on the atheist. This could be useful for purposes of helping the atheist think a little more broadly, because the idea of killing your child is utterly horrific to us.
And frankly, it would have been utterly horrific to Jewish people in the Old Testament too. So that&#8217;s really what&#8217;s given this objection its force: the intuition that we have today that killing a child, especially your own, is utterly horrific. And I&#8217;m not saying it&#8217;s not. It is.
But it could be useful to help the atheist think a little more broadly. By saying so, can you imagine any situations where you might undertake action that would lead to the death of your child?
Let&#8217;s suppose that your child has a horrible, incurable, lingering disease that is causing your child to have enormous pain. Well, there are various people today, and actually I oppose these people, but there are people today who would say if this child is in just enormous unending agony, then they should be put out of their misery.
And there would be people who would advocate euthanasia for such a child. Those people tend to be common, or at least more common among atheists. So I think it could be helpful to say to the atheist, you know, could you imagine euthanasia in that kind of situation?
Now, I believe euthanasia is immoral, but the atheist may not. And that may help open the atheist&#8217;s eyes. What would not be immoral in my view is palliative care, where you give pain-relieving drugs to the child, even knowing that taking those pain-relieving drugs may hasten their death.
But you&#8217;re not actively trying to kill them; you&#8217;re trying to relieve their pain. The same thing applies at the other end of life with older people. They can take pain-relieving drugs even though it may hasten their death, as long as they&#8217;re not directly causing the death. What you&#8217;re trying to do is just relieve the person&#8217;s pain.
So palliative care is different than euthanasia, but with euthanasia, there are many atheists who don&#8217;t have a problem with it. And so you can then say, well, okay, so what if it turns out that God is real and your child is in this circumstance, and God tells you, &#8220;Hey, your child is in enormous pain and is going to remain in enormous pain. You should just go ahead and use euthanasia.&#8221; Would you obey God then?
A lot of atheists at that point might say, yeah, if God really spoke to me and told me that this is the best thing for my child, I would do it. I&#8217;d be surprised to get a phone call from God like that. But, you know, if this were the circumstance, I could see doing this.
Okay, now that&#8217;s not how I would approach the situation, but this could help open the mind of the atheist to thinking about this a little more broadly instead of just leaping to condemn Judaism and Christianity.
So now let me step back and answer the question from a Jewish Christian perspective. There have been two general approaches to answering this type of question, and it doesn&#8217;t just apply to this; it applies to other things too.
But the two positions are divided based on the question: Is taking innocent human life an intrinsic evil, meaning it&#8217;s always wrong? One school of thought, represented for example by St. Thomas Aquinas, says no, taking innocent human life is not always wrong.
All life is a gift from God, so it&#8217;s up to God to determine how much of that gift we receive. It&#8217;s also up to him to determine the circumstances by which life ends. So if God tells us in a particular case to take life, it&#8217;s legitimate to do that.
He&#8217;s just saying, okay, this person&#8217;s got this much of the gift; now&#8217;s their time to die. I&#8217;ve chosen you to be the means through which they die. So go ahead and kill this innocent person.
That&#8217;s how Aquinas and various other thinkers in Christian history would look at the sacrifice of Isaac. They would say that God really did tell Abraham to do this. It wasn&#8217;t ultimately God&#8217;s will that he go through with it, but it was morally legitimate for Abraham to receive this instruction from God and act on the assumption that he is going to go through with it.
Now, the author of the Book of Hebrews notes that, because he didn&#8217;t say this explicitly, but he notes that in this event, he says Abraham considered God able to raise the dead. That&#8217;s presumably based on the inference that God had promised that Abraham&#8217;s seed would be reckoned through Isaac, and Isaac hadn&#8217;t had any kids yet.
So if God&#8217;s gonna fulfill his promise to Abraham and Abraham kills Isaac under God&#8217;s instruction, well, then God must be gonna raise Isaac from the dead, so he&#8217;s not gonna be permanently dead. He&#8217;ll be able to continue to go on and have descendants through which Abraham&#8217;s line will be reckoned.
So that also changes the moral complexity of the situation, if that&#8217;s the kind of thing that Abraham was envisioning.
So that&#8217;s school number one of how to approach this: that taking innocent life is not always wrong. If God really tells you that he&#8217;s determined that the person is to receive this much of the gift of life and so forth, the other school would say no, taking an innocent human life is always wrong.
Therefore, this passage is not to be taken in the straightforward historical way that the first school takes it. Instead, it&#8217;s teaching us a lesson.
So what lesson? One or more lessons? What lessons would this story be teaching us? Well, number one, it&#8217;s teaching us that God was willing. I&#8217;m sorry, that Abraham was willing to be very faithful to God, even at personal cost. Okay, that&#8217;s a good thing.
But what else is it teaching us? That God does not want child sacrifice? Because there were ancient Near Easterners who, like, burned their children to Moloch and so forth. They were even doing that in. Even though it would be horrifying to many Israelites, there were some that actually did it.
There was a place in the Valley of Hinnom, right next to the temple in Jerusalem called the Tophet. At the Tophet, they would do child sacrifice. Because there was this presence in Israel at the time of child sacrificers, a clear message needed to be sent that this is not what God wants.
So how can you convey that message? Well, one way would be taking the patriarch of all of us, Abraham, and showing him in a situation where God rejects this. That&#8217;s the actual interpretation that I would take of the passage. I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s meant as a straightforward historical account.
I think it&#8217;s meant to teach us that faithfulness is good, but don&#8217;t let that turn into child sacrifice. God will provide something else.
Cy: Marcin, thank you very much. I hope that that was a helpful answer to you. I do appreciate the question. Lots more questions to get to.

What If God Asked You to Kill Your Child?

What are we supposed to confess at First Confession?

What is the standard to know if Catholic Doctrine has changed versus developed?

Why can’t I receive Communion unless I’m in a state of grace?

Why is it okay for Catholics to only receive the bread versus both species?

Could the Creation of Eve be considered the first miracle?

Why do we cling to certain Biblical teachings and stray from others?

What’s the difference between change and development in Catholic teaching? Karlo Broussard explains how the Church maintains continuity and answers more on First Confession, receiving Communion, and the first miracle of creation.
Want more free exclusive content? <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">JOIN THE CA LIVE CLUB NEWSLETTER </a>

How Do We Know If Catholic Doctrine Has Changed or Developed?

Is Sola Scriptura Self Refuting?

Why do Catholics believe they need the eucharist to be saved?

How are the gentiles in Romans 2 saved?

If the bible says drinking blood is a sin, then why is drinking the blood of Jesus not a sin?

&#8220;Is Sola Scriptura self-refuting?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the foundations of Scripture&#8217;s authority, while also addressing why Catholics believe the Eucharist is essential for salvation. Additional topics include the salvation of Gentiles in Romans 2 and the theological implications of drinking the blood of Jesus despite biblical prohibitions.
<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>

Is Sola Scriptura Self-Refuting? Eucharist and Salvation

In Matthew&#8217;s Gospel, Jesus seems to soften his usual crystal-clear teaching against divorce. But what is he saying? Is he saying that adultery is an exception that allows for divorce? Karlo Broussard tackles this tough question.

Did Jesus Allow Some Divorce?

Karlo Broussard discusses the ideas that theologians throughout history have proposed about whether Purgatory is a physical place.

Where Is Purgatory?

<div>Are Eastern Orthodox canonizations valid? Like the Romanov royal family, for example?</div><div>There are several saints in the offical Roman rite martyrology published under St. John Paul II who lived after the Great Schism of East and West—for example, Sts. Boris and Gleb and St. Sergius of Radonezh in Russia. Some of the Byzantine rite usages, for example, venerate St. Gregory Palamas, whose office is in an appendix in the office book published for Greek Catholics in Italy. So the simple answer is yes, the Catholic Church would generally accept the veneration of Orthodox saints in the case where there is a reconciliation of the communities. This seems to be the case with St. Seraphim of Sarov for Russian Catholics under St. Pius X.
A lot of this is just a question of local custom. This does not mean the Catholic Church would approve of all the actions or teaching of these saints, any more than it does for its own officially canonized saints. It is clear, however, that this attitude is not reciprocated by the Orthodox for Catholic saints. An example of this is the patriarch of Constantinople&#8217;s Orthodox canonization of St. Stephen of Hungary just a few years ago; St. Stephen was canonized already in the twelfth century!
</div>

Are Eastern Orthodox Canonizations Valid?

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

Should Christians avoid AI / ChatGPT?

Late last year, the <a href="https://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/mission/ambassadors-for-christ/">Archdiocese of Southwark</a> (pronounced SUTH-irk) in southern London announced the <a href="https://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/mission/ambassadors-for-christ/">Ambassadors for Christ</a> apologetics program for 2026. Delighted to find a fellow laborer in the apologetics vineyard, Catholic Answers reached out with some questions, which the archbishop graciously agreed to answer.
Apologetics—explaining and defending the Catholic faith—succeeds best when clergy and laity bring their respective strengths to the endeavor. With gratitude to His Excellency for his time and his thoughtful answers, we provide our interview with Archbishop John Wilson below.

This Diocese Cracked the Code on Conversions

<div>Does the church teach that someone who left the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church can still go to heaven? </div><div>That depends on whether they die in a state of grace or not. Leaving the Catholic Church is certainly grave matter, but, to be subjectively guilty of mortal sin, a person needs to have committed grave wrongdoing with full knowledge and complete consent (CCC 1857-59).
And to not be saved, a person needs to persevere in that state of mortal sin until death, which may not be completely manifest when they die. Ultimately, God judges souls. And we pray for their reconciliation in the interim. See also CC 846-48.
</div>

Can Catholic Who Joined Orthodox Church Be Saved?

Is asking saints for prayers divination?

Who is Melchizedek, the mysterious figure mentioned in the Bible? In this excerpt from Catholic Answers Live, Joe Heschmeyer explores the significance of Melchizedek in both the Old and New Testaments. He discusses Melchizedek&#8217;s unique priesthood, his connection to Jesus Christ, and the symbolism surrounding his encounters with Abraham.
Transcript:
I came in this church about four years ago and in some passages in the Bible, for example, the 110 Psalm, there&#8217;s a phrase in there and I&#8217;ve seen it in a few other places in the Bible that says, &#8220;Was a priest like Macalzadek of old?&#8221;
And I&#8217;m wondering, who was Macalzadek and why is he being referenced in the Bible and scriptures?
Oh, thank you, Ken. I love that question, Ken. And first of all, welcome home. I get to call you a little brother in the faith because Evelyn, you&#8217;re a four-year-old. So it&#8217;s good to be here. Welcome home, little brother. Yeah.
Second, if you want a good&#8230; The first time&#8230;
Hey, let me start by saying this. Melchizedek is super mysterious and that&#8217;s one of the reasons the biblical authors are drawn to him. You&#8217;ve got Genesis 14. Abraham, then Abraham is doing his thing and he&#8217;s fighting rival kings and he wins a battle. And then we&#8217;re told that Melchizedek, the king of Salem, now Salem means peace, brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High. So he&#8217;s not a pagan priest. He&#8217;s a true priest of the God of Abraham.
He&#8217;s described as both a priest and a king. He&#8217;s the king of peace.
And then he blesses Abraham and says, &#8220;Blessed be Abraham by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth, and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand.&#8221;
And so this is already pretty strange. What is he doing blessing Abraham or Abraham? And then Abraham ties to him a tenth of everything he has.
And so that&#8217;s the starting point. That&#8217;s how we&#8217;re introduced to Melchizedek.
And then in the Psalms, we&#8217;re promised that the Messiah is going to be a priest like Melchizedek of old. What does it mean to say a priest like Melchizedek of old? The Jewish priesthood hadn&#8217;t been inaugurated yet. The Jewish priesthood is of the line of Aaron and it was a blood lineage. If your father was a priest, you were a priest under the Levitical tribe, the sons of Aaron.
In the case of the Messiah, he&#8217;s not going to be like that. He&#8217;s going to be like Melchizedek where he is a priest, but he doesn&#8217;t have his priesthood from an earthly authority like this blood lineage from Aaron. He&#8217;ll be a priest like Melchizedek of old. And Jesus has this. He is not one of the sons of Levi in terms of the genealogy we&#8217;re presented in the Bible.
He is a priest like Melchizedek of old. And so it&#8217;s not an earthly priesthood. It&#8217;s a heavenly one. And so Hebrews 7 talks about this specifically and points out how weird these different features are. And that Levi is actually a descendant of Abraham. So the fact that Abraham, the ancestor and forerunner of Levi, the founders of the Levitical priesthood, or the Levites from which the Levitical priesthood comes, the fact that he is tithing to Melchizedek shows that Melchizedek is superior to Abraham.
The greater blesses the lesser. So the fact that Melchizedek is blessing Abraham shows he is Abraham superior in some sense. The fact that Abraham is tithing to him shows the same thing.
And so whoever this mysterious figure is without a genealogy, without a lineage, without, I mean, all we&#8217;re told is he&#8217;s king of peace. He has no lineage. There&#8217;s something extremely Christ-like in this presentation of Melchizedek. And this is something that, again, I would point you to Hebrews 5, 6, and 7, especially Hebrews 7, focuses on this a lot, that this is fulfilled in Christ, that all of this is ultimately pointing to Jesus, who is the true king of priests, the true king of peace and our high priest, and the one to whom Abraham himself worships as God.
Hey, thanks for watching. If you like this Catholic answer, be sure to like, subscribe, and check out our live streams Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 p.m. Pacific, or find the episode after on YouTube, your favorite podcast platform, or our Catholic Answers app.

Who Was Melchizedek?

<div>What is the Church’s official stance on the reported Marian apparitions in Medjugorje?</div><div>In a <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240919_nota-esperienza-medjugorje_en.html">September 19, 2024 note</a>, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-primer-on-medjugorje">approved the &#8220;spiritual experience connected with Medjugorje&#8221;</a> as a place of pilgrimage, while declining to make a judgment about the supernatural character of the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/twelve-things-to-know-about-private-revelations">alleged private revelations</a> associated with the shrine:
<blockquote>The uniqueness of the place lies in the large number of such fruits: abundant conversions, a frequent return to the sacraments (particularly, the Eucharist and Reconciliation), many vocations to priestly, religious, and married life, a deepening of the life of faith, a more intense practice of prayer, many reconciliations between spouses, and the renewal of marriage and family life. It should be noted that such experiences occur above all in the context of pilgrimages to the places associated with the original events rather than in meetings with the “visionaries” to be present for the alleged apparitions (3, emphasis added). . . .
While this does not imply a declaration of the supernatural character of the phenomenon in question (cf. <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240517_norme-fenomeni-soprannaturali_en.html">Norms</a>, art. 22, §2)—and recalling that the faithful are not obliged to believe in it—the Nihil obstat indicates that the faithful can receive a positive encouragement for their Christian life through this spiritual proposal, and it authorizes public acts of devotion. Such a determination is possible insofar as many positive fruits have been noted in the midst of a spiritual experience, while negative and dangerous effects have not spread among the People of God (38). . . .
In any case, may the people who go to Medjugorje be strongly advised that pilgrimages are not made to meet with alleged visionaries but to have an encounter with Mary, the Queen of Peace, and—faithful to her love for her Son—to encounter Christ and listen to him through meditation on the Word, by participation in the Eucharist, and in Eucharistic Adoration, as happens in so many shrines spread all over the world in which the Virgin Mary is venerated with the most varied titles (41).</blockquote>
<div>The DDF has authorized the publication of the messages associated with the reported apparitions at Medjugorje, granting a nihil obstat—which means that nothing in them is contrary to Church doctrine on faith and morals (39). At the same time, in the same paragraph, the DDF adds, &#8220;The special Apostolic Visitor for the parish of Medjugorje, who will continue to carry out the functions entrusted to him, should verify that this Note is included as an Introduction in any publication that collects the messages (emphasis added). <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240919_nota-esperienza-medjugorje_en.html">In other words</a>, to reaffirm, &#8220;the positive fruits linked to this spiritual experience are evident&#8221; (5). &#8220;Moreover, the positive assessment that most of the messages of Medjugorje are edifying does not imply a declaration that they have a direct supernatural origin. Consequently, when referring to &#8216;messages&#8217; from Our Lady, one should always bear in mind that they are &#8216;alleged messages&#8217;” (38).</div>
Here is a chronology of the events.
In June 1981, the Blessed Mother reportedly began appearing regularly to several children in the town of Medjugorje, which is located in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, then part of Yugoslavia. (The diocese is now part of the nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.)
In 1985, Mostar-Duvno’s bishop Pavao Zanic determined that the apparitions <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/bishop-pavo-zanics-orders-3916">were not authentic</a>, i.e., not of supernatural origin.
In 1991, the bishops’ conference of Yugoslavia ruled that the supernatural character of the reported apparitions could not be affirmed. This is different than a definitive declaration that there is no supernatural character.
Bishop Zanic maintained his position until his retirement in July 1993, when <a href="https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bperic.html">Bishop Ratko Peric succeeded him</a>. Throughout his tenure in Mostar, which lasted until July 2020, Bishop Peric <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/35544/local-bishop-the-madonna-has-not-appeared-in-medjugorje">consistently reaffirmed</a> the decision of his predecessor.
Bishop <a href="https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpalicp.html">Petar Palic</a> is the current Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, and he has not overturned his predecessors’ decisions.
The Holy See, consistent with the rulings of the local bishops, has allowed pilgrimages to Medjugorje—and <a title="Original URL: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-05/pope-authorizes-pilgrimages-to-medjugorje.html. Click or tap if you trust this link." href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vaticannews.va%2Fen%2Fpope%2Fnews%2F2019-05%2Fpope-authorizes-pilgrimages-to-medjugorje.html&amp;data=05%7C01%7Capologist%40catholic.com%7C39bf46e6fa2b44fa6fc308dbc90eaa2a%7Cdd9faf74765b495cac09cabd182c95a7%7C0%7C0%7C638324837042670895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=AoTh0CGQClr9KrWF0beZ%2BxFHjXeiUy5JOpX1mFO1xGs%3D&amp;reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="Verified" data-linkindex="0">in May 2019 Pope Francis formally authorized them</a>—provided they don’t present the reported apparitions as approved by the Church. The Holy See has also forbidden the faithful from participating in events where the reported seers present their reported apparitions as of supernatural origin (see <a title="Original URL: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/14-things-to-know-and-share-about-the-new-letter-on-medjugorje. Click or tap if you trust this link." href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncregister.com%2Fblog%2Fjimmy-akin%2F14-things-to-know-and-share-about-the-new-letter-on-medjugorje&amp;data=05%7C01%7Capologist%40catholic.com%7C39bf46e6fa2b44fa6fc308dbc90eaa2a%7Cdd9faf74765b495cac09cabd182c95a7%7C0%7C0%7C638324837042670895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=E3a%2BfgwtSIFkKmkBloReBoB2g4XIL1icHUBr%2F195dfI%3D&amp;reserved=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="Verified" data-linkindex="1">this</a> for more information).
Finally, to reaffirm the <a href="https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20240919_nota-esperienza-medjugorje_en.html">September 2024 decision</a> by the DDF, those who have experienced a conversion—or deepening of faith—associated with pilgrimage(s) to Medjugorje should know that the validity of their experiences does not hinge upon whether the reported apparitions are declared of supernatural origin. Indeed, the sacraments are valid at Medjugorje, and the Blessed Mother can—and does—fruitfully intercede for those who seek her sincerely, wherever that may be.
</div>

The Church’s Current Position on Medjugorje

How can we reconcile Jesus saying that the Sabbath was made for man and the punishment of death for not recognizing the sabbath in the Old Testament?

How can I defend the Church that was Instituted by Jesus Christ, especially on the topic of saints and Mary?

Is St. Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam Papal bull statement infallible? If not, is there any dispute?

How do we know that Mary’s motherhood expands to the rest of us in the wake of Mary being given over to John at the foot of the cross?

I’m Protestant. How do Catholics reconcile Mt 6:7-11 and the repetitious prayers specifically the Our Father?

How do we respond to Orthodox rejection of the Filioque?

Would it be scandalous for me to attend the ordination of a married couple as priests in the Episcopalian church?

What advice would you offer me as someone who is in a mixed faith marriage?

Protestants often point to Matthew 6:7-11 to argue against repeated prayers—so how can Catholics reconcile this with prayers like the Rosary or the Our Father? Jimmy Akin explores this concern along with Catholic teaching on saints, Mary’s spiritual motherhood, and mixed-faith marriages.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

How Do Catholics Justify Repetitious Prayer Like the Our Father?

In this episode, Trent examines a recent survey of over 800 atheists about why they lost their faith and gives some tips for how to have productive conversations with young people who have serious doubts.

Why Kids Become Atheists

When we receive the Eucharist, are we receiving the whole of Jesus or just part of his flesh?

What is the proper Catholic view of speaking in tongues, St. Paul and Augustine seem to differ in their teaching?

Why in Catholic devotional prayer is Mary petitioned as the one that will crush the head of the serpent?

How does the Church determine the time to canonize

How does the Thomistic position of the treaties of Faith relate to the Thomistic view of the Magisterium?

&#8220;When we receive the Eucharist, are we receiving the whole of Jesus or just part of his flesh?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the nature of the Eucharist, alongside inquiries about the Catholic perspective on speaking in tongues, the role of Mary in devotional prayer, and the process of canonization in the Church.
<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>

When We Receive the Eucharist, Are We Receiving Jesus Completely?

Do Catholics believe you have to earn Heaven? #indulgences

In this episode Trent talks about three mistakes apologists, or anyone who shares the faith, can make if they’re not careful.

The 3 “Apologetic Traps”

<div class="page" title="Page 371">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 361
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
&#8220;Why shouldn’t people of the same sex be allowed to marry one another?&#8221;
DEFENSE
It’s not so much a question of what should be allowed as of what is possible. Marriage involves a reality that can only exist between a man and a woman.
Marriage is a union of a man and a woman that is oriented toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring (CCC 1601). No other kind of union is a marriage.
Since before recorded history, men and women have united to care for each other and to bring up children. That happens in every culture, no matter where in the world. In fact, a culture would die without those unions of men and women. Marriage is thus a human universal, an institution that is built into human nature.
People of the same sex cannot marry one another because any union between them would not have the reality that marriage possesses.
This is particularly obvious when it comes to procreation. Two men or two women cannot procreate. For new children to be brought into the world, biology requires the union of a man and a woman.
But procreation is not the only issue. Men and women are different in ways that go beyond reproduction. Both physically and psychologically, they complement and complete one another in a manner that two people of the same sex do not.
These differences also play an important role in raising children. By setting examples of true fatherhood and motherhood, a husband and wife provide the kind of environment that helps children grow and develop properly.
Even apart from procreation and raising children—as in the case of marriages that do not result in children due to infertility—the physical and psychological differences between men and women enable them to unite and thrive in a way two people of the same sex cannot.
In all these cases, and especially in the case of procreation, it is clear from nature that men and women are designed to be united with each other in a way two men or two women are not. For this reason, same-sex unions do not possess the reality of marriage, and it is simply playing games with words to call them marriages when they lack that reality.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Homosexual Unions Not Marriages

In this free-for-all-Friday, Trent reveals a new way to watch your old favorites.

FFAF: The “Black and White Hack” for Modern Films

Sociologist Mark Regnerus became a controversial figure with his study of the children of gay parents. Today he studies Christian marriage. We discuss his research into marriage and modern sexual habits.

Social Science and Modern Sex (Part Two)

Have you heard of the different pills? Red pill? Blue pill? Black pill? White pill?

Is Mary a saint and if so, is she higher than other saints?

Is there any evidence that would suggest Mary’s parents were visited by an angel informing them that she would be born without sin and would be the mother of the savior?

How do I respond to my protestant friend who says all she needs is God and Mary is not important to Christian Faith?

How old was Mary when she conceived Jesus?

At the annunciation it was just the Angel Gabriel and Mary, is there any witnesses or way to vouch for the event being true?

Why does the Church teach that some things are symbolic about Mary?

&#8220;How Old Was Mary When She conceived Jesus?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on her significance within the Catholic faith, addressing whether she holds a higher status than other saints. The conversation also touches on the nature of Marian prayers and how to respond to those who downplay her importance in Christianity.
<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 Old Was Mary When She conceived Jesus? Mary Questions

Did Jesus Fulfill the Prophecy of the Messiah?

When Jesus came before Pilate, why didn’t Pilate try to gather any kind of evidence?

What is Jesus’ last name?

How would you convince a Buddhist to become Catholic?

Was Nestorius wrongly condemned at the counsel of Ephesus? Why were Chalcedonians accused of sounding Nestorian?

When is the Church infallible and when is she not?

If Jesus was a Jew, why are we not all Jewish?

What is the Gospel of Thomas, who wrote it, and why is it considered an apocryphal book?

Who was the human author of Genesis? Was it first an oral tradition that was written down later?

Last week I thought I heard on this show that when Christ was crucified he set aside his divinity so he could fully experience the pain and suffering of sin. That sounds off to me, is that right?

I am converting from a Jewish background. I’d like to share resources to the previous caller about being a Jewish Catholic.

&#8220;Did Jesus fulfill the prophecy of the Messiah?&#8221; This question opens a discussion that also touches on why Pilate didn’t gather evidence during Jesus&#8217; trial, the nature of Jesus&#8217; last name, and the Church&#8217;s infallibility. The conversation navigates through various theological inquiries, providing clarity 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>

Did Jesus Fulfill the Messiah Prophecy? Pilate, Infalibility

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

Baptism and Imputed Grace

Tips for Street Evangelization

In recent years, people have been discussing the legitimacy of Pope Francis&#8217;s papacy. Patrick Coffin, former host of Catholic Answers Live, released a video presenting an argument that suggests Pope Francis is an antipope. Cy sits down with Joe Heschmeyer to evaluate Patrick&#8217;s main points.

A Response to Patrick Coffin’s “Seven Pieces of Evidence That Francis Is an Antipope”

“Theism is Irrational” (Rationality Rules REBUTTED)

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent takes you back to 1986 and the mildly amusing gigantic failures of that year.

FFAF: 1986’s Balloon and Handholding Record Failures

What are the key tips to keeping a young person in the faith?

What would be the best strategy to catechize high schoolers without resorting to it being a bible study?

How do I navigate keeping my youth in the faith in a split faith household?

Struggling with dating when few commit to marriage

I’m protestant and my fiance grew up Catholic. He’s wanting to go back to Catholicism. I want to follow him into the Church because I’m being persuaded. How do I know Catholicism is the way?

I am a professor teaching nursing students. How do I keep them Catholic?

&#8220;How to keep young people in the faith?&#8221; This episode explores essential tips for nurturing faith in youth, along with strategies for catechizing high schoolers beyond traditional Bible studies. We also address challenges like maintaining faith in split households and navigating relationships when commitment seems scarce. Tune in for a thoughtful discussion on these pressing topics.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

How To Keep Young People in The Faith! AMA w/ Fr. Mike Schmitz

In this episode Trent refutes five cases of Popes who allegedly denied the papacy.
<a href="https://shop.catholic.com/pope-peter-defending-the-churchs-most-distinctive-doctrine-in-a-time-of-crisis/">Pope Peter: Defending the Church&#8217;s Most Distinctive Doctrine in a Time of Crisis</a>
Transcription:
Trent:
The papacy is Catholicism&#8217;s most distinctive doctrine, but some critics say that even some popes have denied that Christ gave us a church whose visible head is the successor of St. Peter. So in today&#8217;s episode, we&#8217;ll debunk five pieces of fake news when it comes to the idea that a pope said nope to the papacy. But before we do that, I hope you&#8217;ll say yes to hitting the subscribe button and visiting us at trenthornpodcast.com to help us keep creating great content and keeping it sponsor free. So let&#8217;s start with number one. Pope Leo IV says, the rock is Christ not Peter. Back in May I saw this article from Anglican Inc. Saying, Pope Leo IV drops papal supremacy urging full communion with all Christians. Of course, Catholics want everyone to belong to Christ one Holy Catholic and apostolic church, so of course we want full communion with all Christians, but Pope Leo did not deny the Catholic church&#8217;s divine authority.
The article quotes the Pope saying in his inaugural homily, the rock is Christ. And then says that this is a significant departure from conventional Catholic interpretation which identifies Peter as the rock on which Jesus built the church. But this article assumes that Pope Leo is saying the rock in Matthew 16 upon which the church is built is Christ rather than Peter, but in the Pope&#8217;s homily, it&#8217;s clear he was talking about another scripture passage. Pope Leo said, the apostle Peter himself tells us that Jesus quote is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders and has become the cornerstone Acts four 11. Moreover, if the rock is Christ, Peter must shepherd the flock without ever yielding to the temptation to be an autocrat lording it over those entrusted to him. Catholics don&#8217;t think that Peter is the only rock or the only foundation of the church.
Scripture itself uses multiple metaphors to describe the church&#8217;s foundation. Ephesians two 20 describes the household of God built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone. Many symbols in scripture can have more than one meaning including the rock of Matthew 16. The catechism says Move by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father. We believe in Jesus and confess you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter Christ built his church. The rock of Matthew 16 can be seen as Peter&#8217;s confession of faith, but this is connected to Peter himself who was blessed by God with this revelation. That&#8217;s why the catechism also says because of the faith he confessed, Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
Saying the rock of Matthew 16 can be other things. Besides Peter does not refute the ancient teaching that Peter himself is also truly the rock upon which the church is built. Protestant scholar DA Carson writes, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would&#8217;ve taken rock to be anything or anyone other than Peter. Number two, Pope Francis believes in Sola scriptura shortly before he passed away. Pope Francis posted the following on his English language X account in the midst of the confusion and vanity of human words, we need the word of God. Scripture is the only true compass for our journey and it alone is capable of leading us back to the true meaning of life. Amid so much woundedness and confusion, many Protestants later said that Pope Francis even inadvertently adopted Solas scriptura here in saying that scripture is our only guide to truth, but there&#8217;s two problems.
First, this was probably a translation error. The Pope&#8217;s archived Italian and Spanish language accounts, for example, do not include the words scripture in this post, the Italian account says we need the word of God, the only one that is a compass for our journey. And the Spanish account says we need the word of God, the only one that serves as a compass for our journey. The second problem is that contrary to what many people think, the term word of God is not simply a synonym for scripture. God&#8217;s word comes to us in both a written form, sacred scripture, and in an unwritten form sacred tradition. Sacred tradition tells us for example, which books are the written word of God and that public revelation of God&#8217;s word ended during the age of the apostles. These are truths that are not found in scripture and the word of God existed in the apostolic church for 20 years before any scripture was ever written and no scripture says that all of God&#8217;s word was confined eventually to the written word or would eventually be located only there in one Thessalonians two 13, Paul, thanks the Thesal Aikens saying, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is the word of God, which is at work and you believers the word of God isn&#8217;t just something found in a written document, it is something that is lived out in the faith and practice of the church, which St.
Paul calls the pillar and bulwark or foundation of truth. Number three, Pope Bennett at the 16th denies Vatican one. The Anglican ink article about Pope Leo IV tries to make it sound like other recent popes didn&#8217;t believe in the papacy incites cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope saying, as far as the doctrine of the primacy is concerned, Rome must not require more of the East than was formulated and lived during the first millennium. The idea that the Eastern Orthodox could be received into full communion with the Catholic church even if they denied dogmas like papal infallibility or even anything else taught after the great schism is not an idea from Pope Benedict. It sounds more like a proposal floated by the malki Catholic bishop Elias Zogby back in the 1970s and then formed into the following 1995 profession of faith by Him one, I believe everything which Eastern Orthodox he teaches.
Two, I&#8217;m in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation. This was supposed to be a groundbreaking way to unite the Eastern and western churches, but in practice many people saw it as just saying that we accept Eastern orthodoxy as being the true faith, but we can still call ourselves Catholic. In 19 97, 3 Cardinal Silva, stringy Cassidy and Ratzinger wrote a letter to Malki Bishop Samra commenting on the Zogby proposal. In part saying this with respect to communion with the Bishop of Rome, one must not forget that doctrine relating to the primacy of the Roman pontiff has been the subject of some development within the elaboration of the church&#8217;s faith through the ages and that it must thus be upheld in its entirety from its origins all the way to the present.
Day one need only reflect on what the first Vatican Council affirms and on what has been declared at the Second Vatican Council. So it&#8217;s clear that Cardinal Ratzinger did not think a Christian was free to reject what the Catholic church taught since the great schism in the 11th century. Their letter continues as to the ways in which the Petron ministry could be exercised today, an issue distinct from that of doctrine. It is true that the Holy Father has recently reminded us all how it is possible to seek together of course the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned Ratzinger quotes Pope St. John Paul II in cyclical ut Unum Saint which focused on creating unity with other Christians by precisely delineating the role of the papacy. For example, there are some elements of the papacy, like certain claims to temporal power and worldly affairs that we now see are not essential elements of the papal office even if they were commonly accepted in the past.
This is similar to my previous episode on purgatory where I said that while literal purgatory fire was a common belief in the West, it was never part of the dogma of purgatory and it doesn&#8217;t need to be a barrier to Catholic Orthodox dialogue on the issue. The Ratzinger quote about only requiring first millennium beliefs comes from a 1982 book that he wrote, which is written in German. It was translated into English and then quoted in Francis Sullivan&#8217;s 1983 book Magisterium. What most people don&#8217;t quote though is what Ratzinger says afterwards, which is that the east should renounce attacking the Western development of the second millennium as heretical and should accept the Catholic church as legitimate and orthodox in the form which it has found through this development. And none of what Ratzinger says means that the modern understanding of the papacy is not found in the first millennium.
Just look at what Pope Adrian said at the second council of Nyia in the year 7 87, which echoes what Pope g Gladius the first taught in the four hundreds the Roman sea exercises primacy throughout the world was set up as the head of all the churches of God and has always held and retains the primacy, which the blessed Peter the Apostle exercises through an injunction of the Lord&#8217;s and with the church no less assenting to the effect that no sea in the whole church ought to have a greater executive role than the first, which confirms each synod by its authority and protects it by its continuing guidance. Number four, Pope Gregory the great rejects the title of Universal Bishop John Calvin said that Pope Gregory the Great who reign from five 90 to 6 0 4 Edsa creates the name of universal bishop as profane, nay blasphemous and the forerunner of the antichrist.
But denouncing the idea of a universal bishop does not mean there cannot be a bishop who has universal authority In some respect, what these apologists are referring to is Pope Gregory the greats dispute with John the faster the patriarch of Constantinople over John&#8217;s use of the title universal. Bishop Gregory was critical of this title, but he didn&#8217;t deny that one bishop had primacy over all the others. In Gregory&#8217;s 12th letter, he explicitly says that Constantinople was subject to the authority of the Pope writing for as to what they say about the church of Constantinople who can doubt that it is subject to the apostolic sea as both the most pious Lord the emperor and our brother, the bishop of that community continually acknowledge Cardinal Horace Giani at the Council of Florence said Gregory understood it as an exclusion of all the others so that he who calls himself o acumen that is universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth.
Gregory denied that the Pope or any bishop that serves in metropolitan area like a patriarch in the east was the bishop of every individual territory and the bishops under his authority were merely agents acting on his behalf. Such a view would rob one&#8217;s brother bishops of their legitimate authority, even though they were still subject to Gregory in virtue of his being. Peter&#8217;s successor, the Protestant scholar j and d Kelly writes, Gregory argued that St. Peter&#8217;s commission in Matthew 1618 through 19 made all churches, Constantinople included subject to Rome and number five St. Peter says he&#8217;s just a priest, not the pope. Here&#8217;s Protestant pastor Vodi Baam claiming that Peter&#8217;s address in his first epistle disproves him being the first pope.
CLIP:
Peter does not see himself as the pope. He does not see himself as the rock upon which the church is built. He writes, so I exhort the elders among you as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a particular in the glory that is going to be revealed shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercise oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly as God would have you not for shameful gain but eagerly not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock so the disciples don&#8217;t see Peter as having been made a pope. Jesus makes it clear that Peter hadn&#8217;t been made a pope and Peter later makes it clear that he doesn&#8217;t see himself as having been established as a pope.
Trent:
Notice that in all these arguments that we&#8217;ve covered, there&#8217;s a common theme. The critic of Catholicism will put up a straw man version of the papacy. The Pope is a domineering, autocratic ruler who manipulates bishops and priests like chess pieces who only exist to do his bidding and when scripture and church history do not portray Peter or his successors in this way, the critic claims this disproves the papacy, but this only disproves a straw pope, not a true pope. It&#8217;s no different than an atheist saying that if the Bible is the word of God, that means God dictated the Bible word for word, which doesn&#8217;t make sense of passages where the biblical author forgets things like one Corinthians one 16 where Paul writes, I did baptize also the household of stefanis. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else as I show in my book The Case for Catholicism and my colleague Joe Hess Meyer shows in his book Pope Peter Peter certainly had unique leadership status in these early church, but we have to understand the kind of leader Christ called the shepherd his church.
Some critics make a big fuss about how Jesus did not answer the apostles question of who among them was the greatest with an answer like Peter, he&#8217;s the Pope. Others say the fact that the apostles were even arguing at all over the question shows that they did not believe the title of greatest belonged to Peter. But the apostle&#8217;s inability to understand Peter&#8217;s unique role among them does not refute the doctrine of the papacy any more than their inability to understand the necessity of the crucifixion even after Jesus said it was going to happen. Refutes the doctrine of the Atonement. This argument also cuts against the critics because Jesus doesn&#8217;t answer their question with who is the greatest? Well, no one, all of you are equal amongst each other. Instead, Jesus explicitly said that one of the disciples would be the leader and he would become as one who serves.
Jesus indicated that the greatest must act as the servant of all. That is why since the sixth century Popes have called themselves service Crum day or servant of the servants of God continuing the same discourse, which is not interrupted until verse 35. Jesus singles out Peter and prays for him so that his faith may not fail and he would strengthen his brethren. Peter would be a leader but one who serves others instead of being served. This explains why Peter refers to himself in one Peter five, one through two as a fellow elder and not as the leader of the church. In this passage, Peter is heeding his own advice to clothe yourselves with humility toward one another. By the way, Paul referred to himself as a servant using the Greek word deacon, which in another context refers to deacons. But Paul wasn&#8217;t merely a deacon in the church.
Paul even said he was the very least of all the saints in Ephesians three, eight, but that did not detract from St. Paul&#8217;s unique authority as an apostle. Finally, Peter&#8217;s address to his fellow elders does not undermine his authority over the other elders in the church any more than the President&#8217;s address to my fellow Americans undermines the president&#8217;s authority over Americans. The president is an American, but he has a leadership position overall Americans and he exists ideally to serve them. So those are five cases of Pope&#8217;s allegedly denying the papacy being debunked. If you want to learn more about this subject, I recommend Joe Hess Meyer&#8217;s book, Pope Peter and Eric IRA&#8217;s book The Papacy, revisiting the Debate between Catholics and Orthodox. Thank you for watching and I hope you have a very blessed day.

5 Popes Who Denied the Papacy (DEBUNKED)

In this episode, Trent reveals how assisted suicide advocates reach new lows in demanding state-sanctioned killing.
Transcription:
Trent:
Back in May, the Dutch government helped a physically healthy 29-year-old autistic woman kill herself.
CLIP :
Hello, my name is Soha and I&#8217;m 28 years old. I live in the Netherlands and recently my euthanasia requests for my mental suffering got approved.
Trent:
Canada also has assisted suicide and it accounted in 2019 for one out of every 50 deaths, but in 2022, that number doubled to one out of every 25 deaths making assisted suicide, one of Canada&#8217;s leading causes of death, surpassing car accidents, and even diseases like influenza or pneumonia. And in today&#8217;s episode, I&#8217;m going to show just how bad it&#8217;s gotten and what you should say to people who claim. So-called Death with Dignity ought to be legal first. When people ask me about assisted suicide, I pose a question. Nobody who defends this practice can consistently answer, where do you draw the line? Normally when people are suicidal, we do everything we can to help them out of that decision. In fact, these episodes of my podcast today will probably be downgraded in the search results and algorithm because I use words like suicide or kill yourself. When you search out words like suicide on Google, you immediately get advertisements for help out of this decision, we recognize that people who even look into this topic ought to be helped out of this decision. And when someone is about to take his or her own life, we will use physical force to stop the person from doing that. As happened here in this news clip,
CLIP :
The woman in her mid twenties suffering from depression intent on making a 150 foot jump.
What&#8217;s your name?
It doesn&#8217;t matter.
It does matter. Matter.
Everybody wants me, so I&#8217;ll just,
No one wants that.
I&#8217;m scared.
Please get down after a tense. 80 seconds the officers bring her down to safety. Please
Get down. Get down.
Trent:
We instinctively recognize this person was about to make the worst mistake of her life because it would be the last mistake or decision she ever made. It would be the end of her life, and normally it should not matter where someone says they&#8217;re going to kill themselves. We stop them, be it standing on a ledge or a bridge or in a hospital. But if assisted suicide is legal, that means society says that some lives are worth saving from suicide, but others are not. We are saying that some lives are not worth living. In Nazi Germany, there was a name for this Libin life, unworthy of life. In 1941, the Nazi propaganda film EI accuse in English, depicted a doctor who helped his disabled wife kill herself, and he&#8217;s hailed as a hero who accuses others of not serving public, so to speak. Initially, when assisted suicide is legalized, people are told it&#8217;s only going to be for those who are in horrible pain who only have a few months left to live and are dying.
But you cannot consistently make that the point where the line is drawn. If the reason these people are allowed to kill themselves is because you want to reduce their suffering, then what about other people who will suffer even more than them? What about people in chronic pain who are not terminally ill, who might have pain for years or decades? What about people who just don&#8217;t want to live in a wheelchair, for example, or people who feel depressed all the time and simply hate life? Once again, there&#8217;s no objective way to determine that. Some of these reasons to kill oneself are supposedly rational and others are irrational under the assisted suicide regime. And at the time we were told, oh, well, this is just a slippery slope argument. That&#8217;s not going to happen. Nobody&#8217;s just going to start killing people because they say they&#8217;re sad and they don&#8217;t want to live anymore. Well, here&#8217;s a few more examples of how we are careening in a suicidal bobsled down this slippery slope.
CLIP :
My God, you&#8217;re 47. You have your whole still a whole life ahead of you. You can change. You can do this, and I personally, I am too tired. I am not going to change. I don&#8217;t want to recover, meaning I don&#8217;t want to gain weight.
Imagine choosing death over homelessness. That&#8217;s what one saying. Catherine&#8217;s man is contemplating. Tonight on City News, we continue to delve into medically assisted dying and how some believe it is their only option to living in poverty. Are you afraid to die?
Who isn&#8217;t? Yeah, it
Amir Far has applied for medically assisted dying, known as maid. He lives in constant agony due to a back injury, but has started the process for end of life because his rooming house is up for sale and he can&#8217;t find anywhere else to live that he can afford. He barely survives on Ontario disability support payments, which are just over $1,200 a month. He doesn&#8217;t want to die, but being homeless is not an option.
I know in my present health condition, I would survive it anyway.
Far sued meets the criteria for maid physical suffering due to disability that cannot be relieved. His doctor who knows FARs. Real reason for maid is his fear of being homeless. Signed off on the application in August. Faried needs a second to do the same,
Trent:
And the lack of respect shown to the suicidal in these systems is absolutely astounding. Switzerland just approved suicide pods that use nitrogen to asphyxiate people to death.
CLIP :
Switzerland has done the unthinkable. It has introduced a machine for painless, a coffin lag device made with a 3D printer. It can be transported to a delete locations for people wanting to end their life. Once inside the pod, the user will have to start the fatal process themselves. They will have to press a button, which will reduce internal oxygen levels. The pod, which is biodegradable, can then be detached to be used as a coffin.
Trent:
But these same liberal activists would probably say that forms of capital punishment that use nitrogen to execute murderers constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and should not be inflicted on anyone. In fact, here&#8217;s one account of an inmate who was executed via nitrogen asphyxiation.
CLIP :
Smith&#8217;s spiritual advisor, Reverend Jeff Hood, who was at Smith&#8217;s side for the execution, gave his own account.
What we saw was minutes of someone struggling for their life,
Five journalists who are allowed to watch the execution said that after the nitrogen began to flow, Smith shook his head and rised on the gurney for about two minutes.
Trent:
So we treat suicidal people in a way we&#8217;d never treat other people because our culture worships autonomy and personal choice like it&#8217;s some kind of pagan god or idol. But there are a few standard arguments that they make in favor of this death cult. So let&#8217;s take a look at them. Number one, we put animals out of their misery when they&#8217;re suffering. Shouldn&#8217;t we show human beings who want to die the same mercy? We don&#8217;t euthanize suffering human beings precisely because we do show them more mercy than we show cats and dogs, not less. Most animals in this country are euthanized not because they&#8217;re dying of a terminal illness, but simply because they&#8217;re unwanted and we don&#8217;t want stray animals running around. But a human being&#8217;s value does not change based on who wants or desires them because human beings have intrinsic value and dignity that no one can take away. Also, the availability of assisted suicide creates a sinful social pressure for people to choose it so they won&#8217;t be a burden to their friends and family. I mean, look at this advertisement from a fashion company in Canada glorifying suicide.
CLIP :
Last breaths are sacred. When I imagine my final days I see bubbles, I see the ocean, I see music. Even now as I seek help to end my life, there is still so much beauty. You just have to be brave enough to see it,
Trent:
And it creates a pressure on providers to perform it, which has resulted in Catholic hospitals being sued for not helping patients commit suicide.
CLIP :
Providence Healthcare, the religious health agency, which oversees St. Paul&#8217;s, opposes made and requires patients to transfer out of their facility if they want to end their life. That&#8217;s what happened to O&#8217;Neill in April, 2023, and it&#8217;s why her parents have launched the court challenge. BC&#8217;s health minister says his ministry is setting up a clinical space next to St. Paul&#8217;s where maid can be provided.
Vancouver Coastal Health will is organizing and building that hospice care end of life care on that site in order to ensure that everyone has access on that site without going somewhere else. To maid
O&#8217;Neill&#8217;s father says, that&#8217;s not good enough.
Trent:
Legal suicide in euthanasia also creates a perverse incentive for healthcare providers to recommend suicide as a less costly treatment for many health conditions. Consider what happened to this veteran who wanted treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.
CLIP :
When a Canadian veteran picked up the phone and called Veterans Affairs Canada to get treatment for his combat related PTSD and a traumatic brain injury, he expected help getting better and getting his life back. Instead, he got an unexpected and unwanted offer to help him end it through medically assisted death
Trent:
Or this woman who is denied cancer treatment but offered suicide instead. I&#8217;m
CLIP :
Not ready. I&#8217;m not ready to die. I&#8217;ve got things I&#8217;d still like to do.
Her doctor offered hope in this bottle. The new chemotherapy drug Tarceva,
Like my doctor said, maybe this can put the lid on it and stop it.
That hope shattered with this letter from the Oregon Health Plan telling her we were unable to approve the cancer treatment. It will pay for comfort care, including physician aid in dying, better known as assisted suicide.
I told him, I said, who do you guys think you are to say that you&#8217;ll pay for my dying, but you won&#8217;t pay to help me possibly live longer?
Trent:
An animal&#8217;s life is not worth the cost of many expensive medical treatments, but a human&#8217;s life is worth it. We should give human beings effective pain management and respectful care as their bodily functions begin to cease at the end of life, but we should not give them the old yeller treatment. Number two, people should have the right to die with dignity. Dying in a dignified manner relates to how one confronts death, not the manner in which one dies or chooses to die. History recounts many situations of individuals who were forced to endure degrading deaths, but faced those deaths in a dignified way. Also, losing control of one&#8217;s bowels, bodily functions or being in pain at the end of life does not mean a person has lost his dignity. We would never say that a person in that condition who chose to live or to die naturally had therefore chosen an undignified way to end his life.
A person should be able to choose where they die, who will be present at their death, or how much medication to take that may postpone death. They can even take pain medication that as a side effect, hastens death. The catechism puts it this way, the use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity. If death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. However, human dignity is not dependent in any way on an ability to commit suicide. Suicide rather is an offense to human dignity. Number three, do you just want people to suffer first? This objection also goes against people who only defend limited cases of assisted suicide. Like for those who have a terminal illness, those people usually do not support suicide for clinical depression or for someone who&#8217;s in a wheelchair, but they wouldn&#8217;t say they just want people who are in wheelchairs or of clinical depression to suffer.
They would say, I&#8217;m not saying that I want them to suffer. I just don&#8217;t want them to commit suicide. Well, that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m saying about everybody else. Number two, the church teaches that a person does not have to do everything possible to stay alive. Once again, the catechism puts it this way. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate. It is the refusal of overzealous treatment here one does not will to cause death. One&#8217;s inability to impede it is merely accepted. Finally, Pope St. John Paul ii, who bore publicly much physical suffering at the end of his life said the following in his apostolic letter on the Christian meaning of human suffering in bringing about the redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the redemption. Thus, each man in his suffering can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ.
When we suffer in this life, we are able to take that suffering and endure it for a greater good. We are able to know our suffering is not pointless. Just as Paul said, his sufferings made up for what was lacking in Christ&#8217;s sacrifice. Colossians 1 24. Our sufferings during this life or at its end, can be united to Christ&#8217;s sufferings on the cross and secure spiritual graces for other people. If you&#8217;d like to learn more about this topic, I recommend Stephanie Gray Connor&#8217;s book Start With What, 10 Principles for Thinking About assisted Suicide. Thank you all so much, and I hope you have a very blessed day. A day.

The Assisted Suicide Dystopia is Here

People today live in physical proximity to one another even as they occupy very different worlds. Father Robert McTeigue, author of Real Philosophy for Real People explains how we got here, and some possible cures.

A World Broken into “Worldviews”

Relationship between prayer and counseling

What is your advice to Catholics who marry non-Catholics?

Where would you recommend, we go to study psychology that’s faithful and reliable?

My fiancé says she wants to become Lutheran because she despises the Catholic Church. What advice can you offer to help navigate the conversation?

Is Catholic counseling compatible with neuroplasticity, whether mental illness is also spiritual illness, how does that relate to taking medicine?

Could you repeat what you said about when and how to approach people and share that you care about them?

How can I help my family come back to the Catholic Church?

&#8220;What should Catholics know about marrying non-Catholics?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the complexities of interfaith relationships, including advice for Catholics in such unions. Additional topics include the relationship between prayer and counseling, and how to navigate conversations when a fiancé expresses a desire to leave the Catholic 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>