Manage Account

The author of <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/purgatory-is-for-real/">Purgatory Is for Real</a>, Karlo Broussard, explains the reality of indulgences and why they are effective in paying off debts.

Are Indulgences a Scam?

When it comes to the possibility of losing salvation, Catholics have their Bible passages—John 15:1-5, Galatians 5:4, Matthew 10:22. But Protestants aren’t short on comebacks.
One such comeback is employed by Protestant apologist James White. Whenever the above passages, and others like them, are brought up, White argues that such passages don’t necessarily have to be read prescriptively; they can be read descriptively.
A descriptive reading merely describes what is the case. Prescriptive readings describe what ought to be or, in the case of action, what should or must be done. The implication for a prescriptive reading is that what ought to be might not come to pass, or what ought to be done might not be done.
One occasion where White tried to use this argument was in his 2017 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72TRODe8BdA">debate</a> on eternal security with Trent Horn. Trent had a good response to defuse White’s rebuttal. But given the limitations of the debate, Trent could say only so much.
So I’d like to offer just a few complementary thoughts here—as I sit before my computer with time to think through this issue. (Kudos to Trent for his ability to think on his feet!)
First, regardless of whether we read the texts descriptively or prescriptively, we still arrive at the same conclusion: it’s possible for a Christian to lose his salvation.
Consider Jesus’ description in Matthew 10:22: “He who perseveres shall be saved.” Remaining faithful to the end is a condition that must be met to receive final salvation. But this means it’s possible that the condition might not to be met—that’s to say, a person may freely turn away from Christ and not persevere unto the end. That’s all we need to prove the view that it’s possible for a Christian to lose his salvation. There’s no need for the prescription “we must persevere” (a prescriptive reading).
What about John 15:2? Jesus says, “Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, [the Father] takes away.”
Consider that the description of some branches being part of the vine necessarily implies that those branches once were living with the life of the vine, but then, for whatever reason, they ended up dead, thereby failing to produce fruit.
As applied to Christians, some were living with the life of Christ (the vine), which means they were true believers who were truly saved (contra White—“These branches were not the ones in which true salvation had taken place”). Indeed, that’s a description. It’s also a description that they’re cut off from Christ, thereby no longer living with the life of Christ, and thus are spiritually dead. That Jesus describes some Christians in fact spiritually dying and thus being cut off from him logically entails that it’s possible for a Christian to spiritually die and thus be cut off.
The same line of reasoning applies to Galatians 5:4, where Paul tells the Galatians, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”
Describing how these Christians in Galatia in fact have been severed from Christ (“You are severed”—the Greek katērgēthēte is an aorist indicative, which signifies past time) implies that they were once in Christ and thus saved (contra White—“Who is being addressed there? Those who are seeking to be justified by their keeping of the law, not true believers”). Given that they are no longer in Christ, they are no longer in a state of salvation. And that these Galatians have lost their state of salvation logically entails that it’s possible to lose salvation.
So White’s contention—that a descriptive reading of these texts avoids the interpretation that it’s possible for a Christian to lose his salvation—doesn’t pan out.
A second thought is that, for White, the descriptive/prescriptive distinction is not the real issue. Rather, it’s what the possibility of a Christian losing his salvation necessarily entails. This becomes evident when White comments on the above passages individually. (All the emphases below are supplied.)
Consider, for example, his take on Matthew 10:22. When commenting on the prescriptive reading of the text, he states,
<blockquote>“He who endures to the end shall be saved”—and so by your enduring to the end you bring about your salvation.” That’s a prescriptive way of looking at things.</blockquote>
He then comments on what he takes to be a descriptive reading:
<blockquote>The descriptive way allows for the passages I presented to be true and then applies them to the application passages as to how Christians live the Christian life. And so what you then have is, “He who endures to the end shall be saved.” Amen, I agree a thousand percent, but it is not my enduring to the end that brings about my salvation, and God is not helpless unless I somehow work up an enduring faith.</blockquote>
For White, on the view that a Christian doesn’t end up being saved, God is “helpless,” and the final perseverance of a Christian is due solely to him “working up an enduring faith.”
In his comments on John 15, he argues, “It’s not my abiding in him that brings forth fruit; he’s the one that brings forth the fruit in me,” as if the view that a Christian can lose his salvation entails that the fruit comes solely from the Christian, without God.
Finally, when he directs his comments to Galatians 5:4, he argues that reading such a text as if a Christian can lose his salvation “adds to the finished work of Christ.”
Notice that in all these responses, White thinks that reading these texts in support of the view that a Christian can lose his salvation undermines God’s universal causality (and thus God’s sovereignty), excluding God and Christ’s work on the cross from the calculus of whether someone is finally saved or not.
There are two things that we can say in response. First, a Christian might challenge White’s assumption that God must be the cause of man’s free choice in attaining salvation, arguing that White’s prior view of divine causation, which he uses to interpret the above texts, is false, and thereby should not be a reason to reject the interpretation that these texts reveal the possibility for a Christian to lose his salvation.
Second, White’s concern that God’s causal influence (and thus his sovereignty) would somehow be excluded from the picture on the belief that a Christian can lose his salvation can be alleviated if we adopt a Thomistic/Augustinian view, where final salvation is attained by God causing the will, without doing violence to it, to freely choose him and thus be saved. And if a Christian falls from a saving relationship with God, such a fall can happen only if God permits it, a permission that’s infallibly known from all eternity, antecedent to any sin.
On this view, God is not “helpless” and excluded from the question of whether a Christian is finally saved or not. God is in the picture all the way through, causing man’s free choice when he chooses God and permitting man’s rejection when he freely rejects God, whether such choices are made before initial salvation, during one’s saving relationship with Christ, or in the end at death.
In sum, neither reason that White gives in his debate with Trent succeeds in justifying a rejection of the above texts as support for the belief that a Christian can lose his salvation. This belief can be arrived at even with a descriptive reading. And at least on some Christian views of divine causation and human freedom, such as those of Aquinas and Augustine, there’s no need to think the belief that a Christian can lose his salvation excludes God’s universal causality (and thus sovereignty) from a Christian achieving final salvation.
Now, White might contend that the above passages don’t prove the possibility to lose salvation on other grounds. That’s fine. But he can’t employ his prescriptive-versus-descriptive tactic, or his “God is helpless” charge, to undermine our appeal to these passages for proving it’s possible for a Christian to lose his salvation.

A Christian Can Lose His Salvation

In this insightful clip, Cy Kellett speaks with apologist Joe Heschmeyer about the challenges of navigating faith within a marriage when only one spouse feels called to the Catholic Church. Joe emphasizes the importance of prioritizing one&#8217;s relationship with Christ, even when it creates tension at home, and offers guidance on how to approach these sensitive conversations with love and understanding.
Transcript:
Caller: I really, really felt the calling to become Catholic, but at the Easter vigil. But my husband is absolutely against it. He is kind of in the school of thought of, you know, Catholics worship Mary, Catholics pray to dead people, you know, all the.
Joe: Sure. We get a fair number of those calls. Yeah, yeah.
Cy: Okay. Right. That.
Caller: And this is hard to say out loud, but he was even so upset and so distraught at the idea that he said to me, I would never have married a Catholic girl and I won&#8217;t be married to a Catholic girl, and basically kind of threatened divorce. So I went back to my parish priest and he, you know, after a long talk, he had said, you know, you&#8217;re a wife and mother first and foremost, and just keep it in prayer. And so I&#8217;m at the point where I feel like I&#8217;m disobeying God by not coming into the church.
Cy: Okay.
Caller: But it&#8217;s also causing a lot of conflict within my marriage.
Joe: Yeah, that is one of the hardest situations. You know, children whose parents won&#8217;t let them go to Mass is maybe number one. And then in the cases of spouses. And I think it&#8217;s fair to point out that there&#8217;s something that is radically inhibiting your freedom in your husband&#8217;s behavior. And I understand, you know, his perspective on this. He didn&#8217;t sign up for that. In his view, he didn&#8217;t expect you to have this change. But the healing has God to blame. Like, you&#8217;re obviously a faithful Christian seeking to understand the Lord better. God has called you in a certain way, and he is trying to tell you you can&#8217;t follow where Jesus is calling you as you have discerned.
And I think if you put it in those terms, he is directly interfering with your path of discipleship. And I think if you can lay that out now, I don&#8217;t know the details of your marriage, but I would encourage, rather than focusing on trying to convince him to become Catholic right away, just getting him to recognize that our duty is actually to Christ first. I mean, Jesus talks about how he comes to set Father against Son and Son against Father in Luke 12, and then in Luke 14, he even says, if anyone comes after me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children. Now, in your case, husband, not wife. But hate obviously doesn&#8217;t literally mean hate there. It&#8217;s hyperbolic.
But there is this sense in which our following of Christ has to be first and foremost. And we can&#8217;t let someone else determine our discipleship for us by telling us we&#8217;re not allowed to follow where Christ is calling us. That is just not. That&#8217;s not an appropriate boundary for one spouse to try to dictate that for another. Like, you have to follow where Christ is leading you. And I mean, the flip side is actually true as well. If a Catholic is having a crisis in faith, their spouse can&#8217;t just be like, well, you can&#8217;t have a crisis in faith. That&#8217;s not acceptable. That&#8217;s an inappropriate boundary for one spouse to try to assert over another. You have to follow where you believe Jesus is calling you. And no human being has the authority to stand in the way of that.
And everyone needs to take that seriously. Like, that is an actual, you know, this. You&#8217;re not a minor child. Where, you know, there&#8217;s a better case that like, parents have some role in restricting their kids&#8217; radical freedom. So if a kid just says, I don&#8217;t want to go to Mass on Sunday, that doesn&#8217;t have to be the last word. You&#8217;re a grown-up. You&#8217;re an adult woman. And so I think you have to say, I need to follow Jesus. And I think if you put it in those terms and pray about it fervently, I would even suggest fasting and doing mortifications for it, for a softness of his heart. Just to accept that you as a Christian need to follow where you believe Christ is calling and that to impede that and to delay. When Christ is saying go, and you say, I&#8217;m not going to go yet. I&#8217;m going to wait till a more convenient time, that constitutes disobedience.
Just as much as when you tell your kids, come to the car and they say, once I&#8217;m done with the video game. The fact that they intend to do it eventually isn&#8217;t obedience, it&#8217;s, you know, putting you on their schedule. And I realize as I&#8217;m saying this, this is heavy and hard teaching. This is one of the aspects of the high cost of discipleship. And I want you to be assured of my prayers. And I don&#8217;t know if you feel comfortable sharing your husband&#8217;s name on the air, but we&#8217;d love to pray for him as well.
Caller: Yeah, his name&#8217;s Scott.
Joe: All right, Stephanie and Scott, I&#8217;ve got a sister named Stephanie married to a guy whose brother&#8217;s name is Scott. So I&#8217;ll remember that, hopefully.
Cy: Stephanie, have you come. I just want to clarify something. Have you come to the decision that the Catholic Church is Christ&#8217;s Church and that that&#8217;s where you&#8217;re called?
Caller: To be 1,000%. And for the first time in my life also, I finally feel like the true peace that I&#8217;ve always been serving. And I can finally say that I now love Jesus more than my husband, my children, my parents. He&#8217;s like my absolute number one. And I want to do nothing more than what he tells me to do.
Cy: What a beautiful testament.
Joe: You know what? I think you should point to that testimony as well. Like, hopefully your husband can see that you have been transformed to become more Christ-like. Even if it goes against all of his prejudices against Catholicism, and hopefully if he will endure this period, even just for the sake of your following of Christ, you can be a living witness to the fact that someone can love Jesus and be Catholic. And in fact, that the more Catholic you become, the more you end up loving Jesus.
And the thing that Christ is calling you to is to receive Him. Like, you&#8217;re struggling with anxiety and depression, and he&#8217;s saying, I want to live with you. I want to be with you. And so I do want to. This is clearly going to be a process. Even if you were free to come into the church now, you would have to go through the OCIA, but you&#8217;ve come to faith in the Catholic Church, which makes you one of us. And you are baptized or not baptized?
Caller: Yeah. So I was raised Lutheran, so I was baptized as an infant.
Cy: Has anyone told you about making a spiritual communion with Jesus?
Joe: I don&#8217;t think so.
Cy: Well, you can just type in EWTN Spiritual Communion, and it will take you to a page with a little prayer where you can make a spiritual communion with Jesus because He wants communion with you. He&#8217;s clearly telling you he wants communion with you. You can do this while you&#8217;re watching a Mass on the television or on the YouTube or whatever, but you can do it anytime. You can make a spiritual communion with Jesus. It&#8217;s communion with Jesus that heals. And you already know that. So I&#8217;m just trying to let you know there are intermediate steps that you can take as you&#8217;re moving towards full communion. Okay, Stephanie?
Cy: Okay, I will do that. Thank you.
Cy: If there&#8217;s anything we can send you, just tell us. John will pick up in a second. John&#8217;s covering. If there&#8217;s a book or anything that you&#8217;d like from us, we&#8217;ll send it to you. If not, that&#8217;s perfectly fine. We understand. And you&#8217;re always welcome to call back here. I hear the music, which means we.
Joe: Have to take care of everyone listening. Pray for Stephanie and Scott.
Cy: Please do. Pray for Stephanie and Scott and pray. How beautiful is Jesus. I mean, every time I hear someone&#8217;s story like that, he wants to be with us in the Eucharist. He wants to be in communion with us. He wants to make his home with us. And how beautiful it is when he calls us to that.

Can I Become Catholic If My Husband Says No?

What is a Eucharistic procession? Who would I need to talk to to organize one in my town?

How does the Church look upon Aquamation as an option for burial?

What is the appropriate pronunciation of Elisha?

Why do we not believe in reincarnation? Where in the bible would we find evidence for this lack of belief?

How do I talk to an ex-Catholic Protestant about Mary?

My priest denied the necessity of baptism for salvation. How do I deal with this?

2 Tim 3:16 I’ve heard it argued that when Catholics are confirmed they receive the HS and are “God breathed.” Is this true?

Ask Me Anything

Ah, Christmastime! A season of holly, hot chocolate, and . . . lies?
If you can&#8217;t find a picturesque roaring fire to warm you in this bleak midwinter, you can always catch some heat from the debates that flare up this time of year over Santa Claus. Some say the Santa Claus tradition is a fun diversion for kids. Others insist that the custom is not worth the deception it entails.
In this Christmas edition of Both Sides Now, you&#8217;ll get each take. Should Catholic families include Santa Claus in their traditions? Yes or no?
<a href="#mike">Click here for YES!</a>
<a href="#drew">Click here for NO!</a>

Should Catholics Do the Santa Claus Tradition?

Regarding Mary’s bodily death, is it a valid theology opinion or position to take that she did not die but was assumed without dying first, given its not part of the dogma itself?

I heard a priest say that even an atheist can get to heaven, is this true?

Why does the rosary have ten Hail Marys in a row? Is there a significance to this?

Do rights exist or are rights just something that came out of the enlightenment period?

Can the verse Act 8:16 and Acts 19:1-6 be used in an argument for the efficacy of Baptism?

Is there any connection of “That which dwells” from the Old Testament to the Holy Spirit?

Why are the Gospels written in third person?

Is belief in purgatory necessary for salvation?

How does John 17:15 relate to the life of monks?

How can a Catholic prove that the Church didn’t fall into apostasy after the apostolic age?

Is human composting ethical and dignified?

How do I respond to the claim that the Church suppressed saints and they claimed the papal bull Beatus Andraeus was the cause of this. I can’t find the document anywhere. What is it and how do I respond?

Acts 13:33 quotes Psalms. Did they already have a Jewish canon of scripture at that time?

What advice would you give for starting a college apologetics club?

Is there Mass in Heaven?

What is your defense on John Henry Newman’s idea of doctrinal development?

How can I refute once saved always saved and perseverance of the saints with scripture?

How did Thomas receive the gift of the Holy Spirit since he was absent in John 20?

In the 3rd letter of John, I have read different translations with Church or church. Would the lower-case c translation indicate John talking about a local church not the universal?

Is snowflake adoption ethical?

Does the long history of sexual abuse in the church make the church an apostate?

<div>Silly question...is it ok to use Lordy, Lordy, Look Who’s 40 on an invitation? Thanks!</div><div>While this rhyming statement has become a common one in modern times for those celebrating the 40th birthday of a family member or friend, we would counsel against it, because it’s a less-than-reverent use of a divine title (see CCC 2142ff.). That God is being referenced is affirmed by the capitalization of a variation of the name “Lord.”
</div>

Is This a Misuse of the Lord’s Name?

Chris Stefanick encourages parents who send their kids to slacking Catholic schools to bring their complaints to the administration and demand better education of the faith for their children.

What Should We Do When Catholic Schools Fail to Pass on Faith?

Leaving the Vibrant Protestant Culture

<div>In his book The Glories of Mary, St. Alphonsus Liguori refers to the Blessed Mother as the “sure salvation of Christians” and the “salvation of the world.” Isn’t this heretical and idolatrous? </div><div>One must always remember that St. Alphonsus Liguori unequivocally affirms Catholic Church teaching that Jesus is uncreated God and that his Blessed Mother is one of his creatures. Ditto with <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-full-of-grace">other Catholic saints</a> and faithful Catholic writers whose words about the Blessed Mother—in isolation—might seem heretical. 
Consequently, similar to how we read Sacred Scripture in general, we also need to read Alphonsus’s words about the Blessed Mother in full context. His high regard for Mary stems directly from her relationship with her divine son, who exalted her so greatly in conceiving her without sin, calling her to be the mother of God, and in making her queen of heaven and earth (Rev. 12:1), and thereby a spiritual mother to all humanity (Rev. 12:17). 
Because of her divinely exalted status, the Church recognizes that Mary has a key role to play in the salvation of humanity, beginning with her yes at the Annunciation, and yet that role is always subordinate to the divine Son and Savior, who is indeed her Savior too. 
Finally, as a general point of Catholic research, I urge you to stick with Catholic Answers via <a href="http://catholic.com">catholic.com</a> and our other resources, vs. accessing websites like catholictradition.org, which are not always reliable for one reason or another. 
</div>

Why Do Early Catholics Sound Heretical When Writing About Mary?

Did papal documents like Unam Sanctam teach holy protestant men go to hell?

Can you clarify what the new Vatican document says?

What does the bible mean when it mentions Israel in Hosea 3:4-5

&#8220;Did papal documents teach Protestants go to hell?&#8221; This episode delves into the complexities of Vatican teachings and their implications for Protestant believers. Additionally, we explore the latest Vatican document and its significance, as well as the biblical meaning of Israel in Hosea 3:4-5, providing a comprehensive look at 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 Papal Documents Teach Protestants Go to Hell?

<div class="page" title="Page 83">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 73
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“What proof do you have that God exists?”
DEFENSE
One popular proof proceeds from the existence of change in the universe.
The argument can be framed this way:
1. Some things in the world change.
2. Everything that changes is caused to do so. 
3. Nothing is its own cause. 
4. Therefore, things that change are caused to do so by something else. 5. There cannot be an infinite regress of such causes. 
6. Therefore, there is an ultimate, unchanging cause of change. 
7. God is the ultimate, changeless cause of change 
8. Therefore, God exists.
The premises of this argument are lines 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The conclusions (lines 4, 6, and 8) follow from them.
Line 1 is proved by observation: we see constant change in the world around us.
Line 2 is a truth of metaphysics. It is also verified by observation. Whenever we see something change, there is a cause for this change. Line 3 is a truth of metaphysics. The idea of one thing ultimately being its own cause is incoherent.
Line 5 is a truth of metaphysics. Consider an analogy: if a painting is being made then paint is being applied to a canvas. The paint is moved by the bristles of a brush. The bristles are moved by the wood of the first inch of the handle to which they are attached. The wood of the first inch of the handle is moved by the wood of the second inch, which is moved by the wood of the third inch. However, the handle cannot go on forever. Ultimately, the handle is moved by an artist. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest “that a brush can paint by itself, provided it has a very long handle” (Antonin Sertillanges, quoted in Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, God: His Existence and His Nature, 265). In the same way, there cannot be an infinite regress of simultaneous causes.
Line 8 is true by definition.
TIP
This is a version of St. Thomas Aquinas’s “first way” of demonstrating God’s existence (ST I:2:3). It’s sometimes called the argument from “motion,” since Aquinas refers to what we call change as motion.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Argument from Change

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

What’s the Wednesday audience with the Pope all about?

<div>Why was there child marriage in the old Testament? Isn’t that inappropriate?</div><div>In some cultures, as soon as puberty is reached, the person is regarded as of an appropriate age for marriage. This is the more ancient and natural practice. In our culture, which seems to require a greater degree of education and autonomy, this would hardly be appropriate. So, for example, Our Lady was between fourteen and sixteen when she bore Our Lord, and the Eternal Father did not regard this as too soon.
The age for legitimate marriage depends on the culture. Nowadays it is eighteen at the earliest, but there are still states where it is possible to marry younger. Current Church law is more strict than civil or common law, although until recently it was not. The key here is prudence and concern for the success of the union in the maturity of the couple. Even today there are some cultures in which early marriage is possible because of the relative maturity and expectations of the parties, but surely in ours that is not the case.
</div>

Child Marriage Was Appropriate Then but Not Now

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

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

Does offering the Eucharist at Mass mean re-sacrificing Jesus?

<div class="page" title="Page 174">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 164
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Even if a person only has the burden of proof when trying to convince someone else of a belief (see Day 86), he still should have evidence
for his own beliefs. We shouldn’t adopt beliefs for no reason.”
DEFENSE
We should have reasons for our beliefs, but this does not allow us to dismiss religious beliefs.
First, we sometimes have practical reasons to make decisions on religious matters, even when we do not have evidential reasons (see Day 336).
Second, though it is not ideal, we must sometimes make decisions regarding beliefs using partial, inconclusive evidence. As long as the matter isn’t urgent, we may have the luxury of not deciding, but some- times we must, and the rational thing to do is to make the best choice one can, given the evidence available. For example, a dying person may be unsure whether the Christian faith is true and may not have time left to research the question thoroughly. Consequently, he may have to make the best decision he can with the evidence at hand.
Third, it would be false to characterize religious faith, and the Christian faith in particular, as beliefs adopted without reason. Faith and reason work together (see Day 118), and Christianity in particular has developed a robust study of apologetics to offer evidence for the Faith. Christian thinkers have developed multiple lines of argument for the existence of God, the Resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, and so on. Consequently, it would be a caricature to claim that Christian faith is meant to be held without any reasons being offered for it.
Fourth, although the ideal is for a person to study and be personally familiar with the evidence for a position, this is not necessary, and often it is not possible, for we cannot personally verify all the things we know. The sociology of knowledge is such that we all know many things we have not verified for ourselves but have learned from someone we trust (see Day 78). Thus a person may rationally believe in the existence of electrons or extrasolar planets or God without personally having gone through the details of the proofs. In many situations, it can be enough to know that trustworthy experts have.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Evidence and Belief

Schools are indoctrinating your kids into the woke agenda. How did we get here? Noelle Mering, author of Awake, Not Woke, reviews the history that brought our educational institutions to their current crisis. Why did we go down this road, and can we recover?

Woke Schools Are Indoctrinating Your Children

<div>May a Catholic person who chose not to marry in the Church still go to confession?</div><div>I infer you mean a Catholic who didn’t marry in a Catholic church, but who also didn’t have a dispensation from the Church to do so (See the Code of Canon Law, can. 1108, 1118, 1127). If that’s the case, then this Catholic has not married according to the laws of the Church and thus is not validly married in the eyes of God (see Matt. 16:18-19, 18:18). Such a person could go to confession, but to receive absolution from their sins, he would have to firmly resolve not to sin further (CCC 1451, 1490), which in his case would mean living as brother and sister with his spouse until their marriage was blessed/validated in the Church (see St. Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, 84).
If either spouse had been married previously, that would be a further complicating factor in any attempt to have their current marriage validated.
</div>

May Catholics Married Outside the Church Go to Confession?

refuting?

How does the Church trace the special status and succession of popes back to Peter? How is it pass on?

I always taught my kids that animals don’t go to heaven, though I’ve heard you say that they possibly do. Can you explain your view?

I’ve heard you say the Church has never claimed that faith and works lead unto salvation. If so, then what is James talking about?

Today’s gospel says “Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” What does that mean if he is the Son of Man who is presently there?

Was Cornelius justified prior to being baptized in Acts 10?

&#8220;Can animals go to heaven?&#8221; This episode explores the intriguing question of animal salvation, alongside discussions on the material sufficiency of Scripture and the Church&#8217;s tracing of papal succession back to Peter. Tune in as we delve into these thought-provoking topics and more, providing clarity on faith, works, and biblical interpretations.
<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>

Can Animals Go to Heaven? Popes, Salvation, and Scripture

Protestants Still Can’t Explain James 2

What You Missed About Jonah and Christ’s Passion and Resurrection

The Illogic of Transgenderism

What happens to Pontius Pilate’s wife Claudia? Did she ever convert?

How can the Church say that there is no salvation outside the Church yet declare people saints like St. Gregory of Narek?

How did you come to believe in the intercession of saints and confessing sins to a priest? I’m protestant and having a hard time with it

What do you think of Catholics who say that Catholics have to support labor unions?

What are the benefits of being Catholic as opposed to being an atheist? And Why Catholicism instead of another denomination?

Since venial sin doesn’t send one to hell, would one still need Jesus if they’ve never committed a mortal sin?

As a Catholic how do we respond to the Black Hebrew Israelites who assert salvation due to race or culture?

Tips For Defending the Faith

<div>The conversation over the real presence has been around for some time. Bible verses get thrown around but when we look at the full context of scripture, the words of Jesus come fully alive with its full glory. Catholic Answers Apologist, Karlo Broussard, joins us for a compelling conversation on this topic.</div>
<div>
&nbsp;
</div>

A Deep Dive into the Real Presence of the Eucharist

A Virgin Womb and a Virgin Tomb

Some Protestants don’t believe in infant baptism, what does that tell us about their understanding of sin and how does that compare to the Catholic view?

I understand the Catholic teaching on cremated remains is to not separate them. But if that’s the case, why do we have cases where certain saints’ body parts are in different locations? It seems like that contradicts the policy on cremated remains.

How do Catholics understand Purgatory in light of Hebrews 9:27?

How do you determine what a saint is a patron of? Like how does someone become patron saint if pilots when airplanes weren’t even invented yet when they lived?

Can you comment on the different translations of Luke 1:28, why Protestant Bibles say “greetings o favored one” and why Catholic bibles say “hail full of grace”?

What is the Catholic interpretation of 1 John 5:1 with regard to baptismal regeneration? I’m struggling to square “if you believe you’ve been born of God” with having to be baptized.

I practice no meat on Fridays. How do I keep up this practice during times when there are lots of feast days or solemnities on Fridays?

&#8220;Can Protestants understand infant baptism and purgatory?&#8221; This episode explores the nuances of these topics, including what the Protestant view on infant baptism reveals about their understanding of sin, and how Catholics interpret purgatory in light of scripture. Additionally, we delve into the significance of saints&#8217; relics and the complexities of baptismal regeneration.
<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>

Can Protestants Understand Infant Baptism and Purgatory?

Dive into the latest episode of The Jimmy Akin Podcast, where Jimmy unravels the true meaning of heresy in Catholic theology! He explores its historical roots, clarifies misconceptions, and reveals why many accusations of heresy miss the mark. With insights from Aquinas, Canon Law, and Cardinal Müller, Jimmy equips listeners to navigate today’s heated ecclesial debates with clarity and precision. Don’t miss this engaging dive into dogma, faith, and the Church’s teachings—perfect for Catholics seeking truth amid confusion!
&nbsp;
TRANSCRIPT:
Coming Up
Recently I contributed a couple of chapters to a book with other authors—including Cardinal Robert Sarah.
The book is edited by Andrew Likoudis and it’s called Faith in Crisis.
The overall topic of the book is how to think about various subjects in light of criticisms made by certain Traditionalists and the confusion this has caused.
A key term in many of these debates is heresy, and to help clear away confusion around this term, I contributed a chapter titled “What Is Heresy?”
Today, I’m going to share with you the substance of that chapter.
Let’s get into it!
* * *
Howdy, folks!
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, but I need your help to keep making it.
You can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get early access to new episodes—by going to <a href="https://patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast">Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast</a>
&nbsp;
Introduction
It’s amazing how frequently the term heresy appears in some modern Catholic discussions and how freely some people apply it to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, recent popes, bishops, theologians, and even laity.
We are living in a springtime of accusations of heresy, and charges of it bloom like wildflowers.
But when one examines these accusations closely, it becomes clear that many are poorly supported.
Sometimes the bare term heresy is used, without any explanation of why we should regard a particular statement as heretical.
Other times there is an explanation, but it turns out to be a bad one,
and it becomes clear that the author is not familiar with how the term is used by the Church.
This is unfortunate, because heresy is historically one of the most serious charges one can make against another Catholic.
It is not to be made lightly, and it is never to be made falsely.
For more on that, you can see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2477-2479 (CCC 2477-2479), which have to do with the respect we owe to others reputations and the sins of rash judgment, detraction, and calumny—which people often commit when making charges of heresy.
It’s therefore important that we understand what the term heresy means and when it can and cannot be used.
&nbsp;
The Term Heresy
Confusion over this term is understandable, because most people aren’t familiar with its history.
Popular dictionaries give loose, imprecise definitions, and in popular speech, Heresy means something like False religious belief or Really bad false religious belief,
but in Catholic discourse, heresy has come to have a very specific meaning,
and it does not cover nearly as many things as people imagine.
However, heresy hasn’t always been used this way.
Language changes over time, and when Christianity first began, the Greek word for Heresy—Greek, Hairesis—meant things like sect, party, school, or faction.
It also could mean things like choice, preference, and inclination.
Thus, in the New Testament, Paul uses the Greek word for heresy to refer to the Pharisees as “the strictest party (hairesin) of our religion” (Acts 26:5).
And—again using the Greek word for heresy—Christianity itself is referred to as “the sect (hariseôs) of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5).
With time, sects began to break away from Christianity (groups like the Docetists, the Montanists, and the Arians).
And the term heresy came to be applied to them and to their distinctive beliefs.
Consequently, by the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas could define heresy as
Summa Theologiae II-II:11:1
A species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas.
The elements of Aquinas’s definition provide a framework for understanding heresy that is still used today.
It involves:
(1) Some kind of unbelief,
(2) By those professing to be Christians,
(3) Regarding the dogmas of the faith.
While each of these elements has subsequently been refined, they form the core of the modern definition of heresy, as we shall see.
&nbsp;
The Term Dogma
A key term in Aquinas’s definition of heresy is dogma, and it also has changed meaning over time.
In the New Testament era, the Greek term Dogma meant things like ordinance, decision, or command, and so Luke can refer to how
Luke 2:1
A decree (dogma) went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the empire.
However, Dogma also could mean things like opinion, belief, and so it eventually came to be associated with all of the teachings and practices of the Christian Church.
Based on this broad definition of dogma, the field of Dogmatic Theology received its name, and it deals with the teachings of the Church in a wide sense.
Although, by the 1700s, the term dogma had a narrower meaning, dogmatic theology still retained its name.
In his book Catholic Dogmatics, Cardinal Gerhard Müller comments:
Catholic Dogmatics, vol. 1, Introduction
Though the name of this discipline (roughly since the eighteenth century) has been taken from the individual dogmas, dogmatics is not restricted to the dogmas in the formal sense: to certain doctrinal principles accepted in Catholic belief on divine authority due to a council or papal definition (e.g., the belief in Christ in the Nicene Creed or the dogma of the corporeal assumption of Mary in God’s glory).
Dogma means here the whole of Christian belief in terms of the creed and practice of the Church.
Here we see Cardinal Müller distinguishing between the older meaning of the term dogma—the whole of Christian belief in terms of creed and practice—and the more specialized meaning that was adopted in the 1700s.
Because since the 1700s the Church has used a narrower definition of dogma.
So what is that meaning?
The short answer is that A dogma is a teaching that the Church has infallibly taught to be divinely revealed.
Consequently, it calls for both Divine Faith and Catholic Faith.
It calls for divine faith because it is divinely revealed, and it calls for Catholic faith because the Magisterium of the Church has infallibly defined it as such.
&nbsp;
What Heresy Means Today
This means that heresy, which is a rejection of dogma, is now defined as follows in the current Code of Canon Law:
Code of Canon Law (1983) can. 751
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.
Although the elements are in a different order, this is fundamentally the same definition that was found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. According to it:
Code of Canon Law (1917), can. 1325 §2
After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic.
In both definitions, we see the same three elements that Aquinas offered.
First, Aquinas said heresy involves “a species of unbelief,” which the 1917 Code refers to by saying heresy involves someone who “pertinaciously denies or doubts” and the 1983 Code refers to by saying someone has “obstinate denial or obstinate doubt.”
Second, Aquinas said heresy is committed by “those who profess the Christian faith,” the 1917 Code said it was committed “after the reception of baptism . . . [by] anyone, retaining the name of Christian,” and the 1983 Code said it is committed “after the reception of baptism.”
Third, Aquinas said heresy involves the rejection of “dogma,” the 1917 Code said it involves the pertinacious denial or doubt of “something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith,” and the 1983 Code similarly says it involves the denial or doubt of “some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.”
So the same three elements that Aquinas identified—Nonbelief, After Baptism, of a Dogma—are still part of the modern understanding of heresy.
However, to qualify as the canonical crime of heresy—or what is sometimes termed Formal Heresy—all the elements listed in the 1983 Code of Canon Law must be fulfilled.
However, in contrast to formal heresy, people sometimes speak of Material Heresy.
Material heresy applies when the person is not fully culpable for his act.
As such, the qualifications “pertinaciously” and “obstinate” used in the 1917 and 1983 Codes would not need to be fulfilled for Material Heresy.
But the other conditions do need to be fulfilled for both formal and material heresy.
&nbsp;
Heresy and Dogma
It is important to recognize that the Church uses the term heresy to refer specifically to a rejection of dogmas. A rejection of anything less than this may be bad, but it is not heresy.
We see this distinction in a 1989 document issued by the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
It was a commentary by Joseph Ratzinger and Tarcisio Bertone on the profession of faith required for various Catholic leadership positions by John Paul II.
This profession of faith includes the Nicene Creed followed by three added paragraphs.
The three added paragraphs respectively deal with (1) Dogmas, (2) Other infallible teachings, and (3) Non-infallible teachings.
The first paragraph reads as follows:
Professio Fidei
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
The doctrinal commentary then explains:
Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei 5
The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and Catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.
These doctrines are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgement as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.
That means the two codes of canon law currently in effect—the western one and the eastern one, or the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.
Notice how the doctrinal commentary describes these teachings as infallible (“irreformable,” “defined,” “infallibly proposed”), that they have been taught “as divinely revealed,” and that those who reject them commit “heresy.”
In other words, they are dogmas.
By contrast, the second added paragraph of the profession of faith deals with teachings that are infallible, but the Church has not infallibly taught that they are divinely revealed. The commentary states:
Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei 6
The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.”
The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.
Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a ‘sententia definitive tenenda’ [“opinion to be definively held”]. Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Notice that, although these teachings “have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed,” they are nevertheless “taught infallibly” (“definitively proposed,” “defined”). However, since they are not dogmas, one is not guilty of “heresy” for rejecting them but of “rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine.”
Heresy is thus the rejection of a dogma, and dogmas are a subset of infallible teachings: They are those that the Church has infallibly taught to be divinely revealed.
What this means is that, in order to accuse a person of heresy—formal or material—you must show that he is rejecting an actual dogma.
It is not sufficient to show that he is rejecting a common, long-held theological opinion (e.g., something Thomas Aquinas said).
Neither is it sufficient to show that he is rejecting something that the Church teaches—nor even that he is rejecting something that the Church has infallibly taught, because dogmas are a subset of infallible teachings.
Heresy is only committed when the person refuses to believe something that the Church has infallibly defined to be divinely revealed (as opposed to just infallibly teaching that it is true and somehow connected with matters of faith and morals).
&nbsp;
Conclusion
Therefore, if you want to charge a council, a pope, a bishop, or anyone else with heresy, you will need to show that (1) He is denying something that the Church has taught, (2) that The Church has taught it infallibly, and (3) that The Church has infallibly taught it to be divinely revealed.
To do the latter two things, you will need to show when and how it was infallibly taught to be divinely revealed.
In other words, you can’t just quote a prior text from a theologian—even one as famous as Aquinas—or a previous papal or conciliar document, or even a set of them.
You’ll need to show that the documents in question use the language needed to trigger infallibility and that they communicate that this is a matter of divine revelation.
So, understood correctly, there are many fewer dogmas of the Church than is commonly supposed.
And far fewer Catholics are obstinately doubting or denying dogmas.
Consequently, a large number of charges of heresy are simply mistaken.
If you’d like to read about what I’ve discussed here, be sure and get a copy of Faith in Crisis.
The essays in this book equip Catholics to navigate today’s fiercest ecclesial debates.
The volume unfolds in three sections:
<ul>
<li>The first section—on Traditionalism—exposes the roots of fundamentalist rigor, private-revelation subcultures, and reactionary dissent.</li>
<li>The second section—on Church Authority—outlines papal primacy, collegiality, and the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium.</li>
<li>The third section—on Reform—revisits Vatican II and the postconciliar reforms, synodality, ecumenism, and interreligious dialogue, showing that legitimate change is always a reform in continuity.</li>
</ul>
Amid a polarized media atmosphere and doctrinal fog, these essays offer the clarity and pastoral realism Catholics need to remain anchored in the Catholic Faith.
And, of course, there’s a reason I was asked to write this essay. I’ve written extensively about heresy, dogma, and Church teaching before.
So for an in-depth discussion of these matters, be sure and get a copy of my book Teaching With Authority.
I’ll have links to both books in the show notes and video description.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
Like I said, we’re in our second year of the podcast now, but I do need your help to keep making it.
You can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get early access to new episodes—by going to <a href="https://patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast">Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast</a>
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!

What Is Heresy?

In this episode Trent takes questions from his subscribers and says good-bye to the old studio as it gets a facelift to become the new Counsel of Trent set.

Pre-studio Renovation “Ask Me Anything”

Karlo just finished his new book on purgatory and so he and Trent sit down to discuss a doctrine that even Catholics sometimes misunderstand.

How Does Purgatory Work? (with Karlo Broussard)

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

Do Statues, Beads, Icons have a place in worship? Or should Catholics stop?

There are things I cannot accept about Catholicism. Marriage equality and women priests are the two things that I just cannot get past.

Mark 7:31-37 Where did Jesus spit?

In the US we see a lot of extraordinary ministers of holy communion being used ordinarily. Is that an abuse?

Why isn’t fish considered meat?

Is there any issue for a man taking a female saint name for confirmation?

In what state in the body of the damned?

What is the Church position on organ donation?

Could you clarify when it meant when God said he regretted the creation of Man when speaking to Noah?

&#8220;Why isn&#8217;t fish considered meat?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on dietary laws and traditions within the Church. Other topics include the role of extraordinary ministers of holy communion, the appropriateness of taking a female saint&#8217;s name for confirmation, and the Church&#8217;s stance on organ donation, showcasing a variety of inquiries related to faith and practice.
<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 Isn’t Fish Considered Meat? Communion and Saints’ Names

In this free-for-all-Friday, Trent explores how viral videos can mistreat children and be part of a larger kind of discrimination called &#8220;childism.&#8221;

FFAF: Is “Childism” Wrong?

In this episode, Trent examines the results of the 2022 mid-term elections and what they mean for pro-life political goals moving forward.

Pro-Life Politics After the Mid-Terms

<div class="page" title="Page 199">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 189
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Jesus purposelessly destroyed another man’s property by allowing demons to enter a herd of pigs, causing it to drown in the Sea of Galilee.”
DEFENSE
Jesus had reasons for this act; it was not a purposeless destruction of property.
First, Jesus did not destroy the pigs. In freeing a man from demonic possession, he allowed the demons to enter a herd of pigs. These de- mons had caused self-destructive behavior in the possessed man (Mark 5:5), and they apparently began tormenting the pigs, which tried to flee and unintentionally stampeded downhill into the sea (Mark 5:13).
This may have been a foreseeable result, but foreseeing something is not the same as causing it. Jesus granted the demons’ request to enter the pigs, and the demons thwarted their own plan to live in the pigs by tormenting them so that they stampeded and died, revealing the self-destructive nature of evil.
Second, foreseeable events that have negative consequences can be morally justified for an adequate reason. That was the case here, be- cause the event taught multiple valuable lessons.
The owners of the pigs, and the people in the region where this occurred, were Gentiles. Although the pigs’ owners suffered economic loss, they stood to gain vastly more in terms of spiritual wealth. The death of the pigs provided a vivid demonstration of Jesus’ spiritual authority and his role in God’s plan. By allowing the demons to go into the pigs, the exorcism was accompanied by a forceful and memorable demonstration of God’s power and of his compassion for the demoniac. The fact that the demons seized control of a herd of 2,000 pigs showed just what kind of spiritual oppression the man was suffering, and yet Jesus was able to free him.
This revealed the power and love of the true God to the Gentile natives. It showed them that the true God could free them from even the most powerful manifestations of evil. It also showed them that the God of the Jews loves and has compassion for Gentiles.
The spiritual value of these lessons—which could bring souls to God—greatly exceeded the economic value of the pigs. Had Jesus not granted the demons’ request, the lessons would not be underlined in the unforgettable way they are.
TIP
For more on this event, see Jimmy Akin, Mark: A Commentary.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Jesus and the Herd of Pigs

<div class="page" title="Page 37">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 27
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The deuterocanonical books don’t belong in Scripture. They are not written in Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament.”
DEFENSE
The language that a book was written in doesn&#8217;t determine whether it&#8217;s Scripture.
Hebrew was the national language of the Israelites for much of their history, and many Old Testament books were written in it, but the Israelites’ language changed over time. Sometimes it changed through the incorporation of loanwords from other languages. Thus we find Egyptian, Akkadian, and Persian loanwords in books of Scripture written when these cultures had influence in Israel.
During the Babylonian exile (sixth century B.C.), when Jews were ruled by Aramaic-speakers, Hebrew fell out of popular use and Aramaic came into use; following the conquests of Alexander the Great (fourth century B.C.), Greek came into use by Jews—particularly among those living among Greek-speakers.
These developments led to the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, first orally into Aramaic, and later in written form, in works known as the targums. They were also translated into Greek with the appearance of the Septuagint.
Scripture also began to be written in these languages. Ezra contains extensive passages from letters in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8–6:18, 7:12–26), much of Daniel is written in Aramaic (Dan. 2:4b–7:28), and the New Testament is in Greek.
The deuterocanonicals were written during this time of linguistic transition, and they reflect that. Deuterocanonicals written in Hebrew include Sirach (see the translator’s prologue; also, versions in that language have been found), Baruch, and 1 Maccabees (noted by Origen and Jerome). Judith and Tobit were both written either in Hebrew or Aramaic (fragments of Tobit in both survive, and Jerome used an Aramaic version in composing the Vulgate). The deuterocanonical portions of Daniel were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and the deuterocanonical portions of Esther were partly written in Hebrew or Aramaic and partly in Greek. 2 Maccabees was written in Greek, though it includes two prefatory letters that were likely originally in Aramaic. Finally, Wisdom was written in Greek.
Ultimately, it is divine inspiration, not original language, that determines whether a book is Scripture. If Hebrew was required, all the New Testament and even some parts of protocanonical Old Testament books would have to be struck.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Language of the Deuterocanonicals

Was Napoleon short? Did feminists burn their bras in the 60’s? And did Shakespearean actors originally sound like gentleman or more like pirates? In this episode Trent shows that what you think you know may not be so!

“7 Historical Myths You Probably Believe”

In this episode, Trent rebuts two dozen arguments against Peter and the papacy from Protestant apologist Todd Friel.

25 Reasons Peter Was NOT The First Pope! (REBUTTED)

In this episode Trent joins a homeschool podcast to reveal how he went from making fun of homeschooling to making it the cornerstone of his children’s education.

Confessions of a Homeschool Skeptic

<div class="page" title="Page 206">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 196
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The book of Tobit contains numerous implausibilities—for example, a woman being married seven times yet each husband dropping dead on the wedding night, how Tobit is presented as the uncle of the legendary figure of Ahiqar, and the phenomenally long life
spans of Tobit and his son.”
DEFENSE
The alleged errors are clues to the audience telling them what kind of book they are reading.
Like Judith (see Day 181), Tobit is a literary work that functions as an extended parable rather than a historical account, and various aspects of the text signal the audience that this is the case.
For example, the Pontifical Biblical Commission notes: “The death of the seven husbands of the same woman before the consummation of the marriage ([Tob.] 3:8–17) is a fact so unlikely that, this, by itself, suggests that the narrative is a literary fiction. . . . We have here, then, a popular religious fable with a didactic and edifying purpose which, by its nature, places it in the sphere of the wisdom tradition” (The Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture 109).
Similarly, in the book’s first chapter, the text describes Tobit as the uncle of Ahiqar (Tob. 1:21), a legendary Middle-Eastern sage. Ahiqar then helps Tobit (Tob. 1:22, 2:10), and he attends Tobias’s wedding (Tob. 11:18). This is the ancient equivalent of a modern book whose first chapter establishes that the main character is the uncle of a legendary figure like Paul Bunyan, who then goes on to appear in the story.
Thus when the text says that Tobit lived to be 112 (Tob. 14:1) and Tobias to be 117 (Tob. 14:14)—and some manuscripts list higher ages— in a world where most adults died at half of those figures, it is another clue to the literary nature of the text.
This does not mean that Tobit cannot contain a historical nucleus that has been elaborated in literary style, but its primary character is literary rather than historical, as different aspects of the text make clear.
In view of considerations like these, John Paul II concluded: “The Books of Tobit, Judith, and Esther, although dealing with the history of the Chosen People, have the character of allegorical and moral narrative rather than history properly so called” (General Audience, May 8, 1985).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Book of Tobit and History

I’ve felt called to share my faith to non-Christians. How do I introduce Jesus to my Muslims and Jewish friends?

What techniques do you employ when sharing the faith with Muslims?

How do I answer the question, did God die?

How can one lovingly explain why we reject the Quran and don’t accept Mohammed as a prophet?

What’s the difference between the deity of Christ and Divinity of Christ?

I have a Muslim best friend that I shared a lot with when I converted to Catholicism. What else can I do to evangelize her?

Can Muslims who convert to Catholicism become priests, like when Anglican converts become priests? If so, what would you do with their wives?

Why doesn’t Islam allow women to answer the call to prayer? Where do women get their religious training?

I was told there was no evidence that Mohammed ever existed. Is this true?

Why are the bishops quick to come to the defense of Muslims but Muslims are quick to be violent towards Christians?

&#8220;How do I introduce Jesus to Muslim and Jewish friends?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on effective ways to share faith across different beliefs. Additional topics include techniques for engaging with Muslims, addressing the question of God&#8217;s death, and explaining the rejection of the Quran. Each question offers valuable insights into interfaith dialogue and evangelization.
<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 Do I Introduce Jesus to Muslim and Jewish Friends?

<div class="page" title="Page 86">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 76
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Infant baptism is an invention of men not practiced by the early Christians.”
DEFENSE
Infant baptism was practiced from the beginning of Church history. The principles behind it are articulated in the New Testament, and we have explicit documentation of it from the second century on.
We observe elsewhere the biblical principles behind infant baptism (see Day 75).
One is that baptism is the Christian initiation ritual and its equivalent of circumcision. This led some in the early Church to discuss whether baptism should be performed on the eighth day after birth— the time circumcision was performed (Lev. 12:2–3).
Around A.D. 253, Cyprian of Carthage reported the results of a council that held that baptism should not be delayed until the eighth day but given even sooner: “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you [Fidus] say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be followed, so that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For no one agreed with the course you thought should be taken; rather we all judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man” (Letters 58:2).
Other records show infant baptism was performed in the second century. St. Irenaeus of Lyons was clear that being regenerated or “born again” happened in baptism: “As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean of our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord; we are spiritually regenerated” (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus 34 [c. A.D. 190]).
Irenaeus further indicated that this was done for infants when he wrote: “For [Jesus] came to save all through himself—all, I say, who through him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [c. A.D. 189]). As someone who grew up in a Christian home, Irenaeus himself was likely baptized as an infant around the year A.D. 140, less than fifty years from the apostolic age.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Infant Baptism in the Early Church

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent shares which beloved food aren&#8217;t as good as people think.

FFAF: These Foods are Overrated

In this episode, Trent sits down with Jason Evert to discuss his new book on transgender ideology.

How to Talk About Transgender Ideology (with Jason Evert)

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God? (My Take)

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent shares how he feels after finally getting his blue belt in jiu-jitsu.

FFAF: I Finally Got My Blue Belt in Jiu Jitsu

Trent usually tries to be prepared for any disaster but in this episode he reveals the one calamity that scares him the most, how it could realistically happen, and how he’s still going to prepare for it.

The Disaster That Scares Me the Most

Joe&#8217;s second and final response to the series Dr. William Lane Craig published responding to Gavin Ortlund&#8217;s thoughts on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Here, Joe examines the citations Craig gives where the Early Church was NOT united on Eucharistic theology, and shows how they actually work against Craig&#8217;s case.
Transcript:
Joe:
Welcome back to Shameless Popery. I&#8217;m Joe Heschmeyer. This is part two of a two-part series responding to William Lane. Craig&#8217;s arguments against the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So if you haven&#8217;t seen part one yet, you can check that out in the link in the description, but last week I was looking at his biblical case against the Eucharist. Today I&#8217;m looking at his case against the Eucharist on the basis of church history. Now, as many of you may know, Dr. William Lane Craig has been something of a personal hero to me as a wonderful apologist in defense of Christianity. But unfortunately on topics like the Eucharist, I think he&#8217;s just woefully misinformed now, part of his objection to the Eucharist involves philosophical arguments against transubstantiation. As he understands it, he&#8217;s pretty upfront about the fact that he just finds this whole teaching pretty weird.
CLIP:
This is an incredibly, incredibly complex and reticulate doctrine that has been well thought through by people like Thomas Aquinas, but I think is truly bizarre.
Joe:
Rather than diving deep into the philosophical aspects of transubstantiation, I thought it might be worth just pointing a few things out at the outset. First, both Catholics and Protestants are going to agree the God of the universe entered history as a baby boy born of a virgin, a male whose only biological parent is a female, and this God man announces to the world in stark terms that we are meant to eat his flesh and drink his blood, whatever that means. I think it&#8217;s fair to say that the whole thing is truly bizarre in the sense of being rather unusual and unexpected, and that&#8217;s true. However you make sense of the biblical data and whatever you might say of the Catholic view, the fact that 2000 years of brilliant theologians like Thomas Aquinas and Holy Saints have held to it should at least encourage a hint of intellectual humility and curiosity.
Is it possible that they see something that you don&#8217;t? So bearing that in mind, I would suggest that the boldest arguments that Craig makes are actually a series of radical, and I&#8217;m going to say unsupportable claims he makes about the Eucharist in church history. Now, if you&#8217;re looking for something that is supportable, take a stroll over to shameless joe.com and consider supporting the channel. For as little as $5 a month, you get access to exclusive live streams and a community of like-minded Christians who want to go deeper in their faith. Now, your direct support goes a long way towards keeping this ministry going. And so from the bottom of my heart, thank you to everyone who is a supporter, shameless joe.com, and hopefully we&#8217;ll see you there as well. So, okay, when I say that Dr. Craig&#8217;s view of church history is radical, here&#8217;s what I mean. Listen to his reply to Dr. Gavin Orland on how the early Christians understood the real presence.
CLIP:
Now, some people say that real presence is the universal view throughout church history. I think that&#8217;s slightly overstated, but it is nearly unanimous. Gavin acknowledges that there are nuances and debates among church leaders throughout history, but he maintains that some species of real presence has been the dominant view. Bill.
I think this is very misleading, Kevin, if not downright false. Of course, real presence became the dominant view after the Roman Catholic Church condemned people like Hon Guard in the 11th century for holding to a symbolic view.
Joe:
I actually had to listen to that claim twice just to make sure I wasn&#8217;t mishearing what Craig is claiming. He doesn&#8217;t just say that he&#8217;s found a minority view, that there were some people along the way who didn&#8217;t think Christ was really present in the Eucharist. He literally claims that belief in the real presence wasn&#8217;t even the dominant view until after the condemnation of Behring gar in the 11th century. So just compare Craig&#8217;s assertion here with the writings of church historians like the Protestant j and d Kelly who says of the church in the fourth and fifth century that Eucharistic teaching it should be understood at the outset was in general unquestioningly realist, IE. The consecrated bread and wine were taken to be and were treated and designated as the savior&#8217;s body and blood. And as we&#8217;re going to see this isn&#8217;t just true of Christians in the fourth and fifth century, this is also true of the Christians of the first and second and third century as well. Well, how does Craig buttress his quite radical view that real presence wasn&#8217;t the dominant view until the 11th century? He cites to a couple of scholars that I don&#8217;t think say what he says they do First, he cites to the work of the Jesuit scholar Father Gary Macy
CLIP:
Among the church fathers. There was a diversity of opinion about the real presence, the historical theologian, Gary Macy in his book, theologies of the Eucharist, calls the Patristic period, the origins of diversity, and then he characterizes the period to follow the decline of diversity.
Joe:
But Macy&#8217;s book isn&#8217;t on the early church. It&#8217;s on the period of 10 80 to 1220 as the title says. And now it&#8217;s true. He does in passing address the early church, but he does so only in a pretty cursory fashion. And even there, I don&#8217;t think it lines up with Craig&#8217;s description. For instance, he claims that the Christians in the East focused on the reality and power of the Lord&#8217;s presence and on adoration in the liturgy, which already doesn&#8217;t sound like they didn&#8217;t believe in the real presence. Then he says that in the West, people like St. Augustine while not denying the reality of the presence of the Lord and the ritual preferred to stress the community itself as the true body of Christ. Whatever you think of that argument, you should notice that he&#8217;s explicitly presenting this as a difference in emphasis or stress, not an actual contradiction.
There&#8217;s no contradiction between saying the Eucharist is the body of Christ and the church is the body of Christ. And Macy seems to go out of his way to make it clear that he&#8217;s not arguing that there is any kind of contradiction, or at least there&#8217;s no contradiction that they know about as he puts it, whatever incompatibilities may have existed in these different emphases by the fathers and their discussions of the Eucharist seem to have gone unnoticed during their lifetimes. So if there was some kind of implicit contradiction, it was one that alluded the early Christians. They didn&#8217;t think they were teaching different theologies. One saying, I believe in the real presence and another saying they didn&#8217;t. They seemed to have thought their views were harmonious. It was simply a difference in emphasis. So what Macy appears to be arguing for in the book seems to me to be quite different from what Craig is claiming Macy argues.
Now, I would actually suggest just more broadly that this is a good guide for how to read, or importantly how not to read the church Fathers at times they&#8217;re going to openly disagree with one another on a doctrine they&#8217;re not afraid to do. So that happens. But if you&#8217;re looking at an issue in which they don&#8217;t do that, where they don&#8217;t openly disagree, in which they aren&#8217;t arguing against each other and they&#8217;re just talking about different aspects of the same doctrine, you should read that with what&#8217;s called the hermeneutic of continuity. Assume unless there&#8217;s good evidence to the contrary that they agree with one another and are just describing different aspects of a broad topic. Somebody saying that Trinity is one essence and somebody else saying there are three persons in the Trinity. They&#8217;re not fighting, they&#8217;re just talking about different things. And unfortunately, I frequently find Protestant apologists and theologians who kind of mine the church fathers looking for support for their own theology, and they&#8217;re going to find some places where the teaching is just completely contradicted by the early Christians and other places where, okay, they say something that could kind of make sense with either a Catholic or a Protestant worldview.
So if you find someone saying that there are all these different contradictory theologies on something important like baptism or the Eucharist, it&#8217;s worth asking, well, where do we see the fathers fighting with one another on these questions? Because if you have to invent a fight that isn&#8217;t there, that might be a sign that you&#8217;re misreading them because you&#8217;re not using a hermeneutic of continuity. So again, I don&#8217;t think Craig is purposely misrepresenting the work of Macy, but I don&#8217;t think he&#8217;s representing his view or the views of the early Christians very well, and I think that actually pales in comparison to how badly he misunderstands the argument of Yaroslav pelican. Now, if you&#8217;re not familiar, Pelican was a brilliant historian Yale, and he was a Lutheran pastor who at the age of 75 converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. So already his biography alone should probably signal that Pelican was someone who believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But here&#8217;s how Craig claims Pelican describes church history.
CLIP:
The great dogmatic historian Yaroslav Pelican has said that no one during this early era clearly affirmed that the presence of the body and blood was purely symbolic. Although he says Tu and Oregon came close, and no one clearly affirmed the real presence of the body and blood, though Iran as an Ambrose came close,
Joe:
This simply is not true. Pelican says the exact opposite of what Craig claims he&#8217;s saying in the very book that Craig is citing. Pelican describes that for the Christians of the one hundreds and the two hundreds, the worshiping congregation believed Christ himself to be present among them. He describes how the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seemed to have presupposed that this was a special presence, a presence which some early Christian writers expressed in strikingly realistic language. For instance, he points to the passage and went Saint Ignatius writing about 1 0 7 describes the Eucharist as the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins. Now, pelicans going to sum all of this up by saying that during this time period, the theologians did not have adequate concepts within which to formulate a doctrine of the real presence that evidently was already believed by the church, even though it was not yet taught by explicit instruction or confessed by creeds.
In other words, Pelican is explicitly arguing and on the basis of a wealth of evidence, by the way that the earliest Christians clearly believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but they didn&#8217;t have a good theological vocabulary yet to explain things like the particularities of his mode of presence or how transubstantiation works or anything like that. In Pelican&#8217;s words, this doctrine of the real presence was believed by the church and affirmed by its liturgy. That is, we don&#8217;t just have to compare the writings of individual Christian theologians and guess how representative each of their views are. We can literally look to the liturgical text of how the Christians prayed together and we can see that they were worshiping Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Now compare Pelican&#8217;s words in which he says that the real presence was believed in by the church and affirmed by his liturgy with Craig&#8217;s claim that pelican taught that no one
CLIP:
Clearly affirmed the real presence of the body and blood. Though I a as an Ambrose came close,
Joe:
I actually found the precise passage that Craig seems to be misremembering, and I do think this is a case of misremembering rather than something worse because Craig actually makes several different mistakes in trying to recount what Pelican said. For instance, he mixes up Clement and Tertullian and he mixes up IUs and Ignatius. But misremembering aside, I just don&#8217;t understand how Craig could have read this chapter or this book and come away with the idea that Pelican thought Christians in the second and third century didn&#8217;t believe in the real presence, yet worse, I don&#8217;t know how someone as smart as Craig could read Pelican who offers numerous quotations showing that the Christians of the second and third century collectively believed in the real presence of Christ and worshiped accordingly, and then continue to claim that belief in the real presence wasn&#8217;t a dominant view in the church until a thousand years later. That&#8217;s an enormous and frankly, indefensible misreading of church history. Now in opposition to the theology of the early Christians, Craig&#8217;s going to appeal instead to Dr. Stephen NIUs. Now, NIMS is a former Protestant who now rejects the Trinity.
CLIP:
Stephen Neish, a Christian philosopher in his book, eating The Flesh of Christ, has characterized these various doctrines of the real presence as magical cannibalism. And I think that is not unfair, and it is such a far cry from what I think we find taught in the New Testament, and therefore I do not think this is a doctrine that we should affirm.
Joe:
I don&#8217;t find this kind of argumentation very helpful. It just seems like a personal attack on the early Christians of just calling their view magical cannibalism. But even on the charge of cannibalism, Craig is actually once again showing well how poorly he understands the Catholic theology of transubstantiation on the one hand, because unlike cannibalism, the Eucharist doesn&#8217;t involve destroying the flesh of Christ. But on the other hand, and I think more importantly, we know as a matter of history that the earliest enemies of Christianity likewise accused them of being cannibals. Theophilus denies this accusation in the letter from 180 1. There&#8217;s a section in Octavius MIUs is Felix, in which a pagan claims that the Christian liturgy involves covering a baby with grain so they can eat his flesh and drink his blood under the appearance of bread. Now, of course, all of those are kind of caricatures of the mass, but that&#8217;s the point.
If your theology of the Eucharist couldn&#8217;t be mistaken for cannibalism, then it isn&#8217;t what the early Christians believed because clearly theirs could be mistaken for cannibalism because it was. Now, it&#8217;s not just that the earliest Christians believed Christ was present in the Eucharist. As pelican shows this doctrine of the real presence believed by the church and affirmed by its liturgy was closely tied to the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Now, he quotes Saint Cian who describes of Jesus Christ, our high priest offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father and has commanded his priests here on earth to offer that same sacrifice. And this is hardly new to Cian in the New Testament itself. Jesus&#8217;s description of Christian worship seems to take for granted that we&#8217;re going to have altars in Hebrews 13, likewise speaks of us eating the sacrifice from the altar.
Now, as we saw in my earlier response to Craig, St. Paul compares the Eucharistic sacrifice to the sacrifices offered at Jewish and Pagan altars. And as I point out in my book, the early church was the Catholic Church. We can find references to the Eucharist being a sacrifice going back to the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament. For example, the Diday, which might date back as early as the first century explicitly describes Christian liturgy as a sacrifice. So too Justin martyr writing about one 50 argues that the Eucharistic sacrifice is a fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi One. So does Seu, who describes the Eucharist as a sacrifice in spirit and truth. And again, these are not just individual theologians or bishops offering fringe opinions. As Pelican points out, liturgical evidence suggests an understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, a sacrifice prefigured by the Old Testament sacrifices, and in fact a represenation of the sacrifice on Calvary to the Father. Now, if that sounds like I&#8217;m saying, the first 300 years of Christians were Catholic in their worship and that pelican saying the same thing, well listen to what Craig would say to Christians who hold such a view.
CLIP:
The idea that the Eucharist is a represenation of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross to God is a Catholic doctrine that was vehemently opposed by the Protestant reformers. There was no aspect of the Catholic mass that they rejected more vigorously than the idea that the mass was a sacrifice presented to God. And therefore, I think it is all together unfitting to regard the Eucharist as a sacrifice that we offer to God.
Joe:
Now, I actually largely agree with Craig on this point. The reformers did reject the kind of Christian worship that was offered by the Christians who knew the Apostles. But that doesn&#8217;t seem to me to be a reason to reject early Christianity. That seems to me to be a reason to reject the Protestant reformation. And remember, this is not a case where the experts that Craig is citing or disagreeing with the experts that I&#8217;m citing, and you got to sift through the evidence rather, the experts that Craig is citing disagree with William Lynn Craig, they say the opposite. There&#8217;s simply too much evidence to deny that the earliest Christians worship Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and sacrificially represented him to the Father. In fact, the earliest Christians were willing to endure literal martyrdom for the sake of the Eucharist, as we can see from cases like the martyrdom of St. SIUs, for example. In fact, you can check that case out and learn more of what the earliest Christians had to say about the Eucharist by going right here. For Shameless Popery, I&#8217;m Joe Heschmeyer. God bless you.
&nbsp;

The Early Church Was Catholic on the Eucharist (William Lane Craig REBUTTAL Pt. 2)

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

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

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

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

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

&#8220;Is the Eucharist a Literal Sacrifice or a Symbolic Act?&#8221; This episode delves into the nature of the Eucharist, addressing questions like whether Jesus spoke symbolically when He said, “This is my body,” and how His command to ‘eat my flesh and drink my blood’ aligns with Jewish law. We also explore the implications of Jesus’ words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and the teachings of the Book of Hebrews.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

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

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent takes on a popular X poster who endorses the McMartin preschool &#8220;Satanic panic&#8221; theory.