Manage Account

Every year, there’s a late November harvest of Catholic articles (perfectly timed for Thanksgiving), explaining how <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/eucharist">the Eucharist</a> is the first Thanksgiving. After all, the word eucharist means thanksgiving, don’tcha know? But this year, I thought it might be good to put some meat on those turkey bones. What does it actually mean to say that the Eucharist is a “thankgiving” <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-eucharist-as-a-sacrifice">sacrifice</a>?
As Christians, we’re called to “continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name” (Heb. 13:15). And one of the ways that we do this is by presenting the “sacrifice of praise” that is the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a beautiful description in paragraph 1359:
<blockquote>The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the cross, is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation. In the Eucharistic sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the Resurrection of Christ. Through Christ the Church can offer the sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for all that God has made good, beautiful, and just in creation and in humanity.</blockquote>
Through Christ, we give praise to the Father for every good gift. But where is this sacrificial theology coming from? From both the Old and New Testament.
In The Feast of Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger quotes the German scholar Hartmut Gese, who points out that “strangely enough, one particular form of the ritual meal which is deeply rooted in the Old Testament and which also played a prominent part in Judaism at the time of Jesus (according to the Mishnah) has been neglected by scholars: the tōda, ‘thanksgiving sacrifice.’” The Hebrew word tōda (or todah), like the Greek eucharistia, simply means “thanksgiving.” So it makes sense to read the New Testament thanksgiving offering in light of the Old Testament thanksgiving offering.
These Old Testament sacrifices are first mentioned in Leviticus 7:12-15, and are the backdrop for many of the Psalms of praise. As Michael Patrick Barber explains in Singing in the Reign, “the todah is the only sacrifice in which bread is offered as sacrifice. The sacrifice was then eaten in a celebratory meal. This is also the only time the Levitical law code permitted consecrated bread to be eaten by lay Israelites.”
So who offered a todah sacrifice? The Jewish Talmud (an often-helpful resource for understanding Jewish religious practices) quotes Rav Yehuda (an influential Jewish leader from the 3rd century A.D.) as saying that certain groups  “must offer thanks to God with a thanks-offering and a special blessing,” including those who travelled by sea or desert, as well as “one who was ill and recovered, and one who was incarcerated in prison and went out” (b. Berakhot 54b). In short, if you been saved from danger, sickness, or captivity, it is right that you should respond to God with praise. And this is precisely where we find ourselves, having been “ransomed” by Christ (Mark 10:45).
As the Talmud suggests, there are two ingredients to the todah: you thank God, and you offer him something as a sign of your gratitude. In the first place, we give God our thanks through “the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.” This is what the various todah psalms are doing. For instance, Psalm 18 is ascribed to David, after he was freed from the hands of his enemies, and particularly the hands of King Saul. In it, David describes how “in my distress I called upon the Lord; to my God I cried for help. From his temple he heard my voice, and my cry to him reached his ears” (Psalm 18:6), and God delivered him.
But the second part of the todah is an offering. Originally, that offering was the flesh of an animal, along with unleavened bread (Lev. 7:13). But this is fulfilled in Christ. As the University of Bonn’s Hermut Loehr explains, “with regard to the sacrifice, in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper the self-sacrifice of Jesus himself replaces the animal sacrifice of the Old Testament todah” (The Eucharist and Jewish Ritual Meals: The Case of the todah). Our gift of unleavened bread is, by the words of the priest and the action of the Holy Spirit, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/transubstantiation-for-beginners">transformed into the true flesh of Christ</a>, and offered in gratitude to the Father. With this we unite our sacrifices of praise to God for all of his goodness to us (individually and collectively). This is our todah, our eucharistia, our sacrifice of thanksgiving. So let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right and just.

Jesus: the Original Thanksgiving Meal

The commandment to love our enemies seems impossible sometimes, especially for those who have been badly hurt. So what does Jesus mean by this commandment? Are we all obligated to follow it? And if we do follow it, what does it mean to love those we don&#8217;t feel any love for?

Love Your Enemies

Is there any evidence for the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/peter-and-the-papacy">papacy in the Bible</a>? Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard gives one argument from the Gospel of John and answers a common objection to it on Catholic Answers Live.

Where Is the Pope in the Bible?

The Eucharist is a HARD teaching | ​⁠@shamelesspopery

What’s The Truth About Trans Saints?

Many non-Catholic Christians disdain the crucifix, because they believe it distracts from our Lord&#8217;s victory over sin and death. They prefer the bare cross, which they think better reflects the triumph of his subsequent Resurrection, whereas a crucifix focuses on Jesus’ death or even defeat, as if he still needs to suffers for us. Not surprisingly, then, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/when-did-jesus-finish-his-sacrifice">the sacrifice of the Mass</a> is often caricatured <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-mass-beats-the-4th-of-july">as the blasphemous re-crucifixion of Jesus</a>.
St. Paul has a better both/and idea. He knows that the Resurrection is an indispensable aspect of Christ’s one paschal sacrifice (1 Cor. 15:12-18). Yet he also knows that Christ’s crucifixion depicts how much Jesus loves us in atoning for our sins (John 15:13; see Heb. 9:11-14), and that the Lord’s embracing his own cross—the cross—helps us better to understand the call to carry our own (Matt. 16:24-26).
Indeed, Paul understands that “Christ crucified” graphically symbolizes that Jesus has vanquished sin, death, and the devil and thus necessarily implies his resurrection. It also illustrates that we need a savior and thereby directs our need to repent and become his disciples:
<blockquote>For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. . . .
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 1:22-25, 2:2).</blockquote>
Jesus concurs: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” which he proclaims at the beginning of his public ministry (Matt. 3:17), and thereafter along with apostles, illustrating <a href="https://www.catholic.com/bible-navigator/necessity-of-baptism">that baptism is fundamental in becoming his disciple</a> and having our sins forgiven (Matt. 28:18-19; Acts 2:37-39).
<h2>The Crucifix: A Tangible Reminder (Matt. 28:20)</h2>
These truths all help explain why a crucifix—and not simply a bare cross—is the most universally recognized symbol of Catholicism and Christianity in general. As a cradle Catholic—and praised be our Lord Jesus Christ for the efficacy of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism">infant baptism</a>!—I “got it” at a very young age regarding these sacred images in my home and parish church (<a href="https://saintmaryofredford.church/tour">St. Mary of Redford</a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/21400866648/">in Detroit</a>). Seeing our Lord’s corpus on a cross greatly helped me encounter our divine Savior as a child (Matt. 18:1-4; 19:13-15), just as Paul knew it would.
So when I continued to see crucifixes in my classrooms at <a href="https://www.detroitcatholic.com/news/former-st-mary-of-redford-school-to-be-transformed-into-supportive-housing">St. Mary of Redford Grade School in Detroit</a> and <a href="https://fgrhs.org/">Fr. Gabriel Richard High School in Ann Arbor</a>, I knew I was at home. They never confused or repulsed me, let alone cause me to get angry at another religious group for our Lord’s death. I understood that I contributed to putting him on the cross—that we all did through our personal sins. The sacrament of confession made me intimately aware of these realities—and is designed to do so—and so I was and am grateful that Jesus came to redeem us (John 3:16-17; 12:31-33).
<h2>Girding our Loins for Our Own Good Fridays</h2>
Because of his victory over sin and death, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit, further empowering us to live as credible witnesses for his kingdom (Acts 1:8; 2:1-47; see <a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c3a1.htm#III">CCC 156</a>). We need to understand what has Lord has done so that we can embrace his call to holiness and share the good news with others. <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/where-is-confirmation-in-the-bible">The sacrament of confirmation</a> calls us—and equips us—to participate personally in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20):
<blockquote>It gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:
Recall then that you have received the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence, the spirit of holy fear in God&#8217;s presence. Guard what you have received. God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your hearts (CCC 1303).
</blockquote>
Trials will come for us, as they did for Jesus, as <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/032026.cfm">the first reading for Mass on March 20</a> captures well:
<blockquote>For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him
and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test 
that we may have proof of his gentleness 
and try his patience (Wis. 2:17-18).</blockquote>
Jesus lives out these words in establishing the New Covenant, enduring mockery from the very people he came to save, as we hear in <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/032926.cfm">the Passion narrative</a> on Palm Sunday:
<blockquote>Those passing by reviled him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, if you are the Son of God, [and] come down from the cross!” Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” The revolutionaries who were crucified with him also kept abusing him in the same way (Matt. 27:39-44).</blockquote>
Jesus redeems and offers them salvation (Luke 23:34, 1 Tim. 2:4). We cannot act differently, remembering that our mission is to everyone, because everyone is made in God’s image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-27), and thus one for whom our Lord died and offers salvation (2 Pet. 3:9), which is a reminder of our own need for God’s mercy. To help us love those who hate and persecute us (Matt. 5:43-48), we should remember that our incontrovertible enemies are not “flesh and blood”—i.e., mere human beings—but that we are contending “against the principalities, against the powers,” the devil and all of his demonic minions (Eph. 6:12).
Paul exhorts us to fully arm ourselves (Eph. 6:10-18) and lets us know that our armor includes <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-seven-sacraments-a-comprehensive-list">the sacraments</a>—those weapons of our warfare” that “are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:3-4).
This brings us back to the crucifix and Christ’s one paschal sacrifice that it symbolizes. The sacrament of the Eucharist is “the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-the-eucharist-is-the-source-and-summit-of-christianity">source and summit</a> of the whole Christian life,” because it enables us to offer anew Christ’s one propitiatory sacrifice (<a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#V">CCC 1366-1367</a>), and also because it provides us to consume our New Covenant Passover Lamb of God <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-mass-beats-the-4th-of-july">through liturgical remembrance</a> in a bloodless, sacramental manner at every Mass, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/what-is-the-point-of-a-priest">according to the order of Melchizedek</a>—which Jesus assures us will lead us unto eternal life if we receive him reverently (John 6:53-58, Matt. 28:20; see 1 Cor. 10:14-22, 11:23-32).
Our Lord has traveled this road before us. Let us persevere, with his support, because he is trustworthy (John 8:31-32, 14:6; Rom. 8:28).

A Crucifix, Not Just a Cross

&#8220;Lord I have a death to die and not a death to choose.&#8221; So go the words to a hymn by the great English Catholic convert Fr. Frederick Faber. They imply that the attitude toward death that we must adopt in our prayers is simply this: &#8220;Thy will be done,&#8221; as the Savior himself has taught us and as he himself prayed in his agony.
Each day about 160,000 people die all over the world. How many of them are accompanied attentively by family and friends? How many believe in or receive the consolations of true religion? And how many Catholics make prayer for the dying a daily work of mercy?
Death may come in many, many ways. It may be sudden; it may be after a long illness; it may be peaceful and without struggle or with hours of gasping for breath. It may be full of fear or full of consolation. The malice of the devil may seek to cause terror or despair in the soul, or, even more horribly, to convince the sinner that he need not repent or seek the last sacraments. Even so, the angels are present to guide the soul and reassure it and protect it from evil on the way to the world to come.
Holy Church in her wisdom has united the now of this present moment with the certainty of our death as each day we pray many times, &#8220;Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.&#8221; This petition all by itself makes our daily rosary a treasure of grace, protection, and preparation for that most certain and significant moment of our lives. When the hour comes, we will not regret our effort to pray it. Faithfulness to the prayer of the rosary is a sure sign of a happy death.
In her services for the dying, the Church provides the model for the care of those in their last hour. In the first place are the holy sacraments, the so-called “last rites”: confession, anointing, the imparting of the Apostolic Pardon with the plenary indulgence, and Holy Communion if the dying person is capable of swallowing. Notice that nowhere in these does the Church teach us to pray not to die; rather, she teaches us to pray to die well!
<a href="https://www.ibreviary.com/m2/preghiere.php?tipo=Rito&amp;id=371#poca">Here</a> are some models of prayer for the dying from the Church’s official ritual.
Are we allowed not only to pray for the dying, but to pray to die ourselves? The answer to this is a qualified “yes.” First of all, we not only may, but must pray for what Catholics call a “happy death”—that is, a death in the state of grace and assisted by the means of grace such as those already mentioned here. In addition to prayer for a good end of our lives in God’s favor, we may also pray for death in accordance with God’s will for the simple reason that we desire to live forever in God. “I want to be dissolved,” says St. Paul, “and be with Christ.” The supreme happiness of heaven is always preferable to any lesser good available to us in this life. Yet Paul added that living longer may be God’s will for him, as “fruitful toil.”
Growth in merit while we are living means a greater charity and so a more comprehensive possession of God in the vision of heaven. St. Teresa of Avila said that she would have been willing to endure a thousand lives more trying and difficult than her own, just to advance one degree higher in heavenly glory. Thus, she had a higher standard than her own release from the trials of this life—namely, the glory of God and her love for him. This is the way of the saints.
Of course, we can simply desire and pray for deliverance from bodily life with its pains for ourselves or our loved ones. Look at the laments of the prophets of the Old Testament who longed for death. This was not wrong. This is no sin at all, as long as it is with the intention of accepting God’s will. To desire death for a good reason is not a suicidal desire; it is simply reasonable under the circumstances. Suicide is irrational, taking our life on our own authority as though we were the sources and masters of our lives. Acceptance is the key. We can pray often, “O God, I accept now the death you have prepared for me with all the pains that may accompany it.” We can pray that our loved ones be spared a painful death agony. But once again, we must pray with the Savior in Gethsemane: “Not my will but thine be done.”
Indeed, all things being equal, it is more important to pray for a happy death than for full recovery. For example, we can understand why we might pray earnestly for a full recovery for a young person, or for a father or mother of a family on whom so many depend, but to pray for a full recovery for a person in extreme old age, who has run the race, runs contrary to kinder sentiments. It may be time, and it certainly soon will be!
What about people who are evil or who are harming us or those dear to us? Even here we can offer a qualified “yes.” It is a sin to wish death on someone out of hatred or passionate anger, yet we can hope to be spared the oppression of a tyrant or violent enemies who harm us and our loved ones. To wish death on someone is to wish an evil that we would not want done to ourselves. This is clearly against the commandment of love of neighbor and the most basic Golden Rule, to do to others as we would be done by. We must leave the matter in God’s hands. Thus, we do not have to mourn our oppressor’s death, but we may not murder him. (Now, legitimate self-defense is not murder, but even there we are to seek only to use lethal force if it seems necessary.)
In all just uses of force, it is not the death of our opponent we will so much as the defense and vindication of justice, which is in fact the true purpose of anger. Even wars are fought not precisely because we desire our enemy’s death, but so as to establish justice and to eliminate injustice. His death is desired only indirectly insofar as it may be unavoidable due to the nature of the conflict.
Instead of wanting to die, let us want to reach heaven, that prayer which is of all prayers to most in accordance with God’s will. In life or death, “thy will be done!”
Most of all, we should daily pray for the dying, especially to St. Joseph, the patron of a happy death. Here is a short prayer for which there is a partial indulgence:
“Saint Joseph, true Spouse of the Virgin Mary, pray for us and for all the dying of this day (or night).”
For some deeper insight into this devotion for the dying, I recommend the little book by another English convert, the Venerable Mother Mary Potter, foundress of the Little Company of Mary, Devotion for the Dying. It is still in print and full of edification.

How Should We Pray for the Dying?

In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes Joe Heschmeyer to discuss why some individuals leave the Catholic Church. Joe continues with details about the importance of community and guidance in faith, addressing the concerns raised by callers like Sarah.
Transcript:
Caller: I was a Catholic and I actually chose to leave the church. And it&#8217;s not for some great theological reason. I joined the church as a teenager because I love the history and the tradition that I felt like I was learning and et cetera. But what I have found, and as I said, it&#8217;s really not a theological reason, is just a real lack of community. I don&#8217;t have children, I&#8217;ve moved multiple states probably every two to three years. And I&#8217;ve never been to a parish that had a sense of community where I could meet people, particularly, you know, people that were working and professionals, etc. They seem to have some offerings for children, some for senior citizens and nothing else. You show up to Mass and you go home. The other issue that I had, and this is, this was probably what pushed me out the door, is it seems in our ever secular world, you know, particularly the United States, they never heard from any of the parishes. I went from really some, something I could put my teeth into in day to day living and how to, you know, here&#8217;s all these secular vices or things that I&#8217;m seeing and I just saw nothing from the, from the church. I saw no guidance on the day to day reality of living in the United States with things that the church says that you shouldn&#8217;t have, that you shouldn&#8217;t be doing. And even to this day I don&#8217;t see the church making statements anywhere. Oh, Sarah really kind of crushed me out. All right, let&#8217;s get Joe&#8217;s response and I&#8217;ll come back to you, Sarah, thanks.
Joe Heschmeyer: Well, first of all, I&#8217;m really sorry for the way you&#8217;ve been treated. I&#8217;m really sorry for feeling like alone in the parish. That should never happen. And I know that&#8217;s a lot of the experience of a lot of people and in some places in the U.S. probably more the norm than the exception. And it&#8217;s a problem that we, I think, as the community need to work on to make it feel more welcoming. And it&#8217;s hard to do. You know, we try to do with things like greeters and that&#8217;s good as far as it goes, but I think we need more like it needs to be something where as individual Catholics, we, we have that sense of community. I don&#8217;t, I don&#8217;t know if the solution is more, you know, parish programs. I think the solution is more a community sense of ownership that we need to be inviting people in. Like the, the Jews in the Old Testament take hospitality very seriously. You look at the way Abraham greets the angels in the book of Genesis and so on from there. Like you need to treat people with hospitality very seriously. And we sometimes treat that as kind of a trivial bit of etiquette where no, it really is connected to virtue. It really is connected to living holiness. So I&#8217;m sorry that that was not lived well in your experience. I won&#8217;t ask you what diocese or anything. I would say that thanks be to God is not universally the experience. You can find good churches in some places is harder to do than others, but you can find churches where you have more of that sense of community. And I think you can also be part of the solution by just saying, this is my church too. Like, you&#8217;re a baptized Catholic, you&#8217;re one of us. And just say, how do I make other people feel more at home in that? Because I think you&#8217;re absolutely right that in a lot of places everything is kind of structured for retirees or for children. And for everyone else it can be a little difficult. But things like, for instance, the parish is five minutes from here, has a fantastic mothers group that meets every week. And it&#8217;s been such a tremendous aid to stay at home moms who are trying to live the faith and maybe don&#8217;t get a lot of adult interaction, you know, those kind of things. But that&#8217;s, that&#8217;s not something where the pastor&#8217;s leaving it. That&#8217;s something where the moms are, are just putting in the time and effort and the sweat and making it happen. And I don&#8217;t know that there&#8217;s a solution other than that, that the people who feel really called and convicted there, if we don&#8217;t step up, nobody else is going to. So I think that&#8217;s the first thing. On the second one, I wanted to get a little clarification about what you mean about day to day living. Do you mean that you could use more like here&#8217;s guidance in terms of spirituality and how to live a prayer life? Well, do you mean like political things or social issues or what. What is it that you were looking for and not finding specifically and not
Caller: necessarily from our priest, but probably from the priest at the time where I was going, it just seemed to be. And then going on up, for example, any of the myriad of social issues that you see today that are just seen as fine. Any of the ones that the church, I feel like historically has been very open about, about that this is wrong. I just feel like we just don&#8217;t talk about it anymore. Do you mean things like abortion? Well, I think abortion, but I think there&#8217;s so many more you know, it used to be. I mean, you could go down the list. Did you, did you feel one. But that&#8217;s a big one.
Cy Kellett: Did you feel like you get. Or do you feel like you get clearer moral teaching in your Protestant church than in the Catholic Church?
Caller: Yes, absolutely. Got it. Someone stands, someone is not scared to stand up and say, you should not be looking at pornography. I see what you&#8217;re saying. Okay, I&#8217;m following you now. Yes. That kind of thing. Right. Homosexuality. Right, right. Never heard that from the Catholic Church.
Joe Heschmeyer: You know what, Sarah, I would say this. It&#8217;s kind of. Your question is funny in a certain way. And please don&#8217;t mishear what I&#8217;m saying there. Just because so much of the world criticizes us for allegedly constantly talking about those things. But then you&#8217;ll find pockets where the preaching just kind of conspicuously avoids it. I do think younger clergy tend to be a little bolder about speaking into that. I also think there&#8217;s a certain pastoral sensitivity to the fact that it&#8217;s much easier to have those hard conversations one on one than in front of a couple thousand people, particularly maybe sensitive sexual topics when there might be a lot of children present. It&#8217;s very hard to know how do we talk about something like pornography in front of a mixed company? You know, like, that&#8217;s as tricky to do. And so I want to both respect the difficulty there, that there&#8217;s a reason why some priests really struggle to drive that home. Or maybe they speak a little too obliquely about it. There may be a little better about it in the confessional than they are at the pulpit because they&#8217;re able to do a little more. They can be a little more open about the details of it without scandalizing anyone. But at the same time, I think you&#8217;re right that there is a need to preach on those issues. But that really isn&#8217;t. To put it this way, that&#8217;s not really a church level problem. That&#8217;s an individual priest or parish level. Maybe that&#8217;s an issue where you talk to the pastor and say, I think we really could use a homily on X, Y or Z. And maybe he would be open to some words of encouragement, or maybe you&#8217;d find someone who, who preaches that a little more fervently down the street. Certainly you can find Catholics online. You can find statements from the USCCB and other Catholic sources. You can find papal statements about all of those issues and really explicitly kind of acknowledging where the problems are with those. You know, so I don&#8217;t know if that Helps. There&#8217;s not a lot that we can do about the fact that, like, maybe your local parish is a little too lukewarm. Or maybe the preaching isn&#8217;t what you would like it to be.
Cy Kellett: Could I just add, Joe, however, that like you said, not a churchwide problem, but one thing that is a churchwide problem is since about the 1960s, there has been an internal struggle in the Catholic Church that we should be honest and open about. Where bishops argue with other bishops, priests argue with other priests, Catholics argue with other Catholics about what should be the messaging, so to speak. And we have a serious messaging problem in that. I mean, right now, the US Bishops are frankly as divided as. I mean, not divided in the sense that huge numbers are on each side, but they&#8217;re very divided about how you should talk about. Even things like politicians who are supportive of abortion. They just can&#8217;t settle it. And so there is an unsettledness in the Catholic Church that I think you would not have gotten before the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
Joe Heschmeyer: Yeah, I think that&#8217;s totally true. I think the other thing worth pointing out here is that when Protestants are at that ill ease with one another, there tends to just be a schism. And, like, they go off and form different groups. And so then you can find the preacher who says the things you want them to say, who. Who really convicts other people in the sins they&#8217;ve got. Or you can find the, you know, the priest who. You know, the preacher, excuse me, who. Who goes in the opposite direction with the Catholic Church. It really is, you know, James Joyce called it, Here comes everybody. That you&#8217;ll find, you know, people who are very convicted of the teachings of the church. And unfortunately, there&#8217;s wheat and weeds in the church. There are people who have both legitimate disagreements, but also sometimes they just don&#8217;t seem to believe everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches. And so that is a real problem. I am admittedly blessed. I live in the archdiocese where the head is. Archbishop Naumann is the head of the Pro Life Committee for the usccb. So we don&#8217;t have the particular problem Sarah&#8217;s talking about. But I know a lot of places do where maybe the bishop doesn&#8217;t speak out as he should. Maybe the priests don&#8217;t feel comfortable speaking out as they should. I think that&#8217;s a problem with courage maybe as much as anything else. And I do think the best thing that can happen there is some polite but forceful kind of encouragement.
Caller: Sarah, I gotta leave it there. Cause we gotta take a break. As a matter of fact, I&#8217;m late for the break. But that was such a great conversation, I didn&#8217;t want to leave it. Thank you very much for the call. We&#8217;ll go to Alan Cleveland when we get back. We gotta take this very quick break.

I Left Catholicism Because There’s No Community…

The belief that Jesus is God is at the very heart of Christianity.
What if Jesus never claimed to be God? What if his followers later came to this conclusion only after his death? Can we prove that Jesus believed that he was God? Watch as Karlo gives examples to show that Jesus did, in fact, claim to be God.
&nbsp;
Transcript:
At the heart of Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God. But what if Jesus never claimed that for himself? What if his followers later came to think he was divine—like the Buddha? Many skeptics, such as Bart Ehrman, conclude this is the case.
But is this true? The answer’s no, and here are some reasons why.
First, the divinity of Jesus would have had to come from Jesus because it doesn’t make sense that faithful Jewish folk would just ‘out of the blue’ begin thinking a man was God. Such an idea would have been repulsive to the Jews.
Second, the Gospels record Jesus saying things that suggests his divinity. For example, in John <a class="yt-simple-endpoint style-scope yt-formatted-string" spellcheck="false" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVMtPp2LpgM&amp;t=538s">8:58</a> Jesus refers to himself with the divine name, ‘I Am.’ “But wait a minute,” you might say, “Ehrman and others don’t accept this Johannine passage as historical. Is there any evidence from the Synoptics?”
Sure there is. Consider Mark 2:5-7 where Jesus claims to have the power to forgive sins and merits the charge of blasphemy. In Matthew <a class="yt-simple-endpoint style-scope yt-formatted-string" spellcheck="false" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVMtPp2LpgM&amp;t=670s">11:10</a> Jesus identifies John the Baptist as the messenger that prepares the way for Yahweh as indicated in Isaiah 40:3. If John is the messenger, then Jesus is Yahweh. Luke records in 12:8-10 Jesus’ claim that he has a unique knowledge of the Father that can only mean one thing—he has the same nature as the Father.
So, Jesus claims to be God—that’s a fact. But should we believe him? Well, that’s a question that we’ll have to save for another time.
If you want to learn more about this topic and others like it, visit our website at catholic.com.
For Catholic Answers, I’m Karlo Broussard. Thanks for watching.

Did Jesus Claim To Be God?

<div>Genesis 1:26 says, "Then God said: ’Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness.’" Do the plurals "us" and "our" refer to the Trinity?</div><div>Christian theologians have seen this as an implicit reference to the Trinity. In Christian theology, the persons of the Trinity all play a role in creation, especially in the creation of humanity.
Jewish scholars have seen this verse in two ways.
One is that God is simply talking to himself in the same way that a person would debate with himself about whether or not to do something. In this interpretation God is essentially using “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural">the royal we</a>.”
The other is that God in that verse is addressing both heavenly and earthly creations that already exist. In ancient Judaism, God was often portrayed as presiding over the heavenly assembly of angels and consulting with them (1 Kings 22:19–22; Isaiah 6:8; Psalms 29:1-2; 82; 89:6-7; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). As to why God would consult with angels, the Jewish Talmud gives us this answer:
<blockquote>When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, and God said: LET US MAKE MAN, etc., [Moses] said: &#8220;Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an excuse to heretics?&#8221;
&#8220;Moses,&#8221; said the Lord to him, &#8220;this man that I have created—do I not cause men both great and small to spring from him? Now, if a great man comes to obtain permission [for a proposed action] from one that is less than he, he may say, &#8216;Why should I ask permission from my inferior!&#8217; Then they will answer him, &#8216;Learn from thy Creator, who created all that is above and below, yet when He came to create man He took counsel with the ministering angels.’&#8221;</blockquote>
</div>

Why Does God Self-Refer in the Plural?

One of the most appealing teachings of the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/seventh-day-adventism">Seventh-day Adventist</a> denomination is their insistence that Christians must obey the Ten Commandments . . . all ten of them. They rightly expose the errant thinking among many Protestant Christian sects that claims, “We don’t have to keep the Ten Commandments for salvation anymore.”
Of course, Jesus has a reminder for us:
<blockquote>And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” And [Jesus] said to him . . . “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:16-17).</blockquote>
Given our agreement on this point, the Seventh-day Adventist commonly asks: “If you believe we have to keep the Fourth (our Third) Commandment, why aren’t Catholics obliged to attend Mass on Saturdays instead of Sunday?”
We can draw our first source from the the Catechism, which declares,
<blockquote>Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart (2072).</blockquote>
Thus, the Third Commandment is “fundamentally immutable” because it’s one of the Ten Commandments, which Jesus said we must follow to attain everlasting life. However, the Catholic Church teaches the particular day we celebrate in keeping the Third Commandment to be ceremonial, or an accidental component of the law that is changeable. Here’s how the Catechism puts it:
<blockquote>Sunday is expressly distinguished from the Sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the Sabbath. In Christ&#8217;s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish Sabbath. . . . Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but the Lord&#8217;s Day. . . .
The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship. . . . Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people (2175-76).</blockquote>
Are there biblical data that concur with this teaching of the Church? Absolutely!
St. Paul tells us that the ceremonial aspect of the old law—the Sabbath day itself—is no longer binding for the Christian faithful:
<blockquote>Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in regard to food or drink or in respect to festival, or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ (Col. 2:16-17).</blockquote>
Clearly, the Sabbath is “a mere shadow”—that is, fleeting by nature. And “shadow” (Greek, skian) is the same word used by the inspired author of the letter to the Hebrews for the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant—also no longer binding on Christians.
<blockquote>For the law, having but a shadow (Greek, skian) of the good things to come, and not the exact image of the objects, is never able by the sacrifices which they offer continually, year after year the same, to perfect those who draw near (10:1).</blockquote>
Moreover, it is important to note how Paul uses the same division of “festivals” (annual holy days), “new moons” (monthly holy days), and “Sabbaths” (the weekly holy days) that the Old Testament uses in 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4, 8:12-13, 31:3; and elsewhere, when referencing Jewish holy days. Clearly, along with the yearly and monthly holy days—which no Christian today claims is binding upon believers in Christ—the Sabbath is included in what Paul calls a mere shadow.
When Paul teaches that Christians do not have to keep the Sabbath, he speaks of the holy days that were specific to the Jews. He is not saying—and does not say—that we do not have to keep any holy days at all. In context, Paul is dealing with Judaizers, who were telling Gentile Christians they had to be circumcised and keep the Old Covenant law that had passed away, which would include the Sabbath and other holy days, in order to be saved. Some overlook this fact when they use Paul’s epistle to the Romans against the necessity of keeping the Third Commandment.
<blockquote>As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions. One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables. . . . One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord (14:1-6).</blockquote>
During the first few decades of Church history, the question of Jewish-Gentile relations with the Church and the law was a hot topic. As long as the Temple was standing, Christians of Jewish descent were free to attend the Temple and keep certain aspects of the Old Law, as long as they did not teach these things to be essential for salvation.
Many will claim the Catholic is in grave error here because Hebrews 4:9 declares, “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.” And a surface reading here does appear to bind Christians to the seventh day. However, the context within verses 4-8 greatly clarifies things for us:
<blockquote>For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this place he said, “They shall never enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So, then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever enters God’s rest ceases also from his labors as God did from his.</blockquote>
The context makes clear that the Jewish “seventh day” has been superseded, or, more properly, fulfilled, in “another day,” “a certain day,” that is a new “Sabbath rest for the people of God.” What day is this? In Hebrews, it is not so much a day at all as it is a person: Jesus Christ. In fact, the entire discussion of “the Sabbath rest” disappears into the discussion of our “great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God” (4:14ff). It is Jesus Christ himself who actualizes the “rest” that was merely foreshadowed by the Sabbath.
“End of discussion,” say our Protestant friends. “There is no longer any such thing as a day that binds Christians in the New Covenant. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Sabbath, not some day we have to go to church.” And they are actually correct, but only partially. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Sabbath rest in the sense that only he can actualize the “rest” the Sabbath symbolized.
In Hebrews 10:1-26, we see movement toward tagging on the Church as fulfillment of all that was merely shadow in the Old Covenant and not just Jesus Christ in the abstract. And this makes sense only when we understand that “the Church” is the body of Christ, or Christ himself extended into the world (cf. Eph. 1:22-23).
<blockquote>For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come, instead of the true form of those realities, it can never . . . make perfect those who draw near.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in the full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water . . . not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some. . . . For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins (Heb. 10:1; 19-22, 25-26).</blockquote>
As Christians, we “enter into the sanctuary” through baptism—bodies washed with pure water—and the Eucharist—his flesh—thus enters the necessity of the Church.
So if Christians are bound to keep the third commandment, and it involves “meeting together,” but not on the Sabbath, what day are we commanded to meet?
In Scripture, whenever we see Christians meeting to worship the Lord, receive Communion, take up collections—apart from the synagogue—it is either “daily,” or especially, it’s “on the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). It is true that you often see St. Paul entering into the synagogue on the Sabbath (Acts 13:14-44, 16:13, 18:4). However, in each instance, his purpose was to proclaim the truth about Christ to the Jews. These are not specifically Christian gatherings. But notice what we find in Acts 2:46:
<blockquote>And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.</blockquote>
Paul and his companions attended the temple, but “the breaking of bread” occurred in the house “churches” of Christians. “The breaking of bread,” by the way, is a Eucharistic phrase in St. Luke’s writings. For example, when Paul was in Troas in Acts 20:7, we read: “On the first day of the week, when we gathered together to break bread.” Luke 24:30-31 records that Cleopas and an unnamed disciple’s “eyes were opened,” and they recognized Jesus “in the breaking of the bread.” And according to Luke 24:1 and 13, this encounter was also on the first day of the week! Paul never says, “On the Sabbath, when we gathered to break bread.” Instead, the “breaking of bread” in Luke 24 and in Acts 20 occurs on the first day of the week.
It’s important to remember that when we talk about biblical “churches,” we mean the designated homes for “church” gatherings and specifically for “the breaking of bread.”
<blockquote>For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church . . . it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God? . . . For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it (1 Cor. 11:18-23).</blockquote>
So those “homes” were actually house “churches” in which “the breaking of bread” happened, and it happened on the first day of the week: Sunday.

Sunday Is Not the Sabbath

Leo Severino, the producer of movies such as Little Boy and Bella stops by for a chat about his new book, Going Deeper: A Reasoned Exploration of God and Truth. We also discuss the movie business, and the unreasonableness of much modern thinking.

A Reasonable God

Catholics believe we will be judged based on our works. And there’s no better argument for this belief than one that appeals to Jesus’ teaching about judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats.
The difference between the sheep and the goats is what they did and did not do. Performing the works of charity merits eternal life, and failure to perform works of charity leads to damnation. For a Catholic, it doesn’t get much clearer than this.
But for some Protestants, it’s not so clear. And they have reasons why they don’t agree.
Consider, for example, Protestant scholar Robert Wilkin. He <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Views-Works-Final-Judgment-Counterpoints/dp/0310490332">argues</a> that it’s “erroneous” to equate Jesus’ statement, “inherit the kingdom prepared for you,” with “entering it” or “that these people have eternal life.” He interprets Jesus as saying, “They will be rewarded with the privilege of reigning with him forever.” Protestant author Joseph Dillow takes the same line as Wilkin, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Reign-Servant-Kings-Eternal-Security-ebook/dp/B007U79V1U/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1R003P3X41W6W&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ca7z02nPFWm1CdNMWP_vUN4JWkTRrkHp5f8Vnr5LDevGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.q3z343z3vb9hNof4yKuT97Ds2WKSz3JyAVkhDtOqreQ&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=The+Reign+of+the+Servant+Kings%3A+A+Study+of+Eternal+Security+and+the+Final+Destiny+of+Man&amp;qid=1725478818&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=the+reign+of+the+servant+kings+a+study+of+eternal+security+and+the+final+destiny+of+man+%2Cstripbooks%2C120&amp;sr=1-1">writing</a>, “‘To inherit the kingdom’ is a virtual synonym for rulership in the kingdom and not entrance into it.”
Since Jesus isn’t talking about entrance into the kingdom, but rather ruling in the kingdom, so it’s argued, the works that the sheep perform don’t play a causal role in their (or our) final salvation.
For our first response, let’s concede for argument’s sake that “inherit the kingdom” is equivalent to “reigning with Christ forever.” By itself, this doesn’t exclude the Catholic view that serving Christ in others is a condition for entrance into the kingdom.
Consider, for example, the contrast Jesus makes between those who “inherit the kingdom” and those who do not. Those who don’t inherit the kingdom depart from Christ “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . They will go away into eternal punishment.” “Eternal fire” and “eternal punishment” both convey the nature of the individual’s experience as he departs from Christ.
But it would be ridiculous to think this somehow excludes the idea that the goats don’t ever enter the kingdom because of their failure to practice love in serving Christ in others. Jesus explicitly says, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire . . . for I was hungry and you gave me no food.” Jesus’ statements about what the damned will experience also involve exclusion from the kingdom.
Since “eternal fire” and “eternal punishment” involve both what the damned will experience, being separated from Christ, and that they are excluded from the kingdom, and Jesus explicitly contrasts “eternal fire” and “eternal punishment” with “inheriting the kingdom,” it’s reasonable to conclude that “inheriting the kingdom” involves not only what the saved will experience in heaven (e.g., ruling with Christ forever), but also entrance into the kingdom. And since serving Christ in others is a condition for ruling with Christ (assuming that “inheriting the kingdom” refers to ruling with Christ), it follows that serving Christ in others is also a condition of entering the kingdom.
A second response is that the word inheritance implies entering a new state that you didn’t have before. For example, if I were to say to my son, “You will inherit my money when I die,” I would mean that my son would eventually enter a state of possessing my money that he doesn’t have now, before my death. Another example is the Israelites’ inheritance of the promised land. Given that the term inheritance signifies entering a new state, we can interpret Jesus’ statement about Christians “inheriting the kingdom” to mean Christians entering the kingdom of heaven.
A third <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Gospel-Matthew-Jonathan-Pennington/dp/080103728X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3862CZWXVX21Z&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.DqiaYEXWcYkkX8qPSzIFp_IcZNOky6MPu4_lAze2IEZAts1DsI0KD5cuiCu6i4zUdev2wCD-KNf7KT7xdbEP-FvlnYJGxeNjdVzOt2UiulDRGmKbezWiypKsw3QrcE5RqFruJyOmG6ijBRcN1xDW2-Nm9gM-YchAgdfhoHaGVq5hlsuEcbAdarJjlfeknQZhf0849vt7YbYwgdOlnlbGNtP0zVWfq3zTzV7KBoxwbtQ.B-ulqnL36cX-dCgBKfZog0kvhVCZWs8MO-HN2wYO0Hk&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=Heaven+and+Earth+in+the+Gospel+of+Matthew&amp;qid=1725479034&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=heaven+and+earth+in+the+gospel+of+matthew%2Cstripbooks%2C134&amp;sr=1-1">response</a> is that we have biblical grounds for thinking the phrase “inherit the kingdom” refers to receiving eternal life. First, Jesus explicitly identifies the sheep who “inherit the kingdom” as the “the righteous” who “go . . . into eternal life.” Eternal life here is not to be equated with merely a reward, such as ruling with Christ, since it’s contrasted with “eternal punishment.” Jesus is contrasting two eternal destinies: one for the righteous and the other for the unrighteous.
Moreover, as R.T. France <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Matthew-International-Commentary-Testament/dp/080282501X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1JCMOJFMN08AH&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.2sxcHGe0UBaFIbxQFOD-dmxtXvQYaPjE3TD_IuJE271ATbyYitVIF0GHMFdsgAD-H30Az9ernid5pFzZ_fD331l2sn02py_tU43yJO3YO0lH7s_rtGMF08xgekhKKWAUrtmBVtpjdLg_tOf5jDoDCXmLwPih_WRB80h-qp302P0.o9Bb72TruPtCPzkfHPMT6730wIR2-MtKv3WnKkpVsX0&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=r.t.+france+The+Gospel+of+Matthew&amp;qid=1725478947&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=r.t.+france+the+gospel+of+matthew%2Cstripbooks%2C117&amp;sr=1-1">points</a> out, the phrase “eternal life” is already familiar to the reader of Matthew’s Gospel as being equated with being saved or entering the kingdom of heaven. For example, in Matthew 19:16, the rich young man asks Jesus, “What good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” Then, in verses 28-29, Jesus makes clear that the eternal life the rich young man asked about refers to the life the righteous will receive at the Final Judgment: “Truly, I say to you . . . when the Son of Man shall sit on his glorious throne . . . everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake [what the rich young man didn’t do], will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.”
Second, Matthew elsewhere in his Gospel records Jesus’ teaching about the kingdom, and it specifies that entrance into the kingdom is conditioned on whether Jesus’ followers perform loving actions. For example, in Matthew 7:21, Jesus is clear that only those who do the will of his Father will “enter the kingdom of heaven.” Doing God’s will is the essence of the theological virtue of charity.
Matthew two chapters earlier records Jesus: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (5:20). Jesus goes on to list a variety of things that make up this righteousness:
<ul>
<li>Making amends with someone we’ve offended before we offer our sacrifice.</li>
<li>Avoiding lust.</li>
<li>Refusing to divorce or to attempt marriage after divorce.</li>
<li>Not swearing.</li>
<li>Turning the other cheek and being generous.</li>
<li>Loving enemies.</li>
</ul>
Notice that each item in the above list involves charity. And it’s this charity, manifest in deeds or the avoidance thereof, that is necessary to have the righteousness required to “enter the kingdom of heaven” and be called “sons of your Father who is in heaven” (v. 45). Therefore, charity, and the behaviors associated with it, is a necessary condition for entrance into the kingdom.
Given this context of Matthew’s Gospel concerning entrance into the kingdom and its relation to charity, as shown both in Matthew 5:20-47 and Matthew 7:21, it makes sense to think that when Jesus speaks of “inheriting the kingdom” based on charitable actions in Matthew 25, he has in mind the same teaching he gave concerning entrance into the kingdom based on charity in Matthew 5 and 7.
In sum, this Protestant counterargument fails on multiple grounds. It doesn’t jibe with Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom and its relation to charity elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel. Nor does it succeed even if we grant for argument’s sake that “inherit the kingdom” refers to ruling with Christ. As such, this comeback shouldn’t cause a Catholic to stop using Matthew 25:31-46 for biblical support of the belief that works play an essential role in entering heaven.

Protestants Reign on the Catholic Parade

<div>What is the best study Bible in English?</div><div>If you’re looking for a good New Testament study Bible based on a major modern English translation of the Catholic Bible that reflects the original languages, then the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament is for you. The Old Testament companion has yet to be published. However, individual volumes of this study Bible, including both Old and New Testaments, are available for purchase.
The Didache Bible—Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition is another option. It includes both the Old and New Testaments and offers excellent commentaries all based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Then there’s the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. One particular Douay-Rheims edition (Haydock) has an Old and New Testament Bible with commentaries, which would be good for study.
There are many more good study Bible&#8217;s available, both in print and online, but these will get you started.
</div>

Best Study Bible in English

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

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

Why do Catholics believe Mary was SINLESS?

<div>What is the anthropic principle?</div><div>Some atheists say we shouldn’t be surprised the physical laws of the universe (such as the strength of gravity) are fine-tuned for life, because if they weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to appreciate that fact. These critics say a finely tuned universe is “necessary” because of an <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-heavens-declare-the-glory-of-god">anthropic</a> coincidence: we shouldn’t be surprised that we observe a life-permitting universe because those are the only kind of universes we would observe.
The anthropic principle does explain why we don’t observe life-prohibiting universes (because we’d be nonexistent). However, it doesn’t explain why we observe such an incredibly unlikely life-permitting universe. To borrow an example from <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/john-leslie">John Leslie</a>, that would be like saying we shouldn’t be surprised fifty trained marksmen shot me and all of them missed, because if even one of them had killed me, I wouldn’t be here to appreciate that fact.
Just as there must be a reason the entire firing squad missed, there must be a reason that the universe is so improbably fine-tuned for intelligent life.
</div>

What is the anthropic principle?

Flannel Panel

Behold, I will bring them from the north country,
and gather them from the farthest parts of the earth, 
among them the blind and the lame, 
the woman with child and her who is in travail, together; 
a great company, they shall return here.
The “I” here, the speaker in Jeremiah 31, is of course the Lord of hosts, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The prophecy is about the end of exile and the end of diaspora; God’s promises to Israel were not in vain. Yet in the ministry of Jesus, the first Christians, who were Jews, began to see the unfolding of these promises. Rather than usher in a kind of final empire putting all other empires to shame, we see Jesus gathering the sick; the lame; and, today, the blind from the farthest parts of the earth—in becoming disciples, they join his body, which is itself the new temple: to be in him is to be home in Jerusalem, wherever we are in the world.
Bartimaeus, whom we meet in Mark, was, I have no doubt, a real historical person. But it also seems clear that Mark recognizes his symbolic import. Faced with the Messiah, much of Israel is simply blind. This intellectual and spiritual blindness does not correspond with the physical blindness of Bartimaeus. He, in fact, sees quite clearly, a fact that seems to bother the people in the crowd who would like to see miracles but not necessarily the dirty people who need them. But Bartimaeus sees clearly enough to ignore them. In an audience a few years ago, Pope Francis commented that Bartimaeus exhibits “that beautiful stubbornness of those who seek a grace and knock and knock on the door of God’s heart.”
This scene is a vivid reminder of why God saves the world in a strange way. Why, asks the thoughtful modern person, does this all-powerful God not simply fix things? Why go through this complicated history with chosen people and prophets and failure and then of all things an obscure incarnation leading up to death? It is the sort of question that makes a lot of sense until you actually look at the way human persons operate. We could have angelic messengers show up visibly in every household of the world to proclaim the truth of the gospel. Who would believe them? Some, surely, but I wouldn’t bet on a lot. And it’s not just that we remain in a time of deep distrust—which we do—but also that true freedom actually requires an act of trust, an act of faith. Freedom, for creatures who are not omniscient, is always stepping into the void. So to act as if we can do only things that we are 100 percent certain of is, once you get down to it, not to act at all.
Notice that when Jesus calls the blind man to him, he asks him what he wants. Again, we’re aware of a certain strangeness here. Surely Jesus knows. But, as St. Bede reminds us, the Lord wants him to make the prayer. He wants to accomplish the work with him, not simply to him. And he wants to emphasize that his power, great as it is, will not force its way. He will not make us love him. He will not force our happiness. He wants our faith—not because he needs it, but because we do if we are to approach him with freedom. This is the whole mystery of prayer. God doesn’t need our prayer, but he wants it. He wants to accomplish his salvation with and through us.
The blind man has faith, but is faith blind? I have been suggesting that Bartimaeus is not blind where it really matters: in the heart. Yet for many people, faith is opposed to reason. To do something “in faith” means to take a step without reasons, but simply out of a kind of blind trust.
This is emphatically not what the Catholic tradition understands faith to be. It is possible to have an irrational faith, but another word for that would just be bad faith. People do put their trust in the wrong things, even when they ought to know better. Right faith, virtuous faith, works in harmony with reason. As I said, most decisions we make force us to step into things that we do not fully know or understand. But that does not mean that we do not know or understanding anything. I may not be a very good mechanic or know how a car works, but I am not therefore incapable of driving. I know enough to make a reasonable act of faith in this particular form of technology.
The opposite of faith isn’t reason, but sight. So faith is blind, in a certain sense, because it means holding to something that you cannot fully see. But sight is, after all, only one of our senses. It is well known that those who are blind live with their other senses heightened. For a blind person to walk at all, then, may be an act of faith, but it is far more rational than many other things that seeing persons do all the time.
In any case, these ordinary acts of faith in everyday life are not especially praiseworthy; they’re just basic humanity. The blind man’s faith is notable because it is faith in Jesus. It is saving faith. And Bartimaeus realizes, more than most of the crowd, that you can’t get to sight without first having faith. Faith is in fact the engine of salvation. The divine physician is ready, but you do have to ask to be healed.
No one becomes a saint by accident, in the end. We have to choose. We have to pray. We have to follow the Lord when he calls us.

‘Blind Faith’ Is Not Catholic

Why Catholics confess their sins to priests

<div>Can we have visual encounters with angels on Earth?</div><div>Yes. Angels have interacted with humans throughout history. We see this especially in Scripture and in the lives of the saints. But it’s also important to keep in mind that not all encounters with angels are good. There are evil angels (devils or demons) who, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, can “work on man’s imagination and even on his corporeal senses, so that something seems otherwise that it is” (Summa Theologiae).
Then there are those in the New Age movement who promote angel encounters as a way into the spirit world where spiritual entities, disguised as good angels (2 Corinthians 11:14), are called upon to help us with improving our personal lives, etc.
Excerpt from the Vatican document—Jesus Christ, the Bearer of the Water of Life:
<blockquote>These spiritual entities are often invoked &#8220;non-religiously&#8221; to help in relaxation aimed at better decision-making and control of one&#8217;s life and career. Fusion with some spirits who teach through particular people is another New Age experience claimed by people who refer to themselves as &#8220;mystics.&#8221;</blockquote>
For more on this subject, I recommend the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Angels-Devils-Joan-Carroll-Cruz/dp/0895556383#customerReviews">Angels and Devils</a> by Joan Carroll Cruz.
</div>

Can We Have Encounters with Angels?

Could Jimmy Akin, Joe Heschmeyer, or Trent Horn actually become pope? It sounds far-fetched—but it’s not impossible. In this episode, Joe Heschmeyer joins Cy Kellett to explore who can actually be elected pope, including surprising moments in history when non-cardinals were chosen. They break down what canon law says, how the conclave works, and what the odds really are that a &#8220;regular Catholic&#8221; could become the next pontiff.
Transcript:
Caller: We totally want to do those things. Share spurious AI-generated images of various people as pope.
Cy: I have seen so many people as pope in recent days.
Joe: Yeah. I may have made a Jimmy Akin as pope one myself. I didn&#8217;t see it this very afternoon, so I sent it to our in-house group chat. Just because I suggested this would unify east and west with his magnificent beard.
Cy: If Jimmy became pope, which could happen, he is a baptized Catholic male. But then the aliens would come; they&#8217;d be like, &#8220;That&#8217;s one of ours. It&#8217;s time to come down to earth.&#8221;
Joe: Perfect.
Cy: I wonder if he would use the power of the papacy to get to the bottom of this Bigfoot thing and just settle it once and for all.
Joe: I&#8217;m not entirely sure that&#8217;s quite how the power of the papacy works, but&#8230;
Cy: Oh, it&#8217;s an awesome power. Awesome power. The power of the papacy. All kinds of things. So, you know, it&#8217;s funny too, to kind of look at those cardinals and go, &#8220;Gosh, one of those guys is about to be the Pope.&#8221; I don&#8217;t know which one it is, but one of those guys—I mean, they could pick someone outside the College of Cardinals.
Joe: But it&#8217;s&#8230; I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s been done for..Many centuries since the last time that happened. Yeah, either the 13th or 14th century, I believe, was the last time there was a non-cardinal.
Cy: Okay, so say, let&#8217;s just as for&#8230;The purpose of discussion, Joe, 14th century, 1378. Let&#8217;s say they were like, let&#8217;s say there&#8217;s some abbot somewhere, right? And they all go, &#8220;You know, Abbot whatever. He should be the Pope.&#8221; Do they have to call him from like&#8230; do you know what I&#8217;m saying? Like, how do they do this? They got to call him and go, &#8220;Do you want to be Pope?&#8221; Or&#8230;
Joe: I actually know how this works.
Cy: Okay, good.
Joe: They will send a delegate who is forbidden to speak to anyone else, or anyone else he does. Like, if there&#8217;s someone else he has to speak with, they also have to be kind of sworn to secrecy.
Because he can&#8217;t reveal the mission that he&#8217;s on. But he might have to do things like, you know, book a flight, so that wouldn&#8217;t count for it. Right? And then he goes and he brings them and then reveals the reason. So I think along the way you just know you&#8217;re being brought into a papal conclave; you can probably guess what that would entail.
Cy: Really? They just go, &#8220;Oh, the cardinals would like to speak with you.&#8221;
Joe: Like, they don&#8217;t go, &#8220;They want you to be Pope.&#8221; They just say, &#8220;Could you come to the conclave with me?&#8221;
Cy: Right. It&#8217;s fascinating. I guess I would guess it. I&#8217;m very smart. I would guess it.
Joe: I mean, you probably already have guessed that they&#8217;re going to ask you. So I&#8217;m not sure if smart&#8230; it might just be a view of self, as much as I&#8217;ll fix it.
Cy: As much as they would want to. And I know they would. I mean, many of them would. I feel like a married man is very unlikely to get the call to be the&#8230;
Joe: I think so, too.
Cy: So here&#8217;s the cardinals, right? If they decide they want someone outside the conclave, they, like, open the front door and they go, &#8220;Send somebody in here.&#8221; And somebody comes in and goes, &#8220;Get on a plane and go to wherever this abbot is.&#8221; And then they go to the abbot and say, &#8220;Come with me. They&#8217;d like to see you in the conclave. I can&#8217;t tell you what it&#8217;s about at this point.&#8221; You know, you would wink. You couldn&#8217;t stop yourself. You&#8217;d be like, &#8220;Ah, I can&#8217;t tell you what it&#8217;s about.&#8221;
Joe: And then imagine your disappointment if it turned out that you were just like, &#8220;We can&#8217;t get the Wi-Fi working.&#8221;
Cy: Yeah, right. Like, do you have a password someone said Pope Francis gave it to&#8230;
Joe: Just to be clear, there&#8217;s no Wi-Fi in the conclave, but you get the idea.
Cy: Yeah, but&#8230; okay, but then the guy, okay, so he doesn&#8217;t want to be pope. He goes all the way to Rome and he goes, &#8220;No, I&#8217;m not your man. You&#8217;re going to have to ask somebody else.&#8221;
Joe: Yes.
Cy: Oh, my gosh.
Joe: I mean, that is&#8230; as strange as that is, that is about the most realistic way that you would trigger the provision in paragraph 87 of *Universi Dominici Gregis*. So it talks about how, like, the last step of getting a new pope is, &#8220;Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?&#8221; And the guy can say no, in which case you just go back to the drawing board and keep voting.
Cy: Right. Well, Pope Francis said he considered saying no. He actually&#8230; he said, &#8220;Give me a minute.&#8221; And he went off by himself and prayed, he said, which I think, actually, that&#8217;s kind of prudent. Like, that&#8217;s not something you want to just go, &#8220;Ah, of course. Sure. No problem. Yeah. Can I have weekends off?&#8221;
Joe: Actually, I already had plans next week.
Cy: Yeah, right. Oh, this is fascinating to me, Joe. That there is a provision for this. So that&#8217;s interesting. I can&#8217;t think of anybody who it could be like. There&#8217;s not some&#8230;
Joe: I think you probably got it right in the sense that sometimes there will be, like, a particularly holy, like, abbot or someone involved in a religious order. But when I say sometimes, I think Celestine V is the last time that happened.
And he&#8230;
Caller: He didn&#8217;t really, like, it lasted&#8230;
Joe: He lasted five months. So it turns out when you ask a hermit to lead the Church, they might be like, &#8220;This is a lot of people. This is not what I had originally set out to serve.&#8221;
Cy: Well, they had the right idea. They wanted a holy man, but he was holy in part because he had devoted himself to a life of solitary prayer. And then you get to Rome and there&#8217;s a lot of rich foods here. This is not&#8230; this is not matching.
Joe: And just the busyness of it. It&#8217;s just not the lifestyle one has kind of set their heart on in their entire life around in terms of the whole plan of life having silence and prayer and structure and all of that. A lot of the sheer number of visitors you&#8217;re entertaining and the number of people you&#8217;re interacting with and everything else, it had to have been just overwhelming.
And, you know, I mean, I don&#8217;t mean that you can&#8217;t be a very holy Pope. It&#8217;s just a very different call to holiness.
Cy: Oh, sure. Yeah.
Joe: You can be a holy&#8230; Francis de Sales talks about this in terms of just the difference between, like, someone called to a life of, you know, silent contemplation and a bishop and a parent and everything else. These are different calls, all ordered to sainthood, but different kinds of saints.
So, yeah, the&#8230; well, the other kind of the twist with Celestine V is he was elected Pope after the longest period of time in which there had been&#8230;
Cy: Like a papal interregnum.
Joe: Yeah. It was like two years long. And so then they&#8217;re like, &#8220;Okay, finally.&#8221; And then five months later, he&#8217;s like, &#8220;Actually, I resigned.&#8221; I have to imagine that was a little dispiriting.
Cy: They weren&#8217;t very nice to popes who resigned in those days either. It wasn&#8217;t like Pope Benedict resigning.
Joe: That&#8217;s&#8230; that&#8217;s true.
Cy: Where they treated him well.
Joe: Right. Because he was a potential kind of threat to the pope. So I think he was very&#8230; Boniface VIII, who succeeded him, was very worried about him.
Cy: Yeah.
All right, let&#8217;s just take a break then. I didn&#8217;t even know we were going to talk about that. But I&#8217;m fascinated by that thought.
Joe: Well, hopefully people are also. Otherwise, they&#8217;re going to be like, &#8220;Why did you talk about Celestine V for that long?&#8221;
Cy: But that is the most interesting conversation about the papacy that I&#8217;ve heard on any media. Everybody&#8217;s talking about the same things. Who&#8217;s it going to be?
We talk about&#8230; what if it&#8217;s a&#8230; what if it&#8217;s a&#8230; a monk?
Joe: Yeah. What if it&#8217;s a random abbot?
Cy: What would happen then? That&#8217;s why you got to keep listening. We&#8217;ll be right back with more of *Catholic Answers Live*!

Yes, a YouTuber Could Be Elected Pope (Here’s How)

Sometimes the Old Testament can seem radically different from the New. There appear to be curses, harsh judgments, and capital punishments instead of the tender loving care of Christ as seen in the New Testament. However, the reason we think this way is because God fully reveals himself in the New Testament. He comes in the flesh, embraces children, says to turn the other cheek, and forgives his torturers. The unseen God became a man suddenly and revealed his heart in ways that people could not have fathomed over the previous 1,700 years or so.
It&#8217;d be like seeing the end of the story or visiting a class at the end of the school year, where a teacher has a deep bond with his students, and everybody knows the rules and one another. Yet we can focus on how the class is growing in intimacy and forget something. God has been patient with some of his disobedient children from week one, and he spells out future grave warnings to Billy in seat six if he continues on his path. Jesus is still substantially connected to the Old Testament, as we will see.
Whereas the New Testament is the last week of school, the Old Testament is the first week of school. God needed to be the first-week high school teacher in a rough part of town. The ancient Near East was the rough area, which did not have a strong police force, guarded prison systems, or an understanding of the inestimable value of the human being. Canaanites were throwing their babies into a furnace to appease the demon-god Molech. The ancient Israelites did not respect God; they literally witnessed multiple miracles in Egypt and then started worshipping a golden calf almost as soon as they got out of there! God needed to be stern and communicate in the ways that the people would understand.
In the analogy of the last week of school versus the first week of school, the teacher stays the same. His approach differs over time, but he is essentially the same person. The same applies to Jesus, whose teachings and actions have significant precedent and carryover from the Old Testament. Let’s look at some passages from the New Testament while keeping the “harshness” of the Old Testament in the back of our minds.
Jesus warned that the destruction by fire of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:23-29) would happen again (Matt. 11:23-24). The city of Capernaum was to receive an even more severe experience of fire and brimstone than Sodom! Jesus also threatened a false prophetess named Jezebel, saying that if she continued with her sexual sins, she would become sick, and if anyone committed adultery with her, then he would receive great tribulation, and her children would die (Rev. 2:20-23). Jesus, like Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia, is not a tame lion.
Capital punishment was acceptable in the Old Testament. Jesus said it would be better for someone to have a millstone fastened to his neck and he be “drowned” in the sea than to mislead a little one (Matt. 18:6).  God punished Israel in the Old Testament with the destruction of the holy city, Jerusalem, and Jesus prophesied that it would happen again (Matt. 24). In Jude 5, Jesus is said to be the one who saved Israel from Egypt during the Exodus with Moses, but not only that; he was the one who destroyed those who did not believe! That is probably a reference to the generation that died in the forty-year wilderness wanderings (ca. 1400-1200 B.C.). Jesus is not exactly night and day from the Old Testament.
In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus offered curses and woes in similar fashion to the Old Testament (Matt. 11:20-24, 23:1-37, 26:24). He cursed Israel with the phrase “May you never bear fruit again” (Mark 11:13-14, 20-21, NIV). Jesus delivered seven woes to the Pharisees due to their prideful hearts (Matt. 23:1-37). The gentleness and humility of the Son of God do not exclude his justice.
The parables of Jesus buttress the point powerfully as well. For within them, he offers punishments for evildoers that seem substantially similar to the Old Testament punishments. Check out five of them.
<ol>
<li>In Matthew 18:34-35, God is described as a king who finds out that, after forgiving a servant of his debt, the servant refuses to forgive other people’s debts. “And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.”</li>
<li>In Matthew 22:1-13, God is described as a king inviting people to a wedding. When one of the people attending does not follow the decorum, he says, “Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (v. 13).</li>
<li>In Luke 19:11-27, God is compared to a king giving money to his servants and expecting them to use the money to expand the kingdom. He then says to his enemies who refuse his rule, “Bring them here and slay them in my presence” (v. 27).</li>
<li>In Luke 20:9-18, God is compared to a vineyard owner who sends servants and ultimately his own son to the tenants over his vineyard. When the tenants abuse the servants and kill the son, God says he will “come and destroy these vine-growers and will give the vineyard to others” (v. 16).</li>
<li>In Luke 12:41-48, God is compared to a master over a house who installs a manager over to distribute food. If the manager over the house grows lazy while the master is away, and begins to beat the servants and eat and drink gluttonously, the master will arrive and “cut him in pieces” (v. 46).</li>
</ol>
These punishments for evildoers do not seem to be far from the Old Testament. Torture, binding of limbs, slaughter, destruction, and dismemberment are actions that grind up against the image of Jesus being completely separate and “pure.” In fact, at times, the Old Testament appears to be kinder and softer than the New!
This can also be seen in light of Jesus’ seemingly new teaching about hell. The Jews understood an earthly capital punishment, but not so much a state of eternal suffering. Jesus may have shocked the living daylights out of his audience when he spoke of an eternal hell after death (Matt. 25:46). Such a teaching makes the passages from the Old Testament seem desirable!
All of this is not to say that Jesus is terrifying, and so we should cower at his presence. Jesus, as the embodiment of God, stays with his classroom through and through, with abundant patience. From Abraham down over a thousand years to the first-century Israelites who meet Jesus, God is a Father who does not abandon his children.
That deep bond between teacher and student inspires trust, for this is a teacher who is literally willing to give up his life for his classroom. He has our ultimate good at heart. God’s rules evoke the tender father, who tells his child, “Don’t hurt yourself.”
(If you’d like to read more, I recommend Paul Copan’s book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/God-Vindictive-Bully-Reconciling-Portrayals/dp/1540964558">Is God a Vindictive Bully?</a>, which this article draws from.)

Old Testament God Mean, Jesus Nice?

Find us at #SEEK26!

<div>What is the meaning of St. Benedict's "To work is to pray?"</div><div>The Benedictine motto is actually the command &#8220;Pray and work!&#8221; There can be a sense in which work is prayer if it is offered up in a spirit of recollection and if prayer accompanies the work or at least precedes or follows it. But work is never simply a substitute for prayer. St. Benedict was very clear about this. In his holy Rule, he teaches that nothing should take precedence over the true work of the monastery, which is sacred worship in the liturgy, which he calls the &#8220;Work of God.&#8221;
</div>

What Does St. Benedict’s Motto Mean?

<div>is there biblical evidence of individual judgement and a judgement at the second coming?</div><div>The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) covers the particular judgment in CCC 1021-22. The Catechism cites several biblical passages that affirm each person will have a particular judgment with God, including Matthew 16:26; 2 Corinthians 5:10; and Hebrews 9:27.
The Catechism covers the Final or Last Judgment in CCC 1038-41. Two classic biblical passages that support this teaching are Jesus’ words in John 5:28-29 and Matthew 25:31-46.
</div>

Biblical Basis of Particular and Final Judgments

Karlo Broussard explains the distinction between baptizing unconscious adults and babies.
Transcript:
Why can&#8217;t adults who are unconscious be baptized due to not being able to give consent, but babies can be baptized?
The implication being without consent, right? Yeah, right, the baby doesn&#8217;t consent, yeah, yeah. Yeah, it&#8217;s actually a great question. And the answer to the question, Cy, is gonna depend on what Lewis means by quote unquote unconscious. Because there are different ways in which someone can be unconscious.
Option A, or scenario A, an individual is unconscious like he&#8217;s knocked out, or he&#8217;s sleeping, or something. And then scenario B, the individual can be unconscious like when he&#8217;s dying, or they seem dead. But we&#8217;re really not absolutely sure.
And so if we&#8217;re talking about a scenario where somebody&#8217;s unconscious, like knocked out, or they&#8217;re sleeping, and it&#8217;s not a death situation, or the possibility of a death situation, there you have an adult who has not only the ability to consent, but the very exercise, the ability to exercise the power for self-determination. So it&#8217;s not just like a potential that needs more time to actualize, like in the case of an infant. But the adult there in that unconscious state would actually have the capability to exercise self-determination when one comes to consciousness. And so to baptize that individual in that situation or in that scenario would be contrary to the might, if the person doesn&#8217;t wanna be baptized, baptizing that individual would be contrary to the consent of the adult, which would be a violation of their self-determining dignity and their power. And so that is why in that scenario, we would not go and secretly baptize them while they&#8217;re sleeping or while they&#8217;re knocked out, because that would be an act of injustice toward their self-determining power. Now, infants only have, as I mentioned, the ability for self-determination, but they don&#8217;t have the capacity to exercise that power of self-determination. And so for their human being, yeah, they got the power for self-determination, to have intellect and will. And given time, they&#8217;ll be able to actualize those, actually use those powers that are already present within them as a human being. So therefore, infants and small children under the age of reason are rightly determined in some of their activities by those who have authority over them like parents. And so it&#8217;s not a violation of their self-determining power whenever we baptize them. Now, if the scenario is scenario B, like the individual is unconscious because we think he&#8217;s dead and like, we&#8217;re not sure he might not be dead. We&#8217;re not really sure if he&#8217;s dead or just on his way to death. Well, then an adult could be baptized there conditionally, even though the adult cannot give their express consent to baptism. And so, a conditional baptism is I baptize you, name of father, assuming, unconditioned that you are alive, if this person seems to be dead, unconditioned that you are alive, I baptize you in the name of father, son and Holy spirit. So if the person is merely unconscious and only seems to be dead, then that person, assuming that the will is properly disposed, that would receive the graces of baptism there. And so we can baptize an adult who is unconscious in one situation, like at the moment of death or near death,
with a conditional baptism, even without an expressed consent to receive baptism.
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.

Catholics Baptize Babies but Not Unconscious Adults?

How do you answer a trans or gay person who tries to justify their lifestyle by saying “God made me this way”?

I want to thank Jason for tweeting about St. Bernadette’s church in Scottsdale years ago. It’s what got me to go back to Mass.

Do you think we as Catholics need to separate boys and girls at school more?

I became promiscuous because I was Mad at God. How does someone deal with the pain and anger?

I’d like to share how I overcame my desires when a priest in the confessional gave me the chastity prayer of St. Augustine.

As a father of young girls, how can I tell them that not liking stereotypically feminine things isn’t a sign that they’re actually boys?

Chastity

Is self-mutilation part of Catholic teaching?

Some Protestants criticize the doctrine of purgatory by saying it’s “bad news” in contrast to the “good news” of salvation revealed in the Bible.
But that’s not so at all. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is indeed good news.
The joyful truth is that purgatory provides consolation for believers. It does so in a variety of ways.
<h3>1. Purgatory consoles believers concerning loved ones who die without the perfect holiness required for heaven.</h3>
Purgatory gives us the assurance that even though our loved ones die without the perfect holiness required for heaven, we know they’re not forever excluded from there. The late Marian scholar Fr. Martin Jugie puts it beautifully:
<blockquote>They who mournfully follow the coffin, are consoled with thoughts of the mercy of God; of the expiation of venial sin and the cleansing of the wounds, left by mortal sin, after death; of extenuating circumstances which may have rendered certain sins venial for the dear deceased one. The anguished heart, torn with dread about the fate of the loved one, clings to this last hope, and there finds solace and some peace.</blockquote>
That’s good news!
<h3>2. Purgatory consoles believers in knowing that the relationship with our loved ones can continue after death even though they have not yet attained the beatific vision in heaven.</h3>
The doctrine of purgatory provides consolation for a believer because it offers hope that our loved ones who die with imperfection aren’t forever excluded from heaven. But a believer might still be disheartened by the thought that if his loved one isn’t in heaven yet, then he can’t have a relationship with that person in the present moment. He would have to wait.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, the doctrine of purgatory entails that we can assist our loved ones in purgatory by offering the Mass, prayers, indulgences, almsgiving, and other works of love for them. This is based on the Christian belief in the communion of saints, which includes the souls in purgatory.
The holy souls are still members of the mystical body of Christ. Death did not separate them from us. As St. Paul writes, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall . . . [the] sword? . . . I am sure that neither death . . . nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35, 38-39).
From this it follows that we are not separated from our loved ones in purgatory. We are still united to them by grace. Consequently, our relationship with them can continue. We don’t have to wait until they get to heaven. That provides a believer great consolation. That’s definitely not bad news.
Some Protestants say we’re blurring the real distinction between the visible (Christians on earth) and invisible (Christians in purgatory) dimensions of the one body of Christ. Just because there’s one body, so it’s argued, it doesn’t follow that our relationship with each dimension is the same.
It’s true that our relationship with our loved ones in purgatory is not the same as our relationship with them here on earth. But the relationship we have with them by grace is the same. In fact, it’s even better because they’re confirmed in grace without the possibility of falling from it. From this it follows that the relationship with them is secure, on condition that we stay in grace.
This relationship we have with them by grace is what allows us to continue expressing love toward them, even though it’s not the same kind of expressions of love as when they were on earth. We can’t hear or see them when we talk to them. We can’t give them a hug. But we can pray for them and will what’s good for them—namely, the removal of any impediments to entrance into heaven.
The relationship might not be the same. But it is a relationship nevertheless!
<h3>3. Purgatory consoles believers in knowing that the souls in purgatory can pray for us.</h3>
We have good reasons to think the souls in purgatory pray for us. The Catechism teaches, “Our prayer for them [souls in purgatory] is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective” (958).
One rationale for this is that the souls in purgatory are perfected in charity. Since charity involves not only love of God, but also love of neighbor, and love of neighbor is expressed in intercessory prayer, it seems reasonable to conclude that the souls in purgatory would express their love by interceding for us.
That our loved ones in purgatory are praying for us is a consoling thought. Their prayer for us, and our private request for their prayers, is one way by which we keep a relationship with them.
It’s good news to know we have friends who can’t waver in charity and are constantly praying for us. For St. James says, “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16).
<h3>4. Purgatory consoles believers in knowing that our prayers console our loved ones in purgatory.</h3>
The consolation that we can provide the holy souls in purgatory in turn brings us consolation. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that love is “to wish good to someone,” “just as he wills good to himself.”
It follows from this definition of love that the good the souls in purgatory experience by having their impediments to heaven removed is experienced as our own good. That means that their consolation is our consolation; their source of joy is our source of joy. As the late Frank Sheed writes, “there is a special joy for the Catholic in praying for his dead, if only the feeling that there is still something he can do for people he loved upon earth.”

4 Ways Purgatory Consoles Us

The man who wrote the book <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/persuasive-pro-life-how-to-talk-about-our-cultures-toughest-issue/">Persuasive Pro-Life</a> gives us a primer on how to share arguments against abortion. Use these effective techniques to move yourself and others closer to the truth about tiny, little, unborn people.

Pro-Life Bootcamp

<div class="page" title="Page 47">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 37
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“How can you trust the Gospels when they can’t even agree on whether Jesus exorcized one demoniac or two, healed one blind man or two, rode on one animal or two, or had his Resurrection announced by one angel or two?”
DEFENSE
These incidents are not contradictions; they are reports that mention different details.
It is true the Gospels sometimes report an incident and mention only a single demoniac (Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27), blind man (Mark 8:22–23, 10:46; Luke 18:35), animal (Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30; John 12:14), or angel (Matt. 28:2; Mark 16:5), while other reports mention two demoniacs (Matt. 8:28), blind men (Matt. 9:27, 20:30), animals (Matt. 21:2), or angels (Luke 24:4; John 20:12).
These are not contradictions, because in none of these cases does an evangelist say there was only one of the things in question present. The evangelist may mention only one, but that leaves open the possibility—confirmed by one or more of the other evangelists—that there was more than one present.
It has often been noted that if several people witness a car accident, they will each observe and report different details when they recount it later. This phenomenon may be partly responsible for cases mentioned above. For example, if Matthew was an eyewitness to a particular event he may have remembered seeing two demoniacs, blind men, and so on, while non-eyewitnesses like Mark and Luke were dependent on sources who may have mentioned only one.
There also may be another phenomenon at work: dramatic simplification. Because books then were fantastically expensive (a copy of the Gospel of Matthew could have cost the ancient equivalent of more than $1,500), ancient authors worked under pressure to keep their books short. This could result in them presenting only an incident’s essentials, which could have the added benefit of making the story more focused and compelling.
If on a single occasion two people asked Jesus for a particular favor, like healing, or if two angels showed up to deliver a single message, the essence of the event could be communicated to the audience if only one was mentioned. After all, Jesus did grant a person’s request for healing, and an angel did show up to deliver a message. The mention of a similar companion in both cases was not essential.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

One or Two in the Gospels?

Why does the Church teach that there in no salvation outside the Church?

I struggle with the statistical proof for faith?

My friend has a hard time with the Pope. Why are there disagreements?

My friend can’t get over the Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah and Pope Gregory’s teachings on it?

I struggle with the lack of clarity in RCIA classes. Should RCIA members participate in the sign of the cross and other parts of the Mass?

My obstacle to practicing is my personal challenge with improving past behaviors and my friend group?

My friend struggles with what makes monotheism true?

Overcoming Obstacles to Catholic Belief

Episode 136: The Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul
In today’s episode, we look at some details from the second reading and Gospel reading for this upcoming Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul that are relevant for doing apologetics. The first detail, which is found in the second reading—taken from 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 17-18, relates to apologetical discussions on the topic of purgatory. The detail in the Gospel reading, which is taken from Matthew 16:18-19, relates to Peter’s role as the “rock” of the Church—the visible foundation of Jesus’ Church here on earth, and his infallibility.
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/062925-Mass.cfm">Click Here</a>
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>

Peter the Rock, Paul and “That Day”

Canon lawyer and journalist Ed Condon from pillarcatholic.com joins us to answer some hard questions about tithing. Is tithing required of every Christian? If so, is it just a tax? And if not, then what is required?

Is Tithing Just a Tax?

Day 19
CHALLENGE
“Peter was not the first pope. Even if Jesus appointed Peter as leader of the apostles, he would have been disqualified later by his sins—particularly when he denied Jesus.“
DEFENSE
Jesus foresaw Peter’s denial, took it into account, and afterward confirmed him in his office. Peter’s denial was very grave. According to John, he denied being a disciple of Jesus (John 18:25). That was a public denial of the Faith (albeit an insincere one, since Peter did not abandon the Christian movement). Despite this, Jesus had foreseen Peter’s denial and told him in advance to take a pastoral role with respect to the other apostles after he repented, saying: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:32). He did not say this to any of the others. Jesus thus envisioned Peter continuing to have a unique leadership role among the apostles even after his denial. It is thus questionable whether Peter lost his leadership role even temporarily, but lest there be any doubt, Jesus afterward publicly confirmed Peter in office. In the presence of the other disciples, he asked Peter three times whether he loved him (mirroring the three denials). Jesus emphasized Peter’s unique pastoral role among the disciples by initially asking him, “Do you love me more than these”—indicating the other disciples. When Jesus then told Peter three times to feed his sheep, the other disciples are included in that group (John 21:15–17). If Peter’s denial had cost him his office, it likely wouldn’t have prevented him from being the leader of the apostles, but from being an apostle altogether. Yet this clearly did not happen. Peter continued to function as an apostle for decades. What’s more, the New Testament continues to portray him as their leader. In Acts 1–12, where he served as the focus of the book, Peter is the leader and the central figure in almost every event recorded. The Gospels also were written in the decades after Peter’s denial, and the fact that three of the Gospels contain passages in which Jesus formally confers a leadership role on Peter (Matt. 16:18; Luke 22:32; John 21:15–17) indicates his leadership was still relevant in these decades

Peter’s Sins

Why do Catholics rush to baptize babies but take their time in OCIA?

I’m a convert from Islam and was married in Islam. I want to be happily married as a Catholic. What would I have to do to do that?

Why do we have free will?

What are your thoughts on stories of incorrupt babies?

Could you correct the false information the Swaggarts are pushing about purgatory?

Why Aren&#8217;t You Christian? w/Tim Staples
This episode explores the reasons behind the urgency of infant baptism, while also addressing diverse topics such as the journey of a convert from Islam seeking a Catholic marriage, the nature of free will, and the intriguing stories of incorrupt babies. Tune in for a thoughtful exploration of these important questions.
<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 Aren’t You Christian? w/Tim Staples

What happens during the mass in a situation where the priest can not finish the mass? Do i have any obligations?

As a convert how did you incorporate the deuterocanonical books into your world view?

What did the Vatican remove the word “one” in the phrase one God forever and ever, in the liturgies?

How did Jesus and his disciples sustain themselves by traveling, buying food, and staying at an inn?

I’m the only catholic in my family, I encourage my family to go to a Catholic Church for spiritual nourishment and their protestant churches for community. Is this wrong?

Bread of life discourse, protestants claim that Jesus’ phrase, “the flesh of no avail negates the Catholic understanding. Whats the response?

The Pope said all religions are paths, to God, how should Catholics understand this?

Why does the wedding of Cana narrative, begin with mentioning Mary first instead of Jesus? The wording feels a bit odd.

How do you explain to a kid in catechism that attending mass in important when their parents never go to mass?

In Marian apparitions, how much do those images come from God and how much of it comes from the imagination/psyche of the person?

John’s gospel is supplemental, one piece of evidence is that it doesn’t have the Last Supper story. Can you expand a little more on that?

Live from the Catholic Answers Conference

<div class="page" title="Page 93">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 83
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“If Jesus existed, why don’t we have statements about him from non-Christian eyewitnesses of his ministry?”
DEFENSE
Because we would not expect to.
Based on events like the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand (Matt. 14:13–21, 15:32–38), we may estimate that the number of people who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry was in the tens of thousands. However, the vast majority were not among his constant companions and only encountered him on one or a handful of occasions. They were thus unlikely to leave a written account.
Further, the vast majority of them—like the vast majority in first-century Palestine—belonged to the rural lower class and were illiterate. The ancient Mediterranean world had a primarily oral culture, and most could not write, especially in rural places like Galilee. Consequently, information about popular figures like Jesus was primarily passed on by oral tradition.
Those most interested in passing on traditions about a teacher— whether in oral or written form—were his disciples, who in this case would be Christians, the people that this challenge is excluding. Non- Christians would have little interest in passing on Jesus’ traditions, much less writing them down.
The number of people who were eyewitnesses of Jesus, non-Chris- tian, able to write, and motivated to write about him was probably very small. It probably included only a few people, like the governor Pontius Pilate, the high priest Caiaphas, and some in their circles. Some of these people probably did write about Jesus. In particular, Pilate likely recorded Jesus’ execution in government records. However, we have no records from any of these people—about anything. All the primary source Roman records perished, as did any kept by the Jewish authorities (lost when the Romans burned the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70).
We know about people in this period (e.g., popular Jewish figures such as Honi the Circle Maker, Judas the Galilean, Theudas, and the revolutionary known as “the Egyptian”) not because we have eye-witness accounts, which are rare, but because they are mentioned by ancient historians and other writers.
The same types of sources that speak of them also speak of Jesus. In fact, our evidence for Jesus is even better, as in his case we do have statements by eyewitnesses, such as his Christian followers Matthew and John.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Non-Christian Eyewitnesses?

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

Sainthood isn’t about being perfect when it’s hard—it’s about staying faithful.

<div>How do I answer Mormons who say the Church Fathers rejected the belief that God created the world from nothing? 
</div><div>First, point out that many of the Fathers espoused the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-case-for-creation-from-nothing">“two-stage” creation view</a>, and so some of their writings describe creation from “formless matter,” but they saw this event as the continuation of a previous creation from nothing (see article p. 10). St. Augustine describes such a view in his commentary on Genesis when he writes:
<blockquote>First there was made confused and formless matter so that out of it there might be made all the things that God distinguished and formed. . . . We correctly believe that God made all things from nothing. For though all formed things were made from this matter, this matter itself was still made from absolutely nothing” (Commentaries on Genesis 1-3).</blockquote>
Second, you can point them to the Fathers who unambiguously endorse <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/creation-out-of-nothing">creation from nothing</a>. At the end of the second century, St. Theophilus of Antioch summarized why the distinction between creation from nothing and creation from substrate is so important in words that still apply with equal force today:
<blockquote>What great thing is it if God made the world out of existent materials? For even a human artist, when he gets material from someone, makes of it what he pleases. But the power of God is manifested in this, that out of things that are not he makes whatever he pleases; just as the bestowal of life and motion is the prerogative of no other than God alone (To Autolycus, book II).</blockquote>
</div>

How to answer Mormons who say the Church Fathers rejected creation ex nihilo

Why Praying To Saints Is Not Like Praying To Other Gods

In this episode Trent sits down with Alex Malpass, one of the foremost critics of the kalam cosmological argument, to discuss objections Trent raised in his previous rebuttals of SkyDivePhil’s documentary on the argument.

DIALOGUE: Does the Kalam Argument Work? (with Alex Malpass)

<div>Why didn’t the Samaritans in Acts 8 receive the Holy Spirit after baptism?</div><div>The reception of the Holy Spirit is depicted in the Book of Acts as separate from baptism. In Acts 19:1-6  St. Paul baptizes some disciples and then lays hands on them in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit.
These are two of the sacraments of initiation: baptism and confirmation. In the ancient Church these two sacraments were closely related and confirmation was received immediately following baptism. Over time the western Church separated the sacraments in order to emphasize the importance of both of them.
For some reason the Samaritans in Acts 8 had not received the sacrament of confirmation which is why St. Peter went there to confer confirmation.
</div>

Why Didn’t They Receive the Holy Spirit After Baptism?

<div>I’m a revert and an ex-pastor. I am also married. How can I continue in some sort of full time ministry?</div><div>You could look into the diaconate program in your diocese. Some dioceses have lay pastoral assistant programs that would involve non-sacramental ministry. Some parishes hire a full time youth minister and some hire someone to be a director of liturgical ministries. You can also speak to your parish priest regarding what ministry in the parish he feels is missing or needs help and help him fill that hole.
</div>

What Ministries Can An Ex-Protestant Minister Do?

Did you know Christian missionaries helped end brutal practices in history?

Our own Tim Staples discusses the Catholic claim that there is no salvation outside the Church? How are we to understand this truth, and what does it mean for those who do not enter the Church?

Saved Outside the Catholic Church?

The Resurrection Question Skeptics Can’t Answer

In what sense is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/jesus-christ">Jesus</a> available to us in the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/tract/christ-in-the-eucharist">Eucharist</a>? Can anyone understand it? And why is his presence in the Eucharist central to our salvation? Father Hugh Barbour explains.

Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent shares hi thoughts about the direction the Marvel Cinematic universe is heading and it doesn’t look good.

FFAF: Come on MCU!

Beware of having anonymous Christian social media accounts!

Christianity is shrinking… is universalism to blame? What are your thoughts?

When I began seminary, my biggest question was, “Where in the Bible does it teach that Mary was immaculately conceived?” I thought it had to be there . . . somewhere . . . anywhere. Maybe it was in the original languages, but not in the English translation.
I searched until I found a strong answer—but that answer was not primarily from the Bible. Rather, I found it in the writings of St. John Henry Newman.
Newman didn&#8217;t say, &#8220;The Marian dogmas aren&#8217;t provable with Scripture alone.&#8221; But what he did do is explain the most relevant Marian dogma to his time (the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/immaculate-conception-a-smart-take">Immaculate Conception</a>), and he didn&#8217;t use Scripture as the primary source to do it. Newman’s primary source was the writings of the first Christians, whom he called the Fathers.
Among scholars who study Newman, this is a <a href="https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/section2.html">famous quote</a>:
<blockquote>The Fathers made me a Catholic, and I am not going to kick down the ladder by which I ascended into the Church. It is a ladder quite as serviceable for that purpose now, as it was twenty years ago. Though I hold, as you know, a process of development in apostolic truth as time goes on, such development does not supersede the Fathers, but explains and completes them.</blockquote>
To put it bluntly, Catholic teachings about Mary are hotly contested by our Protestant brothers and sisters. They think we <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/statues-arent-necessarily-idols">worship Mary as God</a>. We have to understand well what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Mary so that we can defend our beliefs. So let’s see how Newman’s approach can help us shed some light.
There are four Marian teachings (also known as dogmas) that Catholics are required to believe about Mary:
<ol>
<li>Mary was a perpetual virgin: she remained a virgin her entire life</li>
<li>Mary is the Mother of God (meaning that she gave birth to Jesus, who is fully God and fully man).</li>
<li>The <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-immaculate-conception-in-scripture">Immaculate Conception</a>: Unlike the rest of humanity, Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. (Again, obviously, Jesus was not conceived with original sin either because he is God, and sin has nothing to do with God.)</li>
<li>The <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp/protestants-are-wrong-about-marys-assumption-heres-why">Assumption</a>: At the end of her life on earth, Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul. It parallels Christ’s ascension into heaven.</li>
</ol>
Are these teachings taught in the Bible? Scripture certainly does not contradict these doctrines, but it does not teach them explicitly, either. Nowhere does the Bible say in plain black and white that Mary was a virgin her entire life. Although the angel Gabriel’s address to Mary as full of grace (Luke 1:28) <a href="https://ignatius.com/rethinking-mary-in-the-new-testament-rdmp/">can point us</a> in the direction of the Immaculate Conception, it does not prove it (28). As for the Assumption, if I were a Protestant, I might hesitate to accept the argument that Revelation 12 <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-mary-the-woman-in-revelation-12">proves</a> that Mary was assumed into heaven. Even Mary’s divine maternity, though provable from Scripture, had to be officially defined in the Council of Ephesus in 431.
If Scripture does not prove what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary, then why do we believe these teachings? We believe them because the earliest Christians did not adhere to <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/sola-scriptura-doesnt-work/">sola scriptura</a>. Rather, they believed in Apostolic Tradition as well.
Scripture itself teaches that the Bible is not the only authority (or the highest authority). St. Paul states in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that the people of God are to hold firm to Scripture (what he wrote) and Tradition (what he taught them by word of mouth): “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Therefore, Paul is not a follower of sola scriptura, either: for him, Scripture and oral tradition carry an authority independent of each other.
The first Christians clearly felt likewise:
St. Basil the Great <a href="https://litpress.org/Products/1025/The-Faith-of-the-Early-Fathers-ThreeVolume-Set">wrote</a>, in 375,
<blockquote>Of the dogmas and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/kerygma">kerygmas</a> preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching, and others we receive from the tradition of the Apostles. . . . In respect to piety both are of the same force . . . were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals. . . . For we are not content with those words the apostles or the gospel has recorded, but we say other things also . . . and we regard these other words, which we have received from unwritten teaching, as being of great importance.</blockquote>
St. Epiphanius of Salamis explicitly argued against the principle of scripture alone when he wrote (between 374 and 377),
<blockquote>It is needful also to make use of Tradition, for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition (Panacea Against All Heresies).</blockquote>
Expounding on 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which we quoted above, St. John Chrysostom wrote (between 398 and 404) that the apostles
<blockquote>did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further.</blockquote>
Martin Luther <a href="https://www.fortresspress.com/store/product/9780800698836/Martin-Luthers-Basic-Theological-Writings">thought</a> that St. Augustine was the first to be sola scriptura. Luther wrote, “Herein I follow the example of St. Augustine, who was, among other things, the first and almost the only one who determined to be subject to the Holy Scriptures alone.” But Augustine, regarding traditions kept throughout the whole church (400), wrote in his letter to Januarius,
<blockquote>In regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derives not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church.</blockquote>
Now that we have seen that Scripture and Apostolic Tradition both carry teaching authority, we can better understand why these four Marian teachings are not explicit in the Bible. They come to us through Apostolic Tradition and developments therefrom.
There is a need for a deeper understanding of St. John Henry Newman’s contributions to the field of Catholic apologetics and Mariology, especially in his <a href="https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/index.html">Letter to Pusey</a> and his <a href="https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/">Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine</a>. Without them, we can too easily fall into the trap of trying to prove Catholic Marian teachings from Scripture alone. In fact, these teachings cannot be adequately defended without Apostolic Tradition or the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church. However, with them, what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary is defendable and provable.

‘But Marian Dogmas Aren’t in the Bible!’

Tickets are going fast, and I want to see you there! www.conferenceoftrent.com

<div class="page" title="Page 190">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 180
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Catholics are wrong to pray the rosary. Jesus condemned ‘vain repetitions.’”
DEFENSE
Jesus did not condemn prayer that involves repetition—he endorsed it.
In the King James Version, Jesus says, “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking” (Matt. 6:7). Even in this translation, he does not condemn repetition but vain (useless) repetition.
But there is a problem with this translation. In Greek, Jesus says we should not battalogēsēte. This is a rare word not found elsewhere in the New Testament. It’s meaning is unclear, so we shouldn’t draw dogmatic conclusions about what he meant.
The word appears to come from battos (Greek, “a stammerer”). Gentiles did not literally stammer when they prayed, but they could ramble in prayer, thinking that they needed to wear down their gods using many words. This is the attitude Jesus rejects, saying “they think they shall be heard for their much speaking.”
It’s not repeating words that he’s concerned about. It’s thinking the efficacy of prayer depends on saying a lot. He points out God knows what we need before we ask him (Matt. 6:8). Jesus makes it clear he doesn’t have a problem with repeating things because the next thing he does is teach the Lord’s Prayer—a prayer he intends to be repeated (Matt. 6:9–13).
Repetition is essential to corporate worship. It’s not possible for people to pray aloud, in unison, unless they know the prayer they’re going to use. That’s why prayers in the synagogue and the temple of Jesus’ day were memorized and repeated.
A striking example is the Psalms—ancient hymns, or prayers set to music. The book of Psalms was Israel’s hymn book. In fact, Psalms is one of the most frequently quoted books in the New Testament (Luke 20:42, 24:44; Acts 1:20, 13:33, 35, etc.). Yet the Psalms, by their nature, are meant to be repeated.
The Psalms even involve repetition within themselves. Psalm 136 has a refrain that occurs over and over. In the King James Version, the refrain is translated “for his mercy endureth for ever,” and it occurs so frequently that it even interrupts and appears in the middle of sentences. Yet Psalm 136 is a beautiful and spiritually meaningful prayer that was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>