Manage Account

Do you believe the same things about the Eucharist (or Lord&#8217;s Supper) that Jesus taught and that the Apostles and earliest Christians believed? Here are 5 ways of knowing &#8212; the true teaching is strange, sacrificial, serious, sacramental, and even SHOCKING.

The Bible on the Eucharist: Strange, Sacrificial, Serious, Sacramental, and Shocking

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

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

The early Christians didn’t have a New Testament. They had the Church. @RuslanKD

What does the Church Say About Early Genesis?

Are you struggling to bring your children back to the faith? Keith Nester shares his heartfelt advice on how to navigate this common parental challenge. Discover practical tips and encouragement from a seasoned spiritual guide.
<a href="https://youtu.be/pLAXOW79Mn4">Full Interview</a>
Transcript:
And this might actually be the most common question that I get after talks and often I&#8217;m baffled at what to say. So I want to hear what you have to say.
What can I do to bring my children back to the faith? I don&#8217;t know what I did as a parent. I don&#8217;t know where I went wrong, but none of my adult children are practicing the faith or most of my adult children are not practicing the faith.
I get that. That&#8217;s the most asked question I get too, Cy.
And here&#8217;s the deal. There&#8217;s no easy answer to that question because there&#8217;s no one thing that&#8217;s going to work for everybody because everybody&#8217;s different.
Relationships are different. Some people have relationships with their kids where they can sit down and really openly share about things. Other people have relationships with their kids where their kids don&#8217;t care about what they say. But what is universal in that is prayer and also living the faith in front of your kids and everybody else in devotion and in joy. Those are the two biggest things. And then trusting God to work. That&#8217;s where I think a lot of us fall down. We want to take control of that process.
We want to say, &#8220;Okay, God, I&#8217;ve got to figure this out. What can I do to bring my kids back?&#8221; The reality I&#8217;ll tell people is this. You can&#8217;t do anything to bring your kids back. You can only allow God to work through you in the ways that he sees fit. But what you need to do, regardless of whether you have kids or not, is you need to live your faith before them with everybody, with devotion and with joy. Because if you take away either one of those two things, it&#8217;s going to be a disaster. If you take away devotion and you&#8217;re just kind of a, &#8220;Well, I don&#8217;t care. I don&#8217;t really practice my faith. I don&#8217;t go to church every week. I don&#8217;t fulfill my obligations as a Catholic.&#8221; Then they&#8217;re not going to listen to anything that you say. They&#8217;re not going to watch any videos you send them. They&#8217;re not going to read any books that you give them. Because if they look at your life and your faith is sort of mediocre to them and it doesn&#8217;t really affect your life much, they&#8217;re not going to care.
Or if you&#8217;re like the other kind of person that you&#8217;re like, &#8220;No, I practice my faith to the nth degree,&#8221; but you&#8217;re grouchy about it all the time. And all it does is make you depressed and grouchy and sour. That&#8217;s not going to draw them in either. I think we all know people in both camps. We know some people who are like happy-go-lucky, but they don&#8217;t really know or care about their faith. And then we know other people that they look like Mr. T, but they got all miraculous medals on and they&#8217;re just like, they&#8217;re in the church praying 50 million rosaries every day and every other word out of their mouth is about this. But yet they don&#8217;t exude joy.
That&#8217;s going to have the same effect. People are going to look at that and they&#8217;re going to say, &#8220;That&#8217;s not really for me.&#8221;
So you have to do both and you have to trust that God is at work in that.
Man, it&#8217;s so hard to do because I mean, because what I often say to people is I&#8217;m in the same boat you are. I&#8217;m not, so I don&#8217;t have some brilliant answer to this, but that trusting part is hard. You just want&#8230; That&#8217;s what you want as a parent is for your children to be all right. I know that the safe harbor,
the safe harbor in this world is Jesus and I just want them in that safe harbor.
I&#8217;m with you too. I&#8217;m with you too. I will tell you this.
God, you have to play the long game and you have to trust God and you have to hit what&#8217;s pitched to you, meaning you&#8217;ve got to have your eyes open.
Remember, God has a process in this, not you. What I mean by that is this.
You might have an interaction with your son or daughter where God is priming the pump for you to encourage and equip them in some way, but maybe it&#8217;s going to happen in a way that you never thought possible. Maybe it&#8217;s going to happen through some kind of tragedy or through some kind of heartbreak that your kids are going through, or maybe it&#8217;s going to happen through something that&#8217;s going to happen in your life that they&#8217;re going to pay attention to see how you respond to that. What does your faith mean to you when life hands you something difficult?
Sometimes it&#8217;s through those things that none of us would choose, but God chooses to work in and through those things. You have to always ask yourself every day, what does it look like for me to be faithful in this situation right now? Maybe I have a son or daughter who wants nothing to do with me, and I&#8217;m not allowed to share the faith. I&#8217;ve had my kids tell me, &#8220;Keeffe,&#8221; or they say, &#8220;Dad, I don&#8217;t want to hear it. We&#8217;re sick of hearing about the Catholic Church all the time. Shut up about it.&#8221; I have to ask myself, what does it look like in that situation for me to be faithful when they say that to me? I&#8217;ve had other times when they said, &#8220;We have a lot of questions about this. Can we meet and talk?&#8221; I have to be faithful in that and say, &#8220;What do I get to do in this situation?&#8221; I&#8217;ve had situations where I&#8217;ve said, &#8220;Hey, do you want to come to Mass with me?&#8221; Or, &#8220;Will you come to Mass with me?&#8221; They&#8217;ve said, &#8220;No.&#8221; Then I&#8217;ve had other situations where they&#8217;ve called me and said, &#8220;Hey, can I come to Mass with you?&#8221;
I guess my point is this.
It&#8217;s a roller coaster ride. Of all kinds of different situations and scenarios, you can&#8217;t just overlay one thing over that for everybody in all times and all places. For the love of God,
please, and I&#8217;m a content creator, you guys are content creators, do not think that the answer is just giving them a book or sending them a video. Do not spam your kids with all the Catholic stuff. It&#8217;s only going to work against you. Again, I&#8217;ve got books about this, you guys too, but I would rather have nobody buy my book than have my book be used as some way to pound something over somebody that&#8217;s not ready for it who is going to just be like, &#8220;Get that away from me.&#8221; If they&#8217;re not ready for it, don&#8217;t think that that&#8217;s the answer. Yet, why do we do that? Because it&#8217;s easy.
I can buy a book, I can just, &#8220;Here, read this.&#8221; I remember what it was like when I wasn&#8217;t Catholic and people wanted me to become Catholic. Every time I turned around, someone was handing me a book or handing me a trinket or handing me a medal or handing me a rose, and I&#8217;m just like, &#8220;What do I do with all this stuff?&#8221; What I really needed was someone who could show me what Catholicism was, not just give me homework.
That&#8217;s what we need to do with people.
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, our favorite podcast platform, or our Catholic Answers app.

How to Bring Adult Children Back to the Faith?

Carbon dating has already proved the shroud as a fake.

Was there any evidence of the shroud before the 1300s?

Does Jesus’ long hair go against historical trends for Jewish men of the time?

Is the blood too red on the shroud?

Was a burst of light what imprinted the image on the shroud?

What should our methodology be?

The crown of thrones

The connection to Abraham and Isaac

Wounds on the wrists instead of the hands

Interview with Fr. Andrew Dalton debunking claims against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
<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>

Debunking Claims Against the Shroud of Turin

In this episode Trent engages Baptist apologist Gavin Ortlund’s arguments against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Rebutting Gavin Ortlund on Baptismal Regeneration

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent describes famous episodes of cheating in sports and games from the practice of point shaving to the illicit coughs that won over a million dollars.

FFAF: Famous cheating scandals revealed

Was Jesus’ claim to be Messiah considered blasphemous by the Jews?

How do I get my Protestant friend to accept the authority of the Church?

What does the “work of mercy” entail for the fulfillment of the plenary indulgence for the Jubilee?

Jesus was historically born in the summer, not the winter. So, Christmas cannot be about his birth!

My Protestant friend claims that Catholics have changed the Our Father.

Is there anywhere in the U.S. that has holy doors open for the Jubilee?

In a hypothetical scenario regarding a committed crime, would a priest hinting that he knows the culprit be an offense against the seal of confession?

AMA: Jesus as Messiah, Church Authority, and Myths About Christmas

Episode 92: Year B &#8211; 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode, we continue our study of Jesus’ Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. The portion of the discourse that makes up the Gospel reading for this upcoming 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, is verses 60-69. Like in last week’s episode, the question is whether Jesus intended his teaching to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be taken literally or figuratively. We argue for a literal interpretation.
&nbsp;
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/082524.cfm">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Debunking the Figurative Eating of Jesus’ Flesh

Day 22
CHALLENGE
“Catholics should not regard Mary as the “Queen of Heaven.” The Bible speaks of devotion to the Queen of Heaven and condemns it in unequivocal terms (Jer. 7:18, 44:17–19, 25).”
DEFENSE 
The “Queen of Heaven” that Jeremiah refers to is not Mary. Therefore, he was not condemning Marian devotion. The fact that Jeremiah was not referring to Mary is obvious, since he was writing around 600 B.C., not the first century A.D. In his day, the title “Queen of Heaven” was used to refer to various pagan deities. There were many such deities, as every pagan pantheon had a major, ruling deity who was depicted as a king in heaven. Correspondingly, various goddesses were regarded as queens in heaven. Scholars are not sure which of these deities Jeremiah was referring to. It may have been a Canaanite goddess such as Ashtoreth (the wife of Ba’al), Asherah (the wife of El), or the warrior goddess Anat. Whichever he meant, it is clear that the condemned devotion was taking place in his own day, for Jeremiah refers to it as “what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem” (Jer. 7:17). He also promises that God’s wrath would fall on members of his own generation as a result of this practice (Jer. 44:24–30). The fact that “Queen of Heaven” was used for a pagan deity in Jeremiah’s day does not mean that it can’t also have a legitimate use. Words and phrases gain their meaning and connotations from the way they are used in a particular community, and they are not permanently ruined just because pagans once used them. As noted, the same pagan pantheons that had Queens of Heaven also had Kings of Heaven, but that didn’t stop the biblical authors from referring to the true God as a King (Ps. 29:10, 47:2, 6–7, 103:19; Isa. 6:5; Mal. 1:14; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 15:3, etc.). They even used the exact title “King of Heaven” for him (Dan. 4:37; Tob. 1:18, 13:7). The question thus is not whether “Queen of Heaven” was once used for a pagan deity, but whether it can have a different and appropriate sense. As we discuss elsewhere, it can (see Day 64).

“Queen of Heaven” Condemned?

If a person claims that Mary is appearing to them, how is that dealt with in the Church?

Since Hanukkah is big in the Jewish tradition, why don’t they have Maccabees in their bible?

Why do Catholics believe that Jesus has two natures vs. one nature?

How do I better understand Newman’s quote, “to be rooted in history is to be Catholic?” I’ve been looking into history, and I’m not convinced.

What bible verse could I use to back up the claim that we should go to confession and communion at least once a

When Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” who was guilty?

How do I know when something is declared ex cathedra? How can I brush up more on papal infallibility?

When exactly does the Eucharist become Jesus?

I’m not Catholic. How do I know if Catholicism is the right way to go?

<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
What does the Catholic Church do when someone claims the Virgin Mary is appearing to them? In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Catholic Answers apologists explain how the Church investigates reported apparitions and discerns whether they are authentic. The conversation also explores why Jewish Bibles do not include Maccabees despite the importance of Hanukkah, why Catholics believe Jesus has two natures, and how to better understand St. John Henry Newman’s famous quote about history and Catholicism. Additional questions cover biblical support for confession and Communion obligations, who Jesus was referring to when He said “Father, forgive them,” how Catholics recognize ex cathedra teachings, and when the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. The episode concludes with advice for non-Catholics discerning whether the Catholic Church is true.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
</div>

How Does the Church Investigate Marian Apparitions? AMA: Dropped Calls

TEAM EHRMAN: Did Mary Consent to Jesus’ Birth?

<div class="page" title="Page 19">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 9
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Catholics should not depend on Tradition. Jesus says Tradition makes void the word of God (Matt. 15:6; cf. Mark 7:8, Col. 2:8).”
DEFENSE
Jesus did say that the Pharisees nullified God’s word for the sake of their tradition, but he did not condemn tradition itself. Indeed, Scripture’s attitude toward apostolic Tradition is positive.
Tradition is important to every person and every group of people. It represents our education, our culture, everything that has been handed on to us from previous generations. Tradition is—by definition—what is handed on. The term comes from the Latin word tradere, “to hand on.”
Some traditions, like some of the Pharisees’ traditions, can be harmful. Others, being of merely human origin, are not authoritative. Scripture lumps both under the heading “traditions of men.”
But not all traditions are in this category. For Christians, the Faith handed down to us from Christ and the apostles is of unparalleled importance. In Catholic circles, this passing down of the Faith is referred to as “Sacred Tradition” or “Apostolic Tradition” (with a capital “T” to distinguish it from other, lesser, “lowercase” traditions).
Initially, the apostles handed on the Faith orally—by preaching— but with time some of them and their associates wrote the New Testament documents, which together with the Old Testament comprise Sacred Scripture. Since Scripture has been handed down to us from the apostles, it is the inspired, written part of Sacred Tradition.
Whether or not an item of Tradition was written in Scripture, it is still important and binding. Thus the New Testament exhorts the reader to maintain Sacred Tradition (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 3:6), and in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul tells his readers to “stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
Another noteworthy passage is 2 Timothy 2:2, in which Paul instructs his protégé, “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Bearing in mind that Paul wrote this letter just before he died (cf. 2 Tim. 4:6–8), Paul is exhorting the transmission of Sacred Tradition across generations of Christian leaders—from his generation, to Timothy’s generation, to the ones that will follow.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Traditions of Men Versus Sacred Tradition

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent reveals how some of the modern things we use every day are actually hundreds or even thousands of years old.

FFAF: I just want to talk about Cobra Kai

Does abuse or distortion in devotion to the saints justify abandoning the practice altogether? In this episode, Karlo Broussard respond sto Gavin Ortlund’s critique of Marian prayers and show why problematic expressions—real or perceived—don’t undermine the Catholic practice of invoking the saints. I also explain why the expressions that cause him concern aren’t in fact problematic, when understood properly.
&nbsp;
TRANSCRIPT:
When it comes to the intercession of the saints, there’s no shortage of objections. You’ve probably heard the usual ones: it undermines Jesus’ unique mediation, invoking the saints is necromancy, they can’t hear us, and so on.
But there’s another objection that doesn’t get as much attention—one that focuses not so much on theory, but on practice. The claim is that distortions or abuses have crept into the practice of invoking the saints, especially when it comes to Mary.
So how should we think about that kind of challenge? That’s what we’re gonna talk about today.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
Hey friends, Welcome back to the channel! I’m really glad you’re here. If you haven’t done so already, make sure to subscribe and hit that bell notification so you don’t miss any new videos. Also, I want too invite you to consider helping keep this podcast going by supporting us on Patreon at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out. And if you’re already a patron, thank you so much…I really am deeply grateful for your support.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
Alright, so as I mentioned, some Protestants challenge the Catholic practice of invoking the saints by arguing that abuses have crept into the practice. One example here is Protestant apologist Gavin Ortlund.
In his video, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkNuganI0JA">“Praying to the Saints: A Protestant Critique,”</a> Ortlund argues that when we look at how the prayers to the saints actually played out in medieval piety, we find that the practice led to serious distortions. He highlights two main types.
First, there are soteriological distortions—that’s to say, distortions related to salvation—where certain prayers seem to ascribe to Mary only what Christ can do when it comes to saving us. Second, there are prayers that appear to look to Mary as our ultimate help rather than God, which Ortlund sees as a threat to God’s sovereignty.
Because of these distortions, Ortlund explains, Protestants like himself are concerned about the practice of invoking the saints. And for him, that concern—especially when combined with what he sees as a lack of New Testament and early Christian evidence for the practice—is enough reason to avoid the practice altogether.
Now, we’re going to tackle the question of early Christian evidence in another episode. For now, I want to focus specifically on Ortlund’s concerns about these alleged distortions and his reasoning about them.
Let’s start with the first category—the so-called soteriological distortions, which seem to be Ortlund’s primary concern. Here’s a few clips from his video:
[VIDEO]
i&#8217;ve canvassed a number of hymns 6:04 breviaries prayer books and other 6:06 liturgical texts from the late medieval 6:09 era that did have the approval 6:11 officially of the roman catholic church 6:13 and were in common usage among the laity 6:15 and i want us to to feel a bit how 6:19 prayers to the saints 6:20 were actually 6:22 playing out because if we can get some 6:25 common ground of like oh yeah i can see 6:26 how that can go wrong that will help us 6:28 then go forward from there and it will 6:30 maybe make a protestant concern have a 6:32 little bit more sense. 
So let me give 6:34 some examples and what i want you to be 6:36 listening for is the way forgiveness 6:39 and the propitiation of god 6:41 works in other words what&#8217;s the 6:43 soteriological context that&#8217;s 6:45 functioning here in these prayers 
“6:47 lord we ask that thou placated by the 6:50 intercession of all thy saints may look 6:52 graciously upon our infirmity and avert 6:54 all the evils which we justly deserve we 6:57 pray thee lord that the merits of 6:59 blessed mary who is both perpetually a 7:01 virgin and the bearer of god may attend 7:04 us and always implore thy forgiveness 7:07 for us” [Cursus Honorum of the Blessed Virgin Mary, According to the Ordinarium of the Church of Hildeshelm].
7:08 note this word forgiveness it&#8217;s going to 7:09 come up in a lot of these 
“7:11 o noble mary excellent above all 7:14 procure for us forgiveness 
o holy virgin mary and all the saints 7:27 and elect of god come aid to me wretched 7:30 one 7:31 now and in the hour of my death and make 7:33 the lord our god propitious to me by 7:35 your merits and prayers” 
Ortlund goes on a few minutes later to give more examples of this primary concern of his:
[VIDEO]
……9:45 here&#8217;s more examples 
“through you 9:48 that&#8217;s mary forgiveness is granted to 9:50 the guilty”
“through you grace is 9:52 conferred to the just oh you who are 9:54 more beautiful than the stars and 9:55 blessed above all women placate your son 9:58 and cleanse all faults of the faithful” 
10:00 see this is an example of why it&#8217;s not 10:03 you can&#8217;t do the well it&#8217;s a both and 10:04 thing 10:06 the prayer think about those words 10:07 placate your son 10:10 if that&#8217;s not at both end because in 10:11 that prayer the son is the one needing 10:14 to be placated by mary 10:16 rather than 10:18 the one who actually has 10:20 fully placated god already 
After giving these examples, Ortlund concludes that these invocations are, in his words,
“[VIDEO]
14:42 something that’s inherently wrong” 
 
and are
&nbsp;
[VIDEO]
“14:30 full-blown medieval errors.”
Why? Because, according to Ortlund, the theology of salvation within these is flat-out contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Ortlund explains,
[VIDEO]
“it&#8217;s 9:33 playing out here in ways that it is 9:35 competitive it is detracting from the 9:37 sufficiency of christ because the 9:39 specific tasks that are the property of 9:42 christ in the gospel are being assigned 9:43 to mary here”
The “specific tasks” that Ortlund has in mind here are things like procuring the forgiveness of sins and propitiating—or placating—God, which Ortlund believes can be done only by Christ through his death on the cross.
So how should we respond?
My response has two parts. First, I want to say something briefly about the general appeal to alleged distortions. Then I’ll respond directly to the supposed distortions themselves.
So to my general response to the “abuse” argument.
Let’s assume, just for sake of argument, that these prayers are distortions. Notice what Ortlund concludes from this assumption: that we shouldn’t invoke the saints at all because such invocations have played out in a way that violates the Bible’s teaching on salvation—namely, that forgiveness comes through the merits of Christ’s death on the cross.
At first glance, it seems that Ortlund is committing what philosophers call an association fallacy. That’s the mistake of assuming that because some things within a category are bad, everything in that category must be bad. If Ortlund were to conclude that all invocations of the saints are violations of the gospel because some are, then he would be guilty of fallacious reasoning.
But, to be fair, Ortlund doesn’t say every invocation of the saints violates the gospel. He argues instead that the practice can lead to violations, and on this basis he chooses not to engage in it.
But here’s the question: why should we reject the practice of invoking the saints simply because some invocations lead to error?
We don’t reject interpreting Scripture just because some interpretations lead people astray. St. Peter himself acknowledges in 2 Peter 3:15-16 that some people distort Paul’s writings to their own destruction. We don’t reject the practice of religion itself just because some people practice it in ways that leads to unjust conflict and violence.
In both cases, we recognize that the problem isn’t the thing itself—it’s not scriptural interpretation itself or religion itself—it’s the misuse or perversion of it.
The same line of reasoning applies to these so-called “distorted” invocations of the saints. If certain invocations are distorted, then it’s those specific requests—and the faulty theology behind them—that are the problem, not the practice of invoking the saints as such. And if that’s the case, there’s no reason to persuade people to abandon the practice entirely. There could still be invocations that are perfectly sound and worthy of Christian practice.
Okay. Up to this point, I’ve been granting, for the sake of argument, Ortlund’s assumption that these requests are actual distortions. But we actually have good reason to think they’re not distortions in the first place.
Remember Ortlund’s main concern: these prayers detract from Christ’s sufficiency by attributing forgiveness of sins or placating God to Mary.
But notice the hidden assumption—namely, that no one besides Christ can in any sense “procure” forgiveness from God—or propitiate or placate him.
If by “procure” Ortlund means primary causality, then we agree. Only Christ is the efficient cause of the forgiveness of sins. But that’s not how these prayers should be understood.
The “procuring” is by way of request. These prayers are simply asking Mary to pray that God would forgive us our sins.
And there’s nothing unbiblical about that.
Paul himself prayers in 2 Timothy 1:18, “May the Lord grant [Onesiphorus] to find mercy from the Lord on that Day [the Day of Judgment].” If Paul can pray for someone’s forgiveness, then Mary can too. And if Mary can do that, then these prayers don’t distort the gospel at all.
The same goes for language about “propitiating” or “placating” God. All that means here is asking God to be favorable to us. If Paul and Mary can ask God to forgive sins—which is one way God is favorable to us—then they can ask God to be favorable to us in other ways.
In fact, Scripture explicitly teaches that believers can cooperate with God in making others more favorable for salvation. Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 that a believing spouse can contribute to the salvation of an unbelieving spouse. He writes:
[READ #1]
If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. . . . Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife? (that’s verses 13-14, and 16) 
If believing spouses can “procure” salvation for their unbelieving spouses in this secondary, cooperative sense, then Mary can as well.
So, not only do these prayers fail to violate the gospel, but even if they did, Ortlund’s broader reasoning would still fall short.
Alright! Let’s now turn to Ortlund’s concern over those prayers that seem to put Mary before—or even above—God as our ultimate help.
Here’s Ortlund:
[VIDEO]
10:24 in some of these prayers you get the 10:26 sense that mary is the only one who can 10:28 help me 10:29 for example 10:30 from the prayer of sixtus 
“oh queen of 10:33 heaven most gracious mother of your 10:34 offspring do not spurn me i commend 10:36 myself to you alone”
in some passages you 10:39 get the sense that 10:40 the the author is saying you know where 10:43 else could i turn but to mary it&#8217;s 10:46 almost like in the psalms where you have 10:47 psalm davidic psalms where david will 10:50 say you know 10:51 i&#8217;m out of i&#8217;m at the end of my rope who 10:53 who else can deliver me but you o lord 10:55 and yet sentences like that are said to 10:57 marry in fact um there&#8217;s an entire re 11:01 uh sort of renovating of the psalms into 11:04 this you can look it up don&#8217;t take my 11:06 word for this because i don&#8217;t want you 11:07 to think i&#8217;m exaggerating look up the 11:09 psalter of the blessed virgin mary which 11:11 is often attributed to bonaventure that 11:13 all the psalms are recast as directed to 11:15 mary it&#8217;s amazing 
here&#8217;s one last 11:17 example i&#8217;ll give 11:20 to 11:22 you know accent this point of 
“its mary 11:24 alone like we don&#8217;t know where else to 11:25 go but to marry 
11:27 holy mary perpetual virgin of virgins 11:29 mother of mercy mother of grace hope of 11:32 all the forsaken comforter of all the 11:33 despairing it goes on for quite some 11:35 time the amount the titles given to mary 11:38 are just they couldn&#8217;t be more exalted 11:41 because i have been placed in diverse 11:43 evils and anguish on account of my sins 11:46 i do not know to whom to flee save to 11:49 you my lady sweetest virgin mary” 
Ortlund concludes his thoughts with this:
[VIDEO]
i don&#8217;t 13:18 see anything in the council of trent 13:19 that sufficiently redresses this error 13:22 of thinking that 13:24 mary or another saint is going to give 13:26 you something that really you should be 13:28 looking to 13:29 god alone to give you 
So Ortlund’s concern with these prayers is that Mary seems to take the place of God as the ultimate one who can help us, thereby looking to Mary for something only God can give us.
What can we say in response?
Well, as we said in response to the soteriological concerns, even if these were distortions it wouldn’t follow that we should reject the practice of invoking the saints all together, since there could still be invocations that are perfectly sound and worthy of Christian practice.
But more to the point. There’s a key assumption that Ortlund is making here: that when a prayer says Mary is sought “alone,” it means alone in relation to all beings—including God. His comments about David reveal he’s thinking this way. He alludes to the Davidic psalms where David calls upon the Lord as the only one who can deliver him.
Now, I don’t think that’s a reasonable read of these prayers. These prayers are offered by Christians who believe in God as the Creator of all things, including Mary. A more reasonable interpretation is that Mary being sought alone among created beings.
Given her role as Queen of heaven and earth, and as the most powerful intercessor within God’s Kingdom, Catholics naturally turn to her for things that other Christians wouldn’t be able to assist us with. And Protestants shouldn’t have a problem with this because they often turn to their pastors for help that other believers can’t provide.
Moreover, some of this language is poetic and flowery, which intentionally involves a bit of exaggeration. But even without appealing to poetic license, when understood in the way that I’ve explained, there’s no usurpation of God’s sovereignty. Looking to Mary alone among creatures is not the same thing as looking to her for only what God can give us.
So while I genuinely appreciate Ortlund’s thoughtful and charitable engagement with Catholic theology on the practice of invoking the saints, the concerns we’ve looked at today don’t justify a rejection of the practice.
The prayers he cites don’t contain soteriological distortions, and they don’t place Mary in the role of God. Once we slow down and think them through carefully, the objections just don’t stick.
Well, my friends, that’s it for today! If you found this video helpful, make sure to like, subscribe, comment below, and share it with someone who might need to hear this. And for more resources, check out catholic.com and my personal website at karlobroussard.com.
If you want me to come and speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.
Lastly, I’d love for you to consider supporting me over on Patreon. I can’t continue doing this podcast without your financial support. You can find me over at doctorkarlo.com with “doctor” spelled out.
Thanks for hanging out, and I’ll see you next time.

“Invoking the Saints Leads to Abuse and Gospel Violations”—Is this a Reason to Give It Up?

In this episode Trent sits down with author Leila Miller to discuss the many ways divorce parallels the evil of abortion, including in the ways some faithful Catholics try to justify it.

Uncanny Similarities Between Abortion and Divorce

Christians can enjoy Halloween without embracing evil. Be reminded of death. Memento Mori. 🎃☠️

Who Are the “Cloud of Witnesses” in Hebrews 12:1?

<div class="page" title="Page 39">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 29
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“It is enough to simply be spiritual. There is no need to be religious or to belong to an organized religion.”
DEFENSE
This presupposes that we don’t know which religion is true.
If we knew little about the supernatural world—perhaps simply that it exists—it might make sense to hold to only a general spirituality. How- ever, if we know more, the situation changes. The more we know, the more we are obligated to believe. If we know enough to show that a particular religion is true, we are obligated by our knowledge of the truth to embrace that religion. And if the religion we know to be true is organized, we are obliged to embrace organized religion.
Individuals vary in what they know. Some may know only enough to justify a general spirituality, but this is not the case for everyone.
An extensive body of evidence supporting the Christian faith exists. This evidence is documented by the field known as Christian apologetics, and some of it is found in this book. Those aware of this evidence and the truth of the Christian faith are obliged to accept it. For them, merely being spiritual is not enough. They are obliged by their knowledge of the truth to become Christian.
Christianity is an organized religion and has been since the beginning. It was founded by Jesus, who appointed twelve apostles to be its first leaders (Matt. 10:1–4, Mark 3:13–19, Luke 6:12–16). They then appointed other leaders, and the Christian faithful have an obligation to respect their leaders (1 Thess. 5:12; Heb. 13:17).
Having more knowledge—and thus more truth—is good. We apply this principle in every other field, and it is true in religion and spirituality as well. The fact that God has revealed more about himself also gives us greater reason to love and appreciate him and what he has done for us.
TIP
Those who have only a general spirituality should consider: “Suppose it were possible to know more. Wouldn’t you want to know? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?” Asking these questions can be an invitation to study the Christian faith and the evidence supporting it.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Spirituality and Organized Religion

<div class="page" title="Page 342">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 332
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The Assumption of Mary isn’t taught anywhere in the Bible.”
DEFENSE
From a Catholic perspective, it doesn’t have to be.
The idea theology should be done sola scriptura (Latin, “by Scripture alone”) is a distinctly Protestant idea not shared by most Christians. It also has numerous difficulties (see Days 5, 16, 311, and 352).
In general, it is better to sort out how theology is to be done before engaging in apologetic discussions of issues, like the Assumption of Mary, that depend significantly on apostolic Tradition not recorded in Scripture. If a Protestant dialogue partner is unwilling to consider the question apart from sola scriptura, little progress is likely, and the discussion may generate more heat than light. However, if a dialogue partner is willing to consider the question from a Catholic point of view, the following may be helpful.
First, it isn’t clear Mary had reached the end of her earthly life when the New Testament was finished. Mary would have been a little more than eighty when the book of Revelation was written, either toward the end of the reign of Nero (d. A.D. 68) or in that of his successor, Galba (A.D. 68–69). (This is based on Revelation 17:10’s indication it was written in the reign of the sixth emperor; see Day 68 on the approximate year of Mary’s birth). If the Assumption had not yet happened, we wouldn’t expect it to be mentioned.
Second, the Assumption may be alluded to in Revelation 12:1–5, where John sees the mother of Jesus depicted in heaven. This woman can be understood other ways and may include references to Eve, Israel, and the Church, but Revelation is known to use symbols to refer to more than one thing (cf. Rev. 17:9–10), and it is natural to see Mary as one of them.
Third, the Church’s faith in the Assumption is ultimately based on apostolic Tradition. Thus John Paul II noted: “The first trace of belief in the Virgin’s Assumption can be found in the apocryphal accounts entitled Transitus Mariae, whose origin dates to the second and third centuries. These are popular and sometimes romanticized depictions, which in this case, however, pick up an intuition of faith on the part of God’s People” (General Audience, July 2, 1997).
TIP
For more, see Tim Staples, Behold Your Mother.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Assumption of Mary

In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, Dr. Matthew Bunson of EWTN joins us to discuss the historic election of Pope Leo XIV—the first American Pope. Dr. Bunson shares behind-the-scenes insights from his front-row seat at the Vatican during the conclave, including the dramatic moment white smoke signaled a new pontiff. Learn how the voting process unfolded, why the election moved faster than expected, and how the Church and media reacted. Dr. Bunson also discusses his new book, Pope Leo XIV: Portrait of the First American Pope, published by EWTN Publishing. From spiritual significance to journalistic intensity, this episode captures a powerful moment in Church history as experienced by a leading Catholic voice.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

Pope Leo XIV: The First American Pope – Behind the Scenes with Dr. Matthew Bunson

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent reveals the famous &#8220;last meals&#8221; of death row inmates.

FFAF- My Favorite “Last Meals”

Who Was Jesus’ Grandfather?

FFAF: Building the Perfect Sand Castle

Episode 145: 22nd Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C
In today’s episode, we look at three details that come from each of the readings for this upcoming 22nd Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C. The detail from the first reading, which is taken from Sirach 3:17-18, 20, 28-29, relates to the topic of indulgences. The detail from the second reading, which is Hebrews 12:18-19, 22-24a, relates to the apologetical topic of the invocation of the saints, and in particular the Protestant objection from necromancy. The detail in the Gospel reading, taken from Luke 14:7-14, relates to the causal role that our works play for final salvation.
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/083125.cfm">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Can Almsgiving Save You? Jesus, Indulgences, and the Saints

The Hidden Danger of Mel Gibson on Joe Rogan

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

Sometimes people mask their struggle with pornography behind external displays of holiness.

Did Jesus Ever Claim to be the King of the Jews?

Trent talks about his recent interview with award-winning actor and friend of America’s armed forces Gary Sinise. He also answers questions from the podcast’s patrons about grace, the messianic secret and unusual details in the book of Tobit.

Meeting Gary Sinise and Bible Open Mailbag (Part 1)

I Asked a Protestant How to Get to Heaven

In this episode, Trent explains a strange argument for God that may be the key to proving God exists.
Transcription:
Trent:
What makes an argument for God really weird? Well, most normal arguments for God&#8217;s existence start from something we observe in the world that points to God. But one argument starts not with what we observe, but with the very idea of God itself. This argument as my friend Jimmy Aiken once put, it claims that quote, instead of being too good to be true, God turns out to be too good not to be true. The weirdest argument for God&#8217;s existence is the one that says God has to exist because, well God. But this is one of those arguments that fits perfectly in the meme where the geniuses and the low IQ people both agree with the profound truth that God must exist by definition while everyone else thinks that&#8217;s a crazy idea. So in today&#8217;s episode, I&#8217;m going to give an overview of the ontological argument for God&#8217;s existence and show how it can be a helpful argument for that case.
So let&#8217;s get started. First, by ontological we are talking about ontology. The study of being the ontological argument claims that God just is the kind of being where God just is being. So God must exist, therefore, God does exist. The argument&#8217;s origin can be found in the writings of the 11th century. Saint and doctor of the church on Somem of Canterbury on Psalm started with the idea that God is quote that which nothing greater can be conceived. If you think God is just a powerful creator of the universe who is made by some other God, then what you are thinking of is not God because there is something greater than what you&#8217;re thinking of the God that made this God. Now that we understand God is that which nothing greater can be thought of or conceived. What follows from this definition? Well, God must have all power, all knowledge, and all forms of goodness to be that which nothing greater can be conceived.
Saint Salm then goes on to say the following, if that then, which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. So Saint Salm is saying that if you imagine the concept of God in your mind, then that&#8217;s not really God because there is something greater than a God that only exists in your mind. Remember God is that which no greater can be thought. The greater thing would be a God that exists in reality as well and not just the mind. Therefore, since God is that which nothing greater can be conceived and a God that exists in reality as well as the mind is greater than a God that exists only in the mind.
It follows that God exists. But most people, even if they believe in God, suspect that there&#8217;s something wrong with this deceptively simple argument. One of Anselm&#8217;s contemporaries, a monk named Golo, tried to refute the argument by parodying it in order to show its absurdities. A technique we now call Reduxio at absurdum said that one could conceive of an island than which no greater could be conceived, but it wouldn&#8217;t follow that such a perfect island actually exists. Modern atheists often resort to a variant of goos reply by saying that the ontological argument could be used to prove absurdities like that a maximally great pizza must exist.
CLIP:
You can make the statement that the greatest possible pizza in the world exists, and so therefore there must be a greatest possible pizza, and I don&#8217;t think there is the greatest possible pizza. So why can&#8217;t you say the same thing about God?
Trent:
But this actually isn&#8217;t a fatal objection to alms argument. Unlike the idea of God perfect islands or maximally, great pizzas are incoherent ideas. The idea of an island that must contain all perfections or a pizza that contains all perfections or a pizza of which no greater can be conceived, these ideas are incoherent. They cannot exist in reality, so we can&#8217;t even really conceive of them in the mind. In his debate with the late atheist Victor Stanger, William Lane Craig noted that a maximally great pizza is an incoherent idea.
CLIP:
He said, well, couldn&#8217;t you have a parallel argument for the greatest possible pizza logical conclusion? So all of these arguments are philosophy and you can&#8217;t get out of them simply by saying you&#8217;re not a philosopher. He said, well, couldn&#8217;t you have a parallel argument for the greatest possible pizza? No, because the notion of the greatest possible pizza is logically incoherent. A greatest possible pizza would be metaphysically necessary in its existence, and therefore it could not be eaten, and therefore it couldn&#8217;t be a pizza because pizza could be
Trent:
Eaten. An island could always have one more coconut tree to make a greater, or a pizza could always have one more topping to make it greater. That means there is no island or pizza than which nothing greater can be conceived, but there could be a being than which nothing greater can be conceived because that being had complete possession of what philosophers call great making properties, things like power, knowledge, and existence, things that have intrinsic maximums. They aren&#8217;t like adding one more coconut tree or one more topping. One can have all power or all knowledge or perfect existence. But if that&#8217;s the case, then why don&#8217;t most philosophers, including those who believe in God, except on some&#8217;s argument, well, St. Thomas Aquinas said that since we don&#8217;t have direct knowledge of God&#8217;s essence or what God is like, this means we must reason to God&#8217;s existence, which just is his essence from what we do observe in the universe.
So we cannot have self-evident knowledge that God exists even through something like alms argument. Emmanuel Khan&#8217;s criticism of the argument though is the more common one today, and it relies on the idea that existence is not a term that describes what something is. Existence is just the fact of whether something is or is not. Now, not everyone accepts cons objection to the ontological argument, but most people remain unconvinced of ONMs distinction between greatness in the mind and greatness in reality as being a real distinction between things. Instead, they view it as just a way of hypothetically talking about things that could exist. IE Saint Alms argument only proves that if God existed, then God would exist necessarily as the greatest maximal being that which no greater can be conceived, but it can&#8217;t prove that God actually does exist. Now in 1960, the philosopher Norman Malcolm offered a summary of on Psalms argument using contemporary philosophical language that focused on the concept of necessary existence, which he says avoids concept objection about mere existence not being a predicate since necessary existence is a unique property that can be predicated the Christian philosopher Alvin Planting and did something similar in his 1974 book, the Nature of Necessity with his version of the Modal Ontological Argument.
Modal logic is a system of reasoning that helps us understand concepts like necessity or possibility. If something is necessary, then that means it has to be, there can be no world without that necessary thing. If something is possible, however, then that just means it can be. It doesn&#8217;t have to be. So for example, in modal logic, we would say that if something is necessary then it is also possible. If it has to be, then it can be. Another way to understand this kind of logic is through the language of possible worlds. The actual world is the universe or the reality in which you and I currently reside. A possible world is just an alternative way to describe the actual world a way the actual world never actually happened. For example, in another possible world, you never watched this episode or I never even existed. While some philosophers speak of possible worlds as if they were real existing things, sort of like parallel dimensions, most people understand this as just the language of possibility.
We use the language of possible worlds to talk about how things could have been different, but when we do that, we notice that some things are always constant no matter what possible world we talk about. For example, no matter what possible world we can conceive of, two plus two always equals four. We say these truths are necessary. They exist in every possible world, but could there also be a being that exists in every possible world? William Lane Craig summarizes Alvin planting as ontological argument. In this way, it is possible that a maximally great being exists, the kind of being who exists in every possible world. If it is possible that a maximally being exists, that a maximally great being exists in some possible world, if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world than a maximally great being exists, therefore God, a maximally great being exists. So if it is possible, God exists, then God must exist in some possible world or description of reality. If it&#8217;s possible, it exists in one of those descriptions. But if God exists in one possible world, then God must exist in every possible world because God by definition is that which exists in all logically possible worlds, but the actual world is a possible world. Remember, if something has to be, then it can be so That means God exists in the actual world too. So God exists according to atheist Arnold Kaminsky, it is generally agreed that the argument planting his ontological argument is formally valid, and I think that it is fairly obvious, assuming that a maximally great being is defined as a maximally excellent being that exists in every possible world, that if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then that being exists in all possible worlds and therefore in the actual world.
So that&#8217;s it. God exists Game over atheists not so fast. Some philosophers have challenged premise three of the argument and its reliance on the S five axiom and modal logic, specifically the claim if possibly necessarily a then necessarily a, but most philosophers set their sights on the argument&#8217;s first premise. It is possible that a maximum great being exists. If this premise means hypothetically possible or for all we know it&#8217;s possible, then the argument doesn&#8217;t really prove anything because it&#8217;s also hypothetically possible that a maximally great being exists in no possible world and such a premise could be used to form a valid anti ontological argument against God&#8217;s existence where you just replace the word exist in the argument with the phrase does not exist in every premise, and then you would get the conclusion God does not exist in the actual world or any possible world, but if the first premise means metaphysically possible, as in it&#8217;s the same way, it&#8217;s metaphysically possible and the roulette table, it could have landed on black rather than red, there real possibilities, well then we need some reason to believe God&#8217;s existence is a real possibility and God&#8217;s non-existence is not a real possibility.
We cannot say that it is metaphysically possible that God exists and that it is metaphysically possible. God does not exist because that would entail a contradiction a and not a being true at the same time. What the modal ontological argument shows is that it is either impossible for God to exist or it is impossible for God not to exist, but which one is true at this point. Philosophers look for various kinds of symmetry breakers, differences in these possible worlds that would show one of the possibility premises is more plausible than the other. James Henry Colin offers this in defense of the ontological argument in his paper, the Reverse Ontological Argument, and Joe Schmidt at Majesty of Reason has published a reply entitled Symmetries Revenge. Other Attempts at Breaking Symmetry combine the ontological argument with known facts about the world that we live in, such as showing that it is possible there is an explanation for the universe, so therefore there is an explanation for the universe.
Though this could be subject to the same symmetry problems. If you think it&#8217;s possible, there is no explanation for the universe. Josh Rasmussen develops an argument like this in his book, how Reason Leads to God, and Robert Maal uses a temporal contingency, ontological argument that combines Aquinas&#8217;s. Third way with the ontological argument. The philosophers Brian Leow and Alexander Press, however believe that the ontological argument can be strengthened by noting that people&#8217;s experience of God supports the premise that God is a real possibility because people don&#8217;t have experiences of metaphysically impossible things or logically impossible things like square circles, and there are many other forms of the ontological argument as well. Kurt Goodell, a mathematician famous for his incompleteness theorem put forward an ontological argument symbolize in about a dozen premises of mathematical logic and not to be outdone May&#8217;s temporal contingency ontological argument that could be found in the Blackwell companion to natural theology has 87 premises.
Now, personally, I don&#8217;t use the ontological argument when I discuss God with atheists because most people think the ontological argument is a kind of semantic trick. They aren&#8217;t receptive because they already have an antagonism towards this kind of reasoning and because of the controversial nature of the modal logic and the arguments inferences, even people like Alvin Plantinga who developed the modal ontological argument has said the following, these arguments cannot perhaps be said to prove or establish their conclusion, but since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion. What this means is that the ontological argument works best for particular people, so it may be helpful for someone who does believe in God for various reasons, but modal logic helps &#8217;em to have a much firmer foundation that God must exist or it can be helpful for someone who is predisposed to this kind of thinking In general.
I mean honestly, every argument for God or every argument for any position works in this way. The argument may seem sound to some people, but it may not convince other people. When I posted my episode on how the fine tuning argument is the argument atheist fear the most, I heard from many atheists who say they consider it the weakest argument for God. Of course, when I said atheists in that episode, I was referring to prominent atheists and it didn&#8217;t seem like a coincidence that the argument kept popping up among them. I also heard from Christians who said that they consider things like the moral argument to be the strongest argument for God&#8217;s existence. Even though many professional philosophers think the moral argument&#8217;s actually the weakest argument for God, I think forms of the moral argument do work, and so I&#8217;m happy to present them to people who are open to that kind of argument.
Every argument for God&#8217;s existence has strengths and weaknesses. For example, the contingency argument for God is logically rigorous and philosophers tend to think it&#8217;s among the better arguments for God, but laypeople can have a hard time following the contingency argument. That&#8217;s probably why CS Lewis didn&#8217;t use a contingency argument in mere Christianity, even though they were popular at the time, he wrote among academics, but instead he used a moral argument for God&#8217;s existence. The ontological argument will not be persuasive to people whose eyes glaze over when you talk about modal logic or someone who is convinced reverse or parody arguments disprove the ontological argument, but some people will be intrigued by the idea of a maximally great being. It may just click for them for that such a being is at least possible, and so the notion of impossibility better applies to a godless universe than to a maximally great being, and I may not share this argument with everyone, but I&#8217;ll present this argument or really any valid argument with plausible premises to someone.
If there&#8217;s at least a chance, the argument will click for that person and lead him or her to a relationship with God. This is similar to St. Paul&#8217;s advice. In one Corinthians chapter nine, I have become all things to all men that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel that I may share in its blessings. If you&#8217;d like to learn more about the ontological argument, check some of the links in the description below, and if you&#8217;d like a sophisticated philosophical defense of God&#8217;s existence, check out Ed ER&#8217;s book five Proofs for the Existence of God and the Best Argument For God by Patrick Flynn. Thank you guys so much and I hope you have a very blessed day.

The Weirdest Argument for God’s Existence

Is the Virgin Birth Copied from Paganism?

Jimmy Akin explains his thoughts on the primary signification of the four horsemen named in the book of Revelation, as well as how they may signify human events to come.

Who Are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

In this episode Trent lays out how to defend the most important passage in the entire Bible.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U65142yh3PI&amp;t=236s">Defending the &#8220;Martyrdom Argument&#8221; for the Resurrection</a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI6p7ihvjJA&amp;t=651s">Was the Resurrection a &#8220;Collective Delusion&#8221;? (Jesus vs. Bigfoot)</a>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzklRPDfAj0">The Resurrection Question Skeptics Can&#8217;t Answer</a>
Transcription:
Trent:
There are many important passages in scripture, but there&#8217;s one particular passage that is the foundation for the entire Christian faith. Now, you might be thinking, can there really be a most important passage of scripture? Well, there can if this part of scripture provides the foundation for the entire Christian faith. Here&#8217;s how I&#8217;d put it. One reason we trust scripture is because it has apostolic authority and we trust the apostles because they have Christ&#8217;s authority and we trust Christ&#8217;s authority because he demonstrated his divine nature through miracles, in particular, his resurrection from the dead. If Christ did not rise from the dead, there&#8217;s no reason to be a Christian. Paul says that your faith is in vain, but if Christ did rise from the dead, then we can trust his teaching about the church that he established, including its declarations about things like the canon of scripture.
But we can&#8217;t say Jesus rose from the dead just because the Bible says so, because by that logic, every supposed holy book that claims a miracle would have to be believed. Instead, we need to make an historical argument for Christ&#8217;s resurrection. One common argument goes like this. If you look at the New Testament and other first century documents merely as human writings and not as scripture, you can at least know basic facts about Jesus like that he died on a cross during the reign of Pontius Pilate and that shortly after his death, his disciples sincerely believed he had risen bodily from the dead. The founders of other religions like Muhammad or Buddha are said to perform miracles, but those accounts were written long after in some cases centuries after they died and can be explained as legends. However, the earliest writings about Jesus Christ written just decades after he died shows that his followers believed he had risen from the dead.
This was the very catalyst of their faith, and it was not a legend propagated by people who never knew Jesus. The earliest witness is found in St. Paul&#8217;s first letter to the Corinthians in chapter 15 where Paul preserves parts of an ancient creed that he himself received from others. One Corinthians was written sometime in the fifties, but scholars have dated this creed in verses three through eight to within five years of the crucifixion. In that passage it says this, for I delivered to you as of first importance. What I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to PHAs then to the 12. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me in previous episodes I&#8217;ll link to below. I showed how claims the apostles lied or hallucinated do not explain this early testimony of Christ resurrection and the early dating of this creed in this part of scripture shows that the resurrection was not a legend that developed long after the time of the original eyewitnesses of Jesus. So how do critics respond to one Corinthians 15? One wild approach is to say, as Robert Price has argued that the entire passage is a post Paul line forgery or interpolation in their debate on the resurrection price said this to William Lane Craig,
CLIP:
And in fact, no early writer, Ignatius or anybody else quotes the parts of it that deal with this. I went through that rather specifically,
Trent:
Craig then shuts down price on the idea that one Corinthians 15, three through eight is a forgery added later after Paul.
CLIP:
He says, well, with respect to Ignatius that Ignatius doesn&#8217;t quote the right passages. I beg to differ. If you look at Ignatius add Romano chapter nine, he quotes from one Corinthians 15, eight to nine exactly the passage the Dr. Price says isn&#8217;t supposed to be there.
Trent:
So that&#8217;s one wild approach. Another wild thing to do will be to not subscribe to our channel because sometimes we publish quick responses to current events and you don&#8217;t want to miss our content. And if you like content that focuses on building up the Christian faith, then please support us@trenthornpodcast.com. The more common approach to this passage is to acknowledge that Paul is transmitting a creed, but to say that Paul and other early Christians were only claiming that Christ spiritually rose from the dead and that he did not physically rise from the dead. Skeptics claim that the disciples encounters with Jesus after his resurrection where he eats fish or says to touch his wounds are later legends. They say that the first Christians only believe that Jesus&#8217;s spirit rose to heaven, which is compatible with a hallucination or even just wishful thinking and is much easier to explain than an encounter with the risen glorified body of Jesus and his corresponding empty tomb.
In fact, this was the kind of argument Dan Barker gave in his closing statement during our debate on the existence of the Christian God a few years ago, which was bad form because it didn&#8217;t give me an opportunity to respond to him. It was the last statement of the debate. But he also talks about this argument in his book, godless, how an Evangelical preacher became one of America&#8217;s leading atheists. So in this episode, I&#8217;m going to respond to that argument that the creed in one Corinthians 15 is only talking about Jesus undergoing a spiritual resurrection from the dead. First Barker claims that Paul used a Greek word for Jesus&#8217;s resurrection that only refers to spiritual resurrection, specifically the Greek word aguero, which means rise or wake up. Barker thinks Paul does not use the word that means resurrection in Greek or Anastasis. Barker also wrote the following in godless.
It is perfectly consistent with Christian theology to think that the spirit of Jesus, not his body, was awakened from the grave. As Christians today believe that the spirit of grandpa has gone to heaven while his body rots in the ground. In fact, just a few verses later, Paul confirms this flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The physical body is not important to Christian theology, but in Romans one, four St. Paul says that Jesus was designated son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by his resurrection, anastas from the dead. Note that Paul uses the Greek word anastasis, not aguero. Moreover, in one Corinthians 15, Paul uses aguero and anastasis interchangeably when speaking about the relationship between our future resurrection from the dead and Christ resurrection, which shows that Paul thought both words referred to bodily resurrection. Paul writes Now, if Christ is preached as raised a GTA from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection anastasis of the dead, but if there is no resurrection anastasis of the dead, then Christ has not been raised a gita.
If Christ has not been raised a Gita, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. Paul&#8217;s argument is simple. If we don&#8217;t rise from the dead, then Christ didn&#8217;t rise from the dead, but Christ did rise from the dead so we can be confident that we too will rise from the dead. What about Barker&#8217;s citation of one Corinthians 1550, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God as well as Paul&#8217;s use of the term spiritual body. Did Paul just mean that only ghosts go to heaven? Well, we have to remember what Paul was up against in the city of Corinth. Pauline scholar John Zeer believes that Paul was trying to convince people that the resurrection of the dead is not a mere reanimation of one&#8217;s corpse. For Paul, the spiritual body in the resurrection quote seemed to mean something like outward form or embodiment or perhaps better the way in which the person is conveyed and expressed a resurrection of the whole person involving embodiment but not physical embodiment.
So we have to make a distinction between glorified embodiment in the spirit and mere physical embodiment like a reanimated corpse. So when Paul writes flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, he&#8217;s using a Semitism, a Jewish way of speaking about the natural state of humanity. Apart from the grace of God, we cannot inherit the kingdom of God without being moved by God&#8217;s spirit, but that doesn&#8217;t mean that in God&#8217;s kingdom we will only be spirits. Spiritual in this context refers to a thing&#8217;s orientation, not its substance. It&#8217;s like when we say that the Bible is a spiritual book or when Paul writes in one Corinthians two 15 that quote, the spiritual man judges all things but is himself to be judged by no one. The subjects in these statements are not non-physical ghostly apparitions. They are physical books and people ordered toward the will of God.
As St. Augustine said, as the spirit when it serves the flesh is not improperly said to be carnal. So the flesh when it serves the spirit will rightly be called spiritual, not because it is changed into spirit as some suppose you misinterpret the text. Barker also claims Paul cannot be talking about a bodily resurrection because Paul describes Jesus appearing to the disciples of verse Corinthians 15. He says that the word appeared in this passage is also ambiguous and does not require a physical presence. The word op from the verb arao is used for both physical sight as well as spiritual visions. Barker then cites the appearances of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration and asks his reader, did Moses and Elijah appear physically to Peter? Shall we start looking for their empty tombs? This is obviously some kind of visionary appearance, but Barker&#8217;s use of Moses and Elijah appearing on the Mount of Transfiguration backfires because the text does not describe this as an internal vision.
Two kings two 11 tells us that Elijah went up body and soul into heaven while he was alive and Jude nine alludes to a Jewish tradition about Moses&#8217; body being taken up to heaven. It would be entirely appropriate that these men appeared to Peter with their bodies and God protected them from death and decay. Peter even declares that he will build a tent from Moses and Elijah and no one corrects Peter&#8217;s suggestion by saying that it is only the spirits of Moses and Elijah that are present and so tense are unnecessary. Now, here&#8217;s Barker sharing the essence of this argument. In our debate,
CLIP:
That word appeared as a curious word. If I went to your house and you opened the door and I said, oh, I went to Trent&#8217;s house and Trent appeared unto me, you would think I was talking about a haunted house, right, or a ghost or something. In all of the gospels before that point people met people, they saw people, they were with people they traveled. But after the resurrection it switches to that Greek al, which is where we get the word vision from. Basically it was an appearance,
Trent:
But a person can appear to someone without being a ghost or a spirit. I might ask my wife, are you going to make an appearance at our company party tonight without expecting her to materialize out of thin air? Scripture makes it clear when people have internal visions. Matthew one 20 says, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream or Greek nar. Likewise, Luke describes a vision that appeared to Paul in the night in Acts 16, nine of a man from Macedonia or a dream. But when Paul and the other New Testament authors talk about Jesus appearing to the disciples, they don&#8217;t describe those appearances as being part of a vision or a dream. For example, Luke 24 34 records the disciples saying The Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon. Luke uses the Greek word athe to describe this appearance, but in the proceeding verses, he records Jesus appearing in an explicitly embodied form.
Jesus tells the apostles, see my hands and my feet, that is I myself handle me and see for a spirit has not flesh and bones. As you see that I have Mike Laona points out in his dissertation on the resurrection that Paul uses the Greek arao, which is the root of athe 29 times and only once does it refer to a heavenly vision. The majority of the time it refers to physical sight. In fact, Paul bluntly says in one Corinthians nine, one, have I not seen Jesus our Lord, which contradicts Barker who says No one after the resurrection claims to have seen Jesus. Finally, Paul was a Pharisee, so he believed in a future bodily resurrection, but unlike the unconverted Pharisees, Paul taught that our bodies will be transformed so that they resemble Jesus&#8217;s glorified resurrection body. He told the Philippians, we await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body to the church at Rome. Paul wrote, if the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies and also through his spirit who dwells in you. This expectation would not make sense unless the first Christians believed that Jesus&#8217; body was gloriously reigning in heaven rather than rotting away in a tomb outside of Jerusalem while only his spirit was in heaven. William Lane Craig made a similar point in his 2009 debate with Richard Carrier.
CLIP:
Now in one Corinthians 15, Paul never says we shall change bodies. Rather he says, the trumpet will sound and we shall be changed. The passage only makes sense as intrinsic change. Second, Paul&#8217;s verbs of sowing and raising have the same implicit subject. It is sown, it is raised four times. Paul repeats this to escape the implication of numerical identity. Richard is forced to mistranslate the passage so that the verbs take different subjects. One is sown, one that is another one is raised
Trent:
For more on my response to Barker and similar critics see my book Counterfeit Christ. But I want to close out today&#8217;s episode with insights from another book that I&#8217;m really excited about this year, biblical scholar James Ware, published the most comprehensive defense of the traditional understanding of one Corinthians 15 in his book, the Final Triumph of God, Jesus, the eyewitnesses and the Resurrection of the Body. In one Corinthians 15, the book is right up there with Mike Laconas, the Resurrection of Jesus, a new historiographical approach and Andrew LOEs investigating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As must read resources for anyone who wants to belief, defend the foundational doctrine of the Christian faith. Here&#8217;s just a few of the insights from the book that I found helpful regarding this section of one Corinthians one. Critics often claim that because the creed in one Corinthians 15 does not mention the empty tomb, that means this fact was embellished later.
However, as wear notes no formula, cradle fragment or creed known to us from the ancient church contains any reference to the empty tomb. But Christians from those time periods clearly believed in a physical resurrection and its corresponding empty tomb. So if an empty tomb is assumed when modern Christians recite the part of the creed which says that Christ suffered and was buried and the third day he rose again, then there&#8217;s no reason think it was not assumed when Paul recited this creed. Moreover, Paul refers to the Jesus that is preached as the crucified one in Greek, a star mannos using grammar that indicates the effects of crucifixion are ongoing in a sense, not something consigned to a past physical body that no longer exists where writes the following, the perfect particip of stanos describes a state or condition contemporaneous with Paul&#8217;s proclamation, the one whom Paul saw, and now proclaims is the crucified one.
But if after his resurrection Jesus had assumed some other body or form different from the body that was crucified and laid in the tomb, Paul could not describe the one whom he saw as Christ crucified. This description assumes that Paul saw Christ in his crucified and now risen body. Second Dale Allison, a moderate scholar who is offered sophisticated criticisms of the resurrection claims that the appearance to the 500 recorded in one Corinthians 15 six must refer to some kind of sketchy group hallucination or mistaken illusion where a group of people thought that they saw Jesus in a cloud or something like that. Allison says 500 people could not have seen the risen Jesus because quote, it is very hard to fathom how an assembly of more than 500 could see an earthbound man at one time or all at once, or if they did, how the majority of them could, unless there was a receiving line, have identified the figure or seen or heard much of what was going on.
There were no concert projection screens back then, but ware points out that the New Testament describes many large crowds seeing Jesus during his ministry where writes at the trial of Socrates in 3 99 BC the jury of 500 saw Socrates heard his defense verbally interacted with him and each individually rendered their verdict. Epi informs us that it was not unheard of for philosophers to lecture in outdoor settings to audiences numbering 500 or even up to a thousand persons. The ancient evidence reveals the utter fallacy of Allison&#8217;s argument finally, where points out scholarship, which shows that Luke 24 34, which describes the disciples saying the Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon, is part of an early pre Liukin confessional that itself may be older than one Corinthians 15, three through eight. He notes that quote. In this pre liukin formula, we find the identical verb and grammatical construction as in one Corinthians 15, five, the same verb used in the formula is not only explicitly used of ocular observation of Jesus&#8217; body of flesh and bones risen without seeing corruption, but also recalls the disciple&#8217;s experience of eating and drinking with the risen Lord.
All this means that the earliest proclamation about Jesus was that against all expectations, Jesus rose from the dead in a glorified physical body leaving behind an empty tomb and disciples who were transformed from cowards into willing martyrs for the faith, something natural explanations fail to fully explain. If you&#8217;d like to learn more about how to defend the resurrection, especially regarding the Creed in one Corinthians 15, I recommend the previous books I&#8217;ve already cited, especially where&#8217;s new book. But if you want a great introductory text that focuses on this part of the resurrection case, I recommend Justin Bass&#8217;s book, the Bedrock of Christianity, the Unalterable Facts of Jesus&#8217;, death and Resurrection. Thank you so much for watching and I hope you have a very blessed day.

Defending the Most Important Bible Passage

There is controversy over whether liturgical music should include pianos. Is the piano a perfectly valid and equally good choice, or is it too profane for the Mass?
Knowing that this issue can set off a firestorm of opinion on both sides, we may be better served to first examine Catholic principles of beauty and sacred music as presented clearly by the Church. The way to respect pastoral musicians who may disagree with this perspective, as well as meet people with their preferences in the pews, is a deeper consideration of Catholic musical principles and the Church’s guiding documents on the matter.
It seems that most Catholics, including most parish priests, are unaware that the Church provides clear and abiding guidance on music style, performance, and instrumentation, centered on a clear musical tradition reaching back toward the time of the Church Fathers.
Despite this guidance and the clear wishes of the Second Vatican Council, our international liturgical musical landscape has become more of an anarchic wasteland dominated by amateurism. Yet there are small oases of musical quality which have emerged much to the credit of their liturgical communities, and we can follow their lead in considering what the Church truly desires of pastoral musicians.
<h2>Quality and the Catholic Musical Ideal</h2>
We begin with the idea of musical quality. For the Christian, musical quality is not aesthetically or culturally relative. Rather, from East to West and across many centuries, the pre-conciliar Church cultivated a musical tradition uniquely suited to its worship, and in the process developed a stylistically diverse yet unified musical tradition.
Sacred art and music are not “just aesthetic preferences” for the liturgy, nor are they mere ornamentation (and therefore interchangeable taste-based accompaniments) for the Mass. As Cardinal Robert Sarah recently wrote in The Song of the Lamb,
<blockquote>one commonly held idea of art in general, and music in particular, is that it serves an ornamental function. Art, in this view, is an addition to beautify what is made; it does not, in fact, touch the essence of the thing to be embellished. . . .
But this conception reveals a superficial understanding of artistic work and creation from various points of view. . . . Sacred music—when it is true art—is an epiphany: it signifies a divine manifestation through its revelation of Beauty. In sculpture, music, and poetry, he who is Beauty is incarnate in the artistic form, though in a much less full and substantive manner than in the Eucharist or in the manger at Bethlehem (25).</blockquote>
Cardinal Sarah’s conversation with Peter Carter presents a brilliant synthesis of the Church’s musical life and thinking. In this excerpt, aside from disabusing us of the notion that sacred art and music are merely ornamental, he also echoes Pope Benedict XVI (who himself echoed the grand Catholic tradition of beauty) in reminding us that Beauty is an objective reality. He capitalizes the “B” in Beauty and says that God is “Beauty incarnate.”
In Catholic tradition, we can speak of “small b” beauty, and “capital B” beauty. The former is a label we may give to what gives us pleasure but remains a realm of personal opinion. The latter, however, is a statement of objective fact, meaning that the thing called “Beautiful” is a clear reflection of the nature of Beauty himself.
One may think by analogy of the way a man sees his wife. Objectively, the woman is God’s child, and so she is objectively Beautiful. Another man may find her subjectively beautiful in her person and physical appearance, and he may even perceive some of the objective Beauty that she embodies and toward which she points as a person. Yet the man to whom it is given to love and marry her not only will find her beautiful, but will see the deeper Beauty of her as a unique creation. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but that doesn’t mean that it is all a mere manner of opinion.
To take the analogy farther, if a man respects and loves his wife as Beautiful, and builds a family around this love toward Beauty himself, others then will be more likely to respect his wife and be spiritually attracted to the fruits of his love. Conversely, a man who disdains his wife publicly or treats her carelessly will not only bring shame upon her, but ultimately discredit himself in the process. Who would trust such a man?
We are in much the same place with Church art and music today. The beautiful traditions born in the bosom of the Church have gone forward over the centuries, but now they return battered, bruised, and rejected by wider society to their home. Upon arriving back to the doorstep of the Church, the scorned beauty finds that a spiritual and aesthetic amnesia has taken hold, and men are largely unable any longer to recognize her beauty. This draws scorn and disdain on the Church, grows mistrust, and ultimately contributes greatly to an exodus of the faithful.
Beauty is a primary concern in the Church and a central aspect of the liturgy. What the Catholic sacred arts have traditionally done is seek, through the highest development of craft and constant seeking after the refinement of method, to approach Beauty himself—the ineffable, the transcendent—with both diligence and humility. This means that the best sacred art is made by the best artists subordinating their gifts (natural and developed) to the service of the liturgy. It is the highest of art, yet it is grounded in profound humility.
This indeed is an image of holiness: the doing of our very best for God, from a place of deep humility. This is why when in 1903 Pope St. Pius X wrote Tra le Sollecitudini, he insisted that liturgical music “be holy, and must therefore exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it.”

<h2>Profane Music</h2>
What is profanity, or the profane? Whereas in modern times we may tend to think of parental advisory warnings for the lyrics on an album, the traditional understanding of “profane” is that which is, quite simply, “not sacred.” In Pius X’s time, this would include music that evoked memories of secular entertainment, the theatrical, and that which directed attention entirely toward the performance as opposed to facilitating a spiritual orientation proper to liturgical worship (which is, by its nature, contemplative and growing out of reverent repose).
Since modern music has risen mainly to serve profane uses, greater care must be taken with regard to it, in order that the musical compositions of modern style that are admitted in the Church may contain nothing profane, be free from reminiscences of motifs adopted in the theaters, and be not fashioned even in their external forms after the manner of profane pieces.
In 1955’s Musicae Sacrae Disciplina, Pius XII reinforced that liturgical music “must be holy. It must not allow within itself anything that savors of the profane nor allow any such thing to slip into the melodies in which it is expressed. The Gregorian chant which has been used in the Church over the course of so many centuries, and which may be called, as it were, its patrimony, is gloriously outstanding for this holiness” (42).
In both cases, these documents were reacting to the pop-driven musical abuses of their time. What is more, no contradiction to this guidance has yet been issued. Indeed, the next great document which deals with liturgical music—Vatican 2’s Sacrosanctum Concilium—is entirely conservative in its approach, reinforcing the “inestimable value” of the Church’s sacred music tradition, “even greater even that of any other art.” It encourages the highest level of musical education, preferences Gregorian chant and polyphony, encourages the cultivation of high-level church choirs, and admits only musical works of great quality to the liturgy. Nowhere is there an expression that could be honestly used to justify our post-conciliar spirit of musical amateurism and pop-adjacency.
In the liturgy, Beauty himself is our aim. We inherit a profound tradition of approaching this ineffable reality, and we dismiss that tradition at our peril.

How to Tell If Your Church Music Is Ugly

Why in the world did God command the Jewish people to offer animal sacrifices?
Not only do they appear inhumane and gross to us twenty-first-century Americans, but the Bible seems to be inconsistent. After all, Scripture pushes for the fair treatment of humans (“love your enemies”), yet not for animals. They get killed left and right.
To answer this objection, the biblical background to animal sacrifices is needed. For there is a rich theology and logic imbedded within the sacrifices, the end goal of which was to enter into God’s presence. Understanding this truth dissolves the objection.
First, sacrifices solve a particular dilemma: man’s inability to commune with God. In the Book of Exodus, when the Jewish tabernacle had been completed, a “cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (40:34). God’s presence took residence in the tabernacle, just as if the Garden of Eden had been planted again. Yet the tabernacle could not function as a “tent of meeting” between Israel and God yet. Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle and commune with God (v. 35). There needed to be a special process through which Israel could enter God’s presence.
God solved this crisis by offering two things: priesthood and sacrifices (Lev. 1-9). With these institutions in place, Moses and Aaron were able to enter the tabernacle (9:22-24). This prompted God to send out fire from the tabernacle to light the altar for sacrifices. God’s fiery presence had appeared previously on Mt. Sinai, and here it was shared with the altar of sacrifice. For sinful humanity to commune with all-holy God, the altar would need to be used.
The general flow for Israel’s sacrifices was purification, ascension, and peace. Or to put it another way: expiation, consecration, and fellowship. A man needed to have his sins removed and state his dedication to God before he could have fellowship with God.
This general flow summarizes the Israelites’ five types of sacrifices: purification/sin, reparation/guilt, ascension/whole burnt, tribute/cereal/grain, and peace offerings. The sacrificial process looked as follows.
A man would present his animal (e.g., a sheep) to the priest outside the tabernacle to begin the sacrificial process. This animal needed to be without blemish, meaning it had to be without disease, broken bones, skin issues, etc. The priest analyzed the animal to ensure this. If the animal had any blemishes, then it would not be used for sacrifice. This was because the animal symbolized moral purity and sinlessness. God could be approached only if the one approaching was blameless (see Ps. 15:2), but since the owner of the animal was sinful, he needed a substitute. The animal approached God on behalf of the owner.
The next phase was for the owner to lean his hand heavily upon the head of his animal. This was for identification purposes. The person owned the animal. Yet it went deeper than that. The sinful owner of the animal would become the blameless animal, through which, due to its sinlessness, he could commune with God.
The third step was for the owner to slaughter his animal. This might be a bit repulsive; however, remember that this was going to happen inevitably. He was planning to eat his animal one day.
Twenty-first-century Americans are often sensitive to this, being far removed from the killing of the cow that gave them their steak, but the ancient Jews were not. This process did not involve long-term pain for the animal, either, for if it was slit at the throat, the animal would lose consciousness quickly due to the blood loss.
Yet this still does not answer the main question: Why kill the animal? The reason is that sins deserve death (Ezek. 18:20). If the man had become the animal, then he was symbolically dying for his sins. It was a substitutionary act.
After the slaughter, the priest would take some of the animal’s blood and sprinkle it upon the various sacred objects within the Tabernacle: the altars, the veil, and the mercy seat. This characterized the purification/sin offerings and reparation/guilt offerings. This procedure may have been the oddest aspect of the sacrificial liturgy, and there was deep meaning behind it. The tabernacle functioned like a magnet, collecting all the defiling sins of Israel. God dwelled within the tabernacle, and since sins are committed against God, then sins were attached to the tabernacle. Since the life of the animal was within the blood (Lev. 17:11), sprinkling its blameless blood within the Tabernacle would obliterate the sin.
The fifth stage of the process was to lay the dead animal upon the fiery altar for burning. The ascension/whole burnt offering characterized this.
As odd as it may sound, burning the animal had a multiplicity of purposes. The first to consider is communion with God. God had appeared to Moses as a smoky cloud upon Mount Sinai, so the animal was being transformed into God’s smoky nature. The animal smoke then ascended to God’s heavenly throne, creating a communion between God and man. When the animal was burned up, it indicated a complete consecration to God. The man, who had become the animal, was completely dedicated to God. Nothing else was left.
The final phase of the sacrificial system involved the benediction. Aaron the priest would bless the people of Israel (Lev. 9:23). The prayer for blessing is listed in Numbers 6:22-27, where the priest asks that God be gracious to the worshiper. This blessing involved creational well-being, such as crops, health, etc., and concluded the sacrifices.
So the sacrificial system was not some illogical and immoral process. There was rich meaning to everything in it. Communion with God was through animal sacrifices, mediated by the priests. That was the way for God to be close to his sinful people. Without sacrifices, Israel could not go near the tabernacle (see Exod. 40:35).
This sacrificial system removed sins, but it did not completely satisfy God’s justice. People did not actually die as they deserved. Instead, these sacrifices worked more like a credit card, building up debt, which ultimately was paid for by Jesus. He is the new or high priest, who willingly offered up his life in exchange for ours. Jesus, the infinite and eternal God-man, lovingly suffered our deserved infinite punishment.
For more on the ancient Jewish sacrificial process, see <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Who-Shall-Ascend-Mountain-Lord/dp/0830826386/ref=asc_df_0830826386/?tag=hyprod-20&amp;linkCode=df0&amp;hvadid=312371602209&amp;hvpos=&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvrand=5848846815484782995&amp;hvpone=&amp;hvptwo=&amp;hvqmt=&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvdvcmdl=&amp;hvlocint=&amp;hvlocphy=9012218&amp;hvtargid=pla-494548914435&amp;psc=1&amp;tag=&amp;ref=&amp;adgrpid=61011965686&amp;hvpone=&amp;hvptwo=&amp;hvadid=312371602209&amp;hvpos=&amp;hvnetw=g&amp;hvrand=5848846815484782995&amp;hvqmt=&amp;hvdev=c&amp;hvdvcmdl=&amp;hvlocint=&amp;hvlocphy=9012218&amp;hvtargid=pla-494548914435">here</a>.

What Kind of God Demands Animal Sacrifices?

What do you say to critics of your content on NDEs, who say that it understates the skeptical research in the academic NDE literature?

What do you think of the way purification seems to occur in Father Nathan Castle’s afterlife accounts? It would seem that rather than experiencing a “painful” and “fiery” purification as often depicted in pious stories and prayers about purgatory over ...

If two individuals had their brains swapped, would their soul remain in their original bodies? Or if it stayed, how would the mismatched soul/brain experience consciousness?

My wife is utterly convinced that all lizards including and especially the dinosaurs used to be dragons and wings were the limbs mentioned in Genesis when God punished the serpent. Note that most modern-day lizards although they do have legs still scur...

&#8220;What are Near Death Experiences?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on near-death experiences and the nature of the soul. The conversation also addresses critiques of NDE content, the concept of purification in the afterlife as described by Father Nathan Castle, and intriguing thoughts on the relationship between soul and brain in hypothetical scenarios.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

What are Near Death Experiences? NDEs, Purgatory, and Souls

The coming of the Lord as a babe in Bethlehem is perfectly arranged by the Lord. Drawing on Thomas Aquinas, Father Hugh Barbour explains some of the ways God arranged for his son to be born in just the right way, place, and time.

The Perfection of the Nativity

Why Protestant Criticism of Pope Francis Backfires

Did a &#8220;lost&#8221; book of the Bible (lost to modern Protestants, at least) foretell the life and death of Jesus Christ? And if so, how did this book of the Bible end up getting removed from Protestant Bibles&#8230;and why?

A “Lost” Book Foretold the Death of Jesus Christ?

Many of us grew up hearing about how &#8220;three kings&#8221; came to visit the baby Jesus, only to learn later that Matthew actually calls them &#8220;magi,&#8221; or &#8220;wise men,&#8221; and doesn&#8217;t mention there being only three of them. In fact, much of what we think we know about this passage might be wrong. So who were these men? And is it really likely that they &#8220;worshipped&#8221; Jesus, as Matthew says? Also: what do we make of their mysterious gifts?

What Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh Reveal about Jesus

Is calling Mary the Mother of God biblical? This episode explores key passages like Luke 1:43 and Galatians 4:4, along with early Christian testimony and even Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, to show why this ancient title flows directly from Scripture and historic Christian belief.
TRANSCRIPT:
The Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 declared Mary to be the Theotokos—the God-bearer. In other words, it proclaimed Mary to be the Mother of God.
But should a Bible Christian believe that? Is there any evidence from Scripture that Mary is the Mother of God?
Stick around—and you’ll find out.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
Hey guys! Welcome back to the channel—I’m really glad you’re here. If you haven’t done so already, make sure to subscribe and hit that bell notification so you don’t miss any new videos. And if this podcast has been helpful for you, I’d love for you to consider supporting us over on Patreon at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out. And if you’re already a patron—thank you. Seriously, I’m deeply grateful, because without your support, I couldn’t keep doing this podcast.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
Alright, so how do we make the case for Mary the Mother of God? In today’s episode, we’re going to focus on two types of arguments: biblical and historical. I’m gonna save the related theological arguments for a future episode.
Let’s start with the biblical arguments—and we’ll look at two.
The first comes from Luke 1:43.
There, Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaims to Mary, “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church actually appeals to this passage as support for the dogma in paragraphs 448, 495, and 2677. So we’re in good company when we turn to this verse.
Now, as any good Bible student knows, “Lord” is the title that the Jews used for Yahweh. Elizabeth was a good Jew. So it’s very reasonable to think she’s using it in reference to Almighty God—in which case she’s calling Mary the Mother of God.
So right there, we already have a solid biblical foundation for the dogma.
But not everyone agrees. Protestant Bible scholar Walter L. Liefeld, for example, argues that we shouldn’t read this as “mother of God.” In his commentary on Luke in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, he suggests Elizabeth is referring to Jesus as the Messiah. He writes:
“Nowhere in the [New Testament] is Mary called ‘mother of God.’ Deity is not confined to the person of Jesus (we may say, ‘Jesus is God,’ but not all of ‘God is Jesus’). She was, however, the mother of Jesus the Messiah and Lord” (pg. 834).
Part of his reasoning is that Luke frequently uses “Lord” as a title—95 out of 166 occurrences in the Synoptics—and not all of them carry a divine meaning.
So how do we respond?
Well, first, notice something about the immediate context. Right after Elizabeth says, “why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”—she goes on in verse 45 to say, “blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”
Both statements are part of the same exclamation. It’s hard to imagine Elizabeth switching meanings for “Lord” midway.
Second, there are several details that suggest Luke is intentionally drawing a parallel between Mary and the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant, which, I argue, gives us reason to think “Lord” is being used in the divine sense.
Take Elizabeth’s words: “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” They closely echo David’s words in 2 Samuel 6:9: “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”
And that’s not the only parallel. John the Baptist leaps for joy in Mary’s presence (Luke 1:44), just like David dances before the ark in 2 Sam. 6:5. Mary stays with Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:39), just like the ark remained in the house of Obededom for three months according to 2 Sam. 6:11.
Given these parallels, Luke is clearly presenting Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant.
And here’s how that relates to Mary as Mother of God: if Elizabeth’s phrase “mother of my Lord” is paralleling David’s “ark of the Lord,” then “Lord” is being used in the divine sense. David wasn’t talking about an earthly ruler—the ark belonged to Almighty God.
So Luke’s portrait of Mary as the New Ark gives us really good reason to read Luke 1:43 as revealing Mary to be the Mother of God.
Now, there’s a potential counterargument you might hear, one that could be taken from Protestant apologist James White.
In The Roman Catholic Controversy, White argues that if we draw parallels between Mary and the Ark, we’ll end up with absurd conclusions. He directs this at Mary’s sinlessness. But since it’s directed at Mary as the New Ark, it can be used here. Here’s what White writes:
Must Mary have been stolen by God’s enemies for a time, so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing (2 Sam. 6:14-15)? Who was Mary&#8217;s Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:3-8)? [Catholic apologist Patrick] Madrid draws a further parallel between the three months the ark was with Obededom and the three months Mary was with Elizabeth. What, then, is the parallel with David&#8217;s action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the ark had taken six steps (2 Sam. 6:13)? (pg. 205)
White goes on to draw out the implication of these questions: Catholics are picking and choosing, as he puts it, “those aspects of Mary’s life [a Catholic] wishes to parallel in the ark and those which he does not.” 
But here’s the problem: that objection assumes that if some parallels exist, then all details must line up—and that’s just not how biblical typology works.
In fact, the New Testament authors themselves don’t follow that rule.
Take Matthew 2:15, for example: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” That phrase comes from Hosea 11:1, and Matthew applies it to Jesus. But the very next line in Hosea 11:2 talks about Israel turning to idols—which obviously doesn’t apply to Jesus.
There are numerous examples of this in the New Testament’s use of the Old. Whenever prophetic foreshadowing is in play, some elements carry forward, others don’t. There are continuities and discontinuities. That’s standard biblical interpretation when it comes to foreshadowing. And if the New Testament authors employ this type of hermeneutic when relating the Old Testament to the New, it’s legitimate for Catholics to do the same.
This potential counterargument, therefore, fails.
And Luke 1:43 still stands as strong evidence for Mary as the Mother of God.
Now let’s look at a second biblical argument—this one from Galatians 4:4.
Paul writes, “when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law.”
The key detail here is simple: God’s Son is born of a woman.
There are two points to make.
First, assuming we accept early conciliar Christology—like what we see at the Council of Nicaea—God’s Son, the Word, is divine. Thus, he’s properly called God.
Second, any woman who gives birth to a person is a mother of that person.
Put those two things together, and the reasoning looks like this:
P1: Any woman who gives birth to a person is a mother to the person to whom she gives birth.
P2: Mary gave birth to God’s Son (Galatians 4:4). 
C1: Therefore, Mary is the mother of God’s Son. 
P3: God’s Son is divine, and thus properly called God. 
C2: Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
Once you see it laid out like that, it becomes clear what someone would have to deny to reject the conclusion.
You’d have to deny either: 
premise one: that mothers give birth to persons, 
premise two: that Mary gave birth to God’s Son, or 
premise three: that God’s Son is divine.
But none of those are options for a Christian.
Mothers give birth to persons—that’s just basic common sense. They don’t give birth to “natures” or abstract things.
Scripture clearly teaches that Mary gave birth to God’s Son—Paul says it outright.
And of course, no Christian can deny the divinity of the Son. John 1:1 tells us, “the Word was God.”
So Galatians 4:4 gives us another solid biblical basis for calling Mary the Mother of God.
Now that we’ve covered the biblical side, let’s shift gears a bit and look at the historical evidence.
First, we can look at early Christian testimony.
Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Ephesians (18.2), writes:
“For our God, Jesus Christ, was…conceived in the womb by Mary…He was born and baptized, that by his passion he might purify the water.”
It’s simple logic again: a woman who gives birth is a mother to person she gave birth to. Ignatius says Mary gave birth to God, Jesus Christ. Therefore, Ignatius believed Mary is the Mother of God. That’s around A.D. 107.
Next up is St. Irenaeus of Lyon.  In his Against Heresies (Book 5, chapter 19), which dates to about A.D. 180-89, he says this:
“The Virgin Mary…being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she was to bear God.”
Notice that Mary was to bear God. That’s motherhood language.
And then there’s a really beautiful third century Christian hymn that was prayed by Christians in Egypt from around A.D. 230–250 called Sub Tuum Praesidium—“Under your protection.” It reads:
“Under your mercy, we take refuge, Mother of God…do not reject our supplications in necessity, but deliver us from danger…”
We could go on with more evidence. But I think those witnesses suffice to show that belief in Mary as Mother of God isn’t some late invention but rather is right there in the early centuries of Christianity.
Now, interestingly, this belief was affirmed by some of the early Protestant Reformers.
Martin Luther, in On the Councils and the Church (1539), writes:
“God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary’s Son, and that Mary is God’s mother…She is the true mother of God and bearer of God…Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus. Not two Christs. . .just as your son is not two sons…even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone.”
John Calvin follows suit and even appeals to Luke 1:43 for support. He writes:
“Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.&#8221; 
That comes from page 35 of Calvini Opera—the collected works of Calvin, volume 45 of the Corpus Reformatorum series.
So, here’s what we have by way of summary:
First, Elizabeth calls Mary “mother of my Lord” in Luke 1:43—and there’s strong reason to read “Lord” in the divine sense.
Second, Paul tells us in Galatians 4:4 that God’s Son was born of Mary—which, given His divinity, makes her the Mother of God.
Third, early Christian sources like Ignatius, Irenaeus, and the hymn Sub Tuum Praesidium all affirm this belief.
And finally, even Reformers like Luther and Calvin affirmed Mary as the Mother of God.
So should a Bible Christian affirm Mary the Mother of God? I think the answer is clearly “yes.”
Well, my friends, that’s it for today!
If you found this video helpful, make sure to like it, comment below, and share it with someone who might benefit. And don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t already.
For more resources, check out catholic.com and my personal website karlobroussard.com. If you’d like me to speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.
And please consider supporting this work on Patreon. For just $5 a month, you’ll get early access, ad-free viewing, and access to my six-hour course How to Talk About Morality in an Age of Moral Relativism. You can sign up at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out.
Thanks for hanging out—and I’ll see you next time. God bless.
&nbsp;

Why a Bible Christian Should Belileve Mary as Mother of God

In this episode Trent interviews fellow Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin about his debate with Catholic young earth creationist Gideon Lazar and then talk about the concerns they have regarding this view of human origins.

Should Catholics be Young-Earth Creationists? (with Jimmy Akin)

My Abortion Debate You’ve Never Seen

Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers briefly lays out the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/divine-office">Liturgy of the Hours</a> format and explains how we can find time for it in our busy schedules.
Transcript:
Host: Patrick in Rockwall, Texas listening on Guadalupe Radio. Patrick, you&#8217;re on with Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers.
Caller: Howdy guys. I&#8217;ll get to the question which is: I&#8217;m trying to incorporate the Liturgy of the Hours into my life but I&#8217;ve also got a 16 month old that we finally got to start sleeping through the night, so I&#8217;m not super keen about midnight or 3 a.m. Is there a way to do it, you know, just during the daylight hours? And I&#8217;ve got the Laudate app too, so is there a way to do it with that app?
Dn. Harold: Well, what I would say is, download iBreviary and use that, and the thing about the Liturgy of the Hours is that it sanctifies the day. So there&#8217;s prayers in the early morning, mid-morning, midday, mid-afternoon, evening, and before you go to bed. So just pick the ones that fit the part of the day that you&#8217;re in. So for example, I pray the full office every day. So for you, given your schedule, it may be morning prayer, which takes about 20 minutes, evening prayer takes about the same amount of time, 15-20 minutes, night prayer or Compline takes about 10 minutes, if even that, you know. So there are prayers in there that you can kind of fit in to whatever part of the day that you&#8217;re in, and you can sanctify, make holy that timeframe with—by using the Liturgy of the Hours in that way. And I like iBreviary because the way that it&#8217;s laid out, you don&#8217;t have to flip back and forth, you just have to just go through and it has everything laid out in chronological order for you. Does that help, Patrick? Oh yeah, that helps quite a bit. Thank you.

How to Incorporate the Liturgy of the Hours into Your Life

Charlie Kirk Shuts Down 25 Pro-Aborts (My Response)

Is James 2:24 about being justified before God—or just in the sight of others? In this episode, I break down key Protestant objections and show why James’s teaching on faith and works points to a real, grace-enabled justification before God, not mere human vindication.
TRANSCRIPT:
James 2:24 is one of those verses that comes up all the time when Catholics and Protestants talk about faith and works. James famously writes,
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
And Catholics often point to this and say, “Look—James explicitly says we’re justified by works, not by faith alone. So works must play some role in justification.”
But some Christians push back and say, “Hold on. You’re assuming James is talking about justification in the sight of God. He’s not. He’s talking about justification in the sight of men.”
In other words, the idea is that works don’t justify us before God—they just show other people that our faith is real.
So… have Catholics been wrong all this time? Do we need to retire James 2:24 as an apologetical proof text?
Short answer: no—and no.
And in today’s episode, I want to explain why.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
Hey guys, Welcome back to the channel! I’m really glad you’re here. If you haven’t done so already, make sure to subscribe and hit that bell notification so you don’t miss any new videos. Also, I want too invite you to consider helping keep this podcast going by supporting us on Patreon at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out. And if you’re already a patron, thank you so much…I really am deeply grateful for your support.
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;
So James 2:24 is famous among Catholic apologists for a simple reason: it’s the only time in the Bible when the phrase ‘faith alone’ appears—and it’s preceded by the words “not by.” Because of that, it’s often presented as the ultimate ‘gotcha’ verse against the doctrine of faith alone.
But, as I mentioned earlier, some Christians respond by saying James isn’t even talking about justification in the sight of God. Instead, they argue he’s talking about being justified—or vindicated—in the sight of men. Our works, on this view, simply prove to others that our claim to faith is genuine.
The late American Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul put it this way in his book Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification: 
[READ #1]
“Our works ‘justify’ our claim to faith in the eyes of human beholders. Such ‘justification’ or vindication is not necessary for God” (pg. 199-200). 
And Sproul’s not alone here. John MacArthur makes this argument in his commentary on the epistle of James, on pages 137-139. Protestant apologist James White makes it in his book The God Who Justifies, pages 351-352, and Ron Rhodes does the same his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, pages 147-149.
More recently, Protestant Youtuber Ryan Hemelaar from Needgod.net made this argument in his 2025 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpg12UMrgyY">debate</a> with Catholic apologist William Albrecht. Ryan said the following:
[VIDEO]
Now before William says that the only 1:09 time the phrase faith alone appears in the Bible is in James chapter 2 where it 1:14 says you see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And he 1:20 says well there you go case closed. Debate done, right? . . . Not so fast . . . James must 3:02 mean being justified before man by our works. As in, how do we show to other 3:07 people that we&#8217;re a Christian? That&#8217;s how our works show it. But it&#8217;s not how God knows if we&#8217;re saved. He knows if we 3:14 believe because he&#8217;s all knowing, but people around us are not all knowing.
Now, for today’s episode, I want to interact with Ryan’s comments specifically, because he lays out reasons for holding this view.
Here’s the first reason he gives:
[VIDEO]
….when James says, you 2:40 see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. He clearly cannot mean justification before God by 2:48 works. It would give a reason a person, it would give a person a reason to boast. Even if it was just 50% works, a 2:55 person would still have a reason to boast compared to a person who hasn&#8217;t done those works. 
So Ryan’s first argument is basically this: If James were talking about justification before God, then works would give us grounds for boasting. But the Bible teaches that when it comes to justification before God, we have nothing to boast about. An example of this would be Paul’s teaching in Romans 4. Therefore, James can’t be talking about justification before God.
Ryan then offers a second reason. He says the context makes clear James is talking about justification before men. He points to James 2:18:
[VIDEO]
the context in James makes it clear 3:21 that that&#8217;s what he&#8217;s talking about. Take a look at verse 18. He says, &#8220;Show me your faith apart from your works, and 3:28 I will show you my faith by my works.&#8221; See that? Show you my faith, not show 3:33 God my faith.
Notice, Ryan says, James talks about showing other people his faith—not showing God his faith.
So what should we make of these arguments?
Well, before I respond, I want to be clear about something. My comments here aren’t meant to undercut how William Albrecht handled this in the debate. The line he took is a common and effective Catholic rebuttal, and I’ll mention it shortly. I just want to add some complementary thoughts that help fill out the picture.
So let’s start with Ryan’s first argument.
Recall, Ryan claims James can’t be talking about justification in God’s sight, because that would give us reason to boast before God.
But that argument only works if you assume a particular understanding of works and their relation to salvation—namely, that works are either a) entirely our own and not Gods, or b) partly ours and partly Gods.
And Ryan clearly thinks in those terms. Recall what he said in the previous clip:
[VIDEO]
He clearly cannot mean justification before God by 2:48 works. It would give a reason a person, it would give a person a reason to boast. Even if it was just 50% works, a 2:55 person would still have a reason to boast compared to a person who hasn&#8217;t done those works. 
Similarly, he says a few moments later in the debate,
[VIDEO]
How could you be the church of the saved if you think your salvation relies at least partly on your 14:56 works? 
Yet again, he says:
[VIDEO]
And so William tonight, even though he won&#8217;t necessarily admit this, he&#8217;s going to be 15:53 calling you not to trust or not to rest in Jesus, but to work to keep yourself 15:58 saved. But you can&#8217;t say it&#8217;s all Jesus saving you if you have to do works to be saved.
What’s missing in this discussion is a crucial category of works—one that Ryan doesn’t seem to consider at all.
In the Catholic—and especially Thomistic—tradition, good works that contribute to salvation are themselves gifts of grace. They are gratuitous, supernatural movements caused by God.
Yes, my good works proceed from my will—but only because God is at work in me, moving my will to intend the behavior and actually perform the action. They are 100% a supernatural effect of God’s causality. I say supernatural, because when our good works aren’t ordered to our salvation, our good works are merely natural movements that God causes.
So on this that view, there’s no room for boasting. None. If my good works are 100% God’s gratuitous movements within me, then I have nothing to brag about.
So Ryan’s first argument simply doesn’t land, because it relies on a view of works that Catholics don’t hold and don’t need to hold.
Okay, let’s move on to Ryan’s second argument—the appeal to James 2:18. R.C. Sproul appeals to this verse as well in his Faith Alone book. So Ryan is in decent company here.The first issue is that it ignores the salvific context of James’ teaching.
James sets up the whole discussion in verse 14:
“What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?”
The salvation that James speaks of here isn’t a temporal salvation. He doesn’t mention being saved from physical enemies. He doesn’t speak of this salvation being confirmed in the sight of men. Rather, he’s speaking of the actual gift of salvation that God gives.
And we can see this in several ways.
First, James says that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” He doesn’t say “dead in the eyes of men.” He says faith itself is dead. In fact, he drives the point home by comparing it to a corpse in verse 26: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” 
If James only meant justification before men, then a lack of works wouldn’t affect the faith itself—it would only affect how the faith is perceived. The faith would only be seen as dead. But that’s not what James says.
Moreover, it would make the parallel to a body without a soul unintelligible. In what sense can the absence of a soul have no negative effect on the body? None!
Here’s another way to see that James is talking about the gift of salvation that God gives. James uses the word “save” (in Greek, sōzō) elsewhere in his letter—and every single time he uses it to refer to the salvation of the soul. He does this in 1:21, 4:12, and 5:20. There’s no reason to think James suddenly changes meanings in 2:14.
Finally, notice the works James lists as necessary for having saving faith: feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. Those are very same works Jesus says will merit eternal life in Matthew 25:35-36. Jesus says to the sheep, “inherit the kingdom prepared for you . . . for I was hungry and you gave me food . . . I was naked and you clothed me.”
It’s not unreasonable to think James had this teaching in mind when he spoke of the corporal works of mercy. That connection strongly suggests James has divine judgment in view, not human observation.
Okay, there’s yet another problem with this idea that James is speaking of justification merely in the sight of men: it doesn’t jibe with James’s use of Abraham’s offering of Isaac as the key example of justification by works.
Here’s what James writes in the same chapter, verses 21-23:
[READ #2]
“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God (2:21-23).
Folks, there was no one else around with Abraham and Isaac on Mt. Moriah. No crowd. No audience. No one for Abraham to be justified in the sight of! And James nor the author of Genesis gives us any indication that Abraham was justified in the sight of Isaac.
This is the rebuttal line that Albrecht took in pressing Ryan. And he did a solid job with it.
But after conceding Albrecht’s point that no one else was around, Ryan offered this counter:
[VIDEO]
1:18:40 In gen Genesis 22 we do see Abraham&#8217;s faith demonstrated right there. Um in 1:18:45 terms of the people were able to see look because of his trust in God he went and did these sort of things.  . . . Anyone who hear about this willingness of Abraham not so not just at that very 1:19:04 in was anybody there witnessing the sacrifice it whether anyone was there witnessing the 1:19:10 sacrifice that&#8217;s not important yes or no important is Yep. What is important, William, is that we now read about this. 1:19:17 Anyone Abraham&#8217;s family, anyone else hearing that, 
Did you catch that? Ryan’s counter is that Abraham is justified in our sight—the sight of later readers.
Now, that may sound like a stretch, but Ryan could actually make that argument stronger by pointing to James 2:22a. After describing Abraham’s offering of Isaac, James begins his concluding sentence about Abraham’s faith with this: “You see [you the reader, see] that faith was active along with his works.” Perhaps Ryan’s counter isn’t that much of a stretch after all. James is saying Abraham’s offering of Isaac confirms for us that he had faith—not that his works justified him in the sight of God.
But here’s the problem: James doesn’t stop there. He goes on to say in 22b that Abraham’s faith was “completed” by his work of offering Isaac.
The Greek word James uses for “complete”—teleioō—means “to complete, bring to an end, finish, accomplish . . . to make perfect.” That’s straight from page 996 of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, commonly referred to as BDAG.
Now, consider this: how could Abraham’s faith be made complete if he were justified merely in the sight of men? If Abraham’s work only confirmed his faith for us, then Abraham’s work wouldn’t actually affect his faith at all—let alone complete it. But James explicitly says that Abraham’s work did affect his faith—his offering completed it.
Furthermore, James’s emphasis on Abraham’s faith being made perfect indicates that it’s the same faith that justified him when he first believed.
James speaks of Abraham being justified by his obedience in verse 21, and then indicates that his faith was completed by works in verse 22. And without breaking his train of thought, in verse 23, James quotes Genesis 15:6: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Protestants agree that Genesis 15:6 refers to Abraham being justified before God.
Here, James doesn’t contrast these two justifications—the justification by offering Isaac and the justification in Genesis 15:6. Rather, he connects them. This tells us that the justification James has in mind in verse 21 (Abraham’s justification by works) is the same justification spoken of in Genesis 15:6 (“Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”). It’s a justification before God, not men.
We can summarize our reasoning this way:
P1:  The justification that Abraham had in Genesis 15:6 was justification before God.
P2:  In James 2:21-23, James identifies Abraham’s justification in Genesis 15:6 with the same justification he had by his work of offering Isaac.
C1:  Therefore, the justification that Abraham had by offering Isaac is justification before God.
There’s one last piece of evidence that confirms Abraham’s justification is a justification in the sight of God: Abraham is called “the friend of God” because of his obedient action.
For James, Abraham’s offering of Isaac set off a chain reaction. His faith was “completed by his works,” the “Scripture was fulfilled” whereby Abraham was reckoned as righteous, and he was called “the friend of God.”
And we know that’s God’s judgment—not man’s, because after the angel intervenes and stops Abraham from killing Isaac, God says in Genesis 22:12, “For now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” God valued what Abraham did, and thus Abraham stood justified in God’s sight. God reiterates his approval of Abraham in Isaiah 41:8, when he calls Abraham “my friend.”
So, in sum, if Abraham was justified before God by offering Isaac, and our justification by works is like Abraham’s justification, then it follows that our justification by works is a justification before God.
So where does that leave us?
Given the salvific context of James 2, and given the clear parallel between our justification and Abraham’s justification before God, the “justification before men” interpretation just doesn’t hold up.
And that means Catholics don’t have to stop using James 2:24. It still clearly teaches that works play a real role in our justification.
Well, my friends, that’s it for today! If you found this video helpful, make sure to like, subscribe, comment below, and share it with someone who might need to hear this. And for more resources, check out my website at karlobroussard.com.
If you want me to come and speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.
Lastly, I’d love for you to consider supporting me over on Patreon. I can’t continue doing this podcast without your financial support. You can find me over at doctorkarlo.com with “doctor” spelled out.
Thanks for hanging out, and I’ll see you next time.