Manage Account

This episode focuses on the topic of our 2019 Catholic Answers Conference: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church

Catholic Answers | Season 5 | Episode 5

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

Recently Alex O'Connor had a "dialogue" with Catholic Answers' AI apologist Justin...

On November 4, 2025, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released a doctrinal note entitled Mater Populi Fidelis (“Mother of the Faithful People”), “on Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation.” This note is in response to many requests, mostly in relation to the request of a Fifth Marian Dogma of Mary’s Spiritual Maternity (which includes <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-dreaded-cult-of-mary">the titles</a> Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate).
Protestants are shouting for joy, as if this were some sort of victory over the Church. Even headlines from notable news sources jumped the gun, <a href="https://www.americamagazine.org/vatican-dispatch/2025/11/04/vatican-mary-redemptrix-mediatrix-doctrine/">proclaiming</a> that the Church has <a href="https://angelusnews.com/news/vatican/titles-for-mary/">tossed out</a> the titles Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix.
This has been interpreted by a large contingent on social media as the Church changing its doctrine. And some Protestants are sarcastically writing off the notion that the Church’s teaching is unchanging, pointing to Mater Populi Fidelis as a change in the longstanding tradition.
But what does Mater Populi Fidelis really say?
It bears mentioning first that this doctrinal note is about titles, not doctrine. It seeks not to change any doctrine, but to address the use of particular titles so that the Church’s doctrine may be clearly understood. Second, the perception on the internet of the remarks on <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-dreaded-cult-of-mary">the titles themselves</a> has largely misrepresented what was written.
Because it needs to be said, let’s look at what the document actually says pertaining to these unchanged doctrines, and the DDF’s reasoning for wanting to address the usage of titles. As a sneak peak, it is not because the properly explained theology is incorrect.
<h2>Co-redemptrix</h2>
In its treatment of the title Co-redemptrix, the document begins by affirming Mary’s cooperation in the work of salvation. Just as St. Paul said, “We are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor. 3:9) and “I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church” (Col. 1:24), the Church affirms that we have an active participation in the work of salvation. We unite our sufferings to Christ’s and intercede for our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Mater Populi Fidelis affirms that Mary’s unique participation in Christ’s saving work, “attested to in Scripture,” has also “been taught by the Magisterium of the Church.”
So what, then, is the intention of the document, if the Church’s true teaching on Mary’s role in redemption is not changed? The short answer is that the DDF wants to address particular titles associated with this work. Though not altering the true understanding of Co-redemptrix, the DDF essentially states that too many explanations are required for people to understand what the title actually means. As such, “this title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith.”
The document continues:
<blockquote>When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the people of God and becomes unhelpful. In this case, the expression Co-redemptrix does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of redemption and grace, for it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ.</blockquote>
The takeaway is that the true theology is not changed—that which outlines Mary’s unique participation as the one who said fiat to the Annunciation, who suffered alongside her Son at the foot of the cross as a mother, and who is given to us as Mother of the Church. Yet at this time, the DDF deems it “unhelpful” to use the title “Co-redemptrix.”
<h2>Mediatrix</h2>
On the topic of mediation, the doctrinal note begins by affirming the concept of mediation among all Christians—that when we pray for one another, our sufferings, when united to Christ’s on the cross, are meritorious, and we assist our brothers and sisters in coming to Christ. This is quickly applied to Mary, who, in a singular and unique way, mediated Christ’s presence (through the Annunciation) to us and continues this mediation today. It has always been understood that in the proper sense, Christ is the one true mediator (see 1 Tim. 2:5), and any other mediation on behalf of believers is a participation in Christ’s mediation.
This is the quickest summary of the treatment of Mary as mediatrix. The document says that the title Mediatrix can be used with caution, so long as it is absolutely clear that Mary does not have some sort of mediation parallel to Christ’s, but subordinate and participatory in his. Mary’s mediation is not some second option to Christ’s, but rather, to put it in the vernacular, her role is to bring us to him who is himself the Mediator.
Mater Fidelis Populi clarifies that it can be said that Mary is mediatrix of “graces” (plural) “when seen in reference to Mary’s maternal help at various moments in our lives,” which “can have an acceptable meaning.” The document does, however, state that the specific title Mediatrix of All Graces has “limits that do not favor a correct understanding of Mary’s unique place. In fact, she, the first redeemed, could not have been the mediatrix of the grace that she herself received.”
It should be explained that the understanding of the title Mediatrix of All Graces, when properly taught, states that Mary has mediated Christ to the world through her fiat and the Annunciation, and that all grace comes to us from Christ (or, to be precise, from the Father, through the Son, and given by the Holy Spirit). As a correct understanding theologically, the DDF is also not changing this teaching of the Church, but issuing caution regarding the use of titles. As Mater Fidelis Populi states, “Mary can implore God to grant us those internal impulses of the Holy Spirit that are called ‘actual graces’” (6). The document goes on to explain these “actual graces” as aids given by the Holy Spirit to help sinners prepare for justification.
In short, the document wants to stress that Mary does not distribute “spiritual goods or energies apart from our personal relationship with Jesus Christ” and that Mary should be seen more as our “mother in the order of grace.” Catholics should have no problem with looking at Mary as our spiritual mother, because as the best mother, she provides her children with all their needs.
<h2>Heavenly Realities Are Not Changing</h2>
At this point, we ought to remember that this is a discussion about titles, not so much about doctrine. There may be a couple of lines in the document that deal with the doctrine of Mary’s role in dispensing graces, but those will be fleshed out over time. For us, the most important thing to remember is that heavenly realities are not changing. Mary still exercises her role as the most powerful intercessor in all of heaven, and the many saints, Doctors of the Church, and papal teachings (including encyclicals) stressing Mary’s mediation are not being thrown in the trash. The Church doesn’t just change doctrine like that, so pray a Hail Mary and ask our Lady for peace.

Is Mary Still Mediatrix of Graces?

Episode 83: Year B &#8211; 12th Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on three details from the second reading and Gospel reading that are relevant for doing apologetics. The detail in the second reading, taken from 2 Corinthians 5:14-17, is Paul’s teaching that in Christ we are a new creation. The topic that comes to fore here is the nature of justification as intrinsic righteousness. One of the details in the Gospel reading, taken from Mark 4:35-41, is Mark’s report of Jesus calming the winds and the sea. As we will see, when read in light of the Old Testament backdrop, this detail provides evidence of Jesus’ divinity. The other detail is Jesus’ “rebuke” of the winds, which, when read in the Greek, might suggest demonic forces were behind the raging winds and Jesus rebukes such forces, thereby revealing his authority over demons.
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
<div class="jsx-3e747287f40b833b body-half">
Readings: <a href="https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/062324.cfm">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
<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>

Jesus’ Divine Authority Over Demons

<div class="page" title="Page 254">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 244
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke contradict each other. For example, Luke has Mary living in Nazareth before going to Bethlehem, while in Matthew they don’t go to Nazareth until later.”
DEFENSE
The infancy narratives don’t contradict each other. In fact, they fit together very well. Here we provide an interwoven narrative.
Initially, Gabriel appears to Zechariah to announce the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5–25). A few months later, Gabriel appears to Mary in Nazareth to announce the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26–38), and Mary goes to visit Elizabeth before returning to Nazareth (Luke 1:39–56). Then John the Baptist is born (Luke 1:57–80).
Around this time, Joseph is informed that Mary is pregnant. He plans to divorce her, but an angel tells him to continue the marriage (Matt. 1:18–23). The two begin cohabiting (Matt. 1:24). This would be in Nazareth, per Luke’s account.
Because of the enrollment announced by Caesar Augustus, the Holy Family travels to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1–5), where Jesus is born (Luke 2:7, Matt. 1:24a). That night, the shepherds visit them (Luke 2:8–20). Around the same time, the Magi observe the star in their homeland (cf. Matt. 2:2, 16).
Eight days after birth, Jesus is circumcised and named (Luke 2:21; Matt. 1:24b), and after forty days he is presented at the temple (Luke 2:22–38).
At this point, the Holy Family either returns to Nazareth or remains in Bethlehem (which is not clear). If they returned to Nazareth, they continued to visit Jerusalem and their relatives in Bethlehem multiple times every year for the three annual pilgrimage feasts (Exod. 23:14–17; cf. Luke 2:41).
Between one and two years after the birth (cf. Matt. 2:16), the Magi arrive and are directed to Bethlehem, where they find the Holy Family (Matt. 2:1–11). They are warned in a dream to return to their country by a different route (Matt. 2:12). Also warned in a dream, the Holy Family flees to Egypt (Matt. 2:13–15) to avoid the slaughter of the innocent (Matt. 2:16–18).
When Herod the Great dies, the Holy Family then returns to Israel (Matt. 2:19–21), but Joseph learns Herod Archelaus is ruling in Judea and so takes the family to Nazareth (Matt. 2:22–23).
TIP
For further discussion, see Jimmy Akin, “How the Accounts of Jesus’ Childhood Fit Together,” at JimmyAkin.com.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Infancy Narratives

<div>During Advent, which mysteries of the rosary are to be said each day?</div><div>You are always free to pray using any mysteries of the rosary you desire. There is no obligation to do all of them, or to follow them in order, although that is what most people do. In Advent and Christmas times, it is traditional to pray the Joyful Mysteries on Sunday, replacing the Glorious Mysteries, in order to focus on the mysteries of those seasons. But this is only a custom, and privately you may pray as you please.
</div>

Pray the Rosary as You Desire

<div>What should I do when my wife won’t be sexually intimate?</div><div>My first suggestion is to have a heart-to-heart conversation with your wife as to why she desires not to engage in the marital act. Perhaps she experiences physical pain, something that a competent doctor or physical therapist could address.
Perhaps your wife feels neglected by you in some way. If so, ask whether there is anything you could do to help improve your marriage. Tell her you want to be the best husband you can be, laying down your life for her as Jesus Christ did for the Church (see Eph. 5:25). In so doing, tell her that you pledge to show your love for her in non-sexual ways and that you welcome any suggestions regarding ways she would prefer. And let her know you won’t be expecting immediate “conjugal payback” but that perhaps you could discuss the issue of sexual intimacy in a month or two.
As time goes on, continue to look for non-conjugal ways you can show your love for your wife, and invite her to pray with you each day as a married couple, if you’re doing so at present, or ways you can deepen that experience, if you already are. As the Ven. Fr. Patrick Peyton used to say, “The family that prays together stays together.”
Further, perhaps going to a good marriage counselor would be helpful. Don’t feel ashamed to do so. Every couple can benefit from helpful input periodically, whether it’s from their parish pastor, a good friend, or even a good Catholic therapist. To find a Catholic good therapist in your area, or perhaps to speak to one by phone, contact Dr. Gregory Popcak and his team at the <a href="https://www.catholiccounselors.com/services/our-counselors/">Pastoral Solutions Institute</a> and/or visit <a href="http://www.catholictherapists.com/a-note-from-the-founder">CatholicTherapist.com</a>.
Finally, seek the Lord’s help to carry your cross, especially in the Eucharist and the sacrament of reconciliation. Over time, and with various aids, we hope and pray your situation improves. In any event, God will be faithful in helping your carry your cross fruitfully (see 2 Cor. 12:8-10; John 14:27).
</div>

What Should I Do When My Wife Won’t Be Intimate?

Protestants often claim that the veneration of Mary is a much later accretion into Christianity. However, the truth is the exact opposite: we see a shockingly high view of Mary early. This is not what we would expect if Protestantism were true.
For example, <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300140194/the-old-testament-pseudepigrapha-volume-1/">the Second Sibylline Oracle</a>, which scholars generally date to the second century, describes the fate of the damned, who have rejected the opportunity to repent after death. This opportunity was made possible by Mary’s hand: “For he [God] gave seven days of ages to erring men for repentance through the intercession of the holy virgin” (312).
Although the Virgin is not identified by name, there is little doubt about who she is. First, there is no debate that whoever wrote this passage was a Christian. This fact alone drastically narrows down who could plausibly be “the holy virgin.” Second, the Oxford classicist <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-sibylline-oracles-9780199215461?cc=us&amp;lang=en&amp;">J.L. Lightfoot</a> identifies Mary as the holy virgin in her summary of SibOr 2:305-312: “The damned gnash teeth; wish to die and cannot; plead in vain; God turns his face away, for they have had seven days of ages for repentance through the Virgin Mary.”
The eminent Yale scholar <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300140194/the-old-testament-pseudepigrapha-volume-1/">John J. Collins argued</a> (and I think rightly so) that this part of the text was completed before A.D. 150: “Since no other historical event is mentioned after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Christian redaction should probably be dated no later than A.D. 150.” Thus, we have an incredibly early text proclaiming that Mary can intercede for the dead.
It gets worse for Protestants. We have two apparently independent texts converging on a tradition that Mary gave birth to Christ without pain. Given the fact that pain in childbirth was a consequence of the Fall (Gen. 3:16), these texts seem to set up an Eve-Mary typology.
The first text is the <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300140200/the-old-testament-pseudepigrapha-volume-2/">Ascension of Isaiah</a>, which the world’s leading expert on the text, Enrico Norelli, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/49/1/323/1735633?redirectedFrom=PDF">dates to the end of the first century</a>. After carrying the Lord for a short time, Mary sees her baby suddenly appear outside her womb. Apparently, news of this event spread around Bethlehem: “But many said, ‘She did not give birth; the midwife did not go up (to her), and we did not hear (any) cries of pain’” (11:14).
This text used to be accused of promoting Docetism, a heresy that denies that Christ had real flesh, but that accusation was refuted by Darrel D. Hannah in his 1999 article “<a href="https://www.academia.edu/3175784/The_Ascension_of_Isaiah_and_Docetic_Christology">The Ascension of Isaiah and Docetic Christology</a>.” Since the text elsewhere affirms that Christ had a true body, the emphasis here is that Christ’s birth was miraculous and strange. Indeed, Mary’s “womb was found as (it was) at first, before she had conceived” (11:9).
The second text is <a href="https://www.fortresspress.com/store/product/9780800660567/The-Odes-of-Solomon">The Odes of Solomon</a>, which is generally dated to either the late first or early second century. <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/ca/formation-of-the-biblical-canon-volume-1-9780567668769/">James Charlesworth</a> adds another important detail about this text: “I highlight the Odes of Solomon because it may well have been composed within the community that gave us the Gospel of John and helps us understand the marvelous text and the Logos Christology.” If this is true, then it has enormous historical and theological weight.
Odes 19:6-9 says, “The womb of the Virgin caught [it], and she conceived and gave birth. And the Virgin became a mother in great compassion and she was in labor and bore a son. And she felt no pains/grief, because it was not useless/for no reason. And she did not require a midwife, because he [God] kept her alive like a man.”
The “it” is referring to milk, which came from the Father and was given to Mary through the Holy Spirit. Because of this strange imagery, this text has been accused of being gnostic. However, this charge was refuted by <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/10077">Edward Engelbrecht</a> and <a href="https://www.fortresspress.com/store/product/9780800660567/The-Odes-of-Solomon">Michael Lattke</a>, who both demonstrated that orthodox Church Fathers (like St. Irenaeus and St. Clement of Alexandria) used similar images of God’s milk. It would be especially strange for Irenaeus, who directly opposed the Gnostics, to use this imagery if it were heretical (<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103438.htm">Against Heresies 4.38.1</a>; cf. Lattke 270).
It is no surprise, then, that in the second century we see Mary being called the New Eve. The world’s leading historian on Marian devotion, <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300217216/mary-in-early-christian-faith-and-devotion/">Stephen J. Shoemaker</a>, writes, “The notion of Mary’s virginity would receive further theological development during the course of the second century, first at the hands of Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165) and later by Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202), both of whom wove from this doctrine a portrait of Mary as the New Eve, whose chastity and obedience undid the original Eve’s primordial immorality and disobedience.”
Among early Christians we find the belief that Mary could intercede for the dead (the concept of interceding saints <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jews-and-the-saints">goes back to ancient Judaism</a>) and that she painlessly birthed Christ, exempting her from Eve’s curse and elevating her to the status of a new, better Eve. Even if Protestants think Catholics are wrong about Mary, they cannot say any longer that Marian veneration was a later accretion.

Early Christians Venerated Mary like Catholics!

When I was a kid, I remember watching the movie Freaky Friday. It featured Lindsay Lohan as Anna, a teenage girl with an attitude, who wakes up one morning to find herself in her mom’s body and her mom in hers. Don’t stone me for blasphemy, but I am going to use this as a parallel to the Eucharist.
We have to intellectually wrestle with the fact that Jesus took bread into his hands at the Last Supper and called it his body. He said the blessing, broke the bread, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take this all of you, and eat it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.” He then took the Passover wine and said something similar. “Take this, all of you, and drink of it, for this is my blood.” What did Jesus mean when he spoke these words?
I’ll tell you what he didn’t mean. Jesus did not mean that this was just a symbol. That’s what many Protestants believe, not Catholics. Also, the Catholic Church has taught that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist from the beginning.
Let me put it this way: when God tells us that bread is his body, we should believe him, even if we don’t understand how, because God himself said it was. Why should we believe that Jesus is God? Because he rose from the dead. It all comes down to the Resurrection. If Jesus is who he says he is, then it isn’t difficult to believe the miracles in the Gospels. And we know that Jesus is God because he told us he was, and he backed it up by rising from the dead.
So how does ordinary bread become the body of Christ? In order to understand this, we have to understand two terms that come from the philosopher Aristotle: a thing’s accidents versus its substance. To understand the difference between accidents and substance, I’ll return to our movie, Freaky Friday.
In the case of a daughter waking up and finding herself in her mom’s body, we see a change in that person’s substance. The core substance of Mom has changed to somebody else while maintaining in appearance everything else that was a part of mom: her eyes, her hair, her nails. Those things that are a part of her appearance make up her accidents. On the other hand, to wrap our minds around the concept of changing a thing’s accidents, let’s think of ourselves in our own bodies. If I dye my hair or break my wrist, what changes are my accidents. My core substance remains the same: I am Deacon Paul Maxey.
Now let’s apply this to the Eucharist. When Jesus said at the Last Supper that bread was his body, the accidents of the bread remained the same. In other words, the bread, a microscope would show, continued to be bread. To all scientific tests, that bread would have remained bread. But like the mother who finds herself in her daughter’s body, the core substance of what the bread is changed. It’s not just that this same change of substance occurred at the Last Supper; it continues to occur every day at Mass. That is why when we receive the Eucharist at Mass, the eucharistic minister does not say, “This is bread”; rather, holding up the Eucharist, he says, “The body of Christ.” And we respond Amen, meaning, “I believe that this is truly the body of Christ.”
Jesus completely understands that this is difficult to comprehend and even to believe, so there have been times in history when the accidents of the bread and wine at Mass have turned into the body and blood of Christ as well. One such instance is the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, Italy, which continues to this day. To put it briefly, a long time ago, the wine at Mass turned into actual blood in the chalice. Now Lanciano is a place of pilgrimage, where we can worship God, who is truly present in the blood of Christ.
We can reflect on the words of St. Epiphanius of Salamis (374) about the Last Supper. When Jesus took bread into his hands, as it says in the Gospel, “giving thanks, he said: ‘This is really me.’” (Epiphanius, The Man Well-Anchored, 57, in William Jurgen’s The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, 1084). There is something about those words that freshens up my understanding of the Eucharist.
We can think also of the words of St. John Chrysostom (370). When Jesus says, “‘This is my body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with eyes of the mind” (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 82, 4. in Jurgen’s vol. 2, 1,179). In other words, understand what’s happening even if your eyes can’t physically see the change.
If you wish that you could see Jesus as the apostles did, John Chrysostom reminds us to look at the Eucharist! “Only look! You see him! You touch him! You eat him!”
St. Ambrose of Milan (390-391) anticipated an objection: “Perhaps you may be saying: I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?” (The Mysteries, 9, 50. in Jurgens, vol. 2, 1,333). He responds, “Let us prove that this is not what nature has shaped it to be, but what the blessing has consecrated; for the power of the blessing is greater than that of nature, because by the blessing even nature itself is changed.”
Next time we go to Mass, as the Eucharist touches our tongues, let us remember that we are receiving into our own body the living God himself!

The ‘Freaky’ Mystery of the Eucharist

A caller asks how to respond to an Anabaptist who claims that they were the original Christians and that Catholics cannot be the true Church due to how Catholics acted during the Reformation. Karlo Broussard, author of Meeting the Protestant Challenge, explains why the Catholic Church is the true Church.
Transcript:
Caller:
I have a sister-in-law who is Baptist, and she talks about her faith and the doctrines of the Baptist church, they sound very Protestant, but she indicates that they are not Protestant. They actually trace their roots all the way back to the apostles, and they believe that they&#8217;re the one true church that Jesus founded. And during the Protestant Reformation, it was the Catholics who participated in the killing of people of other religions, and it was the Anabaptists who did not participate in that. I was just hoping you could maybe fill in some blanks.
Karlo Broussard:
All right. So let&#8217;s think through this, Dee. Thank you very much for your call. So notice how the conclusion Catholic Church is not the original church is based on the premise, right, the reason that she&#8217;s giving for this is that the Catholic Church had sinners in its ranks and committed atrocities. Okay. Well, if committing atrocities and sinful leaders of your church precludes or excludes your church from being the one true church established by Jesus, well, then we&#8217;re going to have to exclude Peter and the Apostles in the first century from being the leaders and the originators of the original Church of Jesus Christ.
Why? Because they committed atrocities as well. Peter denied our Lord. Yes, he repented, but he denied our Lord. A leader, of one of the 12, Judas denied our Lord betrayed Him, and from the looks of it, he despaired. The other apostles &#8211; Matthew tells us of Matthew Chapter 27 &#8211; that all of them in some way betrayed our Lord and they fled and were not associated with our Lord during His passion and death.
So if we&#8217;re going to make holiness of leaders of the church the condition for being the original true church, then we&#8217;re going to have to say that the early apostles were not the true church established by Jesus. But of course, that&#8217;s absurd. That&#8217;s false. So once we expose that flawed reasoning there that they&#8217;re using holiness as a condition for determining which is the true church, like the holiness of the members of the church as a condition for which is the true church.
Well, then we ask the question, okay, well, how would we identify the true Church of Jesus Christ? Well Dee, when we look at the early Christian writings in the second century, for example, and even in the first century, if we look at Clement&#8217;s letter to the Corinthians in the first century, some dated to A.D. 70, some dated to A.D. 90, Clement talks about bishops being the successors to the apostles.
And in Clement&#8217;s mind, in the way that he&#8217;s writing, that is one of the ways in which we can identify the true Church of Jesus by looking to the succession of the apostles in the bishops. And then we see this confirmed again and again in the second century St.Irenaeus, when he&#8217;s talking about how to refute heretics, like how to know these guys are teaching things contrary to the orthodox faith of Christianity, what do we do? Irenaeus tells us we look to the succession of the apostles and the succession of the apostles in the bishops, because therein lies the preservation of the apostolic tradition, of the truth of God&#8217;s revelation given to us through Jesus as taught by the Apostles.
So in your conversation with your friend here, you could sort of carve this path or pave this path or articulate this way of going about it and saying, &#8220;listen, for these early Christians, they were looking to the succession of the apostles and the bishops for determining which was the true church of Jesus Christ and who had the true faith. Does your community have ministers who have been ordained by men who can be traced back all the way to the Apostles?&#8221; And of course, within the Anabaptist tradition, the answer would be no. So that would be one way of going about it. But then we have to take an extra step forward further and say, well, even though a Christian community might have bishops that can trace their historical lineage through succession all the way back to the apostles, the question becomes, well, do they have the successor to Saint Peter?
And that&#8217;s where the essential difference is going to come into play between Catholicism and all other groups of Christianity, even among our Orthodox brethren, because it&#8217;s the successor to Saint Peter and the Bishop of Rome, namely the Pope that is the idea defying marker of the original Church of Jesus Christ. Because in Matthew 16:18, our Lord tells Peter Simon, You are the &#8211; you are &#8211; you shall be called Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Peter being the visible foundation of Jesus&#8217;s Church &#8211; allows &#8211; gives us a visible marker for identifying the true Church of Jesus. Because wherever the foundation is, there is the true Church of Christ. And of course, according to historical documentation, Peter died as the Bishop of Rome, so the successors to St. Peter as the Bishop of Rome would continue in that ministry of being the visible foundation of Christ here on Earth, Christ Church here on Earth, the Keeper of the Keys, the Supreme Binder and Looser, the Universal Shepherd of Christ&#8217;s flock here on Earth.
And that, Dee, is how we would move forward in articulating how we can determine that the Catholic Church is the original Church established by Jesus, not only by comparing and contrasting teachings like the Catholic Church teaches this, this is what we find in the New Testament, the early Christian testimony, but also by way of the historical succession to the apostles and more specifically to Saint Peter.

“The Anabaptists Were the FIRST Christians” | The Catholic Response

What would obligations for Sunday Mass be if you were in a Ground Hog’s Day scenario?

Do we jump around with the readings at Mass?

How do I know the difference between a bishop, an archbishop, and a cardinal?

When did Jesus mean by “taking up your cross” when he wasn’t crucified yet? Also, I’m writing a Catholic history book in Spanish; do I need an imprimatur?

Why does God give us suffering when it feels like there’s no purpose? For example, a break-up.

Why does St. Irenaeus say that the Church was founded and organized in Rome by Peter and Paul?

What are the rules for working on Sunday?

Why does God let us go through pain, like breakups, when it feels pointless? Jimmy Akin explores this tough question and answers more on Sunday obligations, Church hierarchy, and Catholic history.

Why Does God Allow Suffering? Understanding Its Purpose in Faith

<div class="page" title="Page 236">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 226
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The Gospels contradict one another regarding Peter’s three denials: (1) Mark has the cock crowing twice, but the other Gospels only once; (2) the dialogue used by Peter and his accusers differs; and (3) the people making the accusations are different.”
DEFENSE
None of these involve contradictions.
First, roosters crow multiple times at every dawn. Mark 14:72 mentions the second crowing specifically, and the others streamline the account for simplicity (see Day 37).
Second, no transcriptionist was present, and the dialogue is based on Peter and John’s memories (they being the only disciples present). It involves normal paraphrase and reconstruction within the limits of verbal approximation in ancient documents (see Day 258).
Third, although an ancient author would have been within his rights to simply reconstruct the accusations prompting the three deni- als—which are what would have been principally remembered—the Gospels recount details indicating eyewitnesses’ memories.
Thus all four Gospels state Peter’s first denial occurred after he was accused by a female servant, and John indicates it was the one who kept the door (Matt. 26:69; Mark 14:66–67; Luke 22:56; John 18:17).
Peter’s second denial was prompted by a group accusation. John says “they” made it (John 18:25), while Mark mentions that “the maid” (apparently the first maid) identified Peter “to the bystanders” (Mark 14:69) and Matthew mentions “another maid” spoke “to the bystanders” (Matt. 26:71), one of whom—a man—accused Peter more directly (Luke 22:58).
Peter’s third denial was also prompted by a group, which Matthew and Mark describe as “the bystanders” (Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70). Luke indicates another person—again a man—accused Peter more directly (Luke 22:59–60), and John indicates it was “one of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off” (John 18:26).
Only the first denial is preceded by an accusation by a single person (the door maid), and as the idea begins to spread through the group, the latter two denials are preceded by accusations that at least two of the Gospels say involved groups (Matthew, Mark, and John in the case of the second denial and Matthew and Mark in the case of the third).
We thus see evidence that a real historical event is being recounted in keeping with the literary conventions of the time.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Peter’s Denials

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

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

3 TEMPTATIONS YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR!

<div>Are there any good books on the The Lord’s Prayer?</div><div>Fr. Romano Guardini&#8217;s book The Lord&#8217;s Prayer is an excellent choice. Another book to consider is Our Father: The Lord&#8217;s Prayer by Pope Francis.
You can also hear Venerable Fulton Sheen speak about the meaning of the Our Father <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSSchaLv0P4">here</a>.
</div>