Manage Account

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

Some moral truths just don’t fit in a godless universe.

Does neuroscience, or any science, pose a challenge to believing human beings have free will? Trent Horn joins us for a discussion of today&#8217;s fashionable denial of the fact of free will.

Atheist Objections to Free Will

<div class="page" title="Page 211">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 201
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“I can’t imagine being happy for all eternity in heaven. Sitting on a cloud playing a harp sounds boring.”
DEFENSE
The reality of heaven transcends human imagination, and popular images of it are only pointers.
The depiction of robed saints sittting on clouds and playing harps is a modern one. It is found in art and on greeting cards, but it mashes images together in a way not found in the Bible.
Scripture uses many images for heaven. The most fundamental is the sky. John Paul II explained: “In biblical language ‘heaven,’ when it is joined to the ‘earth,’ indicates part of the universe. Scripture says about creation: ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ (Gen. 1:1)” (General Audience, July 21, 1999).
The sky, in turn, was used as an image of where God dwells: “Metaphorically speaking, heaven is understood as the dwelling-place of God, who is thus distinguished from human beings (cf. Ps. 104:2–3; 115:16; Isa. 66:1). He sees and judges from the heights of heaven (cf. Ps. 113:4–9) and comes down when he is called upon (cf. Ps. 18:9, 10; 144:5). However, the biblical metaphor makes it clear that God does not identify himself with heaven, nor can he be contained in it (cf. 1 Kings 8:27)” (ibid.).
Scripture uses other images of heaven, though we need to be sensitive to their limitations too. The Catechism explains: “This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: ‘no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him’ (1 Cor. 2:9)” (CCC 1027).
We thus shouldn’t be confused by modern images depicting saints sitting on clouds with harps. “In the context of revelation, we know that the ‘heaven’ or ‘happiness’ in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit” (John Paul II, op. cit.).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Will Heaven Be Boring?

Some are surprised that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption was not defined until 1950, using little biblical support. Pope Pius XII decreed that all Catholics must hold and believe as divinely revealed “that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, completing the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus 44). Yet Tim Perry, an evangelical Protestant, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mary-Evangelicals-Toward-Understanding-Mother/dp/083082569X">reminds us</a> of the “doctrine’s ancient roots” (239-240).
Although the Bible says nothing directly about the Assumption, it also says nothing about Mary’s life after Pentecost or her death, just as it doesn’t say anything about St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s deaths. But Protestant evangelical Scot McKnight <a href="https://archive.org/details/realmarywhyevang0000mckn">notes</a> that God has the power to assume a person into heaven, and although
<blockquote>we find nothing about Mary’s death or her assumption in the Bible, [does] that mean Mary wasn’t “assumed” into heaven? Obviously not. None of us believes that everything was recorded in the Bible, so we are left to examine the evidence (133).</blockquote>
Jesus addressed similar issues, too—for example, the resurrection from the dead. This was a highly debated topic in his day, especially for the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection from the dead, and the Sadducees, who did not (see Matt. 22:22). When Jesus addressed their disagreement, he used the Bible, but in an indirect way:
<blockquote>“As for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching (Matt. 22:31-33).</blockquote>
Notice how Jesus used the books of the Bible that the Sadducees accepted—the Torah—and made an inference from them to clarify the question . . . and all were “astonished.”
Later, when Jesus rose from the dead, as the disciples “did not [yet] know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead” (John 20:9), he appeared to them to explain Scripture to them. He did it first with the disciples traveling to Emmaus:
<blockquote>“O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. . . . And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:25-27, 31-32).</blockquote>
He had to do it with the apostles, too, to open “their minds to understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:45). But he seems to quote not just one or two passages to them, but “all the scriptures” “beginning with Moses and all the prophets.”
This is how the ancient Church approached Mary’s assumption—not looking for a proof text, but looking to discern whether this teaching was consistent with all the scriptures and with other Christian beliefs. And why wasn’t this teaching “defined” by the Church until the twentieth century? Perhaps the Holy Spirit had waited to counteract the materialistic and mechanistic view propagated by some in the name of science. Mary’s assumption reaffirms the Christian hope in bodily resurrection, attesting to man having a spiritual dimension that endures unto eternity (see also <a href="https://archive.org/details/TheWorldsFirstLove">here</a>, at 130-141, and paragraph 974 of the Catechism), which modern science finds absurd. As St. Paul writes,
<blockquote>the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. . . . Then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” (1 Cor. 15:52-55, quoting Isa. 25:8 and Hos. 13:14).</blockquote>
This certainly applied to some Old Testament saints who were assumed into heaven: Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24, Sir. 49:14, Heb. 11:5-6), Moses (Jude 8-10, Deut. 34:5-6, 10-12), and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11-13). If any woman or man ought to be taken into heaven, body and soul, it would be Mary, the holy Mother of God.
Examining the evidence, prefigured in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to conclude that Mary—the mother of the Messiah, the Ark of the New Covenant (Rev. 11:19-12:5)—is a woman in heaven, clothed with the sun’s glory, crowned with twelve stars, and with the moon under her feet. This means she is certainly alive, body and soul, in heaven. As Pius XII says:
<blockquote>The revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ . . . immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences . . . [was granted] that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb (Munificentissimus Deus 40).</blockquote>
Twice I have been on pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where we were able to visit many of the places where events of our Lord’s life and of his blessed mother’s life took place. One special one was the Cenacle and alongside it the Church of the Dormition.
We know that St. John the Apostle took care of Mary, the Mother of God, after our Lord’s ascension. John remained in Jerusalem with Mary until Herod’s persecution, detailed in Acts 12:1-3. Then John took the Virgin Mary with him to Ephesus. The two returned to Jerusalem after the death of Herod and supported the Church as she grew in number and extension. Likely she was back there with John at the Council of Jerusalem in the year 50, described in Acts 15.
In Jerusalem, Mary often would do the Way of the Cross and pray in front of the Holy Sepulcher as a way of uniting herself to her son. This reinforced her desire to be like him in dying for love. The Eastern churches celebrate the feast of Mary’s dormition, describing the fulfillment of her desire to die with Christ more like falling asleep than as dying.
Church Fathers and sacred writers, beginning in the second century with Bishop St. Melito of Sardis (who died around A.D. 200), give us details of Our Lady’s dormition and assumption. These traditions tell us that Mary, knowing she was about to leave this world, called together the apostles, except St. James, who had been martyred.
All the apostles (except for St. Thomas, who had yet to arrive from distant India) gathered around Mary while she lay on her bed. As she gave them encouragement in their apostolic endeavors, Jesus appeared to her. She looked up and said his name. Then she closed her eyes, entrusted her soul to her son, and breathed her last.
Large crowds of faithful gathered around Mary’s body as the apostles carried the funeral bier in solemn procession from the house of the Dormition on Mount Zion to the tomb just a stone’s throw north of Gethsemane. As they carried her bier up the Kidron Valley (Valley of Josaphat), a Jewish priest named Athonios was filled with anger and jealousy and tried to topple the bier with the body of the Mother of God. When Athonios touched the bier with his two hands, an angel cut off both hands instantaneously. Repenting of his misdeed and declaring the greatness of God and of Mary, he was healed.
They arrived at the tomb near the Garden of Gethsemane, in the same plot where her parents Joachim and Anna were buried. Upon sealing the tomb, many of the Christian faithful remained outside praying. Some described hearing the sound of angels singing, which is associated with Mary’s assumption and the source of her title “St. Mary of the Angels.”
Tradition has it that St. Thomas arrived to Jerusalem from India three days later and was quite disappointed that he had not been able to accompany Mary in her last moments. So the apostles took Thomas to Mary’s tomb, where he prostrated himself. Opening the tomb for him, they found it empty except for the burial clothes that had wrapped Our Lady’s body. Again, celestial music could be heard.
Mary’s assumption reaffirms our faith in the resurrection of the body, giving us hope in eternal life with Christ, and with our heavenly Mother, in heaven.

Must We Prove the Assumption from the Bible?

I saw the headline this morning: “Processed Food Linked to Depression.” Then <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/09/20/ultra-processed-food-especially-artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-depression-study-finds/?sh=5801117418c5">this study</a>:
<blockquote>There were 2,122 cases of depression under the strict definition and the top fifth of consumers—nine or more servings of ultra-processed food a day—had around a 50% higher risk of depression compared with women who are the lowest amount of four servings or fewer a day, the researchers found (it was around a third higher for the broader category).</blockquote>
For <a href="https://slang.net/meaning/crunchy">crunchy</a> people like me&#8230;well&#8230;

But even if you don’t spend your free time railing against seed oils and defending <a href="http://www.drbrewerpregnancydiet.com/">salt</a> and <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/5-studies-on-saturated-fat">fat</a>, it shouldn’t seem outlandish to Catholics that faker food makes for sadder people.
It’s true that the human spirit is exalted over the body (Rom. 8), but that doesn’t mean we say (literally) “to hell with the body.” We’re not <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-get-a-godly-bod">Manicheans</a>. On the contrary, the body is the Lord’s temple. In a corporeal way, we house the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:13,19) and receive Jesus in the Eucharist (11:28-30). The physical body of Our Lady housed the Second Person of the Trinity and was <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-defend-the-immaculate-conception">specially made</a> to be worthy of him.
So our bodies, unstained by sin and in their ideal state, contain and reflect the glory of God. I think our food can do that, too. The Fall corrupted everything, so I wouldn’t say rotten or poisoned food is good to eat, or that <a href="https://time.com/5104225/tide-pod-challenge/">Tide Pods</a> bring good health because God made the molecules in them. But I still think there’s a terrestrial ideal, a “foodness” to aspire to here on earth. And the food is best when it’s un-“stained” by the “corruption” of&#8230;well&#8230;monosodium glutamate.
It’s easy for our fallenness to wreck good things. Try the virtues: fortitude can become abuse of the weak, and prudence can become cowardice or indifference. Food, too: someone discovers that the calcium in milk is good for you—and then isolates the calcium, infuses it by <a href="https://www.aaps.ca/blog/the-food-technology-behind-fortified-cereals#:~:text=To%20fortify%20cereals%3A%201%20Before%20the%20dough%20is,toasting%2C%20nutrients%20can%20be%20added%20via%20a%20spray">arcane mechanical processes</a> into sugar-laced <a href="https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/article/2515/extrusion-of-cereals/">extruded</a> wheat puffs shaped like chocolate chip cookies, and insists that conditioning your kids to want chocolate chip cookies for breakfast makes for a “good source of calcium.”
All this to say it’s better to stick with the milk. It’s more natural. It’s closer to what God gives us. You don’t have to tweak it, and you won’t improve it.
Nor, for the lactose-intolerant, do we want for variety. Our Lord signed off on at least three foods—bread (Matt. 24:26), wine, and fish (Luke 24:42-43)—in his earthly life. God gave Adam and Eve plants (Gen. 1:30, 2:16) and Noah meat (3:3). He’s pro-cows and pro-bees (Lev. 20:24). He authorized cooking, baking, and fermentation. So we have a lot to work with before seed oils and ultra-pasteurization and certain <a href="https://www.eatthis.com/fake-foods/">sad imitations of nourishment</a> must factor. If I’m going to follow Jesus’ example in all things, I want that to include eating the way he ate.
Strictly speaking, there’s no succeeding: an apple beats Apple Jacks, but there’s still no telling what the grocery store <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/why-fruit-has-a-fake-wax-coating/524619/">did to it</a>. Even your own apple tree meets man’s fallen nature <a href="https://blairsupplyusa.com/how-does-a-municipal-water-and-sewer-system-work/">in some way</a>. We can’t be food <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/pelagianism-old-heresy-still-attractive">Pelagians</a>; we can’t do it on our own. But we search for the ideal, understanding that the search fortifies us for the life to come. Call it a sort of theosis, from Cookie Crisp to a home-baked cookie to just the butter and eggs.
“Are you trying to say I’m mortally sinning every time I eat a chocolate bar?” No—if that were the case, I’d be in the confessional <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-scruples-of-luther-and-therese">more often</a> than pre-Protestant Martin Luther. It’s not (<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-do-i-know-if-its-a-mortal-sin">necessarily</a>) a sin to eat poorly, but I think how we eat does reflect our respect for the temple that is our body.
And so I’ll mangle <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+5%3A16&amp;version=RSVCE">St. James</a> and suggest that every body reflects the glory of God, but a well-nourished body, eating authentic God-given food, reflecteth much. Thus hints science, at least.