Manage Account

Do arguments for the resurrection work?

Is there a difference in worshipping Jesus and God the Father?

I’m a convert from Orthodoxy. Were my confessions as an Orthodox considered valid now that I’m Catholic?

I went to confession and got my sins absolved. What happened to my soul?

Are children required to abstain from meat during lent? Are we adults supposed to abstain from meat on non-lent Fridays?

Why did Mary need a savior?

What is a pride mass? Is it a valid mass? If not, why is it allowed?

Do we believe in scripture as being the final authority since we always refer to it as evidence?

What exactly is a Pride Mass, and does it meet the requirements of a valid Catholic Mass? We break it down and also tackle topics like abstaining from meat, Mary’s need for a Savior, and the authority of Scripture in Catholic teaching.
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>

What Is a Pride Mass, and Is It Considered Valid? And More Questions

Discover

Dr. Gavin Ortlund (like many Protestants) believes that prayers to Mary and the Saints are of pagan origin, and not an authentic expression of Christianity. What does the actual biblical and other historical evidence show?

Debunking the “Pagan” Roots of Marian Devotion

To support this channel: https://www.patreon.com/counseloftrent

[NEW] Counsel of Trent merch: https://shop.catholic.com/apologists-alley/trent-horn-resources/

Be sure to keep up with our socials!
https://www.tiktok.com/@counseloftrent
https://www.twitter.com/counseloftrent
https://www.instagram.com/counseloftrentpodcast

What is the gospel?

In this episode Trent reveals why Catholics who promote Pride month and rainbow Pride flags reject the very same rationale when it is used to defend other controversial symbols.

The Double-Standard Among Catholics that Push “LGBT Pride”

You can hardly tune into a Catholic podcast or read a Catholic publication these days without someone complaining about the lack of manliness. But is a lack of manliness the problem, or a lack of Christianity in men? We asked the world&#8217;s most manly man, Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers, to help us get to the roots of the manliness panic.

Getting Manliness Wrong

With the Southern Poverty Law Center labeling Catholic and other Christian-leaning institutions as “hate groups,” we talk with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, the founder of the Ruth Institute, a recent target of the SPLC.

Slander from the South (Part 2)

Matthew Bunson analyzes the controversial drag performance that shocked viewers during the Paris Olympics opening ceremony. Explore the historical and cultural context of the event, including the rise of secularism in France and the potential backlash against this provocative display. Discover how this incident reflects broader societal tensions and the ongoing struggle for traditional values.
Transcript:
Darin said, &#8220;Look at this clip before you go on the air with Dr. Bunsen.&#8221; So all I have done is look at the clip. Could you please tell me what I&#8217;m looking at? Well, what you&#8217;re looking at, apparently. Now, the footage is always delayed. So what we&#8217;re talking about, for those that may not be following this on social media, and I would encourage you to do so, is the Olympics in Paris have begun. They had the opening ceremony this evening, and it will be broadcast, it&#8217;s broadcast now, internationally. It will be broadcast to the US audience starting probably just about half an hour or so.
And part of the opening ceremonies include, apparently, a depiction of the beheaded Marie Antoinette establishing immediately the anti-monarchist tendencies of the French Republic. But what everyone&#8217;s really talking about is, apparently, a drag queen depiction of the Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci, followed then by a variety of additional drag queens who are parading through the streets of Paris.
As you can imagine, the response has been predictable. I think there&#8217;s a lot we can talk about in this regard. The immediate reaction, of course, has been what we&#8217;d imagine it would be. It isn&#8217;t just, to use the phrase, pearl clutching, I think people are genuinely horrified at what they&#8217;re seeing, including many French who have been, I&#8217;ve been following it on X, what used to be Twitter, expressing their outrage and embarrassment that this type of a performance would be undertaken, certainly to open something as universal as the Olympic Games. Yeah, I mean, there is kind of, I mean, Olympic Games are at root a pagan thing. I mean, not that pagan stuff is bad. I&#8217;m not saying that that makes it evil or something, but I wasn&#8217;t thinking until just a few moments ago that what the world needed was a drag queen depiction of the Last Supper. That wasn&#8217;t on my list of artistic achievements we were lacking previously. Yeah, somebody said on Twitter that I didn&#8217;t have that on my bingo card for tonight.
That is a- But here&#8217;s the thing, and I think this is one of the keys to stress here. Millions and millions of euros have been spent in the preparations for these games. Yeah. The city of Paris has been under construction, under renovation. The Cathedral of Notre Dame has been under reconstruction for years with the goal of having it ready for the Olympic Games. Millions and millions more euros have been spent preparing for the opening ceremonies. Now, in fairness, opening ceremonies have always been historically something of a really mixed bag of imagery and music. Part of the oddity of the opening of Olympic Games is trying to understand the imagery, what exactly we&#8217;re watching. What am I seeing? Yes. What am I seeing? That&#8217;s especially true with the winter games because you&#8217;re even more circumscribed by the weather. In this case, we have to come to grips with the fact that this was long in preparation. This is highly choreographed. It was prepared. They knew exactly what they were doing. So any idea that this is somehow a surprise to people, that they were blindsided by a sudden performance of a drag queen rendition of The Last Supper simply won&#8217;t fly. So what we can immediately deduce is that I&#8217;m sure we&#8217;ll get more details about this over the next few days, and I look forward to that. But this was deliberate. This was choreographed. It was rehearsed. It was planned and has been planned for months.
So, yeah. What we&#8217;ve heard, and maybe you know something about this. I don&#8217;t know that there&#8217;s a kind of very small scale, but real resurgence of Catholic faith in France, that people are kind of recovering some of their Catholicity. This is true. Yeah. We saw just this last Easter, significant upticks in the numbers of conversions among French Catholics into the church. We have seen as well a number of conversions from Islam to Catholicism. We had a very impressive procession of chartres with the banners and everything that you&#8217;d expect. It was a beautiful pilgrimage. So you&#8217;re right. There has been in the last few years something of a resurgence. Also, the traditional Latin Mass has some of its strongest bastions anywhere in the church in France. Now we&#8217;ll see if there might be new restrictions coming, that that&#8217;s the rumor. But it&#8217;s an indicator, I think, of a definite response to two things. I think the massive cultural upheaval that we&#8217;re seeing in France as a result of mass migration, but also just the sheer progress, relentless march of relativism and secularism. Now that&#8217;s in many ways built into the DNA of the French Republic from the time of the French Revolution. In the 20th century we&#8217;ve seen, and into the 21st, we&#8217;ve seen the continuation of the long-standing French policy called laicite, which is this idea of the French state owning everything and being highly, highly secular. This takes it to a new level.
Hey, thanks for watching. If you like this Catholic answer, be sure to like, subscribe, and check out our live streams Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 p.m. Pacific, or find the episode after on YouTube, your favorite podcast platform, or our Catholic Answers app.

What’s Happening at the Olympics? (And What It Means for Christians)

What are blessings REALLY? Why do we say, “God bless you”?
In this episode, Jimmy Akin masterfully unpacks the mystery of blessings! From praising God to powerful invocative prayers that call down good, to constitutive blessings that consecrate people, churches, and objects. Discover who can give them (spoiler: even YOU!), how they actually work and why every baptized Christian is called to be a blessing. Get ready—your view of “God bless you” will never be the same!
&nbsp;
TRANSCRIPT: 
Coming Up
The two great commandments are love of God and love of neighbor.
Part of loving your neighbor is willing his good, and God is the source of all that is good in the world.
So Christians sometimes love their neighbors by explicitly wishing that God will help the person by doing good for him.
They say things like, “God bless you!”
That statement is a blessing, but over the last 2,000 years, blessings have taken a wide variety of forms, and they can be a little confusing.
So what are blessings? What do they do? And who can give them?
Let’s get into it!
* * *
Howdy, folks!
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get early access to new episodes—by going to <a href="https://patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast">Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast</a>
&nbsp;
What Are Blessings?
The English word Bless is used to translate the Latin word Benedicere and the Greek word Eulogein. Both of these mean “To speak good.”
In Scripture, the terms have a variety of uses. For example, one may bless God by speaking good of God—i.e., praising him.
For example, in Psalm 68, we read:
Psalm 68:26, ESV
Bless God in the great congregation,
the Lord, O you who are of Israel’s fountain!”
And in James 3:9, we read:
James 3:9, ESV
With [the tongue] we bless our Lord and Father.
In addition to praising God, another prominent use of the term blessing is speaking good about something other than God in hopes of bringing about good effects.
Thus in Genesis 27, the patriarch Isaac intended to bless his son Esau to bring good things upon him, but through Rebekah’s intervention, this blessing was stolen by Jacob.
To bless is the opposite of to Curse. In Latin, the term for cursing is Malidicere, and means “To speak evil.”
When a person curses something, he speaks evil about it hoping to bring about evil or bad effects.
For example, in Numbers 22-24, the Moabite king Balak sought to have the prophet Balaam curse Israel to harm the nation, but through God’s intervention the curse was turned into a blessing.
Blessings and curses of this type are sometimes called Invocative because they invoke either good or evil upon the person or thing.
Whether the blessing or curse ultimately achieves its effect depends on the will of God, who is the one being invoked and asked to help or harm someone.
Another kind of blessing has developed which involves permanently changing the status of someone or something by setting it apart for a holy purpose.
This type of blessing is sometimes called a Constitutive Blessing because it constitutes the person or thing in its new, holy status. This form of blessing is also sometimes referred to as a Consecration.
The Catechism states:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1672
Certain blessings have a lasting importance because they consecrate persons to God, or reserve objects and places for liturgical use.
Among those blessings which are intended for persons—not to be confused with sacramental ordination—are the blessing of the abbot or abbess of a monastery, the consecration of virgins and widows, the rite of religious profession, and the blessing of certain ministries of the Church (readers, acolytes, catechists, etc.).
The dedication or blessing of a church or an altar, the blessing of holy oils, vessels, and vestments, bells, etc., can be mentioned as examples of blessings that concern objects.
&nbsp;
What Can Be Blessed?
A wide variety of people and things can be blessed.
The Catechism specifically mentions persons, meals, objects, and places.
&nbsp;
Who Is Involved?
There are several parties that can be involved in a blessing. They include:
<ul>
<li>The person being blessed (or those that are helped by a blessed object or thing)</li>
<li>The person who performs the blessing</li>
<li>The Church, which has authorized some blessings to be given in its name</li>
<li>God, who is the ultimate source of all blessing</li>
</ul>
As James 1:17 says:
James 1:17, ESV
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
Now, the Church is not directly involved in all blessings but only those it has authorized. These may be considered Official Blessings. They involve the intercession of the Church, as expressed through the authorized person performing the blessing.
Other blessings—such as those performed by ordinary people (e.g., when we say “God bless you” to someone)—may be considered Unofficial Blessings.
&nbsp;
Are Blessings Automatically Effective?
Are blessings automatically effective? The answer depends on whether it is an official, constitutive blessing or not.
In the case of official, constitutive blessings—such as the blessing of an abbot or abbess or the blessing of a church or an altar—the answer is yes, the blessing automatically takes effect.
If the Church’s official rite of blessing has been used for an abbot or abbess, that person really has been consecrated or set aside for a holy office, even if the man or woman is personally unworthy.
Similarly, if a church or altar has been consecrated, it really has been set apart for sacred use.
When it comes to invocative blessings, the matter is different. Blessings are not sacraments but sacramentals. In fact, the Catechism notes that
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1671
Among sacramentals, blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first.
Sacraments are rites instituted by Jesus that God has promised to use to distribute his grace—especially sanctifying grace—so long as the recipient does not put a barrier in the way of receiving it.
By contrast, Sacramentals are rites instituted by the Church, and so God has not promised to distribute his grace on each and every occasion that they are performed. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia states:
Catholic Encyclopedia, “Blessing”
Blessings are not sacraments; they are not of divine institution; they do not confer sanctifying grace; and they do not produce their effects in virtue of the rite itself, or ex opere operato. They are sacramentals.
Similarly, the Catechism states:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1670
Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church&#8217;s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it.
In general, whether an invocative blessing has its intended effect will depend on the piety of the one receiving the blessing and whether it is God’s will for the person to receive the intended good.
&nbsp;
What Effect Do Blessings Have?
What effects do blessings have? The Catholic Encyclopedia states:
Catholic Encyclopedia, “Blessing”
They produce the following specific effects:
<ol>
<li>Excitation of pious emotions and affections of the heart and, by means of these, remission of venial sin and of the temporal punishment due to it;</li>
<li>freedom from [the] power of evil spirits;</li>
<li>preservation and restoration of bodily health.</li>
<li>various other benefits, temporal or spiritual.</li>
</ol>
All these effects are not necessarily inherent in any one blessing; some are caused by one formula, and others by another, according to the intentions of the Church.
The particular effects that a blessing involves will depend on the words used in the blessing—i.e., what does the blessing ask God to do?
For information about that, one should consult The Book of Blessings for the words used in official blessings.
&nbsp;
Who Can Perform Blessings?
Who can perform blessings? There has long been an association between blessings and the priesthood. In Numbers 6, we read:
Numbers 6:22-27 
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron and his sons [that is, the priests], saying, Thus you shall bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them,
‘The Lord bless you and keep you;
the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.’
So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them.”
However, blessings were not restricted to just the priests. In the Old Testament, the patriarchs gave blessings to their children, and various prophets (including Balaam) also pronounced them.
Furthermore, Israel—like the Church—was called to be “a kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6, Revelation 1:6). As a result, there are situations in which laity also can give blessings. The Catechism explains:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 1669
Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a “blessing,” and to bless.
Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).
The Church’s Book of Blessings notes who can perform which individual blessings.
Sometimes this will be the bishop, sometimes a priest, sometimes a deacon, sometimes a lay person, and sometimes any one of these.
Among others, laity are authorized to perform the blessing of an Advent wreath, a Christmas manger or Nativity scene, a Christmas tree, and throats on February 3rd or St. Blaise’s Day.
They also are authorized to help with the distribution of ashes on Ash Wednesday, though the blessing of the ashes is reserved to a priest or deacon.
There are no limits to who may perform unofficial blessings. Any person can say, “God bless you” to another, bless a meal, or bless their children.
&nbsp;
Learning More
If you’d like to learn more about blessings, the single most authoritative source on them is the Church’s Book of Blessings. It contains not only the texts used for individual, official blessings, it also contains introductions to the individual texts, as well as a general introduction to the subject of blessings.
Another helpful resource is Fr. Stephen J. Rossetti’s book The Priestly Blessing: Recovering the Gift. It contains a discussion of the history of blessings in light of Church teaching and the opinions of theologians.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years into the future—and can get early access to new episodes—by going to <a href="https://patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast">Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast</a>
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!

What Are Blessings?

Patrick Lencioni talks about why we should take seriously the claim &#8220;God told me we should do this&#8221; only in discussion with someone we trust, but not with people we don&#8217;t know well.
Transcript:
Host: We go now to Maria in Washington, DC, listening on Guadalupe Radio there in Washington DC. Maria, you are on with Patrick Lencioni, what&#8217;s your question?
Caller: My question is, I have the opposite take on what you just discussed. If I&#8217;m in a board meeting in a Christian nonprofit, and someone says we&#8217;re trying to work out a problem or project and someone said, &#8220;Well, I was in prayer today, and God told me to do such and such,&#8221; I mean, how do you respond to that?
Patrick: Well, I mean, this is an interesting one. I mean, and &#8220;if you&#8217;re in a board meeting&#8221; is an interesting thing, because that&#8217;s like, how well do you know this person? How much do you trust them inherently? Because if my wife comes to me and tells me that? Man, I&#8217;m listening. Okay. But if somebody I don&#8217;t know very well says that, I&#8217;m like, &#8220;Are you using this to try to win this argument?&#8221;
And so while I would never write that off, because God speaks through people, I think that&#8217;s where we&#8217;re talking about conflict among people with great levels of trust. And there are people that say those things, and though I can&#8217;t know their hearts, I know that some people sometimes use that as a way to kind of take things off the table. Like, &#8220;Well, God told me that you&#8217;re an idiot and I should be in charge, so there it is.&#8221;
Host: Is that the impression you get, Maria?
Caller: No no, that&#8217;s exactly right, when it comes from somebody I trust already, I take it to heart, and when it&#8217;s somebody I don&#8217;t trust, I think they&#8217;re trying to use it to manipulate the situation.
Patrick: And that&#8217;s why we need to build trust before we engage in conflict. I don&#8217;t think people that don&#8217;t know each other go, &#8220;Let&#8217;s engage in conflict!&#8221; I say, &#8220;No no no, first establish trust.&#8221; And as you said, Cy, that&#8217;s&#8211;we have something in common, we want to please God, we have a common faith, let&#8217;s draw upon that and then go there. But if a person uses that without trust and without knowing a person, it feels pretty manipulative.
Host: Thanks Maria, thanks very much for that.

Responding When People Use God as an Excuse

Reconstructed Dialogue in the Bible

As we wrap up our conversations with Karlo Broussard on his book <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/meeting-the-protestant-challenge/">Meeting the Protestant Challenge</a>, he asks: How can the Catholic Church teach that we need Tradition as well as Scripture when the Bible says that Scripture is sufficient? And how can the Catholic Church teach that Scripture is not our sole infallible source for doctrine when the book of Acts praises the Bereans for using Scripture alone to determine the truth?

Why Protestant Arguments for Sola Scriptura Fail

How come it seems like any sin is forgivable but no accountability for repeat offenders?

The few infallible teachings were about Mary. Why did the Church decide to declare those teachings at that time?

I’m on fire for learning more about Catholicism and I need some guidance. I can’t get enough

Questions from Non-Catholics

<div>Are godparents required for baptism?</div><div><blockquote>
Can. 872 Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a sponsor . . .
</blockquote>
In the normal course of events, yes, the Church requires a godparent/sponsor for baptism. However, it is not essential to the validity of the sacrament, and extenuating circumstances might make it impractical.
</div>

Are Godparents Required?

This is an encore episode, originally aired on October 1, 2025. 
“Can the Hierarchy Change Itself?” This episode delves into the complexities of Church authority and reform, addressing questions such as whether the Church still uses canon priests and how to trust the hierarchy. We also explore intriguing topics like Pope Leo’s blessing of ice and the implications of a heretical pope according to Bellarmine.
<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>

Can the Hierarchy Change Itself? & More Questions on Hierarchy

Delorians? The Superbowl shuffle? Nuclear close calls? Get out your synthesizer and shoulder pads as Trent reveals the things he loves from the 1980’s!

Things I love from the 80’s

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

Jesus prayed for THIS specifically!

<div class="page" title="Page 360">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 350
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Catholic teaching on justification is confused. Catholics hold that, when God justifies us, he gives us more than legal righteousness, yet we obviously aren’t fully righteous in our behavior.”
DEFENSE
This concern is caused by the categories used to look at the question.
In the Protestant community, justification (here meaning the initial justification at the beginning of the Christian life) is usually thought to involve the bestowal of only legal righteousness (sometimes called “forensic” righteousness). On this model, God acts like a courtroom judge and declares the sinner innocent, giving him legal righteousness, regardless of his past sins.
The other form of righteousness typically discussed in Protestant circles has to do with our behavior and may be called behavioral righteousness. It is understood that God gives us this form of righteousness over time through the process of sanctification, so that we progressively overcome sinful patterns of behavior.
If these are the only two forms of righteousness, then the Catholic claim that justification involves more than legal righteousness would be problematic because we obviously aren’t completely behaviorally righteous after initial justification.
However, these two are not the only types of righteousness Catholics envision. There is another, which may be called objective or metaphysical righteousness. Metaphysics is the study of what is ultimately real, and the idea is that when we sin, it changes the condition of our souls in a real, objective way by depriving them of holiness. This is reflected in the biblical images depicting sin as dirty, unclean, or defiling.
But when God justifies us, he changes this and gives us the objective holiness that we had been deprived of due to our sins. This inward transformation is reflected, for example, in the famous statement, “though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool” (Isa. 1:18).
On the Catholic view, God’s word is efficacious and brings about what he declares (Isa. 55:11). Thus, when he declares a person righteous, that person becomes objectively (metaphysically) righteous. This is what prevents God’s declaration of righteousness from simply being a legal fiction.
This objective righteousness is also referred to as “sanctifying grace” (cf. CCC 2023), and it is what grows during the process of ongoing justification (see Days 99 and 257).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Objective Righteousness

My Take on “Same-sex Blessings” (with Ben Shapiro)

It’s free-for-all-dinosaurs-Friday! From terrifying predators to gentle giants, Trent talks dinosaurs, the inaccuracies in the Jurassic Park films, and even interviews a very young paleontologist!

Dinosaurs and what Jurassic Park gets wrong

Episode 80: Year B &#8211; Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of the Lord
In this episode, we focus on two details found in the first and second readings, along with the Gospel, for this upcoming Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of the Lord, Year B. Both of them pertain to the Eucharist. The detail in the first reading, taken from Exodus 24:3-8, overlaps with the one detail in the Gospel that we’re going to focus on—“the blood of the covenant.” For the second reading, we focus on the teaching that Christ has entered the heavenly sanctuary with his blood once for all and its relation to the Catholic understanding of the Mass as Christ’s sacrifice.
&nbsp;

The Mass: Re-Presentation of the Sacrifice of Jesus

<div>At the Transfiguration, the apostles seemed to know that the persons conversing with Jesus were Moses and Elijah. How?</div><div>The Gospels do not explain how the disciples were able to recognize Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration, so any answer is a guess.
Possible ways the disciples were able to recognize <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/moses">Moses</a> and <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/elias">Elijah</a>:
<ul>
<li>Jesus referred to them by name in his conversation with them, and the disciples overheard it.</li>
<li>The disciples overheard the conversation, and the context informed them with whom Jesus was speaking.</li>
<li>They had something unique about their appearance that made them readily recognizable (Exodus 34:29; 2 Kings 1:8).</li>
<li>There was some sort of heavenly announcement that wasn&#8217;t recorded in the Gospels.</li>
<li>Jesus explained to the disciples who they were.</li>
<li>They were divinely inspired to recognize them, similar to God&#8217;s revelation to Peter that Jesus is the messiah.</li>
</ul>
</div>

How Did the Disciples Recognize Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration?

Years ago, shortly after entering the Catholic Church, I had some conversations with Andy, a former Bible college classmate. One of those conversations, about the Holy Eucharist, remains clearly imprinted in my memory.
Andy believed that communion—bread and grape juice at his Evangelical church—was symbolic only, the same belief that I held before studying Church history and Catholic theology. I went over some of the history, explained pertinent points of Catholic doctrine, and noted how the two beliefs are quite different, even diametrically opposed.
Andy listened politely and closely to what I had to say, and then said, &#8220;Well, I don&#8217;t really think it&#8217;s a big deal. You believe it&#8217;s Jesus Christ, and I don&#8217;t. But I don&#8217;t see why it&#8217;s an issue.&#8221; I was stunned by his expression of indifference. I had expected him to argue for his position while rejecting the Catholic position. (I&#8217;ve had plenty of those conversations, but this wasn&#8217;t one of them.)
&#8220;But,&#8221; I said, &#8220;if you&#8217;re correct, then I am worshiping bread and wine, which is idolatrous. But if the Catholic Church is correct, why wouldn&#8217;t you want to receive Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist?&#8221;
Andy shrugged. &#8220;I don&#8217;t,&#8221; he repeated, &#8220;think it&#8217;s that big of deal.&#8221;
That conversation came back to me when I recently read an essay titled “<a href="https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2024/11/07/giordano-eucharistic-sharing-ecumenicism-248942">A call for Catholics and Protestants to receive Communion—side by side</a>,” written by Meg Giordano, who teaches &#8220;philosophy at a Jesuit liberal arts college&#8221; and is &#8220;an ecumenical chaplain at that same Jesuit school&#8221;—Le Moyne College, in Syracuse, New York. That explains, perhaps, why her curious essay appears in America magazine, a Jesuit publication.
I say &#8220;curious&#8221; because Giordano—unlike certain Protestants and Catholics—does not argue for Protestants receiving Holy Communion. Rather, she writes,
<blockquote>What I have in mind is the idea of Catholics and Protestants sharing the experience of partaking in the Eucharist each according to their tradition—that is, side by side in a shared space with a Catholic priest serving the consecrated Eucharist to Catholic believers alongside a Protestant minister serving the Communion elements to Protestant believers. In all the places I’ve gone, all the shared spaces of ecumenical Christian experience, this one aspect of Christian identity—some might say the definitive aspect of Christian identity—remains a moment of division among us.</blockquote>
I don&#8217;t doubt Giordano&#8217;s sincerity, but I&#8217;m quite certain that she is “out-Jesuiting the Jesuits” with a combination of loaded sentiment, dismissal of doctrine, and rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Furthermore, despite her apparent protests to the contrary, she ends up in the clutches of indifference that my friend Andy refused to acknowledge and abandon.
Giordano&#8217;s approach involves the classic feint of giving lip service to &#8220;A&#8221; while promoting &#8220;Z,&#8221; which directly undermines &#8220;A.&#8221; So the &#8220;real presence of Christ in the Eucharist,&#8221; she writes, &#8220;is a profound and sacred mystery,&#8221; but her &#8220;experiences of fellowship, love and ecumenism&#8221; convince her that doctrinal differences, though important, must give way before a &#8220;shared Christian faith&#8221; that puts Christ before doctrine.
She appeals to a <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/pont-messages/2022/documents/20220909-videomessaggio-comm-crossing.html">September 9, 2022 address</a> given (via video) by Pope Francis to an ecumenical gathering involving Catholics and Episcopalians. It doesn&#8217;t help, alas, that Pope Francis refers to both groups as &#8220;denominations,&#8221; but Giordano&#8217;s focus is on these statements:
<blockquote>Yes, we do not agree on everything. Yes, we have convictions that sometimes seem incompatible, or are incompatible. But that is precisely why we choose to love each other. Love is stronger than all disagreements and divisions. It brings peace, and peace does not seem possible.
That is why I want you to continue to work together on this to achieve unity. . . . Jesus Christ is a bond that is stronger and deeper than our cultures, our political options and even than our doctrines. The Lord! Jesus the Lord!</blockquote>
Giordano apparently takes this to mean that love for Christ can somehow trump or supersede doctrine, but this is a faulty reading. The pope&#8217;s point, I think, is that our shared love of Christ—who is always first and foremost—must inform how we approach and understand doctrine, as there is no conflict between the Incarnate Word (logos) and his words or his teaching (doctrina). If we love Christ, we must embrace and follow his teachings.
It’s notable, then, that Giordano makes vague references to the Last Supper and Christ’s high priestly prayer (John 17) but does not mention <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/why-catholics-arent-wrong-about-john-6">John 6</a> or <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/heres-why-you-can-be-absolutely-sure-that-paul-believed-in-the-eucharist">1 Corinthians 11</a>. But the cherry-picking, emphasizing unity, ignores the historical and, yes, doctrinal basis of unity: apostolic authority and succession, Catholic unity centered on episcopal and Petrine authority, and the reality of magisterial teaching guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. Of course Christ desires that “all of them may be one,” but that fact should raise questions (How so? In what way? By what means?) rather than promote a pick-and-choose approach to faith and doctrine.
The great British priest, author, and apologist Ronald Knox—a convert from the Anglican Communion—addressed this serious Protestant problem nearly a century ago in The Belief of Catholics, in discussing sola scriptura:
<blockquote>The Protestant had no conceivable right to base any arguments on the inspiration of the Bible, for the inspiration of the Bible was a doctrine which had been believed, before the Reformation, on the mere authority of the Church; it rested on exactly the same basis as the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Protestantism repudiated Transubstantiation, and in doing so repudiated the authority of the Church; and then, without a shred of logic, calmly went on believing in the inspiration of the Bible, as if nothing had happened! Did they suppose that biblical inspiration was a self-evident fact, like the axioms of Euclid? Or did they derive it from some words of our Lord? If so, what words? What authority have we, apart from that of the Church, to say that the epistles of Paul are inspired, and the epistle of Barnabas is not?</blockquote>
In similar fashion, Giordano wants to hold on to belief in Christ, love, unity, and fellowship—all of them good things—but avoid the real problem of authority. This should not be a surprise, as every form of Protestantism—however sophisticated or fundamentalist—eventually smashes headlong into the divinely instituted wall of ecclesial authority.
To circumvent this looming obstacle, Protestants can ignore it, deny it, or attack it.  Giordano chooses to ignore it, but she does so with clever appeals of sentiment while relying on an indifferentism that is, ironically, quite secular in nature. She would put Catholic and Protestant “side by side in a shared space,” thus implicitly indicating that the differences are inconvenient rather than consequential. Further, this would lead either to confusion and scandal or to further indifference. In both cases, any real unity would be eroded and diminished.
The obvious (to me) question from a Catholic is simple: why bother becoming Catholic when you can mimic Catholic praxis side-by-side and be &#8220;accompanied&#8221; by Catholics in the process? Well, perhaps that is a feature, not a bug. Could it be, in fact, that Giordano recognizes the real issue and is simply seeking to run around it?
Whatever her exact motives, it is troubling that a Catholic publication such as America magazine features an essay by a Protestant that undermines not only Catholic teaching, but basic theological thought. As any decently catechized Catholic knows, reception of Holy Communion indicates full and public communion with the Church, which is the household of God (1 Tim 3:15), headed on earth by the successor of St. Peter (cf. Matt 16:16-20), and which is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
And that really is a big deal.

A Eucharistic Potluck with Protestants

Why Are Catholics Held So Accountable?

Sociologist Mark Regnerus became a controversial figure with his study of the children of gay parents. Today he studies Christian marriage. We discuss his research into marriage and modern sexual habits.

Social Science and Modern Sex (Part Two)

Why would God make a massive universe and then care about one little speck in the middle of it all? Isn&#8217;t that a waste of a universe? Jimmy Akin addresses these questions, showing why the vastness of the universe isn&#8217;t incompatible with the idea of a loving creator.

Why Would God Make Such a Big Universe?

<div class="page" title="Page 12">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 2
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“The Christian idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory. Can God make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it? If he can then there is something he can’t do (lift the stone), but if he can’t, then there’s also something he can’t do (make the stone).”
DEFENSE
To accuse others of a logical contradiction, first you must understand their idea correctly. Otherwise you commit the straw man fallacy. This objection misunderstands omnipotence.
The term “omnipotent” means “all-powerful” (Latin, omnis, “all,” and potens, “powerful”). This is often said to mean that God can “do anything,” but this statement is ambiguous, and the ambiguity leads to the objection above.
What does it mean to say God can do anything? If “anything” means anything that you can say, then the idea would involve logical contradictions. You could, for example, say that God could make four-sided triangles, square circles, married bachelors, two-horned unicorns, and other entities whose definitions involve logical contradictions.
This is not what Christian theologians mean by omnipotence. Instead, they mean that God can do anything that is logically possible—that is, anything that does not involve a logical contradiction. This causes the objection to vanish, because if omnipotence excludes logical contradictions, then, by definition, it does not involve them.
It thus resolves the question of whether God can make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it. By virtue of omnipotence, God has infinite, or unlimited, lifting power. There is no upper limit to what God can lift. Thus a stone too heavy for God to lift would have to have more than infinite weight, and the idea of “more than infinite” weight involves a logical contradiction.
Stones too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift fall in the same category as four-sided triangles and married bachelors. They contain logical contradictions and thus represent jibberish rather than logically possible entities.
TIP
For more, see St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I:25:3–4.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

A Stone Too Heavy for God to Lift?

Dr. Bergsma proposed that the events of Holy Week were originally different than we thought. He says the last supper might have been on Tuesday. What are your thoughts on this?

Why is the conclave kept in secrecy?

1 Chronicles references other books like Chronicles of Nathan and Chronicles Gad the Seer. What do we know about them, and can we read them?

Where do we get the idea of purgatory other than Maccabees?

What constitutes grave matter?

Is it possible for a protestant to bring communion to a person who is homebound?

My mom is Protestant. What is the best way to evangelize Protestants?

Where is the line between invincible ignorance and universalism?

Can I be a Catholic in good standing if I personally oppose abortion but also don’t think the government should criminalize it?

Can a Catholic be personally opposed to abortion but still believe it shouldn&#8217;t be criminalized? In this segment of Catholic Answers Live, we tackle the tough intersection of morality, law, and Church teaching. Karlo Broussard explores what it means to be a Catholic in good standing, how the Church views the legal protection of human life, and where the line is drawn when it comes to public policy. A must-watch for anyone navigating pro-life convictions in a political world.
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
Help us reach our goal by donating! <a href="https://give.catholic.com/campaign/689122/donate">Catholicanswersradio.com</a>
Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: <a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email">Click Here</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
<div class="jsx-baf003ec846595e7 body-half">
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>
</div></div></div>

Is It Catholic to Oppose Abortion but Not Its Criminalization?

In this episode, Trent gives advice on how to overcome a common rhetorical technique in discussions over the Bible.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq8-lg1_60E"> When Atheists Misread The Bible</a>
Transcription:
Have you ever been in a discussion with someone about theology and the other person rattled off dozens of memorized Bible verses to try to show you’re wrong? Or have you engaged in a comment thread and one person just lists dozens of Bible verses after their claim in a way that makes the debate overwhelming.
I call this the Bible Blitzkrieg and it often makes conversations about the Faith much more difficult than they need to be. If you feel overwhelmed by the blitzkrieg, or if you see others being the victim of it, or if you’re tempted to use it yourself, today’s episode should give you a helpful shield against this rhetorical onslaught.
Now, at the outset I want to say it isn’t bad to memorize scripture. In fact, it’s awesome to do that. While some Catholics do this well, I notice Protestants tend to be more adept at it, especially Evangelicals raised in environments that promote memorization through programs like Awana for children.
St. Jerome famously said that “ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.” so we should always commend a person’s intimate knowledge of scripture. But it is one thing to know what the Bible says and another thing to know what it means. St. Jerome said of a heretical group called the Luciferians “let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning.” (Dialogue with Luciferians)
As St. Jerome shows that anyone can string along biblical citations and say they are correct, but that doesn’t mean they are correct. The second century Church father Irenaeus of Lyon said the following about how heretics distort scripture to support their false doctrines:
By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skillful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox . . .
So according to Irenaeus, a heretic can take scripture and make it say something completely different just as a counterfeit artist can take gemstones that form a king’s image and rearrange them to make the stones “say” something else. The same materials are used in each case, but they are presented in different ways in order to get true or false results.
A Protestant should admit that extremely heretical people can know the letter of the scripture very well. For example, you can find Jehovah’s Witness, for example, who can cite dozens of passages that, according to them, show Jesus is not equal in divinity with the Father. A Christian who isn’t prepared might be overwhelmed at all this data that seems to conflict with what the Church teaches. But a well-studied Protestant would rightly tell them the Witnesses that, when each of those verses is reviewed one at a time, you can see that none of them disprove the deity of Christ. And the same is true when one goes through the dozens of Bible verses that can sometimes be cited in a Protestant Bible Blitzkrieg.
And to be fair, I’ve seen Catholics do the same thing. It’s not uncommon for Catholics to say something like “We are not saved faith alone” and then cite a bunch of Bible verses about the role of works in salvation. That doesn’t help move the conversation forward because a Protestant can do the same thing and just cite verses that he says prove we are not saved by works.
That’s why the Protestant scholar D.A. Carson once said “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” Making a statement and then defending it with only a dozen Bible citations is nothing more than grandstanding or a mild form of intimidation. It’s like saying “How can I be wrong when all these Bible verses say I’m right?”
A better approach would be to show how all the verses fit together. Verses that say we aren’t saved by works show how we are initially saved by merely accepting God’s grace through the sacrament of baptism. A baby does nothing to be saved, he just receives this gift from God. As the Catechism says “Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification.” (CCC 2010)
But after we are saved good works increase our holiness and bad works damage our relationship with God. Unrepentant grave evil can even cause us to be separated from God forever.
Everyone who cites the Bible in defense of their views, including non-Christians like Jehovah’s Witnesses and even Muslims should, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, avoid the blitzkrieg. If you are faced with it, just say you need time to go through the presented evidence. Eventually, after enough time, you will get through all of it. And in many cases you’ll see the cited verses aren’t just incorrect interpretations, they are irrelevant interpretations. The verse being cited has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. But that can be missed if you are just impressed by a mountain of Bible verses.
For example, atheists might present a long list of atrocities to show the Bible is evil but you can show that in many of these cases the Bible is just describing human evil, it isn’t endorsing or commanding it. (For more on that, see my episode “When Atheists Misread the Bible” – linked below)
When you are faced with a “Bible blitzkrieg”, remember that this isn’t an actual war. You’re allowed to ask for a break so you can look up these verses and get back to your interlocutor. You can remind him that studying Bible verses is always better than slinging Bible verses. In addition, St. Peter reminds us that scripture contains difficult passages that people can misunderstand to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16) so you want to consult authoritative sources to find out what these verses might say and, at the least, what they absolutely cannot say.
This can be helpful because some Protestants operate under the mistaken assumption that Catholics are prohibited from reading or interpreting the Bible for themselves. They might cite the Second Vatican Council which said “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church” (Dei Verbum, 10).
But the Church has only infallibly defined the meaning of a handful of biblical passages. The Church gives biblical scholars a wide degree of latitude in determining the literal and spiritual meaning of biblical texts, provided that they follow the council’s direction to be attentive to the “analogy of faith” and interpret the texts in light of all divine revelation. So, for example, a biblical interpreter could not assert that a particular Bible passage taught that Mary gave birth to other children or that Christ is not fully divine since the Church has infallibly taught those are false doctrines and so scripture can’t teach them.
Finally, don’t get discouraged if you are a Catholic and your Protestant friend knows more biblical citations than you do. The chapters and verses aren’t original to the Bible. The chapter divisions come from Archbishop Stephen Langton in the 13th century and the verse systems in most modern Bible comes from Robert Estienne in the 16th century. When Jesus showed the Sadducees that the Old Testament does refer to a resurrection of the dead, he said, “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush [emphasis added], where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” (Luke 20:37)
If Jesus can give an approximate citation of scripture, like “the passage about X” you and I can do the same. And if you are a Catholic that doesn’t know chapters and verses well, that doesn’t mean you’re biblically illiterate. Scott Hahn, a professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, once said that Protestants know the Bible like a mailman knows the neighborhood.
For example, the mailman knows the Johnsons live at 123 Maplewood St. and so if he needs to get the mail to them he knows which streets to follow to get there. In the same way, Protestants who have a deep passion for understanding the Bible can cite a biblical passages exact chapter and verse. Catholics, on the other hand, know the Bible like kids know a neighborhood. They may not know the Johnsons live at 123 Maplewood St., but they do know the Johnsons live on the top of the hill next to the house with the old green fence and the barking dog. They can get you to the same place, but in a more indirect way.
In the same way, Catholics know a lot of scripture even if they don’t remember everywhere it’s found in scripture. For example, they hear the Bible at mass or read biblical passages in Catholic devotionals and prayer books. They have an intuitive knowledge of scripture more than a formal knowledge.
But we should remember what St. Paul said, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” (1 Cor. 13:11)
We can all apply ourselves to having a mature knowledge of God’s word in sacred scripture. You can also post a favorite Bible verse at your desk or on the refrigerator each week. Another great method is listening to the Bible so that it is familiar, such as by listening to the Bible in a Year podcast. You can also practice listening to a chapter and then reading that same chapter of scripture. I like to use the truth and life audio bible for this. If you just spend 15 minutes reading and listening to one chapter a day, you’ll finish the New Testament in less than a year.
Finally, praying the liturgy of the hours or lectio divina is a great way to be immersed in scripture and memorize it as, after just a few weeks, you’ll find yourself memorizing entire prayers from scripture like Mary’s Magnificat.
So, don’t feel like you can’t talk about the Bible just because you may not remember the chapter and verse where a passage is located. Even our Lord didn’t cite the Bible in this way! You can survive the “Bible Blitzkrieg” by humbly leading the person through different parts of scripture with the light of the Church’s teaching as a helpful guide to interpreting it.
Thank you so much for watching and I hope you have a very blessed day.

Surviving the “Bible Blitzkrieg”

<div>How do you explain to someone why a man and woman would get married when one of them is expected to die the same day from cancer?</div><div>The reason is that if the couple have been previously married invalidly, then they can receive the grace of the sacrament before the death of one of them, and that is no small benefit to their souls. Even if they were not previously married at all, the bestowal of the grace of the sacrament is a more than sufficient reason. Of course, this is not an obligation. Sometimes also there can be economic reasons of inheritance and so on that might indicate that they should be legally married to protect the interests of the surviving partner.
</div>

How Do You Explain a Deathbed Wedding?

Popular Mechanics recently re-shared an article on social media with the audacious title, <a href="https://twitter.com/PopMech/status/1725186913986810021">“A Groundbreaking Scientific Discovery Shows that We Can Reverse Death.”</a> Is that true?
It depends on how you understand death. In the old days, it was relatively easy to determine whether someone was dead: he stopped breathing and his pulse disappeared.
That was a useful way of determining death because breathing is necessary to get oxygen to the blood, and a beating heart is necessary to push oxygen-laded blood to the cells of the body. Without that happening, every cell in the body would die.
Of course, mistakes could be made. Someone might be breathing really shallowly, and he might have only a faint pulse, but if he really stopped breathing and his heart really stopped, he was dead. End of story.
Things got more complex in the twentieth century. Techniques became available to keep someone breathing and to restart his heart.
In the 1950s, ventilators were introduced. These are machines that act like bellows to move air in and out of the lungs.
Also in the 1950s, the first (external) mechanical hearts became available, and by 1960, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) could help keep blood moving during a cardiac arrest, adrenaline could encourage the heart to resume beating, and defibrillators could hopefully shock it back into a normal rhythm.
All this raised the question of whether people who met the previous definition of death (no breathing and no heartbeat) should be considered dead.
By the late 1960s, a new criterion was proposed: absence of brain activity. This could make sense because a functioning brain was needed to keep things like breathing and hearts going without mechanical aid.
So perhaps—some reasoned—if the brain was no longer working, if the patient was “brain dead,” you could forego artificial respiration and heart stimulation and treat the patient as dead.
This meant you could harvest his organs, if he was an organ donor—including his precious heart. The first successful heart transplant took place in 1967, so maybe someone else could use the organ if the donor was brain dead.
There has been a lively debate about whether lack of brain activity should be used to define death, and advocates of brain death as the key criterion have won a lot of converts to their view.
At the same time, there have been concerns that doctors have been defining brain death in a loosey-goosey way, such as merely being in a persistent vegetative state rather than truly and permanently lacking brain function. This would let them take more people off life-support—freeing up medical resources—and harvest organs from more people.
Personally, I am not at all convinced that the brain death criterion is adequately defined—or applied—today, and so a person who is actually still alive may be killed by the removal of their heart for a transplant. Consequently, I have not agreed to donate my organs on my driver’s license.
While the brain death debate has been going on, the concept of death has begun to be questioned on a new front: the cellular level. Hypothetically, one could argue that a person’s body isn’t fully dead unless all of the cells in it have died, and things like brain function, respiration, and heart action are just things needed to keep the cells alive.
We thus might be able to help save more people if we could intervene to keep their cells alive long enough to fix whatever is wrong with their brain, lungs, heart, or other organs.
The Popular Mechanics article <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a42216404/is-death-revesible/">discusses</a> a team of researchers who have been working on how to support the cells of the body when critical organs are not functioning. They call this system OrganEx, and preliminary trials on pigs have been successful, though human trials are still years off.
Other advances are also being made. It turns out that, if a person’s body and brain are cooled down in the right way, they can be brought back to normal functioning as much as six hours after cardiac arrest has occurred (see Sam Parnia, Erasing Death: The Science That Is Rewriting the Boundaries Between Life and Death).
We also now have implantable artificial hearts, and—though they aren’t yet as convenient and reliable as the one the biological version of Captain Picard had on Star Trek—we’re approaching the point where not having a functioning human heart may no longer be useful as a criterion for irreversible death.
What all of these advances have done is make death—which used to look like a simple either-or state—to look more like a process, and a process that in many cases can be reversed.
As medicine continues to advance, we may expect it to become more and more reversible, which will make it more challenging to define precisely when “final” death occurs.

Can Science Reverse Death?

The deadly sin NO ONE talks about...

How does one rightly critique Marian devotion?

Does the account of the Ethiopian eunuch disprove apostolic succession?

Does Mary need a savior?

How am I supposed to properly understand the title of Queen of Heaven in light of Jer. 7:17-18?

Has anyone ever looked into what heaven is and the details?

Salvation, the Bible, and More

Why does the Catholic Church have priests?

<div class="page" title="Page 364">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 354
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Catholic theology of merit is false. We can’t earn our place before God.”
DEFENSE
The Church does not teach that we can earn our place before God. Everything we receive from him is due to his grace.
When we first come to God and are justified, it is entirely by his grace, for “none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification” (Trent, Decree on Justification 8).
After our initial justification, God’s grace leads us to do good works (Eph. 2:10) and he rewards these (Rom. 2:6–7), but still, “with regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator” (CCC 2007).
In terms of this “strict right,” Benedict XVI wrote: “We cannot— to use the classical expression—‘merit’ heaven through our works. Heaven is always more than we could merit, just as being loved is never something ‘merited,’ but always a gift” (Spe Salvi 35).
On the other hand, Scripture does indicate that we will receive rewards, that our actions can lay up “treasures in heaven,” and that God will reward patience in good work with glory, honor, immortality, and eternal life (see Day 312). There is a sense, therefore, in which each of these things is understood in Scripture as a reward for what we have done by God’s grace. However, good works receive a reward (i.e., become meritorious) not because we earn our place before God, but because they are done by his grace and because he freely promised to reward them.
“According to the Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the ‘meritorious’ character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace” (JD 38).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Catholic Teaching on Merit

Why Catholic Mass is ESSENTIAL to Christianity (and completely Biblical)

<div>Is being a good person selfish if I am doing it in fear of being sent to hell?</div><div><a href="http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson18.htm">The Baltimore Catechism</a>:
<blockquote>Q. 767. What is imperfect contrition?
A. Imperfect contrition is that by which we hate what offends God because by it we lose heaven and deserve hell; or because sin is so hateful in itself.
Q. 768. What other name is given to imperfect contrition and why is it called imperfect?
A. Imperfect contrition is called attrition. It is called imperfect only because it is less perfect than the highest grade of contrition by which we are sorry for sin out of pure love of God&#8217;s own goodness and without any consideration of what befalls ourselves.
Q. 769. Is imperfect contrition sufficient for a worthy confession?
A. Imperfect contrition is sufficient for a worthy confession, but we should endeavor to have perfect contrition.</blockquote>
It is obviously better to be sorry for sin solely because it is wrong and is an offense against God&#8217;s love but being sorry primarily because we are afraid of hell is still a good thing.  It shows that we trust what Jesus has taught us about the effects of sin and that we respect his judgment.  Imperfect contrition is a good starting point to help us focus on why sin separates us from God and one another and deepening our relationship to God.
</div>

Am I Selfish If I Fear Being Sent To Hell?

Why Mariology names Mary Theotokos: to defend Jesus as God.

It’s clear that there is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/whos-on-first-matthew-mark-or-luke">a literary relationship</a> between the three Synoptic Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have many passages in common—down to the level of individual words in Greek.
Most scholars have concluded that the majority of these passages are due to Matthew and Luke copying from Mark. In the process of doing so, they both abbreviate Mark’s accounts and polish his Greek style to make it better.
But setting aside the passages that all three Synoptic Gospels have in common, there are still 235 verses shared only by Matthew and Luke.
To explain these, many scholars have proposed that both Matthew and Luke are drawing on a hypothetical common source, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/some-thoughts-on-q">which has been named “Q”</a> (from the German word Quelle, which means source).
<a href="https://twitter.com/JimmyAkin3000/status/1692169841665360360?s=20">Recently, I encountered the suggestion</a> that it was the Virgin Mary herself who was behind the Q source, and I was asked what I thought of this possibility.
A careful reading of Luke’s Gospel reveals that the Virgin Mary was one of his sources of information. Luke signals this twice in his “Infancy Narrative,” or account of the events leading up to Christ’s birth and what happened in his childhood.
The Gospels contain subtle cues about who the Evangelists were using as their sources, and these would have been more obvious to ancient readers than they are today.
One such cue is found in Luke 2:19. After recounting the events up to Jesus’ birth, Luke states: “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.” That’s a signal that Mary was the source of Luke’s information for the material we have just read.
He may have interviewed her personally or he may have gotten the information by a chain of transmission leading back to Mary, but one way or another, she’s the source.
Luke then describes several incidents taking us down to the discovery of Jesus in the temple when he was twelve years old, and he says, “and his mother kept all these things in her heart” (Luke 2:21). That’s another signal that Mary was the source of the information we have just read—i.e., the reason Luke has this information is because Mary kept it in her heart, and that’s how Luke knows it.
The difficulty for the “Mary is Q” theory is that these passages occur in Luke’s Infancy Narrative, and that is not part of the 235 verses that Matthew and Luke have in common. In other words, it’s not part of the “Q material” that the two Gospels share.
Further, Luke only mentions Mary remembering things in these two passages, suggesting that she was not the source of later material in his Gospel.
So it appears that Mary was (directly or indirectly) one of Luke’s sources, but that she was not responsible for the 235 verses reckoned as part of Q.
What would explain those verses? Many scholars have proposed that there was a “Q document” that Matthew and Luke drew on, but we have no direct evidence that such a document existed, and I think there’s a simpler explanation: Matthew just copied from Luke.
Matthew clearly organizes material that is scattered in different places in Luke, and with the idea of Q being entirely speculative—rather than supported by evidence—it’s easier to explain the relationship by saying that Matthew was an organizer who sequenced material from Luke than it would be to explain why Luke smashed Matthew’s careful organization for no clear reason. As one scholar put it, Luke would have needed to unscramble the egg “with a vengeance.”
I thus conclude that—if there ever was a “Q document”—it was likely just a collection of notes Matthew took while reading Luke, and Luke was itself drawn from a variety of sources.
One of Luke’s sources was the Virgin Mary, though she was not behind the so-called “Q material.”

Mary: Secret Gospel Source?

There are around 8 billion people in the world. About 85 percent of those people profess some religious belief. Most of those people belong to the major world religions: there are about 2.5 billion Christians (about 1.4 billion of whom are Catholic, about 800 million Protestants, and 260 million Orthodox), 1.8 billion Muslims, about 15 million Jews, 1 billion Hindus, 500 million Buddhists, 17 million Mormons, and many, many more.
It should go without saying that these different faiths, with contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs, cannot all be true. All of them contradict one another, some in fundamental and profound ways. Some of these ways may be a surprise to the reader (for example, the common belief that “Mormons are Christians” is <a href="https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-mormons-christian">patently false</a>), but nonetheless, there is a commonly used platitude that, in spite of their differences, all religions “basically say the same thing.” What is this “same thing,” and do they really all basically say this?
When we hear someone say that all religions say basically the same thing, what he typically means is that all religions boil down to a moral code: just be kind to others. Leaving aside the fact that not all religions say this, there is another issue.
The trouble is, this is not what is most fundamental about each of these religions. We cannot say that all religions basically say the same thing. The claims that lie at the heart of each religion differ fundamentally from one religion to the next.
What do the world’s religions have in common? Certainly, truth is truth, and the Church recognizes that many of the world’s religions have some elements of the truth, albeit from an incomplete (even tremendously incomplete) understanding. In fact, the Second Vatican Council’s declaration Nostra Aetate considered many points on which all men typically agree, Catholic and non-Catholic.
All world religions have in common a belief in something beyond what we can see and feel and touch. Most of them recognize in this the supernatural, and even some sort of divinity, although here there are practically innumerable variations. Most also preach love and care for our fellow man, not for utilitarian purposes, but because he deserves them inherently.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men” (Nostra Aetate 2). So the Church sees what good and truth there is in these other religions—but it does not stop there. There is not a hint of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-all-religions-equal">indifferentism</a> in the council’s declaration. Just the opposite: “Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ, ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14: 6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to himself.”
So even after acknowledging the elements of truth that may be present in another religion, the Church reminds us that we are called to preach the gospel, to bring all men to Christ. There is no “I’m okay, you’re okay” here, no “live and let live.” On the contrary, Jesus’ mandate to us remains in full force (see Matt. 28:19-20).
The question is often asked: why does it matter? Why should we even care about differences in religious belief? Even if one acknowledges that they are not “all fundamentally the same,” isn’t it merely a difference of opinion? Like a favorite flavor of ice cream?
Certainly not! It matters because the truth matters. Religious faith is not merely a question of opinion. “I’m a Catholic” does not have the same weight as “I’m a Republican” or “I’m a San Diego Padres fan.” Truth exists, and different religious traditions make different claims about that truth—things are one way, and are not other, contradictory ways. Water is by definition wet; it cannot also be dry. <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/what-is-god/">God exists</a>, and he is the only God; there cannot also be many gods. Jesus Christ is the incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity; he cannot also be merely a sound moral teacher who was not divine. Two contradictions cannot both be true, because truth is objective.
There is nothing at all wrong with comparing and contrasting different religious traditions, or with finding areas of common ground among them. In fact, finding common ground can be an important means of evangelization. But the existence of commonalities by no means indicates a fundamental sameness. In fact, the commonalities make the differences starker, and it is important to recognize and acknowledge these differences.
This doesn’t mean that we should just accept the differences, let bygones be bygones, and leave each to his own. We are called to evangelize, to spread the good news, to go out to all the world and baptize. The Church was commissioned by Christ for this apostolic work, and in order for our work to be fruitful, we must acknowledge that the Catholic Church is set apart from other world religions.
In most cases, evangelizing adherents of other religions can start from a place of dialogue, finding common ground. All religions do not “say basically the same thing,” but the things we do say together are a perfect starting point for evangelization.

‘Aren’t All Religions Basically the Same?’

Steve Ray dives deep into the biblical meaning of &#8220;brothers&#8221; and its implications for the relationship between Jesus and Mary. With a focus on Greek and Hebrew linguistics and cultural context, Steve challenges common misconceptions about the word &#8220;brothers&#8221; in the Bible and offers compelling evidence for a unique understanding of Jesus&#8217; family dynamics.
Transcript:
I work with a really nice guy, but he&#8217;s a reformed Baptist, in accord with John MacArthur who&#8217;s kind of anti-Catholic. Anyway, we were discussing the Greek root of the word brothers and also her marriage virginity. How can I, you know, counterpunch him in regards to this?
Well, the Greek word when it says brothers of our Lord is Adelphos, and it means brother. But it&#8217;s also, &#8220;Sai is my brother.&#8221; So when you have it also, &#8220;Sai,&#8221; it says,
like, &#8220;Sai, the brother of Steve,&#8221; or the Christian brother is also Adelphos. So it has to, the context has to be applied. So Adelphos, in the Middle East, if a woman could not have milk to breastfeed her baby, she would find another woman to breastfeed her baby, and that baby would be the brother of any other baby that had milk from her. It&#8217;s called a milk brother. People don&#8217;t realize that. But any baby that drank from this woman is a brother because it drank from the same milk source. So it is the word Adelphos, and it means brother, but it can mean different things. A brother in the Lord, it can mean a brother physical brother, it can mean a step brother, and they didn&#8217;t have words. In Hebrew, there&#8217;s no word for cousin. So the word brother is also used for cousin. For example, Abraham, his brother Lot, he refers to Lot, his brother, but he wasn&#8217;t, he was his nephew. But they didn&#8217;t have those kind of descriptions. Everybody was your brother. For example, when I was driving through Jordan with my friend, everywhere he went, he said, &#8220;It&#8217;s my brother, that&#8217;s my brother.&#8221; I said, &#8220;Elias, how many brothers do you have?&#8221; He says, &#8220;15,000, we&#8217;re a tribe. We&#8217;re a Bedouin, Catholic Bedouin tribe.&#8221; All of those 15,000 were his brothers,
because you don&#8217;t use the words cousin in those, they all lived in extended families. The bus driver that we use, the father and mother live on the first floor. The first born son lives on the second floor with his kids, next floor second son with his kids, third son with his kids, and all those kids play together all the time. They&#8217;re not cousins, they&#8217;re brothers. They all live together, they&#8217;re brothers. Even the word can mean the cousins of someone. Because Mary was not &#8230; I think this is so many things you could say. At the cross, when Jesus said, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to give my mom to you, John.&#8221; Why did he say that? If Mary had another son, the second son would be in charge of mom. This is just the way it is in Jewish, to think of giving your mother to another guy when she has other sons would be unthinkable. The very fact that Jesus gave Mary to John shows that Mary had no other children. When they said that Mary is the mother of Jesus, it doesn&#8217;t say ever Mary is the mother of Jesus, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and somebody else. People also, then Matthew 1.25, this is another one you&#8217;re going to hear probably, Patrick. It says that Joseph did not know Mary until the baby was born, as though, oh, then all of a sudden they had relations.
That word until does not mean something that happened after. In one place in the Bible, it says that a woman had no children until the day she died. Well, she obviously didn&#8217;t have any kids after she died. To use that word until to try and prove that Joseph did know Mary after is nonsense. The whole passage of scripture, I could go also into John 7 showing that they were Jesus&#8217; stepbrothers, or they were his cousins. There&#8217;s an ancient tradition from the East that Joseph was married and was a widower and had other sons and daughters by a previous marriage. Therefore, those could be the brothers. They could be stepbrothers, not physical brothers of Jesus. So there&#8217;s a lot of ways to think about it.
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 Respond to “Jesus Had Brothers”

Catholics and Protestants often use biblical proof texts as they argue about the role of Mary in salvation. But this can form bad Bible reading habits, says Father John Waiss, author of Bible Mary: The Mother of Jesus in the Word of God. He joins us for a conversation about how looking for Mary can teach us better Bible reading.

Looking for Mary, Finding the Bible

What did it actually mean to go to Sheol and how did that change with Christ?

How do I defend papal primacy using scripture? How do we defend how the early Church was based out of Rome?

I’m Protestant and struggle with infant baptism. How can A child be saved if they have no belief?

Hypothetical from an atheist? If I tell my wife: love me or i will set you on fire?” Does she have a choice, and do I actually love my wife?

What’s wrong with the following argument: Protestants are more catholic than Catholics because they have fewer factors that need to unify them?

How does one discern who has the fullness of the faith between Catholics and Orthodox?

Is it ok to refer to Scripture as Jesus since he is he is the word of God?

How do we encounter the world, take criticism, and spread the gospel without being obnoxious?

If Mary is the Mother of God and she is not the source of his divinity, why does she need to be sinless?

Do the Anglican Church and Orthodox have the Real presence? Am I supposed to bow if they do?

&#8220;How do we defend papal primacy and infant baptism?&#8221; In this episode, we explore the scriptural basis for papal authority and the early Church&#8217;s connection to Rome, while also addressing concerns about infant baptism and the implications of belief for salvation. Joe Heschmeyer explores this question and more from the audience at SEEK 2025, including Sheol’s transformation after Christ, infant baptism, and the Real Presence in Anglican and Orthodox churches.
<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>

How Do We Defend Papal Primacy and Infant Baptism? (SEEK 2025 Encore)

How can bodily resurrection exist if the universe itself will end?

Why does invoking Jesus’ name stop abductions?

Do psychotropic drugs affect our free will?

Why did early Church Fathers appeal to Scripture instead of papal authority?

If God is perfect and needs nothing, why create humans and angels who could fall?

Why must children be raised by biological parents, but adoption is allowed?

&#8220;How can bodily resurrection exist if the universe itself will end?&#8221; This question opens a fascinating exploration of faith and theology, alongside discussions on why invoking Jesus’ name is believed to stop abductions, and whether psychotropic drugs impact our free will.
<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>

How Can Bodily Resurrection Exist If the Universe Will End?

Are we able to trace back what churches the other apostles established?

What did you see in the Catholic Church that made you open your eyes to converting?

Would it be possible for a year of divine judgment? If yes, then why doesn’t he?

Can the pope ever break from the seat of Peter?

What Catholic study bible do you recommend? And which translation?

How does the Pentecostal church compare to the Catholic Church?

Can God hear our mental prayer? Was Jesus a good boy as a kid?

How do we reconcile parts of the church that have been corrupt in the medieval ages and the infallibility of the church?

What is infallibility

&#8220;Can God hear our mental prayer?&#8221; This episode explores the nuances of prayer and divine communication, alongside intriguing questions about the establishment of early churches by the apostles, the concept of infallibility, and the comparison between the Catholic and Pentecostal churches. Tune in for a thoughtful examination of these important topics.
<a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</a>
Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</a>

Can God Hear Our Mental Prayer, Infallibility, and Church History

Browse all the Catholic Answers podcasts.

Podcasts

Once upon a time, there was a Twitter thread of atheists and theists going back and forth that gained a bit of attention. An atheist asked, “Dear theists: What is the mass of God?”
A priest responded, “What is the circumference of red?” To put it another way, to demand measurements of God’s physical qualities is, in the words of the priest, “asking about a property of something that doesn’t possess that property.”
Seeing a gotcha moment in his grasp, another atheist retorted, “Then how did God wrestle with Jacob if he has no physical body?&#8221; (Gen. 32:22-32).
The priest left the conversation with, “I’m sure the Creator can figure out a temporary thing.”
Genesis 32:24 tells us about “a man” who wrestled with Jacob all night. But verse 28 seems to identify the “man” as God. The “man” tells Jacob that Jacob’s new name will be Israel because Jacob had “striven with God.” Jacob seems to believe he wrestled with God, for he says, “I have seen God face to face” (v. 30).
So how does Jacob wrestle with God if God is immaterial? Is this a gotcha moment for the atheist?
No, it’s not! There are several ways we can respond to this challenge.
One possible response is that of the priest: “I’m sure the Creator can figure out a temporary thing.” God is omnipotent, which means he can do anything that doesn’t involve a logical contradiction. Manifesting himself in a material form doesn’t involve a logical contradiction. Therefore, it could be that God temporarily manifested himself as a “man” and wrestled with Jacob.
This is not out of bounds for his omnipotence. Nor would it contradict the claim that God is immaterial.
In order for there to be a contradiction, God taking human form would have to logically entail the claim that God in his divine nature is both immaterial and material at the same time and in the same respect. But God temporarily creating a physical body that he takes on to wrestle with Jacob doesn’t entail that God’s divine nature is both immaterial and material at the same time and in the same respect.
The temporary material form that God creates and uses to manifest himself is entirely on the side of creation and has no bearing on God’s divine essence, which is immaterial. God’s divine nature is infinite being, and the body he creates and takes on is finite being. The finite can’t possibly affect the infinite. Therefore, the temporary material form that God creates and uses to wrestle Jacob doesn’t entail that God in his divine nature has mass.
St. Thomas Aquinas offers another possible take. In response to the claim that we can see the divine essence in this life, which some support with Jacob saying, “I have seen God face to face” (Gen. 32:30), Aquinas states,
<blockquote>A man is said in the Scriptures to see God in the sense that certain figures are formed in the senses or imagination, according to some similitude representing in part the divinity. So, when Jacob says, &#8220;I have seen God face to face,&#8221; this does not mean the divine essence, but some figure representing God (ST I:12:11 ad 1).</blockquote>
Aquinas then explains this event as a form of prophecy—it’s possible that Jacob didn’t actually physically wrestle with a material figure. Rather, he experienced a vision in which he wrestled with a man and he received what Aquinas calls the “prophetic current” (ST II-II:174:1 ad 3). On this reading, the “Does God have mass?” question becomes irrelevant.
But what about Jacob’s thigh that was put out of joint (v. 25)? We’re told that Jacob was “limping because of his thigh” when the sun rose (v. 31). Well, God can make Jacob’s thigh be out of joint without an actual physical wrestling match, just as he struck Zacharias dumb shortly before Jesus&#8217; birth (Luke 1:20).
Another response that makes the “Does God have mass?” question irrelevant is that the “man” was not God, but an angel—a created intelligent being that’s pure spirit. Aquinas is sympathetic to this reading (see ST Appendix 2:3; ST Suppl. 15:3 ad 1). For support, some appeal to Hosea 12:4, which reads, “He [Jacob] strove with the angel and prevailed, he wept and sought his favor.”
Now, a glaring obstacle to this reading is that the passage in question (Gen. 32:22-32) identifies as God the “man” who wrestles with and speaks to Jacob. How can an angel speak in the place of God?
It’s not uncommon for the Bible to speak of an action as being performed by someone even though the action was really performed by a representative. Consider, for example, Moses’ reception of the Commandments. Moses tells the Israelites that he received the Commandments from God: “God spoke all these words saying . . .” (Exod. 20:1; cf. Deut. 5:5). Yet Paul says in Galatians 3:19 that the Law was “ordained by angels through an intermediary,” the intermediary being Moses. Stephen addresses the Jewish council as “you who received the law as delivered by angels” (Acts 7:53). The same idea is found in Hebrews 2:2 and in Josephus’s Antiquities (15, 136).
The same principle is found elsewhere in the Bible, too. Stephen says Moses built the tabernacle in the wilderness (Acts 7:44), but Moses didn’t actually build it with his own hands. Other Israelites did. Similarly, Stephen says just a few verses later in the same chapter, verse 47, that Solomon built the temple, knowing that Solomon didn’t actually build it himself.
That the Bible speaks of actions being performed by someone even though those actions were really performed by a representative provides a possible explanation as to why the author of Genesis describes what the angel does as the actions of God.
There’s yet another possible response, which is very ancient: the “man” is a pre-incarnate Christ.
It differs from our first response in this article only in that it specifies God the Son as the one who acts in and through the temporary material form that he creates and manipulates to wrestle with Jacob.
Recall from above that Hosea 12:4 identifies the “man” who wrestled with Jacob as “the angel.” “Angel” translates the Hebrew word malak and the Greek word aggelos, both of which simply mean “messenger.” Since Christ is the Father’s messenger (John 8:38-42), so it’s argued, Christ can be described as an “angel” without any implications of him being a created being (as Jehovah’s Witnesses believe).
This doesn’t mean the Second Person of the Trinity permanently united to himself a human nature, as he did when he was conceived in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s womb. Theologians call such a permanent uniting the “hypostatic union”—the union of two natures, human and divine, to the one divine person, the Second Person of the Trinity. Rather, this “pre-incarnate” view states the Second Person of the Trinity simply manifested himself temporarily by creating and using a material form, without uniting the material form to his divine nature in his person.
Augustine doesn’t adopt this view, but he does indicate that it was understood this way during his time. In <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160372.htm">Sermon 72</a> on the New Testament, after referring to the individual whom Jacob wrestled with as “the angel” four times, he writes, “So then that angel, who is understood to be the Lord Jesus, says to Jacob.” This view has a robust <a href="https://taylormarshall.com/2015/01/is-the-angel-of-the-lord-the-pre-incarnate-christ.html">pedigree</a>.
But what about the Incarnation? Don’t we say the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity united to his person a human nature? And doesn’t that mean that God ends up having mass while also being immaterial?
Our explanation here is similar to the one above, but also a little different. It’s true that God the Son permanently made a human nature his own, such that we can say God the Son has two natures: divine and human—unlike the case above, where God creates and takes on a material form to manifest himself.
Having a human nature, God the Son can do and experience things that go with being human. And we can say such things about him—for instance, “God the Son suffered, died, and rose from the dead”—and they’ll really be true. Similarly, we can say, “God the Son has mass,” and that statement will really be true, too.
But these things are true only by virtue of the human nature that God assumed to himself, which can’t affect his divine nature any more than any other creature can affect infinite divine being. Therefore, to speak of God the Son having mass via the Incarnation doesn’t entail that God the Son is both material and not immaterial in the same respect at the same time.
Regardless of which explanation you take, each one plausibly escapes the atheist’s trap. There’s no inconsistency between what the Bible says about God and what we know from reason. Contrary to what an atheist might think, there’s no gotcha moment here.

How God Can Wrestle Without a Body

A common Protestant argument in favor of sola fide, or <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/faith-and-works-0">salvation by faith alone</a>, appeals to the salvation of the good thief who was crucified next to Jesus.
For example, I recently shared <a href="https://x.com/JoshuaTCharles/status/1838607072008770051">on social media</a> a quote from St. Augustine in which he sternly warns against “the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that [one] need not perform good works in order to be saved” (On Faith and Works, 21). One commenter replied, “So how many works did the thief on the cross next to Jesus perform after his confession of faith?”
This is a fair question, and the answer is simple.
The works expected of each of us are proportionate to the talents we have received. These talents themselves are given gratuitously (by grace), not earned by any works (which is precisely St. Augustine’s point–and St. Paul’s).
Jesus is very clear about this, particularly in his parable of the talents (Mt. 25). Various servants received five talents, two talents, and one talent, “each according to his ability” (v. 15).
The servant who received five talents returned five more. The one who received two returned two more, and was not penalized for not returning five like the other one. They both went to heaven, and received the exact same response from their master: “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master” (v. 21, 23).
The servant who received one talent, but returned the same one, was sent to Hell (v. 26-30).
So what “talents” did the thief on the cross receive? Not many. He was on the brink of death. He had very little time. He was a condemned man.
But in the bit of time he was given (his “talents”), what did he do? He acknowledged Christ for who he was. He asked him to save him. He accepted responsibility for his sins and expressed sorrow for them, even willingly accepting his own death on a cross as punishment for them. He defended Christ against the jeers of the criminal on the other cross. And finally, he asked Christ to receive him into his kingdom.
So the thief on the cross most certainly received a modest number of “talents,” and with the limited number he received, he produced a return for his Master.
Hence, he is a saint in heaven today, interceding for us: St. Dismas.

The Good Thief Performed Works!

The Perverted Critics of Sound of Freedom

In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes William Albrecht to discuss the Catholic Church&#8217;s approach to evangelization, particularly in relation to Islam. Albrecht emphasizes the importance of building bridges while inviting others to the fullness of truth, countering the caller&#8217;s concerns about cowardice in dialogue.
Transcript:
Caller: I&#8217;ve been Catholic for, like, three decades, and I&#8217;m really disappointed that my Roman Catholic Church has now become the Roman cowardly Church, because in Nostra883 or something, it says, we regard the Muslims with esteem, blah, blah, blah. Why is the Catholic Church not talking about the age of Aisha and about apostasy and blasphemy laws? And why isn&#8217;t Islam being banned in all Christian countries? And why aren&#8217;t Catholic schools teaching, you know, the truth about Islam? I even talked to, like, some of my priests and teachers in my old schools, and they&#8217;re afraid to talk about Islam, and they&#8217;re even blocking me on Facebook.
Cy Kellett: Wait a second, Nick. I just got to. Hang on. Did you just. Blah, blah, blah? A document of the Catholic Church, like, that&#8217;s. That seems to be a little bit dismissive of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
William Albrecht: Yeah, and that&#8217;s a real tough thing there, Nick. Let me. Let me just say one thing, Nick. Maybe you&#8217;re being blocked because maybe you&#8217;re coming across as hostile. We&#8217;re able to have fruitful dialogue, my friend, but you need to come across as one that is willing to have charitable dialogue and not attack a very important document of the church. Number one, there are a lot of phenomenal priests, and I know because I work with many of them that critique Islam. Many of them, I work with a lot of phenomenal Catholic apologists that critique Islam as well, besides Islam. We&#8217;re able to do that, and we&#8217;re able to do that by examining their holy book and being fair about it. But I don&#8217;t think you&#8217;re being fair. Being a Catholic for three decades, I would recommend you read Nostra Aetate because Nostra Aetate is very clear. It is looking for common ground in certain things in regards to Islam. But let me be very clear. It is not saying that we are not to evangelize, though all of Vatican II&#8217;s documents are very clear that we do need to evangelize. That is the number one call, indeed to evangelize. And even though Nostra Aetate is not number one, it&#8217;s not a. A moral judgment to where it&#8217;s going to get into a discussion on Aisha that you brought up there, but rather what it&#8217;s doing. It is showing you that there are shared spiritual truths that we have in common with other religions, not only Islam. And those can be bridges to then evangelize and bring them to the fullness of the truth, my friend. So we need to look at bridges to then be able to use Them as a theological and a pastoral manner to. To bring them to the fullness. It is a call to evangelize, not merely a call to say, okay, well, we have this in common. We&#8217;re not meant to evangelize. No, we are meant to then preach the truth in charity, even if sometimes the charity is rough. So I can tell you right now, maybe the people that you&#8217;re dialoguing with don&#8217;t want to talk about this because I know it might be difficult in some countries. I can tell sai right now in England what we&#8217;re doing right now. Not so easy to do over there in England. That is an unfortunate thing. So it might be that case that maybe depending on the country, maybe people are being urged to not speak out against certain things. But I can tell you right now, the church has done a phenomenal job in building a bridge to show that really we want Muslims to come to the fullness of the truth.
Cy Kellett: Nick, go ahead. What&#8217;s your response?
Caller: That&#8217;s your response?
Caller: Matthew 23:33. Matthew 23:33. Isn&#8217;t it the one where he. Where Jesus was like, condemning all those Pharisees? I mean, Jesus wasn&#8217;t, like, looking for bridges or, you know, whatever there he was just calling out everyone, you know, religious hypocrisy. That seems. It&#8217;s not like what the Catholic Church is doing at all. You&#8217;re looking for common ground, building bridges, because obviously you&#8217;re afraid of being beheaded and afraid of extremists. And that&#8217;s why I&#8217;m disappointed. My Roman Catholic Church is not the Roman cowardly church.
William Albrecht: Unfortunately, brother, you&#8217;re incorrect, because our Lord did look to build bridges and bring people to the fullness. An example would be the Samaritan woman that he dialogues with. He does cross a religious boundary there to show that he can associate with her and try to bring her to the fullness of the truth. But there are many other examples. There are many examples. We find one other one would be The Centurion, Matthew 8, 5, 13, who is a centurion. You know very well he was a Roman. He was a pagan. And our Lord listens to his faith. He listens to it. Now, the goal is to build a bridge and then to call people to the fullness. So you&#8217;re right. Our Lord will tell you the truth. When one is steeped in hypocrisy and they are refusing to come to the fullness, he will call that out. But then there are others that he realizes we can listen to them and then evangelize people that aren&#8217;t hard of heart. There&#8217;s a great difference, my friend. And I would really, really recommend that you look at how the church has done a great job in evangelizing. Another example would be Pope Benedict. He would go and he would dialogue with Muslims and he would call them to conversion in a friendly way. He would look at what do we have in common and then call them to the fullness of the faith. I can give you an example. Pope Benedict and many people don&#8217;t focus on this. In a mosque, he prayed a trinitarian prayer that tells you all you need, my friend.
Caller: I mean, you build bridges when it comes to, like, the good people, the centurion, the Samaritan, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the atheist, but not the Pharisees. You don&#8217;t build bridges with them.
Cy Kellett: Are your senses that all Muslims fall into the bad people category?
Caller: Yes. Yes.
Cy Kellett: Okay.
William Albrecht: Well, then the big problem there, my friend, is then should we just abandon all of them and not try to bring anyone to the fullness? Let me tell you one thing, my friend. I was dialoguing a few days ago with a woman who her whole family has come into the Catholic Church because she&#8217;s been hearing my evangelization efforts along with my friend Sam&#8217;s for many months now. She&#8217;s been hearing us as we&#8217;ve been trying to teach the faith. By your logic, if I would have connected and merely tried to pummel her and call her a Pharisee, I would have lost her immediately and her whole family, and they would have never come to Jesus, who we are able to criticize a religion but then show there are commonalities. But you need to come to the fullness of the truth, which is found only within Catholicism. I think you need to realize that there are a lot of Muslims out there that are steeped in ignorance because they have known nothing other than Islam their whole life. And we really need to evangelize those people.
Cy Kellett: William, I imagine that you and I hate being called a coward for two different reasons. You, because you&#8217;re not a coward.
William Albrecht: Right.
Cy Kellett: And me, I hate that when it hits close to home like that. But I do very much appreciate Nick calling. Look, it does seem to me that it&#8217;s quite obvious that relations between Christians and Muslims, relations between the west and the Muslim world are fraught because there&#8217;s tremendous violence has been perpetrated in, you know, in. Over the course of the last. Well, I actually don&#8217;t know how far back to go, but certainly since 911 here in the United States, we&#8217;re aware that there are violent streams of Islam that are very active in the world. Very, very active in the world. So I don&#8217;t want to just act like, oh, yeah, none of that ever happened. We&#8217;ve forgotten that that happened. But I don&#8217;t know exactly what Nick thinks we&#8217;re supposed to do about that.
William Albrecht: Right, yeah, no, that&#8217;s a very good point there. And I sympathize and I understand Nick and I want to be very clear. Nobody here is defending Islam. In fact, we&#8217;re doing a whole show here showing that Islam is false and people need to be Catholic. Indeed, we&#8217;re in Catholic Answers, showing that the fullness of the truth is found only within the Catholic Church. So we are urging people to come to that fullness. But all the while doing that, we realize that it is valuable to evangelize Muslims. And when we look at the Vatican II documents, we look at Nostra Aetate and many others, I don&#8217;t think that a lot of people give them a fair shake or are realizing what they say. Many people think that they are bending the knee to Islam. That is not the truth. Because if you read the whole of the document, it will look for, okay, what do we have in common then? To show we need to evangelize and to evangelize it is a non negotiable. Our Lord is almighty God. We believe in the Trinity. We believe all these things that are Catholic. But remember by me telling you to build a bridge, I am not telling you to then bend the knee and become Muslim. No, I am telling you there are certain things in common. Now it is time to evangelize and bring them to the fullness of the truth.
Cy Kellett: Again, the numbers. 8, 8, 831-87-8, 8 4. Our guest is William Albrecht. We&#8217;re talking about Islam both hours today and it is an opportunity for hard conversations. So I don&#8217;t want anyone to feel that you are not welcome here.

Angry Caller Says We’re Too Kind to Islam….

“On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/leo-and-luther-the-real-story-of-the-pope-and-the-heretic">Ninety-five Theses</a> against papal indulgences, or the atonement of sins through monetary payment, on the door of the church at Wittenberg, Germany.” That line from a piece by David B. Morris posted by the Library of Congress on its website (“Martin Luther as Priest, Heretic, and Outlaw”) summarizes the popular view of how the Reformation began. But it’s rife with errors. 
To start with the most trivial, the popular image of Luther nailing his theses to the church door is almost certainly a Protestant fiction. Joan Acocella, in a piece for the New Yorker (&#8220;<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/how-martin-luther-changed-the-world">How Martin Luther Changed the World</a>,&#8221; Oct. 30, 2017), points out that modern scholars  
<blockquote>differ on many points, but something that most of them agree on is that the hammering episode, so satisfying symbolically—loud, metallic, violent—never occurred. Not only were there no eyewitnesses; Luther himself, ordinarily an enthusiastic self-dramatizer, was vague on what had happened. He remembered drawing up a list of ninety-five theses around the date in question, but, as for what he did with it, all he was sure of was that he sent it to the local archbishop.</blockquote>
Acocella also points out that the theses were not “a set of non-negotiable demands about how the Church should reform itself in accordance with Brother Martin’s standards,” but rather “like all ‘theses’ in those days, they were points to be thrashed out in public disputations, in the manner of the ecclesiastical scholars of the twelfth century.” 
In terms of more serious errors, what was at the heart of the 95 Theses? According to Morris, Luther was protesting “papal indulgences, or the atonement of sins through monetary payment.” Wrong. Not only did Luther defend papal indulgences, but the only anathema in the entirety of the 95 Theses was his Thesis #71: “Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.” In other words, the people that Martin Luther condemned weren’t Catholics but (modern) Protestants.  
Nor are indulgences “the atonement of sins through monetary payment.” Not only do indulgences not bring about our atonement, but “an indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven” (Pope Paul VI, Indulgentiarum Doctrina, norm. 1, emphasis added). Our atonement is won not by monetary payment, but by Jesus on Calvary. As St. Thomas Aquinas says, “Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race” (Summa Theologica III:48:2).  
So, if the popular theory of Luther’s protest is almost entirely wrong, what’s the truth of it? Luther’s argument was multipronged (there’s a reason there were 95 theses) and a mix of good and bad. Part of his dispute was over the nature and extent of indulgences: where the pope derived the power to grant indulgences and the kinds of penalties that could be remitted through an indulgence.  
Luther, who still believed in purgatory at that point, argued that the “power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish” (Thesis 25). Luther’s views here are idiosyncratic, and neither Protestants (who quickly gave up on indulgences and purgatory) nor Catholics have attempted seriously to defend them. 
More significant was Luther’s critique not of indulgences as such, but of the sale of indulgences. He rejected the teachings of indulgence preachers (Johann Tetzel and others) who “say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory,” countering that “it is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone” (Theses 27-28).  
Luther was largely correct on this point. After all, although indulgences don’t bring about our atonement (as Luther well knew), they are a spiritual good. And the sale of spiritual goods is anathema to Christianity, the sin of <a href="https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/simony">simony</a>, named after the unhappy Simon Magus:  
<blockquote>Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:18-20).</blockquote>
There’s a long history in the Church both of simony popping up and of the Church condemning it. The second canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451) ordered that “if any bishop performs an ordination for money and puts the unsaleable grace on sale,” he was upon conviction to “lose his personal rank,” while the ordained lost “the dignity or responsibility” he had attempted to purchase. A cleric found to have served as a go-between was likewise “demoted from his personal rank,” or, in the case of laymen and monks, anathematized. 
So Luther stood in a long (and holy) tradition of rejecting simony, and the Council of Trent vindicated him on this point. The Council, desiring that “the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honorable name of indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected,” explicitly outlawed “all evil gains” for the obtaining of indulgences (“Decree on Indulgences”). 
But that still leaves a question: how did these abuses happen in the first place? How hard is it to simply not sell spiritual goods? Well, a bit harder than it seems. One way of answering would be to trace the precise history: canon 2 of the Council of Clermont (1095) decreed that “whoever for devotion alone, and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, heads for Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, that expedition is to be imputed to him [as satisfaction] for all penance.” That makes sense: what’s more worthy of an indulgence than risking your life to defend the Church? 
Later Crusades expanded beyond the careful nuance of the Council of Clermont, offering indulgences through what became known as “vow redemption.” In short, those unable (due to age or illness) to go on crusade were given the opportunity to receive an indulgence by paying for someone else to go. And again, the expansion makes a sort of sense: it seems unfair to deprive someone of an indulgence when they were ready and willing but physically unable to go on crusade.  
But this expansion was controversial in its day. In the thirteenth century, Thomas of Cantimpré, O.P., complained that indulgences were being acquired for relatively trivial amounts, amounting to as little as one percent of a person’s moveable wealth (Christoph T. Maier, Preaching the Crusades, 155-56). And it was only a short step from this point to the Church in Luther’s day, when preachers such as Tetzel made indulgences sound like purchasable get-out-of-purgatory-free tickets. 
But tracing the history of the sale of indulgences is incomplete if we don’t also recognize the spiritual tightrope walked by the medieval Church and by all of us today. All Christians (whether they believe in indulgences or not) need to grapple with two core Christian ideas: first, that God really does reward generosity; and second, that it’s impossible to bribe God and evil to try. How we understand (and even “balance”) these two ideas makes a world of difference, since they sit in what seems like an uneasy, even paradoxical, relationship with one another. 
This paradox is captured in the thirty-fifth chapter of the book of Sirach. In verses 10-11, the goodness of giving back to God is proclaimed: “Give to the Most High as he has given, and as generously as your hand has found. For the Lord is the one who repays, and he will repay you sevenfold.” But in the next verse, there’s immediately a warning against transactional spirituality: “Do not offer him a bribe, for he will not accept it; and do not trust to an unrighteous sacrifice; for the Lord is the judge, and with him is no partiality.” In other words, give generously to God, who will reward your generosity, but don’t think that you bribe him or buy heaven. 
Although those verses from Sirach aren’t in Protestant Bibles, the underlying ideas are. St. Paul reminds the Corinthians to give generously since “God loves a cheerful giver” and “he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully” (2 Cor. 9:6-7). He continues: 
<blockquote>He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your resources and increase the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way for great generosity, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God; for the rendering of this service not only supplies the wants of the saints but also overflows in many thanksgivings to God (2 Cor. 9:10-12).</blockquote>
And what does God’s generosity look like? St. Paul hints at the fact that God may give us rewards in this life, saying that “God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work” (2 Cor. 9:8). But God’s generosity is no less true in terms of heavenly rewards. As Jesus says to the rich young man, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Matt. 19:21). 
Tobit 12:8-9 (also not in Protestant Bibles) says that “prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to treasure up gold. For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin.”  
Jesus describes this as a sort of spiritual fortune-building: “Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Luke 12:33-34). And “give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back” (Luke 6:38). 
The idea that giving generously ensures spiritual riches in heaven isn’t some medieval corruption of the gospel: the Bible actually teaches it. And yet we have, alongside this message, warnings such as Sirach 35:12 and Acts 8:18-20 telling us not to try to buy the spiritual gifts of God.  
So how do we avoid falling into this trap? The easy—and hard—answer is to love God for his own sake and before all else. Those rewards aren’t bad: it’s good that God blesses generous givers, and that he answers prayers, and that he considers our meager almsgiving seriously. But the spiritual life was never about the rewards and must never become about the rewards. The gifts God gives are to draw us to him and to reveal something about his generous and loving nature, not to replace him. After all, God wants to give us not merely some reward but himself. 
Jesus is happy to multiply loaves to feed the hungry crowds. But he’s also quick to warn them not to follow him for that reason. A day after the feeding of the 5,000 (John 6:1-14), Jesus rebuked his followers, saying, “you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (v. 26). It’s easy for us to judge his hungry followers, just as it’s easy to judge the medieval Christians giving money to try to get indulgences for their loved ones. But before we do that, it’s worth asking: are we so different today?

What Is the Deal with Indulgences?

<div>what is the word for when something that happened in the Old Testament happens again in the New Testament? typology?</div><div>Biblical typology refers to when a person, event, thing, etc.—usually from Old Testament times—foreshadows someone or something or event, etc., in the New Testament/New Covenant era. For example, in the Old Testament, Jonah’s three days in the belly of a whale prefigure Jesus Christ’s three days in the tomb (Matt. 12:38-42). In addition, Melchizedek’s offering of bread and wine (Gen. 14:17-20) prefigures Jesus’ offering of his body and blood, soul and divinity under the appearances of bread and wine in the New Covenant (Matt. 26:26-28; Heb. 5:7-10).
So we see that a similarity must exist between the type and the archetype, and yet the latter is always greater. In addition, the destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 A.D., which Jesus prophesied, prefigures the end of the world.
For more on typology, please see CCC 115-118 and 128-130, as well as <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/that-moses-thing">this related article</a> in Catholic Answers Magazine.
</div>

A Primer on Biblical Typology

In this episode Trent lampoons comedians who attack Christianity under the guise of comedy.
Transcription:
Trent:
Comedy is pretty subjective, but in today&#8217;s episode, we&#8217;re going to refute the objective nonsense pedaled by comedians who just want to ridicule or try to refute the faith. Now, there&#8217;s nothing wrong with poking fun at Christian culture before they got involved with politics. The Babylon Bee primarily made fun of modern evangelicalism, but these comedians were going to talk about today aren&#8217;t even trying to be funny. They just want to attack Christianity under the guise of comedy, and so we&#8217;re going to point out what&#8217;s wrong with their laughably bad arguments. First, here&#8217;s Sarah Silverman.
CLIP:
Christianity is super old, but it&#8217;s crazy. I mean, it&#8217;s born a sinner by being born. You are a sinner and you&#8217;re going to hell, but you can just apologize and then you can go to heaven. No big deal if you&#8217;re a murderer, same thing. It&#8217;s just apologize and go to heaven. You can be Hitler and go to confession and say, forgive me, father, I killed 6 million Jews, and the priest would just be like, no problem. Say 10. Heil Marys and Hitler goes to heaven.
Trent:
When it comes to salvation, I love watching non-religious people try to say God is unfair. On the one hand, they think it&#8217;s horrible. God would send someone to hell. On the other hand, they think it&#8217;s horrible that God would allow some sinners to repent and go to heaven, but this leads to the question, which sins should God forgive and which should he not forgive? Many of these critics will just offer an arbitrary standard of a good person or someone as good as them, which I refuted in my previous episode on the one fallacy that sends most people to hell. The self-serving nature of the good person standard is evident in Silverman&#8217;s case given who she is merciful towards. In this other monologue, she expresses being torn about condemning Louis c K&#8217;s sex scandal with women he masturbated in front of because well, Louis CK is her friend.
CLIP:
Here&#8217;s where I&#8217;m at on it as of this moment. It could change tomorrow, and if it does, I will keep you posted. One of my best friends of over 25 years, Louis CK masturbated in front of women. He wielded his power with women in fucked up ways sometimes to the point where they left comedy entirely. I love Louis, but Louis did these things. Both of those statements are true, so I just keep asking myself, I can. You love someone who did bad things. Can you still love them?
Trent:
If this were somebody else, Silverman would have zero empathy for him, but that&#8217;s what makes God so good. He doesn&#8217;t only love his friends. God loves the entire world and he desires the salvation of every single person. There is no sin too big for God to forgive and no person beyond God&#8217;s transformative and redeeming love. If you ever tell yourself that God could never love or forgive, you know that that&#8217;s not true. That evil thought comes from the devil. Ask God to bind it and free you from its influence in your mind. Next, we have George Carlin who thinks he has a knockdown argument against the pro-life position.
CLIP:
Here&#8217;s another question I have. How come when it&#8217;s us, it&#8217;s an abortion and when it&#8217;s a chicken, it&#8217;s an an omlet
Trent:
Because ding dong, chicken eggs are not fertilized. When you eat an omelet, you aren&#8217;t eating an embryonic chicken, but when you abort a pregnancy, you kill an embryonic human being and some eggs people eat are fertilized. In Southeast Asia, there&#8217;s a snack called balut, which are fertilized eggs typically from a duck, and you can tell that&#8217;s not a potential duck. It&#8217;s just a really tiny duck. In the same way, a fetus or embryo is not a potential human. He or she is a tiny human who is the victim of murder when he or she&#8217;s aborted
CLIP:
Is a fetus, a human being. This seems to be the central question. Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn&#8217;t count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there&#8217;s a miscarriage, they don&#8217;t have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say, we have two children and one on the way, instead of saying we have three children, people say life begins at conception. I say life began about a billion years ago, and it&#8217;s a continuous process. Continuous just keeps rolling along.
Trent:
Life may have been around for billions of years, but an individual&#8217;s life is not that long. I would&#8217;ve asked George Carlin, how old are you? Why would you only start counting at the moment you left your mother&#8217;s womb? How does your location change your value? Were you not a human five minutes before that time? We celebrate birth, not because it&#8217;s the moment we came into existence, but because birth is the moment. Our existence changed from being a private exclusive one with our mothers to being a public one that can be shared and more easily documented with other people, but our life before birth was still life. And when that life ends in miscarriage, for example, many people do have funerals in this case, but so what? Many people had no emotional reaction to George Carlin dying in 2008 or to the millions of other people who die every year. But that lack of an emotional reaction doesn&#8217;t mean those people. Were not people we speak about unborn children with potentiality like I have a child on the way, or we don&#8217;t count them in a census because they have a high risk of mortality. Carlin even notes this.
CLIP:
80% of a woman&#8217;s fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month. During those delightful few days she has, they wind up on sanitary napkins and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who&#8217;s had more than one period is a serial killer. Consistency. Consistency
Trent:
Throughout most of human history. Half of all children did not make it past the age of five, but that didn&#8217;t mean they weren&#8217;t human beings. People over the age of a hundred have very high rates, but that doesn&#8217;t mean it should be legal to kill people over the age of a hundred for any reason. Just because people are likely to die does not give you and I the right to deliberately kill them via something like dismemberment. Well, moving on to a less gruesome subject. Here&#8217;s Patton Oswald&#8217;s complaint about people who base their morality on what the Bible says.
CLIP:
Just because you like something in a book doesn&#8217;t mean you can have the thing you like in the book happen in real life. That&#8217;s what crazy people want. I can&#8217;t go to the White House with a bunch of green lantern comics and go, I want a green lantern ring. I saw it in a book. I like make the thing in the book. I like be here now. I would be justifiably tased if I did that. Nobody would go, Hey, we have to respect his beliefs. You&#8217;ve got to respect everybody&#8217;s beliefs. No, you don&#8217;t. That&#8217;s what gets us in trouble. Look, you have to acknowledge everyone&#8217;s beliefs and then you have to reserve the right to go. That is stupid. Are
Trent:
You kidding me?
Yeah. We shouldn&#8217;t make every law in the Bible the law of the land, but some laws like thou shall not kill or thou shall not steal will be pretty good. We can use reason to determine which biblical precepts would be good for society as a whole to adopt through civil law and which precepts should be adopted through the church or even through the individual&#8217;s private devotional life. But more importantly, Oswald is completely inconsistent because he does not believe it&#8217;s okay to insult people for believing a delusion. I know this because he apologized to his transgender fans for simply taking a picture with Dave Chappelle who had the audacity as a comedian to make fun of transgender people. So according to Oswald, if a Christian wants the government to protect the unborn via legislation or legislate the correct definition of marriage, then that Christian is just as nuts as someone who wants comic books to be the law of the land, and we don&#8217;t have to respect their beliefs.
But if a man with a penis says, I want to be a woman, call me a woman and let me change in a locker room in front of little girls, well then we have to respect her beliefs and say, okay, ma&#8217;am, write this way. So get over yourself. Oswalt, even though I will admit your epic Star Wars filibuster from a 2013 episode of Parks and Rec was pretty awesome. I&#8217;m going to give you that. And you know what else is awesome when you subscribe to the channel and it&#8217;s really awesome when you support us@trenthornpodcast.com for just $5 a month. You get access to bonus content and you help us grow and stay sponsor free. So if you have benefited from our content, consider just making even a $5 monthly gift or an annual $50 gift@trenthornpodcast.com. Next up, we have the worst argument from Ricky DVAs in his informal debate on religion with Stephen Colbert,
CLIP:
But science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction in any holy book in any other fiction and destroyed it, okay, in a thousand years time, that wouldn&#8217;t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book right and every fact and destroyed them all in a thousand years, they&#8217;d all be back because all the same tests would be the same result. That&#8217;s good.
Trent:
No, Steven, it&#8217;s not good. That&#8217;s an idiotic argument. First, DVE is just saying that we should only trust facts that can be replicated scientifically, and if we destroyed all books, we would eventually rediscover scientific facts. Actually, we probably wouldn&#8217;t do that because different cultures on earth haven&#8217;t made equal scientific advancements, so accidents of history can keep scientific knowledge from being discovered. Also, scientists are freaking out that even when they&#8217;ve discovered something through repeated testing, they often can&#8217;t repeat that continually in laboratories. This is something called the replication crisis, but even if Dravet were correct, it&#8217;s not like you can only believe in science because it&#8217;s discoverable and other forms of knowledge aren&#8217;t. It isn&#8217;t just science that&#8217;s repeatable. If you got rid of every philosophy book, people would still ask basic questions about reality that would lead you back to the classical arguments for the existence of God.
DVA is correct that if you got rid of fiction like Shakespeare from written texts and people&#8217;s memories, the works of William Shakespeare would never return. But if you destroyed all works of history, those works of history wouldn&#8217;t return either, but that would not prove the historical events they describe, be they Caesar crossing the Rubicon, Hannibal crossing the Alps, or Christ dying on the cross, and his disciples proclaiming his resurrection. That would not prove that those historical events never happened in the first place. Finally, I&#8217;ll leave you with a clip that takes a jab at common atheist attitudes from comedian Jeff Allen, who used to be an atheist but is now a Christian,
CLIP:
Was a shallow, vacuous, empty vessel. I really was, and I didn&#8217;t have anything to talk to this man about until I found out because of his wealth, he had access to some of the nicest golf courses in America. He was actually a member, a Merefield village here, and that&#8217;s all I needed to hear. He was my new best friend. What I didn&#8217;t know about him was he was a fundamentalist Christian, and I didn&#8217;t know that. And we&#8217;re sitting on the fairway one day just talking and we&#8217;re talking about life, we&#8217;re talking about this, we&#8217;re talking about that. And then he brings up the Bible and I said, I don&#8217;t give me the Bible. I don&#8217;t want to hear the Bible. And he says, what do you mean? And I says, I&#8217;m an atheist. I don&#8217;t believe in that garbage. And he says, well, what is it about the Bible you don&#8217;t think is true? And I said, I don&#8217;t know. I never read it. And he said, well, you&#8217;re not an atheist. You&#8217;re a moron.
And I have to tell you I would&#8217;ve hit him except that I would&#8217;ve lost access to Merefield village. I wasn&#8217;t going to do that. And I asked him to explain himself and he said, well, to be honest with you, a true atheist is not only a biblical scholar, but is scholarly in all the face of the earth. And after a long intellectual journey has come to the conclusion that there is no God of the universe, you on the other hand want to circumvent the entire intellectual process and just come to the conclusion that there&#8217;s no God that&#8217;s lazy and moronic. I didn&#8217;t know what to say.
Trent:
I couldn&#8217;t have said it better myself. Thank you all so much for watching, and I hope you have a very blessed day.

Anti-Christian Comedians (REBUTTED)

Some Churches practice “Open Communion,” where they invite anyone who wants to receive the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper to do so.
The Catholic Church doesn’t follow this practice, and some criticize it for this, saying that it’s unfair, unfriendly, or unloving to not invite everyone to receive.
In this episode, Jimmy Akin shows you the reasons why the Catholic Church has the practice it does—and how this practice is actually based on biblical principles.
&nbsp;
TRANSCRIPT:
Howdy, folks!
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
And you can also help me keep making this podcast—and you can get early access to new episodes—by going to <a href="https://patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast">Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast</a>
&nbsp;
The Source and Summit
The Second Vatican Council describes the Eucharist as “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Lumen Gentium 11), but not everyone understands why.
In fact, people have a lot of questions and objections to Catholic teaching and practice regarding the Eucharist.
For example, some wonder why the Catholic Church doesn’t practice “open communion” like some churches and invite any and all baptized Christians to receive.
Communion isn’t given to absolutely everyone in a Catholic church, and the Church stresses the need to receive it worthily.
So let’s review some of the basics about the Eucharist and its importance in Catholic life.
&nbsp;
The Roots of the Eucharist
Anyone who attends Mass regularly knows that the Eucharist was instituted by Jesus “on the night he was betrayed,” just before the Crucifixion. However, its roots go deeper in history.
The foundational event of Israel’s national life was the Exodus, when God took his people out of Egypt. At that time, God instituted the Passover meal, in which the Israelites sacrificed a lamb, painted their doorposts with its blood, and consumed its flesh in a sacred meal (Exodus 12).
The blood on the doorposts caused God’s wrath to pass over the Israelites, and the flesh of the lamb strengthened them for their journey to the Promised Land.
On the way, God made a covenant with the Israelites. This covenant was instituted with sacrifices, and to signify the union of God and his people, Moses applied part of the blood to the altar and part to the people, describing it as “the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you” (Exodus 24:8).
But the Israelites were unfaithful to the covenant God had made through Moses, like when they worshipped idols and foreign gods. So God sent the prophet Jeremiah to announce a new and better covenant:
The days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke (Jeremiah 31:31-32).
&nbsp;
The Institution of the Eucharist
Jesus combined these themes when he instituted the Eucharist. The context in which he did so was a Passover supper. At the beginning of the meal, Jesus tells his disciples,
I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer (Luke 22:15).
The Eucharist is thus the Christian equivalent of Passover. While the first Passover meal pointed forward to the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, the Eucharist points forward to Christians’ deliverance from sin.
Christ himself takes the place of the Passover lamb. The Gospel of John describes Jesus as “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29), and St. Paul even says that “Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7).
During the Last Supper, Jesus took bread and said, “Take, eat; this is my body” (Matt. 26:26). The flesh of Christ as the new Passover Lamb thus strengthens Christians for their journey to the heavenly Promised Land.
He also took a chalice and gave it to them to drink, saying, “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Like the original Passover lamb, Christ’s blood causes God’s wrath to pass over Christians because their sins are forgiven.
Just as the blood of the covenant instituted by Moses was applied both to the altar and the people, so is Christ’s blood. It is “poured out for many” on the altar of the Cross, and it is applied to the people when they drink from the chalice.
Jesus also is instituting the new and better covenant prophesied by Jeremiah. This is made particularly clear in Luke’s Gospel, where Jesus says that the chalice signifies “the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20).
The Eucharist thus sums up the themes God established with his people Israel and elevates them to a new level.
The original events involved the delivery of a single nation from slavery, the creation of a national covenant, and a journey to an earthly Promised Land. Now, with the coming of the Messiah, we have the deliverance of all people from all nations from sin, the institution of a universal covenant, and the journey to the ultimate Promise Land—heaven.
&nbsp;
The Eucharist in the Church
The Passover meal was not a one-time event but something God’s people did regularly to commemorate what he had done for them.
Similarly, Jesus did not mean the Eucharist to be celebrated just one time. He told the disciples, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19), and it became a regular feature of Christian life.
In fact, it was celebrated far more frequently than the Passover, which was held only once a year, but in his letters to the Corinthians, St. Paul told the Christians that—because of abuses they were committing—“When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat”  (1 Corinthians 11:20).
We’ll come back to the idea of committing abuses when receiving the Eucharist, but the important thing to note for the moment is that Paul speaks of celebrating the Lord’s Supper as a regular part of Christian worship—whenever the Corinthians came together.
Later in the letter, he indicated that they met together “on the first day of every week” (1 Corinthians 16:2) or every Sunday.
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around A.D. 53, so the Sunday Eucharist became a regular feature of Christian life very early.
&nbsp;
Worthiness to Receive Communion
Just as the Israelites were unfaithful to the covenant established through Moses and could celebrate the Passover unworthily, Christians can be unfaithful to the new covenant and profane the Eucharist.
After commenting on how Christ has been sacrificed as our Paschal Lamb, Paul immediately says,
Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:8).
He says the Eucharist is not to be received indiscriminately. Instead, an examination of conscience is needed. He says:
Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup (1 Corinthians 11:28).
Receiving Communion unworthily can have dire consequences. Paul tells the Corinthians,
That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died (1 Corinthians 11:30).
A sin he particularly warns against is idolatry, explaining that “what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons” (1 Corinthians 10:20). It was thus a mortal sin to partake both of pagan sacrifices and the Lord’s supper. Paul says:
You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (1 Corinthians 10:21-22).
But idolatry is just one mortal sin. Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul listed a bunch of moral vices and indicated that if a person commits any mortal sin and does not repent, he “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9).
&nbsp;
Jesus Himself
Why is it so important to receive Communion worthily? Why can failure to do so lead to dire consequences?
Jesus revealed the reason when he instituted the Eucharist and said, “This is my body. . . . This is my blood.” The Eucharist is Jesus himself, and so you need to be in a state of grace to receive him.
Paul makes the same point:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16).
Consequently,
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:27),
And,
Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself (1 Corinthians 11:29).
As these passages make clear, the Eucharist is Jesus himself. He is both the source of the Christian life and the summit toward which we are journeying.
By contrast, mortal sin is a state in which one has rejected God. Mortal sin means turning your back on him.
To receive Communion in mortal sin is a contradiction. It is to embrace Jesus while simultaneously spurning him.
And that’s why the Catholic Church does not practice open communion and invite any baptize person who wants to receive to do so.
In the first place, not all Christians believe in the real presence of Christ. They would eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ and thus drink judgment on themselves.
And in the second place, not all Christians are in a state of grace. Some are in a state of mortal sin, and they would be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
So the practice that the Catholic Church uses is actually based on biblical principles and designed to protect.
It protects Jesus from being profaned by those who would receive improperly, and it protects those who would receive improperly . . . from God’s judgment.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
And you can also help me keep making this podcast—and you can get early access to new episodes—by going to <a href="https://patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast">Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast</a>
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!

Why Can’t Everyone Receive the Eucharist?

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, is <a href="https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/what-did-archbishop-paglia-say-this">taking his turn on the hot seat</a> for a speech he gave that seemed to say the Catholic Church could live with laws and judicial rulings that permit <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/death-with-dignity">suicide and euthanasia</a>.  
I found the speech <a href="https://www.ilriformista.it/sul-suicidio-assistito-e-arrivato-il-momento-di-una-legge-353478/">in Italian</a>, and Google was kind enough to translate it for me. And I&#8217;m going to tell you something you&#8217;re not going to like: It was a really good speech by a clearly brilliant mind. I learned things from it. How often does that happen in a short speech? 
That said, it was also one of the most senseless things I have ever read. 
What kind of leader thinks that when people are dying all around you, your society is collapsing, and you hold one of the highest positions of authority in both the Church and the pro-life movement, it makes sense to move off the big, pro-life themes and instead raise obscure hypotheticals about how the Catholic Church could accommodate itself, if it had to, to some leakage around the edges of the culture of death? 
I&#8217;m trying to think of an analogy. 
Maybe something like this: a bridge collapses. A highway worker has been given a yellow vest and two red flags. His is an important position. He could wave the flags vigorously to warn people not to drive off, but he gets into a debate with the people standing nearby about how we shouldn’t really blame the engineers and builders of the bridge. We should accompany them, engage with them in a mutually enriching dialogue. 
Look, dude, I&#8217;m all for accompaniment and enrichment, but wave the freaking flags. That&#8217;s your job. Do your job. 
Archbishop Paglia has been given a job that comes with a yellow vest and a pair of red flags. It is simply not his job to muse publicly about obscure possibilities as if he were some college professor.  
You got the yellow. You got the flags. Wave the flags. 
Here&#8217;s my bias: I am convinced the Church is plagued with good, often brilliant, men who have risen to the very top without, apparently, gaining any insight into their moment.  They engage and accompany and enrich—all well and good—but fail to teach, to lead, to proclaim.  
They seem to think that their job is to form committees and put out documents. They love long processes and listening sessions. They seem to think that their job is anything but the job of speaking in bold primary-colored-language to a lost age.   
They sometimes give wonderful speeches full of erudition and genuine insight. 
And those speeches are worse than useless because they confuse rather than clarify in an age when every Catholic bishop should be getting on his knees begging for help in being so radiantly clear it hurts. 
Dude, wave the flags!

Wave the Death Flags!

Catholic Answers apologist Tim Staples addresses concerns about reading books by figures like Machiavelli, previously banned by the Church. While those bans are no longer binding, Tim emphasizes the importance of understanding the Church&#8217;s reasons and assessing your own spiritual maturity. He encourages informed reading for those strong in faith but advises caution for those susceptible to the presented ideas.
&nbsp;
Transcript:
Edward, thank you for the call. Go ahead with your question for Tim. Hi Tim. Yes, hello. Okay, so there was a recent book that I had been turned off of because I discovered that it included some work by Machiavelli and I understand that Machiavelli&#8217;s works were all banned by the church for quite a long time, even though it&#8217;s my understanding that that&#8217;s been discontinued. So I wanted to ask, would it be sinful to read literature by people like Machiavelli? No, it would not be sinful. But I appreciate your question, Edward, because I do think that we need to take seriously those, you know, documents from the church. The church is our mother. She loves us. And there&#8217;s a reason why the church banned those. And remember, we&#8217;re talking about a time when there was a lot of illiteracy. There was a lot of naivete, like we don&#8217;t have it today, right, Cyco? I think it&#8217;s with all the images, you know, from video and all that. I think we&#8217;re becoming less literate, not more literate. Yeah, it is true. And so we have to take those things seriously. But of course, from a canonical perspective, no, they do not have any binding force any longer. But yeah, I want to know what books were banned and what were not, but then I will read them.
And it&#8217;s okay to read them, understanding why did Holy Mother Church say no, because hey, there&#8217;s stuff in here that&#8217;s dangerous. But remember, even those, you know, lists of banned books, it didn&#8217;t mean that theologians and philosophers could not read them. That was a list, generally speaking, for the faithful. Hey, these things are bad. They can lead you astray. Don&#8217;t read them. But of course, the church had theologians and scholars and seminary professors and stuff that read them even back then in order to refute them, right? And so yeah, there&#8217;s nothing wrong with it, but we still have to take seriously. And I would add this, Cy, Kelly. Yes, Tim Staples. That if you&#8217;re weak in your faith, you shouldn&#8217;t. Now, I can&#8217;t tell you that, you know, this is a near occasion of sin for you and you can&#8217;t do it, but you need to be honest with yourself. I mean, it&#8217;s like porn. We all know, right?
You don&#8217;t look at porn because it can lead you and will lead you into sin. Well, in the area of the faith, if you read stuff that&#8217;s shaky, I know my son Luke, who&#8217;s listening probably right now, Luke loves to grab some of&#8211;he reads everything. My son reads every book in the house. My goodness, this kid is, he&#8217;s just a voracious reader, but he&#8217;ll pick up McCarthy&#8217;s book, you know, or some book like that. And I have to warn him, hey, you know, that&#8217;s not&#8211;that&#8217;s actually a guy teaching false teachings and whatnot. And so I warn him and then he can warn it. He can read it properly. And if he has questions, he can ask me. So that&#8217;s what we have to do is if we&#8217;re reading these things, we&#8217;re reading them in order to understand the world better so we can evangelize better.
Like, subscribe, and check out our livestreams Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 p.m. Pacific. Or find the episode after on YouTube, your favorite podcast platform or our Catholic Answers app.

Can Catholics Read Banned Books?

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus tells Simon, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.” Catholics interpret the rock as a reference to Peter. From this, Catholics infer that Jesus intended Peter to be the visible foundation and head of his Church on earth. This makes Peter the source of unity for Christ’s Church—for, wherever the foundation and head is, there is the true Church of Jesus.
Catholics appeal to this verse as biblical evidence for the papacy because the Catholic doctrine of the papacy is precisely that Christ appointed Peter and his successors to be the source of unity of and the identifying mark for Jesus’ Church on earth.
Some Protestants reply by conceding that Peter is the rock but challenge the idea that he is unique in being the foundation of the Church. Let’s look at two such replies.
1. “All the apostles are the foundation, not just Peter”
One argument appeals to Ephesians 2:20, where Paul teaches the “household of God” is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” Well-known Protestant apologists Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie <a href="https://archive.org/details/romancatholicsev0000geis">write of this passage</a>: “Two things are clear from this: all the apostles—not just Peter—are the foundation of the church . . . and the only one who was given a place of uniqueness or prominence was Christ, the capstone” (208).
Geisler and MacKenzie seem to be making two arguments here. First, since the apostles too are identified as the foundation of the Church, there’s nothing unique about Peter being the rock of the Church in Matthew 16:18. The second argument is that if Peter were unique as the foundation of the Church, then he would have been distinguished from the other apostolic foundation stones, as Jesus is distinguished. But since he’s not, Geisler and MacKenzie conclude that Peter is not unique.
In response to the first argument, there’s an assumed hidden premise that Geisler and MacKenzie never say out loud: whenever something is said of two people, those two people must be equals with regard to what is said about them. Only if this premise is true can Geisler and MacKenzie conclude that Peter has no unique status relative to the apostles based on the fact that the “foundation” metaphor is used for both Peter and the apostles.
The problem for Geisler and MacKenzie is that this hidden premise is demonstrably false. Consider, for example, how Jesus is called our shepherd in 1 Peter 2:25: “For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the shepherd [Greek, poimena] and Guardian [episkopon] of your souls.” This Greek word for shepherd, poimena, is also used to describe pastors in the Church—for example, where Paul writes, “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors [Greek, poimenas] and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). If we were to follow Geisler and MacKenzie’s logic, we’d have to conclude that Jesus has no unique status as our pastor, since the Bible says there are other pastors in the Church, too!
Now let’s consider the second argument: if Peter were unique as the foundation of the Church, then Paul would have singled Peter out among the other apostles as he did for Jesus. Since Paul didn’t do such a thing, Peter must have no special role as the foundation of the Church.
But why must we think that Paul would have singled Peter out among the apostles the way he did for Jesus? It’s reasonable to think that only if Paul’s focus were Peter and his role as the rock of the Church in relation to the other apostles. But that is not Paul’s focus.
Paul’s focus is on the Ephesians and their relation to the apostles and Jesus as pieces that make up the edifice of the Church, which Paul calls a “holy temple” (v. 21). The Ephesians are pieces built into the edifice. The apostles and prophets are the foundation. And Jesus is the cornerstone, “in whom the whole structure [of the Church] is joined together” (v. 22).
Since Paul’s concern is not the order among the apostles as the foundation of the Church, but simply the order that exists among the Ephesians, the apostles and prophets, and Jesus as pieces that make up the edifice of the Church, we shouldn’t expect Paul to highlight Peter’s unique status as the rock of the Church.
The “foundation” metaphor is being used in Ephesians 2:20 in a different context and for a different purpose. We must read it accordingly and not try to shoehorn its meaning into an entirely different context, such as that of Matthew 16:18. The reverse is true as well. We shouldn’t take the Catholic interpretation of Peter as the rock in Matthew 16:18 and force its meaning onto Ephesians 2:20. We have to remember that metaphors can be used in more than one way in the Bible.
2. “Peter is only a pillar, not the pillar”
Another Protestant counter derives from Galatians 2:9, where Paul writes, “When they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” That Peter (called Cephas, the Greek transliteration of the Greicized Aramaic Kephas) is named second in this list of pillars is taken as proof that Peter is not unique in his role as the foundation of the Church. Protestant apologist Jason Engwer makes the argument <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-pillars-of-roman-catholicism.html">this way</a>:
<blockquote>It’s doubtful that people would have been grouping Peter with other apostles as pillars of the church and naming him second, after James, if he was thought of as a pope. Remember, Catholics are the ones who place so much emphasis on the alleged significance of Peter’s being a foundation of the church in Matthew 16, which is similar to the pillar concept in Galatians 2:9. It’s highly unlikely that the early Christians believed that Peter was such a unique foundation of the church, the infallible ruler of all Christians, including the other apostles, yet perceived him as described in Galatians 2:9.</blockquote>
We might summarize this argument as follows:
Premise 1: If Peter were unique as the foundation of the Church according to Matthew 16:18, then he would not have been listed second as a pillar of the Church in Galatians 2:9.
Premise 2: Peter is listed second as a pillar of the Church in Galatians 2:9.
Conclusion: Therefore, Peter is not unique as the foundation of the Church according to Matthew 16:18.
The underlying assumption of premise one is that being listed second must reveal an inferior rank. But we can challenge this assumption, for there are additional plausible explanations for Peter being listed after James.
The order of the list, with James first, Peter second, and John third, may simply be a consequence of the order in which these men’s names came into Paul’s mind as he was dictating. When we list people or things when writing an email or telling a story, we typically do not intentionally list them in order of importance or greatness unless we have a reason to—and so, without any indication of such a reason in this text, there’s no cause to think that Paul is doing so here.
Even if Paul did intend some significance to the ordering, it still does not require the conclusion that Peter did not have the special role that Catholics say he was given in Matthew 16:18.
First, because elsewhere in Galatians, Peter seems to be ranked above James. Evidence suggests that this James (not the brother of John—the other one) became the leader of the Jerusalem church when Peter left after his imprisonment (Acts 12:17). Recall Galatians 1:18-19, where Paul speaks of his first trip to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion and implies that Peter’s in charge. He writes, “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” So it would be a mistake to portray Galatians as if it uniformly supported James holding rank over Peter. The first chapter of the letter does the reverse.
So what is happening in Galatians 2:9? This trip takes place fourteen years after Paul’s initial visit with Peter (see Gal. 2:1), who had left Jerusalem and gone to Antioch after he escaped from prison. Peter’s absence from Jerusalem would have given James the opportunity to take the reins to oversee the Jerusalem church (cf. Acts 21:17-24). Protestant New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce <a href="https://www.ffbruce.com/the-epistle-to-the-galatians/">explains</a>:
<blockquote>On Paul’s earlier visit to Jerusalem, Cephas was the most important man in the church; Paul went up specifically to meet him, and adds that he also saw James. But all our evidence (scanty as it is) indicates that James became increasingly influential in the Jerusalem church. An opportunity to increase his influence at the expense of Cephas/Peter came with the latter’s departure from Jerusalem after his escape from Herod Agrippa’s prison (121-122).</blockquote>
That James had become the bishop of the Jerusalem church at the time Paul visits Jerusalem in Galatians 2:9 provides a plausible explanation as to why Paul might have intentionally listed James first. It could have been a way of acknowledging his current headship in the local church. Peter was only there temporarily to attend the Council of Jerusalem.
There is yet another plausible explanation: Paul was undercutting the claims of the Judaizers. These were a group of first-century Jewish Christians who argued that Gentiles needed to be circumcised if they wanted to be Christian. Paul called them the “circumcision party” in Galatians 2:12, and they held James in high esteem. In fact, in that same verse, Paul tells us that the Judaizers, whom Peter feared offending, “came from James.” So, if there were anyone that the Judaizers would have tried to pit against Paul concerning whether the Gentiles should be circumcised, it would have been James.
Paul counters this move by showing that James endorsed his view that circumcision is unnecessary for the Gentiles. And perhaps to drive home the point, Paul lists James first as a pillar: “When they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). Paul thereby undercut any attempt by the Judaizers to make their case by appealing to official backing from the Jerusalem church.
These are just two of many Protestant comebacks to Catholics’ reliance on Matthew 16:18 to defend the papacy. But no matter where the discussion might go, Catholics can be confident that Peter is indeed the rock on which Christ’s church is built.

There Can Be Only One (Pope)!

In this free-for-all-Friday, Trent is joined by his wife Laura to take questions from their patrons about their marriage and lives together.

FFAF: 10 Year Wedding Anniversary Patron Q+A (with Laura Horn)

<div>Please provide information on atheism.</div><div>Please see <a href="https://www.catholic.com/search?q=atheism">this link</a> for various resources from Catholic Answers.
You may also want to purchase our <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/20-answers-atheism/">20 Answers</a> booklet on atheism as well as Trent Horn&#8217;s <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/answering-atheism-how-to-make-the-case-for-god-with-logic-and-charity/">Answering Atheism</a>.
</div>

Information on Atheism

“Theism is Irrational” (Rationality Rules REBUTTED)

My wife and I aren’t confirmed yet. Does practicing do anything yet since we’re not fully initiated into the Church?

I’m Jewish. What is the Catholic interpretation of Psalm 110?

Why can’t we have premarital intercourse?

Why does the show prompt there’s a non-optional requirement to be Catholic? Why does the Church think that it bears any weight in an individual’s relationship with God?

In his new book, Building a Civilization of Love: A Catholic Response to Racism, Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers is boldly honest about the Catholic Church and racism in the United States. But he is also hopeful because he believes there is an answer to the evils of racial division in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He joins us for a conversation about racism and Catholicism.

The Catholic Solution to Racism

Jimmy Akin explains Pope Paul VI&#8217;s teaching on when breaking a penitential practice, such as abstinence from meat, constitutes a mortal sin, and what to do when we are in a social gathering where we may feel pressured to break that practice.
Transcript:
Host: Austin in Des Moines, Iowa, you are on with Jimmy Akin, what’s your question?
Caller: Hi, my wife and I have been invited over to a friend’s house with five other couples, a Friday in Lent, this Friday. And meat is going to be served, main dish. Just wondering a couple things, how to handle it. They’re all Catholic, too, which is frustrating. But we’re the only two, I think, that object. If we—first of all, if we did go and we ate meat, is that a mortal sin? And I guess, just looking for, maybe, guidance on how we handle this. Do we just go there and eat a salad? Do we…you know…object and kind of be the…
Jimmy: Stickouts?
Caller:The stickouts, the “holier-than-thou” couple.
Jimmy: Okay, well, so let’s deal with the first question first. The Church’s regulations for this are found in—at least in terms of universal law—are found in a document that was released by Pope Paul VI back in the 1960s called “Penitemane.” And in “Penitemane,” the pope re-ordered the Church’s penitential discipline, including the discipline of fasting and abstinence, which is what this is, abstinence from meat. And he indicated that the substantial observance of the Church’s penitential laws does bind gravely. And so if you were to fail to substantially observe them, and do so knowingly and deliberately, then that would constitute a mortal sin.
However, the fact that he chose to say “substantial observance—” that the substantial observance of these laws binds gravely—that suggests that there is…that under the current law, there is some flexibility; that one could deviate from the letter of the law in an insubstantial, or non-substantial way, and it wouldn’t be gravely sinful. And if you look at commentators on this, some of them will talk about, like, okay, a single exception, you know, wouldn’t be a substantial failure to observe the laws and their spirit. And so I could imagine commentators saying that it would be okay, in this situation, since you’re not in control of the food that’s being served, and you don’t want to be rude to these people, and you could even push them away from the Church…so I could imagine some commentators taking that position.
I could also imagine saying this is an opportunity to help these people take their faith more seriously. And doing so in a nice way…I, as someone who for many years has eaten low-carb, am used to being the stick-out at social gatherings, and my strategy at such events is to bend over backwards to make other people relaxed and having a good time and not make an issue out of my particular dietary practice. And so that’s something that you also might do.
You could also just talk to the host in advance and say, “Hey by the way, you know, it’s a Friday coming up and it’s during Lent, are you going to have an option for fish or for non-meat? Or maybe we could bring something of our own to contribute to the party.” And then you and your wife would have the opportunity to bring something and give the other people at the party a non-meat option.

What Should I Do When Meat Is Being Served on a Friday during Lent?

<div>A friend went to psychic years ago. I lost touch with her. A I responsible for trying to contact her to tell her it’s a mortal sin?</div><div>You say you’ve lost contact with your friend. Do you know how to get back in contact with your friend or know someone who is likely to help you in succeeding in that request?
If you can answer one or both of those questions affirmatively, then, out of charity, it’d be good for you to let your friend know to avoid psychics and trust in God, instead of consulting problematic spirits to deal with life issues (see <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm">CCC 2115-17</a>). Yet, make sure to approach your friend with humble charity, including because it’s been a good while since you’ve last spoken (see 1 Pet. 3:15). If your friend is Catholic, encourage her to take advantage of the sacrament of reconciliation. If she’s not, encourage her to repent to God on her own.
Further, consulting a psychic is certainly, objectively, gravely wrong. However, remember that mortal sin involves two other components: full knowledge and full consent of the will (see <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm">CCC 1857-61</a>). Consequently, while encouraging your friend to repent and avoid this sin, don’t presume to judge her subjective culpability.
If you are not able to contact your friend, pray for her repentance and conversion.
</div>

Should I Reprove a Friend for Consulting a Psychic?

Gary Zimak explains how a caller can help her fiancé work through his abandonment issues by emphasizing the importance of living in the present moment with a healthy level of detachment from the past and future.
Transcript:
Host: Alicia in Dallas, Texas, listening on Guadalupe Radio, your question for Gary Zimak.
Caller: Ah, yes, I was actually calling on behalf of, well, myself and my fiancé. He&#8217;s actually always worried about me leaving him, only because he has a history of most of his family members leaving him from the past, like his mom started doing bad and she left him, and then his grandma raised him, and then after a while she had, you know, she couldn&#8217;t raise him any more &#8217;cause she was getting older, so she had to leave him with his mom again, and so just back and forth everywhere, like a lot of his family members leaving him. So how do I reassure him, like, that I&#8217;m not going anywhere? What would be a good way?
Gary: Very good question. Very good question, Alicia. This is this is a problem that a lot of people have. Essentially what&#8217;s happening is, he is worried, possibly, about things that have happened in the past. The past was the past, you have to just reassure him, &#8220;No, I&#8217;m not going to leave you,&#8221; and it&#8217;s just a matter of learning to live in the present moment. That is a huge problem for those of us who tend to be anxious. Live in the present moment. The past is the past. The devil wants you to dwell on the past, and he wants you to worry about the future. God wants you in the present moment. It&#8217;s challenging, though. Right, Cy? But one day at a time, and focus as best as you can on the present.
Host: Alicia, do you think that will help him?
Caller: Yes, very much so. Thank you.
Host: Oh, very good. Very glad you called. Thank you very much, Alicia, for that call.

What Do I Do When My Fiancé Worries I’m Going to Leave Him?

Good apologetics is not just a quest to have the right answer. It is, instead, one tool in a larger struggle to win souls. This means that it involves spiritual battle. Our guest, Dan Burke, explains spiritual battle for apologists.

Spiritual Warfare for Apologists

Was Mary Always Sinless?

Tim Staples addresses a question about the relevance of a 1928 letter on modesty written by the Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI. He clarifies that while the letter contains valuable insights on the importance of modesty, it does not hold the binding authority of the Magisterium and should not be treated as a strict decree.
Transcript:
I&#8217;m wondering if the Mary-like modesty letter to women written by the Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI in 1930 still applies today. Also, I love your show. I listen every day to it.
Gotcha. Gotcha. Yeah. Well, actually, no, it never had the binding force of the Magisterium, because as you mentioned, and I&#8217;m glad to hear you say that, it was written by the Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI, and that was in 1928 actually, not 1930. But no, it doesn&#8217;t have any binding authority, any magisterial authority. Now, having said that, it has been referenced over the decades by various bishops, especially back in the 1930s and 40s. You&#8217;ve had bishops reference it. And there are some good things in that letter, but nowadays you get online often. The famous line where you have to address can only go two fingers with beneath the throat in order to&#8230; That&#8217;s right. Me and Cy don&#8217;t cut it right here, I think, right now. You know, those sorts of things cannot be taken to be some sort of binding magisterial document, and unfortunately some folks do that. But it doesn&#8217;t mean there&#8217;s nothing good in it either. Heaven knows we need modesty in our culture today, to be sure. Just, you know, don&#8217;t fall prey to those who claim. In fact, if you go online, you&#8217;ll see that famous letter referred to as a decree of Pope Pius XI, a binding magisterial decree and that sort of thing, which it simply is not.
Hey, thanks for watching. If you like this Catholic answer, be sure to like, subscribe, and check out our live streams Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 p.m. Pacific, or find the episode after on YouTube, your favorite podcast platform, or our Catholic Answers app.

Should Catholics Follow Old Modesty Rules?

Last Tuesday night, as I watched the Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/abortion-infanticide-lies-trump-harris-debate-rebutted">I was struck</a> by how both Harris and the moderators downplayed Trump’s claim that Democrats want abortion to be legal in the seventh, eighth, and ninth months of pregnancy. When asked about limits on legal abortion, Harris said she supported “Roe [v. Wade].&#8221; If you were unfamiliar with the details of Roe v. Wade, you might have assumed she was saying it prohibited late-term abortions. But it didn’t.
Roe said that in the first two trimesters (up to when the fetus is twenty-two weeks old), states could not outlaw abortion. Roe also did not require states to ban abortion in the third trimester. They could keep it legal if they wanted. But if they did ban it in the third trimester, they had to allow an exception for abortions to protect a woman’s health.
The problem with this exception is that Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, said that “health” included any factor that was “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, [or related to] the woman’s age.”
Last year one million abortions occurred in the United States, according to the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher institute. <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/#when-during-pregnancy-do-most-abortions-occur">And 1% of them happen after the child is 20 weeks old.</a> That means 10,000 children are killed in late-term abortions every year. That’s close to the number of people killed by guns in this country every year. If that’s a big problem, then surely late-term abortion—not even abortion in general, just late-term abortion—must also be a big problem.
But to act like late-term abortion doesn’t happen is an obviously disprovable lie. Trump said, “You can do abortions in the seventh month . . .” to which Harris said, “That’s not true.” But you can find places online like <a href="https://dupontclinic.com/abortion-from-25-31-weeks-6-days/">the Dupont clinic in DC</a> that offers abortion from 25-31 weeks and <a href="https://www.drhern.com/abortion-services/">Warren Hern’s in Colorado</a> that offers second- and third-trimester abortions. Remember, Roe said states could ban abortions in the third trimester, but they didn’t have to; and if they did, they had to leave a meaningless health exception.
Now, some people will say that late-term abortions are only for exceptionally rare cases like when a woman’s life is in danger or when there are severe fetal handicaps. But you don’t do a late-term abortion after twenty weeks, because that takes longer than an emergency c-section; and with a c-section, the child at least has a chance to live. Furthermore, we don’t kill two-year-olds who are dying from a disability, and since the unborn are equally human we shouldn’t kill them for the same reason.
But it’s also simply not true that late-term abortions are obtained just for those reasons. <a href="https://abortiondocs.org/abortionists/william-mudd-martin-haskell/">Martin Haskell</a>, a late-term abortion provider, <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-1996-03-27/pdf/CREC-1996-03-27-pt1-PgH2895.pdf#page=1">testified before Congress saying</a>: “I’ll be quite frank. Most of my abortions are elective in that twenty- to twenty-four-week range. . . . In my particular case, probably twenty percent are for genetic reasons. And the other eighty percent are purely elective.”
<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24188634/">A 2013 study</a> said the most common reasons women delayed abortion past twenty weeks included things like the inability to raise funds for the procedure or failing to recognize they were pregnant. It said, “Most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment”
And let’s be clear about what happens in these procedures. The Supreme Court said in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/124/">Gonzales v. Carhart</a> of late-term abortions that the abortionist may “kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation. They inject digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus, the umbilical cord, or the amniotic fluid. Fetal demise may cause contractions and make greater dilation possible. Once dead, moreover, the fetus’s body will soften, and its removal will be easier.” Warren Hern says in his medical textbook Abortion Practice: “A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus” (142).
The facts are clear. Late-term abortion is not a myth. It is murder, and anyone who is simply a decent human being should oppose this evil.

Is Late-Term Abortion a Myth?

<div class="page" title="Page 55">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 45
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Why should we confess our sins to a priest? We should go to God directly.”
DEFENSE
We can and should ask God directly for forgiveness, but Scripture also reveals that it is his will—in some cases—that we approach his ministers in confession.
Prayer may be sufficient for the forgiveness of daily, venial sins, but Jesus indicated that some sins are more serious by instituting the sacrament of confession to deal with them.
After rising from the dead, he told the disciples, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” Then he breathed on them, and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are for- given; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21–23).
Previously, God had sent Jesus to forgive sins on earth (Matt. 9:6), and people glorified God “who had given such authority to men” (Matt. 9:8). Now Jesus shares this authority with his ministers.
Notice that he gives them the power to forgive or retain (not for- give) sins. The decision whether to forgive or retain a sin is serious, and Christ’s ministers must not make it in an uninformed manner. To perform their role, they need to be properly informed.
In particular, ministers need to know: (1) that we have committed a particular sin, and (2) that we are genuinely repentant. Since they have no way of knowing these things apart from our informing them, we are obliged to confess. Thus we have the sacrament of confession.
John 20:21–23 is also the background we need when reading the same author’s affirmation that, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
TIP
Historically, penance has been celebrated in different forms. Early in Church history, it was common for it to be celebrated publicly, with Christ’s minister presiding over the service. Such public confession is envisioned in the exhortation, “Therefore confess your sins to one another” (James 5:16), which is done in the presence of “the elders of the church” (James 5:14)—the elders being the priests. In Greek, “elder” is presbuteros, from which we get the English word “priest.”
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Confessing to a Priest

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

A Crucifix, Not Just a Cross

How I Would Share Christianity With a Trans Person

In this free-for-all-Friday Trent explores the topic of plagiarism both in being a victim of it and also in unintentionally committing it.

Plagiarism, or Don’t Steal this Episode!

I heard the Pope is allowing the blessings of same sex marriages, what does this mean?

What does the term “son of man” mean?

Do you have your family in heaven?

How does the Catholic Church feel about abortion if a severely mentally/intellectually disabled person were to become?

If God is all-powerful AND all loving hell shouldn’t exist in the first place.

How do you know if the Bible is true or not?

I was sent a website called “OurLadyisGod.com” — have you heard of this website? How do i rebuttal this?

I have heard that some Catholics don’t believe St. Juan Diego was a real person, based on historical evidence, what is the Catholic perspective of this?

If Jesus is on the right hand of God, what is on the left side?

Can Joe talk more about the doctrine about no salvation outside of the church?&nbsp;

<div>Is there a Protestant Church that is comparable to Catholicism? We recently moved, and there are no Catholic churches nearby. </div><div>The closest Protestant denomination to Catholicism would arguably be Anglicanism, or Episcopalian Christians in the American branch of Anglicanism.
I infer that you’re living in a rural area that is lightly populated with Catholics. Could you make it to Sunday Mass with a drive of an hour or two each way? That would be a sacrifice, but one well worth making and would further instill in you and your children the overarching importance of fulfilling our Sunday obligation if at all possible, given that the Mass is &#8220;the source and summit of the whole Christian life” (CCC 1324).
If you are really in such a remote location that you couldn’t fulfill your Sunday obligation, you’d be dispensed from that obligation. In addition, you couldn’t fulfill it at a Protestant church, because none of them offers a valid Eucharistic Sacrifice (Mass). It’s possible that you could receive the Eucharist from a non-Catholic minister, e.g., an Eastern Orthodox priest (Code of Canon Law, <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2T.HTM">can. 844 §2</a>).
Contact your local diocese to see what might be possible for you. If you’re not sure of the diocese in which you reside, visit <a href="http://www.usccb.org/about/bishops-and-dioceses/index.cfm">this page</a>.
</div>

Protestant Denomination Similar to Catholicism?

Protestants, many of us Catholic apologists argue, effectively act as their own popes. The reason why, we allege, is that every Protestant is ultimately accountable to his personal interpretation of divine revelation, which for Protestants is solely the sixty-six-book Protestant Bible. Every Protestant, we posit, acts as his own magisterial authority, both in interpreting the Bible and even in deciding what constitutes the Bible, given their rejection of the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-defend-the-deuterocanonicals">deuterocanon</a>.
But not so, declare our Protestant counterparts! They, like us Catholics, have confessions and creeds to which they submit. Carl R. Trueman, one of the most brilliant and interesting intellects in modern Protestantism, last year <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/11/protestants-need-to-go-back-to-basics">urged</a> his fellow Protestants to return to “orthodox Christian doctrines as set forth by the creeds, the Great Tradition of theology exemplified by the ancient ecumenical councils, and traditional Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession.” Kim Riddlebarger, a co-host of the popular White Horse Inn podcast, <a href="https://www.kimriddlebarger.com/about-the-author">declares</a>, “If you were to ask, ‘what is it that defines Christianity?’, my answer now would be ‘the definition of Christianity is given us in the Creed.’”
Recently, a friend sent me a video of Methodist lay apologist Joshua Pearsall, who <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjbNPvzH8QI&amp;t=105s">makes a similar argument</a> in reference to my book, <a href="https://stpaulcenter.com/product/the-obscurity-in-scripture-disputing-sola-scriptura-and-the-protestant-notion-of-biblical-perspicuity/?srsltid=AfmBOor7SNuNT5o002l6Y6MiuN14F4UagxCOJWCBmGhv1rN3cnnkD79G">The Obscurity of Scripture</a>. Citing confessional standards of such denominations as Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and his own Methodist tradition, Pearsall asserts, “You literally can’t be your own pope. You are accountable to the standards of your tradition and of course the Scriptures on top of that.” Others, such as <a href="https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/10/01/the-reformation-as-renewal-is-an-exemplar-of-special-pleading/">Reformed scholar Matthew Barrett</a> in his recent work The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, claims much the same.
I can appreciate the thinking behind this Protestant line of argumentation. Indeed, I would have mouthed similar things fifteen years ago when I was a Presbyterian seminary student. Of course I wasn’t like those ignorant, low-church evangelicals with no knowledge of church history, no knowledge of Nicaea or Chalcedon, no knowledge even of their own Protestant theological ancestry. I eagerly submitted to the Westminster Standards, believing them to be an accurate interpretation of biblical truth.
But that, I eventually realized, was exactly the problem. I adhered to Reformed confessional documents based on their conformity to Holy Scripture—but whose interpretation of it? My own, ultimately. Nor was this my own novel understanding of how things are supposed to work within the Protestant paradigm. This is precisely the way they are supposed to work.
Why, for example, was I a Presbyterian rather than an Anglican, Lutheran, or Methodist? Why was I submitting to the Westminster Confession of Faith rather than the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Augsburg Confession, or the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith? Because I, as a conscientious, “Bible-believing” Christian, had determined that the particular confessional documents of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) were sufficiently biblical to merit my allegiance. My own pastors and professors told me that if I believed another Protestant denomination was more biblically faithful, I should follow my conscience and go there instead.
Who is in the interpretative drivers’ seat in such a scenario? The individual Christian, naturally. If Carl Trueman, Kim Riddlebarger, Matthew Barrett, or any other Protestant Christian read his Bible and came to believe that his particular Protestant tradition and its confessional documents are erroneous, it would be his prerogative to either protest those errors within his own denomination or, if he viewed them as sufficiently egregious, to join a different ecclesial community. He might even feel compelled to establish his own.
And that explains not only five hundred years of fissiparous Protestant history, but the remarkable explosion of non-denominational, Bible-based, evangelical churches in the last few generations. All of them purport to be simply returning to the fundamentals of Scripture, and all of them cannot help but offer their own bespoke takes on Christian doctrine and praxis.
Granted, I presume that many if not most Protestants do not intend this. They do not want to be postmodern individualists determining reality for themselves. They want to be embedded in the history and traditions of Christianity. That’s why they constantly cite not only Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Turretin, Cranmer, and Owen, but also Church Fathers such as Irenaeus, Jerome, and Augustine. What Catholics and traditionally minded Protestants share is a desire to be united to something greater than themselves, a proclivity for the ancient and venerable. We all want to believe that our faith was not born yesterday, but descends from the apostles.
The question is whether the Protestant paradigm, in any of its manifold manifestations, is actually capable of coherently doing so. What I came to realize almost fifteen years ago is no, it cannot. Even Pearsall in his YouTube videos attempting to refute my book cannot help but undermine his position, acknowledging that many Protestants are failing to honor their own confessional standards . . . and then immediately admitting that confessional standards are not infallible and “can be corrected down the line if they need to be.” Corrected according to what standard? The standard of the individual’s interpretation of Scripture.
In other words, Protestant creeds and confessional standards have only as much authority as Protestants are willing to grant them. If a Protestant comes to assess them as inadequate, on whatever grounds related to his conscience, he may edit or even dispense with them. And this applies not only to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Protestant creeds, but the ecumenical councils of the ancient Church. This is why Protestants <a href="https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/ask-ligonier/what-does-it-mean-that-the-first-seven-church-councils-were-ecumenical">pick and choose which ecumenical councils they accept</a>. Indeed, many Protestants even argue that <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/confess-jesus-descended-into-hell/">parts of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed</a> are unbiblical and need not be accepted. And why not?
Catholics do not inhabit the same paradigmatic position. We do not pick and choose which councils or creeds to which we submit. We accept the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church en totale, because we recognize that it has been granted that authority by Christ himself, preserved by the Holy Spirit. Such a recognition requires an act of faith, but it is based on evidence and reason, pre-eminently the <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/my-church-is-more-credible-than-yours">motives of credibility</a>. And, unlike Protestants, whose interpretive authority of divine revelation rests in the conscience of each individual Christian, Catholics acknowledge a living Magisterium, whose voice is manifested not only through ecumenical councils, but, in certain narrow circumstances, through the living pope.
Creeds can’t save Protestantism from its inevitable descent into an individualism that equates to every individual Christian acting as his own pope. Only the Catholic Church with its internally coherent and historically verifiable magisterial authority can resolve the Protestant’s dilemma and give him the certitude that he is indeed following Christ and the fullness of his teaching, rather than the (often well-meaning) whims of his own conscience.

Creeds Can’t Save Protestantism

<div>Is playing Magic: The Gathering likened to believing in the occult?</div><div>“Magic: The Gathering” is a game that has gone through different editions since its debut in the 1990s. Because some of its characters had demonic names, there was public backlash against the manufacturers out of concern the game might be promoting—or at least making light of—the occult.
As a result, “both the creature type and the word ‘Demonic’ disappeared from the game” in 1995. When the public controversy subsided over the ensuing years, a new edition debuted in 2002 and included “Grinning Demon.” <a href="https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/where-have-all-demons-gone-2004-07-05">Other characters with demonic connections have followed in successive years</a>.
So does the game necessarily involve dabbling in the occult, as does the Ouija Board? Not necessarily, but we can’t recommend participation in the game. What’s the purpose of the game? As The Washington Post noted in its “Weekend” section in 1995, “The players, representing sorcerers, use the cards to “kill the other guy before he kills you, with spells, enchantments and creatures like Chaos, Orb. . . Bad Moon and Animate Dead. . . (May 27, 1995).
Devotees of the games, including Christians, will counter that the game is harmless fun and that—as with bad things on television—you can deliberately avoid the darker characters, including “Liliana the Necromancer,” an immodestly dressed female character who, as her name conveys, conjures the dead.
Others might argue that characters like Liliana are okay since the actual purpose of the game is to match wits with your opponent, not actually seek to have a séance or kill another person.
We disagree with that sentiment. Though make-believe, such games can open the door to participation in the occult, and at least encourage make-believe activities that are not edifying, including necromancy and nefarious sorcery. For example, when one uses the “Infernal Spawn of Evil” card, the game’s instructions direct:
<blockquote>Reveal Infernal Spawn of Evil from your hand, Say “It’s coming”: Infernal Spawn of Evil deals 1 damage to target opponent. . . .</blockquote>
In summary, there are many edifying activities in which Christians can participate. This game, with its various drawbacks, is not one of them.
</div>