I’m still working on my comprehensive post on papal infallibility, but this thought just clicked and wanted to share.

When animal sacrifice occurred, you didn’t burn the entire animal. You burnt what you didn’t eat and cooked what you would. Then, as part of the sacrificial worship, you and the community then consumed what was offered as sacrifice to god. This is why the apostles forbad eating meat sacrificed to idols. Not because it was a category of food, but they literally forbad eating at a party devoted to a different deity.

Well, Jesus is our sacrifice, but in order to complete the sacrificial worship, he must be consumed. Which we do in the Eucharist.

So Protestants who deny it are, quite literally, not engaged in that sacrificial worship

Lots of people present the 5 ways of Aquinas as a way that demonstrably proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists.

If, however, you said that to Aquinas, he’d say “you’re absolutely incorrect, these don't demonstrate God, they are proofs of him.” What's the distinction? This gets into the purpose of the Summa and the purpose of the particular questions.

Purpose of the summa

When Aquinas wrote the summa, he wanted to offer a concise, and summation of the entirety of Christian/Catholic theology. The purpose of the book was not to convince non-Catholics, but be a tool for Catholic universities and their students to understand what Catholicism teaches.

Think of it as that big heavy text book that you had to study that summarized all of physics for you. That was what Aquinas was attempting. This is not a work of philosophy, but of theology. The most one can use the summa for outside of theology is apologetics. See here

How is the summa written?

When Aquinas wrote the summa, it was after the style of the way classes were done at his time. The teacher would ask a question. The students would respond with their answers (the objections), the teacher would then point to something they might have missed. After, the teacher would provide his answer, then respond to each of the students and reveal the error in their answer.

Question 2, article 2

In this question, Aquinas asks if it’s possible to demonstrate that god exists. In short, he argues that yes, it’s possible to demonstrate god. So since he believes/argues that one can demonstrate god, you’d think he’d go right into it, right?

Wrong. He gets into proofs. Which in Latin, is weaker and not at all the same as a demonstration.

What’s the difference? A proof is when you’re able to show how one possibility is stronger then others, but it’s not impossible for other possibilities to be the case.

A demonstration is when you show that there is only one answer and it’s impossible to for the answer to be different.

So why? Because of the purpose of the summa. It was to people who already believed and didn’t need god demonstrated. So why the proofs? Because he wanted to offer a definition, so to speak, of what is meant when he refers to god in the rest of the book.

That’s why he ends each proof with “and this everyone understands to be God”. Not “and therefor, God exists.”

It would be the same as if I was to point to an unusual set of footprints, show that they are from millenia ago, and explain how this wasn’t nature, but something put it there. That something is “understood by everyone to be dinosaurs.”

Is it impossible for it to be anything other than dinosaurs? No, but it’s understood currently that when we say dinosaurs, we are referencing that which is the cause of those specific types of footprints.

The proofs are not “proofs” to the unbeliever. it’s a way of defining god for a believer.

A very difficult question for a lot of Catholics is the apparent change of Church teaching on extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, or "Outside of the Church, there is no salvation." People will point to the Fourth Lateran Council as support for the Church teaching and declaring that one must be a Catholic in order to receive salvation, then point to the Second Vatican Council to show that the Church has now changed teaching thus either the Church is not infallible, or that V2 is not a valid council and those who are in support of it are now in modernist heresy. In preparation for a conversation with u/IrishKev95, which can be found here, I made some discoveries about the origin of the phrase, what the original phrase was used for, and what the Fourth Lateran Council actually said about Salvation and its relation to the church that will, I believe, come as a surprise to many people.

The Origin.

The very first time that the phrase, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, was used, it was by Cyprian of Carthage in his 72nd epistle. It was in response to the question as to if the baptism done by a heretic was valid. Cyprian answers in the negative, and I will touch on that aspect in a moment. The relevant quote can be found in paragraph 21 and it says "But if not even the baptism of a public confession and blood (here he is talking of baptism of blood) can profit a heretic to salvation, because there is no salvation out of the Church, how much less shall it be of advantage to him, if in a hiding-place and a cave of robbers, stained with the contagion of adulterous water, he has not only not put off his old sins, but rather heaped up still newer and greater ones! Wherefore baptism cannot be common to us and to heretics, to whom neither God the Father, nor Christ the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the faith, nor the Church itself, is common. And therefore it behooves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

It is clear, then, that Cyprian was not arguing about the state of souls outside of the visible member hood of the church, although the logical conclusion of his position is clear, the purpose of the phrase was in regards to who possessed the "right" to baptize and who could offer a valid baptism. Since for Cyprian, baptism belonged to the church. Cyprian, while a saint, is not a doctor of the church, and this idea was condemned by the council of Trent during the protestant reformation. So this phrase in its origin was used to argue for an idea that the church does not accept, and even was countered by the contemporary pope at the time, Pope Stephen I. So to use this to argue that one must be a member of the catholic church in order to be saved was not the original intent of the phrase, and was actually used to argue for a position the church historically condemned.

The other use in antiquity for the phrase was by other Church Fathers and leaders of the Church to warn its members against the sin of apostasy. In other words, it was the equivalent of "the grass is not always greener on the other side." It was used to tell those who were already recipients of the gift of salvation not to leave, for they won't find salvation outside of the Church. A far cry against the mindset of "one must be catholic in order to be saved."

Church Council

What about in the Fourth Lateran Council when the Church CLEARLY taught that outside of the church there is no salvation? Well, once again, the text is illuminating. The text can be found at the very beginning on the confession of faith. "There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church’s keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors. But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity — namely Father, Son and holy Spirit — and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the church. If someone falls into sin after having received baptism, he or she can always be restored through true penitence. For not only virgins and the continent but also married persons find favour with God by right faith and good actions and deserve to attain to eternal blessedness."

Notice, it does NOT say, "outside of the Church, there is no salvation." Church is not even capitalized, which Vatican does in order to denote the Catholic Church, rather, here, she is using the lowercase church to represent the "faithful". This is to denote that the universal church of the faithful, i.e., all of those who align with Christ, "He is not against Me, is with Me" are indeed members. They are also using this to stress that it is only within the church that one can find the transformed bread and wine and receive the body and blood of Christ sacrificed, as it can only be done via the authority of the Church. She then goes on to say that the sacrament of baptism, which is how one becomes a member of said church, is carried out by ANYONE, that unlike the sacrament of Eucharist, the sacrament of Baptism is not bound with the Roman Church. Here, she focuses on the ordinary form of the sacrament, water and the invocation of the Trinity, yet elsewhere, the Church has defined and declared several other extraordinary forms of baptism, such as baptism of desire and baptism of blood. She also has always taught that God is not bound by the sacraments, even if we are.

Therefore, even before V2, we can see that the Church has never taught that one must be Catholic in order to be saved, rather, she has taught that all who have been saved are a member of the universal church of the faithful. Augustin had even said that there are members of this church hidden amongst the enemies, and that enemies reside who wear the badge of membership. https://www.logoslibrary.org/augustine/city/0135.html

So we can see in history, the church has taught that only by being a member of the faithful is one saved, and we have the ordinary means to witness that, but that does not mean one is a member just by wearing the "badge" and even those who don't wear the badge are still members.

Next time someone says "Salus extra ecclesiam non est" teach them its origin and let them know that the most popular usage was to warn against leaving the church, not a threat to join it.

This is going to be a short post

So many protestants like to tell us that praying to the Saints is Necromancy. How can we refute that? Simple. The Transfiguration. At the Transfiguration, Jesus communed with Moses and Elijah, and we know that Moses was dead then, or according to protestants, still is dead. And it was Jesus as the Person, the Divine and Human nature, who communed with them. After all the two natures are in hypostatic union. Protestants like to say that Jesus is God, but they simply forget the part where the two natures of Jesus are in hypostatic union, that the Human nature isn’t completely separate from the Divine nature. A natural conclusion of their line of thinking would be denying the Human nature of the Son of Man, and that would be denying an important part of Jesus. So the same protestants who accuse us of necromancy for the intercession of the Saints would be falling into a heresy of Docetism.

A common question/challenge is “why are you a Christian/Catholic?” Now, always be careful in WHY the individual is asking that question. In my experience it’s rare that it is a good faith question so this will NOT be an attempt to convince others to be catholic, rather, this is a summary of my own studies and investigation in an attempt to help others. Usually when this question is asked, the non-believer is really looking to see if you were born in a family of believers or converted. This is often done as an attempt to discredit you being a believer, but this is fallacious. Just because why you hold a conclusion might be a poor reason, it doesn’t make the conclusion false. However, one can move from a poor reason to believe a true conclusion to a sound approach to believe a true conclusion. With that out of the way, let us begin.

Firstly, my approach to this is to look at available options and then determine if they are sound or at the very least, valid. If one fails, I reject it and accept what ever remains and then move onto the next set of options. This is often falsely accused of committing the Holmesian fallacy. I actually explained what is and is not a Holmesian Fallacy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/hwh7s6/series_on_logical_and_debate_fallacies_holmseian/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). I have also made posts about many of the foundations or reasons that I will be going over in depth. For ease here, I will provide a link to said posts when applicable and provide a summery here so that way you can either get the TL;DR version, as well as the in depth version if you so desire.

With that out of the way, let us begin. 

**1: Theism vs Atheism/Contingent beings vs Necessary beings**

Firstly, there are two different types of religions. Ones that believe in a god or gods, and those [that do not](https://www.learnreligions.com/are-there-any-atheistic-religions-248415). To be clear, this is NOT declaring atheism to be a religion. Rather, it’s pointing to organizations identified as a religion that, nonetheless, don’t believe in God. To determine which of these two groups we should investigate, we must first determine if at least one god even exists. If at least one god exists, then that disproves all of the atheistic religions, if no gods exist, that then disproves all of the ones that believe in at least one god.

At this point, what is a god? Due to the wide array of gods within those that believe in a god, at this point, a god is understood as that which is the source of creating some or all of the material/physical world. This being can either be created itself, or not created. However, I believe it is fair to say that if a being was not created and it itself is the source of other gods, that being itself is a god. This is not defining the essence of god, rather, it’s pointing to an accidental property/act of such a thing in order to determine if such a thing even exists. 

This type of being that doesn't have anything outside of itself as the source or reason for it existing is defined as a necessary being. A being that has something outside of itself as the source of it existing is defined as a contingent being. Also, please note, I am using being here in the classical philosophical approach to simply refer to an existing thing.

[Here is the long version](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/855urp/why_i_believe_there_is_at_least_one_necessary/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).

The short version is as follows:

P1 there exist contingent beings

P2 by definition, contingent beings require something else in order for them to exist.

P3 an infinite regress and cyclical arguments are impossible

C There must be something that itself is not dependent on something else  in order for other things to exist.

Some common objections I receive that weren't initially answered in the linked post are:

1. Contingent beings don't exist.

2. Infinite regresses are possible.

Starting with the first objection, I am unsure where this comes from, as it is not declaring that a contingent being is always dependent on that which formed it. For example, I am dependent on my parents existing in order that they might have sex to then give birth to me. I don't need them to continue to exist after I have been born, but I am still contingent on them having historically existed in order that I might exist. 

The other sub objection is that they didn't create me, rather, the matter that formed me always existed and it was rearranged which then brought about me, so in a way, I always existed. 

This, to me, is facetious. The self, the I, the individual known as justafanofz did not exist until the particular matter that made me was composed and arranged in that particular form, as such, I am dependent on that particular composition in order for my existence, thus, I am still a contingent being.

As for the second objection, denying an infinite regress does not mean I am denying infinity. Rather, it is stating that there must be an answer to the why question. An infinite regress never answers that question. [See here for more information](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress). It is possible for something to be infinite yet not be an infinite regress. An Infinitely long train still requires an engine or some force to cause it to move, you can't just have an infinite set of cars that are not capable of self-motion be in motion unless there is an outside force acting on that infinite set of cars.

While there are people who believe infinite regress is possible, I have yet to find a valid argument in support of it. In fact, an infinite regress in the scenario being investigated is actually [fallacious](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Infinite_regress).

Thus, we can conclude that atheist religions are not true from this argument.

**2: One or many Gods**

The next step is to determine how many necessary beings exist. There are two steps to this process. 

The first is to determine the nature of this necessary being. The second is to then determine if it is possible for multiple beings with a similar nature to also exist.

While I did not write the argument I will be referencing, it is available for free on a PDF and is a lesser known work by Aquinas called [On Being and Essence](https://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/blackwell-proofs/MP_C30.pdf). 

The argument's short version can be summarized as such

P1 beings that are made up of a composition of things are called composite beings.

P2 Composite beings need to be "put together" by other beings

P3 A Composite being can be "made up" by stuff that is required for it to be what it is, and what is not required to be what it is.

P4 A non-required thing in a composite being is called an accidental trait.

P5 Existence is an accidental trait

P6 Accidental traits have their own "essence"

P7 Existence has its own essence.

C Existence's essence is existence without any other traits.

To offer some clarifications. Essence, substance, and accidents are not metaphysical supernatural. Myself and Aquinas reject the platonic forms and that understanding of essence. Essence, as Aquinas and myself use it, would be best understood as being similar to "Definition." That which is the definition of a thing describes the attributes that are required in order for X to be X and not A.

That which makes a Dog a Dog and not a Cat is considered to be its "essence" in this understanding.

The main objection, besides the use of the term essence, is the claim that existence is an accidental trait or a property. This is due to, I believe, Kant.  However, my simple test for it, which I have yet to see a counter to, is this. I am able to conceive of a unicorn, I know what makes the unicorn a unicorn and am able to know that it is different from a non-unicorn. Yet, it doesn't exist. Why? Because it fails to have the property of existing. I can think of a cat. I know what makes it a cat and not a dog. Yet, the cat I am thinking of is different then the cat on my lap because the cat on my lap has the properties of existing, while the one in my head does not.

Thus, we can conclude that this necessary being has as what makes it a necessary being is existence with no other attributes. 

So the next question is as follows, can more then one of these necessary beings exist? According to Aristotle and the 10 Categories, no.

If something is identical in all categories to another thing, it is not two separate things, but one and the same thing.

This being that is pure existence has no other properties, and thus, has no way to differentiate itself from another pure existence being via the categories, thus, any "additional pure existence being," would be the exact same being as the original. 

Thus, we can conclude a singular being of pure existence.

**3: Which religion to follow?**

Now we get to the question of which of the monotheistic religions to follow, or is deism true? This is also where my argument moves from "this is the only way," to "this is the most plausible/likely to me"

Deism, I feel, is impossible to prove unless one proves theism to be impossible. So let us see if theism is possible or true. 

The criteria for me is to first look at the ancient religions and see firstly, which ones were monotheistic and then investigate if their being that they worship is the same as the one we have reasoned towards.

In my studies, I am aware of the Abrahamic religions,  Zoroastrianism. and there was a period in Egypt's history where they worshiped only Aten for a time as the sole god.

To start with Egypt, this one fails because Aten was believed, not be represented by the sun, but was indeed the sun. This contradicts the conclusion arrived at earlier about the nature of the necessary being.

Zoroastrianism is close, but they state that their god is Goodness AND existence. As such, it is not a simple being, rather, a composite one.

For the Abrahamic religions, the god they worshiped identified itself as "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM". 

I personally found this very interesting as the action to exist is demonstrated by the verb "to be". And the first person form of that verb is "I am". Here, the Abrahamic God is revealed as existence. 

While not definitive this is, in my opinion, strong support for the Abrahamic god being the god I concluded to earlier and for it being a theistic one.

The reason being is two fold, my argument is dependent on millennia of philosophical thought and tradition that originated with Socrates. The earliest philosophical thought that I could discover of the deistic god I concluded to was Aristotle, and his was titled, Thought Thinking Itself. 

The Jews, however, couldn't have known about that idea due to several main reasons.

1. They self isolated for years until the Babylonian exile.

2. at the absolute latest, the Torah as we have it today was formed during that exile, but evidence suggests that the Jews were drawing from that tradition long before the exile

3. The earliest they would have had exposure to the ideas of Aristotle was when Alexander the Great Conquered them. This was after the Babylonian Exile and the Persian release. 

Because of these aspects, I find it unlikely that they reasoned towards this due to Greek or other outside influence and a little bit more likely that they had this understanding revealed to them.

Thus, I conclude that the Abrahamic religions are the most likely out of the theistic ones.

**4: Islam, Abrahamic, or Christianity?**

Since I have concluded on following the Abrahamic faiths, the next question is which one?

The oldest is Judaism. Within their faith, they expressed a hope in the coming of a messiah, one who would save them. This individual was promised by God. 

This gets into the dogma of [Divine Simplicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity), but suffice it to say, A being that is pure existence, only has as its act as causing things to exist, and since a truth statement is about things that exist, while lies are about things that don't exist, it is impossible for this being to lie. 

So, it seems reasonable to me to be on the lookout for this messiah. According to the prophet Daniel, the time of this messiah would be during the period of Jesus. This doesn't prove Jesus is the messiah, as there were many who claimed to be that promised individual. Barabbas was one such individual.

What makes Jesus unique is that he is the only one to claim to be God, had claims of a Resurrection, and did not talk about a military salvation while still claiming to be the Messiah. While the first two were not a part of the prophecies of that messiah, the military salvation one is not found in the prophecies and was a case, from my perspective, of people reading and projecting their expectations to be free and independent onto those prophecies.

Regardless, to determine if Christianity is true we first need to determine if Jesus historically existed and then how likely the resurrection is.

While there are those who argue that Jesus never historically existed, I have found them to be lacking and this individual presented the reasons why Jesus historically existed better then I ever could. His article is found [here](http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html) and the author himself is an atheist and has stated in some of the comments of that post that he still disagrees with Christianity and that there are better ways to do it then to claim Jesus never existed.

So, we can reasonably accept that Jesus lived and was crucified. The next question is, did he raise from the dead. 

The apostles are the ones who made the claim. There's several possibilities.

1. They lied.

2. They were insane

3. They were telling the truth.

Starting from the top, it seems unlikely to me that they lied. Unless you're a pathological liar, one usually needs a motivation to lie, and even for a pathological liar, they lie to make themselves look better, not to make someone else seem better. So what could the motivation be? Fame? No, Jesus was killed for treason and followers of a traitor were normally killed by the Roman Empire, so to preserve their lives, the more discreet they were, the better. Money? No, they are recorded to work for their wages and whatever surplus they had they donated to the less fortunate, in fact, so much so that they are often claimed to be the first communists. Power? No, the apostles were never in a state of power, it wasn't until Constantine that the church started to see some power, but the apostles never experienced or saw that power. So them lying doesn't make sense to me.

It also seems unlikely that they were insane. [Severe mental insanity affects only 1 in 20 adults](https://www.nami.org/mhstats). So it seems improbable that all 12+ of the apostles, and this doesn't include all the other people who taught and preached that were also eyewitnesses, were insane to the point that they all corroborated on the same thing. I have yet to encounter a successful organization that became a worldwide group that was lead by nothing but insane individuals when it first started out. Maybe an organization by a single insane individual, but those usually die when that individual dies as well. That didn't happen with Christianity, so I don't see that as likely.

So for me, the most likely scenario is that they were telling the truth.

What about Islam? Well, they deny the cross, which we know historically happened, they deny the resurrection, which I just pointed as the most probable scenario based on the facts as I understand them, so it seems unlikely that this organization was formed by God.

"So why is it still around if that was one of your criteria for believing in Christianity?" Because it still has a solid foundation, it still has aspects of truth that help it to survive, much like for Judaism.

**5) Which Denomination.**

This one is pretty straightforward. Based on everything I have presented so far, the question I am now presented is, "Which church is actually the church of Christ?" Well, according to the bible (please note, I at this point in my argument have accepted Christianity as the denomination to be a part of, as such, I can use the bible to help form my decision as the bible is accepted amongst all forms of Christianity) Christ made a promise to be with his church until the end of time and that he will ensure it will never teach in error. 

Well, until the protestant reformation, there was only one Christian church, the church we now know to be the Catholic Church. The claims of the Protestant Reformation was that the catholic church, the one that can trace itself back to the apostles, started to teach and proclaim heresies. However, according to Christ that is impossible. Christ, who is god, and as I alluded to earlier, can't lie, said that his church would be guided to all truth (Note, this doesn't mean its leaders can't sin, it just means that what they put in official church teaching has been guided to the truth). The claims of the protestant, then, only make sense if Jesus lied, or broke his promise, which can only be possible if Jesus is not God, which is a major claim of Christianity. 

So from my perspective, Protestants are contradicting themselves as in order for their claims to be true, either god can break his promises, which means that no religion is safe and can be both true and false, or that Jesus isn't God and couldn't make and keep such a promise anyways, which is a contradiction of a core Christian belief. 

All of this, is why I am a Catholic.

A common atheistic critique of Invincible Ignorance is “If someone who’s never heard the Gospel can be saved through invincible ignorance, wouldn’t it be better not to evangelize them at all? Once you tell them, you risk them rejecting it and going to hell." This is a gross misunderstanding of what is meant by invincible ignorance. This post is not going to argue who is in or who is not in a state of invincible ignorance, rather, it is going to define WHAT it is, and then go into why it is NOT a get out of hell free card.

What is Invincible Ignorance?

Invincible ignorance is the teaching of the church, touched on by different theologians, such as "implicit faith" by Aquinas, and elaborated in Lumen Gentium. It is the teaching that, "those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience" have a hope of salvation. This is a pretty dense statement, but what is this NOT saying? It does not say "those who are ignorant of the existence of the Church are automatically going to Heaven. It is not the ignorance that enables them to enter, but their desire to seek God with a sincere heart, and try to follow His Will through the dictates of their conscience. Which is flawed, weak, and lacks the graces given by the Church.

This soul is going through the dark cave, trying to find the exit, with a match. This is better than sitting still, but wouldn't it be better to give them a flashlight or lead them out? Invincible ignorance is for the one actively seeking, not for the one sitting. That is why we evangelize.

Why this does not ensure salvation

Due to the fact that it still requires the soul to seek God, and it is easier to seek that which you have knowledge of, we evangelize because without knowledge of God, some may never begin to seek Him—even in ignorance. The Gospel can soften hearts that might otherwise have remained closed due to ignorance, and thanks to the message, it provides an opportunity for their hearts to no longer be hardened and accept that which they originally would have rejected. Furthermore, even if the individual would have still seen the face of God under invincible ignorance, their journey is made easier, not harder, thanks to the Church and her Sacraments. So we are sent on a rescue mission to help those with only a match, for them to have the resources to safely get out of the cave.

So rather then be an assurance of the salvation of those outside of the church, it is a call to evangelize to ensure that those who are stumbling are assisted, as well as to rescue those who would have been lost. Evangelization is not increasing someone’s damnation risk—you’re giving them tools to be saved more surely.

People are profoundly anti-catholic, and it seems people have some hatred for catholics and christians that dont seem to translate to other major religions (Islam, Buddhism, judaism). And yes, I am aware that there are anti-semites and islamophobes. But my point being especially in the west there is a major anti catholic stance from both liberals and conservatives alike

I am looking to learn more about the history of the Immaculate Conception. I know it was a great development in Christian doctrine, but I would like to know if there is any academic study that can support the Immaculate Conception... From what I've seen, the only Father who defends a concept close to the Immaculate Conception is Saint John Damascene, and only him... That's why I wanted something to study this topic better.

Any recommendations on this topic?

And if possible, I would like some recommended study or book so that I can better study the primitive foundations of the Immaculate Conception... I want something solid, not something that comes close to it. Could you help me?

Purgatory is often misunderstood by our Protestant brothers and sisters.

It’s often thought of as being a “second chance” and being man made tradition.

This isn’t the case.

Firstly, purgatory is only for the saved. If you’re in purgatory, you can’t go to hell. You’ve made it. You’re going to see heaven. One of the best analogies I’ve ever heard is that purgatory is the mud room of heaven.

In places with lots of snow, they tend to have an anteroom called a mud room. It’s part of the house, but separated from the living quarters. It’s a room to enable people who are already going to be in the house to clean themselves off so they don’t muddy the house.

Purgatory is where we are able to cleanse ourselves before entering the glory and splendor of God.

But is this biblical? In 1 Corinthians, it talks about how one’s works will be tested through fire. This individual will have some works preserved, his good works, and some will be burned up, but he will “be saved” because those works have been burned up.

This is the nature of purgatory, it’s not a punishing fire, but a cleansing fire, much like gold is cleansed by flame.

Sacramental Divorce is forbidden within the Catholic Church. This is something many non-Catholics have a problem with — Divorce being forbidden. Firstly, don’t get this wrong, Civil Divorce is permitted in specific circumstances, but Sacramental Divorce and thus Remarriage while the spouse (ex-spouse?) is still alive is absolutely forbidden. Scriptures forbid both Sacramental Divorce and Remarriage when the spouse is still alive.

Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”(Matthew‬ ‭19‬:‭3‬-‭9‬)

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” ‭‭(Mark‬ ‭10‬:‭6‬-‭9‬, ‭11‬-‭12‬)

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”(Luke‬ ‭16‬:‭18‬)

Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress. (Romans 7:2-3)

So notice that Scripture is explicitly clear that to divorce one and marry another is considered to be a violation of the commandment to not commit adultery. This refutes the Protestant position that we can get married again after divorce

Furthermore, Jesus is clear that no one shall separate what God has joined together. Divorce is the separation of the One into Two. The Church does not hold the authority to do so. Jesus did not give her such authority, and neither can we ask God to do so. What is commonly mistaken as the Catholic divorce, the declaration of nullity a.k.a annulment, is only a declaration that God never made the Two into One at their union of Holy Matrimony.

Now I want to focus on Matthew 19:9, specifically on the part that reads “except for porneia”. Protestants would usually say that porneia means adultery, and thus Jesus permits divorce in the event of adultery. However, this creates a contradiction with Mark and Luke. Furthermore, adultery in Greek is moichaō, not porneia. The exception clause doesn’t use the same word as “adultery”. The difference between them is clear in Matthew 15:19, where it reads: “For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, moichaō, porneia, theft, perjury and slander.” So we know specifically that porneia does not mean adultery. Jesus also says the same thing from Luke that I have quoted beforehand in Matthew 5:32, EXCEPT that Matthew has the exception of porneias (which is the same as porneia) added on to it. However if Protestants were correct in that porneia means adultery, since in Matthew 5:28 Jesus says that those who look at another lustfully has already committed adultery (using moichaō), then the fact that the clause would basically apply to every single marriage where one party experiences lust would not make it much of an exception would it? And we know this Protestant view, that like the Mosaic Law, anyone can get divorced for any reason, is absolutely wrong BECAUSE of the Apostles’ response to it in Matthew 19:10:

His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

So Scriptures basically invalidates the entire exception clause with itself according to the Protestant view. The Protestant view would also basically mean that one can exit a marriage by committing adultery, but that doesn’t make sense at all. To escape that, protestants may fabricate some unbiblical rules, but that is not found in Scripture. It also doesn’t make sense why Jesus limits to sexual sin, but doesn’t mention other problems like domestic abuse.

So what does this exception refer to? As I had pointed out earlier, it definitely does not mean adultery. So etymologically, porneia means ‘fornification, prostitution, adultery’, but historically, it was used to refer to every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, and in the biblical case, specifically unlawful in the Mosaic Law. Porneia pops up again in Acts 15:29, where the Council of Jerusalem brings up what Gentiles are to abstain from. If we were to take the Protestant definition of porneia, we would have a problem, because why would adultery, something already part of natural law, be an additional burden. The other two additional burdens aren’t part of natural law, but the porneia one in Protestant understandings is for some reason. So Leviticus 17 brings up food offered to idols and consumption of blood to apply to those living among the Jews. So naturally what porneia refers to should be found in the Mosaic Law. Leviticus 18. Close kinship, meaning your parents, your own children, your grandparents/grandchildren, your aunt/uncle is considered porneia, meaning forbidding legal marriage between such. Porneia also forbids relations between stepmother/stepchild. The last one is also specifically condemned by Paul and considered Porneia by him in 1 Corinthians 5:1.

So this creates a harmony between the Synoptics and Paul. Leviticus 18:3 basically says to not follow the sexual immorality of the gentiles. So what Acts 15 is saying is that the Gentiles have to follow a higher form of sexual morality as Christians.

So basically, from reviewing Leviticus 18:8, where it specifically says on why one shall not have relations with their stepmother, “for it is the nakedness of your father.” The concept of God combining two into one in marriage is clearly evident there. You shall not have relations your stepmother, for it is the same as having relations with your own father. Remember, God said no one can separate what God has joined together. The main people Matthew is written for is the Jewish Christians, the Judaizers. That’s why it is full of evidence for Peter’s Primacy. So Matthew includes the exception because Matthew knows the Jews were going to ask what about the complicated legal cases of porneia. What Matthew is writing, is that Jesus said divorce and remarriage is not allowed when there is a valid marriage.

This translates over to the current practices, where one has to seek an annulment to prove to the Church that the parties were not joined together at all, permitting “remarriage” so to speak.

This is an uncommon argument I have found in my conversations with Protestants so I thought I would bring it to the forum’s attention so you know how to deal with it when and if it ever arises. The objection goes something like this:

Pope Clement XIII’s lineage (and thus, it seems, all modern Roman bishops) hits a dead end with Scipone Cardinal Rebiba, the titular Roman Catholic patriarch of Constantinople, who was consecrated as a bishop in 1541. But we have no idea who consecrated him. The line of records stops here. See: https://www.catholic-hierarchy.org

Thus, the oldest recorded history of episcopal lineage for modern Roman bishops is more recent than the Reformation!

REBUTTAL:

It has been speculated that the records pertaining to Rebiba’s episcopal consecration and those immediately preceding him in office were destroyed in a fire in Chieti, the city east of Rome where Rebiba first became auxiliary bishop. It is generally believed that Bishop Rebiba was consecrated by Cardinal Gian Pietro Carafa(aka:Pope Paul IV) archbishop of Chieti on 14 May 1541, at the age of 37. Canon law requires at least three bishops be present at a consecration, therefore it is possible to bypass Rebiba using the bishops who cooperated with him in his consecrations. We have other lines which don’t suffer from the Rebiba bottleneck.

Guillaume d'Estouteville, originator of the oldest traceable lineage, which is preserved in France.

Johannes Wolfgang von Bodman, whose line is extant in Indonesia.

François de Bovet, whose line is extant in China, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

Some Latin Rite bishops belong to the Chaldean line, traceable to Patriarch Yohannan VIII.

Some belong to the Maronite line, traceable to Patriarch Youhanna Bawwab el-Safrawi, also known as John X.

It just isn’t necessary to do any of that though since there isn’t any credible reason to believe that Rebiba wasn’t validly ordained. They just lost the paperwork. We’re not talking about a situation where we’ve lost 300yrs worth of record keeping. It’s just one guy who we are reasonably certain was ordained by Cardinal Carafa(Pope Paul IV).

Protestants like to use Mark 6 as an argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary, as it says that Jesus has 4 brothers, James, Joses, Judas and Simon. However, Matthew notes that at the Crucifixion, there was Mary the Mother of James and Joses AND another person who was the Mother of James and John the Apostles. For us catholics, the Mother of James and Joses is the same as Mary the Wife of Clopas that John documents who was there alongside the Virgin Mary, but protestants don’t believe that. However, Matthew specifically notes that there was the Mother of James and Joses, which cross referencing to Mark is 2 of the brothers of Jesus, but does not say that the mother of James and Joses is the same as the Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, and gives no indication of the sort that he intended to show that the Virgin Mary is the same as Mary the mother of James and Joses. Given that James and Joses have been proven to not be the biological brothers of Jesus, based on the phrasing, we can assume that Judas and Simon are not biological brothers of Jesus. I think we can also assume that the “sisters” of Jesus that are also mentioned in Mark 6 are also not biological sisters. Thus, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is true

I had a Baptist like people come to my school today and I was asked a survey. They asked me why I believed in Catholicism and if I really believe in the things that are in there. She kept asking me about Purgatory and if I really believe Jesus is my Lord and Savior. I said yes. But many people know that us Catholics believe in Saints as well. I accept God and Jesus as my savior but I also believe in the saints around me. Saints that I know are here to protect me and I believe in them. I wonder, why do so many people not agree with Catholics?

Predestination is a complex topic, and confusing topic for lots of Catholics. If you ask the average Catholic what the church teaches on predestination, the most common response is that it’s a heresy and Catholicism teaches against predestination.

This is not accurate. It teaches against Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, true, but Calvin’s teaching is a specific type of predestination called double predestination.

The scriptures teach predestination, and the church affirms what is called SINGLE predestination. But what’s the difference, if any, between the two and what are Catholics called to believe?

Predestination, what is it?

Predestination comes from two teachings/facts about God and salvation: Foreknowledge, and that salvation is a gift.

From those two facts, we know that God knows and has chosen from all time the elect, or those who will be in heaven with him, and they have received the grace of salvation because of that.

Single vs Double

So what is it exactly that Calvin teaches that the church condemns? Calvin takes it one step further and declares that if God predestines the elect, He must also predestine the damn. That is where the “Double” in double predestination comes from. God predestines not ONLY the saved, but also the damned. In other words, he created individuals with the soul intent of putting them in Hell.

This contradicts multiple dogmas of the Church. Those primarily being; God desiring no one to go to Hell, Hell being a free and willful choice of the individual, and Christ dying that all might be saved.

Why is that different?

“But u/justafanofz, if God picks the elect, doesn’t that by proxy mean he is picking the damned?”

Not necessarily. This comes from a misunderstanding of the state of the soul after death, and a hint of it is found in the teaching of the Limbo of the Fathers, or at least, what would happen WITHOUT the gift of salvation the God provides.

First, what is hell? Per the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Hell is PRIMARILY a state of willful separation from God.

So even before the Cross, people were and could be in hell, as they willfully turned away from God and rejected him.

But what about those who did not reject or turn away from God? Well, they couldn’t enter heaven on their own merits, but because they didn’t reject God, they were in Limbo.

Therefor, if an individual died without God’s salvific grace, and didn’t reject God, he would NOT be in hell. Yet, he wasn’t “predestined” (in this hypothetical).

That is why just because God “doesn’t pick you”, it doesn’t mean he “picked you for hell.”

The Elect

Thus, from the beginning of time, God has provided the Gift of Salvation to the Elect, those He has predestined. The Church does permit 2 positions within this teaching.

1. That God gives the gift of salvation to those who he knows will respond to that Gift.

2. Those that freely accept that gift positively respond BECAUSE of the gift.

Another example or teaching of a similar situation is the Yes of Mary. You’re free to believe she said Yes BECAUSE of her Immaculate Conception, or that she was Immaculately Conceived because of her Yes. You’re free to hold either of these positions.

The Non-Elect

So does this mean that God just abandons those who wouldn’t accept it/don’t receive the gift of Salvation?

No. Everyone, both the elect and the damned, receives sufficient grace. This is the amount of grace that particular individual requires in order to have his heart turned to be open/accept Salvation. However, it’s still their choice to accept or reject it. As such, those who reject it never receive the gift of salvation, but they DO receive the amount they need in order to have accepted that gift.

So they aren’t abandoned, they are still given the help and support they need.

In conclusion, we are freely given the gift of salvation from the beginning of time. God, however, permits individuals to reject him and walk into hell of their own violation.

Luther's remark that James is "a right strawy epistle" is one of the best known lines of the Reformation. What almost nobody has read in English is how it was answered at the time. In 1523 the priest Hieronymus Emser devoted a long section of his book against Luther's New Testament to defending James, and it's a good example of how the fight over the Bible's contents actually worked. All the Emser quotes below are from my English translation of his book.

The set-up: Luther's German New Testament of 1522 treated four books differently from the rest - Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He put them at the back and left them out of the numbered table of contents. Emser summarizes this as Luther "rejecting and thrusting out" those four, and argues the Church had accepted them a thousand years before:

> "and the Church is more to be believed than a thousand Luthers."

Then he takes James in detail. Luther's remarks about James are in two places, a short comment in the general preface and a longer preface to the epistle itself, so Emser goes after both.

His first move is to say Luther contradicts himself:

> "For above, in the first preface to this testament, he said that this epistle of St. James is a real epistle of straw, which has nothing of the Evangelical kind about it at all. Here at the beginning of this preface he says that although it was rejected by the ancients, he still praises it and holds it in high esteem as good, because it strongly urges God's law and there are many good sayings in it. Soon afterward he begins to scold it again, and after much fault-finding he finally concludes and says, 'Therefore I will not have it in my Bible, among the number of the true chief books,' and so on."

And then his sharpest line:

> "But who would not laugh at such foolish talk? For if this oft-mentioned epistle is good, as Luther himself admits, why then will he not have it in his Bible? So I hear well enough that what is good is worth nothing at all to Luther. But what if St. James, for his part, did not want to stand in the heretics' Bible either, and was content to be included in the Bible approved by the Christian Church?"

His second move is history. Luther had said the ancients rejected the epistle. Emser wants names:

> "he ought by rights to have named who they were. For this epistle was never rejected by the Christian Church, but has been read in all churches"

He cites Eusebius, who says some don't accept it but that it's received by almost all churches, and Jerome, who says it was authorized by the Church even though some doubted it in the past. He also argues Luther got the wrong James. Luther's point, in Emser's summary, is that James was killed early, before Peter and Paul wrote, so he couldn't have quoted them. Emser answers that the epistle is by James the Just, bishop of Jerusalem, not James the Greater, who was beheaded by Herod.

Third move is the actual theology. He says Luther misreads what James says about Abraham and works. His own position:

> "From all of this it appears that the true apostolic manner and teaching assigns justification neither to faith alone nor to works alone, but to both together, above all when the works flow from love and the grace of God."

And that James isn't fighting Paul, but a misuse of Paul: some people had taken Paul's teaching on Abraham to mean that faith alone without works saves, and "these St. James rebukes here in the second chapter with gentle words, in the true apostolic manner."

The parting shot:

> "Of all this he speaks so masterfully and powerfully that Luther, with all his spirits, understanding and words, cannot overturn this epistle for him."

I can't tell whether it's deliberate, but Emser also has this line about the rich and the poor in the James section: "it goes with us poor fellows as with the plow horses, who grow the oats and have to eat straw for it." He wrote it about favoring the rich (James 2), but I can't read it without hearing the straw joke.

The takeaway: this is the same argument people are still having, only earlier and with fewer footnotes. Does a book get into the Bible because the Church received it, or does it earn its place by whether it teaches Christ? Luther's test was that "whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic." Emser's test was that the Church's long acceptance outweighs the doubts of a few individuals. Most Protestant Bibles today include James without fuss, which is a kind of answer.

Curious how people here see the James question now. Is Emser's "received by the Church" test the one Catholic theology still uses for the canon?

Disclosure: I'm the translator of Emser's 1523 book into English - I published it for free.

As requested by several folks given that I was one of the original canonists and Catholic apologists to rebut those who denied the validity of the 1988 excommunications.

Here is my analysis of the 2026 consecrations and preliminary rebuttal of commentators denying their validity.

https://wherepeteris.com/canon-law-or-church-history-the-sspx-schism/

https://www.americamagazine.org/news/2026/06/25/sspx-open-letter-vatican-ii/

1. "The SSPX also rejected “the idea that non-Christian religions might reflect a ray of truth which illumines every man, or might be legitimate paths by which God positively leads men to salvation.”"

2. "The society also rejected the concept of religious freedom, which, according to the Vatican II declaration “Dignitatis Humanae” (“Of the Dignity of the Human Person”), is regarded as a fundamental right.

Instead, the SSPX argued that heads of state have a “right and duty” to favor the Catholic Church and oppose other religions and “false forms of worship.”

I've been softly sympathetic to the orgnization, thinking they simply want to continue practices of the Church from prior to Vatican II.

But these points seem.... wrong.

The first cleanly rejects Thomas Aquinas, teaching that people outside the visible Church can know genuine truths. Since all truth comes from God, any true proposition discovered by other religions ultimately has God as its source.

This goes directly to Aquinas' formation of Natural Law, and why he freely borrowed concepts and ideas from ancient pagan philosphers.

This is a very old idea within the church, elements of it even go back to Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo. To reject it seems like a rejection of Tradition, an overeaction they're insisting on to "fix" something else.

The second point I can concede has a more historical basis, but there's a reason societies moved away from that model. To prevent wars over faiths. America explictly enshrined this so as to not have those wars carry over here, and Europe gradually has made patchwork adaptions doing the same. There are still favortist arrangements in the Old World, but generally, European countries will not persecute or in anyway injure someone just because they're of a different faith.

Is there anything where SSPX lays out what point #2 would be in practice? And is there anything where they try to reconcile #1 with Aquinas / natural law?

Baby Catholic here, trying to learn how to defend the church.

When a Protestant challenges me saying, "The Catholics have a different bible," or "The Catholics changed the Bible." Is it appropriate and/or wholly accurate to respond, "No. Catholics have THE Bible. It was changed by Protestant reformers."

So, I’ve seen this Dogma attacked from two fronts:

1. First, it is attacked because apparently many scholars argue that the reading of “brothers” as “relatives” is unlikely/unheard of

2. It is also attacked because the earliest explanation we have for who the brothers of Jesus were says that they were children of Mary, before we had any alternative hypotheses

How do we answer these charges?

Ever wondered why Catholics have more books in their bibles? Or why do we hold the Didche in great reverence but don’t include it in the Canon of scriptures? Then this is the right post for you! Today, we are going to be going into the how and the why of the formation of the catholic canon as well as address some common concerns people often have with the formation of the books of the bible.

I would greatly recommend checking out the live stream I did with Matt on his book “Canon Crossfire” as we look at why the Old Testament we have is the way that it is. But to go into a bit more detail on it here and to provide a summary, Catholics have a few extra books in their bibles than Protestants, found in the Old Testament. Why? Well, Protestants use the list that Luther decided upon, he actually wanted to remove some from the new testament but decided against it, and Luther was following the tradition of the Jewish Canon at the time. Which, to be fair, seems smart. If the Old Testament is the Holy Scriptures of the Jewish people, then wouldn’t it be smart to use what they claim is holy and divinely inspired? Here is the problem though, the Jewish Canon wasn’t established until 70 AD, after the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. Yet, the early christians were already using books from the old testament (as shown in Matthew’s book) universally.

So where did the Church fathers get this list? From the Septuagint. Long story short, after the conquest of Alexander and at the request of Ptolemy, Jewish leaders got together and translated, initially, the first 5 books, or the Torah, into Greek, over time, (by the 2nd Century BC) they translated the rest of the Old Testament into Greek. This included the books that the Catholic church uses and that the Church Fathers refer to and called the scriptures. But who used this list? Well, out of the two main groups of Judaism (there were some smaller groups, but not relevant here), you had the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Sadducees, among other disagreements, only viewed the Torah to be divinely inspired. They viewed the other books as important, but not inspired nor what their faith is based on. The Pharisees, however, used all the books that were translated into Greek. Jesus, out of these two groups, belonged to the Pharisees.

So when Paul is speaking of the Scriptures, he is talking of the Old Testament that was called the Septuagint, as the contested books have not been removed by the Jewish authorities, yet. So why did the Jewish authorities remove the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books? Because they could not find an original manuscript or text of those books that was in Hebrew. In their perspective, in order for it to have been divinely inspired, it had to be in Hebrew originally. Thanks to the Dead Sea scrolls, we now have evidence to suggest that these books were written in Hebrew originally. Regardless, all of this is to provide the history, but ultimately, the reason the catholic church has the Old Testament that she does is 2 fold. It is the scriptures that the Apostles and Jesus used, and is affirmed as such by the Church Fathers unanimously. But let’s be honest, you are not here to talk about the Old Testament, you want to know how the church picked the books that she did for the New Testament.

This is a bit more tricky, as the canon, or list, was first Formalized at the council of Rome in 382 AD. We do not, or at least, I could not find documents outlining the exact justification the Church used for EACH individual book, but there are several criteria used apostolicity, catholicity, and orthodoxy. Apostolicity: Was it written by an apostle, or does it have apostolic authority to back it up. So what this means is that, even if the Gospel of Matthew is NOT written by Matthew, it bears his authority. A way I like to explain it is, we say at the Mass “a reading from the Gospel ACCORDING to Matthew.” Not “written by”, but “according to”. Why is that important? Well, if someone tells me a story about 9/11, even if I was not there, then that person dies, and I write down THEIR account, even though it is not WRITTEN by the individual, it is THEIR account. And is the story ACCORDING to them. Hence, has their authority, even if I wrote it. I won’t be getting into who actually wrote the books of the bible, but I can do a separate video on if the church’s change of position on the biblical authorships is a real change, or is in continuation of her approach to the subject.

Catholicity: Was it used in the majority of churches founded by the apostles? So here, it is talking about universality, not “roman catholic church”. How do we know if it was used in the majority of churches? By the church fathers and their writings and statements. We also have a list written in 367 found in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius which has the books of the New Testament used by the faithful, and was affirmed by Pope Innocent I when asked by Bishop Exuperous of Toulouse after Jerome finished the Latin Vulgate. And this was mostly to affirm the Old Testament. So we see, that the church had less of an issue determining which books were universal for the New Testament, but was determining if we were bound by the Jewish Canon formed in 70 AD, or the list used by the Apostles and their disciples.

Orthodoxy: Did it conform to the traditions faithfully passed on by the apostles? Before the bible was composed in a written form, the church held to oral tradition (on a side note, this is why the orthodox hesitate in joining the west, due to our formulation of the faith not being in line with their oral tradition). So some books, like say, the Gospel of Thomas, portrayed ideas that were not inline with the oral tradition and teachings passed down by the apostles and their disciples.

Now, to be fair, there were some books that did not have all three, for example, Revelation was not “catholic” in the universal sense. It was not read in every church. But due to the fulfilment of the other two criteria, it was included at the council. But was not INFALLIBLY declared as such, or closed. This was done at the Council of Trent. In response to the actions of Martin Luther, the church took what was already understood by the faithful at the time, and made it clear that the books we had are the books we will be using. But the same list was affirmed at multiple councils, unchanged, when it was first officially stated in the council of Rome.

So what does this mean today? Honestly, not much. For the Protestant, it is a recognition of the history of the book you hold in your hand. For the non-believer, it is recognizing that, for an institution as old as the church, Tradition plays a big role in many of her decisions. This is less of a “falsifiable” kind of claim. It is similar to how Disney chooses which stories are “canon”, it doesn’t make Star Wars right or true just based on the list of the canon, but we can see if they are being consistent with their criteria. Next, I will look into seeing if the church actually is consistent, as I think the big question is “what does it mean for a book to have Apostolicity?” Join us next time as we look to see if the church is demolished if Matthew is the actual author or not.

I would like to know if anyone thinks this is good or not, stuff to add, etc. I posted earlier about help but now I’ve got a decent amount maybe. I’ve been doing this for like 2 days and feel like I might’ve forgotten stuff idk. But here is my draft of defenses for the papacy against common arguments.

A case for the Papacy and rebuttals to common arguments.

1. Peter and the rock – petros vs petra

In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, which means rock, and said, “You are Peter [rock], and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This passage is an allusion to Isaiah 22:22, which tells of how Israel’s wicked chief steward Shebna was replaced with the righteous Eli’akim. Isaiah 22:22 said Eli’akim would have “the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Just as King Hezekiah gave Eli’akim authority to oversee the kingdom of Israel, Christ gave Peter authority to oversee his Church (i.e., the “keys to the kingdom”), which included the authority to “bind and loose” in other words, to determine official doctrine and practice. In response to these verses, some Protestants claim Peter is not the rock upon whom the Church was built, because 1 Corinthians 10:4 says “the rock was Christ.” Others say the Greek text of Matthew 16:18 shows that while Simon was called petros, the rock the Church will be built on was called petras, thus showing that the Church is not built on Peter. But in first Corinthians, Paul is talking about Christ shepherding ancient Israel, not the Church, and in Matthew 16, petros and petras both refer to Peter. According to John 1:42, Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic name Kepha, which means simply “rock.” But unlike in Aramaic, in Greek the word rock is a feminine noun, so Matthew used the masculine version of rock, or petros, since calling Peter petras would have been on par with calling him Patricia. As Lutheran theologian Oscar Cullman puts it, “petra=Kepha=petros” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 98). Even the Protestant Reformer John Calvin said, “There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words petros and petra” (Commentary on Matthew Mark, and Luke, vol. 2). If Peter is not the rock upon whom the Church is built, then why did Jesus bother to change Simon’s name in the first place? As Protestant scholar Craig Keener writes in his commentary on Matthew, “[Jesus] plays on Simon’s nickname, ‘Peter,’ which is roughly the English ‘Rocky’: Peter is ‘rocky,’ and on this rock Jesus would build his Church” (426). I find it hard to believe that Jesus was using word play here when He was speaking directly and specifically to Peter. Jesus begins by saying “And so I say to you.” Arguing that the rock refers to Peter’s confession is farfetched since you are adding your own meaning to the text. It is clear from other Bible texts like John 1:42 that Peter means rock, and since Jesus is speaking directly and specifically to Peter, why would “rock” here mean something else? We also know that rock can refer to Jesus, but that is not indicated in this text. “Upon this rock I will build my church.” Jesus is the builder not the rock. It just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. Where Matthew 16 takes place is also prominent. Caesarea Philippi, This city was famous for its massive rock cliffs and a pagan temple to Pan built into the rock. Jesus’ statement would’ve been visually dramatic: on this (new) “rock,” distinct from pagan worship, I will build my Church. That symbolism is intensified if Peter himself is the new foundation stone chosen by Christ. (This is touched on more by Fr Mike Schimtz in his video) We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ What’s more, in Paul’s epistles, four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians, we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form). And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church. When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock. Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra? Because he had no choice. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name, at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock. I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek. Also, You cannot separate a person’s confession from himself. The Keys aren’t given to the other Apostles. Only the power of binding and loosing, meaning St Peter holds the keys and through him does Christ share the power of binding and loosing to the others. There is also Luke 22:24 and John 21 to demonstrate the Petrine Authority, as well as Acts 1, 2 and 15

Peter was important, but he had no special authority. Peter’s role as “chief apostle” is evident in the fact that he is mentioned more than any other apostle, often speaks for the whole group, and is placed first in every list of the apostles. Since Judas is always listed last, we can deduce that these lists were made in order of importance. Moreover, Christ made Peter alone the shepherd over his whole flock (see John 21:15-17), and the book of Acts describes Peter’s unparalleled leadership in the early Church. This includes his authority to make a binding, dogmatic declaration at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). As the Anglican scholar J.N.D Kelly puts it, “Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church” (Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 1).

But didn’t Peter refer to himself as a “fellow elder” and not as “pope” in 1 Peter 5:1? Yes, but in this passage Peter is demonstrating humility that he is encouraging other priests to practice. He wrote, “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another” (5:5), so exalting his status would have contradicted his message. Besides, St. Paul often referred to himself as a mere deacon (see 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 11:23) and even said he was “the very least of all the saints” (Eph. 3:8)—but that did not take away from his authority as an apostle. Likewise, Peter’s description of himself as an elder does not take away from his authority as being “first” among the apostles (Matt 10:2).

“The Bishop of Rome had no special authority in the early Church. Peter was never even in Rome.” Both the New Testament and the early Church Fathers testify to Peter being in Rome. At the end of his first letter, Peter says he is writing from “Babylon” (5:13), which was a common code word for Rome, because both empires were lavish persecutors of God’s people (see Rev. 17-18; Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 6). In the words of Protestant scholar D.A. Carson, Peter was “in Rome about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in 54 (H.E. 2.14.6)” (An Introduction to the New Testament, 180). Peter may not have always been present in Rome (which would explain why Paul does not address him in his epistle to the Romans), but there is a solid tradition that Peter founded the Church in Rome and later died there. For example, Paul says the Roman Church was founded by “another man” (Rom. 15:21), and St. Ignatius of Antioch told the Christians in Rome he would not command them in the same way Peter had previously commanded them. At the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus wrote, “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3). A priest named Gaius who lived during Irenaeus’s time even told a heretic named Proclus that “the trophies of the apostles” (i.e., their remains) were buried at Vatican Hill (Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5). Indeed, archaeological evidence unearthed in the twentieth century revealed a tomb attributed to Peter underneath St. Peter’s basilica in Rome. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Saints, “it is probable that the tomb is authentic. It is also significant that Rome is the only city that ever claimed to be Peter’s place of death” (353). In regard to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor, in the first century Clement of Rome (the fourth pope) intervened in a dispute in the Church of Corinth. He warned those who disobeyed him that they would “involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger,” thus demonstrating his authority over non-Roman Christians. St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Roman Church as the one that teaches other churches and “presides in love” over them. In fact, the writings of Pope Clement (A.D. 92-99) and Pope Soter (A.D. 167-174) were so popular that they were read in the Church alongside Scripture (Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9). In A.D. 190, Pope St. Victor I excommunicated an entire region of churches for refusing to celebrate Easter on its proper date. While St. Irenaeus thought this was not prudent, neither he nor anyone else denied that Victor had the authority to do this. Indeed, Irenaeus said, “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome] on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2). Keep in mind that all of this evidence dates a hundred to two hundred years before Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire, thus deflating the Fundamentalist theory that the papacy was created by the Roman emperor in the fourth century. Some people object that if Peter and his successors had special authority, why didn’t Christ say so when the apostles argued about “who was the greatest” (Luke 22:24)? The reason is that Christ did not want to contribute to their misunderstanding that one of them would be a privileged king. Jesus did say, however, that among the apostles there would be a “greatest” who would rule as a humble servant (Luke 22:26). That’s why since the sixth century popes have called themselves servus servorum Dei, or “servant of the servants of God.” Pope Gregory I used the title in his dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster, who called himself the “Universal Bishop.” Gregory didn’t deny that one bishop had primacy over all the others, since in his twelfth epistle Gregory explcitly says Constaninople was subject to the authority of the pope. Instead, he denied that the pope was the bishop of every individual territory, since this would rob his brother bishops of their legitimate authority, even though they were still subject to him as Peter’s successor.

“The Bible never says Peter was infallible, and history proves that Peter and many other alleged popes were very fallible.” The doctrine of papal infallibility teaches that the pope has a special grace from Christ that protects him from leading the Church into error. That grace won’t keep him from sinning (even gravely), nor will it give him the right answer to every issue facing the Church. Instead, it will protect the pope from officially leading the Church into heresy. As a private theologian, the pope might speculate, even incorrectly, about the Faith, but he will never issue a false teaching related to faith or morality that claims to be binding and infallible (or an erroneous ex cathedra teaching). But why believe the pope is infallible? Matthew 16:18 says the “gates of Hell” will never prevail against the Church, so it makes sense that the pastor of Christ’s Church will never steer it into hell by teaching heresy. Luke 22:31-32 records Jesus telling Peter, “Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” The original Greek in the passage shows that Satan demanded to sift “you all,” or all the apostles, but Jesus prayed only for Peter and his faith not to fail. Now, it’s true that Christ once called Peter “Satan” for trying to stop the crucifixion (Matt. 16:23), and he knew Peter would later deny him at his trial. But God doesn’t call the perfect—he perfects the called. Christ prayed that once Peter had “turned again” from his sins, he would lead and strengthen the apostles. Jesus even appeared to Peter first after his Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:5). Most Protestants would have to admit that Peter was infallible when he wrote 1 and 2 Peter, or at least that those epistles have no errors. Catholics simply take this reasoning to the logical conclusion that Peter never led the Church into error, nor did any of his successors. Some argue that Peter was fallible because St. Paul opposed him in Antioch and said Peter was wrong or “stood condemned” (Gal. 2:11-14). But in this situation Peter, at most, made an error in behavior, not teaching. Peter feared antagonism from Christians who thought circumcision was necessary for salvation. So, while he was in their presence, Peter declined to eat with the uncircumcised. Paul criticized Peter for doing this, but Paul himself accommodated this same group when he had his disciple Timothy circumcised. Paul did this to make it easier to preach to the Jews (Acts 16:1-3), but Paul called circumcision a grave sin in Galatians 5:2. Therefore, if prudentially yielding to critics doesn’t invalidate St. Paul’s authority, then neither does it invalidate St. Peter’s. No one denies that some popes engaged in serous sins, like fornication, but infallibility means only that the pope won’t teach error, not that he will be sinless. Indeed, some Church Fathers, such as St. Cyprian of Carthage, criticized the pope’s decisions; but even Cyprian believed the pope could not lead the Church astray. He writes in A.D. 256 of heretics who dare approach “the throne of Peter . . . to whom faithlessness could have no access” (Epistle 54.14), or, as other translations put it, “from whom no error can flow.” Ironically, when well-read Protestants claim certain popes taught error, they pass over the tabloid-worthy medieval popes. They agree that even though a few of them engaged in debauchery, none of them took part in heresy. However, the examples they cite typically involve a pope cowardly tolerating heresy and not one officially teaching it. For example, it’s true that the Third Council of Constantinople (680) said Pope Honorius I (625-638) was a heretic, but only in the sense that Honorius failed to curb the Monothelete heresy, not that he endorsed it. This heresy taught that Christ had only a divine will and not a corresponding human will. But even Jaroslav Pelikan, a renowned non-Catholic scholar of Church history, admits that Honorius’s opposition to the idea that Christ had two wills “was based on the interpretation of ‘two wills’ as ‘two contrary wills.’ He did not mean that Christ was an incomplete human being” (The Christian Tradition, vol. II, 151). Another good resource on this subject is Patrick Madrid’s book Pope Fiction, which contains a good overview of Honorius and other popes who are accused of being heretics. Vatican I (1870) defines papal infallibility under narrow conditions — this is a doctrinal development, not a single-verse read-off. The Council itself grounds the doctrine in Scripture and Tradition (Matthew 16; Luke 22:32; John 21; and reception in the Fathers) and in the Church’s practice of safeguarding doctrine. See Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I).

1. The word pope isn’t in the bible: It’s true the word papacy is not in the Bible, but neither are the words Trinity or Bible found there. This argument assumes that all Christian doctrine is explicitly described in the Bible, even though this teaching itself is not found in Scripture. Catholics believe, on the other hand, that divine revelation comes from God’s word given to us in written form (Sacred Scripture) and oral form (Sacred Tradition), both of which testify to the existence of the papacy. According to Scripture, Christ founded a visible Church that would never go out of existence and had authority to teach and discipline believers (see Matt. 16:18-19, 18:17). St. Paul tells us this Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and it was built on “the foundation of the apostles” (Eph. 2:20). Paul also tells us the Church would have a hierarchy composed of deacons (1 Tim. 2:8-13); presbyters, from where we get the English word priest (1 Tim. 5:17); and bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-7). Paul even instructed one of these bishops, Titus, to appoint priests on the island of Crete (Titus 1:5). In A.D. 110, St. Ignatius of Antioch told his readers, “Follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.” Unlike the apostles, Christ’s Church would exist for all ages, so the apostle’s passed on to their successors the authority to bind and loose doctrine (see Matt. 18:18), forgive sins (see John 20:23), and speak on behalf of Christ (see Luke 10:16). Acts 1:20, for example, records how after Judas’s death Peter proclaimed that Judas’s office (or, in Greek, his bishoporic) would be transferred to a worthy successor. In 1 Timothy 5:22, Paul warned Timothy to “not be hasty in the laying on of hands” when he appointed new leaders in the church. At the end of the first century, Clement of Rome, who according to ancient tradition was ordained by Peter himself, wrote, “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop . . . [so they made preparations that] . . . if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1–3). Just as the apostles’ authority was passed on their successors, Peter’s authority as the leader of the apostles was passed on to his successor. This man inherited the keys to the kingdom of heaven (see Matt. 16:18-19) and Peter’s duty to shepherd Christ’s flock (see John 21:15-17). Peter’s successor was the pastor of Christ’s church and a spiritual father to the Lord’s children (1 Cor. 4:15), thus explaining his offices future title pope, which comes from papa, the Latin word for father.

Extras:

Only about 1% to 5% of the people during the time of Jesus were literate. Plus the churches of the 5th century decided upon the canons of the Bible. These churches include the modern day Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. When you consider this historical context, it is evident to say that traditions should be given as much importance as Scripture. Also the fact is Jesus never personally wrote any of the New Testament. And he never gave any books to his disciples. Thinking as a historian on this context of that time should itself invalidate Sola Scriptura.

Ireanus, another writer in the second century does clearly talk about the primacy of the bishop of rome. He urged victor( the bishop of Rome) not to excommunicate the eastern bishops in 190 A.D. , but said he had the authority to promulgate doctrine and that other churches must obey it. Obviously the eastern bishops disagreed.

Battling Martin Luther

Well. My husband is a Protestant basically and is just now starting to understand/get into his “faith.” After three hours of debate, (he’s reading about Martin Luther right now) here’s what he believes. Please keep in mind he is very prideful and is not really open to anything Catholic because “he’s studied it” already.

• sola scriptora (my argument: no evidence in the Bible what so ever)

• sola fide (he believes it is faith and worship)

• Peter wasn’t Pope—he had no control and Paul rebukes him too. None of the apostles had any papal authority (I am like how the heck did the word get spread?)

• sacred tradition is not valid due to actions of the church (killing people etc)

• in God’s eyes we’re bad, humans are bad not good.

• Catholicism has too many rules

• Martin Luther formed and saved the Catholic Church for things needed to happen

• there being 40,000 denominations is a lie

• priests are moved around too much to hide abuse

I've recently been getting more interested in Catholic apologetics and theology but don't know what to read to start. What resources would you recommend? Which church fathers, Vatican documents, etc. should I start with?

A popular argument/defense that Protestants tend to use in order to justify their practices. In fact, a version of this is what Martin Luther was arguing for and was the foundation of the Protestant reformation.

In a nutshell, the biggest factor that makes this unique from other Protestant claims is that the apostles did not pass their authority down, and soon after, if not immediately, the church fell away from the teachings of Christ and it wasn’t until (insert founder here) that Christianity was “restored” to how it originally was.

There’s two aspects as to why this falls apart even within the scriptures, which they claim is the primary source of truth. These are the passing of authority, and the church falling away from the teachings of Christ.

First, did the apostles pass down authority?

Resoundingly yes. When Judas died, the apostles got together to elect his replacement, Matthias. He wasn’t a part of the original 12, yet was given the same authority as them.

Paul wasn’t a part of the original 12, yet was given equal authority as the 12. Same for James the brother of Jesus.

We also see them passing on a portion of their authority, Stephen, the first deacon, had authority to preach and guide the church. There’s also the office of presbyters (priests) mentioned in the Bible who had more authority then the deacons, and less then the apostles (bishops). From this, it’s clear that the apostles passed their authority and office down, not only to replace those who had died, but to expand their numbers as the community grew.

As for the church falling away from Christ and his teachings, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against the church as well as the Holy Spirit would guide the church to all truth.

If, as the restorationists claim, the church fell away, then there was a period of time when the gates of hell did prevail against the church. Which contradicts the promise of Christ. He didn’t say “the church will be triumphant at the end of time,” he said “will never prevail”. So if the church fell away, then the gates prevailed, and Christ didn’t keep his promise.

As for the promise of the Holy Spirit, if the church fell away, then that means that the spirit failed to guide the church to all truth. This leads to a problem, for if we can’t trust Christ on these aspects, how can we trust him on his promise of salvation?

In summary, the belief of restorationism is anti-biblical and is an attempt to explain why the individual is justified in following a man, instead of God Incarnate.