Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

A common argument against the Ministerial Priesthood (and pretty much the entire Sacrament of Holy Orders is that because all Christians are priests, so we do not need a ministerial priesthood, and that the ministerial priesthood is only found in the Old Covenant.

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

‭‭1 Peter‬ 2:9

“John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”

‭‭Revelation‬ ‭1‬:‭4‬-‭6‬

So how do we respond to this argument?

Well, Catholics don’t even deny the universal priesthood. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, where you can find the Church’s teachings, says:

“The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood." By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light." Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.”

CCC 1268

“The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, "by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that . . . they may offer spiritual sacrifices."This "common priesthood" is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate:

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people," have a right and an obligation by reason of their Baptism.”

CCC 1141

The phrase “Royal Priesthood”, or “Kingdom of Priests” actually wasn’t a novelty made in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant has the same phrase. God calls his people, the Israelites, his Kingdom of Priests.

“Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

‭‭Exodus‬ ‭19‬:‭5‬-‭6‬

The fact that the people of Israel are called God’s Kingdom of Priests, and yet still have the Ministerial Priesthood in the line of the Levites, means that the Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant is not invalidated by the fact that all Christians are part of a Kingdom of Priests.

Now, Protestants would ask, why do we need the Ministerial Priesthood, if we have the universal priesthood, with Christ as our one high priest? The Scriptures don’t mention any priests.

So the standard Greek word for priest is hiereus, but the entire New Testament does not use that for any NT ministers. So Protestants think that because the greek word for priest is not used at all in the entire Gospels, that the ministerial priesthood is not scriptural. BUT, the word priest in English has roots in another Greek word. In English, the word Priest is the short form of the word Presbyter, which comes from the Latin word Presbyter, which itself comes from the Greek word Presbyteros, or Presbyteroi in plural. Presbyteros is usually translated as Elder, since Elder is the English translation of it, and the word Elder is used many times in the Scriptures in reference to a minister of the New Covenant. In conclusion, the New Testament Writers clearly included priests in the Scriptures.

Another reason why the Ministerial Priesthood is believed to exist by the Early Church and thus the Orthodox and Catholics is because of the parallels between the Old Covenant and Testament and the New Covenant and Testament.

Furthermore, Paul, along with the other apostles, recognised their priestly rank in their ministries.

“But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

‭‭Romans‬ ‭15‬:‭15‬-‭16‬ ‭

Notice the language Paul uses in reference to his ministry. He calls it his “priestly service.” The Greek word that Paul uses for “priestly service” is hierourgounta, which is the verb form of the Greek word hiereus. Therefore, if Paul sees his apostolic work through the lens of the priestly work of the Old Testament, then he must recognize his apostolic office as a priestly office.

Furthermore, the Greek word that Paul uses when he describes himself as “a minister of Christ” is leitourgos, which means “public servant” and is used in the Jewish tradition to describe the work of the priesthood. This same word is used in Exodus 28:35 regarding the ministry that Aaron performs in the Sanctuary, and in the epistle to the Hebrews, Hebrews 8:1-2, to describe how Jesus ministers in the heavenly sanctuary.

Paul sees Jesus as the true high priest fulfilling the priestly ministry of old. By referring to himself as leitourgos, Paul sees himself as participating in the one high priesthood of Jesus, which is the fulfillment of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. Therefore, Paul recognizes himself as a New Testament priest.

Now, let’s take a look at the duties of the Christian Ministerial Priesthood and the Levite Ministerial Priesthood.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is given to the Apostles the power to forgive sins. In the Gospel of John, the Evangelist writes the following:

“Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.””

‭‭John‬ ‭20‬:‭21‬-‭23‬

Jesus in this passage gives the Apostles the power to forgive sins through the Holy Spirit. This forgiveness of sins is further reflected in the writings of Paul, particularly in his second epistle to the Corinthians:

“For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.”

‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭2‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭

“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭5‬:‭18‬-‭20‬ ‭

In the first passage, Paul CLEARLY writes that HE FORGIVES SINNERS in the presence of CHRIST. It is by CHRIST’S authority that PAUL, an APOSTLE, forgives. Paul clearly states that it is in Christ who he forgives sins, and that he has heard confessions.

The Second passage clearly states that they were sent by Christ to reconcile others to God. Note that Paul says “we”, not “I”. Paul AND others he was travelling with are appealing to the people of Corinth on behalf of Christ to reconcile themselves with God.

Now let us take a look at the Old Covenant. Leviticus 4-6 (and other passages in Leviticus) clearly prescribes what is to happen if an Israelite sins. Note that whenever the Priest makes the sacrifice and atones for the sin, the person’s sin is forgiven.

““If the whole congregation of Israel commits a sin unwittingly and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they do any one of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done and are guilty; when the sin which they have committed becomes known, the assembly shall offer a young bull for a sin offering and bring it before the tent of meeting; Thus shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this; and** the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven**. And he shall carry forth the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull; it is the sin offering for the assembly.”

‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭4‬:‭13‬-‭14‬, ‭20‬-‭21‬

““When a ruler sins, doing unwittingly any one of all the things which the Lord his God has commanded not to be done, and is guilty, if the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring as his offering a goat, a male without blemish, and shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering. And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; so the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.”

‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭4‬:‭22‬-‭24‬, ‭26‬ ‭

““If any one of the common people sins unwittingly in doing any one of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and is guilty, when the sin which he has committed is made known to him he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed. And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a pleasing odor to the Lord; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.”

‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭4‬:‭27‬-‭28‬, ‭31‬ ‭

““If he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish, and lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and kill it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. And all its fat he shall remove as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar, upon the offerings by fire to the Lord; and the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.”

‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭4‬:‭32‬-‭33‬, ‭35‬ ‭

I’m not quoting all of them in here, because theres a lot, but you can go check for yourself. God keeps emphasising that the atonement that the ministerial priest of the Old Covenant WILL make the sins of the person who brought the offering be forgiven.

So you can see a comparison between the Old and New Covenant. Both of them involve a priest (the Apostles, Presbyters and Bishops in the New Covenant) and the result being the sins of penitent being forgiven by God.

But how about the Confession of Sins? That’s not found in the Old Covenant? Well…

“When a man is guilty in any of these, he shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.”

‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭5‬:‭5‬-‭6‬ ‭RSVCI‬‬

This is after a ton of sins that God states. Given the number of sins and sacrifices that God says for atonement, and since a good number of sins have overlapping sacrifices, a Priest would be needed to judge what sacrifices are needed for a sin offering.

I want to bring up one last point regarding Reconciliation. There’s a difference between the Ministerial Priesthood of the Old and New Covenant. In the Old Covenant, the priests do not have authority to absolve sins, thus it says their penitent “will be forgiven” and not “the priest…forgives their sins”. In the New, however, Jesus is clear that it is the Apostles who forgive by the power of the Holy Spirit, and Paul reflects his wording by saying that he, Paul, forgives them for their sins.

The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist

I’m really only going to be talking about Reconciliation and Communion, since the other sacraments don’t really have an obvious parallel between the Old and New. Circumcision was done by the parents and not the priests, Holy Unction didn’t exist in the Old, Marriage there isn’t a prescribed minister in the Old afaik, Confirmation, or rather chrismation not really being a parallel, and Holy Orders being very different between Old and New.

So the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Pretty obvious in Catholic and Orthodox (and Oriental and Church of the East, assume whenever I say Catholic and Orthodox in this entire article it would refer to them if they also believe in it) Belief: Participation in the One Sacrifice of Jesus offered to God. Since Priests in the Old Covenant offer sacrifices to God, and Jesus being our high priest offers himself as the Lamb of God to the Father, Priests in the New Covenant offer this same sacrifice of Christ to the Father during Mass/Divine Liturgy.

But how is the Last Supper the form of sacrifice we are supposed to do? After all, Jesus just says to do it in memory of him. Well, let’s look at the Greek word for “do” used. According to the Greek text, it can be rendered literally as “offer this” in the sense of a sacrifice. The Greek word for “do” is poiein, conjugated in the text as poiete, which in the Septuagint, is used in a sacrificial sense. Examples would be Exodus 29:38, Leviticus 9:7 and Psalm 66:15. Because poiein is used in the Last Supper narrative in reference to the duties of the apostles, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is commanding them to offer a sacrifice, thus making them priests.

Furthermore, Jesus literally compares the Apostles to the Priests of the Old Covenant in their duties of Sacrifice.

“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?”

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭12‬:‭1‬-‭5‬ ‭RSVCI‬‬

So the first contrast: Let’s skip the part on David and go to the part on not lawful to eat the bread of the Presence for anyone except the priests. Note, first of all, that Jesus doesn’t even mention the Sabbath at all, but the Sabbath is mentioned in the original instruction in the Pentateuch:

““And you shall take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes of it; two tenths of an ephah shall be in each cake. And you shall set them in two rows, six in a row, upon the table of pure gold. And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a memorial portion to be offered by fire to the Lord. Every sabbath day Aaron shall set it in order before the Lord continually on behalf of the people of Israel as a covenant for ever. And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion out of the offerings by fire to the Lord, a perpetual due.””

‭‭Leviticus 24:5-9

Now, the passage quoted in Matthew is typically used to defend us doing other works on the Sabbath, but that isn’t our focus. The original instruction from God that Jesus is referencing to is that on the Sabbath the Levitical priests can do the works of their ministerial priesthood on the Sabbath WITHOUT breaking the third commandment (4th for Protestants (other than Lutherans) and Orthodox).

Similarly, Jesus next reminds the pharisees that it is written in the Pentateuch (the Law) that there is a priestly prerogative of breaking the Sabbath by performing their work of offering sacrifices in the Temple. The passage that Jesus refers to is:

““On the sabbath day two male lambs a year old without blemish, and two tenths of an ephah of fine flour for a cereal offering, mixed with oil, and its drink offering: this is the burnt offering of every sabbath, besides the continual burnt offering and its drink offering.”

‭‭Numbers‬ ‭28‬:‭9‬-‭10‬ ‭

Jesus clearly is revealing to us the priestly character of the Apostles by giving us two examples of the Priestly prerogative. A protestant can explain away the first quotation of scripture by putting the focus on David, but they cannot explain away the second especially after they understand that the Kingdom of Priests is something that also existed in the Old Covenant. Furthermore, the Priestly Perogative is specifically referring to sacrifices, like the Holy Eucharist.

Conclusion

Therefore, you can see that the Ministerial Priesthood belongs in the New Covenant alongside the Priesthood of All Believers, just like the Old Covenant. Furthermore, you can also see that Jesus also prescribed to us the ministry of the Priesthood.

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

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?

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

Protestants may use this verse to justify Sola Scriptura. The logic used is something like "The Bible is perfect, therefore it's the complete truth and it must be held as the only valid rule of faith". How to respond to these statements?

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

Hello Brothers/Sisters! I wanted to get some input on ways to keep people engaged in conversation.

I’m having trouble bringing a conversation to a satisfying conclusion when I’m looking to help people better understand the what the Church teaches. If you go into my comment history you can see some conversations I have, and they all end up with me having no response from the other Christian when I ask a question or even just give a source. Sometimes the questions are simple too but not always.

I understand that he who sows the seed often is not there to witness the fruit of their work, but I want to get as much exposure to Catholic teaching to individuals as I can.

These are problems I’ve seen in my conversations and I’d like to input on how to fix these as well as any other issues y’all see.

• I am long winded. The details of words are very important to me so I often end up over clarifying because I want to give exact context on how to interpret what I say. Typically the person I’m talking to is missing some context in scripture so I believe it is important that they don’t make the same type of mistake when talking to me. You can see by the length of this post what I mean.

• I pull too much scripture at once. Running into a wall of text, even if it is just supporting text can be daunting. This is something that I’m torn on, because in the beginning the person often commends me for using scripture, but then I wonder if it gets tiresome to see it tossed at them over and over.

• Anytime I give an answer that is not purely defensive I get disengagement from the other person. I enjoy giving over as much power in the argument as possible to the other person so they feel in control and more comfortable.

• I agree with any point that they make that I can, but I’ll eventually get into the same situation of the most recent James White v Jimmy Akin debate on justification. Where they agree too much with the Catholic Church and then completely stop replying even when I ask no questions allowing them to make their point.

Please let me know if you have any suggestions for me to improve upon and please don’t hesitate to call anything out like it is. If I am just bad at communicating or my writing is difficult to read then let me know.

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.

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

NOTE: The following is a part of a series of reflections of how Bob Dylan is a spiritual commentator. By no means is this meant to be endorsement for everything Bob Dylan has ever done or said. Instead it is meant to be an appreciation of his art from a Christian/Catholic perspective. Feel free to make post requests, comments, or questions regarding this series!

Bob Dylan, to say the least is a poet. Many of his songs are considered to be some of the greatest lyrics ever written and in my opinion, no song supports this position than his masterpiece “Tangled Up in Blue.” Written over a period of few moths, Dylan, spent his time perfecting every note and lyric of this song. The fruits of such persistence is evident in its product. While this song has many interpretations, I would argue in this post the most fascinating and underrated one is how Dylan portrays sin in this song. In this song the woman represents sin, the narrator struggles with sin, and how the song condemns it.

I would like to begin by stating what the title of the song means. Typically, to be “Tangled Up in Blue,” means to stuck or tied up in a bad/sad situation. For example, someone is “tangled up in blue,” if they struggle with a particular dread, which persists over a period of time. This can be a death of a love one, struggle with some regret, or deeply missing someone. In this case, I believe the title could also apply with one’s struggle with sin. Sin, in many ways, is the depression of the soul, and often tangles us in it. In many ways, it can be often be distressing and cause a sense of sadness if we are really struggling to get untied. Therefore, when the narrator sings about being “tangled up in blue,” there is a strong case he talking about sin.

Furthermore, the fact that it is stated at the end of every verse implies that it is a persistent struggle. Every situation, especially the more sinful ones (i.e. “topless place,”) imply some sort of distress with being in such a place. The use of it condemns many of the sinful behaviors in the song, which is further evident by the fact that Dylan was only a few years away from becoming explicitly Christian.

So, what makes me think that the song is about sin? What hints does the song give to support this view? I would argue this view can be supported by how the woman is presented in the song. Throughout the song, the woman is constantly in the narrators mind (“she never escaped my mind”), causing him distress and sadness (“made me feel a little uneasy”). Furthermore, when he is with her, it is usually in a negative way (“split up on a dark sad night”).

Arguably the best reason why I think this song is about the struggles with sin, is that the woman is a direct metaphor for sin itself, or at least the temptation. Now, I am not saying being a woman is sinful, by any means, just that this specific woman in the song, represents sin. One reason is because Sirens, typically female, are usually great tempters. They use their beauty to kill its victim. I believe the woman in this song is like a siren, but for the soul. One reason is obvious — she tempts. Take the scene in the “topless place” (which is another way of saying a place where topless dancers perform for lusting people), a place which tempts people to sin. The song tells us that she works in such a place, which is also a place notoriously sinful to work at. Furthermore, this scene also focuses on the women, hence the “spot light so clear.” This is reflective of the fact that the woman (sin) is the focus of the scene, while also commenting on how sin is often put in the spotlight in society. Furthermore, the fact that the woman comes up from behind, implies an unwanted interaction. This is further solidified by the fact that he “felt a little uneasy.”

Another reason why I believe the woman represents sin is how the woman offers the narrator a pipe. It could be argued that this pipe could represent some sort of drug (opium), which in many sin is like but for your soul. Sin is addictive, changes your soul, and distorts goodness itself. So, the fact that the woman offers a drug, could also represent the fact that she is leading the narrator to sin. Moreover, both the scene in the “topless place” and the “offer me a pipe” both infer temporary and disordered pleasures. The fact that the woman gave the narrator these things endorses the idea that she represents the inclination to sin. To continue on this topic, the fact that the woman gives temporary pleasure but long term anguish, is a very common trend in people who struggle with sin. There is are very few things more painful than the struggle with sin and the regret and pain it causes.

Temptation is not the only way the woman is represented as. The woman also is shown to cause pain and disunity in the narrator’s life. Both of these are effects of sin, especially the ones the narrator struggles with. Furthermore, sin tends to be unreliable, to abandoning us when we do not satisfy it (“split up on a dark sad night”). Moreover, the song also shows how the relationship between the narrator and the woman created disunity (“we always did feel the same, we just saw it from a different point of view”). This verse could the fact that the narrator and the woman (the tempter) have different motives for what they are doing. The narrator seemingly wanted it for some temporary fallen reason, while she wanted to seduce and tangle him into sin.

In arguably the best verse of the song, the narrator sings about a book of poems from an Italian poet from the thirteenth century. This is most likely Dante and the book that is being referenced is his magnum opus, Dante’s Inferno.* While not perfectly fit the definition of the book, the premise of the book still fits the description. The significance of this verse is that Dante’s Inferno, is a story about Hell and the depths of it. The narrator goes on and cries:

And every one of them words rang true And glowed like burnin’ coal Pourin’ off of every page Like it was written in my soul from me to you

This shows that the narrator recognizes that his soul is not in a good state (“every one of them words rang true”) and is in a state of mortal sin. This could be reasonable assured by the fact that the words “glowed like burning coal” — like in a fire place. This fire could very much be the fires of hell. Also, the fact that it was written in his soul implies a state of mortal sin. Moreover the fact that it was written in the narrator’s soul from him to the woman, imply that the woman lead him to this state, as he gave into, once taken in this context.

The last thing that will be discussed is Dylan’s voice in the song. In the album version, Dylan deliberately made the song out of his range in order to give off the sense that he is struggling. This, in my view, is a genius move. Once one establishes that this song is about the struggles of sin, it adds a ton a layers to the song. It is really gut-wrenching to me as a Christian to hear someone struggling with sin. So the fact that his voice sounds like this, adds another complex layer to this song.

In conclusion, the song “Tangled Up in Blue” is about the narrator’s struggles with sin and temptation. The song uses the woman, as a metaphor for the temptation of sin itself. Furthermore, many scenes in the song express the struggles with sins and the song may even condemn them.

There is much to say about this song (or any of Dylan’s songs!) but this one has to be by favorite. Everything from how it’s sung, to the lyrics, to the guitar, it is as perfect of a song to me as it can be. While I recognize other perspectives, personally, this is my favorite way of looking at the song. This honestly makes me reflect on my own life and how often I get tangled up in blue. One thing I find interesting is that Dylan never explains if the narrator gets untangled in this song. However, I believe that this question is answered in Dylan’s conversion to Christianity. Christ Himself is what untangles us. That being, if there is anything that I would want you to take away from this post is how much you get tangled up in sin and how you can help our Lord untangle you.

Pax Tibi ——————————————————————— *After Dylan converted to Christianity, he started using the Bible instead of the “book of poems.” This does give off a different message than the original Blood on the Tracks version, which this post focuses on.

I have asked this question elsewhere, but I am trying to get various takes.

I was wondering how to explain the catechism's assertion that Second Coming has been imminent since the Ascension (CCC 673), while at the same time there are signs that must happen first, like the recognition by "all Israel" (CC 674) and the Church's trial (CCC 675-677). It seems as though until these signs happen, the Second Coming cannot happen at any moment.

In particular, it seems as though the most natural interpretation of the "thousand years" in the Book of Revelation is that it refers to the present period of Christian history, a long indeterminate period of time. Yet if that's the correct interpretation, a Christian living in the 3rd century might have been able to conclude that the Second Coming was a long way off, even if there are other ways Christ could "come" (personal death, some world event, etc).

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

Indulgences are a controversial topic amongst our Protestant brothers and sisters. Often seen as evidence of the corruption with the Catholic church and the need for the reformation. As with many disagreements, there is a lot of misunderstandings and confusions regarding what happened historically and what the Church teaches on Indulgences

What are they?

 An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive (from Catholic Encyclopedia). From this, it is clear that this is not getting an individual out of hell. If anything, it is less time in purgatory. It also doesn't remove the guilt associated with sin, one still needs to go to confession first and receive those sacraments before they are eligible for an indulgence. All that an indulgence does is lower the temporal punishment due to sins, after they are forgiven. Confession only removes the guilt from the sin, not the punishment.

Abuses

While it is true that there have been individuals who have abused this practice, the practice itself is not contrary to the understanding of grace, and the forgiveness of sins. In fact, abuses have existed before Martin Luther, and when Martin Luther called out the abuses in his time, it was done with the approval of his bishop. The reformation was more an issue about the nature of grace itself and of the nature of morality (effectively if Divine Command Theory was true or not). The indulgence issue was simply the catalyst that started the discussion and, ultimately, the separation. Luther did not have an issue with the practices of Indulgences, what he had an issue with, and rightly so, was that some priests were selling them, instead of following the proper practice. Due to the scandal though, the Church no longer grants indulgences in association with acts of charity as the line between the theological virtue of charity and selling an indulgence is very easily blurred.

One of the hardest to understand positions within the Catholic Church is the dogma of papal infallibility. This post will explore the history of the dogma, explain what the dogma actually teaches, and answer some critiques of the dogma.

History

The dogma of papal infallibility was dogmatically declared at the first Vatican Council. Specifically in session 4 which was held July 18 1870. They started by first establishing apostolic primacy in Peter. They achieved this by showing in the scriptures that Jesus called him Cephas, that he would build his church on Rock. That it was only to Peter that the command to feed, care, and tend to his lambs and sheep. Then by appealing to tradition and history, that the church from its inception had held to that idea of Peter having Primacy amongst the apostles.

Next, the council then established the permanence of the primacy amongst the papal office. They conclude that since the church remained forever, the authority of peter to feed and care for the flock must also be forever. They then pointed to tradition again (Philip, the Roman Legate, Leo 1, Irenaeus, Council of Aquilea, and some of Ambrose's Letters) to show that the church has held that this authority is passed down from Peter to whoever holds that office.

Finally, the council then defines and confirms the teaching of the infallible teaching authority of the pope. They show that in the fourth council of Constantinople, this was professed "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion." In other words, it is through the papal office that we see Christ's promise fulfilled and is HOW the church has remained free from error.

The next affirmation is from the second council of Lyons "The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.” The Roman Church in this context refers not to the whole church, because one can't have principality over oneself, rather, the Roman Church is a reference to the Vatican. Once again, we see that the papacy has the duty and ability to settle questions concerning the faith and the truth of the faith.

Finally, the council of Florence "The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.”

Thus, one can see that even though the position was not official until the 19th century, this was a belief held by the church since the beginning. This is not a new invention, rather, is an affirmation of what was always held and defending a belief that was under attack at the time the council was called.

What is Infallibility?

The church has defined infallibility as "when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable."

In all of Church history, there are only two times that we know for certain when Papal Infallibility was invoked, (Excluding declarations of saints) the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary. The other infallible doctrines of the church were through the church councils and through the Magisterium.

Response to Objections

"Some of the popes disagree with each other, thus they both can't be right" Absolutely, however, the disagreement was not on a declaration that was claimed to be infallible. In order for a papal statement to be considered infallible, the statement must be preceded by the statement "we/I declare and define..." A pope can and often times does sin and make errors. It is only in extremely specific situations where he is infallible.

"It wasn't official until 1870/this is an ad hoc justification of statements" As shown in the post, this idea was always around, in fact, one of the examples of papal infallibility was made in 1854. The only other one to be declared was in 1950. Hardly a case of ad hoc justifications nor a case of it not being an official teaching. The way the church operates is you have official teachings, but they might not be officially defined until the teaching is under attack. For example, the church has not officially defined Guardian angels, yet nobody would say it is not a teaching of the church.

"This is a circular justification, you are saying infallibly that you are infallible" Again, no, the statement is saying that because Jesus promised infallibility, and Jesus himself is infallible, and we see the church since it's inception has held to that idea of infallibility, we see that this has always been taught, and is not something that is being infallibly created. In fact, the church has stated that the pope can't make new dogma, rather, the pope merely affirms that which has already been taught and defines it.

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

Something I have started to see much more recently is a critique of obedience as a virtue. This came as a shock to me, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized why our society and even our protestant brothers and sisters have started to reject this idea. This post will NOT show weaknesses or be a critique of the idea against obedience as a virtue, but will be only looking at why it is a virtue.

What is a Virtue?

In the Catholic Church, a virtue is understood to be "an habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself. the virtuous person tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and chooses it in concrete actions." St. Gregory of Nyssa said "The goal of a virtuous life is to become like God." in his work "De beatitudinibus".

Does obedience fit this Criteria?

Obedience is the response one ought to have to right and just authority. The apostle Paul tells us that ALL authority comes from God. Extrapolating from this, we can conclude that if one is not working in union with God, and is acting contrary to the authority that God has given him, then he is no longer acting with authority. This is why Aquinas tells us that if there is an unjust law, we are not obligated to follow it, because it is not a law with authority. So obedience is when an individual is pointing themselves towards the ultimate good, God. It is following the instructions that God has provided us to be more like him.

Obedience is the ultimate act of humility and recognition that we are not the ultimate good, and we are not God.

Sorry for the weirdness of this question, but something I have been thinking about. How do we know the Church has actual authority and human leaders?

I'm trying to answer questions on r/Christianity from a Catholic perspective, because there's a lot of good ones there and a lot of very confused people giving bad answers. This one seemed interesting so I figured I'd do a quick response.

Let me know what you think!

https://youtu.be/4kaICdYH3bc

Recently, I was listening to relevant radio, and one of the prayers that the section ended in was a repetition of different names for Mary.

For example (and I’m paraphrasing here)… Mary mother of God, pray for us. Our Lady of Guadalupe pray for us. Our Lady of Milk pray for us. Our lady of sorrows pray for us.

This went on for a belt 20+ different titles for Mary and I’m curious on how this wouldn’t be defined as vain repetition.

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

To streamline our discussions, we’ve added specific tags to differentiate between requests for help and completed write-ups:

1. “A Write-Up Defending [Topic]”:

Use this tag for posting fully developed defenses. 2. “Requesting a Defense for [Topic]”: Use this tag when you’re asking for help with defending a topic.

Please use these tags to help everyone easily find and share the content they need. Thanks for your cooperation!

We’re looking for people who are wanting to practice their verbal debating skills. You will be given a topic based on the individual taking the “affirmative’s” choosing. Please keep in mind that the “negative” will not state if they hold the position they’re defending personally so we can use this as a way to challenge and sharpen the “affirmative’s” verbal apologetics skills.

Please message the mods directly if you’re interested or comment below.

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

So this argument comes up time and time again. It seems like, no matter how often it is refuted or explained, it’s never killed. Here is a repost of an old post I did on this argument

THE ARGUMENT

P1 God is omnipotent or all-powerful

P2 To be all-powerful or omnipotent means that you can do anything.

P3 God, because he is all-powerful, must be able to create a rock which he can not lift.

This creates a contradiction, if God can’t create this rock, that means there is something God can not do. If God can’t lift that rock, then there is something he can not do.

Conclusion: Omnipotence is contradictory claim and doesn’t exist, thus an omnipotent god as described in Abrahamic religions can’t exist.

Why this argument fails

There’s two major problems with this argument that are not immediately obvious.

1. this is NOT how the major Abrahamic religions traditionally understood omnipotence. Especially when formalized. In Christianity divine simplicity was first formalized by, as far as I can tell, Augustine. However, the idea existed from the ancient Greek philosophers. This is not a situation of Christianity or the Abrahamic religions reinventing God. Rather, in a way that is similar to this individual, had the idea and tradition as part of their belief but were unable to formalize it until learning about the concept in a formalized way elsewhere. The anti-vaxxer is actually pro-vaccine, just doesn't have the formalized understanding of the vaccine. Since God is Simple, that means, as per the first link, God is not made up of attributes, but rather, those attributes are ways we described the singular essence of God. Omnipotence is one of those analogous descriptions.
2. Even the definition of Omnipotence as presented by the Atheist, which is accurate to the scholastic definition, at least, by the written word, is not being applied correctly. This is similar to how anti-evolutionists might define the word Theory correctly in the scientific understanding, but not apply it correctly to evolution in their attempt to dismiss this scientific understanding of the world. It is true that the word Omnipotence means "able to do anything or all-things," there is a misunderstanding of what it means to do a thing. Parmenides points out that "Nothing can't doesn't exist, because to observe it or talk about it means that we are observing or talking about a thing, which is not nothing." So nothingness is weird. It doesn't exist, yet we attempt to conceptualize it even though it is impossible to do so. An example of this nothingness is a Square Circle. This is a nonsensical stringing of words. This is a nothing. It doesn't exist. Since it doesn't exist, I am not limited by it. So, is there a limit on a limitless being? No, that is a contradiction, a nothingness. So there is no limit. A rock this being cannot lift is a limit on this limitless being, thus that rock does not exist and is a nothing.

Common rebuttals and my reply

1. **"**This is a new invention of the term that was never a part of the original idea of Omnipotence and of God. This is omnipotence lite" In the scriptures, especially the Old Testament, we are told that, while God can do anything, there are somethings that God can not do. For example, lie, or any evil. Augustine helped to formalize it, but again, that idea predates him. Even IF Augustine was the first person to come with this idea in Christianity, he lived in the 4th Century and his understanding was used by Christians ever since. The omnipotence argument was invented in the 11th century. Nearly 700 years between the two events. So no, this is not something done to react to a counter, but this was the understanding even before the counter. Wikipedia states that there was a precursor in the 5th but I have yet to find the original source of that particular statement. Even still, the understanding as presented by Augustine predates that argument as well.
2. "That's not the definition of omnipotence as you are describing it and thus this argument is still valid." So, the interesting thing about definitions, a single word can have multiple definitions. Some of those different definitions can have similar or close to the same meaning, like Theory. While others can have contradictory meanings, or contronyms. Because of this, in debates and arguments, words need to be defined clearly amongst both parties so that way both parties understand what is being stated. If I present a math problem as the square of x equals 4, and then a little later I stated that 2+x=0, you can't state that I was wrong because you thought x equaled 2. The problem was that x was not clearly defined. X can mean either 2 or -2. So, is the atheist argument correct? In a way, if that is the understanding and definition used by an individual, then yes, that individual believes in a paradox and a contradiction. The issue becomes when individuals, such as myself, states that this is not the meaning of the word Omnipotence as we use it and are met with, "This is the correct and only way to use this word and any other use is wrong and invalid and can't be used." That's not how words work, and is the same argument those who don't understand scientific theory use. If I were to point to the image used in this post as a way to defeat evolution, I would be dismissed because I am arguing against something that is not believed in or accepted. The same thing is happening when an individual tries to claim that omnipotence can create nothing. That is not the understanding of it and has not been for over a millennia.

One closing note, I think this is probably one of the best examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Speaking as a devout Catholic, many churches have failed, including my own, in providing a proper education of what we actually believe to its members. Most people think they will learn everything there is to know about the faith just by reading the bible or just by going to church. This is not the case. Because of this, an individual who only went to church and Sunday school often times thinks that they know all there is to know about a particular religion and thus, doesn't know that there is far more to the religion then they initially thought. And when presented with new information that was always there, but wasn't presented to them while they were a member of that community, it comes off as a new invention, because "surely if this information was available, I would have been taught it at the time." Would you listen to someone's rebuttal of evolution if they claimed to know everything about it after a single class on it in the fourth grade? No. There is so much more that this individual is missing. And I think this is a problem myself and many others on this app experience within ourselves as well. We are on here because we think we are intelligent people, and we are. But I know I have been blinded by the Dunning-Kruger effect and I will again. As you read this and think of a response, I ask that you take into consideration that this might have been new insights you were previously unaware of and did not know that you did not know. I promise that I will do the same for your responses.