Catholic Answers Live TV | Season 1 | Episode 6

By | September 6, 2019


Welcome to the G.K. Chesterton Studio.
I’m Cy Kellett, and I get to sit right here at this desk each weekday to host
Catholic Answers Live. I’m joined by some of the best apologists, theologians, and
ministers you’ll find anywhere, as they respond to caller questions about
Catholic life and faith. Today, we’d like to share with you some of the best of
those questions and answers. We’ll be joined by Catholic Answers apologists Tim
Staples, Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, and Karlo Broussard; and by Catholic historian
Steve Weidenkopf; and Chaldean priest, theologian, and philosopher, Father Andrew
Yona. The questions they address in this episode include: “How can we evangelize
without seeming pushy?” “Is the woman described in Revelation chapter 12,
Mary?” “How can we start a conversation with someone who practices Hinduism?” “Does
the Bible specifically mention the Pope, Cardinals, or bishops?” and much more.
Thanks for joining us, we really hope you enjoy the show. My question has to do with Revelation 12. So how do you convince a non-Catholic that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary? And
can you specifically talk about, like, the 12 stars and the moon and the Sun
and all that, and how do…strong reasons for, you know, why it is Mary? All
right, sure. Well first of all, Rock, thanks for the question. It’s a great question,
by the way; and I think there are some good reasons that we can give to suggest
that this woman John is describing in Revelation 12 is indeed the Blessed
Mother. The first line of reasoning that I would take, Rock, is the fact that, if
you notice, John is listing three different characters there: he’s listing
the woman, he’s listing the male child to whom she gives birth, and he’s listing
the great red dragon which he calls “the ancient serpent of old.” Now,
Rock, in that passage, it’s clear that the male child is an individual person–
namely, Jesus himself–because John describes Jesus as one ruling “with an
iron rod,” which is a reference to the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 2. So it’s
obviously Jesus that John is referring to.
Secondly, the great red dragon is an individual. John tells us
specifically: it’s “the ancient serpent of old,” referencing Genesis chapter 3, you
know, and the serpent entering into the garden; namely, the devil himself. So out
of the three characters, Rock, you have two characters that John is identifying
as individual people. So it makes perfect sense to conclude within context that
the woman is an individual person as well, like the male child and the dragon.
And who is that person? Well it’s the mother of the Messianic King–namely, Mary.
And so what’s interesting here, Rock, is you have the context of three individual
characters, and so it makes sense to conclude within context that the woman
is an individual person, which we know to be Mary; but from that, Rock, it becomes
evident that John is describing Mary as the Queen Mother, right?
Which sort of complements our interpretation that this is Mary, because
he’s describing Jesus in particular as the Messianic King. And as we know, in the
Davidic kingdom of old, which was based on ancient near Eastern kingdoms, the
Queen was the mother. So here’s John describing the mother of
the king–namely, Mary–and he describes her with, as you mentioned, Rock, a crown
of twelve stars, signifying her queenship. And then furthermore, he goes on to
describe how this woman has offspring, once again emphasizing her spiritual
motherhood; in Revelation chapter 12 verse 17, John speaks of this great woman
as having offspring, namely, those who keep the commandments of Jesus Christ–
Christians, right? So this woman is a spiritual mother, which goes toward the
interpretation that she is the Queen Mother in this new restored Davidic
kingdom. And who is the Queen Mother, but Mary? So in light of the context of
individual characters; in light of the queenship context of the Messianic
kingdom; we have good reason to conclude that it is indeed Mary. And
then finally, I would say, Rock, that this passage of Revelation 12:1-5
parallels Genesis chapter 3 verse 15; where, in Genesis 3:15, you have
three characters as well: the woman who gives birth to the child to crush the
head of the serpent, right? So in that text, you have–and then God says that he
will set enmity between the woman and her seed, and Satan and his seed. So you
have this separation between the woman and the child of Genesis 3:15, and Satan
and his seed. Well, when you come to Revelation 12, Rock, you find the woman,
and the child, and you have the red dragon, the serpent. But notice in
Revelation 12, the woman flees from the serpent, and the serpent goes to wage war
against her offspring. So you have a parallel between Revelation 12 and
Genesis 3. So when you look at Genesis 3, Rock, and you look at those characters,
the woman giving birth to the Messiah who’s going to crush the head of the
serpent–that’s obviously Jesus and Satan, so who is the woman? Mary–and if
Revelation 12 is paralleling Genesis 3:15, and you have the same characters–
the woman, the male child, and the serpent, the dragon–well then it makes perfect
sense to conclude that the woman is indeed Mary. In this next clip, a
caller wants to know: if the Bible does not specifically mention the Pope,
Cardinals, or bishops, then why does the Church have these offices in place? Well,
actually there is something like the Pope in the Bible, it’s Saint Peter. Jesus
gives St. Peter authority over the other Apostles, that’s real clear in a variety
of passages. It’s in Matthew 16, it’s in Luke chapter 22, it’s in John chapter 21;
so we have these passages that indicate Peter, of all the Apostles, has a unique
role that places him above the other Apostles; and so he’s the chief Apostle,
he’s ultimately the man responsible for Jesus’s Church once Jesus ascends back
into Heaven, and that’s what the Pope is. So that’s where the office of the Pope came
from. Now, the word “Pope” didn’t exist yet in that form, but
it’s just a theological term that has developed over the course of
time to refer to that special Petrine office, or office related to Peter.
Cardinals are basically bishops who hold– typically, they’re bishops, they’re not always
bishops–but they’re basically advisers that the Pope has. And the Church doesn’t
claim that this is an office of divine institution. It’s not. It’s something that
was instituted just because the Pope needed some advisers, and needed people
to share the work of his office with, and so it was something that developed over
the course of time. But the Church doesn’t claim it’s a divine institution,
any more than, you know, a church usher, which they have even in Protestant
churches. Well, that’s not mentioned in the Bible, but there’s a functional need
for ushers, and so they end up getting created, both in Catholic
churches and in Protestant churches, but there’s no basis for them in the Bible,
and no one would claim that it’s a matter of doctrine that you need
ushers. In the same way, it’s not a matter of doctrine that the Church
should have Cardinals. That’s something that’s purely discretionary. It’s been a
good policy, it’s helped the Church out, it’s met a practical need; but it’s not
something we’d claim as Church teaching any more than we’d claim it’s church
teaching that churches need ushers. In terms of bishops, actually, yeah, there
there are bishops in the New Testament. In fact the term for “bishop” is used in
the New Testament. In Greek, the word is “episkopos;” that’s where we get the
English word “bishop.” As you bring it over into English, the “p” sound on the front of
it becomes a “b,” so “episkopos” becomes “bishop.” And the office of Bishop
is mentioned in a number of passages, such as in the book of Titus, and the book
of 1 Timothy. And the office functioned a little bit differently at
that time than it does today; but the concept and even the terminology is
still there, though it would require a little more time than I have at the
moment to tie that all together for you. Because I want to get to your second
question, which is: “How would you show somebody that we don’t need to
do theology by Scripture alone,” which is a common claim among our Protestant
friends. Well, there are a number of ways to approach that, but the most
fundamental one, I think, is to point out that if it’s true that we need to
validate all theological claims by Scripture alone, then you’re going to
need to validate “sola Scriptura” by Scripture alone. You’re gonna need to ask
the question “Can this claim meet its own test?” Because the claim that “We need to
validate all theological claims by Scripture alone” is itself a theological
claim. And so you’re gonna need to be able to show, using just the Bible, that
you shouldn’t use anything other than the Bible in order to do theology. And
when you try to do that, it ends up not meeting its own test. There–it’s very
difficult to find verses that suggest anything like this; and there are a few
that Protestant apologists will sometimes bring forward and say, “Well,
this shows ‘sola Scriptura’ is true;” but it’s pretty easy to refute those claims,
because if you just contextualize them, and say, “Well, okay,
let’s say St. Paul was teaching ‘sola Scriptura’ here in this verse,
did he really expect the people he was writing to to not listen to anything he
said unless he wrote it down?” You know, that’s clearly not the case,
especially when you have other statements in Saint Paul’s writings
saying “Adhere to all of the traditions I gave you, whether by word of mouth or by
epistle.” So it’s clearly not Paul’s view that he’s only authoritative when he’s
writing a letter. He thinks he’s authoritative as an
Apostle when he teaches authoritatively as an Apostle, whether it’s in a letter
or not. And so a simple examination of the context will help you with that. If
you’d like more information on that, I suggest going to Catholic.com. We have a
lot of information there online for free that deals exactly with this question
that we’ve put online for you right there. Thank you very much for that call. What is the best way to evangelize to
someone that might be questioning their faith, or is new to the faith, without
coming off as pushy, and just not, like, interfering or offending them? Yeah. So I
said to an earlier caller, it’s important to just sort of be human, and just kind of,
just be human beings together, and talk about whatever–you know, it’s
impolite to sort of force somebody to talk about something we don’t want to
talk about. If they want to, though, if they’re sort of interested in any way,
take them as far as they want. If at any point, they say, “Nope, I don’t want this, I
don’t wanna talk about it,” well…here’s the thing. Always look to Christ as your
example in everything, and especially in this. He says, look, if you go somewhere, and
they reject what you have to offer, if they don’t accept your word, he doesn’t
say “All right, well try again. Force it down their throat.”
He doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say, you know, stand on the street and tell them
that they’re all going to Hell. He says leave. Leave and “knock the dust off your
feet” as you leave that town. So you engage them as far as they wish to be
engaged, and no further, not one step further than that. And I think that’s
something that really turns people off, is that they see people representing
Christianity as pushy, as I think you’re rightly asking how to not do that.
Well, don’t push. You know, you walk with him as far as they want to walk, and
when they say “Nope, I don’t want to walk any further with this, then say, “Okay.” Say
“All right,” and then leave. And I think that’s actually more intriguing than…
there are a lot of people that sort of act like…it’s a sort of insecurity.
“No, I need you to believe me.” Yeah. I’m not sure, that sort of shows a
weakness in that person’s faith, if anything. So take them as far as they
want to go, and then leave them alone. I have a couple of co-workers that are Hindus, and I’ve been stumped a few times when we start talking about my religious life and
their religious life. I don’t know how to guide the conversation, because there’s
no frame of reference, there’s no common frame of reference. Like, for example, for
a Protestant there would be the Bible, or Christ, or God, the Church, etc. But
I need maybe one or two pointers on how to start putting some seeds that
can lead to further conversations where we can go a little bit more deeper on
“Why am I Catholic,” you know, “Why does it matter
what religion is the true religion,” but I don’t know how to do that. Could you give
me some pointers? Yeah, I’d be happy to do that. There’s two ways you can guide the
conversation; and both ways, I think, are valid, and if you have a decent
conversation, you’ll probably go down both paths. One way would be to use
questions to investigate the evidence for Hinduism. So you could ask the person–
you know, I have my book “Why We’re Catholic”– I mean, you could ask them,
“Should I be a Hindu? Why would someone be a Hindu? What do you believe?”
And what’s great is, even if you don’t know anything, anybody can do this. An atheist
could do this. Say, “Look, tell me, what is Hinduism? What do you teach? What do you
believe?” And then, second: “Well, why do you believe
that? Why do you think that that’s true?” And there are various schools of
Hinduism, this is–you know, be prepared to do a lot of
listening, because Hinduism is a very old, multifaceted religion with a with
a rich history behind it, so it’s difficult to summarize the beliefs
associated with Hinduism; but some core concepts would be the idea of eternality
of things always existing; of a pantheon of gods, possibly an infinite number or
at least a very large number; that in life our goal is to kind of escape this
life because we’re kind of trapped in an endless cycle of reincarnation;
so to say “Well, why should I believe that that’s true? What evidence
do you have for that? Is there a good reason to think we are being
reincarnated? If God, or the law of karma, whatever it is, is making us live
life after life after life, why?” “Well, it’s to learn from the mistakes you
made in the past life.” “Well yeah, but if I can’t remember those mistakes how is
that fair?” You know, so you could ask questions, you
know: “What do you believe? Why do you believe that? Does that make sense?” And
that can help possibly show, “Hey, there might be some things about Hinduism,
there’s some problems here.” But then the other path would then be
about offering positive evidence for Christianity. And I think what Hindus and
Christians can come together to talk about would be the person of Jesus.
Hindus generally believe that Jesus was a holy man, a wise man, they
might use the term “guru,” one who understood his own divine consciousness.
What a Hindu may say is “Well, Jesus said he’s God, but we’re all God, because we’re
all part of the divine One, so to speak.” And that’s where I might point to the
evidence from the New Testament and say, “Well no, Jesus isn’t a a guru, he
didn’t teach Hindu theology or philosophy of God, he says, you know, in
John 17:3 he spoke of ‘the only true God,’ the Father being the only true God, but
he also refers to himself as God in John 8:58, John 20:28” In Scripture it says
that in John 5:18, when Jesus talked about God as his Father, the Jews wanted
to stone him, because he made himself equal with God. And then he demonstrated
his divinity by rising from the dead. So I think that, you know, questioning
Hinduism, and then looking to the person of Jesus and saying, “Look we
read here in the Bible, Jesus said there’s one true God, but he said that
he’s God, he’s God’s only Son; and he rose from the dead, nobody in Hinduism has
done that or there’s no evidence that they’ve done that; how would you explain
that Jesus did this if he’s not God the Son, the image of the true God, the one
God?” So that’s an approach I might take. I’d also recommend in the book that
you’ll be receiving, “Why We’re Catholic, I have chapters that talk about how we
know God is one and he created the world, how we know Jesus is God, as well as
practical arguments against reincarnation. That would be in the last
chapter before the chapter on Heaven. So those resources might be helpful with
your co-workers in the book that you’ll receive. So stay on the line so our call screener can get your address. Is that–I know that was a lot, but is
that a healthful explanation? It was excellent, thank you very much. Thanks,
Jose. I have a question regarding annulment.
I have been divorced for 16 years; I am not planning on getting remarried,
even though I’m in a relationship now; I’m just wondering, how important is it
for me to get an annulment or not? And then the second piece to that is: is
it still legal for me to go to Communion? There’s always that Communion
question. Right, okay. Two questions. Number one–I’ll take the second one
first–a common misunderstanding is to think: because you’re divorced,
ipso facto, you can’t receive Communion. And that’s not true. Now of course, if
you committed a mortal sin in the process–now sometimes in divorce, you’ve
got mortal sin on both sides, sometimes you have a totally innocent spouse and
the other is not innocent, there’s always sin involved in divorce.
But you know, of course, if you’ve confessed all of your known mortal sins,
and you have not attempted to be remarried
outside of the church, then yes, you can receive Communion. So that’s number one.
But number two, as far as the getting an annulment: one thing that I think,
Mary, you need to really understand, take this to prayer, is that from the Church’s
perspective, you’re still married. You know, when we say “I got a divorce,”
the Catholic Church does not recognize a divorce from a justice of the peace, or,
you know, whomever out there says “Okay we grant you a divorce,” the
Church doesn’t recognize that. If you were married you are presumed married by
the Church. And so for you to date someone else, that would be like me, being
married to my wife Valerie, going out and dating somebody else. I can’t do that. Why?
Because I’m married. All right? Can’t do that, so I would encourage you to really
think about that when you say you’re in a relationship. What is that relationship
for? Is it just friendship? Because if it goes beyond that, you know, you’re in
dangerous territory there. And even though you’re not, you know, if you’re
planning on not getting remarried, there’s no need for an annulment; you
certainly can get an annulment, and because of the fact that you’re in a
relationship now, I would recommend that you start the annulment proceeding,
because, you know, friendships lead to more. But really think about, Mary,
the fact that you are already married, presumably, until you get that annulment.
You know what, Cy, a lot of folks forget this, that every annulment process
doesn’t end with an annulment. Sometimes the Church says “No. You have a valid
marriage, and we’re not granting an annulment.” And when you have somebody
that’s already in a relationship and they’re all emotionally joined and
everything else, that leads to all kinds of problems, including people leaving the
Church and getting married outside the Church and all sorts of things, and
certainly we don’t want that to happen. I’m calling because one of my students–we were talking about the Reformation, and I thought this would be a great time to call and talk to Dr.
Weidenkopf about maybe the five high points of Martin Luther’s objection to
what was going on in the Church at the time? Sure, yeah. So Tony, thanks so much
for the call and the question, and thank you for teaching catechism
in your parish there. It’s a very important work, and necessary work, so
thank you for that. There are many problems that Martin Luther
actually had with with the Church during his time. I mean, the biggest problem,
probably, and the one that we should focus on, and what he really got himself
into trouble for, was he called into question the authority of the Pope,
really. And what I mean by that is that everyone kind of associates the
beginnings of the Protestant Reformation, or revolution, with indulgences, right, and
the so-called selling of indulgences. And obviously there was some abuse and
issues with many of the indulgence preachers at the time, and how they
portrayed the Church’s teachings about indulgences, and Luther nailed his 95
theses, you know, allegedly, on the church door of Wittenberg in October 1517, and
so people always assume that that’s that’s the issue. And really, that wasn’t the issue.
If you read through the 95 theses, the issue that Luther had was, he called into
question whether the Pope had the authority to even grant an indulgence.
And then he went even further, and called into question, you
know, does Matthew 16 actually prove, so to speak, from
Scripture that Jesus gave these keys, you know to Peter himself, and
then to Peter’s successors, the Popes? And so that’s really what got him into
trouble. And as he furthers his writings, and it gets into 1520 when he
writes three very specific treatises that kind of form the bedrock and
foundation of his teaching, that’s his central argument, is questioning the
authority of the Pope, to the point where he even gets to the point where he
thinks of the Pope as the Antichrist. That the Pope is what’s completely wrong
with the Church. And so that’s why I like to refer to the Protestant
Reformation not as a reform, but as a revolution. Because that’s what he did. He
decided to not seek the reform of the Church and bring it back to its pristine
state, but rather to destroy it, to get rid of it and replace it with something else. So
he took the authority of the papacy and the
authority of the teaching of the Church, in terms of its Magisterium, away from
the Church and put it into the hands of individual believers, and put the the
authoritative source of God’s divine revelation in the Scriptures, and the
Scriptures alone. And that was his significant beef. In this segment, a caller seeks advice on his struggles with impurity. Avail yourself to the
sacraments on a regular basis, as regular as you can. If you can
get to daily Mass, Xavier, man, that is going to help you tremendously. To
Confession, try to go on a weekly basis. I mentioned to Cy yesterday, I went to
Confession just this Saturday, and just had a tremendous experience of God’s
grace just flooding into my soul. I was driving my car home, and I just was
rejoicing in the Lord, and I–you know, it’s one of those moments, Xavier–
and we don’t walk by feelings, we walk by faith, but God touches our hearts. Xavier,
you gotta know, God knows right where you are, He knows what you need, and He
will give it to you, most especially through the Sacraments. But also, there’s
a principle in St. Paul, in Philippians 4:8, where St. Paul says,
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, pure, good, lovely, of a good report,
if there be any virtue, any praise, think on these things.” We have to get the bad
stuff out of our heads, and the only way that’s gonna happen is if we don’t let
it in to start with. Get rid of the television; get rid of the the images
that you know, Xavier, you don’t need; get out your Bible; read Sacred Scripture; get
some good DVDs, CDs, books, from right here at Catholic Answers, and fill your mind. I
will guarantee you if you trace the time that you spend, you’re gonna discover
what’s going in to your mind. And you can have all the intentions in the world, “Oh,
I want to be good, I want to be good,” but if you’re watching…you know, I’ve got to
keep this G-rated–if you’re watching not-good stuff, what’s
gonna happen? It’s gonna fill your mind. So I would say those are two absolutely
crucial principles. It’s the old principle of G.I.G.O., right? Garbage In,
Garbage Out. And pray, pray, pray. You have to have regimented prayer. We have to
pray daily. You know, we make time, Cy, for everything else. You know, I got to be
here at such-and-such time, here at such-and-such time; well, make an
appointment with God. “I need to pray, and I have to do it
at this time.” I guarantee you, Javier, you’ll see benefits if you keep to those
principles. So really, I gave three principles, because the regimented prayer
is also crucial. Javier, thank you very much for that call. Thanks for watching
Catholic Answers Live. Join us each weekday for our live radio broadcast, or
check out our website at Catholic.com. You can find us on YouTube at
YouTube.com/Catholiccom, or on Facebook simply by searching “Catholic
Answers.” Jesus Christ is the light of the nations, and we’ll see you next time on
Catholic Answers Live.

5 thoughts on “Catholic Answers Live TV | Season 1 | Episode 6

  1. bowork shk Post author

    so happy CA is being very effective in re evangelisation. I am Catholic, and CA strengthens my knowledge and reasons on why I am Catholic. Thank you for equipping us, Catholics of the truth of the faith, I feel that i would soon be ready to answer objections/misconceptions put forth by our non-Catholic friends.

    Reply
  2. John Rively Post author

    John Rively a member of the Anglican Communion, the Episcopalian church. I am proudly California University of Pennsylvania Alumni. My dead father was baptized Church of England, devolved to an Elder in the Presbyterian church. My dead as well, mother was a member of the Legion of Mary a Roman Catholic. I personally adhere-VIA MEDIA. A big difference between Episcopalian besides we believing the Eucharist to be figuratively the Body&Blood of Christ and R Catholics believe it to be literally the Body and Blood of Christ.This bolsters their maybe weak Faith? It comes down to a matter of Faith, and Martin Luther said,"Faith alone will get you salvation". Another annoying difference-Episcopalian priests are treated like ordinary men albeit Clergy. R Catholic priests are cow towed to in a ritualistic manner. At my mom's funeral myself, dad and my 3 Protestant uncles just did not kneel. The R Catholic priest trying to asset control actually said then, " Non Catholics do not have to kneel". My uncles were bewildered/STUNNED by this talk. Me and Dad simply ignored it.
    This note won't begin to register on you. This inability to have things register on you, is a reason along with Indulgences why the 1517 Protestant Reformation got going. It was beginning in England long before Henry VIII wanted a divorce, so he could wed again seeking a male heir to the Tudor throne.(When raised R Catholic the male heir need was conveniently omitted in grade school.)
    Best Wishes.
    John Rively

    Reply
  3. Nicholas James Post author

    These guys are so biblically ignorant it's not funny!

    Apparently he didn't read the part it's a SIGN in heaven with the sun, moon and stars. Apparently he doesn't know that Israel is known as the woman. Apparently he doesn't know that Christ gave the rod of iron to the church. Apparently he doesn't know that Jesus isn't born in revelation either! 🤦🏼‍♂️

    Reply
  4. Nicholas James Post author

    The red devil is hilarious especially if the things Paul said by mouth like he claims clearly wasn't written down and he doesn't realize if it wasn't written down then nobody knows plus he's not smart enough to realize that during Paul's preaching the scriptures were not completed yet which is why Paul told them weather it was by word or letter. Because some people in the beginning didn't have the scriptures but it doesn't mean they weren't preached the New Testament through the Holy Spirit using the apostles which is what happened. Eventually it was all written down and the same things he told them is what he wrote down! You don't really think Paul taught things to people then wrote down different things from everyone else later. Give me a break people! If only Catholics had brain and could think for themselves!

    Reply
  5. Nicholas James Post author

    I like he assumed her relationship is just a friendship lol! She's committing adultery but it's alright just confess once a week and spend time in purgatory and you're good lol! 🤦🏼‍♂️

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *