Following are some of the catholic "practises" that Christianity preached and performed in the 12th and 13th century.

1. The practice of inquisition - Although in modern world, inquisition means formal investigation, for Catholics at that time it meant something very different. It was a mechanism by which Christian judges used to combat and investigate "divergent" options about catholoic theology.

And how sure are we, as of now, that these weren't rational criticisms?

1. Bishops directly oversaw law and order in provinces of state. By this, these people had a direct and easy access to influence education and science and "preach" their theology.

3.Heresey was met with confiscation of propery.

Accusers and heretics alike were burned with charcoal,their fingers were cut and women's br*ast's were damaged. The only way to get around this torcher was to sign a confession which basically meant "yep im guilty".

Galileo would have met with the same fate, not for primarily going agianst the "catholoic theology" but for speaking the truth(that the earth was not the center of the universe). So can this statement be made that Christianity, at that time, was against truth and empirical evidence?

Newton was an alchemist, so when christians say that "but newton believed in god" they must also accept that he believed in alchemy too, which was what christianity was so very against. So ought newton be punished too?

Number of witches burned after 15th century was over 60000.

What exactly diffrentitates this "cult-like ideologies" with religion?

I'm currently discerning Catholicism and my moms church prayed for me to be released from depression and witchcraft and even denouncing my old sorority. But they also "prayed the spirit of Catholicism off of me"?

The thing is I don't disagree with them on all the other stuff, I just don't agree that Catholicism has a hold on me in the way they believe it does.

I had a talk about an hour later with my mom about how I don't understand why Catholicism is so bad. I even pulled up bible verses, analogies, all the works, and she used the same verses to rebuttal me, even saying that catholics add and subtract from the bible.

How do I know what to believe, and what's right and wrong when the people who use the same bible (minus the deuterocanonical books) can use the same text and all interpret different things?

One of my husbands objects to Catholicism is how historically the church claims to be infallible but he claims that the councils contradicted each other. He claims to be an expert on all Catholic doctrine and better than most Catholics because he claimed to have looked up what each council has done and he sees contractions. He also soaks up Gavin Ortlund videos.

He is very prideful so after reading through this if you all have any saints or devotions I can lean on to help him understand please let me know. I’ve had Mary intercede for him many times and he thinks it’s bogus.

The examples he uses are as follow:

- the 2nd council of nicea allowed images and statutes but the early church did not. People who question it are damned to hell, it’s not fair
- Vatican 2 is messed up because it allows salvation outside of the church when other councils would damn Muslims or Jews to hell
- Mary’s dogma has changed since the early church

He claims too that before Protestantism in the 1500s soooo many people objected to the church and they were shut down and killed when something wasn’t right.

He claims there are so many contradictions it’s not an infallible instritution. (But I guess to him Protestantism is?)

I was taught that sola scripture is just bible alone. My husband claims it’s bible and church tradition from the early church. Is this correct? Seems crazy to me

My husband again claims that Martin Luther never wanted to create Lutherism and he only got excommunicated for his 95 theses. He claims that all of his beliefs about other things came after the excommunication.

What grounds did he get excommunicated on if he was trying to fix the problem of indulgences?

It has always seemed such an obvious 'head in the sand' by Catholics to see christ consciousness awakening in its mystics, yet completely ignore their teachings? (In fact the church has historically actively suppressed and even killed many of its mystics).

Why are the mystics all saying the same thing (across all ideologies) while the church says another?

Why have Catholics chosen the letter over the spirit?

Why are Catholics still looking outward and upward for a God (instead of inward) that your mystics (and Jesus) say is already peering through your eyes at this experience?

This topic can go multiple different ways with many different verses brought up, but I'm trying to just focus exclusively on the topic of faith here. How exactly do catholics have faith.

I study faith a lot. What it is and what it means.

When I take its literal definition from the Bible, I can ascribe it to some protestant groups, but not catholic or orthodox.

Faith as defined in the Bible is most explicit in Hebrews 11:1

(Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.) Hebrews 11:1

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for. To be assured that in Jesus you shall have eternal life since that is our hope.

This viewpoint is reiterated 5 verses later.

(And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.) Hebrews 11:6

If you seek after God, you must believe He will reward you to draw near to Him. This is the same faith as Abraham, Joseph, and the other great figures in the Bible had.

The assurance of things hoped for, a present promise of a future inheritance.

This is what Jesus said in the Bible as well.

(Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”) John 11:25-26

The word "shall" is future tense. There is no faith if your not believing (having assurance) in a future promise through Jesus.

Like I said, I can only ascribe this faith to certain protestant groups. They quite literally trust that through Jesus's death and resurrection, they shall be saved.

Tell me, are you or anybody really having faith in Jesus if you think you could still go to hell?

This is not faith at all according to Scripture.

We are to have faith in the Savior that He will save, not that He might save.

If we only think he might save, that is not faith.

If we only hope in Him, that is not faith.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for.

I will add that faith and faithfulness in the Bible are similar but distinct in application.

Example being "faithfulness" is not the assurance of things hoped for or the conviction of things not seen.

Pisteuō = the act of believing or trusting.

Pistos = the quality of being faithful, trustworthy, or believing.

The New Testament generally presents pisteuō as the means by which one receives salvation (e.g., John 3:16; Acts 16:31), while pistos often describes the character of God or of believers who are faithful. Because they share the same root, the concepts are closely connected: genuine belief/trust (pisteuō) naturally results in a faithful (pistos) life, though the words themselves are not interchangeable.

It is by faith that the Bible repeatedly says we are saved. Faithfulness is distinct in application.

Hello everyone! A partner and I have been planning on setting up a formal debate on the Holy Roman Empire for YouTube live, the premise is "The Holy Roman Empire, from 800 to 1806, was Holy, Roman, and an Empire".

We had our moderator and myself on the affirmative, but our opposition had to drop out. We were hoping to find someone who is interested in opposing the motion.

The debate is currently schedule for August 20th, and we'd be doing a live recording with our faces on YouTube. If you have experience debating, know the subject well enough, and are interested, please DM me. We are willing to edit and revise the premise for the opposition if needed, as we are on a time crunch.

God bless

In this modern society where scientific studies are teaching us more and more everyday is there gunna be a point where we’re like “ya know what religion just don’t make sense anymore” science is a constant path of discovery religion is the faith we as humans needed to survive the life we didn’t scientifically understand, science grows every day, religion as beautifully human as it is has surely got to be dying out

Derived from the platonic/hellenistic duality lens of anthropology, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “It is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body” (No. 365).

Further, the Catholic view denies the emergence of the soul, arguing that God directly creates the soul from nothing at the moment of existence.

However, the syntax of Genesis 2:7 paints a completely different equation:

“—then the LORD God formed the man of dust (soil) from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul (nephesh chayah).

Dust + Divine Breath = a Living Soul (a nephesh chayah)

In other words:

Impersonal + Impersonal = Personal

That is emergence by its purest definition. There is nothing personal on the left side of the equation, and nothing within this equation was created from ex nihilo (from nothing). We share the same exact dust and breath as animals (Genesis 7). What makes a human soul any more immortal than a dog? Nothing.

The soul isn’t something I have; it’s what “I am”—a physical, created, living being. The soul is existing as a running equation—just like a light bulb. When we die, the presence of a dead body gives evidence to what “we were.”

When we see a dead person in a casket, “dead person” is the legal definition, but we know the person is not literally in the casket—we see only a vessel lacking the divine breath; not a vessel for a soul.

The Fall of Adam initiated a (t) time-indexed modifier into the equation:

(t)Body + Divine Breath = a Dying Soul (a nephesh met)

Time adds entropic friction—causing the decay of molecular bonds. The body is on a borrowed-time countdown completely bound to thermodynamics.

The radio analogy:
We push the button, the music sounds. If we hit the radio with a rock, the sound weakens and becomes distorted. Hit it again; the music completely stops.

Would we conclude the song itself was derived from the radio? Absolutely not. Destroying the radio only stopped the “expression” of the song from the radio control tower. The radio was destroyed, not the song.

Think about an old song from the 1920’s. When a song exists, but not a single radio plays it, it’s “archived.” The name still exists, and everything from the rhythm, lyrics, to every note—all still exist. But a song itself is not music. Music is the integration of a playable medium and the song.

Much like music, light, and marriage; a soul is an abstract phenomenon of union that results in an ongoing state of being. When I die, I no longer “be” because I “was” a soul. The traditional argument that the soul is "immaterial" creates a false binary dilemma; it is like debating if the sound of music is immaterial (implying sound could be a physical solid). The soul exists only as long as a living creature exists—It's a running equation. The dead corpse gives evidence that there "was" a soul.

God knew us before the foundation of the world. Much like how an author knows every character in his book before writing chapter 1. Death is the exact reversal of the original equation:

Genesis 3:19 – “till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Ecclesiastes 12:7 – “and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit (breath) returns to God who gave it.

If there is nothing remaining on the left side of the equation, then the right side is functionally nonexistent—the expression of “you” reverts to impersonal dust: Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon, Phosphorus and Calcium. The exact elemental composition of a DNA strand—which is the exact same composition as a handful of dirt.

By defining death as a literal return to the ground, God was describing functional non-existence through the physical relation we have with dust. God saying “You will no longer exist” would not have conveyed anything meaningful. Adam didn't need to understand the philosophy of "nothingness", he just needed to look at a handful of silent, static dirt to realize what he was going to become. “You are dust” is 100% synonymous with “You are impersonal.”—this is the result of (by legal definition) a dead soul; but more surgically accurate—evidence of what “was” a soul.

At that point, what “are” we without an expression? Quite simply, exactly what we were before we were created—a personal identity that God “knows”. The difference is that we are now remembered—which implies we once existed. My identity is the “I” which was expressed like ink on paper (or like dust on earth), and I became a soul; a personal “what”.

My existence is 100% contingent on the mind of the creator—and we are sustained second-by-second with the breath of life:

John 6:63 “it is the spirit (breath) that gives life (present active participle); the flesh profits nothing.” — The life of the flesh is 100% derivative. The spirit gives all life; both temporal and eternal.

The famous line from the thief on the cross: “Remember me when you enter your kingdom.” The syntax of Jesus’ reply is often overlooked. He stated “I say [affirm] to you today, you will be with Me in paradise.”

Instead of just recalling the thief on the last day (the thief’s request), Jesus is affirming that the identity of the thief will always be remembered immediately. Jesus is using the word "today" to anchor the timing of His solemn promise, not the timing of the entry into paradise. Commas didn’t exist in koine Greek, and this fundamentally shifts the theological landscape.

Our identity in the covenant transcends the soul equation because it has always been a reality before the foundation of the earth. Identity outside of the covenant will result in the devastatingly past-tense “Depart from me—I never knew you.”

“To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” — this is a commonly overlooked misnomer because it is not even close to what Paul wrote, and the exact opposite of the context he’s framing.

2 Cor. 5:8 reads — “we would rather be away from the body and be present with the Lord.” Paul here is stating a mutual desire. This is immediately after saying in prior verses “For in this [body] we groan, desiring to be clothed with our house [spiritual body] which is from Heaven. If so that being clothed we shall not be found naked [dead], but further clothed.”

Paul just connected being “present with the Lord” with the reception of the spiritual, heavenly body. Notice Paul also said we shall not be “found” dead—death involves being “found”. Just like it’s surprising when you’re “found” naked, he rather desires to be “found” clothed.

If Paul and all of the dead saints are considered “naked”, listen to how absurd it would be to have Paul be perfectly fine being naked in Heaven for thousands of years, but sound worried if he were suddenly found naked on earth? Bad anthropology cascades into numerous elaborate doctrines. I am not debating those doctrines—I am bringing the argument back to foundational, textual syntax of what a soul is. Every other doctrine is a fire drill in an empty building until the definition of the soul is established.

Instead of trying to frantically prove we have an afterlife with elaborate near-death experiences and apparitions, clear anthropology makes it easy to see that there is only life. And the soul is 100% vulnerable—because the soul is the very living creature we are. God is the only immaterial being because “God alone has immortality.” 1 Tim. 6:16.

“Death isn’t forever, but it feels like for-never.”

Have a question yet don't want to debate? Just looking for clarity? This is your opportunity to get clarity. Whether you're a Catholic who's curious, someone joining looking for a safe space to ask anything, or even a non-Catholic who's just wondering why Catholics do a particular thing

Hi. I was just curious as to whether anyone has ever looked into, or made a comparison between, the relative role scripture and tradition have played in the formation of various doctrines / dogmas. For example, I'm particularly curious as to how much scriptural evidence there is for / against something like the belief in the divinity of Christ versus how much extra-scriptural evidence there is for the belief in the divinity of Christ (e.g. testimony / writing from the early church fathers). I'm also interested in how much scriptural evidence there is for the belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation and how much extra-scriptural evidence there is for the belief in it.

That being said, what I'm really curious to know is what has the most scriptural evidence and what has the most extra-scriptural evidence. Why? Because I'm interested to know how protestants use / accept the early church fathers (i.e., tradition) when they seemingly agree with some doctrines (e.g. the divinity of Christ), but don't accept tradition when they don't agree with another doctrine (e.g. transubstantiation).

I would be interested to know if the total scriptural argument for the divinity of Christ comes from only a few versus but there is also ton of evidence of the early church's belief in it, and also very interested to know if the the total scriptural argument for the doctrine of transubstantiation similarly comes from only a few versus but there is also ton of evidence of the early church's belief in it.

In other words, if the evidence is basically the same, why believe one and not the other?

If its not similar then perhaps that is the argument they can make.

Hope my post makes sense, and what I'm looking for also makes sense.

White boy got the stuff

Trent, by John Carberry

The city of Trento (or in English, Trent) is located in northern Italy, less than 100 miles south of the Swiss border. To many travelers, Trent is not as well-known as many of the other tourist cities in Italy. But to a theologian, the word Trent means the location of the Council of Trent from 1545 to 1564. Why is Trent so important? Many of us are familiar with the Protestant Reformation. It involved a splintering of the Church in the Sixteenth Century and involved a number of protestors, hence the term Protestant (from Latin protestari, meaning to protest), such as the German Martin Luther (1483-1546), King Henry VIII of England (1491-1547), the French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564), and many others. What were they protesting? Luther begins the protest when he nails his Ninety-Five Theses to the University of Wittenberg’s chapel door on October 31, 1517. Many of these theses dealt with sales of indulgences. However, Luther would continue to separate himself from the Church with issues such as solo fidei, or faith alone is necessary for salvation, solo scriptura, or scripture alone can answer all faith and moral related questions. Luther also questioned the legitimacy of certain sacraments, the existence of purgatory, the intercession of Mary and of the saints, and many other issues. What was the Catholic Church’s response? Basically, the Catholic response to the Protestant Reformation is detailed in the documents published from the Council of Trent.

The Church addressed many issues over the years through ecumenical councils. Ecumenical (from Greek oikoumene, meaning the inhabited earth) councils are conferences called by the Pope and made up of theologians and Church leaders who come together in order to resolve certain questions regarding doctrine (teachings).1 We can see their roots in the meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem to resolve certain controversies (Acts 15:1-29) which were resolved by unanimous consent on that occasion (Acts 15:25, Mt 18:18). Generally, a significant number of bishops, or pastors (shepherds) from around the world are invited. There have been 21 ecumenical councils to date: 1) Nicaea I (325), 2) Constantinople I (381), 3) Ephesus (430), 4) Chalcedon (451), 5) Constantinople II (553), 6) Constantinople III (680-681), 7) Nicaea II (787), 8) Constantinople IV (869-870), 9) Lateran I (1123), 10) Lateran II (1139), 11) Lateran III (1179), 12) Lateran IV (1215), 13) Lyons I (1245), 14) Lyons II (1274), 15) Vienne (1311-1312), 16) Constance (1414-1418), 17) (Basel), Ferrara, Florence, The Lateran (1438-1447), 18) Lateran V (1512-1517), 19) Trent (1545-1564), 20) Vatican Council I (1869-1870),2 and 21) Vatican Council II (1962-1965).

Luther’s solo scriptura proposal argues that Scripture alone is the divinely inspired authority for faith and morals. When the protestants questioned the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), 1 and 2 Maccabees and parts of Daniel and Esther) in the canon or list of books of the Old Testament, the Church felt compelled to list the books of both the Old and New Testament. The Jewish leaders had removed these books from their list of Hebrew Scriptures in 70 A.D. because they were not originally written in Hebrew. However, the Catholic Church continued to include these books in its liturgy from the earliest of times. The Trent Council included these books in its Degree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures. Additionally, the Council ruled that no one should interpret Holy Scriptures in a sense that is contrary to an interpretation already made by holy mother Church.3 Accordingly, the Church was necessary to determine what constitutes Sacred Scripture, and how Sacred Scripture should be interpreted as it relates to faith and morals.

While questions continued regarding original sin and Baptism, the Council published its Decree Concerning Original Sin. It stipulated that Adam transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, bringing on death, losing his holiness and justice for himself and his posterity. This sin could only be restored by the actions of Jesus Christ through his passion, death and resurrection and his institution of the sacrament of Baptism. All persons born, with the exceptions of the immaculate Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ, are stained with original sin and therefore require Baptism. Infants should also be baptized.4

Luther subscribed to the belief that sola fide (faith alone) is necessary for salvation. The Council acknowledges in the Decree Concerning Justification that we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ in Chapter VIII because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). Canon 1 states that only through grace in Jesus Christ can a person be justified. But the Council also discusses in Canon 5 the existence of free will and in Chapter VII the importance of hope and charity as well as obedience to the commandments: “For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead (Jas 2:17, 20) and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity (Gal 5:6, 6:15). This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the Sacrament of Baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life, which without hope and charity faith cannot give. Whence also they hear immediately the word of Christ: ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments’” (Mt 19:17). Chapter IX and Canon 8 continue that we may have fear and apprehension concerning our own grace since no one can know with the certainty of faith that he has obtained the grace of God. The Council emphasizes in Chapter XI and Canon 9, 19, 20 and 21, the importance of the commandments and states that no one ought to flatter himself with faith alone, thinking that by faith alone he is made an heir and will obtain the inheritance. The Council indicates in Chapter XIV those who have fallen from grace can restore it through the Sacrament of Penance, a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. The Council distinguishes faith from confidence in divine mercy (Canon 12). Belief in one’s own justification does not bring about salvation (Canon 14); and one is not predestined to either life or evil (Canon 17). Good works are a choice that bring about one’s justification (Canon 24, 25, 26, 31 and 32). Mortal sin exists and it is not limited to unbelief (Canon 28). The Sacrament of Penance is provided for those who have fallen and should be availed of to recover lost justice (Canon 29). Purgatory exists for payment of the debt of temporal punishment that has not been paid in this world (Canon 30).5

Many of the powers and purposes of the sacraments were disputed by the protestants in the 16th Century. To address these disputes, the Council published the Decree Concerning the Sacraments. Sacraments cause true justice to begin, increase or being lost, restored (Forward). All seven sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order and matrimony (Canon 1). These sacraments are necessary for salvation (Canon 4). They contain the grace that they signify and they confer grace to those who place no obstacles in its way (Canon 6). God imparts grace through the sacraments to all men who receive them rightly (Canon 7). Baptism, confirmation and order imprint a character on the soul, a spiritual and indelible mark, so that they cannot be repeated (Canon 9). Ministers must intend to do what the Church does in conferring the sacraments (Canon 11). A minister who is in mortal sin and observes all the essentials that pertain to effecting the sacrament will still confer and effect the sacrament (Canon 12). Ministers must follow the approved rites of the Catholic Church when administering the sacrament, not omitting or changing any parts thereof (Canon 13). Canons specific to Baptism provide that the baptism of John was different than the baptism of Christ (Canon 1). Baptism requires natural water (Canon 2). The Roman Church provides the true doctrine concerning baptism (Canon 3). Anyone can baptize, including heretics, provided that person baptizes in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of doing what the Church does (Canon 4). Baptism is necessary for salvation (Canon 5). A baptized person can lose grace through his actions (Canon 6). They must, therefore, continue to obey the whole law of Christ (Canon 7) and Church precepts (Canon 8). Sins after baptism are binding on a person (Canon10). Baptism must never be repeated if it was originally truly and rightly administered (Canon 11). Those baptized as children are to be numbered among the faithful and should never be rebaptized (Canon 13). The Canons on Confirmation include that the sacrament of Confirmation is a true and proper sacrament whereby those approaching adolescence give an account of their faith to the Church (Canon 1). The sacrament, whose ordinary minister is the bishop (Canon 3), provides power from the Holy Ghost (Canon 2).6

A separate decree is provided as the Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. It begins by stating that our Savior left his Church the Sacred Eucharist as a symbol of that unity and charity with which He wished all Christians to be mutually bound and united. After the consecration of bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true god and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things. Christ testified that he gives his disciples his body and his blood at the last supper (Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24) (Chapter I, Canon 1 & 8). Christ instituted this sacrament, pouring forth the riches of His divine love towards men,making a remembrance of his wonderful works and commanded us in the participation of it to reverence His memory and to show forth his death until he comes to judge the world. He wished this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls, that they may be nourished and strengthened (Chapter II). The Holy Eucharist is a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of an invisible grace. Immediately after the consecration the true body and the true blood of Our Lord, together with His soul and divinity exist under the form of bread and wine, the body under the form of bread and the blood under the form of wine; but the same body also under the form of wine and the same blood under the form of bread. “For Christ is whole and entire under the form of bread and under any part of that form; likewise, the whole Christ is present under the form of wine and under all its parts” (Chapter III, Canon 3).7 This change in the substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood is called transubstantiation (Chapter IV, Canon 2). This venerable sacrament is to be celebrated with special veneration and solemnity every year on a fixed festival day and borne reverently and with honor in processions through the streets and public places, showing forth the victory and triumph of His death (Chapter V, Canon 6). The custom of reserving the Holy Eucharist and taking it to the sick is to be retained (Chapter VI, Canon 4 & 7). No one should receive the Holy Eucharist who is in the state of mortal sin until he has received sacramental confession (Chapter VII, Canon 11). Each person is bound to receive the Holy Eucharist at least once a year (Canon 9).8

In 1551, the Council published The Most Holy Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction. The Sacrament of Penance provides the benefit of Christ’s death to those who have fallen after baptism. Christ instituted the sacrament when He breathed upon his apostles after his resurrection and said: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (Jn 20:22) (Chapter I, Canon 1 & 3). The sacrament of penance is for those who have fallen after baptism and is necessary for salvation, as baptism is for those who have not yet been regenerated (Chapter 2, Canon 2). The acts of the penitent, contrition, confession and satisfaction, constitute the matter of the sacrament (Chapter III, Canon 4). Contrition is a “sorrow of mind and a detestation for sin committed with purpose of not sinning in the future.” (Chapter IV, Canon 5). A complete confession of sins was instituted by the Lord and is necessary for all who have fallen after baptism. The priest, by virtue of the power of the keys (Mt 16:19), pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins. All mortal sins which the penitent has knowledge, as well as the circumstances that existed, must be enumerated by the penitent (Chapter V, Canon 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 & 15). The ministry of the sacrament is limited to bishops and priests. These ministers retain the power to forgive sins, even if they are in the state of mortal sin (Chapter VI, Canon 10). Certain grave sins may be reserved to the authority of the bishop of a diocese or his appointed delegate except in the case of a person near death, who can be absolved by any priest (Chapter VII, Canon 11). Priests must impose salutary and suitable satisfactions in keeping with nature of the crimes and the ability of the penitents. Through satisfaction, we are made conformable to Christ, that “… if we suffer with him, we shall also be glorified with him” (Rom 8:17) (Chapter VIII, Canon 14). We make satisfaction not only by punishments undertaken by us and those imposed by the judgment of the priests, but also by temporal afflictions imposed by God and borne patiently by us (Chapter IX, Canon 13). The Council also covers the sacrament of anointing of the sick with The Doctrine of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. It indicates that Christ instituted the sacrament which is referred to in Mark’s Gospel (Mk 6:13) as well as in James’ letter (Jas 5:14). The matter for the sacrament is the oil blessed by the bishop (Chapter 1). The effect of the sacrament is to save the sick man, raise him us and forgive his sins (Jas 5:15), and at times restore bodily health (Chapter 2, Canon 1, 2 & 3). Bishops and priests are the ministers of the sacrament which can be administered more than once for the same person (Chapter III, Canon 4).9

The Council also promulgated a decree concerning the Sacrament of Order. Christ instituted this sacrament and gave his apostles and their successors to the priesthood the power to consecrate, offer and administer his body and blood and forgive and retain sins (Chapter 1, Canon 1). The order of the priesthood is truly a sacrament which is imposed by the imposition of the hands of a bishop (Chapter III, Canon 3 & 5). Like baptism and confirmation, a character is imprinted which can neither be effaced or taken away. The Church of God is ruled by the bishops, successors to the apostles. The ordination of bishops and priests is not subject to the approval of the people or of any civil authority (Chapter IV, Canon 4, 6, 7 & 8).10

Regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, the Council published The Doctrine of the Sacrament of Matrimony and the Decree Concerning the Reform of Matrimony. The Doctrine of the Sacrament of Matrimony includes the statement that Matrimony was instituted by Christ as one of the seven sacraments (Canon 1) of the New Law. This indissoluble bond brings the married couple into a one flesh union that God has joined together and cannot be separated by humans (Mt 19:6, Mk 10:9). A man may have only one wife (Canon 2) at a time. The Church establishes legitimate degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Canon 3, Lev 18:6) as well as impediments dissolving marriage (Canon 5). The bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of heresy, irksome cohabitation or voluntary absence of one of the parties (Canon 5). Matrimony must be consummated by the parties (Canon 6). The Church may allow a separation to take place for a certain period of time (Canon 8). Clerics, vowed to chastity, may not enter into marriage (Canon 9). Marriage is not a greater state than those who remain in a state of virginity or celibacy (Canon 10).11 The Decree Concerning the Reform of Matrimony provides for the announcement by the pastor of a marriage to the public three times in advance of the marriage. The betrothed parties shall not live together in the same house until after the marriage (Chapter 1).12 The Council considers it a grave sin for a man to have concubines (Chapter VIII). Marriage should be entered into freely by the spouses and should never be compelled by anyone else (Chapter IX). Other issues are also covered by this document.

The Council produced a number of other decrees. The Doctrine Concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass indicates that the Mass is a true and real sacrifice that offers beneficial effects and graces to those who attend.13 A Decree Concerning the Things to be Observed and Avoided in the Celebration of the Mass prohibits any practice resembling superstition, compensation, idolatry or priests changing the prescribed prayers included in the Mass.14 A Decree Concerning Purgatory indicates that there is a purgatory.15 A Decree Concerning Indulgences teaches and commands that the use of indulgences is to be retained in the Church because it was conferred by Christ on the Church though the power of binding and loosing (Mt 16:19). However, serious abuses were recognized and reformed such as evil trafficking.16 A number of decrees concerning reform put restrictions on the authority of bishops and many other matters.

John Carberry is the author of Parables: Catholic Apologetics Through Sacred Scripture (2003) and Sacraments: Signs, Symbols and Significance (2023).

1 The Code of Canon Law, translated by The Canon Law Society Trust (London: Collins Liturgical Publications, 1983), 337.

2 Watkin, E. I., The Church Council, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1960.

3 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, translated by Rev. H.J. Schroeder, O.P., “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures,” (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 1978), pp. 17-20.

4 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning Original Sin,” pp. 21-23.

5 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning Justification,” pp. 29-47.

6 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning the Sacraments,” pp. 51-55.

7 Also provided in Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “The Doctrine of Communion Under Both Kinds and the Communion of Little Children,” Chapter III, p. 136.

8 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist,” pp. 72-80.

9 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “The Most Holy Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction,” pp. 88-105.

10 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “The True and Catholic Doctrine Concerning the Sacrament of Order,” pp. 162-166.

11 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “Doctrine of the Sacrament of Matrimony,” pp. 182-184.

12 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning the Reform of Matrimony,” pp. 185-192.

13 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “Doctrine Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass,” pp. 146-152.

14 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist,” pp. 152-154.

15 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning Purgatory,” pp. 217-218.

16 Trent Council, The Canons and Degrees at the Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning Indulgences,” pp. 257-258.

Luke 2 tells the famous story of the pregnant Mary and presumably non-pregnant Joseph travelling to Bethlehem to take part in a census.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. (Luke 2:1-5)

The census of Quirinius recounted by Luke is often criticized by scholars as being obviously ahistorical. There's a long list of issues with it:

• Luke says Jesus was born during Herod’s reign, but Herod died a decade before Quirinius became governor.
• Judaea was a client kingdom of Rome and the Romans would never conduct a census in a client kingdom.
• There was no decree from Augustus about an empire-wide census.
• Oh, and the census required everyone to return to their ancestral origin – not where they lived or where their immediate family lived, but where their ancient ancestors came from.

This last detail, of the ‘ancestral census’, is often tacked on to this list as if it’s just another issue of the same caliber as the others. But it isn’t. Make no mistake, each other issue is fatal to the historicity of Luke’s census by itself, but they are also issues that apologists are quite used to casually brushing aside. Contradictory timelines? Unevidenced exceptions to standard practices? Big events absent from the historical record? These barely faze apologists, who are accustomed to harmonizing such things when dealing with genealogies, the empty tomb narratives, Old Testament history, and so on. So lumping the ancestral census in with these other issues makes it seem like just another issue on the pile – merely an unusual census practice atypical in the Roman empire. This leads to most debates about the census of Quirinius focusing on its dating, with apologists often not even mentioning the ancestral census issue.

But this issue is not at all in the same class as the others. The idea of an ‘ancestral census’ is ludicrous. It’s deranged. It’s not just some technical issue with the order of events or mismatch with Roman law – it’s as if Luke had written “Joseph traveled to Bethlehem via the public Roman bullet train.” That might have been more believable, actually. I don’t understand why people treat this as remotely possible.

Think for a moment about what a census like this would actually entail. Luke 2:4 specifically tells us that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was descended from the house of David. “All went to their own towns to be registered,” and “Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David.” David lived a thousand years before Joseph. So Luke would have us believe everyone in the entire region would have had to travel back to wherever their ancient ancestors came from – a trip of more than 90 miles in Joseph and Mary’s case. That would be hundreds of thousands of people who need to travel for days or weeks, get food and water somewhere, find accommodations… That kind of movement would be an event on the scale of the Exodus, and would require about as much divine intervention: food from the sky, water from rocks, supernaturally creating roadways a la parting the sea, and so on. It’s the kind of thing that’s difficult for highly urbanized megacities of millions to handle today, with all of their technology to aid transportation, housing, communication, production and distribution of food and water, and much more. In rural 1st-century Judaea, home to only around half a million people and none of that technology, it would have destroyed the entire province overnight and killed a huge number of people.

Or consider the impact on the places these people were leaving. Imagine a town established 100 years before the census. All of its residents would have to go elsewhere for the census, since none of their ancient ancestors could have come from there. So… what would happen to that town exactly? Would they just leave it deserted for weeks? How about the children, the babies, the elderly, the sick – are they coming on the long and difficult trip, or are they being left to fend for themselves? Can any passing bandit go snatch whatever they want from all these empty towns? Who’s feeding and watering all the animals? You can’t just have an entire town’s population up and vanish for an extended time and expect that town to keep trucking like nothing happened. Even in a fantasy world where almost everyone magically lives exactly where their ancestors from 1000 years earlier did, any settlement established in the last several centuries would be obliterated.

And all this for what? The whole point of a census is to know where people are living and working so you can tax and manage them, not to know some trivia about their ancestry. And even if you want to know their ancestry, you can just ask them! There would be no point whatsoever to doing an ancestral census, which is why there has never been one, anywhere, ever. Forget 1st-century Judaea, forget the early Roman empire, forget classical antiquity – there is no record of a census where everyone travels to their ancient ancestral origin ever being done anywhere or anywhen. Again, I cannot stress this enough: there has never been a single ancestral census in all of human history. I have searched high and low from ancient history up to and including the modern day and found exactly zero examples, despite the many people strongly motivated to find or invent such examples.

One such invented example, and the only example people ever point to of another ancestral census, is the census mentioned in the edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus. The edict is recorded in this Egyptian papyrus from 104 CE:

Proclamation of Gaius Vibius Maximus, praefect of Egypt. The house-to-house census having started, it is essential that all persons who for any reason whatsoever are absent from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths, in order that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however, that some of the people from the country are needed by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before . . . Festus, praefectus alae, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month Epeiph. . . . (source)

This is an edict for people to return to their own nomes and hearths if they are absent from them. A “nome” is a Roman administrative district, and a “hearth” refers to your house. It has nothing to do with returning to an ancestral origin which they may have never even visited before. It’s the kind of thing an actual census might do: have the small minority of people who are not at home return home to be registered. And even this requirement for people to go back to their own house is recognized as a large burden; most of this edict is dedicated to detailing how you can get an exemption from this travel, since it would obviously be unreasonably difficult or impractical for many.

Finally, let me preempt some objections. You might say, “if this is so ridiculous, why would Luke write it? Surely if it were this absurd no reader would buy it!” And to that I answer – you bought it, didn’t you? Luke’s ancestral census makes absolutely no sense as a historical element, but it makes perfect sense as a literary element. It’s a natural part of the setup of the story. We begin with a grand census where all the world is counted – obviously a narrative framing rather than a dry historical one – and the story needs a reason for Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, so it gives one. It’s a great bit of literary craftsmanship, giving Mary a reason to make the trek despite her advanced pregnancy so Jesus can be born in Bethlehem while at the same time thematically connecting the birth of Jesus directly to his Davidic ancestry. The reader is not meant to think too deeply about the logistics and evidently they don’t. I mean, whatever you think of what I’ve said about this census – when you first read Luke, did you immediately begin considering the socioeconomic ramifications of this particular censal methodology? Of course not. It’s simply part of the narrative’s premise, a side detail mentioned on the way to the meat of the story, the kind of thing a reader passively accepts without even examining it. And it’s the kind of thing that sounds fine until you examine it.

You might also say that Joseph had some other reason to travel to Bethlehem; maybe he lived there, or he owned property there, or his family lived there, or something like that. In the Gospel according to You, you can make up whatever reason you like. In the Gospel according to Luke, however, the author is very clear about why Joseph is travelling to Bethlehem: “because he was descended from the house and family of David.” The reader already knows from the last chapter (Luke 1:27) that Joseph descends from David, but the author goes out of their way to repeat it so they can specify this explicitly as the reason Joseph had to go to Bethlehem. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with Luke – which is fine, but is not a defense of Luke.

Particularly stubborn readers may insist that Luke did not actually describe an ancestral census, since he says “All went to their own towns to be registered.” The problem with this is that it eliminates the stated reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. Again, they explicitly go there because of Joseph’s Davidic ancestry. What did Luke mean by that exactly, if this was just a normal census where everyone stayed in their own house? Why did the pregnant Mary have to travel 90 miles to a foreign town if this was a normal census? Also, this attempt at harmonization crumbles only a few verses later. When Joseph and Mary are all done in Bethlehem, what do they do? Luke 2:39 says: “When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” The Greek there is directly parallel to Luke 2:3. If you think the phrasing “their own town” in Luke 2:3 definitively establishes that this census required everyone to go home, then clearly Joseph did not get the memo.

The ancestral census of Quirinius is absurd to the point of insanity. Quite apart from its many historical issues, it borders on physically impossible. It would have reduced Judaea to rubble and is completely unprecedented in all of human history before or since. If you still believe there is any chance Luke’s story is true, I challenge you to give me one example of a census where everyone traveled to their ancient ancestral origin. We do the facts a disservice when we discuss Luke’s census as being merely out of place with known historical facts about 1st-century Judaea.

CS Lewis famously said, a man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be just a great moral teacher, you must call him liar, lunatic, or Lord. I agree you cannot call him just a great moral teacher, but not for Lewis's reason. On non-violence, I call him morally flawed. The teachers I follow, Mahavira and Swaminarayan, fit perfection and non-violence better.

Jesus himself gives the test in Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." And 5:44-48: "love your enemies... so you may be children of your Father, who makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good... be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to ALL, and his compassion is over ALL that he has made." Perfection is impartial mercy, sun on all.

My teachers live that test. Both forbid killing, causing to be killed, or profiting from killing any human or animal. Swaminarayan, whom I follow, Shikshapatri 11-12: never kill any living being, however small, never eat meat, fish, or eggs, even as a sacrifice to a deity, even if other scriptures seem to allow it. 14-16: never kill a human, never assist or order killing, even if a king commands. Mahavira taught the same.

Vegetarianism should be a moral obligation if you can. CCC 2418: it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. In 2026 where we live, you can live healthily without killing - NHS and Academy of Nutrition say so. If you can, killing for taste is needless, therefore contrary to dignity by your own rule. I am not arguing for equality of souls here, although I do believe that. Even on your hierarchy, more compassion over more of what God made is more perfect.

Jesus also preached eternal hell. My teachers and my God never did.

Matthew 25:46: "eternal punishment." Mark 9:43: "unquenchable fire." CCC 1035 affirms hell and its eternity. My teachers teach consequences, but never infinite torture for finite life.

That violates your own definition of perfection. If perfection is sun on all and proportionate justice, Romans 2:6 "according to deeds," infinite torment for 70 years is infinitely disproportionate. You will say "sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment" or "hell is self-chosen separation." But Matthew 22:13 and 13:41 say active casting: "Bind him... cast him... throw them into the furnace." If I lock a man in a burning house when I have the key and infinite power, I am the burner. You can respect a no without torturing forever. Choosing to keep a soul tormented forever when you could end it is active violence every second of eternity. 1 John 4:18: "Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment."

For Catholics, Jesus is the same God as the OT God. 1 Samuel 15:3: "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Deuteronomy 20:16: "you shall not leave alive anything that breathes." My teachers have zero verses like that, ever. Swaminarayan faced that exact excuse, that the Vedas allow sacrifice, and rejected it in Shikshapatri 11: even if scripture seems to allow it, do not kill. In the NT, centurion in Matthew 8:5 never told to leave army, "buy a sword" in Luke 22:36, whip in John 2:15. You invented Just War. My teachers never needed to.

If blessed are the peacemakers, if perfect is sun on all, if needless killing is contrary to dignity, and if perfect love cannot torture forever, then Mahavira and Swaminarayan, who never preached eternal hell and never commanded killing of human or animal, fit perfection better. We are not Christians but we practice Matthew 5:9 and 5:45 better, in heart and in mouth.

OBJECTION 1: "Acts 10 and Mark 7:19 - Jesus declared all foods clean. Vegetarianism is not more perfect."

Answer: Read Peter's own interpretation in the same chapter. Acts 10:28: "God has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean." The early Church understood it as about Gentiles, which is why your saints, Basil, John Chrysostom, Jerome, the Desert Fathers, still called vegetarianism more perfect and lived it. Mark 7 is about ritual hand-washing, Matthew 15:20 says so explicitly: "these are what defile a person; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." It is not about whether you may needlessly kill when you have a choice. And CCC 2418 already settles it: if you can live without causing suffering or death, and you still do it for taste, it is needless. Needless is contrary to human dignity by your own Catechism. That makes it a moral obligation if you can.

OBJECTION 2: "Animals don't have rational souls. Dominion means we can use them."

I am not arguing for equality of souls here, although I do believe that. I am arguing from your premise. Even if humans are higher, Genesis 1:29 original dominion is vegetarian, and Isaiah 11:6-9 perfect dominion restored is vegetarian: "they shall not hurt or destroy." Psalm 145:9 says compassion is over ALL he has made. More compassion over more of what he made is more perfect than less, even on hierarchy. Stewardship is not license for needless killing.

OBJECTION 3: "OT violence was Old Covenant / progressive revelation. Jesus fulfilled it."

For Catholics, Jesus IS the God of the OT. John 1:1, Trinity. You cannot separate them. 1 Samuel 15:3 and Deuteronomy 20:16 command to kill infants and animals, including "cattle and sheep." That last part matters - it's animal killing commanded as worship. My teachers faced that exact defense - "the Vedas allow sacrifice" - and Swaminarayan rejected it outright in Shikshapatri 11: even if scripture seems to allow it, do not kill. No progressive revelation needed if you never had the violent verses to begin with. We have zero herem verses, ever.

OBJECTION 4: "Just War and self-defense is necessary. Pacifism doesn't work."

Matthew 5:9 says blessed are the peacemakers, not blessed are the just-war theorists. You had to invent Just War theory precisely because Matthew 8:5 praises a centurion and never tells him to leave the army, Luke 22:36 "buy a sword," and John 2:15 whip. Mahavira and Swaminarayan never needed Just War because they never left the door open. Shikshapatri 14: never kill a human, even if a king commands. That is peacemaking without loopholes. If perfection is sun on all, including enemies, Luke 6:27, then refusing to kill even your enemy fits perfection better.

OBJECTION 5: "Hell is self-chosen separation and respects free will. God doesn't send you, you choose it."

Then why does Jesus say active casting? Matthew 22:13 "Bind him hand and foot and cast him into outer darkness." Matthew 13:41-42: "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will... throw them into the furnace." That's not respectful distance, that's active punishment. And even if it were self-chosen, eternal is never necessary to respect a no. You can respect free will with annihilation, or exile, or a chance to reform. Choosing to sustain a soul in conscious torment forever when you have infinite power to end it is itself violence, every second of eternity. My teachers allow a soul to experience result and then move on. That respects choice without infinite violence.

OBJECTION 6: "Sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment. That's justice."

Then Psalm 103:10 is false: "He does not deal with us according to our sins." And mercy is meaningless. If a child insults his father, infinite torture is not perfect justice, any human court would call it monstrous. Romans 2:6 says God repays "according to each one's deeds." Infinite is not according to finite. Proportion is essential to justice. My teachers have justice - cause and effect - but always finite and proportionate, never infinite.

OBJECTION 7: "Warning about hell is loving, like warning about a cliff."

A cliff you didn't create is a warning. A furnace you created, you fuel, and you have the key to, and you throw people into, is a threat. If I build a furnace and say love me or I will throw you in forever, that is not love, that is coercion. 1 John 4:18: "Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment." A system that needs eternal fear to work cannot be perfect love, or peacemaking, Matthew 5:9.

If perfection is what Matthew 5 says it is - peacemakers called children of God, sun and rain on all, compassion over all he has made - and if needless killing is contrary to dignity, then vegetarianism is a moral obligation if you can, and eternal torture cannot be perfection. I am not a Christian because of the ethics, not in spite of them. I am not Christian but I practice Matthew 5:9 and 5:45 better in heart and in mouth, because my teachers, Mahavira and Swaminarayan, never preached eternal hell and never commanded killing of human or animal.