Cy Kellett (4:45)

Oh, yeah.

Jimmy Akin (4:46)

You know, because it's like if you're reading a novel, and let's say it's a Sherlock Holmes novel, and it says at some point in the novel that Sherlock had something written in a book, well, it implies it's not the one you're reading right now, it's some other book that's being described within the narrative. So we don't have any claims that in the Pentateuch, in the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible that Moses wrote them, then there is at least one passage that it would have been really hard for Moses to write, and that's the account of his death. Because at the end of Deuteronomy, Moses days are coming to a close, and he knows it, and he ends up going up into the mountains. He's not allowed to go into the promised land at this point, but he goes up into the mountains and he dies. And how did Moses write this if. If he's dead? You know, I mean, did he use a Ouija board or what? And so even people who support Mosaic authorship have been willing to make a concession on this point and say, well, even if you. They'll say, I think he wrote most of it, but he didn't write the little last bit about his death. So even those who support Mosaic authorship must concede that at least some passages like this one were not written by Moses. There's also a problem for Mosaic authorship in the idea that there are several passages that are written from a later historical perspective. Like, for example, Moses death is one of those. It says that, you know, Moses died up in the mountains and no one knows where his grave is to this day. Now, if he had just died and someone scribbled down what happened, they wouldn't say to this day if it's like the next week. This, to this day implies a significant passage of time. There are other indications that suggest that the books were written, at least in their final form, in the period of the monarchy when Israel had a king. And there are various passages that anticipate Israel having a king and passages that seem to look back on the days of Moses from the perspective of, we have a king now, and that would imply that the books weren't written until at least around 1000 BC, around the time of King David or King Solomon. And there are also passages that, that describe the borders of Israel. You know, how much land has God given the Israelite people? They describe the borders of Israel or the potential borders of Israel in a way that's consistent with the borders that Israel had in the early monarchic period. Like I said, around the time of King David or King Solomon. So we have a number of different passages that would suggest that. That it looks like these books weren't written by Moses himself. I think they do contain traditions and material that goes back to the time of Moses. Last time I read through them, I was really struck by the enormous amount of detail that they used to describe how the Israelites built the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle was kind of a temporary. It was a temporary structure that they used when they were still on the move, when they were not settled in the land. It was basically a tent like structure that was used as a place to worship God. And there are enormous details contained in the text about exactly what you need to do to build the tabernacle. And it's really hard to explain if this is non historical material that doesn't go back to that period, because after the time of King Solomon, the Israelites worshiped in the temple in Jerusalem. The temple replaced the tabernacle. And so if this were written centuries later like some folks propose and has no connection to the historical Moses, then why would they just go on for so long telling us how to build the tabernacle? And so I think it genuinely does contain material that goes back to Moses. It just never claims to be written by him. And there are passages that are clearly, from a later perspective, not just Moses death, but others as well. And so I tend to think that it can be described as mosaic in the sense of containing traditions that go back to Moses. But I don't think it's mosaic in the sense of he personally dictated these books and had a scribe write them down. On the other hand, I don't go so far as some scholars who want to say, oh, all of this didn't come together in its final form until after the Babylonian exile and like 400 BC or something like that. I think that's way too recent. If I had to guess. My guess would be that these books were in basically their final form in the time of David or Solomon. That's when the evidence most seems to point to me. So about 1000 B.C. not as early as Moses, not as late as other people want to say, but kind of in the early Monarchic period.

Cy Kellett (10:46)

All right, well, thank you, Jimmy. Thanks very much. There's four folks on the line and we're going to get to them when we come back. But that means there's two lines open. It's Ask Me Anything with Jimmy Akin On Catholic Answers Live. 888-318-7884 Catch Catholic Answers Live anytime@catholic.com Are.

Sponsor Voice (11:04)

You a coffee drinker? If so, you can now enjoy a coffee roasted to perfection by the Carmelite monks of Wyoming. Delicious Mystic Monk Coffee is roasted and prepared by monks in a hidden cloistered monastery and is available in over 25 varieties. All Mystic Monk coffees are works of perfection and labors of love. For more information on how to purchase Mystic Monk Coffee, visit MysticMonkCoffee.com that's Mystic Monk Coffee.

Jimmy Akin (11:33)

Check out EWTN's official YouTube channel. Just follow the link on our homepage at EWTN.com or go to YouTube.com EWTN Watch EWTN's live shows or today's Homily from the Daily Mass. Click the upload button to see our most recent clips. You can also find all of EWTN YouTube content by clicking the playlist button. It's all on the official EWTN YouTube channel@YouTube.com EWTN visit today. Welcome back.

Cy Kellett (12:13)

Catholic Answers Live. Jimmy Akin, our guest both hours and Friday is a good day to find out what's dropping on Jimmy Akins Mysterious World because it drops each Friday morning. Jimmy, what dropped today on Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World?

Jimmy Akin (12:27)

Well, we have an episode focusing on one of the doctors of the church, specifically St. Albert the Great. He was a contemporary of St. Thomas Aquinas. He was a little bit older than St. Thomas, about 25 years older. He was also a teacher of St. Thomas Aquinas, but he is a doctor of the church in his own right and he wrote about everything. He wrote on just a vast number of subjects. He basically commented on all of Aristotle's scientific treatises and he even pioneered some new treatises on sciences that, like mineralogy that Aristotle didn't cover. And he also was interested in magic and alchemy and mysterious things like that. So in today's episode we have a presentation on St. Albert the Great and his great learning, his interest in mysterious subjects and how he ended up as a doctor of the church.

Cy Kellett (13:32)

Oh, very cool. Albert the Great. It does seem that in those days there were more people that had an encyclopedic knowledge. I guess it's just there was less specialization.

Jimmy Akin (13:41)

Well, there was less known at the time. Someone, one of the people I quote in the episode said Albert the Great was the last person to know everything that could be known because after his time, the amount of knowledge just became too great for any one person to know.

Cy Kellett (13:57)

All right, well check it out at Mysterious FM or wherever you get your podcasts or go to the Jimmy akin channel on YouTube and check it out there. Back to the phone or to the phones we go. Janelle is in Florida watching on YouTube. Hi Janelle. You got a question for Jimmy?

Janelle (14:14)

Yeah, hi Jimmy. My question is about self flagellation. Just a disclaimer. I am not planning on doing this, but a lot of saints have practiced it and I'm wondering if it constitutes self harm and is it a sin? Because I don't understand why God would want people to harm themselves if our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.

Jimmy Akin (14:36)

Okay, well, our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't mean that there can't be reasons for that. Doesn't mean we should Treat the temple as if it's. What's the right way to say this? That doesn't mean we should over prioritize the care of the temple, because the temple is not ultimately what's important. What's ultimately important is the one that resides within the temple, which in this case is the Holy Spirit. And so you want to treat the temple with respect, but that doesn't mean treating the temple as if it's an end in and of itself. And there can be situations in sticking with the temple model, there can be situations in which one needs to renovate the temple and one needs to do things to help the temple properly perform its function. And so, for example, one of the things you don't want the temple to do in the case of a human body is sin. And some individuals have found self flagellation a way of disciplining themselves so that they learn not to sin. And that is analogous to taking an earthly temple that's fallen into disrepair and tearing out some walls and putting up new ones and making it an improved, better temple. And that's essentially what people who practice various forms of self discipline to master their sin nature and make their temple holier as a place for God claim to do. Now, when it comes to self flagellation itself, the term self harm is one that we find in modern American culture. And it's usually used for something pretty serious, not just, let's say, causing yourself a little bit of pain. In fact, in athletics there is a saying that sometimes used no pain, no gain. If you go and you work to strain your muscles, if they're not used to it, if you're not a regular exerciser, and then they grow back better. The heavy workout causes micro tears in your muscles. And then when those tears heal, they grow back better and the muscles grow back better and stronger. And various athletes have noted, if you don't get to that exhaustion point where it's starting to cause little micro tears, you're not going to get the better improved muscles. So no pain, no gain. Well, even people who basically worship their bodies recognize that causing some pain, like working out your muscles to the point of exhaustion, that's a good thing to do. And they don't consider that self harm. When people talk about self harm, they typically mean other things that are more destructive, like slitting your wrists and trying to let yourself bleed out, or you know, taking a, taking a lit flame and burning your flesh with it or stuff like that. So little minor forms of pain, of activities that cause pain are not a problem. But this isn't really a category that the Church uses in its moral theology. Instead, the Church uses a concept known as mutilation. And mutilation is interfering with the body's function in a way that is not warranted. So getting your ear pierced, that's not mutilation because it doesn't interfere with your body's function. But taking an ice pick and sticking it in your ear so you become deaf in that ear, that would be mutilation. Now you can do things that would otherwise constitute mutilation in an urgent situation. You know, if you're treating a medical problem like, you know, instead of taking the ice pick and shove it into my ear, I'd shoved it into my windpipe. Well, that would also be mutilation if I did it for no good reason. But if I'm choking and I need to open an emergency airway in my throat, we call it a tracheotomy, even though it's the same thing. But giving someone a tracheotomy so they can keep breathing and survive, that's a good thing. So mutilation is doing something that interferes with the body's function for no good reason. In the case of self flagellation, well, if you've got a flail and you're, you know, using it on your own back, that's going to stimulate the nerve endings. Specifically, it's going to stimulate a class of nerves you have all over your skin called nociceptors, which are pain reception nerves. And so yeah, you're going to, if you're, if you're flailing yourself, you're going to stimulate these pain receptor nerves. But as long as you keep that in moderation, it's something that, well, if it helps you spiritually, it's not mutilation. You're not mutilating your body, you're causing some pain. But then going to a gym and working out will also cause pain. Pain. And so if there's a good benefit from it, like it helps you avoid sin, if it helps you grow in holiness, then that's not going to be mutilation and it's also not going to be a sin. On the other hand, it may not be performing a good function. There are people who may want to flagellate themselves. Some of them may have scrupulous consciences. For example, they may feel like, oh, God can't love me and if I don't flail myself, you know, whether physically or in some other form, if I don't constantly cause myself to experience pain, God won't forgive me. Well, that's unhealthy. And at that point you should not be doing that. Whether it becomes a sin in the sense of a consciously chosen act is going to depend on how much knowledge you have of the character of the act and how voluntary your consent to the act is. And there can be various psychological factors that will diminish all that. But in principle, self flagellation is not a sin. It's just like one of the most common biblical forms of penance is, and we even do this at the beginning of mass is where you take your fist and you strike your breast. You know, you just. At mass, we do it through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. And we're not hurting ourselves there. But that is essentially a form of self flagellation. We're just doing it on the front and we're doing it with our hand inst. Using a flail. Now, you can take self flagellation too far. One way of doing that is doing it in circumstances where it's not promoting the good that it's supposed to promote. Like I mentioned, people who are scrupulous and afraid God won't love them unless they're constantly hurting themselves. That's unhealthy, that's bad. They need to get out of that mode and have a greater appreciation for God's love for them and how it does not depend on them punishing themselves. On the other hand, another way of self flagellation becoming sinful would be to do it to such an extent that you actually engage in mutilation that you start, you know, tearing open your back and causing wounds to yourself. And you know, there, there's a kind of a spectrum here. And I don't want to make it sound like any disturbance of the surface of the skin is going to be a sin, but there certainly would be a point where if you keep doing it and you just keep injuring yourself and causing greater and greater wounds, where it would become sinful. So self flagellation is not itself sinful, but it can become sinful or otherwise unhealthy in a variety of different ways. When it comes to the saints who have done it in the past, well, there's not going to be a single answer for them. For some of them, it would have been a helpful spiritual practice. But for others, they may have gone too far. They may have done it in an unhealthy way. Some of them might have even done it in a sinful way. But we should always be slow to accuse another person of sin. So if you wanted to accuse a particular saint of committing a sin by their degree of self flagellation, I would say, okay, so what's your evidence? How much did they know? How much did they do? Were they under any kind of psychological conditions? I'm very reluctant to accuse other people of actual sin. And so, and that would apply to this case as well as any others.

Cy Kellett (24:02)

Janelle, thank you for the call. I'm going to keep going. All the lines are full now, but I would like to send you thank you for starting us off. I'd like to send you a copy of Jimmy's book. The Bible is a Catholic book. If you would like a copy of that. Hang on. Give us an address there in Florida and we will send it off. Heading up to Augusta, Georgia now. Daniel is listening on the Catholic Answers app. Thanks for downloading the app onto your phone, Daniel. Go ahead with your question.

Caller (Daniel/Angkor) (24:28)

Hey, how you doing? Jimmy Akin, I appreciate you doing okay. I've been having discussions with some Calvinist friends on the doctrine of justification and I have been trumped on one passage In Romans, specifically Romans 4, Romans 4, verse 5, when Paul used the term logismai for reckoning someone righteous.

Jimmy Akin (25:01)

And.

Caller (Daniel/Angkor) (25:04)

What I what my question is, what is the since that term is a legal has legal and transactional connotation, like what's the biblical basis of the church's claim that that it has it contains metaphysical implications? And like, how would I refute the Calvinistic position on this in a biblically systematic way, considering that the interpretation of the word adheres closer to its literal forensic meaning?

Jimmy Akin (25:29)

Okay, well, I would dispute that I don't see this verse as helping a Calvinist at all. And not this word in the verse or legizomai means things like calculate or reckon. But I obviously need more time to explain that. So I'll do it on the other side of the break.

Cy Kellett (25:53)

I hope you can Hang on, Daniel.

Announcer (25:55)

We have to take this break.

Cy Kellett (25:56)

Jimmy Akin is our guest. It's Ask Me Anything with Jimmy Akin, 888-331-8-7884.

Announcer (26:14)

We hope that one of the things that we communicate here at Catholic Answers Live is that our Catholic faith allows us to be fully serious about all the problems we encounter in the church and in the world.

Cy Kellett (26:23)

But it also lets us have light.

Announcer (26:24)

Hearts and maybe even mix in a bit of fun. And that is exactly what our good friend Joe Heschmeyer does in his popular podcast Shameless Potpourri. You should check it out@shelessjoe.com Joe's got.

Cy Kellett (26:37)

A deep grasp of the faith, morals.

Announcer (26:40)

The teachings of the church, all that, but he's also got a witty conversational style. He entertains and he informs, but you will leave equipped to better answer the most common challenges, misconceptions and questions about the Catholic faith. He's got insightful guests he does on air debates, and he takes a close look into all the things that you want to know about as a Catholic living today. You'll walk away knowledgeable and and filled with joy. Look for Joe on his YouTube channel. Check him out@shelessjoe.com or wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like what you hear, become a patron.

Joe Heschmeyer (27:14)

Throughout history, some Catholics have been among the worst kind of villains, right? Or were they in canceled? Historian Steve Weidenkopf digs into the lives and controversies of some of these Catholics whose reputations have been blackened, often unfairly. He takes on the anti Catholic versions of history and defends not only these figures, but the faith they represent. Order your copy of canceled today@shop.catholic.com or ask for it at a good Catholic bookstore near you.

Announcer (27:45)

When the resurrected Jesus appeared to disciples on the road to Emmaus, they didn't recognize him until the breaking of the bread. The same is true today in the Holy Eucharist. We really meet Jesus in the Eucharist is really Jesus. Author Joe Heschmeyer explains how knowing Jesus in the Eucharist is the key to understanding all of Christian faith. Order your copy of the Eucharist is Really Jesus today@shop.catholic.com or get it at a good Catholic bookstore.

Cy Kellett (28:16)

Matt Swaim here. Monday on the Sunrise Morning show, we'll take a look at this week in Catholic History with Kevin Schmeesing. Plus all the latest news, weather, sports and a whole lot more. Now back to CATHOLIC Answers Live. Welcome back to CATHOLIC Answers live. Oh, we had to go before we could get an answer for Daniel in Augusta, Georgia. Daniel, thanks for hanging on the line. Jimmy. You were I'm not even going to try to say the word. You could say it a Greek term in Romans.

Jimmy Akin (28:54)

Leguzimi. Exactly. So I guess the first thing I'd say is one wants to be aware that where Paul is, where this language from Paul is coming from in Romans 4 is it's not original to Paul. He is borrowing this language from Genesis 15, and this is something that is clear from the context. In fact, a couple of verses earlier, in Romans 4:3, he actually quotes from Genesis 15 and he says, for what does scripture say Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. And again, in that verse, it uses, in Paul's Greek text, it uses legizimi. But if you really want to figure out what this text means, you don't just look at Paul's Greek, because Greek is not the original language that this was written in. You need to look at the Hebrew of Genesis 15, and you need to figure out what's going on in Genesis 15. Now, in that passage, God has promised Abraham a descendant. And in fact, he's promised Abraham a multitude of descendants. You know, he takes them outside and shows them the stars and says, you know, social your descendants be. And it's at that point that in Genesis, this is Genesis 15:6, it's at that point that it says, and he believed, meaning Abraham believed the Lord and he reckoned it to him as righteousness. Now, there are multiple possible interpretations of this. For one thing, the second part of the verse, he reckoned it to him as righteousness. We've got two pronouns, and it's not clear he and him. And it's not clear which pronoun. It's not 100% clear anyway which pronoun refers to which individual. Now, we can determine how Paul took it, and that's important. And he's writing under divine inspiration. But just to illustrate the flexibility of the original text, it could be that in Genesis 15, Abraham is reckoning God as righteous for this promise of descendants. So the idea would be God says, I'm going to give you a multitude of descendants. Abraham believed God and therefore counted it to God as a righteous act that he was going to give him all these descendants. Now, that is not how St. Paul takes this text. But we need to think through what could a text mean in its original context before we try to lock down what it means in other contexts. On the other hand, it could be that, and this is more in line with the way Paul takes the text, it could be that Abraham believed God and God counted the specific act that Abraham performed of believing God, that was a righteous act. Or it could be Abraham believed God and God counted Abraham as a fundamentally righteous person. Or it could be Abraham believed God and God counted Abraham a fundamentally righteous person in spite of his sins. And so there are just multiple different options here, and many of those not the first one I mentioned, but the others also are possible. In Romans, if you just read Romans 4. 5. I'm sorry, if you read I slipped to the wrong verse there. Yeah, no, no, Romans 4. 5. It could be that his faith is counted as Righteousness as an individual act that was a righteous act, having an act of faith is a righteous thing to do. Or it could be a more holistic appreciation of righteousness in the sense of this is a righteous person and it could be a transformative righteousness or it could be a non transformative righteousness. Could be either one. So this verse really doesn't determine the matter for us. And I would say the verb legizimi certainly doesn't. If you look in in BDAG in the Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Dinker lexicon of the Greek New Testament, which is the standard Greek lexicon that's used in scholarly circles. The first meaning of legizimi is the one that seems most relevant and it is, I'm reading directly from it. It says to determine by mathematical process, reckon or calculate. Now there are other meanings as well, but this seems to be the one that is being used here in Romans 4, both in verses 3 and 5 as well as in the Greek translation of Genesis 15:6 in the Septuagint. So yeah, it just means reckon or calculate. You know, Abraham believed God. God reckoned it to Abraham as righteousness. The same thing is following in the parallel in verse five to the one who does not work and work in this context has a specific meaning, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly. His faith is reckoned or counted as righteousness. Yeah, of course that's what it says. Big deal. Doesn't prove Calvinism doesn't disprove Catholic teaching about justification. So I just don't see this verse as being as being relevant to the discussion. If you want to disprove Catholic teaching on this point, this doesn't do that for you. This doesn't challenge Catholic teaching. You're going to have to find other passages to do that with.

Cy Kellett (35:38)

Daniel, I'm going to leave it there. Thank you very much. No, I was going to say all lines full, but there's one line open. 888-318-7884. Going to Denver where Angkor is watching on or listening on Twitch. Anyways, anchor welcome.

Jimmy Akin (35:55)

Hi.

Caller (Daniel/Angkor) (35:55)

It's nice to be on.

Cy Kellett (35:56)

It's very nice to have you. You got a question for Jimmy?

Jimmy Akin (36:00)

Yes sir, I do.

Caller (Daniel/Angkor) (36:02)

Got a quick question about the substance accidents distinction. Is this how we avoid the charge of cannibalism? More to the point, if communion host.

Jimmy Akin (36:13)

Being offered to you is miraculously bleeding.

Caller (Daniel/Angkor) (36:16)

Or becomes living tissue or the accidents match that substance, would it be wrong to consume it?

Jimmy Akin (36:23)

Well so in regard to the first question, does the Fact that, and I don't use the term accidents because it's a philosophical term that presupposes a particular philosophical school. I use the language that the Church has actually used in its official magisterial documents, which is species, meaning appearances. And so. Well, it's certainly true that we're not committing cannibalism in receiving the Eucharist, because what our digestive system interacts with are the species or appearances of bread and wine. And we're not literally digesting Jesus's body up into component molecules of protein and glycogen and stuff like that that are then used to nourish our bodies. Jesus body is just fine in its glorified state up in heaven. And I'm not digesting Jesus heavenly body, so I'm obviously not committing cannibalism. So that deals with the first. That's one reason why we're not committing cannibalism. There are others. But in regard to the second question, what about a miraculous host that now appears to be flesh? Well, I would say that it's still not corresponding. We know that Jesus body is fully present, not just in the host, but in every part of the host. Now here I'm going to give you a theological opinion. This is not a matter of church teaching. But since Jesus body and the church has taught this is present fully in the host. And if the host miraculously begins to look like a little piece of flesh that's, let's say, an inch in diameter, well, that doesn't look like Jesus's body. And so I would say that even though the species of the host have changed, they still aren't the species of Jesus's body. They more closely resemble Jesus body. And that's why such transformations sometimes occur in church history, is to give us a greater sense of the reality of that lies underneath the appearances. But it's still not Jesus whole body. If it's an inch across, you know, it's not Jesus's whole body. And so I would say the reality of Jesus whole body should still be there under these appearances that more closely approximately Jesus's body, the appearances of Jesus body than just the appearances of bread. So I would say that by consuming it, you're still consuming. Your digestive system is still interacting with species or appearances. You're not really digesting Jesus's heavenly body. It's still up there in heaven. You haven't detracted from his heavenly body in any way. The nature of this kind of miracle is something else that it may more closely look like what part of Jesus body would look like, but it's not his full body. And yet his full body is really here. So we still have a distinction between the reality of his heavenly body, which is made present in the Eucharist, and the appearances that interact with our digestive system.

Cy Kellett (40:07)

All right, Angkor.

Bill (40:10)

Yes.

Caller (Daniel/Angkor) (40:10)

Thank you very much.

Jimmy Akin (40:11)

All right.

Cy Kellett (40:11)

Well, thank you for the question. You brought us right to our break, so we'll take that break. Be right back with more questions for Jimmy akin. Couple lines open 888-318-7884.

Announcer (40:22)

This is Archbishop Paul Coakley, the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, and you're listening to CATHOLIC ANSWERS live.

St. Paul Street Evangelization (40:30)

Who was the first Catholic in your family? Were they evangelized by a friend, a co worker, a stranger? Did you ever think that you could be that person that God uses to save a soul and that soul could save their family, their grandchildren and generations to come? At St. Paul Street Evangelization, a Catholic nonprofit, we train, equip and mobilize Catholic disciples to do the urgent work of evangelization. Catholic Answers is supported in part by St. Paul Street Evangelization. Streetevangelization.com He was a Jesuit, a cardinal.

Matthew Bunsen (41:02)

And a doctor of the Church.

Cy Kellett (41:04)

Matthew Bunsen and the Doctors of the.

Matthew Bunsen (41:06)

Church St. Robert Bellarmine is honored for his immense contributions to theology, including helping to draft two important catechisms that defended church teachings during the Protestant revolt. Pope Clement VIII named Bellarmine a cardinal because, as the pope put it, Bellarmine had not his equal.

Cy Kellett (41:23)

For learning for more about the doctors of the church, visit doctorsofthechurch.com.

Jimmy Akin (41:40)

Welcome back.

Cy Kellett (41:40)

To Catholic Answers Live. Jimmy Akins, our guest. All the lines full at the moment, but call as lines open up and we'll get you on with Jimmy to ask whatever question you'd like. 888318 have you heard of the faithful five? They are five of the very, very, very best books that you can give to any Catholic or someone who is considering the Catholic Church. According to this ad that I have in my hand, why we're Catholic, the.

Announcer (42:06)

Eucharist is really Jesus.

Cy Kellett (42:08)

How to talk about Jesus with anyone. The early church was the Catholic Church and the Bible is a Catholic book. Right now all of these treasures are just $10 each. Free shipping in the continental US run. Don't walk to shop.catholic.com today and load up on your copies of the Faithful Five.

Jimmy Akin (42:30)

So I know the Fantastic Four and I also know and I'm glad it's the Faithful Five, not the Fatal Five. I know because it would be Bad news if it was the Fatal Five. Are you familiar with them?

Cy Kellett (42:44)

I don't know the Fatal Five. No, I don't know who that is.

Jimmy Akin (42:47)

Well, they were a group of. Originally, they were five independent supervillains in the 30th century. But when the solar system was threatened by a Sun Eater that was coming to eat our sun, which would be bad for, you know, life, the United Planets brought them. Brought these five super criminals together, along with the legion of superheroes to battle the Sun Eaters. And unfortunately, although Pharaoh Lad sacrificed his life defeating the Sun Eater and saving Superboy in the process, the Fatal Five decided to stick together after the Sun Eater was defeated. And so they are quite dangerous, quite fatal. One of them is Therok, who is a man that is half robot, half biological. He has superintelligence. Another is the Persuader, who has an atomic axe that can cut through anything, including gravity. Another is Mano, who has a hand that he can touch anything with and cause it to self destruct and disintegrate. Another is the Emerald Empress, who has a big orb that looks like an eye, but it functions kind of like a Green Lantern ring, and it can project green energy beams that do all kinds of things. And then there's Validus, who is this enormous, huge giant that has super strength and is as strong or stronger than Superman. He also has a transparent brain case and can blast you with lightning from his brain. Fortunately, he has the mind of a child, so that's. That's something that makes him a little less deadly.

Cy Kellett (44:37)

I don't know if that's fortunate. Like, inside of. You want an impulsive giant with lightning bolts around? I'd like a nice, mature giant.

Jimmy Akin (44:47)

Which would you rather have? An evil giant with an adult brain or a destructive giant with a child's brain? Yeah.

Cy Kellett (44:55)

All right. Okay. I don't like giants. They're just so big. And it's funny. I have feared giants since I was a child. Isn't that a weird thing? Like, not ghosts, not aliens. I don't like giants. You know what? If you want to talk to somebody in Oklahoma, you could do a lot worse than Bill, who listens on St. Michael radio. And Bill is here with us. Hi, Bill. You got a question for Jimmy?

Bill (45:21)

Yes, I do, Si. Thank you, Jimmy. My question is kind of a twofold here. I recently had conversation with a person who is seriously considering coming into the church and being a Catholic. And they raised the question to me. First of all, they said, well, why would I want. Now, I gave them an answer, so I'M I'm calling to see if. If what I said was accurate or if you can correct me. I told them. They said, why would I want to come into the Catholic Church with all the scandals with priests? And then recently, this bishop who just resigned in France, number one, they asked that. And they said, secondly, if I did, how would I know that, that a priest that I'm going to is not participating in that? And then would that make whatever he did invalid, Whatever he did on behalf of the church for me or anyone else? And that was the two questions that were posed to me. Now, I did give an answer. I don't know if you'd want to know what my answer was or if you would just want to respond with what you would feel would be the best response to that.

Jimmy Akin (46:41)

You're the question asker. You're in the driver's seat. You tell me what you want me to respond to.

Bill (46:48)

Okay, well, I. I basically said, you know what? You're going to find bad actors anywhere. I mean, there are ministers and pastors who have had the same issues and problems. And I said, if you were to be involved with a pastor that maybe allegedly was doing that, or you were fearful that they might be involved in that, that still would not take away from the graces that were extended to you through that priest, because it's God that's providing those graces, not the priest himself.

Jimmy Akin (47:28)

Mm.

Bill (47:29)

And yeah, that was my responses. You know.

Jimmy Akin (47:33)

Yeah, I think. I think the substance of your response is just fine. I mean, I would probably phrase it a little differently just because we're different people, but. Okay, I would. I might also supplement it a little bit. Like, for example, we can basically split it into two questions. The first question is, why should I be Catholic when there are scandals in the church? And the second is, how would I know whether the activities done by a priest might become his sacramental duties, might become invalid if he's engaged in immoral behavior? Okay, so taking these two questions separately, in regard to the first one, I would also point out, not only as you did, that there are sinners in every church because there's humans in every church. And. And frankly, even though the media went crazy about two decades ago regarding Catholic ministers, because we keep good records about our ministers, there are tons of Protestant ministers who have been up to the same kinds of no good things. They just haven't gotten the media attention. But setting that aside, if you look at the very first pope, you know, the head of the disciples, St. Peter, he sinned. You know, we're told he denied Christ three times. And okay, that's denying the Christian faith. And when you personally know the Messiah and then you deny him, that kind of adds some gravity to the weight of the sin. And so the very first leader of the church was a grave sinner, and yet God still used him to be the leader of his church. Jesus told him, feed my sheep. After he had denied Christ, Jesus restored him to office and commissioned him to keep leading the church. He then later went on to write two infallible encyclicals. They're in the back of your friend's New testament. They're called 1 Peter and 2 Peter. So merely having committed grave sins is not something that is decisive when it comes to what church should I join? Because if you lived in the first century, you ought to be part of the same church that Peter was part of. Even though he had committed grave sins, he still was the one that Jesus chose to lead his church. And if you wanted to be faithful to Jesus, you would want to honor that and be part of the same church as St. Peter. So that's something I might have added in regard to the first question. In regard to the second question, I might have expanded a little bit with some historical perspective, because the question of can a minister's personal unworthiness cause the sacraments to become invalid? That's not a new question. That's something that the church has had to face all the way down through history. In the first century, for example, you could have asked, well, hey, St. Peter denied Jesus. Does that mean all the baptisms St. Peter did after that were invalid? Well, Christians have had this question all the way down through history, and very quickly they realized that the answer is no. Because if the efficacy, the effectiveness of the sacraments depended on the human minister being worthy, then we would never be able to know that the sacraments were not invalid. Because we never know what's in another person's heart. That's something that Scripture is explicit about. You know, God knows the heart, but we don't. So we never know whether some other person for sure, we may have suspicion, we may have evidence, but we never know for sure whether someone is in a state of grace or not. And if whether someone is in a state of grace affected the validity of the sacraments, then we would never know whether the sacraments are valid or not. And. And since it's clearly God's will for us to use these sacraments to receive his grace, God would seem to want us to know that, yeah, my baptism was valid. I don't need to be re baptized. And the only way I can do that, the only way I can know that, is if the validity of the sacrament has nothing to do with the minister's personal worthiness. Because as you said, it's God who gives the grace, it's not the minister. And so even if the minister is a horrible sinner, God can still use this action that God spelled out for us to give his grace to us. And the personal unworthiness of the minister does not stop that from happening, which is, thank God, the way it needs to be, because otherwise we'd never know. Basically, the sacraments, I think of it this way. The sacraments are like Tonka trucks, You know, those toys that little boys play with and sometimes smash into each other and stuff. Tonka trucks are hard to break. And God made the sacraments the same way. They are hard to break, which is fortunate because otherwise we'd be breaking them all the time.

Cy Kellett (53:06)

What do you think, Bill? That got to what you wanted?

Bill (53:10)

Absolutely. Thank you so much. I appreciate it, Jimmy.

Cy Kellett (53:13)

Sure thing, Bill. I don't know if you've got Jimmy's Book of daily defense. 365 days plus one to becoming a better apologist. But if you don't, hang on and Edgar will give it to you. I appreciate your call and always like the conversation with you. Jimmy Akin, in addition to Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World's also been doing the Jimmy Akin podcast. That's the newer one, both very popular. I mean, Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World is very, very popular. I'm gonna give it two verys. It's very, very popular. If you go on Mondays to. And you check out the Jimmy Akin podcast, what would we have gotten this week, Jimmy on Monday?

Jimmy Akin (53:48)

Well, this week I did one on the Bible Codex. When Christianity burst onto the world scene, it introduced a new form of book technology, namely the codex rather than the scroll. And today we have the entire Bible in a codex. But it didn't start out that way. And codices were things that Christians used and appreciated, but other people in the ancient world didn't. So what made the change? Why was there a shift in Christian circles from scrolls to codices? That's a mystery that we don't have the entire answer to.

Cy Kellett (54:29)

Oh, all right. Well, you can check out the Jimmy Akin podcast. Wherever you get your podcasts, you can check out Jimmy's YouTube channel and that's on YouTube. That was a very clever place to put it. We are going to take a very brief break and be back and I'll tell you what, you are in luck. If you've been thinking. Those lines are always full. There's three lines open right now. If you've got a question for Jimmy Akin, any question at all, you are welcome to call 888-31-8788.

Jimmy Akin (55:02)

Sam.