The Importance of a Good Mindset

Some people are unsure of their own existence, and reject the idea that there is objective truth, yet that abstract idea is inconsistent with reason, for there are principles which are true not only in the mind but also in the natural world. For example, one can know that two plus two equals four, regardless of the time.

“Geometry considers extension in the abstract; but with the certainty that when the principle exists in the real order, the consequences cannot fail to be produced, and that the consequences will be more or less exact in proportion as the principle is more or less exactly realized.”

—Jaime Balmes (1810-1848), Fundamental Philosophy, “On Extension and Space”

Some people are ignorant of the concept of right thinking, which can begin with being able to observe an object so well that the mind reflects what the object is without any omission or addition. A good thinker can see what something is, not just what its attributes are, nor just what other people have said it is, nor just what it could potentially be in such-or-such circumstance, but rather what it actually is.

People who can think well would do well to make sure their religion aligns with right reason and logic, yet many people have no logical justification for their beliefs, and do not care to find the truth in this life, being content to leave huge questions unanswered for indefinite amounts of time, which is irresponsible. Others have made up their minds without making an honest effort to look at the claims and evidence put forth by those of different worldviews: that is quite an example of detrimental close-mindedness. The attitude of someone who has not seen the evidence should at least be open-mindedness.

“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God[...] Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?”

—Carl Sagan (1934-1996), Interview to Robert Pope, 1996

It is quite telling that Sagan disregarded all the other deities as obvious fiction. Only Abrahamic religions make compelling claims, yet he did not accept the evidence at that time to convince him of any of the religions.

Obligation of People to Find the Truth

Even if one is not convinced by the moral imperative of not being ignorant, there are practical considerations which cannot be easily dismissed. Would it not be a folly to not consider the claims of a religion which claims that if you don't accept it, you will be tormented for countless years?

“Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.”

—Qur'an 98:6, Pickthall translation

The most authoritative book of the Muslims makes it graphically clear what the Muslim deity would do to unbelievers. Fire will melt them but their flesh will be regenerated for more torture, all with no chance of escaping or reducing their torments. They will have beds covered with fire; if they cry for water, they will get water like molten brass which will scald their faces; if they eat, the food will boil in their bellies. No matter how many good deeds you do, if you simply decline to accept Islam, all these punishments will apply to you, according to Islamic dogma. Roman Catholicism also teaches dogmatically the eternal torments of hell and through the most solemn use of its teaching office, makes it likewise clear that everyone who does not die as a Roman Catholic will go to hell forever.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her...”

—Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 1441

With at least two world religions threatening eternal damnation for dissenters, every person alive now should be aware that choosing the wrong religion might have consequences that could long outlast death.

Obligation of People to Share the Truth

With the consequences being so grave, one would think people who have picked a religion would have very good reasons for picking it over another, but many conversations one might have with religious people can be summarized by the fact that they have no reasonable explanations for their beliefs. Even a light questioning is often met with stammering or irrational answers.

— “From where did you get your belief in...?”

— “My ancestors have always been...”

— “Even if so, isn't it too good of a coincidence that you happen to agree with them?”

— “My parents taught me... ”

— “If you see flaws in your parents, how can you be sure they picked the right religion?”

— “God showed me...”

— “Did He really, or did you just use Him to explain an experience that could be explained differently?”

— “I just feel good...”

— “Is it not selfish and detrimental to your future to just do what feels good at the moment?”

Such an apathy for both discovering and sharing the truth is contrary to sound reasoning and the teaching of the Bible. According to each person's capacity, all believers should be ready to give general reasons for their faith and hope of salvation to skeptics and unbelievers.

“[S]anctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.”

—1 Peter 3:15, DRA

If you noticed a blind man was about to step off a cliff, would you not have a duty to warn them of the danger? Indeed, it is logically selfish not to everything in your power to save people from a horrible fate if you have certainty of what expects them and you have a remedy available.

That something outside of the laws of nature occurred atop that dome in Zeitoun is practically beyond dispute. Like other Marian apparitions throughout history, its phenomenæ were observed by thousands of eyewitnesses and the miraculous cures reasonably attributed to it were authenticated by medical professionals, yet quite unlike the rest, unedited photographs of these events abound. Illustrations were made as visual approximations by some of the witnesses who understandably lacked cameras in that time and place, and some of these have wrongly been passed off as original photographs, but actual unaltered photos were taken, copied, and published in newspapers not under the control of any church.

Summary of the Apparitions

According to an account from the Egyptian newspaper Wantani from 21 April 1968, at 20:30 on Tuesday, 2 April 1968, Farouk Muhammad Atwa and another Moslem employee of the public transportation service saw from their garage what looked like a woman kneeling next to the church dome, about to jump in an act of suicide. Farouk called a fire brigade and a crowd gathered, but the figure arose and began to shine, leading a woman to invoke the name of the Virgin Mary, whose mention caused resplendent white doves to hover momentarily around the figure of the lady.  Some could clearly distinguish her clothes waving as if moved by the wind. The apparition vanished after several minutes and sporadically appeared again on several nights for a span of three years, sometimes lasting more than two hours. Farouk later noticed that an injury in one of his fingers had unexpectedly healed.

Objections from Other Catholics

St. Paul the Apostle warned the Thessalonians of the “power, and signs, and lying wonders” of the Accuser and warned the Galatians of angels who would try to “preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you.” Since truth cannot contradict itself, if anything had been spoken against the truth which God has revealed through His one true Church, as happened in Medjugorje, Catholics could simply explain that this apparition was from the devil. These apparitions at Zeitoun did not speak anything to explicitly promote Catholic dogma, as there was no oral message at all, as occurred with the silent Marian apparition of Knock, Ireland in 1879.

Background of the Flight to Egypt

The site of the apparition, according to Christian tradition, is in the proximity of where the Holy Family stopped on the way to Heliopolis during their Flight to Egypt.

“When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod,” recounts the Gospel of St. Matthew, “there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.” When King Herod heard them inquire about this new-born king of the Jews, he was troubled alongside the rest of Jerusalem, and was told by the chief priests and scribes that the prophecies pointed to His birthplace being Bethlehem. When the wise men did not return after their pilgrimage to Bethlehem, Herod ordered the death of all the boys “in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.”

On the fortieth day after the Nativity of Christ, on 2 February 2 AD, Jesus was presented in the Temple, a sacrifice was offered, and His mother underwent the purification rituals in accordance with the Mosaic customs. Five days after the Presentation of the Child Jesus, the Lord spoke to His mother, according to the visions of Mary of Ágreda, and said: “In order to save the life of thy Son and raise Him up, Thou must leave thy home and thy country, flee with Him and thy spouse Joseph into Egypt, where Thou art to remain until I shall ordain otherwise: for Herod is seeking the life of the Child. The journey is long, most laborious and most fatiguing; do thou suffer it all for my sake; for I am, and always will be, with Thee.” St. Matthew's Gospel then continues from the time after the wise men left:

“[...B]ehold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: Arise, and take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt: and be there until I shall tell thee. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him. Who arose, and took the child and his mother by night, and retired into Egypt: and he was there until the death of Herod: That it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt have I called my son.”

—Matthew 2: 13-15

It is logical for the Virgin Mary to have appeared on a site previously made holy by her presence with her son Jesus Christ and her spouse St. Joseph, even if it had since been occupied by heathens and desecrated by heretics.

Background of the 1967 Arab–Israeli War

That Zionism is the greater evil has been repeatedly attested by the Holy See, as Theodor Herzl recorded following his antagonistic audience on 26 January 1904 with Pope St. Pius X:

“The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people[...] I know, it is not pleasant to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with that. But to support the Jews in the acquisition of the Holy Places, that we cannot do.”

—Pope St. Pius X, as quoted in The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, translated by Harry Zohn, 1960

The timing of the apparition following the 1967 Arab–Israeli War, in which the Israeli Zionists advanced their Antichrist claim to the Holy Land by seizing the Sinai with its holy sites, also helps these events parallel the Marian apparitions in Pontmain, France in 1871 and Gietrzwald, Poland in 1877. In all three cases, the Virgin Mary brought hope and consolation to Christians being threatened by the ascendancy of regimes motivated by anti-Catholic ideas: the Lutheranism of the Prussians and the Zionism of the Israelis.

Correlation of the Shroud with the Gospel

There are too many coincidences between the canonical narratives about Jesus Christ and the indications given by the Shroud of Turin:

• Under ultraviolet light, the shroud has 120 scourge marks (more than the forty scourges which would have been given if the executioners had been bound by Mosaic law), many in clusters of two or three (indicating the use of a Roman flagrum, a whip constructed from two or three leather strips with two small balls made of lead or bone tied at each end which would tear off pieces of flesh), matching what the Gospels recount of Jesus Christ being scourged by Roman soldiers prior to His Crucifixion.

• Bruising is evident on the face, with a broken nose and a swollen right eye that is almost closed, consistent with how the Gospels relate Jesus Christ was hit when he was mocked by the Jews and Romans.

• Numerous puncture holes with blood trickling downward on the head of the man on the shroud are consistent with a crown of thorns pressed on the entire head.

• Bruises and cuts on the shoulders and knees indicate the carrying of at least the patibulum of the cross by the man on the shroud.

• The man of the shroud appears to be pierced through the wrists and feet; blood flow can be seen coming from the base of the left hand, contrary to most depictions of the crucified Jesus which have Him pierced through the palm: the former is more anatomically feasible because the weight of the crucified body would have otherwise torn the hand through the nail.

• The shroud shows evidence of the strike of Longinus, as there is a blood stain on the right side of the chest going downwards, undulating and narrowing for about six inches.

History of the Shroud

It seems that the image of Jesus Christ was imprinted on the cloth as a photographic negative at some point between the point He was entombed and when the tomb was opened.

“And when it was evening, there came a certain rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate, and asked the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded that the body should be delivered. And Joseph taking the body, wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth. And laid it in his own new monument, which he had hewed out in a rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the monument, and went his way.”

—Matthew 27:57-60, DRA

A Syrian text (IIIc. AD), mentioned by bishop Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History (AD 325) recounts that the ill King Abgar V of Edessa (AD 13-59), having heard about the healing powers of Jesus, sent Him a letter to requesting that He come and heal him; He promised to send one of His disciples. His disciple Thaddeus brought him a cloth bearing an image of the face of Jesus, which cured Abgar and led to the conversion of the city to Christianity until his son Man’nu reverted to paganism and the cloth was not seen again for five hundred years. Abgar is said to have received a cloth on which one can see not only a face but the whole body, indicating that the relic venerated as the Mandylion was in fact the Shroud of Turin folded to show the face and enclosed in a frame. St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai possesses an icon from AD 550 showing Thaddeus holding the Mandylion.

The people of Edessa then adopted the iconoclastic Monophysite heresy (that Jesus had only a divine nature, which could not be depicted). In AD 525, the river Daisan flooded the city: during the reconstruction works, the cloth was found in a niche above the west gate. By AD 641, the city fell under Muslim occupation. In 943, Byzantine Emperor Romanus with general Lecapenus negotiated the return of the relic: it was received in the church at Blachernae in Constantinople on 15 August 944. Following the 1182 massacre of Latin Catholics by the schismatic Greeks, Constantinople was sacked by Latin knights during the crusade of 1204. Sir Othon de la Roche received it as part of his recompense; he sent the cloth to his father, Ponce de la Roche, who gave it to the Bishop of Besançon, who placed it in the Cathedral of St. Stephen where it was exposed for veneration each year on Easter until 1349, when the historical record becomes unclear on the shroud.

On the night of 4 December 1532, fire broke out in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, where the Shroud was kept: molten silver from the reliquary dripped onto the folded Shroud. The Poor Clare nuns of Chambery repaired the burnt parts of the Shroud by applying a number of triangular patches in 1534. Emmanuel Philibert, the Duke of Savoy, brought the relic to Turin, Italy on 14 September 1578. On 1 June 1694, it was placed in a chapel of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist designed by Abbot Guarino Guarini. In its 1898 exposition, Secondo Pia was given permission by King Umberto I to photograph the Shroud; he took various exposures of the Shroud. As the wet plates were being developed, he noticed that the negative photographic image was actually a positive image of a crucified man. In 1976, the image was shown to contain unique three-dimensional data when evaluated with a VP-8 scanner at Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico.

Church Hierarchy on the Shroud

The Catholic Church has not authoritatively pronounced that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Christ, but the idea has been endorsed by many popes and bishops.

“[He] stretched his whole body on a cloth, white as snow, on which the glorious image of the Lord’s face and the length of his whole body was so divinely transformed that it was sufficient for those who could not see the Lord bodily in the flesh to see the transfiguration made on the cloth.”

—Pope Stephen III (768-772), c.769

In 787, the Second Council of Nicea endorsed the veneration of images, and particular mention was made of the acheiropoieton of Edessa. On 5 June 1357, twelve bishops gathered to sign a grant of indulgences to pilgrims who visited the collegial church at Lirey.

Jeanne de Vergy, a descendant of Sir Othon de la Roche, acquired the cloth when her husband died in 1356 and married Aymon of Geneva, the uncle of Antipope Clement VII, who reigned from 1378 to 1394 from Avignon. To open an exhibition in 1389, they circumvented the new Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis by appealing directly to the Antipope’s legate, prompting the bishop to write a scathing memorandum to Clement VII.

“The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb...”

—Bishop Pierre d’Arcis

The supposed bishop's letter was not signed or dated, and it was never delivered or approved by a true pope. Without investigating into the accusations, on a bull dated January 6, 1390, the antipope ordered that the shroud not be presented as authentic.

“Under no circumstances should the ecclesiastics wear hooded cape, rochet, alb, or cope, nor should they perform other solemnities that are customary when exposing relics for which neither torches, flam-beaux nor candles are lighted, nor should any other lamps be used.”

—Antipope Clement VII

On the contrary, the popes of the Catholic Church have consistently pronounced on the authenticity and venerability of the Shroud of Turin. Pope Sixtus IV (1414-1484) issued four bulls in its favor. Pope Julius II (1443-1513) in 1506 approved an Office and proper Mass for the Holy Shroud for the canons of the Sainte Chapelle at Chambery with his bull Romanus Pontifex with a liturgical feast on 4 May, the day following the Feast of the Finding of the True Cross, extended to all of Savoy by Pope Leo X (1475-1521).

Miracles of the Shroud

According to Syrian historian Evagrius (527-600), when Edessa was threatened during the Persian siege under King Chosroes Nirhirvan in AD 544, the attackers retreated when the image was brought out. Quoting Antoine I de Lalaing (1480–1540), an eyewitness to an exposition of the shroud on 14 April 1503 recalls the trial by fire it was subjected to in the Middle Ages.

“‘To prove if it was the true Shroud, it was boiled in oil, tossed in fire, laundered different and numerous times. But one could not efface nor remove these imprints and marks of our sweet Lord.’”

—André Chagny (1872-1965), La Croix Illustrée, 1909

Connection to the Veil of the Holy Face

According to pious tradition, when Jesus was making His way to Calvary, a woman of Jerusalem offered Him her veil to wipe the sweat and blood from His face. After she had pressed it against His face, she noticed that His image was imprinted on the cloth. This scene is depicted in the sixth station of the Way of the Cross.

Characteristics of the Shroud

The features and bloodstains on the shroud indicate direct contact with a human body: the direction of the blood flows indicates that the body had previously been in a vertical position. Bloodstains from the nail wounds show an accurate downflow of blood to how the body would have been positioned.

“In July 2024, University of Padua professor Giulio Fanti published a study that focused on blood stains and 'scourge marks' found on the shroud that allude to Christ’s death by being nailed to a cross — a common method of execution by the Romans at his time in 33 AD. Fanti posited that 'the different directions of blood flow from the side wound are discussed, the probable presence of pulmonary fluid' and 'some bloodstains' point to trauma suffered by the Savior.”

—“Controversial New Shroud of Turin Evidence Said to Offer Proof of Christ’s Crucifixion,” New York Post, Alex Mitchell, 2024

It is clear that the process which formed the blood marks is completely different from the one that formed the photographic negative, yet there is no evidence of iron oxide, paint, or other marks of human artistry on the shroud. The image is darkest at tip of the nose, tops of the hands, and other points where the body and cloth came into direct contact and fainter as the distance between cloth and body increase.

“For sure, none of the hundreds attempts to obtain a shroud-like image by using chemical contact techniques – i.e. adding chemical substances like colors, powders, etc. – has achieved good results. Usually, the chemical approach gives similar macroscopic results, but it fails when analyzing the coloration with a microscope. At the microscopic level, the contact chemical approach does not give Shroud-like results. On the contrary, attempts using various radiations (vacuum ultraviolet photons, electrons from a corona discharge) give a coloration that looks shroud-like even at the microscopic level.”

—Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro, “Scientists Suggest Turin Shroud Authentic,” Sci News, Sergio Prostak, 2011

The burned parts shine as scorched linen does under certain types of UV light, but the image itself does not.

Dating of the Shroud

Harkening to the Greek tradition of putting coins on the eyes of the deceased, closer analysis of the image appears to show a two-lepton coin on the right eyelid dating from around AD 30, and a one-lepton coin on the left eyebrow minted in AD 29.

Pollen grains found on the shroud match those found in Jerusalem, northern Syria, Anatolia, Constantinople, and Europe. Max Frei, a Swiss police criminologist who initially obtained pollen from the shroud during the 1978 scientific examination, stated that of the 58 different types of pollens found, 45 were from the Jerusalem area, while six were from the eastern Middle East, with one pollen species growing exclusively in Istanbul, and two found in Edessa, Turkey. Plants on the Shroud from Palestine and Anatolia are so numerous, compared to the species from Europe, that a casual contamination or a pollen-transport from the Near East by storms in different seasons cannot be responsible for their presence. The predominance of these pollens must be the result of the Shroud’s stay in such countries. Many of these pollens are heavy pollens with prickly surfaces designed to be carried by insects, not by wind.

In 1988, three radiocarbon dating tests dated a sample of the shroud as being from the Middle Ages (AD 1260–1390), yet the results offered no conclusive evidence as basic scientific protocols were not followed in obtaining the samples: there is no proof that the samples used for the dating test were representative of the whole shroud. The samples were collected from parts which were clearly restitched in the Middle Ages with the fires that burned off the edges. Some also postulate that the silver of the molten reliquary and the water used to douse the flames may have catalysed the airborne carbon into the cloth, that the process of spinning flax used to make the linen could have skewed the results, that the samples were contaminated as they were from areas that were handled each time the cloth was displayed. In 20 January 2005, Raymond Rogers wrote in the journal Thermochimica Acta that “pyrolysis-mass spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin.”

It is not plausible that the photographic image with its anatomical details was made by a medieval forger because the technology needed to replicate it cannot be proven to have existed. The depictions of the shroud in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, written between 1192 and 1195, acknowledged to be older than the dates given for the shroud samples, further discredit the debunked Carbon 14 dating done in 1988. That the manuscript shows the same shroud is proven by links such as the scar depicted above the right eye corresponding to the bloodstain shaped like the numeral “3” on the Shroud.

Studies using Wide Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) analysis on a small fiber sample from the Shroud of Turin suggest an age of approximately two thousand years.

“We obtained one-dimensional integrated WAXS data profiles for the [shroud] sample, which were fully compatible with the analogous measurements obtained on a linen sample whose dating, according to historical records, is 55–74 AD, Siege of Masada (Israel). The degree of natural aging of the cellulose that constitutes the linen of the investigated sample, obtained by X-ray analysis, showed that the [shroud] fabric is much older than the seven centuries proposed by the 1988 radiocarbon dating. The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the [shroud] is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe.”

—“X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample,” Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 2022

The Shroud Revendicates Catholic Iconography

Rebuffing revisionist attacks on the iconographic traditions of the Church, the image of an adult man, 1.70 to 1.88 meters tall, with a long beard and shoulder-length hair born by the shroud matches the motifs employed by the Catholic Church in sacred art. Nikephoros Kallistos in the 1300's quoted an ancient source who described Jesus of Nazareth as a tall, beautiful man with fair, wavy blonde hair, a golden beard, and a light complexion. The description coincides with a purported letter whose authenticity has long been disputed:

“His hair is of the colour of the ripe hazel-nut, straight down to the ears, but below the ears wavy and curled, with a bluish and bright reflection, flowing over his shoulders. It is parted in two on the top of the head, after the pattern of the Nazarenes. His brow is smooth and very cheerful with a face without wrinkle or spot, embellished by a slightly reddish complexion. His nose and mouth are faultless. His beard is abundant, of the colour of his hair, not long, but divided at the chin. His aspect is simple and mature, his eyes are blue-gray and bright.”

—Publius Lentulus (I c. AD), Apocryphal letter printed in the Life of Christ by Ludolph the Carthusian, 1474

The letter to Emperor Theophilus attributed to St. John Damascene (VIII c. AD), also recalls Jesus as having a tall stature and “wavy hair of pleasant color.” These links collectively suggest that the depiction of the humanity of Jesus Christ employed in the universal Church are based on an ancient reality, not on mere wishful thinking.

[See the video, or a more recent one]

Connection to the Miracle in Spain

According to Catholic tradition, the ancient statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe was carved by St. Luke the Evangelist and given to St. Leander of Seville (534–600) by Pope Gregory I. In 712, Seville fell to the Saracens and a group of priests escaped northward through the countryside, hiding the image in a cave near the Guadalupe River. As the reconquest of Spain from the Moorish occupation progressed around the year 1250, Gil Cordero was searching for a missing animal in the mountains of Extremadura when he had a vision of the Virgin telling him that an image of her had been hidden there from the Saracens, and she had him bring the bishop of Cáceres to recover her image and build a church there. After many miracles were witnessed and connected to that event, the bishop went to the site of the vision, unearthed the statue, and a shrine was built in 1338 by order of King Alfonso XI, eventually founding the town of Guadalupe in Spain. According to the traditional account, the name of Guadalupe, as the name was heard or understood by Spaniards, was chosen by the Virgin herself when she appeared in 1531.

The Miraculous Liberation of Mexico

The liberation of central Mexico from Aztec tyranny led to the abolition of cannibalism and the harmful religious charlatanry which had claimed countless victims of human sacrifice in the name of idolatry. Some critics claim that the shrine at Tepeyac was the site where the Aztecs had had a temple for their own virgin idol Tonantzin (not to be confused with the pagan goddess Coatlicue); if true, it makes logic sense either that the true God would want to wean the pagan Amerindians away from idolatry by teaching them about a truly venerable figure to replace that with which the devil had distorted the monotheistic truth.

Immediate Background of the Miracle

On Saturday, 9 December 1531, on his way to catechesis in Tlatelolco, Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, an Indian who had recently converted to the Catholic faith, heard sounds emanating from the summit of Tepeyac: a woman called out to him, “Juantzin, Juan Diegotzin.” There, he saw a woman adorned with resplendent clothing who introduced herself as the Virgin Mary and called for the bishop to have a shrine to be built there.  Bishop Juan de Zumárraga did not heed the Indian's message, so Juan Diego returned to the Virgin and asked her to send someone else, yet she insisted that he remain her messenger. On 10 December, he returned to the bishop, who requested that Juan Diego return with proof of the miraculous apparition, sending two men to try to follow him. He returned to the apparition site and told the Virgin of the bishop's request; she asked him to return the next day. Returning home, Juan Diego was told that his uncle Juan Bernardino was terminally ill, so that on 11 December, Juan Diego found a doctor.

Summary of the Chief Miracle

On Tuesday, 12 December 1531 Juan Diego put on his tilma (cloak) for warmth and went to find a priest for his uncle, taking a different route to avoid the apparition site, yet she intercepted him, asking where he was going, reassuring him about his relative, and asking him to ascend the hill for the proof the bishop had in mind: Castilian roses growing drastically out of season, which he bundled into his cloak. Juan Diego went to the bishop's residence and unfurled his cloak. The flowers fell out, and on the surface of the cloak, the image of the Virgin appeared. The stars which appear on the mantle of the icon reflect the exact configuration and positions that could be seen in the sky of Mexico on the day the miracle happened. The bishop finally relented and asked to be shown the site. Juan Diego returned home to find his uncle completely healed, just as the Virgin had promised.

Astronomical Features

The stars of the mantle are the constellations of the sky at the time of its impregnation. On the right side of the icon's mantle, the southern constellations are indicated: At the top are four stars that form part of the Orphiuchus constellation. Below it to the left, one finds Libra, and to its right, at what seems an arrow point, is the beginning of Scorpio. In the middle are the constellations of Lupus and to its left, an end point of Hydra. Further down, one can clearly see the Southern Cross; above it appears the slightly inclined square of the Centaurus constellation. On the left side are the northern constellations: At her shoulder, a fragment of the stars of the Herdsman constellation; below it and to the left is the Great Bear. To its right is Berenice’s Hair; below it, Hunting Dogs, and to its left, the Thuban, which is the brightest star of the Draco constellation. Below the two parallel stars (which still form part of the Big Bear), are stars from another pair of constellations: the Auriga and at the bottom, three stars of Taurus.

Topographical Features

The patterns of the dress in the icon proportionally represent the main hills and volcanoes of the orography of Mexico.

Dissemination of the Miracle

The Nican Mopohua was written in romanized Nahuatl by Antonio Valeriano in 1545, recounting what happened in December 1531. The news of the miracle led to millions of converts in the American continent. Pope Leo XIII granted the image a decree of canonical coronation on 8 February 1887, and it was pontifically crowned on 12 October 1895. Pope Benedict XIV, in the papal bull Non est Equidem of 25 May 1754, declared Our Lady of Guadalupe the patroness of New Spain. Pope St. Pius X declared her patroness of the Republic of Mexico on 16 June 1910, with the decree Gratia quae. The site holding the relic is still the most-visited Catholic shrine in the world.

Broad Historical Context

In the same period of history, the Lutheran revolt in Germany and the Anglican schism in England was the herald of much suffering: lands that were open for the poor to forage for hundreds of years were enclosed, monks which had helped the needy were being dispossessed, religious art was irreparably destroyed by Protestant mobs, nuns were being compelled to give up their chosen state of life, and the religion which had stabilized society since the fall of the Roman Empire was under attack from dissenters with vested financial interests in seeing its demise. The leyenda negra (black legend) was spun by bigoted anti-Catholic chroniclers in England and the Netherlands to smear Roman Catholics as extraordinarily cruel and bloodthirsty, exaggerating the brutality of the Catholics who had actually impeded religious upheaval and conflict for hundreds of years.

Legacy of the Miracle

The indisputable nature of the miracle enabled Hispanic civilization to endure in that region of the Americas for at least three centuries. Catholic culture brings together people of distinct cultural heritages, while at the same time affirming their distinctness. The image helped foment the peaceful coexistence between the European and Amerindian peoples in New Spain, much unlike the ethnic conflict seen elsewhere in the continent.

Doubts of the Authenticity

Some skeptics suggest that the part in the Virgin’s hair is askew, or claim that they can see outlines as in other paintings, yet experts have been left baffled by the lack of evidence that the image was painted by human hands.

“The most notable examination was a three hour infrared photographic session by Philip Callahan in 1981, who did note multiple layers of paint covering changes to the hands and crown, but came away with more questions than answers. Callahan found, for example, that most of the entire painting seemed to have been done with a single brush stroke.”

—“The Virgin of Guadalupe,” Skeptoid Podcast #201

The claim that the image was painted by the hands of an ordinary man like Marcos Cipac de Aquino was floated with a purported citation from Francisco de Bustamante, a Franciscan rival of the Dominicans who spread word of the devotion, who in 1556 is said to have preached against the devotion “because it makes them believe that the image painted by Marcos the Indian is in any way miraculous.” These spurious claims against the miraculous nature of the image are discredited by the fact that, as far as we know, they were only published in 1888 by Vicente de Paul Andrade in a book riddled with contradictions. Catholics are free in conscience, based on the evidence and their reasoning, to choose to reject even the most convincing stories about such Marian apparitions.

Proofs for the Authenticity

There are no vestiges of brush strokes and no sign of paint has been detected on the relic. The colors disappear from view if seen up close with the eye and the paint material does not belong to any known element on earth. The rough maguey cloth material of the relic has a lifespan of no more than 20-30 years; replicas of the image was painted on the same material disintegrate in such time spans, but the relic has remained intact despite years of exposure to soot from candlesmoke. The eyes contain Purkinje images exactly where they would be expected to be found in living eyes. Ophthalmic studies on the image suggest that when the eyes are exposed to light, the retina contracts, and when the light is withdrawn, they return to a dilated state as if the image had living eyes. Later analysis of the cloak revealed that the eyes of the icon depict within themselves the exact moment that the cloak was unfurled from its perspective. Accountant Fernando Ojeda reconstrued a musical melody interpreting the flowers and stars in the image of the Virgin as if they were musical notes.

“I placed the proportionally reduced image in the center of a golden rectangle; the mantle has 46 stars; 46 lines were drawn, each one corresponding to each star: one in the center of the image, 23 starting from the center to the left and another 23 on the right side in such a way that there were millimetrically equal spaces between lines, and each line or space corresponded to a certain star of the mantle or center of flower of the dress; as their positions were different I considered that each star according to its position and each center of flower according to its position was a certain musical note.”

—“Música en la Imagen de la Virgen de Guadalupe,” Investigación de la Virgen de Guadalupe, Fernando Ojeda

Musician Jorge Carlos Milan Magaña used these notes to make symphonic arrangements.

General Narrative of the Miracle

Gemma di Giorgi was a child born without pupils in her eyes. Gemma was declared to be incurable by a number of specialists. At the age of seven (1947), Gemma’s grandmother brought her to meet Padre Pio. When Gemma arrived, Padre Pio, although never having seen Gemma before, called Gemma by name in front of the congregation at church, and heard her confession. During the confession, despite the fact that Gemma mentioned nothing of her blindness, Padre Pio made the sign of the cross over each eye. At the end of the confession, he blessed her, and said: “Be good and saintly.” Decades after this event, Gemma sees perfectly and still undergoes eye examinations by specialists who agree that there is no explanation for her ability to see.

[A brief video.]

Baptism Curing the Blindness of Infidels

In 1919, Rev. Fr. Carlo Naldi went to Padre Pio with Lello Pegna, a blind Jewish man. Padre Pio promised his physical sight would be granted after receiving sight for his soul through baptism. A few months after accepting baptism, Pegna returned to Padre Pio with his sight fully restored. The physician who had earlier told Pegna that he was hopelessly blind reportedly had to admit that his eyesight was in perfect condition.

[Read more.]

General Explanation

As the priest prays the prayer of consecration, the communion bread changed into living flesh and the wine changed into living blood. Numerous instances of consecrated communion wafers turning into human tissue and blood have been reported throughout history.

Skeptics on the Lanciano Miracle

The miracle of Lanciano was evaluated by Linoli in 1971, who published his results in the Italian medical journal Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica. Skepicts point out that primary Teichman and Takayama tests, which evaluate the presence of hemoglobin, were both negative.

“The preliminary histological evaluation suggested that the tissue was cardiac in origin and follow-up studies led to the conclusion that both endocardium and adipose tissue were present, as well as arterial and venous structures. ABO blood typing was performed with a result of type AB; however, doubts have been raised regarding the validity of such results as bacteria also express AB antigens.”

—“Scientific Analysis of Eucharistic Miracles: Importance of a Standardization in Evaluation,” Kelly Kearse and Frank Ligaj, Journal of Forensic Science and Research, 2024

abc

Proofs for the Authenticity

abc

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

Padre Pio, ordained on 10 August 1910, was the first priest in recorded history to receive the visible stigmata. The ones on his hands were often seen exposed, yet were inexplicably preserved from infection. He reportedly lost about a cup of blood every day from the wound on his side, yet he survived despite the continuous blood loss for five decades. The blood did not decompose as usual, but gave a pleasant fragrance like a mixture of violets and roses.

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

Contrast with Eastern Schismatics

Rome, see of the successor of St. Peter, Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Roman Empire where St. Andrew ordaining Stachys, Jerusalem, see of St. James and site of the Crucifixion of the Lord,  Antioch, city of the first reputed Christians and see of St. Peter, and Alexandria, see of St. Mark, are reputed as the five ancient sees of Christendom. Emperor Justinian I (527–565) postulated that the see of Constantinople was to be second to Rome in his legislation.

“The pope of Rome shall be the first of all priests, then the very blessed archbishop of Constantinople New Rome shall have the second place after the holy, senior apostolic seat of Rome, by them all other seats shall be outranked.”

—Novella CXXXI, De Ecclesiasticus Titulis (AD 545)

The Quinisext Council, held in 692 at the Trullo, or domed hall, of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople under Justinian I, formally sanctioned the Pentarchy as the government of the Roman Empire's state church in 692.

The Lack of Miracles By Other Saints

Th

“And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.”

—John 10:41, KJV

Abc

The Battle of Lepanto

abc

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

Catholic Missionaries, Not Protestants, Spread the Gospel

The miracles, the missionary efforts, and the lives of Catholic saints have been among the most important instruments in the spread of the Gospel throughout the earth. All of what the Catholic saints are and have done is by the grace of Jesus Christ. By cooperating with it, they spiritually conquered the world for Christ, a world that is sadly falling into apostasy and abandoning the Christian Catholic heritage which defined it. It was the Catholic saint, St. Patrick, who brought the faith of Jesus to Ireland. It was the Catholic saint, St. Boniface, who brought the Gospel to Germany. It was the Catholic saint, St. Augustine of Canterbury, who brought the Gospel to the Angles, to England. It was the Catholic saint, St. Francis Xavier, who brought the Gospel to much of Asia and to the far East. In the 16th and 17th centuries, it was Catholic saints and missionaries, especially Jesuits, who definitively brought the Gospel to North and South America. Many of these lands were inhabited by barbaric and pagan peoples. These would frequently torture and murder foreigners and perceived enemies. In bringing the Gospel to them, these saints often underwent mind-boggling hardships and endured incredible struggles. They meticulously learned arcane languages, customs and cultures in order to teach these people about Jesus Christ and lead them to His faith. Sometimes they were tortured barbarically. Sometimes they had to travel through almost unbelievable conditions, suffering in sub-zero temperatures without sufficient clothing or sleeping in many feet of snow surrounded by the wilderness.

The Working of Miracles By Saints on Earth

The conversion of heathen peoples was providentially facilitated by the miracles which Jesus granted to His saints. There is a continuous tradition of miracles in the lives of Catholic saints which extends right back to the beginning of the Catholic Church. This reality, which is fascinating to read about in the lives of the saints, was predicted by Jesus.

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.”

—John 14:12, KJV

The Lack of Miracles By Other Saints

The miracles Jesus worked, Scripture tells us, were signs intended to direct people’s attention to Jesus Himself. They gave testimony to His divinity. When the Apostles and other followers of Jesus worked miracles, these too were signs — pointing, not to the Apostles, but to the Lord Jesus whom they preached. With St. John, however, we have a situation in which many people had already concluded, before Jesus’ public appearance in ministry, that the Baptist was himself the Messiah (the Christ). He had to deny that notion publicly and point to Jesus instead (see John 1:15, 19-27). John’s primary role, of course, was precisely to serve as a sign himself — to point others to “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). But God had him perform that role through his compelling preaching, his rite of cleansing, and his personal example, rather than through miracles.

“And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.”

—John 10:41, KJV

Abc

The Working of Miracles By Saints in Heaven

The communion of saints is biblical. Praying to and venerating saints does not detract from God’s glory. On the contrary, it inspires us to center our whole lives more zealously around Christ and doing His will, as they did. Throughout her history, the Catholic Church has remained faithful to the teaching of Jesus and the Bible on angels and saints. This is because the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ.

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

The Bodily Veneration of Images

People can kneel, bow, or prostrate out of respect and humility, not necessarily to worship or adore. In the Bible, Lot bowed before the angels and David before Saul. Jacob bowed down completely with his face to the ground seven times before his brother Esau, as did Abraham, and other just and saintly people.

“And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land.”

—Genesis 23:12

Catholics do not go against the Scriptures when they venerate statues by kneeling or bowing before an image, such as a crucifix. It is virtuous to take a humble and respectful posture while invoking He whom the statue or image represents.

Summary of the Sedevacantist Controversy

[Watch a debate on the issue.]

Summary of the Una Cum Controversy

Celebrants at most churches will mention the name of who they believe they believe is the reigning pontiff. Throughout history, the Holy Roman Emperor and other worldly leaders were also mentioned in the liturgy.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III excommunicated “believers who receive, defend or support heretics.” Among Catholics, the status of those attending Masses offered in communion with a false pope is debated. To affirm his unity with the Church, a priest prays “one with our pope” at the Canon of Holy Mass. Not thence naming a true reigning pope would symbolize schism from the Church, yet on the other hand, mentioning the name of an evidently heretical false pope is, at least, an implicit recognition of his heresy. Bishop Donald J. Sanborn, for example, expounds that the una cum part of Mass is an ecclesiological declaration; he recalls that heretics and schismatics are excommunicates, and it is not licit to pray publicly for excommunicates, yet neither John XXIII nor his successors have been excommunicated by any declaratory sentence. It is prescribed in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that heresy is notorious when it is publicly known and committed under such circumstances that no clever evasion is possible and no legal excuse could excuse the act. While sedevacantists agree that the current man claiming to be pope is a notorious heretic, the degree of certainty about the fact ranges from the opinionism of the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) to the dogmatic stance of Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM). In favor of opinionism, some recall that St. Vincent Ferrer rejected the true Roman Pontiff in favor of the Avignon antipope, yet is officially recognized as a canonized saint by the Church.

Importance of Transubstantiation

According to the clear teaching of the Bible, one who receives the Eucharist unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. St. Paul says that a person eats and drinks damnation by receiving the Eucharist without the proper dispositions and discernment. If the Eucharist is just a piece of bread and some wine, taken in memory of Christ, how could one who receives it improperly be found guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? One would obviously not be held guilty of the body and blood of Christ unless the Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of Christ.

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

—1 Corinthians 11:26-29

Church Fathers on Transubstantiation

In 110 A.D., St. Ignatius of Antioch called out the Docetists for denying the reality of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”

—St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 7, 110 A.D.

“When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?”

—St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chap. 2, 185 A.D.

“For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ...”

—St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Discourses, Mystagogic 1, 19:7, 350 A.D.

The Bible On Baptismal Regeneration

The Bible says that baptism is for the remission of sins. It takes away sins. St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles (chapter XXII) is instructed to “be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” as did St. Peter and all of the faithful apostles:

“But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

—Acts 2:38

In the very last instruction that Jesus Christ gave before bodily ascending into Heaven, He instructs His Apostles to go “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” as recounted in the Gospel of St. Matthew (chapter XXVIII). This formula is the “word of life” which St. Paul mentions in his epistle to the Ephesians (chapter V), where he teaches that the souls of the Church are cleansed in “the laver of water in the word of life,” obviously referring to water baptism. In his epistle to the Romans (chapter VI), St. Paul explains that Christ reconciles some men to God, removes their original sin, and makes them members of the Church of God by baptism. Baptism puts to death the old man who lived in original sin, and gives birth to a new life in Christ. To the Corinthians he explains that any person can be baptized into the Body of Christ and receive the Holy Ghost through baptism. He warns the Ephesians to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace with one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all. Through this baptism, he tells the Galatians, diverse sorts of people can becomes united to God and incorporated into the unity of the Church.

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

—Titus 3:5

The Bible says that men are saved by the “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” The outward pouring of water effects the interior cleansing and renewal of the Holy Spirit. This sacramental action justifies the soul, and applies the merit of the Blood of Jesus Christ while the baptism is occurring. Protestants argue that the “washing” doesn’t refer to the water of baptism, but to the cleansing of the Spirit without baptism. This is refuted by comparing this passage to 1 Peter 3:20-21. They both teach that baptism “saves.” 1 Peter 3:20-21 is clearly referring to water baptism, not just a spiritual washing. This demonstrates that Titus 3:5 is also referring to regeneration through the water of baptism.

“... when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also...”

—1 Peter 3:20-21

Just as no one escaped physical death outside the ark of Noe during the time of the Flood (only eight souls survived the Flood by being firmly planted on the ark), likewise no one avoids spiritual death or is saved from original sin without baptism! Baptism saves you. How clear does it have to be that the Bible teaches that water baptism is necessary for salvation?

The Importance of Baptism

Baptism is so necessary that even Jesus submitted Himself to it. He was baptized by St. John the Baptist to show that every single man – and Jesus was both true God and true man – must be baptized for salvation. It should be pointed out that in Catholic theology, the baptism given by John the Baptist was not the same as the baptism which Jesus instituted: the true Sacrament of Baptism. It did not have the same force or power. The baptism instituted by Jesus takes away original and actual sins, as well as all punishment due to sin; the baptism of John was a baptism which stirred people to repentance and was a prefigurement of the baptism which Jesus instituted. That’s why those who had only received the baptism of John were baptized again (Acts 19:4-5). But Jesus’ reception of baptism at the hands of John is considered to be the transition between John’s prefigured baptism and the real baptism of Christ. The baptism of Jesus sanctified the waters so that they could be efficacious in taking away sin, even though the baptism which Jesus would institute would not become binding on all until after the Resurrection. Luke 3:21-22 “... it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” The descent of the Holy Ghost signifies the regenerative powers of baptism. The opening of Heaven signifies that Heaven is open to a man once he has properly received baptism. It makes him an adopted son of God, instead of an excluded child of Adam.

John 3:3-5 “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Deeply consider that when Jesus teaches this profound truth, He prefaces His statement by saying: “verily, verily” or “truly truly” or “amen, amen,” depending upon the translation you are reading. This double-affirmation is an act of oath-taking. In a Jewish court of law, no one could be put to death without the testimony of two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15). Both of them had to raise their right hand and say: Amen. (See Nehemiah 8:6 or 2 Esdras 8:6 as an example of the solemnity of this formula.) Therefore, this solemn language indicates that what Jesus has to say here is extremely serious. Jesus is affirming in a solemn oath that no one enters Heaven without being born again of water and the Holy Spirit. Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless a man is born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Nicodemus then specifically asks Him how that happens; how is one born again? Jesus answers, in John 3:5, by declaring that unless a man is born OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT HE CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD. So, being born again means being born of water and the Holy Ghost. This clearly refers to water baptism. It’s true that non-Catholics have tried to explain away the clear meaning of these words, but to no avail. Many of them say that the water refers to natural birth, and the Spirit refers to the born again process by accepting the faith. That’s impossible because the passage is about the rebirth. Jesus says that the rebirth is of water and the Spirit. Moreover, the phrase “of water and the Spirit” in Greek (ek hudatos kai pneumatos) is a single linguistical unit, as Greek scholars point out. It describes being “born of water and the Spirit,” not “born of water” on the one hand, and “born of the Spirit” on the other. In addition, the extended context of the passage confirms that it’s referring to water baptism. In the very next chapter, we read that Jesus’ Apostles went out and baptized. Look at John 4:1. So, after the Bible presents the absolute necessity of water baptism, it mentions that the Apostles practiced what Jesus preached. It’s crucial for people to understand that John 3:5 refers to water baptism; for millions have a false and unbiblical concept of what it means to be born again. They think it means coming to a true commitment that Jesus is the Savior. That is incorrect, and was not believed in the ancient Church. It is certainly necessary for a person above the age of reason to accept Jesus Christ, to believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation, and to accept all of His teachings. But the Bible clearly teaches that being born again refers to the spiritual regeneration which water baptism gives. The overwhelming evidence which we’ve considered from other passages in the New Testament also proves it. The Sacrament of Baptism removes all original and actual sins for those who properly receive it. It should be noted, however, that receiving that sacramental is not a guarantee of salvation. One can lose the grace of baptism through mortal sins and by denying the true faith of Jesus Christ.

On Baptismal Regeneration

From the very beginning of the Christian Church, the fathers of the Church unanimously believed in the necessity of water baptism and baptismal regeneration. They based that belief on the teaching of the New Testament, John 3:5 and Apostolic Tradition. Here are just four passages. One could quote dozens of others. In the Letter of Barnabas, dated as early as 70 A.D., we read: “... we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart...” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:34.) In the Shepherd of Hermas, dated 140 A.D., Hermas quotes Jesus in John 3:5 and writes: “They had need to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:92.) In 155 A.D., in First Apology, 61, St. Justin the Martyr writes: “... they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn... in the name of God... they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ The reason for doing this we have learned from the apostles.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:126.) St. Aphraates, the oldest of the Syrian fathers, writes in his Treatises, 336 A.D.: “For from baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ... For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re- birth.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:681.)

On the Universal Necessity of Baptism

Jesus clearly taught that every man must be baptized to be saved. We saw this in John 3:5. He does not make any distinctions or exceptions. This is very significant because in John 6:53 – a passage on the necessity to eat Jesus’ flesh, which uses language that is similar to John 3:5 – we do see a distinction. In John 6:53, Jesus says: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” But in John 3:5, he says: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” In John 6:53 (John 6:54 in Catholic versions), Jesus says unless YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man. But in John 3:5, the statement is universally applicable: unless A MAN is born again of water and the Spirit. The wording is slightly different because receiving the Eucharist is necessary for all who hear the command and can fulfill it, such as those above the age of reason. Jesus said unless you, to those to whom He was speaking and to others who hear the command. But the necessity to receive water baptism is universal. Hence, Jesus says unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Every man necessarily includes infants. It logically follows from the teaching of Jesus in John 3:5 that infants should be baptized.

Baptism in Biblical Times

In the very beginning God created heaven and earth; and the first thing mentioned in the Bible is the waters. Look at the very first two verses in the first book of the Bible. Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heaven and earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” This tells us that water has been of major – and even unique – significance to God’s creation from the very beginning. It has been integral to His plan. He has used it to cleanse, to generate new life. It makes perfect sense, therefore, that the element He would choose, in bringing the new life of Jesus Christ to souls by dispensing the merit of His passion and the cleansing of the Holy Spirit, is that primordial element over which His Spirit moved at the beginning of creation. Another clear type of, or reference to, the sanctifying effects of water baptism is found in Ezechiel 36. Ezechiel 36:24-26 “For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you.” This clearly refers to the cleansing power of water baptism, which will transmit the new life of Jesus Christ, and will be dispensed to God’s people gathered from all over the Earth. The reference to “clean water” in Ezechiel 36 proves that it’s referring to justification in the New Testament; for the very same language is found in Hebrews 10:22, to describe the interior change effectuated by justification in Christ. In Hebrews 10:22, that change is described as a heart being sprinkled from an evil conscience. Ezechiel 36 specifically indicates that this cleanness of heart is effectuated by the sprinkling with clean water (in baptism). Some people object at this point. They bring up the Good Thief on the Cross as an example against the necessity of baptism. But this example fails. First, the law of baptism, which Jesus made binding on every man, became an obligation after Jesus’ Resurrection, when Jesus gave the command to preach the Gospel and to baptize all nations in Matthew 28:19. The Good Thief died under the Old Law, before the Law of Baptism became binding on everyone. Second, the Good Thief did not go to Heaven on the day that Jesus was crucified. We know this because no one went to Heaven until after Jesus did. Jesus had the primacy in all things, as St. Paul says in Colossians 1:18. Jesus didn’t ascend into Heaven until after His Resurrection, as John 20:17 proves. So the Good Thief is not an example against the necessity of baptism for salvation. That’s why the Apostles’ Creed, which Catholics recite, correctly states that Jesus was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into Hell; on the third day He rose again from the dead and then ascended into Heaven. He didn’t ascend to Heaven until after His Resurrection, and He descended into Hell on the day of His death. What was this Hell? It was Abraham’s bosom, the waiting place of the just of the Old Testament. That’s where the Good Thief went with Jesus on the day of His Crucifixion; Jesus called it paradise because He would be there.

Circumcision was the Old Testament counterpart to Baptism. Circumcision was the way that males in the Old Testament entered a covenant relationship with God. If you were not circumcised, you were not in God’s covenant. It was a type of baptism. Like other types, not every aspect of circumcision corresponded to what baptism would be. For instance, only males could be circumcised in the Old Testament, but males and females are baptized in the New. But there is no doubt that circumcision was the Old Testament counterpart to baptism. Colossians 2 teaches that baptism is the New Testament circumcision.

Colossians 2:11-12 “In [Jesus] also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith...” This passage identifies baptism as the new and greater circumcision. It also says that one rises to new supernatural life in Christ by baptism. Infants were circumcised in the Old Testament. If baptism is the new circumcision, it follows that infants are to be baptized in the New. If not, then God would have been more generous, more universal, more inclusive in the inferior Old Covenant than He is in the New. But this is not the case. The salvation which is made available in Jesus is open to all peoples: to Jews and Gentiles. It’s unthinkable that Jesus would not establish a means to incorporate children into His spiritual Kingdom and to give them His blessings and salvation. In fact, notice what Peter says in his famous sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2: Acts 2:38-39 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. For the promise is unto you, and to your children...” This passage is speaking of baptism, and the blessings and forgiveness given through it. It says that the promise is also for the children. They receive the forgiveness through water baptism. Matthew 19:13-15 “Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.”

In the times of the New Testament, every single person of a household, which would logically include children, were baptized by faithful Christians, such as St. Paul, who administered baptism to the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16). When she attended unto the things which were spoken of St. Paul, a certain woman named Lydia was baptized, also with her household, according to the XVI chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.

Baptism in the Early Church

Unlike not only Catholics, but also Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Methodists, the Anabaptists believe that baptism should only be given to those who have reached the age of reason and have chosen to receive it, wrongly considering the baptisms of infants to be unscriptural even though the Bible nowhere teaches that infants should not be baptized.

The fathers of the Christian Church also believed in infant baptism, having received this tradition from Jesus and the Apostles. Here are just three passages; others could be quoted.

Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3, 244-248 A.D. “In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.”

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D. “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:2016.)

St. Augustine, Letter to Jerome, 415 A.D. “Anyone who should say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3:1439.)

Summary of the Feeneyite Controversy

Catholics believe that both the physical washing and their own desire for it are necessary for baptism to work for people with sins of their own. The Council of Trent (1547) teaches that the justification of a sinner after the promulgation of the Gospel “cannot be effected without [in the authoritative Latin, sine, also translated as “except through” in books like Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma] the laver of regeneration, or a desire for it, as it is written [in John 3:5]: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’”— and referencing this, St. Alphonsus Liguori and others have concluded that it is of faith that men can also be saved by what they call a “baptism of desire.” Proponents of this notion, such as Rev. Fr. Anthony Cekada (1951 – 2020), point to the great amount of theologians who shared this perspective, yet this was not the conclusion of the most common authoritative text on what is and is not Catholic dogma: Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals, which rates the dogma of the necessity of water baptism above the purported doctrine of baptism of desire.

The contrary view, often called “Feeneyism” after its famous promotor Rev. Fr. Leonard Feeney (1897 – 1978), makes it clear that nobody can be saved without water baptism. Supporters point to decrees like that of the Council of Vienne (1311), which declares that “one baptism which regenerates all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Ephesians 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be commonly the perfect remedy for salvation for adults as for children.” The issue is treated at length by the book and videos of Most Holy Family Monastery.

“And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.”

— 1 John 5:8

This refers to the three witnesses in justification: the new life or spirit brought by justification, the water of baptism, and the blood of Jesus. These three must be present for a person to be justified. The first and the third come together – are poured out – in the water of baptism. That’s why Jesus speaks of being born again of water and the spirit (John 3:5). He could have also truly spoken of being born again of water, blood and the spirit.

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

The Brothers of Jesus

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is ever-virgin and had no other children. The Catholic Church does not teach that all the “brethren” of Jesus were necessarily His cousins. They may have been extended relatives or close friends or people considered part of the family by marriage or law or homeland. For instance, in 2 Samuel 1:26, King David calls Jonathan his “brother.” Jonathan and David were not brothers or cousins. David had married Jonathan’s sister, Michal, the daughter of King Saul. So David married into the family. The number of Jesus’ “brothers” (adelphoi) mentioned in the Bible seems to suggest that some of them were not even extended relatives, but considered part of the family in other ways. If even one or a few of them were not cousins, but more extended relatives or neighbors or close family friends, then the word adelphoi would have been used. Therefore, the fact that the word for cousin was not used does not in any way prove that Mary had other children.

The Marys in the Bible

Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” James and Joses are two of the names given as “brothers” of Jesus. It can be shown, by the following points, that these were children of another woman and not siblings of Jesus. Please follow this carefully. There were three women at the foot of the Cross: 1) the Blessed Virgin Mary (the mother of Jesus); 2) Mary the wife of Cleophas (who is said to be the Blessed Virgin Mary’s sister); and 3) Mary Magdalene. John 19:25 “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus [1] his mother, and [2] his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and [3] Mary Magdalene.” Mary, the wife of Cleophas, is also described as “the other Mary” in Matthew 28:1. The Bible tells us that James and Joses are the children of this Mary: Matthew 27:56 “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.” Thus, James and Joses (who are called the “brothers” of Jesus) are not His siblings, but at least His cousins. However, they are probably not even first cousins. This is because Mary of Cleophas (the mother of James and Joses), who is said to be the “sister” of Jesus’ mother (John 19:25), is also named Mary. It’s extremely unlikely that two siblings in a Hebrew family would be given the same name. Most likely they were not sisters, but members of the same clan who were called “sisters” in the same way that James, Joses, Simon and Judas were called “brothers” of Jesus. All of this shows that none of the statements in the Bible about the brothers and sisters of Jesus disproves, in any way, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now we must look at the proof that Mary had no other children and that she was perpetually a virgin.

The Trinubium or Holy Kinship

According to medieval tradition, Saint Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary, was grandmother not just to Jesus but also to five of the twelve apostles: John the Evangelist, James the Greater, James the Less, Simon and Jude. These apostles, together with John the Baptist, were all cousins of Jesus. Haymo of Halberstadt, a German Benedictine monk wrote of seventeen relatives in his Historiae sacrae epitome (IX c. AD), an abbreviated version of Rufinus's translation of Eusebius's Historia.

The Virgin at the Foot of the Cross

While dying on the Cross, Jesus entrusts His mother to the care of St. John the Apostle. John 19:26-27 “When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple [John] took her to his own.” It’s also quite significant that when Jesus was found in the temple at 12 years old, there is no indication whatsoever that Mary and Joseph had other children (Luke 2:41-51). The indication is that He is an only child. He is also referred to as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as a son of Mary. Never once is Mary said to have had other children.

Summary of the Co-Redemptrix Controversy

Catholics still debate whether the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ, can be rightly called “co-Redemptrix.” Opponents of this title point to the Council of Florence, which declared that our Lord Jesus Christ “through His death alone laid low the enemy of the human race by destroying our sins.” The Council of Trent instructed the faithful that it is good and useful to invoke saints, and to have recourse to their “help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour.”

“Jesus exclusively bears the titles of Savior and Redeemer, because ‘there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.’”

—Cardinal Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers, 1895

Proponents of this title, point to the fact that the Holy Office in 1914 approved the title by granting an indulgence for the recitation of the prayer in which Mary is called “co-redemptrix of the human race” under Pope St. Pius X. Pope Pius XI also mentioned “the fact that the Virgin of sorrows participated with Christ in the work of Redemption” and stated that “we invoke her under the title of co-redemptrix.” However, there has been no authoritative pronouncement in favor of the idea itself.

“[...I]t would be wrong to call her redemptrix, because this title obscures the important truth that she herself was redeemed through the merits of Jesus Christ by what theologians technically term preredemption. Even the title co-redemptrix had better be avoided as misleading.”

—Rev. Fr. Joseph Pohle, Mariology (1919)

[Watch these videos.]

The Heretic Palamas

See videos.

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

Purported Prophecies of the Moslems

It is mentioned in the hadiths that the dajjal will come seven months after Constantinople has been conquered by the Muslims from the Romans.

Though some modern scholars may try to cloud the understanding of modern audiences who might be outraged at such behavior with unorthodox and heretical rewritings, the most trusted source of Sunni Islam teaches that their prophet did marry his youngest wife at the age of six.

“Narrated `Aisha: that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).”

—Sahih al-Bukhari 5133 (Book 67, Hadith 69) [Sunnah.com]

There can be no dispute about this fact, as the same authenticated source makes clear what her stage of development was.

“Narrated `Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me.”

—Sahih al-Bukhari 6130 (Book 78, Hadith 157) [Sunnah.com]

Fath-ul-Bari adds the explanation that “the playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.”

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

Abc

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

Any civilization is incomplete without the Catholic religion, and the truths of the Church are so evident that many nations accepted its wisdom without violence or coercion. 

Alexander Severus, under Emperor Hadrian, even considered building pagan shrines in the name of Christ.

Every seven days, when he was in the city, he went up to the Capitolium, and he visited the other temples frequently. He also wished to build a temple to Christ and give him a place among the gods— a measure, which, they say, was also considered by Hadrian. For Hadrian ordered a temple without an image to be built in every city, and because these temples, built by him with this intention, so they say, are dedicated to no particular deity, they are called today merely Hadrian's temples. Alexander, however, was prevented from carrying out this purpose, because those who examined the sacred victims ascertained that if he did, all men would become Christians and the other temples would of necessity be abandoned.

—The Life of Severus Alexander, Historia Augusta (43:5-7)

In AD 1000, according to the Íslendingabók, the pagans retained old laws allowing exposure of newborn children only for a short time.

Those who purport to love European Civilization would do well to emulate their ancestors and adopt the whole Christian faith.

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

Honest Atheists Discard Obvious Myths

Atheists who honestly analyze the diversity of religions in the world often arrive at the conclusion that most of them can be easily dismissed.

“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God[...] Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?”

—Carl Sagan (1934-1996), Interview to Robert Pope, 1996

It is quite telling that Sagan disregarded all the other deities as obvious fiction. Only Abrahamic religions make compelling claims, yet he did not see evidence at that time to convince him of any of the religions.

Islamic Claims

The most definitive Scriptures of the Muslims teach that all those who reject the teachings of Muhammad will go to hell forever.  There is no allowance mentioned for those who lived after his lifetime who never heard of his teachings.

“Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.”

—Qur'an 98:6, Pickthall translation

However, even without texts to justify it, some Muslim scholars make exceptions for those who have not yet heard the teachings of Islam, and just as Muhammad warned against teaching that innocent people went to Paradise because of the unknowable predestination of Allah's subjects, the fate of each unbeliever is unknown to other humans.

“Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.”

—Qur'an 98:6, Pickthall translation

Others cast doubt as to weather Allah, being the “the best of deceivers,” will carry out his threats as his texts seem to indicate.

Catholicism Leaves No Room for Exceptions

Only one school of thought of Roman Catholicism purports to make such absolute judgments. It teaches dogmatically the eternal torments of hell and through the most solemn use of its teaching office, makes it likewise clear that everyone who does not die as a Roman Catholic will go to hell forever.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her...”

—Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 1441

With at least two world religions threatening eternal damnation for dissenters, every person alive now should be aware that choosing the wrong religion might have consequences that could long outlast death.

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

From 1939, the regime began its program of euthanasia, under which those deemed "racially unfit" or "life unworthy of life" were to be euthanized. Those deemed by the Nazis to be senile, mentally handicapped and mentally ill, epileptics, cripples, children with Down's Syndrome and people with similar afflictions were all to be killed. The program ultimately involved the systematic murder of more than 70,000 people. By the time the Nazis commenced their program of killing invalids, the Catholic Church in Germany had been subject to prolonged persecution from the state, and had suffered confiscation of property, arrest of clergy, and closure of lay organizations. In his sermons, Bishop Clemens von Galen of Münster spoke of a moral danger to Germany from the regime's violations of basic human rights: “the right to life, to inviolability, and to freedom is an indispensable part of any moral social order", he said – and any government that punishes without court proceedings "undermines its own authority and respect for its sovereignty within the conscience of its citizens.”

In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Mystici corporis Christi, in which he condemned the practice of killing the disabled. The Encyclical was followed, on 26 September 1943, by an open condemnation from the German Bishops which denounced the killing of innocent and defenceless people, whether mentally or physically handicapped, incurably infirm, fatally wounded, innocent hostages, disarmed prisoners of war, criminal offenders, or belonging to a different race.

Only Christianity explicitly rejects infanticide. The Didache, an ancient catechism with the teachings of the apostles, tells Christians "thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born".

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

Most sedevacantists and some hardline recognize-and-resist adherents agree that the rite of mass promulgated by Paul VI in 1969 is invalid as are all the other modernist rites except for baptism and matrimony. The FSSPX has stated that the “dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have.”

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

[Read more.]

Some non-Catholics believe baptism must be received by immersion. This is not taught in the Bible. Consider the fact that on Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2, when thousands were baptized, there wasn’t a sufficient water supply to baptize them all by immersion. Baptism by effusion (pouring) or sprinkling must have been used. In addition, baptism by immersion would be very difficult or impossible in extremely cold environments such as the Arctic, and in extremely hot environments such as deserts. In other situations – such as an apostolate to prisoners (e.g., Acts 16) – where freedom of movement is limited, baptizing by immersion wouldn’t be practicable. Jesus never would have made it so difficult or impossible to administer baptism in these situations when He was the one who declared that every man must have it.

Some people also say that the word baptism in Greek exclusively means immersion. This is not true. The word is used to signify immersion, but it is also used to signify washings which are not immersions. Examples where baptism means washing, but not immersion, are found in Luke 11:38 and Hebrews 9:10. Baptism is valid if performed either by immersion, effusion (i.e., pouring) or sprinkling, but the water must be moving as it strikes the skin and the proper words (“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” or their equivalent) must be said. Another point is that in baptism, the Holy Spirit is poured out. That means that even though baptism by immersion is certainly valid if done properly, one could say that baptism by effusion (i.e., pouring) more precisely signifies the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism.

There is also the fact that paintings in the catacombs, which were made by the earliest Christians, depict baptisms by pouring. This shows that these baptisms by pouring were considered acceptable from the beginning.

The Didache was written around A.D. 70. It’s a famous document from the early Church. It’s a strong witness to the beliefs and practices of the ancient Christians. In chapter 7, The Didache approves of baptism by immersion in a river, but also baptism by effusion or pouring.

“And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot in cold, in warm. But if you have not neither, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”

—The Didache, 70 A.D.

This was written while some of the Apostles might have been living or in the first generation after them. All of this shows that the Catholic Church’s teaching on baptism is the true teaching of the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

The chart above presents a variety of examples of what each religion promises for believers and unbelievers. You can research other worldviews mentioned in the chart and find no illustrative examples of the contrary.

Do you have the foresight to understand that if you picked the wrong religion, you will regret it if you get sent to hell? Basically every worldview of each religion in the world tells you that when you die, your problems are over. For example, the dispensational Protestants will say that if you believe in Jesus or follow the Jewish covenant, you will go to Heaven, and if you do not, then nobody really knows.

All but two groups can be dismissed without any trepidation: the Muslims and the traditional Catholics. The Islamic claims have been soundly refuted by this material and that of many others. Traditional Roman Catholicism is the only viable religion which informs you that you will burn in hell forever with no exceptions if you do not follow it.