The BEST Objections to Catholicism ANSWERED

Here I criticize non-Catholic explanations of the miraculous evidence and respond to objections to Catholicism.

CORRECTIONS AND ADDENDA:(1) I asserted that “neither geocentrism nor young-earth creationism ever constituted Catholic doctrine”, but apparently there’s some dispute about whether the theological content of the March 5, 1616 Index decree is altogether non-magisterial, or whether it counts as an act of the ordinary, non-universal, fallible magisterium. Regardless, it was certainly never definitive teaching, which suffices for my analogy.(2) I described nettles as tingling, but it would be more accurate to say it’s a mildly uncomfortable stinging. For more on this, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSKjl0gAjM4(3) In describing Pawl's view on the incarnation starting around 5:42:15, I should not have said that he cashes out the *meanings* of the relevant putatively contradictory predicates. I should have said that he provides *truth conditions* for the *application* of those predicates. (I should also have clarified that this isn't universally quantifying over *all* Christological predicates.) Here's the corrected version: In short, we can offer truth conditions for the applications of these putatively contradictory predicates that are *nature relative* – for instance, ‘is timeless’ is true of Christ just in case Christ has a nature which exists outside time, and ‘is temporal’ is true of Christ just in case Christ has a nature which exists in time. So, being timeless and temporal (where these predicates have the aforementioned truth conditions) is, indeed, contradictory for any being with only one nature, but if a being has two natures (which doesn’t seem logically inconsistent in itself), then that being can be both timeless and temporal in the senses relevant to Christological predication.(4) I’m somewhat uncertain as to the compatibility of Maritain’s model with the authoritative teaching of the Church. Recall Maritain’s view: after a finite period of pains of sense, the damned experience complete natural happiness while retaining the pain of loss (a sorrowful, grieving awareness of the supernatural beatitude permanently lost through their sin). I’ve been made aware that this view is at least similar to views expressed in Mivart’s works that were condemned by the Church. But they're not identical. So, I just want to emphasize that Maritain’s model is theologically speculative and not *clearly* ruled out by the Magisterium, but it’s also not something for which we presently have sufficient grounds to claim assured compatibility with the authoritative judgment behind the Mivart condemnation.Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. ❤️‍🔥AMDG❤️‍🔥