u/Frosty-Click6178

I’ve seen people mocking the fact that the Apostles were called Philip, Andrew, Peter, and so on, instead of names like Mohammed or Salim, simply because they were from the Middle East. But that comes from an anachronistic view of history.

First, many of those names only became common centuries later. Simon, for example, was a far more common name in first-century Judea than Mohammed, which only became widespread after the rise of Islam in the seventh century.

Furthermore, the biblical names reached us through translation. The name of Our Lord, for instance, passed from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek and then into Latin before arriving at the forms we know today. The same happened with many of the Apostles’ names.

Names like Philip and Andrew, which have Greek origins, are not contradictory at all. Giving a child a name from another culture is not a modern phenomenon. Greek culture had already spread throughout the Middle East after the conquests of Alexander the Great and the process of Hellenization. By the first century, Greek was widely spoken across the region and was not uncommon among Jews. Because of this, it was perfectly normal for Jews to have Greek names without ceasing to be Jewish or Middle Eastern.

Paul himself even used two forms of his name: the Semitic form and the Roman one.

​

The Lord truly loves Jerusalem. God never changes. But what the Lord loves is His Church. The Jerusalem where we are all born is His Church, where we receive new life through Baptism. The true Zion is wherever God is worshiped in spirit and truth.

In the covenant made through the blood of His Son, God made all peoples His people. He made His holy city the whole Church, in every place where men gather to worship Him. His people are all those who profess Christ as Savior, they are the true heirs of the promise made to Abraham.

When, in the Magnificat, Most Holy Virgin said that God remembered, with mercy, the promise He made to Abraham and to his descendants, she embraces all His people: everyone who is baptized and professes faith in her Son.

Therefore, when we hear that the Lord loves Zion, we can pray with confidence that God loves His Church.

Saying that Mary is not the Mother of God(as some protestants do) does not merely diminish a woman, it directly affects the correct understanding of Christ. The issue is not primarily Mary, but Christological.

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God ultimately divides Christ into two: a man and a God, instead of the God-Man, the one divine Person the incarnate Word.

This has profound implications and is not a secondary matter. If there were only a man separated from God, then how could that man save me? If only a man died for me, then salvation would come from a creature and not from God Himself. But no creature can save the world. On the other hand, if God did not truly assume human nature, then He also did not truly suffer and die for us, because God, in His divine nature, neither suffers nor dies. In that case, it would have been merely a man who suffered on the cross.

The Christian faith has always affirmed something different: the One born of Mary is truly God and truly man. These are not two separate persons, but one divine Person, the incarnate Word.

For this reason, the venerable title “Mother of God” is both correct and necessary. Mary is not the mother of the eternal divinity of the Word, but she is the mother of the Person who was born from her, and that Person is God.

If Christ is not God, He cannot save. If He is not man, He cannot die. And if He is not both God and man at the same time, then He can neither die for us nor accomplish our salvation.

Why am I Catholic and not Orthodox? Both are apostolic Churches. So why not join the Eastern Churches that separated, since their sacraments and apostolic succession are valid?

The answer that comes to my mind is the papacy. Jesus says to Peter: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church,” and “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” This was given to Peter, not to all the disciples equally. He also says: “But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Jesus asks Peter to confirm his brothers in the faith; this command was specifically given to Peter. He also says, “Feed my sheep,” a command regarding his mission. Peter himself writes in his letter: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings.” All of this shows that the mission of Saint Peter is singular in the history of the Church.

It seems to be Christ’s desire that we be one in a single faith and one Church — the Roman Church: “That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

Why not the Church of Antioch, which Peter founded, but rather Rome?

Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century), in his work Against Heresies, stated that all Churches must agree with the Church of Rome because of its “preeminent authority” and apostolic origin. Saint Ignatius of Antioch (2nd century), in his Letter to the Romans, describes the Church of Rome as the one that “presides in charity” (or “presides in love”), indicating a position of honorable and effective leadership among the Christian communities. Saint Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century), despite having conflicts with Rome, called it “the principal Church, from which the unity of the priesthood takes its rise.”

Clement intervened in Corinth, Leo the Great intervened in councils, and other Churches often appealed to Rome for intervention or mediation. This shows that long before the Great Schism, the Roman Church already presided in charity as the Chair of Peter — not because it was the oldest Church, but because it was the Church where Peter left his successor after his death.

The bishop of Antioch when Peter died was probably Evodius of Antioch, who was neither his disciple nor his direct successor in the same sense. Rome was the place of Peter’s martyrdom and where his final succession remained. It was there that his earthly mission came to an end and where his victory was sealed by his blood in his final witness.

I see some conspiracy theorists saying that the Church hides huge secrets and is evil, as if it were a super organized secret society. I honestly find that funny, but even so, it does lead to an interesting reflection. I sincerely wish the bishops were as organized as these people think they are. When you look at the CNBB (the Brazilian Bishops' Conference) or other bishops' conferences around the world, you can see that what is often lacking the most is organization and unity among these conferences.

To me, that is actually proof that it is truly the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, because if it depended solely on human beings, it would have collapsed a long time ago, whether because of persecution or simple human incompetence. I usually just find these conspiracy theories ridiculous and amusing, but part of me genuinely wishes there were as much organization behind the scenes as people imagine.