The Patrick Madrid Show: October 02, 2026 - Hour 1

0:00Hi Patrick Madrid here, thanks for listening. Check out CharityMobile and prayerfully consider making them your wireless carrier. Mention offer code Patrick and get a free phone. Go to charitymobile.com. Compelling insights, unpredictable conversations, encouragement for your day, it's the Patrick Madrid show on relevant radio. All right, hey, good to see you. Thank you for listening to the Patrick Madrid show here at relevant radio. And I look forward to hearing from you. If you're so inclined, give me a call. My number is 8889149149889149149. And by all means, please send me emails. I read every one of them and appreciate them all. Even those where you disagree with me, I do appreciate you taking time to write to me. My address is Patrick at relevantradio.com. And with that, I'd like to begin with an email.

1:03This one came in, let's see, this came in this morning. This is from Melanie and she's in Minneapolis. And she's responding to a show of a couple of days ago. And she says it the September 30th show. So for those of you who are interested in listening to what she's referring to here, you'll find it in the show archives at relevantradio.com slash Patrick. So I'll read her email. I promised her I would and then I will comment in response to what she says. She says, I listen to the podcast of your show while I work out in the morning. But after listening to your conversation with Sherry in our two of the September 30th show, I am rethinking listening as well as rethinking donating to relevant radio as I have been doing. I certainly agree with dressing modestly for mass. However, when Sherry suggested that the problem started with giving women the right to vote, you went along with her thinking or I'm sorry, you went along with her thinking and did not disagree, although you steered the conversation back to mass attire, if I am not worthy enough to vote

2:06as a woman, am I worthy enough to pray a 10 mass, I just voted on a possible remodeling of our church. I guess I shouldn't have done that. Not worthy. I have no doubt that you will not take my thoughts seriously. Why would you think that, Melanie? Why assume the worst of me? That's not really necessary. She says, I have no doubt that you will not take my thoughts seriously other than possibly to turn them into a parody song or laughing for years, reliving them with Cyrus, with Cyrus, yet silly me, I am sharing them anyway. All right, well, I'm glad you shared them. It's an important point and I would like to address it. The call that you're referring to stood out from all the other callers and everything that I had to say on that topic during the course of that discussion because Sherry did slip that into her other comments about not wanting to see women in the sanctuary. That was the major part of what she was saying. She referenced obliquely the 19th

3:11amendment and I said, worse the effect and with a note of astonishment, like, are you really serious about that? And let me press pause on that. I absolutely disagree with her. If indeed she holds the view that women should not be allowed to vote. So that's why I'm a bit taken aback that you, if you know me as well as you say you do because you'll listen to the program as regularly as you say you do. I don't doubt that you do. I guess I'm taking a back that you would assume that I would agree that women should not vote in elections. I absolutely do not agree with that. And so if the tone of my voice didn't sufficiently convey my astonishment, like, are you really saying that you would not want to have women vote in elections? Well, then maybe if that's my fault all alone up to it that I wasn't sufficiently clear in my tone of voice. But because women voting

4:12in elections is a whole other can of worms that I personally don't think we even need to get into because it's a moot point number one. And it's a bad idea. Number two, to say that women can't vote, et cetera, et cetera. There was no real purpose for me to go to go into that topic with her. I'm sure you can see that. Now, I hope you can see that. If it struck you the wrong way in the moment fair enough, that happens to me. That happens to everybody at times where it just doesn't sound right. And it strikes a nerve and you go back later and you realize, well, that really wasn't what it sounded like at first. I think that's a pretty common human experience. And that's what I'm going to chalk this up to. I think for whatever reason, it just didn't hit you the right way. And you then, I guess, made the leap of logic to assume that therefore I somehow

5:15say, is can you picture me telling Nancy, hey, honey, guess what? You really shouldn't be voting in elections. Nice. No, and yeah, exactly. And I mean, I mean, I wear the pants in the family, but I love my wife. And she is entirely entitled to her own opinions and her own way of looking at things. She's in equal before God in terms of male and female being equal. And on and on and on. We don't I don't think it's necessary to like burnish my credentials when it comes to being in favor of women voting in elections. So I guess in the final analysis here, Melanie, you misunderstood what happened. I'm sorry that you did. I, you know, I'm tempted to say I'm sorry that I did something, but I don't really think I did anything. If I did something egregious and I look back on and say, oh, yeah, I didn't say that right or didn't come out right or that's not what I meant. Sorry that I said it that way. But even that, I mean, none of that

6:20really actually happened. It was I think in inference that you drew incorrectly. And I only say that because you you wanted me you wanted me to know your reaction to this. And I guess like a madder door waving the cape in the bullring when you say I have no doubt you will not take my thoughts seriously. I feel compelled to respond for that reason. What do we have here? I'm sorry. No, please. Sorry. Sorry, you remember that phone call. I do believe, don't you? I do. Yeah, I do remember. Yeah, I think it's just a case of mistaken identity here. Yeah, I mean, there's there's lots of times where people say stuff on the air and you're going in one direction and you don't to correct everything anyone says we wouldn't get anywhere. It's true. Yes, that's true. I don't know.

7:26I and people it's unfortunate. Sometimes you'll get you'll get calls or emails from people that are very upset because they think they heard something. And it just it or they'll think you actually said something and we can go back, we'll play the tape and it's not what you said. But I get it. You're you're listening to the radio, you're living your life and you sometimes you only hear a part or you hear a sentence and it strikes you the wrong way. Right. And I have a feeling and I agree with you, Cyrus. I have a feeling that that share or I'm sorry, not sherry, Melanie listened closely. I mean, because she says that she listens when she works out in the morning. So I mean, my my guess is that she is listening attentively. It's not like she just came in halfway through the conversation. But I do know that what you're describing does happen. I'm remembering as I'm thinking about it now, times and people write angry letters. Father Rocky, did you know that Patrick Madrid said something? And then we go back and we look at it. Not in some case, it wasn't even my show.

8:29It was some other show on on relevant radio. Or I remember one time when it wasn't even a relevant radio program, much less my own program. That does happen. Yeah. And they were furious at Patrick Madrid because he said something agreed just turns out. I did. So that's one scenario that I remember happening. Another scenario is, and this is more common would be if a a caller says something and they attribute it to me because it's, you know, sometimes your memory gets a little bit hazier fuzzy. So those things do happen. And in any case, not to litigate this endlessly, but I appreciate Melanie that you took time to write to me. And it's unfortunate to say the least that you are now rethinking everything. I hope you'll, you know, I hope we can retain you as a listener. That would be my fondest hope. And I hope that my explanation is helpful at the very least. Yes, I think you should vote no. I certainly don't think you're unworthy to vote on the

9:36remodeling of your church. Yes, I'd take your thoughts seriously. No, we're not going to turn this into a parody song. All right. No, we're not going to laugh. What's that? Oh, no. Well, what she's referring to for those who don't know is that sometimes what we, what we get in the emails that we affectionately call a nasty gram. And we have turned some of those into a parody songs. But there's a purpose for it. Those are like so over the top hostile. And 100% this is very different. Right. We're not going to make fun of this. Right. Of course not. Of course not. We wouldn't do that. All right. So I think there we have it. Thanks again, Melanie. 88 914 9149. Let's go to Raphael. Good morning, Raphael. Good morning. Yes, good morning. So my question is James chapter 2 verse 14. What good is it? My brothers and

10:38sisters, if you say you have faith, but not upwards, can faith save you? That is, I go to a Christian, I'm talking about Christian school and they only believe by faith and not by works. So how would I like describe to them if they ever ask me that question? Or if I'm thinking about how to describe to them and faith by works actually works? Well, I mean, that's a good passage to go to to start off with. And that's they're referring to justification. Keep that in mind. And there's some distinctions that we should make. So justification, salvation, atonement, etc. These have specific meanings. And in this case, justification or to be justified means to be put into a right relationship with God. So the context here is how do you get from being out of a right relationship with God into having a right relationship with God? And it's directly connected to salvation as well as sanctification. So those are just some terms I would encourage you to keep in your mind

11:42and know the meanings of them. Now, one thing you'll notice is that in this section on faith and works that begins in verse 14, he, St. James, he specifically invokes an instance in the book of Genesis involving Abraham. And you notice in verse 21, where he says that Abraham was justified by works. And often what will happen in conversations with a Protestant, like the people you're talking to, they'll say in verse 22, where he says, you see that faith was active along with his works and faith was completed by his works. And they'll say, this is referring to other people, human beings, seeing your good works. And they would reckon that you're justified or they would assume that you're justified on that basis. But this is not what happens in that incident in Genesis where Abraham takes Isaac up onto the mountain to sacrifice him. And of course, you know, the sacrifice doesn't actually

12:45happen, at least not of Isaac. He actually tells everybody to stay at the bottom of the mountain. In other words, there were no human witnesses. So one argument you're likely to face is, well, that's just, you know, justification in the eyes of men. And because he invokes this instance with Abraham, specifically saying that he was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac up on the altar, there were no human spectators. That's an important point to notice. So the thrust here of that part, the latter half of James chapter two, is a way to emphasize using these vivid analogies like a body without a spirit is dead. Faith without works is dead. And it is shown by works. But the next thing I would recommend is that we look at Ephesians chapter two versus eight through nine, where we see another dimension of this. And this is where we see the emphasis on

13:49grace. For by grace, you have been saved through faith. Now notice, this is in verse eight. For by grace, you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing. This is a gift of God. And then it goes on to say, not because of works, less than you man should boast, for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Notice what he's saying here. The the salvation that we experience is a gift of God's grace from beginning to end. We can't earn it. We can't work for it. If we could, then there would have been no need for Jesus to become incarnate and die on the cross. If he if we could have done it through our good works, or even through our faith, unated by grace, the whole purpose of the incarnation would have been obviated. But rather, he says that we are saved by grace. How do we appropriate that through faith? And then he says, this is not your own doing. This is the gift of God.

14:54So you know what that means is that grace from beginning to end is what we are relying upon. But that grace enables you to have faith. And that is a work. Now notice that God doesn't have faith in himself and pretend that he pretend that you had faith in him. His grace enables you to have the faith. And that's a work because it's an act of your will. It's an act of your will working with your intellect to say, I believe, I believe. And this is something that is a gift of God's grace. So we don't even take credit nor can we for our faith because that's a gift of God. We can't take credit for any good works that we do in grace because that's a gift of God. And as St. Paul says there, we are created for these works, not solely for them, but we are

15:57created so that we will walk in those good works. So works definitely play a role, but it's all grace. Now last thing, a caricature that is abroad in the land and many people, perhaps the people you're talking to believe this caricature and that is that Catholics believe that you can earn your salvation or that your works somehow merit God giving you salvation. And that actually was condemned repeatedly and maybe most famously by the Council of Trent five or five years ago. You probably already knew that, but that's good to point out to them. That's, you know, Pelagianism and its variant known as semi-Polagianism is formally denounced by the church, St. Augustine, did a Mexican had dance on the Pelagian view that you can earn your salvation. I'll pause. What are your thoughts on this? Well, well, you actually like, because I had like a really narrow minded, but like, which explains me actually helped me understand and they example with Abraham and Isaac,

16:59I actually looked down and I was like, one of the most perfect examples I could have never thought of. How he was about to sacrifice his son, which was a work by faith in God. Right. That was like amazing. Yeah. And it's interesting because there in James 2, he specifically reminds the readers of that very incident. Yeah. So that, that, it's an important dimension, but often it gets glossed over in, you know, I'm not accusing Protestants, all of them of doing this, but many, many gloss over that. And they forget there were, you, there were no human spectators to witness this. It was between him and God alone. Well, thank you very much, particularly very much for this like, explanation and it's helped me a lot, which you just said. I'm glad. I'd like to offer you a, a resource. Now, this is by a fellow by the name of Steve Wood and Steve is a convert from

17:59Protestantism. He was very involved in Calvary Chapel Ministry for a long time back in the 70s. And he became Catholic a long time ago, but he wrote a book on, and I want to get the exact title, Sarah, so I think you have reposted this on X, if I'm not mistaken. And I'm going to get the title for you so that you can order the book. But I would order this, okay, here it is. It's called Grace and Justification in Evangelical's Guide to Catholic Beliefs. And the author is Stephen Wood. I would highly recommend that you get this not only for yourself, so that you can, you know, understand very clearly and biobically what's going on here, but also I would recommend that you, you know, assimilate this material and then share it with the friends that you're talking to. Yeah, that's actually what I was going to do today, because there's this friend I have. We always kind of debate a little on faith and works and like both of the Bible immensely. So this is like,

19:05kind of, now I'm not saying I'm going to use it to like help me. I'm going to just kind of explain what I meant before. Very good. I think you'll, at the very least, I think you're going to give them some new food for thought in looking at this in a way they haven't thought of before, because they're under the misimpression, as I said, that Catholics practice a form of works righteousness, that we think we imagine that we can earn our salvation. So in a way, it's like they're pinning the tail on the wrong donkey. They're beating the wrong dead horse. They're beating a dead horse, but it happens to be the wrong dead horse in any case, because Catholics don't even believe that. We don't teach that, but yet they think what we do, all the enough. Okay. You good? Yeah, the good. Thank you. Okay. You got it. I appreciate your phone call. Very important topic. That's for sure. Thank you for that. 88 914 9149. It's a number called to be on the air. And I'll be looking for your emails as well. Patrick at relevantradio.com.

20:16Today, we'd like to think Bridget, who's listening in Illinois for donating her 2015 Audi Q5, designed to be admired, built to be driven. You can join thousands of other listeners in donating old vehicles, trucks and boats and RVs by visiting relevantradio.com slash car. That's relevantradio.com slash car. I feel the need for speed. Compelling insights, unpredictable conversations, encouragement for your day. It's the Patrick Madrid show on relevant radio. Talk to me, Goose. Turn and burn. There we go. All right. 88. Did you see the Maverick follow up to that movie? Yeah. Or as I like the police star star wars 2.0. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. We did talk about it. Where they have to shoot missiles. Oh, yeah.

21:16The whole the whole last 45 minutes is the end of Star Wars. No one, do you love it so much? No wonder I enjoyed every second up. Yeah. That was a fun movie. Good old Val Kilmer. I'm glad he made it into the movie before he passed on. That was cool that they put him in. I from what I understand cruise Tom Cruise Tom. I call him Tom. We're buddies. Yeah. Of course. Tom made a point. You should hear what he calls you. Yeah. I did. Right. He made a point to make sure that Val Kilmer had a role in the movie and ended up being the most poignant point in the film. It kind of ties the whole film together. Yeah. Yeah. I like to admit when he shows up, you know, you suddenly see him in his admirals uniform. That was a cool moment. But all right, onto other things. 88 914 9149. Now because I promised it yesterday, I told you that when this article that I had been working on about what's wrong with bowing to the priest at mass. And here I'm referring to

22:20during the processional at the beginning of mass and the priest and the altar server's process in the new mass up into the sanctuary. And then at the end of mass, it's the recessional, which is the same thing, but in reverse direction. And I had mentioned somebody brought it up, called it brought it up yesterday. So I touched upon it briefly. This, I think it's a growing kind of fad. It's a novelty that looks very traditional and really isn't. And you'll see it here and there and everywhere. Lay people who will bow down to the priest. And some people say, no, no, I'm bowing to the critic. Then it's not referring to that. This is referring to those who specifically make a deep bow to the priest when he passes by. So without going through all the wise and wear force, I just want to mention because I was asked about it yesterday, you know, about this article. So it is now live. So if you're interested in reading it and understanding some of the issues

23:21in play here, some of which I think you'll find are rather counterintuitive because I'm all in favor. And I think those of you who listen to the program know that I'm definitely all in favor of showing proper reverence and respect, et cetera. And so it's not at all coming from a place of trying to denigrate showing respect far from it, actually. But because it looks traditional, even though it's not as I document in the article, it has a tradition, it's tradition-ish tradition-ish. In other words, it seems traditional, but actually isn't. And for a variety of reasons that I lay out in the article, I think you'll see if nothing else that there's another side to this story. And one of the ironies is that the very same arguments that are raised by some people in the traditionalist world to defend this practice, which is not part of the mass,

24:26not part of the liturgical tradition. But because it looks traditional, some of the arguments that are raised in defense of it actually cut in both ways because they are the same arguments, but in reverse that people could use to defend holding hands at the art of father, or raising your hands up in the air at the doxology, or communing in the hand, or other innovations that crept in after Vatican II, which the very same people who want to defend bound to the priest, they actually suffer from this double-edged sort of fact because they don't like those kind of things, nor do I, for that matter. And they will argue against them, but the defense abounding to the priest is essentially the same defense that anybody could give to say, well, here's why we think it's a good idea to hold hands at the art of father, kind of thing. So it's there for you and Cyrus will post a link to it if you are so interested. 88, 914, 9149. Let's go first to Matt

25:32in Indiana. Good morning, Matt. Welcome to the program. Good morning, am I on the air? Yeah, you are on the air just showing me. All right. Yes, so I, as I told the screener, I am not Catholic, I was originally raised Eastern Orthodox, and then as I've gotten older, you know, I have a liberal arts degree, so I took many different biblical studies courses, and just as I get older, I found, you know, looking into Catholicism, looking into other denominations just because I believe the more you learn, you know, the better. And I have a question about a particular Bible verse, and I believe it's, it's Mark 530, but it's also Luke 846. It's this incident where there's the woman, I believe she's been afflicted with some sort of leading disorder for over a decade. Yes, and she's trying, and she, if she can just touch Jesus as cloaks, she believes she will be healed. And the thing that struck me about that incident is that, and again, I don't read

26:36and see the original Greek or Hebrew or whatever it was in, but the translation I have is Jesus, it says Jesus felt the power go out of him, and that's how he knew someone had touched his cloak. And maybe I'm getting a little nitpicky, but I've just always been curious, even since I was, you know, a teenager, does, did Jesus have like an innate reserve of divine power, or when he was going to heal someone, did he kind of, you know, pray and call down from above and, and like, kind of mainline it like a conduit and then discharge it? Again, maybe that's too specific. I'm just always curious. Maybe we don't know enough. It just always intrigued me in that regard. Me too. It's definitely an enigmatic passage, and that phrase in particular, and Jesus perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him immediately turned about, turned about in the crowd and said, who touched my garments? So a few things I would say about this

27:38passage. Number one, he certainly knew who, who did this. He didn't, he didn't like have to be told because he didn't know. He did know who it was, but this was a way of teaching the people because that woman then would become a, she would become the object of his teaching, not in an object of a wide way, of course. Sure. He did know. It's certainly he knew in his divinity and in his humanity, he would know as well. And this is something that's interesting because when it says that the power had gone forth from him, I think I understand the analogy that you're using almost like an electrical discharge where you've got electricity, let's say in a battery or something like that. And then when it's tapped into, some of it comes out. That's one way to think of it, but I don't, I don't know that that would be an adequate way of understanding the power of the Lord in his incarnation to be able to raise the dead and control the weather and all the

28:41things that he was able to do. I believe that what's happening here is this is first of all, it's a reference to his humanity when it says that power had gone forth from him. It does have that sort of almost electrical discharge feel to it. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't blame anybody for thinking of that as an analogy of it. But rather that this is a way of expressing something that's real and true in a manner that we could understand that her touch, yeah, her touch in faith, kind of seeking after a blessing and a cure without even asking to, as well, like making eye contact with them, she's, you know, as it says, if I can just touch his garment, I know that I will be healed. So that act of faith was the trigger you might say for this healing to take place the way it did.

29:43I see. And I guess some of the concepts are so maybe profound or beyond what we comprehend, we got, we have to kind of walk it through some kind of language that we would understand. So I think I understand what you have there. So very, very interesting. I appreciate you take them my call. You're most welcome. Now before you go, if I could offer you a suggestion, do you ever read any St. Thomas Aquinas by chance? It's available online if you don't have the books, but so funny enough, I have been kind of working my way through just, just on my own, through different, the I have a minor in philosophy, not, not. So I've been working my way through different philosophers, Christian and non. And honestly, I believe the next on my Kindle is to some of the works of Thomas Aquinas, which I've, I've come across snippets, snippets in reading different things. And I've always kind of put a pin in it, you know, just, just seeming, you know, very interesting, want to come back to it. And so I think over the next few months, that might be what I, what I end up kind of

30:45digging into. So yeah, I would recommend it for this reason that St. Thomas does talk about this, this is in the, the third part. And if you want to zero in, so it's in the third part, and it's question 15. And this is available online. So you can, you can look up the sum of theologia online and just go to the third part, question 15. And you might enjoy just spending some time. I will, I will mention briefly, and you probably have to get going, so I won't keep you, but if you're not familiar with Aquinas, be aware upfront that his, the way he does this is not what you initially would expect. He starts by giving all the arguments against his position first. So he puts the strongest arguments. And then what he does is then he goes back and he systematically refutes each of those arguments against his position. And then he gives his position. So it's kind of backward from what we're used to seeing. So when you approach it, just be aware

31:46that those first four or five paragraphs are the opposing view that he will then respond to. Very good. Okay. Well, I appreciate it. And I, I have some interesting reading to look for too. So thank you very much. You're welcome, Matt. Nice to chat with you. 8889149149. Yeah, you can't go wrong. If you check out St. Thomas, it's, you know, not everybody's cup of tea. And for that matter, it does take a little while to get used to the way he writes. But once you do, boy, it sure is worth the, the effort. This is a note from Marshall who says, I'm a long time listener and a baptized Catholic. That's a good combination, Marshall. He says, I have a question about divorce and enolments about four years ago. My wife to be who was married in the Lutheran church, divorced her husband on the grounds of infidelity. During the enolment process, the only choice she had was alcoholism, even though he had been an adulterer. Now, I'm going to pause and

32:48tell you what I interpret what you just said to me. I interpret that in her petition, the, the reason or the grounds rather for her petition sounds like they told her she had to make her petition on the grounds of that he was an alcoholic, not that he was an adulterer. So continuing. The enolment was granted on the grounds of alcoholism and we were married in the Catholic church. My question to you is, why doesn't the church grant divorce under the grounds of adultery using Matthew 532? Well, I will preface my remarks by saying yet again because it's important that I am not a canon lawyer. So I don't want to give you or anyone else the impression that I am speaking from that vantage point because I'm not. But I do try to read and understand it as best I can, the canon law literature on these kind of popular level topics. So on that basis, what I would say is the principle to remember is that the decree of nullity

33:54it pivots upon a condition that was in place at the time of the marriage. So if something happens later after the marriage, now this is where adultery would be pretty typical, that it's something that happens down the road. And because it's something that happens, however terrible it may be, because it happens after the marriage itself, it's not grounds for consideration because it was it was not an impediment that existed at the time of the marriage. That's what's key. So that's why unless and this is where a canon lawyer, you know, could help you further. But if he were and I don't know if he would, yeah, I guess you could classify him as an adulterer, I guess. If he was doing, if he was, let's say, systematically fornicating and he hid that from her. And she didn't know that this man was doing this. That could be grounds that they

34:56would investigate. But the reason I think that the alcoholism was probably, and the reason why I think it was effective is because that's a condition that easily and probably certainly was in place at the time of the marriage. So it would have represented an impediment that I'm guessing she didn't know about. She didn't realize that this man she was going to marry was an alcoholic. He probably hid his drinking from her or whatever was going on. That's why this would make sense if that's what happened. But that's why to answer your question. The church doesn't grant analments or declare nullity in cases where it's adultery after the marriage is over. I hope that helps you. And I appreciate it. 88, 914, 914. And by the way, a resource for those who are interested is called canon law made easy.com. And it is written by a canon lawyer. Her name is Kathy Karidi. Canon law made easy.com. And not only has she written a lot of articles from her

36:03vantage point as a canon lawyer, but she writes for a, you know, an audience of laypeople, primarily, who have no background in canon law and really just don't know and they want to know and they want answers. So that's something really useful about this website. Canon law made easy.com. And the other thing that I like about this is that it's searchable by topic. So let's say you have a specific canon law question. Pop that into the search bar. And if she has written an article about that over the years and chances are she has, I've rarely, if ever, have been looking for something on that website and not been able to find it. So I think you're in good, good hands there. And she, she doesn't know me. I don't know her. She doesn't know I exist. But I do like this resource. And I think you will too. Canon law made easy.com. Alrighty. We're going to take a little time out as the music indicates. And we'll get back to more. If you want to be on the air, call me 88 914 9149.

37:10Hopefully consider a career opportunity where you can blend your faith and profession. Catholic Order of Foresters, our sponsor is hiring agents in your market now. Go to relevantradio.com slash forrister. That's relevant radio.com slash forrister in Illinois Life Insurance Society, not licensed in all states. One thing that I have found interesting over the years to me and I have data here for you that you can sift through if you're interested interested.

38:12I think the answer is certainly yes, but some people say, well, you know, God's love and mercy and you know, how could an all loving God send somebody to hell, especially somebody who was hand picked as Judas was. So there is some hesitation for some that I addressed in an article that you might find interesting if the topic interests you and it doesn't in any way as I start the article off doesn't in any way bring me any happiness or satisfaction of any kind at all. To say that I think the evidence is really clear that he as I put in the article was almost certainly damned hate to say it a shuttered the very thought of it. But because it does come up from time to time on the program, what I did in this article is a laid out five reasons why I think the answer is yes, even though we all wish that it were not yes, but I think it is. So the first thing is the first reason is because Jesus said that Judas was lost and I'll read you a few verses in particular I want to look at John chapter 17 in his high priestly prayer after the last supper Jesus says a lot of things in that prayer and he mentions Judas I'll get to that in a second.

39:31So in Matthew 26 verse 24 the Lord says the son of man goes as it is written of him but woe to that man by whom the son of man is betrayed it would have been better for that man if he had not been born well who is that man obviously it's Judas how do we know that Judas betrayed him and Jesus said the man who betrays me is the man. So the simple way for this particular passage I would propose is that there's no way to reconcile the phrase it would be better if the man had never been born with Judas going to heaven at some point let's say way down the road. If he wound up being saved then that is utterly incompatible with the Lord's statement that it would be better for that man if he had not been born what does that mean what could that possibly mean because if you are saved and you go to heaven whether sooner or later it's the best possible thing that could happen and it's the final cause for why human beings are born in the first place God creates us out of love and for the first place.

40:42So in Matthew 26 verse 24 would Jesus says it would be it would have been better for that man if he had not been born I say there's no way to square that with Judas being saved otherwise it's just like a nonsense phrase it doesn't really mean anything in John chapter 6 verses 70 and 71 Jesus answered them did it and not choose you to do it. So in Matthew 12 and yet one of you is a devil he spoke of Judas the son of Simon is scary it for he one of the 12 was to betray him. And I'll note here that this is not the only place there are a number of other places in the gospels where Judas is specifically associated with Satan several times. We see that there in John chapter 6 we see in John chapter 13 where it says the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas is scary it's Simon son to betray him.

41:46I guess sort of midway through the Lord's public ministry in John chapter 13 verse 27 the detail here is that after receiving the morsel this is at the last supper Satan entered into him. He was like possessed by the devil continuing this is John chapter 17 verse 12 and here it says again in the Lord's eye priestly prayer while I was with them I kept them in your name which you have given me I have guarded them and none of them is lost but the son of tradition that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But last part there that the Scripture might be fulfilled can be confusing it can be a bit of a stumbling block at first because it gives the appearance of although it doesn't really mean this it could give the appearance that Judas was forced into it. He had no choice well scripture has to be fulfilled so we need somebody to do that okay you Judas you're the fall guy that's not what it means.

42:50It is a reminder that scripture did for tell this scripture did say you know in a prophetic way of course that this would happen but it doesn't in any way mean that it was that Judas was forced to do this because if he were forced to do it then he didn't commit a sin. If you are forced to do this and he had no choice in the matter he's not guilty of doing anything he's basically just a you know a robot. And we don't punish robots because they can't do anything moral or immoral they just do with their program to do. But note here that he says Jesus says explicitly that Judas was lost what is that word lost there mean in context it's referring to he lost his salvation. The second reason and if you care to read the article you'll see all these things spelled out in greater detail the second reason is that St Peter said that Judas was lost and that's in Acts chapter one verses 24 through 25 so the greater context here is that after Judas had taken his own life in despair.

43:58St Peter gathering the apostles together said we need to choose a replacement for Simon because he's gone now and they did they using lots they chose Matthias who was one of the candidates. But here's the passage in Acts chapter one verses 24 and 25 and they prayed and said Lord who knows the hearts of all men show us show which one of these two thou has chosen to take the place in this ministry and a apostleship from which Judas turned. So what is the process in which Judas turned aside to go to his own place now that is an enigmatic statement what does it mean it says Judas went to his own place well I summarize it this way that phrase is clearly a widely understood in the early church so let's say the patricistic commentary the church fathers and such as being a reference to hell that it was almost a euphemism to go to his own place. Now there's more to it in some of this commentary but you see this even spelled out in some of the traditional Catholic Bible commentaries like the Haydock commentary Dom Bernard orchards Catholic commentary on Holy Scripture and in some of the other very good and trustworthy ones they point this out that that phrase go to his own place means that he went to hell so that's another thing.

45:23So that's another thing. The third reason is that church fathers and the doctors of the church including for example St. Thomas Aquinas all unanimously say that Judas lost a salvation. Now some people say well the church has never said that any particular person has gone to hell and I used to think that was true. In fact I used to even repeat that but it's actually not technically true and where you find the one the one example I could find in any case you find it in the Roman catechism which is also known as the catechism of the Council of Trent so it was the catechism that we had for low these nearly 500 years before we got the new catechism the catechism of the Catholic Church the catechism universally speaking was this one the Roman catechism. And here's what it says listen to this this is this is the immediate so you might say sort of popular exposition of the church is teaching as it was given at the Council of Trent and in the catechism there it says others on the contrary give themselves to such melancholy and grief as utterly to abandon all hope of salvation such perhaps was the condition of cane when he exclaimed my iniquity is greater than I may deserve pardon.

46:43Such certainly was the condition of Judas the catechism says who repenting hanged himself and thus lost soul and body and then it says it is such as these that are savory describes as hirelings who in the words of Ezekiel feed themselves and not the sheep and whose baseness and dishonesty have not only brought great disgrace on the ecclesial state ecclesiastical state so much so that hardly you know what I'm going to say. The anything is now more vile and contemptible in the eyes of the faithful but also end in this that they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship which only brought him everlasting destruction. So there is an example there may be others haven't found them but I did find this in the council of Trent the catechism of the council of Trent specifically says that he was damned again doesn't bring me any satisfaction or happiness whatsoever. And then the fifth area that I develop in this article is that the church has never suggested otherwise so in 2000 years the church has never even slightly opened the door to the possibility that Judas might have been saved actually the church aside from that one statement in the catechism that came out after the council of Trent maintains a kind of silence.

48:11And here's an example of that on mass on Sunday if the priest uses the Roman canon which is that more traditional more ancient longer form of the Eucharistic prayer you'll notice that early on all 12 Apostles except for Judas are mentioned Peter and Paul Andrew James John Thomas James Philip Bartholomew Matthew Simon and Jude Paul is there because he indeed was an apostle but he wasn't one of the 12 Apostles. He wasn't one of the 12 Apostles interesting of the 12 Apostles if we exclude Paul for a moment even though he's mentioned there to bring the number up to 12 if we exclude St Paul's name what do we have we have 11 of the 12 Apostles named where's the 12th one who's the 12th one Judas he's not named that says a lot. So the absence of Judas not just here but throughout the last 2000 years of the church's deliberation and reflection on these issues it says an awful lot now Pope Benedict the 16th he had a few comments that are really helpful in this this was in a general audience that he gave in October 2006 he says the mystery of the choice that Judas made remains all the more since Jesus.

49:33Jesus pronounces a very severe judgment on him low to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed that's from Matthew chapter 26 verse 24. The Pope continues what is more it darkens the mystery around his eternal fate knowing that Judas repented and brought back the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders saying I have sinned of matraying in a simple. Even though he went to hang himself it is not up to us to judge his gesture substituting ourselves for the infinitely merciful and just God which is absolutely warranted to say God ultimately is the one who knows and the one who judges not us we can only do our best to try to. Understand based on the evidence that we see but then he adds this this is immediately after that where he says you know God is the judge then he says after his fall or after his fall Peter repented and found pardoning grace Judas also repented but his repentance degenerated into desperation and thus became self destructive.

50:38So FYI as the Catechism says this is in paragraph 2283 we should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives by ways known to him alone God can provide the opportunity for Saluteil Salutary repentance the church praise for persons who have taken their own lives the only person in all of Catholic history that the church pointedly does not pray for happens to be due to scarier. So there it is in a nutshell thank you I'll be right back with more right after this.