Whoa! 1st Century Info About Mark’s Gospel!

St. Mark is thought to have based his Gospel on what he learned as the companion of St. Peter. Would it surprise you to know that there is a 1st century source that says exactly this?

It is traditionally held that Mark wrote his gospel based on information he learned from St. Peter, after having been his travelling companion.

Where does this claim come from?

And would it surprise you to know that we have a first century source that claims precisely this?

Here’s the story . . .

 

What We Know About Mark 

We know that Mark was a travelling companion of Peter, because Peter mentions the fact in his First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13).

We also know that Mark was a travelling companion of other apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, which Luke discussed in Acts.

Mark may have even been an eyewitness of part of Jesus’ earthly ministry. It is often thought that he refers to himself, anonymously, in his own gospel, as the man carrying a jug of water on his head or as the man who slips out of his clothes and runs away naked on the night Jesus is arrested.

Also, as Luke mentions in Acts, Mark’s mother was prominent in the early Christian community, which at times met at their house in Jerusalem.

So why would we suppose that Mark got the information from St. Peter in particular?

 

The Origin of the Claim

The claim is found today in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the so-called “father of Church history.” Specifically, it’s found in his multi-book set Church History (a.k.a. Ecclesiastical History).

Eusebius wrote this work just before the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). He finished it about A.D. 324.

The claim concerning Mark’s Gospel is earlier than that, though, because in the relevant passage of Church History, Eusebius is quoting an earlier writer, named Papias.

 

Who?

We don’t know as much about Papias as we’d like. He was a second century figure who served as the bishop of Hierapolis. This was a town in modern Turkey that is near Laodicea and–a bit more distantly–Ephesus and the other “seven churches of Asia” mentioned in Revelation.

Papias is known for having conducted a series of interviews with people who knew Jesus and his immediate disciples, thinking he could learn more by doing so than just by reading books alone.

He recorded his thoughts in a multi-volume work called Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord.

This work is now lost, but parts of it survive in quotations in other authors, including Eusebius.

For our purposes, a key point is when he wrote: He is thought to have written the Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord around A.D. 120-130 (or even earlier).

That carries our tradition about Mark’s connection to Peter back to the early second century.

But we can carry it back further than that, because Papias was basing his book on earlier traditions, and in this case he names his source for this tradition.

 

The Presbyter?

Here is the relevant passage from Eusebius’s Church History. I’ve labelled who is speaking to make the source of particular words more obvious.

[Eusebius:] But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he [that is, Papias] gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

[Papias:] “This also the presbyter said:

[The Presbyter:] ‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.'”

[Eusebius:] These things are related by Papias concerning Mark [Church History 3:39:14-15].

So Eusebius is quoting Papias, and Papias is quoting a figure called “the Presbyter.”

Who is that?

 

Meet the Presbyter

“The Presbyter” is identified by Eusebius in the sentence immediately before the ones we quoted, where Eusebius writes:

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion, who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John, to which we refer those who are fond of learning.

This individual–known as “John the Presbyter” or “John the Elder” (the Greek word presbuteros can be translated both ways)–is identified by Papias as a disciple of Jesus who was apparently distinct from John the Apostle.

A bit earlier, Eusebius quoted another passage from Papias, in which the second century author explained his interview method:
If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice [Church History 3:39:4].

Here Papias identifies John the Presbyter as a disciple of the Lord distinct from the previously-mentioned apostles, including John the Apostle.

 

Into the First Century

As we noted, Papias is writing c. A.D. 120-130 (or earlier), but he’s quoting the earlier source John the Presbyter.

That pushes the date of the tradition regarding the origin of Mark’s Gospel into the first century.

Remember: John the Presbyter is identified by Papias as one of “the disciples of the Lord,” which is why he was interested in interviewing him to find out what he said about Jesus’ teachings.

He and Aristion were, apparently, people who knew Jesus but who didn’t end up being appointed as apostles. They were, however, companions of apostles, just as Mark and Luke were.

And so it’s not surprising that John the Presbyter–a contemporary of St. Mark, one who lived at the same time Mark wrote his gospel–would have information about how Mark’s Gospel came to be.

In any event, we’re dealing with a first century tradition regarding the origin of Mark’s Gospel.

And maybe something even more than that.

Stay tuned for our next post.

CLICK HERE TO READ PART 2!

 

Pope’s Twitter Handle: What Does “Pontifex” Mean, Anyway?

The Emperor Augustus was a "pontifex maximus." So how did that become a term for the pope?

Recently it was announced that Pope Benedict’s new Twitter handle is @pontifex.

Why did he pick this name, and what does it mean, anyway?

The word’s origin is more surprising than you might think!

 

Other Possible Names

Pope Benedict might have picked other names. Some plausible ones include:

  • @pope
  • @popebenedict
  • @popebenedictxvi
  • @benedictxvi
  • @popebenedict16

Why didn’t he pick any of these?

I would suggest two reasons.

 

Some May Already Be Taken

People have already been using some of the plausible papal Twitter handles, and Twitter does not easily reassign such names.

That’s why my own Twitter handle is @JimmyAkin3000 (Click here to follow me). Someone was already using my preferred handle, and they don’t easily reassign them.

Still, for the pope they might make an exception.

In fact, for all I know, they may have made an exception. Somebody may have already been using @pontifex.

But I think there’s another, even more practical reason.

 

Pope Benedict Is Thinking Ahead

While I hope that Pope Benedict reigns for many more years, he is not planning on being pope forever.

In thus think the main reason that he chose the handle he did is because he’s thinking ahead and didn’t want to make everyone have to sign up to get the next pope’s tweets–at whatever time there is a new pope.

In other words, he’s leaving future popes a ready-built Twitter platform that they can use to get their message out.

He thus didn’t include anything specific to him–no variation of “Benedict” or “XVI” in the handle.

That leaves us with generic words for pope–like “pope” and “pontifex.”

 

Why Not “Pope”?

KEEP READING.

Newest Doctor of the Church: Her Visions, Her Writings, and Her Secret Language

St. Hildegard of Bingen: Doctor of the Church

On Sunday, October 7, Pope Benedict is scheduled to proclaim St. Hildegard of Bingen and St. John of Avila as the newest doctors of the Church.

A doctor (Latin, “teacher”) of the Church is a Christian writer who has been specially recognized by the Church for the value of his or her writings.

Earlier this year, Pope Benedict explained his decision to name these two individuals as doctors:

The Spirit, who “has spoken through the prophets”, with the gifts of wisdom and knowledge continues to inspire women and men who engage in the pursuit of truth, offering original ways of understanding and of delving into the mystery of God, of man and of the world.

In this context, I am delighted to announce that on 7 October, at the start of the Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, I will proclaim St John of Avila and St Hildegard of Bingen Doctors of the universal Church.

These two great witnesses of the faith lived in two very different historical periods and cultural environments.

Hildegard was a Benedictine nun in the heart of medieval Germany, an authentic teacher of theology and a profound scholar of natural science and music.

John, a diocesan priest in the years of the Spanish Renaissance, shared in the travail of the cultural and religious renewal of the Church and of all society at the dawn of modern times.

But the sanctity of their life and the profundity of their doctrine render them perennially relevant: The grace of the Holy Spirit, in fact, projected them into the experience of penetrating understanding of divine revelation and intelligent dialogue with that world which constitutes the eternal horizon of the life and action of the Church.

Especially in light of the project for a new evangelization, to which the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, mentioned above will be dedicated on the eve of the Year of Faith, these two Saints and Doctors are of considerable and timely importance.

Even today, through their teaching, the Spirit of the Risen Lord continues to resonate his voice and illuminate the way which leads to the Truth that alone can set us free and give full meaning to our lives [Regina Caeli, Pentecost, May 27, 2012].

 

Meet St. Hildegard of Bingen

Let’s learn a bit about St. Hildegard of Bingen. Pope Benedict gave a pair of audiences on her a few years ago. He introduced her this way:

KEEP READING.

New TV Program on 1st Female Pope?

Pope_joan_movie_still-1The other day a press release lands in my email inbox and blares:

U.S. TELEVISION PREMIERE OF “POPE JOAN” ON REELZCHANNEL

The Incredible Legend of the Only Female Pope

Two-Part Television Miniseries Event Premieres Sunday and Monday, December 18-19, 2011 at 8pm ET and at 8pm PT

Oh, great. The “Pope Joan” thing again.

REELZCHANNEL? I’ve never heard of that before. And it’s no wonder with a name like REELZCHANNEL. What were their corporate branding people thinking? That Z for S substitution in the middle of two words slammed together is just painful to think about.

But back to the story . . .

(Albuquerque, NM) Tuesday, November 22, 2011—REELZCHANNEL—TV About Movies® today announced the two-part miniseries “Pope Joan” will make its U.S. television premiere on REELZ starting Sunday, December 18, 2011 with part 1 airing at 8pm ET and at 8pm PT. “Pope Joan” is the legend that will not die—a sweeping historical drama about a woman whose existence has been denied for a thousand years.

Uh . . . that would be because she never existed. People tend to deny the existence of things that never existed.

Gotta love the use of breathless, cliched tropes: “legend that will not die,” “sweeping historical drama.”

“Pope Joan” is the story of a controversial figure of historical record who disguised herself as a man and rose to rule the Catholic Church in the 9th century as the first and only woman to sit on the throne of St. Peter.

Okay, Pope Joan is not controversial. Not among people familiar with the historical record. (“A figure of historical record”? That’s just bad writing. It appears, however, to be a claim that she existed, in which case REELZCHANNEL is lying to its readers.)

So who is responsible for this mess?

Based on the international bestselling novel by Donna Woolfolk Cross, “Pope Joan” was produced by Constantin Film. “Pope Joan” is a four hour miniseries that REELZ will air in separate two-hour parts.

And is the network properly ashamed of itself for airing this?

“We’re excited to be the network bringing the ‘Pope Joan’ miniseries to U.S. audiences,” said Stan E. Hubbard REELZCHANNEL CEO.

Translation: This was a European production that we could get on the air for cheap because we don’t have enough money to do better programming.

“Coming on the heels of another epic historical drama in ‘The Pillars of the Earth’ airing in early December on REELZ, ‘Pope Joan’ is the perfect pairing for our viewers and is a great opportunity for them to discover, explore and consider a story few viewers even know exists.”

Okay, here’s the standard TV overhyped mystery weasel word: “consider.” They want their viewers to “consider” this story. They’re not willing to say flat out that it’s true. But they want to create the illusion that it is or might be, so they ask viewers to “consider” it.

There is nothing here to “consider,” Mr. Stan E. Hubbard, CEO of REELZCHANNEL. You are lying to your audience, misleading them into thinking this even might be true.

So you—personally—Mr. Hubbard, are willing to lie to your audience, and paint a false picture of the faith of many of your viewers, in order to make a buck.

That’s how I see it, Mr. Hubbard.

Interestingly, not all media types see things the way you do, Mr. Hubbard.

Some years ago I was contacted by a Hollywood movie producer—one famous enough that I actually knew who he was (which is saying something because, y’know, I’m not Steven Greydanus)—and he wanted some assistance in finding out the history of Pope Joan for a project he wanted to produce on her.

I told him Pope Joan didn’t exist.

I also mentioned that he would face criticism if he presented a Medieval legend as if it were actual history.

He was surprised and alarmed to learn that Pope Joan never existed—a fact of which the people who had approached him with this project had not informed hm.

He thanked me and indicated he would be seriously reconsidering whether to go forward with the project.

The project never happened.

If only all people in the entertainment industry had such ethics—eh, Mr. Hubbard?

What do you think?

The Mad Gasser of Mattoon . . . Strikes in Europe!

Mad_gasser In 1944 the inhabitants of Mattoon, Illinois began reporting a series of at pltempted nighttime home invasions in which the invader used some kind of gas, sprayed through their windows, to immobilize them.

It became a huge story. Numerous calls came in to the police. Parties of armed men roamed the streets, on the watch for the "Mad Gasser" plaguing the town.

People were hysterical!

Literally!

It is  now widely thought that there was no Mad Gasser and that the whole things was a case of mass hysteria (initially started, I personally suspect, by a case of sleep paralysis).

A similar sequence of events happened in 1933-34 in Virginia.

WIKIPEDIA HAS A WRITE-UP ON BOTH. 

They're both fascinating oddities in American history.

And maybe not just American.

And maybe not just history.

Turns out that there are reports from Italy–AND France–AND Spain–of thieves using sleeping gas to immobilize their victims before invading their homes.

Is there any more reality to these than the Mad Gasser of Mattoon?

For now it's an unsolved mystery, but . . . 

YOU DECIDE.

BTW, it strikes me that this if there are such criminals, they're doing something *very* dangerous. Giving someone the right dose of anesthetic is tricky, and doing so by filling a large space with gas is even trickier–as the Russians found out a few years ago when they tried to use anesthetizing gas on a bunch of Chechnyan terrorists who had taken over a building. It's not like on the 1960s Batman show where you can spray someone with a bit of pink-colored smoke (which they don't even have to inhale) and have them go harmlessly to sleep until you use "Bat Wake" on them.

Hey, Kids! Who Wants to Be Roman Emperor?

Augustus I read rather a lot of classical history, especially first century Roman history. I don't know how many times I've been through Suetonius's Lives of the Twelve Caesars, and I was recently thrilled when I discovered audio versions of Tacitus's Annals and Josephus's The Jewish War.

Lately I've been boning up on this period for an upcoming set of projects, and a thought keeps striking me:

Why would anybody back then want to be the Roman emperor?

This was something people competed fiercely over. There were multiple civil wars fought over this. But why on earth would anyone want the job? Being Roman emperor had a frightening tendency to Not End Well.

Let's look at the track record:

  • Julius Caesar (reigned 49 BC-44 BC): Assassinated by senators (also not technically an emperor, but what the hey)
  • Augustus (44 BC-AD 14): Possibly died of natural causes, but at least two of the three major historians of this period report rumors that he was poisoned by his wife, Livia, in favor of her son, his successor Tiberius
  • Tiberius (14-37): Possibly died of natural causes, but widely reported to have been killed by his successor, Caligula, possibly in conjunction with the head of his own guard, Macro
  • Caligula (37-41): Assassinated by his own guards (yes, he was that bad)
  • Claudius (41-54): Widely thought to have been poisoned by his wife, Agrippina, in favor of her son, his successor Nero
  • Nero (54-68): Declared and enemy of the state by the senate and forced to commit suicide
  • Galba (68-69): Killed in civil war by the soldiers of his successor, Otho, after reigning only seven months
  • Otho (69): Committed suicide in civil war after his successor, Vitellius, achieved a decisive advantage; only reigned three months
  • Vitellius (69): Killed in civil war by the troops of his successor, Vespasian, after regining only eight months.

That takes us up through A.D. 68-69, the "Year of Four Emperors," which began with Nero on the throne and ended with Vespasian on it.

There were other, even worse years, such as the Year of Five Emperors (A.D. 193) and the Year of Six Emperors (A.D. 238).

So, see what I mean?

Being the Roman Emperor wasn't exactly a good path toward a happy death.

I know that vast numbers of people lived in absolutely horrific conditions back then (by today's standards), and one can't blame the first few emperors for not noticing the pattern of what tended to happen, but once the pattern was established, one would think everyone would shun the job like the plague.

It would certainly make sense to adopt a philosophy like that of Londo Mollari: "I prefer to work behind the scenes. The rewards are almost as great, and the risks far less."

That worked out well for him, right?

What are your thoughts?

Are YOU “Anathema”? How about Your Protestant Friend?

Laurens_excomunication_1875_orsayA reader writes:

Recently I came a cross a web site that claimed that an anathema applies to anyone who affirms an doctrine that is contrary to the kind of anathema issued by Vatican I (that is, the kind that says, “If anyone says X, let him be anathema”).

The same site said that one of the anathemas of Vatican I made a powerful argument against sedevacantists who say that Pius XII was the last valid pope because Vatican I said that St. Peter will have successors to the end of time.

What do you make of these claims?

The claim that anathemas apply to those who contradict the canons of an ecumenical council, whether Vatican I or one of the other councils, is a common and understandable misunderstanding. We haven’t done a very good job about educating people on what the term “anathema” means in this context, and an awful lot of people are under an innocent misimpression.

To put the matter concisely: The term “anathema,” as used in conciliar and canon law documents, refers to a type of excommunication. In particular (as in the 1917 Code of Canon Law), it referred to a type of excommunication that the bishop performed using a special ceremony. This ceremony involved (among other things) the ringing of a bell, the closing of a book, and the snuffing of a candle. Hence the phrase “bell, book, and candle” (that’s where it comes from; it has nothing to do with witchcraft). These collectively symbolized that the ecclesiastical court had made its ruling against the offender and would not reconsider until he repents. There was then another special ritual of reconciliation for the lifting of the anathema.

(BTW, the image is a painting of the excommunication of Robert the Pious of France. That’s not a giant, smoldering cigarette pointing accusingly at him on the floor but the snuffed candle that the bishop’s entourage—seen leaving by the door—has just yanked off its accompanying candle holder.)

Like other excommunications, anathemas didn’t do anything to a person’s soul. It didn’t make him “damned by God” or anything like that. The only man who can make a man damned by God is the man himself. The Church has no such power. An anathema was a formal way of signaling him that he had done something gravely wrong, that he had endangered his own soul, and that he needed to repent. Anathemas, like other excommunications, were thus medicinal penalties, designed to promote healing and reconciliation.

Also like (many) excommunications, anathemas were not automatic. Just because someone, somewhere, uttered a heresy, this did not cause the relevant bishop to drop whatever he was doing and automatically perform the ceremony like a puppet on strings. Instead, if someone committed an ecclesiastical crime that was potentially subject to an anathema the matter had to be reported, investigated, judged, and only after that would the ceremony happen—if it did.

Also also like other excommunications, they applied to people who were (or had been) in communion with the Catholic Church. There is no point excommunicating somebody from the Catholic Church who had never been part of the Catholic Church, and so people who had never been Catholics were not anathematized, no matter what they said or did. (This comes as quite a surprise to many in the Protestant community, where it is often—unfortunately—claimed that the Catholic Church anathematizes them for their beliefs. Not so. It may disagree with some of their beliefs; it may hope and pray that they adopt the fullness of the faith as found in the Catholic Church; but it does not anathematize them.)

Over time the penalty of anathema became administered only rarely, and eventually it was judged that the extra ceremony was no longer needed. As a result, the 1983 Code of Canon Law abolished the penalty of anathema, and so it no longer exists under Church law.

This means that nobody today is anathema in the sense that the term is used by councils and canon law documents. Excommunication still exists as a penalty, and some excommunications are even automatic, but the special, ceremonial form of excommunication known as anathema does not.

This does not mean that the canons of the ecumenical councils have lost doctrinal force. They haven’t. Whatever doctrinal force they had prior to the 1983 Code, they still have, and so if a particular canon defined something as a heresy then it still is.

Furthermore, heresy still carries a penalty of excommunication, but a number of conditions have to be fulfilled for the penalty to apply (especially if it is to apply automatically—but that’s a subject for another post).

MORE ON ANATHEMAS HERE.

AND HERE.

As to the Vatican I vs. sedevacantism (or a certain type of sedevacantism) argument, I’ll interact with that in my next post.

In the meantime . . .

What do you think?

How To Get Your Autographed Copy of The Fathers Know Best

Fathers Know Bes1-02 At last!

I’ve had a lot of people ask when the book would be available for pre-order, and now it is!

In fact, I’m pleased to tell you how to get your very own, autographed copy of the book–together with an exclusive audio interview that will not be available anywhere else.

Catholic Answers is doing a fundraising appeal based on the book because printing and properly promoting a book is expensive–particularly in the orthodox Catholic, non-profit world of niche publishing.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

As Karl Keating explains in a recent letter,

I want to launch this book with a bang, not a whimper

The book is ready for the printer. The text has been finished, proofed, and typeset. But this is a big book—about 400 pages—and to print it in a large enough quantity to get a good per-copy rate from the printer and to give it the initial public promotion it deserves . . . well, that takes cash that we just don’t have.

But—ahem!—you and our other friends do, and so I’m asking you to give us a hand in getting The Fathers Know Best printed and publicized. 

I’ve been involved in writing and publishing for a long time, so I know that bringing a book to fruition and getting it noticed (and sold!) is no easy thing. 

Each year more than 40,000 titles are published in the U.S., and it takes savvy and, alas, cash to get a worthwhile book “noticed” and reviewed and (as I think this one will be) praised, but that’s what needs to be done if The Fathers Know Best is to have the influence I think it ought to have.

In publishing, as in other areas, there’s a “window of opportunity.” 

If a publisher can make a big splash right from the start, then a book has a chance to carry itself, so to speak, and to go from success to success. 

But if a publisher isn’t in a position to print many copies or to give the book the marketing oomph it needs, even the best book will languish.

And The Fathers Know Best mustn’t languish, because it’s a book that can do an immense amount of good—both spiritual and intellectual—for countless thousands of people, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

That’s why I want to have a large first-run printing and an extensive right-out-of-the-gate marketing campaign. 

I want this book to “go viral”—because Christians of all stripes need it

To use a term common on the Internet, I want this book to “go viral,” which means to have publicity about it be self-sustaining so that more and more people can learn about—and learn from—this important book.

I hope you can help us pull this off. 

As I said, we need money to print a large number of copies of The Fathers Know Best—the more copies we order, the cheaper the unit cost and thus the lower we can set the retail price—and to undertake an extensive promotional campaign. 

I hope you might be one of those willing to help with a gift of $500 or $1,000 or even more. Or maybe you can afford to send us $100 or $200 toward this effort. Whatever you give, you have our thanks.

If you’re able to help us with a donation of at least $50, as a thank-you, we’ll send you in return two things: 

1. A copy of the book itself, of course, autographed by Jimmy Akin.

2. An exclusive audio interview with Jimmy about the book and its background. This interview will not be made available in the future and is available only as a thank-you to those who help with this project.

Perhaps you can tell from this letter that I’m excited about this project. I think Jimmy’s new book will do a lot of good for a lot of people. 

Over the years, I’ve learned of many people who, having stumbled across the Fathers, found themselves compelled to go where they didn’t want to go—into the Catholic Church.

They saw that the Catholic Church and Catholic beliefs go back beyond the Council of Trent, beyond the medieval councils, all the way to the earliest councils—and further back still, all the way to Christ. 

Won’t you help us help thousands come to see this truth?

You and I are witnesses to the truth of the Catholic faith—and I think we’ve had some success in that—but the most powerful witnesses I know, outside the Bible itself, are the Fathers of the Church. 

Please help us introduce them to today’s readers, both Catholic and non-Catholic. 

I’m excited about the book finally being available for pre-order, and I hope you will consider supporting it–and Catholic Answers as a whole–through a generous donation.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

Of course, you could simply wait a little longer and purchase the book, but I hope that you will offer your support in this way because it helps the ministry continue its work and it helps us do a decent print run and proper promotion for the book–maximizing the apostolic good that is done and helping Catholic Answers undertake more publishing projects like this in the future.

To give those who support this appeal added value, I’m going to be sitting down and autographing all the copies that are sent to those who donate.

I’m also–and I haven’t talked about this elsewhere–going to be personalizing the autographs by adding a citation to a relevant Bible verse to each one. That’s something I always do when I autograph things as a lagniappe–“a little bit extra.” Years ago when I was given a book by a Christian author, he wrote a Bible verse under his signature. I went home and looked it up, and I decided I liked the custom, so I always do that when I autograph.

And I don’t give the same verse to everybody. I’m going to be picking out a selection of Fathers-related Bible verses and using them for the autographs.

I wonder what your verse will be?

To add even more value for the donor, I recently sat down to record an exclusive interview with Patrick Coffin about the Church Fathers and the making of the book. We will be sending a copy of this on CD to those who generously respond to the appeal. It will not be aired on Catholic Answers live, will not be posted online, and will not be available in any other way in the future. It is exclusively a thank-you for those who are able to help the ministry through their generosity.

So I look forward to autographing a book for you, and I hope you can give to this appeal and help Catholic Answers maximize the apostolic good it can do though The Fathers Know Best.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE.