Founding of Christendom: Diocletian-- the Begining of the End -- post 25

After the death of Emperor Carus (282 - 283 AD), who was struck by lightning on a campaign in Persia, Diocletian became the new Roman emperor from 284 AD to 305 AD.  Like many Emperors before him, he left Christians alone in the beginning of his rule. He mainly wanted Rome to return to stability. For over a hundred years there had been a constant stream of emperors, usually tragically overthrown. This led to economic hardships and weakened borders with barbarians and Persians constantly hammering at the  outlining territories.

He reformed the taxation and economy, as well as restructured the Empire. Although not fully successful, his reforms slowed down the decline of the Empire. He feared the civil wars of the past returning. His insight was that the succession of power was unstable, The senate’s power had been diminished and the Emperor’s power increased. He was the sole ruler of Rome. But he wanted help ruling. He arranged for the Empire to be divided into the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire. Diocletian would still be the ultimate ruler, but he appointed men to rule different districts.

Diocletian ruled the Eastern Empire, and set up  co-emperors, called “Augustus,” one of the West– Maximian and one of the East himself. Maximian was a good friend of Diocletian in the army, a man he could trust. Both were soldiers. Maximian was more a man of action, and military commander, while Diocletian was more political. It seems that Diocletian wanted an able man to be his head of the army.

Each Augustus (eastern and western emperors) had a subordinate, called a Caesar, to share in the rule, and theoretically to succeed the Augustus, if he should die, or resign. The rule of four was called a “tetrarchy''. Two generals, Galerius and Constantius, became Caesars– Galerius under Diocletian in the east, and Constantius (father of Constantine – liberator of Christianity) under Maximian in the west.

Apologetics: Protestant Theology

 Here is an excellent discussion on history and theology from a Protestant convert Dr. David Anders with one of the few orthodox Jesuits, Fr. Mitch Pacwa.

Christian Courage: Actor Shia LaBeouf Converts to Catholicism

 Actor Shia LaBeouf converted to Catholicism. I hope he is sincere.

In a sit down interview with “Bishop Barron Presents” (below). Bishop Barron talks to the actor about his upcoming acting role in “Padre Pio,” which put him on the path to conversion.

I feel I need to say that I have a problem with Bishop Barron's practical Universalist views. Many consider him orthodox, but he is very wrong on his ideas about salvation.

Deposit of the Faith: "Catechism in a Year" by Fr. Mike Schmitz

We live in troubled times. We don't have a good pope.

Pope Francis frankly is doing a very bad job as pope. He has entertained pro-abortion politicians, like Nancy Pelosi, with no correction...etc... the list is long. He has recently changed the teaching on the death penalty in the Catechism. But a catechism is not an official use of Papal Infallibility. Catechisms are summaries of the Faith that also contain theological opinions of their times, and can be inaccurate.

As pointed out in the introduction of the classic catechism of the council of Trent:

Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI:
“Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

Catechism can be corrected.

Sometimes the corrections are to clarify in support Sacred Tradition, but in the case of Pope Francis, he is seems to obfuscate the issues.  In any case, he has changed the new Catechism to make the death penalty "inadmissible" . This has opened a can of worms.

Is he saying that the Old Testament's use of the death penalty was immoral? I don't think so. But we have yet to have a full clarification of what he exactly means, and its connotations to the history of the issue.

The Catechism is not some kind of Super Dogma. It is to be taken as a whole, as a sure norm, but there may be  some room for improvement.

In his book Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Ratzinger ( later Pope Benedict XVI) wrote on the authority of the Catechism :

"This brings us to the question already mentioned before, regarding the authority of the Catechism. In order to find the answer, let us first consider a bit more closely its juridical character. We could express it in this way: analogously to the new Code of Canon Law, the Catechism is de facto a collegial work; canonically, it falls under the special jurisdiction of the Pope, inasmuch as it was authorized for the whole Christian world by the Holy Father in virtue of the supreme teaching authority invested in him. . . .

This does not mean that the catechism is a sort of super-dogma, as its opponents would like to insinuate in order to cast suspicion on its as a danger to the liberty of theology. What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992--exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: "I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith."

The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church" [pp. 25-27].

So, the Catechism  contains teachings of the Church without elevating them to a doctrinal status nor above what they already have. So, other authoritative sources are needed to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular teaching in the Catechism.

This brings us to Fr. Schmitz' new project. I think this podcast can do a lot of good. I don't mean to denigrate in my above comments the new  Catechism, but we must put it in its truthful place. While important and extremely useful, it is not infallible nor Holy Scripture.

Fr. Mike Schmitz is famous for his "Bible in a Year" podcast. It was number one podcast in the world last year.

I'm looking forward to is a new podcast called "Catechism in a Year." It will start in January 2023.

Apologetics: The Evils of Christianity

 While no one can excuse evil, especially the scandal of it done in the name of the Church, some of these accusations are exaggerated or not true.

The problem is the human condition. We are a fallen people. We desire good but tend to do evil.

If we look at any institution like anti-Catholics look at the Church, how well would they fair? 

We are seeing this applied to western civilization by "Critical Theory."

Most would agree that a civilization or a country or any group of people should not be defined by their worst moments.

Founding of Christendom: Persecution Returns - The Trials of St. Cyprian -- post 24

St. Cyprian

Emperor Decius, was the emperor of the Roman Empire from 249 to 251 AD–not a long reign. But he did a lot of damage and something new. He launched an empire-wide persecution of the Church. Not since Nero was there such a universal persecution, before this, it was usually just local and sporadic. Nero outlawed Christianity and the law stayed on the books, but was only enforced when politically convenient, usually by regional authorities 

During his reign, Decius attempted to revitalize the Roman Empire, in January 250, which led to persecution, because he blamed the slow decline of the empire on Christians.  He began by killing Pope Fabian, and other bishops. In the past, Nero and Domitian had killed popes, but it was more by chance, than by design.

Amazing World: St. Charbel's miracle in Phoenix

I recently saw a post on FB mocking Christian miracles.

I believe miracles happen, but some "Christians" make it into a superstition or a business. They DEMAND a healing from God. Magic is when one claims power over the world according to one's own will, not God's.

Why does God allow bad things to happen ? I don't know.

But when we pray we ASK not demand a miracle. Prayer is always submissive to God's will. That is not to say that one can not keep praying, but it is pleading and asking not demanding. Jesus even said to persevere in asking.

Luke 18:1 : "Then Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray at all times and not lose heart"

Here is an example of a miracle below. A woman was healed from being blind here in Phoenix, about 5 years ago.

There are millions of miracles all over the world. But in the Catholic Church it needs to be documented to classified a miracle.
Meaning -- if it is an illness, the illness needs to be well documented by medical science, and it needs to be documented as an unexplainable healing, again by scientific  investigation.