Links, Apologetics/Defense, References, & News & Opinions concerning my faith journey as a Catholic.
"In the process of salvation by co-operating with
grace through faith
in Jesus Christ, as
sustained by the sacraments
and by works of love, because faith without works is dead."
"In the process of salvation by co-operating with grace through faith in Jesus Christ, as sustained
"In the process of salvation by co-operating with grace through faith in Jesus Christ, as sustained by the sacraments and by works of love, because faith without works is dead."
Our Lady of Guadalupe: Theology, History, Apologetics, and My Personal Perspective
By Chris M. Forte
1. Introduction: Why Guadalupe Matters to Me
Every December 12th, Catholics across the world celebrate the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe—the Mother of the Americas and perhaps the most striking example of how God enters human history through culture, compassion, and divine condescension. She is not just a Mexican symbol; she is a Christian symbol—one with theological, historical, and moral depth.
I respect and honor her as Patroness of the Americas. And even though I strongly oppose illegal immigration and support the enforcement of U.S. immigration law—including deportation when necessary—I simultaneously cherish cultural diversity, religious freedom, and the vibrant traditions of Latin American Catholicism. To me, these things are not contradictions.
2. My Experiences, Empathy, and Identity
I have always stood as an advocate for the underdog and the marginalized. My childhood experiences with bullying left a mark on me—not as wounds, but as windows into human suffering. Being treated as “different” because of my mild autism, and enduring the sometimes cruel nature of childhood, taught me to empathize deeply with those who are mocked, persecuted, or pushed aside.
This instinct within me—to defend the oppressed—exists alongside my strong patriotism and my belief in Western civilization, Catholicism, and the ideals of American Exceptionalism. I love my country, my Church, and the heritage that formed me. But I am also honest about the darker side of Western conquest and colonization, including the atrocities that took place in the Americas.
Perhaps this sensitivity is part of my Sicilian heritage—a people who themselves endured millennia of foreign invasions, occupations, and cultural domination. Perhaps it comes from my Christian faith, which commands me to see every person as created in the image and likeness of God. Or maybe it’s simply my humanity. Whatever the reason, I have always felt a deep, almost instinctive empathy toward Native American and Indigenous peoples of what is now the Americas.
This personal tension—between patriotism and compassion, between my support for the rule of law and my solidarity with the marginalized—shapes the way I understand Our Lady of Guadalupe. She is a figure in whom these tensions meet: a symbol of both resistance and evangelization, both cultural dignity and Christian truth.
3. The Apparitions: Historical and Religious Context
3.1 The Events of December 1531
According to both historical and ecclesial tradition, the Virgin Mary appeared to the Indigenous Catholic convert Juan Diego on Tepeyac Hill in December 1531. She spoke in Nahuatl, wore garments meaningful to Indigenous culture, and offered words of comfort and evangelization.¹
When Juan Diego unfolded his tilma before Bishop Juan de Zumárraga, roses spilled out—and her image appeared.
3.2 A Cultural Wound in Need of Healing
Her appearance came at a moment of devastation: the fall of Tenochtitlan, epidemics, cultural destruction, and grief. Indigenous peoples were trying to survive the collapse of their civilization. Mary appeared not as a Spanish noblewoman, but as a mestiza, mirroring the fusion of two worlds.
To me, this speaks powerfully to the suffering of all Indigenous peoples—including those here in the United States whom I’ve always empathized with. Guadalupe is not only a message from heaven; she is a moment of historical healing.
4. Theology of Guadalupe: Marian Doctrine at Work
4.1 Mary as Theotokos and Evangelizer
The Church’s understanding of Mary begins in the early centuries. The Council of Ephesus (431) declared her Theotokos—God-bearer—affirming Christ’s divinity.³
This is the foundation for all Marian devotion.
Church Fathers on Mary
St. Cyril of Alexandria:
“Through you, the Trinity is glorified.”⁴
St. Irenaeus:
“The knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary.”⁵
St. John Damascene:
“We do not worship matter… but we venerate images for the sake of their prototypes.”⁶
Guadalupe fits squarely within this ancient Christian worldview: Mary always leads to Christ.
5. Deep Apologetics: Answering Major Objections
5.1 Claim: “Guadalupe is just a Christianized pagan goddess.”
Some argue Our Lady of Guadalupe is simply Tonantzin in disguise.
But the evidence says otherwise:
Mary never identifies herself with any pagan deity.
The symbolism of the tilma reflects Revelation 12, not Aztec mythology.
Justin Martyr and other Fathers taught that pagan religions contain seeds of truth pointing toward the Gospel.⁷
Guadalupe did not replace Tonantzin; she fulfilled the deepest spiritual longing of a wounded people and led them to Christ.
5.2 Claim: “The tilma is only a painting.”
Scientific studies contradict this simplistic theory:
No brushstrokes exist under magnification.¹⁰
The pigments and techniques do not match 16th-century art.
The tilma’s agave material should have decayed centuries ago.
Microscopic reflections in the eyes match the scene of Juan Diego and the archbishop.¹¹
This doesn’t prove the image is divine, but it supports the Church’s conclusion that the tilma is not a normal artwork.
5.3 Claim: “Marian devotion is idolatry.”
This objection misunderstands Catholic teaching.
Catholics worship (latria) God alone.
Mary receives hyperdulia—a special veneration distinct from worship.
The Church Fathers defended:
sacred images (St. Basil, St. John Damascene)
Marian honor as Christ-centered (St. Athanasius, St. Augustine)
Mary as Mother of God (Council of Ephesus)
Guadalupe is not idolatry; it is Christ-focused devotion in line with early Christianity.
5.4 Claim: “Guadalupe is used to justify illegal immigration.”
This is a political misuse of a religious symbol.
I personally oppose illegal immigration and fully support the rule of law, secure borders, and lawful deportation where appropriate. Catholic teaching upholds both charity toward migrants and respect for civil law (CCC §2241).
Our Lady of Guadalupe is a religious figure, not a political mascot. Millions of legal immigrants and American-born Catholics honor her without supporting illegal entry into the U.S.
6. Cultural and Spiritual Meaning
Guadalupe stands for:
dignity amid oppression
protection of the vulnerable
cultural healing
Christian evangelization
unity across the Americas
She calls all peoples—Native, European, African, mestizo, Asian—to Christ.
For me, as someone who feels deep empathy for the oppressed, including Native Americans, Our Lady of Guadalupe represents the meeting of justice, mercy, and divine love.
7. My Final Perspective: Faith, Empathy, and Truth Together
I am a patriot, a Catholic, and an advocate for the marginalized. I support immigration law while loving the cultures of the Americas. I respect Indigenous peoples while also affirming the truth of the Gospel.
These are not contradictions; they are the tensions of a fully human life.
Our Lady of Guadalupe embodies this tension perfectly:
a heavenly Mother entering earthly suffering, uniting two worlds without erasing either.
And for me, that makes her worthy of profound respect.
Footnotes
Nican Mopohua, trans. Miguel León-Portilla (Mexico City: UNAM Press, 1985).
Timothy Matovina, Guadalupe: Faith and Empire (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2018), 23–52.
Council of Ephesus, “Formula of Union,” 431 A.D.
Cyril of Alexandria, Homily IV Against Nestorius.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.22.4.
John Damascene, On the Divine Images, I.16.
Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 46.
Augustine, Sermons, 215.
Philip Serna Callahan, The Tilma Under Infrared Radiation (CARA Studies, 1981).
Jody Brant Smith, The Image of Guadalupe: Myth or Miracle? (Mercer University Press, 1983).
Why I Celebrate the Immaculate Conception: History, Theology, and the Truth Behind the Accusations
By Chris M. Forte
Every year on December 8th, the Catholic Church celebrates the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception—a feast loved by many, misunderstood by even more, and criticized endlessly by those who have never actually studied what the Church teaches.
I’m Catholic, and this feast has deep personal importance to me. It represents not only the Church’s reverence for Mary, the Mother of God, but also the way the Church reads Scripture historically and supernaturally, not through the modern literalist lens that flattens everything to what is “explicitly stated.”
Today, I want to explain why I believe in the Immaculate Conception, how the doctrine developed, what history actually shows, and why the usual claims that it is “pagan,” borrowed from Babylon, or invented in the Middle Ages are simply untrue.
1. What the Immaculate Conception Actually Means
Most people—even many Catholics—mistakenly think the Immaculate Conception refers to Jesus’ conception. It does not.
It refers to Mary’s conception, when she was preserved by God from the stain of original sin so she could freely cooperate with God’s plan of salvation.
This does not mean Mary was divine.
It does not mean she didn’t need a savior.
In fact, the dogma explicitly says she was saved by Christ—pre-emptively, by the merits of His future sacrifice.
As Pope Pius IX defined in Ineffabilis Deus (1854):
“The Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God… preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”¹
This is not about Mary replacing Jesus.
It is about Christ’s saving power being so perfect that it could reach even backward in time.
2. Scriptural Foundations: The Bible Doesn’t Use the Words, but the Theology Is There
I often tell my Protestant friends that Christianity existed before the Bible was written.
So did Christian doctrine.
The Immaculate Conception is one of those teachings that grows naturally out of Scripture, even if the exact phrase is not printed in the text.
Genesis 3:15 — The Protoevangelium
God promises a woman whose offspring will crush the serpent’s head.
This woman stands in total enmity with the serpent.²
Not partial enmity—total.
How can someone at total enmity with Satan be under his dominion through original sin?
Luke 1:28 — “Full of Grace”
Gabriel calls Mary kecharitōmenē—a perfect-past-participle meaning not merely “favored,” but “made full of grace,” “completely graced,” or “graced in the past with continuing effects.”³
The Church Fathers saw this as evidence of a unique holiness.
Ark of the Covenant Typology
Just as the Ark was constructed to be pure before receiving the presence of God, Mary was prepared by God to become the living Ark of the New Covenant.⁴
When I read Scripture in its ancient Jewish context—rather than through a modern, minimalist lens—this doctrine no longer seems strange but inevitable.
3. Historical Development: Older Than Most Critics Think
Anti-Catholic critics often claim the Immaculate Conception was invented in 1854.
Historical fact disagrees.
Early Christian Witnesses:
St. Ephrem the Syrian (4th century) called Mary “immaculate” and “all-pure.”⁵
St. Augustine (5th century) said that when discussing sin, he would not even mention Mary “for honor of the Lord.”⁶
St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, and others spoke of Mary as uniquely holy from conception.
Liturgical Evidence
The Feast of Mary’s Conception was celebrated in the East by the 7th century and in the West by the 8th.⁷
The Church was celebrating this long before scholastics debated how it worked.
Duns Scotus (13th century)
The great Franciscan theologian explained how Mary could be saved without ever being tainted by sin—by being redeemed preventatively by Christ.⁸
This is what ultimately carried into the dogma.
In short: The Church didn’t invent the doctrine in 1854—she defined what Christians already believed.
4. Responding to the “Pagan Origins” Accusation
Some critics—usually those influenced by Jack Chick tracts or internet conspiracy culture—claim the Immaculate Conception is borrowed from pagan myths, especially Babylonian ones involving Ishtar or semi-divine mothers.
Let me be blunt: I laugh at this claim.
Not because I dismiss pagan myths—I actually study them.
I laugh because the claims show zero familiarity with either Catholic teaching or ancient paganism.
Why the Claim Fails:
(1) Pagan goddesses did not teach anything like the Immaculate Conception.
Ishtar, Astarte, Isis, or any other goddess was not “conceived without original sin.”
The concept of original sin did not even exist outside Judaism.⁹
(2) Pagan myths involve gods birthing gods—but Mary is entirely human.
Her holiness is a result of God’s grace, not her own divinity.
(3) The accusation is based on 19th-century pseudo-scholarship
Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons—the book behind virtually all “Mary = Ishtar” theories—has been thoroughly dismantled by modern historians as non-academic, conspiratorial speculation.¹⁰
(4) Christianity grew out of Judaism, not Babylonian mythology
If anything, biblical Israel rejected pagan myths, often violently.¹¹
My Perspective
I have studied ancient myths, comparative religion, Second Temple Judaism, the Church Fathers, and Catholic theology.
The Immaculate Conception resembles nothing in paganism.
It is the logical consequence of biblical typology, Christology, and the early Christian understanding of holiness and salvation.
5. Protestant Criticisms and My Response
“It’s not in the Bible.”
Neither is the word “Trinity,” “incarnation,” nor the table of contents of the Bible itself.
Christianity is built on the revelation of Christ, not the slogan “chapter and verse or it doesn’t count.”
“It contradicts Romans 3:23 — ‘all have sinned.’”
If “all” must be absolute, then Jesus sinned—He is a human being.
Clearly Paul is using “all” in a general sense, not an absolute universal with no exceptions.
Paul also writes that Adam brought death to “all”—yet we know exceptions exist: Enoch and Elijah.¹²
“It diminishes Christ.”
Actually, it does the opposite.
It shows His grace is so powerful it can reach even to Mary’s conception.
When I came back to Catholicism, I realized something profound: Every Marian doctrine protects a deeper truth about Jesus.
Mary is who she is because Christ is who He is.
6. Why I Personally Love This Feast
The Immaculate Conception shows the beauty of Catholic theology:
God’s grace is proactive, not reactive.
Salvation is not merely legal; it is cosmic, transformative.
Holiness is not an abstract concept but something God builds into human history.
Mary is the first fully redeemed human.
The feast is a celebration of what we are destined for in Christ:
purity, holiness, and union with God.
When I pray on December 8, I am reminded of what humanity is meant to be—and what Christ makes possible for all of us.
Conclusion
The Immaculate Conception is not pagan, not invented, not unbiblical, and not illogical.
It is the culmination of Scripture, the witness of the Fathers, and the Church’s unwavering conviction that salvation is more than a courtroom declaration—it is a transformation of humanity from the inside out.
And Mary, preserved by God from the beginning, is the first sign of that transformation.
Footnotes (Chicago Style)
Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854).
Genesis 3:15.
Luke 1:28; cf. Catholic Biblical Association, A Commentary on the New Testament (New York: 1942), 77–78.
Scott Hahn, Hail, Holy Queen (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 23–45.
St. Ephrem, Hymns on the Nativity 15:23.
St. Augustine, Nature and Grace 36.
Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 127–131.
Allan B. Wolter, Duns Scotus on the Immaculate Conception (Franciscan Institute, 2005).
John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2006).
Ralph Woodrow, The Babylon Connection? (Riverside: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1997).
Recovering the Real Saint Behind the Modern Santa Claus
By Chris M. Forte
Introduction: Why Saint Nicholas Still Matters
Every December, the world explodes with red-suited images of “Santa Claus”—a jolly, magical gift-giver who lives at the North Pole and slides down chimneys. But long before this modern American icon existed, there was a real man: Saint Nicholas of Myra, also known as Saint Nicholas of Bari, a bishop, saint, confessor, and defender of the faith.
And the more I’ve studied him over the years, the more I’ve become convinced of something simple but countercultural: the real Saint Nicholas is far greater—far more inspiring—than the commercial caricature of Santa Claus. I believe it is the real Saint Nicholas whom we ought to celebrate every year, especially on his traditional feast day, December 6th (or December 5th in some European traditions), so that Christmas itself can return to its true center: Christ.
1. The Historical Saint Nicholas: Bishop, Confessor, Miracle Worker
Saint Nicholas was born in the 3rd century in Patara, a Greek city in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). Orphaned at a young age, he inherited a considerable estate, which he immediately began distributing to the poor—laying the foundation for the legendary generosity that would define his memory for centuries to come.
He eventually became the Bishop of Myra in Lycia. His episcopacy coincided with some of the most turbulent moments of early Christian history:
• The Diocletian Persecution
Nicholas was imprisoned and tortured for the faith, earning him the title of confessor—one who suffers for Christ but does not die.
• The Council of Nicaea (325 AD)
A famous late legend states Nicholas attended the Council and struck Arius for denying Christ’s divinity—so zealous was Nicholas for the full, orthodox faith of the early Church. Whether the slap truly occurred is debated, but the tradition reflects how strongly the Christian world associated Nicholas with doctrinal courage.¹
• Miracles and Legends
Over time, various stories were attached to his name—some historical, others theological reflections:
The Three Daughters
Nicholas secretly provided gold dowries for three impoverished girls to save them from being sold into prostitution. He tossed bags of gold through their window at night—thus the origin of Christmas stockings.²
The Sailors Saved from Storm
He appeared to sailors in danger at sea and calmed the waves, becoming patron saint of sailors.³
The “Three Boys in the Barrel”
A medieval legend tells of Nicholas resurrecting murdered children, symbolizing his role as protector of the innocent.⁴
Whether literal or symbolic, these traditions all point to the same truth: Saint Nicholas embodied Christian charity, courage, and defense of the vulnerable.
2. Devotion to Saint Nicholas Around the World
The veneration of Saint Nicholas spread rapidly after his death around 343 AD. His relics were later translated to Bari, Italy—hence the title Saint Nicholas of Bari.
• In the Christian East
He became one of the most honored saints of the Orthodox world. Icons of “Holy Nicholas the Wonderworker” (Άγιος Νικόλαος ὁ Θαυματουργός) are found in virtually every Russian Orthodox home and church. For Russians and Greeks alike, Nicholas is a fatherly protector, miracle worker, and intercessor whose closeness to Christ is celebrated throughout the year.
• In Western Europe
Medieval Europeans celebrated his feast with plays, gift-giving, charitable works, and music. Children received gifts on December 6, not December 25, keeping Christ’s birth separate from Nicholas’ memory.
• In America
Dutch settlers in New Amsterdam (New York) brought their tradition of Sinterklaas, which eventually blended with English and German customs.
3. From Saint to Santa: How the Legend Was Changed
The transformation from Saint Nicholas to Santa Claus took several centuries and involved multiple cultural shifts.
• Protestant Northern Europe
After the Reformation, many Protestant regions suppressed devotion to Catholic saints. In some places, Saint Nicholas’ feast was discouraged and replaced by secular figures like the “Christmas Man” (Weihnachtsmann) or “Father Christmas,” who preserved gift-giving traditions without Catholic theology.⁵
• Anti-Catholic Influences
In my opinion—and in the opinion of some scholars—the deliberate removal of the saint from Saint Nicholas was influenced partly by anti-Catholic sentiment.⁶ A purely magical, secular “Santa” was more acceptable in cultures that rejected saints, sacraments, relics, and intercession.
• American Commercialism
The final shaping of Santa Claus happened in the 19th and 20th centuries:
Clement Clarke Moore’s poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas” (1823) introduced a magical, elf-like gift-giver.
Thomas Nast’s illustrations in Harper’s Weekly (1860s–1880s) established the red suit, reindeer, and North Pole workshop.⁷
Coca-Cola advertising in the 1930s cemented the modern Santa’s appearance.
Over time, devotion to the saint disappeared, replaced by consumer-driven imagery.
4. Why I Prefer the Real Saint Nicholas
Here is where my personal conviction is strongest: the real Saint Nicholas is far more meaningful than the modern Santa Claus.
Santa Claus is magical;
Saint Nicholas is miraculous.
Santa Claus brings toys;
Saint Nicholas rescues the poor, defends the abused, and proclaims Christ.
Santa Claus distracts from Christmas;
Saint Nicholas points directly to Christ.
This is why I prefer to celebrate Saint Nicholas on December 6—so Christmas can remain focused on the birth of Jesus, not on presents, shopping, or commercial frenzy. For me, the old custom makes far more spiritual sense.
Was Saint Nicholas Based on a Pagan God?
Answering the Odin, Wodan, Neptune, and “Pagan Survival” Claims
One of the most common accusations I see online—repeated by atheists, neo-pagans, and anti-Catholic polemicists—is the claim that Saint Nicholas was not a historical Christian figure at all but was “copied” from pagan gods like Odin, Wodan, or even Poseidon/Neptune. The argument usually goes: “Look! Odin rode through the sky! Poseidon was the god of the sea! Saint Nicholas must just be a repackaged pagan god!”
But as soon as you begin examining actual historical evidence, these claims fall apart completely.
And I don’t just mean they’re weak.
I mean there is zero historical basis for them.
What we are dealing with is not history at all, but modern mythology built from superficial similarities and repeated endlessly across social media. Below I outline the claims and the evidence—real evidence—that refutes them.
1. The Odin/Wodan Theory — A Modern Internet Myth, Not History
This is the most common claim, especially in neo-pagan and New Atheist circles: that Saint Nicholas evolved from Odin or Wodan, the sky-riding “gift-giver” of Germanic myth.
Why this is historically impossible:
a) Saint Nicholas lived in Asia Minor, not Scandinavia.
He was a Greek Christian bishop in the Roman Empire. Odin was a northern Germanic deity. Their cultural worlds did not overlap.¹
b) Scandinavia was not Christianized until the 8th–12th centuries.
But devotion to Saint Nicholas began in the 300s and spread across the Mediterranean by the 500s.²
Nicholas was venerated 500–800 years before the Norse sagas were even written down.
c) The Odin theory originates in 19th-century anti-Catholic writings.
Scholars such as Jacob Grimm (yes, the fairy tale Grimm) and Protestant critics attempted to link saints to “pagan survivals” to discredit Catholicism.³
Modern neo-pagans later adopted these claims as if they were factual.
d) Similarities are medieval European blending—not origin.
When Christian missionaries entered Germanic lands, local people mixed their winter customs with Saint Nicholas’ feast day.
That isn’t origin; it’s cultural adaptation.
Correlation is not causation.
And syncretism is not genealogy.
2. The Poseidon/Neptune Claim — A Misreading of Patronage
Another claim is that Saint Nicholas was derived from Poseidon/Neptune because both are associated with the sea.
Why this is false:
a) Nicholas’ connection to sailors comes from Christian miracle stories.
The earliest accounts describe him appearing in storms and rescuing sailors through prayer.⁴
This is a distinctly Christian miracle narrative, not a pagan one.
b) Christians in Asia Minor actively rejected pagan religion.
Nicholas lived during the final centuries of Roman paganism. The Church strongly opposed pagan deities. Christianizing a pagan god under a saint’s name would have been unthinkable.⁵
c) Patronage ≠ derivation.
Saints are patrons of:
sailors (Nicholas)
musicians (Cecilia)
lost things (Anthony)
animals (Francis of Assisi)
None of these saints were “derived” from pagan archetypes.
Patronage comes from who the saint helped, not from syncretism with old gods.
d) No early Christian writer references any such connection.
In fact, early biographies are explicit that Nicholas confronted paganism—not absorbed it.⁶
3. The Real Reason People Think “Nicholas = Pagan God”
(Apologetic Response)**
These theories survive for three reasons:
a) Anti-Catholic polemics
Protestants in the 18th–19th centuries claimed Catholic saints were “pagan survivals” to argue that Catholicism was not biblical. Scholars like Ronald Hutton and Jean Delumeau have shown how anti-Catholic bias influenced this scholarship.⁷
b) Neo-pagan reconstructionism
Modern neo-pagan religions (Wicca, neo-Druidism, etc.) were mostly invented in the 19th–20th centuries. Claiming that Christians stole everything from paganism helps legitimize their modern reconstructions as “ancient.”
But their claims are historically inaccurate.
c) The Internet loves oversimplified comparisons
People say:
“Odin rode through the sky. Santa rides through the sky. Same guy!”
This is not how serious historical analysis works.
Superficial resemblance ≠ historical derivation.
4. The Real Origin: A Christian Bishop, Not a Pagan God
Historically verifiable facts demonstrate:
Saint Nicholas was a real person
He was a bishop of Myra, recorded in early Christian documents
Devotion to him is documented from the 300s onward
His cult spread in the East centuries before reaching pagan northern Europe
His miracles and stories come from Christian tradition
The later blending with northern folklore reflects Christianity influencing pagan customs, not the reverse
The direction of influence is the opposite of what critics claim.
Christians did not take Odin and turn him into Nicholas.
Northern Europeans took Nicholas and dressed him in local winter traditions.
Theology of the Feast Day: Why the Church Honors Him
Saint Nicholas’ feast is not merely about historical memory. It is about:
• Charity rooted in the Gospel
Nicholas lived Christ’s command to care for “the least of these.”
His life is a sermon on Matthew 25.
• Orthodoxy and Defense of Truth
His connection with the rejection of Arianism highlights the Church’s early defense of Christ’s divinity.
• Intercession and Heavenly Communion
Christians have long invoked Nicholas as a powerful intercessor—especially sailors, children, the poor, and the falsely accused.
• The Imitation of Christ
Nicholas teaches us that holiness is not abstract—it is lived.
Conclusion:
Returning to the Real Saint Nicholas
The modern Santa Claus is entertaining, but ultimately he is a distraction—a secular invention largely stripped of the Catholic faith that gave rise to him.
The real Saint Nicholas is better—more human, more holy, more challenging, and more inspiring.
And I believe our culture would benefit immensely if we returned to celebrating his feast on December 6th, letting Christmas be about Christ, and letting Saint Nicholas be honored for who he truly was:
a bishop, a confessor, a miracle worker, and a living icon of Christian charity.
Footnotes
Adam C. English, The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012), 12–25.
Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 101–119.
Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, vol. 1 (Göttingen: Dieterichsche Buchhandlung, 1835), 144–148.
English, The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus, 91–94.
Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (New York: Knopf, 1987), 459–462.
Theodorus Lector, Anagnostes, in PG 86.
Ronald Hutton, The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 45–52.
Jean Delumeau, Catholicism Between Luther and Voltaire (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 112–119.
"If Catholics Read the Bible, They Would Stop Being Catholic”:
A Thesis Refuting a Modern Myth** By Chris M. Forte
Abstract
For decades, anti-Catholic propaganda—especially from certain Evangelical and fundamentalist circles—has repeated the claim that Catholics neither read nor understand Scripture, or worse, that the Catholic Church actively forbids it. This thesis dismantles those claims from two angles: my personal journey back into the Church through Scripture itself, and the historical and theological realities of how the Church preserved, canonized, interpreted, and proclaimed the Bible for two millennia. I argue that I returned to Catholicism because of Scripture—not in spite of it. Moreover, I found in the Bible precisely what the Catholic Church has always taught: hierarchy, sacraments, apostolic succession, liturgy, and a Church that existed before the written New Testament. This paper argues that the accusation that “Catholics ignore the Bible” is ahistorical, uneducated, and often rooted in sectarian prejudice rather than fact.
Introduction
It’s astonishing to me—and, frankly, infuriating—how often I hear the same tired slogans:
“Catholics don’t read the Bible.”
“Catholics aren’t allowed to read the Bible.”
“If Catholics read the Bible they’d leave the Church.”
These accusations are not simply false—they are historically illiterate and theologically shallow. And I say this not merely as a Catholic, but as someone who left, studied Scripture intensely, and then returned because the Bible itself pointed me home.
The more I read Scripture, the more Catholic I became. The priesthood is in the Bible. The bishops are in the Bible. Apostolic succession is in the Bible. The Eucharist is in the Bible. Confession is in the Bible. The Church—organized, hierarchical, sacramental—appears on every page.
To claim that Catholicism is unbiblical is to confess that one has never actually read the Bible with historical context, early Christian testimony, or intellectual honesty.
1. The Catholic Church Existed Before the Bible—This Matters
Let me speak plainly. The Church did not come from the Bible; the Bible came from the Church.
When Christ ascended, He did not leave behind a book. He left behind a Church:
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.” (Matt 16:18)
The apostles preached for decades before a single Gospel existed. Christianity spread through oral authority, apostolic succession, and sacramental life, not personal Bible ownership. It was the Catholic Church—not Protestantism, not fundamentalists—that preserved, copied, canonized, and protected Scripture for 1,500 years before the Reformation even existed.
To accuse Catholics of not reading the Bible is like accusing a chef of not eating food.
2. “Catholics Aren’t Allowed to Read the Bible”—Historically Wrong
Not only is this claim false—it’s embarrassingly uneducated.
The Catholic Church produced more biblical manuscripts than any institution in human history. The monks who spent their lives copying Scripture by hand were not exactly illiterate anti-Bible zealots.
When the Church restricted certain private interpretations during the Middle Ages, it was for the exact same reason the early Church fought heresies:
to protect the faithful from false teachers—the same kind who now claim Catholics “don’t read the Bible.”
The Church has always encouraged Scripture reading. Pope after pope has commanded it. The Catechism says:
“Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”
—Catechism of the Catholic Church §133
That line is a quote from St. Jerome, a Catholic priest and biblical scholar.
So spare me the myth that Catholics “aren’t allowed” to read the Bible. It’s a lie.
3. “Catholics Don’t Know the Bible”—A Charge Based on Stereotypes
Do some Catholics know less Scripture than some Evangelicals? Sure.
But ignorance exists in every tradition. I’ve met Protestants who can’t name all 10 commandments.
The theological difference isn’t Bible-reading—it’s interpretive authority.
Protestantism teaches that the Bible alone, interpreted individually, is the rule of faith.
Catholicism teaches that Scripture + Sacred Tradition + Magisterium together express the apostolic faith.
The anti-Catholic stereotype assumes that Evangelicals “know Scripture” simply because they quote isolated verses—usually out of context, often ripped from 2,000 years of apostolic interpretation.
Catholics hear more Scripture at Mass in one three-year lectionary cycle than most Evangelicals hear in a decade of sermons.
The charge that Catholics “don’t know the Bible” is a lazy generalization that collapses the moment one examines the actual history.
4. The Bible Led Me Back to the Catholic Church
Now let me speak personally.
When I left the Catholic Church for a time, I did exactly what people claim Catholics never do: I started reading the Bible intensely.
And what did I find?
I found bishops
“Appoint presbyters in every town… an overseer must be blameless.” (Titus 1:5–9)
I found a hierarchical priesthood
“He shall ordain presbyters through the laying on of hands.” (1 Tim 4:14)
I found the Eucharist as a literal sacrifice
“This is my Body… this is my Blood.” (Matt 26:26–28)
“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…” (John 6:51–56)
I found confession to a priest
“Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them.” (John 20:23)
I found apostolic succession
“What you have heard from me… entrust to faithful men.” (2 Tim 2:2)
I found liturgy
“They devoted themselves to the breaking of the bread.” (Acts 2:42)
I found the communion of saints
“The prayers of the saints rise before God.” (Rev 5:8)
In short: I found Catholicism.
The more Scripture I consumed, the less Protestantism made sense. The Bible was Catholic long before the Reformation tried to make it otherwise.
5. “If Catholics Read the Bible, They Would Stop Being Catholic”—A Nonsensical Claim
The arrogance of this claim is astounding.
The idea that the Church that wrote the New Testament somehow contradicts it requires mental gymnastics.
The earliest Christians—Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus—were Catholic in every recognizable way:
They believed in bishops.
They believed in the Eucharist as Christ’s real Body.
They believed in confession.
They believed in apostolic authority.
They believed the Church—not the Bible alone—was the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
To say “the Bible disproves Catholicism” is to say all Christians for the first 1,500 years were wrong and modern American Protestants finally figured it out.
That is not theology.
That is chronological snobbery.
6. The Real Reason This Myth Exists: Anti-Catholicism
Let’s be brutally honest.
The claim “Catholics don’t read the Bible” is not about biblical literacy.
It is a weapon, used by modern anti-Catholics to delegitimize the Church Christ founded.
It’s an easy insult for people who have never read early Christian history, never studied the canon process, and never examined the faith of the first centuries.
The myth exists because it serves an agenda—not because it is true.
Conclusion
I did not become Catholic because I ignored Scripture.
I became Catholic because I finally understood Scripture.
I realized the same Church I saw in Acts, in the Pastorals, in Revelation, and in early Christian writings still existed today—and it was not Protestantism.
So when someone says:
“If Catholics actually read the Bible they’d stop being Catholic,”
I answer:
I read the Bible, and that is precisely why I came home.
The Bible is Catholic.
The early Church was Catholic.
Christianity itself was Catholic before a single Protestant existed.
If anything, the question should be asked in reverse:
If Protestants truly read Scripture in historical context, how long could they remain Protestant?
St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John, Chapter 6 (Real Presence). Latin/English resources at Aquinas.cc: https://aquinas.cc/
Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, Commentary on the Gospels, esp. Matthew 16 and John 20 on Peter and the forgiveness of sins. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Introduction to Christianity (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004).
Joseph Ratzinger, Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996).
Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (New York: Paulist Press, 1984).
Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981).
Scott Hahn, Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith (New York: Doubleday, 2007).
Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker, Politicizing the Bible (New York: Crossroad, 2013).
Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist (New York: Doubleday, 2011).
Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015).
John Bergsma, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Revealing the Jewish Roots of the Church (New York: Image Books, 2019).
John Bergsma & Scott Hahn, A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2018).
Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).
N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).
André Feuillet, “The Priesthood of Christ,” in The Priesthood and Sacrifice in the Ancient Law and the New Testament (New York: Herder and Herder, 1975).
Henri de Lubac, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988).
Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (San Diego: Catholic Tradition Press, 1964/2016).
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Reformation of the Bible/The Bible of the Reformation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996).
Eamon Duffy, Faith of Our Fathers: Reflections on Catholic Tradition (London: Bloomsbury, 2004).
Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014).
Robert Louis Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003).
Markus Bockmuehl, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998).
Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014).
F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1988).
Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2013).
Anderson, Gary A. Sin: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Bergsma, John. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Revealing the Jewish Roots of the Church. New York: Image Books, 2019.
Bergsma, John, and Scott Hahn. A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2018.
Brown, Raymond E. The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. New York: Paulist Press, 1984.
Brown, Raymond E. The Critical Meaning of the Bible. New York: Paulist Press, 1981.
Congar, Yves. Tradition and Traditions. San Diego: Catholic Tradition Press, 2016.
Duffy, Eamon. Faith of Our Fathers. London: Bloomsbury, 2004.
———. Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.
Feuillet, André. “The Priesthood of Christ.” In The Priesthood and Sacrifice in the Ancient Law and the New Testament. New York: Herder and Herder, 1975.
Hahn, Scott. Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith. New York: Doubleday, 2007.
Hahn, Scott, and Benjamin Wiker. Politicizing the Bible. New York: Crossroad, 2013.
Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.
Pitre, Brant. Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. New York: Doubleday, 2011.
———. Jesus and the Last Supper. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition, Volume 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
———. The Reformation of the Bible/The Bible of the Reformation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.
Ratzinger, Joseph. Called to Communion. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996.
———. Introduction to Christianity. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.
Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2013.
Wilken, Robert Louis. The Spirit of Early Christian Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
