It's Iimi!: witness

Showing posts with label witness. Show all posts

Monday, January 23, 2023

It’s Iimi! There is Nothing Concealed That Will Not Be Revealed

Faithfulness to All of God’s Commands

Do We Act as We Believe? The Double Standard Trap

Reformation Day 2017 and Catholic Dissent

With the run up to “Reformation Day,” we’re seeing some Protestant groups bring up the false claims of things the first Protestants “saved” people from. While the rehashed assertions are annoying (we never believed what they accused us of), they are not a serious threat. There is a mountain of books out there defending the Catholic Church from those charges—either showing that these things were taken out of context, or were abuses condemned by the Church.

We’re also seeing some Catholics repeating the polemics from the 16th century. These Catholics harshly condemn people like Luther, Henry VIII, and Zwingli for rejecting the Catholic Church. They also use the words written to rebuke and warn people who were choosing to leave the Church 500 years ago are applied to people who were never were part of the Church to begin with. Because modern Protestants are not Catholics, they are assumed to be defiantly rejecting the authority of the Church which they are assumed to know. That lacks charity and prudence. Regardless of the wrongs (John 17:20-21) done 500 years ago, God’s command to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:39) still applies even to those we disagree with. In fact, the Catechism tells us:

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism²⁷⁰—do not occur without human sin: (2089)

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” (1271)

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”²⁷⁴ Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”²⁷⁶

Curiously, many of these polemical Catholics, who denounce 21st century Protestants for rejecting the authority of the Church, also reject the authority of the current Pope and bishops in communion with him when they disagree. This makes me wonder if these “defenders” understand the essence of what they claim to defend. Given that the 16th century schism involved the question of who has the authority to interpret Scripture and past teaching, as well as to determine how Christians should live authenticity Christian lives in new circumstances, one would think that these defenders of the Church against Protestantism should recognize that authority and protection from error exists in every generation. If God can protect the Church during the pontificates of Liberius, Honorius I, or John XII, he can protect the Church in this generation, where we lack those kinds of corruption.

Instead, many of these “defenders” behave in the same way they condemned in Martin Luther. Like him, they believe that the Church fell into error and needed to follow their views to get back on track. Like him, they view their interpretations as correct and the Church in error if the Church goes against their interpretation. But, if Luther was wrong to reject the authority of the Church, then the anti-Francis or anti-Vatican II Catholic is also wrong to reject it because it is the same authority. But, if they claim they are right to reject the authority of the Church when they disagree, then they play the hypocrite when they condemn Luther. They concede his principles and merely disagree on the particulars justifying rejection.

This doesn’t mean we treat everything that a Pope says or does as infallible (a common but false charge made by anti-Catholics and by anti-Francis Catholics). I wish St. John Paul II had not kissed that Qur’an. I wish Benedict XVI had not lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops and had not used that example of “the male prostitute with AIDS.” But these things do not take away from the authority of the Popes. What it does mean is that, when the Pope teaches, we give assent to his teaching, trusting that God protects His Church. That doesn’t mean that the teaching in question can’t be refined later (if doctrine) or changed (if discipline). The intellectually or morally bad Popes (and I reject the accusation that Pope Francis is one of these) never taught error, even if they sinned grievously. This protection from error is not a gift of prophecy. It is protecting the Church from binding error or loosing truth.

So, while I may get annoyed when certain Protestants repeat anti-Catholic charges, I think a greater danger comes from the Catholics who claim to defend the faith but actually attack the rock (Matthew 16:18-19) upon which Our Lord built His Church. I can understand (even though I cannot accept) how Protestants who have very little experience with Catholics can believe these myths and think that the Papacy is a human institution with no spiritual authority. But the Catholic has no such excuse. Since we believe that the Church was established by God and protected from error, we cannot reject the teaching authority of the Church when it does not go our way.

We should consider the consequences of that stance. If we pick and choose when we will listen to the Church and when we will not, then what witness do we give to those outside of the Church? If we reject the Church when we think she went wrong, we give the non-Catholic ammunition for claiming that the Church went wrong 500 years ago or more. Why should they want to enter the Church if we give the impression that the Church can fall into error?

Speaking in an insulting manner towards non-Catholics will not persuade anyone to consider entering into full communion with the Church. Behaving as if the Church can fall into error will not convince anyone either. If we want to bring converts into the Church, let us start by considering the example we give to others. Do we act as if we believe that the Church is protected by Our Lord? Or do we act as if the Church is merely a human institution that can fall into error, and that we can ignore her?

Let’s keep that in mind when considering how people will perceive our actions.

Friday, March 11, 2016

Quick Quips: Bad Perspectives Edition

Just a Pinch of Incense, 2016 Style

I ran across comments attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor over their lawsuit against the Obama administration concerning the contraceptive mandate. The derision comes from people who say that it is a lot easier to check a box than to fill out paperwork for a lawsuit.

That argument is remarkably similar to the one used by pagan Roman officials who argued that all a Christian needed to do was "burn a pinch of incense" before the state altars--that is, make a token acknowledgement of the values of the State.

The problem was, the pinch of incense was not a mere gesture. It meant that the Christian was acknowledging the "gods" of Rome as equally valid as the God worshipped by Christians. No Christian could do that without being unfaithful to their beliefs.

Similarly, the "checkmark" is not a mere gesture. It is an action that makes the Little Sisters empower another group to do evil on their behalf. They cannot do this without being unfaithful to the God they profess to follow.

In neither case can Christians accept the "accommodation" the State offers. It is no accommodation at all. It is an attack on Christian belief and practice.

Rank Hypocrisy from the Rank and File?

Consider Tobit 4:15... "Do to no one what you yourself hate." I think we can apply it to cheering tactics we deplore when applied against our foes. Remember 1 Corinthians 13:6... Love "does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth."

I am saddened when I witness Catholics respond to the election news. I see Catholics who deplore the rudeness and racism of Donald Trump respond with racism and rudeness. I am dismayed to see people who denounced violence at Trump rallies sneer when it comes to Trump having to cancel his appearance at a rally because of unrest.

I must ask these Catholics: If you recognize that what Trump does is wrong, why do you respond in kind and rejoice when he suffers the same? Schadenfreude is no Catholic virtue!

One can justly oppose Trump's ideas, rhetoric and tactics (in fact, I do). But when one embraces them or rejoices in them when directed against him, that is not Christian witness to virtue. It's rank hypocrisy. Let's remember that, as Christians, we are called to witness the Kingdom of God in all aspects of our lives.

Tying it All Together

Both of these cases strike me as coming from an attitude of "do good to my allies and harm to my enemies." In other words, do what benefits me and to hell with you if you disagree.

To which, Our Lord Jesus replies, "For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?" (Matthew 5:46-47).

All people are called to seek out the truth and to live it when discovered. That means discarding false slogans and ceasing to use/cheer immoral tactics even if they seem to benefit us.

Now, we cannot compel people to choose good. We can only strive to create just laws and seek to show people why we ought to live rightly at the level they can understand. Sometimes people will refuse to listen. But let us reject the tactics of the World to achieve our goals. Otherwise they will simply see our beliefs as partisan and will not see the Truth Who powers them.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

We Have To Behave as Emissaries of Our Lord

It’s no secret that, since Obergefell, Christians who stand for the defense of marriage as God intended it have become something of pariahs on social media, and having our faces rubbed in the ruling. People have been unfriended because they defend Christian morality, accused openly of being bigots. Between the comments and the “rainbowized” pictures, it can be very difficult to avoid lashing out at the people who seem to want to throw the #lovewins and #loveislove in our faces when we know we are being misrepresented and demonized. But it is lashing out that we must not do, and—unfortunately—some Catholics have lashed out in ways which will lead those who support “same sex marriage” to view it as just that much more “proof" that we are the bigots they always thought we were.

We have to remember that it is Our Lord who commanded us:

⁴³“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. ⁴⁶For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?* ⁴⁸So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect. [Matthew 5:43-48]

It doesn’t matter how badly we are treated. In our response, even if we are forced to block them because of abusive attacks, we have to show that we love those who hate us—not as an act, but in sincerity. That means we have to be civil when we debate with them, avoiding insults, sarcasm or other rudeness. Now yes, that is hard. I confess I created a few sarcastic memes that I had to sit on when I really wanted to post them. (Through the grace of God, I was given a sense that to publish them was not in keeping with Christian witness). But we have to remember that the example we provide may be the only witness they have as to how a Christian bears witness to what they believe. If it is a bad witness, we become a stumbling block that keeps others from seeing God’s call.

Now that doesn’t mean that we have to be silent and not say that homosexual acts are wrong, as those who oppose us try to argue. As Emissaries of Our Lord, we have to carry His message telling the world to live according to God’s will. Indeed, when it comes to the State legalizing “same sex marriage,” the Church has made it very clear that we cannot give our assent:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

[#5. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2003).

So, we cannot recognize the diktat given to us in the Obergefell ruling as valid or cooperate—we must oppose it. But in doing so we have to be charitable. Being insulting or verbally (textually?) abusive is not the way we are to go about it. “Rainbowizing” Hitler or the Devil is not a charitable tactic for example. Regardless of whether a person is deliberately acting abusively or is unaware of how they come across, we must show the love of Christ while teaching the truth.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Don't Panic

On Witness: Two Quadrilemmas

How are we to understand the attacks made by some atheists against the reliability of the Disciples of Jesus as witnesses to what He said and did? Christians of course believe that cases against their credibility are dubious at best, but what are they to do when they encounter claims which seek to deny the value of their witness?

The False Revelation Argument

One of the objections given to the witness of the Apostles, is the claim that other people (Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc.) claim to have had divine revelation. The problem with the argument is that it generally concludes to the effect of "Those claims were false so it is also likely that the claims of the Apostles are false.

You can't Prove a Universal from a Limited Case

There are several problems with this sort of an argument. First of all, it argues from a specific case to reach a universal conclusion. If what Mohammed or Joseph Smith claims is not true, that speaks against their specific case, not the case of anybody else. If Bill and Jack both claim to have been robbed, and Jack lied about it has no bearing on whether Bill was lying.

What that argument has as an enthymeme (an unspoken assumption) is the claim that God does not exist so any claims of a form of revelation are false. So the full argument would run like this:

God does not exist (Enthymeme)
Person X claims to have had a revelation from God
Therefore Person X is lying or deceived

The problem of course is the enthymeme needs to be proven logically if it is to be used as the basis of a logical argument. If the premise needs to be established as valid, the conclusion is not proven to be true. So as it stands, the argument cannot be used as a challenge to the case of witnesses.

The False Analogy

The second common problem with the claim is it is a false analogy. People like Mohammed and Joseph Smith claimed to have private revelation from God, and convinced people to follow them out of largely material promises of a physical afterlife.

The case of the Apostles was different. Who they followed was a specific person who did not make promises of physical rewards. Indeed, the Jesus they followed made clear that political liberation and wealth were not the message He was teaching. Those who followed Him (which were more than "Twelve men" as some have misrepresented) attested to what He said and the works He performed to back them up. These are not merely accounted for in the Gospels. The Talmud mentions these acts, though it calls them "magic." So do the secular Roman accounts.

Two Quadrilemma and Atheistic Claims

The problem the atheist has to address is why they hold what they hold. We can study by breaking this down into categories. There are two ways we can look at it: One is whether Jesus spoke truthfully and the second is whether Jesus said what was claimed.

The First Quadrilemma

The first quadrilemma is based on whether or not Jesus spoke truthfully over what He said

Jesus either was what He claimed or He was not
The Apostles either believed what He claimed or they did not.

This leaves us with a quadrilemma.

Jesus was what He claimed to be and the Apostles believed His claims (What the Christians believe)
Jesus was not what He claimed but the Apostles believed His claims (Apostles Deluded)
Jesus was not what He claimed and the apostles did not believe His claims (Apostles Lying)
Jesus was what He claimed and the Apostles did not believe His claims (Apostles Lying)

Of these claims, the Christians hold #1, atheists tend to be divided over #2 and #3, and with #4 in the past some Gnostics held to it, and some New Agers hold a variant of this sort of view.

The theology of Christianity (#1) holds that Jesus was what He claimed to be and the Apostles witnessed these claims and believed. Christian apologetics comes from this perspective, and the one seeking to understand this should look to these sources.

The Gnostic view (#4) holds that Jesus was God, but the Apostles did not believe what He really said He was. The problem with this view is, how do they know what was claimed without the witness of those who knew Jesus personally?

This leaves us with the two remaining views which atheists claim: Jesus did not speak truthfully and the apostles were deceived about what He said and did (#2) or Jesus was not what He said He was and the apostles lied about what He said.

The problem with both assertions is: On what basis can this be held?

Let's look at #2 first. If Jesus lied or was deluded about what He claimed, on what basis do we assert this? Is there evidence for this claim? Or is it based on the assumption that Jesus could not be God because there is no God. This assertion cannot be claimed as fact without evidence.

See how the assumption that atheism must be true keeps showing up in all arguments? Yet atheism is the conclusion. It can't be the premise as well. So from a logical perspective this claim cannot stand on its own until the premise (Jesus was not who He said He was) is proven true.

Of course in this case the atheist who makes this claim [and to be fair, not all do] is arguing from a universal negative. Such a case cannot be proven true unless actual evidence is produced which attests to this.

Such is the problem with the "Deluded disciples" argument.

In case #3, we have another level of proof needed. Not only did Jesus lie (or was deluded), but the Apostles did not believe what they were teaching. In other words, the Apostles lied about what Jesus said and did.

This is the case where the counterargument of cui bono? (Who benefits?) comes into play. How did the apostles benefit from the lie? They were not rich or powerful. They were executed for their beliefs, hated by their own ethnic groups.

Case #3 not only has to establish that Christ was not who He said He was, but also has to establish why these "false witnesses" would rather die than recant what they lied about.

Therefore Case #3 also requires evidence to impeach the credibility of the disciples. Yet again, the argument is based on the belief that God does not exist and seeks to find an alternate motive for the Apostles.

Ultimately, the Christians present their case for #1. Those who hold it false need to provide their evidence for why they hold #'s 2,3 or 4.

The Second Quadrilemma

Some might find this a bit redundant, but it is necessary to investigate an alternate claim made by some atheists, and that is the claim that Jesus did not even say what the Apostles claimed He did. Again we need two divisions of two groups:

Either Jesus said what is attributed to Him or they did not
The disciples either understood what Jesus said or they did not

With these categories, we again have four groups:

Jesus did say what is attributed to Him and the disciples understood it
Jesus did say what is attributed to Him and the disciples did not understand it
Jesus did not say what is attributed to Him and the Apostles understood it
Jesus did not say what is attributed to Him and the Apostles did not understand it

Now in these cases, it seems the atheist dodges the horns of having to prove Christ was lying or deluded, but it does open more problems as well.

Case #1 is what Christians believe

Case #2 is not too common. Some heresies would hold that the Church misunderstood the Bible for example and their version is accurate.

Case #3 again assumes the Apostles knew what Jesus did teach but lied about it. (Some Muslims say this about St. Paul for example)

Case #4 is what is argued by those who claimed that Jesus had a human message but the disciples misunderstood his language (taking it over literally). A variant of this is the Muslim claim that the Scriptures were altered and misrepresented by the Apostles who did not understand Christ was teaching Islam.

With case #1 of course, one would look to the writings of the apostles as true. This is what Christians believe, and the defense of such a view would be found in the Christian writings.

With case #2 we have some of the early Christological heresies of the Church which held that certain biblical passages were in contradiction to what the Apostles claimed and therefore they got it wrong. This gets into the concept of How do we interpret the New Testament?

With case #3, we have an alternate expression of the third case in the first quadrilemma: The apostles lied about what Jesus said. Again, cui bono? What did they gain?

In case#4, we would find most atheists who want to say that Jesus was merely misunderstood and His disciples did not understand what He was trying to say. There are some problems with this reasoning however.

First, such a view assumes Jesus was a wise teacher, but merely misunderstood. Yet a wise teacher seeks to make sure his students understand him before he goes on. He does not use metaphorical language if it is clear that his students are taking it literally.

Second, such a teaching has to be taken into context of the culture: The teachings of the disciples was that Jesus Christ was God made man. Yet to the Jews, such a view would be blasphemous, and His first disciples were Jews. It would have been easier for a pagan to accept it than a Jew. Yet they did either accept His claim or mistakenly thought He taught it and believed it. How can this be reconciled, and what evidence exists for such a view?

Third: If Jesus did not teach what the Disciples claimed He taught, then what did He teach? How can we know the disciples misunderstood what was said without evidence of what was said. Without this, we do not have anything factual, but merely a counter-theory based on the idea that whatever Jesus was, it could not be God.

The Endless Circle

Notice how these claims all return back to the central atheistic conclusion: There is no God. The claims made about what "really" must have happened are based on this conclusion. But for an atheist to appeal to science or to doctored texts or falsehood or delusion as a reason to object to the Christian claim needs to demonstrate that his view has basis in fact if it is to be taken as a reasonable objection.

What it Leads To

I don't doubt some atheists will read this and think I am arguing that "atheism is false, so Christianity is true." I am not. Rather I am examining certain claims made by some atheists which are used to state that Christianity is "unreasonable." In doing so, I show the logical flaws in their case and that the argument in question cannot be reasonably used against the Christian belief.

Now of course the demonstrating the flaws in the atheistic claim does not yet prove Christianity true, but it does show certain attacks against Christianity are without a solid basis and can reasonably be dismissed.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Dealing With Intolerance

A day after I post on the incident in Florida, I found an incident which hit closer to home in which an individual thought he would take a none too subtle swipe at Catholic beliefs in response to an article by another blogger (who is innocent here… let me make that clear).

The comment was none too insightful. It was the usual hysterical claims from an ex-Catholic that Catholic practices are really barely disguised pagan worship contrary to the Scripture. Ironically, this individual failed to notice that what he was calling pure Christianity was in fact a heavily culture-influenced version of early 20th century Fundamentalist Protestantism which he adopted.

I suspect such individuals tend to be converted because they do not understand what they believe, and then when confronted with an anti-Catholic challenge they assume that because they do not know the answer there is none

The question which comes to mind is how does one deal with this type of uninformed intolerance?

It cannot be silence.

One of the minor saints whose memorial is today (the major memorial is for St. Monica, mother of St. Augustine) is Saint Poemon, who once said “Silence is not a virtue when charity calls for speech.” This is a very real issue.

There are times when I just want to throw up my hands and say “To hell with this, it isn’t worth it…” But when calumnies are made, we must speak out for the truth, lest someone think that our silence means there is no answer.

The hysterical anti-Catholic belief holds that Catholics follow a corrupted Christianity introducing pagan customs in and making them into doctrines and dogmas. They will make use of the post hoc fallacy, claiming that because a certain pagan culture followed certain forms and the Catholic Church followed certain forms the Catholic Church must have adopted these things from pagan culture.

In contrast, they claim they follow the Bible pure and simple as it was meant to be followed.

Now sometimes, when dealing with an individual of reason, even if disagreement remains, they will be respectful and say that even though they disagree. The bigot will assume that everything contrary to his belief is wrong, and if you knock down one point, will move on to the next, and will never consider the possibility he misunderstands what he hates.

Quiet and reasoned discourse is the optimal response. However, this won’t work with a verse slinger. They operate under the principle that pagan belief X is similar to Catholic belief A. Therefore they apply Bible verse Y to Catholic belief A and say this proves Catholic beliefs are false.

Against such a mindset, one will not convince an individual to reconsider. All you can do is to point out the errors and hope others will not follow the anti-Catholic into the ditch.

Most importantly we can pray for them.

Dealing With Intolerance

The question which comes to mind is how does one deal with this type of uninformed intolerance?

It cannot be silence.

In contrast, they claim they follow the Bible pure and simple as it was meant to be followed.

Against such a mindset, one will not convince an individual to reconsider. All you can do is to point out the errors and hope others will not follow the anti-Catholic into the ditch.

Most importantly we can pray for them.

Pages

Monday, January 23, 2023

It’s Iimi! Better Call Paul

Monday, September 5, 2022

It’s Iimi! There is Nothing Concealed That Will Not Be Revealed

Saturday, November 7, 2020

Faithfulness to All of God’s Commands

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

Just a Pinch of Incense 2019

Saturday, May 25, 2019

Do We Act as We Believe? The Double Standard Trap

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Reformation Day 2017 and Catholic Dissent

Friday, March 11, 2016

Quick Quips: Bad Perspectives Edition

Sunday, June 28, 2015

We Have To Behave as Emissaries of Our Lord

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Don't Panic

Monday, October 26, 2009

On Witness: Two Quadrilemmas

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Dealing With Intolerance

Dealing With Intolerance

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Reflections on Truth and Charity in Gainesville, FL

Reflections on Truth and Charity in Gainesville, FL