Reflections on Radical Traditionalism: Why it is a Danger

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.” (Matt 23:15)

Preliminary Disclaimer

As always, one needs to recognize there is a difference between the person who prefers the liturgy and the discipline of the time before Vatican II but respects the authority of the Pope to make changes for the good of the Church and the radical who claims that the Pope who makes such changes is in error. This article deals with the second group, not the first group.

Introduction

I’ve seen the comments on blogs, heard it from friends. The claim that the Vatican, in “going after” radical Traditionalists and disciplining them are wasting time on groups “too small to matter” and should be going after Modernists instead.

I have two quarrels with this claim. The first is a logical objection. The second is an objection to the claim that the Radical Traditionalists are harmless or less harmful.

PART I

The Logical Problem of the Claim: Affirming the Disjunct

Ironically, the claim that the Vatican should be going after Liberals or Modernists is essentially the same fallacy used by Doug Kmiec to propose Obama as a “pro-life” candidate.

1. We can either do [A] or [B]
2. People are doing [B]
3. Therefore they are not doing [A]

The problem is, of course, “Either [A] or [B]” are not the only options, and the fact that the Church does [B] is no proof they are neglecting [A]. This is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The problem is just because condition [B] exists, does not mean that condition [A] cannot exist as well. Kmiec made this error in arguing we can either seek to end Roe v. Wade or we can help women seeking abortions, and arguing those opposing Obama sought to end abortions therefore those opposing abortion are not in favor of helping women.

This is of course nonsense.

However the defenders of the radical traditionalists make the same error. They assume the sanctions invoked against the radical traditionalists means nothing is being done against the modernists. The enthymeme of this argument is that “it can’t be both [A] and [B]” which needs to be proven, but is usually bypassed by the argument from silence (“I never hear of the Church disciplining liberals, therefore they don’t.”) and when evidence is provided, the fallacy of “moving the goalposts” is used (“The Church never disciplines liberals!” “What about Milingo or others?” “That’s not enough!”)

The only way to avoid the fallacy is by first providing proof that the condition is exclusively [A] or [B]. However, this is never done. Rather it is merely assumed. Examples in favor of the argument are promoted. Examples which show the condition is not exclusively [A] or [B] are ignored.

PART II

Are Radical Traditionalists In Fact Harmless?

Let’s make no mistake here. The Liberal dissenters are indeed doing wrong and need to be opposed. However, the liberal dissenters are not a group who are likely to deceive the Catholic who is seeking to do what is right and to follow the Church teaching. The teachings of Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Joan Chittister do not appeal to the person seeking what they must do to be faithful. They appeal to the person who is seeking an excuse to disobey.

However, the Radical Traditionalists are also dangerous because they can mislead the person who is looking for the way to follow the true Church. Consider, for example, the case of Gerry Matatics, who entered the Church in 1986, became a Radical Traditionalist in 1992 and is now proclaiming the Post Vatican II Church is heretical and that Pope Benedict XVI is most likely not the true Pope (the logic of his syllogisms are terrible by the way, assuming what needs to be proven). Matatics is an extreme example of what one seeking to be faithful can become. However, less extreme cases are common indeed.

Becoming what one condemns

The problem I see with the Radical Traditionalist is that while the subject matter of their dissent is different from those of the Liberal Modernist dissenter, the form of their nature is chillingly similar.

• A position is staked out in opposition to what the Magisterium holds
• Documents are selectively cited seeking to show a contradiction of the present Magisterium with past popes or councils
• The conclusion is made that the present Magisterium is in error.

There is a serious problem with this view however, whether the one who makes use of it is modernist or radical traditionalist, and that is the fact that it all centers on the personal interpretation of the selected documents. Whether it is the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” or whether it is a radical traditionalist focusing on a 19^th century condemnation of religious indifferentism to claim that the relations between Catholics and others must be eternally acrimonious, both refuse to recognize the authority of the Magisterium when it comes down on a side contrary to what one holds.

Thus, instead of recognizing the possibility of erring personally, the error is thus automatically assumed to be on the part of the Church. Ironically, both sides will recognize the disobedience of the other side, but not their own disobedience. It’s as if Christ never said in Matthew 7:

^1 “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

^2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

^3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

^4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?

^5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

Quite frankly, when both sides make use of judging the other of refusing to obey the magisterium on a specific topic, but refuse to obey on their own areas of contention, they do behave hypocritically.

Appeal to an Ideal(ism)

Fundamentalism is often used as a slur, and is used so broadly that it is almost worthless as a descriptor. Generally speaking it associates “fundamentalist” with “right wing politics.” However, in the most general sense, Fundamentalism can be understood as holding there was once a time when religion was practiced perfectly (or at least better), and to be perfect, one must go back to the practices of this time. Now of course the appeal to the practices to be followed can be real (such as the traditionalistic “Pre-conciliar” view) or to a fictional (such as the claims of some liberals that the early Church was “pre-hierarchical”).

The Problem is the issue of conditions which were different. If the Church in the 13^th century was the pinnacle of Christendom, we certainly need to recognize that the circumstances at this time were certainly different than they are in the 21^st century and practices of the Church in the sense of discipline could not even remotely be handled the same way. Similarly, the appeal of some radical traditionalists who misuse the axiom lex orendi lex credenda (The Law of prayer is the law of belief) of St. Prosper of Aquitane to say that the changing of the liturgy led to a collapse of beliefs and heretical priests. This can be demonstrated as a post hoc fallacy by pointing out a few facts. Dissenting priests were present before Vatican II and the 1970 missal. Humanae Vitae which was widely dissented from was written before the 1970 missal (in 1968 to be precise).

If the change of the liturgy caused the change of belief, then it is not demonstrated by the evidence. Indeed, the appeal to “go back” to before Vatican II or before the current form of the Mass is based on an idealism which forgets the growing disillusionment with authority in the 1950s. It overlooks the assimilation of Catholics into mainstream society in the 1950s and 1960s, and it overlooks the general rejection of authority in Catholic, Protestant and entirely non-Christian nations in the mid to late 1960s. Instead they submit an idealistic sequence:

1. Before Vatican II, the Church was strong
2. After Vatican II, the Church was weak
3. Therefore Vatican II caused the Church to weaken

Of course if there is any other reason besides Vatican II which caused this, the alleged cause-effect is wrong.

The Authority to Bind and Loose

It has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church that the authority to bind and to loose. It is de fide (a matter of faith which is not to be contradicted by one who claims to be a faithful Catholic) that Peter had primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church and that this primacy extends to his successors. This primacy is not just over matters of faith and morals but also over the matters of discipline and government of the Church (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pages 279, 282, 285). Pope Pius XII made clear in the encyclical Humani Generis that the idea that the Pope must only be obeyed on matters of ex cathedra is an error. He says:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

In other words, when the Pope teaches in a binding manner using the ordinary magisterium, he must be heeded.

The Pope has authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition, and we do believe that when he teaches authoritatively as Pope and not as a private theologian, we are to obey.

Here then is the irony of the Radical Traditionalist who claims to be the followers of true Catholic teaching. To defend their rebellion against Vatican II, they must violate the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on exactly who has the final right of interpretation. The radical traditionalist who accuses the Church of today of being riddled with “the errors of Protestantism” is actually performing the same act they find so offensive when done by Luther and others in rejecting the Catholic teaching due to their own interpretation and their own decision of what is to be given credibility.

Thus the dissenter (Traditionalist or Modernist) does not evaluate his or her belief based on the Magisterium teaching, but evaluates the Magisterium teaching based on his or her belief. This makes the Teaching authority of the Church superfluous. When it agrees with the dissenter it is unnecessary. When it disagrees with the dissenter, the teaching authority is wrong.

Why the Radical Traditionalist IS a Danger to the Church

The Catholic who is seeking to follow the Catholic faith and knows the authority of the Popes and the long line of consistent teaching is rather unlikely to consider a dissenter like Küng to be a voice of authority. One looking for an excuse to dissent might use his sophistry to justify disobedience, but one seeking to obey the Church would not.

What makes the radical traditionalist dangerous is the fact that he claims to be following the true teaching of the Church. Like an anti-Catholic seeking to “rescue” a person from the Catholic Church and takes Scripture out of context to do so, the radical traditionalist has often cited old Church documents and compared them with new Church documents. He plays upon the faithful individual’s recognizing that there is indeed rebellion and disobedience in the Church, and leads them to think that it is the fault of “modernists” and “freemasons” within the Church [Prior to the end of the Cold War, Communism was also invoked] who have infiltrated the Church to teach error. Much literature of slanderous character has been published accusing Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI of being freemasons. Such literature is seldom repudiated by the officials of the SSPX.

When you consider that the SSPX has seminaries which teaches formally that one can disobey the Magisterium when it goes against their judgment on the grounds that if they disagree they are tainted with heresy, you can see the danger of such a system for the would-be faithful Catholic and see why the Magisterium must oppose them and not leave them be.

Radical Traditionalists are Not Misunderstood when they are Opposed

I have no doubt that a good percentage of the Catholics who prefer the Mass of the 1962 missal (See The Reform of the Reform? for a balanced view of the issue) are indeed faithful Catholics. They may not like the current form of the Mass and attend the legitimate Extraordinary Form when they can, but they accept the authority of the Magisterium and oppose rebellion.

Radical Traditionalists on the other hand are in disobedience to the Magisterium. There obedience only follows as long as the Magisterium does as they think right. When they say “Do not listen to Rome, listen to me” they are indeed a danger to the Church. It is wrong to think of the issue as “All they want is the Latin Mass. Why not go after the Liberals who support abortion?” As I pointed out in the beginning of this article, this is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The Church is indeed going after them with some strong actions indeed even if it is not always handled as we would personally like. However, the existence of the liberal dissent does not justify traditionalist dissent.

Conclusion

The dissenter, whether modernist or traditionalist, might be quite sincere in their disobedience. They might actually believe the Church is wrong. So here is the rub: If the Catholic Church believes it must teach as it does, and the dissenter disagrees with the Church then there are two options:

1. They are wrong and the Church is right. In this case, they must reevaluate their position and cease to be in error.
2. They are right and the Church is wrong. In this case, the dissenter must reevaluate their relationship with the Church they believe to be teaching error

If the obedience to the Pope as the successor of Peter is a de fide position and the Church teaches something the dissenter believes is wrong, then either the dissenter is in error or the Church is not protected from error… which would mean the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ promised to protect.

If the Radical Traditionalist decides to remain within the Church while refusing to accept the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, it is really a case of Cafeteria Catholicism.

Reflections on Radical Traditionalism: Why it is a Danger

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.” (Matt 23:15)

Preliminary Disclaimer

As always, one needs to recognize there is a difference between the person who prefers the liturgy and the discipline of the time before Vatican II but respects the authority of the Pope to make changes for the good of the Church and the radical who claims that the Pope who makes such changes is in error. This article deals with the second group, not the first group.

Introduction

I’ve seen the comments on blogs, heard it from friends. The claim that the Vatican, in “going after” radical Traditionalists and disciplining them are wasting time on groups “too small to matter” and should be going after Modernists instead.

I have two quarrels with this claim. The first is a logical objection. The second is an objection to the claim that the Radical Traditionalists are harmless or less harmful.

PART I

The Logical Problem of the Claim: Affirming the Disjunct

Ironically, the claim that the Vatican should be going after Liberals or Modernists is essentially the same fallacy used by Doug Kmiec to propose Obama as a “pro-life” candidate.

1. We can either do [A] or [B]
2. People are doing [B]
3. Therefore they are not doing [A]

The problem is, of course, “Either [A] or [B]” are not the only options, and the fact that the Church does [B] is no proof they are neglecting [A]. This is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The problem is just because condition [B] exists, does not mean that condition [A] cannot exist as well. Kmiec made this error in arguing we can either seek to end Roe v. Wade or we can help women seeking abortions, and arguing those opposing Obama sought to end abortions therefore those opposing abortion are not in favor of helping women.

This is of course nonsense.

However the defenders of the radical traditionalists make the same error. They assume the sanctions invoked against the radical traditionalists means nothing is being done against the modernists. The enthymeme of this argument is that “it can’t be both [A] and [B]” which needs to be proven, but is usually bypassed by the argument from silence (“I never hear of the Church disciplining liberals, therefore they don’t.”) and when evidence is provided, the fallacy of “moving the goalposts” is used (“The Church never disciplines liberals!” “What about Milingo or others?” “That’s not enough!”)

The only way to avoid the fallacy is by first providing proof that the condition is exclusively [A] or [B]. However, this is never done. Rather it is merely assumed. Examples in favor of the argument are promoted. Examples which show the condition is not exclusively [A] or [B] are ignored.

PART II

Are Radical Traditionalists In Fact Harmless?

Let’s make no mistake here. The Liberal dissenters are indeed doing wrong and need to be opposed. However, the liberal dissenters are not a group who are likely to deceive the Catholic who is seeking to do what is right and to follow the Church teaching. The teachings of Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Joan Chittister do not appeal to the person seeking what they must do to be faithful. They appeal to the person who is seeking an excuse to disobey.

However, the Radical Traditionalists are also dangerous because they can mislead the person who is looking for the way to follow the true Church. Consider, for example, the case of Gerry Matatics, who entered the Church in 1986, became a Radical Traditionalist in 1992 and is now proclaiming the Post Vatican II Church is heretical and that Pope Benedict XVI is most likely not the true Pope (the logic of his syllogisms are terrible by the way, assuming what needs to be proven). Matatics is an extreme example of what one seeking to be faithful can become. However, less extreme cases are common indeed.

Becoming what one condemns

The problem I see with the Radical Traditionalist is that while the subject matter of their dissent is different from those of the Liberal Modernist dissenter, the form of their nature is chillingly similar.

• A position is staked out in opposition to what the Magisterium holds
• Documents are selectively cited seeking to show a contradiction of the present Magisterium with past popes or councils
• The conclusion is made that the present Magisterium is in error.

There is a serious problem with this view however, whether the one who makes use of it is modernist or radical traditionalist, and that is the fact that it all centers on the personal interpretation of the selected documents. Whether it is the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” or whether it is a radical traditionalist focusing on a 19^th century condemnation of religious indifferentism to claim that the relations between Catholics and others must be eternally acrimonious, both refuse to recognize the authority of the Magisterium when it comes down on a side contrary to what one holds.

Thus, instead of recognizing the possibility of erring personally, the error is thus automatically assumed to be on the part of the Church. Ironically, both sides will recognize the disobedience of the other side, but not their own disobedience. It’s as if Christ never said in Matthew 7:

^1 “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

^2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

^3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

^4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?

^5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

Quite frankly, when both sides make use of judging the other of refusing to obey the magisterium on a specific topic, but refuse to obey on their own areas of contention, they do behave hypocritically.

Appeal to an Ideal(ism)

Fundamentalism is often used as a slur, and is used so broadly that it is almost worthless as a descriptor. Generally speaking it associates “fundamentalist” with “right wing politics.” However, in the most general sense, Fundamentalism can be understood as holding there was once a time when religion was practiced perfectly (or at least better), and to be perfect, one must go back to the practices of this time. Now of course the appeal to the practices to be followed can be real (such as the traditionalistic “Pre-conciliar” view) or to a fictional (such as the claims of some liberals that the early Church was “pre-hierarchical”).

The Problem is the issue of conditions which were different. If the Church in the 13^th century was the pinnacle of Christendom, we certainly need to recognize that the circumstances at this time were certainly different than they are in the 21^st century and practices of the Church in the sense of discipline could not even remotely be handled the same way. Similarly, the appeal of some radical traditionalists who misuse the axiom lex orendi lex credenda (The Law of prayer is the law of belief) of St. Prosper of Aquitane to say that the changing of the liturgy led to a collapse of beliefs and heretical priests. This can be demonstrated as a post hoc fallacy by pointing out a few facts. Dissenting priests were present before Vatican II and the 1970 missal. Humanae Vitae which was widely dissented from was written before the 1970 missal (in 1968 to be precise).

If the change of the liturgy caused the change of belief, then it is not demonstrated by the evidence. Indeed, the appeal to “go back” to before Vatican II or before the current form of the Mass is based on an idealism which forgets the growing disillusionment with authority in the 1950s. It overlooks the assimilation of Catholics into mainstream society in the 1950s and 1960s, and it overlooks the general rejection of authority in Catholic, Protestant and entirely non-Christian nations in the mid to late 1960s. Instead they submit an idealistic sequence:

1. Before Vatican II, the Church was strong
2. After Vatican II, the Church was weak
3. Therefore Vatican II caused the Church to weaken

Of course if there is any other reason besides Vatican II which caused this, the alleged cause-effect is wrong.

The Authority to Bind and Loose

It has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church that the authority to bind and to loose. It is de fide (a matter of faith which is not to be contradicted by one who claims to be a faithful Catholic) that Peter had primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church and that this primacy extends to his successors. This primacy is not just over matters of faith and morals but also over the matters of discipline and government of the Church (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pages 279, 282, 285). Pope Pius XII made clear in the encyclical Humani Generis that the idea that the Pope must only be obeyed on matters of ex cathedra is an error. He says:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

In other words, when the Pope teaches in a binding manner using the ordinary magisterium, he must be heeded.

The Pope has authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition, and we do believe that when he teaches authoritatively as Pope and not as a private theologian, we are to obey.

Here then is the irony of the Radical Traditionalist who claims to be the followers of true Catholic teaching. To defend their rebellion against Vatican II, they must violate the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on exactly who has the final right of interpretation. The radical traditionalist who accuses the Church of today of being riddled with “the errors of Protestantism” is actually performing the same act they find so offensive when done by Luther and others in rejecting the Catholic teaching due to their own interpretation and their own decision of what is to be given credibility.

Thus the dissenter (Traditionalist or Modernist) does not evaluate his or her belief based on the Magisterium teaching, but evaluates the Magisterium teaching based on his or her belief. This makes the Teaching authority of the Church superfluous. When it agrees with the dissenter it is unnecessary. When it disagrees with the dissenter, the teaching authority is wrong.

Why the Radical Traditionalist IS a Danger to the Church

The Catholic who is seeking to follow the Catholic faith and knows the authority of the Popes and the long line of consistent teaching is rather unlikely to consider a dissenter like Küng to be a voice of authority. One looking for an excuse to dissent might use his sophistry to justify disobedience, but one seeking to obey the Church would not.

What makes the radical traditionalist dangerous is the fact that he claims to be following the true teaching of the Church. Like an anti-Catholic seeking to “rescue” a person from the Catholic Church and takes Scripture out of context to do so, the radical traditionalist has often cited old Church documents and compared them with new Church documents. He plays upon the faithful individual’s recognizing that there is indeed rebellion and disobedience in the Church, and leads them to think that it is the fault of “modernists” and “freemasons” within the Church [Prior to the end of the Cold War, Communism was also invoked] who have infiltrated the Church to teach error. Much literature of slanderous character has been published accusing Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI of being freemasons. Such literature is seldom repudiated by the officials of the SSPX.

When you consider that the SSPX has seminaries which teaches formally that one can disobey the Magisterium when it goes against their judgment on the grounds that if they disagree they are tainted with heresy, you can see the danger of such a system for the would-be faithful Catholic and see why the Magisterium must oppose them and not leave them be.

Radical Traditionalists are Not Misunderstood when they are Opposed

I have no doubt that a good percentage of the Catholics who prefer the Mass of the 1962 missal (See The Reform of the Reform? for a balanced view of the issue) are indeed faithful Catholics. They may not like the current form of the Mass and attend the legitimate Extraordinary Form when they can, but they accept the authority of the Magisterium and oppose rebellion.

Radical Traditionalists on the other hand are in disobedience to the Magisterium. There obedience only follows as long as the Magisterium does as they think right. When they say “Do not listen to Rome, listen to me” they are indeed a danger to the Church. It is wrong to think of the issue as “All they want is the Latin Mass. Why not go after the Liberals who support abortion?” As I pointed out in the beginning of this article, this is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The Church is indeed going after them with some strong actions indeed even if it is not always handled as we would personally like. However, the existence of the liberal dissent does not justify traditionalist dissent.

Conclusion

The dissenter, whether modernist or traditionalist, might be quite sincere in their disobedience. They might actually believe the Church is wrong. So here is the rub: If the Catholic Church believes it must teach as it does, and the dissenter disagrees with the Church then there are two options:

1. They are wrong and the Church is right. In this case, they must reevaluate their position and cease to be in error.
2. They are right and the Church is wrong. In this case, the dissenter must reevaluate their relationship with the Church they believe to be teaching error

If the obedience to the Pope as the successor of Peter is a de fide position and the Church teaches something the dissenter believes is wrong, then either the dissenter is in error or the Church is not protected from error… which would mean the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ promised to protect.

If the Radical Traditionalist decides to remain within the Church while refusing to accept the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, it is really a case of Cafeteria Catholicism.

Christian! Where is Your Faith?

I think one temptation Christians tend to fall into (and I include myself in this category) is the belief that God will either grant us what we want in the way we want or else He is being unfair or the like.  We try to force God into some narrow categories of "He will either do [A] or He is not fair."  In doing so, we forget that God loves us and seeks for us what is the greatest good if we will let Him do so.  Sometimes this means God will lead us in a way we do not think looks ideal from our finite perspective.

This mentality is an attitude which lacks faith in God.  We do not trust Him to do what is best in our life, come what may.  We get it into our hearts that there is only one right solution, and if God fails to provide that one solution we often see people acting as if God has "betrayed" us.

As a result, some people remain believers but are angry at God while others lose their faith.

I think there is a similarity between the Christian who has this mentality and certain atheists who seeks to "scientifically prove" that prayer doesn't work.  The error of reasoning is:

1. If God [Loves us OR God is real] He will do [what is being prayed for] (Either [A] or [B])
2. [What we pray for] doesn't happen. (Not [B])
3. Therefore God [doesn't love us OR is not real] (Therefore Not [A])

The problem is with the assumption of the major premise.  God can love us and God can exist without giving us what we pray for, if He deems that what we pray for to be pushing us away from what is not truly good for us

Alternately, when looking at the misfortunes of others, it is common to hear people indicate that God must be punishing them for what they did.

The Book of Job

I think the Book of Job is important to remember in these situations.  The synopsis of this book is Job, a man known for his holiness is suddenly afflicted losing all of his temporal wealth and is afflicted with bodily suffering.  Some of his friends come and seek to argue that because God has allowed this to happen, it must mean that Job has some evil deeds he is being punished for.

Job however, knows he has not done evil and is in a bitter quandary.  God afflicts the wicked.  Yet Job is afflicted and is not wicked.  Therefore he struggles with the thought that he is being afflicted unjustly.

What breaks this deadlock is the appearance of God.  God questions Job, demonstrating that the knowledge of man is vastly inferior to the knowledge of God.  From this, Job recognizes that man is unable to judge the wisdom of God and that just because man cannot perceive a reason for a thing happening does not mean there is no reason.

In the end, God restores to Job compensation many times what he lost.

I find the Book of Job to be a good reminder that what we suffer through is not without meaning or purpose, even if we cannot perceive the reason.

The Error of Vox Day

Unfortunately Christians tend to lose sight of this.  They feel trapped in the dilemma that God either must not be all powerful or else must not be all good.  Since the Christian recognizes the goodness of God (even the fuzzy minded Christians who contrast love and justice), they tend to look at the other end of the omnipotence of God and tend to water it down.

Vox Day is the pen name of Theodore Beale, author of The Irrational Atheist [A book which I do not recommend or endorse].   The book (apparently available for free download from his site.  All page references in this article will be from the Word document download) makes some good points and some points I think which are less so.  If he had just stopped at chapter 14, the book would be much less problematic than it actually is.

Unfortunately, to try to keep God's omnipotence and being Good, he tries to sacrifice God's being all knowing and falls into heresy, saying:

First, it is important to note that the Christian God, the god towards whom Dawkins directs the great majority of his attacks, makes no broad claims to omniscience. Although there are eighty-seven references to the things that the Biblical God knows, only a single example could potentially be interpreted as a universal claim to complete knowledge. (Page 262)

It is an unfortunate error on Beale's part.  Indeed it necessarily contradicts God's omnipotence and goodness if God does not know all.  So I must shake my head with sadness when I read him saying:

Regardless, a God who stands outside of space and time and who possesses all knowledge as well as all power is not bound to make use of his full capacities, indeed, who is going to shake their finger at him for failing to live up to his potential? Only the likes of Dawkins and Owens, one presumes, as their ability to logically disprove God’s existence by this method depends upon His abiding by their rigid definitions of His qualities . . . at least one of which He does not even claim in His Word. (page 264)

The problem is, if God does not "live up to His potential" that indicates a lack of perfection in God.  If He is not all knowing, then there are situations where God cannot use his omnipotence or behave in a perfectly good manner.

Beale has reduced God to a being on par with one of the Greek gods of mythology.  A being who was somewhat wiser than we are but can be caught looking the wrong way.  Beale would have been better served to consider the option of God setting the world in motion, and then intervening or not as He saw fit.

Job vs. Beale

Unfortunately, Beale does not put his faith in God.  He argues against the view that "God makes everything happen" by discussing things like Hurricane Katrina and saying atheists like Sam Harris are closer to the truth than the "Evangelical" who believes everything happens for a purpose (see page 266).

The problem is, Beale and his argument with the "God makes everything happen" Evangelicals fall into the same trap as Job and his friends.  The debate over whether God is all powerful and is afflicting Job vs. Job knowing he is not guilty and is struggling with whether God is less than perfectly good.

There is a difference between God directly causing a thing and God permitting a thing.  God does not do evil, though He may permit evil for a greater good to be brought out if it.  This does not mean He approves of the evil done.

Unfortunately for Beale, his objections were anticipated close to 1700 years before by Lactantius (AD 250-325) in his writing On the Workmanship of God.  If God sets the world in motion, creating weather patterns to bring us the needed rain for example, or creates the Earth with tectonic movements it is done for the purposes of making the Earth sustainable.

He was not caught napping when Katrina hit.  Nor did He necessarily do it to punish Louisiana.

God's Words to Job Applies to Us as Well

In Job 38, we see God putting the human assumptions in their place:

^{1 }Then the LORD addressed Job out of the storm and said:

^2 Who is this that obscures divine plans

with words of ignorance?

^3 Gird up your loins now, like a man;

I will question you, and you tell me the answers!

^4 Where were you when I founded the earth?

Tell me, if you have understanding.

^5 Who determined its size; do you know?

Who stretched out the measuring line for it?

^6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,

and who laid the cornerstone,

^{7 }While the morning stars sang in chorus

and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

^8 And who shut within doors the sea,

when it burst forth from the womb;

^9 When I made the clouds its garment

and thick darkness its swaddling bands?

The point is, God created the world and we as humans cannot even remotely pretend to understand the workings of the mind of God.

Christian, Where is your Faith?

Here then is the question.  Do we believe in God?  Do we believe He is all powerful?  Do we believe He is perfectly good?  Do we believe He has promised to look after us and provide us our needs?

If so, we need to repeat the words of Christ in Gethsemane, “My Father, if it is not possible that this cup pass without my drinking it, your will be done!”(Mt 26:42). Certainly there will be times in our life when affliction comes.  Some may be done by the free will of evil men.  Sometimes it may be natural disasters.  We can be afflicted by diseases.  We can suffer in many ways.  The question is: Will we have faith in Him, come what may, that He is the Lord of our life?

If not, then why do we profess to be a Christian if we will not put faith in the Christian God?

Christian! Where is Your Faith?

I think one temptation Christians tend to fall into (and I include myself in this category) is the belief that God will either grant us what we want in the way we want or else He is being unfair or the like.  We try to force God into some narrow categories of "He will either do [A] or He is not fair."  In doing so, we forget that God loves us and seeks for us what is the greatest good if we will let Him do so.  Sometimes this means God will lead us in a way we do not think looks ideal from our finite perspective.

This mentality is an attitude which lacks faith in God.  We do not trust Him to do what is best in our life, come what may.  We get it into our hearts that there is only one right solution, and if God fails to provide that one solution we often see people acting as if God has "betrayed" us.

As a result, some people remain believers but are angry at God while others lose their faith.

I think there is a similarity between the Christian who has this mentality and certain atheists who seeks to "scientifically prove" that prayer doesn't work.  The error of reasoning is:

1. If God [Loves us OR God is real] He will do [what is being prayed for] (Either [A] or [B])
2. [What we pray for] doesn't happen. (Not [B])
3. Therefore God [doesn't love us OR is not real] (Therefore Not [A])

The problem is with the assumption of the major premise.  God can love us and God can exist without giving us what we pray for, if He deems that what we pray for to be pushing us away from what is not truly good for us

Alternately, when looking at the misfortunes of others, it is common to hear people indicate that God must be punishing them for what they did.

The Book of Job

I think the Book of Job is important to remember in these situations.  The synopsis of this book is Job, a man known for his holiness is suddenly afflicted losing all of his temporal wealth and is afflicted with bodily suffering.  Some of his friends come and seek to argue that because God has allowed this to happen, it must mean that Job has some evil deeds he is being punished for.

Job however, knows he has not done evil and is in a bitter quandary.  God afflicts the wicked.  Yet Job is afflicted and is not wicked.  Therefore he struggles with the thought that he is being afflicted unjustly.

What breaks this deadlock is the appearance of God.  God questions Job, demonstrating that the knowledge of man is vastly inferior to the knowledge of God.  From this, Job recognizes that man is unable to judge the wisdom of God and that just because man cannot perceive a reason for a thing happening does not mean there is no reason.

In the end, God restores to Job compensation many times what he lost.

I find the Book of Job to be a good reminder that what we suffer through is not without meaning or purpose, even if we cannot perceive the reason.

The Error of Vox Day

Unfortunately Christians tend to lose sight of this.  They feel trapped in the dilemma that God either must not be all powerful or else must not be all good.  Since the Christian recognizes the goodness of God (even the fuzzy minded Christians who contrast love and justice), they tend to look at the other end of the omnipotence of God and tend to water it down.

Vox Day is the pen name of Theodore Beale, author of The Irrational Atheist [A book which I do not recommend or endorse].   The book (apparently available for free download from his site.  All page references in this article will be from the Word document download) makes some good points and some points I think which are less so.  If he had just stopped at chapter 14, the book would be much less problematic than it actually is.

Unfortunately, to try to keep God's omnipotence and being Good, he tries to sacrifice God's being all knowing and falls into heresy, saying:

First, it is important to note that the Christian God, the god towards whom Dawkins directs the great majority of his attacks, makes no broad claims to omniscience. Although there are eighty-seven references to the things that the Biblical God knows, only a single example could potentially be interpreted as a universal claim to complete knowledge. (Page 262)

It is an unfortunate error on Beale's part.  Indeed it necessarily contradicts God's omnipotence and goodness if God does not know all.  So I must shake my head with sadness when I read him saying:

Regardless, a God who stands outside of space and time and who possesses all knowledge as well as all power is not bound to make use of his full capacities, indeed, who is going to shake their finger at him for failing to live up to his potential? Only the likes of Dawkins and Owens, one presumes, as their ability to logically disprove God’s existence by this method depends upon His abiding by their rigid definitions of His qualities . . . at least one of which He does not even claim in His Word. (page 264)

The problem is, if God does not "live up to His potential" that indicates a lack of perfection in God.  If He is not all knowing, then there are situations where God cannot use his omnipotence or behave in a perfectly good manner.

Beale has reduced God to a being on par with one of the Greek gods of mythology.  A being who was somewhat wiser than we are but can be caught looking the wrong way.  Beale would have been better served to consider the option of God setting the world in motion, and then intervening or not as He saw fit.

Job vs. Beale

Unfortunately, Beale does not put his faith in God.  He argues against the view that "God makes everything happen" by discussing things like Hurricane Katrina and saying atheists like Sam Harris are closer to the truth than the "Evangelical" who believes everything happens for a purpose (see page 266).

The problem is, Beale and his argument with the "God makes everything happen" Evangelicals fall into the same trap as Job and his friends.  The debate over whether God is all powerful and is afflicting Job vs. Job knowing he is not guilty and is struggling with whether God is less than perfectly good.

There is a difference between God directly causing a thing and God permitting a thing.  God does not do evil, though He may permit evil for a greater good to be brought out if it.  This does not mean He approves of the evil done.

Unfortunately for Beale, his objections were anticipated close to 1700 years before by Lactantius (AD 250-325) in his writing On the Workmanship of God.  If God sets the world in motion, creating weather patterns to bring us the needed rain for example, or creates the Earth with tectonic movements it is done for the purposes of making the Earth sustainable.

He was not caught napping when Katrina hit.  Nor did He necessarily do it to punish Louisiana.

God's Words to Job Applies to Us as Well

In Job 38, we see God putting the human assumptions in their place:

^{1 }Then the LORD addressed Job out of the storm and said:

^2 Who is this that obscures divine plans

with words of ignorance?

^3 Gird up your loins now, like a man;

I will question you, and you tell me the answers!

^4 Where were you when I founded the earth?

Tell me, if you have understanding.

^5 Who determined its size; do you know?

Who stretched out the measuring line for it?

^6 Into what were its pedestals sunk,

and who laid the cornerstone,

^{7 }While the morning stars sang in chorus

and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

^8 And who shut within doors the sea,

when it burst forth from the womb;

^9 When I made the clouds its garment

and thick darkness its swaddling bands?

The point is, God created the world and we as humans cannot even remotely pretend to understand the workings of the mind of God.

Christian, Where is your Faith?

Here then is the question.  Do we believe in God?  Do we believe He is all powerful?  Do we believe He is perfectly good?  Do we believe He has promised to look after us and provide us our needs?

If so, we need to repeat the words of Christ in Gethsemane, “My Father, if it is not possible that this cup pass without my drinking it, your will be done!”(Mt 26:42). Certainly there will be times in our life when affliction comes.  Some may be done by the free will of evil men.  Sometimes it may be natural disasters.  We can be afflicted by diseases.  We can suffer in many ways.  The question is: Will we have faith in Him, come what may, that He is the Lord of our life?

If not, then why do we profess to be a Christian if we will not put faith in the Christian God?

Candy Bar Theology

^24 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He had Paul summoned and listened to him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.

^25 But as he spoke about righteousness and self-restraint and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, “You may go for now; when I find an opportunity I shall summon you again.” (Acts:24:24-25)

One thing I have noticed in modern Christianity is the tendency of the believer to choose or not choose a belief based not on whether it is true, but on whether it is appealing.  Thus we hear the message of love, but believe the messages of obedience and judgment are left behind.

The Origin of the Term

In his insightful book, Socrates Meets Jesus, the character of Socrates speaks of the modern beliefs in Christianity as such:

Socrates: And I still don't know why you believe what you believe.

Bertha: I just do, that's ail. Maybe it's irrational, Maybe we choose to believe things and choose to do things for other reasons than rational reasons. Didn't you ever think of that?

Socrates: Like eating that candy bar, for instance?

Bertha: Yes. I think you're wrong when you teach that evil comes only from ignorance. That's rationalism. That assumes that rea­son always rules. It doesn't. It gets pushed around by the desires and the will sometimes.

Socrates; I think you are convincing me of just that. In fact, I think I have seen two instances of it just this morning— instances of something I disbelieved in until now.

Bertha: Two instances?

Socrates: Yes. Your candy bar and your beliefs. You choose both not because they are good for you, or because they are true, but because they are sweet. Your belief that God forgives but does not judge is rather like a candy bar, is it not? It Is a sweet thought, the thought that we have only half of justice to deal with when we deal with God, that God rewards goodness but does not punish evil—is not that thought sweet and desirable? And are you not attracted to it just as you are attracted to the candy bar? (Page 55)

How It Afflicts Christianity

The reason this afflicts [no, I did not mean to type "affects"] Christianity is that it focuses on one aspect of God, making it the whole.  When the Church insists on looking at God as both Love and Just, it is the Church which is accused of legalism or being hard hearted in relation to God instead of considering the possibility of a lax conscience of the individual.

Such a view of Christianity seems to make use of the following kind of reasoning:

1. [God] is [Good] (All [A] is [B])
2. No [Punishment] is [Good] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore [God] Does not [Punish] (Therefore No [C] is [A])

The problem is the assumption of the minor premise, that no punishment is not good.  This is begging the question because the minor premise needs to be proven, not assumed.  Now of course some punishment may be wrong because it is excessive or inflicted on the wrong individual.  However it does not follow no punishment is good.  Sometimes parents must correct their children.  Sometimes the state must incarcerate law breakers for their correction or the protection others.  We can argue more reasonably as follows:

1. [God] is [Just] (All [A] is [B])
2. Some [Punishment] is from [God] (Some [C] is [A])
3. Therefore Some [Punishment] is [Just] (Therefore some [C] is [B])

We can demonstrate the second premise from Scripture and Church teaching.  In both the Old and the New Testament, we see God speaking of punishment and warning of punishment as a way of calling the sinful man back to Himself.  So from this, the believer has to look at the major premise.  Do they believe that God is just or do they not?  If they believe God is both good and just, then it follows that if He punishes, He does so for reasons which are good and just.

If they don't believe God is good or just, then why follow Him?

"Does God really care about X?"

However, most people who do believe in God believe He is just and good.  It's just that they don't think their own behavior should be considered bad.  Because God is good and they don't think their behavior is bad, they reason that therefore God doesn't think the behavior they do is bad, but rather the "mean old Church" imposes this on people for whatever reason.

So we thus see all sorts of questions:

• "Do you really think God cares if I have sex with my girlfriend/boyfriend?"
• "Do you really think God cares if a married couple trying to be good uses contraception?"
• "Do you really think God wants me to be unhappy because my spouse was unfaithful to me and ran off with another?"
• "Do you really think God cares about homosexual acts?"

The unvoiced part of the objection is "This is really unimportant and only the Church thinks it is important.  Yet it is that unvoiced objection which must be proven.

The problem is, of course, you can justify any kind of behavior from this point of view:

• "Do you really think God cares if I offer sacrifice to an idol?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I participate in the Death Camps?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I apostatize from the Faith?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I steal from a rich man?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I eat of the tree of knowledge?"

The thing is, if an act is contrary to His will and we know it is contrary to what He decrees, we are obligated to do as He commands and are guilty if we defy Him.  If a thing is contrary to His will and we do not know it is contrary to His will, our guilt or innocence will depend on what we could know if we bothered to find out.

The Ultimate Satanic Deception

Ultimately the Satanic deception behind such a mentality is Do what you will.  If you think it is good, it must be good.  Good is made subjective to feelings.  Because a God who forgives but does not punish is a pleasing thought, we hide from the consideration of if a thing is good, and what the consequences are for disobedience for what God commands.  Thus we have the sweetness of a forgiving God and the sweetness of self-indulgence without the responsibility and the obligations to obey and the consequences of disobedience.

Conclusion

It is an act of tremendous arrogance to assume for ourselves what is good or bad depending on what we want to do instead of what we ought to do.  To decide that punishment and sin is only for things which do not involve us and fail to consider what we are required to do or what happens when we disobey is foolish indeed.  It is not based on what is true, but what is pleasing to us.

Candy Bar Theology

^24 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He had Paul summoned and listened to him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.

^25 But as he spoke about righteousness and self-restraint and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, “You may go for now; when I find an opportunity I shall summon you again.” (Acts:24:24-25)

One thing I have noticed in modern Christianity is the tendency of the believer to choose or not choose a belief based not on whether it is true, but on whether it is appealing.  Thus we hear the message of love, but believe the messages of obedience and judgment are left behind.

The Origin of the Term

In his insightful book, Socrates Meets Jesus, the character of Socrates speaks of the modern beliefs in Christianity as such:

Socrates: And I still don't know why you believe what you believe.

Bertha: I just do, that's ail. Maybe it's irrational, Maybe we choose to believe things and choose to do things for other reasons than rational reasons. Didn't you ever think of that?

Socrates: Like eating that candy bar, for instance?

Bertha: Yes. I think you're wrong when you teach that evil comes only from ignorance. That's rationalism. That assumes that rea­son always rules. It doesn't. It gets pushed around by the desires and the will sometimes.

Socrates; I think you are convincing me of just that. In fact, I think I have seen two instances of it just this morning— instances of something I disbelieved in until now.

Bertha: Two instances?

Socrates: Yes. Your candy bar and your beliefs. You choose both not because they are good for you, or because they are true, but because they are sweet. Your belief that God forgives but does not judge is rather like a candy bar, is it not? It Is a sweet thought, the thought that we have only half of justice to deal with when we deal with God, that God rewards goodness but does not punish evil—is not that thought sweet and desirable? And are you not attracted to it just as you are attracted to the candy bar? (Page 55)

How It Afflicts Christianity

The reason this afflicts [no, I did not mean to type "affects"] Christianity is that it focuses on one aspect of God, making it the whole.  When the Church insists on looking at God as both Love and Just, it is the Church which is accused of legalism or being hard hearted in relation to God instead of considering the possibility of a lax conscience of the individual.

Such a view of Christianity seems to make use of the following kind of reasoning:

1. [God] is [Good] (All [A] is [B])
2. No [Punishment] is [Good] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore [God] Does not [Punish] (Therefore No [C] is [A])

The problem is the assumption of the minor premise, that no punishment is not good.  This is begging the question because the minor premise needs to be proven, not assumed.  Now of course some punishment may be wrong because it is excessive or inflicted on the wrong individual.  However it does not follow no punishment is good.  Sometimes parents must correct their children.  Sometimes the state must incarcerate law breakers for their correction or the protection others.  We can argue more reasonably as follows:

1. [God] is [Just] (All [A] is [B])
2. Some [Punishment] is from [God] (Some [C] is [A])
3. Therefore Some [Punishment] is [Just] (Therefore some [C] is [B])

We can demonstrate the second premise from Scripture and Church teaching.  In both the Old and the New Testament, we see God speaking of punishment and warning of punishment as a way of calling the sinful man back to Himself.  So from this, the believer has to look at the major premise.  Do they believe that God is just or do they not?  If they believe God is both good and just, then it follows that if He punishes, He does so for reasons which are good and just.

If they don't believe God is good or just, then why follow Him?

"Does God really care about X?"

However, most people who do believe in God believe He is just and good.  It's just that they don't think their own behavior should be considered bad.  Because God is good and they don't think their behavior is bad, they reason that therefore God doesn't think the behavior they do is bad, but rather the "mean old Church" imposes this on people for whatever reason.

So we thus see all sorts of questions:

• "Do you really think God cares if I have sex with my girlfriend/boyfriend?"
• "Do you really think God cares if a married couple trying to be good uses contraception?"
• "Do you really think God wants me to be unhappy because my spouse was unfaithful to me and ran off with another?"
• "Do you really think God cares about homosexual acts?"

The unvoiced part of the objection is "This is really unimportant and only the Church thinks it is important.  Yet it is that unvoiced objection which must be proven.

The problem is, of course, you can justify any kind of behavior from this point of view:

• "Do you really think God cares if I offer sacrifice to an idol?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I participate in the Death Camps?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I apostatize from the Faith?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I steal from a rich man?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I eat of the tree of knowledge?"

The thing is, if an act is contrary to His will and we know it is contrary to what He decrees, we are obligated to do as He commands and are guilty if we defy Him.  If a thing is contrary to His will and we do not know it is contrary to His will, our guilt or innocence will depend on what we could know if we bothered to find out.

The Ultimate Satanic Deception

Ultimately the Satanic deception behind such a mentality is Do what you will.  If you think it is good, it must be good.  Good is made subjective to feelings.  Because a God who forgives but does not punish is a pleasing thought, we hide from the consideration of if a thing is good, and what the consequences are for disobedience for what God commands.  Thus we have the sweetness of a forgiving God and the sweetness of self-indulgence without the responsibility and the obligations to obey and the consequences of disobedience.

Conclusion

It is an act of tremendous arrogance to assume for ourselves what is good or bad depending on what we want to do instead of what we ought to do.  To decide that punishment and sin is only for things which do not involve us and fail to consider what we are required to do or what happens when we disobey is foolish indeed.  It is not based on what is true, but what is pleasing to us.

Reflections on Divorce, Remarriage and the Church (Part II): The Patristic Problem

In my first article, I dealt with the appeal to the so-called Matthew Exception regarding Divorce and Remarriage, showing that to claim that it allowed the victim of adultery to remarry is to read the Scriptures selectively. Now I turn to the appeal to the Patristic authors. Some who hold to “The Bible Alone” may find this article irrelevant but for those who recognize the authority of Sacred Tradition, the issue of how the Scriptures were interpreted by the early Christians can demonstrate whether an interpretation is authentic or not.

Why This is Important

The reason this is important to consider the writings of the early Christians is that it bears witness to their practices and beliefs. If we find no mention of a practice, or indeed see the opposite asserted, by the Church Fathers then it demonstrates that the alleged practice was a later change. So in terms of the “adultery exception” permitting remarriage, to claim that the Catholic teaching goes against the ancient practice, we would need to look and see how they handled the concept of divorce and remarriage.

Distinguishing Between Doctrine and Discipline

We also need to be aware of the difference between the moral teachings Christ demanded we follow and the disciplines the Church has decreed for the good of the faithful. For example, the Church will never abandon the belief that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. It may at times decree reception on the tongue or in the hand, and may decree reception of both kinds is permissible or denied depending on the needs of the people and whether any errors of understanding need to be combated.

Sometimes Disciplines are mistakenly viewed as Doctrines by some individuals, and when the Church changes a discipline, she stands accused of changing a doctrinal matter. Because of this, the Church recognizes it is the magisterium which has the power to bind and to loose and can interpret how the beliefs of the Church are to be understood.

The Perspective of the Patristics on Divorce and Remarriage

One interesting thing about the view of the Patristics was over the concern that the one who divorced his or her unfaithful spouse over adultery was guilty of causing her or him to commit adultery regardless of whether the innocent spouse remarried. We forget this today, because the Church has decreed what is and is not allowed. Unfortunately this view tends to be forgotten in the reading of the texts, and a reading of the texts tends to be given modern applications inserted instead of the original intent.

Also we need to recognize that the patristic writings are acting on the assumption a marriage is valid.  An invalid marriage does not exist in fact though it may be assumed in law.

Did Divorce force the guilty spouse to be an adulterer/adulteress?

For the Patristics, there was a question as to whether the separation of spouses itself was a sin which made the other spouse an adulterer/adulteress. Generally the recognition was that at some times a unfaithful spouse may behave in such a way that made it necessary for the innocent spouse to separate for his or her spiritual good. However, in no case did they recognize that this allowed remarriage on the part of the innocent spouse. They strongly take the position of St. Paul as laid out in the first article: If they separate, they must either remain single or reconcile. Here are a few samples of what some of the Patristics have written. This is hardly an exhaustive list and many more examples exist that are not cited.

St. John Chrysostom (AD 347-407) for example wrote in his Homilies on 1 Corinthians:

Now what is that which “to the married the Lord commanded? That the wife depart not from her husband: (v. 11.) but if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband.” Here, seeing that both on the score of continence and other pretexts, and because of infirmities of temper, (μικροψυκιας.) it fell out that separations took place: it were better, he says, that such things should not be at all; but however if they take place, let the wife remain with her husband, if not to cohabit with him, yet so as not to introduce any other to be her husband.

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. XII. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. (106).

I figured I would start with him, because he is sometimes wrongly cited as a justification for remarriage after adultery. We see here that he is not permitting remarriage, but pointing out that Christ has forbidden it.

Another interesting work is St. Augustine’s (AD 354-430) On the Good of Marriage, where he writes as follows:

3. This we now say, that, according to this condition of being born and dying, which we know, and in which we have been created, the marriage of male and female is some good; the compact; whereof divide Scripture so commends, as that neither is it allowed one put away by her husband to marry, so long as her husband lives: nor is it allowed one put away by his wife to marry another, unless she who have separated from him be dead.

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. III. St. Augustine on the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises. (400).

Note here that the sole case where remarriage is recognized by Augustine is the death of one spouse.

Lest someone accuse us of only focusing on the fourth and fifth centuries (claiming earlier writers would allow for it), we can also look back to the work known as The Shepherd of Hermas (sometimes just known as The Shepherd) was written sometime between AD 88 and AD 157, and has this to say about divorce and adultery:

And I said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices? [Arnobius’ note. “Vicious” in this case refers to the practice of vice, not cruelty] ”And he said, “The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery.” And I said to him, “What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?” And he said to me, “Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented.

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the second century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (21).

Marrying another would of course preclude taking back the repenting spouse.  So remarriage after divorce for infidelity seems to be excluded as a valid interpretation of Matthew 5 or Matthew 19.

So here is the problem with the claim that the Catholic view is a later view: While the Patristics authors do acknowledge that one might have a need to separate from their spouse, but not a single one of them sanctions remarriage while the sinning spouse still lives. Those who discuss the issue say it is forbidden.

So the question is when [Not A] becomes [A] and who had the authority to make such a decree?  If the Patristics rejected it, one either has to argue the Patristics were wrong, bringing up the question "On whose authority can we judge this?" or else admit such a view is an innovation.

What about St. Basil the Great?

I’ve noticed certain groups [I don’t intend to say all groups] of Eastern Orthodox try to invoke St. Basil the Great to justify their position (they permit a second and third marriage, but no more, with a brief period of excommunication in between). These groups cite St. Basil the Great claiming he “referred not to a rule but to usage” and through him claim that a person wronged by infidelity may remarry. The claim invokes The Second Canonical Letter to Amphilocius though it seems they mean the First letter, where it says:

IV. In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of trigamy we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance.

But it doesn’t work. Restoration requires repentance,and repentance is to "feel or express sincere regret or remorse."  To feel regret or remorse indicates a wrongful action which one wishes to make amends for.

Indeed the Orthodox toleration of a third marriage, even if their interpretation of St. Basil were correct (which I do not concede), runs afoul of St. Basil who calls a third marriage "limited fornication."  If it is fornication, and "no longer described as marriage at all" it cannot be sanctioned.

As a matter of fact, reading the first letter brings us to section IX, where it says:

Here then the wife, if she leaves her husband and goes to another, is an adulteress. But the man who has been abandoned is pardonable, and the woman who lives with such a man is not condemned. But if the man who has deserted his wife goes to another, he is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman's husband to come over to her.

Note it says absolutely nothing about the wronged spouse remarrying. It only says he is not to blame for his wife’s infidelity. In other words this is an explanation of Matthew, stating that the man who puts his wife away for sexual immorality does not make her an adulteress. It does not justify remarriage.

When it comes to sanctioning remarriage after divorce in the case of adultery, we can see St. Basil did not intend what is attributed to him. Note what he says in his second letter:

XLVIII. The woman who has been abandoned by her husband, ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is. The Lord said, "If any one leave his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, he causeth her to commit adultery;" thus, by calling her adulteress, He excludes her from intercourse with another man. For how can the man being guilty, as having caused adultery, and the woman, go without blame, when she is called adulteress by the Lord for having intercourse with another man?

Such a statement makes it seem very unlikely that St. Basil sanctioned remarriage for the innocent spouse. He says exactly the opposite… that she would be an adulteress if she did remarry.

Understanding "Digamy"

In response to the claim that St. Basil proposed certain tolerations of Digamy as meaning he permitted remarriage after divorce for infidelity, we need to first look at what Digamy was for the early Christian.  We need to realize that among some early Christians, there was a belief held by a few that the widow or widower ought not to remarry at all. Those who did were accused of digamy (remarrying after the death of a spouse) by those who held this belief. (The Catholic Church holds this to be a misinterpretation of Paul).

However, there is an interpretation which is consistent with the Catholic teaching, which holds that while a married man might enter the priesthood [The Latin Rite practice of ordaining only celibate men to the priesthood is a discipline and not a doctrine], a man ordained to the priesthood may not marry.  Hence Patristic writings against clergy who committed digamy.

The reason the distinction of widows was made is due to Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy 5:

^9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once,

^10 with a reputation for good works, namely, that she has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the holy ones, helped those in distress, involved herself in every good work.

^11 But exclude younger widows, for when their sensuality estranges them from Christ, they want to marry

^12 and will incur condemnation for breaking their first pledge.

Digamy is not divorce and remarriage (that is a modern interpretation. The Church called divorce and remarriage serial polygamy). Digamy is remarriage after the death of a spouse. In ancient times, if the woman was enrolled in an order of widows or if the man had entered the monastic life after the death of a spouse, a remarriage was digamy. This is what St. Basil was referring to this in his Second Letter when he wrote:

XXIV. A widow whose name is in the list of widows, that is, who is supported by the Church, is ordered by the Apostle to be supported no longer when she marries.

There is no special rule for a widower. The punishment appointed for digamy may suffice. If a widow who is sixty years of age chooses again to live with a husband, she shall be held unworthy of the communion of the good gift until she be moved no longer by her impure desire. If we reckon her before sixty years, the blame rests with us, and not with the woman.

Note here, we see that a widow (one whose husband is dead) is considered guilty of digamy if she remarries.  See the section on Digamy below.  St. Basil is speaking, in the case of women under 60, that a woman under 60 ought not to be enrolled in an order of widows according to the teaching of St. Paul.

Because the context of what digamy is is different than how later interpretations applied it, it cannot be said such texts can justify remarriage after divorce.

Conclusion: Where is the Evidence to Justify Remarriage after Divorce?

To justify remarriage after divorce on Christian grounds requires an authoritative source and an authoritative interpretation. The Catholic Church rejects the idea that a valid, sacramental marriage can be broken at all so long as both spouses live.  Only if the marriage is invalid may the partners marry someone else.

Those who seek to justify divorce after remarriage through the Patristics must necessarily choose the a limited and isolated selection of passages, which seems to require ignoring contrary claims.  Does it really seem credible to claim that outright condemnation of divorce and remarriage is merely a non-binding opinion, but the interpretation of St. Basil, which he did not himself say, is doctrinal?

In the first article I have demonstrated that the citation of Matthew as an exception for adultery has no basis either in the Scriptures themselves. In this second I have shown the weakness of the appeals to the Patristic writings commonly cited on the subject.

A claim that divorce and remarriage after infidelity was accepted as valid by the Christian Church requires proof.  Therefore any challenge to the Catholic teaching by appealing to the Eastern Orthodox claim requires us to ask for the evidence.

Since neither the Scripture nor tradition can be used to prove this, any challenge must say that the whole of Christian belief was wrong and only now can we understand what our Lord really meant.

This is a view which cannot be justified.