To anonymous - I blogged about the issue of gay marriage previously on The Way.
In this comment I want to address the opposition to the views that we hold as Catholics.....
in a totally informal and spontaneous RANT.
You said:
"Each one of them will not allow me to use Biblical or Faith based sources because either they say...."
- religion is just a guide
- is used to control people
- is illogical to science
- is seprated from the state.
- interracial marriage was considered illegal and sinful
- we cannot enforce a non-christian to follow this principle because doing so will violate the 1st ammendment's freedom of expression and the 9th ammendment's right to privacy.
- A Christian cannot vote on a bill that will enforce the state to force people to follow our faith, especially since God wants us to have free will.
- We can warn people, as we've been doing for a long time.
- If religion is a guide then what is wrong with being guided?
- If religion is used to control people, then secularism must be a religion because secular humanism is used to control people too by means of mass media and scientific indoctrination through which the secularists seek to keep God and Christian principles out of society and the conciousness of the people.
- If religion is illogical to science, then it is either because science is not true or the religion is not true. If both are false, then neither should be listened to. If both are true, then they cannot contradict one another. Only true religion ought to be followed anyway.
- If religion is separated from the state, and religion has to do with God, then why is this country founded upon belief in God? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Have you ever looked at the money in this country? Do you think that a state which denies the existence of God will last? Have you heard of Nazism, Communism, and every other atheistic -ism? Do you think that there is another authority upon which laws can be based without falling prey to the whims of the majority? Are you crazy?
- 1st Amendment and 9th amendment do not give people rights to do whatever they want! Hello! Am I free to express myself in anyway whatsoever? NO! I am not allowed to express myself in ways that are damaging to society. Nor can I do things privately that cause the same damage! For example (as if it were necessary) Do you not think that abortion has effected SOCIETY? an entire generation has been lost. Billions of dollars of our country's money has been piped into this murderous industry. The entire social and moral landscape has been adversely effected. Our economy has suffered drastically. Why? Without children and families economy suffers. Economics 101 anyone! As if the effects of these massive structures of sin and the dark cloud of a culture of death that cares more about things than people were not enough of an effect on society! UGGH!
- Interracial marriage was considered illegal and sinful by a bunch of wackos. Slavery was considered the same way - by wackos. The difference between these issues and the gay agenda? No natural human rights are being deprived by denying that gay marriage exists. O contraire! Human rights are being upheld - the right to know the truth, the right to live in a good society - one that is founded upon a true foundation - the family - and every other right that follows upon this - like the right of children to a father and mother!
- Yes Christians propose the truth for belief and it is not right to force others to believe what we believe (as if this were possible?). But it is not right to bow to the lies of the majority for the sake of not "forcing people to believe" what we believe. So we should let them force us to believe what they believe because it is based on a post-modern, scientific, agnostic view of reality and a false humanism? I think not! you want to be tolerant? Know the truth and share it. you want to defend the truth in a tolerant way? Speak it with love. you want to live the truth in a tolerant way? "Love as I have loved." How did Christ love? He told the truth. They killed Him for it. Don't expect anything less and you won't be disappointed. "Love is stronger than death." Tell it to your family, tell it to the world, pray that their eyes be opened. Pray that their ears hear. It is a battle, already won, but still a battle. The Word of God is a two edged sword. Use it. Let it inform your reason. Truth has one source - God - science, faith, reason - it don't matter. Know the Truth. He will set you FREE!
This is the question of truth and tolerance my friend. The key to answering this question is to realize that we are not actually on the defensive. Too often Christians feel like they have to defend everything that they believe. Well, for a change, let's have a defense from the other side! Every single thing that they claim that we are doing by our faith-bias, mind control and whatever other way they set up faith against reason, they do themselves. How so?
They claim that we cannot bring our bias to weigh in on the issues. That God must be kept out of state issues and that no one has the right to force others to follow their religion. Well, here is a little Christian offensive for you: You, secularists that you are, whether secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, or any belief system at all whatsoever, should not bring your bias to weigh in on the issues! You should not force others to follow your religions- whether you call them religions or not! And you certainly should not claim the right to make your beliefs that backbone of American legislation! HA!
The key to responding to those who claim intolerance on our part, is to present to them the intolerance on their part! In the end, the only distinction that can show who is being tolerant and who is being negligient is called the TRUTH. Do not be duped into believing that we do not have a right to propose the truths that we have arrived at through our faith for belief to others. Do not be duped into thinking that Christian ethics are purely a matter of religious belief and that they have nothing to do with the nature of man! Pshhaw! They have everything to do with the nature of man, with his true good, and the common good of the entire state! You need not believe in Christ to know that certain things are good and certain things are evil and that the supposed "right to privacy" is a heap of nonsense when it comes to things like PUBLIC POLICY on abortion, birth control, homosexual "marriage," and the like! Christ is "Lumen Gentium." The Catholic Church is "Lumen Gentium." A LIGHT TO THE NATIONS!!!! If we do not apply our faith to the public sphere how will THY KINGDOM COME! Woe betide those who would make the state secular! Who would separate God from His People! Is not man made by God and for God! How will the authentic freedom and good of every individual every be reached if the state is totally separated from God and from its Christian ROOTS? Yes the secularists claim that it is intolerant to bring God into the public sphere.... so WHAT! I claim it is intolerant for them to not let HIM IN! The point is that we need to turn this nonsensical tolerance mumbo jumbo right back on those people from whence it came. The only difference is that we have a different kind of tolerance, a tolerance based on truth, and that is the only real tolerance, the only true way to set others free. JOHN 8:32!!!!! Moreover, do not let people use the Constitution of this great nation against you. Do not let them equate the civil rights movement with the gay agenda. The constitution is based on a view of man as created by God and endowed with inalienable rights - rooted in the nature that he received from his Creator. any interpretations of the Constitution that depart from the dignity of the person in the image of God are evil and must be rejected at all costs. How is the dignity of persons upheld by not allowing homosexual marriage? Because we are not presenting this immoral relationship as a legitimate basis of society in contradistinction to the family - the true cell or fundamental unit of the society!!!!! We are not establishing as social and political moral norm something that is blatantly immoral. We are protecting society and those individuals who struggle with those disorderd sexual inclinations and the same challenge to chastity as all of us from such an affront! Man by nature has a right to truth. If we do not stand up and defend it he will be deprived of that right by those who would make their own wills the sole criterion for truth.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The Heart of Atheism
At the heart of atheism we do not find logical and scientific proofs that disprove the existence of God. Instead, we find the human attempt to answer the question of human existence apart from the existence of the divine. In some way or another these accounts try to make sense of man's place in the universe. What is it that would compel men to account for their existence apart from God? There are certainly many things motivating atheists to deny that God exists. However, I find it hard to believe that the majority of atheists have chosen that particular system of beliefs on account of the fact that they are convinced that God does not exist.
How can this be? What sense does it make to say that atheists are not what they are because they do not believe in God? Is that not equivalent to saying that Christians are not Christians because they believe in Christ? The reason that one becomes an atheist cannot be the knowledge that God does not exist, since no proofs with such a conclusion exist. The mind not being moved to assent by reason itself, there must be some other cause at work in the mind of the person who professes that God is not. This cause is the will, since the atheist must choose what he believes and it is the act of the will to choose.
This only pushes the question back you might say. "What is it that moves the will to reject the existence of God in the first place?" As we said above, concretely speaking, there are innumerable things that could lead to the belief that God does not exist. But they must all have one thing in common, namely this, they must all have something to do with goodness. Why? Because goodness is the object of the will. Which is to say that what we choose, we choose insofar as it is good, and what we do not choose, we do not choose because we do not see in it the good that we are looking for.
If God is by definition Goodness itself, then what would keep someone from choosing to accept his existence? Somewhere there must be a disconnect between the goodness of God and the person who is faced with the choice to believe in him or to deny his being. If a person accepted that "God" referred to goodness itself by definition, then for someone who understood what he was doing to deny that God existed, would require that such a person also deny that there was something good in itself. This does not mean that an atheist would never enjoy a sunset, or like reading books, etc., because he was incapable of seeing anything good in them; but it does mean that the atheist, by definition, would be incapable of seeing a real and lasting goodness in anything since the goodness that an atheist sees is merely a momentary product of his experience and not a participation in Goodness itself. Now I am at a loss as to exactly what makes something good if there is no real foundation of goodness for anything....
To be an athiest, is not to deny that God exists; it is to deny the existence of something good in itself! Since there is nothing good in itself, there can be no God, because to be God, is to be goodness itself. What is it that causes man to reject the existence of a real and true good? Can he deny his own experience of the goodness all around him so much so that the goodness all around him is nothing but an unfounded, soon-to-disappear, happenstance occurence? Is there nothing more to the experience of a vast blue sky with bright sun shining through its expanses than a momentary conglomeration of materials in a mechanical motion? Does not the fact that the entirety of that sky can be taken in to the person who stands beneath it point to something greater than mere mechanics? Can the fact of beauty be so outrightly denied that the relationship between the beautiful thing, e.g., the ocean, and the one who perceives its beauty, the person, is nothing but an illusion? And why do I say illusion? The reason is that beauty implies something more than just a material event. The sun can shine on the ocean, but the ocean will never be pleased by the hyalescence that the sun gives to it. The moon can shine mysteriously through a night sky, but the ape and the chimpanzee will never consider how pleasing the moonlight is to behold or wonder about what lies beyond that moon, why it shines as it does, or what mystery might lay behind its mysterious shimmer.
The experience of the beautiful, just like the experience of goodness, lifts man up, beyond the merely material existence of the world around him, and draws him into the transcendence of those values, the experience of which cannot be accounted for apart from the existence of a human spirit whose depths and heights allow for the material realities of this world to open up in their goodness and beauty and actually be perceived for what they are. For man to deny that there are goodness and beauty in the world around him, he need first deny that it can be found in himself. And once he has done that, it is no wonder that he would deny it is the rest of the world, since he himself is the most wondrous creature of all.
But this is perhaps the point that I was seeking in the first place, namely, that the denial of the good and the beautiful, is not just a scientific resolution concerning matter, but that it is a denial of goodness and beauty in man, and therefore, in all things. And in a world such as this, what person would dare to believe that there was an all-good, all-beautiful God? If there is no foundation of goodness in itself, then there can be nothing that is good because of another, and all material things are good because their goodness has been caused in them by something else.
The point then is not for us to confound atheists in a solely rational manner, e.g., with the five ways of Aquinas, because logic is more than often not enough to convince a person of goodness where he sees none. The point is for us to show that goodness does exist, that beauty too exists, and that these are found quite visibly in man himself, in the works of his hands, and in the depths of his mind, where God's own voice waits for him in his conscience, speaking to him of goodness itself. For from where would we have learned to speak of goodness and beauty in the first place, if not from him whose Word gives form to all words?
Moreover, it is no surprise that atheism goes hand in hand with moral relativism, since the atheist, in his denial of goodness itself, by that very denial, denies also the existence of a transcendent conscience which is capable of judging between good and evil. This would also account for the distortion of freedom into license, since without conscience as a standard of goodness and evil, man is no longer free to choose between what he knows is right and what he knows to be wrong, his choices being reduced to his private interpretation of his feelings about what is to be done or not done. Moreover, it is no surprise that atheism has taken root in many hearts in our day because the emptiness of a world without values and without goodness and beauty, where children have grown up without moral norms, expectations, or responsibilities, does not easily lead to a belief in a God who is good, beautiful, and loving. Nonetheless, God is still present to His people, and to every human person, He has given the unreturnable gift of conscience, that listening to His voice in the depths of their heart, we might be led through the reasonable and responsible exercise of freedom to a trust in Him and in His goodness that is the key to unlock the fullness of the meaning of the goodness and beauty that each person seeks after and experiences in undeniable ways every day of our lives. AMDG
How can this be? What sense does it make to say that atheists are not what they are because they do not believe in God? Is that not equivalent to saying that Christians are not Christians because they believe in Christ? The reason that one becomes an atheist cannot be the knowledge that God does not exist, since no proofs with such a conclusion exist. The mind not being moved to assent by reason itself, there must be some other cause at work in the mind of the person who professes that God is not. This cause is the will, since the atheist must choose what he believes and it is the act of the will to choose.
This only pushes the question back you might say. "What is it that moves the will to reject the existence of God in the first place?" As we said above, concretely speaking, there are innumerable things that could lead to the belief that God does not exist. But they must all have one thing in common, namely this, they must all have something to do with goodness. Why? Because goodness is the object of the will. Which is to say that what we choose, we choose insofar as it is good, and what we do not choose, we do not choose because we do not see in it the good that we are looking for.
If God is by definition Goodness itself, then what would keep someone from choosing to accept his existence? Somewhere there must be a disconnect between the goodness of God and the person who is faced with the choice to believe in him or to deny his being. If a person accepted that "God" referred to goodness itself by definition, then for someone who understood what he was doing to deny that God existed, would require that such a person also deny that there was something good in itself. This does not mean that an atheist would never enjoy a sunset, or like reading books, etc., because he was incapable of seeing anything good in them; but it does mean that the atheist, by definition, would be incapable of seeing a real and lasting goodness in anything since the goodness that an atheist sees is merely a momentary product of his experience and not a participation in Goodness itself. Now I am at a loss as to exactly what makes something good if there is no real foundation of goodness for anything....
To be an athiest, is not to deny that God exists; it is to deny the existence of something good in itself! Since there is nothing good in itself, there can be no God, because to be God, is to be goodness itself. What is it that causes man to reject the existence of a real and true good? Can he deny his own experience of the goodness all around him so much so that the goodness all around him is nothing but an unfounded, soon-to-disappear, happenstance occurence? Is there nothing more to the experience of a vast blue sky with bright sun shining through its expanses than a momentary conglomeration of materials in a mechanical motion? Does not the fact that the entirety of that sky can be taken in to the person who stands beneath it point to something greater than mere mechanics? Can the fact of beauty be so outrightly denied that the relationship between the beautiful thing, e.g., the ocean, and the one who perceives its beauty, the person, is nothing but an illusion? And why do I say illusion? The reason is that beauty implies something more than just a material event. The sun can shine on the ocean, but the ocean will never be pleased by the hyalescence that the sun gives to it. The moon can shine mysteriously through a night sky, but the ape and the chimpanzee will never consider how pleasing the moonlight is to behold or wonder about what lies beyond that moon, why it shines as it does, or what mystery might lay behind its mysterious shimmer.
The experience of the beautiful, just like the experience of goodness, lifts man up, beyond the merely material existence of the world around him, and draws him into the transcendence of those values, the experience of which cannot be accounted for apart from the existence of a human spirit whose depths and heights allow for the material realities of this world to open up in their goodness and beauty and actually be perceived for what they are. For man to deny that there are goodness and beauty in the world around him, he need first deny that it can be found in himself. And once he has done that, it is no wonder that he would deny it is the rest of the world, since he himself is the most wondrous creature of all.
But this is perhaps the point that I was seeking in the first place, namely, that the denial of the good and the beautiful, is not just a scientific resolution concerning matter, but that it is a denial of goodness and beauty in man, and therefore, in all things. And in a world such as this, what person would dare to believe that there was an all-good, all-beautiful God? If there is no foundation of goodness in itself, then there can be nothing that is good because of another, and all material things are good because their goodness has been caused in them by something else.
The point then is not for us to confound atheists in a solely rational manner, e.g., with the five ways of Aquinas, because logic is more than often not enough to convince a person of goodness where he sees none. The point is for us to show that goodness does exist, that beauty too exists, and that these are found quite visibly in man himself, in the works of his hands, and in the depths of his mind, where God's own voice waits for him in his conscience, speaking to him of goodness itself. For from where would we have learned to speak of goodness and beauty in the first place, if not from him whose Word gives form to all words?
Moreover, it is no surprise that atheism goes hand in hand with moral relativism, since the atheist, in his denial of goodness itself, by that very denial, denies also the existence of a transcendent conscience which is capable of judging between good and evil. This would also account for the distortion of freedom into license, since without conscience as a standard of goodness and evil, man is no longer free to choose between what he knows is right and what he knows to be wrong, his choices being reduced to his private interpretation of his feelings about what is to be done or not done. Moreover, it is no surprise that atheism has taken root in many hearts in our day because the emptiness of a world without values and without goodness and beauty, where children have grown up without moral norms, expectations, or responsibilities, does not easily lead to a belief in a God who is good, beautiful, and loving. Nonetheless, God is still present to His people, and to every human person, He has given the unreturnable gift of conscience, that listening to His voice in the depths of their heart, we might be led through the reasonable and responsible exercise of freedom to a trust in Him and in His goodness that is the key to unlock the fullness of the meaning of the goodness and beauty that each person seeks after and experiences in undeniable ways every day of our lives. AMDG
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
On A Logical Argument In Favor of Abortion
The Original Argument:
P1: If abortion is not legal, there will be women who would be desperate enough to find a specialist to abort her fetus illegally.
P2: She would be putting herself at risk of an abortion operation from a quack.
P3: She could die along with the fetus.
C: For the life of the woman, abortion should be legal.
Firstly, I will comment on the logic of the argument formally, that is, with regard to form of the argument, apart from truth and falsity:
P1: The first "premise" proposes a hypothetical, highly probable situation, that, in the past, has been a historical fact. This statement does not have any logical flaws. It merely presents the conditions of the syllogism that follows it. To simplify it for the sake of analysis: If abortion is illegal, it will still be performed. (Let it be taken as given throughout the course of this commentary.)
P2: The second premise, while not presented formally, can be restated formally as such:
P2: Illegal abortion is a health risk to women. There is nothing illogical about this statement. It can be used as a premise in a syllogism. The only question is whether the other premises used in that syllogism will lead to a logically valid conclusion.
P3: Placing this statement in its logical form, that is, two terms connected by a copula (is), it looks like this: Illegal abortion is a potential cause of death to abortion patients. From this we can see that it is being used in conjunction with P2 to give support to the conclusion that is drawn from some unmentioned premises.
C: The conclusion does not explicitly follow from the preceding "argument." The argument stated its conclusion in this way: For the life of the woman, abortion should be legal. This is not an appeal to logic, since this conclusion does not follow from the premises. A logical argument must connect two different terms, a major and a minor, through a common term, the middle term. This argument's conclusion is not derived directly from what is stated in the premises, nor could it have been since there was no middle term in the argument, and new terms are being introduced in the conclusion. There are a few steps in the argument that are made implicitly. If we examine the argument more carefully we will be able to see what is going on more clearly:
Given: If abortion is illegal, it will still be performed.
P1: Illegal Abortion is a health risk to women.
P2: Illegal Abortion is a potential cause of death to abortion patients.
C1: If abortion is illegal, there will be health risks to women and potential death for women who have abortions.
C1 is the logical conclusion based on the given conditions and the two premises (P1 and P2).
So how are we supposed to arrive at the conclusion that "Abortion ought to be legal."?
The term "ought" indicates that according to the conclusion of the argument, legalized abortion should be an obligation of the state. On what grounds? The grounds of the argument are P1, P2, and the given conditions concerning illegal abortion. How did we move logically from C1: That there will be health risks to women on account of illegal abortion, all the way to the moral obligation to have legal abortion without any connecting premises or terms whatsoever? The argument arrives at its conclusion through the following implicit or hidden premises:
Hidden Premise 1: Abortion is necessary for the life of women.
Hidden Premise 2: Legal Abortion is not a risk to the life and health of women.
Hidden Premise 3: It is necessary to protect women from risks to their health and life.
It was explicitly assumed that abortions will continue to be done if it is illegal. What is implicitly assumed in order to arrive at the conclusion is that abortion needs to be done even if it is illegal (HP1). The reason that this is implicitly assumed is that the conclusion mentioned above (C1) does not dictate any action or obligation on the part of the state, rather it merely concludes that illegal abortions are serious health risks to women. If illegal abortions are serious health risks to women than all that can be concluded from that with respect to the state is that the state has done well to make such life endangering procedures illegal. However, a different conclusion is drawn: Abortion ought to be legal. By brushing away P1 and P2, which serve only to support HP1, we can look at the argument as it actually is formulated, albeit implicitly:
HP1: Abortion is necessary for the life of women.
C1: Illegal Abortion is a risk to the life and health of women.
HP2: Legal Abortion is not a risk to the life and health of women.
HP3: For the life of women it is necessary to protect women from risks to their health and life.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is necessary for the life of women that there be legal abortions.
Formally speaking, this argument is logical. If abortion is necessary for the life of women, and the only kind of abortion that does not harm the life and health of women is legal abortion, then surely legal abortion is necessary. The scary thing is that the logical argument is not presented explicitly, rather it is hidden underneath a vacuous argument that appeals to emotions in order to lead people to conclude that the best thing for the health of women is abortion.
Secondly, I will comment on the logic of this argument materially, that is, with respect to its truth and falsity:
HP1: Abortion is necessary for the life of women.
Why? This would only be the case if the conditions for abortions were necessary. What are the conditions for an abortion? Unwanted pregnancy. Why are there unwanted pregnancies? People have sex and do not want to have children. Is it necessary to have sex and not want to have children too? Certainly not. Then neither is abortion a necessity for the life of women. This is an outright falsehood which assumes that women and men are unable to have sex in a responsible, rational, and consequently, human way. False.
C1: Illegal Abortion is a risk to the life and health of women.
True.
HP2: Legal Abortion is not a risk to the life and health of women.
False. Many women have died because of complications from abortion, e.g., bleeding, infections from baby's body parts which remain in utero after the procedure is completed, anesthesia complications, etc. Also, women who have had abortions are 60% more likely to have breast cancer. Women who have had abortions regularly experience Post-Abortive Trauma, psychological damage that takes years (if ever) to recover from.
HP3: For the life of women it is necessary to protect women from risks to their health and life.
True.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is necessary for the life of women that there be legal abortions.
False. Even if only one of the premises from which the conclusion was drawn was false the entire argument would fail to produce a true conclusion. But this argument has two false premises that both need to be true if the conclusion is going to be true! The argument itself does not conclude logically and the latent argument does not conclude in reality because it is blatantly false to say that abortions are necessary for the life and health of women.
In fine, this argument ought to be rejected as a manipulative attempt to steer its audience towards the evils of abortion. For it attempts to reach its conclusion by evoking emotions and relying on a degrading concept of women as incapable of reasonable and responsible actions in the sphere of human sexuality in order to sway the audience from a rational analysis of the evils of abortion. AMDG.
P1: If abortion is not legal, there will be women who would be desperate enough to find a specialist to abort her fetus illegally.
P2: She would be putting herself at risk of an abortion operation from a quack.
P3: She could die along with the fetus.
C: For the life of the woman, abortion should be legal.
Firstly, I will comment on the logic of the argument formally, that is, with regard to form of the argument, apart from truth and falsity:
P1: The first "premise" proposes a hypothetical, highly probable situation, that, in the past, has been a historical fact. This statement does not have any logical flaws. It merely presents the conditions of the syllogism that follows it. To simplify it for the sake of analysis: If abortion is illegal, it will still be performed. (Let it be taken as given throughout the course of this commentary.)
P2: The second premise, while not presented formally, can be restated formally as such:
P2: Illegal abortion is a health risk to women. There is nothing illogical about this statement. It can be used as a premise in a syllogism. The only question is whether the other premises used in that syllogism will lead to a logically valid conclusion.
P3: Placing this statement in its logical form, that is, two terms connected by a copula (is), it looks like this: Illegal abortion is a potential cause of death to abortion patients. From this we can see that it is being used in conjunction with P2 to give support to the conclusion that is drawn from some unmentioned premises.
C: The conclusion does not explicitly follow from the preceding "argument." The argument stated its conclusion in this way: For the life of the woman, abortion should be legal. This is not an appeal to logic, since this conclusion does not follow from the premises. A logical argument must connect two different terms, a major and a minor, through a common term, the middle term. This argument's conclusion is not derived directly from what is stated in the premises, nor could it have been since there was no middle term in the argument, and new terms are being introduced in the conclusion. There are a few steps in the argument that are made implicitly. If we examine the argument more carefully we will be able to see what is going on more clearly:
Given: If abortion is illegal, it will still be performed.
P1: Illegal Abortion is a health risk to women.
P2: Illegal Abortion is a potential cause of death to abortion patients.
C1: If abortion is illegal, there will be health risks to women and potential death for women who have abortions.
C1 is the logical conclusion based on the given conditions and the two premises (P1 and P2).
So how are we supposed to arrive at the conclusion that "Abortion ought to be legal."?
The term "ought" indicates that according to the conclusion of the argument, legalized abortion should be an obligation of the state. On what grounds? The grounds of the argument are P1, P2, and the given conditions concerning illegal abortion. How did we move logically from C1: That there will be health risks to women on account of illegal abortion, all the way to the moral obligation to have legal abortion without any connecting premises or terms whatsoever? The argument arrives at its conclusion through the following implicit or hidden premises:
Hidden Premise 1: Abortion is necessary for the life of women.
Hidden Premise 2: Legal Abortion is not a risk to the life and health of women.
Hidden Premise 3: It is necessary to protect women from risks to their health and life.
It was explicitly assumed that abortions will continue to be done if it is illegal. What is implicitly assumed in order to arrive at the conclusion is that abortion needs to be done even if it is illegal (HP1). The reason that this is implicitly assumed is that the conclusion mentioned above (C1) does not dictate any action or obligation on the part of the state, rather it merely concludes that illegal abortions are serious health risks to women. If illegal abortions are serious health risks to women than all that can be concluded from that with respect to the state is that the state has done well to make such life endangering procedures illegal. However, a different conclusion is drawn: Abortion ought to be legal. By brushing away P1 and P2, which serve only to support HP1, we can look at the argument as it actually is formulated, albeit implicitly:
HP1: Abortion is necessary for the life of women.
C1: Illegal Abortion is a risk to the life and health of women.
HP2: Legal Abortion is not a risk to the life and health of women.
HP3: For the life of women it is necessary to protect women from risks to their health and life.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is necessary for the life of women that there be legal abortions.
Formally speaking, this argument is logical. If abortion is necessary for the life of women, and the only kind of abortion that does not harm the life and health of women is legal abortion, then surely legal abortion is necessary. The scary thing is that the logical argument is not presented explicitly, rather it is hidden underneath a vacuous argument that appeals to emotions in order to lead people to conclude that the best thing for the health of women is abortion.
Secondly, I will comment on the logic of this argument materially, that is, with respect to its truth and falsity:
HP1: Abortion is necessary for the life of women.
Why? This would only be the case if the conditions for abortions were necessary. What are the conditions for an abortion? Unwanted pregnancy. Why are there unwanted pregnancies? People have sex and do not want to have children. Is it necessary to have sex and not want to have children too? Certainly not. Then neither is abortion a necessity for the life of women. This is an outright falsehood which assumes that women and men are unable to have sex in a responsible, rational, and consequently, human way. False.
C1: Illegal Abortion is a risk to the life and health of women.
True.
HP2: Legal Abortion is not a risk to the life and health of women.
False. Many women have died because of complications from abortion, e.g., bleeding, infections from baby's body parts which remain in utero after the procedure is completed, anesthesia complications, etc. Also, women who have had abortions are 60% more likely to have breast cancer. Women who have had abortions regularly experience Post-Abortive Trauma, psychological damage that takes years (if ever) to recover from.
HP3: For the life of women it is necessary to protect women from risks to their health and life.
True.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is necessary for the life of women that there be legal abortions.
False. Even if only one of the premises from which the conclusion was drawn was false the entire argument would fail to produce a true conclusion. But this argument has two false premises that both need to be true if the conclusion is going to be true! The argument itself does not conclude logically and the latent argument does not conclude in reality because it is blatantly false to say that abortions are necessary for the life and health of women.
In fine, this argument ought to be rejected as a manipulative attempt to steer its audience towards the evils of abortion. For it attempts to reach its conclusion by evoking emotions and relying on a degrading concept of women as incapable of reasonable and responsible actions in the sphere of human sexuality in order to sway the audience from a rational analysis of the evils of abortion. AMDG.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Did Mary have other Children?
In response to Gary's question:
First of all, let me begin by saying that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN, this meaning: She was a virgin before, during, after the birth of Christ. She did not have any other children.
Many fundamentalists challenge the Catholic doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. One of the most common claims is that scripture states that Jesus had brothers, . Matthew 13:55 states: "Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers james, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?" It is extremely important to denote that the word "brother" used in the bible can also mean "relative." In fact, two of the brothers mentioned, namely James and Joseph are identified as the sons of another Mary, the wife of Clopas (Please compare the scripture verses Matthew 27:56 & John 19:25). In addition to this, it does not make sense, if Jesus had blood brothers, that He would have entrusted Mary to John and not one of these so called "brothers."
Just for historical accuracy, let us make it clear that this doctrine was not even challenged until about 400 AD (the time of Saint Jerome) AND it is interesting to note that the founders of Protestantism did not challenge the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. EXAMPLES:
Luther wrote: " It is an artical of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.....Chrsit, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact."(See works of Luther v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510)
Calvin wrote: " There are certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company...and besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first born wheter or no there was any question of the second."(Sermon on Matthew 1:22 -25, published in 1562)
Zwingli: " I firmly believe that Mary, according ot the words of th gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, v. 1, p. 424)
I have a question for the Fundementalists: Why do they not honor Mary as their own Founders did?
First of all, let me begin by saying that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN, this meaning: She was a virgin before, during, after the birth of Christ. She did not have any other children.
Many fundamentalists challenge the Catholic doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. One of the most common claims is that scripture states that Jesus had brothers, . Matthew 13:55 states: "Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers james, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?" It is extremely important to denote that the word "brother" used in the bible can also mean "relative." In fact, two of the brothers mentioned, namely James and Joseph are identified as the sons of another Mary, the wife of Clopas (Please compare the scripture verses Matthew 27:56 & John 19:25). In addition to this, it does not make sense, if Jesus had blood brothers, that He would have entrusted Mary to John and not one of these so called "brothers."
Just for historical accuracy, let us make it clear that this doctrine was not even challenged until about 400 AD (the time of Saint Jerome) AND it is interesting to note that the founders of Protestantism did not challenge the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. EXAMPLES:
Luther wrote: " It is an artical of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin.....Chrsit, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact."(See works of Luther v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510)
Calvin wrote: " There are certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company...and besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first born wheter or no there was any question of the second."(Sermon on Matthew 1:22 -25, published in 1562)
Zwingli: " I firmly believe that Mary, according ot the words of th gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, v. 1, p. 424)
I have a question for the Fundementalists: Why do they not honor Mary as their own Founders did?
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Questions!
If any of you have any questions on defending our faith please ask through the blog. we will be checking it frequently. I hope everyone enjoyed Apologetic night on Mary and the Saints, i know some of you had questions after but we were short on time so this is your opportunity to ask away. Joe, Danniel, and Me will be available to answer your questions, just know that if we don't know the answer we will find it. the Catholic Church is endless in her theology!!
St Mary mother of God. PRAY FOR US ALL!
St Mary mother of God. PRAY FOR US ALL!
Mary and the Saints
Can we possibly comprehend what life was like for Mary and the saints? The saints were sinners just like us. The power of grace worked in them in such a way that they became conformed to the will of God just like Christ. But Mary, Mary never sinned. From the moment of conception she was preserved from the original sin and all her life she never once gave into temptation. What a miraculous work of grace! No wonder she was assumed into heaven - her body and soul were perfectly united and perfectly ordered in their integrity of being and in their free and total offering to God. Mary and all saints, pray for us!
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Unity In Christ is Unity in Faith
The unity of Christians is an issue that is often handled in a way that makes more for a plurality than for a true unity. I listened to a man speaking about the divisions that exist between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. He said that they were not really divided and that once they came to see that that was the case they would stop acting like it. In one sense, this can be taken to mean that they are not divided because they are united in Christ through the one baptism which they share. This is of course as true of the Orthodox as it is of our Protestant brothers and sisters in the Lord. We have each received one and the same Spirit from Christ who is our only Lord.
However, this man went on to say that the divisions that he was referring to were doctrinal, that is, that the Catholic and Ortohodox Churches did not actually have any doctrinal differences, that there were no real differences in what they believed. A similar claim could be made by those who say that there are no differences in the faiths of Catholics and Protestants. Oftentimes I have heard this being said in the name of unity. Some followers of Christ think, as did the man mentioned above, that there are no real differences between Christians and that differences in doctrine are merely differences in devotion, personal matters of opinion that do not actually affect our lives, the heart of our faith, or our eternal salvation.
This is where the Eucharist can help illuminate the truth of the matter. Why did some of Christ's followers start murmuring amongst themselves and stop following Him after He had spoken about His body and blood telling everyone that it was a necessity for the life of the world? It was because, as they said "This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60) Why would they not accept what Jesus was saying? What is so hard about it? Here we see a real difference in faith causing a real differences in those who were at one time followers of Christ. They stopped following Him because of His own teaching. It would be wrong to think then that differences in what we believe do not effect our lives or our souls, since this example from Christ's own life shows that the doctrinal differences that can arise in the hearts of Christian faithful are actually differences in the relationships that they have with Christ.
A friend of mine recently told me of a conversation that he had with an Eastern Orthodox believer. When questioned about the authority of the Pope this believer said: "We do not like to have someone in authority over us." If one cannot accept the authority of the vicar that Jesus Himself appointed to represent Him as the visible head of the Church on earth, then how can one say that he accepts the authority of Christ? Is this not another instance of a difference in faith that causes a difference in one's relationship with Jesus. Why is it that the gift of faith is so important for determining the nature of one's relationship with Jesus? First of all, Jesus tells us that if we believe in Him we will have eternal life. Eternal life begins in faith and by faith we are united to Christ in a relationship, in a friendship that will last forever - since eternal life is nothing other than our union with God through Christ. Now if our faith in Christ is missing certain elements or if it has certain things added to it that depart from the truth about Jesus, His Church, His Mother, His Father, His sacraments, etc., does it not seem that there is a great risk involved? If your entire life depends upon a relationship with one person, and you are in ignorance or error about who that person really is and what they are really about, then would that not bring with it a great risk for your life!?
Secondly, it is a great error to think that faith is our own production. Luther was right when he said that man is not saved by his own work. But in turning from the Church's teachings he ended up in a greater error. He made salvation out to be the work of faith alone - a faith that was not the work of God, but the work of man. How did he do this when he himself claims that he had done the opposite? He changed the teachings of the Church and in changing the teachings of the Church one puts himself in the unfortunate poistion of changing the teachings of Christ. For as Jesus said of his Apostles and their successors: "He who hears you, hears Me." (Luke 10:16) Faith is not ours alone, it is a participation in the knowledge of Christ himself. The light of faith gives us a share in the light of Divine Wisdom so great and so strong that it is dark to our minds. That is to say, what we know by faith, we know by the grace of God, i.e., we know as God knows. This is not to say that we know all things in exactly the same way as God knows them, but that we know things that "flesh and blood could not reveal," (Matthew 16:16-17) things that only the Heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit can present to our minds with such certainty that we would stake our entire lives on them. Faith is a grace, a participation in the eternal wisdom of God. To take lightly what we believe and do not believe is to take lightly the gift that we have received. One who makes up on his own what he believes about Christ, to that extent, He does not believe in Christ, but believes only in what he himself has thought. Salvation comes through the living faith which unites us to Christ through Christ's own knowledge and love, a gift that has been preserved throughout the ages by His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but salvation does not come through a faith that we have invented for ourselves - no matter how convinced we are about it.
This is why we do apologetics. In order to ensure as much as possible that all will be brought to as deep and true of a friendship with Christ as is possible. For what could be better than for all to be united in heaven for eternity in the love of God the Father, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, in the unity of the Holy Spirit? There is true unity possible. But it needs to be rooted and grounded in Christ's truth and love or else it is only an illusion.
However, this man went on to say that the divisions that he was referring to were doctrinal, that is, that the Catholic and Ortohodox Churches did not actually have any doctrinal differences, that there were no real differences in what they believed. A similar claim could be made by those who say that there are no differences in the faiths of Catholics and Protestants. Oftentimes I have heard this being said in the name of unity. Some followers of Christ think, as did the man mentioned above, that there are no real differences between Christians and that differences in doctrine are merely differences in devotion, personal matters of opinion that do not actually affect our lives, the heart of our faith, or our eternal salvation.
This is where the Eucharist can help illuminate the truth of the matter. Why did some of Christ's followers start murmuring amongst themselves and stop following Him after He had spoken about His body and blood telling everyone that it was a necessity for the life of the world? It was because, as they said "This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60) Why would they not accept what Jesus was saying? What is so hard about it? Here we see a real difference in faith causing a real differences in those who were at one time followers of Christ. They stopped following Him because of His own teaching. It would be wrong to think then that differences in what we believe do not effect our lives or our souls, since this example from Christ's own life shows that the doctrinal differences that can arise in the hearts of Christian faithful are actually differences in the relationships that they have with Christ.
A friend of mine recently told me of a conversation that he had with an Eastern Orthodox believer. When questioned about the authority of the Pope this believer said: "We do not like to have someone in authority over us." If one cannot accept the authority of the vicar that Jesus Himself appointed to represent Him as the visible head of the Church on earth, then how can one say that he accepts the authority of Christ? Is this not another instance of a difference in faith that causes a difference in one's relationship with Jesus. Why is it that the gift of faith is so important for determining the nature of one's relationship with Jesus? First of all, Jesus tells us that if we believe in Him we will have eternal life. Eternal life begins in faith and by faith we are united to Christ in a relationship, in a friendship that will last forever - since eternal life is nothing other than our union with God through Christ. Now if our faith in Christ is missing certain elements or if it has certain things added to it that depart from the truth about Jesus, His Church, His Mother, His Father, His sacraments, etc., does it not seem that there is a great risk involved? If your entire life depends upon a relationship with one person, and you are in ignorance or error about who that person really is and what they are really about, then would that not bring with it a great risk for your life!?
Secondly, it is a great error to think that faith is our own production. Luther was right when he said that man is not saved by his own work. But in turning from the Church's teachings he ended up in a greater error. He made salvation out to be the work of faith alone - a faith that was not the work of God, but the work of man. How did he do this when he himself claims that he had done the opposite? He changed the teachings of the Church and in changing the teachings of the Church one puts himself in the unfortunate poistion of changing the teachings of Christ. For as Jesus said of his Apostles and their successors: "He who hears you, hears Me." (Luke 10:16) Faith is not ours alone, it is a participation in the knowledge of Christ himself. The light of faith gives us a share in the light of Divine Wisdom so great and so strong that it is dark to our minds. That is to say, what we know by faith, we know by the grace of God, i.e., we know as God knows. This is not to say that we know all things in exactly the same way as God knows them, but that we know things that "flesh and blood could not reveal," (Matthew 16:16-17) things that only the Heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit can present to our minds with such certainty that we would stake our entire lives on them. Faith is a grace, a participation in the eternal wisdom of God. To take lightly what we believe and do not believe is to take lightly the gift that we have received. One who makes up on his own what he believes about Christ, to that extent, He does not believe in Christ, but believes only in what he himself has thought. Salvation comes through the living faith which unites us to Christ through Christ's own knowledge and love, a gift that has been preserved throughout the ages by His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, but salvation does not come through a faith that we have invented for ourselves - no matter how convinced we are about it.
This is why we do apologetics. In order to ensure as much as possible that all will be brought to as deep and true of a friendship with Christ as is possible. For what could be better than for all to be united in heaven for eternity in the love of God the Father, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, in the unity of the Holy Spirit? There is true unity possible. But it needs to be rooted and grounded in Christ's truth and love or else it is only an illusion.
Eucharistic Apologetics
A very wise woman said something to me today about the Eucharist. She was speaking about the Eucharist in relation to the communities of Christians who dispute with the Catholic Church about what the sacrament actually is and what Christ actually meant by the words "This is my body."
Here is what she had to say:
"If the Protestants are going to interpret every passage of the Bible literally, then why should they stop here and all of a sudden begin to interpret it figuratively? Furthermore, in their denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, they join with those who have turned away from Christ's own words since the very first time he spoke them." (See John 6:66)
Here is what she had to say:
"If the Protestants are going to interpret every passage of the Bible literally, then why should they stop here and all of a sudden begin to interpret it figuratively? Furthermore, in their denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, they join with those who have turned away from Christ's own words since the very first time he spoke them." (See John 6:66)
Friday, January 14, 2011
Peter, the Papacy, James, and the other Apostles
Here is a response to the question that came up in one of the comments to the first Apologetics blog entry. The question concerns Peter's authority in relation to the authority of the other apostles, especially James. It was asked: "What is with the whole pope thing when James was the last to speak at the council in Jerusalem?"
Jesus founded His Church on Peter as upon a rock. That is why Jesus changed Simon's name to Kephas (Aramaic) or Petros (in Greek) which mean 'rock,' and told him that he would found his Church upon Peter (see Matthew 16:13-18). Furthermore, in addition to giving Peter the same authority that he imparted to the other apostles, namely, that of binding and loosing and forgiving sins (see Matthew 18:18 and John 20:21-23), Jesus gives Peter the "keys to the kingdom of heaven." The keys of the kingdom are a sign of authority that (see Matthew 16:13-19) Peter receives directly from Christ. In order to understand what it means to receive the "keys of the kingdom" we have to know first that King David had a prime minister, one who represented him and handled his affairs, and it was this prime minister that was said to possess the "keys of the kingdom of David." In the book of Isaiah, chapter 22, verses 19-22, we find a prophecy concerning the keys of the kingdom of David that Christ fulfills in giving those keys over to Peter. Isaiah's king gave the keys of the kigdom of David over to Eliakin, just as Christ gave the keys to His kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, over to Peter. Thus, Christ established Peter as His vicar or prime minister on earth, an honor and a duty not given to any other Apostle.
This does not mean that Peter is a ruler who has the right to lord his authority over all of the apostles and all members of the Church. Instead, just as Christ came to serve and not to be served (see Mark 10:45), so also Peter is called to be the servant of all the servants of God. Consider the following passages where Peter is singled out by Christ Himself as the chief of the apostles who has a special duty in relation to them: (1) Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter's faith that he would strengthen the other apostles, (2) John 21:15-17 - in a threefold commission Jesus appoints Peter the shepherd of the Church, Jesus' flock.
Keeping all of these things in mind, I think we can now directly address the question about the authority of Peter in relation to the authority of St. James as it was exercised at the council of Jerusalem. In Acts 15:7-12 after much debate about circumcision, Peter's stands up and speaks to his brothers. These remarks ended the debate. After he spoke, silence ensued throughout the assembly and then Paul and Barnabas recounted to all present the works that God had done through them among the Gentiles. After this, James makes his statement. He refers to the words of Peter and expresses approval for them in their agreement with the words of the prophets. After this he concludes "Therefore, I have reached the decision that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning towards God." As the bishop of Jerusalem it is quite fitting that James should be the last person to address the assembly. However, being the last to speak does not mean that he had the highest authority or even that he was equal in authority to Peter. Why?
Reading the text of Acts of the Apostles, it becomes clear why Peter spoke first and why James spoke last. The reasons for this take into account the context of the council and the circumstances at the time. Prior to the council, Paul and Barnabas had been in Antioch preaching the good news to the Gentiles. Then, as we see in Acts 15:1, "certain individuals came down from Judea," to Antioch, and taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation. There was "no small dissension and debate" (Acts 15:2) among them and so they decided to go to Jerusalem to discuss it with the "apostles and the elders" there. This is a significant detail because it tells us that it was members of the Church of Judea, that is, the Church of Jerusalem, of which St. James was the bishop, who were teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation.
At the time of the council, Peter was a refugee from Rome. In Acts 12:17, Peter had fled Jerusalem "for another place" which both Eusebius and Jerome tell us is Rome, because they date his episcopacy in Rome from AD 42. Now the Council of Jerusalem took place in AD 49. So why was Peter there in the first place. He certainly did not hop on a jet and fly over because there was a problem back home. The historian Seutonius reports that all the Jews were expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius in AD 49 (same year as the Jerusalem council) and their expulsion was because of a riot over someone named "Chrestus" (i.e., "Christus" or Christ). Thus, Peter was among the refugees, and had been led back to Jerusalem by the Holy Spirit, (thereafter to go on to Antioch, after the Council, and then back to Rome after Claudius' death, when Jews could return).) Finally, let us recall that Peter already believed that it was the will of the Lord that the Gentiles should be baptized (see Acts 10:47) and that he had baptized Gentiles prior to this council. James, on the other hand, was the bishop of those who were so teaching (those Judeans who had gone up to Antioch).
After having gone over the circumstances of the Council, there are a few key facts that manifest the nature of Peter's authority amongst the other Apostles, including James. (1) When the debate had gone on for some time at the council, Peter, a visitor to the Church of Jerusalem, stands up and makes his judgment known. (2) The fact that there was silence in the entire assembly after he spoke and that this silence was followed by the testimony of Paul and Barnabas in support of Peter's teaching regarding the Gentiles, salvation, and circumcision because it spoke of the wonders that God had done for the Gentiles.
After Peter's statement, spoken by the shepherd of the flock (John 21:15-17), who holds the "keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:18), and the evidence given by Paul and Barnabas, it should come as no surprise that James would speak last, and not as a sign of his possessing the same authority as Peter. For James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and it was members of his church who had gone up to Antioch and taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Thus, it was the duty of James and his place (being the bishop of that region) to address the members of his Church concerning the decision agreed upon by the council and first proposed by Peter. Therefore, James did not speak last as a sign of his equal authority over the church with Peter, rather, it was on account of his being the bishop of that region who had charge over those who were dissenting from the truth about salvation. For each bishop, indeed each Apostle, has authority over the particular church entrusted to him, but it is Peter to whom they looked in matters where a leader was needed, where only the one who had the keys of the kingdom could speak to them on behalf of Christ. (Consider also the other times at which Peter spoke first on behalf of the apostles including his profession of faith at Casarea Phillipi and at Pentecost.)
That being said, we should not fail to mention that the testimony of the early church Fathers, many of them disciples and successors of theApostles, also bears witness to the constant teaching of the Church with regard to the primacy of the Church of Rome and the Apostolic See of Peter. Consider the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of John the Apostle, 3rd bishop of Antioch) who said that it is the Church of Rome which "presides in charity." (Ad. Rom. 1,1) Consider also the words of St. Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp, martyr and disciple of St. John the Apostle): "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord." (Adv. Haeres. 3,3)
In conclusion, in addition to all else that we know of the authority that Christ entrusted to authority and in light of that revelation concerning his office as the chief of the Apostles, we can interpret the Acts of the Apostles description of the council of Jerusalem as an expression of the unity of the Church, the primacy of the authority of Peter, and the authority that each Apostle possessed from Christ, which authority they exercised in union with Christ, and in union with the rock upon which he built His Church - Peter the Apostle.
Jesus founded His Church on Peter as upon a rock. That is why Jesus changed Simon's name to Kephas (Aramaic) or Petros (in Greek) which mean 'rock,' and told him that he would found his Church upon Peter (see Matthew 16:13-18). Furthermore, in addition to giving Peter the same authority that he imparted to the other apostles, namely, that of binding and loosing and forgiving sins (see Matthew 18:18 and John 20:21-23), Jesus gives Peter the "keys to the kingdom of heaven." The keys of the kingdom are a sign of authority that (see Matthew 16:13-19) Peter receives directly from Christ. In order to understand what it means to receive the "keys of the kingdom" we have to know first that King David had a prime minister, one who represented him and handled his affairs, and it was this prime minister that was said to possess the "keys of the kingdom of David." In the book of Isaiah, chapter 22, verses 19-22, we find a prophecy concerning the keys of the kingdom of David that Christ fulfills in giving those keys over to Peter. Isaiah's king gave the keys of the kigdom of David over to Eliakin, just as Christ gave the keys to His kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, over to Peter. Thus, Christ established Peter as His vicar or prime minister on earth, an honor and a duty not given to any other Apostle.
This does not mean that Peter is a ruler who has the right to lord his authority over all of the apostles and all members of the Church. Instead, just as Christ came to serve and not to be served (see Mark 10:45), so also Peter is called to be the servant of all the servants of God. Consider the following passages where Peter is singled out by Christ Himself as the chief of the apostles who has a special duty in relation to them: (1) Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter's faith that he would strengthen the other apostles, (2) John 21:15-17 - in a threefold commission Jesus appoints Peter the shepherd of the Church, Jesus' flock.
Keeping all of these things in mind, I think we can now directly address the question about the authority of Peter in relation to the authority of St. James as it was exercised at the council of Jerusalem. In Acts 15:7-12 after much debate about circumcision, Peter's stands up and speaks to his brothers. These remarks ended the debate. After he spoke, silence ensued throughout the assembly and then Paul and Barnabas recounted to all present the works that God had done through them among the Gentiles. After this, James makes his statement. He refers to the words of Peter and expresses approval for them in their agreement with the words of the prophets. After this he concludes "Therefore, I have reached the decision that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning towards God." As the bishop of Jerusalem it is quite fitting that James should be the last person to address the assembly. However, being the last to speak does not mean that he had the highest authority or even that he was equal in authority to Peter. Why?
Reading the text of Acts of the Apostles, it becomes clear why Peter spoke first and why James spoke last. The reasons for this take into account the context of the council and the circumstances at the time. Prior to the council, Paul and Barnabas had been in Antioch preaching the good news to the Gentiles. Then, as we see in Acts 15:1, "certain individuals came down from Judea," to Antioch, and taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation. There was "no small dissension and debate" (Acts 15:2) among them and so they decided to go to Jerusalem to discuss it with the "apostles and the elders" there. This is a significant detail because it tells us that it was members of the Church of Judea, that is, the Church of Jerusalem, of which St. James was the bishop, who were teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation.
At the time of the council, Peter was a refugee from Rome. In Acts 12:17, Peter had fled Jerusalem "for another place" which both Eusebius and Jerome tell us is Rome, because they date his episcopacy in Rome from AD 42. Now the Council of Jerusalem took place in AD 49. So why was Peter there in the first place. He certainly did not hop on a jet and fly over because there was a problem back home. The historian Seutonius reports that all the Jews were expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius in AD 49 (same year as the Jerusalem council) and their expulsion was because of a riot over someone named "Chrestus" (i.e., "Christus" or Christ). Thus, Peter was among the refugees, and had been led back to Jerusalem by the Holy Spirit, (thereafter to go on to Antioch, after the Council, and then back to Rome after Claudius' death, when Jews could return).) Finally, let us recall that Peter already believed that it was the will of the Lord that the Gentiles should be baptized (see Acts 10:47) and that he had baptized Gentiles prior to this council. James, on the other hand, was the bishop of those who were so teaching (those Judeans who had gone up to Antioch).
After having gone over the circumstances of the Council, there are a few key facts that manifest the nature of Peter's authority amongst the other Apostles, including James. (1) When the debate had gone on for some time at the council, Peter, a visitor to the Church of Jerusalem, stands up and makes his judgment known. (2) The fact that there was silence in the entire assembly after he spoke and that this silence was followed by the testimony of Paul and Barnabas in support of Peter's teaching regarding the Gentiles, salvation, and circumcision because it spoke of the wonders that God had done for the Gentiles.
After Peter's statement, spoken by the shepherd of the flock (John 21:15-17), who holds the "keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:18), and the evidence given by Paul and Barnabas, it should come as no surprise that James would speak last, and not as a sign of his possessing the same authority as Peter. For James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and it was members of his church who had gone up to Antioch and taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Thus, it was the duty of James and his place (being the bishop of that region) to address the members of his Church concerning the decision agreed upon by the council and first proposed by Peter. Therefore, James did not speak last as a sign of his equal authority over the church with Peter, rather, it was on account of his being the bishop of that region who had charge over those who were dissenting from the truth about salvation. For each bishop, indeed each Apostle, has authority over the particular church entrusted to him, but it is Peter to whom they looked in matters where a leader was needed, where only the one who had the keys of the kingdom could speak to them on behalf of Christ. (Consider also the other times at which Peter spoke first on behalf of the apostles including his profession of faith at Casarea Phillipi and at Pentecost.)
That being said, we should not fail to mention that the testimony of the early church Fathers, many of them disciples and successors of theApostles, also bears witness to the constant teaching of the Church with regard to the primacy of the Church of Rome and the Apostolic See of Peter. Consider the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of John the Apostle, 3rd bishop of Antioch) who said that it is the Church of Rome which "presides in charity." (Ad. Rom. 1,1) Consider also the words of St. Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp, martyr and disciple of St. John the Apostle): "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord." (Adv. Haeres. 3,3)
In conclusion, in addition to all else that we know of the authority that Christ entrusted to authority and in light of that revelation concerning his office as the chief of the Apostles, we can interpret the Acts of the Apostles description of the council of Jerusalem as an expression of the unity of the Church, the primacy of the authority of Peter, and the authority that each Apostle possessed from Christ, which authority they exercised in union with Christ, and in union with the rock upon which he built His Church - Peter the Apostle.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
INTRODUCTION REVIEW
So in brief, here is a Introduction (Thanks to the help of Beginning Apologetics 1 by Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham!)
Cheat Sheet Review of the Discussion.
I think thats enough to digest for now. On another day we will have the Topic of Biblical History, where the bible came from, all the different translations, why the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible and how that happenend FYI.
Cheat Sheet Review of the Discussion.
- What is Apologetics? It means, "giving a reasoned explanation of your faith" This means that a Catholic person should charitably explain Catholic Doctrine and teaching by using Common Sense, Scripture, and History.
- What are some tips for discussing questions of faith with your family and friends? A. Remember that your goal is to explain your faith and evangelize, not win an argument. Even in the most heated discussions, you should remain charitable at all times and focus yourself on loving God and His Truth. B. STUDY: You should read the bible 10 minutes a day or at LEAST 30 minutes a week. If you don't have one, get one. Also read the Catechism of the Catholic Church at least once a week. C. FOCUS: During discussion, insist on staying on the main issues. Don't allow someone to ask you 20 questions and expect you to answer them in 10 minutes. There should be plenty of time for answers because you are focused on truth. Also, question time should be equal. Just as they ask you challenging questions so you should be able to ask them challenging questions. D. If you are not familiar with a topic and do not know how to properly answer, there is nothing wrong with saying you need to do research and would like to get back to them on it. E. INTERPRETATION: If your non Catholic brethren misinterpret bible verses to fit their denominational teaching against Catholic doctrine, you should read the verse itself in context and be able to show how it can be interpreted to support Catholic teaching. E. If you are not an expert in Catholic Doctrine, DONT BE AFRAID. Just tell them what you do know politely. F. MOST IMPORTANTLY: Begin and end discussion in prayer. Calmly end the discussion if the other person is becoming verbally abusive. INSIST that they refrain from making abusive attacks on the Eucharist and Our Lady and ask them to simply state what they disagree with and why they do.
- Is the Bible the only authority when it comes to matters of faith? How many times have you heard the phrase: "Well its not in the bible so I don't have to listen to it"? Basically all Protestants claim that the Bible is the only authority in matters of faith. Fancy term for this is called the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" (Translation: Scripture Alone) IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT for a Catholic to know why the Bible is not the sole rule of faith and to NOT agree with Protestants on this point. There is something called AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH and SACRED TRADITION. We Catholics accept the authority of the Bible in matters of faith because it is the inspired Word of God, but we do not accept it as the only rule of faith.
- Why is the Authority of the Church important? Because Christ left a Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in His Name until the end of time. If you reject this authority left on earth by Christ, then you reject Christ and His Gospel.
- What does the BIBLE say about it? First of all, no where in the bible does it say to follow Scripture alone. In fact, the doctrine of sola scriptura cannot be found in the bible. Yep, thats right, the bible says that not everything Jesus did and said is recorded in the bible. Read John 21: 25.
I think thats enough to digest for now. On another day we will have the Topic of Biblical History, where the bible came from, all the different translations, why the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible and how that happenend FYI.
Salvation through Apologetics?
In response to the first post on the blog for The Way I would like to add the following: Apologetics accompanies all of us on the way to heaven. There is obviously a need for evangelization, just like there is obviously a need for catechesis. There is also a need for apologetics. What is the reason for all of this? There are people that have never heard the good news about Jesus. They need to be told. Hence, evangelization. There are people that have heard the good news about Jesus and need to be instructed in it so that they can grow in their faith. Hence, catechesis. But who is apologetics for? If I have been evangelized and I am able to evangelize others, if I know my faith and can even teach it to others, then what need is there for apologetics for me? Aside from evangelization and catechesis, that is, the initial proclamation of the faith and its systematic study in catechesis, why would we need apologetics? Isn't it enough if we simply learn our faith and share it with others?
For anyone that has ever tried to share their faith with others and be an instrument in bringing them to Christ one thing is clear: our work in the salvation of souls and the conversion of others is very small (in relation to God's), but nonetheless, very important, since if we didn't do it, who would? This does not mean that it is easy work. Most people have their own ideas, their own beliefs, and their own way of looking at themselves, their lives, and their world. Most people are not well disposed to changing their habits and their entire lifestyle merely because of the words that someone speaks to them - especially if those words have to do with a certain poor carpenter from an obscure ancient Roman outpost that died at the hands of his own people thousands of years ago. Apologetics is necessary because if you can give reasons that compel people towards the truth of Christ and His Church, you can give them reasons to move away from whatever false beliefs and ways of living they may have fallen into, and help them to open their hearts to faith in Jesus. It is a special work of disposing those that we love to be more open to the words of Christ and the work of His Holy Spirit. The Father draws us to believe in His Son, but some hearts are hardened. Apologetics is an invaluable tool in breaking through to some of the hardest hearts, no matter where they are coming from.
Therefore, the question is not so much why is apologetics necessary, rather, it is how serious are we about our faith in Jesus and how seriously do we hold salvation in Christ alone as the goal of human life? Once we have the answer to those questions, we will understand why apologetics are a necessity.
For anyone that has ever tried to share their faith with others and be an instrument in bringing them to Christ one thing is clear: our work in the salvation of souls and the conversion of others is very small (in relation to God's), but nonetheless, very important, since if we didn't do it, who would? This does not mean that it is easy work. Most people have their own ideas, their own beliefs, and their own way of looking at themselves, their lives, and their world. Most people are not well disposed to changing their habits and their entire lifestyle merely because of the words that someone speaks to them - especially if those words have to do with a certain poor carpenter from an obscure ancient Roman outpost that died at the hands of his own people thousands of years ago. Apologetics is necessary because if you can give reasons that compel people towards the truth of Christ and His Church, you can give them reasons to move away from whatever false beliefs and ways of living they may have fallen into, and help them to open their hearts to faith in Jesus. It is a special work of disposing those that we love to be more open to the words of Christ and the work of His Holy Spirit. The Father draws us to believe in His Son, but some hearts are hardened. Apologetics is an invaluable tool in breaking through to some of the hardest hearts, no matter where they are coming from.
Therefore, the question is not so much why is apologetics necessary, rather, it is how serious are we about our faith in Jesus and how seriously do we hold salvation in Christ alone as the goal of human life? Once we have the answer to those questions, we will understand why apologetics are a necessity.
Welcome to "The Way" Apologetics Blog, are you bored?
If you answered, "sort of" or flat out "yes" than I am not surprised. Most Catholics do not know what Apologetics is all about and if they do, they are almost always bored with the first topic which is the introduction. Come on now: How many of you actually read the Introduction to a book you start? Most of us turn to Chapter 1 and DO NOT READ THE INTRO and that is because most of the time it is either boring or we just want to get to the good stuff.
BUT with Apologetics we can't skip the intro, because if we are not introduced to apologetics than the rest of the VERY IMPORTANT TOPICS mean absolutely nothing to you and cannot help you defend your faith. Its like trying to become a Doctor and skipping Med school. And no one wants YOU to operate on them. TRANSLATION: No intellegent person wants to hear you defend the Catholic Faith if you can't answer their questions because you don't know how.
So, on that note, WELCOME TO " THE WAY Apologetics and Hot Topic Blog". Here we will be posting the Apologetics Night Discussion Questions and continue to comment on important topics and concerns that are brought up. Your comments and questions are very welcome and for beginners (we all have to start somewhere) I would suggest scrolling through the different discussion questions under "Introduction Review."
God bless you and Just Follow Him.
BUT with Apologetics we can't skip the intro, because if we are not introduced to apologetics than the rest of the VERY IMPORTANT TOPICS mean absolutely nothing to you and cannot help you defend your faith. Its like trying to become a Doctor and skipping Med school. And no one wants YOU to operate on them. TRANSLATION: No intellegent person wants to hear you defend the Catholic Faith if you can't answer their questions because you don't know how.
So, on that note, WELCOME TO " THE WAY Apologetics and Hot Topic Blog". Here we will be posting the Apologetics Night Discussion Questions and continue to comment on important topics and concerns that are brought up. Your comments and questions are very welcome and for beginners (we all have to start somewhere) I would suggest scrolling through the different discussion questions under "Introduction Review."
God bless you and Just Follow Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)