As a biblical justification for my last post, consider this:

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”

Deuteronomy 18:15-22 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers–it is to him you shall listen–just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the LORD said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’–when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”

Consider: at the time this passage was written, there was no infallible magisterium, nor any infallible church. Yet, these commands were supposed to be applied by someone. Who is the “you”? The answer is: Israel, considered as a group of fallible people. Or, which is functionally the same, individual Israelites in communication with other individual Israelites, all of whom are fallible.

The Isrealites operated on the principle of sola scriptura: putative teachings and prophets had to be evaluated by the laypeople on the basis of the writings of Moses (and, as future prophets were judged to be from God indeed, the communications of those prophets as well).

In both friendly conversations and while reading blog comments from theological opponents (Roman Catholic epologist types), I’ve heard the objection to sola scriptura lately that under it, individual interpretations of scripture can be responded to with the objection “who says?”

I think in the end this is a misleading question. Consider other ancient texts like Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, or Homer’s Iliad. In cases like these texts, the fact that a historical scholar trained in reading ancient languages and in the historical contexts of those documents says the document says x is sufficient ground to believe them. They do not need the backing of a religious authority to commend belief on the part of non-experts.

In a situation where scholars disagree on documents such as that, the only way a consensus can come is by continuing the same process that created the divergent conclusions: grammatico-historical exegesis. In those cases, there is no putative religious authority to appeal to to solve the dispute. They simply must revisit the facts and see who has misconstrued them until they come to consensus.

When you ask, “Who says?” who is right in such a disagreement, the answer is really: “the text they are interpreting.” We need to remember that a text is itself a communication from a person, and communications are not infinitely elastic. They have definition and form (and thus the formal/material sufficiency distinction in Newmanesque theories about scripture and doctrine misconstrue the issue from the start; all communications implicitly already have form). In a dispute over what a communication says, ultimately the only way to resolve the dispute is to read again more carefully, to try our best to conform our minds to the form of the text.

Well sports fans I’m back on some predictions.  The fact that I am neither the Prophet nor the Son of the Prophet makes no difference here, and since my picks with the exception of the Evil Dodgers sweep of the Cardinals were pretty accurate here it goes again.  Now obviously since I am merely Padre Steve and not the Pope nothing I say is infallible my picks can be wrong and I hate that.  Thankfully since I am not claiming to speak from the Most High a wrong pick will not leave me crushed to death with heavy stones by the faithful.  At the same time I get a certain satisfaction about being right like the time I was waiting in the ER with Judy as they tried to diagnose her throat swelling.  I “Googled” the symptoms and got it right, before they did, it was Epiglottis, something extremely rare in adults which they were neither looking for nor expecting.  I thought that was pretty cool as did my ICU attending physicians.

So how do I get my picks?  First I try to put emotion aside and look at trends, stats and intangibles.  It does not matter if I like the team or not when it comes to picking such things.  What I want is to be dispassionate in my analysis because I love the game.

So a quick review of the Divisional Series:

I picked the Cardinals in 4 over the Dodgers.  Dodgers swept the Cards 3-0.  The tow things that I believed that would bring about a Cardinals win did not happen.  First the starting pitching did not get it done.  Second the Cardinals hitting died like 1981 Chevette, trust me I know as we had one.  It was not pretty and then if you throw in the improbable muff a ball that Matt Halliday made in Left Field with two outs in the bottom of the 9^th in game two with the Cardinals ahead…..  Ouch!

I picked the Phillies in 5 figuring that the Rockies would win at home.  Instead they split in Philly and the Phillies swept the Rockies in Denver despite cold weather and what should have been home field advantage.  The Phillies choice of Cliff Lee to pitch game one paid off in spades and the Phillies hitters did not disappoint.  Rockies fans must have had their hearts ripped out when they scored three in the bottom of the 8^th to take a 4-2 lead in game four only to have closer Huston Street blow the save for the second night in a row.

Moving to the American League I picked the Angels in 5 over the Red Sox.  I figured that the Angels were a better team than the last few times they played the Sox and that the Red Sox had lost their edge.  I thought that the “X” factor of Nick Adenhart would work in the Angels favor and I expected a close series with the Angels winning it.  Instead the Angels dominated the Bosox and swept them with an improbable rally with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9^th when they were down to their last pitch.

Finally there was the series between the Yankees and the Twins.  The Twins had a remarkable September and captured the AL Central crown in a one game playoff against the Tigers.  I picket the Yankees in 4 allowing for a game three Twins win at the Hubert H Humphrey Metrosexual Dome, also known as visiting team Hell.  The Yankees swept the Twins but game two and three were close and the Yankees came from behind in both to win.

So here they are:  First the National League and the Phillies against the Dodgers.  Pitching is a wash as the Phillies have the better starters with Lee and Clay Hammels but have a suspect bullpen. Closer Brad Lidge seems to have gotten his stuff back after a miserable season.  The Dodgers have a patchwork rotation of decent but not outstanding pitchers but have an amazing bullpen.  In the hitting department both teams have great offensive potential but I give the edge to Ryan Howard’s wrecking crew.  In the regular season the Dodgers took the series between the two teams 4-3.  This will be close and the Dodgers are capable of winning in unusual ways as evidenced by game two of the NLDS.  I think this goes 7 with the teams splitting in LA, Philly taking 2 at home and splitting the final pair with the Phillies taking the down the Dodgers for the second year in a row.  While I am picking the Phillies this series could go the other way.  I never will forget the 1981 Dodgers who played had a miraculous series of playoff wins which culminated against the Yankees.  They lost the first two games and won the next four closing the series at Yankee Stadium.  So I believe that anything is possible, but I’m still picking the Phillies and watch the game in my San Francisco Giants gear.  I guess I do have some emotions invested in this series after all.

Now I’ll move over to the American League and talk about the Yankees and the Angels.  This should be a great series.  The Halo’s won 4 of 6 in the regular season and outscored them by a pretty large margin in Anaheim.  Now both teams have a lot of firepower as well as pretty solid pitching.  The Yankees are coming off the best season the have had in a number of years and their 103 wins were the most in baseball.  The Angels have had a very good season as well.  At this point it is hard to pick a winner.  I think that the Yankees have the edge in personnel and are the hungriest for the pennant that I have seen them in years.  The Angels too are hungry and have something of an “X” factor in the incredible bonding and team spirit brought about by the loss of rookie pitcher Nick Adenhart.  The series will start in New York where the weather forecast is crappy for the weekend, especially Friday where there is an 80% chance of rain and temperatures in the low 40s.  The temps will remain about the same the entire weekend and the precipitation is forecast at 40% for the weekend.   These are not baseball conditions and could be a factor in who wins and loses the games in New York.  With the weather as much as a factor as it could be I think that negates some of the Yankees home field advantage.  I think that the teams split in New York and go to Anaheim at 1-1.  When the teams get to Anaheim next week the weather should be perfect Southern California fall weather clear and temperatures in the 70s at game time.  They Angels dominated the Yankees at home and I think that they will take at least two of the three in Anaheim and go back to New York up 3-2.  The Yankees are a great clutch team and this year and have been awesome in the come from behind situations.  The series could go either way at this point but I think that the Angels can steal this from the Yankees and put them away in game six, just as they came from behind to defeat the Red Sox in game three of their series.  My pick is the Angels in six.

So my picks are the Angels and Phillies to get to the World Series.  Of course I could be wrong as these are all great teams and each has something to prove. The Phillies want to repeat, the Yankees want to make up for years of disappointment of being so close but so far away, the Dodgers are trying to reclaim a winning heritage and gain the respect that they deserve and the Angels, they are playing for something so totally intangible that it is hard to put a value on, they are playing for the love and memory of a team-mate and have an almost magical and mystical feel to their season.  There are individual players trying to recapture past triumphs and others still trying to escape the demons and come out from under the cloud of not having won it all. I expect some great baseball no matter who advances to the Series.  The way I see it even if I am wrong on my picks this should be some great baseball.

Peace,

Padre Steve+

I’ve decided to spend some time writing extremely short explanations about why I am an evangelical Protestant Christian instead of anything else.

I have two aims.

First, I want show how an honest person can evaluate rival religions using the laws of logic, scientific evidence and historical evidence. Second, I want people who are not religious to understand that religions are either true or it is false. Religions should not be chosen based where you were born, what your parents believed, or what resonates with you. A religion should be embraced for the same reason as the theory of gravity is embraced: because it reflects the way the world really is.

Why I am not a Roman Catholic

1. To be a Roman Catholic, you need to believe in Papal infallibility in matters of dogma.
2. In 1950, the Pope pronounced the assumption of Mary to be infallible dogma.
3. This pronouncement was solicited by a petition featuring over 8 million signatures.
4. There is no historical record of this doctrine in the Bible.
5. No early church father mentions the assumption until 590 AD.
6. Documents dated 377 AD state that no one knows how Mary died.
7. The assumption appears for the first time in an apocryphal gospel dated about 495 AD.

Data

I only cite Roman Catholic sources for my facts.

6. “But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

7. “The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

It should be noted that the apocryphal gospel in which the doctrine of the assumption of Mary first appeared was condemned as heretical by two Popes in the 5th and 6th centuries. However, I was not able to find a CATHOLIC source for this fact, so I deliberately chose not to use it in my case.

I am not saying that Roman Catholicism is necessarily WRONG, I am just explaining why I am not a Roman Catholic. I hope that my Roman Catholic readers will not be too angry with me for disagreeing with them on theology. I will try not to test your patience too often like this. I would encourage everyone to be as civil as you all have been so far, and I will be extra vigilant in filtering comments.

• 251: “The turning point in the history of Christianity represented by the dechristianizing effort of the French Revolution was the end—or at least the beginning of the end—of European Christendom as the dominant expression of Christianity in the world.”
• 252: However, at the same time: “… the nineteenth century was experiencing the greatest increase ever recorded in the number of Christian believers and a greater proportional increase than at any time since the fifth century.”

The Demise of Christendom

• 254: “Over the course of the nineteenth century, a new post-Christian Europe began everywhere to be visible.”
• 254: “Increasingly, the production of wealth, the uses of wealth, the disparities in the possession of wealth, and the application of wealth to social problems assumed a life of their own beyond the watch or guidance of the church.”
• 255-258: The chapter begins to go through various people from this time and summarize their contributions. These include those who somehow helped to hasten the demise of Christendom and those who fought against this direction.

Christian Responses to the “Modern” Age

Intellectual, Evangelistic, Social

• 258-261: This part of the chapter continues the listing and descriptions of various people.

Conceptual and Institutional

• 261-267: Again, a listing and describing of various people.
• 265: “In sum, liberal, sectarian, and traditionalist responses to the weakening of European Christendom all had considerable vigor, though of markedly different kinds. Yet despite much laudable faith and much effective practice, the juggernaut of secularism rolled on.”
• 265: “As before, when disruption of the Christian homeland in the eastern Mediterranean coincided with the planting of Christianity in Europe, so now the disruption of the Christian homeland in Europe coincided with the blossoming of Christianity well beyond Europe.”

'rat' by name, rat by nature.

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidei, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state that the Pope cannot commit sin in his own personal life.

This is an unbiblical and false assumption.

It has been made even more obvious that this is a heretical way of thinking in recent days with the current Pope, Joseph Ratzinger.

The Observer reports:

It is becoming something of a habit with Pope Benedict XVI. First, he says something that causes outrage inside and outside his flock. Then his officials offer “clarifications”. Finally, usually after a short but decent interval, he apologises publicly and humbly for any offence his remarks have caused.

Last week, it was over condoms and Aids. En route to Cameroon, Benedict told reporters on the papal plane that the distribution of condoms was making the spread of HIV/Aids worse rather than better. As the French, German and Belgian governments queued up, along with the UN, to condemn the pontiff for irresponsibility at a time when Africa accounts for three-quarters of all deaths from Aids worldwide, the Vatican’s website was busy tweaking. Condom distribution, the authorised version now read, risked making the problem worse.

If recent experience is anything to go by, before this papal tour of Africa ends in Angola tomorrow Benedict may well have made a limited public retreat. That has been how he handled the furore caused by his decision to readmit into his fold Bishop Richard Williamson, a British-born Catholic dissident and Holocaust-denier. In a public letter to all bishops, Benedict wrote that he “deeply deplored” what he called “a mishap” and added: “I have learnt the lesson.”

And in September 2006, when he was also in the line of fire, this time for quoting the anti-Islamic words of a distant Byzantine emperor during a lecture in Regensburg in his native Germany, Benedict used his regular Sunday Angelus prayer five days later to say he was “deeply sorry” for any offence caused.

Traditionally, popes don’t apologise. The church teaches that they are guided by God (and, since 1870, are officially infallible in certain matters of faith and morals). So Pius XII, the pope who failed in the Second World War to condemn the Holocaust, never subsequently offered a mea culpa. Even when Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, broke with tradition and started making public apologies, he only did so for events that had happened centuries ago,such as the Crusades and the Inquisition.

This pattern of making controversial statements and then backtracking goes to the heart of the enigma that Pope Benedict XVI has become as he nears the fourth anniversary of his election. He is simultaneously medieval in his habit of stating so bluntly what he sees as the church’s monopoly on truth, even when it flies in the face of reason, and modern in his willingness then to listen and react to his audience (and indeed, it might be added, in being the first pope ever to say “condom”).

Full article here.

I’ve been reading Roman Catholic and charismatic writings lately, and it has gotten me to thinking about how the Spirit relates to the Church.

Often Roman Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) theologians will appeal to Christ’s promise that the Spirit will guide the church into all truth as an argument for its infallibility. Now, for those who do not agree with ecclesial infallibility, something has to be done with this promise.

Sometimes this promise will be restricted to the apostles, and I think there is some validity to that (in the Gospel of John the promise is obviously given to those who were “with him from the beginning”). But, on the other hand, some kind of promise of God’s leading/teaching is given to all believers (cf. John 6, where Jesus says, following the OT “New Covenant” texts, that “all will be taught by God”, or 1 John 2:27, where it clearly says that the Spirit teaches every individual directly to the point where “they don’t need anyone to teach them” in some sense). Does this mean ecclesial infallibility is correct after all?

I think Calvin actually had a good reply about this: the Spirit’s leading is something that happens over time, and thus may admit in fluctuations at times. In other words, it can be true that the Spirit is leading the Chruch in some sense without it necessarily entailing that everything the Church does is lead by the Spirit. In addition, I would add that the RC/EO reading of this promise assumes a kind of determinism those theologies would often not want to support: it seems assumed that because the Spirit is leading the Church, whatever the Church says must be a direct reproduction of what the Spirit said.

At this point I think the wisest among the charismatics can be very helpful. Most charismatic theologians I have read have noted that NT prophecy is fallible, and in several ways: a person can mishear what the Spirit says to them, a person can properly hear what the Spirit says but misinterpret it, a person can simply be mistaken in claiming the Spirit spoke to them, a person can hear the Spirit and lie about what the Spirit says, and/or a person can hear nothing at all and claim the Spirit spoke to them. If all of these things are true, then a simple appeal to the Church’s being led by the Spirit would be insufficient to know when and what the Spirit has said directly to the Church (i.e., apart from the Scriptures). One would have to apply all the tests given in Scripture for NT prophets (not OT prophets, which, at least I’m convinced, are of a different order) to any putative claim of revelation given to the Church as a whole. At the same time, there is no reason a priori to assume the Spirit could not possibly be leading the Church as a whole to affirm something, e.g., the contents of the Canon or the Creeds, or some moral teaching.

This is all pretty tenative for me, but I think it makes sense.

Any thoughts?

USA Today magazine is reporting the “suprising” news that – are you ready? – the Orthodox Churches in the United States are full of converts!  No big news for most of us out in the hinterlands where we have and will continue to expect church growth based on converts.  The only thing I find a bit unusual is the questions they asked about major concerns for these new Orthodox.  A common date for the celebration of Pascha/Easter?  Sorry, but that one’s not been a big concern with the converts I hang with.   Well, that’s just fine if the Pope wants to agree to the Orthodox formula for calculating Pascha/Easter.  Maybe after that his Holiness will be interested in coming ’round on the issue of Papal infallability and the Filioque.

I’m not sure if this is really any kind of statistical confirmation of Fr. John Peck’s predictions for the American Orthodox church of the future, but it’s all the anectdotal evidence I need to hope for many of the others to come true.

To read the original study go to the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute and click on the links here.

NOTE: This post is part of a larger series discussing Ecclesial Authority

Part I: Introduction

Part II: Scripture

Part III: Tradition

Part IV: History/Reason

Part V: Personal and Communal Experience

Part VI: Authority Revisited (UNFINISHED)

II. Sacred/Holy Tradition as Chief Authority
Faith Traditions: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Some Anglicans
Argument: “Sacred Tradition.” What Christ started, the Apostles and those in their subsequent succession finished. This Alternative is dependent on the idea that Truth began with Christ and is being revealed through the Authority of Apostolic Succession. While Roman and Eastern Christians disagree on just where that Succession is today, their allegiance to it through faithful obedience to centuries of Christian leaders is the same.
Nice Quote: “…the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” -Second Vatican Council Dei Verbum

Pros:
1. Concept (real or imagined) of the firm existence of Empirical Truth: Here we find the same idea as what Alternative I offered. Except instead of an ancient book, we have “that guy.” Be it the Pope, or an Ecumenical Council, the Traditionalist can point to something and say, “that’s the way it is, period.”
2. Little Room for Subjectivity = Amazing Unity Until you’ve participated in an Orthodox (or Catholic) liturgy (mass) and had the realization you are practicing a faith that millions of Christians world wide are also experiencing—that you are not only connecting to other living Christians, but dead Christians from hundreds of years ago. The simple fact that I might have very little in common with a Lebanese working class mother on the other side of the world, but that we none-the-less belong to each other because we both belong to Christ is a powerful and spiritual experience that I don’t have the means to explain here.
3. Connection to the Ancient Church Even a casual reading through the Apostolic Fathers will reveal a heavy emphasis on one thing: unity no matter what. Ignatius wrote a number of letters on his trip to Rome to be martyred and in each epistle he repeatedly emphasized the necessity of sticking to your Bishop. It was through that Bishop that the church could exist, through that Bishop that ordinary people experienced the Eucharist that brought them into communion with God. Traditionalists carry a strong connection to this ancient Church that no other Alternative can muster.
4. A Claim to Orthodoxy It’s from tradition (not the Bible) that we get so many tenets of what is considered “orthodox Christianity” today. The Trinity, the dual-nature of Christ, the second-coming, original sin, heaven and hell, etc… the Bible has very little to say about these things specifically. It was from the teachings of the early Church fathers (along with their particular interpretations of the ancient texts that make up the Bible) that the Ecumenical Councils decided on these things.

Cons:
1. Potential for Misuse of Power: While a leader in any of the Alternatives I’ve listed here are liable to misuse their power, Tradition is at the greatest risk. The darkest parts of human history started when a few men were given innumerable power without any accountability. I should mention that both Romans and Eastern Christians have learned from historical mistakes but I don’t think the opportunity for misuse on a smaller scale is out of the question now or in the future.
2. “Adding to the faith”: This is really an extension of Con #1, but inevitably, as Christian tradition developed, it began to take on the cultural baggage of its times. Many would criticize the Catholics for things like Indulgences, Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary, etc… but I believe every Christian tradition has its own special additions that were relevant for a certain time but are now bothersome trip ups for their adherents today. (The Assemblies of God is less than a century old and already the doctrine of “Initial Physical Evidence” threatens to split their movement in the USA.)
Ultimately, everyone chooses a point in historical tradition to adhere to. The Eastern Christians stop after the seventh Ecumenical Council, the Romans stop with the Pope, the Reformed stop at the Reformation, the Pentecostals stop with Azusa etc…
3. Exclusivism While any Alternative is by definition exclusive (even liberal, so-called “inclusive” movements have no place for conservatives in their folds) the Sacred Tradition Alternative is perhaps the most limiting. In order to participate in Eucharist (and thus be considered part of the church) one must be in full agreement with the tenets of tradition. There is no “invisible church” that spans movements and congregations. There are no such things as “branches,” regrettably in schism but each with their own particular contribution to make.

I was reading Luke 21 the other day, and one of the verses struck me;

He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. (Verse 8.)

According to psychologists, heightened states of illusion, such as belief that you are the Messiah can come from a range of different places; stress, experiences of insomnia or drugs. But apparently a tenth of the population of Britain think they are someone very important or chosen, or have special powers and receive messages. At one end of the spectrum, there are people who believe themselves to be uniquely talented, and at the other end are those who believe themselves to be members of the Royal Family or key religious figures.

This could serve as a good reminder for us all to take care who we ‘worship’. Be it a rock-star, footballer or philosopher; as well as to warn us against egoism and self-centered pride.

I have compiled a list of some people who have claimed to be some form of Messiah.

• Father Divine.

George Baker, also known as Father Divine, was an African American ’spiritual leader’ from 1907 until he died. His full self-given name was Reverend Major Jealous Divine, and he was also known as The Messenger.

He founded a movement called International Peace Mission, Father Divine claimed to be God. This fraudster was probably one of the first modern cult leaders. However, Father Divine made numerous contributions toward his followers’ economic independence and racial equality.

• Jim Jones

This man claimed that he was the reincarnation of Jesus. As well as Buddha, Lenin, and Father Divine and more. He performed supposed miracle healings in order to attract new converts.

Members of Jones’ church called him “Father” (I’ve seen that somewhere before) and believed their movement was the solution to the problems of society (aren’t they all).

He was the American founder of the Peoples Temple, which became synonymous with group suicide after the November 18, 1978 death of over 900 people from cyanide poisoning in their isolated agricultural community called Jonestown.

• Baha’u’llah

He claimed to be the promised one of all religions, and founded the Baha’Ì Faith. Baha’u’llah declared that he was the “Promised One” of all religions, fulfilling the messianic prophecies found in world religions. He stated that his claims to being several messiahs converging one person were the symbolic, rather than literal, fulfilment of the messianic and eschatological prophecies found in the literature of the major religions.

.

• Sun Myung Moon

Sun Myung Moon was the founder of the Unification Church often referred to as The Moonies. Claims he is the Second Coming of Christ, the “Saviour”, “returning Lord”, and “True Parent”. He preaches that all people should become perfected like Jesus and like himself, and that as such he “appears in the world as the substantial body of God Himself”. He is well-known for holding Blessing ceremonies, which are often called “mass weddings”.

• David Icke

In an interview on the Terry Wogan show in 1991, he announced that he was “the son of God,” and that Britain would be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes. His statements were met with laughter and ridicule

from the studio audience, to which Wogan famously replied; ‘They’re laughing at you, not with you’. You can watch the clip here.

After being widely ridiculed, he disappeared from public view. He has written that, for several years, he was unable to walk down the street without people pointing and laughing, and that this experience helped him find the courage to develop his controversial ideas, because he was no longer afraid of what people thought of him.

In January 2003, he travelled to Brazil, and later talked about having used Ayahuasca: “[It] is a plant – a rain forest plant – which they turn in to what they call a turn and Shaman in South America have been using it for centuries at least to take people into other realms of reality… I took it twice and it was an experience – particularly on the 2nd night – that completely transformed my view of life. What it did was take my intellectual understanding that the world is an illusion into the realms of knowing it’s an illusion and there’s a difference between intellectually understanding it’s an illusion and this level of knowing it because you’ve experienced it.

• The Pope

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and head of state of Vatican City.

In Catholic theology, he has something called papal infallibility, which is the dogma that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics.

So potentially he could cause a lot of damage.

Mark 12:38-40 “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.”

P.S. I’m going to do another post on The Pope a bit later.

Is there some special process to remove all self doubt when a new pope is elected to make him accept the belief or mantle of papal infallibility?

Recently I initiated a dialogue with an international anti Catholic apologist who has an online ministry dedicated to bringing Catholics out of the Church. I had asked him a few questions as a result of another apologists attempts to call him out. I asked him three questions and he attempted, although poorly to answer my first two questions by directing me to several articles on his website. He did not have a direct answer for my third question. He just asked me a question.  I will first show my question and then his response and then my reply to his response. I will not name the anti Catholic apologist on the blog. If you want to know who he is send me an email.

This is my question:

3.) Would you agree that God used man to infallibly record His Word under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? If you say yes,  then why is it so hard for you to believe that the successors of these same apostles, who infallibly conveyed God’s Word both in writing and preaching, could not be given the gift of infallibly interpreting God’s Word?

This is his response:

3. Don’t stay on the level of possibility; show me from Scripture that the pastors of the church are in fact infallible.

Here is my reply to his question:

Thank you for your reply to my questions. I first want to answer your last question. You want to know where it says in the Bible that a pastor is given the gift of infallibility in interpreting scripture. First, as you know, Catholics do not believe that something has to be in the Bible for it to be accepted as a doctrine. You are well aware of the concept of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church.

You are also aware that the Catholic Church does not teach that the individual “pastors” of the Church are infallible on their own. The Pope does have the charism of infallibility. The Bishops when teaching in unity with the Pope also enjoy the charism. You are also aware that the infallibility is of limited scope. The Pope, when teaching “ex cathedra”, is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Not everything written by the Pope is considered infallible either. An example of this would be the Pope’s recent book on Jesus Christ. In it he declares that this is only his personal opinion. The same can be said of previous Popes whose personal writings have been used to try to disprove the charism.

Now I will show you how the Bible teaches that the gift of infallibility was passed on the successors of Peter and to the Bishops when teaching in unity. To piece together this puzzle, you must first answer a few questions about the authority structure of the Church and whether that authority was passed down. The key concept to help in understanding the authority that was passed down from the apostles is Apostolic/Episcopal succession. 

In Acts 1:20 we see that position of Apostle was considered an office.

“For it is written in the Book of Psalms:

 ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’

And:

 ‘May  another take his office.’

The word translated here as “office” was the Greek word that is often translated as overseership or bisphoric. This is the same word that Bishop comes from. The Apostles were considered overseers and this position was considered an office that would have successors. This can be verified by the teachings of the early Church.  Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyon and many others can attest to the doctrine.

Let us expand on the concept of Apostolic/Episcopal succession to take a look at the special office/bisphoric that Peter held. That office is symbolized by the keys that were given to Peter by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18-19:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This passage is foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-22:

On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

The office described in Isaiah describes the office of royal steward or prime minister. This power of this office was symbolized by the keys to the Kingdom of David. This office had the power of the King while he was away. The authority to make binding decisions for the kingdom came with the office.

The office described in Isaiah is fulfilled by the office of the Apostle Peter. Peter and his successors are the royal stewards of the Kingdom of God. This power of this office is symbolized by the keys given to Peter. The power to bind and loose is also a symbol of this power. Jesus gave Peter and his successors the authority to bind and loose. It would seem that if such a power was given to the office of the Apostle Peter, that power would be an infallible power. Included with this authority would be interpretation of scripture. This power comes from God and not the individual. It is through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the royal stewards of the kingdom of God, which on earth is the Church, are kept from teaching error in regards to faith and morals. This does not mean that they are perfect and they don’t sin. It also does not mean that they don’t make mistakes on issues outside the scope of faith and morals. The parallels between the passages are amazing and are not coincidental.

Let’s move on and look at 1 Timothy 3:15:

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.’’

Here we see the concept of the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth! If the church is truly the pillar and foundation of truth, wouldn’t you agree that this would include all truth? Would you not agree that this would include the infallible interpretation of scripture? Would you say that the protestant church would fit this definition of the church? Would truth include all doctrine? If they don’t have all the doctrine correct, then I don’t believe that they meet this definition of the Church. The Catholic Church does claim that she is the pillar and foundation of truth! She does not say that her members are perfect but her teachings are truth!

Not every member of the Church is infallible either. The Pope as the successor of the bisphoric of Peter has the charism of infallibility that comes with the office he holds. The other bishops when teaching in union with the Pope also have this gift. This authority was given by Christ.

Luke 10:16 says:

“ Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Seem to me that a gift of infallibility was given to these 72, who were chosen to go out to the world. These 72 would not teach error, otherwise Jesus would not have made such a bold statement.  If they taught error then Jesus’ statement that those who reject you reject me, even if you teach error does not make a lick of sense.

John 16:13 speaks of the Spirit of truth coming to guide us to all truth!

“But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

We are to be guided by the Spirit of truth. This meshes well with the Catholic understanding that the leaders of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals when teaching in unity with the Bishop of Rome. The protestant interpretation of the verse does not mesh nearly as well. The division in the Protestant Churches in regards to what is truth disqualifies this interpretation. This passage says “all truth” not just part of the truth!

Thank you for your time in this matter. I do not have a PHD and I do not have formal training in theology but I do understand the Catholic faith well enough to defend it. When I have the time I hope to review your first two responses.

I want to conclude with a quote from Cyprian of Carthage in reference to the Bishop of Rome and the chair of Peter.

“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” Cyprian of Carthage 256 A.D.

——————————–

Some final comments. This was not the most complete defense that can be made for the doctrine of infallibility. There are many more passages that help support the teaching. This does give a few key points that clearly support the doctrine. Maybe when I have some time, I can get into some of the other passages. I hope to reply to the apologists first two answers when I get some time.

I’ll be honest… I’ve been somewhat disappointed with Pope Benedict’s pontifical term so far. He seems a lot colder and less willing to reach out to his people. It’s my perception of the media coverage which very well could be just that. We all know that the media isn’t always exactly unbiased in their reporting.

I guess it’s hard because as a young woman, all I’ve really heard about Pope Benedict is all the things that he disagrees with regarding World Youth Day, the way that the youth enjoy music, the liturgy… And whatever else – especially in terms of his visit to the United States. As someone who learned how to appreciate the Catholic faith through this “unliturgical” music, it’s quite frustrating. World Youth Day Toronto was an AMAZING experience. To be with hundreds of thousands of other Catholics and celebrate Mass together in one place is one of the greatest experiences. I got to visit University of Stuebenville my first year of high school and went on the weekend conference. This is the moment my Sacrament of Confirmation really kicked in. I knew that I was Catholic, I owned my beliefs.

I agree that liturgy is really important! I don’t want the Church to fall victim to the world’s ever changing standards and moral code. I believe that the Holy Spirit works through Her and the Pope to guide God’s people. I also would agree that while these experiences are great, may not be essential to the foundation of our faith. But it’s still frustrating to not feel the same connection that I did with John Paul II who loved the youth of the Church. These extraordinary experiences help to keep us going.

That really is another topic but the truth of the matter is, no matter how disconnected I feel, Pope Benedict was appointed to his position for a reason. Because I believe the Holy Spirit works through the Church, I know that he has a purpose for our Church. And like God’s law, obedience is vital. Even if I don’t understand or quite feel right with it.

I think it’s important that as Catholics we stick by our Pope. Now, this doesn’t mean that we have to be quiet and not be willing to question or try and clarify when we disagree or don’t understand. I think some amount of discord helps to get us all thinking and learning. But when it comes down to it, I think we’re called to obey the Church. I realize that this is pretty controversial among the youth. Shoot, most of young adults seem to shy away from the Church because they feel this disconnect and it’s really hard to obey when you don’t feel a connection.

So while Pope Benedict may not be as charismatic as his predecessor, that’s ok. He has his purpose and he is the figurehead of the Catholic Church. God has a purpose and a reason for his strengths as well as his weaknesses. The Holy Spirit is doing something through him.

Remember the prediction that New York Giants’ receiver Plaxico Burress made during the week leading to tonight’s game?

That his Giants would hand the undefeated Patriots their first loss by a score of 23-17?

Well Plax’s Prediction didn’t materialize though his team did pull the upset, congrats to them.

What struck me as odd, especially in light of tonight’s outcome, was the response of Tom Brady (below)

to Burress’ prediction,

“We’re only going to score 17 points?” Brady said before chuckling about it. “OK. Is Plax playing defense? I wish he had said 45-42 and gave us a little credit for scoring more points.”

Oops…