It's Iimi!: Christ

Showing posts with label Christ. Show all posts

Monday, July 13, 2015

Yes, Jesus Does Love Us All...But Do We Love Him Enough to Respond?

ALL of Us Must Seek Out God and Repent, Not Just THEM.

God Protects His Church In Communion With the Pope...Even Pope Francis

Introduction

The case of the media getting the news wrong about the workings of the Church is nothing unusual. When you assign reporters to the religion beat who know nothing about the topic, the results are going to be bad (I’ve seen them cite the Landover Baptist Church before, not realizing it is a parody). So, of course when the secular media covers the Church, you’re going to see reporting that is very badly informed.

On the other hand, it is curious to see how self-professed faithful Catholics who claim to be well informed about the faith can make the same mistakes about the news of the Church. If one understands what the Church is, and what she teaches, it becomes clear that the Church is not going to be changing her teaching under Pope Francis. Even if he wanted to (and he doesn’t), God would protect him from teaching error in matters pertaining to salvation. The issue of saying that one may receive the Eucharist when it would be sacrilegious to do so is something that falls under the category of matters pertaining to salvation.

Ultimately, these Catholics have forgotten that the Church is protected by Jesus Christ, and He sustains her in different ways.

The Ground Floor Failsafe: Jesus Christ Protects His Church Always

So, trust in Jesus Christ to protect the Church from teaching error in matters pertaining to salvation means we don’t fear that Pope Francis will change the Church teaching in such a way that puts peoples souls in jeopardy.

But some people who profess to be faithful and informed Catholics do not know this. They believe the Pope can err, and need to be disobeyed—and they believe this is happening at this time under Pope Francis.

The Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus describes it as such:

For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of Saint Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error, according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.”

This belief is sound. If Jesus Christ promised St. Peter that what was bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven (Matthew 16: 18-19), there are two choices:

God will accept the binding of error and loosing of truth.
God will protect the Church, under St. Peter, from binding error and loosing truth.

Remember, Jesus Christ willed that there be a Church, under the headship of Peter, that carried out His mission, and He gave it His authority (Matt 28:18-20 and John 20:21-23). If this Church, under the headship of Peter and his successors, can teach error, she cannot fulfill Our Lord’s mission. If we trust Our Lord, we trust His Church. Even when a Judas may appear, that does not destroy the whole Church. St. Peter is the cornerstone because God has decreed it and we can have faith in the Church because we have faith in Him.

The Second Level: Grace and People of Good Will

That first level means even if we should get a rotten person in there as a Pope, he would be unable to teach error as if it were truth when teaching as Pope. But that is not the only level of protection. God also sends us people of good will, filled with grace to us. People who seek to do God’s will in the role they are in. God has blessed us in recent history in sending us a string of Popes recognized for their wise shepherding and love of Christ.

Being human, they can sin, but loving God and aided by His grace, these people seek to do His will in spite of their sins, repenting when they do sin. They won’t choose to live in a way which contradicts their love of God, even if they choose a means which is different than how you or I would prefer to do it.

Remember, even when God says “You shall do this,” there can be different methods of carrying it out faithfully. If method A or B both carry out God’s command, it is unjust to say a person does wrong if he chooses to do method B.

That’s ultimately what we have today. The Pope is saying, “Let’s try B,” and people used to A are upset.

Basically, the reaction today is this: There are some Catholics, claiming to be good Catholics who deny that the Pope is a person of good will and operating under the Grace of God because He uses a different approach in being obedient to God.

Conclusion

The thing to remember in all the hype, whether secular media or Catholic media, is that God protects His Church and looks after the Pope . . . even Pope Francis. The Holy Spirit did not take a coffee break in 2013. Sure, he can make administrative errors. Sure he can sin personally. But God protects him through both the charism of the office of the papacy and the personal grace He bestows on Pope Francis.

I have faith in the Church, because I have faith in God.

Monday, March 17, 2014

We Must Be Faithful to Christ

St. Josemaria Escriva, in his work The Forge, had this to say:

460   We are not good brothers to our fellow men if we are not ready to continue behaving correctly, even when those around us may interpret our actions badly or react in an unpleasant manner.

This statement strikes me as I consider the actions reported in the media about the reaction of hostility to the St. Patrick Day parade in New York and Boston.   Political leaders and leading beer companies have announced their boycott of these parades because the leaders will not allow these parades to be hijacked for the purpose of promoting an agenda which runs contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. It doesn't matter that those with homosexual orientation are allowed to march -- they (like other groups) simply cannot use the parade to push an agenda -- the media portrays the faithfulness to God as being motivated by hatred... homophobia is the slur used.

It is here that St. Josemaria's quote reminds us of our obligation under the commandment to love our neighbor as ourself. If we would be good brothers to our fellow men, we must continue to behave correctly... This is not merely being civil to those who hate us. We are called to bless those who curse us, so we can't repay evil with evil.   But there is more to it than that.

Behaving correctly also means we must continue to proclaim the message if salvation, warning people that sin exists and that Jesus calls us to repent and turn to Him with our whole heart. This means when the political, cultural and media elites try to bully and intimidate us to be silent and deny God's teaching, we cannot concede.

If we do, we will have betrayed our fidelity to God.

We Must Be Faithful to Christ

Friday, February 22, 2013

Reflections on the "Helpful" Advice to a "Dying" Church

Following newsfeeds online, I see many editorials talking about how the Church is "dying" and needs to change if it is survive (By allowing women priests, permitting abortion, contraception and so-called homosexual "marriage.") Personally, I wonder why these people express such concern. After all, given that they seem to think we are a misogynistic homophobic institution, you'd think they couldn't wait for us to die.

I suspect that, far from being altruistic, this advice is being made in the same spirit as the pack of wolves suggesting to a flock of sheep that they need to get rid of those burdensome sheepdogs so there can be a dialogue on what to have for dinner.

The imminent demise of the Catholic Church has been announced by many so-called prophets who believe their movement will cause the Church to die. When the Protestant Revolt began, some of the founders predicted our demise before their challenges in the name of Scripture. The Enlightenment predicted our demise in the before their challenges in the name of Reason. Atheists today predict our demise before their challenges in the name of Science.

These challenges however failed to kill us in the past and will not kill us now because the Catholic Church is not an enemy of reason, scripture or science. Truth does not need to fear truth. While some may apply erroneous philosophies based on their worldviews and confuse them with the teachings of Reason, Scripture or Science, the fact is their philosophies of interpretation do not accurately attack the Church – basically these attacks are aimed at the wrong target.

Other challenges come from political movements and social revolts. Communism and Fascism both predicted that Christianity in general and the Church in particular was an archaic relic holding people back, while their movements would provide what the people really needed. The modern hedonism argues that nobody cares about sexual morality and the Church is stupid/old-fashioned for clinging to teachings they disagree with.

But these movements have fallen or will fall. Where Fascism was once seen as the wave of the future, it is now recognized as a wrong turn. Despite the media message which sells sex, the media cannot hide the fact that free sex is a terribly empty thing and that there must be more to life than one night stands. These movements mislead people. They do not rest on truth, but rather on desires and fears.

Now these challenges can lead individuals and groups astray of course. Regions have fallen away from the Church. Many individuals do indeed reject the Church teachings on subjects based on the slogans of the age. "Reproductive Freedom" for example. It is true that the Church in America and Western Europe are facing these trials. It is also true that scandals in the media make it appear the Church is crumbling.

But difficulties and attacks and sinful members do not prove the demise of the whole Church. While these challenges may cause the faithful to suffer and the weak to be led astray, and property to be lost, the Church does not exist for the comfort of her members, the body count in the pews, dollars in the collection basket or popularity with the elites.

Whether or not one accepts her claims or not, the Church exists as the means Christ chose to bring His salvation to the world. It is true that a bad shepherd in the Church may obscure that message of salvation. But whether or not this message is popular has no bearing on whether it is true.

If the Church believes what she teaches about her own mission, she cannot change the message of salvation to something more popular. Why? Because it is not her message – it is Christ's message.

The Church teaches about herself:

"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church #86]

Because the Church believes herself obligated to be faithful to Christ, she cannot change her message without being unfaithful to Christ.

Once one realizes that the Church believes this – whether or not they agree with the Church over the truth of her belief – it becomes clear that to say "change or die" is a foolish ultimatum. We remember Christ's words in Mark 8:36-38

What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? What could one give in exchange for his life? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.

The Pagan Romans, for example, told the early Christians "Change or Die." Christians knew it was better to die for the truth than to compromise what they believed. The Church is still here. Pagan Rome is a pile of ruins. We will still be here when this current attack is ruins as well.

As Cardinal Francis George said,

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."

That will happen here as well.

We as Catholics believe Christ promised to be with the Church always (Matt 28:20), and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18).

People of good will may or not accept what Catholics believe about the relationship of Christ and the Church. But they should consider this. If we're wrong we should have collapsed long ago under the weight of sinners inside and persecution outside. But if we're right, perhaps people should consider the ramifications of that.

But as the teacher of the Law, Gamaliel, pointed out when faced with the Christians:

So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)

If we're right, it means those who oppose her teachings are not fighting a human institution…

…they're fighting God.

Reflections on the "Helpful" Advice to a "Dying" Church

If the Church believes what she teaches about her own mission, she cannot change the message of salvation to something more popular. Why? Because it is not her message – it is Christ's message.

The Church teaches about herself:

"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church #86]

Because the Church believes herself obligated to be faithful to Christ, she cannot change her message without being unfaithful to Christ.

What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? What could one give in exchange for his life? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.

As Cardinal Francis George said,

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."

That will happen here as well.

We as Catholics believe Christ promised to be with the Church always (Matt 28:20), and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18).

But as the teacher of the Law, Gamaliel, pointed out when faced with the Christians:

So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)

If we're right, it means those who oppose her teachings are not fighting a human institution…

…they're fighting God.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Master, Don't You Care if We Drown?

Thoughts on Infallibility (Part IIc): Other Gospel Passages Involving Peter

As I make constant references to past articles in this series, here are the links for your convenience.

Part I can be found here
Part IIa can be found here
Part IIb can be found here

Introduction

Now that we have discussed Matthew 16, there are other considerations from Scripture to look at about Peter. Some of them show Peter has an important role. Others we will look at because it they are commonly used by non-Catholics to challenge the belief in Peter being given headship over the Church established by Christ.

As this article is lengthy in itself, it will merely focus on the Gospel passages, especially those which seem to be misinterpreted or misrepresented when it comes to rejecting the Catholic belief. Article IId will move on to Acts and the Epistles, where, once Christ has ascended, we see how the Church carries on His teachings through Peter.

The reader is reminded that the parts of article II are not independent, but is essentially a large article broken into parts (otherwise, it would be over 10,000 words in length)

Preliminary Remarks

Some readers may notice I am focusing more on authority rather than on infallibility in this article. This is because infallibility is necessarily linked to authority which will be bound or loosed in Heaven. If an error is bound or loosed in Heaven, it indicates that God's authority is behind this error.

Keep in mind that the Early Christians saw the Scriptures of the New Testament as authoritative because of the source (the Apostles, or in the case of Mark and Luke, because they were written by those who knew the Apostles). Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John, Matthew… their writings were accepted as people who had encountered Christ personally and who taught with authority. Mark was traditionally held to be written by one who knew Peter personally. Luke was traditionally held to be one who knew Paul personally.

We recognize that these New Testament writings are inspired and inerrant. However, we forget the fact that they were held to be important because of who was writing them.

So we have a link: The Apostles were believed to be teaching authentically what was handed to them by Jesus, and when they made decisions (the appointment of Matthias and the Council of Jerusalem), nobody questioned their right to do so.

If God Cannot Err, He Cannot Contradict Himself

At any rate, because of the fact that what Peter binds and looses will be bound and loosed in Heaven, we ought to add a ninth syllogism to consider.

Syllogism #9

[God] is [inerrant] (All [A] is [B])
No [contradictory claims] are [inerrant] (No [C] is [B])
Therefore no [contradictory claims] are from [God] (Therefore no [C] is [A])

Those who disagree with the Catholic understanding of infallibility often argue that since "it doesn't exist, there is no problem," but since we have Jesus' promise directed to Peter, we do have a problem. Either God protects Peter and his successors from error when teaching or we do have the possibility of God binding and protecting error. Since we do acknowledge that the Church was protected from error in the case of the canon of Scripture (See article I, syllogism #4), we can see it is not unreasonable for Catholics to believe God protects the Church in other areas in terms of things essential for salvation.

Part I: Do Certain Gospel Verses in Scripture Deny the Primacy of Peter?

(Please note that this article pertains to the Gospels alone. Passages in Acts (Such as Acts 15) and the Epistles (such as Galatians 2) will come in Article IId. I haven't overlooked these. This separation is done to keep these articles from going on too long.)

Did Jesus Revoke His Promise?

So let's look at the allegation that certain passages revoke the promise made to Peter (and a promise was made, to Peter specifically in the second person) in Matthew 16. I have come across some groups who claim that even if Jesus did make a promise to Peter, Peter's later actions in Scripture show that he lost the rights to this promise.

However, if we accept Syllogism #9, we can't accept this interpretation. If Jesus, being God (See article IIb Syllogism #8) is inerrant, then for Him to revoke a promise He made would be to contradict Himself. Was He wrong in making the promise? Or wrong in revoking it? Catholics don't believe Christ did revoke His promise to Peter, but those who do claim this need to recognize that a God who does not err does not make promises He is unwilling to keep.

Therefore we need to keep syllogism #9 in mind when looking at the argument against infallibility from Matthew 16:20-23, which reads:

²¹From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

²²Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”

²³He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Some have argued that this was a revocation of the promise made to Peter by Jesus (which indicates a promise was indeed made). However, there are some problems with this. The first is Syllogism #9 above. If Jesus made a promise to bind and loose in Heaven what Peter bound and loosed on Earth, then the revocation of this would be a contradiction of this promise.

This is because either Jesus would have erred in making this promise to begin with, or He would have erred in revoking it. Now, since we accept Jesus is God (See syllogism 8 in Article IIb) and that God cannot err (Syllogism 1 in Article I) it stands to reason that Jesus would not have made the poor judgment of making a promise to Peter and then needing to revoke it.

The second reason is even simpler. The rebuke makes no mention of a revocation of the promise Christ made. To claim there was a revocation is simply the insertion of a meaning into the text (eisegesis). Therefore, these verses cannot be used as evidence to a claim that Christ did so. The verses simply don't say what people who argue a revocation want them to say.

It seems more probable that the rebuke was over Peter's failure to understand the mission of the Messiah. The human thinking was of a political messiah who was to right the wrongs in Israel. God's thinking was of the salvation of the world from their sins. What sounded horrible to Peter (the crucifixion) was perfectly understandable when one knew God's plan of salvation.

The only way one could try to use this passage against Peter would be if they wanted to claim Peter was making an official Church teaching (which I don't believe is the case). However, unlike other verses where Peter does make decrees (such as in Acts), in this case, Peter spoke privately with Jesus ("took him aside"). So it seems, again, that this passage does not indicate what certain people claim about it.

Did Peter's Denial Mean The Revocation of Christ's Promise?

That Peter denied Jesus is attested to in all of the Scriptures (see Matt 26:34, Mark 14:30, Luke 22:34, John 13:38). Peter promised to stay with Jesus even if it meant risking his life. Jesus foretold that Peter would deny Him. It turned out that Peter did exactly what Jesus had foretold.

The problem is, to claim that these verses mean Peter lost his right to the promise Peter made is eisegesis, putting a meaning into Scripture which is not present. Indeed, we see in Luke 22:31-32, that Jesus had something to say to Peter:

³¹“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you [second person plural] like wheat,

³²but I have prayed that your own faith [second person singular] may not fail; and once you [second person singular] have turned back, you [second person singular] must strengthen your [second person singular] brothers.”

Now, remembering Syllogism #9, it follows that either Jesus contradicts Himself (if the promise to Peter is revoked when Peter denies Jesus) or else Jesus, knowing all the disciples would falter, and that when Peter turned back (the Greek indicates turning from doing wrong, repenting), he was to strengthen (establish, make firm) his brothers.

In other words, Peter has an assignment which anticipates his denial. To strengthen his brethren once he has turned back.

When we get to John 21, we can see that despite Peter's denial, we have a scene with Jesus and Peter which is touching:

¹⁵When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”

¹⁶He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”

¹⁷He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.

¹⁸Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

¹⁹He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

Peter is again given the mission to tend Jesus' lambs and sheep. Given that we are the sheep of His flock, Peter's mission is one of looking after the flock. It seems to be a necessary element of this commission that Peter must have authority over this flock. Otherwise, how could Peter tend the sheep?

So it seems that Peter's personal sins did not take away from the task which God had called him to do.

What About The "Dispute over Authority" Verses?

Others point to the dispute among the Apostles as to who was the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. They argue that this means that the Apostles were not aware of the primacy of Peter However, this is to miss the point of these readings. This was not about authority over the Church on Earth, but over privileges when Christ came into power. Like Peter in Matthew 16:21-23, they couldn't fully grasp the idea that Christ's kingdom was not a political kingdom on Earth.

The dispute among the Apostles seems to have been set off by James and John and their mother, who asked for a special favor in Matthew 20:

²⁰Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached him with her sons and did him homage, wishing to ask him for something.

²¹He said to her, “What do you wish?” She answered him, “Command that these two sons of mine sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your kingdom.”

²²Jesus said in reply, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?” They said to him, “We can.”

²³He replied, “My cup you will indeed drink, but to sit at my right and at my left (, this) is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

²⁴When the ten heard this, they became indignant at the two brothers.

²⁵But Jesus summoned them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt.

²⁶But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant;

²⁷whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.

²⁸Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (See also, Mark 10:35-44)

What we have here is not a denial of authority in the Church, but an insistence on what this authority is for. James and John wanted special privileges when Jesus came in His glory. Jesus made clear that the one who would lead would do so as service to the whole, and not as a position of privilege. The Catholic Church recognizes this, in one of the titles of the Pope, which is Servant of the Servants of God. We see the Pope as having a ministry which looks out for the good of the Church in the role of the shepherd, and not as some sort of monarch living off of his subjects. The fact that some have not lived up to this does not take away from the intent Christ has called those who would shepherd to observe.

Part II:The Relationship of Jesus and Peter in Scripture

The next section is to look at the relation of Christ to Peter in the Gospel accounts. We have Matthew 16 which gives us the promise, but how did the actions in Scripture show this? Some may not be too impressed by this section. However, as I mentioned in Article IIb, we are looking at the Scriptures as data. How was Peter involved in the ministry of Christ? Do we see any prominence in Peter's actions among the twelve?

These are all things which make sense when one accepts the claim that Peter was made the head of the Church, but seem somewhat random if one rejects this.

First in the Lists

First we need to notice the prominence of Peter in all the lists of the Apostles. While in all the lists, ten of them are given in various sequences, Peter is always placed first and Judas is always placed last. Judas being placed last is pretty obvious. As the betrayer of Christ, he would not be seen as equal to the others. Yet Peter is always first. Not James (which would seem likely if it was James who was head of the Church as some seek to argue). Nor is it John, the Beloved Disciple. James and John are considered important of course and play important roles in the Gospels… but are usually mentioned with Peter, with Peter mentioned first.

So the person who would deny the primacy of Peter would need to explain this curious fact, as to why all four Gospels mention Peter first.

Peter the Spokesman

We also need to recognize that when it came to the actions of the Apostles, it was mostly Peter who spoke for the Apostles (See Matt 15:15, 16:23, 18:21, 19:27, Luke 12:41, John 6:68 for example). Now 18th century Protestant commentator Matthew Henry wrote:

Peter’s temper led him to be forward in speaking upon all such occasions, and sometimes he spoke well, sometimes amiss; in all companies there are found some warm, bold men, to whom a precedency of speech falls of course; Peter was such a one: yet we find other of the apostles sometimes speaking as the mouth of the rest; as John (Mk. 9:38), Thomas, Philip, and Jude, Jn. 14:5, 8, 22.

However, this isn't really the case. It's inserting meaning which assumes the denial of the primacy of Peter and seeks to justify this assumption. First, the invocation of Peter's personality is something Henry is putting into Scripture (eisegesis). Second, the other cases indicate they were speaking for themselves, whereas Peter asks questions like "Do you intend this parable for us…?"

Peter the Second In Command

I always found this section striking from Matthew 17:

²⁴When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax approached Peter and said, “Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?”

²⁵“Yes,” he said. When he came into the house, before he had time to speak, Jesus asked him, “What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their subjects or from foreigners?”

²⁶When he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the subjects are exempt.

²⁷But that we may not offend them, go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them for me and for you.”

First of all, the collectors went to Peter, which seems to indicate that there was some purpose to approaching him, instead of Jesus, and instead of one of the others among the twelve. Second, that Jesus had a miracle pay the tax not just for Jesus, but for Peter too. However, not for the other eleven. There seems to be the demonstration of a link between Jesus and Peter not necessarily present with the other eleven.

Now some have claimed it was because it was Peter's house that he was approached. However, we need to consider something here. All males 20 and older were obligated to pay the Temple Tax when enrolled in the census, as we see in Exodus 30:

¹¹The LORD also said to Moses,

¹²“When you take a census of the Israelites who are to be registered, each one, as he is enrolled, shall give the LORD a forfeit for his life, so that no plague may come upon them for being registered.

¹³Everyone who enters the registered group must pay a half-shekel, according to the standard of the sanctuary shekel, twenty gerahs to the shekel. This payment of a half-shekel is a contribution to the LORD.

¹⁴Everyone of twenty years or more who enters the registered group must give this contribution to the LORD.

¹⁵The rich need not give more, nor shall the poor give less, than a half-shekel in this contribution to the LORD to pay the forfeit for their lives.

¹⁶When you receive this forfeit money from the Israelites, you shall donate it to the service of the meeting tent, that there it may be the Israelites’ reminder before the LORD, of the forfeit paid for their lives.”

So, all the twelve were obligated to pay, and about a month before Passover, there were moneychangers throughout Israel according to some sources who would exchange the foreign coins for the shekel (the tax seems to have been paid at the Temple, but since the shekel was not used for ordinary [civil] transactions (see Matt. 22:19), it appears it was a special coin for religious purposes and transactions [See John 2:15]).

Jews who were residents and visitors both could make use of the service, so mere residency seems not to apply. Yet the question was only asked about Jesus, and Jesus provided the coin needed to pay for Him and Peter. Remember, Peter's brother Andrew (Luke 6:14) and his partners in fishing James and John (Luke 5:10) also lived in the area (and thus would fit under the residence question), and some have alleged that it was James, not Peter, who was head of the Church in light of Acts 15. Yet they did not go to James, a fellow Apostle and partner of Peter in the fishing enterprise.

So, the questions are: If one denies a special role for Peter, then why did the collectors go to Peter with the question? Why did Jesus include Peter with Himself when it comes to paying the tax but not the other apostles?

Jesus' Visiting Peter after the Resurrection

Another interesting fact was shown in Luke 24:

³³So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them

³⁴who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”

³⁵Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

While we do not have an account of what Jesus said to Peter, I find it notable that Peter was one of the first (since we do not know whether Jesus appeared to Peter before, after or at the same time He was present with the two disciples) to see the risen Lord.

Taken by itself, perhaps one could shrug it off and say "Who knows what God was thinking?" However, God does not act randomly, even if we may not be able to comprehend the mind of God. When we consider what Jesus has said to Peter in Luke 22:31-32, it seems this is not merely a throwaway incident.

It is not enough to argue a possible alternate interpretation. One could argue a possible alternate explanation with space aliens. The issue is, on what basis is this alternate explanation held?

Conclusion

Each individual piece, taken in isolation could be given an alternate explanation. However, when taken as a whole, it becomes much more like obstinacy to deny that Peter had a role given to him by Christ to tend His sheep, and strengthen his brethren.

In the next article (IId), I intend to look at the role of Peter in Acts and in the Epistles. Jesus has ascended to Heaven. How does Peter act then?

Hopefully, after IId, I will be done with Peter and Scripture, and ready to move on to what Christ had to say about His Church itself in Article III.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Christ is the Physician, We Are The Sick

³⁰The Pharisees and their scribes complained to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

³¹Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do.

³²I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”

I think one of the things Christians need to keep in mind is that, when Christ says He has not come to call the righteous but the sinners, we must recognize we are the sinners who need Him, and not the perfect who are already worthy as they are. We may be tempted to think we are righteous, but we are not.

All of us are tainted by the effects of original sin, and by the sinful acts we do of our own choosing. In some cases, it may be easy to see. The tax collectors realizes he is a sinner and prays for forgiveness (see Luke 18:13). In other cases it is not easy to see. The self-righteous instead boasts before God (Luke 18:11-12).

The False Dichotomy

We unfortunately have the tendency to create a false either-or situation in our minds:

If I am [a good person] I will not be [like this tax collector]. (If [A] then [B])
I am not [like this tax collector] (not [B])
Therefore I am [a good person] (Therefore [A])

The problem of course is that just because we may not be "like this tax collector" does not make us a good person. In other words, if we use Hitler as the standard of evil, we all look good in comparison but if Hitler is not the standard of evil, but rather one example of evil, we may find that none of us can take a righteous attitude in what we do.

"Bad News Boys…"

There is an old joke which runs as follows:

A priest was hearing confessions for a mining camp. The first miner walks in and the priest asks him to confess his sins.

The miner scratches his head and says "Well I don't know… I never killed anyone."

The exasperated priest tells him, "Get out of here and make an examination of conscience!"

The miner exits and sees the line of miners waiting for their turn. "Go home boys! He's only taking murderers today!"

Now of course, the priest was not only hearing the confession of murderers. Rather he was telling the miner to consider what he had done or failed to do which needed reconciliation with God, and not judge himself in comparison to murderers.

Yet too often, we look at our relation with God with the consideration of what we haven't done compared to others… not in the sense that they have done more out of love for God in comparison to ourselves but rather that we haven't acted as bad as them, so we must be good.

We should remember Psalm 50:

⁷“Listen, my people, I will speak; Israel, I will testify against you; God, your God, am I.

⁸Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you, nor for your holocausts, set before me daily.

⁹I need no bullock from your house, no goats from your fold.

¹⁰For every animal of the forest is mine, beasts by the thousands on my mountains.

¹¹I know every bird of the heavens; the creatures of the field belong to me.

¹²Were I hungry, I would not tell you, for mine is the world and all that fills it.

¹³Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?

¹⁴Offer praise as your sacrifice to God; fulfill your vows to the Most High.

¹⁵Then call on me in time of distress; I will rescue you, and you shall honor me.”

¹⁶But to the wicked God says: “Why do you recite my commandments and profess my covenant with your lips?

¹⁷You hate discipline; you cast my words behind you!

¹⁸When you see thieves, you befriend them; with adulterers you throw in your lot.

¹⁹You give your mouth free rein for evil; you harness your tongue to deceit.

²⁰You sit maligning your own kin, slandering the child of your own mother.

²¹When you do these things should I be silent? Or do you think that I am like you? I accuse you, I lay the charge before you.

The Other Side of the Coin

On the other side of this coin is the claim that because we aren't doing any worse than anyone else, we are fine as we are. God has commanded in Exodus 23:2 Neither shall you allege the example of the many as an excuse for doing wrong (in other translations it can be rendered You shall not follow a multitude to do evil). In the New Testament, Jesus says in Luke 17:

⁸If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

⁹And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

Going along to get along is not what we are to do. Christ makes use of some graphic imagery to show the lengths we are to take to avoid sin. If we would not cut off our foot or gouge out our eye, should we not take steps to avoid sin? If "the crowd" embraces sin as good, ought we not to avoid "the crowd" when it seeks to lead us to do evil?

Neither can we appeal to the bad example of those who do not practice what they preach. Jesus, in Matthew 23 says in verses 2-3, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

Are there individual priests and even bishops who fail to behave as they ought? Indeed there are, and they will answer for the things they will not repent of. For Christ says in Luke 17: 1-2, "Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."

However, the personal sins of an individual priest or bishop do not justify our own sins. Nor does it justify the disobedience of the Church in one area because a priest or bishop is disobedient in another.

Completing the Circle

Thus we can see that both the disdaining of others while ignoring our own sins, and the thinking we are no worse than others so our sins don't matter are attitudes which contradict the teachings of Christ. He has come to call the sinners, not the righteous. If we think we are good because we are "not like them" or if we think we are good because we "only do what everyone else is doing," we are behaving self-righteously, and refusing to let Jesus, the Divine Physician, heal our infirmities.

So let us cease to think of ourselves as some sort of "elect" who have it made, and instead recognize we are sinners who daily must rely on Christ to strengthen and sustain us.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

On Pharisee Mentality

One temptation which always follows behind the Christian trying to be faithful is the mentality of the Pharisee. Since I'm not afflicted by it, I'll write this to help those of you who are…

Ha, ha. Actually, this is one of the first symptoms of it: To look at others faults and failings while being blind to your own. Jesus warned us all about this type of thinking, in Matthew 7:

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

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

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

It is a strong indictment which any one of us can be guilty of. Jesus speaks quite strongly about this: It is hypocrisy to look down on others who sin while forgetting our own guilt before Him. Now of course He doesn't mean we can't call any action evil or wrong. That's an old deception which is aimed at us to overlook the fact that we are sinners ourselves when we look down on others for being in a state of sin. If we realize our own need for Christ, we ought to recognize others are seeking Christ as well. They might be further away from Christ to be sure. However, they also might be closer because they recognize their own sin and need for salvation. Christ has said in Matthew 21:

²⁸“What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’

²⁹He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went.

³⁰The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go.

³¹Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.

³²When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him; but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him.

It is a paradox which can drive a person crazy. "Hey! I'm following all the rules here, but you're saying these people who do all these evil things are closer to God than ME?" Yet, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10). The one who knows that God is holiness, is goodness and looks at their life compared to the holiness of God will see their own life lacks in comparison to what God asks of us.

It doesn't even mean we need to act like one of those cretins who show up at the funerals of AIDS victims with signs saying the deceased is going to Hell to be acting in a way which Christ calls wrong. All we need to do is to act as if we are superior to others in how we live, as Christ teaches in Luke 18:

¹⁰“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.

¹¹The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.

¹²I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’

¹³But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’

¹⁴I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The Pharisee is proud of his actions, and forgets he is also a sinner who needs the mercy of Christ.

So I hope I set you all straight with that splinter. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go lie down and take some aspirin or something to deal with the pain. The optometrist has said it might be caused by this beam I have in my eye... but what would he know?

;-)

On Pharisee Mentality

One temptation which always follows behind the Christian trying to be faithful is the mentality of the Pharisee. Since I'm not afflicted by it, I'll write this to help those of you who are…

Ha, ha. Actually, this is one of the first symptoms of it: To look at others faults and failings while being blind to your own. Jesus warned us all about this type of thinking, in Matthew 7:

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

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

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

²⁸“What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’

²⁹He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went.

³⁰The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go.

³¹Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.

³²When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him; but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him.

¹⁰“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.

¹¹The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.

¹²I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’

¹³But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’

¹⁴I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The Pharisee is proud of his actions, and forgets he is also a sinner who needs the mercy of Christ.

;-)

Pages

Monday, July 13, 2015

Yes, Jesus Does Love Us All...But Do We Love Him Enough to Respond?

Saturday, December 13, 2014

ALL of Us Must Seek Out God and Repent, Not Just THEM.

Monday, November 10, 2014

God Protects His Church In Communion With the Pope...Even Pope Francis

Monday, March 17, 2014

We Must Be Faithful to Christ

We Must Be Faithful to Christ

Friday, February 22, 2013

Reflections on the "Helpful" Advice to a "Dying" Church

Reflections on the "Helpful" Advice to a "Dying" Church

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Master, Don't You Care if We Drown?

Master, Don't You Care if We Drown?

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Thoughts on Infallibility (Part IIc): Other Gospel Passages Involving Peter

Monday, June 28, 2010

Christ is the Physician, We Are The Sick

Thursday, June 17, 2010

On Pharisee Mentality

On Pharisee Mentality

Monday, June 7, 2010

Lord, To Whom Should We Go? Reflections on Mistrusting the Church