Reflections on Regaining a Proper Sense of Ecclesiology

Read more »

We Don't Have the Right to Bind What Peter Has Loosed, Nor Loose What He Has Bound

During the pontificates of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, one question I constantly faced was over why they worried about traditionalist dissent (actually, they claimed that these Popes ignored liberals and punished traditionalists, when it was obvious that liberal dissent was worse. The obvious answer is that dissent is wrong, regardless of what side it comes from. When the Church formally teaches on faith and morals, we are required to give assent to the teaching—even if the teaching is part of the ordinary magisterium. It’s actually an error to hold that only an ex cathedra teaching is binding. As the Catechism says:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

But the question raised in protest does raise a point to ponder: Just what authority is being challenged when a Church teaching is challenged?

Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18 and the Old Testament verse it was based on (Isaiah 22:22) give us the answer. God gives the successor of Peter (and the successors of the Apostles in communion with him) the authority to bind and loose. When Jesus says that what is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven, or when He says that what is loosed on Earth will be loosed in Heaven, this is Our Lord’s testimony that when the Church intends to teach, it has His authority. What logically follows from that is that if we trust God, then we can trust Him not to bind error or loose truth. Of course, this means that, when the Pope teaches on faith and morals—where we are required to give assent—we have faith that God protects us from being bound to obey error or given permission to sin.

Without this faith in God, we could never know when a Pope was teaching truth or error. That’s quite serious. If we do not know whether a teaching is truth or error, we’d have bedlam. We couldn’t know whether the Trinitarians were right or the Arians were right, for example. In such a case, Pope Francis and his teachings would be irrelevant. We couldn’t know if any Church teaching could be binding.

Dissent from the teaching authority of the Church, whether modernist or traditionalist, denies the belief that God protects His Church from teaching error. It might not be a formal denial, but generally the arguments are that the Pope is teaching error. Whether it is Blessed Paul VI and Humanae Vitae or Pope Francis and Laudato Si, the idea is to try to discredit what the Pope said so people have a cover for being disobedient. But once you open the door of dissent on your issue, you remove the basis for opposing any other person dissenting on their issue.

For example, traditionalists and modernists tend to behave like atheists and anti-Catholics in pointing out the bad Popes of past history to justify their rejection of Papal authority when it goes against them. The argument is, popes have taught error in the past. Therefore Pope Francis can teach error. The problem is, such an argument assumes that the Church can teach error, as opposed to do wrong. Yes, we all know about the bad behavior of John XII, Benedict IX, Alexander VI. We know about the other popes who did wrong through private error or bad personal behavior—but they never taught binding error. The instance a Pope does teach error as binding, the whole structure comes crashing down like a house of cards—it would mean that Jesus did not protect His Church from error and the entire faith in Christ is for naught.

Under such a view, the Church is reduced to factions jockeying for power and pushing their political platform. The Church is to be obeyed when she teaches what we want, but not when she teaches what they want.

Ultimately, we believe that the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are the ones who have the authority and responsibility to interpret the long held teachings of the Church and determine how they are to be applied to the modern issues. The magisterium binds or looses, but never in a way to go from saying “X is a sin” to saying “X is not a sin.” We can trust that because we trust in God. He promised to protect the Church (Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 28:20). If we can’t trust Him to keep His promise, we can’t trust Our Lord at all (God does not break His promises) and we might as well go join a synagogue.

Ultimately, when the traditionalist rebels against Pope Francis or when the modernist rebelled against St. John Paul II, it is a declaration that their personal interpretation of Scripture and previous Church documents is superior to the decisions the Pope makes when protected from error. Who is more likely to err?

Once we recognize this, the Catholic has to have a change of heart. Whether the Church is unpopular teaching about the sanctity of marriage or unpopular concerning the treatment of illegal aliens, the obligation to obey the Church when she teaches what we must do, we have to set aside our personal preferences and trust God, obeying the Church as a way of obeying Him (Luke 10:16). Otherwise, we are no better than the dissenters from another faction whom we oppose. Certainly some sins are worse than others. But we also need to remember that the most deadly sin to an individual is the one that sends the individual to hell.

Thoughts on the Preemptive Dissent Against Laudato Si

Read more »

Dissenter's Deception

And since, by the divine right of apostolic primacy, one Roman Pontiff is placed over the universal Church, We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful,* and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the Church recourse may be had to his tribunal,† but that none may reopen the judgement of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgement.‡ Wherefore they err from the right path of truth who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgements of the Roman Pontiffs to an Œcumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

 

If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those things which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the pastors of the faithful; let him be anathema.

 

[Pastor Æternus Chapter III. First Vatican Council]

I’ve been reading a book, What Went Wrong With Vatican II by Ralph McInerny that leaves me with a strange sense of déjà vu. The main premise is the rejection of authority in the 1960s did not come about because of Vatican II, but because of Humanae Vitae. A good portion of this book deals with the fact that the Pope made a binding teaching of the ordinary magisterium which people did not like, and to justify their dislike, they invented a theology  which never had been taught before which claimed the right to judge the teachings of the Church and reject those which they did not wish to follow.

The déjà vu portion comes when I see what liberal dissenters did in 1968 in rejecting magisterial authority—and see just how similar their arguments are to the arguments used by radical traditionalists today in rejecting the magisterial authority of the Church when it makes decisions they dislike.

The basic premise of both groups of dissent is in the argument that when the Pope makes a teaching which is not ex cathedra, it is fallible and therefore not binding. Liberal dissent used this argument from the 1960s on in trying to undermine the teaching authority of the Church when it came to sexual matters. It was argued that because the Church teaching on contraception was not made in an infallible pronunciation like the pronunciation of dogmas in 1854 (The Immaculate Conception) and 1950 (The Assumption of Mary), there could be error in it. Playing on the fear of uncertainty, a string of spurious reasoning was created:

1. This document was not infallible, therefore it is fallible. 
2. Because it is fallible, it contains error.
3. We cannot be bound to follow error.
4. Therefore we cannot be bound to follow this document.

The whole string is laden with error. It starts out with the development of the “Either-Or” fallacy by way of giving an equivocal meaning to the word fallible. The meaning is, generally speaking, “capable of error.” All of humanity is fallible by nature. But dissenters like to manipulate the meaning to make it sound like it means “containing error.” Thus the argument is made that, “if it’s not infallible, I don’t have to obey it.” But the problem is, dissenters are giving infallibility a meaning that is too narrow, while giving fallibility a meaning which is too broad. The fact is, the Church does not teach that one may ignore a teaching which is not made ex cathedra. The truth is quite the opposite.

What the faithful are bound to accept is not limited to the ex cathedra pronunciation—those are intentionally rare and the Popes govern by other methods. Indeed, the Church has taught that there are two means of teaching—both of which are binding. The Catechism says:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”⁴²⁰ This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Regardless of whether the Pope is speaking on contraception, abortion, economics or ecology (or other topics involving faith and morals), if he teaches in a way that is not ex cathedra, he is still teaching in a way which binds us to obey. As the 1983 Code of Canon Law says:

can. 752† Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

So, the teaching of the Church is something we must give the obedience and assent of faith to, making a religious submission of intellect and will, and avoiding those things that are contrary to this teaching. Unfortunately, many confuse a teaching which is not done in a “definitive manner” with a mere opinion. But there is a massive difference. A Pope can offer his opinion on the best way to carry out the Church teaching on social justice, but that is different than the Pope teaching that social justice requires economics to be carried out with ethics.

So the dissent from the radicals in the 1960s to the present against the Church is no different than the dissent of the modern anti-Francis mindset of today. Both reject the authority of the Church to interfere with behavior they do not want to change. Both want to give the impression of being faithful in a larger sense by being disobedient in a “smaller” sense. Both feel that it’s both the other side and the magisterium who are the problem.

The fact is, being a faithful Catholic requires that we are obedient to those who have the authority to determine what is in keeping with the Deposit of Faith and what is not. If we refuse to be obedient, then regardless of our work on the defense of marriage, social justice, life issues or any other area, we are being faithless and usurping the authority of the successors of the Apostles. Such people can claim to be faithful, but they are deceiving both themselves and others.

The Pharisees Ride Again

Read more »

Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IId): Peter, Leadership in the Church and Acts

The Series So Far

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude

Preliminary Warning

That Non-Catholics readers will probably disagree with Catholic belief in this area is expected.  However, please spare me comments that verse X:XX of the Book of Y "proves" me wrong.  The reader's personal interpretation of a Scriptural verse means nothing.  How the early Christians understood the Scripture is what matters if one wants to argue that the Catholic Church imposed the papacy later.

The Non-Catholic may disagree with this article.  However, the question is whether it can be established that their understanding of Scripture was believed in the early Church.

Introduction

As I pointed out before in this series, the challenge to show "Peter was the first Pope" made by some is the wrong question.  I wrote:

…asking the question “Was Peter the first Pope?” is the wrong way of framing the question. If one believes it, one looks for evidence to show the answer in the affirmative. If one does not believe it, one looks for evidence to disprove it.  Each side grows frustrated with the other side and assumes they are acting from ignorance or obstinacy.

A better question would be, “What was the role of Peter in the early Church?” This is a question which can be answered by the data of scripture and of history of the earliest Christians.

The challenge is made with the thought in mind to demand proof that Peter did the same things as Pope Benedict XVI does, with the belief that since Peter did not do certain things the current Pope does (this usually has to do with the trappings of the office) it means Peter was not the first Pope.

This sort of challenge demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Catholic belief.  The real question is, whether there is evidence of Peter displaying leadership over the Church.  If Peter was leader of the Church, then it seems that the differences certain people object to is nothing more than the difference of governing the Church when it was small (3,000 people) and governing the Church when it had a billion people.  Of Course the leadership of the Church must necessarily take different forms as the situation changes, but this does not change the fact of leadership existing.  Bill Gates may have run things differently when Microsoft was a small business than when it became a massive corporation, but it does not follow that the institution in 2010 was a different entity than what called itself Microsoft in 1975, and the current institution has no connection to the group of 1975.

Thus to argue that the Pope does X, but we see no mention of Peter doing X is entirely irrelevant to the point.  The question is, "did Peter display behavior which shows leadership of the Church as it existed at that time?"

In past articles (IIa-IIc) I have discussed Peter and the promises and actions made by Christ which indicates a role of primacy for Peter.  Obviously, in the consideration of Acts we will need to see whether the behavior of Peter and the behavior of the Apostles indicate a role of leadership for Peter as the Catholics believe.

The Fallacy of the Fictitious Question

Historian David Fischer has written about what he terms the fallacy of the fictitious question.  He describes this as: "an attempt to demonstrate by empirical method what might have happened in history as if in fact it actually had." 

Fischer uses an example of some historians using certain data from the 19th century to argue that railroads were not as important to the development of the United States as  previously thought, using data such as prices to ship by rail compared to by water.  Fischer points out that this data does not change the fact that railroads did become prominent in 19th century America.  In other words, the best theoretical case means nothing if it did not in fact happen this way.

It is an important distinction to make.  What might have been the case is worthless.  What was the case is what we are concerned with.  Many people have tried to argue for James as the head of the Church for example.  However, to argue that James could have been the head of the Church based on one passage in Acts 15 is not establishing that James was head of the Church. (I will look at this issue in Article IIe, the conclusion of Part II in this series).

Therefore, someone who asserts James as head of the Church to reject the Catholic claim of Peter is just as obligated to demonstrate a consistent portrayal of James' leadership to prove their assertion. 

The Fallacy of the Argument from Silence

The Argument from Silence is a fallacy that claims that since there is nothing against a certain interpretation, it must therefore be true, or alternately since there is nothing for a certain interpretation it must be false.

For example, the Bible Commentary by Matthew Henry offers this interpretation of the Apostles and the records:

When, upon the conversion of thousands, the church was divided into several societies, perhaps Peter and John presided in that which Luke associated with, and therefore he is more particular in recording what they said and did, as afterwards what Paul said and did when he attended him, both the one and the other being designed for specimens of what the other apostles did.

Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Ac 3:1). Peabody: Hendrickson.

Now, we don't have a record of most of what the other Apostles did.  We see John mentioned in passing, and James mentioned in Acts 15.  It would be an argument from silence to either argue that the others did the same things or that it means they did nothing.

All we know from Acts is what the author chose to emphasize, and that in believing Scripture is inspired, that what was included was important for us.

Argumentum ad numerum (Appeal to numbers) fallacy

The Argumentum ad numerum fallacy is also sometimes employed in Acts.  I've seen some people object to the Catholic belief in the primacy of Peter on the grounds that Acts (concerning Paul) and Paul's epistles fill up more of the Bible than Peter's role in Acts and Peter's epistles.  Mere volume is not proof of importance.  It is what role is presented that indicates authority or not.

Peter v. The Apostles?

It would be incorrect to assume Catholics believe that Peter's authority was in opposition to the Apostles.  So appeals to actions of the other Apostles does not demonstrate a case of disproving the Catholic claim.  Nor does a reference to the Apostles being in agreement mean that there was no head of the Church.  It merely means that the apostles were in agreement on how the Church should handle an issue

Jesus v. Peter?

Now, before one tries to make a Jesus v. Peter contrast, let me say this.  In a Church that believes that Jesus is risen and is Lord, of course any human leader of the Church will be subordinate to Christ.  We do believe the Pope must follow Christ and is not free to make teachings which go against Christ.

Now, as I pointed out in the "Preliminary Warning" section, I recognize non-Catholics do believe that Catholic teachings "contradict" the Bible.  However, the issue to establish this is whether the non-Catholic interpretation of the Bible can be shown to be held by Early Christians as opposed to a 16th century interpretation of the Bible.

Defining Leadership

Of course, we ought to define what it means to lead before continuing on.  Otherwise we can end up at cross purposes here. 

The definition of "leader" is: "the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country."  "Lead" is defined as "be in charge or command of, cause to go with one by drawing them along."

So right now in this discussion, the question is whether Peter displayed behavior in Acts which demonstrated leadership.  Generally speaking, a leader has the role of guiding the group he leads, setting the policies, drawing the line where debate ends, establishing penalties for the people who break the rules of the group.

Peter's Acts in Acts

The question is, do we see Peter taking a role of leadership over the whole Church?  We do, in several examples from Acts 1 through Acts 15 (After Acts 15,  the emphasis is on Paul's missionary work).  Now, taking one of these instances alone might seem like a stretch to claim that Peter was head of the Church.  However, once viewed in totality, we can see that the actions of Peter do confirm the behavior of the leadership bestowed by Christ.

It certainly seems that Luke's writing indicated the reader of Acts (Theophilus and others) had an understanding about Peter's role within the Church and wished to speak of the actions of Peter, just as he would speak about Paul's missionary journeys later in the book.  This indicates Peter was important enough a person to write about.

Now, if the role of Peter is portrayed to be a role of leadership, then perhaps it is reasonable and Scriptural for Catholics to recognize the authority of Peter in the Church.  If one wishes to deny this, can evidence be found for an alternate interpretation which is not merely personal opinion?

Peter Decrees the Succession of Judas

In Acts 1, we see that Peter announces the office held by Judas as an apostle was to be replaced (1:15ff).  There is no mention of consultation with the apostles or the others present.  He simply decrees that another is to be appointed in the place of Judas.  The response is not whether they should do this.  Rather it is how to carry it out.

This is also something to consider in terms of infallibility.  Was Peter right to make this decision?  Did he make a lucky guess?  If he ought not to have made this decision (which indicates that the Church can appoint successors to the apostles), then we have an example of the Apostles teaching error right from day one.

Only if we believe Peter protected from error in matters of doctrine and moral teaching can we be assured he did not err here.

Peter Speaks for the Twelve

After Pentecost (Acts 2), it is Peter who speaks to the people of Jerusalem, telling them what they must do to be saved.  The author of Luke and Acts saw fit to record the actions and speech of Peter, and only mention the rest of the apostles in passing.

Here is the dilemma.  If one wants to downplay Peter's role, and one wants to appeal to Scripture alone, one has to answer why Luke saw fit to emphasize only Peter's role, while the rest of the apostles are mentioned merely in passing.  If one appeals to Scripture alone and cannot support the view from Scripture alone, this is a contradiction.

Peter Works the First Miracle in the Church… and Defends the Church against the Sanhedrin.

In Acts 3, we see Peter heal a crippled man.  This becomes the lead in to Peter again speaking before the crowds and then to the Sanhedrin.  Again Luke emphasizes the action of Peter, and again the one who would downplay this needs to ask why Luke is emphasizing Peter, and not giving John an equal role?  It should be noted that the crowd and the Sanhedrin look to Peter as the spokesman.

Peter Passes Judgment

There are two distinct stories here.  One involving Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5).  The other, Simon the Magician.  In the first case, Ananias and Sapphira have resolved to sell property and give the proceeds to the Church.  Then they keep part of the money, while pretending to give all of it.  Now, as Peter points out, the property was theirs.  When they sold it, the money was theirs to do with as they wished.  However, claiming to donate all of it, while holding back some of what they promised to give was their sin.

Peter proclaims their sin which they thought was secret, and both fall down dead.  What we see here is an example of what Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16: "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  God's action demonstrates Peter does have the power to pass judgment within the Church, and that judgment will be bound in Heaven.

In the second case, Simon Magus (Acts 8) tries to buy the authority to impose hands and call down the Holy Spirit.  Peter condemns his unworthy motives.  The result is that Simon the Magician asks Peter to pray for him that what he said will not happen to him.  This seems to be an odd reaction unless it was recognized that Peter spoke with authority in doing so.  Simon does not appear to believe that Peter merely lost his temper.  He recognizes that Peter speaks in deadly earnestness, and has the authority to call this down on him.

The Baptized Do Not Receive the Holy Spirit Until Peter Imposes Hands

Here is an interesting account which shows the difference between the ministry of the apostles and the ministry of the deacons.  Peter and John go to Samaria (Acts 8:15) to pray for the Holy Spirit to be bestowed on the people.

This demonstrates a view of a hierarchic Church, not a democratic Church.  The apostles have the authority do do this, the deacons do not.  Certainly for Peter to be able to bestow the Holy Spirit indicates that Peter is not acting contrary to God's will.

Peter Baptizes Gentiles

This one is a rather important incident.  After having a vision, Peter goes to the house of Cornelius and meets a God-fearing gentile who believes.  Peter makes the decision that Gentiles can be baptized.  Peter recognizes that God makes no distinction between circumcised and uncircumcised, and from this makes a decision which will affect the entire Church: In Acts 10:48, "He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

The word Προσέταξέν (Prosetaxen) means to command, to give orders, to decree.  In this case, there is no ambiguity in the Greek text of the New Testament.  This is something done by one in authority, and it is obeyed.  This is strong evidence for showing Peter as leader in the Church.

In Acts 11, some believers did disagree (and in Acts 15, we will see this disagreement did not go away) and some challenged Peter on account of this.  However, this is revealing.  The fact that they were bothered, and spoke to him, indicates a recognition of his authority to make such a decision.  If Peter did not have the authority to give such a command, the circumcised believers simply could have ignored Peter's "opinion."

Instead, Peter demonstrates this ruling was not on a whim, but carried out based on what God willed.

We also have strong evidence for infallibility in this section.  If God did not protect Peter from error, it means Peter could have made a mistake and thus just because the Holy Spirit descended on the Gentiles did not mean God wanted them baptized.

Considering the possible differences between what God intended and what Peter did, the only assurance we can have that Christians do not have to be Jews first is if Peter was protected from error in what he decreed.

God Saw fit to Deliver Peter from Captivity

In Acts 12, Herod executes James the brother of John, one of the Twelve, and imprisons Peter with the intention to do likewise.  God delivers Peter from captivity through divine assistance.  Now I don't argue that this means James was less of a Christian than Peter.  We are not arguing about personal holiness here.

Rather it indicates that God had a purpose in keeping Peter alive.  God does not do things for an arbitrary reason.  We as Christians believe God is perfectly good and just, and does all things for a reason.

So the question for the person who seeks to downplay Peter is: Why did God choose to deliver Peter from the hands of Herod, but not people like James and Stephen?

Peter at the Council of Jerusalem

It is a common assumption among those who reject the Primacy of Peter that James and not Peter was the head of the Council in Acts 15 and it was James who made the decision on how to treat with the gentile believers.

This is not supported by the text, and is in fact a reading based on the a priori assumption that Peter could not be Pope and is searching for an alternate to permit this denial.

The facts of the case are as follows:

1. Certain Jewish Christians argue that one must be circumcised to be Christian.
2. Paul disputes this and is sent to Jerusalem by his congregation to inquire about this.
3. After some debate, Peter arises and tells them of what God revealed to him, and tells the members of the circumcision party they are wrong.
4. The assembly is silenced (The Greek Ἐσίγησεν [Esigēsen] indicates that they were stilled by Peter before Paul spoke)
5. The assembly (subdued) listens to Paul's presentation on what God has done among the Gentiles.
6. James voices agreement with Peter and suggests a pastoral solution based on what Peter has said.
7. The Apostles and presbyters send Paul with their instructions on how Gentile Christians are to behave, pointing out that the Circumcision party did not teach with the permission of the Church.

One of the common arguments in favor of James leading the Church is that he proposed the solution, with the word in 15:19 of κρίνω (krinō).  The problem is, unlike Peter's command (Prosetaxen) when he baptized Gentiles, krinō can be used for suggestions as well as judgments.

Claiming that James ruled the Church on the basis of this passage is to take the passage of Scripture further than can be justified.  Since James is agreeing with what Peter has said, which silenced the assembly of Apostles and presbyters, and with Paul said, proposing a solution in line with Peter's decree and Paul's testimony, it seems he is offering a pastoral solution which reflects the doctrinal decree of Peter and the testimony of Paul.

Those who disagree with this need to demonstrate why Luke placed such an emphasis on Peter in Acts, but mentions James (who was not an Apostle) only three times in Acts (12:17, 15:13 and 21:28), and why James is mentioned three times in Galatians and once in Jude, and is believed to be the author of the Epistle of James. 

Now I don't want this to be an appeal to numbers here.  Luke also thought it important to discuss Stephen (the first Martyr of the Church) and the deacon Philip.  I am not arguing more verses proves authority.  Rather I am pointing out whom Luke saw as most important in his account on the early Church.  It seems his main focus is on Peter and Paul, and while the description of Paul shows him in his activity as a missionary, the description of Peter demonstrates one who is leading the Church.

Conclusion

I believe in pointing out instances of Peter speaking and acting demonstrate examples of leadership compatible with what Catholics believe Jesus promised.  We have shown that Catholics are not ignorant of Scripture in believing that Peter was the leader of the Church.

Now, some will argue based on certain limited verses that Peter was not head of the Church, and will use these verses to claim that James led the Church.  Now, while I touched on this briefly in my discussion on Acts 15, I recognize this needs a deeper investigation, especially in light of the references made to Galatians, Peter and Paul opposing him to his face.

The consideration of James and Peter will be the topic of Article IIe, which will (I hope) be the end of Part II of this series.

Jesus Died The Apostles Lied? A Look At Another Claim Against the Resurrection

Preliminary Note

This article is dealing with the claim the Apostles lied about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Those who think I am overlooking the concept the Apostles were deluded should see the article HERE where I discussed some issues.

Looking at the Claim that the Apostles Lied

A theory given by certain cynical individuals runs along these lines: Jesus died, and the Apostles deliberately claimed Jesus rose from the dead while knowing He did not.  These individuals will argue that because Miracles cannot happen and it is not probable that it was a delusion, it is most likely the work of a deliberate deception.

I find this theory interesting because many of those I have encountered who use it argue that the people of the Middle East in the First Century AD were so primitive that they believed some (hitherto unexplained) scientific phenomenon was a miracle.

Yet for this belief to have continued on for two thousand years, it's not enough to claim over a billion stupid people to explain this.  To continue fooling people (including individuals who are intelligent), the people who created such a deception would have to be quite brilliant in order to create something that people would die for or radically change their life for and never be detected as false.

So the question arises, if we are to consider the charge of deception: Were the apostles stupid and superstitious peasants?  Or were they evil masterminds who perpetuated a fraud which lasts until this very day?  They couldn't be both.

What The Resurrection Means.  What Apostle Means.

We need to be clear about what this allegation means.  Unlike certain wishy-washy Christians who try to reduce the Resurrection to some sort of "feeling" that Jesus' teachings would live on, the Christian belief is that Jesus was literally executed by the Romans and rose from the dead.

The Apostles were those who witnessed the risen Christ and testified they saw Him.

Therefore, when dealing with the idea that the Apostles lied, it means they did not see the risen Christ, yet claimed they did see Him.

I've dealt with Deluded Apostles already, so now we need to consider the option of them not being fools, but knaves who deliberately created a lie which led thousands of people to martyrdom.

Considering Some Objections To This Concept

If we are to give the "conspiracy to lie" theory any credibility, it needs to provide the evidence to back up what was asserted in its claim.  The basic idea is that the Apostles knew Jesus died, but said He rose again contrary to what they knew.  However, there are several problems such a theory needs to address.

Let's consider the following:

1) Cui bono?  (Who benefits?)  If the Apostles deliberately lied, what did they hope to gain from it?  We have no evidence that any of the Apostles recanted what they believed.  They were tortured and reviled for what they preached.  Nor do we have any evidence of the apostles receiving material gain.  They were not wealthy men who stayed at home while exhorting followers to provide their every need and luxury.  They travelled and died in areas all over the Roman Empire preaching this doctrine.  Such a devotion does not sound like a fraud.

I have run across some who have tried to say that yes, the apostles lied but dying for a lie was not unreasonable because "who know what religious fanatics are thinking?"  This is a contradiction in terms however.  If the apostles believed what they taught to the point it encouraged "fanaticism" in them, then clearly it was not a lie which they fabricated.  If it was a lie, it could not encourage religious fanaticism in the people who knew it was a lie.  If someone else, other than the apostles invented this lie, where are the objections from those who knew differently?

2) The unanimity of the Apostles on the subject.  As I said above, the Apostles didn't just remain in one place.  They travelled widely in spreading the Gospel message.  Now in the days without immediate communication, they could have gone far and wide and questions asked by the people preached to would doubtlessly have gone beyond what the Apostles could anticipate for a fabrication they worked out on their own.  if they lied about Christ, one would expect a deviation of facts in the stories told as each Apostle had to improvise.

Instead we have a largely consistent agreement on the facts.  The different accounts have some variations, but only on small details and are consistent with individuals emphasizing what stuck most in their mind.  Scriptures remain very consistent across wide areas of the empire… we need to remember that before the days of the printing press, all copies were made by hand.  On occasion we see copyist errors, but no divergence on the message itself.

3) The Sincerity of the Apostles.  This is the flip side of #1 above.  We all know of those false religions where the founders gained materially from the religion they started.  Even in Christianity, we know of individuals who have abused their ministry for personal gain.  Did the founders of the religion do these things however?

However, the Apostles did not act for material gain.  They travelled, preached and eventually died because they believed what they taught was of vital importance for everyone.  Consider the words of Philippians 1:

^19 Yes, and I shall rejoice. For I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, ^20 as it is my eager expectation and hope that I shall not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. ^21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. ^22 If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. ^23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. ^24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. ^25 Convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, ^26 so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Disagree with Paul if you like, call him insane if you like, but this is a man who believes that to live is a mission to serve Christ and to die is to gain by being with Him forever.

5) The Body of Jesus would be a very permanent way to disprove the conspiracy.  If Jesus was still in the tomb, why was it not produced to prove them liars?  If it was no longer in the tomb, how did it leave the tomb?  Are we to believe a band of Jesus' followers who were in hiding snuck past armed guards and moved a large rock, stealing the body without a trace?  Would the Romans have tolerated such a lawbreaking on their watch.

Since the Apostles proclaimed the message of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, those who wanted to disprove Jesus would have been in a good position to do so.  Their adversaries would have been in position to root them out and disprove them by showing discrepancies from the witnesses who saw Christ.

The Lacking Piece of the Puzzle

The accusation that the apostles must have lied either requires being backed by evidence or else is based on a prior conviction that it could not have been true and therefore must have had another cause.

However evidence that the apostles lied is lacking, and the behavior of the apostles seems to indicate that they believed they had seen Jesus alive.  Considering the challenges against Christianity revolve around demanding physical proof for spiritual things, one would think it reasonable to insist on physical proof for assertions of a physical explanation.

Because evidence is lacking to prove any such point, it is not reasonable to claim that the apostles must have lied.  One is still free to believe it of course, but it must be recognized that such a belief is merely a personal opinion.

This is not the Argument from Silence fallacy.  Christians don't argue "You can't prove [A], therefore [B]."  They believe the witness of the Apostles was credible, while the claims against are not credible.  Anyone wishing to credibly argue otherwise needs to demonstrate why their own claims are believable and those of the Apostles are not.

However, instead of providing this credibility, the attacks I have seen all revolve around "it's impossible, so there must be another reason for it."  This assumes as proven however what needs to be proved (that it is impossible).  Neither I nor any other Christian are irrational for refusing to accept a claim which has no more basis than personal opinion that miracles are impossible.

"More Probable"?

Now, if one wishes to show misrepresentation, one must remember certain things must be demonstrated under law.  I find those guidelines useful to assess what needs to be proven with this claim:

1. What was said was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts.
2. An intentional, or fraudulent, misrepresentation occurs when a defendant knows that he or she is making a false statement of material fact.
3. the defendant intended for the plaintiff to rely on the false statement.
4. the plaintiff ordinarily needs to prove that he or she justifiably relied on the defendant’s statement
5. Finally, the plaintiff must show that he or she was injured as a result of the misrepresentation.

Since a lie is defined as an intentionally false statement, the charge of the lie is to say two things: that the statement made was false, AND that the false statement was made deliberately.

So, first of all someone who would accuse the apostles of misleading others needs to prove that what they said was a deliberate misrepresentation.  Second, that the apostles knew they were making such a statement.  Third, that the apostles intended those they preached to would rely on their claims.  Fourth, that the ones preached to were justified in relying on what the apostles said.  Finally that the believers were injured by the misrepresentation.

Points 3, 4 and 5 rely on points one and two being established as true.  So, to claim a lie, the statemtn that Jesus rose from the dead needs to be shown to be a deliberate misrepresentation, and the Apostles need to be shown as knowing the statement was false.

Unless those points are proven, the claim that the Apostles lied is a merely a statement with no basis in fact.

Jesus Died The Apostles Lied? A Look At Another Claim Against the Resurrection

Preliminary Note

This article is dealing with the claim the Apostles lied about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Those who think I am overlooking the concept the Apostles were deluded should see the article HERE where I discussed some issues.

Looking at the Claim that the Apostles Lied

A theory given by certain cynical individuals runs along these lines: Jesus died, and the Apostles deliberately claimed Jesus rose from the dead while knowing He did not.  These individuals will argue that because Miracles cannot happen and it is not probable that it was a delusion, it is most likely the work of a deliberate deception.

I find this theory interesting because many of those I have encountered who use it argue that the people of the Middle East in the First Century AD were so primitive that they believed some (hitherto unexplained) scientific phenomenon was a miracle.

Yet for this belief to have continued on for two thousand years, it's not enough to claim over a billion stupid people to explain this.  To continue fooling people (including individuals who are intelligent), the people who created such a deception would have to be quite brilliant in order to create something that people would die for or radically change their life for and never be detected as false.

So the question arises, if we are to consider the charge of deception: Were the apostles stupid and superstitious peasants?  Or were they evil masterminds who perpetuated a fraud which lasts until this very day?  They couldn't be both.

What The Resurrection Means.  What Apostle Means.

We need to be clear about what this allegation means.  Unlike certain wishy-washy Christians who try to reduce the Resurrection to some sort of "feeling" that Jesus' teachings would live on, the Christian belief is that Jesus was literally executed by the Romans and rose from the dead.

The Apostles were those who witnessed the risen Christ and testified they saw Him.

Therefore, when dealing with the idea that the Apostles lied, it means they did not see the risen Christ, yet claimed they did see Him.

I've dealt with Deluded Apostles already, so now we need to consider the option of them not being fools, but knaves who deliberately created a lie which led thousands of people to martyrdom.

Considering Some Objections To This Concept

If we are to give the "conspiracy to lie" theory any credibility, it needs to provide the evidence to back up what was asserted in its claim.  The basic idea is that the Apostles knew Jesus died, but said He rose again contrary to what they knew.  However, there are several problems such a theory needs to address.

Let's consider the following:

1) Cui bono?  (Who benefits?)  If the Apostles deliberately lied, what did they hope to gain from it?  We have no evidence that any of the Apostles recanted what they believed.  They were tortured and reviled for what they preached.  Nor do we have any evidence of the apostles receiving material gain.  They were not wealthy men who stayed at home while exhorting followers to provide their every need and luxury.  They travelled and died in areas all over the Roman Empire preaching this doctrine.  Such a devotion does not sound like a fraud.

I have run across some who have tried to say that yes, the apostles lied but dying for a lie was not unreasonable because "who know what religious fanatics are thinking?"  This is a contradiction in terms however.  If the apostles believed what they taught to the point it encouraged "fanaticism" in them, then clearly it was not a lie which they fabricated.  If it was a lie, it could not encourage religious fanaticism in the people who knew it was a lie.  If someone else, other than the apostles invented this lie, where are the objections from those who knew differently?

2) The unanimity of the Apostles on the subject.  As I said above, the Apostles didn't just remain in one place.  They travelled widely in spreading the Gospel message.  Now in the days without immediate communication, they could have gone far and wide and questions asked by the people preached to would doubtlessly have gone beyond what the Apostles could anticipate for a fabrication they worked out on their own.  if they lied about Christ, one would expect a deviation of facts in the stories told as each Apostle had to improvise.

Instead we have a largely consistent agreement on the facts.  The different accounts have some variations, but only on small details and are consistent with individuals emphasizing what stuck most in their mind.  Scriptures remain very consistent across wide areas of the empire… we need to remember that before the days of the printing press, all copies were made by hand.  On occasion we see copyist errors, but no divergence on the message itself.

3) The Sincerity of the Apostles.  This is the flip side of #1 above.  We all know of those false religions where the founders gained materially from the religion they started.  Even in Christianity, we know of individuals who have abused their ministry for personal gain.  Did the founders of the religion do these things however?

However, the Apostles did not act for material gain.  They travelled, preached and eventually died because they believed what they taught was of vital importance for everyone.  Consider the words of Philippians 1:

^19 Yes, and I shall rejoice. For I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, ^20 as it is my eager expectation and hope that I shall not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. ^21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. ^22 If it is to be life in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. ^23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. ^24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. ^25 Convinced of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, ^26 so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Disagree with Paul if you like, call him insane if you like, but this is a man who believes that to live is a mission to serve Christ and to die is to gain by being with Him forever.

5) The Body of Jesus would be a very permanent way to disprove the conspiracy.  If Jesus was still in the tomb, why was it not produced to prove them liars?  If it was no longer in the tomb, how did it leave the tomb?  Are we to believe a band of Jesus' followers who were in hiding snuck past armed guards and moved a large rock, stealing the body without a trace?  Would the Romans have tolerated such a lawbreaking on their watch.

Since the Apostles proclaimed the message of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, those who wanted to disprove Jesus would have been in a good position to do so.  Their adversaries would have been in position to root them out and disprove them by showing discrepancies from the witnesses who saw Christ.

The Lacking Piece of the Puzzle

The accusation that the apostles must have lied either requires being backed by evidence or else is based on a prior conviction that it could not have been true and therefore must have had another cause.

However evidence that the apostles lied is lacking, and the behavior of the apostles seems to indicate that they believed they had seen Jesus alive.  Considering the challenges against Christianity revolve around demanding physical proof for spiritual things, one would think it reasonable to insist on physical proof for assertions of a physical explanation.

Because evidence is lacking to prove any such point, it is not reasonable to claim that the apostles must have lied.  One is still free to believe it of course, but it must be recognized that such a belief is merely a personal opinion.

This is not the Argument from Silence fallacy.  Christians don't argue "You can't prove [A], therefore [B]."  They believe the witness of the Apostles was credible, while the claims against are not credible.  Anyone wishing to credibly argue otherwise needs to demonstrate why their own claims are believable and those of the Apostles are not.

However, instead of providing this credibility, the attacks I have seen all revolve around "it's impossible, so there must be another reason for it."  This assumes as proven however what needs to be proved (that it is impossible).  Neither I nor any other Christian are irrational for refusing to accept a claim which has no more basis than personal opinion that miracles are impossible.

"More Probable"?

Now, if one wishes to show misrepresentation, one must remember certain things must be demonstrated under law.  I find those guidelines useful to assess what needs to be proven with this claim:

1. What was said was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts.
2. An intentional, or fraudulent, misrepresentation occurs when a defendant knows that he or she is making a false statement of material fact.
3. the defendant intended for the plaintiff to rely on the false statement.
4. the plaintiff ordinarily needs to prove that he or she justifiably relied on the defendant’s statement
5. Finally, the plaintiff must show that he or she was injured as a result of the misrepresentation.

Since a lie is defined as an intentionally false statement, the charge of the lie is to say two things: that the statement made was false, AND that the false statement was made deliberately.

So, first of all someone who would accuse the apostles of misleading others needs to prove that what they said was a deliberate misrepresentation.  Second, that the apostles knew they were making such a statement.  Third, that the apostles intended those they preached to would rely on their claims.  Fourth, that the ones preached to were justified in relying on what the apostles said.  Finally that the believers were injured by the misrepresentation.

Points 3, 4 and 5 rely on points one and two being established as true.  So, to claim a lie, the statemtn that Jesus rose from the dead needs to be shown to be a deliberate misrepresentation, and the Apostles need to be shown as knowing the statement was false.

Unless those points are proven, the claim that the Apostles lied is a merely a statement with no basis in fact.