Tomb Of Jesus Nonsense

Many people on the Internet are ably demolishing James Cameron's opportunistic documentary regarding his ostensible discovery of Jesus' tomb.

There's so much material out there that it's difficult to process it all (at least in the time I have available), but I said that I'd offer some thoughts of my own on the subject, and so I'll do so. I'll also provide links to work being done by others.

Let's start with some principles that should be widely agreed upon, even by those who do not believe in the Resurrection.

1) Jesus was a Galilean.

2) Jesus' family was poor (as illustrated by the kind of offering they gave at the Temple at Jesus' birth).

3) Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

4) There were significant tensions between the early Christian community and the Jewish community (as illustrated by the executions of St. Stephen and St. James the Just and by St. Paul's own admitted persecution of the Church).

5) Early Christians made a big deal out of the claimed Resurrection of Christ.

6) In a first century Jewish context, that would mean that his tomb was empty.

7) Early Christians also made a big deal about the claimed Ascension of Christ.

8) Early Christians made a big deal about the Church as the mystical/metaphorical Bride of Christ.

9) Nothing remotely like the story envisioned by James Cameron and his colleagues is recorded in early Christian or Jewish or pagan literature about the early Church.

If we accept these premises, how likely is it that Jesus had a wife and a son and was buried in a middle class tomb in Jerusalem with multiple other family members spanning several generations?

Not very.

Let's watch the dominos fall:

The first domino to go over is the fact that Jesus was a Galilean. He was Jesus of Nazareth. His family's home was in the north, in Galilee. Why would they have a family tomb in Jerusalem? An individual might be buried there if he happened to die there (as with Jesus being [temporarily] interred in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb or when James the Just was martyred in Jerusalem). That would be expected since they buried people the same day, and there wouldn't be time to get a body down to Galilee. But the family's tomb would be in Galilee, since that's where most members of the family would die.So it's implausible to begin with that Jesus' family would have a tomb in Jerusalem.

Now the second domino falls: They were dirt poor. They just didn't have money. The lower-class status of the family is attested to both inside and outside of Scripture (including later records about kinsmen who demonstrated that they had never been anything other than working men by displaying the callouses on their hands). So how could they afford a middle or upper-middle class tomb even if they had a tomb in Jerusalem?

In particular, why would they build an ornate one? See the picture at the top of this post? Notice the geometric designs above the door of the tomb? That's ornamentation, and it takes money to have rock carving like that done. Again, this isn't the kind of tomb poor people would have.

The ornamentation also calls attention to the tomb, causing dominos three through six to keel over. The early Christian community and its claims about a Resurrected Messiah were very annoying to the local non-Christian communities, both Jewish and Roman. To non-Christian Jews, the Christian message was a betrayal of the faith as they understood it. It was heresy. It was something to be stamped out.

To the Romans, and increasingly with time, the Christian community was also troublesome. Partly it was troublesome because it stirred up contention within the Jewish community (which itself was headache enough for the Romans at the time). Partly it was troublesome because it came to be perceived as a treasonous group that did not honor the state religion nor form part of the tolerated religion of Judaism. And if you buy the theories common in liberal critical circles that the authors of the New Testament tried to shift the blame for Jesus' death from Roman leaders to Jewish leaders then there's an extra reason for the Romans to be annoyed with the early Christian community. Even if you don't (as I don't) buy the idea of blame transferrence, put yourself in the position of a Roman governor and ask: "Do I really want a local cult worshipping as a god a man who we Romans put to death?" For the Romans too, there was motive to undermine Christian claims.

So when Christians are running around saying that Jesus' tomb is empty and that he's been raised from the dead and that this only proves that he's the Son of God, if you're a non-Christian Roman or Jew then you're going to have a powerful incentive to say, "Wait a minute! Jesus' tomb is RIGHT OVER THERE in what will become the Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem! And look, his bones are right here in this ossuary conveniently labeled 'Jesus son of Joseph' in this conveniently-ornamented-and-thus-advertised tomb that the rest of his family is using!"

Matthew 28:11-15 is also noteworthy in this regard:

[S]ome of the guard [over Jesus' tomb] went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place.And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers and said, "Tell people, `His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.

To the ears of any sensitive reader, but especially to an apologist, the nature of this passage is immediately apparent: It's counter-apologetics. Matthew is pre-emptively doing apologetics against a claim that was current among non-Christian Jews in his day. It doesn't matter if you believe that Matthew was right, or even if you believe that Matthew was Matthew (rather than a "Matthean community"). What's happening here is that the leading non-Christian explanation for the empty tomb is being debunked.

As an apologist for the Christian position--like Matthew--you don't want to raise alternatives to the Christian explanation in the reader's mind if you don't have to. Thus you don't raise the idea of Jesus' disciples stealing his body unless you've got a real, live objection out there that you need to offer a counter-explanation for (i.e., the chief priests bribed the soldiers to say this). You don't even want the reader's mind moving in that direction if you can avoid it.

So the fact that Matthew (or the "Matthean community") takes the trouble to raise and then debunk the idea of the disciples stealing the body shows that this was the leading explanation  in the non-Christian Jewish community of why the tomb was empty. (And why Matthew--rather than Mark or Luke or John--deals with this, since Matthew's gospel was most clearly written for a Jewish audience: This was the audience in which this explanation was common.)

But there would be no reason to concoct this explanation if Jesus' bones were, in fact, lying in a clearly labelled ossuary in a publicly marked tomb that was in multigenerational use by members of his family in Jerusalem. If you've got the body then you don't need to make up the story about his disciples stealing it.

Domino seven--the early Christian preaching of the Ascension--also tips over against James Cameron's case. It provides the Christian explanation for where Jesus' body is: It ain't on earth! It's up in heaven! He's been exalted to the right hand of God in accord with his status as Messiah and Son of God. So if you've got that oh-so-conveniently-identifiable tomb right there in Jerusalem, why don't you use this to dethrone the Ascension claim by pointing out (in excellent Latin if you're a Roman) Habeas corpus!--"That you have the body!" Right there! In that ossuary!

And then there's domino #8: The Church as the Bride of Christ. This image would never have arisen if there was a Mrs. Jesus living right there in Jerusalem. Look at what happened in other religions where the founder was married. Do we know about their wives? Well, let's see . . . Moses was married to Tsipporah and then later to an Ethiopian woman. Muhammad was married to Khadijah and then later to Aisha and Sawda and Zaynab and . . . well, let's just say that he was very enthusiastic about marrying women. Joseph Smith Jr. was married to Emma Hale and Lucinda Pendleton and Louisa Beaman and . . . uh . . . let's just say he was enthusiastic about marrying women, too.

We know about these women because they were honored figures as wives of The Founder, and if Jesus had a wife then (a) we would know about it and (b) the whole Church-as-the-Bride-of-Christ metaphor would never have come into existence.

And then there's the fruit of marriage: offspring.

Now, Dan Brown wants to sneak a forgotten daughter of Jesus by us, but we tend to know about even the daughters of religious founders. Muhammad's daughter Fatima comes to mind.

It would be much harder to sneak a forgotten son by the eyes of history. For example, Moses had Gershom and Joseph Smith Jr. had Joseph Smith III.

It's not just hard to sneak sons past because patriarchal cultures focus more on sons, it's also because of this: In traditional societies, the son is looked on as the father's natural successor.

The son may not end up as successor, but we still tend to know about sons because of their role as potential successors. If a son dies before he can assume office, it's viewed as a great blow to the community because it destabilizes the leadership and triggers a struggle for succession. That struggle gets recorded. Or, if the son doesn't die, a succession struggle may break out anyway, and it, too, gets recorded. Thus when Joseph Smith Jr. was killed after shooting at the people who had come to lynch him (no passive martyr he), there was a succession struggle in the early Mormon community after which Joseph Smith III ended up out of power (later forming the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, now the Community of Christ) while Brigham Young ended up in charge of the main Mormon establishment.

And we know about this because succession struggles are the things history is made of and so they get recorded.

So if Jesus had a son named Judah (or anything else), we'd know about it. We know a lot about the politics of the early Church, and we'd certainly know about a succession fight involving the son of Jesus. We'd have all the arguments of the winning side about why their side was right and the son of Jesus was not his legitimate successor.

This is especially the case when you realize that Jesus' surviving male family members were active in the leadership of the Church, like James the Just, who became bishop of Jerusalem. But it was his "brothers" who played these leadership roles, not his son.

Thus the ninth domino falls: The fact that nothing like Cameron's version was recorded by anybody--including those hostile to the Church who would want to discredit it--underscores the utter implausibility of the whole idea.

Then there are the specific arguments brought forth by Cameron and his crew in favor of their hypothesis, but those have been ably rebutted by others.

SEE HERE.

AND HERE.

AND HERE.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed the last!)

Comments

[Leo]

Bravo and thanks.

Reasonably well informed Christians will not be personally troubled by James Cameron or Dan Brown. But I fear that many less informed (younger?) people on the visible margins of the Church and Christianity will have more 'drips of doubt' cast on their fire of faith. The presumption in many (half) intellectual quarters is that Christianity is not worthy of serious consideration because it is a debunked children's fairy story at best and a dangerous attack on civil liberties at worst.

Bishops, priests, teachers and the rest of us should be using these high-profile media 'threats to the faith' as opportunities for clear and concise apologetics to show how well historically founded our beliefs really are.

We should be proactive: marshalling our arguments as soundbites, comments and essays (as appropriate) showing we are not afraid to discuss these matters but positively welcome discussion because what is proposed for our assent is essentially true.

[bill912]

Of course, to all who want their pet theories to be true (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary), all this will be irrelevant. As I've learned through much experience, you can't talk someone out of his own version of reality.

['thann]

Thanks so much for finally weighing in. My husband has been waiting with bated breath for your commentary. (I was hoping you'd have one.) He said, "If anyone can made sense out of this, Jimmy can."

Thanks for being our "go-to guy."

[Scott W]

Of course, to all who want their pet theories to be true (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary), all this will be irrelevant. As I've learned through much experience, you can't talk someone out of his own version of reality.

Or as they say, things are received in the mode of the receiver. I would say it is possible to hammer away at pet theories, and there is a possibility it will break. It certainly worked with me as an atheist who converted. It also benefits lurkers.

[Tim J.]

I was thinking the same thing, 'thann.

To the majority of those willing to entertain this particular theory, the facts from here on out will have absolutely no relevance, at all. The thing is the idea, itself. This tale will live on long after it is proven false scientifically, though in a diminished way.

It will become part of the general fog of anti-Christian lore, known to be questionable, but still, somehow, clung to and trotted out occasionally as an instance of "Could it be??..."

What's odd is that all these contradictory theories are somehow understood to have cumulative weight. It's as if, not knowing how to work a math problem, I gave the teacher 12 alternate ways of working it, all equally wrong, but expected her to be impressed with the amount of work, anyway.

Don't the Muslims claim to have the real tomb of Jesus, body and all?

[Tim J.]

Sorry, I was responding to bill912's post, not 'thann's, though I agree with that one, too!

[Sean Gallagher]

The American Institute of Archaelogy has also issued on online editorial in which the claims of Cameron and Jacobovici are thoroughly dismissed.

The piece is neutral on the question of the resurrection, understandably enough. After all, it's a secular organization for academic archaeologists.

But it is certainly not neutral on the claims of Cameron and Jacobovici.

Go here to read the editorial.

(tip--I don't wear a cowboy hat or any other kind of hat for that matter-- to Amy Welborn)

[kevin]

Dominos. Great game. And this one was particularly good.

[Hennepin]

From Romans 1:22-23
They claimed to be wise, but turned into fools instead; they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images representing mortal men, birds, beasts and snakes.

[Monica]

Ummmm, does this mean that Jesus WASN'T eaten by wild dogs? You're destroying my faith here...

[DeeDee]

Excellent- I wish this could be made into a booklet that could be given out to people!!
I agree with what Leo said- this won't sway the strong in faith but those who are searching or non-believers,
That's why I pray this(tomb nonsense) will be exposed as a hoax for all to see.
I just p

[Curious]

Thanks Jimmy,
I knew it was crap, but have given up internet surfing for Lent (you're an exception since you are faith-related) and so I didn't have time to run all over the net looking for rebuttals.

My only regret is that the rebuttals are too detailed. I can imagine a TV-addled believer in Cameron's thesis having their eyes glaze over while your dominoes fall. I wish we could kill these things off with quick ripostes.

[The Atheist Jew]

I'm of the assumption that Jesus' story was invented by Paul, and many beliefs and myths were added onto the story until the bible was finally written 150-200 years "after the fact."

[Pseudomodo]

Fall, 1971, Anthropology 101, Langara College, Vancouver BC. 8:01 a.m.

Larry Lepionka,Ph.D., Harvard University, stands at the head of the class and says:

'We will NOT discuss the idiocies of Desmond Morris and I will answer NO questions about Naked Apes WHATSOEVER.'

Nutcases who write books were bashed back even then. Obviously an emminent professor was excersizing some form of professional censorship otherwise he would have to refute absolutly every question posed by an anthropology neopohyte.

He put some books on the INDEX (his index) and we respected that.

His status as a scholar was enough for us.

[Jarnor23]

Well, "Athiest Jew", I'm glad that your opinion is based on solid evidence as such you have presented in this forum today. Clearly such well presented points will be good material for debate and thought into the matter.

Also, you may want to look into the game "World of Warcraft", playing a troll there may be much more interesting than doing so in people's blogs. Just a thought.

[SDG]

I'm of the assumption that Jesus' story was invented by Paul, and many beliefs and myths were added onto the story until the bible was finally written 150-200 years "after the fact."

Problem #1: Jesus' actual followers, such as Peter and James and John, were real historical persons who lived in Jerusalem after Jesus' death, who were personally met not only by St. Paul but also by his biographer and companion, Luke, the author of Luke-Acts.

These actual followers of Christ were pillars of the Jerusalem community of Christians that existed at the time(s) that Paul (and Luke) visited Jerusalem. The Christian community already existed independently of St. Paul, and its leadership included those who had known Jesus in life.

These meetings in Jerusalem, to which Luke give eyewitness record in Acts 15 and which Paul reports in Galatians 1-2, make it difficult to see how the historical life of Jesus can be separated from the faith and preaching of his immediate followers and from that of St. Paul.

Problem #2: No serious critical scholar attaches such late dates as you do to the NT documents.

[Snowman]

Atheist Jew,

Although I don't have references on hand at the moment, I believe the Gospels have been established to have been written before the end of the 1st century AD, meaning at most 70 years had gone by. There would likely have still been some people alive at the time who were present when the events actually happened (not to mention, the teachings of the Gospels were being preached even before they had been formally written).

But you've piqued my curiosity: how can someone be a Jew and an atheist at the same time?

[Leo]

Curious,
good point - my soundbites on this issue:

Jesus and Mary were among the most common names of that time and place. 99 grave inscriptions with the name 'Jesus' have been found of which 22 are on ossuaries. 70 Marys of which 42 are on ossuaries. Source: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-tomb-titanic-talpiot-tomb-theory.html (Prof Ben Witherington).

If the disciples of Jesus made up the story of the resurrection then why did they label and preserve the body/bones?

Who is this alleged 'James Cameron' character anyway? The real James Cameron is dead and buried near Manchester UK. May he rest in peace. See pictures http://freespace.virgin.net/paul.cesnav/cameron.jpg and http://freespace.virgin.net/paul.cesnav/cemetery.htm

[bill912]

No, no, Leo! The real James Cameron's body was eaten by wild dogs! (Or was that Crossan's body? I get those 2 confused).

[Esau]

If the disciples of Jesus made up the story of the resurrection then why did they label and preserve the body/bones?

Leo:
Excellent point!

Why wouldn't you get rid of the "incriminating evidence" but, instead, have it labelled and preserved???

That goes against all the rules of CON MAN-ship!

Like our enlightened friend 'Realist' who often makes the point (might I add, 'ludicrous' point) that Peter and Paul only preached what they did in order to open the purse strings of folks; wouldn't it make sense for these CON ARTISTS, Peter and Paul, to actually get rid of Jesus' remains in order to secure the continuation of their CON GAME?

Although, I still can't seem to figure out that if it actually was a CON GAME, why would they actually allow themselves to suffer and die such horrible deaths, when all they needed to do to save their very lives was relent to the Roman Emperor of the day?

[Realist]

To reiterate with embellishments from the first discussion:

The question is what happened after the crucifixion. Does anyone really know? The Apostles and other followers apparently ran for their lives.

Twenty to thirty plus years later Paul et al started writing about the sayings and ways of Jesus. To make him comparable and competitive to the Caesars, and other Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Persian and Babylonian gods, did they give Jesus some god-like qualities? Miracles and physical resurrection were apparently scribal ways to embellish the lives of gods.

There has been much conjecture about the true burial site for Jesus, from mass graves for the crucified, no burial but eaten by wild dogs/crows, buried in a shallow grave with lime to enhance decomposition and of course the burial in "Joe A's" tomb.

What is interesting is that scripturally the number of attestations and their timing gives credence to burial in "Joe A's" tomb. ( see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb070.html

(1) 1Cor 15:4a
(2a) GPet 2:3-5a; 5:15b; 6:21-24
(2b) Mark 15:42-47 = Matt 27:57-61 = Luke 23:50-56
(2c) John 19:(31-37*)38-42
(2d) Acts 13:29

The resurrection accounts cannot be verified using the same techniques.

If you accept Heaven to be a spirit state (as per Aquinas), Jesus' bones are not in Heaven so maybe Sunday night we did see the long lost burial vault of "Joe A".

Then again maybe it was "Joe A" in the tomb with his family members? Or maybe it was "Joe A" plus members of the original disciples?

"Joe A" is an interesting character with significant myths surrounding him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Arimathea

He may have been one of the seventy new disciples of Jesus noted in Luke's gospel:

"The names of the seventy. James, the son of Joseph; Simon the son of Cleopas; Cleopas his father; Joses; Simon; Judah; Barnabas; Manaeus (?); Ananias, who baptised Paul; Cephas, who preached at Antioch; Joseph the senator; Nicodemus the archon; Nathaniel the chief scribe; Justus, that is Joseph, who is called Barshabbâ; Silas; Judah; John, surnamed Mark; Mnason, who received Paul; Manaël, the foster-brother of Herod; Simon called Niger; Jason, who is (mentioned) in the Acts (of the Apostles); Rufus; Alexander; Simon the Cyrenian, their father; Lucius the Cyrenian; another Judah, who is mentioned in the Acts [of the Apostles]; Judah, who is called Simon; Eurion (Orion) the splay-footed; Thôrus (?); Thorîsus (?); Zabdon; Zakron.
http://www.answers.com/topic/seventy-disciples

Looks a lot like the names of the males found in the 1980 tomb. Add two Marys (wifes, sisters, sister-in-laws) and you have another theory.

Interesting that the entrance to the tomb was rectangular in shape, analogous the stone slab covering the deep entrance to the tomb.

Interesting depiction of the times (people living in brick/mud huts, riding donkeys, dirt roads etc. ) Does not give one a fuzzy feeling about wandering ghosts and talking angels!

Again, "Bones or no bones, the Good Word has been spoken and is being practiced by billions and that will not change."

[John]

Esau posted:

"Although, I still can't seem to figure out that if it actually was a CON GAME, why would they actually allow themselves to suffer and die such horrible deaths, when all they needed to do to save their very lives was relent to the Roman Emperor of the day"

Esau, the answer is simple, it is because they believed without compromise, and were unwavering in their faith

I would love to see if the Apostles had practiced "Ecumenism" in the form that it is being abused today, instead of "holding fast to Tradition" as St Paul instructs us to do would we even have a "church"?

[Seven Star Hand]

Christians again prove many are unabashed enemies of the truth

Hello again Jimmy and all,

After finally watching the Jesus Tomb documentary and the hour of critical look "debates" following it, I am left with the sad conclusion that a large percentage of Christians will always oppose the truth, regardless of how it is presented. It has been amazing to watch people who regularly oppose critical thought and science hypocritically assert that critical thought and science supports so-called "biblical evidence" in their efforts to debunk this archeological find and associated theories.

Many of these same people have the gall to complain about "theatrics" used to present these findings, as if Christianity has never turned a profit or stooped to even slicker and far more dubious methods pushing their stories and historical interpretations. It is rank hypocrisy for Christians to attack the presentation of this documentary as unbalanced when Christian history and current activities fall far short of what they are demanding in this situation. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, because what goes around comes around.

Read More ...

[Tim J.]

I think the motives people are quickest to impute to others often underly their own actions.

Realist seems always to bring up money.

[Tim J.]

"I am left with the sad conclusion that a large percentage of Christians will always oppose the truth, regardless of how it is presented."

Oh, goody! A real-live gnostic has joined in. Now the circle is complete.

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, because what goes around comes around."

My cliches can beat up your cliches.

[Esau]

John Posted:

Esau posted:

"Although, I still can't seem to figure out that if it actually was a CON GAME, why would they actually allow themselves to suffer and die such horrible deaths, when all they needed to do to save their very lives was relent to the Roman Emperor of the day"

Esau, the answer is simple, it is because they believed without compromise, and were unwavering in their faith

I would love to see if the Apostles had practiced "Ecumenism" in the form that it is being abused today, instead of "holding fast to Tradition" as St Paul instructs us to do would we even have a "church"?

Oh is that the reason why you've joined up with Realist, the very person who has REDUCED Scripture to MERE MYTHOLOGY!

This SPEAKS VOLUMES of the extent that YOU would go to just to bring down the Catholic Church just because it DOES NOT DO AS YOU COMMAND!

[bill912]

Nice to know that the Mothership is in orbit again. Please don't bump into any satellites.

[bill912]

Just for clarification, I want to point out that I was not referring to Esau(or John or Relist, for that matter). I was responding to Tim J's comment and who he was referring to.

[Eileen R]

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, because what goes around comes around."

Furthermore, he who laughs last laughs best, so you better go make hay while the sun shines, and keep spreading the word that we not put all our eggs in one basket. Remember, though, that pride goeth before a fall.

[Margaret]

A stitch in time saves nine flies caught with honey not vinegar.

[Jared]

And lo, a hush fell upon the crowd of travellers as did appear a man claiming that the hand that 'twas dealt unto him did hold, not but one, nor e'en five, but a full seven ... nay, not of spades nor clubs (both weapons of war most formidible in bygone days--and present as well if but wielded by an able warrior, regardless of firey technology's bite) ... but stars. The narrator, whilst apologizing for long-winded missives did point (with word not outstretched digit) toward the man's website, unto the occupation there declared. "This man doth think he is the messiah."

Be this declaration in jest or in earnest, the man may be thereunto proved a crank. E'en if this were insufficient reason of discreditation, a troll is he, both in jest and in truth.

Exit the narrator.

[kaneohe]

Sean Gallagher: Many thanks for the link to The American Institute of Archaelogy on online editorial which throughly dismisses the claims of Cameron and Jacobovici. http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408

Copy and paste the above or get the direct link up above in Sean's posting)

This is a great article. Maybe Realist should read it....

[Esau]

My, have I missed the presence of that NARRATOR!

[Realist]

Tim J,

Hmmm,

No mention of money in my last post but since you brought up the subject of money, a reiteration in keeping with the topic:

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

From R.B. Stewart, editor of the new book, R.B. Stewart, "The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue", (with commentaries from many NT exegetes).
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-Dominic-Crossan-Dialogue/dp/0800637852/ref=sr_1_1/104-5223156-3336742?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173200457&sr=1-1

[paul zummo]

That sounds like a very interesting story, Realist, but I wonder if Stewart delves into some deeper issues.

- It is reported in the "official" Gospels that Judas led the prosecutors of Jesus to him, but the Vatican has covered up for years the fact that Peter had advanced knowledge of the impending arrest and did nothing to subvert it.

- Why was Peter seen on the Grassy Knoll when Jesus was being questioned? What part did he, Vice President Thomas, and Supreme Court Chief Justice John have in the ensuing cover up?

- The names of the Gospel writers are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If you add up the number of characters in their names it equals nineteen. Nineteen is the legal age to buy booze in Canada. Canada is located on the North American continent. Is this not a secret code to reveal that Jesus was, as is retold in Mormon history, actually in America visiting with the Native Americans at this time?

- We all know that fuel from a plane cannot collapse a structure as tall as the World Trade Center, no matter how high the heat rate. We know this from repeated demonstrations involving egg crates and chicken wire. Therefore, we must speculate that the real reason the Twin Towers were destroyed was because the Vatican wanted to hide the secret that Mary Magdalene was, in fact, Jesus's father's brother's uncle's nephew's former roommate.

Layers.

[Esau]

Realist says:

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

And this is the person JOHN (JTNOVA) would actually ally himself with???

Goes to show that Rad Trads would join up with even the Devil himself (not that Realist is actually the Devil) in order to bring down the Church!

[Bill Q]

Curious wrote:
My only regret is that the rebuttals are too detailed. I can imagine a TV-addled believer in Cameron's thesis having their eyes glaze over while your dominoes fall. I wish we could kill these things off with quick ripostes.

In my experience, laziness is responsible for people accepting all sorts of untruths that are relatively easy to disprove. If the average pro-abortionist would spend 15 minutes looking at the evidence against an unborn child being a "blob of tissue," that would go out the window, too.

But, all we can do is offer the rebuttals for those who are serious about finding the truth. Those who refuse to take the time to consider serious questions will have to answer for their sloth in the end.

[Esau]

Incidentally, is it just me or is the symbol on the top of the entrance look like the YU-GI-OH Millenium Eye symbol?

Sorry... that's what you get when you have nephews into that stuff!

[Cajun Nick]

Paul Zummo,

You'd better watch out. Methinks you know too much!

[Sailorette/Foxfier]

Jarnor23- Ja mon! (sorry, couldn't resist)

Y'know, I find it very reasuring that the only folks who have calm logic on their side in this page are the ones I agree with.... ;^)

[Sailorette/Foxfier]

Esau- I think it looks a little like the last symbol for Earth's co-ords on Stargate....

[Esau]

Esau- I think it looks a little like the last symbol for Earth's co-ords on Stargate....

THAT'S IT!!!

Thanks Sailorette!

I could almost here that guy with the glasses say (sorry--don't know his name): "Chevron five encoded" or something like that.

Apologies, I haven't watched it for so long!

[Pseudomodo]

Actually the stargate "earth" symbol is an open triangle with a circle above.

Since the circle is below the triangle then it must mean "under" the earth.

Then again is could be a giant rain drip protector like you see on an RV.

What do I know....

[Esau]

Actually the stargate "earth" symbol is an open triangle with a circle above.

Since the circle is below the triangle then it must mean "under" the earth.

Thanks Pseudomodo for the clarification!

Cue up the Stargate Music please!

[Sailorette/Foxfier]

Pseudomodo- Nah, I mean the little hint of a very wide ^ under the circle. My brain kinda ignores the big one over it, because it looks like a roof. *blush*

[John]

Esau

I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to me aligning with Realist whose posts are anti Catholic and by all accounts I am a "Rad Trad"

I think you know very little about the Catholic faith and upon your conversion to Catholicism from Protestanism, I wonder if you received any Catechism or did you just "join" as others who I know who "married" into the Catholic church, and had to sign papers acknowledging they would raise their children Catholic but never ever learned their faith

Can I ask what was your journey? Have you ever read the Dhouey Rheims Bible-which is much different than the Politically correct New American currently being used. Have you ever studied the Baltimore Catechism? What about the 1917 Code of Canon Law? The Council of Trent?

No need to answer as I am sure the answer to all of the above is NO

[Esau]

JOHN:

Now we've come to the HEART of the Matter -- YOUR PREJUDICE TOWARDS PROTESTANTS, EX-PROTESTANTS, CATHOLIC CONVERTS!

Also, I'm surprised that you still continue to say things like:

I think you know very little about the Catholic faith...

Yet, when in the past I attempted a discussion with you regarding the anaphoras of Hippolytus and other such elements in Church History, you could not even acknowledge its existence and were, in fact, unaware (or dare I say "ignorant") of the very canons of the historical Catholic Church!

Also, again, have you even acknowledged Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent which deals with not only the Roman canon (which is used in the Tridentine Mass) but other canons as well?

Mind you, this was issued in 1563. The canon that overrode all other canons was not issued until 1571. The Tridentine rite was imposed on the whole west years later.

Have you studied the Bible in its Original Languages rather than the supposed Duoay Rheims version you keep touting?

(Not that I have, mind you, but those whom I have consulted with are, in fact, scholars who have)

Have you studied the 1917 Code of Canon Law in such exact detail? Really? Prove it!

For the most part, you've not even demonstrated such knowledge here on this blog!

As for the Council of Trent, you tout a supposed mastery of the Council when, in fact, you aren't even aware of several of its canons -- especially canon 6! Thus, I doubt you even know of what's in the other canons as well as the other sessions of Trent!

By the way, if you actually think that I was originally a Protestant, why don't you watch footage of Pope John Paul II's visit to America way back when -- you might actually catch a glimpse of my classmates who were captured on film speaking to His Holiness and shaking his hands.

Hmmmm... maybe that's how I obtained a Papal Rosary!

[David B.]

To paraphrase great movie lines:

"They have Cave Trolls"

"The Circus is now complete"

[Esquire]

John,

For what it is worth, I have copies of the Dhouey Rheims Bible, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, a Baltimore Catechism, and a Roman Catechism. I have studied them all, and I find no support in any of them, or in the writings of St. Pope Pius X, for your caluminous attacks on the Holy Father.

One thing that did not change with Vatican II is that the Successor of Peter is still the visibile head of the Church, worthy of respect and obedience for that fact alone. The manner in which you display your disagreement with him is scandalous and betrays a complete lack of the Christian charity that you will find described at length in any good pre-Vatican II work.

Try starting with Pascendi Dominici Gregis, for starters:

The conserving force in the Church is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority

it is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience ... and which begets their absolute want of respect for authority, not excepting the supreme authority.

No, truly, there is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to Modernism as pride. When a Catholic laymen or a priest forgets that precept of the Christian life which obliges us to renounce ourselves if we would follow Jesus Christ and neglects to tear pride from his heart, ah! but he is a fully ripe subject for the errors of Modernism.

Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries.

In short, you have repeated the chief error of the protestants and the modernists which you profess to hate -- you have turned your back on, no you have spit in the face of, the Holy Father which the Triune God has placed in a position of authority over you.

[Esau]

WHOA!

Esquire, you've GOT to remain a regular fixture here on Jimmy's Blog and POST OFTEN!

You have a pretty profound knowledge of the Faith!

Many of us (ESPECIALLY John JTNOVA -- and me as well!) need to get "edumucated" in these matters!

[Some Day]

The Pope I would follow down an abyss, knowing he won't lead us astray.

[Mary]

But you've piqued my curiosity: how can someone be a Jew and an atheist at the same time?

Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. One can be one and not the other.

[Mary]

Twenty to thirty plus years later Paul et al started writing about the sayings and ways of Jesus. To make him comparable and competitive to the Caesars, and other Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Persian and Babylonian gods, did they give Jesus some god-like qualities? Miracles and physical resurrection were apparently scribal ways to embellish the lives of gods.

Why in blue blazes did they pick him and not one of the other wannabe messiahs floating around at the time?

"There has been much conjecture about the true burial site for Jesus, from mass graves for the crucified, no burial but eaten by wild dogs/crows, buried in a shallow grave with lime to enhance decomposition and of course the burial in "Joe A's" tomb."

And in one snide aside, a throw-away line really, Realist demonstrates that she isn't remotely interested in finding truth but rather diminishing Christian belief.

Of course, she also has styled herself a follower as well, which would make her a fool, following some semi-literate itenerant preacher of a Roman backwater.

Who takes seriously a weak mind with an axe to grind?

Realist is a he, unless he's a girl with the first name of Bernard, in which case I pity her even more greatly.

[Realist]

Mary,

To answer your question "Why in blue blazes did they pick him and not one of the other wannabe messiahs floating around at the time?"

(as done previously), Good question. The number of disciples? The "filler" of John the Baptist's shoes and ideas? Right time and place? The message? Anti-Roman stances? Peaceful rebellion? A fellow peasant? The experience of Saul before Paul with the movement? All of these?

[John]

Esquire (and Esau as always):

You have it exactly backwards. Faith comes first, and obedience follows. Moreover, Catholic doctrine is that the prime obedience of the faithful is not to the Church, but to Christ. This doctrine is clearly taught by St. Peter, the first pope, and can be found in the Acts of the Apostles (5:29/DR) as he is speaking to ecclesiastics of the time: "We ought to obey God rather than men."

We know that everyone, even the pope, must adhere to the Deposit of Faith, that is, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Protestants don't believe in the latter). The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unquestionably taught that, and the doctrine was formally defined at Vatican I (Decree Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4), a dogmatic council (as Vatican II was not).

The question is: what happens when Church authorities themselves go against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? St. Paul answers that question clearly for us in his Epistle to the Galatians (1:8-9):

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

and again in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (2:14/DR):

Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or our epistle.

Catholics are obligated to hold to Tradition. Vatican I held that any action contrary to Tradition is outside of the authority (ultra vires) of any ecclesiastical person, including the pope.

St. Athanasius, surely a great Saint and Doctor of the Church, in fact, one of the Four Great Eastern Doctors of the Church, stood against Pope Liberius, when the later unjustly excommunicated him and yielded to the Arian heretics. Likewise, St. Augustine, one of the Four Great Western Doctors of the Church, together with St. Aurelian, stood against Pope Zosimus, who was yielding to the Pelagian heretics. There are many other such instances in the history of the Church, when Saints stood up to popes.

There are many times where the present state of the Church can be understood only in the perspective of Church history, such as:

The fall of almost all the bishops of the fourth century into the Arian heresy

The persecution and false excommunication of orthodox Saints like Athanasius

The personal heretical leanings of some eight popes in the first eight centuries of the Church

The disputed papal election of the twelfth century (in which St. Bernard intervened on the side of the apparently invalidly elected pope)

The Babylonian Captivity and confusion of the 14th century (in which even the Saints couldn't agree on who the true pope was)

The defection of all the English bishops but one from the Church of the 15th century

The persecution and false excommunication of St. Joan of Arc in the 15th century

The confusion and chaos in the Church since Vatican II, which was so obvious that it had to be admitted by Paul VI and John Paul II, is just the latest incarnation of the anti-traditional forces in the Church. Maybe it seems worse because we are experiencing it.

Yet there are powerful forces to combat it. Let no one dissuade someone who is determined to adhere to tradition in lieu of reform by name-calling. Our Lord was viciously attacked by the Pharisees. St. Athanasius was hunted down like an animal. Vile calumnies were made against St. Joan. Yet Our Lord had the final victory. St. Athanasius had the final victory. St. Joan had the final victory. We dare not think where their persecutors ended up!

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then

[Esau]

Faith comes first, and obedience follows. Moreover, Catholic doctrine is that the prime obedience of the faithful is not to the Church, but to Christ.

Thank you, John!

You have provided the very argument that Protestant have used for centuries!

They separated themselves from the Catholic Church since in their view, their OBEDIENCE was not to the CHURCH, but to CHRIST!

To them, FAITH comes first before OBEDIENCE; therefore, what they considered GENUINE Christian Faith was what they believed they MUST OBEY.

In light of this, I still can't see how you manage to cast such HATE AGAINST THE PROTESTANTS when, in fact, YOUR VERY ARGUMENTS JUSTIFY THEIR VERY ACTIONS!

[Esau]

Martin Luther believe that the Catholic church had corrupted the original message of Christianity. Martin Luther had thus rejected the authority of the Pope and Church Councils.

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and NOT by POPES and COUNCILS who have so often CONTRADICTED themselves, my CONSCIENCE is captive to the WORD OF GOD. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. HERE I STAND. I CAN DO NO OTHER. God help me."

So, just as you said, John:

"... prime obedience of the faithful is NOT to the CHURCH, but to CHRIST."

In one fell swoop, you have JUSTIFIED Martin Luther's actions!

Your very reasoning argues rather magnificently for the side of the Protestants!

Thank you!

[Esau]

By John's very arguments here:

...Faith comes first, and obedience follows...

...the prime obedience of the faithful is NOT to the Church, but to CHRIST...

...This doctrine is clearly taught by St. Peter, the first pope, and can be found in the Acts of the Apostles (5:29/DR) as he is speaking to ecclesiastics of the time: "We ought to obey God rather than men."...

...The question is: what happens when Church authorities themselves go against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

St. Paul answers that question clearly for us in his Epistle to the Galatians (1:8-9):

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema...

Are there still any DOUBTS folks?

By John's own arguments, One CANNOT but reach the SAME CONCLUSION which MARTIN LUTHER himself reached during his lifetime!

Martin Luther believed that the Catholic church had CORRUPTED the original message of Christianity.

Even John, a so-called Catholic Traditionalist, has reiterated the very thing Martin Luther had been saying all along!

That: "We ought to obey God rather than men."

It was, thus, that Martin Luther rejected the AUTHORITY of the Pope and Church Councils.

John asks the very same thing Martin Luther did:

What happens when Church authorities themselves go against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

Here was Martin Luther's answer:

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and NOT by POPES and COUNCILS who have so often CONTRADICTED themselves, my CONSCIENCE is captive to the WORD OF GOD. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. HERE I STAND. I CAN DO NO OTHER. God help me."

[Esquire]

John,

If I am not mistaken, you have ridiculed Esau in the past for being a "cut and paste" hack, which makes this interesting when it is compared to your latest post.

Nonetheless, I'll give it a read and give you my thoughts.

[John]

Esau

You rantings again hold no water. Traditionalists want to change NOTHING and Protestants, in their dismay (and rightfully I have to admit) changed everything and "Reformed". (Remember who else also "Reformed"-The church after Vatican II). Again I say:

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then

[Esau]

If I am not mistaken, you have ridiculed Esau in the past for being a "cut and paste" hack...

Actually, Esquire, he has done it several times even prior to my arrival on the blog.

[Esau]

Esau
You rantings again hold no water.

Really now?

Do you know how many tracts Protestants distribute that have cite the same biblical verses as you have in your posts in order to justify rejection of papal authority as well as that of the council of bishops?

"We ought to obey God rather than men."

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema..."

You are truly so BLINDED by your aversion to the Catholic Church that you cannot even RECOGNIZE the SIMILARITY between you and Martin Luther!

Although, it's funny that certain Protestants who have seen your posts have actually recognized this themselves and, further, this has reached certain Protesant boards already -- you've already made news on their end without you not even knowing it!

[Esau]

Traditionalists want to change NOTHING

You mean DISOBEDIENCE to the Pope and the Council of Bishops on matters concerning Faith & Morals shouldn't be regarded as a 'CHANGE'?

As before, please show me how such things are part of Traditional Catholic Teaching?

[Esquire]

John,

You have it exactly backwards. Faith comes first, and obedience follows.

This appears to be an interesting self-condemnation on your part. You clearly do not have obedience, and you seem to be attributing it to a lack of faith.

(Of course, we both know that the article that you cut and paste this from was actually responding to a different question, and so this answer would have at least made sense in that context. I'll chalk up your failure to even modify the words a little bit to laziness and not hold you to a confession of no faith.)

We know that everyone, even the pope, must adhere to the Deposit of Faith, that is, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Protestants don't believe in the latter). The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unquestionably taught that, and the doctrine was formally defined at Vatican I (Decree Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4), a dogmatic council (as Vatican II was not).

Side note, but you do realize, don't you, that Vatican II issued four Dogmatic Constitutions? But that is really beside the point.

We have been in communication with the Great Vatican I Council, and it has requested the opportunity to square off with you on this point. So, with no further ado, we bring you...Chapter 4 of Pastor Aeternus, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ issued by Vatican I.

The title of chapter 4 alone should suffice to demonstrate the silliness of your argument:

On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff.

OUCH! (At this point, the referee separates the combatants and checks John's eyes to see if he is capable of continuing on.)

But let's move on to the opening paragraph of Chapter 4 (keeping in mind this is your source cited for the purpose of excusing obedience to the Holy Father):

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

Oh my! (The referee administers a standing 8 count. One hand on the rope, John struggles to one knee and stands up.)

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion.

He's down and out. (Towel comes in from John's corner.)

He's been soundly defeated by the First Vatican Council, and we didn't even get to section 3 of chapter 4, where they start listing all the other Councils that talk about the need to assent to the teaching authority of the Pope!

John -- I'll let you catch your breath and pick up where we left off later.

[Tim J.]

"We are what you once were."

(Except in being subject to the Pope)

"We believe what you once believed."

(Except for that bit about Papal Authority)

"We worship as you once worshipped."

(In isolated conclaves, in defiance of the local Bishop)

"If you were right then, we are right now.

If we are wrong now, you were wrong then."

Because, as everyone knows, the Pope and the Bishops have NO AUTHORITY, at all, to change ANYTHING without first getting permission from every Catholic who may not like it. What do they think the Church is, some kind of hierarchy? Who gave THEM the power to bind and loose?

Jesus celebrated the Last Supper, you recall, in Latin. The decline of Western Civilization is the result of priests facing the wrong way and speaking English. Abortion is God's judgement on the modern Church for allowing women to wear slacks. Our duty as good Catholics during this dark time is to heckle our wayward brothers from the sidelines, and to post bitter comments on their blogs. All in love, of course.

[Esau]

Thanks, Esquire, for your presence here!

You're really give many of us (including myself!) some much needed 'edumucation'!

About what you said:

Of course, we both know that the article that you cut and paste this from was actually responding to a different question...

Actually, as I had mentioned, this was not the first time he's done this. There was another good commenter here by the name of Innocencio who caught him several other times in the past as well.

[Esau]

"We are what you once were."

(Except in being subject to the Pope)

"We believe what you once believed."

(Except for that bit about Papal Authority)

"We worship as you once worshipped."

(In isolated conclaves, in defiance of the local Bishop)

"If you were right then, we are right now.

If we are wrong now, you were wrong then."

Because, as everyone knows, the Pope and the Bishops have NO AUTHORITY, at all, to change ANYTHING without first getting permission from every Catholic who may not like it. What do they think the Church is, some kind of hierarchy? Who gave THEM the power to bind and loose?

Tim J.

LOVE that post!!!

SO TRUE!

[David B.]

I wonder if John would like us to return to the time when venial sin was confessed in public. If all change is bad, then anyone who sells all of their belonging, but keeps from the community some of the profits, should be struck dead by God, correct?

[BobCatholic]

Jimmy, you have done a great and logical obliteration of the propaganda being spewed by Cameron.

Cameron must think that people will abandon the Catholic Church (and the other protestant denominations) and join the Church of the Holy Mirror, where the self is worshipped above all others.

So, I wonder if he owns stock in mirror companies?

:)

[Esquire]

I think I'm going to go lock up the www.churchoftheholymirror.com website pronto.

[John]

Jimmy's post addresses the statistical evidence only in a link. I read the link but it does not address the p value calculated by Andrey Feuerverger adequately. The term p value was not used in the documentary, but it is used in this interview with Scientific American:

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=13C42878-E7F2-99DF-3B6D16A9656A12FF&pageNumber=2&catID=9

Wikipedia has an excellent article about what a p value is and is not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_value

God would not punish someone for having an open mind. If one loves the truth, one goes to heaven since the truth is God himself. Having true beliefs is not a requirement for being admitted to heaven, in my opinion.

[Esquire]

God would not punish someone for having an open mind.

Eve and Adam had an open mind -- look where it got them, and us.

[Some Day]

Well your opinion could not even get you a 1 in the AP exams.

[Esau]

Having true beliefs is not a requirement for being admitted to heaven, in my opinion.

John:

If you mean the heaven as that in Christianity, being admitted to heaven then without accepting & adhering to true beliefs will prove difficult.

Matthew 19:16-21
16 ¶ And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?
17 Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
20 The young man saith to him: All these have I kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?
21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

John 14:6
6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

John 6:53-54
53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

[Jordan Potter]

"Side note, but you do realize, don't you, that Vatican II issued four Dogmatic Constitutions?"

Actually Vatican II issued only two Dogmatic Constitutions, Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. There was also a constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Consilium, and a Pastoral (note, NOT a Dogmatic) Constitution, Gaudium et Spes.

[Esquire]

Jordan,

Actually Vatican II issued only two Dogmatic Constitutions, Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. There was also a constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Consilium, and a Pastoral (note, NOT a Dogmatic) Constitution, Gaudium et Spes.

Good catch. My bad. Thanks

[John]

So therefore as Jordan has pointed out (and I even question if 2 of the 16 are even dogmatic by definintion as they clearly retaught previously infallible church teachings such as Lumen Gentiums "subsist")-One can ignore the 14 other documents including the liturgy which is not infallible except possibly in the case of Quo Primium which is a Papal Bull which has all but been ignored

Thanks for the clarification!

[John]

So tell me is this Protestant or what?

"The Lords Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest PRESIDING, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst"(Mt 18:20) (The General Instruction and the New order of Mass, 1969)

As compared to The council of Trent which declared:

Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the tenstimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection because of the Levitical priesthood, there was need that another priest should arise according to the order of Melchisedech..The oriest is Christ and because his priesthood was not to be extinguished by his death, in the last Supper, on the night in which he was betrayed..He offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine...Do this in commemoration of me...

As documened in "Inside the Vatican" on December 19, 1993 Jean Guitton, close friend of Paul VI stated "The intention of Paul VI with regard to the liturgy in particular that part of the liturgy normally called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such as way that it could almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. I repeat, Pope Paul VI did everything in his power to bring the Catholic mass closer to the Protestant supper.."

So either you worship as a Protestant and be "obedient" or as a Catholic as the saints and martyrs did for centuries. The choice I think is clear

[Tim J.]

"One can ignore the 14 other documents including the liturgy which is not infallible"

That is EXACTLY the argument DJK has been using to argue for women priests and contraception.

[Jordan Potter]

"So therefore as Jordan has pointed out (and I even question if 2 of the 16 are even dogmatic by definition as they clearly retaught previously infallible church teachings such as Lumen Gentium's "subsist")"

No, John, that's not how it works. Catholics don't question the dogmatic status of a constitution that is issued by a valid oecumenical council. Vatican II was a valid council convened and presided over by a valid Pope. Therefore when Vatican II says a document is a "dogmatic constitution," it's a dogmatic constitution.

"One can ignore the 14 other documents including the liturgy which is not infallible except possibly in the case of Quo Primum which is a Papal Bull which has all but been ignored."

No, John, that's not how it works. Catholics do not ignore authoritative documents issued by valid oecumenical councils. We assent to them and receive them with all the honor that is due them.

Oh, and Quo Primum was not an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium, and therefore is not infallible. It was a disciplinary, juridical document, not a doctrinal one.

[Esau]

So tell me is this Protestant or what?

"The Lords Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest PRESIDING, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.

So either you worship as a Protestant and be "obedient" or as a Catholic as the saints and martyrs did for centuries. The choice I think is clear

OH MY GOSH!!!

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

CALL JAMES CAMERON!!!

I JUST DISCOVERED THAT ST. PAUL WAS ACTUALLY A PROTESTANT!!!

1 Corinthians 11:24
24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.

In the original Greek, the word is ναμνησιν or, as it is better known: anamnesis!

John,
That Duoay-Rheims bible you keep touting -- do you actually do anything with it (like read it) or do you just let it collect dust and decorate your bookshelf???

By the way, if you ACTUALLY READ your Duoay-Rheims bible, you would have NOTICED that each time I cited passages in Scripture, they were actually FROM a DUOAY-RHEIMS bible!

[Esquire]

Esau,

I JUST DISCOVERED THAT ST. PAUL WAS ACTUALLY A PROTESTANT!!!

Too funny!

John,

So either you worship as a Protestant and be "obedient" or as a Catholic as the saints and martyrs did for centuries.

I think you had a typo again. Let me rephrase for you:

"So either you worship as a Protestant or be 'obedient' and worship as a Catholic as the saints and martyrs did for centuries."

I'm going to start charging you by the hour for correcting your work.

The choice I think is clear

Yes, I think it is.

[John]

Esquire-You are becoming as Uncharitable as your friend Esau-Unless you are one and the same?

One would have thought attending the "New Order" of mass with handholding and preaching of the word of Love instead of sin and salvation from the pulpit each Sunday that you would be more charitable-After all after Vatican II everybody gets saved now, even those that deny Jesus-dont we?

[Esquire]

John,

Please identify where you believe I have displayed a lack of charity and I will gladly evaluate.

[Tim J.]

John, I think this is important enough to reiterate;

"One can ignore the 14 other documents including the liturgy which is not infallible."

That is EXACTLY the argument DJK has been using to argue for women priests and contraception; if it is not - to my satisfaction - infallible, Ex Cathedra, Defined Doctrine, it can be ignored.

Sorry, does ANYONE see an excess of humility and obedience as a real problem in the Church, right now?

[John]

Esquire posted:

"I think you had a typo again. Let me rephrase for you:

"So either you worship as a Protestant or be 'obedient' and worship as a Catholic as the saints and martyrs did for centuries."

I'm going to start charging you by the hour for correcting your work"

Seems a bit uncharitiable in my opinion. Sorry if I am not the master typist you so desire

[Esquire]

John,

The correction was not to your typing, but to your theology; I changed it from Protestant to Catholic.

(I was being charitable when I called it a "typo.")

[BobCatholic]

>God would not punish someone for having an open mind. If one loves the truth, one goes to heaven since the truth is God himself.

if one loves the truth, their mind is closed to error.

Don't be so "open minded" that your brain falls out.

The term "open minded" has been declared a virtue by modern secularists, and has nothing to do with "truth" but simply "accepting truth and error as both are equal."

[BobCatholic]

>I think I'm going to go lock up the www.churchoftheholymirror.com website pronto.

and .org and .biz as well :)

[John]

As it was posted:

"That is EXACTLY the argument DJK has been using to argue for women priests and contraception; if it is not - to my satisfaction - infallible, Ex Cathedra, Defined Doctrine, it can be ignored.

Sorry, does ANYONE see an excess of humility and obedience as a real problem in the Church, right now?"

Sorry-the analogies are null and void. Traditionalists and neo cons want NO change whatsover, we feel that the changes that you and so many are so "obedient" to are the root cause of what DJK has proposed-you have a vague council with 16 documents that are so wishy washy that one line sounds catholic, the next something as far removed and deviating from past teaching, it becomes pastoral by definition. Two quotes I think sum this up:

"And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.

Pope Leo XIII, Diuturnum Illud"

Satan’s masterpiece is to have succeded in sowing disobedience to all Tradition through obedience (false obedience)-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

The so called "disobedience" to the modernism of todays church and the new customs can easily be flipped around and accusing the modernists of causing anarchy and confusion by disobeying Sacred Traditions.

[Jamie Beu]

God would not punish someone for having an open mind. If one loves the truth, one goes to heaven since the truth is God himself. Having true beliefs is not a requirement for being admitted to heaven, in my opinion.

I disagree.

Many claim "a mind is like a parachute - they only work when they are open." However, a parachute that is open all the time is a hinderance - it slows you down, gets stuck on unnecessary (and even dangerous) items, and can be torn up. Every good paratrooper knows the importance of proper care of a parachute and that 99% of the time, it is packed up and closed, only to be opened in the moment of most need.

Chesterton said, "Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

We shut our minds on the truth, once we have captured it, because it is precious and, all too often, fleeting. Jesus wants us to have this Truth, because he IS the Truth. Heaven wouldn't be Heaven otherwise.

[Esau]

you have a vague council with 16 documents that are so wishy washy that one line sounds catholic

You mean to say you actually READ ALL 16 Documents???

Tell me, where in it does it actually say the things you've cited previously; that is, the eradication of kneelers and hand-holding during the Our Father?

Sorry, does ANYONE see an excess of humility and obedience as a real problem in the Church, right now?"

Yes, and we should make things worse, as you are demonstrating by your very actions here and beyond, and promote further disobedience!

At any rate, why should we obey the AUTHORITY of the Pope and the Council of Bishops? It's NOT like JESUS CHRIST was the ONE who gave them AUTHORITY in the first place, right?

HOLD ON --

There could be something here:

Matthew 16:19
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Hmmm... Okay, in the first passage, it was JESUS who gave Peter the KEYS, which finds its 'TYPE' in Isaiah:

Is:22:21: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

Is:22:22: And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

What is the significance of this?

Who did Christ give the Keys of the Kingdom to?
Did he give these Keys to others as well?

To my recollection, I believe this was given solely to Peter!

Thus, Peter is Father (i.e., 'Papa' or 'Pope) to the New Jerusalem, which is the Church!

As the Prime Minister in this Isaiah passage was chosen by God to have such AUTHORITY on behalf of the King, so is Peter the Prime Minister chosen by Christ to have authority on behalf of his Kingship here on earth.

No other person was given the Keys of the Kingdom except Peter, the rock upon which Christ built his Church and, henceforth, as in Isaiah and the times of the Old Testament, it's an AUTHORITY that's passed onto Peter's successors!

Now, as for the Council of Bishops, we also find Scriptural support (in addition to Sacred Tradition) in the following verses:

Matthew 18:17-18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

So, John, really now, do you REALLY HATE the Catholic Church so much that you would actually go AGAINST Christ Himself?

John,

Perhaps you have Divinum">http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_09051897_divinum-illud-munus_en.html">Divinum Illud Munus, Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical On the Holy Spirit, confused with Diuturnum, his Encyclical On the Origin of Civil Power.

The former contains no mention of authority, but the latter, interestingly enough, sets the stage by beginning with this thought:

The long-continued and most bitter war waged against the divine authority of the Church has reached the culmination to which it was tending,

before elaborating further:

Wherefore, being, by the favor of God, entrusted with the government of the Catholic Church, and made guardian and interpreter of the doctrines of Christ, We judge that it belongs to Our jurisdiction, venerable brethren, publicly to set forth what Catholic truth demands of every one in this sphere of duty; thus making clear also by what way and by what means measures may be taken for the public safety in so critical a state of affairs.

As Pope Leo XIII made clear, to obey God one must obey his Church.

[A.Williams]

What I can see is that John neglects to understand that there was a REAL reason and need for Vatican II, especially in the context of the world changes that were taking place in the mid 20th century. And I'm not talking in the way that liberal or 'progressive' Catholics might talk, about a need to upgrade the teachings of Christ to possible permit many of the mofern sins, but rather, that there was a real and very 'orthodox' need for Vatican II to address very necessary corncerns affecting the modern world. And for this purpose is EXACTLY WHY the Holy Church convened the Vatican II council.

Just look at the history of the 20th century, and recall the profound scientific and industrial advances made! The Church was immersed in a vastly new world, a world where, in only 50 years since the invention of a homemade Wright Bros. airplane, turbo jetliners were screaming across the skies! Again, in just 50 short years!

And what about all of the other technologies like NUCLEAR POWER which has the ability to either greatly help or completely DESTROY the world, depending on how it is used.

So, in all of John's demonstrated devotion for the past customs and practices of the Church, which I and many other 'devout' catholics also have, I think he overlooks this essential need the MID @)th CENTURY Church Magesterium had, to address the implications, consequences and effects of this MODERN SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.

And then consider the cultural situations and conflicts involved! With the scientific achievements also came extreme cultural side effects, such as socialism and communism,(and secularism to boot!) which everyone knows are inherently athiestic. Moreover, after the Chinese Communist Revolution, almost 1/3 of the entire planet would thus be affected by such athiestic doctrines!

And don't you think, John, that the Church needed to address these apparently 'small' and 'insignificant' scientific, cultural and religious changes??

Rather, in the heat of such scientific and cultural turbulance, the Roman Catholic Church, in the Wisdom and Guidence of the Holy Spirit, did what it needed to do. And this is what Vatican II was all about! And it was never intended to destroy the Church of the past, but rather, as Jesus might say "to perfect it" and adapt it to the NEW TIMES with it's particularly NEW NEEDS. And even as the Lord had the ability to 'perfect' the Jewish religion, of His generation, ie..when "the day of the Lord" had arrived,...so too the Holy Church has always had the ability to adapt according to it's various needs and circumstances, and in every generation since the founding of the Church, and all under the CHRIST promised 'GUIDENCE' of the Holy Spirit.

And so, to speak so badly of Vatican II, as you almost continually do, seems to deny the fact that it was indeed necessary to hold the Council in the first place, and to face these multitudes of NEW WORLD problems that continue up to this very day! And infact the present Magisterium is still refining the teachings and interpretation of Vatican II, and consequently, performing the objectives in which Vatican II was created for, very well!

And just because many things are indeed 'NEW', doesn't mean that the Church doesn't have the capacity or WISDOM to resolve such modern conflicts and controversies. Rather, it is for EXACTLY this that the HOLY AND WISE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NEEDED MORE THAN EVER! For what other world body, organization or instituion has the wisdom or discernment to address these countless moral, spiritual and scientific dilemma's??

Then, once we agree that, indeed, it was very wise to call for the Second Vatican Council in the first place, we only need to have faith that the Church conducted the Council in according to the guidence and Wisdom of the Holy Spirit (even as was the case in all of the other Church Councils.

And if the the Magisterium of the Church can falter in such a case as this (Vatican Council), can we really have faith that it would remain faithful to Christ in any, or all, other ways? Herein, more than ever, we need to believe we have the guarantee of Christ Himself, to the Magisterium of His Church for all ages to come, that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it".

[Esquire]

Last post with name omitted was mine. Sorry.

John,

Traditionalists and neo cons want NO change whatsover

That could conceivably be a correct statement if made in 1962, before the opening of Vatican II, not in 2007. To me, fixing 1962 as the time when all change must stop seems...rather arbitrary.

[BobCatholic]

>Traditionalists and neo cons want NO change whatsover

NEO CONS? What is that?

Someone is confusing church and politics again, probably thinking that the Church is only a political instution like the leftwingers think.

[Esau]

NEO CONS? What is that?

Someone is confusing church and politics again, probably thinking that the Church is only a political instution like the leftwingers think.

BobCatholic:

Thanks for pointing out!

I, myself, never even heard of the term until I visited this blog!

Is there a bi-partisan system that I'm not aware of???