Our Fathers

I recently worked with a young man majoring in physics at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. (We’ll call him John.) Being a physics major you can gather that he is an intelligent young man. John is also a Christian. In fact, he is a member of the Churches of Christ. John has a great interest in theology, and we were always discussing it. One day we were discussing the Catholic Teachings on the Virgin Mary. John was explaining why he doesn’t agree with the Catholic Teachings on Mary.
“When I look at the Bible and first century Christianity I just don’t see it. To convince me that the Early Church had a devotion to Mary like the Catholic Church teaches you would have to prove it existed during the first century. You can’t point to the Church Fathers of the second century or later to try and prove Catholic Teaching on Mary.”
I wasn’t shocked by this comment. My wife’s family is Church of Christ, and they have repeatedly rejected any reference to the Church Fathers during discussions with me. So John’s comments were familiar and expected. Actually, I simply calmly explained to John why this anti-historical stance doesn’t make sense.
First of all, I pointed out that the Church Fathers lived much closer to the time of Jesus than we do. So it would stand to reason that they would have a better understanding of what the Apostles and Jesus taught than someone living centuries later. An example would be the Canon of the Old Testament. Origen, Tertullian, St. Jerome, and many other Church Fathers used the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Furthermore, writings of St. Jerome and others prove that the Septuagint version they used contained the deutero-canonicals (commonly referred to by Protestants as the Apocrypha). During the sixteenth century, Martin Luther decides to expel the deutero-canonicals from the Old Testament Canon. Now who should I follow? Why listen to Martin Luther? He lived about 15 centuries after Jesus. The Church Fathers lived much closer to the Apostolic Period. I will follow the example of the Church Fathers.
Secondly, I pointed out that, while Scripture does not explicitly teach things like the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, one can find them implied in Scripture. Then the issue just comes down to interpretation of Scripture. I won’t get into the debate here over whether every Christian can authoritatively interpret Scripture for himself (per Protestantism), or whether only the Church can authoritatively interpret Scripture (per Catholicism). So Catholic Teaching regarding the Virgin Mary can be found in Scripture, but many are only implied. That’s okay, though! The Holy Trinity is also only implied in Scripture. It took the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 to formally define this dogma.
Thirdly, I pointed out that even the Churches of Christ can not find their teachings formally defined by the Apostles or Jesus. The Trinity is the best example. Nowhere in Scripture do we see it explicitly stated that God is three persons in one God. There are no explicit statements made by either Christ or His Apostles to the effect that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, and fully equal. Yet, the Churches of Christ teach this very thing. They may not be fond of using the same terms Catholics use to describe it, but they still believe in the Trinity.
So to make the claim that we must find an explicit statement from the first century in order to believe in a teaching is contradictory. We believe in many things that were not explicitly taught by Christians of the first century. Heck, the New Testament itself is nowhere explicitly stated during the first century! So, based on John’s logic, we can’t believe in the New Testament.
Now, you might point out that John never asked for an explicit statement. He only asked for some evidence for Marian devotion from the first century. It is not the purpose of this particular post to give evidence for Marian devotion. I would refer the reader to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Hail, Holy Queen (Scott Hahn), and The World’s First Love (Fulton Sheen) for evidence for Marian devotion. What we are concerned with here is the misuse of the Church Fathers.
Protestants tend to believe that Scripture alone should be used for faith and morals. However, they will sometimes attempt to use the Church Fathers to defend their teachings when debating with Catholics and non-Christians. Yet, they feel like one must find an explicit statement in the Church Fathers in order to use their writings to defend a teaching. Yet, when one reads Justin Martyr’s writings, one will not find an explicit statement in favor of the Trinity. Would anyone dare say, therefore, that St. Justin Martyr did not believe in the Trinity? Some of Justin Martyr’s comments on the Godhead tend to have a subordinationist ring to them. Does that mean that St. Justin didn’t believe in the Trinity?
It is not fair for us to expect the earliest Christians (even the Apostles) to have understood the teachings of Jesus as we do. We have had 2000 years to look back, reflect, and think on these things. Besides, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide us into Truth, not that Truth would immediately be revealed and comprehended. If St. Justin Martyr’s comments on the Godhead tend to have a subordinationist ring to them, it doesn’t mean that St. Justin Martyr didn’t believe in the Trinity. It may just mean that St. Justin Martyr didn’t have the understanding of the Trinity that we (or the Fathers of the Council of Nicea) have.
The evidence for Catholic Teaching are present in both Scripture and the Church Fathers. One must do a bit of investigative work to find it. In regards to Marian devotion, however, I would point out that such was not an issue during the first century. Before Novatius in the fifth century, no one had really questioned the status of the Virgin Mary. The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) was one of the first to deal with the status of the Virgin Mary. So, again, for my co-worker John to expect the Christians of the first century to have addressed issues regarding the status of the Virgin Mary is unfair; and it is lacking in historical knowledge.
Until the fifth century, no one had questioned the status of the Virgin Mary. So there was no need to address the issue. The Church has never addressed an issue until it became necessary. Until someone questioned the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Church just assumed that the faithful knew and understood the Church’s position. If we are looking for explicit statements for all of our beliefs as Christians, then we will hold few beliefs.
If you wish to learn more about the Church Fathers and the development of doctrine I would recommend reading Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly. I recommend this work in part because it is a good exposition of the development of Christian doctrines in the Early Church. I also recommend it because J.N.D. Kelly was not a Catholic, but a Protestant. Even more shocking is that he actually backs up some of what the Catholic Church teaches! Happy reading, my friends!
Peace in Christ,
David J. Pollard
President
American Catholic Solidarity

Pope Francis and Our “Small-minded Rules”

Boy, what is with the mainstream media? They just can not accept that our current Pope, Francis, isn’t going to change the Church’s Teachings. Oh, sure, Pope Francis is considering allowing married priests; but that is a discipline, not a teaching. There is nothing in Scripture which indicates priests must be celibate. Heck, the first pope was married! True, St. Paul says that it is better to be celibate than married, but both St. Paul and Jesus are clear that not all are called to such a lifestyle. So, Pope Francis changing the rule on clerical celibacy is not really a big deal.
Then we have the “ultra-conservative” Catholics who think that everything Pope Francis says is heretical. They see him as a liberal, and they believe-like the mainstream media-that Pope Francis is trying to change Church Teaching. The only difference between the mainstream media and the “ultra-conservatives” is that the mainstream media sees the perceived changes Pope Francis is making to Church Teaching as a good thing. The Catholic Church is “catching up with the times”. We’re becoming progressive. The “ultra-conservatives” see this as a bad thing. But is Pope Francis really changing Church Teaching?
The simple answer is no. Pope Francis has yet to change a single teaching of the Catholic Church, and he will not. Just look at the man’s past history. Pope Francis is no heretic. Actually, he has spent his whole life defending Church Teaching. In any case, we have Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell will not “prevail” against the Church. Hence, the Church must always teach truth. We also know the Roman Pontiff has a special protection of the Holy Spirit. Throughout 2000 of Catholic history, no pope has ever taught error when acting as head of the Church; speaking on faith and morals; and speaking ex cathedra.
People really need to take a deep breath and a step back, and then carefully examine what Pope Francis is saying. He didn’t say that priests who practice their homosexuality are not committing a grievous sin. What Pope Francis was saying was that we can not judge a priest just because he may struggle with same-sex attraction. Everyone struggles with something. Some people struggle with addiction to drugs or alcohol. Some struggle with a heterosexual addiction to sex. Some (like me) struggle with their temper. We can not judge people for struggling with certain temptations. After all, temptations aren’t sins. Willfully giving into them is.
Pope Francis did not say that abortion, same-sex marriage, or artificial contraceptives were now acceptable. What Pope Francis was saying is that these are not the only issues that the Church and its members must address. Sometimes people spend too much time on these topics; as if they’re the only ones that matter. Sure, abortion is one of the most heinous sins, but we must realize that we can not spend all of our time combatting this issue alone. There are many issues that require our attention.
Pope Francis also said that we can not be too fixated on “small-minded rules”. He wasn’t saying opposition to abortion, or excommunicating supporters of abortion is “small-minded”. He was making it clear that some Catholics get too wrapped up in small issues. Let’s have an example.
I know a lot of Catholics who get irritated when they see priests and laypeople holding hands during the Our Father. It is true that the Rubrics don’t explicitly forbid the holding of hands during the Our Father, but one gets the since in reading the Rubrics that such isn’t really supposed to take place. Yet, this is a small issue. It does not make or break us. If people hold hands during the Our Father it will have absolutely no effect on the truth of Catholicism. It is a “small-minded rule” that we really don’t need to focus on.
Pope Francis is really just trying to refocus Catholics. We need to loosen our grip a little on legalism, and focus on the things that really matter. Like G.K. Chesterton, we need to get to the heart of matters. We need to reacquire a wholistic view of humanity’s problems. Yes, contraceptives, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. are very big problems. But, as Pope Francis reminded us today, there are other issues. Money is the root of all that kills. Many of our problems stem from a too great concern for money.
Think about it. Many women get abortions because they don’t want children. Why don’t they want children? Maybe they want more time to work on their career. Maybe they aren’t “financially ready” (as if there is such a thing when it comes to children). Some women and men don’t want children because they don’t want the responsibility, or they simply want the time for themselves. If you think about it, money is often at the heart of all these excuses.
That is all Pope Francis is doing. He is trying to get Catholics to refocus. Remember, humanity has many problems. We must solve all of them, not just some. In this world of consumerism, waste, and greed, people need to remember that the oppression of the poor is becoming worse, not better. This is all Pope Francis is saying.
So, everyone calm down. Everything is going to be fine. At the end of the day, at the core, we still be the same old Church. Under Pope Francis, however, we will simply be a bit more vibrant, and a bit more wholistic in our approach to our fellow man and to sin.
Peace in Christ,
David J. Pollard
President
American Catholic Solidarity

Being Biased

It’s one of the most common accusations leveled against an opponent. When you’re against the ropes and you can find no satisfactory response you can just play the “biased card”. What does your opponent know? Of course they disagree with you! They were raised to believe what they do. They were taught to believe as they do. No one wants to admit they’re wrong. In other words, they’re biased!
It is the classic cop out. You can’t stand up intellectually, so you simply dismiss everything your opponent says by attributing their stance to bias. But is being biased always a bad thing? Is there truly anyone in this world who isn’t biased? Everyone seems to have this view that atheists are unbiased. It might seem to be a logical opinion, at first. After all, atheists don’t believe in any deity of any kind. Therefore, in a debate between theists, atheists, it is reasoned, can give an outsiders (and, by implication, unbiased) opinion. This is an odd view to hold.
Atheists are not unbiased. True, they don’t favor one theistic religion over another, so they might be able to fairly determine that one religion is more convincing than another. Yet, no atheist is truly unbiased. Perhaps they had a negative experience with a certain theistic group. This might bias the atheist against that group. The fact is, however, that the atheist will be biased against all theistic groups; precisely because he is an atheist. Atheists do not believe in any god, hence, atheists will have the tendency to be biased against all theistic groups.
Everyone in this world is biased in one way or another. Whether you’re biased against other faiths, races, nationalities, sexes, or football teams. (Being a huge Notre Dame fan, I am biased against all teams that are not the Fighting Irish. Especially if that team is the USC Trojans!) The only question is this: Are you biased for the truth, against the truth, or simply against other opinions?
Not all issues are truth vs. falsehood. Some issues are purely opinion issues. I think the Fighting Irish have the most tradition-laden college football program in the country. I could be wrong (though I doubt it), but such is only my opinion. If I’m wrong it really doesn’t matter. If Notre Dame does not have the most tradition-laden program in college football it will not affect my salvation, or destiny, or whatever.
Religion, however, is not an opinion-based issue. Religion attempts to answer the most fundamental questions of mankind. What is the purpose of our existence? How did we get here? Is there a life after death? There are many questions that we want answered, and that religion attempts to answer.
You may or may not think that religion can answer these questions. You also may not believe-as we do-that the Catholic Faith is the only one that can answer all of these questions satisfactorily. That is not the point we are discussing here. What we are trying to determine here is if being biased is always a negative thing. Allow me to answer this as simply as possible.
Being biased can be bad, neutral, or good. If you are biased toward an opinion, then being biased may be neutral. Who really cares whether everyone agrees that Notre Dame has the richest tradition in college football, or not? An opposing opinion here does not really affect anyone. Therefore, this is an opinion issue. My bias on this issue is neutral.
Being biased on an issue of truth can be either good or bad. Since we have already mentioned atheism, let us continue with this example. If one is an atheist, it is only natural that he be biased in favor of atheism, and against all sorts of theism. Yet, if it is true God exists (an issue we are not concerned to debate here), then it is a bad thing for the atheist to be biased against theism. Since no entity can simultaneously exist and not exist, one or the other position must be true. God can not exist for one person, but not exist for another. He either exists, or He doesn’t. If God exists, then to be biased against theism is a bad thing.
Now, if God exists, it can be good to be biased in favor of this truth; precisely because it is true. Yet, one should not be biased in favor of truth blindly. In other words, one should not believe in God simply because his parents told him God exists. To be blindly biased-even in favor of the truth-is a bad thing. You believe what is true without really knowing why, and without truly knowing if what you believe is true. That is never a good thing. Your salvation may not be in jeopardy for blindly believing in the existence of God, but God certainly expects all of us to search for truth. To search for truth requires research. This research will provide us with knowledge. Therefore, our decision will then not be a blind one. It may not be the correct one, but it will not be a blind decision.
To accuse me of being biased does not offend me. First of all, if accusing me of being biased is the best argument you have, then you have nothing. Your argument simply proves not so much that I am biased, but that you are not knowledgeable enough on the issue to make a counterpoint. Besides, even if I am biased, it proves nothing. I could be biased towards the truth. It is on you to prove that what I believe is not true. If what I believe is true, then I am more than happy to be biased. Everyone is biased in one way or another. If I must be biased, I would prefer to biased toward the truth, and against error.
So the next time someone accuses you of being biased, don’t get angry. Just thank your opponent for the compliment. After all, for Catholics, it’s not about winning the debate. It’s about bringing souls to Christ. The best way to do this is to show them the truth that can only be found in its fullness in the Catholic Church.
Peace in Christ,
David J. Pollard
President
American Catholic Solidarity

Our Long Hiatus

I want to write to apologize to everyone that we have not had a blog post in a while. I have been struggling mightily lately with my asthma. It still isn’t really under control, but I am doing better. You know what isn’t doing better, though? Our country!
Secretary of State John Kerry was speaking to the media a couple of weeks ago about the situation in Syria. In the course of the interview Secretary Kerry was asked if there was any way Syria could avoid a military strike from the U.S. Kerry replied that Bashar al-Assad would have to give up all of Syria’s chemical weapons. When asked if this was a serious offer, Sec. Kerry said that such an offer was unrealistic. We all know that Assad isn’t going to give up his weapons, right? Well, unexpectedly, Sec. Kerry stumbled on a non-aggressive solution. Assad announced that he would take Kerry up on his offer. So, now, it looks as if Syria will be giving up their chemical weapons, and a military strike shouldn’t be required.
Yet, all is not as it seems. While President Obama’s administration is so confident that Assad’s regime was responsible for the chemical attack on its own people, our intelligence community isn’t as confident. The U.S. intelligence community has announced that it does not have indisputable proof that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack. In fact, the intelligence community has been clear that it is possible that the rebels were the ones responsible for the attack! Yet, does that really make a difference?
Why does it matter who is responsible for the chemical attack in Syria? The fact is that the rebels in Syria are a minority. They may be a large minority, but a minority they are. If we really support democracy-as Obama claims-then why don’t we back Assad? It seems he is the one with the support of the majority. Still, ignoring this, there are other reasons not to support the rebels in Syria.
It is no secret that the rebels are Radical Muslims who have executed numerous innocent people in Syria simply because they were Christians. Now let us assume that Assad is the one behind the chemical attack in Syria. Does that man we should support the rebels? Assad protects the Christian population in Syria from persecution. In the northern portion of Syria, where the rebels are in control, persecution of Christians abounds. I can assure you that if the rebels had chemical weapons, they would use them. All the signs supporting this view are there. So I ask: Why should strike Assad’s regime?
Assad may not be a great guy, but the rebels are certainly no better. In fact, they may be worse! The United States should keep out of Syria. The violence is reprehensible, but we have no business getting involved. The U.S. is not the world’s police force. The Syrian people must resolve their own problems. We can not afford to get involved. ACS encourages everyone to let our leaders know that we the people do not want the U.S. to get involved in Syria in any way whatsoever. Make your voices heard! The U.S. must stay out of Syria!
Peace in Christ,
David J. Pollard
President
American Catholic Solidarity