Apologetics for the Masses #221 - The Pope Said What? (Part 2)

How to Be Added to or Removed From This list

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page.  If you would like to be removed from this newsletter list, click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe and then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe."  Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,

As a reminder, here are some upcoming speaking engagements: I'll be in New Orleans October 1-3 hosting the on-air pledge drive for Catholic Community Radio - WQNO 690 AM in New Orleans and 1380 AM WPYR in Baton Rouge.  If you're in those areas listen in and give us a call.  If you're in the Birmingham area, I'll be manning the "Catholic Myth Busters" booth at the Holy Infant of Prague Octoberfest on Saturday, October 12th, from 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM, so come on by and enjoy the festivities and visit our booth.  Also, I'll be in Wilmington, NC on October 25/26 (more details on this in a future email), and then in Tyler, TX on Saturday, November 9th, for the Fullness of Truth Conference.  If you're in either of those areas, please plan on coming out...I'd love to have you come by and say hello.

Introduction

This is part 2 of what I started last week - "The Pope Said What?"  I had a reader send in an email that was sent to her by someone who was slamming the Pope for what he wrote in an Italian newspaper - in response to an atheist - a couple of weeks ago.  Unfortunately, the guy did not actually read what the Pope wrote, and was taking the word of some article that was reporting on what the Pope wrote.  And, unfortunately, the article got what the Pope wrote wrong.  It even had quotes of what the Pope wrote, that were not actually part of what he wrote.  In other words, the writer of that article didn't even read what the Pope wrote. 

And, I just have to say, I've had a number of emails from upset Catholics about what the Pope wrote.  Each and every time I asked them if they had actually read what the Pope had written.  Each and every time they said, "No."  Folks, before you think the Pope has gone off the deep end or is trying to change Catholic teaching, read what he actually writes or says!  I guarantee you it is different from what the media reports.  Guaranteed!  If you want to get upset about what he actually said, go right ahead - but I can tell you that I have read what he said and there is nothing there that is contrary to the Catholic Faith in it.  So remember, Rule #1, never take the media's word for it.

Okay, this conversation with this guy is getting a little convoluted, so I hope you will forgive me for that, but I'm going to have at it anyway.  I am going to put his original comments paragraph by paragraph, then follow it with my original response to each paragraph, then his response, then my 2nd response - all clearly labeled as such.  Basically, I'm reprinting last week's newsletter and adding his 2nd round of comments followed by my 2nd round of comments.  So, the first two paragraphs in each section will sound familiar if you read last week's newsletter, the 3rd and 4th paragraphs in each section will be new. 

This will be the last I say on this because even if this guy responds, it will be too much trouble to put it into this newsletter in a format that could be easily followed. 

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 1

Wouldn't you prefer to have a Pope (or Church leader in general, not to cast blame) who is more concerned with reading the Bible than reading opinion polls?  I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that your holy father is focused on furthering the message of Christ.  Is it really that much to ask that he deliver a message of REAL love, as Jesus did, by warning atheists and agnostics about the state of their souls and showing the incredible grace that has been offered to solve that problem?  I'm also having a very difficult time accepting that BELIEVING catholics (like you, right?) have no problem with the idea that obeying one's conscience is how God truly forgives, and that sin is when one goes against his conscience??  I'm not interested in the fluff or commentary of this or other articles, please understand - just a focus on what the Pope himself said - how is that not SO far off the mark that you don't take a hint of issue with it? (I'm hoping you do, but my guess is that you'll be disgusted with me for even mentioning it, like I'm somehow on the attack!)

My Comments - Round 1

You asked me to respond “LOGICALLY” and “not emotionally;” so I will endeavor to do so.  Although, I believe if you will honestly look over what you wrote - it was much more emotional than it was logical.  But that’s okay, as I took no offense and I've done the same to you before too.

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 2

An honest question from an emotional response is what I asked you - I didn't claim that my question wasn't emotional, just asked that you might be willing to provide a logical answer that could steer me away from emotion (I'm passionate about my faith, I've never made claim to forever distance myself from that).

My Comments - Round 2

Fair enough.  I, too, am passionate about my faith.  I have attempted to answer your questions logically, so I will request that you do the same in response to my questions.
 

My Comments - Round 1

Regarding what you consider “a message of REAL love,” I must first ask if you actually read the entirety of Pope’s response to that atheist?  He talked about faith in Christ, about the love of God for mankind, of the relationship of Jesus with the Father, a relationship that we can share in, which is why Christianity is so unique, the atonement accomplished by Christ’s death, and other such things.  I don’t understand how you can say these are not messages of “REAL love?” Did Jesus simply walk about all the time telling people they were going to Hell if they did not believe in Him?

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 2

More than you might be comfortable admitting, in fact.  Remember what John the Baptist's message was "make straight the way of the Lord?"  John said, "repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."  Mark 1:14-15 lays out exactly what the summation of Jesus' preaching was to be about - "Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." Sounds like a warning?  It is one.  Realize that for every time we have recorded Jesus speaking, of that speech 18% directly mentioned hell.  That's more than twice as much as He spoke about heaven.  Might not sound like much, perhaps, but given all the topics that Jesus did cover in the gospels it's an extraordinarily large proportion.  The message from Jesus is remarkably clear:  He is God, and He is the foretold solution to man's separation from God for all eternity (and yes, that includes hell).  What would Jesus (not me) consider REAL love?  He says exactly what that is - John 3:16.  (and there He refers to hell, doesn't he?)

My Comments - Round 2

So, if Jesus spoke about Hell 18% of the time (which I will accept for the sake of argument), then that means He did not speak about Hell 82% of the time, correct?  So, why do you take issue with the Pope when he does not speak of Hell in this particular letter when Jesus did not speak of Hell in 82% of the Gospels?

Furthermore, you did not answer my question.  In the Pope’s letter, he spoke of a personal relationship with Christ, he spoke of faith, he spoke of God’s love for all men, he spoke of Jesus’ atonement for our sins, and other such things.  Are these messages of “REAL love?”  Yes or no?

Also, let’s ask the question: What does Jesus consider “REAL” love?  Well, why don’t we look at the examples of love that Jesus Himself mentions and see?  For example, how did the woman in Luke 7:36-50 show Jesus great love?  Was it by talking about Hell?  How did the father show his love for the Prodigal Son upon his return?  By talking to him about Hell?  How did the Good Samaritan show his love for the man beaten by robbers?  By talking to him about Hell?  These are all examples of love given to us by the Christ Himself!  I don’t mean to be too harsh on you, but let me give just a few more examples: How did Jesus show His love for His disciples at the Last Supper?  By talking to them about Hell, or by washing their feet?  And, what was the greatest example of Jesus’ love for all of mankind?  When He talked of Hell, or when He died on the Cross?  Yes, it is an act of love to warn someone of the consequences of their way of living and lack of faith and so on...but it is also an act of love to try to build a relationship with a person so that you can get to the point of being able to say something like that to them and they will know you are doing it out of love, rather than hate.  It’s both-and, not either-or.
 

My Comments - Round 1
Also, regarding this thing you wrote about obeying one’s conscience is “how God truly forgives,” again, this makes me think you did not read the entire message of the Pope, did you? If you had, you would have noticed that nowhere does the Pope’s message say such a thing.  The Pope said, “God’s mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart.”  Implicit in that statement is that a person who asks God for His mercy necessarily has to believe in God!  Why ask God for mercy if you don’t believe in God?  In other words, the Pope was saying that if those who do not believe are contrite for their sins and ask God for His mercy, they, too, can be forgiven.  Do you deny that?

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 2

Couple things - one, I didn't read the letter from the Pope, nor did I say that I did or would - I have no intention of doing that.  You, perhaps, didn't read the link that I included to the article (that I did read) and what you're going after me for here is actually what is quoted there as words directly from the Pope.  No spin, no paraphrasing.  You'd have to consider me a fool to just go with what the author was stating, I didn't - I was ONLY referring to the quoted text.  If that's misquoted, then you should spend your energy attacking the author, not me.  I posed a thoughtful question (set of questions - directly to you and not publicly) from quoted text that I'm guessing now you never actually read yourself, but interestingly your anger is all at me.  None of what you mention above deals with what I brought up - its just a counter offensive with no answer.  If the Pope was misquoted, then why would I bother any of the rest of this?  The article says the Pope's own words are: "God forgives those who obey their conscience" - my argument is with that alone.

My Comments - Round 2

"If the Pope was misquoted, then why would I bother any of the rest of this?"  Why indeed?  But, how would you know if the Pope was misquoted or not since you refuse to read what he actually said?  One way or the other, you are taking the author's word for it.  It should have been obvious to you that I had read the Pope's article, since I was quoting directly from it.  The Pope was indeed misquoted in that article - the words in quotes were nowhere among the words that he actually spoke, or wrote.  Which is why I have repeatedly told you that the Pope nowhere said such a thing.  I find it interesting that you accuse me of not reading the link you sent, when I did indeed read the article at that link; yet, you have not read what the Pope said.  Just as you did not actually read what the Pope said, apparently neither did the writer of that article.  Which means you have gotten all worked up over, and have verbally attacked the Pope and all of Catholicism over, something the Pope never said.  Is that being a “fool?” Well, that’s your word not mine.  Is it being grossly unfair and uncharitable to accuse someone of something when you have not actually read what they actually said and in its proper context?  Well, with all due respect, but I believe it is.  You owe the Pope an apology and you owe the Catholic Church an apology.

And, no, I should not spend my energy attacking the author for misquoting the Pope - I don’t know the author and do not know if he purports to be a Christian or not.  You, however, I do know and you do purport to be a Christian.  I expect more from a professing Christian.  Do you want God to judge you in the same manner you have judged the Pope and all of Catholicism?  I ask you, does a Christian have an obligation to check their sources before they start accusing others of being un-Christian...yes or no?

Furthermore, everything I brought up of what the Pope said was indeed relevant because you were accusing him of not showing this atheist the love of God; yet, his whole letter was about the love of God. You were relying on one or two quotes, from what is now proven to be a dubious source, to decide on the whole of the Pope’s message.  Even if those were accurate quotes, which they were not, you had absolutely no context within which to judge them.  Is that fair?  Here, how about this: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel...It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”  Hmm, seems as if Jesus only came for the Jews, right?  I mean, that is a direct quote from the Bible.  Is relying on a quote with absolutely no context being a “fool,” well, again, that’s your word, not mine.

 

My Comments - Round 1

Furthermore, what you wrote about conscience is directly contrary to the Scriptures.  This idea that not obeying your conscience is a sin, is right there in Romans 14:14.  Rom 14:14, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean.”  So, it is not objectively a sin to eat any type of food, because no food is  unclean, right?  Yet, Paul says that if one thinks a food unclean - in other words, his conscience tells him so - then, for that person, it is a sin to eat that food.  That is in the Bible.  So, the Pope was simply repeating a scriptural principle.

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 2

You're going off the reservation a bit - you're right that Romans 14 is about the conscience and is about sin, but it's referring to Christian freedom (that which is not inherently sinful, following one's own judgment within that parameter).  Should I choose a red car or a blue car?  Neither is actually sinful, God gives you the freedom to choose what you like in this case.  But if you felt somehow compelled by conscience that red represented evil and chose the red car against your better judgment (or, more directly related to the context of Romans 14, pushed someone else who believed such a thing to buy a red car) then that is what Paul is referring to as sinful.  This doesn't deal at all with what IS foundationally sinful and the Pope is NOT repeating a Scriptural principle if he says "God forgives those who obey their conscience."  This should be obvious.  Your conscience is NOT the basis for God's forgiveness, Ann, because the conscience is subjective.  There was only one man with a perfect conscience - and that was Christ himself - that's why he's the standard and not us.  Again, if that's a misquote, you need to direct your anger at the author, not me - my dispute is with the quote.

My Comments - Round 2

Well, you just spent a lot of words agreeing with what I said about Scripture and conscience.  And, again, your argument about the Pope is absolutely moot because the Pope did not say, “God forgives those who obey their conscience.” 

 

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 1

I think in fairness, I'm trying really hard to see what I haven't seen and learn what I haven't learned about catholicism - with the deep down hope of inclusion within the fold of Christ's Body - but Ann, there is honestly no way I can have any of my atheist or agnostic friends thinking that a message like this from the Pope (his words, no spin!) is a biblical one - it's not even close.  How do I call catholicism "Christianity" when its message is straying farther away from what Christ's was and no one within catholicism will take issue with that?

My Comments - Round 1

Actually, in all fairness, they were not his words...it's called “spin.”  How do you call Catholicism “Christianity?”  Well, my first question is, who are you to define what is and is not Christianity?  Could you please tell me what authority has endowed you with such power and authority?  Not meaning to be disrespectful here, but this is a real question: By what authority do you determine what is and is not Christianity?  I would like an honest answer to that.

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 2

Actually, in perfect fairness, they ARE his words - no spin.  There is no spin on direct quotation, which is why that is the only thing I focused on with my question(s) to you.  Questions, I might add, to this point, you have gone out of your way to avoid actually answering - if I'm an honest catholic seeker is this how you treat me?  Look, you've gone after me time after time with this same gimmick - the "Pope Jason, church of Jason" technique and not only does it not work, but doesn't even further your argument.  My authority is not me, its Scripture.  Interpreted by me (with prayerful need of the guidance of the Holy Spirit) and the help of other minds who have studied this text thoroughly (which can include catholic minds, by the way).  Literal-historical interpretation based on the Alexandrian model which dates back to the early second century - not the allegorical model of catholicism, I'll admit.  Tradition is of a worthy historical input - it is NOT authoritative on the same level (or anywhere near, really) as Scripture.  Honestly, I'd wish you'd stop focusing all of your anger on me - your problem isn't with me or my authority (I've admitted every time you do this that I don't have any authority) - its with the Bible itself.  That's honesty.  How does someone who claims no authority declare what is and is not Christianity - in the case of what the Pope wrote, I don't have to look any farther than Galatians 1.

My Comments - Round 2

"Actually, in perfect fairness, they ARE [NOT] his words."  You have admitted that you have not read what the Pope actually said, so any comment of yours about what the Pope said is null and void.  And, no, my problem is not with the Bible, it is with your private, fallible, man-made interpretation of the Bible.  You admit that you have no authority, yet you authoritatively pronounce what the Bible means and that the Catholic Church and the Pope teach things contrary to the Bible.  Yet, in actuality, we teach things that are not contrary to the Bible, but contrary to your fallible interpretation of the Bible.  But, you don't like that, do you?

 

My Comments - Round 1

Again, same question: By what authority do you declare some teaching of the Catholic Church to be "FUNDAMENTALLY opposed" to the Bible?  Do you understand Catholic teaching so well, and understand the Bible so well, that you can infallibly declare such things?

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 2

Again, Galatians 1 - these quotes deliver a different gospel - you'll have to understand here that I don't undergo the same process you do when it comes to doctrinal interpretation.  I read the Bible, and judge all things by its Word.  You read the Bible (presumably) and Tradition and try to make the two fit together happily - namely, hermeneutics of continuity (that's from catholicism, not me, just so we're clear!)

My Comments - Round 2

Once again, those were not the Pope’s exact words.  You could have saved yourself, and me, a whole lot of time and effort if you had done what you should have done in the first place - read what the man actually said.  And, I find it quite humorous that you have a problem with me not reading what you sent me - even though I did actually read it - but no problem with the fact that you did not read what the Pope said.  And, not only did you not read what the Pope said, but you refuse to do so.  So, you are begging me not to accuse you of something when you think I haven't read what you sent me; yet, you have no problem of accusing the Pope when you haven't read, and refuse to read, what he wrote.  I don't mean to be too harsh with you, but this kind of hypocrisy is why it is "so extremely unpleasant to interact with you regarding theological issues like these."

 

My Comments - Round 1

Now, for my 3 questions:

1) I’ve already asked this, but I’ll formalize it here: By what authority do you declare any teaching of the Catholic Church to be contrary to Scripture?

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 2

you've asked and I've answered (dozens of times, actually, but in this email you can see above)

My Comments - Round 2

Just so I’m clear, as I do not want to misrepresent what you are saying - Christians should always try not to misrepresent what others say, don’t you think? - you claim the authority of  Scripture is behind you?  If that is indeed the case, then may I ask where your name appears in Scripture that I should believe your interpretation of God’s Word vs. my interpretation of God’s Word?  Do you have any authority to proclaim what the Catholic Church teaches as being false - yes or no?  If so, what authority is that and who gave it to you?  Do you have some authority to interpret Scripture that I do not have?

 

My Comments - Round 1
2) Are you infallible in your interpretation of Scripture?  In other words, could you be wrong when you interpret Scripture?

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 2

absolutely.  I've never claimed otherwise.  Inherent in this is the fact that I am a mind corrupted with sinful imperfection - as is EVERYONE who interprets Scripture (and that includes everyone within catholicism and its magisterium, too).  Scripture does not convict me otherwise and you have repeatedly failed to show me that it should.

My Comments - Round 2

Okay, now you have admitted that your interpretations of Scripture could be wrong.  Thank you so much, as that should clear up a lot of this, if we can be logical about it.  So, let’s be logical about this, shall we?  You claim the Bible is your authority, yet you claim you could be wrong, yet, you claim the Bible is never wrong.  Logic dictates then, that the Bible cannot be your authority if you could be wrong in your interpretation of the Bible, but the Bible is never wrong.  So, we have a situation where either the Bible is not your authority, or the Bible could be wrong - which is it?  I’m trying to make you recognize, that the Bible is not your authority - the only authority you answer to is your own private, fallible interpretation of the Bible; i.e., you are your own authority.

My Comments - Round 1

3) Who wrote the Gospel of Mark, and how do you know?  Does Scripture tell you?  If not, what authority do you rely on for your belief that Mark wrote Mark and that he was inspired by God in doing so?

Non-Catholic Comments - Round 2

I didn't say that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark (you did) - as best we know he did, most likely text scribed from the mouth of Peter (Mark was one of his disciples, Peter was most likely illiterate in Greek as a fisherman by trade).  Let me for the sake of time skip a few chess moves on you, OK?  This is distraction, and you know it is.  Clever catholic reliance, but not very effective.  Whether the autograph copy was originally by Mark or someone else won't change its authority.  How do I know?  For one, we have no idea (and neither does catholicism, by the way) who wrote the book of Hebrews - never have.  Does that mean it has no authority to you, Ann?  I think I know you well enough to answer for you that you do believe in the authority of words of Hebrews despite its lack of known author.  Let me take one completely outside of catholic grasp for you, just so we don't return to this - who wrote Ezra?  Who wrote Ruth?  Who wrote Judges?  Do you believe the authority for any of those is in question if you can't prove who wrote them?  I'm not trying to sound irritated, Ann, but seriously?  That is so far away from what I brought up its like what I asked DOESN'T EVEN REMOTELY MATTER TO YOU.  I can't tell if its that the subject doesn't matter, or I don't matter...or both.  You're just back to gimmicks, its always just the same little jabs and attempts to trip someone up with little tricks and one liners - you don't even WANT to have discussion anymore.

My Comments - Round 2

You are correct when you say that what you asked “DOESN’T EVEN REMOTELY MATTER TO [ME]” because what you asked was based on a falsehood.  And, quite frankly, I find it shocking that you so easily damn the Pope and all of Catholicism based on an internet article while casually saying you have no intention to read what the Pope actually said.  Furthermore, this exercise regarding the writer of Mark is, in fact, relevant to all of this discussion.  Because this discussion has been based, 100%, on you believing you have the authority to decide what is right and what is wrong for all Christians.  So, since you believe you have the authority to decide what is and is not authentic Christianity, you thereby grant yourself the authority to tell the Pope he is wrong and to tell all of Catholicism that it is wrong.  You believe you have the authority to decide that Catholicism is far from being Christian.  It’s all about you and the authority you believe you have to decide, in effect, what is or is not Christian.  Well, again, who gave you such authority?

So, this exercise about Mark, or about Hebrews, or any other book of the Bible is an exercise to demonstrate that you believe these books to be the inerrant, inspired, infallible Word of God, yet you indirectly admit that you haven’t the slightest clue as to why you believe that.  The answers to my questions to you are not in the Bible, are they?  Yet, you say you go by the Bible alone for your decisions about things Christian.  So, if the Bible isn’t telling you that Mark wrote Mark and that Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit, whose witness are you relying on for this belief?  What “Tradition” are you relying on for this belief?  No, it can't be a tradition you rely on, can it?  After all, you've established that tradition is a bad thing, right?  However, logic tells us that you have to be relying on some authority outside of the Bible in order to have the Bible in the first place.  What authority was that?  Can you tell me?  Do you know?  Have you ever even thought about that? 

Strategy

Ask questions.  Ask the same question over and over again until you get an answer.  I do a lot of explaining in things like this that I ordinarily might not do if it was just the other guy and me, with no one reading over my shoulder.  I would probably write about half as much and focus more pointedly on the questions I ask if this was not going into a newsletter. So, read this over and use what I've said in your own "dialogues" with non-Catholics.  The Catholic response can be basically the same no matter what issue you are talking about, because every issue ultimately comes down to a question of authority.  Whose authority do we go by...the "authority" of a person privately and fallibly interpreting Scripture on their own, or the authority of the Church founded by Jesus Christ which is the pillar and ground of the truth?  (Hmmm...I'll have to think about that one.)

And, all of this is a perfect example of what happens when one either doesn't read what is actually written (and this goes for the Bible as well as for what the Pope says), or one takes it out of context (which is what all of the mainstream media does in regard to the Pope's words). 

Summary

I hope all of you have a great week.  Roll Tide!

Share this newsletter on: