Evolution and the Theory of Evolution

I want to speak about the theory of evolution in the main, here, and the fact that it can be recognized as a viable creationist theory... mostly because people keep asking me to do so. The whole purpose for doing so is that in the land of fundamentalism, Protestantism, and Puritanical fearmongering, a.k.a. the United States of America, the word (evolution) has become anathema, even amongst Catholics and the Orthodox. Further, any benefit that Christians of every stripe might have gained from peering into the mysteries of evolution is corban (given to God), and if that is so, what benefit could possibly be gotten by taking up the query again since it has been laid at the foot of faith? They would take St. Thomas Aquinas out of context and use him as a buckler and say,"To one who has faith, no explanation (of creation) is necessary. To the one without faith, no explanation is possible (about how God did it)." Just let it roll. Stand your ground! Don't be ashamed to insist upon a literal translation of what the bible says in Genesis (because that is the same as taking the rest of it literally, right?)! It is the word of God! Well, I would suggest the exact opposite of that nonsense.

So, first things first. I want to give you a few quotes that are not out of context from dear St. Thomas Aquinas. Now, understand that I am not trying to prove evolution on St. Thomas' authority. I'm not making an ad verecundiam argument for, not by any means. But hear what he has to say," The truth of our faith becomes a matter of RIDICULE among the infidels (NON-BELIEVER) if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false." Well, what does that sound like? It's awfully familiar isn't it? That sounds exactly like the environment in America, doesn't it? And when the creationist gets ridiculed for his rejection of scientific fact, and for his hackneyed offerings he learned from one of the so-called 'Christian' pseudo-scientists, who is really often a sophist, he reckons himself a martyr. It truly is a cause for ridicule. It's sad, verging on pathetic.

Here's another quote from St. Thomas Aquinas," Beware the person of one book." That's rather ominous. Who does that sound like? It sounds precisely like the people who have fomented the divide between science and Christianity. It sounds like the children of the man who said," Reason is the enemy of faith." Martin Luther said that. In the recent years many Americans have given themselves to hating Islam, because Islam is unreasonable. Why is it unreasonable? Because they are a people of one book, a divine book, an eternal book: The Quran. When the Muslim looks at his life, or at the world, or the lives of others, and what he ought to do and believe his question is one," What does the Quran say?" or more exactly," What do I interpret the Quran to be telling me?" Do you know what the American Christian often says to himself, or herself, inflated with their individualism, intimidated by the authority of puritanical fundamentalism," What does the Bible say?" or more exactly," What do I interpret the Bible to be telling me?"

Understand this: Fundamentalism is the enemy of humanity. Man is a rational animal. Without reason he is merely an animal. His reason is part of the image of God in which he was created. His reason gives him dignity. Without it he cannot live. Man does not have claws, or fur, or a powerful sense of smell, nor does he have any peculiar strength, to survive by. It is reason by which man lives and thrives. Man literally could not survive without reason. So, isn't it a sign of the diabolical when the highest expression of man's dignity, his faith, excludes what makes him a man? Let me say that better: Isn't it evil if someone's religion destroys their humanity? And I'm not talking about holy mortification. I'm talking about a fundamental negation and ban on the exercise of what gives dignity to the hand-crafted creation, the only hand-crafted creation, which is man. When the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would bear a child (Jesus), she replied back to him not in doubt, but in wonder (which is the desire for knowledge)," How can this be???" In a fundamentalist religion like Islam, that would be received a bit like this," How dare she! She is a woman! How dare she question the holy angel who is only permitted to speak by the will of Allah!" But in Christianity, true Christianity, her inquisitiveness is honored and recognized as an extension and expression of the dignity God gives humans, and the angel Gabriel gives her the reply she seeks. One is hateful to reason, the other embraces, encourages, and satisfies it. And I bring all this up because the general attitude is something like that there is an inherent impiety about evolutionary science. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So, I want to talk about what evolution is not. It is not a possibility. It is a fact. We know that evolution happened. There is no question. No matter what any creationist snake oil salesman says, no matter if Billy Graham himself objects, we know that evolution happened. We know this with the same degree of certitude that we know we live in a heliocentric universe. We know that evolution happened with the same degree of certitude that we know the moon travels around the earth and not visa versa. It is a scientific fact. And this must be clearly understood. There is positively no question, whatsoever, that evolution is a fact in the teleology of the present. It is as fiduciary as the sunshine.

 What is not scientific fact is exactly how, or why, and sometimes when, evolution occurred. This is the theory. And there is nothing Godless about the theory. Unless you think that a theory that lacks a 'Far Side' character God walking around with a loud speaker calling things into existence and making man out of play-dough  circa 7,000 b.c. The theory of evolution is a forensic effort to put together the pieces of a puzzle 4.5 billion years in the making (the span of life on earth). Sometimes we make mistakes concerning this step or that, and an amendment in the theory is required. The theory of evolution is evolving itself as more comes to light. We've a lot to learn, to discover. It's really not so different from archaeology. All it is, ALL IT IS, is bringing the past to light, and nothing more. It is not some global scientific conspiracy to push God and his followers out of society and off the reservation. And neither is saying that there is no ocean above our heads, or that the world doesn't stand on pillars, which is the opposite of the fundamentalist-creationist assertion which insists upon a literal translation of Genesis. You don't dishonor God or stop being a "real" Christian because you believe in evolution, any more than you would cease to be one for denying that we have oceans over our heads and pillars under our feet.

"So then, apart from the fundamentalist fearmongering, which everyone else does, but not me and my friends/church... what's the problem with evolution? What's the big deal? Because I don't know anyone like you've described." Yeah. Okay, so the big deal is when this otherwise neutral science gets used in a charged way. Because of their intransigently anti-intellectual posture, America Christians have pigeon-holed themselves as idiots. There, I said it. And for a minority like atheists, your opponent is going to be the majority. In America, that means Protestant-Evangelicals. The argument over evolution is the nut-shot, the sucker punch. "Hit'em hard, hit'em fast. Things will get better from there." There is no way to recover from this once employed. There is no way for the traditional creationist to come away from the argument without looking like an idiot when it comes to the empirical. It automatically lumps you into the category of people who believe the earth is flat, or moon landing deniers. That is why the next thing you see in such debates is the Creationist trying to take the moral high-ground. What follows then is the atheist presents the problem of evil, theodicy... which the creationist cannot answer satisfactorily by any means. This leads to equivocation, which gives way to absurd abstraction and analogies being hurled against each other. The creationist starts quoting from the bible, which is like quoting Santa Claus to an Atheist, and therefore an exercise in stupidity. The atheist, starts demanding empirical, quantitative, evidence of God, which is stupid because God is said to be immeasurable, because he is not a creation in space-time. And the lowest common denominator reveals itself... the disagreement over whether or not God really exists. The debate was never about the veracity of evolutionary theory. It turns into a feud between people, who quite frankly deserve each other, and it all gets out of hand really fast.

So, set that aside, because that isn't part of the big deal. All that is mere drama, between two groups of fundamentalists who hate each other. There is really only one thing for a Christian to be on guard about, one question, one assertion: Polygenesis. Poly meaning many, and genesis meaning beginning: Many beginnings. That is the only thing that a Christian cannot budge on, that the human race has one origin: the hand of God. And that man has one set of parents: Adam and Eve. All other things in evolutionary theory may pass, but if any theory arises about humanity having many origins, it cannot be accepted. Well, what luck! because the science states just what the Christian professes to believe. Evolutionary science has narrowed down our beginnings to a single family. How about that! The handiwork of God, which is the evidence evolutionary science looks at, and His word agree. Science and faith in harmony. Who would have guessed it? There is literally no good reason not to believe in evolutionary theory apart from that one person or another might posit that they think polygenesis is viable. But that assertion doesn't make or brake the theory. You can reject that part. But there is absolutely NO reason to reject evolution itself.

I want to go a step further and talk about the difference between form and essence. The essence of man is that he is a rational being with a spiritual soul. When we hear that man is made in the image of God what do we think that means? Do we imagine that God has need of food, or that he grows, or that he needs to relieve himself from time to time, or that he sleeps? By getting offended at the notion our physical forms come from some evolutionary process, because our design comes from God's own image... well it's a thoroughly pagan concept. We are making out God to be like us. On the other hand it is quite the opposite if we speak so about the essence of man. We are merely affirming that man is like God, and not that God is like man.

Interesting to note that God breathes life into the man after his form is made. God is Life, Itself. "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He is Love, Itself. Now, you think about that. If we are willing to concede that  the sky isn't a separation between two oceans, or that the world was made in seven 24 hour days, or that the  dry land isn't standing on pillars, and adopt what science has proven concerning those things, perhaps we can  afford to not be so intransigent on man's origins. There seems no reason at all to not accept that the form of humankind is a kind given by evolution and therefore nature, and therefore by God... and that at a later time when that form had become what He intended it to be He vested it with a spiritual soul. Or where did Cain find his wife? How is it that he was able to found a city, when it was explicit in his curse that he would never settle amongst men (his own kind)? How is it that he was afraid that whomever he should meet would slay him (because he was without a people) unless there were other people? How do we account for the fossil record unless there were others? But the true fact of all of it is that we don't know precisely what happened. What we do know is that the genealogy which begins with Adam does not go back as far as the fossil record does. Further, we know that there is a distinction in evolution between homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens, viz. wise man, vs. wise wise man. It is not a genetic distinction, it is an artifact distinction. It is a distinction made between mans ability to use his problem solving and tool making at one point and another. It's the difference between cavemen, and modern man. It's the difference between man surviving, amongst the animals, and man thriving due to an actualization of his reason.

I want to point out again that it is all a mystery, an unfathomably big story, one that was being told 5,000 years ago. Remember the words of St. Thomas Aquinas," A thing (in this case a story) is received according to the nature of the recipient." How would they receive the literal account? It would be unintelligible. What sort of creation account would make sense to them? Perhaps one like we see in Genesis? It is the job of science to unpack the Genesis account as far as it can be unpacked. That does nothing against faith. For all that, remember the shame the whole Church got because a few anti-intellectual loud mouths denied the heliocentric universe because the bible says in a poetic psalm that the center of the universe is earth. Remember the shame the Church got because a few hotheads destroyed the library of Alexandria. And recall the glory the Church got itself by devising the 'Big-Bang Theory.' And keep in mind that Fideism is a heresy, before you let your proclivity to be loyal to the bible imprudently overpower the actualization of your reason which is your God given dignity. In learning as much as we can about creation, we can understand something about the Creator and His plan for us. And that is a pleasant thought.

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. ~Aristotle~

Protestants, Rabbinical Judaism, and Samaritans

The other day I was talking to an old friend, a Protestant. He had called me with a question that really had him confused," How can Jews reject the Gospel and Jesus Christ when you can show them point by point the cause and effect, the prophecies, and the parallels of Judaism and Christianity? It just seems like bold denial!" I started by pointing out that it's easy to look at it from where you are, but the other side is doing the same thing. When we read Isaiah 53 we see Christ, when Jews read Isaiah 53 they see all kinds of things.

I started talking to him about Church history, and said," As a Christian, it is important for you to not separate the history of the Jews and the Christians. It is one Church history. When you look at the Old Testament you are reading Church history." When the Law was given to Moses the people of God became two classes, the priesthood and the laity. The Levitical priesthood had a specific role to play that no one else could perform, in the way the Hebrews approached God. Of course, anyone could approach God in simply prayer, but the Law was the context of Israel's relationship with God, and it could not be realized without a priesthood.

Early in Israel's history, after they took possession of the 'Promised Land' we see the Judges, we see prophets, we see king David and many other kings, as well. Finally, Israel found itself being chastised by God and was exiled to Babylon. It was during this time without a temple that Rabbinical Judaism was created. Without a temple, the priesthood could do nothing; Israel was left naked with nothing more than its scriptures. The Jews began to look towards their scriptures as the source of life and they became a scripture culture. Private, yet institutionalized interpretation of scripture became the new center of faith. It wasn't the sacrificing in the temple, as before. They couldn't even begin to fulfill the Law, because of their limitations.

I was once at an interfaith dialogue meeting and it was supposed to be civil, but things got a little wild. There were Christians of every denomination there as well as Catholics and Jews. It was hosted by the Beth Israel synagogue in my city, and a few of their congregation were in attendance who seemed bent on quarreling; they were dyspeptic to say the least. They began blasting the speaker, who was a Catholic priest. I think they took the venue to be an apologetics forum, which was not what it was supposed to be at all. They began vehemently attacking the notion that Christ had fulfilled all the commands of the Law, which wasn't even one of the points the speaker was making. In an attempt to simply silence them so that we could get back on track, I said to them," And how do you do it? Do you really think you fulfill the Law by reading your Torah and attending the synagogue?" And the most argumentative one said," But there are in the Midrash interpretations and in the Talmud statutes. If you throw in a 32nd of the challah into the oven on Shabbat this fulfills the sacrifices which the Law demands." or something very similar to it. My quick retort was," Your oven is not the temple, you are not a priest, and that is not in the Law." It became very silent.

But this is a perfect example of the popular Jewish view of their own religion. Their Midrash and their Talmud are equal to the Torah, though they would never admit it, because the Talmud and the Midrash have interpretive powers over the Torah. These two are direct products of Rabbinical Judaism. They are the commentary on and interpretation of the Torah by rabbis going back hundreds and hundreds of years, but they are not the Law. What should come to mind is Christ rebuking the Pharisees," Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Christ did not come condemning the Law or those who follow it. At every point where Christ came into conflict with the Pharisees and the Sadducees it was over the imposition of rabbinical pretexts onto the Law and onto the people of Israel," You lay heavy burdens on men's shoulders and don't lift a finger to help them." But it is important to note that Christ did not condemn all the innovations of the Pharisees, he even said that some of their traditions were beneficial to keeping the Law. It was when the rabbis replaced the Law with their own statutes that Christ came into conflict with them.

Rabbinical Judaism may be seen, I will be so bold as to say that it should be seen, as a fulfillment of God's promise to blind Israel so that it will not see. The fog of merely human interpretation, uninspired interpretation of scripture led to the conflict between Israel and its Messiah. Rabbinical Judaism is perhaps wholly responsible for the inconsistency between what they imagined the Messiah would be and the reality of what the Messiah was, for Israel's inability to recognize it's Savior. It is very hard to imagine that Christ would have suffered a similar fate had he appeared during the time of King David, or during the time of Joshua or any of the Judges. There is a theological disconnect, a philosophical disconnect and a historical disconnect between the Judaism of the Old Testament and the Judaism we see at the time of Christ in the 1st century, just as there are huge disconnects between 1st century Judaism and the Hasidic Judaism of Germany in the 18th century.

Remember that Judaism up until the time of Christ must be viewed teleologically as Church history. Christianity begins the exact same way as Judaism did; there are two visible classes: the priesthood and the laity. Christianity was an apostolic entity from its first inception and remained to be so, exclusively, until 1517. In 1517 Martin Luther began the 'reformation,' so called. You'll remember that the shift from old Judaism to Rabbinical Judaism was the shift from a sacrifice centered form of worship in the temple to a scripture centered form of worship in the synagogue. Originally, they had the scripture so that they could practice the Law, that is to say that scripture was only a means to an end, but they started practicing the Law to appease and accord with the scripture as if it were the end itself. History repeats itself in Christian history at the moment of the reformation. In Martin Luther's own words," Worship used to be addressed to God as a homage. Henceforth, it will be addressed to man to console and enlighten him. The sacrifice (Jesus Christ/ the Eucharist) used to have pride of place but the sermon (biblical interpretation) will supplant it."

For the Protestants, Christianity became something it had never been before. The Church was no longer "the pillar and foundation of the truth" as we read in 1 Timothy 3:15, but the scripture became "the pillar and foundation of truth." Before, Christ,' the True Vine,' had been the source of righteousness in the form of His body and blood in the communion, but now it had changed and the bible was the source of righteousness. A great and terrible confusion occurred in the Protestant mind and the words of God (the bible) and the Word of God (Jesus Christ) became synonymous, and their adoration was misplaced. Before, one apostolic institution, founded by Jesus Christ, had through divine inspiration expounded truth and innovated holy tradition; that institution was the Catholic Church. Now, everyone would interpret for themselves and innovate by themselves. Sola Scriptura was born and with it Protestantism, a "Rabbinical Christianity" if you will.

The Churches of the Apostles are to Christianity what Judaism was during the days of king David, and Protestantism is to Christianity what Judaism was during the time of Christ, and in many ways it is worse off. At least the Jews had sacramentality during the time of Christ; most Protestants, on the other hand, have 'rid' themselves of the priesthood and have reduced the communion to a mere ordinance and a sign, it is no longer reckoned to actually be 'the Sacrifice.' They have no sacramentality, beyond baptism, by their own admittance.

This division is almost certainly a punishment to the Catholic Church as was the 'Great Schism.' But leaving this aside. There is another way to show the difference between the Catholics and Protestants with Scripture, namely with the Samaritans. The Samaritans broke away from Israel and chose to worship the true God in a way that was not permitted by the Law; they chose to worship in the North at their mountain and were cut-off from Israel for their stubbornness.

Often Catholics are confounded and put to shame by the zeal, good works, and piety of Protestants, the very people they esteem to be ignorant of and vicious towards the Churches of the Apostles. They can't figure how they can be so Christlike while so many, if not most Catholics are stagnant, self-centered, and secular. Of course the Protestant is very desirous to answer that question and would say," It's because we are right!" But that is not the case; rather, the Protestant is a sign to the Catholic, just like the 'Good Samaritan' was a sign to all of the Pharisees and Sadducees who listened to Christ tell the parable. The Samaritan put every caste of Israel to shame by his charity, but the value of the parable comes from the irony of the fact that the Samaritan who was wayward, unclean, and cut-off from Israel was a better person than they who were part of the chosen people and yet refused to love their neighbor. Christ uses the Samaritans on more than one occasion to shame the Jews; however, it should be enlightening for us. It was never intended to make Jews want to be Samaritans, rather it was meant to remind Jews of what they were supposed to be.

Christ in his ministry tells his disciples at first to avoid the Samaritan towns. He first sends his disciples to the Jews, because salvation is of the Jews. This happens today with the Catholics and the Protestants, Catholics start doing something, then the Protestants either catch on or get it after the fact. Case in point, the Charismatic movement. The Holy Spirit first gives revelation to the Holy Catholic Church, because salvation flows from the Church and its sacraments which Christ instituted, and then the separated brethren get their graces in an extraordinary way.

The big difference between the Protestants and the Catholics can be demonstrated through the conversation of Christ with the Samaritan woman at the well. She said to him," Sir, I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." to which Christ answered," Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews." The Church is and must be the Church of the Apostles, the same Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ. Salvation is not found outside of the Church. Christ does not have several brides, but one Bride.

Notice that Christ is not telling the woman that she is damned, or that she does not obtain salvation, he is only telling her as a matter of fact that she is ignorant of the whole truth, because she is separated from Israel. He does not accuse her of idolatry, neither does he withhold his miraculous ministry from her or her village, but stays on with them teaching and doing miracles for several days. He does not give the Samaritans the same hard time that he gave to the Syro-Phoenician woman who plead and plead for her child, but recognizes them as separated brethren of Israel. Martin Luther said," We are compelled to concede to the Papists that we have no knowledge of the scriptures apart from them." and because they have no revelation of salvation apart from the scriptures, salvation is from the Church. This puts Protestants squarely in the same position of the Samaritans in relation to the Catholic Church who would be analogous to the Jews.

When I talk about how great the Catholic Church is with Protestants and how happy I am to be a Catholic, I never do so cloaked, I speak freely and candidly. I'm never sly, and I am completely open, congenial and free with them. Because of this they feel more free to object, and for that I'm glad, so that I can talk with them freely and with confidence just as Christ did at the well with the Samaritan woman. When all is said and done, the one question in the end is often," Well, why be a Catholic? What is the benefit? I don't see it. If we are both one in the same Christ, if we both have salvation, and if we both believe in the bible why do I need to be a Catholic?" The answer to that question is simple: they need to be Catholic for the same reason that it would have been better for the Samaritan woman to be a Jew. To be a Catholic Christian is as superior to being a Protestant Christian as being a Jew is to being a Samaritan. Surely, no one would argue that it was better to be a Samaritan than a Jew! Were there any Samaritan apostles? Did Christ reveal himself through the Samaritans? No. Salvation is of the Jews. Salvation is found in Christ's Church.

Truly, Protestants, if their faith is true, are saved. Truly, they are incorporated into the body of Christ in the resurrection. Truly, the Holy Spirit works powerfully through them, even now and in such ways that put many Catholics to shame. And certainly, that Samaritan woman who had faith was superior to the Pharisees who hated and doubted Christ, but does anyone think that she was the equal of any Jewish woman of similar faith? You know that isn't the case. We work for the same wages, but when put to it who would you rather be? A son or a hireling? Who would you rather be? The Prodigal son, or the son who was always loyal to his father? Don't think that the Prodigal son was a better man than his older brother; his older brother only had a bad attitude! To be the loyal son is far superior, than to be prodigal out of ignorance and only then return.

The Protestants are the one sheep, and we are the ninety and nine. That is why we must strive to bring them in again, where they are safe, where they have the life giving sacraments, and the perfect doctrine of truth, because we already know how happy it makes the Father to get back that one sheep. Because we know they need the Eucharist. There is no use and no point in hating or being at useless enmity with the Protestants. Pray for conversions amongst our separated brethren. And if you are a Protestant reading this, and if today you hear the voice of the Lord, harden not your heart. God be with you.   

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Tradition

Tradition, it's something American Protestant Evangelicals (APEs) have a huge gripe about. They immediately level this accusation at any and all organized religions. So, I'd like to take this opportunity to rebut.

Often the "religious" person will haphazardly give a reason for tradition and the "bible Christians," as they like to call themselves, will start to realize that they are being backed into a corner with fuzzy logic and facts. When this happens, all the sudden, the "bible Christian" takes leave to redefine their position. They say that they aren't against pious tradition, per se, just the vain traditions of "mere men."

This seems even more absurd to me, because suddenly this individual takes the mantle of authority upon themselves to confirm tradition as "acceptable" and dismiss others as "unacceptable," all the while claiming to do so with the scriptures. The problem is, none of "them" agree on the scriptures! So, who are they to definitively say? The mantle they've put on themselves is tailor-made for a very large man, and they sit swamped in it's folds like a little child. It reminds me of the cartoon, Robin Hood, where prince John is perpetually stretching his ears out to hold up a crown that belongs to his cousin, king Richard the Lionhearted.

Proverbs 3:5 says," Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding." If they are "bible Christians" then why are they doing the opposite of what the bible compels them to do, leaning on their own understanding of scripture? Quite frankly, it's because each of them is woefully convinced that all of their conclusions about everything under the sun are divine, because they have the Holy Spirit.

It brings to mind Voltaire's words," These fellows are certain that the Holy Spirit 'with which they are filled' is above the law, that their enthusiasm is the only law they must obey. What can we say to a man who tells you that he would rather obey God than men, and therefore he is sure to go to heaven for butchering you?"

Now, I'm not suggesting that APEs (American Protestant Evangelicals) want to go around killing people in the name of God. Nor am I suggesting that they are law breakers by nature, and neither was Voltaire. He was talking about religious fanaticism. But he brings up a valid point, that even the APE must deal with: What is the standard for truth? Many of our sad APE friends and family, without batting an eyelash, will have already said emphatically," It's the Bible!" But that is exactly what we are talking about here: How does one interpret the bible? Again, here, many of our APE friends and family will say without missing a beat," With the Holy Spirit!" It's the old circular logic, which is a fundamental error of logic.

There is an illustration that some clever person made, called rather mockingly 'The Wheel of Power," which was drawn up at the APE's expense. It's a circle and every so often on the circle is a question, and after it is an answer and it says:
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!
"But how can you be sure it's the word of God?"
BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS US SO!
"But why believe the bible?"
THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE!
"But how do you know it's infallible?"
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!
"But how can you be sure it's the word of God?"...

And around it goes forever and ever. All those statements might be true, but those are not answers to those questions! Further, they don't even begin to address the issue of interpretation, which is what we've been talking about up to this point. Even if all of the above declarations were established, we have to ask questions about the matter of interpretation. And in order to answer those questions we absolutely must get away from erroneous circular logic, which we know to be false. Otherwise, we could just make our own wheel of power addressing the issue of interpretation.

So, being properly motivated in the inquiry, I think we've established to a degree which answers are unsatisfactory. We've also established that the right questions have to be asked. To that end, let's digress and go into what the APE says they're against: the vain traditions of men. That's what they claim to be against.

Well, let's look at this and ask the right questions so that we come up with the right answers. Is the following proposition true?
1.) Vain traditions of men= df (identical) Traditions of men

No. That isn't true, is it? Of course not! It's not true, because vanity isn't necessary to the traditions of men. That is to say, traditions of men can exist without being vain. Now, on the other hand, traditions are necessary to the existence of vain traditions, right? You can't have vain traditions without 'tradition;' you'll just have 'vain' then, yeah?

So, the point of all that is, these APEs call themselves 'bible Christians.' That is supposed to mean that they only believe in what the bible says. Well, it's obvious to everyone, including them, that, that is not the case. Case in point, that APEs stand in opposition to all traditions of men, while claiming to stand only against the vain traditions of men. And why is this? Because to the APE, proposition #1 which we all concluded is necessarily false, is in their mind true! To them, all the traditions of men are vain. The problem with this is, it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that all the traditions of men are vain. In fact, the bible doesn't even come close to suggesting that they are; it says quite the opposite. One begins to wonder why they call themselves 'bible Christians.'

Before we can just move on beyond the APE's prejudices against the word tradition and talk about what the bible says, let's quickly address what the bible is. The bible is tradition! That's right, the canon of scripture is tradition, and that's a fact. The bible as the APE's know it has 66 books; the original bible has 73 books, that's the one that Catholics use. When the canon of scripture was being compiled it wasn't an issue merely of veracity, literary accuracy, or aesthetics. Those 73 books were chosen from approximately 350 different books that were deposited as worthy of canonization or note.

So, not only did everyone have dozens of copies of these 350 books, but after they decided which ones were pseudo-epigraphical (of dubious authorship), which ones were heretical, and which ones were readable, they had to go through and figure out which books everyone had in common, if their copies of the same books all agreed, and if not, which ones were most accurate. The accurate ones that everyone already had that corroborated with each other, were then synthesized into a single definitive version of the book. Then the book was added to the canon, after much debate about its place in the chronological order of epistles and Gospels. This process took years to complete.

The one thing that all of these books have in common, both the valid scriptures and the invalid, was that the local traditions stated that they were noteworthy. All the New Testament and Intertestamental books were the deposit of tradition. Not only were they traditionally true and the version which seemed most reliable out of all of the books, but they knew that they were the most reliable and true out of all the books, precisely because they agreed with tradition. That is why the bishops (the direct successors of the apostles) came together to discuss the matter as a Universal Catholic Church. These books agreed with not only their verbal traditions, which is all most Christians had, but also, their liturgical traditions (the latter which is exactly what APEs are referring to when they say 'the vain traditions of men.')

The Christian bible itself is a tradition; it is what all Christians, throughout the ages, have traditionally believed to be valid, true, and right. That is, until the Reformation, when Protestants decided they would simply stop believing in part of the bible, and took a pair of scissors to it. That being the case, you might rightly say that the Protestant form of the bible is in fact a vain tradition of mere men. A terrible and sweet irony there, aye?

Let's use the vain tradition of mere men, called the King James Version Bible, then, since the irony is so sweet and it is their translation, after all. Note ostensibly, it is His Majesty, King James' version of the Bible. Well, what does it say about tradition? Here are some apostolic quotes from the New Testament :

2 Thessalonians 2:15
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." I say! Will you look at that: whether by word OR their apostolic epistle. I say! Take note of that if you will, not only that the apostles were delivering more than doctrines and dogmas, namely traditions, but that these traditions whether oral or written were binding. Which means that there would have been a very clear system of authority to validate these traditions. Otherwise, the apostles would have been commanding everyone to believe anything that people claimed the apostles to have said. I say! Not only do we have here evidence of apostolic authority to innovate traditions, traditions of men, but that they are binding upon believers, and also we have here implicit evidence of a definitive apostolic delivery of these traditions.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." Here we have it that tradition ameliorates and prevents the poison of disorder. It must have been well said the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion (disorder). Tradition protects the Church, keeps it in order, and prevents the faithful from wandering away into true vanity, the vain traditions of men, self-willed iniquity, and disordered individualism. Holy Apostolic tradition, according to this scripture, most emphatically separates the sheep from the goats. And atop it all is the first statement," "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..." Again, we see that Holy Apostolic tradition is binding and compulsory to every Christian. Not only that, but we are to get away from every brother who does not observe it!

When Christ rebukes the pharisees in the Gospels, we see Him saying that they reject the Law and observe the traditions of the elders. We see Him saying that their rabbinical traditions nullify the law. We see Him saying that the rabbis had overburdened the people with their many traditions. Yes, we see this, most certainly.

What we do not see is Christ saying that their traditions are evil or useless. There is a difference between observing the Law and traditions that are intended to help one observe the Law, and rejecting the Law and observing only tradition for the sake of traditions themselves. There is a difference between traditions which help and cause one to observe the Law, and those traditions which negate and seek to replace the Law. There is a difference between traditions which help a man do and obey what he must in order to make his life holy, and those traditions which ruin his life and crush him beneath innovated obligations. These and these alone were the issues Christ dealt with. Christ's condemnation of the pharisees and some of their traditions (those which negated the law of Moses) was not a condemnation of tradition itself; and that is self-evident. A blind man could see that. Christ never condemned tradition, nor heralded its ending.

Is the bible necessary to Christianity? No. Otherwise, there were no Christians before the bible existed and there were no Christians to write the New Testament and no Christians to write it about. Christianity is necessary to the bible, the bible is not necessary to Christianity. The truth of the bible is necessary to Christianity, now that is a true statement. That truth which is necessary to Christianity was and is alive in holy apostolic tradition, it first existed in tradition, it spread around the world in the form of tradition. If you were to put the mediums of the bible and tradition next to each other and compare them, they are both indispensable to communicating the Truth of Christ.

Think about the proposition of such a condemnation, that somehow God is not revealed in sensible things(bells, incense, vestments, the Eucharist, the holy oil, confession, marriage, holy orders, art, confirmation, Church documents), but He is revealed in sensible things (letters and words, e.g. the bible). Well, either He is revealed in sensible things or He isn't! It can't be both! A contradiction is absolutely, necessarily, always false. A Church with apostolic traditions is a Church with sacraments; sacraments are a visible sign of an invisible reality. 

A lot of APEs say that tradition is keeping them out of the Catholic Church. That's erroneous; traditions keep one in the Body of Christ. Traditions protect the faith, are confirmed by scripture, expound the truth of Christ, and reveal the fullness of salvation in every generation. Traditions keep worldliness, confusion, chaos, and dissent outside of the Church and divinity, clarity, peace and concord inside the Church. Tradition keeps the salt salty, it keeps the spring fresh, and the virgin's lamp burning.

If tradition is keeping them out of the Church of the Apostles, then they are stating that they're worldly, confused, disorganized, and dissenting. Look at the APE "church." Do they match up with that? Look at fad Christianity, Mega-'churches' with 'executives' for pastors, rock bands and giant T.V.'s. Look at the 'Prosperity Gospel' people 'living in authority' with their $1,000 seeds and their $23,000 dollar toilets. Look at the confusion of 30,000 Protestant denominations, like Ishmael, a wild man whom eveyone's hand is against and whose hand is against everyone, ever envious of Isaac, the Catholic Church.

Yes, APEs fit the bill perfectly: worldly, confused, disorganized, and dissenting. It's not tradition that keeps them out of the Church, it's their pride. It's their refusal to renounce the world and embrace the Church, to submit to the teaching of the Church, to submit to Apostolic authority, and to be unified with Christ through obedience to His bride, the Holy Catholic Church and her sacraments.

But despite all of this, there is a reason that Protestants go on praying, and keep going on missions trips, and keep trying to innovate new ways to keep each other excited about the Gospel, and keep digging through Jewish culture, and keep doing good works, and read their bibles, and show up to their churches which they know are wholly inadequate, and listen to their pastors who they regularly disagree with, and argue with each other about theology to no end seeking the truth. It's because they want what only tradition can give them. The substance of apostolic tradition is what they want, it's what they need. They need the sacraments and Christ keeps calling them to Himself through the sacraments, which they have cut themselves off from. He's like a man on the other side of a door to a pitch black room full of people looking for the same door, shouting," HERE!" hoping they find the door and then the handle. He sees how confused they are, how frantic they live, the nervous energy that possesses all their endeavors that comes from never knowing what to do next, and the perpetual longing for something more.

It's terribly ironic that APEs always invite people to have a 'deep personal relationship' with Jesus Christ, to make Him 'their personal Lord and Savior.' They only think about #1, me, me, me. But Jesus Christ is not only a personal savior, He is a communal savior. When we receive the Eucharist, we become one with Christ, because He enters not only into our souls, sharing His divinity, but He enters into our bodies, sharing His perfect humanity with us. Becoming one with Him in the Eucharist, we become one with all who partake of His Body and Blood. We become one with God and His Church, a perfect union in a single instant. There is nothing more personal than that; that is hyper-personal.

Listening to Christian rock, saying some personal prayers, talking to God like a buddy, flipping through a KJV bible, listening to Pastor 'X' and eating cracker/ juice packets is not a 'deep personal relationship.' Those things cannot replace the Eucharist and don't even come close to it. It is despair of this fact that drives Protestants to peddle what they cannot give... ' a deep personal relationship with God.' Because deep down, in his soul, every Christian recollects those non-negotiable words of Christ,"... Whoever does not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood has no life in him." The Protestant, the separated brethren, craves the Eucharist, which holy tradition transmits to us. There is only one place to get it: in the Churches of the Apostles. Pray for their conversions.          

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~