Rebel With A Cause: Shattering the Myth of Jesus as Non-Conformist, Part 1

I had read the status of a facebook friend describing Jesus thus:

I do know that in His time Jesus was an outcast, a deviant, a misfit, a rebel. He defied institutions and challenged the status quo all the time.

It is perfectly understandable where these ideas come from.  Jesus Christ was seen as one who challenged the Jewish and Roman institutions.  (The parallels to liberation theology are not just coincidental.)  This imagery is reinforced by Jesus' frequent use of the formula "you have heard... but I say unto you..." during the sermon on the mount.

The problem however, is the corollary to this idea that Jesus was a rebel. These days, when certain dissident Catholics are criticised rightfully for their rebellion against the teaching authority of the Church, their excuse is to cite the popular image that Jesus "defied institutions" and "challenged" things.  Thus, these modern day pretended reformers (oh sorry, that is insulting to the pretended reformers; at least Luther and his ilk had the balls to actually leave the Church and the hard teachings they could not accept), use that image of Jesus as rebel and challenger and questioner to justify their oen rebellion and dissent.

They are in effect comparing our priests and bishops to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Of course, the way our clergy act, they sometimes ARE worse than the Pharisees and Sadducees.  But a simple examination of the facts will show that such a comparison is totally unapt and inappropriate.

At this point we must define the questions that we seek to answer:

Firstly, is it appropriate to call Jesus an outcast, a deviant, a misfit and a rebel?

Secondly, did He indeed defy institutions and challenged the status quo all the time?

Thirdly, is it correct to compare the Pharisees and Sadducees to our modern day Catholic Hierarchy?

And Lastly, is it therefore justifiable to disobey Catholic teaching as defined by the authority of the Church Hierarchy, as the major religious institution of our time on the basis of Jesus apparently disobeying the institutions of the time?

Bear with me as I share my thoughts.

Is it appropriate to call Jesus an outcast, a deviant, a misfit and a rebel?

For the non-Christian, Jesus definitely did and said things that challenged the status quo.  At the time, the status quo was the Mosaic Law.  The notion that Jesus challenged the status quo was his frequent exhortations apparently changing certain precepts of the law of Moses.  Matthew chapter 5 gives the most important examples of these.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. (Matthew 5:21-22)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.(Matthew 5:27-28)

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."(Matthew 5:31-32)

“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all:  (Matthew 5:33-34)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." (Matthew 5:38-19)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." (Matthew 5:43-44)

Another example that serves to reinforce this image of Jesus as rebel is his words about the Sabbath.

" One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-38)

Based partly on these examples, it would thus seem that Jesus indeed was rebellious and defiant of the Mosaic Law.  He apparently did not care for "official doctrine".  He apparently didn't care about "following the rules".

Note that I used the words "seem" and "apparently."  Again the words of Scripture themselves will illuminate the confusion about the Truth.

Jesus' Intention Was Not To Rebel Against The Mosaic Law


Christ's own words on the topic are as such:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 17:20)

Hence, to say that Jesus was a non-conformist to the Mosaic Law is an error.  Rather, Jesus was saying that the Mosaic Law needed to be fulfilled and perfected.

Of course, that mere act of updating or fulfilling may be seen as some as equivalent to the acts of today's dissenters.  For example, how often do we hear that "The Catholic Church must update it's doctrines on contraception and homosexuality".  Granted, it IS possible that an analogy may be drawn with regards to Jesus fulfilling the law and these dissenters seeking to "update" Catholic doctrine.

The major difference is that for dissenters to do that would be to equate themselves with Christ.

Now, we are Christians are called to be LIKE Christ, but not to EQUATE ourselves to Christ.

So why could Jesus have the authority to make changes and not us "common folk" ?
To understand this in the Christian context, we must go back to the basics: Who was Jesus?  We Christians do not believe He is merely a prophet, a pathway to truth.  We take his word for it when He himself says:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

Hence we believe that Jesus is not just some conduit to the truth.  He IS Truth itself.

Matthew also quotes Jesus as saying:

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18)

St. Paul writes,

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. (Colossians 1:16)

For the Christian then, Jesus IS the ultimate authority.  All authority comes from him.

Can it not therefore be argued then, that for the Christian who believes in the divine authority of Jesus Christ, that He is not the one going against the standards of the world, but that it is the world's standards that are rebelling against His authority?

Again this is in perfect harmony with Christ's earlier comments about fulfilling the Law.

For the sake of argument, can we say that Jesus teachings, however, upset the higher ups?

The Pharisees themselves elaborate their reason the best:

"We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)

So that was Jesus' rebellion, blasphemy, claiming to be God.

We have to face it.  As Christians, we either have to accept Jesus' authority as God (and the authority of those to whom he passes that authority to) or we have to admit that Jesus was some A-1 insane efftard.  It can't go either way.

Since as a Christian I believe He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, I cannot in good conscience label Christ as a "deviant" or a "rebel". Rather, it is the world that deviates from and rebels from Him.

More to come in Part II.

Willy Nilly - Fr. Tabora Thinks He is Infallible?

Fr. Joel Tabora, president of the Ateneo de Davao and still apparently a Jesuit priest of good standing (whatever that means these days - more and more of the so-called Society of Jesus do more harm to the Church than support it) is once again giving us good Catholic lay bloggers more material to blog on other than the conclave.

In his latest blog inanity dated March 5, he once again attacks the right of the diocese of Bacolod to put up election posters.  I had critiqued his stance of moral relativism and refusal to acknowledge the authority of the magisterium by commenting on his blog and realized what a useless endeavor that would be as he would go back to his delusions that since the Church has erred in the past (in matters not of faith and morals) it can err on the matter of artificial contraception (a matter of faith and morals).

Sometimes I wonder if the reason Catholic education in the Philippines sucks is because priests in charge of Catholic institutions themselves don't know their own catechism.

I must clarify though, that while I critique his stance on artificial contraception and his downright refusal to acquiesce to the authority of the local hierarchy (even if he is not a diocesan priest, as a priest he should be subject to the local bishops albeit indirectly), I do agree that labelling candidates as Team Buhay and Team Patay is NOT a deed done in good taste.  The Church however, does have the right, the obligation and the duty to inform it's members about the stances taken by politicians and that the loyal Catholic cannot vote for candidates who have positions contrary to Church doctrine under pain of sin.  This is not just my opinion.  It is also the opinion of the hierarchy in the United States. (cf http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm)

Fr. Tabora is indeed correct in pointing out however, that just because someone espouses Church teaching, that does not require a Catholic to vote for that candidate.  What he forgets, and I go back to the previous link, is that a candidate who goes against the Catholic teaching disqualifies himself from any moral entitlement to a vote by a Catholic.

But here is where Fr. Tabora starts sounding less like a priest and more like a pretended reformer:

Of course, there may be those who precisely want to expel from the Church those who do not think like them, and would be happy through such a caper as the divisive sign on the Bacolod Cathedral, to divide the Church into those who think in the red like them, and those who do not think like them. They do so presumably because they consider themselves armed with infallible truth, empowered to bind the consciences of the faithful to their narrow positions, able to consign to heaven or to hell.

Uh, I do recall that that is exactly what the Church hierarchy has the power to do.  Jesus said to the disciples that "whoever rejects you rejects Me." (cf Luke 10:16)

Now what happens if disagreements arise?  The answer is to first discuss it among themselves, but if they won't listen to that, then bring to the elders of the Church, and if they refuse to listen to that, then "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; AND IF THEY REFUSE TO LISTEN TO EVEN THE CHURCH, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector

Of course, Fr. Tabora and his pretended reformer ilk will find a way to twist the scriptures to their own destruction (cf 2: Pet 3:16) In this case, they will say that Church includes laity.  Context obviously gives "Church" the meaning of "those higher ups with authority to settle issues", but when one is as obstinate as Tabora is in holding on to the traditions of men rather than that of God, I doubt he will accept any authority other than his obviously misinformed conscience.

He even denies the fact that Jesus consigned to Peter the keys to the kingdom and the authority of binding and loosing.  In fact Jesus said what you bind on EARTH is bound on HEAVEN. (cf Matthew 16:19)

Tabora then commits the standard Pretended Reformer crime of picking and choosing writing that support him while ignoring others that would force him to eat humble pie.  He correctly quotes Lumen Gentium in emphasizing the role of the laity in the Church.

“The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God. Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints, penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life” (12).

So far so good, but Fr. Tabora interprets is thus:

Infallibility involves not merely the bishops, but also the lay, not merely those who agree, but also those who don’t. It requires universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.

Wait wait wait wait wait.  Tabora contradicts himself here.  First, he says that infallibility involves everyone, "not merely those who agree but also those who don't".  This is mind-suspending gobbledygook at it's finest!  Obviously with two parties who disagree one is right and one is wrong.  If one says water is wet and another says water is not wet then obviously one is relying on facts and one needs professional help.  He says in one sentence that there are those who agree and those who don't, that all are infallible.  You know where else this kind of attitude is prevalent?  With Luther and the rest of his pretended reformers!

Fr. Taboras claims his quote from Lumen Gentium will be sobering for those who "respect dogma" (his words).  I hope that the following quotes will be sobering to him and his fellow disobedient bratty whiners, ironically, from the VERY DOCUMENT LUMEN GENTIUM THAT HE QUOTES TO SUPPORT HIS DEPRAVED POSITION:

#12: "... By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."

#25: "Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated."

#25: "Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely." 

Thanks to http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/churchobey.htm for this.  More from that link below:

#25: "This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith."

#28: "The priests, prudent cooperators of the Episcopal college and its support and mouthpiece, called to the service of the People of God, constitute, together with their bishop, a unique sacerdotal college (presbyterium) dedicated it is true to a variety of distinct duties. In each local assembly of the faithful they represent in a certain sense the bishop, with whom they are associated in all trust and generosity; in part they take upon themselves his duties and solicitude and in their daily toils discharge them. Those who, under the authority of the bishop, sanctify and govern that portion of the Lord's flock assigned to them render the universal Church visible in their locality and contribute efficaciously towards building up the whole body of Christ (cf. Eph. 4:12). And ever anxious for the good of the children of God they should be eager to lend their efforts to the pastoral work of the whole diocese, nay rather of the whole Church. By reason of this sharing in the priesthood and mission of the bishop the priests should see in him a true father and obey him with all respect. The bishop, on his side, should treat the priests, his helpers, as his sons and friends, just as Christ calls his disciples no longer servants but friends (cf. Jn. 15:15). All priests, then, whether diocesan or religious, by reason of the sacrament of Orders and of the ministry correspond to and cooperate with the body of bishops and, according to their vocation and the grace that is given them they serve the welfare of the whole Church."

#28: "Since the human race today is tending more and more towards civil, economic and social unity, it is all the more necessary that priests should unite their efforts and combine their resources under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff and thus eliminate division and dissension in every shape or form, so that all mankind may be led into the unity of the family of God."

#37: "Like all Christians, the laity should promptly accept in Christian obedience what is decided by the pastors who, as teachers and rulers of the Church, represent Christ. In this they will follow Christ's example who, by his obedience unto death, opened the blessed way of the liberty of the sons of God to all men. Nor should they fail to commend to God in their prayers those who have been placed over them, who indeed keep watch as having to render an account of our souls, that they may do this with joy and not with grief (cf. Heb. 13:17)."

#41. "The forms and tasks of life are many but holiness is one--that sanctity which is cultivated by all who act under God's Spirit and, obeying the Father's voice and adoring God the Father in spirit and in truth, follow Christ, poor, humble and cross-bearing, that they may deserve to be partakers of his glory. Each one, however, according to his own gifts and duties must steadfastly advance along the way of a living faith, which arouses hope and works through love."

#42: "The Church bears in mind too the apostle's admonition when calling the faithful to charity and exhorting them to have the same mind which Christ Jesus showed, who "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant . . . and became obedient unto death" (Phil. 2:7-8) and for our sakes "became poor, though he was rich" (2 Cor. 8:9). Since the disciples must always imitate this love and humility of Christ and bear witness of it, Mother Church rejoices that she has within herself many men and women who pursue more closely the Savior's self-emptying and show it forth more clearly, by undertaking poverty with the freedom of God's sons, and renouncing their own will: they subject themselves to man for the love of God, thus going beyond what is of precept in the matter of perfection, so as to conform themselves more fully to the obedient Christ."

So what does this mean?  Yes, the laity is involved, but obviously because of free will and misinformed consciences, there will be dissent from the Truth.   What happens when there are questions that are difficult to answer?  Following Jesus' command, we must bring it to the Church, and those who refuse to listen to the Church must be treated like an outsider (which is what excommunication means, by the way - out of communion).

One of the stupidest arguments I have heard is that being a member of the so-called Society of Jesus, he is not under direct supervision of the Bishops.  Again from Lumen Gentium:

#43. "The teaching and example of Christ provide the foundation for the evangelical counsels of chaste self-dedication to God, of poverty and of obedience. The Apostles and Fathers of the Church commend them as an ideal of life, and so do her doctors and pastors. They therefore constitute a gift of God which the Church has received from her Lord and which by his grace she always safeguards. ... Members of these families enjoy many helps towards holiness of life. They have a stable and more solidly based way of Christian life. They receive well-proven teaching on seeking after perfection. They are bound together in brotherly communion in the army of Christ. Their Christian freedom is fortified by obedience. Thus they are enabled to live securely and to maintain faithfully the religious life to which they have pledged themselves. Rejoicing in spirit they advance on the road of love."
#45: "Members of these institutes, however, in fulfilling the duty towards the Church inherent in their particular form of life must show respect and obedience towards bishops in accordance with canon law, both because these exercise pastoral authority in their individual churches and because this is necessary for unity and harmony in the carrying out of apostolic work."
#46. "Let religious see well to it that the Church truly show forth Christ through them with every-increasing clarity to believers and unbelievers alike--Christ in contemplation on the mountain, or proclaiming the kingdom of God to the multitudes, or healing the sick and maimed and converting sinners to a good life, or blessing children and doing good to all men, always in obedience to the will of the Father who sent him."

From other encyclicals, since Tabora uses Lumen Gentium to justify his (mal)position:

From Mater et Majestra:

239. "In their economic and social activities, Catholics often come into contact with others who do not share their view of life. In such circumstances, they must, of course, bear themselves as Catholics and do nothing to compromise religion and morality. Yet at the same time they should show themselves animated by a spirit of understanding and unselfishness, ready to cooperate loyally in achieving objects which are good in themselves, or can be turned to good. Needless to say, when the Hierarchy has made a decision on any point Catholics are bound to obey their directives. The Church has the right and obligation not merely to guard ethical and religious principles, but also to declare its authoritative judgment in the matter of putting these principles into practice."

There is so much more evidence to prove Tabora wrong, but these suffice.

But then again, we should not forget that Tabora no longer thinks like a Catholic, but like a Pretended Reformer - he picks and chooses what to obey and disobey.  Note that while he talks about infallibility, he refuses to acknowledge the infallibility of the Pope in writing Humanae Vitae:

Clearly, in matters of sexual morals and such as Humanae Vitae, this universal agreement is still outstanding. Until it is achieved, we are in a state of discernment towards what is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.

 Fr. Tabora with this statement shows how out of line with Catholic reality he is.  He implies that even a Papal encyclical such as Humane Vitae does not merit our assent and obedience.  The Church has already rendered judgment through a papal encyclical, the Church as headed by the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the Church.  Yet he claims that the universal agreement is "still outstanding". It is indeed still outstanding because of disobedient obstinate dissenters like him and his ilk! What does Jesus himself say about people like this? "Treat them as pagans and tax collectors"  - Matt 18:17.

Ultimately, people like Fr. Tabora think themselves above papal authority and above obedience.  Even Jesus was humble enough to be obedient to the Father, yet these people are not humble enough to be obedient to the office of the papacy.

The fact of the matter is that people like him think that the only truly infallible ones are themselves, that they know more than Jesus Himself.

Let's Get Serious

When I was attending a Jesuit high school in San Juan, I ran into some questions that no one seemed to want to (or be able to) answer.  I recall these questions to belong to two general categories:

a) Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception and
b) Soteriology questions, particularly the reconciliation between God's justice and God's mercy, and the biblical evidence, if any, for purgatory.

Now, I know what the typical reaction of you, the reader, would be.

What in tarnation are you doing during HIGH SCHOOL thinking about such things?

Well, I'm the kind of person who believes, but wants to know WHY I believe.  That way I can justify it to those who ask my reasons.  That way I can justify it to myself.


I have in fact been accused of being too cerebral.  If my belief is based on intellect then it is not faith, I have been told.

Au contraire! A faith that is anchored on nothing will simply end up getting lost.  A faith that is anchored on error will only lead one to more error.

Hence, faith must be anchored on Truth, and I believe that Truth to be the Gospel as taught by our Lord Jesus Christ through the Apostles.

The fact of the matter is this: I want to turn the tables on the devil-may-care attitude of today's Catholics and tell them that it is not I who am too cerebral, it is the majority that are not cerebral enough.

Ask an everyday Catholic a question such as, "why do you believe that Mary is conceived without original sin?"

You can almost hear the the gears in the heads trying to turn.  Note that I said, "trying."

Heck, the typical Philippine Catholic probably couldn't look up a Bible verse if his life depended on it.  Some might even go, "what's a verse?"

This, more than anything else, is the reason that our Philippine Church is in chaos.  It does not help that some priests and religious who are supposed to be the ones promoting truth are the ones promoting dissent and rebellion through their own ignorance and pride.

The typical Filipino Catholic, being left on their own due to poor instruction and catechesis, is left to try to find the answers on their own.  Unfortunately inane "teachers" like the priests and religious who are too busy doing other things than actually teaching sound doctrine to their charges.

Left to their own devices, the youths are corrupted by ideas contrary to Christianity.  They daydream about freedom without responsibility, they reject apostolic authority and thus are lost when it comes to navigating the complexities of the Scriptures.  Easy prey for the pretended reformers.  Easy prey for dissenters and rebels and wolves in sheep's clothing.

Worst of all, when corrected by their elders and bishops, they even cry that they are bullied and compare themselves to Christ being persecuted by Pharisees.  They consider any attempt at correction as arrogance on the part of the corrector.  They think themselves "humble" and "searching for truth" when the painful part is that the Truth is already there in the form of the Gospel and the Church.

Back to me.I was graced that despite my inadequate religious instruction (in a Jesuit school, no less), I was able to find the truth after being introduced to the writings of the Fathers of the Church, of Scott Hahn, Karl Keating, Tim Staples, William G. Most and in college, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine.  I was saved from the inanity of Philippine Catholic pedagogal idiocy. It was from their writings that I learned the answers to my earlier questions, and sealed my current Catholic identity.  Heck, after reading Most, Hahn, Keating and Staples, I couldn't be protestant even if I wanted to.

Let's get serious about our faith and the instruction of our youths.  We need to take a long hard look at the religious instruction of our Catholic institutions. 

If ever I am in charge of the religious formation of youngsters, the authors I mentioned will be required reading.  No more of this complex philosophical gobbydegook.  Let's get to the basics.  The Life of Christ, Church history.  Apologetics.  Doctrinal development, Bible studies.  The catechism.

Let's get back to the roots of it all. And let's take our faith seriously this time.