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.

Thought of Leaving the Church? So Have I.

A funny thing happened to me as I looked through a newspaper today.  The Philippine Daily Insinuator, I mean, Inquirer, put up an article claiming that approximately 1 out of 11 Filipino Catholics has thought about leaving the Church.  Apparently this was triggered by a dissident so-called priest's "challenge" in aforementioned dissident's blog to have the Social Weather Stations find out if there is a significant number of Catholics who are disgruntled with the Church because of the insistence of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines to *GASP*, stick to Catholic Doctrine when it comes to artificial contraception and thus, the Population Control, I mean, pay-for-condoms-and-pills-with-taxpayers-money-instead-of-getting-them-from-foreign-donations, I mean, the Reproductive Health Law.  For a blog entry and survey done in February, I find it interesting that the results were made public now, after campaign season has started.  Hm...

Anyway, I was actually about to let this tidbit go when I saw that the PDI actually went out of it's way to interview a particular convicted religious offender.  Funny how the mainstream media goes out of it's way to interview such folks when it doesn't go out of it's way to report stuff like WHY the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception (and I mean officially, with Church documents and history and stuff, not the crap that our own less-than-ideally trained clergymen spew out).  The religious feeling offender said something to the effect of "hey, 1 out of 10 Catholics thinking of leaving! Yay! More Filipinos are not choosing reason over religion."

So... I start with - is reason and religion mutually exclusive? People who claim such can fall under the following categories:

a) Some (not all) Atheists who want to feel smug and feel intellectually superior to religious people, even if aforementioned atheists merely repeat often preached myths and fables fabricated and spread by messiah like figures like Richard Dawkins.  I mean seriously, atheism sometimes feels like a religion to me, sans belief in God but full of the "yes, we repeat what you say master."

b) Catholics or practitioners of whatever religion who question a particular tenent or doctrine of aforementioned religion with the intent to disobey.  For example, the dissenters who want the Church to change it's stand on artificial contraception like to say that they (dissenters) are using reason while those who choose to obey the Church as per Jesus' command are merely blind followers.  The funny part is that it is the dissenting Catholic who is blindly obeying and listening to what they want to hear.  The thinking Catholic realizes that Christ established HIS Catholic Church, promised that the Holy Spirit will assist the Church, and that he who sins against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.  Ever.  (cf. Mark 3:28-30)

People seem to like to think that the Catholic Church produced its doctrines out of thin air.  The fact of the matter is that the Church formulated it's doctrines precisely because its job is to prevent confusion.  Doctrines are formulated to clarify what defines or what doesn't define Catholicism.  To pooh-pooh doctrine (as even some so-called Jesuits have done) is basically spitting at the Church itself, and thus spit at Christ. (cf. Acts 9:4)

But now back to the topic at hand.  What do I have to say about 1 in 10 Catholics thinking of leaving the Church?

Putting aside the fact that many of those in that roughly 10% already don't hear Mass regularly (hint), let me say that my first reaction was NOT "oh no, one out of ten!"

In fact, it was "what? ONLY one out of ten have thought of leaving the Church?"

Why do I think this way?

Let's examine the reasons why people think of leaving the Church.

I would think that the most logical reason would be "I don't agree with the teachings or a particular teaching."  That is a good one.  I know a gay friend who left the Church because he does not agree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality.  Good for him.

See, this is a GOOD reason to leave.  Much better than people STAYING despite not being in communion with the universal faith and then trying to force their own beliefs on those who want to believe in the apostolic faith.

Another reason would be, "How can I stay in a Church whose members don't practice what they preach?"  Again, another valid reason.  My answer to that would be I'm not in the Church for the pedophile priest, for the boring sermon, or the corrupt bishop.  I'm in it because of Jesus Christ.  So why are there weeds mixed in with the wheat?  Uh, Jesus said that that would be the case. (cf. Matthew 13:24-30)

Hence, those who think of leaving the Church are doing so because they are thinking.  That doesn't mean that they will actually leave.  I've thought about leaving the Church in the past precisely for the two reasons I elaborated.  Yet, here I am.  I chose to stay despite the problems, because I firmly believe in the words of Christ.

So what about the idea that one out of ten have thought of leaving the Church being indicative of reason over religion?  I daresay that if Filipino Catholics used their brains more, then MORE people should have thought of leaving the Church, even if they do not, eventually, like me, or leave then come back with a solid faith, like many friends I know.

The reason why a good chunk of 90% have never thought of leaving could be one of two reasons:

a) they have experienced the same doubts that I have, but never thought of leaving.

b) they are blind sheep who choose to ignore all the problems in the Church or

c) they never really bothered to think about the reasons for their belief.

I know a lot of faithful catholics who belong to A.  I don't know anyone stupid enough to fall under b (well wait, yes I do), but I think most Filipinos fall under C.

Most Filipinos don't even KNOW Catholic doctrines.  Hence, how can they think "hmmm, what's the bibilcal basis for the immaculate conception?" when they probably aren't even sure what the immaculate conception is!

I therefore conclude that when a serious Catholic does not take his religion for granted and tries to probe everything with reason, then the aforementioned Catholic, unless his mind is fully illuminated by the Holy Spirit, will run into speedbumps and roadblocks.  I also find it safe to assume that many of these roadblocks may have them consider, or think about, leaving the Church.  The real question is: how many really do leave, why do they really leave, and whether after going around aimlessly, do they actually end up coming back home.

Remember, Christ would leave the 99 to go after the 1 lost sheep.

Jesuit Mucking It Up (Again)

...this time in the US.

Twenty years ago, I was told by a bishop from New York that "the Jesuits are the cause of all the problems in the American Church."

At the time, I was attending a Jesuit high school and staunchly defended the Society of Jesus.

And I still do.

The problem is that with Jesuits like Fr. Edward Salmon (Salmonella?) of McQuaid (so tempted to make fun of this name) Jesuit High School, it becomes so much harder to do so.

Headline says it all:

McQuaid Jesuit High School To Let Gay Couples Attend Prom

Note what Fr. Salmon says:

"[I]n the hope that I and all of us at McQuaid Jesuit will let a ray of light break through the darkness and the heavy clouds that have surrounded us, I have made the decision that, if our two brothers who have asked to attend the Junior Ball together wish to do so, they will be welcomed," it said."

So consenting on something so against Catholic doctrine is now considered letting a ray of light break through the darkness and heavy clouds.  Note that our "infallible" Jesuit says that "he" had made the decision.  He also says that they will be "welcomed".  Not even "tolerated" but "welcomed." And Jesuits wonder why other religious orders look on them with suspicion.

This part he kinda got right:

He urged members of the McQuaid community to "confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons," noting that he is not "encouraging nor am I condoning homosexual activity just as I do not encourage or condone heterosexual activity at a dance."

The point is not being intolerant or being uncharitable towards homosexuals.  The point is that homosexual behaviour is sinful in the Catholic Church (don't like it? don't be Catholic, and yes yes I know about pedophile priests - that's different and an unfortunate headache on the part of Catholics like I).  Hence, there should be no behaviour on our part, or especially on the part of a Catholic educator, that even HINTS at consent of such sin.

Note also this:

Same-sex marriage has been legal in New York since 2011, a fact that many people stated in their messages to the school in favor of its eventual decision. It seems only fair that, if these students are allowed to get married in the state, being able to go to junior prom together should be a non-issue.

Legal doesn't mean right.  Baby-in-womb murder Abortion is legal yet only the most obstinate "Catholic" dissenters would insist that it is not so.

Also the difference is that getting married civily is not the same as getting married in the Church, and this is supposed to be a Catholic School darn it.

And the most eye rolling moment:

The most hopeful section of Salmon's letter read: "The teachings of the Church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them."

The Teachings of the Church also make it clear that a) sin is sin and that b) we should not condone sin.
In this case, the good Father Salmon is seemingly so concerned about not doing injustice, oppression or violence to students that he forgets that by condoning sin he does injustice, oppression and violence to God.  Defending the fundamental rights of homosexual persons means not treating them like garbage.  It does not mean condoning their sins.

One may ask, what is so sinful about a gay couple attending a dance together?  It's not the attendance itself that is problematic, but the consent to it.  You consent that they are a couple.  You therefore imply that all the behaviours associated with being a couple are okay.  I suggest that Fr. Salmon look up the word "scandal" in his Catholic dictionary.

Then again I should not be surprised.  This is precisely the kind of logic also followed by Catholics who support artificial contraception or abortion.  Sure it's sinful and evil but we must not deprive people of the choice not to partake of them.  Duh, if it's sinful and evil and one truly believes in that then it doesn't really matter if others are Catholic or not.  Evil is evil and must be opposed.

On the other hand, this priest is just following the example of some higher ranking bishops who just "live and let live".  This mentality seems to be prevalent with regards to pedophile priests.  How can we expect individual priests to carry out the principles of the Church when the higher ups seemingly don't?

Sigh.

Oh and happy easter everyone!

Jesus, Lazarus and the Undead

Easter Sunday begins in a few, and so we faithful are going to have to endure many facebook memes and jokes referring to the Zombie Christ or something.  To clarify, zombies and other revenants are often remembered on the Resurrection Pasch day but they aren't quite the same as what happened to Christ.  Let's look one by one.

Firstly, legends throughout the world are filled with horror fables about the dead rising from the grave.  Normally a dead loved one rising from the dead should not be a sad or scary thing.  In fact, it ought to be a happy thing.  Unless the so-called "living dead" bears little resemblance both in appearance and behaviour to it's living counterpart.  Examples of this kind of being, called a revenant, includes vampires, zombies, liches, and a whole plateau of re-animated dead.

Yup, that's the term - re-animated.

These days, when we think of animation, we think of animated cartoons.  If you think about it, that's just about right.  Animation here refers to the process of giving these drawings or images the semblance of movement.  A person who is very active is said to be animated.  To animate is to move.  The word anima or animus refers to soul, or that which makes something active or move.  Hence, animals, like humans, have souls.

The zombie is thus a corpse that has been re-animated.  The body moves again of it's own power.  However, the spirit, or the supernatural quality that makes the human being different than animals is no longer there.  Spirit is different than the soul in the sense that it is spirit that gives us the ability to have language, intellect and culture.  Angels are pure spirits.  People are not.  The latin for spirit, though, comes from the word for breath.

It may be argued that vampires and liches are not just re-animated, but also retain their souls.  However, one difference is that their bodies are transformed, but in a negative way.

Secondly, what happened to Lazarus was different.  Lazarus wasn't just restored to life or re-animated.  He retained his spirit and other faculties, and brought back into a state before he died.  He is still mortal and can still die in the future.  Think of it as restoring from a backup file.

This, my friends, is what we call resuscitation. The dead person is restored to a previous state.

Jesus on the other hand, did not just resuscitate.  He came back to life into a body with totally different properties.  In this sense, He is like a vampire or lich.  The change however, is positive.  Unlike a vampire, the resurrected Jesus need not drain life or blood from others like a parasite.  Unlike a lich,  the resurrected Jesus' body is perfect and immortal.

What characteristics differentiate the resurrected from the resuscitated?

In the gospels, the resurrected Christ is shown to alter appearance or to make sure that He is unrecognised unless  He wants to be.  The resurrected Christ also seemingly has the ability to instantaneously appear in enclosed rooms to the apostles.  Teleportation?

Catholics believe that the resurrected body is then also immortal.  Catholics believe that all the dead will be resurrected.  Some to damnation and some to heaven.  Beyond the topic now.

To summarize: re-animation for zombies, resuscitation for Lazarus, and resurrection for Christ.

Habemus Papam!

Pope Francis. Argentian, Jesuit. Looking at this guys track record I smiled and said "we'll played, Holy Spirit."

More on that later. First his first speech

"Brothers and sisters good evening. 

You all know that the duty of the conclave was to give a bishop to Rome. It seems that my brother cardinals have come almost to the ends of the earth to get him… but here we are. I thank you for the welcome that has come from the diocesan community of Rome.

First of all I would say a prayer for our Bishop Emeritus Benedict XVI. Let us all pray together for him, that the Lord bless him and Our Lady protect him.

(Our Father…)

(Hail Mary…)

(Glory to the Father…)

And now let us begin this journey, the Bishop and people, this journey of the Church of Rome which presides in charity over all the Churches, a journey of brotherhood in love, of mutual trust. Let us always pray for one another. Let us pray for the whole world that there might be a great sense of brotherhood . My hope is that this journey of the Church that we begin today, together with the help of my cardinal vicar, be fruitful for the evangelization of this beautiful city.

And now I would like to give the blessing, but first I want to ask you a favor. Before the bishop blesses the people I ask that you would pray to the Lord to bless me – the prayer of the people for their Bishop. Let us say this prayer – your prayer for me – in silence. 

I will now give my blessing to you and to the whole world, to all men and women of good will.

Brothers and sisters, I am leaving you. Thank you for your welcome. Pray for me and I will be with you again soon.

We will see one another soon. 

Tomorrow I want to go to pray to the Madonna, that she may protect Rome.

Good night and sleep well!"

Conclave 2013 Schedule

Courtesy http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=7205

It's going to be on a Tuesday.  Asking St. Anthony of Padua for prayers now.

The Mass for Election of a New Pontiff will take place on Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. Beginning at 3:45 p.m., Cardinals will be transferred from the St. Martha House, the building where the Cardinals will reside during the Conclave, to the Vatican.

From there, Cardinals will process from the Pauline Chapel to the Sistine Chapel where they will pray Vespers and officially enter the Conclave at 5:00 p.m.

The first possible smoke sighting will be on Tuesday evening at around 7:00 p.m.

If the smoke is black, the Cardinals will reconvene the next morning beginning with Mass at 8:15 a.m. in the Pauline Chapel and mid-morning prayer. Voting will begin again at approximately 9:30 a.m.

There will be four votes per day, with two in the morning and two in the afternoon. Smoke is always sent up after the two morning votes – around noon – and then again after the afternoon set of votes – around 7:00 p.m..

However, if the first vote of either the morning or afternoon set results in the election of a new Pope, the smoke will be seen earlier.

Am assuming this is Italian time.

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.