Apologetics – Page 43

Who’s Punning? Jesus or John?

A reader writes:

Question: An atheist has claimed that Jesus’s conversation with Nicodemus couldn’t have happened because it’s a greek word that has two meanings, critical to the story, and Jesus didn’t speak greek.

I know neither greek nor aramaic, and according to some english, so any thing you happen to know would be useful. Thanks!

It’s true that in John’s account of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:1ff) the Greek word anothen (an-OH-thin) is used, and that this word can mean either “from above” or “again.” It is often assumed that the Gospel of John uses this word as a deliberate pun (“born again” vs. “born from above”).

However, from an apologetic perspective, this is a non-problem.

#1 Paraphrase is allowed in writings of this sort. It is easy to demonstrate that the New Testament authors employ paraphrase (as do ALL ancient historical writers). The claim is that the gospels faithfully reflect the teaching of Jesus (they speak with his ipsissima vox) not that they give an exact word-for-word Greek translation of what he said on all occasions (his ipsissima verba). Thus in faithfully transmitting the *teaching* of Jesus, John may have noticed that a Greek pun was possible and chosen to use it. On the other hand . . .

#2 Cross-language puns are far easier to construct than people imagine. Just because there is a pun in one language doesn’t mean that there can’t be an *equivalent* pun in another. Jesus may have made a pun in Aramaic and then John constructed an equivalent pun in Greek. On the other hand . . .

#3 The pun may not be intentional on John’s part. The objection assumes that John was deliberately punning, but as we all know, it’s quite possible for someone “to be a poet and not know it.” On the other hand . . .

#4 They *did* speak a good bit of Greek in first century Palestine. While it is more likely that they were speaking in Aramaic, this conversation could have taken place in Greek.

I don’t view these alternatives as equally likely (my money would be on #1 as the most likely explanation, then #2), but they are all possible, and the claim that the conversation couldn’t have happened because of a Greek pun in the gospel is simply false.

Jimmy on Catholic Answers Live (Jan. 19, 2012)

Jimmy Akin answers:

Can you elaborate on this past Sunday’s Gospel reading?
How can I refute the claim that Catholics don’t like sex because we don’t approve of birth control?
Will you explain the timeline of the Epiphany?
Where does the Church stand on the use of Viagra?
What is the proper translation of Matthew 16:19?
What does original sin have to do with Mary dying?
Are we allowed to receive communion if we are attending a funeral at an Orthodox Church?
What is the definition of “pure spirituality”?
Is it okay for Catholics to listen to Protestant praise and worship?

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Did the Church Forbid Bible Study?

A reader writes:

I am a Protestant and love listening to Catholic Answers Live. I am hoping you can help me out with the papal bull “Unigenitus” which appears to be condemning the idea of personal Scripture reading, etc. The way it’s worded doesn’t make it appear as if it is saying ‘we are worried about people reading and getting a wrong view so don’t read without proper preparation,’ but rather ‘we reject the idea of individual study of Scripture since Scripture is unclear.’ I’m a protestant (former missionary overseas) who is looking at the Catholic Church, and trying to wrestle with the hard questions. I read the article on the Catholic Encyclopedia, but can’t find anything that deals with it in an apologetic way.

I’m concerned with passages: 79-85.

If my reading is correct, those passages are all condemned as worded. I was hoping you could help me understand why they would be condemned. Thanks, Jimmy, I really do appreciate it!

No problem!

The propositions are all condemned as worded, but the question is: What is the nature of the condemnation they are receiving?

Before we get to that, though, let me give a bit of background for those who aren’t familiar with Unigenitus.

It was a papal bull issued by Pope Clement XI which condemned 101 propositions contained in the writings of a French author named Paschasius Quesnel. The work has a rather involved history.

YOU CAN READ THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT IT HERE.

YOU ALSO CAN READ THE RELEVANT PART OF UNIGENITUS HERE.

The history need not detain us, though. The important thing to understand is Unigenitus fits into a genre of papal documents that list and condemn various propositions proposed by a particular author or authors. This kind of document lists a bunch of propositions, typically drawn from the work of a single author, and then issues a condemnation of one type or another as a warning to the faithful.

So what happened in this case is that, because of problems reported with Quesnel’s works, Clement XI had a group of theological experts review them and report back about the problematic propositions that they found in them. These then served as the basis for Unigenitus.

But not all propositions are problematic in the same way, and so you have to look at the specific condemnations that are applied to them.

The thing is, documents of this type often do not match specific propositions with specific censures. The reasons for this are rather complex. Partly, it is driven by the nature of the genre. They aren’t coming up with these propositions themselves or rephrasing them. They’re lifting them straight from the work of another author, who was the person who chose how they were worded. That opens the door to different possible interpretations of the propositions, because an author may have phrased himself in a way that is open to more than one possible interpretation.

In some cases the specific censure that would apply to a proposition might depend on the sense in which the proposition is taken. If it is taken in one sense then one censure might apply. If it is taken in a different sense then another censure might apply. Rather than try to untangle all the possible ways in which a proposition might be taken and list the specific censures that would apply on that interpretation, documents of this nature are often content with listing the general kinds of censures that apply to the propositions in question. This is in keeping with their general pastoral mission, which is to warn the faithful, not provide a detailed analytical look that would satisfy the curiosity of experts.

It would be neat if they did the latter, but they tend not to for practical reasons (among them, it would sometimes require multi-volume works just to deal with all the possible senses that might be involved, it may be difficult to envision all the possible senses, and the stage of doctrinal development needed to address all possible interpretations may not have been reached).

With that as background, let us look at the condemnation that Unigenitus applies to the propositions it deals with. It says they are:

Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned.

What that means is that each proposition condemned in Unigenitus falls under at least one of these censures. It may fall under more than one, but it falls under at least one. Some are false. Some are captious. Some are evil-sounding. Some are offensive to pious ears. Some may be false and captious. Etc.

But, except for previously condemned propositions regarding Jansenism, the document doesn’t attempt to say which censures apply to which propositions.

That is important for our purposes, because these censures are of very different nature. If something is false, blasphemous, or heretical, that means one thing, but if it is merely evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, or rash, that’s something quite different.

The latter censures do not even mean that the proposition is false. They merely mean that the proposition is at least suspect (evil-sounding), at least badly phrased (offensive to pious ears), or at least unproved and potentially dangerous (rash).

Without going through each individual censure in detail, it is clear that many of them are rather limited in their meaning and do not imply that a proposition is utterly false–just that there is something problematic with it. It may even express a partial truth, but do so in a way that is badly phrased or otherwise deserving of a warning to the faithful.

Since the propositions the reader is asking about aren’t connected with Jansenism, we can’t be certain which individual censures would be connected with individual propositions. The most we can say is that the pontiff saw something potentially problematic with them. So let us look at the propositions and see if we can identify things that might be problematic:

79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.

The most problematic word that Quesnel put in this proposition is “necessary.” Is it really necessary that at all times, in all places that every kind of person study the mysteries of Sacred Scripture?

I can easily see how this proposition would be judged at least rash–or flat-out false (or other things). What about all the people who are in no way prepared for individual Scripture study? Is it necessary that they do so? It would be paradoxical to say that it is necessary that someone unprepared for individual Scripture study go ahead and study anyway. To avoid this paradox one might say that there is no preparation needed to study Sacred Scripture on one’s own, but this seems manifestly false given the tendency demonstrated down through the centuries for people to go disastrously wrong in reading the Scriptures. To say that it is necessary for these people to study the Scriptures on their own (which is what we are talking about here, not studying them under proper guidance of the Church’s ministers) would seem to either entail throwing these people to the wind (i.e., saying that it’s necessary in spite of their lack of preparation) or that no preparation is needed (which seems manifestly false).

Similar problems replicate if we focus on the word useful. Is it really useful at all times, in all places, for every type of person? What about those not prepared?

It seems to me, thus, that the concern with this proposition is quite likely–as the reader puts it–“we are worried about people reading and getting a wrong view so don’t read without proper preparation.”

It does not seem to be “We reject the idea of individual study of Scripture since Scripture is unclear.” If a person has proper preparation (has a proper grounding in the faith, isn’t going to leap to heretical conclusions, is well informed about the methods of Scripture interpretation, etc.) then what would be wrong with him studying on his own? Certainly the rejection of the proposition as in some way problematic does not entail such a conclusion–a conclusion that the Church has never maintained.

80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.

This seems to be objectionable on the same grounds as the previous proposition. Again: What about those unprepared for individual study?

81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.

The rejection of this statement seems to be intended to protect the faithful from the having to shoulder the burden of studying the Scriptures on their own in spite of the obscurity that God wished the Scriptures to have. In other words, it’s okay for a person to say, “By God’s providence the Scriptures are not as clear as I would need them to be to study them on my own. I’m in the position of the Ethiopian eunuch, who can’t discern important points on his own, without guidance. The fact that the Scriptures contain this level of mystery is a reason for me not to do Bible study without guidance.”

Remember: A huge number of people were either illiterate or barely literate at this time (and a large number are today as well), and asking them to undertake the burden of unguided Scripture study would simply be preposterous. Even people who can read well need help, as the ability to read alone is not sufficient preparation for understanding the Scriptures. If it were then Christian communities (Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise) would not produce such an extensive range of Bible study helps and commentaries.

This proposition thus seems to be intended to protect the unprepared for shouldering a burden they were never meant to carry, and thus to converge again to the idea of proper preparation being needed for individual Scripture study.

82. The Lord’s Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.

The rejection of this statement seems to have the same motive as the former. It seems to be intended to protect Christians from the idea it is “harmful” if they feel the need to say, “I am not prepared to do unguided Scripture study on Sundays; therefore, I wish to withdraw from doing so. I will stick with listening to the readings in Church and the explanations provided by the pastors of the Church and other qualified to expound them.”

83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born.

This seems to be concerned to protect the rights of women to make the same objections discussed in the previous two propositions. It certainly is not the case that women should not have the mysteries of religion communicated to them through individual Scripture reading if they are properly prepared. But many women–like many men–were not (and–like many men–are not even today). If they aren’t properly prepared for individual Scripture study then they are not obligated to undertake it, just as men are not.

Quesnel’s assertion that heresies arise through the “proud knowledge of men,” and his apparent suggestion that this would not happen if women read the Scriptures on their own–because of their “simplicity”–is fatuous. Women who are unprepared for individual Scripture study can fall into error just as easily as men, and so they can be excused from undertaking this burden just as much as men.

84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.

Earlier we referenced a censure of some propositions as “captious.” This term means, roughly, uncharitably fault-finding. In other words, being unfair to those you are criticizing by a spiteful and fault-finding attitude. In other words, being hypercritical and hostile.

I could easily see this proposition as being captious.

It characterizes the Church as “snatch[ing] away from the hands of Christians the New Testament.”

Harsh!

Is that really a fair characterization? Or is it an uncharitable, biased one?

The Church makes a point of reading from the New Testament at every Mass and explaining its meaning. By “snatch[ing it] away” is apparently meant “not endorsing universal, unguided Scripture study.” But we have already seen that there are good reasons for the unprepared not to engage in unguided individual study.

I could easily see this proposition as being classified as captious–unduly critical. The prejudicial phrasing is obvious, and there are good reasons to be cautious about unguided Scripture study for those with very limited backgrounds in the subject.

85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.

This one also seems to be captious.

Notice the drama terms (“forbid” [twice], “cause them to suffer,” “excommunication”) and other drama-juicers (“especially the Gospels,” “forbid the use of light to the sons of light”).

The overall phrasing is hostile and contentious and seems, again, to be casting the non-endorsement of universal, unguided Scripture study in the worst possible light.

Yet there are good reason for not endorsing universal, unguided Scripture study. Some people are simply not prepared for it.

I can thus see how this would be classified as captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, and other similar things.

It thus seems to me that there are, indeed, things that are problematic about propositions 79-85. And it seems to me that they can each fall under one or another of the censures indicated at the end of Unigenitus.

It also seems to me that they do not add up to a rejection of individual Scripture study for those who are properly prepared for this. They are merely rejecting the idea that unguided Scripture study should be universally engaged in by all Christians, regardless of their level of preparation, and Christians are not at fault if they do not feel themselves prepared to undertake this task and are content to learn the Scriptures under ecclesiastical guidance.

I hope this helps!

Quick Answers on Soul Sleep

A Secret Information Club member who I will codename Agent Great White North writes and says:

Do you have any info on soul sleep? One of my friends believes the body and soul sleep in the grave until Christ comes back. Some Scripture “appears” to support this. How do I refute this claim?

The idea of soul sleep has appeared in a number of different forms in Church history. For a pretty good discussion of some of the terms and variants, see this Wikipedia entry.

It is also true that there are a number of passages in Scripture that can appear to support this view, which is one reason it periodically crops up.

Many of these passages depict death as sleep, and there are two reasons for this:

1) Death is an unpleasant topic, and people naturally look for euphemisms to soften discussions of the subject. Thus in contemporary English, for example, we may talk about someone “passing” or “passing away” or “passing on” or having “departed” or similar things. In the biblical world they often used the euphemism “sleep” to refer to death, and the reason is pretty obvious . . .

2) Dead people often look like they are sleeping. They are often encountered lying down and not moving, just like a sleeping person. In fact, as part of softening the blow of death, they are often deliberately made to look like they are asleep, and so it is customary to close their eyes if they have died with their eyes open. This happened in the biblical world also, and so the biblical patriarch Jacob is told:

And God spoke to Israel in visions of the night, and said, “Jacob, Jacob.” And he said, “Here am I.” ³Then he said, “I am God, the God of your father; do not be afraid to go down to Egypt; for I will there make of you a great nation. ⁴I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also bring you up again; and Joseph’s hand shall close your eyes” [Genesis 46:2-4].

Given the human desire to euphemize about death and the way death often looks like sleep, it is natural for sleep to be used as a euphemism for death. Thus even today some parents may tell their very young children that “Granma has gone to sleep” or similar things.

To refer to something according to its appearances is known as “phenomenological language,” and both in the Bible and elsewhere death is often depicted as sleep as a form of phenomenological euphemism.

These facts are undeniable, and so when we read St. Paul talking about those who sleep in Christ or Daniel talking about those who sleep in the dust, we must be prepared to acknowledge that these passages may be just contain phenomenological euphemisms and are not making a fundamental statement about the condition of human consciousness between death and resurrection.

We must thus press on to ask the question: Do we have any evidence of human consciousness after death and before resurrection?

Indeed, we do.

There are a variety of passages in both the Old and New Testaments that suggest continued consciousness after death.

First, there is the story of the witch of Endor (which gave the Bewitched character Endora her name), in which the medium or “witch” summons the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 28; see also Sirach 46:20).

Next, there is the passage in 2 Maccabees where it is revealed that the prophet Jeremiah is dead but nevertheless “loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city” (2 Macc. 15:14).

Then there is Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31), in which Jesus depicts Lazarus, the rich man, and Abraham as conscious in the afterlife. One could object that this is a parable, but this does not affect the depiction of consciousness in the afterlife. Jesus’ parables are filled with commonplace, real things, like kings, sons, kingdom, talents, winepresses, mustard seeds, pearls, and all manner of things that actually exist. He doesn’t tell parables about wholly unreal or unfamiliar things. Thus the depiction of departed souls that are still conscious (and experiencing either torment or comfort) must be something we take seriously.

Finally, the book of Revelation depicts the souls of the departed as experiencing consciousness prior to resurrection. One of the most notable passages in which it does so is found in Revelation 6:

⁹When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. ¹⁰They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” ¹¹Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

Moving past the biblical age, the Church continued to recognize the consciousness of souls after death, which is why the Church has always recognized the practice of asking departed Christians for their prayers. You can read about that in my book The Fathers Know Best or online here.

If Agent Great White North’s friend is Catholic, the matter has been infallibly settled. This was defined by Pope Benedict XII:

[From the edict “Benedictus Deus,” Jan. 29, 1336]

530 By this edict which will prevail forever, with apostolic authority we declare: that according to the common arrangement of God, souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ; also of the holy apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, virgins, and the other faithful who died after the holy baptism of Christ had been received by them, in whom nothing was to be purged, when they departed, nor will there be when they shall depart also in the future; or if then there was or there will be anything to be purged in these when after their death they have been purged; and the souls of children departing before the use of free will, reborn and baptized in that same baptism of Christ, when all have been baptized, immediately after their death and that aforesaid purgation in those who were in need of a purgation of this kind, even before the resumption of their bodies and the general judgment after the ascension of our Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, into heaven, have been, are, and will be in heaven, in the kingdom of heaven and in celestial paradise with Christ, united in the company of the holy angels, and after the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ have seen and see the divine essence by intuitive vision, and even face to face, with no mediating creature, serving in the capacity of an object seen, but divine essence immediately revealing itself plainly, clearly, and openly, to them, and seeing thus they enjoy the same divine essence, and also that from such vision and enjoyment their souls, which now have departed, are truly blessed and they have eternal life and rest; and also [the souls] of those who afterwards will depart, will see that same divine essence, and will enjoy it before the general judgment; and that such vision of the divine essence and its enjoyment makes void the acts of faith and hope in them, inasmuch as faith and hope are proper theological virtues; and that after there has begun or will be such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment in these, the same vision and enjoyment without any interruption [intermission] or departure of the aforesaid vision and enjoyment exist continuously and will continue even up to the last judgment and from then even unto eternity.

531 Moreover, we declare that according to the common arrangement of God, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin immediately after their death descend to hell where they are tortured by infernal punishments, and that nevertheless on the day of judgment all men with their bodies will make themselves ready to render an account of their own deeds before the tribunal of Christ, “so that everyone may receive the proper things of the body according as he has done whether it be good or evil” [2 Cor. 5:10]. [Taken from The Sources of Catholic Dogma in my edition of Logos Bible Software.]

If Great White North’s friend is not Catholic then some of these sources will not be considered authoritative, but hopefully this will provide a basic response.

Good luck, Agent Great White North!

(Not a member of Jimmy’s Secret Information Club? You should sign up now at www.SecretInfoClub.org or use the form in the right hand margin.)

Did Jesus Quote the Deuterocanonicals? Receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts. Should I Quit My Job at Hospital?

You often hear that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the deuterocanonical books of the Bible–those that aren’t in the Protestant Old Testament. Did they? If not, what does the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament tell us about the canonicity of those books?

In Acts 8 Luke describes a situation where a group of people have been baptized, but he says that the Holy Spirit hasn’t fallen on them yet. If we receive the Holy Spirit in baptism, how can we explain this?

What if you work in a hospital that performs In Vitro Fertilization or other immoral procedures. If your own work is doesn’t involve those, do you still have to quit your job?

These are among the questions we explore in this week’s episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast!

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

SHOW NOTES:
JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 022 (11/26/11)

* WHIT FROM FLORIDA ASKS ABOUT QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW

Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete SurveyBy Gleason Leonard, Jr. Archer and Gregory Chirichigno
http://astore.amazon.com/jimmyakincom-20/detail/1597520403

NOTE: “Septuagint” is abbreviated LXX

Categories:

A (straightforward LXX): 268
B (LXX where it slightly deviates from MT): 50
C (Masoretic Text): 33
D (LXX where it deviates more from the MT): 22
E (Other): 13
F (Allusions that aren’t quotations): 32

Total using LXX as primary text: 340
Total using MT as primary text: 33

Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

* WESLEY FROM BROOKLYN ASKS RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ACTS

CCC 1288-1290

* “CONFLICTED” ASKS ABOUT QUITTING HER JOB AT A HOSPITAL THAT DOES IMMORAL PROCEDURES

WHAT’S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?

Call me at 512-222-3389!
jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com
www.JimmyAkinPodcast.com

Join Jimmy’s Secret Information Club!
www.SecretInfoClub.com

Today’s Music: Groove It Now (JewelBeat.Com)
Copyright © 2011 by Jimmy Akin

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Should America Elect a Polytheist Who Claims to Be Christian?

I’m well known for holding the position that abortion is the black hole political issue of our time. Given the number of people it kills every year, it outmasses virtually every other issue in play.

But it’s possible that other, equally important issues can arise.

One of those, for me, is the core doctrine of the Christian faith: the nature of God.

Don’t want to take my word for that? How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s:

Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names,55 for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.

The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith”.56 The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men “and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin” [CCC 233-234].

How might this doctrine become a political issue?

In various races, we might be asked to vote for candidates who are Mormon.

While they may be very nice people and may even share many values with Christians, Mormons are not Christians. They do not have valid baptism because they are polytheists. That is, they believe in multiple gods. This so affects their understanding of the baptismal formula that it renders their administration of baptism invalid and prevents them from becoming Christians when they attempt to administer the sacrament.

Unlike other polytheists (e.g., Hindus, Shintoists), Mormons claim to be Christian.

Casting a vote for a Mormon candidate thus means casting one’s vote for a polytheist who present himself to the world as a Christian.

I can see situations in which that might be a morally legitimate option. For example, if one lived in Utah, where the only viable candidates in many races are Mormon, it could be morally legitimate to vote for a pro-life Mormon over a pro-abortion Mormon.

But matters seem different when we are talking about national races, such as the presidency.

To elect a Mormon to the American presidency would, to my mind, be a disaster.

It would not only spur Mormon recruitment efforts in numerous ways, it would mainstreamize the religion in a way that would deeply confuse the American public about the central doctrine of the Christian faith. It would give the public the idea that Mormons are Christian (an all-too-frequent misunderstanding as it is) and that polytheism is somehow compatible with Christianity.

In other words, it would deal a huge blow to the American public’s already shaky understanding of what Christianity is.

That means it would massively compromise a fundamental value on the scale of the abortion issue.

Faced with the choice of voting for a pro-life polytheist-claiming-to-be-Christian or a pro-abortion whatever, I might well choose to simply sit out that race and refrain from voting for either candidate, because voting either way would mean doing massive damage to America.

Note that I’m not in principle opposed to voting for polytheists. I could see, for example, voting for a pro-life Hindu over a pro-abortion monotheist. But a Hindu does not claim to be a Christian and thus does not risk confusing people about the core doctrine of Christianity the way Mormonism does.

I am also aware that the U.S. Constitution says that there shall not be religious tests for public office. Specifically, Article VI:3 of the document says:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

What the passage means is that the government cannot bar a candidate for running from office based on his religion. I’m not proposing that it do so. It in no way means that the voters must disregard a candidate’s religion when deciding how to cast their votes. Voters are free to decide how they will vote based on any criteria they like, and they can and at times should take the religious beliefs of a candidate into account.

When a candidate’s election (or even nomination) would do grave damage to the American public’s understanding of what Christianity is, a value so important is in play that I personally don’t see how I could vote for such a person.

What do you think?

How Useful Is This Argument Against Sedevacantism?

Last time we dealt with the first part of a two-part query from a reader. Now for part two.

The question is: How useful can a particular quotation from Vatican I be in dealing with sedevacantists (i.e., those who say there is no valid pope at present)—particularly those who say that Pius XII was the last valid pope.

The quotation from Vatican I is:

[I]f anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Since the time of Vatican I the canonical penalty of anathema—which was a special kind of excommunication done with a particular ceremony—has been abolished, so nobody today is under the penalty of anathema even if they do violate this canon.

However, this canon defines a point that appears to be divinely revealed. The obstinate doubt or denial of a doctrine that is both divinely revealed and infallibly defined by the Church as such is a heresy, and thus under certain conditions a Catholic who falls afoul of this canon can indeed excommunicate himself (and automatically so). This just isn’t the kind of excommunication formerly known as anathema.

So much for the canonical aspects. What about its utility as an argument when dealing with sedevacantists?

To assess that, we first need to understand what is being defined in this text. And we have to do that rather carefully, because infallible definitions must be construed narrowly. Thus the Code of Canon Law provides:

Canon 749 §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

One results of this is that we must ask what the council was trying to define. If it is manifestly evident that a particular proposition was intended then that proposition is defined infallibly. If it is not manifestly evident then it is not to be regarded as infallibly defined.

In the case of the Vatican I statement quoted above, the purpose of the council was to define that it was “by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church.” In other words, the papacy is not a man-made thing. It is not by human or merely ecclesiastical law that there be an ongoing line of successors to St. Peter with jurisdiction over the whole church. (The council also identified the bishop of Rome as that successor, but this isn’t the point that concerns us here.)

It is manifestly evident that the council wished to say that Christ’s intention that St. Peter would have an ongoing line of successors with primacy over the whole Church, but this does not mean that there would be a successor at any particular moment.

There obviously isn’t a successor during the “interregnum” (between the reigns) period between the death of one pope and the election of another. Sometimes these interregna have even lasted years, when the college of cardinals had trouble making up its mind (though that hasn’t happened in a very long time; that’s why the conclave was invented, so that the cardinals would be effectively locked up together until they came up with a successor).

So if the passage from Vatican I does not ensure that there will be a successor at any particular moment then a sedevacantist could simply argue that now is one of those moments. Something either went wrong with a recent papal election, in such a way that invalidated it, or—according to one theory that at least some thinkers in Catholic history have advocated—a pope could forfeit his office through heresy.

One of these two things is, in fact, what sedevacantists claim. So I don’t see the text from Vatican I as being a useful argument against sedevacantism in general, but there is another possibility. Might it work against a specific form of sedevacantism?

According to many current sedevacantists, Pius XII was the last valid pope. He died in 1958, which was 53 years ago.

Here is where the argument gets interesting: In order to be pope, under current canon law, one must be elected by the college of cardinals. In order to be a member of the college of cardinals, one must be appointed by the pope. In order for the pope to appoint you, he must be alive.

If the last valid pope died in 1958, that would seem to mean that no cardinals have been validly appointed since then. How many cardinals are alive today who were appointed before 1958?

None.

The longest-serving cardinal at present is Eugenio Sales, who wasn’t appointed until 1969. If his elevation to the cardinalate was invalid, and so were all subsequent elevations due to a lack of valid popes, then it would appear that the college of cardinals now has no members. With no valid members, it would seem impossible for there to be another validly elected pope.

Ever.

That would be odd.

It would certainly seem to be contrary to the will of Christ who, in the words of Vatican I, willed “that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church.” If Christ really wills that there be an ongoing series of successors then one would think he would keep the Church from getting into a position where it is impossible to elect any more successors.

So do we have a good argument here, from Vatican I, after all? An argument that deals a death-blow to a major current form of sedevacantism?

Let’s think about what responses a sedevacantist (of the requisite type) might make. What avenues of counter-argument might he have?

For a start, he would be able to say, “Hey, I agree with that Vatican I said. I think Christ did will that St. Peter have ongoing successors to the end of time (with gaps here and there). It’s not Christ’s will that we currently be without a pope. It’s a tragedy that we are!”

Responding to this, one might say, “Okay, but then how are we supposed to get a new pope?”

Here the sedevacantist would seem to have two options: (1) He could bite the bullet and say that there just is no way to get a new pope; we’re just stuck. Or (2) he could say that there is, in fact, a way to get a new pope, despite what you might otherwise thing.

If he picks option (1), do we have him?

I don’t think so. At least not based on what Vatican I says. The reason is this: God can will things in different senses.

He can, on the one hand, will that certain things happen or not happen in what’s sometimes called a “preceptive” way. That is, he establishes a precept that things happen (Honor thy father and mother) or that they not happen (Thou shalt not bear false witness). But it’s clear that when God wills something preceptively, that doesn’t mean it’s going to come to pass. People dishonor their fathers and mothers all the time. They bear false witness all the time.

On the other hand, God can will that certain things happen or not happen in what’s sometimes called an “efficacious” way. That is, he not only wills that they happen but he arranges circumstances so that they do in fact happen. This is the case, for example, when a pope or a council speaks infallibly. God wills that when certain conditions are fulfilled, the resulting teaching will be infallible, and he brings it about that the teaching is infallible. If a pope or council were to try to define something that is false, something (pleasant or unpleasant) would happen to stop this from happening.

So one question we have to face is: What kind of willing is being talked about in the text from Vatican I?

For a variety of reasons, a very strong case can be made that it’s the first. Let me give you just one reason: In its historical context, Vatican I was dealing with people who had argued that the papacy is a man-made institution, not one that exists by the will of Christ or by divine law. That was the point this particular text was dealing with.

It was not responding to people who claimed that the papacy is a divine institution but it might not endure to the end of the world—with gaps here and there (due, at least, to interregna), but with a guaranteed new successor before the end of the world and alive at the time Christ comes back.

The latter claim does not appear to be what the council was attempting to define. As a result, it is not manifestly evident that the council defined this teaching, and so—according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law—we should not regard this teaching as having been infallibly defined.

The sedevacantist thus can say, “You’re overreaching with the text from Vatican I. It’s just an affirmation that it’s the preceptive will of Christ that there be ongoing successors to Peter—not a guarantee that there will be one alive at the time of the Second Coming.”

I think this is a valid response. I don’t think we can get from the text of Vatican I an infallible definition of the proposition that there will be a living success of Peter at the very end. We might believe this on other grounds, but it’s not what Vatican I was attempting to define, and thus it’s not something Vatican I defined.

If one can produce other grounds that guarantee a living successor of Peter at the Second Coming then it is those grounds—not Vatican I—that one should point to.

The idea that there would not be a living successor of Peter at the end of time is a very uncomfortable thought—so uncomfortable, in fact, that many sedevacantists would not want to go in this direction and would instead pick option (2) and claim that there is a way to get a new pope, despite what one might think.

What might a sedevacantist of this sort claim?

I can think of several possibilities off the top of my head:

a) There was a secret conclave before the last valid cardinals died, and there is a continuing papacy that is little known or in secret.

b) God could make a new pope known by divine (and presumably private) revelation.

c) In the absence of a valid set of cardinals, and the impossibility of generating new ones, the ecclesiastical law providing for the election of a pontiff by the college of cardinals has lapsed, making it possible to elect a new pope through some other means (such as by a tiny remnant of the “true faithful,” whether they be conceived of as bishops, priests, laypeople, or some mix of those).

In fact, variations on these the proposals are what some sedevacantists claim. In fact, some have already proposed new anti-popes citing one or another of these as the basis. (In fact, I’ve had more than one current anti-pope ask to friend me on Facebook, though I have declined these invitations since I strongly suspected it was just a ploy to get in front of my FB friends to promote their anti-papacies.) This means that they and their followers aren’t technically sedevacantists but schismatics following a false pope.

A sedevacantist could even say, “I don’t know what the method is for getting a new pope, but there must be one.”

In fact, a sedevacantist could even site the very same text from Vatican I and—again taking it beyond what the council was attempting to define—argue that this text shows that there must be a way of getting a new pope, even though it isn’t presently clear what that is.

So I don’t think that the Vatican I text is a knock-down argument against sedevacantism, even of the sort that sees Pius XII as the last valid pope.

That’s not to say it’s useless. It does, after all, show that it’s at least the preceptive will of Christ that Peter have ongoing successors, and if that’s the case then it’s reasonable to suppose, hope, and think that in a matter this important he would guide the Church in such a way that we don’t get into a no-pope-ever-again situation. But this is only one datapoint in a larger argument that must be mounted.

I think there is quite a bit of fruitful material to be mined in the area we are exploring—the implications of the will of Christ for the ongoing nature of the papacy—and how this ill-fits with the claim that the papacy has been vacant for more than half a century. The cognitive dissonance created by that idea, plus the lameness of the alternative ways of getting a pope mentioned above (each of which is fraught with problems) makes a powerful case that the sedevacantists are simply wrong, and profoundly so.

But I think in order to make that case we need to appeal to a broader array of evidence and that the text from Vatican I doesn’t settle the matter for us, as great as that would be.

What do you think?

Are YOU “Anathema”? How about Your Protestant Friend?

A reader writes:

Recently I came a cross a web site that claimed that an anathema applies to anyone who affirms an doctrine that is contrary to the kind of anathema issued by Vatican I (that is, the kind that says, “If anyone says X, let him be anathema”).

The same site said that one of the anathemas of Vatican I made a powerful argument against sedevacantists who say that Pius XII was the last valid pope because Vatican I said that St. Peter will have successors to the end of time.

What do you make of these claims?

The claim that anathemas apply to those who contradict the canons of an ecumenical council, whether Vatican I or one of the other councils, is a common and understandable misunderstanding. We haven’t done a very good job about educating people on what the term “anathema” means in this context, and an awful lot of people are under an innocent misimpression.

To put the matter concisely: The term “anathema,” as used in conciliar and canon law documents, refers to a type of excommunication. In particular (as in the 1917 Code of Canon Law), it referred to a type of excommunication that the bishop performed using a special ceremony. This ceremony involved (among other things) the ringing of a bell, the closing of a book, and the snuffing of a candle. Hence the phrase “bell, book, and candle” (that’s where it comes from; it has nothing to do with witchcraft). These collectively symbolized that the ecclesiastical court had made its ruling against the offender and would not reconsider until he repents. There was then another special ritual of reconciliation for the lifting of the anathema.

(BTW, the image is a painting of the excommunication of Robert the Pious of France. That’s not a giant, smoldering cigarette pointing accusingly at him on the floor but the snuffed candle that the bishop’s entourage—seen leaving by the door—has just yanked off its accompanying candle holder.)

Like other excommunications, anathemas didn’t do anything to a person’s soul. It didn’t make him “damned by God” or anything like that. The only man who can make a man damned by God is the man himself. The Church has no such power. An anathema was a formal way of signaling him that he had done something gravely wrong, that he had endangered his own soul, and that he needed to repent. Anathemas, like other excommunications, were thus medicinal penalties, designed to promote healing and reconciliation.

Also like (many) excommunications, anathemas were not automatic. Just because someone, somewhere, uttered a heresy, this did not cause the relevant bishop to drop whatever he was doing and automatically perform the ceremony like a puppet on strings. Instead, if someone committed an ecclesiastical crime that was potentially subject to an anathema the matter had to be reported, investigated, judged, and only after that would the ceremony happen—if it did.

Also also like other excommunications, they applied to people who were (or had been) in communion with the Catholic Church. There is no point excommunicating somebody from the Catholic Church who had never been part of the Catholic Church, and so people who had never been Catholics were not anathematized, no matter what they said or did. (This comes as quite a surprise to many in the Protestant community, where it is often—unfortunately—claimed that the Catholic Church anathematizes them for their beliefs. Not so. It may disagree with some of their beliefs; it may hope and pray that they adopt the fullness of the faith as found in the Catholic Church; but it does not anathematize them.)

Over time the penalty of anathema became administered only rarely, and eventually it was judged that the extra ceremony was no longer needed. As a result, the 1983 Code of Canon Law abolished the penalty of anathema, and so it no longer exists under Church law.

This means that nobody today is anathema in the sense that the term is used by councils and canon law documents. Excommunication still exists as a penalty, and some excommunications are even automatic, but the special, ceremonial form of excommunication known as anathema does not.

This does not mean that the canons of the ecumenical councils have lost doctrinal force. They haven’t. Whatever doctrinal force they had prior to the 1983 Code, they still have, and so if a particular canon defined something as a heresy then it still is.

Furthermore, heresy still carries a penalty of excommunication, but a number of conditions have to be fulfilled for the penalty to apply (especially if it is to apply automatically—but that’s a subject for another post).

Harold Camping Beclowns Himself! In Public! All Over Again!

Over the weekend while Harold Camping was hiding out after his failed prediction that the Rapture would occur on Saturday, May 21st, I was talking to a friend about what Camping was likely to do next.

I expressed the hope that Camping would make a public statement acknowledging his error and cease making end time predictions. I also expressed the fervent hope that Camping and his followers would not bring on their own personal end of the world through a suicide pact (a la Heaven’s Gate, the Order of the Solar Temple, and Jim Jones’ People’s Temple). I didn’t think that the probable outcome in this situation, though. Instead, I said that the most likely thing would be a modification of previous predictions.

My prediction was right!

On Monday Camping gave a press conference in which he said that he had been right about a major supernatural event occurring on Saturday, only it was of a different nature. Instead of a supernatural set of earthquakes and a rapture, it was an invisible, “spiritual” visitation of divine judgment on the earth—something undetectable by the senses and thus unfalsifiable. His remaining prediction—that the world itself would end on October 21st, he reaffirmed.

See for yourself!

Steven Greydanus—the friend to whom I was talking—has an excellent treatment of Camping’s new position and its problems, so be sure to check it out.

I must note that the prediction I made about what Camping was likely to do wasn’t due to any supernatural information. In fact, it was a safe prediction based on lots of prior experience.

Groups that have made false apocalyptic predictions have a long history of maintaining-with-variation when their predictions fail.

A famous example was the William Miller, who predicted the end of the world between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. When the latter date passed, an adjustment was made based on the use of a different Jewish calendar (that of the Karaite Jews), suggesting April 18, 1844. That, too, passed, and Miller wrote a letter in which he told his followers (now known as Millerites) in words eerily parallel to Harold Camping’s:

“I confess my error, and acknowledge my disappointment; yet I still believe that the day of the Lord is near, even at the door.”

Later that year, one Millerite preacher—Samuel Snow—predicted another specific date for Christ’s return: October 22nd.

The Millerite sect was a notable one in 19th Century America, and thousands of people made preparations, including giving up their possessions.

When October 23rd came with no return of Christ, the event became labelled “the Great Disappointment.”

In the wake the the Great Disappointment, many continued to maintain some form of faith in the Millerite system, but with modifications.

Nineteenth-century America was a more rambunctious place, and the reaction to the Great Disappointment was startling by modern standards. Wikipedia notes:

There were also the instances of violence — a Millerite church burned in Ithaca and two vandalized in Dansville and Scottsville. In Loraine, a mob attacked the Millerite congregation with clubs and knives, while a group in Toronto was tarred and feathered. Shots were fired at another Canadian group meeting in a private house.

Many Millerites maintained their faith, however:

Both Millerite leaders and followers were left generally bewildered and disillusioned. Responses varied: some continued to look daily for Christ’s return, others predicted different dates—among them April, July, and October 1845. Some theorized that the world had entered the seventh millennium — the “Great Sabbath,” and that therefore, the saved should not work. Others acted as children, basing their belief on Jesus’ words in Mark 10:15 “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” Millerite O. J. D. Pickands used Revelation to teach that Christ was now sitting on a white cloud, and must be prayed down.

Others offered other interpretations, such as the idea that the offer of salvation to mankind had ended (a view already reported among Campingites), that Jesus had returned invisibly, and that Jesus had begun the judgment by cleansing the heavenly sanctuary.

The latter view led, in particular, to the formation of the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination.

Miller’s teachings also had an influence on the formation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who famously predicted (among other things) the return of Christ in 1914 and then, when this didn’t happen, reinterpreted it as a spiritual enthronement of Christ.

And there is a lamentable history of such prophecies and reinterpretations among them since.

This phenomenon isn’t unique to the Millerites, the Adventists, the JWs, and the Campingites, though. It’s broader than that. Non-Christians are subject to it, as well.

A famous case is recorded in the book When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger. Back in the 1950s, he and two other social scientists infiltrated a UFO sect that had doomsday beliefs and then watched what happened as the predicted doomsday failed to appear. Similar things happened.

(Incidentally, Festinger termed the clash of existing beliefs with new evidence against them “cognitive dissonance”—a now-popular term.)

The phenomenon appears concerning non-doomsdays, too. In his famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn points out that scientific change does not happen in the orderly, step-by-step, incremental way that they are often depicted. Instead, it tends to have violent revolutions, in which one model resists change with only minor modifications for a long time and then suddenly collapses when the weight of evidence against it becomes too great. Until that point, scientists only tweak their their preferred theories enough to account for new, incoming data.

So strong is the tendency to cling to old theories that it often requires one generation of scientists to die off to allow a new theory to take its place.

(Incidentally, Kuhn referred to this shift of beliefs as moving from one “paradigm” to another or as a “paradigm shift”—another now-popular term.)

But the phenomenon is even broader than science and religion. It’s part of basic human nature, and it applies everywhere, to every form of belief, opinion, or theory.

C. S. Lewis wrote an essay entitled On Obstinacy in Belief, in which he pointed out we have a form of mental inertia that tends to preserve us in our beliefs, that we tend to only tweak them when minor amounts of contrary evidence is presented, and that major shifts occur only when the amount of evidence becomes overwhelming.

He also points out that this is entirely natural and that we would be ill served if we were configured so that each new bit of data required us to call into question the entirety of our beliefs. It’s on-balance good that we’re obstinate in our beliefs, because the majority of them are correct and suspending our beliefs at the slightest provocation would cause us not only to squander an enormous amount of time and cognitive resources but would result in a literally fatal form of paralysis.

The trick is to make sure that we’re forming our beliefs in a reliable way, which Harold Camping definitely was not. Not only was he disconnected from the magisterium Christ established and operating all by his lonesome, he also was using demonstrably crazy methodology that was anything but sure to lead to a reliable conclusion.

But let’s not be too hard on Harold Camping.

Yes, he’s beclowned himself. In public. All over again. By predicting the end of the world on October 21st of this year. That has almost no chance of happening. But given the cognitive dissonance he’s been presented with, and the alternative interpretations available to him, it’s not surprising that he displayed obstinacy in belief and avoided a major paradigm shift.

And so my prediction came true.

It’ll be interesting to see what he does come October 22nd.

Anyone care to wager with me?

What do you think?

“It Seemed Good to the Holy Spirit and to Us”

A reader writes:

"For it has 'seemed' good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and froom blood and fromw what is strangled and froum unchastity" (Acts 15: 28-29).

This is taken from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Second Edition.

An older Bible I have says, "It IS the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us…"

My question is why has it been modified from "is" to "seems?" When it is translated "seems," I think that adds ammunition to Protestants who would say, "See, the Church is not infallible when it makes doctrines because it only "seems" to be good to them."

Do you share my concern here? Could you address this and why on earth this current translation exists instead of the older, and I believe, more accurate one?

I understand the reader's concern, but I don't think it's necessary.

In particular, we (all of us, Catholics and Protestants alike) need to guard against preferring a particular translation because it's more useful. "More apologetically useful" does not equal "more accurate."

Our approach should be to try to figure out what the most accurate understanding of the text is and then assess what apologetic value it has. (And that's when we're trying to do biblical apologetics. If that's not our task at the moment then we may assess it in other terms–e.g., what it says about God [theology proper] or what moral lesson it carries [moral theology] or what we can learn for our own spriritual lives [spiritual theology].)

So what about Acts 15:28?

In Greek the phrase "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" is edoksen gar tO pneumati tO hagiO kai hEmin. Broken out word by word, that's edoksen (it seemed good) gar (for) tO pneumati tO hagiO ([to] the Holy Spirit) kai (and) hEmin ([to] us).

The key word is thus edoksen, which is a form of the verb dokeO. Like most verbs, this one has several related meanings, and it does indeed mean things like "think, seem, seem good, appear, appear good, suppose, be of the opinion, judge, etc."

For a variety of reasons, the most logical literal translation is "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." I won't go into all the technical minutiae, but there is no noun there corresponding to "judgment." Edoksen is a verb with the implied subject "it" (it's 3rd person singular), and in context things like "it judged" make no sense (e.g., "It judged to the Holy Spirit and to us"?).

The proper literal translation would thus be something along the lines of "For it seemed/appeared good to the Holy Spirit and to us."

This is the way the Latin Vulgate takes the passage, too (since we're talking about older translations). In the Vulgate the phrase reads visum est enim Spiritui Sancto et nobis. This is a very straightforward translation of the Greek: visum est (it seemed good) enim (for) Spiritui Sancto ([to] the Holy Spirit] et (and) nobis ([to] us).

Visum est is a perfect passive form of the verb video, which (as you might guess) means "see" or "look at," but in the passive voice (which this is) means things like "seen," "seem," "seem good," "appear," and "appear good." Again, it has an implied subject of "it," and "it seemed good" or "it appeared good" is the most natural literal English translation.

(By the way, "the Holy Spirit and us" cannot be the subject of the verb in either Greek or Latin because the corresponding nouns are in a grammatical form known as the dative case, which prevents them from being subjects of the main verb; also, we'd have a compound subject which would lead one to expect the plural, and both verbs are singular; thus the correct subject of the verb is an implied "it.")

You'll note I've been saying that "it appeared/seemed good" is the most natural literal English translation, but one can use nonliteral ("dynamic") translations, which is what the reader's older Bible apparently does. I don't know what translation it is, but the thought that the Jerusalem Council is sending to the churches is that the decision of the Holy Spirit and the Jerusalem elders is that only minimal requirements should be made of Gentile converts for the sake of Church harmony.

If one is doing a free translation rather than a literal one, "It is the decision of" would be okay. It's just not what the Greek literally says.

The Greek also doesn't indicate any uncertainty about the resulting ruling, despite what "seem" or "appear" commonly connote in English. Instead, as a way of politely giving an order to the affected churches, the Jerusalem Council is using a literary form known as meiosis, which you deliberately understate something as a way of emphasizing it (e.g., calling the Atlantic Ocean "the Pond" when it is clearly vastly larger than a pond).

And less anybody reading the letter miss the point, the Holy Spirit is mentioned first in who the ruling seemed good to. The Holy Spirit is God, and thus omniscient and all-perfect, and anything that "seems good" to him may be taken as most definitively good.

Rather than timidity about the judgment, the way the letter is written stresses its authority, while using meiosis as a way of giving the order diplomatically.

With this understanding of the text we can now ask about its value for apologetics.

I wouldn't worry about the weaker-appearing verb "seemed" because it is the better literal translation, and it does not take away from the authority the letter had for the first century Church.

Further, even if this passage did express tentativeness, that would not disprove the Church's infallibility. There are lots of things the Church is tentative about. Some things that the first century Church was tentative about are mentioned in the Bible (e.g., when Paul expresses a personal judgment that he acknowledges he doesn't have a command from the Lord on).

But this passage isn't a tentative one. It's an emphatic one, and what it actually shows is that the Holy Spirit superintends certain kinds of Church councils and his authority backs them up.

That's a message that points in the direction of at least certain kinds of magisterial functions being infallible.

This doesn't give us a full-orbed theology of ecclesiastical infallibility, but it does point in the direction of that reality, and thus the passage has apologetic value even on the "weaker" (but more literal) understanding of what the letter said.

And, not coincidentally, the Acts 15 council is the paradigm for the ecumenical councils that have been held throughout Church history, so there is apologetic value there as well, with the Acts 15 council serving as precedent and model for them.

Hope this helps!