"His Resurrection alone can remove every doubt"

[St. Columba]

Newly consecrated sedevacantist Bishop Joseph Selway recently made an interesting claim, pertaining to how we can know, with certainty, that Jesus is God, and that therefore, the religion he founded is certainly true.



...at time 2:14: "His Resurrection alone can remove every doubt" (not testimony, nor miracles, etc...he claims)

My question is, does Bishop Selway's argument provide certainty that Catholicism is true? 

Is there a way to know that Catholicism is certainly true in the absence of a subjective divine illumination?  That is, can it be logically and independently demonstrated, as Bishop Selway seems to be implying?

Thank you.

[St.Justin]

Bishops are infallible...

[Geremia]

Bishops are infallible...

Certainly when repeating infallible truths

[martin88nyc]

Certainly the Shroud of Turin attests to that statement.

[Gardener]

Bishops are infallible...

Certainly when repeating infallible truths

Even I'm infallible when repeating infallible truths, and I'm a moron.

[St. Columba]

If we watch the clip, it is as if Bishop Selway, an intelligent and otherwise perceptive man, thoroughly studied the epistemological question of how we can know Catholicism is certainly true (and it is clear that he sees the necessity of having certainty for faith).  It is as if he considered the claims of miracles,  testimonies, and even Jesus' sanctity!!! ... and found them all wanting in terms of furnishing conclusive evidence of his divinity.  It is as if he found incontrovertible proof of the divinity of Jesus, and hence the veracity of the Catholic faith, in the resurrection event alone....why?

Now I suppose I should just ask him....but a lot of you, gifted SD posters, might be able to see the essence of the proof, and relate how it gives certainty....because I think there is something here, I just cannot see it clearly.

[St. Columba]

Bishops are infallible...

Certainly when repeating infallible truths

Even I'm infallible when repeating infallible truths, and I'm a moron.

You are far from a moron Gardener.  I am edified by you sir.

[Gardener]

It has to do with the sign of Jonah.

Without the Resurrection, our Faith is in vain (1Cor 15:17).

Re-read the account of Jonah.

Hint: he was not living those 3 days, but was dead in the belly of the fish.

But because He was raised, all else He said is true.

[St. Columba]

It has to do with the sign of Jonah.

Without the Resurrection, our Faith is in vain (1Cor 15:17).

Re-read the account of Jonah.

Hint: he was not living those 3 days, but was dead in the belly of the fish.

But because He was raised, all else He said is true.

Thanks Gardener, but how do you reckon that the account of Jonah gives us absolute certainty that Jesus was divine? 

[Gardener]

It has to do with the sign of Jonah.

Without the Resurrection, our Faith is in vain (1Cor 15:17).

Re-read the account of Jonah.

Hint: he was not living those 3 days, but was dead in the belly of the fish.

But because He was raised, all else He said is true.

Thanks Gardener, but how do you reckon that the account of Jonah gives us absolute certainty that Jesus was divine?

Matthew 12:

[38] Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master we would see a sign from thee. [39] Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. [40] For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

Matthew 16:

[1] And there came to him the Pharisees and Sadducees tempting: and they asked him to shew them a sign from heaven. [2] But he answered and said to them: When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red. [3] And in the morning: Today there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering. You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times? [4] A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. And he left them, and went away.

What Christ is saying here is He will be resurrected, and that will prove His message true. He references Jonah who was dead 3 days, after which he was vomited up on dry land and was resurrected.

[1] Now the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonas: and Jonas was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. [2] And Jonas prayed to the Lord his God out of the belly of the fish. [3] And he said: I cried out of my affliction to the Lord, and he heard me: I cried out of the belly of hell, and thou hast heard my voice. [4] And thou hast cast me forth into the deep in the heart of the sea, and a flood hath compassed me: all thy billows, and thy waves have passed over me. [5] And I said: I am cast away out of the sight of thy eyes: but yet I shall see thy holy temple again.

[6] The waters compassed me about even to the soul: the deep hath closed me round about, the sea hath covered my head. [7] I went down to the lowest parts of the mountains: the bars of the earth have shut me up for ever: and thou wilt bring up my life from corruption, O Lord my God. [8] When my soul was in distress within me, I remembered the Lord: that my prayer may come to thee, unto thy holy temple. [9] They that are vain observe vanities, forsake their own mercy. [10] But I with the voice of praise will sacrifice to thee: I will pay whatsoever I have vowed for my salvation to the Lord.

[11] And the Lord spoke to the fish: and it vomited out Jonas upon the dry land.

His body was in the fish, but his prayer plainly says he (his soul) was in hell (Sheol in the Hebrew, simply the realm of the dead not hell of the lost). One doesn't pray from Sheol unless they're dead.

The sign of Jonah isn't just being dead for 3 days, but being resurrected. Otherwise, the "sign" makes no sense. Nor does it make sense, except in a cursory and rather undramatic way, if Jonah was alive those 3 days. But if Jonah was dead, it becomes a rather deep and immediately awesome statement for Christ to say He will be resurrected, just like Jonah.

By His Resurrection, like Jonah's, the preaching of the Word of God goes out to a pagan people, which is another aspect of Jonah: continuing to teach post-resurrection and the conversion of pagan gentiles.

In short, Christ isn't just saying He will be alive but hidden 3 days, but dead. Nor that he will return after those 3 days merely as if having been alive, but resurrected. And, finally, that His Resurrection will spur the conversion of pagan gentiles and will be the catalyst for those who the Jews despised to supplant them in the order of grace and merit, even unto standing against the Jews in judgement.

It's a profound thing to think about.

[Xavier]

Yes, Jesus Christ worked so many and such great miracles in His own time as to be the delight and astonishment of those who heard Him and came to believe in Him, in His own time; He healed the sick, He cured the blind, He cleansed lepers, He raised the dead with only a word; all this His Apostles, contemporaries and eyewitness, attest with their word, with their lives and in their blood; but more, because Our good Lord knew He could not remain in human flesh upon the earth forever, He willed to work One Great Miracle as a sure and manifest sign for all ages. A great miracle which would give all people of all ages assurance that their Savior was divine and lives forevermore - the miracle of His resurrection.

He ordained everything in perfect wisdom - His public death under Pilate, His empty tomb on Easter Sunday, His Apostles beginning to give eyewitness testimony, His enemies being unable to stop them, vast and countless multitudes flocking to the Christian faith, public miracles accompanying the preaching of the Apostles, the conversion of Rabbis like Gamaliel and St. Paul etc in such a way that the fact of His Resurrection is known through the effects it produced - effects including the miraculous imprint of His holy countenance on the Shroud of Turin; the Fathers call the Resurrection the new creation, analogous to the day when light first shone upon the world. As creation is known through its effects, so too the Resurrection is known through these effects, for only the Risen Christ really appearing to His Apostles could have produced them. As the CE puts it,

"Briefly, therefore, the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by more than 500 eyewitnesses, whose experience, simplicity, and uprightness of life rendered them incapable of inventing such a fable, who lived at a time when any attempt to deceive could have been easily discovered, who had nothing in this life to gain, but everything to lose by their testimony, whose moral courage exhibited in their apostolic life can be explained only by their intimate conviction of the objective truth of their message. Again the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by the eloquent silence of the Synagogue which had done everything to prevent deception, which could have easily discovered deception, if there had been any, which opposed only sleeping witnesses to the testimony of the Apostles, which did not punish the alleged carelessness of the official guard, and which could not answer the testimony of the Apostles except by threatening them "that they speak no more in this name to any man" (Acts 4:17). Finally the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ's Resurrection, for the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself."

[An aspiring Thomist]

Basically what Columba is saying is how do you get from the testimony of seemingly fallible men (hence normally just moral certainty) to infallible knowledge and absolute certainty? Saying how many or how great certain miracles misses the point. Sure some of them have even been scientifically tested and we should treat them like we would other scientific theories. But all of the miracles have the "what if they are lying" problem. Granted it may be extremely unlikely. What kind of certainty do we have in the Resurrection and how?

[Daniel]

Hint: he was not living those 3 days, but was dead in the belly of the fish.

His body was in the fish, but his prayer plainly says he (his soul) was in hell (Sheol in the Hebrew, simply the realm of the dead not hell of the lost). One doesn't pray from Sheol unless they're dead.

Is this your personal interpretation, or have you come across it in a commentary somewhere? Because it does seem plausible, except I'm not sure a plain reading is even appropriate here, given the poetic language. Not to mention that I haven't come across such an interpretation in any of the commentaries I've ever read.

And Jonas prayed to our Lord his God out of the belly of the fish.
Prayed. The prophet doubtless prayed before and when they cast him out of the ship, and continued the same prayer being in the whale's belly, with more confidence, that he should be safely cast on the dry land.

I cried out of my tribulation to our Lord, and he heard me: out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou hast heard my voice.
cf. Psalms 119 and 129

I am descended to the extreme parts of the mountains: the bars of the earth have shut me up for ever: and thou wilt lift up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.
Extreme parts. Furthest that can be cast from mountains, even into the depth of the sea, which is lower than any other valleys.

(https://web.archive.org/web/20170824080108/http://haydock1859.tripod.com:80/id530.html)

And Jonas prayed to the Lord, his God, out of the belly of the fish.
Prayed. He entertained these sentiments. (Sanct. xiv.) --- He afterwards wrote them down. (Calmet)

I cried out of my affliction to the Lord, and he heard me: I cried out of the belly of hell, and thou hast heard my voice.
cf. Psalms 119:1
I cried. These five verses (Haydock) express his thoughts while he was in the sea, (St. Jerome; Calmet) or in the fish. (Haydock) --- He doubtless prayed before, when he was cast into the sea, and also in the whale's belly, having then greater confidence that he should arrive safely on dry land, (ver. 5.) and therefore vowing sacrifices of thanks, ver. 10. (Worthington) ---
Hell; the whale's belly, (Theodoret; &c.) or rather the depth of the sea. It may denote any imminent danger.

I went down to the lowest parts of the mountains: the bars of the earth have shut me up for ever: and thou wilt bring up my life from corruption, O Lord, my God.
Lowest. Hebrew and Septuagint, "clefts." ---
Bars, or prisons, in the abyss, (Calmet) farthest from the heights. (Worthington)

[Xavier]

Basically what Columba is saying is how do you get from the testimony of seemingly fallible men (hence normally just moral certainty) to infallible knowledge and absolute certainty? Saying how many or how great certain miracles misses the point. Sure some of them have even been scientifically tested and we should treat them like we would other scientific theories. But all of the miracles have the "what if they are lying" problem. Granted it may be extremely unlikely. What kind of certainty do we have in the Resurrection and how?

Well, Aspiring Thomist, the Resurrection is infallibly certain and therefore we are to believe it with a firm and irrevocable assent. Infallible certainty arises from the testimony of God Who cannot lie; we believe all that we do, on the authority of God revealing. This is explained by Pope St. Pius X, "faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord."

Now, in explaining it to someone who does not believe, showing the Resurrection is a morally certain historical fact is enough - moral certainty is the same certitude arrived at in courts of law. It is certitude beyond reasonable doubt. It is safe to act upon but not safe to ignore. Thus, the unbeliever, once he recognizes that Jesus almost certainly rose from the dead, must feel called by God to give his life to Christ and enter the Church by Baptism. The rest he will understand with greater conviction after he is illuminated in Baptism with supernatural faith. One very famous skeptic who converted to Christ was Sir William Ramsay, he was an Oxford-educated archaeologist. His studies led him to Our Lord Jesus Christ and he entered the Church. He had an audience with Pope Leo XIII. Like countless other former skeptics through the ages, the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Our Lord was compelling for him. For some, the evidence reason furnishes for God's existence is part of what draws them to the Faith. For others, there are many other things besides.

Let me ask you one question in turn, what kind of certainty do you have that God exists? If you say reason gives you moral certainty, and faith gives you infallible certainty, then it's exactly analogous here. Would you on the contrary say reason gives you infallible certainty, AT?

[St. Columba]

Gardener, your explanation was beautiful, and appreciated.  It all makes a very good, nay, very strong case for the veracity of the resurrection and therefore the divinity of Jesus.

As Aspiring Thomist astutely detected, I am interested in the absolute-infallible-epistemic-certainty aspect of it all....which, seemingly, is what Bishop Selway was trying to demonstrate with the resurrection account, and related texts.

That the resurrection account (and related texts) gives very convincing motives for belief: affirmed wholeheartedly.

That the ressurection account alone can remove every doubt, as Bishop Selway contends, thereby furnishing absolute certainty? This is what I am asking.  He obviously thought a lot about the epistemology here.  Is he on to something?  Does he have it right?

Thank you all!