Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Haiti's Misery provides fodder for Pat Roberston

Pat Robertson, on Haiti:

They made a deal with Satan.

Robertson reports that "Haiti" said to Satan: "We will serve you [Satan] if you get us free from the French." According to Robertson, Satan responded: "Okay, it's a deal."

Here is the video. The money quote begins around the six minute mark of the video.

[NOTE] Video removed

This man continues to be an embarrassment to Christianity.

Christians give, if you can, for relief. And pray. Don't do just the latter, except in the case where you do not have the wherewithal to do the former.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Project ced

One of my projects is to provide visualization for the upgraded 12 Billion Electron Volt (12 GeV) CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS) detector. Shown below is an image from an early version of our application ced (cLAS eVENT dISPLAY--pronounced "See-E-Dee"). The image shows simulated events (in this case from a photon striking a nucleus) created by a GEANT4 Monte Carlo of the upgraded (and as yet un-built) detector. Here we see a tiny portion of the detector showing resulting electrons (red) and pions (orange) traveling through drift chambers, and leaving "hits" in hexagonal cells centered about high voltage sense wires (tiny red dots). If you look closely you see circles in the cells. These represent "distances of closest approach." In a nutshell, the actual trajectories are tangent to these circles. The black cells represent hits that a built-in noise/segment finding algorithm has marked as irrelevant, uncorrelated noise. The shaded areas around the hits cells also represent information from the noise/segment finding algorithm. The colored background represents the magnetic field produced by a huge six-coiled superconducting magnet.

What I see is a relatively high energy pion (orange), which gets bent less by the magnetic field, traveling through from the lower left (the direction of the target, not shown) and bending gracefully to the right. And probably a single low-energy electron (red) which will get bent a lot by the field, starting at the lower right of the image loop-de-looping to the left, exiting and re-entering the chamber leaving a big mess in its wake. The fact that the pion and the electron are bent in different directions tells you that this is a positively charged pion.

The purpose of visualization software is not primarily to see what the detector looks like. The purpose is a) diagnostic and b) supportive. The visualization helps to uncover problems and bugs in the hardware, and supports the development of analysis code. For example with the previous version of ced written for the current 6 GeV CLAS detector, someone--by looking at hundreds of real events, correctly concluded that two adjacent sense wires (out of 30,000!) were crossed-wired, such that when one cell was hit it was mistakenly attributed to its neighbor.

Since this is a simulation we are displaying "truth." That is, we know in advance exactly what we are looking at. With real data the job of the analysis software will be disentangle the truth from raw data. Imagine all the hits are not colored, and all you really have is the location of the hits and the some rather simple timing data and analog signals from your electronics--from this you have to extract what types of particles went where, and what was their momentum and energy.

The visualization is written entirely in JAVA. I have a student working to create a FLEX front end that would run in your browser's FLASH player. If that succeeds then anyone will be able to hit a web page and look at live events. (A few years from now, when the detector is built and we go live.)

From time to time I will post more ced images as the software matures.

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

The Papacy

From a recent Sunday School lesson. Based on Gerstner's Primitive Theology.
Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface, AD 1302.
The office of the Pope has enormous power. We can gain an appreciation of the power of the Papacy by examining official Catholic teaching. For example:
The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. (1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 100)
The Papacy, through the Magisterium, reserves for itself the exclusive right to interpret scripture.

From the first Vatican Council, 1870, we read:
We, therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, in which is found the strength and solidity of the entire Church…

If anyone, therefore, shall say that the Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.

If, then, anyone shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter has a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema.
We note an important point of this pronouncement, namely that it is in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church.

The Apostolic primacy of Peter is further elaborated in Vatican I:
“And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words, "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep." At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his simple person preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself but upon the Church, and the Church on Peter as her minister.”
Once again note that the papacy is declared to be the "clear" doctrine of scripture, as ever understood by the Catholic Church, and those who disagree have perverse opinions. These positions are reiterated by Vatican II in 1965:
In order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He [Christ] placed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and fellowship (Cf. Vatican Council I, Session 4, the dogmatic constitution ‘Pastor aeternus’). And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the force and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible teaching authority, this sacred Synod again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.
Catholic Cardinal Gibbons wrote:
"The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of his whole church, and that same spiritual authority has always resided in the popes, or bishops of Rome, as being the successors of St. Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ all Christians, both among the clergy and laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome, where Peter rules in the person of his successor."
To summarize, official Catholic teaching is that the office of the Papacy was clearly inaugurated by Christ, that Peter was given a position of primacy and installed into this office, and that the Church has always taught this. This teaching is part of the infallible teaching of the Magisterium, and so if any of these points falls, the entire structure of the present Catholic Church, in terms of the authority she claims for herself as the sole interpreter of scripture and the office of pope—it all falls with it.

We will begin our investigation of these claims. We will start with Rome’s strongest scripture based argument.
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Matt 16:13-20)
The Catholic Church claims, infallibly, that this passage clearly teaches that Jesus elevated Peter to a position of supremacy among all apostles, effectively installing Peter as the first pope. Furthermore, the Catholic Church makes another infallible claim, namely that this interpretation has always been the teaching of the Church.

The relatively standard Protestant teaching is as follows: the on this rock in verse 18 refers to the confession of Christ that Peter made in verse 16. In other words, "confessing Christ", not the man Peter, is the rock upon which the church will be built. Furthermore, the standard Protestant view includes the idea that Peter was a spokesman who made his confession of behalf of all the disciples—that is, there is no reason to believe that the other disciples stood in amazement and shock at Peter’s confession.

Thus we have:

Protestant: And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock, (the confession you just made, that I am the Christ) I will build my church.

Catholic: And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock, (you, Peter) I will build my church.

Actually this is too simplistic. It presents a false dichotomy—that it either the standard Protestant view or the Roman claim of Christ's establishment of the papacy is legitimate. In truth, there are many other possibilities that have been held by various theologians, including that "this rock" is Christ referring to Himself and, interestingly, some have taught that "this rock" does indeed refer to Peter but the passage—even granting the Catholic claim that "this rock" is Peter, does not institute anything remotely resembling the papacy.

Notice that the Catholic view is that Christ, in verse 19, has given the keys of the kingdom specifically to Peter, saying to Peter I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Notice that this is a promise—Christ will give the keys. We can ask, when was this promise fulfilled, and was it fulfilled for Peter only? It would appear not. Later in Matthew we find the same phrase:
18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. (Matt. 18:18-19)
Clearly here it applies to all the apostles.

So at this point (back to Matthew 16), according to Catholic teaching, Jesus has made Peter the chief of the apostles. We would expect, from that point on to see (a) the other apostles acknowledge Peter's primacy and (b) Peter himself to acknowledge it. Let's see what the scriptures have to say.

On there way into the Garden of Gethsemane, we read:
A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. (Luke 22:24)
Instead of acknowledging Peter's privileged position, they are debating who, in fact, is the greatest among them. If Jesus had indeed elevated Peter, it seems that the other apostle's missed the point, Peter didn't invoke it, and Christ didn’t reiterate it--even though this was surely a teaching moment.

Nor is there, anywhere else in the New Testament, any indication that any of the apostles (including Peter himself) refer to Peter's alleged supremacy.

Beginning with Peter himself, we read, in his epistle:
1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; (1 Pet. 5:1-2)
Far from referring to himself as anything resembling a pope, Peter describes himself as a "fellow elder." In addition, we see that Peter instructs the elders to shepherd the flock. This is important because of another passage used by Rome in its case for the papacy, Peter's restoration after betraying Christ:
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. (John 21:17)

Rome teaches that Peter was uniquely charged with tending the sheep, but Peter, in his epistle teaches that the other elders (as he is) should tend the sheep.

Similarly Peter's second letter offers no evidence that he viewed himself as pope or even as bishop of Rome.

Peter and Paul

Paul wrote to the Roman Church in AD 55-57. It is clear that Peter was not in Rome at the time. What about when Paul was in Rome? Was Peter there? We should hope not, because if he were, then he abandoned Paul in prison, because Paul wrote that at his first trial everyone abandoned him. It is inconceivable that Peter was in Rome at the time and Paul never mentioned him while writing from Rome—or that Peter abandoned Paul during his trial.

[Added: This is in reference to the claim by some that Peter arrived in Rome in AD 42 and remained as head of the Roman church (bishop) for 25 years until his martyrdom. (See Eusebius, The Chronicle.) It is not a claim that Peter never visited Rome, only the the 25-year episcopate claim is at odds with Paul's writings. As for Peter ever visiting Rome, my personal opinion is that the circumstantial evidence is quite strong that he did.]

The apostle Paul, in all his inspired writings, never acknowledged Peter's supremacy. In fact, anything he wrote that is relevant to that question would seem to deny the proposition. For example, Paul writes:
I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. (2 Cor 12:11)
Paul asserts that he is not inferior to any of other apostles. Paul also wrote:
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. ( 1 Cor 12:28)
In mentioning the offices of the church, here and elsewhere (where he mentions elders and deacons), Paul makes no mention of the office of the papacy.

Another clear expression of equality rather than subservience is found in Paul's letter to the Galatians. Here we read:
On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (Gal. 2:7)
This passage clearly expresses a delineation of their respective ministries—not at all a description of Paul on assignment from Peter.

Of course, the final nail in the coffin of any claim that Peter was the supreme leader among the apostles occurs a verses later:
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. (Gal. 2:11-12)
One can hardly fathom a pope being publicly rebuked by one of his cardinals or bishops. It makes the mind reel.

The claim of Peter's supremacy fares no better in Acts. When it's reported that the gospel was being preached in Samaria, the church at Jerusalem responds
Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John. (Acts 8:14)
Notice that there is no indication whatsoever that Peter is in charge—indeed he was sent. Later in the book of Acts we read of Peter being summoned to explain his controversial preaching to the Gentiles
2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, 3 “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” (Acts 11:2-3)
Once again, we read an account that sounds nothing like we would expect if Peter were in a position of authority over the church. Rather Peter, while behaving correctly and in the right, was nevertheless called in on the carpet.

In Acts 15 we read of the first church council, in Jerusalem. If Peter is in charge of the church, then surely he will be in charge of the proceedings. We read:
6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. (Acts 15: 6-7)
Here we see that, even in the most favorable light, we see nothing more that Peter reporting to the council. However, even if you find support in this part of the account for Petrine supremacy, you have to deal with the closing statement:
13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:13-14, 19-20).
It was not Peter who lead the Jerusalem council, it was James, as is seen by the imperative mode of his speech. The letter that is written does not carry the imprimatur of Peter, but of all the apostles.

It should also be noted that these are last recorded words of Peter. There is no account of his time in Rome, and no letter to the Church at Rome for which the Catholic Church teaches was his episcopate.

Now, it should be obvious that not one word written in this lesson is intended to denigrate St. Peter, who, during Christ's ministry, clearly was the unofficial leader among the apostles, and also just as clearly was on of Jesus' favorites. He is and was the apostle Peter—a man worthy the highest esteem and respect. We are not in any manner bashing Peter—we are only questioning the Roman doctrine establishing Peter as the first pope.