"Young [Orthodox Catholic] Fogeys" (Karl Keating)

KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER

May 4, 2004

A BISHOP CAUGHT IN AMBER

Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:

To the left-wing Catholic intelligentsia, Kenneth Untener was a model bishop. "Bishop Ken," as he liked to be called, favored all the trendy causes and appeared in all the trendy protests. His name was found frequently in the pages of the "National Catholic Reporter," where he was mentioned in hagiographic terms.

That was never more evident than in that paper's April 9 remembrance of him. Untener, not long retired as bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, died March
27 at the age of 63. He had led the diocese since 1980.

A VISIONARY BISHOP LOCKED IN TIME

The April 23 issue of the "Reporter" ran a surprising letter about the paper's eulogy of Untener--surprising in that it took the paper to task for its fawning description of the bishop. The letter was written by Bette Woods of Brighton, Michigan.

As Dr. Johnson noted, "In lapidary inscriptions a man is not upon oath." When eulogizing the dead we highlight their virtues and omit their failings, giving necessarily a skewed--but, for the moment, forgivable--impression. That is permissible at the funeral service and at the graveyard, but we expect a more considered treatment when the deceased is reflected upon in print.

Let me quote from Woods' letter:

I am sadly amused, though not surprised, at the sappy over-eulogizing of the former bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, Kenneth Untener. May he rest in peace, but at least when speaking about him, we should be honest. And honestly, what is so humble about a man who refused to submit himself to the teaching and discipline of the church he promised to serve ... and what is so visionary about a man whose ideology and vision have not been replicated anywhere and will die with his generation because it is not being widely replicated with my generation?

I understand that he is very popular with you older folks at NCR and Call to Action and the like, but the future of the Church is in us 'young fogeys,' as Fr. Andrew Greeley recently referred to our next generation of priests and Church professionals. You may not like that, but at least you should be honest about it.

Every person I have ever met, particularly in the field of Church work, who admires anything even close to Bishop Ken's vision is over 50. Young people, particularly young Catholic women--I am 24--are embracing a much more dynamic John Paul II-esque interpretation of Vatican II, which includes liturgical fidelity, attraction to Christ-centered (and habit-wearing) religious life, and not only an acceptance of but a love for the Church's teachings on the all-male priesthood and the immorality of contraception. And we are the ones graduating from theology schools to minister to youth, teach religion, and write textbooks.

Bishop Ken may have been a well-meaning, nice man. I hope that God is as merciful to him as he will be to me when all the mistakes I have made in my ministry are before him. But to call him a 'visionary' seems both dishonest and blind when his vision did not capture the next generation!

Woods makes several telling comments, but let me highlight two:

1. The Church in this country suffers from a "generation gap." When we hear that phrase, normally we think of the elders being conservative and the youth being liberal. Here it is the reverse. Young Catholics, if active in the Church, are almost universally orthodox, even if not yet well formed in their faith.

The most radicalized segment of the Church in America is populated by folks near or past retirement age. Sure, there are twentysomethings who admire what Kenneth Untener stood for, but they are so few that at meetings of Call to Action they are trotted before the audience to prove the organization is not yet moribund.

2. Dissident Catholics justify themselves by saying that their heroes are "visionaries," a visionary being someone who is leading you where you were going anyway. Throughout his long episcopal career Untener was described by his fans as a visionary. He stood up to Rome. He "did" theology and liturgy his own way. He represented the wave of the future.

The problem is that his wave turned out to be the wave of the past, the ecclesiastical equivalent of the leisure suit. Young Catholics such as Bette Woods see this. For some reason, the editors at the "Reporter" do not--or, if they do, they are not admitting it in print.

I wonder what the "Reporter" staffers do after an issue is put to bed. Do they gather at Clancy's Bar for a beer and marvel at how their brand of Catholicism is taking the country by storm? I doubt it, since they can't be subject to that much self-deception.

No, I see them huddled at a side table, cupping their drinks in their hands, eyes downcast, faces drawn, wishing for a return of the exuberance they felt in the 1970s, when things seemed to be going their way. Back then, they could not have imagined that the infants they saw in church would grow up to turn their backs on the "vision" they offered.

Last month it was a eulogy for Kenneth Untener. Soon enough it will be a eulogy for the kind of Catholicism he stood for.

A Million Europeans Enslaved?

Not the usual fare here, but I am a history buff, and found this very interesting and against the "PC" grain, so here it is (from a forward from blog member Jared Olar):
-----------------------------------

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

A Million Europeans Enslaved

Published March 11, 2004

REUTERS NEWS AGENCY

An American historian says that more than a million Europeans were enslaved by North African slave traders between 1530 and 1780, a time of vigorous Mediterranean and Atlantic coastal piracy.

The number of white European slaves is only a fraction of the trade that brought 10 million to 12 million black African slaves to the Americas over a 400-year period, historian Robert Davis says, but his research shows the slave trade was more widespread than commonly assumed. The impact on Europe's white population was significant.

"One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature -- that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true," said Mr. Davis, an Ohio State University professor.

"Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland."

In a new book, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, Mr. Davis calculates that between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates called "corsairs" and forced to work in North Africa during that period.

The raids were so aggressive that entire Mediterranean seaside towns were abandoned by frightened residents. "Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe.

"Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear."

The pirates, sailing from such cities as Tunis and Algiers, raided ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children, he says. They were put to work in quarries, in heavy construction and as oarsmen in the pirates' galleys.

Mr. Davis calculated his estimates using records that indicate how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.

"It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available."

Dialogue on Sola Scriptura (Particularly John Calvin's & the "Classic Reformation Protestant" Conception) (vs. Kevin Johnson)

Kevin Johnson (Reformed) has responded on his blog, to my previous comments in the paper, Why Sola Scriptura is Self-Defeating & False if it Isn't in the Bible. This is my counter-reply. Kevin's words will be in blue.

* * * * *

First of all, it should be noted that Kevin did not offer any reply whatsoever to the central thesis of my paper (as indicated in its title). No biblical evidences for sola Scriptura were provided, nor were there any arguments to the effect that sola Scriptura would not be self-defeating even if biblical evidence did not exist (I still await such a response from a Protestant, but I surely won't hold my breath). Nevertheless, he does raise some other interesting and worthwhile issues apart from my paper that I will be happy to interact with.

I wrote:

[Y]our task is to show that Scripture somehow excludes the binding nature of Tradition and the Church and asserts this principle. And that clearly must be demonstrated in Scripture itself.

For the benefit of the discussion, let me cut the Gordian knot for you and get to the heart of your objections. Your dilemma is false simply because the classic Reformed position on sola scriptura does in fact include a binding Tradition and a binding Church in terms of teaching, understanding the faith, and interpreting the text.

The Reformers recognized the authority of tradition and the Church in determining matters of doctrine. The Reformers recognized the binding role of the councils in determining orthodoxy. The Reformers recognized the role of the regula fidei (rule of faith) in interpreting Scripture. But, they considered such things in their proper place. The question is not whether or not a binding tradition exists, but what is our ultimate authority in these matters?

It is not my “task to show that Scripture somehow excludes the binding nature of Tradition and the Church and asserts this principle”. I freely grant what you feel I should exclude and so the Gordian knot you propose is quite simply cut in the simple admission of what Reformers like John Calvin clearly taught about this issue.

This is incoherent. Either Calvin and other early Protestants accepted a binding tradition and obligatory assent to church teachings or they did not. You claim that your tradition includes "a binding Tradition and a binding Church in terms of teaching, understanding the faith, and interpreting the text."

I don't see how that can be the case, because if in fact you accepted such decisions and decrees as "binding" then they would have to either be infallible or not. If they were not, then Christians would be bound to theological error and obliged to accept it. If they were, then the position is hardly distinguishable from the Catholic position on authority (excepting which body of teaching and set of authorities are granted allegiance).

My key difficulty with your response is your use of the word "binding." Either you have a different definition than I do, or I have to be shown where in Calvin and other Protestant leaders such concepts are clearly expressed, with the full definition and explication in context.

The incoherence becomes immediately apparent in your words, where you start to back away from what "binding" means:

But, they considered such things in their proper place. The question is not whether or not a binding tradition exists, but what is our ultimate authority in these matters?

This contains a "loophole" big enough for a truck to drive through. All one has to do is say that such-and-such a council or Church proclamation exceeded its proper place and went beyond the Bible or historical precedent ("tradition"?). But how does one do that? One either has to set council against council or church against church (e.g., the failed Luther-Zwingli discussions), or (inevitably) fall back on the individual again.

If councils compete against each other, they obviously are not "binding" and someone has to have authority to determine which is superior to the other (and "binding"). But there can be no such authority in Protestantism, because that would require a "papal figure" which has no warrant in Protestant ecclesiology.

So, failing that, charismatic, authoritarian individuals simply assume arbitrary leadership as the "guarantors" or "exemplars" of Legitimate Tradition and Theology Over Against All That "Roman" Catholic Excess and Corruption and Merely Human Tradition (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Anabaptist and Anglican leaders, Bucer, Bullinger et al).

Their authority is based on little more than their own proclamation of it and self-anointing. So that doesn't solve the problem. Thus, the individual must decide in the end, and the result is thus as far away from a belief in "binding councils and churches and traditions" as can be imagined.

You appeal to "ultimate authority." Catholics agree, of course, that everything must be consistent with Scripture. We simply have faith enough to believe that God has the power to preserve (apostolic, biblical) Tradition intact, by means of councils and His Church, which are both binding and infallible. You claim that you accept these things as binding also, but when push comes to shove, that really isn't the case apart from Orthodoxy and Catholicism (as Pontificator has eloquently argued), because of the loophole above.

All it takes is for someone or some faction to question whether some authority has exceeded its bounds, and all of a sudden that authority is no longer as "binding" as was claimed. Catholics do not and cannot do this. Our councils and papal proclamations really are binding, and not to be questioned.

That is the practical reality of the situation, no matter how many words like "binding" and "tradition" and "church authority" are thrown out. But beyond this analysis, the statements of Calvin simply do not support this conception. At the very least they are internally incoherent, if they purport to support "binding traditions" -- because they cannot consistently do so within a sola Scriptura framework.

As Pontificator pointed out, the Westminster Confession runs contrary to your assertions:

All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both. (XXXI, 4)

You talk about "binding tradition" and "binding Church" but that is not how the above passage reads (sorry). You state: "The Reformers recognized the role of the regula fidei (rule of faith) in interpreting Scripture." Unless you wish to separate hermeneutics from the "faith or practice" mentioned above, this expressly contradicts what the Westminster Confession states above.

If you wish to maintain that the Westminster Confession contradicts other utterances of Calvin or other confessions and creeds, and that there is indeed at least one to be found which expresses what you have (and that they "clearly taught" same), feel free. That remains to be seen, as far as I am concerned, and if contradictions along these lines exist even among the so-called "magisterial Reformers" (as they certainly will, if one probes close enough), then that only highlights the problem here considered.

It's the same story with the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 (Chapter 2 -- "Of Interpreting the Holy Scriptures; and of Fathers, Councils, and Traditions" -- my comments in brackets) :

Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures;

[Who decides where they agree or disagree? There are a host of doctrines where the Fathers en masse contradict Reformed Christianity]

but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures.

[Who decides what the Scriptures teach? A panel of venerable, grey-bearded Reformed worthies, assembled in 1566?]

Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.

[Yes, as judged by the apostolic Church and its authoritative Councils, and its popes, not by individuals 7,8,9,10 centuries later who count the noses of their comrades in some given sect and conclude that the majority opinion is therefore the "biblical" one]

Councils. And in the same order also we place the decrees and canons of councils. Wherefore we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion or matters of
faith, to urge our case with only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by received customs, or by the large number who share the same opinion, or by the prescription of a long time. Who is the judge? Therefore, we do not admit any other judge than God himself, who proclaims by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what to be avoided.

[But of course! God will settle all the issues!!!!!!! Who could argue with that? But as we are not God, but mere men -- and prophets are a relatively rare occurrence -- , there must be some human Christian authority as well - binding in some sense; to some degree. One can, then, either believe that God promised to guide His Church and preserve it free from error, under a properly unified authority, with councils and bishops and a gift of infallibility (as Catholics believe) or that individuals ULTIMATELY decide what is or what is not true, dissenting from councils, Tradition, the Fathers, and apostolic succession alike if needs be]

Again, this is not "binding" conciliar or church authority. It is the furthest thing from it. We find the same thing in Calvin himself (I cite the 1960 McNeill edition of the Institutes). Calvin speaks out of both sides of his mouth. I don't contend that he was being deliberately two-faced; only that his viewpoint on ecclesiology and authority is as incoherent and inconsistent and as naive to human reality as were other aspects of his (and Luther's) thought (just as sola Scriptura itself is ultimately incoherent and self-defeating). In some places, Calvin says stuff that sounds really "Catholic" and "traditional":

What then? You ask, will the councils have no determining authority? Yes, indeed; for I am not arguing here either that all councils are to be condemned or the acts of all to be rescinded . . . But, you will say, you degrade everything, so that every man has the right to accept or reject what the councils decide. Not at all! (IV, 9, 8)

So Calvin denies the reductio he rhetorically describes in the second-to-last sentence. He respects councils, and opposes antinomianism. And so he does. I don't deny that (nor do I have to for my case here to fully succeed). But this is a different notion from the Catholic "binding Councils." Protestants are not bound to these councils, if they can pick and choose from them. Calvin would no doubt say that only the venerable old and wise men would determine when and where the councils erred, not every wild-eyed individual. This is certainly far better than the rampant individualism of Protestantism today, but not by all that much.

It sounds wonderfully pious and idealistic, but in practice it works out the same. The individual will be the final judge, or else he will allow himself to be guided by arbitrary, authoritarian judges like Calvin himself. The result is relative chaos and anarchy and what we indeed see in Protestantism: inability to resolve difficulties because of the initial principles of privte judgment and sola Scriptura. Presbyterians can't even agree amongst themselves.

Thus, Calvin (precisely like Luther) exhibited a profound naivete as to how human beings operate. He thought he could maintain a catholic unity by these principles, but he was obviously wrong, and history has abundantly shown that the Catholic warnings about what would happen if these principles were adopted, have come true. But Calvin thinks he knows the answer concerning how councils are to be judged:

[W]e shall determine from Scripture which one's decree is not orthodox. For this is the only sure principle on which to distinguish. (IV, 9, 9; cf. Note 1 for IV, 9, 1; p. 1166 of vol. II)

Well, sure, this is all fine and dandy; all Christians revere Scripture. That is not at issue. But who is the "we"? That is the crucial question here. "We" determine where the errors occur. If this is an individual, then Calvin's system falls prey to what he denies: individuals do indeed judge councils. If it is another group meeting which decides, then on what grounds does it have authority that doesn't also apply to the very council it judged?

It always comes down to accepting some authority based on someone's word alone: that they are the "correct" teaching and the other guy is wrong. Catholics base such authority on apostolic tradition and the authority of bishops assembled in council, led by the pope. Protestants can only give lip service to councils but in the end judge them on their own.

Or they simply place faith in one man (Calvin) or an alternate "council" (the Westminster divines) to deliver the true Christian doctrine to them. But why should anyone think Calvin or the Westminster Assembly was any more divinely commissioned or worthy of authority than Trent or earlier medieval ecumenical councils? And why should the individual have so much responsibility in all this? Well, because Calvin in effect (again, like Luther) placed the individual above the Church:

But they will object that whatever is partly attributed to any one of the saints belongs utterly and completely to the church itself. Even though this has some semblance of truth, I deny that it is true . . . the riches of the church are always far from that supreme perfection of which our adversaries boast. (IV, 8, 12)

But of the promises they habitually allege, many were given just as much to individual believers as to the whole church. (IV, 8. 11)

Calvin falls into the same vicious circle described above when he speaks of Tradition and the Church:

For this reason we freely inveigh against this tyranny of human tradition which is haughtily thrust upon us under the title of the church. For we do not scorn the church (as our adversaries, to heap spite upon us, unjustly and falsely assert); but we give the church the praise of obedience, than which it knows no greater. But grave injury is done to the church by those who make it obstinate against its Lord, when they pretend that it has gone beyond what is permitted by God's Word. (IV, 10, 18)

That brings us full circle back to sola Scriptura and the Bible. If Calvin or his followers today think they can ground their rule of faith in Scripture itself, then let them explicate that grounding. Failing that, I say it is self-defeating, whether this sophisticated Calvinist version under consideration or any other. None can escape the logical circle and arbitrariness, and all must be confronted with biblical indications otherwise.

I am hopeful that you will avoid having me prove things that I have already freely granted.

I am hopeful also that you will understand the above argumentation, explaining why I don't think you have resolved your problem at all. This is not binding conciliar or Church authority. Period. If the individual (or some sub-conciliar gathering or decree) picks and chooses what is good and bad in councils, then those entities are superior to councils and it is nonsensical to speak in terms of their being "bound" to them, by any definitional criteria of what the word "binding" means.

I do think it is interesting the way that we see each other in this argument. I didn't quote the Confession to demonstrate proof for the fact that "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself"--I quoted it merely to point out the proper statement of the doctrine

Fine, but that neither undermines nor refutes the observation I made about what you did. You wrote:

The Bible is self-interpreting. It does interpret itself. I refer you to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, paragraph 9 which says: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself…”

Note what was done here: you make a statement about the Bible, saying that it interprets itself. To back up your contention, you cite the Westminster Confession, which is making a statement about the Bible. Thus, an extra-biblical source is deemed authoritative in matters of the Bible itself. That is not sola Scriptura (to the extent that it is binding -- and I am told that the Westminster Confession is upon Calvinists); it is, rather, a tradition of men. That's one reason of many why the whole viewpoint is so incoherent. I tried to bring it back to Scripture, however, by asking, "where in Scripture does it teach that the Church cannot infallibly interpret it?"

. . . --to illustrate what sola scriptura is really about contra the solo scriptura position more common today that 'Pontificator' was attacking in his own blog.

I understand what the doctrine is. I always have (when I was a Protestant and since then). Pontificator understands it, too, and expressly states that he is critiquing the classic Reformational rule of faith. You misrepresent him if you claim otherwise. Of course you can disagree with him, but that is his self-understanding (and mine as well).

We both simply disagree with you that it is a coherent doctrine. We think the problem lies at the roots, not in corruption or misapplication. I have tried to show at great length why I believe that, and nothing I have seen thus far has disabused me of my opinion. I could be a Buddhist or a Rastafarian and make the same critique, because it is one of internal difficulty.

I think if you re-read Calvin's Institutes on these topics with a full-blown Catholic ecclesiology in mind--that Calvin still had much in common with the Fathers of the early and medieval Church--you should pick up a number of differences between the classically Reformed view of sola scriptura and what is popular today.

I do fully recognize it, and I just did some of that analysis. Where you and I differ is in thinking that Calvin's more sophisticated variant of sola Scriptura resolves its fundamental problems of being entirely non-biblical and self-defeating. Calvin doesn't resolve those difficulties at all, as I think I have shown. If you can show me where my reasoning has faltered, or where I have misrepresented anything in Calvin or the Westminster Confession, etc., I'd be most appreciative.

The very fact that I have already granted the premises that you want me to disprove should show you that there is a disparity between the view you are attacking and the view of sola scriptura that I adhere to as one faithful to the teachings of the magisterial Reformers.

All it shows me is that you have not fully grappled with the implications of your position (nor did Calvin, quite obviously, I think). That's not meant as an insult. It's very common to all of us to not think through everything to the nth degree. I am simply challenging you to do so by my argument (granting all due respect).

Your view that a citation of the Confession by myself constitutes a determination of "something about the Bible" as a tradition is looking at the matter with Roman Catholic glasses on for I never intended for it to be viewed as such.

That was simply a matter of logic. You may not have intended it, but the logic cannot be escaped, because you said, "such-and-such about the Bible is true because the Westminster Confession said so." That was the reasoning chain. I don't see how it can be denied; it was too straightforward and clear of an assertion.

I suppose we all have our own blindnesses to our own tradition and you in turn demonstrated that quite nicely here for your own view.

Great; so we're even! LOL

The Confession does not "determine something about the Bible". The Confession recognizes an inherent quality that the Bible already contains by virtue of its nature and authority as God's Word.

That is easily said, but mere assertion is not proof. You find it self-evident that the Bible is perspicuous and self-interpreting. Others do not (myself included). So you think that when the Westminster Confession states this, it is merely asserting the obvious and self-evident. Again, many deny this. How do we decide who is right?

Failing a clear teaching in the Bible about those aspects (and an explanation of passages which are in the Bible which seem to plainly suggest the contrary), it falls back (in Protestantism) to the arbitrary selection of one human tradition over against another. This gets back to the errors of presuppositionalist thought.

At some point, conversation breaks down because the non-presuppositionalist fails to accept one of the supposedly self-evident "presuppositions". But these very traditions are not based explicitly on the Bible; they are extra-biblical traditions themselves, accepted as quite binding, as it were.

I freely grant that when the actual council happened, James made the decision and it was binding. However, for us today, the result of this decision being included in Scripture shows us a very clear example of Scripture interpreting Scripture.

At the time, no one knew that it was "Scripture interpreting Scripture." It was simply apostolic authority, and the authority of the Church and councils, which was absolutely binding (which, of course, fully supports my position over against yours and Calvin's). That would have been true whether the proceedings "made it into" Scripture or not. No doubt there are volumes of volumes of Paul's or Jesus' teachings which could easily have made into Scripture as well, had the Lord so willed. They were authoritative, though, as they were spoken.

Secondly, of course Scripture interprets Scripture. As a general rule, that is true. It's the basis of all good hermeneutics, exegesis, and systematic theology. I use the method all the time in my apologetics, and have for 23 years; see, e.g., my papers on the biblical evidences for the Holy Trinity and Deity of Christ. These were written in 1982). All I am saying is that it is not an absolute rule, nor is it explicitly stated in Scripture itself (as a doctrinal statement, not merely historical example), nor does it exclude notions of the Church and Tradition and councils authoritatively interpreting Scripture. The Jerusalem Council certainly did that. Nor does Scripture exclude such notions (as this very example demonstrates).

Yes, these are the words of an Apostle in Acts 15, but for continuing generations they are the words of Scripture and they are very plainly indicating that Scripture interprets Scripture. From the very lips of our Lord, this is confirmed also in John 5:46:

John 5:46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me.

This is an excellent example, and I'm delighted that you brought it up, because note that the Bible doesn't immediately tell us what Moses wrote about Jesus; it doesn't identify these passages. Thus, Jesus is referring to oral tradition. We don't have much in the NT which demonstrates that "this teaching from Moses was about Jesus." The same exact dynamic occurs in Luke 24:27, where Jesus was talking to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus:

And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Again, the Bible doesn't list these things. That would have to be determined by study and exegesis. And He interprets them! That shows that the words were not all that clear and self-evident. In fact, it was so unclear that virtually no one knew that Jesus was to rise from the dead and that the whole thing was foretold (e.g., Isaiah 53).

So it is yet another instance of authoritative interpretation being necessary, whether it was from Jesus Himself, an apostle, a prophet, a bishop, or a scribe like Ezra. Church authority. Tradition. Not sola Scriptura. In the latter position, those aspects are only given lip service. But they are not binding, because they are always able to be judged.

This, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg for the entire written New Testament speaks and interprets the Old Testament in light of Christ, His coming, and His work. As I said, I'm happy to grant that this reflects the teaching of the Church as well as the Apostles themselves, but let us be fair with one another and admit that after the New Testament was written as Scripture they provide us with the example that the Scripture interprets itself.

I don't deny it. It is the things that sola Scriptura denies (binding Church, Tradition, Councils, apostolic succession, episcopacy and papacy) and its radical circularity and internal incoherence that I am concerned with. You're missing the point of my paper again.

Granting this sole self-evident pillar of sola scriptura does not in and of itself endanger the Roman Catholic view so I am hopeful that we will see agreement here by you as well that at least in these three cases above we see Scripture interpreting itself.

It endangers itself by its unbiblical and logically circular nature. It never did damage our view because it is such a weak and indefensible position.

I didn't claim that "nothing outside of it can be an aid to interpretation". I'm happy to admit that God uses means as an instrument in helping us interpret the Scriptures, but this is not a matter of using a commentary to look at a passage. The question is one of authority. Where does the ultimate authority lie in terms of interpreting the Scripture?

With the Church, of course.

First, I sense you want me to provide a verse that says, "Yep, sola scriptura is right-on target".

Any passage at all which suggests this novel Protestant pillar would be nice, yes. But I suppose that is asking too much: for a Protestant to back up his pillar and rule of faith from Holy Scripture. You almost backed into a direct reply to the central thesis of my actual paper! :-)

I'm not sure that's the way we should be proceeding.

Darn! Close call, eh?

For one thing, while you have stated significant agreement between us on many of the underlying principles of sola scriptura, there are still presuppositions that would get in the way of you viewing verses that I bring to the table in support of my view. In some sense at least we are at an impasse here.

Well, that's why Christians engage in these sorts of dialogues, isn't it? I'm having a great time. It is a good discussion, and I thank you for that.

The whole of Scripture speaks to this matter and the proof for sola scriptura is just as much about how God has revealed Himself to men and His Church as it is about the particular details he has revealed to us in Scripture.

I see God revealing in His Scripture an authoritative role for the Church, Tradition, Councils, apostolic succession, bishops, and a papacy (while sola Scriptura is never asserted at all). Those things are not only not excluded, they are positively required by Scripture.

But, my question to you is this...given that you have bought into the claims of the Roman Catholic Magisterium on this, what does it matter what I bring to the table for as a faithful Roman Catholic you must reject it out of hand anyway.

This is wrongheaded and unhelpful in a number of ways:

1. It is completely irrelevant what I believe, as the present topic is a critique of the internal incoherence of the Protestant position on the rule of faith.

2. What you state about me applies equally to you, so it is a non sequitur. You are no more likely to accept Catholic distinctives than I am to accept Protestant distinctives.

3. I always allow a theoretical possibility that I can be convinced of another position. The proof of that lies in my own history: I once was Protestant and converted to my present beliefs by means precisely of study and dialogue (ecumenical discussions in my own home).

4. Does this mean that people shouldn't talk about differences where they will -- in all likelihood -- not come to agreement? Folks can still learn and understand more through talking, and come to respect opponents, while not agreeing with them in every particular. They may learn that they are closer together than they previously thought. I think that about many aspects of Reformed-Catholic differences.

5. This subject happens to be a rather large difference, but you are learning that we have a very high view of Scripture, as you do, and we are learning that caricatures of sola Scriptura are not helpful and that there is a place for Tradition and Councils and Churches in your thought.

6. I find it to be a very constructive discussion myself, so I don't see how it is helpful to point out that I will never accept something because I am a Catholic, or because my Church won't allow me, etc., when it is largely the same for you in your side. Your comrades exclude us far more from the circle of Christianity than we exclude you, as you know full well.

In other words, you have absolutely no objective basis to evaluate sola scriptura outside of the similar claim of the Roman Catholic Magisterium to ultimate authority.

That is simply untrue. I can examine it on its own merits, just as any other belief or tenet is examined. I have cited your sources for why you believe it, and called for biblical support, since you ostensibly ground all your beliefs in Holy Scripture (that's one of the cherished Protestant myths, anyway). I think you repeatedly want to switch the topic over to Catholic authority (as you are doing again here) because you sense down deep that your position is indeed weighed down by many serious internal difficulties which you are hard-pressed to even explain, let alone defend.

You can indeed subjectively evaluate the claims of Protestants regarding Scripture but at the end of the day you must submit these claims to Rome.

Not at all. "Rome" has only authoritatively announced on about 6-8 Bible passages. Of course I have boundaries of orthodoxy, outside of which my theology may not go, but so do you, so it is another non sequitur, which doesn't solve your problem to the slightest degree. it was a clever attempt at diversion and evasion, though. :-)

And on what basis? Because the Magisterium tells you so. The circular argument regarding ultimate authority returns home where it belongs--to those who would claim ultimate authority for their position.

I can defend every jot and tittle of my position. I'm interested at the moment of seeing you defend yours, or concede the difficulty (either of yourself personally or of the system you adhere to).

In contrast, the Protestant recognizes the ultimate authority of God's Word and submits to it because it is God's Word spoken to us through the Holy Spirit, both individually and corporately.

Who doesn't? Why pretend that only Protestants believe this? Last time I checked, all Christians did, so it is silly to imply that only some do. It's like saying, "scientists from the state of Nebraska recognize uniformitarianism, and the key role of replicability and empirical observation as a fundamental tenet of science."

How do we as Protestants know this? Because God's Word tells us so.

Good for you. Delighted to hear it. I love it when people respect the Bible.

You have already admitted to the basic premises of this viewpoint (see your "wholehearted" agreement to points 1-9 above)--premises which are thoroughly biblical--and I would submit to you that the ultimate reason why you do not accept it . . .

Huh? You just said I accepted it, but now I don't? Your confusion here is the usual Protestant equation of sola Scriptura with respect for the full authority and infallibility and inspiration of the Bible. The two are NOT the same. And it is rather silly to keep insinuating that they are.

. . . is simply because you have already placed your faith in the Roman Catholic Magisterium and not because of any substantial reason you might present to deny the viewpoint.

Assuming this is true (and it is only partially at best), your burden is still to show me and everyone reading this how my reasoning went awry. All I've done is examine your view. I haven't cited popes and councils. I could have been an atheist or a Sufi and made this exact same argument. it has nothing directly to do with being a Catholic. That certainly colors my analysis, but it is not essential to it.

I can hear you saying (or typing) now that such considerations are not on topic, that we must continue to discuss sola scriptura independent of the ultimate truth claims of Rome.

Bingo. No pun intended . . .

However, given that both claims are ultimate--to talk of one is to speak of the other. Your claim that the Church is as infallible as Scripture is just as much a part of the discussion about the veracity of sola scriptura as anything else you have brought up.

In a sense, to talk about one is to talk about the other. But there are also other options. Anglicanism is a sort of Via Media. Orthodoxy is also a distinct conception of authority. Secondly, it is still necessary to stick to one problem at a time if one is to have a constructive, fruitful conversation, and in order to avoid the common evasive technique of "your dad's uglier than my dad." Thirdly, Church infallibility is limited to certain specified conditions. It is not biblical inspiration. It's a negative guarantee against error.

Secondly, the classic Reformed expression of sola scriptura does not absurdly claim that "Scripture is totally clear and must interpret itself" in all things. Rather, the viewpoint of the Reformed is as follows:

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, paragraph 7)

Good. I understand this, and I agree that Scripture is clear in the main. I have always found it to be so in all my research. The problem, however, continues to be: what is the ultimate authority? Scripture must be interpreted, whether it is by a layman, a Bible scholar, a Council, bishops, or a pope. There is no avoiding this. The Catholic position allows "the buck to stop" somewhere. The Protestant position does not and cannot do that, it seems to me.

The proof texts provided with the Confession make the point quite clear (see Psalms 119:105, 130; Deut. 29:29; 30:10-14; Acts 17:11).

As usual, these "proof texts" do not prove sola Scriptura as a rule of faith and a system of authority. They don't come anywhere close. The Bible is a lamp and light and gives understanding. Of course. No one denies that. Deuteronomy 29:29 and 30:10-14 need to be understood in light of other passages where the scribes and Levites were necessary to interpret the Law to the Israelites. It also needs to be remembered that the Old Testament Jews (and the later mainstream Pharisaical Judaism) believed in an authoritative oral Tradition which was delivered to Moses on Mt. Sinai at the same time he received the written law. The OT Jews did not believe in sola Scriptura. Acts 17:11 shows that all true beliefs must be in line with the Bible, but it doesn't necessarily indicate the system of sola Scriptura, because we deny that and we believe, like you, that our beliefs cannot contradict the biblical data.

Of course the decree of the Jerusalem Council was binding. We do not argue with such things. Calvin has quite clearly admitted the authority of councils and the Westminster Confession does as well (see Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 31, especially paragraphs 1-3).

But both deny that such councils are binding, as I have shown.

But, please demonstrate for me what new teaching the Council proposed apart from Scripture. James and the other Apostles merely recognized what was already a part of Scripture and how to apply it in their particular situation.

Precisely. That's what I am saying: authoritative interpretation is necessary, and it is binding. Protestants can accept that only to a point; then dissent must be allowed on the basis of its own principles of private judgment and sola Scriptura.

If the entire law can be summed up in "love your neighbor as yourself", then there is nothing new that the Church did in telling the Gentiles to have regard for the scruples of their Jewish brothers in the Church. No one is denying the role of the Holy Spirit in such a council and to say that the Reformed do so is clearly not in accordance with our argument for sola scriptura.

All right then. So if the Jerusalem Council was so guided, then (since it serves as an example of Church government to us), which other councils were so guided, and therefore binding? You tell me, since you claim that you accept this principle.

The presence of the Holy Spirit at such councils and working through the bishops of the Church does not guarantee infallibility for the councils or the Church.

If the Holy Spirit guiding a meeting doesn't guarantee freedom from error, then there can be no guarantee whatsoever, and we are all following arbitrary schemas, never sure if they are true or not. You either think this council was free from error or not. If you do, then this shows us that it is possible, because it happened at least once. If it happened once, I see no reason to deny that it can happen again, many times. If it didn't happen at all, then the very notion of a binding council is undermined, because it is entirely fallible, and thus of little worth for truth-seekers in matters of Christian doctrine and theology. Secondly, you believe that the Holy Spirit guided quite fallible, limited, sinful men to write an inspired ("God-breathed") Scripture, yet you deny that God the Holy Spirit is able to grant the gift of infallibility, which is far lesser a gift than inspiration. Curious . . .

This is born out not only in Scripture but also in the history of the Church. The councils and the Church are authoritative inasmuch as they agree with the truth of Scripture.

Who determines whether they agree or not, and why should its / his opinion be deemed any more authoritative than the council that it / he judges?

I have argued as much elsewhere and if you want to see the difference between the classic Reformed view and the solo scriptura view peruse the mini-discussion I had with James White concerning the authority of Chalcedon (mini, because it took place within a conversation about Congar and his writing on my blog).

I agree with this distinction, and have written about it in my first book (p. 4). But I don't agree that this distinction alone can resolve your internal difficulties.

I accept the authority of such councils as well as those teachers who are over me in the Church, but I do so only so far as they agree with Scripture for it is Scripture that has ultimate authority.

I don't know what that means in a practical sense until you can explain to me the process by which one determines who / what agrees with Scripture, and why this method is inherently more trustworthy and dependable and worthy of allegiance than the councils themselves.

Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it.

My Article on Junior High Lunch Time (11-22-72)

In case anyone is wondering (I'm sure no one is, but humor me . . . ) what I was writing about over 31 years ago (many of you weren't even alive way back then), here is a piece I always liked from my own writing, back in '72, when I was 14 (with hair almost down to my shoulders) and in 9th grade.

In retrospect, being a writer / "journalist" for the school paper Spotlight (Woodrow Wilson Jr. High, Detroit, MI), was actually the biggest indication of what I would later do for a living. I didn't have a clue as to what that might be then, or even through high school and on to my last year in college. Strange.

I liked a lot of things, but none enough to want to devote my life to, occupation-wise. After I got through my childhood dreaming of being a baseball player and an archaeologist (!!! -- musta been my ancient love of history), I was out to sea for several years, in terms of having any particular life-goal. I knew I wanted to meet a cute girl to marry when I was old enough, but that was about it.

I didn't even care much for English class. I never learned to type, and still peck away using my peculiar, labor -intensive "four-finger" method to this day (but pretty fast at that). I majored in avocational music in high school (I loved music, but knew I didn't want to be a professional musician). I still didn't know what I wanted to do with my life in college. When that is the case, you do what I did and major in sociology. LOL I toyed with majoring in social work for a short time. I really should have majored in history or philosophy, though, given my interests, and that remains a major regret of my life.

It was only in the fall of 1980, in my senior year, when I started going to InterVarsity and reading folks like Francis Schaeffer and Josh McDowell (I had already been reading C.S. Lewis for a few years), and began attending a "Jesus Freak," non-denominational church and getting serious about being a disciple of Jesus, that I realized I wanted to do something with my life related to apologetics and evangelism.

But this article was way before that, when I didn't go to church at all and was a good left wing, "liberated" pagan, and occult afficionado (Ouiji Boards, ESP, astral projection, telepathy, etc.). That being the case, there is no Christian theology here (I wasn't to be much interested at all in that for another five years), but what it does clearly exhibit is my smart-alecky tendencies and love of satirical-type humor. And that is what I see in myself in this early piece that remains with me today. So without further ado, here is my tongue-in-cheek "editorial" and social commentary on the early adolescent mentality:
----------------------------------------------

"The Lunchroom"

Some people think that you go to the lunchroom to eat, but this is only partly true. A lunchroom is the place where many weird things happen. It is the place where you get hit in the head with a stale bun. It is the place where you have to bum money to buy your lunch. It is the place where you suddenly feel mashed potatoes seeping into your pants after you sit down.

It is the place where your stomach aches almost instantaneously after you finish the last bite of your coleslaw. You may have heard the screeching sound of the cashier saying: "Put that bun back."

The lunchroom is a good place to watch the Olympics. There is always someone attempting to break the world discus throw record. You also see excellent acrobatics when someone comes dashing by you, running from the lunch lady.

After you finish your food (if you eat it at all) you feel content and ready to go to your next class. But if you get a slight case of indigestion when you get there, don't blame the people who make the food, blame yourself for buying your lunch!
------------------------------------

LOL I remember getting more than a few compliments on this, around school (a one-time event, with regard to my writing), making me feel about as "popular" among my peers, as I ever would, at that stage of my life (which was only moderately at best). If I made people laugh, and they liked my writing, then I was happy.

In that respect I was very similar already to how I am today. Now I also like to make people think a bit about the things of God in my writing, and share the Good News, and the truths which I have discovered in the Catholic Church and in Christianity, generally-speaking.

Thanks for reading! I may occasionally reprint a few more examples of my ancient writing, if I deem them worthwhile at all.

Catholic Books, Authors, & Cultural Heritage

My old web page with that title has been resurrected, courtesy of the wonderful Internet Archive.

Enjoy, book lovers!

N.T. Wright & the "New Perspective" on St. Paul: Did Luther Misinterpret Paul's Soteriology?

Excerpts from "An Interview With N.T. Wright," by Travis Tamerius; conducted for The Reformation & Revival Journal, a publication of the ministry of John Armstrong. It was originally printed in two parts in volume 11, numbers 1 and 2 (Winter and Spring 2003) respectively. All the words will be Wright's own excepting the indented portions, which are the interviewer's words.
-------------------------------------------

Tom Wright is one of the freshest voices within orthodox evangelical Christian thought today and is a major contributor to both the study of the historical Jesus and the theology of the New Testament. He is an unusual academic theologian because he is comfortable in the work of the parish as well as in the world of academic New Testament study. He serves as canon theologian of Westminster Abbey in London and just recently was appointed the [Anglican] bishop-elect of Durham.

. . . the Jews, in the first century . . . simply were not discussing at great length what Christians have meant by the question, "How do we go to heaven when we die?" or something like that. They were, to the extent that they were discussing such matters at all, doing it in a way that was deeply bound up with political realities and agendas in a way quite foreign to a lot of evangelical Christianity since the Enlightenment and the Reformation. You have to understand that the Reformation was as political as it was theological. This is actually an example in the other direction . . . my post-Enlightenment style evangelicalism didn't have room for this approach. So I've had to get away from sure pretty anachronistic eighteenth century assumptions in order to understand the Protestant Reformers. And I have also had to get away from some of the Reformation assumptions, which are basically late medieval assumptions, in order to understand the first-century and the New Testament . . .

Alister McGrath says, when it comes to reading the Apostle Paul on "works of the law," that "if N.T. Wright is correct, Luther is wrong" . . . So which is it? Is Luther still riding in the car with you or have you dropped him off at the last truck stop?

. . . Luther comes to the question, "How can I find a gracious God?" He approaches this question from his Augustinian framework. He was an Augustinian monk. Actually he claimed that he didn't understand Augustine that well until after he had been converted, which might not be the case. This we do know - his antithesis of grace/works, or faith/law, was very strongly conditioned by his own soul struggles, the struggles to be an obedient monk and what he thought this all hinged upon. This was all rooted in the world of late medieval Catholicism. Luther, then, is reading Paul looking for the bits and pieces that will help him resolve this particular question . . . the problem here is that this has led us down some pretty murky paths.

The way that I came into this is a bit interesting. I grew up as a somewhat typical middle-Anglican with a strong dash of evangelicalism, or put the other way around, I grew up in a Lutheran evangelicalism which left me with a strong antithesis between law and grace. I found this all profoundly unsatisfying until I met Calvin and Calvinism. I began to think, "Whew...the law is a good thing. It is holy and just and good. It is right and it has been fulfilled, not abrogated, in Christ." All of that is right. So, if you are faced with a choice between Luther and Calvin, you simply have to choose Calvin. I think a lot of evangelical debates in North America, at the moment, are still right around that axis although they don't come right out and actually say so . . . But I found then, and this was the mid-seventies before E.P. Sanders was published, before there was such a thing as a "new perspective," that I came out with this reading of Romans 10:3 which is really the fulcrum for me around which everything else moved: "Being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own."

In other words, what we have here is a covenant status which is for Jews and Jews only. I have a vivid memory of going home that night, sitting up in bed, reading Galatians through in Greek and thinking, "It works. It really works. This whole thing is going to fly." And then all sorts of things just followed on from that. I mean Sanders was a great boost but he didn't start this for me and he hasn't given direction to what I did or was doing. It was more like Sanders was saying, "Actually first-century Judaism never was like what Luther said it was."

. . . The "new perspective" hasn't run out of steam. It's actually assumed now by probably three-fourths of British and North American Pauline scholars. But the phrase, "the new perspective," which is James D.G. Dunn's phrase is clearly a very, very broad brush. Those of us who live a bit closer to the canvas know that there are lots of different paint strokes that have to be taken account of. So I certainly don't want to be labeled as a clone of Sanders and Dunn.

. . . the "new perspective" is a way of saying, "Hey guys, there has been something quite remarkable happening in the last twenty years in Pauline scholarship but let's not imagine that this is anything other than a call to wake up and read the text a bit better . . .

. . . the big question throughout the 1517 to 1530 period [was] "Where have you been for the last 1500 years?" If that's what Paul meant, why didn't the church notice it before now? Luther was saying, "God's Word. God's Word. Here I stand." And thousands of people were saying, "Yes, yes, yes." So, this is always the puzzle. Then it's back to this methodological issue. I do think that God has new light to break out of Holy Scripture. But it's not new light in the sense of throwing away all that's good in the past.

. . . people have started to realize that our traditional readings of Paul have been part of a limited way of construing reality . . .

. . . When Paul is talking about justification he is talking about God's declaratory act of validating or vindicating those who are at this point in the ordo salutis, the point where they have come to faith. When people hear that they at once say things like, "This sounds like an odd mixture of what was semi-Pelagianism and hyper-Calvinism," because I believe that grace through the gospel causes people to believe and then when they believe God justifies them.

. . . Look at what Paul actually says when he talks about how people become Christians. Look for instance at 1 Thessalonians where he says quite a lot about it without ever using the word justify or any of its cognates. He talks about the gospel coming to you in the power of the Spirit. You accepted that word not as the word of man but as what it really is, the word of God that is at work in you believers. It's quite clear what Paul is talking about, that he comes into town announcing that Jesus is Lord, as a royal herald. He is saying that the crucified Jesus is the Lord of the world. And this is not, "Here is a way of salvation. You might like to apply it to yourself." It's not, "Here is a new way of being religious and you might enjoy it." This is really an imperial summons: "On your knees!" Nobody ever went into a Roman town and said, "Caesar is lord and you might like to have this experience of acknowledging him as lord if that suits you." They said, "Caesar is Lord, get on your knees and we want the tax right now."
--------------------------------------
I find Wright to be an extraordinary, exciting thinker and exegete. I haven't read him till now (only so many hours in a day . . .), but have heard a lot about him (with all the controversies going on in Reformed circles). I plan to read a lot of his stuff in the near future, and will highlight it and comment upon it on this blog.

Thomas Howard on the Sins of the Catholic Church

Rome's opulence, her political machinations down through the centuries, her tyrannies and hauteur and self-assertiveness, not to mention the Dionysian romp in the Vatican in the Renaissance, what with Borgia popes and catamites and so forth: all of that is bad -- very bad. The Catholic Church knows that. Dante, of course, had half of the popes head down in fiery pits in hell.

Chaucer, contemporary with the Lollard Wyclif, but himself a loyal Catholic, is merciless -- scathing even -- in his portraiture of filthy and cynical clergy. St. Thomas More and Erasmus, contemporary with Luther and Calvin, were at least as vitriolic in their condemnation of Roman evils as were the Reformers . . . [But] Israel was not less Israel when she was being wicked . . . The Church is in the same position in its identity as people of God. We have Judas Iscariot, as it were, and Ananias and Sapphira, and other unsavory types amongst us, but we have no warrant to set up shop outside the camp, so to speak . . .

Evangelicals, in their just horror at rampant evils in Catholic history, . . . unwittingly place themselves somewhat with the Donatists of the fourth century, who wanted to hive off because of certain evils which they felt were widespread in the Church. Augustine and others held the view that you can't go that far. You can't set up shop independently of the lineage of bishops . . .

As far as the ancient, orthodox Church was concerned, nobody could split off . . . The problems of the Roman Catholic Church (sin, worldliness, ignorance) are, precisely, the problems of the Church. St. Paul never got out of Corinth before he had all of the above problems. Multiply that small company of Christians by 2000 years and hundreds of millions, and you have what the Catholic Church has to cope with. Furthermore, remember that the poor Catholics aren't the only ones who have to cope.

Anyone who has ever tried to start himself a church has run slap into it all, with a vengeance . . . Worldliness, second-generation apathy, ossification, infidelity, loss of vision, loss of zeal, loss of discipline, jiggery-pokery, heresy -- it's all there.

("Letter to my Brother: A Convert Defends Catholicism," Crisis, December 1991, 23-24, 26)

C.S. Lewis on Faith and Works

Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ . . . It does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary . . . Good actions . . . done with the idea that Heaven can be bought, would not be good actions at all . . . If what you call your 'faith' in Christ does not involve taking the slightest notice of what He says, then it is not Faith at all -- not faith or trust in Him, but only intellectual acceptance of some theory about Him.

The Bible really seems to clinch the matter when it puts the two things together into one amazing sentence. The first half is, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling' -- which looks as if everything depended on us and our good actions: but the second half goes on, 'For it is God who worketh in you' [Phil 2:12-13] -- which looks as if God did everything and we nothing . . . You see, we are now trying to understand, and to separate into water-tight compartments, what exactly God does and what man does when God and man are working together. And, of course, we begin by thinking it is like two men working together, so that you could say, 'He did this bit and I did that.' But this way of thinking breaks down. God is not like that. He is inside you as well as outside: even if we could understand who did what, I do not think human language could properly express it. In the attempt to express it different Churches say different things. But you will find that even those who insist most strongly on the importance of good actions tell you you need Faith; and even those who insist most strongly on Faith tell you to do good actions. At any rate that is as far as I go.

(Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan, 1952, 129-130)

Rockabilly: "White Man's R & B"

Much of the greatest music (perhaps all music) consists of a mixture of styles; hybrids; products of the combined sum of musical traditions, folk influences, and the meeting of diverse cultures. The United States has been the birthplace of many new musical developments for just this reason, since so many cultures and ethnic groups have come to this country, brought their own unique backgrounds, and assimilated various other cultural influences, musical and otherwise.

In the Southern United States, this meeting of cultures has been most potent and delightful in result. It was the amalgamation of the Scottish/Irish/English folk music tradition with black/African musical idiom which brought us so many of our musical forms today: spirituals, gospel, blues, jazz, country, rhythm and blues, bluegrass, on to rock and roll itself.

Thus, many artists (I will use as examples several of my own favorites) can be understood and analyzed in this light: the fabulous flat-picker Doc Watson combines blues, folk, and bluegrass. Bruce Hornsby, the piano wizard, takes in those influences and adds some jazz, R & B and various rock styles. Los Lobos (one of the most underrated bands in America) flows effortlessly and brilliantly from Mexican Mariachi-type music to Motown-influenced R & B to straight-ahead rock and roll to delightfully melodic country ballads.

Dire Straits (or Mark Knopfler solo) mixes colorful 70s-style guitar rock with classic country sounds. Earlier on, the influential and immensely popular music of Jimmie Rodgers and Hank Williams consisted of roughly equal parts of pure country and blues (which they learned at an early age from black musicians in the Deep South).

Likewise, many black artists whom we normally consider to be in the rock and roll or R & B categories, incorporated a great deal of white country music into their own: particularly Ray Charles, Fats Domino, and Chuck Berry.

Rockabilly is yet another example of this mixing, and for my money, one of the most brilliant, infectious and enjoyable musical hybrids. One might regard it historically as more or less equal portions of blues, bluegrass, rhythm and blues, and Western swing.

As one would expect, it all came together in the South, in the early 1950s. Many music historians place the formal beginning of the new style at Elvis Presley's first real recording session (i.e., not when he sang Old Shep for his mother!) at Sun Studios in Memphis, in 1954.

But Elvis had to be listening to some older music which formed the backdrop of his own initial "rockabilly" style. Of course, his first well-known song, That's All Right, was a cover of the version by Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup, a journeyman blues artist. The "Father of Bluegrass," Bill Monroe, was also an influence, and his 1946 song Blue Moon of Kentucky, was recorded by Elvis in his early Sun sessions.

The Western swing ingredient may be seen in a piece such as Bob Wills' Cotton-Eyed Joe, also from 1946, or the bluesy Cannonball Rag (1947), from the great guitar picker Merle Travis. Lastly, one Hank Williams song in particular, My Bucket's Got a Hole in it (1949) is very similar in style to rockabilly, especially in the guitar playing and lilting beat. Hardly any largely white musical style in the early 50s could have escaped the huge musical influence of the legendary one-of-a-kind Hank Williams.

And what exactly is this style which we now refer to as rockabilly? It is actually very simple and basic, which accounts for much of its appeal. It begins with the standard twelve-bar blues format, derived straight from classic Mississippi delta blues of the 1920s and 30s, with the familiar three-chord progression: 1st, 4th, and 5th. The second ingredient is a lively, bouncing, "walking" or "hopping" bass line, common in swing, country blues, and some jazz.

Central, of course, is the twangy, resonant, reverberating electric guitar, often emphasizing 7ths and bent blues notes. Oftentimes, acoustic guitar backs up the electric (perhaps a remnant of unplugged bluegrass). The drums offer a straight-ahead, no-nonsense rock and roll beat at medium tempo. The vocals usually follow the lead of Hank Williams, Elvis, Carl Perkins, and Buddy Holly, themselves all heavily influenced by Southern black musical styles, including gospel.

In my humble opinion, the quintessential rockabilly songs, which contain all these elements, and that extra intangible, inspirational spark, are Elvis's Good Rockin' Tonight (September 1954), Carl Perkins' Blue Suede Shoes (December 1955), Buddy Holly's Rock Around With Ollie Vee (July 1956), and Dale Hawkins' Susie Q (1957).

The magnificent Flyin' Saucers Rock 'n' Roll, by Billy Lee Riley (a sort of white Little Richard wannabe) might also be included, though arguably its qualities are more straight "rock and roll" than rockabilly. Obviously, however, this is a subjective judgment, and there are many great rockabilly songs which define the idiom.

So then, rockabilly can be summarized as a 1950s "(Southern) white man's R & B." In fact, the musicians themselves originally called it simply "rhythm and blues" or just "blues" (e.g., Carl Perkins' Boppin the Blues or Johnny Cash's Folsom Prison Blues). The term rockabilly is, of course, just a variation on "hillbilly rock and roll."

However great the black musical influence on rockabilly (and it is very great, if not the essential ingredient), the artists themselves are virtually entirely white, and Southern (if not literally -- e.g., Rick Nelson --, then certainly in "spirit"). The closest a black musician ever came to rockabilly was probably Chuck Berry's first hit Maybellene (1955).

The "golden age" of rockabilly was only from 1955 through 1957. Soon (as is sadly the case with many types of music) commercial considerations and loss of spirit and vitality combined to quash the brilliance of the original vision. In a sense this was also inevitable, given the very simplicity of the style. There is only so much a musician can do with a 12-bar, three-chord format, and hence, rockabilly, like the delta blues from which it derived, tends to get "samey" very quickly.

Consequently, there are no rockabilly artists to speak of who have had a lengthy successful career in this style alone, and even the best (Elvis, Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, Roy Orbison, Jerry Lee Lewis, Rick Nelson, Johnny Cash) changed styles (to country, rock, or pop) after only a few years. On the other hand, the few purists who have stayed the course, such as Charlie Feathers, are still good and worth a listen, but little known by the music-buying public.

Rockabilly -- of its essence -- needs to be sung and played with total commitment and passion, and the melody and guitar licks built around the basic format must be catchy and memorable. Absent those elements, the music quickly becomes vapid and highly prone to self-parody; devoid of either energy, soul, or substance. In that respect it is somewhat analogous to soul or gospel music, styles which are fairly simple structurally but complex emotionally, so that without the heartfelt "soul" aspect, little is left of interest.

The good news is that the rockabilly spirit has recurred periodically in little mini-revivals in the last forty years (e.g., in the early 80s), and has become incorporated into the music of many of the very best bands and singers, most notably in the inimitable Creedence Clearwater Revival (who also showed a pronounced soul / R & B influence), the Stray Cats (and Brian Setzer on his own), the delightfully quirky Traveling Wilburys (which included the late great Roy Orbison and George Harrison on its first album), Dave Edmunds, Dwight Yoakam, and Chris Isaak.

The Beatles likewise were very influenced by Buddy Holly and the Crickets ("Beatles" being an alternate insect name) and Carl Perkins. They covered three of the latter's songs (quite well and true to the spirit at that) and show rockabilly influence in early songs such as Can't Buy me Love, I'll Cry Instead, and She's a Woman, among others.

It is very difficult (if not impossible) to obtain all of the important, crucial rockabilly music in one album, or even on one label. Thankfully, there is now a 2-CD collection by Rhino Records entitled Rock This Town: Rockabilly Hits, which offers 36 songs total. Also available from the same company are the essential greatest hits packages of Perkins, Cash, Orbison, and Lewis, and
the seminal Sun Records Collection Box Set (3 CDs). The small label Varese Sarabande Records, also put out an album entitled Sun Records: 25 red-Hot Rockabilly Classics (2002).

Excellent 2-CD compilations of Buddy Holly's and Rick Nelson's work also exist on other labels. Ace Records has also been producing some great stuff, such as Them Rockabilly Cats! (2001).

And of course, The Sun Sessions will give you all of that original, primal, pre-commercialized Elvis, before he went Hollywood and schmaltz and ridiculous sequin-suits. I've put together myself the equivalent of nine albums' worth of rockabilly music on cassette tape (any avid afficionado will need to do that).

[originally written in 1997]

Why Sola Scriptura is Self-Defeating & False if it Isn't in the Bible (vs. Kevin Johnson)

I've seen many Protestants deny the Catholic counter-reply that if sola Scriptura isn't taught in the Bible, it is a self-defeating belief, and therefore untrue. It certainly is self-defeating if in fact it can't be found in the Bible (as I maintain). The inexorable, unarguable reasoning works as follows:

1. Sola Scriptura (SS) is the view that the Scripture is the final authority and only infallible one in the Christian life, higher than councils and Tradition and the Church, none of which are infallible (this is what is known as the formal sufficiency of Scripture as a rule of faith; Catholics deny this), and that every true Christian doctrine is found in Scripture, either implicitly or explicitly (material sufficiency of Scripture, which Catholics agree with).

2. If SS can be found taught in Scripture (and if Scripture teaches what sola Scriptura denies: that neither Tradition nor Church possess binding, infallible authority, as Scripture does), then it is not only self-consistent, but a true and a binding belief (just like anything else taught in inspired, infallible Scripture: God's revelation).

3. But SS cannot be found in Scripture (Protestants have not succeeded in showing the contrary, that it is there), and Scripture indeed teaches that Tradition and the Church possess binding, infallible authority.

4. If SS is not in Scripture then it is (by definition and nature) an "extra-biblical" tradition and a mere tradition of men. SS obviously cannot be the rule of faith, if what it entails is the Bible being the sole infallible and ultimate rule of faith, because that means that whatever is included in the Christian faith (let alone the rule of faith) is found in Scripture (since it IS the rule of faith, according to SS).

5. But SS is not in the Bible; thus it cannot possibly be a guide as to the status of the Bible itself with regard to authority and its relation to Church and Tradition. It is merely one of many "traditions of men" that Protestants (again, quite inconsistently) detest when it comes to Catholic distinctives which they claim are "unbiblical" and "extrabiblical."

6. SS itself condemns extra-biblical traditions, and Protestants condemn mere traditions of men. These cannot be binding and obligatory upon believers.

7. Therefore, SS cannot be true by its own principles (IF it isn't in the Bible itself)! It is self-defeating (and nothing self-defeating can be true). Nor can it be true by ostensible Protestant principles. And it cannot be binding because all binding principles under the Protestant system must be found in Scripture itself.

8. If it's not in the Bible (or at the very least, clearly deducible from it), it can't be part of the Christian faith, and it obviously can't speak to whether the Bible is the sole rule of faith, because (not being in the Bible) that would mean that a non-biblical tradition has more authority than the Bible itself -- the very thing which the principle itself denies. So it is self-defeating and logical nonsense.

9. Of course, the canon of Scripture (quite similarly to this Protestant conundrum) is another non-biblical doctrine depending on Tradition and Church authority, which is also a huge epistemological difficulty for Protestants, but another issue.

10. Ergo, SS can not only not be true, but it cannot be binding either, and whatever is not binding cannot be a rule of faith (and untruths obviously cannot be binding upon Christian believers, as God's will).

11. Moreover, if SS is not the Protestant rule of faith, then they must find another coherent, true rule, and that necessarily, inevitably falls back upon some sort of authoritative Tradition and/or Church authority, thus putting them on the same exact epistemological and ecclesiological plane as Orthodox and Catholics and (well, in theory, anyway) Anglicans, who all appeal to an authoritative Tradition in their belief-structure and epistemology.

12. Which Tradition and which Church, then, shall a Protestant choose (SS having failed and having been shown to be a false principle)? Well, Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Then we enter into the controversy as to which is more worthy of allegiance.

But I am far less concerned with Orthodoxy than I am with Protestantism. I feel that we ought to stress our commonality with the Orthodox, rather than wrangle with them, which is why I removed almost all of my Internet papers on Orthodoxy (though I plan to probably compile them into a book).

Meanwhile, the Protestant rule of faith is thoroughly incoherent, inconsistent, unbiblical, unhistorical (it was never held to any appreciable extent till the 16th century), and unworkable in practice.

Let Protestants keep trying in vain to find this teaching in Holy Scripture. I've yet to see that, and I've written more about this issue than any other in my apologetic endeavors. If it isn't there, it either 1) can no longer be held, or 2) must be radically modified in definition. And if #2 is the case, I fail to see how it can even continue being what it is. If it incorporates tradition within its parameters as binding and obligatory, and/or infallible, it ceases to be what it is; it loses its very nature and essence.

Kevin Johnson (words in blue), an articulate Reformed Protestant, wrote in a comment in a previous thread:

I think perhaps you Roman Catholic guys have been shell-shocked by fundamentalist Protestants for a long time.

"Shell-shocked"? LOL I'm still waiting for those guys to get off a shot that hits anywhere near us! LOL The problem ain't being shell-shocked, it is either falling asleep or dying laughing at the sheer stupidity and goofiness of their claims, such as Eric Svendsen claiming that we raise Mary to the level of the Holy Trinity, or James White creating an absoute dichotomy between sacraments and grace, which would exclude St. Augustine and Martin Luther from the Body of Christ.

. . . so long that perhaps it is difficult to even conceive of a Protestant actually having credible arguments for what they believe.

I have no problem conceiving that at all. Usually that is the case (at least above the level of premises). I simply deny that this is one instance where a coherent case can be made. It is not only built upon false premises; it is self-defeating, which renders it unworthy of belief. And I am referring to all the most sophisticated versions of sola Scriptura, not the fundamentalist extreme Bible-Only or SOLO Scriptura stuff.

A more balanced view would recognize that men like Calvin and Luther made their impact because while they may not have always been right they were certainly formidable opponents to the Catholic clergy of their day and their arguments did make sense to at least some of the world they lived in.

Of course, but that is another issue. Here we are discussing the principles of authority that they introduced, which were contrary to the received Tradition.

. . . the argument for sola scriptura is not a matter of proof-texting different verses,

Whatever you call recourse to biblical argument and data, it is absolutely necessary in this case, by the very nature of the beast, as shown above.

rather it is a recognition of the authority inherent in the Word of God and a realizing that the whole text of Scripture must be taken into account on the matter.

Catholics don't disagree with that, but it doesn't settle the issues of whether 1) SS is true, and 2) whether it is in fact self-defeating. That question has to be dealt with of its own accord; again, because of the specific nature of the thing being discussed, which necessarily involves making an argument from the Bible itself. The Protestant task remains to prove the doctrine from Scripture, and they have not done so. If you say it is deduced, then we can come back and say that a binding Tradition and Church is taught explicitly in Scripture (both notions being fatal to sola Scriptura).

Fundamental interpretive issues like these should be discussed prior to proof-texting your way in or out of sola scriptura.

Sure, but this doesn't resolve the issue at hand, at all. Scripture is authoritative. It has inherent authority. All of it must be taken into account. All of these things are wholeheartedly accepted by Catholics. But your task is to show that Scripture somehow excludes the binding nature of Tradition and the Church and asserts this principle. And that clearly must be demonstrated in Scripture itself.

If it can't be found, it collapses, because sola Scriptura would then be an unbiblical tradition of men, which is contrary to its very definition and nature. Anyone can see this, if they can step aside from partisan concerns for the moment, and look at it purely in terms of the logical factors involved.

Otherwise, you have your verses and tradition and I have mine.

That's what the situation reduces to at length, anyway. Sola Scriptura is simply an entrenched, arbitrary, obligatory Protestant Tradition. But it makes no sense because it can't be proven from the Bible -- not even indirectly -- and much in the Bible contradicts it.

In a comment on the Pontificator's [Fr. Al Kimel's] blog, Kevin offered the usual rejoinder, that his opponents (in this instance, an Anglican priest) do not understand sola Scriptura and private judgment:

Your critique may indeed speak loudly to the more extreme modern elements of Protestantism that has divorced itself from a fuller understanding of the original Reformation vision. However, your comments do no damage to the doctrine of sola scriptura as it was framed by Calvin and several of the historic Reformed Confessions . . .

Then he goes on to state the outlines of sola Scriptura:

The Bible is self-interpreting. It does interpret itself. I refer you to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, paragraph 9 which says: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself…”

Thus, we have a tradition (the Westminster Confession) determining something about the Bible, in the very act of defining the notion that nothing outside the Scripture can do so. The blindness to one's own "philosophy" or "tradition" here fits in nicely with sola Scriptura. But where in Scripture does it teach that the Church cannot infallibly interpret it (or for that matter, where does it deny that Tradition and the Church can determine the canon: which books are in the Bible in the first place?).

Second, the Bible does belong to an obvious genre–it is the Word of God and uniquely so–as such it has a self-attesting authority as His Word and its revelatory nature dictates that it alone is the guide as to how it should be interpreted.

No one denies that the Bible is unique. But it doesn't follow from that that nothing outside of it can be an aid to interpretation. In fact, this is denied. To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

1) Ezra 7:6,10: Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss
of goods, and even death (7:25-26).

2) Nehemiah 8:1-8: Ezra reads the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (8:3). In 8:7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra, and "who helped the people to
understand the law." Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chronicles 17:8-9). In Nehemiah 8:8: ". . . they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading." The New Testament is no different:

And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch . . . seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah . . . So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" (Acts 8:27-28, 30-31)

In fact, proper Reformed hermeneutics would demand that it is the guide by which all things are to be interpreted and understood.

Exactly; so this "all" would include sola Scriptura itself, the very rule of faith for the Protestant. You keep putting deeper into a rut and a pit. First, Scripture is totally clear and must interpret itself. Now it must be the source of understanding everything! So if Scripture is so clear and self-interpreting, where is sola scriptura clearly, self-evidently taught in it (as it must be)?

Because the Bible is God’s Word to men, it logically follows that not only does it mean something for us but the Scriptures also are clear to us–can anyone doubt that God the Father intended to place in His children’s hands a message that was comprehensible?;

That doesn't logically follow, but I agree that it is plausible. Even so, it doesn't follow (logically or as a practical matter) that the comprehensibility of the Scripture has to flow only from itself and without the aid of Church and Tradition. These things not only do not follow; the contrary is explicitly taught in Scripture.

The Jerusalem Council issued a binding decree and interpretation of Scripture on the matters of contraception and application of the Mosaic law in the New Covenant. The Bible even says that those at the Council were specially guided by the Holy Spirit:

Acts 15:28-29: 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 from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4). This is Church authority. They simply proclaimed the decree as true and binding -- with the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself!

Thus we see in the Bible an instance of the gift of infallibility that the Catholic Church claims for itself when it assembles in a council. This is neither sola Scriptura nor Luther's "Bible above popes and councils" revolutionary epistemological proclamation at the Diet of Worms in 1521. Not at all . . . but it is awfully biblical!

Key to understanding the limited role of tradition in relation to interpreting the Scriptures is the fact that while both men and the Church are (you will forgive I hope these references to classic Reformed systematic theology) justified, they are not completely sanctified. Men can and do err, they sin and we all look to Christ for forgiveness daily. The same is true for the Church. The Scriptures speak of ‘both/and’–we are clothed with Christ, yet we die to sin daily. Not until the eschaton are we going to be as we should. That being the case, offering a person an infallible role for the apostles or their hearers (as you posit here), the Church, or tradition is extremely suspect.

This doesn't follow, either, by the example of the Jerusalem Council. Those decrees were binding and understood as such by Paul, who went out and proclaimed them. It was an instance of an infallible Church giving authoritative pronouncement on biblical teachings. The same thing held for utterances of the prophets and (I should think) the apostles, when they went out and preached the gospel.

Peter in Acts 2, in his sermon in the Upper Room, and in other recorded sermons, gave an authoritative New Covenant interpretation of salvation history. It was binding before it became "inscripturated," because it was from an apostle. The writers of Scripture itself were sinners just like the rest of us (some, like David, even murderers and adulterers). But somehow God used those sinners to write an infallible, inspired Bible.

Papal and Church infallibility is a lesser gift than what Protestants already believed with regard to the Bible. If God can use sinners to write an inspired Bible, certainly He can use sinful men to proclaim infallible teachings in Tradition, as that is merely a protection from error, not a positive quality of inspiration.

Some have argued that the Church and her traditions have been guarded and guided by the Holy Spirit–and in general I agree. However, why can we not say the same for Word of the Husband (being Christ) that we do for His Bride, the Church?

I agree. That is not our problem. But you have a huge problem because you deny the proper role for the Church and Tradition that Scripture gives them. You want to follow, rather, the watered-down version of Church and Tradition that you received from Luther and Calvin. So you lessen the status of biblical and apostolic tradition based on arbitrary traditions of men.

Are we somehow going to argue that when God speaks, His words are unintelligible to those through whom the Spirit has given new life and written these very words upon their hearts?

That is not required in the Catholic position. It is not so much a denial that Scripture is clear in the main, as it is a protest against the anti-traditional, anti-biblical exclusion of Church and Tradition from the sphere of binding authority. Nor does it rule out the role of the Church in interpretation.

While I am the first to downplay the role of the individual in salvation due to the abuses in Protestantism especially in our day, we must admit the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of individual believers. If the Word is truly written on our hearts, does it not follow that we understand what that word is by the work of the Spirit?

We have no problem with that. All we are saying is that if the Holy Spirit can so guide individuals, then He can guide His Church as well (and the Bible portrays this state of affairs as being the case in actuality).

After all this, however, let me say that I do believe the Bible outlines a teaching office for the Church, that it is important both now and historically, and that our interpretation of Scripture should take into account the witness of our Fathers. However, the witness of the Fathers must be faithful to the Word of God, not vice versa.

Of course. We believe that it is. It takes faith to believe that. The problem you and Protestants have is to explain how an individual can trump a received Tradition and the authority of the Church. If you discount the Church's binding authority because men are sinners, then you obviously have to discount every individual's interpretation, as each person is a sinner, too!

But you don't do that. You give the authority ultimately to the individual to decide, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, what is true and what isn't, while you deny it to the Church. This makes no sense. And it is not biblical teaching (which is that there is a binding, authoritative [infallible] Tradition passed down and preserved in the Church).

The Church had binding authority in the Jerusalem Council. At what point did it lose this? As soon as the last apostle died (John?), then the Church lost its authority to bind men to interpretations and laws; to "bind and to loose"? That makes no sense, and no such notion can be found in Scripture itself. There is no indication that this profound authority would later be lessened and that the Bible would be the sole infallible rule of faith. That had to wait till Martin Luther, 15 centuries later.

It's passing strange that a group which claims to be so concentrated on the Bible and opposed to traditions of men, would adopt a principle and rule of faith taken straight from a new, novel "tradition of man" (Luther), which says things about the Bible that the same Bible never teaches, and indeed, often directly opposes. There is no end to the logical and practical and unbiblical absurdities of this position.

But (again), I oppose sola Scriptura not at all because it is "difficult [for me] to even conceive of a Protestant actually having credible arguments for what they believe," but because of the intrinsic weakness of this particular position. It fails because it cannot stand up to biblical and logical and historic Christian scrutiny, not because we are so reflexively prejudiced against it, or because we are (supposedly) opposing only caricatures of the position. If you disagree with that, then please refute the reasoning above. I'm all for observing you giving "credible arguments for what you believe." Please do so; you are welcomed, and positively encouraged to make such an argument on my blog.

I will now reply to Kevin's comments on the Pontificator's blog. The latter made a reply of his own which (while brief) is well worth reprinting:

I’m afraid that I do not see how classical Reformation hermeneutics in any way avoids the problem posed by Newman on private judgment. You invoke the Westminster Confession for support, but this confession exemplifies the kind of private judgment that Newman decries:

(1) It rejects the infallibility of councils and denies their hermeneutical role as a “rule of faith” (XXXI.4).

(2) It asserts double predestination (III), which ecumenical Christianity rejects as heretical (Council of Orange).

(3) It rejects the veneration of images (XX.1), a practice that is explicitly commended and protected by the Seventh General Ecumenical Council.

(4) It asserts an understanding of Eucharist that would is rejected by both Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Lutheranism (XXIX).

The list could be expanded, but I’m sure you get my point. The Reformed faith as explicated by Westminster is, by ecumenical standards, idiosyncratic and heretical. But of course the Reformed are convinced that it faithfully explicates the written Word of God.

(Comment by Pontificator — 4/30/2004)

Now on to Kevin's later comments:

The Westminster Confession was not cited as support for sola scriptura. The relevant portions quoted were given as an example of classic Reformation theology on the subject to help differentiate between the doctrine as it is posed in line with the original intent of the Reformation as opposed to today’s more modern version of the doctrine.

Neither Pontificator's critique of sola Scriptura nor my own (nor Newman's, for that matter), depend on caricaturing it in order to fight straw men (per your reply and Tim Enloe's). The critiques apply to original, bona fide, Reformation doctrine; it goes to the roots. No one who is reading Pontificator's material lately can doubt that he is raising serious questions about original premises.

If you disagree, then you must demonstrate how either he or I are distorting the original Reformation conception of sola Scriptura, not merely assert it. For my part, ever since 1991 I have been operating with a definition of sola Scriptura from impeccable (mostly Reformed) sources such as R.C. Sproul, Charles Hodge, G.C. Berkouwer, and Bernard Ramm.

If you don't like those, then there is an easy solution: please provide a definition of sola Scriptura yourself, and I will be happy to show that it suffers from just as many shortcomings and errors as the one I have been using. You can't go on endlessly claiming your opponent is operating on a faulty definition, without actually arguing the matter at hand. At least not on my blog! LOL

That being said, I would have preferred to see interaction with what I wrote rather than side-stepping the issues and leaving a criticism of the Confession.

Amen! And I desire the same for what I wrote, too.

I confess I need to read more of Newman since it seems that much of popular Catholic apologetics these days is built off of his works–but perhaps you can tell me what he thinks of the historical fact that the Councils themselves contradict each other in certain instances–an odd thing to happen for an infallible tradition. I’m not sure his view is as realistic as some would like to admit.

Having criticized the Pontificator for "side-stepping the issues," you proceed to do a little fancy footwork yourself, and try to switch the discussion over to alleged contradictions of councils, rather than the internal incoherence and inconsistency of sola Scriptura. I must admit that I saw more than a little humor in that irony.

. . . Again, as I have stated, the Westminster Confession was mentioned merely to point out the original doctrine of sola scriptura to those who seem content to attack a more modern caricature of it.

You need to clarify. Since I am now interacting with you, please demonstrate where anything I have written in criticism of SS would not apply to the version of it held by the Westminster divines. Again, I maintain that all versions of SS fall prey to internal incoherence and self-defeating factors, no matter how sophisticated; no matter how "impeccably Reformed" and so forth. Thank you.

But the same dilemma exists for the Magisterium. On what basis, other than the claim of the Church, do we accept the Magisterium as the authority in interpreting the Scriptures?

Nice try at switching the topic again. Which Tradition one accepts is a completely distinct and separate question from the question of whether sola Scriptura can stand up to logical, biblical, and historical scrutiny. That is the current question. If you wish to concede that you are unable to defend sola scriptura, from the Bible or otherwise, feel free to do so, then we can move on. But I won't change horses in mid-stream when there is a legitimate, worthwhile, highly-important problem to be dealt with in the Protestant rule of faith.

This question is about the final appeal of authority.

That's right. But when the claim is made that one position is self-defeating or otherwise quite weak in its construction, then that has to be dealt with first, before moving onto much wider discussions of choosing an authoritative tradition.

The Word comes from God–it’s authority is just as self-evident as God’s ultimate authority as God and the Church has duly recognized this authority over the centuries no matter what communion you belong to.

Of course. No one is denying that.

No one questions the authority of the words of the President of the United States when he speaks and why we think we can question the authority of the Word of God when He has clearly spoken is beyond me.

Again, I have no idea whom you think is doing that. Questioning sola Scriptura is not the same as questioning Holy Scripture. Please read this sentence five times, till it sinks in.

I think perhaps many Catholics are used to arguing with fundamentalist anti-Catholics who blame everything on Rome.

Their mentality is easy to understand, and they don't interest me because they have nothing of substance to offer. Presently, I am dealing with a sophisticated Reformed Christian (you) who wishes to keep switching the topic to Rome whenever the going gets rough. I hope we can get beyond that, and that you will be willing to truly examine your own viewpoint, and defend it if you think you can, without ever mentioning the word "Rome"! I know you can do it if you really put your mind to it . . .

[passing over further attempts to move the discussion over the Rome's pre-Reformation culpability]

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice (Philip Jenkins)

From: Michael Pakenham, "Anti-Catholicism in the U.S.: A hate much loved and lied about," Baltimore Sun, May 11, 2003:
------------------------

Is a need to hate essential to the human condition? No. But history and contemporary life insist that hating has beguiling charms. Denying them is a main job of civilization. That job's not being done very well these days.

For the moment, put aside African-Americans, Jews, Latinos and other traditional hate targets and consider the Roman Catholic Church in the United States.

The most elegant description of anti-Catholicism I have read is John Highham's: "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history." That surgically precise diagnosis is quoted in The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Philip Jenkins (Oxford, 288 pages, $26).

Jenkins is a chaired professor of history at Penn State and has written 15 previous books, several of them involving the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. Answering the inevitable question, he writes:

I was a member of the Roman Catholic Church for many years, but I left without any particular animosity, and since the late 1980s, I have been a member of the Episcopal Church. ... I have never been a member of the clergy in any church, nor a seminarian, nor was I associated with any religious order.

(And, no, lest you ask, I am not and never have been a Roman Catholic.)

Jenkins examines the phenomenon slowly, methodically, tracing its long history and its European origins, its often-disguised currency among orthodox liberals, the Church's treatment in novels, movies, television and the mainstream press. The array of issues on which anti-Catholicism can flourish today in the United States. is very powerful - feminism, homosexuality, contraception, abortion are at the top of a longer list.

He builds with methodical patience - to a conclusion that there prevails today in the United States. rampant, forceful, shameless and largely uncriticized anti-Catholicism.

He tells a tale of bigotry, of small minds and smaller hearts. But he also tells a more complex and important story of profound differences in values, attitudes, moral objectives and human standards that separate the
Catholic Church from many non-Catholics. This is neither the basis nor an excuse for bigotry, but it is a wide window to understanding the passions.

Jenkins examines books, magazine articles and opinion columns by Maureen Dowd, James Carroll, Anna Quindlen, Garry Wills, Richard Sipe and many respected others. "Over the last fifteen years," he writes of them, "we have seen the massive revival of an ancient anti-clerical and anti-Catholic image that had largely been excluded from respectable discourse. Today, though, the priestly caricature has returned to the social mainstream. It remains to be seen whether the anti-clerical assaults will have consequences anything like those of [Martin] Luther's time."

Jenkins begins by pointing out that the appalling child sexual abuse scandals and the bungled, often corrupting responses by men high in the hierarchy have provoked expressions of anger in words unmatched since the 1920s. Those crimes are abominable - as the anger of enormous numbers of Catholics, lay and clergy, dramatizes. But this book is about realities that go far deeper, in history and in social attitudes.

Referring to anti-Catholicism as "the thinking man's anti-Semitism" and "the anti-Semitism of the liberals," he recounts pre-scandal, politically motivated desecrations of St. Patrick's Cathedral, other Catholic holy places and vandalism of altars and shrines. He argues persuasively that they precipitated little protest in the mainstream news media, yet if such behavior were directed toward any other group, outrage would be explosive.

Jenkins examines in impressive detail the current scandals and recent demonstrations - with other motivations - in or near Catholic places of worship in the United States and Canada. He concludes:

In modern American history, no mainstream denomination has ever been treated so consistently, so publicly, with such venom [as has the Catholic Church]. To find parallels, we would have to look at the media response to fringe groups and cults, such as the Mormons of the mid-nineteenth century, the Jehovah's Witnesses of the 1940s, or the controversial cults of the 1970s ... It is reasonable to cite this affair as a gross efflorescence of anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Citing recent stage plays, art exhibitions and articles published in journals including the Nation and the New Republic that have ridiculed the church or the pope, Jenkins writes,

It would be interesting to take a satirical or
comic treatment featuring, say, the Virgin Mary or Pope John Paul II and imagine the reaction if a similar gross disrespect was applied, say, to the image of Martin Luther King Jr. or of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student murdered in Laramie, Wyoming, in 1998.

Jenkins has taken on a topic that I thought on first blush would be annoying to the point of embarrassment, to either side, and hardly the stuff of a long and detailed book. To the contrary, he accomplishes a fascinating tale, exploring the depths of the consciousness of this country - diverse forces that weave together the history of the civilization that we share.

His prose is energetic, assertive and blessed with a crystalline coherence. Packed with historic detail and intricate referential material, it is nonetheless crisp and easy to read. This is a book of powerfully convincing fairness, of impressive scholarship and of extraordinary
courage - Jenkins strips naked some of the most cherished hypocrisies of American ideologues from one extreme of the spectrum to the other.

Reading Jenkins convinces me that the reaction to sexual abuses by Catholic clergy - appalling as those horrors are - are greatly amplified by this latent anti-Catholicism. Among many voices of the U.S. left, there seems to be an almost triumphal sense of "gotcha!"

Jenkins gives particular attention to a 1979 play and later television show by Christopher Durang, Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All, which received an Obie and has often been revived on stage. Its ridiculing of the
Church and its values, he argues, might be legally prosecuted as a hate crime if the target were anything but the Catholic Church. And that leads him to the core essence of the entire book:

The case of Sister Mary provokes a simple question: why can Catholicism legitimately be attacked
in such outrageous terms by the American media, while other racial, social and religious traditions remain exempt?

In the end, he suggests it is possible that there will be a return of sensitivity and a diminishing of open anti-Catholicism, especially in the U.S. left, but he presents it as a wan hope - a hope that civilization will supercede
hatred.
--------------------------

Here is another interesting quotation I ran across:

Reinhold Niehbuhr, well-known Lutheran theologian, Essays in Applied Christianity, New York: Meridian, 1959, 220-221:

The acrimonious relations between Catholics and Protestants in this country are scandalous. If two forms of the Christian faith, though they recognize a
common Lord, cannot achieve a little more charity in their relations to each other, they have no right to speak to the world or claim to have any balm for the world's hatreds and mistrusts. The mistrust between Catholics and Protestants has become almost as profound as that between the West and Communism . . . A good deal of Protestantism is little more than anti-Catholicism.

Protest Against Anti-Protestantism

I believe that anti-Protestantism or anti-evangelicalism (like anti-Catholicism) is also a vast and disturbing social problem, coming largely from the left, the media, academia, and the entertainment industry, and including also the usual prevalent bias against "Southern conservative white guys" who are invariably stereotyped as troglodyte anti-intellectual fundamentalists -- the portrayal of the Scopes Trial, e.g., is a quintessential instance of this (and this itself is part of the common Northern bigotry against the South: and I say this as a Michigander, though one of my grandfathers was born in Alabama).

As to the relative prevalence of both, I don't have any particular strong opinion, nor do I think it matters much. The important thing is for conscientious Christians to condemn both.

That said, I would note that the official Catholic position is to acknowledge Protestants as Christian brothers, whereas many Protestant groups either are officially anti-Catholic or contain within themselves a strong legacy of anti-Catholicism which is then passed down almost unconsciously.

Therefore, I would suspect (though I don't assert) that anti-Catholicism is the more prevalent of the two, simply because it is fed from an important and influential sub-stream of Protestantism as well as from the secular and leftist worlds, which would seem to me to despise both of our camps alike.

Individuals, of course, might fall short of properly informed and charitable attitudes, just as they do concerning ethics or theology, generally-speaking. The difference with the Catholic, though, is that if he rails about Protestants being non-Christians, he is going against the express teaching of Vatican II, which is binding on all Catholics, whereas when Protestants do the reverse, they are in a quite respectable Protestant tradition which can easily be traced right to Luther and Calvin themselves.

So they are arguably in the mainstream of their tradition, whereas Catholics must violate their actual tradition to do the same thing. For example, Feeneyites may claim Protestants aren't Christians, but they have been condemned by the Church itself as an erroneous fringe group.

I suppose this is enough to arouse ire against me, but again, I reiterate that I think anti-Protestantism is an extremely serious social problem and acceptable prejudice as well. If anti-Catholicism is a greater problem, it is only because it is so often generated by fellow Christians and not simply secularists who are nominal concerning, or outside any brand of Christianity whatsoever.

I should clarify that secular anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism both are more in the nature of a "sociological derision" -- we are opposed because of our stands on traditional morality or because of political conservatism, or (above all) opposition to abortion and the Sexual Revolution, homosexuality and so forth.

The secularist doesn't care enough about doctrine for that to be any issue for them. They would acknowledge both camps as Christian: they simply don't like us (we're "lousy citizens" who aren't playing the game the way it should be played). It is all social issues for them and intolerance for the counter-cultural aspects of any form of solid, robust, life- and culture-transforming
Christianity.

One should note the different definition, then. My standard use and definition of "anti-Catholic" and "anti-Protestant" both, is the mistaken and self-defeating view that those groups are not Christians. The Protestant anti-Catholic may also despise some sociological or non-theological aspects of Catholicism, but that does not enter into my own use of the term, as I have stated many
times.

The secularist, on the other hand, is usually not concerned with theological categories or content. It is a more pure prejudice, based on mere disagreement and dislike, because many Christians are not good social liberals and cause too many problems and inconveniences.

At least the educated anti-Catholic Protestant usually has some principles of theology that he thinks (either rightly or oftentimes wrongly) that the Catholic Church opposes. They are right when they say we oppose sola fide and sola Scriptura; wrong when they claim that we oppose sola gratia. It is just as wrong, and it is just as wicked, but at least they think they are upholding some better good (true theology and the following of Christ), whereas the secularist has few noble motives at all in his anti-Catholicism or anti-Protestantism, whatever the case may be.

Breaking Our Captivity to Modernity

Another excellent post by the Pontificator (traditional Anglican). Kudos! This guy is quickly becoming one of my favorite writers on the scene today. The post has gotten only one hit so far on his blog; I hope it will get more than that here. Please read this, and soak it in, and ponder it, and apply it in your life and thought- processes (even if you don't comment).
--------------------------------------------------
Here is an excerpt:

Christians need not be philosophically intimidated by modernity. Its intellectual foundations, for good or ill, are crumbling.

The vocation of the Church is simply to be the Church. Our parishes must become vital, counter-cultural colonies of faith and discipleship. Instead of accomodating the gospel to the culture, we must reinterpret the culture in terms of the gospel. “Surely it is not the business of the Church to adapt Christ to men,” writes Dorothy Sayers, “but to adapt men to Christ.” This may well mean that Western congregations must become smaller before they can grow. Catechesis must be reborn. The baptized must be immersed in the story and grammar of faith. And believers must be trained once again to be evangelists of the gospel.

We are summoned to proclaim Christ and his catholic faith with clarity, courage, integrity, and hope.

Modern folk do not disbelieve because scholarship has disproven the Christian faith. Modern folk disbelieve because they do not want to follow our Lord’s call of discipleship. In that sense, modern people are no different than anyone else through the ages.

Catholic Initial Justification & Protestant Faith Alone: Significant Common Ground?

From my paper: Reflections on Faith and Works and Initial Justification:
---------------------
Initial justification is not at all by works in the sense that it is not the equivalent of Pelagianism, according to Trent's Decree on Justification, ch. 8. We can do nothing to earn it. And in initial justification, there is no time to do any work; it is a gift purely of grace, initiated by God. Works had nothing to do with it, as the Decree says.

Fernand Prat, S.J., a renowned biblical exegete and theologian, wrote:

Let us now return to Paul's own declarations. That of the Epistle to the Romans is the simplest: 'Man is justified by faith without the works of the Law.' The requirement of the argument as well as the order of the sentence makes the emphasis fall on the last words of the statement which resolves itself into two propositions: 'Man is justified without the works of the Law, independently of them' -- the principal proposition; 'Man is justified by faith' -- an incidental proposition. It will be remarked that the Apostle here is not concerned with the part which works play after justification. They they are then necessary appears from his system of morals, and that they increase the justice already acquired follows from his principles; but in the controversy with the Judaizers the debate turns chiefly on FIRST justification -- namely, on the passage from the state of sin to that of grace. The works of the Law are neither the cause nor the essential condition, nor even, in themselves, the occasion of it; and according to the most elementary principles of the Pauline theology one could say as much of natural works done before justification, and with more reason. But note well that St. Paul does not say that faith is the only disposition required, and we know by other passages that it must be accompanied by two complementary sentiments: repentance for the past and acceptance of the divine will for the future.

The second text is: 'Man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.' By making St. Paul say that man is not justified by works alone, but
by works joined to faith, we get a meaning diametrically opposed to his doctrine and exactly what he fought against in the case of the Judaizers. The essentially complex phrase must be resolved thus: 'Man is not justified by the works of the Law; he is justified only by the faith of Jesus Christ.' Whether the faith of Jesus Christ is the faith of which he is the author, or the faith of which he is the object -- faith in himself, his person, and his preaching -- matters little; in either case it is the sum total of the Christian revelation, the Gospel as opposed to the Mosaic Law. We remark as before, that it is a question of works anterior to justification, and that the absolute necessity of faith does not exclude the other dispositions required.

(The Theology of St. Paul, tr. by John L. Stoddard, Westminster, MD: The Newman Bookshop, 1952, vol. 1 of 2, 175-176, emphasis added in one place: "FIRST")

[Fernand Prat. S.J. was a Professor of Scripture. He was one of the first consultants to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and editor of the Etudes Bibliques. He helped to prepare many of the decisions regarding Modernism, leading up to its condemnation in 1907, and was involved in the planning of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome]

Note that his phrase "first justification" is precisely synonymous with "initial justification." Whatever phrase Protestants use, in my Roget's Thesaurus, "first" is listed as a synonym of "initial" and "initial" is listed as a synonym for "first." As long as Catholics explain what we mean by it, I don't see anything wrong with using the term "initial justification"

[I was getting criticism from a Catholic, to the effect that I was compromising Catholic doctrine and accepting aspects of a specifically Protestant faith alone viewpoint]

We're no more bound (i.e., not absolutely, with no exceptions whatever) to the exact terminology of Trent than we are bound to the exact terminology of Holy Scripture ("Trinity" and "Hypostatic Union" immediately come to mind). Both the words and the doctrines develop all the time, and the situations we find ourselves in demand fresh approaches, without yielding one bit on any point of orthodoxy. St. Paul said "I have become all things to all people, so that by any means I may save some."

St. Paul cited pagan poets and philosophers on Mars Hill, in Athens, in order to make a connection with his hearers. He took what they knew and proceeded to build upon the truth that was in them, up to Christian theology and the gospel. He even utilized an idol of sorts as an illustration of a point and a witnessing tool: the altar "to an unknown god." All this despite there being nothing in
the official decrees of the Council of Jerusalem just two chapters earlier giving Paul warrant to use such shocking language . . .

I submit that the same applies with Protestants. I grant that if the phrases "faith alone" and "grace alone" are used at all, that they must immediately be defined in a Catholic manner, with the contrast sharply emphasized. But the general principle of finding common ground in both doctrine and language, insofar as possible without any compromise, is a very biblical and conciliar one. E.g., the Decree on Ecumenism from Vatican II:

9. We must become familiar with the outlook of our separated brethren. Study is absolutely required for this, and it should be pursued in fidelity to the truth and with a spirit of good will . . . In this way, too, we will better understand the outlook of our separated brethren and more aptly PRESENT our own belief.

11. The MANNER and ORDER in which Catholic belief is EXPRESSED should in no way become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine and certain meaning. At the same time, Catholic belief must be EXPLAINED more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such TERMS that our separated brethren can also really UNDERSTAND it.

Note that the Council didn't say,

The language of Catholic belief from the Council of Trent must be explained more profoundly and precisely, whether it is in terms our separated brethren can understand or not.

Likewise, in the statement in Lumen Gentium, 67, referring to Mariology:

Let them carefully refrain from whatever might by WORD or deed lead the separated brethren or any others whatsoever into error about the true doctrine of the Church.

I think it is wise to choose our words very carefully, depending on who we are talking to at the moment, and to exercise a considerable amount of flexibility, because people aren't simply walking dictionaries or lexicons, and 1563 (like 1611, or even 1870) is not 2002.

Protestants, of course, deny that justification is a process at all, so "initial justification" can hardly be a "Protestant term." And since it is a process in Catholicism, and can be repeated, applying "initial justification" as a description of the chronologically first instance (a non-technical term) not only should not be controversial; it is simply common sense, and not contrary to Trent at all, as far as I can see. Trent teaches the concept in the above sense; it just
doesn't have the exact term, which is no big deal. Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., uses similar terminology:

Adults are justified FOR THE FIRST TIME either by personal faith, sorrow for sin and baptism, or by the perfect love of God, which is at least an implicit baptism of desire.

(Modern Catholic Dictionary, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1980, "Justification, Theology
of," 302, emphasis added)

Also, Vatican I would appear to refer to a justifying faith without works, in some fashion:

Wherefore faith itself, even when it does not work by charity [Gal 5:6], is in itself a gift of God, and the act of faith is a work pertaining to salvation, by which man yields voluntary obedience to God Himself, by assenting to and cooperating with His grace, which he is able to resist (can. v).

(Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. III, "Of Faith")

Lastly, the article on the Councils of Orange in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), mentions "Operation of grace in initial justification or baptism." (vol. 11, 267)
-------------------------
Related ecumenical-type readings:

The Catholic Understanding of the Anathemas of Trent and Excommunication

Martin Luther's Doctrine Concerning Good Works: Have I Misrepresented It?

"Dialogue" With the Belgic Confession (1561) on Private Judgment & the Nature of the Church

From: Catholic vs. Protestant Conceptions of the Meaning and Consequences of Private Judgment.
-----------------------------------------
My comments will be in brackets ( [ ] ); Belgic Confession excerpts will be italicized.

Article 29: The Marks of the True Church

We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God,

[Who is to discern? The individual? Seems like it to me]

what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."

[Okay, there is a true Church . . . good. Now let's see what it is, and how one finds it]

We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."

[So far so good, though there is much biblical indication that the wheat and tares grow up together in the one true Church. I'll let that slide for the moment]

The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel;

[What is the Gospel? What is pure preaching of it? How many errors are allowed? E.g., Luther's baptismal regeneration is anathema to the Reformed, so is his Gospel not a pure one; thus Lutherans - and many Anglicans and Methodists, etc. -- are not in the true Church; therefore not Christians? What about the Reformed Baptists who don't baptize infants -- some or many of whom would even deny that baptism is a sacrament at all? If the gospel is defined as TULIP or suchlike, then this is circular reasoning (the gospel is merely what these folks say it is, on the basis of their own unproven and unsupported axioms). The Bible, which is supposedly the criteria of truthfulness here, does no such thing. It defines the gospel as the birth (incarnation), life (with all its miracles and teaching), death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, not as some technical theory of soteriology and justification. One can certainly deduce some theory of soteriology from
it, but my point is that this is not what the Bible describes as "the gospel"]

it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them;

[How did Christ institute them? We have seen the differences concerning baptism above. So are Lutherans and Reformed Baptists and other sorts of Baptists out of the fold? As to the Eucharist, similarly serious differences arise. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation; so their belief here is not "pure." And of course, if we look to the early Church Fathers, they unanimously accepted the
Real Presence, so that one must believe that the apostasy of the early Church on this score was well-nigh universal, and that only in the 16th century was true eucharistic belief restored, and even then not by Luther (or for that matter, Zwingli), but by Calvin. Now, what authority does he have? Certainly not apostolic authority, nor the prestige of passed-down apostolic Tradition, as his view is a novelty and an innovation. So there are a host of difficulties in almost every sentence here. They may sound great and highfalutin', but they conceal myriad historical and biblical problems and contradictions, as clearly seen in this merely brief, cursory treatment]

it practices church discipline for correcting faults.

[Sure, then when someone disagrees, he simply goes to another sect, on the basis of his own judgment as to what the pure church is, based on the Word of God (first sentence above). He applies the same criteria stated here to go somewhere else, because the final authority must
reside in the individual, due to unresolvable difficulties and contradictions among the various sects. These appeared at the beginning of the Protestant Revolt (inevitably) and will always remain, because of this flawed principle of how one determines theological truth. If in fact there had always been one Protestant Church and one only, then these axioms might hold at least some water, but as this has never been the case, the whole edifice collapses in a heap of self-contradictions and woeful inability to consistently apply these nebulous, ethereal standards
to the real world]

In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head.

[This all sounds fine and dandy, noble and glorious, etc., but it is not nearly this simple, because there were and are foundational differences on almost every issue where Protestantism is to be distinguished from Catholicism in the first place. Until these can be resolved, then such talk within the Protestant paradigm is a pipe-dream of the most illusory sort]

By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.

[The only self-consistent, historically-demonstrable way to establish this is by apostolic succession and an examination of history (as the Fathers taught). No Protestant sect can pass this test. But even using their own stated criteria of authenticity above, no one can figure out which sect is the true one, because the doctrinal disagreements run too deep and are too serious]

As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith,

[What is faith? Protestants disagree on this, too. How does regeneration and election relate to personal faith? How is one assured of saving faith? Can one lose that and fall away?, etc.]

and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.

[This sounds great, too, but it has never occurred in an entire group. Since sin is present in all professed Christian groups, the absence of it can hardly be the "proof" of the authenticity of one sect over another]

Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.

[Virtually all Christian groups would adhere to this notion, so it is of no help for our task, either]

As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God;

[And what would the Word of God teach about that, pray tell?]

it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ;

[What does this mean?]

it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases;

[The problems in this statement were already discussed. One can either appeal to the constant Tradition throughout the ages and apostolic succession, or else choose one of a host of Protestant options, all themselves ultimately arbitrary and man-centered and unable to be supported by Church history]

it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ;

[No Christian system is more man-centered than Protestantism, where a single man's word (Calvin,
Luther, Fox et al) has the greatest authority, far greater than any pope ever dreamt of. Any local pastor has far more influence or effect on the lives of his congregation than the pope has on a Catholic, in a practical, everyday sense. That's why Protestant congregations often split in two merely because a popular pastor felt called to move on to another assembly]

it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

[We know what they are talking about, but the sin argument resolves nothing. Protestants were at least as intolerant in the 16th century as Catholics -- arguably far more, especially in light of their supposed principles of tolerance and supremacy of the individual conscience]

These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

[Not quite. Protestants need to resolve the difficulties I raised above, and many more brought about by their utter inability to resolve their own internal squabbles. A bucket with 1000 holes in it cain't hold no water . . . ]

Council of Constance (1414-1418): Triumph of Conciliarism or its Kiss of Death?

Reformed writer Tim Enloe, who has been hammering this point about conciliarism supposedly being equally as orthodox as the papal structure of Church government, even within Western Christendom, wrote in response to my last post on this topic:

My definition of "orthodoxy" broadly considered is the Ecumenical Creeds. Of course, those creeds were drawn up by Councils, not by the ipse dixit of a sovereign, ex sese infallible Pope. The role of the Pope relative to Ecumenical Councils has become extremely controverted over the centuries, but at the very least the pope's agreement with a conciliar action is required for it to be considered canonically legitimate. As God's providence would have it, the decrees of the Council of Constance do have that papal approval, which nicely undercuts the entire pretty superstructure of modern "conservative" and ultra-dogmatic papalist mythology. Of course, more than papal agreement is required, which is why none of the local councils past the Reformation era can be properly called "Ecumenical". As for circles, I can think of few more exquisite circles than the Catholic argument "We say we have divine authority, so we do."

(My blog, 5-2-04)

Tim's case is burdened by a fatally fallacious premise, as I pointed out in my paper yesterday: Tim Enloe's Missing Definition of "Orthodoxy" & the Logical Circularity of His Thesis on Conciliar Ecclesiology. But with his own words above, he has sealed the fate of his own thesis. First, let's note what Tim himself has admitted, in his clarifying remark:

1. "Orthodoxy" consists (broadly) of Ecumenical Creeds.

2. Creeds were drawn up by Ecumenical Councils.

3. "[A]t the very least the pope's agreement with a conciliar action is required for it to be considered canonically legitimate."

4. Another way of expressing #3 is to say that "without the pope's agreement, conciliar decrees cannot be considered canonically legitimate."

5. Thus (following the logic of #3 and #4), a Creed passed by a Council which was not agreed-upon (confirmed or ratified) by the pope (i.e., the Creed alone; not the whole Council) is suspect, and cannot, therefore (by further direct deduction) be a criterion of orthodoxy.

6. The conciliarist decrees of the Council of Constance (Sacrosancta, Frequens) received (according to Tim) "papal approval."

7. This alleged "approval . . . nicely undercuts the entire pretty superstructure of modern 'conservative' and ultra-dogmatic [read, post-Vatican I Catholic orthodox] papalist mythology."

#1, #2, and #3 are straight from Tim's words. #4 and #5 follow from the preceding, by inexorable logical deduction. #6 is a matter of historical factuality: to be confirmed or disproven by means of historiographical inquiry. #7 is true or false (granting its false definition of Catholic ecclesiology for the moment) according to the verdict one renders on #6.

Everything hinges, then, on proposition #6, because that is the factual matter that can be debated, with attempted demonstration in favor of, or against it. If it can be shown to be false, Tim's case utterly collapses, and he himself has assembled the explosives to demolish it (thanks, Tim!).

Did the popes in fact ratify, confirm, accept, approve the conciliarist decrees of the Council of Constance? They did not. Tim's assertion is erroneous. His case has already exhibited very bad logic; now it also falters on matters of fact. First let us cite (from Tim's thesis) the Council of Constance’s decree Haec sancta (also known as Sacrosancta), promulgated on April 6, 1415:

This holy synod of Constance, forming a general council for the extirpation of the present schism and the union and reformation, in head and members, of the Church of God, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, to the praise of Omnipotent God, in order that it may the more easily, safely, effectively and freely bring about the union and reformation of the church of God, hereby determines, decrees, ordains and declares what follows: - It first declares that this same council, legitimately assembled in the Holy Ghost, forming a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, has its power immediately from Christ, and every one, whatever his state or position, even if it be the Papal dignity itself, is bound to obey it in all those things which pertain to the faith and the healing of the said schism, and to the general reformation of the Church of God, in bead and members. It further declares that any one, whatever his condition, station or rank, even if it be the Papal, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the mandates, decrees, ordinances or instructions which have been, or shall be issued by this holy council, or by any other general council, legitimately summoned, which concern, or in any way relate to the above mentioned objects, shall, unless he repudiate his conduct, be subject to condign penance and be suitably punished, having recourse, if necessary, to the other resources of the law.

(translated by J.H. Robinson)

Tim mentions in passing "the extremely complicated question of the dogmatic status of the decree" (p. 215), but of course this is a crucial question, if indeed his vigorous claims that Catholic orthodoxy regarding the papacy is in shambles because of it. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1985, vol. 3, 560, "Constance") states, similarly: "The authenticity of the decree Sacrosancta has been a matter of great dispute among scholars."

Tim states that the decree "was not a radical statement but a moderate expression of traditional recognitions of the limitation of papal power" (p. 215). Then he makes his grandiose claim:

And indeed, if Haec sancta is not legitimate even as a moderate attempt to spell out how papal power can be bindingly limited by the whole Church, intractable problems for the very legitimacy of today’s papacy arise. (p. 215)

Tim notes about a later pope (including his footnote #542):

Most significantly, in his Bull Dudum sacrum in December, 1433, Eugenius openly admitted that Basel was legitimately convoked . . . Thus implicitly giving the canonically-stipulated “papal approval” to both Haec sancta and Frequens, and therefore, to the doctrine of conciliar supremacy over the pope! His private letters from this time period reflect his belief in papal supremacy, but evidently his private opinions carried no weight with anyone on account of his public actions.(p. 224)

This is confused, because a pope can recognize a legitimate Ecumenical Council without accepting every particular in it. The most famous example is Pope St. Leo the Great, with regard to the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, having to do with the apostolic status of Constantinople (which he rejected). Tim stated above (on my blog) that "the decrees of the Council of Constance do have that papal approval". Historians and other scholars disagree with this assessment (and also with Tim's view that these conciliar decrees on conciliarism were not "radical" but only "moderate").

Philip Hughes is one such prominent Church historian. In his book, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325-1870 (Garden City , NY: Doubleday / Hanover House, 1961), he writes, concerning the conciliar decree of Frequens, calling for very frequent Ecumenical Councils:

There is no need to explain what a revolution in the government of the Church was thus attempted. (p. 270)

Referring to seven decrees that didn't include Sacrosancta and Frequens, Hughes writes (italics his): "to which alone of the reforms of Constance the papal approval was given" (ibid., p. 271).
He then reiterates that these attempted conciliarist reforms were not in accord with Sacred Tradition:

. . . things have been done and things said -- things impossible to harmonise with the tradition -- with all the apparent prestige of a General Council. (ibid., p. 273)

In another similar book, The General Councils of the Church (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1960), John L. Murphy states (emphasis mine):

Martin V, who was to emerge from the council as the next pope, approved most of the decrees of the Council. Thus it was a General Council of the universal Church, even though some of the decrees issued were out-and-out heresy; these decrees were rejected by later popes. In this, the gathering was not unlike some of the earlier Councils, which also got out of hand, and were approved only in part by the Roman Pontiff. But like them, this Council remained a General Council in the proper sense of the word in those matters which were approved by the head of the body of bishops.

. . . Pope Martin V approved the acts of the Council, with the exception of those which proposed Conciliarism.

(pp. 131-132, 137)

Murphy writes about the next pope, Eugene IV:

. . . the bishops who had gathered at Basel were angered when they heard that the Pope had dissolved the Council. They reissued the heretical decrees of Constance, stating once again that the General Council is superior to the Pope, and that he has no power to dissolve such a gathering . . . the Pope . . . refused to accept the decrees concerning the supremacy of a General Council. (pp. 139-140)

Eminent Church historian Warren H. Carroll fills in more details of this selective papal acceptance of the decrees of these Councils, in the third volume of his projected seven-volume A History of Christendom:

As he prepared his decree dissolving the Council, Pope Martin V faced an extraordinarily difficult and delicate decision: how much, and to what extent, to confirm its actions. Under canon law and the unbroken tradition of the Church, no action even of an ecumenical council is authoritative for the universal Church without the approval of the Pope. Clearly Pope Martin V did not and could not approve the decrees Sacrosancta and Frequens . . . But for Martin V openly to strike down these decrees, which had been overwhelmingly approved, could well resurrect the schism in a different and even more virulent form, Council against Pope.

. . . The phraseology he found was masterful. He confirmed the work of the council, "all that here has been done, touching matters of faith, in a conciliar fashion, but not otherwise or after any other fashion." Unpacked, this meant that he confirmed everything the Council had decreed regarding doctrine and heresy, and everything else it had done in its proper role as a council, that is, not against the necessary authority of the Pope; but that he did not confirm anything it had done which was not proper for a council, that is, which did challenge the necessary authority of the Pope. Neither the Pope nor the Council wanted to say or ask what this convoluted formula precisely meant, though its meaning can hardly have been unclear to any well-educated canonist.

. . . Pope Martin's very carefully qualified endorsement of the Council's decrees did not confirm any action placing the Council's authority above the Pope's, which Frequens as well as Sacrosancta specifically stated.

. . . But the Pope [Eugenius IV] would not yield to their demands, and on July 29, 1433 he formally annulled all decrees of the Council [Basel] "contrary to the Holy See" (obviously including Sacrosancta).

. . . In December [1433], in a new version of the bull Dudum sacrum, Pope Eugenius IV restored recognition to the Council of Basel, withdrew his decree dissolving it, and authorized it to deal with heresy, war and peace, and reform, but without specifically confirming any of its acts, notably its reiteration of the heretical decree Sacrosancta.

(The Glory of Christendom, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1993, 502, 526, 530-531)

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) also elaborates upon the nullity of the radical conciliarism decrees:

[I]n a papal consistory (10 March, 1418), Martin V rejected any right of appeal from the Apostolic See to a future council, and asserted the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff as Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth in all questions of Catholic Faith (Nulli fas est a supremo judice, videlicet Apostolicâ sede seu Rom. Pontif. Jesu Christi vicario in terris appellare aut illius judicium in causis fidei, quæ tamquam majores ad ipsum et sedem Apostolicam deferendæ sunt, declinare, Mansi, Conc., XXVIII, 200). Von Funk has shown (op. cit., 489 sqq.), that the oft-maintained confirmation of the decrees of Constance by Martin V, in the last session of the council (omnia et singula determinata et decreta in materiis fldei per præsens concilium conciliariter et non aliter nec alio modo) must be understood only of a specific case (Falkenberg, see below), and not of any notable part of, much less of all, the decrees of Constance. It is true that in the Bull "Inter Cunctas", 22 Feb., 1418, apropos of the Wycliffites and Hussites, he calls for a formal approval of the decrees of Constance in favorem fidet a salutem animarum, but these words are easily understood of the council's action against the aforesaid heresies and its efforts to restore to the Church a certain head. In particular the famous five articles of the fifth session, establishing the supremacy of the council, never received papal confirmation (Hergenröther-Kirsch, II, 862, and Baudrillart, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1219-23). For a refutation of the Gallican claim that these decrees possess a dogmatic character, see GALLICANISM. Nevertheless, the Council of Constance is usually reckoned the Sixteenth General Council; some, as stated above, acknowledge it as such after the fourteenth session (reconvocation by Gregory XII); others again (Salembier) after the thirty-fifth session (adherence of the Spanish nation); Hefele only in the final sessions (forty-second to forty-fifth) under Martin V. No papal approbation of it was ever meant to confirm its anti-papal acts; thus Eugene IV (22 July, 1446) approved the council, with due reserve of the rights, dignity, and supremacy of the Apostolic See (absque tamen præjudicio juris dignitatis et præeminentiæ Sedis Apostolicæ).

(Vol. IV, 291, "Constance")

Tim denies that these conciliar "anti-papal" decrees were "radical" and believes that they were "moderate". But well-known Protestant historian Phillip Schaff, whose work is widely-used, disagrees (emphasis added):

Its fourth and fifth sessions, beginning April 6, 1415, mark an epoch in the history of ecclesiastical statement. The council declared that, being assembled legitimately in the Holy Spirit, it was an oecumenical council and representing the whole Church, had its authority immediately from Christ, and that to it the pope and persons of every grade owed obedience in things pertaining to the faith and to the reformation of the Church in head and members. It was superior to all other ecclesiastical tribunals. This declaration, stated with more precision than the one of Pisa, meant a vast departure from the papal theory of Innocent III. and Boniface VIII.

. . . The conciliar declarations reaffirmed the principle laid down by Nieheim on the eve of the council in the tract entitled the Union of the Church and its Reformation, and by other writers . . .

These views were revolutionary, and show that Marsiglius of Padua, and other tractarians of the fourteenth century, had not spoken in vain.

(History of the Christian Church, vol. 6, chapter 2, § 16. The Council of Constance. 1414–1418)

Likewise, reputable Protestant Reformation historian A.G. Dickens, in his work, The Age of Humanism and Reformation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 42), described the conciliarist declarations concerning the papacy as "revolutionary work," and the ideas of the Council of Basle (1431-1439) "even more radical."

I shall conclude with renowned Catholic historian Joseph Lortz (generally considered "fair" to Protestantism, conciliatory, and the very opposite of a so-called "triumphalist" historian, while remaining an orthodox Catholic). Note his descriptions of the conciliarism of Constance as a new innovation:

The council [of Constance] enumerated the doctrine of the supremacy of the universal council (conciliar theory) over the pope. It is true that the most influential leaders of the movement at the time were not extremists. They realized that the theory was novel but felt that the present exigency called for this new way. In fact they could find no other solution to the crisis. But even though viewed as a temporary expedient, the theory is false and contravenes the order established by Christ for the government of His Church. It was never approved by the pope -- in confirming the canons of the council Martin V rejected it.

(History of the Church, translated and adapted from the 5th and 6th German edition by Edwin G. Kaiser, Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1939, 268)

Church Hoodwinks Gullible Faithful With Mary-Goddess Conspiracy

Diane S., the chief moderator at the huge anti-Catholic-dominated CARM Catholic Board, chimed in with this gem of a straw man description recently (Post of Apr-27-04 01:35 PM):

The RCC is making a creature into a goddess, just a little at a time. One lie always leads to another, if the Lord should tarry another 500 years, she will be the RCC goddess and is just about there now. She is just not named goddess as that is too obvious and must come a little at a time in order to fool EVEN the elect as our Lord teaches. She is only given all the characterisitics of a goddess, that is necessary to the salvation of the world......

More of the same:

Give me a break, will ya....I have been reading Catholic teachings everyday for seven years . . . I understand idolatry when I see it.......this is Marian worship and Idolatry and telling me I had better call on the name of Mary or end up in hell . . .

(Apr-27-04 01:44 PM)

. . . please do not consult the dead, or pray to idols for CARM. It is an abomination to God and we prefer prayers ONLY to God, we are not interested at ALL in Marian prayers. It is simply words hitting the ceiling and an offense to God.

(Apr-27-04 02:31 PM)

The fact Catholics constantly suggest we don't understand is an insult to the regular posters on CARM, and is the only reason I mention reading all of this for seven years. If we disagree with the RCC, does not mean we 'don't understand'.

(Apr-28-04 11:50 AM)

"bw smith" added this tantalizing little tidbit:

What Diane cited was not “Christianity ,” but the excesses of folks who were either misguided, deceive or lost.

(Apr-30-04 04:17 PM)

Here are most of the people whom Diane cited in her post which began this ridiculous thread:

St. Ephrem
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Bonaventure
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Bernard
St. Ambrose
St. John Mary Vianney
St. Bernardine of Siena
St. Maximilian Kolbe
St. Francis de Sales
St. Augustine
St. Louis Marie de Montfort
St. John Damascene
St. Philip Neri
St. Agnes
St. Peter Julian Eymard
St. Bridget of Sweden
Ven. Pope Pius IX
St. Dominic
Pope St. Pius X
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Anthony of Padua
St. Vincent Ferrer
St. Anselm
St. Thomas More
St. John Bosco

Now here is a clear-cut case: better to go to hell to live forever with all these wonderful saints than go to heaven to be with the anti-Catholics . . . if reality is this inverted, then I guess heaven is hell and hell is heaven . . .

Tim Enloe's Missing Definition of "Orthodoxy" & the Logical Circularity of His Thesis on Conciliar Ecclesiology

[Tim's words throughout will be in blue]

I wrote a long paper in reaction to Reformed writer Tim Enloe's thesis concerning medieval ecclesiology and conciliarism (then about half done, and posted online). It was specifically, deliberately designed to critique the premises which constitute the foundation of Tim's thesis (and explicitly presented itself that way). I copiously documented everything from Tim's words, with many dozens of citations.

Tim pooh-poohed the whole thing, because I hadn't dealt with his entire thesis in all its particulars. But I was not claiming to do so (nor was that at all necessary for my purposes). It was a conscious effort to deal with the fundamental premises only. At length, I decided to re-edit the paper with no reference to him at all. It still, however, refutes his premise that conciliarism is just as orthodox as papalism in the "Western authority tradition". Here it is:

Was Conciliarism an "Orthodox" Option in Medieval Catholicism?

I was curious to see if Tim, in his thesis, ever defined what it is to be orthodox (in terms of ecclesiology), and (especially) how this is determined. Of course, he must do this in order for his overall argument to not be logically circular (i.e., a state of affairs where the conclusion of an argument states nothing beyond what was already in the premise).

In attempting to prove that conciliarism is as orthodox as papal supremacy or primacy or headship or infallibility or universal jurisdiction, clearly one has to establish the criterion for orthodoxy. It is not proof that conciliarism is "orthodox" all along (every bit as much as the papal system) to simply assert it.

Moreover, Tim's burden is to prove that his posited state of affairs was defined as orthodox by the very system that he claims to be specifically responding to: the Western Christian / Catholic Tradition (which excludes Eastern Orthodox from the discussion, by definition). He is making an argument from reputed fact. But in order to succeed, he has to define orthodoxy and demonstrate how Western Christians regarded that word, and how they thought its content, limits, and parameters were determined. It is not enough to simply state that various opinions concerning conciliarism existed, and so therefore they were orthodox. That doesn't follow.

Mere existence of a view, or even attaining a "majority vote" is not the criterion of truth. If this were the case, then Arianism would be true (or just as valid as trinitarianism), since many historians state that there were actually more Arian bishops than orthodox trinitarian at one point in Church history. I made the same point in my previous preliminary discussion with Tim on this blog:

What is orthodox and what isn't from the perspective of any given faith-community is determined by them, based on their own criteria (whether outsiders agree with them or not). You agree with that whether you are aware of it or not; otherwise you would never cite the Westminster Confession or appeal countless times to the Reformation heritage, which goes back to Calvin and Luther and is an identifiable tradition and criterion of orthodoxy.

This gets back to the point I was making about orthodoxy being different from history. The former is arrived at by means of applying tradition and revelation. History proper doesn't include those factors within itself. It is simply a mass of facts, which still have to be interpreted in some fashion.

(4-3-04)

But Tim persisted in missing the point:

Now as far as premises go, yes, I understand that you deny my premise that the orthodox catholic tradition is pluriform. That's fine that you deny it; I don't think you've come anywhere close to substantiating your denial, however, and that's once again because of the LARGE number of things that simply do not appear in your published response that you linked to. I cannot fathom how you can claim to have dealt with my contentions about the authority tradition when you simply totally bypass things such as the Gelasian "two powers" distinction, the Investiture Contest, Gratian's Decretum, the Decretists and Decretalists, corporation theory, the 12th century change in sacramental-ecclesiological language, etc.

(my blog 3-30-04)

Fundamental discussion of definition of terms and presuppositions and first premises occurs before all the mass of factual data is examined. This is what Tim hasn't yet grasped, and so he thinks that when I deal with premises alone I am somehow doing something sneaky or improper or wrongheaded or unsavory. This is untrue. So I responded:

[I]t is still your task to explain to us how you get from the "is" (history) to the "ought" or the "correct" (orthodoxy), and how to do this in a non-circular fashion (also, your precise view of Tradition and historical precedent) . . . So this is one problem we have to resolve in order to proceed in any intelligible, constructive way. You have to elaborate upon how you see the relationship of the bald facts of history to orthodoxy, and further, how orthodoxy is determined (historically, and in your theological opinion of how it should be done), and why we should accept your criteria for this rather than some criteria established by Councils and popes (or some other authority). So you not only have to provide a sensible. plausible criterion, but also a reason why your opinion carries force (i.e., a plausible argument for authority with regard to your claims).

(Blog, 3-31-04)

To summarize: the real questions at stake here (on the fundamental, presuppositional level) are these:

1. What is orthodoxy?

2. How did Western Christians determine orthodoxy?

3. Does conciliarism qualify as orthodox under these criteria?

4. Is conciliarism as orthodox or more so than papal supremacy?

Presently, then, I will seek the answer to questions #1 and #2 in Tim's paper: to find out if it is there or not. #1 is not a factual matter (i.e., what happened when); it is, rather, a theological / ecclesiological one. #2 is the same, but the determination (also included in #2) of how these things were determined in fact, is an historical matter, which can be demonstrated through evidence.

If Tim can't provide a solid, uncontroversial, substantiated answer to these fundamental questions, then clearly, he won't be able to answer question #3 either affirmatively or negatively. And if he can't do that, the entire thesis is one huge non sequitur, because it is essentially discussing nothing at all: it is stating that one viewpoint was and is "orthodox" without providing the crucial groundwork of defining of terms. It has not proven its point in the least degree; it has merely assumed it throughout. And that is what is called in the field of logic, a "circular argument" or "begging the question."

Tim stated the premise for his thesis on this blog, on 3-27-04:

My conciliarism studies, for instance, have convinced me that the Western ecclesiastical tradition is fundamentally pluriform, and so it's true that when I encounter certain types of Catholic defenses of the Papacy I almost naturally fall into an "Take this one-sided sectarian stuff somewhere else; I'm not as ignorant of history as you seem to think I am" attitude.

Likewise, Tim stated:

I say that V1 papalism with its construct of ex sese papal infallibility is a form of "radicalism" and cannot properly be termed "orthodox Catholicism" if one means the term "Catholicism" to refer to the universal faith of the whole Church and not merely the rhetorical presentation of the faith of the Roman Church as if on that sort of point the latter can properly stand for the former.

. . . I would argue that the Vatican 1 understanding of the development is fundamentally off-kilter because it is relying only upon one strand of the Tradition and not upon the whole of the Tradition. Hence, I think it is proper for me to call the Vatican I position "radicalism" while not accepting the turn-around charge that my conciliarism is "radical".

. . . since the Vatican 1 position is not a balanced expression of the Western tradition and is on top of that a serious source of division amongst the Christian traditions, I think it behooves Catholicism to reconsider it and probably ultimately to overturn it as being a temporary aberration and blight on the faith of the Church of Rome, and not of the very "essence" of the Christian faith. Vatican 1 is not a "non-negotiable" of Catholicism, Dave. It's a non-negotiable of Ultramontanism, but whoever said that Ultramontanism is "Catholicism"?

(My blog, 3-28-04)

I dealt with the misinformed charge that the Vatican I position on the papacy was accurately described as "Ultramontanism" in the first place, in our prior discussion, so we may bypass that presently. But I challenged Tim:

I await your description of a papacy exactly to your liking and preference, and then an explanation as to why your own judgment should carry any particular weight with a Catholic. Maybe you would like to be an advisor at our next council?

(3-28-04)

Tim responded:

. . . papalism is (or at least in the 16th century, was) a gross tyrant and was lawfully overthrown by principles inherent within the orthodox Catholic tradition itself . . .

(3-29-04)

Tim then attempted to bypass my fundamental questions about his thesis by what can only be called obfuscation:

Now while all facts are in some sense "interprafacts" and not mere brute givens, there are ways to put the facts together that cogently handle them and there are ways to put them together that do not cogently handle them. The "macro claim" of my entire thesis, taken as it is and not gutted in the name of getting at some simplistic "essence" of the thing, is that your way of assembling the facts--i.e., subordinating them in advance to privileged theological claims--is not able to cogently order many of the facts.

. . . I'm not moving from "is" to "ought". Mine is not a metaphysical argument, Dave. Trying to track metaphysically necessitarian realities in and out of contingent historical events is YOUR burden as a Catholic, not mine as a Protestant.

(3-31-04)

This particular discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with mistaken notions Tim has in his head about supposed "metaphysically necessitarian realities in and out of contingent historical events." It's a very straightforward ecclesiological / theological question: "what is orthodoxy? How has it been determined historically?" The determination of the historical question is simply a matter of documenting facts. The circularity of his argument is readily apparent in the following statement:

I've DEMONSTRATED with COPIOUS citations from MANY sources, orthodox and not, that the Tradition about the power of the pope is NOT uniform throughout history.

(3-31-04)

It is circular in two ways: Tim refers to "orthodox" sources, but as I will show, he neither defines nor elaborates upon (in his thesis) what is orthodox and what isn't, according to Western Catholicism. Secondly, whether there were various "traditions" about the pope is a different proposition from the question: "which of those traditions were orthodox?" Tim simply assumes that the ones that fit into his desired schema are as orthodox as the ones he disagrees with. But that is entirely arbitrary and circular. It's not up to him to make those decisisions. The Church (however he construes it) does that.

Failing cogent and plausible answers to crucial questions, Tim falls back on erroneous statements about the binding dogmatic status of Vatican I:

And, of course, you CAN'T refute it apart from merely appealing to "faith" and "theology" and asserting that I am some sort of quasi-humanist trying to make Christianity into just one more philosophy. That IS an argument you like to make, but it's just without merit and it's worth noting that yourself being a convert, your attitude partakes more of Evangelical suspicion of "philosophy" than it does of even orthodox Catholic thinking on that subject . . . I am not the one who claims that my theory of Church government is a divinely-established truth and that anyone who dissents from it is a perverse rebel against Christ. I am not the one who has to squeeze history into a clever little mold dictated by a teleological scheme of "development" that you won't allow to be questioned . . . I don't think you'll understand why it's so one-sided for you to constantly act like the burden of proof is always on the non-Catholic . . . The burden of proof is on YOU, not me, because I've already laid out my argument in over 200 pp. . . . I believe you or someone else in the other thread earlier claimed that Vatican I was an ex cathedra statement. If it was you, please provide some sort of "non circular" (since that is the criterion you expect me to observe) proof that it was such . . . your approach consistently appears to be insufficiently aware of its own presuppositions, and so is not useful to those of us who wish to be aware of ours as we make our arguments.

(3-31-04)

Finally, Tim attempted to dichotomize orthodoxy and history altogether (a method perilously close to reducing historical doctrinal Christianity to anthropology: mere description):

I don't care about your personal convictions about "orthodox Catholicism". I'm interested in the concrete, flesh-and-blood history of the Church, not the repetition of abstract and sectarian dogmas.

(4-03-04)

I don't care about my own personal convictions on this score, either. I stopped believing in the system of private judgment as a rule of faith, in 1990. I want to determine what the Church has taught. Tim acts as if all opinions I offer on the subject are merely my own, and thus arbitrary and unimportant. He ignores the fact that I cited many important historians in my paper on conciliarism; most of them non-Catholics.

With this background in mind, let us now see whether Tim ever defines "orthodoxy" in his thesis, so we can have an idea of what he is even talking about when he starts to pile on his fabled mountain of historical facts, obscure, long-forgotten medieval canonists, etc., to prove . . . what? That there were competing ecclesiologies throughout history? Of course; no one who knows anything about Church history will deny that. That conciliarism is as orthodox as "papalism"? That (unlike the first self-evident proposition) requires a definition of "orthodoxy" from within that same Western Tradition, and so we are back to square one again. Here, then, are Tim's citations in his thesis concerning "orthodoxy" (italics for "orthodox" and "orthodoxy" are my own):

By the end of the first millennium this somewhat modest claim, focused as it was on being symbolic of catholicity, had developed into the special claim that the office of the Papacy is the head of the Church and thus, that being in union with it is the criterion of participation in verifiably orthodox, truly effective Christian society.
(pp. 7-8; Tim states this as historical fact, but does not agree with it)

In light of what has been said above regarding what may seem to be an unusually “sympathetic” approach to the Roman Papacy it is necessary to give a foretaste of that element of Reformed thinking—conciliar ecclesiology—which I will later in this thesis defend as being intimately linked to its catholic forebears, and therefore as a fundamentally orthodox part of the Western ecclesiastical authority tradition. (p. 16)

On the other hand, post-Vatican I Roman Catholics find it all too easy to say that “orthodox” Christians always held one basic view of the matter, while it was only “heretics” and “rebels” who proposed and acted on various “obviously” false views. (p. 29)

Early in a life which has been forever immortalized by orthodox Christians as a superlative, protracted stand against the Arian heresy, . . . (p. 30)

Who was to have the Dominium mundi—the Pope or the Emperor? Confusion on this question persisted for centuries, giving rise to many competing theories all under the same umbrella of basic Christian orthodoxy. (p. 48)

As we shall see, this expansive understanding of the papal principatus will be expanded yet further several centuries later to cover even the very definition of the ancient term “catholic” and the boundaries of “orthodoxy”.In the process, the careful Gelasian dualism will be overruled by an unbalanced Gregorian hierocraticism, creating numerous strenuous conflicts within Christendom for the four centuries prior to the Reformation. (p. 65; again, Tim disagrees that this definition is the true one)

Gregory I’s opinion, that obedientia is the sole guarantee against straying from the faith, was absorbed into the opinion of the apologists of the reform papacy that the Roman church is the sole judge of what constitutes orthodoxy . . . (p. 86; citing someone else, but again, Tim disagrees)

For all this strenuous propagandizing, however, Gregory VII and his faction did not go unchallenged from within the orthodox ranks of the Church.

[Footnote: The reader should note the adjective “orthodox” in connection with resistance to Gregory’s claims. At this point in time the revolution was not complete and it would be the most egregious of anachronisms to view resistance to Gregory VII’s principatus-claims as being fundamentally “un-catholic”. For indeed, as we saw above it was by the propaganda of Gregory VII and his followers that the notion that being “catholic” entails submission to the Roman Pontiff became the de facto law of the Western Church.] (pp. 91-92)

[A]t the high point of the dispute between Papalism and Conciliarism we will see that certain of the more extreme members of the Papalist party were prepared to allow the pope power even over Holy Scripture, and that this radicalism helped fuel the elaboration of the orthodoxy of the conciliar theory. (p. 108)

Orthodox scholars were no longer content merely to receive and comment upon the authorities of the past, but were for the first time critically examining those authorities, often even using them creatively to support positions that the original authors would never have countenanced. (p. 137)

. . . what that Christendom was in its ontology, epistemology, and practical outworking began to be seriously challenged from within Christian orthodoxy and tradition. (p. 138)

The intellectual grandeur of the monarchical Papalist theory was so dazzling that it tended to block from view potential orthodox routes for resolving conflicts within the Tradition, and it instead tended to cause discussions to gravitate toward extremes. (p. 184)

These two canonistic principles would serve the fifteenth century Conciliarists well—and it is critical to understand that they are fundamentally orthodox ecclesiological principles, and not the invention of “heretics” or “rebels”. (p. 186)

We have developed at length above that four centuries of intensive development of canon law and its various tensions with the formal discipline of theology had created a matrix of complicated ambiguities regarding the role of the Papacy relative to the rest of the Church. This already makes it impossible to dismiss Conciliarism as a mere novelty coming from outside orthodoxy (as Vatican I style Roman Catholics are today prone to do). (p. 189; this comes the closest yet: it is something like "canon law = orthodoxy." But the Church still has to determine which version of canon law comports with orthodox Catholicism and which does not, in the event of disagreement)

. . . numerous orthodox threads of the Tradition . . . (p. 191)

. . . examples of popes being deposed by or being required to prove their orthodoxy at the bar of councils, . . . (p. 195)

. . . conflicts over the proper powers and role of the pope could erupt from within orthodox theology . . . (p. 210)

. . . the orthodox conciliar theory propounded by Gerson, d’Ailly, Zabarella, and many others. In short, the Conciliarism of the fifteenth century was a movement of conservative catholic churchmen, not radical revolutionaries. (p. 230)

The Conciliar movement, always a legitimate option within basic catholic orthodoxy, lived on in spite of all Papalist resistance. (p. 232)

. . . certain central emphases of the conciliar theory were very much alive and well—and being propounded as orthodox . . . (p. 240)

By now it should be beyond doubt that the Protestant reform movement was deeply in debt to and impacted by the conciliar theory—which in turn means that the Protestant reform movement was an orthodox catholic movement in some ways which simply are not amenable to standard Roman Catholic arguments about “the Church” and “rebellion”. (p. 250)

. . . plausible historical grounds for setting that great reform movement firmly within the orthodox Western authority tradition . . . (p. 256)

. . . the conciliar theory was—and is—a legitimate option for orthodox catholic Christians to hold, . . . (p. 257)

. . . realism is not without its own problems and cannot simply be given the benefit of the doubt as to its orthodoxy . . . (p. 265)

Grappling with the mere existence of, not to mention the profound conflict of, multiple traditionary streams within the basic framework of orthodox ecclesiology would powerfully inoculate us against the terrible anachronisms of typical Roman Catholic treatments of history as well as the unworkable perfectionisms of our own. (p. 267)

. . . gradually and painfully coalescing orthodoxy, . . . (p. 271)

As problematic as the burning of Huss is given what one writer has called the “surprising degree” of his orthodoxy . . . (p. 275)

Further, it is ironic that given the very old, fundamentally orthodox heritage of limiting coercive power that lies behind the Reformed statements . . . (p. 276)

We observe, then, that Tim never defines the key concept (orthodoxy) regarding the very thing he is seeking to assert (that conciliarism is at least as orthodox as "papalism"). Thus, his argument is logically circular, and dealing further with it is a futile effort, at least until this basic problem of definition is cleared up and clarified.

Motown's James Jamerson: The Greatest Bass Guitarist of All Time

The documentary, Standing in the Shadows of Motown, which played in movie theaters a year or two ago and is available in video rental stores, presented the story of Motown's session players (known as "The Funk Brothers"), who were the unsung heroes of the Motown Sound, and (sadly) barely even known, until recent years.

When you are a native Detroiter (if you have any musical sense at all), Motown is a larger-than-life phenomenon. Everyone knows about the studio in the big house with the blue front and sign, "Hitsville U.S.A.", on West Grand Boulevard, not far from the old headquarters building for General Motors, and only a stone's throw from the center of the Riots in 1967 (12th Street). But, like so many who live near a famous landmark, I had never taken a tour of the studio until quite recently. I made a delivery there in the early-90s and stepped inside, but that was it. I read about the efforts to make it a first-class museum and waited until it was renovated to take a full tour. That was about four years ago. I went a second time two years ago.

It's difficult to describe the feeling of someone who grew up in Detroit in the 1960s -- as I did -- walking through this building, which has such a rich musical legacy. Entering the actual studio is almost like a religious pilgrimage: the "Holy of Holies" of 60s pop and R & B music, where Marvin Gaye, the Temptations, the Four Tops, Stevie Wonder, Martha and the Vandellas, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, and Diana Ross and the Supremes cut all their records. The only thing that could approach it in the "local heritage" category was when my whole family got to walk onto the field of Tiger Stadium in 1999: the last year that old ballpark hosted major league baseball.

My late brother Gerry was in a "white soul"-type band in 1966-1968. They made a record and appeared on a local rock and roll TV show, called Swingin' Time (with host Robin Seymour). A few years later a "scout" from Motown actually came to the house to listen to him and a friend play and sing. Nothing came of it, of course, but it was great to even have that slight association with Motown.

The greatest and most influential individual talent in the "Funk Brothers" was the bass player, James Jamerson (1936-1983). I would like to cite three articles about this extraordinary musician, and then I'll provide a list of what I consider his greatest performances on record, and several related links. I'm proud to play some small part in making him more known to the public:

From the article: "Enigmatic bassist James Jamerson, anchor of the Motown sound, will get his due at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame," by Brian McCollum, 2-27-00, in The Detroit Free Press:

. . . James Jamerson . . . dramatically, forever, altered the sound of contemporary music.

. . . Mysterious as his persona might have been, there was nothing vague about Jamerson's playing. As bassist for the fabled Funk Brothers, he was the bedrock of the Motown sound. When you dance to "Heat Wave," your hips aren't moving because of Martha or her Vandellas. They're being seduced into motion by Jamerson and his fat, vibrant grooves underneath.

Enigmatic in life, overlooked in death, Jamerson is about to get his due. On March 6, he'll be among the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's first round of inductees for session musicians -- the unheralded players behind the scenes.

Like his bandmates in the Funk Brothers, the crack studio band that played on nearly every Motown hit that mattered, Jamerson was rarely credited in public for his prolific work. It wasn't until 1971, when he was acknowledged as "the incomparable James Jamerson" on the sleeve of Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On," that his name even showed up on a major Motown release.

His induction will be the first high-profile recognition of his vast body of work . . . In all, he performed on nearly 30 No. 1 pop hits -- toppling the record commonly attributed to the Beatles. On the R&B charts, nearly 70 of his performances went to the top.

. . . Today's bass players owe an overwhelming debt to his innovations in the tiny studio on West Grand.

. . . sometime in the late '50s, he made his first visit to Motown's Studio A. Somewhere amid it all, he picked up the electric bass. Legend says he mastered the instrument in two weeks.

By the early '60s, Motown's A-team of musicians had come together: Earl Van Dyke, Robert White, Benny Benjamin, Joe Messina and Jamerson. The Funk Brothers, as they came to be known, molded one of the most distinct sounds in pop music history. Under the leadership of Van Dyke, the group also became a fixture on Detroit's club scene.

Allan Slutsky, a Philadelphia musician and writer, became intrigued by Jamerson in the mid-'80s and dove into Motown's past for answers. The resulting book, Standing in the Shadows of Motown: The Life and Music of Legendary Bassist James Jamerson (Hal Leonard, $32.95), was published in 1989. This summer, Slutsky will head a crew to begin production on a $3-million documentary about the Funk Brothers.

"You have to remember the state of the electric bass at that time -- it had only been around since the early '50s," says Slutsky. "People didn't know what to do with it. Nobody blew you away. Then Jamerson comes along. He was the first virtuoso of the electric bass, the first to give the instrument a voice." In musical terms, what Jamerson introduced was syncopation. In layman's terms, just call it funk.

Rather than merely outlining a song's chords in primitive, arpeggio patterns like most pop and R&B bassists -- dum, dum, dum, dum -- Jamerson developed lines of increasing complexity. His jazz background allowed him to toy with unusual harmonic flourishes. He widened the palette.

Tales of Jamerson in the studio are legendary. He'd concoct his parts in mere seconds, they say, then fool around as the band rehearsed, stomping his foot in odd meters or humming an alternate melody to throw off the players.

. . . He was, by any definition, a genius. "Jamerson terrified bassists all over the world," says Slutsky. "Still does." With Motown archivist Harry Weinger, Slutsky got a chance to hear Jamerson parts isolated from the other tracks. It was a breathtaking event. "I was floored . . . It was the funkiest, grungiest thing I had ever heard in my life. It was like every single note was ready to explode."

But it was more than just the bass lines -- whether the familiar stutter of "Bernadette" or the one many call his best, Stevie Wonder's "I Was Made to Love Her."

"The thing laymen have to understand is that music is built from the bottom up," says Slutsky. "James was the bottom. When he changed the way the bottom functioned and sounded, it changed everything up the line." "Play it like the guy from Motown" became a standard call from producers everywhere.

. . . Since childhood, James had revealed a two-pronged personality: angel and devil. He was a class clown and a loner. Gregarious and mean. Sweet and flammable. Like so many great artists, there was something in his personality that evoked traces of bipolar disorder.

"He wanted to live the good life, to be a religious, God-fearing guy," says Slutsky. "But he was the sheepish little good-kid-gone-bad. He had a lot of demons. It's a Vincent Van Gogh story."

. . . "In hindsight, 'What's Going On' was the swan song for Jamerson," says [Bob] Lee, the Los Angeles bassist. "He always thought that was his best work." Marvin Gaye's seminal 1971 record was among the last Motown albums recorded in Detroit.

. . . Since Slutsky's book was published, he's received more than 10,000 letters looking for insight into the mysterious legend. "If James knew the fuss, he'd be floored," says Slutsky. "This was a guy who died in agony. He figured he was forgotten."

. . . "Very few people have a chance to impact the world on a large scale. But that's what he did," says Slutsky. "People don't know him like they should. But when you think about it, the impact pop culture has had all over the world ...he's right there at the foundation."

From Marshall Crenshaw's article in Rolling Stone, 9-29-83:

James Jamerson, the pioneering Motown bassist who died of pneumonia in Los Angeles on August 2nd at the age of forty-five, was not famous like Sting of the Police, or John Entwistle of the Who. But Jamerson was one of the greatest and most influential musicians of our time, and it's safe to say that his sound and soul will always be with us, because the great Motown records of the Sixties will be listened to and appreciated for as long as there is a vibrant American musical culture.

Jamerson's bass playing almost defined the Motown sound. He was with the company from 1959 until 1973, and during the peak years of Motown's incredible golden era, from 1963 to 1966, he played on virtually every Motown, Tamla, Gordy, Soul and VIP release. On these records - backing the Supremes, Steve Wonder, Martha and the Vandellas, the Miracles, the Four Tops, Marvin Gaye and many others - Jamerson created a sound, a feel and an impact that make him one of the three or four most important innovators in the last twenty years of American music.

. . . It's hard for me to think of words to adequately describe his beautiful sound and the deftness and sensitivity of his playing. Fortunately most people have heard "Reach Out I'll Be There" and "Dancing in the Street" to cite only two of Jamerson's classic performances. But Jamerson also had a profound influence on the state of the recording art. During the Fifties, electric basses were not considered legitimate instruments by most producers and studio players; the most common approach was to record an acoustic bass to anchor the bottom of the sound, then have someone, usually a guitarist, add electric bass-string lines for percussive and melodic supplementation. When Jamerson came along, he totally blew away such prejudices - and by making the bottom jump and pop the way he did, he completely changed the way people heard and played R&B and rock & roll. He was the first electric bass player that you might call a virtuoso.

From: Chuck Rainey's Jamerson Page:

Ever wonder what the specific ingredient of a hit record was or is? If you are a producer, writer, arranger, artist, an avid fan of the artist or a listener - you might consider first - the groove, sound and feel of the bass instrument and who is playing it. True, The 4 Tops, Stevie Wonder, The Supremes, Mary Wells, Smokey Robinson, The Temptations and Jr. Walker were indeed very special and talented artists, but consider three things; (1) all the songs were good songs, (2) all the horn and string arrangements were great and (3) all songs and arrangements were led by the bass part. All but a few bass parts were played by my hero James Jamerson.

. . . Once any bassist heard or hears Jamerson play the electric bass instrument, an immediate respect for him and the instrument occurs . . . Although James was an acoustic bass player first, he opened the career door for the rest of us electric players basically by being heard so many times on radio hits produced by Detroit Motown. When I heard Bernadette by the 4 Tops in the 60's, my heart throbbed for a week. I Was Made To Love Her by Stevie Wonder during that same time period caused another week of sheer electric bass ecstasy.

My Compilation of 32 of James Jamerson's Greatest Hits, on a 90-Minute Cassette

The songs were chosen for their inventiveness, originality, key role in the structure of the songs, and memorable nature. Reference is made to the date of release, and disk and number of selection on the disk, from the CD Box Set: Hitsville USA: The Motown Singles Collection: 1959-1971. The songwriters will be indicated by a code, referring to the writers listed below.

Side A

Mickey's Monkey * (7/63 | I, 16), Miracles
Pride and Joy ^ (4/63 | I, 13), Marvin Gaye
How Sweet It Is * (11/64 | I, 28), Marvin Gaye
My Girl # (12/64 | II, 1), Temptations
This Old Heart of Mine * (1/66 | II, 17), Isley Brothers
You Can't Hurry Love * (7/66 | II, 25), Supremes
I Can't Help Myself * (4/65 | II, 8), Four Tops
Ain't no Mountain High Enough < (4/67 | III, 8), Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell
I Heard it Through the Grapevine > (9/67 | III, 10), Gladys Knight & the Pips
Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing < (3/68 | III, 15), Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell
My Whole World Ended ~ (1/69 | III, 22), David Ruffin
I Was Made to Love Her + (5/67), Stevie Wonder
Ain't Too Proud to Beg (*) (5/66 | II, 21), Temptations
You Keep me Hangin' On * (10/66), Supremes
It's the Same Old Song * (7/65 | II, 11), Four Tops
Ain't That Peculiar # (9/65), Marvin Gaye
I Know I'm Losing You (*) (11/66 | III, 2), Temptations

Side B

A Place in the Sun ::: (10/66), Stevie Wonder
Reach Out, I'll be There * (8/66 | III, 1), Four Tops
Reflections * (7/67), Supremes
What's Going On? = (1/71 | IV, 17), Marvin Gaye
I'm Gonna Make You Love Me & (11/68), Temptations & Supremes
Bernadette * (2/67), Four Tops
I'm Wondering + (9/67), Stevie Wonder
Cloud Nine > (10/68 | III, 18), Temptations
If I Were Your Woman % (10/70 | IV, 15), Gladys Knight & the Pips
Standing in the Shadows of Love * (11/66 | III, 3), Four Tops
For Once in My Life (::) (10/68 | III, 17), Stevie Wonder
The Happening * (3/67), Supremes
I Can't Get Next to You > (7/69 | III, 24), Temptations
Ain't No Mountain High Enough < (7/70 | IV, 10), Diana Ross
Higher and Higher, Jackie Wilson (not a Motown song, but the Funk Brothers played on it, helping to make it one of the all-time great R & B records)

Songwriter's code:

* Brian Holland, Lamont Dozier, & Eddie Holland
(*) Eddie Holland, Norman Whitfield
# Smokey Robinson
+ Stevie Wonder, Sylvia Moy, & Henry Cosby
^ Norman Whitfield, Marvin Gaye, & William "Mickey" Stevenson
> Norman Whitfeld & Barrett Strong
< Nickolas Ashford & Valerie Simpson
= Al Cleveland, Marvin Gaye, & Renaldo Benson
~ Harvey Fuqua, Johnny Bristol. Pam Sawyer, & James Roach
::: Ron Miller & Bryan Wells
(::) Ron Miller & Orlando Murden
& Kenneth Gamble & Jerry Ross
% Laverne Ware, Pam Sawyer, & Clay McMurray

Further Reading about James Jamerson, Motown, and the Funk Brothers:
(Many thanks to Bob Lee: the first site below)

Bob Lee's loving tribute page, James Jamerson, Bassist (with a great photograph of Jamerson on top)

Detroit News article about the film, Standing in the Shadows of Motown.

Article on the Funk Brothers, "From Motown to our Town," by Jonathan Takiff (Philadephia Daily News, 4-11-03)

Dozens of articles about Motown in the online archives of The Detroit Free Press.

Funk Brothers interview on NPR radio

USA Today review of Standing in the Shadows of Motown (SITSOM)

Detroit Metro Times review of SITSOM

Fender tribute to Jamerson

Standing In The Shadows Of Motown.com

Who's Who of the Funk Brothers

List of some of Jamerson's greatest performances

Section on the Funk Brothers from The History of Rock and Roll site.

Soul Man (French site about Motown and the Funk Brothers)

Amazon.Com page for Standing In The Shadows Of Motown

Open Discussion Forum #1

. . . to provide a place for anyone to throw things out on the table that they are interested in discussing (as opposed to questions for me, which will be in the continuing series, "Q & A Forum #X"). I may or may not participate in the thread. I wanted to do this so people would not have to be restricted to the topics I choose. As the case may be, probably some topics generated here will later be made into a regular post. Enjoy!

Future Belongs to the Religious, Says Demographer

April 30, 2004
Volume 7, Number 19

An article in the current issue of the prestigious quarterly
Foreign Affairs warns that, since religious people are having so many more children than nonreligious people, the future actually "belongs" to the religious.

Phillip Longman, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, describes the steep demographic decline now taking place in both the developed and developing worlds, and asks the question, "So where will the children of the future come from? The answer may be from people who are at odds with the modern environment" of urbanization and economic and materialistic advancement, notably those people with strong religious convictions who "reject the game altogether."

"Does this mean that the future belongs to those who believe they are (or who are in fact) commanded by a higher power to procreate?" wonders Longman. "Based on current trends, the answer appears to be yes."

Longman claims that "there is a strong correlation between religious conviction and high fertility. In the United States, for example, fully 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say that the ideal family size is three or more children, as compared to only 27 percent of those who seldom attend church."

Longman even asserts that people with strong religious
convictions are now beginning to enjoy a profound "evolutionary advantage" over nonreligious people, since the "clean living" of the religious boosts fertility and overall health. He writes that, "Current demographic trends work against modernity in another way as well. Not only is the spread of urbanization and industrialization itself a major cause of falling fertility, it is also a major cause of so-called diseases of affluence, such as overeating, lack of exercise, and substance abuse, which leave a higher and higher percentage of the population stricken by chronic medical conditions. Those who reject modernity would thus seem to have an evolutionary advantage, whether they are clean-living Mormons or Muslims."

Longman sees little reason for hope that a worldwide demographic catastrophe can be avoided. "Once," he writes, "demographers believed that some law of human nature would prevent fertility rates from remaining below replacement level within any healthy population for more than brief periods.Today, however, it has become clear that no law of nature ensures that human beings, living in free, developed societies, will create enough children to reproduce themselves. Japanese fertility rates have been below replacement levels since the mid-1950s, and the last time Europeans produced enough children to reproduce themselves was the mid-1970s.

Nor can immigration resolve fertility decline. According to
Longman, "if the United States hopes to maintain the current ratio of workers to retirees over time, it will have to absorb an average of 10.8 million immigrants annually through 2050."

Copyright - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

Another Superb Traditional Anglican Critique of Sola Scriptura & Private Judgment

By the Pontificator, whose blog I link to:

I Say, the Bible Says, God Says: The Protestant Gospel According to “Me”

All the Biblical Evidence for Sola Scriptura

Diet of Regensburg (1541) & Colloquy of Poissy (1561): Protestant "Ecumenical" Efforts at Christian Unity?

Catholic historian Warren Carroll writes:

Reform-minded Cardinal Contarini attended the Diet of Regensburg and its religious discussions. and managed to obtain agreement on both sides on a statement on justification, but only by using a new concept of "duplicate justice," which recognized that God gave justifying grace to men in baptism, but also stated that "a yet higher justice, that of Christ Himself, becomes necessary in order to attain a perfect renewal, this latter being given and imputed to men through faith." It seemed an inspired straddle, but the Council of Trent later repudiated it [Dave: Luther had refused to accept it also]. Jubilation over this paper harmonization . . . soon faded when the conferees took up theor differences on the Mass and the sacraments, which were absolutely irreconcilable. The Catholic Faith cannot be practiced without the Mass, and the Protestants had totally rejected the Mass. Just a week after the illusory agreement on justification, Cardinal Contarini wrote that he had been astonished to discover that the Protestants rejected both the Real Presence and veneration of the Blessed Sacrament outside Mass. On May 16 Contarini wrote to Rome: . . . "strife proceeds neither from the Holy See nor from the Emperor, but from the obdurate adherence of the Protestants to their errors."

(The Cleaving of Christendom [A History of Christendom, vol. 4], Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000, 179)

Noted Protestant Church historian Roland Bainton wrote about the same diet:

Protestants and Catholics were in attendance and the purpose was to see whether accord could be achieved. There was some real hope because the leader of the Catholic side was Cardinal Contarini, one of the Italian liberals of the Erasmian brand, and the leader on the Protestant side was Martin Bucer of Strasbourg, noted for his mediatory role between the Swiss and the Lutherans. The cardinal doctrine of Luther, justification by faith, proved after all not to be an insuperable obstacle because Contarini was ready to accept it, though whether he meant by it precisely what the Lutherans did is another matter. But the Protestant rejection of transubstantiation was more serious and Bucer, unlike Melanchthon at Augsburg, was very insistent on the rejection of papal authority. Union failed . . .

(The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Boston: Beacon Press, 1952, 152)

So we see that the Catholic side was willing to "compromise" on the Protestants' leading ("cardinal") concern: justification, but the Protestants would not flinch on matters of supreme importance and "non-negotiability" for the Catholics: transubstantiation and papal authority. We see almost the same exact dynamic and Protestant inflexibility at the Colloquy of Poissy in 1561. Carroll describes that event:

A group of French Calvinists headed by Theodore Beza had been invited to present the case for their religion to the bishops assembled to prepare for the Council of Trent . . . the government made public a series of edicts drawn up three weeks earlier, which while continuing to forbid public Calvinist worship, allowed it in private homes, recommended that judges be more lenient with Calvinists, and granted a general amnesty to those in prison charged with heresy.

. . . The colloquy itself began September 9 with another speech by [Chancellor] l'Hopital urging religious unity and pledging that the government would no longer persecute the Calvinists. But . . . the Colloquy of Poissy was no exercise in "ecumenism." Even less than the Lutherans were the Calvinists interested in ecumenism, Like all revolutionaries, they would accept it only on their own terms. On this first day of discussion Beza threw down the gauntlet with the explicit and shocking denial of the Real Presence . . .:

If we regard the distance of things (as we must, when there is a question of His corporeal presence, and of His humanity considered separately), we say that His body is as far removed from the bread and wine as is heaven from earth. [September 9, 1561]

. . . The Real Presence, like the Incarnation, is a doctrine on which there can be no compromise for a serious Catholic . . . Still Catherine de Medici and l'Hopital set up a committee of twelve Catholics and twelve Calvinists to continue the discussions. In a meeting of this committee, Beza attacked the doctrine of papal primacy and papal succession from Peter, using the absurd fable of "Pope Joan" to support his argument, and denied that Scripture depended on the authority of the Church or that there was any infallible source of religious truth. Catholic theologian l'Espence responded by pointing out that the Calvinist ministers lacked any claim to authority whatsoever. By now the discussion had degenerated into a shouting match . . . Efforts to find a compromise formula of language for the Real Presence were torpedoed by Peter Martyr Vermigli, a radical Calvinist . . .

(Carroll, ibid., 281-283; Beza citation from p. 235)

Bainton practically agrees with Carroll's implication that any hope of conciliation was destroyed by Protestant intransigence:

Theodore Beza was given unrestricted opportunity to state the Protestant case. In so doing he not only failed to conciliate the Catholics but succeeded also in alienating the Lutherans by stating in the baldest terms the Calvinist doctrine of spiritual communion only in the Lord's Supper, seeing that the body of Christ is as far from the bread and wine as heaven from earth. Agreement on any such basis was of course out of the question.

(Bainton, ibid., 167-168)

A Protestant web page called Reformed Sovereign Grace (which includes in its repertoire, the interesting article, "Biblical Reasons for NOT seeing the 'Passion of the Christ' Movie"), stated in its biography of Beza:

In a confrontation with the cruel and bloodthirsty Duke of Guise, Beza made his memorable statement: "Sire, it belongs, in truth, to the church of God, in the name of which I address you, to suffer blows, not to strike them. But at the same time let it be your pleasure to remember that the Church is an anvil which has worn out many a hammer."

Noted Protestant historian Phillip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church (1910 edition of Charles Scribner's Sons, vol. 8, ch. 19, § 170. "Beza at the Colloquy of Poissy"), describes the scene:

He then addressed the assembly upon the points of agreement and of disagreement between them, and was quietly listened to until he made the assertion that the Body of Christ was as far removed from the bread of the Eucharist as the heavens are from the earth. Then the prelates broke out with the cry "Blasphemavit! blasphemavit!" ("he has blasphemed"), and for a while there was much confusion. Beza had followed the obnoxious expression with a remark which was intended to break its force, affirming the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist; but the noise had prevented its being heard. Instead, however, of yielding to the clamor the queen-mother insisted that Beza should be heard out, and he finished his speech.

The tragedy of these so-called "ecumenical" gatherings (at least from my admittedly biased Catholic perspective) is twofold. First of all, we observe Protestant utter intolerance of various Catholic doctrines, held for many hundreds of years and passed down in apostolic Tradition, so that compromise (or even agreement to disagree) is made impossible by definition right from the outset (Bucer and Beza).

Why, then, even attempt a dialogue, if the Protestants went into these meetings determined to not agree with or even allow any Catholic doctrine which they rejected? Reconciliation and whatever compromise is possible (without either party forsaking their own principles and deepest beliefs) is a two-way street, after all.

It may very well be (I suspect it probably was the case) that the Catholics were just as inflexible and stubborn, but certainly no more so than the Protestants. So any implication that the Protestants were all for freedom of religion and tolerance (either far more than the Catholics, or exclusively) is simply false to history.

Somewhat ironically, the second pronounced Protestant fault in these "ecumenical" gatherings was equivocation and astonishingly two-faced proclamations (such as those of Melanchthon at Augsburg -- see my paper, The Real Diet of Augsburg; Protestant Intolerance in 1530)

John Calvin wrote a fascinating letter which dealt with events shortly before the Diet of Regensburg and proves once again the first Protestant tendency mentioned above: equivocation in negotiations with Catholics (this time by both Bucer and Melanchthon). Phillip Schaff introduces it:

Calvin . . . gave a decided judgment in Latin against transubstantiation, which he rejected as a scholastic fiction, and against the adoration of the wafer which he declared to be idolatrous. He was displeased with the submissiveness of Melanchthon and Bucer, although he did not doubt the sincerity of their motives. He loved truth and consistency more than peace and unity. "Philip," he wrote to Farel (May 12, 1541), "and Bucer have drawn up ambiguous and varnished formulas concerning transubstantiation, to try whether they could satisfy the opposite party by giving them nothing [Schaff footnote: These formulas are printed in Melanchthon's Epistolae, IV. 262-264]. I cannot agree to this device, although they have reasonable grounds for doing so; for they hope that in a short time they would begin to see more clearly if the matter of doctrine be left open; therefore they rather wish to skip over it, and do not dread that equivocation (flexiloquation) than which nothing can be more hurtful. I can assure you, however, that both are animated with the best intentions, and have no other object in view than to promote the kingdom of Christ; only in their method of proceeding they accommodate themselves too much to the times .... These things I deplore in private to yourself, my dear Farel; see, therefore, that they are not made public. One thing I am thankful for, that there is no one who is fighting now more earnestly against the wafer-god [Schaff footnote: Or, in-breaded God, impanatus Deus], as he calls it, than Brentz."

(n Schaff, ibid., vol. 8, ch. 11, § 89; the entire letter is also published in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Letters, Part 1, 1528-1545, vol. 4 of 7; edited by Jules Bonnet, translated by David Constable; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House (a Protestant publisher), 1983, 262-264; reproduction of Letters of John Calvin, vol. 1 [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858] )

For any progress to have taken place, both parties needed to be straightforward and honest with each other. Equivocation was not the route to success, because it would only backfire later, when the true nature of Protestant beliefs became apparent. Nor is total inflexibility. Both sides were inflexible, granted, but a major difference between the two is the fact that the Catholic beliefs had been held for many centuries, whereas the Protestant beliefs on things like the Eucharist were new and novel.

Along these lines, the Protestant historian Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote, in a remarkable passage in one of his Critical and Historical Essays:

The immediate effect of the Reformation in England was by no means favourable to political liberty. The authority which had been exercised by the Popes was transferred almost entire to the King. Two formidable powers which had often served to check each other were united in a single despot. If the system on which the founders of the Church of England acted could have been permanent, the Reformation would have been, in a political sense, the greatest curse that ever fell on our country. But that system carried within it the seeds of its own death. It was possible to transfer the name of Head of the Church from Clement to Henry; but it was impossible to transfer to the new establishment the veneration which the old establishment had inspired. Mankind had not broken one yoke in pieces only in order to put on another. The supremacy of the Bishop of Rome had been for ages considered as a fundamental principle of Christianity. It had for it everything that could make a prejudice deep and strong, venerable antiquity, high authority, general consent. It had been taught in the first lessons of the nurse. It was taken for granted in all the exhortations of the priest. To remove it was to break innumerable associations, and to give a great and perilous shock to the principles. Yet this prejudice, strong as it was, could not stand in the great day of the deliverance of the human reason. And it was not to be expected that the public mind, just after freeing itself by an unexampled effort, from a bondage which it had endured for ages, would patiently submit to a tyranny which could plead no ancient title. Rome had at least prescription on its side. But Protestant intolerance, despotism in an upstart sect, infallibility claimed by guides who acknowledged that they had passed the greater part of their lives in error, restraints imposed on the liberty of private judgment at the pleasure of rulers who could vindicate their own proceedings only by asserting the liberty of private judgment, these things could not long be borne. Those who had pulled down the crucifix could not long continue to persecute for the surplice. It required no great sagacity to perceive the inconsistency and dishonesty of men who, dissenting from almost all Christendom, would suffer none to dissent from themselves, who demanded freedom of conscience, yet refused to grant it, who execrated persecution, yet persecuted, who urged reason against the authority of one opponent, and authority against the reasons of another. Bonner acted at least in accordance with his own principles. Cranmer could vindicate himself from the charge of being a heretic only by arguments which made him out to be a murderer.

Thus the system on which the English Princes acted with respect to ecclesiastical affairs for some time after the Reformation was a system too obviously unreasonable to be lasting.

("John Hampden," December 1831)

In other words, it was far more objectionable for the Protestants to be totally dogmatic about their "new stuff" than for Catholics to be totally dogmatic about their "old stuff."

An Eloquent Statement Against Child-Killing

She looked into the camera and said, "I think it is just sad that we have to be here today." She was talking about being one of more than half a million people gathered in Washington in support of "abortion rights." Yes, I agreed: it is very sad. The march was called the "March for Women's Lives." Given that nearly half of those who lose their lives in the murder of unborn children are women, the title is tragically ironic. And the woman's statement, meant to say that we should be "beyond" the debate over abortion, reminded me of the description of those who become accustomed to evil in Isaiah 5:20, who call evil good and good evil.

You see, we live in a day when the humanity of the pre-born child is so clearly documented, so forcefully proven through our modern technology, that every possible excuse that could be offered has become absurd on its face. When I listen to the mindless rhetoric shoveled out by those who seek to defend this "right" I am forced to recognize again the truth that total depravity extends to the mind of mankind, so that "they became futile in their reasoning and their senseless hearts became darkened" (Romans 1:21). This is all that can possibly explain how we can have such compelling, convincing evidence of the humanity of the pre-born child and yet these image bearers seek to continue the holocaust of innocents with every fiber of their being, all the time fleeing in panic from any logical challenge to their tortured reasoning. Yes indeed, those who refuse love the truth will be caused to love a lie.

Oh God, save the little ones. Melt the hearts of stone of those who murder them. Grant repentance, we pray.
----------------------------------

Who wrote this? Dr. James White, on his blog; 4-27-04.
Good to agree on something once in a while . . .

Luther Was Not a Revolutionary?! Huh?!

Many Protestants have argued that Martin Luther never intended to start a "new religion" or denomination, or to split Christianity; in fact that he never intended to leave the Catholic Church. One can quibble about when and why he intended on starting a new version of Christianity, but the fact remains that he did. It is foolish to think that the Catholic Church was supposed to simply bow to Luther's novel ideas, rather than assert its own received Tradition and demand a retraction on his part.

Luther refused to retract his revolutionary opinions, so unless one thinks that any Christian communion is obliged to bend its doctrines and beliefs to the whims of one dissenting person, then there is a sense in which Luther "intended to start his own religion" (I myself wouldn't say it is a new religion, because it is still Christianity; I prefer the terminology of a revolt against the Catholic Church and the beginning of a new denomination or form of Christianity).

It is also said that Luther's case against indulgences was clear-cut and unambiguous: that the Catholic Church was in the wrong, through and through. There were indeed abuses, and the Church dealt strongly with them -- to that extent we might be grateful to Luther, I suppose. But he wasn't content to deal just with abuses -- as true Catholic reformers all through the centuries had done. He had to "throw the baby out with the bath water," and so rejected indulgences altogether, along with many other received doctrines too numerous to mention.

One Protestant who wrote to me stated: "the Church's marketing strategy was 'as the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.' " But this is untrue. This was neither a "marketing strategy" nor does this characterization present a totally accurate assessment of Johann Tetzel's actual views: the famous figure who often represents in the mind of the non-Catholic all that is excessive, foolish, and evil in the Catholic Tradition. Luther lied when he said of Tetzel in a 1541 pamphlet: "He sold grace for money at the highest price." Tetzel's teaching was erroneous in some respects, according to Catholic dogma. But it was not identical to the silly stereotype. What have most anti-Catholics, or even non-Catholics ever read about indulgences from a Catholic perspective? If they had read much at all, they would not repeat the tired slanders against both the Church and Tetzel. But such is the way of cultural mythology and fables -- passed down for generations.

Luther (not immune to slander when it suited his polemical purposes) wrote of Tetzel:

He wrote that an Indulgence is a reconciliation between God and man and takes effect even though a man performs no penance, and manifests neither contrition nor sorrow.

In point of fact, Tetzel's teaching, which we have in written form in his Vorlegung, states precisely the opposite:

The Indulgence remits only the pain [i.e., the penalty] of sins which have been repented of and confessed . . . No one merits an Indulgence unless he is in a truly contrite state.

He did indeed exaggerate the monetary aspect of the indulgence, but not according to Church teaching. Even the silly saying about the "coffer" cannot be traced to Tetzel with any certainty. He did teach a version of what the saying conveys, but it was -- again -- not the official teaching of the Church, as is often ignorantly and slanderously implied. The view was not supported by the Papal Bulls of Indulgence, and the pope had not taught this, as Luther falsely charged.

(Background Source: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, S.J., translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: 1914-1915, 6 volumes; taken from vol. 1: 342-344)

As for the relative "case" and justifiability of the actions of Martin Luther and that of the Catholic Church, particularly between 31 October, 1517 (95 Theses) and 3 January 1521 (Luther's excommunication), one might do well to ponder the following facts:

By that time he had written at least three scathing denunciations of the Catholic Church (all in 1520). I shall comment on two of them:

The first is To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. In this work, he invited the German princes to take the reform of the Church into their own hands. He wrote:

When necessity demands it, and the pope is an offense to Christendom, the first man who is able should, as a true member of the whole body, do what he can to bring about a truly free council. No one can do this as well as the temporal authorities . . .

(in Three Treatises, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970, 23)

This is a complete rejection of traditional Catholic authority, and a direct attempt to set up a State Church, which in fact occurred after Lutheranism became established. It is quite questionable, to put it mildly, that secular princes can do a better job at Christianity than bishops and popes. In fact, Luther and his right-hand man Philip Melanchthon admitted many years later that the jurisdiction of bishops was superior to the jurisdiction of politically- and economically-motivated princes.

So the Catholic Church is supposed to merrily accept this, as if it is not fatal to its ongoing structure? Just bow to all of Luther's demands? Of course this is absurd. No institution can operate in such a ludicrous fashion. That would change the Church into a dictatorship -- much as many Protestant denominations and split-off cults in fact become. Popes never even dreamt of the power and self-granted infallibility that Luther claimed in his own created church.

In The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther called for the even more revolutionary notion of abolition of five of the seven Catholic sacraments, and the Sacrifice of the Mass. So, again, the Catholic Church was supposed to just go along with Luther's radical program of "reform," rather than excommunicate a son who was clearly obstinate and no longer a faithful Catholic? I would contend that the honest thing for Luther to have done would have been to leave the Catholic Church, since he no longer accepted its doctrines -- rather than create a spectacle and a schism that had repercussions we still live with today. Surely he must have known that the revolutionary rhetoric of his treatises of 1520 would have the effect they did. If not, then he had to be one of the most naive persons who ever lived.

Yet commonly Protestants tell us that Luther only wished to reform, not revolutionize the Church. This makes no sense, once all the historical facts are taken into account. To ditch dozens of beliefs and practices of any institution, and revise it almost entirely is
not reform, but rather transformation, evolution, or revolution. I have outlined above what Luther was calling for in 1520 -- before he was excommunicated. The Church had previously operated on the principle of preserving its Tradition, received in an unbroken line from the apostles. Neither the pope, Luther, nor any other self-anointed "reformer" is at liberty to change apostolic doctrine at their whim and fancy. Luther even approached biblical books cavalierly, thinking that they were legitimate or not based on his personal opinion alone, as I demonstrated -- from his own words -- in my paper on that topic (Luther vs. the Canon of the Bible).

How in the world anyone can maintain that Luther was not a heretic (in those areas where he diverged from Catholicism), by the criteria of Catholic dogma, is beyond me. Obviously, he is not by Lutheran criteria, but if one wishes to blame the Catholic Church for excommunicating him, then they must explain how his views were not heretical by Catholic standards. This simply cannot be done; it is impossible.

As for not wanting to start his own church, I think this desire is implicit in his radical rejection of the Catholic Church. After Luther asserted in 1520 that the temporal princes ought to overthrow the rule of bishops and popes, is it reasonable to maintain that Luther thought he would play no central role in such a "counter-church"? That makes less than no sense to me.

The standard Protestant party line (which I myself used to enthusiastically embrace) is that Luther's stance in support of Faith Alone and in opposition to indulgences was heroic and altogether necessary. But I say his position on these points was folly, because the former was based on a gross misunderstanding of Catholic soteriology (that it was somehow Pelagian and rejected not only Faith Alone, but also Grace Alone), and a novel exegesis of Scripture, which many Protestant scholars and exegetes have rejected. His polemic against indulgences was also based (arguably in large part) on misunderstanding, caricature, and slander, as I have partially demonstrated above.

Another constant theme we hear from Protestants about Luther is that he was "not perfect." Of course he wasn't (who is?). My point, however, about him has been that founders of Christian churches ought to be subjected to a higher standard than the rest of us (to vastly understate it), as the Bible teaches about Christian elders, etc. The fact that Luther had many glaring and serious faults (all freely acknowledged and discussed by Protestant historians) does not bode well for the truth of his claims against the Catholic Church, in my humble opinion. True reformers are pretty holy people. A St. Bernard, a St. Francis, a St. Catherine of Siena, or a St. Ignatius Loyola immediately come to mind.

It is said that Pope Leo X was just as imperfect. This may be granted by a Catholic. But he didn't deign to create a new sect of Christianity. His imperfections had few lasting repercussions. One might argue (I think falsely) that his intransigence caused Luther to be cast out, and that therefore he started the schism (or was more to blame for it than Luther was), but I think the facts of the matter show quite otherwise. Luther had already become a heretic (by the received criteria of what constituted heresy and departure from Catholic, apostolic Tradition) before he was excommunicated.

Every Christian group has a perfect right to determine who is faithful to its theology and doctrine and who is not. Therefore, the action of the Catholic Church in excommunicating Luther is not one whit any essentially different from the Dutch Reformed Calvinists determining that the Arminians were no longer "orthodox" by their standards and separating from them, in the Synod of Dort (1618-1619).

Among the decrees made was a sentencing of the prominent Dutch jurist and theologian, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) to life imprisonment (he escaped and settled in Paris in 1621. Louis XIII provided him with a pension, but he didn't convert to Catholicism). 200 Arminian clergy were deprived of their ordination privileges, and one J. van Oldenbarnevelt was "beheaded on a false charge of high treason."

(See: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1983, 421, 604)

How is this different in principle from Luther's excommunication (except that Luther was allowed to keep his head)? If the Catholic Church is deemed more (or solely) guilty of the Protestant-Catholic schism because of its supposed "intransigence and inflexibility and dogmatism," then why are the Dutch Calvinists not equally accused with regard to the Calvinist-Arminian schism?

Didn't they know that the Arminians possessed many truths that they were duty-bound to accept, in order to reform themselves and avoid a tragic schism? Don't they know it was all their fault, because of their 100-year process of corruption and dogmatic, self-righteous tyranny over the consciences of their subjects, and hardly at all the fault of the sincere, Bible-loving, freedom-loving Arminian "reformers" who dissented on things like God's predestination of sinners to hell apart from their free will and consent to reject God?

Erasmus on Luther & Protestantism, & Luther on Erasmus

Appendix Four of my book: Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic.

Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1469-1536), Greek scholar and Christian humanist, is widely regarded as the greatest man of letters and intellect of the 16th century. He was highly critical of corruption in the Church and was initially somewhat favorable to the Protestant cause, but soon (after 1521 or so) turned against it after he saw the direction it was going, and remained a lifelong Catholic. He engaged in a famous written debate with Luther on the issue of free will. These are some of his words about the early Protestants and Martin Luther himself:

Nothing was ever seen more licentious, and, withal, more seditious; nothing, in a word, less evangelical than these pretended evangelists. . . All is carried to extremes in this new Reformation. They root up what ought to be pruned; they set fire to the house in order to cleanse it. Morals are neglected; luxury, debauchery, adulteries, increase more than ever; there is no order, no discipline among them . . . I find more piety in one good Catholic bishop than in all these new evangelists.

(in Bishop James Bossuet, History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, 2 volumes, translated from the French, New York: D. & J. Sadler, 1885 [orig. 1688], vol. 1, 155-156)

What can be more ruinous than to let such words as the following come to the people's ears? -- 'The Pope is Antichrist; Bishops and priests are mere grubs; man-made laws are heretical; confession is pernicious; works, merits and endeavors are heretical words; there is no free will; everything happens by necessity' . . . I see, under the pretext of the Gospel, a new, bold, shameless and ungovernable race growing up -- in a word, such a one as will be unendurable to Luther himself.

(in John L. Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith, New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1922, 97)

The Reformation seems to have had no other purpose than to turn monks and nuns into bridegrooms and brides.

(In Stoddard, ibid., 92)

Luther has covered us and good learning with hatred. Everyone knows that the Church is overburdened with abuse of authority and ceremonies and man-made decrees for the purpose of gain. Many people are now wishing for a remedy, but often an imprudent attempt at a cure makes things worse. I wish that man had either been more moderate or else left things alone!

What a mass of hatred Luther is bringing down on good learning and Christendom!

(in Margaret Phillips, Erasmus and the Northern Renaissance, New York: Collier Books, 1965, 171. From the year 1521)

I greatly wonder, my dear Jonas, what god has stirred up the heart of Luther, in so far as he assails with such license of pen the Roman pontiff, all the universities, philosophy, and the mendicant orders . . .

Perhaps there were some who out of honest zeal favored calling the orders and princes of the Church to better things. But I do not know if they are those who under this pretext covet the wealth of the churchmen. I judge nothing to be more wicked and destructive of public tranquility than this . . . This certainly is a fine turn of affairs, if property is wickedly taken away from priests so that soldiers may make use of it in worse fashion; and the latter squander their own wealth, and sometimes that of others, so that no one benefits.

I do not even agree with those men, my dear Jonas, who say that Luther, provoked by the intoerable shamelessness of his adversaries, could not maintain a Christian moderation. Regardless of how others conduct themselves, he who had undertaken such a role ought to be faithful to himself and disregard all other matters. Finally, a way out should have been provided before he descended into that pit . . . We see the affair brought to that point that I reasonably see no good outcome, unless Christ through His own skill turn the rashness of these men into a public good . . .

How great a swarm of evils this foolhardiness now yields! And ill will greatly weighs down the study of letters as well as many good men who in the beginning were not particularly hostile to Luther, either because they hoped he would handle the matter differently or on account of the enemies they had in common . . .

And here, my dear Jonas, I have been forced at times to wish for evidence of the evangelical spirit when I saw Luther, but especially his supporters, strive with skill, as it were, to involve others in a hateful and dangerous affair.

. . . So far am I from ever having wished to be involved in a faction as dangerous as this! . . . Moreover, I am desperately afraid lest among the other nations this affair bring a great disgrace to our Germany, as the great mass of men are accustomed to impute the foolishness of a few to the entire nation.

What else has been accomplished, therefore I ask, by so many harsh little books, by so much foolish talk, by so many formidable threats, and by so much bombast . . . ? . . . Luther could have taught the evangelical philosophy with great profit to the Christian flock, he could have benefited the world by bringing forth books, if he had restrained from those things which could only end in disturbance.

. . . Above all, I am of the opinion that discord, ruinous for all, must be avoided. And that thus by what I might call a holy artfulness the needs of the time must be served, that by no means the treasury of the Gospel truth be betrayed, whence can come the reformation of corrupt public morals. Perhaps someone will ask whether I have another mind regarding Luther than I had formerly. No, indeed, I have the same mind. I have always wished that, with changes made of certain things which were displeasing to me, he discuss purely the Gospel philosophy, from which the morals of our age have departed, alas, too far. I have always preferred that he be corrected rather than suppressed. I desired him to carry on the work of Christ in such a way that the leaders of the Church either approved or certainly not disapproved . . .

(in Christian Humanism and the Reformation, [selections from Erasmus], edited and translated by John C. Olin, New York: Harper & Row, 1965, 152, 157-159, 161-163; Letter to Jodocus Jonas, from Louvain, May 10, 1521)

Wherever Lutheranism prevails, learning and liberal culture go to the ground.

(in Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910; orig. 1891, vol. 3, 355; Letter to Pirkheimer)

The study of tongues and the love of fine literature is everywhere growing cold. Luther has heaped insufferable odium on it.

(in Hartmann Grisar, Luther, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 volumes, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1917, vol. 6, 32)

All this laziness came in with the new Evangel.

(in Grisar, ibid., vol. 6, 32; regarding the downfall of the schools of Nuremburg)

When I admonished Zwingli in a friendly way he wrote back disdainfully:

What you know is of no use to us; what we know is not for you.

As if he had been caught up like Paul to the third heaven and learnt some mystery which was hidden to us earthly creatures!

(in Phillips, ibid., 195; Zwingli was a Protestant founder who had previously – like Luther – admired Erasmus)

Sound human reason teaches me that a man cannot honestly further the cause of God, who excites so great an uproar in the world, and finds delight in abuse and sarcasm, and cannot have enough of them. Such an amount of arrogance, as we have never seen surpassed, cannot possibly be without some folly, and such a boisterous individual is not at all in harmony with the apostolic spirit.

(in Stoddard, ibid., 97)

All good people lament and groan over the fatal schism with which you shake the world by your arrogant, unbridled and seditious spirit.

(in Archbishop Martin J. Spalding, The History of the Protestant Reformation, 2 volumes, Baltimore: John Murphy, 1876, vol. 1, 464)

I shall show everybody what a master you are in the art of misrepresentation, defamation, calumny and exaggeration . . . In your sly way you contrive to twist even what is absolutely true, whenever it is to your interest to do so. You know how to turn black into white and to make light out of darkness.

(in Grisar, ibid., vol. 4, 100-101. From Erasmus’ work Hyperaspistes, [1526], I, 9, col. 1043)

. . . The whole world knows your nature, according to which you have guided your pen against no one more bitterly and, what is more detestable, more maliciously than against me . . . The same admirable ferocity which you formerly used against Fisher and against Cochlaeus, who provoked it by reviling you, you now use against my book in spite of its courtesy. How do your dcurrilous charges that I am an atheist, an Epicurean, and a sceptic, help the argument? . . . It terribly pains me, as it must all good men, that your arrogant, insolent, rebellious nature has set the world in arms . . . You treat the Evangelic cause so as to confound together all things sacred and profane, as if it were your chief aim to prevent the tempest from ever becoming calm, while it is my greatest desire that it should die down . . .

(Letter from Erasmus at Basel to Martin Luther at Wittenberg, April 11, 1526; in Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911, 209)

It is part of my unhappy fate, that my old age has fallen on these evil times when quarrels and riots prevail everywhere.

(in Philip Schaff, The History of the Christian Church, Volume VII: History of Modern Christianity, Chapter IV, section 71, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910)

This new gospel is producing a new set of men so impudent, hypocritical, and abusive, such liars and sycophants, who agree neither with one another nor with anybody else, so universally offensive and seditious, such madmen and ranters, and in short so utterly distasteful to me that if I knew of any city in which I should be free from them, I would remove there at once.

(Ibid.)

By the bitterness of the Lutherans, and the stupidity of some who show more zeal than wisdom in their endeavors to heal the present disorders, things have been brought to such a pass, that I, for one, can see no issue but in the turning upside down of the whole world. What evil spirit can have sown this poisonous seed in human affairs? When I was at Cologne, I made every effort that Luther might have the glory of obedience and the Pope of clemency, and some of the sovereigns approved of this advice. But, lo and behold! the burning of the Decretals, the 'Babylonish Captivity,' those propositions of Luther, so much stronger than they need be, have made the evil, it seems, incurable ... . The only thing that remains to us, my dear Berus, is to pray that Christ, supreme in goodness and in power, may turn all to good; for he alone can do so.

(in Schaff, ibid., Chapter IV, section 72; letter to a friend in Basel, Louis Berus, dated Louvain, May 14, 1521)

An iconoclastic riot took place in Oecolampadius' Basle, Switzerland, on February 9, 1528. Erasmus was an eyewitness of this event, and described it in a letter to his friend Pirckheimer:

Not a statue has been left, in the churches . . . or in the monasteries; all the frescoes have been whitewashed over. Everything which would burn has been set on fire, everything else hacked into little pieces. Neither value nor artistry prevailed to save anything.

(in Phillips, ibid., 197)

One cannot help but be greatly disturbed by this vivid image of crazed mobs dashing through sublimely beautiful churches, with self-righteous fury, slashing to bits handcarved crucifixes representing our Lord's death on our behalf, on grounds that all such works of art were idolatrous. Erasmus, fearing that "the reign of the Pharisees will be followed by that of the pagans" (Phillips, ibid., 198), left Basle on April 13th, despite the pleas of his friend Oecolampadius. Blessedly, the later Protestants softened their hatred of art, and Martin Luther had always strongly opposed iconoclasm, and promoted art and music (hence the magnificent Bach was to emerge from the Lutheran milieu). Luther, of course, had plenty to say about Erasmus in return:

Erasmus of Rotterdam is the vilest miscreant that ever disgraced the earth . . . He is a very Caiaphas.

(Table-Talk, translated by William Hazlitt, Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society: n.d., #667, 350-351)

Shame upon thee, accursed wretch! . . . Whenever I pray, I pray a curse upon Erasmus.

(Ibid., #668, 351)

Erasmus was poisoned at Rome and at Venice with epicurean doctrines. He extols the Arians more highly than the Papists . . . he died like an epicurean, without any one comfort of God.

(Ibid., #675, 355)

This I do leave behind me as my will and testament . . . I hold Erasmus of Rotterdam to be Christ's most bitter enemy . . . the enemy to true religion, the open adversary of Christ, the complete and faithful picture and image of Epicurus and of Lucian.

(Ibid., #676, 355)

Erasmus writes nothing in which he does not show the impotence of his mind or rather the pains of the wounds he has received. I despise him, nor shall I honor the fellow by arguing with him any more . . . In future I shall only refer to him as some alien, rather condemning than refuting his ideas. He is a light-minded man, mocking all religion as his dear Lucian does, and serious about nothing but calumny and slander.

(Letter to Montanus About Erasmus, May 28, 1529; from Preserved Smith, ibid., 211)

I thank you, my excellent friend, that you give me so candidly your opinion on my book. I care not at all that the Papists are offended: I did not write on their account, for they are not worth my writing or speaking in Consideration of them any more. God has given them up to a reprobate mind; so that they even fight against that, which they know to be the truth.

My cause was heard at Augsburg, before the emperor Charles, and the whole world, and found to be irreprehensible, and to contain sound doctrine. Moreover, my Confession and Apology are made public, and set in the open light throughout the world. By these, I have answered an infinity of my adversaries' books, and all the lies of the Papists past, present and to come!

I have confessed Christ before this wicked and adulterous generation, and I doubt not but that He will also confess me before His Father, and the holy angels. My light is set on a candlestick! - Let him that seeth it, see it more clearly still; let him that is blind, be blinder still; let him that is just, be juster still; let him that is filthy, be filthier still; - their blood be upon themselves; - I am clean from their blood! I have declared to the unrighteous his unrighteousness, and he will not be converted; - let him therefore die in his sins; - I have saved my own soul! There is no need, therefore, that I should write, or care to write on their account, any farther.

. . . Your judgment of Erasmus I much admire: wherein you say plainly, that he has no other basis wherein to build his doctrine but the favour of men; and attribute to him, moreover, ignorance and malice. And if you could but convey this judgment of yours with conviction to the minds of men in general, you would in truth, like another stripling David, by this one blow, lay our boasting Goliath
prostrate, and at the same time, eradicate the whole of his sect. For what is more vain, more fallacious, in all things, than the applause of men, especially in things spiritual! For, as the Psalms testify, "There is no help in them:" again, "All men are liars."

. . . I at one time attributed to him a singular kind of inconsistency and vain-talking, for he seemed to treat on sacred and serious things with the greatest unconcern; and on the contrary, to pursue baubles, vanities, and things laughable and ridiculous with the utmost avidity; though an old man, and a theologian; and that, in an age, the most industrious and laborious. So that I really thought, that what I had heard many men of wisdom and gravity say, was true - that Erasmus was actually mad.

When I first wrote against his Diatribe, and was compelled to weigh his words, (as John says "try the Spirits,") being disgusted at his inconsiderateness in a subject of so much importance; in order that I might rouse up the cold and doltish disputer, I goaded him as if in a snoring sleep; calling him a disciple, at one time, of Epicurus, at another, of Lucian, and then again, declaring him to be of the opinion of the sceptics; supposing, that by these means he might, perhaps, be roused up to enter upon the subject with more feeling. But all was in vain. I only irritated the viper, . . .

. . . But the truth is, he hates all the doctrines together. Nay, there can be no doubt in the mind of a true believer, who has the Spirit in his nostrils, that his mind is alienated from, and utterly hates all religion together; and especially, the religion of Christ. Many proofs of this are scattered here and there . . .

. . . He published lately, among his other works, his Catechism, a production evidently of Satanic subtlety. For, with a purpose full of craft, he designs to take children and youths at the outset, and to infect them with his poisons, that they might not afterwards be eradicated from them; just as he himself, in Italy and at Rome, so sucked in his doctrines of sorcerers and of devils that now all remedy is too late . . .

. . . he does nothing but set before them those heresies and offences of opinions, by which the Church has been troubled from the beginning. So that in fact, he would make it appear, that there has been nothing certain in the Christian religion . . .

. . . I began to suspect him of being a plain Democritus or Epicurus, and a crafty derider of Christ: for he every where intimates to his fellow Epicureans, his hatred against Christ: though he does it in words so figurative and insidious, . . .

. . . This observation fixes in me a determination (let others do as they please) not to believe Erasmus, even if he should openly confess in plain words, - that Christ is God. But I would address to him that sophistical saying of Chrysippus, 'If you lie, you lie even when you speak the truth.'

. . . Our king of ambiguity, however, sits upon his ambiguous throne in security, and destroys us stupid Christians with a double destruction. First, it is his will, and it is a great pleasure to him, to offend us by his ambiguous words: and indeed he would not like it, if we stupid blocks were not offended. And next, when he sees that we are offended, and have run against his insidious figures of speech, and begin to exclaim against him, he then begins to triumph and rejoice that the desired prey has been caught in his snares. For now, having found an opportunity of displaying his rhetoric, he rushes upon us with all his powers and all his noise, tearing us, flogging us, crucifying us, and sending us farther than hell itself; saying, that we have understood his words calumniously, virulently, satanically; (using the worst terms he can find;) whereas, he never meant them to be so understood . . . . .

(Letter to Nikolaus von Amsdorf, Concerning Erasmus, from the web page of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Covenanted – no date for the letter indicated)

Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff paints quite a different picture of Erasmus, strikingly contradictory to that of Luther:

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) was the king among scholars in the early part of the sixteenth century. He combined native genius, classical and biblical learning, lively imagination, keen wit, and refined taste. He was the most cultivated man of his age, and the admired leader of scholastic Europe from Germany to Italy and Spain, from England to Hungary . . . No man before or since acquired such undisputed sovereignty in the republic of letters . . . Erasmus shines in the front rank of the humanists and forerunners of the Reformation, on the dividing line between the middle ages and modern times. His great mission was to revive the spirit of classical and Christian antiquity, and to make it a reforming power within the church. He cleared the way for a work of construction which required stronger hands than his . . . He did more than any of his contemporaries to prepare the church for the Reformation by the impulse he gave to classical, biblical, and patristic studies, and by his satirical exposures of ecclesiastical abuses and monastic ignorance and bigotry.

. . . Protestants should never forget the immense debt of gratitude which they owe to the first editor of the Greek Testament who enabled Luther and Tyndale to make their translations of the word of life from the original, and to lead men to the very fountain of all that is most valuable and permanent in the Reformation . . . His exegetical opinions still receive and deserve the attention of commentators. To him we owe also the first scholarly editions of the Fathers, especially of Jerome, with whom he was most in sympathy . . . he cannot be charged with apostasy or even with inconsistency. He never was a Protestant, and never meant to be one.

. . . Erasmus was, like most of the German and English humanists, a sincere and enlightened believer in Christianity, and differed in this respect from the frivolous and infidel humanists of France and Italy . . . He devoted his brilliant genius and classical lore to the service of religion. He revered the Bible as a divine revelation, and zealously promoted its study. He anticipated Luther in the supreme estimate of the word of God as the true source of theology and piety . . . He had a sharp eye to the abuses of the Church, and endeavored to reform them in a peaceful way. He wished to lead theology back from the unfruitful speculations and frivolous subtleties of scholasticism to Scriptural simplicity, and to promote an inward, spiritual piety. He keenly ridiculed the foolish and frivolous discussions of the schoolmen about formalities and quiddities, . . .

(Schaff, ibid., Chapter IV, section 71)

Schaff renders his own judgment as to the personal conflict between the two men:

Luther abandoned Erasmus, and abused him as the vainest creature in the world, as an enraged viper, a refined Epicurean, a modern Lucian, a scoffer, a disguised atheist, and enemy of all religion. We gladly return from this gross injustice to his earlier estimate, expressed in his letter to Erasmus as late as April, 1524:

The whole world must bear witness to your successful cultivation of that literature by which we arrive at a true understanding of the Scriptures; and this gift of God has been magnificently and wonderfully displayed in you, calling for our thanks.

(Schaff, ibid., Chapter IV, section 73)

Doubts About Protestant First Principles From a Protestant

Excerpts from various places on the traditional Anglican Pontifications blog (I link to it on my sidebar). Normally, I wouldn't post material like this, as this sort of painful examination of one's own position is a very personal and private thing, and I do my best to respect that. But since it is already "out there" in public on a blog, I am particularly interested in hearing other Protestants interacting with these observations. I'm always one to go right to the premises of a position, so I find this discussion very worthwhile.
-----------------------------------------------
There is an inherent theological and ecclesiological flaw in Protestantism that makes it helpless in the face of neo-Gnostic modernity. My unoriginal diagnosis of our disease: the absence of magisterium–the absence of a true teaching office and the absence of an authoritative tradition. Consequently, Protestantism is unable to effectively defend Holy Scripture against idiosyncratic and hostile interpretations. Is it accidental to Protestant identity that Protestants find themselves incapable of dogmatically asserting the fullness of catholic faith? Is it sufficient to say that only if we would be true to our Reformation principles we would produce orthodox teaching and practice?

The best biblical theology of the past 100 years has always been written by Protestants. That doesn’t change the fact that we now find ourselves in a heretical denomination. And it’s not just ECUSA. The churches of the Reformation, arms locked together, are marching right into apostasy–that is the point. And it is this fact that cries out for explanation.

The real question is, What does it mean to be faithful to the Reformation? Whose Reformation? Are we talking about faithfulness to content, method, or the English monarch?

Bottomline: We are Protestants, just like the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Church of the Brethren. Sola scriptura and private judgment. And our contemporary judgment always trumps the past.

Anglican theologians of course, have advanced and will continue to advance their individual, and often conflicting, theories about what it means to be the Anglican church, just as they have advanced and will continue to advance their theories on the nature of the Episcopal office. Dreamers dream dreams. But these theories do not constitute our ecclesial identity; they do not express reality. “Too much Anglican writing about bishops,” Sykes remarks, “is about the episcopacy of a church which does not exist.” The same thing can be said about most Anglican articles and books about what it means to be Anglican.

Is it possible for a Protestant denomination to invoke an authoritative tradition?

Both Orthodox and Catholics know they are the Church of the Apostles. They know they are the same Church that Christ founded. And they know that the Spirit has created a Holy Tradition that authoritatively governs their interpretation of Holy Scripture. It’s not a theory; it’s reality for them.

Was the Reformation a Blunder? Darn tootin’! Fifteen years ago I would have been shocked at such blasphemy. But now the answer seems obvious. I am certainly not suggesting that the European Church was not in drastic need of both theological and ecclesiastical reform. Everyone seems to agree on this. But was the corruption of such degree that it justified the breaking of the Western Church? (Yes, I know all about Tetzel’s bad stewardship program.) And did the Reformation actually provide the cure?

But surely, after almost five hundred years, we can look back and legitimately question whether the Reformation was the cure for what ailed the Church. Look at the thousands of sects that have since sprung up, each one justifying its existence by appeal to the Bible. Which Reformation confession or catechism are we going to subscribe to? Augsburg? Heidelberg? Dort? Westminster? The Articles of Religion? Or perhaps we’ll just align outselves with one of the nondenominational “Bible only” denominations. It’s cafeteria Christianity. And today the situation is even worse. The heirs of the Reformation, under the relentless attacks of modernity, have lost their grip on the essentials of Christian doctrine. So what is the Protestant solution to Protestant apostasy? Create another denomination, of course. Revolution and schism seems to be built into the Protestant DNA.

The Reformation formulation of justification by faith alone was a novelty in the history of the Christian theological tradition. Look far and wide and you will not find the pre-Reformation Church teaching “justification by faith alone.”

Like the other Fathers of the early Church, Augustine spoke of justification as a process, a process from a state of sin to a state of holiness. We can find some instances where the Fathers appear to talk about imputed righteousness and justification by faith (see Thomas Oden’s The Justification Reader); but on the whole one does not find even an incipient Lutheranism in the patristic period.

The liberating gospel of grace may have been lost for fifteen hundred years–golly, it sure got misplaced early on, didn’t it?–but Martin Luther finally unearthed the message of grace and salvation after centuries of corruption, irreligion, and idolatry. Just as Paul had to fight against the works-righteousness of second-Temple Judaism, so Luther fought against the pernicious Pharisaism of medieval Catholicism. But now non-Roman scholars like E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, Jacob Neusner, Krister Stendahl, and N. T. Wright, tell us that that this portrayal of Judaism is pure caricature, a projection into the first century of 16th century polemics. Moreoever, it looks like Saul of Tarsus did not suffer from episodic depression, a poor self-image, and bouts of self-hatred. His concern was the inclusion of the Gentiles into Israel apart from submission to Torah. With the advent of this new perspective we can no longer identify Luther’s understanding of justification with the understanding of the New Testament.

Luther & Melancthon’s interpretation of St Paul and their specific theological proposals were new! They broke with fifteen hundred years of exegetical and theological tradition. It was therefore wrong for them to insist upon their formulations to the point of fracturing the Church. Those who advance theological novelties should be a bit more humble and patient, don’t you think?

There is so much misunderstanding about justification by faith. If Protestants think that either Catholicism and Orthodoxy (at their best) teach that sinners may rely upon their works for final salvation, they are wrong. Both traditions embrace the sola gratia. Both teach the baptized to rely ultimately, not upon their own works and strivings, but upon the mercy and grace and love of God, freely given in the sacramental and ascetical life of the Church.

Spell Checker

Eye have a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye cannot sea.

When eye strike a quay, right a word
I weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar wright
It shows me strait aweigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two late
And eye can put the error rite
Its rarely, rarely grate.

I've run this poem threw it
I'm shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect in it's weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

[not original]

Brief Exposition on Mary Mediatrix

From: Q & A Forum #2:
---------------------
What level of delegation is involved by God to Mary? The image I am struggling with is that God, after the atonement, left Mary to "mind the store", in which case it almost seems uneccesary to do any prayer apart from asking for Mary's intercession. What is more comfortable for me is to view her as more of a passive channel.

The idea is not that Mary is involved in every single intercession (from us to God); we can pray as we choose: directly to God, or asking saints to intercede for us. Rather, it is that God chose her as the vessel to distribute His graces to mankind, and she always intercedes for us. To use an analogy, He is the lake; the water is His grace. Mary serves as the conduit to get the water / grace to us. We believe that this is how God designed it. He could do anything He wanted to do. We know from revelation that He likes to involve His creatures in the redemptive process. He became a Man after all. In the OT, we see Moses interceding to make "atonement" for the people. In the NT, we see Paul speaking of being "poured out as a sacrifice" for the sake of others. It's all over the Bible.

You are right to view Mary's mediation as relatively "passive." Her involvement does not in the least mean that God's involvement is LESS. This is the mistake in Protestant reasoning, so often. They see things in an "either/or" or "zero sum game" way, and create many false dichotomies, where if one thing is emphasized, something else must be lessened (whereas Catholics think in terms of "both/and"):

1. Mary helps distribute God's grace (even up to and including every instance of it).

2. Therefore, God must be doing less in the overall scheme of things than He does in the Protestant view, where Mary plays no role in grace at all.

This doesn't follow at all, not even logically. It is a fallacy. God still does it. He is the only source of grace. He's the sole cause. It is only for Him to give, because He is God; He's the one who forgives us and enables us to become more holy. He simply chooses to distribute it with Mary's participation. He chooses to involve men and women. He always does this. He gave us the Bible through men. He gave the Ten Commandments through Moses. The gospel was promulgated by the apostles. He gave His message to the Hebrews through the prophets, and announced the coming of Jesus and the New Covenant through John the Baptist. Jesus was born of Mary. He could have simply appeared as a 30-year-old man if He so chose (like the theophanies in the OT, where God appeared as a man). But God wanted to involve human beings! It shows how highly He loves and values us.

How you characterized it above, then, is not a very accurate description at all of how we view this. God is still in complete control. He gives all the grace, and it was Jesus' death on the Cross that makes salvation possible for us. Period. All Mary does is assist her Son in that process and God the Father. God does it, using Mary as a means of application. In no sense is He sitting back on His heavenly rocking chair (as the stereotype would have it; stroking His long white beard) and delegating this job to Mary as if that means He does nothing in that regard.

The Epistemology of My Conversion / My (Protestant) Letter to Karl Keating in 1990 / How I Became an Apologist

From the Q & A #2 Thread. I have added significant new material: lengthy excerpts from a letter I wrote to Karl Keating in February 1990, when I was a Protestant and still eight months away from conversion. This is probably the primary written document I have, pertaining to my opinions of Catholicism, as I was just starting to seriously study it. It also strongly puts the lie to claims that I wasn't a "real" Protestant (James White) or that I never correctly understood sola Scriptura and perspicuity (Tim Enloe and others -- Tim thinks I don't understand those things to this day, yet I did in 1990 and earlier, and was citing Hodge and Calvin).
-----------------------------------------------
EL Hamilton is asking the questions in italics:

I'd be interested in knowing what teaching(s) of Catholicism you found hardest to embrace during your conversion-study period.

Papal and conciliar infallibility.

I don't necessarily mean historical "scandals" ("this Pope was corrupt", or "the Crusades were too violent"), but actual dogmatic teachings.

That stuff was highly offensive to me as well. I wrote a letter to Karl Keating complaining about all that. Here are some excerpts from it. It was dated 25 February 1990, which was near the beginning of my serious study of Catholicism (initially purely out of curiosity). I had begun my ecumenical group discussions only the month before and this was before I changed my mind on contraception. This is the first time I have ever cited this since my conversion. It may provide some insights to people who wonder how I was thinking when I was a Protestant considering Catholicism:

I am an evangelical with growing and sincere respect for Roman Catholics, largely due to my increased communion with them by virtue of the Operation Rescue movement . . . I consider Catholicism as a fully Christian faith . . . I am, with you, disgusted and scandalized by works such as Boettner's and Jack Chick's and all such ilk, which, if any works deserve to be censored, certainly qualify in the highest degree.

I then proceeded to a lengthy exposition on my disagreement with Keating's constant use of the term "fundamentalist" on the grounds that it paints with too broad a brush, and wrongly included many ecumenical evangelical Protestants (like myself at that time) in its sweeping scope. I argued that this was setting up a straw man and was, though on a much lesser scale, what the anti-Catholics did to Catholics in their literature. I suggested that he use "evangelical" or "Protestant" instead. I wrote, "I'm concerned with being lumped in with people I have very little affinity with."

After that, I objected to a subtle insinuation Keating made, that Jehovah's Witnesses were a species of Protestant, and made an argument that if they were similar to any Christian groups, it was Catholicism. I concluded:

The idea of sola Scriptura and individual conscience and study would release thousands of JW's from their spiritual bondage to false and deceitful leaders. But if it's so clear that a JW should "check up" on the validity of his leaders by reading the Bible, why should this not be the case with Catholics?

I then strongly objected to an article by William Reichert, entitled "I will be where Peter is," in This Rock, January 1990 (in retrospect this was really hitting a nerve). I responded to two paragraphs which I described as "logically outrageous," "rather foolish," and guilty of "unfounded and illogical conclusions." I stated that Riechert "betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what exactly perspicuity is." To show what it was, I cited Charles Hodge, backed up with two citations each from St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine. I wrote:

Therefore, differences over "minor" matters not necessary to salvation do not cast doubt on the concept of perspicuity by definition. Protestants are merely allowing freedom of diversity on matters such as church givernment. modes of baptism, views on the Lord's Supper, worship style and liturgy, etc. On central doctrines, we are indeed unified (God , Man, Salvation, Biblical Authority). So we have unity as Christians, at the same time allowing for differences of opinion on non-crucial items, and we all mutually-recognize one another as part of the Body of Christ -- something Catholics cannot comprehend because of their different view that the Church is equivalent to an ecclesiastical organization -- i.e., Roman Catholicism.

The falsity of that view is well dealt with by Calvin in Book IV of his Institutes. Although it is unfortunate that denominations (usually smaller ones) do split over much more trivila matters than those mentioned above (die to sin, to be sure, on someone's part), I still prefer this state of affairs to the purely formal "unity" Catholics have.

In theory, no diversity on doctrine is allowed, but in practice, you well know (and I'm familiar with enough Church History) that there is much dissension held privately -- notable examples today being widespread Catholic dissent concerning contraception, abortion, and even fornication, but particularly the first, because it is so summarily and disobediently broken. Likewise, theological liberalism looms large in Catholicism, despite this supposed "unity" you claim.

Human nature is everywhere the same, and there will be diversity of opinion, whether due to illogic, different perspectives, evil, conscience, or whatever. We recognize it and allow for its expression, within certain bounds, whereas you attempt to deny and suppress it, which only causes it to flourish and become rebellious in spirit (I see this in countless young former Catholics whose questions were ignored).

Further, it is true that many will differ due to ignorance (Hodge: "things hard to understand") or evil (Hodge: "all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit"). These are not incredible assertions nor are they peculiar to Protestants, and they are quite consistent with perspicuity rightly understood, as opposed to the caricature of it by Reichert. The least one can do in "refuting" a position is to portray it accurately (another "straw man").

Catholics recognize the same two factors in their distinction between formal and material heresy, denoting evil and ignorant differences from catholic Dogma respectively. I can't resist mentioning in passing the case of Galileo, whose views which were condemned as heresy were neither ignorant nor evil -- far from either, whereas his accusers were obviously ignorant and arguably evil as well.

. . . for us, unity is not "a joke." For the invisible Church is a far more profound unity than a merely formal, artificial, organizational unity, as it is comprised of those truly in Christ, including those now with the Lord -- somewhat like your "communion of saints." You might say we value individual conscience and standing under God more than the unity you aspire to -- in fact, we regard separation from a group with which we cannot agree as a duty, not as a dreaded "schism" -- far preferable to the spectre of millions of Catholics refusing to honestly acknowledge that they are not "true" or "good" Catholics.

Lastly . . . I would like to see how you would respond to the material enclosed. Are you familiar with a book: The Infallibility of the Church, by George Salmon, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI (orig. 1888)? It is very good (from my perspective!). The photocopies are from a work very well-written and worthwhile (Salmon) -- it is not at all stylistically like Boettner. Salmon is an Anglican with much respect for Catholicism.

The fundamental disagreement between Catholics and Protestants is, I believe, the issue of Apostolic Succession, Tradition, and its corollary, Infallibility. Therefore, I've set out to show that Catholicism has in fact not been infallible historically, by means of clear logical contradictions and instances of undoubted heresy. If this is shown, then the whole edifice collapses, and you are on the same ground as we are. I think that such an utterly extraordinary and remarkable claim as Infallibility must be prepared to meet objections of example seemingly contradictory to that claim. Thus, out of motives of sincere inquiry and interest, I seek your assistance on that score. Thanks so much for your time.

With respect and sincerity,

Dave Armstrong

And did you resolve that opposition more by 1) convincing yourself that your objections were unfounded, or 2) just deciding to submit to the authority of the church even when you didn't understand it?

Both, but more so, the first. The first thing I changed my mind on was contraception, so that could be classified under "moral theology" or "the moral argument." But it also related to the history of dogma because I was shocked to discover that all Christians opposed contraception until 1930 (and Church history and doctrinal precedent were highly important to me. I had a strong "historical sense"). In my own developing moral theology (especially all the "sexual" issues whch are always controversial -- for some odd reason), I had arrived on my own at positions that were invariably held by the Catholic Church all along. I increasingly felt that "here was the place where someone (at last) got it all right -- the traditional Christian moral teachings are all firmly in place."

As for infallibility, I was studying all the "usual suspects": people like Hans Kung, Joseph Dollinger, and George Salmon (precisely as the anti-Catholics do today: people like William Webster and Jason Engwer and David T. King: those who concentrate on historical critiques). I even worked up a long paper of 95 Feces, containing difficult "problems" of Catholic history and alleged contradictions and so forth, to torment my Catholic friends with, in the discussion meetings I was having at my house. So I was behaving very much like the big bad (cynically chuckling) "Catholic-slayer" and gadfly, who brings up all the "embarrassing" facts of the scandalous history of the Beast (though I was never anti-Catholic, I hasten to add; just thoroughly Protestant, through and through).

Anyway, while I was doing that, I was also fair-minded enough (at first out of sheer curiosity; never thinking I would possibly convert) to read Catholic works, like Karl Adam's The Spirit of Catholicism, and Chesterton, and Thomas Howard, and Thomas Merton, and Alan Schreck's Catholic and Christian. And then I took to studying the Protestant Reformation from a Catholic perspective. I discovered that my hero, Martin Luther, was not this perfectly noble guy who was merely bringing the "gospel" back from darkness, etc., and that the actual facts of what happened during that volatile time were immensely more complex than I had been led to believe as a Protestant: hearing only one side all those years.

At length, I read Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which brought about a paradigm shift in my thinking. he explained all the facts of doctrinal development in a way far more plausible than I had ever heard before. It was simply a brilliant historical and analogical argument, and I found myself unable to refute it. I was honest enough with myself to admit that I could not, and had to admit that this was a huge problem for me to resolve.

My conversion, then, was a combination af the cumulative effect of three different "strands" of evidences, all pointing in the same direction. This was perfectly consistent (epistemologically) with my apologetic outlook that I had developed over nine years: the idea of cumulative probability or what might be called "plausibility structures."

So I converted (apart from God's grace; I am talking specifically about my thought processes -- not denying God's role) because I was convinced on all three grounds. The Catholic arguments were better than the ones I had been setting forth previously. I was simply ignorant about early Protestant history (I accepted what might be called "the Protestant myth of origins" uncritically); I had come to agree on my own with Catholic moral teaching, and the historical arguments of Newman blew Salmon and Kung and all their ilk out of the water, revealing them to be mostly special pleaders or sophists with an axe to grind (which is the way I myself had been acting in my arguments about papal infallibility).

All this stuff led me to the notion that the Catholic Church had a unique status, and so I accepted its authority in faith. Of course, I hadn't answered every jot and tittle of the arguments I had myself produced (no one ever answers everything; it is unreasonable to think that they can), but I had seen more than enough to come to a place where I was more than rationally justified to accept the authority of the Catholic Church and to reject the Protestant rule of faith (private judgment and sola Scriptura).

So there is faith involved; of course, just as in any religious view. I keep saying: "Christianity is not philosophy." But at the same time, I was following the direction that my mind and thinking had led me. I would never adopt a view which was contrary to my reason or thinking. Since then, I have become always more convinced, as I keep defending the Catholic faith and observing how weak or nonexistent the opposing arguments are. I didn't, for example, do all the "biblical Catholicism" stuff I do now, before my conversion. I started that right after my conversion, in an attempt to justify my change of mind to my Protestant friends, and to strengthen my own newfound, fledgling faith. It is then that I learned how very strong the Catholic biblical "case" is.

The version of my conversion that goes into the above dynamics the most, would be:

How Newman Convinced me of the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church

Do you think one of those two approaches is better than the other, with respect to either Catholicism in particular or "mere Christian" apologetics in general?

I don't think we have to choose; consistent with my longterm apologetic outlook. One ought to always have a reasonable faith, supported by as much evidence as one can find (I thoroughly oppose fideism or "pietism" -- which attempt to remove reason from the equation). We accept in faith what appears most plausible and likely to be true from our reasoning and examination of competing hypotheses and worldviews. We are intellectually "duty-bound" to embrace the outlook that has been demonstrated (to our own satisfaction, anyway) to be superior to another competeing view.

Is that absolute proof? No, of course not. I think "absolute proof" in a strict, rigorous philosophical sense is unable to be obtained about virtually anything. But one accepts Catholicism in and with faith, based on interior witness of the Holy Spirit and outward witness of facts and reason and history; much like one accepts Christianity in general or how the early disciples accepted the Resurrection and the claims of Jesus.

For my general epistemological outlooks, see:

Catholic Apologetic Method, Epistemology, and Open-Mindedness

The Relationship Between Christianity and Philosophy (particularly regarding the interpretation of the Church Fathers)

Catholics and Reason: Reply to Certain Misrepresentations of Catholic Apologetics and Philosophy -- including excerpts from Newman's Grammar of Assent --

"Chronological Snobbery": History of Ideas, Socratic Philosophy, Christian Worldview, Scientists and God (Dave Armstrong and John Kress)
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
I have been doing apologetics since 1981 (initially influenced by C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, and Walter Martin). I was a full-time campus missionary as a Protestant from 1985-1987 and then part-time till 1989. After I converted in late 1990 I kept writing, but had no intention to publish at first (I was writing strictly for my Protestant friends, then, in order to explain / defend my conversion). I happened to meet Fr. Peter Stravinskas in Steubenville at the Defending the Faith Conference in 1992, and gave him copies of some of my writings on Martin Luther. He liked them a lot, and so an article on Luther in his magazine, The Catholic Answer, in 1993, was my first published piece as a Catholic.

So I kept on writing and seeking publication. I got my conversion story in This Rock in late '93 and then in Surprised by Truth in 1994. The latter, of course, gave me much name exposure (though not one penny in royalties), as it has sold some 200,000 copies.

It is really the Internet that has made so much possible for me. The first, much larger draft of my first book (about 750 pages), A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, was completed in 1994. Fr. John A. Hardon, one of the most respected and orthodox catechists in America, whom I had met in 1990 and with whom I attended many "Ignatian Catechist" courses, recommended it and wrote a foreword. Of course that was a big boost and vote of confidence.

I went online in March 1996 and was active in the Compuserve Religion Forum (where I had the pleasure of meeting the winsome anti-Catholic, David T. King). I started posting excerpts from my book, and shorter articles there. In March 1997 I began my website, where a virtual exlosion of writing was able to be promulgated. People like Scott Hahn and Marcus Grodi were saying nice things about my writing, which confirmed to me that I was doing the right thing. After that I just worked worked worked!

My first book (revised, shorter version) was done in May 1996 but was turned down by five publishers. One had actually accepted it (I had a signed contract and an advance), but then business problems set in and they never published it. So -- exasperated and absolutely disgusted with publishers -- I decided to do it myself with 1stBooks Library in October 2001. It sold well, so that eventually I convinced Sophia Institute Press to pick it up, in 2003. So basically it took me seven years to get published by a "real" publisher.

I lost my delivery job in December 2001 through no fault of my own (they went out of business), -- a month after my daughter was born --and so I decided to see if it was feasible for me to be a full-time apologist (which is all I had really wanted to do with my life, since 1981). I was getting good royalties from my book (perfect timing!) and received many donations when I announced what had happened on my website. So I have succeeded as a full-time apologist since then. I've also tried to network with virtually all the apologists I know of, by sending out my monthly updates, and keeping in touch, making links, meeting them at Steubenville and other conferences, etc.

I've gotten to the place where I am through endless hard work -- much of it without any remuneration at all -- (basically, I had to wait 20 years to really be able to devote myself totally to my calling in life), determination, and a spiritual assurance that this is my vocation. I have tried to simply do my writing and let whatever value it has speak for itself, with a bare minimum of "begging."

But I do need contributors badly, and I hope whoever reads this and whoever likes my work, or has been helped by it in some fashion, will prayerfully consider becoming a monthly supporter or one-time contributor, or buying one or more of my books. I have to feed my family, and the Bible says that "the laborer is worthy of his wage." By contributing, you help to make possible, conversions and a rejuvenated faith-life for many people (I know, because I get letters from folks saying how their lives have been changed, by God's grace, helped in some small way by this unworthy vessel). Thanks!

Reply to a Muslim on the Two Natures of Christ & the Incarnation

Full paper, on my website: Reply to a Muslim Apologist Concerning the Two Natures of Christ and Trinitarianism
(vs. Shabir Ally) (93K)

This is my first "official" dialogue or exchange with a Muslim on my website (one of the last major "frontiers" of my apologetic endeavors). The discussion is not so much about Islam, however, as it is about philosophical reasoning regarding the plausibility and possibility of trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology (Jesus has Two Natures: He is 100% God and 100% man: one Person Who has a Divine Nature and a Human Nature).

It is also a strong protest against the practice of heterodox, ultra-liberal "Christians" being utilized to bolster a case against orthodox, historic Christianity. In this respect, the Muslim apologetic or polemic against Christianity is quite similar to theologically liberal polemics against orthodox theology, and also to Jehovah's Witness methodology. What follows is a short excerpt; it serves as a good concise "capsule summary" of my overall argument. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.
-------------------------------------------

Now let us closely examine this assertion that the Incarnation and the Two Natures of Jesus (and by inevitable implication, the Holy Trinity also) are logically impossible, meaningless propositions. Upon close scrutiny, all these arguments utterly collapse, and it will be plain to see that they do, and why they do.

First of all, the most obvious difficulty has to do with God's omnipotence, which Muslims and Christians both accept. Now, the claim is that God could not become a man, because it is "logically impossible" (God and man being different and thus, unable to be merged in a single being). This involves a logical absurdity, seen in the following straightforward chain of reasoning:

1. God is omnipotent, meaning that He possesses all power and can do everything which is logically possible to do.

2. God created man out of nothing, as Creator (which is a function of His omnipotence and His nature as the Essential, Pure, Self-Existent, Self-Sufficient, Self-Subsisting, Infinite, Eternal Being).

3. Furthermore, we are told that man was created in God's image (Genesis 1:27).

[Muslims have traditionally believed that the Old Testament and especially the first five books, or Torah, is an inspired revelation. See: What Does the Qur'an Say About the Jewish and Christian Scriptures?, by Samuel Green]

4. And God, on several occasions, took on human form, according to the Old Testament (what are known as "Theophanies"):

GENESIS 18:1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day. (KJV; cf. 18:13,17,22)

GENESIS 32:24,30 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day . . . (30) And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (cf. 35:9-15)

EXODUS 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and {there was} under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, . . .

ISAIAH 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

EZEKIEL 43:6-7 And I heard {him} speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me. (7) And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, . . .

5. God also appeared in the form of the "Angel of the Lord." An angel is a creation, not an eternal being, so if God appeared as an angel, He assumed a form and a nature (as in the Theophanies above) that is not intrinsically God; much like the Incarnation itself:

JUDGES 2:1 And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I . . . have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.

JUDGES 6:12,14 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him, The Lord {is} with thee, thou mighty man of valour . . . (14) And the Lord looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee? (cf. 6:16,20-23)

ZECHARIAH 12:8 In that day shall the Lord defend the
inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David {shall be} as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.

(cf. Genesis 31:11-13; Exodus 3:2-6,14-16; Joshua 5:14-15)

6. What do these Theophanies suggest? The Bible described God as able to be "seen" in the above passages, and others (such as Genesis 17:1, 33:11, Numbers 12:7-8, Deuteronomy 34:10, Judges 13:22, and Isaiah 6:5). For those who deny the incarnation of Christ, Theophanies do show that the notion of God becoming a man is not altogether incomprehensible or impossible, but rather, downright plausible.

Theophanies might be considered precursors (along with verses such as Isaiah 9:6 and Micah 5:2) of the incarnation of the Messiah Jesus, the Son of God. Now how is it possible for the invisible God, Who is a Spirit, to be seen, and to have a body? Yet this is what we are told in the Old Testament. This is scarcely any different from the incarnation, yet Mr. Ally tells us that the latter is "logically impossible"!

7. How is it, then, that Mr. Ally believes that the incarnation cannot possibly happen, based on purely logical considerations? We start with an omnipotent God. He makes man in His image; He appears as a man; He appears as the angel of the Lord (and angels are not eternal, and they are creatures; so this -- like the Theophanies -- is a supposed "contradiction" since it opposes God's Nature). He can and does do all that, yet supposedly He can't become a man. This is what is logically absurd, not the incarnation, as seen in the following logical chain:

A. God has all power.

B. God appeared as a man, supposedly "contrary" to His nature as invisible, eternal, and a non-creature (which man is).

C. God appeared as an angel, supposedly "contrary" to His nature as invisible, eternal and a non-creature (which an angel is).

D. God created man in His own image.

E. But God cannot become a man. This is logically impossible.

Oh??!! How is it logically impossible for a Being with all power, Who appears as a man and an angel, and Who creates man in His own image, to become a man? By what ironclad, indisputable logic do we completely distinguish the concepts of appearing like a man or an angel in all outward aspects, and becoming an actual man? Certainly the two notions are quite close, and if one is actual, we cannot plausibly rule out the other concept as "impossible." We might be able to reasonably infer (apart from revelation and faith considerations) that it didn't happen in fact, but we can't reasonably infer that it is "logically impossible."

And that is because of the well-known maxim and prior widely-accepted axiom that "the stream can't rise above its source." If God can make a man, He can easily become one, without yielding up His divinity, which cannot by definition ever be given up. To say that He could not do so would be to say that a mere creature possesses attributes (existence in human form) that the Almighty God does not and cannot possess, and that is absurd.

Contingent and derivative creatures can never be greater than their own cause: the First Cause and Prime Mover and Creator of all: the Almighty God. If God switched from being God to being a mere man, that would be absurd, because of the immutability (unchangeability) of God. But if He takes on human nature in addition to His Divine Nature, which He always has, and cannot ever lose, it is no contradiction at all; it is simply part and parcel of
His omnipotence. The legitimate reasoning chain, therefore, works as follows:

A. God has all power.

B. God created man.

C. Man has the attribute of existence in human form.

D. Therefore, existence in human form is logically possible, because it exists and is manifestly apparent.

E. An omnipotent God can do all that is logically possible.

F. Existence in human form is logically possible (D).

G. Therefore, God can so exist as well (while simultaneously and necessarily remaining God), since He created the human form, and made the human form in His own image, and even assumed it in the Theophanies (and in angelic forms).

H. Otherwise, He is not omnipotent, for man would be able to do something (exist as a man) that the very Creator of man, Whose image man reflects, cannot do.

I. Omnipotence is central to the definition of God. Therefore, H must be false (granting the theistic nature of God), and G must be true.

J. Ergo, the Incarnation is not only not logically impossible; is quite plausible from reason alone, and an actuality, based on reason and revelation and historical argument.

Dialogue: Catholic "Traditionalism": the Dreadful Malady of the Mind and Scourge of an Optimistic Faith in God's Protection of His Church

(Dave Armstrong vs. David Palm and Mario Derksen)

Their words will be in blue and green:

I have a challenge for you guys. The reply could come back from the sisters that they are only being "ecumenical" by allowing the use of their facilities by Wiccans. . . . Add to this the fact that Pope John Paul II was publicly present with African and North American animists and Zoroastrians at a religious gathering in Assisi in 1986.

Here's the unfolding news on our coven of witches. We have sought to get the bishop to place the Franciscan Spirituality Center under interdict if they persist in hosting the Wiccan coven. But when I spoke to one of our most orthodox priests to get his support for that idea, he resisted it by bringing up the example of.....you guessed it, the Holy Father's hosting of pagans at Assisi, including his allowing them to use Catholic facilities for pagan ceremonies.

I told him that I believe that this is precisely why the Holy Father should not be involved in such things as the gathering at Assisi and that it is an example of ecumania rather than true ecumenism.

Hi [Name and Name],

You asked for it! Are you sitting down? :-) I guess so, if you're at your computer . . .

I agree with you (based on what I know from your report) that what is going on in your area with the witches is weird and scandalous and disgraceful, for whoever is allowing it. I disagree (surprise!) that this is the equivalent of, or consistent with, or logically flows from, legitimate Catholic ecumenism or the Assisi meeting. Why I think that has been well laid-out in my papers on ecumenism; I need not reiterate it here (nor do I wish to). But I have more than enough to express in this letter nonetheless. In my last exchange with you guys I expressed what I feel are the glaring logical fallacies and extremities of a hostile opinion towards (real Catholic, Vatican II) ecumenism.

I don't think you guys "get it" with regard to ecumenism. You don't seem to make the necessary (elementary) distinctions, and you jumble things and ideas together that don't belong together (even though liberals and suchlike often join them, to the detriment of everybody - to that extent, you repeat their errors, though for much different - far superior - reasons and motivations). There are liberal lies about and distortions of ecumenism, and there are "traditionalist" lies about and distortions of ecumenism. The liberal "useful idiot" buffoons get more and more heterodox and wacko and New Age, and the "trads" get more and more conspiratorial and exclusivistic; almost Pharisaical at times, in their strong tendencies towards absurd, short-sighted hyper-legalism.

Some "trads" I've seen (not you guys, I hasten to add) make the John Birchers look like flaming Leninists. LOL Many would have been Arians or Nestorians or Monophysites in the old days, I am quite convinced (or Old Catholics, with Dollinger in 1870): fighting the "liberal" innovations and corruptions of Nicaea and Ephesus and Chalcedon alike, which (so they would tell us) "threaten passed-down orthodoxy." Down with development! Down with new and fresh approaches from the same orthodox Catholic standpoint (e.g., St. Francis, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Therese of Lisieux, Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, Pope John Paul II, etc.), in order to deal with and better reach modern man and the secular society we find ourselves in. Down with increased sophistication and nuance and a proper, orthodox sense of social and theological progressivism.

Such nay-saying is, I think, the equivalent of anti-intellectual Protestant fundamentalism, stuck (in their case) in the 1890s, unwilling to admit that there has been such a thing as the 20th century, or a Bible translation other than the King James.

St. Paul must have been a modernist and dreaded "ecumenist," too, I guess, when he sought to approach people differently, based on their place in the scheme of religions and ideas. "I have become all things to all men, that by all means I may save some." He paganized himself in the market square at Athens, referring to weird false gods and even pagan poets. What an indifferentist, he! Obviously compromised . . . clearly he would have kissed the Koran too. Tsk, tsk, tsk! Shame on him. How did he make it into the Bible anyway? Maybe the liberal Chalcedonians screwed around with the "real" Bible so Paul could get in . . . . . .

[don't make the mistake of thinking that my sarcasm does not have a deadly serious meaning underlying it. Some ideas require sarcasm to be refuted - pure, non-acerbic reason not having worked very well]

And then there is simply orthodox Catholic ecumenism, standing in that glorious position of the "middle" or the mainstream, which Chesterton refers to often (in different terms) in his book Orthodoxy.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend or to accept? You want to put the Holy Father out on the extreme fringes of ecumenism (in the wider, not always orthodox sense of the word)? Go ahead . . . I think it is nonsense (in fact, not because I am some sort of "papal slave," as those obedient to the pope are often falsely accused of being), and I think you make yourself look foolish in so doing.

I have always said that Catholic "traditionalism" of the common sort today is a problem of faulty thinking, perhaps foremost, but also of a loss of supernatural faith (in the full Catholic sense). It blends (quite ironically and astonishingly) the Protestant principle of private judgment with the liberal principle of (arbitrary) pick-and-choose. I see both of you falling into these traps, to some extent, the more I read about what you believe. It is distressing. Do I have to observe the tragic spectacle of one or other of you going SSPX one of these days? I guess human nature is prone to separatism, disobedience, and the creation of conspiratorial theories.

Once a false idea takes hold in a group, it spreads like wildfire or cancer. This "traditionalist" stuff reminds me (sociologically) of my former days in the charismatic denomination Assemblies of God. Though it formally decried the "name-it-claim-it, hyper-faith, God always heals" heretical nonsense of Copeland, Hagin, Tilton et al (i.e., the fringe elements of pentecostalism), yet there were people everywhere to be found within A/G ranks who believed this claptrap, because it was tolerated and not severely rebuked. That led me to do a huge refutation of it way back in 1982, but I had little success with individuals, once they had "caught the disease" of the so-called prosperity gospel. It was never an intellectual process to begin with for these people, but an ear-tickling and narcissistic path, so Bible-quoting and reason was of little use.

I made a similar point when I critiqued the Remnant. I argued that technically the views expressed might be orthodox and non-schismatic, but when you come right down to it, the views were so close to schism and disobedience (and the pope and Vatican II railed against so incessantly), that in a very real practical (or what one might call a psychological) sense, there is virtually no difference. And this "ultra-conservative" mindset seems impervious to all reasoning and appeal to any Church teaching whatever (at least in my experience). In fighting so hard against the liberals (for which you have my highest commendations), you have, strangely enough, adopted a hybrid persona of liberal Catholic/fundamentalist Protestant/"orthodox Catholic" - having assimilated key ideas and premises from all three camps, yet not seemingly aware that you have done so.

There is an old saying: "scratch a Protestant and you get a Nestorian." I think there is a lot of truth to that. Well, now I suspect that if you scratch a so-called "traditionalist," you may wind up with a closet-SSPXer (i.e., schismatic). The behavior of those in the Remnant subsequent to my critique spectacularly confirmed my thesis in that paper, I think. The quasi-schismatics either did cross the line or got dangerously close to it (e.g., the ISOCC video), while Stephen Hand started to see the writing on the wall and got out. I'm not saying at all that I caused all this with my paper (of course not! LOL). I'm just making a sociological observation that what I warned about indeed occurred (sociology was my major, after all, and I do manage to utilize a wee bit of it every now and then :-).

Anyway, that's how this stuff strikes me (in my analogical mind). None of this is intended to be personal at all. As always, I am strictly criticizing ideas and what I see as tendencies and trends of thought (which necessitates much generalizing and broad analysis), without ever implying obstinacy or lack of intelligence or bad motives or anything of the sort. I hope you guys know me well enough to know that. But you asked my opinion, and I have given it. :-)

You guys have been pretty silent on this. Anybody agree with me? Disagree with me?

Speaking for myself, that is because I am sick and tired of this so-called "traditionalist vs. conservative" debate. I was sick of it before I did the piece on the Remnant over a year ago. I only did that because it was sort of a "deal" I made with [Name; one of the correspondents]. I think it zaps energy, creates needless animosity, is one of Satan's clever schemes to divide the Church, and detracts from the truly important business of sharing the Gospel and the truth of the fullness of the Catholic Church with Protestants and infidels alike. And it takes people away from other far more important issues such as charity, social and pro-life activism, and family and devotional time.

Wish I'd shut up? ;o)

No, I would never tell anyone to do that (well, maybe Jesse Jackson), being the Socratic and passionate advocate of free speech that I am. :-) My wish for you is that you could straighten this out for yourself, stop being so "troubled" and attain to the trust and comfort that God is in control of His Church, warts and all, 100% sinners and all, and that the present Holy Father is one of the greatest popes in history. That's my wish for you two, and others of like mind. Pray for real problems, do all you can to resolve them, rebuke (real) hypocrisy as you wish, but please, stop being so "troubled." You ought to be at peace with yourself, your God, and the Church. If you wanted to continue worrying about everything, you could have stayed in man-centered Protestantism, where there is every reason to be concerned about any number of heterodoxies and morally relativistic beliefs.

I think that ultimately it is a matter of faith, and that "traditionalists" - somewhere along the way - have lost some of this faith in indefectibility and ecclesiological infallibility and the Holy Spirit's guidance of Holy Mother Church in all times and places.

Respectfully, your brother and friend in Christ,

Dave

Hi [Name],

I much appreciate your cordiality, as always, if not several of your ideas. I will make a few replies, because - as you know - I try to avoid lengthy dialogues on this topic. I have more than enough on my site, and not much to add to them, at least at this point in my life. But this very letter is a case in point, for one of my gripes. If I wasn't doing this, I would be writing to a Lutheran friend who may convert. In my opinion, that endeavor would be far more important than this little debate. I'm tired tonight and don't know how much writing I will be able to get done. But here I am because you're so nice and I wanted to at least offer some response. :-)

I don't think that this was really [Name's] point. I think the real point was that, de facto, the Assisi event is USED to explain and justify such Wicca events within Catholic territory.

So what? People commit fallacies all the time. If I tried to refute all of those I would do nothing else (actually, I think I do do quite a bit of that, come to think of it LOL). But I was tryng to get at the deeper, underlying assumptions, as is my custom and usual methodology.

OK, shift back a few gears concerning your word choices now.... :-)

Hey! I resemble that remark! (making my best Curly-face) LOL

The fact of the matter is that the traditionalist realizes that the perhaps intended ecumenism of a few orthodox Cardinals in the Vatican just isn't there. It's not practiced. You may point to this and
that document pointing out that, doctrinally, the idea is orthodox, but DE FACTO, it just
doesn't happen.

So ECT wasn't real? The Lutheran Agreements weren't real? Or the many agreements with the Orthodox? Or the siding with the Muslims at one of those feminist world conferences? I guess we really do live in two different worlds, my friend.

The Vatican may say something about religious liberty, and the world takes it to mean indifferentism.

Why should I care what the world thinks? They think a lot of false things. It matters not what the Church does. It will always be wrong in the world's eyes, either triumphalistic or touchy-feely inclusivistic (sometimes both simultanesouly, so we are told by our holier-than-thou secularist critics).

Sorry but I can't help putting these words now: BLAH BLAH. That "middle" ground may exist
on paper, but not in the real world. It's just not there.

It certainly is. The center ground is orthodox Catholicism, which has always existed, and always will exist. My primary point was concerning orthodoxy, and if you claim that it has ceased, then you have accepted defectibility and are no better than an Anabaptist.

Who cares about Spong and McBrien? See, this is part of your problem. You are concerned about the buffoons, whereas anyone who has any sense of the perspective of history knows that their time has long passed, and that they are living fossils (just like the stubborn and persistent Marxism at American universities). You are trapped in your own time - the current zeitgeist -, like a fish in a dinky tank. This is why history is so important, among many other reasons. And Church history is more exciting than any other.

"clearly-schismatic Remnant"?? I think it's bold enough for Stephen Hand to claim it's schismatic, but now you're saying it's CLEARLY schismatic??

Yes; not that I am an expert, but from what I have seen, it is quite sufficient to convince me that they are schismatics, at least in spirit, if not in letter, per my reasoning all along. The spirit comes first. One has a spirit of lust before one commits the act of adultery. Adultery of the heart comes before adultery of the genitals. One has a spirit of division (Luther in 1517 / Lefebvre, Dollinger, Kung, Curran, and Matthew Fox) before one actually splits "in the real world" (Luther, 1521). This shouldn't be any sort of controversial observation on my part. But to one who is a canonical, liturgical, and conciliar hyper-legalist, I suppose it would seem that way.

(The SSPX, by the way, was allowed to say Mass on some of the side altars during the Jubilee Year---perhaps this is one of Rome's ecumenical favors).

Indeed it would be that. There is a place for prudence and diplomacy, in the attempt to win people back to the Faith and the Church.

Ah, there we go! That's precisely what I think about the so-called "middle ecumenism." Technically, it may be correct and praiseworthy, but it ain't there in practice.

So, according to you, all ecumenism (in reality, in practice) is wacko indifferentist, touchy-feely, liberal, modernist, relativism. Is that what you wish to contend?

Hold it right there, Dave. Let me show you what the problem is with your position here. We
cannot heal anyone else or convert anyone else before we haven't solved our own problems.

If that were true, then we would have done no evangelism for 2000 years, because there have always been problems in the Church, due to sin (not in its dogma). You're digging yourself deeper and deeper, my friend. This is utterly nonsensical. I'm really surprised you would make such a weak and pathetic argument as this.

By converting a Protestant to Catholic, you're doing a great thing, but it doesn't take long and he'll realize that there are tremendous problems in the Church, and if he realizes this soon enough, he may not even convert to Catholicism!

How, then, can it be that there has been a tremendous number of converts despite your Chicken Little scenarios about the current-day Church? Hmmmmmmmmmm????????????? Were all us converts dupes who should have stayed in the "conservative" denominations? I'm here in the Church because it taught against contraception, like all Christians did before 1930. How many Catholics disbelieve the teaching was absolutely irrelevant as to my decision to convert or not. The doctrine was correct. Same thing with divorce. Same thing with abortion. This is what attracted me to the Church, because moral laxity can be found anywhere (original sin). But true, traditional, unchanging Christian moral teaching is only found in one place.

That's what I had been seeking for, for ten years as a serious Christian. I found it, and here I am, and quite glad to be here, thank you, and not at all constantly "troubled" like you two seem to perpetually be. It must get very tiring. I've found the pearl of great price. You guys seem to want to prove that the pearl is really a jagged, stinky lump of coal, or worse (an almost-dead jellyfish, perhaps?). You won't succeed with me; I'll tell you that right now.

So we're supposed to stop making converts and devote ourselves to house-cleaning exclusively? Yeah, right. Where in the world do you find that in the Bible or in the Church's directives to laymen? My vocation is as an evangelist and apologist. By definition the former is to the non-Catholic, and the latter is primarily to be used as a method of clearing roadblocks to the Faith (though it is useful for bolstering the faith of Catholics also - but that, too, has nothing to do with most of the "trad" critique). These offices and tasks don't cease because there are "problems" in the Church - as if that is some new thing that wasn't always there.

If the Protestant-turned-Catholic reads what we believe about the Eucharist, it won't take long for him to ask, "Wait a minute, why do you give it in the hand? And why doesn't Father take more care in handling the Body and Blood of Christ?" It is such things that, IF NOT WORKED OUT, will STOP people from converting.

Again, this was not at all true in my case, and I don't think I am all that un-representative of the average fairly-educated convert. We all know (and knew) that there are problems of liberalism in the Church! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Liberals (like the poor) will always be with us. But - again - only one Church has true doctrine in toto, true moral teaching, the most sublime spirituality, saints and miracles and all the rest, and the unbroken history to verify those. That is what brings converts in, because we are well-acquainted with the absolute chaos and anarchy in Protestantism.

So, in short, I think you conservatives are still living in a fancy wonderland of "everything's alright with the Church,

Doctrinally, yes. In practice, we never reach perfection, and will always fall short as a group. Whoever says "everything is alright" (which I have never done nor would ever dream of doing), is the one in a wonderland, not a realist so-called "conservative" such as myself. If I thought there were no problems how could I give you "traditionalists" such a hard time, as one of the "problems" I would identify? Why would I have a page on modernism? Etc., etc. C'mon! You can do better than this. I believe the doctrines are very much "alright," and infallible.

and John Paul will be called 'the Great'

He will indeed, as (I believe history will record) the vanquisher of modernism, Communism, the culture of death, and unisexism, if not many more things.

and a new Springtime is ahead in the Church".......

Absolutely. This has always been the case in the next century after a terrible one, as Chesterton loves to point out ("the Church has gone to the dogs at least five times. In each case the dogs died"). The 20th has been the worst in history, by far. So the 21st century (if history teaches us anything) will be a time of one of the greatest revivals in the history of the Church. This is what the late Fr. John Hardon (flaming modernist that he was) believed. The pope believes it. So do I. If you want to sit around and moan and groan and cry in your beer and be a pessimist and a cynic and a doomsayer while revival breaks out all around you, go ahead. You won't take away my excitement when I start to see it. No way! In fact, I say that the seeds of the revival are all well-planted already. We will see the growth soon, no more than 20-40 years away at the latest, I would speculate.

unfortunately, the doctor who can't figure out what's wrong with the patient until he's almost dead will have a much harder time healing him.

If the Catholic Church were "almost dead," we would look a lot more like Anglicanism or even more far-gone denominations like the United Church of Christ. You want some profound deadness? Grow up in Methodism in the 60s as I did. Deader than a doornail (at least the church I attended). I don't think you have the slightest inkling of what real "near-spiritual death" looks like. Whole denominations which fully accept abortion and fornication and homosexuality. And you're most concerned about Catholic ecumenism???!!! Good heavens! What a waste of energy and emotion . . .

This is depressing . . . the only thing that cheers me up in such a discussion is pondering the revival that will almost certainly occur in this century. I used to think (as an evangelical dispensationalist enamored of pop prophecy) that the world would end in 10, 20 years. I'm glad that I take a much longer view of Church history now, rather than dwell in this sort of doom-and-gloom conspiratorial apocalypticism which is yet another hallmark of so-called "traditionalism."

God bless,

Dave

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 21 January 2001.

Dialogue on "The Remnant" ("Traditionalist" Group) (vs. Mark Cameron)

Remnant luminaries John Vennari and Michael Matt

The following exchanges stem from my paper: Critique of The Remnant, with Copious Documentation. In it, I expressed a willingness to interact with (to some extent), counter-replies. No one at The Remnant has been willing to formally debate these past three months since the critique was uploaded (or make any response whatsoever, in most cases). Another non-affiliated, more moderate "traditionalist," however (Mark Cameron), did send a very thoughtful, challenging letter. It was later posted on The Remnant website. As such it is the closest thing to a direct response I am likely to get. That's fine with me; I'm content to let readers judge the competing visions of Catholicism for themselves. Comments from others shall be in blue.

* * * * *

Two Letters From Traditionalists

I thought this was great that you were challenging . . . the Remnant. I have been reading the Remnant for about five years and enjoy their paper; however, they do go way out in some of their thinking. I have wanted a good debate in this area for years so I welcome you to the debate! . . . I hope [they] will challenge you, in detail, so that we can all learn from this . . . You are one of the few Laymen with the gifts to be able to do this.

While I have wavered back and forth on your assessments of traditionalists (being one myself), I must disprove your theory that we are all entrenched in our ways, and not open to change our views. You (and Father Most and Father Hardon, Father McCarthy and Harrison) have all helped me to see the illogic of many of the tenets of the more extreme traditionalism. All I have wanted was for someone who wasn't a Modernist to disprove many of their (Remnant-type) arguments and assumptions. While I do not agree with all of your assessments in your critique, I thank you for bringing me back toward the heart of the Church. Whether I am a traditional conservative or conservative traditionalist I don't know, but your critique has gone a long way in helping me see the illogic in many of their arguments, especially John Vennari and Michael Matt; however, unlike others, I do NOT systematically condemn ALL of their writings and opinions and do believe they are at least expressing Catholic lay opinions (not theologians) that need to be expressed.

Next are excerpts from a thought-provoking and articulate letter from Mark Cameron, a "traditionalist" not affiliated with The Remnant, who disagrees with them on several issues. I will respond to it insofar as it is directly related to my paper. As stated in my Critique, I am not interested in a full-fledged debate on "traditionalism." I have more than enough of that type of endeavor already on my website (perhaps more than can be found anywhere in one place on the Internet), and I have devoted far more time than I would have preferred to this debate as it is.

Open Letter to Dave Armstrong: Can Traditionalists Question Magisterial Teachings and Still Remain Loyal to the Holy Father?

Mark Cameron

NOTE: After the first round (I have edited the "rounds" together to make the dialogue flow back-and-forth), Mr. Cameron made the following statement in a letter to me:

First of all, at several points in your reply, I think that you misrepresent what I am trying to say by omitting key portions of my argument [Dave: such was not my intention at all]. I hope, out of courtesy, that you will link your reply to the full text of the letter itself.

I am happy to comply with this hope: here is the link to Mr. Cameron's complete letter: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/armstrong1.html I remain firm, however, in my resolve to not debate every jot and tittle of this issue, per my statements in the Introduction of my original critique of The Remnant, and those above, introducing this debate. The arguments in that paper are what I am fully willing to defend and devote increasingly-limited time to. As it is, the following debate tends to "drift" further and further from my original paper, so my replies are not to be regarded as "systematic" or "comprehensive." This is the dilemma when one wants to debate certain aspects of a matter, but not all. The opponent tends (unconsciously, no doubt) to keep broadening the parameters of the debate, contrary to the wishes of his partner.

* * *

I consider myself to be a traditional Catholic loyal to the Holy Father. I attend the traditional Latin Mass available under the terms of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. I like your website very much, and I also like [the] Remnant Resistance website very much. Both are bookmarked, and I check both frequently. I suppose I would consider my theological position to be a little bit to the "right" of you, and a little bit to the "left" of [The Remnant]. But I think that your recent long article attacking various articles . . . fails to distinguish between legitimate traditionalist questioning of certain elements of the Vatican II documents and post-Vatican II magisterial teachings and practices, and heterodox dissent. Many faithful Catholics, "traditionalists" and "conservatives" alike, believe that the Church is undergoing a period of crisis.

Anyone who is conscious knows that . . .

. . . I must begin by pointing out that traditionalists are not alone among orthodox Catholics in questioning some emphases of recent magisterial teaching. For instance, some conservative Catholics have questioned the Holy Father's adamant opposition to capital punishment.

But this is proper and permissible because capital punishment is not an absolute evil. It can't possibly be, since God has commanded it (and given the analogy of war and lethal force of police). So it is a "disciplinary" and socio-political question of the just exercise of this prerogative of states, and therefore, one can differ with it without being a dissenter; I agree. In any event, this is a far cry from denigrating the New Mass, and an Ecumenical Council, believing in defectibility, or quasi-defectibility, etc.; so different that it can hardly be deemed an analogy, in my opinion.

a) This is not simply a disciplinary matter (like clerical celibacy), but a matter of the correct interpretation of natural law, as was Humanae Vitae.

In this case, the application of the natural law (affecting justice and the right of states to protect citizens) has been applied differently - analogous to the varying application of the Mosaic Law, as I argue below. Contraception is far less ambiguous, as to practice. It is simply wrong, and there is no two ways about it.

b) In saying this, you are already revealing yourself as less of a "conservative" than Russell Shaw of the Knights of Columbus, Charles Rice of Notre Dame Law School, and Our Sunday Visitor. They have all said that the recent exercise of the magisterium on the terms and conditions of capital punishment demands a religious submission of mind and will on the part of the faithful.

I would essentially agree with them (as far as I am able to speak on such technical matters). I was simply making the point that this disagreement is significantly different in type than the major disagreements which "traditionalists" express (and the spirit of disobedience they often embrace), as noted above. "Traditionalists" seem to habitually ignore this aspect of "religious submission of mind and will" so it is pointless for me to emphasize it in debate with them (they will just ignore it and move on). I must momentarily assume the (as I see it) "legalistic," "hyper-technical" mindset of "traditionalists in order even to engage in meaningful conversation with them.

c) How is the "socio-political question of the just exercise of this prerogative of states" different from the socio-political question of the just prerogative of states to censor or suppress the public expression of heretical opinion, which central to the traditionalist critique of the Declaration on Religious Liberty?

It isn't that different, in terms of the relatedness of ideas; this is a great point you make. The matter of religious liberty is indeed similar to the question of capital punishment (and the relationship to the Inquisition, etc.). I was assuming that the statements of the Holy Father on capital punishment possess less authority than those of Vatican II. The application and strategies in these areas can, and have, changed. I would argue that the so-called "innovations" of Vatican II concerning religious liberty are merely a return to the status quo of the early Church, over against the Church of the High Middle Ages. The Council, in decreeing this, lends its authority to the current "move" of the Holy Spirit towards more tolerance and ecumenism, while not compromising or sacrificing doctrine in the process. Your point is well-taken, and I appreciate it, but I don't think it is proven by any means that the Vatican II emphasis on religious liberty is a corruption or reversal of previous Tradition, since this was the primitive (apostolic) Tradition, and since application may vary, according to times and places.

. . . In my view, traditional Catholics do no differently, except that their disagreement is with a wider range of recent magisterial teaching.

I disagree: I think there is a qualitative difference, as alluded to above, and as argued throughout my long paper.

. . . Now, is Father Neuhaus correct that there is a right for Catholics to express their disagreement with magisterial teachings?

On certain limited matters, with all due respect, and other times in grave circumstances, yes. The "traditionalist" critique, however, is way beyond (like Pluto to Mercury) a disagreement over what constitutes legal and societal justice, with regard to criminals (or, formerly, heresy). That has obviously changed, from the times of the Crusades and Inquisition, etc. But this involves no dogma of the faith, or proclamations of a complete "reversal" of doctrine and precedent.

I believe that the traditionalist critiques are on "limited" matters (innovative Conciliar or Papal teachings taught with only the authority of the authentic, non-definitive magisterium), and this because of "grave circumstances" (the crisis in the Church that you agree that "anyone who is conscious" is aware of).

But that leads us to another topic: the authority of Vatican II, which I have dealt with elsewhere. This current exchange is supposed to have some relation to my critique of The Remnant, no?

I am not referring to schismatic traditionalists who deny the validity of the Novus Ordo, the Council, the post-Conciliar Popes, or believe that the Church has defected and Rome has become the seat of the anti-Christ. I am referring to traditionalists loyal to the Holy See who nonetheless believe that certain errors, ambiguities, and omissions in the documents of Vatican II and in recent Papal teaching have contributed to the crisis of the Faith which we all agree is occurring.

I have argued that The Remnant is both contradictory, and ambiguous on these matters. No one has yet seen fit to challenge my evidences for that assertion, thoroughly documented. I continue to deny that Vatican II itself, or the teaching of John Paul II is in any way responsible for the modernist crisis. I simply don't locate the cause in those places (and I am as free to think that as you claim you are to assert the contrary). I think that Catholics ought to submit to the Council even if fine points of non-infallibility can be established by authorities competent to do so. My position has been falsely portrayed by "traditionalists" as never allowing any criticism of the pope. The other extreme to that scenario is to - in effect - believe that no submission is mandatory unless it has to do with technically infallible decrees. This is what breeds chaos in "traditionalist" ranks. Infallibility and submission are two different things.

. . . it is clear that all of the teachings of Vatican II and recent Papal encyclicals fall into this category of authentic, but non-definitive teaching.

It's clear as mud, but I'm not gonna debate that here.

This is a rather crucial point: the degree of authority which is attached to the Conciliar documents and Papal encyclicals. However, you do discuss the issue of Conciliar infallibility below, so I will save my comments for later.

Indeed it is crucial, but again, the current debate - at least as I see it - is not about that, but about the wider issue of defectibility and the extreme nature of many statements on The Remnant web page concerning which you and I are largely in agreement.

I would add that this only applies to the new teachings of Vatican II or Papal encyclicals. When Vatican II or the Holy Father reiterates the constant teaching of the extraordinary or ordinary and universal magisterium, they are teaching infallibly.

Ah! Okay; so we have to define "new." If by it you mean that these teachings are corruptions rather than developments, then you would have a non-controversial point. But I deny that they are corruptions at all. Ecumenism has many seeds in the early Church (particularly in how it regarded the Donatists). Religious liberty clearly has much precedent in the early Church. The espousal of the use of force in religious matters came later. If anything was a "corruption," that was, not the freedom of religion which the Fathers generally taught (though the issue is very complex, and I have written on this, too).

It is very important to define what we mean by "new" teaching, I agree. The Holy Father himself said in Ecclesia Dei:

The extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

So he agrees that there are new doctrinal teachings in Vatican II. That these teachings (on religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism, the salvation of non-believers, etc.) are not obviously and easily derived from earlier teachings is apparent, or else the Pope would not have found it necessary to call, over 30 years after the Council, for a renewed study to show their harmony with Tradition.

But this does not establish the radical "traditionalist" critique at all; quite the contrary. The Holy Father is clearly using "new" in the sense in which the New Testament was "new," or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was "new," or the inclusion of Gentiles into Christianity was "new." In none of these cases was the "newness" a corruption of what came before; rather they were developments. And in each case there was much misunderstanding and dissension, and accusations that the "new" doctrine had forsaken the "old" ways. Secondly, John Paul II refers to "points of doctrine," not "doctrines" per se - which cannot happen, as all dogmatic doctrines are received from the Apostles, and cannot be changed.

Right in the quote (somehow you overlooked it), he refutes the falsity of your interpretation of it, since he writes of "the Council's continuity with Tradition." He doesn't see any discontinuity. The "evidence" of this citation in favor of your point is exceedingly weak; almost nonexistent, in fact. Jesus spoke of the "new wine" and used other similar metaphors (see, e.g., Mk 2:21-22; Lk 5:36-39). Does this prove that He was introducing "new" doctrines "not obviously and easily derived from earlier teachings"? The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) dealt with the Judaizers. There had been some confusion and "ambiguity." What caused that confusion, I ask you? The proclamation of the gospel itself? Paul's preaching? Peter's preaching? I don't see any major differences here. I see many analogies, but none of them seem to me to support your "traditionalist" ideas about the causes of error being found within the documents of Vatican II.

So - as I see it - the entire debate (even as you are now framing it) does indeed hinge on an application of Newmanian development to the disputed issues. I emphasized this in my debate, but my original opponents have refused to interact with it. You have done much better (if only I had the time to fully engage this - I may do so yet, given certain conditions). In my opinion, you have to demonstrate that ecumenism, religious liberty, etc., are total corruptions of Catholic Tradition. If you cannot do that, then you have already conceded the case, by your own stated criteria, as they would then be part and parcel of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

I do not think that one has to say that these teachings are "total corruptions." They may be partial corruptions, inexact, contradictory, ambiguous and giving rise to erroneous interpretations, etc. Surely this would be enough to justify asking for corrections and clarifications.

Well, since the Holy Father has stated that this should take place (evidenced by your quote), then where is the beef? If the Church makes some pronouncement, but it is not infallible or ex cathedra, you "traditionalists" will squawk about its "insufficiency" or "too little too late." Or you will moan and groan that he is taking too long to even commence the formal process, etc. Nothing ever seems to be good enough. I continue to maintain that there is a harmful and deleterious "spirit of traditionalism" - if you will, that runs contrary to the spirit of obedience to the pope and Church authority, and to a bright, optimistic, hopeful faith (which martyrs possess in the very worst of circumstances). The doom-and-gloom mentality, exclusivistic orientation, and tendency to resort to conspiratorial explanations for things one is unable to comprehend also typifies certain strains of political conservatism, and "fundamentalist" branches of Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

Note, e.g., a remark by Anne Roche Muggeridge (author of The Desolate City):

I try to practise the virtue of hope, but the Irish aren't congenitally designed for it. I hope for the Church in the long run, but the dismal short run, where we are now, is exasperating and discouraging to all but the holy and the fantasists. The disaster has been so great that it is hard to believe in any extensive survival of the Church on earth, let alone a glorious recovery. (Catholic Eye, December 19, 1992).

Secondly, even if the new teachings are not corruptions but genuine developments, that would not make them part of the "ordinary and universal magisterium" automatically. The universal magisterium implies continuity in time. If the current magisterium clarifies something which the earlier magsiterium did not teach (or taught to the contrary), then the new teaching simply has the weight of the authentic magisterium unless it is proclaimed as infallible by the extraordinary magisterium.

Thus, in Pope John Paul II's statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis -- "in order that there remain no doubt on a question of such importance concerning the divine constitution itself of the Church, I declare, by virtue of my mission to confirm my brethren, that the Church simply does not have the power to confer priestly ordination on women and that this position must be definitively held by all the faithful of the Church." -- he reiterates an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium, even if he does not define it as a dogma by an exercise of his extraordinary magisterium. But his statements about democracy and capitalism in Centesimus Annus or on capital punishment in Evangelium Vitae, while exercises of his authentic magisterium, are non-definitive teachings.

I agree (as far as I understand these technical canonical matters).

. . . What kind of assent does the authentic magisterium call for on behalf of the faithful? . . . In my judgment, the CRC and the Remnant sometimes fail in not showing the proper "obsequium" towards legitimate authority, but in many cases I find myself in agreement with the substance of their critiques, even if the tone is overly belligerent for my tastes.

This discussion over the precise translations of Latin words, is over my head, and beyond my purview. I will not attempt to discuss such issues and pretend that I am qualified to do so.

I don't consider myself to be technically qualified in this area either. I simply quoted authorities (Fr. Francis Sullivan, SJ, and Bishop B.C. Butler) who are. Lack of qualifications in Latin does not usually prevent conservatives from quoting Lumen Gentium 25 to mean that traditionalists must "submit" to every novelty that comes forth from a Roman dicastery from allowing altar girls to endorsing the Lutheran-Catholic declaration on justification.

:-) You made your rhetorical point. I won't go down this rabbit trail (one of many in this exchange).

Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913, "General Councils"), e.g., wrote about submission with regard to Ecumenical Councils:

. . . Denzinger's (ed. Stahl) "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum", under the heading (index) "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience) . . . before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff's ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving.

. . . Some important consequences flow from these principles. Conciliar decrees approved by the pope have a double guarantee of infallibility: their own and that of the infallible pope.

. . . An opinion too absurd to require refutation pretends that only these latter canons (with the attached anathemas) contain the peremptory judgment of the council demanding unquestioned submission. Equally absurd is the opinion, sometimes recklessly advanced, that the Tridentine capita are no more than explanations of the canones, not proper definitions; the council itself, at the beginning and end of each chapter, declares them to contain the rule of faith.

{From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright 1996 by New Advent, Inc. }

The last section of this quoted text was the only one you have cited that gave me pause. Of course I acknowledge that Ecumenical Councils are instruments of infallible teaching authority, but I have been convinced by reliable authorities that the Vatican II documents are worded in such a way as to make clear that the Council was not engaging its infallible teaching authority.

But who has the authority to declare that and allow you to authoritatively believe it, as a good Catholic? You will listen to a theologian, when he contradicts what popes say about the authority of the Council? That is pure modernist methodology (inherited from Protestant notions of "authority"), as you must know.

Your last quoted sentence, however, indicates that perhaps Conciliar documents enjoy a broader kind of infallibility than I had previously been led to believe.

Great.

But when I read the section of the article in question, I find that you have quoted it extremely selectively.

Yes, precisely because the whole excerpt is reprinted in the web article referred to above, on Vatican II. I'm not about to repeat things over and over on my website, when a hyper-link can immediately take the reader to something. True, I didn't point this out specifically above (though it is strongly implied by my introductory remarks), but now everyone knows. I figure that if I repeat things enough times, maybe some of it will sink in, and indeed some did, with you.

[I deleted citations of other parts of the article - the reader can simply follow the hyper-link above]

Since the expressed purpose of the Second Vatican Council was not to advance new doctrines, or to resolve doctrinal controversies, but to explain the traditional doctrines of the Faith in a matter suited to the modern world, it would seem that the vast majority of its statements "represent too much of the human element, of transient mentalities, of personal interests to claim the promise of infallibility made to the Church as a whole." The Documents of Vatican II contain lengthy discussions of theological, scientific, and historical matters, but precious little that approaches a dogmatic formulation.

Again, this is exactly the sort of discussion I am not willing to engage in, as I don't feel qualified, and since it is far from the subject of the extremity of Remnant opinions and expressions.

The part you selectively cite illustrates that the Chapters of the Council of Trent were intended to have authoritative dogmatic weight as well as the particular Canons with attached anathemas. But the Second Vatican Council avoided using the expressions which would indicate that it was undertaking any definitive act. Even in the document with the most important doctrinal content and the most authoritative weight, Lumen Gentium, the Council uses the term "decernimus ac statuimus" (We decree and establish) rather than the traditional formulation "definimus" (We define), which is found in the decrees of Trent and Vatican I.

This is all talk for canon lawyers. The pope is there for a reason, and in God's Providence, Paul VI presided over the ending of the Council. What did he say about its authority?:

APOSTOLIC BRIEF IN SPIRITU SANCTO FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL - DECEMBER 8, 1965 (POPE PAUL VI)

{read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council}

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church . . .

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us . . .

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.

That's more than sufficient for me. You go nitpick and fuss and complain about this and that, if you wish, and act as your own canon lawyer; I will obey the Council and the pope who "approved and established" it. If you want to "play Protestant," feel free. Having played that game myself, I have no particular need or desire to return to it at this point. If Catholic authority seems "oppressive" to you, then please read Newman's Grammar of Assent, now available online. For readers desiring more statements concerning conciliar infallibility, see also: Conciliar Infallibility: Church Documents.

. . . Having attempted to show that there is a right for an informed Catholic to respectfully disagree with certain non-infallible teachings of the magisterium, let's look at some of the recent teachings which particularly concern traditionalists . . . As for ambiguity, it cannot be denied that certain liberal and modernist theologians were involved as periti in the Council (Rahner, Kung, Schillebeeckx, Murray, Baum, etc.) and that they laboured long and hard to insert certain ambiguous formulae into the texts of the Vatican II documents. At several points things were so bad that Paul VI intervened to remove certain items from the authority of the Council (e.g. birth control - read the ambiguous statements of Gaudium et Spes on this subject - and Papal authority versus collegiality in Lumen Gentium, which the Pope insisted on clarifying in an "explanatory note" attached as an appendix to the document).

But this is nothing new (why would you think it was?). This is one of the functions of the pope - to remove such errors (e.g., Pope Leo the Great did that at Chalcedon in 451: the famous 28th canon concerning Constantinople). That doesn't prove that Vatican II is qualitatively different; quite the opposite. But the pope's charism of infallibility enables him to weed out the errors brought in by nefarious or other means by bishops.

This is an example where I think your omissions from my text have caused my views to be misrepresented.

I will let readers judge that, by visiting your URL if they so choose.

You argued against the traditionalist view that the Conciliar documents are laced with ambiguity. I pointed to Paul VI's interventions to point out that he himself was aware of what the modernists were up to.

Sure they were (and of course he knew); this doesn't prove that the heterodox nonsense made it into the documents! I couldn't care less about what went on behind the scenes - that has occurred at all Councils, bar none; people being people.

He prevented some of these errors and ambiguities (on Papal authority and contraception), but allowed others (on religious liberty and ecumenism) to pass.

This is absolutely classic. You sit there and blithely judge the pope - say that he screwed up, that the charism of infallibility exercised in ratifying an Ecumenical Council was only half-effective. And you will claim that this is not private judgment, and deny that it is the Protestant principle of "every man his own pope," and you will expect me to sit here and accept your pontifications declaring that the real pope was wrong in his authoritative judgments of an authoritative Council. Flat-out amazing! One can only shake their head, and hope that readers will comprehend the manifest absurdity of such a modus operandi, especially under the assumption that it is a self-consistently Catholic approach - even a traditional Catholic notion.

Fr. Brian Harrison made a similar point regarding Michael Davies:

Michael Davies . . . there are thousands of traditionalist Catholics out there who quite literally set more store by the judgments of Davies than by those of the Supreme Pontiff. Traditionalists, it must be remembered, are by definition those who have to a large extent lost confidence in the post-conciliar papacy, because of what they see as its aberrations from Sacred Tradition. And Davies is widely seen in such circles as the most eloquent and reliable exponent of that Tradition at the present time. This means that whatever he says will have significant ramifications - for good or for ill - in regard to one of the most pressing pastoral problems in today's Church: the centrifugal and even schismatic tendencies which prompted the Pope to set up a new arm of the Vatican to help safeguard the unity of the Church - the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Read Fr. Wiltgen's The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber for a definitive account of the manipulations of the liberals and modernists in their attempts to get ambiguous statements into the Vatican II documents.

[technical discussions of Vatican II teaching on biblical inerrancy deleted]

Again, that is irrelevant to the debate, if one believes that Councils are ultimately protected (primarily by means of the pope) from adopting errors arising from such wicked schemes. If you or others wish to deny this, then please get consistent and apply this analysis to the other Councils also, since this sort of subterfuge and intrigue has always been present to some extent - men being men. The most obvious example is the Robber Council of 449, which was rejected by the pope as heretical.

The Robber Council isn't a very good example, since it was condemned by the Pope, and therefore was no true Council.

But my point was that it was a striking example of the usual machinations and realpolitik of sinful, fallen, ambitious, prideful men. That point holds whether it was a true Council or not.

A better example is Second Council of Constantinople in 553. The Emperor Justinian, a Monophysite sympathizer with a Monophysite wife, suggested that a Council be convened to condemn Nestorianism, a long dead heresy which erred in the opposite Christological direction as Monophysitism. Furthermore, the Emperor wanted the Pope (the weak Vigilius) to condemn the "Three Chapters," the writings of three dead theologians tainted by Nestorianism, but two of whom had been reconciled to the Church at Chalcedon. Thus, under the guise of orthodoxy, the Emperor hoped to take aim at Chalcedon. Vigilius agreed to condemn the "Three Chapters" which led to riots against him in Rome. Vigius then retracted his signature, but in the end agreed to hold a Fifth Ecumenical Council, hoping that he could get a council to agree to more balanced language. Instead, the Council went even further than Vigilius wanted in condemning the Three Chapters. Vigilius died, but his successor Pelagius (not the heresiarch) accepted the Fifth Council as Ecumenical in order to placate the Emperor, which led to a fifty year schism between Rome and the more staunchly Chalcedonian see of Milan.

Now, was the Fifth Council heretical? No. It was formally correct in its denunciation of Nestorianism. But it had disastrous consequences for the Papacy, and temporarily undermined the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. So, here is an example of a valid, but ill advised, council, with ambiguous if technically orthodox texts, and with very negative consequences for the Church. Vatican II is not "unique," but it is more like Constantiniople II than Vatican I or Trent. There are several other councils which seem to have had flawed elements either in the way they were called, their politicization in one way or another, or problematic aspects of their canons and decrees. The guarantee of Conciliar infallibility is limited by the same limits as Papal infallibility: a council is infallible to the extent that its canons and decrees propose to teach defnitively on a matter of faith and morals in a manner binding on all Catholics.

Very interesting (as you must know by now I love analogies). I don't really know enough about the particulars to comment intelligently (let alone for public consumption), but I would suspect that several points of your argument here could be disputed. The main thing to me is your denial that the Council was heretical. You say the same about Vatican II. This is God's protection (all the more noteworthy given the modernist presence at Vatican II). To me that is the bottom line. The "ambiguity" is in miscomprehension and/or misapplication (or wholesale distortion and twisting) of the actual conciliar teaching. Something is either "orthodox" or it is not. "Ambiguity" is extremely subjective and not particularly relevant, in my opinion, once one concedes that a Council is orthodox in the first place.

However, I do not believe (nor do most traditionalists except perhaps among the ranks of sedevacantism) that the Council was invalid or intrinsically heretical.

But that is the absurdity and equivocation of the "traditionalist" position, as I argued repeatedly. The sedevacantists are at least consistent, not having to engage in special pleading of the most objectionable sort. Not having the guts to simply pronounce the hated Council invalid, instead we receive from you guys this balderdash of "ambiguity," which then becomes a convenient "club" to bash the Council with impunity, not allowing (like all conspiratorial theories) of any rational disproof. Thus the very methods of the enemy are adopted: the ambiguities of the "traditionalists" ironically far surpass those of the modernists.

This is nonsense. You constantly imply that traditionalists would really like to denounce Vatican II, the recent Popes, or the Novus Ordo as "invalid," but avoid doing so for purely pragmatic reasons or a lack of courage.

I don't know what the reasons are - that is not for me to say (though I suppose I have speculated here and there). I merely pointed out the verbal and mental gymnastics and profound wavering and self-contradiction throughout The Remnant website. One can't fail to notice this.

Our more careful, cautious language is not motivated by fear (except maybe fear of the Lord) but because we believe Christ's promises to his Church. We believe in the Church's indefectibility. We are struggling to reconcile teachings and practices that seem inconsistent with the previous patrimony of Catholic tradition with the promise that "I am with you always." And for this, we are less honest than the sedevacantists and sneakier than the modernists?

There is a certain intellectual and theological inconsistency (not deliberate dishonesty), in my humble opinion, yes. I grant that these things are troubling to you (out of - I would say - a lack of proper understanding with regard to such matters as ecumenism and Salvation Outside the Church). The difference lies in how one initially approaches the issue. I assume, as a devout Catholic - in faith and given the evidence of Church history - that the Council is consistent with previous Catholic doctrine. I think this can be demonstrated, as well, though I may not be able to do it myself - I surely cannot, as I have said (not being properly trained for it). But others have done so (e.g., Fr. Harrison, Fr. Most, Fr. Hardon).

Now, when you approach the Council, do you view these so-called "innovations" or "novelties" - in faith - as developments which are difficult to understand, or corruptions which are difficult to reconcile? It is all in the premise . . . To simply work out difficulties, nuances, and complexities is one thing. I believe the Bible is inerrant; that doesn't mean for a second that there are not textual and theological and exegetical difficulties to be mulled over and worked through.

Likewise with the Council. One has to start with either a hostile or an embracing assumption. To take the hostile assumption is to go against what the pope said about the Council, and the analogy of earlier Councils; therefore involving the utter absurdity (granting Catholic ecclesiology) of placing theologians or private persons (say, Mr. Matt or Mr. Vennari) over against the pope - precisely as both modernists and Protestants do. Thus you are to the Council what the liberal higher critics are to the Bible! Their initial hostile assumption is fallacious, so that the house of cards they build upon it is fundamentally flawed. Likewise with your presuppositions and your " 'traditionalist' house."

It is a valid council, and its documents are valid exercises of the authentic but non-definitive magisterium.

But you have simply assumed that the entire Council is "non-definitive" in the sense of not requiring internal assent and submission. That is far from proven, in my opinion.

I haven't simply assumed it. I have studied it and documented it, from the words of the Popes and the Council Fathers themselves.

But you selectively choose which papal words you will heed and which you reject; this is nonsensical (literally). The pick-and-choose mentality is one of the major problems here. The heretics pick and choose (as Newman would say, generalizing and making the analogy). The Catholics accept what their lawfully-ordained authorities proclaim.

Where learned Catholics have serious disagreements with its documents, based on inconsistency with previous Catholic teaching, I believe that they have the right to make these disagreements known and ask the Holy See to clarify the ambiguities,

Again, I deny the supposed inconsistency. I'm convinced more strongly all the time that this very charge betrays an inadequate understanding of development of doctrine. In your particular case, I would have to see how you would present and define development, and how you would apply it to any of the most disputed Council teachings, in order to determine whether this lack of understanding applies to you. But I have seen too many "traditionalists" (and Orthodox and Protestants) write many exceedingly ridiculous things about development to not be wary of this distinct possibility.

I hope to do so. It is far too easy to justify any and every change or innovation as a "development." Unfortunately, modern theology tends to treat "development" in the same way that the Supreme Court of the United States treat the Constitution -- looking for "emanations of penumbras" so that doctrines can come to mean the exact opposite of what was originally intended.

I agree 100% - well-stated (as to modernism). But I don't apply this to the Council at all, like you do.

I believe that "development" is possible, but I have yet to see some of the Conciliar novelties successfully justified as genuine developments.

So in the meantime do you consider them corruptions? This gets back to my point recently made, about your initial premises.

Many traditionalists (and by no means only Lefebvrists or sedevacantists) believe that some of the teachings on matters of ecumenism, religious liberty, and the possibility of salvation outside the Church in the documents of Vatican II and post-Conciliar magisterial teaching are not authentic developments, but innovations.

That remains to be proven (and it interests me). In my humble opinion this is the crux of the issue, along with the closely-related notion of indefectibility.

I would like to do so, and am currently rereading the Essay on Development to help formulate my thoughts. This will take a bit more time and thought to analyze fully, so I hope you will wait patiently for my Newmanian critique of Conciliar and post-Conciliar innovation.

Excellent. Again, this is the heart of the matter as I see it. I am more than happy to wait for someone actually willing to apply Newman's thinking to the dispute at hand (and especially this particular book of his which was so instrumental in my own conversion). I commend you!

I do not think that some of these teachings meet Cardinal Newman's seven notes for authentic development as explained in his Essay on the Development of Dogma: preservation of type, continuity of principles, assimilative power, logical sequence, anticipation of the future, conservative action on the past, and chronic vigour.

Now we are down to brass tacks! Good for you! I would love to see this expanded and elaborated upon and developed (pun intended).

To take the case of religious liberty, it seems to many serious critics (e.g. Michael Davies) that Dignitatis Humanae actually contradicts previously condemned propositions of Mirari Vos (Gregory XVI), Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX) . . .

But these are related to the same issues as the dispute over capital punishment. It is extremely complicated, and again I don't pretend to be an expert on these matters, but perhaps these are the sorts of things which can change, as they have to do with discipline and application of unchanging truths, just as the Law remained the same between the OT and the NT, but the application changed radically. In that case, there would be no essential change in the underlying principles; hence the development is legitimate. Also, there may very well be different uses and senses of words and phrases, just as condemnations of indifferentism are taken to mean blanket condemnation of Vatican II-type ecumenism, which is the furthest thing from indifferentism - rightly understood.

If you think that religious liberty is the same type of issue as the recent controversy over capital punishment, and you are ready to tolerate debate and discussion of the Pope's teaching on the latter, then why are you so concerned about traditionalists who reject the Council's teaching on the former?

Because it was proclaimed more authoritatively.

The Declaration on Religious Liberty is the most contentious item in the Council documents for traditionalists, and faced strong opposition from many bishops during the Council itself.

Even Abp. Lefebvre signed it; why?

Fr. Brian Harrison, another theologian I greatly respect, thinks that they can [be reconciled], albeit with difficulty and only by a very particular interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae (not the interpretation favoured by the John Courtney Murray cheering section on the left and right of the American Church).

Fr. Harrison writes - in critique of Michael Davies (note the extreme complexity of this discussion):

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN NON-CATHOLIC SOCIETIES.

To sum up our argument so far: the novel element in Dignitatis Humanae's doctrinal teaching is that under some circumstances non-Catholics can have a natural right to immunity from coercion in the public manifestation of their religion. Davies has not succeeded in showing that this proposition was condemned by pre-conciliar Popes; and (contrary to what he thinks) it had been at least implied or insinuated by some of the more recent Popes, especially Pius XII in Ci riesce: if at times the state has no God-given right to repress certain errors, that seems to imply that those who propagate them do have a God-given right, under those circumstances, to be immune from such repression. It would be interesting to know Davies' answer to the following question: in countries where Catholics are a minority, do the non-Catholic citizens have a natural right to immunity from coercion in publicly practising their religion (at least insofar as they remain within the bounds of natural law)?

After all, article 7 of the preparatory schema for Vatican II (praised by Davies as a good summary of pre-conciliar doctrine) asserts that the state "should concede" that sort of immunity under those circumstances (ibid., p. 301); and there seems only a short distance between saying that these non-Catholics "should" be given this immunity and saying they have a right to be given it. Davies could not consistently use the mere fact that pre-conciliar documents spoke only of "tolerating" non-Catholic cults to justify a negative answer to the above question, because he already concedes to me (pp. 46 and 216) that a right to immunity from coercion for non-Catholics (if it exists at all) can also be called, without any contradiction in terms, a "right to be tolerated". (To "tolerate" merely means to permit some evil, and does not necessarily imply that the repression of it would also be a just and legitimate option. If it did, then of course the notion of a "right to be tolerated" would indeed be a contradiction in terms.)

Hence, if Davies answers negatively to my question, he would logically have to adopt the position which I have already argued is more severe than anything taught by traditional doctrine: that is, the view that in the case of non-Catholic religions, their false or erroneous elements as such (that is, considered in the abstract and in isolation from all questions of the overall effect of these religions on society) are sufficient to ensure that those who would practise such religions in public absolutely never have any natural right to immunity from coercion. I would say that this view, while it may have been quite common before Vatican II, was always implicitly opposed to orthodox doctrine, which always recognized (at least implicitly) that the state's coercive power is at the service of society as a whole, and cannot justly be exercised against individual citizens unless the welfare of society requires this.

If, on the other hand, Davies is willing to answer "yes" to my question (that is, if he agrees that, in non-Catholic societies, non-Catholics have a natural right to immunity from coercion within the bounds of natural law), then I would say he has already conceded the central doctrinal development of Dignitatis Humanae, as spelt out in the first paragraph of article 2. Taken just as it stands, this core affirmation of Dignitatis Humanae does not say anything one way or another about the treatment of public non-Catholic manifestations in Catholic states. (That issue, of course, is Davies' main bone of contention, and I shall deal with it shortly.) Article 2 just embodies the thesis that there is a limited natural right (the limits are not in any way specified) of the human person - and therefore of non-Catholics as well as Catholics - to immunity from coercion in the public as well as private practice of religion. And Davies could not answer "yes" to my question, logically, without assenting to that thesis.

Furthermore, Davies could not answer affirmatively to my question without retracting his opinion that the distinction (emphasized by Murray, De Smedt and myself) between affirming a right to spread a false religion and affirming a right not to be prevented from spreading it "is no more than a semantic quibble" (ibid., p. 230). If (as I hold, and I hope Davies holds), Orthodox Christians in central Russia today have a natural right not to be prevented from publicly practising their religion, this by no means implies that they have a natural right to practice it. As Pius XII makes clear in Ci riesce, nobody has a natural right even to believe - much less to propagate - any false doctrine, including, therefore, the false Eastern Orthodox doctrine that submission to the Roman Pontiff's supreme jurisdiction is not required by divine law . . .

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN A CATHOLIC SOCIETY.

Even if my arguments so far have been both valid and convincing, Davies will certainly insist that I have not yet come to grips with his central objection to Dignitatis Humanae, namely, his contention that: (a) traditional doctrine excludes the possibility that, in a predominantly Catholic society, there can be any natural right of non-Catholics to be tolerated in the public profession of their religion; (b) Dignitatis Humanae affirms (or at least implies) such a right; and that in consequence an ineluctable doctrinal contradiction exists between Vatican II and the pre-conciliar Magisterium. My short answer to this objection is that while (a) is true, (b) is false, so that there is no contradiction.

Before explaining this, however, a subsidiary issue needs to be clarified. I am very glad that my work has helped Davies (as he says on pp. 272-273) to see that there is no formal contradiction between Pius IX's 1864 encyclical Quanta Cura and the doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae. This encyclical (whose teaching, I agree, is ex cathedra and irreformable) is often a major stumbling-block for traditionalists who find genuine difficulty in accepting the Vatican II teaching. I hope that Davies' influence amongst such Catholics will be a significant factor in laying this unnecessary scruple to rest . . .

. . . it must be acknowledged that Leo XIII and the other earlier Popes certainly did frequently urge (in concordats and other lesser documents) the repression of all public non-Catholic manifestations in Catholic states or societies. This policy was such a firm and unanimous norm of public ecclesiastical law - universally applied throughout centuries of Christendom - that I believe (as I am sure Davies does) that the Holy Spirit could not have permitted it if it were, per se and intrinsically, a violation of natural law. Indeed, all traditional theologians (and thus, the Popes and Bishops who approved their works) have taught it as theologically certain - a conclusion inseparable from revelation itself and therefore part of the infallible Ordinary Magisterium - that the Church's sanctity and indefectibility exclude the possibility that any general disciplinary norm of the universal Church (as distinct from a merely local norm) could be intrinsically (per se) contrary to divine law, whether natural or positive.

It follows that if Dignitatis Humanae affirmed a natural right not to be prevented from publicly propagating non-Catholic religions in Catholic societies, then indeed the Declaration would implicitly contradict the aforesaid doctrine of the Ordinary Magisterium. However (as I said in my "short answer" above), I do not believe Dignitatis Humanae teaches this, and I am surprised that Davies has paid so little attention to what I say in my book about the vital distinction between natural law (which is a branch of divine law) and public ecclesiastical law (cf. Religious Liberty and Contraception, pp. 57-60, 87-89, 141-143).

{From Internet article, The Center is Holding: review of Michael Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty}

But this is precisely the kind of issue that traditional Catholics insisit that the magisterium address clearly and directly, rather than simply asserting that there is no inconsistency between the old teachings and the new.

I would agree with that. I disagree with the notion that there could be no conceivable reason not to make such a clarification immediately. In a nutshell, I trust the Holy Father to do what is right and best. Mr. Matt and Mr. Vennari and their comrades-in-arms obviously do not. But I'm all for further explanation, myself. I'm trying to do it - as a lowly amateur lay apologist; why not the pope? But in the meantime, I don't wring my hands in despair and believe that the Church is near collapse, in ruins, shambles (and all the other illustrious, dramatic terms which The Remnant habitually employs).

You agreed at the outset that the Church was in crisis. Now it is healthy and fine. Which one is it?

Don't be silly. The fair-minded reader can clearly see the distinctions I was making above, and read my earlier comments about the crisis.

If the Church is in crisis, then the Holy Father and the bishops have a responsibility to do something.

They are doing plenty; you guys just don't like it, because it isn't done in your way, according to your thinking, and your timetable. Luther had to have it his own way, and Calvin and Zwingli and Henry VIII. The Catholic, on the other hand, humbly bows to the will of Holy Mother Church, and trusts that God is in control, despite all.

Most conservatives are not reluctant to question their local diocesan bishop when he errs (even though the bishop too is part of the Church's magisterium). Why can't we question the Pope if we are concerned that his teachings or actions are not adequate in response to the crisis?

One can question to an extent (especially matters of discipline: how to deal with the liberals) within a posture of obedience and deference, as I have said all along. I object to the flat-out disobedience and overriding characteristic of overwhelming, unedifying and never-ending criticism, which I so often observe in "traditionalists" - as exemplified at The Remnant.

It is my sincere hope, and the hope of a great many traditionalists, that the Holy Father, the Curia, and the bishops will begin to take seriously the challenge of reconciling the new teachings and practices of the post-Vatican II Church with the perennial Catholic tradition. In asking for such a reconciliation, traditional Catholics may not have always expressed their disagreement with the deference due the august person of the Holy Father.

You sure got that right! But haven't you read any of the apologetics on the subject? Don't they help you to reconcile these supposed contradictions at all?

You have some very good stuff on your website, but I think that your grasp of traditionalism is one of your weak spots.

Good! Does that mean I can move onto other things, soon, since my arguments are so weak? :-) As Engelbert Humperdinck sang: "please release me; let me go . . . "

The only convincing efforts I have seen to reconcile "conservative" and "traditional" beliefs is in the work of Frs. McCarthy and Harrison of the Roman Theological Forum. They are willing to give traditional Catholics the benefit of the doubt about their being in good faith, will admit it when faced with a strong traditionalist argument, and are very sympathetic to many traditionalist demands, if not necessarily to all of their beliefs. They also admit that there are conciliar "ambiguities." Unfortunately, they seem to me to be mostly alone among conservative theologians in treating traditionalist positions seriously.

I think their work is excellent, too. I have had a link to this site for some time now. I readily attribute good faith to "traditionalists" - as far as that goes. I don't get into inner motives; just the beliefs that people hold. I might observe actions and tendencies, but I try my hardest not to speculate about the inner intentions.

The history of the persecution of traditional movements and of the suppression of the traditional Latin Mass, including by persons within the Curia and the hierarchy, have contributed to an atmosphere of mistrust that makes respectful dialogue difficult. (Even in recent weeks there have been new challenges to the integrity of the traditional religious institutes established under the terms of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei).

I don't follow all the political machinations, but I agree with your general principle that respectful dialogue is crucial. My own bishop doesn't allow the Tridentine Mass in my archdiocese - which reticence I strongly oppose, but I myself prefer the Novus Ordo Latin Mass, so am not personally affected. I'm all for liturgical diversity; I think the Eastern Rites are great, too (though they are not to my taste).

I'm all for liturgical diversity, too. For any approved rite of more than 600 years duration ;-) But you do see the problem. On the one hand, ecclesiastical bureaucrats (not excluding those in the Vatican) relentlessly harass anybody who has the temerity to ask for a Tridentine Mass, even denying people funeral requiems.

I think that is atrocious, and pragmatically ridiculous as well. Clearly, the Tridentine Mass is needed, if for no other reason than to prevent further schism and scandal among the "traditionalists" and traditionalists.

On the other hand, when it comes to doctrinal matters, we are supposed to believe that these same people are infallible instruments of divine teaching authority, and are expected to docilely accept every new theological whim.

More caricature of true Catholic obedience; common in "traditionalist" rhetoric.

The actions of the recent Popes and the Curia (and a fortiori the actions of the bishops) have caused traditionally minded Catholics to lose the automatically deferential attitude towards Church authority that had characterized Catholic laity since Vatican I. We still believe in Papal and Conciliar infallibility and the authority of the magisterium, but since we have experienced injustice in the exercise of the Church's disciplinary authority, we have come to view the Church's teaching authority within its proper, theologically defined limits, rather than simply ascribing quasi-infallibility to any and all statements of the teaching Church.

It's not "quasi-infallibility"; it is the duty of routine obedience and submission.

These difficulties do not excuse the attitude of some traditionalists, but neither does it diminish the pastoral responsibility of the Holy Father and the bishops in union with him to engage in a dialogue on these serious matters.

I agree.

It is also to be hoped that "conservative" Catholics can contribute to and learn from this dialogue rather than simply denouncing traditional Catholics who are attempting to make their objections to certain teachings known to the Holy See as heretical or schismatic.

I don't apply those terms to "traditionalists" of your sort (I do for the sedevacantists and SSPX). I speak sometimes of the "schismatic spirit," just as you might speak of the "modernist" or "ambiguous" spirit. So once again, the "traditionalist" often criticizes the Church severely for not engaging in dialogue, etc., then does the same thing himself. "Identifying with the oppressor"? I highly respect your reasoned, calm approach to this - though we, too, have profound disagreements. It has been a pleasure interacting with you. On the other hand, your positions (and rhetoric) are not nearly as extreme as those to which the bulk of my critique were directed. Those outrageous statements remain undefended against my criticisms, but I have done my part, in any event.

Personal Letter to Mark Cameron: 20 October 1999

(selective; omitting personal material)

I think that in the course of this dialogue we have narrowed our differences on several points, and I hope we can both agree that whatever differences we may have, these are differences between Catholics in good faith, and not on either side matters of orthodoxy or heresy.

For the most part, yes. I continue to believe, however, that the strains of traditionalism which violate any of the six tenets I outlined in my Introduction to the long Critique are seriously in error, and therefore harmful in some real sense. As far as I know, you agree with me on most (all?) of those.

Clearly, we cannot both be correct, but we have reduced our differences to grey areas where people can disagree in good faith and where the magisterium has not acted decisively.

I wouldn't go that far, either. Suffice it to say that I regard this exchange as substantive, mutually-respectful, and amiable, and that is very important itself. I enjoy it a lot.

I am still disappointed that you do not put my remarks in their complete context.

That's because I made it clear from the outset that I was not willing to engage every jot and tittle of the "traditionalist" debate. That's just how it has to be. For that reason, I don't cite the entire article (otherwise I would, as I do in virtually all my posted debates). I'm trying to keep it focused on the areas I consider central, as much as I can (I don't mean at all to be unfair to you, or maliciously or evasively selective).

You have generally done a good editing job, but you leave some important things out.

They may well be important in many ways, but I feel that they are too far off the immediate subject, as I see it (or involving technicalities I am not qualified to determine anyway - such as the "inerrancy" argument you made). And we are usually far from any relation to The Remnant, which the web page I post this on is ostensibly dealing with.

My next piece will be an article on applying Newman's theory of development to Vatican II. This will be a more serious piece of work, and may take a couple of weeks.

I will count the days! I am extremely interested in this, and I thank you for your work on it.

[that piece and my reply to it will be on another web page, to be linked from this one once it is uploaded. But I have been waiting three months, as of this writing]

At the outset, what is striking is that in many respects today's traditionalists are closer to Newman - looking at the continuities in the Church's perennial magisterium - while today's conservatives are closer to the Ultramontanists like Manning, Talbot, and Ward - supporting a view of Papal authority at odds with traditional understandings, and summed up in Pius IX's statement "La tradizione son' io." Temperamentally, Newman is more like a moderate liberal theologian like Congar, while we traditionalists have to love the brashness of a Cardinal Manning. But theologically, I think the tables have turned. Anyway, more on this in a couple of weeks.

I myself am infinitely more like Newman (he is my all-time favorite "intellectual" Catholic - even more than Augustine and Aquinas) than like the Ultramontanists, who suffered a moderate defeat in Vatican I, after all. I love your analysis of this, though. It appeals to the "sociologist" in me (that was my major).

You make an interesting point about the pessimism of trads, summed up with your quote from Anne Roche Muggeridge . . . First of all, I recently learned that Mrs. Muggeridge recently suffered a severe stroke, and is quite incapacitated and unable to talk. Your prayers for her and her family would be appreciated.

I'm sorry to hear this, but thanks for telling me. I will include this request in our Rosary intentions. Have you heard about Dr. Warren Carroll's stroke, too?

[as of 10 November 1999, Dr. Carroll is at home and improving, but still in need of prayer for further recovery to normalcy, as much as possible]

. . . I began to think that the Church that I had read my way into no longer existed. I wondered what had gone wrong. Then I found a copy of Anne Roche Muggeridge's The Desolate City.

I read that after my conversion. I was confused about the modernist crisis. I also read The Ratzinger Report and Neuhaus's The Catholic Moment at around the same time (early 90s).

Believe it or not, this book confirmed me in my desire to become a Catholic, because I began to understand the sources of many of the problems, and how it was possible to believe that this was still Christ's Church despite the mess it was in.

Well, yes; indefectibility is retained, but it seems as if it hangs by a hair's thread in her book, and many "traditionalist" utterances. This is why I will talk about the "spirit" of "traditionalism" or schism at times - because it is so close, even if not technically heterodox or schismatic. I argue the slippery slope . . .

So you see, curmudgeonly, angry traditionalists can actually help some people find their way into the Church.

:-) Well, as you probably know, people to the "left" of me often denigrate apologetics as an exercise in the same sort of realistic, tough love, exclusivistic outlook. But I think it is clear that apologetics helps prospective converts.

Our dooming and glooming turns some people off, but others find it to be refreshingly honest and realistic.

One can be both realistic (about human reality) and optimistic (with the eyes of faith). I would like to think that is how I am.

Our message is "Climb aboard the barque of Peter and help us start baling."

LOL Well, we all have to deal with scandals in the Church. I have never sought to deny them when talking to possible converts (that sets them up for horrible disenchantment). But I go on to say that there have always been problems, as there were in the Corinthian and Galatian churches, and the churches in the book of Revelation.

Many of the lapsed and fallen away find that they cannot stomach the "soft" Church of today, but can come back if they find a Latin Mass.

Well, I can relate to that. I despise liturgical and architectural and theological and spiritual mediocrity myself.

In other words, we trads have an evangelistic mission to our fellow curmudgeons. We even have our patron curmudgeonly saints (Saint Jerome, Saint Columbanus, Gregory VII, Pius IX, etc.) proving that God can draw straight lines with crooked sticks.

LOL. I love this! Of course I knew that there would be exceptions to what I would see as the "rule" of doom and gloom among traditionalists. You are surely one of them. But again, I keep pointing out that your "brand" is not nearly as offensive to me as The Remnant's is.

Part of the reason that we insist on maintaining the traditional liturgy, customs, and teachings of the Church is that in the economy of grace, perhaps we are still needed to carry on this "old evangelization."

Interesting . . .

Thanks for your wonderfully warm and personal letter. I feel like we are becoming friends to some extent now, which is great. We have far more in common than what divides us.

In His Church,

Dave

Revised by Dave Armstrong: 24 January 2000.

Critique of "The Remnant", with Copious Documentation

John Vennari

Do the Beliefs and Opinions of this "Traditionalist" Organization Exhibit a Certain "Schismatic Spirit"? What Does it Believe About Vatican II, the New Mass, the Pontificate of Pope John Paul II, and the Indefectibility of the Church?

This paper consists of critical commentary on particularly objectionable, questionable, and revealing portions of the following articles (excepting the Michael Davies piece, with which I totally agreed) - all are connected with The Remnant "traditionalist" organization.

* * * * *

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction Dave Armstrong / My God, My God, What Did the Council Do? Fr. Charles Fiore

The Debate Between the Abbe de Nantes and Fr. Congar / THE NEW �ORDO MISS�: A BATTLE ON TWO FRONTS the Abbe de Nantes

THE CHURCH IS INDEFECTIBLE IN HER DIVINE CONSTITUTION Michael Davies