Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Is There Any Legitimate Musicological Basis for Comparing the Beatles to Schubert?

Steve wrote:

I have to quibble with the "modern Schuberts" moniker [this is how I described the Beatles underneath a photo]. As gifted of tunesmiths as Paul, John & co. were, they don't compare to Schubert or any other classical master. There is an immense gulf in the level of craftsmanship between, say Schubert's 9th Symphony and Sgt. Pepper (especially as the craft in that album largely came from George Martin). The Beatles main schtick was introducing more diatonic, folk-influenced melodies and harmonies to the largely blues / rockabilly based popular music of the late 50's & 60's. But the comparison with classical music is off base. The Beatles are no more the modern Schuberts as Cole Porter is the modern Bach or Burt Bachrach is the modern Beethoven. They are all very talented musicians, but I would look to composers such as Part, Schnittke, Penderecki, post-war Stravinsky or Wuorinen (all either Catholic or Orthodox and significant composers of sacred music by the way) as my candidates for the "modern Schubert".

I reply:

Again, this is not just my judgment, but that of many musicologists and music critics, who would be the ones qualified to make such a favorable comparison. Nor does the comparison imply some sort of one-on-one parallel between classical and rock music, as if they are on the same plane (which would be silly), or of "craftsmanship." Schubert is known, of course, as the greatest melodist of all time (only one aspect of many, of classical music). This is the specific connection. Paul and John (and George more and more, as time went on) arguably hold that position in the pop world. If you know music, you can, e.g., see some very complex chord progressions in Beatles music, which are usually not found in non-jazz popular music. The only real competitor to their status in this regard would be Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys, in my opinion.
Here's evidence of my claim:

William Mann wrote in The Times that Lennon and McCartney were 'the greatest songwriters since Schubert'; . . .


For a wonderful, in-depth analysis of the unique musical aspects of the Beatles, see the article, "Words and chords: The semantic shifts of the Beatles' chords," by Ger Tillekens. Here are a few excerpts:

The flat-VI, a real Beatles' favorite, has often been called the Buddy Holly chord, though Buck Owens also has been honored as the main source of inspiration. This chord belongs to the cluster of parallel Majors: flat-VI, flat-III and flat-VII — sometimes also referred to as Neapolitan chords. In the abundance of these chords in the Beatles' songs Steven Porter (1983: 72) finds evidence for a strong Classical influence on the group's compositions. He has to admit, however, the flat-VI is behaving quite otherwise — indeed, according to its role in the diagonal grid, as a substitute for the iv. "All My Loving," a composition of McCartney, showing a free combination of turnaround and turnback, offers a another good example of these chords, the flat-VII (example 3). Just like the flat-VI in "I Saw Her Standing There," this chord turns the context of the lyrics toward the private side of display and the individual side of realization, thereby making the word "true" coming from deep within, sounding sincere and privately voiced.

Our last example, the verse of "All I Got To Do" with its exceptional length of 11 measures, is again a Lennon' composition (example 5). It illustrates the function of parallel minors in locating a semantic position in the matrix of conversation. In this particular case the work is done by the minor subdominant. Semantically this chord has the same function as the minor fifth that's facilitating the modulation in "I Want To Hold Your Hand." It is important to notice that these minor chords do not sound sad. The "sadness" of parallel minor keys is still a standard in music theory. It does apply to the work of Mahler or Schubert, often referred to in this context. In the Beatles' songs — and Pop Rock music in general — another feeling, however, is attached to these chords. With the parallel Major chords the parallel minors share the location of private space, making utterances sound sincere and deeply felt. As
these minor chords point toward the collective side of realization they give the lyrics a more convinced and determined sound.

Also, see Ian Hammond's article, "Virtuosos Need Not Apply," where he makes many interesting observations such as the following:

You won't find many classical performers who are expected to write and arrange their own material. You'll very few who are expected to sing while they perform on their instruments. Yes, some jazz musicians sing while they play, but they fall into three categories: (1) many of them stopped playing their instrument when they sang; (2) others sang rather perfunctorily; (3) the small remainder were usually Pop Jazz musicians. Fats Waller is a superb example. His atypical small combo is a great model for the rock 'n' roll band (the Beatles performed his Your Feets Too Big).

See his larger site: Beathoven: Studying the Beatles. He makes a direct comparison of the Beatles to Brahms and Beethoven and other composers, in terms of use of chords in his pieces, The Chromatic Subtonic (1) and The Chromatic Subtonic (2).

Alan W. Pollack's "Notes on ..." Series is a musicological analysis of every single Beatles song. Here's an article about it: A Beatles' Odyssey: Alan W. Pollack's musicological journey through the Beatles' songs, by Ger Tillekens.

In the website, Vocalist .org, this statement is made (echoing mine above):

1. Differentiate form and genre in music

Form relates to structure and genre to style. Schubert and the Beatles used similar forms in writing their songs yet, they could hardly be considered the same genre unless you consider structure to be the essence of communication. One could say that the underlying genteel nature of song form created more similarity between the Beatles and Schubert separating both from Beethoven and his more tormented personality demonstrated in his use of the more dialectic form of sonata-allegro . . .

One could go on and on with this (I found all these sources in just a half-hour search on Google ("Beatles Schubert"); I think my point is well-established as one far beyond my own speculation. It was precisely because I was already familiar with this comparison having been made by musicologists, that I made it, in brief form.

Round III With Ed Babinski On Profound Christian Ignorance, & Every Subject Under the Sun Except the Topic (The Psalms) -- Expanded


How and Why Discussions With Agnostics and Atheists Often (Sadly) Collapse / The Many Logical Fallacies of Ed Babinski and Friends (Was [and occasionally still touches upon]: Discussion on the Psalms) 92K


Here's the latest development in this strange exchange, with yet more parties entering in (as I said, "make yourself at home"). Sharon Mooney, Ed's webmaster, has now started writing to me. Her words will be in green:

[E-mail of 12-22-04]

Months ago I requested of Ed, if he were engaging in correspondence, to please let me know about it, so that it might end up on his site. Namely, because I'm not a mind reader, and having no way to know what he's posted around the internet. It may seem simple to you that he would post on your blog -- and that all his acquaintances visit and read, if so, you can't appreciate my/our schedule. Speaking for myself, normally, I am in college, and sometimes it is weeks that I'll save an email (article) from Ed, before I get it on the web. I'm out of college right now for break, but using the time to catch up on other work. I asked him specifically to forward or carbon copy me everything he writes that qualifies for web material (even the seemingly insignificant stuff). You probably want skeptics to read your web page I presume, then how would they know about it, unless carbon copied in an email? I've been distracted by a good number of other issues, and haven't had time to focus on Ed's debate with you -- not yet, not right now, though I did get one web page on the site yesterday.

I have no problem with this. That's fine. What I object to is this impromptu gathering of critics, who prefer to talk about me and at me, rather than directly to me (not to mention all the unnecessary put-downs and insults -- the inevitable ad hominem attacks, in full force here). You (as far as I know) did not participate in that sort of thing, so my remarks had nothing to do with you. If Ed posts this (via you, as webmaster), wonderful. That's more than I can say for most of my dialogical opponents. I'm delighted if that many more agnostics and atheists can read my arguments. Thanks!

It seems to me if you had the intention of being fair you'd do it with your blog or by email. Already from the first paragraph of reading, it's apparent to me, you're being quite biased.

I see, but of course, Ed and the "Group" are not doing that at all, in their numerous fallacious digressions and non sequiturs, as I have been chronicling.

I plan to get the correspondence between yourself and Ed on his site, if he still wants it that way. But if you insist on being unfair, I don't know that Ed or myself would care.

Yes, I know the feeling, believe me, except that I post what happens regardless of the outcome. That's what free speech and the open exchange of competing ideas and facilitation of critical thinking in the undecided is about.

If you wanted to do the right thing you'd remove that web page you sent us the URL to and start over again with something a lot more polite. Ed is far too nice of a person for the way you're criticizing him in that web page.

I'm sure Ed is very nice. I've always found him to be so, personally. My objection is strictly to how this dialogue is proceeding methodologically. It's not personal. It's based on notions of fair play and consideration of the other, benefit of the doubt, and those sorts of concepts that I have always assumed and believed are common to atheists and Christians alike, as they are fundamental. When one sees the sort of things I am accused of, or compared to (which have nothing to do with the argument at hand), then all of a sudden, this nice man, Ed, has become a little bit not-nice insofar as his rather insulting assumptions about me, a Christian, are concerned. I haven't done that to him. As a prominent example, note how Ed condescendingly characterizes me, as if I am a mindless, intellectually bankrupt special pleader, because I believe in biblical inspiration:

The point is that Dave adores the Bible it is his beloved, a letter from God. He will defend it all, from Eden to the Flood, from the tower of Babel to the slaughter of the Canaanites, with poetry, hyperbole, and metaphor if he has to, in fact, anyway he can, to make even the vilest shit in it
smell like it should be served at communion to the heavenly choir. Therefore, you can't really argue with a person whose perception is that caught up in a single book.

Or how about this gem of strikingly prejudicial, sweeping observation about all Christians, not just myself (as a proud member of that class):

Religion is a puddle from which a gnat may drink and in which an elephant may bathe. And even the weakest disputant is made so conceited by what he calls religion, as to think himself wiser than the wisest who thinks differently from him.

Try to imagine, Sharon, if these sentiments were flipped over and applied to you as an agnostic (or whatever you are; I don't know). Would you continue to say that I am the only one being unfair and impolite? This is clearly poisoning the well; a classic, textbook case (as I clearly demonstrated, right from Copi). This sort of thing is the real "vile (manure)" that is going on here . . .

The next e-mail -- also of 12-22-04 -- was sent by Sharon just to Ed and I. Since she considered it "private," I won't cite it, but I will summarize it as her questioning whether our dialogue should be put on his website because of my alleged lack of politeness and supposed slandering of Ed as "dishonest" in debate (I did no such thing). My last response was described as "awful" and her decision to post or not was conditioned upon removing it. The next letter on the same day informed the "Group" that there was one posted section now on Ed's website concerning our discussion. This section is entitled Dave Armstrong Correspondence. It states a falsehood about me (only slightly qualified, but clearly believed by Sharon herself, in her correspondence), thus poisoning the well before anyone reads a word: "This section of Ed's site was set up following a visit to Dave Armstrong's blog, which appears to malign Ed as employing dishonest debate tactics."

The first link on this page is called Dave Armstrong - Edward Babinski debate at Dave's blog site, and features the following (I think, congenial and fair) introduction from Ed which seems to suggest that he has not found me as "impolite" as his webmaster Sharon has:

Catholic convert and web-pologist Dave Armstrong has produced a massive pro-Catholic website over the years. The story of his conversion to Catholicism appears in a bestselling book of similar converts (mostly former Protestantism I think), and he has published numerous books of Catholic apologetics, all available at, that strive to make Catholicism and its various unique doctrines and practices appear in as rational a light as possible, as well as having published in-depth counters to both Protestantism and Modernism. Dave recently composed a long web piece at his blog-site criticizing one of my shorter pieces on the psalms. He continues to write in a pretty friendly fashion and invite my response, as well as the responses of any readers of the debate, and he publishes them all at his blog-site. Most folks who read Dave's blog are Christians and respond in kind. His blog could probably use just a few non-Christian responses or even moderate Christian responses from moderate Christian university profs, to balance matters out a tad.

I agree! Note that I have repeatedly invited Ed and even his friends to come onto my blog and comment and engage in a real conversation with a real Christian. They can outnumber me ten-to-one if that is what it takes, I don't care; the more the merrier (though, again, I find this to be a dubious method of discourse when a supposed one-on-one dialogue is occurring). But thus far, they have not, preferring to chat amongst themselves and to send me the third-person observations about me. I find this less-than-ideal or (if you will) "polite" dialogue method. It's fine if observers want to enter in, but they should talk directly to me, not about me. That's the distinction I object to. I urge both agnostics and "moderate" (i.e., liberal) Christians to come around and dialogue on my blog. The water's warm, and we don't bite.

The second page featuring our debate is called Biblical Mercy, and features Ed's patented mile-long digressions into subject matter not directly on-topic. But that's fine, as long as I don't have to deal with the digressions (I skipped over most of them because I am pretty strict about sticking to the subject, and will not be distracted, because I think that considerably lowers the fruitfulness of a discussion). But Ed's posting of his complete epic-length replies allows people to see a sadly typical agnostic conversational ploy (as I have debated many in my time and can speak from experience): hitting a Christian with 50 things from the Bible at once, as if this offers some bogus appearance of strength. This is, in fact, not a matter of strength or weakness of argument or evidence at all, on either side, but about how one person can only do so much at a time, and how dialogue (like any college course) can only progress if it is narrowed down. This is a huge pet peeve of mine, but, I think, quite justified, and not at all unreasonable or over-demanding.

The short page Psalm 91 features a little snippet of our dialogue. The introduction on the main point misses what I was trying to accomplish in my replies and distorts my argument: "Inappropriate Psalm used at the funeral of a woman who died young which promises 'long life' as part of Jehovah's favor -- none of which Becca received. Dave refused to address Ed's questions which were on topic, and relevant."

To which I say, "hogwash!" I urge other biblical skeptics and agnostics to read my response. Perhaps they can offer a counter-reply that Ed has yet to produce. But I directly addressed his concerns, and defeated them, as far as I'm am concerned.

The next page, Thoughts on the Psalms, is introduced with a similarly jaded and wildly distorted comment, which only proves that Sharon either didn't read my response, or never understood the very nature of it: "Psalms and the foolish concept that worshipping Jehovah and alone Jehovah will guarantee a long fruitful life vs. a short non-prosperous one." I specifically made arguments showing that the Bible did not take this simplistic view that Ed attributes to it. Phil (here in brown; previously green) seems to think I am polite enough, contra Sharon's impressions:

Well, if we're grading, I would give both of you "A's" for "amiability, " impassioned and thought provoking discussions. I would give an "F" to the guy who sent you (Ed) the "burn in hell" hate mail posted on your site . . .

So would I. I know nothing about it. But I detest such rhetoric, and almost always regard it as arrogant and judgmental. We're not God. We don't know who will be damned. Then Thomas Cook (purple) adds (followed by Ed's comment):

Ed, Armstrong and his gang are just too mean! Talk origins is propaganda? Why isn't the stuff they write considered propaganda? I thought none of the Christians treated you with kindness. Every response was belittling to you. Perhaps Steve could also take them on? Is he still debating with Turkel? Are you going to continue to reply to Armstrong?

I thought it was interesting that in his first reply to me, Dave began with this line: "Ed's skeptical take on this is clear already: God's promises are null and void, and obviously vacant: just look at this poor woman; she was a Christian, and trusted God, but did that help her? No! Quite the contrary. God didn't do a darned thing to save her . . . Etc." Dave begins by picturing me as questioning "God," when I never said that I believed "God" wrote the psalms. I was contrasting what Psalm 91 said and promised (whether the psalms and their promises were inspired by "God" or not is another question), with what actually happened to Becca. Dave's response seems to have demonstrated Christianity's built-in defense system at work, namely that if you question the meaning, propriety, overblown pomposity/hyperbole, interpretation, or intent of a Biblical work or writer, then you are directly questioning "God" Himself.

Sheer nonsense. Ed thoroughly misunderstands the nature of my response. Of course he doesn't believe in God; he is an agnostic. What I assumed in my response is that Ed is making an argument from internal inconsistency and absurdity (a sort of reductio ad absurdum). So when I mention "God" in this context, it is as an agnostic or atheist talks about God (and they do, quite a bit, even though they don't believe in Him, and it is in precisely this sense). So again, Ed assumes I am far more ignorant than I am. In fact, my thought-process here was much more sophisticated and familiar with philosophical argument and logic than he seems to have been aware. Hopefully, now he will understand these types of statements in context. I understand full well that Ed's attempt is to paint the Psalms as incoherent, absurd, and (overall) unworthy of belief. My argument was that this was not the case, and that Ed misconstrued rather simple factors in how to interpret such literature and how in fact, the Jews historically did interpret it. Does Ed really believe I am so stupid and unfamiliar with agnostic reasoning vis-a-vis the Bible, that I would actually think either that (1) he believed in God, or (2) he believed that God wrote the Psalms? If so, then I confess that I am dumbfounded at how far off the mark he is in grasping how I argue, and what I know. But stranger things have happened. Ed reiterates the obvious (that skeptics like him are "sure" the Bible is stock-full of contradictions and moral monstrosities):

A long-time friend of mine, Bruce Wildish, who has studied theology (though he is not a theologian), had a discussion with me years ago about certain broad differences between the theological views found in different parts of the Hebrew Bible, differences that Dave might disagree exist, or attempt to harmonize away, but which seem plain to a lot of religion professors whom Bruce has read. Whether or not you believe in "God" is not the point. The point is that the Bible remains a book whose origin and interpretations remain contested even by the world's greatest living religion professors.

The point is that we would expect these divergent interpretations, for a variety of reasons. But the bottom line is that one's presuppositions have a lot to do with how one approaches the text. The agnostic usually approaches the Bible the way a butcher approaches a hog, whereas the Christian approaches it the way that a music lover or orchestra musician or conductor views Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart.That's a world of difference. And while I freely admit that this predisposition causes a considerable bias in favor of a harmonious Bible, and hence, some special pleading and bad arguments too often among Christians, I rarely see agnostics admitting that their predisposition of hostility to the Bible often wreaks havoc on the logic or plausibility of their interpretations. Beyond that, they usually try to set forth the pretense that they know far more about the Bible than we Christians who have intensely studied it for many years (27, in my case). And that is a double standard. I freely admit that everyone is biased, and that it is foolish to deny it. But it doesn't follow that this precludes all intelligent biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, on either side. Bias is the human condition, and we will never get rid of it. I generally think agnostic biblical analysis is atrocious and filled with basic errors of fact and logic (Ed's included, in the present case), but it doesn't have to be (just by virtue of being what it is). Ed then cites Bruce, giving the usual anthropological-type, modernist take on the Old Testament. While worthy of a long discussion itself, such topical material is off the subject. I find it humorous that when I was actually on-topic, discussing how to properly interpret Psalms, Ed accused me of not answering him. But he seems to think that soliloquies about the broad range of Old Testament literature (when coming from a fellow agnostic) are quite on-subject.

More thoughts on the Psalms and God's Will feature sections that I have already included in my version of the dialogue (and replied to -- when on-topic). Agnosticism and the Christian World View consists mostly of rabbit trails. I've dealt with whatever part of it was relevant. What Catholics once Believed offers a litany of untold horrors in that religion. What this has to do with our topic remains a mystery to me. But I suppose it could be utilized as a variant of the Genetic Fallacy: "Dave is a Catholic. Catholics believe weird things, now and in the past. Therefore, we can dismiss Dave's arguments and not deal with them rationally, without fallacies and obfuscation such as this." Profound reasoning, isn't it?

The web page Bibles offers more endless tidbits and anecdotes apparently thought to be collectively damning to the rationality and believability of Christianity, but off-topic. And we have more non sequitur and noncomprehension of my arguments:

Ah yes, Phil, as you say, the need to be right. Men will die simply for ideas, and the need to justify their own, either with words or swords. I could say that Dave was the first to fire the long shot over my bow, responding to something I wrote and telling me that I was "questioning God!" I know what I was doing, and it had as little to do with "God" as I believe that particular psalm did. To Dave I am questioning "God," but in my opinion, no one has yet shown that "God" is the author of everything in the Bible. Not even moderate Christians believe that.

This silly business that I was somehow assuming that Ed believed in God or was arguing against Him has been dealt with above. Hopefully, he will "get" this now. He is just making himself look silly, the more he pursues this felt "zinger" that is 100% off-mark.

Phil chimes in with more ad hominem mockery:

He did indeed "draw you out" (as if you were some slimy Leviathan and He was Yahweh) and then try to lay the ground rules in his court -- where he reasons as a Socratic along with some "revelation" knowledge -- who can argue with that?

Ed-as-the-slimy-beast and yours truly as God. Really objective analysis . . . as stated previously, my argument does not depend at all on a presumption of the truthfulness of divine inspiration of the Bible, but rather, upon logic, sensible interpretation, historical Jewish hermeneutic and religious worldview, and internal consistency.

Revelation solves everything. Not that everybody agrees on what particular revelations say or mean or how each of them are to be applied.*smile*

Is there an actual rational argument in this that I have missed? I'll keep looking; maybe I'll locate one. Not content with ridiculing Christians, Ed at length takes on the Christian conception of God, in what I'm sure he thinks is a hilarious, knee-slapping piece of ridicule (and according to him, I take passages like this as evidence that Ed believes in God himself LOL):

Those Bible verses about God "smelling the soothing aroma" do make ya wonder though, whether God still lusts after the scent of burnt animals. Today, if He did, He'd probably have to settle for a barstool at a steak house with Zeus, Odin, Marduk and Baal by His side, chatting about the good old days, all sneaking a whiff of that old "soothing" stuff.

Course, maybe God's addiction just kept getting worse, from flaming farm animals, to His son, and now He's probably addicted to "smelling the soothing aroma" of whole planets filled with living creatures exploding into cosmic fireballs. Wait, isn't that mentioned in the book of Revelation? Quick! Call the Pope to arrange an intervention, we gotta get God into rehab! And tell Outback to double my order.

No bias at all here, of course. Ed and his cronies are utterly objective, sensible, and reasonable, while Christians are always (or almost always, at the very least) subjective, senseless, and irrational. That about covers Ed's "Armstrong Page" for now.

Sunday, December 19, 2004

Beatles Recordings: Chronological Master List (Including Alternate Mixes)

This large reference paper -- which I've been having great fun working on for the past week --, lists all Beatles recordings in order of recording date, noting different mixes and versions, stereo, "fake stereo," mono, what album songs appear on, dates of UK and US release, singles information, etc. Also included are many links to the same sort of material in websites and books, plus some general Beatles websites. Definitely a "must" for any Beatles fan, especially if you are a semi-collector and Fab Four Fanatic like myself.

Friday, December 17, 2004

Review of my Book, "The Catholic Verses" (by Jonathan Prejean)

Review of The Catholic Verses by Dave Armstrong (link to Jonthan's blog entry)
Jonathan Prejean

"Irenic" is not the first word that ordinarily comes to mind when a book is subtitled "95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants," but in this case, it's just proof of the old adage about judging books by their covers. The only beliefs that come under attack in this book are the ones that have been frustrating ecumenical dialogue and poisoning discussions with anti-Catholic stereotypes for far too many years. For Catholics, this book will come as a reassurance that Catholicism is firmly rooted in the Scriptures. For Protestants, it will provide a valuable opportunity to reexamine the hard questions that every faithful Protestant should be able to answer. But for all readers, the lesson is that those who gloss over serious study of Scripture in making reckless attacks on fellow Christians do so at their own peril.

One feature that distinguishes this book from many other works is the genuine respect that Armstrong bears for the other side of the aisle. He cites arguments by famous Protestants from Calvin to Luther, Wesley to Kelly, not to tear them down but to demonstrate the amount of effort they put into forming their own conclusions. The point of these demonstrations is to illustrate that even thoughtful, devoted, and scholarly men can reason their way to different conclusions about these passages, and that in most cases, the Catholic view is no less thoughtful or reasonable an explanation. In an attitude of genuine intellectual humility, Armstrong constantly repeats a simple theme: "recognizing that reasonable men can disagree, here is why I believe what I do." Exercising the rare poise found in such writers as Jaroslav Pelikan, Armstrong makes his case strongly and convincingly while maintaining a profound respect for his opponents' intelligence.

The book covers a number of Catholic distinctives that frequently arise in Protestant-Catholic dialogue, such as ecclesiology, the role of tradition, the papacy, and justification. On these issues, there is no new ground covered that has not been discussed at length in a number of places, but the advantage here is that the presentation is clear and concise, focused particularly on developing the strength of the Biblical argument. This is extremely helpful for beginners in Catholic theology, but it also reminds more advanced students just how effective it can be to make a simple, focused Scriptural argument that goes back to basics. Time and time again, Armstrong demonstrates the power of such arguments to convey the Catholic message.

What impressed me most, though, was Armstrong's handling of sensitive moral issues in the final three chapters. In discussing clerical celibacy, contraception, and divorce, he bring an optimistic and idealistic perspective centered firmly in Christ to areas that have become overwhelmingly dominated by cynicism. Armstrong's positive view of human nature and the human condition is a refreshing change from the modern worldview that envisions people as being doomed to gross moral failings. His presentation is an excellent example of how sound moral teaching founded in the Gospel can truly be a light to the world.

I recommend this book without reservation, and I encourage my fellow Catholics to take the study of these verses to heart and to commit them to memory. They are excellent reminders of how the Catholic faith is rooted in the Word of God.

Thanks so much to my friend Jonathan. I was deeply moved and touched by these remarks, and think they were far too kind (I kept thinking, is he reading my book?). But hey, if I must err in one direction, I would hope that I am perceived as overly-charitable rather than overly-judgmental. That is precisely the goal I have in my writing. As far as I am concerned, I fail to achieve it too often, but it is heartening and encouraging to see that at least one reader has (rightly or wrongly) that impression. It's virtually impossible to render a critique of anyone or anything without being perceived by many as "condemnatory" or "lacking respect" (again, whether it is actually true in fact or not). This balance is one of the most difficult things to achieve in apologetics. If I have accomplished it in some measure it is by God's grace. I praise our Lord for allowing me to be a vessel of His truth, insofar as it is found promulgated in the Catholic Church and in the Holy Bible.

Saturday, December 11, 2004

Catholic Refutation of "Catholicism Refuted" (by Church of Christ Preacher Kevin Cauley): Complete Five-Part Listing

Here are the URL's for the complete series of rebuttals:
Part One: Introduction

Part Two: Bible and Tradition / Papacy

Part Three: "Father" / Praying for the Dead / Statues / Confession

Part Four: The Blessed Virgin Mary / Eucharist

Part Five: Purgatory / Salvation (below)

IV. "If you died tonight, would you go to heaven?"

1. Catholicism says,

1) "…To enter heaven, one must be perfectly holy."

2) "The cleansing and purifying of any remaining sin, which makes us fit for God's holy presence, is what Catholics call purgatory."

3) They cite 1 Corinthians 3:13, 15 as justification for this doctrine.

2. The Bible says,

1) The blood of Christ perfectly cleanses us from all sin, not purgatory.

a. Hebrews 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge "

b. Hebrews 10:14 "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

c. To suggest that somehow the blood of Christ does not take away all of our sins and that we need to go to purgatory to have them completely cleansed away is complete and utter heresy.

Absolutely not. Purgatory has no relation to the notion that Jesus' work for us is somehow incomplete. Everyone who is in purgatory is saved already. Purgatory does not save them. It only prepares the saved soul for heaven. So all of the above is a moot point. If Mr. Cauley doesn't like purgatory, then let him argue against the biblical evidence offered for it, rather than declaim and proclaim what he would like to be true, without dealing with the biblical passages that Catholics have offered in defense of this doctrine. 1 Corinthians 3 is a very striking and explicit proof indeed (I guess that's why Mr. Cauley refused to explain it in a way other than I did).

2) That the faithful who die go to "paradise" and the wicked go to torments.

a. Luke 23:43. Paradise.

b. Luke 16:23. Rich man in torments.

The Bible teaches that even those who are saved will undergo a trial or a purging of their sins. It's very clear. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 teaches this:

For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble - each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
If that isn't good enough, there is 2 Corinthians 5:10, which Mr. Cauley himself cites below:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.

3) That one day, all will be raised from the grave to be judged.

a. Acts 24:15 resurrection of the just and unjust.

b. 2 Cor.5:10 All appear before judgment seat of Christ.

No argument there . . .

4) 1 Cor.3:13, 15 is not speaking of our own personal works of salvation. That passage is in reference to those who we bring to Christ--other people.

Why does Mr. Cauley believe this? Until he gets more in-depth with his exegesis than one-line proclamations, why should I waste more of my time trying to dispute the meaning of passages with him?

5) There is no indication in scripture that anyone will ever go to a place called "Purgatory" or "Limbo" or any other such place than paradise or torments, and then eventually, heaven and hell.

Then let Mr. Cauley or someone else who believes this grapple with the abundant biblical indications, compiled in my papers from my Purgatory Index Page.

V. Are you saved?

1. Catholicism says…

1) "Catholics can be as sure as anyone else that they are in God's good graces."

2) "Likewise, St. Paul does not regard salvation as a one-time event, but as a goal to be sought after, one that can be lost…."

2. The Bible teaches

1) Yes we are saved! Acts 16:30.

This doesn't prove instantaneous salvation, because the word for "believe" in Greek (pistuo) also incorporates actions and work on our part. Many passages warn against falling away. See my papers:

Assurance of Salvation

Catholic Exegesis of Biblical Passages Allegedly Suggesting Absolute Assurance of Salvation

"Certainty" of Eternal Life? (1 John 5:13 and John 5:24)

2) We are saved by Grace. Ephesians 2:8. We don't merit our own salvation.

Catholics agree with this. Hence, the decrees from Trent:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

3) When we obey the gospel of Christ, then we are accepting the grace of God in our lives.2 Cor.6:1 "We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain."


4) Catholics teach the truth regarding the possibility of apostasy.

5) However, Catholicism teaches salvation of merit based on works.

This is untrue. What Mr. Cauley describes is the ancient heresy of Pelagianism, which we reject.

See my papers:

Dialogue on the Alleged Semi-Pelagianism of the Catholic Catechism (vs. Frank Turk)

Merit: Catholic Doctrine vs. Caricature (James McCarthy's Distortions)

Soteriology and Creation (Man's Cooperation, Pelagianism, Nature and Grace) (vs. Peter J. Leithart)

For many further papers on all aspects of salvation, soteriology, faith, justification, etc., see my Justification Page.

Catholic Refutation of "Catholicism Refuted" (vs. Kevin Cauley), Part Four (Mary / Eucharist)

II. "Why do you worship Mary?"

1. Catholicism says,

1) "Catholics do not worship Mary. We venerate her because she is the mother of God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ."

2) "Catholics believe that Mary is the highest of God's creatures because of her exalted role."

3) "We believe that God saved her by taking away all stain of original sin at the moment of her conception (the Immaculate Conception).

2. The Bible says,

1) We ought not to worship anyone but God.

a. Revelation 22:8, 9 says, "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God."

I guess that would be why we don't worship Mary!

b. Only God's name is revered. Psalm 111:9 "holy and reverend is his name."

The Hebrew word here for reverend is yare (Strong's word #3372). In the KJV it is translated "fear" 242 times, "be afraid" 76, "terrible" 24, "reverence" twice. It is usually applied to God, but not always. In Leviticus 19:3, for example, the same word is applied to one's parents. In Joshua 4:14 it is applied to Joshua and Moses:

On that day the LORD exalted Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they stood in awe of him; as they had stood in awe of Moses, all the days of his life.

(RSV; KJV: "fear"; cf. Joshua 3:7)

The same word is applied to the sanctuary (Lev 19:30) and an oath (1 Sam 14:26). Also, the Hebrew word for exalted here ("magnified" in the KJV) is gadal. Here it is applied to Joshua. In 1 Chronicles 29:25 and 2 Chronicles 1:1 it is a description of Solomon. Yet in Psalms 34:3 and 69:30 it is applied to God.

c. Veneration is just another name for worship. It comes from the Latin word VENEROR which means to adore, reverence, worship, revere.

d. So this is merely a smoke and mirror explanation.

This is sheer nonsense. Mr. Cauley clearly has no clue what he is talking about here. Catholic theology differentiates between the notions of dulia and latria; the second being adoration or divine worship. Are these terms biblical? Absolutely!: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd ed., edited by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, 430, "Dulia"), states:

(Latinized form of Greek douleia, 'service'). The reverence which, according to Orthodox and RC theology, may be paid to the saints, as contrasted with hyperdulia, which may be paid only to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and latria (Gk., latreia), which is reserved for God alone.

This is consistent with the Catholic understanding. This dictionary goes on to define latria as follows (p. 803):

As contrasted with dulia, that fullness of Divine worship which may be paid to God alone.

Douleia can also be located in Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, in volume 1, p. 139, under "Bondage," and latreia in volume 3, p. 349, under "Service, Serving." Douleia is Strong's word #1397. It appears five times in the NT, and is translated "bondage" in the KJV (Rom 8:15,21; Gal 4:24, 5:1; Heb 2:15: none referring to God). Latreia is Strong's word #2999. It appears 5 times in the NT, and is translated "service" or "divine service" in the KJV - in reference to God (Jn 16:2; Rom 9:4, 12:1; Heb 9:1,6). It appears 21 times in the NT. So, as usual, so-called exclusively "Catholic" words are found to have a completely biblical basis, and to follow the distinction even present in the pre-biblicalGreek etymology, since the Latin dulia and latria are directly derived from the Greek. As for the notion of veneration in general, I wrote in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 103-104):

We honor the saints in heaven, who have more perfectly attained God's likeness (2 Corinthians 3:18), strive to imitate them, and ask them for their efficacious prayers on our behalf and that of others. All honor ultimately goes back to God, whose graces are the source of all that is worthy of veneration in the saints . . . it is God Himself Whom we praise when we celebrate in music, painting, and poetry His flowers, stars, sunsets, bald eagles, forests, mountains, or oceans. It is the painter who receives the accolades when his masterpiece is praised; likewise God with His creation, including the saints.

. . . We address judges as "Your Honor" and are commanded by God to "honor" our mothers and fathers (Ephesians 6:2), widows (1 Timothy 5:3), Christian teachers (1 Timothy 5:17), wives (1 Peter 3:7), fellow Christians (1 Corinthians 12:12-26), and governing authorities (Romans 13:7, 1 Peter 2:17). A spirit of honoring those who are worthy of honor is to typify the Christian (Romans 12:10, 1 Peter 2:17).

. . . A sound biblical basis for the veneration of saints can be found in the Pauline passages where the Apostle exhorts his followers to "imitate" him (1 Corinthians 4:16, Philippians 3:17, 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9) as he, in turn, imitates Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:6). Also, we are exhorted to honor and imitate the "heroes of the faith" in Hebrews 6:12 and chapter 11, and to take heart in the examples of the prophets and Job, who endured suffering (James 5:10-11).

2) Mary is no more higher creation than any man in general.

a. Psalm 8:5, 6 "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:"

On the contrary, Mary was "full of grace" (Luke 1:28). She is a creature, but the very greatest one; the Theotokos ("God-bearer" / Mother of God). Because of this exalted honor, God preserved her from all stain of original sin, and she chose to never sin, her entire life. Thus, she was the "New Eve": the second Eve who (unlike the first one) chose to never sin. The Fall of Man was not inevitable. It could have been otherwise. I wrote in my book (p. 177) about this passage:

Whichever translation one prefers (this is not necessarily an either/or proposition), it is certain that kecharitomene [RSV: "favored one"; KJV: "highly favoured"] is directly concerned with the idea of "grace," since, as Vine noted, it is derived from the root word charis, whose literal meaning is "grace." Charis is translated by the King James Version, for example, 129 times (out of 150 total appearances) as "grace."

Likewise, Word Pictures in the New Testament, by the renowned Protestant [Baptist] Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, expounds Luke 1:28 as follows [Vol. 2, 13]:

"Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'" (Plummer).

b. She was blessed. Luke 1:42 "And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." But many people were blessed by the Lord in the Bible.

Amen! Sure, many were blessed, but who else speaks in these terms: "henceforth all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48)?

3) There is no indication in scripture that God specially took away Mary's sins at the moment of her conception.

Luke 1:28 is the clearest indication. I've argued this point in many papers:

Dialogue with an Evangelical Protestant on Catholic Mariology (including an explicitly biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, from Luke 1:28, related exegesis, and the meaning of grace) (Dave Armstrong vs. Jack DisPennett)

Luke 1:28 (Full of Grace) and the Immaculate Conception: Linguistic and Exegetical

"All Have Sinned . . . " (Mary?)

a. First, the doctrine of inherited sin is false.

a) Sin can only be committed by those who practice lawlessness. 1 John 2:4 "Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."

b) Rom.5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

c) Sin doesn't come from without, it comes from the heart. Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:"

b. Second, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is only in place because of the doctrine of original sin.

c. One of the problems with the doctrine that sin is inherited is that Jesus would have had to inherit it.

d. The "Immaculate Conception" is the way Catholicism tries to get around the implications of this doctrine.

Mr. Cauley even preached a whole sermon about this crucial doctrine: The Argument Against the Doctrine of Original Sin, where he made such statements as the following:
There is no greater threat to practicing true Christianity than the doctrine of original sin (also known as the doctrine of total hereditary depravity).

[This is inaccurate, because not all Nicene, orthodox Christians accept total depravity. That is a Calvinist doctrine, which amounts to a more profound fall than can be warranted from scripture. Catholics, Orthodox, and Arminians hold to a less total fall -- and Orthodox differ with Catholic doctrine considerably]

. . . the doctrine of original sin lies at the heart of almost every false doctrine in the "Christian" religious world today. The Bible does NOT teach this false doctrine. Reason will not support this false doctrine.

This is heterodox doctrine, according to virtually all Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox communions. Original sin is a very important Christian dogma. If the church of Christ denies it, then it is a quasi-cultic group, just barely orthodox, according to the Nicene Creed and historic trinitarian Christianity in all its forms (along with a group like the Seventh-Day Adventists, which deny the reality of eternal hellfire). See my paper: The Biblical Evidence for Original Sin.


III. "Why do you worship wafers?"

1. Catholicism teaches:

1) "A consecrated host or wafer at a Catholic Mass is the true Body and Blood of Christ, not merely bread; so Catholics are worshipping Jesus, not a wafer."

2) They cite John 6:51-56 to support this teaching.

3) They also cite 1 Cor.10:16 and 11:27.

4) Finally they state, "In the last Supper passages (Mt.26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:19-2), nothing suggests a metaphorical or symbolic interpretation."

2. The Bible teaches:

1) Transubstantiation is the doctrine that during the Lord's Supper the bread and fruit of the vine change into the literal body and blood of Jesus.

2) First, John 6:51-56 is not referring to the Lord's supper. The context indicates this.

a. John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

b. John 6:45 "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

c. John 6:48, "I am that bread of life."

Here is a bunch of context and exegesis concerning John 6 (more than enough for another sermon from Mr. Cauley), from my book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (pp. 42-47):

As for John 6 and Jesus repeatedly commanding the hearers to “eat my flesh and drink my blood,” it is known that such metaphors were synonymous with doing someone grievous injury, in the Jewish mind at that time (see, e.g., Job 19:22, Psalms 27:2, Ecclesiastes 4:5, Isaiah 9:20, 49:26, Micah 3:1-3, Revelation 16:6).

Therefore, it isn't plausible to assert that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, according to the standard Protestant hermeneutic of interpreting Scripture in light of the contemporary usages and customs and idioms.

. . . When His hearers didn't understand what He was saying, the Lord always explained it more fully (e.g., Matthew 19:24-26, John 11:11-14, 8:32-34; cf. 4:31-34, 8:21-23). But when they refused to accept some teaching, He merely repeated it with more emphasis (e.g., Matthew 9:2-7, John 8:56-58). By analogy, then, we conclude that John 6 was an instance of willful rejection (see John 6:63-65; cf. Matthew 13:10-23).

Only here in the New Testament do we see followers of Christ abandoning Him for theological reasons (John 6:66). Surely, if their exodus was due to a simple misunderstanding, Jesus would have rectified their miscomprehension. But He did no such thing. Quite the contrary; He continually repeated the same teaching, using even stronger terms (as indicated by different terms in the Greek New Testament). All of this squares with the Catholic interpretation, and is inconsistent with a symbolic exegesis.

Furthermore, Protestants often (ironically) interpret John 6:63 literally, when in fact it was intended metaphorically:

It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (RSV)

Protestants claim that this establishes the symbolic and metaphorical nature of the whole discourse. What they fail to realize is that when the words "flesh" and "spirit" are opposed to each other in the New Testament, it is always a figurative use, in the sense of sinful human nature ("flesh") contrasted with humanity enriched by God's grace ("spirit").

This can be clearly seen in passages such as Matthew 26:41, Romans 7:5-6,25, 8:1-14, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 7:1, Galatians 3:3, 4:29, 5:13-26, and 1 Peter 3:18, 4:6. In other words, Jesus is saying that His words can only be received by men endowed with supernatural grace. Those who interpret them in a wooden, carnal way (equating His teaching here with a sort of gross cannibalism) are way off the mark.

. . . Many non-Catholics often argue that Jesus was not referring to the Eucharist at all in John 6. The word Eucharist comes from the Greek words eucharistia, eucharisteo, and eucharistos [Strong's words #2168, 2169, and 2170]. Together these occur 54 times in the New Testament, so obviously Eucharist is an eminently biblical word. Its meaning is thanks, thankfulness, or thanksgiving. But how is that related to the Last Supper, or Lord's Supper, or Communion? It's very simple (all verses: RSV):

Matthew 26:27-28: And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, . . .”

(cf. Mark 14:23, Luke 22:17,19)

There is a fascinating parallel between this language and that with regard to the feeding of the 4000 and 5000. Scripture records that Jesus "gave thanks" on those occasions, and then "broke" the fish and the loaves and "gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds" {Matthew 15:36; cf. Mark 8:6}. Likewise, we see the same progression in the accounts of the Last Supper:

Luke 22:19: And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

(cf. Matthew 26:26, 1 Corinthians 10:16, 11:23-24, Acts 2:42, 20:7)

So we have already established a parallel between the Last Supper and the ritual initiated by Jesus there (which is the central essence of the Mass), and the miraculous feeding of the crowds with bread and fish. In John 6, the same miracle occurs, except that this time the biblical writer records that Jesus ties the two together explicitly. First, we have the narrative concerning the feeding:

John 6:11: Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks [eucharisteo], he distributed them to those who were seated . . .

(cf. 6:23)

John 6:22 informs us that the rest of the story took place on the following day. But Jesus had a rebuke for the people who sought Him out on this occasion:

John 6:26-27: “. . . you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you . . .”

In other words, Jesus is contrasting the utility of physical food with eucharistic, sacramental food (His own Body). He continues, getting more and more explicit as He goes along:

John 6:35: . . .” I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger . . .”

(cf. 6:33)

John 6:51: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

(cf. 6:48-50)

John continues:

John 6:52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Does Jesus then say, "look guys, settle down; you misunderstood Me! I was just talking symbolically; don't be so literal!" No, not at all. Rather, He reiterates His point in the strongest (and most literal) language:

John 6:53-58: . . .”unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him . . . he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

When Jesus told parables, He always explained them, lest their meaning be lost on the hearers (and us readers of the Bible). Here he does no such thing, even though many of these people forsook Him as a result of His difficult teaching (6:60-61,64, 66-67). The symbolic interpretation makes no sense at all.

I think it is quite obvious that Jesus is referring to the Eucharist in John 6, for these reasons:

1) The parallelism between the miraculous mass feedings and the Last Supper.

2) The use of eucharisteo in the descriptions of both instances, in the same fashion.

3) The repeated reference in John 6 to His Body (i.e., eucharistically; sacramentally) giving eternal life to the recipients (John 6:27,33, 50-51,54,58). This is clearly not merely referring to belief, since if that were the case, explicit references to His Body and Blood would be entirely superfluous. He could have just spoken in terms of "belief" rather than eating and drinking His flesh and blood (which He did in many other instances: e.g., John 12:44-46, 14:10-12).

4) The equation of (what appeared to be) bread and His Body in both John 6 and the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-24,27,29, John 6:33,48,50-51,53-58).

5) The equation of (what appeared to be) wine and His Blood in both John 6 and the Last Supper (Matthew 26:27-28, Mark 14:23-24, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 10:16, 11:25,27, John 6:53-56).

3) The fact is that the wafer does not change into literal flesh and the wine does not change into literal blood.

We are not claiming that it does. It is a miracle of change of substance, while the outward qualities remain the same. This is why one must have faith to believe this. One can't accept it based on scientific verification (just as with the divinity of Christ, which couldn't be proven by examining His flesh).

The fact that priests often get drunk from the consecrated wine should prove such.

They do? Often, huh? There are no doubt some alcoholic priestrs, but that is neither here nor there. The point misconstrues the nature of Catholic eucharistic belief, anyway.

4) 1 Cor.10:16 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" But notice verses 17, 18 "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?"

a. Would we, the church, also be the literal body of the Lord?

We are the Body of Christ in a different sense. Paul's language in his passages concerning the Eucharist is very literal. Martin Luther thought this passage was compelling in and of itself:

Even if we had no other passage than this we could sufficiently strengthen all consciences and sufficiently overcome all adversaries . . . He could not have spoken more clearly and strongly . . .

(Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, 40, 177, 181)

. . . The bread which is broken or distributed piece by piece is the participation in the body of Christ. It is, it is, it is, he says, the participation in the body of Christ. Wherein does the participation in the body of Christ consist? It cannot be anything else than that as each takes a part of the broken bread he takes therewith the body of Christ . . .

(Ibid., LW, 40, 178)
b. The example of the Israelites who offered sacrifice, did they literally eat the altar?

No; they ate the "Lamb of God" during Passover. Jesus was the Passover Lamb. He is the sacrifice that was prefigured by the Jewish system of sacrifice.

5) 1 Cor.11:27 says, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

a. They suggest that if we sin against a symbol that is not being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

b. But note the example of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1ff); also note Uzzah (2 Sam.6:1ff). They sinned against symbols and God took it very personally. Were they guilty of sinning against God, or of against mere symbols?

This is wrongheaded. The argument was not that it is never wrong to sin against a symbol, but rather, that doing so is not the same as being "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." It is the literalness which is so striking. In the Old Testament, they didn't believe in the Incarnation, as Christians do. For the Jews, then and now, God is a spirit, and has no body. So these analogies don't hold any water. Luther was very insistent about this passage also:

It is not sound reasoning arbitrarily to associate the sin which St. Paul attributes to eating with remembrance of Christ, of which Paul does not speak. For he does not say, “Who unworthily holds the Lord in remembrance,” but “Who unworthily eats and drinks.”

(Ibid., LW, 40, 183-184)

6) In Matthew 26:26-29 we read: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

a. Note: If everything here is literal, then the disciples MUST drink the cup itself.

No; that would only hold by a ridiculous, impossible understanding of how English grammar works. A "literal" reading would have the blood being the transformation of the wine in the cup, not the wine plus the cup. If someone offers us some lemonade in a cup on a blazing hot day, as we're out workin in the yard, and says, "here, drink this," do we assume that he is referring to drinking the cup as well as the lemonade (the latter of which is quite literal, and not metaphorical, as is the cup)? Of course not. But that doesn't stop Mr. Cauley from making himself look downright ludicrous when he desperately tries to explain away a Catholic prooftext. "Reasoning" like this only shows the heights and lengths of absurdity that folks supposedly so "biblical" will go, in order to reinterpret a passage so that it won't read "Catholic" at all. I dealt with dozens of such instances by Protestant exegetes (but none, I confess, as silly as this particular "exegesis" of Matthew 26) in my latest book, The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants.

b. If everything here is literal, then Jesus said that the cup was just fruit of the vine. But he had already blessed it. He should have said, "Blood." Jesus, therefore, didn't know the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

When all the relevant passages are considered together in a coherent fashion, and without preconceived notions, I think the case for Catholic belief here is very strong indeed.

Catholic Refutation of "Catholicism Refuted" (vs. Kevin Cauley), Part Three ("Father" / Praying for the Dead / Statues / Confession)

III. "Why do you call your priest 'Father'?"

1. Catholicism says . . .

1) They cite Matthew 23:9 which says, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."

2) Then they say, "In this passage, Jesus is teaching that God the Father alone is ultimately the source of all authority. But he is not speaking absolutely, because if so, that would eliminate even biological fathers, the title 'Church Fathers,' the founding fathers of a country or organization, and so on."

3) They go on to say that Jesus uses the term father in regard to Abraham and Paul uses the term to describe himself in his relationship with Timothy in 1 Cor. 4:15.

2. What does the Bible say?

1) Matthew 23:5-10 says, "But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."

2) We agree that this passage is not talking about "fathers" in any of the senses that they listed.

a. Biological fathers.
b. Ancestral fathers.
c. Founding fathers.
d. Even fathers in the faith.

That's an irrelevant factor, because the position is against calling anyone "father." That would include priests or anyone else who is called by that title, if indeed the passage is interpreted hyper-literally, as anti-Catholics do, since (with that approach) the passage doesn't teach that only teachers or clergymen can't be called "Father."

3) We disagree that this passage is talking about God as our authority.

4) This passage discusses religious elitism and the sin in so calling someone by the religious title of Rabbi, Teacher, Father, Master.

5) So they fail to achieve what they need to achieve from this passage and still stand condemned.

Okay, so Mr. Cauley wants to argue that no religious figure, clergyman, Christian teacher, elder etc., ought to be called any of these four titles, based on Matthew 23:5-10? That's extremely interesting, since John the Baptist was called "Rabbi" in John 3:26 (RSV, KJV), and he registered no protest at this outrageous "religious elitism." I guess John didn't understand this simple teaching of his Master, Jesus Christ and was a religious elitist himself, according to Mr. Cauley's exegesis. Even he notes that Paul referred to himself as "father" in 1 Cor 4:15. If Paul calls himself that, obviously others can call him the same thing. In my pamphlet I noted that he called Isaac "our forefather" in Romans 9:10. So Paul fails to understand what Mr. Cauley and the church of Christ does. He clearly must be an "elitist" himself, and urges the same practice upon others by suggesting these outrageous titles. Jesus also refers to a disciples' and servants' "teacher" and "master" twice, in two consecutive verses: Matthew 10:24-25. Jesus called Nicodemus a "teacher of Israel" (Jn 3:10; RSV / "Master" in KJV). The logic is very simple:

1) Jesus refers to the "master" and "teacher" of a disciple or servant.

2) Therefore that servant / disciple can refer to the same person(s) as "master" or "teacher" -- since Jesus already did.

3) But Mr. Cauley informs us that this practice is a "sin" and "religious elitism."

4) Therefore, our Lord Jesus is guilty of "sin" and "religious elitism."

5) But that is blasphemy, and no Christian believes that (including the "churches of Christ").

6) Therefore, either (a) Mr. Cauley is mistaken, or (b) Jesus is a sinner and religious elitist (along with Paul and John the Baptist), or (c) the Bible contains many errors, since it presents these scenarios that simply can't be, according to Mr. Cauley.

7) Most Christians would vastly prefer (a) to (b) or (c).

8) Therefore, Mr. Cauley's statement: "This passage discusses religious elitism and the sin in so calling someone by the religious title of Rabbi, Teacher, Father, Master," is (extremely likely to be) false and must be rejected as a lie from the devil. To use his words, he "still stands condemned," insofar as he urges this argument from the Bible.

If it is a "sin" to use these titles of address, then why do John, Paul, and Jesus do so? This position is so incoherent and self-defeating as to be almost beneath the dignity of a reply, but I have offered a brief one so no one will be led astray by this specious "reasoning" and biblical "exegesis."

IV. "Why do you pray for the dead?"

1. Catholicism says . . .

1) "The Bible teaches the rightness of prayers for the dead...."

Just for the record: in my pamphlet, the word "clearly" was between "Bible" and "teaches."

2) They cite 2 Maccabees 12:40ff, 1 Cor. 15:29, and 2 Timothy 1:16-18.

2. The Bible says . . .

1) First, the book of 2 Maccabees is not even part of the Bible and holds no authority whatsoever.

Catholics believe it is, because the early Church did (as Protestant Church historian and patristics expert J.N.D. Kelly confirms), but that is another lengthy discussion. I can prove the rightness of the practice from the NT anyway.

2) 1 Cor. 15:29 speaks of "baptism for the dead" and has nothing to do with prayer. It is an incredible stretch to say that because Paul spoke of baptism for the dead that therefore we can pray for the dead.

This is an elaborate argument involving comparison of Scripture with Scripture, which I have dealt with elsewhere (see my paper: 1 Corinthians 15:29 and "Baptism for the Dead": What Does it Mean?). What would Mr. Cauley, then, say that Paul is referring to? It is no less against Protestant principles and beliefs to be "baptized for the dead" (whatever in the world that is -- from their perspective --, Paul is talking about) than praying for the dead. I made an exegetical argument elsewhere. Mr. Cauley, however, simply makes bald statements. This passage remains for Protestants one of the most difficult in the Bible to exegete and interpret. The Presbyterian commentator Matthew Henry called it a "very obscure passage." Methodist expositor Adam Clarke stated that it was "certainly the most difficult verse in the New Testament." I argue in my latest book that it is only so because Protestants refuse to allow the traditional Catholic interpretation. Their own false theological presuppositions, which forbid what the Bible and the early Church allowed, cause the difficulty.

3) 2 Timothy 1:16-18 says, "The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well." There is NO indication in this passage that Onesiphorus was dead.

Why, then, do the following Protestant commentators believe he was (or probably was) dead, if it is so "clear" to Mr. Cauley, that he is not?:

a) New Bible Commentary (possibly)
b) A.T. Robertson ("apparently")
c) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (possibly)

Even Matthew Henry didn't rule it out, since he stated he was probably not dead. In any event, I didn't have this information in my pamphlet, but there are definitely prayers for the dead in the NT: our Lord Jesus prayed for the dead man Lazarus (Jn 11:41-42), as did St. Peter for the dead disciple Tabitha (Acts 9:36-41). This is why we do it, too, because it is the witness of the Bible and also the early Church.

V. Why do you pray to idols (statues)?

1. Catholicism says . . .

1) "No Catholic who knows anything about the Catholic faith has ever worshipped a statue (as in pagan idolatry).

2) They justify their statues by saying, "Statues are simply a visual reminder of great saints and heroes of the faith...."

3) Let me say that I find it hard to believe that bowing down in front of statues and kissing their toes are not acts of worship.

Worship is an interior disposition. One simply doesn't know what the person intends by acts such as these without asking them. People bow before a picture of an accident victim placed at the scene of their death. I've seen many people kiss a dead person in a casket. That is not longer that person, lying there, but obviously to the person doing it, they represent the person that used to be. Is this worship, too? I've seen many people bowing down in repentance at the "altars" of Protestant churches, sometimes at the foot of a pastor or someone praying for them. Is that worship? Or do those persons represent God at those moments, coming to offer forgiveness to the repentant sinner? One can easily imagine a person kissing a photograph of their son, a soldier recently killed in combat. Are they worshiping him?

4) The big toe of Peter in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome has been completely rubbed off over the centuries because of people kissing it.

That's fine, but irrelevant unless the necessary questions above are considered.

2. The Bible says,

1) Exodus 20:4, 5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

2) 1 Cor. 5:11 says idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Eph. 5:5 says that covetousness is idolatry, so just because it is not like ancient paganism doesn't mean something can't be an idol!

We wholeheartedly agree that idolatry is a grave sin; we deny with equal vigor that we are doing it! The reasons are difficult to explain to Protestants because of the multiplicity of erroneous assumptions that they have about our practices and idolatry and worship in general, so I refer those interested in learning more to my papers:

Exposition on the Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, and Idolatry

Intercession and Invocation of the Saints: How is it Different From Magic?

The Communion of Saints: Biblical Overview

Dialogue on Objections to the Communion of Saints

VI. "Why do you confess your sins to a priest?"

1. Catholicism says,

1) "Jesus gave His disciples--and by extension, priests--the power not only to 'loose' sins (that is, forgive in God's name), but also to 'bind' (that is, impose penances) . . . ." They cite Matthew 18:18 "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." as justification for this as well as Matthew 16:19.

2) They cite John 20:23 as justification for forgiving sins on earth. "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

3) They cite Matthew 3:5-6, Acts 19:18 and 1 John 1:9 as authority for priests to take confessions.

2. The Bible says . . .

As throughout my pamphlet, the "Bible says" lots and lots of things (we see the six passages I offerd in support of my views above). But Mr. Cauley blows off what the "Bible says" when it disagrees with his preconceived theology. Catholics are (praise be to God) free to follow the Bible wherever it goes, and to yield to it, rather than to traditions of men, as with the "churches of Christ."

1) All Christians are priests! 1 Peter 2:5 "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2:9 says we are a royal priesthood.

In the sense in which these passages mean it, yes they are. But it is not referring to the priestly function of offering the Mass and dispensing the sacraments. Thus, only ordained priests may "bind" and "loose" in this fashion, because that is their function as a priest. This is clearly shown in the actions of the Apostle Paul. I wrote in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 163-164):


1 Corinthians 5:3-5 / 2 Corinthians 2:6-8,10-11

. . . I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. {see 5:1-2}

For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him . . . Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive . . . in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.
St. Paul in his commands and exhortations to the Corinthians . . . binds in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 and looses in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7,10 . . . He forgives, and bids the Corinthian elders to forgive also, even though the offense was not committed against them personally. Clearly, both parties are acting as God's representatives in the matter of the forgiveness of sins and the remission of sin's temporal penalties . . .

2) Revelation 5:10 says, "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." Who are these? The ones who have been redeemed as verse 9 indicates.

In the limited sense of the similar verses offered above. There is often more than one sense of a word in Scripture. That's nothing unusual at all.

3) Sin is committed only against God and so God alone can forgive sins. Psalm 51:4 "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest."

Of course. Every priest who forgives sins is acting as a representative or agent of God. God forgives sins that are committed against others (one can sin against other people, not just God, as Mr. Cauley falsely states, but every sin also breaks God's law, and is against Him as well). We see Paul above forgiving as person who didn't sin against him. He was "binding and loosing"; rabbinical functions which were carried over into Christianity, because they were instituted by Jesus Himself.

4) What then is the Bible speaking about when talking about the disciples forgiving sins? Certainly not some formal clergy of priesthood that requires the sinner to confess sins to the priests to get forgiveness.

Then how does Mr. Cauley explain what Paul did, in the passages above? He imposed penance on the man (much like a priest does in confession) and then urged his brethren to forgive him and receive him back into fellowship. He himself admits that the disciples forgave sins. So what in the world were they doing? Hopefully, he will inform us.

5) The context of Matthew 18 is in regard to personal sins against brethren.

That's correct, but then, what did Jesus mean when He said to His disciples (whom He was talking to here), ""whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18)? It's fine and dandy to be a skeptic and shoot down the other guy's argument all day long (or purport to), but in the end one has to offer alternative exegesis and arguments. One has to present a positive apologetic and theology, not just a negative condemnation.

6) The context of John 20:23 is in regard to the work of the Apostles on the earth.

Oh, I see, so is Mr. Cauley contending that the apostles could bind and loose and forgive others' sins, but then after they died, no one else could ever do so? One can't claim, on the one hand, that "we are all priests, so all this stuff applies to everyone," then turn around and limit another very similar passage solely to apostles, without expositing either, and with no plausible principle of differentiation. This is the very essence of eisegesis and special pleading: scattershot analysis with no internal coherence or strength or "recommendation" other than that it disagrees with Catholic teaching. Such a method in effect hoodwinks the listener or reader into accepting things that are fairly easily refuted by more in-depth biblical cross-referencing.

7) Jesus claimed all authority in Matthew 28:18. The apostles had no right to go beyond that authority.

No kidding. But they can exercise the authority as delegated representatives of Jesus: a state of affairs that he himself desired and set up. Big difference . . . Right after this, of course, Jesus commissions the disciples to evangelize, baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, and to teach. One of the powers He granted the special class of priests was the ability to forgive sins sacramentally, on behalf of God.

8) Matthew 3:5-6 is speaking of John the baptizer and his work. The confession of sins was an act of repentance here.

Exactly! So how does this rule out the Catholic belief of confessing sins to a priest, when it is a direct parallel of sinners "confessing their sins" to John? I don't get it. Rather than see a striking analogy, Mr. Cauley can only see difference, difference, difference. He has to; he has no choice. He has to disagree with Catholic teaching no matter what (no matter how often indicated in the Bible), so it leads him into many absurdities.

Acts 19:18 is in regard to pagans who were repenting. By confessing their sins they were showing repentance here as well.

Yes, and how is that a disproof of the Catholic belief and practice? Again, I am completely at a loss to understand how Mr. Cauley's reasoning works.

1 John 1:9 is not even speaking of men, but God! To take this passage and use it to support their doctrine of confession is to wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.

Not at all. All I was claiming, anyway, was "confession is also indicated in . . . " That's it. And I produced three passages from the Bible, all of which referred to confession. That doesn't mean that every particular of our belief will be in any given verse. They don't have to be. But all the particulars can be found, when all the relevant texts are considered together. Mr. Cauley's problem is that he doesn't seem concerned to synthesize all these into some harmonious whole. We agree that God forgives our sins. But He can choose to do so through a priest. God can do whatever He wants. He can communicate to someone through a donkey, as with Balaam, if that's what it takes.

9) Christians are supposed to confess their sins one to another (James 5:16),

Yes, but that doesn't rule out confession to a priest. The latter is simply a smaller sub-group of the former, not a contradiction, as often supposed.

but this is a far cry from the formal type of confession the Catholic church would have us to believe.

That is found in kernel form in the indications of binding and loosing, and in the example of Paul exercising this function right in Scripture. Doctrines develop, and we don't always find them explicit in Scripture (hence even trinitarianism and Christology took four or five centuries to fully develop). But that is no disproof. There is more than enough in Scripture to indicate the truth of this doctrine.

My "Neo-Conservative 'Messianic'" Affinities? Weird Remark From Bob Sungenis

Bob Sungenis, Catholic apologist and recently, so-called "Catholic traditionalist," wrote about me in a recent article on his website:
The real problem here is that, just like his view of the pope, Mirus will not allow anyone to question the motives and agenda of the Zionists of Israel. (He and his neo-conservative "messianic" political affiliates (eg., Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, Shawn Hannity, Rod Dreher, et al., names which you can see promoted on Dave Armstrong’s website).

(Jeffrey Mirus: Self-Appointed Policeman of Catholic Internet Sites [Part] 2)

This is no big deal at all. But I just found it, well, "weird" (per my title), since I don't have the slightest idea of where he gets this idea, and I found it curious. I post curiosities here sometimes, just to have something to talk about, out of the ordinary; chit chat; no more, no less (as I certainly have enough super-serious, "heavy" material). As I recall (though I may have forgotten), I have scarcely mentioned Coulter, Kristol, or Hannity at all (I may have a link to an article by them somewhere). I don't discuss politics all that much on my website or blog, or even current events in Israel. I did do some election political commentary, but that was largely in terms of polls and predictions. When I write about politics at all, it is usually about abortion. I also disagreed with a fellow Catholics' position against the war in Iraq in a recent debate.

I don't even have cable TV, so I don't watch any of these people's shows. I see Bill Kristol occasionally on one of the Sunday morning news talk shows, and agree with a lot of what he says, politically. I've heard Hannity a few times, mostly when he sub-hosted for Rush Limbaugh (whom I listen to very little: almost exclusively during election seasons, anymore). But so what? That hardly equates with "promoting" either of them, or Ann Coulter (who seems pretty cool, the few times I have read her stuff or seen her on TV at my parents house - who have cable -). Where does this observation come from, then?! I find it pretty funny.

I did indeed mention Rod Dreher on my website, in one context only: with regard to the sexual scandal in the Church, on my "Catholic Scandals" page (five links), but these were his articles which consisted of scathingly critical remarks about the Church and what went on in that sad, tragic scandal, so Sungenis could hardly object to that, given his recent overwhelming agenda (seems like he should be cheering me on). I had never even heard of Dreher before that, nor have I read anything of his since. Nor do I have any particular plans to do so (regarding him or any of the other three). So I wonder from whence this observation comes?

Still curious, I did a search on Google of "Hannity Dave Armstrong" and could find not a thing. I did the same for "Coulter Dave Armstrong" and came across one link on my site to an article of hers: again, on the sexual scandal. But again, this was a subject matter that I can't imagine Bob would disagree with ("Should Gay Priests Adopt?"). She was being critical of precisely what she should be critical of: the nefarious homosexual and liberal agendas within certain circles of the Church. If this amounts to my "promotion" of her (a link to one article that Bob would presumably agree with), then so be it. I find that ridiculous, but what can I do?

Then I searched for "Kristol Dave Armstrong". Again, I came up with all zeroes. Yet I am somehow "promoting" him? I can't even find anything I have written at all about the guy (or Hannity or Coulter)! LOL Wow . . .

I will forward this post to Bob, and see how he explains this. This is much ado about nothing, and of no importance in the larger scheme of things. Much more troubling are the remarks with which Bob Sungenis concludes his article:
Mirus' approach to the Galileo issue is common in Catholic apologetics today. They have accepted, without question, the dogma of modern science, but the truth is there is not the slightest proof that Galileo was correct. Still, these apologists would rather make our previous popes, their Sacred Congregations and St. Robert Bellarmine look like idiots rather than even entertain the possibility that modern cosmology could be wrong. For them, modern science is their god. The truth is, they know very little about true science. True science admits that there is no proof for heliocentrism, but you would never know that from people like Jeffrey Mirus. And if someone like me even suggests that modern science is wrong and that the Church of the 17th century was right, the wrath of "Catholic Apologists" will come upon you like an avalanche. I can only conclude that I am not dealing with true Catholics but those who are either mired in ignorance or who have an agenda with the darker side of this world.
Since Bob had just cited Gary Hoge at length: a friend of mine and great apologist who has disagreed with, and debated Bob at great length about the "controversial" facts that the earth rotates and goes around the sun, and since Bob is scathingly critical of Mirus in this article, and by extension (or direct statement), many other Catholic apologists (note how he puts the description in quotation marks), does this mean that Bob thinks Hoge, Mirus, perhaps even myself, and many other apologists who disagree with him on various things (e.g., Scott Hahn, whom he has vigorously critiqued, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, Steve Ray, - all colleagues and friends of mine to one degree or another - , and many others), are not "true Catholics," and in league with the "darker side of this world"?

It would seem so, but hey, maybe I'm misreading something. I would prefer to hear what Bob has to say about it. I will inform him that whatever he writes to me privately about this, I will post here, for the sake of my readers. Since he has made these charges publicly, he ought to defend them publicly, too.