Thomas E. Woods, Jr., radical "traditionalist," co-author of the notorious book *The Great Facade*, and writer for the "Seattle Catholic"

"Traditionalist" Errors of the "Seattle Catholic" Documented

Here are my six distinguishing marks for the sort of belief-system that I oppose and call (Catholic) "traditionalism" (in quotes, because I believe it to be a misnomer):

1. Many “traditionalists” believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is either invalid or "objectively offensive to God."

2. Many “traditionalists” believe that the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is qualitatively different from preceding councils, or invalid, or intrinsically heretical (modernist), or shot-through with modernist "ambiguity," or a corruption or "evolution" of received Catholic dogma -- as opposed to a consistent (Newmanian and Vincentian and Thomistic) development -- so that it is not binding on Catholics, and may be routinely opposed, and not obeyed.

3. Many “traditionalists” believe that Vatican II is the root and central cause of the present modernist crisis (as opposed to the machinations of theological liberals and heterodox, who "hijacked" or "co-opted," distorted and twisted the orthodox, papally-approved council for their own wicked ends).

4. Many “traditionalists” believe that the pontificates of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are qualitatively different from those preceding them, or that they have knowingly (or even unknowingly, as dupes) presided over the destruction of the traditional Catholic faith, passed down from the apostles, or that they are material or formal heretics.

5. Many “traditionalists” believe that (authentic Catholic) ecumenism, or the notion of religious liberty, or salvation outside the Church, properly understood in light of Sacred Tradition -- as promulgated and developed especially by Vatican II -- are radical innovations not present (not even in kernel form) in previous received apostolic Catholic Tradition.

6. Many “traditionalists” believe that the Catholic Church could actually institutionally depart from the True Faith (defectibility). This includes conspiratorial notions that the Church could be substantially and institutionally overthrown by movements such as Freemasonry, the New World Order, Radical Secularism or Humanism, Enlightenment philosophies, Protestantizing elements, etc.

Now, lest I be accused of caricaturing "traditionalism" (i.e., the most extreme variety, that I habitually critique, not simply devotion to the traditional Mass, etc.), three self-described traditionalists responded to these six points on my blog and stated what they agreed and disagreed with:

Ben Douglass (affiliated with Robert Sungenis' website; remarks of 4-22-05):

"I categorically reject #1 . . . I believe that the Counciliar documents are ambiguous in places, but not errant . . . It [Vatican II] is a contributing cause [to the Church's crisis], not because of what it is in and of itself, but because of how it lends itself to misuse through lack of clarity, in places . . . In any case, the traditional Catholic faith has been preserved . . . I have no problem with authentic Catholic ecumenism . . . I categorically reject #6."

Total: rejects 6 out of 6.

Kevin Tierney (blogmaster and apologist; remarks of 4-22-05):

". . . your six rather arbitrary points on traditionalism . . . [1] Of course not . . . [2] As far as reiterations of past dogma and even on policy manners, one cannot state the position is heresy, and a presumption that the Church just screwed everything up is not a healthy one . . . [3] Very few traditionalists I argue would say it is the root . . . unintended consequences . . . [4] . . . The Popes have acknowledged this, and with one approach or another have attempted to fight it, success in some areas, failure in others. Yet the law must be drawn at calling them heretics, for even if we were to have our suspicions (which I do not), . . . "Elsewhere, he didn't rule out some form of legitimate ecumenism, and I highly doubt that he would assert defectibility of the Church, so I will assume he rejects all six as well, rightly-understood.

Total: rejects 6 out of 6.

"Breier" (remarks of 4-22-05):

"I think I reject them all in the sense you probably take them . . . [this is correct; he rejects what I reject, and what he accepts, I was not dealing with] In any event, I tend to think your six points where not written with a thoughtful academic critique in mind, but were more directed to those we'd call "radical traditionalists," or generally people with more zeal than good sense." [correctamundo!!!!!]

Total: rejects 6 out of 6.

So we have unanimous agreement in rejecting (in a broad, general sense) the points I raise as distinguishing radical "quasi-schismatic traditionalism". Therefore, we proceed with this agreement, to our critique, where I believe I have demonstrated that this newspaper repeatedly espouses various of the six errors that the three men above agree with me are wrong. Since we all agree that they are errors, the only discussion remaining is whether I have incorrectly deduced an espousal of one or more of the six points, in particular instances. And that is a discussion where good men can disagree honestly in good faith (and also we might disagree on my present central thesis of denying that the Seattle Catholic is an advocate of "sensible, balanced, non-radical traditionalism"). So the agreements here are really quite a bit more significant than the disagreements.

Now I shall proceed to examine some articles that the Seattle Catholic saw fit to print, and determine whether they fall prey to any of these six very harmful characteristics. In other words, does this paper espouse a legitimate form of traditionalism, or one which contains the pernicious errors above? The answer is distressing, as you will see. Citations will be followed by a number in parentheses, in red, corresponding to one of the errors above.
=====================================

Never Lose Focus on the Complete Picture
Thomas A. Droleskey (23 August 2004)

Even if Rome granted an Apostolic Administration for the Traditional Latin Mass, obeisance would still have to be paid to the disaster that is the Second Vatican Council and the horror that is the Novus Ordo Missae. (1) (2)

Rome itself must reject the regime of novelty of the past forty years, which is itself an ecclesial embrace of the very errors of modernity that coalesced into Modernism, critiqued so thoroughly by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Domenici Gregis in 1907. (3?) (4) (6?)

This, then, is my final contribution to the Seattle Catholic site, which is such a vital source of news and information on the Internet. . . . I will still try to produce articles twice a month for The Remnant. [a radical "traditionalist" periodical]

The Vatican II Renewal: Myth or Reality
Kenneth C. Jones (8 December 2003)

(The following article is reprinted with permission from The Latin Mass magazine.)

. . . it is beyond question that our Holy Mother Church is again falling into ruins . . . understand and respond to the emergency before it is too late. (6)

The myth that the Council did not cause the crisis in the Church — the post hoc ergo propter hoc objection. (3)

These hard facts show a growing, vibrant, militant Church at the time the Second Vatican Council opened. Attempts to portray it otherwise are revisionist history by those who want to justify or explain away the revolution in the Church since the Council. (3)

The final myth I want to discuss is the idea that the crisis we now face was not caused by the Council or the changes imposed in its name. (3)

I think the burden is on those who make the post hoc argument to offer a better reason. If the changes made after Vatican II did not cause the crisis, what did? They offer no other reason. (3)

. . . it's time we discard New Catholicism, as we discarded New Coke. It's time to bring back Catholicism Classic, the real thing. (3)

No Wonder Our Ranks Keep Growing
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (3 November 2003)

. . . the ongoing post-conciliar revolution. (3)

Isn't one interpretation of the catastrophe that has resulted from revolutionizing the Church that the pre-conciliar Church may have been on to something after all? (3)

Revolutionary Parallels
Peter W. Miller (2 August 2004)

Responding to the ever-growing disenchantment many Catholics are starting to realize regarding what we are still being told is a "New Springtime" for the Church, a number of "Why Vatican II was Necessary," "How the Council Saved the Church," "Vatican II - We Love You," type of articles have been appearing with a greater frequency in a number of publications. With an underwhelming amount of direct evidence for positive results from Vatican II, the line of argumentation quickly turns to perhaps the last vestige of a revolutionary apologist - undocumented and largely anecdotal attacks on aspects of the pre-Conciliar Church. (2) (3)

Similarly, the post-Conciliar revolutionaries in the Church are having an increasingly hard time demonstrating the success of what they worked so hard to create. Faced with discouraging numbers and a universal impression of chaos to those within and without, they stubbornly stick to their guns. More and more people are starting to recognize the folly of this program, but when speaking out, are faced with the problem of authority since, by and large, those holding positions of authority in the Church are still those who wholeheartedly support the current revolution in which we find ourselves.

Catholic prelates are increasingly finding themselves in the position of Martin Luther, wondering why the revolution they helped facilitate is failing to draw new adherents, or why they are needing to fight a growing counter-effort seeking to undo what they have established. (3)

Revisiting Some Old Questions
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (25 July 2003)

The new rite itself, of course, by breaking dramatically with liturgical tradition, de-emphasizing important Catholic doctrines, and imposing bland, manufactured prayers, has severed one of the Catholic's most tangible links to the communion of saints. No longer does he worship in a manner that those who came before him would have recognized . . . Roman Rite Catholics have been rendered spiritual orphans, rootless and rudderless in a hostile world. (1)

Common Ground on the Catholic Crisis
Peter W. Miller (4 April 2003)

Most orthodox Catholics are by now able to readily acknowledge the severe crisis the Church is facing in a number of areas: liturgically, doctrinally, pastorally, morally, and so on. Although conservative and traditional Catholics may agree on many things (and most importantly the Doctrines of the Faith), their disagreement as to the specific causes and contributors (particularly the role played by recent Popes, the Second Vatican Council and the liturgical modifications) have been the source of an ever-increasing amount of friction and vitriol. (1) (3) (4)

More so than any other, the point of contention revolves around the Second Vatican Council and the role it played in "causing" the current crisis. Those who take up certain criticisms of the Council are accused of committing the logical fallacy, post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after the fact, therefore because of the fact); that is, they falsely assert something that happened after the Council was caused by the Council merely because of the temporal sequence. Such would be a legitimate criticism if that were the crux of traditionalist arguments, but once the issue turns to citing specific examples which support one's case, the defense must turn to a more direct refutation rather than a reiteration of a supposed logical fallacy that could no longer apply, if indeed it ever did at all. (3)

When speaking of the relationship between the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar crisis, "cause" is perhaps too strong a word. Rather than an originating cause of these problems, Vatican II was more of a catalyst or mechanism by which certain problems already affecting the Church were amplified and given an apparently authoritative basis. As mentioned before, liberalism can generally be regarded as the true cause; the argument then becomes whether Vatican II aided the advancement of liberalism which was already making strides in previous decades or effectively confronted and curtailed it. (3)

Although such figures show the difficulty of those who maintain or suggest that the Second Vatican Council was the sole cause or absolute starting point of all current problems in the Church (which I'm not certain anyone actually does, unfortunate choices of phrasing notwithstanding), arguing that the Council was not a "disaster" does not necessarily keep it from being characterized as a "failure". (2)

It doesn't take much imagination to surmise that had Vatican II never have come about, the Church would not be experiencing any glorious age in 2003. We would most likely be facing many of the same problems, but would they be as bad? Would Catholics accept all the claims of renegades if there were no Council to which they could appeal for authority? If the Mass itself were not drastically altered, would other changes have been possible? Without a Council to mark a shift the Church's orientation, would subsequent Popes have tolerated any of this?

If the post-conciliar Church were strong with faithful Catholics and effective governance, the Second Vatican Council would most likely not have had any significant negative impact and we would be living in better times. Vatican II was not inherently bad or evil, but due to the influence of liberals and the freedom they were given, certain deficiencies and ambiguities ended up in the resulting documents and were seized upon by most of those same individuals in order to drive through their agenda.

. . . To maintain that the Second Vatican Council was a destructive force which descended upon a glorious Church to usher in the present crisis is to overlook plain and basic facts; but to absolve it from any and all culpability due to the previous existence of problems or a tentative understanding on the nature and outcome of Ecumenical Councils demonstrates an even greater obstinacy. . [relatively helpful, qualified observations]

Conservative and Traditional Catholicism Compared
Edward Faber (21 March 2003)

There is perhaps no contemporary theological discussion that alienates the traditionalists from everyone else in the Church than ecumenism. The tremendous force of John Paul II in the ecumenical direction has been welcomed by the conservatives, who justly point out that they often have more in common with their evangelical friends than with their fellow Catholics. The traditionalist is very uncomfortable with the whole ecumenical thing as it seems to compromise the unicity of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. While many traditionalists often accuse Vatican II of saying what it does not say about ecumenism, they rightly remain perplexed when the Church seems to whisper apologies for being the fullness of truth while then performing actions, be it on the papal or the diocesan or the parochial level which blatantly compromise that fact. (5)

There is a great attempt on the part of conservatives to distinguish between a true and a false ecumenism while trying to uphold the unicity of Christ and Catholicism and reconcile ecumenism and evangelization. Much ink has been spilled on the matter without there being any convincing theological resolution. The traditionalist ignores all of this, . . . (5)

A Brief Defense of Traditionalism: Responding to certain attacks and misconceptions
Peter W. Miller (21 December 2001)

As the heretics of yesterday have become the liberals of today, the liberals of yesterday now lay claim to the title "conservative". Consequentially the conservatives came to be known as "traditionalists". Unfortunately, these terms are no longer completely accurate descriptions. So for the purposes of this essay, I will use the following general definitions to delineate the differences between traditionalists and "conservatives": (3) (4?)

TRADITIONALIST: One who challenges the novel practices and teachings of Catholics (including bishops and priests) which appear to contradict the prior teaching of the Church. A traditionalist questions the prudence of new pastoral approaches and holds the belief that those things generally deemed objectively good or evil several decades ago remain so today.

"CONSERVATIVE": One who upholds and defends the current policies and positions of the Church hierarchy regardless of their novelty. . . . "Conservative" will be used it in quotation marks to avoid the misleading connotation of being diametrically opposed to liberalism or on the far right of the spectrum. [i.e., "conservatives" are really "liberals"]

Again, some "conservatives" claim all current Papal actions to be completely consistent with his predecessors and Vatican II completely in line with the history of the Church, while the Pope and Cardinals claim and celebrate the opposite. (2) (4)

And why are "conservatives" the only ones defending these documents? Why don't the actual authors in the hierarchy provide clarifications? While many "conservatives" are quick to defend some of the novel language Ut Unum Sint or Dominus Iesus as perfectly orthodox, such defenses have not been regular or forthcoming from the Vatican. And (as with the Novus Ordo) since when does something "perfectly orthodox" even need a defense? (1) (2) (5)

Traditionalists tend to place the "blame" for many modern issues on the Vatican Council and the New Mass (also Church governance which could be seen as an extension of conciliar-style "ecumenism" and "collegiality"). (1) (3) (4) (5)

Traditionalists make a compelling case for the role the "renewal" of Vatican II has played in the modern crisis. . . . Traditionalists believe the Second Vatican Council to be harmful to the Church. (2) (3)

Which brings us to the much heralded "Spirit of Vatican II" which is used to justify any and every aberration or heresy. Regardless of whether you see this as an abuse of the Council or the result of the logical progression it unleashed (I tend to favor the latter), such novelties would have no excuse were it not for the Council, and the laity would be less likely to accept them. Novelties on a far smaller scale went on before the Council but received limited support and were clearly seen for what they were. (3)

"Conservatives" are faced with another problem when they start blaming the current crisis on certain dissenting bishops and priests who spread heresy, dissent and scandal. If they are to blame, so is their leader. Who is the one in charge of governing the bishops and priests? Who is responsible for keeping them in line? If local policemen start a riot, you can bet the police chief and mayor will be held accountable. When Palestinian suicide bombers attack Israel, Arafat will certainly be held to blame. When a company is facing bankruptcy and losses, the CEO needs to answer for it. Pick any organizational analogy you like — teachers, parents, sports teams, schools, businesses, organizations, societies — the result is the same. The state of a household in ruin has something to do with its head — whether through misguided actions or the lack of appropriate response. So any attack against a liberal Cardinal or dissident bishop is an implication of Our Holy Father. (4)

As a final clarification, most traditionalists do not see the Second Vatican Council and Novus Ordo as formal "causes" of the modern crisis but catalysts which allowed a number of Modernists to come to the forefront and foist their ideas and heresies on the Church under the guise of a "renewal". Both marked a sort of "triumph" of liberal, masonic and Modernist ideals within the structure of the Church. It is not wholly inaccurate to claim that:

"What the French Revolution was to France, the Second Vatican Council was to the Catholic Church." (1) (3)

While the validity of the sacrament may not be up for debate, the prudence of the decisions supporting the revision (revolution) of the Roman Missal is not beyond questioning, especially given one of its chief objectives. If one objects to the current ecumenical direction and practices which humiliate the Catholic Faith and cost countless souls, why should the Novus Ordo Mass receive immunity? (1)

The dissidents on the left who were rightfully shunned a half century ago have seen their ideals (religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism) gain great measures of support in the Vatican. (5)

"Conservatives" would dread having to get down on their knees every night worrying what the Pope is going to do or say next; or how many potential converts are being lost due to the ecumenical shenanigans; or how an orthodox priest will ever be able to make it through a seminary without getting expelled for being too Catholic; or what type of man a College of Cardinals which includes Mahony and Kasper will elect to succeed John Paul II. (4) (5)

[yeah!!!! What kind of man would be elected by all those "conservative/liberal" John Paul II appointees? Well: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: without a doubt the "traditionalists"' very favorite and most-cited Cardinal (particularly with regard to lituregical abuses). What a "revolution" and conspiracy in the Church against "traditionalism" and orthodoxy, and a blow against reform of liturgical abuses, huh? What, did all these "conservative/liberal" Cardinals wake up overnight and discover the wondrous truths of "traditionalism", which caused them to elect the right man? Hmm????]

It is ludicrous to share in the Vatican illusion of a "Springtime of Vatican II" when all eye can see is a devastated vineyard. (3)

[in an older online version of this article (as late as February 2004; removed by April 2004), there was an additional section, entitled "POST SCRIPT: 'Wandering' aimlessly? ," where the author gives his thoughts about a controversy between The Wanderer and ["traditionalist" periodical] The Remnant. It's not clear whether the removal of this piece suggests a move away from more radical "traditionalism" on the part of Miller or not. His article, "Common Ground . . . ", above, contains some relatively balanced statements on Vatican II, so it could be indicative of a positive trend in his thought; yet the "Postcript" remained for about a year after this article appeared]:

The Remnant (an American traditional Catholic periodical whose editor was among the targets of the attack) published a series of responses which defended the individuals singled out, as well as Catholic traditionalism as a whole (FULL TEXT). The responses demonstrated the obvious inconsistencies of the attack and summarily refuted what anti-traditionalist arguments were made. To the objective observer, the original work was destroyed and the author embarrassed. As much was obvious even to a non-objective "conservative" observer. I know because I was one.

Like any good "conservative", I would react strongly against those who claimed that Vatican II or the Novus Ordo Mass had any deficiencies — they were both doctrinally sound but unexplainably hijacked and abused by evil men. (1) (2)

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger were my role models and the shining examples of wonderful "conservative" Catholicism in an increasingly liberal world — the generals fighting the "culture of death". (4)

I knew all the "conservative" mantras: . . . "Pope John Paul II brought about the 'fall' of Communism"; (4?)

While the problems were already becoming quite apparent before even reading the responses, I (like several other "conservatives" I knew) acquired copies of The Remnant to read them for myself. What I knew would be a relatively easy defense became a complete and irrefutable annihilation of The Wanderer and the work they mistakenly chose to print.

Since that event, The Wanderer has been on a very questionable "trajectory". . . . The criticisms of Cardinals and bishops have become less frequent as the actions of their superiors in the Vatican have become more similar. (4)

The name is becoming more and more fitting as the direction in which this periodical is "wandering" becomes more and more unclear.

Is Lutheranism Officially Anti-Catholic (The Book of Concord and the Catholic Mass)?

The following dialogue with Lutheran "BWL" occurred in comments below. Since I did a little work in my reply, I thought it would be appropriate to make it a new paper of its own. His words will be in blue. Citations from the Book of Concord will be in green.
-------------------------------

Not to be nit-picky, but my understanding is that Luther and Calvin saw the RCC not as a false church, but as an impure one, which is an important distinction. They both recognized the validity of Catholic baptisms, and Luther thought the RC also had a true communion. Although Luther was critical of certain elements of RC communion practice (communion in one kind, the mass as a sacrifice) he did famously say that he'd rather drink blood with the pope than wine with the Reformed. Just a suggestion, but if you want to take on anti-Catholics, bringing up Calvin and Luther's view of Rome actually helps your case.

As I've mentioned before, this should work against Reformed Baptist types by showing how Luther and Calvin would see their sacramentology (or anti-sacramentology, however you want to put this) as conflicting with Reformational soteriology. In other words, on the whole it helps you to point out how while Reform Baptist like to claim the mantel of defending the Reformation they actually conflict with the Reformers on numerous and important points.

I believe that it is a mixed-bag, when it comes to Luther and Calvin's view of the Catholic Church. I think they contradict themselves. I've found it impossible to interpret their views in this vein in a consistent, coherent fashion. For my documentation, see my papers:

John Calvin's View of the Catholic Church

Dialogue With Dr. Paul Owen on John Calvin's Anti-Catholicism

Did Martin Luther Regard the (Roman) Catholic Church as a Non-Christian, Apostate Institution?: Featuring dozens of citations from Luther's own writings; particularly On the Councils and the Churches (1539) and Against Hans Wurst (1541)

Luther's (and Calvin's) View of the Catholic Church

On the other hand, I've written about Luther's more "Catholic" beliefs:

The Pro-Catholic Side of Martin Luther

I'd be delighted to conclude that they regarded Catholics as more or less equal brothers-in-Christ, but there is too much that suggests otherwise, which has never been adequately explained to me by those like yourself who believe that they were not anti-Catholics (you're welcome to be the first; be my guest). I always say regarding Calvin, that if he thinks I participate in the grossest blasphemy, sacrilege, and idolatry every week at Mass, then that can hardly be squared with thinking that all this is Christian.

First, as you know Luther was prone to uh, exaggerations and harsh, polemical language. This certainly was a big flaw of his, though it's worth pointing out his Catholic oppenents were at times prone to nasty polemics at first. My point is, however, that Luther should be taken with a grain of salt.

Are you maintaining, then, that every time Luther wrote something which could reasonably be construed as denying that the Catholic Church is truly Christian, it should be taken in this way, as merely his exess in language? There is not a single instance of these utterances that he meant literally? It seems to me that this would be an extraordinary claim, and almost impossible to prove.

To my knowledge, however, Luther and the Lutheran church has always regarded Rome as a christian church, though an impure one with many doctrinal flaws. That includes the sacrifice of the mass. I don't see, however, why you think serious disagreements in this regard makes Luther and the Lutherans, for example, "anti-Catholic."

I think it has to be judged on an individual case basis (as regards individual opinions). Lutherans, like Anglicans and Reformed, contain both views, and many members seem confused about even their own positions.

The RCC doesn't recognize Lutheran orders, nor from what I understand does it think that Lutherans receive Christ's true body and blood when they take communion.

That's correct.

So, if the Lutheran disagreement over the sacrifice of the mass makes Lutherans "anti-Catholic", why isn't the Catholic church "anti-Lutheran" since the RC doesn't recognize Lutheran communion?

The difference would be IF the mass is considered blasphemy and sacrilege and idolatry (whereas we would never say that about a Lutheran service, or any standard Protestant worship service; we would say they convey grace of some sort, even if not technically "sacramental").

The above view (where it occurs) would make the mass, by definition, a non-Christian thing. Then you would be in the incoherent, odd position of agreeing that Catholicism is Christian, despite the fact that its central rite is utterly non-Christian (and, far beyond that, anti-Christian, as it is idolatry, blasphemy, etc.). Quite a bizarre state of affairs, there . . .

In fact, the Book of Concord confirms my suspicion that Lutheranism is officially anti-Catholic. Lutherans are bound to this as their confession, so it can't be cavalierly dismissed as some old irrelevant document.

Smalcald Articles [1537], Part II, Article II: The Mass:

The Mass in the papacy must be regarded as the greatest and most horrible abomination because it runs into direct and violent conflict with this fundamental article. Yet, above and beyond all others, it has been the supreme and most precious of the papal idolatries . . .

If there were reasonable papists, one would speak to them in the following friendly fashion:

"Why do you cling so tenaciously to your Masses?

1. "After all, they are a purely human invention. They are not commanded by God . . . Christ says, 'In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men' (Matt. 15:9)."

. . . 3. . . . "one can be saved in a better way without the Mass. Will the Mass not then collapse of itself -- not only for the rude rabble, but also for all godly, Christian, sensible, God-fearing people -- especially if they hear that it is a dangerous thing which was fabricated and invented without God's Word and will?"

. . . 5. "The Mass is and can be nothing else that a human work, even a work of evil scoundrels . . ."

Accordingly we are and remain eternally divided and opposed the one to the other. The papists are well aware that if the Mass falls, the papacy will fall with it.Before they would permit this to happen, they would put us all to death.

Besides, this dragon's tail -- that is, the Mass -- has brought forth a brood of vermin and the poison of manifest idolatries.

(The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, pp. 293-294)

Apology of the Augsburg Confession [1531], Article XXIV: The Mass

Carnal men cannot stand it when only the sacrifice of Christ is honored as a propitiation. For they do not understand thew righteousness of faith but give equal honor to other sacrifices and services. A false idea clung to the wicked priests in Judah, and in Israel the worship of Baal continued; yet the church of God was there, condemning wicked services. So in the papal realm the worship of Baal clings -- namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God's command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith.

(Tappert, ibid., 268)

I guess at the end of the day I don't see why strong disagreements among Christians makes them "anti".

Not disagreements, but denial of the status of other Christians as Christians. It's the devil's biggest victory: if half of the Body of Christ denies that the other half even belongs in the Body at all, then what could be better for the devil's purposes? We'll always be hopelessly divided. So the world keeps going to hell because (anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Orthodox) Christians can't even recognize fellow believers.

If we all recognize each others baptisms, why is this "anti" stuff even a real question? It's not like Lutherans are Reformed or fundamentalist Baptists or something.

Because (obviously) if anti-Catholicism is entrenched in both the founding confessional documents and the founders of a religious point of view, then it will continue on, because it was in the roots from the beginning. How Lutherans square the realities of these aspects of the Book of Concord, I don't know, but it creates an internal contradiction if one says that they follow the Lutheran confessions, yet dissent on the nature of the Mass and so forth, and are not themselves anti-Catholic.

How would you square these two things, BWL, if you have become aware of some passages that perhaps you were not aware of before, in the Book of Concord? I'm very curious. There may very well be a way that ecumenical Lutherans reconcile this, through some interpretive means that I am not yet aware of. I'd be more than happy to be educated by those who feel that they have a solution to this apparent dilemma for ecumenical Lutherans. Please (you or friends of yours who might help us better understand) teach me . . . I don't want division; I would love for there to be a way to reconcile these two things. No one would be happier than I would be to learn that there is some coherent explanation of this, so that anti-Catholicism is not necessary to hold as a confessional Lutheran.

"Some Thoughts From a Former Catholic"

I received this letter from one Brian Literski (bltrski@yahoo.com). Here it is, unedited, with a second note he also sent. I declined debate with him (per my policy on anti-Catholics) but invited him to come to this blog and intereact with my readers:

----------------

Dear Dave,

I stumbled onto your site while surfing the net. I am
a former roman catholic. Actually I was only a roman
catholic by virtue of being raised in the catholic
system until I was 15, the age i stopped attending
religious services and religious classes.
I was never a catholic by choice.

I became a born-again christian in 1981/1982. A time
after my salvation I studied the official and approved
teachings and doctrines of romanism.

Sir, you've likely heard it before but let me say it
again, the "church" of Rome is and always has been a
christian cult:; in fact it is the "christianized"
religion of babylon.

What I say I say without hyperbolic rhetoric: the
extra-biblical teachings of Rome (tradition) are an
abhorrent and vile abomination

The "Mass" of the roman system is the quintessential
abomination taught and practiced by Rome. Sinful
mortals (roman priests) pretend to claim the
high-priestly office (the priesthood of Melchizedek
that God alone holds--see Hebrews chapter 7) and
thereby perpetuate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ,
although in a bloodless manner.

Mr. Armsrtrong, you claim to be a christian. Sir, if
Jesus Christ is your Lord as you claim, you would
accept His words at face value, for there is no
equivocation or vagueness to His words. Regarding His
sacrifice for the sins of the world He said on the
cross, "It is finished." Finished, completed,
accomplished, done.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the
vinegar, he said, IT IS FINISHED: and he bowed his
head, and gave up the ghost.

Also,

Rom 6:10 For in that he died, HE DIED UNTO SIN ONCE:
but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead
DIETH NO MORE; DEATH HATH NO MORE DOMINION OVER HIM.

Mr. Armstrong these scriptures make plain that the
very core teaching of romanism, the mass, is an
unbiblical lie that the church of Rome uses to
inexorably bind spiritually blind and deceived souls
to itself.

Rom. 6:9 above says Jesus Christ dies no more, He is
forever resurrected from the dead, death has no more
power over Him Yet the church of Rome through its
priestcraft claims otherwise. Rome's "tradition"
claims Christ Jesus is perpetually dying in the
"sacrifice of the nass." that DEATH STILL DOES HAVE
DOMINION OVER HIM! Jesus Christ in His own words and
through His inspired written word, the Holy Bible,
perfectally refutes the lie that is the alleged
perpetual sacrifice of Himself in the blasphemous
occult ritual that is the mass of the "church' of
Rome.

Rome claims the mass is a "bloodless sacrifice." For a
sacrifice to be effectual, according to the Bible,
BLOOD MUST BE SHED.If the sacrifice allegedly
occurring in the mass is to be effectual for the
remission of sins BLOOD MUST BE SHED. No blood is shed
in the mass, nor how could it be: human blood can't be
squeezed from a turnip, let alone from wafer
bread.Since no blood is shed in the mass the mass as a
means for the remission of sins is an impotent,
blasphemous fraud.

Heb. 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged
with blood; and WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS NO
REMISSION.

Mr. Armstrong the plain, simple, unequivocal,
straight-forward language of these scriptures I've
included here make plain why Rome has banned the Bible
from its adherents throughout its history, they had
something to hide: the truth.

Matt. 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect
through your tradition... The Word of God, the Bible,
is nade of none effect to the deceived multitudes
tethered to the "chuch' of Rome.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall
they heap to themselves teachers, having itching
ears;.

Mr. Armstrong real christians don't glory in the
brutal, bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins
of the world as romanism does and is wont to do, we
glory in His resurrection in that we too, like our
savior, are raised to newness of life.

There is only one person who delights in the perpetual
death, the gruesome sacrifice of the Lord Jesus:
Satan, the Father lies. Satan's "finest hour" or so he
thought was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Christ's
resurrection spoiled Satan's plans. If there was ever
an indicator who the lord of romanism is, its the
alleged "resacrifice" thousands of times a day around
the world of Jesus Christ. Only Satan glorys in Christ
Jesus' death, and so Satan's creation, the church of
Rome, sees Christ Jesus allegedly killed again and
again, ad infinitum, in their filthy ritual known as
the mass.

Rev. 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven,
saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her
plagues.

Come out of her Mr. Armstrong!

Sincerely'
Brian Literski

=========

Dear Dave,

Please know my commentary I sent you is not a personal attack!!

Just wanted to clarify my "thoughts from a formercatholic" letter I sent you is in no way intended as apersonal attack against you or any roman catholic. As a former catholic my desire is to share the truth with catholics, albeit in a straightforward, no-nonsense way. I've learned as a christian of 24 years in sharing the gospel, particularly when it involves exposing falsehood, no matter how you present it the truth will be painful to hear to those who hear it. As someone who's shared the gospel with many catholics through the years I've decided long ago not to mince words on the issue of the un-biblical, "tradition"based teachings of catholicism that only deceives and misleads them from the perfect liberty available to them in Christ Jesus by grace through faith alone.

Sincerely,
Brian Literski

Dr. James Dobson and "Anti-Catholicism"

I love James Dobson, and all the tremendous good he has accomplished. Let's get that straight first. I've listened to the man off and on for some 23 years now. But like so many Protestants, even a good (I would also say, great) man like this is quite confused and ambiguous, if not contradictory, when it comes to Catholicism. Hence, we learn, in an article entitled, Dobson can't decide whether anti-Catholic bigotry is OK, on the Media Matters for America website, of this exchange on the Fox News' talk show Hannity & Colmes:

[ALAN] COLMES: You are participating in an event this Sunday, "Justice Sunday." And among those there will be Dr. Alan [sic] Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who said a few years ago, "As an evangelical, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church. It teaches a false gospel. And the Pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office."

Are you concerned about the anti-Catholicism of some of the people you are participating with to fight the filibuster?

[....]

DOBSON: Well, first of all, he [Mohler] did not make a vehement anti-Catholic statement. He's a Southern Baptist, for Pete's sake.

You expect a Southern Baptist to say that he does not honor the pope in the same way the Catholics do. It's a different theology. Is that not right? That's not an attack on the Catholic Church.

------------------------

Where to begin? No, we don't expect Southern Baptists to be Catholics in their ecclesiology. That's a no-brainer and nothing to argue about. Nor do we dispute that Catholicism teaches a "different theology" (in some respects, but none amounting to a denial of Christianity). But as to whether the statement cited is an "attack on the Catholic Church," it certainly is!!! How could it not be? And how could it not be seen as anti-Catholic? Mohler said that the Catholic Church was a "false church" that teaches a "false gospel." If a group does not teach the gospel it is not a Christian group, period. End of discussion. We don't even need to analyze what is meant by a "false Church" (though if we look at the rhetoric of Luther and Calvin, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce what they mean by it). But somehow Dobson doesn't see this as a manifestation of anti-Catholicism. Amazing . . .

Dobson might clarify and re-state what he was trying to express. Let's hope . . .

A Cool Mathematical Analogy For the Holy Trinity

From Catholic writer and blogmaster Elena (not sure if she wants to give out her last name, so I didn't) -- who has distinguished herself by actually being that one-in-a-thousand person who could make it through my entire 2nd counter-reply to atheist Bob Hypes (a whopping 270K in length) without long since dozing off (as she informed me by e-mail)!!!!!

1+1+1 Does =1: The Trinity in the Mathematics of Motion and Action

I'm no mathematical expert (my last class was Algebra 4 in high school, c. 1975, and I couldn't wait to be done with that!), but this seems legitimate to me. I'd be interested in further comments from Elena and/or those more educated in math and science (perhaps physics would be particularly relevant here, too, as it is a discussion of dimension).

This argument appears to me to be somewhat similar to C.S. Lewis's famous analogy of "flatland," squares, and cubes in his Mere Christianity. He said that the flatlanders couldn't imagine a two dimension plane, and that those in that world without a third dimension could not imagine the third. Yet all three exist, and a cube has a "oneness" just as a plane and a line do. In our world, one being is one person. But why should we think our experience is the whole of reality? What is intrinsically impossible about a Being Who Subsists in Three Persons (Being and Person being two distinct categories, so that this is not an automatic contradiction)? The Holy Trinity is not at all impossible a priori (philosophically-speaking, and in terms of simple logic).

It wouldn't be the first time, after all that science / math has confirmed (or at any rate, was shown to be entirely consistent with) a Christian dogma:

1) Einstein's theories of relativity made it more sensible and "scientifically respectable" to conceive of a Being outside of time as we know it (a friend of mine who is big into Isaac Newton and who frowns upon Einstein, actually thinks that God is in time, which is heretical from a biblical perspective).

2) Likewise, the non-eternal universe that had a (rather inexplicable, in materialistic terms) beginning, is now scientific, cosmological orthodoxy, courtesy of the Big Bang Theory.

3) I would also say that Intelligent Design (within some form of creationist or evolutionist paradigm; it's consistent with either) is a compelling scientific variant of the old philosophical Argument From Design (or Teleological Argument).

We have nothing to fear from science. Quite the contrary; it is the materialistic scientists and the atheists who seem to irrationally fear any hint of suggestion from science that God might be an actuality in this universe, and in fact, right in the center of it, as the Bible taught us 2000 years ago (KJV):

ROMANS 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, {are} all things: to whom {be} glory for ever. Amen.

HEBREWS 2:10 For it became him, for whom {are} all things, and by whom {are} all things, . . .

ACTS 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . . For we are also his offspring.

1 TIMOTHY 6:13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, . . .

NEHEMIAH 9:6 . . . thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all {things} that {are} therein, . . . and thou preservest them all . . .

COLOSSIANS 1:17 . . . by him all things consist.

HEBREWS 1:3 . . . upholding all things by the word of his power, . . .

Great work, Elena! Be sure to pay a visit to her blog, Web Musings.

James White Gets His Wish!!! So-Called "Marian Stains"

Dave Armstrong: Catholic apologist and defender of papal infallibility and supremacy, would like to state, firmly and unambiguously:

Look, people, this kind of thing is absurd and ridiculous. Pure superstition, . . . and worthy of at the very least church discipline.

[see: "More Mary Stains"]

But remember, you didn't "hear" the above (as White predicted). It was merely an "apparition."

White asked (quite reasonably, in my opinion):

. . . why are all these folks finding pictures of Mary in the grimy stains left by reconstituted water . . . or salt-filled road run off on a freeway underpass?

Why, indeed? I think it is a ridiculous display of what might be called "Rorschach Catholicism." I would only disagree with calling this "idolatrous" because that requires putting something in the place of God, and above God. Since Catholics don't do that with regard to the Blessed Virgin, it is not accurate to call veneration of her (even with the aid of a silly stain thought to be supernatural) an act of idolatry. Mary is simply not raised above God in Catholic teaching, nor adored as only God can be. I think 99% of even these Catholics gullible enough to believe in this nonsense would understand that.

If I were there at this farcical "shrine" I would denounce it in no uncertain terms and tell the enraptured, deluded Catholics who foolishly seek and "thrive" on such things that they would much better profit from reading the Bible or the Catechism or the encyclicals of Pope John Paul the Great, or St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Therese or Peter Kreeft.

And I'm not the only one. Just yesterday, in fact, I heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa state on EWTN that he doesn't think much of purported "private revelations" such as these. This is rather common in Catholic apologetics circles, and I have heard similar disclaimers time and again. He's a pretty "major figure in Roman Catholicism," and White himself happens to like Fr. Mitch personally (and has debated him), so I must protest that White's characterization of supposed Catholic non-reaction to such things is exaggerated and distorted:

But no, you won't hear that [the sort of statement I agree with up at the top]. Instead, you'll hear, "Well, looks like a rather common water stain mixed with the salt from the road on an underpass, but hey, if it gives you warm post-modern religious fuzzies, that's great!"

If White thinks that any legitimate representative of Catholic teaching who is a "major figure" states such things, then why doesn't he document it? That would be a nice novelty, for a change, wouldn't it? White does, however, provide some very funny comments on occasion. This case of religious "super-pious" folly provides ample opportunity. For example:

Where is someone's mind if they can look at this stain and go, "Oh gosh, Mary has appeared under a bridge!" What on earth is she doing under a bridge? Western culture is on the slippery slope of post-modernism, sliding at high speed toward self-destruction, and Mary is busily arranging salt stains on a bridge underpass near Chicago? Hello? Anyone out there? . . . the kind of "piety" that leads people to light candles in front of water stains on the walls of freeway underpasses . . .

I roundly condemn these (humorous, tragi-comic) excesses, with him. But it should be noted, too, that there is a major underlying difference here. White thinks that Mary could never appear anywhere, under any manifestation, miraculous or otherwise. I believe (with the Church) that there are legitimate Marian apparitions, and that one must exercise due caution and prudence in discerning which are authentic and supernatural, and which are not, and be willing to submit to Church determinations on such matters.

Obviously, if something can never happen (by prior premise) then any alleged (or actual) instance of it will be immediately ruled out a priori. But if it can possibly happen, then one will have to use their critical faculties with regard to authenticity, just as Protestants who still believe in current-day miracles (White may not: he might be what is called a "cessationist") will require proper documentation and proof for healings, etc.

The "Traditionalist" Pet Term "Neo Catholic": Where Does it Come From? What Does it Mean?

In seeking to answer the questions in the title of this paper, I discovered a superb article, entitled, Rhetoric, Manipulation, And Ferrawood’s "Neo-Catholic", by Omar F.A. Gutiérrez. It was published in The Wanderer: 10 May 2003. I shall cite it at length, in blue. Citations of Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods Jr. will be in red.

Editor’s note:

. . . the faux traditionalists have come up with the term "neo-Catholic" which seems intended to put Catholics so named into the moral equivalency of "quislings" . . .

-- Alphonse J. Matt Jr.

"Catholics have nothing to fear from ideas." I was handed The Great Façade [The Remnant Press, Wyoming, Minn., 2002] by self-described traditionalist friends of mine some time ago with these words. They wished that I should attempt to answer the traditionalist argument found within its pages. This book was, for them, one of the finer arguments for the traditionalist position to date. As far as they were concerned, Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods Jr. had finally presented the traditionalist argument in clear and concise terminology.

[Dave: I was presented the book in person by Gerry Matatics (who exhibited similar opinions of it), and it also came highly recommended by my friend David Palm: now a "traditionalist" of some repute]

. . . In light of the overwhelming praise that it is given by the traditionalist gallery, I believe this book can only do more harm than good. The Ferrawood argument, as I have come to call it, is not clear or logical. It is manipulative and rhetorical. Such an argument cannot possibly shed a kind light on the traditionalist movement.

I do not deny that there is a crisis, and I believe traditionalists are too often dismissed without being given much thought. Nor do I wish to quell what I see as very useful and helpful voices coming out of some corners of the traditionalist movement. However, this book is an example of a work that can only do damage to this movement, for this book is filled with a verbal sorcery that is dazzling but equally deceptive. Perhaps the most egregious example of this sorcery is the invention, definition, and constant use of the term "neo-Catholic."

. . . Page 12 in The Great Façade begins by stating that the definition of terms is absolutely necessary for fruitful debate. So far this seems a reasonable approach. However, the terms in chapter one that appear key and pivotal for the Ferrawood argument are not central to the argument, nor do they draw out the "exact nature of the controversy" between conservatives and traditionalists. The terms most important to the authors are "traditionalist" and "neo-Catholic," or more precisely "neo-Catholic" in place of "conservative." Meanwhile, the authors completely ignore terms like "tradition," "novelty," "Magisterium," "authority," "doctrine," "dogma," etc. These are all terms with specific theological meanings, and all terms which have been lost on the authors.

When reading The Great Façade, one finds either a complete lack of definition or a complete misunderstanding of basic theological distinctions. Of course it is also telling that the central terms for the Ferrawood argument are labels not ecclesiastical terms. Labels, even if accurately defined, are imposed on persons, and the authors do not give us any reason to believe that they are qualified to label anyone accurately. The fact that none of the truly central terms in the debate are defined can only lead one to assume, from the very start of the book, that the Ferrawood argument can bear absolutely no fruit for this debate.

On page 5 the authors make clear that those who would refer to themselves as "conservatives" are not worthy — at least in action — of such an honorable title . . .

[Footnote 4: "Since [conservatives] have not in fact conserved anything . . . we believe that the term ‘conservative’ invites confusion among casual readers, for whom it carries a positive connotation, while attaching a venerable designation to people whose actions — or inaction, as the case may be — merit no such honor."]

. . . Let us look at the definition of "neo-Catholic." Remember please that for the authors this is one of the central terms of the debate and the proper understanding of this term is the prerequisite to any fruitful outcome for the debate between traditionalists and conservatives.
We read on page 15:

What, then, do we mean by the term "neo-Catholic"? Before answering, we must first anticipate the banal objection that we are "generalizing" about neo-Catholics and neo-Catholicism. Of course we are. The focus of this book is the idea of neo-Catholicism as a system of novel practices and attitudes that first emerged in the Church during the 1960s. While the neo-Catholic idea can be illustrated with the objective statements and actions of particular individuals who are part of this new constituency of the Church . . . it is not for us to make any judgment about the Catholic fidelity and personal piety of these people — even though . . . the leading lights of neo-Catholicism are all too ready to denounce their traditionalist brethren as "schismatics" and cast them into outer darkness, without benefit of any canonical declaration by competent Church authorities.

On page 19 the authors write, "A neo-Catholic, then, is someone who more or less lives according to the neo-Catholic idea." And what is the "neo-Catholic idea"? The authors tell us that the "focus of this book is the idea of neo-Catholicism." This "neo-Catholic idea can be illustrated with the objective statements and actions of particular individuals who are part of this new constituency of the Church."

This is what we are given thus far: to have a fruitful debate the authors must define "neo-Catholic"; a neo-Catholic is one who adheres to the neo-Catholic idea; the neo-Catholic idea is demonstrated through the actions, attitudes, and statements of neo-Catholics. Therefore, a neo-Catholic is one who adheres to the neo-Catholic idea, which is discernible in the action of a neo-Catholic. Right?

Wrong. This is a tautology, it is a circular argument, or definition in this case. The Ferrawood argument begins by stating that in order to understand A (neo-Catholic) we must know B (the neo-Catholic idea), and in order to know B we look to A. The authors claim they are focusing on the "idea of neo-Catholicism" but their definition of this idea is based on the actions of those they have already determined to be neo-Catholic. They simply point to the actions of those they label as neo-Catholic and say, "Ah ha, a neo-Catholic!" But what is the neo-Catholic idea? How is it to be understood? The authors go to great lengths in the book to tell us what a neo-Catholic does, but they never define what the "idea of neo-Catholicism" is apart from the actions of those they’ve already labeled.

We read on page 16, "So, based on the objective words and deeds of some of the more prominent neo-Catholics, we can safely generalize about the neo-Catholic idea." Oh really! The tautological nature of this sentence and thus the Ferrawood argument shines through clearly. One must ask the authors how they can be sure that the "objective words and deeds" they witness are those of neo-Catholics if they do not already have a means by which they can objectively determine who is a neo-Catholic and who is not? They might answer with the following "definition" of the neo-Catholic idea:

Particular applications aside, it is the idea that with the advent of the Second Vatican Council a new sort of orthodoxy suddenly arose in the Church, an orthodoxy stripped of any link to the ecclesiastical traditions once considered an untouchable sacred trust. It is the idea that by virtue of Vatican II the Church has, in some manner never clearly explained, progressed beyond what she was before the Council to a new mode of existence, and that this progression requires an assent on the part of the faithful that is somehow different from the assent required to the constant teaching of all the previous councils and Popes.

The fact that "orthodoxy," "ecclesiastical traditions," and "assent" are never defined aside, this is the idea of neo-Catholicism, and the authors demonstrate the legitimizing proof for their definition by pointing to the words and deeds of leading neo-Catholics. But it is only natural that the words and deeds of those the authors tell us are neo-Catholics would fit this definition of the idea, because this definition was manufactured from the words and deeds of those the authors had already determined were neo-Catholic. This is a circular definition. This is a term manufactured to guarantee rhetorical victory. On top of this, if one were to actually know some of the neo-Catholics the authors label one cannot really match the above idea to them. I know some of those the authors label as neo-Catholic and they do not cling to or foster the above idea.

On page 17 we read the following explanation about this neo-Catholic idea, "What this means is that the neo-Catholic idea is nothing less than a form of progressive or liberal Catholicism — whether a given neo-Catholic knows it or not, is, subjectively speaking, a liberal by intention." Apparently anyone labeled a neo-Catholic could not even argue about the justice of the term, because, as the authors are so good to tell us, they are liberals whether they know it or not. By the authors’ own standards for fruitful debate, they have already failed. For this definition is no definition, and this tautology is the central term for the entire work!

The authors’ rhetoric does not advance an argument but rather trains the casual reader’s mind to associate disapproval with the label neo-Catholic. And this is precisely what neo-Catholic is: a label meant to habituate the reader’s mind into dismissing those who have the misfortune of falling under it. This is tactical writing reminiscent of political mudslinging and the ravings of modern liberals, but it is not argument. The practice of assigning labels that one side has invented to opposing positions in order to stack the argumentative cards in one’s own favor and thus avoid contending with the opposing argument is a liberal and precisely modern method of argumentation. Assigning these invented labels aids in dismissing the opponent because the authors of the label can create an opponent ready made for defeat.

This is the epitome of a rhetorical abuse. The authors define what a neo-Catholic is in a manner favorable to their own argument, thus assuring their victory in debate.

. . . Furthermore, there is a logical answer to why this defense for their linguistic invention fails. "Schismatic" and "integrist" are two terms that are often laid upon traditionalists. However, both these terms have definitions that originated outside of the imagined war rooms of neo-Catholic think tanks. One can find St. Thomas Aquinas defining schism. One can turn to Henri Daniel-Rops or Pope Benedict XV for an understanding of integrism. The authors can at least argue about the justice of the label being applied to them by appealing to these objective definitions. The same cannot be done by neo-Catholics, for this term came forth from the authors’ traditionalist imagination. To what objective standard can supposed neo-Catholics appeal to? The only standard is the aforementioned imagination. This is no fair standard, and this is no reasonable argument.

Later in chapter one, page 24, the authors, speaking about neo-Catholics and the neo-Catholic Church, write:

The general result has been a de facto detachment of the greater part of Catholics from the Church’s own precisely crafted dogmatic framework, leaving them to drift in a kind of quasi-Catholicism that may not contain any explicit heresy, but that the preconciliar Popes simply would not regard as authentically and integrally Catholic.

Now, the authors do maintain that the piety of the neo-Catholic can rival that of the traditionalist. Also, the authors do not state that neo-Catholics are adrift but that "the greater part of Catholics" are adrift. However, I cannot accept that the authors do not mean to refer to neo-Catholics in any way when they write "the greater part of Catholics." It seems rather clear from this statement that the authors are judging at least the objective fidelity of the neo-Catholic. What else could this term mean but to suggest that the neo-Catholic practices a new faith, a new Catholicism? This new faith is clearly not authentic or integrally Catholic. Yet the authors still mean to say that accusing neo-Catholics of taking part in a "quasi-Catholicism," which at any other time in history would have been seen as inauthentic, is not judging the "Catholic fidelity" of neo-Catholics?

How is it not calling into question the orthodoxy of the neo-Catholic by saying explicitly that previous Popes, if given the chance, would reject their faith as inauthentic? . . .

. . . Perhaps the authors do not mean to call into question the fidelity of the neo-Catholic when they write on page 250 that a "neo-Catholic is nothing more or less than a kind of liberal, even if he conforms to the moral teaching of the Church and espouses no formal heresy as such" . . .

On the same page and after suggesting that neo-Catholics are guilty of the modernist heresy [Footonote 9: "In many respects, the neo-Catholic fits Pius X’s description in Pascendi of ‘the modernist as reformer’."], the authors attempt to remind the reader that the fidelity of the neo-Catholic is not being called into question. This time, however, they qualify the parameters of their judgment. They write that they are "speaking here only in the objective realm of ideas, without presuming to judge the subjective faith of any individual." They do not judge the subjective fidelity of the individual, but they are judging the object of their faith. Dr. Janet Smith, H.W. Crocker III, Mother Angelica, and so many others labeled as neo-Catholic maintain a faith that is objectively inauthentic and not integral to the Catholic faith. These persons espouse no formal heresy, but certainly some form of material heresy. This is the necessary and logical implication of the authors’ statements.

The authors incessantly use "neo-Catholic" when they introduce a work, organization, or person they wish the reader to be aware of as being untrustworthy. It is difficult to see it as anything but a malignant effort to score rhetorical points. Who can doubt the manipulative nature of this term when the last paragraph of Ferrara’s article to Michael Davies [see citation below] reads, "He who controls the terminology controls the debate. It is long past time for traditionalists to take control of the terminology in this debate. Does the term neo-Catholic anger our adversaries, who have been calling us names for decades? Too bad — the shoe fits. Now let them wear it."

. . . this demonstrates — better than I could — that the term neo-Catholic is tactical writing closer to the heart of liberalism than to the traditions of the Church. Taking control of the terminology of the debate by inventing terms that are designed for one side’s benefit is precisely how the radical liberal intelligentsia have won over the faculties of Western universities . . . the invention of "neo-Catholic" is one of the more egregious examples of dishonest debate. For those traditionalists who wish to shake the liberal label, they ought to abandon the Ferrawood argument altogether.

------------------

Christopher A. Ferrara, Esq., further elaborates upon the meaning of neo-Catholic, in his article, The Justice of the term 'neo-Catholic', which appeared in the notorious "traditionalist" rag The Remnant, and was reprinted on the Daily Catholic web page:

. . . In our use of the term neo-Catholic, Tom and I are making an analogy to American politics. American political thinking did, after all, exert a great deal of influence on the Council, . . . In America, the term “neo-conservative” does not mean a revival of traditional political conservatism, American-style. It denotes, rather, a new and more liberalized version of what is now disparaged as the old “paleoconservativism” of people like Pat Buchanan.

. . . These people, without even realizing it, have developed a deep aversion to certain aspects of their own religion. They have come to detest these elements of the preconciliar teaching of the Church more than any heresy against the faith, and the defenders of these forgotten teachings more than any true enemy of the Church.

. . . And through it all, the neo-Catholic establishment continues to maintain the pretense that it occupies the moral high-ground simply and only because it is willing to indulge in a display of blind loyalty to the person who currently occupies the Chair of Peter. As the human element of the Church collapses everywhere in scandal and liturgical and doctrinal degradation, the neo-Catholics do nothing but complain bitterly about local abuses, while waving a banner containing the slogan that has overcome reason itself in the neo-Catholic mind: John Paul II, we love you. But this isn’t love we are seeing. It is a form of idolization that in fact does the Pope and the Church a terrible disservice.

. . . Tom and I have never claimed that those who could be called neo-Catholic in their misguided approach to the crisis are not “real” Catholics. Unlike our accusers, we do not feel ourselves entitled to write fellow Catholics out of the Church. Rather, as the quotation from Johnston illustrates perfectly, we are dealing with liberalized Catholics who have been induced to accept newly emergent attitudes and practices that undermine the very faith they think they are defending.

. . . As we can see, the term has definitely hit home. The neo-Catholic commentators who delight in deriding us as “ultra-traditionalists,” “extreme traditionalists,” “Pharisees” and so forth now have a label of their own to contend with. The term neo-Catholic incenses them because it captures their position and leaves it “formulated, sprawling on a pin,” to borrow a phrase from T.S. Eliot.

-----------------

I inquired of "traditionalist" Catholic Kevin Tierney the origin of the term neo-Catholic. Here is the exchange and some additional replies added presently (with his words in green):

----------------

What magisterial Church document provides you with your definition of "Neo-Catholic"? What is the etymology of this term? Who first used it? Just curious . . ."

Monikers aren't magesterial Dave.

Oh, is that so, even in a matter as important as the very name that Catholics call themselves? I am content to simply call both you and myself "Catholic." If I must make distinctions due to liberal or far-right rot in the Church, then I use the qualifier "orthodox" as well, to indicate that I accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church. You and others want to call yourselves "traditionalists."

Well, there is a right and wrong usage of that term. If one accepts notions that go contrary to orthodox Catholicism, and uses the term, I must object, because "Tradition" is a good Catholic word which must not be trifled with (and those who reject some of it ought not to be allowed to co-opt the term to themselves as if they actually exemplify a particular devotion to "tradition" as they themselves define it). Even if you are orthodox, but insist on using the term, then it must be because it is being used to distinguish yourself from the likes of me, who has supposedly somehow become simultaneously "liberal" and "orthodox" (by the application of the silly term "neo-Catholic").

So it is still attempting to create division in the Church and separate Catholic believers into a superior-subordinate relationship, with the "traditionalists" being the ones who "get it" and the "neo-Catholics" being dupes and fellow travellers of their liberal overlords in the lower hieracrchies of the Church. Either way, it stinks to high heaven.

Rather they are classifying terms that merely help identity. Goerge Sim Johnston was the first to use the term and apply it to the likes of Janet Smith, himself, and others by stating "Neo-Conservative Catholics" or as it has later been shortened as "Neo-Catholic."

This is priceless. So now you wish to trace it back to "neo-Catholic" Johnston, who (even according to Ferrara in his article above) used a different term in a different context with a different meaning, yet this is your etymological source? Unbelievable! It's not even the same title, or term, for heaven's sake. Neo-conservative Catholic means, literally, "newly-conservative Catholic". This could be a Catholic who used to be theologically-liberal and is now conservative, just as in politics. Bill Bennett is a "neo-conservative" because he used to be a political liberal (so was I, for that matter), and now no longer is. In any event, what is qualified is the "conservative" part, not the "Catholic" part. To switch arbitrarily from one to the other, as if one flows from the other, etymologically, is linguistic nonsense and sheer illogic.

Thus, "neo-Catholic" means a new kind of Catholic. But this is an oxymoron, according to the nature of Catholicism. There can be no "new Catholic." One is simply an orthodox Catholic, according to the Tradition of the ages, or not. Catholic (in its deepest sense) means "orthodox", so to say that one is a "new Catholic" is to say that one espouses a "new kind of orthodoxy," which, of course, is a self-contradiction. There is no such thing as a "new orthodoxy." That would be, rather, a novelty or heterodoxy or heresy. So the label basically reduces (but this is actually consistently applying logic, mind you) to calling someone heterodox or a heretic. Yet you want to call me "orthodox" and "neo-Catholic" at the same time. Ferrara and Woods come right out and say that it means "liberalized Catholic."

But how can I be a liberal and orthodox at the same time? Oh, so maybe you reject their definition? Okay; come up with another, then. You obviously can't derive the term and its self-serving, circular "traditionalist" definition from Johnston, because he would reject being classified in such a way. Therefore, it doesn't come from him (not in the way "traditionalists" want to use it). The whole thing is a big game and exercise in futile, circular logic. The term is simply meant to belittle and dismiss non-"traditionalist" Catholics, precisely as Omar Gutiérrez maintained. It doesn't matter where it came from. The goal is to ridicule and defame orthodox Catholics who try to get beyond the separation of Catholics into categories and the divisiveness that this tends to produce.

You yourself admit that I am orthodox. So why the need to create stupid labels? Because you and your "traditionalist" friends invent new words as epithets for those with whom you disagree?

Because the stupid labels describe quite a bit, and I am extremely selective in applying those labels.

Ultimately more circular logic, as described above . . .

And remember, it was someone on your "side of the fence" who invented the term, not us. :)

Neo-conservative Catholic as used by Johnston is worlds apart from neo-Catholic, as used by Ferrara, Woods, and other "traditionalists."

For that matter, why refer to John Paul as John Paul the Great, and not just an orthodox Pope?

That has to do with the acclimation of great and holy Catholic men and women. it has no analogy to the present discussion. That term has precedent, and everyone knows exactly what is implied by it. "Neo-Catholic" has no such history. Words mean things, and etymology is very important.

Because in your view, the description fits the man. Same MO I'm comin from my friend.

Again, "the Great" as applied to a pope has a long history going back to Popes Gregory the Great and Leo the Great. It has a definition outside of a mere fringe movement within the Church. Yours suffers from all the logical difficulties and arbitrariness that have been noted above. I create no divisions in the Church by calling John Paul II "the Great." But you create plenty of ill will by using your term. All I've done in describing you is put quotes around your term. All that means is that I deny that you guys have exclusive rights to the self-descriptor of a particular legatee of Catholic Tradition. But your term for me contains an explicit insult and implication of heterodoxy, any way that you look at it. "Traditionalism" (with quotes) carries no such implication. It protests against exclusivism or quintessential self-attribution of what all orthodox Catholics represent.

"If "Neo-Catholic" doesn't come from the magisterium, why should I accept it? On what authority? It's an insult, meant to belittle and put in a box those who don't buy the "traditionalist" line."

You don't, but you asked my rationale for the term, which I gladly provided. I could care less what you do with it Dave.

Exactly. As it is intended as an insult and a condescending ranking of "us" vs. "them," it stands to reason that you wouldn't care about how I perceive your arbitrary label that you wish to put on me.

-----------------------

Ferrara (lest we miss it) makes his meaning even more clear in his article, Neo-Catholic Quislings (a title speaks a thousand words, doesn't it???):

Dr. Thomas E. Woods and I have written a book, The Great Façade, which analyzes a phenomenon that is rightly called neo-Catholicism. The New Catholics who practice this new strain of Catholicism are distinguished by their seemingly inexhaustible willingness to defend, in the name of "obedience," every destructive innovation of the past 40 years, merely because some level of ecclesiastical authority has approved it.

. . . The term "quisling" is derived from the name of Vidkun Quisling, the head of Norway’s government, who sided with the Nazis during the German occupation of Norway from 1940-1945 in the wrongheaded belief that this would be best for Norway’s common good. Today "quisling" connotes one who serves as the misguided puppet of an occupying force.

. . . And the legacy of the quislings who have collaborated with this occupying army of Church-wreckers will be the same as that of Vidkun Quisling himself: a legacy of shame.

Thank you very much, Chris! There is something to be said for forthright clarity and unambiguous statements of one's position! In an equally edifying, uplifting article, The Blindness of Neo-Catholicism, Ferrara states:

The people I call neo-Catholics refuse to admit that the Catholic Church is suffering the worst crisis in her history because of innovations and capitulations approved by the Vatican apparatus itself. For the neo-Catholic, the Vatican can do no wrong . . .

And in his article, Neo-Catholic Blindness: Another Case in Point (does anyone sense a theme, here?), we are blessed with this tidbit:

There will be no solution to the crisis in the Church until the Vatican bureaucracy is held to the same standard of Catholic decency, decorum and common sense as that adhered to by Archbishop Chaput. Either Sodano and his collaborators cease their hobnobbing with the forces of darkness and go back to preaching the Gospel, or God will have to clean house at the Vatican. Only then will the crisis end.

In his paper, The Blind Guides of EWTN, Ferrara (outdoing even himself) surprises us all by reaching previously untold heights of complimentarity towards his buddies, the . . . (you guessed it!):

EWTN’s mixture of certain aspects of traditional Roman Catholicism with absolutely appalling novelties invented during the past 40 years — novelties that would have reduced the pre-conciliar popes to a state of apoplexy — is the very essence of neo-Catholicism.

. . . Our experience of the past 40 years shows us that the real problem in the Church today is not overt modernists, who are easy to identify and expose, but the vast neo-Catholic establishment, posing as the "mainstream" of Roman Catholicism, with its multiform corruption of the traditional faith in both practice and belief. The devil’s momentary triumph in the post-conciliar epoch — inevitably to become his final defeat — consists of a shift of the great body of Catholics toward latitudinarianism and indifferentism . . .

In short, the rise of neo-Catholicism is the post-conciliar crisis in the Church. It is a crisis as great as — if not greater than — the Arian crisis that also overcame the greater part of the Church in the 4th Century. To appreciate this we need only consider that EWTN is now considered an exemplar of Catholic orthodoxy, when, as we can see here, it is providing the very blind guides Our Lord warned us not to follow, lest we end up in a pit.

Isn't this marvelous? So now we "neo-Catholics" don't simply sincerely misunderstand the nature and causes of the current crisis in the Church, but we are, in fact, the very crisis itself. We exemplify it, and are the forerunners and sustainers of it.

In The Sands of Celebrity, Ferrara, undaunted and utterly unrestrained (not that we ever expect him to be restrained), trashes Scott Hahn, and then makes a vicious attack upon Pope John Paul II:

The neo-Catholic establishment is a house built on the shifting sands of celebrity, including the celebrity of a hugely popular Pope who will not rule his Church, but instead basks in the adulation of a profoundly disoriented laity whose plight he does not seem to understand. The Church cannot be sustained in her mission by celebrities who hunger after novelty, whether that novelty be carnal or theological. The Church does not need knights in shining armor from Washington, or books that make Hahn-verts instead of old fashioned converts, or even a Pope who is always celebrated but never feared. None of these celebrities can provide what the Church requires in the present crisis. Only the foundation stones of traditional Roman Catholicism, put firmly back in place by a militant hierarchy from the Pope on down, will be able to support the household of the Faith against the winds and floods that now assail it. How much more damage the Church will sustain in this crisis will be determined by how much more time it takes the hierarchy to restore the foundation.

In the same article (also reprinted on Robert Sungenis' website), Ferrara even has to intensify his own ridiculous term:

This kind of thinking represents an ultra neo-Catholicism that goes beyond the more conservative neo-Catholic’s comparatively passive defense of the post-conciliar novelties. In the manner of a true revolutionary, the ultra neo-Catholic openly despises the Church’s past and rejoices in its burial . . . this ultra neo-Catholicism is being amalgamated with the policies of the Republican Party, . . .

Now, of course, we will probably see Kevin Tierney and other "traditionalists" try to distance themselves from Ferrara and Woods, as not representative of "traditionalism." It's not quite so simple. The connections are very easy to see, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect-the-dots. Thus, on Kevin's blog, Restore the Church, we find just six links (besides his own website). One of these is Seattle Catholic, Peter Miller, editor. Without having to accept the notion that one must agree with everything in a link that one provides, nevertheless, it is a bit shocking to find that Miller himself wrote an absolutely glowing tribute to Ferrara's and Woods' book, The Great Façade, in his newspaper (28 August 2002). We've seen the sort of nonsense that Ferrara believes. Is this really thinking that Kevin has no problem with? He may oppose it, but if so, the editor he links to, has no such problem. Miller writes about this atrocious book:

. . . hundreds of sensible and reasoned observations which, in better times, would be laughably obvious. Unfortunately, one of the tragic results of this crisis has been the emergence of an attitude seemingly dedicated to obscuring common sense with elaborate explanations, selective citations and vicious attacks upon faithful Catholics. It is to this current of thought and its dedication to ecclesial novelties that Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods have applied the label "neo-Catholic" — a term perhaps more precise than "moderate liberal" and much more accurate than the constantly-fluctuating "conservative."

. . . yesterday's liberals (ironically enjoying the term "conservative" based solely on the emergence of liberals even more radical) . . .

. . . arguably the most comprehensive and exquisite defense of the uncorrupted Catholic Faith printed in decades — The Great Façade.

. . . While there are many aspects of this book that make it an invaluable addition to any faithful Catholic's library, one chapter stands above the rest and is as impressive as any single chapter or article written in years. Entitled "A Nest of Contradictions," Chapter 11 exposes the complete lack of consistency and credibility of the typical neo-Catholic claims.

. . . In a year where already several important Catholic books have been published, The Great Façade easily stands out as a monumental work. The exemplary prose makes reading the various chapters swift and enjoyable. At the same time, the attention to detail and extensive footnotes make this not only a great read but a valuable reference tool, ranking it among Michael Davies' Pope John's Council and Romano Amerio's Iota Unum as books belonging in every Catholic's library.

Is Chris Ferrara a way-out wacko lunatic fringe "traditionalist"? If Kevin Tierney thinks so, then perhaps he can explain why he links to a newspaper and an editor who think that his book is the greatest thing since sliced bread? Or if he thinks he is "mainstream traditionalist," then perhaps we can be enlightened with his espousal and further explanation of all the goofy things cited above. This is a classic case of how even the more "balanced" so-called "traditionalists" are almost invariably directly linked in some way to the more radical ones whom they claim to disagree with. They can hardly avoid it, because the movement, though varied, is so interconnected. The networks always intersect at some point. I've always found this to be the case, in my research. But maybe one day I'll run across an exception.

Let's try another of Kevin's recommended links on his blog: The Latin Mass magazine (which once published an article of mine about Cardinal Newman and development). On its articles page, sure enough, it lists two by Ferrara and one by his co-author Thomas Woods. So it, too, seems to have no problem being associated with such a person. In its archives, it also contains another article by Woods, The Semi-Traditionalists.

For balanced critiques of The Great Façade, see Brian O’Neel's review in This Rock. Also, see James Likoudis' review.

"Rorschach Catholicism": see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153985,00.html

Ecumenism Forum #2

Continuing the wildly popular discussion . . . Blogger was down for maintenance for a while. I was trying to get this up sooner.

Dialogue on Whether Ecumenism is Worthwhile and Necessary and Contrary to Apologetics and Evangelization

With "Breier": a Catholic, who asked these questions in a comments thread below. His words will be in blue:

Hi Breier,

That's a ton of stuff to digest; good input (thank you). I'll have to ultimately refer you to my many papers on ecumenism to clarify some things that would take too long here, but I'll answer in short form as best I can:

I wonder if you're positing an unhealthy dichotomy between "ecumenism" and "apologetics."

But you have it backwards: I don't agree with making this dichotomy. I was opposing it as unnecessary and unhelpful.

After all, what good is identifying everything you have in common, and leaving it at that?

It's always good to have greater understanding of each other. Some people don't understand the purpose and utility of apologetics and defending their views. Different strokes. Some people resonate only with more ecumenical, conciliatory approaches. And then hopefully we don't "leave it at that" in the long run if we want to share the fullness of the Catholic Church.

Also, you ignore the group nature of ecumenism; what exactly is the productive result of "dialoging" with a non-centralized ecclesiastical body, when individuals won't give a fig leaf what some Lutheran representative says?

Any increased understanding among any Christians is a good thing, and the more who read an account of it, the better. That's the exciting potential of the Internet.

What's the point of figuring out all we have in common with X church? You know what kind of heretic they are, what good is that?

The more truth we see in other viewpoints, the more we can respect and dialogue and fellowship with the people who hold different beliefs. It's hard for me to imagine why anyone would wonder why ecumenism is a good thing. Is this not self-evident? it's actually an extension of biblical charity: believing the best of others rather than the worst.

As if Protestants are going to be led to the faith en masse by leaders, as if they were King Clovis or something.

Ecumenism in and of itself is not about conversion; rather, it is about unity and further understanding. But it could indirectly lead to that, or be a steppinbg-stone to it. More on that below.

I think you're also ignoring the behind-the-times nature of ecumenical efforts today. Old mainline denominations are not what they used to be; and it seems absurd to think we're going to convince them by seminars on what we have in common that yeah, Catholicism is the true faith.

Again, that is not the purpose. That's part of what I was trying to get across: they are two different enterprises with different goals, but they don't contradict each other. A lot of people have difficulty grasping that. As soon as they see "difference" they wrongly assume "contradiction."

In fact, as we say with Dominus Iesus, once you actually start bringing the truth out, instead of politely pretending it doesn't exist, "ecumenical" efforts fall to shambles.

Proper ecumenism doesn't entail denying any truth at all. Only a corrupt liberal form of "ecumenism" does that (but in those cases less and less truth or dogma is believed to start with).
Isn't this a reason to think that practical "ecumenism" today is antithetical to a full presentation of the Gospel truths?

No. You're just creating more false dichotomies.

I agree with you that effective apologetics should emphasize what we have in common as well as where we differ.

But the "common" part is more catechetics and ecumenism, rather than apologetics. It can be incorporated into apologetics, but it is really a different endeavor.

Many misunderstandings and prejudices can be cleared up this way. But I think an honest assment on "ecumenism," and what concerete good it actually accomplishes, rather than a stary-eyed nod past papal action as if that proves that "ecumenism" is just a an essential that we must pursue forever.

It has accomplished a huge amount of good. We need only look at all the wonderful remarks about Pope John Paul II by Protestants and Orthodox; even Jews and Muslims. That was made possible primarily by ecumenism. Also; the great cooperation between Protestants and Catholics on family and pro-life issues (not to mention the fall of Soviet Communism) is another example. Working together on things we both believe helps us to respect each other in other areas too. Friendships are a base upon which to create a greater theological mutual understanding.

Should we pursue unity among Christians? Yes! Does what counts as "ecumenism" today accomplish that? You should admit that is an open question, no?

No; I think it clearly has accomplished greater unity. The best examples are the ones I gave above, as well as the Lutheran-Catholic accords and the ECT agreement ("Evangelicals and Catholics Together").

Does having some seminar where we all ignore what divides us and say what we have in common accomplish anything? This is not a self-evident truth.

But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Ecumenism in its best manifestations, doesn't ignore differences at all; it presupposes them. It presumes that those things won't change (at least not anytime soon), but that we can rejoice in what we do hold in common and build upon that.

It seems to me that there should be no distinction between ecumenism, where we hide truth for some feeling of unity,

See now, you're begging the question again. That is certainly not how I go about ecumenical efforts. No one would accuse me of "hiding" what I believe to be truth for mere "feelings."

and apologetics, where we let the truth out of the bag. The truth should always be out there,

It is; but we don't always have to talk about divisive issues. We can simply acknowledge that they are there and won't go away, and go on to the commonalities.

I don't view truth as something which comes out in its season; as if it were OK for some Popes to be strong on presenting the faith and other Popes irenic. No! All of them have an equal call to present the Gospel in its fullness.

I agree. Pope John Paul II did that. So will Benedict XVI.

Dominus Iesus is true ecumenism. Papering over differences to attain a "unity" that will collapse as soon as the truth comes out; what does that amount to?

I'm not "papering over" anything. Real unity is almost always limited, and based upon facing truth and disagreements honestly, not dishonestly or in a way which seeks to hide things that are difficult. Most of what you describe is a false liberal "ecumenism." But you seem to be throwing out the baby of ecumenism with the bathwater of liberalism.

Out of curiosity,

I'm not sure anyone knows what "ecumenism" exactly means, but its certainly popular. I think it would be good to acknowledge the problematic nature many people have with it.

Also, the misunderstandings about what it is, and its methods and goals: some of which I think you are laboring under . . .

Try reading Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, for example. That's not a very positive take on efforts of his own day. Of course Church policy has changed today; what but is that necessarily for the best?

It has developed; it hasn't reversed itself. In my papers I've shown how ecumenism is well-grounded in St. Thomas Aquinas, and also in the Bible itself. This is nothing new. The rapid development of it in the 20th century and the emphasis on it is new, but not the basic notion itself.

There's no obligation to think that embracing the "ecumenical movement" was a prudent move;

There certainly is an obligation for all Catholics who are bound to accept the magisterial teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

I think there's room for discussion on whether or not its actually accomplishing any spiritual good,

Vatican II presupposes that it is doing so. To take this position would entail a necessary rebellion against Vatican II, and that is impossible for an orthodox Catholic. It's a quasi-schismatic position that combines the pick-and-choose style of liberal "cafeteria" Catholicism, and the private judgment which is the hallmark of the Protestant Rule of Faith. It's not orthodox, faithful, magisterial Catholicism.

or is often a way to satisfy the urge to "evangelize" without having to actually step up to the plate and say hard truths. As Dave noted, it's a lot easier to say self-evident things like what you have in common; but what good does that do?

See the above. St. Paul did this on Mars Hill when he preached to the Athenians (Acts 17:16-32). He pointed out common ground; then he moved ahead with the gospel. So why do you despise it?

To that end, I'd be curious to hear about the positive spiritual fruits of "ecumenism," however you define it. What are some of the great results of embracing ecumenism you've seen?

I mentioned those above, too.

How has it practically complemented apologetics?

By bringing out positive truths about common ground where many people had mistaken ideas about how close different Christian groups are in many areas. This creates good will and more trust, which is always good.

Why should we be thankful for "ecumenism," and why should we pursue it further? Does it help towards the goal of bringing everyone into the Church, or does it have some other goal?

It could help bring people into the Church indirectly, if, for example, they see that the Catholic Church is not as far from their own belief-system as they had supposed. In fact, I know this to be the case from my own experience. Vatican II stressed the sharing of Catholic truths with others, by using language that they could relate to. When I was a Protestant, I met my good friend John McAlpine in the pro-life rescue movement (itself a profoundly ecumenical movement). He tried to explain Catholicism to me in terms I could understand, as a Protestant. It worked. I converted within two years' time. I hadn't had the slightest inclination to do so before that time.

So that is a clear instance of an ecumenical approach making clear the way of eventually more brass tacks apologetics and a challenge to either refute Catholicism or embrace it. These things move along in small steps. It works better to find common ground first. St. Paul also teaches this when he says "I have become all things to all men." He emphasized certain things to people, according to their belief-system. That's how we can reach people. We don't barge right in like a bull in a china shop and hit them on the head with papal bulls. That just doesn't work. No one's going to make a massive change of mind in one fell swoop. It takes time. There are many many factors at stake and in play, and background assumptions and feelings to deal with. We have to use a little wisdom, prudence, timing, and common sense.

I think these are reasonable questions, and profitable for discussion.

So do I; thanks!

You explained "ecumenism" as:

"seeks common ground with other Christian and even non-Christians, and seeks as much unity as is possible to achieve, without compromising one's own belief-system and principles"

Now maybe I'm missing something, but isn't whatever common ground you have with people already possessed before you even enter into dialogue with them?

Yes, of course.

It's not as if discussing what you have in common gives you more in common, all it can lead to is increased knowledge of common points.

Yes, and that's a good thing. With knowledge comes not only more power, but more understanding, and that leads to more respect and love and unity. But you are also assuming that everyone knows exactly what their own Church or denominations teaches (let alone beliefs of others). There are many misunderstandings that get cleared up in such discussions. People think that Catholics deny Grace Alone and that we are semi-Pelagians. We don't, and we aren't. But the common myth in certain circles is that we are these things that we are not. So if we show that we accept Grace Alone, that is a significant common ground to build upon. It's also indirectly apologetics, because we're defending our belief, but in this case, it is one that is misunderstood, and not different from our opponents, as is thought, but actually the same.

But with respect to other religions, do we really need an extended dialogue to know what we have in common with them, and what not?

We need to better understand each other. One learns a lot in these conversations. I learn tons of things in all the dialogues I engage in, that I would never learn just writing my own paper. There's nothing like it.

Isn't that pretty obvious? We never needed "ecumenism" to figure out that in the 1950 years before it came into vogue.

Ecumenism has always been a Christian and biblical goal. Human nature being what it is, we've usually concentrated on differences throughout history. But now we are finally trying to be relatively more ecumenical without denying true differences.

Further, how can you increase your "unity" without someone compromising their principles?

By better understanding things we wrongly thought were dividing points when in fact they are not. You don't deny anything; you simply better understand it (if indeed it is a commonality).

Someone has to give, or the unity will remain exactly the same as before two parties started talking to each other.

The actual institutional beliefs don't change, but understanding and mutual good will increases. And suspicion and mistrust and prejudice decreases. How could this not be a good thing? It's all so self-evident to me. I marvel why anyone would even ask what good can come of it.

The whole idea just strikes me as somewhat bizarre.

Hopefully, I have convinced you that it is not as "bizarre" as you have thought.

We already know what other people believe; the point is to bring them to the truth.

Apologetics and evangelism are great, too. That's why I've devoted my life to them.

And as for "ecumenism," we don't do anything like that with pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, forces.

No, because those are things which are immoral and hence, things we cannot compromise on. But we can do things like recognize the well-meaning intentions of many, if not most, of the advocates of these positions. It's tough sometimes, but God calls us to believe the best of people, not the worst (1 Corinthians 13). I don't hate anything more than abortion, but I don't let the hatred of the evil abomination leak over onto the people who believe in it. They're victims to a large extent, too. They've been habitually lied to and exploited.

So why this need for action with forces that pushes spiritual errors, but not with people who push moral errors?

We have much in common with other Christian groups, and more than many thnk, even with other religions. I think we can try to find common ground even with non-religious or very secular or "liberal" folks. I did that once with a humanist in one of my papers.

I just have no understanding what you mean by "seek as much unity as is possible to achieve without sacrificing one's principles." Isn't that the equivalent of abandoning evangelization?

Why do you conclude that seeking of unity where it exists is somehow antithetical to evangelization? This doesn't follow at all. I could be talking to a Calvinist and say,

Hey; we have a lot in common; Catholics believe in the predestination of the elect (but not the reprobate); we believe in sola gratia; we believe in the infallibility of Scripture; we rejoice in all our commonalities, but (with all due respect) we also think you are missing out on the fullness of the truth which we believe resides in the Catholic Church. You need the sacraments and the authoritative Tradition and ecclesiological structure that we provide, and your spiritual journey would be best served in the Catholic Church.

How in the world can you seek true unity in faith with someone without implicitly saying that they need to come to the fullness of Catholic truth, and therefore "sacrifice" their errors.

I do think we should make a statement like the one above at some point. But this can all be done amiably and respectfully. It should preferably be done in a context of friendship and mutual respect and appreciation. That's why the more ecumenical, conciliatory approach should be first. As people know and respect each other more, it is much easier and more constructive to then discuss differences. This is 95% of the problem with the atrociously low calibre of much Internet discourse.

If we want to discuss faith without implying the universal call of everyone to the Church, it seems to me that ecumenism is indeed antithetical to apologetics.

Talk about this universal call all you wish (at the right times, and I certainly do; I did again in this paper), but most Protestants will not accept it. What do you do then? What I do is to keep talking and learning to respect this brother or sister in Christ as a sincere, committed follower of Jesus, who can teach me many things that are not exclusive to Catholicism. We can do many good things together to further the Kingdom. I don't immediately write them off as worthless and unworthy of friendship or obstinate or reprobate because they reject something I believe.

Perhaps in time I can convince them of that, but in the meantime, we can have some great fellowship and conversation, and help and teach each other to become better Christians. And that is true even if the person never converts to Catholicism. I don't use them as a means to an end: to try to get them to convert so I can get another "notch on my gun"; I don't conclude that they are a lesser human being than I am because I am a Catholic and they aren't. I don't do any of that, but I can still proclaim in love what I believe as a Catholic to be the fullness of the Christian faith and the spiritual estate for all men. And I can share the gospel with non-Christians.

If ecumenism just means a clear statement of our own belief, to clear up misunderstandings on the part of others, that's one thing.

That's a big part of it, because misunderstandings are often so huge to begin with.

But to engage in some forum that has the overarching principle that everyone's going to stay what they are; how is that not the same as saying people should just become "Good Protestants," "Good Muslims," "Good Hindus," etc. an error lamented by Cardinal Ratzinger!

It's simple: you continue to maintain that you think Catholicism is the best place for everyone. They maintain that their belief and spiritual place is the best. Agreement is usually not attainable in that regard, but everyone can argue their case with love and cordiality and respect for others. In the meantime we can rejoice that Orthodox Jews oppose abortion and homosexuality, and that Muslims still have children and value the family and contnue to abide by a far better sexual ethic than Western society, and that traditional Buddhists are pro-life and have a great set of ethics and value self-sacrifice and concern for others and compassion. Etc., etc. How is this contradictory? It's not.

I think for the sake of Catholic integrity, someone should give an explanation of why we need this new "ecumenical" initiative,

I've done my best. I had many papers before this one, too. Have you never read Vatican II?

whereas it was never needed for almost two thousand years,

But that's not true. The Church tried very hard to achieve more unity with Protestants and to urge them to return, in the 16th century, in various conferences. We tried to reconcile with the Orthodox in the Councils of Lyons and Florence. So you are badly mistaken about that.

and the Church's missionary efforts were much more successful back then!

We're not doing bad today in places like Africa, where people aren't spiritually asleep or post-Christian, as they are in Western culture.

What has "ecumenism" added to the table? If we have to judge things by their fruits, what are the good fruits? I'd love to hear some positive things, as clearly, my impression of the current situation is a little less than positive.

I've tried my best. Thanks for the stimulating questions. That is the best way to get me to further explain my positions, which I believe are also those of the Catholic Church, as far as I know.

Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger): Vatican II Has the Same Authority as Trent (if one goes, both go)

It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called 'traditionalism,' also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.

To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the 'right' and 'left' alike) to view Vatican II as a 'break' and an abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead, a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them . . .

I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one's own already-established convictions?

(The Ratzinger Report, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1985, 28-29, 31)

Baptismal Regeneration: Luther, Wesley, and Anglicanism

Scripture seems to clearly refer to baptismal regeneration in Acts 2:38 (forgiveness of sins), 22:16 (wash away your sins), Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5 (he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration), and other passages.

For this reason, many prominent Protestant individuals and denominations have held to the position of baptismal regeneration, which is anathema to the Baptist / Presbyterian / Reformed branch of Protestantism - the predominant evangelical outlook at present. We need look no further than Martin Luther himself, from whom all Protestants inherit their understanding of both sola Scriptura and faith alone (sola fide) as the prerequisites for salvation and justification. Luther largely agrees with the Catholic position on sacramental and regenerative infant baptism:

Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle."

(The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., 1970, 197)

Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:

Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ's kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .

When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . .

(From edition by Augsburg Publishing House (Minneapolis), 1935, sections 223-224, 230, pages 162, 165)

All the major Lutheran denominations hold to baptismal regeneration. According to Mead's Handbook of Denominations (I have a 1970 ed.), Lutherans accept Luther's Small and Large Catechisms, both of which clearly teach baptismal regeneration. The Smalcald Articles were also written by Luther. The Formula of Concord, also accepted by most if not all Lutheran bodies, states in its Article XII, section on "Erroneous Articles of the Schwenkfelders":

We reject and condemn these errors . . .: 3. That the water of Baptism is not a means whereby the Lord God seals the adoption of sons and works regeneration.

Mead writes about general Lutheran belief:

Infants are baptized, and baptized persons are believed to receive the gift of regeneration from the Holy Ghost. (p. 129)

Looking through the various Lutheran denominations, I see that the old American Lutheran Church (now part of the current ELCA) holds to the two catechisms, the Book of Concord, and the Smalcald Articles, as does the LCMS (the largest orthodox Lutheran group left, which hasn't sanctioned abortion and various liberal heterodox assumptions, etc.). I highly doubt that the Wisconsin Synod would believe any differently, being a very conservative group. Indeed, Mead says they are "very close" to LCMS theology. If a self-described "Lutheran" denies baptismal regeneration, then they are no representatives of Lutheranism, traditionally-understood, but rather some nebulous entity which may still be called Lutheranism, but in actually no longer is.

Anglicanism concurs with Luther and Lutheranism on this matter. In its authoritative Thirty-Nine Articles (1563, language revised 1801), Article 27, Of Baptism, reads as follows:

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

(From The Book of Common Prayer, NY: The Seabury Press, 1979, 873)

The venerable John Wesley, founder of Methodism, who is widely admired by Protestants and Catholics alike, agreed, too, that children are regenerated (and justified initially) by means of infant baptism. From this position he never wavered. In his Articles of Religion (1784), which is a revised version of the Anglican Articles, he retains an abridged form of the clause on baptism (No. 17) , stating that it is "a sign of regeneration, or the new birth."

Written in 1996 by Dave Armstrong.

Dialogue: Baptism, the Mystical Body of Christ, and Implications for Ecumenism

A "traditionalist" wrote to me (words in blue):

. . . the very articles you listed in the first part of your reply . . . made me question these NEW definitions of "Church" and "Mystical Body of Christ." Baptism alone does NOT incorporate one into the Mystical Body of Christ. Father Most (who also is a renowned orthodox Catholic) says that Peter Kreeft is wrong in one of his books by stating this very thing. I am here assuming that Mystical Body of Christ = The Church. This is emphatically stated in Mortalium Animos and encyclicals by Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X.

Then Fr. John A. Hardon (also of impeccable orthodoxy) is also wrong, as he states that one effect (among many) of baptism is:

. . . entrance into the Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church.

{Pocket Catholic Dictionary, NY: Doubleday, 1980, 39}

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), #1267, 1269 says the same thing. But I suppose you consider that a liberal document as well? So does the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

. . . we who by Baptism are united to, and become member's of Christ's body, . . .

{New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1934, tr. John A McHugh & Charles J. Callan, 186; the Church is described as "the body of Christ" on p. 99}

Was the Council of Trent "liberal" too? Was it infiltrated by modernists who deliberately and insidiously implanted "ambiguous" language into it?

Likewise, the Council of Florence (1439) declared:

. . . holy baptism . . . by it we are made members of Christ and belong to His body, the Church . . .

{Decree for the Armenians}

The Church is the organization within itself established by Jesus Christ, so to say that Catholics "search for unity" is a misnomer.

Not at all, because various Christians have varying degrees of attainment to Catholic fullness of truth. They are implicitly members of the Catholic Church if they have been baptized properly (i.e., a trinitarian formula, with right intent); therefore we are to seek unity with them. It is an imperative, and not optional. This goes back at least as far as the controversies over Donatist re-baptism, in Augustine's time (5th century).

One of the four marks of the Church is that it is "ONE."

Of course it is.

At the very least, do you not agree that the misinterpretation of ecumenism has led millions into religious indifferentism?

Oh, of course. I always say so in my papers on the topic. But we don't determine orthodoxy and truth by virtue of "misinterpretation," do we? The same has been done to Vatican II and the Bible. You "traditionalists" wish to, therefore, question the validity of Vatican II itself. But in so doing, you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Is the prudency NOT questionable?

Not at all, as this would make also the Bible itself "imprudent," given the myriad abuses of it through the centuries. Your argument, therefore, proves too much. You should know that there has been turmoil and crisis after all the ecumenical Councils. Even Nicea defined the Trinity (in less-developed form compared to the later Chalcedon), but nevertheless the Arians flourished for quite a while after it (and had great, majority, numbers, even among the clergy - Newman credits the laity for keeping the Church afloat in that troubled era). By "traditionalist" reasoning, this must have been because Nicea was an "Arian Council." If there wasn't a liberal crisis in the Church (i.e., in practice, not in terms of dogma), I suspect that schismatic and separatist types wouldn't spout half the nonsense and claptrap that they do. Sorry for the invective, but I (with Augustine and the mind of the Church) consider the schismatic spirit and actual schism an exceedingly wicked sin, to be avoided like the plague. Identifying error and heresy for what it is is very biblical and Pauline . . .

[citing me]: "We do think many of these non-Catholics will go to heaven, but because of what they know or not know individually, and how well they follow the moral law, not due to any relativism of doctrine (we think Protestants and Orthodox are implicitly part of the Mystical Body and the Catholic Church)."

CONDEMNED PROPOSITIONS Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors: 17. "Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ." --Encyclical Quanto conficiamur, Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

But the Catholic view is - and always has been - that non-Catholic Christians who have been incorporated into Christ and His One Church by virtue of baptism are part of the Church in some fashion, as just established above. Therefore, Pius IX's condemnation doesn't apply to this orthodox Catholic position.

16. "Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation." -- Encyclical Qui pluribus, Nov. 9, 1846.

In other words, this is a condemnation of relativism and indifferentism, which even you agree is a misinterpretation of true Catholic ecumenism.

[me]: "(we think Protestants and Orthodox are implicitly part of the Mystical Body and the Catholic Church)."

Not according to the continuous teaching magisterium of the Church for 1999 years and Father Most. This is simply incorrect. You are changing the definition of Church and Mystical Body of Christ from their original meanings.

Hardly, as I showed above. I see that a little background on the Donatist controversy is needed, as this issue constantly comes up, and "traditionalists" seem to be unaware that the undivided, pre-Schism early Church has long since authoritatively spoken in a sense which is altogether consistent with present-day authentic Catholic ecumenism, as emphasized at Vatican II.

I cite Jaroslav Pelikan, noted historian (formerly Lutheran, recently a convert to Orthodoxy) of the history of Christian doctrine:

Donatism was no less insistent than Augustine that there could be only one church. The Donatists also laid claim to the title 'catholic,' which they denied to anyone else. But they made the unity and the catholicity of the church contingent upon its prior holiness . . . And the only church that met this qualification was the Donatist community; it alone had true unity, for it alone had true holiness. Likewise, it alone had the sacraments. 'There is,' said one Donatist bishop, 'one baptism, which belongs to the church; and where there is no church, there cannot be any baptism either.' . . . In the name of this demand for holiness, the Donatists felt obliged to separate themselves from the vast body of those who called themselves catholic Christians; for there could be no fellowship between the church of Christ (the Donatists) and the synagogue of Satan (the catholics) . . .


[St. Augustine wrote:] 'as there is in the catholic church something that is not catholic [i.e., unholiness in some of its members], so there may be something that is catholic outside the catholic church.' [Ep. 185.38, 185.42] . . .

. . . 'all men possess baptism who have received it in any place, from any sort of man, just so long as it was consecrated with the words of the Gospel and was received by them without deceit and with some degree of faith.' [Baptism, 7.53.102]

{The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, pp. 309-311}

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd rev. ed. by F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p. 127) summarizes the Donatist / baptism controversy and its import:

. . . Pope Stephen I . . . [in 256] refused to sanction rebaptism and also threatened the African bishops with excommunication if they continued the practice . . . The Council of Arles in 314 opposed this [Donatist] view by declaring heretical Baptism valid if conferred in the name of the Trinity, and this teaching came to be generally accepted by the whole Church, esp. through the influence of St. Augustine. He established the dependence of the validity of the Sacrament on the correct form prescribed by Christ, regardless of the faith or worthiness of the minister.

This understanding is altogether harmonious with the ecumenical notion that Protestant and Orthodox trinitarian baptism is valid and sufficient for incorporation into the Body of Christ.

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (who received me into the Church, and baptized my first two children) wrote:

Gradually, therefore, as it became clear that there were "God-fearing" people outside the Christian fold, and that some were deprived of their Catholic heritage without fault on their part, the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation, although they were not professed Catholics or even necessarily baptized. Ambrose and Augustine paved the way for making these distinctions. By the twelfth century, it was widely assumed that a person can be saved if some "invincible obstacle stands in the way" of his baptism and entrance into the Church.

Thomas Aquinas restated the constant teaching about the general necessity of the Church. But he also conceded that a person may be saved extra sacramentally by a baptism of desire and therefore without actual membership by reason of his at least implicit desire to belong to the Church . . .

Since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 defined that "The universal Church of the faithful is one, outside of which no one is saved," there have been two solemn definitions of the same doctrine, by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 and at the Council of Florence in 1442. At the Council of Trent, which is commonly looked upon as a symbol of Catholic unwillingness to compromise, the now familiar dogma of baptism by desire was solemnly defined; and it was this Tridentine teaching that supported all subsequent recognition that actual membership in the Church is not required to reach one's eternal destiny.

At the Second Council of the Vatican, both streams of doctrine were delicately welded into a composite whole [he then cites Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, II, 14] . . .

Actual incorporation into the Church takes place by baptism of water. Those who are not actually baptized may, nevertheless, be saved through the Church according to their faith in whatever historical revelation they come to know and in their adequate cooperation with the internal graces of the Spirit they receive.

On both counts, however, whoever is saved owes his salvation to the one Catholic Church founded by Christ. It is to this Church alone that Christ entrusted the truths of revelation which have by now, though often dimly, penetrated all the cultures of mankind. It is this Church alone that communicates the merits won for the whole world on the cross.

{From The Catholic Catechism, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1975, pp. 234-236}

[citing my words again]:

"Another charge which has been sent my way is the accusation that I am trying to evangelize the Orthodox, or that I am engaging in proselytizing. The ecumenical Balamand Agreement stated, for example:

Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox."

Mr. Armstrong, do you not find something inherently wrong with this statement? Perhaps the fact it contradicts 2000 years of magisterial teaching as well as that specifically of Jesus Christ. This was issued by the Vatican. Does it have any doctrinal weight or authority for us Catholics? I doubt it. And if it does, one must obey God rather than man, especially in the face of insipid apostasy.

I engage in apologetics, but in a manner consistent also with the ecumenical spirit. Both strains of thought and approach are well-entrenched in Catholic Tradition, as I am trying to demonstrate presently. But one can't "evangelize" other Christians, by definition. One can only seek to persuade them that the fullness of apostolic Christianity is found in the Catholic Church.

[Me]: "that all who are saved are saved because of the Catholic Church, whether or not they are aware of that fact."

So the Church is visible to some, but invisible to others?

In effect, yes (or mistakenly identified or defined with too-narrow parameters).

Since most non-Catholics (and "Catholics") practice birth control, and the use of birth control is a mortal sin, how can those who are in the state of mortal sin (objectively) go to heaven?

They can't; however, one of the requirements for mortal sin (as I assume you know) is sufficient knowledge. This is lacking - I would suspect - in the great majority of these cases (though I would agree with you that it shouldn't be). One might also make a complex psychological/philosophical argument that "full consent of the will" is also usually (or at least often) lacking. I know that when I contracepted I didn't have the slightest idea that such a practice was universally condemned by all Christians until the Anglicans caved into the humanist and neo-pagan zeitgeist in 1930. I was simply ignorant. When I was informed of this, I immediately became more responsible and culpable for my objectively sinful actions (and indeed I soon denounced it).

I thought the church was visible and we had to make a profession of faith to be Catholic, not just "fall into it" accidentally without even knowing it. We must profess Catholic belief and practice Catholic teaching in our lives (to the best of our knowledge) to be saved, yes or no?

Yes. The huge "loophole" here, of course, lies within the parentheses.

Compiled by Dave Armstrong on 1 August 1999 from e-mail correspondence.

Dialogue on the Biblical Evidence for Infant Baptism & Baptismal Regeneration (vs. Jack DisPennett)

This exchange stemmed from Jack's critique of my paper, A Fictional Dialogue on Infant Baptism. All Bible quotes, unless otherwise annotated, are from the New International Version. Jack's words will be in blue. Quotes from my paper above will be in red, with my current comments being in black. If you enjoyed this dialogue, you might also be interested in another we engaged in: Dialogue with an Evangelical Protestant on Catholic Mariology.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

II. INFANT BAPTISM (BAPTISM OF WHOLE "HOUSEHOLDS")

III. THE COVENANTAL ANALOGY OF CIRCUMCISION

IV. THE JUSTIFICATIONS OF ABRAHAM AND THEIR RELATION TO HIS CIRCUMCISION
(JIMMY AKIN)

V. MARTIN LUTHER'S BELIEF IN BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

VI. COVENANTAL SALVATION, "HARD CASES," AND "TICKETS TO HEAVEN"

VII. BAPTISM AND THE HOLY SPIRIT (JOHN 3:5 | ACTS 10:44-48)

VIII. MISCELLANY AND A SERMON

IX. ORIGINAL SIN, PELAGIANISM, AND BAPTISM

X. PROTESTANTS, BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, AND SACRAMENTS

XI. TITUS 3:5, JOHN 3:5, AND 1 CORINTHIANS 6:11: THREEFOLD PARALLELS

XII. MARK 16:16 ("WHOEVER BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED WILL BE SAVED")

XIII. ACTS 22:16 ("BE BAPTIZED AND WASH YOUR SINS AWAY")

XIV. 1 PETER 3:21 ("BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU")

XV. ACTS 2:38 ("REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS")

XVI. "THE WHOLE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE" (SALVATION AND BAPTISM)

XVII. BRIEF SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM

I. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

Zeke the "Jesus Freak": Hey Cathy, why do Catholics baptize babies? It's pointless since they don't know what's going on and can't repent, according to Acts 2:38 and Mark 6:16.

Cathy the Catholic: But where in the Bible does it specifically prohibit the baptism of babies?

Zeke: Well . . . I guess it never says that. But . . .

Cathy: But don't you only follow what's plainly taught in the pages of Scripture?

Zeke: It's a conclusion that follows from ideas that are clearly in Scripture. It's still a biblical doctrine.

Cathy: Ah! That's a big difference. Now we're both in the same boat, since the Bible doesn't explicitly teach about baptism of infants. We must make inferences. Catholics maintain that there are many strong indications of our view.

"Strong indications" is a relative term here, and we must be careful with how we proof text things. Relying on implicit proofs only is not necessarily wrong, but it is potentially dangerous.

I agree.

I think that the problem for Catholicism is that so many of its key doctrines (baptismal regeneration being one) rely on implicit texts.

That is not unique to us. Protestants believe in the canon of the New Testament without one iota of biblical evidence for it (thus they rely on human ecclesiastical authority in the 4th century). They also accept sola Scriptura (as one of their bedrock principles of arriving at theological truths) when there is (I think) no biblical evidence at all for that notion, or if there is, it is implicit only, in my opinion. So that sword cuts both ways. Protestants build their very belief-structure (and determine how they will ascertain all other Christian doctrines) on two premises that are entirely unproven or unprovable from Holy Scripture itself. Catholics don't labor under that profound sort of logical inconsistency.

I shall try to prove in what follows that the proofs for infant baptism/baptismal regeneration are very speculative and assumption-laden.

Fair enough. It's good and helpful to delve into the Scriptures to learn more about what it teaches. I look forward to the opportunity, especially on this topic, which I haven't researched all that deeply thus far.

II. INFANT BAPTISM (BAPTISM OF WHOLE "HOUSEHOLDS")

Zeke: Where? I've never seen any in 17 years of being saved.

Cathy: In Acts 16:15,33, 18:8 (cf. 11:14), and 1 Corinthians 1:16 it is stated that an individual and his whole household were baptized. It would be hard to say this involved no small children.

Acts 16:15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

Acts 16:33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

Mr. Armstrong himself knows that when the Bible uses the word "all" it doesn't necessarily mean, "every single one with no exceptions" but is often at least slightly hyperbolic in nature.

Correct.

For example, in Romans 11 Paul says that "all Israel will be saved," but this doesn't necessarily mean "every single person." In fact, Mr. Armstrong himself tried to use this same argument in our Mariology discussion to prove that "all have sinned" need not encompass Mary.

That's right, but in that instance, Jack was trying to show that there are absolutely no persons whatever who are without sin. That is simply not true, because Jesus (a man, albeit a God-Man) and Adam and Eve before the Fall, and the unfallen angels were all without sin. So "all" in that context clearly had to be qualified, lest the Bible contradict itself. Here we are not dealing with such a broad scope (all men). Nor is my argument nearly that ambitious.

Hence, these passages that say "all the household" was baptized need not mean that every single member of the household, even infants, were baptized. This argument begs the question.

It doesn't beg the question as long as we don't say this "proves" infant baptism." What we are saying is that a straightforward reading of it suggests that in all likelihood, children were involved, and that it is perfectly consistent with such a view. In Acts 16:15 it reads, When she and the members of her household were baptized. Now, who are the members of a household? In my own household, the "members" are my wife and I, three sons, and a daughter. People generally had more children in those days, before contraception and abortion and an anti-child mentality became prevalent. So it is quite reasonable to assume that children were included in the baptism. The very fact that it mentions household rather than simply husband, is a clear indication of others being involved. In that time and culture, that probably would have included parents as well, maybe grandparents, or siblings or cousins. Almost always it would also include children (even if the individual referred to was elderly, because he or she would have been living with younger relatives).

In Acts 18:8 the phrase used is his entire household. Again, what would my own "entire household" be? Me, my wife, and four children. That is the straightforward reading. Jack may try to pick at the edges of this interpretation, because it isn't airtight, looking for a loophole to avoid the difficulty for his position, but I think he is stretching it. There is such a things as a plausible explanation, whether or not something is proven beyond any doubt. Many biblical passages connect household and children (if indeed such a demonstration is necessary, so obvious is it):

Genesis 18:19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, . . .

Genesis 31:41 It was like this for the twenty years I was in your household. I worked for you fourteen years for your two daughters . . .

Genesis 36:6 Esau took his wives and sons and daughters and all the members of his household, . . . .

Genesis 47:12 Joseph also provided his father and his brothers and all his father's household with food, according to the number of their children.

Numbers 18:11 . . . I give this to you and your sons and daughters as your regular share. Everyone in your household who is ceremonially clean may eat it.

1 Chronicles 10:6 So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together.

Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

1 Timothy 3:12 deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Furthermore, the Greek word for house or household in four passages connecting it with baptism (Acts 16:15,33, 18:8, and 1 Cor 1:16) is oikos (from which the English economy derives). Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon defines it in its usage at Acts 18:8, 1 Corinthians 1:16, and Acts 16:31 (in the immediate context of 16:33), as the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household (p. 441; Strong's word #3624).

(Also, see John 4:53 where the man's "whole household" believes in Christ; this obviously excludes little babies who are not old enough to understand things pertaining to salvation)

No, it doesn't obviously exclude babies -- not with regard to being saved/baptized -- because elsewhere entire households are referred to as being saved. To be saved (or baptized), one doesn't necessarily have to be aware of what is happening. For example, say a child was born a vegetable, with severe brain defects, and died at ten years of age, still incapable of rational thought or communication. Is that child damned simply because she couldn't "believe"? I think not. I think that God's mercy extends to those who do not yet know or understand the gospel, or else all aborted babies, children who die at a young age, or before the age of reason, etc. go to hell. I don't believe that for a second. But here are some more relevant verses:

Luke 19:9 Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son ofAbraham.

Acts 11:14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.'

Acts 16:31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved; you and your household."

III. THE COVENANTAL ANALOGY OF CIRCUMCISION

Cathy: Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision.

Colossians 2: 11-13 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38, Romans 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Galatians 3:14,29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Romans 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 29:10-12, cf. Matthew 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25, Romans 2:28-9, Philippians 3:3).

Here the Catholic has unwittingly argued himself into a corner.

In this instance, also the Presbyterian, as I derived the above argument straight from Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge.

I will totally agree with the presupposition that baptism in the New Covenant is equivalent in some fashion to circumcision in the Old Covenant.

Good. But let the reader note that Jack goes on to make exactly one biblical argument (technically somewhat off the subject, as it deals with soteriology rather than sacramentology) derived from the context of Romans 4:11, which was mentioned in my original paper (and I thoroughly refute his argument, I think). He completely ignores 13 other passages in the paragraph in red above. Does he consider this "interaction" with an opponent's argument? This parallel of baptism and circumcision is absolutely central to the biblical argument made for infant baptism by Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, and Anglicans alike. It can't be dismissed by the one-line ambiguous concession above. Jack needs to explain the other 13 passages variously, so that they apply more to adult baptism than infant baptism (since he already admits that there is some sort of connection with baptism).

However, when we look at Romans 4 (which by pure chance just happens to be one of the main texts on which Protestants base their understanding of imputed justification), what does Paul tell us?

We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before."-vv. 9b-10

These verses are very clear; Abraham was justified before he was circumcised--in the same way, Christians are justified before baptism.

IV. THE JUSTIFICATIONS OF ABRAHAM AND THEIR RELATION TO HIS CIRCUMCISION (JIMMY AKIN)

In his online article, The Justifications of Abraham, Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin absolutely dismantles this argument, using cross-exegesis:

. . . Contemporary Protestant preaching focuses mainly on the past dimension of justification. This aspect of justification is indicated in verses such as Rom 5:1 ("having been justified"), 5:9 ("having now been justified"), and 1 Co 6:11 ("you were justified"). These passages show that justification is clearly a past event in the life of the believer. But there it also has present and future dimensions. For example, the future dimensions are found these verses:

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. (Rom 2:13)

For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Rom 3:20)

Commenting on the second of these passages, British Bible scholar James D.G. Dunn points out that Paul's statement alludes to Psalm 142:2. He remarks,

The metaphor in the psalm is of a servant being called to account before his master, but in the context here [in Romans] the imagery of final judgment is to the fore . . . Against the view that Paul sees 'justification' simply as an act which marks the beginning of a believer's life, as a believer, here is a further example [in addition to 2:13] of the verb used for a final verdict, not excluding the idea of the final verdict at the end of life . . .

("Romans," Word Biblical Commentary, Dallas: Word Books, 1988, vol. 38a, p. 153)

. . . We find the different temporal dimensions to justification illustrated very well in the life of Abraham. To begin with, Gen 15:6 clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants. Paul confirms this when he quotes Genesis 15:6 to show that Abraham was justified at that time:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness' (Romans 4:2-3 . . .)

But if justification were a once-for-all event, rather than a process, that means Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both. First, the book of Hebrews tells us that:

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. (Heb 11:8)

Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith -- the kind that pleases God and wins his approval (Heb. 11:2, 6) -- so we know that Abraham had saving faith according to Hebrews 11. But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it "when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive . . . " The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4--three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6. But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event. Abraham also received justification afterward Gen 15:6, for the book of James tells us,

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. (James 2:21-23)

. . . In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Abraham therefore received justification--that is, a fuller fruition of justification--when he offered Isaac. The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18--seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6. Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar. As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer's life. This is something that many Protestants have recognized . . .

Even the very first Protestant of them all--Martin Luther--held justification to be a process as well as a state. The well-known Luther scholar, Paul Althaus, summarizes Luther's position as follows:

Luther uses the terms 'to justify' . . . and 'justification' . . . in more than one sense. From the beginning [of Luther's writings], justification most often means the judgment of God with which he declares man to be righteous . . . . In other places, however, the word stands for the entire event though which a man is essentially made righteous (a usage which Luther also finds in Paul, Romans 5), that is, for both the imputation of righteousness to man as well as man's actually becoming righteous. Justification in this sense remains incomplete on earth and is first completed on the Last Day. Complete righteousness is in this sense is an eschatological reality. This twofold use of the word cannot be correlated with Luther's early and later theology; he uses 'justification' in both senses at the same time, sometimes shortly after each other in the same text.

(The Theology of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 226)

Luther himself wrote,

For we understand that a man who is justified is not already righteous, but moving toward righteousness.

(Luther's Works, 34, 52, cited in Althaus, p. 237, n. 63)

and

Our justification is not yet complete . . . . It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead.

(Weimarer Ausgabe, 391, 252, cited in Althaus, p. 237, n. 63)

We see, then, that St. James (James 2:21-23) cites Genesis 15:6 just as St. Paul does (in Romans 4:3,22; cf. 4:4-6,9), with regard to justification by faith. But there is a slight problem (for Protestants, but not for Catholics). James, when he cites the verse, refers it specifically to Abraham's offering of Isaac, which occurred in Genesis 22, and argues that this demonstrates that "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works . . . " So obviously, there is more than one justification of Abraham, or else Paul and James are clearly contradicting one another.

Furthermore, Paul appears to contradict James again when he denies that "works" have anything to do with justification, in Romans 4:2,4 (and implied throughout the chapter). How is this to be reconciled? I contend that the Protestant who believes in a one-time imputed reconciliation and absolute separation of works from faith cannot reconcile James and Paul. But the Catholic can easily do so within his overall hermeneutic of soteriology. Jimmy Akin again explains how we can do this:

Romans 3:20 is the first occurrence of the expression "works of the Torah" (Gk., ergon nomou) in Paul. This term is familiar in modern preaching as "works of the law," however it would be more properly translated in context as "works of Torah," since the law (nomos) Paul is everywhere speaking of in Romans and Galatians is the Mosaic Law (Torah; nomos being the common Septuagint translation of the Hebrew term "Torah" . . .).

The translation of ergon nomou as "works of Torah" is confirmed by archaeological-lexical evidence because it also appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of the first-century Qumran community in Israel . . . The phrase works of Torah/works of Law is used repeatedly and sheds great light on the meaning of the term in Paul . . .

The term "works of Torah" thus predates Paul and is a term he picked up from the Jewish vocabulary of his day (which is why he is having to dispute with people over it in Romans and Galatians, because they were already using the term). And as we said, its first occurrence in Paul is Romans 3:20. Before this point in Romans the term ergon ("work" or "deed") and its cognates were only found in 2:6, 7, and 15. In none of these places does the term indicate what Paul here has in mind.

In 2:6 Paul stated that God would judge every man according to his work. Obviously he did not mean works of Torah because the judgment of Gentiles was in view as well as the judgment of Jews (cf. 2:9-10).

In 2:7 Paul stated that God would reward those who persevered "in well-doing" (lit., "in good work") by giving them eternal life or immortality (as well as glory and honor). But this is precisely what Paul says works of Torah will not get one because Torah does not give the power to deal with sin. (Thus there is a distinction in Paul's mind between "good work" and "works of Torah.") . . .

Thus the introduction of the term "works of Torah" in 3:20 is a new theme in the epistle, separate from the general "works" (actions, whether good or bad) according to which men will be judged, separate from the "good work" which God will reward with eternal life, and separate from the "work of the Law" which is written on the hearts of Gentiles and which Christ died so that we might fulfill. Because of its distinction from these things, we must inquire more closely into what Paul means by the term.

Unfortunately, the context here does not give us much of a clue, and it becomes clear in the next chapter, Romans 4. Once the term "works of Torah" has been introduced, evidence accumulates rapidly concerning precisely what Paul has in mind.

In 3:28, Paul reiterates his thesis that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of Torah." To support this, he asks rhetorically, "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also" (3:29). "Works of Torah" must therefore be something that are characteristic of Jews rather than Gentiles. If Paul has in mind anything particular here, it would presumably be the ceremonial components of Torah (circumcision, food laws, festival laws), which are distinctively characteristic of Jews. It would not be the moral components of Torah, since even Gentiles have these written on their hearts (2:15) and they consequently do them "by nature" (2:14).

It is in chapter 4 that we have the first concrete example of what Paul means by "works of Torah," and the example confirms the thesis just advanced (that if Paul has anything in mind it is the ceremonial rather than the moral components of Torah). The example is circumcision (4:9-12). Paul emphasizes with great force the non-necessity of circumcision for justification. In fact, the whole purpose of his discussion of Abraham as the father of the faithful (chapter 4) is to show the
non-necessity of circumcision.

This indicates that circumcision is the work of Torah par excellence which Paul has in mind--something confirmed by the fact that Paul had earlier conducted an extended discussion of the irrelevance of circumcision to salvation (2:25-3:1) and by the fact that right after his affirmation in 3:27 that works of Torah are not necessary he drew the implication that God "will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith" (3:30).

Our hypothesis that Paul has in mind primarily the ceremonial elements of Torah by "works of Torah" is thus confirmed by the discussion of circumcision in Romans. It is further confirmed by the discussion of circumcision in Galatians.

[see Galatians 2:3,12, 5:2-3,6,11-12, 6:12-13,15]

(The Works of the Law -- online article)

This reconciles the seeming contradiction as to the relationship of faith and works between James and Paul, entirely in the Catholic's favor, and also demonstrates that -- though Paul draws a parallel between circumcision and baptism in terms of initiation rite into the covenant, he doesn't think that circumcision can in any way save a person, whereas he does connect baptism and salvation, as we shall see below, since baptism is the New Covenant fulfillment of the circumcision of the Old Covenant.

As for Abraham supposedly undergoing a one-time justification only before he was circumcised, that is shown to be false by James' inspired interpretation of the justificational significance of his offering of Isaac. Abraham was circumcised in Genesis 17 (17:24). But then he was justified again (for the third time) in Genesis 22. Thus, Jack's position of adult's "believer's baptism" and one-time justification (before the baptism) both collapse in a heap.

Furthermore, since Abraham was the first person to be circumcised according to God's command, his example can hardly be regarded as normative for all future circumcisions. He was 99 when he was circumcised, and Ishmael was 13. But subsequently, the Jews were to circumcise their sons at eight days old (Lev 12:3). Thus, Jack's argument for a one-time justification before circumcision/baptism is again shown to be utterly fallacious. The parallel of baptism / circumcision is obviously to babies, since in both cases the baby has no idea of the Covenant (or regenerational) significance of what is happening. This is the heart of our argument, that Jack ignored, preferring to pursue Abraham and Pauline justification, as a "knockout punch," but with dismal results for his position, and many new serious difficulties he will have to explain, as shown.

V. MARTIN LUTHER'S BELIEF IN BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

This may be offensive to Catholics who are accustomed to having all the graces of salvation dished out to them through the rites of the church, but one reads Romans in vain if one is looking for any denial of that personal and non-communal aspect to salvation. (c.f. Romans 10:9-10)

There is certainly a personal aspect to salvation. Catholics believe along with all other Christians that the individual will stand before God and give account. So we don't deny that, but you have to deny the communal and covenantal aspect of salvation, which the vast majority of all Christians throughout history have accepted. And if I am "offended" (which I am not; rather, I am delighted to have the opportunity to thoroughly disprove this view), so is Martin Luther:

Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle."

(The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, rev. ed., 1970, 197)

Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:

Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ's kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .

When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . .

(From ed. by Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis: 1935, sections 223-224,230, pages 162, 165)

VI. COVENANTAL SALVATION, "HARD CASES," AND "TICKETS TO HEAVEN"

Mr. Armstrong seems (as alluded to later in the fictional dialogue) to bemoan the fact that Protestants often overemphasize the "personal" aspect of salvation, e.g. "accepting Christ as your personal Savior."

Yes, "overemphasize" is the key word here (as we agree that each individual has to appropriate salvation and grace for himself -- the Pauline "work out your salvation in fear and trembling"), because the denial of covenantal salvation causes the biblical difficulties I have been outlining. Of course, the phrase, "accepting Christ as your personal Savior," doesn't occur in the Bible. The Bible prefers to speak in terms of Jesus (often, through baptism) saving us, rather than us accepting Him, as if He is some sort of beggar at the door of our hearts.

I would say it is better to go to that extreme than to think that mere membership in any organization or earthly communion can grant you a ticket to heaven.

No Catholic who knows his faith believes this (quite the contrary: we agree with St. Paul that one must be ever-vigilant with regard to their salvation). If anything, it is the Calvinist and his "perseverance of the saints" and the Baptist with his "eternal security" whose beliefs are much more accurately caricatured (and it is a caricature in most instances) as a "ticket to heaven." But we are still off the topic.

I believe that any Bible-minded Protestant will realize that the communal aspect of salvation is important, but that it cannot exist unless that personal, volitional aspect has been taken care of. No one can "accept Christ" for you.

The baby obviously doesn't consciously "accept Christ," but is made a member of God's covenant by grace, just as the Old Testament circumcised child was part of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (and the young girls were, too, as part of the family). People get grace all the time based on other people's actions. That's what intercessory prayer is about! When the child is old enough, he or she chooses to be a follower and disciple of Christ of their own accord. This is the function of confirmation in Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism. It's easy for Jack to simply repeat back to us the usual Baptist-type theological lingo (which I used to believe myself, as I held to adult baptism as a Protestant, and was "baptized" at 24, thus repudiating my Methodist infant baptism). What I am interested in is an extensive exegesis of the relevant biblical data. So far, the reader can readily see who is doing more of that.

Moreover, getting back to the point at hand, I challenge Mr. Armstrong to find just one verse that directly equates "baptism" and "justification." (No, Bible Gateway's search engine isn't broken; there isn't one.)

There are several which equate or closely connect baptism and salvation (which is quite enough), as we will see below.

Cathy: Infants are wholly saved by God's grace just as adults are, only apart from their rational and willful consent. Their parents act in their behalf.

This is where the "leap" of Catholic theology takes one very much past where Biblical theology ends.

Then the Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox are all "unbiblical" too. I still await a biblical argument which establishes Jack's viewpoint. When I gave mine for the basis of baptizing infants, following the parallel of circumcision, Jack ignored 13 out of 14 proof texts I offered for his consideration. So I'm supposed to be persuaded by bald statements without any biblical backing? That won't cut it for this "biblically-minded Catholic."

To say that children are "saved" by their parents' decision before they are even old enough to choose insinuates that they can be "lost" by their parents' decision.

No; we believe that they will not be punished without mercy, if they die before the age of reason. They are included in the covenant by "proxy," so to speak, but they don't lose their salvation if the parents go astray. They receive grace from the baptism itself, for those who accept baptismal regeneration, as we do. I gave three examples of "households" being saved in Scripture, but alas, Jack will simply say that they didn't include children, contrary to other passages which stated outright that a "household" usually does include children.

As human beings, we often have a tendency to put outward appearances and rituals over and above the conditions of the heart.

Indeed we do. For that very reason, I uploaded my paper, Sacramentalism and Inner Disposition. And that is why Catholics believe that to receive the Holy Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is itself a further grave sin, and to "fake" repentance" in the confessional is an equally serious matter. That couldn't be further from the usual caricature of sacraments as some sort of "magic" or "talisman" which is often put forth by those who don't understand the reasoning behind sacramentalism. Readers can get a basic overview of the surprising amount of biblical data in this vein by reading my paper, Sacramentalism.

I sincerely doubt that the same Jesus who said "Let the children come to me" is going to send babies to hell because of their parents' indecision.

Me, too. We have no disagreement here.

However, even the Catechism expresses sort of a minimalist hope that unbaptized infants will be saved:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can
only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for
them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved,
and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say: "Let the
children come to me, do not hinder them," 64 allow us to hope that there is a way
of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more
urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ
through the gift of holy Baptism.

Yes. That's because we're not legalistic like, say, supralapsarian Calvinists, who think that persons can be foreordained to hell from the foundation of the world, without their free will having any part of the process. Nor do we automatically exclude all those who haven't heard the gospel from salvation, as many Protestants do (contrary to Romans 2:14-15). The Church doesn't proclaim that anyone is damned, only that certain saints are in heaven.

Allow me to quote Charlie Brown: "Hoping to goodness is not theologically sound." It staggers my imagination how Rome can (in a manner of speaking) open up the doors of Heaven wide to include deniers of Christ (such as Muslims--see 1 John 2:22-23)

They have to fully know and understand what they are denying, and then deny Christ to be damned. Many, many people are simply ignorant, and we believe God is merciful to such folks. Hopefully, ignorance of Catholicism (which is rampant) will let a lot of people off the hook too. In the meantime, I do my best to educate people about what the Church actually teaches.

and yet be somewhat reluctant to dogmatically proclaim that the very children whom we are to become like to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3) are not damned automatically by their parents' not baptizing them!

Because that is a silly, foolish argument to begin with, which has not the slightest inkling of the covenantal aspect of baptism and the Christian community, or the biblical arguments lying behind infant baptism. Does Jack wish to merely preach and rail against Rome (clearly not even understanding its teachings in the first place)? I thought this was a dialogue.

I quote Ezekiel 18:1-4:

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: " 'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD , you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son-both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

Yes, of course. I don't know what relevance this has to our discussion . . .

For posterity's sake, I will briefly record three possible alternate views as to the salvation of infants:

1. All infants are saved automatically. This has the advantage of
getting us out of the unbaptized infant problem the Catholics posit, but has the
disadvantage of implying that the most merciful thing we can do to
infants is to kill them at birth and guarantee them a spot in heaven. This is an
unavoidable paradox of this view and therefore I think this view lacks
plausibility.

2. God judges infants based on what they would have done had they
lived. However, I think that upon further examination, this is a little
incoherent. It seems to be unjust for God to judge us on what would have been. For
example, if I had died on November 30, 1996, the day before I became a
Christian, I would have gone to hell. Now, if God judges me based on
what would have happened had I died on that day, I would be damned. In the
same way, it seems incoherent that God would judge infants based on mere
counterfactual statement, because it leads to paradoxes to which one can
find no end. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that it seems
implausible, at least to my human intellect.

I'm inclined to accept #2, though I think #1 might be possible, too, and in line with God's merciful nature. There is some biblical evidence of what is known as God's Middle Knowledge, whereby His omniscience includes what people would have done, since He is both out of time and in possession of all knowledge.

3. Upon entry into the afterlife, infants are endowed with understanding and then given a choice whether to accept or to reject Christ. I think that this solution has the advantage of avoiding the dilemmas noted in 1 and 2, but the proposition itself is speculative and therefore undogmatic in nature since it goes beyond the scope of the Biblical evidence.

Catholics deny that one can have a second chance at salvation after death (souls in purgatory are already saved; they just have to be cleaned up a bit in order to enter heaven). I think that can be established from Scripture. The other two positions do go beyond what we can know from the Bible. We really don't know. That's why some Catholics have believed in Limbo, where the unbaptized saved live forever in a state of natural happiness, but no Catholic is required to believe in that. In any event, this discussion is supposed to be about baptism, not the fate of dead infants, which is another matter entirely.

VII. BAPTISM AND THE HOLY SPIRIT (JOHN 3:5 | ACTS 10:44-48)

Zeke: That's not possible. You have to repent and be born again in order to receive salvation, as John 3:5 says.

Cathy: It doesn't exactly say that. It says that one must be born of water and the Spirit. Catholics, along with the Church Fathers such as St. Augustine and many Protestants (for example, Lutherans and Anglicans), interpret this as a reference to baptism, and a proof of the necessity of infant baptism.

This verse was used from the very beginning by figures such as Tertullian to "prove" baptismal regeneration. As with most "proof-texts", this verse is far from clear in meaning, and we should thus interpret it in the light of the rest of the Bible. Mr. Armstrong might well protest this as a smoke-and-mirror tactic, but consider this: Calvinists often use Romans chapter 9 as a proof-text for some of their bizarre doctrines. And they seem to have a good case, if you only look at the stuff that is in that chapter. But once you read other parts of the Bible, and learn such things as the fact that God wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) you are made better equipped to interpret Romans 9. In the same way, I will endeavor to point out some other Biblical points that will better equip us to interpret John 3:6.

That's fine with me. Jack makes some good points here. But he needs to deal with that verse at some point.

My first point is that there are many other occasions in the Scriptures where our salvation is explained and baptism is not even mentioned.

That is a rather weak argument. Much more important are verses where they are connected. Jack has to explain those. If he tries to merely appeal to other places where this isn't the case, that is not sufficient. Once is enough. The Virgin Birth is only mentioned once or twice in Scripture too. There is far less biblical evidence for that (if we simply count numbers of verses) than for baptismal regeneration. But all (non-liberal) Christians accept the Virgin Birth.

I will try to prove this at the end of my critique. For now, I will try to illustrate that the Catholic view of baptismal regeneration as it is held is actually inconsistent.

Okay; let's see what Jack can come up with!

Acts 10:44-48: While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

These verses render implausible the Catholic teaching of baptismal regeneration.

Hardly. This is not a normative situation for later Church history, either. It was an absolutely unique, one-time historical situation: the first pouring-out of the Spirit to the Gentiles. That is no more proof that "regeneration" always precedes baptism, than Abraham's circumcision at 99 and his son's at 13 "renders implausible" the practice of routine circumcision on the 8th day. This is exceedingly weak exegesis.

I think that all Christians would agree that a person is regenerated when the Holy Spirit comes on him.

They certainly do not agree that this is the only way regeneration (in the technical theological sense) occurs. Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists agree with us that regeneration normally occurs at baptism. I did a word search on my computer (the "Bible Gateway"): I typed in "regeneration Holy Spirit." That turned up no matches. :-)

Now, these verses indicate that the first Gentile believers received the Holy Spirit (and were thus, "regenerated") prior to baptism.

No; that's simply Jack's as-yet unproven assumption. He needs to prove that regeneration is inherently and always connected with the Indwelling of the Spirit. He hasn't done so; rather, he has merely assumed it and proceeded on with his "argument." He may be able to establish a link, for all I know. But he hasn't so far, because he has merely assumed his position without argument.

But Peter ordered them to be subsequently baptized. On a Catholic view that teaches baptismal regeneration, the subsequent water baptism of these already-regenerated believers would have been nothing more than a "symbolic" baptism.

That doesn't follow, for two reasons: 1) Jack has assumed they were already regenerated, which is not itself stated in the text, and I don't believe it is anywhere in Scripture. 2) Based on that groundless assumption, he proceeds to claim that therefore the baptism was merely symbolic (and that proposition is contradicted elsewhere in Scripture, where salvation is expressly associated to baptism). Since, therefore, Jack's premise rests on no biblical evidence, his conclusion is suspect, being based, as it is, on nothing whatever. This is a circular argument of the worst kind.

But this is precisely what the Catholic is trying to refute, not to prove. Thus, if we have at least one case of non-regenerative, symbolic baptism, (and this seems undeniable) then why cannot baptism be symbolic in all cases?

Undeniable??!! Jack hasn't proven anything at all in this "argument," as shown! It cannot be symbolic in all cases because it is tied to salvation elsewhere in very clear, blunt teachings. It is a well-known principle of biblical hermeneutics that one ought not to base a doctrine solely or primarily on a biblical narrative or historical account. It should be based on expositional biblical teaching, such as found in Paul's writings. And that is precisely what I do when I am trying to establish my belief about baptism.

"Because of the proof texts we have to prove baptismal regeneration," Catholics say. We will deal with those later.

I can't wait.

And although I admit that this one case falls short of disproving it in all the other cases, I think that it does cast a deep, dark shadow on the whole doctrine.

I think Jack needs to better understand hermeneutical principles. Wholly apart from the issue at hand, no one who has studied hermeneutics would make this grand claim of casting "a deep, dark shadow" on a doctrine based on one circular argument from a narrative text (and a one-time historical event at that). I don't blame anyone for needing more education. Jack said he has only been a "Christian" for five years. That isn't much time to learn all that there is to learn about the Bible, solid biblical theology, exegesis, and hermeneutics, and Christianity.

VIII. MISCELLANY AND A SERMON

This is because the whole doctrine ends up dying the death of a thousand qualifications. Let me illustrate using a fictional dialogue of my own.

. . . Which doesn't utilize a single Bible verse! Odd. Mine was filled with biblical passages. But Jack ignored 13 out of 14 in one single paragraph.

Carl the Catholic: You Baptists have a wrong view of baptism. Baptism is more than a symbol; it is actually the sacrament through which we are regenerated.

Bob the Baptist: Well, what about true believers who, for example, get hit by a car while walking to church the day they are going to get baptized? Are they going to hell just because of that, even though they trusted Christ?

Carl: No, because Catholics believe that anyone who wants to get baptized but is not able will still be saved.

Correct. Or at least they won't be damned simply because they weren't baptized.

Bob: What about the Muslims (whom the Catechism says are part of "God's plan of salvation") who neither believe in Christ nor baptism?

Carl: As long as someone has a sincere desire to serve the Creator and goes through with that desire and remains faithful to the end, God will pardon anyignorance that person had and will save them in spite of their ignorance.

Bob: What about the Quakers and the Salvation Army, who love the true Christ and serve Him from a pure heart, and yet do not baptize, believing that it is not important and that the important thing is inward regeneration and faith?

That is an extremely difficult case to make, because Scripture is so crystal-clear that the Christian is to be baptized.

Carl: Well, if these persons believe such things due to invincible ignorance and not because of obstinate rejection, God will still save them if they remain faithful to Christ until the end. This is because they would have desired baptism had they realized the truth about baptismal regeneration as we Catholics believe it.

Bob: What you are basically telling me is that, "Baptism saves us, except for when it doesn't." You admit that it is the desire for baptism (read "faith") that actually saves a person. Hence, you really don't believe in baptismal regeneration in the strictest sense.

Clever. The flaw here, however, is that the Bible indeed states flat-out that baptism saves or regenerates. So that is the raw (and, I think, undeniable) data we have to work with. These "hard cases" might be fun and interesting to ponder in a philosophical sense, but they don't undermine the clear biblical statements any more than the fact that we have free will contradicts God's sovereignty. When one gets deeply into spiritual matters, there are always things difficult to understand, and paradoxes. I still say Jack is off-topic. This speculation and wondering about the "hard cases" is not a discussion of baptism per se and the biblical evidence for it one way or another (infant vs. adult; regeneration vs. symbolic). We both agree on the inspired authority of the Bible, so that is how we have to argue this.

Zeke: That doesn't make sense. Water here refers to the amniotic sac when a baby is born. Babies can't be born again. Jesus is contrasting natural with spiritual birth.

Cathy: Are you saying then that a baby can't be saved, and will go to hell if it dies before the "age of reason"?

Zeke: No, no, I would never say that. God is too merciful to let that happen to an innocent little baby.

Cathy: But you believe in original sin (1 Corinthians 15:22), inherited by all people from the Fall of Adam and Eve, right?

Zeke: Well, yeah. What are you getting at?

Cathy: Once you say that a baby can be saved, then clearly there is a justification for baptizing infants, since there are factors other than their own consent which enter into the question of their salvation. Thus, you have arrived at a more communal, covenantal view of salvation (see, for
example, 1 Corinthians 7:14, 12:13), rather than the individualistic notion that many evangelicals have.

Here the dialogue drifts off into ideological "worldview" assumptions that one can hardly get to the end of. What I mean is that I, as an Evangelical Christian, am "preprogrammed", if you will, with a more "individualistic" view of salvation, whereas Mr. Armstrong as a Catholic is preprogrammed" with a more covenantal view of salvation. I dealt with this earlier in my critique, but I would like to go into a little more depth here to expose what I believe is the one crucial error in the Catholic view that leads to many other errors, including errors dealing with the topic at hand.

My first point is that entrance into Christ's flock is always an individual decision. Although we non-Calvinists accept predestination in some form, we rightly admit that, in the end, each individual person is responsible for his own sin and his own personal response to the Gospel message. "So then each of us shall give account of himself to God."-Romans 14:12. Although
there are corporate aspects to reward and punishment (c.f. the parable of the sheep and the goats), these too are based primarily on the individual decisions of the people which determined whether they would be "sheep" or "goats."

Second, the corporate aspect of salvation can never override the personal or decisional aspect, but rather is itself based on that aspect. That is, we as a Christian communion can "save" people by sharing the message of Christ with them, but we can never coerce them to accept that message. We are members of the body of Christ now, and is true that our salvation is almost always the result of the actions of this body (preaching, teaching, etc.) But we must remember that this body itself would not exist were it not for the individual decision of each person to follow Christ.

What is more, it is important to remember that the Church is not eternal. Only God is eternal. I think that if we look to the Cross, that all of this will come to focus. There was
no church at the time when Jesus hanged on the Cross. But what do we have? We have a Savior, Jesus Christ the Righteous, who came to give Himself as a ransom for many, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God. And what else do we have? We have a poor, wretched thief hanging on another cross beside Him. "Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom," he gasps. Jesus says to him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

I mention this not only to show the "personal decision" of the thief to accept Christ. I also have a larger, more important reason mentioning this. We must remember that the source of all our salvation, all of our righteousness, and even of the Church itself lies in the Person of Christ. Christ was the one who taught the Gospel of our Salvation to the Apostles. He was the one who sent the Advocate from the Father to be with us forever. In essence, He is the Cornerstone (1 Peter 2:6) of the Church. He is the one over Whom we either stumble over and so are lost, or in Whom we believe and so are saved. In the end, each person stands before God either with Christ as his Savior, or with that person trying to be his own savior.

Lastly, no one can enjoy the benefits of being a member of the body of Christ until he decides to take that step. And it is a personal decision. The fact that I, Jack DisPennett, am a dirty rotten sinner in need of a Savior is a fact that is intimate knowledge to me, and a fact that I alone, in the end, am responsible for. I cannot balk and blame all of my sins on the fact that I am surrounded by a licentious culture, because I really do know better than to do wrong. We are not mindless robots or brainwashed zombies like in "Brave New World." I am a member of the creaturely subset "sinner" by my own personal choice. I am also a member of the creaturely subset "Christian" by choice and by the predestination and grace of God.

This is simply preaching; old ground, and has virtually nothing to do with baptism. But I am happy to include it in the paper because it was a decent heart-stirring sermon, and the Catholic agrees with almost all of this (whether Jack is aware of that or not). He may think he is evangelizing or giving Catholics who read this some big revelation, but in fact, he is preaching to the choir (it might be good for Catholics reading this to write to him and let him know that you already knew this stuff :-). He gives exactly two utterly uncontroversial verses, both of which we completely accept, all the while ignoring the three I provided from my last excerpt, in his "reply." Also, if Jack were more familiar with my own Christian odyssey, he would know that I had a profound experience of conversion to Christ, just as he did, in 1977; one which I need not repudiate as a Catholic (only certain theological interpretations of it). That's when I started following Christ seriously.

IX. ORIGINAL SIN, PELAGIANISM, AND BAPTISM

Back to the point about the parents' decision to baptize a child effecting his/her regeneration, I think that this is dubious. Remember the quote from Ezekiel: God does not punish children for the sins of their parents.

We agree. This is a non sequitur.

Now, we know from other texts that God will bring down the punishment for the sins of the parents on the heads of the children in cases where a child chooses to follow the evil ways of his parents. However, Ezekiel assured us that a child who had done no wrong would not suffer for the sins of his father. Being born in original sin, whatever that means, (and I really don't want to get off into another point of theology) is not a sin. It might predispose someone to sin, but it is not a wrong in itself.

[deleted repetition]

If Jack is unfamiliar with original sin, then surely he has more studying to do. There is a corporate dimension to the Fall of Man. We all fell. The quickest Bible proof is the one I provided above in my fictional dialogue: 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die . . . "

Cathy (cont): The reality of original sin makes baptism desirable as soon as possible, since it removes the punishment and guilt due to sin and infuses sanctifying grace. This is why most Protestants through history, including Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed, and Presbyterians, have baptized infants.

Original sin itself is not defined in detail in the Bible,

Sola Scriptura or the canon of the New Testament have no detail at all. Zero, zip, zilch. There is enough concerning original sin, for it to have been accepted by virtually all Christian groups.

but I tend to think that baptizing an infant is like giving someone a bath who isn't dirty.

I think now we're getting to the root of the problem. If Jack flat-out denies original sin, that is rank heresy -- not just according to Catholicism, but all historic Christian groups that I am aware of (enough in and of itself, I think, to bring into question his self-title of "evangelical"). That's why all men need salvation in the first place, for heaven's sake: there is such a thing as the Fall of Man, which wreaked havoc on the earth and man alike. We all commit actual sin, too (except for Mary), but that itself is because of the original sin inside of us and the concupiscence (tendency or desire to sin) which makes sin seem desirable to us. In fact, this would be the ancient heresy of Pelagianism (or a variant of it to some degree), which denied that man could do nothing to save himself, as he was basically good in the first place. This was condemned by the Catholic Church in the 6th century and the condemnation was re-affirmed at Trent. Both historic Calvinist and Arminian Protestantism condemn it too, in no uncertain terms, though the former continues to falsely accuse the latter camp (and Catholics and Orthodox) of Semi-Pelagianism to this day.

In the Bible, baptism is used to symbolize repentance and the forgiveness of sin. Infants cannot repent of anything since they have never actually sinned, and being born in "original sin" is not in and of itself a wrong that needs to be forgiven or "washed away."

It certainly is. Jack is dead-wrong, and I am disappointed that he believes in such a thing. He is in conflict with Protestantism on this one as much as he is with me. The historic Baptist position would never deny original sin.

It seems unfathomable, yea, well nigh inconceivable that God would ever "punish" or count "guilt" to an infant's account just because he/she inherited original sin. I think that the point, mentioned by Zeke earlier, that baptism is tied to faith and repentance in the scriptures has not yet been adequately answered by the Catholic.

Jack is probably confusing actual and original sin somewhat, but if he denies original sin outright and the fallenness of the human race, that is rank biblical (Pelagian) heresy.

X. PROTESTANTS, BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, AND SACRAMENTS

As for the Protestants that believe in baptismal regeneration, I will make a few points.

1. It seems unfathomable how anyone could believe in salvation by faith alone (as any Protestant worthy of the name must) and yet teach that a certain work (namely, baptism) is necessary for salvation.

Then Martin Luther, John Wesley, and C.S. Lewis (and others in their denominations) are not Protestants (and perhaps not Christians, either, according to Jack). I find that ludicrous, of course (especially since Jack himself is truly outside the Protestant camp if indeed he is a Pelagian; thus in no position to judge true Protestants). Far more likely is that Jack doesn't understand biblical sacramentalism and sin (particularly original sin), and their relation to justification, regeneration, and salvation.

2. I think that the teaching of baptismal regeneration in some Protestant circles is due in large part to the Catholic teaching that perpetuated such a doctrine for over 1000 years. That is, I think that the Rome is largely responsible for the existence of this doctrine. This is my suspicion, though I cannot prove it with any sort of certainty.

Jack is not alone in that. But he could try to utilize the Bible a bit more in his critique of an allegedly "unbiblical" doctrine. That would seem to me to be a given.

And of course, I cannot dismiss the doctrine on these grounds alone, else I would be committing the genetic fallacy, that is, rejecting something merely because of how it originated.

Yes, but it sure plays to the crowd: those who are hostile to (what they falsely think is the) the Catholic Church already for 101 reasons.

Zeke: Now wait a minute. Surely you don't believe that baptism actually does anything, do you? It's only a symbol.

I think Zeke is wrong in saying that baptism is "only" a symbol. The American flag is not "only" a piece of cloth; a wedding ring is not "only" a piece of twisted metal. These things are symbols, but are not "only" symbols, as if by calling them "symbols" we are somehow demeaning them. A symbol possesses greatness in proportion to the greatness of the thing symbolized. In the case of baptism, we are symbolizing the death, burial, and Resurrection of our Lord, and outwardly "proclaiming" our own death to sin and our new life towards God. This "symbol" is greater than a wedding ring or a flag in the same proportion that our eternal Lord is greater than any nation or any temporal human relationship. Likewise, in the Eucharist, we remember Christ and proclaim His death by our actions in eating the bread and drinking from the cup. I think that when evangelicals say that we are not infused with grace by these sacraments are just wrong. How could we "proclaim" the death of Christ by means of the Eucharist with a pure heart and not grow in grace? How could we outwardly show our allegiance to Jesus Christ through baptism and not receive some measure of grace? All that I deny is that these things transfer grace from the work that is worked (ex opere operato) alone without faith in our hearts.

I refer readers back to my Sacramentalism paper. Jack continues to argue with no recourse at all, or irrelevant recourse to the Bible. I will offer no more replies until he does that.

Cathy: You evangelicals always seem to deny that matter can be a conveyor of grace, and too often frown on the idea of sacraments, which are physical, visible means whereby grace is conferred.

I don't deny that it is possible for matter to confer grace in the way that Catholics claim; I just deny that God has chosen to do things this way. I try my best to base my beliefs on what the scriptures say, so I am willing to be proven wrong on this.

See my Sacramentalism paper.

I am not aware of any predisposition against matter on my part. We Evangelicals are Christians, after all, not Gnostics. I think that such a sacramental view as Catholics have seems to
contradict, among other things, the fact that no thing or earthly situation can separate us from the love of Christ (Romans 8:38-39).

I have no idea what this means.

Zeke: We don't believe in those things because they're unbiblical. The Bible talks about the Spirit giving grace (John 6:63, Romans 8:1-10), not matter. Catholics are always getting weird about things such as statues, relics, rosary beads, the wafer of communion, and holy water. This usually degenerates into idolatry.

Cathy: I disagree. God Himself took on flesh in Christ. Paul's handkerchiefs healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did even Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15)!

[deleted off-subject discussion of iconoclasm and idolatry]

Jack has managed to avoid my biblical arguments once again . . .

XI. TITUS 3:5, JOHN 3:5, AND 1 CORINTHIANS 6:11: THREEFOLD PARALLELS

Cathy (cont): Likewise, baptism is said to regenerate sinners. Acts 2:38 speaks of being
baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism . . . now saves you (cf. Mark 16:16, Romans 6:3-4). Paul recalls how Ananias told him to be baptized, and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16). In 1 Corinthians 6:11 Paul sure seems to imply an organic connection between baptism (washed), sanctification and justification, whereas evangelicals separate all three.
Titus 3:5 says that he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration. What more biblical proof is needed? Is this all to be explained as "symbolic"?

Titus 3:5 and 1 Corinthians 6:11 both mention a "washing" which need not be interpreted as meaning baptism, since it could just as well mean "washing in the blood of the Lamb."

That's not the most plausible reading of Titus 3:5:

he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

Compare this to John 3:5, which Jack wanted to pass on since it was so "unclear":

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (cf. 3:3: "unless a man is born again ...")

The two passages are almost exactly parallel:

Titus: "saved" / John: "enter the kingdom of God"
Titus: "washing of rebirth" / John: "born of water"
Titus: "renewal by the Holy Spirit" / John: "born . . . of the Spirit"

This is how one interprets Scripture: by comparing it with itself when there are obvious parallels, to help determine what the less clear passages might mean. I think this one is undeniable. What is "washing" in one verse (with two other common elements) is shown to be "water" in the other. Thus, baptism is tied to salvation, in accord with the other verses above. The evidence is strong. Most people wash with water, as it is, not blood. What Jack refers to is Revelation 7:14: . . . These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. That is an interesting verse as well, but it is far less parallel to Titus 3:5 than John 3:5 is, and seems to refer, in context, to martyrdom, not salvation per se. Taken together with the three proof texts which Jack has cited (and 1 Cor 6:11 below), I think the case is undeniable.

1 Corinthians 6:11, which Jack also tries to tie in with Revelation 7:14 (or a similar concept, at any rate), rather than the baptism passages, is also much more similar to Titus 3:5:

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

So the "justified" is the parallel of "kingdom of God" and "saved" in Titus 3:5 and John 3:5; "washed" goes along with "washing of rebirth" and "born of water," and all this was done by the "Spirit." Once again, it is a striking threefold parallelism (now for three passages). So I think Jack's claim fails. Baptism is again being discussed. Furthermore, it is notable in that baptism, justification, and sanctification are all mentioned together. The past tense justification fits in with the Catholic notion of initial justification (cf. the discussion of Abraham's three justifications, above). But in Protestantism, justification (for any true, "saved," elect Christian) is past, and sanctification is in the future, or (more accurately) ongoing. Paul -- not seeming to understand the rules for Protestant theology, places sanctification with justification, not apart from it, and also in the past tense.

Mark 16:16 does not say that he who is not baptized will be lost, but he who does not believe. Thus, it too falls short of being the kind of proof that proponents of baptismal regeneration need to prove their case.

XII. MARK 16:16 ("WHOEVER BELIEVES AND IS BAPTIZED WILL BE SAVED")

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

[Note: Most Bible scholars think Mark 16:9-20 is not even supposed to be in the Bible, according to the most reliable and oldest biblical manuscripts; nevertheless, the thought it expresses is entirely consistent with the other passages we have been examining, and it would illustrate (as an historical proof) what the earliest Christians thought, even if it is not in the Bible itself]

The first part of the passage offers two conditions for salvation: belief and baptism. Catholics believe that even if one is baptized as an infant, that they must also believe of their own free will when they are able to do so (after the age of reason: usually thought to be 6 to 8 years of age) -- and avoid later mortal sin and so forth -- , so there is no inconsistency here with our views. Grammatically, it is possible to break down the first half of the sentence dealing with salvation, into the two following ones:

Whoever believes will be saved.

Whoever is baptized will be saved.

Logically, however, it does not follow that the two derivative sentences are true like the first one is, since two conditions were stated as necessary prerequisites for salvation, and must therefore exist together. In other words, the two derivative sentences do not express the fuller truth (the "whole truth," to use legalese for a second) of two conditions being necessary for salvation rather than one only. To be true, they would both have to substitute the word "may" for the word "will." This is analogous to the following proposition:

Whoever finishes first in the men's speed skating competition in the Winter Olympics and does not do drugs in order to get an unfair advantage, will get the Gold Medal.

This can be broken down into:

Whoever finishes first in the men's speed skating competition in the Winter Olympics will get the Gold Medal.

or:

Whoever does not do drugs in order to get an unfair advantage, will get the Gold Medal.

Neither derivative sentence is true (on the same basis, that two conditions are necessarily together). The truth of the first depends upon the athlete being drug-free, since even if a winner is found to have been using drugs, he will be stripped of his medal (as indeed happened in the recent Olympics). The second is obviously untrue as it is now far too vague, and would include every athlete at the Olympics who didn't do drugs.

Thus, to return to the verse under consideration, since two conditions for salvation are being offered, (logically speaking) they must stand or fall together. One can only accept both or reject both. If Jack accepts them both, his case against baptismal regeneration collapses. If he rejects them both, then this includes belief as well as baptism, and he cannot accept that position either. Or he could reject them by saying they are not part of Scripture. That's easy to do in this instance because it is likely true! But even then, it provides a strong historical example of what the earliest Christians believed, just as, e.g., the earliest apostolic writings such as the Didache, or the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch do. And then we must immediately ask why the early Christians believed in this (as they did, en masse) when it is so supposedly "clearly" unbiblical.

My logical point still stands. Jack, I'm sure, would have no problem accepting other verses which assert belief in Jesus (and the Greek word for "belief" includes a true following of Him, and obedience, incidentally) as the criterion of salvation, such as Romans 10:9 or John 3:16. They are true, but they don't exclude baptism as an additional criteria, because part of the obedience of the Christian is to follow the oft-repeated command to be baptized. But my immediate point is that Jack accepts them because (on the surface, and in his mind) they fit into his point of view. Baptism as part of salvation does not, so Jack must avoid equally clear verses which make baptism necessary for salvation, even though there are no grounds to do so other than his predetermined bias that "this isn't possible, so it can't possibly be!" Mark 16:16 is one such verse, but it is textually dubious. Nevertheless, other verses are equally clear:

Acts 22:16: And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

1 Peter 3:21: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the
removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It
saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Acts 2:38: Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

It couldn't be more clear than it is. If these passages were concerned with a doctrine that all Protestants accepted, we can be sure they would be trumpeted from the rooftops as "clear and indisputable proof texts." But because they clash with a preconceived theology of many Protestants which is -- it turns out -- contrary to many biblical teachings, it somehow becomes strangely "unclear," when in fact it is clear as a bell that all these passages, taken in conjunction, form a compelling proof of the doctrine. There is a good reason why most Christians through history have believed this.

Jack's argument about the second clause was that it spoke only of disbelief as the cause of condemnation, not baptism: whoever does not believe will be condemned. It certainly does not mention baptism, but logically, it doesn't have to, since (as we shall see below) belief in Scripture includes the concept of obedience (which would include baptism in this instance). Even if the clause is interpreted in a more "absolute" sense, it would not follow that baptismal regeneration is either disproven or not supported in the overall verse, because disbelief alone (whether or not baptism has occurred) is enough to render salvation unattainable. Following the analogy to the Olympics above, the second clause of Mark 16:16 would read:

Whoever does not finish first in the men's speed skating competition in the Winter Olympics will not get the Gold Medal.

or:

Whoever does drugs in order to get an unfair advantage, will not get the Gold Medal.

[depending on which analogy one chooses to be parallel to "belief"]

Note that both sentences are true as they read, because negative assertions are different from positive assertions. The simple fact that only one thing is mentioned in Mark 16:16 with regard to condemnation, does not mean that there are no other things which also condemn. There clearly are: any number of other sins (besides unbelief) unrepented of would also exclude one from heaven (see, e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Furthermore, there are "loopholes" (discussed above) in situations where a person cannot possibly be baptized, whereas he may desire to before death (e.g., the thief on the cross next to Jesus). Thus, Catholics believe in a "baptism of desire." The normative situation in Christianity is that baptism (if no insuperable hindrance is present) is necessary for salvation.

XIII. ACTS 22:16 ("BE BAPTIZED AND WASH YOUR SINS AWAY")

Acts 22:16, I think, ultimately fails as a support for baptismal regeneration. This is because, if you will notice, the phrase "wash your sins away" is not connected to the clause, "be baptized"; it is separated from this clause by the conjunction "and"; rather, it seems to be connected to "calling on His name." This fits in with what we learn elsewhere in the Bible, in places such as Romans 10:13; it is by calling out on Christ that we are saved. Baptism is merely mentioned because it is closely connected with becoming a believer.

The sentence is very clear. The easiest way to illustrate what ought to be obvious is to utilize an analogy whose doctrines Jack will agree to:

Get up, say the sinner's prayer and repent and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

Now, I think Jack will agree to the truth of this sentence. I have replaced baptism with repentance and saying the sinner's prayer. In evangelical theology, the repentance and confession of Christ and heartfelt desire to henceforth be a disciple of Christ "wash away sins" because they allow Jesus to do His cleansing work of justification or salvation. Yes, it's all grace (as in Catholicism), but the sinner decides to take this step in order to appropriate the saving grace that God wishes to give to him. However, if we apply Jack's logic with regard to English grammar to this sentence, we must conclude that the repentance and saying the sinner's prayer "ultimately fails as a support for non-baptismal regeneration or justification." Why? Well, because it is separated from the clause "wash your sins away" by the conjunction and ! That being the case, we must re-write the sentence so as not to unduly confuse people, who might see in it something which isn't there:

Get up, say the sinner's prayer and repent . . ., calling on his name.'

This takes the heart out of the sentence, and of the meaning. My point is that Jack would never make such a silly argument if the verse in question supported something he was already willing to believe. Let's try another example:

Get up [two-year-old], be bathed and wash your dirt away, calling on mommy's name.

This is a good analogy, because obviously the water of baptism is a metaphor for washing away the "dirt" of sin (another reason why "washing" in several of the verses we have considered is reasonably equated with baptism), and we are like small children compared to God. The bathing washes the dirt away. Likewise, calling on mommy washes the dirt away. Both things cause the same result (though in different measure and in different ways -- the water is the "intermediate" between mommy's washcloth and soap and the child's body), just as calling on God and repenting washes away sin, and baptism also does, being a God-ordained way to accomplish the same end, by His grace. But of course, the word and is an insuperable obstacle to this understanding of the above verse, so it must read:

Get up [three-year-old], be bathed . . ., calling on mommy's name.

What sense does that make? The entire point of the sentence is now altered. This sort of desperate argument is simply not made unless there is no other recourse to avoid the clear implication of a biblical verse. It is rather Clintonesque. Instead of arguing about the meaning of is, we have to wrangle about and. In both cases, the one using the obscurantist argument is pleading for a lost cause. The only other "argument" Jack made about Acts 22:16 was that he interpreted it in light of Romans 10:13:

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

This is fine; it doesn't exclude baptism. It cannot, because baptism is too tied-in with salvation in other passsages, and our task is to synthesize all of Scripture in a harmonious, non-contradictory fashion. Jack says: "Baptism is merely mentioned because it is closely connected with becoming a believer." In other words, baptism is in there because it merely accompanies justification or salvation (as a symbolic rite), which itself is obtained by means other than baptism. This at least is a logical possibility for some of these verses, but it can't really be sustained when all of them are considered together.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 6:11, God does three things: justifies, sanctifies, and indwells the believer with His Spirit. The only thing the believer does is to get baptized ("you were washed"). It says nothing about belief or repentance or saying the sinner's prayer, etc. Nor does the context. The same applies to John 3:5 and Titus 3:5. In both passages God saves us or lets us enter the kingdom by His Holy Spirit. The only thing these passages mention that we do is get baptized. This doesn't disprove that other things are indeed required also (indeed they are), or that one can never lose the salvation thus gained (which is another discussion), but it does show that baptism is not so easily separated from salvation and justification as Jack thinks it is, and that it has a saving power and grace, by God's will..

For the same principle applies: if one wants to state that belief alone is sufficient to be saved (as one interpretation of Romans 10:9,13 and John 3:16 might hold), because those verses associate it and it alone with salvation, then verses which mention baptism alone in connection with salvation would prove baptismal regeneration. You can't say one thing and refuse the other. The only reasonable interpretation is to hold that baptism is part of salvation, as are repentance, God's grace, the believer's obedience and avoidance of grave sins, etc. How all these elements are related or their relative importance is a separate discussion. But this approach incorporates all the relevant biblical data and doesn't try to exclude any of it, as Jack does with baptism, when it fails to fit into the mold he has already arbitrarily created.

In my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, in the chapter on justification, I made many related arguments:

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. [RSV]

The Greek word for believes is pistuo, and the Greek for does not obey is apitheo. The interesting thing in this verse is the parallelism, whereby belief and obedience are essentially identical. When all is said and done, believing in Christ is obeying Him. This ought to be kept in mind by Protestant evangelists and pastors who urge penitents to "believe on Christ," "accept Christ," etc. To disobey Christ is to be subject to the wrath of God. Thus, again, we are faced with the inescapable necessity of good works -- wrought by God's grace, and done in the spirit of charity -- for the purpose and end of ultimate salvation, holiness, and communion with God.

St. Peter, in 1 Peter 2:7, uses the same parallelism, with the same two identical Greek words (believe / disobedient in KJV). St. Paul uses apitheo with regard to disobedience to parents in Romans 1:30 and 2 Timothy 3:2, and in a more general sense (describing sinners) in Titus 1:16 and 3:3. Obviously, no one disbelieves in the existence of their parents. St. Paul is speaking of disobeying their commands. In the same sense, such disobedience (not mere lack of faith) is said to be the basis of the loss of eternal life in John 3:36.

To speculate further, if it be granted that pistuo ("believe") is roughly identical to "obeying," as it indisputably is in John 3:36, by simple deduction, then its use elsewhere is also much more commensurate with the Catholic view of infused justification rather than the more abstract, extrinsic and forensic Protestant view: For example, the "classic" Protestant evangelistic verse John 3:16, Jesus' constant demand to believe in Him in John 5 through 10, and St. Paul's oft-cited salvific exhortations in Romans 1:16, 4:24, 9:33, and 10:9, generally thought to be irrefutable proofs of the Protestant viewpoint on saving faith.

John 6:27-29 Do not labour for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal. Then said they to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." [RSV]

In verses 28 and 29, "working" and "belief" in Christ are equated, much like "obedience" and "belief" in John 3:36. In the marvelous phrase doing the works of God we see that our works and God's are intertwined if indeed we are doing His will. This is the Catholic viewpoint: an organic connection of both faith with works, and God's unmerited grace coupled with our cooperation and obedience. Our Lord constantly alludes to the related ideas of reward and merit, which are complementary: Matthew 5:11-12, 6:3,18, 10:42, 12:36-37, 25:14-30, Luke 6:35,38, 12:33. St. Paul, using the same word for works (ergon), speaks in Acts 26:20 of the process of repenting, turning to God, and doing deeds worthy of their repentance. In other words, they will thus prove their repentance by their deeds.

Acts 10:31,35 . . . "Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms have been remembered before God" . . . but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. [RSV]

The Gentile Cornelius is told by an angel that his alms (works done in faith) put him in good stead with God vis-a-vis becoming a Christian. Later, St. Peter reiterates this by stating that whoever fears him and does what is right is accepted by God, (that is, both faith and allegiance must be present). The ongoing principle of the organic closeness of faith and works is again evident.

The Protestant has a real difficulty in explaining this passage [Acts 22:16], . . . for it is St. Paul's own recounting of his odyssey as a newly "born-again" Christian. We have here the Catholic doctrine of (sacramental) sanctification / justification, in which sins are actually removed. The phraseology wash away your sins is reminiscent of Psalm 51:2,7, 1 John 1:7,9 and other similar texts dealing with infused justification, dealt with above. We note also a similarity to St. Peter's first sermon in the Upper Room upon being filled with the Holy Spirit [Acts 2:38] . . .

According to the standard evangelical soteriology, the Apostle Paul would have been instantly "justified" at the Damascus road experience when he first converted (almost involuntarily!) to Christ (Acts 9:1-9). Thus his sins would have been "covered over" and righteousness imputed to him at that point. If so, then why would St. Paul use this terminology of washing away sins at baptism in a merely symbolic sense (as they assert), since it would be superfluous? The reasonable alternative, especially given the evidence of other related scriptures, is that St. Paul was speaking literally, and not symbolically.

There is even more remarkable proof of this: The Greek word for wash away in Acts 22:16 is apolouo. It only appears one other time in the Bible, also in St. Paul's writing [1 Corinthians 6:11, thus connecting that passage more strongly to baptism] . . . . .

XIV. 1 PETER 3:21 ("BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU")

In the early days of Christianity, people were not catechumens for a long period of time before baptism. Thus, in those early days especially, baptism and salvation (our
initial faith) were more initially connected in Christian thought. I think it can also be shown that the verse from 1 Peter chapter 3 also does not teach baptismal regeneration. For it is clear from other verses, such as 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Acts 1:5, that our true baptism is done by the Holy Spirit.

No; this shows that there is more than one type of baptism referred to in Holy Scripture. They are all "true baptisms." The baptism of the Holy Spirit is referred to here (Acts 1:5 teaches us that this refers to the Day of Pentecost, which was described in the next chapter). That doesn't disprove that there is such a thing as water baptism (and a non-symbolic one which actually carries power). John the Baptist mentions both types of baptism in one verse (John 1:33), and both those types and a third type -- the baptism of "fire" -- in another (Luke 3:16).

Our physical water baptism is only a symbol of this greater baptism, done by Christ through the Spirit.

I say that you can't prove this from Scripture. It is an outside opinion read into the Scripture (eisegesis). It does violence to the passages we have been examining.

For there is, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism,"-Ephesians 4:5. There is one baptism, not two baptisms, just as there is one Lord and not three Lords.

There is one water baptism by which we are incorporated into the Body of Christ (in other words, one trinitarian, sacramental baptism). I think the verse has that specific application. Otherwise, Paul contradicts John the Baptist, who mentions two other baptisms. Paul writes similarly in Galatians 3:26-27:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (cf. Romans 6:1-11, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5)

Thus, it seems to be the case that our physical water baptism is a symbol of our baptism in the Spirit.

Mere symbols don't save, as water baptism is said to do. A mere symbol does not possess the power of grace that a sacrament possesses.

Otherwise, one would have to believe that in passages such as Acts 10:44-48 that there were two baptisms.

There is only one baptism mentioned there: "Baptized with water" (10:47).

What does this have to do with 1 Peter 3:21? Just about everything! For this passage speaks of baptism; it also denies that this baptism's power is not through the washing away of physical dirt, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. Thus, this passage seems to insinuate that the important thing about baptism is not the outward aspect but the inward aspect, that is, our soul's standing with God. Therefore, it is equally valid to conclude that Peter is here speaking of Baptism in the Spirit, which is symbolized by the water of our physical baptism.

Once again, Jack tries to explain away the water baptism by overly-emphasizing the "good conscience" which Peter also mentions. This unfortunate tendency of ignoring, minimizing, or re-explaining baptism when associated elements are present (plain bad exegesis) has been dealt with above. Apart from that, I think context is decisive in upholding the Catholic interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21. We see that by adding verse 20 and part of verse 19:

1 Peter 3:19-21: . . . he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were being saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The meaning is much more clear in context. This is a typical Hebraic parallelism or what is called "types and shadows"; very common in Scripture. In the Old Testament, when "salvation" was mentioned, it usually referred to winning a battle, being saved from an enemy, having one's life or town saved, etc. In other words, "physical salvation." This became a metaphor for spiritual salvation later on, in New Testament thought (or the parallel between physical death and spiritual death; losing one's life and losing one's soul). So here, Peter makes the same sort of analogy. The eight persons in Noah's ark were saved through water (i.e., primarily saved from drowning). The water of the flood symbolized baptism that now saves you also.

Baptism saves us spiritually, not physically. In no way can water baptism be thought to save us physically, so in order to maintain the symbolism Peter is referring to, we must conclude that it saves us spiritually (baptismal regeneration). The "symbolism" referred to is the parallel between the Flood and water baptism. It is not referring to a symbolic baptism. This is proven by the clause "this water," which refers back to the preceding clause, "saved through water" (referring to the Flood and Noah's ark). As Noah and his family were saved through water, so Christians are saved by baptism, not merely "symbolically saved," or "doing a symbolic ritual after being saved," which makes no sense of the passage and twists the parallelism itself.

Likewise, we see a similar analogy when Jesus talks about the "sign of Jonah" (Matthew 12:38-41). He compares Jonah's being swallowed by the fish with His Resurrection, after being "in the heart of the earth" (i.e., as Jonah appeared when it would be thought that he was dead, so would Jesus). This is another comparison of a physical "salvation" or near-miracle, with an event of great spiritual import. Jesus wasn't saved like we are but He conquered death, just like we can, in Him. We can conquer spiritual death, by means of Jesus' redemption on the cross. So it is another instance of comparing an Old Testament physical event with a New Testament occurrence of spiritual significance. Peter ties in the Resurrection of Jesus with water baptism, by showing that the former provides the power for the latter. St. Paul does the same thing:

Romans 6:3-4 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (cf. Romans 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20-23, Col 2:11-13)

XV. ACTS 2:38 ("REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS")

Finally, we go to Acts 2:38. A few things are interesting here. First of all, it connects repentance with baptism, which casts doubt on the whole practice of infant baptism.

Not at all. Once again, context (a crucial part of good biblical exegesis) is decisive. The context is the Day of Pentecost. A miracle had just occurred. The disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4) and began speaking in tongues. A crowd gathered to see what was happening, and those from many nations each heard tongues in their own language (2:6). Peter, the leader of the apostles, then stood up to "explain" to them what all the commotion was about (2:14). He interprets Pentecost and presents the gospel (nowhere mentioning either faith alone or Scripture alone, of course). At the end of his talk, the people were "cut to the heart" and asked Peter and the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" (2:37). And Peter replied (2:38):

. . . "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, these were adults who could talk (and think, in most cases), who asked the question that Peter answered. This is a narrative, so it simply recorded actual words. Claiming that such a reply applies also to infants is nonsensical, as it was a response to people who understood what Peter had said in the first place, and his answer was specifically meant to address their question and them. Now, when an adult or someone past the age of reason becomes a Christian, obviously they have to repent before baptism (presuming they have ever sinned). Repentance is a necessary part of the "mature" following of Christ. So is baptism. For example, when one is received into the Catholic Church (as I was) one verbally renounces error and sin, confesses, and is conditionally baptized (meaning that if an earlier "baptism" was not valid, the current one would be). I imagine that conversion to most Protestant groups would involve a similar process. You don't simply baptize a person who shows no sign of repentance. This is what adult converts do; how they are accepted into the fold. It does not rule out infant baptism at all, because the application of what Peter said in that particular circumstance is not universal.

Moreover, when Peter was at the Gentile Cornelius' house (Acts 10), he was preaching the gospel, when "the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message" (Acts 10:44) Who was in the house?: Cornelius' "relatives and close friends" (10:24) and "a large gathering of people" (10:27) I think the presumption should be -- from common sense -- that some young people, even babies, were present. Arguably, they were included in the description, "all who heard the message." After the Holy Spirit came on them, Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." So Peter "ordered that they be baptized . . . . " (10:47-48). In recounting the incident to other believers in Jerusalem, he told of Cornelius' story of what an angel had said to him (cf. 10:30-33), and how the angel told him that Peter would "bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved" (11:14). We have dealt with the meaning of "household" above. It is admittedly speculative to connect all the dots here and not a solid conclusion by any means, but I would submit (just as something to consider) that:

1) The "large gathering" (including relatives) would likely include children.
2) The Holy Spirit falling on "all who heard the message" might possibly include such children.
3) Since Peter tied together the receiving of the Holy Spirit to baptism, then the ensuing baptism might include children, if indeed #1 and #2 are true.
4) The reference to "household" likely includes children.
5) The reference to the "household" being "saved" implies the inclusion of children as well (if #1 and #4 are true).
6) The "household" being "saved" might be thought to include baptism as part of the salvation taking place (thus illustrating baptismal regeneration), as Peter ties baptism and salvation together elsewhere.
7) If children received the Holy Spirit (#2) and were "saved" along with the others (#5), then this salvation might be as a result of baptism (infant baptism and baptismal regeneration).

This is probably my weakest argument in this entire dialogue, but it was fun to work through, and someone might find it to be slightly helpful. If it succeeds, it would be another argument against Jack's and Norman Geisler's contention that Peter would deny baptismal regeneration (cited by Jack below).

Second, baptism at that time was done during the same day, the day of one's initial faith and the day of one's baptism being the same. Thus, when Peter says to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, it is not necessarily true that he is teaching baptismal regeneration. This is because baptism was such a vivid symbol (the washing away of our sins) and because baptism was done immediately and was thus connected with initial faith within such a close time frame.

This is really no biblical argument; I think it is simply another case of Jack assuming his view and forcing the text to fit in with it.

Not only this, but one can use a linguistic argument here also, namely, that the Greek preposition used in Acts 2:38 can mean "because of" as well as "for." Thus, the text would read, "Be baptized...because of the forgiveness of sins." (See Norman Geisler, Roman Catholics And Evangelicals, page 482).

So this is where Jack is getting his arguments. :-) I don't buy it, but I'm not going to get bogged down dealing with a Greek preposition (which can mean a million different things, and so is not very helpful for either position). Geisler would still have to explain 1 Peter 3:19-21. Furthermore, Paul seems to see forgiveness as one of the results of baptism in Colossians 2:11-13 (cited above). According to Paul's frequent analogy of baptism to the Resurrection of Christ (see also Romans 6:3-4, 8:11, 1 Cor 15:20-23) in Colossians 2:11-13 he appears to teach that we are spiritually dead (as Jesus was physically dead). Then we were "buried with him in baptism" (Col 2:12). Then after baptism (parallel to the Resurrection itself), we have new life. The grace and new life and forgiveness are all given to us by God. Baptism removes the debt of original sin from us; it is, in effect granting "forgiveness" of original sin (see Col 2:13). Furthermore, what about this verse?:

Titus 3:5: he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

Here, "mercy" could easily be interpreted as synonymous with forgiveness. So He saved us because He was willing to forgive us (to exercise mercy). And how did He save us, according to Paul in his letter to Titus?: He saved us through "the washing of rebirth" (which has been shown above to be almost certainly a reference to baptism, by seeing how Paul expresses similar things elsewhere). So forgiveness is tied to salvation, which in turn is tied to baptism, through which it is applied to us. Also, the clause "be baptized and wash your sins away" from Acts 22:16 (where Paul is reporting what Ananias said to him, thus implying agreement) makes it difficult to separate forgiveness from baptism by recourse to a preposition. Solid cross-referencing and comparative exegesis will trump a speculative argument from Greek propositions every time.

XVI. "THE WHOLE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE" (SALVATION AND BAPTISM)

. . . First of all, we should look at the whole witness of scripture, which tells us a few things. There are many verses which purport to give a fairly complete soteriological account of things. Romans 10:9-10 is one of them. John 3:16 is another. Mr. Armstrong would probably rather downplay these and concentrate on certain others which seem prima facie to teach that good works save us.

I don't have to "downplay" anything in Scripture; I am content to let it speak for itself. I've never been disappointed by delving more deeply into the Bible, and this dialogue is no exception. I have been tremendously blessed by how clearly the Scripture upholds the Catholic position once again. I already explained above how these verses easily fit into an overall Catholic interpretation. They pose no problem whatever for us. And I am answering as I read, so I didn't know Jack would bring up these verses.

However, I will not deal with faith vs. works as they deal with justification at this juncture, because Mr. Armstrong suggested we stay away from those topics.

He already did by making an argument from Romans 4, and I felt I had to answer at some length because the issues raised were complex and deserved an answer, even though largely off-topic.

Be that as it may, it is interesting that there are literally dozens of verses in the New Testament that deal with how we are saved. Many of them tell us to believe in Christ, to obey Christ, to be "born again," to obey the truth, to repent, etc. Yet there are only a handful of verses that can even be construed as saying that baptism saves us. If baptismal regeneration were true, why are faith, repentance, and what not mentioned as the condition for salvation in dozens of texts, without any mention of "baptism" alongside them?

There simply doesn't have to be many mentions of baptism for it to be important and necessary. Repentance and belief in Jesus and the gospel are the initial (outward, human, evangelistic) factors in someone converting to Christianity. Once they are in, then they are told that they have to be baptized. One could explain it that way. Secondly, the Virgin Birth has very few supporting texts. Thirdly, if repetition is required for something to be true, why do Protestants believe in the 27 books of the New Testament canon (which is absolutely absent from Scripture), and why is there not a verse in the Bible such as the following?:

You must believe only in those doctrines which are found and clearly taught in Scripture alone and refuse to listen to any church or tradition which goes beyond the letter of Scripture (even if it is doesn't contradict Scripture), as God's written Word is more authoritative than the church and the apostolic tradition, passed down from our Lord Jesus.

Nothing remotely approaching this can be found in Holy Scripture, but we do find much about the authority of the Church and the presence of an authoritative apostolic tradition, even an authoritative oral tradition. Why is that, if sola Scriptura is true? And -- this being the case -- what makes Protestants so completely "sure" about sola Scriptura, so much so that they base their entire system on it? If Jack rejects baptismal regeneration on this basis (and the doctrine has a surprising amount of support, as shown), then (if he is consistent) his "certain" beliefs in sola Scriptura and the New Testament canon should be ditched as well. The situation is the same with the other Protestant pillar and false belief of faith alone. Protestants can work up a biblical "case" with a bunch of verses which appear on the surface to support this notion (they don't when examined in the proper depth), but alas, once again, no explicit "clear" text can be found. In fact, the only time in Scripture that "faith" and "alone" appear in relationship to one another is in James 2:24:

You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Why is this if faith alone is such a super-important maxim that no Christian could ever deny without threatening their very salvation (i.e., it is regarded as essential to salvation, just as baptism is in the Catholic view)? So this argument of Jack's collapses too.

This is inexplicable unless the Protestant symbolic view is correct.

Not in the least, as just shown. And it is inaccurate to speak of a "Protestant symbolic view," since even Martin Luther disagrees with that, as do Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Church of Christ, and Disciples of Christ.

[Readers can look up the verses Jack cites at this point (I have already given an adequate answer to this line of thought): John 1:12, 5:24, 11:25, Romans 4:5, 10:9-10, Gal 2:16]

My whole point is not to prove Sola Fide or anything like that; that is beyond the scope of this critique. My point is that FAITH, not baptism, is what is credited as being instrumental in our salvation, in the above passages and throughout the scriptures.

And baptism is said to be instrumental as well. The point is to harmonize the two strains of biblical thought, not to arbitrarily choose one and pretend that the other does not exist. I've done the former; Jack has done the latter. The reader can decide which view shows more respect to Holy Scripture and follows it wherever it goes.

The Catholic practically admits this when he says that it is the mere desire for baptism (faith?) that saves us.

No, the Catholic honestly faces the reality that "hard cases" (from our limited human perspective) exist, and this is how we explain those. "Hard cases" don't prove a rule; they are exceptions to the rule, by definition.

Finally, I think that this argument, in addition to my earlier fictional dialogue and Biblical exposition of Acts 10:44-48, presents a good case against baptismal regeneration. Allow me to summarize my case, which I have to admit has been presented piecemeal thus far due to the very nature of the rebuttal.

1. Acts 10:44-48 teaches that people can be regenerated (receive the Holy Spirit) prior to baptism.

That's based on the same biblically-unsubstantiated assumption I critiqued earlier: that the Indwelling of the Spirit is the equivalent of regeneration.

2. Catholic doctrine itself tacitly admits that it is the desire for baptism (valid faith) that saves us, rather than the act of baptism itself.

Only as an exception to the rule, so this is no disproof. It comes from honesty with human reality (and God's mercy and love and just judgment), not dishonesty with Scripture. Peter said, in the same chapter: "God . . . accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34-35). But he immediately baptized the Gentiles when they converted to Christianity.

3. There is one baptism, not two baptisms. (Ephesians 4:5) Yet the baptism of the Spirit and water baptism are differentiated from each other in the book of Acts. Thus, it seems valid to conclude that our water baptism is a symbol or outward proclamation of our baptism in the Spirit, whereby we are saved (1 Corinthians 12:13)

This has been thoroughly dealt with already.

4. Faith, and not baptism, is mentioned throughout the scriptures as the instrumental means whereby we procure salvation. Thus, it seems valid to relegate to a symbolic view of baptism.

Ditto.

These four points, taken together, construct a valid prima facie case against baptismal regeneration. And if baptismal regeneration is untrue, then the Catholic view of infant baptism is also untrue by default.

I obviously disagree and have explained why with painstaking biblical detail.

XVII. BRIEF SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM

Concluding Semi-Scientific Postscript: Two Quick points from Church History.

History being the handmaiden of theology, and not her taskmaster, I
conclude with two brief points from early church history that serve to
undermine infant baptism. The Catholic may complain (with some
justification) that I am playing "pick and choose" with history. I
plead 100% guilty to this charge. My own personal view is the supremacy
of the Bible over and above church history, to be the "plumb line", so
to speak, of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. However,
even if it can be shown that infant baptism was practiced early on in
church history, say, as early as the third century, these two points still
carry some weight. This is because they show that it had to have been
necessary for those who baptized infants in the early church to reduce
their cognitive dissonance enough to ignore the inseparable bond between
saving faith and baptism.

1. Hippolytus, writing in the early third century, records the
liturgies of baptism. In Hippolytus' account, the person is asked
questions of a creedal nature not unlike the Apostle's Creed in format,
and after each section (there are three, one for the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, respectively) the person being baptized responds that he
does indeed believe what had just been declared, and is subsequently
baptized. In the course of this, he is baptized three times. This
indicates the importance of personal belief that was tied to baptism in
the early Church years.

No; rather it indicates that adults who can understand creeds in the first place are expected to exhibit repentance and acceptance of orthodox Christianity before being baptized, as explained above with regard to Peter's answer to inquirers on the Day of Pentecost. This proves absolutely nothing with regard to a "disproof" of infant baptism (no one denies that an adult catechumen needs to understand doctrine), but it is not inconsistent with infant baptism at all. Indeed, St. Hippolytus himself affirms this in perhaps the same work (as Jack doesn't tell us where his citation came from):

And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for
themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer
or someone from their family.

(Apostolic Tradition, 21 [c. A.D. 215] )

I think it is safe to say that this decisively eliminates St. Hippolytus as a "witness" for Jack's case. Origen wrote in 244:

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.

(Homily on Romans, V:9)

St. Cyprian wrote in 251:

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be
baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law
of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is
just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth
day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council,
that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be
even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.

(To Fidus, Epistle 58 [64]:2,6)

As for baptismal regeneration:

"I have heard, sir," said I, "from some teachers, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins." He said to me, "You have heard rightly, for so it is."

(The Shepherd of Hermas, [c. 140] 4:3:1-2)

They had need [the Shepherd said] to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For, [he said,] before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead [in sin], and come out of it alive.

(Ibid., 9:16:2-4)

For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

(St. Irenaeus, Fragment 34 [c. 190] )

Speaking of the view of the early Church (first two centuries) on baptism, respected Protestant Church historian J.N.D. Kelly writes:

It was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . the theory that it mediated the Holy Spirit was fairly general . . . The early view, therefore, like the Pauline, would seem to be that baptism itself is the vehicle for conveying the Spirit to believers; in all this period we nowhere come across any clear pointers to the existence of a separate rite, such as unction or the laying on of hands, appropriated to this purpose.

(Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper Collins, rev. ed., 1978, 194-195)

Likewise, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1978, 100, "Baptism"), another respected Protestant reference work, which shows no inclination for Catholicism at all, in its tone or content, states:

Doctrinally, baptism very early came to be understood as a means of grace or a sacrament, in the sense of an instrumental means of regeneration . . . Infant baptism was practiced in the second century, but only with the aid of an adult sponsor.

Jack (like so many Protestants), may not give much credence to the facts of Church history or apostolic Tradition (passed down in apostolic succession), but in this instance (as with so many others which uphold Catholic Tradition), he ought to ask himself how it is that the entire Church could get the biblical teaching so wrong, so early, when it is utterly "clear" and uncontroversial to people like him? Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist is another viewpoint that was absolutely universal in the early Church. How could the whole Church have gotten it so wrong, right after the age of the apostles (and led even by some students of the apostles)? Didn't they ever read the Bible? How could "Roman Catholicism" have come to dominate "biblical" Christianity so early and cause it to adopt false views? Whether these facts have an effect on the beliefs of evangelicals or not, I should think that they are at least highly curious and odd to them, and something to be pondered and explained in some sort of rational fashion.

2. A textual variant produced at Acts 8:37, regarded universally by
textual critics as being a later addition, nevertheless shows us the
importance of personal faith vis a vis baptism in the early Church. In
this variant, Phillip tells the eunuch, that he can only be baptized if
he believes with all his heart. The eunuch replies that he believes
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Despite its sub-Biblical nature as
a mere textual variation, this certainly tells us something about common
piety in the early Church; belief and baptism were inexorably tied
together.

It is simply another illustration of what I just dealt with. For Jack's view of what he thinks this proves to succeed, Phillip would have to run across an infant, ask the child if he or she "believes" and upon receiving a quizzical expression and no reply, conclude that the child was unfit for baptism. That would be an example of an explicit disproof of infant baptism (which Jack can't find in Scripture).

I think that Mr. Armstrong has to answer why both belief and personal
repentance, which have strong evidence in scripture as being
pre-requisites to baptism, can be completely ignored in the case of
infant baptism.

And I did. Most of the biblical evidence comes from the nature of covenants and the parallels to circumcision. But as I have pointed out, when I gave 14 biblical citations along those lines, Jack chose one to comment on and utterly ignored the other 13. So what can I do? He asks for such "answers" and then when I offer them from the Bible, he ignores them. But now Jack has plenty indeed to answer to in my lengthy reply to his initial critique.

This is a hard question, I think, much more difficult than the Catholic apologist realizes. For even if baptismal regeneration were somehow proven, (which it has not been) we still have
the problem that faith and repentance are tied very closely to baptism in the scriptures, as I argued earlier. If the Catholic replies that baptism "cleanses the soul of original sin" and "infuses justifying grace" automatically, he still has to prove this, and since such language is not, in my opinion, scripturally based, I think that this is a problem for the Catholic apologist.

I don't, and I've done my best to explain why. There is a reason why many Protestants, including Martin Luther, agree with us on baptismal regeneration (including of infants), and I believe I have highlighted many biblical reasons for that agreement.

Zeke: I gotta run. I have some questions for my pastor . . .

I have tried my best to do justice to the evangelical view. I encourage the reader to extract what he can, and even though most of what I say may be straw, perhaps something golden and of worth will remain when all the chaff is burned up.

And I would hope the same for my own portion. I thank Jack for the opportunity to further explain the Catholic position on baptism, and for his cordiality.

[For many more links on the subject of baptism, see my Baptism & Sacramentalism Page]

Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 13 March 2002.

Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger of Bavaria, Germany)

The Holy Spirit Has Spoken Through the Cardinals: Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger): My Own Thoughts on the Current "Mind of the Church"

Praise God! Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Arinze were the only two "candidates" I really knew all that much about, so I am absolutely delighted by this choice. But of course, that is only my own opinion, which counts for little. I believe in faith that this choice was led by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, similar to the workings of an Ecumenical Council, just as we observe in Acts 15:22,25,28 (RSV):

Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them . . .

. . . it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you . . .

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . .

And so here we are with the first German pope since the 11th century; a man who has served faithfully under Pope John Paul the Great, and who will certainly continue his mission. I have a few comments; purely speculative, and of no authority whatsoever, but I throw them out anyway, for whatever they are worth:

I see (with my typically analogical imagination: part of the Chestertonian and Newmanian influence in my thinking) a great parallel to the history of the Church 100 years ago. Church history is often cyclical, and revivals have historically been cyclical events. I've often made a comparison in my mind between Pope John Paul II and Pope Leo XIII. Both were intellectuals and ruled with a similar style. Both were concerned with, for example, labor issues. Pope Leo XIII elevated John Henry Newman, the great English convert, to Cardinal in 1870, whereas Pope John Paul II declared him Venerable (the first step to sainthood). Both men were very attuned to their turbulent times. Leo XIII was a "man of the Vatican I Council"; Pope John Paul II was a "man of Vatican II." Leo XIII served from 1878-1903; John Paul II from 1978 to 2005.
And of course, the holy and great pope who followed Leo XIII was Pope St. Pius X, whose main accomplishment was a strong vanquishing of modernism and theological liberalism. Here, again, is the analogy: Pope John Paul II had many strengths, which have been well-catalogued and extolled in the period of mourning following his death. He had certain emphases (as all popes do) and a particular temperament and personality. His emphasis was on ecumenism and reaching out to all people. He was an evangelist.

Pope Benedict XVI agrees with all that, but clearly his emphasis will likely be more so as a "doctrinal watchdog" and a more stern disciplinarian, since that has been his role in the past 20 years or so. As Pope St. Pius X dealt with the modernists, who were just then trying to make serious inroads into the Church, at a time when Europe and Western Civilization was starting to forsake the Catholic and Christian worldview for the pottage of secularism (with the result being Naziism, Communism, the sexual revolution, the abortion holocaust, and the bloodiest century in history), so Pope Benedict XVI (I imagine) will decisively deal with the postmodernists in the Church, at a time when even the cultural remnants of Christianity are being ditched by Europe and Western Civilization (as he himself has written much about). Pope John Paul II laid the fundamental groundwork for the defeat of the liberal dissidents and their nefarious goals for the Church; Pope Benedict XVI may very well deliver the death-blow. History shows us that the worst centuries in the Church and the world are followed by centuries of great revival and renewed hope. Stay tuned! We ain't seen nothin' yet!

Disciplinary measures in the Church are a matter of prudence and judgment. Perhaps Pope John Paul II did not do as much as he could have in this regard (some think so). This is also the main criticism of Pope Paul VI. But one man cannot do everything, has to do the best he can under the circumstances, and the Holy Spirit has His own timing for things to unfold, so that the best possible outcome will occur. John Paul II laid down the boundaries of orthodoxy and explained to the masses exactly what the Church believed. Now may be the time for this orthodoxy to be more strictly enforced on the local level, where, oftentimes, sadly, liberalism runs rampant.

Again, this is all in God's time. I detest and utterly condemn all the so-called "traditionalist" claptrap, running down John Paul II in this regard, and also arrogantly opposing his ecumenical endeavors (as if they could be a better pope than he was). These hyper-critics are not thinking with the mind of the Church; nor do they know what God has in store. I happen to have had the privilege to personally know one of the great catechists of our time: the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. (who wrote the Foreword of my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism). He was a close advisor to Pope Paul VI and Mother Teresa, and he used to tell us in classes that the reason a full-scale crackdown on the liberals had not occurred was because of the very real possibility of massive schism. I applied this analysis to Pope John Paul II in my paper: "Why Doesn't Pope John Paul II DO Something About the Modernist Dissenters in the Catholic Church?"

Now, it may be time now to take more decisive action, just as it was in the reign of Pope St. Pius X. The choice of Cardinal Ratzinger would seem to indicate that this was a major factor in the mind of the electing Cardinals. Or it may not yet be time, and a more incremental approach to the problem might be more in order. Only time will tell. But the faithful Catholic lives in full confidence that God knows what he is doing, and that popes know what they are doing, too. Whatever course Pope Benedict XVI takes in this regard, he will have my full support and obedience as a faithful Catholic and an apologist. I'm simply noting some parallels and possible trajectories of history that might perhaps explain a few things, as to the direction of the Church and of this papacy.

Whatever happens, I also believe that Pope Benedict XVI will probably be one of the most persecuted and even hated men in the world (the most hated since President Ronald Reagan). The liberals and secularists already take a very dim view of the man, because he is strongly orthodox and stands up for the truth. There is a place for this. All the early popes were martyrs. There is also a martyrdom of sorts which comes through slander and lying and severe opposition from the waves and currents of the presently fashionable zeitgeist. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is precisely the sort of man, I think, who is willing to suffer in that way, in order to strongly assert doctrinal, theological truth. It is good to be loved by the world, as Pope John Paul II was, if it is for the right reasons. The world saw the goodness and holiness in John Paul II. But it is also good to be willing to be persecuted for His name's sake, and to draw clear lines and boundaries. That is the other motif in the Bible, and we certainly saw it in play among the apostles:

You will be hated by all for my name's sake.

(Lk 21:17)

If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you . . . If they persecuted me, they will persecute you.

(John 15:18-20)

. . . now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. It is to fulfill the word that is written in their law, 'They hated me without a cause.'

(John 15:24-25)

Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

(Lk 6:26)

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

(Matthew 5:11-12)

. . . rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.

(Acts 5:41)

Now, I can anticipate some critics of Pope John Paul II saying to themselves (as I have already observed in some), "see, look how popular John Paul II was! So he didn't fulfill this biblical injunction." But there is really no contradiction here. It's obvious that some good and true things are loved by the world and some good and true things are hated by the world. Ecumenism: reaching out to those of other faiths with a broader message (not to deny Catholic distinctives, but to emphasize common ground) will obviously hold more appeal to those outside of the Catholic faith. It's just human nature. Hence, Blessed Pope John XXIII was such a beloved figure among non-Catholics, just as Pope John Paul II was.

But if a pope's emphasis is on Catholic dictinctives and orthodox Catholic theology, in his words and speeches and so forth, in more direct contradiction of the world and non-Catholic Christianity, then he will have to take a great deal more heat, and be accused of being divisive or "triumphalistic" and so forth (which is equally human nature; people don't like disagreement, and they seem to think it is arrogant to ever say that anyone else is wrong). Note, for example, how Pope Paul VI's famous 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reiterated Catholic opposition to contraception, was received. It caused almost a wholesale revolution in the Church (at least in America), from those who had hoped to remake Catholicism into American Episcopalianism (which has excelled at following the spirit of the times and compromising historic Christianity again and again). But Pope Paul VI has turned out to be a virtual prophet. All his dire cultural predictions have come to pass, and then some.

I see this tendency all the time on a much smaller scale, in my own apologetics apostolate. I am passionately committed to both apologetics and ecumenism, and I have written quite a bit of material in the latter vein. Can you guess which one of the two is more popular? Of course, I get a lot more positive feedback when I write ecumenical papers. Then I am perceived as open-minded, fair-minded, more charitable, peace-loving, conciliatory, tolerant, and what-not. Then when I write a paper asserting some Catholic distinctive, or criticizing, for example, Martin Luther (not Lutherans as people!) or Reformed distinctives or some point of moral difference, then all of a sudden I am accused of being prideful and arrogant and thinking I know everything, and against Church unity, and quite intolerant and intolerable (sometimes by the very same people, who see the two motifs as contradictory, when they are not). It's amazing how one person can change so quickly from a lovable character to an ogre! But this is simply human nature and the "either/or", "dichotomous" mindset which characterizes much of modern thinking. This has crept into the Church and larger Christianity.

I've often noted through the years, how people assume that there is a huge dichotomy or contradiction between apologetics and ecumenism. This is untrue. They are perfectly compatible. One endeavor seeks to defend what one believes; the other seeks common ground with other Christian and even non-Christians, and seeks as much unity as is possible to achieve, without compromising one's own belief-system and principles. But the strong tendency is for "liberals" to despise apologetics (fundamentally misunderstanding it), and for so-called "traditionalists" to despise ecumenism (fundamentally misunderstanding it). Post-Vatican II Catholicism (which is the same Church it ever was; only more developed) fully embraces both.

Both the late great pope and this present one are in full agreement with both endeavors (as they are men of Vatican II). That said: there is a time to emphasize one or the other thing (while not denying the other). As Pope John Paul II was such a superb ambassador of the faith, an evangelist, even a "diplomat," if you will (in the very best sense of that word), so Pope Benedict XVI may very well be the upholder and champion (in a more direct, "disciplinary" way) of theological orthodoxy over against all the currents of error that we have to deal with in the modern world and (sadly) among certain rebellious sectors of the Church. Pope John Paul II made it a huge emphasis in his papacy to oppose the Culture of Death; perhaps now is the time to particularly oppose the Culture of Relativism, Secularism, and Theological Error? It makes sense to me, but again, I merely speculate. Time will tell if my observations have any foretelling value.

Both things are good: ecumenism and doctrinal orthodoxy and/or apologetics (which seeks to defend same), but (broadly speaking) folks love one and despise the other. They seem to think that one person with one coherent belief-system cannot do both. Well, this is untrue. Pope John Paul II did both; Pope Benedict XVI will continue to do both. But as the former pope emphasized one, and that was his "image," so to speak, so this present pope will likely emphasize the other, and his "image" will have to take a lot of hits, and he will undergo much persecution for doing so. That will not be because he is somehow more "orthodox" or "conservative" or less ecumenical than Pope John Paul II, but it will be because his emphasis clashes more with the world and other Christian belief-systems than ecumenism does. And he may be more personally assertive or "disciplinarian," as a matter of style, resolve, temperament, or other factors.

It doesn't make him "bad" and John Paul II "good" or vice versa (wrongheaded, sinful stereotypes according to the heterodox / liberal and quasi-schismatic "traditional" fringes of the Church and nutty, goofy, ignorant media analyses by folks who don't have a clue). All this is, is a balance: one good thing being empahsized, and then another good thing being emphasized, at particular periods of time. God is in control. He guided this decision. He knows what He is doing. Popes Leo XIII and St. Pius X were both great popes. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI will also, I'm convinced, both be regarded as very great popes, with the hindsight of history and the progress and development of the Church in the years to come. It is the glory of Catholicism that it can contain men of such vastly different temperaments and emphases, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi, or even of a St. Peter and a St. John among the apostles. It's all good.

May all our prayers be with our new Holy Father, and may we all learn to think in harmony with the Mind of the Church (the only sensible, reliable counter to the Spirit of the Times).

The Pernicious Heresy of Nestorianism Raises Its Ugly Head Again

I was informed that someone had started a thread about me on Steve Ray's Catholic Message Board. So I wandered over there to see what the latest salvo against me consisted of. At least this wasn't a personal attack . But it contained something infinitely worse than an attack upon me: it blasphemed our Lord Jesus Christ by asserting a sort of Nestorianism. I joined up to write this post, and maybe a few more before I leave and resume my usual policy of avoiding discussion boards. Here is what I wrote there (my critic's words will be in blue):
-----------------------------

Hi Folks,

I normally don't post on discussion boards anymore (for various reasons), but I wanted to clarify just a few things about "Lojahw"'s post:

Whatever Nestorius' actual opinions (scholars differ), Lojahw's opinions are indeed heretical. He wrote:

Mary indeed contributed to Jesus His human nature, His weakness. As the writer of Hebrews declared:

Heb 4:15 One who has been tempted in things as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus, the unique God-man, inherited his human nature, and thus the ability to be tempted, from his mother. [The same was not, nor could it be, claimed for Jesus’ mother. Jesus uniquely claims this.] For as James tells us:

Ja 1:13 for God cannot be tempted by evil…

It was Jesus’ human nature, that which could be tempted, which Mary contributed to Jesus, not His sinlessness. Jesus’ divine nature, of course, came from His heavenly Father.

Heaven help us! Where to begin? To believe that Jesus could be tempted in the sense of having interior doubt or mulling over the temptation as if the possibility of succumbing existed, is ludicrous from an orthodox Christian (and especially a Catholic) perspective (and ultimately blasphemous). He could not be tempted in exactly the same way as we are because He wasn't subject to original sin and the result of concupiscence. That's why He couldn't doubt (our fault which causes us to be tried when temptations come) and He couldn't possibly give in to the temptations, because He was God. Jesus has, therefore, no "weakness" in the sense which Lojahw contends.

God cannot possibly sin, because that would be a self-contradiction and contrary to the very Being and Essence of an All-Holy God. Mary certainly could possibly sin, but chose not to, by God's grace. That's the intrinsic difference between God and a creature, even a holy, sinless one like the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The devil can attempt to tempt God (both the Father and the Son), but he can't possibly succeed in either case. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. But he is a non-fallen man, and not subject to the concupiscence which is a result of the Fall. That's what unorthodox Protestants of the quasi-Nestorian-type, like Lojahw, don't seem to comprehend. Man is not essentially a "weak, fallen" creature. The fall distorted that. But fallen man is not the man that God created. Fallen man has original sin and the tendency to actually sin throughout one's life. Jesus has no sin, no concupiscence, and no weakness. He could suffer, but He couldn't give in to the devil's temptation.

Jesus had no "ability to be tempted" anymore than God the Father had. The devil could try to tempt Him and make Him sin (because the devil was too stupid to know that Jesus couldn't possibly sin, being God), but he also tried that with God the Father. We know this from Holy Scripture itself. In Acts 15:10 (KJV), St. Peter rebuked the Judaizers, saying:

Now therefore why tempt ye [RSV: "make trial of"] God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples . . .

The Greek word for tempt here is pirazo (Strong's word #3985): the same exact word used in Hebrews 4:15, which informs us that Jesus was "tempted in things as we are." God the Father tells us that the ancient Jews tried to tempt Him in the wilderness (Hebrews 3:9; same Greek word again).

So sure, the devil could tempt Jesus, just like he tries to tempt us. The difference is that Jesus is not tempted, in the sense of being weak and able to give in to these temptations (as we are). Therefore, He was tempted exactly like God the Father was tempted (which is why the same word is applied to both!): it was a failed attempt which was destined to failure. God the Father and God the Son are no different in this respect. Lojahw tries to make out that they are somehow different, which is Nestorian heresy and blasphemy.

Either Jesus is God or not. All Nicene Christians agree that He was. He was 100% God and 100% man. James 1:13 tells us that God cannot be tempted by evil (i.e., He can't succumb to it). Jesus is God, so this verse applies to Him, too. God the Father and God the Son are one. There's no way out of it; one would have to deny the deity of Christ. Lojahw has a simplistic view of both temptation and the fall, and the Two Natures of Christ. The context of James 1:13 makes it clear that it is discussing something entirely different than Hebrews 4:15 (which Lojahw tried to compare to it). What is it trying to express? It's clear in the next two verses:

but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

In other words, concupiscence is being discussed. God cannot be tempted in this sense, because He cannot give into it. Men can because they are fallen, sinful creatures. Jesus is a man but not a creature, and not a fallen man. And He is God. Hebrews 4:15 makes it clear that He is tempted without sin (i.e., the devil tries to tempt Him and fails). Therefore, it is senseless, unbiblical and blasphemous to try to make out that Jesus is more like us in this respect than like His Father, with Whom He is one.

Jesus could not doubt and "mull over" the lies of Satan, or be tempted by them in some sense of internal, existential agony -- as if He were actually influenced by Satanic lies -- He who possessed all knowledge and holiness (with no concupiscence), as a function of His Divine Nature. Even in His human nature, He possessed the Beatific Vision which all who go to heaven will one day possess. And He possessed infused knowledge.

That's really all that is necessary to annihilate Lojahw's argument: all right from explicit teachings in Scripture. Nor is this only Catholic teaching. It's not: it is the orthodox Christology of historic Protestantism, as well as of Orthodoxy. Thus, the Lutherans Bob and Gretchen Passantino wrote in a review of The Last Temptation of Christ (which was an entire movie based on the same error Lojahw is expressing):

The Last Temptation (and many critics of the protesters) think that "without sin" only means that he didn't perform sinful acts, but that true temptation would allow him to have sinful feelings and inclinations. What hypocrisy! Here is a philosophy that says matter is more Man and spirit is more God, matter is less important and spirit is more important, and yet the sins of the spirit are not sins, but the sins of the flesh are! Jesus pierced the sham of hidden sins when he said, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man." When The Last Temptation Jesus looked at a woman and wanted to have sex with her, but was afraid to, he fulfilled Jesus' definition of a sinner.

This is more than enough extremely serious error. But I would like to point out one other portion of Lojahw's jeremiad that I found funny and surprising, as to what I supposedly have and haven't done, in my apologetics. He cites my words: "Nothing in Scripture is contradictory to the Immaculate Conception." Then he replies:

How about Rom 3:23, for starters? "All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory."

In his next comment, he adds:

Neither does he have a credible answer for Rom 3:23.

I don't?! That's news to me, seeing that I have posted a paper, "All Have Sinned . . . " (Mary?) , specifically designed to answer this particular charge and this very verse. I see that I wrote this paper in 1996, so it was probably posted on my website early on, possibly from the beginning in 1997. That's eight years! All Lojahw had to do was look on my Mary Page or the Mary section in my Super-Link Page to locate this paper. But instead he would rather claim that I haven't offered any "credible answer" to the supposed argument of Romans 3:23 (by alleged implication) that Mary was a sinner.

. . . Because this involved a very serious matter of Christology, I made an exception to my policy concerning discussion boards. I'm sure there are many here who can pick up where I left off, if Lojahw is foolish enough to keep obstinately setting forth his heretical views on our Lord Jesus Christ. In some rare cases people actually accept correction. Let's hope this will be one of them. I'm only speaking for all major historic orthodox Christian groups, not myself.

----------------
"Lojahw" responded again, and I replied:

I certainly defended Jesus’ divinity. His divine nature could not be tempted; yet His human nature was tempted “in all things as we are” according to Hebrews. All Christians believe that Christ, the unique God-man was not born with original sin, being the Eternal Word of God. Yet, in His identification with us by His human nature, he was tempted.

If you say it was impossible for Jesus, having human nature to sin, I think you miss the point. It’s no big deal for someone who can’t fall not to fall.

This continues to be Nestorian heresy and blasphemy (as proven by the portion in red). Jesus could not fall into sin, being God. Period. End of sentence. It doesn't matter if He had a human nature or not. You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the Incarnation.

It is entirely possible that Adam and Eve could have never fallen and rebelled against God. The fall wasn't inevitable or predestined. There is such a thing (theoretically) as an unfallen race. In fact, it exists, because the angels never fell. The demons rebelled and fell but the good angels never did, so they are unfallen, uncorrupted creatures.

That was a possibility for man too, but we blew it. Now, Jesus was God before He became man. And God cannot fall into sin. We fall because we are tempted and have an inherent weakness. The inherent weakness now is the fall, and specifically concupiscence, or the tendeny to sin and to move toward sin in our desires and will. But that comes from the Fall itself, and is a sinful tendency. The origial weakness before the fall was our limitations of knowledge, being creatures and not God. Therefore, the devil could deceive us and lead us to rebel. God has no limitations of knowledge, and cannot rebel against what He is. He is necessarily what He is, and cannot be otherwise. Since we are different from God, and creatures, and limited because of same, we can rebel against Him and fall into sin.

Since Jesus didn't fall and had no original sin, He had no concupiscence, hence He could not have any desire to be enticed by temptation, as we do. He is still God, and God can't sin. Becoming a man as well doesn't change that. Sin is, therefore, impossible for Him. But you imply that it is possible for God to sin. It's not.

Adam and Eve could have possibly not fallen. But Jesus could not possibly have fallen, even in His human nature. That's the difference, even though He was indeed a man like us. It's not possible because He is God, and God is perfectly holy, and cannot contradict Himself or be other than what He is: a perfect and perfectly Holy Being.

Are you denying that Jesus experienced human weakness of all kinds? Did He not get physically exhausted, did He not thirst, did He not bleed, did He not die on the cross?

Of course He did all that, but that is exactly the sort of weakness He could experience, because these are merely the limitations of having a physical body (these limitations resulted from the kenosis; described in Philippians 2:5-8). They are not moral limitations. It's when you ascribe the possibility of moral error to the Incarnate God that you greatly err and blaspheme (though I'm sure you don't mean to; it simply follows from the position you take).

There's nowhere else to go with this. You need to renounce and retract this very serious theological error, for the sake of your soul and truth.

How Theologically "Diverse" Are You?

Christian Traditions Selector.

Very fun!!! Here's my results: after having been raised (liberal) Methodist, then going through a secular / occultic-leaning period for some ten years, then converting to evangelical Protestant (1977), attending an ELCA Lutheran church in the late 70s, then a Jesus Freak nondenominational fellowship; then an Assemblies of God church (where I met my wife and many of my current friends), also Messianic Jewish and Baptist churches (and influences by many other traditions such as Anglicanism and Presbyterian / Reformed), then at length converting to Catholicism in 1990:

Rank Item Percent

1: Roman Catholic (100%)
2: Eastern Orthodox (70%)
3: Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England (69%)
4: Lutheran (69%)
5: Presbyterian/Reformed (38%)
6: Church of Christ/Campbellite (34%)
7: Congregational/United Church of Christ (31%)
8: Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene (27%)
9: Baptist (Reformed/Particular/Calvinistic) (25%)
10: Pentecostal/Charismatic/Assemblies of God (17%)
11: Anabaptist (Mennonite/Quaker etc.) (11%)
12: Baptist (non-Calvinistic)/Plymouth Brethren/Fundamentalist (7%)
13: Seventh-Day Adventist (7%)

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

One of those fun quiz / learn sumpin' about yerself page . . .

My profile is:

75% General American English
15% Upper Midwestern
5% Midwestern
5% Yankee
0% Dixie

Which comes as no surprise. I'm a lifelong Detroit area resident (as my adorable 3-year-old daughter says, holding up her hand: "we live in the big mih-hen!" -- i.e., "mitten", cuz Michigan looks like one), and our dialect is pretty boring and standard.

What would be interesting to find out is if any lifelong resident of some place (who wasn't raised by someone from somewhere else, etc.) gets a profile other than what is typical for that area.

My absolute favorite English dialect is Irish or Scottish. I could listen to the lady-host of The Thistle and Shamrock radio show (usually public radio) till Kingdom Come! I'm not sure which of the two she is (I should, but I don't), but it is an absolutely delightful accent.

Open Forum #2

Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.

Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.

Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.

Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.

Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.

Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.

Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.

Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.

Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense. Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense. Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense. Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense. Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense. Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense. Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense. Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense. Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.Everyone please ignore Alexander. Thanks very much. Otherwise, he'll spam every conversation with his nonsense.
-----------

Grubb,

1. Do you think the Catholic Church is a Christian church?

2. If you want to discuss my papers, then actually discuss the arguments in them (as opposed to talking about the whole paper: "you have hardly any Scripture," etc.). Take a point, make a counter-argument; show that you understand my argument first before responding to it, etc. Hopefully, you will also do this point-by-point, but lately I fall to the earth and praise God vociferously for any actual reasoned argument I receive from my opponents. It's becoming rarer and rare these days.

Carl,

Thanks so much for acknowledging that fear has nothing whatsoever to do with my avoiding dialogues with anti-Catholics. It's refreshing and encouraging that someone "gets" and publicly states what I think is patently, utterly obvious (by looking at my tons of past papers with these anti-Catholic clowns and everyone else under the sun).

What's so immensely frustrating to me is that virtually none of my most vocal, vigorous opponents at this point in time are making any rational arguments at all, in their "responses" to my actual arguments (as in my last comment). Even the brightest ones like Steve Hays confine themselves to dismissing an elaborate, tightly-reasoned logical argument of mine with a wave of a hand and a sneer, as all "begged questions" and "sophistry."

Well, fine and dandy, I would say, "we know WHAT you think, now WHY do you think that? Give me some reason, some argument, some rational analysis of the ARGUMENT." It's frustrating to no end. But I suppose this is symptomatic of the culture we live in. No one wants to use their mind anymore. Everything is arbitrary opinion, taste, subjectivity, unfounded judgmentalism, cynicism, second-guessing, accusation, psycho-babble, mind games, etc. Anything but rational argument . . . .

Thanks again.

Pope John Paul II Did Nothing to Hinder the Modernist Dissidents (?????!!!!!)

. . . So the Catholic "traditionalists" claim, and so do, apparently, a fair share of Protestant critics who have a mistaken view that the Catholic Church has become Episcopalianism while no one was noticing, and has supposedly officially adopted modernism and liberalism, etc., etc. I found this on the Pontifications blog:

===========================================
31. Phil Webb Says:

April 13th, 2005 at 4:37 pm

Speaking of “finally confront the serious dissenters among Catholic theologians and give them their marching orders—submit to the authoritative teachings of the Church or resign” the following is interesting from the Feb. 25 issue of the NCR. They write: “Following is a list of Catholic theologians and others disciplined by the Vatican during the papacy of John Paul II. Though not an exhaustive list, it is a substantial representation of the range of people subject to papal discipline during the past 26 years.” The list was compiled by an assistant to the paper’s editor.

1. Fr. Jacques Pohier, a French Dominican with heterodox views on the Resurrection, lost his license to teach theology and left the Dominicans in 1984.
2. Fr. Hans Kung lost his license to teach in 1979, partly because of his erroneous teaching about papal infallibility.
3. Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx questioned the virginity of Mary and received “notifications” from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) saying that his writings conflicted with Church teaching.
4. Fr. Charles Curran lost his license to teach in 1986. He was the most prominent American opponent of “Humanae Vitae.”
5. Fr. Leonardo Boff, a proponent of liberation theology who taught a skewed Christology, was silenced twice, then left the Franciscans and the priesthood in 1992.
6. Fr. Anthony Kosnik formerly taught at Detroit’s seminary and was forced to resign because his writings on sexuality conflicted with basic Catholic teachings.
7. Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez, another proponent of liberation theology, had his writings criticized by the CDF.
8. Fr. Karl Rahner was silenced by John XXIII and was rehabilitated by Paul VI. In later years he became heterodox on contraception and priestly ordination. He also was at odds with the CDF.
9. Fr. Matthew Fox taught pantheism and eventually was expelled from the Dominicans. He joined the Episcopal Church in 1994.
10. Sr. Mary Agnes Mansour was the director of the Department of Social Services in Michigan, where she oversaw funding of abortions. She was forced to choose between that job and the religious life, and she chose the former.
11. Srs. Elizabeth Morancy and Arlene Violet served in the Rhode Island government. Told to choose between their jobs and their lives as members of the Sisters of Mercy, they chose the jobs.
12. Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen, of Seattle, was investigated by the Vatican after numerous allegations of liturgical abuse. An auxiliary bishop was appointed, and Hunthausen lost much of his authority.
13. Fr. Ernesto Cardenal was the minister of culture in Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. He was chastised by John Paul II when the Pope visited that country in 1983. Cardenal refused to quit his government post and lost his priestly faculties.
14. Fr. Robert Nugent and Sr. Jeannine Gramick, proponents of homosexuality, were forced to leave New Ways Ministry in 1984. In 1999 the Vatican levied additional sanctions on them.
15. Fr. John McNeill was investigated by the CDF in the 1970s for his views on homosexuality. He was expelled from the Jesuit order in 1987.
16. Srs. Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey signed a 1984 “New York Times” ad that backed abortion and refused a Vatican order to retract their support for the ad.
17. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without papal consent and thereby suffered automatic excommunication.
18. Fr. Tissa Belasuriya published heterodox writings on Christ’s divinity, Mary, and original sin. The CDF notified him of errors and ordered him to sign a profession of faith. He refused and was excommunicated in 1997. A year later he was reconciled to the Church.
19. Fr. Eugen Drewermann questioned the Virgin Birth and the reality of the Resurrection. He was expelled from the priesthood.
20. Sr. Ivone Gebara publicly advocated legalized abortion. She was silenced for two years.
21. Bishop Jacques Gaillot lost his position as bishop of Evreux, France, in 1995 because of his promotion of contraception and homosexuality.

Buddy Holly: the music lives on

Buddy Holly: Chronological Chart of His 50 Greatest Recordings

Buddy Holly was arguably the greatest of all the 50s rock and roll stars, judging by overall talent. He was one of the very best songwriters and guitar players of the era and had a wonderful voice and singular vocal style. He managed -- in a time of intense musical creativity -- to create a sound almost uniquely his own. His band was about as good as Elvis's. He could rock almost as well as Little Richard.

No one else had all these different aspects of musical genius wrapped up in one person. Elvis didn't write songs. Little Richard wrote some, but they (like Chuck Berry's and Fats Domino's and Carl Perkins' and Bo Diddley's songs) were much more monolithic in style than Buddy Holly's were: oftentimes little more than a variation on a theme. Jerry Lee Lewis, in retrospect, was a mere flash-in-the-pan. Buddy Holly was also that rare figure (like Elvis) who appealed equally to both men and women. Someone wrote that he essentially introduced "sweetness" and romanticism into rock and roll. Yet he could also rock with the best of them.

And (perhaps most remarkably of all) he did all this in about three years' time. He died tragically at age 22 in a plane crash in February 1959, along with seventeen-year-old Ritchie Valens (who had hits with La Bamba and Donna) and J.P. Richardson ("The Big Bopper" of Chantilly Lace fame, who also wrote Running bear, the 1960 hit for Johnny Preston). This tragedy was the subject of Don McLean's 1971 hit song American Pie). His recordings can almost be divided into three broad categories, by year: 1956 was his rockabilly period, 1957 marked a move to more straight-ahead rock and roll (starting with his first big hit, That'll be the day), and 1958 featured mostly pop arrangements (some even with strings).

One of my many recent CD-burning projects was to arrange Buddy Holly's best songs chronologically, according to recording date. I located a complete discography online (based on Marc Alesina's research), and cross-checked the dates there with those listed on my two anthologies (The Buddy Holly Collection and The Singles + -- for those unfamiliar with Buddy's work, or who only know a few songs, you can listen to samples on these amazon.com pages). These two collections provided most of the 50 songs I have selected, with the exception of some rare late-released tracks, which I had on a 1983 record called For the First Time Anywhere.

The rarest recordings in my own compilation are the first overdubbed versions of Buddy's final recordings, which he made in his apartment in December 1958. After his death, they were overdubbed two or more times. Personally, I don't care for the 1963 overdubs done by Norman Petty (who produced many of the earlier recordings). To me, these sound weird, contrived, and not true to the likely style that Buddy Holly would have used for these songs, nor were they the way I first heard the songs in the late 70s, when I started really liking this music, after the 1978 biographical movie came out.

Unfortunately, both of the major compilations mentioned above have the later overdubs, but I prefer the ones done in 1959 and 1960 in the Coral studios, by Jack Hansen. I had recorded these off of some early two-record collection (I don't even recall the name) that I rented from a local library, in 1978 or 1979. I later re-recorded them onto a second cassette tape, so the CD recordings of those songs that I just made are fourth-generation, but I say, "I'd rather have a lesser recording of a better version than a better recording of a poorer version." Perhaps one day I'll find them again in a used record store or something.

Here is a comment I made a few years back about Peggy Sue: my favorite song of Buddy Holly's:

The masterpiece of an extraordinary two-year period of musical success cut short tragically by a plane crash. This is the quintessential percussion-driven song of its period (and maybe of any other as well). The relentless drums are the central feature (and you usually didn't hear the lower drums much on early rock records), but also notable are Holly's playful, enthusiastic, unique vocals and incredible power-chorded guitar solo (his playing was technically better than even Chuck Berry's and perhaps the equal of Carl Perkins'). A timeless classic on first hearing and every
time thereafter.

I love compiling songs by recording date because you can more easily take notice of the developing musical style and similar sounds. And you learn fascinating facts: such as, e.g., that Peggy Sue, Listen to me, Oh boy, and I'm gonna love you too were all recorded on the same day: 1 July 1957. That's an awesome day's work! Other notes of interesting trivia: the dates reveal that the Crickets group only played on records from March 1957 to May 1958: a mere 15 months. And Buddy Holly played lead guitar only from January 1957 to February 1958 (!). This was also the period of time of most of the records that are considered his "classics." His guitar playing was superb (listen, e.g., to I'm lookin' for someone to love), but for some reason, many lead guitar parts were played by Sonny Curtis in the earlier period, and Tommy Allsup in 1958. Go figure . . .

It's also fun to talk about "soundalikes" of Buddy Holly. In my opinion, the closest that others got to reproducing his sound were the records Sheila, by Tommy Roe (obviously inspired by Peggy Sue, but an excellent, irresistibly catchy record in its own right), I fought the law, by the Bobby Fuller Four (an uncanny voice resemblance, written by Sonny Curtis, and that band was from Texas, too), and Take good care of my baby, by Bobby Vee (who cut two albums with the Crickets in the early 60s). Vee even tried to copy the trademark "hiccupping" vocals in his other Holly-like song Rubber ball, but suffice it to say that only Buddy Holly could do that.

Also, Words of Love by the Beatles is almost a carbon copy of the original: so much respect did the Beatles have for Buddy (and some say that the "Beatles" name was derived from "Crickets"). George Harrison takes great pains to reproduce the guitar solo from the original Crying, Waiting, Hoping (earlier overdub), in the Beatles' affectionate cover of that song on their Live at the BBC album. It is arguable that Holly and Carl Perkins were the most influential on Harrison's classic "early Beatles" guitar style (whereas Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones is obviously a Chuck Berry fanatic).

Now, for the chart itself. The symbols described below will give you just about all the information you ever wanted or needed to know about Buddy Holly recordings, including musicians, songwriting credit, studios used, inclusion on albums, etc. All dates are recording dates (as best I could ascertain)

The Crickets:

Buddy Holly : vocals, lead guitar
Niki Sullivan : (sometimes) rhythm guitar
Joe B. Mauldin : string bass
Jerry Allison : drums
[backing vocals were usually overdubbed later]

* written by Buddy Holly
o lead guitar by Buddy Holly
+ with the Crickets
++ with the Crickets, including Niki Sullivan, rhythm guitar
# recorded in Clovis, New Mexico (Norman Petty, producer)
= recorded in Nashville
x lead guitar by Sonny Curtis
~ lead guitar by Tommy Allsup
c on The "Chirping" Crickets album (1957)
b on the Buddy Holly album (1957)

[if no recording date is listed for a song, it was recorded on the above previously-listed date]
========================================

o Soft place in my heart 4-55
*o Down the line mid-55
=x* Love me 1-26-56
=x* Don't come back knockin'
=x Midnight shift
=x Blue days black nights
#x* Baby won't you come out tonight 4-56
#*o Because I love you
#x* Changing all those changes
#x* I'm gonna set my foor down
#o It's not my fault
#*o Rock-a-bye rock
=x Rock around with Ollie Vee 7-22-56
= Modern Don Juan 11-15-56
o Brown-eyed handsome man 12-56 / 1-57
o Bo Diddley
c#*o I'm lookin' for someone to love 2-25-57
c#*o That'll be the day
c#+o Last night 3-12-57
b#+*o Words of love 4-8-57
b#+o Mailman bring me no more blues
c#+*o Not fade away 5-29-57
b#+*o Everyday
c#++*o Tell me how 7-57
b#+*o Peggy Sue 7-1-57
b#+*o Listen to me
c#+o Oh boy
b#+o I'm gonna love you too
c#++ Send me some lovin' 7-19-57
c#+o It's too late
c++o An empty cup 9-28-57
c++*o Maybe baby
+ That's my desire 1-25-58
b+ Rave on
#+*o Well . . . all right 2-12-58
#+*o Think it over 2-14-58
#~+* It's so easy 5-25-58
#~+* Lonesome tears
#~ Heartbeat
#~* Love's made a fool of you 6-2-58
#~* Wishing
* True love ways 10-21-58
It doesn't matter anymore
Raining in my heart
Moondreams
* What to do 12-3-58 / overdubbed on 1-1-60
* Peggy Sue got married 12-5-58 / overdubbed on 6-30-59
* That makes it tough 12-8-58 / overdubbed on 1-1-60
* Crying, waiting, hoping 12-14-58 / overdubbed on 6-30-59
* Learning the game 12-17-58 / overdubbed on 1-1-60

"Running Scared" / "Runaway" ("Dave Armstrong is a Coward and a Chicken" Theme Songs)

Lately, we have been blessed with more than the usual storehouse of anti-Catholic folly: what Malcolm Muggeridge would have referred to as "fathomless imbecility." Having decided to cease trying to dialogue with anti-Catholics in January, I am currently being accused (despite my 301 posted dialogues: many with esteemed anti-Catholic luminaries) of intellectual cowardice and lack of confidence in the Catholic position.

This is (we are told) "proven" due to the profound, supposedly unanswerable attacks from Steve Hays, a seminary student, who seems to think (mistakenly, as it were) that he is some sort of expert on Catholicism (Link One / Link Two / Background Info.), and knows more about it than I (a professional, published Catholic apologist) or Scott Hahn or Karl Keating do. The comedic possibilities here were simply too rich to pass by. It wasn't in me to resist (halfhearted apologies to the humor-challenged among you). In fact, there was so much potential for mirth and hilarity in these surreal circumstances, that I couldn't possibly contain it in one song parody, and had to do two.

This (by now, quite predictable) tactic from our anti-Catholic friends is a continuation of the desperate, groundless motif begun by James White and Eric Svendsen in January, which led me to do another similar song-parody about the illustrious, inimitable Bishop White: Fun, Fun, Fun (it was sure fun fun fun doing that one! LOL) . Previously, I had created a take-off theme song devoted to Eric Svendsen (quite the original one himself): I Am a [the] Rock (profuse apologies to Paul Simon and Brian Wilson).

First, let's run through a brief overview of the ludicrous comments / accusations, and then have a good time with some parody and satire, which deals with what these folks think (or, one might say, wish) about me (and always remember: underneath good parody or satire is a serious point being made):

---------------------------------------

"Alexander"
(affectionately known on my blog as "Alexander the Bait")

God bless Steve Hays. One more Reformed theologian who's smarter than me… (Dave, he busted you to the core of your RC converted being.) Busted you and your church.

(4-9-05)

Dave, your refusal reeks of fear. If you saw red meat in what Steve Hays has written you wouldn't care if he was the most famous 'anti-Catholic' jihadist on the planet.

(4-11-05)

I see this disingenuousness in your debating style all the time, Dave. It's obvious you know what your doing when you write these things. Obviously the standard for honesty is low because your church hierarchy itself has a low standard for honesty. That and the fact that your church's doctrine is indefensible other than in an arena where full-blown post-modernist tactics and rhetoric - or just non-serious, fallacious performance overall - are unassailed and carrying the show.

(4-12-05)

"Alexander"
(I believe, a second one, based on vastly different writing styles; funny how so many Protestants who comment on my blog wish to hide their real -- or full -- names)

. . . Dave, I know you're a little skeerd of the guy . . .

(4-11-05)

My sense is you back away from opponents with sharp swords who know how to use them and take on people who only provide you with red meat served up. As I stated earlier, if you saw any red meat in what Hays has written you'd not care if he was the most famous anti-catholic in the world.

(4-12-05)

The problem with all that is you approached Hays' writing first. Then you responded to his response. Then you saw his intitial response and his 'Papal bull' post and you tucked your tail between your legs and cried "anti-Catholic!' as a justification for running away.

Roman Catholics can't stand their ground when a capable Protestant theologian or apologist chooses to take you seriously and force you to defend your ground. You may have had a thousand dialogues (which I believe you've been charged with editing after the fact, by the way), but the pattern here is a James White confronts you and you retreat, then a Steve Hays confronts you and you beat a similar retreat . . .

When you are confronted with truth have the courage to recognize the truth rather than run from it.

(4-12-05)

Steve Hays

But to judge by this reply, whenever Armstrong gets into a dogfight he can't win, he pushes the little red button on his ejector seat labeled "anti-Catholic," and parachutes out of his flaming, nose-diving plane.

. . . Anyone can play this game. A Mormon would say that I'm anti-Mormon. A psychic would say that I'm anti-astrology. That's a great bullet-dodging device.

(Leaky Buckets Redux: 4-11-05)

Running Scared
(Roy Orbison and Joe Melson)
(original lyrics)

Just runnin’ scared
each blog I surf
So terribly afraid
they'll steal my turf
Yeah, runnin’ scared,
not of slander or libel
But of noble anti-Catholics,
refuting me from the Bible

Just runnin’ scared,
feelin’ low
Runnin’ scared,
they love truth so
Just runnin’ scared,
afraid to lose
If Steve came back
the hills I'd choose

Then all at once, Steve argued there
So sure of himself, blowing hot air
My boldness was fake, excuses for to flee
He exposed Rome's lies and preached the Truth to me!

Runaway
(Del Shannon)
(original lyrics)

As I mock along,
I wonder what went wrong,
With my logic, that wasn't all that strong.
And as I insult on,
I think of foolish things I've done
in my head, a-while my age was young.

I'm a-talkin' in my brain,
Words are fallin' and I feel the pain,
Wishin' you were debatin' me,
To end this misery
And I wonder--
I wah-wah-wah-wah-wonder,
Why, why, why, why, why, why you ran away,
Yes, and I wonder,
A-what lies you'll say-ay,
You Papist runaway,
Rome, Rome, Rome, run, run runaway.

Cardinal Arinze: My Kind of Guy

". . . in 2003, he shocked students and professors at Washington's Georgetown University when he told them in a commencement speech: 'In many parts of the world, the family is under siege, opposed by an anti-life mentality as seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions, and cut in two by divorce.' "

(from article: Francis Arinze: First black pope?)

"Three Africans have already occupied the office, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: Victor (around AD 183-203), Mechiades or Militiades (possibly AD 311-314), and Gelasius (AD 492-496)."

"Any open backing for a candidacy is frowned upon in as much as it anticipates the incumbent's death. However, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, a confidant of John Paul and the Vatican's theological watchdog, came close when he said electing an African pope 'would be a positive sign for the whole of Christendom'.

" 'For all its condemnation of racism, the western world still has reservations about the third world,' Cardinal Ratzinger said. 'Yet, in Africa for example, we have truly great figures whom we can only admire. They are fully up to the job.' "

". . . two thirds of Catholics live below the equator . . ."

(from: The Guardian profile: Cardinal Francis Arinze)

See also:

Cardinal Arinze's pro-life, pro-family commentsanger Georgetown faculty members, spark protest

The "New Orthodoxy" of Dissent: Cardinal Arinze's Georgetown Address (James Hitchcock)

Francis Cardinal Arinze speaks on interreligious dialogue

Cardinal Arinze to Head CDW: Nigerian prelate brings unique perspective, experience, to the Holy See's worship congregation (Helen Hull Hitchcock)

Excerpts from Cardinal Arinze's 1999 letter to bishops on the "Spirituality of Dialogue"

Cardinal Francis Arinze: Profile of a Candidate for Pope

The African cardinal tipped to succeed the Pope

Next Pope Betting Odds: Francis Arinze

The Challenge of New Religious Movements
(Cardinal Arinze at the Cardinals Meeting, April 5, 1991)

Cardinal Francis Arinze: Christian-Muslim Relations in the 21st Century
(Talk given at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in Georgetown University, Washington D.C., 5 June 1997)

White Smoke for a Black Pope? Whether or not Cardinal Arinze is elected to succeed John Paul II, his moment in the spotlight is serving as a reality check.
(Pamela Schaeffer; Beliefnet: October 2000)

Why Francis Arinze could be the next pope

"With the weekend’s television coverage showing mostly people of European descent mourning the death of Pope John Paul II, what might be lost is the effect the pope’s passing will have on more than 200 million black Catholics worldwide, including the nearly three million residing in the United States."

From: Cardinal Francis Arinze May Become First African Pope in Over 1,500 Years
(Monica Lewis, BlackAmericaWeb.com)

Vatican Cardinal Ends Debate: No Communion for Pro-Abortion Politicians or Rainbow Sashers

Cardinal Arinze Remembers Pope as Man of Prayer

The next Pope: Cardinal Arinze's chances

Nigeria's Arinze Might Be First African Pope

Arinze: hard-liners make interfaith relations hard
Francis A. Arinze discusses the effect of religious fundamentalism on interreligious dialogue (Christian Century, Dec 12, 2001 by Douglas Todd)

Like It or Not: Cardinal Arinze at Georgetown
(Charles Colson)

Cardinal Arinze's Address to FDLC: Highlights of the Liturgical Renewal

Catholic College Gives Cardinal Arinze Standing Ovation

Nigeria’s Arinze a front runner in papal succession

Pope: Arinze among front runners

Cardinal Arinze explains tough stand on Eucharist

Cardinal Arinze on the Eucharist and Eschatology

The Next Pope?

"Traditionalist" Catholic Attacks on Pope John Paul II: Accusations of Incompetence, Modernism, Compromise, and Heresy

Just so you're aware of how "far out" the so-called "traditionalists" have gotten, even if they may not be formally schismatic yet (I have habitually called opinions such as these "quasi-schismatic"):

Robert Sungenis:

Yes, as far as reacting to a direct disobedience of his orders not to consecrate the four bishops, the pope acted "legitimately." On the other hand, Lefebvre had "legitimate" complaints about the pope that the pope thoroughly ignored (e.g., Assisi 1986, liberalism, false ecumenism, the suppression of the Latin Mass, etc). Hence, insofar as legal legitimacy, yes, the pope had his rights, but as far as dealing with Lefebvre's concerns of a Church leaving her traditions and going down the wrong path, the pope totally missed the mark. Lefebvre will be judged for disobeying the direct disciplinary order of the pope, but the pope will be judged for bringing the Church to the edge of apostasy.

. . . If John Paul II really wanted to integrate Vatican II with Tradition, he should have called all the bishops of the world to Rome to pray to God for world peace. As it stands, it seems that John Paul thinks more highly of pagans than he does his own prelature. He won't call the bishops to Rome to consecrate Russia, and he won't call the bishops to pray for world peace. This is a pope who has little control over the Church, and that is because he has failed to discipline his Church. Scripture says that the pope is supposed to rule the nations and the Church with a rod of iron, but this pope has been little more than milquetoast for 25 years, and thus the Church is in the worst condition it has ever been.

. . . Yes, proper respect and allegiance should be given to the magisterium. But when the prelates behind the magisterium go off into heterodoxy by asserting their personal opinions, then it is the "right and duty" of the Christian faithful to point these aberrations out to them, according to Canon Law 212, 2-3. If we don't point them out, then we are being negligent, and God will judge us. Although the Great Facade is, as Mr. Likoudis frames it, "a book of relentless contestation of the magisterium...," Mr. Likoudis' apologetic is to the other extreme – a relentless acceptance of innovation and opinion of the present pontificate, regardless whether it squares with Tradition or even Vatican II, and the failure to speak out about the abuses that this pontificate has perpetrated on the Christian faithful.

. . . Yes, God is still in charge. The question is whether He can find brave warriors to stand up for the faith and put the blame right where it belongs – on the pontificate of John Paul II. Unfortunately, Mr. Likoudis does not seem to have the ability to hold respect for the papacy and the pope, and at the same time point out in public where the pontificate has gone wrong. As long as Mr. Likoudis maintains that dichotomy, he will be called a "neo-Catholic" by Ferrara-Woods and many other people. How Mr. Likoudis can live with the unprecedented aberrations this pontificate has promoted without registering these complaints in public is mind-boggling. Here's just a partial list:

- A pontificate that prays with pagans and encourages pagans to pray to their false gods for mundane favors.

- that doesn't once preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them for the saving of their souls.

- that sanctions voodooism and other such abominable religions.

- that gives high-profile jobs to known pedophile protectors (Cardinal Law).

- that fails to rid the seminaries, chanceries and universities of homosexuals, and fails to deal with bishops who sanction and perpetuate homosexuality and homosexual priests.

- that fails to discipline heretical and immoral prelates, but pounces on others who seek to adhere to the Traditional Church.

- that teaches that the Jews have their own covenant with God, and need not convert to Christianity, and that the Old Covenant has not been revoked, in direct opposition to Scripture and Tradition.

- that strongly suggests by carefully chosen language that most, if not everyone, will be saved

- that signs joint statements with Protestants that have the Catholic side agreeing to the statement "justification is by faith alone" (Section 2C, Annex, JD)

- that allows the production of Catholic bibles (NAB) and commentaries (NJBC) that question or deny major tenets of the Catholic faith.

- that promotes the idea that Scripture has historical errors and that the Gospels are anti-semitic.

- that has consistently refused to consecrate Russia, by name, as Our Lady requested in 1929, and pretends that the consecration has already been performed and that the Fatima apparitions are passe.

- that has never completely released the Third Secret of Fatima, even though Our Lady commanded it to be released as far back as 1960.

- that promotes a Mass to conform to Protestant sensibilities, and gives lip service to the Traditional Mass.

- that has weakened the wording of certain sacraments.

- that says, in certain instances, the consecration formula is not necessary to confect the Eucharist.

- that allows women to act like priests and parade on holy altars, and hold positions of high authority in dioceses and universities.

- that teaches that husbands and wives are to be in "mutual submission."

- that promotes altar girls, even after it promised not to do so.

- that teaches our children that they descended from apes as if it were a fact of science.

- that makes life very hard for those who remain faithful to pre-Vatican II traditions.

- that teaches that the United Nations is the best hope of mankind (even though the UN promotes abortion, population control, contraception, euthanasia, and many other moral atrocities)

- that, instead of recognizing its own faults, makes profuse apologies for the actions of past popes and saints.

- whose policies of ecumenism are an unmitigated failure. (Recently the 22 nations of the European Union rejected the pope's request to add the phrase "Europe has traditional roots in Christianity" into its constitution, yet Europe has been the focus of this pontificate's "ecumenism" for the last 25 years).

(A Frank Discussion with Jim Likoudis about Vatican II, John Paul II and The Great Facade)

Whereas in Noah’s day there were only eight people saved while the rest were condemned when the doors of the ark were shut (1 Pt 3:20), quite the opposite is taking place today, and John Paul II comes very close on many occasions to declaring that everyone in the world will be saved. Right from the beginning of his pontificate, starting from his 1979 encyclical Redemptor Hominis (an encyclical, incidentally, which uses “church” 150 times but does not mention “Catholic” once), to his January 2002 gathering of 160 world religions at Assisi to “pray” for world peace, John Paul II has given us a steady stream of universalist-type messages, but he has preached little, if any, messages of judgment and condemnation of the world for its sins.

I believe John Paul II does this because the essence of his “ecumenical” gospel appears to be that man is saved until proven otherwise, whereas our traditional gospel holds, as Noah did, that man is under condemnation until he is saved.

. . . Other men have been branded as heretics for saying things not half as troublesome as some of the above statements.

. . . As it stands, there are many other things John Paul II has said and done that make it hard for one to be defensive of his teachings in the light of tradition.

. . . Although one cannot possibly cover all of them in one essay, there are, in fact, many such alarming and troubling statements made by the pope in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

. . . It appears from his writings and teachings, however, that John Paul II has gone sufficiently beyond both Scripture and conciliar teaching to warrant our sincere concern about his basic understanding of how salvation is procured and to whom it might be given. More to the point, I think it would be no exaggeration to say that it is precisely John Paul’s view that every man is a recipient of ‘salvation until proven otherwise’ which is behind all the “ecumenical activities” . . .
The pope’s liberal views on salvation . . .

(When a Pope Errs)

Christopher Ferrara
(co-author of "the most feared book in Neo-Catholic Land": The Great Facade)

. . . . This brings us to the heart of the matter: How is it that a world in the grip of apostasy had nothing but praise for the Pope whose moral teaching it simply ignored? On every major television network politicians of the Left and the Right, conservative and liberal journalists and political commentators, Protestant ministers, rabbis, Imams, Hindus and Buddhists, rock stars and even MTV video jockeys--spokesmen of every conceivable persuasion and political orientation nanimously offered unstinting tribute to the Pope.

How does one explain this seeming paradox? . . . there has to be more to the explanation than this, for the Church has never seen anything like the unceasing hosannas offered to John Paul II by virtually every organ of world opinion. Far more is involved here than the usual expressions of worldly respect for a deceased Pope. What is going on?

. . . The conclusion is inescapable: Whatever the Pope’s subjective intentions might have been (and these are known only to God), the world’s unprecedented praise for John Paul II clearly arises from the perception that his pontificate, unlike any other, served the world’s interests as opposed to the “narrow” sectarian interests of the Roman Catholic Church.

. . . How did this perception arise? Is the world not responding to the Church’s own “opening” to it at the Council? Is the world not rejoicing in the legacy of a Pope it sees as having, at long last, brought the Church down to earth, dispelling once and for all its aura of divine majesty as the one and only City of God, ruled by a king who is Christ’s Vicar?

. . . EWTN’s implicit denigration of the preconciliar Popes (a basic element of neo-Catholic thinking) continued on Marcus Grodi’s show The Journey Home, where Grodi opined that John Paul II had made Protestants “feel welcome” in the Church, whereas before his reign “there was not that welcome.”

. . . In the eyes of the world, then, John Paul II is more worthy of admiration than any Pope before him because he, unlike any of his predecessors, was willing to lend credence to many of the world’s accusations against the Church, especially the accusations of the Jews . . . Here, as in so many other areas, we see the contradictory nature of the pontificate that has just ended. And it is precisely these contradictions the world now exploits in its great show of adulation for one Pope above all others. What Catholic would want to assist in the exploitation by failing to protest, as a Catholic should, that no Pope is utterly inerrant, and that not everything John Paul II said and did was in the best interest of the Church or a model for other popes to follow?

For 26 years the neo-Catholic establishment chanted: “John Paul II, we love you!” But did they love the Pope as a Pope should be loved, in charity and in truth, being willing, as St. Thomas teaches, to admonish even the Pope should the danger of scandal to the Faith arise? Or did they love instead the cult they themselves had built up around the man in sports stadiums and at the World Youth Days?

As he viewed the Pope lying in state in St. Peter’s Basilica during EWTN’s coverage, Marcus Grodi said that people must develop an appreciation not only for the Catholic faith, “but for the meaning of John Paul II.” When the person of a Pope is raised to the level of a “meaning” that is held to be something over and above the Faith itself, we are witnessing a process of papal deification that is foreign to our religion and must arouse in us no little fear of what is to come in the days ahead.

. . . We who call ourselves traditionalists can only object to this whole eerie spectacle, the likes of which the Church has never seen before. Whoever wishes to love the Pope as he ought to be loved must be willing to say now, in charity and in truth, that John Paul II was a ruler whose words often said one thing while his actions said another, and that the contradictions which marked his reign have produced enormous confusion in the Church that must be undone by his successor.

(Did They Love You, Pope John Paul II?)

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
(co-author of "the most feared book in Neo-Catholic Land": The Great Facade)

[question from interviewer] 9. Many European Catholics see with some disconcertment that American Catholics who were supposed to be "orthodox" are pro-war although they used to share the Vatican’s position in moral matters. Has the crisis inside the Church weakened their confidence in the Pope, especially in his interpretation of the just-war doctrine?

I don’t think so. In fact, most neoconservative Catholics have defended John Paul’s handling of the crisis to an almost embarrassing degree, blaming everything on bad bishops or biased media coverage. There have been a few exceptions, like Rod Dreher of National Review (one of the most hawkish magazines), who argued in this context that John Paul’s moral authority had indeed been compromised, but in general the crisis does not seem to have influenced people’s perceptions of John Paul’s ability or moral right to apply just-war criteria to the conflict with Iraq. Whether there was a crisis or not, the Catholic neocons would have adopted the political positions they have now. They would not have been more likely to support John Paul.

Interestingly, it has been Catholic traditionalists, who have been most critical of John Paul’s pontificate, who have been more likely to agree with his judgment about the war. These traditionalists have been forthright in their criticisms of Rome in the present crisis, arguing that we cannot seriously be expected to believe that the situation could have grown this bad without any Vatican knowledge of it at all, and it is the Vatican, moreover, who appoints these appalling bishops in the first place (ignoring the pleas of orthodox faithful entirely). And yet they have generally supported the Pope on the war issue. So there does not appear to be a connection between the two.

(The Split on the Right)

Michael J. Matt
(editor of The Remnant)

. . . While watching some of the constant live feed from the Eternal City this past week, compliments of the cable news networks, it occurred to me to wonder if we were not perhaps viewing, in a sense, a Requiem for the old Catholic Faith itself. For whatever his strengths and weaknesses, Pope John Paul II is likely the last Pontiff who will have deep roots in the old Church and who will have clear memories of the way the Church once was but is no more. His pontificate was the bridge from the old to the new; with his passing, the bridge is no more. The next Pope is apt to have had his priestly formation solidly rooted in the new Church of Vatican II.

. . . As traditional Catholics we felt so terribly alone this past week, asking, even as Mary Magdalene asked at the tomb, “What have you done with him? What has become of the Catholic Pope?” One priest commentator on Fox News summed it up perfectly: “Previous popes were popes of the Catholic Church; Pope John Paul was the pope of the world!” With few exceptions, they praised him, they eulogized him, some even seemed intent upon deifying him. What does it all mean? Humanly speaking, it may well mean that the Revolution has triumphed, or at least believes that it has triumphed, to such an extent over the past fifty years, and the Catholic Church has fallen so low in her human element, that the world no longer fears her or her human leaders. In its heart and soul, of course, the world knows that there is only one true Church and that it is the Catholic Church. But in true demonic fashion, the world also seems eager to test its apparent triumph over the Church by holding aloft like some trophy the Catholic pope and saying: “Wasn’t he a great man! He was one of us.” The same world that vilifies Pius XII on a daily basis now claims Pope John Paul as one of its own. Indeed, these are dangerous times.

. . . this long and in so many respects tragic pontificate, . . .

. . . Now, at the eleventh hour, it is time, it seems to us, for Catholics to beg God on bended knee to arrange it so that the next Pope will be given the grace to see the absolute necessity of abolishing that catastrophic experiment called the New Mass—that unmitigated disaster that has failed so completely to preserve and protect the Faith, and that has, instead, proven itself expertly capable of destroying within the Catholic masses the belief in the Real Presence—once and for all, while using the full weight of his august office to reinstate the sacred Mass of the Roman Rite…the Mass of the Saints…the Mass of the Ages…the Mass of Tradition!

(On the Eve of Another Conclave)

David Palm

I do not think it would be difficult to reach a broad consensus among NOR (NEW OXFORD REVIEW) readers that the state of the Catholic Church today is downright confusing on many fronts. Where we would begin to diverge from one another is in the analysis of the root causes of that confusion. Although all would likely agree that there is no single source, orthodox Catholics have increasingly stated in public that at least part of the confusion in the Church today has its origins at the very top — that some of the words, deeds, and omissions of Pope John Paul II are causing confusion among faithful Catholics.

. . . I will point out a number of examples in which right Catholic belief and practice would be wrongly altered by following the example set by John Paul II.

. . . One of the most pernicious errors that plagues the Catholic Church today is creeping universalism . . . One finds, unfortunately, that support for this new-fangled notion may be found at the very top of the Church's hierarchy . . . Creeping universalism has very troubling practical results. Most notably, it dampens missionary zeal and Catholic evangelism.

. . . Could it be that our Holy Father does not exercise his disciplinary authority because he is not convinced that we can know whether there is anyone in Hell? Is it not possible that certain theological conclusions and practical outcomes logically go hand in glove?

. . . Here, it seems, is a direct clash between the Church's pre-conciliar Thomistic realism and a post-conciliar emphasis on a certain kind of personalism which increasingly looks like a divorce from reality and a rejection of common sense. Further, as the years have passed since Vatican II, these now-stock excuses for why the Vatican has refused to discipline renegade priests and bishops have crumbled, one by one. Certainly the many decades over which the crisis has spread have been sufficient to gather the information necessary to judge the erroneous opinions of various priests and bishops accurately and justly. And the "greater scandal" argument — most often formulated in terms of the avoidance of an open schism — has now been shown false in the most recent clerical sex scandals. The Holy Father could have removed many deviant bishops and priests with complete impunity. The other bishops would not have dared defy him on such an issue, especially since those most apt to break openly with Rome tend to have scandalous skeletons in their own closets. With even the secular world rightly expecting tough treatment of such deviancy, who would have dared go into schism over the situation? But has any disciplinary action been taken? Rather, in yet another bow to the novelty of collegiality, the entire problem was handed back to the national hierarchy which, through its own laxity, spawned the scandal in the first place.

. . . Creeping universalism may lie behind another phenomenon in the Catholic Church as well, the quasi-official change in her stance regarding the status of non-Catholic Christians . . . But today, there are no more calls issued from the Vatican for those Christians separated from the Catholic Church to return to her. Rather, the new outlook is one of a mutual journey of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants along a common path toward unity.

. . . On the other hand, Dominus Iesus (DI) issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on June 16, 2000, with the Pope's approval, stated that there is only one Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, that "the unicity and the unity" of the Catholic Church "will never be lacking," that other Christian communities suffer from "defects," that those who do not have a valid Episcopate "are not Churches in the proper sense," and that the "fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs" to the Catholic Church (#16-17). This would imply — though it is not stated explicitly — that Christian ecumenism requires some kind of return to the Catholic Church . . . the Pope went out of his way on October 1, 2000, to affirm DI, saying that it "is close to my heart" and "was approved by me in a special way." So where does John Paul really stand? Who knows? It's a mystery, one that engenders confusion in the Catholic faithful.

. . . Truly, these are confusing times in the Catholic Church. I have tried to clarify that the source of at least some of this confusion is found in a place that many orthodox Catholics have been unwilling to examine. Until relatively recently, I shared this resistance. I expect there will be those who proclaim that this is all just "Pope bashing." It is not. Any annoyance with what I've written should at least be tempered by a realistic evaluation of the concrete examples that have been presented (and, unfortunately, a great many more could be) . . .

(Catholic Confusion at the Very Top: originally published in The New Oxford Review and later reprinted in Seattle Catholic: 6 April 2004)

-----------------------------------------------

It's not my intention to combat all these errors here (which require an extreme time commitment: so great and deep are the falsehoods and misunderstandings). I simply wanted to inform readers of the nature of such criticisms of the late great Holy Father. For my own opinions, see my page:

"Traditionalist" and Schismatic Catholics

For web pages or blogs specializing in "traditionalist" controversies and error, see:

F. John Loughnan's Page
Agenda (William Grossklas)
Ultratraditionalists ("Matt 1618")

I believe all of these men, with the exception (I think) of "Matt1618," were formerly in the SSPX or otherwise in the so-called "traditionalist" camp. I was not, so I don't write with either the knowledge or interest that they have. I approach the matter primarily from a "flawed premises" perspective. I recognize that the troubled opinions arising from the "traditionalist" mindset" inevitably come from some false idea or hidden premise that was adopted and built upon. "Traditionalists" invariably want to argue about 10,000 particulars -- especially of a "legal / canon law / liturgical" variety. My point is that such a discussion is pointless unless one's first premises are established beforehand. But that is rarely done. I could go on and on, but I'll leave it there.

2nd Reply to Anglican Edwin Tait on Historical Ecclesiological Arguments and Development of Doctrine (Complete)

Previous installments:

Part I

Part II

Part III (final section) is below.

Edwin's words will be in blue. Any past words of mine will be in green. Past words of Edwin's will be in red.

----------------------------------

I don't know if I presuppose private judgment, because private judgment can mean all sorts of things (as does sola scriptura). If private judgment means that the individual Christian has to make decisions about which things presented to him/her for belief are true and which are false, then yes, I presuppose "private judgment," and I observe all Catholics exercising it.

It doesn't mean simply "decision-making." It is a technical term for a particular epistemological outlook. This state of affairs that you describe is not at issue. But I deny that it is private judgment.

Indeed, it seems axiomatic that everyone exercises it all the time.

Yes it does.

If you mean by "private judgment" that the individual's decisions are ultimate, in such a way that having decided X I would never change my mind to Y because of ecclesiastical authority, then no form of Protestantism to which I belong presupposes any such thing. Certainly you find Protestants and Protestant churches who teach this. But it is not a necessary consequence of Protestantism.

I don't mean that, either.

If you mean that the individual's decisions are ultimate in the sense that submission to an authority depends on a prior decision that the authority is valid--a decision that might be reversed if more evidence of some kind turned up--then again, I think everyone exercises this, except those who simply believe what they believe because the religion or culture or nation in which they were educated teaches it (a position that I think has more merit than modern people recognize except when it rests on mere subservience to political power). If for instance you found convincing reason to believe that all documents and artifacts of the history of Christianity before the Middle Ages were forged, you would almost certainly reexamine your commitment to Catholicism, I suspect. Of course, there is no probability that this will happen--something like it is maintained by some crackpots, but neither of us take them seriously. That, however, is the point--we both make a judgment of our own that they are not worth taking seriously.

I agree again.

Finally, you may mean that the individual is responsible for more than simply determining the validity of an ecclesiastical authority (such as the Catholic Magisterium) and the degree of weight the Magisterium itself intended a given pronouncement to have, but rather must analyze each decision of the Magisterium against a background other than its own pronouncements and expressed intentions. This probably is what you mean, and it is a meaningful distinction.

Yes; that "background," is, of course, Scripture, in this system, which is the only infallible authority. But that has to be interpreted, etc. Who authoritatively interprets if there is no binding authority other than Scripture? It seems obvious to me that in the end, in such an individualistic system, the individual decides, in some very real sense.

I've dealt with the nature of private judgment in at least four lengthy papers:

The Logical Circularity and Hidden Premises of Sola Scriptura and Private Judgment (with Brent Arias)

Catholic vs. Protestant Conceptions of the Meaning and Consequences of Private Judgment (Including Lengthy Citations From Reformed Protestants Arthur W. Pink, Archibald Bruce, and Charles Hodge, Four Protestant Confessions, and Catholic John Henry Newman)

Private Judgment: Its Meaning and How it is Viewed by Protestants and Catholics

Private Judgment and "Reformed Catholicism"

But I don't think I'm presupposing it. I'm saying that anything else seems hopelessly circular in a way that really does vitiate Catholic claims (in a way that the alleged Orthodox circularity doesn't vitiate Orthodox claims, because they aren't resting so much on it). If the Magisterium is the only interpreter of itself, then of course you wind up theoretically with internal consistency, because the current Pope can always explain away any conflict. As a matter of fact, the problem you face is that the Pope doesn't choose do to this. He allows Cardinal Ratzinger to say that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible instead of saying it himself, for instance. He allows apologists and historians to speculate about the intention of Boniface VIII and reconcile it with Vatican II, instead of issuing a pronouncement himself (as far as I know).

Exactly! So much for the opinion that the pope is telling us how to think and what to do regarding everything but whether to blow our nose and what color socks to wear. :-) Furthermore, the magisterium is more than just the pope.

The relative reticence of the Papacy (which I find commendable and a strong argument for its claims) makes necessary the kind of private judgment you're arguing Catholics find superfluous.

No, because you're still utilizing an incorrect definition of private judgment. It is not synonymous with merely "thinking." It's a particular system of authority or a rule of faith, closely allied (if not intrinsic to) sola Scriptura. This is not just my Catholic opinion. I have backed it up with Protestant sources as well.

When you believe Ratzinger that OS was infallible, and another Catholic doesn't, you're both making an act of private judgment, in the sense you seem to be using the term.

I agree that it is a judgment, but it is an improper use of the term private judgment.

The Protestant can't simply presuppose all this stuff, analyze Catholicism by using it and then declare victory. And that is because Catholicism operates on a different rule of faith and a different epistemology than does Protestantism.

I'm not declaring "victory."

I know; I was speaking generally.

I'm simply saying that the kind of logic games we get involved in when the issues are put in this way are totally unconvincing to me.

Yeah; me too.

Of course if I accepted your presuppositions it would all make sense.

You can do that by utilizing reasons exterior to those presuppositions, so that they are not circular. The truly circular stuff comes far prior to these considerations: "does God exist,?" "do I exist?," etc. You can't absolutely prove either of those propositions, nor a host of other things, if we want to get philosophically technical about it.

The purpose of my blog was to try to sketch why I don't accept your presuppositions.

And I have tried to clarify my position and show why I don't agree with your reasoning where we disagree. It's been an excellent and stimulating dialogue. I hope you have enjoyed it as much as I have.

So immediately the question becomes, rather: "why does Catholicism disallow these beliefs and this epistemology? And why does Protestantism accept them?"How is that resolved? Well, it's resolved in the usual way that all such disputes are: by recourse to Scripture, Church history, reason, and (I would add) practical workability. Sola scriptura and private judgment (as an epistemological approach inexorably tied to sola Scriptura) fail on all four counts. These notions cannot be found in Scripture (despite many near-ingenious attempts to do so from our esteemed Protestant brethren). They can't be found in history, either (ditto to my last parenthetical comment). Both history and Scripture also offer tons of directly contrary evidence. Nor are they reasonable or workable.

I don't find that the kind of Catholic position you're outlining (one that attempts to exclude "private judgment" in sense 4) meets these tests, frankly. I think it fails historically and it's not workable. You can say that that's because I'm working with Protestant presuppositions--of course I am.

You need to specifically deal with these things and make arguments of each type, to convince me of your position and refute mine.

Similarly, you're analyzing Protestantism with Catholic presuppositions.

No doubt I have that bias, but I maintain that my arguments against Protestantism primarily depend on its own internal inconsistency and failure to meet the tests of reason, history, and (I dare say) Scripture (where it disagrees with us). In other words, my counter-argument neither depends on adopting Catholic presuppositions, nor is it circular. Anyone could make the analysis. You have shown that in a few major areas now, you have misunderstood my position and premises (not intentionally, of course). That has affected even this present paper of yours, because you end up trying to "reply" to something I don't hold in the first place (just look and see how many times I have entirely agreed with various of your statements). Now that those things have been explained further, this can be an even more interesting dialogue. I only hope you have the time in the near future to continue it, just as it is getting really fascinating and constructive. If we wait three-four years again, we'll have to start from square one and go through the whole process . . .

One obvious example--Protestantism fails from history if one assumes that there must be an infallible ecclesiastical authority.

That's not my argument. One doesn't have to depend on that. One merely has to accept the premise that there is one Christian truth, which is quite biblical, and until recently in history, a completely uncontroversial belief held by pretty much all Christians. The so-called "reformers" didn't believe in theological relativism or (to use a milder term) "healthy theological diversity". They each believed that their version of Christianity was the true (or most true) one, and that the others were seriously wrong. But many Protestants today try to explain away their continuing internal differences by relegating all sorts of theological areas to de facto (usually not self-understood) selective relativism, holding that it simply doesn't matter if folks disagree on a, b, and c. This would have been completely foreign to Luther, Calvin, and, I think, even Martin Bucer (though probably a bit less so for him than for the other two).

But if ecclesiastical authority is fallible, then those teachings of the Fathers that point toward infallibility may themselves be mistaken.

Well how do we determine if God intended infallible Church authority or not? You tell me. I say that it is clearly expressed in Scripture, and that one reasonably believes in faith that a broad consensus among the Fathers in one direction is highly indicative that something is true. Both require faith. One exercises faith (with reasons) that Scripture is revelation, and that patristic consensus indicates a likely divine stamp of approval.

I don't think this is any more circular or self-serving than the Catholic position--maybe less.

Easy to assert, I say; much more difficult to prove once it gets down to particulars: trying to show the superiority of one system over others, by this method.

My claim is that the need for an infallible authority is not itself a convincing reason to become Catholic. At least I have not found it so.

As stated above, I would prefer to say that the question is better stated as a need for a binding authority that can overcome the de facto theological relativism that the Protestant system inevitably produces. If we accept logic, we must admit that it is certain that error absolutely exists in Protestantism wherever there is doctrinal contradiction. Both parties might be wrong in such instances, or only one, but both can't be right. Therefore, error exists. And if it exists, then millions of people are being falsely led insofar as they are following false teachings (whose existence are certain due to contradiction).

This is not a good thing (I think you'd agree). There must be some way (it seems quite reasonable) to resolve these difficulties. But history shows that Protestantism is intrinsically incapable of doing so. Therefore, it is fundamentally flawed, because it produces error by its very nature and (even worse) cannot find an internal method for alleviating the resulting relativism and sectarianism. It's always been this way and always will be. I think 500 years is more than enough to demonstrate that the system has failed in its well-intentioned purpose of uniquely preserving and/or restoring true Christian doctrine.

As C.S. Lewis said, "the rules of chess create chess problems." Catholics can easily look at all these alleged "historical difficulties" the way a Protestant approaches alleged "biblical difficulties."

Absolutely. The analogy here is with a Protestant (there are many such) who should use a claim of Biblical inerrancy as a reason to become a Christian (the Bible is free from error, therefore Christianity is true). This seems patently wrong-headed to me.

Yes; it's circular; therefore utterly non-compelling. Yet if such a person saw instance after instance where the Bible was shown on external grounds to be true, they could generalize that it all was true, and revelatory; therefore Christianity is true. There is an at least partially non-circular way to go about that.

One judges the problems raised by lack of papal authority to be insuperable or not. I judge them to be not. Grave, but not fatal, given that I'm not committed to a view of the Church's perfection like that of your Communion.

How does one make such a judgment? What's the basis for it? Do you not agree that the necessary existence of doctrinal error is a very serious problem that needs to be solved?

I contend that this viewpoint cannot be squared with the biblical one, where it seems to me that all doctrine is considered to be highly important and non-negotiable (we especially see this in St. Paul's writings).

I don't recall anywhere where St. Paul says that all doctrine is non-negotiable. I can find plenty of places where right doctrine is considered highly important--but I can find at least as many (probably more) where holiness of life is considered highly important.

First of all, there is no need to pit holiness against doctrine. No one is denying the supreme importance of holiness. But that has no relation to whether Paul held to the notion of one true body of teaching that should be held in its entirety. I would contend that he suggests this in the following passages:

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

No qualifications here; no common Protestant distinction between "primary" and "secondary" issues (baptism, the nature of the Eucharist, Church government, etc.). It's very cut-and-dried. If you think you can locate the usual Protestant distinctions of non-negotiable and negotiable doctrines in this passage, by all means, show me how you do that.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from