I am starting today an ongoing series of posts which consist of material from the original version of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. This early edition (completed in 1994, and written from late 1990, right after my conversion) was much longer (about 750 pages) and contained many more citations from others. It was a sort of compendium of previous apologetics on all the subjects that it touched upon (somewhat similar in format to Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict), as well as an extended biblical argument for Catholicism (the portion that later became the bulk of material in my present version). A lot of this stuff has never been published at all on my website, and I have it sitting in my files ("archives," if you will). So it is high time that this research should be made available, since I put that much work into it, and (as you would expect) I think it contains some valuable apologetic information. Enjoy!
Bibliographic note: the first number referred to in parentheses following a citation is to a book, as listed in my original bibliography, followed by the page number(s) in the book. Rather than change all these (it's enough work just cutting-and-pasting all this), I simply list the sources with their original identifying number. Numbers 1-10 in parentheses refer to separate footnotes.
------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION / DEFINITIONS
1. The Eucharist
A. John Hardon
"The true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to offer himself in the Sacrifice of the Mass and to be received as spiritual food in Holy Communion. It is called Eucharist, or `thanksgiving,' because at its institution at the Last Supper Christ `gave thanks,' and by this fact it is the supreme object and act of Christian gratitude to God . . . As Real Presence, the Eucharist is Christ in his abiding existence on earth today; as Sacrifice; it is Christ in his abiding action of High Priest, continuing now to communicate the graces he merited on Calvary; and as Communion, it is Christ coming to enlighten and strengthen the believer by nourishing his soul for eternal life." (16:132-133)
2. Real Presence
A. John Hardon
"The manner of Christ's presence in the Holy Eucharist. In its definition on the subject, the Council of Trent in 1551 declared that `in the sacrament of the most holy Holy Eucharist is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ' (Denzinger, Handbook of Creeds, 1854, 1636, 1640) . Hence Christ is present truly or actually and not only symbolically. He is present really, that is objectively in the Eucharist and not only subjectively in the mind of the believer." (16:360)
"The Real Presence . . . is the physical presence of Christ in our midst, no less truly than he is now present at the right hand of his Father . . ." (14:465)
B. The German Bishops
"Jesus Christ is present in the eucharistic celebration in many ways. He is present in the celebrating community. `Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst' (Mt. 18:20). He is present in his word as well as in the person of the one who performs the priestly ministry . . . But Jesus Christ is most present in the Eucharist." (12:285)
C. Pope Paul VI
"This presence is called `real' - by which it is not intended to exclude all other types of presence as if they could not be `real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense . . . a substantial presence by which Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present . . . It would therefore be wrong to explain this presence by having recourse to the `spiritual~ nature, as it is called, of the glorified body of Christ, which is present everywhere, or by reducing it to a kind of symbolism." (1)
D. Karl Adam
"So completely does Jesus disclose Himself to His disciples . . . that He gives Himself to them and enters into them as a personal source of grace. Jesus shares with His disciples His most intimate possession, the most precious thing that He Has, His own self . . . So greatly does Jesus love His
Community, that He permeates it . . . with His real Self, God and Man. He enters into a real union of flesh and blood with it, and binds it to His being even as the branch is bound to the vine." (1:18)
3. Transubstantiation
A. John Hardon
"The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was `metaousiosis,' `change of being'; the Latin tradition coined the word `transubstantiatio,' `change of substance,' which was incorporated into the creed of the 4th Lateran Council in 1215." (16:438-439)
"There was no dependence on Aristotelian philosophy in the Church's use of words like `substance' or `transubstantiation.' Long before either term had become commonplace in the West, the East spoke regularly of the `ousia' or being of the bread and wine, which were changed into the `ousia' or being of Christ." (14:462)
"There are two kinds of changes which things can naturally undergo. They are called accidental and substantial changes. In accidental change, something remains substantially the same, but its accidental or non-essential properties are transformed. Thus when a block of marble is carved
into a statue, the marble remains marble, but its shape and form are changed.
"In a substantial change, the former substance ceases to exist and becomes something else. Thus, when food is eaten, its substance is changed; it becomes part of the organism which consumes the food.
"In transubstantiation there is a unique substantial change. The essence or substance of bread and wine ceases to exist, while the accidents or sensibly perceptible properties of bread and wine remain. This kind of change has no counterpart in nature; it belongs to the supernatural order.
"What actually occurs? The substance of what was bread and wine is replaced by the living Christ. Although the external qualities of bread and wine remain, their substance is no longer on the altar. It is now the whole Christ, divinity and humanity, soul and body, and all the bodily qualities that make Christ, Christ." (15:161)
4. The Inter-Relationship of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation
A. Nicholas Russo
"Our belief in the Eucharist resolves itself into three distinct propositions . . . First, that our Lord Jesus Christ . . . is present . . . as really and substantially as He is in heaven; second, that after the words of the consecration . . . the substances of bread and wine cease to exist, the
accidents or species thereof only remaining; third, that the whole substance of bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of our Lord. This change is called . . . transubstantiation . . .
"The second implies the first, without necessarily implying the third; and yet the third cannot be admitted without admitting the first and the second . . . but one might deny the second and the third without denying the first, as they do who believe that our Lord co-exists in the Eucharist
with bread and wine." (88:211-212)
John 6
F. Karl Keating
"This is the only record we have of any of Christ's followers forsaking him for doctrinal reasons. If they merely had misunderstood him, if they foolishly had taken a metaphor in a literal sense, why did he not call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews . . . and his disciples . . .
would have remained had he told them he meant no more than a symbol. But he did not correct these first protesters, these proto-Protestants . . . four times he said they would have `to eat my flesh and drink my blood.' John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper - and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic . . . The Greek word for `body' in John 6 is `sarx,' which can only mean physical flesh, and the word for `eat' translates as `gnaws' or `chews.' This is not the language of metaphor. The literal meaning cannot be avoided except through violence to the text - and through the rejection of the universal understanding of the early Christian centuries." (4:234,237)
G. James Cardinal Gibbons
"If the Eucharist were merely commemorative bread and wine, instead of being superior, it would really be inferior to the manna; for the manna was supernatural, heavenly, miraculous food, while bread and wine are a natural, earthly food . . .
"The multitude and the disciples who are listening to Him . . . all understood the import of His language precisely as it is explained by the Catholic Church . . .
"It sometimes happened, indeed, that our Savior was misunderstood by His hearers. On such occasions He always took care to remove from their mind the wrong impression they had formed by stating His meaning in simpler language . . . (Nicodemus . . . John 3:1-15 . . . leaven of the Pharisees . . .Matt. 16:5-12)." (10:237-238)
H. John Hardon
"Jesus was fully aware that his followers were complaining and, in fact, asked them, `Does this upset you?' But he took nothing back . . . Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what he was saying, Jesus said the the twelve, `What about you, do you want to go away too?'" (14:459)
I. Nicholas Russo
"The phrases `to eat the flesh' and `to drink the blood' of any one, apart from their literal meaning, signified nothing else among the Jews but to do a person a grievous injury . . . (see Ps 27:2; Job 19:22; Micah 3:3; Eccl 4:5)." (88:201)
Let's examine these four verses:
Psalms 27:2 "The wicked . . . came upon me to eat up my flesh . . ."
Job 19:22 "Why do ye persecute me as God, and are not satisfied with my flesh?"
NEB: " . . . Have you not had your teeth in me long enough?"
Micah 3:1-3 ". . . Ye princes of the house of Israel . . . who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck . . . their flesh from off their bones; who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them . . ."
Eccl. 4:5 "The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh."
"If, therefore, this metaphorical meaning, the only one employed by the Jews, is to be rejected, we must of necessity admit that Our Lord's words were understood by them literally. A great deal of ingenuity is displayed by those who deny the Real Presence, and endeavor to show that the words cited mean `to believe in Christ; to eat him spiritually by faith.' To this we reply: First, the meaning of words is to be determined by the usage existing at the time they are employed . . . But this metaphorical sense was invented centuries afterwards, by men who were bent upon denying the Real Presence, which many generations of Christians had accepted in their belief . . .
"Could an eternal punishment be promulgated for the neglect of that which the Jews refused to believe, if they had not understood what it was they were to believe? . . . If our Lord did not disabuse His hearers, what else can we say but that there was no call to disabuse them, and this
precisely because they had understood Him correctly?" (88:201-202,205)
J. Leslie Rumble and Charles Carty
"The last words of Christ say, `It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh profiteth nothing' (Jn 6:64). Christ is not speaking of His Body . . . but of you. You have not the true spirit of God in you, but you let your earthly and natural reason create foolish obstacles. You judge as the natural and animal man, who, according to St. Paul, does not perceive the things of God. Have true faith, and you will understand even though you do not fully comprehend this wonderful promise of Christ . . .
"Unless the words of Christ are taken in the literal sense and at their face value they become meaningless, incoherent and worse than that, Christ would be, then, an arch-deceiver . . .
"Christ also said, `I am the door. I am the vine.' . . . There is no parallel between those two cases. `I am the door' can have a metaphorical sense. For Christ is like a door, since I go to Heaven through Him; He is like a vine, because all the sap of my spiritual life comes through Him. But the bread is in no way like His Body or His Flesh. Either it is changed into His actual Body, or the expression `This is My Body' is nonsense. It is misery that God should have to force a Gift upon you, which you should accept with deep faith, gratitude, and love . . .
"When Christ promised that He would give His very Flesh to eat, the Jews protested because they imagined a natural and cannibalistic eating of Christ's Body. Christ refuted this notion . . . by saying that He would ascend into Heaven, not leaving His Body in its human form upon earth. But He did not say that they were not to eat His actual Body . . . He meant, therefore, `You will not be asked to eat My Flesh in the horrible and natural way you think, for My Body as you see it with your eyes will be gone from this earth. Yet I shall leave My Flesh and Blood in another and supernatural way which your natural and carnal minds cannot understand. The carnal or fleshly judgment profits nothing. I ask you, therefore, to have faith in Me and to trust Me. It is the spirit of faith which will enable you to believe, not your natural judgment.' Then the Gospel goes on to say that many would not believe, and walked no more with Him; just as many today will not believe, and walk no more with the Catholic Church." (3)
K. Bertrand Conway
"Catholics make a distinction between the first part of John 6 (verses 26 to 51), wherein Christ speaks of Himself figuratively as the Bread of Heaven, a spiritual food to be received by faith. and the second part (verses 51 to 59), wherein He speaks literally of His Flesh and Blood as a real food, and a real drink. `In the first part,' writes Atzberger, `the food is of the present, in the second of the future; there it is given by the Father, here by the Redeemer Himself; there it is simply called `bread,' here the `Flesh of the Son of Man'; there our Lord speaks only of bread, here of His Flesh and Blood' . . .(Handbuch der Kath. Dogmatik, iv, 569) . . .
"Christ makes a clear-cut distinction between three kinds of breads the bread or manna of the desert (Ex 16:15; Jn 6:49), given by Moses to the Jews in the past to nourish the body; the Bread of Heaven or the Bread of Life (Jn 6:32,35), Christ Himself, given by the Father in the present to the Jews as an object of faith; and the Bread of Life, Christ Himself in the Eucharist, to be given in the future by Christ for the life of the world (Jn 6:52).
"Again, a figurative interpretation is impossible, according to the rules of language. If a figure of speech has a definite meaning, we cannot use it in a new sense, merely for purposes of controversy . . .
"To drink one's blood was also a familiar figure among the Jews, but it always meant a chastisement of God (Is 49:26; Rev 16:6) upon His enemies, a meaning impossible here." (85:248-249)
Isaiah 49:26 " . . . I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood . . ."
Revelation 16:6 " . . . They have shed the blood of saints and prophets . . . and thou hast given them blood to drink . . ."
"Drinking blood was expressly forbidden by the Jewish law (Gen 4:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26; 19:26; Deut 12:16; 15:23), and was therefore regarded as a heinous crime (I Kings 14:33; . . . Ezek 33:25). Cardinal Wiseman well says: `The ideas of drinking blood and eating human flesh presented something so frightful to a Jew, that we cannot allow our Savior, if a sincere teacher . . . to have used them at all under any circumstances than an absolute necessity of recurring to them, as the most literal method of representing His doctrines' (Lectures on the Real Presence, 106).
" . . . We must remember that Christ, like every good teacher, made two sorts of answers to men who objected to His teaching. If they did not understand His meaning, He explained His doctrine more fully. In this way He explains . . . the possibility of the rich man being saved (Mt 19: 24-6),
the fact of Lazarus' death (Jn 11:11-14), the idea of freedom (Jn 8:32-4; cf. Jn 4:31-4; 8:21-23). When His hearers understood His teaching but refused to accept it, He repeated His teaching with even more emphasis. Thus, He insisted upon His power to forgive sins, when the Scribes
accused Him of blasphemy (Mt 9:2-7), and insisted on His being Eternal, when the Jews said He was not yet fifty years old (Jn 8:56-8).
"In like manner He acted with the Jews who objected to His teaching about the Real Presence . . . He did not explain His doctrine in a figurative sense, but He repeated the doctrine that gave offence in a most emphatic manner (e.g., 6:53,55)." (85:249)
Conway goes on to refute the most common Protestant comeback - that of citing Jn 6:63 to the effect that when Jesus contrasts "spirit" and "flesh," He is proclaiming the purely symbolic nature of the Eucharist:
"The words flesh and spirit, when opposed to each other in the New Testament, never mean literal and figurative, but always the corrupted dispositions of sinful human nature (flesh) contrasted with human nature enriched by the grace of God (spirit) (Mt 26:41; Rom 7:5-6,25; 8:1-14; I Cor 5:5; II Cor 7:1; Gal 3:3; 4:29; 5:13-26; I Pet 3:18; 4:6). Christ's meaning, therefore, is clear: My words are such as the mere carnal man cannot receive, but only the man endowed with grace. St. Chrysostom says: `Why, therefore did He say: The flesh profiteth nothing? Not of His flesh does He mean this. Far from it; but of those who would understand what He said in a carnal sense . . . You see, there is question not of His flesh, but of the fleshly way of hearing' (In Joan., 47,2)." (85:251)
L. Ludwig Ott
"The necessity of accepting a literal interpretation in this case is . . . evident: A) From the nature of the words used. One specially notes the realistic expressions . . . `true, real food' (v.55); . . . `true, real drink' (v.55) / (4); `trogo' = `to gnaw, to chew, to eat' (5); B) From the difficulties created by the figurative interpretation . . .; C) From the reactions of the listeners, . . . D) the interpretation of the Fathers." (13:374)
M. Archbishop Fulton Sheen
"As they had communion with the flesh and blood of the Paschal Lamb, so they would now have communion with the Flesh and Blood of the true Lamb of God. He, Who was born in Bethlehem, the `House of Bread' . . . would now be to men, so inferior to Him, their Bread of Life . . . As man
died spiritually by physically eating in the Garden of Eden, so he would live again spiritually through eating the fruit of the Tree of Life." (6)
O. Kleist and Lilly N.T.
"6:48-59: "Jesus distinguishes between `coming to him' (through faith in him) and `eating his flesh and drinking his blood.' The latter expression would not be an intelligible metaphor for the former. Besides, Jesus compares the giving of his flesh to the giving of the manna, and at the same time contrasts the two; evidently, in both instances there is a question of real food. Finally, he prepared the multitude for the Eucharist by the miraculous feeding . . .
"6:61: `were grumbling': this grumbling may be said to have been the germ of the later heresy called `Docetism,' which denied the reality of Christ's human nature, and consequently undermined all Christian faith.
"6:62: If Christ could ascend into heaven, he could also make his body and blood fit to serve as food for the soul. In either case the body is stripped, by the power of God, of its raw, material qualities." (187:250-251)
P. Romano Guardini
"Should they have understood? Hardly. It is inconceivable that at any time anyone could have grasped intellectually the meaning of these words. But they should have believed. They should have clung to Christ blindly, wherever he led them. They should have sensed . . . that they were being directed toward something unspeakably huge, and simply said: we do not understand; show us what you mean. Instead they judge, and everything closes to them." (97:206)
"Jesus' closest followers are hard-pressed, but He does not help them. He forces them to a decision of life or death; are they ready to accept the fullness of revelation, which necessarily overthrows earthly wisdom, or do they insist on judging revelation, delimiting its `possibilities' from their own perspective? . . . Jesus turns to the remaining hard core: `Do you also wish to go away?' . . . Still not a word of help, only the hard, pure demand for a decision . . . They do not understand either, but struck by the power of the mystery, they surrender themselves to it. They are dumbfounded but trustful; at least most of them . . .
"Apparently there is no genuine belief without battle. Every believer worthy of the name must sometime undergo the danger of scandal and its trial by fire . . . It was the shock that probably shattered Judas' faith, the other eleven saving themselves only by a blind leap of trust to the
Master's feet . . . Here is the steepest, highest pinnacle of our faith (or the narrowest, most precipitous pass through which that faith must labor) . . . faith's supreme test . . .
"Jesus desires that men receive and make their own the gift of His vital essence, strength, His very Person as fully and intimately as they receive and assimilate the strength and nourishment of bread and wine. He even adds that the person who is not so nourished cannot possess ultimate life." (98:164-7)
Last Supper
A. Frank Sheed
"The word `is' need not detain us. There are those . . . who say that the phrase really means `This represents my body.' This sounds very close to desperation . . . The word `this' deserves a closer look. Had He said `Here is My body,' He might have meant that in some mysterious way, His body was there as well as, along with, the bread. But He said `This is My body' - this which I am holding, this which looks like bread but is not, this which was bread before I blessed it, this has become My body . . .
"What our Lord was giving us was a union with Himself closer than the apostles had in the three years of their companionship, than Mary Magdalen had when she clung to Him after His resurrection." (81:200-201)
B. John Hardon
"Christ . . . would not, in a matter of such paramount importance, have recourse to meaningless and (worse still) deceptive figures of speech. Figures of speech enhance a discourse only when the figurative meaning is clear either from the nature of the case or from common usage, neither of which could be invoked to claim that Christ was talking figuratively at the Last Supper." (14:460)
C. Martin Scott
"At the Last Supper He worked His greatest miracle . . . There was no outward change whatever . . . yet on Christ's word there was a substantial change . . . If we saw the bread transformed into actual flesh before our eyes there would be no mystery of faith. It would be evidence . . . But Christ instituted the Mass as a mystery of faith. He wanted us to believe on His word, even though there was no evidence to support it." (86:126)
D. Leslie Rumble and Charles Carty
"At the Last Supper Christ fulfilled what He had promised in the 6th chapter of St. John . . . This is My Body; this is My Blood - what words could be plainer? . . . In the language spoken by Christ there are at least forty expressions which meant `to signify.'" (8)
"Q: `The Apostles must have taken the symbolical sense, for they did not remark on the repugnant sense.' . . . A: At the Last Supper it is far more likely that the Apostles would have remarked upon our Lord's words if He had meant them symbolically . . . There were many other alternative expressions . . . If Christ intended to give merely a symbol of His body . . . He chose the very worst words to convey His meaning when He said without any qualification, `This is My body.' It was so unnecessary to choose that expression, and so absurd, that the Apostles would certainly have demanded an explanation of what He meant. But they did not." (83; v.2:769)
E. James Cardinal Gibbons
"According to a common rule observed in the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, we must always take the words in their literal signification, unless we have some special reason which obliges us to accept them in a figurative meaning." (10:240)
F. Bertrand Conway
"I may refer to a man's cunning by calling him a fox . . . Again, I may hold in my hand a photograph of the President of the United States, and say: `This is Mr. Hoover.' In both instances my meaning will be evident at once. But in no way is bread the fitting or possible symbol of the human body . . . Would Christ . . . use a figure of speech that would deceive millions of His followers for all time, and lead them into the very idolatry He came to abolish?" (85:252)
G. Ludwig Ott
"The necessity of interpreting the words literally may be seen: A) By the wording. There is nothing in the text to support a figurative interpretation; for bread and wine are neither of their nature, nor by current speech-usage, symbols of body and blood. The literal interpretation
involves no intrinsic contradiction though it presupposes faith in the Divinity of Christ. B) By the circumstances . . . In order to avoid the danger of misleading humanity, in the institution of such a sublime Sacrament and act of worship . . . He had to employ a form of speech which could not be mistaken. C) By the practical inferences which St. Paul draws from the words of institution. In the unworthy reception of the Eucharist the Apostle sees a sinning against the body and blood of Our Lord . . . I Cor 11: 27 ff.; I Cor 10:16 . . . D) By the inadequacy of the arguments advanced against it. When the copula `Is' in many passages of Holy Writ has the meaning of `designates' or `symbolises,' the figurative sense of those passages is apparent at once from the nature of the matter (for example Mt 13 : 38 : `The field is the world'; cf. Jn 10:7; 15:1; I Cor 10:4) . . . (or) in a Parable or an allegory, or from the current use of language." (13:375)
H. Romano Guardini
"Here on the same table the sacrificial lamb had lain . . . Those present cannot fail to understand Jesus' words in the same sense: ritualistically and mysteriously, but realistically nevertheless . . . They did not interpret it merely as a symbol . . . but rather along the lines of the first passover
in Egypt, of the paschal feast they had just completed, and of the sacrificial rite celebrated day after day in their temples." (98:370)
Paul
A. Ronald Cox
"In contrasting the Blessed Eucharist to pagan and Jewish sacrifices, Paul quite clearly assumes that the Mass is a true sacrifice. He also teaches that Communion means union with each other through our common union with Christ; it is the sacrament of unity in the Mystical Body. Christians at Corinth and at Ephesus all eat of the one same bread; an impossibility unless the bread has been changed into the body of Christ." (9)
B. Alan Schreck
"The most straightforward interpretation of these passages is that Paul considered the eucharistic bread and wine to be literally the body and blood of Christ." (2:130)
C. James Cardinal Gibbons
"Could St. Paul express more clearly his belief in the Real Presence than he has done here? . . . He who receives a Sacrament unworthily shall be guilty of the sin of high treason, and of shedding the blood of his Lord in vain. But how could he be guilty of a crime so enormous if he had taken in the Eucharist only a particle of bread and wine? Would a man be accused of homicide . . . if he were to offer violence to the statue or painting of the governor? Certainly not. In like manner, St. Paul would not . . . declare a man guilty of trampling on the blood of his Savior by drinking in an unworthy manner a little wine in memory of him." (10:242-243)
D. Ronald Cox
"Paul reminds them of the sacredness of the act they perform at Mass by identifying it with both the Last Supper and the Crucifixion . . . Though different in manner, it is really the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross that is commemorated at each Mass." (10)
E. Confraternity Bible Notes
"This section teaches that: 1) The Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ (24 f.); 2) the Apostles and their successors were empowered to perpetuate the act (24-26); 3) the Mass is a sacrifice (25); 4) the Mass is one with the sacrifice of the cross (26); 5) the Eucharist must be
received worthily (27-30)." (185:184)
Protestant Symbolic Views and Their Precursors
A. Docetism and Gnosticism
"In Christian antiquity the Docetae and the Gnostic-manichaean sects, starting from the assumption that Christ had only an apparent body, denied the real presence." (13:371)
B. Ratramnus
"The first serious ripples of controversy came in the 9th century . . . A monk from the French Abbey of Corbie . . . Ratramnus (d.868) held that Christ's body in the Eucharist cannot be the same as Christ's historical body once on earth and now in heaven because the Eucharistic body is invisible, impalpable and spiritual. He wanted to hold on to the Real Presence but stressed the Eucharist as symbolic rather than corporeal . . . His ideas . . . influenced all subsequent theories that contradicted the traditional teaching of the Church." (14:461)
C. Berengarius
"Berengarius of Tours (d.1088) denied the Transubstantiation . . . He saw in the Eucharist merely a figure of the body and blood of Christ . . . In 1079, . . . Berengarius made a revocation." (13:371-372)
"He is the first Christian, so far as we can tell from the records, who denied the Real Presence." (4:240)
D. Catharism and Albigensianism
"In the 12th and 13th centuries various spiritualistic sects, out of aversion to the visible organisation of the Church, and under the influence of Gnostic-manichaean views, denied the sacerdotal power of consecration and the Real Presence ( . . . Cathari, Albigenses). In refutation of these errors, the 4th Lateran Council (1215) officially proposed the doctrines of Transubstantiation, of the Real Presence; and of the exclusive consecration-power of the validly consecrated priest." (13:372)
E. John Wycliffe
"In the 14th century John Wycliffe (d.1384) . . . taught that the substances of the bread and wine remain after the consecration (Remanance theory). He reduced the presence of Christ in the Eucharist to a dynamic presence . . . [and] that the adoration of the Eucharist is idolatry, and that the Mass was not instituted by Christ. His teaching was rejected at . . . the Council of Constance (1418)." (13:372)
Bibliography
(* = non-Catholic work)
1. Adam, Karl, The Spirit of Catholicism, tr. JustinMcCann, rev. ed., Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1954 (orig. 1924).
2. Schreck, Alan, Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, MI:Servant Books, 1984.
4. Keating, Karl, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, SanFrancisco: Ignatius, 1988.
10. Gibbons, James Cardinal, The Faith of Our Fathers, New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, rev. ed., 1917.
12. German Bishops Conference, The Church's Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, tr. Stephen Wentworth Arndt, ed. Mark Jordan, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987.
13. Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974.
14. Hardon, John A., The Catholic Catechism, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975.
15. Hardon, John A., Pocket Catholic Catechism, New York: Doubleday Image, 1989.
16. Hardon, John A., Pocket Catholic Dictionary, New York: Doubleday Image, 1980.
81. Sheed, Frank J., Theology For Beginners, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1957.
83. Rumble, Leslie and Charles M. Carty, Radio Replies, 3 vols., St. Paul, MN: Radio Replies Press, 1940, 1039p. [4374 questions about Catholicism answered].
85. Conway, Bertrand L., The Ouestion Box, New York: Paulist Press, 1929.
86. Scott, Martin, Things Catholics are Asked About, New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1927.
88. Russo, Nicholas, The True Religion, New York: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 1886.
97. Guardini, Romano, The Lord, tr. Elinor C. Briefs, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1954.
98. Guardini, Romano, Meditations Before Mass, tr. Elinor C. Briefs, Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1955.
185. The New Testament, Washington, D.C.: Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1941, (tr. from Latin Vulgate, rev. of Challoner NT - 1750, a rev. of Douay-Rheims NT).
187. Kleist, James A. and Joseph L. Lilly, The New Testament, Milwaukee: Bruce Pub. Co., 1954 (Kleist translated the Gospels, Lilly the rest).
Footnotes
1. Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Mysterium Fidei ("On Eucharistic Doctrine and Worship"), Glen Rock, NJ: Paulist Press, September 3, 1965, 42.
2. Barclay, William, Daily Study Bible, John, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, vol. 1, rev. ed., 1975, 223-225.
3. Rumble, Leslie, and Charles Carty, Eucharist Quizzes to a Street Preacher, St. Paul, MN: Radio Replies Press / Rep. Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1976, Question nos. 10, 12, 19-20, 29.
4. Greek alethos ("true," "indeed," "sure," or "verily"); Strong's word no. 230.
5. Greek trogo: Strong's word no. 5176. Thayer's Greek Lexicon gives the literal meaning as
"to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds, etc.)," p. 631. This word only appears six times in the N.T. and is always translated as "eat" in the KJV -- in John 6:54,56,57,58, and in Jn 13:18 and Matt 24:38:
John 13:18 ". . . He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me." (Referring to Judas, in the context of the Last Supper, probably in reference to the meal which was the institution of the Eucharist).
Matt 24:38 ". . . In the days . . . before the flood they were eating and drinking . . ."
6. Sheen, Fulton, Life of Christ, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1958 / 1977 reprint, 140-141.
7. Martos, Joseph, Doors to the Sacred, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981, 241-242.
8. Rumble & Carty, ibid. (#3), nos. 13-14.
9. Cox, Ronald, It is Paul Who Writes, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1944, 175.
10. Ibid., 179.
Completed March 8, 1992 / Feast of St. John of God
Slightly revised February 26, 1994
Monday, May 02, 2005
Open Forum
Fire away; but don't expect me to join into the usual "traditionalist" and anti-Catholic vs. Catholic discussions. I want to re-emphasize (particularly on my blog) standard apologetics, designed to teach Catholics to better understand and defend their faith (and to help non-Catholics to at least understand what they don't, or what they are trashing); in other words, what I do (almost exclusively) in my published books and (mostly) on my website.
Those of you who have not made such restrictions on yourself as to what discussions are useful and prudent are welcome -- more than welcome -- to refute Reformed anti-Catholic provocateur Steve Hays. As Patrick has already pointed out, it wouldn't be a difficult thing to do at all, but (as with most misguided polemics) it would be a laborious, time-intensive undertaking. Part of my task on my blog and website is precisely to equip others to do the work of apologetics and reflecting upon criticisms that we receive. That's the whole point: it's not just me "the professional apologist" who should do all this stuff (there's only so many hours in a day, and I have a wife, four children, and an additional part-time job beyond my writing). We should all be doing it to one extent or another (as far as we are able). We all have some responsibility for this (1 Peter 3:15).
So by all means, whoever wants to interact with Steve, do so. You can even do it here if you like. Personally, I think he has already removed himself from the realm of constructive, civil discourse, but others may disagree with me. In any event, he thinks that no Catholic can answer him, so it would be good to disabuse him of that fancy, since he obviously doesn't accept my reasoning for declining to take on his numerous challenges. He's consistently ignored interacting with my paper explaining why his criticisms along these lines are bogus and logically groundless. So what can I do about that? Exactly nothing, but others can refute his falsehoods and try to show him a better way.
Those of you who have not made such restrictions on yourself as to what discussions are useful and prudent are welcome -- more than welcome -- to refute Reformed anti-Catholic provocateur Steve Hays. As Patrick has already pointed out, it wouldn't be a difficult thing to do at all, but (as with most misguided polemics) it would be a laborious, time-intensive undertaking. Part of my task on my blog and website is precisely to equip others to do the work of apologetics and reflecting upon criticisms that we receive. That's the whole point: it's not just me "the professional apologist" who should do all this stuff (there's only so many hours in a day, and I have a wife, four children, and an additional part-time job beyond my writing). We should all be doing it to one extent or another (as far as we are able). We all have some responsibility for this (1 Peter 3:15).
So by all means, whoever wants to interact with Steve, do so. You can even do it here if you like. Personally, I think he has already removed himself from the realm of constructive, civil discourse, but others may disagree with me. In any event, he thinks that no Catholic can answer him, so it would be good to disabuse him of that fancy, since he obviously doesn't accept my reasoning for declining to take on his numerous challenges. He's consistently ignored interacting with my paper explaining why his criticisms along these lines are bogus and logically groundless. So what can I do about that? Exactly nothing, but others can refute his falsehoods and try to show him a better way.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
All in a Day's Work (More Groundless Insults From Steve Hays)
Strictly for entertainment and educational purposes (bolding added throughout). . . .
Randy, like Hahn and Armstrong and other conservative converts to Rome, is trying to carve out a little niche within the church. Theirs is a church within the church. This is not Roman Catholicism, but an inner schism--a homegrown chapel within the Church of Rome.
Instead of coming into the Church of Rome through the main entrance--via her scholars and theologians, they come in through a hole in the fence--the lay apologist or popularizer. This gives them a skewed and inauthentic view of what the RCC really stands for.
. . . Once again, see how Randy and other "Evangelical" converts have created a church within a church. Their church is not the church authorized by the magisterium. They are merely camping out in the RCC.
He claims to submit to the magisterium ("Being Catholic is a surrender of your will to God"), but when push comes to shove he sits in judgment over the judgments of the magisterium. He and Hahn and Armstrong are spiritual amphibians with their head in sola Scriptura and their tail in the baptismal font of Catholicism.
(The church within the church, 20 April 2005)
Commenter "c.t." provides a fascinating insight into false anti-Catholic triumphalism and delusions of superiority:
Randy, you have jumped the shark in your latest reply here.
But let's face it: when you are confronted by someone like Steve there really is no where for a Roman Catholic to go (see Dave Armstrong on that). Except the 'retreat into unreality' move. Or the hands over ears, run out of the room move.
I would guess there are other RC apologists now reading Steve's posts, and they are maintaining a studied silence. They don't want to go anywhere near Steve Hays at this point. Even if they study his arguments here to try to develop counter-arguments that would normally work for them in their world and with their audience they can't do anything with them. RC apologists avoid competent protestant apologists like the plague. Or they just lose all shame and get postmodern slippery and disingenuous. Like the Democratic party, i.e. say things in public that they know a good percentage of the people will know are lies, but they also know a majority of their voters are too ignorant to know the difference...
# posted by c.t. : 7:44 PM
For his part, Randy is somewhere to the right of Ratzinger. Randy has crawled into the same airtight bubble as Hahn, Armstrong, and other such converts. They are the freelance Catholics. They view themselves as the real deal, but if you compare the amount of distance they put between themselves and whatever teaching trickles down that they disown, you can see that they are really freelancing their way through the RCC, picking and choosing what to believe or disbelieve. Theirs is a cult within a cult--with self-appointed cult-leaders like Armstrong. I don't doubt their sincerity, but one can be sincerely self-deluded.
(Freelance Catholicism, 20 April 2005)
Hays and his comrades have been yucking it up, making out that I am scared to death of Hays' supposed invulnerable prowess in anti-Catholic argumentation, and that I am trembling in my boots (along with every other Catholic apologist who has had the misfortune of running into the unvanquishable Hays).
Of course, I provided a lengthy explanation and logical challenge, for why I refuse to debate anti-Catholics any longer (having done it in scores of debates over 15 years' time). It has nothing whatsoever to do with either fear or inability. Here it is: A Socratic Examination of the (Automatic Anti-Catholic) Charge of Supposed Catholic Fear of Protestant Opponents. If Hays truly wanted to engage in calm, rational discussion with me on ground that I had no objection to, this was his golden opportunity.
But how did he respond?: with numerous rationalizations and potshots, obscurantism and sophistry (and we must allow for pure incomprehension of my arguments as well, which has been an ongoing shortcoming of his "replies" to me) -- as to why he wouldn't give my paper the dignity of a response (all the while heartily condemning me as a hypocrite and coward for my R.C. Sproul-like stand concerning not giving anti-Catholic drivel the dignity of a response; go figure). Here are some of his comments:
Armstrong's latest response to what I've written is an elaborate exercise in sophistry.
[dismissal by name-calling rather than by rational argument]
He has clearly picked up a lot of scar tissue over the years, and like a bad divorce, he brings all this old baggage with him into the next encounter . . . And, to be perfectly frank, no one should go into apologetics unless he has a pretty thick hide to begin with.
[the usual wrongheaded, self-serving psych-babble analyses which do nothing whatsoever to advance the discussion along, as they have nothing to do with the disussion; they are purely ad hominem]
Along the same lines, Armstrong tries to drag in what other “anti-Catholics” have posted on his blog in the comment box. Once again, he is free to address them directly, and they are free to address him directly-unless he kicks them off his blog. Indeed, he has issued certain veiled threats to that effect.
[I've never kicked a single person off of my blog for the more-than-a-year since it has been up, including even Alexander, who has called me "filth" and said that I was going to hell, and regularly offers on my blog the most asinine, uncharitable pseudo-"Christian" trash imaginable.]
Armstrong is the one who tries to personalize everything as a substitute for an honest debate over competing truth-claims and truth-conditions.
[more psycho-babble quack analysis]
Then there's the matter of his “resolution.” He uses this as his favorite escape hatch to evade a substantive discussion.
[begging precisely the question that I dealt with in the paper: the stupid charge that I am "scared" and "running" from his super-threatening, awesome arguments; so he prefers to merely repetitively assert charges, rather than to demonstrate them through force of logic]
But any reasonable person can see that this is a viciously circular appeal. He begins with a self-serving and self-imposed resolution. In addition, his resolution is predicated on a self-serving classification of his opponents. He has debarred himself from debating with “anti-Catholics.” And who is an “anti-Catholic”? Anyone he doesn't want to debate with, that's who!
[neither the argument above nor my decision to not debate anti-Catholics are in the least bit circular, as both are supported by much outside criteria and reasoning as to why I took the positions I did. And obviously, he is the umpteenth anti-Catholic who twists and distorts my endlessly-repeated definition of anti-Catholic for his own ends, in the effort to make me look ridiculous. That's quite easy to do if you refuse to accurately portray an opponents' views]
This is like a boxer who issues a bold challenge to all comers, except that he's made a vow to himself never to box with any contender who might actually beat him in the ring.
[LOL]
Who does he think he's kidding with this transparent ploy? But if you're desperate enough, I guess you'll resort to any last-ditch escape maneuver, however obvious.
[when you can't answer an opponent with reason and logic, then throw enough manure on the wall -- no matter how ridiculous and irrational and groundless -- until some sticks; a time-honored evasive technique. Accuse your opponent of what you yourself are actually doing and hope no one will notice . . .]
In a phony show of magnanimity,
[note the marvelous condemnation of my motivation, as if he knows this; that I am being deliberately dishonest. Yet he expects me to engage in a civil, gentlemanly discussion with him? Even if he were not an anti-Catholic, I would long since have decided that he was not woth anyone's time, based on his ethical conduct alone. I merely defend myself against an utterly groundless charge, and continue challenging him to substantiate and defend it by means of making a logical challenge to it]
he is prepared to discuss anything with me as long as it isn't something he doesn't want to discuss with me-which just so happens to be all of the substantive issues in the conflict with Rome.
[nice try at creating a straw man entirely out of thin air, with no basis whatsoever in anything I have done]
Then you have his set of trick questions.
[yes of course; a paraphrase for "rhetorical questions I either don't understand, or are too difficult or embarrassing for me to attempt to answer, because then the utterly fallacious nature of my 'argument' will be fully revealed, and my triumphant posturing will be shown up for what it is, and since I don't want that and have to avoid it like the plague, I better describe Dave's rational argument in the most caricatured fashion, so that folks will think I have answered when I have not at all, since I obviously have not. I've only talked about it, without ever dealing with it."]
Armstrong has tilted the playing field to a 179-degree gradient, with himself conveniently perched atop the high ground at the 10-yard line, where he challenges me to score a touchdown.
[very colorful evasive technique, isn't it? This might be an ingenious and "successful" use of ridicule by word-picture, if I hadn't troubled myself to expose it for what it is]
Does he really think I've going to step into his trap? I guess he's hoping his trap is sufficiently camouflaged that no one will see it for what it is. But he's not going to play me for the chump.
[that's right! Steve Hays is not dumb enough to get into a rational exchange, because that would amount to him being a chump, and everyone knows that Steve Hays is no chump! Dave Armstrong must be the sophist and chump because he opposes Steve Hays! Is that not reason enough to dismiss out of hand anything Armstrong says??!! Besides, this Armstrong guy is a self-appointed leader of a cult-within-a-cult and an inauthentic "Catholic"! How rational is that?!]
(Catholic sophistry, 14 April 2005)
Is this not an incredible (almost ingenious) exercise in skirting all around an argument, mocking, caricaturing, belittling, dismissing, redefining, misunderstanding a carefully-laid out, perfectly logical argument, without in the least addressing the actual thing? One marvels at this. Why go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid answering? If Hays is so brilliant of an anti-Catholic thinker, then he ought to just answer and thoroughly refute my paper, and "blow it out of the water" (to use a common metaphor in such debates), instead of jumping through all these rhetorical hoops, trying to impress folks with exactly no logical argument or reasoned response whatsoever to (I know it's a novel concept) my ACTUAL ARGUMENT.
To remind readers who followed this before (and those who are new to the dispute -- my heartfelt sympathies), my paper (as you can see in the title) was not trying to show why anti-Catholicism is a self-defeating, totally incoherent position (I've done that many times elsewhere), but rather, it dealt with whether my present refusal to debate those with this view automatically "proves" that I am unable to do so, and scared of these folks. Steve made the charge. I was challenging him to back it up by dealing with reason, not mind-reading and self-serving, chest-puffing innuendo as to manliness or supposed lack thereof in his "papist" opponents.
So the challenge remains on the table. Hays can continue to ignore my argument, linked above, or he can make a rational reply to it. If he ignores it, that's fine with me. If he tries to refute it, that's even better, because he cannot do so. The argument is airtight, and it doesn't depend in the slightest degree on me presupposing that anti-Catholicism is ludicrous, and assuming what I'm trying to prove. It has nothing to do with that. It's not circular logic at all, and as long as he thinks it is, he merely shows that he continues to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the argument. As he has done that frequently, in my brief interaction with him, it comes as no surprise, and I fully expect it to continue, along with the juvenile, silly excuses for not answering the one paper which I am fully willing to discuss with him, as it does not contradict my resolve to avoid discussing theology with anti-Catholics.
--------------------------------
ADDENDUM: Hays' "Reply" to the Above
As expected, Hays simply reiterated his insults, rather than issue a logical reply to a logical argument. Here are some highlights of his condescending nonsense:
For some odd reason, Dave Armstrong has seen fit to reissue his original charade. Odd, I say, for if he really felt that his “challenge” had been so utterly devastating the first time around, there would scarcely been any need to reissue the “challenge.” Evidently, then, he is suffering from self-doubts about his initial performance—which is why he has decided to try, try again—with a rehash of the original “challenge.”
. . . his so-called “Socratic Examination,” which consisted in a series of loaded and leading questions, designed to impale the unsuspecting on the horns a logical dilemma.
But his misrepresentations notwithstanding, any reader is free to compare the full text of his “Socratic Examination” with the full text of my “Catholic Sophistry,” and see for himself that I did, indeed, respond to his questionnaire.
Armstrong’s problem is not that I didn’t answer him, but that I didn’t answer him on his own tendentious terms. Rather, I demonstrated that his “Socratic” questions were question-begging questions.
Yes, it was a purely logical challenge. It only suffered from two minor deficiencies: (i) it was purely logical scam to divert attention away from all the concrete, substantive issues; (ii) it was a logical fallacy—“airtight” in the way that any viciously circular argument is “airtight.”
And that was the point all along: to construct an argument that was sealed off from direct contact with all the hard, corrosive evidence against Roman Catholicism.
But except for the obstinate fact that both horns of his dilemma were broken, it was a charming little ruse. Junk bonds pay no debts.
. . . For Armstrong to shuffle this off into a logical game, and a fallacious game at that, in order to underwrite a highly elastic and self-important “resolution,” is intellectually, morally, and spiritually frivolous in the extreme.
. . . But if, at any time, Armstrong would like to drop the harlequinade and engage the real issues, then that is one challenge and the only challenge I am more than happy to meet.
(If at first you don't succeed...., 1 May 2005)
And another ludicrous tidbit, now expressed on my own blog:
Dave Armstrong makes much of my tone as a pretext to sneak out the back door. Now, aside from the fact that his own admixture of angry invective and crybaby rhetoric does not make him the most inspiring role-model of the virtues he is quick to demand in others, I would only note that Ben Douglass and Steve Jackson raise the same sorts of objections that I do, and like I, back up their objections with direct documentation from well-placed Catholic sources. And both of them maintain an unfailingly respectful and courteous tone. So how does Armstrong respond to them? Short answer: he doesn’t. He gives them the silent treatment. So it matters not what tone one adopts with Armstrong. Be as polite as you please, he will continue to duck the tough questions.
(2 May 2005)
Randy, like Hahn and Armstrong and other conservative converts to Rome, is trying to carve out a little niche within the church. Theirs is a church within the church. This is not Roman Catholicism, but an inner schism--a homegrown chapel within the Church of Rome.
Instead of coming into the Church of Rome through the main entrance--via her scholars and theologians, they come in through a hole in the fence--the lay apologist or popularizer. This gives them a skewed and inauthentic view of what the RCC really stands for.
. . . Once again, see how Randy and other "Evangelical" converts have created a church within a church. Their church is not the church authorized by the magisterium. They are merely camping out in the RCC.
He claims to submit to the magisterium ("Being Catholic is a surrender of your will to God"), but when push comes to shove he sits in judgment over the judgments of the magisterium. He and Hahn and Armstrong are spiritual amphibians with their head in sola Scriptura and their tail in the baptismal font of Catholicism.
(The church within the church, 20 April 2005)
Commenter "c.t." provides a fascinating insight into false anti-Catholic triumphalism and delusions of superiority:
Randy, you have jumped the shark in your latest reply here.
But let's face it: when you are confronted by someone like Steve there really is no where for a Roman Catholic to go (see Dave Armstrong on that). Except the 'retreat into unreality' move. Or the hands over ears, run out of the room move.
I would guess there are other RC apologists now reading Steve's posts, and they are maintaining a studied silence. They don't want to go anywhere near Steve Hays at this point. Even if they study his arguments here to try to develop counter-arguments that would normally work for them in their world and with their audience they can't do anything with them. RC apologists avoid competent protestant apologists like the plague. Or they just lose all shame and get postmodern slippery and disingenuous. Like the Democratic party, i.e. say things in public that they know a good percentage of the people will know are lies, but they also know a majority of their voters are too ignorant to know the difference...
# posted by c.t. : 7:44 PM
For his part, Randy is somewhere to the right of Ratzinger. Randy has crawled into the same airtight bubble as Hahn, Armstrong, and other such converts. They are the freelance Catholics. They view themselves as the real deal, but if you compare the amount of distance they put between themselves and whatever teaching trickles down that they disown, you can see that they are really freelancing their way through the RCC, picking and choosing what to believe or disbelieve. Theirs is a cult within a cult--with self-appointed cult-leaders like Armstrong. I don't doubt their sincerity, but one can be sincerely self-deluded.
(Freelance Catholicism, 20 April 2005)
Hays and his comrades have been yucking it up, making out that I am scared to death of Hays' supposed invulnerable prowess in anti-Catholic argumentation, and that I am trembling in my boots (along with every other Catholic apologist who has had the misfortune of running into the unvanquishable Hays).
Of course, I provided a lengthy explanation and logical challenge, for why I refuse to debate anti-Catholics any longer (having done it in scores of debates over 15 years' time). It has nothing whatsoever to do with either fear or inability. Here it is: A Socratic Examination of the (Automatic Anti-Catholic) Charge of Supposed Catholic Fear of Protestant Opponents. If Hays truly wanted to engage in calm, rational discussion with me on ground that I had no objection to, this was his golden opportunity.
But how did he respond?: with numerous rationalizations and potshots, obscurantism and sophistry (and we must allow for pure incomprehension of my arguments as well, which has been an ongoing shortcoming of his "replies" to me) -- as to why he wouldn't give my paper the dignity of a response (all the while heartily condemning me as a hypocrite and coward for my R.C. Sproul-like stand concerning not giving anti-Catholic drivel the dignity of a response; go figure). Here are some of his comments:
Armstrong's latest response to what I've written is an elaborate exercise in sophistry.
[dismissal by name-calling rather than by rational argument]
He has clearly picked up a lot of scar tissue over the years, and like a bad divorce, he brings all this old baggage with him into the next encounter . . . And, to be perfectly frank, no one should go into apologetics unless he has a pretty thick hide to begin with.
[the usual wrongheaded, self-serving psych-babble analyses which do nothing whatsoever to advance the discussion along, as they have nothing to do with the disussion; they are purely ad hominem]
Along the same lines, Armstrong tries to drag in what other “anti-Catholics” have posted on his blog in the comment box. Once again, he is free to address them directly, and they are free to address him directly-unless he kicks them off his blog. Indeed, he has issued certain veiled threats to that effect.
[I've never kicked a single person off of my blog for the more-than-a-year since it has been up, including even Alexander, who has called me "filth" and said that I was going to hell, and regularly offers on my blog the most asinine, uncharitable pseudo-"Christian" trash imaginable.]
Armstrong is the one who tries to personalize everything as a substitute for an honest debate over competing truth-claims and truth-conditions.
[more psycho-babble quack analysis]
Then there's the matter of his “resolution.” He uses this as his favorite escape hatch to evade a substantive discussion.
[begging precisely the question that I dealt with in the paper: the stupid charge that I am "scared" and "running" from his super-threatening, awesome arguments; so he prefers to merely repetitively assert charges, rather than to demonstrate them through force of logic]
But any reasonable person can see that this is a viciously circular appeal. He begins with a self-serving and self-imposed resolution. In addition, his resolution is predicated on a self-serving classification of his opponents. He has debarred himself from debating with “anti-Catholics.” And who is an “anti-Catholic”? Anyone he doesn't want to debate with, that's who!
[neither the argument above nor my decision to not debate anti-Catholics are in the least bit circular, as both are supported by much outside criteria and reasoning as to why I took the positions I did. And obviously, he is the umpteenth anti-Catholic who twists and distorts my endlessly-repeated definition of anti-Catholic for his own ends, in the effort to make me look ridiculous. That's quite easy to do if you refuse to accurately portray an opponents' views]
This is like a boxer who issues a bold challenge to all comers, except that he's made a vow to himself never to box with any contender who might actually beat him in the ring.
[LOL]
Who does he think he's kidding with this transparent ploy? But if you're desperate enough, I guess you'll resort to any last-ditch escape maneuver, however obvious.
[when you can't answer an opponent with reason and logic, then throw enough manure on the wall -- no matter how ridiculous and irrational and groundless -- until some sticks; a time-honored evasive technique. Accuse your opponent of what you yourself are actually doing and hope no one will notice . . .]
In a phony show of magnanimity,
[note the marvelous condemnation of my motivation, as if he knows this; that I am being deliberately dishonest. Yet he expects me to engage in a civil, gentlemanly discussion with him? Even if he were not an anti-Catholic, I would long since have decided that he was not woth anyone's time, based on his ethical conduct alone. I merely defend myself against an utterly groundless charge, and continue challenging him to substantiate and defend it by means of making a logical challenge to it]
he is prepared to discuss anything with me as long as it isn't something he doesn't want to discuss with me-which just so happens to be all of the substantive issues in the conflict with Rome.
[nice try at creating a straw man entirely out of thin air, with no basis whatsoever in anything I have done]
Then you have his set of trick questions.
[yes of course; a paraphrase for "rhetorical questions I either don't understand, or are too difficult or embarrassing for me to attempt to answer, because then the utterly fallacious nature of my 'argument' will be fully revealed, and my triumphant posturing will be shown up for what it is, and since I don't want that and have to avoid it like the plague, I better describe Dave's rational argument in the most caricatured fashion, so that folks will think I have answered when I have not at all, since I obviously have not. I've only talked about it, without ever dealing with it."]
Armstrong has tilted the playing field to a 179-degree gradient, with himself conveniently perched atop the high ground at the 10-yard line, where he challenges me to score a touchdown.
[very colorful evasive technique, isn't it? This might be an ingenious and "successful" use of ridicule by word-picture, if I hadn't troubled myself to expose it for what it is]
Does he really think I've going to step into his trap? I guess he's hoping his trap is sufficiently camouflaged that no one will see it for what it is. But he's not going to play me for the chump.
[that's right! Steve Hays is not dumb enough to get into a rational exchange, because that would amount to him being a chump, and everyone knows that Steve Hays is no chump! Dave Armstrong must be the sophist and chump because he opposes Steve Hays! Is that not reason enough to dismiss out of hand anything Armstrong says??!! Besides, this Armstrong guy is a self-appointed leader of a cult-within-a-cult and an inauthentic "Catholic"! How rational is that?!]
(Catholic sophistry, 14 April 2005)
Is this not an incredible (almost ingenious) exercise in skirting all around an argument, mocking, caricaturing, belittling, dismissing, redefining, misunderstanding a carefully-laid out, perfectly logical argument, without in the least addressing the actual thing? One marvels at this. Why go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid answering? If Hays is so brilliant of an anti-Catholic thinker, then he ought to just answer and thoroughly refute my paper, and "blow it out of the water" (to use a common metaphor in such debates), instead of jumping through all these rhetorical hoops, trying to impress folks with exactly no logical argument or reasoned response whatsoever to (I know it's a novel concept) my ACTUAL ARGUMENT.
To remind readers who followed this before (and those who are new to the dispute -- my heartfelt sympathies), my paper (as you can see in the title) was not trying to show why anti-Catholicism is a self-defeating, totally incoherent position (I've done that many times elsewhere), but rather, it dealt with whether my present refusal to debate those with this view automatically "proves" that I am unable to do so, and scared of these folks. Steve made the charge. I was challenging him to back it up by dealing with reason, not mind-reading and self-serving, chest-puffing innuendo as to manliness or supposed lack thereof in his "papist" opponents.
So the challenge remains on the table. Hays can continue to ignore my argument, linked above, or he can make a rational reply to it. If he ignores it, that's fine with me. If he tries to refute it, that's even better, because he cannot do so. The argument is airtight, and it doesn't depend in the slightest degree on me presupposing that anti-Catholicism is ludicrous, and assuming what I'm trying to prove. It has nothing to do with that. It's not circular logic at all, and as long as he thinks it is, he merely shows that he continues to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the argument. As he has done that frequently, in my brief interaction with him, it comes as no surprise, and I fully expect it to continue, along with the juvenile, silly excuses for not answering the one paper which I am fully willing to discuss with him, as it does not contradict my resolve to avoid discussing theology with anti-Catholics.
--------------------------------
ADDENDUM: Hays' "Reply" to the Above
As expected, Hays simply reiterated his insults, rather than issue a logical reply to a logical argument. Here are some highlights of his condescending nonsense:
For some odd reason, Dave Armstrong has seen fit to reissue his original charade. Odd, I say, for if he really felt that his “challenge” had been so utterly devastating the first time around, there would scarcely been any need to reissue the “challenge.” Evidently, then, he is suffering from self-doubts about his initial performance—which is why he has decided to try, try again—with a rehash of the original “challenge.”
. . . his so-called “Socratic Examination,” which consisted in a series of loaded and leading questions, designed to impale the unsuspecting on the horns a logical dilemma.
But his misrepresentations notwithstanding, any reader is free to compare the full text of his “Socratic Examination” with the full text of my “Catholic Sophistry,” and see for himself that I did, indeed, respond to his questionnaire.
Armstrong’s problem is not that I didn’t answer him, but that I didn’t answer him on his own tendentious terms. Rather, I demonstrated that his “Socratic” questions were question-begging questions.
Yes, it was a purely logical challenge. It only suffered from two minor deficiencies: (i) it was purely logical scam to divert attention away from all the concrete, substantive issues; (ii) it was a logical fallacy—“airtight” in the way that any viciously circular argument is “airtight.”
And that was the point all along: to construct an argument that was sealed off from direct contact with all the hard, corrosive evidence against Roman Catholicism.
But except for the obstinate fact that both horns of his dilemma were broken, it was a charming little ruse. Junk bonds pay no debts.
. . . For Armstrong to shuffle this off into a logical game, and a fallacious game at that, in order to underwrite a highly elastic and self-important “resolution,” is intellectually, morally, and spiritually frivolous in the extreme.
. . . But if, at any time, Armstrong would like to drop the harlequinade and engage the real issues, then that is one challenge and the only challenge I am more than happy to meet.
(If at first you don't succeed...., 1 May 2005)
And another ludicrous tidbit, now expressed on my own blog:
Dave Armstrong makes much of my tone as a pretext to sneak out the back door. Now, aside from the fact that his own admixture of angry invective and crybaby rhetoric does not make him the most inspiring role-model of the virtues he is quick to demand in others, I would only note that Ben Douglass and Steve Jackson raise the same sorts of objections that I do, and like I, back up their objections with direct documentation from well-placed Catholic sources. And both of them maintain an unfailingly respectful and courteous tone. So how does Armstrong respond to them? Short answer: he doesn’t. He gives them the silent treatment. So it matters not what tone one adopts with Armstrong. Be as polite as you please, he will continue to duck the tough questions.
(2 May 2005)
Sermon on Envy (Rev. Adrian Dieleman)
Rev. Dieleman is the pastor of Trinity Christian Reformed Church, in Visalia, California. This sermon was preached on 12 August 2001. I've abridged it slightly. Particularly, I cut out the story of Mozart and Salieri, because it is pure fiction (purporting to be historical fact).
----------------------------
I Envy Defined
A What is envy? It is a desire to have what another person has. It is not simply a longing to also have what the other person has; rather, the envious person wants to have something instead of the other person having it. Furthermore, the envious person has feelings of hatred and ill will toward the person who possesses what they want.
B It is possible to be envious of almost anything. You can be envious of another's musical talents. You can also envy someone's ability to hit a baseball, score a basket, or water-ski on one ski. You can envy someone's intelligence, wisdom, knowledge. You can envy someone's ability to talk or pray in public. You can envy another's possessions and money and want them to be yours alone. You can envy another's spouse or children or family. You can envy another's position, job, or career.
C Scripture tells us that envy is our natural, sinful desire (Gal 5:19). It is our natural, sinful desire to have and to keep for ourselves alone what others have. It is our natural, sinful desire to hate and despise the person or persons who have what we want. Because of this, envy is found everywhere. It is found in the church. It is found in the world. None of us, I'm afraid, are immune to it. It can strike any of us at any time.
D If we are honest, we have to admit that at times we also want to be envied, that we encourage envy. This is especially apparent among children. Every youngster knows it is more fun to be the one envied than to be the envier. I remember the first day of grade school after the summer vacation. One by one we were asked to come to the front of the class to tell our classmates what we had done during the summer. One of my fellow students envied the great vacations and exciting trips all his classmates seemed to have so he invented all sort of tales about his summer in order to make the rest of us envious of him.
It isn't only the children who seek psychological fulfillment from being envied. Many adults want to be objects of envy too. We know that God was speaking to Joseph in the dreams mentioned in Genesis 37. Yet, I have often wondered what could possibly have possessed Joseph to tell his brothers about those dreams? Did he, perhaps, want to generate their envy? And, knowing their insane jealousy about the richly ornamented robe given him by father Jacob, what could possibly have possessed him to wear it when he went in search of his brothers at Shechem and Dothan? Did he, perhaps, want to generate their envy?
Advertisers today have discovered that one way to sell a product is to create envy among those who don't have it. That's why Rolls Royce can sell a Corniche for $353,590 and Lamborghini can sell a Diablo for $274,900+. The buyers know that possession of these cars displays to others how rich the owners are. This same principle of creating envy extends to clothing, houses, and furniture. I have even seen this principle used in choosing a marriage partner. Some people choose their mates to be the envy of their peers; they don't marry someone out of love but because he or she will elicit the envy of others.
I remember, when I was a teenager, hearing sermons on the evils of keeping up with the Jones' – a mythical family living next door – on striving to have the same things as my neighbor. Today, it is no longer good enough to keep up with the Jones'. Today's creed is to keep ahead of the Jones'. Today's creed is to be the envy of friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. Today's creed is conspicuous consumption in order to generate the envy of those who can't afford what you have. But this too is nothing new. The preacher spoke of this almost 1000 years before the birth of Christ.
(Eccl 4:4) And I saw that all labor and all achievement spring from man's envy of his neighbor. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
E Let me make it perfectly clear: to envy is sin and makes one worthy of God's judgment; and, to purposely create or generate envy is as great a sin as the envy itself. To buy or do things, to practice conspicuous consumption, merely to generate the envy of those around you, also makes one worthy of God's judgment.
Do you envy? Does someone else have or possess something you want for yourself alone? You are living a life of sin. Do you purposely generate the envy of those around you? You also are living a life of sin.
II Envy is Destructive
A In more than one place the Bible warns us against the sin of envy. It tells us about the consequences of envy and generating envy:
(Job 5:2) Resentment kills a fool, and envy slays the simple.
(Prov 14:30) A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones.
(James 3:16) For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
To put it simply, envy is destructive. The church fathers of the Middle Ages tell us that envy is one of the seven deadly sins that can lead to the everlasting destruction of hell fire. Unchecked envy can alienate a person from God as well as his fellow man. And, Paul tells us those who envy "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:21).
B We see unchecked envy in the story of Joseph and his brothers. Joseph's brothers envied his coat, they envied his dreams of position and grandeur, they envied the love their father gave him. Joseph's brothers envied him. So what did they do? Scripture tells us "they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him." And, when given the opportunity, they sold him as a slave to Ishmaelite traders. Their envy resulted in years of unresolved grief, pain, and anguish for their father and almost brought him to a premature grave.
C The Bible abounds with other examples of envy and its dire consequences. I think of the story of Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel because he envied the favor which Abel gained in the eyes of God (Gen 4:5). The plans of Saul to kill David resulted from Saul's envy of David's popularity (1 Sam 18:6-9). And, it is out of envy that the scribes and Pharisees had Jesus crucified (Mt 27:18).
III Envy Overcome
A Envy is evil. Envy is destructive. As Paul makes clear in Galatians 5, envy is one of the acts of our old sinful nature. But as people who have been born-again by the Spirit of God, we are not to live according to our earthly nature; rather, we are to live and walk according to the Spirit. We have died with Christ and have been raised with Christ. Therefore, we are to consider ourselves as having died to sin and been raised to righteousness (Rom 6:1-14; Gal 5:16-26; Eph 4:17-5:21; Col 3:1-17). This means, congregation, that envy has no place in our lives and ought not to be found in the church.
B We are to overcome envy. How are we to do that? When all around us people have or possess what we want for ourselves, how can we keep ourselves from envy? The first thing we can mention is the tools the Spirit uses to make us more and more like Christ. For it is only by becoming like Christ that we can leave behind us the sins which are so deadly to our souls. You want to overcome envy? You want to overcome any of the sins of the old nature? It always has to start off with the Spirit's tools and the Spirit's help: prayer, Bible reading, worship, Bible study, the fellowship of other believers.
C We are to overcome envy. How are we to do that? The second thing we can mention is that we should stop looking at our neighbor and should look instead at ourselves. There is a little song that we sing that speaks to this. You know the words: "Count your many blessings, name them one by one. Count your many blessings, see what God has done." That's what we have to do. Instead of looking at the goods and talents God has given to our neighbor, we ought to look at what God has given to us. We have to recognize the many blessings and opportunities God has given to us.
A good contemporary example here is Joni Eareckson Tada. She became a quadriplegic as the result of a diving accident. A life of sports, travel, and fun seemed to be over. The promise of a professional career and a happy marriage appeared to be gone. She was confined to a wheelchair for life instead of being free to live the happy life she had anticipated for herself.
How easy it would have been for Joni to envy others who were able-bodied. How easy it would have been for Joni's envy to make her into an angry, bitter person.
Instead of looking at and envying those around her, Joni looked at herself and counted the many blessings and opportunities God had given her. She discovered that because of the horrible thing which had happened to her, she was equipped to minister to other handicapped persons in a way that is impossible for those who are not disabled. Furthermore, she has been a source of inspiration and perseverance for countless believers facing trials and afflictions.
D We are to overcome envy. How are we to do that? The third thing we can mention is contentment. We are to be content with the goods, talents, and opportunities God has given to us. We are to realize that each of us is called to joyfully serve God in the place that He has put us.
E We are to overcome envy. How are we to do that? The fourth thing we can mention is goals and priorities. If you find yourself filled with envy, if you find yourself purposely generating envy, perhaps the problem is wrong goals and priorities. Don't forget, the goal of our lives is not treasure on earth, but treasure in heaven. Our purpose is not to accumulate goods and honors but to live a life of service.
Conclusion
Joseph's brothers were filled with envy. Therefore "they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him."
Beware, congregation, of the evil of envy. Beware, because envy is destructive. Beware, because envy can lead to the everlasting destruction of hell fire. Beware, because unchecked envy can alienate a person from God as well as his fellow man.
----------------------------
I Envy Defined
A What is envy? It is a desire to have what another person has. It is not simply a longing to also have what the other person has; rather, the envious person wants to have something instead of the other person having it. Furthermore, the envious person has feelings of hatred and ill will toward the person who possesses what they want.
B It is possible to be envious of almost anything. You can be envious of another's musical talents. You can also envy someone's ability to hit a baseball, score a basket, or water-ski on one ski. You can envy someone's intelligence, wisdom, knowledge. You can envy someone's ability to talk or pray in public. You can envy another's possessions and money and want them to be yours alone. You can envy another's spouse or children or family. You can envy another's position, job, or career.
C Scripture tells us that envy is our natural, sinful desire (Gal 5:19). It is our natural, sinful desire to have and to keep for ourselves alone what others have. It is our natural, sinful desire to hate and despise the person or persons who have what we want. Because of this, envy is found everywhere. It is found in the church. It is found in the world. None of us, I'm afraid, are immune to it. It can strike any of us at any time.
D If we are honest, we have to admit that at times we also want to be envied, that we encourage envy. This is especially apparent among children. Every youngster knows it is more fun to be the one envied than to be the envier. I remember the first day of grade school after the summer vacation. One by one we were asked to come to the front of the class to tell our classmates what we had done during the summer. One of my fellow students envied the great vacations and exciting trips all his classmates seemed to have so he invented all sort of tales about his summer in order to make the rest of us envious of him.
It isn't only the children who seek psychological fulfillment from being envied. Many adults want to be objects of envy too. We know that God was speaking to Joseph in the dreams mentioned in Genesis 37. Yet, I have often wondered what could possibly have possessed Joseph to tell his brothers about those dreams? Did he, perhaps, want to generate their envy? And, knowing their insane jealousy about the richly ornamented robe given him by father Jacob, what could possibly have possessed him to wear it when he went in search of his brothers at Shechem and Dothan? Did he, perhaps, want to generate their envy?
Advertisers today have discovered that one way to sell a product is to create envy among those who don't have it. That's why Rolls Royce can sell a Corniche for $353,590 and Lamborghini can sell a Diablo for $274,900+. The buyers know that possession of these cars displays to others how rich the owners are. This same principle of creating envy extends to clothing, houses, and furniture. I have even seen this principle used in choosing a marriage partner. Some people choose their mates to be the envy of their peers; they don't marry someone out of love but because he or she will elicit the envy of others.
I remember, when I was a teenager, hearing sermons on the evils of keeping up with the Jones' – a mythical family living next door – on striving to have the same things as my neighbor. Today, it is no longer good enough to keep up with the Jones'. Today's creed is to keep ahead of the Jones'. Today's creed is to be the envy of friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. Today's creed is conspicuous consumption in order to generate the envy of those who can't afford what you have. But this too is nothing new. The preacher spoke of this almost 1000 years before the birth of Christ.
(Eccl 4:4) And I saw that all labor and all achievement spring from man's envy of his neighbor. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
E Let me make it perfectly clear: to envy is sin and makes one worthy of God's judgment; and, to purposely create or generate envy is as great a sin as the envy itself. To buy or do things, to practice conspicuous consumption, merely to generate the envy of those around you, also makes one worthy of God's judgment.
Do you envy? Does someone else have or possess something you want for yourself alone? You are living a life of sin. Do you purposely generate the envy of those around you? You also are living a life of sin.
II Envy is Destructive
A In more than one place the Bible warns us against the sin of envy. It tells us about the consequences of envy and generating envy:
(Job 5:2) Resentment kills a fool, and envy slays the simple.
(Prov 14:30) A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones.
(James 3:16) For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
To put it simply, envy is destructive. The church fathers of the Middle Ages tell us that envy is one of the seven deadly sins that can lead to the everlasting destruction of hell fire. Unchecked envy can alienate a person from God as well as his fellow man. And, Paul tells us those who envy "will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:21).
B We see unchecked envy in the story of Joseph and his brothers. Joseph's brothers envied his coat, they envied his dreams of position and grandeur, they envied the love their father gave him. Joseph's brothers envied him. So what did they do? Scripture tells us "they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him." And, when given the opportunity, they sold him as a slave to Ishmaelite traders. Their envy resulted in years of unresolved grief, pain, and anguish for their father and almost brought him to a premature grave.
C The Bible abounds with other examples of envy and its dire consequences. I think of the story of Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel because he envied the favor which Abel gained in the eyes of God (Gen 4:5). The plans of Saul to kill David resulted from Saul's envy of David's popularity (1 Sam 18:6-9). And, it is out of envy that the scribes and Pharisees had Jesus crucified (Mt 27:18).
III Envy Overcome
A Envy is evil. Envy is destructive. As Paul makes clear in Galatians 5, envy is one of the acts of our old sinful nature. But as people who have been born-again by the Spirit of God, we are not to live according to our earthly nature; rather, we are to live and walk according to the Spirit. We have died with Christ and have been raised with Christ. Therefore, we are to consider ourselves as having died to sin and been raised to righteousness (Rom 6:1-14; Gal 5:16-26; Eph 4:17-5:21; Col 3:1-17). This means, congregation, that envy has no place in our lives and ought not to be found in the church.
B We are to overcome envy. How are we to do that? When all around us people have or possess what we want for ourselves, how can we keep ourselves from envy? The first thing we can mention is the tools the Spirit uses to make us more and more like Christ. For it is only by becoming like Christ that we can leave behind us the sins which are so deadly to our souls. You want to overcome envy? You want to overcome any of the sins of the old nature? It always has to start off with the Spirit's tools and the Spirit's help: prayer, Bible reading, worship, Bible study, the fellowship of other believers.
C We are to overcome envy. How are we to do that? The second thing we can mention is that we should stop looking at our neighbor and should look instead at ourselves. There is a little song that we sing that speaks to this. You know the words: "Count your many blessings, name them one by one. Count your many blessings, see what God has done." That's what we have to do. Instead of looking at the goods and talents God has given to our neighbor, we ought to look at what God has given to us. We have to recognize the many blessings and opportunities God has given to us.
A good contemporary example here is Joni Eareckson Tada. She became a quadriplegic as the result of a diving accident. A life of sports, travel, and fun seemed to be over. The promise of a professional career and a happy marriage appeared to be gone. She was confined to a wheelchair for life instead of being free to live the happy life she had anticipated for herself.
How easy it would have been for Joni to envy others who were able-bodied. How easy it would have been for Joni's envy to make her into an angry, bitter person.
Instead of looking at and envying those around her, Joni looked at herself and counted the many blessings and opportunities God had given her. She discovered that because of the horrible thing which had happened to her, she was equipped to minister to other handicapped persons in a way that is impossible for those who are not disabled. Furthermore, she has been a source of inspiration and perseverance for countless believers facing trials and afflictions.
D We are to overcome envy. How are we to do that? The third thing we can mention is contentment. We are to be content with the goods, talents, and opportunities God has given to us. We are to realize that each of us is called to joyfully serve God in the place that He has put us.
E We are to overcome envy. How are we to do that? The fourth thing we can mention is goals and priorities. If you find yourself filled with envy, if you find yourself purposely generating envy, perhaps the problem is wrong goals and priorities. Don't forget, the goal of our lives is not treasure on earth, but treasure in heaven. Our purpose is not to accumulate goods and honors but to live a life of service.
Conclusion
Joseph's brothers were filled with envy. Therefore "they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him."
Beware, congregation, of the evil of envy. Beware, because envy is destructive. Beware, because envy can lead to the everlasting destruction of hell fire. Beware, because unchecked envy can alienate a person from God as well as his fellow man.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Jack and Rexella Van Impe: reports of the conversion to Catholicism of this evangelist and Bible teacher and his wife were greatly exaggerated; I misreported it myself (I explain below what happened). They are trying to mix their dispensationalist eschatology with Catholic teachings on the end times (from the Catechism and private revelations and writings). It's a strange combination. In any event, they are quite ecumenical and truly grieve over the divisions, misunderstandings, and sometimes hatred between Catholics and Protestants.
Atom Formatted XML Site Feed
Just found this web page, surfing around ("intended to be viewed in a Newsreader or syndicated to another site"). Someone asked me about this; there is a way to do it, after all. Blogdigger also gives you another format for my blog. I barely even know what this stuff is; it seems to be the latest Internet fad or craze.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Eric Svendsen Sez Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, and Dr. James Dobson Betray the Gospel and R Lousy Evangelicals, in Distinct Danger of Damnation
[for background, see my blog post: Dr. James Dobson and "Anti-Catholicism"]
Ironically, anti-Catholic apologist Eric Svendsen is far tougher on Dr. Dobson than I was. I made it clear that I greatly respect the man, and don't question his basic Christian integrity as a Protestant evangelical. But Svendsen does not take such a favorable view:
. . . evangelicals like James Dobson are more committed to politics than they are to the truth of the gospel. They think it's more important to get social laws passed to increase their own comfort in this life than to make sure that people are not deceived by a false gospel and perhaps increase the comfort of many in the next life. Dobson thinks he represents evangelicalism when he is interviewed by the national press; he thinks he represents the “evangelical agenda.” He doesn’t. Far worse, the national press thinks he represents evangelicalism. Dobson and his ilk are far, far removed from representing the concerns of true evangelicalism; namely, contending for the "once-for-all-time-delivered-to-the-saints faith." He buckles—and embarrassingly so—when asked to defend that kind of thing. He’d just rather not talk about it. He’d rather allow others to believe that the pope is just another Christian leader, that Roman Catholicism is just another Christian denomination, and that we are all just Christians fighting together for the same political causes. If Dobson, Graham et al can’t get it right and can’t be faithful in defending the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ--when asked about it no less!--they should just stop making appearances on national media.
(Are the “Focused” Chickens Coming Home to Roost?; italics his; bolding mine)
Now, it's bad enough that Svendsen goes after Dr. Dobson in such a fashion, but when he says that Billy Graham (of all people!) "can’t be faithful in defending the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ," it makes me really furious. Billy Graham has done more to promote the gospel than Eric could ever do in a hundred lifetimes.
Billy Graham (he being an evangelist by vocation) preaches the gospel; Eric and his anti-Catholic cronies preach misinformation and disinformation, and unnecessarily, sinfully fuel divisions and suspicions. Billy Graham can be credited more than any other evangelical for providing a stellar example of an evangelical Protestant Christian to the world. But Svendsen has the unmitigated gall to suggest that both Dr. Dobson and Billy Graham "should just stop making appearances on national media," because they supposedly don't defend the "gospel" and do not represent "evangelicalism."
Where is the outrage from evangelicals themselves when someone like Svendsen writes such outrageous, outlandish things? Maybe it's out there somewhere and I have to work harder to find it, but I haven't seen it yet, and I've done my fair share of research on anti-Catholicism.
One expects Svendsen et al to get it wrong about Catholicism, but when he can't even refrain from lying about and slandering fellow Protestants (and some of the most noble and great ones at that, who have done so much good work for the Kingdom, and positively influenced so many lives), then he has clearly crossed into territory far more absurd and ludicrous than he has already been inhabiting, lo these many years. Now he is virtually anti-Protestant, too, with his criterion that any Protestant who dares classify Catholicism as a Christian entity must be a bad Protestant and no evangelical; ergo, compromises "the gospel" and so forth.
How sad . . . . . But I am happy to have a chance to defend my esteemed Protestant brethren (in this case, two men for whom I have very great admiration and respect) against public attacks from their extreme Protestant brethren.
==================================================
Clarification as of 4-30-05:
It turns out that I made an error in assuming that Svendsen's reference to "Graham," was to Billy Graham. It was, rather to Billy's eminent son, Franklin Graham. Svendsen also clarified that he does not deny that Dobson is an evangelical , in a post which he now has removed, because it was too insulting to me personally (but more on that below). Thus, I have removed a complete citation of that post from this paper because Svendsen removed it and apologized (which apology I appreciate and glady accept):
Waddling in the muck of Internet apologetics eventually takes its toll. I'm moving on to higher ground. While I'll continue to point out the errors of errant theological systems (such as Roman Catholicism), as well as the mis-steps of certain evangelical leaders who seem to walk a bit too close to the edge of the heretical cliff, I am going to pass on the mud-wrestling challenges from Internet e-pologists. To that end, I have deleted a previous entry written in rash response to Dave Armstrong, to whom I apologize along with any others I may have mud-wrestled in the past. While I may continue to check in on their various blogs from time to time, any response to them will be a tempered and measured one.
(Toward Higher Ground, 4-30-05)
Okay, so I "got the wrong Graham" (sounds like an inadvertant oversight at a bakery specializing in sweet crackers). But it really makes no difference in my overall argument, because Svendsen also included Billy Graham in his larger complaints, as is clear when consulting a related post of his. But in deference to his clarification (stated in most gentlemanly fashion), I have modified the title of this post. The original title was, "Eric Svendsen Sez Billy Graham and Dr. James Dobson Betray the Gospel and R Not Evangelicals."
So Mr. Svendsen thinks Dobson is an "evangelical." Fine. And he protested because I mistook "Graham" for Billy Graham. That's okay, too. I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake. I don't think it is this super-serious thing that he thinks it is, but it was a mistake, and I 'fess up to it and offer Mr. Svendsen my apology (he has more than once denied that my apologies are insincere, but nevertheless, I offer him my sincere apology. How he receives it is his business: and God sees everything).
[note: the above apology of mine was offered before Svendsen's apology. As of this writing, he has not yet publicly acknowledged and accepted it]
Now, back to the issue at hand: has Svendsen included Billy Graham in his critique along these lines of (lousy) evangelicals who appear on television, agree with Catholics to some extent, and therefore (as he thinks) compromise the gospel? The answer is yes, certainly. I shall now cite a post of his from a few days ago:
On Evangelical Comments Concerning the Death of the Pope: An Apology [link]
[bolding is mine; italics are Svendsen's]
So far I have not commented on this blog about the evangelical response to the pope's death, but the responses have become so conspicuous by their predictability that I think it's time to comment. By now, I have heard/seen all the responses by James Dobson, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson et al. But it didn't really come home with me until I saw Franklin Graham on Hannity and Colmes a few nights ago. Graham, as always, attempted to get the gospel in at every turn (for which I commend him). But when directly asked by Sean Hannity what still divides Roman Catholics and Protestants, Graham danced around it ("well there are still some doctrinal issues we don't fully agree on") and then quickly added (paraphrasing from memory), "BUT, Catholics and Protestants agree on what's important. We agree on the cross, we agree that Jesus died and rose again."That's what's important?
[Yes. I think most Christians would agree that Jesus' death and Resurrection are highly important components of the Christian faith. But Eric apparently would disagree with that.]
That's what unites us?
[Yes, among many other things]
That's the gospel upon which we agree?
[Yes, according to the Bible: see my paper, What is the Gospel?]
. . . Let me be very clear here. The official teachings of Roman Catholicism stand in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ--no less than the teachings of the Judaizers in Paul's own day stood opposed to the gospel. Indeed, Roman Catholicism has added so many obstacles to salvation that have to be hurdled as a prerequisite to salvation, that the Judaizer heresy anathematized by Paul in Gal 1:8-10 looks like a Christian denomination by comparison!
[Quite clear indeed! Quite tragically misinformed and mistaken too . . . ]
. . . What gospel? What good? How can we speak of the "good" a man does if his life is dedicated to another gospel, one we have not received, and one that is in fact based on those "good" things he did? What "good" is there in standing up for moral causes if in the end the people you've won over by those moral causes end up believing a "gospel" that cannot save?
. . . I would indeed like to offer an apology. But the apology I would like to offer is in behalf of the misguided Protestants--both those who have appeared on the media as well as those who have appeared on the Internet and presumed to apologize on my behalf (thank you very much, but please restrain yourselves in the future)--who have misled people into believing Roman Catholicism is just another option for those wanting to be Christians, who have abandoned fidelity to the gospel, and who have become the cause of stumbling to those who have looked to them for validation of following a false gospel. My apology is to the truth, to the gospel, and to the Lord Jesus Christ who has entrusted each of us with fidelity to his word, and has charged each of us to uphold it without fear, without wavering, and without giving in to the spirit of this age--the spirt that screams at us to be "broadminded" about the narrow way that saves. I want to apologize on their behalf for their shameful abdication of truth. I want to apologize on their behalf that they were too ashamed of the offense of the gospel to uphold it faithfully. I want to apologize on their behalf that they gave in to the pressures of political correctness and did not remain faithful to his word. And mostly, I want to apologize on their behalf that they, as a result of their "embarrassment" over the proclamation of the truth, have numbered themselves with those of whom Jesus himself will be ashamed at his coming. I pray they would be spared from that which in the end will be truly shameful.
Now, who is Eric talking about in the above rant? Well, obviously in context, those "evangelicals" who have appeared on television speaking (reverentially) about the death of Pope John Paul II. Do we know any specific persons to whom he refers? Yes: James Dobson, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham "et al." Those are the four he named. So it is a clear implication that one or more of these men (if not all) are being referred to (i.e., as sad examples of Protestants who said nice stuff about the pope, which is a naughty no-no in Eric's eyes and cause for the gravest concern for their very souls). It's quite reasonable, therefore, to assume that he had Billy and Franklin Graham, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson in mind when he listed the outrageous errors they committed:
1. "abandoned fidelity to the gospel."
2. "misled people into believing Roman Catholicism is just another option for those wanting to be Christians."
3. "giving in to the spirit of this age--the spirit that screams at us to be "broadminded" about the narrow way that saves."
4. "shameful abdication of truth."
5. "too ashamed of the offense of the gospel to uphold it faithfully."
6. "gave in to the pressures of political correctness."
7. "did not remain faithful to his word."
8. " '"embarrassment' over the proclamation of the truth."
As a result, Svendsen (sad to say, predictably) categorizes them as close to eternal damnation as he can without sounding utterly ridiculous and laughable (even by low anti-Catholic standards):
9. "they . . . have numbered themselves with those of whom Jesus himself will be ashamed at his coming. I pray they would be spared from that which in the end will be truly shameful."
Yes, what a spectacle: Eric Svendsen praying fervently that Billy Graham and Dr. James Dobson avoid a quite-possible and plausible damnation at the Second Coming, due to their almost unforgivable sins of acknowledging that Catholics are Christians too. I truly believe that I have seen everything in anti-Catholicism now, and that this can't be topped. I don't believe I will see this sheer folly bested in my lifetime. But I've been surprised before . . . .
All this being the case, I need not take back anything I said about Svendsen's opinion of Billy Graham or Dr. Dobson above (except -- technically -- for one phrase: "can’t be faithful in defending the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ," that Eric applied to Dobson and Franklin Graham, not Billy Graham -- but that is only the merest trifle in light of all this additional information, which expresses virtually the same thing in only slightly different words).
It's even worse than I thought. All I had wrong was the particular article where Billy Graham was skewered; it was this earlier one. Ah, yes, but Billy Graham and Dr. James Dobson are still evangelicals! They're just a hair's breadth away from damnation, for committing the unforgivable anti-Catholic fundamentalist "sin" of extending the right hand of fellowship to Catholics!
[Since it is almost inevitable that as soon as Svendsen sees this he will mindlessly accuse me of being a "breaker of solemn oaths" again, I will anticipate his foolhardy objection and provide the link for my paper, Resolutions and "Solemn Oaths": Are They Identical?: Anti-Catholic Apologist Eric Svendsen's Incomprehension of the Meaning of English Words andHis Ludicrous Charges That I am a Liar and Deceiver (With James White's Blessing) --- he did indeed make this charge, in his post which he later removed]
Ironically, anti-Catholic apologist Eric Svendsen is far tougher on Dr. Dobson than I was. I made it clear that I greatly respect the man, and don't question his basic Christian integrity as a Protestant evangelical. But Svendsen does not take such a favorable view:
. . . evangelicals like James Dobson are more committed to politics than they are to the truth of the gospel. They think it's more important to get social laws passed to increase their own comfort in this life than to make sure that people are not deceived by a false gospel and perhaps increase the comfort of many in the next life. Dobson thinks he represents evangelicalism when he is interviewed by the national press; he thinks he represents the “evangelical agenda.” He doesn’t. Far worse, the national press thinks he represents evangelicalism. Dobson and his ilk are far, far removed from representing the concerns of true evangelicalism; namely, contending for the "once-for-all-time-delivered-to-the-saints faith." He buckles—and embarrassingly so—when asked to defend that kind of thing. He’d just rather not talk about it. He’d rather allow others to believe that the pope is just another Christian leader, that Roman Catholicism is just another Christian denomination, and that we are all just Christians fighting together for the same political causes. If Dobson, Graham et al can’t get it right and can’t be faithful in defending the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ--when asked about it no less!--they should just stop making appearances on national media.
(Are the “Focused” Chickens Coming Home to Roost?; italics his; bolding mine)
Now, it's bad enough that Svendsen goes after Dr. Dobson in such a fashion, but when he says that Billy Graham (of all people!) "can’t be faithful in defending the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ," it makes me really furious. Billy Graham has done more to promote the gospel than Eric could ever do in a hundred lifetimes.
Billy Graham (he being an evangelist by vocation) preaches the gospel; Eric and his anti-Catholic cronies preach misinformation and disinformation, and unnecessarily, sinfully fuel divisions and suspicions. Billy Graham can be credited more than any other evangelical for providing a stellar example of an evangelical Protestant Christian to the world. But Svendsen has the unmitigated gall to suggest that both Dr. Dobson and Billy Graham "should just stop making appearances on national media," because they supposedly don't defend the "gospel" and do not represent "evangelicalism."
Where is the outrage from evangelicals themselves when someone like Svendsen writes such outrageous, outlandish things? Maybe it's out there somewhere and I have to work harder to find it, but I haven't seen it yet, and I've done my fair share of research on anti-Catholicism.
One expects Svendsen et al to get it wrong about Catholicism, but when he can't even refrain from lying about and slandering fellow Protestants (and some of the most noble and great ones at that, who have done so much good work for the Kingdom, and positively influenced so many lives), then he has clearly crossed into territory far more absurd and ludicrous than he has already been inhabiting, lo these many years. Now he is virtually anti-Protestant, too, with his criterion that any Protestant who dares classify Catholicism as a Christian entity must be a bad Protestant and no evangelical; ergo, compromises "the gospel" and so forth.
How sad . . . . . But I am happy to have a chance to defend my esteemed Protestant brethren (in this case, two men for whom I have very great admiration and respect) against public attacks from their extreme Protestant brethren.
==================================================
Clarification as of 4-30-05:
It turns out that I made an error in assuming that Svendsen's reference to "Graham," was to Billy Graham. It was, rather to Billy's eminent son, Franklin Graham. Svendsen also clarified that he does not deny that Dobson is an evangelical , in a post which he now has removed, because it was too insulting to me personally (but more on that below). Thus, I have removed a complete citation of that post from this paper because Svendsen removed it and apologized (which apology I appreciate and glady accept):
Waddling in the muck of Internet apologetics eventually takes its toll. I'm moving on to higher ground. While I'll continue to point out the errors of errant theological systems (such as Roman Catholicism), as well as the mis-steps of certain evangelical leaders who seem to walk a bit too close to the edge of the heretical cliff, I am going to pass on the mud-wrestling challenges from Internet e-pologists. To that end, I have deleted a previous entry written in rash response to Dave Armstrong, to whom I apologize along with any others I may have mud-wrestled in the past. While I may continue to check in on their various blogs from time to time, any response to them will be a tempered and measured one.
(Toward Higher Ground, 4-30-05)
Okay, so I "got the wrong Graham" (sounds like an inadvertant oversight at a bakery specializing in sweet crackers). But it really makes no difference in my overall argument, because Svendsen also included Billy Graham in his larger complaints, as is clear when consulting a related post of his. But in deference to his clarification (stated in most gentlemanly fashion), I have modified the title of this post. The original title was, "Eric Svendsen Sez Billy Graham and Dr. James Dobson Betray the Gospel and R Not Evangelicals."
So Mr. Svendsen thinks Dobson is an "evangelical." Fine. And he protested because I mistook "Graham" for Billy Graham. That's okay, too. I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake. I don't think it is this super-serious thing that he thinks it is, but it was a mistake, and I 'fess up to it and offer Mr. Svendsen my apology (he has more than once denied that my apologies are insincere, but nevertheless, I offer him my sincere apology. How he receives it is his business: and God sees everything).
[note: the above apology of mine was offered before Svendsen's apology. As of this writing, he has not yet publicly acknowledged and accepted it]
Now, back to the issue at hand: has Svendsen included Billy Graham in his critique along these lines of (lousy) evangelicals who appear on television, agree with Catholics to some extent, and therefore (as he thinks) compromise the gospel? The answer is yes, certainly. I shall now cite a post of his from a few days ago:
On Evangelical Comments Concerning the Death of the Pope: An Apology [link]
[bolding is mine; italics are Svendsen's]
So far I have not commented on this blog about the evangelical response to the pope's death, but the responses have become so conspicuous by their predictability that I think it's time to comment. By now, I have heard/seen all the responses by James Dobson, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson et al. But it didn't really come home with me until I saw Franklin Graham on Hannity and Colmes a few nights ago. Graham, as always, attempted to get the gospel in at every turn (for which I commend him). But when directly asked by Sean Hannity what still divides Roman Catholics and Protestants, Graham danced around it ("well there are still some doctrinal issues we don't fully agree on") and then quickly added (paraphrasing from memory), "BUT, Catholics and Protestants agree on what's important. We agree on the cross, we agree that Jesus died and rose again."That's what's important?
[Yes. I think most Christians would agree that Jesus' death and Resurrection are highly important components of the Christian faith. But Eric apparently would disagree with that.]
That's what unites us?
[Yes, among many other things]
That's the gospel upon which we agree?
[Yes, according to the Bible: see my paper, What is the Gospel?]
. . . Let me be very clear here. The official teachings of Roman Catholicism stand in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ--no less than the teachings of the Judaizers in Paul's own day stood opposed to the gospel. Indeed, Roman Catholicism has added so many obstacles to salvation that have to be hurdled as a prerequisite to salvation, that the Judaizer heresy anathematized by Paul in Gal 1:8-10 looks like a Christian denomination by comparison!
[Quite clear indeed! Quite tragically misinformed and mistaken too . . . ]
. . . What gospel? What good? How can we speak of the "good" a man does if his life is dedicated to another gospel, one we have not received, and one that is in fact based on those "good" things he did? What "good" is there in standing up for moral causes if in the end the people you've won over by those moral causes end up believing a "gospel" that cannot save?
. . . I would indeed like to offer an apology. But the apology I would like to offer is in behalf of the misguided Protestants--both those who have appeared on the media as well as those who have appeared on the Internet and presumed to apologize on my behalf (thank you very much, but please restrain yourselves in the future)--who have misled people into believing Roman Catholicism is just another option for those wanting to be Christians, who have abandoned fidelity to the gospel, and who have become the cause of stumbling to those who have looked to them for validation of following a false gospel. My apology is to the truth, to the gospel, and to the Lord Jesus Christ who has entrusted each of us with fidelity to his word, and has charged each of us to uphold it without fear, without wavering, and without giving in to the spirit of this age--the spirt that screams at us to be "broadminded" about the narrow way that saves. I want to apologize on their behalf for their shameful abdication of truth. I want to apologize on their behalf that they were too ashamed of the offense of the gospel to uphold it faithfully. I want to apologize on their behalf that they gave in to the pressures of political correctness and did not remain faithful to his word. And mostly, I want to apologize on their behalf that they, as a result of their "embarrassment" over the proclamation of the truth, have numbered themselves with those of whom Jesus himself will be ashamed at his coming. I pray they would be spared from that which in the end will be truly shameful.
Now, who is Eric talking about in the above rant? Well, obviously in context, those "evangelicals" who have appeared on television speaking (reverentially) about the death of Pope John Paul II. Do we know any specific persons to whom he refers? Yes: James Dobson, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham "et al." Those are the four he named. So it is a clear implication that one or more of these men (if not all) are being referred to (i.e., as sad examples of Protestants who said nice stuff about the pope, which is a naughty no-no in Eric's eyes and cause for the gravest concern for their very souls). It's quite reasonable, therefore, to assume that he had Billy and Franklin Graham, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson in mind when he listed the outrageous errors they committed:
1. "abandoned fidelity to the gospel."
2. "misled people into believing Roman Catholicism is just another option for those wanting to be Christians."
3. "giving in to the spirit of this age--the spirit that screams at us to be "broadminded" about the narrow way that saves."
4. "shameful abdication of truth."
5. "too ashamed of the offense of the gospel to uphold it faithfully."
6. "gave in to the pressures of political correctness."
7. "did not remain faithful to his word."
8. " '"embarrassment' over the proclamation of the truth."
As a result, Svendsen (sad to say, predictably) categorizes them as close to eternal damnation as he can without sounding utterly ridiculous and laughable (even by low anti-Catholic standards):
9. "they . . . have numbered themselves with those of whom Jesus himself will be ashamed at his coming. I pray they would be spared from that which in the end will be truly shameful."
Yes, what a spectacle: Eric Svendsen praying fervently that Billy Graham and Dr. James Dobson avoid a quite-possible and plausible damnation at the Second Coming, due to their almost unforgivable sins of acknowledging that Catholics are Christians too. I truly believe that I have seen everything in anti-Catholicism now, and that this can't be topped. I don't believe I will see this sheer folly bested in my lifetime. But I've been surprised before . . . .
All this being the case, I need not take back anything I said about Svendsen's opinion of Billy Graham or Dr. Dobson above (except -- technically -- for one phrase: "can’t be faithful in defending the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ," that Eric applied to Dobson and Franklin Graham, not Billy Graham -- but that is only the merest trifle in light of all this additional information, which expresses virtually the same thing in only slightly different words).
It's even worse than I thought. All I had wrong was the particular article where Billy Graham was skewered; it was this earlier one. Ah, yes, but Billy Graham and Dr. James Dobson are still evangelicals! They're just a hair's breadth away from damnation, for committing the unforgivable anti-Catholic fundamentalist "sin" of extending the right hand of fellowship to Catholics!
[Since it is almost inevitable that as soon as Svendsen sees this he will mindlessly accuse me of being a "breaker of solemn oaths" again, I will anticipate his foolhardy objection and provide the link for my paper, Resolutions and "Solemn Oaths": Are They Identical?: Anti-Catholic Apologist Eric Svendsen's Incomprehension of the Meaning of English Words andHis Ludicrous Charges That I am a Liar and Deceiver (With James White's Blessing) --- he did indeed make this charge, in his post which he later removed]
"Former Catholic" Forum #2
Continuing from below. Good discussion, guys! I want to commend Brian Literski, too, for having the courage of his convictions to come to a place where he would clearly be outnumbered. That's rare these days, so we must give him credit for that. This also applies to Ed Babinski (agnostic), for that matter. I urge everyone here to be courteous at all times to opponents.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
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.
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:
On the other hand, I've written about Luther's more "Catholic" beliefs:
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.
-------------------------------
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 LutherI'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.
Monday, April 25, 2005
"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
----------------
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 . . .
[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 . . .
Sunday, April 24, 2005
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.
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.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
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, 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:
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
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 . . .
We read on page 15:
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.
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,
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
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)
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)
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
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)
- 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)
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)
Written in 1996 by Dave Armstrong.
Dialogue: Baptism, the Mystical Body of Christ, and Implications for Ecumenism
. . . 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.
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."
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)
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
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.
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.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.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.)
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, . . .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).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.
(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.Cathy: Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision.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."
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-10These 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: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.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)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,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)
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 . . .. . . 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:("Romans," Word Biblical Commentary, Dallas: Word Books, 1988, vol. 38a, p. 153)
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.Luther himself wrote,(The Theology of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 226)
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)
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.
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)
- 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)
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 canYes. 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.
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.
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:Yes, of course. I don't know what relevance this has to our discussion . . .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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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:[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]
Whoever believes 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 is baptized will be saved.
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.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.or:
Whoever does not do drugs in order to get an unfair advantage, will get the Gold Medal.
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.'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.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.
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.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.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"]
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] . . . . .
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)
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.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).
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).
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 forI think it is safe to say that this decisively eliminates St. Hippolytus as a "witness" for Jack's case. Origen wrote in 244:
themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer
or someone from their family.(Apostolic Tradition, 21 [c. A.D. 215] )
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.St. Cyprian wrote in 251:(Homily on Romans, V:9)
But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to beAs for baptismal regeneration:
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)
"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."Speaking of the view of the early Church (first two centuries) on baptism, respected Protestant Church historian J.N.D. Kelly writes:(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] )
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.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:(Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper Collins, rev. ed., 1978, 194-195)
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.
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):
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:
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).
Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them . . .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:
. . . 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 . . .
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:
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:
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):
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.
-----------------------------
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:
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).Now therefore why tempt ye [RSV: "make trial of"] God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples . . .
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):
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: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.
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.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
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%)
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%)