Happy Mother's Day, Mom (and to my sweet, lovely wife, too)! This is a family picture from November 1994, with my mother Lois in the middle, my father, Graham next to her, wife Judy, and my two oldest sons (then a year-and-a-half, and three-and-a-half).

Refutation of James White: Moses' Seat, the Bible, and Tradition, Part II

[White's words will be in blue; my former words in green]

Previous links:

Introduction
Part I

=======================================

In the previous installment of this series I provided an introduction and the comments I made in The Roman Catholic Controversy regarding the use of Matthew 23:1-3 by Roman Catholic apologists. Let's make sure we understand what is required of the Roman Catholic apologist in order to substantiate their claims. First, there needs to be an identifiable oral tradition regarding "Moses' Seat" that is passed down outside of Scripture. This tradition must grant to the scribes and Pharisees some kind of authority that is not given in Scripture itself,

It's not necessary that it is not in Scripture; only that it is in harmony with Scripture, and something alongside it, which is not opposed to it, and is, to the contrary, sanctioned by it.

and Jesus must be making reference to this tradition, and the resultant authority, and binding His followers thereto. Is that what is going on in Matthew 23?

Something very un-Protestant is "going on" here! I believe that at the very least it is a difficulty, or difficult to explain, within a Protestant position.

Let's see if Dave Armstrong can provide a positive defense or, will he do what most of the rest of his compatriots do: hope that an attack upon the text will be sufficient to confuse their followers into thinking they have actually provided a meaningful defense of their claims.

Interesting cynical touch . . . Yes, I and "most of the rest of" my "compatriots" sit around at night dreaming up fanciful ways that we can "attack" the biblical text, so as to confuse and mislead our "followers." Is that really what White thinks motivates me and other Catholkic apologists and commentators? Apparently so, or he wouldn't have written such a ludicrous thing. I don't (for what it's worth) reciprocate the cynicism. I think White (like most devoted Bible students) sincerely believes that he is interpreting the passage to the best of his abilities, and is trying his best to respect it and let it speak for itself. I think he's dead wrong in his opinion, but I don't have to attack his very motivations and modus operandi with uncharitable speculations, putting the worst spin on everything he does. That's a major difference between Mr. White and I, and this hostile predisposition will no doubt color his comments throughout (just as I noted in my book with regard to historic Protestant exegesis).

Armstrong begins:

Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses' seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught. Thus, apostolic succession, whereby the Catholic Church, in its priests and bishops and popes, claims to be merely the custodian of an inherited apostolic Tradition, is also prefigured by Jewish oral tradition, as approved (at least partially) by Jesus himself.

[The word Moses' was italicized in this citation from my book: pp. 43-44; White inadvertantly overlooked it]

So we see that Armstrong takes "the whole enchilada," so to speak, and sets the highest bar possible, even "prefiguring" Roman apostolic Tradition in the Jewish form, though, he seems to allow a small out for himself with the parenthetic statement, "at least partially." It is hard to know what this refers to at this point.

Mr. White, being the Bible scholar and exegete that he is, is certainly not unfamiliar with the notion of typology in Holy Scripture (though you'd never know that, reading the above). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ([ISBE] a Protestant work, as will be all sources that I cite, unless indicated otherwise: edited by James Orr, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), discusses biblical "types":

The Bible furnishes abundant evidence of the presence of types and of typical instruction in the Sacred Word. The NT attests this fact. It takes up a large number of persons and things and events of former dispensations, and it treates them as adumbrations and prophecies of the future. A generation ago a widespread interest in the study of typology prevailed . . .

. . . A type . . . must be a true picture of the person or the thing it represents or prefigures . . . A type always prefigures something future. A Scriptural type and predictive prophecy are in substance the same, differing only in form. This fact distinguishes between a symbol and a type. A symbol may represent a thing of the present or of the past as well as of the future, e.g., the symbols in the Lord's supper. A type always looks to the future; an element of prediction must necessarily be in it.

(Vol. 5, p. 3029)

Presbyterian pastor and writer Peter J. Leithart, writing in First Things (November 1997, 12-13), noted that modern evangelicals tend to reject typology (note that the ISBE above stated that things were different a mere "generation ago"):

Modern scholarship has approached the Old Testament in a very different manner. Rejecting typology as fanciful and unscientific, many theologians have treated the Old Testament as a historical document with little or no religious significance for the Church.

. . . For all their real differences in approach to the Bible, evangelicals are at one with Protestant modernism in their rejection of typology and, frequently enough, in their belief that Christianity is more or less purely internal, a religion of unmediated individual contact with God.

But the Church Fathers interpreted the Bible quite differently, Leithart informs us, noting:

. . . the typological exegesis of the Bible practiced by patristic and medieval theologians. Typological interpretation assumes that events and institutions of the Old Testament present (to use Augustine’s terminology) "latent" pictures of Christ, and the Christ to whom the Old Testament testifies is the totus Christus: Head and Body, Jesus and his Church. In this, the fathers and medieval theologians fully agreed with Paul, who wrote that the history of Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness were "things written for our instruction."

Following the apostolic example, the fathers taught that Israel and "daughter Jerusalem"—and all brides and harlots of Old Testament history—manifest the Church under various guises. . . . the fathers plundered the Old Testament to divine the patterns of history. Because the interpretive path runs from old Israel through Christ to the new Israel, moreover, typology assumes that the New Covenant, like the Old, is concerned with a concrete, historical community.

. . . The typological method—by emphasizing that the Church as a real historical institution and communion was prophesied and typified in the Old Testament—provides theological grounding for the Church’s efforts to discipline the state.

This has to do with historic exegesis (precisely what my book was about). James White is out of touch with the exegesis of the earliest Christians, even with St. Augustine (whom he views very highly indeed, as I could easily prove from his own remarks), and pre-modernist Protestants. Thus, my delving into typology in the course of the extended argument of my book seems something foreign to him. Typology is no novel notion, either for the Fathers or many evangelical commentators through the centuries, but it seems to be for Mr. White.

I can't help that, but in any event, he is free to argue that some particular interpretation of mine is unreasonable and implausible, according to the usual cross-referencing, systematics, linguistic considerations, etc. That is an unobjectionable method, but dismissing all types and shadows altogether is quite a bit more difficult to do, in light of historic exegesis: both Catholic and Protestant.

Following these claims Armstrong lists five "anomalous facts" for Protestants, other passages he believes likewise refer to "extrabiblical and oral tradition acknowledged by the New Testament writers." These include 1 Cor. 10:4 and the rock that followed Israel in the wilderness; 1 Pet. 3:19, where Armstrong assumes the passage is drawing from 1 Enoch, together with Jude 14_15 and the citation of 1 Enoch 1:9; Jude 9 and the dispute between Michael and Satan over Moses' body; 2 Tim. 3:8 and the naming of Jannes and Jambres; James 5:17 and the information that the drought had lasted for three years.

White outlines my argument. I will actually cite it, so readers know exactly what I stated:

Other examples of extrabiblical and oral tradition acknowledged by the New Testament writers include:

* 1 Corinthians 10:4, where St. Paul refers to a rock which "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exod. 17:1-7; Num. 20:2-13). Rabbinic tradition, however, does.

* 1 Peter 3:19, where St. Peter describes Christ's journey to Sheol/Hades (“he went and preached to the spirits in prison“), [and] draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch (12-16). Jude 14-15 directly quotes from 1 Enoch 1:9, and even states that Enoch prophesied.

* Jude 9, which concerns a dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses' body, cannot be paralleled in the Old Testament, and appears to be a recounting of an oral Jewish tradition.

* In 2 Timothy 3:8, the reference to Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exod. 7:8 ff.).

* James 5:17 mentions a lack of rain for three years, which is likewise absent from the relevant Old Testament passage in 1 Kings 17.

(p. 44)

He concludes his list with these words:

Since Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition (in so doing, raising some of it literally to the level of written revelation), we are hardly at liberty to assert that it is altogether illegitimate. Jesus attacked corrupt traditions only, not tradition per se, and not all oral tradition. According to a strict sola Scriptura viewpoint, this would be inadmissible, it seems to me.

(p. 44)

Immediately the careful reader will note that there seems to be no difference at all in Armstrong's thinking between "authoritative Jewish oral tradition," non-authoritative Jewish oral tradition, and any historical story, whether oral or written.

This is highly curious and inexplicable, since in my very act of mentioning "authoritative Jewish tradition," it follows by simple logic that there must be something to the contrary which I (and anyone) could and would label "non-authoritative Jewish oral tradition," and indeed, my mention of "corrupt traditions" presupposes this. Yet White accuses me of not making the very distinctions that I clearly made. Go figure . . . this is what happens when the unfortunate tendency to caricature opponents runs head on into simple logic and carefully reading what one's opponent actually wrote, before immediately dashing off to tear it apart. For in such a rush, what is "refuted" is often not what the opponent actually wrote or believes. And that creates all sorts of problems and weakness in arguments, and holes large enough to drive a truck through.
What "any historical story" is supposed to refer to, is anyone's gues, since context makes abundantly clear that I was referring exclusively to Jewish tradition.

Likewise, he leaves untouched the issues relating to the citation of Enoch, for surely he knows Enoch as a whole is not canonical, hence, is he actually insisting that only a portion of Enoch contains some kind of authoritative, inspired material?

My argument doesn't necessitate regarding all such material as "inspired"; only authoritative and true. Remember how I phrased that to which I was referring: "extrabiblical and oral tradition acknowledged by the New Testament writers." An inspired biblical book might cite any number of non-inspired books as true, insofar as the portion cited is concerned. That's exactly what happened in Jude 14-15, where 1 Enoch 1:9 is directly quoted (as the footnote for this verse in my Oxford Annotated RSV Bible states), and is described by the apostle as that which Enoch "prophesied." Whether that counts as "inspired" or not, on that basis, I don't know, and I'll leave that technical question for the appropriate scholars to decide.

But it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that what is cited is true, and an instance of true prophecy not different in kind from a prophecy of Jeremiah or Isaiah: whose prophecies are recorded in inspired Old Testament Scripture. And that's just the point, isn't it? If Jeremiah's prophecy is regarded as inspired because it is in the Bible (OT), then Enoch's must likewise be, because it is in the Bible (NT). Therefore an "extrabiblical tradition" was "acknowledged by the New Testament writers," and my contention is unassailable. White can only try to minimize the implications of this, and attempt to show that it all fits in perfectly with his Baptist, sola Scriptura conception of authority, but he can't discount the fact of it, because there it is . . .

All of these passages have sparked a great deal of discussion in both Protestant and Catholic biblical scholarship, but none of that discussion is referenced here. An allegedly "straightforward" reading is all that is noted.

That's correct. One can't write about everything all the time, and one chooses what to emphasize, where, and how deeply to delve into the subject matter at hand. What does that have to do with anything? White's task is to refute what I have presented. Perhaps he does that later, but he hasn't yet done so, and making non sequitur points like this, doesn't bring him any closer to the conclusion of his task. If he wants to deal with these passages, then he can make his argument, and I'll surely respond. One thing at a time . . .

Armstrong moves from here to the specifics of his response to the material in The Roman Catholic Controversy by stating, "I shall quote the heart of his subtle but thoroughly fallacious argument." He cites the very beginning of the comments, to the point where I note that there is no way to trace this alleged tradition back to Moses, since this refers to an element of synagogue worship that did not come into existence until only a few hundred years prior to the time of Christ. He then writes,

White agrees that the notion is not found in the Old Testament, but maintains that it cannot be traced back to Moses. Yet the Catholic argument here does not rest on whether it can be traced historically to Moses, but on the act that it is not found in the Old Testament. Thus, White concedes a fundamental point of the Catholic argument concerning authority and sola Scriptura.
White skipped over roughly a page of material (mostly my page 45), where I cited the commentator Albert Barnes at length, and also the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary, and also noted how Jesus distinguished between good and bad traditions. Since we are centering primarily on my critique of his argument, this is not a major concern.

Yet, on the other hand, it can often be observed in White's replies to Catholics, that he will pick and choose what he wants to respond to, rather than reply to everything (his ignoring of those portions of his opponents' arguments might reasonably be construed as indicating a possibility that they are difficult for him to answer, since he skipped over them more or less arbitrarily). The passages of NT citing of extrabiblical traditions were not technically related to White's own presentation, either, but he saw fit to mention them.

While I wish to wait to respond to the full argumentation until after outlining Armstrong's response, I must point out in passing that "admitting" that Jesus is making reference to a concept that developed during the intertestamental period is hardly relevant to sola scriptura nor is it a concession to a "fundamental point of the Catholic argument." There is nothing in sola scriptura that requires the NT to be silent about developments during the intertestamental period. There is nothing in the doctrine that requires the Bible to remain silent on the form of synagogue worship. This is simply wishful thinking on Armstrong's part, once again.

I wasn't arguing those things; rather, the topic at hand is whether there is an authoritative extrabiblical tradition, acknowledged by Jesus and the apostles. If some parts of those traditions can be cited as true in the NT, then it stands to reason that other parts can be true (and hence, authoritative) without being cited in the NT. White simply assumes without argument that anything which is fully authoritative must be in the Bible. But since that is the issue in dispute, assuming it does no good. It has to be rationally demonstrated, with biblical support. I've been providing biblical support for my contentions. But these complex points of consideration will obviously have to wait till White presents his "full" response. I presume it will eventually be forthcoming, since White's response consisted of eight parts.

Further, unless I misread Armstrong, he saw a "prefigurement" of the Roman position in the Jewish one regarding tradition; yet, the Jews claimed their traditions did, in fact, go back to Moses, and yet here it seems Armstrong is admitting that the Jews could be wrong about the very origin of their traditions, and yet Jesus would still find the tradition binding.

I argued no such (intrinsically nonsensical) thing. White read that into my statements because he didn't understand them (a sadly common occurrence, as we've seen in past installments of this discussion, and will often see again, surely, largely because he vastly underestimates his opponents and considers them much more "ignorant" than they are in fact -- see the Introduction for many examples). I was making a logical point, reiterating that the Catholic reply to White's sola Scriptura arguments does not require proof that Jewish oral traditions go back to Moses; only that some of them were considered authoritative by Jesus and the apostles. For my part, I assume that they do go back to Moses, because that is part of the biblical (and historical) record, too, and the early Christians continued this tradition, over against the quasi-sola Scriptura position of the Sadducees, the "liberals" of their time). But that aspect was not logically required for this particular argument to be effective in its purpose of refutation.

Does it follow that Rome could admit her traditions do not go back to the Apostles but they are still binding? We are not told.

No (now you've been told). It was a silly query to begin with.

Next we encounter the following paragraph:

White then cites Protestant Bible scholar Robert Gundry in agreement, to the effect that Jesus was binding Christians to the Pharisaical law, but not "their interpretive traditions." This passage concerned only "the law itself," with the "antinomians" in mind. How Gundry arrives at such a conclusion remains to be seen. White's query about the Catholic interpretation, "Is this sound exegesis?" can just as easily be applied to Gundry's fine-tuned distinctions that help him avoid any implication of a binding extrabiblical tradition.

(pp. 46-47)

One will note that this is at best a partial accounting of the views I noted; but beyond this, there is no meaningful interaction with Gundry's exegesis. And given that I have worked through a number of attempted arguments made by Armstrong in this book, I believe I can say with some foundation that I do not believe Dave Armstrong understands what he would have to do to provide an exegetical response to Gundry or myself or anyone else. He simply does not understand the field. Writing "Is this sound exegesis?" and then in essence saying, "Well, you too!" is a poor substitute for meaningful exegetical interaction, that's for certain.

Here we go with more of White's sadly typical condescension and patronizing of his opponent, leading to lack of argument or no rational argumentation at all. It is "(wishful) meta-analysis" rather than reasoned refutation and a demonstration of exactly how an opponent is in error. Let me briefly illustrate how far this method of "reply" differs from actual dialogue. A non-dialogue, or "mutual monologue" runs as follows:

1. X presents position A with a multitude of biblical proof texts and historical evidences.

2. Y basically ignores or quickly dismisses X's biblical proof texts and historical evidences for position A with a one-sentence "reply" and proceeds to present position B with a multitude of alternate biblical proof texts and historical evidences.

Or, in a briefer form:

1. A

2. Not-A.

This is (sadly, too often) White's frequent method. But real dialogue (which is what I seek), proceeds in a very different way:

1. X presents position A with a multitude of biblical proof texts and historical evidences.

2. Y offers alternative and (so he thinks) superior explanations of each of X's biblical proof-texts and historical evidences, and then presents his own biblical proof texts and historical evidences for position B.

3. X offers alternative and (so he thinks) superior explanations of each of Y's biblical proof-texts and historical evidences, counter-responds to the critique of his own previously-stated biblical proof texts and historical evidences, and then presents more of his own biblical and historical proofs (if he has any more on the subject).

4. Y again offers alternative explanations of X's contentions, and/or counter-responds to X's counter-response (or concedes the argument if position A is superior) . . . Etc.

5. X does the same in turn (if Y is still maintaining his position) and either proceeds or concedes the argument if position B is superior . . . Etc.

This is how the present discussion ought to proceed, if it is to be at all constructive and worthwhile. But will it? Judging from ten years' past experience with Mr. White, it is highly unlikely, yet there's always a first time . . . In any event, my method is the second one above; I welcome challenges, and relish arguing for what I think is a superior and true position, rather than ignoring and belittling my opponent as an ignoramus, in over his head, and presenting my positions as a preacher rather than as a disputant or person who provides reasoned argumentation in response to the other.

END OF PART II

Refutation of James White: Moses' Seat, the Bible, and Tradition, Part I

[see the Introduction. White's words will be in blue; my former words in green]

Let's Get the Word Games Out of the Way . . .

One of Mr. White's ongoing criticisms of my writing is that there is too much of it, and that I seek to overwhelm opponents by sheer tonnage of words. Hence, in our last exchange, he wrote, on 12-29-04:

Now, of course, DA will respond with text files (liberally salted with URL's) that will average 10x the word count of anything I have to say. That's OK. I shall . . . let him take home the bragging rights to verbosity and bandwidth usage.

Since he wanted to make this charge, I was determined to write less than his total words in my responses throughout. I did indeed do this, so that at the end of those multiple exchanges, the tally was as follows:

White: 7962 words / Armstrong: 5110 words (or 64% as many as White's words, or White outwriting Armstrong by a 1.56 to one margin -- roughly three words for every two that I wrote)

My percentage of words over against White's, compared to his "average" prediction: 6.0% (5110 actual, compared to a predicted 79,620 / 16 times less)

Following up on this objective measure of what is actually occurring in these discussions, I thought it would be interesting to see what the tallies were for the present topic. It's even more lopsided this time. The section in my book, The Catholic Verses, which was devoted to White's argument, was 2,259 words. White's eight-part response was 8,249 words, or 3.65 times longer than what he was responding to (whereas my last total response was only 64% as long as White's material to which I replied). My argument from my book was, then, 27% as lengthy as White's reply to it.

If I follow White's "outwrite the other guy" method, I would produce roughly 30,109 words in the upcoming installments. It's highly unlikely, however, that I will need nearly that many in order to refute his argument. I just wanted to prove that White too often practices what he preaches against. That said, I won't feel constrained to write less words than him (that point having been proven), but I certainly won't write 3.65 times more than his words.

I shall now respond to White's paper: The Catholic Verses: Matthew 23:1-3 (Part I) (1-22-05):

This will be my final installment in response to Dave Armstrong's The Catholic Verses [italics added presently]. It is not that there are not many more passages that could be addressed, it is just that there is so very little actual exegesis in the book that the real essence of its self-enunciated claim to provide a defense of the Roman Catholic exegesis of the text of Scripture has already been refuted, repeatedly, and there is no reason to proverbially beat the dead horse.

As I pointed out many times in the earlier debates over my book (obviously to no avail, which is a rather annoying and frustrating characteristic of debates with White: he habitually ignores one's clarifications and corrections, even of plain factual matters: this is virtually universally reported by Catholics who have debated him), the book is not, technically, about, or consisting of, exegesis per se. He has never grasped this. The fundamental purpose of the book is actually quite different. I explained in my Introduction:

I shall now proceed to offer a critique of common Protestant attempts to ignore, explain away, rationalize, wish away, over-polemicize, minimize, de-emphasize, evade clear consequences of, or special plead with regard to “the Catholic Verses”: ninety-five biblical passages that provide the foundation for Catholicism's most distinctive doctrines. This is not a scholarly work, as I am no scholar in the first place, merely a lay Catholic apologist; but it is not “anti-scholarly,” and I will incorporate scholarship wherever necessary to substantiate the argument.

[My original, pre-edited Introduction to this book is available online]

We see, then, what the purpose is. It is more of a logical critique of Protestant exegesis and particular tendencies and manifest biases in dealing with certain "Catholic-sounding" verses. It's a somewhat subtle distinction, but a very important one, for our purposes. If White doesn't even comprehend the fundamental nature and methodology of my book, then he can hardly offer a compelling refutation of any part of it with which he deals. One must first understand what one purports to refute. That's rule number one in any debate, and I think White (as a frequent debater, who clearly prides himself on being very good at it) would readily agree with that general principle. I know what my own book is about (as the world's greatest expert on my own book), and if White did also, then he would cease misrepresenting (inadvertantly or not; I assume the former) what it was about.

He keeps harping on what he seems to think is the plain fact that I wouldn't know how to do proper exegesis if my life depended on it. Well, that may or may not be true. Since I don't claim to be a scholar who specializes in exegesis (or a scholar at all), and my arguments don't depend on that fact, it is a rather moot point. The book is not a commentary. It is a reasoned critique of flaws in historic, mainstream orthodox Protestant commentary; especially those having to do with prior biases brought to the task of exegesis itself.

And one can do that -- point out simple logical flaws and evasions -- without having to be an expert on exegesis, or a Bible scholar (that would obviously help, but it's not absolutely necessary for my particular purpose). One simple example will suffice in illustrating this point. I may not know the slightest thing about trigonometry or calculus. But if I, as an observer of a math professor, notice that there is a simple mathematical error in a complex equation or proof written out by the expert (say, 3 x 4 = 14), it is quite proper and not at all presumptuous for me to point that out, and "correct" the expert. I don't have to know everything there is to know about trigonometry or calculus, or know as much as the expert knows, or even (in this instance) anything at all about it. All I have to know is that 3 x 4 = 12, not 14. Complex, systematic errors can be built upon the simplest of logical errors. And non-experts can point these out.

Likewise, when it comes to historic exegesis and commentary on Holy Scripture, I don't have to be an expert on how to interpret such-and-such a Bible passage (with knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, and eight years of theology, New Testament, Old Testament, etc., etc.) in order to note that someone is ignoring a key aspect of it, or introducing extraneous concerns that have little to do with the verse, or using it to lodge yet another gratuitous and textually irrelevant "dig" at Rome, etc. I don't need to be as brilliant as Calvin and Luther obviously were, in the neutral, non-polemical sense of loving and interpreting Scripture, and providing many true insights which we as Catholics would agree with. It simply doesn't follow.

My book had to do with logical critiques and examinations of underlying assumptions which Protestants bring to the "table of exegesis," and various techniques that are used to dismiss implications that are thought to be too "Catholic." The book is filled with examples of this. It's useless to present twenty of them. One would have to buy the book. But that is the methodology of it.

I think the central approach and thesis of the book is brilliant. I can say that because it wasn't my initial idea at all. My publisher, Sophia Institute Press, came up with it, and asked me to write the book. I quickly "took" to the idea and became quite enthusiastic about it. It's a unique approach and type of apologetic that no one else has yet tried, to my knowledge. But it's not exegesis per se. It is about exegesis (meta-exegesis, if you will), not exegesis itself. It is much more about human bias, and the effect of prior theologies and predispositions upon exegesis, than about exegesis of texts (considered in isolation). In that way it is even somewhat of a psychological analysis, as it deals with our axioms and presuppositions, and how they affect our interpretations (sometimes leading to outright eisegesis). In any event, as long as White keeps falsely claiming that it is simply an exegetical work, he is grossly misrepresenting the book and making a massive straw man, which strikes me as quite odd, for one who is an author himself, of many books.

One would think that he could at least get the central purpose of the book right, before proceeding to critique it. But this ties into my point, too: White despises Catholicism as the purveyor of a "false gospel," so in this instance he has distorted even the purpose and nature of a work which defends what he despises. His overwhelming bias disables him from providing a cogent critique. He feels he has to discredit the argument at all costs, even if he falsely portrays it (and myself) in so doing. This need not be deliberate (bias works quite well subconsciously), but it is a strong influence nonetheless, whether deliberate or not. Anti-Catholicism will do it's dirty work, every time. And it becomes as easy as breathing, after years of practice.

White has issued endless remarks about how "ignorant" and clueless I am when it comes to the Bible (as we saw in my compilation of his potshots in the Introduction), so I thought it was important to deal with this misguided notion that he has, at some length, right at the beginning of my replies, so readers (especially those who haven't read my book) will be under no delusions as to what my book is about; what it is actually dealing with, subject-wise.

For example, in the sections relevant to soteriology I would be more than happy for someone to compare the "exegesis" offered by Armstrong with the relevant sections of The God Who Justifies.

As the purposes were fundamentally different in both works (as explained above), the comparison would be completely irrelevant (and invalid). But several people have done Catholic counter-exegesis of soteriological verses, and White has simply ignored them. For example, Ben Douglass recently wrote an excellent paper along those lines, and White blew it off, on the grounds that Ben is a traditionalist (a variation of his timeworn theme that someone isn't "important enough" to waste his valuable time on).

That has nothing to do with the merits of his exegetical argument. On the other hand, if White declines merely because Ben is in a category that he doesn't like, and has had bad experiences with (which I could understand), then how is that different from my decision not to debate anti-Catholics (the present instance being excluded, under my "point-by-point loophole")? Yet White has constantly chided me for my decision, implying that I am a coward, and that it is a rationalization. Very well, then, if I am a "coward", then so is White, when he refuses to interact with someone who has done a great deal of work in an area where White claims to be an expert.

But I promised to address the one section Armstrong had sent to me prior to the publication of the book. He had even invited me to interact with him on the topic, but I declined, in light of the character of his presentation (which we will note below).

Yet I am mocked by White and taunted for generally declining to interact with anti-Catholics: the sort of people who have now constructed fake blogs, using my name, pretending to be me, in an attempt to claim that I am a completely-obsessed "narcissist" or "moron" or that I "hate" my theological opponents, etc. Eric Svendsen (a major anti-Catholic apologist and good friend of White's) just called me a "lunatic" on his discussion board today. I've been called "filth" and "scum" and had my apologetics characterized as "foaming-at-the-mouth" and so forth. I've had people say I don't have a "real job" because I am a Catholic apologist; real charitable stuff.

So (quite naturally and reasonably, I think) I decided that people who express themselves in those terms (including White himself, but to a considerably lesser extent than the bilge cited above) are not worth interacting with. But White sees that decision and claims that it is really motivated by my fear and inability, and the brilliance of my opponents' arguments (even stating that my Lenten break this year was due to his unanswerable arguments!). It's one of White's many double standards. He can do the same thing I do, and that's fine. He'll condemn and make fun of my reasoning for doing the exact same thing that he does. He decides that certain people are unworthy to debate; so do I. But in this case, his opinion was unreasonable: Ben's category of traditionalist or how well-known he might happen to be at present has nothing to do with his arguments. White has no problem debating Gerry Matatics, who is also a traditionalist (and quite a bit to the right of Ben Douglass).

I refer to his section on pp. 43-53 on Matthew 23 and "Moses' Seat." Like the section on Luke 1:28, clearly Armstrong is drawing from his many Internet articles, cobbling together the most serious attempt mounted in the work. If he does not succeed here, he truly succeeds nowhere in The Catholic Verses.

It's true that I worked very hard on this section, because White's argument provided me with plenty of opportunity to point out serious error. But if I were a reader, I wouldn't put too much stock in White's generalizations about my book, seeing that he doesn't even understand its fundamental purpose.

Matthew 23:1-4 1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.

Here White cites some unknown version of the Bible (he doesn't tell us, and I don't feel like rummaging through my 30 or so versions to find out). I thought it might be either the NASB or the NIV, but it was neither. In my book, I cited verses 1-3, in the RSV Bible:

Matthew 23:1-3: “Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.’”

Here begins the longest sustained condemnation of the spirit and practice of Pharisaism in all of Scripture. Indeed, so strong, so compelling is the condemnation here that this passage was embarrassing to many Continental New Testament scholars in post World War II Europe. For most in less conservative circles this passage is considered a later polemic of the Christian church, reflecting a reality many decades removed from the ministry of Jesus. But in reality Matthew 23 "fits" perfectly right where it is. Its broad outlines have been seen throughout the Gospel in the conflict with the Jewish leadership, and it then forms the foundation of the judgment coming upon Jerusalem that appears in chapter 24. The section to which Mr. Armstrong refers begins a long litany of woes pronounced upon the hypocritical attitudes of the scribes and Pharisees. It is, in essence, the introduction to the blistering section that is Matthew 23.

I have no particular beef with this, other than to note that Jesus' condemnations of the Pharisees were of a general nature (there were many corrupt Pharisees), not necessarily of the entire system of Pharisaism itself, considered apart from the behavioral and attitudinal corruptions of the time. Indeed, many aspects of early Christianity were adopted more-or-less wholesale from Pharisaical tradition (rather than from the Sadducees). But Christians of White's general school and outlook, usually take a very dim view of the Pharisees altogether, and don't acknowledge these historical and theological nuances. This is where the influx of Jewish scholarship into New Testament studies and exegesis in recent decades has been very helpful.

I had briefly commented on this passage in The Roman Catholic Controversy, and it is to the following that Armstrong responds in The Catholic Verses:

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

The final passage we will examine presents the idea of "Moses' seat." Some modern Roman Catholics present this passage as substantiation of the idea of a source of extra-biblical authority receiving the blessing of the Lord Jesus. It has been alleged that the concept of "Moses' seat" is in fact a refutation of sola scriptura, for not only is this concept not found in the Old Testament, but seemingly Jesus gives His approbation to this extra-Scriptural tradition. But is this sound exegesis? Is this passage being properly understood?

First, we note that the passage has spawned a plethora of differing understandings amongst scholars. But a few items immediately remove the Roman apologist's interpretation and application from consideration. First, "Moses' seat" refers to a seat in the front of the synagogue on which the teacher of the law sat while reading from the Scriptures. Synagogue worship, of course, came into being long after Moses' day, so those who attempt to make this an "oral tradition" going back to Moses are engaging in wishful thinking. Beyond this, we are here only speaking of a position that existed at this time in the synagogue worship of the day. Are we truly to believe that this position was divine in origin, and hence binding upon all who would worship God? It certainly doesn't seem that the New Testament Church understood it that way.

We first note interpreters such as Jeremias and Carson view this passage as engaging in biting irony. The Jewish leaders have presumed to sit in Moses' seat, as suggested by Merx, Moulton, and Zahn, focusing on the use of the aorist tense of the verb "to sit." They sat themselves in this place, but improperly. Such an understanding is certainly in line with the biting attack that follows immediately in the rest of the chapter.

But I am more prone to accept Gundry's understanding, in which he rejects the satirical interpretation and instead notes,

So long as sitting in Moses' seat qualifies the speaking of the scribes and Pharisees, "all things whatever" does not include their interpretative traditions, but emphasizes the totality of the law. "Therefore" establishes the qualification. They do keep their traditions. But they do not practice what they speak while sitting on Moses' seat. Hence their traditions are not in view. Though elsewhere Matthew is concerned to criticize the scribes' and Pharisees' interpretations of the law, here he is concerned to stress the necessity of keeping the law itself. As usual, his eye is on antinomians in the church. (Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 454-455.)

Indeed, the Lord's unwillingness to become an "ecclesiastical rebel" is in perfect harmony with the Scriptural teaching on the subject of authority in the church. There was nothing in the tradition of having someone read from the Scriptures while sitting on Moses' seat that was in conflict with the Scriptures, and hence, unlike the corban rule which we saw earlier in Matthew 15, Jesus does not reject this traditional aspect of Jewish synagogue worship. He does not insist upon anarchy in worship in the synagogue anymore than His apostle Paul would allow for it in the worship of the church at Corinth. It is quite proper to listen to and obey the words of the one who reads from the Law or the Prophets, for one is not hearing a man speaking in such a situation, but is listening to the very words of God. Indeed, when Ezra read the law to the people in Nehemiah chapter 8, the people listened attentively, and cried "Amen! Amen!" at the hearing of God's Word. And who can forget the result of Josiah's discovery of the book of the covenant in 2 Chronicles 34? It is proper to have men in positions of authority in the synagogue, just as in the Church. But Jesus points out that the listener is still to exercise a critical eye, for he is not to imitate the evil behavior of those who have been entrusted even with the sacred duty of leading the people of God in worship.

To leap from Jesus' refusal to overthrow the form of synagogue worship that was present in His day to a wholesale endorsement of extra-scriptural, oral traditions is to make a leap of monumental proportions. And in light of the passages we have already examined that refute the need for such an extra-scriptural rule of faith, I suggest that the use of this passage by Roman apologists is in error.

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

In our next section we will review Armstrong's case on Matthew 23 and "Moses' Seat."

This is different from my copy of his book, dated 1996, so I assume that it is from a revision (or else White is cutting-and-pasting from a slightly different manuscript version of his own). In my copy, this (i.e., something similar to it) appears on pages 100-101. I've cited it in full in order to present his book remarks in their full context (and because I generally include all or almost all of my opponents' words in dialogues, anyway). I won't, however, respond at this point, since that is what I did in my book; I'll wait till he makes his counter-argument, then I'll cite my book as necessary.

END OF PART I

"White House of Cards": James White's Critique of My Argument Concerning Moses' Seat Shall Now be Thoroughly Answered

As White is fond of saying: "gird up your loins"! Having had enough of White's falsehoods and tauntings about my supposed cowardice in the face of his first complete, point-by-point response to me in the entire ten years since we've known each other, I've decided that I will issue a full response to his recent series, critiquing a portion of my latest book, The Catholic Verses.

Now, lest we are blessed with yet another frenzied celebration from the anti-Catholic minions over me "breaking my resolution," let me remind those who never read (and/or never understood) it, of the following passage:

Lastly, in order to maintain my unbroken principle of defending anything I write (if critiqued properly), I will continue to operate according to the following rules (listed on my blog):

I am absolutely committed to answering amiable, comprehensive, point-by-point (not scattershot, pick-and-choose "whatever I find easy to answer") critiques of any of my papers or blog posts. I have made myself available on this blog for all rational, fact-respecting critiques and will place such exchanges (at least the more informative and interesting ones) on my website as well. I'm willing to listen to and interact with the critique, to place my critics' words on my website, unabridged, and to publicly retract any proven errors and modify or remove papers (and/or apologize, if persons are involved) where necessary. And I've done all this many times in the past. My record speaks for itself. A person can do no more in terms of willingness to accept criticism and to be corrected. I don't run from criticism and ignore it. To me, this involves a matter and principle of intellectual integrity, honesty, duty, and of a crucial openness to other viewpoints, challenges, and critiques.

I do this because it is very important not to insulate oneself from all criticism . . . Either someone (including even anti-Catholics, under these strict conditions) responds point-by-point, or I will not counter-reply at all, per the above. I will only record personal insults, in my ongoing effort to document exactly how anti-Catholics usually "argue" their ludicrous case.

(New Year's Resolution: 2005: Moving On From Anti-Catholic Intransigence and Invincible Ignorance)

So this "clause" or "loophole" was there all along. Contrary to the White lies we have been hearing for more than four months now, my reason for not fully replying was never fear or inability, but rather (as, of course, I stated) , because I tired of White's incivility and incessant insults (particularly his charge of "knowing deception" on my part). That's why I ceased interacting with his critique. He is no more "amiable" and no less insulting now, so I would still have grounds, by my own stated criteria, to continue to avoid him, but under the circumstances, I have decided that the best thing to do is to reply to his argument, and so put an end to this particular stream of untruths (and, I believe, his argument, as well).

I've never had the slightest problem refuting him in the past; but he has had plenty of trouble counter-responding, since he never has after I issued a counter-reply to him; that has always been true, without exception, for ten years. Yet he sees no hypocrisy in making this accusation towards me, knowing that I made a resolution (notwithstanding the loophole) to not dialogue with anti-Catholics, and knowing that I ceased because of his behavior, not his intellectual prowess or my alleged lack thereof.

Frankly, I'm fed up with his innuendoes and snide insinuations, and since it doesn't violate my resolution to reply, I have decided to do so. (I was looking for a big fat new writing project, so the timing is good). White has certainly made an extensive, point-by-point reply in this instance (as will be seen below), and has written many more words than the seven-and-a-half page section in my latest book (pp. 46-53), concerning Moses' Seat, where I disposed of an argument of his, from his 1996 book, The Roman Catholic Controversy. That fulfills the criterion, then, for a reply from me: since he dealt with this argument comprehensively in depth, for a change.

Therefore, while I continue to reserve the right to ignore his "scattershot" arguments (which is the nature of most of his critique of my book as a whole, where he scarcely deals with what I wrote and argued at all), per my resolution, I have no principled objection to counter-replying to his argument against the portion of my book where I critiqued an argument from his book.

This is the argument he issued after I made my new resolution (three weeks afterward), even though I informed him of it even before my book was published (and received mostly mockery and insult back, in a private letter). That's why I've been criticizing him for waiting until I said I would no longer debate anti-Catholics, for finally responding with due depth.

For the interest of a re-cap of the record, let's revisit the many James White potshots that have occurred since January (all implying that his argument is so unvanquishable that I must be fleeing in terror. No other explanation could ever possibly be true, because, well, White doesn't want it to be true . . .):

Armstrong simply doesn't understand the process of scholarly examination of a text, and as a result, runs headlong into walls trying to act like he does.

(The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 [Part II], 1-1-05)

This kind of utterly amazing mishandling of Scripture is sad to observe, let alone to realize it has appeared in publication. But to see how easily refuted it is should cause one to wonder at the power of tradition: . . . he doesn't even seem to understand what would be necessary for him to establish such a claim, . . .

(The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 [Part III], 1-2-05)

. . . in reality, Dave Armstrong does not understand the basics of how to respond to sound, simple scholarly observations regarding the subject.

(The Catholic Verses: Luke 1:28 [Part IV], 1-3-05)

It is hard to find words to describe the response of Dave Armstrong to the review of his own published work. I mean, when you publish a book, do you expect that no one will respond to it, review it, check it for accuracy, examine it for apologetic coherence? . . . But I never dreamed that a total and complete melt-down would take place, resulting in Mr. Armstrong pulling the material off his blog and going into hiding! . . . We are asked to believe this was a "long time coming," etc., but let's face it: DA isn't up to defending his published works. . . . DA can't do meaningful exegesis, . . . fair-minded, serious folks can tell when you simply have given it your best and have failed at your task.

(James White: Meanest of the Mean, 1-3-05)

. . . yesterday, when Dave Armstrong first posted his "I'm done with critics" stuff . . .

(Desperation of Armstrong Fans: Patrick, 1-4-05)

. . . it is hard to take what Mr. Armstrong says seriously . . .

(The Catholic Verses: The Papacy, 1-4-05)

At the moment a fairly small group of folks are filling up the blogosphere with the constant assertion that I have engaged in ad hominem argumentation in my reviews of Armstrong's book, mainly because I have concluded sections by noting Armstrong's inability to seriously engage the topic at hand (i.e., provide meaningful exegesis). Now, Mr. Armstrong may not like that I have pointed this out. Evidently, it is not allowable in our society to point out when someone provides shallow, errant, and generally worthless argumentation in a written form . . .
when he is forced to attempt to deal with specifically exegetical material, he is out of his depth. . . . To call this a "melt-down" is to engage inunderstatement to an absurd degree.

(Ad Hominem Argumentation, 1-4-05)

Quite honestly, I just don't see that he follows an argument really well. . . . The man does not know how to do exegesis. It's a fact. . . . there is a consistent pattern of eisegetical misunderstanding, and an inability to deal with the text . . . It's fascinating to read the comments . . . basically, Mr. Armstrong melted down . . . . . . the reason that Dave Armstrong is doing this [ceasing discussion with anti-Catholics] is pretty much the same reason that Dave Hunt won't debate me. He can't. He can't . . . the facts are not on Dave Armstrong's side. He can't respond! . . . Dave Armstrong has gone into hiding . . . because he can't respond anymore . . . . . . the argumentation is so basic and so clearly fallacious . . . clear, obvious, logical errors. . . Armstrong could throw his hands up in the air and say, "look, I'm not a scholar; I have no scholarly training. I can't read the original languages." But he won't do that. [No? That's news to me. I did just that on 1-4-05, on my blog, and many times before. Bizarre claim . . .] . . . . . . . If Mr. Armstrong can't defend his material, then so much the worse for Mr. Armstrong. Maybe he will move on to doing something else. Maybe he'll recognize this isn't something he should be doing. Maybe he'll think twice before putting himself in that situation again.

(Dividing Line webcast, 1-4-05)

. . . what we find in The Catholic Verses. No exegesis is offered. No argument from context appears . . . But nowhere does Armstrong do the one thing he must do to be taken seriously: he never exegetes the passage. He never makes the connections that would be absolutely necessary to prove his point. He just assumes his position, nothing more. . . . the "Catholic Verses" are, in fact, "Badly Chosen Catholic Prooftexts Devoid of Exegetical Meaning." But we must be ready to explain why and hope and pray the Spirit will open hearts and minds that have been blinded by a false gospel and a false hope.

(The Catholic Verses: The Pillar and Foundation, 1-5-05)

. . . it seems Dave Armstrong is not up to providing a positive defense of his own published work, . . .

(An Open Invitation, 1-6-05)

If Armstrong is going to respond to some of the work, but then leave clear refutation of his own position untouched elsewhere, how can anyone take him seriously?

(An uber-brief response to the Crimson Catholic, 1-10-05)

If you want to see how to deal with Dave Armstrong, look back a few months to what happened when I invested the time to dig into his book. Response? Bluster, sputter, retreat, collapse, invisibility, Lent.

(Quick and Stupid Note, 5-4-05)

I think this one takes the cake: the man is so shameless and desperate that he even goes after my much-needed Lenten break, as if it was an excuse to avoid him. On the one hand, White and others have been mocking me for some time, about how much I write. But let me dare take a four-week break from my voluminous writing (and routine 70-80 hour work weeks, with ten days of vacation all year), and it has to be because I'm trying to avoid the man who had run from my arguments for ten years. Unbelievable . . .

I'm sorry, but anyone in DA's position, who is constantly throwing stuff out there, is simply playing games if he then decides on some arbitrary standard as to who is an "anti-Catholic," and then on that basis, says he will not interact with them (though, of course, he can make comments about them all he wants, he just doesn't have to actually respond to refutations).

. . . As anyone can see by going back to the records, Armstrong made the most recent version of his "I will not respond to anti-Catholics" promise after and as a direct result of my critiquing his book. In fact, at first, he tried to respond to my articles (here's an example). [links to one of my articles] But it was painfully clear he was in way over his head, so he all of a sudden had a change of heart and issued his "don't respond to anti-Catholics" decree. . . . his brilliant and awe-inspiring rebuttals, which, sadly, the world cannot now see because he is so consistent in keeping his oaths. Please! Someone fax over some reality to Mr. Armstrong.

(Ibid.)

[see also a host of similar criticisms, on the page with my resolution]

So that's the extraordinary ad hominem background. Now let's get to substance and rational, biblical argument, and see how well White fares, when he is taking on an opponent who is actually engaging him and not under the constraints of his own biblically-based resolution not to engage in vain discussion. White did at least provide a rare comprehensive response, so we'll relax the "amiability" portion of the loophole and emphasize the "point-by-point" portion, so both the argumentative fallacies and condescending, mindless insults can be put to rest, once and for all. I think that's more than enough cause and justification to relax a loophole in a resolution (which is different from an oath, for those who suffer from dictionaryphobia, as Eric Svendsen seemingly does).

Here are the papers I already wrote in response to White's critique of my book, The Catholic Verses (with links):

James White Takes Up a Critical Review of My Book, The Catholic Verses (!!!)
James White's Critique of My Book The Catholic Verses: Part I: The Binding Authority of Tradition
Part II: Rabbit Trail Diversion
Part III: Massive Ad Hominem Tactics
Part IV: Shots at My Former Protestant Knowledge and Reading
Part V: White's Befuddlement and My "Knowing Deception"
Part VI: Penance

Those papers of mine were in reply to the following papers of James White:

The Catholic Verses: Introit (12-29-05)
The Catholic Verses: 95 Reduced to 91 (12-30-05)
The Protestant Verses: Can Dave Armstrong Exegete This Passage? (12-30-05)
Interesting Replies (12-30-05)
The Catholic Verses: 91 Reduced to 87 (Part I) (12-30-05)
Quick Thought Regarding DA and Exegesis (12-31-05)
Armstrong's Reading List (12-31-05)
The Catholic Verses: 91 Reduced to 87 (Part II) (12-31-05)
The Catholic Verses: 91 Reduced to 87 (Part III) (12-31-05)

And here are his papers regarding Moses' Seat and the larger issue of Bible and Tradition / sola Scriptura that I will respond to, presently:

The Catholic Verses: Matthew 23:1-3 (Part I) (1-22-05)
The Catholic Verses: Matthew 23:1-3 (Part II) (1-24-05)
The Catholic Verses: Matthew 23:1-3 (Part III) (1-31-05)
The Catholic Verses: Matthew 23:1-3 (Part IV) (2-8-05)
The Catholic Verses: Matthew 23:1-3 (Part V) (2-10-05)
The Catholic Verses: Matthew 23:1-3 (Part VI) (2-15-05)
The Catholic Verses: Matthew 23:1-3 (Part VII) (2-17-05)
The Catholic Verses: Matthew 23:1-3 (Part VIII--Finale!) (2-18-05)

May the truth win out! That's the only "victory" I'm interested in. If I am not fighting for the truth on this issue or any other, by all means, I ought to lose the debate, so that truth can be the victor, not me (or White or anyone else) at all costs, even at the expense of truth.

My Utter Condemnation of Anti-Protestantism and of Unwarranted Attacks on James White (Also: The Many Compliments I've Paid White)

I had actually been meaning to post this for some time. I wrote (the bulk of) the comments below in a BlogBack thread of 4-5-05. "Inquisitor" mentioned it, and I thought it would be excellent timing to put to rest another lie about me: that I have some kind of double standard about "ad hominem comments" or about anti-Catholicism (over against anti-Protestantism). I oppose ad hominem "argumentation" and delving into folks' motives and judging their hearts, wherever it occurs. That's not a theological issue; it's a matter of elementary Christian charity and ethics. So if James White or anyone else is attacked in this fashion (let alone a whole group of Christians), then it is wrong, and we ought to speak out against it with one voice. I have consistently done so. Here are some other papers of mine along these lines, too:

Protest Against Anti-Protestantism

The Wickedness of Christian Division, Anti-Catholicism, & Anti-Protestantism

I've defended Lutherans against the charge that they are semi-Pelagians:

Confessional Lutheran, Arminian, and Melanchthonian Soteriology Compared (Are Philip Melanchthon and Arminians Semi-Pelagians?)

I've defended Martin Luther against false charges:

Did Martin Luther Believe That Jesus Had Carnal Relations With Mary Magdalene and Others? (Dave Armstrong vs. "BJ Bear" & "Bonnie" + ELHamilton)

In other papers, I have vigorously denied that Luther was the primary or sole cause of the carnage of the Peasants' Revolt, or that he was opposed to all good works.

Recently, readers have seen me defend Billy Graham, his son Franklin, Pat Robertson, and Dr. James Dobson against scurrilous attacks from fellow Protestant Eric Svendsen.

These are but a few of my "ecumenical" papers. So this is one of the most outrageously slanderous, most easily-falsified accusations against me. But when has fact and documentation ever stopped the flapping jaws and slanderous invective of my most vitriolic, anti-Catholic opponents?

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

David Fahrenthold (an ecumenical Reformed Protestant) stated on my blog (4-5-05):

In all fairness Mr. Armstrong, I think you should do the same thing to "CatholicDude". The things he said about Protestants were offensive to me, and if you want to be consistent in your "ecumenism", then you need to say something, and say it well. What he said was ridiculous and was just as bad as the others' rhetoric and should be considered intolerable for people who want "peace". That is all.

I agree, and am glad to comply with your wishes, as I have had just as consistent a record of condemning anti-Protestantism, as I have regarding anti-Catholicism. Here were "Catholic Dude's" remarks [in blue], cited by James White in his article that I drew his anti-Catholic comments from ["CatholicDude" was addressing White]. My comments will be in brackets:

————————————-

I dont understand your deep rooted hatred for the pope in such hours of pain and suffering?

[hatred does not follow from White's comments. All we can know for sure is that he has lacked charity and that he is abysmally ignorant of Catholic theology. But we need not and should not attribute motives of "hatred." That's arguably as wrong as his falsehoods about Catholicism. I don't think White's problem lies in hatred (I never have). I believe he is perfectly sincere in his opposition to Catholicism and his desire to save people from the errors he (erroneously) thinks he sees in it. Rather, his problem is his unwillingness to be corrected on anything having to do with Catholicism. It's willful, obstinate ignorance which is his big fault]

There will come a time when your on your death bed, is the pope going to laugh at you, and trash you like you do? When your wife or kids is suffering are Catholic papers going to smile, the way you do at such suffering?

[again, White's remarks were ignorant and "emotionally cruel" and hyper-insensitive from a Catholic perspective, but this is not a charitable or appropriate response, and certainly not how the pope himself would desire us to speak]

The pope speaks to the world, and has done what he could to promote peace. The Catholic Church is the ONLY church screaming about abortion,

[That's not true. We have many Protestant and Orthodox brothers in our fight against abortion. The Orthodox are very firmly against it. When I was in rescues as a Protestant (1988-1990), I sat next to both Orthodox and Catholics at abortuary doors. I was in jail with them. I learned all about the truth of abortion in seminars at my former Protestant non-denominational church, including inspirational materials from Francis Schaeffer. This is the very thing we can unite on, if nothing else, so this kind of rhetoric is quite harmful and regrettable, and I, too, apologize to my Protestant and Orthodox brothers and sisters, on behalf of my Catholic brother. Don't ("CatholicDude") be like James White, who briefly participated in rescues also, but left when he was in positions where he had to pray with Catholics. And that's a shame, because White has written powerfully and eloquently on the life issue]

and the Pope made that very clear it is one of the gravest evils of our time. Do you guys care? NO!

[This is nonsense (note how it has become a plural criticism now: "you guys" — and is no longer directed at White alone. That's why it is classic anti-Protestantism). I am recently on record saying that the fault for abortion lies on all Christians, because of our laxity: the Catholic Church foremost. I heard the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. make this point many times, in person. It's plain wrong and unjust to act as if Protestants should bear the blame, and that Catholics have been perfect. This is asinine and uncharitable to the extreme. If we hadn't been so weak in 1973, abortion would never have gotten off the ground. I pointed out that it was the Catholic Justice Anthony Kennedy who prevented Roe from being overturned in 1989, and he was the one who led the Court to not save Terri Schiavo's life. Liberal "Catholic" senators like Kerry and Kennedy are in the forefront of the pro-death movement. There is plenty of blame to go around]

Go and clap your hands while the True Church is feeding the hungry, giving housing, schools, running orphanages, disaster reliefe, etc.

[this is ridiculous and now damnable lying and slander. I participated myself in a few of the many Protestant outreach efforts, such as Joy of Jesus in Detroit and other endeavors. Billy Graham's son [Franklin] runs Samaritan's Purse, which has done a huge amount of charity work. Charles Colson founded Prison Fellowship. There is Habitat for Humanity, etc.]

YOU HAVE DONE ZERO TO PROMOTE THE GOSPEL. GREED IS ALL YOU KNOW. All you do is run a company to make money for yourself, all in the name of Jesus. Your nothing but a buisiness man selling your version of Chirstianity, you have no history, no respect. In the end you have no future.

[I absolutely detest and condemn this rhetoric, and I hope many Protestants cite my words. If there was any truth in this, I would be condemning my own past, because I was a committed Protestant in the Protestant world (and have many friends who are converts, too, or still Protestant; I spoke to one such dear Baptist friend on the phone last night), and this isn't what I saw. Sure, there are plenty of sins and faults to go around, but they are universal, not confined to Protestantism. This is Pharisaic judgmentalism of the worst kind]

Who stood up for Terri? THE CATHOLICS, to you Prots she was a nothing, you prots didn't care.

[Plenty of "Prots" cared. At least one poll showed that more evangelicals were opposed to what happened than Catholics. This is more damnable lying]

You Prots are destroying Christianity, every day more and more divisions, look at you how old is your made up self appointed excuse for a church.

[I would say that rhetoric such as this bilge is what will "destroy" Christianity, because it destroys love, unity, and truth: an attitude and goal which comes from the devil, not Jesus Christ]

Read this to your congregation to show how evil us Catholics are, I dare you, read the whole thing in front of them. Highlight the part about spreading the Gospel to the poor, and you spreading the wealth to your pocketbook.

[I pray that White doesn't do so, or act as if this guy represents mainstream Catholicism. He does NOT, I can absolutely assure any reader who thinks or suspects otherwise. Pope John Paul II himself would abhor what he is writing]

In the end who are you…your [sic] a nobody, no voice, you will be forgotten. Catholics are the ONLY group who respect life and stand up for it.

[sheer nonsense . . . as Pope John Paul II himself said to his good friend Billy Graham: "we are brothers." "Catholic Dude" is spitting on the grave of the late great pope with this tripe, because it is absolutely contrary to the Holy Fathers desires and opinions, as expressed in his ecumenical encyclicals Ut Unum Sint and Orientale Lumen. But "Catholic Dude" may also be a so-called Catholic "traditionalist", because that is where most of this anti-Protestant nonsense comes from. That's our equivalent of the anti-Catholic fundamentalism of White, Jack Chick, Bart Brewer, Ian Paisley, et al. But of course they are not adhering to the magisterium's teachings — Vatican II, the Catechism, the above encyclicals, etc.]

———————————————

How's that, David F? Is that agreeable to you?

. . . thank you for that. I agreed with everything you said, and I have seen you go against "anti-Protestantism" before, which is why I asked you to do that :). . . . Anyway, Thanks again.

(4-5-05)

The ecumenical Lutheran "BWL" later added:

. . . White, Svendsen and co. have a long record of making supid comments like this. I've always wondered why they should be taken seriously in light of their own sacramentology. I mean, really, these guys think baptism and communion are just symbols and they don't baptize infants. That, I would argue is a total departure from Reformational soteriology. Luther would be spinning in his grave over these guys claiming to uphold his teachings on salvation. I think it would be funny in a weird way for Catholics to turn the tables on them on this one. Use the old Lutheran polemic against the Baptist and tell them they believe in "works righteousness" and deny original sin for not baptizing babies.

[I did indeed do something very similar to this: "Man-Centered" Sacramentalism: The Remarkable Incoherence of "Dr." (?) James White: How Can Martin Luther and St. Augustine Be Christians According to His Definition?]

I'm not being entirely serious on this, but it would be interesting to see them react to all this, though maybe they would only start to squirm if a Lutheran (who I assume they would consider to be a christian) was making this accusation. But then again, maybe it's best just not to take them seriously at all.

(4-6-05)

BWL later wrote:

You wrote on Luther: "We have very good reason to believe that he would have a more favorable opinion of Catholics such as myself than he would of what he called a "sacramentarian" like White."

Despite real differences between Lutherans and Catholics I think you are probably right. I for one would, like Luther rather drink blood with the pope than wine (or more than likely grape juice!) with folks like White. White, unlike Luther, doesn't seem to realize that sacramentology goes hand and hand with soteriology. Ironically, his symbolic view of the sacraments turns God's means of grace into works of men. That and denying infant baptism as you note is tantamount to denying original sin and lapsing into a form of Pelagianism. Moreover, one can't separate sacramentology from the doctrine of the Incarnation as Martin Chemnitz so clearly shows. I find folks like Svendsen and White scary because they seem so downright sloppy, or in Svendsen's case Nestorian, in their christology.

But somehow I doubt White and friends will ever get any of this. Oh well. Maybe you're right simply not to engage them.

(4-6-05)

I've defended or said nice stuff about James White several times before, too (and it is rarely if ever reciprocated). On 9 March 2000 (that's over five years ago, folks), I wrote on my website (and sent it to James White by e-mail):

I also call equally upon Catholic apologists to repent of any slanderous remarks about Protestant polemical opponents, such as those casting aspersions upon motives, honesty, basic reasoning ability, supposed hidden sins, deliberate "twisting of Scriptures," etc. We are not faultless in this matter, either, and I certainly include myself in this -- very much so. I have seen many instances of pitiable rhetoric in looking over some exchanges of Catholic apologists and Dr. White.

Looking back at some of my own remarks about him in private correspondence (and on lists), I can see that they were indeed reprehensible and wicked, and that he was understandably angered and upset by their unpleasant and overly-extreme and at times arrogant nature (and was right to rebuke me at the time). It is with shame that I openly confess that I have done my share to contribute to the alienation and ill will between Dr. White and myself. I have not always acted with love and compassion and patience, as I should have, as a Christian. I have failed far too often, as a man and as an apologist. May God help me do better in the future.

On the other hand, I have apologized to Dr. White on several occasions -- oftentimes on public lists . . . we had two particularly intense conflicts, and I am sure I did not conduct myself in a Christlike fashion at those times, either. But I did ask for forgiveness, and presently I sincerely ask Dr. White's forgiveness once again for all that I may have written which misrepresented or hurt him or caused undue harm in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

It was never my intention to utter any deliberate falsehoods or slanders against Dr. White (or anyone else, for that matter). In the heat of "apologetic battle," unkind things are often said (and that's putting it mildly!). I am sure that this present paper contains some unfair or false accusations as well. If any false allegation can be shown to be just that, I will immediately apologize and retract it.

It is my sincere hope and prayer that this paper can accomplish its purpose: to minimize unworthy, destructive rhetoric in theological and apologetic discourse, and to convict us all of falling short in taming our tongues. We all fail in this; the difference lies in those who allow the grace of God to enable them to improve in this area and to learn more and more to avoid "foolish talk."

I cited this in my Friendly Open Letter and Proposal for James White (October 2004), in which I asked if he would like to chat at length on his show, to better get to know each other (not to debate theology). I was inspired to do this after White stated that he was so misunderstood, and encouraged catholics to call in (my friend Jonathan Prejean had a long, amiable conversation with White on one Dividing Line show). I wrote many other complimentary, conciliatory things in this letter, too:

I couldn't agree more with your impassioned complaint about people not getting to know you, and rather, resorting to childishly attacking you personally when they know next to nothing about you. I have also tried to simply talk with folks who are some of my severest critics, but they were not willing (I have had very similar experiences to yours on the Internet, though not on the scale you have gone through, no doubt). I agree with Jonathan that you seem to be a good family man and committed Christian. I have never stated or believed otherwise. You mentioned, for example, that no one tries to get to know anything about your family. Your daughter Summer is extremely impressive (I've read some of her writing, posted on your blog). I can only hope my four children (all 13 and younger) turn out nearly as wonderfully.

. . . You said that you get along fine with Fr. Mitch Pacwa. Yes, we all get along better with some people than with others. I have that experience, too. I was so impressed with the conversation [with Jonathan Prejean] that I got the idea that you and I ought to try something similar, rather than always fighting with each other about theology and apologetics (and sometimes descending into personal material, or something close to it -- on both sides). If you want people to get to know you better personally, I am completely willing to do so, and always have been.

. . . Well, I could (and would) make the same complaint that you make: we have never really gotten to know each other as men; as human beings with feelings and a "real life" outside the Internet; as guys who love to have fun and joke around (you obviously possess that trait, too, as I do); as family men who are in ministry. You don't know me personally any more than I know you on that level. I can only get hints of it here and there, such as your show yesterday. I always knew you were a "human being", you can rest assured (since you said some critics of yours seem to not know that). Hopefully, you know that about me, too. :-)

It's not like I haven't tried something alone these lines in the past. I've apologized to you some dozen or more times now, for past statements of mine. I've tried (in vain) to achieve reconciliation through a mutual friend (Catholic) who was getting along better with you, and attaining some level of personal communication beyond the outward polemics. I've said nice things about you on many occasions and urged others to refrain from personal attacks and to stick to the subject. I've defended you publicly when others were far more critical of you than I have ever been, even accusing you of being demon-possessed (!) in some instances. I've publicly praised your work on defense of the Holy Trinity, against Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and King James-Only advocates, and in the areas of pro-life and opposition to homosexual "marriage." I was willing to engage in a lengthy question-and-answer session with you in your chat room [White declined, even though my proposal was completely "stacked" in his favor]. Perhaps you have apologized and said nice things about me, too, but if so, I am not aware of it; maybe you can direct my attention to a writing where you have done so.

. . . I believe it is possible for us to get along much better than we do now. You
mentioned Fr. Pacwa as a clear example of what is indeed possible. My friend Steve Ray said that you were a nice (and funny) guy when you two met at the debate on Long Island earlier this year. I say that we should cut through all the nonsense and make an effort to get to know each other personally, too. My complaint is very similar to yours. I think people don't make the effort to become at least personally acquainted with each other as fellow human beings, before launching into rhetoric and disagreeing. I have made that criticism of the Internet for years. In fact, I have become so fed up with Internet discussion boards (including Catholic ones) that I no longer participate on them (or lists) at all. Without the personal element as a foundation, those exchanges often (and quickly) become ugly.

My proposal, then, is this: You often state how you want people to come onto your Dividing Line webcast and simply talk. I heard a great example of that last night. I think it is possible to do this, even in our case. So I am proposing this: how about if I come on and we talk for the whole hour, in a similar manner to your almost half-hour long discussion yesterday with Jonathan (amiable, cordial, good-natured, conciliatory, non-polemical)? It would not be about things where we disagree. We would actually be on the same side.

This is true, of course, in many areas: fighting the cults (Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons: I have opposed the former as an expert of sorts for 23 years now, and have debated Mormon elder Dr. Barry Bickmore), pro-life, defense of the Trinity, conservative politics, opposition to theological liberalism and higher criticism of the Bible, defense of the Resurrection and the Bible, responses to Islam (I have done a debate on that, too, now), other areas of general Christian apologetics (I write about all kinds of things), etc., etc. We could talk about our family lives and about the difficulty of life in ministry, and of how frustrating it is to deal with personal attacks from folks who know next to nothing about us. We have a lot of things in common. Why not truly get to know each other better; doing something edifying for listeners (and readers)? You were calling for that yesterday on your show. I couldn't agree more that it is a great need today with all the impersonal and ad hominem material on the Internet.

So why don't we agree to do something positive like that for a change, that people on
discussion boards on both sides can try to emulate? Let's set a good example together, and show that it can be done. I think it would be wonderful and very constructive and helpful for apologetics and Protestant-Catholic relations in general. You have wanted me to come on your webcast for years. I would be happy to, but I want to get to know each other first. After that groundwork is laid, perhaps eventually (after some trust is built up) we can also talk about things where we disagree and do some apologetics.

What do you say?

Sincerely, in Christ,

Dave Armstrong

P.S. I would even extend this proposal to other well-known figures in apologetics and severe critics of mine, such as your friends David T. King and Eric Svendsen. If they are up to it, by all means, I would invite them to engage in conversation with me (on your webcast, if you are agreeable).

White responded, in his Quick response to Dave Armstrong’s “Open Letter” (10-14-04 on his blog):

I don’t believe that would be a proper investment of an hour of our webcast . . . the caller, aside from having said I was yellow-bellied, had no “history” with me that goes back for years and is less than pleasant, including, in just the past few months, illegally altered and utilized copyrighted materials. One does not simply sweep such history under the rug and “make nice.”

. . . Unless you could suggest a topic that would truly offer something widely useful and helpful that is not covered elsewhere, I do not see how I would be wise to invest time in such an adventure.

One can only try. I think people who don't have an axe to grind against me beforehand, can see my "heart" and my true desires in the above, and can see how false and slanderous all the present accusations are.

Reflections on the Holy Eucharist, Part I

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

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.

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)

"Joseph Being Sold By His Brothers," by Friedrich Johann Overbeck (German: 1789-1869), 1816.

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.

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.

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]

"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.

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

"Traditionalist" Errors of the "Seattle Catholic" Documented

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total: rejects 6 out of 6.

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

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

Total: rejects 6 out of 6.

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

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

Total: rejects 6 out of 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revolutionary Parallels
Peter W. Miller (2 August 2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Calvin's View of the Catholic Church

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

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

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

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

The Pro-Catholic Side of Martin Luther

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Why do you cling so tenaciously to your Masses?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Tappert, ibid., 268)

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

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

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

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

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

"Some Thoughts From a Former Catholic"

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

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

Dear Dave,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Come out of her Mr. Armstrong!

Sincerely'
Brian Literski

=========

Dear Dave,

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

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

Sincerely,
Brian Literski

Dr. James Dobson and "Anti-Catholicism"

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

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

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

[....]

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

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

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

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

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

A Cool Mathematical Analogy For the Holy Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[see: "More Mary Stains"]

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

White asked (quite reasonably, in my opinion):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor’s note:

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

-- Alphonse J. Matt Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monikers aren't magesterial Dave.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimately more circular logic, as described above . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecumenism Forum #2

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

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

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

Hi Breier,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. You're just creating more false dichotomies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of curiosity,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mentioned those above, too.

How has it practically complemented apologetics?

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

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

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

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

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

So do I; thanks!

You explained "ecumenism" as:

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

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

Yes, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole idea just strikes me as somewhat bizarre.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

whereas it was never needed for almost two thousand years,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baptismal Regeneration: Luther, Wesley, and Anglicanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mead writes about general Lutheran belief:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written in 1996 by Dave Armstrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise, the Council of Florence (1439) declared:

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

{Decree for the Armenians}

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

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

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

Of course it is.

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

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

Is the prudency NOT questionable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[citing my words again]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

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

III. THE COVENANTAL ANALOGY OF CIRCUMCISION

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

V. MARTIN LUTHER'S BELIEF IN BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

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

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

VIII. MISCELLANY AND A SERMON

IX. ORIGINAL SIN, PELAGIANISM, AND BAPTISM

X. PROTESTANTS, BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, AND SACRAMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. THE COVENANTAL ANALOGY OF CIRCUMCISION

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

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

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

Here the Catholic has unwittingly argued himself into a corner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther himself wrote,

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The Works of the Law -- online article)

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

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

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

V. MARTIN LUTHER'S BELIEF IN BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me, too. We have no disagreement here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I quote Ezekiel 18:1-4:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These verses render implausible the Catholic teaching of baptismal regeneration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't wait.

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

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

VIII. MISCELLANY AND A SERMON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IX. ORIGINAL SIN, PELAGIANISM, AND BAPTISM

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

We agree. This is a non sequitur.

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

[deleted repetition]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X. PROTESTANTS, BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, AND SACRAMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See my Sacramentalism paper.

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

I have no idea what this means.

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

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

[deleted off-subject discussion of iconoclasm and idolatry]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The two passages are almost exactly parallel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoever believes will be saved.

Whoever is baptized will be saved.

Logically,