Hays on Hahn: Accusations of Dishonesty, and Attacks On His Basic Scholastic Competence / Steve Hays' Novel, Fallacious Caricature of "Catholicism"

We often hear in anti-Catholic circles moaning and groaning about how given to personal attack Catholic apologists and Catholics in forums, supposedly are. I thought it would be quite instructive to note how many such elements are included in Reformed anti-Catholic apologist Steve Hays' review of Scott Hahn's book, Reasons to Believe. Ad hominem is, of course, a logical fallacy.

With this many fallacies occurring in the review, I would contend that serious doubt is cast upon Hays' own competence. Why should anyone pay particular attention to the arguments that he actually does make if he has to pepper them so liberally with these inane and irrelevant fallacies and insults? In other words, he himself loses credibility in acting in such a manner. But he doesn't seem to notice this.

He was apparently utterly unable to simply stick to a critique of the arguments in the book. He had to make it personal, and make out that Dr. Hahn is a clueless imbecile who is systematically dishonest in his presentations. Is this really necessary? Even if we grant the anti-Catholic the license to make their usual misguided arguments, I don't see why personal attacks and non-substantive, mind- and heart-reading accusations are frequently a key aspect of their critiques (even by their own dubious criteria of what a reasonable critique is supposed to look like):

If there’s one word to summarize his method, it’s “equivocation.”

He often engages in prooftexting, but the actual meaning of the text always falls short of what he needs it to mean, . . . It reminds me of some Mormon flyers I’ve read, which have verses from both the Bible and the Mormon apocrypha to prove their point. Needless to say, it’s only the Mormon prooftexts which really assert Mormon dogma.

In reading these chapters we need to keep our eye on the constant gear-shifting, as he goes from what the Bible really says to his idiosyncratic interpretations and fallacious inferences.

. . . Hahn has no excuse to mislead the reader this way.

. . . Hahn’s simplistic misrepresentation.

As a one-time evangelical himself, Hahn must know this, but he prefers to deceive the reader.

Once again, this is sometimes true, but misleading:

Observe the way he oscillates between the “Bible” and the “New Testament,” as if these were synonyms. This equivocation, which is really a bait-and-switch scam, enables him to make “self-evident” claims that are hardly self-evident if you substituted the “Old Testament” for the “New Testament.”

There is also a fatal equivocation in his comparison.

This is quite deceptive, for none of these local councils or synods qualify as ecumenical councils. Another one of Hahn’s studied equivocations.

Because he’s in the habiting of defaulting all answers to “the Church,” he doesn’t stop to think if what he’s saying makes a lick of sense.

Look at the blinding effect that Roman Catholicism has had on Hahn’s reading of Scripture.

Needless to say, his characterization of Roman Catholicism is utterly tendentious.

Hahn mouths a lot of formulaic phrases without given any thought to the nonsense he’s mouthing.

This is one of the many problems with Catholicism: they begin with their dogmatic conclusions and then cast about for a prooftext (or, should I say, pretext?) to supply the premise. Otherwise, Hahn would never come up with such an absurdly acontextual and self-defeating interpretation. But how many of his devoted, Catholic readers will pause for a moment to ask themselves whether this makes any sense?

Observe the deceptive way in which he turns the exception into the rule.

Is there some overriding reason why a Catholic seminary professor needs to be this incompetent? What we have here is a textbook semantic anachronism. He makes the elementary mistake of confusing words with concepts, and confounds that error with the further mistake of confusing Biblical usage with dogmatic usage.

There’s a pattern to Hahn’s apologetic: begin with Catholic dogma, fish around for a prooftext that, in reality, doesn’t come close, and ignore any counterexamples.

Is that supposed to be an argument? Is such a question-begging answer the best he can do?

Other issues aside, Hahn is equivocating.

Notice how Mariolatry reduces otherwise intelligent men to blubbering imbeciles. They’ll mouth any bit of pious nonsense, however palpably absurd.

Another one of Hahn’s equivocations. A “mortal sin” is a technical term in Catholic theology. Hahn is reading that specialized meaning back into 1 John. It’s a semantic anachronism to confound dogmatic usage with biblical usage. Is Hahn so linguistically naïve that he doesn’t know that?

A reader who relied on Hahn for his knowledge of Catholicism would have no idea what a skewed picture he’s getting. Hahn poses as a representative of Catholic dogma, but his exegetical argumentation is hardly representative of mainstream Catholicism.

Hahn has cast the issues as if this is a debate between Catholic exegesis and Evangelical exegesis—whereas it would more often be an internal debate between a retrograde convert and soapbox polemicist like Hahn over against mainstream Catholic scholarship.

Instead, Hahn is caught in some Victorian time-warp.

So many Roman Catholics simply give up doing exegesis. There’s no attempt to establish the actual meaning of the text. They default every interpretation to Catholic dogma regardless of what the text actually says. [implied that Hahn is a prime example of same]

Hahn gushes like one of those “royal watchers” who go gaga over the pomp and circumstance, as well as the tawdry affairs, of the royal family.

Moreover, Hays makes the following mind-numbingly idiotic remarks about the Blessed Virgin Mary (sounds like anti-Marianism leads to its own set of "blubbering imbecil[ities]"):

So she didn’t suckle Jesus or bake bread or fetch water. I guess she had a nanny, wet-nurse, and maid to take over all of the domestic duties while she assumed a lotus position twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. . . . with all due respect to the classic Reformers, did Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or Wesley have some inside knowledge about what Mary and Joseph did behind closed doors? Did they have a hidden camera in their bedroom?

How Much of the Bible do Lutheran Pastors Preach About?

Martin Luther's Small Catechism: 1549 edition

Original title of this post: Lutheran Pastors Preach On Only 1% of the Bible??? That's Odd!!!

Josh S. ( [former] LCMS seminarian) noted this in a recent post, The Bible and Lutheranism:

I realized this morning when talking to my mom that I've lost a good bit of familiarity with the Bible since becoming a Lutheran. . . . the past six years of never hearing anything except the Gospels preached from the pulpit or taught in the Sunday School classroom certainly has taken its toll. . . .

A few weeks ago, I went with my Mom to her PCA church, and the sermon was like a breath of fresh air. . . . And seminary sermons? Well, sometimes they're good, but a lot of them are advice on how to be a good pastor, reassurance that God will still be gracious to you despite the fact you'll be a horrible pastor, or yet another sermon going through the Holy Checklist of Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, showing how the pericope for the day reminds us about those three things. But anyway, this Presbyterian minister preached on Psalm 51. The sermon was laden with Gospel, atonement (he didn't even mention the infamous "L"), and Christ. And in typical Reformed style, he exposited each verse of the text. . . .

I know most Lutheran pastors have a million reasons why 99% of the Bible is not proper sermon material, why hearing more than 1% of the Bible preached is actually detrimental to the laity, or why preaching on the Old Testament on Sunday (i.e. a day for the Lord's Supper) kills souls. . . .

I don't even know why I'm complaining. I have the Small Catechism, and that's all the Bible I'll ever need. . . .

Kudos for the brutal honesty. Catholics, of course (needless to add except for people who don't ever visit Catholic churches), hear far more Bible than this at Mass. "l p cruz" added in comments:

There is truth that Lutherans are low on Bible knowledge. They do not have a good reputation for Bible reading. The only consolation is that they get 3 readings each Sunday printed on the order of service.

A survey in Australia showed Lutherans ranked at rock bottom in Bible reading compared to the average evangelical.

I have met people who can recite verbatim the Small C. But you detect that they still think they are saved by works.

ADDENDUM

Because some of Josh's commenters disagree with him on this, I chose to modify this post and even change the title. I had thought that Josh was infallible in All Things Lutheran, but since Pastor Paul T. McCain disagrees with him (describing his rhetoric as "typically over-the-top exaggerations"), and he speaks with the utmost authority, I figured extravagant claims from Josh are probably a bit questionable, and to be fair to my Lutheran brothers and sisters, I want to modify my post accordingly. I'm delighted to learn that biblical appreciation in Lutheranism probably isn't as bleak as Josh portrayed.

John H wrote:

Our pastor never feels constrained only to preach the gospel reading.

Pastor William Weedon opines:

For an example of the "pull in" from the reading, check out how Gerhard begins his Pentecost homily:

"In Leviticus 25 we read that God commanded His people, the Israelites, that when they should arrive in the solemnly promised land of Canaan, they would have to sanctify the fiftieth year in the land and call it a year of remittance. Whenever such a jubilee year or remittance year was observed, all debts had to be cancelled..."

Or Pentecost later in the day, his second sermon begins:

In Exodus 30 God the Lord commanded Moses make a holy anointing oil out of the best spices of myrrh, cinnamon, and cassia, along with teh best oil from the olive tree. With this mixture, all the tent of the covenant with its accessories, as well as Aaron and all his sons, were to be anointed and dedicated...

Or on Pentecost Monday, his sermon begins:

We read in 1 Kings 19 about the great prophet Elijah that, as he had to fee from the wrath of Jezebel and brought himself to a cave in God's mountain of Horeb...

Or on Pentecost Tuesday, his sermon begins:

When God the Lord promised through the prophet Zechariah, 12:10 that He wanted to pour out the Spirit of grace and prayer over the house of David and the citizens of Jerusalem, this is not to be understood as referring only to the Apostles...

So I think, at least in the way Lutherans historically preached the lectionary, the OT was the "big book of illustrations or types" from which they drew lavishly.

John C. Hudelson added:

I'm happy that my pastor at Our Savior Lutheran Church does not fit in the mold of neglecting large parts of the Bible. In fact he does not preach from a prepared manuscript; rather, he reads and explains verse-by-verse.

Let's hope that Josh's experience in LCMS Lutheranism is atypical. The thing I cherish most of all from my evangelical Protestant background is the strong emphasis on Bible study and exegesis. I had assumed that it was the same in Lutheranism. After all, I started my evangelical life out (in 1977) attending a wonderful inner-city ELCA church: going mostly to the mid-week Bible studies. This pastor, the Reverend Dick Bieber, certainly didn't preach only from the Gospels on Sunday. He was great. One can see from the following writing of his, how he emphasizes missions and outreach. This man teaches priesthood of all believers and radical discipleship. He had a profound influence on my own Christian life. I followed such a call myself:

The Volunteer Syndrome and the Call of God by Richard "Dick" Bieber

At the root of our difficulty in "getting the laity involved in ministry" is our tendency to view our congregation as an assembly of volunteers. Volunteers have to be handled with a certain delicacy. They need to be stroked. They must never be offended. If you overwork them, they burn out. "Don't forget, pastor, I'm not getting a salary like you are. I have my job and my family. And I'm entitled to a little recreation. So if I skip the treasurer's report at council this month, don't get bent out of shape."

The successful pastor in this setup is one who knows how to motivate the volunteers and keep them happy. This pastor understands that these dear folks aren't getting paid to come to church or sing in the choir or serve on the evangelism committee. So you reward them for good behaviour. You make it worth their while. Megachurches have been built on this principle. But while numbers and money may flow toward the ministry of the pastor who knows how to organize and stroke the volunteers, the result is a thin caricature of the church which Jesus promised to build, the church which has the power to storm the gates of death.

Membership in the Body of Christ, not only for the pastor but for every believer, begins with the call of God. Surely when the pastor is clear about the call that rests upon his or her life, it becomes obvious that every member of the flock is under the same call to discipleship from the same Lord. Jesus did not call me to be a professional priest, ministering to a flock of volunteers. He called me to follow his example and begin washing the feet of my fellow disciples. He called me to acknowledge before his cross that these men and women he has sent me to serve are as much under the call as I am. I need to see these people as under a call, honour them as "called and ordained ministers of the Church of Christ" who are no less called and ordained than I am. True, they have not been "ordained" by a synod. But they have certainly been ordained by the Lord for ministry in his Body that is no less significant than mine.

"Well, my people sure don't act like called ministers. So how can I regard them as such?" Moses was under a call from the day of his birth. He tried the volunteer method when he killed the Egyptian, when he tried to settle an argument between two Hebrews, and when he rescued his wife-to-be from some rough shepherds. At last, at the age of eighty, Moses was lifted out of himself and set free to be what he was always meant to be -- a deliverer -- as he heard the call, took off his shoes, and answered it.

Our job is to be the burning bush through which our people hear the call which has been haunting them and hunting them through the barren years. They will hear the call of the living Lord through us, when we open our eyes and behold God's claim resting upon them, and, under the power of the cross, beckon them to follow the Master with all of their strength and the best of their resources.

Once they begin to hear that call -- and they will -- they will no longer function as volunteers. They will know that their lives are not their own, they belong to the God who called them. They (and we) will no longer be able to produce something half-baked and whimper, "This is the best I can do. I'm doing all I can, Lord," because the Spirit of excellence, the power to do it right, is in the call.

Every man and woman in our flock who has any faith in Jesus at all is under a call. They are not volunteers; they are called. And one day they are going to answer for that they did with that call. And we are going to answer for whether we allowed ourselves to be the burning bush through which they heard it.

Richard Bieber is an ELCIC pastor living in Nova Scotia.

Double Standards On Lengthiness of Papers (Steve Hays' Gargantuan Output)

You anti-Catholics think I write a lot? I ain't nuthin'
compared to your comrade Steve Hays!

Will this silliness ever end? I point the following sorts of things out over and over again, but anti-Catholics never get it. They invariably criticize my long papers (which do not, by any means, constitute all that I do), while winking and overlooking their own fellow anti-Catholics who outwrite me in a way that would make Tolstoy green with envy. Just for humor's sake, then:

Okay. We get it. Anti-Catholics don't like it that I sometimes write long (even very long) papers. Different strokes, can't please everyone, etc. Never thought I could; it never crossed my mind that I could cause everyone in the universe to love my writing. Today, I'd like to illustrate his double standard by taking a look at anti-Catholic Steve Hays.

Anti-Catholic ethics is nothing without double standards. It is a doublethink world: I can be criticized for something by an anti-Catholic when, in fact, his fellow anti-Catholics are far more guilty of the same "shortcoming." But they get a pass. Why? Well, because they are right and I am wrong (being a Catholic). It's as simple (and as stupid) as that.

Let's take a look at a few recent Hays entries. I've done this before, too (see more on that below), but repetition is a great teaching tool:

Who Speaks For Orthodoxy? (5-28-07) 8,664 words

Snappy answers [critique of Scott Hahn's new book, Reasons to Believe] (5-26-07) 17,276 words

To give you an idea of how long this is, my book Family Matters (160 pages in Times New Roman 12 font, formatted for a 6' by 9' book), has 50,951 words. So a blog post by Steve Hays is more than one-third the length of my entire book. It has 34% as many words as my book. If we add up the words of the Orthodoxy and Scott Hahn posts, written (or at least posted) in the span of just three days, we come up with more than half the words that my book contains (51%). Now that is some serious length!

But wait! There is more: six days before "Snappy answers" Steve produced his criticism of Lutheran philosopher Robert Koons' conversion to Catholicism, A Calvinist case against a Lutheran's case for Catholicism (5-22-07).

Thus, these three epics appeared within the space of seven days. This masterpiece contains 10,553 words. So in seven days, these three posts alone totalled 36,493 words.

Nor is this anything new. It's been going on for a long time. In September 2005 I wrote a paper documenting it, not just from Steve Hays, but several anti-Catholic bloggers. The results were equally fun and comical. Phil Johnson had written on Frank Turk's ("centuri0n's") blog, on 9-21-05:

Aren't you afraid that if you put Dave Armstrong out of business, that would upset the delicate balance of the blogosphere? The Internet as we know it would cease to be.

On second thought, silencing all that hot air might put an end to the threat of global warming. Go for it.

. . . the verbosity of Dave's return rants.

James White had written similarly:

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.

(12-29-04)

I decided to make a test case of Phil Johnson. He had played the loudmouth hypocrite with glaring double standards, too. To prove my point, I added up words written on my blog and Phil's, during the period of September 15-21, 2005. The results? Yep, you guessed right:

Dave 4,993 words in regular posts
Phil 7,578 words in regular posts

I summarized this, barely refraining from uncontrollable gut-laugher:

This means that if we add the two totals together, Phil wrote 60% of the words and I wrote 40%. I wrote 65% as much as he did. He wrote 1.5 times more, or roughly three words for every two I wrote.

So if the "delicate balance" of the blogosphere would be upset after Frank Turk took me down with his fact-free bilge, then I guess it would implode into a black hole if Phil's truth society were to go up in a flame of fire.

I continued on with a comparison to Frank Turk:

Actually, it's just as fun to compare numbers with Frank Turk. Remember, he said that I put out "50,000+ words per week via the internet." 4,993 is a measly 10% of that (minimum) total. Given Frank's propensity for tall tales, I guess being off by a factor of ten is within the range of the expected norm, in his fantasy-land whopper-world. So - just out of curiosity - let's see what he has cranked out in the past week:

Dave: 4,993
Frank: 10,773

. . . This means that if we add the two totals together, Frank wrote 68% of the words and I wrote 32%. I wrote 46% as much as he did. He wrote 2.16 times more, or more than four words for every two I wrote. As we can see, Frank is obviously closer to the "50,000+ words per week" that he claims I write (of course that was in jest, but he thinks it is more true of me than it is of him, which is the point).

One "Pedantic Protestant" (who has since -- praise God! -- left the Internet) had outwritten me by 15,603 to 4,993, or 3.12 times more words than mine. But good ole Steve Hays topped even that, with 16,019 words, or 3.21 times more than my own. We see how he has developed even further verbosity in the interim. 16,019 words in a week are nothing to him! Now he is cranking out 36,493 in a week, and that is not even all of his posts added in. He wrote 2.28 times more material in this recent week than he did back in September 2005. He shows no signs of stopping. All these guys put me to shame for numbers of words written. I summarized the week back then:

Total Words in Blog Posts: September 15-21, 2005:

Steve "Whopper" Hays 16,019 (29% of total)
Pedantic Protestant ("Pee Pee") 15,603 (28%)
Frank Turk 10,773 (20%)
Phil Johnson 7,578 (14%)
Dave "Hurricane" Armstrong 4,993 (9%)

To be as fair as I could, and more "scientific" about it, I even calculated another week:

Total Words in Blog Posts: July 15-21, 2005:

Steve "Whopper" Hays 14,894 (39% of total)
Frank Turk 9,131 (24%)
Phil Johnson 5,333 (14%)
Pedantic Protestant ("Pee Pee") 4,382 (12%)
Dave "Hurricane" Armstrong 4,127 (11%)

I quipped:

So if I am a hurricane, or produce enough hot air to bring about global warming, what does that make these verbally-prolific, listening-challenged guys? The big meteorite that landed in Arizona? The giant fireball in Siberia? The gargantuan explosion in Krakatoa? The initial blast from the Big Bang?

Lutheran Pastor Paul T. McCain's Extreme Insults of Pope Benedict XVI & Catholics & Concealment of What St. Augustine Actually Taught About Salvation

Rev. McCain misrepresents Catholic teaching, in the spirit of his hero

Commenter Dozie directed me to these ridiculous comments on Rev. McCain's blog, dated 2 December 2005. I reproduce his post in full below:

Shame on the Pope

What horrible heresy this is. Shame on Benedict. These comments are anathema, they are anti-catholic, anti-apostolic and truly reveal the spirit of anti-christ at work in the Roman Church.

Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.

On a rainy morning in Rome, the Holy Father ...addressed ...more than 23,000 people gathered in St. Peter's Square, (saying):

(A)mong the inhabitants of Babylon there are people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the Eternal City to which we aspire.... They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption.... (A)mong the nonbelievers, there are people with this spark, with a kind of faith, of hope, in the measure that is possible for them in the circumstances in which they live.... With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ.... God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance.

Posted by McCain at December 2, 2005 06:51 PM

Of course, this is stating nothing more than Romans 2:6-16:

6: For he will render to every man according to his works:
7: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
8: but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
9: There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
10: but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
11: For God shows no partiality.
12: All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14: When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15: They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
16: on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

It might help next time that Rev. McCain wants to condemn a pope as exhibiting the spirit of antichrist, to at least cite the entire (not very lengthy) article, rather than liberally using ellipses [ . . . ] to hinder examination of the full context. Perhaps (in trying to exercise the utmost benefit of the doubt) the article he read already had the ellipses. I was able to quickly access the Zenit site itself to get the full article. Here it is, with the portions that the good pastor omitted in green, with my interjections bracketed and in blue:

Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope

Refers to St. Augustine's Commentary on Psalm 136(137)

[Rev. McCain didn't even bother with ellipses indicating that this was removed]

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope made this affirmation today at the general audience, commenting on a meditation written by St. Augustine (354-430).

[Rev. McCain again failed to include ellipses, to indicate that he had omitted this portion]

On a rainy morning in Rome, the Holy Father's meditation, addressed to more than 23,000 people gathered in St. Peter's Square [Rev. McCain's adds here "(saying)", whereas the usual procedure in such instances is to bracket the comments -- as I am doing right now -- in order to show that they were not in the original], concentrated on the suffering of the Jewish people in the Babylonian exile, expressed dramatically in Psalm 136(137).

The Pontiff referred to Augustine's commentary on this composition of the Jewish people, noting that this "Father of the Church introduces a surprising element of great timeliness."

[Rev. McCain thus leaves out both biblical and Augustinian evidence that backs up what Pope Benedict XVI was saying. This is well-night dishonest citation, in my opinion (especially considering the seemingly deliberately omitted ellipses), because it omits crucial components that give the entire presentation a different meaning than what he wished to leave his readers. We can't have St. Augustine in legion with antichrist, after all!]

Augustine "knows that also among [the "a" in "among" is capitalized and in parentheses, where it should be in brackets for such a citation practice] the inhabitants of Babylon there are people who are committed to peace and the good of the community, despite the fact that they do not share the biblical faith, that they do not know the hope of the Eternal City to which we aspire," Benedict XVI stated.

"They have a spark of desire for the unknown, for the greatest, for the transcendent, for a genuine redemption," explained the Pope, quoting Augustine. [it's obvious by now that the plan was to eliminate any sign of Augustine whatsoever from the article and the speech]

This spark [typo in the Zenit article itself]

"And he says that among the persecutors, among [the "a" is again wrongly capitalized and put in parentheses] the nonbelievers, there are people with this spark, with a kind of faith, of hope, in the measure that is possible for them in the circumstances in which they live," the Holy Father continued.

"With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ," he clarified.

Continuing with his quotes from Augustine, the Pope added that [can't let it be known that the homily was built around St. Augustine!] "God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance." [by omitting the clarification that Augustine was being quoted, Rev. McCain actually leaves the impression that the Holy Father is saying the previous words in quotation marks, rather than St. Augustine]

The Bishop of Rome concluded by inviting those present to pray to the Lord "that he will awaken in all of us this desire, this openness to God, and that those who do not know God may also be touched by his love, so that all of us journey together toward the definitive City and that the light of this City might also shine in our time and in our world."

Wow! This is one of the worst examples of a deliberately botched citation that I've ever seen in my now 26 years of apologetics of all sorts. Absolutely incredible and indefensible . . . First he can't even cite an entire short article from Zenit. He has to ludicrously butcher it and remove any trace of St. Augustine, whom the pope was commenting on. Then he has to engage in improper citation techniques (missing ellipses, lack of brackets).

Lastly, he lets the reader think that the pope is saying things that St. Augustine wrote, that were being cited by the pope. The crowning absurdity is that he describes all this (including what turns out to be the direct words of St. Augustine) as "horrible heresy . . . anathema, . . . anti-catholic, anti-apostolic and truly reveal the spirit of anti-christ". Thus, St. Augustine is all this, too, along with the pope. That's interesting, isn't it?

He neglects to even consult the entire speech (rather than a news account of it), which is freely available on the Vatican's website (here is the direct link). All this, yet he takes his extreme potshots against the Church and the pope. The speech itself makes it crystal clear who was saying what in the final five paragraphs:

And with this openness of hope, Augustine also warns the "Babylonians" - as he calls them -, those who do not know Christ or even God and yet desire the unknown, the eternal, and he warns us too, not to focus merely on the material things of the present but to persevere on the journey to God. It is also only with this greater hope that we will be able to transform this world in the right way. St Augustine says so in these words:

"If we are citizens of Jerusalem... and must live in this land, in the confusion of this world and in this Babylon where we do not dwell as citizens but are held prisoner, then we should not just sing what the Psalm says but we should also live it: something that is done with a profound, heartfelt aspiration, a full and religious yearning for the eternal city".

And he adds with regard to the "earthly city called Babylon", that it "has in it people who, prompted by love for it, work to guarantee it peace - temporal peace - nourishing in their hearts no other hope, indeed, by placing in this one all their joy, without any other intention. And we see them making every effort to be useful to earthly society".

"Now, if they strive to do these tasks with a pure conscience, God, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, will not let them perish within Babylon: this is on condition, however, that while living in Babylon, they do not thirst for ambition, short-lived magnificence or vexing arrogance.... He sees their enslavement and will show them that other city for which they must truly long and towards which they must direct their every effort" (Esposizioni sui Salmi, 136, 1-2: Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana, XXVIII, Rome, 1977, pp. 397, 399). [my emphases added to St. Augustine's words]

And let us pray to the Lord that in all of us this desire, this openness to God, will be reawakened, and that even those who do not know Christ may be touched by his love so that we are all together on the pilgrimage to the definitive City, and that the light of this City may appear also in our time and in our world.

Part of the passage cited -- from Psalm 136 (137) -- appears in a book that I have in my library:

This city too which is called Babylon has its lovers, who look for peace in this world and hope for nothing beyond, but fix their joy in this, end it in this; and we see them toil exceedingly for their earthly country. But whosoever lives faithfully even therein, if they seek not therein pride, and perishable elation, and hateful boasting, but exhibit true faith, such as they can, as long as they can, to those whom they can, in so far as they see earthly things, and understand the nature of their citizenship, these God suffers not to perish in Babylon; He has predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem. God understands their captivity, and shows to them another city, for which they ought truly to sigh, for which they ought to make every endeavor, to win which they ought to the utmost of their power to exhort their fellow-citizens now their fellow-wanderers.

(translation from Erich Przywara, S.J., An Augustine Synthesis: New York: Harper Torchbook edition, 1958, 267)

The Holy Father was using this Latin source, particularly the following:

Habet et haec civitas quae Babylonia dicitur, amatores suos consulentes paci temporali, et nihil ultra sperantes, totumque gaudium suum ibi figentes, ibi finientes, et videmus eos pro republica terrena plurimum laborare: sed et in ea quicumque fideliter versantur, si non ibi appetant superbiam et perituram elationem odiosamque iactantiam; sed veram fidem exhibeant, quam possunt, quamdiu possunt, quibus possunt, ad quantum vident terrena, et ad quantum intellegunt speciem civitatis; non eos sinit Deus perire in Babylonia: praedestinavit enim eos cives Ierusalem. Intellegit captivitatem eorum Deus, et ostendit illis aliam civitatem, cui vere debeant suspirare, pro qua debeant cuncta conari, ad quam capessendam debeant cives suos secum peregrinos, quantum valuerint, adhortari.

Zenit also provides its own translation of the entire speech. St. Augustine makes several similar statements elsewhere:

1. The Apostle Paul has said: "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and , being condemned of himself." Titus 3:10-11 But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. And yet even in the case of a heretic, however puffed up with odious conceit, and insane through the obstinacy of his wicked resistance to truth, although we warn others to avoid him, so that he may not deceive the weak and inexperienced, we do not refuse to strive by every means in our power for his correction.

(Epistles, 43:1:1)

Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish.

(On Baptism, Book V, Ch. 28, 39)

Chapter 2 [II.]—Faith in Christ Not Necessary to Salvation, If a Man Without It Can Lead a Righteous Life

Therefore the nature of the human race, generated from the flesh of the one transgressor, if it is self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, ought to be sure of its reward, that is, of everlasting life, even if in any nation or at any former time faith in the blood of Christ was unknown to it. For God is not so unjust as to defraud righteous persons of the reward of righteousness, because there has not been announced to them the mystery of Christ's divinity and humanity, which was manifested in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16 For how could they believe what they had not heard of; or how could they hear without a preacher? Romans 10:14 For "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." But I say (adds he): Have they not heard? "Yea, verily; their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." Romans 10:17-18 Before, however, all this had been accomplished, before the actual preaching of the gospel reaches the ends of all the earth—because there are some remote nations still (although it is said they are very few) to whom the preached gospel has not found its way,—what must human nature do, or what has it done—for it had either not heard that all this was to take place, or has not yet learned that it was accomplished—but believe in God who made heaven and earth, by whom also it perceived by nature that it had been itself created, and lead a right life, and thus accomplish His will, uninstructed with any faith in the death and resurrection of Christ? Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law:"Then Christ died in vain." Galatians 2:21 For if he said this about the law, which only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain." If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God's most righteous wrath—in a word, from punishment—except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ.

(Nature and Grace, chapter 2)

(alternate URL from the Schaff set of the Fathers, with the same exact heading)

We Catholics don't have to hide St. Augustine's teachings, or pretend that he agrees with us by hiding the full context of his remarks, or citing some and not others. We can openly cite him (as above, and as the pope did) to show that he actually does agrees with the Catholic position. Lutherans have had to play games with Augustine from the beginning, and Luther and Melanchthon were even conscious of that, as I have shown.

But if Rev. McCain wants to call Catholic teaching (directly based on St. Augustine and the Bible both) "antichrist", etc., then let him at least be honest and consistent about it and include St. Augustine in on his anathemas and condemnations.

Are My Books Difficult or Easy to Read? An Objective Standard To Determine Relative Readability and Complexity / Comparison With Other Authors

Howard and Kreeft (both professors) are the easiest apologists to read, by objective measures discussed below, whereas Jimmy Akin is the most complex Catholic apologetic writer today

I ran across this tonight in my usual scanning of the amazon lists of bestselling books. I've always said that my books (and writings in general) probably require a high school education to have the most impact on a reader.

Secondly, I've reiterated that I am trying to challenge and "stretch" readers to expand their horizons in the theological realm. I resist at every turn, calls for "dumbing down" or simplifying, because I think it is important to show people that religious matters can be mind-challenging and intellectually stimulating, rather than infantile speculations for the gullible, as is often charged by agnostics and atheists. The more we Christian writers "dumb down", the more that false impression is fostered.

Thirdly, I have said that oftentimes I feel like I am writing in a "zone" that is somewhere between undergraduate college and academia. I think that I use probably an above average number of "big words" and that I tend towards longer sentences (actually, the latter is seen below to be not as much the case as I had thought).

My three books for Sophia, all now have, by the way, the "Search Inside" capability, as listed on amazon:

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism

The Catholic Verses

The One-Minute Apologist

"Search Inside" for The Catholic Verses, however, has less features than for the other two books. I think the reason is because it was only recently added to the other two, and as amazon has developed it, more (rather interesting and fun) things have been added. One of the cool new aspects of this search and "analysis" capacity is called "text stats." I've never seen anything like it. First it offers three measuring criteria for "Readability" (my emphases):

The Readability calculations estimate how easy it is to read and understand the text of a book.

The Fog Index was developed by Robert Gunning. It indicates the number of years of formal education required to read and understand a passage of text.

The Flesch Index, developed in 1940 by Dr. Rudolph Flesch, is another indicator of reading ease. The score returned is based on a 100 point scale, with 100 being easiest to read. Scores between 90 and 100 are appropriate for 5th and 6th graders, while a college degree is considered necessary to understand text with a score between 0 and 30.

The Flesch-Kincaid Index is a refinement to the Flesch Index that tries to relate the score to a U.S. grade level. For example, text with a Flesch-Kincaid score of 10.1 would be considered suitable for someone with a 10th grade or higher reading level.

Then there is the "Complexity" criterion: percentage of "complex words" (three or more syllables), syllables per word, and words per sentence. Then, for both broad standards, one can compare a book with all other books, or other books narrowed down into more specific categories. So let's see how my books rate:

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism [link to stats]:

Readability		Compared with books in All Categories
Fog Index:	14.1	61% are easier 39% are harder
Flesch Index:	51.9	47% are easier 53% are harder
Flesch-Kincaid Index:	10.9	57% are easier 43% are harder
Complexity
Complex Words:	16%	55% have fewer 45% have more
Syllables per Word:	1.6	48% have fewer 52% have more
Words per Sentence:	19.8	70% have fewer 30% have more

It's interesting that when one compares A Biblical Defense of Catholicism to others in the Catholic theology category, that it becomes (relatively) considerably easier to read. The first criterion then gives percentages of 36%, 34%, and 35%, and the second 43%, 40%, and 42%: quite statistically significant differences.

Here are the stats for The One-Minute Apologist [link]:

Readability		Compared with other books
Fog Index:	12.9	51% are easier 49% are harder
Flesch Index:	54.4	43% are easier 57% are harder
Flesch-Kincaid Index:	10.1	48% are easier 52% are harder
Complexity
Complex Words:	14%	50% have fewer 50% have more
Syllables per Word:	1.6	47% have fewer 53% have more
Words per Sentence:	17.9	59% have fewer 41% have more

All indications here are for a simpler book, which is to be expected, due to the summarizing, compact, "Reader's Digest" nature of the book (two pages for each sub-topic). Only the syllables per word remained the same. The education levels required are what I would expect: two years of college for Biblical Defense ("BDC") and one year of college for One-Minute Apologist ("OMA"): according to the fog index. But according to Flesch-Kincaid, only an eleventh-grade and tenth-grade education are required. If we average the two, it comes out to a half year of college for BDC and halfway through 12th grade for OMA.

And then averaging these averages for the two books (i.e., adding up the four measures and dividing by four), it comes out to exactly a high school education (12.0): precisely as I have said for years. I shall use this method to compare my books with others. Using the same averages for complexity, we arrive at the following "master readability index" for my (two) books:

Readability: 12.0 (high school education; roughly 54 percentile; a little bit above average for all books)

Complex Words (three + syllables): 15% (just about average for all books)

Syllables per Word: 1.6 (also just about average)

Words per Sentence: 18.85 (roughly 65 percentile: 35% of books have more)

Now let's have a lot of fun and make some comparisons with other writers:

Scott Hahn (A Father Who Keeps His Promises + The Lamb's Supper):

Readability: 11.95

Complex Words: 13%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 20.6

So compared to Scott, my writings require one-twentieth of a year more education to properly understand, have 2% more complex words, have .1 more syllables per word average, but 1.75 less words per sentence average. This is fascinating, since Scott Hahn is a professor, and I have a BA in sociology with a minor in psychology and no formal theological education. I would say, then, that he is deliberately making his material simpler to read (which is, I think, very good for an academic to do, so he is not just writing to other scholars), and I am not trying to do that at all, making our two "readability" indices come out about the same.

I'm curious about Peter Kreeft, since he is a philosopher by trade, and one of my favorite apologists (Catholic Christianity + Fundamentals of the Faith):

Readability: 10.73

Complex Words: 13.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 17.35

I find this very interesting also. Kreeft's two books require about a year and a quarter less education than Scott's and my books. His complex words are 1.5% less than mine and 0.5% more than Scott Hahn. He uses 1.5 less words per sentence than I do and 3.25 less than Scott. Clearly, again, he is simplifying, which is a good thing. When one is at the sublime level of intelligence and insight of a Hahn or a Kreeft, if one didn't simplify, few would either understand or benefit.

How about a well-known and beloved historic apologist like G.K. Chesterton? He did not have a college education, so cannot technically be considered an academic. But he was an undeniably great thinker and writer (Orthodoxy + The Everlasting Man):

Readability: 12.9

Complex Words: 12.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 23.05

What is most surprising to me here is the words per sentence figure. I think of Chesterton as a short sentence-writer. Yet for these two books (his most famous apologetics titles), he averages 4.2 more words per sentence than I do, and also surpasses Kreeft and Hahn. His readability requires a higher grade level, as I would suspect, since, according to my hypothesis, academics writing for the populace have to necessarily simplify their writing and expression.

Chesterton, being more like me in this regard (no theological degree) probably felt that he could write as he wished. Consequently, his works actually require more education by these criteria than those of the academics Kreeft and Hahn. He was also an exceedingly wise man, and that surely requires more complexity to convey in words. But, curiously, Chesterton uses fewer complex words. It's funny how all three average 1.5 syllables per word, but my average is 1.6.

How about my favorite writer, the great Anglican apologist C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity + Screwtape Letters)?

Readability: 11.47

Complex Words: 9.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.45

Words per Sentence: 22.25

Lewis is notable for considerably fewer complex words. I'm interested in seeing how different his stats are for a children's book and also for one of his strictly academic books, written to fellow scholars (and both scarcely "apologetic" at all, as are the above two books). If we examine his famous children's book (part of The Chronicles of Narnia), The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, we find exactly what we would expect of a children's book:

Readability: 6.7

[Flesch Index was 79.2, so that it is as easy to read as 95% of all books]

Complex Words: 5%

Syllables per Word: 1.3

Words per Sentence: 14.4

We see that it is suitable for a child in seventh grade to read, with far fewer complex words, words per sentence, and even less average syllables per word. But if we take a look at his scholarly works, we see, of course, a huge difference in the other direction. I shall average the results from five such volumes: The Discarded Image, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature, Studies in Words, An Experiment in Criticism, and A Preface to Paradise Lost:

Readability: 12.06

Complex Words: 14%

Syllables per Word: 1.58

Words per Sentence: 19.56

This is interesting in that even the scholarly works are accessible to those with a high school education. Probably, Lewis' work as a popular lay apologist spilled over into his actual academic writing (which is a good thing, I think). He still uses 1 % less complex words than I do (I appear to be the king of three-syllable-plus words!).

That was fascinating. Now, I'd like to analyze John Henry Cardinal Newman's works, that are considered by many very "dense" and difficult to read (and, in my mind, known for very long , eloquent sentences): An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (the edition used here also includes three other related works), Parochial and Plain Sermons (considered by some the finest sermons in the English language), Apologia pro vita sua (his spiritual autobiography), and The Idea of a University:

Readability: 13.79

Complex Words: 13.75%

Syllables per Word: 1.53

Words per Sentence: 24.78

Some individual differences in Newman's writings are striking. Of these four titles, The Idea of a University was significantly less "readable": a remarkable 17.45 average, or the middle of thee second year of graduate school (!!!). Development came in second, with 13.6 (middle of sophomore year in college), while the other two were about equal: 12.0, or high school education. Idea also had far more words per sentence than the average: 33.1. Development had the most complex words: 17% and Sermons the fewest: 10%, with the others in-between.

How would St. Thomas Aquinas rank, then? His writing is often synonymous in many people's opinions, with difficult, dry-as-dust writing. Summa Theologica gives these statistics:

Readability: 9.7

Complex Words: 13%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 15.1

This is most surprising. Less than a tenth grade education is required, and there are relatively fewer complex words and long sentences. So it seems that the great Doctor uses simple words to get his extraordinary ideas across. His thought processes, and how he argues and utilizes logic, however, are something else again, and cannot be measured by these criteria.

I'm curious about the eminent Protestant philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Some of his more well-known straight philosophical works are Warranted Christian Belief, God and Other Minds, The Nature of Necessity, and Warrant and Proper Function. Here are the average stats:

Readability: 14.7

Complex Words: 16.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.63

Words per Sentence: 24.35

This is as expected for a modern analytic philosopher. He's the most difficult to read of anyone thus far: more than halfway through junior year of college, most complex words and syllables per word, and sentence length just slightly lower by average than the "long-winded" Cardinal Newman. Warrant and Proper Function is his most difficult book to read, with a 16.5 readability rating, 17% for complex words, 1.7 average, syllables per word, and 28.1 words per sentence.

A modern philosopher, Rene Descartes, shows very high numbers (Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy):

Readability: 18.95

Complex Words: 12.0%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 39.4

Descartes (in this one work) has the highest readability level of anyone on my list (almost three years of graduate school), which is interesting because I read this in a first year of college introduction to philosophy course (12 years of school). The strange thing is that his "big words" are a low proportion. He also wins the highest words per sentence, hands down.

As an example, I was curious to look at a technical scientific work. How about The Elegant Universe, by physicist Brian Greene (that I happen to have in my own library)?:

Readability: 15.5

Complex Words: 18%

Syllables per Word: 1.7

Words per Sentence: 24.2

Not surprisingly, Greene breaks the record in the first three categories, with the readability rated at halfway through the senior year of college.

I'm curious about someone like John Calvin, who writes in a pretty "high" and (some would say) quite dry style. Here are the stats for his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion:

Readability: 10.2

Complex Words: 14%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 15.9

Like St. Thomas Aquinas, I think the ratings here are surprising, in the more "readable" direction. But again, complete thoughts are not able to be measured, so that a writing may use relatively simpler words in the service of relatively more complex ideas. I think that is true of both Aquinas and Calvin.

As for Catholic theologians, it is said that Hans Urs von Balthasar makes for very difficult reading. I'll do an average of his (Explorations in Theology: I. The Word Made Flesh, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics: III, and Elucidations):

Readability: 16.83

Complex Words: 15.33%

Syllables per Word: 1.57

Words per Sentence: 30.77

Balthasar's Explorations in Theology, I comes in the highest level of readability: 18.25 years of education, or third year of graduate school! He also has the highest average for readability, by quite a margin (almost one year of graduate school), and the highest average for words per sentence, by far (remarkably, twice as much as both Aquinas and Calvin). So, yep, he is definitely difficult to read. No question, by these stats.

And of course we ought to include Pope Benedict XVI (The Spirit of the Liturgy, Introduction to Christianity, God is Near Us: The Eucharist: the Heart of Life, The Nature and Mission of Theology, Principles of Catholic Theology, and Truth and Tolerance):

Readability: 14.49

Complex Words: 16.17%

Syllables per Word: 1.62

Words per Sentence: 24.42

The Holy Father rates high in difficult readability (middle of third year of college), and has the highest percentage of three-syllable plus words of anyone except for philosopher Alvin Plantinga). He is also just o.o1 less average syllables per word than Plantingaand ranks fairly high in words per sentence.

Lastly, I'd like to see how my books compare in this regard with some of my fellow apologists. First, Patrick Madrid (Where is That in the Bible + Pope Fiction):

Readability: 12.93

Complex Words: 14%

Syllables per Word: 1.55

Words per Sentence: 22.1

Pat comes in high for readability: almost a year of college (and almost a year more than my average). He comes in slightly less than I do in the next two categories and with three words plus more per sentence, average, than my writing.

Karl Keating's three best selling books (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, What Catholics Really Believe, and The Usual Suspects), come out this way:

Readability: 11.85

Complex Words: 14.33%

Syllables per Word: 1.6

Words per Sentence: 18.93

This is quite close to my rating in all respects: the closest of anyone surveyed yet: just slightly lower in the first two categories, the same in the third, and slightly higher in the fourth.

How about Steve Ray (Crossing the Tiber and Upon This Rock)?

Readability: 13.18

Complex Words: 15.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.6

Words per Sentence: 21.6

Steve tops Pat Madrid in difficult readability, with a year in college and a bit more, uses slightly more "big words" than I do, and almost three more words per sentence.

Where does Jimmy Akin (The Salvation Controversy, Mass Confusion) come down on the spectrum?:

Readability: 14.78

Complex Words: 16%

Syllables per Word: 1.6

Words per Sentence: 25.35

Jimmy's readability is high (third year of college), but part of that is accounted for, I think, by technical terms that would be necessary for his book on the Mass (which averaged 15.95, whereas his other book averaged 13.6). He also writes a lot of words per sentence than anyone thus far, even Cardinal Newman.

Mark Shea is an apologist who majored in English. I think that certainly makes for better writing, but does it lead to more complexity too? Well, let's see, using his two bestselling books (By What Authority? and Making Senses Out of Scripture):

Readability: 13.7

Complex Words: 13.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.55

Words per Sentence: 24.5

Mark's readability quotient comes in pretty high, while (curiously) his use of complex words comes in low, while words per sentence are very high. Perhaps English majors, then, like long, complex sentences (perhaps with more difficult syntax), while not necessarily using more "big words."

Following this line of thought, I am particularly curious about Thomas Howard, an English professor who writes excellent, eloquent books about Catholicism (semi-apologetic in nature). I think of Howard as having a fabulous vocabulary. I shall average his books, Evangelical is Not Enough and On Being Catholic:

Readability: 11.75

Complex Words: 12.5%

Syllables per Word: 1.5

Words per Sentence: 20.6

This is a bit surprising. Howard requires less than a high school education (but then, I suppose, professors are used to simplifying in class), and has a low complexity rating. This means to me that, though he uses many words that I never heard before, he also must use a lot of simpler words overall.

My friend, Al Kresta, a great talk show host, wrote a book of apologetics entitled Why Are Catholics So Concerned About Sin? Here are its stats:

Readability: 13.35

Complex Words: 15%

Syllables per Word: 1.6

Words per Sentence: 22.1

Now, a comparison chart compiling all we have learned: each one from more complex (and longer sentences) to less complex:

Readability (years of education required):

Descartes (Discourse on Method . . .) 18.95
Balthasar, Explorations in Theology, I 18.25
Newman - Idea of a University 17.45
Balthasar (3) 16.83
Plantinga, Warrant & Proper Function 16.5
Brian Greene (physicist) 15.5
Jimmy Akin (2) 14.78
Alvin Plantinga (4) 14.7
Pope Benedict XVI (6) 14.49
Cardinal Newman (4) 13.79
Mark Shea (2) 13.7
Newman - Development 13.6
Al Kresta (1) 13.35
Steve Ray (2) 13.18
Patrick Madrid (2) 12.93
G.K. Chesterton (2) 12.9
C.S. Lewis (5 academic works) 12.06
Dave Armstrong (2) 12.0
Scott Hahn (2) 11.95
Karl Keating (3) 11.85
Thomas Howard (2) 11.75
C.S. Lewis (2 apologetics) 11.47
Peter Kreeft (2) 10.73
John Calvin (Institutes) 10.2
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) 9.7
C.S. Lewis, Lion, Witch & Wardrobe 6.7

Complex Words (3 or more syllables; percentage):

Pope Benedict XVI, The Nature and Mission of Theology 20%
Pope Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology 19%
Brian Greene (physicist) 18
Newman - Development 17
Plantinga, Warrant & Proper Function 17
Alvin Plantinga (4) 16.5
Pope Benedict XVI (6) 16.17
Jimmy Akin (2) 16
Steve Ray (2) 15.5
Balthasar (3) 15.33
Dave Armstrong (2) 15
Al Kresta (1) 15
Newman - Idea of a University 15
Karl Keating (3) 14.33
Patrick Madrid (2) 14
John Calvin (Institutes) 14
C.S. Lewis (5 academic works) 14
Cardinal Newman (4) 13.75
Peter Kreeft (2) 13.5
Mark Shea (2) 13.5
Scott Hahn (2) 13
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) 13
G.K. Chesterton (2) 12.5
Thomas Howard (2) 12.5
Descartes (Discourse on Method . . .) 12
C.S. Lewis (2 apologetics) 9.5
C.S. Lewis, Lion, Witch & Wardrobe 5

Words per Sentence:

Descartes (Discourse on Method . . .) 39.4
Balthasar, Elucidations 34.8
Newman, Idea of a University 33.1
Balthasar (3) 30.77
Plantinga, Warrant & Proper Function 28.1
Jimmy Akin (2) 25.35
Cardinal Newman (4) 24.78
Mark Shea (2) 24.5
Pope Benedict XVI (6) 24.42
Alvin Plantinga (4) 24.35
Brian Greene (physicist) 24.2
G.K. Chesterton (2) 23.05
C.S. Lewis (2 apologetics) 22.25
Patrick Madrid (2) 22.1
Al Kresta (1) 22.1
Newman, Development 21.7
Steve Ray (2) 21.6
Scottt Hahn (2) 20.6
Thomas Howard (2) 20.6
C.S. Lewis (5 academic works) 19.56
Karl Keating (3) 18.93
Dave Armstrong (2) 18.85
Peter Kreeft (2) 17.35
John Calvin (Institutes) 15.9
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) 15.1
C.S. Lewis, Lion, Witch & Wardrobe 14.4

Syllables per Word:

Alvin Plantinga (4) 1.63 (highest average)
Pope Benedict XVI (6) 1.62
Dave Armstrong (2) 1.6 (tied with Keating, Ray, Kresta, & Akin for highest average among apologists)
C.S. Lewis (2 apologetics) 1.45 (lowest average for non-children's books)
C.S. Lewis, Lion, Witch & Wardrobe 1.3 (lowest average)

Readability (current-day Catholic apologists only):

Jimmy Akin (2) 14.78
Mark Shea (2) 13.7
Al Kresta (1) 13.35
Steve Ray (2) 13.18
Patrick Madrid (2) 12.93
Dave Armstrong (2) 12.0 [12.5 for Biblical Defense alone]
Scott Hahn (2) 11.95
Karl Keating (3) 11.85
Thomas Howard (2) 11.75
Peter Kreeft (2) 10.73

Complex Words (current-day Catholic apologists only):

Jimmy Akin (2) 16
Steve Ray (2) 15.5
Dave Armstrong (2) 15 [16 for Biblical Defense alone]
Al Kresta (1) 15
Karl Keating (3) 14.33
Patrick Madrid (2) 14
Peter Kreeft (2) 13.5
Mark Shea (2) 13.5
Scott Hahn (2) 13
Thomas Howard (2) 12.5

Words per Sentence (current-day Catholic apologists only):

Jimmy Akin (2) 25.35
Mark Shea (2) 24.5
Patrick Madrid (2) 22.1
Al Kresta (1) 22.1
Steve Ray (2) 21.6
Scottt Hahn (2) 20.6
Thomas Howard (2) 20.6
Karl Keating (3) 18.93
Dave Armstrong (2) 18.85 [19.8 for Biblical Defense alone]
Peter Kreeft (2) 17.35

Conclusions About My Own Writings Compared to Other Apologists Today:

I use big words: a lot of syllables per word average (tied for highest), and lots of three syllable plus words (surpassed only by Akin and Ray and tied with Al Kresta).

But I don't use long sentences (less than everyone except for Peter Kreeft).

With the big words and shorter sentences, I'm about in the middle for "readability" -- a high school education, as I have said for years; ironically, I placed above the three professors and Karl Keating, who has a degree in law, but lower than five strictly lay apologists (less formal education and none or far less in theology). Of the ten listed, only Scott Hahn actually has an advanced degree in theology (doctorate).

I have the most divergent ratio regarding lower level of education required (12 years) compared to the highest percentage of "big words" (15%). This, combined with the shorter sentences (ninth lowest of ten) makes my "profile" perhaps the most unique of all ten current apologists, producing a graph with great peaks and valleys (apart from possibly Mark Shea's, which is similar in divergence but in a different fashion). That's not to claim that my writing is "better"; only that it is different in its qualities in these respects from most of the others. Karl Keating's "profile" is the most similar to mine, judging by all three categories.

Related to the above, most of the authors tend to be either high or low in all the categories, and to maintain a similarity across the three major categories (with the lowest numbers being more complex and lengthy):

Jimmy Akin 1-1-1
Mark Shea 2-8-2
Al Kresta 3-4-4
Steve Ray 4-2-5
Patrick Madrid 5-6-3
Dave Armstrong 6-3-9
Scott Hahn 7-9-6
Karl Keating 8-5-8
Thomas Howard 9-10-7
Peter Kreeft (2) 10-7-10

One might average these three figures for the "Master Complexity Quotient":

Jimmy Akin 1.0
Al Kresta 3.67
Steve Ray 3.67
Mark Shea 4.0
Patrick Madrid 4.67
Dave Armstrong 6.0
Karl Keating 7.0
Scott Hahn 7.33
Thomas Howard 8.67
Peter Kreeft (2) 9

Ironically again, it is the three professors and lawyer who score lower for complexity and higher for readability, then myself, and then the "lay apologists". I have interpreted this as meaning that academics are better acquainted with the effort to simplify one's thoughts for the function of educating students. I don't really try to do that (except deliberately in my latest book, The One-Minute Apologist and in The New Catholic Answer Bible, due to strict demands for brevity); the result being that I come out in the middle overall, compared to other apologists. That's fine with me; I rather like that.

Jimmy Akin leads all four categories (i.e., more difficult and complex compared to others, at least judging by words alone).

Mark Shea's writing requires a high education (13.7 grade level) while using less complex words (13.5%), but Karl Keating requires less education (11.85 years) and uses bigger words (14.33%).

After Jimmy Akin's three 1's, Al Kresta is most consistent across categories, followed by Pat Madrid and Thomas Howard (tied for second).

Style, rhetoric, argumentative technique, use of humor, sarcasm, hyperbole, polemics, analogy, exaggeration, logical points, use of citations, structure of sentences and chapters and books, and the like, are all factors not at all included in these analyses. How they could be measured is a fascinating question, and probably unanswerable, in the same way that people's tastes in, e.g., classical music and its performances and recordings, can hardly be quantified by any measure that is objective across the board (which makes it all the more fun and challenging to discuss). Variety is definitely the spice of life, in apologetics, as in literature, generally-speaking, and the wider arena of all the academic fields and the arts

Phil Keaggy: Castle's Call / Pilgrim's Flight

We had a special request for more "Christian musicians" on this blog. Well, here's my favorite, and in my opinion, the greatest living guitarist. I've seen him in concert three times, met him, and we played this song on tape at our medieval wedding. No words, so no one can be stumbled!

My 1981-1982 Folk and Blues Recordings (Guitar + Harmonica, Blues Harp, "Electric" Guitar and Slide Guitar)

Dave Armstrong: August 1988 (age 30)

Delta blues and folk recordings by a Catholic apologist??!! I know it's weird, but hey, music and history were my first loves (and I'm still in love with 'em today), so it stands to reason that I would also be interested in the history of music. I like blues and folk that go back to the 1920s. This period (in my humble opinion) was the roots of the best music in those genres even today.

I did these recordings in my room in Allen Park, Michigan between November 1981 and August 1982. I had only learned guitar in the Fall of 1980 (or was it Fall 1981?), so I was a relative rookie. But I could pick up new instruments fast, having previously played piano, trombone, baritone, and some violin in school bands and orchestras, and tin whistle (I still would like to learn the bagpipes -- especially the Irish Uilleann Pipes -- and the French horn). Yeah, I'm told I can sing, too, but I've never sung a solo in front of anyone. So I was far too shy to record my voice on these.

I recorded almost all of them, as I recall, in one take or just a few at the most. It's pure spontaneity. The music here ain't "professional" of course, but it has plenty of feeling and passion and love of the music. Whether people will like them or not, I have no idea. If some don't, I think it won't even bother me (because you can never please everyone). This is a part of my life that I would simply like to share with others beside my immediate family, for the first time. I had a great time recording them. Hopefully, the listening experience will provide some enjoyment for a few people too.

I favored the Hohner "Special 20" blues harps with the nice black plastic as the mouthpiece (eventually buying them in five different keys). I had been inspired also by hearing the legendary Peter "Madcat" Ruth (possibly the best harp player in the world; I've never heard anyone come close) at the Ann Arbor Art Fair (where I did street evangelism every year from 1981 to 1990 and once or twice after I became a Catholic, too). It took me about a week, I think, to learn how to bend notes, and then it was a breeze after that. I basically learned guitar by listening to early Bob Dylan folk / acoustic albums.

Typically, I showed a great interest, but a short-lived one in retrospect. In those days I was 23 years old, still single, in my last year of college (just a few classes though), attending a "Jesus Freak" sort of non-denominational church and meeting many new friends there, playing softball on the church team (I hit fourth even though I weighed 150 pounds at the time!). I had developed a great interest in apologetics starting in 1981, and started to figure out that it was what I was supposed to do with my life, vocation-wise (though how exactly I would do that was anyone's guess). I hadn't met my wife Judy yet. That was in October 1982 at a singles group at an Assembly of God church I started attending in May 1982. Descriptions of each selection follow:

When the Ship Comes In
(12-24-81 / "stereo": guitar: left and harp: right / 4:01)

[ Link ]

A classic Dylan folk song from 1963 (hear a sample). I loved how his harmonica and guitar blend together, and the chord progressions and driving rhythm (the lyrics are excellent, too, as always with Dylan). I was able to concentrate on doing better in the harmonica part (an almost slavish imitation of Dylan, as was the guitar) by recording it on a separate track. It's one of my very favorites of my own 24 total recordings (I've selected eight to make available online).

Sunset
(4-27-82 / guitar and harp, possibly played together with a Dylan-like harmonica holder/ 1:56)

[ Link ]

This piece and the next one below are my own folk "compositions" and both have a sort of reflective, melancholic, nostalgic feeling that I love (as a died-in-the-wool Romantic and autumn "fanatic"). This one (as I conceive of it, anyway) has a very "rustic" feel, conjuring up images of the Oregon Trail or something: the "old west" thing (where they played harmonica around the campfire, etc.). I don't remember how this came to me. It sounds vaguely reminiscent of some music by The Band. Possibly some influence there . . .

Memories
(1-4-82 / "stereo": guitar: left and harp: right / 2:53)

[ Link ]

What I remember most about recording this was that the harmonica was in the "wrong key" (one usually plays a harp in the same key as the guitar or four tones apart for blues: e.g., an A harp for the key of E). Somehow I was fooling around and just wandered into this little harmonica improvisation (the guitar part appears to have been in D; I was probably playing my A harp, then; my best guess). I also recall the bouncing guitar rhythm having somewhat of a resemblance (probably it's initial inspiration) to Dylan's 1961 (non-original) song, Baby let me follow you down (sample of that song). One or two other Dylan songs may have influenced it. But mine is different enough to be considered my own song. Nothing in music (as in theology and apologetics) is ever totally original. Even George Harrison was convicted of (surely unintentional) plagiarism for My Sweet Lord (The Chiffons' He's so fine).

Dirty Mistreater
(3-31-82 / "stereo": "electric" guitar: right and harp: left / 3:35)

[ Link ]

A song from the legendary folk blues duo Sonny Terry (harp) and Brownie McGhee (guitar). The guitar, however, looks a bit forward to rock styles and riffing (particularly 50s rockabilly, which is one of my very favorite kinds of music). I love how the guitar "rings". I utilized (I believe; I'm not positive) a primitive "electric guitar" set-up (see more on that under Dust My Broom below). I was lucky to achieve a halfway decent sound, given the primitive equipment I was using. A fade-out at the end was the height of my mastery of "studio technique". :-) I see that the song made it onto the Sonny & Brownie album, Absolutely the Best (hear a sample of it). This also is a bit reminiscent of certain old-timey type songs by Creedence Clearwater Revival (I absolutely love that group), where John Fogerty would play the harmonica. You can hear that influence on my guitar part too.

Delta Shuffle
(8-19-82 / "stereo": guitar: left and harp: right / 4:10)

[ Link ]

This is the last recording I made: an original country blues improvisation (not someone else's song, copied), and also one of my own favorites. I played a decent harp, I think. Good blues harp playing depends very much on spontaneous feeling and mood and musical inspiration, and is difficult to capture in a studio recording (let alone an amateur one like this). I seem to have had the "feel" that day. I have no idea of direct song influences, but the general drift of it is a sort of very old country style of folk blues (hard to imagine this on electric guitar). I love simple but catchy syncopated blues "shuffles." They may not be danceable but they sure get the head nodding and feet tapping. To me it is (like so many early blues variations, and like the spirituals) a timeless style. Back in the 20s and earlier, black and white rural folk music had a lot in common (you can hear this, in, e.g., early 1940s recordings of Muddy Waters or in Charley Patton). Country music owed a lot to primitive blues, just as blues drew from European folk song traditions. Good music has no color or ethnic barrier.

Dust my Broom
(11-13-81 / "electric" guitar, "electric" slide guitar, and foot tap / 3:28)

[ Link ]

The very famous Elmore James blues song (originally, however, from the king of the Delta blues: Robert Johnson) . The fun I had with this was coming up with a primitive "electric guitar" sound. I put a little microphone into my acoustic guitar, which I then amplified through my stereo system and recorded onto a separate tape recorder. The result was a surprising, interesting sound with reverberation, that resembled a dobro. For this recording I played rhythm guitar in the usual fashion, but slide guitar for the lead, using a test tube. All of this amateurish "fooling around" lends itself to the "roots" feel of the music, I think. The original went on for another two-three minutes, but I thought it was too repetitious for public consumption (especially without singing), and so cut it off abruptly.

Death Comes A-Creepin' In My Room
(11-13-81 / "electric" guitar, "electric" slide guitar, and foot tap /2:24)

[ Link ]

An eerie, "spooky" kind of blues that well reflects its title (it's also known as Soon one mornin'). This is an ancient folk blues style as well, and the song was from Mississippi Fred McDowell, who originally "played slide guitar using a pocket knife and then a slide made from a beef rib bone, later switching to a glass slide for its clearer sound. " This song is listed as part of a collection called Roots of the Blues, in McDowell's discography. My playing technique was the same as Dust my broom: primitive "electric" guitar + primitive "electric" slide guitar with the foot tap so beloved of Delta bluesmen and great postwar figures like John Lee Hooker, who carried on the tradition of Delta blues for several more generations (all the way to his death in 2001). Oddly enough, this song made it onto the 2000 box set, Ken Burns's Jazz: The Story of American Music (hear a sample): Disc One, selection 2. I knew it was a cool song back in 1981!

Barnyard Blues
(1-23-82 / "stereo": guitar: right and harp: left and foot tap / 1:14)

[ Link ]

This was really fun. The idea in my head was to do a sort of barndance / hayride / bluegrass style (yet still with a blues feel). The harmonica part is playing what would normally be a fiddle part in such a setting. It could also surely be a Sonny and Brownie song. The style again probably goes back to the 1920s if not earlier and would fit right in with a 1930s western movie or Grand Ole Opry radio broadcast, complete with square dance.

Paul McCartney's New Video: Dance Tonight

Neil Young: The Needle and the Damage Done (Live at Massey Hall: 1971)

My Free Radio Talks Page

I've now collected all of my radio appearances that I had recordings of. They're included on my Dave Armstrong E-Book & Audio Files Page. Everything is free there to download. The two times I was on Catholic Answers Live are available from their web pages and linked below. My 11 E-books on CD offer is also on the page, in the first entry ("Buy Now" button), as are my "books-for-donations" offer. The programs below are listed in chronological order. I was an evangelical Protestant at the time of the first two.

First Time Ever: Call-In About Pro-Life Activism: Operation Rescue

Love Talks with host Foster Braun / WCM 990 AM Ann Arbor, MI

(14 November 1988)

Link: 13 minutes

[I'm on for the first seven minutes, talking about my experience in my first rescue -- of 23 or so -- on 21 November 1988]

Jehovah's Witnesses Teaching

Evangel Echoes with host Emery Moss / WMUZ-FM 103.5 Detroit, MI

(3 November 1989)

Link: 48 minutes

[see further information on this appearance and my extensive written study on "JW's"]

My Conversion Story


Al Kresta Show Live / WDEO 990 AM Ann Arbor, MI

(8 September 1997)

Link: 28 minutes

[see the transcript]

Development of Doctrine / Q & A on Protestantism


Pillar of Faith Television Show (phone interviews) with host Dick Kelley

(8 May 1999)

Link: 28 minutes

[see the transcript]

(15 May 1999)

Link: 26 minutes

[see the transcript]



My Conversion and Book: A Biblical Defense of Catholicism


Kresta in the Afternoon with host Al Kresta / WDEO 990 AM Ann Arbor, MI

(30 April 2002)

Link: Parts One / Two / Three / Four [40 minutes total]


My Conversion and Book: A Biblical Defense of Catholicism

Faith and Family Live with host Steve Wood / syndicated nationwide on EWTN


(10 July 2003)

Link: 55 minutes

"Why We Need More Than the Bible"

Catholic Answers Live with host Jerry Usher / syndicated nationwide on EWTN

(10 October 2003)

Link: Real Audio (ram) (60 minutes)

Link: mp3 (60 minutes)

[Link to related paper]

[listen to Baptist Anti-Catholic Bishop James White's criticism of this program on his Dividing Line webcasts of 8-26-04 and 8-31-04 and 9-2-04 and read my first and second responses]

The Catholic Answer Bible and General Catholic Apologetics

Kresta in the Afternoon with host Al Kresta / WDEO 990 AM Ann Arbor, MI

(2 April 2004)

Link: Parts One / Two [22 minutes total]

James White Ad Hominem Rant Against Yours Truly


His Webcast, Dividing Line

(20 April 2004)

Link: 9 minutes

[Link to Bishop White's free audio file for this program (ram)]

"Communion of Saints: A Cloud of Witnesses"

Catholic Answers Live with host Jerry Usher / syndicated nationwide on EWTN

(26 June 2006)

Link: Real Audio (ram) (60 minutes)

Link: mp3 (60 minutes)

[Link to related paper]

"The One-Minute Apologist" / Brief Conversion Testimony"

Spirit Morning Show, with Bruce and Kris McGregor

(15 February 2008)

Link (m3u file) (30 minutes)

[listen to Baptist Anti-Catholic Bishop James White's pathetic "criticism" of this program on his Dividing Line webcast of 2-19-08 and read the discussion on my blog about it]

Last revised on 2 March 2008

ReformedCatholicism Revisits 16th c. "Sacramentarian" Controversies: Lutheran Pastor Paul McCain Lasts Eight Days as "Contributor"

Pastor Paul T. McCain: all kinds of controversy and dashed ecumenical dreams

How rosey and sunshiney and glorious the future looked on 15 May 2007, with Lutheran (LCMS) Pastor Paul T. McCain welcomed into the lovey-dovey "Protestant Catholic" fold, with Kevin D. Johnson enthusiastically announcing:

I’m excited to announce the addition of Pastor Paul T. McCain–a Lutheran pastor–to our list of contributors at ReformedCatholicism.com. Pastor McCain’s comments have appeared here and there as time has gone on in discussions here and we’re happy to add another Lutheran to the cadre of contributors here.

Pastor McCain also runs another blog, Cyberbrethren. Check it out when you get a chance!

Welcome aboard, Pastor McCain, and we look forward to your continued contribution here!

Pastor McCain's Introduction followed on the same day. Fellow Lutheran Josh S. was also brought in around the same time (post on 15 May 2007). On 18 May, he posted When Lutheranism Was More "catholic" [little "o" in original) and The Great Breakthrough That Wasn't [a trashing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification].

He then produced Christ as far from the eucharistic bread and wine as heaven is from earth? on 18 May 2007, which has apparently proved to be his undoing, while Josh proceeded with his Catholic-convert-bashing, eerily Enloe-like Conversions to Rome (18 May 2007), in which instance Big Cheese of the Blog Kevin Johnson publicly (and most correctly) scolded him for an extraordinarily-bigoted remark about the intellectual suicide of all consistent Catholics, (followed by a like-minded rebuke by an Anglican), and Left (Behind?) at the Altar by Calvin (19 May 2007).

In the thread under the last-mentioned post by Pastor McCain, we see things start to unravel. I find this absolutely shocking, because everyone knows how much all Protestants love each other as "brothers and sisters in Christ" and how ultra-tolerant they are of the myriad doctrinal disagreements among them. We Catholics are constantly reminded that this is the case, and anyone can see it for themselves if they are only willing to look and see. So it is most surprising and disconcerting to observe an altogether typical endeavor in warm-fuzzy inter-Protestant cooperation for the sake of the true gospel, deteriorate in such an astonishingly rapid fashion.

But alas (--- sarcastic, satirical mode off now--- ), things went downhill rapidly, and on (ironically) the same basis that they did in the 16th century in the sacramentarian controversies: fighting over the proper interpretation and nature of the Eucharist. Protestants (quite often) can't handle such discussions now any more than they could then. I find this doubly ironic because I have managed, myself to have many perfectly amiable discussions with Calvinists and other kinds of Protestants on the Eucharist: even on Calvin's own view of it (one / two / three / four / five / six). But (LCMS) Lutherans and so-called "Reformed Catholic" Calvinists cannot do so for more than five days' time? Odd.

"Reformed Catholic" blog regulars very soon started to lash into the Lutherans. First, Peter Escalante goes after Josh (mistakenly addressed to Pastor McCain, as he later clarified):

You should be a little more careful about rehearsing Lutheran nostrums about the Reformed and their Christology: I am, as you may know, very sympathetic to classical Lutheranism, but it won’t do to just call the Reformed “Nestorian”, anymore than it serves to call Lutheran “Eutychian”. This is tired stuff, and easily put down.

Josh S. called Calvinists "Nestorian"? Wow! I don't even do that (my friend Jonathan Prejean often does, though). I do see some of those tendencies, however, in both Lutheranism and Calvinism. But are we to believe our blinded "papist" eyes???!!! Lutherans and Calvinists disagreeing about Christology???!!! What's the world coming to?

Rev. McCain replied on 18 May 2007:

I was responding to a person who suggested that the Luther view of the Supper was a violation of Chalcedonian Christology. I do regard Calvinism’s position on the human nature of Christ after His Resurrection to be Nestorian.

Wow. Am I to now overthrow all of my hopeful, optimistic, idealistic perceptions of the marvelous unity of all kinds of Protestants? They say stuff like this to each other? Another regular, Jonathan Bonomo, proved prescient in his prior suspicions:

I knew this conversation was immanent as soon as our Lutheran friends came on board for the conversation here. My only surprise is that it took this long!

The Lutheran refrain that the Reformed are Nestorian is, to the Reformed, mere self aggrandizing nonsense.

. . . So please, let’s not fall into the trap of throwing the heresy label around here too haphazardly. It is unjustified and I don’t believe this is what this site is about. I know your beloved Book of Concord encourages your anathematization of us, but please try to resist the urge.

Rev. McCain, circling the wagons, and perhaps knowing his time was short, decided to nuke the topic with a huge 10,477-word text dump (parts one / two). And they say I write (and paste) a lot . . .

Well, this was just too much. Rev. Kevin Johnson felt compelled to speak up at this point, lest the warm fuzzy "Protestant catholics R Us / can't we all get along?" unity and brotherly fellowship of his blog be corrupted:

To our Lutheran friends I would say this–we are happy to join with you in discussing various points of view regarding issues surrounding catholicity, theological history, and the like. But this is not the place to be submitting constant links to the Book of Concord and the posting of a large amount of proof-texts that on the whole are largely irrelevant to the very men you are discussing this with. I am hopeful to learn from your perspectives regarding many of these issues but if you guys are on a campaign merely to promote the Lutheran view without adequate discussion of other informed viewpoints I’m going to say take it elsewhere.

That was on 19 May 2007. I would say that from this point it was obvious that the ecumenical endeavor at ReformedCatholicism was doomed. The "honeymoon" had lasted no more than five days. How impressive. Recently, Josh S. and Rev. McCain had their own little spat with each other (since removed from Josh's blog). It had to do with some "irreverent" satirical video that some Lutheran students made and later retracted.

Comically enough, Tim Enloe (the Reformed mirror-image of Josh -- or vice versa) showed up to do his usual hyper-polemicizing and obligatory bashing of Catholic and Baptist apologists alike (but remember, now he is bashing a well-known Lutheran pastor, with an influential blog (who actually oversees the online version of the Book of Concord):

Peter, re: #23-that’s what I was trying to say about a week and a half ago in response to John H. To my mind it’s simply ludicrous to run around thwacking people over the head with the so-called “plain” meaning of a text. “Is means is” is just nothing more than another way to say “Is means what I think it means and if you disagree you’ve got some kind of kindergarten level reading deficiency–or worse, maybe you don’t like Truth.” Nobody can take this “argument” seriously who has spent even two minutes dealing with the “Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16, so the Pope is the Vicar of Christ set up by Jesus Himself” argument from Catholics. Or the type of thing I once saw a baptist polemicist do when arguing “from the Greek” with someone else who knew Greek just as well as he did: “Well, the reason you disagree with my reading of the Greek is because you don’t like the Truth.” It’s the same exact thing, the same exact question-begging appeal to some supposed “plain meaning” of bare words.

It’s the same with Josh S.’ “the Lutheran confessions just are true Truth, and I just wish more people would actually stick up for true Truth” business. A person can believe this sort of fundamentalistic thing if he wants, but in the end he’s going to be doing no more than monologuing with himself, communing only with the inside of his own head. It’s difficult not to get frustrated with this, whether it’s coming from Catholic convert apologists, Lutheran seminary students, or baptistic polemicists. It’s just not respectful of other image bearers. It’s just a solipsistic romanticized understanding of one’s own tradition, and a corresponding hack–like demonizing of someone else’s.

I often wonder, if only rhetorically, what good the Reformation was if FIVE HUNDRED YEARS LATER the rabies theologorum is one of its most common, and cherished (!), fruits.

Rev. McCain then (on 20 May 2007) issues a smoldering rebuke of the Reformed perspective on the Eucharist and Christology, peppered with such descriptions as:

You may play all your little logical/rhetorical games you wish . . .

. . . Just a big mental game but not a reality, only a fiction created to avoid the text of Christ: This is my body. It is simply a spin-off of Zwinglianism, and as the Consensus Tigurinus proves beyond a shadow of doubt, finally Calvin and Bullinger were not that very different from Zwingli.

. . . The smug uncertainty about the possibility, and even necessity, that one must be, and can be, certain about doctrine seems to be a popular notion here on “Reformed Catholicism”. It is contrary to the Reformation that this site claims to represent, and it is by no means catholic either. In fact, it is highly sectarian.

It is post-modern relativism, nothing more, and nothing less, perhaps with some liturgical bells and whistles thrown in to create the feeling of “catholicism.”

And anyone who does not understand this point simply does not understand the Reformation, either Lutheranism or Calvinism.

OOOOOOH! Them's fightin' words! I'm on record for not caring much for the arguments or styles of either the RefCath crowd or Rev. McCain (and I have criticized and defended both broad positions in various contexts) , but I must say that the Lutheran is substantially correct here. It is not fundamentalism to simply interpret patristic texts at face value (in this instance, the Real Presence in the Eucharist).

The charge reeks of Tim Enloe's constant attempts to paint as "fundamentalist" Catholic apologists such as myself who are merely faithful Catholics (and the only one with a "fundamentalist" background or history between Tim and I is Tim, by his own admission; I was never in that camp at any time). We Catholics (and whoever else Tim disagrees with) have to be demeaned somehow, and that is one way he does it, sans rational argument.

Peter Escalante chimes in again:

You are beginning to say embarrassing things. If you wish to actually have an argument about specific texts and their interpretations, then by all means, let us do so: but if you wish to simply piously declaim and denounce, then there is no conversation at all; you haven’t even entered into an argument in that case, let alone won it.

. . . Your hermeneutical method seems hardly a method: it seems to work something like fundamentalist Baptist readings, so far as I can tell.

. . . You would do better to not rashly accuse others of “games” and relativism and disingenuousness: it is not very becoming, and not very impressive. I am appealing to you to attempt to understand the position of those who disagree with you, and handle controversy responsibly and charitably.

McCain fired back on 20 May 2007:

I was expecting this site to be a much more serious conversation about theology than it is, but I was sorely mistaken.

There is no “controversy” here. I’m asserting the position of historic, genuine Lutheranism and declaring Calvinism to be absolutely wrong. Why is that controversial?

Calvinism has always loved Lutheranism just as long as it doesn’t really confess Lutheranism.

Andrew, Ryan, and Jonathan Bonomo then issued scathing, mostly personal rebukes. The end was clearly near; the writing on the (computer monitor) wall. Rev. McCain himself definitively confirmed the sad break-up of the hopeful, short-lived blogging "marriage" in a remark over at The Boar's Head Tavern, on 23 May 2007 (which had recently kicked off Josh S!):

As for Josh. You should give the lad another go at the Tavern. He means well, even if he does get carried away, from time to time. He simply has the typical enthusiasm of youth. They still let him post over at Reformed Catholicism, but severed blog-fellowship with me for making a bit too much of Calvin’s views on the Real Presence. It was fun while it lasted over there. But this place is obviously more fun.

Pastor McCain thinks little of me, by the way (see this post and others in the same thread).

ADDENDUM:
Why Lutheran Polemicist Josh S. Was Removed From The Boar's Head Tavern

He was banned on 15 May 2007. I found all the following in a search over there for "Pirate" (his nickname):

David Lawrence Alexander (Catholic):

These citations you provide are not a means of clarifying your position, as they are not your position at all; they are a stick with which to beat your opponents over the head. That is the only purpose they have served so far. The only reason you get away with this manner of jesuitical sophistry, is out of the sympathy of your fellow Protestants. Any decent Catholic apologist on a LEVEL playing field (which this is not, or you wouldn’t be scaring off the Papists, UNTIL NOW…) would make quick work of you.

Moderator Michael Spencer, on 15 May 2007:

Pirate may be the most knowledgeable anti-Catholic debater on the web, certainly on the par with [name deleted.] I appreciate that, and would encourage the debate to continue at his pitiful little blog.

* * *

That's it.

Pirate: The word “brainless” just cost you the opportunity to be part of this discussion.

The scholar you want to be needs to move past that kind of trash talk.

* * *

If anyone is looking to get the standard reply on why I’ve removed Pirate, I’ll just print it here:

1) A long post from me before I let David in.
2) A short post from me today saying gear it down.

That’s called all the warning you are going to get for calling another fellow “brainless.”

"Out of the Mouths of Babes": My Five-Year-Old Daughter on Heaven and Salvation

My daughter at age 3: November 2004

Yesterday I was going about my business and overheard my ten-year-old third son and my one daughter (five) -- who were born on the same date exactly five years apart -- talking about heaven at the kitchen table. I started to listen in a bit and then got the idea of taking down (and sharing with you) what my daughter was saying, in the same way that I once posted thoughts from my oldest son (nine at the time) on God.

What follows is verbatim. I recorded it as it was happening. My "drawing-out" questions are in blue. Remember, my daughter has not even yet received first communion, and most people would consider her to be below the "age of reason." But I think you'd agree that she is very charming, and in excellent spiritual shape, for her place in life at this time (the lion's share of the [human] credit for that goes to my lovely wife Judy, for her home-schooling efforts).

Beyond all that, I believe that God puts knowledge of Him (real knowledge, not just abstract conceptions) in all human beings, from a very young age, if not from the very beginning. We're made in His image, after all, and baptism is not without its profound spiritual effects.

I found her remarks to actually be astonishingly good theology, as to the purpose and nature of heaven (better than many supposedly theologically-educated adults), and salvation, as well (though I would fully expect her to not grasp all the subtleties there: most Christian adults do not, either). I could write a long treatise, launching off of her words about heaven in the first section (where she hits upon God being a light, the extraordinary knowledge of the angels, the Beatific Vision, the lack of suffering and sin in heaven, eternal bliss, the resurrection body, God's never-ending love, etc.):

HEAVEN

Lots of lights.

Lots of food.

Angels know all about God.

You see God every day.

You can't get cut; it's like a cushion.

You can't be sad; you can't be mad; you have to be just right.

You're happy all the time.

You never get tired.

God will always love you.

He will always be with you.

There's never any badness.

There has to be no sins because God doesn't allow it.

Why?

I dunno; you know how God threw Satan into hell; that's why. You don't have to do anything for anybody except your mom and dad.

How come?

I dunno. Cuz in the world mom and dad say "go do this or go do that. Go clean your room."

Will you get along with your brothers in heaven?

Yeah, I'll have to.

How come?

Because if you don't do it, you have to go to hell.

Once you get to heaven, you can't go to hell.

You never get bad dreams; you'll always get good dreams forever.

How do you get to go to heaven?

God chooses, I think.

How does God make the choice?

For hell, you have to be bad; for heaven you have to be good. That's about it.

How about Jesus dying for us?

Jesus dies for our sins.

Doesn't that have something to do with going to heaven, too?

Yeah.

How?

Cuz . . . I dunno.

If you pray, He'll help you.

You have to pray to make good things happen.

We can go to heaven because Jesus died on the cross?

Yeah; uh-huh. I'm very detailed in this stuff.

How come?

Because I have bad dreams and stuff. Hell is just like a bad dream.

So you figure that heaven is like a good dream?

Yeah.

Do you try to follow God every day?

Yeah.

How do you do it?

Controlling myself from the bad things.

Does God help you do that?

Yeah, a little bit. God built us to have some friends, too.

Is it good to go to church?

Yeah.

How come?

Because you learn all about God.

Is God up there in front of the church?

Yeah.

Where?

In this little cage thingey.

How could God be in there?

I dunno.

Do we receive Him when we go up front?

Yeah.

How do you know that God is good?

Cuz I heard a story about it.

Human, Pauline, and Marian Distribution of Divine Graces: Not an "Unbiblical" Notion After All?

I've put together some highlights of my various treatments of the Mary Mediatrix question:

In my paper, Does Mary's Role as Mediatrix Contradict Jesus Christ as the Sole Mediator? / Response to a Catholic Critic, I wrote:

My argument (in the paper, A Biblical and Theological Primer on Mary Mediatrix) must not be taken to prove more than it intends to prove. It was basically an exercise in creating what I call a plausibility structure and to show that the notion of Mediatrix is not immediately dismissible as contrary to Scripture in the sense that it blatantly contradicts it.

In no way do I claim that Scripture Alone proves Mary Mediatrix (or Mary's Assumption or Immaculate Conception, for that matter). What I try to do on my website and in books is to show that Catholicism is not unbiblical or anti-biblical and that its doctrines can be harmonized with Scripture, even though they're not always able to be proven from Scripture alone. We deny the truth of sola Scriptura so that is no particular difficulty for us.

Furthermore, Protestants interested in this question (assuming an overall irrational "anti-Mary" animus is not a precluding factor), would surely want to ponder the many biblical analogies of non-divine "distribution of grace" that I have compiled in my paper, Dialogue on the Biblical Analogies to the Concept of Mary Mediatrix (vs. Robert Bowman) -- thus showing that a notion of Mary the Mother of God doing so is not a "biblical novelty" at all (quite the contrary):

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12,17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you...

Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.

[is not "imparting grace" the same as "distributing" it?]

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Peter 4:8b-10 . . . love covers a multitude of sins. Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another. As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace.

I wrote in that paper:

What we assert in the notion of Mary Mediatrix is that God chose Mary to play a unique role in salvation history and the application and distribution of what God alone produces, wins for us on the cross, etc. God is the Redeemer. Mary is simply a helper or chosen vessel, just as Moses or John the Baptist or Elijah or Paul or Peter or John or anyone else was. In no way does this impinge upon God's sole prerogatives because He is simply using one of His creatures for His divine purposes. No one can say that God "could not" or "should not" do such a thing. In other words, it is not an a priori impossible concept; nor is it unbiblical in essence, as I was trying to show.

. . . No one is denying that "the gift was given to him by or from God’s grace." What is at issue is what Paul means by saying that he is a steward of grace "for" the Ephesians. Paul being given the gift is not contradictory to his "spreading it around," so to speak. You would say, I think, that the grace was given to preach the Word, and that was how Paul spread the grace. But just as the word can help bring one to salvation, so can also prayer, and (so Catholics and Paul elsewhere say), penance.

. . . When we pray for someone and God answers, they are blessed, and one might say that they are given more grace thereby, just as Paul often opens his epistles, "grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 1:2). Thus, everyone who prays is potentially a "mini-distributor" of grace.

. . . [Paul] believes it is somehow helping his flock that he suffers, not just as a sort of "inspiring example" (though it would certainly include that aspect) but as an actual aid for their salvation. Thus, he participates in a sense in "redemption." And so do we all, in an entirely secondary sense, insofar as we "work together" with God.

. . . James 4:6 ("more grace") and 2 Peter 1:2 ("May grace and peace be multiplied to you . . . ") imply a "quantitative" conception of grace which sounds very "un-Protestant" and very Catholic (at least to this Catholic convert who was an evangelical for 13 years).

. . . What I was doing was making an argument from analogy: not that Mary "must" be a steward, but that it is not implausible or immediately unbiblical for her to be one, given the examples from Paul. In other words, "Mary Mediatrix" is a notion that is harmonious with biblical thought. That is a different argument (and is not claiming that biblical proofs in and of themselves are compelling or even explicit), and it is also a cumulative argument of plausibility, taking into account many different strains of Pauline thought. No one verse is conclusive, but many together form a pretty good case, like strands of a rope which come together to make a strong rope.

. . . I argue that since Protestants accept the canon of Scripture from Tradition and make sola Scriptura their formal principle and rule of faith (when it cannot be proven from Scripture at all), that they are far too quick to make the accusation of unbiblical and extrabiblical, and must re-think how all that works together.

. . . When it comes to Mary, I was attempting to show that the ways in which Catholics approach that issue are similar to other analogous strains of biblical thought. I traced one of them. This is very different for Protestants because they are accustomed to arguing only for explicit biblical proofs (in other words, they always presuppose sola Scriptura); otherwise, they think a discussion is worthless, and (oftentimes) "unbiblical." But not being explicitly biblical and being in contradiction to Scripture and utterly foreign to its outlook and worldview are different things.

Protestants need to understand the Catholic mind insofar as we reject sola Scriptura. If you don't comprehend the mindset and arguments of an opponent, no good dialogue is possible. It quickly descends into two ships passing in the night, or what I call "mutual monologue," because the thoughts of the other are not comprehended. And when that happens, a person simply reiterates his own view. That may be good on its own terms and in some respects, but it is not dialogue, where people both understand the opposing viewpoint and interact with it, rather than put it down and preach one's own view.

I am arguing that Mary Mediatrix is not a notion that is fundamentally foreign to Scripture or "unbiblical" or a contradiction to what we find in the Bible, etc. This is distinct from arguing that it is PROVED from the Bible. I don't think that at all; nor was I arguing such a thing. I am arguing that it is not as outrageous and foreign to the biblical worldview as Protestants casually assume (with much vehemence).

Obviously, Mariology involves much development of doctrine also: another huge topic . . .

Protestants (and Catholics who struggle with it) need to see the analogical biblical basis for this sort of thinking. The average Protestant is so turned off by the mere mention of "Mary as Mediatrix that he or she won't do the necessary reading to fully understand it in the first place. I can't control that; I can only give biblical, rational reasons for why I believe as I do, as a Catholic.

Lutheran Josh S. Attempts to Rationalize & Justify the Wholesale Plunder, Theft, & Confiscation of the Protestant "Reformation"

William Cobbett, painted c. 1831 by George Cooke (National Portrait Gallery UK)

It's unbelievable, but there it is. Josh S., of Cruising Down the Coast of High Barbaree fame (and lately contributing on the Reformed Catholicism blog as well), has, after repeated challenges from yours truly, decided to defend, rationalize, sanction, and justify the incredible mass plunderings of the so-called "Reformation."

And he does so, not surprisingly, using the exact same grounds that were used at the time by Luther and Henry VIII and the other revolutionaries (and money-grubbing, opportunist Lutheran princes and English "nobles" etc.). They were just as dead-wrong and unethical then as they are now, and the passage of time doesn't make them any less so, as true ethical principles and right and wrong are eternal entities (being grounded in God Himself) and don't change over time.

Historian Eamon Duffy of Cambridge

I had mentioned in passing, in the combox for his post "The Invisible Church": "Censorship of Catholics does go way back in Lutheran circles, though." This caused the usual non sequitur replies:

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


John H.:

HA, HA, HA, HA, HAAAAA!!!

***Pounds desk while weeping tears of delirious laughter***

Oh, that's wonderful. Simply wonderful.

Josh S. (his words will be in blue henceforth):

I laughed out loud for a good thirty seconds. The very idea of a Catholic complaining about censorship truly engenders more hilarity than anything I've ever seen in the comments on my blog.

I replied:

Catholics, by and large (not always), were willing to let the Lutherans worship as they pleased (e.g., the Emperor's demeanor at the Diet of Augsburg), but Lutherans forbade Catholic masses in their territories and simply stole Catholic property. It's not arguable; it is historical fact (just as in England). I've copiously documented it in many papers.

Luther censored Catholic versions of the Bible, and lied about (as did the movie, Luther) the plain fact that many German translations (some 14 or so, as I recall) had been available for several generations before he was born.

[actually, this should read, "several generations before his own Bible translation came out in the 1520s" -- since they dated from the movable-type printing press in the mid-15th century]

. . . But as I have shown, there was plenty of scandal and intolerance among early Lutherans. For heaven's sake, under Luther and Melanchthon, current-day Baptists could be put to death, whereas not many Catholics were executed. Yet I once talked to a Lutheran pastor's wife who was so exceedingly ignorant that she denied that Luther accepted the death penalty for heresy. I said that she need only go as far as Bainton's Here I Stand to see the falsity of that.

The Emperor saw the Augsburg Confession as an act of insubordination, and war ensued. Only after bitter and bloody conflict and with the looming threat of the Turk being far more serious than the Lutherans was the Peace of Augsburg signed in I think 1555. However, Trent overturned the terms of the PoA, and various revolts and suppressions continued for around three decades. However, the power of the Reformed and Lutheran princes was sufficient that non-papally sanctioned worship was a political reality that Rome simply had to accept by the middle of the 17th century.

None of that overthrows the facts I cited. Are you denying that Lutherans forbade Catholic masses in their territories or that they confiscated Catholic property (i.e., stealing, outright theft) on a huge scale? I'd love to see you do that.

The facts on that score are so utterly obvious and non-debatable, that I wouldn't waste time even documenting them here (and you'd complain that it made my post too long anyway). Anyone familiar at all with my blog can find many papers dealing with this.

After John H. hemmed and hawed, I opined:

. . . just answer the cotton-pickin' question (or I suppose the reluctance is already the answer). Everyone knows all sides have done bad stuff. No sense beating around the bush about it. It doesn't disprove anyone's theology.

My frustration as an apologist is to see the continual double standard about Catholic "bad stuff" (trumpeted incessantly) vs. Protestant scandal (hardly known, denied, or rationalized away). so part of my mission in life is to even that score at every opportunity.

. . . the context of all this talk of "sins of the [Lutheran / Catholic] fathers" was John's and Josh's uproarious laughter over my remark about Lutheran censorship, as if it were the silliest thing ever uttered by man in human history.

So I made indisputable references to some of the things that happened in those days among Lutherans, showing, of course, that my statement was not ridiculous at all.

Josh then decided to take the bull by the horns and (most astonishingly) defend the outrages of that sad period:

Dave, you are superimposing 20th century concepts of property ownership back onto the 16th century. German, English, and Swedish political authorities did not regard the cathedrals and chapels on their soil as the property of the pope (this attitude long predates the Reformation--who do you think paid for them?). Hence, reforms of worship in those territories did not by any means entail "stealing" from the papacy. Besides, from our point of view, they continued to be used by the Church, so what's the problem? The Church isn't the pope; it's all believers in Christ. That the Church in many places was released from bondage to the papacy doesn't mean that the pope still retains some natural right of control over her property when it was never his to begin with.

If you really want to talk about stealing, let's talk about how the papacy raped Germany for cash to build St Peter's by selling those lying indulgences.

Wow. Where to begin? I was especially surprised to see him include England and Sweden in his justifications, as the plunder in those countries (especially England) was, arguably, the most indisputably unethical and wicked of all such instances during the "Reformation." Very well, then; if Josh wishes to defend Henry VIII's plunder, then let us use that as an example and pursue it a bit. Can it be defended according to any semblance of Christian, biblical morality? Absolutely not.

And to just make a tiny dent into the massive documentation of the indefensible outrages, why don't we consult the famous work A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland (1826), by the non-Catholic social reformer William Cobbett (1763-1835). The online introduction to the book notes:

Cobbett's ideas found little favour with "respectable" historians then or for long afterwards . . . It is interesting, however, to note that one of Cobbett's theses -- that the Reformation in England had little popular support and was the product of a handful of fanatics backed by the awesome power of the Tudor Monarchy and supported by the greed of those who looted the monasteries and Churches -- is now increasingly being accepted by historians. See for example the TV series and book A History of Britain by Simon Schama, or the more specialised and detailed account The Stripping of The Altars by Eamon Duffy.

A review of Duffy's book by R. Post, on the amazon page, sums up his thesis:

"The Stripping of the Altars", Eamon Duffy's erudite, meticulous yet flowing analysis of what he refers to as "traditional religion" in England in the years from 1400 to 1580 is a masterpiece of scholarship and also of presentation. Professor of the History of Christianity at Cambridge University, he states in his preface to the second edition (the book was originally published in 1992) that his intentions were academic and that he was himself surprised to find that it developed an audience among the general public. . . .

Duffy's thesis is that, contrary to what has been taught and generally believed about the Protestant Reformation in England, satisfaction with the Roman Catholic "traditional" religion, its fêtes, rituals and observances was almost universal at the time of the Reformation and that the Reformation, itself, was imposed upon the people by royal and civil authority, not popular will. . . . he makes a convincing case.

He does so systematically, painting the nature of English existence at the time, largely rural, generally peaceful in the wake of the Hundred Year's War, isolated, provincial and soaked in pervasive religiosity. Suggesting that the abuses, indulgences and corruption of the Continental church had few echoes in England, Duffy works through the nature of categories of traditional practice -- liturgy, catechesis, mass, gild, prayers, primers (in preference to Bible study), and the sometimes cultish fixations on death and purgatory -- and in doing so creates an image of an idyllic world, cohesive, communal and warmly and constantly involved with its faith. In the process he uses plentiful plates and illustrations that correlate with specifics in the text and which, themselves, are a pleasure to review.

Voices around Henry VIII, who despite his quarrels with the papacy remained ambivalent about his religious identification, radicalized his policies in the persons of ranting Hugh Latimer and Machiavellian Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer, culminating in 1533 in the ultimate break with the Roman church and, in the name of removing idolatrous objects, the subsequent eponymous stripping of the altars, art, and statuary of the churches and the destruction of abbeys and monasteries, a sad price to pay for the concepts of religious individualism and personal responsibility for salvation.

The reaction of the traditionalists was varied. Some resisted while others went underground or accommodated and accepted the new authority; however, given the opportunity, Duffy emphasizes, the "vast majority" of the people quickly reverted to traditional religion after the deaths of Henry in 1547 and of the young King Edward VI in 1553 and the brief accession to the throne of Catholic Mary Tudor. As the reign of Elizabeth I began in 1558 and the Protestant Church of England was reinstated, many quickly changed sides of the aisle again, but, Duffy asserts, the ultimate defeat of the traditionalists was the result only of lengthy systematic repression, an effort that finally subverted the true will of the people.

* * * * *

Cobbett:

4.  Now, my friends, a fair and honest inquiry will teach us, that
this was an alteration greatly for the worse; that the "REFORMATION,"
as it is called, was engendered in beastly lust, brought forth in
hypocrisy and perfidy, and cherished and fed by plunder, devastation,
and by rivers of innocent English and Irish blood; and that, as to
its more remote consequences, they are, some of them, now before as
in that misery, that beggary, that nakedness, that hunger, that
everlasting wrangling and spite, which now stare us in the face and
stun our ears at every turn, and which the "Reformation" has given us
in exchange for the ease and happiness and harmony and Christian
charity, enjoyed so abundantly, and for so many ages, by our Catholic
forefathers.

54. When I come to speak of the measures by which the monasteries were robbed, devastated and destroyed in England and Ireland, I shall show how unjust, base and ungrateful, this railing against them is; and how foolish it is besides. I shall show the various ways in which they were greatly useful to the community; and I shall especially show how they operated in behalf of the labouring and poorer classes of the people. But, in this place, I shall merely describe, in the shortest manner possible, the origin and nature of those institutions, and the extent to which they existed in England.

60.  England, more, perhaps, than any other country in Europe,
abounded in such institutions, and these more richly endowed than any
where else. In England, there was, on an average, more than twenty
(we shall see the exact number by-and-by) of those establishments to
a county! Here was a prize for an unjust and cruel tyrant to lay his
lawless hands upon, and for "Reformation" gentry to share amongst
them! Here was enough, indeed, to make robbers on a grand scale cry
out against "monkish ignorance and superstition"! No wonder that the
bowels of CRANMER, KNOX, and all their mongrel litter, yearned so
piteously as they did, when they cast their pious eyes on all the
farms and manors, and on all the silver and gold ornaments belonging
to these communities! We shall see, by-and-by, with what alacrity
they ousted, plundered, and pulled down: we shall see them robbing,
under the basest pretences, even the altars of the country parish
churches, down to the very smallest of those churches, and down to
the value of five shillings. But, we must first take a view of the
motives which led the tyrant, Henry VIII., to set their devastating
and plundering faculties in motion.

64.  By making himself the supreme head of the Church, he made
himself, he having the sword and the gibbet at his command, master of
all the property of that Church, including that of the monasteries!
His counsellors and courtiers knew this; and, as it was soon
discovered that a sweeping confiscation would take place, the
parliament was by no means backward in aiding his designs, every one
hoping to share in the plunder. The first step was to pass acts
taking from the POPE all authority and power over the Church in
England, and giving to the King all authority whatever as to
ecclesiastical matters. . . .

96.  And yet, the calculating, cold-blooded and brazen BURNET has the
audacity to say, that "such a man as Henry VIII. was necessary to
bring about the Reformation!" He means, of course, that such measures
as those of Henry were necessary; and, if they were necessary, what
must be the nature and tendency of that "Reformation?"

97.  The work of blood was now begun, and it proceeded with steady
pace. All who refused to take the oath of supremacy; that is to say,
all who refused to become apostates, were considered and treated as
traitors, and made to suffer death accompanied with every possible
cruelty and indignity. As a specimen of the works of BURNET's
necessary reformer, and to spare the reader repetition on the
subject, let us take the treatment of JOHN HOUGHTON, Prior of the
Charter-house in London, which was then a convent of Carthusian
monks. This Prior, for having refused to take the oath, which,
observe, he could not take without committing perjury, was hanged at
TYBURN. He was scarcely suspended when the  rope was cut, and he
alive on the ground. His clothes were then stripped off; his bowels
were ripped up; his heart and entrails were torn from his body and
flung into a fire; his head was cut from his body; the body was
divided into quarters and parboiled; the quarters were then
subdivided and hung up in different parts of the city; and one arm
was nailed to the wall over the entrance into the monastery!

98.  Such were the means, which BURNET says were necessary to
introduce the Protestant religion into England. How different, alas!
from the means by which the Catholic religion had been introduced by
POPE GREGORY and Saint AUSTIN! These horrid butcheries were
perpetrated, mind, under the primacy of Fox's great Martyr, CRANMER,
and with the active agency of another ruffian, named THOMAS CROMWELL,
whom we shall soon see sharing with CRANMER the work of plunder, and
finally sharing, too, in his disgraceful end.

99.  Before we enter on the grand subject of plunder, which was the
mainspring of the "Reformation," we must follow the King and his
primate through their murders of Protestants, as well as Catholics.
But, first, we must see how the Protestant religion arose, and how it
stood at this juncture. . . .

118. Of the means by which the natural leaders of the people were
seduced from them; of the kind and the amount of the prize of
plunder, we are now going to take a view. In paragraph 4, I have
said, that the "Reformation" was cherished and fed by plunder and
devastation: In paragraph 37, I have said, that it was not a
Reformation, but a devastation of England; and that this devastation
impoverished and degraded the main body of the people. These
statements I am now about to prove to be true.

119.  In paragraphs from 55 to 60 inclusive, we have seen how
monasteries arose, and what sort of institutions they were. There
were, in England, at the time we are speaking of, 645 of theee
institutions; besides 90 Colleges, 110 Hospitals, and 2374 Chantries
and Free-Chapels. The whole were seized on, first and last, taken
into the hands of the King, and by him granted to those who aided and
abetted him in the work of plunder.

120. I pray you, my friends, sensible and just English men, to
observe here, that this was a great mass of landed property; that
this property was not by any means used for the sole benefit of
monks, friars, and nuns; that, for the far greater part, its rents
flowed immediately back amongst the people at large; and, that, if it
had never been an object of plunder, England never would, and never
could, have heard the hideous sound of the words pauper and poor-
rate. You have seen, in paragraph 52, in what manner the tithes arose
and how they were disposed of; and you are, by-and-by, to see how the
rents of the monasteries were distributed.

145.  There is now come that which is calculated to give our
reasoning faculties fair play. We see the land covered at last with
pauperism, fanaticism and crime. We hear an increase of the people
talked of as a calamity; we hear of projects to check the breeding of
the people; we hear of Scotch "feelosofers," prowling about the
country, reading lectures to the manufacturers and artisans to
instruct them in the science of preventing their wives from being
mothers; and, in one instance, this has been pushed so far as to
describe, in print, the mechanical process for effecting this object!
In short, we are now arrived at a point which compels us to inquire
into the cause of this monstrous state of things. The immediate cause
we find to be the poverty and degradation of the main body of the
people; and these, through many stages, we trace back to the
"Reformation," one of the effects of which was to destroy those
Monastic institutions which, as we shall now see, retained the
produce of labour in the proper places, and distributed it in a way
naturally tending to make the lives of the people easy and happy.

156.  We have already seen something of these pretences, motives and
acts of tyranny and barbarity; we have seen that the beastly lust of
the chief tyrant was the groundwork of what is called the
"Reformation"; we have seen that he could not have proceeded in his
course without the concurrence of the Parliament; we have seen that,
to obtain that concurrence, he held out to those who composed it a
participation in the spoils of the Monasteries; and, when we look at
the magnitude of their possessions, when we consider the beauty and
fertility of the spots on which they, in general, were situated, when
we think of the envy which the love borne them by the people must
have excited in the hearts of a great many of the noblemen and
gentlemen; when we thus reflect, we are not surprised, that these
were eager for a "Reformation" that promised to transfer the envied
possessions to them.

160. The monks and nuns, who had never dreamed of the possibility of
such proceedings, who had never had an idea that Magna Charta and all
the laws of the land could be set aside in a moment, and whose
recluse and peaceful lives rendered them wholly unfit to cope with at
once crafty and desperate villany, fell before these ruffians as
chickens fall before the kite. The reports, made by these villains,
met with no contradiction; the accused parties had no means of making
a defence; there was no court for them to appear in; they dared. not,
even if they had the means, to offer a defence or make a complaint;
for they had seen the horrible consequences, the burnings, the
rippings up, of all those of their brethren who had ventured to
whisper their dissent from any dogma or decree of the tyrant. The
project was to despoil people of their property; and yet the parties,
from whom the property was to be taken, were to have no court in
which to plead their cause, no means of obtaining a hearing, could
make even no complaint but at the peril of their lives. They, and
those who depended on them, were to be, at once, stripped of this
great mass of property, without any other ground than that of
reports, made by men, sent, as the malignant HUME himself confesses,
for the express purpose of finding a pretence for the dissolution of
the Monasteries and for the King's taking to himself property that
had never belonged to him or his predecessors.

[ . . . ]

265.  The intention to change the religion of the country became, in
a short time, so manifest, that all the Bishops but one refused to
crown her [Queen Elizabeth]. She at last found one to do it; but even
he would not consent to do the thing without her conformity to the Catholic
ritual. Very soon, however, a series of acts were passed, which, by
degrees, put down the Catholic worship, and re-introduced the
Protestant; and she found the plunderers and possessors of plunder
just as ready to conform to her ecclesiastical sway, as they had been
to receive absolution from Cardinal Pole, in the last reign.
CRANMER's book of Common Prayer, which had been ascribed by the
Parliament to the suggestions of the "Holy Ghost," had been altered
and amended even in Edward's reign. It was now revived, and altered
and amended again; and still it was ascribed to the "dictates of the
Holy Ghost"!

266.  If these Acts of Parliament had stopped here, they would
certainly have been bad and disgraceful enough. But such a change was
not to be effected without blood. This Queen was resolved to reign:
the blood of her people she deemed necessary to her own safety; and
she never scrupled to make it flow. She looked upon the Catholic
religion as her mortal enemy; and, cost what it might, she was
resolved to destroy it, if she could, the means being, by her, those
which best answered her end.

267.  With this view, statutes the most bloody were passed. All
persons were compelled to take the oath of supremacy, on pain of
death. To take the oath of supremacy; that is to say, to acknowledge
the Queen's supremacy in spiritual matters, was to renounce the POPE
and the Catholic religion; or, in other words, to become an apostate.
Thus was a very large part of her people at once condemned to death
for adhering to the religion of their fathers; and moreover, for
adhering to that very religion, in which she had openly lived till
she became Queen, and to her firm belief in which she had sworn at
her coronation!

268.  Besides this act of monstrous barbarity, it was made high
treason in a priest to say mass; it was made high treason in a priest
to come into the kingdom from abroad; it was made high treason to
harbour or to relieve a priest. And, on these grounds, and others of
a like nature, hundreds upon hundreds were butchered in the most
inhuman manner, being first hung up, then cut down alive, their
bowels then ripped up, and their bodies chopped into quarters: and
this, I again beg you, sensible and just Englishmen, to observe, only
because the unfortunate persons were too virtuous and sincere to
apostatize from that faith which this Queen herself had, at her
coronation, in her coronation oath, solemnly sworn to adhere to and
defend!

269.  Having pulled down the altars, set up the tables; having ousted
the Catholic priests and worship, and put in their stead a set of
hungry, beggarly creatures, the very scum of the earth, with
Cranmer's prayer-book amended in their hands; having done this, she
compelled her Catholic subjects to attend in the churches under
enormous penalties, which rose, at last, to death itself, in case of
perseverance in refusal! Thus were all the good, all the sincere, all
the conscientious people in the kingdom incessantly harassed, ruined
by enormous fines, brought to the gallows, or compelled to flee from
their native country. Thus was this Protestant religion watered with
the tears and the blood of the people of England. Talk of Catholic
persecution and cruelty! Where are you to find persecution and
cruelty like this, inflicted by Catholic princes? Elizabeth put, in
one way or another, more Catholics to death in one year, for not
becoming apostates to the religion which she had sworn to be hers,
and to be the only true one, than Mary put to death in her whole
reign for having apostatized from the religion of her and their
fathers, and to which religion she herself had always adhered. Yet,
the former is called, or has been called, "good Queen Bess," and the
latter "bloody Queen Mary." Even the horrid MASSACRE of ST.
BARTHOLOMEW was nothing, when fairly compared with the butcheries and
other cruelties of the reign of this Protestant Queen of England;
yes, a mere nothing; and yet she put on mourning upon that occasion,
and had the consummate hypocrisy to affect horror at the cruelties
that the King of France had committed.

* * * * *

Etc., etc. Further Examples could be multiplied forever.

Will Durant, not a Catholic himself, writes in the Epilogue of his massive work The Reformation,
posing as a Catholic responding to the massive turmoil and socio-political upheavals of the Protestant
Revolution (and does very well): 

Your emphasis on faith as against works was ruinous . . . for a hundred years charity almost died in the centers of your victory . . . You destroyed nearly all the schools we had established, and you weakened to the verge of death the universities that the Church had created and developed. Your own leaders admit that your disruption of the faith led to a dangerous deterioration of morals both in Germany and England. You let loose a chaos of individualism in morals, philosophy, industry, and government. You took all the joy and beauty out of religion . . . you condemned the masses of mankind to damnation as 'reprobates,' and consoled an insolent few with the pride of 'election' and salvation. You stifled the growth of art, and wherever you triumphed classical studies withered. You expropriated Church property to give it to the state and the rich, but you left the poor poorer than before, and added contempt to misery . . . You rejected the papacy only to exalt the state: you gave to selfish princes the right to determine the religion of their subjects . . . You divided nation against nation, and many a nation and city against itself; you wrecked the international moral checks on national powers, and created a chaos of warring national states . . . You claimed the right of private judgment, but you denied it to others as soon as you could . . . Every man becomes a pope, and judges the doctrines of religion before he is old enough to comprehend the functions of religion in society and morals . . . A kind of disintegrative mania, unhindered by any . . . authority, throws your followers into such absurd and violent disputes that men begin to doubt all religion, and Christianity itself would be dissolved . . . were it not that the Church stands firm amid all the fluctuations of opinion and argument . . . the one fold that can preserve religion.

(The Reformation, [volume 6 of 10-volume The Story of Civilization, 1967], New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957, 936-937)

Durant had written earlier in the book (pp. 438-439):
The cities found Protestantism profitable . . . for a slight alteration in their theological
garb they escaped from episcopal taxes and courts, and could appropriate pleasant
parcels of ecclesiastical property . . . The princes . . . could be spiritual as well as
temporal lords, and all the wealth of the Church could be theirs . . . The Lutheran princes
suppressed all monasteries in their territory except a few whose inmates had embraced
the Protestant faith.
Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc makes the obvious observation:
There came - round about 1536-40 -- a change . . . The temptation to
loot Church property and the habit of doing so had appeared and was growing;
and this rapidly created a vested interest in promoting the change of religion.
Those who attacked Catholic doctrine, as, for instance, in the matters
of celibacy in the monastic orders . . . opened the door for the
seizure of the enormous clerical endowments . . . by the Princes . . .
The property of convents and monasteries passed wholesale to the
looters over great areas of Christendom: Scandinavia, the British
Isles, the Northern Netherlands, much of the Germanies and many of the
Swiss Cantons. The endowments of hospitals, colleges, schools, guilds,
were largely though not wholly seized . . . Such an economic change in
so short a time our civilization had never seen . . . The new
adventurers and the older gentry who had so suddenly enriched
themselves, saw, in the return of Catholicism, peril to their immense
new fortunes.

(Characters of the Reformation, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1958, 9-10)
Protestant historian A.G. Dickens wrote:

In Sweden Gustavus Vasa deprived the Church of all its landed properties . . . The
proportion of land held by the crown increased during his reign from 5.5% to 28%:
that of the Church from 21% to nil.

(Reformation and Society in 16th-Century Europe, London: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966, 191)
And Erasmus stated with great disdain, on 10 May 1521, just weeks before the Diet of Worms:
This certainly is a fine turn of affairs, if property is wickedly taken away from priests
so that soldiers may make use of it in worse fashion; and the latter squander their own
wealth, and sometimes that of others, so that no one benefits.

(Christian Humanism and the Reformation, [selections from Erasmus], edited and translated
by John C. Olin, New York: Harper & Row, 1965 [orig. 1515-34], 157)
I have engaged in two lengthy dialogues on this general topic, with my Lutheran friend and history professor "CPA"
(he has asked me -- as Josh has -- to refrain from using his full name). He candidly admitted in the first debate:
I'm not proud as an Evangelical in much of the "how" in England or Sweden
becoming Protestant. (In Germany much less bloody compulsion was used.)
Reading about the martyrs under Queen Mary is a good deal more comfortable
for me than about the martyrs under Queen Elizabeth. I would likewise hope
that you as a Catholic are not proud of the details of how the Czech lands became
Catholic, or how Protestantism basically disappeared in France and
Austria (or indeed how the Saxons became Christian in the first place).I had written in that debate:

The Catholics had already tolerated these upstarts coming in piilaging and stealing churches. But they were willing to let them worship as they wanted in their own territories. I fail to see how that is "intolerant." The Catholics had every right to go in and put down the mass insurrection by force, just as Luther advised the princes in 1525. That's what happens today, right? If a riot begins and folks start stealing things and looting, the police go in and put it down, using force where necessary.

Are you saying the Catholics had no right to defend their property from being stolen, and priceless religious treasures being destroyed ore trampled on by horses, etc.?

The Protestants were breaking civil laws; not just the laws and doctrines of the Church. Note, e.g., one incident from the Diet of Augsburg in 1530:

Early in July the bishops presented their complaints to the Diet of the plundering and destruction of churches, seizure of monasteries and hospitals, prohibition of Masses, and attacks on religious processions by the Protestants. When Charles called upon the Protestants to restore the property they had seized, they said that to do so would be against their consciences. Charles responded crushingly: 'The Word of God, the Gospel, and every law civil and canonical, forbid a man to appropriate to himself the property of another.' He said that as Emperor he had the duty of guarding the rights of all, especially those Catholics unwilling to accept Protestantism or go into exile, who should at least be allowed to remain in their homes and practice their ancestral faith, specifically the Mass; the Protestants replied that they would not tolerate the Mass . . .

(Warren Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom; from the series, A History of Christendom, Volume 4, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000, 103-107)

CPA wrote:

[Y]ou can surely understand that the Evangelicals, being convinced that Catholicism is false, and that the church of Christ must teach true doctrine, were understandably concerned with bringing all of the church and its properties into the hands of the true religion.

And I replied:

Sure, I understand it. They thought Catholicism wasn't Christian; therefore, they felt like they had a duty to steal their properties and "Christianize" them. But of course this is wrong on two major counts:

1) Catholicism is, in fact, Christian, and a consistent Protestant argument otherwise is impossible to make; indeed, almost inconceivable.

2) Stealing is against civil and natural law (and against the Ten Commandments).

Moreover, your huge problem here is that you are defending a movement which held to some basic assumptions that you reject; viz., that Catholicism is not Christian, and that the Mass is in no way, shape, or form a Christian worship service. This is the dilemma you find yourself in. Anti-Catholic Protestants can defend all this as consistent with their self-defeating beliefs. But you cannot, since you are not anti-Catholic (far as I know).

CPA engaged in a second lengthy (I thought, constructive, and amiable as always) debate on this topic of theft of Church properties. I wrote:

But your premises are wrong here insofar as you overlook the common ground of ethics between Catholics and Protestants (which applies without regard to theological differences). We both follow the Ten Commandments, remember? We both think it is wrong to steal. It is wrong to steal the property of another Christian. If I came rummaging through your town with a band of rag-tag, self-righteous zealots and simply came into your church, destroyed works of art, smashed windows, booted out the pastor, and stole the building and made it a Catholic Church, what would you think? Would you feel that a grave injustice had been done? Would you rightly believe that you would have ample recourse to civil law to deal with your grievances and return to you what is rightly yours? Of course you would. But when we talk about the 16th century, all of a sudden you want to play games and act as if this is not indefensible behavior and fundamentally outrageous.

I already agreed that the issues raised in conquering of pagan lands and cultures are difficult and thorny. I have not claimed to have worked through all of that (indeed, I would like to give it some serious consideration at some point, as something I have long wondered about).

But I don't have to have all that worked out to know that it is wrong for one Christian to steal another Christian's property, and banish their religion in the land where they have always lived, and require them to move in order to get their religious freedom back.

Stealing is wrong. Period. However it works out in analyzing the ethics of conquering and evangelizing lands, that doesn't undo the fact that stealing is a grave sin. Because one issue is more complex and more difficult to decipher does not make a much simpler situation ethically neutral or indecipherable. No; this is a clear case of injustice. You admit it yourself in the cases of Sweden and England, but you have tried to argue that it was a lot different in Germany. As a quantitative matter of degree, yes, but when the rabble-rousing Protestants came to my town and stole my church, then it was a clear matter of wrong and injustice.

These things cannot be defended. The very fact that you have to appeal to extraordinary, inapplicable analogies in order to bolster up a lost cause (stealing of churches of fellow Christians) shows the very weakness of your case.

. . . Lax, greedy, power-hungry princes (Melanchthon's own descriptions) determining what is heresy and what isn't, even to the point of death? This is even more ridiculous than the situation in England. At least there everyone knew it was a raw power play originally motivated by lust (as they say, "all heresy begins below the belt"). Here, there is the hyper-naive pretense that such a caesaropapist state of affairs could bring about something other than disaster (spiritual and civil).

CPA still resisted my argument, and so I decided to make an analogy to his perspective as a Lutheran:

You don't seem to realize what it is you defend in this particular discussion. Let me try as exact of an anology as I can, which applies to your own situation, to bring the point home to you.

You are a Lutheran, with a nearly 500-year-old tradition at this point of history. Now, I assume that you would freely grant that there is a great deal of corruption of one sort or another in world Lutheranism. There is liberalism, there is caving into the pro-abortion mentality in many forms of it (ELCA, etc.), and other sorts of decay. This is true of every Christian tradition.

So all of a sudden, one day there arises a new form of Christianity, led by a fiery visionary who claims to be a sort of pseudo-prophet and God's man of the hour, and who is willing to confront the entire Lutheran tradition if needs be.

Let's give them the name "Believers of the True Gospel" (henceforth known as "BTG's"). This is analogous because the early Protestants claimed to be the sole possessors of the Christian gospel, while Catholics had supposedly forsaken the same.

These folks take it upon themselves to overrun Lutheran cities. The procedure is usually something like the following. This time, it occurs in your town, though. They come in, enter your church building, kick out the pastor and any staff, break the stained glass windows, smash any religious art that they see, destroy the organ, and in the end, steal the entire building with its property.

When you protest, they reply that "the goods are no longer yours," because you proclaim a false gospel, and they have the true gospel; therefore, they have the right to your property. Your congregation takes to someone's house to worship as you see fit.

But that is not sufficient for the BTG's. They not only steal your property and refuse to give it back because that is against their "conscience." They also go a step further and proclaim that you cannot worship as a Lutheran at all, in your own town. You are forced to leave, split, with all your possessions.

Your Baptist friends fare even worse. They are burned, drowned, tortured, crucified, or (in some more fortunate cases) lose their tongues and other body parts before being forced to leave town. You are relatively fortunate, being a Lutheran, but even so, your worship is declared by the BTG's as blasphemous, idolatrous, and an abomination; no Christian thing at all.

At length they take over the city or state government and institutionalize all their theological and ecclesiastical claims. The mayor and governor, city concil and state congress decide what is true religion and what is not.

But of course, none of this poses any problem for you, because you have your abstract analyses which can overcome all this supposed injustice and wickedness. You seem to think all of this would be fine and dandy because, well, because the BTG religion is every bit as valid and worthy of civil protection or legitimacy as the Lutheran religion. After all, it is still Christian (it's trinitarian, and so forth). But it does not regard your faith as legitimately Christian. So it makes perfect sense for it to suppress your religion entirely, and boot you out and take your property (and to kill Baptist and Pentecostal friends and family of yours), because it has every right to do so and no one could possibly object!

Will you concede the outrageousness of such a state of affairs yet? Or do you insist that the Lutherans in this instance had less cause for crying injustice than the BTG's? The latter were more justified in their actions, and the Lutherans deserved what they got? And this shall be how history views the situation for the next 500 years? The Lutherans deserved everything they got, and the BTG's were the "good guys" - the true Christians doing what they had to do?

. . . No one of their right mind - of any religion - can possibly condone such a thing. Once Protestants learn what happened, and how this happened over and over, most of them would not, either. Yet I can't seem to convince you of this. I wonder why that is, since you are an intelligent, fair-minded, knowledgeable, and ethical guy? What am I missing here? Admitting this was wrong no more harms your Lutheran faith than my admitting as a Catholic that a lot of the Inquisition and Crusades were unethical.

. . . How do you defeat my analogy? It describes exactly what happened, from the Catholic standpoint, simply switched over to a present-day Lutheran perspective. Would you just sit and stand by and let these guys come destroy your church, take the property, boot you out of town, kill certain Christian friends of yours, and defend their right to do it with abstract arguments? Or would you agree with me that it is an outrage (having nothing to do with religious differences [i.e., in terms of the debate we are having]) which has to be condemned as a wicked thing?

. . . The BTGs come to your town and don't give a rat's rear end about what you think is truth, or how old or established your denomination is. They are here with the true gospel and that's that! How do you argue against them, seeing the position you have staked out here? They see you as decrepit and their religion as the new, exciting, godly thing. How do you argue without getting into relative theology? But in the meantime it is easy to see how stealing and banishment is wrong, even more so when committed by one Christian against another.

Lastly, I should like to summarize Martin Luther's rationalizations of theft, plunder, and stealing (his words in orange):

'If they are not the church but the devil's whore that has not remained faithful to Christ, then it is irrefutably and thoroughly established that they should not possess church property.'

(Wider Hans Wurst, or Against Jack Sausage [1541], LW, vol. 41, 179-256, translated by Eric W. Gritsch; citation from p. 220)

"For it is not unlawful, indeed, it is absolutely right to drive the wolf from the sheepfold . . . A preacher is not given property and tithes in order that he should do injury, but that he should labor profitably. If he does not work to the advantage of the people, the endowments are his no longer."

(12 December 1522)

. . . there is need of great care, lest the possessions of such vacated foundations become common plunder and everyone make off with what he can get . . . the blame is laid at my door whenever monasteries and foundations are vacated . . . This makes me unwilling to take the additional blame if some greedy bellies should grab these spiritual possessions and claim, in excuse of their conduct, that I was the cause of it . . .

In the first place: it would indeed be well if no rural monasteries, such as those of the Benedictines, Cistercians, Celestines, and the like, had ever appeared upon earth. But now that they are here, the best thing is to suffer them to pass away or to assist them, wherever one properly can, to disappear altogether. This may be done in the following ways. First, by suffering the inmates to leave, if they choose, of their own free will . . .

[then follows an exhortation to charitably provide for those who won't or can't leave]

I advise the temporal authorities, however, to take over the possessions of such monasteries . . . it is not a case of greed opposing the spiritual possessions, but of Christian faith opposing the monasteries . . . I am writing this for those only who understand the Gospel and who have the right to take such action in their own lands, cities and jurisdiction . . .

. . . the third way is best, namely, to devote all remaining possessions to the common fund of a common chest, out of which gifts and loans might be made, in Christian love, to all the needy in the land, whether nobles or commons . . .

I am setting down this advice in accordance with Christian love for Christians alone. We must expect greed to creep in here and there . . . it is better that greed take too much in an orderly way than that the whole thing become common plunder, as it happened in Bohemia. Let everyone examine himself to see what he should take for his own needs and what he should leave for the common chest.

In the third place: the same procedure should be followed with respect to abbacies, foundations, and chapters in control of lands, cities and other possessions. For such bishops and foundations are neither bishops nor foundations; they are really at bottom temporal lords sailing under a spiritual name . . .

In the fourth place: part of the possessions of the monasteries and foundations . . . are based upon usury, which now calls itself everywhere "interest," and which has in but a few years swallowed up the whole world . . . God says, "I hate robbery for burnt offering." [Is 61:8] . . .

But whosoever will not follow this advice nor curb his greed, of him I wash my hands.

(Preface to an Ordinance of a Common Chest [1523], PE, IV, 92-98, translated by A.T.W. Steinhaeuser; WA, XII, 11-30; EA, XXII, 106-130; citations from 93-98)

"Who does not see that all bishops, foundations, monastic houses, universities, with all that are therein, rage against this clear word of Christ . . .? Hence they are certainly to be regarded as murderers, thieves, wolves and apostate Christians . . .

". . . the hearers not only have the power and the right to judge all preaching, but are obliged to judge it under penalty of forfeiting the favor of Divine Majesty. Thus we see in how unchristian a manner the despots dealt with us when they deprived us of this right and appropriated it to themselves. For this thing alone they have richly deserved to be cast out of the Christian Church and driven forth as wolves, thieves and murderers . . ."

(The Right and Power of a Christian Congregation or Community to Judge all Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proved From Scripture, [1523] PE [Philadelphia edition of Luther's works], IV, 75-85, translated by A.T.W. Steinhaeuser; WA, XI, 406 ff.; EA, XXII, 141 ff.; citations from 75-79)

I shall conclude this lengthy paper with my words in that discussion:

Where are the Catholic laws which sanctioned stealing? If you produced any, I would roundly condemn them, so will you join me in also condemning such laws when passed by Lutherans? Remember, my argument is that stealing is part of natural law, understood by all societies as wrong. It should not be a point of controversy between Catholics and Protestants.

The real conflict here is whether the early Protestants could rationalize stealing on theological grounds (the Catholics are evil murderers, etc., and so they [deserve] whatever they get, including stealing and banishment and having a host of lies told against them in hideous, vulgar pamphlets). Last time I checked, bearing false witness is also condemned in the Ten Commandments, along with stealing and covetousness.

CPA: "I think all such laws and all such practices to be atrocious."

Great. Then we can agree that Luther- and Lutheran-sanctioned theft was also atrocious, and I assume you know that this was a major way in which the "Reformation" was spread (along with massive propaganda literature campaigns mocking Catholicism and largely cynical, Machiavellian political machinations). If we agree on that, then that is about the best outcome I could have hoped for in this dialogue.

. . . Lastly, I have never denied that Catholics did things wrong in history. Of course they did. Only a fool or an ignoramus could deny it. My point is always that the Protestants were either just as bad or worse, and more hypocritical, in light of their supposed foundational principles. I am always opposing what I call the "Protestant myth of origins" and the silly notion that Protestants were especially noble and righteous over against the Catholics. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The more both sides face up to historical facts (whatever they are), the better we can communicate today regarding theological issues, because we're starting with a clean slate, so to speak, without being burdened by the baggage of historical falsehoods and myths.

The One-Minute Apologist: Source Documentation for End-of-Section Quotations, Plus Additional Contexts

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990): the great Protestant biblical scholar

My publisher chose to not include the documentation for all the quotations I was asked to provide for each two-page section of my just-released book. This information was included in my manuscript, and so I shall provide that information here. Blue sections are continuations of quotations that were edited out of the published version, and green sections preceded existing book citations in my original manuscript:

Martin Luther [p. 5]

(in the year 1532; from Protestant Luther biographer Roland H. Bainton, Studies on the Reformation [Boston: Beacon Press, 1963], p. 26; primary source: WA [Werke, Weimar edition in German], XXX, 552; bracketed comment is Bainton’s own)

Robert McAfee Brown (Protestant scholar) [p. 7]

“Much of this may be due to faulty reading and faulty listening. But it cannot all be explained so simply. It can be explained only by recognizing honestly that Protestants do not rely on sola Scriptura in quite the pure way that Reformation Sunday sermons would suggest.”

(The Spirit of Protestantism, London: Oxford University Press, 1961, 215-216)

F.F. Bruce (Protestant Bible scholar) [pp. 9, 11]

(The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 79-80; discussing St. Athanasius’ Festal Letter [No. 39], written in 367)

(The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 41, 50, 280-282)

James Gairdner (Protestant Church historian) [p. 13]

(Lollardy and the Reformation in England, Vol. 1 of 4, 1908, 105, 117)

Philip Schaff (Protestant Church historian) [p. 17]

". . . and the accounts of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome, that the same apostle nominated and ordained Polycarp (with whom Irenaeus was personally acquainted) bishop of Smyrna."

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970; from the 5^th revised edition of 1910, 135-136)

John Calvin [p. 19]

" . . . [Matt. 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isa. 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify . . ."

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill; translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, IV, 1, 4; Vol. 2, p. 1016)

Philip Schaff (Protestant Church historian) [p. 21]

(History of the Christian Church, vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974; from the revised 5th edition of 1910, 396-397)

James D.G. Dunn (Protestant New Testament Scholar) [p. 23]

(Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, second edition, 1990, 192-193; glossalalia is the Greek word for tongues)

Bertrand Conway [p. 25]

"Neither excommunication nor anathemas imply the Church's condemning anyone to hell. That is the prerogative of God alone. Excommunication is a Church law, excluding a notorious sinner from the communion of the faithful (Canons 2257-2267). Its purpose is to warn the sinner of the danger he runs of incurring eternal ruin, unless he repent of his sin. The "delivering of the sinner to Satan," which we find in the Roman Pontifical, is based on the words of St. Paul, who delivered the incestuous sinner to Satan, "that his spirit might be saved in the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 5:5; cf. 1 Tim. 1:20)."

(The Question Box, New York: The Paulist Press, 205)

Ronald Knox [p. 27]

(University and Anglican Sermons, London: Burns and Oates, 1963, 63)

H. Richard Niebuhr (Protestant Theologian) [p. 29]

(The Social Sources of Denominationalism, New York: The World Publishing Co. / Meridian Books, 1957; originally 1929, 25)

The Catholic Encyclopedia [p. 31]

(Vol. VI, 1909, “Galileo Galilei,” John Gerard)

James D.G. Dunn (Protestant Bible scholar) [p. 35]

(Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2nd edition, 1990, 385; cited in agreement by Bruce in the work above, pp. 42-43)

The New Bible Dictionary (Protestant reference work) [p. 37]

(general editor: J.D. Douglas; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, “Power,” section III: “The Power of the Keys,” by R.N. Caswell, pp. 1017-1018)

R.T. France (Anglican Bible commentator) [p. 39]

"Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . ."

(in Leon Morris, general editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

The New Bible Dictionary (Protestant reference work) [p. 41]

(Organizing editor: J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962; article “Peter,” written by A.F. Walls, 973)

John Henry Newman [p. 43]

(An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1845, Part I, Ch. 2, Sec. 3)

Patrick Madrid (Catholic Apologist) [p. 45]

(Pope Fiction, San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999, 161-162)

St. Augustine [p. 49]

(The City of God, translated by Henry Bettenson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972, XX, 10; p. 919)

Pope Pius XII (r. 1939-1958) [p. 51]

(Menti Nostrae, 23 September 1950)

C.S. Lewis [p. 53]

(“Priestesses in the Church?” From: God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, edited by Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970, 235-236; originally published as “Notes on the Way,” in Time and Tide, vol. XXIX: 14 August 1948, pp. 830-831)

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) [p. 57]

(Summa Theologica, III, Q. 66, Art. 11)

Blaise Pascal [p. 59]

Pensees (no further documentation given)

St. Augustine [p. 61]

(The City of God, translated by Henry Bettenson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972, XXII, 10; pp. 1048-1049)

F.F. Bruce (Protestant Bible Scholar) [p. 63]

(Israel and the Nations, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963; reprinted 1981, 41)

St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) [p. 65]

This one is a blatant typo in the book. My concluding words were mistakenly listed as a citation from St. Ignatius (!!!). I'm honored and humbled by the "compliment", but here is my intended citation:

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, Who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man and Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live for ever in Jesus Christ."

(Letter to the Ephesians, 20)

Martin Luther [pp. 67, 69]

(Large Catechism, 1529; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935; section 230, p. 165)

(Large Catechism, 1529; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935; section 234, p. 167)

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. [p. 71]

(Modern Catholic Dictionary, Garden City, New York, Doubleday & Company, 1980, “Limbo,” p. 320)

Blaise Pascal [p. 73]

Pensees (no further documentation given)

C.S. Lewis [p. 77]

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

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism) [p. 79]

(A Farther Appeal, 1745, Works, London: 1831, VIII, 68 ff. / Working Out Our Own Salvation, 1788, Works, VI, 511 ff.)

John Calvin [p. 81]

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill; translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, IV, 1, 3; Vol. 2, p. 1015; cf. IV, 1, 8; IV, 12, 9)

. . . [II Tim. 2:19]

(Ibid., IV, 1, 2; Vol. 2, p. 1013)

John Henry Newman [pp. 83, 85]

(Lectures on Justification; no further documentation)

(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. 5, Sermon 14: “Transgressions and Infirmities” – from Newman’s Anglican period: 1840)

G.K. Chesterton [p. 87]

(All Things Considered, 1908; New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956, 140-141)

C.S. Lewis [p. 89]

"Though Our Lord often speaks of Hell as a sentence inflicted by a tribunal, He also says elsewhere that the judgement consists in the very fact that men prefer darkness to light, and that not He, but His 'word,' judges men. We are therefore at liberty – since the two conceptions, in the long run, mean the same thing – to think of this bad man’s perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is. The characteristic of lost souls is 'their rejection of everything that is not simply themselves.'”

(The Problem of Pain, New York: Macmillan, 1962, ch. 8, 122-123)

Fr. Ray Ryland [p. 91]

The Church speaks of "implicit desire" or "longing" that can exist in the hearts of those who seek God but are ignorant of the means of his grace. If a person longs for salvation but does not know the divinely established means of salvation, he is said to have an implicit desire for membership in the Church. Non-Catholic Christians know Christ, but they do not know his Church. In their desire to serve him, they implicitly desire to be members of his Church. Non-Christians can be saved, said John Paul, if they seek God with "a sincere heart." In that seeking they are "related" to Christ and to his body the Church . . .

(“No Salvation Outside the Church,” This Rock, Vol. 16, No. 10, December 2005)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [p. 93]

(De Civ. Dei [City of God], xxi. 13, and xxi. 24)

(F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1983, 1144-1145)

John Henry Newman [p. 95]

(An Essay on the Grammar of Assent, 1870, 10)

C.S. Lewis [p. 99]

(“The Poison of Subjectivism,” 1943; later included in Christian Reflections: New York: Macmillan: 1967)

Romano Guardini (Catholic Theologian) [p. 101]

It is in him, the Third Person of the Trinity, that Father and Son are powerfully individual, yet one.

(The Lord, translated by Elinor Castendyk Briefs, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1954, 433)

Sir Arnold Lunn (English Writer) [p. 103]

(Now I See, 1933)

Matthias Premm (Catholic Theologian) [p. 105]

The teaching of the Catholic Church is this: the unity in Christ did not result from the uniting of his two natures with each other, but in the union of each of them in the Person of the Son of God. The union is thus achieved in the Person (in theological terms this is called the hypostatic union), and not in the natures . . . both divine and human attributes can be predicated of him, although the two natures are separated by an infinite abyss. For example, I can say that Christ is omniscient (as God), but also that he does not know everything (as man); God is lying in the crib (that is, as a man); God is dying on the cross, etc.

(Dogmatic Theology for the Laity, Rockford, IL: TAN, 1967, 151-152)

St. Augustine [p. 109]

(On Nature and Grace [415], XXXVI, 42)

Martin Luther [pp. 111, 113]

(That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, 1523; LW: Vol. 45, 199, 206)

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther's Works, Pelikan et al, volume 21, 326)

Heinrich Bullinger (Prominent Early Protestant Leader) [p. 115]

(in Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of all Christians, translated by Neville B. Cryer, New York: Herder & Herder, 1963, 197-198; from De origine erroris, 16, written in 1568)

John Henry Newman [p. 117]

The last clause in the published version was cut off, and a period put after "power," leaving an incomplete sentence at the end. The "Though then" at the beginning, shows that the grammar necessitates an additional clause, because it is a compare-and-contrast sentence. Obviously, inadvertent human error on my (all in all, excellent) editor's part . . .

Our Lord died for those heathens who did not know Him; and His Mother intercedes for those Christians who do not know her; and she intercedes according to His will, and, when He wills to save a particular soul, she at once prays for it. I say, He wills indeed according to her prayer, but then she prays according to His will. Though then it is natural and prudent for those to have recourse to her, who from the Church's teaching know her power, yet it cannot be said that devotion to her is a sine-qua-non of salvation.

(Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching, Vol. 2, § 5)

Martin Luther / Philip Schaff (Protestant Church Historian) [p. 119]

(Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528, in Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, vol. 37, 369)

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. II: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970; 5th revised edition of 1910, 603-604)

C.S. Lewis [p. 121]

[D]evotions to saints . . . There is clearly a theological defence for it; if you can ask for the prayers of the living, why should you not ask for the prayers of the dead? . . . I am not thinking of adopting the practice myself; and who am I to judge the practices of others? . . . The consoling thing is that while Christendom is divided about the rationality and even the lawfulness, of praying to the saints, we are all agreed about praying with them. 'With angels and archangels and all the company of heaven' . . . You may say that the distinction between the communion of the saints as I find it in that act and full-fledged prayer to saints is not, after all, very great. All the better if so. I sometimes have a bright dream of reunion engulfing us unawares, like a great wave from behind our backs . . . Discussions usually separate us; actions sometimes unite us.

(Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 15-16)

Ronald Knox [p. 123]

The book edit fails to include ellipses [ . . . ] between "the faith" and "Yes, this man . . .", thus leaving the impression that Knox's original statement didn't include all the words in between them.

The attitude of our non-Catholic friends towards the Catholic saints; they always contrive to discredit, in one of two ways, their witness to the faith. Either they will say: “This was a very unpleasant, narrow-minded man, of ridiculous personal habits; and if that is what saints are like we would sooner hear no more of them”, or they will say: “Yes, this man was indeed a saint; but then he was not really a Roman Catholic. He was just a good Christian, as I and my wife are; he only happened to be in communion with the Pope because everybody was in those days.”

(Occasional Sermons, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1960, 115-116)

James Cardinal Gibbons [p. 127]

(The Faith of Our Fathers, New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, revised edition, 1917, 311)

Carryl Houselander (American Writer) [p. 129]

(Guilt, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951)

Bertrand L. Conway [p. 131]

(The Question Box, New York: The Paulist Press, revised edition, 1929, 368)

Martin Luther [p. 133]

(Against the Heavenly Prophets, 1525, in Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. 40, p. 96)

St. Thomas Aquinas [p. 135]

[D]ivine power works invisibly through visible signs…. Hereby is excluded the error of certain heretics, who wish all visible sacramental signs swept away; and no wonder, for they take all visible things to be of their own nature evil, and the work of an evil author. These visible sacramental signs are the instruments of a God Incarnate and Crucified.

(Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 56: “Of the Need of Sacraments”)

St. Augustine [p. 137]

(On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1,10[11]; A.D. 420, in NPNF1, V, 268 / Ibid., 1:17:19)

Bertrand L. Conway [p. 139]

(The Question Box, New York: The Paulist Press, revised edition, 1929, 331)

G.K. Chesterton [p. 141]

(The Well and the Shallows, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1935, 233)

Summary of Multiple Citations (62 Quotations in 61 sections)

Martin Luther: 7
C.S. Lewis: 5
John Henry Newman: 5
St. Augustine: 4
Philip Schaff: 3
F.F. Bruce: 3
Bertrand L. Conway: 3
G.K. Chesterton: 2
St. Thomas Aquinas: 2
Blaise Pascal: 2
John Calvin: 2
James D.G. Dunn: 2
Ronald Knox: 2
New Bible Dictionary: 2

See also the related post:

New and Improved Electronic Version of The One-Minute Apologist (More Hyper-Links) / Errors in the Paperback Edition Detailed and Corrected

Protestant Compromise, Radical Secularism, and Racist Eugenics: The Contraception Debate: 1900-1940

Margaret Sanger and Joseph Goebbels: both master propagandists,
anti-Christians, and proponents of racist eugenics

Dr. Kathleen A. Tobin, historian and professor of Latin American Studies at Purdue University, has written a very interesting book: The American Religious Debate over Birth Control 1907-1937 (McFarland & Company, 2001). It is able to be extensively searched on Google. It makes for fascinating reading, especially for those completely unacquainted with the history of how almost universal practice of contraception came about. Some excerpts:

* * * * *

Representing the Anglo upper class around the globe, the Anglican Communion made some of the earliest pronouncements supporting eugenics, Malthusianism, and race theory, which fed into the birth control movement.

(p. 25)

Throughout the centuries there was essentially a religious consensus among those denominations that were rooted in Judeo-Christian foundations and Western thought.

(p. 39)

Martin Luther and John Calvin, prominent founders of Protestantism, both had strongly objected to contraception . . .

In 1522 Luther . . . condemned those "who seem to detest giving birth lest the bearing and rearing of children disturb their leisure." Both Luther and Calvin condemned Onanism . . .

(p. 41)

Missouri Synod Lutherans would ultimately differ strongly from United Lutherans on the issue of contraception, . . .

(p. 44)

Lutherans criticized the Lambeth Conference encyclical of 1920 for doing just that, inspiring movements outside the Church, . . .

(p. 57)

As other Protestant denominations in the United States considered a variety of possible solutions to social ills, Lutherans resisted . . .

(p. 70)

In fact, the stand against contraception by the Reformed Church, as well as by Southern Baptists and Missouri Synod Lutherans, would go unchanged . . .

(p. 72)

Fosdick and Potter did not include only the Catholic Church in the category of “old religion”; they were also critical of Lutherans and Calvinists . . .

(p. 94)

The conservative Missouri Synod Lutherans did not waver at all in their opposition during these years, . . .

(p. 102)

Lutherans did not grant approval of contraceptive use even when others did in 1931.

(p. 106)

Between the summer of 1930 and the spring of 1931 the public religious debate over birth control reached its high point. Nationwide debates erupted while entire denominations attempted to define their official positions. . . . an increasing number of liberal and mainline clergy pointed to evidence that a large number of couples were already deciding to prevent unwanted pregnancies and that it was proper to recognize that what they were doing was not sinful. Conservative clergy argued that the birth control issue transcended contemporary economic conditions and that modernists were making a serious mistake in adjusting religious doctrine to accommodate the American people's wishes. An editorial in the Commonweal described the widespread approval of contraception as the triumph of secularism and the death of the Protestant Reformation.

(p. 148)

The Review had not altogether abandoned Sanger's criticism of the Catholic Church . . .:

No one can deny that the Catholic opposition is the keystone of all the opposition to Birth Control. It permeates into every field. It explains why . . . the American Medical Association refuses to declare itself, and contraceptive technique is still not generally taught in medical schools . . .

(p. 149)

[numerous examples of Protestant clergy caving and compromising on the issue and adopting wholesale secularist, libertarian utilitarianism in sexual matters are then given, on pp. 149-151]

Though some denominations aside from the Catholic Church [in 1932 to 1937] continued to voice their opposition to artificial contraception use and lobbied against legalizing contraception, they did not make themselves as visible as Catholic spokespersons did. Consequently, birth control advocates pointed to the intensified lobbying efforts on the part of Catholics as a growing threat to the personal and political freedoms of Americans.

(p. 186)

The discussion among United Lutherans demonstrated their hesitance to endorse birth control.

(p. 188)

[I]n addition to Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and “certain divisions of Lutherans and Baptists” remained opposed.

(p. 205)

See Dr. Tobin's related article: International Birth Control Politics: The Evolution of a Catholic Contraceptive Debate in Latin America.

* * * * *

Carole R. McCann, has written a similar book: Birth Control Politics in the United States, 1916-1945 (Cornell University Press; New edition, March 1999). Excerpts from the Google search page:

[T]he birth control movement depended on the language of eugenics to legitimate contraception. By articulating the goal of contraceptive legalization in a eugenic framework, the movement defined birth control as a necessary component of national efforts to promote racial betterment. If, as eugenics represented it, the American race was deteriorating because of inefficient breeding, birth control's application of "reason and intelligence" to reproduction could regenerate the race and ensure public health and the national welfare. . . .

The American eugenics movement was concerned primarily with differential birth rates between old-stock Americans and new immigrants and the "colored races." . . . Nordic-Teutonic America, in danger of committing race suicide, was being swamped by a "rising tide of color." The major fertility measures espoused by eugenicists were negative eugenics, the permanent sterilization or enforced celibacy of the unfit, and positive eugenics, the increase of birth rates among the "better stocks." The use of contraception by the "better stocks" represented part of the problem; it contributed to Nordic-Teutonic race suicide by artificially lowering their birth rates even further . . .

As a reputable science, eugenics provided the birth control movement with an authoritative language through which to legitimate women's rights to contraception. By situating birth control within the eugenic terrain of racial betterment, Sanger appropriated the authority and prestige of eugenics to birth control as a tool of racial health.

(pp. 99-100)

* * * * *

In his book, Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger (Yale University Press, 1970), David M. Kennedy traces early medical reaction to Margaret Sanger's radically secularist birth control movement:

The associations, academies, and societies which alone could make an innovation such as birth control acceptable to the average doctor refused to endorse it. In late 1916, the New York County Medical Society . . . reported its fear that contraceptives, "indiscriminately employed," would undermine personal morality and national strength. The committee suspected that professional abortionists and "sensation-mongers" were behind much of the birth control propaganda.

(p. 174)

Another High-Profile Conversion to the Catholic Church: Lutheran Philosopher Robert C. Koons

Dr. Robert Koons and a vocal, blissfully content-free
critic of his conversion: Lutheran seminarian Josh S.

Dr. Robert C. Koons, a philosopher at the University of Texas - Austin (and formerly an avid Lutheran), has announced that he will be received into the Catholic Church on 26 May. I encourage folks to welcome him in that thread, just as Dr. Francis Beckwith was so warmly greeted by many (as well as blasted by the usual suspects).

He lays out his reasoning in considerable depth in his Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism. Dr. Koons cautions the reader of this longer explanation with the following comments:

I have available a set of private notes that began as a purely intellectual exercise: an attempt to exorcise my doubts about Lutheranism by putting them to paper and exposing them to critique (both on my part and on that of others). As it turned out, the more I wrote, the more reasons I found for changing my outlook. . . .

Bear in mind that I am no professional theologian, and I claim no special authority for my conclusions. I welcome feedback to these notes, but I would ask that my readers take a look first at John Henry Newman’s book, An Essay on the Development of Doctrine (1845). Newman’s book is essential background reading for my notes, because he provides the decisive rebuttal to the argument that the supremacy of the Pope and other contemporary, distinctively Roman Catholic doctrines constitute objectionable “innovations”. Newman convincingly argues that the recognition of genuine development in Christian doctrine is inescapable, as anyone who knows the history of the doctrines of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ must recognize.

But don't take Dr. Koons' admirable self-effacing humility too literally. After all, he has a B.A. degree in Philosophy and Theology from Oxford University (First Class Honours, 1981). I found his lengthier treatise to be very well-written and researched indeed. It is a superb apologia for the Catholic view of soteriology and justification, and effective critique of the Lutheran counterpart. In his brief blog explanation he summarizes the three main reasons:

(1) new scholarship (primarily by Protestants) on Paul’s epistles, which raised profound doubts about the correctness of Martin Luther’s and Phillip Melanchthon’s excessively individualistic and existentialist reading of Paul’s teaching on justification by faith,

(2) the fruits of Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogue on justification, expressed most fully in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1997, that greatly clarified for me the subtlety of the doctrinal differences between the two bodies, and

(3) a more thorough exposure to the writings of the early Church fathers, especially those considered most “evangelical”: Chrysostom, Ambrose, and (above all) Augustine of Hippo.

I began to realize that many Lutheran and Protestant polemicists have been guilty of two fallacies: a straw-man version of contemporary Roman Catholic teaching, and a cherry-picking of quotations from the Fathers, ignoring the undeniable contradiction between the teachings of those Fathers, taken as a whole, and the one-sided version of the faith-alone doctrine on justification embraced by the second generation of the Reformation (especially Martin Chemnitz).

I'd love to see a Catholic who became a Lutheran write anything remotely as insightful and cogently argued as what Dr. Koons has already offered us. If anyone can direct me to such a piece, I would be greatly obliged. That would be something well worth spending some serious time interacting with.

Luther's Works: Several Volumes Are Able to be Searched on Google / Additional Searchable Luther & Related Writings

Jaroslav Pelikan (1923-2006): editor of Luther's Works; he later converted to Orthodoxy

Regular contributor Ben made me aware of this today, to my delight. Easier access to these works without having to put out hundreds of dollars (that I certainly don't have: I buy virtually all of my books used) is a great blessing. If I am doing some Luther research and don't have the particular volume of "LW" (I did -- almost miraculously -- manage to find 13 volumes for just a few bucks each at a used sale a few years back) referred to, then at least I can do a little word search to find possible relevant references. Here they are:

Volume 32: Career of the Reformer II

Volume 33: Career of the Reformer III

Volume 34: Career of the Reformer IV

Volume 35: Word and Sacrament I

Volume 36: Word and Sacrament II

Volume 37: Word and Sacrament III

Volume 39: Church and Ministry I

Volume 40: Church and Ministry II

Volume 41: Church and Ministry III

Volume 43: Devotional Writings II

Volume 44: Christian in Society I

Volume 45: Christian in Society II

Volume 49: Letters II

Volume 50: Letters III

Volume 51: Sermons I

Volume 53: Liturgy and Hymns

Volume 54: Table Talk

Volume 55: Index

By a happy coincidence, the 13 volumes I have (volumes 1-4, 7, 13, 22-24, 26-27, 40, 45) are not duplicated in the above volumes (except for volumes 40, 45). Additionally, volumes 1, 3, 9, 12, 13, 31, 36, 40, and 51 are available online in full text (see my Luther & Lutheranism page) so I now have full access to 18 volumes and partial access to 14 more, for a total of 32 out of the 55 volumes (58%) .

Also searchable are the following Luther primary works:

The compilation Three Treatises (of 1520): itself a volume drawn from Luther's Works:

To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

The Freedom of a Christian

Lectures on Romans (translated by Wilhelm Pauck, 1961)

Commentary on Romans (translated by J. Theodore Mueller, 2003)

Commentary on Galatians (Kregel Publications, 1987)

Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Kessinger Publishing, 2004)

Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ReadHowYouWant.com, 2006)

Galatians (Crossway: 1988)

A Treatise on Good Works (Kessinger Publishing, 2004)

Treatise on Good Works (ReadHowYouWant.com, 2006)

Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, edited and translated by Theodore G. Tappert (2003)

Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, Timothy F. Lull (1989)

Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings (John Dillenberger: 1962) [amazon: "Search Inside"]

Faith and Freedom: An Invitation to the Writings of Martin Luther (edited by John F. Thornton & Susan Varenne (2002) [amazon: "Search Inside"]

Commentary on Peter and Jude (John Nicholas Lenker, Kregel: 2005)

Additional Related Searchable Books

Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700), Jaroslav Pelikan

Martin Luther, Michael A. Mullett (2004)

Martin Luther: the Christian between God and death, Richard Marius (1999)

Third Reformation: charismatic movements and the Lutheran tradition, Carter Lindberg (1983)

The Theology of Martin Luther, Paul Althaus (1966)

Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers: Documents Illustrative of the Radical Reformation, Juan de Valdés, George Huntston Williams (1957)

Peace, Order and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon: 1518-1559, James Martin Estes (2005)

True Faith in the True God: An Introduction to Luther's Life and Thought, Hans Schwarz (1996)

Luther and the Lutheran Reformation, John Scott (1833)

The Reformation in the Cities: the appeal of protestantism to sixteenth-century Germany and Switzerland, Steven Ozment (1975)

Letters of Jan Hus, translated by Campbell Mackenzie (1846)

Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation, John Witte (2002)

Lutheran Reformation and the Law, Virpi Mäkinen (2006)

The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, David V. N. Bagchi, David Curtis Steinmetz (2004)

The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther, Donald K. MacKim (2003)

The Eucharist in the Reformation: Incarnation and Liturgy, Lee Palmer Wandel (2006)

The Reformation Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern Period, Carter Lindberg (2001)

The European Reformations, Carter Lindberg (1996)

The European Reformations Sourcebook, Carter Lindberg (2000)

Reformers in the Wings: From Geiler Von Kaysersberg to Theodore Beza, David Curtis Steinmetz (2001)

Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther, Jonathan D. Trigg (1994)

Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation: 1483-1521, Martin Brecht, James F. Schaaf (1993)

Martin Luther the Hero of the Reformation 1483 to 1546, Henry Eyster Jacobs (1898 / 2005)

Printing, Propaganda, and Martin Luther, Mark U. Edwards (2006)

Luther's Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther's Theological Breakthrough, Alister E. MacGrath (1990)

The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, Donald K. McKim (2004)

Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Alister Edgar McGrath (1998)

The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, Alister E. McGrath (2003)

Reformation Thought: An Introduction, Alister E. McGrath (1999)

The Age of Reform (1250-1550): An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe, Steven Edgar Ozment (1980)

A Companion to the Reformation World, Ronnie Po-chia Hsia (2004)

The Two Reformations: the journey from the last days to the new world, Heiko Augustinus Oberman (2003)

Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) (Harro Höpfl, 1991) [amazon: "Search Inside"]

Martin Luther: A Penguin Life (Penguin Lives) (Martin E. Marty, 2004) [amazon: "Search Inside"]

The Wit of Martin Luther (Eric W. Gritsch, 2006) [amazon: "Search Inside"]

Luther: Man between God and the Devil (Heiko Oberman, 1992) [amazon: "Search Inside"]

Did John Calvin Accuse the Catholic Church of Pelagianism or Only Semi-Pelagianism?

An old (16th century?) manuscript of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion

One "O.S. Luke" (a United Methodist pastor) over at the Catholic Answers forum (Pelagian Heresy; saved by works [not taught by the Catholic Church] ) opined that he had a "hunch" that I was citing Calvin out of context in my book The Catholic Verses, to the effect that Calvin accused the Catholic Church of Pelagianism. It would be nice for a change if folks who want to cynically speculate on some argument or other in my writings, would trouble themselves to actually document it. It's an elementary thing. That would be a most refreshing development indeed. But alas, it rarely happens. Pastor Luke's words will be in blue, and John Calvin's in green.

John Calvin couldn't possibly have lodged Pelagianism against the Catholic Church - Calvin was basically Augustinian in his soteriology!! Plus, Calvin quotes Augustine extensively in both his Institutes and his Commentaries, more than any other Church Father. Both of them believed in Original Sin, total depravity, the slavery of the human will, and the sovereignty of saving grace.

"Mannyfit75" (Catholic) first brought my name into it:

I read Catholic Verses by David Armstrong and John Calvin accused "papists of the heresy of Pelagianism.

I would like to see the footnotes of his research. Always consult primary sources, Manny; anybody can say anything about anyone. Calvin lodged such protests against the Charismatics, of that I am sure. My hunch is that Armstrong took some license with the accusation and may have taken Calvin out of context. There is also the variance between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Have you read any of Calvin's writings yourself? Just curious.

* * *

[T]he charge of Pelagianism from John Calvin to the Catholic Church seems very strange, since he was basically Augustinian in this regard. Calvin is probably misquoted and misread more than any Reformer or theologian; even John Calvin wasn't a strict 5-point Calvinist.

* * *

Secondary and tertiary sources are not as good as the primary source... no matter who is quoting it. That's how rumor mills, gossip, and mistruths are birthed. I think you may be thinking of the charge of Semi-Pelagianism that Calvin lodged more toward Jesuit thought than Catholicism as a whole (I might add that some Catholics have said the same thing about Jesuit schools of thought).

Now, the really funny (and equally curious) thing here is that this question is so easily researched from the primary sources involved. Calvin's Institutes and even his Commentaries and Letters (vol. I / vol. II) are now online. I have links to them on my own sidebar, for heaven's sake. Word searches are very easy to do. I'll be using them myself to make this reply. It's easy, fast, and oftentimes quite educational and fun. Rather than sit and speculate and play armchair theologian and Church historian, why can't Pastor Luke (if that is his real name) do the simple searches that I am about to do, so that he can speak factually, not speculatively?

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


Even my book can be searched online. It's called the "Search Inside" feature of amazon. Anyone can search for words, whether they have the book or not (it was even convenient for me to use tonight, to get to the bottom of this). One simply has to go to the amazon page for my book, The Catholic Verses, click on the feature above the cover image, and do a word search. Using this procedure in searching for the word Pelagian, a single reference turns up, on page 73:

"... Calvin again falls prey to the temptation to war against straw men, in his Commentaries, for this verse: As Pelagians of old, so Papists at this day make a proud boast of this passage, ..."

By the way, a search for "Pelagianism" on the amazon page yielded one hit also, on page 64, but with no relation to Calvin. Granted, one can't see the whole context, but I am citing Calvin's Commentaries with regard to a particular passage: Philippians 2:12-13:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

It will be most illuminating to cite my entire commentary on this passage and Calvin's use of it (pp. 73-74), especially (and ironically, as it were) since I go on to cite John Wesley (Pastor Luke being a Methodist and hence a Wesleyan):

Catholics assert that passages such as this one teach that God’s free grace can be made “both to will and to work” in us. It is not self-generated by us; it is a gift of God. On the popular level, many Protestants accuse Catholics of falsely using this verse to assert a salvation by works. They wrongly think that Catholicism teaches a salvation by self-generated works, rather than merely acknowledging the necessary place of works, which are themselves entirely the cause [typo] and result of God’s grace (as indicated in the above verse by the clause: “God is at work in you”). Calvin again falls prey to the temptation to war against straw men, in his Commentaries, for this verse:

As Pelagians of old, so Papists at this day make a proud boast of this passage, with the view of extolling man’s excellence . . . Inasmuch, then, as the work is ascribed to God and man in common, they assign the half to each.

Of course, Catholics have done no such thing. We do not claim that salvation is a half-and-half proposition. Catholics accept the plain meaning of this passage: we cooperate with God, but in the end: it is God who does all, since He is “at work” in us, “both to will and to work.” Calvin is simply unable to grasp this biblical paradox. For him it is either/or: if God does all, man must do nothing. Conversely, if man does anything, then this is works-salvation and contrary to grace. But the Bible does not require this choice. Grace does all, and man also cooperates with it.

In two sermons (one on this very passage), John Wesley, the great evangelist and founder of Methodism, expresses thoughts very similar to Louis Bouyer’s. Again, we observe that there need be no significant difference between mainstream (Arminian) Protestantism and Catholicism with regard to the place of works in the scheme of salvation:

Neither is salvation of the works we do when we believe; for it is then God that worketh in us: and therefore, that He giveth us a reward for what He Himself worketh.

God works in us – therefore man can work . . . God works in you – therefore you must work. You must work together with Him, or He will cease working.

(“Salvation by Faith,” 1738; “On Working Out Our Own Salvation,” 1788; in Lindstrom, 92, 215)

SOURCES:

Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentaries, 22 volumes, translated and edited by John Owen; originally printed for the Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1853; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI: 1979. Available online: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment2/

Lindstrom, Harald, Wesley and Sanctification, Grand Rapids, MI: Francis Asbury Press, 1980.

That is the entire context, documented to a tee, from Calvin and Wesley both. Now, note that I did not come right out and assert that Calvin accused Catholics of Pelagianism. I simply cited what he wrote about this passage in his biblical commentary (because the book was devoted to how well-known historic Protestant exegetes dealt with verses that Catholics use as prooftexts for Catholic theology).

Calvin compared Catholics to Pelagians in a particular context, and then made an argument that seems to equate Catholic soteriology with at least semi-Pelagianism (which I would fully expect him to do). My point was perfectly valid in and of its own right. Nothing was taken out of context or distorted. I criticized Calvin, but then cited a great Protestant, John Wesley, over against him.

So much for my alleged "license" and taking Calvin out of context . . . readers can look at Calvin's entire text online and make up their own minds. Isn't the Internet wonderful? Now if only people would make use of the marvelous resources of this technology, for the purpose of word searches. In fact, this is so much fun and I am so curious now about Calvin's exact thoughts in this vein, that I will now search his works to find out more. Is it true, that, Calvin "couldn't possibly have lodged Pelagianism against the Catholic Church", as our Methodist friend confidently asserted, and that he could only have made the accusation of semi-Pelagianism against only some Catholics (like the Jesuits)? Well, let's see for ourselves:

13. Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest the Pelagians of our age, I mean the sophists of the Sorbonne, charge us after their wont with being opposed to all antiquity. In this indeed they imitate their father Pelagius, by whom of old a similar charge was brought against Augustine.

(Inst., II, III, 13)

15. The Schoolmen treat the matter somewhat more grossly by mingling their preparations with it; and yet the others instill into the simple and unwary a no less pernicious dogma, when, under cover of the Spirit and grace, they hide the divine mercy, which alone can give peace to the trembling soul. We, indeed, hold with Paul, that those who fulfill the Law are justified by God, but because we are all far from observing the Law, we infer that the works which should be most effectual to justification are of no avail to us, because we are destitute of them. In regard to vulgar Papists or Schoolmen, they are here doubly wrong, both in calling faith assurance of conscience while waiting to receive from God the reward of merits, and in interpreting divine grace to mean not the imputation of gratuitous righteousness, but the assistance of the Spirit in the study of holiness. They quote from an Apostle: “He that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him,” (Heb. 11:6). But they observe not what the method of seeking is. Then in regard to the term grace, it is plain from their writings that they labour under a delusion. For Lombard holds that justification is given to us by Christ in two ways. “First,” says he (Lombard, Sent. Lib. 3, Dist. 16, c. 11), “the death of Christ justifies us when by means of it the love by which we are made righteous is excited in our hearts; and, secondly, when by means of it sin is extinguished, sin by which the devil held us captive, but by which he cannot now procure our condemnation.” You see here that the chief office of divine grace in our justification he considers to be its directing us to good works by the agency of the Holy Spirit. He intended, no doubt, to follow the opinion of Augustine, but he follows it at a distance, and even wanders far from a true imitation of him both obscuring what was clearly stated by Augustine, and making what in him was less pure more corrupt. The Schools have always gone from worse to worse, until at length, in their downward path, they have degenerated into a kind of Pelagianism. Even the sentiment of Augustine, or at least his mode of expressing it, cannot be entirely approved of. For although he is admirable in stripping man of all merit of righteousness, and transferring the whole praise of it to God, yet he classes the grace by which we are regenerated to newness of life under the head of sanctification.

(Inst., III, XI, 15 [complete section] -- my emphases)

Note how Calvin attacks Augustine himself at the end, since he recognizes that the great Father organically relates justification and sanctification in a way that is anathema to the novel Protestant soteriological heresy.

We are thus enabled to refute the slanders of the Pelagians and Papists, who argue, that, if the grace of the Holy Spirit performs the whole work of enlightening our minds, and forming our hearts to obedience, all instruction will be superfluous.

(Commentary on Eph 3:14)

This seems to me to be some not insignificant evidence that the equation of "papist" and "Pelagian" would not have been an entirely foreign one in Calvin's mind. This is all the more plausible, seeing that Martin Luther, in his influential (and personal favorite book, The Bondage of the Will (1525), placed Catholics and his opponent Erasmus on an even lower plane than Pelagians:

The guardians of "free-will" . . . are worse than the Pelagians upon two accounts . . . giving out that they disagree with the Pelagians, when there is nothing that they are further from doing! 'If you regard our pretences, we appear as the Pelagians' bitterest foes; but if you regard the facts and our hearts, we are Pelagians double-dyed.' Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians.

(Translation of J.I. Packer & O.R. Johnston, Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, rep. 1995, 293-294 [VII, vi] )

Here is a longer section, incorporating the above, from the Henry Cole translation (1823):

Sect. CXLIX. - IT has happened to these assertors of "Free-will" according to the old proverb, 'Striving dire Scylla's rock to shun, they 'gainst Charybdis headlong run.' For devotedly striving to dissent from the Pelagians, they begin to deny the 'merit of worthiness;' whereas, by the very way in which they deny it, they establish it more firmly than ever. They deny it by their word and pen, but establish it in reality, and in heart-sentiment: and thus, they are worse than the Pelagians themselves: and that, on two accounts. First, the Pelagians plainly, candidly, and ingenuously, assert the 'merit of worthiness;' thus calling a boat a boat, and a fig a fig; and teaching what they really think. Whereas, our "Free-will" friends, while they think and teach the same thing, yet mock us with lying words and false appearances, as though they dissented from the Pelagians; when the fact is quite the contrary. So that, with respect to their hypocrisy, they seem to be the Pelagians' strongest opposers, but with respect to the reality of the matter, and their heart-tenet, they are twice-dipped Pelagians. And next, under this hypocrisy, they estimate and purchase the grace of God at a much lower rate than the Pelagians themselves. For these assert, that it is not a certain little something in us by which we attain unto grace, but whole, full, perfect, great, and many, devoted efforts and works. Whereas, our friends declare, that it is a certain little something, almost a nothing, by which we deserve grace.

If therefore there must be error, they err with more honesty and less pride, who say, that the grace of God is purchased at a great price, and who account it dear and precious, than those who teach, that it may be purchased at that which is very little, and inconsiderable, and who account it cheap and contemptible. But however, Paul pounds both in pieces in one mortar, by one word, where he saith, that all are "justified freely;" and again that they are justified "without the law" and "without the works of the law." And he who asserts that the justification must be free in all who are justified, leaves none excepted who work, deserve, or prepare themselves; he leaves no work which can be called 'merit of congruity' or 'merit of worthiness;' and by the one hurling of this thunder-bolt, he dashes in pieces both the Pelagians with their 'whole merit,' and the Sophists with their 'very little merit.' For a free justification allows of no workmen: because, a free gift, and a work-preparation, are manifestly in opposition to each other.

Open Forum

Let's listen to each other and truly interact . . .

Link to previous one.

Jerry Falwell (1933-2007): His Pro-Life Valor and Friendship With Jesse Jackson

One of the most hated men in America . . . (which of course, virtually proves that the man must have done a lot of good things). May he rest in peace. Some articles:

Bloomberg.com

ABC News

Reuters UK

As with most folks on the political right, or in pro-life and/or traditional Christian circles (whether Protestant or Catholic), Rev. Falwell was subject to massive slanders and mis- and disinformation. For example, how well known is it that he was good friends with Jesse Jackson? The two worked jointly on projects to help the underprivileged.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


One can see the good-natured (but very serious at bottom) ribbing between the two (and see which one was truly more "progressive") in the following exchange (CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, 24 October 2004):

JACKSON: I respect women's right to self-determinance. And most women choose to have their children. There may be circumstances where they choose not to, and I respect women's rights to make that judgment.

BLITZER: Go ahead, Reverend Falwell.

FALWELL: Wolf, may I say that Jesse Jackson is a great preacher. I'm mediocre, but he's a great preacher. And he has preached for me. He and I are good friends. He just happens to be wrong about everything now.

I have a copy of a printed sermon that Jesse preached, a pro-life sermon, that is as strong as anything I've ever preached. Then he got mixed up with the Democrats. They perverted his theology.

(LAUGHTER)

But Jesse loves people, just like I love people.

But I want to tell you that life begins at conception. And embryonic research on stem cells, very frankly, is wrong, because when the egg is fertilized it becomes a living person. That is the fundamental belief of Christians and, by the way, Pope John Paul II.

I have no problem with John Kerry being Catholic. Pope John Paul II is pro-life, and if John Kerry agreed with his pope and many of his fellow Catholic priests and so forth, he and I would get along fine. I have no problem with him being Catholic. He's just wrong on the life issue, wrong on stem cell, wrong on... and shouldn't be president.

[ . . . ]

BLITZER: Maybe, Reverend Jackson, you want to respond to the specific charge that was made by Reverend Falwell that you changed your position on abortion rights for women as you became more politically active.

JACKSON: No, I expanded my position to include the reality that women have the right to self-determination. I mean, people who...

FALWELL: I'll put a copy of his sermon on my Web site, if you want to read it.

JACKSON: When you grow, you change. I mean, I grew up with a lot of beliefs that were limited and archaic.

But I submit to you that I respect a woman's right of choice. I've seen women who faced incest, who've faced rape, who have had weak bodies who could not go on. And when those women made the choice to abort, I respected that right. And I stand on that position. I feel very morally secure in it.

A similar exchange occurred on CNN Crossfire (17 January 2005), with Paul Begala and Joe Watkins:

FALWELL: Most people, Jesse, do not know that you and I have been longtime friends and that I have preached for you and you have preached for me. And when we are not on television fighting, we are probably drinking coffee together somewhere. Most people don't know that.

(LAUGHTER)

FALWELL: We agree on motherhood and one or two other things.

(LAUGHTER)

FALWELL: But what I do remember, as a young preacher -- and you were and are a good one -- you preached a great, great pro-life sermon. I have a printed copy of it. You were as strongly pro-life as I and as Paul's holy father is. And somewhere along the way, you let the Democrats somehow decimate your faith.

And today, you are pro-choice. Now, if we are talking civil rights, the last disenfranchised minority in America and the world for that matter are the voiceless, defenseless unborn.

WATKINS: Absolutely.

FALWELL: And I want to call you back to where you started. I would love to fight with you up and down the streets of America for the sake of the unborn.

(APPLAUSE)

WATKINS: Amen.

JACKSON: But, Jerry, people -- I believe that women are intelligent enough to make choices of their own. But, further, Jerry, you seem to fight for the fetus and then abandon them and then abandon the babies.

JACKSON: Jerry, 45 million Americans have no health insurance. The working poor cannot get minimum wage. They cannot afford to send their children to college. Can we not challenge the rich to reinvest and put America back to work? If you love me, then feed my sheep. That's Bible. if you love me, then study war no more.

FALWELL: Now, Jesse, you are the richest person on this program.

(LAUGHTER)

[ . . . ]

FALWELL: I'm not saying that abortion is the only issue, but it certainly is a front-burner fundamental issue. The right to life, I think there's probably...

BEGALA: But why don't Christian conservative ministers preach against materialism and greed and poverty and injustice, the way Dr. King did?

FALWELL: Oh, I think they do. I think they do. I know we do.

And we have a home for unwed mothers. We have a home for alcoholics and drug addicts. We support a hospice for AIDS victims. We -- and evangelical church[es] all over the nation give hundreds of millions of dollars. But that's not our main thing. Our main thing is preaching Jesus Christ and him crucified and winning people to salvation through Christ. That's our -- we're the light of the world, as well as the salt of the earth.

But . . . I have had Jesse in my pulpit. . . . we are friends. But on this issue, he's let the Democrats just sidetrack him and get him away from the main thing. He's -- I really -- I believe he's sincere, but I think he's sincerely wrong. I think we need to help the poor. I think we need to work very hard to -- in this country, God knows, the tsunami reaction response, who could criticize this country?

[ . . . ]

FALWELL: Jesse, Jesse, you have got a voice. You have got a platform. You need to get off the hobbyhorse of just taking care of the poor. You need to get them alive first and do both at the same time. And God bless you. Come see me.

BEGALA: That will have to be the last word.

JACKSON: I will say to you that you're obsessed with the fetus. Let's try to save the children.

One article noted an example of their joint efforts:

In September 1998, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Falwell, two Baptist ministers at polar ends of the political spectrum, joined forces to lead a march of 2,500 people in Nelsonville, Ohio. Their shared cause: persistent poverty in Appalachia.

So we see who was more progressive, in comparing Jesse Jackson's approach and Jerry Falwell's. Falwell was concerned for poor and underprivileged people, as well as for the rights of preborn human beings to be born in the first place and not mercilessly butchered, whereas Jackson has concern for the poor who managed to make it out of the womb in one piece and with a heartbeat but not for preborn human beings (the most defenseless and innocent of all victims). Which is more Christian and consistent? Is not the answer utterly obvious? And Jackson used to know this, which is what is so sad. He sold his soul on abortion for a mess of pottage.

So when you read all the stereotyped nonsense about Jerry Falwell as a "right-wing extremist" blah blah blah (and I cut through false stereotypes at every opportunity), please keep in mind his consistency regarding oppressed or underprivileged victims and his friendship with someone like Jesse Jackson, who vigorously disagreed with him politically, and their work together when they agreed. May he rest in peace.

The One-Minute Apologist is Now Published

Purchase paperback from Sophia Institute Press ($14.95)

See the book info-page for Table of Contents and excerpts

33 Short Apologetics Papers For the Time-Challenged (I Assuredly Don't Write Only Tomes and Epics)

One of the myths spread about me by detractors and theological opponents (and even some fans of my writing complain about similar themes occasionally) is that I supposedly always write long, War and Peace-length tomes. The anti-Catholic apologists on the Internet and their parrot-like followers have a field day with this, and often use it as one of their 372 excuses to not reply to my arguments (which is fine by me, as it only helps my cause).

They have made such a deal of it, that I had to have recourse to humor (as I often do in response to absurdities) to offset the silliness, and so I did a satire of myself. Invariably, too (a further delicious and comical irony), when an anti-Catholic apologist accuses me of extreme length, he himself very often far surpasses my output in words, in particular instances of a discussion (as I again showed recently, regarding Bishop James White: he wound up writing almost exactly twice as much as I did, while making snide remarks about my own "verbal flood").

Now, it is certainly true that I do write at length, because I write whatever I feel is necessary to make the absolutely best case for my positions, and that requires, oftentimes, a lot of "ink" (especially in direct reply to contrary positions and arguments). I'm not ashamed of that at all, make no apologies for it, and have written a paper defending this approach. If someone doesn't care for it, that's fine, too, and some of my writing will not be for them. I never expected that I would please everybody, and it is unreasonable for anyone to think it is even possible to do so.

But a half-truth is as good as a lie (as the legal world understands very well; witness the oath when one testifies in court: "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"). Though I can and do often write at length, it is also true that I have frequently specialized (in various contexts) in writing short, summary-type papers, or overviews, or brief treatments.

In fact, my upcoming book, The One-Minute Apologist, is precisely an instance of my doing that: two-page, standardized format treatments of objections to the Catholic faith (see several excerpts from the book). Nor is this the first time. At this very moment, The New Catholic Answer Bible (co-authored with Dr. Paul Thigpen) is a bestseller in the field. Our apologetic "inserts" for that work (originally I was the sole author -- in the first edition -- of 44 such inserts) are one-page treatments of apologetic and theological topics.

It doesn't even end there. I have also written a bestselling pamphlet for Our Sunday Visitor: Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked. And years ago I contributed to a series of "comic tracts", written in association with my good friend Dan Grajek, who did the art work. These are published by The Grotto Press. I am the primary or sole author of the text of five of the tracts:

The Cloud of Witnesses
The Resurrection: Hoax or History? (we did this one way back in 1985)
The Class Struggle (ditto)
Mary: Do Catholics Have a Biblical View? (see my original text)
Joe Hardhat, the Quintessential Catholic: On Justification (see my original text)

They have been endorsed by Karl Keating (This Rock, October 1993, p. 7 and February 1994), Fr. Peter Stravinskas (The Catholic Answer, March/April 1997, p. 27), Envoy (March/April 1997, pp. 17-18; "Friends in the Field," by Tracy Moran), and others. Fr. John A. Hardon (+ 2000) was formerly the senior editor and theological advisor, recommended the tracts on Mother Angelica Live (June 21, 1995), and had even shown them to Pope John Paul II. See an article on the tracts from Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, December 2001.

Moreover, there are many more such papers scattered throughout my approximately 1600 posts now online. I have collected 33 of them today for the purpose of a publisher possibly utilizing many or all of them for further short pamphlets. Nine are editor-deleted intended chapters for The One-Minute Apologist:

BIBLE AND TRADITION

Fictional Dialogue on Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone")

The Three-Legged Stool of Catholic Christian Authority: a Brief Explanation

Does the Catholic Church Think it is Superior to the Bible, and its Creator?
[originally intended for The One-Minute Apologist]

Has the Catholic Church Always Been the Enemy of the Bible?
[originally intended for The One-Minute Apologist]

THE CHURCH

Bishops in the New Testament and the Early Church

Do Church Councils Possess a Higher Authority Than the Pope?
[originally intended for The One-Minute Apologist]

Were the Church Fathers Closer to Protestantism Than to Catholicism?
[originally intended for The One-Minute Apologist]

SALVATION AND JUSTIFICATION

Mortal vs. Venial Sin

Did the Council of Trent Teach That Man is Saved By His Own Works?
[originally intended for The One-Minute Apologist]

Do Catholics Believe in Predestination?
[originally intended for The One-Minute Apologist]

SACRAMENTS

Sacramentalism

Sacraments and the Moral Responsibility and Spiritual Benefits of Their Recipients
[originally intended for The One-Minute Apologist]

Necessity of Baptism for Salvation vs. Baptism of Desire?

THE EUCHARIST

A Fictional Dialogue on the Real Presence in the Eucharist

Biblical Overview: The Sacrifice of the Mass

BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

The Imitation of Mary

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

Protestants and the Immaculate Conception of Mary

Why Catholics Believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

A Biblical and Theological Primer on Mary Mediatrix

COMMUNION OF SAINTS

Dead Saints: Are They Playing Harps on Clouds or Interceding for Us?

Witnesses of Hebrews 12:1

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

PURGATORY AND PENANCE

A Fictional Dialogue on Purgatory

Short Exposition on Purgatory

A Fictional Dialogue on Penance

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE

An Introduction to Development of Doctrine
[originally intended for The One-Minute Apologist]

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

Overview of Development of Doctrine

ORTHODOXY

Catholicism and Orthodoxy: A Comparison

PROTESTANTISM

Questions and Answers: Concerning Catholicism, Over Against Protestantism

Revised Fundamentalist Baptist Version (RFBV)

MORALITY

Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?
[originally intended for The One-Minute Apologist]

The Catholic Church Has Always Been the Enemy of the Bible (???)

This is one of those chapters originally intended for my upcoming book, The One-Minute Apologist. It didn't make the final cut.



The Book of Kells (Ireland): famous Bible manuscript produced during
the supposed Catholic "biblical dark ages"

* * * * *

BIBLE AND TRADITION

The Catholic Church has always been the enemy of the Bible

That’s why it had chained Bibles and forbade Bible translations in the vernacular

Initial reply

This is one of the most cherished anti-Catholic myths, yet it is an outrageous falsehood: easily disproven by fair-minded historical investigation. The facts which run counter to this viewpoint will be summarized below.

Extensive reply

Perhaps the best and most decisive response to this myth is to cite the preface of the King James 1611 English translation of the Bible, which describes the long history of vernacular translations in England long before Protestantism ever arose:

Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . . . So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, . . . but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any Nation; no doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grow in men's hearts the sooner, . . .

The history of English Bible translation (preceded earlier by editions in the earlier common language of Anglo-Saxon) is very long, starting with Caedmon in the 7th century, Aldhelm (c. 700), the Venerable Bede (d. 735), followed by Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert (all in Saxon, the vernacular language of that time in England). King Alfred the Great (849-99) translated the Bible, as did Aelfric (d.c. 1020). Middle English translations included those of Orm (late 12^th c.) and Richard Rolle (d. 1349).

Vernacular Bibles in many languages appeared throughout the early and late Middle Ages (after Latin ceased being a common, widespread language). Between 1466 and 1517 fourteen translations of the Bible were published in High German, and five in Low German. Raban Maur had translated the entire Bible into Teutonic, or old German, in the late 8^th century. Between 1450 to 1520 there were ten French translations, and also Bibles rendered in Belgian, Bohemian, Spanish, Hungarian, and Russian. 25 Italian versions (with express Church sanction) appeared before 1500, starting at Venice in 1471.

The accusation that the Catholic Church chained Bibles in order to keep them from the common people, is equally wrongheaded and historically misinformed. The exact opposite is true: Bibles were chained in libraries so that they would not be stolen, precisely because they were so valued and treasured (especially before the invention of the movable-type printing press in the mid-15^th century), in order to be more accessible to all. Protestants did the same thing themselves for some 300 years. For example, Eton and Merton Colleges (Oxford) did not remove their chained Bibles until the 18^th century.

Objection

But it is undeniable that the Catholic Church has (at least sometimes) forbidden reading the Bible in the vernacular: for example, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229. How can that be explained, except as a result of hostility to the Bible? If the Bible were allowed to be read in the language of the people, it would stop false doctrine, not promote it. Therefore, the Catholic Church is scared to let people read it.

Reply to Objection

The Catholic Church, as the guardian of Holy Scripture, opposed only unauthorized translations, which is no different from many Protestants today who protest against various translations as “liberal” or inaccurate, due to a perceived bias based on the religious beliefs of the translator(s). This flows from a praiseworthy concern for the accurate transmission of God’s word. Likewise, the Catholic Church is entitled to have an opinion on the matter without being unjustly accused of being “anti-Bible.” The early Protestants, including Martin Luther himself, often censored or prohibited Catholic translations in their districts, on the same basis (while they also were prohibiting the Mass). It is a double standard, then, to accuse the Catholic Church of something that Protestants have always selectively done, too.

The Church, it’s true, prohibited vernacular Bible reading in some circumstances because false doctrine was already rampant, such as in 1229, when the bizarre Gnostic cult of Catharism was influential. Protestants claim that the Bible is clear enough to stop such cults, yet since they have never achieved doctrinal unity in their own ranks based on the Bible Alone, this premise is highly questionable. Moreover, this objection neglects to see that all Bible interpretation occurs within a context of an overall belief-system and tradition. If Baptists read the Bible together, they will arrive at Baptist doctrine, because groups have a way of preserving their own particular beliefs and biases.

James Gairdner (Protestant Church historian)

The truth is, the Church of Rome was not at all opposed to the making of translations of Scripture or to placing them in the hands of the laity under what were deemed proper precautions. It was only judged necessary to see that no unauthorized or corrupt translations got abroad; and even in this matter it would seem that the authorities were not roused to special vigilance till they took alarm at the diffusion of Wycliffite translations in the generation after his death.

. . . To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed translations the Church was never opposed; but to place such a weapon as an English Bible in the hands of men who had no regard for authority, and who would use it without being instructed how to use it properly, was dangerous not only to the souls of those who read, but to the peace and order of the Church.

(Lollardy and the Reformation in England, Vol. 1 of 4, 1908, 105, 117)

Recommended Romantic and Post-Romantic Orchestral Music (Composers: E - M)

See the introductory first post (including abbreviations for orchestras).

EDWARD ELGAR
(1857-1934)

Symphony No. 1

RPO/Previn 1996 "Previn confirms his ability to point Elgarian climaxes with the necessary heart-tug . . . [sound is] outstandingly full and open"
LPO/Boult (10-76) / 2002 "hints of reflective nostalgia amid the triumph . . . radiantly beautiful performance . . . glowing with untroubled sweetness . . . brass is gloriously full"
LPO/Handley 2004 "beautifully paced reading which can be counted in every way outstanding . . . poise and refinement . . . spacious and movingly expressive . . . very good sound, clear first choice"

Symphony No. 2

PHO/Haitink 1990 "some altogether wonderful playing . . . valuable and fresh insights . . . many details to relish and beauties to discover . . . clearly relates Elgar to Richard Strauss [and] to Bruckner"
LPO/Boult 2001 "most richly satisfying performance of all . . . the pointing of climaxes is unrivalled . . . brilliant recording"
LPO/Handley (4-80) / 2004 "most satisfying modern version . . . conveys superbly the sense of elgarian ebb and flow, building climaxes like a master . . . sound is warmly atmospheric"

Enigma Variations

LSO/Jochum "inspirational . . . thoughtful insight . . . outstanding reading, consistently satisfying. The playing of the LSO and the recording match the strength and refinement of the performance"
LSO/Boult 2002

CESAR FRANCK
(1822-1890)

Symphony in D Minor

CON/Chailly 1990 "weighty and well considered . . . first class playing"
BPO/Karajan (1970) / 1993 "large-scale performance . . . energy"
ONF/Bernstein 1995 "warmly expressive performance . . . flexible spontaneity . . . glowing positive qualities . . . recording is vivid and opulent"
PHI/Muti 1999 "strongly committed but unsentimental reading . . . the finale is particularly refreshing in its directness"
CSO/Monteux (1961) / 2005 "unique grip on this highly charged Romantic symphony . . . sense of mystery . . . elegiac delicacy . . . splendid playing"

EDVARD GRIEG
(1843-1907)

Peer Gynt Suites No. 1 and No. 2

BPO/Karajan 2003

GUSTAV HOLST
(1874-1934)

The Planets

LSO/Previn (1974) / 1990 "highly desirable . . . brass sounds are sonorous and thrilling . . . appealing freshness"
LPO/Solti 1991 "extremely brilliant . . . clear-headed intensity . . . refreshing new insights"
PHI/Ormandy 1992 "one of the finest records he made . . . great electricity . . . highly compelling reading"
BPO/Karajan (1981) / 1993 "spectacularly wide-ranging . . . dynamic contrast is something to be marvelled at . . . thrilling performance"
VPO/Karajan (late 60s) / 1997 "remarkably vivid . . . atmospheric . . . holds its place near the top of the list on most counts"
OSM/Dutoit 1998 "outstandingly successful version, both rich and brilliant, and recorded with an opulence to outshine all rivals"
LPO/Boult 1999 "intense and beautifully played, spacious and dramatic, rapt and pointed"
LAP/Mehta (1971) / 2001 "set a new standard for sonic splendour . . . vintage Decca analogue sound"
BSO/Steinberg (1971) / 2001 "outstanding . . . one of the most exciting and involved versions"

FRANZ LISZT
(1811-1886)

Symphonic Poems (Assorted)

LPO/Haitink (vol. 1 / vol. 2) 1993
BPO/Mehta 1997

SYMPHONIES

Faust Symphony

PHI/Muti 1991 "shows a natural sympathy . . . recording is brilliant yet full-bodied"
CSO/Solti 2001 "spacious, brilliant reading, marked by superb playing"
RPO/Beecham (1959) / 2006 "classic . . . shows this instinctive Lisztian at his most illuminatingly persuasive"
Radio Berlin Sym. Orch. / Inbal 2006

Dante Symphony

BPO/Barenboim (2-92) / 1994
Gewandhausorchester Leipzig / Masur 1996 "as persuasive an advocate as any on record in this repertoire"
Radio Berlin Sym. Orch. / Inbal 2006

GUSTAV MAHLER
(1860-1911)



SYMPHONIES

No. 1

VPO/Maazel 1990 "superb playing and refined recording . . . Viennese glow . . . ripeness and an easy lyricism . . . sound is full and atmospheric as well as brilliant"
LSO/Horenstein (1969) / 1993
COL/Walter (2-61) / 1994 "balance and ambient warmth are entirely satisfying . . . final apotheosis drawn out spaciously and given added breadth and imp. The orchestral playing throughout is first class"
BAV/Kubelik (1967) / 1997
LSO/Solti (2-64) / 2001 "Solti gives the orchestra its full head and coaxes some magnificent playing from the brass in the finale"
CON/Bernstein (1989) / 2005

No. 2 ("Resurrection")

CSO/Solti 1992 "digital sound of extraordinary power . . . the weight of fortissimo in the final hymn, not to mention the Judgment Day brass, is breathtaking"
NYP/Walter (2-58) / 1994 "among the gramophone's indispensable classics . . . glowing resonance of sound brings an evocative haze . . . the performance makes a profound impression, with the closing section thrillingly expansive"
VPO/Mehta (2-75) / 2000 "refinement of the playing puts this among the finest versions of the symphony"
LPO/Tennstedt 2001 "dedicate performance . . . recording is impressively full and clear"
CBO/Rattle 2006 "great Mahlerian with a strongly individual view . . . playing is inspired . . . outshining others in sheer commitment"

No. 3

VPO/Abbado 1984 "sound of spectacular range . . . sharply defined and deeply dedicated . . . extraordinary intensity"
CSO/Levine (1977) / 1990 "superbly rhythmic account . . . splendidly judged tempi . . . fine sense of atmosphere . . . radiant finale"
CSO/Solti 1992 "hushed and intense, deeply concentrated, building up superbly . . . brilliance, freshness and clarity . . . virtuoso playing"
LAP/Mehta (1978) / 1994
NYP/Bernstein (4-3-61) / 1999 "strong and passionate with few of the stylistic exaggerations that sometimes overlay his interpretations"
LPO/Tennstedt 2001 "eloquent . . . spaciousness . . . noble finale is very impressive, and it is splendidly recorded"

No. 4

VPO/Maazel 1990 "superbly refined and warmly atmospheric recording"
BPO/Karajan 1990 "playing of incomparable refinement . . . a performance of compelling poise and purity . . . glowing sound"
CSO/Solti 1992 "delightfully fresh and bright reading, beautifully paced and superbly played"
LPO/Tennstedt 2000 "strong, spacious reading which yet conveys an innocence"

No. 5

CSO/Solti 1992 "wistful rather than deeply tragic . . . dynamic contrasts are superbly pointed . . . intensely beautiful playing"
BPO/Karajan 1996 "may be a first choice . . . polish and refinement . . . sharpness of focus . . . among the most beautiful and most intense versions . . . resplendent recording"
PHO/Barbirolli (7-69) / 1998 "on any account it is one of the greatest, most warmly affecting performances ever committed to record, expansive yet concentrated in feeling. A classic."
LPO/Tennstedt 2002 "ripe and measured view . . . outstanding performance, thoughtful . . . warm and expressive"
PHI/Levine 2002 "deeply perceptive and compelling performance"
BPO/Rattle 2002
LAP/Mehta (1977) / 2005 "brilliant recording and playing"
VPO/Bernstein (1988) / 2007

No. 6 ("Tragic")

CSO/Solti 1992 "stunning playing . . . electric excitement . . . brilliant, immediate but atmpospheric recording . . . rather extrovert approach"
VPO/Boulez (5-94) / 1995
BPO/Karajan (1977) / 1998 "superlative playing . . . a revelation . . . compelling and refreshing . . . superb recording, with wide dynamics"
LPO/Tennstedt 1998 "characteristically strong . . . his expressiveness tends towards conveying joy rather than Mahlerian neurosis . . . the sound is full and the acoustic warm"
NYP/Bernstein (5-6-67) / 1998
BPO/Abbado (6-04) / 2005

No. 7

CSO/Solti 1992 "glorious [sound] . . . extrovert in display but full of dark implications . . . orchestra plays superlatively well"
CSO/Abbado 1995 "precision and polish . . . total commitment . . . atmospheric . . . haunting tenderness"
NYP/Bernstein (CBS) (12-15-65) / 1998
BPO/Abbado (5-01) / 2002
NYP/Bernstein (DG) 2005 "riveting performance from first to last, ending with a searingly exciting account of the finale . . . a performance to send you off cheering . . . Mahlerian expression at its most red-blooded, and with fine playing . . . a splendid example of Bernstein's flair with Mahler"

No. 8 ("Symphony of a Thousand")

LPO/Tennstedt 1998 "magnificent account . . . superb . . . broader, grander view"
LSO/Bernstein (4-20-66) / 1999
CSO/Solti (9-71) / 2006 "urgency and dynamism . . . irresistible, ending in an earth-shattering account of the closing hymn"

Das Lied von der Erde

CSO/Solti (1972) / "breadth of sound and precision of texture"
PHO/Ludwig/Klemperer (2-22-64) / 1998 "Klemperer's way with Mahler at its most individual"
VPO/Fischer-Diskau/Bernstein (4-66) / 1999
NYP/Ferrier/Walter 2000 "the maestro himself has rarely sounded so happy on record, even in Mahler"
BPO/Karajan 2005 "refinement and polish with a deep sense of melancholy"

No. 9

VPO/Maazel 1992 "superbly controlled . . . extremely well recorded . . . spectacular sound quality"
BPO/Karajan (1982) [live] / 1994 "reading of the deepest intensity . . . refinement and polish . . . new dimension of glowing optimism in the finale . . . supreme achievement . . . sound is bright and full"
COL/Walter (1961) / 1995 "A fine performance . . . the sound is still impressive"
BPO/Karajan 1997
CSO/Boulez (12-95) / 1998
LPO/Tennstedt 1998 "performance of warmth and distinction, underlining nobility rather than any neurotic tension . . . the playing is excellent"
BPO/Barbirolli (1-64) / 2002
BPO/Abbado (9-99) / 2002
CSO/Solti 2003 "clear and certain . . . presents the power of the piece with total conviction"
PHO/Klemperer 2007

No. 10 (Deryck Cooke version)

FRT/Inbal [original Cooke version] 1992
BPO/Rattle 2000

FELIX MENDELSSOHN
(1809-1847)

Midsummer Night's Dream Incidental Music

BSO/Davis (1976) / 1994
BPO/Abbado 1996
Slovak Philharmonic Orchestra/Bramall 1999
LSO/Previn 2003

Overtures, Misc.

Slovak Philharmonic Orchestra/Dohnanyi 1999
LSO/Abbado 2002 "strikingly vivid and spontaneous"

Symphony No. 3 ("Scottish")

LSO/Abbado 2002 "admirably fresh, brightly recorded"
BPO/Karajan 1997 "very fine indeed . . . the closing pages of the finale are taken with exuberant brilliance . . . the orchestral playing is superb"
VPO/Dohnanyi 1999 "fresh and alert . . . weighty recording . . . outstanding recording quality"

Symphony No. 4 ("Italian")

LSO/Abbado 2002 "admirably fresh"
BSO/Davis (1976) / 1994 "exhilarating . . . recording is warm and refined"
VPO/Dohnanyi 1999 "refreshing account"
BPO/Karajan 1997 "superbly polished and well paced"

MODEST MUSSORGSKY
(1839-1881)



Night on Bald Mountain (arr. Rimsky-Korsakov)

LSO/Solti (1966) / 1999 "can stand up to all competition . . . fine amplitude and great brilliance"
CLE/Maazel 2001 "magnificently recorded . . . richly sonorous presentation of the deep brass"
CSO/Barenboim 2004 "spacious, weighty and very powerful . . . superb playing"
NYP/Bernstein 2004

Pictures at an Exhibition (orch. by Ravel)

CSO/Solti 1991 "fiercely brilliant rather than atmospheric or evocative . . . orchestral clarity has an almost X-ray precision"
CSO/Reiner (12-57) / 1994
CLE/Maazel 2001 "warm, glowing ambience . . . overwhelmingly spacious in conception and quite riveting as sheer sound . . . the richness and amplitude of the brass make the work's final climax unforgettable"
PHI/Muti 2002 "Muti's reading is second to none . . . excellence of recorded sound"
CSO/Giulini 2004
NYP/Bernstein 2004
BPO/Karajan (1966) / 2004 "undoubtedly a great performance, tingling with electricity . . . glorious orchestral playing, and especially the brass sonorities . . . [sound] is little short of demonstration standard"

Link back to the Music Web Page

Radio Talk on Jehovah's Witnesses From My Protestant Days (1989)

Dave Armstrong: October 1984

Another historic first for this blog: documented spoken-word apologetics from my evangelical Protestant period (1977-1990). This was an interview on the largest Protestant radio station in metro Detroit: WMUZ-FM (103.5 FM), on 3 November 1989, with a Protestant pastor, Emery Moss, who is a friend of a Baptist friend of mine, Martin Smith, with whom I still keep in contact (his brother is Jerome Smith, author / editor of Nelson's Cross-Reference Guide to the Bible: Illuminating God's Word Verse-by-Verse).

The show was part of the ministry out of the church of the very influential and respected Detroit pastor and valiant prayer warrior George Bogle (who is heard briefly at the end of the show). Actually, the same show remains on the air today, and I am (by a pleasant coincidence) listening to it right now as I am typing this.

I did extensive research on Jehovah's Witnesses from 1982 to 1987, eventually compiling a huge treatise (available online) designed to help Christians share true Christianity with these lost souls, deluded by the Arian heresy, that believes Jesus was created, rather than God the Son. See also a photograph of yours truly witnessing to Mormons at the Ann Arbor Art Fair, just a few months before this interview.

Other papers in my (1600 +) online collection from this period include extensive compilations of the biblical proofs for the divinity / deity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity, a refutation of the "name-it-claim-it" / hyper-faith" wing of pentecostalism, and a presentation of the gospel message (all from 1982). Another from the same year is Old Testament and Jewish Conceptions of the Messiah.

Here is the mp3 file of this radio talk (48 minutes long).

I've also uploaded the 28 minute interview version of my conversion story (9-8-97), from WDEO 990 AM, in Ann Arbor Michigan, with my friend Al Kresta (the transcript is already on my site). It is one of three times I have been on his radio talk show; the others were in 2002 (parts one / two /three / four) and 2004 (parts one / two); all available online for free.

I have some more material to add, and then I will create a "radio talks" page with all the links.

Biblical Evidence for the Prohibition of Divorce

[from pages 205-214 (the complete chapter 14) of my book, The Catholic Verses; Bible verses: RSV]

OUR LORD JESUS’ “STRICT” STANCE ON DIVORCE

Matthew 19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

The Catholic teaching on this passage and on the question of marriage and divorce in general can be summarized as follows: a valid sacramental marriage is indissoluble; that is, it cannot be undone as long as both spouses are alive According to Matthew 19:6, the spouses “are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Nearly all Protestant churches today, although typically frowning upon divorce, allow exceptions for adultery or abandonment or similarly serious marital difficulties. The traditional stigma of divorce has lessened greatly in Protestant circles just as it has in the secular culture, and divorce is permitted under more and more circumstances. This has been the general trend since World War II and even before; and today, divorce rates among Evangelical Protestants are virtually as high as that of the general public.

To understand the present disagreement between Catholics and Protestants on divorce, it is useful to examine the basis of the supposed loopholes or exception clauses found in Jesus’ teaching on the subject. The Greek word for unchastity in Matthew 19:9 is porneia, which is defined in standard Greek lexicons and other Bible study aids as “unlawful sexual intercourse.” Catholics hold that Jesus is here contrasting a true marriage, with a state of concubinage or some other illicit union. If there is not truly a marriage present, then a separation can take place, but it is not truly a “divorce” because there was no marriage there to begin with.

Many people use this verse, along with Matthew 5:32, to justify divorce based on the occurrence of adultery, yet the ordinary Greek word for adultery (moicheia) is not used. This supports the Catholic case that Jesus is referring to something else, for if adultery was the plain intent and meaning (the passage being about marriage in the first place), surely moicheia would have been used, as it is in many other places (thirty-five times in one of its forms).

The Greek word porneia and its cognates are never translated in the KJV New Testament as “adultery” but as “fornication" or "fornicator” (thirty-nine times), “harlot” (eight times), “whore” (four), and “whoremonger” (five). Likewise, every variant of the English fornication in the KJV is always a translation of some form of porneia.

The same holds true for adultery and its variants, which always are translations of some form of moicheia (which, in turn, are never translated as anything other than “adultery”). We also see the two Greek words distinguished from each other in the same verse (Matt. 5:19; Mark 7:21; Gal. 5:19).

The opinion rendered in Gerhard Kittel’s standard lexical work, in its comments on moicheia and its cognates, appears to be consistent with the “strict” Catholic interpretation of the biblical teaching on marriage and divorce:

Marriage is a lifelong partnership, divorce is contrary to God’s original purpose (Matt. 19:6 ff.), and remarriage after divorce is adultery (Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18) . . . Paul upholds the teaching of Jesus in the lax Hellenistic world (1 Cor. 5:1 ff., 6:9). (Kittel, 606)

Kittel’s comments on porneia are even more noteworthy:

As regards divorce, debate arises concerning Mt. 5:32 and 19:9. In Mk 10:9; 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10 Jesus teaches the indissolubility of marriage as God’s unconditional will . . . The problem in Mt. 5:32 and 19:9 is perhaps that Jewish Christians who keep the law are required to divorce adulterous wives and hence cannot be responsible if these contract a new relationship which is from a Christian standpoint itself adulterous. Divorce itself is not conceded. (Kittel, 920)

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia also takes a very strict line (quite unpopular in many Evangelical circles today):

A question of profound interest remains to be treated: Did Jesus allow under any circumstances the remarriage of a divorced person during the lifetime of the partner to the marriage? Or did He allow absolute divorce for any cause whatsoever? . . . If we had only the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Epp. of Paul, there could be but one answer given: Christ did not allow absolute divorce for any cause (see Mk 10:2 ff.; Lk 16:18; Gal 1:12; 1 Cor 7:10). (Orr, III, 1999)

The article then tries to explain the Matthean passages (note how they are deemed as seemingly contradictory, rather than complementary with Mark and Luke) by recourse to a theory of textual change:

Two sayings attributed to Christ and recorded by the writer or editor of the First Gospel (Mt 5:32; 19:9) seem directly to contravene His teaching as recorded in Mark and Luke . . . A critical examination of the whole passage in Mt has led many scholars to conclude that the exceptive clause is an interpolation due to the Jewish-Christian compiler or editor through whose hands the materials passed. Others think it betrays traces of . . . literary revision and compilation . . . Certainly much is to be said for the view which is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Matthew is an editorial addition made under the pressure of local conditions and practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard. (Orr, III, 1999)

It is very widely maintained in the Christian church that there should be no divorce for any cause whatever . . . (Orr, II, 866)

The author of this second article (“Divorce”) argues that this strict position (note how different things in Protestant circles were in 1929, when the first edition of this work was published) is contrary to Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, which, in his opinion, allow for divorce and remarriage, but that Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:15 concerning desertion does not allow for divorce and remarriage of the innocent party, and that only once in the first 800 years of the Church did anyone interpret Paul differently:

That no use was ever made of such construction of Paul in the whole era of the adjustment of Christianity with heathenism is good evidence that it was never there to begin with. (Orr, II, 866)

Thus we see that the history of Christian teaching on divorce is surprisingly strict by today’s standards. Yet some Protestants, although they might believe that God sometimes speaks to them individually, refuse to consider what God may have been speaking to the great mass of Christians over the past two thousand years. Catholics, however, believe that Christian history and historical exegesis and moral beliefs of Christians still mean something for us today.

Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson also prominently mentioned the same textual theory in his comments on Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 (although he himself disagrees with it):

Here, as in 5:31 f., a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that “the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up.”

McNeile denies that Jesus made this exception because Mark and Luke do not give it. He claims that the early Christians made the exception to meet a pressing need. . . . . . (Robertson, I, 155, 47)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church allows for more possibility that this was indeed the case:

[T]he Lord . . . abrogated the Mosaic toleration of divorce (Mt. 5:31 f., 19:3-9; Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18) and condemned remarriage. The "Matthean exception" permitting remarriage (19:9), which conflicts with the other Gospels, the rest of the NT and the general tradition of the Western Church, is perhaps to be understood as an early gloss to render the Christian law easier. (Cross, 889)

To summarize this at-times confusing material: according to the several reputable Protestant reference sources surveyed here, a significant number of Bible scholars hold that Jesus’ recorded teachings concerning divorce in Matthew contradict His teaching in Mark and Luke because of the “exception clause” in Matthew. Some, therefore, have concluded that this clause was a later addition to the actual inspired biblical text. Also, some of these sources concede that the “strict interpretation” of St. Paul’s teaching on divorce was held for the first eight hundred or so years of Church history.

One must be very careful, if taking this textual approach, not to deny biblical infallibility and inspiration. If it can be demonstrated that a portion of the text was not actually in the Bible in the first place (an interpolation, or textual error, or text only in late manuscripts, such as Mark 16) then this poses no problem for inspiration. But if it is part of the Bible, it must be synthesized with the rest of the Bible in a harmonious whole, and cannot be contradictory.

The fascinating thing in the above citations is that the problem comes up at all. Obviously, people were concerned about an alleged contradiction or a vexing hermeneutical difficulty, because they thought it was so clear that Jesus and Paul did not allow exceptions, except in Matthew, where the text is then questioned as a later addition. In other words, the Bible is not so crystal clear and self-interpreting as Protestants are wont to believe. And perhaps the “strict” Catholic view concerning marriage and divorce is not as utterly unfounded as many are led to believe.

The eminent Protestant Bible scholar James Dunn goes further; in fact too far, if his position is that the apostle Matthew himself deliberately altered received Christian tradition: up to and including the very sayings of Jesus, and thus contradicted inspired Scripture elsewhere. This is unacceptable and must be deemed as an erosion of a high, inspired view of Holy Scripture; nevertheless, it is helpful to elucidate the controversy over how Matthew 19:9 can be harmonized with the other passages to arrive at a coherent viewpoint on marriage and divorce:

Some sayings have been interpreted differently in the course of transmission . . . We must note also how some sayings of Jesus have been deliberately altered in the course of transmission – altered in such a way as to give a clearly different sense from the original . . . Note also the way in which Jesus’ clear cut verdict against divorce preserved in Mark 10.11 has been softened by the addition of the unchastity clause in Matt. 19.9 . . .

[T]he unconditional ruling of Jesus in Mark 10.11 is amended by Matthew to allow the possibility of divorce in cases of unchastity. (Dunn, 73-74, 247)

Moving from biblical teaching to the history of Christian teaching throughout the centuries, we find that the early Church took a very “strict” view of divorce and remarriage, which is a relevant consideration for the many Protestants who see themselves as hearkening back to the beliefs and practices of the early Christians. In his book about the first five centuries of the Church, Early Christianity, Protestant historian (and famous Luther biographer) Roland Bainton stated, “Second marriages were not permissible unless the first partner died prior to the baptism of the survivor” (p. 56).

The Catholic Encyclopedia provides an overview of Sacred Tradition on the question:

The testimonies of the Fathers and the councils leave us no room for doubt. In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon new marriage in case death intervenes. (Herbermann, V, 56-57)

That article goes on to document this view from numerous patristic sources, including the Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Basil of Cæsarea, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.

The leading magazine of Evangelical Protestantism, Christianity Today (founded by Billy Graham), confirms these beliefs of the early Church. Michael Gorman, in his article entitled, “Divorce and Remarriage From Augustine to Zwingli” (December 14, 1992) wrote:

In the early church, many voices addressed the subjects of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, but their message, on the whole, was quite unified. Christian marriage, they said, is an indissoluble bond. Divorce, with the implicit right of remarriage, was not an option for Christian couples (though Origen admits some toleration existed), but permanent separation was. Remarriage after separation was considered punishable adultery or bigamy . . .

Luther and Calvin allowed divorce on a number of grounds, but historically, many Protestant denominations and individuals have been stricter in their beliefs and practices concerning divorce. In Protestant churches today, however, there are ever more permissive attitudes towards divorce and remarriage. This goes far beyond the teaching of the Bible itself (even if one accepts an “adultery clause”) and is another instance of the decay of biblical orthodoxy and traditional Christian morality among many Protestants.

[Footnote 6] It must also be noted that individual Catholics have also fallen prey to the cultural watering down of strictly interpreted marriage vows and traditional Christian opposition to divorce, and statistically, they divorce at nearly the same rates as the rest of society. Official Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, however, has never wavered; furthermore, statistics also show that regular churchgoing Catholics divorce at a much lower rate.

[from my original manuscript but not included in the published edition of the book] Too often, Catholics marry outside the Church or they enter into "second marriages" without the benefit of an annulment (a declaration that the proper conditions for a valid, sacramental marriage were not present from the beginning). It is also almost certainly true that some annulments being granted are done without proper cause. The process is likely being abused, because the numbers of annulments in the United States have so greatly increased. On the other hand, as Catholics understand less and less what is involved in a sacramental, Catholic marriage, it is more likely that annulments will increase, because of that very ignorance.

Christianity Today’s issue of December 14, 1992 featured a survey of more than a thousand of its readers. Here is what it found with regard to views on remarriage:

Seventy-three percent accept the remarriage of a Christian if the former spouse committed adultery or remarried . . . Only 4 percent of the subscribers completely rule out any remarriage for a Christian after divorce.

The majority believe that fornication (73 percent) and desertion by a non-Christian spouse (64 percent) are two scriptural grounds for remarriage. At the same time, a significant minority believe Jesus taught that believers should not remarry after divorce (44 percent) and that God designed marriage to be permanent, and remarriage constitutes adultery (44 percent). Less than four out of ten believe there may be reason for remarriage other than adultery or desertion.

Christians – Catholics and Protestants alike -- need to get back to the biblical teaching on marriage and divorce that was held by the early Church. One Protestant proponent of the early Church view is William A. Heth, professor of New Testament and Greek at Taylor University in Upland, Indiana, and coauthor with Gordon Wenham of Jesus and Divorce (Thomas Nelson). In that same issue of Christianity Today, in a piece entitled “Remarriage: Two Views,” he debated another Protestant professor, and argued:

Even though marital separation or legal divorce may be advisable under some circumstances (persistent adultery, abuse, incest), Jesus calls remarriage after any divorce adultery . . . textual studies now confirm that the original text of both Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 contain Jesus' additional unqualified statement that finalizes his teaching on the subject: "And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Paul's "let them remain unmarried or else be reconciled" (1 Cor. 7:10-11) says the same thing . . . Where Paul specifically mentions the possibility of remarriage, in both instances he notes quite explicitly that one of the spouses has died (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:2-3).

Finally, in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, Paul is not telling divorced individuals to feel free to remarry. He is telling engaged or formerly engaged couples who have come under the ascetic teaching at Corinth to feel free to marry should they so desire (see vv. 33-38).

Christians who are serious about conforming their lives to the commands of God in the inspired Bible need to ponder all of these things very carefully. It’s not enough to merely coast along with the spirit of the times. St. Paul commands us to “not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). The Catholic Church and more traditional Protestant churches that still disallow divorce can work together to try to influence our culture and to be “salt”: to preserve it from further moral and familial decay.

SOURCES

Cross, F.L. and E.A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2^nd edition, 1983.

Dunn, James D.G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2^nd edition, 1990.

Herbermann, Charles G., editor, The Catholic Encyclopedia, New York: The Encyclopedia Press, 1913; sixteen volumes.

Kittel, Gerhard, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, translated and abridged into one volume by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

Orr, James, editor, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., five volumes, 1956.

Robertson, Archibald T. [Baptist], Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, 6 volumes.