Open Forum

Link to previous forum.

Open Forum / Away From the Blog Till August 20th

Remember to be charitable in your comments and to listen to the other guy.

Note: very shortly after I return to the blog, I'll be posting an important critique by Paul Hoffer, a regular visitor here, dealing with certain objectionable debating tactics habitually used by anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist apologist James White (per White's own challenges to do so). I've seen the first portion of it already and it is excellent; right on the money.

When Did the Title, Catholic Church Begin?

Worcester Cathedral [source]

St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 107-110) used the term catholic (Gk. katholikos) in his letter to the Christians of Smyrna in about 107 A.D.

I found a very helpful treatment of this topic in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (c. 1910): available online (article, "Catholic"). It points out, however, that St. Ignatius' use is not the technical meaning of the term as used today. For that specific usage it states (my bolding added):

[T]his sense undoubtedly occurs more than once in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180), where, for example, it is said of certain heretical writings that they "cannot be received in the Catholic Church". A little later, Clement of Alexandria [c. 150 - c. 215] speaks very clearly. "We say", he declares, "that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith" (Stromata, VII, xvii; P. G., IX, 552). From this and other passages which might be quoted, the technical use seems to have been clearly established by the beginning of the third century. In this sense of the word it implies sound doctrine as opposed to heresy, and unity of organization as opposed to schism (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II, vol. I, 414 sqq. and 621 sqq.; II, 310-312).

I looked up the Stromata, book VII. Here are the two occurrences of Catholic Church (chapter 17; color and bolding added):

For that the human assemblies which they held were posterior to the Catholic Church requires not many words to show.

For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius.

And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the eider, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

Such being the case, it is evident, from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the Church, that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions falsified [from the truth].

From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God's purpose are just, are enrolled. For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.

Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith -- which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord -- those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous.

But the pre-eminence of the Church, as the principle of union, is, in its oneness, in this surpassing all things else, and having nothing like or equal to itself. But of this afterwards.

Since Clement died around 215, this use of the word was clearly established by that time, and quickly became widespread, and standard usage by the fourth century.

Irrational Protestant Derision Towards Pope Benedict XVI as Supposedly Fundamentally Different From John Paul II: My Spot-On Predictions in 2005

Protestants come up with many and varied ways of opposing the Catholic Church. One of the recurring methodologies is to pit popes against each other and to play the game of characterizing popes a certain way, depending on the agenda of the person doing the "sizing up." The usual fashion in which this manifests itself is in the oft-stated perennial hope, wish, and prayer of Protestants and secularists alike, for the "next pope" to be a good pseudo-liberal or a good quasi-Protestant. They dream in vain that he will (finally!) wake up, come to his senses, and see how silly and outdated various Catholic dogmas are, and overturn them (as if such a thing is possible or within his purview in the first place).

The flip side of this altogether wrongheaded mentality (that reveals itself clueless as to how Catholic dogma and the papacy function) is to heap derision on popes who appear to directly counter this pipe dream, hallucinatory vision of how Catholicism "ought" to reform itself. Hence, due to a few of the actions and pronouncements of Pope Benedict XVI (notably, dealing with the Tridentine Mass and approval of a document reiterating that -- surprise! -- the Catholic Church is the one true Church), he now is being tarred and feathered as an "ultramontanist" and a throwback to the Middle Ages.

All sorts of nonsense is being spouted along these lines, at present. For the Catholic who knows his faith (and who is familiar with the beliefs of this pope and his magnificent predecessor), it is quite comical indeed to observe, but we must exercise patience and forbearance and attempt once again to explain how this thinking is far wide of the mark, and ultimately irrational. Protestants vociferously object to their own particular brands of Christianity being misrepresented and caricatured; Catholics (I can assure one and all) are no different in that regard.

I predicted all this in a lengthy commentary on what I perceived to be the "Mind of the Church" when Pope Benedict XVI first became pope, in April 2005. Readers who are at all interested in this topic are strongly urged to read that entire paper, but to sum up, here are portions particularly relevant to the present analysis:

Pope Benedict XVI['s] . . . emphasis will likely be more so as a "doctrinal watchdog" and a more stern disciplinarian, since that has been his role in the past 20 years or so. As Pope St. Pius X dealt with the modernists, who were just then trying to make serious inroads into the Church, at a time when Europe and Western Civilization was starting to forsake the Catholic and Christian worldview for the pottage of secularism (with the result being Naziism, Communism, the sexual revolution, the abortion holocaust, and the bloodiest century in history), so Pope Benedict XVI (I imagine) will decisively deal with the postmodernists in the Church, at a time when even the cultural remnants of Christianity are being ditched by Europe and Western Civilization (as he himself has written much about). Pope John Paul II laid the fundamental groundwork for the defeat of the liberal dissidents and their nefarious goals for the Church; Pope Benedict XVI may very well deliver the death-blow.

. . . I also believe that Pope Benedict XVI will probably be one of the most persecuted and even hated men in the world (the most hated since President Ronald Reagan). The liberals and secularists already take a very dim view of the man, because he is strongly orthodox and stands up for the truth. There is a place for this. All the early popes were martyrs. There is also a martyrdom of sorts which comes through slander and lying and severe opposition from the waves and currents of the presently fashionable zeitgeist.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is precisely the sort of man, I think, who is willing to suffer in that way, in order to strongly assert doctrinal, theological truth. It is good to be loved by the world, as Pope John Paul II was, if it is for the right reasons. The world saw the goodness and holiness in John Paul II. But it is also good to be willing to be persecuted for His name's sake, and to draw clear lines and boundaries. That is the other motif in the Bible, . . .

Ecumenism: reaching out to those of other faiths with a broader message (not to deny Catholic distinctives, but to emphasize common ground) will obviously hold more appeal to those outside of the Catholic faith. It's just human nature. Hence, Blessed Pope John XXIII was such a beloved figure among non-Catholics, just as Pope John Paul II was.

But if a pope's emphasis is on Catholic dictinctives and orthodox Catholic theology, in his words and speeches and so forth, in more direct contradiction of the world and non-Catholic Christianity, then he will have to take a great deal more heat, and be accused of being divisive or "triumphalistic" and so forth (which is equally human nature; people don't like disagreement, and they seem to think it is arrogant to ever say that anyone else is wrong).

Note, for example, how Pope Paul VI's famous 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reiterated Catholic opposition to contraception, was received. It caused almost a wholesale revolution in the Church (at least in America), from those who had hoped to remake Catholicism into American Episcopalianism (which has excelled at following the spirit of the times and compromising historic Christianity again and again). But Pope Paul VI has turned out to be a virtual prophet. All his dire cultural predictions have come to pass, and then some.

. . . I've often noted through the years, how people assume that there is a huge dichotomy or contradiction between apologetics and ecumenism. This is untrue. They are perfectly compatible. One endeavor seeks to defend what one believes; the other seeks common ground with other Christian and even non-Christians, and seeks as much unity as is possible to achieve, without compromising one's own belief-system and principles. But the strong tendency is for "liberals" to despise apologetics (fundamentally misunderstanding it), and for so-called "traditionalists" to despise ecumenism (fundamentally misunderstanding it). Post-Vatican II Catholicism (which is the same Church it ever was; only more developed) fully embraces both.

Both the late great pope and this present one are in full agreement with both endeavors (as they are men of Vatican II). That said: there is a time to emphasize one or the other thing (while not denying the other). As Pope John Paul II was such a superb ambassador of the faith, an evangelist, even a "diplomat," if you will (in the very best sense of that word), so Pope Benedict XVI may very well be the upholder and champion (in a more direct, "disciplinary" way) of theological orthodoxy over against all the currents of error that we have to deal with in the modern world and (sadly) among certain rebellious sectors of the Church.

. . . Both things are good: ecumenism and doctrinal orthodoxy and/or apologetics (which seeks to defend same), but (broadly speaking) folks love one and despise the other. They seem to think that one person with one coherent belief-system cannot do both. Well, this is untrue. Pope John Paul II did both; Pope Benedict XVI will continue to do both. But as the former pope emphasized one, and that was his "image," so to speak, so this present pope will likely emphasize the other, and his "image" will have to take a lot of hits, and he will undergo much persecution for doing so.

That will not be because he is somehow more "orthodox" or "conservative" or less ecumenical than Pope John Paul II, but it will be because his emphasis clashes more with the world and other Christian belief-systems than ecumenism does. And he may be more personally assertive or "disciplinarian," as a matter of style, resolve, temperament, or other factors.

It doesn't make him "bad" and John Paul II "good" or vice versa (wrongheaded, sinful stereotypes according to the heterodox / liberal and quasi-schismatic "traditional" fringes of the Church and nutty, goofy, ignorant media analyses by folks who don't have a clue). All this is, is a balance: one good thing being empahsized, and then another good thing being emphasized, at particular periods of time.

All this has come to pass, in almost precisely the manner that I describe above, and in entirely predictable quarters (from those who labor under false preconceptions of how Catholicism works). For example, in a marvelous encapsulation of this utterly mistaken and misguided mentality, Reformed Protestant polemicist and self-anointed pseudo-historian Tim Enloe writes:

Even after 50 years of scholarship trying to take history and historical change more seriously, Catholicism seems to be overrun with militant dogmatists who can’t make elementary distinctions and can’t seriously entertain anything but their own exceedingly narrow-minded construals of “Catholic dogma.” And then of course you still get popes who court ultramontanist fantasies about their own power and office, constantly magnifying propositions about their “jurisdiction” while letting pressing pastoral concerns seemingly fall through the cracks. In other words it’s a mess, . . .

( 7-20-07 on his blog)

Tim has, many times, written favorably about Pope John Paul II's ecumenism. Here is one instance from his blog, from 1-19-07:

Recent Catholic scholarship (over the last 100 years or so) seems to have become more open to examining historical contingencies and relating them to the “faith once for all delivered” in a far less offensively dogmatic manner. Thus, for instance, Catholics today can have a John Paul II asking other Christian communities to dialogue with the papacy about how the papacy could better fulfill its own traditional role of safeguarding unity and governing the Church. Catholics today aren’t stuck with Boniface VIII’s blunt thundering, and don’t have to pretend that, say, “papal primacy” must take the form it took in the feudalized world of the later Middle Ages. All kinds of possibilities for constructive discourse are opened by this openness, and I hope the trend continues.

If pressed, Tim would, no doubt, assert a fundamental difference between John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but this is the very fallacy that I shot down in my 2005 paper. It's a myth; it's fiction. Ironically, however, not too long ago (19 September 2006), Tim himself recognized Benedict XVI's ecumenism, citing an August 2005 papal address:

Although the pope made it clear in the address that he wasn’t claiming infallibility for his speech, there’s still a very interesting disconnect between what this most learned and pious of Catholic leaders says about reunion and what too many of his followers, especially on the Internet, say. On this subject, I’ll take Benedict XVI over Convert Apologist Guy anyday.

In comments, Tim elaborated his viewpoint, expressly pitting the Holy Father against Ignorant Apologist Guys like yours truly:

I’m no expert on Vatican II, but from what I’ve read I’m not sure that the ending point of dialogue has been all that firmly defined. At least, depending on how one views reconciliation as taking effect. Obviously for one to exist within the precisely-defined communion headed up by the Bishop of Rome, one would have to accept a lot of things that seem objectionable to a lot of Christians even today. But that may not be the only way that reconciliation can occur. Only time will tell, but the significant point to me is that, as you put it, the range of acceptable positions for Catholics seems to me to be not quite as limited as many self-styled “conservative” Catholics, chiefly the “Everyone else must return to us” crowd, portray it. That type is usually the most bull-headed and rigid, but as Benedict’s example implies, that view may just be one of those excessively rigid “more Catholic than the Pope” things.

But all of a sudden, Pope Benedict XVI simply acts like an orthodox Catholic pope, and Tim turns against him, as if the man has undergone a lobotomy or radical personality shift. Now supposedly the Holy Father has "ultramontanist fantasies about [his] own power and office". By Tim's own reasoning, then, the pope is "bull-headed and rigid." He has now proven himself more triumphalistic and "conservative" even than the embodiment of "apologetic evil" and All That Is Wrong in Catholicism, Dave Armstrong (a guy who has written tons of ecumenical stuff). Imagine that! Right. Whatever you say, Tim.

The same fantasy, based on false premises, is repeatedly expressed by Rev. Michael Pahls in a discussion thread on the ReformedCatholicism blog, entitled, The Latin Mass (7-14-07):

One may speculate that the present pontificate of Benedict XVI represents an attempt to reassert an older, ultramontanist model of Roman Catholic identity, . . .

. . . the present [implied; deficient] pontificate is not a prima facia bellweather for the state of every Roman Catholic theological question.

I’m on record and will be in print, God willing, as being no friend of Ultramontanism. J23 was a better pope and better man than B16.

[O]ne can go a long way understanding Ratzinger the theologian by seeing his work as an attempt to establish an ultramontanist reading of Vatican 2. This is, of course, not the only possible reading and the eventual sense of the faithful will ultimately adjudicate that question. Ratzinger’s ultramontanism is presently in ascendancy, but ultramontanism has been driven back to the margins before.

Reformed Protestant (and so-called "Reformed Catholic") Kevin Johnson, heartbroken that Pope Benedict XVI approved a CDF document asserting the ancient Catholic doctrine (sanctioned again by Vatican II) that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, ignorantly implied (in a thread of 7-10-07) that this doctrine could change (the converse notion being that Benedict XVI is a hopeless triumphalistic reactionary for preserving it; note his polemical use of the description "hardened traditionalists"):

I by no means think the cause is lost for Rome to change here. Of course, hardened traditionalists will say otherwise but the record of history is clear to point out that the Church though slow to change does move in the warp and woof of history and as such is certainly capable of change. Add to that the sovereign will of God and the power of the Holy Spirit and revival could sweep the halls of such a broken communion.

There are those within Rome of course that feel equal need to see such a change take place. Just today, I read a fantastic appeal to the Pope by Aloysius Pieris, S.J. forwarded to me by a dear friend and brother in the Lord. So, even with this announcement we refer to above and a continued attitude of exclusivity there is still hope that God will change the hearts of men for His glory and their better in His mercy and grace.

Elsewhere, I have noted the sort of things that Fr. Pieris believes, and the silliness of appeal to Catholic dissident liberals as the "great hope" of Catholic "reform" (i.e., invariably, "Protestantization"). Earlier (2-2-06), like Tim Enloe, Kevin had noted the sunny ecumenism of Pope Benedict XVI: in a post entitled "Five Point Ecumenism . . . or why Pope Benedict XVI holds great promise for evangelicals and Catholics alike . . .", citing ecumenical Baptist scholar Timothy George (who, coincidentally, endorses the ecumenical venture / video I am involved with, called Common Ground). Kevin had commended the new pope also in posts dated 10-7-05, 10-8-05, 10-25-05 and 11-4-05. And again like Tim Enloe ("Reformed Catholic" types often being clone-like in their expressions and opinions), Kevin cynically pitted the pope against Catholic apologists and apologetics, as if the latter is on a different wavelength:

However, I believe in large part this sort of Christlike use of her authority is happening especially with the advent of Pope Benedict XVI and other men committed to a proper ecumenism devoid of the old partisan apologetic intent. I believe it signals that popular Roman Catholic apologetics is in serious need of an update (as well as corresponding evangelical and Reformed apologetics towards Rome) and that the days of the validity and usefulness of Mark Shea’s and similar approaches are certainly numbered.

Of course, the most ironic thing to me about this book is that it doesn’t fit with what the current crop of leaders from the top down are doing in terms of ecumenism and their work with other Christian groups. In large part, in my view it works against the current authority in place in today’s Roman Catholic Church and it makes me wonder just how important legitimate ecclesial authority is to the author and the other Roman Catholic apologists on the Internet or elsewhere that make similar claims.

(10-18-05)

All this, yet let the pope dare to assert some time-honored Catholic doctrine that Kevin doesn't care for, and then Kevin will talk like this:

[I] denounce the continued arrogance of the communion of Rome in asserting herself as the ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church’. White quotes the document in full that of late makes it clear that neither Pope Benedict XVI nor the Roman Church is backing down on this point.

This is the one barrier that exists that keeps any real ecumenical progress from happening between Rome and the Protestant communions. Sad and terrible at the same time. May Rome repent of her arrogance!

(7-10-07)

To top off the ludicrous folly, in comments for the same post, Kevin tries to separate Pope Benedict XVI from his approval of the monstrous CDF document that reasserted Vatican II and Tridentine ecclesiology (as if this makes any sense):

I didn’t call the Pope arrogant. I called the Roman communion arrogant.

Let's see if we can grasp this "reasoning":

1) To assert that the Catholic Church headed by the pope in Rome is the one holy catholic and apostolic church is "arrogance" and "sad and terrible".

2) But when, however, the leader of that Church affirms the same exact teaching, he is somehow excused from these negative characterizations.

3) Ergo, you have the following contradiction:

A) The Catholic Church [but who exactly does one mean by that, since the Church is comprised of people?] claiming it is the one holy catholic and apostolic church is "arrogance" and "sad and terrible".

B) The head of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, expressly affirming the claim that the Catholic Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church is NOT "arrogant" and [implied, by analogy] "sad and terrible".

What gives? Why is one thing arrogant and fit for derision and condescending blog posts, and the other identical thing not arrogant (not that I am at all surprised by radical inconsistency in one of Kevin Johnson's positions)?

C. Michael Patton, a Reformed Protestant (in a dialogue mentioned above), makes the same false dichotomy between John Paul II and Benedict XVI:

He is more hard-line than John Paul II was and demonstrated this yesterday . . . the supreme bishop of Rome does not want progression in the way it was seeming to head. This lack of recognition from the Pope does not reflect the spirit of either Evangelical or Catholic scholarship. It is a move backward into the darker ages. . . . My proposal has been that within the ranks of Catholic and Evangelical scholarship, attitudes have begun to change over the last 15 years. Doors were beginning to be opened. This proclamation is a strong attempt to shut these doors. . . . I put forth Peter Kreeft as a good example of one who had laid many planks of wood on this bridge that the Pope just set fire to again.

Well-known Southern Baptist Albert Mohler, on the other hand, gets it right. He understands that nothing has changed at all (post of 7-13-07):

Aren't you offended? That is the question many Evangelicals are being asked in the wake of a recent document released by the Vatican. The document declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church -- or, in words the Vatican would prefer to use, the only institutional form in which the Church of Christ subsists.

No, I am not offended. In the first place, I am not offended because this is not an issue in which emotion should play a key role. This is a theological question, and our response should be theological, not emotional. Secondly, I am not offended because I am not surprised. No one familiar with the statements of the Roman Catholic Magisterium should be surprised by this development. This is not news in any genuine sense. It is news only in the current context of Vatican statements and ecumenical relations. Thirdly, I am not offended because this new document actually brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology, and thus it presents us with an opportunity.

. . . Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are "ecclesial Communities," not churches "in the proper sense."I appreciate the document's clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this -- the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division.

. . . I do not see this new Vatican statement as an innovation or an insult. I see it as a clarification and a helpful demarcation of the issues at stake.

I appreciate the Roman Catholic Church's candor on this issue, and I believe that Evangelical Christians, with equal respect and clarity, should respond in kind. This is a time to be respectfully candid -- not a time to be offended.

Review of The One-Minute Apologist

. . . on the Purify Your Bride blog. I appreciate it. Thanks!

Martin Chemnitz is "The Man" for Lutherans; It's Time to Address His Arguments Directly

I've come in contact with so much ecstatic, almost hagiographical praise of early Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586) from Lutherans online (and urgings that I should interact with his work) that I have decided to fork out a few bucks to purchase his Examination of the Council of Trent, Vol. I. ($29; and that is about as low as these books get). I rarely spend that much for any book (apologetics not being a lucrative profession, and with four children to feed), but if he is "the man" in Lutheran circles, and this is what it takes to get into a substantive discussion of comparative theology with Lutherans, then I'm willing to do it, because I quite enjoy dialoguing with the more informed and congenial members of that denomination.

I'm also not nuts about taking hours of my increasingly limited time (having recently added on a second full-time job to my full-time apologetics work) typing up excerpts from a 16th-century tome in order to provide Catholic replies to it (seeing that many of Luther's works and almost all of Calvin's, including his Institutes are freely available online, along with most of the important Church Fathers' writings), but I'll make do citing as little as I can to make my point without being accused of warring with straw-men. Hopefully, some of these same Lutherans who keep telling me I gotta deal with Chemnitz, will be willing to counter-reply to my critiques. I'm following their advice; perhaps they will accept my friendly challenge in return.

Here is a sampling of the praise of Chemnitz from one admiring (almost fawning) Lutheran who is prominent in the Lutheran blogosphere: Josh Strodtbeck:

The way he just went for the whole theological pie was just...beautiful. It makes me weep.

(4-5-07)

The beauty of Chemnitz's theological disputation style is that he leaves no stone unturned; he seems to have known everything relevant to theology that it was possible for a man of the 16th century to know. Reading Chemnitz will make anyone feel just plain lazy. I know he makes me feel like a complete idiot.

(4-6-07)

Well, I finally finished Volume I. This work is absolutely incredible. Not only did I learn a lot about Chemnitz's theology (and the Bible, and Lutheranism), but I also learned a whole lot about Trent. One of the great things about Chemnitz is that he doesn't build up straw men. He's extremely careful to present his opponents' positions accurately, and goes a step further by avoiding logomachy in favor of discussing the actual substance of the doctrine at hand.

. . . Because he takes seriously the doctrine that the Church is all believers in Christ, he himself as in the same Church as all believers before him, and the jurists at Trent as simply pretenders to the faith. Chemnitz did not write as a Lutheran as we understand the term today, a member of one Christian denomination among many, seeking to defend its particular theological viewpoints against viewpoints that are equally Christian, but happen to be incorrect to varying degrees. He mentions Luther exactly twice in 663 pages. Compare that to Pieper! He wrote as man of the Church, that one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the only Church that ever was and ever will be. There is no Christian doctrine other than the apostolic doctrine, and Chemnitz, like the other early Lutherans, sought to defend no other.

(4-12-07)

I am gradually coming under the opinion that 90% of anything theological you will ever think has already been thought by Martin Chemnitz.

(6-26-07)

It's interesting to note how Josh treats a Catholic scholar and defender of the Catholic Church of great renown (somewhat analogous to Chemnitz's position within Lutheranism: the "great defender" status): Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman (my own great intellectual hero, just as Chemnitz seems to be Josh's):

Decree From On High

Newman is a clown. Don't seriously recommend his books on this site. If you wish to point someone to something or other to prove that scapulars and purgatory and whatnot are in fact the purest incarnation of the Church that Christ established, recommend something that I wouldn't classify with the Uncanny X-Men comic series. Seriously. Newman? Give me a real Catholic theologian, not someone who's constantly trying to preach down his inner Protestant and lacks the integrity to call a spade a spade.

Edit: I should add that there are three kinds of people who find Newman convincing. There are people who already agree with his conclusions, there are people who want to be Roman Catholics and are looking for any kind of intellectual validation to grasp at, and there are Protestants with a hopelessly naïve view of Christian history who get absolutely steamrolled intellectually when someone presents them with a grand metanarrative. What you always read is an anecdote by some Baptist or another who was absolutely awed by how Newman's metanarrative is just so much aesthetically nicer than what's proffered by other Baptists. You don't read about guys who know Chemnitz backward and forward being beaten down by Newman, the supremely unanswerable intellectual giant of the Christian faith. The 19th century was all about grand, fanciful tales of evolution and synthesis continually reaching onward and upward. The 19th century is over.

( 1 August 2006 )

And in comments for this post:

I've read enough Newman. I can see why people took him seriously in 1895, sorta, but in 2006, the huge holes in his reasoning and revisionist approach to history are just artifacts of historical curiosity, not serious theology. I mean what do you have? Stacks of straw-men, repeatedly frontloading his assumptions with that which he wishes to prove, and accusations that anyone who offers a substantial argument against him suffers from pride and impiety. There's a reason nobody outside of the Catholic world cares about Newman. He's really just not that good. It's not that we don't know about him, it's that we're not impressed.

. . . It's Newman's constant appeals to circular logic that make him a real joker. . . . Liberal Jesuits wouldn't have been possible without Newman.

In nearly every argument, you will find that Newman simply assumes what he intends to prove and manipulates sources to fit his assumptions. And when his argument gets beaten, he appeals to the piety of submitting reason to the judgement of the Church and accuses his opponents of rationalism. So reason and historical argument are great until someone uses them against him, and then they're impious tools of the devil used to subvert the authority of the Church. It's a win-win situation.

Shades of the constant Newman-bashing of Tim Enloe, Kevin Johnson, and the good ol' boys at the Reformed Catholic blog . . . You'll never see me treating Martin Chemnitz in this ridiculous fashion, calling him a "clown" or contending that he lacks "integrity" and so forth. I will accept him as an important and influential (Lutheran) theologian and thinker, within a framework of honest (even if very passionate and vigorous) disagreement. Josh apparently can't bring himself to accord any such respect towards those with whom he disagrees (no matter how eminent). How sad. This is the fruit of mere prejudice and sophomoric pomposity ("a little knowledge is a bad thing"), as far as I am concerned.

On the other hand, such irrational vehemence in response does highly indicate (in my opinion) that someone is being made extremely uncomfortable by Newman's arguments (they're squirming): so much so that mockery and caricature are resorted to rather than objective, calm refutations. Again, you won't see that from me as I interact with Chemnitz's arguments, because my starting assumption is that a renowned thinker and theologian of the stature of Martin Chemnitz is neither a "clown" nor dishonest and lacking in integrity.

I start with the presumption of sincerity and desire for intellectual consistency and cogency on the part of the person I critique. In a word, I seek to approach theological opponents with charity, not a sneering cynicism, of the sort that we observe above, short of overwhelming and absolutely compelling evidence that a person is a dishonest liar and incompetent "clown." May God help me to always live by that goal.

Catholic Answers For Protestant Eucharist Questions (with Stanley Williams)

[ source ]

This is an extended excerpt from my DVD Study Guide for the EWTN television series What Catholics Really Believe. The questions (in blue) were written by Stanley Williams.

* * * * *

Episode 4

EUCHARIST I

Logical & Early Church Evidence

Objection to Catholicism

A - Catholics cannot really believe that the bread and wine taken in communion are truly the
body of Jesus Christ; our physical senses tell us that it's flour and wine.

Physical objects that appear solid are mostly composed of what?

Space in between atoms, composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Describe the motion of physical objects that appear to be still?

Electrons are always moving. The Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger, in the 1920s, contended (quite successfully) that electrons are three-dimensional waveforms, as opposed to particles.

How fast are parts of the atoms in a still object actually moving?

Electrons constantly move at velocities approaching the speed of light.

Do our physical senses give us an accurate or an inaccurate understanding of
an object's actual nature?

Physical senses (without the aid of sophisticated microscopes, accompanied by even more complicated theories of physics and mathematics) cannot enable us to comprehend the fundamental properties of matter.

How do Dr. Guarendi and Dr. Richard's explanation of the laws of physics
and our observations of a physical object apply to our understanding of the
nature of The Eucharist?

What “appears” to be so may not be that way at all. Objects that appear perfectly at rest are in fact, partially moving at velocities close to the speed of light. Likewise, what appears to us as bread and wine can in fact be the Body and Blood of Christ, made supernaturally present in the consecrated elements (formerly bread and wine), according to the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself: the same Jesus Who could travel through walls in His glorified body (John 20:26; cf. 1 Cor 15:51-53). According to modern physics and quantum mechanics, such things are literally possible, even in a purely physical realm. So how is there any inherent difficulty in believing in transubstantiation (“change of substance”)?

If our physical senses are incapable of accurately describing a natural object,
by what can we accurately describe a supernatural object?

The Bible describes supernatural objects with “phenomenological” language (the language of appearances and simple observation). For example, in the previous example of Jesus walking through walls, the Bible doesn’t attempt to delve into 20^th century particle physics; it simply says “The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them . . .” (John 20:26). Likewise, the Bible refers to “this [what appears to be bread] is My Body” (Luke 22:19-20), and Paul equates bread and wine with the “body and blood of the Lord” that can be profaned in an irreverent receiving of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:27-30; cf. 10:14-22).

Objection to Catholicism

B - Jesus was not God because he did not look like God. He looked just like man.

If we could have looked through a microscope at the embryo of Jesus Christ
in Mary's womb, would our senses have perceived God or just a human cell
reproducing? Why?

The attributes of the incarnate God cannot be ascertained by conventional methods of scientific observation. Jesus wanted people to accept Who He was by faith. Hence, Jesus says to “doubting Thomas” after the latter had put his hand in the wound in His side: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29).

When Jesus was a man did people generally see a man, or did they recognize
God? Why?

Those who did not have doubt or serious sin and spiritual “blindness” (John 9:39-41) often regarded Him as God, in faith; for example, the blind man healed by Jesus, who worshiped Him (John 9:35-38), and “doubting Thomas,” after Jesus appeared to him (John 20:28). The ones who were blind assumed that He was not only just a man, but also a quite sinful one (John 9:24; cf. Matt 12:22-27,38-42).

What prevents humans from recognizing God in any form, such as Jesus the
Man, or Jesus in the Eucharist?

Lack of faith, and excessive doubt and cynicism. Signs, wonders, and miracles (and by extension, “scientific proof”) do not suffice for many hard-hearted people anyway:

. . . If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.

(Luke 16:31)

In John 6, we see that unbelief and lack of faith and skepticism kept “many of his disciples” (6:60) from believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and actually forsaking the Lord (6:66), because it was a “hard saying” (6:60). Jesus appealed to His ascension, which was an even greater, and more visible miracle (6:62) thus seemingly implying: “if you can’t believe this miracle, how, then, will you be able to believe in that one; yet you will see that with your own eyes.”

If we cannot use our senses to determine if something is God or not, what
can we use? Why?

Faith and the sure word of revelation; also our internal God-given sense of the holiness that Jesus exhibited in His life, and the trustworthy reports of those who were eyewitnesses of His glory (Luke 1:1-2; Acts 1:1-3). See the previous three answers.

What is wrong with using natural law to explain the “super” natural?

Nothing whatsoever! We can utilize that which we know and understand, in order to comprehend (by analogy or parallel) supernatural things that are mysteries to us. Jesus did the same, by using agricultural metaphors in His parables, to reveal the truths of spirituality. Our Lord even compared the unwillingness of the Pharisees and Sadducees to use the same reasoning they use with regard to natural meteorological events of the weather, and apply it to spiritual matters:

Matthew 16:1-4: And the Pharisees and Sad'ducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, "When it is evening, you say, `It will be fair weather; for the sky is red.' And in the morning, `It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah." So he left them and departed.

Objection to Catholicism

C - The Eucharist is just a memorial or symbolic meal. That it is the real body and blood of
Christ, is something made up by the Catholic Church over the centuries.

Explain how John 6 refutes this objection?

Jesus uses extremely literal language in John 6:51-58:

51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58: This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

If this were intended as mere symbolic or figurative language, it seems that it was the least likely to convey that meaning, of any language imaginable. How could it be any more literal than it is? How Jesus reacted to the doubts of the hearers (see related information above), also reinforces this interpretation.

How do the writings of the Early Church Fathers refute this objection?
(Research the writings of St. John Chrysostom, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus,
Justin Martyr, and St. Augustine).

In the early second century (before 110 A.D.), St. Ignatius of Antioch held that "the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7,1) In the middle of the same century, St. Justin Martyr distinguishes the Eucharist from "common" bread and drink and calls it "both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus." (First Apology, 66,2) A little later, St. Irenaeus writes, "The bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of (the) Lord, and the cup His Blood." (Against Heresies, 4,18,4 / 4,33,2; cf. 4,18,5) St. John Chrysostom speaks of the priest as the representative of God in the Mass, exercising solely His power and grace, in order to "transform the gifts" which "become the Body and Blood of Christ." (Homilies on Judas, 1,6) Elsewhere he equates the Eucharist with Christ's "blood-stained" Body, "pierced by a lance." (Homilies on 1 Corinthians, 24,) St. Augustine, the greatest of the Fathers, writes that "Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said 'This is My Body.'" (Explanations of the Psalms, 33,1,10) He expressly sanctions adoration of the consecrated Host:

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless first he adores it . . . we do sin by not adoring. (Explanations of the Psalms, 98,9)

When Christ says "I will be with you always, even until the end of the
world," why do Catholics believe this promise to be the literal physical
presence of Jesus and not the Holy Spirit?

Because right before He said this (Matt 28:20) He also urged His disciples to “observe all that I have commanded you”. The Eucharist was precisely what Christians do (in obedience to the command at the Last Supper) to bring remembrance to Jesus’ presence on earth; and not only remembrance, but Real Presence. Paul said that in observing the Eucharist, we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). John 6:53-54,58 intimately connects the Eucharist with both spiritual and eternal life. John 6:56 makes reception of the Eucharist a necessity for Jesus to “abide” in believers, and vice versa (cf. John 14:23, 15:4-7).

One of the objections against the early Christians was that during their
worship services they were practicing cannibalism. How does this historical
fact reinforce the Early Church belief in the true presence?

It shows that the early Christians were taking Jesus literally (John 6; Last Supper utterances about the bread and the wine being His Body and Blood). But the pagans (like the skeptics who disbelieved in John 6) did not understand the distinction between physical cannibalism and a spiritual, sacramental Real Presence.

Explain how John 1:1 ("In the beginning was the Word...") and John 1:14
("And The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...") reflects the
Catholic Mass and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

This involves the intimate connection between the incarnation and the Eucharist (both entail physical presence of God Himself). Catholic convert Thomas Howard elaborates:

Sacrament, recalling and presenting the Incarnation itself, is not so much supernatural as quintessentially natural, because it restores to nature its true function of being full of God . . . Indeed heaven and earth are full of His glory. Nature is the God-bearer, so to speak . . . In the Sacrament, bread, which is already a metaphor, is taken and raised to a dignity beyond mere metaphor . . . one step away from the Incarnation itself . . . It is a scandal. God is not man, any more than bread is flesh. But faith overrides the implacable prudence of logic and chemistry . . .

This mystery . . . may be held only in faith, even though it, like the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension, exists quite apart from faith. `out there' in the real world.

(Evangelical is Not Enough, Nashville: Nelson, 1984:110-112)

Objection to Catholicism

D - Catholics just pick and choose the writings of the Early Church Fathers in an attempt to
prove that the early Christians believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
There were other writers who said it was only symbolic.

What is the best way to refute this objection?

By citing the judgment of Protestant Church historians, who themselves do not believe the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist (hence cannot be accused of bias in favor of patristic support for the doctrine), yet accurately report what the Fathers believed. For example, the well known Protestant historian Philip Schaff:

The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . .

In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim......

[Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.

Augustine . . . on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion 'verissimum sacrificium' of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers ('immolat') to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ. [City of God, 10,20]

(History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492, 500, 507)

What did Luther say about the true presence of the Eucharist?

It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope.

(Early 1520s; in Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 376; Luther’s Works, [edited by Jaroslav Pelikan] 37, 317)

The glory of our God is precisely that for our sakes he comes down to the very depths, into human flesh, into the bread, into our mouth, our heart, our body.

(in Althaus, ibid., 398; Luther’s Works , 37, 71 ff.)

. . . Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius . . . called him a baked God, a God made of bread, a God made of wine, a roasted God, etc. They called us cannibals, blood-drinkers, man-eaters . . . even the papists have never taught such things, as they clearly know . . .

For this is . . . how it was accepted in the true, ancient Christian church of fifteen hundred years ago . . . When you receive the bread from the altar, . . . you are receiving the entire body of the Lord; . . .

(Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament, September 1544; Luther’s Works, 38, 291-292)

What symbol in the catacombs and ancient churches reinforced the early
Church's belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

The famous symbol of the fish, and depictions of three of Jesus’ miracles related to food: the feeding of the 5,000 with fish and bread, the banquet of seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee with the raised Jesus, and the miracle of the wedding at Cana (changing water into wine).

Episode 5

EUCHARIST II

Scriptural Evidence

REVIEW of EPISODE 4 - EUCHARIST I

Objection to Catholicism

A - The Catholic Church invented this crazy idea that Jesus' body and blood are really
present in the Eucharist. It's really nuts to think that a priest can pray over a wafer and
turn it miraculously into Jesus Christ.

If the Catholic claim that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist is true, who is
the only person that could be responsible for the miracle of it?

Jesus Himself! If that is how He decided to miraculously become physically present again, after His earthly sojourn, then we can hardly object, seeing that it is hardly any different in essence than the Incarnation itself: God becoming man. On the other hand, if it is false doctrine, no priest could “conjure” up Jesus’ presence, because they are dealing with the omnipotent God, and He is not to be trifled with or manipulated.

How early in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and in what context,
can you find the concept of transubstantiation?

(Research: Justin Martyr's First Apology, Section 66:5) (The answer to this question is
implied but not given in Dr. Ray and Fr. Kevin's dialogue.)

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66:5 (complete; emphasis added):

And this food is called among us [eucharistia] [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Objection to Catholicism

B - The concept of the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not in the Bible.

With respect to the consecration of the Eucharist, what is the significance of
the Bible's mentioning Melchizedek? (Genesis 14:18, Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 7)

Psalm 110:4: The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek."

When we trace the origin of this back, we find some very interesting things:

Genesis 14:18: And Mel-chiz'edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.

Leviticus 23:12-14: And on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the LORD. And the cereal offering with it shall be two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, to be offered by fire to the LORD, a pleasing odor; and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hin. And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. (cf. also Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:1-28)

What was the function of the Old Testament priest?

The priest presided over and performed ritual sacrifices of bulls and other things, in order to atone for the sins of the people.

How did Christ's actions and words at the Last Supper parallel the Old
Testament priestly sacrifice for people's sins?

The Last Supper was actually a Passover meal, in which lamb and bread and wine were consumed, and was for the purpose of the people remembering how God had physically delivered them from bondage in Egypt. Jesus used this symbolism to introduce the notion of the Eucharist: now bread and wine were to be transubstantiated into His Body and Blood and His followers would be spiritually delivered by His sacrifice as the “lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And they were to remember this in the Eucharist henceforth, just as the Jews observed the Passover rite in remembrance.

Although Christ lifts up the bread at the Last Supper what does he say the
bread is? (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

“This is My body” – as opposed to “this represents My body” or “this contains my Body” or “My Body is present with, in, and under the bread”, or “this is a symbol to help you remember My Body,” etc.

When Christ prays over the bread and wine at the last supper, what words
does he use that can be implied to mean that the bread and wine are only
symbolic of his body and blood?

None can be reasonably interpreted that way. The closest (so some believe) is “do this in remembrance of me.” But in the Hebrew mind that didn‘t imply that it was a mere recollection or mental image or pleasing nostalgia; but rather, the reality being made present here and now, just as the Jews regarded Passover.

What did St. Augustine say Jesus held in his hands at the Last Supper?

His own Body: "Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said 'This is My Body.'" (Explanations of the Psalms, 33,1,10)

At the Last Supper to what everlasting Old Testament concept did Jesus
relate the cup of wine? (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24)

The covenant between God and His people:

Matthew 26:28: for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14: 24: And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”

What Old Testament object of sacrifice did the blood of Christ represent?
(2 Chronicles 29:22, Revelation 7:14, Revelation 12:11)

Bulls, rams, and lambs, used in ritual sacrifice, for atonement. Revelation 7:14 and 12:11 refer to “the blood of the Lamb [Jesus].”

Jesus' words and actions at the Last Supper revisited the Jewish Passover
meal. What did those that celebrated the Passover meal have to eat --
completely?

The lamb, and bread and wine.

Explain the significance of the following Scripture in terms of the real
presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Jewish community?
My name will be great among the gentiles, from the rising to the setting of
the sun. In every place, incense and pure offerings will be brought to my
name. (Malachi 1:11)

In the New Covenant, the Lamb of God and the cross represent the continuation and development of the Old Testament sacrificial system (which is no longer even being performed by the Jews). This passage refers to the Gentiles “in every place” making pure offerings. But since it is not animal sacrifices, it is reasonable to assume that what is referred to is the sacrifice of the Mass and re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus, who as once for all, offered at Calvary. The incense represents the prayers of the Mass.

In John 6:52-66, how many times does Jesus say or allude to His body or
blood as being true food?

Twice very directly (6:55) and eight more times speaking of “eating “and “drinking”.

Fr. Kevin makes the point that John 6:66 is the only place in the Gospels
where a group of believers walked away from Jesus and did not follow Him
again. What was Jesus teaching that was too hard for them to believe?

That His followers had to eat His flesh and drink His blood (sacramentally) in order to have spiritual and eternal life.

In terms of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote about the bread and wine
being the body and blood of Christ (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22-23, Luke
22:19-20) what is significant about when John wrote his Gospel and why?

By the time of John’s writing (later in the first century), the Gnostic heresy was starting to deny that Jesus had come in the flesh, and indeed, asserted that flesh itself was a bad thing. So John emphasized the physical and “realist” nature of the Eucharist over against that false teaching.

Non-Catholics might quote John 6:63 as evidence that Christ was speaking
symbolically and not literally about the bread and wine being his true body
and blood. Why is this not likely a good interpretation, and how does this
verse reinforce Catholic understanding of the Eucharist's reality?

Jesus was contrasting “flesh” in the sense of “flesh and blood” (or a merely natural human understanding; see, e.g., Matt 16:17 for a clear example of this meaning) to spiritual discernment. He wasn’t referring to the Eucharist, but rather to “the words that I have spoken”. “Spirit and life” refers back to His references to spiritual and eternal life as a result of partaking of the Eucharist (6:50-51,53-54,56-58).

In the Eucharistic consecration what does the "EPIKLESIS" prayer do, and
why is it significant in relation to John 6:63?

It reinforces the power of Jesus’ words. God’s words bring about what they refer to. So when the priest repeats the words of Jesus at the Last Supper (the consecration), they continue to achieve what they did then, and Jesus becomes present through the power of the Word. Hence the relation to John 6:63: “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

In Luke 22:19 Christ says during the Last Supper, "Do this in remembrance
of me." Non-Catholics believe that the word "remembrance" here means to
remember symbolically. But what does "remembrance", or "ANAMNESIS" in
Greek, really mean? Why does this mean the opposite of "symbolic?"
(1 Corinthians 11:23-24, 25)

It means “active re-presentation” according to Greek scholars. It is the opposite of symbolic just as “re-present” (the original thing again) is different from “represent” (one thing symbolizing another). Hence, Paul uses ultra-realistic language, even stating in 1 Cor 11:27 that partaking of the Eucharist unworthily is the same as profaning His Body and Blood.

Some non-Catholics interpret 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 -- which includes Paul's
admonition about not discerning the body of Christ -- as referencing the body
of believers and not the real flesh of Christ. Why does Fr. Kevin say this
makes no sense? (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)

Because the language is related to the Eucharist instituted at the Last Supper. Jesus referred to the bread and the wine as His Body and Blood. The “Body of Christ” (the Church) is a completely different sense. So Paul equates the bread and the cup with the Body and Blood of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11:27. In the next verse, he urges Christians to do a self-examination before receiving Holy Communion.

In Luke 24 Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple on the road to
Emmaus. During their walk Jesus explains the Old Testament prophecies
about the Messiah. But the disciples do not recognize Jesus until when?
What does Jesus do that suddenly opens their eyes with understanding?
(Luke 24:13-35)

When Jesus broke bread (a gesture reminiscent of the Last Supper): “When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.” (Luke 24:30-31)

Explain how John 1:1, 14, 18 and Luke 24:30-31 can be related and apply to
the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

It is when “the Word became flesh” that God was most fully revealed (John 1:18). As the Incarnation revealed God visibly, so the Eucharist makes Jesus present again and gives us spiritual life, through the same principle of the Incarnation and matter conveying grace. In this instance, the eyes of the two disciples were blinded until the moment of the Eucharist, and “then they recognized him”. The knowledge is spiritually discerned, but made possible through the instrument of the grace-infused (John 1:14) matter (in the Eucharist, the actual Body and Blood of Jesus).

My Two New DVD Study Guides: for Common Ground and What Catholics Really Believe

I mentioned before my writing of the Study Guide for the ecumenical Common Ground DVD. It was edited by Stanley Williams and his wife Pam (mostly formatting issues). I am now an apologetic consultant for the Nineveh's Crossing apostolate. You can check out numerous articles by Stan, posted at Catholic Exchange.

For the second Study Guide (What Catholics Really Believe), my friend Stanley Williams wrote the questions and I provided the answers (except for a couple that I didn't know, that Stanley filled in). Enjoy! Both are free to download whether you purchase the DVDs or not. Just follow the links below for downloads and/or purchase of the videos.

Newsletter - July 16, 2007 www.NinevehsCrossing.com - TOLL FREE 877-606-1370 -- sales@NinevehsCrossing.com STUDY GUIDE UPDATES The Study Guide written by Dave Armstrong for the DVD COMMON GROUND is available on-line for free download on the Common Ground Order page or through the Study Guide Tab at the top any Nineveh's Crossing page. Also, the WHAT CATHOLICS REALLY BELIEVE Study Guide (WCRB-SG) for Dr. Ray Guarendi and Fr. Kevin Fete's 13-part DVD series, has been expanded by 40+ pages to include answers to the questions. The answers were also written by Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong. Our review of the WCRB-SG found a number of factual errors in the previous edition. Therefore, a new (and unfortunately expanded) Errata Page for the WCRB-SG has been posted on-line at the Study Guide Tab. If you have a study guide that was downloaded or printed prior to 7/16/07, please download these free errata pages. The current on-line WCRB-SG has been updated to include the corrections noted on the errata sheet. Common Ground Airs on TBN The premiere of Kensington Community Church's program COMMON GROUND, What Protestants and Catholics Can Learn From Each Other distributed by Nineveh's Crossing, aired on the Trinity Broadcasting Network Saturday afternoon, July 14, 2007 Our phones and web-site literally lit up as hundreds of people from all over the U.S. and as far away as Australia and New Zealand called and ordered the DVD and Study Guide. If you're one of them, please be patient as we work this week to fulfill the orders. We are most thrilled with the emotional response to the program. Viewers are telling us that the program has revived their faith, answered questions they have had all their life about Catholicism and never understood, and generally has helped to unite Christians in the bond of faith that we have through Jesus Christ. We sense we are witnessing the work of the Holy Spirit from a front row seat, and it's pretty exciting. Thank you for your prayers and support!
PRAYER Lord, send your angels to guard us from the evil one, strengthen us in the one true faith, imbue your Word deep within our hearts, and please empower us to do your good work.		Sincerely, Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D. Managing Director and Grand PooBah God said: "Set out for the great city of Nineveh, and announce to it the message that I will tell you." So Jonah made ready and went to Nineveh, according to the LORD'S bidding. Now Nineveh was an enormously large city; it took three days to go through it. (Jonah 3:2-3) And Tobit gave thanks before them that God had been merciful to him. When Tobit came near to Sarah his daughter-in-law, he blessed her, saying, "Welcome, daughter! Blessed is God who has brought you to us, and blessed are your father and your mother." So there was rejoicing among all his brethren in Nineveh. (Tobit 11:17)

My Distant Anti-Catholic Past (Armstrong and Elliot Border Clans)

The ancient Armstrong fatherland.
[ see more ]

My esteemed friend and frequent contributor on this blog, Jonathan Prejean, has uncovered some delightful information about the ancient Scottish Armstrong and Elliot clans, who inhabited a land just north of the border with England. And, lo and behold, we may even be relatives somewhere down the line (I met a nice fellow at the booth for Clan Elliot at the yearly Highland Games in metro Detroit a year or two ago, and he explained to me how his clan and my own were closely related).

My own (partial, tentative) theory of the strong Scotch-Irish connection to anti-Catholicism is one of historical / sociological causation. Some of the Protestant Scots migrated to northern Ireland where they were a minority among the Catholic native Irish. So they were in the majority religion in terms of the British Isles as a whole, but a minority in their adopted home. This led to a curious and peculiar "inferiority complex within a 'superior' mentality", perhaps leading to some of the unfortunate characteristics of the exceedingly ugly and ignorant anti-Catholicism that we see in action even to this day in troubled Northern Ireland.

Ancient Elliot Tartan
[source]

When the Scotch-Irish migrated, in turn, to the southern states of America, their religion (and anti-Catholicism) dominated the landscape. Since there were few Catholics around, it hardened (helped by strong Nativism and Know-Nothing movements and racist, anti-Catholic groups such as the Ku Klux Klan) into what we see today. But thankfully it seems to become more and more marginalized within Protestantism as time goes on.

Like I said, just a speculative theory . . .

C.S. Lewis on Pagan Parallels to Christianity

Balder and Osiris

Most Catholics who interact with Protestants at all are very familiar with the old saw that the Babylonians or some such ancient people did or believed this, that, or the other, that highly resembles something in Catholicism; therefore (so they contend), the Catholic thing that was prefigured, must be false. Lewis here makes a general observation having to do with Christianity in general, but his brilliant insight applies to these stock anti-Catholic arguments as well:

What light is really thrown on the truth of falsehood of Christian Theology by the occurrence of similar ideas in Pagan religion? . . . Supposing, for purposes of argument, that Christianity is true; then it could avoid all coincidence with other religions only on the supposition that all other religions are one hundred percent erroneous . . . The truth is that the resemblances tell nothing either for or against the truth of Christian Theology. If you start from the assumption that the Theology is false, the resemblances are quite consistent with that assumption. One would expect creatures of the same sort, faced with the same universe, to make the same false guess more than once. But if you start with the assumption that the Theology is true, the resemblances fit in equally well. Theology, while saying that a special illumination has been vouchsafed to Christians and (earlier) to Jews, also says that there is some divine illumination vouchsafed to all men . . . We should, therefore, expect to find in the imagination of great Pagan teachers and myth makers some glimpse of that theme which we believe to be the very plot of the whole cosmic story -- the theme of the incarnation, death, and re-birth. And the difference between the Pagan Christs (Balder, Osiris, etc.) and the Christ Himself is much what we should expect to find. The Pagan stories are all about someone dying and rising, either every year, or else nobody knows where and nobody knows when. The Christian story is about a historical personage, whose execution can be dated pretty accurately, under a named Roman magistrate, and with whom the society that He founded is in a continuous relation down to the present day. It is not the difference between falsehood and truth. It is the difference between a real event on the one hand and dim dreams or premonitions of that same event on the other.

(The Weight of Glory, New York: Macmillan / Collier Books, revised and expanded edition, 1980, edited by Walter Hooper, New York: 83-84, from "Is Theology Poetry?": originally read to the Oxford University Socratic Club on 6 November 1944 and published in The Socratic Digest, vol. 3, 1945)

C.S. Lewis on Development of Doctrine

What did the early Christians believe? Did they believe that God really has a material palace in the sky and that He received His Son in a decorated state chair placed a little to the right of His own? -- or did they not? The answer is that the alternative we are offering them was probably never present to their minds at all. As soon as it was present, we know quite well which side of the fence they came down. As soon as the issue of Anthropomorphism was explicitly before the Church in, I think, the second century, Anthropomorphism was condemned. The Church knew the answer (that God has no body and therefore couldn't sit in a chair) as soon as it knew the question. But till the question was raised, of course, people believed neither the one answer nor the other. There is no more tiresome error in the history of thought than to try to sort our ancestors on to this or that side of a distinction which was not in their minds at all. You are asking a question to which no answer exists. It is very probable that most (almost certainly not all) of the first generation of Christians never thought of their faith without anthropomorphic imagery, and that they were not explicitly conscious, as a modern would be, that it was mere imagery. But this does not in the least mean that the essence of their belief was concerned with details about a celestial throne room. That was not what they valued, or what they were prepared to die for. Any one of them who went to Alexandria and got a philosophical education would have recognised the imagery at once for what it was, and would not have felt that his belief had been altered in any way that mattered.

. . . The earliest Christians were not so much like a man who mistakes the shell for the kernel as like a man carrying a nut which he hasn't yet cracked. The moment it is cracked, he knows which part to throw away. Till then he holds on to the nut, not because he is a fool but because he isn't.

(The Weight of Glory, New York: Macmillan / Collier Books, revised and expanded edition, 1980, edited by Walter Hooper, New York: 85-87, from "Is Theology Poetry?": originally read to the Oxford University Socratic Club on 6 November 1944 and published in The Socratic Digest, vol. 3, 1945)

There is a difference between a real moral advance and a mere innovation. From the Confucian 'Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you' to the Christian 'Do as you would be done by' is a real advance. The morality of Nietzsche is a mere innovation. The first is an advance because no one who did not admit the validity of the old maxim could see reason for accepting the new one, and anyone who accepted the old would at once recognize the new as an extension of the same principle. If he rejected it, he would have to reject it as a superfluity, something that went too far, not as something simply heterogeneous from his own ideas of value. But the Nietzschean ethic can be accepted only if we are ready to scrap traditional morals as a mere error and then to put ourselves in a position where we can find no ground for any value judgments at all. It is the difference between a man who says to us: 'You like your vegetables moderately fresh; why not grow your own and have them perfectly fresh?' and a man who says, 'Throw away that loaf and try eating bricks and centipedes instead.'

Those who understand the spirit . . . and who have been led by that spirit can modify it in directions which that spirit itself demands. Only they can know what those directions are. The outsider knows nothing about the matter. His attempts at alteration . . . contradict themselves. So far from being able to harmonize discrepancies in its letter by penetration to its spirit, he merely snatches at some precept, on which the accidents of time and place happen to have riveted his attention, and then rides it to death -- for no reason that he can give . . . This is what Confucius meant when he said 'With those who follow a different Way it is useless to take counsel.' [Analects, xv, 39].

(The Abolition of Man, New York: Macmillan, 1947 [paperback edition of 1965], 58-59)

Dialogue on Protestant Objections to the "Our Lady of Perpetual Help" Devotion (vs. C. Michael Patton)

[ source / info on icon ]

The following exchange occurred on the Parchment and Pen blog. C. Michael Patton and others have been very gracious and polite in allowing me to give my dissenting viewpoint. I'd like to thank them and express my appreciation for that. C. Michael Patton's words will be in blue; "Seven"'s in green, and Vance's in purple.

* * * * *

Here’s a topic for ‘combox tennis’: Should the following words be directed to anyone other than Christ? If so, to whom?

“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.”

. . . Please indulge me with a thumbs up (approve of this prayer as being within the boundaries of proper christian worship) or a thumbs down (categorically false and idolatrous).

Please avoid answering with a subjective “Well, who can really know?”

[ this is from the "Our Lady of Perpetual Help" prayer / devotion / novena ]

OK, in reality, if they say that prayer in the way that it sounds, then it is absolutely idolatrous. I wonder what our Catholic friends here would say. Maybe they could defend the use of this or somehow take away the sting.

I’m with you.

As to your Marian prayer, I would definitely say it was false, in error, and possibly even idolotrous (depending on how that was defined). But my question would still be whether a person who is that wrong in their theological understanding of how it all works, could still go to heaven. That I don’t know. My real question would be for a Catholic since Catholics also affirm that their entire salvation is through Jesus Christ.

Well, it is a great question. I wish that a Catholic would pipe in and help us understand.

Catholic Marian prayers are (needless to say) vastly misunderstood, because Protestants (unlike their founders) hardly have any Mariology at all anymore. They rarely understand even the basics of Mariology. It’s like trying to understand trigonometry and calculus without learning your times tables. Not likely . . . I wrote about some of these prayers and how they are wildly misinterpreted in these papers:

Does St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in The Glories of Mary, Teach That Mary is “Above God” and Can “Manipulate God”? (Corrections of Protestant Misunderstandings of Catholic Mariology)

“The Lost Liguori”: The Nefarious Protestant Conspiracy to Conceal St. Alphonsus’ Christocentric Mariology

“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.”

You can at least see how Protestants would interpret this prayer as idolatry?

Don’t get me wrong, when a Catholic tells me “I don’t worship Mary” I believe them. Why would they say they don’t if they do. But this prayer, if it is not a surrendering of trust due only to God, it sure comes across such a way. You must understand where the Protestant protest comes from. As well, it seems to be highly suggestive and provocative toward Mary worship, especially for someone who first encounters it.

My suggestion: get rid of it or drastically reword it.

I don’t have much a problem with the Catholic understanding of the communion to the saints, or even prayer to the saints in the sense that you are simply asking them to pray for you . . . don’t do it, but I don’t think of it as saint worship necessarily. But this prayer is different.

Hope you understand where I am coming from.

Well, the Apostle Paul states several times that he was helping to save people or being a channel for them to receive divine grace. If it was okay for him to do, why not Mary, the mother of Jesus our Lord?:

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… (cf. 1 Pet 4:8-10)

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.

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.

“Entrust[ing] [your] soul” to a human being gives you pause? Okay, there is Bible sanction for that too (or at least something very similar):

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

So if someone wants to claim the Catholic prayer in question is Mariolatry, fine, but let them be consistent and say that the Bible teaches “Paulolatry” as well, if this is the reasoning. Of course no Protestant will say that, but since the Bible gives sanction to Pauline “saving” and “distribution of graces” then no one can say that the Theotokos participating in the same sort of thing is prima facie “unbiblical”.

If the Catholic Marian prayers were properly understood and interpreted correctly in the first place, the issue would never come up, but because Protestants have no frame of reference in which to interpret them (having not been taught any degree of Mariology to speak of at all), then they automatically view it as a species of idolatry, which it is not.

I say that — rightly understood — Catholic teachings do not contradict the biblical understanding of things at all. We believe, with James, that “the prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16). Therefore, if indeed Mary is sinless (taught in Luke 1:28, closely examined and exegeted, as I have done), and God’s highest creation, then her prayers would be uniquely powerful (just as Elijah’s were, that James refers to); hence this sort of flowery language is perfectly acceptable. One goes to the person whose prayers of intercession have the most power.

Elsewhere in the prayer “Our Lady of Perpetual Help” it is made clear the origin of this extraordinary power of intercession that Mary has:

I give thanks to our Lord, who for my sake hath given thee a name so sweet, so lovable, so mighty. . . . He hath made thee so powerful, so rich, so kind, that thou mightest assist us in our miseries.

Dave, those examples are so different from the Mary prayer it alleviates no problems. Believe me, like I said, I am more than willing to give the benifit of a doubt, but, in all honesty, that seems rather far out to say that this prayer to Mary, “In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul” and Paul self conception concerning his role in preaching the Gospel here on earth are parallel. Are you asking Mary to come and preach the Gospel to people?

Anyway, again, you must understand how difficult it sounds. I don’t see why you can’t just get rid of the prayer in favor of something different if it is not what it seems to be. This would help people from getting confused and accusing you of things you don’t do. The prayer is not inspired in your view is it?

All that I am asking is that you at least consider how difficult it is and not write people off acting as if we just understood what you were saying it would make all the difference. I think I do understand what you are saying, but the prayer still says something different in good ol’ Oklahoman.

Michael, I used to be an evangelical Protestant. You’re not telling me anything new. I had to work through many of these same issues in order to become a Catholic. Were you ever a Catholic? If one used to firmly believe one thing, then they knew it from the inside. I was not just a Protestant, but a Protestant apologist and cult researcher. I was on the largest Christian radio station in Detroit talking about Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Protestant in 1989. So I know where you’re coming from, and I understand the Protestant outlook through and through.

Your choice is simple: you can go the same old tired route (the stuff you say you believed just five years ago) and conclude that Catholics are idolaters who are so stupid and clueless that we don’t even know that Mary is different from Jesus, or you can accept the validity of the reasoning I have given you (and additional explanations from others) or at least acknowledge that there are issues here that are difficult to understand at first but that it is not nonsense and idolatry. The prayer is going nowhere. It has a long tradition and it is perfectly orthodox.

You say we should just get rid of it? By the same token I could say, "why don’t you get rid of one or more beliefs from TULIP?", since Calvinists are vastly misunderstood and don’t really believe what many people attribute to them (making God the author of evil; making evangelistic efforts null and void, turning men into will-less automatons, etc.)? You wouldn’t do that, on those grounds, so why do you think it is reasonable that we would or should do so?

I have no problem saying that it is tough for a Protestant to comprehend. Of course it is. I already dealt with that in my previous responses by saying that one can’t comprehend trigonometry without first learning their basic arithmetic.

Mariology is not Christian kindergarten; it is advanced studies in Christian graduate school.

“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul” and Paul self conception concerning his role in preaching the Gospel here on earth are parallel. Are you asking Mary to come and preach the Gospel to people?

You have not properly understood the analogy that I made. Paul’s saying that he “saved” people and telling Timothy that he can “save” his hearers (when we all know that it is God Who does the saving and Paul is only a vessel of same) is precisely the same that we think of Mary. The logic is exactly the same:

1. Paul: “I might save some . . . save both yourself and your hearers”.

2. (the logical converse) Spiritual seeker: “Paul, please save me by your powerful intercession and distribution of God’s grace. In your hands I place my seeking after eternal salvation because I know your intervention on my behalf is profoundly powerful.”

3. Ergo: logical equivalent of saying to Mary: “In thy hands I place my eternal salvation” because if the thought is “If Paul and Timothy [human beings] can ’save’ other human beings, then clearly there is a dynamic at work far different from just God alone and the person being saved. God uses human beings in the process.”

In other words, if Paul can say that he saves others, then others can ask him to save them, and we are in exactly the same place where the Marian prayer takes us. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Paul didn’t even see Jesus before the Resurrection. So if this is true of Paul, it can certainly be true of Mary.

Yet you say, “those examples are so different from the Mary prayer it alleviates no problems.” I disagree; it is a close analogy. We know that Paul doesn’t ultimately save anyone; it is God. Catholics know the same about Mary. It is only by attributing gross ignorance to Catholics en masse (even to many of our greatest theologians) that Protestants come up with the hogwash that they do about our supposed Mariolatry.

The real lack of knowledge and sufficient thought and reflection is seen, rather, in a statement like the one above: “attributing omniscience to a created being is a bit blasphemous.” But of course no one is doing that! Saints in heaven do not have to have all knowledge in order to hear prayers. They are in eternity, with God. They’re out of time. That completely solves that problem. It doesn’t require omniscience at all, but merely being in another sphere in terms of time or dimensions.

Someone thinks that is insufficient? Very well, then, read what your own Protestant theologians and Bible commentators say about the relationship of time and eternity and how we will be like Jesus when we get to heaven. It’s a perfectly plausible, biblical, acceptable understanding of the afterlife. It’s sheer foolishness to make out that such a scenario requires a saint to be omniscient and therefore God-like.

Dave, I appreciate that you have been on the other side, but this does not seem to be helping. In fact, it might be hindering. I think that from your perspective you feel that it is your duty to justify all those things that you had a problem with before without recognizing the extent of the problem. If reformation does not come for you in doctrine, can’t it come in communication? Again, I take you at your word when you say you don’t worship Mary.

Worship is a subjective entrustment of our lives to a source in which we have ultimate reliance. We have non-ultimate reliances in our lives such as our cars to get us to work, our fathers to protect us when we are young, etc. All reliances are secondary to the primary. This I understand. Our ultimate reliance for Salvation does not come through anything other than God, although we do rely upon other people to have their secondary part in God’s plan. If you are simply saying that Mary is a secondary reliance like all others secondary reliances (albeit, a very good one), I take you at your word.

In this case, the problem is first one of communication.

You say that this:

“[Mary] In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.”

Really means this:

“[Mary] In thy hands I place the hope of my eternal salvation since you are one of the many who can pray to the One who can save me and to you I entrust my soul since your are one of the many who can intercede through prayer on my behalf to the One who can take care of my soul.”

You see. You are having to jump through hoops here to explain the first. All I am saying is be sensitive to the concerns of those who just take the first at face value. Make the first say the second and it would alleviate yourself of having to write books to justify the first.

To compare this with Calvinism is helpful to a degree, but in its present form presents a non seq. In other word, TULIP is what it is. It does not have to explain itself to take away the sting of miscommunication. In fact, once you do explain TULIP you find that there is integrity in communication because it means exactly what it says. The problem does not have to do in communicating its points at face value, but the interpretation of its implications.

For example, if you were to say that this is one of the points of Calvinism, then there would be a parallel:

God is responsible for sin.

Indeed, this is problematic. There are very few Calvinists who would actually go this far with it. Now, they may communicate it as such, but then they would, like you, have to jump through hoops to explain that this does not mean what it seems to mean. They may say this:

God is responsible for sin only in the since that he is the creator of free will beings that choose to sin, but He Himself is not the ultimate first cause of its genesis.

Here is what I would tell a Calvinist (of which I am one) who has as part of his regular confession the first. Don’t say it!! It miscommunicates what you mean. Just say what you mean! If you don’t, you will do two things. 1) You will scare people away because they have simply thought you meant what you said (who would blame the), or 2) You are going to cause some of your own to actually believe that God is the creator of sin and promote this doctrine as such.

This is the same with many issues and confessions in Mariology. You scare people away based upon a perfectly understandable misreading of your doctrine based upon popular communication and, in some cases, you cause your own to fall into idolatry simply because they take this at face value.

Not that I have any platform to give advice Dave, but I would try to see this first as a theologian and a pastor, rather than an apologist. It seems that as an apologist you are seeking to justify this prayer as it is, failing to recognize how it communicates.

Again, I really appreciate your willingness to dialogue.

Hi Michael,

That was an interesting psychological-sociological analysis of my argument; now would you like to actually interact with the argument itself?

Dave, as I have said from the beginning, I don’t have THAT big of a problem with what you mean, but the misleading way in which it is communicated. The ball is in yo’ court my friend.

I've already answered. The devotion will not and should not change simply because it is misunderstood and because Protestantism has a virtually nonexistent Mariology. And I showed that it also was unreasonable to say that it should, based on an analogy to your own belief-system.

Substantive dialogue deals with the objective assertions of the opponent at some point, rather than merely subjective, stylistic issues and how things are received. Postmodernism (you said on White's webcast that your bookshelf is filled with this sort of thing) clearly is influencing you to the detriment of your argumentation here. It's all subjective and little objective analysis of objective stuff.

My method, on the other hand, is to use Scripture and logic, and history where necessary.

Dave, again, I think you are too caught up in your apologetic defenses here. I am simply offering a suggestion to you. It is fine if you don’t agree, but my points were valid and not relativistic in the slightest. There was no response from you concerning your non seq with Calvinism and Paul.

Huh? I made a very extensive response. Obviously you disagreed with it, but that is far different from claiming I made "no response."

I argued that your comparison to Calvinism had no parallel. The same with regards to your reference to Paul. If you don’t believe me, this is fine, everyone has the right to be wrong

The prayer has no interpretive context. Because of this, people have to take it at face value. You interpret the face value meaning much differently, which is fine (and a bit relativistic), and then say that it is Protestants fault for mistakingly thinking Catholics worship Mary. Like it or not, the prayer does suggest this.

Dave, while I know you cannot reform in doctrine, you can reform in communication. The “it says this, but it really means this” is confusing both to Catholics and Protestants.

If you are going to teach and defend the prayer, I would rework it. Do you think that Mary will really get THAT upset? Just think about what I am saying, that is all I ask.

Kevin Johnson and the Boys at ReformedCatholicism Again Appeal to Dissident Heterodox Catholics in Order to Bash Orthodox Catholicism

The hallowed golden halls of "Reformed Catholicism" are
becoming more "diverse" and colorful all the time!

I've long noted this tendency; for example, Michael Pahls claiming that notorious dissident Edward Schillebeeckx was a "reputable Roman theologian" whose ideas surpass the antiquated notions of Cardinal Newman.

It's an old, tired game, that I have long since been familiar with, in my studies of Jehovah's Witnesses errors. You see, the JWs do the same thing to argue against Christianity in general. They'll cite almost invariably liberal theologians and scholars in order to "prove" some point of theirs (e.g., denial of the Holy Trinity) that goes against orthodox Christianity (in a generic sense). This is rather easy to do, because one can always find a liberal professed "Christian" who will deny any important doctrine of Christianity. Muslim apologists like Shabir Ally do exactly the same thing.

So our friends at Reformed Catholicism have (cleverly yet pathetically) applied the identical method in order to counter distinctively Catholic (they always take pains to say Roman Catholic) claims and dogma. In order to war against whatever they don't like (papal infallibility and "one true Church" being biggies), they'll dig up (and praise to the skies) some liberal Catholic who can be pitted against orthodox Catholic teaching.

The flip side of this erroneous mentality is to characterize outstanding orthodox Catholics like Cardinal Newman and Pope Benedict XVI (and their very favorite whipping boys: us dreadful Catholic apologists) as wild-eyed, turn-back-the-clock, "fundamentalist", triumphalistic reactionaries. It is an attempt to shift the goalposts: liberals amazingly become thoughtful, articulate, stimulating orthodox Catholics and orthodox Catholics are transformed into barnacle-encrusted throwbacks to the retrograde Middle Ages.

P. Andrew Sandlin actually favorably appealed to Hans Kung, of all people (probably the most famous Catholic liberal dissident of all):

Peter John mentioned Hans Kung. As an avid reader of Kung’s works, let me recommend them — not all of his views, of course, but the books themselves — to my fellow RC Protestants.

Start with Christianity: Essence, History, and Future and then proceed to The Catholic Church: A Short History.

I suspect that Peter and Dave will not be thrilled with this recommendation, but HK is every bit Benedict’s theological and intellectual equal (and I respect Benedict), and Kung’s determination to follow the historical truth right down to the bitter end should serve as an example to fellow Roman Catholics — and Protestants.

( 7-10-07; bolding added)

This is almost beyond belief. How gullible can someone be? For a devastating orthodox Catholic refutation of Kung's supposed historical acumen, see Joseph Costanzo, S.J.'s article, The Historical Credibility of Hans Kung. Commenter Peter John set this nonsense straight:

Kung has faded fast as being regarded as a real substantive theologian, and will be quickly forgotten. His current primary (dwindling) admirers are greying heterodox Catholics and Protestants. If you want suggest a (former Catholic) theologian who is about 25 years behind current trajectories in the Church, fine, but don’t expect a lot of people to take you seriously if you bring Kung to bear for Protestant arguments against Rome.

The latest poster boy for the "Reformed Catholic" cause is one Aloysius Pieris, S.J., a liberal Sri Lankan priest steeped in warmed-over socialist liberation theology. Kevin Johnson, the main guy at the RefCath blog, wrote:

I by no means think the cause is lost for Rome to change here. Of course, hardened traditionalists will say otherwise but the record of history is clear to point out that the Church though slow to change does move in the warp and woof of history and as such is certainly capable of change. Add to that the sovereign will of God and the power of the Holy Spirit and revival could sweep the halls of such a broken communion.

There are those within Rome of course that feel equal need to see such a change take place. Just today, I read a fantastic appeal to the Pope by Aloysius Pieris, S.J. forwarded to me by a dear friend and brother in the Lord. So, even with this announcement we refer to above and a continued attitude of exclusivity there is still hope that God will change the hearts of men for His glory and their better in His mercy and grace.

( 7-10-07; note the extreme adjectives: "extraordinary", "fantastic")

One wonders what Kevin knew about this person before immediately starting to tout him as an ally in his zeal to bash Catholicism (the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" routine)? Is there no concern for the nature of the sources he wishes to bring to the table and extoll to the heavens? After all, it's not very hard to find information, these days, what with this thing called the Internet and extraordinary search capabilities. Let's take a look, shall we?:

The Church is “the container” for the “mysterium Fidei”; but as Richard Rohr urged the participants in a recent clergy retreat at Ushaw College, we must not mistake the container for the contents; and sometimes the contents take us beyond the container. A case in point would be the Sri Langkan Jesuit, Aloysius Pieris, an expert in Buddhism, who in order to get to the mind and heart of Buddhism forsook all his Christian pre-conceptions, as far as that is possible, and submitted to being enrolled and trained as a Buddhist monk. Seemingly Buddhism has no place for a soul that gives a person a fixed and eternal identity. All is flux. Like waves in the ocean of existence we rise and roll from one identity or incarnation to the next. Aloysius Peiris announced to us surprised listeners that he had come to the conclusion that Christianity could engage more closely with Buddhism by abandoning the concept of soul as a “thing” that can have separate existence from the body. He said that was just an import from Platonic thought. However, God, he did agree, was a non negotiable part of our Faith!

I pondered this surprising revelation of Fr.Peiris and wondered how it was possible to go along with the idea of Christianity sans souls. I reflected on the fact that what gave the three persons of the Blessed Trinity their separate identity as persons was rooted in their relationship with each other. So also all existence is based on various forms of relationship, and amidst the web kaleidoscopic relationships of our personal existence is the pin point of each human being’s special relationship with God, be it known and acknowledged or not. That pin point of vital and eternal relationship, I try to suggest, could be a way by which we could go along with Fr. Pieris’ “no soul” stance. i.e. the soul is not a “thing” but a “relationship” – an eternal one, because God is eternal.

(Thoughts on Inter-Faith Dialogue, David Bingham; bolding added)

Lovely, isn't it? Yeah, this is clearly the guy who can bring down orthodox Catholicism a few rungs lower on the ladder; cut Rome down to size: a guy who doesn't even believe in souls anymore. But he'll do just fine as an ally for the reformed Catholics because he fights against Catholic doctrines that they don't care for! See how it works? Here's some more inspiring information about Kevin's new favorite Catholic:

To speak of Christ the King in such a situation, therefore, we have to address the realities of corporate power and of the cultural imperialism which goes with globalization. Aloysius Pieris offers us a way to think about this in speaking of Jesus as the irreconcilable antinomy between God and Mammon and the irrevocable covenant between God and the poor made flesh. The task of the church, he argues, is to live out this gospel in fellowship with the authentic spirituality and liberative dimensions of other religions, or in other words, in fellowship with what Huntington diagnoses as the heart of non Western cultures. Each of these religions has their own version of the Sermon on the Mount, the Truth that sets us free from being tied to things that cannot give us freedom. The church has to experience solidarity with non Christians by witnessing to the spirituality common to all religions (by practising the beatitudes); and reveal its Christian uniqueness in proclaiming Jesus as the new covenant by joining the poor against Mammon's principalities and powers that create poverty and oppression. In the Base Human Communities which have been developed not only in Asia but also here, 'Each religion, challenged by the other religion's unique approach to the liberation aspiration of the poor, discovers and renames itself in its specificity in response to other approaches.'25 The task of each religion, however, is to call people into a spirituality of nonacquisitiveness and nonaccumulativeness [what a marvelous liberal word!!!] which guarantees a healthy, ecologically balanced sharing of our resources. It is not only the church which does this, but the church must also do it. On this understanding the cross is not, as it is for much Protestant preaching, 'the price for sinners paid' but the price fixed by the rich who refuse to be evangelised by the poor. 'If one day we truly take up this cross as a body and go underground and pay that price for the sake of our intimidated masses, that day the world will see the miracle it is yearning to see, a church which has been evangelised by the poor, and therefore, a church that has become Good News to the poor, as Jesus was'.26

25 Pieris, Fire and Water p.161

26 A Pieris, Fire and Water Maryknoll: Orbis 1996 p.153

(Christ the King and the 'clash of civilizations', Tim Gorringe)

Nice touch there about the meaning of the cross, isn't it? I'm sure that will highly resonate with our Protestant brothers and sisters. Note more delightful theological elements in Robyn Banks' review of Pieris' book, An Asian Theology of Liberation:

Pieris claims that the Asian church cannot rely on the theological idiom and authority of Rome to gauge the orthodoxy of the theology it will develop (p51). Development of an authentic Asian Christianity must ironically run the risk of losing its (Latino-Hellenistic-) Christian identity. . . . So in asking Asian Christians to be immersed in the culture of Asia, Pieris is asking for nothing less than (using his own baptismal imagery) their immersion in non-Christian soteriologies, so that genuine Asian Christologies may be developed. Furthermore, and more controversially, his claim is that the soteriological nucleus of Asian religions is the only door for Christian kerygma (p59).

Fits right in with the "Reformed Catholic" agenda and worldview, wouldn't you think? I hadn't realized they were this far gone, but with such wide-eyed enthusiasm being directed towards this thoroughgoing postmodernist liberal priest, I guess no further proof is needed, huh?

But Fr. Pieris really earns his stripes in RefCath eyes by attacking the Holy Father himself (well, before he was pope):

Lauds for the Jesuit, Fr. Jacques Dupuis, and for other Jesuit contributions to the field came just weeks after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's chief doctrinal authority, had publicly rebuked Dupuis. The praise from Vatican officials also occurred against the backdrop of Ratzinger's recent document Dominus Iesus, which criticizes approaches to religious pluralism set forth by Dupuis and other Jesuits.

. . . Dupuis and several other Jesuit theologians were among the primary targets of Ratzinger's September 2000 document Dominus Iesus, which reasserted the supremacy of Catholicism over other religions and Christian churches.

Those other Jesuits include Fr. Michael Amadaloss of India and Fr. Aloysius Pieris of Sri Lanka. In response to Dominus Iesus, Pieris warned in a Sept. 30 talk of "a Catholic fundamentalism raising its head among some members of the hierarchy in Europe, which is at once defensive against what is non-Christian and what is non-Catholic."

(Rome sends mixed signals on Jesuit contributions, John L. Allen, Jr., National Catholic Reporter, 4-27-01)

Lastly, Kevin and others at RefCath absolutely love -- so it seems -- when Fr. Pieris bashes the orthodox papacy (even episcopacy), in an article he wrote (with also the obligatory pleas for women's ordination and married priests):

My allusion is to the mundane way the Vatican extends its "diplomatic tentacles" to every local church on the globe, perpetuating a Roman imperial caricature of the Pauline principle.

. . . We have a hierarchical structure that finds it hard to keep step with the God of history.

. . . It is a well accepted conviction today that the whole belief-practice cycle revolving round the unexamined slogan repeated in Church documents (including those of Vatican II) that "the bishops are the (sole?) successors of the apostles" needs to be qualified (Tillard, 93ff).

Good ecclesiology does not permit us to use the word and concept of "succession" in this context. For instance, the pope is certainly the successor of his predecessor in office but not the "successor" of Peter and Paul; he is their vicar or their vice-gerens, their locum tenens! The word "apostle," as applied to The Twelve, does not allow succession.

. . . Unfortunately, the innovative frontier ministries faded away into the ancient patriarchal model of local leadership! Bishops and priests began to monopolize all ministries. This is the androcratically hierarchical monism which accounts for the present crisis. . . . the overwhelming patriarchal power of the episcopate-presbyterate has overturned the earliest ecclesiastical arrangement by subordinating the role of the missionary ministries to the monistic jurisdiction of an all-male hierarchy.

[note Fr. Pieris' high regard for lay ministry -- which is what my own is -- while RefCath is notorious in its disdain for lay Catholic apologetics; of course, Catholicism encourages lay ministry without pitting it against the hierarchy, as Fr. Pieris does]

. . . The unexamined but widely vulgarized assumption that Jesus "ordained priests" at the last supper and the other related belief that the (ordained) priest confects the sacrament by pronouncing words of consecration over bread and wine, do recur in official documents even today but are conspicuously absent in post-Vatican II works that reflect the spirit of Vatican II (Wicks 1975:99-165). That Jesus together with his whole body, the Church (head and members), exercises his one sole priesthood in all sacraments, and most eminently, in the Eucharist, must be officially endorsed so that the presbyters may re-learn to exercise their leadership role without ritually expressing or theologically claiming a superior sacerdotal character; rather let them manifest, in an appropriate liturgical idiom, their vocation to community service, a vocation they receive from God through the mediation of that same sacerdotal community of the laos.

This means two things. First of all, the statement that Bob Kaiser attributes to Cardinal Schotte (the man who organized the last synod in 2001), namely, that the bishops are not accountable to the laity but to the pope and the pope to Christ (Kaiser 2001), reflects an ecclesiology and a Christology that cannot claim Vatican II as their source. As Schillebeeckx has pointed out, it is precisely "what came from (the community) below" that was believed in the early Church to have "come from (God/Christ) above" (Schillebeeckx, 5). All office bearers of the Church, including the pope, are accountable to the laos, the Body of Christ.

. . . Firstly, I am not going to make a false start by arguing for the ordination of women as the first item on the agenda. This is the wrong end of the question. The ordination of women without first declericalizing the Church would end up in clericalizing the women, too, unless of course the women can succeed in redeeming all ministries of clericalism. . . . the scripturally unsubstantiated theory that Jesus ordained priests at the last supper (and that only males were present, there) is the major obstacle to the resolution of this issue. The biblical commission appointed to discuss the question of women’s ordination has clearly come out with a nihil obstat. Despite this, we seem to place our patriarchal tradition over and above the scriptures. Bibliophobia and gynephobia seem to go together among us Roman Catholics!

. . . even papacy should not appear incompatible with womanhood to the orthodox Catholics who feel bound in faith to accept Roman Catholic Mariology!

In other instances of the same mentality, we see Michael Pahls nonchalantly citing the notorious dissident Richard McBrien, as if he were a good Catholic theologian.

There you go folks! Just pick a good liberal / heterodox / dissident to criticize a Christian tradition or communion that you have something against, and fire away! This would be a blast to apply to analysis of Protestantism. It would be easy enough to locate a Bishop Spong or a Clark Pinnock or the practicing homosexual ordained by the Episcopalians (I forget his name) as a counter-weight in bashing Reformed Protestantism. If I tried to pull a stunt like that, I'd never hear the end of it, including accusations of my profound ignorance regarding what Reformed Christians believe.

But when it comes to Catholic-bashing, anything goes. No rules of fairness or intellectual solidity and consistency apply (quite obviously in this case). The dumbest thing of all is that this dissident will be praised in these circles as a "good Catholic": supposedly among the best that my Church has produced (and one that the Catholic Church should listen to and heed), when in fact he is scarcely a Catholic (in good standing; one who fully accepts the Church's teaching) at all.

James White: Anti-Intellectual? (Double Standards in "Anti" Language Yet Again!) + His Latest Hit Piece & Continued Refusal to Do a Chat Room Debate

James White interacting with so-called "anti-Calvinist" George Bryson

Once again, White has profoundly contradicted himself by his ridiculous double standards in this matter of his objection to the term anti-Catholicism, while he continues to use (dozens of times) various equivalents, from his perspective (anti-Reformed, anti-Calvinist, etc.). Here is his latest statement [ link ]:

Of course, I reject the label "anti-Catholic," and would invite Mr. Patton to reconsider his use of pejoratives in this fashion. I am a Reformed Baptist apologist, and my response to Rome, whatever else he may think of it, is perfectly and completely consistent not only with the historical position of Reformed Baptists and our confession of faith, but it is consistent with the Reformed Baptist position on preaching and the church as well. I understand why Roman Catholics seek to label those who oppose their over-arching claims to authority in the terms of their own faith. It is the same reason Mormons label others "anti-Mormon," JW's refer to "active opposers," and why the term "Islamophobia" has become popular as well. But I am no more anti-Catholic than Benedict XVI is anti-Baptist: what the Pope said in this recent document is perfectly consistent with Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and hence, to define his position in terms such as "anti-Baptist" is absurd, just as it is absurd to call me an anti-Catholic.

Why, then, does he keep using these terms himself? I've already documented this three times in the past:

James White's Use of "Anti" Terms & More "Tired" Rhetoric and Anti-Catholic Terminological and Ethical Double Standards

James White Outdoes All With His "Anti" Language

James White's Continued Comical Double Standard on "Anti" Language

And (for no extra charge) here are a few more instances (i.e., since my three papers above) of same:

But please note, I am not blaming anti-Baptists for it. (9-29-06)

Took calls mainly on the Caner situation and likewise looked a little bit at the Jerry Vines sermon at First Baptist Woodstock, a sermon that will definitely give us a lengthy series of Radio Free Geneva programs. However, it looks like there is only one template out there for anti-Calvinism sermons, . . . (10-12-06)

George Bryson's anti-Calvinism talk to Calvary Chapel pastors . . . (12-14-06)

George Bryson and his anti-Calvinist materials . . . (12-22-06)

Speaking of the absurd and comical, White has posted yet another of his hyper-ridiculous hit pieces against me on his blog. I will refrain from providing it the dignity of a response this time. He's gotten enough attention that he doesn't deserve. If he goes after one of my papers or books and makes an actual argument (I know it's tough, but he's capable of rational argumentation if he puts his mind to it), I'll respond -- and he will in turn almost certainly ignore that, as is his standard, yawningly predictable practice.

The Catholic Doctrine of the One True Church (New CDF Clarification): Antithetical to Ecumenism? (Dialogue with Michael Patton)

Baptist social activist Charles Colson and Pope John Paul II in 1998

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has released a document called Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church. It has caused some consternation among some Protestants. I have tried to clarify some things, in reply to Reformed Protestant apologist Michael Patton, in a thread on his blog. His words will be in blue. My older cited words will be in green, and his in purple.

Hi Michael and all,

While I do find some egg on our face with regards to the Pope’s recent declaration (or redeclaration) of the illegitimacy of the Protestant churches,

No one should have any "egg" on their faces. Nothing has changed! I should note a few things, for clarification's sake, too:

1) This is not a declaration from the pope. It was from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: the same group that the pope used to be the head of himself. The pope agreed with it. Dominus Iesus (2000) was put out by the same group, and stated basically the same stuff. So this is nothing new.

2) I don't think "illegitimacy" is helpful or adequate. Why is it surprising that Catholics reiterate that Protestants lack apostolic succession and ordination? That has always been our position. We can only call the Catholic Church "the Church" by the very nature of our ecclesiology; otherwise, our ecclesiology would be Protestant. So this is simply the reality of how the two camps approach the issue differently.

3) The many positive things we think about Protestants (as in Vatican II) are also included in the statement. For example:

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.

. . . there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure,

It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.

I would encourage everyone to read the document itself:

I still contend that Catholicism can be interpreted differently and the situation can progress.

To be interpreted differently on this matter of ecclesiology, we would have to cease to be Catholic.

I have had much personal contact with Catholics who do interpret their documents differently than the hard liners.

I would suspect that they were liberals or inadvertently influenced by liberal Catholic thought, and insufficiently acquainted with Catholic teaching. The pope is not a "hard liner". He is simply an orthodox Catholic who correctly understands Vatican II and ecumenism in a proper Catholic sense. Pope John Paul II was neither a "hard liner" nor more ecumenical than Pope Benedict XVI. They are both equally committed to Catholic doctrine and dogma, Vatican II, and ecumenism (as I am myself).

We do not have to cement our polemics in the context of the 16th century, especially if things are changing.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. What is changing is a more tolerant and ecumenical attitude, but not doctrines, because they cannot change.

I felt "ho hum" about the new statement since all it is, is a reiteration of Vatican II teaching (and correction of misapplications of same). No one who is familiar with Vatican II should be alarmed in the slightest degree. Of course, not everyone does have that familiarity, so they may think Catholic teaching is a certain thing and then when one of these clarifications come down, they think it is a radical change or a reactionary hardening, etc. (when it is not at all). The secular media is full of ridiculous characterizations of Catholic teachings (I'm not saying this feeling some may have, of disappointment in the statement, or confusion, is ridiculous; just making a related point).

Ecumenism is not affected at all by this. I don't understand why it would surprise or disturb any Protestant with a working knowledge of Catholic teaching, that we reiterate our belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and has the fullness of Christian teaching. That has always been our belief. All the progress in ecumenical relations over the last fifty years has taken place with that premise assumed on our part. We could no longer change in that respect than Protestants could suddenly discard their two pillars: sola Scriptura and sola fide. Ecumenism is the effort to learn about each other and to find common ground.

Nothing has changed! I think some Protestants see various things in the Catholic Church that they like and they have this notion that Catholics are becoming more "Protestant" (when in fact, we are simply what we are and have always been, and some Protestants discover to their surprise that we weren't as bad as they thought, and so they assume we are "changing" in that particular respect; I see quite a bit of humor in some of this, but it is within an affectionate feeling for my Protestant brothers and sisters -- having been in their camp myself).

Then they see something like this statement and they get disenchanted and think (I am being a bit tongue in cheek here) "Catholics are Catholics after all; drats! Just when I thought they were becoming more like us . . . ".

What the Catholic Church has emphasized since Vatican II is quite significant, I think: other Christians have many graces and wonderful attributes, and even sacraments (baptism; marriage in many cases). We rejoice in them. We acknowledge that God is working in and through and with our Protestant brethren. See my paper about how Catholics view Protestants.

But we cannot change our ecclesiology or we would cease to be who we are. Our doctrine of the Church is not the "invisible church" notion. Protestants cannot expect us to adopt Protestant ecclesiology wholesale (in fact, Protestants have huge disagreements amongst themselves on ecclesiology and Church government, as most here would well know).

That's not going to happen! And it is unreasonable to expect this to happen, just as it would be if I were to expect Protestants to drop sola Scriptura tomorrow, so we could "do ecumenism," and if you didn't, and reiterated your belief in it, for me to feel that I had egg or mud on my face. It was an unrealistic expectation in the first place.

The document reiterates Catholic teaching on ecclesiology and other Christians. There is nothing new here that wasn't already in Vatican II but some people get upset if we repeat certain teachings. As Catholics, we will always believe that the Catholic Church is the same (institutional) Church that we believe was established by Jesus Christ and has been historically continuous since that time. That doesn't mean that non-Catholics are excluded completely by this categorization. But we believe that the full apostolic teaching "subsists" in the Catholic Church.

The Pope’s declaration yesterday, ironically, did demonstrate that what I had said about the progress and attitude of modern Catholic scholarship was true. This perceived disagreement and change in the Catholic church is the exact reason why the Pope felt it necessary to sign this document yesterday.

Yes, because liberals who think ecumenism is about unprincipled compromise and "watering down" and doctrinal indifferentism rather than principled attempts at mutual understanding, have distorted things somewhat.

He is more hard-line than John Paul II was and demonstrated this yesterday.

Not in the slightest. Pope John Paul II accepted Dominus Iesus, which stated the same things. They are both ecumenical and orthodox. There is no need to dichotomize the two, as if to be authentically ecumenical is to somehow be less orthodox or less "hard line."

I am not sure what this will do to the ethos of the situation or the tone of the conversation between irenic Catholics and Protestants,

It should do nothing whatsoever, for anyone who is familiar with Vatican II statements on ecumenism and recent encyclicals along the same line. They are all of a piece.

but it certainly has reiterated that the supreme bishop of Rome does not want progression in the way it was seeming to head.

Pope Benedict XVI is exceptionally ecumenical, just as his predecessor was. Nothing has changed in this regard at all.

This lack of recognition from the Pope does not reflect the spirit of either Evangelical or Catholic scholarship. It is a move backward into the darker ages.

If it is that, then so was Vatican II. So I think this is simply an instance of category confusion. You need to study a bit more the relationship between Catholic orthodoxy and Catholic ecumenism.

And most of all, it lacks humility that is necessary for any further reformation.

I don't see how it is a lack of humility for a Christian to state what it is he believes. This is our ecclesiology. It is no more lacking humility for us to state this than it would be for a Protestant to reiterate his belief in sola Scriptura and sola fide.

God shines in our boxes, but he certainly shines outside these boxes as well. The Pope essentially said, “No, He really only shines in our box.”

I strongly disagree. If you look at the citations above from the document, it grants all sorts of graces and a place in salvation in Protestantism: far more than many Protestants grant Catholicism, where (for anti-Catholics like James White), for a Catholic to be saved, it must be in spite of Catholic teaching, never because of it. This criticism should be directed towards Protestant anti-Catholics, not orthodox Catholics like this pope and the last one.

My proposal has been that within the ranks of Catholic and Evangelical scholarship, attitudes have begun to change over the last 15 years. Doors were beginning to be opened. This proclamation is a strong attempt to shut these doors.

Again, not in the slightest. I don't know what the magic number of "15 years" has to do with anything. Catholic ecumenism has been rapidly developing since World War II, and especially after Vatican II. There has been no reversal or change of policy.

As to Catholic scholarship, I think you may be defining it differently than me.

A great deal of it is liberal. I've written papers about some of these liberals, like Fr. Raymond Brown. If you saw the sort of things that the man denies, you wouldn't cite him as "orthodox" at all.

As well, the Catholics sometimes have a different understanding on what it means to be liberal than traditional Evangelicals. To a Trinitine Catholic, to be liberal, my mean that your are too evangelical.

Big discussion. I have a whole web page about so-called "traditionalist" Catholicism, a sub-group that gets many things wrong. The correct differential ought to be "orthodoxy."

I put forth Peter Kreeft as a good example of one who had laid many planks of wood on this bridge that the Pope just set fire to again.

This is a false dichotomy. Peter Kreeft is an orthodox Catholic and he is an ecumenical Catholic, just like Benedict, John Paul II, and apologists, like myself.

If anyone claims that they are the only true Church, this is just silly. It has no historical or biblical basis, only that of prideful traditionalism.

To the contrary, it is an explicitly biblical doctrine. The NT assumes throughout that there is only one Church (almost without argument). If you look at the Jerusalem Council, this is evident. Denominations are unheard of. It isn't the notion of "one true Church" that is unbiblical and novel, but rather, the idea of denominationalism and de facto doctrinal relativism and ecclesiological chaos.

In fact, present-day Protestantism tends to take a relativistic view towards ecclesiology itself. But Luther and Calvin and Zwingli did not do this at all. They anathematized each other and claimed to be the fullness of truth or the best manifestation of "Church." I've read some of my Lutheran friends who are still making the claim today. They think Lutheranism (Missouri Synod) best represents what they mean by "Church."

I look forward to some discussion on these matters. No one seemed to want to discuss my last two posts. They are just sitting there, without comment. I hope this one will be different.

Thanks for allowing me to speak freely!

* * * * *

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I am sure that it is very helpful for many as we think through these difficult issues.

You're welcome.

I agree that nothing has changed in the dogmatics, but the direction and perception get altered and discouraged with hard-line statements are reiterated rather than softening in their articulation. VII softened many things from previous declarations. Of since I am not committed to papal or magisterial infallibility, I see this progress as change. But either way, this does seem to be a road block, detour, or a red light.

James White was exactly right in this respect: absolutely nothing has changed (not even in questions of tone and approach), and whoever thinks otherwise is simply unacquainted with the relevant Catholic documents. It's much ado about nothing. The so-called "spirit of Vatican II" is pure Catholic liberalism. One must read the document itself. Go to the sources; just as I do when I critique Protestantism.

Yes, but again, I think the language and rhetoric is very harsh are seem dismissive of progress that has been made.

It's amazing to me that the positive aspects in the statement are passed right over, as are infinitely worse "potshots" in Protestant documents that are literally lying about Catholic beliefs and practices. For example, somewhere in the Lutheran confessions (it's documented in one of my papers) the Catholic mass is directly equated with worship of Baal:

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

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

We all know how often various Protestant confessions use antichrist to describe the pope or the Catholic system of theology. And you're concerned about our tone in simply asserting our ecclesiology as it has always been and always will be?

“To be interpreted differently on this matter of ecclesiology, we would have to cease to be Catholic.”

Again, this comes down to a difference in your terming it progression while I have no problem saying it is “interpreted differently.” Either way, the documents themselves need interpretation and clarification. I would be comfortable with Catholics saying, “You did not understand us? This is what we meant.” But this is not what is said here.

If indeed it is nothing new at all (as I contend and as James White does from an opposed theological perspective), then it follows that for you to require us to drop this sort of language in order to come to the table and do ecumenism with Protestants and to be loved and respected and regarded with great affection as good tolerant postmodernists, we would have to (quite simply) adopt some variant of Protestant ecclesiology and ditch our historic understanding of same.

This is, of course, extremely intolerant and unreasonable on your part to -- in effect -- demand such a thing. We're not allowed to hold our view, in other words, without being subjected to Protestant accusations of our supposed triumphalism, arrogance, intolerance and something akin to "anti-Protestantism."

But if that is so, of what purpose is ecumenism at all? If one party requires the other to adopt certain of its beliefs in order to sit down and talk and try to mutually understand from the get-go, then this is the very furthest thing from ecumenism: it is coercion and the essence of religious intolerance.

“I would suspect that they were liberals or inadvertently influenced by liberal Catholic thought, and insufficiently acquainted with Catholic teaching. The pope is not a “hard liner”. He is simply an orthodox Catholic who correctly understand Vatican II and ecumenism in a proper Catholic sense. Pope John Paul II was neither a “hard liner” nor more ecumenical than Pope Benedict XVI. They are both equally committed to Catholic doctrine and dogma, Vatican II, and ecumenism (as I am myself).”

Please don’t take this disrespectfully, but this is the conclusion that your system necessitates.

Exactly! Then why don't you accept it as such, instead of futilely trying to redefine Catholic teaching according to Protestant (and to some extent, postmodernist) presuppositions?

In other words, you have to say that he is interpreting VII correctly because of his presupposed authority. You don’t really have a choice to do otherwise.

I wasn't arguing about the papacy and its prerogatives here; rather, I was strongly disagreeing with your characterizations of the two popes, as if they are different. They are not at all.

It is not so much that I am hoping that Catholics are becoming more Protestant per se,

I think it is the logical conclusion of some of your statements, as I believe I have demonstrated. I think if you ponder what I am saying and think more about some stuff you have said, you might see my point and even agree with it.

but that we have simply, do SOME degree, been talking past each other. I think that battle lines cause people to defend issues in a sincere yet imbalanced way. See my Advice to Christian Apologists.

Absolutely. It happens all the time.

Well, I do think the smoke from the reformation is clearing and we are redefining or better articulating sola Scriptura to mean more than the popular notion that the Scripture is our only source of authority, which is not true. Sola Scriptura means that the Scripture is our only infallible and final authority. Therefore, while we may not change, I think that our defining of the issues, on both sides, makes us closer than the early polemics suggest.

Yep; I agree 100% Many many Catholics do not properly understand what sola Scriptura means (i.e., as explicated by its most able defenders). Likewise, many Protestants don't have a clue as to how Catholics relate Bible, Tradition, and Church.

Yes, but there also seems to be disagreement among committed Catholics concerning the particulars of VII. Isn’t this true?

Not all that much among orthodox Catholics, that I have seen. Most significant disagreement would be between orthodox and liberal, dissenting Catholics (just as Protestants have their never-ending internal struggles with liberals in their ranks: we're both infected with this problem -- as was the early Church).

“I am not sure what this will do to the ethos of the situation or the tone of the conversation between irenic Catholics and Protestants,

"It should do nothing whatsoever, for anyone who is familiar with Vatican II statements on ecumenism and recent encyclicals along the same line. They are all of a piece.”

Come on . . . you have to say that Dave :)

It is irrelevant what I "have" to say. This is simply an assertion of fact: so obvious that even James White and myself agree about it: he utterly opposing the teachings and I fully accepting them, but both understanding what exactly the teachings under consideration are.

Again, your system does not allow otherwise.

In this case, the facts of the matter, as plainly seen in the documents, do not allow otherwise.

You do not have the option to critically question whether or not this is the case because of the presumptions of authority.

That's absolutely irrelevant to the point at hand. One can state facts of a particular matter even if he completely disagrees with theology that is tied in with the facts (hence, James White states the Catholic ecclesiological teaching under scrutiny here accurately, while not believing it). I have done the same, and I happen to believe it. But my belief in the theology has nothing to do whether the fact of the teaching (as opposed to the truth of the teaching) is the case or not.

But, fair enough . . . I hope that the next Pope softens the language as VII did.

Vatican II states exactly the same. Where do you think the description "ecclesial communities" was famously used? If this is what is ticking so many Protestants off, then, like I said, they need to be angry at Vatican II as well. For example, Decree on Ecumenism, 3:

For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.

This doesn't mean that no Protestant can be saved, however, because in the immediately preceding paragraph, it was stated that Protestants "have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation."

That's OUR view. But even you yourself, in contrast, on James White's Dividing Line webcast tonight, said that Catholics can only be saved despite the teaching of their own communion (which is classic anti-Catholic rhetoric).

but it certainly has reiterated that the supreme bishop of Rome does not want progression in the way it was seeming to head.

Nope; I couldn't disagree more, and have already explained why, at length.

Well, of course, this comes down to some fundamental disagreements about the nature of the Body of Christ.

Of course it does; that is the whole point, and is why it is absurd for you to be disappointed simply because we disagree with you. You already knew that we did that!

I do think that Peter Kreeft, in his recent MP3 on ecumenism displayed something much different. But, he is not the Pope :)

That's right, and since he is not the pope, he doesn't have the concern of guiding and leading a Church and being extremely careful with language. He is an apologist (like myself) who tries his best to speak in terms that Protestants can relate to. Vatican II urged all Catholics to do this. It's one reason I am a Catholic myself, because a friend of mine took that approach to me when I was a Protestant and it bore fruit.

Well, I would disagree as well. At least from our perspective, you must understand how offensive what he said was.

Are you saying that you were previously unacquainted with the Catholic doctrine of "one true Church" as applied to itself (In find that hard to believe)? If you knew about it, there would be no grounds whatsoever for "offense." I am truly baffled why this would offend anyone who already knew the teaching. I'm not offended by a Protestant asserting sola fide or sola Scriptura. I expect that just as I expect a dog to bark or a hen to lay eggs. Being "offended" is irrelevant. It's simply the reality of what is.

Truly try to think about it.

I don't need to because I've dealt with these issues for 26 years as an apologist and 17 as a Catholic apologist. It doesn't make any sense to me. If you as a Protestant are so concerned about tolerance and unity as much as possible, then you should attack mentalities of anti-Catholics like James White, who divide and polemicize and do little good at all when dealing with Catholicism (whereas he does a lot of good and helpful work in other areas) rather than object to us saying what we have always said.

Again, I realize that it is nothing new, but the language was softening which was about as close “I’m sorry” as we were going to get.

Huh? You expected us to say we were sorry for believing that the Catholic Church is the Church? Nuh-uh. That is not going to happen, I can assure you. And there was not the slightest indication that it would happen in any Catholic official document. If you disagree, then you can easily produce an example of what you are saying.

I, myself, am willing to take a softening of the language. But to say once again, we are not true churches backs us up quite a bit.

Join the crowd. I get sick and tired of James White and his anti-Catholic cronies telling me I'll go to hell if I accept Catholic teachings, that I am a Pelagian and idolater and apostate, who is in an evil system and an antichrist church: the whore of Babylon; that my own ministry is deliberately leading people to hell and the devil, and all the worthless rotgut that Calvin and Luther and lots of other folks have said about my Church for 500 years. If you are offended by this statement of Catholic ecclesiology, you wouldn't last a day -- not one -- listening to all the crap I hear on literally a daily basis.

It has to do with an ethos that is set in with many. Not so much when documents were signed or when people said I am sorry. But again, look at it from our perspective. The Pope seemed to close the door more publicly yesterday.

I'm sorry; such an appraisal cannot possibly be familiar with the trajectory of authentic Catholic ecumenism over the time period you refer to.

I appreciate your spirit of compromise and willingness to change your view to better reflect those of the Evangelical church and concede to all that I believe :)

Not sure what all this means, but thanks, I guess! (scratching my head). :-)

Really, I do thank you for your time Dave. I pray that God blesses you and your ministry to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you; and I hope and pray the same for your own ministry, especially in those broad areas where we would completely agree as Christians.

I hope you have not been offended by my frankness and directness. It's just me. I can't hem and haw and tiptoe around issues. I must face them head-on. Some people don't care for my style for that very reason. But I can only be me, and we all have our personalities and styles and can hardly avoid them. Not all will like any given style, as you well know, I'm sure, in your own apologetic endeavors.

Open Forum

Socrates in dialogue

Link to previous one.

Steve Hays: Sophist Extraordinaire

Anti-Catholic Steve Hays has "responded" to my critique of his critique of recent convert Robert Koons. It would be extremely time-consuming to do my usual point-by-point critique this time around. Hays goes in so many directions, and uses such clever sophistry, sleight-of-hand, obscurantism, obfuscation, topic-switching, straw man bashing, etc., that I would have to, in effect, write some twenty papers on as many subjects to adequately respond to all of his stuff. Who has the time, desire, or energy to do all that? Certainly not I.

It simply isn't a dialogue. Dialogue (in any reasonable sense of the word) is impossible to do with Hays, and with virtually any anti-Catholic I have yet encountered in my nearly 17 years of Catholic apologetics. Therefore, I will pick a few representative things, to illustrate Hays' absurdity and the extremity of his views.

One of the remarkable motifs of Hays' analysis is the extraordinary extent to which he is hostile against any notion of historical continuity or apostolic succession in Christianity (I hadn't realized that he was so -- almost utterly -- ahistorical: virtually a caricature of a stereotype of the anti-intellectual, know-nothing fundamentalist):

For most of its history, the polity of the church paralleled the secular social structure, which, in the Roman Empire, feudal era, and the like, was authoritarian rather than democratic. The bishops, under the auspices of the Emperor, decided what was orthodox or heterodox. They didn’t solicit open debate or a free exchange of views. And dissent was penalized. So what you find in historical theology of the period is the party line.

. . . God has guided the remnant throughout the ages, which is quite different from the institutional church.

. . . Dave is confusing polemical theology with systematic theology. Because Rome made a big deal about historical continuity, the Protestant Reformers and post-Reformation theologians like Chemnitz and Turretin (to name a few) spent a lot of time calling her bluff. "You bet twenty traditional chips? Fine. We’ll match your chips and raise you another twenty traditional chips!"

This showdown is a way of answering Rome on her own grounds. We can quote the church fathers too! And we can quote them against you!

That’s a useful tactic as part of an internal critique of Catholic theology. And it also comes naturally to Protestants who were one-time Catholics, trained in Catholic theology. To some extent they defined themselves in opposition to their former religious identity.

And there is still a place for that line of argument. But it was never the foundation Protestant theology. And it is less relevant to later, Protestant generations.

It’s like the difference between first, second, and third generation immigrants. The first generation defines itself by the old country. The old customs. It identifies with the national culture in which it was raised.

The second generation is torn between the old and the new. Between its immigrant parents and its indigenous friends.

The third generation has assimilated with the mainstream culture. It identifies with the new country because the new country isn’t new to the third generation. That’s all it’s ever known.

Theological traditions are like colonies that eventually outgrow the mother country and develop their own way of life. They no longer feel the need to compare and contrast what they were with what they are. The mother country no longer supplies the standard of comparison.

They grew up, left home, got married and had kids. They have their own family traditions. They don’t spend all their time looking back—longing nostalgically to be a teenager all over again. They don’t feel the need to move back in with mom and dad. They have a home of their own. A wife of their own. A life of their own.

Now, there are some arrested adolescents like Timothy George and Thomas Oden who can’t quite bring themselves to cut the apron strings. And some of these overgrown adolescents, like Scott Hahn, Thomas Howard, Francis Beckwith, and Mr. Bubblator do move back in with mom and dad. Back to the old bedroom—plastered with the faded posters of Farrah Fawcett, Cheryl Tiegs, and Saturday Night Fever.

. . . ii) I couldn’t care less whether Protestant theology can "historically" trace itself back to the apostles, since that is irrelevant to true doctrine.

As I’ve said before, apostolic succession commandeers the framework of witchcraft. To be a true sorcerer, you must be apprenticed to a sorcerer. When the sorcerer dies, he transfers his mojo to his apprentice.

This conception is characteristic of pagan priestcraft. It accounts for vicious succession disputes in Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as Catholicism and Orthodoxy—as bitter, ambitious rivals vie for the top spot.

Then we have garden-variety, Jack Chick / Loraine Boettner / Alexander Hislop-type anti-Catholic analysis:

Patron saints take the place of patron gods; the Pope takes the place of the pagan priest (Pontifex Maximus); the sacraments take the place of sympathetic magic. The names change, but the underlying conceptual scheme remains the same.

. . . What we see in Armstrong’s explanation is the apotheosis of Mary into goddess with divine attributes. This goes to a fundamental tension in Mariology, where the BVM must be just human enough to model synergism, but sufficiently divine to process millions of prayers per day.

And he takes the obligatory ignorant, empty-headed swipes at development of doctrine:

And it will hardly do for Armstrong to take refuge in the theory of development, for that directly undercuts his appeal to certainty. At most, such certainly only operates in hindsight. Tomorrow’s certainty is yesterday’s uncertainty.

. . . Dave subscribes to the liberal, evolutionary view of Bible history. For Dave, Bible history is not the record of God’s revelation to man, but the record of man’s groping in the darkness from animism to polytheism to ethical monotheism to Trinitarianism, and—to carry the story down to our own times—to process theology and secular humanism. Wellhausen, Durkheim, and Freud would be proud of Armstrong’s analysis.

One immensely humorous touch was what Hays did with my objection to his seeming insinuation that the New Covenant had hardly made much of an improvement of the Old Covenant. I had written:

Because folks have learned a few things and advanced in understanding over hundreds of years. Because we now have the Holy Spirit to guide us, and the apostolic deposit, and the power of regeneration and the New Covenant. We have had the benefit of the teaching of the God-Man, Jesus, and that of the Apostles. We have the New Testament. I should think that even Steve Hays would readily agree that these are humongous differences between the Church and "second Temple Judaism."

Hays "replied" with the last paragraph of his cited above, and then the following:

Poor old Abraham and Moses, David, Isaiah and Daniel didn’t have the Holy Spirit to guide them. They were uninspired and unregenerate.

Well, all I can say is that I have a very different take on covenant theology than Armstrong’s hyperdispensationalism, which is worthy of E. W. Bullinger.

One can only marvel and shake one's head at such tomfoolery and dense incomprehension of opposing viewpoints. I often wonder if Hays knows better and is just toying. He seems to be a very sharp guy, yet he frequently engages in this sort of wholesale butchery of an opposing position and construction of hideous straw men. I can't help thinking that he is merely playing games, because surely he can't be this exceedingly ignorant of how Catholicism views the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.

Communion of Saints: Douglas Mabry's Self-Destructing Reductio ad Absurdum

I tried to resist writing this post, but in the end it just wasn't in me (I think you'll see why as you read, especially if you have a dry sense of humor as I do). I wrote one post in response to Mabry's assertions, from the starting-point of a reply of mine to James White. He persisted with the same argument and tired misunderstanding of mine, almost as if I hadn't responded at all, and so I clarified matters with a second paper. All to no avail: Mabry came right back ("one last time" or "one final time," so he sez) with truly ridiculous and by now hyper-desperate argumentation. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

There is no need to go through all of Dave’s missive; there is really nothing new in his presentation.

Of course not. Translation: "I don't know how to reply to Dave's clarifications (without conceding the point altogether) and I can't ever admit I'm wrong or uninformed with regard to a lowly Catholic and his stupid arguments, so I'll play the game of pretending that there is nothing new here and that Dave merely babbles his arguments over and over, ad nauseum."

He continues question begging and missing the point.

An excellent quick way to avoid the consequences of one's own arguments: make sweeping statements about the other guy, utterly irregardless of their relationship to reality and the truth of the matter.

His post might be summed up thus: No one has understood his argument, lest of all me; that he really does condemn the practices talked about in the Samuel passage; that it really was Samuel who was brought up.

I really really really really do condemn them! What must I do, swear an oath on John Calvin's grave, clutching an original Latin copy of the Institutes before the man will believe me?

Let’s go ahead and point out that Mr. Armstrong is not arguing for the “whole ball of wax” as he put it. What he is attempting is arguing for a logical foundation for the intercession of the saints.

Yeah, that would work, since it is the truth, and since I already did so myself.

That is the argument Dave has presented that he claims no one understands.

I never claimed (to my knowledge) that no one understood it: only that Mabry and Carrie and whoever else has made their wrongheaded comments on my argument do not accurately understand it. But the extreme exaggeration works well for the purpose of playing to the crowd, doesn't it? That makes me out to be unreasonable and eccentric, rather than Mabry not comprehending my argument, as is actually the case.

When dealing with Dave Armstrong, it is important to remember that no matter how well one presents his argument back to him, there is a good chance that Dave will say that you never understood it.

This is downright delicious (and is the one statement that was absolutely beyond my power to resist -- so pregnant with comedic possibilities was it; hence the present reply). Let's see how this peculiar reasoning works:

1) Dave makes argument x.

2) Anti-Catholic John Doe argues in a way that makes it obvious to Dave that he didn't properly understand argument x.

3) So Dave says that Doe has misunderstood x and goes on to clarify the proper understanding of x and exactly how Doe misunderstood x.

4) John Doe comes back with the claim that Dave routinely makes the claim that people misunderstand his arguments.

5) At this point we must determine:

a) Does Dave simply say this as a tactic even though it is not true?

or

b) Is it actually true that Doe did indeed misunderstand argument x?

6) If 5a obtains, then Doe has to establish this extraordinary charge with some semblance of plausible evidence, rather than merely assert it, and that -- it seems to me -- would be rather difficult to do without returning to the argument itself and demonstrating it with rational argument. In effect, then, it simply forces him back to the argument where he should have been in the first place.

7) If 5b obtains, on the other hand, then it is beyond ridiculous for John Doe to complain that it is improper for Dave to claim that his argument x was misunderstood when in fact it truly was misunderstood. What?: is Dave supposed to pretend that his argument x wasn't misunderstood when it actually was? Of what possible use would that be?

8) Moreover, 5b entails a scenario whereby Person B claims to understand Person A's argument x better than Person A himself does, and that is manifestly absurd, for it is hardly possible for Person B to know more about the motivation and reasoning chain of Person A regarding A's argument x than Person A knows.

9) Ergo: either way, Doe's "reply" is utterly inadequate: it is groundless and completely lacking in any substance or force in scenario 5a and ludicrously absurd and self-evidently false in scenario 5b.

The rest of his post is far too asinine to waste any further time on. Surely you get the idea by now. It repeats things that I have already answered. Once that happens, you know your opponent is firing blanks (or a squirt gun, as it were).

I read something today in C.S. Lewis that perfectly describes the mentality that so many anti-Catholics display when "dialoguing" with Catholics:

You can invent a simpler proof, that is, a simpler concatenation of intuitable truths. But when you come to an absolute inability to see any one of the self-evident steps out of which the proof is built, then you can do nothing . . . the supposed inability is usually a refusal to see, resulting either from some passion which wants not to see the truth in question or else from sloth which does not want to think at all. But when the inability is real, the argument is at an end.

(The Weight of Glory, New York: Macmillan / Collier Books, revised and expanded edition, 1980, edited by Walter Hooper, New York: "Why I Am Not a Pacifist," p. 35)

Ecumenical Discussion on Comparative Protestant-Catholic Soteriology (w/ C. Michael Patton)

C. Michael Patton: fellow U2 and basketball lover,
who also has a beautiful wife who is a great mom!

C. Michael Patton is a Reformed Protestant and President of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. The following is my reply on his blog Parchment and Pen to some of his remarks in a post / thread entitled: Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battle Ground Begun to Change? His words will be in blue:

* * * * *

Hi Michael,

Excellent post and thread. I'd like to express my deep appreciation, as a Catholic, for the charity, spirit, and humility expressed in it.

I don’t doubt many Catholics Spirit lead love and sincerity. I simply disagree with their theology and wish that they would read Romans and Galatians like we do, understanding what they are missing and how striving to establish a righteousness of their own in addition to Christ’s is unnecessary and counter productive to the Gospel and the glory of God.

But, having said this, there are some Catholics out there who would say that we are misunderstanding them. I am willing to listen and learn.

My understanding of Catholic soteriology is not that we are somehow coming up with a "righteousness of our own" at all. As we understand merit, it is, as Augustine said, merely "God crowning His own gifts." The Catholic Catechism cites this very utterance.

We understand God's grace and our appropriation of it, as of a piece (not opposed to each other), according to biblical verses such as:

1 Cor 3:8-9: He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

1 Cor 15:10: But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. (cf. 15:58; Gal 5:6, 6:7-9)

Eph 2:10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Phil 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. (cf. Titus 3:5-8)

2 Pet 1:10: Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;

We argue that Protestants often make the mistake of an excessive either/or outlook, whereas the Bible presents a paradoxical picture of God doing all, but we ourselves participating in that "all" insofar as we are included (as every believer is) in God's plans and His will. I think there is quite ample biblical justification for this (no pun intended), as seen above.

In fact, the Council of Trent, in its canons on justification, condemned the notion that there is any righteousness of our own apart from Jesus:

Canon 1: If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Canon 2: If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

Canon 3: If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

Canon 10: If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

I recently described the difference in approach in another paper, as follows:

Catholicism / Bible / "Both / and" outlook: God does all and enables all, pertaining to grace and salvation, yet man can also cooperate with God and in a non-Pelagian sense "participate" in the process.

Reformed / Calvinist outlook: God does all, therefore it is senseless and heretical to speak of man doing anything as regards to grace and salvation, and to do so is at least a semi-Pelagian position, detracting from God's sole work in salvation.

But are the differences that far apart in soteriological issues? I don’t think so.

I agree. I believe that the similarities are remarkable; even astonishing, once both (broad) sides are properly understood: especially in a more concrete, practical, day-to-day Christian walk sense. There are still assuredly differences. But I don't see that they should be any more divisive than Protestants' own inter-denominational differences.

In fact I would say that, practically speaking, they are not much further apart than those of a Reformed Calvinist and an Weslyian Arminian?

I was answering as I read, and you anticipated my own response almost exactly, as you can see.

Am I right being a Reformed Calvinist? Of course. I am always right, but I am nice to those who are wrong and love the same Lord I love.

I admire this spirit very much!: confident in one's own position (unless and until convinced otherwise) yet humble and charitable towards others, and emphasizing common ground rather than differences. Good for you. This is the Spirit of Christ, while avoiding a wishy-washy indifferentist liberalism, where differences don't matter or are glossed over or denied.

I believe that we can accomplish this by lifting our mutual anathemas and recognize our brotherhood in Christ.

We certainly acknowledge you as brothers in Christ, as Vatican II stressed. Even the Tridentine anathemas are not as rigid or "anti-Protestant" in a sweeping sense, as supposed. See my paper on that.

I look forward to discussion.

Dave,

Thanks much for the contribution and your charity as well. I just think the recognition that you have made, while shocking for many, puts the perspective of this entire dialogue in a different light for many.

I know that as I think about the way I viewed things just 5-10 years ago, all Catholics were most certainly going to hell (as well as most Protestants who did not agree with me!). But there were many at Dallas Seminary, especially in the historic theology department (as well as Dan :)) that caused me to reevaluate the arrogance and lack of humility that this type of attitude exhibited. (Yes, I did say Dallas Seminary!)

Learning should always produce humility. In fact, humility is the first requirement of true learning. I was confused and humbled and no longer had everything figured out. I realize that my theology up to that point, while it may have been true, was only a veneer of passion.

My next step in this transition of thinking came as I dialogued with many on Catholic Answers in their forums. In fact, I spent five months reading what they suggested and asking questions. For the most part the dialogue was extremely gracious and beneficial. It was then I came to think that both sides have much misunderstanding of the others beliefs. Passions, constituencies, and ill-will have made it very difficult to move beyond this state of affairs.

I don’t think either side has it all figured out, but I know that both sides have the same Lord.

Your posts on the issue of justification is very helpful.

You said:

Catholicism / Bible / “Both / and” outlook: God does all and enables all, pertaining to grace and salvation, yet man can also cooperate with God and in a non-Pelagian sense “participate” in the process.

This synergistic thinking is a practical necessity and I agree that whatever one’s confession, people live with the understanding that we have choices to make and responsibility for not making them. While God may be the ultimate cause of all things, their is a support cast that is empowered by Him. Thanks for clarifying this.

I also agree with you that, at most, Protestants should look at this as we do many intra-Traditional disagreements. (Although, many are not very charitable here as well). Sigh . . . Soteriologically, from a practical perspective (aside from any particular articulation in creed), I agree and reiterate, that from my standpoint, the differences between Protestants and Catholics are essentially the same as these:

Reformed Calvinists and Arminians
Baptist and Church of Christ
Lordship salvation advocates and Free Grace advocates

I am not asking for compromise from anyone necessarily, but tolerance and a new spirit of dialogue that is willing to set presupposed passions aside. In the end, even if we don’t agree and we are no closer than before, at least the fog will have cleared and we both realize that we are very close, standing in the same sphere of grace before the God we love.

While I do remain confused about many of these issues, I can no longer affirm in any sense that a Catholic is either unsaved, anti-Christ, or even unintelligent. I know that this is no way to keep a passionate constituency, but it must be said.

Thanks for the engagement Dave.

Pope Benedict XVI's "Motu Proprio" Allowing Widespread Use of the Tridentine Mass: Summorum Pontificum

[ Link to an English translation ]

For further related info. and discussion, see:

Accompanying Letter (Pope Benedict XVI)

Reaction to the document

Wikipedia entry

Universal Indult Blog

Fr. Z's blog

New Liturgical Movement blog

Reply to Steve Hays' Critique of Robert C. Koons' Treatise, A Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism: Sola Scriptura & Rule of Faith

Steve Hays is an anti-Catholic Reformed apologist, who oversees the Triablogue site. Robert C. Koons is a professional philosopher (with some formal theological training also) who recently converted to Catholicism from a conservative Lutheran background. He wrote an extensive (and excellent, thought-provoking) paper comparing Lutheran and Catholic soteriology (i.e., a fifty-cent word for "study of the doctrine of salvation"). Hays replied on his blog, on 22 May 2007. Steve Hays' words will be in blue; Dr. Koons' words in green (all citations from his paper were cited by Hays, unless otherwise noted).

* * * * *

I’ve always thought that the doctrine of justification is the crux of the Lutheran/Catholic controversy. If the Roman church has been in error on this point, to the extent of condemning the true understanding of the basis of our righteousness before God, then the Reformation was fully justified. Conversely, if Rome has not been in error, if her position can be charitably interpreted as a faithful exposition of the gospel and her condemnations (at Trent) as the rejection of genuine errors, then the Reformation, which destroyed the visible unity of the Church and broke ancient bonds of fellowship, could not be justified. All other issues are secondary: sola scriptura, the role of the papacy, purgatory, the veneration and invocation of the saints, and so on.

For Calvinism, the main soteriological conflict with Rome is not over sola fide, but sola gratia.

This is an ethereal, fictional "conflict", then, because "Rome" does not deny sola gratia at all. The real conflict is between the Catholic (biblical / somewhat "paradoxical") "both/and" perspective:

Catholicism / Bible / "Both / and" outlook: God does all and enables all, pertaining to grace and salvation, yet man can also cooperate with God and in a non-Pelagian sense "participate" in the process.

and the typically Reformed "either/or" mentality:

Reformed / Calvinist outlook: God does all, therefore it is senseless and heretical to speak of man doing anything as regards to grace and salvation, and to do so is at least a semi-Pelagian position, detracting from God's sole work in salvation.

Sola fide is just one aspect of sola gratia.

We do agree on that.

Rome denies sola fide because Rome is committed to synergism.

Rome denies sola fide because Rome is committed to biblical soteriology, and sola fide is unbiblical. But there is, nonetheless, much commonality between comparative Catholic and Reformed (or Lutheran) soteriology, if all views are rightly understood, beyond all the partisan polemics and misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

From a Reformed standpoint, therefore, it’s deeply misleading to suggest that if you can just get sola fide out of the way, then all the other differences amount to a mopping up operation.

Granted, but why use the word "misleading", subtly implying that Dr. Koons was doing any such thing, when he made it clear in the very citation that Hays provided, that he was concentrating on the Lutheran/Catholic disagreements?: "the doctrine of justification is the crux of the Lutheran/Catholic controversy".

It's fine if Hays wants to bring in his Reformed approach to things (as a sort of "footnote" or aside), as long as he doesn't confuse the reader with regard to what Koons himself was attempting to argue. One can also treat the "Reformation" proper as the initial Lutheran expression of it, that occurred when John Calvin was only eight years old, and so obviously a non-player. This appears to be what Dr. Koons had in mind.

It’s also odd to have him treat the debate over sola Scriptura as a secondary issue. For one of the questions at issue is whether the Catholic doctrine of justification is unscriptural. If Scripture is the rule of faith, as the source and standard of doctrine, then the exegetical foundation of any given doctrine is hardly a secondary issue.

This begs the question. Being "scriptural" and being in accordance with sola Scriptura are not one and the same. This is a clever sleight of hand often employed by Protestant apologists (akin to the fish not knowing that it is in water: to the Protestant, sola Scriptura is the water he lives in or the air he breathes; thus taken absolutely for granted), but it is a basic fallacy, according to Protestants' own given definition of sola Scriptura, which is, broadly speaking, as follows:

Sola Scriptura: the belief that Scripture is the only final, infallible authority in matters of Christian doctrine.

For something to be "scriptural" or "biblical" on the other hand, is to be in accord with the following qualifications:

"Biblical" / "scriptural": supported by Scripture directly or implicitly or by deduction from explicit or implicit biblical teaching; secondarily: not contradicting biblical teaching.

As we can see, the two things are quite different. This is how and why Dr. Koons (and myself and any Catholic) can be entirely committed to explaining and defending Catholic doctrine from Holy Scripture (indeed, it is my apologetic specialty and the focus of all my published books), while not adhering to sola Scriptura in the slightest. Protestants don't have a monopoly on Scripture; nor is sola Scriptura necessary to thoroughly ground doctrines in Scripture. The Protestant merely assumes this and goes on his merry way.

So when Hays caricatures the Catholic position as "exegetical foundation[s]" of any given doctrine supposedly being a "secondary issue" he is engaging in sheer obscurantism, straw men, and circular logic, because he has presupposed that sola Scriptura is essential to exegesis or desire to biblically support any doctrine, when it is not at all. Very clever, though. I've never denied that Hays was clever (even exceptionally so), but unfortunately, he is often guilty of sophistry and fallacious thinking (he thinks the same of me, lest someone thinks I am being unduly harsh).

We've already seen it, and we are only barely getting started. We'll observe much more of this as we examine his reply. It always takes a ton of work to thoroughly refute one of Hays' lengthy screeds, because they are filled with this sort of thing, and it is highly tedious and laborious to have to keep pointing out basic fallacies (doubtless one reason why few reply to his stuff, and why I knew I had to set aside significant time to do so myself).

There are two reasons why the Lutheran position must bear the burden of proof: the Lutheran doctrine was novel, and it precipitated a fragmentation of the Church’s unity.

This begs the question, and it fails to draw an elementary distinction. “Novel” in relation to what? Novel in relation to Scripture or church history?

That might be true if it stood alone, but of course, Koons' paper goes on to delve into all these issues, and so it is not improper for him to make the claim and then go on and defend it from the Bible and history.

Even if sola fide were novel in relation to historical theology, that doesn’t mean it's novel in relation to biblical theology.

Strictly speaking, that is correct; however, one has to immediately ask why, if something is so biblical and true, was it so difficult to locate in historic theology? Does God not have the power to guide the Christian Church in major areas of theology, so that she doesn't fall into serious heresy or, worse, apostasy? These are questions that the anti-Catholic, with his view of a widespread, horrendous loss of biblical truth and "the gospel" for some thousand years or so before Luther and Calvin appeared as the Grand "Reformers" of "biblical" truth, has to grapple with (but alas, rarely does). Both Catholics and Lutherans are highly concerned with historical continuity, both appeal to the Church Fathers, and both claim to uniquely preserve just that, in a dogmatic sense.

Even if it’s novel in relation to Augustine or Chrysostom, that doesn’t mean it’s novel in relation to St. Paul.

That's right. But to be novel in relation to those two eminent Fathers is itself a novelty, given how both sides have argued through the years, in claiming to be legatees of the teaching of those two men and other eminent Church Fathers. Therefore, it is relevant to note whether there is actual agreement or disagreement, since Catholic, Lutherans, and Calvinists alike all appeal to St. Augustine as in agreement with their views.

Putting this another way, Tridentine theology might not be novel to Aquinas, but still be novel to St. Paul or St. John.

And of course, we argue that both Lutheran and Reformed theology is novel according to Augustine and Paul and John alike. It all has to be discussed at great length.

[passing over ecclesiological questions dealt with by Koons and Hays because it is too large of a separate issue and I want to center on soteriology: that makes up the bulk of Dr. Koons' paper]

Lutherans argue that an authoritative Church is unnecessary, since the Scriptures themselves can act as the judge in any case of doctrinal controversy. This claim depends of course on the thesis of the perspicuity or clarity of the Scriptures. I have not been able to find a consistent formulation of this thesis among Lutherans. Sometimes, it is admitted that the Scriptures are not always clear (as Peter writes about some of Paul’s epistles). However, if the Scriptures are not always clear, then there will be questions about which it is not clear what, if anything, the Scriptures have to say. The Lutheran position, however, depends on the claim that, on every disputed question, the Scriptures can always act effectively as the supreme court of appeal.

Suppose that Koons is right about this? So what? What’s the next step?

Obviously, to locate an alternative, biblical rule of faith; sola Scriptura having been shown to be unbiblical and false.

i) He acts as if there are only two choices: Catholicism or Lutheranism. Where is his argument for such a restrictive choice?

Not quite. The choice is between those who adhere to sola Scriptura (basically, all Protestants) and those who do not (Catholics, Orthodox, and perhaps a few very "high" Anglicans or "Anglo-Catholics" and Methodists of similar disposition). Koons deals with Orthodoxy on pp. 55-57, and in effect rules them out on the basis of their rejection of the papacy: itself grounded in Scripture.

ii) There is also the paradoxical way in which he allows a great deal of internal development and alteration in the case of Catholicism, while allowing no flexibility in the case of Lutheranism. Why treat Catholicism as fluid, but Lutheranism as static?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Lutheranism did overstate its case. Maybe it can’t nail down quite as many things as it originally claimed.

Why does he cut Catholicism so much slack when he’s unwilling to cut Lutheranism any slack? Why not make the same retrospective allowances for Lutheranism as he’s made for Catholicism?

Because that is how Lutheranism views itself. It leaves little room for development of doctrine. So I would contend that Dr. Koons is simply treating Lutheranism according to its self-perception, which is only sensible and proper.

This is especially odd because he regards Catholicism as indefectible and, in some cases, infallible. So Catholicism ought to be less revisable than Lutheranism.

Indeed it is. Hays makes the usual Protestant (and especially anti-Catholic Protestant) misunderstanding that development entails change in any essential way. It does not at all.

iii) But suppose that Lutherans don’t want to modify their position? Even if they are inflexible, how does that disprove other Protestant alternatives?

Why can’t a Protestant say that where Scripture is silent, that’s a point of liberty?

They could indeed do so, but most often they do not do this. Koons is not dealing with Hays' abstract mind-pictures, but with the reality of Lutheranism and larger Protestantism as it is.

It isn’t necessary to stipulate in advance that Scripture has an answer to every question we pose. If Scripture offers no specific guidance on certain questions, how does that invalidate sola Scriptura? Why would it not mean that there is more than one right thing to do?

This is sensible; however, in practical terms it doesn't work, because if a non-scriptural "tradition" is appealed to in Protestantism, then the door is left wide open for contradiction and doctrinal chaos, because it then finds itself in "no-man's land" insofar as the Bible is silent and it has no binding authority other than Scripture: hence, chaos and competing truth-claims, which is a situation condemned, not encouraged in the Bible itself: particularly by the Apostle Paul.

Lutherans have held, in fact, that every doctrine taught by Scriptures is a doctrine upon which church fellowship hangs. The Book of Concord is an attempt (futile, in the end) to settle in advance every possible dispute about the interpretation of Scripture, in order to provide a sufficient and permanent basis for confessional unity.

And maybe Lutherans are wrong about that. Perhaps they overplayed their hand. But how is that an argument for Catholicism?

Why does Hays assume that every argument Dr. Koons makes is (in the latter's mind) automatically an "argument for Catholicism"? It doesn't have to be at all. It could simply be one more strike against Lutheranism. I don't see why Hays feels it necessary to do this logical hair-splitting and supposed reading of his opponent's mind. If Koons actually stated such a thing, Hays would have noted an indubitable logical truth, but Hays has not shown that Koons argued in such a way in the first place. That being the case, it is simply unhelpful nitpicking and minutiae.

Lutherans must insist that the Scriptures are not only clear, but clearly clear, when they are clear, and clearly unclear, when they are unclear. Even if the Scriptures are utterly clear on all the important doctrines, unless we can all tell exactly which passages address the ‘important’ doctrines, the Scriptures will not be able to act as the unmistakable judge in all doctrinal controversies.

Assuming that this is correct, it would only mean that Lutherans need to scale back some of their exaggerated claims, not that Catholicism is true.

As argued above, if sola Scriptura is shown to be unbiblical, untrue, and unworkable, then one must choose a substitute system, because (I agree) the issue of authority and the rule of faith is absolutely central to everything else in Christianity. So Hays can toy around with the logical minutiae and "possible possibilities" -- in his usual fashion -- but at the end of the day he (like all Protestants) has a huge and troubling issue that he has to resolve, and no one has done it satisfactorily within the Protestant system (least of all, Hays himself, because he deliberately deals only with the peripheries of the subject, rather than facing it head on), I would contend, with all due respect.

In the heat of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, it was quite possible for polemical theology to get a bit carried away, for fear of making any damaging concessions. And, from our distance, it is possible for us to modify or moderate excessive claims.

True. But that doesn't make it any less difficult for a Protestant to construct a coherent, cohesive, self-consistent system of authority today. The basic conundrum remains, as it always has.

For example, this is what a lot of Presbyterians have done in reference to the Puritan form of worship. They decided that the Puritans overreacted in this respect. Protestant theology has a capacity for self-criticism, and that’s because we submit to the Bible as our rule of faith. Our commitment is to Scripture, and not to tradition—not even Protestant traditions.

Simply a (typically) circular appeal to the very thing being critiqued, and as such, obscurantism . . .

There is only one coherent basis for the doctrine of sola scriptura: an empirical, a posteriori argument that uses actual error to eliminate all other claimants to infallible. If it can be shown that popes and councils have actually erred (by contradicting the Scriptures, for example), then the Scriptures will be left as the only remaining infallible authority. This basis places a heavy burden of proof on the Lutheran side, however. The Lutheran must demonstrate, without begging any question, that popes and valid councils (when properly interpreted) have in fact erred when proclaiming dogma (that which must be taught and believed in the Church).

I agree that a Lutheran apologist or theologian (or Protestant in general) assumes a burden of proof. But why does he assume the sole burden of proof or even a preponderant burden of proof? Why isn’t there an equal onus on a Catholic apologist or theologian to “demonstrate, without begging any question, that popes and valid councils (when properly interpreted) have never erred when proclaiming dogma”? Both sides have their own burden of proof to discharge.

I agree. But I would turn the tables (using one of Hays' favorite approaches) and argue: "assuming, for the sake of argument, that one has demonstrated catholic self-contradiction in dogmatic proclamations: does that automatically make sola Scriptura true by default?" Of course it does not. So the Protestant has as much burden of proof in establishing sola Scriptura, as the Catholic does for his system. And they have failed to do so in no uncertain terms. Hays himself will try to skirt the issue and wiggle himself out of his own dilemmas at every turn. We have seen it already, and we will till the end of his paper. It must be that way, because sola Scriptura is a thoroughly indefensible doctrine, any way you look at it. That's why it is simply assumed as true by most Protestants.

[passing over more non-soteriological arguments and garden-variety illogical objections to development of doctrine, in trying to get to our main focus]

Lutheran protestations to the contrary, I cannot believe that every proposition in the Book of Concord can be deduced directly from the text of Scripture, interpreted only by means of neutral, grammatical-historical methods. At some point, one has to make judgments about which system of theology best makes sense of the biblical data, and these human judgments will be fallible and variable, except where superintended by the Holy Spirit. Hence the need for an infallible magisterium of the Church.

Even if that’s the problem, how is that the answer? You don’t need a magisterium to ensure a certain result.

That's right, strictly speaking, yet in practical terms (since people invariably disagree in doctrines and interpretations), this is exactly what is needed. What the Catholic argues is that sola Scriptura is incoherent and unbiblical and unworkable. We then assert that our system is not any of those things. This is not absolute proof, true, but it is a necessary prerequisite to hold a biblical, rational belief in faith. What is true cannot be unbiblical and irrational.

What one requires, rather, is a doctrine of providence. God, in his providence, will see to it that his elect come to a saving knowledge of the truth. What is needed is not an infallible church, but infallible providence. Providence is a deterministic process, using various means to secure its appointed end.

That tells us nothing in concrete terms; it is merely a typically Protestant desperate, pious-sounding abstraction (and ultimately logically circular when actually applied to real human affairs). How does this help us attain to the truth unless someone can tell us with definite assurance, "this is the truth about doctrine x, and it is dogmatized in this Christian communion" (and provide some solid epistemological basis for believing same?

It is hard for me to believe that God intended the Scriptures to be the sole and sufficient norm for doctrine, given their silence on so many issues that must be resolved if the Church is to function: May infants be baptized? Should those baptized by heretics or hypocrites be re-baptized? Which baptized Christians may commune, and which should not? Should repentant heretics and sinners be reconciled to the Church, and if so, how and under what conditions? Should orthodox members of schismatic sects be excommunicated? Should orthodox members of non-schismatic congregations be excommunicated, if those congregations practice improperly ‘open’ communion? Must the threefold ministry of bishops, presbyters and deacons be respected at all times? How are clergy (in each order) to be ordained, elected, called or installed? Must there be at most one bishop in each city? What authority do bishops have, and what superior authority, if any, must they respect? What constitutes an authoritative council of the Church? These are matters upon which the Scriptures provide little explicit guidance, and yet, for practical reasons, it is impossible for Christians simply to agree to disagree about them.

Two basic problems:

i) He is assuming, without benefit of argument, that there can only be one right way of doing anything.

I don't see that above. What I see is a critique of ultimately insuperable problems in Protestantism, that even an atheist could make, because these judgments can be made independently of one's own belief-system.

He needs to foster a proper appreciation for the principle of the adiaphora. In many cases, there is more than one licit option available to us.

Scripture teaches that many mutually-exclusive views of baptism can be true at the same time? That's interesting . . .

ii) He is also trying to intuit God’s intentions instead of bothering to study divine precedent. There was no magisterium in second temple Judaism. As a result, you had a great deal of diversity in thought and practice. Cf.

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521341469

Why is what was acceptable for God’s old covenant community unacceptable for God’s new covenant community?

Because folks have learned a few things and advanced in understanding over hundreds of years. Because we now have the Holy Spirit to guide us, and the apostolic deposit, and the power of regeneration and the New Covenant. We have had the benefit of the teaching of the God-Man, Jesus, and that of the Apostles. We have the New Testament. I should think that even Steve Hays would readily agree that these are humungous differences between the Church and "second Temple Judaism."

If you want to know God’s intentions for the future (e.g. the church age), a good place to start is with his historical modus operandi.

it is good, but it's just a start, which is the point. Hays and many like him cut this option off, in effect, by their goofy, twisted conception of what they mistakenly believe development of doctrine to be.

The sola scriptura position puts an impossible burden on each believer: in order to recognize true congregations, the individual believer must evaluate the congregation’s confession for complete freedom from doctrinal error. To perform this task, the believer must not believe the essential doctrines of the faith, he must know exactly which doctrines are essential and which are a matter of legitimate difference of opinion. This seems inconsistent with the variety of talents, gifts and callings: not every believer can be expected to be a theologian. The sola scriptura theory condemns the majority of believers to de facto exclusion from the true church, by virtue of their inability to distinguish truth from error on all disputed matters.

This objection is predicated on a number of assumptions for which he offers no supporting argument:

i) There are degrees of responsibility according to one’s aptitude and opportunities (Mt 25:14-30; Lk 12:48). Sola Scriptura doesn’t not imply that every Christian has the same intellectual obligations.

Dr. Koons did not argue that it does; rather, he is saying that the logical reduction of the sola Scriptura position requires every believer to make basic, crucial decisions and choices and judgments that in fact are best reserved for the experts (or a magisterium, as it were). He sees this as a reductio ad absurdum, as opposed to accepting a state of affairs where everyone has to be a theologian or else they will be at a fundamental disadvantage. Hays has not shown how this doesn't apply; he simply (as so often) plays logical games around the edges. He offers no positive apologetic for sola Scriptura, which is exactly what he must do.

ii) There are degrees of doctrinal error. Why must one belong to a doctrinally inerrant denomination (or independent church)? Maybe I’m an amil. Does that prevent me from joining a premil church?

One has the burden of finding the "most true church" within Protestantism or else succumbing to doctrinal indifferentism and de facto relativism, as millions of Protestants do, because their system is of little use in leading them to theological certainty in faith.

iii) Not all “disputed matters” are matters of doctrinal truth and error. Some matters are disputed because of what the Bible has left unstated. That is left to individual discretion and conscience.

This is always the Protestant appeal, in trying to divert away from the crucial issues. It won't work. Baptism is not a secondary doctrine. Nor is sola fide, etc.

iv) Let’s also remember that church membership, in the modern sense, is a postbiblical development. In the NT, baptism is the rite of church membership. A baptized Christian was a member of the NT church, period. There is no Biblical mandate to belong to a particular denomination. Church membership, in the modern sense (i.e. the age of schism and sectarianism) is adiaphorous.

So is denominationalism. Well said! yet every Protestantism is a member of a denomination, if only in the vaguest sense of "generic Protestant" -- which is different from historic Catholic Christianity and cannot historically trace itself back to the apostles.

The Catholic position, in contrast, places a reasonable burden on the layman: he must simply recognize which congregations are in fellowship with that global church that is most continuous historically with the church of the apostles, i.e., with that church that has the most secure claim to being the Catholic (universal) Church. In other words, the believer need master only one, relatively small set of doctrines: those concerning the identity of the true Church, not, as Lutheranism requires, an exhaustive knowledge of every disputed point of theology. This effectively limits the believer’s choice to two: the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, each of which recognizes the other as a part of the true visible church.

This is a classic case of special pleading:

i) Why should we assume that catholicity or historical continuity is the criterion? What about the possibility of institutional apostasy? We have examples of that in the OT.

Because both the Bible and common sense and logic rule that out. The Bible teaches indefectibility of the true Church (Matt 16:18; John 16:13; Acts 15:28 [implied] ). Paul presupposes that there is one truth and that it wold continue on in perpetuity in the Church. Apostolic succession is taught in Scripture. This, in turn, entails a state of affairs whereby there will always be an unbroken line of apostolic truth institutionalized in one historic Christian Church. The fathers teach the same. Protestantism departed from this understanding.

The argument from common sense and logic are that it is senseless for God to establish a new community of believers (granting His providence and omniscience and the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit) and yet not enable it with enough power and protection to even survive through history. So we have both biblical indications and God's nature to lead us to the catholic and Orthodox view of the historical Church.

ii) Does he really think it’s such a simple matter to identify the “true church”?

It is made rather more simple than it might be, due to insuperable Protestant internal difficulties and self-contradictions, both in actual denominational teaching and in Protestant foundational structures (sola Scriptura, the conundrum of an "unbiblical" canon, etc.).

iii) Isn’t the identity of the true church related to true doctrine?

Absolutely. Hence, our belief in faith that God preserves true doctrine in His one true Church. And we can defend all our doctrines from Scripture, history, and reason.

Does he think a church that teaches false doctrine is a true church?

No; no more than a Protestant does. If we didn't think Catholic doctrine were true, we wouldn't be Catholic.

ii) Koons is also assuming there’s only one true church,

As the Bible always assumes without even argument . . .

so that a Christian’s mission in life is to go on a theological safari or expedition to discover the one true church. Now, that may reflect the Catholic outlook.

And the biblical one . . .

And that may also reflect the viewpoint of confessional Lutheranism.

Rightly so, because they recognize that the Bible teaches this over and over, and plainly . . .

But many evangelicals, myself included, do not take the position that there is one true denomination, such that we must continue our quest until we hit upon the long lost church of the apostles. That’s all very romantic, and it makes for fun fiction, viz. In Search of Atlantis, the Holy Grail, the Fountain of Youth, King Solomon’s Mines, &c. . . . most Evangelicals do not operate with such a nominalistic paradigm, as if the true church must be identified with one concrete particular throughout time and space.

This is a classic, textbook expression (complete with obligatory mockery and straw man construction) of postmodernist, relativistic, pessimistic, literally anti-biblical, faith-challenged mush, as I have critiqued in the following papers:

Anglican Anti-Traditional Principles of "Development" & the "Cult of Uncertainty" (vs. Dr. Edwin Tait)

Response to Rev. Michael Pahls on "Theological Humility" and the Protestant "Non-Quest" Regarding Christian Certainty (vs. Rev. Michael Pahls)

Hays is reduced to embracing a counsel of despair: the very opposite of a hopeful, sunny biblical faith. In this mentality, one cannot find the one true Church of Scripture. It's futile to even try. God is not able to preserve one truth or lead His followers to it. This is how low Protestant sectarian chaos and doctrinal relativism has brought most Protestants. They no longer think it is even possible to find and believe in one Christian truth (it is viewed as a "romantic" and childlike notion, as we see Hays -- astonishingly -- do above). This was not at all true of the original Protestant "Reformers" (Luther, Calvin et al), but it has been the sadly predictable outcome of a ridiculous proliferation of contradictory beliefs.

Many denominations and independent churches exemplify the true church in varying degrees. And saving faith does not demand membership in a doctrinally inerrant church. There’s a difference between good, better, and best.

How sad. How unbiblical.

Let’s remember that even in NT times, the apostolic churches were not doctrinally inerrant.

Like the Council of Jerusalem? That is certainly not how they viewed what was going on at the time (Acts 15:28-29). And this binding decision had partially to do with something so trivial to us today; so "secondary" as what food to eat. Paul took the decision so seriously that he proclaimed it to the masses in his missionary travels (Acts 16:4). This is infallibility and inerrancy. No one was at liberty to dissent ("they delivered to them for observance") from "the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders".

For as soon as an apostle was away from one church, to plant or tend another, false teachers might come and sow seeds of heresy.

The existence of a heretic doesn't disprove the existence of a true Church any more than the existence of Arians disproved that there was an authoritative Council of Nicea that decisively refuted their errors. This is again, an illogical argument of despair. In its own way, this is perhaps the clearest indication that the Protestant like Hays has actually conceded the argument on authority to the Catholic, and admitted that Protestants really have no authority and are left to glib acceptance of irresolvable differences and relativism amongst themselves.

They're unable to accept Catholic authority in faith, based on Scripture and historical evidences, and so are left with this thoroughly unacceptable and unbiblical "alternative" of doctrinal relativism and no chance of finding one theological Truth or Church. This nonsense doesn't even comply with how Luther and Calvin and the original Protestants conceived of themselves. It's a postmodernist corruption even of historic or "classic, Reformation" Protestantism.

Dr. Koons continues to build on his powerful presentation. At one point, Hays charges (twice): "All assertion, no argument." Yet that is largely what he himself has been doing all along. He hasn't supported sola Scriptura or shown that it must be held from Scripture, to the slightest degree. He has given up the fight altogether, in terms of finding one true Church or even one true set of theological beliefs. He has adopted the counsel of despair.

At least Koons (both as a Lutheran in line with the authentic original heritage of that body, and as a Catholic) exercises faith in the traditional manner, related to doctrinal truths. Hays, on the other hand, seems too sophisticated to exercise such faith. He (like all atheists, in how they view any form of Christianity) knows better. He "knows" that such faith is only a child's fantasy, akin to Atlantis or the Fountain of Youth. Is this not pathetic? And Hays wants to claim that his approach is eminently biblical whereas Koons' and the Catholic outlook is allegedly not?

When Koons starts presenting patristic support for Catholic claims, Hays plays games with those and offers nothing substantial in rebuttal ("Cyprian was a critic of papal primacy", etc.: as if that is relevant to use of St. Cyprian as an advocate of generic apostolic succession).

Hays continues on with more of the same of this objectionable method of his, concluding:

He has cast the alternatives in the form of a straw man argument . . . No attempt to seriously examine the actual alternative. Such intellectual impatience and resort to demagogical caricature hardly befits a Christian philosopher. Moreover, it contradicts his own standard of charity. Is this the most charitable construction he can place on the opposing position?

I couldn't make a better description of Hays' own method, myself. Of course, he can't see this, but he thinks he sees it in his opponent. He even resorts to rather stupid, refuted time and again, garden-variety objections:

How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?

Very simple: the saints, being with God in heaven, are outside of time. That being the case, they simply have no problem of number and sequence as we do, since we are temporal creatures, and hence, severely limited in that sense.

How did she “allow herself” to become the mother of Christ?

By saying "yes" to God at the Annunciation.

What control did she have over a virginal conception?

The power to say no! Perhaps Hays thinks that God would force her to bear Jesus if she didn't want to? He didn't force Adam and Eve to not rebel and to always do the right thing. He could have prevented the Fall had He done so. Likewise, God didn't force Mary to do anything she didn't want to do. She willingly agreed. In this instance, human free will did the right thing rather than the wrong thing.

What could she do to either cause it or prevent it?

Say no, just as Eve (and Adam) said yes to sin and brought about original sin and the Fall.

I was foolish enough to think that Hays was gonna deal with the soteriological arguments. But he never did. I believe someone else took a crack at them. I'll have to take a look at those. But Hays has offered us nothing here of any note or substance, to prove to anyone that Protestantism is a superior choice over Catholicism.

Some Reflections on Ecumenism in Light of Historic Protestant Suspicions About the Catholic Mass (with Alastair Roberts)

Alastair Roberts (?)

Reformed blogger Alastair Roberts, who always has interesting and insightful things to say, has recently written several posts about ecumenism. I was stimulated by one of them, entitled, Thoughts on Denominations, Church Union and Reunion 1, to make the following comment. I hope further discussion is generated by it.

* * * * *

As Peter Leithart has observed, the root cause of the split in the Church at the time of the Reformation was the Church’s tolerance of idolatrous practices and ways of thinking about salvation.

I'm curious what exactly he is referring to here? Is it the Mass? If so, then that is still alive and well, thank you, and the Catholic Church is not (from this critical perspective) one whit less "idolatrous" than it was in 1517.

The problem then becomes: "how does one accept as brothers and sisters in Christ a communion that (so the criticism goes) enshrines rank, gross idolatry at the very center of its worship?" It makes no sense to take a middle position of "sure, Catholics are Christians" but then hold that they commit idolatry every Sunday.

The other thing about the sacrifice of the Mass is that it has considerable patristic support.

I'm assuming that the idolatry referred to is the Mass, but say it was the Catholic doctrine of Mary instead. If so, then again, our Mariology is considerably more robust now than it was then, with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption now ex cathedra binding doctrines.

So you would have to say (from a Reformed perspective) that Catholics are far worse on both scores now than they were then. Even papal infallibility is far more defined now than then (even conciliar infallibility -- in the fully Catholic, papal sense -- saw significant development in Vatican II).

As you can see, I'm trying to trap the ecumenical Reformed position on the horns of a dilemma. I would contend that anti-Catholic Protestantism (much as I loathe and detest it) is actually more consistent than an ecumenical Protestant position that continues to regard the Mass as idolatry and blasphemy (I've pressed Lutherans on this, too, and they seem to have no ready reply). The anti-Catholics call a spade a spade. That's how they view Catholics and so, consistently, they read them out of Christianity altogether.

To do ecumenism with Catholics, and to be halfway consistent, you will have to find a way to "tolerate" the Mass as the Mass, and to not have the schizoid view described above. The Mass would have to be, it seems to me, regarded as not essentially different in kind or degree of error than other Protestant forms of worship that differ from Reformed (say, Pentecostal or Mennonite).

On a more positive note: I agree wholeheartedly with your remarks about the definition of "the gospel". Indeed, I have been making virtually an identical argument for many years now, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic. It's refreshing to see some Reformed Christians agreeing and refusing to redefine the gospel as TULIP.

Did Martin Luther Suffer From (Probably Biochemically Produced) Serious Psychological Maladies (Particularly Recurring Severe Depression)?

Some folks seem to think that it is "anti-Protestant" or "anti-Luther" or otherwise thoroughly unsavory and impolite, or even unecumenical to even ask this question, yet it is undeniably a valid issue, with many historians coming down on the affirmative regarding the matter. Nor is it improper and outrageous to opine that the existence of such things, if documented, might have some small degree of effect on the man's theology. It certainly could be the case.

We are whole creatures, not merely abstract rational machines, disconnected from the reality of day-to-day life and our own interior emotional and psychological struggles, as the case may be. Physical maladies and adverse life experiences could just as well influence our beliefs to some extent. It would be foolish to deny this.

That said, I approach the topic as predominantly an interesting historical question. Previously I dealt with this to some extent in a paper, citing non-Catholic historians. I don't judge the man, if indeed he suffered from significant psychological difficulties (as appears to be the case), in all likelihood caused by (as we now know) biochemical imbalances. I'm the parent of two special needs children, and I surely don't blame them or look down on them because of factors beyond their own control. Moreover, I experienced at one period in my life, in 1977 (though never since) a severe and prolonged clinical depression, so I know what it is like from the "inside."

In fact, to a considerable extent, I would contend, these "abnormalities" are a blessing, because people who have them often possess other notable attributes and qualities to a disproportionate degree. Likewise with Martin Luther. But it is a relevant issue to discuss. If it is not, then many Protestant or otherwise non-Catholic historians have -- for some reason other than "anti-Luther" motivations -- fallen prey to writing about it.

In my older paper, I cited the very eminent Protestant Luther historians Heiko A. Oberman, (citing Luther's own description of an acute crisis in 1527-1528: "I have known these tribulations since my youth; but I never expected that they would so increase"), David C. Steinmetz ("Luther continued to suffer periods of severe spiritual anxiety"), and Roland Bainton ("[T]he recognition is inescapable that he had persistent maladies . . . The recurrence of these depressions raises for us again the question whether they may have had some physical basis . . . His whole life was a struggle against them, a fight for faith").

Can any more be produced? Certainly. I recently created links to a great deal of Luther literature available online, either entirely or at least able to be searched. Let's see if we can find any additional corroboration for this hypothesis:

1) Martin Luther: the Christian Between God and Death, Richard Marius (Harvard University Press, 1999, 576 pages):

[H]e was perhaps like many others at the time prone to melancholy -- we would say say depression, even (as modern psychological jargon has it) “clinical” depression of a sort that might require treatment by a good paternal figure.

(p. 54)

She [his wife] was a consolation to him in his bouts with tristitia, a word meaning “sadness” that I think is here best translated by “depression,” attacks that he said in 1533 were greater afflictions than all his enemies and labors . . . He had these attacks often, he said . . .

(p. 439)

2) Martin Luther, Michael A. Mullett (Routledge, 2004, 240 pages), mentions Luther's "recurrent bouts of depression" (p. 256).

3) True Faith in the True God: An Introduction to Luther's Life and Thought, Hans Schwarz, translated by Mark Williams Worthing (Augsburg Books, 1996),

[H]e was frequently plagued by sickness during the remaining decade of his life, especially from pain caused by stones but also by severe headaches and depression.

(p. 33)

4) The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther, by Donald K. MacKim (Cambridge University Press, 2003, 338 pages), cites "occasional bouts with what may tentatively be identified as clinical depression" (p. 266).

5) Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521, by Martin Brecht, translated by James F. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993; at least 529 pages):

When we survey Luther's illnesses after 1527, it is obvious that in the meantime he had become an unstable man. Again and again can be seen the connection between his circulatory problems and an emotional depression, combined with his spiritual Anfechtungen, . . .

(p. 210)

6) Martin Luther: A Penguin Life (Penguin Lives), by Martin E. Marty (Viking Adult, 2004, 224 pages): ". . . the decade [1535-1545] of his disease and depression . . ." (p. 182).

7) The Revolt of Martin Luther, by Robert Herndon Fife (Columbia University Press, 1957, 713 pages):

[T]he friar was assailed by hours of restlessness and agonizing doubts. It is quite probable that this began to be the case early in his cloister life. "When I was first inducted into the monastery, it happened that I would always go about sad and depressed and could not shake off this melancholy," This is one of the recollections from his early middle age. There is reason to think, as we have seen, that fits of depression beset him before his entry into the cloister . . . Nevertheless, though physical causes may have accentuated the attacks of depression, their source lay in his psychical personality and therefore far below the reach of the investigator's plummet. They play a large role in his reminiscences and undoubtedly began early in life, for they recur throughout the middle years. It was a part of the mythology implanted in childhood that he should have regarded these visitations as temptations of the devil. "It seems to me," he declares in 1521, "that from childhood Satan foresaw in me something of what he is now suffering from me. That is the reason he has raged against me with unbelievable tricks to hamper and destroy me, so that I have often wondered whether I was not the only one among mortals in whom he was laying his traps." 62 The attacks followed him through life, but with advancing age he worked out a system, based largely on the Scriptures, by which he gave himself successful treatment. The strife against mental depression, he concluded, is a struggle with the devil 63 God is happiness and hates melancholy; the devil is melancholy, 64 and the Christian who fights off its attacks is resisting the devil. 65 . . . He himself seems to have escaped any real mental difficulty, but the tension of life showed itself in pronounced hysterical symptoms which may be noted from time to time in the monastic years and tended to present themselves also, though less acutely, at middle age and even on the threshold of old age. These "temptations," as he calls them, brought him occasionally to the verge of despair. We have read the story of the fit in the cloister choir as reported to Johann Cochlaeus by certain Augustinian brothers. It bears marks of probability, for Luther himself records another instance of strikingly similar character which happened some years later, probably in 1515. Then, as he tells a scribe at table sixteen years after the event, he was struck with terror at sight of the sacrament borne by the vicar general, Dr. Staupitz, in the Corpus Christi procession. 69 His sensitivity to powerful attacks of depression is shown by several experiences recorded later but evidently belonging to the days when he was still in the Augustinian order. A vivid recollection of this kind comes down from the period of the struggle over indulgences and is found in the Explanations on the Power of Indulgences in 1518. Here, in a remarkable passage on the tortures of purgatory, he describes pangs of conscience which he had endured. "They lasted, to be sure, only a short while, but they were so hard and infernal that no tongue can express their power, no pen describe it, nor can anyone believe it who has never had the experience. If they should remain at their most extreme point for an hour, yes, even six minutes, the victim must quite perish and all his bones be turned to ashes." 70 About the same time at which these words were written, possibly two or three years later, he seems to have suffered severe attacks of despair, especially the feeling that he was hated of God. "I was beset by the most extreme temptations [fear of the wrath of God]; they devoured my body as with fire so that I scarcely remained alive." 71 Respecting a similar onset at the same period of life, he declares that no one could console him, so that he was obliged to ask: "Am I the only one to suffer the spirit of sadness? I saw so many apparitions. But ten years ago when I was alone, God comforted me with his angels to go on struggling and writing." 72

Footnotes (TR = Tischreden [Table-Talk] 1531-1546. In WA [Weimar German edition of Luther's works] )

62 De votis monastids, WA, VIII, 574. 6S TR, I, No. 122 (1531)-

64 TR, I, No. 194 (1532); No. 676; see also No. 832.

65 TR, I, No. 124; No. 676; No. 835; II, No. 1279; Nos. 2342a and 2342^

66 TR, II, No. 2456.

69 TR, I, No. 137 (1531). Aurifaber's German translation of the passage builds up still [?] the impression of terror. Whether the attack was known only to himself or was apparent to others Luther does not disclose.

70 Resolutions disputattonum de indulgentiarum virtute (1518), WA, I, 557, 11. 34 jff. Scheel, Martin Luther, II, 635, raises a doubt as to whether Luther really refers to himself in this passage. Its introduction, "Sed et ego novi hominem, qui has poenas saepius passum sese asseruit," obviously is a rhetorical imitation of that of St. Paul in his recital of his heavenly vision in II Cor. 12.2: "Scio hominem in Chnsto ante annos quatuordecim. . . ." Luther's recital, however, follows a reference to cases of torment of conscience cited by Tauler, and this raises the possibility that Martin has here in mind another sufferer than himself. There is, however, a certain realism in the passage that bears the stamp of personal experience.

71 TR, II, No. 1263 (1531): "Ante decem annos primum sensi hanc desperationem et irae divinae tentationem. Hab darnach rhue gehabt, ut etiam uxorem ducercm so gutte tag hett ich, sed postea rediit." This extract from Schlaginhaufen, one of the reporters of the Table Talk, agrees verbally, with trifling deviations, with a statement by Dietrich dated December *4> I 53 I J TR f I, No. 141 which was probably the first source. The association of his marriage with a period of cessation of the attacks is psychologically interesting.

72 TR, II, No. 1347 (January i-March 23, 1532). Wolf, "Staupitz und Luther," pp. 142 &., is of the opinion that Martin recalls here a different experience from that recorded in the reports discussed in the preceding note. His argument is scarcely convincing. In any case the memory of fierce attacks of depression in the crucial years of revolt, 1518-21, seems to have been vivid for Martin a decade later. Any attempt at dating these experiences more definitely or determining their precise nature would seek to do what probably lay beyond the ability of Martin himself a decade afterwards.

(pp. 118-121)

8) Luther and the Reformation: Vol. III: Progress of the Movement (1521-1529), by James MacKinnon, New York: Russell and Russell, 1962, 337 pages): ". . . fits of dejection to which he was temperamentally subject" (p. 8)

9) "Luther's Last Battles," Mark U. Edwards (Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 48, April-July 1984, pp. 125-140; citation from p. 128):

[I]t has been argued by some that Luther, especially the older Luther, was mentally ill, a manic-depressive. That Luther suffered from severe illnesses and depression cannot be denied. That he was mentally ill, a manic-depressive, is another matter altogether, and has been hotly disputed.

Samuel the Prophet Appearing to Saul as an Argument for the Communion of Saints: Clarification For Protestant Critic Douglas Mabry

The Witch of Endor, from Sadducismus Triumphatus by Joseph Glanvill

It just goes on and on: the discussion about my initial response to James White's critique of my arguments for the communion of saints gets more and more convoluted every day. More often than not, the Protestant critics have not even properly presented what my arguments were. They have too often misunderstood them at a fundamental level. I've already taken great pains to illustrate exactly how they have done this, but apparently to no avail.

It is still occurring on Douglas Mabry's blog. I decided to try one more time to clarify and correct these critics, because they have not yet grasped my argument, and so think they have found a weak spot that doesn't exist, because they have assumed things that I did not and which were no part of my argument.

Now, note that I do not say that this is done deliberately. My general approach to such things is to note that we are all prone to be so biased towards our own position that this often brings about the strong tendency to not properly or fully understand opposing positions. That in turn leads to construction of straw men, frustration and unfruitful stalemates of discussions (because constructive, forward-moving discussion absolutely requires both sides understanding their opponents' arguments in order to progress and achieve anything: however little or minor.

So Doug is (I would assume in charity, as I habitually try to do) simply a victim of his own presuppositions and assumptions about Catholicism and Catholic apologetics. I will explain once more how my argument works. After that, there is nothing else I can do.

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


Mabry takes another shot at what he thinks is my argument with regard to the prophet Samuel. His words will be in blue:

[I]n scripture we see many times where angels (consider Gabriel being sent to Mary, the angel being sent to John in the Revelation) contact humans. I don’t think Mr. Armstrong would go there, since that would have zero support in advancing his “argument,” as there was no intercession or invocation sought by any of the visited humans. But still, one wishes that Mr. Armstrong were just a little more tidy in his presentation.

As in my previous treatment of Mabry's critiques, somehow he has again managed to miss my answer to one of his complaints within the very paper he is critiquing (and having to repeat the argument one just made gets tedious and old right quick). It occurred in these words:

About all that White and these anti-Catholic cronies of his might be able to do with this is sophistically argue that God doesn't want us to seek contact with dead saints, but does, however, initiate such contact Himself in extraordinary instances and situations (i.e., to somehow distinguish the two as completely different in essence, with one being "bad" and the other "good").

But that breaks down, too, because Peter deliberately initiated contact with the dead Tabitha, when he talked to her and told her to rise from the dead. That is not rebuked anywhere in the Bible (where, alas, was James White to rebuke Pope Peter when he needed to be rebuked and upbraided for his "unbiblical" practices?).

And it is implausible anyway to say that, on the one hand, God doesn't want us to contact the dead, when it is a plain fact that He Himself caused it to happen on at least four occasions, exactly the sort of "contact" that is (morally) indistinguishable from instances of our initiating contact. [I then re-present four biblical instances of this]

. . . To illustrate by analogy, it would be like saying, as a parent, "children shouldn't seek to have ice cream, because that is an altogether evil thing, and therefore forbidden by parents." But then the same parent gives the children ice cream twice a week. Would it really make sense to claim that it was evil for the children to seek an "evil" thing, while the parents themselves provide the "evil" thing themselves, that they told the children never to seek, on grounds that it was wicked to do so? Is that not a radically mixed message, and a bit incoherent?

Likewise, in the present case. Therefore, there is an indirect relation between these events and invocation of saints. But I only claim as much as I originally did: this biblical evidence unarguably, indisputably disproves the claim that God wants no such contact or communication at all.

To read Mr. Armstrong’s disclaimer [against all occult arts, necromancy, etc.] , and yet see him attempt a passage that does not support his thesis still leaves me wondering if Mr. Armstrong is actually aware of how badly the scriptures condemn the practice that he actually wrote in favor of, or if he does, then he must disregard it to use a passage that he is question begging to begin with.

Again, Mabry doesn't grasp the nature of my argument regarding Samuel and how it works, and so he falsely perceives a contradiction that is not there at all. As I stated, I oppose everything that is opposed in Old Testament injunctions against the occult arts, such as seances, mediums: the whole nine yards. Having been involved myself in some occultic nonsense in my secularist / semi-pagan days in the 70s, I am particularly aware of the wickedness and non-biblical nature of such things, and have denounced them at every turn.

I used to have, for example, many links of material refuting these things on my Heresies web page, until I redesigned my web pages for this blog and cut out many links that I used to have (see, for example, the archived page from May 2006: the final section: Occult / Reincarnation / Wicca / New Age Movement) . So not only am I quite aware of biblical prohibitions of these things, but I have been so my entire time of doing serious apologetics (26 years, or maybe longer than Douglas Mabry has been alive). Yet he continues to make out that I am not aware of this stuff, or the extent of it in the Bible. What does it take?

Mr. Armstrong states that he has condemned the practice of consulting the dead, and that this is not an issue.

Correct. Give the man a cigar and a free trip to Cheboygan, Michigan (as one of my history professors at Wayne State in Detroit used to say).

Now, Mr. Armstrong uses this passage [1 Samuel 28] in a positive manner to build his “argument.” Yet Mr. Armstrong also says that he condemns the occult practices mentioned in the passage. Let’s see how this works out in regards to his premise.

Because God desires contact between those in heaven and those on earth, He did or did not consider it sin for Saul to ask his servants to “Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.”

Of course God considered it a sin for Saul to seek the assistance of a medium, as I have repeatedly stated. It was expressly condemned in the Mosaic Law. Here we go having to repeat ourselves again. I already dealt with this, more or less, in my last reply:

1 Samuel 28:12,14-15 (Samuel): the prophet Samuel appeared to King Saul to prophesy his death. The current consensus among biblical commentators (e.g., The New Bible Commentary, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary) is that it was indeed Samuel the prophet, not an impersonating demon (since it happened during a sort of seance with the so-called "witch or medium of Endor"). This was the view of, e.g., St. Justin Martyr, Origen, and St. Augustine, among others. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 6:19-20 reinforces the latter interpretation: "Samuel . . . after he had fallen asleep he prophesied and revealed to the king his death, and lifted up his voice out of the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people."

This is an abridged version of the same argument made in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (pp. 106-107), and that book was completed in 1996.

For Saul to actually converse with Samuel this is the route that he had to take.

Here is where Mabry's misunderstandings really start to affect his argument for the worse, so that it digresses into straw-men bashing. I was not arguing for the entire process of the medium as the way to get to Samuel at all. No one can find any such argument in any of my papers or books -- and this was made very clear in my sweeping condemnations of occultic practices, in the same section of my book, The One-Minute Apologist, that James White critiqued (cited again in my blog reply).

What I was arguing for was simply one aspect of this event: the fact (held by many commentators -- hence my mention of two) that the real prophet Samuel seems to have appeared to Saul, to prophesy to him and tell him the truth, as no demon would have done. Now, if true (and many Protestant commentators think this is what happened), it would be an evidence in favor (as I have stated) of the proposition that "God (at least at times) wants contact to occur between departed saints and people on earth."

We know absolutely that this was the case at the Transfiguration and those who rose from their graves after the crucifixion and (most probably) the Two Witnesses in Revelation, so if this case holds also, then it would merely be one of four such instances in Scripture. This premise of God desiring such contact is only a precursor for the communion of saints: not the entirety of the communion of saints.

Hence when Mabry and others think I am trying to prove the whole ball of wax from this passage, they are all wet, because I never intended to do any such thing, and I think I made this quite clear. If not before, then certainly now, beyond all doubt, since this is my third crack at it, and third reiteration and clarification of the same argument. Therefore, it's not my exegetical deficiency or lack of comprehension of biblical prohibitions against occultism, but rather, Mabry's logical shortcomings and difficulty in comprehending opposing positions (not helped at all by the strongest bias against them, coming from a hostile anti-Catholic outlook in the first place).

As one may recall, Mr. Armstrong would most naturally say that he condemns to the practice that Saul set out to do. Yet on the other hand, since Mr. Armstrong used the example of Saul and Samuel in a positive manner, the events leading up to their interaction would be necessary for that interaction to take place.

Not at all. God simply chose to intervene in the midst of a forbidden practice by allowing Samuel to appear to Saul and rebuke him. God can do whatever He wants. He made a donkey talk once, didn't He? Does Doug Mabry think that God can't cause a departed saint who is more alive than all of us are, to come back to earth to rebuke a king for his own good? How is it necessary for me to accept a seance in order for me to accept the fact that Samuel really appeared? It's not at all.

So does Mr. Armstrong condemn this or not?

I condemn (for the umpteenth time) the wicked occultic practice.

To remain consistent in his positive use of this passage, he would have to either disregard what is condemned in this passage, or he must be very much unaware of the sin taking place.

Absolutely not. I don't have to do, either. It's a logical fallacy. I condemn what was wrong and should be condemned, but that plays no part in my argument, because my argument was only that the real Samuel appeared, and that this is one proof that God desires a contact between those in heaven and those on earth. Period. End of sentence.

Again, Mr. Armstrong has stated that the interaction between Saul and Samuel is a positive in establishing the likelihood of prayer to the (departed, dead from our point of view) saints for intercession.

Nope. I argued that Samuel's appearance (not the means to supposedly "contact" him) establishes a necessary premise for same (desired contact between heaven and earth). Once again, Mabry has not grasped the nature of my argument. And this is the last time I will explain it. If he doesn't get it now, he never will.

Yet the apparent contradiction remains for Mr. Armstrong to unravel.

I just did, for the second time. There ain't no contradiction at all.

Just how does he condemn as sin the actions leading up to the interaction Saul sought, and his use of that interaction as part of a positive establishment of his argument and thesis?

Simple: by denying that I used the means "Saul sought" as any part of my argument in the first place. This is a red herring; a straw man.

But it is here that one must make another interesting observation. Notice that no actual intercession took place. There was only the repetition of what Samuel had already told Saul. There was no invocation on the part of Saul to Samuel that he go before God. Yet this would seem to go against the very grain of what Mr. Armstrong seeks to establish.

It's completely irrelevant, since the argument only sought to prove desired contact between heaven and earth. That can take place without one word being uttered by the people on earth. But in this instance, Saul did indeed talk to Samuel. It was a two-way conversation. Saul actually wanted to know what Samuel thought, even though he went about it in a forbidden way (1 Sam 28:15). It's not exactly like asking a saint to pray for one but I never stated that it was in the first place, so that's neither here nor there. Mabry has simply assumed that I have some such illogical notion in my head that is not there.

Once more, one wonders if Mr. Armstrong is aware, or if he just disregards, the prohibition and condemnation placed on the use of mediums and the consultation of the dead.

And once more I reiterate that I am fully aware of such things. Man, this is tedious. . . . Lord, grant me supreme patience . . .

In fact, Mr. Armstrong either ignored or overlooked this one passage of scripture given in my initial response:

13 So Saul died for his breach of faith. He broke faith with the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance. 14 He did not seek guidance from the LORD. Therefore the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse. 1 Chronicles 10:13-14

Contrary to Mr. Armstrong attempting a positive case for the invocation or intercession of departed saints, we see how God saw this event. It is a true pity that Mr. Armstrong cannot.

I don't have to "ignore" something I already assume, and which has nothing directrly to do with my argument. Saul was wicked and died by God's will and hand. I'm supposedly ignorant of this?
How ridiculous is that? Any dolt or imbecile who read the Old Testament and had a fourth-grade reading comprehension would know this.

Commenter Carrie repeated the same fallacies noted above:

Using an act that is condemned by scripture, both directly and indirectly, to make an arguement [sic] looks really bad.

First, you have to prove that the spirit was truly Samuel.

Indeed, and I did that by citing two reputable Protestant commentaries. More on that below . . .

Second, any awareness by the spirit of the earthly happenings could have come entirely from God for that moment.

God makes all things possible. That forms no argument against what I am saying. It's simply a truism. I've noted again and again that it is because of God's power that the saints can be aware of the earth and our intercessory requests at all.

I don’t believe that the witch actually conjured up Samuel . . .

Neither do I.

. . . and that his message was his own based on his “awareness” of the situation.

He was certainly aware. If you say that is because God made him aware, I say "of course." But he was still aware, and that is what I am trying to establish, among other things in my overall apologetic for the communion of saints.

God was 100% behind that encounter.

Samuel being His prophet in the first place, of course He was, How could He not be? That's as silly as saying that "Dave Armstrong was 100% behind his daughter telling the truth to her brother when her brother was doing something wrong." Would anyone be foolish enough to think that a parent would not be "behind" such a thing? But in this case, God not only approved, but made the whole thing possible in the first place.

Since it has been made a sticking point as to whether this was really Samuel or not, I shall cite some Protestant scholars, starting with one of my original two sources (I don't have the other in my library any longer):

The narrative strongly suggests that this really was Samuel, and not a mere apparition or hallucination. The foreknowledge and uncompromising statements attributed to him in the verses that follow also stamp him as being genuinely Samuel.

(Eerdmans Bible Commentary [formerly New Bible Commentary], edited by D. Guthrie and J.A. Motyer, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, third revised edition, 1970, 301)

[M]any eminent writers (considering that the apparition came before her arts were put into practice; that she herself was surprised and alarmed; that the prediction of Saul's own death and the defeat of his forces was confidently made), are of the opinion that Samuel really appeared.

(Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,1961, from 1864 original, 227)

The whole shows that it was no human fraud or trick. Though the woman could not cause Samuel's being sent, yet Saul's inquiry might be the occasion of it. The woman's surprise and terror proved that it was an unusual and unexpected appearance. Saul had despised Samuel's solemn warnings in his lifetime, yet now that he hoped, as in defiance of God, to obtain some counsel and encouragement from him, might not God permit the soul of his departed prophet to appear to Saul, to confirm his former sentence, and denounce his doom? The expression, "Thou and thy sons shall be with me," means no more than that they shall be in the eternal world. There appears much solemnity in God's permitting the soul of a departed prophet to come as a witness from heaven, to confirm the word he had spoken on earth. (1Sa 28:20-25)

(Matthew Henry Commentary)

That Samuel did appear on this occasion, is most evident from the text; nor can this be denied from any legitimate mode of interpretation: and it is as evident that he was neither raised by the power of the devil nor the incantations of the witch, for the appearances which took place at this time were such as she was wholly unacquainted with. Her familiar did not appear; and from the confused description she gives, it is fully evident that she was both surprised and alarmed at what she saw, being so widely different from what she expected to see.

(Adam Clarke Commentary)

As will be seen, we regard the apparition of Samuel not as trickery by the woman, but as real - nor yet as caused by the devil, but as allowed and willed of God. A full discussion of our reasons for this view would be evidently out of place.

(Edersheim's Bible History)