Online Resources: The Saints

St. Bernadette Soubirous (1844 -1879)

[Her] body was first exhumed 30 years after her death. On September 2, 1909, in the presence of representatives appointed by the postulators of the cause, two doctors, and the sister of the community, the coffin was removed . . . On opening the lid, they discerned no odor and the virginal body lay exposed, completely victorious over the laws of nature. The arms and face were completely unaffected from corruption and had maintained their natural skin tone. . . . The second exhumation took place at the end of the Process on April 3, 1919. The body of the Venerable was found in the same state of preservation as 10 years earlier, except that the face was slightly discolored, due to the washing it had undergone during the first exhumation.

[ source for photo and text: "Saints Alive" website]

Catholic Pages Directory: Saints [LOTS of different kinds of resources listed here]

Catholic Online: Saints & Angels

Calendar of Saints

Patron Saints - Alphabetically (+ another similar resource)

Saints (Resources for Catholic Educators site)

Saints FAQ (AmericanCatholic.org)

Saints, Martyrs, and Other Holy Persons (CIN)

Saints Alive: Authentic Relics of the Saints (including images)

Saints Proclaimed by Pope John Paul II

Saints For Sinners, Alban Goodier, S.J. (online book)

Church History in Light of the Saints, Joseph A. Dunney (online book)

This Blog Just Got Easier to Navigate (Two New Features)

[ source ]

On the top of the sidebar are my navigational features. The first takes the reader to my familiar alphabetical "card catalogue" or "table" layout of topical index pages (a style that goes back to the earliest days of my original website of the same name, that was begun in February 1997 (see an example from 1998). That table is also always the second post from the top of my blog (after my book sale post). It is also color-coded by four broad categories, for your convenience.

From there one can follow any one of 48 categories, which are in turn usually divided into sub-categories. The second icon down (of the house) takes the reader to the home page (since you may have gotten here from a link to a single paper).

After these are the two brand-new features: Recent Posts and Recent Comments. The first, especially, is long overdue, and I apologize to users of my blog for being so tardy getting it onto the sidebar. This will allow readers to look over the ten posts currently on the front page and go right to one of them if they should so desire, without all the scrolling that has too often driven people nuts on my blog. Note: I have three posts pinned to the top at all times (Book Sales / Catalogue Table / Open Forum), so that leaves seven additional ones that can be accessed immediately.

Note: I discovered the day after I wrote this that the ten recent posts are listed if one goes to my present front page or home page. If you click on the tenth, or bottom post on the current page, the recent posts then shown will be the next ten posts after the (10th) one selected. Readers can thus keep scrolling conveniently into the past archives, chronologically by choosing the bottom post listed over and over, rather than scrolling through lengthy posts manually. This is another great convenience.

I'll do my best to keep the most popular recent posts (judging by response) as part of the seven non-permanent ones that are on the front page at any given time. I've had eighteen posts displayed for a while, but I'm going back to the ten I have usually had since the blog began. That way the entire front page can be easily accessed from the top of the sidebar, and older posts can be found through the other search features, including the monthly archives further down the sidebar.

Frustrating days on my blog are gone forever! Keep your hair!

The Recent Comments feature right under the Recent Posts allows readers to view at a glance the most recent Haloscan / combox remarks (by name), and to go right to them. This is particularly helpful during the weekend when activity is a lot less, or to go right to a discussion that one is personally involved in without the hassle of scrolling. I'll be using both of these features quite a bit myself!

Under that is the Blog Search Engine, from Google. This will find anything that is on my site, based on some key search words. I also use this a lot, because, after now more than 1850 papers, I'll forget sometimes where certain of my arguments are located.

Yet another different way to search is Blogger's "Search Blog" feature, at the very top left of your screen. That will post entire papers, rather than a Google-type listing. Once these posts are on the screen, one can search with the "control-f" capacity of any keyboard. I use that all the time. It's extremely useful to avoid looking all through papers.

Happy reading!

Yet Another Reply to Bum Raps Against Apologetics

St. Paul preaching at Mars Hill in Athens to all the "enlightened thinkers" of the time.

A Catholic wrote on the Coming Home Network discussion board where I moderate, that apologetics was "useless" and that it consisted of "people arguing their little points always taken out of context." She proclaimed loudly that she had "no use for apologetics" and that "arguing little points settles nothing and only further polarizes."

Well, as you can imagine, that didn't sit well with me, so I had a bit to say about it!:

* * * * *

Most people (at least those who are here) see the self-evident value of apologetics. When someone blasts apologetics altogether, then I must speak up and show the unreasonableness of this position, especially in a forum where so many people are here in the first place because of the apologetics constantly exhibited on The Journey Home and in written conversion testimonies and the largely apologetic writings that CHNI sells precisely in order to help new and prospective converts. CHNI is essentially an apologetic enterprise (which was a big reason, I think, why I was hired).

CHNI is also quite "pastoral" and a support system on a basic human level of understanding and empathy, but apologetics works hand in hand with that. It has to, because people who are considering converting ask tons of questions (usually quite good ones) and some sort of answer has to be provided, and there is your apologetics.

You can tell a person what Catholics believe, which is catechesis, but as soon as they ask, "why do you believe that?" or "how can that belief be squared with the Bible?" and so forth, then you are in the realm of apologetics, whether you want to be or not, and whether you personally "like" apologetics or not. It won't be sufficient to merely say, "believe it and take it on faith and don't ask questions. Shut down your mind, because this is a faith question, not a rational consideration." That does no one any good. That's no better than being in a mind-control cult.

St. Paul certainly liked apologetics, since he is often described as "arguing" and "reasoning" with and "persuading" and "dialoguing" with both Jews and Greeks, and we see him most definitely doing apologetics (in a very clever and useful way) at Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17).

A major reason people who don't like apologetics do so, in my opinion, from long observation, is either because they are no good at it themselves (some people frown upon what they are unable to do) or because they observe other people doing it badly, and they throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a very common emotional response to many things: the equation of a thing with its corruption or poorly understood manifestations of same.

And so apologetics is often equated with useless quarreling and wrangling (because many indeed who claim the mantle of "apologetics" on the Internet unfortunately too often do little more than that), which approach is indeed condemned repeatedly by St. Paul.

But that isn't what apologetics is, anymore than a calm, constructive father-to-son or mother-to-daughter discussion is to be equated with a family spat or true quarrel, filled with accusations and insults and yelling and (as the case may be) cussing.

Another, less hostile person wrote: "I think authors/apologists tend to lose credibility when they are constantly criticizing other denominations. It sort of goes against the teachings of Christ."

Not at all (as to the latter assertion). I fully agree that folks should emphasize a positive, proactive message, but on the other hand, the Bible is filled with denunciations of false teaching. Jesus' most "negative" utterances were directed against the Pharisees. He even called them "vipers" and "whitewashed tombs" and "the blind leading the blind." St. Paul goes on and on about various errors and names people like "Alexander the Coppersmith" who had opposed him. I could give innumerable examples. He is constantly correcting false teaching, and states, for example:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to truth and wander into myths.

(2 Timothy 4:3-4; RSV)

St. Peter opposed false teachings as soon as he started preaching after Pentecost. He opposed Ananaias and Sapphira, accused them of lying to the Holy Spirit, and in fact they were both judged and struck dead by God (Acts 5:2-11). This is arguably the first "anathema." He rebuked Simon for trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-24): what is now known as "simony". The Apostle John is thought to be often opposing the Gnostics in his Gospel (as many commentaries note).

The Church Fathers continued this practice. They were always opposing false doctrines and heresies and sects. St. Augustine, the greatest father of all, wrote tons against the Donatists and Manichaeans (his own former group) and the Pelagians. Athanasius wrote against the Arians, etc., etc. They condemned the errors and then appealed to the Catholic Church as the truth because its doctrines had been passed down and preserved without corruption.

The Council of Trent (like all ecumenical councils) was largely devoted to correcting errors (that is, criticizing others). It had to do this, because it was condemning the falsehoods that Protestantism had brought in. The Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorianism; Chalcedon in 451 took on Monophysitism, etc. The Council of Nicaea anathematized Arianism.

It's always been this way and always will. A large part of the task of an apologist like myself is to correct errors as well as defend the truth (in fact, this is largely part of my specifically-delegated task as a staff member of CHNI; I'm a sort of "doctrinal watchdog"). They are really two sides of the same coin. One tries to do it in as nice and non-personal way as possible, but many people are bound to be offended when they are told that they are wrong, by the standard of the Church and the Bible and Apostolic Tradition, etc.

But aren't we "judging others" when we say they're wrong? Is that not a lack of love (so the objection goes)? No we're not "judging" in that bad sense of the word (i.e., hypocritically or uncharitably condemning), if in fact they are in error. To correct someone and set them back on the right path is, in fact, quite a loving thing to do (as every loving, concerned parent who disciplines their child understands full well).

Of course we are to exercise Christian, unconditional love. Part of that love is to rebuke someone in love, for their good, not to harm or belittle them. Love is not always touchy-feely, warm fuzzies, peaches and cream. It's not just us, personally, who are right, but the Church, which is larger than we are.

I do agree, though, that there are a not insignificant number of apologists (real or imagined) who have a problem with tone (though the problem is often overstated or exaggerated). With the Internet, many people call themselves "apologists" but have insufficient background to do so, and give others a bad name (I had been a Catholic over six years, and published in books and several magazines and had even written my first book before I ever had a website at all).

Believe me, I know of this problem, because I often have to receive a brunt of criticism because of baggage people have, in reacting to others doing apologetics in a poor way, setting a bad example (one becomes a sort of scapegoat, I suppose). So I'm quite aware of it, and I have advised folks many times to tone it down, when I thought they were doing apologetics badly.

And others have told me to "tone it down", too, when the occasion warranted it, as I am not perfect, and with the large volume of words that I write and number of people and different belief-systems I interact with, it is very difficult to be perfect in tone, charity, and speech (thus I have issued many public apologies when I thought I blew it). Who ever does a perfect job? We all fall often in matters of control of the tongue. But, that said, one can know if he has enough patience and knowledge, by and large, to deal with "difficult" individuals in such debate, and those who differ, or whether to wisely refrain from doing so.

Anyway, I want to emphasize that both things are important, and are harmonious with each other:

1) We need to exercise the love of Christ and express ourselves gently and charitably.

and:

2) At times, we need to correct doctrinal or ethical error (bishops and priests and teachers and catechists and apologists all the more so), and do it in the spirit of #1. This is not contrary to #1 at all, and in fact, is an aspect of it, as error never did anyone any good. If we can't do #2 with the spirit of #1, then we shouldn't do it at all, in many cases, and should ask someone more charitable to do it, so as to avoid hypocrisy and possibly scandal.

I was asked if everyone is "called to be an apologist." Obviously not all are called to apologetics as a vocation or occupation, as I have been. I think, though, that in some way every Christian should at least have a rudimentary understanding of why they believe what they believe, in order to bear witness to others if asked. That can be obtained by reading just one or two good apologetic books. This is the bare minimum, in my opinion. Reading a book or two or hearing some lectures or attending one apologetic conference certainly won't put anyone out.

On the other hand, not everyone can become an expert on everything. That's why people specialize and become theology professors or priests or nuns or catechists or lay apologists (or a church musician or eucharistic minister, etc.). Different parts of the Body . . .: that's how God designed it, "each with his own gift." Whatever gift God gives us, we ought to put to good use: whether we are in the medical profession or an engineer or janitor or baker or waitress; whatever it is: whether exalted in this world or looked down upon.

And I say the work of the mother and housewife is the most important work of all in this world; I always contend that what my wife does as a homeschooling mom is more important than what I do. All work is honorable and no one should feel any shame, but all should use their God-given abilities as best they can.

St. Paul changed his method according to his hearers (1 Cor 9:19-23). Hence on Mars Hill in Athens: the intellectual center of the world at that time, he spoke in a way we don't see him speak anywhere else. He quotes pagan Greek poets and philosophers, talks about Greek idols, and makes an analogical philosophical argument.

In approaching issues of basic apologetics, we all have to accept the word of scholars at some point. A few books read along these lines will help our faith and our confidence in the objective facts of Christianity, and aid us in gaining more confidence. But everyone who seeks to do apologetics should be thoroughly prepared. I always tell people not to get too zealous without adequately studying up first.

Having a desire to get to the place of what might be called "apologetic confidence" is already three-quarters of the battle. So many people care little about the things of God and theology, let alone about sharing it with anyone else in a cogent fashion. If someone has the desire, they'll get there in due course. All they have to do is read on some basic topics. And there is plenty online that can be read for free now. All of Chesterton's apologetic books are available, etc.

Someone recounted their experience in sparring with an atheist professor: "I posted links for said [NT documentary] evidence, [but] I was laughed to scorn since I could not provide it myself. He claimed there was more evidence to the contrary, including archaeological."

Why are you required to know everything on the spot? You never claimed to be a Bible scholar or professional apologist. You providing a link is no more laughable than a scholar recommending a book in a footnote. He was acting like an arrogant ass, in my opinion. Tell him to produce this "evidence" he refers to, by all means. Most of these types of guys know very little about the Bible. I've always marveled at this.

I'll be debating some professor of philosophy, and he fancies himself an expert on Scripture. But now he is on my turf, the area I've studied for over 30 years now, and it doesn't go well for him when I point out some basic things that he is ignorant of (I have many such debates on my site. I'm not exaggerating at all).

Knowledge and scholarly attainment in one area doesn't automatically transfer into another. It's not that I have all the answers, at all (I certainly don't): in these cases it is so often the sheer ignorance of the atheist in biblical and theological matters that makes them easy to refute. I have many papers about this. I've seen it again and again.

They think they know so much about the Bible and Christanity, but almost invariably it turns out that they really don't, and it is only bluster to intimidate the Christian, and intellectual arrogance. And if you dare to critique their "deconversion" stories, as I have, to show that the reasons why they forsook Christianity fall short, to say the least, they go spastic. One such case was John Loftus, who runs the blog, Debunking Christianity, and has a book out that is selling decently for its type (Loftus "interactions": one / two / three / four / five).

These same supposedly oh-so-smart people will deny, for example, that Jesus ever existed: a perfectly ridiculous thing to believe. Mainly, I'm trying to get across that we Christians (of whatever stripe) need not be so intimidated by these folks. They can be effectively answered more easily than is thought. See my Atheism and Agnosticism and Philosophy, Science, & Christianity pages.

A Curious Luther Citation Examined in Extreme Depth (Part Three)

See Part One

See Part Two

XIX. The Catholic Interpretation of the Context in German

Catholics must provide a solid contextual interpretation (because the accusation all along has been that the quotation was snatched from context and isolated, thus leading to a false impression of what Luther meant). I have already made an ambitious start in that endeavor in section VIII above. More is forthcoming, including the analysis of a Professor of German of our citation, based on the context of the original work in German (we have photocopies of the beginning of it, from the Weimar Werke collection, obtained at the University of Detroit). We also have photocopies of the relevant sections from the Erlangen and Walch editions (obtained at Concordia University library in Ann Arbor).

Nothing in this hypothesis that we are in the process of setting forth involves the notion that Luther ever rejected his own principle of sola Scriptura. He did not. Repeat: he did not. But he begrudgingly faced up to certain realities and reluctantly suggested how they would have to be dealt with, given the human condition and the deteriorating situation with regard to Protestant doctrinal unity. And in this sense, Catholics (and the Protestant Leibniz) have been perfectly justified in using these words of his and have not falsely presented it at all.

XX. The Latin Translation of Catholic Johannes Cochlaeus

[see also the related Sections XII, XIV, and XVIII of Part Two]

We have now obtained (courtesy of the relentless research efforts of Paul Hoffer: thanks, good buddy!) a copy in Latin of the relevant portion of Johannes Cochlaeus' 1543 work, De Canonicae scripturae & Catholicae Ecclesiae autoritate, ad Henricum Bullingerum Iohannis Cochlaei libellus, which was published in 1543 (Ingolstadt, Alexander Weissenhorn), 16 years after Luther's original German work, on "This is My Body". As previously noted, it predates the Latin translation of Matthaeus Judex by 13 years.

This Cochlaeus treatise was made note of in the book Luther's Lives: Two Contemporary Accounts (translated by Elizabeth Vandiver, Ralph Keen, Thomas D. Frazel; Manchester Univ. Press: 2002), p. 375, footnote 31. It is found in the book Opuscula, published in 1968 by Gregg Press (available in 32 libraries). Our Luther quote is found in Chapter XI, entitled De Autoritate Generalium Conciliorum. Paul Hoffer observed:

Cochlaeus is quoting Luther in support of an argument that he is making against something that Bullinger wrote. It would make no sense for Cochlaeus to quote Luther out of context or wrongly because the argument could then be easily refuted by Bullinger who certainly had copies of Luther's works in his possession. Bullinger responded and Cochlaeus then wrote a reply. I guess the question becomes: why didn't Bullinger refute the quote in his response, or if he did why haven't our Protestant friends proffered it for the reader's consideration?

Here is the citation with the preceding context. It concludes a section and line of thought, so that the following section isn't particularly relevant for contextual determinations. It was translated by my good friend John McAlpine, who has a Masters Degree in Linguistics from the University of Michigan, and who teaches Latin to various homeschoolers, with a small degree of input from myself on matters of English style. When it gets to the citation under consideration, I have used the 1886 English translation from the Latin, of Henry Benedict Mackey, seen in Part I, section III, under St. Francis de Sales:

[the previous paragraph dealt with the infallibility of councils and the Protestant denial of same]

With regard to this, if you foolishly condemn these things you can [also], with no shame, condemn the testimony of Luther (whom you called a reformer of true Christian doctrine) concerning Councils. He, however, when he was reprimanded by the most learned theologian, Dr. Johann Eck, for holding the General Councils as nothing, responded affirmatively. Whoever has read my Resolutions and my Dialogue Against Sylvester, understands that this is not a difficulty of mine, inasmuch as I uniquely deplore and bemoan this business, and he understands that these works are not unworthy for legitimizing a Council. No, rather, writing against your friends Zwingli and Oecolampadius, on behalf of the substance and truth of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, he says thus: If the world last long it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of the faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge.

Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum erit necessarium, ut propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, Conciliorum Decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus.

I shall make an argument defending Cochlaeus' translation from context. In its present form, it occurred to me this very night, as we were working on the translation. We see the differences in the Latin above and its fairly literal English translation, and the English rendering of the German in LW, vol. 37, p. 17:

If the world lasts much longer, men will, as the ancients did, once more turn to human schemes on account of this dissension, and again issue laws and regulations to keep the people in the unity of the faith.

I summarized the significant linguistic differences of the Latin version in Part I, section V, as follows:

1. It will again be necessary . . . (necessarium)

2. Because of different Scriptural interpretations . . . (diversas Scripturae interpretationes)

3. To receive the decrees of councils . . . (Conciliorum decreta recipiamus)

4. And take refuge in them. (confugiamus)

The differences, then, have to do with the notions of 1) necessity of Councils, 2) dissensions specifically concerning Scripture, 3) using the word Council (Conciliorum), and 4) taking refuge in such Councils. Can these terms be justified in context? Every translation must take context into consideration to some extent. Context often helps to interpret what a writer means by a specific word.

I had speculated early on, in section VI, that translation method may be very much in play here, and that the Latin may have been utilizing more of a paraphrase or thought-for-thought method, as seen in various Bible translations (for example, the NIV). This was later confirmed by a scholar writing specifically about prevailing 16th century translation methods (see Section XVI).

Moreover, it was shown that Luther himself used this method for his own famous and influential German translation of the Bible (Section XVII). Therefore, so the argument would go, if this was standard practice in the 16th century, and even Luther used it, then whence comes the accusation against Cochlaeus or whomever else we may discover who translated Luther into Latin, that they were out of bounds for doing the same thing that most translators of the period, including Luther, did?

In other words, translation method explains differences, as opposed to the more cynical take of overt theological bias of deliberate mistranslation. That is the "linguistic" argument. But can there also be an argument in favor of the Latin rendering, from the context itself? I'd like to presently flesh it out a bit. 

Necessity (necessarium)

. . . the Christians knew no other way to cope with these problems than to call many councils.

. . . we also needed the laws and the interpretations of the councils . . .

It will again be necessary . . .

Dissensions concerning scriptural interpretation
(diversas Scripturae interpretationes)

. . . creating a real brawl over Scripture and producing many sects, heresies, and factions among Christians. Since every faction claimed Scripture for itself and interpreted it according to its own understanding . . .

Once Scripture had become like a broken net and no one would be restrained by it, but everyone made a hole in it wherever it pleased him to poke his snout, and followed his own opinions, interpreting and twisting Scripture any way he pleased, . . .

When the devil saw this he jeered and thought: . . . It serves my purpose well that they should neglect the Word and not dispute over the Scriptures, but that at this very point they should be at peace and believe what the councils and the fathers say.

What can they expect to accomplish with quarrels over the Scriptures and the things of God they do not understand?

This is the way the plot worked out for the fathers: Since they contrived to have the Scriptures without quarreling and dissension . . . Then, of course, dissension and contention over the Scriptures necessarily ceased . . .

Once more there will arise a brawl over the Scriptures, and such dissension and so many factions that we may well say with St. Paul, “The mystery of lawlessness is already at work” [II Thess. 2:7] . . .

. . . on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist . . .

LW: . . . on account of this dissension, . . .

In short, the devil is too clever and too mighty for us. He resists and hinders us at every point. When we wish to deal with Scripture, he stirs up so much dissension and quarreling over it that we lose our interest in it and become reluctant to trust it.

. . . he will create such dissension and sectarianism over the Scriptures that you will not know where Scriptures, faith, Christ, and you yourself stand.

For this reason I am not worried that this fanaticism will last long. It is much too crude and impudent, and it does not attack obscure and uncertain Scripture but clear, plain Scripture, as we shall hear.

Councils and resulting decrees, or laws and regulations
(Conciliorum Decreta recipiamus)

. . . call many councils. In these they issued many outward laws and ordinances alongside Scripture, in order to keep the people together in the face of these divisions.

As a result of this undertaking (though they meant well), arose the sayings that the Scriptures were not sufficient, that we also needed the laws and the interpretations of the councils and the fathers.

. . . we should receive the Councils and decrees . . .

LW: . . . turn to human schemes . . . and again issue laws and regulations . . .

Take refuge in, or flee to councils (confugiamus)

. . . no other way to cope with these problems than to call many councils.

When the devil saw this he jeered and thought: . . . It serves my purpose well that . . . they should be at peace and believe what the councils and the fathers say.

. . . and fly to them for refuge.

LW: . . . once more turn to . . .

If we wish to stand upon the councils and counsels of men, we lose the Scriptures altogether and remain in the devil’s possession body and soul.

We see, then, that in every aspect which might appear "different" at first, Cochlaeus was merely following ideas that Luther has already made abundantly clear in context, both before and after our quote. Ergo: it is not translation bias at all that is a factor here. The context, combined with the knowledge we have of a certain freedom to paraphrase and to translate thought-for-thought in the 16th century, work together to more or less prove that Cochlaeus was up to no nefarious mischief at all. He did nothing wrong; nor did those who (apparently) cited him through the years.

We know that when Luther wrote about that entity which is translated as "human schemes" in LW and "human contrivances" by Grisar / Lamond, that he is referring cynically to councils. We can easily determine this based on the parallelism that has just been demonstrated (all following citations are from Luther's Works):

. . . councils. In these they issued many outward laws and ordinances . . .

. . . the laws and the interpretations of the councils . . .

. . . turn to human schemes . . . and again issue laws and regulations . . .

Or, more simply and schematically:

councils -----> issued . . . laws and ordinances

councils ----> [issue] laws and regulations

human schemes ----> issue laws and regulations

Ergo, councils = human schemes

Therefore, Cochlaeus was entirely justified in considering this context and using the word Conciliorum, despite the fact that it is not literally present in the German. It makes perfect sense from context and logic, so that if absolute word-for-word translation is not required, he can do instead a thought-for-thought translation. No one can question that Luther believed this particular thing (i.e., that he thought men would turn to councils because they had in the past, even though he despises the whole thing), because he says it elsewhere in the same treatise. There is no question that Church councils are discussed repeatedly in this work.

Beyond that, it is interesting also to note that in the very next paragraph after our citation, Luther (in both the Walch and Erlangen German editions of this work, and also in Weimar) uses the Latin word concilia (council) in the midst of his otherwise German writing. So there can be no absolute objection to Cochlaeus using the word Conciliorum in the preceding paragraph. My friend John also pointed out that there is a wordplay in Latin between concilia (council) and consilia (schemes, counsel). This wordplay is even preserved in English (council, counsel, consul, etc.).

It's conceivable that Luther might have had this notion in his head when he chose to cynically describe councils as "schemes" in our citation, whereas he had simply used "council" elsewhere in his treatise. He may possibly have been thinking of the Latin wordplay (since he also wrote much in Latin) and switched from "council" to "counsel". Luther's Works even includes the wordplay in English in its translation of this paragraph: "If we wish to stand upon the councils and counsels of men, we lose the Scriptures altogether." Just an interesting speculation; no more . . . .

XXI. The 1556 "Official" Latin Lutheran Version of Matthaeus Judex

Awaiting library availability . . .

See Part One

See Part Two

Apostolic Succession Based on Biblical Data / Supposed "Prooftexting" & Protestant Reluctance to Discuss Bible Text Interpretations With Catholics

The following exchange occurred on the website Evangelical Catholicity. I was responding to one part of the post Holy Orders, Ordination, and Apostolic Succession, by Gabe Martini. I think it is a case study of how what should have been a simple, straightforward discussion on biblical interpretation and the biblical basis for a particular notion, got off track to digression upon digression on methodology and various aspects of Catholicism, rather than the topic at hand. Gabe Martini's words will be in green; Jonathan Bonomo's in blue. My cited words will be indented.

This is somewhat of a follow-up to the post on the necessity of Bishops.

I have the following questions which I would like to see fleshed-out from all parties:

1. What is Biblically necessary for proper Ordination unto the Ministry, or Holy Orders?

2. What is Apostolic Succession? How does Apostolic Succession relate to the validity of Ordination?

3. How can we move towards greater Catholicity in these areas, in the greater catholic Church (i.e., Protestants, Eastern, and Western Catholics)?

Please speak with charity, humility, and love in this discussion. There will be no “warnings” before blatantly and intentionally offensive posts are removed. Thank you.

St. Paul teaches us (Ephesians 2:20) that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ Himself chose (John 6:70, Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18). In Mark 6:30 the twelve original disciples of Jesus are called apostles, and Matthew 10:1-5 and Revelation 21:14 speak of the twelve apostles.

After Judas defected, the remaining eleven Apostles appointed his successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). Since Judas is called a bishop (episkopos) in this passage (1:20), then by logical extension all the Apostles can be considered bishops (albeit of an extraordinary sort).

If the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D.

In like fashion, St. Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between Apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles.

As a corollary, we are also informed in Scripture that the Church itself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18). Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another?

All of this biblical data is harmonious with the ecclesiological views of the Catholic Church. There has been some development over the centuries, but in all essentials, the biblical Church and clergy and the Catholic Church and clergy are one and the same.

… we are also informed in Scripture that the Church itself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18)

Is the Church infallible or is the Church the defender of the infallible Truth in God’s Word? Surely experience alone shows the absurdity in claiming the Church is infallible, does it not?

Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another?

I guess I’d ask you the same thing in regards to Transubstantiation/taking the Supper away from children, restricting marriage in the priesthood, veneration of Mary and saints, Mary as co-redeemer or mediator, the Papacy, Papal infallibility, and on and on and on.

* * *

Is the Church infallible or is the Church the defender of the infallible Truth in God’s Word?

Both. Acts 15:28-29 clearly shows infallibility at work in a Church council.

Surely experience alone shows the absurdity in claiming the Church is infallible, does it not?

Rightly understood, not at all. If God can preserve a written document from error, though written by sinful men through inspiration of the Spirit, then surely He can also enable a Church (composed of sinful men) with a written corpus of doctrine to be infallible. Why is one more difficult than the other? We believe not only that He can do so, but that He has in fact. It takes faith. Protestants simply lack the amount of faith required to believe in an infallible Church. I understand that. Infallibility was once the most difficult thing for me to accept. My thought was so thoroughly Protestant that it seemed unthinkable.

I asked: “Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another?” You didn’t answer my question, but I’m happy to answer your eight:

1) Transubstantiation: the real presence is taught in Scripture itself, and the real presence is the essential aspect of “change of substance,” because the change involves becoming the Body and Blood of Christ. The rest is straightforward development of doctrine.

2) taking the Supper away from children: based on the concept of the age of reason. Lots of things are withheld from children: like marriage, ordination, military service. Also, if one doesn’t believe in the substantial presence of Christ in Holy Communion, then of course it is no big deal for children to partake, as it is just a bit of bread and grape juice and kids eat and drink those at home.

3) restricting marriage in the priesthood: based on St. Paul’s principle of the preferability of singleness for the sake of more concentrated devotion to God (1 Cor 7). This is a perfectly good biblical principle. I never saw that it was some terrible thing, even when I was Protestant. Of course it would be if one presupposed (over against Scripture) that it is impossible not to marry or to live without sex.

4) veneration of Mary: if an angel “hails” Mary (Luke 1:28), then why not human beings, too?

5) veneration of saints [this reasoning applies especially to Mary, the Mother of God]:

[cited long excerpt from A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: pp. 102-104]

Is that enough scriptural basis for you?

6) Mary as co-redeemer or mediator: the notion of Mediatrix is not immediately dismissible as contrary to Scripture in the sense that it blatantly contradicts it. There are many biblical analogies of non-divine “distribution of grace”:

[cited biblical evidences from my paper: Human, Pauline, and Marian Distribution of Divine Graces: Not an "Unbiblical" Notion After All?]

7) the Papacy: tons of biblical indication: too much to delve into here, so I’ll have to refer you to my introductory paper: 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy.

8) Papal infallibility: With God all things are possible. If He chooses to protect a man from error, He can do so, and in fact, we often see this in Scripture.

[cited arguments and Scripture from my paper: Biblical Evidence for Papal and Church Infallibility]

Now maybe you’d do me the courtesy of answering my question too? I think it is an important one, and one that Protestants would do well to consider.

Lastly, I thought the thread was about apostolic succession? Catholics are not the only ones who believe in this; so do Anglicans and Orthodox, while they disagree with several Catholic doctrines. If you want to discuss biblical rationale for apostolic succession, I have given you some material that I think is able to be discussed. But instead we’re already into the “1001 questions for the Catholic who believes all this goofy stuff” routine.

I have to say, too, that I find it odd that in a thread where the first question asked was “what is biblically necessary . . .?”, I didn’t see a single Bible verse cited in the first 13 comments before mine. Then I gave plenty of proposed biblical rationale, while the reply overlooked all that and cited no Scripture and argued against none that I gave, but asked me eight rhetorical questions in return.

How are Christians of different stripes going to come to a significant agreement on anything if we don’t appeal to that which we all love and hold in common: Holy Scripture? Doesn’t all constructive discussion presuppose something held in common as a common premise: from which the discussion can proceed and accomplish something?

One can disagree with my (Catholic) interpretation of Scripture of course, but they should at least make some argument and give a better alternative. That’s all I ask.

If the question is apostolic succession and ordination, and the originator of the thread wants to hear from “all parties” how is this ultimately done other than appealing to Scripture?

Mr. Armstrong,

You’ve brought far too many things to the table for us to adequately address on this thread. I know that you were addressing Gabe’s questions, so I don’t blame you. Let me just say that I think your biblical presentation is a bit simplistic… kind of like hearing an evangelical string together a group of proof texts to justify the practice of an altar call and the “sinner’s prayer.” Yes, you can draw all manner of conclusions from isolated proof-texts. We can all do it. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that “all things are permissible.” Think of all the conclusions we could draw from that one.

I don’t mean any offense here. It’s just that I don’t think taking a handful from our bag of proof-texts and throwing them out on the table is conducive to productive dialogue. We all have them, and I’m sure you know that once you get Protestants in a battle over proof-texts, the war will never end. The issue is one of perspective, not of isolated passages. Interpreted through your grid, the passages you’ve brought forth make perfect sense to you. To me they say absolutely nothing like what you want them to say. Our differences go deeper than one side simply not seeing what is “clear” in Scripture.

The fact is that there is no positive teaching of papal infallibility, purgatory, or that mediatrix stuff about Mary in Scripture. These doctrines rest on the assumption that the Church is infallible, which assumption itself rests on a certain interpretation of a few isolated passages, which are themselves interpreted the way they are because you have “faith” that the Church really is infallible. I understand why this assumption is held, and I hold it to a certain extent as well. But I’m not willing to go quite as far with it as you are. Maybe it’s just because I lack “faith.”

I believe that the Church is preserved in the Truth in every age. But I have a different conception of what this Truth entails. The Truth is Jesus Christ and the witness concerning him in the Apostolic Gospel, which is offered and received within the Church in every age, well summarized in the Apostles’ Creed and further interpreted in the Nicene and Chalcedonian definitions. Thus, it is not each and every particular doctrine which the Church is to be considered unquestionable on. It is the Gospel–the truth about Jesus. And even here, the Church itself does not have an absolutely unquestionable authority. The Apostles themselves were subject to the Apostolic *message*, as we see in Gal. 1-2.

I’m willing to grant a succession of sorts. However, I will not grant a succession which enables the Church to do what she wants in every age and ignore the call to repentence proferred by her faithful sons and Reformers.

* * *

Hi Jonathan,

I don’t mean any offense here. It’s just that I don’t think taking a handful from our bag of proof-texts and throwing them out on the table is conducive to productive dialogue.

All Christians cite Scripture, and we all do it and times by just “throwing them out on the table” without doing exhaustive exegesis every time. The implication was drawn that Catholics have no biblical backing at all for what we believe. My own apologetics specialize in arguing that this is not the case.

As you noted, I started out giving a biblical argument for apostolic succession, and I was not the one who led this down eight different rabbit trails. Anyone can argue doctrine from the Bible if they like, but no one yet has. Instead, totally unrelated questions were thrown at me. In a way my answer was designed to show the foolishness of that diversionary tactic, which was itself designed to imply that Catholics have this huge mountainous mass of doctrine that is completely indefensible and unconnected to Holy Scripture.

We all have them, and I’m sure you know that once you get Protestants in a battle over proof-texts, the war will never end.

That may be, but at present it appears that it has not and will not even begin. I love to discuss the interpretation of Scripture. For some reason I find similar desires rare in online discussions, even among those with a formal theological education.

The issue is one of perspective, not of isolated passages. Interpreted through your grid, the passages you’ve brought forth make perfect sense to you. To me they say absolutely nothing like what you want them to say.

Great, but why?

Our differences go deeper than one side simply not seeing what is “clear” in Scripture.

Who said it was “clear”? You’re the ones who are big on perspicuity of Scripture. I have made an argument that no one wants to interact with. Instead of simply saying my argument proved nothing (which is no argument), why don’t you interact with it? I find this curious. Now, it’s true that you may have no desire to discuss this particular issue, but then why comment? I just think it is an odd way to respond to a biblical argument that someone has made. Nothing personal here, either.

The fact is that there is no positive teaching of papal infallibility, purgatory, or that mediatrix stuff about Mary in Scripture.

Depends on what one means by “positive.” If by that you mean explicit, detailed teaching, that is certainly true of mediatrix (but I never denied that; my presentation had to do with background plausibility). Purgatory is indicated by many passages: far more than most Protestants realize. I compiled some 25 indications in my chapter on this in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. Papal authority also has a great deal of indication.

Protestants manage to believe in sola Scriptura with no explicit biblical evidence, either, and (I would contend) no really compelling biblical proof at all, and much information to the contrary. You also accept the canon of Scripture based necessarily on some ecclesiastical tradition (in your case, the one that rejects the deuterocanon). That doesn’t seem to give Protestants pause.

These doctrines rest on the assumption that the Church is infallible,

Yes, we accept the authority of the Church, but they also rest on biblical indication as well. This is what I was trying to demonstrate! Why would you assume (as I alluded to above) that any Catholic doctrine that you disagree with can have no conceivable biblical indication in its favor, and therefore must rest solely on Catholic Church authority? This doesn’t follow at all. We have our biblical arguments just as you do, and you disagree with them, just as we disagree with yours.

I commented on this thread, hoping to get into a good discussion on the interpretation of the Bible regarding apostolic succession. But no one wants to do that. The thread began in this way:

I have the following questions which I would like to see fleshed-out from all parties:

. . . 2. What is Apostolic Succession? How does Apostolic Succession relate to the validity of Ordination?

I assumed that “all parties” included Catholics. But I don’t perceive that anyone wants to have this discussion with a Catholic, based on the nature of the responses to my comments thus far. That’s fine, too, but then the post should have said, “except for Catholic [or Orthodox?] arguments: we don’t want to hear about those because we think so little of them.”

which assumption itself rests on a certain interpretation of a few isolated passages, which are themselves interpreted the way they are because you have “faith” that the Church really is infallible.

My system is not based on circular reasoning, but it does require faith, of course. I’ve always argued, however, that the Protestant rule of faith is viciously circular, so I wold say you are contending about my rule of faith what is actually true of yours but not mine. How ironic, huh?

I understand why this assumption is held, and I hold it to a certain extent as well. But I’m not willing to go quite as far with it as you are. Maybe it’s just because I lack “faith.”

It’s not for me to judge why you believe whatever you do. As a generality, I do maintain that Protestants lack faith in what God can do, because they refuse to believe that infallibility can apply to anything but Scripture. All I can do is use biblical argument with Protestants, and interact with theirs, because that is what we have in common. So far it is a non-starter around here, which is disappointing.

But at least I am allowed to comment here, which is a start. I’m hoping someone will enjoy getting into some exegetical discussions on some topic somewhere along the way, because it is so rare to be able to do that intelligently and without acrimony. I enjoyed my previous discussion on development with Rev. Pahls, though it was brief and didn’t really go very far.

One has to cross the hurdle of being accepted as a fellow Christian. That is no issue here. But the deeper, longstanding, deep-seated suspicions about Catholicism and how we approach Christianity are not so easily gotten over and it still remains difficult to simply engage in a biblically-oriented doctrinal dialogue without being sidetracked into precisely the sorts of discussions we are presently doing.

That said, I do appreciate your cordiality and expression of your opinion, even though, in my opinion, not much was accomplished by way of the topic itself.

* * *

Mr Armstrong,

A couple things, very briefly,

1. You read into my comments more than I was wanting to say. You said,

Why would you assume (as I alluded to above) that any Catholic doctrine that you disagree with can have no conceivable biblical indication in its favor, and therefore must rest solely on Catholic Church authority? This doesn’t follow at all. We have our biblical arguments just as you do, and you disagree with them, just as we disagree with yours.

But I never said such a thing. My only point was that we both have our passages and our interpretations of them, and that these interpretations are conditioned by our different perspectives and presuppositions. I don’t see where I implied that “any Catholic doctrine that [I] disagree with can have no conceivable biblical indication in its favor.”

2. I had no intention to comment on this thread until I noticed the string of proof-texts you marshalled forth. The reason I commented was solely because I don’t think what you are attempting above is conducive to productive discussion. If you’re looking for someone to do battle with on that ground, I am not your man. You said, “at present it appears that it has not and will not even begin.” And for this I am thankful. I really hope we can keep the level of discussion around here above that sort of thing.

It is true that such engagements can generate a certain type of discussion, like a debate where the interlocutors just continue offering as many proofs as possible of their position in hopes that someone may be “converted” by their impenetrable fortress of Scripture and reason. But this is not my cup o’ tea. If you would like to discuss the interpretation of specific passages, then we can do that… one at a time, while paying due heed to the historical, literary, and grammatical context of the passage in question. But putting all of our chips on the table in order to tally the score and see who wins is not what I’m about. If someone else would like to engage you in such a fruitless task, they are of course free to do so, as long as comments remain respectful. But it will not be me. Sorry.

3. Finally, I see that you have raised a question about the propriety of my commenting in this regard. I’d like to remind you that you are a guest here, while I am not. With all due respect, please do not presume to tell me when I should and should not comment on this blog.

* * *

You simply dismissed all of my biblical argumentation out of hand. That’s what put me off a bit. So I was saying, in effect, “if you want to interact with what I argued, please do so, but don’t just editorialize about my method . . .”

2. I had no intention to comment on this thread until I noticed the string of proof-texts you marshalled forth. The reason I commented was solely because I don’t think what you are attempting above is conducive to productive discussion.

Neither do I. It was not my desire to go off on eight rabbit trails at once. That was brought into this by Gabe. But given the fact that he did it, I made my point, which is that Catholics can (agree or disagree with it) produce more than enough biblical argumentation in favor of their distinctives. I’m quite happy to go back to the original topic of apostolic succession and the biblical data in that regard that I submitted.

If you’re looking for someone to do battle with on that ground, I am not your man.

I wouldn’t call it “battle”; I’d call it “dialogue” but that is a minor point, I suppose. One presupposes that if a post is written that asks for “fleshed-out” opinions “from all parties” that the one writing it, at least, might be interested in discussing the issue that he himself raised. So my response is completely within bounds.

You said, “at present it appears that it has not and will not even begin.” And for this I am thankful. I really hope we can keep the level of discussion around here above that sort of thing.

Above what, pray tell? Discussing the Bible? What is so controversial about a Christian suggesting that the Bible may teach thus-and-so about a particular issue?

It is true that such engagements can generate a certain type of discussion, like a debate where the interlocutors just continue offering as many proofs as possible of their position in hopes that someone may be “converted” by their impenetrable fortress of Scripture and reason.

SIGH. You miss my point entirely. Above, I wrote:

How are Christians of different stripes going to come to a significant agreement on anything if we don’t appeal to that which we all love and hold in common: Holy Scripture? Doesn’t all constructive discussion presuppose something held in common as a common premise: from which the discussion can proceed and accomplish something?

It was a sincere [rhetorical] question. I’m not trying to do anything except defend my present point of view from Scripture. It would be pleasant and nice to discuss the issue based on what I brought forth. Instead, we seem to be in yet another completely undesired “controversy.” I’m not trying to convert you or anyone here. I rarely try to persuade anyone to convert. That’s ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit anyway. I simply make my arguments.

But this is not my cup o’ tea. If you would like to discuss the interpretation of specific passages, then we can do that… one at a time, while paying due heed to the historical, literary, and grammatical context of the passage in question.

That would be nice. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, of course. There is systematic theology and biblical theology, etc.

But putting all of our chips on the table in order to tally the score and see who wins is not what I’m about.

Again, you have gotten my replies to the eight rabbit trails all out of proportion with what I was trying to do originally. My original response was six paragraphs (four of them with biblical citations) that presented a concise biblical argument for apostolic succession.

Gabe didn’t want to interact with that, which is fine. It’s a free country. But I did nothing improper. I simply responded to the eight things and showed that there is a lot more there than meets the eye, in terms of Catholic biblical rationale.

If someone else would like to engage you in such a fruitless task, they are of course free to do so, as long as comments remain respectful. But it will not be me. Sorry.

I fail to see why any Christian would think that discussing Bible interpretation and theology based on Bible passages is “fruitless.” I am truly baffled by your perspective on this.

3. Finally, I see that you have raised a question about the propriety of my commenting in this regard.

I did? Where? I remember writing: “I do appreciate your cordiality and expression of your opinion.”

I’d like to remind you that you are a guest here, while I am not. With all due respect, please do not presume to tell me when I should and should not comment on this blog.

I was talking about (if I did such a thing at all) the relationship of your comments to my argument, and how I felt that we had gotten off the track a bit. I believe in free expression and vigorous-yet-cordial dialogue. My ideas were critiqued, and I returned the favor. That should cause neither alarm, distress, nor suspicion. I’m simply trying to have a biblical discussion. I’m disappointed that it has gotten bogged down into a digression about good and bad method, but that is life, I guess.

It is true that I take a rather dim view of the method that merely disagrees with an argument without giving any reason for the disagreement. I contended that that is not an argument. It’s the distinction between the two following scenarios:

Argument:

Person A: “I believe a, b, and c, because of biblical reasons x, y, and z.”

Person B: “I disagree with a, b, and c because of my exegetical (and etc.) objections i, ii, and iii to your biblical reasons x, y, and z.”

Bald Disagreement

Person A: “I believe a, b, and c, because of biblical reasons x, y, and z.”

Person B: “I disagree with a, b, and c, and it is fruitless to discuss x, y, and z.”

I fail to see the point of the second method. Why bother to say that one simply disagrees with something without giving the reasons? That was what I was saying, not that anyone should or shouldn’t comment. It was (again) an argument, and had nothing to do with persons or supposed transgression of the principles of discussion as elucidated on this site. There is no mystery to me. I say what I mean and mean what I say.

Mr. Armstrong,

It seems we differ on the type of discussion we would like to be involved in. That is fine. As I told you above, I did not enter into this thread in order to cross swords with you. My initial reason for commenting on this thread was not to express disagreement with your points, it was rather simply to point out that, in my opinion, the argument you were attempting is fruitless if the underlying presuppositions are not first addressed. This would be an attempt to find the “common premise” about which you write above. There are things involved here which run much deeper than quoting our pet Bible passages will get at. That was my main point.

But those things aside, just for some clarity on my third point above: what I wrote was in response to this comment of yours:

Now, it’s true that you may have no desire to discuss this particular issue, but then why comment? I just think it is an odd way to respond to a biblical argument that someone has made.

Blessings,

Jonathan

Mr. Armstrong,

After reading through your last reply to me again, I noticed one other thing which I probably ought to clarify. You wrote:

I fail to see why any Christian would think that discussing Bible interpretation and theology based on Bible passages is “fruitless.” I am truly baffled by your perspective on this.

I absolutely do not believe discussing the Scriptures is always fruitless. But it can be. What is fruitless is discussing the Scriptures by way of a proof-text method where the parties involved construct their respective houses of facts and then everyone looks to see whose edifice is bigger. Maybe this is not what you were attempting. It just seemed like that to me. If I misinterpreted, I apologize.

You may regard my addressing this issue as getting “bogged down” in questions of methodology. I consider it being a good steward of the time I’m given and respectful of the word of God. A poor methodology of dialogue will in my opinion produce poor dialogue. This is why I consider it important to address methodology.

Thanks. Let me ask, then, if I may: how many Scripture verses can one give before it is suspected that one is engaging in the sort of "prooftexting" that you think is unfruitful? Certainly there must be some happy medium, assuming that it is helpful to engage in scriptural argumentation? Rev. Jordan gave none at all in his last post #28 (though he alluded to some biblical motifs). I'm just trying to figure out what you think is a manageable figure for Scripture citation, for future reference.

Can only one passage at a time be discussed profitably? If so, then one couldn't even mention a single cross-reference, which strikes me as prima facie unreasonable. So that seems to me to be a minimum of two passages. But if two, why not six or ten? I don't see that such limitations help very much.

I would submit that limitation of subject matter is what is more important (in terms of the stewardship of time that I am also keenly aware of), rather than a limit on how much Scripture one might bring to bear on that restricted topic. A glance at any systematic theology makes this fairly clear, I think. But then my bias is towards systematic theology, too.

I think that is more conducive to incorporating all of the relevant biblical data that can be brought to bear in any given area. The truly objectionable prooftexting is using too few passages without taking proper consideration of other related ones and the overall biblical worldview and theology.

Mr. Armstrong,

As I see it, the phenomenon of “proof-texting” is not so much a matter of quantity as it is of quality. Proof-texting is the resting of an argument upon a list (take your pick on a number) of Scripture passages baldly asserted without any engagement with or analysis of the text. In a word, it is an argument without an argument.

Again, this may or may not have been your intention. If it was not, I apologize if any offense has been caused. It just seemed that way to me, and given my fundamentalist background I am sort of allergic to that kind of thing, because I’ve been there, done that, and have no taste for it anymore. My objection to this method is not anything against your perspective on things per se. I have in fact been much more outspoken in the past against the Protestant bent towards such engagements (even when said Protestants are setting forth ideals which I agree with) than I ever have against Roman Catholics.

* * *

. . . given my fundamentalist background I am sort of allergic to that kind of thing, because I’ve been there, done that . . .

Maybe that’s where the problem lies. I never had that background, and in fact, I was protesting Gabe doing something very similar to that modus operandi, by throwing out eight things without argument, that implied my point of view was thoroughly incoherent. I suppose I should have ignored that and not replied to it. But it’s my nature as an apologist to respond to that sort of thing and show that there is much more than meets the eye in Catholic positions.

Also, surely you can understand that a Catholic in an environment of mostly Protestants would rather err on the side of giving more Scripture rather than not enough, since we are routinely thought of as virtually biblical illiterates.

Lastly, I again appeal to my original response, #14 (before the rabbit trails took over, courtesy of Gabe). It was a compact biblical argument that presented a position to be debated. It was not merely a listing of texts. It was exactly on-topic; it didn’t give any judgments of papal encyclicals, etc. There was nothing objectionable in it at all, as far as I am concerned. Nor was most of my other presentation of the nature of objectionable “prooftexting,” though I admit that the 50 NT Proofs for Petrine Primacy might reasonably be subjected to such a criticism. Any list of 50 things in Scripture is obviously going to be only the briefest overview by nature. Even Luther’s 95 Theses were that.

I’d be the first to wholeheartedly agree that each one of the 50 summaries could and should be discussed in depth, and in fact I have done so when that paper was critiqued by anti-Catholic Protestant apologist Jason Engwer. He did a sort of half-satirical critique, suggesting a counter “Pauline primacy” that I replied to in great depth [twice: one / two].

So I would contend that even a listing of Scriptures (as any systematic theology often does) is not impermissible, nor merely “prooftexting” in the fundamentalist sense, as long as the person is willing to discuss any particular point in depth (as I am, and always will be).

I appreciate your explanations of reasons for your possible overreaction. I have to say, though, that I think such reticence (seen also in Gabe’s response) goes beyond an aversion to prooftexting in the worst sense of that word. Protestants simply don’t like it when Catholics argue from the Bible, because Scripture is supposed to be Protestant turf, and most self-confident Protestants assume that and have taken in that assumption with their mother’s milk.

Therefore, if a Catholic brings in more than a little biblical argumentation, there must be some foundational error, because they can’t possibly succeed (the Bible being clearly, unarguably a Protestant book . . .). Either the premises must be false, or it is the appearance of strength only, or it’s based on blind faith in Rome, etc. Thus, we see these motifs above.

I don’t intend in the slightest to cause any offense, either. I’m merely trying to show that there are very deep biases in Protestantism against Catholicism, even amongst ecumenical folks and those who consciously have nothing against Catholics or Catholicism per se. It happens all the time. I’m in a position to notice, believe me, because I have specialized in “biblical evidence for Catholicism,” and I have seen these sorts of reactions a thousand times over 17 years.

And, don’t forget, I was a fervent evangelical Protestant for thirteen years and know that world, too. I was an apologist and evangelist then, as well, and an “anti-cult” researcher. I was on the radio as a Protestant, in 1989, on the largest Protestant station in the Detroit area, discussing Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It’s very simple. Once in a while, I would love to get into a discussion about a biblical texts or a few texts, give my position and interact with the Protestant opinion, without being subjected to all the evasive, somewhat belittling baggage of “you believe this only because Rome told you so” or “this obviously doesn’t mean what you think it means at all” or “you’re just trying to convert folks to Holy Mother Church.” I know it is possible to engage in such discussions, because occasionally I have been able to do it with Protestants. There are few things I enjoy more when it happens. But by and large, Protestants are very reluctant to do so, and I think we saw a bit of that in this thread.

I will continue trying to do that, as I think there are a lot of sharp and articulate people here. I’m not trying to convert anyone. I’m approaching this from a perspective of, “this is my position on this biblical text, from my Catholic perspective. What’s yours?” But if no one is interested, I won’t be here long and won’t bother you. Maybe no one wants to discuss the biblical arguments on apostolic succession, pro and con. But perhaps other topics would be more amenable for such purposes.

"Turretinfan's" Utterly Ridiculous Rationale For Refusing to do a Chat Debate is Laid Bare on The Supplement Blog

Talk about circular reasoning and arguing in a circle . . .

Don't miss Reginald de Piperno's very insightful, hard-hitting analysis. It exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of fundamentalist anti-Catholicism that is behind the mindset that could produce such a pathetic display of special pleading.

The Anonymous One himself is already providing high entertainment in his comments over there:

I've repeatedly pointed out that I did not reject Dave's challenge.

Why you (and he) are so insistent on saying I did, baffles me.

Dave never intended to debate, as is evident from his own comments.

Asking Dave to take the Roman Catholic position is hardly an "absurd" or unfair request.

[ . . . ]

Incidentally, if you use "mocking" to describe the response, what word would you use to describe the challenge?

Man oh man . . . bring on the Twilight Zone music . . .

Aids For Catholics: Selecting a Bible Translation

[ KJV: Psalm 23 / source ]

Like all Protestant Bibles (and Catholic ones), the fabled King James Bible has somewhat of a bias, based on the beliefs of the translators, but not overly so, in my opinion.

I myself use the RSV, which is a revision of the KJV (taking out the archaic language: "thee's" and "thou's," etc.). I used to use the New American Standard Bible (NASB) as a Protestant (which revised the American Standard Version [ASV], which revised KJV, into more "American" English), and first read most of the Bible in that version. The Catholic version of the RSV actually modifies very few passages: I think it is only 4-6, if that many. One of them is Luke 1:28: "Hail Mary, full of grace." That shows how little Protestant bias is perceived to be in the RSV, and by indirect implication, the RSV.

The thing about the KJV is the beautiful language and expression (who could not love, e.g., Psalm 23?). But, by and large, Protestant Bibles are not a problem, as much as false Protestant doctrines. I would concentrate more on those, and not the Bible translations, which can be criticized, for sure, but are not at the heart of Protestant-Catholic differences, by any means.

If you read the Douay-Rheims, be aware that it is a translation of a translation, too: of the Latin Vulgate, whereas most translations today, including newer Catholic ones, translate from the oldest available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

I suspect that most of the bishops of the Church (and the Holy Father) would rejoice that Catholics are reading the Scripture, whatever the version is. The main thing is to read the Bible. But there are "approved" versions, such as the NAB (personally I care very little for its style), and the RSV-Catholic edition. I have found many articles that discuss these issues or related ones:

Bible Translations Guide (Catholic Answers)

Choosing and Using a Bible: What Catholics Should Know, Fr. Ronald D. Witherup, Catholic Update, July 2004.

Choosing a Bible Translation, Jimmy Akin, This Rock, April 1994.

Bible Translations, Jimmy Akin.

Bible Versions and Commentaries (EWTN: Colin B. Donovan, STL)

Bible Translations (EWTN: Matthew Bunson)

Finding a Translation: How to Select a Catholic Bible, John Osman, Catholic Spirit, January 2007.

Choosing a Bible Translation, Katerina Ivanovna (Evangelical Catholicism site)

Are All Bible Translations Created Equal?: The Protestant Bias of the NIV, Steve Ray [this is a .doc file]

Which Bible Translations Are Best For Catholics? (Catholics United for the Faith)

Choosing a Catholic Bible (Adoremus Bulletin)

Uncomfortable Facts about the Douay-Rheims, Jimmy Akin, This Rock, February 2002.

Pius XII on the Authenticity of the Vulgate, Jimmy Akin, April 1994.

English Translations of the Bible, Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Versions of the Bible [note: much of the article is about non-English versions, but there is a lot about the English ones, too]

Catholic Encyclopedia: Douay Bible

50 preuves de la primauté de Pierre dans le Nouveau Testament

Peter commissioned by Jesus; from the 1977 Franco Zefferelli film, Jesus of Nazareth

Benoit Meyrieux has translated my 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy into French (see his site). Many thanks, and to all my French-speaking friends (my wife Judy is one-quarter French by nationality, by the way, and my hometown of Detroit, Michigan was founded by the Frenchman Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac in 1701), enjoy!

* * * * *

Traduit de « A biblical defense of Catholicism » par Dave Amstrong, Sophia Institute Press, pp. 233-238. Voir le site de l’auteur : Biblical Evidence for Catholicism

• 1) Pierre seul est le Rocher sur lequel Jésus construit son Eglise (Mt 16, 18).

• 2) Les clés du royaume des cieux sont confiés uniquement à Pierre (Mt 16, 19).

• 3) Le pouvoir de lier et délier est uniquement donné à Pierre de façon individuelle (Mt 16, 19).

• 4) Le nom de Pierre apparaît en premier dans toutes les listes des apôtres (Mt 10, 2; Mc 3, 16; Lc 6, 14; Ac 1, 13). Matthieu l’appelle même le «premier» (Mt 10, 2). (Judas Iscariote est invariablement mentionné en dernier).

• 5) Pierre est pratiquement toujours en premier lorsqu’il est mentionné avec quelqu’un d’autre. L’unique exemple contraire se trouve en Ga 2, 9 où il (Céphas) est cité après Jacques et avant Jean. Cependant, il est clairement prédominant dans le contexte (par ex. 1, 18-19; 2, 7-8).

• 6) Pierre est le seul parmi les apôtres à recevoir un nouveau nom (Jn 1, 42; Mt 16, 18).

• 7) De même, Pierre est considéré par Jésus comme le berger en chef, après lui-même (Jn 21, 15-17), ayant autorité sur l’Eglise dans son ensemble, même si d’autres ont un rôle similaire mais subordonné au ministère de Pierre (Ac 20, 28; 1 P 5, 2).

• 8) Pierre est le seul apôtre pour lequel Jésus a prié afin que sa foi ne défaille pas (Lc 22, 32).

• 9) Pierre est le seul apôtre exhorté par Jésus de«fortifier tes frères» (Lc 22, 32).

• 10) Pierre est le premier a confesser la messianité et la divinité du Christ (Mt 16, 16).

• 11) A Pierre seul Jésus dit qu’il a reçu une connaissance divine par une spéciale révélation (Mt 16, 17).

• 12) Pierre considéré par les Juifs (Ac 4, 1-13) comme le leader et le porte parole des chrétiens.

• 13) Pierre est considéré de même par le peuple (Ac 2, 37-41; 5, 15).

• 14) Jésus s’associe avec Pierre dans le miracle de la redevance du Temple (Mt 17, 24-26).

• 15) Jésus enseigne sur la barque de Pierre et la pêche miraculeuse se produit à bord du même bateau (Lc 5, 1-11): peut-être une métaphore pour le pape comme «pêcheur d’hommes» (Mt 4, 19).

• 16) Pierre fut le premier apôtre à se mettre en route pour le tombeau vide et à y entrer (Lc 24, 12; Jn 20, 6).

• 17) Pierre est défini par un ange comme le leader et le représentant des apôtres (Mc 16, 7).

• 18) Pierre emmène les apôtres pêcher (Jn 21, 2-3.11). La «barque» de Pierre a toujours été considérée par les catholiques comme la figure de l’Eglise avec Pierre à la barre.

• 19) Pierre seul se jette à la mer pour aller vers Jésus (Jn 21, 7).

• 20) Les paroles que Pierre a prononcées avant la Pentecôte dans la Chambre Haute sont les premières et les plus importantes documentées (Ac 1, 15-22).

• 21) Pierre prend l’initiative d’appeler à un remplacement de Judas (Ac 1, 22).

• 22) Pierre est la première personne à parler (et la seule documentée) après la Pentecôte, il est donc le premier chrétien à «prêcher l’Evangile» dans l’ère de l’Eglise (Ac 2, 14-36).

• 23) Pierre opère le premier miracle de l’histoire de l’Eglise en guérissant un paralytique (Ac 3, 6-12).

• 24) Pierre prononce le premier anathème contre Ananie et Saphire, qui est fortement confirmé par Dieu (Ac 5, 2-11).

• 25) L’ombre de Pierre opère des miracles (Ac 5, 15).

• 26) Pierre est le premier après Jésus à ressusciter un mort (Ac 9, 40).

• 27) Corneille est instruit par un ange à chercher Pierre pour être instruit dans la foi (Ac 10, 1-6).

• 28) Pierre est le premier à accueillir les gentils (païens), après une révélation de Dieu (Ac 10, 9-48).

• 29) Pierre instruit les autres apôtres à propos de la catholicité (universalité) de l’Eglise (Ac 11, 5-17).

• 30) Pierre est le premier individu dans l’ère de l’Eglise objet d’une divine intervention (un ange le délivre de prison Ac 12, 1-17).

• 31) Toute l’Eglise prie pour Pierre pendant son emprisonnement (Ac 12, 5).

• 32) Pierre ouvre et préside le premier concile de la Chrétienté et établit des principes qui sont accepté par le concile (Ac 15, 7-11).

• 33) Paul distingue l’apparition de Jésus après sa Résurrection d’avec les apparitions aux autres disciples (1 Co 15, 4-8). Les deux disciples sur la route d’Emmaüs font la même distinction (Lc 24, 34), à cette occasion ne mentionnant que Pierre (Simon), même si ils viennent tout juste de voir Jésus ressuscité (Lc 24, 33).

• 34) Pierre est souvent distingué des autres apôtres (Mc 1, 36; Lc 9, 28. 32; Ac 2, 37; 5, 29; 1 Co 9, 5).

• 35) Pierre est souvent le porte parole des apôtres, surtout aux moments cruciaux (Mc 8, 29; Mt 18, 21; Lc 9, 5; 12, 41; Jn 6, 67-69).

• 36) Le nom de Pierre est toujours cité en premier dans la liste des disciples intimes (Pierre, Jacques et Jean - Mt 17, 1; 26, 37.40; Mc 5, 37; 14, 37).

• 37) Pierre est souvent la figure centrale à laquelle Jésus s’adresse dans les scènes évangéliques majeures comme celle de la marche sur les eaux (Mt 14, 28-32; Lc 5, 1 et suiv.; Mc 10, 28; Mt 17, 24 et suiv.).

• 38) Pierre est le premier à reconnaître et à refuser l’hérésie de Simon le Magicien (Ac 8, 14-24).

• 39) Le nom de Pierre est mentionné plus souvent que tous les autres disciples mis ensemble: 191 fois (162 comme Pierre ou Simon Pierre, 23 fois comme Simon et 6 comme Céphas) contre 130 fois pour tous les autres disciples. John est le second à apparaître le plus souvent (48 fois) et Pierre est cité avec lui la moitié du temps.

• 40) La proclamation de Pierre à la Pentecôte (Ac 2, 14-41) contient une interprétation des Ecritures qui fait autorité, une décision doctrinale et une mesure disciplinaire concernant les membres de la Maison d’Israël (2, 36): un exemple de lier et de délier.

• 41) Pierre est le premier à juger avec autorité que le don des langues est authentique (Ac 2, 14-21).

• 42) Pierre est le premier à prêcher la repentance chrétienne et le baptême (Ac 2, 38).

• 43) Pierre mène le premier baptême en masse (Ac 2, 41).

• 44) Pierre ordonne que les premiers chrétiens venant du paganisme soient baptisés (Ac 10, 44-48).

• 45) Pierre est le premier missionnaire itinérant et le premier à exercer ce qui sera appelé la «visite des églises» (Ac 9, 32-38.43). Paul pour sa part a prêché à Damas immédiatement après sa conversion (Ac 9, 20), mais n’avait pas voyagé jusqu’à là dans ce but (Dieu a changé ses plans!). Ses voyages missionnaires ne commencent qu’en Ac 13, 2.

• 46) Paul est venu spécifiquement à Jérusalem pour visiter Pierre pendant 15 jours au début de son ministère (Ga 1, 18) et a été mandaté par Pierre, Jacques et Jean (Ga 2, 9) pour prêcher aux païens.

• 47) Pierre agit comme le chef évêque/ berger de l’Eglise (1 P 5, 1), puisqu’il exhorte pour les autres évêques ou anciens.

• 48) Pierre interprète la prophétie (2 P 16-21).

• 49) Pierre corrige ceux qui font un mauvais usage des écrits de Paul (2 P 3, 15-16).

• 50) Pierre écrit sa première épître depuis Rome (désignée sous le nom de code «Babylone» 1 P 5, 13) comme son évêque et comme évêque universel (ou pape) de l’Eglise.

En conclusion il est difficile de soutenir que Dieu ait ainsi mis Pierre tellement en avant dans les Ecritures, sans qu’il y ait une signification pour le gouvernement de l’Eglise. La papauté est l’interprétation la plus plausible et l’actuel accomplissement institutionnel de cette évidence biblique. Pourquoi Dieu aurait-il ordonné d’avance une telle fonction d’autorité pour que celle-ci cesse à la mort de Pierre ?

Clairement, la fonction de la papauté est prépondérante, non pas les papes dans leur individualité, et cela devait être perpétuel (succession apostolique), tout comme la fonction d’évêque, de diacre, d’enseignant et d’évangéliste.

Spanking, Properly Used, is Not "Beating" & is Sanctioned by the Bible, the Catechism, Christian Family Advocates, & American College of Pediatricians

We have spanked our four children in the very young years, from age two to about six, when it is an effective means to get them to behave. After that we try to use deprivation (for the older kids, of their youth group meetings) or "penances" of doing the dishes and so forth. There are ways to set up these things in terms of positive reinforcement (see a helpful article on that).

Sometimes, there is nothing like a swat, as an immediate punishment for serious offenses. If, e.g., one of my children, when at this early age, talked back to my wife in a nasty, rebellious way, on many occasions, I have swatted them immediately, with my hand.

Almost always, after such a spanking, I will take the child on my lap in a loving, nurturing manner and tell them I love them, and that this was the reason they were spanked. I'll ask them to repeat why they think they were spanked, and if they don't know (or pretend to not know; parents know this routine!), then I carefully explain it to them and teach them that such discipline is to make them a better person, by preventing them from doing bad and sinful things that will make their life difficult in the future. So the act is grounded in love and expanation and, in the end, positive reinforcement.

I can only remember one occasion that I regretted spanking one of my children, because I was a little too angry and overreacted to a relatively minor offense (loss of temper being quite a rare thing for me). I believe I apologized to my son for that one. The older they get, the more a "positive reinforcement" works. Honey rather than vinegar, etc.

I would counsel parents who were physically abused when they were young, to avoid spanking, because of the statistical probability for abuse being repeated. Also, those who are prone to a quick temper and out-of-proportion angry reactions should avoid it and find other means to discipline. That is because the deficiency is in them, not in the very notion of spanking. On this issue as with many others, people often throw the baby out with the bathwater and get legalistic: because there are abuses they throw away the thing itself.

Lastly, it is, I think, beyond argument that the Bible itself condones spanking. If it does (being divine revelation), we cannot condemn it simply because we may not like the idea. Parents may choose not to use it, but they'll need to have some very serious disciplinary substitutes if so.

Some biblical passages on this (RSV):

Proverbs 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

Proverbs 22:15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13-14 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod you will save his life from Sheol.

Proverbs 29:15,17 The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. . . . Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart.

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 30:1,12-13 He who loves his son will whip him often, in order that he may rejoice at the way he turns out . . . Bow down his neck in his youth, and beat his sides while he is young, lest he become stubborn and disobey you, and you have sorrow of soul from him. Discipline your son and take pains with him, that you may not be offended by his shamelessness.

Many Christian family and parenting groups favor spanking in the right circumstances. For example, Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family:

Spanking can be a valuable disciplinary tool — if it is administered appropriately. It is essential to always balance firmness with loving sensitivity. Indeed, spanking is not appropriate for every child or at every age, and is unnecessary in many situations. For example, willful disobedience or defiance of authority might warrant corporal punishment, while mere childish irresponsibility does not. When spankings are properly managed, there is no reason to fear they will produce harmful emotional or psychological effects in children.

On another FOTF page, it is stated:

Spanking typically works best with ages 2 to 6. It should be used only for specific, purposeful misbehavior and should never be done in anger. As with other techniques, spanking should be used as one of many discipline tools.

And another:

On what part of the body would you administer a spanking?

It should be confined to the buttocks area, where permanent damage is very unlikely. I don't believe in slapping a child on the face or in jerking him around by the arms. A common form of injury seen in the emergency room at Children's Hospital when I was on the attending staff involved children with shoulder separations. Parents had pulled tiny arms angrily and dislocated the shoulder or elbow. If you spank a child only on the behind, you will be less likely to inflict any physical injury on him.

Christian Parents' Network takes the same position:

In this case, since your kids are older, you can come up with a list of punishable offenses which merit spanking and review the list together with your children. The list should include defiance, sassing, and disobedience. Children should not be spanked for simple forgetfulness, clumsy actions such as spilt milk, ect. Spanking should be used primarily as a remedy for defiance, direct disobedience, and bad attitude towards parental authority. . . .

It is really sad and unfortunate in this day of undisciplined children that the positive act of spanking is subject to be be misinterpreted, by the ignorant and misinformed, to be child abuse. It's a sad society that can't tell the difference between a legitimate act of discipline and real child abuse. This is the growing effect of Biblical illiteracy and of television and media coverage of the ideas of the small but outspoken spanking opponents. The media frequently interviews self-appointed social experts who have the hidden agenda of criminalizing spanking.

Catholic family advocate Steve Wood also does not deny spanking a place in discipline. Note that he casually assumes it is part of discipline in the following remark:

Most people immediately picture the rod when they think of the tool for discipline. They also regard the rear-end as the part of the human anatomy on which to focus discipline efforts. If the only discipline you engage in is spanking then you are neglecting 75% of what the Bible calls discipline.

Your word is the primary tool for training and discipline and the ear is the part of your child's anatomy that you want to focus efforts towards.

Dr. Ray Guarendi is another superb Catholic family advocate and counselor (who has adopted ten children). He takes the same position. In a review of his audio series Raising Kids Right, it is stated:

Episode 9: Spanking. My girls are all too old to spank now, but had I listened to this episode earlier some difficult situations today may have been avoided. We have to be careful not to let anger control or motivate spanking. Done in a loving environment, and used sparingly, spanking sounds like a good alternative for younger children.

Listen to an audio tape of Dr. Ray explaining his position.

Catholic Leon Suprenant writes:

I think the crucial issue is that the spanking not be merely an expression of anger or frustration. Sounds obvious, but in the heat of misbehavior this is easier said than done.

If it's purposeful and done as a means of correction it's a time-tested, biblically approved means of discipline. It should be reserved only for significant issues, such as direct disobedience. It's about children's misbehavior having consequences, so for spanking to work it must be unmistakably clear to the child why he or she is being spanked, so that the right lessons are communicated.

The Catechism (#2223) approvingly cites Sirach 30:1-2, in the following translation:

He who loves his sons will not spare the rod . . . He who disciplines his son will profit by him.

Social science is catching up with what the Bible always knew to be true. A 2007 scientific study by the American College of Pediatricians concluded:

It is clear that parents should not solely rely upon disciplinary spanking to accomplish control of their child’s behavior. Evidence suggests that it can be a useful and necessary part of a successful disciplinary plan. Like any corrective measure, its application requires a proactive rather than reactive approach to produce an optimal outcome. Disciplinary spanking is most beneficial and necessary during the ages 2 to 6 years when reasoning alone is often ineffective and even counterproductive in managing behavior. With cognitive development, a child will more likely respond to reasoning and less assertive corrective methods, such as privilege removal and logical consequences, thereby diminishing any need for spanking.

When advising parents on child discipline, pediatricians should emphasize the importance of balancing correction with encouragement. The parent-child relationship is pivotal in determining the success of any disciplinary measure. The selective use of disciplinary spanking with young children can be useful component of the disciplinary process.

See also the Scientific Review of use of corporal punishment, that includes 81 footnotes to many further scientific studies.

For another extremely in-depth article on this matter, see: The Problem of Spanking and Childhood Discipline, by Richard W. Cross (a Catholic psychologist who has five children), reprinted at Catholic Educator's Resource Center.

See Part Two of this discussion

Catholic Marriage Convalidation and "Radical Sanation"

[ source ]

In order to avoid what is called a "defect of form", a baptized Catholic who gets married must do so in the Catholic Church. Ours was "half-and-half": my wife was subject to the "defect of form" because she had been Catholic. I never was. So when I was received into the Church and my wife returned, we did the whole marriage ceremony too (presided over by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.).

A couple who is now Catholic (or where one person is not but is willing to go through with such procedures for the sake of his/her spouse, children, etc.,), but has "marriage issues" can either go through the ceremony of matrimony or receive what is called a "Radical Sanation". Catholic Answers has an article about the latter.

Note that the article mentions "a dispensation for a marriage ceremony outside the Church". I don't know how often this occurs or what is involved (see, e.g., CCC, #1633-1637). It also talks about getting a radical sanation even without knowledge of one of the parties:

If your spouse would have an extremely bad reaction to the sanation procedure, then, for the sake of domestic peace, he would not need to be told about it: "A sanation can be granted validly even when one or both of the parties are unaware of it, but it is not to be granted except for serious reason" (CIC 1164). The extreme reaction of your spouse could count as the serious reason needed for this.

This (if possible to obtain) is probably the best course for a Catholic married to a person who is quite opposed to Catholicism. Another EWTN page explains the difference between a convalidation and radical sanation (the latter makes the original vows retroactively valid and the former is a new set of valid vows). It also mentions one partner being able to do this:

Reasons for a radical sanation include a situation when one party will not cooperate in having the marriage convalidated through a ceremony . . .

Apparently some priests have told couples they need not worry about such details of marriage convalidation. Another EWTN page (Fr. Mark J. Gantley) decisively answers this:

If a Catholic is married outside the Catholic Church, then the marriage must be convalidated. This is true whether the marriage involved a Catholic and a non-Catholic or two Catholics.

The necessity of "ecclesiastical form" is discussed in CCC #1630-1631. This is my understanding of Church teaching. I'm not infallible, of course, but I have backed myself up with official Catholic sources, solid apologetics material, and priests from reputable and orthodox websites (I humbly submit that some priests who have been giving out goofy, erroneous information concerning these matters might do well to do the same, since this is a very serious matter).

For even more detail, one can consult the Code of Canon Law, that discusses marriage in its entires: #1055-1140. Here are a few of these:

Can. 1108 §1 Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists, in accordance however with the rules set out in the following canons, and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in canon 144, 1112 §1, 1116 and 1127 §2­3.

Can. 1117 The form prescribed above is to be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the catholic Church or received into it and has not by a formal act defected from it, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1127 §2.

Can. 1118 §1 A marriage between Catholics, or between a catholic party and a baptized non-Catholic, is to be celebrated in the parish church. By permission of the local Ordinary or of the parish priest, it may be celebrated in another church or oratory.

§2 The local Ordinary can allow a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.

§3 A marriage between a catholic party and an unapprised party may be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.

Sexual and Pornographic Addiction Recovery Resources

[ source ]

If you, reading this, are a sexual or pornography addict, I want to tell you that God loves you very much. He is merciful and longsuffering and wants to see you liberated from the addiction and set free. He doesn't hate you at all, but He hates the sin that holds you in bondage, because that is not what He created you to be and to do.

Remember, this is the God Who chose to make an eternal covenant with David, who was a murderer as well as an adulterer. God knew all this (since He knows everything and is out of time), yet He chose David anyway and called him "a man after God's own heart." God used Rahab the harlot and the murderers Moses and Paul. He made a cowardly weakling who betrayed Jesus three times the leader of His Church. Jesus immediately forgave the woman caught in adultery, when the Pharisees wanted to stone her (and under the Law, they could rightly have done so). God doesn't give up on people, but they sometimes give up on Him.

Addiction is a particularly difficult and complex problem. The addicted person isn't even totally free in what he does, so in a sense the semi-involuntary nature of the thing one is addicted to is not as blameworthy as, say, a premeditated plot to do some evil.

The sexual or pornography addict must come to a place, like an alcoholic or heroin addict, where they decide they have had enough of the destructive price of sin, and want to change their life. The addict can decide this. People will help. God will pour out His blessing and grace, upon a decision to do this. It's a wonderful place of opportunity: a great place to be: to decide to take back your life and to stop giving in to temptation and lust. Sadly, many people never get to this crossroads of repentance and positive decision. The first step to recovery (from anything) is recognizing that one has a problem to resolve.

If you are reading this now and suffer from addiction, chances are God is already at work in you to help you realize that there is a problem; that you are in a mess and going downhill fast. There is a way out of it. He gave you the conscience to recognize that all is not right, and that this is not the way to a happy and fulfilled life. You can decide right now to start doing something about that, and to make a change for the better. God will give you grace; people who have gone through similar experiences are waiting right now to assist and help you. Check out the following resources:

Catholic

Catholic Support Group For Sexual Addiction Recovery (CSGSAR)

[Internet discussion board]

Dads.org / St. Joseph Covenant Keepers Recommended Resources

Family Life Center International Resources

Treatment and Healing of Sexual and Pornographic Addictions, Dr. Victor B. Cline

12-Step Recovery Groups

Sex Addicts Anonymous

Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous

Sexaholics Anonymous

Sexual Recovery Anonymous

See also this article about 12-step programs with regard to sexual addiction.

Secular Resources

Sexual Addiction Recovery Resources

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health (SASH) overview

General Christian Resources

Be Broken Ministries

Mastering Life Ministries

Pure Intimacy (from Focus on the Family)

RSA Ministries ("Christ-Centered 12-Step Recovery")

Books on Sexual Addiction (mostly Christian)

Christians in Recovery

Sexual Addiction FAQ

Open Forum

Luther admirably defends the Real Presence in the Eucharist against proto-Baptist Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, and regards Zwingli as damned

Link to previous one.

Abstaining From Sexual Relations Until Receiving an Annulment Regarding a Previous "Marriage"

[ source ]

A first marriage is considered valid and legitimate by the Church until such time as a declaration of nullity is given (because of the doctrine that marriage between two baptized Christians is indissoluble). Therefore, it would follow that a Catholic who was married before (in the "civil" sense of a marriage contract) and then divorced and remarried, would have to abstain from sexual relations until it was determined that this previous situation was invalid, and never was a marriage. This would be the case at least for Catholics, bound to Church rules. For those who are non-Catholic Christians, or unbaptized altogether, other stipulations may apply.

I just read that teachings like this are accepted by about 20% of Catholics. So these are not popular teachings. Anything that limits sexual expression is always unpopular. I didn't make the rules. All I'm doing is presenting them to the best of my knowledge. The Catechism alludes to these sorts of situations:

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

Pope Benedict XVI is a bit more specific:

Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God's law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church's established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage.

(Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, 22 February 2007; section 29)

Other magisterial documents assert similarly:

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion By the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful

(Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [Pope Benedict XVI], Prefect, 14 September 1994)

Familiaris Consortio (On the Christian Family in the Modern World), Pope John Paul II, 22 November 1981: see sections 78-84

Prominent catechist and apologist Fr. Peter Stravinskas, in The Catholic Answer Book 2, by, concurs:

The proper procedure while you wait, then, is to abstain from sexual relations until the case is completed. That failing, both you and your intended husband must refrain from receiving Holy Communion since he is presumed to be still validly married.

(pp. 66-67)

People say this is difficult or impossible to do. Sure it is extremely difficult. Everyone knows that. But it's by no means impossible, because God tells us in Holy Scripture (through St. Paul) that "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Grace is what makes the difference. It can't be much more difficult than abstaining before marriage. It's not, I don't think, any more difficult to abstain as a married couple for a time than to do so as an engaged couple (which I consider probably the toughest thing I ever did in my life). People abstain during illness or prolonged periods of separation due to military commitments and so forth. So I don't buy this notion that it is impossible and that the Church is terrible for requiring (or suggesting, as the case may be) such a commitment.

It's simply a matter of being sure whether a valid marriage is present. The Church is not trying to punish people, but rather, to help them avoid sin and peril to their soul, which is a loving act (one of the most loving acts of all, in fact. This is no trifling matter, as it could possibly endanger one's eternal soul.

All sorts of difficult situations arise because of human choices and human sin of one sort or another. It is quite understandable how a person in this scenario would feel about this, but part of the responsibility of the Church is to uphold what she feels is the extraordinary dignity of marriage, which is indissoluble. This might seem to be unfair, but much of life is that way, and our past choices inevitably affect the course of our lives and sometimes cause pain and suffering that seem to us to be out of proportion and unfair (and in a very real sense it is so).

Non-Christians despise any form of Christianity because all they see is rules and regulations. The Church provides means to get through these trying times. It is a tough process sometimes, but couples going through it can be comforted in knowing that they are doing the right thing.

I think the notion of annulment (which is also present in the civil law of many nations, by the way) is the only thing that allows mercy in "hard cases" and also accepts the strict New Testament teaching on divorce. I've written further material on annulments and divorce:

Biblical Evidence for the Prohibition of Divorce (+ Discussion)

Dialogue: Annulment vs. Divorce

Biblical Evidence for Annulments

Divorce: Early Church Teaching

Catholic Marriage Convalidation and "Radical Sanation"

* * * * *

Sometimes one party is willing to go through the annulment process (whichever party was in a previous marriage) but the other isn't (say, neither party has ever been a Catholic). The previous ostensible "marriage" involved may be an excellent "candidate" for an annulment, if the parties involved were willing to go through that process. Those things can't be forced. In other words, in reality, perhaps there was never a marriage before (not knowing all the facts of the matter, one can only speculate). The Church declares such things, but it doesn't create the reality. It is what it is. If the marriage never took place, according to a Catholic definition of marriage, it didn't, whether or not it was declared to be so. But the Church declaration gives it a definite, objective status. This is how true Church authority functions. For those outside of the Church obviously it can't function as it should, and so we must discuss hypotheticals and probabilities.

But to equate "legal marriage" with a moral living situation is too broad, because all Christians have to honestly deal with Jesus' statements:

Matthew 19:9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

(Catholics interpret "unchastity" here as meaning what is actually no marriage, and a state or fornication: a situation that would be declared null)

Mark 10:11-12 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

One can be "legally married" but it doesn't necessarily follow that no sin can be occurring simply because it is legal, and that is because Christian morality goes beyond what is legal (just like abortion is legal but not moral).

If something is a grave sin, it is (objectively), regardless of the good faith of the people involved. They may not have known at the time, but once they find out (the subjective element), then they are responsible to act accordingly.

In many instances of Protestant marriages abstinence may not be morally required; but certainly there are cases where this has to occur, because of not only Catholic teaching, but plain biblical and historic Christian teaching. Otherwise, we would have an absurd state of affairs whereby there would never be cases of adultery provided the parties involved were legally married. That is a sort of "legal positivism" that is antithetical to the Christian faith.

If abstinence is not required by the facts of the matter, it certainly would be a bad thing to try to practice it. The problem is that if an ostensible, legal "marriage" is not a true, sacramental "marriage", then speaking of the "marriage bond" would be irrelevant, because it isn't there in the first place. And if it isn't there, then it is indeed an ongoing state of fornication or adultery, as the case may be.

The Catholic Church teaches that marriages between two baptized Christians are indissoluble. If one party had never been baptized, and/or his wife or her husband was never Catholic, and not willing to go along with Catholic requirements, and was married before, then we have a legal marriage that could very well be regarded as such by the Church (were the spouse willing to get an annulment), though imperfectly in some sense, due to the factors involved.

I'm no expert on all the intricacies of these complex matters, but I'm responsible for conveying Church teaching and making sure that misunderstandings don't arise concerning it. Nor am I in any position to declare definitively about the status of a (legal) marriage, but Catholic teachers should always avoid speaking in overly broad terms that might leave a wrong impression of the strictness of the very high Catholic view of sacramental marriage, lest people be misled at all. The Church holds this view in order to protect married couples, not to torment them.

God holds anyone who teaches about the faith accountable (James 3:1). I take that extremely seriously, even in my capacity as an "unofficial" lay apologist.

U.S. Abortions Have Been Reduced By 25% Since 1990

March For Life in Washington, D.C.: 22 January 2007
(my oldest son will be going to this year's event in a few days; I've been there twice)

Praise God! Still a long way to go, but approximately 400,000 children (based on past statistics) have been saved from the butchers' knives and vacuum cleaners. See an article from LifeNews.com.

The Sabbath Principle and Christian Sunday Worship / Sunday Obligation to Attend Mass

My home parish: St. Joseph's in Detroit (German Gothic Revival style)


Here are some helpful articles on these topics:

Sabbath and Sunday

From Sabbath to Sunday: How the Church Moved Its Holy Day, James P. Guzek, This Rock, February 1999.

The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Sunday"

Sabbath or Sunday: What Does Holy Scripture Say?, Bob Stanley

On Keeping the Lord's Day Holy (Dies Domini): Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II (31 May 1998)

Sunday Obligation to Attend Mass

Why Is It a Mortal sin to Miss Mass?, Fr. Ray Ryland, This Rock, July 2000.

Forget Mass? Not a Mortal Sin, Karl Keating, This Rock, Nov. 2003.

FAQ About Sunday Obligation: Not Going to Mass (Catholic Doors Ministries)

Sunday Obligation, Jimmy Akin

Fulfilling the Sunday Obligation on Saturday (+ Part Two), Jimmy Akin

Our Sunday Obligation, Maureen Kelly

There Are Reasons to Miss Mass, but Not Many Valid Ones, Fr. Matthew Mitas

See also The Catechism of the Catholic Church: #2168-2195.

* * * * *

The following remarks of mine were due to the comments of a Protestant seriously considering Catholicism. First I had written:

Like many Catholic things, this is widely misunderstood as yet another legalistic burden, whereas Church attendance ought to be seen as a privilege and joy, and as an extension of the OT Sabbath principle.

I think it's one of those things that Protestants object to that show they have too much time on their hands, along with. e.g., crucifixes: "those goofy Catholics are meditating on Jesus dying for us???!!! We can't have that!" Carping on and on about compulsory church attendance seems to me to be another huge non-issue.

This person took issue with my characterization and stated that legalism was indeed a serious problem to address and that "there is a difference between doing something because we are told and doing something because it's a response of love " and "my response to the Mass is first an act of love and faith. If it's simply an obligation, then my heart has not found it's hope. It is a ritual with no meaning other than a symbol." I replied in turn:

I agree with virtually all of what you wrote.

The thing I would note in this regard is that not all Christians, by a long shot, are motivated out of sheer love for the Lord and desire to please Him and to lead a saintly life. In fact, I would argue that this lamentable deficiency is true most of the time for everyone, no matter how pious or devout. We tend to "coast" in our spiritual life and not to make a positive effort to be all that we can be, so to speak.

The Church in her wisdom, recognizes this, and so makes something compulsory, lest this tendency to laxity cause many to not attend church. Is that a good thing all in all or a bad one? Is it a "net gain"? Of course it is good. It's better to have someone be in Church, even though they are not perfectly motivated from the heart and soul, than not to be there, and sitting at home watching Tim Russert or Brit Hume.

It's another "both/and" scenario: I don't have to disagree with you about the ideals of the Christian life: wholehearted service to God and completely pure motivation: doing everything for the right reasons, by God's grace. I also don't have to quibble with the Church's wisdom in requiring church attendance, for the sake of the vast majority of Christians who are usually coasting in their spiritual life.

Both are good. We all should strive for the ideal, and pray for God's grace to achieve it, but we should also be glad that many a Joe Q. Catholic is in the pews even though he is there because he has to be there, not because he wants to be. Oftentimes, Protestants are so far into the ethereal, ideal realm of pure, sublime Christianity that they neglect to see that God in His mercy accepts millions upon millions of His followers as they are, warts and all.

Some of that flows from the nature of the (flawed) theology of Protestantism: particularly extrinsic justification (and for the Calvinist, total depravity).

A Curious Luther Citation Examined in Extreme Depth Dispute (Part Two)

Example of Martin Luther's handwriting, a passage from "Dass diese Worte Christi, 'das ist mein Lieb,' &c. noch feststehen", [one of the primary texts we are considering; dated 1527] from the Royal Library at Copenhagen

See Part One

See Part Three

VIII. Various Possibilities of Interpretation

Now that we have a fuller understanding of Luther's doctrine concerning Scripture, Tradition, and the Church, we can better interpret this somewhat mysterious statement of Luther's regarding councils.

That doesn't mean that all the present challenges of interpretation disappear. We have seen the perplexing differences between the Latin and German translations. Catholics for centuries have been quoting the Latin version, which reads quite differently. I've speculated above as to some possible origins of this difference. Translations of the German also vary in frustrating ways. For example, note the difference between the LW version and Grisar's, seen above:

. . . men will, as the ancients did, once more turn to human schemes on account of this dissension, . . .

. . . we shall on account of such dissensions again be obliged, like the ancients, to seek for human contrivances . . .

This is a big difference indeed. It's the distinction between the following two statements:

Bill will go to the Lutheran church and become a Lutheran.

Bill should (and is obliged to) go to the Lutheran church and become a Lutheran.

The first is simply a descriptive statement, with no value judgment or necessary opinion.

The second is "editorial" and takes a stand, by the use of "should" (i.e., a variation of "shall") and "obliged." This is one conundrum in the present interpretation. Why did these two translations vary in this way? Is Grisar's English translator the culprit? Was there Lutheran theological bias in LW? Is Luther speaking in the first or second sense?

But there is a also a third, more complex sense of begrudging necessity. In this hypothesis, Luther would in effect be saying, "it shouldn't ideally be necessary, but given human nature and this absurd, damnable, rampant sectarianism, it is, sadly, necessary to turn to councils [or merely human schemes and contrivances] to preserve the unity of the faith that ought to be preserved by Scripture alone."

A fourth, more "psychological explanation and possibility is set forth by the Catholic Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar (appealing to our passage under review):

In his controversy with Zwingli, Luther even came to plead the cause of the Catholic principle of authority. . . . [quotes Luther] ". . . In fine, the devil is too clever and powerful for us. He hinders us and stops the way everywhere. If we wish to study Scripture he raises up so much strife and dissension that we tire of it. ... He is, and is called, Satan, i.e. an adversary." He here attributes to the devil the defects of his own Scriptural system, and puts away as something wrong even the very thought that it contained faults, another trait to his psychological picture . . . There is no doubt, that, in 1527, Luther did have to go through some severe struggles of conscience.

(Luther, Vol. IV, p. 410)

In other words, Grisar subtly reasons as follows, in analyzing Luther:

1. Luther accepts sola Scriptura as his rule of faith.

2. (Assumed by Luther) Sola Scriptura (which in turn presupposes perspicuity, or overall, general clearness of Scripture and ability to be fairly easily interpreted and understood by Joe Q. Protestant) ought to bring about doctrinal unity and theological (Protestant) consensus.

3. This unity, however, has clearly not happened (much to the consternation of all the major "reformers," especially Luther's best friend Philip Melanchthon, who was always weeping about it), and sectarianism abounds (Zwinglians, Anabaptists et al).

4. Indeed, these sectarians all appeal to sola Scriptura just as Luther had done.

5. But sola Scriptura is an unquestionable principle, and therefore is not, according to Luther, the cause of this.

6. Therefore, Luther (like a medieval Flip Wilson) blames the devil for bringing about dissensions, rather than examining his historically novel first principles to see if they may be faulty.

7. This simultaneously explains:

a) why sola Scriptura is not working in practice,

and

b) why its unquestionable status need not be critiqued and re-examined.

8. In light of these sad realities brought on by the devil (and by implication, also human sin), it is sadly necessary to have recourse to councils and merely human contingencies, in order to preserve unity. [i.e., begrudging recourse to the Catholic principles of authority when sola Scriptura fails in practice; just as Luther quickly flew to the German princes as surrogates for the bishops and their jurisdiction]

Catholics who cite Luther's words about recourse to councils (our "notorious" citation), would therefore (if this analysis holds) be doing so properly, since it is in the sense above: Luther conceded something he himself would not like to ideally see. In other words, it is a roundabout way of admitting the failure of that which he cannot bring himself to outwardly acknowledge: that sola Scriptura is itself the root cause of division, as a false first premise. Rather than admit that, Luther will blame the devil and others who disagree with him for the divisions and rampant sectarianism that he rightly despised so much. And sometimes he will appeal outright to unbroken, "unanimous" Church tradition, as we saw above.

I don't claim to know the definitive answer to this. My main concern has been to vindicate Catholics from the accusation that we have been quoting Luther out of context in this regard for centuries. The charge is not so easily established, nor is it always a cut-and-dried case in understanding Luther at any given point, because of the complexity of the man and his frequently self-contradictory, vacillating, changing opinions, and his incessant use of exaggeration, sarcasm, humor, various rhetorical and polemical techniques, etc.

For further progression in this discussion, we need to consult the original Latin translations of our text, that Catholics have quoted (or translated again into vernacular languages) for hundreds of years.

IX. Luther Utterly Despairs of Sectarianism Ever Being Reined In

This striking utterance (another Paul Hoffer discovery, like the Leibniz and Westcott citations; thanks Paul!) is another evidence of Luther's extreme aversion to proliferating Protestant sectarianism, and is certainly perfectly consistent with a notion of councils being necessary to stop the endless multiplication. In other words, Luther is so despairing of sectarianism that he thinks only the end of the world will bring a stop to it (he was dead right about that!). Therefore, if he can speak like this, it is perfectly plausible for him to take recourse in theoretical councils, since the latter is far less of an extreme sentiment than the former wish for the world to end, as a "solution" to rampant Protestant denominationalism and theological anarchy and relativism:

Then somebody said, "If the world should stand another fifty years, won't many a thing still happen?"

The doctor replied, "God forbid [that it should last that long]! It would become worse than it's ever been, for all sorts of sects would arise that are now still hidden in men's minds. One wouldn't know what to make of them. Come, therefore, dear Lord! Come and strike about thee with thy day of judgment, for no improvement is any longer to be expected!"

(Table-Talk, LW, Vol. 54, No. 5504, p. 437; recorded by Heydenreich; dated Winter of 1542-1543, just three years before Luther's death)

The same utterance is made reference to in Jules Michelet's 1846 work (translated by William Hazlitt), The Life of Luther (p. 342):

One of his guests observed, that if the world were to subsist another fifty years, a great many things would happen which they could not then foresee. "Pray God it may not exist so long," cried Luther; "matters would even be worse than they have been. There would rise up infinite sects and schisms, which are at present hidden within men's hearts, not yet mature. No; may the Lord come at once! let him cut the whole matter short with the Day of Judgment, for there is no amendment to be expected."

X. Pursuing the Original Latin Luther Source

The Wittenberg edition of Luther's Works contained 12 volumes of German and seven volumes of Latin, and appeared in 1559. The Jena edition contained eight volumes of German and four volumes of Latin writings and was published in 1558 and re-edited later. Jena did not publish translations and eventually became the more widely-used collection. Georg Rorer edited both works. Jena was chronological, whereas Wittenberg was topically arranged.

Both the Wittenberg and Jena collections (German + Latin) are housed in Pitts Theology Library at Emory University in Atlanta (Kessler Reformation Collection).

The primary Luther work we are researching was translated into Latin in 1556, according to the Cathedral Library of Salisbury. This Latin translation was published in Nuremburg, and is available in the Yale University Library and the Oxford library. According to a German Encyclopedia, the translator was Matthaeus Judex (aka Richter) and his Latin version was published in the Wittenberg collection, volume VII, starting on page 379. The same source information is found in a cross-reference in the 1841 Erlangen edition (observed firsthand by Steve Ray and myself at Concordia University Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan), which contained the work in German (vol. 30, 14 ff.).

Another library information page gives the German title: Dass diese Wort Christi "Das ist mein Leib" noch feststehen. It names the translator as Mattheus Judex and lists the book as 228 pages in length and 15 cm in size. This treatise was originally written in German in 1527. A work about fellow "reformer" Martin Bucer states in a footnote that our volume was written in response to Zwingli and Oecolampadius (hence its frequently used title, making reference to them).

Translator Matthaeus Judex (1528-1564) was a scholar and Gnesio-Lutheran (sources: one / two / three). He was a major Lutheran theologian and student of Luther himself.

The Latin citations from The Rheims NT preface (1582), St. Robert Bellarmine (1586-1593), and St. Francis de Sales (1596) had to be either from the Wittenberg collection, the individual work published separately, or a secondary source which was circulating at this early date. The Latin in question may have been from a quotation from Catholics, hence possibly distorted and changed from the original for polemical purposes. This is entirely possible (just as Protestant translation bias is equally possible). We can only wait and see what we find.

The trick now is to obtain one of these early works. Thus far, a few libraries have refused to loan them or even photocopy their pages, due to age and the brittle nature of the pages after five centuries. So our search continues . . .

XI. Martin Luther the Conciliarist (Protestant Tim Enloe's Thesis)

As more evidence of the high premium that Luther placed on Church authority (i.e., in a way largely consistent with the thoughts of the citation in dispute, and in harmony with his notions of sola Scriptura), I'd like to provide considerable excerpts of the thesis of Tim Enloe with regard to medieval conciliarism, as expressed also in Martin Luther's own views.

Tim is no ["Roman"] Catholic and has often been a scathing critic of the papacy as it has been exercised throughout history in ways that he considers excessive, to put it mildly (one will notice this below). He has no motivation whatsoever to slant the historical evidence towards the Catholic view that I espouse (indeed, I have often in the past clashed with him in matters of interpretation of Martin Luther). So I think his opinion is valuable in our present discussion. The following words are all from his thesis (indented sections are Luther quotes):

Given all this background, it is cannot be surprising that on November 28, 1518, in the wake of Cardinal Cajetan's papal-authorized excommunication of Luther at the Diet of Augsburg, Luther did what so many before him had done: he appealed beyond the pope to the judgment of a General Council. Specifically, he called for "a free, Christian council" in words almost echoing the Council of Constance's decree Haec sancta. 35 Seven months later came the dispute at Leipzig where he was baited into saying that the Council of Constance had erred in condemning John Huss. Less than a year and a half later he wrote his To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, in which he called upon the temporal princes to call a council since the pope had not and did not lawfully possess exclusive convoking power. 36 Luther's emphasis upon the necessity of the council being free has much to do with the Restoration Papacy's hijacking of the conciliar mechanism, as noted above, and this is one more piece of evidence that his protest was neither intrinsically "revolutionary" nor finally based upon any alleged sovereignty of his own private conscience.

(p. 18)

The demand for a council was repeated at the Diet of Regensburg in 1527, the Diet of Speyer in 1529, in the introduction to the Augsburg Confession in 1530, and at the Diet of Regensburg in 1532. The pattern of the fifteenth century was continuing without abatement in the sixteenth.

Indeed, although the 1529 Diet of Speyer is known as the occasion on which the term "Protestant" was coined to describe the Lutheran dissenters from the imperial Proposition and which has been an ever-convenient foil for anti-Protestants seeking to find radical individualism in the Protestant principle, McNeill points out that "The Protest of Speyer is primarily the reiteration by the Lutheran princes and cities of the conciliar principle inculcated by Luther himself."45 He continues, most illuminatingly:

If Protestantism is to be associated with this Protest, from which its name is derived, the Protest itself should be understood in the light of the long-deferred conciliar proposal with which it was primarily concerned. It was essentially a reassertion of the Lutheran determination to secure peace and reform by means of an unfettered general council. If private judgment is invoked in it, the solution ultimately in view is to be reached by the exercise of corporate judgment in conciliar action.

(pp. 22-23)

Five years later, in 1539, worried over Paul III's preparations for what would later, after several proposed sites and multiple cancellations, at last become the Council of Trent, Luther penned his definitive work On the Councils and the Church. In the opening pages of this bitingly satirical polemic Luther complains that the pope is playing with the hearts and minds of Christians just like the owner of a dog might offer it a morsel of food only to punish it for trying to get the food 73 and that the papalists generically considered have been smitten by God "with such Egyptian blindness and such Jewish madness that they are determined to yield on no point and to let Christendom perish rather than to allow the most trifling idolatry (with which they are stuffed and overfull) to be reformed". 74 He opines that the papalists are worse tyrants than even the Turks, heathens, and Jews because unlike the latter the former knowingly crucify the Lord and desire manifest idolatry to be called by the name of "Christian". 75 Further, the reformer charges that the pope's faction excludes itself from the Church by reason of its "permitting hundreds of parishes to lie waste and churches to die without shepherd, sermon, and sacrament", and also by its hypocritical claim to be "the Church" while yet being the Church's worst enemy. 76 Exceedingly strong rhetoric, indeed, and indicative of the extreme despair to which an old, worn-out, passionate reformer had at last succumbed. He would live only a few years longer, and die after having seen the final insult of the opening phases of the Council of Trent.

On the Councils and the Church is thus a highly-charged piece of polemics and must be evaluated accordingly. Many voices prior to Luther's had expressed profound frustration with papal intransigence regarding fulfilling the conciliarist program of reform set down by the Council of Constance in the previous century. Luther does not stand alone in his rhetoric, nor does his rhetoric encompass all that can be said of the conciliarist program -- which program, as his rhetoric consistently points out, has been hijacked by the papalist faction and prevented from doing its proper work of reform. 77

(pp. 33-34)

By 1541 then, we see that Luther was extremely disillusioned as to the prospects for the free, Christian council. In his next tract of that year, Against Hanswurst, he bitterly opines:

And what have you yourselves done that you now desire a council, now promising it, then again postponing it, and at other times refusing it? If your church is holy, why does it fear a council? Why does it fear a reformation or a council? If it needs a council, how can it be holy? Do you want to reform your holiness too? We, for our part, have never desired a council to reform our church. God and the Holy Spirit already sanctified our church through his holy word and, indeed, purged away all papal whoredom and idolatry, so that we have everything (God be praised) pure and holy -- the word, baptism, the sacrament, the keys, and everything which belongs to the true church -- without the addition and filth of human doctrine . . .

But we desire a council so that our church may be examined and our doctrine come freely to light -- and your whoredom in the papacy be recognized and condemned. Thus everyone who is misled by it may, together with us, be converted to the true holy church and sustained in it. But you, and your god the devil, have no desire for this. You bats, moles, horned owls, night ravens, and screech owls who cannot bear the light do all in your guile and power to prevent, by all means, the truth from being heard and discussed in the light. 81

It would be an easy conclusion -- perhaps too easy -- if we as Protestants were to evaluate rhetoric such as suffuses On the Councils and the Church as if it represents a "standalone" argument or even the mature judgment of a balanced perspective. We must not separate Luther's views of councils from the preceding century and a half of historical context, for in many ways his extremely harsh words remind us of the laments of the movers and shakers of the fifteenth century's Conciliar Movement.

(p. 36)

We have seen that Luther was an inheritor of the conciliarist tradition of the fifteenth century but that because of the desperate circumstances in which he and all of Christendom at the time found themselves enmeshed, he had a great deal of difficulty believing that the conciliar mechanism could actually perform what it promised. It was not councils per se that were the problem for Luther, but councils that were the mere creatures of the Roman Papacy. A final remark from early in his On the Councils and the Church should sufficiently establish this:

. . . It is true, I admit, that the word "council" is easily spoken, and the sermon "one should keep the councils" is easily preached. But what should be our attitude on the question of reinstating their authority? What about that, dear friend? The pope, with his followers, is clever indeed; he extricates himself easily, and says that he is above all councils and may keep what he will and allow others to keep what he wills. Yes, if the problem can be solved in that way, then let us stop using the word "council" and stop preaching (that the councils should be observed) and, instead, scream "Pope! Pope!" and "One must obey the pope's doctrine!" Thus we too will all extricate ourselves easily and become as fine Christians as they are. What does the council matter to us if we cannot or will not keep it, but boast only of the name or the letter? 82

As with many conciliarists before him, Luther understood that the conciliar mechanism had been sabotaged and hijacked by the absolute monarchy of the Papacy and could not perform its reforming function so long as the Papacy itself stood in the way.

(p. 37)

XII. Translation of Leibniz's Context (by Tim Enloe)

(continuing on from Part I: sections II and III)
(all words in this section are Tim's own; I have only added section titles)

LATIN TEXT
(see online)

Esse adhuc quaedam quae in Vulgata fortasse corrigi possint, non negant, qui eam authenticam statuunt. Authenticum enim est cui tuto fidi posse publice statutum est, nullum inesse mendum unde periculum creari legentibus possit. Itaque sufficit nihil inesse, unde periculum creari legentibus possit.

De versionibus vulgaribus hoc tantum statutum est ut non promiscue concedantur aut legantur. Neque enim negari potest aliquando periculosum esse, ut sint in plebis manibus, fatendum est tamen aliquando id sine ullo periculo fieri ut nunc in Gallia et Germania itaque temporum et hominum ratio habenda est. Et ubi plebi negatur scripturae lectio debet saltem Nucleus ejus fieri….

Lutherus praef. in psalmos. Scio esse imprudentissimae temeritatis eum qui (audeat) profiteri aliquem scripturae librum (a se in omnibus partibus) intellectum.

Luther lib. 1. contra Zwinglium et Oecolampadium ait: si diutius steterit mundus iterum fore necessarium propter diversas sacrae scripturae interpretations quae nunc sunt, ut ad conservandum fidei unitatem Conciliorum decreta recipiamus et ad ea confugiamus.

Brentius in prolegomenis contra Petrum a Soto fatetur traditionem saltem hanc de scriptura sacra esse admittendam.

Statuunt catholici animam Christi inde a conceptione omnes dotes habuisse quas postea habuit.

Utrum omnia in quibus sine periculo salutis errari non potest, in Scriptura Sacra habeantur definite, quaestio magna est: Mihi primum illud indubium videtur ipsam librorum Sacrorum autoritatem haberi traditione Ecclesiae, deinde vereor ut Sacrosanctam Trinitatem possimus satis evincere ex scriptures, traditione non adhibita, quae tamen Scripturam cum traditione conjungenti longe manifestior redditur. Illud nihilominus certum est Scripturam S. multo magis Trinitati favere et ab Anti-Trinitariis aliquando violenter torqueri.

TIM'S TRANSLATION

To this point they who have established the Vulgate to be authentic have not denied [that] certain things in it are perhaps able to be corrected. It is indeed authentic to those who without danger to [their] faith can publicly establish it, [and] no error belongs to a place from which danger [to faith?] can be created from reading [the text]. Therefore, [they say] it suffices [that] no error belongs to a place from which danger can be created from reading [the text].

Concerning the popular versions, it has been established only that they [who read them aloud] might not indiscriminately overlook [the faults] or read them [the faults] aloud. It cannot be denied that sometimes it is dangerous, that they [the popular versions] are in the hands of the people. Nevertheless, it ought to be acknowledged that sometimes it [reading?] can be done without any danger, just as it is thus now in France and Germany. And where the people are denied the reading of Scripture, at least its Central Part ought to be done…[1]

[From] Luther's Preface to the Psalms. "I know him to be a most imprudent and rash person who (let him dare!) professes [to have] some other understanding of all the parts of the book of Scripture by himself."[2]

Luther, [in his] Book 1 against Zwingli and Oecolampadius says: “If the world stands for a long time, it will again be necessary because of the diverse interpretations of sacred scripture which now exist to receive and have recourse to the decrees of Councils for the preservation of the unity of the faith.”

Brentius, [3] anyhow, in [his] Prolegomena Against Peter of Soto [4] confesses that this tradition concerning sacred scripture should be received.

Catholics establish the mind of Christ therefrom by conceiving [themselves] to possess all the benefits which afterwards they have. [5]

Whether everything in which it is not possible to err without danger of salvation may be clearly had in Sacred Scripture is a great question: To me, in the first place, it seems certain that the same authority of the Sacred books is to be had in the tradition of the Church. In the next place, I dread that not consulting tradition we might overcome the [doctrine of] the Sacred Trinity from the Scriptures, which [doctrine has] nevertheless been clearly delivered for a long time [by] Scripture joined with tradition. [I hold] that nothing is more certain than that many Sacred Scriptures support the Trinity, and [these Scriptures] are now and again violently tortured by Anti-Trinitarians.[6]

TIM'S NOTES AND CLARIFYING COMMENTARY

[1] I have omitted the phrase “Breviarum quoddam vulgo haberi in <---> (animarum)<-->” because I don’t know what’s going on there. It looks like part of the text is missing and an editor has made some sort of inexact interpolation, but I can’t be sure.

[2] I am unsure of my rendering of this sentence without more context from Luther. In the context of Leibniz’ essay, it would make sense that he’s quoting a Luther passage that he thinks shows Luther denying the right of just any person to interpret the Scriptures “in some other sense” than the one Luther himself prefers. This seems fairly consistent with Luther’s views as we know them from other sources. If Luther is referring to the dispute with Zwingli, then it is probably Zwingli who he is calling the “most imprudent and rash man” who has a different understanding of the Scriptures “by himself.”

[3] Perhaps referring to Johann Brentius (1499-1570), a follower of Luther.

[4] Perhaps referring to the Spanish Dominican Peter of Soto (d. 1563).

[5] This sounds very odd, but the sentence is so short that it is difficult to do much more with it than render it “woodenly.” At the moment I’m not sure whether “catholici” (which may be either nominative plural or genitive singular) refers to “Catholics” (as I’ve translated it) or to the abstract “universal truths” of orthodox theology. Perhaps upon further thought I will be able to see a more colloquial-sounding meaning.

[6] From what I gather from my studies, Leibniz had a severe dispute with Isaac Newton regarding the orthodoxy of the doctrine of the Trinity. Newton, using a form of grammatical-historical exegesis on the Bible, argued that the doctrine of the Trinity was not biblical, but was a 4th century heresy that had been accreted into Christian faith. Leibniz vigorously argued against him that the doctrine of the Trinity was orthodox, and in so doing he brought in the interpretive authority of tradition.

Lest this point be trumpeted by Catholic apologists as just one more proof that “sola Scriptura doesn’t work”—i.e., via some such argument as “Leibniz was really smart Protestant who knew that sola Scriptura couldn’t solve doctrinal disputes”--it should be understood that sola Scriptura properly understood does not say that the Bible is the only authority in matters of religion. In fact, as Keith Mathison has argued in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is what Heiko Oberman has called the “Tradition 1” position, wherein Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith but Scripture is only properly interpreted via the Church’s regula fidei.

There is immense confusion about these matters in the apologetics communities of both Catholics and Protestants, and I write this footnote to my translation of Leibniz to make it clear that I absolutely would not be in support of a reading of Leibniz’s words here as a “sola Scriptura does not work” argument, some kind of tacit admission by Leibniz that appeals must be made to the Roman Catholic Magisterium’s infallible authority if any truth is to be had from Sacred Scripture. Such an argument, though very popular in Catholic apologetics circles, is a cheap-shot argument made on the basis of the principles of skepticism and is unworthy of any Christian apologist. From all that I know of Leibniz, this would be a misuse of his words, and Catholic apologists should make every effort to avoid so using his words.

XIII. The Cochlaeus Theory of Derivation

Some believe that the Latin citation under consideration was derived solely from Johann Cochlaeus, the 16th century Luther biographer and polemicist. Cochlaeus was indeed markedly "anti-Luther," I freely grant, but in a religious milieu in which fellow Protestants Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Bucer denied that Martin Luther was even a Christian, and where Calvin and Bullinger severely attacked his character and judgment, Cochlaeus was pretty much just one in a crowd in that regard.

Based on textual comparisons done after discovering a Latin citation from one Philipp Neri Chrismann, from 1792, that cross-referenced a Cochlaeus work, one would reasonably conclude that Cochlaeus is not the source for the Latin citation, as used by the many writers we have documented, excepting Chrismann himself. The comparative textual evidence can be seen in my revised section III (in Part I) of my "long paper" on this whole controversy. None of the other citations besides Chrismann can plausibly be traced to Cochlaeus (again, assuming for the sake of argument that Chrismann is accurate in his citation), because of several differences; namely:

1) The phrase, mundus steterit reverses the word order compared to all the others.

2) The phrase ut ob divinas Scripturae is unique. The words, ob divinas appear in none of the other citations at all.

3) All the others have propter diversas before Scripturae. Cochlaeus / Chrismann "delete" these two words altogether.

4) concilii appears rather than conciliorum -- as all the others save Hallinan use.

5) It cuts off after recipiamus -- unlike all the others.

This would mean that our original Latin source is probably (?) from Matthaeus Judex (aka Richter) and his Latin version that was published in 1556, in the Wittenberg collection, volume VII, starting on page 379 (as I argued in section X above). Some Protestants think that St. Robert Bellarmine was the Latin source for the quote in isolation, that was picked up by later Catholic writers. 

Where, then, did Bellarmine's Latin translation come from? A Latin translation was already available at least 20 years before Bellarmine compiled and wrote his great work against Protestantism: Disputations About the Controversies of the Christian Faith Against the Heretics of This Time. If Bellarmine was setting out to refute Protestantism, including reference to a work of Luther's in Latin already long translated and included in the "official" Wittenberg Lutheran-translated collection, why would he bother to translate his own version (he may not have even been able to read German in the first place)? It's possible, of course (lots of things are that), but not particularly plausible, in my opinion. So it is sensible to conclude that he got it from somewhere else.

He could have conceivably cited Cochlaeus' version of this text, which appeared in 1543. Chrismann's text (if accurate) suggests that he did not. Or he may have cited an additional heretofore unidentified translation, floating about at the time. We are trying to get our hands on the Judex Wittenberg translation (Yale and Oxford have copies), but it is proving very difficult and a lengthy process, if it is possible at all, without physically visiting the libraries. The Cochlaeus is easier to access in person, so that we can at least verify one primary document and compare the Latin to what we know of thus far, as part of an ongoing "process of elimination". Paul Hoffer has stated that he also has access to some Cochlaeus material in Ohio.

Following through from the Chrismann citation of a Cochlaeus volume ("l. de canon script. auctoritate"), I discovered the exact work, in the book Luther's Lives: Two Contemporary Accounts (translated by Elizabeth Vandiver, Ralph Keen, Thomas D. Frazel; Manchester Univ. Press: 2002), p. 375, footnote 31. This book is a translation of both Melanchthon's and Cochlaeus' 16th century biographies of Luther. 

This footnote informs us that the book, De Canonicae scripturae & Catholicae Ecclesiae autoritate, ad Henricum Bullingerum Iohannis Cochlaei libellus, was published in 1543 (Ingolstadt, Alexander Weissenhorn), 16 years after Luther's original German work, on "This is My Body". It predates the Latin translation of Matthaeus Judex by 13 years.

It is relevant to our discussion of sources and bias to mention that the present-day translators of Cochlaeus had a very high opinion of his accuracy in citing Luther texts:

It is perhaps worth noting, moreover, that Cochlaeus is scrupulously accurate in these early compilations and in his copying from them in the Commentary. Only rarely did he conflate separate quotations from his earlier patchwork books and present them as coherent passages.

(p. 374, footnote 21)

No Catholic scholars between the sixteenth century and the great mid-twentieth-century theologians Joseph Lortz and Erwin Iserloh knew Luther's work as intimately as Cochlaeus did; and only in recent decades has there been a desire to return to the disputes of the Reformation era and scrutinize the sources. For historical information and theological insight from a neglected viewpoint, as well as the occasional rhetorical barb, few texts of the sixteenth century call for historical recovery more than the Commentary.

. . . But anyone who chooses to attack Cochlaeus on purely technical grounds, and argue that he is careless with the evidence available to him, will have a difficult task. Cochlaeus exploits his opponent's texts and historical tradition with scrupulous accuracy in his quoting both bodies of materials. He knew, as the hagiographer knows, that the account loses validity if it is factually inaccurate.

(pp. 37-38; not included in the online Google Book search text)

This Cochlaeus book is available in four libraries in the United States (Harvard, Yale, one in Chicago, and Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan), and in microform. Bullinger wrote a reply to Cochlaeus.

The bottom line, then, if my speculations above turn out to be correct, is that the origin of the Latin translation that has circulated around, as cited by Catholics, is Lutheran, not Catholic. If that is so, then no one can reasonably charge that there is a pronounced partisan bias in the translation, slanting towards Catholicism. The task would be to determine whether Judex used words like conciliorum in the text, whereas even Grisar's translator didn't translate the German as "council". Catholics (in this still hypothetical scenario) could hardly be blamed for citing a Lutheran translation of Martin Luther's statement, if that is what actually happened.

If this overall theory of derivation is proven to be wrong, on the other hand, then we will have to compare Cochlaeus' translation with Judex' translation and determine which is closer to the original German, and which (by the judgment of textual comparison or other clues of direct derivation) was used by later writers who cited the text under consideration.

If Cochlaeus turns out to be the source, but his translation hardly differs from Judex, and/or is determined to be a good translation, relatively free of theological bias, then it would be irrelevant whether he was the source or not (in terms of the charge of unethical polemical bias), provided that his translation can hold up to scrutiny. But if it is overly biased, then we must concede that it is legitimate to criticize that. I've always held that everyone (in theological matters and most if not all other ones) has a bias towards his own view, so that is no great or novel admission on my part.

A snippet from Cochlaeus suggests Chrismann may not have been citing the former accurately (thus I have revised this section somewhat, in light of this latest intriguing "evidence"). If I am transcribing weird abbreviation techniques correctly, it reads:

Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum erit necessarium, ut propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, Conciliorum . . .

This is closest to the Bellarmine (p. 76 version) and Balmes translations, with only a few words' difference. We can't determine which book it is from (this work is a compilation) or even the page number, from this information. Or else this particular snippet is not the one actually cited by Chrismann, etc. Cochlaeus may have more than one version, just as Bellarmine presented (though his differences were not great, and were basically two minor variants of the same thing). All the more reason to get to the original primary source material . . .

Bellarmine cited Cochlaeus as a secondary source in at least two places on one page, in the same work where we found his use of the Luther citation, on page 32. Bellarmine cites him also on pages 77, 102, 236, 272, 457, 498, and 507. This is not, however, an extraordinary number of citations in a copiously-documented work of 575 large, double-columned pages with small print. It doesn't suggest sole or even primary derivation of Latin Luther texts from Cochlaeus. Since Cochlaeus had compiled a lot of Luther's utterances, we would expect him to show up in some fashion in such a work in the 16th century.

One hypothetical construction of the evolution of use of this citation is as follows:

Luther German original
to
Latin translation (authors uncertain)
to
Cochlaeus
to
Bellarmine and Chrismann (independently?)

This doesn't quite (plausibly) fit with what we know thus far, since the "official" translation appeared in the Wittenberg Collection of Luther's Works, published in 1556, done by one Matthaeus Judex (aka Richter), a Gnesio-Lutheran. Cochlaeus, however, died in 1552. We also know (if Chrismann is to be believed) that Cochlaeus translated the particular text we are debating in 1543. Perhaps he got it from another source (??). He may have conceivably translated it more than once, too, since he was active in polemics from the early 1520s. But the tree above discounts the Judex translation, which is clearly the most important one of the period (thus, presumably, the most circulated). My own "tree" at this point (subject to revision almost daily!: I wrote this on 1-15-08) is as follows:

Luther: German Original [1527]

to

Latin Translation (Lutheran Judex [1556] or Catholic Cochlaeus [1543, etc. {?} ] or other unknown party)

to

Bellarmine (1570s-1580s) and the writers of the Rheims NT Preface (1582)

[note that the latter clearly indicates that Luther disagreed with his own begrudging admission of the necessary "reality" of the solution to sectarianism, since it stated: "we must receive again (which he thought absurd) the Decrees of the Councils, for preserving the unity of faith". Thus, the theory of Profound Catholic Bias and Citing Luther Out of Context Contra His Own Opinion is undercut almost from the starting-gate]

XIV. William Whitaker's Bogus and Ridiculous Charge of Cochlaeus Fabrication

English Puritan William Whitaker (1548-1595), in his work, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (1586; translated from the Latin by William Fitzgerald; digitized on 7 December 2006), made reference to our quote, via St. Robert Bellarmine's use of it (p. 140):

[summarizing Bellarmine's arguments at first] . . . Luther, in his book against Zwingle, was moved to say, that, if the world lasted long, it would again be necessary to receive the decrees of councils, on account of these diverse interpretations of scripture. I answer, in the first place, what sort of an argument is this? . . . as to Luther, I do not know whether he said this or not. The slanderous Cochlaeus hath affirmed it of him. It is a matter of no moment. Such then are Bellarmine's arguments.

Well, yes; Luther did indeed say something like this (see my textual analysis in Section V of Part One). It is no invention. The only real question is proper translation (particularly the word or concept of "council"). That Luther was talking about "diverse interpretations of Scripture" is very clear in immediate context. For example, the immediately preceding section in English (LW, vol. 37) reads:

Once more there will arise a brawl over the Scriptures, and such dissension and so many factions that we may well say with St. Paul, “The mystery of lawlessness is already at work” [II Thess. 2:7], just as he also saw that many more factions would arise after him.

And the section immediately after our quote reads:

Their success will be the same as it was in the past.

In short, the devil is too clever and too mighty for us. He resists and hinders us at every point. When we wish to deal with Scripture, he stirs up so much dissension and quarreling over it that we lose our interest in it and become reluctant to trust it.

My theory as to why the Latin has diversas Scripturae interpretationes, whereas the German doesn't have "Scripture", is precisely one of context: since before and after these "dissensions" were referred directly to arguments concerning what Scripture teaches. Therefore, he felt that it was justified to indicate what the dissension was about. It wasn't just dissension as an abstract concept, but specifically dissension concerning Scripture.

I don't find that to be an impermissible method of translation, because it is more of a translation of overall thought, rather than a literal word-for-word method (just as Bible translations differ in that regard today). In fact, Luther did the same thing when he added "alone" to "faith" in one famous passage in his German Bible (Romans 3:28 if I recall correctly). He was translating thoughts, not just words.

But the irony of Whitaker's speculation that this was a pure fabrication of Cochlaeus lies in the fact that there was a Latin translation of the work in question from Luther in 1556 by Matthaeus Judex, a Lutheran, that was included in the Wittenberg Collection of Luther's Works (1556). That was thirty years before Whitaker wrote this tome, yet he is unaware that such a citation from Luther even exists and is quite prepared to charge fabrication. Obviously, if he is that ignorant of a matter, he has no business charging others with unethical invention.

A further humorous aspect of this is that Catholics have been charged with taking the citation radically out of context and butchering its meaning for polemical purposes. Yet the Catholics who wrote the preface to the Rheims New Testament in 1582, four years before Whitaker writes here, clearly indicated that Luther himself thought this recourse was "absurd". Therefore, they are not citing out of context at all, but indicating context with a parenthetical remark.

But Whitaker is so ignorant of the text that he would rather accuse Catholics of fabricating it, when it clearly existed in Latin (from a Protestant translator) and could be (probably fairly easily, as Luther writings were widespread) looked up and verified. We're being accused of taking a text out of context, while good ole Puritan hero Whitaker (less than a generation away from the origin of the "official" Latin text) is claiming it doesn't exist at all and making someone out to be a liar, without cause! Who could come up with more humorous fiction, I ask?

The Catholics knew about this Lutheran text but fellow Protestant Whitaker did not. At least it is arguable that we Catholics have not used the statement out of context or improperly. We have respectable arguments to give in our own defense. But it is not arguable at all to claim that it doesn't exist in the first place. Maybe it's just my own weird, dry sense of humor, but I find that extremely funny: almost the stuff of self-parody.

XV. John Calvin and Thomas Cranmer Also Discuss the Dire Need for Councils for the Sake of Doctrinal Unity

[thanks to the illustrious Ben M. for the tip on these; all bolding in text my own]

Cranmer to Calvin: 20 March 1552 [complete]

As nothing tends more injuriously to the separation of the Churches than heresies and disputes respecting the doctrines of religion, so nothing tends more effectually to unite the Churches of God, and more powerfully to defend the fold of Christ, than the pure teaching of the Gospel and harmony of doctrine. Wherefore I have often wished, and still continue to do so, that learned and godly men, who are eminent for erudition and judgment, might meet together, and, comparing their respective opinions, might handle all the heads of ecclesiastical doctrine, and hand down to posterity, under the weight of their authority, some work not only upon the subjects themselves, but upon the forms of expressing them. Our adversaries are now holding their councils at Trent, for the establishment of their errors ; and shall we neglect to call together a godly synod, for the refutation of error, and for restoring and propagating the truth? They are, as I am informed, making decrees respecting the worship of the host; wherefore we ought to leave no stone unturned, not only that we may guard others against this idolatry, but also that we may ourselves come to an agreement upon the doctrine of this sacrament. It cannot escape your prudence how exceedingly the Church of God has been injured by dissensions and varieties of opinion respecting the sacrament of unity; and though they are now in some measure removed, yet I could wish for an agreement in this doctrine, not only as regards the subject itself, but also with respect to the words and forms of expression. You have now my wish, about which I have also written to Masters Philip [Melanchthon] and Bullinger; and I pray you to deliberate among yourselves as to the means by which this synod can be assembled with the greatest convenience. Farewell. Your very dear brother in Christ,

Thomas Cantuar

(Letters of John Calvin, Vol. II, edited by Jules Bonnet and translated from Latin and French by David Constable, Edinburgh: Thomas Constable & Co., 1857, pp. 330-331)

Calvin to Cranmer: April 1552 [complete]

Your opinion, most distinguished Sir, is indeed just and wise, that in the present disordered condition of the Church, no remedy can be devised more suitable than if a general meeting were held of the devout and the prudent, of those properly exercised in the school of God, and of those who are confessedly at one on the doctrine of holiness. For we see how Satan is attempting, by various devices, to extinguish the light of the Gospel, which, by the wonderful goodness of God, having risen upon us, is shining in many a quarter. The hireling dogs of the Pope cease not to bark, in order to prevent the pure Gospel of Christ from being heard: so great is the licentiousness that is here and there breaking forth, and the ungodliness that is spreading abroad, that religion is become a mere mockery; and those who are not professed enemies of the truth, nevertheless conduct themselves with an impropriety which will create in a short time, unless it be obviated, terrible disorder among us. And not only among the common herd of men here does the distemper of a stupid inquisitiveness alternate with that of fearless extravagance, but, what is more lamentable, in the ranks of the pastors also the malady is now gaining ground. It is too well known with what mad actions Osiander is deceiving himself and deluding certain others. Yet the Lord, as he has done even from the beginning of the world; will preserve in a miraculous manner, and in a way unknown to us, the unity of a pure faith from being destroyed by the dissensions of men. And those whom He has placed on His watchtower He wishes least of all to be inactive, seeing that He has appointed them to be His ministers, through whose labours He may preserve from all corruptions sound doctrine in the Church, and transmit it safe to posterity. Especially, most illustrious Archbishop, is it necessary for you, in proportion to the distinguished position you occupy, to turn your attention as you are doing towards this object. I do not say this as if to spur you on to greater exertions, who are not only, of your own accord, in advance of others, but are also, as a voluntary encourager, urging them on; I say it in order that, by my congratulations, you may be strengthened in a pursuit so auspicious and noble. I hear that the success of the Gospel in England is indeed cheering; but you will experience there also, I doubt not, what Paul experienced in his time, that by means of the door that has been opened for the reception of pure doctrine, many enemies will suddenly rise up against it. Although I am really ignorant of how many suitable defenders you may have at hand to repel the lies of Satan, still the ungodliness of those who are wholly taken up in creating disturbances, causes the assiduity of the well-disposed to be at no time either too much or superfluous. And then I am aware that English matters are not so all-important in your eyes, but that you, at the same time, regard the interests of the whole world. Moreover, the rare piety of the English King, as well as his noble disposition, is worthy of the highest commendation, in that, of his own inclination, he entertains the pious design of holding a convention of the nature referred to, and offers a place for it also in his own kingdom. And would that it were attainable to bring together into some place, from various Churches, men eminent for their learning, and that after having carefully discussed the main points of belief one by one, they should, from their united judgments, hand down to posterity the true doctrine of Scripture. This other thing also is to be ranked among the chief evils of our time, viz., that the Churches are so divided, that human fellowship is scarcely now in any repute amongst us, far less that Christian intercourse which all make a profession of, but few sincerely practise. If men of learning conduct themselves with more reserve than is seemly, the very heaviest blame attaches to the leaders themselves, who, either engrossed in their own sinful pursuits, are indifferent to the safety and entire piety of the Church, or who, individually satisfied with their own private peace, have no regard for others. Thus it is that the members of the Church being severed, the body lies bleeding. So much does this concern me, that, could I be of any service, I would not grudge to cross even ten seas, if need were, on account of it. If it were but a question regarding the rendering of assistance to the kingdom of England, such a motive would at present be to me a sufficiently just one. Now, seeing that a serious and properly adjusted agreement between men of learning upon the rule of Scripture is still a desideratum, by means of which Churches, though divided on other questions, might be made to unite, I think it right for me, at whatever cost of toil and trouble, to seek to obtain this object. But I hope my own insignificance will cause me to be passed by. If I earnestly pray that it may be undertaken by others, I hope I shall have discharged my duty. Mr. Philip [Melanchthon] is at too great a distance to admit of a speedy interchange of letters. Mr. Bullinger has likely written you before this time. Would that I were as able as I am willing to exert myself! Moreover, the very difficulty of the thing which you feel, compels me to do what, at the outset, I affirmed I would not do, viz., not only to encourage, but also to implore you to increase your exertions, until something at least shall have been accomplished, if not all that we could desire. Adieu, very distinguished Archbishop, deserving of my hearty reverence. May the Lord continue to guide you by His Spirit, and to bless your holy labours!

John Calvin

(Ibid., pp. 330-333)

Calvin to Cranmer: July 1552

Seeing that, at the present time, that which is most of all to be desired is least likely to be attained, viz., that an assembly of the most eminent men of learning, from all the various Churches which have embraced the pure doctrine of the Gospel, after having discussed separately the controverted topics of the day, might transmit to posterity, out of the pure Word of God, a true and distinct confession; . . .

(Ibid., p. 341)

See also related papers:

Dialogue: John Calvin's Letter to Philip Melanchthon Concerning Protestant Divisions: Its Nature, Intent, and Larger Implications

Philip Melanchthon's Agony Over the Sectarianism of Early Protestantism / Little-Known Derivation of the Term "Protestant"

Philip Melanchthon in 1530 Longs For the Return of the Jurisdiction of Catholic Bishops / His Agonized Tears Over Protestant Divisions and Dissensions (+ Discussion)

XVI. The Prevailing Translation Method in the 16th Century

[From: W. Schwarz, "The Theory of Translation in Sixteenth-Century Germany," The Modern Language Review, Vol. 40, No. 4. (Oct., 1945), pp. 289-299; all bolded emphases my own; many thanks to Paul Hoffer for finding this information]

Medieval translators had attempted to render each Greek word by a Latin one, and thus to preserve Greek idioms and syntax in Latin. Against this theory of word-for-word translation, Italian humanists such as L. Bruni Aretino had proclaimed the principle that translations should satisfy the highest exigencies of style. German forerunners of humanism in the third quarter of the fifteenth century were greatly influenced by this thought of the Italian humanists. . . .

In his first translation (three Declamations of Libanius) Erasmus is very cautious in the application of a theory which he thinks right. He has followed, he writes on 17 November 1503, Cicero's rule that a translator should think of the weight and force of the sentences, not of the number of the words.' This clearly indicates Erasmus' intention to translate sense for sense. . . .

Some writers seem to paraphrase rather than to translate, e.g. Luther in his translation of Aesop's fables. Traces of such a way of rendering can be found in many translations of the fifteenth century. . . .

At this point it is useful to compare these tendencies of translation with those prevailing in the fifteenth century. Then, a translator had to decide if he intended to render word for word or sense for sense. Sense-for-sense translators, it is true, sometimes enlarged the original text and used paraphrase. Nevertheless there was a clear-cut distinction between these two different theories of translation. In the sixteenth century this old contrast still plays its part, but it is modified by the introduction of new thought : the literary value of the original work should not be lost in the translation. This tendency, which finds its finest expression in Erasmus' work, was bound to soften the rigidity of the word-for-word method. The aim to be absolutely clear led to paraphrasing as in Luther's case. . . .

Thus it could be recognized that every language had its own idioms which differ from those of all other tongues. If this was so, it wits natural to conclude that German too had its own way of expression which cannot be rendered word for word into any other language, and that consequently other languages could not be translated word for word into German. . . .

The existence of such a current of thought can be assumed from the grammars published at that time in Germany. Latin grammars, the aim of which is to teach an elegant Latin style, often contain statements how to translate idiomatic expressions from or into German. Jacob Wimpheling, who published his grammar Isidoneus Germanicus c. 1496, writes: 'boys should be admonished that Latin does not always conform with German'. Examples are given to point out such differences. Wimpheling concludes : 'The Latin idiom cannot follow our vernacular in all things, nor vice versa.' If a translator follows this precept, he can no longer strictly apply the method of rendering word for word. . . .

Sebastian Brant's Cato, mentioned above, belongs to this category of translations which were widely read and learnt, since they were used as school books. All these translations were into Latin. But these sense-for-sense renderings made the difference between the peculiarities of the Latin and German languages very obvious, and it is therefore natural to find the same method used for the translation into German. . . . idioms cannot be translated word for word, but must be rendered according to the idiomatic usage of the language : sense for sense, or idiom for idiom, or, as the last development proves, proverb for proverb.

It must again be emphasized that the consideration of the German language was not the main consideration of the grammarians. For their aim was to teach Latin, not German. It was for this purpose that they stressed the difference between the languages, and in this way they furthered the development of the theory of translation for a short period at the beginning of the sixteenth century.

It is essential to realize this development to understand the background for the review and criticism of contemporary translation by Johannes dventinus (Turmair), who in 1533 finished the translation of his own Latin history, Bayerische Chronilz. Some translators, he writes in the preface, twist and distort the German language, some insert individual Latin words into German sentences, some translate unintelligibly through talking in a roundabout way, and some imitate the Latin way of writing 'which should not be done since every language has its own usage and characteristic properties'. As Latin should not be written according to German rules, neither should German be interspersed with Latin words nor be used in imitation of another language, for in this case it would be unintelligible. In his own writing he attempted to use the language which was known to everybody. This language is generally used, it is found in verses, dicta, and proverbs. His own principle of translation, he states, has been to deviate from Latin only if the particular usage of German makes such a departure necessary. Anyone reading his work in both languages will understand the one language through the other.

If these trends in translation were combined, a new theory of translation would indeed originate. The main principle of such a theory would be the consideration of the peculiarities of the language into which the translation is made. This consideration tends to attach little or no weight to the style and to the words of the original work and thus the translation may turn into a paraphrase. . . . This danger can be avoided only if the translator respects the words of the work he renders. He should feel that even though he does not imitate foreign idioms, the authority of the work does not allow of wide deviation. It was only God's words which could evoke this feeling of humility in the translator's mind and this
reverence for the word. It is therefore easy to understand that this new theory was first used in the two great sixteenth-century translations of the Bible: Erasmus's New Testament of 1516 and Luther's Bible of 1522.

XVII. Luther's German Bible as a Paramount Example of Paraphrase and Idiom in Translation

[From: Roland H. Bainton: Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: Mentor Books, 1950]

Early Luther sensed the need for a new translation of the Scriptures from the original tongues into idiomatic German. . . .

The variety of German chosen as a basis was the court tongue of electoral Saxony, enriched from a number of dialects with which Luther had gained some familiarity in his travels. . . .

Luther on occasion achieved the most felicitous rendering at the first throw. At other times he had to labor. In that case he would first make a literal translation in the word order of the original. Then he would take each word separately and gush forth a freshet of synonyms. From these he would select those which not only best suited the sense but also contributed to balance and rhythm. All of this would then be set aside in favor of a free rendering to catch the spirit. Finally the meticulous and the free would be brought together. . . .

Another problem was the translation of idioms. Here Luther insisted that the idiom of one language must be translated into the equivalent idiom of the other. He was scornful of the Vulgate translation, "Hail, Mary, full of grace." "What German would understand that if translated literally? He knows the meaning of a purse full of gold or a keg full of beer, but what is he to make of a girl full of grace? I would prefer to say simply, 'Liebe Maria? What word is more rich than that word, 'liebe?"

There is no doubt that it is a rich word, but its connotations are not precisely the same as "endowed with grace," and Luther did not use the word in his official version. Here is the problem of the translator. Should he use always an indigenous word which may have a particular local connotation? If the French call a centurion a gendarme, and the Germans make a procurator into a burgomaster, Palestine has moved west. And this is what did happen to a degree in Luther's rendering. Judea was transplanted to Saxony, and the road from Jericho to Jerusalem ran through the Thuringian forest. By nuances and turns of expression Luther enhanced the graphic in terms of the local. When he read, "There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God," he envisaged a medieval town begirt with walls and towers, surrounded by a moat through which coursed a living stream laving with laughter the massive piers. . . .

Yet occasionally an overly Pauline turn is discernible. There is the famous example where Luther rendered "justification by faith" as "justification by faith alone." When taken to task for this liberty, he replied that he was not translating words but ideas, and that the extra word was necessary in German in order to bring out the force of the original. Throughout all the revisions of his lifetime he would never relinquish that word "alone." In another instance he was more flexible. In 1522 he had translated the Greek words meaning "by the works of the law" with German words meaning "by the merit of works." In 1527 he substituted a literal rendering. That must have hurt. He was an honest workman, and successive revisions of the New Testament were marked by a closer approximation to the original. And yet there were places where Luther's peculiar views, without any inaccuracy, lent a nuance to the rendering. In the benediction, "The peace of God, which passeth all understanding," Luther translated, "The peace which transcends all reason." One cannot exactly quarrel with that. He might better have said, "which surpasses all comprehension," but he was so convinced of the inadequacy of human reason to scale the heavenly heights that he could not but see here a confirmation of his supreme aversion.

(pp. 254-257, 261; pp. 325-344 in online version)

[From: An Open Letter on Translating, Martin Luther, 8 September, 1530; translated from Weimar Werke (WA) by Gary Mann, 1995]

I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word "not" (nicht) or "no" (kein). For example, we say "the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money"; or "No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain"; I have only eaten and not yet drunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it over?" There are a vast number of such everyday cases.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words "kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer brings allein grain and kein money." Here the word "allein" helps the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete German expression.

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to speak German - as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I am to follow these asses, they will lay the original before me literally and translate it as: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Is that speaking with a German tongue? What German could understand something like that? What is this "abundance of the heart?" No German can say that; unless, of course, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too magnanimous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be correct, as "abundance of the heart" is not German, not any more than "abundance of the house, "abundance of the stove" or "abundance of the bench" is German. But the mother in the home and the common man say this: "What fills the heart overflows the mouth." That is speaking with the proper German tongue of the kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always successfully. The literal Latin is a great barrier to speaking proper German.

So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: "Ut quid perditio haec?" and in Mark 14: "Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?" Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate it: "Why has this loss of salve occurred?" But what kind of German is this? What German says "loss of salve occurred"? And if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is lost and must be looked for and found again; even though that is still obscure and uncertain. Now if that is good German why do they not come out and make us a fine, new German testament and let Luther's testament be? I think that would really bring out their talents. But a German would say "Ut quid, etc.." as "Why this waste?" or "Why this extravagance?" Even "it is a shame about the ointment" - these are good German, in which one can understand that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done wrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used it better.

Now when the angel greets Mary, he says: "Greetings to you, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you." Well up to this point, this has simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me is that good German? Since when does a German speak like that - being "full of grace"? One would have to think about a keg "full of" beer or a purse "full of" money. So I translated it: "You gracious one". This way a German can at last think about what the angel meant by his greeting. Yet the papists rant about me corrupting the angelic greeting - and I still have not used the most satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the most satisfactory German and translated the salutation: "God says hello, Mary dear" (for that is what the angel was intending to say and what he would have said had he even been German!). If I had, I believe that they would have hanged themselves out of their great devotion to dear Mary and because I have destroyed the greeting.

Yet why should I be concerned about their ranting and raving? I will not stop them from translating as they want. But I too shall translate as I want and not to please them, and whoever does not like it can just ignore it and keep his criticism to himself, for I will neither look at nor listen to it. They do not have to answer for or bear responsibility for my translation. Listen up, I shall say "gracious Mary" and "dear Mary", and they can say "Mary full of grace". Anyone who knows German also knows what an expressive word "dear"(liebe) is: dear Mary, dear God, the dear emperor, the dear prince, the dear man, the dear child. I do not know if one can say this word "liebe" in Latin or in other languages with so much depth of emotion that it pierces the heart and echoes throughout as it does in our tongue.

I think that St. Luke, as a master of the Hebrew and Greek tongues, wanted to clarify and articulate the Greek word "kecharitomene" that the angel used. And I think that the angel Gabriel spoke with Mary just as he spoke with Daniel, when he called him "Chamudoth" and "Ish chamudoth, vir desiriorum", that is "Dear Daniel." That is the way Gabriel speaks, as we can see in Daniel. Now if I were to literally translate the words of the angel, and use the skills of these asses, I would have to translate it as "Daniel, you man of desires" or "Daniel, you man of lust". Oh, that would be beautiful German! A German would, of course, recognize "Man", "Lueste" and "begirunge" as being German words, although not altogether pure as "lust" and "begir" would be better. But when those words are put together you get "you man of desires" and no German is going to understand that. He might even think that Daniel is full of lustful desires. Now wouldn't that be a fine translation! So I have to let the literal words go and try to discover how the German says what the Hebrew "ish chamudoth" expresses. I discover that the German says this, "You dear Daniel", "you dear Mary", or "you gracious maiden", "you lovely maiden", "you gentle girl" and so on. A translator must have a large vocabulary so he can have more words for when a particular one just does not fit in the context. . . .

XVIII. Brief Recap

I have been puzzled over the differences between the German and the Latin, and freely acknowledged that this was a difficult issue to resolve. But I believe the solution is found in an analysis of translation method (as I already predicted was a possible solution, more than once, in this long paper): see sections XVI and XVII. 

I have maintained for quite a while now (but without denying at all the importance of the textual issue) that this argument -- after all the primary German and Latin texts are collected -- will ultimately come down to the interpretation of the larger passage itself (i.e., context), in conjunction with an understanding of Luther's overall views (particularly on the important role of Tradition) and similar ones expressed by his fellow "reformers" (e.g., Calvin and Cranmer in Section XV above, and best friend and successor Philip Melanchthon's strong conciliarism, expressed at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 and elsewhere).

Most historians believe that a thinker's thoughts have to be interpreted in light of his overall development: before and after the words in question. Anyone involved at a serious academic level in biographical studies or history of ideas understands this. Thus we have provided a great deal of that background information.

Serious researchers, who try to achieve the greatest objectivity and fair analysis possible, given universal bias and theological preferences in all Christians, follow the historical truth wherever it leads, not only when it suits their prior polemical purposes. We are engaged, after all, in an extensive research effort to determine what Luther believed, not what anyone wishes that Luther believed, based on their preconceived notions of what he would believe.

See Part One

See Part Three

A Curious Luther Citation Examined in Extreme Depth (Part One)

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646-1716)

If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith. 

(Epis. ad. Zwingli, ap. Balmes, p. 423) --- Martin Luther

I. Introduction and Luther in Latin 

This has been quite the literary adventure! Secondary sources (including historian Balmes) utilized a primary Latin source. The citation in question is from Luther's 1527 treatise: That These Word of Christ, "This Is My Body," etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics (found in LW, vol. 37).

Martin Bucer, Georg Spalatin and others translated Luther's German writings into Latin. Catholic apologist Steve Ray has shown that Balmes' citation included the entire quotation in Latin, thus showing that this was where it came from. For that matter, it may have originally been in This is My Body, but from the Latin rather than the German. This could easily account for textual difference. 

Rumble and Carty describe it as "writing to Zwinglius," but this doesn't necessitate it being a personal letter (just as I can say I am "writing to James White" when I refute his arguments). 
It could also be a treatise against Zwingli (which is my own opinion, and has been all along). He describes it that way, because it is indeed written to him. St. Francis describes it as against Zwingli and Oecolampadius because it was a response to both. But one can describe it by one recipient only, just as, e.g., we usually speak of "Norman Geisler's" book about Catholicism, even though he wrote with a co-author (because he is the main guy). 

Now we must inquire about Latin Luther volumes in the 16th century. One source (pp. 5-6), states that Latin editions were widely available, and for 214 of 682 Luther titles. These two being major treatises on an important subject (of supreme importance to Luther and Lutherans), would surely mean they were available in Latin.

We know that St. Francis de Sales cited our quotation around 1596. The Wikipedia article on him states that "He was a notably clear and gracious stylist in French, Italian and Latin." Perhaps he didn't even know German. So he was citing the Latin translation of this tract (whichever one it was). The Catholic Controversy itself was written in French. So were, apparently, most of his works. 

Hartmann Grisar, in the first volume of his six-volume biography Luther, lists early Latin Luther collections (p. xxv): 

Jena ed., 8 vols, of German and 4 vols, of Latin writings, 1555-1558 ; re-edited later. 

Wittenberg ed., 12 vols, of German (1539-1559) and 7 vols. of Latin writings (1545-1558). 

He also lists 19th-century collections of Latin writings, from the 67-volume Erlangen edition (1826-1868): 

("Opp. Lat. exeg."), " M. Lutheri Exegetica opera latina," cur. C. Elsperger, 28 voll., Erlangse, 1829 sqq. (also published apart), " D. M. Lutheri Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas," ed. I. A. Irmischer, 3 voll., Erlangse, 1843, sq. 

("Opp. Lat. var."), " M. Lutheri Opera latina varii argumenti ad reformationis historiam imprimis pertinentia," cur. H. Schmidt, voll. 1-7, Francofurti, 1865 sqq. (part of the Erlangen ed. of Luther's works). 

This appears to show that Latin works make up 35 of 67 volumes, or more than half. The huge standard Weimar collection also contains much Latin also. All of these writers were citing an original Latin edition of Luther's works (probably put together by a Protestant). There is nothing wrong with that whatever. Nor is it a terrible sin to cite a secondary source. 

An article entitled "The Lost Luther Reference" gives an idea of how difficult it is to locate early Latin Luther writings. It is referring to a reference in the Lutheran Book of Concord (Solid Declaration):

The German version, after the reference to Luther, has in the text this reference, "Tom. IV, Jena." The reference to the Jena edition of Luther's works has fallen by the wayside in the English translation so that we have here a lost Lutheran reference in SD VII.87. But then the Goettingen edition is not much help either, since the footnote in question has only the same references which Tappert reproduced. The unwary reader would be tempted to think that in "Tom. IV, Jena," there would be a reference to Luther's 1530 address to the clergy. Such, of course, is not the case. The Goettingen edition gives no information where this reference to volume four of the Jena edition could be found in modern editions of Luther. The Jena edition of Luther's Works is not found in the ordinary pastor's library; as a matter of fact, it probably is not in too many university and seminary libraries. After all, the German edition was first published in 1555 and the Latin edition in 1556. When one looks at the earlier editions of the Book of Concord, one finds the following: The 1580 edition of the Concord has it embedded in the text. The first Latin translation of the Concordia, done in 1580, gives the reference on the margin of the page, as it does all the other references. The reference also occurs in such recent editions of the Book of Concord as J. T. Mueller's, the Caspari-Johnson Norwegian translation of the Book of Concord, and the Triglot. Those of us who were raised in the Triglott edition of the Lutheran Confessions were at least given the privilege of being curious as to just what Luther said about the useful rule and norm in volume four of the Jena edition, something denied the reader of the Tappert edition. Not that we ever heard or read any comment about what Luther said in volume four of the Jena edition. A cursory reading of the conservatory theological material of the last hundred years does not yield any information as to what Luther said in this volume.

. . . The writer examined volume four of the Latin Jena edition (published in 1583) in the rare book room of Concordia Theological Seminary Library, Fort Wayne. . . . There can be no doubt that this is the lost Luther reference because it claries beyond question what the authors of the Formula had in mind. It is difcult to understand why the scholarly Goettingen edition did not have in its footnote to SD VII.87 the following notation, "WA, Br. 10,348, 349." The Weimar edition of Luther's letters correctly gives the Wolferinus reference to the Jena edition as "Jen. 4, 585 b."

. . . It is quite evident that when the formulators of the Solid Declaration added the specific reference in SD VII.87 to volume four of the Jena edition of Luther's Works, it was not an occult reference. . . . 

Footnotes

[ . . . ]

7 Jena, Latin edition, IV (emphasis added). The edition the writer examined was reprinted at Jena in 1583. It is to be found in the rare book room of Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, Indiana. The Latin text is to be found in De Wette 5:577 and in Enders 15:182. There is a German translation in St. L. 20:1604 f. I use the English translation in Peters, 209 f. (see note 6 above). Hardt, 286 f. (see note 5 above), supplies considerable information on the use made of the Luther-Wolferinus correspondence.

II. The Conspiracy Unravels: Lutherans Join in the Catholic Madness

(see a separate paper discussing the Leibniz quote and its significance)
(see Part II, section XII for Tim Enloe's translation of the Latin context of Leibniz)

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz: a Lutheran philosopher, who had one of the most brilliant minds of all time, also cites the same source (in the form that we have seen, from the Latin). He has been described as follows:

"Leibniz was a polymath who made significant contributions in many areas of physics, logic, history, librarianship, and of course philosophy and theology, while also working on ideal languages, mechanical clocks, mining machinery..."^[51] "A universal genius if ever there was one, and an inexhaustible source of original and fertile ideas, . . ."^[52] "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was maybe the last Universal Genius incessantly active in the fields of theology, philosophy, mathematics, physics, ...."^[53] "Leibniz was perhaps the last great Renaissance man who in Bacon's words took all knowledge to be his province."^[54]

^{Leibniz has been estimated to have possessed an IQ of 176 (with the highest being Isaac Newton and Ludwig Wittgenstein at 190). Another estimate places him at 205, with Goethe at 210 and Leonardo da Vinci at 220.}

<sup>And, as a Lutheran, Leibniz would have little reason to misquote Luther; nor is it plausible to posit that he completely blew a citation of Luther, radically opposite from its own context, as some claim that Catholics have done with this citation. If Catholics were guilty of this, so was Leibniz. If he was not, they were not.

Renowned philosopher and political writer Jaime Balmes' works have been published in 33 volumes (Madrid: 1948-1950). We are led to believe by some Protestant critics that neither Leibniz nor Balmes could correctly and competently utilize a Latin citation from Martin Luther.</sup>

It is quite noteworthy that St. Robert Bellarmine also used the citation in his Controversiis: one of the greatest Catholic apologias against the errors of Protestantism ever written. The Catholic Encyclopedia stated in its article on this great Doctor of the Church:

[H]e quickly obtained a reputation both as a professor and a preacher, in the latter capacity drawing to his pulpit both Catholics and Protestants, even from distant parts. In 1576 he was recalled to Italy, and entrusted with the chair of Controversies recently founded at the Roman College. He proved himself equal to the arduous task, and the lectures thus delivered grew into the work "De Controversiis" which, amidst so much else of excellence, forms the chief title to his greatness. This monumental work was the earliest attempt to systematize the various controversies of the time, and made an immense impression throughout Europe, the blow it dealt to Protestantism being so acutely felt in Germany and England that special chairs were founded in order to provide replies to it. Nor has it even yet been superseded as the classical book on its subject-matter, though, as was to be expected, the progress of criticism has impaired the value of some of its historical arguments.

III. Comparison of Fifteen Latin Citations

(textual variations indicated in green and red; purple for a word not in other versions; capitalization is not considered a variation)

(see a separate paper discussing the Leibniz quote and its significance)
(see Part II, section XII for Tim Enloe's translation of the Latin context of Leibniz)

Johannes Cochlaeus, De Canonicae scripturae & Catholicae Ecclesiae autoritate, ad Henricum Bullingerum Iohannis Cochlaei libellus, Ingolstadt: 1543 [online link to the relevant snippet] [Catholic]:

"Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum erit necessarium, ut propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, Conciliorum Decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus."

English translation: none provided.

Primary source listed: Quinimos et contras tuos amicos Zuinglius et Oecolampadius scribes, pro substantia et veritate corpis et sanguinis Christi in Eucharist stie sacramento.

St. Robert Bellarmine, Disputations About the Controversies of the Christian Faith Against the Heretics of This Time (Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Hujus Temporis Haereticos), 3 volumes: Ingolstadt: 1586-1593 [published 1856; digitized 5 March 2007] [online link to the relevant section, p. 76] [Catholic]:

"Si diutius, inquit steterit mundus, iterum erit necessarium, ut propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus."

English translation: none provided.

Primary source listed: lib. cont. Zuvinglium de verit. corp. Christ. in Euchar.

Bellarmine cites this again on p. 98 of the same work, and what is fascinating is that even his two citations are not identical:

"Si diutius steterit Mundus, iterum fore necessarium, propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ut ad conservandam Fidei unitatem, Conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus."

English translation: none provided.

Primary source listed: "lib. 1. cont. Zwingli et Oecolampad."

St. Francis De Sales, The Catholic Controversy (French edition), c. 1596 [published in 1892; digitized 25 October 2006] [edited by Henry Benedict Mackey] [Catholic]:

"si diutius steterit mundus, iterum fore necessarium, propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ut ad conservandam fidei unitatem Conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus."

English from 1989 TAN English edition, p. 155 (translated by Henry Benedict Mackey from the autograph manuscripts at Rome and at Annecy): "If the world last long it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of the faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge."

Primary source listed: "Contr. Zuing. et Oecol" [Oecolampadius, a close friend of Zwingl's]

This citation is word-for-word identical to the Bellarmine quote of p. 98 above.

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, De Scriptura, Ecclesia, Trinitate, (written approximately between 1680-1684), in Philosophische Schriften 4, Number 403, p. 2288 [published in 2006 by Akademie Verlag] [see the cover] [Lutheran]:

"si diutius steterit mundus iterum fore necessarium propter diversas sacrae scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ut ad conservandam fidei unitatem Conciliorum decreta recipiamus et ad ea confugiamus."

English translation: none provided.

Primary source listed: "Luther lib. 1. contra Zwinglium et Oecolampadium . . . Zur Sache vgl. Luthers Erste Vorrede zum Schwabischem Syngramm von 1526 (WA 19, S. 461)"

The context appears to follow Bellarmine's context, suggesting derivation from the latter.

Philipp Neri Chrismann, Regula Fidei Catholicae et Collectio Dogmatum Credendorum, published in 1792, [digitized 14 August 2006], p. 68 [Catholic]:

"Si diutius [mundus steterit *], iterum erit necessarium, ut ob divinas Scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem concilii decreta recipiamus [ . . . ]."

English translation: none provided.

Primary source listed: "Noverat hoc exitiosissimum periculum iam ipsemet LUTHERUS, qui teste Cochlaeo in l. de canon. Script. auctoritate c. II ingenue sassus est . . ."

* word order reversed, compared to other versions.

[see more analysis of the Cochlaeus reference established here, in Part II, section XIII]

Jaime Luciano Balmes, European Civilization. Protestantism and Catholicity Compared in their Effects on the Civilization of Europe [online link], 1854 edition, p. 423 [digitized 9 August 2006; translated by C.J. Hanford and Robert Kershaw] [Catholic]:

"si diutius steterit mundus, iterum erit necessarium, propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, ut conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus."

English given: "If the world lasts for a long time, it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of Councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of the faith."

Primary source listed: none, but the writer describes it as: "Luther, writing to Zwinglius . . ."

The context probably follows Philipp Neri Chrismann (above), insofar as both also cite the Protestants Beza and Grotius stating things similar to Luther, but the Luther citation is different: thus very likely not from Cochlaeus, as is Chrismann's version.

The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 3rd Series, Vol. III, p. 236, "Modern Erroneous Systems of Biblical Interpretation," by D. Hallinan, from the year 1883 [digitized 9 October 2006] [Catholic]:

"si diutius steterit mundus, iterum esset necessarium, ut propter diversas scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem concilii decreta recipiamus atque ad ea confugiamus."

English translation: none provided.

Primary source listed: "De Veritate Corporis Christi contra Zwinglium".

Someone noted that the Latin version was entitled contra fanaticos Sacramentariorum spiritus. This would account for the widely differing source names, according to whether one was citing a Latin or German version. Of course, the main "fanatical Sacramentarians" Luther is responding to were Zwingli and Oecolampadius; thus in common usage we can see how it could become known as simply Contra Zwingli and Oecolampadius or variation thereof. Bellarmine above combines both things in his title, as does D. Hallinan, and Brunati (below).

Giuseppe Brunati cites our text in 1827 in an all-Latin work:

"Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum [necessarium erit *], ut propter diversas scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam Fidei unitatem Conciliorum decreta (Tridentini videlicet **) recipiamus atque ad ea confugiamus."

Primary source listed (footnote on p. 71): "De veritate corporis Christi contra Zwunglium."

* word order reversed, compared to other versions.
** appears to be an editorial interpoltaion; it is non-italicized in the original, compared to italics in the rest of the text.

Likewise, Giuseppe Zama Mellini, in an 1841 Latin work:

"Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum fore necessarium, propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes, quae nunc sunt, ut ad conservandam fidei unitatem, Conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus."

Primary source listed: "contra Zwinglium et Oecolampadium I., 1."

This is identical to Bellarmine's p. 98 version.

And, Guglielmo Audisio follows suit in an 1853 Latin book:

"Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum erit necessarium, propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes quae nunc sunt, ad conservandam fidei unitatem, ut conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus."

Primary source listed: "initio. Zwinglius ad Lutherum."

Moreover, Stefan Buszczyński in an 1867 French work:

"Si mundus* diutius steterit, [ad conservandam fidei unitatem **], iterum erit necessarium, propter diversas Scripturae interpretationes [ . . . ] ut conciliorum decreta recipiamus, atque ad ea confugiamus."

Primary source listed: "une lettre a Zwingle"

* this word is out of order compared to all the other versions
** phrase is out of order compared to all the other versions

This writer cites Beza and Grotius, following Balmes and Chrismann, and also Leibniz, Melanchthon, and Calvin.

Here's another from British biographer and journalist Dominic Bevan Wyndham Lewis (1891-1969), from his book, Charles of Europe (1931). He converted to Catholicism in 1921. See the top entry on this Google Book Search result page. Here is the text in a footnote:

And he is willing in his despair to take refuge from the anarchy he has made in the decrees of the Catholic Councils. . . .

[footnote 12] “Erit necessarium [ . . . ], ad conservandum fidei unitatem, ut Conciliorum decreta recipiamus atque ad ea confugiamus.”

English translation: none provided.

Primary source listed: Opera Luth., Edit. Wittenberg, II, 281, 387, etc.; "Letter to Zwingli"

Another web page, which describes the text as a "spurious Latin gloss on Luther's statement, as instigated by Cochlaeus and perpetuated by Bellarmine," provides additional Latin texts from Bacuez & Vigouroux, and Ranolder.

IV. Additional Notable Quotations in English

Luther said: If the world should stand any long time, we must receive again (which he thought absurd) the Decrees of the Councils, for preserving the unity of faith, because of so divers interpretations of the Scriptures.

(Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582, in Documents of the English Reformation, Gerald Lewis Bray, James Clark & Co., 2004, p. 381)

Catholic William John Fitzpatrick, also cites our text in his 1861 work, The Life, Times, and Correspondence of the Right Rev. Dr. Doyle (p. 521):

Luther himself says (Cont. Zuing.): "If the world endureth much longer, we shall be forced, by reason of the contrary interpretations of the Bible which now prevail, to adopt again and take refuge in the decrees of the councils, if we have a mind to maintain unity of faith."

Everett Pomeroy, another Catholic, utilizes it, in 1912. Renowned Anglican scholar Brooke Foss Westcott cited this same passage, from the preface (see the whole document; and another version with some archaic language and spelling), as did the Protestant scholar Thomas Graves Law (see more on him from The Cambridge History of English and American Literature); also the non-Catholic Will Converse Wood.

English Protestant anti-Catholic William Chillingworth (1602-1644) also made note of the quote in English (apparently cited by a Catholic opponent), in his book, The Religion of Protestants a Safeway to Salvation (on p. 120, #81-82):

If the world last longer, it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of councils, by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now reign.

The interesting thing here is that he is a dedicated opponent of Catholicism, yet he doesn't question the validity of the citation itself at all. Rather, he decides to take potshots at Luther for writing it, and to undermine its significance:

And what if Luther, having a pope in his belly (as he was wont to say that most men had), and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretations pass without examining, spake such words in heat of argument? . . . why do you trouble us with what Luther says, and what Calvin says?

V. The Disputed German Text and Its Translations Into English

The key text at the center of this dispute (though it wasn't always completely clear because of textual variations, discussed in more depth below) is the following, from LW, vol. 37, p. 17:

If the world lasts much longer, men will, as the ancients did, once more turn to human schemes on account of this dissension, and again issue laws and regulations to keep the people in the unity of the faith.

Hartmann Grisar (and his translator E.M. Lamond) render the same passage as follows:

And if the world is to last much longer, we shall on account of such dissensions again be obliged, like the ancients, to seek for human contrivances and to set up new laws and ordinances in order to preserve the people in the unity of the faith.

(Luther, Vol. IV, p. 410)

Here is the original German, from the standard German collection Werke (Kritische Gefammtausgabe), Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1901; BR 330.A2 1883 at the library of the University of Detroit, main campus; Vol. 23, p. 69 (printed version on the right side, as opposed to the almost identical "handwritten version" on the left):

Und wo die wellt solt lenger stehen, wird man widderumb, wie die alten gethan haben, umb solche zwitracht willen auch menschliche anschlege suchen und abermal gesetze und gebot stellen, die leute ynn eintracht des glaubens zuerhalten, das wird denn auch gelingen, wie es zubor [zuvor?] gelungen ist.

(any discovered mistakes are strictly my own, in transcribing from the difficult Fraktur font)

The German Erlangen edition (1841: Vol. 30: p. 14 ff.; citation on p. 19), reads (spelling and capitalization and punctuation variations from WA in blue):

Und wo die Welt sollt langer stehen, wird man wiederumb, wie die Alten gethan haben, umb solche Zwietracht willen, auch menschliche Anschlage suchen, und abermal Gesetze und Gebot stellen, die Leute in Eintracht des Glaubens zu erhalten; das wird denn auch gelingen, wie es zuvor gelungen ist.

The Walch edition (St. Louis: 1890: Vol. 20, p. 762 ff.; citation on p. 766) is similar (spelling and capitalization and punctuation variations from WA in blue, and from the Erlangen edition, in green):

Und wo die Welt sollt langer stehen, wird man wiederumb, wie die Alten gethan haben, um solcher Zwietracht willen, auch menschliche Anschlage suchen, und abermal Gesetze und Gebot stellen, die Leute in Eintracht des Glaubens zu erhalten; das wird denn auch gelingen, wie es zuvor gelungen ist.

[footnote indicates that solcher is rendered solch in the Wittenberg and Jena collections; it is solche in the Erlangen and Weimar editions]

These are not significantly different (no real textual difference; only spelling and capitalization and a few commas; in a single case, one word in WA becomes two in the other versions), and thus of little further use in our textual research (except to show how modern German has evolved from Old German). The last two texts were examined by myself, Steve Ray, and John McAlpine (Master's Degree in Linguistics, U of M) at the Concordia University library in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on 3 January 2008. Photocopies of the relevant sections are in my possession (as is the section of the Weimar edition, cited above).

We see that the German differs from the Latin in important points. The Latin has the following conceptual and syntactical structure:

1. If the world lasts much longer . . .

2. It will again be necessary . . . (necessarium)

3. Because of different Scriptural interpretations . . . (diversas Scripturae interpretationes)

4. In order to preserve the unity of the faith . . . (conservandam fidei unitatem)

5. To receive the decrees of councils . . . (Conciliorum decreta recipiamus)

6. And take refuge in them. (confugiamus)

The German version (matching the syntactical order with the Latin for the purpose of direct comparison) differs significantly:

1. If the world lasts much longer . . .

2. Men will (like the ancients) . . .

[a prediction, as opposed to it being described as "necessary"; but Grisar's "be obliged" is closer to the Latin version]

3. Because of dissension . . .

[as opposed to differing biblical interpretations]

4. To keep people in the unity of the faith . . .

5. Turn again to human schemes . . .

[or "human contrivances" rather than the more neutral, descriptive "conciliar decrees"]

6. And again issue laws and regulations . . .

[a "legalistic" and hostile description, as opposed to the notion of "refuge"]

We see, then, that four of the six concepts are altered to such an extent that a different specific meaning applies. In turn, two-third of the six distinct concepts having been seen to be changed, the entire paragraph acquires a considerably altered sense and leaves a different impression.

Note additionally, that the citations of this quote in English, as seen from the Rheims NT preface, and the Chillingworth excerpt above, are also from the Latin translation, because they contain elements that appear in the Latin but not the German text, as just demonstrated (necessity rather than mere action, councils rather than "schemes", and mention of conflicting Scripture interpretation).

VI. What Accounts For the Difference Between the German and Latin Versions?

Robert Kolb, in his book Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero, (p. 146) noted the frequent appearance of the treatise under consideration in various collections of Luther's writings, and how it was also sometimes edited for the purpose of polemics, with Luther's words sometimes even manipulated or otherwise changed.

Therein could quite possibly be our explanation as to why the texts are so different from each other. Was it Catholic polemical incompetence and dishonesty? Not at all; it was (at least arguably) Protestant polemics and textual disputes. Catholics (and some Protestants, like Leibniz) have merely cited Luther from his collected works, put together by Protestants. Is it their fault that there was confusion in these works?

I have found a great deal more information about possible partisan theological bias affecting early Luther collections and translations. Some of what I discovered again comes from Robert Kolb, in his book, Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005; p. 135). He refers to the " 'Gnesio-Lutheran' Jena edition" and the "Philippist" Wittenberg collection. The Philippists were followers of Luther's successor Philip Melanchthon. Like him, they held a less realist view of the Eucharist (akin to the Calvinist opinion), whereas the Gnesio-Lutherans adopted a view more like Luther's own (Real Presence).

This bias even resulted in a felt need for a second collection in the 16th century, according to Kolb and others, in a new version of the Book of Concord (Fortress Press: 2000):

Gnesio-Lutheran reservations about elements of this Wittenberg edition gave rise to a second "complete edition," the Jena edition . . . This became the more widely used edition in the sixteenth century and is the edition that the Formula [i.e., the Lutheran Book of Concord] itself uses.

(p. 528)

Robert Kolb, in another major work of Luther scholarship, published by Cambridge University Press, calls the Jena edition "a rival undertaking" and says that its "Gnesio-Lutheran creators suspected that the Philippist editors of the Wittenberg set had altered certain passages too freely (an exaggerated verdict)".

For example, Christian Walther was "sub-editor" of Wittenberg, and was accused (unjustly, some argue) of purposely altering Luther passages to reflect crypto-Calvinist leanings (possibly including the very book in question, according to one reference source, which also states that both versions were "sometimes incorrect").

Something must account for textual variation. I offer mere speculation and possibility; I am not claiming much for it. I welcome a better and more proven explanation. But in the end it is really not a problem, concern, or difficulty for Catholics, but rather, for the editors of these collections, and no one else. St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis de Sales were citing these works already in the 16th century, and (Lutheran) Leibniz in the next.

Are they all to be blamed because Luther texts differed widely between German and Latin? Clearly not. Translation bias is not out of the question, even today, though scholars typically pride themselves as being "above" traditional partisan theological differences. For instance, take a look at how one passage in Luther's Table-Talk, from autumn 1533 has been translated differently:

Our manner of life is as evil as is that of the papists. (William Hazlitt: Protestant)

Our manner of life is as evil as that of the papists. (Edwin Doak Mead: Protestant)

Life is as evil among us as among the papists, . . . (Heiko Oberman: Protestant Luther scholar, 1982; translated by Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart in 1990)

Life is bad among us, as it is among the papists, . . . (LW: Vol. 54:110)

Does that last one seem a bit off? It sure does to me. Since all these translations were done by Protestants (many of them Lutheran), it is no Catholic conspiracy in play. This is real difference, and not insignificant.

In fact, it may very well be that variations in Luther translations are analogous to those in Bible translation. There are different methodologies: from very literal, to free paraphrase, and all points in between. The fascinating question to resolve at this point is: why is the Latin that we have seen for this Luther text so different? From whence came this big difference? The Latin version seems to paraphrase the German rather than literally translate it (or vice versa, but I think there is enough evidence to conclude that the original was in German).

So, to use the Bible analogy, the Latin would be sort of like the New English Bible or Phillips translation. That might be how the translator would justify it. He (if this is correct) was translating thoughts rather than words, just as some Bible translations do. And a paraphrase generally exhibits more theological bias, by the nature of the case (which is why I favor a more literal approach in both cases: I read the RSV).

At any rate, these are two tentative theories for textual variation (theological bias and differing translation methodologies). Also, languages differ in the latitude and multiple meanings of their words. We see this all the time in English translations of Koine Greek biblical texts and in exegetical argumentation that takes the Greek into consideration.

As to the quote itself, I think it is beyond chance that both versions have six parts that coincide in the main, and that the difference is one of degree and expression within the broad agreement. They read like two Bible passages might read in different translation. But those Bible passages can still be understood as the same passage in different versions. This is my own opinion, based on my textual comparisons above.

VII. Interpretation of Martin Luther's Utterance in Light of His Very Strong Appeal to the Authority of the Church and Unanimous Tradition

It's inaccurate to contend that Luther despises councils altogether. Rather, he denies their infallibility and makes them formally subordinate to Scripture, which alone is infallible. This perhaps explains (at least in part) how Luther can rail against councils in one breath and espouse a quasi-Catholic principle of authority and tradition in the next.

He has been known to speak in two different senses. When he criticizes (even excoriates) councils, it is in the sense that they do not override the authoritative rule of faith of sola Scriptura, and when he thinks they are made a vehicle for unsavory and unbiblical traditions of men. When he alludes to them in a positive way, on the other hand, it is when he thinks they teach the truth according to Scripture, and over against the Zwinglian and Anabaptist sectarians, who are far more revolutionary with regard to previous Christian tradition.

Paul Althaus, in the standard work, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966; translated by Robert C. Schultz, pp. 340-341), provides a succinct summary of Luther's view of councils (Luther's own words in quotes):

"Even though saints are present in the council, even though there are many saints, and even though angels are there, still we do not trust personalities but only God's word, since even saints can make mistakes." [WA 39-I, 186]

When a council does not err but bears witness to the truth, we should not take it for granted . . . when a council does so, that is an empirical and "accidental" fact . . . Truth is not guaranteed by the authority of the council, but Christ's free gift of truth in a specific instance gives a council its authority. [WA 39-I, 185]

. . . The ecclesiastical legitimacy of such a gathering does not necessarily include its spiritual legitimacy. This latter depends completely on the apostolicity of its doctrines and resolutions. [WA 39-I, 187]

Luther's doctrine of the historical, apostolic Church and of apostolic tradition is surprisingly strong, and quite different from that of many evangelical Protestants today (though by no means identical with a fully Catholic view). Althaus summarizes:

For Luther, the Christian church is, without detriment to it spiritual nature, a historical reality, which constantly existed all through the centuries from the time of the apostles till his own time. The Evangelicals are not another and a new church but "the true old church, one body with the entire holy Christian church, and one community of saints." [WA 51, 487] In spite of all his heartfelt criticism of the Roman Church, Luther remained certain that God had, in spite of everything, miraculously preserved the true church even in the midst of its Babylonian captivity. [WA 38, 220] . . .

Thus Luther thankfully received not only biblical substance in the direct sense of the term from the hands of the ancient and medieval church but also elements of ecclesiastical tradition . . . Luther asserts: The consensus of the entire church in a doctrine or a custom is binding insofar as it is not contrary to Scripture . . .

Luther did not, as is obvious, in any sense advocate an absolute biblicism. He did not absolutize the Bible in opposition to tradition. He limits neither Christian dogma nor the ethical implications of the gospel to what is expressly stated in Scripture. He does not demand that the truth of Christianity be reduced to biblical doctrine.

(Althaus, pp. 333-335)

How, then, in light of this information, are we aided in interpreting the text under consideration? We must keep in mind Protestant historian Philip Schaff's advice about Luther interpretation:

Luther's words especially must not be weighed too nicely, else any and every thing can be proved by him, and the most irreconcilable contradictions shown in his writings. We must always judge him according to the moment in which, and that against which, he spoke, and duly remember also his bluntness and his stormy, warlike nature.

(The Life and Labours of St. Augustine, Oxford University: 1854, p. 94)

Schaff refers to:

. . . Luther's otherwise evident churchly and historical feeling, and by many expressions like that in a letter to Albert of Prussia (A.D. 1532), where he declares the importance of tradition in matters of faith, as strongly even as any Catholic.

(Ibid., pp. 94-95; emphasis mine)

Schaff, on page 95 cites Luther's letter to Albrecht (or Albert), Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, dated April 1532 by some and February or early March by others (cf. another Schaff reference to the quote). The well-known Luther biographer Roland H. Bainton cites the following portion of it:

This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the sacrament] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years.

(Studies on the Reformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, p. 26; primary source: WA [Werke, Weimar edition in German], Vol. XXX, 552)

This letter, apparently passed over by Luther's Works, Vol. 50 (Letters III), was, thankfully, cited at some length by Schaff on his page 95, and refers to, as Schaff notes, "the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper":

Moreover, this article has been unanimously believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to the present hour, as may be shown from the books and writings of the dear fathers, both in the Greek and Latin languages, -- which testimony of the entire holy Christian Church ought to be sufficient for us, even if we had nothing more. For it is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world up to this year 1500. Whoever now doubts of this, he does just as much as if he believed in no Christian Church, and condemns not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but Christ Himself, and all the Apostles and Prophets, who founded this article, when we say, 'I believe in a holy Christian Church,' to which Christ bears powerful testimony in Matt. 28.20: 'Lo, I am with you alway, to the end of the world,' and Paul, in 1 Tim. 3.15: 'The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.'

(italics are Schaff's own; cf. abridged [?] version in Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther [Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1911], pp. 290-292; Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism, 1844, p. 400)

Philip Schaff, writing in The Reformed Quarterly Review, July, 1888, p. 295, cites the passage yet again, and reiterates:

Luther combined with the boldest independence a strong reverence for the historical faith. He derives from the unbroken tradition of the church an argument against the Zwinglians for the real presence in the Eucharist . . . A Roman controversialist could not lay more stress on tradition than Luther does in this passage.

He translates one portion a little differently (my italics):

The testimony of the entire holy Christian Church (even without any other proof) should be sufficient for us to abide by this article and to listen to no sectaries against it.

Since this is referring to the issue of the Eucharist, which divided Luther and Zwingli, we may rightfully deem it relevant to the interpretation of another text having to do with the same issue, and recourse to Church authority, from five years previously. A thinker's statements must be interpreted in light of their overall thought.

If this weren't enough to establish Luther's positive opinion of authoritative tradition, then perhaps Luther's treatise Concerning Rebaptism, written against the Anabaptists in January 1528, a mere ten months after the disputed text which is the center of the present controversy, will suffice. It was translated by Conrad Bergendoff and published in Luther's Works, Vol. 40, pp. 229-262, from the original German in WA (Weimar Werke), Vol. 26:144-174:

[p. 231] …Christ himself came upon the errors of scribes and Pharisees among the Jewish people, but he did not on that account reject everything they had and thought (Matt. 23[:3]). We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord’s Prayer, [p. 232] the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed … I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. . . .

Listen to what St. Paul says to the Thessalonians [II Thess. 2:4]: “The Antichrist takes his seat in the temple of God.” If now the pope is (and I cannot believe otherwise) the veritable Antichrist, he will not sit or reign in the devil’s stall, but in the temple of God. No, he will not sit where there are only devils and unbelievers, or where no Christ or Christendom exist. For he is an Antichrist and must thus be among Christians. And since he is to sit and reign there it is necessary that there be Christians under him. God’s temple is not the description for a pile of stones, but for the holy Christendom (I Cor. 3[:17]), in which he is to reign. The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures.

. . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would east out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ. But when we oppose and reject the pope it is because he does not keep to these treasures of Christendom which he has inherited from the apostles. Instead he makes additions of the devil and does not use these treasures for the improvement of the temple. Rather he works [p. 233] toward its destruction, in setting his commandments and ordinances above the ordinance of Christ. But Christ preserves his Christendom even in the midst of such destruction, just as he rescued Lot at Sodom, as St. Peter recounts (I Pet. 2 [II Pet. 2:6]). In fact both remain, the Antichrist sits in the temple of God through the action of the devil, while the temple still is and remains the temple of God through the power of Christ . . .

. . . They take a severe stand against the pope, but they miss their mark and murder the more terribly the Christendom under the pope. For if they would permit baptism and the sacrament of the altar to stand as they are, Christians under the pope might yet escape with their souls and be saved, as has been the case hitherto. But now when the sacraments are taken from them, they will most likely be lost, since even Christ himself is thereby taken away.

Luther did argue (in very strong terms) that Church tradition alone and unanimous adherence through history was sufficient to do resolve this controversy, as we just observed in Schaff's rendering of Luther's words from 1532:

The testimony of the entire holy Christian Church (even without any other proof) should be sufficient for us to abide by this article and to listen to no sectaries against it.

Go to Part Two

Go to Part Three

Biblical Evidence for a Visible (Not Invisible) Church

[Source: Crossed the Tiber blog]

In my first book (A Biblical Defense of Catholicism), Appendix Two, I have a treatment of the Church and ecclesiology. Here are the portions specifically about visibility of the Church:

Most Protestants (especially evangelicals) see unity and oneness subsisting primarily or solely in the inner, invisible, spiritual unity of those who are in fact in Christ by virtue of being justified, or born again, or regenerated (with or without baptism, depending on denomination). For them, the church consists of the Spirit-filled, predestined elect, who will persevere and are saved, now and in eternity.

The Catholic Church has always proclaimed this unifying characteristic also, under the broad and rich concept of the Mystical Church (under which it acknowledges Protestantism), yet it doesn't pit the Mystical Church against the institutional, or visible Church, as most evangelicals do. For Catholics, then, the issue of oneness is substantially related to organizational and practical aspects of ecclesiology. Catholics believe that the Church is both organism and organization, not merely the former. The Mystical and visible "churches" are like two circles which largely intersect, but which are not synonymous. They exist together - somewhat paradoxically and with tension - until the "end of the age." But what kind of organization is this Church, which includes within itself these two aspects (as well as many others)?

At this point in the discussion Catholics appeal to the hierarchical, or episcopal (that is, under the jurisdiction of bishops) nature of Church government. Furthermore, Catholics maintain that this form is divinely-instituted and biblical, therefore not optional or of secondary theological importance.

. . . Jesus' description of Christians and the Church as a city set on a hill (Matthew 5:14; cf. 5:15-16), is an obvious reference to the visibility of the Church. In no way can this city be regarded as invisible.

. . . Protestants often cite Jesus' analogy of sheep and shepherd (John 10:1-16; cf. 2 Timothy 2:19, 1 John 2:19), who know each other (10:14), as evidence that the Church consists of the elect only. Yet the analogy breaks down when we find that Scripture also applies the term sheep to the unsaved reprobate (Psalm 74:1), the straying (Psalm 119:176), Israel as a nation (Ezekiel 34:2-3,13,23,30), and, indeed, all men (Isaiah 53:6).

Other passages which presuppose a visible, identifiable, "concrete" Church include Matthew 18:15-17, in which believers are exhorted by our Lord to take errant and obstinate brothers to the church, which will then determine the appropriate verdict. It would be contrary to the tenor of the New Testament if this were a reference to a local church alone - even apart from the utterly impractical consequences of such a scenario (where the sinner would simply attend another denomination and move on with his life, as is tragically all too often the case today).

And St. Paul, in 1 Timothy 3:15, describes the "church of the living God" as "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." This statement is similarly almost nonsensical in the context of competing and often contradictory denominations. Where would a sincere, uninformed, unsophisticated religious seeker go to find this certain truth? Only within the sphere of a serious attempt at actual visible oneness of doctrine can this verse attain any pragmatic possibility.

. . . Even John Calvin, contrary to many of his later followers, taught that the Church was visible and a "Mother" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV,1,1; IV,1,4; IV,1,13-14), the wrongness of sectarianism and schism (IV,1,5; IV,1,10-15), and that the Church includes sinners and "hypocrites" (IV,1,7; IV,1,13-15 - he cites Matthew 13:24-30,47-58). His difference with Catholics here is that he defines the visible Church as his own Reformed Church.

I reformulated some of this and added a bit more in a section in my new book, The One-Minute Apologist. Here is my manuscript version:

The Church is the invisible sum total of all the true believers

The notion that the “one true Church” is a visible institution is a false tradition of men.

The One-Minute Apologist Says::

The Bible teaches us that the Church is a visible, identifiable institution, which has a verifiable history of unchanging apostolic teaching.

It is true that Catholics believe in an “invisible” Church in some sense: namely the mystical Body of Christ. We hold that all Christians who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are part of the Church, however imperfectly. But from this it doesn’t follow that there cannot also be a visible, institutional body of believers whose members can be said to properly belong to Christ’s True Church. When Jesus and Scripture speak of the Church, it is usually in terms that suggest a tangible, specific, active presence in the world and in the community of believers:

Matthew 5:14-16: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

Matthew 18:15-17: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

1 Timothy 3:15: “. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (cf. Matt. 16:18)

Some Christians seem to think that the Apostle Paul was a kind of “lone ranger,” not part of any Church but single-handedly (or with the help of a few friends) preaching and spreading the gospel. The Bible, on the other hand, recounts how Paul was subject to the direction and sanction of the institutional Church. He, too (even though he was an apostle, who wrote much of the New Testament), was under authority:

Acts 13:1-4: “Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Mana-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.” (cf. 14:26-28)

Acts 15:2-3,22-23,30: “And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni'cia and Sama'ria, . . . . Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: . . . So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter."

Galatians 1:18-19: “. . . I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.”

Galatians 2:9: “and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised…”

A Protestant Might Further Object:

But the words of Jesus Himself suggest that the Church is first and foremost invisible, not bound by denominational structures.

For example, doesn’t His analogy of the sheep and the shepherd (Jn. 10:1-16; cf. 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Jn. 2:19), who know each other, show that the Church is a mystical, invisible body consisting of the elect and truly saved only?

The One-Minute Apologist Says::

No, because Scripture also describes the unsaved reprobate as “sheep” (Ps. 74:1), refers to “sheep” that have “gone astray” (Ps. 119:176), and applies the description to the nation of Israel (Ezek. 34:2-3,13,23,30), and indeed, all men (Isa. 53:6). The overall biblical theme concerning “sheep” is in the sense that all men, and particularly Israel, are His children. But this doesn’t require an invisible Church or forbid a visible, institutional Church, because the latter is clearly indicated in the Bible.

John Calvin

But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matt. 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isa. 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify . . .

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

See also:

Is the Church Visible or Invisible?, John J. Moran, This Rock, January 1993

Visible vs. Invisible Church, David MacDonald

The Church: Who's In and Who's Out?, Dr. Jeff Mirus

The Church (John Salza / "Scripture Catholic": mostly Bible verses; has section on visibility)

St. Francis de Sales on the Invisible Church (Crossed the Tiber)

The Great Spanking Debate, Part II

See Part One

Objections posed by an "anti-spanking advocate" are paraphrased and in blue.

* * * * *

How can you advocate hitting a small, defenseless person?

Because the Bible recommends it as a necessary aspect of routine child-rearing. Let's not get overly melodramatic. We're talking about a swat on the butt: not exactly the most susceptible part of the body to injury. Most spankings cause no more pain or harm than a good fall flat on one's back or the average tumble to the floor in the NBA.

All spanking is, is a stronger adult inflicting pain and fear to get what they want. It's a "strong arm" tactic.

What the adult wants is for the child to be disciplined and well-behaved, so as to prosper in life, and (most importantly) spiritually. This is "tough love." What we "want" is good and in accord with what the Bible and the Church teach. It's not a mere "power play" or "might makes right". God does exactly same thing, since the Bible teaches us:

Hebrews 12:5-11 (RSV)

[5] And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? -- "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor lose courage when you are punished by him.
[6] For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives."
[7] It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
[8] If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
[9] Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
[10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
[11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

What sense does it make to create a fearful child, scared to death of his or her parents? That doesn't build a loving, trusting relationship.

Fear and respect / reverence are two different things. We reverence God, and in a very real sense, "fear" Him. This is how it is meant to be, and it is not at all inconsistent with a loving God / Father. The parent---child relationship mirrors in a lot of ways the human---God relationship.

"Fear" comes in very handy when a young child (to use a common example of the principle) is about to run into the street and get hit by a car. One is faced with the task of getting through to the child the extreme importance of not doing that, and many times a spanking is the best, most effective way to do it.

Hitting a child is not necessary to gain childrens' respect, and sets up a hostile parental relationship.

You often have to "spank" (in the early years, as I have argued) in order to maintain discipline, which in turn fosters this respect. There are a thousand sad stories about children who weren't disciplined at all, and how they turned out. The "Dr. Spock generation", etc. But I've rarely heard adults regret being spanked in the right way (not an abuse situation, of course, which is completely different) and disciplined when they were children. Children resent it later if they were not disciplined correctly, because they realize that they could have been spared a great deal of misery.

The spanking mentality would also logically entail physical punishment of a wife as well.

That's not what the Bible teaches. It applies spanking to children (and sometimes to criminals), not wives. One must ground this in the teaching of the Bible and the Church and the Catechism. Our opinions and our conscience must be formed with consideration of those, rather than vice versa.

If a man knows it is wrong to strike his wife, why would he strike his children?

Because children require discipline, and because the Bible, the Church, the Catechism, Catholic Tradition, and even (as I presented) current social science (and I would add, common sense) recommend it as a good and necessary thing. The question in our minds ought to be, "am I willing to go against all those things and make my own opinion binding upon all?"

The "cute" words used, like "pop on the but" or "swat" or "spanking" itself are used euphemistically instead of the literal "hitting" or "striking."

Not at all. Anti-spanking advocates specifically use "hitting" because it conjures up images of violence and serious pain, and wife-beating. In other words, it furthers their agenda; but it is a straw man. Everyone knows what "spanking" means. There is no ambiguity about that, whereas the word "hitting" can include all sorts of violence (much of it immoral and indefensible) that is far different from spanking. So (whether they are aware of this or not) it is an improper, propagandistic use of the word in a wrong context, in my opinion.

But it is still "hitting" a child, is it not?

Broadly speaking, yes, but language is rooted in usage and sociology. We attach meanings to language. That's why the pro-abortion people quickly adopted the democratic-, American-sounding, freedom-loving "pro choice" as their description for child-killing. They knew the importance of language and they knew that whoever controlled the semantics of the issue would control the very agenda of the debate.

The Bible never once refers to the striking of a child.

I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion. Much more on this below.

[a website was recommended]

This source tries to make a case from a wide latitude of meanings, that striking is not in mind. Most biblical words are like that, so it is of little consequence if one can find different applications. Every word has to be interpreted in context as to its specific meaning. Shebet, the word in question, means, literally "stick". It can have a figurative meaning as well. But does it in the passages under consideration? Not according to Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament:

a staff, stick, rod . . . (1) used for beating or striking, Isa. 10:15; 14:5; and chastening (virga), Prov. 10:13; 13:24; 22:8 . . .

(p. 801, cross-referenced to Strong's word #7626)

That's what it means in those instances, according to the language expert on Hebrew. Proverbs 10:13 is not referring to a parent-child relationship but is clearly physical ("a rod is for the back . . ."). Proverbs 13:24 was one of my texts ("He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him."). Yet this source, Joan Renae, claims:

There are no [biblical] examples of children being beaten with a rod.

Moreover, she overlooks the fact of other words used in conjunction with rod, that prove that physical contact is being referred to:

Proverbs 23:13-14 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod you will save his life from Sheol.

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 30:1,12-13 He who loves his son will whip him often, in order that he may rejoice at the way he turns out . . . Bow down his neck in his youth, and beat his sides while he is young, lest he become stubborn and disobey you,

"Rod" by itself has different meanings in Scripture, true, but the phrase "beat with a rod" in conjunction with discipline is extremely evident as to meaning. Likewise, "whip him" and "beat his sides" do not leave much to the unknown, with regard to what is meant and intended.

Thus, "beat" in Prov 23:14 is the Hebrew nakah (Strong's word #5221). It can mean, literally, according to Strong, "strike, beat, cast forth, clap, give [wounds], kill, punish, slaughter, slay, strike, (give) stripes." One can see that the idea is physical contact. In the KJV, it is translated as "smite" 340 times, according to Young's Concordance.

Joan Renae makes much of a long commentary by famous Presbyterian biblical exegete Matthew Henry on 2 Samuel 2:14. What she doesn't inform her readers of, however, is what the same commentator stated about the passages in question, regarding spanking:

Proverbs 14:24:

24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Note, 1. To the education of children in that which is good there is necessary a due correction of them for what is amiss; every child of ours is a child of Adam, and therefore has that foolishness bound up in its heart which calls for rebuke, more or less, the rod and reproof which give wisdom. Observe, It is his rod that must be used, the rod of a parent, directed by wisdom and love, and designed for good, not the rod of a servant. 2. It is good to begin betimes with the necessary restraints of children from that which is evil, before vicious habits are confirmed. The branch is easily bent when it is tender. 3. Those really hate their children, though they pretend to be fond of them, that do not keep them under a strict discipline, and by all proper methods, severe ones when gentle ones will not serve, make them sensible of their faults and afraid of offending. They abandon them to their worst enemy, to the most dangerous disease, and therefore hate them. Let this reconcile children to the correction their good parents give them; it is from love, and for their good, Heb. xii. 7-9.

Proverbs 22:15:

15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

. . . That correction is necessary to the cure of it. It will not be got out by fair means and gentle methods; there must be strictness and severity, and that which will cause grief. Children need to be corrected, and kept under discipline, by their parents; and we all need to be corrected by our heavenly Father (Heb. xii. 6, 7), and under the correction we must stroke down folly and kiss the rod.

Proverbs 23:13-14:

13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. 14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

. . . A parent correcting his child. A tender parent can scarcely find in his heart to do this; it goes much against the grain. But he finds it is necessary; it is his duty, and therefore he dares not withhold correction when there is occasion for it (spare the rod and spoil the child); he beats him with the rod, gives him a gentle correction, the stripes of the sons of men, not such as we give to beasts. Beat him with the rod and he shall not die. The rod will not kill him; nay, it will prevent his killing himself by those vicious courses which the rod will be necessary to restrain him from. For the present it is not joyous, but grievous, both to the parent and to the child; but when it is given with wisdom, designed for good, accompanied with prayer, and blessed of God, it may prove a happy means of preventing his utter destruction and delivering his soul from hell. Our great care must be about our children's souls; we must not see them in danger of hell without using all possible means, with the utmost care and concern, to snatch them as brands out of everlasting burnings. Let the body smart, so that the spirit be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Proverbs 29:15:

15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Parents, in educating their children, must consider, 1. The benefit of due correction. They must not only tell their children what is good and evil, but they must chide them, and correct them too, if need be, when they either neglect that which is good or do that which is evil. If a reproof will serve without the rod, it is well, but the rod must never be used without a rational and grave reproof; and then, though it may be a present uneasiness both to the father and to the child, yet it will give wisdom. Vexatio dat intellectum—Vexation sharpens the intellect. The child will take warning, and so will get wisdom.

For more on Hebrew and "rod", see the article by Dave Miller, Ph.D.: Children and the Rod of Correction.

Another person (Michelle Richards) recommended on this topic, has no qualifications to make the exegetical judgments she makes, apart from scholarly support, either. She argues:

The “rod” in these Proverbs passages that so many see as a license to spank is symbolic. This Hebrew word is normally translated as shepherd’s “staff” or king’s “scepter”. So, if we were to be more literal, a closer translation would be bat and not twig! But that is not the author’s intent. This “rod” is a symbol of authority and guidance, like a shepherd guiding his sheep or a king governing his people . . .

That's not what linguist Gesenius and commentator Matthew Henry thought. That's not what the clear, plain meaning of "beat him with a rod" would suggest. She then tries to set the New Testament against the Old Testament (a tendency in many Protestants), and tries to make an argument from "euphemism":

Personally, I find it very interesting that when Christians teach spanking, the majority has several cute euphemisms to describe it and a list of guidelines as to how, when, and with what. There is absolutely no Biblical basis for any of them—they are essentially cultural. Whether you call it spanking, popping, smacking or hitting, they all mean to strike a child in order to produce pain and fear. . . .

I would submit that the reason behind the euphemisms and rules that Christians create is that our conscience is condemning us. We are aware on some level that hurting those who are smaller and weaker goes against the nature of Christ, and feel a need to justify and minimize what we are actually doing.

This pseudo-psychological (and arguably, offensive) analysis is faulty for the reasons I already gave: it disregards dictionary meanings and commonly accepted meanings and abuses the English language. Here, for example is an online definition of spanking:

American Heritage Dictionary

spank (spāngk) Pronunciation Key v. spanked, spank·ing, spanks v. tr. To slap on the buttocks with a flat object or with the open hand, as for punishment.

Not much to misunderstand here, is there? This is what people are talking about when favoring "spanking": not child abuse, not slaps on the face or hitting a child on the head with a frying pan or merciless beatings and kickings or what not, from monstrous criminal parents. To deny this is to do violence to the very meaning of the word. Here's another:

Merriam-Webster

: to strike especially on the buttocks with the open hand

Compare this with the same dictionary's long, convoluted definition of "hit".

She does say one thing I heartily agree with: "If the child is old enough to reason, spanking is unnecessary." That's why I, and many of the family advocates I have cited, believe that it is appropriate only up to age 6 or 7, which is pretty much "the age of reason" -- when other methods of discipline can be just as, or more effective.

She refers readers to another argument against spanking, that I would consider equally desperate, and an example of eisegesis (literally, "reading into Scripture," rather than "out of it"):

Now, if we assume the reference is to the actual stick called a shebet we must discount the next passage as a lie—because Torah makes it clear that you can kill someone through beating with a shebet. And the penalty for it is death. Solomon would not be giving wise instruction, which we know the Proverbs to be, if he was informing parents they could discount the cautions in Torah given for slaves and believe that a beating to a son would never result in death. But if we understand the reference to the shebet as speaking to the father’s absolute authority to correct his children, we can see that if you continue to correct your child until you figuratively “beat it into him” you will be able to accomplish the guarantee of the next passage—saving his soul from an early grave. This type of a beating will bring a pang to his moral conscience and entice him to do what is right. He will be smited into right thinking.

This is rather weak reasoning: arguing that if an object can possibly kill someone, it can never be used at all. Using that logic, one could argue that one mustn't play in a backyard pool because, after all, a person could drown another person in the water. A baseball bat could crush someone's skull; a jump rope could strangle them, etc. Just because a thing is used immorally doesn't mean that it can't be used at all in a moral fashion. Even a human hand can be used to stroke a child's face lovingly or pet a kitten, and also to strangle and slap someone's face or punch them in the face, or pinch or scratch, etc.

I don't find these arguments at all compelling.

Causing pain or striking someone is not loving. God disciplines us, but it is in love. Discipline is not identical with physical force.

Then God is not loving, either. Your argument proves too much. God often causes us pain, as we know from His revelation, Holy Scripture. Pain comes from all kinds of things. Emotional and mental pain can be just as bad if not worse than physical pain (as most people would agree, I think). But there is much pain, sanctioned by God, for our good:

Genesis 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

Deuteronomy 8:5,16 Know then in your heart that, as a man disciplines his son, the LORD your God disciplines you . . . that he might humble you and test you, to do you good in the end.

Job 5:17-18 "Behold, happy is the man whom God reproves; therefore despise not the chastening of the Almighty. 18 For he wounds, but he binds up; he smites, but his hands heal.

Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tried me, I shall come forth as gold.

Psalm 94:12 Blessed is the man whom thou dost chasten, O LORD, and whom thou dost teach out of thy law.

Psalm 119

50 This is my comfort in my affliction that thy promise gives me life.
67 Before I was afflicted I went astray; but now I keep thy word.
71 It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn thy statutes.
75 I know, O LORD, that thy judgments are right, and that in faithfulness thou hast afflicted me.

Isaiah 48:10 Behold, I have refined you, but not like silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.

Romans 5

2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.
3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,
4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,

2 Corinthians 1

5 For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.
9 Why, we felt that we had received the sentence of death; but that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead;

2 Corinthians 12

7 And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.
8 Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me;
9 but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

Hebrews 5:8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;

James 1

2 Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials,
3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
12 Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him.

2 Timothy 1:8 Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel in the power of God,

2 Timothy 2

3 Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.
10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.
11 The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him;
12 if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us;

1 Peter 4

12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you.
13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

Revelation 2:10 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.

It occurs to me that this kind of argument also leads to extreme pacifism (itself is a most unbiblical position). One can never use any force at all against another, let alone kill them, for any reason whatsoever. It's all evil. Okay, so a murderer comes into your house to torture and kill your children. Is it loving to prevent him by force? Of course it is: it is loving to your children. If we can never use any force for any reason whatsoever, we can't oppose tyrants. The whole world would be either Nazi or Communist by now.

There could be no police, so the criminals would run wild, making our society even worse. Etc. You couldn't stop a maniac with a blowtorch, about to set a building full of people on fire, or the wackos who shoot up schools. All of that would be immoral action. It reduces to absurdity. Clearly there is justification for use of force, including minor corporal punishments of children, intended for their well-being, according to clear biblical principles and mandate.

I think this "anti-spanking" position would be a lot more respectable and respected if it wasn't embraced in a legalistic sense of "it is immoral for everyone to do it." Live and let live. But people seem to have a need to make things absolute, when they are not at all. Whatever they don't like, no one can like. Whatever they think is wrong, even when reasonable people disagree, and there are nuances and different situations where good people differ in good faith, must be wrong for everyone. The attack is aggressively made against everyone who disagrees, as if they are doing something seriously wrong.

But, lacking a coherent or sensible biblical argument (I have yet to see it), I think the position falls flat and is based (in my opinion) largely on emotional reaction to actual instances of child abuse, one's own background, and flawed social science of our time that doesn't proceed from biblical and theistic premises.

I suspect that in many cases, we would discover that the anti-spanking advocate had a history of abuse in his or her own life, or did not approach spanking in the right way when they became a parent, or do not have the requisite self-control to do it in the right fashion, and so turned against it totally. But these are not reasons to extend a principle to everyone in the world and to make a moral absolute out of it, especially since the Bible and the Church have both sanctioned the practice (properly done) as perfectly moral.

I don't want to judge others, as the person cited above did, claiming that merely using the word "spanking" proves some guilt complex. I'm just saying that I suspect this in many cases, and would ask anti-spanking advocates about their own history in this regard to see if it might have had a significant bearing on their position.

The Watered-Down Illogic of Gene M. Bridges (Re: Holy Water)

Local "Wangateur", Dave "Mundunugu" Armstrong, According to Gene Bridges

This is the guy who compared me to Castro and the dictator of North Korea (and the nut in Iran) in our last go-around, based on his outrage at my unmitigated gall in challenging him to a chat debate on an anti-Catholic blog rather than privately in e-mail (gasp!!! what's the world coming to??!!). Needless to say, he turned me down. ("It's [sic] announcement was not in an email to me . . . Sorry, but that tactic earns you an automatic 'No,' since you lacked the integrity to simply email. You had your chance, and you blew it.").

In his latest round of juvenile tomfoolery he compares me to some kind of witch doctor (see the illustration above). I rather enjoy this latest portrayal: it proudly takes its place among other classic depictions of yours truly, such as Dr. Eric Svendsen showing "me" in a National Enquirer-type spoof with a child coming out of my chest and supporting Holocaust deniers, and James White's artist friend Angel Contreras' depiction of me as a sadistic voodoo practitioner; something to add to my collection! And once again, I sadly confess, I was foolish enough to think that the catalogue of anti-Catholic insults had just about been exhausted. Obviously, I greatly underestimated anti-Catholic ingenuity and inventiveness, which knows no bounds.

Gene "Illogical" Bridges takes on some arguments for holy water, as summarized in my post on the topic. The debate is really Nick Hardesty's (vs safely-anonymous "Turretinfan"), so I won't get heavily involved (being busy with lots of other things, as usual), but I couldn't resist pointing out a few, at least, of the relentless and utterly simplistic lapses in logic in Bridges' post. It just wasn't in me to totally avoid it. In so doing, I am utilizing Bridges' own methodology:

Note, I am not evaluating the total argument. . . . Rather, I am, for my own purposes examining specific texts cited. . . . I will not address each and every text. Rather, I will select some particularly egregious errors . . . So, with that in mind, let us take a quick look.

In dealing with proposed Old Testament examples of holy water or reasonable facsimiles thereof, "Illogical" Bridges writes:

So, let us be clear here, the argument appears to be that these texts are examples of holy water itself being used. That seems to me to be quite a stretch. "Holy water" itself is water that has been blessed. The concept is predicated on the Roman Catholic priesthood. Not just any water will do, it has to be blessed by a particular person, and the Roman priesthood is itself dependent on a valid chain of holy orders. So, if we are to connect these examples to "holy water" in the Roman sense, we have to make a set of connections. Does the text support these connections?

Do you see how this can be annihilated logically? Take a moment to consider this, and see if you come up with what I am about to demonstrate. The argument presupposes that in order to be a prototype or forerunner of something else, there must be absolute equation in all particulars. But clearly, something that is a prototype or forerunner is not required to be absolutely identical, nor could it be, by definition. So it is a logical sleight-of-hand from the outset. Bridges hopes that the reader won't notice his dumb, viciously circular premise and blithely proceeds on, building a house of cards. Just one example will suffice:

1. Abraham exercised faith in the LORD and it was reckoned unto him righteousness (Gen 15:6; cf. Gal 3:6).

2. But Abraham didn't have the benefit of Paul's teaching on faith alone (Romans, Galatians), which is required for fully understanding the Protestant notion of sola fide. Oh, and maybe a few of Jesus' teachings on faith and the gospel, too . . .

3. He didn't even have the earth-shaking revelations of Martin Luther, that recovered the gospel from centuries-old obscurity.

4. Therefore (using Bridges' singular mode of "logic"), Abraham couldn't have exercised true saving faith because he lacked the prerequisites of understanding this faith (Paul teaching Luther's doctrine, and Luther coming along to verify that he did).

The "logic" works exactly the same way. Let's now apply it back to what "Illogical" Bridges does above with holy water:

1. "Holy water" in some sense is mentioned in the OT.

2. But current Catholic "cootie-, er, so-called "holy water" has to be blessed by a Catholic priest.

3. And a Catholic priest is dependent on the antecedent notion of apostolic succession and holy orders.

4. Therefore, the OT examples cannot truly be holy water because the apostolic succession and priests that are prerequisites were not present.

As I stated above, however, prototypes or forerunners or more primitive kernels of later developments do not have to have all particulars in place in order to be validly pointed to as forerunners. Protestants fully acknowledge this themselves, because they have long used various Old Testament indications of the Trinity to argue for that doctrine, even though the Trinity is by no means made clear in the Old Testament, and even though all Jews deny that it can be found in OT texts. According to "Illogical" Bridges, Christians must either throw out the Trinity or at least stop using Old testament proof texts to support it, because not all elements are in place.

This horrendously absurd fallacy is found throughout the first part of "Illogical" Bridges' post, and so we need not delve into those examples in detail. They rest on a manifestly false premise. For example, "Illogical" Bridges writes: "God Himself is here blessing the water, not a priest." In other words, it can't be used as any evidence for holy water because not all NT and "Catholic" particulars are present in the example. But the commonality and point of the prooftext isn't absolute equation; rather it is sharing a key characteristic: the concept of water being blessed in the first place. But "Illogical" Bridges casually commits the same fallacy in his next example:

One wonders if Rome today practices the adultery test. If this is "holy water" in the Roman sense, why do we not find Dave and Nicholas advocating its use as outlined in this text?

By this "logic" every Christian ought to try to sacrifice his first son, because Abraham did that and he was the father of the faithful. Virtually no arguments from the Old Testament (as prototype examples of Christianity) could be used. Not content with making a fool of himself now twice, "Illogical" Bridges insists on doing it a third time, regarding yet another example:

If this is an argument for the use of holy water, it proves too much, for if so, why not do the rest of what is stated? Does Dave the Wangateur believe the ceremonial law is still in effect?

Wow. And -- shameless and blissfully ignorant of his errors -- he does it a fourth time:

God cleanses the water, showing mercy, and these waters are purified for use for something other than planting and yielding no crop; rather the water is purified for human consumption and the land is made to bear fruit. There is nothing here about "holy water." Once again, Dave and Nicholas have abused the Word of God.

"Illogical" Bridges' blog comrade, Steve Hays is not nearly as skittish about forerunners and prototypes and archetypes and typology as he is, though:

Jesus reaffirmed the heterosexual archetype and prototype of marriage (Mt 19:4-6). (10-23-04)

Elijah was the forerunner to Christ. (1-22-05)

How is the absence of parallel cases relevant to the historicity of the resurrection of Christ? It is presented in Scripture as a miraculous and unprecedented event, the archetype and prototype of an eschatological resurrection of the just at the end of the church age. (12-31-05)

As Paul goes on to explain in v16, he was shown mercy as a prototype of those who are saved by exercising faith in Christ. (3-15-06)

The whole point of this chapter is to repeatedly stress the physicality of the glorified body, with the Risen Christ its archetype and prototype. (5-11-06)

By “typology” I mean the thematic progression and convergence of otherwise disparate theological motifs as we arrive at the NT. (5-23-06)

Biblical symbolism, as a rule, takes its point of origin from history. Put another way, Biblical symbolism is a form of typology, in which one entity prefigures another. We would therefore expect the Sabbatarian motif in Gen 1-2 to foreshadow the Sabbath in a constitutive sense rather than a figurative sense. (7-2-07)

So given that the genre of prophecy and typology is, by definition, future-oriented, it is not anachronistic to interpret a prophecy with the benefit of hindsight. The fulfillment completes the prophecy, for the prophecy involves an internal relation between the past and the future. Although prophecy is prospective, the interpretation of prophecy is—of necessity—retrospective, since the fulfillment is after the fact.

. . . Moreover, there are many messianic candidates who might seem to fulfill a particular messianic motif. What would distinguish the true heir to the messianic promises from the pretenders is precisely the degree to which all of the messianic promises are fulfilled in his person and work. So the complete theological construct is directly germane to the true identity and historic arrival of the Messiah. That is how you know when The One Who Is to Come is The One Who Has Come.

Furthermore, typology is an intra-Testamental feature as well as an inter-Testamental feature. For example, you already have a new Eden motif as well as a new Exodus motif in the later OT writers. So it’s not as if NT typology is alien to the OT perspective.

. . . Ironically, it’s liberals like Fitzmyer, with their secular historiography, who easily succumb to anachronistic interpretations. Because they don’t believe in genuine prophecy or typology, they reinterpret the Bible consistent with their closed-system viewpoint. (7-14-07)

[citing renowned exegete D.A. Carson approvingly] Moreover, if this new king-priest is modelled on ancient Melchizedek, himself a priest-king, there is also an anticipation of this arrangement as far back as Genesis 14. In other words, where one pays attention to links that depend on historical sequencing, one has laid the groundwork for careful typology. The argument in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 similarly depends on reading the Old Testament texts in their historical sequence: the fact that Psalm 95, written after the people have entered the Promised Land, is still calling the covenant people to enter into God’s rest, demonstrates that entry into the land was not itself a final delivery of the promise to give them rest. Moreover, the reference to "God’s rest" triggers reflection on how God rested as far back as Genesis 1-2—and thus another typological line is set up, filled in with a variety of pieces along the historical trajectory. (8-11-07)

Typology is future-oriented, but what the fulfillment supplies is not new meaning, but the historical referent. Indeed, it's precisely because the meaning is fixed in the past that we can identify the future referent when it comes to pass. (9-22-07)

But the final state of man is a reembodied state, due to the general resurrection. And Jesus himself, at the time he spoke, would soon be the archetype and prototype of glorification. We don’t have much experience with the glorified body, but we have a paradigm-case in Jesus. (12-3-07)

But (perhaps feeling left out), even "Illogical" Bridges gives a nod to the concept, despite his seeming extreme disdain of it when it comes to holy water:

Thus, where there is a tent of meeting/temple, there is a covenant underwriting it. It would not make sense to divorce these tabernacle images from the concept of the covenant yet unite them to covenants elsewhere. All of this points toward God and His covenants in this text as well, because of the typology of the Garden as the tent of meeting.

. . . None of this is an exegetical stretch, for, given the common authorship of the Pentateuch, it is not surprising that Moses has woven a number of literal and literary analogies into one theological tapestry. Underlying these interpretations is the principle of typology, in which one historical event foreshadows another, or even a number of events—like a row of dominoes—until the final domino falls flat. So the NT isn't reading anything into Gen 3 and neither am I or others here when we say that the preponderance of the evidence here favors this being a covenant. The question is not whether or not a covenant exists, but what the nature of that covenant is. (7-27-06)

Then it gets even more fun, as "Illogical" Bridges scales the very pinnacle of folly in his next round of "argumentation":

Other texts cited include:

John 9:6-7 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man's eyes with the clay, saying to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Silo'am" (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

One problem here is that we are left to wonder how we get from this to "holy water." This would be "holy mud." Further, Jesus is using his own saliva.

Unbelievable. Now we go beyond manifest logical deficiencies to difficulties in simple reading comprehension. My first section title was: "God Uses Created Things In Order to Produce Supernatural Effects In Our Lives." This is setting up a prior or antecedent premise that will support a later premise. The first sentence in this section was:

There are many examples in Scripture where Jesus and the apostles use created things to produce supernatural effects in the lives of human beings.

So to spell it out for "Illogical" Bridges with an appropriately simple chart:

1. First premise: "God Uses Created Things In Order to Produce Supernatural Effects In Our Lives."

2. Biblical examples of the first premise are given.

3. Second premise: "In Scripture, Water is Used to Cleanse, Purify, and Heal Human Beings."

4. Biblical examples of the second premise are given.

Now, is this rocket science? I don't think so. It's quite simple. I think my six-year-old daughter could easily grasp the concept and the logic involved, but anti-Catholic blinders preclude such a possibility, I guess. Thus "Illogical" Bridges asks, dumbfoundedly: "One problem here is that we are left to wonder how we get from this to 'holy water.' " I just showed how one does that. But he asks: "This would be 'holy mud.' Further, Jesus is using his own saliva." Obviously, "Illogical" Bridges is confusing the categories of #2 and #4 above. If he had troubled himself to read my subtitles for the sections and had given them even a moment's reflection as to meaning, he wouldn't have made this embarrassing mistake. But instead he barges ahead and pretends (straw man warning!) that I was trying to argue that "holy mud" was the biblical equivalent of "holy water." I did no such thing. My argument was, rather:

1. God uses created things in order to produce supernatural effects in our lives.

2. One such example was Jesus' use of His own saliva mixed with dirt, utilized as an instrument to heal a blind man.

3. Therefore, we see a scriptural "sacramental" background to the more specific notion of water being used to cleanse, purify, and heal human beings, since water is one specific example of a created thing and is likewise used to heal in Scripture.

That's completely different logic from "holy water is the exact equivalent of 'holy mud'; hence the latter constitutes a biblical proof for or example of the former". But "Illogical" Bridges continues:

The emphasis on the means is not the point of the text. The emphasis is on the identity of the Healer.

Why can't it be both? What is striking is that Jesus healed in this way at all, and that created things are consistently used in Holy Scripture for sacramental purposes: to convey grace or healing. So "Illogical" Bridges can try to minimize what he doesn't care for, if he likes, but the fact remains that this is a persistent motif in the Bible and can't be discounted merely because one is prejudiced against it, due to the man-made tradition of anti-sacramentalism or Docetic-like antipathy to matter, that runs rampant through a certain sector of Protestantism.

I will stop with this one:

Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

I've chosen this because it is a favorite of the Word of Faith snake oil salesmen.

Nice touch there. So because snake oil salesmen pervert and corrupt a Bible verse for nefarious ends, I must be tainted because I also cite it legitimately. This is the old trick of guilt-by-association: yet another logical fallacy. Of course, I wouldn't expect "Illogical" Bridges to be aware that I was opposing the serious errors of the Word of faith people over 25 years ago, in 1982, when I was a Protestant, and that one can read that paper on my blog today.

I somehow doubt Dave and Nicolas believe that getting a prayer cloth as a "point of contact" is a valid use of holy water.

He is "somehow" right for a change (but alas, for the wrong reasons). He is again confusing categories of #2 and #4.

God is the healer, not Paul, though Paul has the authority of Jesus Himself, being an Apostle.

No one is denying this, in the sense of ultimate cause. It is a non sequitur. It's also a rather ignorant remark to make in light of the fact that the Bible states over and over that people healed others (i.e., they were God's instruments of healing, just as the text above states: "God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul"): Acts 8:7; 10:36-42; 28:8; 1 Cor 12:28,30; James 5:14-16. Not only that; Jesus also virtually commands His disciples to "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons" (Matthew 10:8).

Readers may choose whether to follow the warped, stunted "either/or" mentality here or, on the other hand, explicit biblical descriptions. I don't think anyone can go wrong accepting the plain words of Holy scripture, but they can sure go wrong in following the false, anti-biblical traditions of men.

The virtue was not found in the materials themselves - that would be witchery - it was in God and the faith of the recipients.

Of course. No orthodox Catholic ever argued otherwise. But this doesn't wipe out the fact that materials were used: and that is all we are arguing. Just as my subtitle clearly states: "God uses created things in order to produce supernatural effects in our lives".

How do we get from this to "holy water?" There are several links in that chain. To connect such things to Acts is also to confound an example with a command or an example given as a normative practice to be followed for all ages. Like the Word of Faith crowd, they simply assume what they need to prove and make no supporting argument. This is atrocious and shameful handling of Scripture and it is for this reason that I have intentionally tarred Dave with the descriptions in the opening statement here - and, for his benefit I will add that this is equally true of those who hawk handkerchiefs, prayer cloths, and "holy water" on late night television. It is hardly an issue that is a problem from Roman Catholics. If you're going to advocate such things, whoever you are, you may has well just call up a Voodoo priestess to do your bidding.

Sure; that sounds fun! How would I go about contacting such a person?

I'll not address the other texts. They generally seem to fall short for similar reasons. Others can comment on them.

Wise choice; he has embarrassed himself almost beyond repair in his "arguments" so far.

Do demons sometimes flee at the gesticulations of priests, crucifixes, and "holy" water? No doubt they do, but they could well do so because, as my Protestant forefathers said, Satan likes to make a show of it for such, for he delights in keeping men in bondage through such false miracles. Indeed I am quite sure that the diabolical one is active among pagans to this very day, and it is not without reason that witch doctors do their work,and it no doubt has some effect - for the same reason, to keep men in bondage to sin and death. The Bible, you know, has a doctrine of false miracles as well as true. The message of Rome is a false gospel, so any miracles done by her representatives is confirmation of that gospel. Beware false teachers. A miracles must match the message to be from God.

Catholicism as gross paganism and heathenism . . . every Catholic miracle is from the devil (and if "Illogical" Bridges is a cessationist, every Protestant and post-apostolic miracle also is from the devil or never happened at all). They said the same about Jesus, remember: that He was casting demons out by the name of Beelzebub (Luke 11:14-23; Matt 12:22-37). He predicted that His followers would receive the same treatment (Matt 10:24-25). This has been fulfilled yet again, above. In the same context that Jesus speaks about being falsely accused of performing demonic miracles, He warns about blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:31-32).

Gene Bridges endangers his soul to the extent that he denies miracles from God simply because they may have come through the instrumentality of a Catholic vessel. He is already bearing false witness against brothers in Christ (by denying that we are brothers and fellow disciples of Jesus), which violates the Ten Commandments and fosters the very serious sin of schism. So he is in very deep and perilous waters, spiritually-speaking. He'll laugh this off as a "threat" no doubt, but I am quite sincere (all polemical ribbings and tweakings aside) about warning him of the inherent dangers of such spouted falsehoods. It's his soul. I would suggest that he think very seriously about these matters.

James White's Deficient Research: Counting Numbers at Trent (Regarding the Canon) / Gary Michuta's Deuterocanon Web Page

My good friend Gary Michuta (currently on the front page of his website) has shown how Reformed Baptist apologist Bishop James White has miscalculated a bit concerning his description of a vote at the Council of Trent with regard to the canon of Holy Scripture ("The 44% Solution: Why Anti-Catholics Should Trust Their Instincts"). I find this a bit humorous, since Bishop White was trying so very hard to show that Steve Ray was an incompetent buffoon with regard to the issue of the canon, and used the "Trent vote" argument that Gary was refuting in his paper.

Steve has lately been the favorite whipping-boy of several folks whose views are characterized by anti-Catholicism. The Right Reverend Bishop was really laying it on thick in his introduction to his hit piece You Tube video "exposing" Steve's supposedly atrocious apologetics methods:

Steve Ray Grossly Misrepresents Church History---Again

Here is a tremendous example of the kind of scholarship put forward by Ignatius Press and Catholic Answers in the person of one of their "experts," Steve Ray. This kind of gross misrepresentation is simply too easy to refute, yet it is so very popular amongst Rome's adherents.

Once again, faced with opposing arguments, the good Bishop is quick to charge deliberate deception and lying (as he has done with myself and many others):

Well, now I know who posted this video: none other than Gary Michuta himself. He joined YouTube just today to post this wonderful example of "As long as it is in the service of Rome, don't worry about the truth thing--it will all come out in the wash." Evidently he views it as his job to protect Steve Ray when Ray makes utterly absurd statements on CA Live. In any case, it is Michuta who now gets to own this mess of half-truths and deception, and own it he will.

(my emphases)

Will Rogers famously remarked that he had never met a man he didn't like. It looks like Bishop White may have never engaged an opposing argument by a Catholic that he didn't think was deliberately deceptive. He seems utterly unable to comprehend that a Catholic might sincerely, honestly hold a different viewpoint than he does, without knowing that it is a lie and intending to deceive others with it. That's why I have little to do with him anymore. Interacting with the man (well, attempting to) is an insult to one's intelligence. I commend Gary for his Job-like patience in still being willing to interact with White's vapid inanities. I don't have anywhere near such patience and so I admire a person who does.

Gary's Deuterocanon Web Page will eventually have a link to the above "44%" article. It has many excellent ones posted already. And if you're interested in a Catholic book that tackles the "Apocrypha" issue, then check out Gary's excellent volume, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible.

Why the Salvation Army Doesn't Baptize or Celebrate Holy Communion

I alluded to this in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Appendix One, p. 242). The Quakers believe the same. Check out this explanation from a proponent. Also, here is a second paper on the same topic.

Absolute Anti-Catholic Idiocy (Steve Hays & Gene M. Bridges)

Steve Hays spends yet another Sunday at the local watering-hole, to come up with new ways to sling mud, with Gene M. Bridges and Paul Manata (jumping)

Anti-Catholic luminary Steve Hays wrote an idiotic post questioning my credentials to give any spiritual or theological advice whatsoever, simply because I am not a bishop or a pope (or even a priest), as if no Catholic lay person can do such a thing at all (according to our supposed authority-structure in matters of teaching). Others made utterly ignorant, vapid remarks about it (and I assure my readers, no other softer words will do these statements justice):

Paul Manata: one / two

Gene M. Bridges (still smarting from the embarrassment of his last "scholarly" performance): one / two

Steve Hays: one / two / three

I was dumb and naive enough to write a two-part rational, factual reply to this sheer nonsense (one / two). When will I ever learn? Then Steve Hays "replied" with yet another ludicrous, extraordinarily irrational, empty-headed post.

This sewer scum doesn't deserve any further consideration. I only note it for the record as an amazing example of what Malcolm Muggeridge used to call "unresisting imbecility" and for humorous value. If one doesn't read what (active, prolific, polemical, adversarial) anti-Catholics actually do when confronted with incontrovertible fact (and I'm not even talking about theology proper in this instance), then they won't understand how absolutely ridiculous and hostile they often are, when dealing with anything remotely Catholic. It's a real eye-opener for those who don't realize that doctrinal (not political) know-nothingism is alive and well in the good ole US of A.

Our only solace is that people who "think" (and that's stretching it) like this are in a tiny minority among our Protestant brethren: many, many of whom are fine, admirable, upstanding Christians. Thank heavens. I'm rapidly considering returning to my sometimes-policy of ignoring these clowns altogether. I highly doubt that I'll ever visit this nutburger site again, though I can't promise that I'll never fall into that odd curiosity that people have sometimes for the bizarre things of life.

Steve Hays dishes up another "argument"

Protestant Critiques of Joel Osteen's False Teachings

I found a pretty good critique of Osteen on a major Protestant blog (Challies). And another from "The Internet Monk": Michael Spencer.

Further critiques:

The Leaven of Lakewood (Rev. Robert S. Liichow)

Osteen's Ignorance (Rev. Robert S. Liichow)

Apprising Joel Osteen's Word-Faith Teachings (Ken Silva)

Joel Osteen: Smile When You Lie (Ken Silva)

Preaching a False-Positive With a Smile (Mike Oppenheimer)

Outing Joel Osteen: A Challenge to the Evangelical Blogosphere (Michael Spencer)

Joel Osteen: Your Best Life Now (audio sermon by Baptist Jeff Riddle)

The Gnosticizing Joel Osteen (Denny Burk)

For a biblical critique of the general school of thought that Osteen is part of ("Word of Faith" / "Prosperity" / "Name it Claim it", etc.), see my 1982 paper (written when I was a Protestant):

Biblical Refutation of "Hyperfaith" / "Name-it-Claim it" Teaching: Is it Always God's Will to Heal in Every Instance?

Do I Defend All Historic Catholic Polemics Regarding Martin Luther? Nope

Johannes Cochlaeus

Here are some of my own past words (all bolding added presently):

* * * * *

I readily admit that Grisar had a Catholic bias and a bias against Luther which is excessive, . . . He has some obvious bias, . . .

(1-28-04)

If anyone is under the illusion that I am "anti-Luther" in the way that many Catholic critics (Denifle et al) have been, . . .

(2-22-04)

Patrick O'Hare and his book, The Facts About Martin Luther, . . . This work (like many Catholic treatments of a hundred years or so ago) is very intemperate and lacking in charity towards Luther, and I agree that (for this reason) it is not a very good or objective source (I used to cite it when O'Hare documented his claims from Luther's own words, but no longer do at all . . .

(9-25-04)

I would be wary of quotes (particularly isolated ones) from Heinrich Denifle (he had a notorious anti-Luther bias) and from contemporary Catholic writer E. Michael Jones (who has a tendency towards extreme rhetoric and sometimes sensationalism). If no context was provided, it is all the more questionable (as to the impression given).

(2-22-07)

. . . this time taking out all references to and from Patrick O'Hare because I felt that his "anti-Luther" emotional bias was sufficient enough to cast doubt on the usefulness of citing him at all. . . . my objection to O'Hare has much more to do with his unnecessary and obnoxious anti-Luther value judgments . . .

(3-26-07)

For example, let's consider for a moment criticisms of Patrick O'Hare, and my own difficulties with that same polemical Catholic author. . . .

(9-13-07)

Cochlaeus . . . was venomously anti-Luther . . .

(1-12-08; private correspondence)

. . . Johann Cochlaeus, the 16th century "anti-Luther" biographer and polemicist. . . . how nasty and mean Cochlaeus was to Luther. He was that, I freely grant, . . .

(1-15-08)

* * * * *

I have never ever relied on Cochlaeus for any argument with regard to ascertained historical facts about Martin Luther (I never had or read any of his material). It is true that Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar's writings helped me to formulate a new understanding of what went on in the so-called "Reformation" but his were only one of many such writings from Catholics, including others like Karl Adam and Johannes Janssen (and Adam is even fairly well liked by Protestant polemicists); also non-Catholic historians like Will Durant.

Now, it's true that my mention of Grisar in my conversion story in Surprised by Truth reads as if Grisar was the sole cause of my reversal on the basic merits of the "Reformation," but like all short treatments of any complex idea (my story was the shortest in the book because I was the only one who actually abided by the suggested length requirement!), it can always use more "fleshing-out."

The two much larger "keys" -- as I have always said; even again today on the radio -- were development of doctrine and the issue of contraception. In fact, my longest and most technical and theologically-oriented conversion story (also published in two magazines and in one of my own books) concentrated on development of doctrine as the one largest factor in my conversion, and never even mentions Grisar at all. I've also written a paper devoted to proving that claims (by someone else) of my excessive reliance on Grisar in my Luther research, were greatly exaggerated. I have always maintained that Cardinal Newman and development of doctrine were overwhelmingly the largest reason for my conversion. That can be verified in my several written accounts and in spoken testimonies on the radio (as I said, this very day I stated this again, in a radio appearance).

I don't discount Grisar's Luther research because he has bias (a bias I have freely conceded, as seen above). Lots of people have bias (I would even say that all scholars do, if they are honest with themselves). The intelligent reader and researcher takes that into consideration. But we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The question is: "how much bias turns one into an outright 'poor' researcher or scholar?"

Many Protestants think Grisar crosses that line; I do not. But I could just as reasonably argue that these critics of Grisar don't like him at all because he criticizes their hero and the foundation-stone of their Protestantism, and they don't like that. They want to talk only about Grisar's bias and ignore (often) their own strong Protestant bias, and vested interest in having a certain perception and image of Luther (and a corresponding lower or lousy view of Catholicism). I don't deny Grisar's Catholic bias, and I object to his painting Luther as an "evil" man (insofar as he does that, and I've seen him do it at times).

Zwingli, Bucer, and Oecolampadius Said Martin Luther and Lutherans Weren't Christians

I've noted in the past, Martin Luther's utter disdain for the "sacramentarians": people who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist: folks like Zwingli and Oecolampadius. He thought they were damned. I just discovered today something I hadn't noticed before: these Swiss "reformers" (along with comrade Martin Bucer) apparently had denied that Luther and his Lutheran comrades were Christians before Luther had made his negative judgment on them (thus, perhaps accounting for some of the extra venom of Luther's replies to them in the period of 1526-1528).

I found this in footnotes in Luther's Works (LW) to Luther's treatise, That These Words of Christ, "This is My Body," Etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics (published in English translation in LW, vol. 37, p. 13 ff.). The editors documented these charges to substantiate and give background to Luther's descriptions of their opinions of him, and of Lutherans, in the text. For example:

Since they regard us as "un-Christians" whom the Spirit of God has forsaken . . . ( p. 21 )

Besides, we godless and unforbearing "un-Christians" must put up with having these holy and moderate teachers revile us as idolaters and having our God called the baked God, the edible and potable God, the bread-God, the wine-God, and ourselves called God-forsaken Christians and such names. This altogether venomous, devilish abuse exceeds all bounds. Now a person would rather be upbraided for being full of devils than have a "baked God." ( p. 22 )

Since we "un-Christians" and unforbearing heathen, I say, must suffer such horrible slander and shameful vilification from them, they, as the holy Christians . . . they regard me as full of devils. ( p. 23 )

The footnotes document these charges:

19 Oecolampadius: "If the real, true Spirit of God has not forsaken you now . . ." Reasonable Answer. St. L. 20, 599. He frequently applied Gal. 4:9 to his adversaries: "They turn back from Christ to the [weak and beggarly] elements." Apologetics, 1526 M 7 f. Zwingli wrote on April 5, 1525, that his adversaries in the Lord's supper controversy "are not led by the same Spirit." C.R. 95, 317. Bucer: "Let Luther acknowledge that he is being led by a spirit far different from that of Christ." Preface, 1527. St. L. 17, 1601. Luther and his party are frequently admonished to pray for God's Spirit (cf. Bucer, ibid.), which the Swiss and Strassburgers claim has been revealed to them. Oecolampadius, Apologetics, H 4; Bucer, Apology, 1526, 35). See Luther's Letter to Spalatin, March 27, 1526, . . . ( p. 21 )

24 Zwingli compared "worshiping the consecrated bread" with the worship of the golden calf at Dan (I Kings 12:28 f.). Letter to Matthew Alber, published 1525. C.R. 90, 342; St. L. 17, 1520. He ridiculed the Lutherans' "edible, impanated, baked, roasted, ground-up God." Reply to Urban Rhegius. C.R. 91, 934. Oecolampadius defended the epithet, "eaters of God's flesh and drinkers of God's blood," in Reasonable Answer. St. L. 20, 588. Cf. Luther's Letter to Gregory Casel, November 1525. ( p. 22 )

Notably, Zwingli denied the sacraments any power of transference of grace whatsoever:

"It is clear that the eating of the Eucharist does not take away sins." Letter to Alber. C.R. 90, 351; St. L. 17, 1528. "They are wrong, by the whole width of heaven, who think that sacraments have any cleansing power." Commentary. LWZ 3, 182. ( p. 102)

Swiss "Reformer" and Zwingli's successor Heinrich Bullinger likewise excoriated Luther's character:

Everyone must be astonished at the harsh and presumptuous spirit of the man . . . The opinion of posterity will be that Luther was . . . a man ruled by criminal passions.

Luther’s rude hostility might be allowed to pass would he but leave intact respect for Holy Scripture . . . What has already taken place leads us to apprehend that this man will eventually bring great misfortune upon the Church.

(Letter to Martin Bucer, December 8, 1543; in Grisar, Luther, V, 409 and III, 417)

"Ruled by criminal passions," huh? Luther doesn't even "respect" the Bible? And he brings "great misfortune upon the Church"? Even John Calvin, generally more respectful of Luther, had his moments of candor (?):

. . . if Luther has so great a lust of victory, he will never be able to join along with us in a sincere agreement respecting the pure truth of God. For he has sinned against it not only from vainglory and abusive language, but also from ignorance and the grossest extravagance. For what absurdities he pawned upon us in the beginning, when he said the bread is the very body!

And if now he imagines that the body of Christ is enveloped by the bread, I judge that he is chargeable with a very foul error. What can I say of the partisans of that cause? Do they not romance more wildly than Marcion respecting the body of Christ? . . .

(Letter to Martin Bucer, January 12, 1538; in John Dillenberger, editor, John Calvin: Selections From His Writings, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co. [Anchor Books], 1971, p. 47; Calvin’s letter to Martin Bucer in 1538 was translated by Marcus Robert Gilchrist)

Okay. So Calvin thinks that Luther has a great "lust of victory" and is unable or unwilling to respect "the pure truth of God." He has "sinned" greatly in terms of "vainglory and abusive language" and was weighed down by "ignorance and the grossest extravagance." He taught "absurdities" in areas as important as the Eucharist and is thus guilty of "a very foul error": so bad that he "romance[s] more wildly" than the heretic Marcion. 

Laudable Lucid Lutheran Luminary Leibniz's Lousy, Lax, Lacerated Luther Line Letdown (?)

(see Part II of my "long paper", section XII for Tim Enloe's translation of the Latin context of Leibniz)

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz utilized a Luther quote discussed in the paper above. In no sense did I merely appeal to Leibniz's genius as proof that he was right (appeal to authority fallacy or, arguably, the genetic fallacy, if indeed I was arguing this, which I was not). My argument proceeds as follows:

1) Anti-Catholics claim that Catholic apologists cite Luther's utterances out of context.

2) Moreover, they claim that many Catholic apologists have taken this one particular Luther utterance (as well as many others) out of context, implying that this is a general deficiency in Catholic methodology.

3) But we have found the Lutheran philosopher and genius Leibniz utilizing the same quote, in virtually the same exact form (in Latin) from beginning to end.

4) Therefore, due to Leibniz's high stature in the history of thought, it cannot be argued that this is solely or primarily a Catholic deficiency.

5) Therefore, by logical extension, the criticisms that anti-Catholics make of the Catholic use of the quote must also be applied to Leibniz, or else the assumed opinion that the quote was taken out of context or otherwise falsely presented or misused must be revised.

6) Moreover, the charge applied to Leibniz is quite implausible since Leibniz was a genius and one of the greatest scholars and philosophers of his time; thus, to argue that Leibniz was woefully ignorant of the standard, basic rules of citation and immune to the usual counter-arguments of other scholars who would readily exploit this deficiency and faux pas, were it indeed present, is implausible in the extreme and arguably absurd.

7) The existence of other Protestants who acknowledge the citation without protest (e.g., Westcott) further strengthens this argument.

8) It is further weakened in terms of a primary application to "pop apologists" by the fact that eminent Doctors of the Church such as St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis de Sales use the same citation. 

9) Ergo, the overall anti-Catholic argument is considerably weakened and rendered quite dubious insofar as it is implausible in light of Leibniz' (and other Protestants') use: this alleged shortcoming is not confined to the "pop apologetics" realm.

That is my actual argument. Fair-minded readers can readily see that it is much more sophisticated and nuanced than a supposed simple recourse to authority. it is, rather, a reductio ad absurdum of the original anti-Catholic argument. My friend Paul Hoffer expanded one particular aspect of it in combox comments:

The whole reason that he brought this matter up in the first place was to claim that Mr. Ray (and Catholics in general) had engaged in "shoddy" research because Mr. Ray relied on a secondary source rather than read Luther's works directly even though the majority of his work has not been translated from the original German and/or Latin. The work that we have done here rebuts that contention. Unless [one anti-Catholic critic] is prepared to state that Leibniz, a Lutheran, a philsopher, the co-creator of calculus, and one of the smartest men who ever lived, and B.F. Westcott, an Anglican bishop and the translator the Alexandrian Greek text that people like James White use in many Bible translations today, not to mention SS. Robert Bellarmine and Francis de Sales, doctors of the Catholic Church as well as saints whose work would have undergone a good deal of scrutiny before accepted, as well as all of the other folks have engaged in the same "shoddy" research he contends that Mr. Ray has done, then he is being hypocritical. It is not like anyone in the last 400+ years has ever seriously challenged the validity of the quote before and it certainly was not done before Mr. Ray wrote his book.

Now lest I be accused of revising (with the benefit of hindsight) my own argument in light of critiques, I contend that I made it quite clear enough when I originally presented it. Here it is (bolding added presently):

Unfortunately, [the] neat little quasi-conspiratorial theory of exclusively Catholic incompetence collapses since we now know that Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz: a Lutheran philosopher, who had one of the most brilliant minds of all time, also cites the same source (in the form that we have seen, from the Latin). . . .

And, as a Lutheran, Leibniz would have little reason to misquote Luther; nor is it plausible to posit that he completely blew a citation of Luther, radically opposite from its own context, . . . If the Catholics were guilty of this, so is Leibniz. If he is not, they are not.

It was silly enough . . . to accuse a Doctor of the Church of this basic shortcoming, as well as a renowned philosopher and political writer (Jaime Balmes), whose works have been published in 33 volumes (Madrid: 1948-1950). We are led to believe that all four of these men (the Catholics by direct accusation, and Lutheran Leibniz via indubitable logical deduction by equation of quotation) -- including two Doctors of the Church -- couldn't correctly and competently utilize a Latin citation from Martin Luther. . . .

On a related note, some anti-Catholics claim that the citation in question was not only incompetently cited, but also dishonestly so (or at least an incompetent, inadvertent presentation of a citation in such a fashion that the impression left is misleading, with the result the same as if it had been done in deliberate dishonesty), in an effort to make Luther say the "opposite" of what he actually intended.

This contention, however, is demolished in light of the fact that the earliest reference to the citation from Catholics that we have found: the 1582 preface to the Rheims translation of the New Testament, makes explicit note of Luther's own opinion:

Luther said: If the world should stand any long time, we must receive again (which he thought absurd) the Decrees of the Councils, for preserving the unity of faith, because of so divers interpretations of the Scriptures.

(Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582, in Documents of the English Reformation, Gerald Lewis Bray, James Clark & Co., 2004, p. 381)

I also noted several instances (thanks to Paul Hoffer's excellent research here) of Protestant scholars accepting this citation without protest (no pun intended):

Renowned Anglican scholar Brooke Foss Westcott cited this same passage, from the preface (see the whole document; and another version with some archaic language and spelling), as did the Protestant scholar Thomas Graves Law (see more on him from The Cambridge History of English and American Literature); also the non-Catholic Will Converse Wood.

Therefore, how can we be accused of pretending that Luther believed the opposite of what he actually did, when it is noted right in the citation, with a literally parenthetical remark, that this was a notion which Luther "thought absurd"). So much for the Catholic conspiracy of concealing Luther's true intentions . . .

The question truly comes down to the interpretation of Luther's remark, upon which reasonable and good men can differ. Interpretation is an altogether different question from accusations of scholarly incompetence and/or dishonesty. I have made efforts to interpret it in light of Luther's larger thought in the areas of authority, Church, and tradition, which is (as always) complex. But there is no effort to misrepresent Luther at all. When Bellarmine used it (my friend John McAlpine, who teaches Latin, read the context in Latin), he didn't make any particular claims of interpretation.

Likewise, with St. Francis de Sales, no interpretation that is "opposite" of Luther's intentions is put forth. The great Doctor simply writes (English translation: TAN: 1989, p. 155):

He acknowledges that formerly they were received, and that afterwards they will have to be.

This is more or less neutral language. It doesn't necessarily imply a "pro-conciliar" Luther opinion. In no sense is it dishonest.

As for Balmes, he puts a little interpretation on it, but not overly so:

[T]he most distinguished Protestants have felt the void which is found in all sects separated from the Catholic Church. I am about to give proofs of this assertion, which perhaps some persons may consider hazardous.

The main "editorial" judgment here is the phrase "felt the void." Big wow. He then cites our Luther quote (in English and Latin). He proceeds to cite Luther's successor Philip Melanchthon: "if bishops did not exist, it would be necessary to create them." He then cites Calvin, discussing the papacy, and Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, likewise lamenting Protestant disunity (it isn't like this was an unknown sentiment among Protestants; all of these men decried and despised the proliferation of sects: Luther and Melanchthon above all):

I have also been long and greatly tormented by the same thoughts which you describe to me. I see our people wander at the mercy of every wind of doctrine . . . On what point of religion are the Churches which have declared war on the Pope agreed?

He proceeds to give the Latin citation and the source. Far, then, from butchering a Luther citation; he (as I have done recently) interprets these sorts of sentiments within an overall picture ("historical context") of Protestant disenchantment with sectarianism, that we know to be the case, from many documented proofs.

Balmes goes on to cite the distinguished Protestant Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) on the next page:

. . . without the supremacy of the Pope, it is impossible to put an end to disputes.

. . . the dogmas of faith should be decided by tradition and the authority of the Church, and not by the holy Scriptures only.

I provided context for the Leibniz quote. As with all five quotes I offered, and other additional ones in English, I provided the reader with context able to be discovered if that were desired, by virtue of links (though the Bellarmine and Leibniz contexts are in Latin and St. Francis de Sales in French). I have provided further context in this paper. Here is the link to the page in question from Leibniz, that I provided. Readers may scroll forward and back, to get plenty of context. 

One might reply that Leibniz was not a theologian. This is a weak, pitiful objection, in light of the fact that Leibniz wrote some profound philosophical theology. In fact, he wrote one of the most respected defenses against the problem of evil ever penned, entitled Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil. I have this volume in my library (and have utilized its reasoning on occasion in my apologetic efforts contra atheists).

It runs 442 pages. It is a brilliant piece of Christian apologetic / philosophy. Leibniz only wrote two books. One was never published during his lifetime, leaving this book (one of philosophical theology) as his only published work during his life, and his chief claim to fame, as far as the public was concerned. And it was a defense of God Himself!

Catholic writer Avery Cardinal Dulles, in his History of Apologetics, (revised edition: 2005) notes Leibniz's contributions to that field:

Leibniz . . . wrote several major philosophical works touching on religious questions.

(p. 190)

In other works Leibniz sought to give a rational demonstration of the immortality of the soul . . . Against the Socinians he wrote the essay Defense of the Trinity by Means of New Logical Inventions (1671).

(p. 192)

To argue that Leibniz was not a theologian, therefore we can question his citation of a Luther source, in light of the fact of his brilliant, widely-acknowledged work on one of the thorniest problems in both theology and apologetics, is a dead-end street and a desperate, flailing attempt to undermine the obvious.

Technically speaking, this is a form of ad hominem fallacy directed against Leibniz himself, as a roundabout form of "undermining the credibility of a witness," as in the legal world. I shot that down without mercy, above; now I believe that I can do the same with this "argument". It runs as follows:

1) Leibniz is quoted with regard to his citation of our disputed Luther text.

2) But Leibniz is not a theologian.

3) (Assumed as a premise) Only theologians can cite theological sources correctly and in context.

4) Therefore, Leibniz's quotation is suspect, and this, despite the fact that he was one of the greatest geniuses of all time, because, after all, he wasn't a theologian.

The fault of this fallacious reasoning lies, of course, primarily in the false assumption in #3, and also the irrelevancy and merely half-truth status of #2. As I have just shown, Leibniz was significant enough in the theological world to have written one of the most celebrated replies to the problem of evil ever written, and to have honorable mention in a prominent treatment of the history of apologetics.

He is also noted in standard Protestant dictionaries of the Christian Church (e.g., Oxford, New International) as an important figure in the history of theology.

#3 is even more absurd, since it is obviously false. Anyone worth his salt who writes or who does research, knows how to properly make a citation. As Steve Ray wrote in a letter to me (I don't think he would mind my using his words; the bracketed remark is mine):

What does Leibniz's primary occupation or intellectual pursuit have to do with whether he can get a quote correct in it's context or not? [in other words, this is a form of ad hominem fallacy] . . . Your assertion that Leibniz is brilliant, a Lutheran, and used the quote is substantial. Leibniz's primary pursuits have nothing to do with his ability to cite a quote correctly.

In the circles he wrote in, Leibniz could not have used a quote out of context without criticism. To quote it out of context in a culture that knew these things, would have debunked him before he even got started.

. . . Whether Leibniz was a theologian or not has nothing to do with it. The fact is, he used the quote and it was obviously well known and not taken out of context in his day or his point would have been completely ineffective.

* * * * *

The Latin clearly states that it is necessary for Protestants to take refuge in Councils. It reads more strongly than the German quote we have also noted. It's possible it might even come from a different work (as Steve is inclined to think and as Paul entertains as a real possibility). This is exactly the point Catholics raise about this quote. It has to be explained, and can't be dismissed out of hand. If the Latin is derived from the same German text, how did it become so different? Why were the clear terms necessarium and conciliorum used? If Matthaeus Judex was the translator of this portion, and he was a Lutheran, then how is the change explained? Catholic translation bias can't explain it unless it is proven that our subjects were citing from a secondary Catholic Latin source. The Leibniz context was already provided with the link. That saves people a lot of work, with this marvelous capability of every reader being able to follow the link to get all the context desired. 

In any event, when one looks at the larger passage, it appears that the citation occurred in a simple outline-like list of propositions, with something from Luther about the Psalms immediately preceding it, and mention of Brentius (Brenz) immediately after. Here is the entire paragraph preceding the quote:

Lutherus praef. in psalmos. Scio esse imprudentissimae temeritatis eum qui (audeat) profiteri aliquem scripturae librum (a se in omnibus partibus) intellectum.

Leibniz, like the others who used the citation, seems to assume that it stands on its own without need of further explanation or context.