Bishop James White's Sola Scriptura Inanities: Hilarious You Tube Montage

How Far the Mighty Bishop White Has Fallen . . .

Here are some related resources from my own attempted "dialogues" with the illustrious Bishop White through the years:

A Refutation of the Fallacies and Circular Reasoning of James White Regarding "Moses' Seat," Authentic Tradition, and Sola Scriptura (Dave Armstrong vs. James White)

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30) vs. Sola Scriptura and James White (Dave Armstrong vs. James White)

James White's Critique of My Book The Catholic Verses: Part I: The Binding Authority of Tradition

Part II: Rabbit Trail Diversion

Part III: Massive Ad Hominem Tactics

Part IV: Shots at My Former Protestant Knowledge and Reading

Part V: White's Befuddlement and My "Knowing Deception"

Refutation of James White: Moses' Seat, the Bible, and Tradition (Introduction) (+ Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V | Part VI | Parts VII & VIII)

"Excus-a-Getics": James White Opts Out of Answering My Nine-Part Refutation, With Ridicule

Dialogue on the Alleged "Perspicuous Apostolic Message" as a Proof of the Quasi-Protestantism of the Early Church (Dave Armstrong vs. Eric Svendsen and James White)

St. Athanasius Was a CATHOLIC, Not a Proto-Protestant (+ Counter-Reply to James White on Tradition, etc.) (+ Discussion)

Horror, Hope, and Healing: The Nightmare of Sexual Abuse Recounted By One Female Victim

Patty Patrick Bonds: a convert to the Catholic faith, has shown great courage in publicly grappling with her own very tragic personal history as a victim of sexual abuse for about ten years. I am linking to this series of hers so that many other women (and men, as the case may be) can also receive the healing grace of God, to overcome the aftermath of this horrendous sin. The emotional wounds from such victimization are unfathomable.

Sexual abuse is a particularly heinous variation of the abominable sin of rape. Add to that the element of incest and it is all the more diabolical because it perverts the very family structure that was designed to protect children from such unspeakable violations.

The hope of such victims lies in the power and grace of our glorious God: that is stronger than the effect of any sin, no matter how hideous. There is hope. I tremendously admire Patty for sharing such painful, personal things, in order to help others who have also experienced them. I can't imagine how difficult it must have been to do so. Here are the links:

Where I'm Headed (3-30-08)

Out of Darkness (4-5-08) [all subsequent posts start with these three words; I'll omit them]

A Little Aside (4-12-08)

P.S. (4-13-08)

The Mystery of Healing (4-21-08)

Big Mess (4-27-08)

Anatomy of a Miracle (5-4-08)

I Miss My Mother (5-11-08)

Nightmare On Paper (5-18-08)

Into the Lion's Den (5-25-08)

Renewing the Mind (6-1-08)

Broken Cisterns (6-8-08)

Abba's Little Girl (6-15-08)

Divorce Deliverance (6-26-08)

Into His Arms (7-6-08)

A Marriage That Wasn't (7-14-08)

Following Alone (7-20-08)

Into His Embrace (7-27-08)

At the Crossroads (8-9-08)

Light From Both Sides of the Tiber (8-17-08)

It's Like Peeling an Onion (8-30-08)

Where Does It Hurt? (9-7-08)

Where Does It Hurt?, Part II (9-14-08)

A Forgiveness List (9-21-08)

Discovering the Original Wheel (9-28-08)

Letting Go (10-5-08)

When Victims Feel Guilty (10-12-08)

Doing Your Part (10-18-08) (+ Part Two)

Always Keep Notebook Paper and a Pen On Hand (11-16-08)

Do You Want to be Healed? (12-10-08)

Laying Down Our Rights (1-18-09)

What Jesus Needs (1-30-09)

The Hardest Piece I've Ever Written (2-14-09)

Meaningful Suffering (2-28-09)

The Big Red "M" (4-9-09)

The Cross I Carry (4-10-09)

A Victim No More: How to Know When You're Ready to Heal (5-9-09)

[future installments will be added as they appear]

See also: Out of Darkness: Conversion of Patty Patrick Bonds [expanded version: 2-22-09]

As an exception to my previously universal rule, I don't want any comments on this post, for reasons that many of you will understand (any comments will be deleted as soon as I become aware of them). Please don't comment on this in Open Forum, either. Thanks for your cooperation. I'm not trying to be "controversial" in presenting this, anymore than Patty is. She is trying to help other women who have experienced this horror, to recover from it and find healing and wholeness, and so am I. Period. End of sentence.

I encourage those who are seeking healing in this area to contact Patty (profile page). She's a very compassionate, spiritual woman (I've talked to her on the phone), and I'm sure that she would be happy to do all she is able to do to help you find this healing.

* * * * *

Related Reading:

Patty Bonds Responds to Her Brother James White's Personal Attacks and Revisionist History

New Low in Anti-Catholic Protestant Polemics: Steve Hays Says I Want Child Molesters and Sexual Abusers to be Given Free Access to Children

Women's Head Veils (Mantillas) at Church

[ source ]

The January 2005 issue of This Rock ("Quick Questions") dealt with the issue of veils:

Q: Did the Vatican ever publish a document stating that women are not supposed to wear head veils to church anymore?

A: No. Women are free to wear a head covering to church if they so desire. It’s just not required.

The document Inter Insigniores [ link ] by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (October 15, 1976) stated that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (canon 1262.2) requiring women to wear veils on their heads was a custom of the period and that such ordinances "concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance." Thus the obligation "no longer has a normative value." But, as a sign of respect, women still are required to wear a veil when meeting the pope.

Here is the passage referred to above, from that document:

Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value.

Colin B. Donovan, STL, gave a reply on this question at EWTN ("Head Coverings in Church").

The CHNI board had threads on the topic in April 2007 and May 2007.

What little I've said about this in the past amounted to an urging of Catholic women to (by all means) wear a veil if they want to do so, but not to impose any such obligation on others, since the Church does not do so at this time, or act as if they are more obedient or spiritually superior in so doing. Nor should women who don't wear it frown upon those who do (assuming the latter don't exhibit questionable attitudes just described).

I think they're beautiful and graceful-looking myself (particularly ones like that pictured above): like bridal veils. Insofar as the intention is as a sign of modesty and femininity and submission to God, that's great. On the other hand, my wife has never worn one to church. Live and let live. Worship and let worship.

August 1968: Ground Zero of the Liberal Revolt in the Catholic Church (Humanae Vitae) (Cardinal James Francis Stafford)

The liberal modernist dissenters tried to gut the Catholic Church, but they did not succeed because God is not mocked

The following is a collection of lengthy excerpts from an article written by Cardinal James Francis Stafford, courtesy of Catholic News Agency, and published in California Catholic Daily (29 July 2008). It's essential reading for all who want to understand a key event in the modernist crisis of the Church.

Everything is here: the faddishness of the theologically liberal mindset, desire for mere popular acclaim, the herd mentality, the coercive and hostile tendency, the quick irrational judgment and impulse to polarization, knee-jerk trashing of those with a traditional and orthodox opinion, etc. The Sexual Revolution of the 60s was attempting to co-opt the Catholic Church. If not for the pope, it may have done so with regard to contraception (just as we see that much of Eastern Orthodoxy has caved on this crucial moral question).

The gates of hell did not prevail, praise be to God! Our moral teaching did not change. It is a major reason why I am writing today as a Catholic. I got sick and tired of Christian groups that were more concerned with appeasing culture and being "popular and respected" rather than appealing to Christ and being despised and rejected.

Pope Paul VI is a great hero for having stood up to this Revolt From Hell. I was received into the Church by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., who also observed all of this dissent, and who stayed true to orthodoxy and the faith (and may one day be declared a saint). He used to be an advisor to Pope Paul VI, and told us (his class of Ignatian Catechists) on one occasion that Pope Paul VI suffered so greatly from this dissent that he felt as if he had a crown of thorns on his head when he went to sleep.

* * * * *

Humanae Vitae

The Year of the Peirasmòs -- 1968

By Cardinal James Francis Stafford


“Lead us not into temptation” is the sixth petition of the Our Father. Peirasmòs, the Greek word used in this passage for ‘temptation,’ means a trial or test. Disciples petition God to be protected against the supreme test of ungodly powers. The trial is related to Jesus’s cup in Gethsemane, the same cup which his disciples would also taste (Mk 10: 35-45). The dark side of the interior of the cup is an abyss. It reveals the awful consequences of God’s judgment upon sinful humanity. In August 1968, the weight of the evangelical Peirasmòs fell on many priests, including myself.

It was the year of the bad war, of complex innocence that sanctified the shedding of blood. English historian Paul Johnson dubs 1968 as the year of “America’s Suicide Attempt.” It included the Tet offensive in Vietnam with its tsunami-like effects in American life and politics, the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee; the tumult in American cities on Palm Sunday weekend; and the June assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy in Southern California. It was also the year in which Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical letter on transmitting human life, Humanae Vitae (HV). He met immediate, premeditated, and unprecedented opposition from some American theologians and pastors. By any measure, 1968 was a bitter cup.

On the fortieth anniversary of Humanae Vitae, I have been asked to reflect on one event of that year, the doctrinal dissent among some priests and theologians in an American archdiocese on the occasion of its publication. It is not an easy or welcome task. But since it may help some followers of Jesus to live what Pope Paul VI called a more “disciplined” life (HV 21), I will explore that event.

[ . . . ]

Cardinal Lawrence J. Shehan, the sixth Archbishop of Baltimore, was my ecclesiastical superior at the time. Pope Paul VI had appointed him along with others as additional members to the Papal Commission for the Study of Problems of the Family, Population, and Birth Rates, first established by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1963 during the II Vatican Council. There had been discussions and delays and unauthorized interim reports from Rome prior to 1968. The enlarged Commission was asked to make recommendations on these issues to the Pope.

[ . . . ]

In a confidential letter responding to his request, I shared in a general fashion these concerns. My counsel to Cardinal Shehan was very real and specific. I had taken a hard, cold look at what I was experiencing and what the Church and society were doing. I came across an idea which was elliptical: the gift of love should be allowed to be fruitful. These two fixed points are constant. This simple idea lit up everything like lightning in a storm. I wrote about it more formally to the Cardinal: the unitive and procreative meanings of marriage cannot be separated. Consequently, to deprive a conjugal act deliberately of its fertility is intrinsically wrong. To encourage or approve such an abuse would lead to the eclipse of fatherhood and to disrespect for women. Since then, Pope John Paul II has given us the complementary and superlative insight into the nuptial meaning of the human body. Decades afterwards, I came across an analogous reading from Meister Eckhart: “Gratitude for the gift is shown only by allowing it to make one fruitful.” Some time later, the Papal Commission sent its recommendations to the Pope. The majority advised that the Church’s teaching on contraception be changed in light of new circumstances. Cardinal Shehan was part of that majority. Even before the encyclical had been signed and issued, his vote had been made public, although not on his initiative.

As we know, the Pope decided otherwise. This sets the scene for the tragic drama following the actual date of the publication of the encyclical letter on July 29, 1968.

In his memoirs, Cardinal Shehan describes the immediate reaction of some priests in Washington to the encyclical: “[A]fter receiving the first news of the publication of the encyclical, the Rev. Charles E. Curran, instructor of moral theology of The Catholic University of America, flew back to Washington from the West where he had been staying. Late [on the afternoon of July 29], he and nine other professors of theology of the Catholic University met, by evident prearrangement, in Caldwell Hall to receive, again by prearrangement with the Washington Post, the encyclical, part by part, as it came from the press. The story further indicated that by nine o’clock that night, they had received the whole encyclical, had read it, had analyzed it, criticized it, and had composed their six-hundred word ‘Statement of Dissent.’ Then they began that long series of telephone calls to ‘theologians’ throughout the East, which went on, according to the Post, until 3:30 a.m., seeking authorization to attach their names as endorsers (signers was the term used) of the statement, although those to whom they had telephoned could not have had an opportunity to see either the encyclical or their statement. Meanwhile, they had arranged through one of the local television stations to have the statement broadcast that night.”

The Cardinal’s judgment was scornful. In 1982 he wrote, “The first thing that we have to note about the whole performance is this: so far as I have been able to discern, never in the recorded history of the Church has a solemn proclamation of a Pope been received by any group of Catholic people with so much disrespect and contempt.”

The personal Peirasmòs, the test, began. In Baltimore in early August 1968, a few days after the encyclical’s issuance, I received an invitation by telephone from a recently ordained assistant pastor to attend a gathering of some Baltimore priests at the rectory of St. William of York parish in southwest Baltimore to discuss the encyclical. The meeting was set for Sunday evening, August 4. I agreed to come. Eventually a large number of priests were gathered in the rectory’s basement. I knew them all.

The dusk was clear, hot, and humid. The quarters were cramped. We were seated on rows of benches and chairs and were led by a diocesan inner-city pastor well known for his work in liturgy and race relations. There were also several Sulpician priests present from St. Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore to assist him in directing the meeting. I don’t recall their actual number.

My expectations of the meeting proved unrealistic. I had hoped that we had been called together to receive copies of the encyclical and to discuss it. I was mistaken. Neither happened. After welcoming us and introducing the leadership, the inner-city pastor came to the point. He expected each of us to subscribe to the Washington “Statement of Dissent.” Mixing passion with humor, he explained the reasons. They ranged from the maintenance of the credibility of the Church among the laity, to the need to allow ‘flexibility’ for married couples in forming their consciences on the use of artificial contraceptives. Before our arrival, the conveners had decided that the Baltimore priests’ rejection of the papal encyclical would be published the following morning in The Baltimore Sun, one of the daily newspapers.

The Washington statement was read aloud. Then the leader asked each of us to agree to have our names attached to it. No time was allowed for discussion, reflection, or prayer. Each priest was required individually to give a verbal “yes” or “no.”

I could not sign it. My earlier letter to Cardinal Shehan came to mind. I remained convinced of the truth of my judgment and conclusions. Noting that my seat was last in the packed basement, I listened to each priest’s response, hoping for support. It didn’t materialize. Everyone agreed to sign. There were no abstentions. As the last called upon, I felt isolated. The basement became suffocating. By now it was night. The room was charged with tension. Something epochal was taking place. It became clear that the leaders’ strategy had been carefully mapped out beforehand. It was moving along without a hitch. Their rhetorical skills were having their anticipated effect. They had planned carefully how to exert what amounted to emotional and intellectual coercion. Violence by overt manipulation was new to the Baltimore presbyterate.

The leader’s reaction to my refusal was predictable and awful. The whole process now became a grueling struggle, a terrible test, a Peirasmòs. The priest/leader, drawing upon some scatological language from his Marine Corp past in the II World War, responded contemptuously to my decision. He tried to force me to change. He became visibly angry and verbally abusive. The underlying ‘fraternal’ violence became more evident. He questioned and then derided my integrity. He taunted me to risk my ecclesiastical ‘future,’ although his reference was more anatomically specific. The abuse went on.

With surprising coherence, I was eventually able to respond that the Pope’s encyclical deserved the courtesy of a reading. None of us had read it. I continued that, as a matter of fact, I agreed with and accepted the Pope’s teaching as it had been reported in the public media. That response elicited more ridicule. Otherwise there was silence. Finally, seeing that I would remain firm, the ex-Marine moved on to complete the business and adjourn the meeting. The leaders then prepared a statement for the next morning’s daily paper.

The meeting ended. I sped out of there, free but disoriented. Once outside, the darkness encompassed me. We all had been subjected to a new thing in the Church, something unexpected. A pastor and several seminary professors had abused rhetoric to undermine the truth within the evangelical community. When opposed, they assumed the role of Job’s friends. Their contempt became a nightmare. In the night, it seemed that God’s blind hand was reaching out to touch my face.

The dissent of a few Sulpician seminary professors compounded my disorientation. In their ancient Baltimore Seminary I had first caught on to the connection between freedom, interiority, and obedience. By every ecclesial measure they should have been aware that the process they supported that evening exceeded the “norms of licit dissent.” But they showed no concern for the gravity of that theological and pastoral moment. They saw nothing unbecoming in the mix of publicity and theology. They expressed no impatience then or later over the coercive nature of the August meeting. Nor did any of the other priests present. One diocesan priest did request privately later that night that his name be removed before the statement’s publication in the morning paper.

For a long time, I wondered about the meaning of the event. It was a cataclysm which was difficult to survive intact. . . . The subterranean world that has always accompanied Catholic communities, called Gnosticism by our ancestors, had again surfaced and attempted to usurp the truth of the Catholic tradition.

[ . . . ]

Something else happened among priests on that violent August night. Friendship in the Church sustained a direct hit. Jesus, by calling those who were with him his ‘friends,’ had made friendship a privileged analogy of the Church. That analogy became obscured after a large number of priests expressed shame over their leaders and repudiated their teaching.

Cardinal Shehan later reported that on Monday morning, August 5, he “was startled to read in the Baltimore Sun that seventy-two priests of the Baltimore area had signed the Statement of Dissent.” What he later called “the years of crisis” began for him during that hot, violent August evening in 1968.

But that night was not a total loss. The test was unexpected and unwelcome. Its unhinging consequences continue. Abusive, coercive dissent has become a reality in the Church and subjects her to violent, debilitating, unproductive, chronic controversies. But I did discover something new. Others also did. When the moment of Christian witness came, no Christian could be coerced who refused to be. Despite the novelty of being treated as an object of shame and ridicule, I did not become “ashamed of the Gospel” that night and found “sweet delight in what is right.” It was not a bad lesson. Ecclesial obedience ran the distance.

My discovery that Christ was the first to despise shame was gut rending in its existential and providential reality. “Let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame.” Paradoxically, in the hot, August night a new sign shown unexpectedly on the path to future life. It read, “Jesus learned obedience through what he suffered.”

The violence of the initial disobedience was only a prelude to further and more pervasive violence. Priests wept at meetings over the manipulation of their brothers. Contempt for the truth, whether aggressive or passive, has become common in Church life. Dissenting priests, theologians and laypeople have continued their coercive techniques. From the beginning, the press has used them to further its own serpentine agenda.

All of this led to a later discovery. Discernment is an essential part of episcopal ministry. With the grace of “the governing Spirit” the discerning skills of a bishop should mature. Episcopal attention should focus on the break/rupture initiated by Jesus and described by St. Paul in his response to Corinthian dissenters. “You desire proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful in you. For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we shall live with him by the power of God. Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves” (2 Cor 13: 3-5).

[ . . . ]

Diocesan presbyterates have not recovered from the July/August nights in 1968. Many in consecrated life also failed the evangelical test. Since January 2002, the abyss has opened up elsewhere. The whole people of God, including children and adolescents, now must look into the abyss and see what dread beasts are at its bottom. Each of us shudders before the wrath of God, each weeps in sorrow for our sins and each begs for the Father’s merciful remembrance of Christ’s obedience.

Sorry Cory (Monitoring Anti-Catholic Sites and the Comedic Value of Same)

Cory Tucholski made the following statement on 8-1-08:

As much as Bill Donahue is going to disagree with me, as much as I may offend Catholic readers (Dave Armstrong: admit, you still read my blog just like I still read yours), I’m going to have to say . . .

I can't admit what isn't true. I stopped reading (or checking at all) Cory's blog back in September 2007, after he declined my offer to do a chat room debate (along with three of his anti-Catholic cronies, to add to the list of three previous to that, for a grand total of seven). This is the guy who has expressed such glowing, charitable things about me as the following:

I have said in the past that DA should pay close attention to the use and connotation of words. I'm glad to see that someone else is pointing out how this guy misuses words to his own end. The tools of the writer's trade are his words. If Dave can't use them properly, he shouldn't be a writer.

(10-12-07)

Them's fightin' words, stated about an author! Imagine, dear reader, if someone wrote about you, that you shouldn't even be in the line of work you are in, so incompetent are you; misusing the very tools of your trade. Previous to that, Cory argued that this blog is a personality cult. Here are my articles about him:

Chat Room Debate Challenge to "Turretinfan", "Saint and Sinner", Cory Tucholski, & Gene M. Bridges: "Is Catholicism Christian?" (+ Discussion)

[declined on 10-25-07 and more definitively and tersely on 10-29-07]

"A = B": Anti-Catholic Cory Tucholski Denies Being Anti-Catholic, Despite Calling Himself One (!!!) (+ Discussion)

Is This Blog An Example of "Personality Cult Apologetics"? (Cory Tucholski) / Observations on "Polemical Humor" (+ Discussion)

Press Release: DAPCS Has Officially Commenced Operations. Join Today! Don't Delay! (+ Discussion)

As for reading anti-Catholic blogs, there are only two that I check regularly (one being Bishop White's), and that, only for comedic and diversionary value. Cory's ain't on the list. I look in on a third maybe every ten-twelve days (also strictly for funny stuff that might entertain my readers). A fourth is checked perhaps once a month, if that much.

I only found out about this statement because I do a Google search just about every day, to see if someone has mentioned any of my writing. When it comes to critical statements about me or attempted refutations, I rarely am provided the courtesy of being informed that they have been written (I always do that for anyone I critique), so I have to discover them myself. Thus, I ran across this curiosity in so doing. I have this odd habit of actually responding to serious critiques. I'm weird that way,. But if I don't know about them, how can I respond?

I gave anti-Catholics over 12 years (off and on, anyway, because often I would become completely fed up with them and cease) to demonstrate that they are capable of a normal, intelligent, constructive, non-insulting dialogue. I was never able to achieve that goal and have given up. It's been almost a year now since I have applied this "policy" of mine. Now it's just short humorous, "look at this ridiculous thing they're saying now!" sorts of posts.

Otherwise, I'll spend my valuable time engaging those who are serious opponents: ones who are able to dialogue without hostility and truckloads of nonsense. Anti-Catholics (like feminists, theological liberals, and many folks in a few other categories) have proven themselves unable to engage in such discussions. So I leave them to their own devices. But they provide a great deal of entertainment and laughs on this blog, so I'll keep doing that for now. I may eventually get sick of that, too, in time, or my readers might. For now, I still think it's fun. One can't be serious all the time (and apologetics tends to be very serious). You gotta have fun in life.

Am I a "Protestantizing" Catholic Now Or Was I Formerly a "Catholicizing" Protestant?

This theme has come up several times. It is becoming almost a mantra: particularly in anti-Catholic Protestant and "traditionalist" Catholic circles (those two groups, oddly enough, often seem to have a great affinity in style, argument, and beliefs). Former Catholic Bill Cork recently enlisted it in a reply to my critique of his reasons for returning to Adventism (and I made a short reply). Anti-Catholic Steve Hays has tried (futilely) to make this case with regard to my own conversion. Scott Hahn (most unjustly) has been a particular target of this charge. Several "traditionalists" tried to make the "argument" in a recent forum thread that lambasted me because I defended Pope John Paul II's ecumenism (see my post in reply).

As a sub-theme, both Bill Cork and this group of "traditionalists" (as well as many anti-Catholics in the past) have claimed in particular that I have adopted a peculiarly Protestant method of quoting Bible proof texts for Catholic positions. They both assume that this is somehow "unCatholic" -- as if Protestants "own" the Bible or the practice of Bible interpretation, or exegesis. This is absurd. I responded at length on at least one occasion, and blew this out of the water, in reply to Christopher Parks: a guy who was so unstable in his own spiritual journey that he was Catholic, then Orthodox, then Anglican, and Catholic again: Dialogue on Whether Extensive Use of Biblical Arguments Reduces to a Quasi-Sola Scriptura Position? (Development of Doctrine, Tradition, and Implicit vs. Explicit Biblical Proofs. The Papacy as a Test Case).

In a delightful turn of events, Hugo Mendez, a former Adventist and now Catholic, basically defended me from this bum rap, in a post about the "war of words" between myself and Bill Cork:

Is Bill keen to suggest that Dave's (arguably, overstretched) reliance upon the Bible to vindicate the Catholic teaching [is] a very Protestant instinct (which requires a verse for every belief)? Or, does Bill['s] quick dichotomy of Bible and Church teaching (where both stand more or less independently) flow from yet another Protestant instinct or caricature? In his own words:

Many Catholic teachings have no other foundation than the Church’s claim to teach with authority: purgatory, Marian dogmas, saints, indulgences, the papacy, etc. These are not Bible doctrines.

In fact, the ancient fathers and theologians of the Catholic Church cited Biblical precedents or bases for all these doctrines. St. Damasus cited Matt 16:18 to defend papal authority sixteen centuries ago; the Latins and Greeks debated the significance of 1 Cor 3:15 to the question of purgatory six centuries ago; Pius IX's definition of the Immaculate Conception explored the meaning of Luke 1:28 two centuries ago, etc. In this light, Catholics have every reason to believe these doctrines have true biblical roots. Moreover, it becomes readily apparent that the PCA converts have pioneered almost none of the arguments they popularly present. (This is my difficulty: trying to distinguish the "rationalistic" arguments allegedly unique to modern Catholic converts from the arguments they have clearly inherited from previous generations. I find few unique contributions in their writings--not to their discredit, but to the credit of so many theologians in centuries past.)

One may dispute the legitimacy of certain textual interpretations used by Catholics. This is fair; I certainly do. Then again, the use of OT texts by the writers of Matthew, Romans, and Hebrews easily qualifies as "eisegetical" by the (perhaps, too) exacting principles of biblical studies today.

"Matt," the one fair-minded, non-insulting person in the recent "traditionalist" hit-piece, er, thread devoted to trashing my name, made a similar comment, referring to me:

He's also an excellent and Orthodox Bible scholar. Ironically, his Biblical approach seems more Thomist than I bet we'd give him credit for.

I defended myself and my method in my reply:

We can defend Catholic views from Scripture -- as harmonious with Scripture -- precisely as the Church fathers always did (usually at first). But when confronted with the notion that all doctrines have to be found only in Scripture, and explicitly so, as the supposedly only infallible source, we reject that in no uncertain terms, and appeal to Tradition and apostolic succession and infallible councils and popes, also precisely as the fathers did. We can assert material sufficiency of Scripture without asserting sola Scriptura. . . . What I do does not presuppose sola Scriptura in the slightest. Protestants don't "own" Scripture, and we can give better arguments from the Bible than they give. I have two entire web pages devoted to scores of lengthy articles explaining all this: one about Bible and Tradition and the other that critiques sola Scriptura. I have a third web page about the Church (ecclesiology), with dozens more articles. I've written far more about this topic than anything else. It would surely come as an astonishing shock -- and an uproariously funny thought -- to my anti-Catholic friends to learn that I allegedly never defend Catholic Tradition.

The truly humorous irony in all this is that, here I am being blasted and pilloried as a supposed quasi-Protestant or some goofy "hybrid" infiltrating the Catholic Church, simply because I use biblical arguments. It is presupposed that because I do so, I must somehow be adopting the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura, which is a completely different thing from mere citation of the Bible and biblical argumentation.

In actual fact, it is these critics who are conflating scriptural argument with sola Scriptura, and in so doing, show themselves to be far more influenced by the distinctively Protestant mindset than I am, or ever have been (since I highly valued Church history and the value, to some extent, of Christian tradition in my thirteen years as a committed evangelical Protestant: with a more or less traditional Anglican or Methodist perspective on Church history: which is precisely why Cardinal Newman was so key in my own conversion).

Yet they pride themselves for being so "unProtestant" and quintessentially Catholic. They have accepted Protestant false dichotomies and ways of thinking, while at the same time falsely accusing others (who know far more about the subject than they do) of doing what they are doing, in the very act of wrongly, densely characterizing others. I've also stated for years that Catholic "traditionalism" often shows the characteristics of selective Protestant private judgment and a liberal Catholic "cafeteria, pick-and-choose" mentality.

Good grief. As I write, there is on the front page of my blog (dated 19 July: just three days ago) a lengthy critique of the Protestant principle of private judgment: closely aligned to sola Scriptura. A similar paper (dated 15 July 2008) just went off my front page, but it's only a week old. I have scores of similar papers, and large portions of several books that are devoted to the same question (e.g., my book on the Church fathers devotes over a hundred pages to it: by far the longest chapter in the book). This criticisms is so wildly off the mark that I wrote about it today:

To imply that I and other apologists somehow wink at sola Scriptura, when I am constantly critiquing and refuting and lamenting it is about as dumb a thing as could conceivably be said about my apologetics. This person clearly knows less than nothing about my beliefs and my approach. . . . It's . . . quite another [thing] to say of a baseball player that he knows nothing of running the bases or of a baker that he is completely unfamiliar with flour.

Understanding the crucial Bible-Tradition-Church-Authority issue is Catholic Apologetics 0101. If I didn't understand that, I wouldn't be known or published at all today, and would have never been on national Catholic apologetic radio shows, talking about it.

On a broader level, per the title of this post, it is foolish to say such a thing about me, once one knows a bit about my past intellectual history. I wrote about this in a reply to Hugo Mendez''s post, referenced above:

You cited Bill Cork:

. . . the rationalistic, forensic style of apologetics that has its roots in the Reformed tradition and that has crept into Catholicism through converts from the fundamentalist Presbyterian Church in America.

The only problem with this, insofar as it is applied by insinuation to me, along with other convert-apologists, is that I was neither fundamentalist nor Presbyterian at any time. I was never a Calvinist. I was an Arminian as a Protestant, and am a Molinist (technically a Congruist) as a Catholic.

Moreover, in apologetics, the dominant style in Presbyterianism is presuppositionalism: something I have never held, and which I have vigorously critiqued, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic.

My own apologetic methodology is largely evidentialist (with, however, many elements from different schools: particularly the analogical reasoning of Cardinal Newman), which hearkens back to Catholicism and St. Thomas (I love, e.g., the cosmological argument and that basically goes back to Aquinas).

So, far from thinking like a Protestant and bringing that into Catholicism with me, it was much more the case that I had been thinking like a Catholic as a Protestant for years, and brought that with me into the Catholic Church. I was thinking more and more "Catholic" for years before actually becoming one.

That is patently obvious if one reads any of the several versions of my conversion story. How odd, then, to be accused of "Protestantizing" Catholicism: which has been a theme from both anti-Catholic Protestants and "traditionalist" Catholics.

That may be true of some few apologists, but not of me.

There you have it, folks. To paraphrase Mark Twain's hilarious comment about a rumor of his death: reports of my still being a Protestant are greatly exaggerated.

Aphorisms From G.K. Chesterton's Book Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy (New York: John Lane Co., 1908; see online version)

Absolutes

The main point here, however, is that this idea of a fundamental alteration in the standard is one of the things that make thought about the past or future simply impossible. (ch. 3)

Adventure

Man must have just enough faith in himself to have adventures, and just enough doubt of himself to enjoy them. (ch. 7)

Aesthetics

The man who disliked vestments wore a pair of preposterous trousers. (ch. 6)

Animal Rights

We may eventually be bound not to disturb a man's mind even by argument; not to disturb the sleep of birds even by coughing.

The ultimate apotheosis would appear to be that of a man sitting quite still, nor daring to stir for fear of disturbing a fly, nor to eat for fear of incommoding a microbe. (ch. 7)

Anarchy

Complete anarchy would not merely make it impossible to have any discipline or fidelity; it would also make it impossible to have any fun. (ch. 7)

Angels

Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly. (ch. 7)

Apologetics

It is very hard for a man to defend anything of which he is entirely convinced. (ch. 6)

Aristocracy

The great and very obvious merit of the English aristocracy is that nobody could possibly take it seriously. (ch. 7)

Atheism

But the materialist's world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane. (ch. 2)

Authority, Religious

But the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police without ever having heard of burglars. (ch. 3)

Buddhism

This is the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity; that for the Buddhist or Theosophist personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea. (ch. 8)

Celibacy and Virginity

In fact, the whole theory of the Church on virginity might be symbolized in the statement that white is a colour: not merely the absence of a colour. (ch. 6)

Charity

Stated baldly, charity certainly means one of two things -- pardoning unpardonable acts, or loving unlovable people. (ch. 6)

Conspiratorialism

If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. (ch. 2)

Courage

It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die. (ch. 6)

Critics

Shakespeare is quite himself; it is only some of his critics who have discovered that he was somebody else. (ch. 2)

Cross, The

But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. (ch. 2)

Dark Ages

And in history I found that Christianity, so far from belonging to the Dark Ages, was the one path across the Dark Ages that was not dark. (ch. 9)

Darwinism

Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. (ch. 7)

Democracy

But even the machinery of voting is profoundly Christian in this practical sense -- that it is an attempt to get at the opinion of those who would be too modest to offer it. (ch. 7)

Determinism

It is absurd to say that you are especially advancing freedom when you only use free thought to destroy free will.

The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. (ch. 2)

Disputes

Any one setting out to dispute anything ought always to begin by saying what he does not dispute. (ch. 1)

Dogma (Catholic)

Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. (ch. 9)

Evil

The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. (ch. 2)

Evolution

If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. (ch. 3)

Fairy Tales

The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world. (ch. 2)

Fairyland is nothing but the sunny country of common sense.

Thus I have said that stories of magic alone can express my sense that life is not only a pleasure but a kind of eccentric privilege. (ch. 4)

Fidelity

If I vow to be faithful I must be cursed when I am unfaithful, or there is no fun in vowing. (ch. 7)

Gargoyles

Greek heroes do not grin: but gargoyles do -- because they are Christian. (ch. 7)

Gentlemen

But in Christian society we have always thought the gentleman a sort of joke, though I admit that in some great crusades and councils he earned the right to be called a practical joke. (ch. 7)

Government

If our faith comments on government at all, its comment must be this -- that the man should rule who does not think that he can rule. (ch. 7)

Heresies and Heretics

To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- that would indeed have been simple.

To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame.

But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect. (ch. 6)

Humility

It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything -- even pride. (ch. 3)

Incarnation

I mean that having found the moral atmosphere of the Incarnation to be common sense, I then looked at the established intellectual arguments against the Incarnation and found them to be common nonsense. (ch. 9)

Jesus Christ

Really, if Jesus of Nazareth was not Christ, He must have been Antichrist.

For orthodox theology has specially insisted that Christ was not a being apart from God and man, like an elf, nor yet a being half human and half not, like a centaur, but both things at once and both things thoroughly, very man and very God. (ch. 6)

Judaism and Jews

In the same conversation a free-thinker, a friend of mine, blamed Christianity for despising Jews, and then despised it himself for being Jewish. (ch. 6)

Liberalism (Theological)

Almost every contemporary proposal to bring freedom into the church is simply a proposal to bring tyranny into the world.

It means freeing that peculiar set of dogmas loosely called scientific, dogmas of monism, of pantheism, or of Arianism, or of necessity.

For some inconceivable cause a "broad" or "liberal" clergyman always means a man who wishes at least to diminish the number of miracles; it never means a man who wishes to increase that number. (ch. 8)

Love (of Self)

A man may be said loosely to love himself, but he can hardly fall in love with himself, or, if he does, it must be a monotonous courtship. (ch. 8)

Madness

Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze.

The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason. (ch. 2)

Man

Man was a statue of God walking about the garden. (ch. 6)

Man, Common

But there is something psychologically Christian about the idea of seeking for the opinion of the obscure rather than taking the obvious course of accepting the opinion of the prominent. (ch. 7)

Man, Smallness Of

It is quite futile to argue that man is small compared to the cosmos; for man was always small compared to the nearest tree. (ch. 4)

Martyrdom

A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. (ch. 5)

Miracles

But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. (ch. 2)

But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America.

The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.

The sceptic always takes one of the two positions; either an ordinary man need not be believed, or an extraordinary event must not be believed. (ch. 9)

Modernism and Modern Man

It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob. (ch. 6)

The modern young man will never change his environment; for he will always change his mind. (ch. 7)

Monogamy

To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once. (ch. 4)

Morality

Morality did not begin by one man saying to another, "I will not hit you if you do not hit me"; there is no trace of such a transaction. (ch. 5)

Mystery and Mysticism

The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic.

The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. (ch. 2)

Nature

There is no equality in nature; also there is no inequality in nature.

The essence of all pantheism, evolutionism, and modern cosmic religion is really in this proposition: that Nature is our mother.

The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister.

To St. Francis, Nature is a sister, and even a younger sister: a little, dancing sister, to be laughed at as well as loved. (ch. 7)

Newspapers

They are, by the nature of the case, the hobbies of a few rich men.

We have a censorship by the press.

The chieftain chosen to be the friend of the people becomes the enemy of the people; the newspaper started to tell the truth now exists to prevent the truth being told. (ch. 7)

Nihilism

A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. (ch. 3)

Optimism and Optimists

Christianity was accused, at one and the same time, of being too optimistic about the universe and of being too pessimistic about the world. (ch. 5)

St. Francis, in praising all good, could be a more shouting optimist than Walt Whitman. (ch. 6)

Original Sin

Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. (ch. 2)

God had written, not so much a poem, but rather a play; a play he had planned as perfect, but which had necessarily been left to human actors and stage-managers, who had since made a great mess of it. (ch. 5)

If we wish to pull down the prosperous oppressor we cannot do it with the new doctrine of human perfectibility; we can do it with the old doctrine of Original Sin.

But Christianity preaches an obviously unattractive idea, such as original sin; but when we wait for its results, they are pathos and brotherhood, and a thunder of laughter and pity; for only with original sin we can at once pity the beggar and distrust the king. (ch. 9)

Orthodoxy

Here it is enough to notice that if some small mistake were made in doctrine, huge blunders might be made in human happiness.

There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy.

It was the equilibrium of a man behind madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic.

The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable.

It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. (ch. 6)

There is only one thing that can never go past a certain point in its alliance with oppression -- and that is orthodoxy. (ch. 8)

Pacifism

There must be some good in the idea of non-resistance, for so many good men seem to enjoy being Quakers. (ch. 6)

Pantheism

The pantheist cannot wonder, for he cannot praise God or praise anything as really distinct from himself. (ch. 8)

Paradox (in Christianity)

The spirits of indignation and of charity took terrible and attractive forms, ranging from that monkish fierceness that scourged like a dog the first and greatest of the Plantagenets, to the sublime pity of St. Catherine, who, in the official shambles, kissed the bloody head of the criminal.

It is not a mixture like russet or purple; it is rather like a shot silk, for a shot silk is always at right angles, and is in the pattern of the cross.

Christianity was like a huge and ragged and romantic rock, which, though it sways on its pedestal at a touch, yet, because its exaggerated excrescences exactly balance each other, is enthroned there for a thousand years. (ch. 6)

Pessimism and Pessimists

The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises -- he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things. (ch. 5)

Insincere pessimism is a social accomplishment, rather agreeable than otherwise; and fortunately nearly all pessimism is insincere.

And it did for one wild moment cross my mind that, perhaps, those might not be the very best judges of the relation of religion to happiness who, by their own account, had neither one nor the other. (ch. 6)

Just as a microbe might feel proud of spreading a pestilence, so the pessimistic mouse might exult to think that he was renewing in the cat the torture of conscious existence. (ch. 7)

Pride

One "settles down" into a sort of selfish seriousness; but one has to rise to a gay self-forgetfulness.

It is really a natural trend or lapse into taking one's self gravely, because it is the easiest thing to do. (ch. 7)

Progress and “Progressives”

An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another.

What a man can believe depends upon his philosophy, not upon the clock or the century. (ch. 5)

Some fall back simply on the clock: they talk as if mere passage through time brought some superiority; so that even a man of the first mental calibre carelessly uses the phrase that human morality is never up to date.

The only intelligible sense that progress or advance can have among men, is that we have a definite vision, and that we wish to make the whole world like that vision.

But it is clear that no political activity can be encouraged by saying that progress is natural and inevitable; that is not a reason for being active, but rather a reason for being lazy. (ch. 7)

Rationality and Reason

It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. (ch. 3)

Resignation

For mere resignation has neither the gigantic levity of pleasure nor the superb intolerance of pain. (ch. 7)

Revelation (Book of)

And though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators. (ch. 2)

Revolution and Revolutionaries

For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines.

By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything. (ch. 3)

Man will sometimes act slowly upon new ideas; but he will only act swiftly upon old ideas.

To the orthodox there must always be a case for revolution; for in the hearts of men God has been put under the feet of Satan.

They are really right to be always suspecting human institutions; they are right not to put their trust in princes nor in any child of man. (ch. 7)

Riches and Rich Men

Only the Christian Church can offer any rational objection to a complete confidence in the rich.

But if we diminish the camel to his smallest, or open the eye of the needle to its largest -- if, in short, we assume the words of Christ to have meant the very least that they could mean, His words must at the very least mean this -- that rich men are not very likely to be morally trustworthy.

For the whole modern world is absolutely based on the assumption, not that the rich are necessary (which is tenable), but that the rich are trustworthy, which (for a Christian) is not tenable.

The whole case for Christianity is that a man who is dependent upon the luxuries of this life is a corrupt man, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, financially corrupt.

But it is quite certainly un-Christian to trust the rich, to regard the rich as more morally safe than the poor. (ch. 7)

Scientists and Scientism

He is a sentimentalist in this essential sense, that he is soaked and swept away by mere associations. (ch. 4)

Secularism and Secularists

The secularists have not wrecked divine things; but the secularists have wrecked secular things, if that is any comfort to them. (ch. 8)

Sin

In the best Utopia, I must be prepared for the moral fall of any man in any position at any moment; especially for my fall from my position at this moment. (ch. 7)

Skepticism (Religious) / “Freethinkers”

If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction?

But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."

But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn.

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. (ch. 3)

One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool's paradise.

It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to include any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with.

But if this mass of mad contradictions really existed, quakerish and bloodthirsty, too gorgeous and too thread-bare, austere, yet pandering preposterously to the lust of the eye, the enemy of women and their foolish refuge, a solemn pessimist and a silly optimist, if this evil existed, then there was in this evil something quite supreme and unique.

Perhaps, after all, it is Christianity that is sane and all its critics that are mad -- in various ways. (ch. 6)

Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church. (ch. 8)

The sceptic is too credulous; he believes in newspapers or even in encyclopedias.

It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence -- it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed.

The sceptic may truly be said to be topsy-turvy; for his feet are dancing upwards in idle ecstacies, while his brain is in the abyss. (ch. 9)

Spirit of the Age (Zeitgeist)

It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. (O, ch. 6)

Suicide

It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life.

A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. (ch. 5)

Theism

I had always felt life first as a story: and if there is a story there is a story-teller. (ch. 4)

Tradition

It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time.

It is the democracy of the dead. (ch. 4)

I was always rushing out of my architectural study with plans for a new turret only to find it sitting up there in the sunlight, shining, and a thousand years old. (ch. 7)

Transcendence (of God)

By insisting specially on the transcendence of God we get wonder, curiosity, moral and political adventure, righteous indignation -- Christendom. (ch. 8)

Trinity and Trinitarianism

For to us Trinitarians (if I may say it with reverence) -- to us God Himself is a society. (ch. 8)

Truth

A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. (ch. 3)

But the evidence in my case, as in that of the intelligent agnostic, is not really in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in an enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts.

The very fact that the things are of different kinds increases the importance of the fact that they all point to one conclusion. (ch. 9)

Vegetarianism

How can I denounce a man for skinning cats, if he is only now what I may possibly become in drinking a glass of milk? (ch. 7)

Virtue

Paganism declared that virtue was in a balance; Christianity declared it was in a conflict: the collision of two passions apparently opposite. (ch. 6)

War

There must be some good in the life of battle, for so many good men have enjoyed being soldiers. (ch. 6)

War (and Christianity)

The very people who reproached Christianity with the meekness and non-resistance of the monasteries were the very people who reproached it also with the violence and valour of the Crusades.

The Quakers (we were told) were the only characteristic Christians; and yet the massacres of Cromwell and Alva were characteristic Christian crimes. (ch. 6)

Will

Exactly as complete free thought involves the doubting of thought itself, so the acceptation of mere "willing" really paralyzes the will.

So he who wills to reject nothing, wills the destruction of will; for will is not only the choice of something, but the rejection of almost everything. (ch. 3)

Wives

The same women who are ready to defend their men through thick and thin are (in their personal intercourse with the man) almost morbidly lucid about the thinness of his excuses or the thickness of his head.

A man's friend likes him but leaves him as he is: his wife loves him and is always trying to turn him into somebody else. (ch. 5)

Catholic Sources on Celtic Christianity and a Supposed "Celtic Church" Separate From Rome

Muiredach's Cross, Monasterboice

[ source ]

I don't recall ever having written on Celtic Christianity, myself, though I may have in passing, or have forgotten about something. I used to have some links on my old "England" and/or Anglican web pages (both now defunct), as I recall.

I think a lot of this thought that there was a separate entity: the "Celtic Church" in the British Isles, is essentially similar to the ecclesiological thought of Orthodoxy, and so can sometimes be dealt with in the same fashion, from a Catholic perspective.

GENERAL

"Celtic Coptic Anglicans? A Modern Myth to Dodge the Authority of Rome," Fr. Dwight Longenecker (This Rock, Nov. 2006)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Synod of Whitby" (664)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Anglo-Saxon Church"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Celtic Rite"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Ancient Diocese and Monastery of Lindisfarne"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "School of Iona"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Monastic School of Aran"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Scotland"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Ireland"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Archdiocese of Dublin"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Dioceses of Kildare and Leighlin"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Diocese of Ossory"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Welsh Church"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Glastonbury Abbey"

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Diocese of Canterbury"

EARLY CELTIC OR ANGLO-SAXON SAINTS

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Alban" (d.c. 304)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Ninian" (d.c. 432)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Patrick" (c. 390-c. 460)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Brigid" (c. 452-525)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Brendan" (484-577)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Columba (Columcille)" (521-597)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Baithen of Iona" (536-c. 600)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Canice (Kenneth)" (c. 516-600)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. David" (d.c. 601)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Comgall" (c. 520-602)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Augustine of Canterbury" (d. 604)

"The Mission of St. Augustine of Canterbury to the English," Dr. Ghazwan Butrous.

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Columbanus" (543-615)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Kevin (Coemgen)" (d. 618)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Lawrence" (d. 619)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Mellitus" (d. 624)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Aedan of Ferns" (c. 550-632)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Edwin" (c. 586-633)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Cronan" (d. 640)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Aidan of Lindisfarne" (d. 642)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Oswald" (c. 605-642)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Paulinus" (d. 644)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Finan" (d. 661)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Cedd (Cedda)" (d. 664)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Ronan" (d. 665)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Ceatta (Chad)" (d. 672)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Colman" (c. 605-676)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Caedmon" (d.c. 670-680)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Eata" (d. 686)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Cuthbert" (c. 635-687)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "Theodore, Abp. of Canterbury" (c. 602-690)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Adamnan" (c. 624-704)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Wilfrid" (634-709)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Adrian of Canterbury" (d. 710)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Venerable Bede" (c. 673-735)

Venerable Bede on the Conversion of England (Medieval Sourcebook)

Venerable Bede on the Synod of Whitby (Britannia Historical Documents)

Catholic Encyclopedia: "St. Boniface (Winfrid)" (d.c. 755)

ADDITIONAL NON-CATHOLIC SOURCES

"Celtic Saints" (Among the Cloud of Irish Witnesses)

"Celtic Saints and the Early Church" (Celtic Twilight)

"Celtic Monasticism: History and Spirituality," Dr. Deborah Vess

"Celtic Church" (Infoplease)

Firth's Celtic Scotland and the Age of the Saints (website)

"Book of Kells" (Wikipedia) (c. 800)

"Anglo-Saxon Saints" (Wikipedia)

"Anglo-Saxon Christianity" (Wikipedia)

"Celtic Christianity" (Wikipedia)

Quote:

It is easy to exaggerate the cohesiveness of the Celtic Christian communities. Scholars have long recognised that the term “Celtic Church” is simply inappropriate to describe Christianity among Celtic-speaking peoples, since this would imply a notion of unity, or a self-identifying entity, that simply did not exist.^[4] As Patrick Wormald explained, “One of the common misconceptions is that there was a ‘Roman Church’ to which the ‘Celtic’ was nationally opposed.”^[5] Celtic-speaking areas were part of Latin Christendom as a whole, wherein a significant degree of liturgical and structural variation existed, along with a collective veneration of the Bishop of Rome that was no less intense in Celtic areas.^[6]

"Cornish Saints" (Wikipedia)

"Hilda of Whitby" (c. 614-680) (Wikipedia)

Open Forum

Link to previous one. "In all things, charity . . . "! Non-Catholic inquirers are our guests here, not our "enemies." Non-Catholic Christians are also our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Comparative Soteriology: A Handy Chart

John Wesley: death-mask

TOTAL DEPRAVITY

CALVINISM Yes
ARMINIANISM See note
LUTHERANISM See note
CATHOLICISM No

All these belief-systems accept original sin and sola gratia: absolute necessity of God's grace to be saved and to have the results of the Fall overcome ("total inability"), and deny semi-Pelagianism: the doctrine that man can initiate salvation. Classic Arminians and Lutherans (along with Catholics) are often falsely accused of semi-Pelagianism because they believe in human free will. Lutherans also falsely accuse Catholics of same, in their confessions, because we deny imputed justification, refuse to formally separate justification and sanctification, and assert merit. Arminians and Lutherans posit a fall that is distinct from Catholicism and Calvinism, but closer to the latter. The main difference is that they would deny the notion that even good acts of an unregenerate person are evil, as Luther and Calvin taught. This is the strict definition of "total depravity" and relatively few brands of Christians hold it.

UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT

CALVINISM No
ARMINIANISM Yes
LUTHERANISM Yes
CATHOLICISM Yes

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE

CALVINISM Yes
ARMINIANISM No
LUTHERANISM No
CATHOLICISM No

FREE WILL

CALVINISM No
ARMINIANISM Yes
LUTHERANISM Yes
CATHOLICISM Yes

Luther denied this, but Lutheranism decided to follow the thought of Melanchthon and others back to a more Catholic understanding.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

CALVINISM Yes
ARMINIANISM No
LUTHERANISM No
CATHOLICISM See note

Thomist Catholics believe in unconditional election; Molinists and Congruists believe it is conditional only in the limited sense that God takes into account foreseen actions of man by means of Middle Knowledge. Man is still not causing his election even in Molinism and Congruism, because any good thing he does is always enabled by God in the first place. But it is ultimately a mystery why one man chooses to accept grace and another does not, within a paradigm of free will. All views boil down to how one relates God's sovereignty and providence to the free choices and free will of man: one of the most complicated questions in theology.

PREDESTINATION (TO SALVATION)

CALVINISM Yes
ARMINIANISM Yes
LUTHERANISM Yes
CATHOLICISM Yes

PREDESTINATION (TO DAMNATION)

CALVINISM Yes
ARMINIANISM No
LUTHERANISM No
CATHOLICISM No

ETERNAL SECURITY or PERSEVERANCE

CALVINISM Yes
ARMINIANISM No
LUTHERANISM No
CATHOLICISM No

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

CALVINISM No
ARMINIANISM Mixed
LUTHERANISM Yes
CATHOLICISM Yes

Some Arminians, such as some Methodists and Anglicans, accept baptismal regeneration.

INFANT BAPTISM

CALVINISM Mixed
ARMINIANISM Mixed
LUTHERANISM Yes
CATHOLICISM Yes

"Reformed Baptists" practice adult "believer's" baptism; most Calvinists: such as Presbyterians and Reformed, baptize infants. Goups such as Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ; combine baptismal regeneration with a belief in adult baptism. Methodists and Anglicans baptize infants. Pentecostals generally believe in adult baptism.

SACRAMENTALISM

CALVINISM No
ARMINIANISM Mixed
LUTHERANISM Yes
CATHOLICISM Yes

Calvinists -- except for Reformed Baptists -- speak of sacraments, but in the end, their baptism and communion are mere signs of God's mystical presence, without actually accomplishing anything themselves, which is the usual definition of "sacrament": a physical means to obtain God's grace. Methodist and Anglicans can be sacramental to various degrees; some believe in the Real Presence. Lutherans are highly sacramental, but have only two sacraments. Confirmation for them is sort of "semi-sacramental". Catholicism and Orthodoxy alone retain the seven sacraments of historic Christianity, Sacred Tradition and the Bible.

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

I am a congruist, myself (a variation or modification of Molinism). Here are some of my papers, along these lines:

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

Lutheranism vs. Catholicism (Particularly Regarding Original Sin and Faith Alone, and Including Extensive Catholic Commentary on the Book of Concord)

A Primer on Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism

Did the Council of Trent Teach That Man is Saved By His Own Works?

Soteriology and Creation (Man's Cooperation, Pelagianism, Nature and Grace) (vs. Peter J. Leithart)

1 Corinthians 3:9 and Man's Cooperation With God

Do Catholics Believe in Predestination?

Did God Harden Pharaoh's Heart? (Does God Positively Ordain Evil?) (vs. an atheist)

A Dialogue on the Nature of God's Foreknowledge and Sovereignty
(vs. Dr. Alex Pruss)

Dialogue on Molinism (Speculations on How God Predestines) (vs. "JS")

Molinism, Middle Knowledge, and Predestination: Suarez, Congruism, and the Elegantly Ingenious Solution of Fr. William G. Most

Dialogue on Molinism and God's Mode of Predestination (+ Part II | Part III | Part IV) (vs. "JS")

Observations on Arminianism

Catholic Predestination (Ludwig Ott)

The Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity and Romans 3:10-11 ("None is Righteous . . . No One Seeks For God"): Reply to James White (+ Discussion)

Fallacious Calvinist Arguments For Total Depravity: Does Romans 1 Apply Universally to Fallen Man?

Reflections on the Problematic Protestant System of Private Judgment and the Vast Difference in Catholic Epistemology

Which denomination to choose, with such a bewildering variety?

[ source ]

I attended the Assemblies of God for four years and believed in most of the doctrines that they taught (adult baptism, Arminianism, etc.). I saw, however, one glaring contradiction between their doctrine, and Scripture. For background, here are my comments from a previous related paper:

As an analogy from my Protestant days, I attended Assemblies of God for four years (1982-1986), met many of my friends there, in the singles group, including my wife, got married there, started my old campus evangelistic ministry while there, and even decided to get "baptized" as an adult by full immersion in 1982, because that's what I believed at the time (in retrospect my true baptism was my Methodist baptism as an infant).

I never agreed with one of the 16 Fundamental Truths: the one (actually a combination of #7 and #8) that said everyone had to speak in tongues in order to receive the "enduement of power." This I felt to be expressly contrary to Paul's teaching about tongues, where he says that not all speak in tongues. Because of this, I never became a member. I was simply being honest: saying in effect: "I don't accept all 16 Truths that I am supposed to accept, so I won't become a member, but I agree with most everything else taught."

In that instance, I didn't have to study much to see a disconnect: I thought it was plain as day in Scripture that not all folks speak in tongues, just as none of the other spiritual gifts is possessed by all, either, or by all "super-spiritual" people. I think it is a no-brainer. So for a denomination to specifically, legalistically tie baptism of the Holy Spirit to one gift only is rather silly, in my opinion, and essentially an insult to those who don't speak in tongues, as if they are intrinsically inferior spiritually (many have objected to this sort of "spiritual elitism" and legalism that is too often found in charismatic circles). It's a classic case of putting traditions of men on a higher plane than Scripture.

Indeed, I was exercising private judgment, in accordance with Protestant methodology, because for a Protestant, there is no higher court of appeal than the individual, by the nature of the system. This is the heart of the disagreement on authority. The Protestant can sit as an individual and judge all denominations by Scripture, and regard himself as, in effect, the final court of appeal. This is private judgment or the primacy of the individual conscience, in the Protestant system.

It can't be otherwise, actually, because Protestantism involves a vicious logical circularity: Scripture judges all denominational teachings, but Scripture has to be interpreted and in many cases (e.g., baptism) the correct theology is either not proclaimed by a denomination, or it is proclaimed, but contradicted by other denominations. The infallibility of the Church is denied; therefore, each denomination is its own entity, and the end result is theological relativism or indifferentism on the "secondary" matters. There is no concrete, practical, "institutional" way to decide between competing theologies because there is a multiplicity of "authorities" and sects.

So what does one do when one sees what he believes to be a clear conflict with Scripture, as a Protestant? One has to go with their own interpretation. St. Paul is quite clear in teaching that not all speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:29-31) and that the Spirit distributes gifts individually as He wills, not as we will (1 Cor 12:7-11). I think that is crystal-clear in Scripture. I did as a Protestant, and I do as a Catholic. Much in Scripture is quite clear, in my opinion (or perspicuous). Catholics are not required to deny that. We only deny that individuals en masse, alone with their Bibles can arrive at all truth, without the aid of an authoritative Church and Tradition to guide them.

Martin Luther, in the Diet of Worms in 1521, saw the same contradiction between Church doctrines and Scripture. He chose to be true to what he felt was true in Scripture. What does one do, then, when he sees something in the Bible that doesn't fit in with what some church is teaching him?

I've explained the "epistemological" situation of the Protestant who sees something he doesn't agree with. He is left to rely ultimately on himself as a judge of true and false doctrine. I think this is ultimately a burden and a bondage, because who has time to become the world's best expert on every theological topic? In a way, that is what Protestantism (in principle and theory, if not in practice) places on every individual person: he or she is the arbiter. He chooses between denominations. He figures out what denomination or set of favorite scholars or radio / TV preachers are correct and which are wrong. It's a sort of "magisterium by scholars."

The Catholic system is very different in how it all works practically, because we believe in faith that the Church is infallible when it definitively proclaims on faith and morals. Luther specifically denied this: first at the Disputation at Leipzig in 1519, with Johann Eck, and then again at the Diet of Worms in 1521. It was all quite spontaneous, and he was backed into a corner because his novel teachings contradicted received Church tradition. Faced with a choice of submitting to the Church and recanting his errors by that standard, and judging the Church as an individual by Scripture, he chose the latter. This was the radical change in the principle of authority.

Previous to that, Catholics accepted the infallibility and authority of the Church, just as the apostles had (council of Jerusalem) and the Church fathers had. Apostolic succession was the key: the apostolic deposit was preserved supernaturally and passed down in unbroken succession in the Catholic Church. This is how we ultimately know what is true: it will be harmonious with Scripture, and it will also be a tenet that the Church has always held, in kernel or more fully developed through time. The Church fathers argued this way. They saw no conflict between Church, Scripture, and Tradition.

They were all of a piece, and this was believed in faith. They argued with the heretics from Scripture, but then when the heretics disagreed and also used Scripture, the fathers would then appeal to the Church and tradition, and "what had always been held" and would challenge the heretics to show that their doctrine can be shown to have been widely taught all the way back to the apostolic period.

For example, then, if an Arian (who thinks Christ was a creature) was challenged to show this, he could not do so, because the heresy was of 3rd-century origin. It cannot be traced back in the Catholic Church because it simply wasn't there. No one taught it. It sprung up suddenly, as a theological novelty. And that was conclusive for the Catholic. The Arian was wrong because he couldn't produce a theological pedigree. Period. Case closed. Whatever is true, must be able to be traced back to the apostles and Jesus, because that is the apostolic deposit of Christian truth that the Church preserves. It is preserved primarily in inspired Scripture. No true doctrine can contradict Scripture.

So how does this work in a concrete situation, where a Catholic thinks he sees something in Scripture that contradicts Catholic teaching? It's very different. If a faithful, obedient Catholic, who believes in faith that the Church is infallible, thinks he sees a conflict between Church teaching and the Bible, he doesn't automatically go with his own opinion and conclude that the Church is wrong, because he believes in faith that the Church is infinitely more wise than he is; that he is limited, and that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from serious error (which presupposes that God is powerful and willing enough to do such a thing). It takes more faith to be a Catholic, because we believe that God preserves institutions, that have sinners in them, as well as holy books. But infallibility is a lesser gift than inspiration, so in that sense it is easier to accept. It's mostly a negative guarantee, that the Church will not err: not that it is positively inspired, as Scripture is.

So if we think we see a conflict, we have the choice that Luther had: trust the Church and acknowledge our limitedness and fallibility as individuals, or start disbelieving the Church on this, that, and the other, which is a slippery slope with no end, and the adoption of the Protestant rule of faith, which is sola Scriptura and private judgment.

Now, the question will immediately arise as to how this is not mind control or blind faith. I think it is solved in three ways:

1) Recognizing that Catholic doctrine requires faith, but is not incompatible at all with reason, as far as reason can take one. Catholic mysteries are not unreasonable; they simply go beyond reason.

2) Recognizing that Catholic faith is distinct from philosophy. It's not merely the end result of a syllogism or a theory made up by a brilliant philosophical mind.

3) Accepting the necessity of apologetics, at least in cases where one thinks he sees a lack of sufficient reason or a contradiction.

The heart cannot accept what the mind regards as false or illogical or nonsensical. Faith comes through grace. The Catholic faith requires lots of grace on God's part and lots of faith on our part.

The Catholic, then, accepts in faith all that the Church teaches. No Catholic claims to have a perfect, exhaustive grasp of all Catholic teachings. This is where authority and faith in God's provisions for that authority come in. So a Catholic might, for example, say, "Hey, I don't understand transubstantiation; I don't even come close, but I believe the doctrine in faith, because the Church teaches it and it has been passed down in kernel from the beginning (Real Presence) and developed through the centuries, through reflection of many great minds and saints. I believe that these great teachers have ably defended it, even though I myself may not have all that knowledge."

This is the Catholic mind and approach. The Protestant cannot say this in this same fashion. He could only say it, at best, in a limited way. If he appeals to history, he has to appeal to a denominational authority like Luther or Calvin or various confessions and creeds. But since those contradict each other, the question immediately arises: why trust one over the other? On what basis?

Some Protestants will attempt to argue that the Church fathers were more similar to their brand of Protestantism than to Catholicism. They can try, but I think they fail every time in actually demonstrating this. And if they cannot make the historical case, then they are left with the weak pillar of one denominational claim. Or, worse yet, they fall back on themselves and their own interpretation of Scripture, which is contradicted a dozen times over by other equally fervent, biblically-oriented Protestants.

If we appeal to a denomination, we have to show why it is valid over against hundreds of other Protestant denominations. If that can't be done historically, then it has to be done by comparative biblical interpretation, and then it is all-out war and anarchy and relativism. Protestants can't solve these questions. They can only continue to disagree: all appealing to Scripture.

But the Protestant can still say we are throwing away our minds in submitting to the Church. Not really: and the reason it is not is because all fields of study have authority figures and require folks to accept some things on the word of others. We accept any number of scientific truths that we do not fully understand, and the authority of those, like Newton and Einstein, who came up with the theories. That doesn't make us blind faith adherents. We simply haven't personally worked through all the intricacies of the theories.

We have faith in our automobiles, without necessarily knowing how they work, in great detail. We have "faith" in electricity and in our washing machines.

Truth is ascertained by many different ways, in a cumulative fashion: it is a convergence of many different things, determined in many different ways. A Catholic exercises faith in many things, insofar as he can understand. Then he accepts things at times that he doesn't understand, based on the "success" of all the other indicators.

Say, for example, that the typical Catholic sees doctrine A in Scripture that he thinks contradicts Catholic doctrine A2. He accepts his own limitations and doesn't feel that he has to resolve the cognitive dissonance, because he has seen enough about Catholicism, to accept it as true, in faith. But then suppose that, over time, he sees "biblical doctrines" B, C, and D, that he believes pose difficulties for Catholic dogmas B2, C2, and D2. How many such "difficulties" pose a problem for his overall Catholic faith, so that they may possibly overthrow same?

That's a good question, and I think this is where my field, apologetics, becomes crucial and important. If difficulties are occurring in a mind, it seems to me that they have to be resolved in a mind, not just by appeal to faith and authority. Catholic apologetics grapples with such questions and provides the best Catholic answer that it can.

The individual can then pursue these apologetic answers and see if they are sufficient to "level" or resolve his doubts. In many instances they are. Other times, the individual concludes that the answers are insufficient, and that Catholicism is no longer worthy of belief. I have argued, time and again, that the reasons given for this rejection are insufficient. I look at them (whether coming from atheists who were once Catholics, or a Protestant former Catholic) and I don't see that they are sufficient to overthrow (by reason alone) what I believe as a Catholic. And I write about the deficiencies of these reasons, in order to aid other Catholics who may be going through the same or similar thought processes.

Reason can be brought to bear all down the line. But Catholicism still requires faith, in harmony with this reason. One doesn't arrive at it by reason alone. Or a man may think he has found 13 reason to disbelieve Catholicism, and subsequently adopts some form of Protestantism. But Protestantism suffers from a host of internal contradictions. He has merely substituted (from where I sit) one set of alleged problems that can be resolved, for another set of real difficulties that cannot be solved. But oftentimes, the reason for leaving the Church are not really reasons at all, but rather, justifications for a prior decision of the will: often based on something one desires to do.

As an apologist who has been answering millions of questions that people have about Catholicism, for now 17 years (thus, one who is acquainted with many difficulties that arise), I can sincerely say that I have never seen a "problem" or "difficulty" that I find insuperable or faith-destroying. To the contrary, my Catholic faith has inevitably been bolstered, the more I study and defend the Church. Many people report finding such "deal-breaker" problems in Church teaching. I have not yet found one. I've always found Catholic beliefs to be in accord with both Scripture and history, and to be free from logical contradiction. I know that many find this hard to believe, but what can I say? It is my experience.

The experience of former Catholics or Protestants unconvinced of Catholicism is their own and I don't question it, viewed from their own internal perspective (I would question the validity of the reasoning, though). Likewise, my experience is valid and not made-up, and I am always happy to discuss any of my reasoning against cordial, substantive critique. . This is what I have truly experienced as an apologist. We can offer answers. No one has to feel as if the Catholic faith is unreasonable or unworthy of belief because of this, that, and the other.

I challenge people as an apologist, to compare the best of both sides of any issue they are going over. If they are struggling with transubstantiation, then they should read the best Catholic apologetics on that question and the best Protestant apologetics (preferably, an actual dialogue between the two), then decide for themselves. The Catholic accepts the authority of the Church, but it is still good to understand why he believes what he believes. And it is good for Protestants to engage in comparative reasons for each side, too. Reason is always good, as long as it isn't made the sum total of truth, because it is not so.

We Catholics believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, in faith, and we can produce reasons for why we believe it: biblical, logical, experiential, mystical, and historical. In conclusion, I'll cite my words from my most detailed paper on this question:

So when someone like me (a very low-church evangelical) becomes convinced of Catholicism, it is not merely another Protestant exercise of private judgment and de facto alleged self-infallibility. It is, to the contrary, the yielding up of private judgment and the acknowledgement of something far greater than oneself: an entity which is "out there;" which has always been there since Christ established it, preserving (only by God's enabling grace and will) apostolic Christian truth in its fullness and undiluted splendor.

* * * * *

Denominationalism is a HUGE problem that has never been overcome.

Now, the Catholic can't "prove" the Catholic rule of faith, like 2+2=4 or "I exist" or "heavy objects go down if left on their own." It is a proposition held in faith, with strong support in reason and history and Scripture (revelation). We believe it because we argue that this is the way it always was in the Church; therefore, it was passed down by Jesus and the apostles: the deposit of faith. Sola Scriptura certainly wasn't that rule of faith. So if one is interested in historically connecting one's present Christian beliefs to the earliest Christians and our Lord Jesus, sola Scriptura is ruled out immediately. The Catholic rule of faith, on the other hand, seems perfectly plausible, and is able to be abundantly backed up with Scripture, too.

So it's not strictly "provable" (few things are), but made immensely probable and plausible by a convergence of many different evidences of different sorts. Biblical inspiration can't be strictly proven, either. It all requires faith in the end. But there are many reasons to accept biblical inspiration, as there are to accept the Catholic rule of faith.

I've given quite a bit of biblical evidence in many of my papers and books for Tradition, and the authority of the Church. It's rather easily done. Paul talks a lot about tradition: even oral tradition. The sublime, binding authority of the Church is seen in the Jerusalem Council in the book of Acts. There are many indications in the Bible of Petrine primacy (the papacy in kernel), etc.

The Catholic argument on this is not circular (whereas the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura always is, in the end). The only assumptions one needs to start with are these:

1) The inspiration of the Bible.

2) The relevance of the example of Jesus, the early apostles, and the fathers, for later Church history (i.e., historical continuity and the premise that God can teach us things through what He has taught our Christian brothers and sisters in the past).

If one accepts those two and fairly considers all of the competing arguments side-by-side, I think it is no contest: one will become Catholic or possibly Orthodox.

Pathetic "Traditionalist" Feeding Frenzy Over My Defense of Pope John Paul II Kissing the Koran / "Calumny in the Blogosphere" (Fr. Orsi)

This instance is from the "traditionalist" Fish Eaters Website.

Some guy who goes by "StevusMagnus" cited my second defense (see also the first). He was nice enough to at least present some of the actual reasoning in my paper, but alas, not intellectually confident enough to deign to interact with it. Instead it is virtually all mockery from him and his cronies.

Here is is a convenient run-down of insults and epithets thrown my way (I make a few replies, in blue and bracketed):

"Neo-Con Dave Armstrong"

"This man is on drugs. Either that, or he's possessed. It's unbelievable that there are "Catholics" defending apostasy and scandal. Does he have any articles defending the child molesting homosexual priests as well?"

"It's fascinating watching neo-cons contort and twist themselves into unending knots."

"This apologist is clueless about the Catholic faith. No surprise there."

"Quoting David Armstrong about anything is an utter waste of time. He is really "his own thing" even amongst the Neocaths, and he makes Mark Shea look completely sane, which is no small feat. Most Neocaths would do the most sane defense of the late Pontiff's actions, which is just to pretend as if it didn't happen. Sort of like the past fifty years of Church history. Plus, his website is totally unreadable."

"Armstrong? Armstrong? O ya I had a debate with him some years ago. A Protestant convert to the Novus Ordo. They can maintain their Protestant outlook while joining the church."

"That explains it." [i.e., being a convert]

"And of course the most disturbing thing about Mr. Armstrong is how seriously he takes his on-line persona. Many of the things that he writes border on delusions of grandeur, even though a lot of his books are self-published, and he has received no commission from the Church to do what he does. . . . I think that David Armstrong's defense of it is outright embarrassing, and such muddle-headedness should be called what it is."

"If he wants to debate someone who has actually done his homework regarding the Papacy of Pope John Paul II, and why he shouldn't be Canonized or labeled, 'The Great' I suggest he go here, instead of going apoplectic and doing the very things he accuses others of doing(which reminds me: for all his condemnation of the blogosphere,shouldn't he be reminded that he has his own blog? Or, is it just Traditionalist bloggers he has a beef with? Interesting...)"

"St. Augustine was a convert from Paganism. There are great Catholics that converted from other religions including Protestantism. The key word, though, is 'converted'."

"Yes, there are. But my point was that many (I'd be willing to say the majority) modern-day Protestant converts to Catholicism are Neo-Catholics, in my experiences anyway. Just an observation. I'm not saying there are no great Catholics who were once Protestant. I'm just not at all surprised that it turns out a Neo-Cath like Armstrong is a convert from Protestantism. "

"Armstrong's argument defending the kissing of the Koran is filled with rhetoric based on emotion instead of logic. . . . I don't have time to go through the rest of his sophistry. For one thing, it rambles all over the place from argument to argument. It takes the 'throw spaghetti to the wall' approach - give 100 reasons for why it was OK, and maybe one will stick. For another, because he is all over the place, nothing is argued to an obvious conclusion. It's just rambling. . . . I'm surprised a 'Biblical Catholic' like Armstrong doesn't get that. Or, then again, maybe I'm not."

"Well, the biggest problem is that ex-Protestants seem to have brought over the lay apologist. I don't mean someone arguing in the tavern with a Protestant - I mean people who do it for a living, or are so involved they spend as much time as they would if they were doing it for a living. People read their mind-fizzle instead of going to the source documents and the Church's commentary itself. What happens is that they learn the lay apologists opinions on things and think that is what the Church teaches when often it is not. Often times, the Church has no de fide statement on something, and we are allowed to differ in opinion. But these lay apologists often present their (usually erroneous) opinions with an air of authority. Then the cult of personality kicks in for some, and then it's good night, nurse. They have people believing nonsense like Prima Scriptura. We used to have Bishop Sheen, and now we have Hahn and Armstrong. Pre V2, post V2. See the difference?"

[Yes, we also "used" to have G.K. Chesterton: lay apologist and convert. We "used to have Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman: convert, and Ronald Knox: convert, and Malcolm Muggeridge: convert, and Evelyn Waugh: convert, etc., etc., etc. You also had "in the old days" a lay cradle Catholic who was a major apologist: Frank Sheed. There are many key figures in the current apologetics movement who are cradle Catholics (and/or priests): e.g., Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Fr. Pacwa, Fr. Stravinskas. So, nothing's really changed at all. There were always apologists in all these categories, and always will be]

"If he doesn't understand why people don't interact with his papers, then he should start by looking at his papers and asking himself why they're not engaging."

[I just recently engaged in several excellent dialogues with Ryan Grant (aka "Athanasius"): a "traditionalist" whose blog has been cited several times in this very thread. He has told me that he'd like to do more in the future, as would I. It is entirely possible, but rare. I have posted over 400 dialogues on my blog (probably close to 500 by now because I stopped counting a while back). Lots of folks are quite willing to dialogue with me. But love for dialogue is a rare thing itself: a phenomenon that has nothing to do with my relative merits or demerits as a debater and lover of constructive dialogue. These guys at Fish Eaters are the ones who don't do dialogues, as is evident in this thread -- where they had every chance to do so intelligently -- and in the fact that they are a bunch of back-slapping yes men. It's an exclusive "country club". No debate occurs because they all agree, pretty much. So it is passing strange for one of them to lecture me about how no one wants to dialogue with me, in light of all these manifest facts. They don't like me. I get that. It doesn't follow that everyone thinks I am the pompous blowhard that these nattering nabobs of negativism think I am. Nor do they even speak for all "traditionalists"]

"Catholics should reject the premise that they have to defend their choices based on Scripture. When a Protestant says to me, "Where does it say that in Scripture?" I inform them that I reject Sola Scriptura at face value."

[We can defend Catholic views from Scripture -- as harmonious with Scripture -- precisely as the Church fathers always did (usually at first). But when confronted with the notion that all doctrines have to be found only in Scripture, and explicitly so, as the supposedly only infallible source, we reject that in no uncertain terms, and appeal to Tradition and apostolic succession and infallible councils and popes, also precisely as the fathers did. We can assert material sufficiency of Scripture without asserting sola Scriptura. This guy's fallacy is that he doesn't know enough about either thing to know that they are vastly different, epistemologically. He doesn't know what he doesn't know: a quality that is endemic in this thread]

"This is the problem with the Armstrong / Hahn approach."

[Thanks for the compliment of being compared in any way to Scott Hahn]

"They are trying to defend Catholicism through Scripture and in a sense that is often the wrong way to go about it because the end result is someone who still believes Scripture is the final word, and Scripture is only half the story."

[What I do does not presuppose sola Scriptura in the slightest. Protestants don't "own" Scripture, and we can give better arguments from the Bible than they give. I have two entire web pages devoted to scores of lengthy articles explaining all this: one about Bible and Tradition and the other that critiques sola Scriptura. I have a third web page about the Church (ecclesiology), with dozens more articles. I've written far more about this topic than anything else. It would surely come as an astonishing shock -- and an uproariously funny thought -- to my anti-Catholic friends to learn that I allegedly never defend Catholic Tradition. I've written a hundred times more on this question than this nitwit "critic" will ever write in his entire lifetime. Yet he sits there and lectures me about it with a straight face? Marvels never cease . . . see my paper: (((Dialogue on Whether Extensive Use of Biblical Arguments Reduces to a Quasi-Sola Scriptura Position?)))]

"Sola Scriptura is a heresy that is the root of countless other heresies. That mindset cannot exist in someone who is trying to fully embrace the Faith. It has to be left behind completely. The fact that it isn't by some people, the fact that some depend so heavily on Scripture to justify their Catholic faith rather than on Scripture and Tradition, is what in a large part causes the neo-Catholic movement today."

[This person thus proves that he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. To imply that I and other apologists somehow wink at sola Scriptura, when I am constantly critiquing and refuting and lamenting it is about as dumb a thing as could conceivably be said about my apologetics. This person clearly knows less than nothing about my beliefs and my approach. This is stupider than all of the mere rank insults put together, because it is so anti-factual and utterly opposed to the actual truth of the matter. It's one thing to say in anger or baffled noncomprehension that a man is "possessed"; quite another to say of a baseball player that he knows nothing of running the bases or of a baker that he is completely unfamiliar with flour. The rank insult at least has passion and humorous value . . .]

"Remember, he's the same one who complained about all the insults hurled his way. Someone should ask him, 'Dave, what about your insults'? Hypocrisy, thy name is Dave Armstrong."

The only ray of light in all of this is "PrayforMallory" (Matt): a charitable person who actually was willing to come here and comment:

Of course, I would hope that if he came on this site, and posted, that we would actually answer his objections, and not be insulting the man. He does help the Church in a lot of ways. He's wrong about this and some other issues, though. Part of what made me initially apprehensive about coming over to tradition was that I was worried "trads" wouldn't be very welcoming.

Even Matt, however, does make one absolutely untrue statement about me:

. . . as a convert, I have to say, that a lot of it might be due to them just not knowing about tradition, or having access. . . . I think Mr. Armstrong's problem is that he doesn't want to look at the past 40 years as being in any way flawed.

To the contrary, I have stated for 17 years since I converted, that the modernist crisis is the greatest in the history of the Church, following my mentor, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., who stated this quite a lot. Here are examples from my blog:

All Councils caused upheavals. All Councils caused heretics to willingly remove themselves from the Church or rebel further. The Monophysites left after Chalcedon; the Old Catholics left after Vatican I; Protestant resistance hardened after Trent; the SSPX and kindred "traditionalist" spirits either leave, or are blatantly disobedient and unCatholic in various ways, after Vatican II. I don't blame the older Councils for the heresies which followed them chronologically; nor do I blame Vatican II for the present crisis. It is the lack of faith and spirit of disobedience and "cafeteria" mentality which characterizes dissidents, heretics, and schismatics on both the left and the right, then and now.

(30 July 1999)

No one I know denies the modernist crisis. I agree with [the late] Fr. [John A.] Hardon [S.J.] that it is the worst crisis in the history of the Church.

(7 October 2003)

Now, it's true that the Church (because of the huge liberal / modernist crisis that we have been dealing with for 50 years or so) was not vigilant enough to prevent practicing homosexuals from becoming ordained priests. But that has been strongly dealt with in the wake of the scandal.

(5 November 2007)

I knew there was a huge crisis of modernism and dissent when I came into the Church. My mentor Fr. John Hardon used to often say that modernism was the greatest crisis in the history of the Church, and the culmination of all heresies, and that we were right in the midst of it. It didn't hinder or stop me at all, because modernism or religious liberalism has not succeeded in changing any Catholic doctrines. . . . A crisis of bad catechesis is not a crisis of dogmatic theology in the Church herself.

Bottom line: liberal theology and disbelief and selective belief and ignorance is a widespread problem afflicting just about all brands of Christianity. The Catholic difference is that this crisis has not been allowed to change any traditional dogma or doctrine of the Church. That's why I am a Catholic: because I want apostolic, traditional, biblical Christianity, passed down pure and undefiled, and unaffected by the whims and fads and fancies of any given age or culture.

(18 February 2008)

I have always held, following my mentor Fr. John A. Hardon. S.J., that modernism is the greatest crisis in the history of the Church. . . . The disagreement comes not as to whether there is a crisis, but on its origins and solutions to the mess]

(13 May 2008)

Because of lousy catechesis (and lack of apologetics) for a generation and the modernist crisis: the greatest in the history of the Church. We differ on the origin and solution to the crisis, and where the problems lie.

(14 May 2008)

Matt also commented:

Of course I believe we're right on this thread. Being an SSPX sympathizer, I'd have to, but I believe we can reach those who disagree. They mean well, and given what goes on in the average Novus Ordo Parish, I frankly think their urge to be as legalistic as possible is admirable, given the circumstances. Unlike a lot of people on threads, he isn't afraid of arguing, and will actually address concerns. He's also an excellent and Orthodox Bible scholar. Ironically, his Biblical approach seems more Thomist than I bet we'd give him credit for. And also to his credit, he does go after leftist dissenters, unlike your average Novus Ordo cleric.

I'm going to try to tradvert him. It sounds like his parish priest is a pretty good priest. I bet he would say the TLM if Mr. Armstrong asked.

No need to. My parish cluster (headed by my pastor, Fr. Mark Borkowski), was the only one in the Detroit area that offered the Tridentine Mass before all were allowed to, and remains one of the few in the new situation since the Motu proprio. My parish, St. Joseph's, offers it once a month, and I attended one about seven weeks ago. Isn't it funny that I have been at such a parish for 17 years, if I am so supposedly "anti-traditional"? Our Pauline Mass (whether in English or Latin) is done impeccably, according to the rubrics all down the line, as I have discussed in recent posts. Also, as I stated several times in dialogue with traditionalist Ryan Grant, I've always favored universal access to the Tridentine Mass: let people worship as they please. I'm a liturgical conservative, by any measure.

The sort of thing documented above (excepting Matt) is now standard modus operandi on much of the Internet: a herd mentality. Of the first nine persons who responded in this thread (and many more since are also anonymous, with just a few exceptions), not one of them provided his or her real name (I checked all the profiles). Yet they want to insult, safely behind the cloak of anonymity. This is what passes for "discourse" in much of blogland in our sad times. No attempt whatsoever to even understand my reasoning, let alone interact with it and have an adult conversation . . .

Fr. Michael P. Orsi has an excellent and searing article in Homiletic and Pastoral Review (June 2008), entitled "Calumny in the Blogosphere". Here are a few excerpts. Read it; ponder it. It wouldn't apply to most of my readers because we don't engage in such things on my blog, but perhaps you can spread the "news" of this article, and it can start to make somewhat of a difference on the Internet. Every thousand-mile journey starts with the first step:

An especially compelling element of blogging is the ability to project one’s ideas, observations and opinions with near-complete anonymity. It is common blogger practice to adopt an online persona—usually some cute name or title with relevance to the main focus of the blog. . . . the power to reach a wide audience while remaining in the shadows has proven a source of great temptation. All too many online commentators have been dazzled by this technology that magnifies personal identity and stokes the ego while providing a shield from the consequences of their words. Whole new avenues of calumny have been the result. . . .

Others recognize the evil in calumny, but see it as a compromise that must be made for the sake of a noble cause. They hope that by destroying an opponent’s reputation they will de-legitimize the position that opponent represents. . . .

Hiding out in cyberspace provides a certain emotional distance and avoids direct confrontation. This gives calumnious bloggers some distinct advantages over their victims. They can declare someone guilty without evidence, forcing them to defend themselves by having to disprove a negative. And they can be as outlandish and judgmental as they like while remaining shielded from the reactions and reproaches they would encounter in signed commentary or face-to-face debate. This contradicts the two foundational principles of American justice: (1) assumption of innocence until proof of guilt and (2) the right of the accused to face the accuser. But it tends to liberate bloggers from moral constraint by anesthetizing conscience.

There is a certain self-defeating aspect of calumnious blogging. The titillation of malicious gossip and the thrill of tearing down other human beings do have their limits. Insinuations and outrageous charges often provoke counterclaims that are just as wild. Mutual misquoting, distortion, hearsay and condemnation can spiral to heights of ridiculousness that strain credulity and eventually make readers lose interest. Even the element of anonymity can have counterproductive effects, highlighting the Kafkaesque unreality of the “kangaroo court” assembled in cyberspace. Readers can begin to suspect cowardice at work, or even to speculate about the psychological health of a blogger who will only comment from behind the mask of a fictitious name. . . .

I offer the following recommendations about points that should be made regarding blogging:

Pastors should speak on the Eighth Commandment and its corollary injunctions against calumny and detraction.

People should be warned that what they read on blogs is not necessarily true.

Any anonymous blog or unsigned response has the weight of an unsigned letter and so should be quickly dismissed.

A blog that is particularly vicious toward persons can be indicative of psychological illness, or simply an evil person, and is therefore suspect.

Any blog that is unedifying and demeaning to another person should not be read. It is the equivalent of pornography.

Responding to these calumnious blogs, even for defense of the individual or for clarification, only encourages the offender and prolongs the life of the calumny.

Those who suffer calumny on anonymous blogs are, for the most part, better off enduring it. Seeking to correct misrepresentations usually has the effect of keeping controversy alive and adding to its interest value.

While reading such blogs is damaging to its target (since it causes unwarranted negative speculation about another’s character), it also hurts the reader since it causes scandal, sowing pessimism and despondency.

Calumnious blogging is a serious offense against God’s law. Those who engage in it are jeopardizing their immortal souls and the souls of others.

For anyone to make a judgment concerning a person’s character based on what is read on a negative blog is to be a formal cooperator in the evil perpetrated by the blogger.

Former Catholic, Now (Again) Adventist Bill Cork's Bad Reasons For Leaving Catholicism (Redux)

See his article, making reference to my critique of his "deconversion" from Catholicism (see also the blog discussion we had here).

Bill Cork defends himself at length against my observations, but then oddly concludes (with the strangest of logic):

At that time, I chose not to enter into a debate. I still choose not to do so. Because I still do not accept that form of apologetic. I had been posting many articles expressing my doubts before I took the step, and I posted more after the fact–those blog posts I compiled here. These articles aren’t exhaustive, but they document some of the questions I considered. Call them what you will–but I think it a stretch to call them “postmodernist mush.”

I don't. I gave my reasons why at the time. Cork doesn't want to interact with them. That's his choice. But, be that as it may, it is my job as an apologist to show how objections in general, and his particular objections to Catholicism fail, or that (in some cases) they apply to Protestants, too, so that it is a wash.

My articles are never intended only for the one person I am debating or critiquing (frankly I usually wouldn't bother and put in all the effort I do just for one person), but for all my readers. So whether Cork wants to "debate" my critique of his odyssey or not is a matter of little or no concern to me. If he doesn't, fine; if he does, better (because I think it is good for folks to interact with criticism).

My aim is to show that the reasoning for his move was and is insufficient, inadequate, and fallacious (which it assuredly is). If he wants to run down the Catholic Church publicly, then we who love the Catholic Church and accept her teachings have every right to defend the Church. Cork made all this public in the first place. If he's so concerned about not debating anyone then why did he blog about it at all? He could have simply made his move and shut up about it (i.e., publicly). But he didn't do that. He wanted and wants to get his point of view across. He just doesn't want to defend it when someone else disagrees with his reasoning. And that gets back to the postmodernist mentality that I critiqued in the first place . . .

Reflections on Christian Opposition to the Sin of Homosexual Acts

A Catholic psychologist wrote:

I think that, over the next 100 years or so, a lot of self-righteous people and self-righteous organizations (read religions) are going to be eating their words regarding homosexuality. This could develop into another proof that our energies should be spent on spreading the Gospel and not negative commentary on things we do not understand. For example, if we want to work beyond the spreading the Gospel; how about stopping abortion?

What is he trying to say? Does he want to assert that sodomy (a sin so great that an entire city was destroyed because of it) and a radical redefinition of marriage are perfectly fine and dandy and in harmony with 2000 years of received Christian Tradition? What is it he thinks we don't "understand"?

First of all, as a preliminary, those who want to explore a Catholic (and cordial, non-hostile to persons) treatment of the topic, may be interested in checking out one or more of my papers and dialogues:

Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?

Dialogue on Homosexuality

Dialogue With a Homosexual

St. Paul's Argument From Nature Against Homosexuality (Romans 1)

Dialogue With a Bisexual Agnostic on Homosexuality (+ Part II, which includes very extensive medical/scientific data)

Dialogue With a Bisexual Agnostic on Homosexuality, Round Two

Dialogue With an Atheist on Homosexuality

The implication of a remark like the one above is that those of us (entire religions, for heaven's sake!) who simply oppose homosexual acts as sinful and a radical revision of marriage and removal of procreation from the essence of sexuality, are self-righteous (and profoundly ignorant). We're gonna "eat our words". We're like Pharisees (renowned -- at least the corrupt among them, since Paul called himself one twice -- for their self-righteousness). How so?

The Church will supposedly eventually wake up and figure out that homosexuality is either 1) perfectly normal as a life-choice, or 2) merely an abnormality of genes rather than a sin, as Christianity has always taught? Psychology allegedly has far more insight than historic Christianity, with regard to homosexuality; it now has some knowledge to offer us about homosexuality that Catholicism has not understood for 2000 years and is need of knowing, courtesy of (generally speaking) massively secular psychology?

This is a very serious ethical topic in Christianity and the larger culture. Do psychologists who feel like this expect us to accept without argument their dogmatically expressed opinions that Christians are utterly ignorant about homosexuality, whereas modern psychology "gets it" and we will all eat our words 100 years from now?

I'd be happy to cordially debate anyone on homosexuality (I already have done this several times). Anyone can pull out all the stats and scientific studies and psychological expertise that they want. I respect that, but it's not infallible and should not be presented as such. I can also produce a ton of medical documentation of the tragic health effects of sodomy (it's already "out there" on my blog). If anyone wants to make some kind of argument along these lines, they're more than welcome to do so on my blog (and I will, of course, give a vigorous critique).

As to the present topic of homosexuality, Church teaching is very clear (in the Catechism of the Catholic Church):

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Catholics are not at liberty to disagree with this. The Catechism was promulgated under Pope John Paul II in 1992, accompanied by the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, which stated in part:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. . . .

Therefore, I ask all the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

As for opposition to homosexual radicalism being somehow antithetical to pro-life efforts, what do apples have to do with oranges, except for being in the same category (fruit)? What does opposition to one (serious) sin have to do with opposition to another? If I fight world hunger and the greed and corrupt governments, etc., that contribute to it, I can't also be a pro-life activist? If I join a group that shelters women who are beaten by their husbands, I can't also evangelize and do apologetics? I must say that I do not understand this reasoning.

It makes sense (to me, anyway, and maybe I'm nuts and don't understand language) only if one argues that homosexual acts and the drive to legalize same-sex "marriage" and custody of homosexual couples of children and so forth are such minor sins (if at all), that we need not waste our time and energy and resources to oppose them. Otherwise, it makes no sense to argue that "serious sin A must not be opposed, for the most part, because it is relatively less harmful to souls and to society than serious sin B".

I can understand choosing to spend one's time opposing abortion over against a campaign to reduce white lies or rudeness or jaywalking, because there seems to me to be a clear difference of degree of wrongfulness. I can't see, however, setting opposition to abortion over against opposition to the full societal movement to legitimize homosexuality, because the latter (that is, the acts involved) is also a very grave and disordered sin, just as abortion is. So now we categorize grave sins as those that should be opposed by Christians in society, and those which should be left to the private realm and unopposed, as if Christianity is libertarian, and grave sins don't have grave social consequences?

This mentality strikes me as similar to the one (held formerly by myself as a Protestant) that opposes abortion, but doesn't oppose contraception, which is the very prior acceptance and worldview particular opinion that leads in many ways to abortion (both philosophically and even legally), because it is anti-child and accepts the fallacious premise.

I want to emphasize as strongly as I can (because this issue always comes up): it is wrong and a serious sin to cruelly treat a homosexual person and not differentiate between the sin and the sinner: a human being who deserves and is entitled to love and consideration no matter what sin he has committed, or even defends. I'd venture to guess that not one in a hundred reading this would suggest that homosexuals should be treated poorly, over against, say, adulterers or those who have committed a robbery. That's not advocated among many serious Christians; particularly Catholics, though there is a significant minority of Christians who do adopt such abominable and unChristian attitudes.

Committed Christians get "wound up" over homosexuality, not out of a motive of hate or derision of someone merely because he or she is a bit different from them, but because homosexual acts are grave sins, that not only harm society in that the lifestyle presupposes many grave sins within it: sodomy, non-procreative sex, redefinition of marriage, etc., but is extremely harmful to those who practice it: morally and in terms of health (males far more so than females, because of the difference in the sexual acts and relative healthiness of them).

Such opposition is is not just confined to the Old Testament (as some mistakenly seem to think). St. Paul was very clear that homosexuality was serious sin, too, and against nature itself (see, e.g., Romans 1:24-27). Jesus makes reference to the sins of Sodom (and we know what those were) in Matt 10:15; 11:23-24; Mk 6:11; Lk 10:12; 17:28-30. St. Peter refers to it in 2 Peter 2:6-8; as does Jude 7, very explicitly, and Rev 11:8. So this is another red herring, as if opposition to sodomy is an outdated "Old Testament thing," made superfluous and thoroughly antiquated by the font of moral wisdom and profundity that is modern psychology (and I know a bit about that field, as I minored in the subject in college), that (so it is always reminding us) "knows better" than ancient Jewish and Christian received moral tradition.

Church Fathers On the Sinlessness of Mary

Here are some excerpts from my book The Church Fathers Were Catholic:

St. Athanasius

. . . pure and unstained Virgin . . . (On the Incarnation of the Word, 8; Gambero, 102)

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71, 216; Gambero, 106)

St. Ephraem

Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life (Op. syr. II, 327; Ott, 201)

The Virgin Mary is a symbol of the Church, when she receives the first announcement of the gospel . . . We call the Church by the name of Mary, for she deserves a double name. (Sermo ad noct. Resurr.; Gambero, 115)

Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain. (Nisibene Hymns, 27, v. 8; Ott, 201)

Citing this source, J.N.D. Kelly asserts:

[W]e find Ephraem delineating her as free from every stain, like her son.

(Kelly, 495)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Pure and spotless is this birth. For where the Holy Spirit breathes, all pollution is taken away, so that the human birth of the Only-begotten from the Virgin is undefiled. (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 31-32; Gambero, 140)

St. Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor. (Sermon 38, 13; Gambero, 162-163)

St. Gregory of Nyssa

It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life. (On Virginity, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. V, 344)

[T]he power of the Most High, through the Holy Spirit, overshadowed the human nature and was formed therein; that is to say, the portion of flesh was formed in the immaculate Virgin. (Against Apollinaris, 6; Gambero, 153)

St. Ambrose

. . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22, 30; Jurgens, II, 166)

What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? (Virginity, II, 6; NPNF 2, Vol. X, 374)

St. Epiphanius

Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain? (Panarion, 30, 31; Gambero, 127)

St. Jerome

'There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.' The rod is the mother of the Lord--simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself... Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord. (Letter XXII. To Eustochium, 19, 38; NPNF 2, Vol. VI, 29, 39; cf. Gambero, p. 213: “whose purity was so great that she merited to be the Mother of the Lord”)

Indeed how inferior they are, in terms of holiness, to blessed Mary, Mother of the Lord! (Contra Pelagianos, 1, 16; Gambero, 212)

St. Augustine

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, chapter 42 [XXXVI]; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

Augustine went a step farther. In an incidental remark against Pelagius, he agreed with him in excepting Mary, "propter honorem Domini," from actual (but not from original) sin. This exception he is willing to make from the sinfulness of the race, but no other. He taught the sinless birth and life of Mary, but not her immaculate conception. . . . The reasoning of Augustine backward from the holiness of Christ to the holiness of His mother was an important turn, which was afterward pursued to further results. The same reasoning leads as easily to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, though also, just as well, to a sinless mother of Mary herself, and thus upward to the beginning, of the race, to another Eve who never fell.

(Schaff, HCC 3, 418-419)

We do not deliver Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth; but for this reason, because this very condition is resolved by the grace of rebirth. (Opus Imperf. Contra Julianum, 4, 122; Graef, 99)

And so he created a Virgin, whom he had chosen to be his Mother . . . she, with pious faith, merited to receive the holy seed within her. He chose her, to be created from her. (De peccatorum meritis et remissione, 2, 24, 38; Gambero, 219)

St. Cyril of Alexandria

Hail, Mary Theotokos, Virgin-Mother, lightbearer, uncorrupt vessel . . . Hail Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of justice . . . Through you, every faithful soul achieves salvation. (Homily 11 at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus; Gambero, 243, 245)

I see the assembly of the saints, all zealously gathered together, invited by the holy Mother of God, Mary, ever-virgin . . . We hail you, O Mary Mother of God, venerable treasure of the entire world, inextinguishable lamp, crown of virginity, scepter of orthodoxy, imperishable temple, container of him who cannot be contained . . . Through you, the Holy Trinity is glorified; the precious Cross is celebrated and adored throughout the world; heaven exults, the angels and archangels rejoice, the demons are put to flight, the devil, the tempter, falls from heaven, the fallen creation is brought back to paradise, all creatures trapped in idolatry come to know of the truth. (Homily IV Preached at Ephesus Against Nestorius; Gambero, 247-248)

Theodotus

"Hail, O full of grace, the Lord is with you, you are blessed" (Lk 1:28), O most beautiful and most noble among women. The Lord is with you, O all-holy one, glorious and good. The Lord is with you, O worthy of praise, O incomparable, O more than glorious, all splendor, worthy of God, worthy of all blessedness . . . spouse of God, divinely nourished treasure. To you I announce neither a conception in wickedness nor a birth in sin; instead, I bring the joy that puts an end to Eve's sorrow. To you I proclaim neither a trying pregnancy nor a painful delivery . . . Through you, Eve's odious condition is ended; through you, abjection has been destroyed; through you, error is dissolved; through you, sorrow is abolished; through you, condemnation has been erased. Through you, Eve has been redeemed. (On the Mother of God and the Nativity; Gambero, 271)

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns. (Homily VI, 11; O’Carroll, 339)

If iron, once joined to fire, immediately expels the impurities extraneous to its nature and swiftly acquires a likeness to the powerful flame that heats it, . . . how much more, in a superior way, did the Virgin burn when the divine fire (the Holy Spirit) rushed in? She was purified from earthly impurities, and from whatever might be against her nature, and was restored to her original beauty, so as to become inaccessible, untouchable, and irreconcilable to carnal things. (Homily 4, 6; Gambero, 264)

Innocent virgin, spotless, without defect, untouched, unstained, holy in body and in soul, like a lily-flower sprung among thorns, unschooled in the wickedness of Eve . . . clothed with divine grace as with a cloak . . . (Homily 6, 11; Gambero, 268)

Pope St. Leo the Great

For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother, and the infused power of the Divine Spirit had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself . . . (Sermon XXII: On the Feast of the Nativity, Part II; NPNF 2, Vol. XII)

St. Sophronius

Others before you have flourished with outstanding holiness. But to none as to you has the fullness of grace been given. None has been endowed with happiness as you, none adorned with holiness like yours, none brought to such great magnificence as yours; no one was ever possessed beforehand by purifying grace as were you . . . And this deservedly, for no one came as close to God as you did; no one was enriched with God's gifts as you were; no one shared God's grace as you did. (In SS Deip. Annunt. 22; O'Carroll, 329)

St. Andrew of Crete

Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God. . . . The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation. (Homily 1 on Mary’s Nativity; O’Carroll, 180)

. . . alone wholly without stain . . . (Canon for the Conception of Anne; Graef, 152)

St. John Damascene

O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew. (Homily I on the Nativity of Mary; O’Carroll, 200; cf. Graef, 154; Gambero, 402)

So according to John of Damascus, even the “active” conception of Mary was completely without stain, panamomos – a view which goes far beyond the terms of the later definition of the doctrine and was open to the objections raised against it by the schoolmen.

(Graef, 154)

She is all beautiful, all near to God. For she, surpassing the cherubim, exalted beyond the seraphim, is placed near to God. (Homily on the Nativity, 9; Gambero, 403)

SOURCES

Gambero, Luigi, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, Thomas Buffer, translator, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, revised edition of 1999.

Graef, Hilda, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, vol. 1 [to the Reformation], New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963.

Jurgens, William A., editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, three volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970 and 1979 (2^nd and 3^rd volumes).

Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978.

O'Carroll, Michael, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Wilmington, Delaware: M. Glazier, 1982.

Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, translated by Patrick Lynch, edited in English by James Canon Bastible, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1974, from the fourth edition of 1960 (originally 1952 in German).

Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600 (“HCC 3”), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, from the revised fifth edition of 1910.

Schaff, Philip, editor, Early Church Fathers: Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers Series 1 (“NPNF 1”), 14 volumes, originally published in Edinburgh, 1889, available online: http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Schaff, Philip & Henry Wace, editors, Early Church Fathers: Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers Series 2 (“NPNF 2”), 14 volumes, originally published in Edinburgh, 1900, available online: http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

* * * * *

As to the "these were late fathers" Protestant polemical canard, this proves too much, since one has to realize that many doctrines that Protestants accept (even very key ones to them) often took many hundreds of years to fully develop, as well:

1) The canon of Scripture: not finalized till 397, and it included the Deuterocanon, which Protestants (inconsistently) reject.

2) The Two Natures of Christ: dogmatized in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. Further controversies over whether Christ had one of two wills (Monothelitism; the orthodox doctrine holds that He had two wills) went on for a few centuries more.

3) Original sin: this was finalized in dogma so late that it wasn't part of the Nicene Creed, and Cardinal Newman noted that the fathers wrote much more about purgatory than about original sin.

4) Sola Scriptura: one of the two pillars of the "Reformation" is virtually absent from the fathers. I have over 100 pages on this issue in my book on the fathers. This doesn't seem to give Protestants any pause, yet the Marian doctrines with regard to the fathers does. Why?

5) Sola fide (faith alone): also virtually nonexistent in the fathers, as Protestant scholars such as Geisler and McGrath have admitted.

Furthermore, many doctrines that many Protestants reject are almost unanimously or largely held by the fathers, such as baptismal regeneration, episcopal Church government (bishops), the papacy, real presence in the Eucharist, perpetual virginity of Mary, the sacrifice of the Mass, penance, purgatory, prayers for the dead, the communion of saints, veneration of the saints, theosis, etc.

It's a tough road to be a Protestant who values Church history (as, particularly, traditional Anglicans and Lutherans do), and thinks that the Church fathers were more Protestant than they were Catholic. That's a miserably losing battle every time. But I give anyone who attempts it a lot of points for chutzpah and admirable zeal. St. Augustine's beliefs are also very instructive in this regard:

St. Augustine Was a CATHOLIC, Not a Proto-Protestant

St. Augustine: Are Reformed Protestants or Catholics Closer Theologically to His Teaching?

The Ambiguous Relationship of Luther and the Early Protestants to St. Augustine (with Dr. Edwin Tait)

St. Augustine's Belief in the Real Presence

Clarifications (Under Fire), of St. Augustine's Eucharistic Doctrine, and a Counter-Challenge to Protestants Who Try to "Co-Opt" Him

"C'mon! Catholics Gotta Believe All That the Catholic Church Teaches?"

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)

We call these doctrines that all Catholics must accept de fide dogmas (or in some cases, ex cathedra). In a nutshell, though there are fine (sometimes very fine) distinctions that can be drawn, the Catholic is obliged, in the nature of the case, to accept all that the Church teaches. And that is because it is an act of faith to accept the notion that the Catholic Church is the One True Church established by Jesus Christ, historically continuous, universal, specially protected by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of passing down the apostolic deposit. Because we accept this in faith as Catholics, it is required that we accept all that the Church teaches. To do that is itself a result of supernatural grace from God.

Protestants don't look at it that way because, first of all, they deny that the Church is infallible. Once one does that, then it is a completely new rule of faith. For Protestants, that is sola Scriptura, or the idea that Scripture is the only infallible source of faith. Therefore, it is very difficult for a Protestant to accept the notion of submitting to a Church's teaching in faith, because for them, no Church has it completely right: only the Bible does that. They often see this as virtually a violation of people's right to think for themselves or violation of one's conscience.

It's not at all: it is a recognition of our own limitations, of something higher than ourselves: established by God, and of a Christian faith that includes acknowledgment of an authoritative, infallible Church. It takes faith, and faith is a supernatural gift granted by God through His grace and the assistance of the Holy Spirit. It's not mere reason, but can be supported by reason: like all Christian dogma.

Some Protestants use the word dogma, but they generally prefer the word doctrine. Protestants, to the extent that they are serious about historic Christian doctrine, do, of course, require a set of beliefs, too: just not as many as we do. I always use the example of Calvinists. A truly Calvinist denomination (Presbyterian, Reformed, in their traditional forms and belief-structures) would not allow a member to deny all five tenets of TULIP:

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

. . . or even two or three. They would no longer be considered members of the denomination, in terms of adherence to the creed of the group.

I write entire books about Catholic distinctives. There is quite a bit. It's true that most Christians can agree on something like the Nicene Creed, but even there (and this is illustrative of the problem) one has to stretch quite a bit to include even Baptists, and anyone else who denies baptismal regeneration because of the clause: "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". Thus we see that even on this broad level, there are huge differences.

There are always, it is true, people who join groups but disagree on some of the tenets. Catholics are not literally disallowed to have doubts and uncertainties in their head (the Church is not simplistic or naive about such things), but they are supposed to accept in faith all that the Church teaches, and certainly not openly oppose it, whether they fully understand everything or not.

As an analogy from my Protestant days, I attended Assemblies of God for four years (1982-1986), met many of my friends there, in the singles group, including my wife, got married there, started my old campus evangelistic ministry while there, and even decided to get "baptized" as an adult by full immersion in 1982, because that's what I believed at the time (in retrospect my true baptism was my Methodist baptism as an infant).

I never agreed with one of the 16 Fundamental Truths: the one (actually a combination of #7 and #8) that said everyone had to speak in tongues in order to receive the "enduement of power." This I felt to be expressly contrary to Paul's teaching about tongues, where he says that not all speak in tongues. Because of this, I never became a member. I was simply being honest: saying in effect: "I don't accept all 16 Truths that I am supposed to accept, so I won't become a member, but I agree with most everything else taught."

Actually, now looking at them again, I didn't realize that #12 on divine healing was as sweeping as it was. It almost promises a healing for any true believer, which is dangerously false teaching, that has caused untold misery and suffering and deaths in many cases, because people were misunderstanding how biblical healing works, and how often it should be expected (and I opposed that general teaching in writing in 1982; it is on my site today).

That gets back to our subject at hand: what to do when you disagree with something in the church you attend? If we say we are Catholics, then it should be understood that we accept all Church teaching, and are not reserving the right to express private judgment in dissent against the Church. To say that one is a member of the Assemblies of God is to accept the 16 Fundamental Truths, which is pretty much its confession. I did not, so I didn't become a member. I was not trying to be controversial; I was being true to myself, and, I think (then and now) to St. Paul's teaching, that I believe contradicts Assembly of God teaching.

Private judgment as a concept is itself a distinctively Protestant notion, basically stemming from Luther's dissent. See my papers:

The Logical Circularity and Hidden Premises of Sola Scriptura

Catholic vs. Protestant Conceptions of the Meaning and Consequences of Private Judgment (Including Lengthy Citations From Reformed Protestants Arthur W. Pink, Archibald Bruce, and Charles Hodge, Four Protestant Confessions, and Catholic John Henry Newman)

Private Judgment: Its Meaning and How it is Viewed by Protestants and Catholics

Refutation of the Common Protestant Polemical Charge That Catholics Inconsistently & Arbitrarily Apply Private Judgment in Accepting Catholicism (+ Discussion)

Protestant Ecclesiology and Epistemology is Always Ultimately Self-Defeating

The Catholic Church doesn't expect everyone to have perfect faith or knowledge and to fully understand every jot and tittle. But the Church expects a humble submission to that which has been established and held from the beginning (with development of doctrine and increased understanding along the way). See my articles:

Is a Catholic at Liberty to Selectively Choose Which Catholic Dogmas He Will Abide By?

On the Scandal of a Church Outrageously Claiming to be a Church

On Whether God Could, Would, or Should Protect His Church From Doctrinal Error (vs. Dr. Edwin Tait: Anglican)

There are always , despite all these considerations, people who are "in" a group but not totally "of" it. Many times, they don't properly understand the teachings of their own group. Other times, they do understand full well, and disagree, as I did in the Assemblies of God. I did what I felt was the only honest thing, and did not ever become a member, because that would entail ostensible agreement with a tenet that I did not accept. It would be dishonest.

There is still a vast difference between the situation with Catholic dissenters or liberals or modernists and the situation found in Protestant denominations adopting wholesale liberalism and heterodoxy "officially." We have not done that. That is the difference. One can only look at what a group officially teaches. I wrote about this oft-made comparison, too: Dissident Catholics and Catholic Doctrinal Unity: A Contradiction?

I've given the more nutshell version of how a Catholic explains this very important consideration in the Catholic life. If a person really really wants to get into it (be forewarned!) there are nuances and complexities on a more "fine-tuned" level that are often vastly misunderstood and falsely portrayed by our esteemed "progressive" Catholics that we are blessed with (like mosquitoes) in our ranks. I wrote about this in the following (long!) paper: Vatican II: Is it Orthodox and Binding? / The Infallibility and Sublime Authority of Conciliar and Papal Decrees / Different Levels of Church Authority.

Also, the related question of conscience is dealt with in this paper: Conscience: The Catholic Church's (and Newman's) View.

To make this concept of "accepting all that the Church teaches" fairly simple and practical, Catholics are not at liberty to disagree with, for example, what is included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It was promulgated under Pope John Paul II in 1992, accompanied by the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, which stated in part:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. . . .

Therefore, I ask all the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

Catholic Resources on Jehovah's Witnesses

Charles Taze Russell: founder of Jehovah's Witnesses: in 1911

Fellowship of Catholic Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses

A Catholic Critique of Jehovah's Witnesses (Knights of Columbus: 1963)

Jehovah's Witnesses: A Catholic Response (Catholics United for the Faith)

Apologetic Podcasts and Conversion Story Podcasts (Catholic Ex-JWs)

Answering Jehovah's Witnesses (book by Jason Evert)

The Catholic Answer to the Jehovah's Witnesses: A Challenge Accepted (book by Louise D'Angelo)

Jehovah's Witnesses: "The Apocalyptic Arians": A Biblical and Historical Critique (+ Part Two) (Dave Armstrong)

Dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness on the Deity of Christ and Trinitarianism: Direct Statements of Jesus' Equality With God the Father: Jesus Own Words (+ Part Two) (Dave Armstrong)

Jesus is God: Biblical Proofs (Dave Armstrong)

The Holy Trinity: Biblical Proofs (Dave Armstrong)

Radio Talk on Jehovah's Witnesses From My Protestant Days (1989) (Dave Armstrong)

Jehovah's Witness to Catholic conversion stories: written and audio (scroll down to alphabetical "Jehovah's Witness" category on the left)

Collection of Conversion Stories of Ex-JWs (Fellowship of Catholic Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses)

Is Your Hope Bible-Based? Questions and Reflections For Jehovah's Witnesses (Dave Brown)

Jehovah's Witnesses--Do They Teach What the Bible Really Teaches? A Critical Evaluation of the Watchtower's Book "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" (Dave Brown)

Hiding the Divine Name (Dave Brown)

No Heavenly Hope for the Old Testament Saints? (Dave Brown)

Is Jesus Yahweh? (Dave Brown)

1914: True Prophecy or False Prophecy? (Dave Brown)

"And the Word Was God" (Jeffery Schwehm)

Welcome to the Universal (Catholic) Family of God (conversion story by Jeffery Schwehm)

How to Become a Jehovah's Witness (Kenneth Guindon: Envoy)

The God or a god? (Mark Brumley; This Rock)

How Many True Gods Are There, Anyway? (Mark Brumley; This Rock)

The Witnesses: Masters of Misquotation (Mark Brumley; This Rock)

You Can't Be Right: A Jehovah's Witness Confronts the Truth (Victor R. Claveau; This Rock)

Shunned by Kingdom Hall (Bradley R. Lewis; This Rock)

History of the Jehovah's Witnesses (This Rock)

Are They Awake on the Watchtower? (This Rock)

Distinctive Beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses (This Rock)

The God of the Jehovah's Witnesses (This Rock)

Strategies of the Jehovah's Witnesses (This Rock)

Stumpers For the Jehovah's Witnesses (This Rock)

More Stumpers For the Jehovah's Witnesses (This Rock)

Who Are the Jehovah's Witnesses? (Canon Francis J. Ripley: This Rock)

What Jehovah's Witnesses Believe (Canon Francis J. Ripley: This Rock)

Christ's Divinity Proved by the JW Bible (Joel S. Peters; This Rock)

Pastor Russell (Cathleen A. Koenig; This Rock)

"Judge" Rutherford (Cathleen A. Koenig; This Rock)

Talking to Jehovah's Witnesses (Jason Evert; This Rock)

Five Don'ts For Dealing With Jehovah's Witnesses (Joel S. Peters; This Rock)

Does the Watch Tower Society Speak For God? (Joel S. Peters; This Rock)

The Watchtower's Flickering Light (Joel S. Peters; This Rock)

Cross or Torture Stake? (Clayton F. Bower, Jr.; This Rock)

JWs and Blood Transfusions (This Rock)

History and Techniques of the Jehovah's Witnesses (This Rock)

An Abomination to the Lord: How the Watchtower Relied on a Spiritist’s Bible Translation (Fr. Mitch Pacwa: This Rock)

Talking to Jehovah's Witnesses: Fictional Dialogue Between a Catholic and JW (Dean Mischewski)

Incredible Creed of the Jehovah's Witnesses (Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble)

What Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe? (Fr. William Saunders)

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower (David Wesley)

Additional (Wholly or Partially) Non-Catholic Helpful Resources

Helpful Research Links

Were the Early Christians Jehovah's Witnesses? (+ Part Two) (Robert U. Finnerty)

The Watchtower and the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers (Michael J. Partyka)

Nicene Christology and an Introduction to the Trinitarian Theology of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Matt Paulson)

Yes! You Should Believe in the Trinity (Witness, Inc.)

Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse (online book by David A. Reed)

Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Subject by Subject (online book by David A. Reed)

A Critical Guide to Watchtower Publications (online book by David A. Reed)

"Proclaimers" Answered Page by Page (David A. Reed)

Bible Answers For Jehovah's Witnesses (David A. Reed)

Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum.com

Protestant Website and Organizational Outreaches to Jehovah's Witnesses

Witness, Inc.

Comments From the Friends (David A. Reed)

AnswerJW.com (David A. Reed)

Biblical (Pauline) Evidence For the Catholic Examination of Conscience

From: John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary, Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1980, 199):

Examination of Conscience

Reflection in God's presence on one's state of soul, e.g., in preparation for the sacrament of penance.

Examen, General

Prayerful daily periodic examination of one's conscience to determine what faults have been committed, which call for repentance, and what good actions were performed, for which God should be thanked.

Examen, Particular

Regular prayerful examination of one's conscience by concentrating on some one particular moral failing to be overcome or virtue to be exercised. Its focus is on such external manifestations of the fault or virtue as can be remembered for periodic inventory. Particular examens are changed weekly, monthly, or otherwise in order to ensure maximum attention. They are also commonly associated with some brief invocation for divine assistance, as occasions arise for avoiding a sin or acting on a virtue. And after some time another cycle may be started of the same defects that this person has to conquer or good habits he or she needs to develop.

On the CHNI board, an evangelical Protestant woman (not skeptical at all but very open) asked about Catholic devotional practices, such as the scapular and Rosary and fasting, and how to not allow these to degenerate into "good luck charms" and efforts to control the world.

One of the best treatments that I recall of the exact question she raised (the danger of sacramental practices descending into mere superstition and "good luck charms") was in two replies in This Rock magazine concerning the scapular (November 1992 and January 1993) and correct and incorrect understandings of it.

I think these two treatments hit the nail right on the head. Sure, any practice can become rote or separated from its essence, so that folks rely on it rather than God: towards Whom the practice was designed to foster worship and closeness. That's why we Catholics believe in being very self-aware and "vigilant" in the spiritual life: we're always examining ourselves to make sure that our hearts are oriented towards God (as a result -- always -- of God's grace, that we must seek and ask for).

This very self-examination is what Protestants sometimes critique and scorn as "uncertainty of salvation," as if it were a bondage or something undesirable, or altogether lacking in the hope and joy and peace that we have in Christ. Not at all. St. Paul expressed something that I believe is very much along these lines:

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (RSV) Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Paul also wrote to the same Corinthians about the same necessity of self-examination:

1 Corinthians 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? -- unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

If we pursue this notion, we find that the Greek word in the last two examples above ("test" in 2 Cor 13:5) is dokimazo (Strong's word #1384). In the KJV it is translated variously as examine, discern, prove, try, and approve. Here are some other NT uses of it in similar fashion (RSV):

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

2 Corinthians 8:7-8 Now as you excel in everything -- in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us -- see that you excel in this gracious work also. I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine.

2 Corinthians 8:22 And with them we are sending our brother whom we have often tested and found earnest in many matters, but who is now more earnest than ever because of his great confidence in you.

Galatians 6:4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good,

1 Timothy 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons.

"Examine" in 2 Corinthians 13:5 is a different word: pirazo (Strong's #3985), usually translated as tempt or tempted. In this case it is used in the sense of "tempting" or "testing" or "trying" oneself (i.e., examining).

My Books: Availability in University, Seminary, and Public Libraries

LC Control Number:	2003005245
Brief Description:	Armstrong, Dave, 1958- A biblical defense of Catholicism / Dave Armstrong. Manchester, N.H. : Sophia Institute Press, c2003. xviii, 297 p. ; 23 cm.
ISBN:	1928832954 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Links:	Table of contents http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip041/2003005245.html
LC Call Number:	BX1752 .A76 2003
Dewey Number:	230/.2 21

Library of Congress catalogue card for A Biblical Defense of Catholicism

[distances given are from metro Detroit]

1) A Biblical Defense of Catholicism

Link: Google Book Search: Libraries

1.	University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 United States	162 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
2.	Franciscan University of Steubenville Steubenville, OH 43952 United States	186 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
3.	Trocaire College Library Buffalo, NY 14220 United States	226 miles
	Book
4.	Marquette University - Memorial Library Milwaukee, WI 53233 United States	247 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
5.	Sacred Heart School of Theol Hales Corners, WI 53130 United States	252 miles
	Book
6.	University of St Francis Joliet, IL 60435 United States	261 miles
	Book
7.	Mount Aloysius College Library Cresson, PA 16630 United States	269 miles
	Book
8.	(LINK) South Central Library System Madison, WI 53718 United States	322 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
9.	Saint Meinrad Archabbey & School of Theol St Meinrad, IN 47577 United States	343 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
10.	Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540 United States	400 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian

11.	Illinois College Jacksonville, IL 62650 United States	408 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
12.	Iona College New Rochelle, NY 10801 United States	495 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
13.	University of St Thomas St Paul, MN 55105 United States	532 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
14.	Blessed John XXIII National Seminary Library Weston, MA 02193 United States
	Book Services: Library Information
15.	Assumption College Worcester, MA 01609 United States	581 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
16.	Harvard University, Divinity School Library Cambridge, MA 02138 United States	616 miles
	Book
17.	Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary Denton, NE 68339 United States	715 miles
	Book
18.	Saint Gregory the Great Seminary Seward, NE 68434 United States	725 miles
	Book
19.	Oklahoma City Community College Oklahoma City, OK 73159 United States	907 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
20.	Saint Leo University Saint Leo, FL 33574 United States	966 miles
	Book Services: Library Information

21.	Abilene Christian University, Brown Library Abilene, TX 79699 United States	1100 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
22.	Douglas County Libraries Castle Rock, CO 80104 United States	1100 miles
	Book
23.	West Texas A&M University, Cornette Library Canyon, TX 79016 United States	1100 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
24.	Downey City Library Downey, CA 90241 United States	1900 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
25.	Masters Seminary Library Sun Valley, CA 91352 United States	1900 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
26.	Alibris Emeryville, CA 94608 United States	2000 miles
	Book
27.	Campion College Australia Toongabbie, NSW 2146 Australia	9400 miles
	Book

[see also seven libraries that carry the original 2001 edition]

2) The Catholic Verses

Link: Google Book Search: Libraries

1.	Univ of Toronto St Michael's College Library Toronto, ON M5S 1J4 Canada	214 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
2.	InfoSoup (Northeast WI Public Libraries) Appleton, WI 54911 United States	297 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
3.	Washington Research Library Consortium Washington, DC 20064 United States	398 miles
	Book
4.	Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540 United States	400 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
5.	Atlantic County Library Mays Landing, NJ 08330 United States	485 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
6.	University of St Thomas St Paul, MN 55105 United States	532 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
7.	Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary Denton, NE 68339 United States	715 miles
	Book
8.	Ave Maria University Ave Maria, FL 34142 United States	1100 miles
	Book
9.	Douglas County Libraries Castle Rock, CO 80104 United States	1100 miles
	Book
10.	Saint John Vianney Seminary, Denver Denver, CO 80210 United States	1100 miles
	Book Services: Library Information

11.	Alibris Emeryville, CA 94608 United States	2000 miles
	Book

3) The One-Minute Apologist

Link: Google Book Search: Libraries

1.	Cleveland Public Library Cleveland, OH 44114 United States	94 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
2.	Lakeland Library Cooperative Grand Rapids, MI 41383 United States
	Book Services: Library Information
3.	Trocaire College Library Buffalo, NY 14220 United States	226 miles
	Book
4.	Saint Mary's Seminary & University Library Baltimore, MD 21210 United States	398 miles
	Book
5.	Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540 United States	400 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
6.	University of Manitoba Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2 Canada	846 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
7.	Longmont Public Library Longmont, CO 80501 United States	1100 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
8.	Nova Southeastern University Ft Lauderdale, FL 33314 United States	1100 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
9.	University of Saskatchewan Library Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A4 Canada	1200 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
10.	University of British Columbia Library Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1 Canada	1900 miles
	Book Services: Library Information

11.	Alibris Emeryville, CA 94608 United States	2000 miles
	Book

4) The Catholic Answer Bible

Link: Google Book Search: Libraries

1.	Cleveland Public Library Cleveland, OH 44114 United States	94 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
2.	Allen County Public Library Ft Wayne, IN 46801 United States	132 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
3.	University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 United States	162 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
4.	CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL UNION Chicago, IL 60615 United States	230 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
5.	Lansing Public Library Lansing, IL 60438 United States	230 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
6.	Kenosha County Library System Kenosha, WI 53141 United States	238 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
7.	Muskego Public Library Muskego, WI 53150 United States	255 miles
	Book
8.	Algonquin Area Public Library District Algonquin, IL 60102 United States	262 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
9.	Huntley Area Public Library District Huntley, IL 60142 United States	269 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
10.	Fr. Leonard Alvey Library Owensboro, KY 42301 United States	378 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian

11.	Woodstock Theol Center Washington, DC 20057 United States	396 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
12.	Madisonville Community College Madisonville, KY 42431 United States	412 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
13.	Hayner Public Library District Alton, IL 62002 United States	435 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
14.	St. Charles Borromeo Seminary Wynnewood, PA 19096 United States	441 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
15.	Saint Louis University, Pius Xii Library St Louis, MO 63108 United States	449 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
16.	Aquinas College Nashville, TN 37205 United States	470 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
17.	Blessed John XXIII National Seminary Library Weston, MA 02193 United States
	Book Services: Library Information
18.	Oklahoma Baptist University Shawnee, OK 74804 United States	875 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
19.	Lawton Public Library Lawton, OK 73501 United States	978 miles
	Book Services: Library Information Ask a librarian
20.	Alibris Emeryville, CA 94608 United States	2000 miles
	Book

5) More Biblical Evidence For Catholicism (original 2002 edition)

Link: Google Book Search: Libraries

1.	Univ of Toronto St Michael's College Library Toronto, ON M5S 1J4 Canada	214 miles
	Book Services: Library Information
2.	Univ du Quebec a Montreal Montreal, QC H3C 3P3 Canada	528 miles
	Book
3.	Suffolk Cooperative Library System Bellport, NY 11713 United States	540 miles
	Book
4.	Saint John Vianney Seminary, Denver Denver, CO 80210 United States	1100 miles
	Book Services: Library Information

Bishop James White's and Other Anti-Catholics' Double Standards on "Lying" and "Liars" in the Service of Apologetics (Adoption of Moral Relativism)

Anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist Bishop James White wrote recently (on 7-11-08):

. . . another example of the kind of rhetoric Art Sippo cranks out with gut-wrenching regularity. Ironically, Sippo was defending his very broad use of the term "lie." Anyone who disagrees with Sippo is a liar, plain and simple. Protestants, in particular, are liars, as we will see, even if they are holding a sincerely held (and perfectly defensible) viewpoint. It's still a lie, and they are liars. Now what is almost humorous is that I have heard this kind of argument before. It came from the lips of...Michael Moore. Yes, the likewise gut-wrenching socialist leftist film-maker was on a program defending his use of the term "lie" and "liar" in the exact same way Sippo does, refusing to recognize the necessary difference between "I disagree with your position" and "you are lying." Ironic, isn't it?

The good bishop has stated similarly in the past:

One of the things that came out in Miki's comments on the program yesterday and that is representational of many others in the Catholic apologetics community is this: she mentioned purgatory as an example of where I have misrepresented Rome. Yet, when I pressed, what she really meant was that I say Rome is wrong about purgatory. The fact that in her thinking to disagree with Rome must mean that I am lying and dishonest needs to be understood. This explains the twisting of language itself and why she, and many others, do not even bother to show non-Catholics enough respect to read their primary works or check their facts. This also explains their willingness to use every form of ad-hominem argument, spread rumors without doing fact-checking, etc. It's ugly, but it is the way of Rome.

( 9-20-06 )

Yet Bishop White has done the same thing he is decrying now on his blog, to the very person he is lambasting in his present article:

Anyone who has read the book cannot help but realize Sippo hasn't, or, if he has, he is desperately dishonest.

( 2-25-05 )

Yesterday we noted further examples of the means by which Roman Catholic apologists in the tradition of Art Sippo engage in simply dishonest and inaccurate argumentation so as to maintain their audiences.

( 8-6-05 )

The reasoning appears to be:

1) X (above all, a despised "Romanist") performs sinful act A.

2) I (James White) also commit sinful act A (including -- quite hypocritically and ironically -- at the expense of the same person whom I accused of, and excoriated for committing sin A).

3) But when I do it, it ain't a sin, because I am a good Calvinist and we can do the same stuff that other folks who falsely claim to be Christians cannot do.

4) Therefore, sinful act A is sinful and not sinful at the same time.

5) Thus, A does not equal A (the first rule of logic).

6) A is sinful when Romanists do it and A isn't sinful when good Calvinists like me do it.

7) Ergo, ethics and morality are determined by the situation and also depend on who is doing the action (relativism and situation ethics as opposed to absolute biblical ethics).

8) HUH???!!!

Bishop White extends the same courtesy and hypocrisy to yours truly:

Mr. Armstrong has provided a reading list on his blog. In essence, this means that instead of blaming ignorance for his very shallow misrepresentations of non-Catholic theology and exegesis, we must now assert knowing deception.

( 12-31-04 )

And also in at least eight more instances against other Catholics, Catholic groups, and indeed Catholic apologists en masse:

Any serious or even honest review of my use of the citation would indicate this: Rutland ignores it. . . . What is deceptive is Bill Rutland ignoring the context in which I placed the citation, which removes the ground of his allegation.

( 8-6-05 )

While a picture like that in the article would have been seen as clear evidence of the Pope's deception a hundred years ago, today you will hardly find any serious "Protestant" leader criticizing such activities, . . .

( 9-2-06 )

Phil [Porvaznik] knows he is being dishonest here, and he simply does not care.

( 3-26-07 )

If you want an incredible example of self-deception and suppression of truth, here's one from this morning. You will recall that I noted the less-than-honest and accurate words of one California attorney, Peter Sean Bradley. First, I replied to his comments on the Beckwith situation here. I walked through his entire article and responded to, and refuted, each point. Then, a little later, I replied to another article of his, here, demonstrating he could not even accurately identify the authors of the articles he was addressing . . .

( 5-9-07 )

Speaking of which, I will be playing clips from the 7/31 Catholic Answers Live radio program. They are now advertising the Steve Gregg/Tim Staples "debate" (it was a radio program, not a debate) along with the "Bible Answer Man Debate with noted Anti-Catholic James White." Note that I'm an anti-Catholic, but Steve Gregg isn't. Starting to get an idea of just how malleable, and in fact, simply dishonest CA is about its use of such slurs?

( 8-1-07 )

A Call to Roman Catholic Apologists to Repent of the Use of Simple Dishonesty in Their Presentations [title]

( 8-22-07 )

See the spin? It is not done very well, but when you've been so clearly refuted, there is not much more you can do than to play games like this. Notice he never once accurately represents even his own words (how difficult it must be to engage in such self-deception!) . . . he is willing to dishonestly assert . . . no honest person could ever bring himself to say such a thing, but as I have pointed out, it is the essence of Romanism to defend Rome at all costs, and one's personal integrity and honesty is surely the first casualty. . . . I wonder where the honest Roman Catholic apologists are?

( 8-26-07; against Steve Ray)

Steve Ray Posts His "Reply": A Study in Dishonesty [title]

What he has actually posted in this blog article is more than enough to demonstrate that he is intent upon engaging in the most egregious forms of spin and smoke-and-mirrors to attempt to rescue any shred of credibility he might have as an apologist. . . . It is dishonest at best for Ray to falsely accuse me of saying things I have never said, and adopting positions I have never endorsed, promoted, or enunciated. . . . When representing others, the truthful writer can quote that person, in context. Steve Ray can't do that. Why? Because he's peddling lies, and he is fully aware of it. This is not just a mistake on his part, he is purposefully lying to his readers. . . .

So how do Romanists get around being refuted? Attack the person who refuted you. Call him a "petty pope" and liken him to a "rabid dog." Then change the subject. Make something up like "He thinks its great for there to be division in the body of Christ!" and hope your followers are as utterly unconcerned about the truth as you are, . . .

Of course, the person who is actually concerned about truth, and who wants to know if you will honestly admit that you have been using a number that is over 300% above even the number in your actual source, which you claim to own, now have their response: no, you will not even admit to misrepresenting documented facts! . . . it is always sad to see anyone sell themselves out to error and engage in this kind of gross dishonesty.

( 8-27-07 )

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.

( 1-19-08 )

We see, then, the inimitable Bishop White accusing of deliberate deception and lying the following individual Catholics and groups:

Dr. Art Sippo (apologist)

Dave Armstrong (apologist)

Bill Rutland (apologist)

Pope Benedict XVI (the Holy Father)

Phil Porvaznik (apologist)

Peter Sean Bradley (attorney)

Catholic Answers (apologetic organization)

Catholic apologists en masse

Steve Ray (apologist)

Gary Michuta (apologist)

Some of Bishop White's best buddies in the anti-Catholic Protestant community exhibit the same bigoted mentality. For example, Dr. Eric Svendsen:

RC apologists will do or say just about anything--true or not--to advance their cause. They engage in the strategy of deception regularly.

(on his Areopagus board: 4-27-03)

[W]e have experience with those who use the "strategy of deceit" to mislead people down the road to a false gospel.

(on his Areopagus board: 6-4-03)

. . . strategy of deceit that he [yours truly] uses all the time . . .

(1-11-05)

[T]he "nature" of his apology was insincerity . . . That's the "strategy of deceit" that Paul refers to in Ephesians 4.

(1-13-05)

. . . He has no problem with lying, so long as he thinks he can pin that same charge on someone else;that way he doesn't "appear" to be lying. What a sad spectacle.

(1-14-05)

. . . DA's strategy of deceit, . . .

(1-14-05)

What's my "lack of charity" got to do with DA's lack of honesty? Nothing. . . . that's just what DA does best--he deceives, and he usually accomplishes that by focusing on half-truths (that's the "strategy of deceit" that marks the heretic).

(1-15-05)

Now that DA knows his criticism is baseless, we can no doubt expect him to respond with the usual weaseling of how hes still right even though hes been corrected.

(4-1-04)

Svendsen has also described me as a "lunatic":

Every once in a while my mischievous side takes over and ignores my better judgment not to get involved with with apologetic and theological lunatics. It's a fine line when you're involved in apologetics. You must, with the NT writers, sometimes deal with the messenger as well as the message. In the case of DA, it's almost as though his loony statements are a cartoon punchline waiting to happen.

( 5-5-05 )

Pastor David T. King (the rudest, most obnoxious Christian, bar none, that I've ever had the pleasure to encounter) follows suit as well:

I already have a very low view of the integrity of non-Protestants in general, . . . most of you are too dishonest to admit what you really think.

(on Eric Svendsen's Areopagus board, 4-15-03)

It is a typical Roman Catholic tactic to misrepresent one's opponent purposely in order to "name and claim" a victory.

(on Eric Svendsen's Areopagus board, 6-5-03)

All that one can conclude from these remarkable and outrageous juxtapositions is that Bishop White and his anti-Catholic cronies exercise one standard for others and a different one for themselves, when they commit the same sins they excoriate in other people; rather like both the Pharisees of old and the secularist moral relativists of our illustrious times. Pray, folks.

* * * * *

I obviously hit a nerve. Here is the good Bishop's reply ( 7-11-08 ). When White's atrocious ethics and hypocrisies are exposed from his own words and behavior, he attacks. What else could he do? Well, he could repent of the sin, but that's not happening soon. Don't anyone hold their breath for that. Here's some stone classic "anti-DA" White boilerplate rhetoric / sophistry (with my humorous fisking in red and brackets):

I couldn't help but notice [right. Of course no one alerted White to my post] Dave Armstrong had to demonstrate that he, like Sippo, lacks the same basic cognitive capacity [it took less than one sentence for Jimbo to get to his usual attacking of my "basic" intelligence]. Once again using his "play with pictures" technique of apologetics [how did I "play"? I simply posted! I didn't do one thing with his photo!], Armstrong accused me of doing the very thing Sippo was doing [of course, because it happens to be undeniably true. I'm kind o' fond o' truth]. But, to make his case, he actually had to cite me [wow! imagine that!], and the truly sad and embarrassing thing for Armstrong [yes, I'm always embarrassing myself] is, anyone who reads what I said will notice that Armstrong "just doesn't get it." [that's right. Few who disagree with the good bishop ever do "get it"] Being able to differentiate between a difference of opinion and saying someone is a liar does not require you to believe that dishonesty does not exist in the world. All the examples he gave lacked the one thing they needed to be relevant: a logical parallel to the actual case at hand. [prove it (preferably without your usual sophistry)] This is why I do not bother with Armstrong any longer [White is so intent on ignoring me altogether that he has done posts about me on 7-14-06 / 4-7-07 / 4-12-07 / 6-14-07 / 6-15-07 / 6-21-07 / 7-12-07 / 8-3-07 / 8-25-07 / 9-7-07 / 12-29-07 / 2-19-08 and 2-20-08. His sidekick John Q. Doe has also been allowed (weirdly enough) to write about me on White's blog on 4-26-07 / 6-18-07 / 6-24-07 / 10-4-07 / 1-4-08 and 5-30-08. That's only 14 articles in the 16 months from April 2007 till July 2008 (or 20 if we count Doe too: more than one per month average). But it's obvious that White no longer "bother[s]" with me.]: not only has his incapacity as a serious writer or apologist been documented far too many times over the years here [White playbook code for "I ran from Armstrong's challenges by using my trademark 'he's too stupid to bother with' excuse"], but the simple fact is that he is sort of like the Wall-E of Catholic apologists [yet another new insult. Congrats, Jimbo! I was wondering what the next one would be; endless variety!]: he gathers bits and pieces from here and there and cobbles them together [sort of like the Epicureans accused St. Paul of doing, on Mars Hill in Athens], often without sufficient background or knowledge to understand how they should or could be related [because I'm such an inveterate dolt, dunce, and dope], and then adds a generous helping of self-citation and a mountain of excess verbiage [you mean like your buddy Turretinfan's 56,000 word, 182 page response to an "anti-Calvinist" on the parable of the sower?] to give the appearance of substance [always. This is standard White polemic where I am concerned: "if you can't answer, obfuscate and divert attention from the actual subject"] Unfortunately, he lacks Wall-E's adorable personality, or, at least, big eyes. [hey! my wife would dispute that!] Armstrong knows he only has one "safe" place in this world, behind his keyboard [is that like the old Simon and Garfunkel song, I am a Rock?]: he will never, ever venture out in the real world [ah, yes. Writing ain't the real world: an odd observation indeed, coming from a guy who has some 15 or more published books, just as I do. White spends lots of time in the "fake" world, too] to face those he so confidently mocks in real debate [who determined that all debate is non-written? I've never heard such a thing. Besides, I've challenged Bishop White twice to a real-time debate in a chat room and he refused twice. Knowing his fear of such things, I even offered him an exclusively "double cross-ex" format (that he praises all the time) and more time for questioning than I would get. Why did he say no? What's he so scared of, anyway? Here's his golden opportunity to make mincemeat of me before the world and prove I am an idiot and an imbecile, like he's been saying for 13 years, and he refuses?]. So while I'm sure he will get his six-months worth of satisfaction for having been noted again [I'm ecstatic! Being noticed by an intellectually-suicidal coward and master of every kind of personal insult has made my day. How can I top this?], I truly wonder if he realizes just how often he documents his own failure to provide a consistent and compelling case? [there's some classic White put-down, folks. Hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Meanwhile, my criticism remains intact and untouched for all to see. White has shown the world once again that he is a moral relativist]

Apologia For Lengthy Papers

This issue comes up now and then: this time in private correspondence. Here's my reply.

* * * * *

I think periodic complaints about the length of my writing are very much overdone as a criticism. I'm a thinker. I always write as much as I think is necessary to drive home whatever point I am making. You can observe that in this very letter. If there are four different ways to make an argument, I'll do all four, because that makes my case stronger and that much less able to be refuted.

And when one is defending the Church and spiritual and theological truth, I think those qualities are virtues, not vices. It's not like I'm writing about sports or the weather or something. These things (matters of faith) have eternal consequences and supreme importance. And so I write a post like one of my better-known ones: 150 Reasons Why I am a Catholic. You might say, "15 reasons would have more than sufficed." 15 is indeed good, but 150 is much better, which is the point. 150 reasons have a strong cumulative impact on the reader, which was precisely my goal: just keep piling on reason after reason, until the reader is overwhelmed with the number of things that Catholicism can offer over against its alternatives. It's almost a psychological goal as much as theological (starting from the very title). The good writer finds ways to persuade that go beyond the content in terms of ideas.

Secondly, on another less "weighty" level I understand that some people will think I put in too many words. That's fine. How can a writer possibly please everyone, anyway? It's silly for anyone to think that a writer can do that or come anywhere close. I always say, too, that if someone doesn't care for my writing, either its content or style, then I'm the first to tell them to find someone else who is more agreeable to their tastes. Different strokes.

This doesn't offend me at all, anymore than a blonde should be offended when a man prefers dark-haired women (that's me!!!), or Mozart should take offense because I often find him boring and am a lover of the romantic bombast of Wagner, or the champion Detroit Red Wings should be hurt because I couldn't care less about hockey (but love most other sports: both to watch and to play).

Thirdly, those who object to long posts of mine seem to be unaware that I have also done a ton of stuff that specializes in brevity. Two of my books are completely of this nature (The One-Minute Apologist and the bestselling New Catholic Answer Bible notes: both devoted to very short, summary explanations, with two and one-page sections, respectively). I've even compiled a list of my shorter posts:

33 Short Apologetics Papers For the Time-Challenged

Several times I've done playful posts replying to anti-Catholic critics who make this charge (desperate, for lack of any rational counter-reply), proving that the very ones who make the charge outwrite me literally by a 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 margin; sometimes even more than that. For example:

Anti-Catholics Poised to Utilize the "Too Long to Respond" Canard (Gene M. Bridges and "Saint & Sinner" [?] / The Hyper-Lengths of Steve Hays)

Double Standards On Lengthiness of Papers (Steve Hays' & Frank Turk's Gargantuan Output)

Perhaps the most hilarious example of this double standard is anti-Catholic writer, The Anonymous One (TAO). He once complained about one of my papers:

. . . that's 27 pages if printed on normal paper and adjusting font size up from 8.5 to 12, and there were plenty of off-topic excursions . . . frequently off-topic post . . .

(10-3-07)

The same person posted a ridiculously, breathtakingly long reply three months later to one challenge from one person that "generally focuse[d] on an exegesis of the parable of the sower." Now, how many words do you think that would require? One parable!!! Are you sitting down? It comes out to 56,103 words, or 182 pages in Times New Roman 12 font, with appropriate margins (the same I font and format I use with my Lulu books): all in response to someone's challenge regarding one parable. And this guy and other anti-Catholics want to complain about my lengthiness? This is perhaps the most absurd multiplying of words, on a limited topic at that, that I've ever seen anyone arguing theology on the Internet, write. This writing machine should be put to work revising a huge dictionary or a concordance. His talents mustn't be wasted!

I even did a satire of my voluminous output:

Making Fun of Myself: Paperback [Blogosphere] Writer

I've written seriously about this isssue in the past, too:

Why I Write "Long" Papers: A Short Apologia

The general trend in my writing is actually towards shorter entries, because I'm doing less dialogues than I used to (and I simply have less energy, as I approach the big 5-0: on the 30th of this month). In dialogue I answer my opponents point-by-point, so that requires a LOT of writing.

Fourthly, it's silly to criticize someone simply for length, when the far more important thing is the content of the writing: whether it is good or bad, and constructive and helpful to people.

Lastly, while various folks (nothing personal!) criticize my voluminous output and lengthiness, I continue to:

1) have three bestselling books in their field (Top 100), according to amazon lists (one of them, ironically, devoted to one-page summary apologetics inserts), and to

2) have a hand in helping (judging by "testimony" reports that I receive) hundreds of people to convert or come back into the Church, and

3) have a very successful blog, that continues my old website (that received Envoy's website of the year award way back in 1998, in just its second year of existence), representing now over eleven straight years of Internet impact. I'm almost up to a million readers now on my blog after 4 1/2 years, and close to 1.5 million page views. And that is not counting the numbers of readers for the previous 6 1/2 years, which could be another two million or more, for all I know.

I'm not trying to "brag" (this is what my harsher critics would immediately conclude, of course); I'm making an objective analysis of how a writer's success or lack thereof can be measured by some rationally ascertainable standard (not merely subjective tastes and preferences, that are valid, too, in their own more limited purview). If people were so turned off by my lengthiness, then why have a million kept coming back to my blog? Obviously, they think they are getting something out of my writing, and find it worth their time to keep visiting and reading. They're "voting" with their blog hits.

Even if some of these same people who keep coming back think I write too much, yet they keep reading and visiting, don't they? Obviously, then, for those people, they must think other factors besides length are more important. I certainly don't keep reading writers if I think they write way too much or are repetitious or lack content or exhibit some other annoying flaw. I know one guy in particular who consistently outwrites me by many many times (this cat has written more words than there are atoms in the universe), and he is getting 20-30 visitors a day average on his blog after five years. No one has the time to read his endless tomes, irregardless of content. I know I don't (i.e., when I used to visit). If I see that posts are of a certain inordinate length, I ignore them as a waste of time. I'm not all that different from anyone else in that regard.

But I don't get 20-30 visitors a day on my blog, so there has to be some major difference in play. If the "lengthy" writer has appealing content, so that the time spent is worth the effort (even "excessive" effort) folks will read him or her. Look at Tolkien, for example. I don't read fiction myself and would never ever sit and read his endless books (though I love the Lord of the Rings movies and the fantasy genre in general). But millions have done so, because his books are among the bestselling novels of all-time (perhaps #1). Length is irrelevant because they love the material and are entertained and have found a great diversion from life's problems.

My writing (most of it) is not to entertain, but to edify, so if folks keep coming back and reading, they must be edified and educated, and this trumps mere length. If you like a great movie, in other words, you won't mind at all if it is 170 minutes rather than 100.

Now, I submit this question to reasonable and fair-minded readers: is it more important and relevant to keep telling someone he writes too many words and isn't "succinct" enough, or is it true, on the other hand, that the only "objective" way a theological writer can be measured in terms of successfulness and impact is to see how many books he sells (people "vote" with their pocketbook, after all, and buy what they think is worthwhile) and how many lives he has affected (by the grace of God only, as a vessel) spiritually?

I have fun with this topic at times, as we saw above, but I also have some dead-serious reactions and observations about it, that I can never get anyone who makes these criticisms to talk about. Criticisms are readily made (they're a dime a dozen), but interaction with the reply of the one criticized is a far less common phenomenon, for some strange reason. Yet it is in that stage that something can actually be accomplished, if anything at all is to be achieved by way of progress in understanding (here my passionate adherence to the socratic method is coming out).

Presbyterian Church USA Gets With It and Votes to Eliminate Proscriptions of Fornication and Non-Marital Sex

Bruce Reyes-Chow

"PCUSA" is a "mainline" denomination of 2.3 million members. This is the spirit of the times (zeitgeist): certainly not the Holy Spirit. According to a story from the Catholic News Agency:

San Jose, CA., Jul 8, 2008 / 11:57 pm (CNA).- Reaction continues to the decisions of the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), which took place between June 21 and June 28. The assembly nullified proscriptions against sexual behavior outside of marriage and called for a vote to delete the church’s constitutional standard requiring fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness. It also initiated a process that could remove mention of the Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality form the Heidelberg Catechism.

The moves are seen by some as an attempt to clear a path for the eventual ordination of practicing homosexuals to the church offices of deacon, elder, or minister. . . .

The Board of Directors of the Presbyterian Lay Committee decried the decision as a “frontal assault on Biblical Christianity,” saying in a July 8 statement that the General Assembly “disregarded historic Reformed standards, undermined its Constitution and failed to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ with its actions.”

“The PCUSA has jettisoned the solid rock of Biblical authority and morals and is now floundering in the sea of cultural relativity. In desperation, it lays claim to the property of congregations that love the Word of God more than denominational loyalty,” the Presbyterian Lay Committee said. . . .

The General Assembly elected as its General Moderator the 39-year-old Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, pastor of Mission Bay Community Church in San Francisco. [Dave: we are joyously informed by a "progressive" that Bruce "gets it" and is, indeed, "the future of the Church" -- Chow's blog will quickly confirm this] As General Moderator, he will represent the denomination and preside over General Assembly business. Rev. Reyes-Chow made known his support for the ordination of homosexuals as ministers, though he has not publicly stated his position on same-sex marriage.

The only public opponent to homosexual ordination and marriage in the moderator's election was the Rev. Bill Teng, a pastor from Heritage Presbyterian Church in Alexandria, Virginia.

One rare encouraging note in all this is a report that "PCUSA lost 46,544 members between 2005 and 2006." The erosion of biblical sexual standards has been an ongoing process, as in so many similar denominations, as can be seen in the appropriate section of the Wikipedia entry. Until this recent vote:

The Book of Order prohibits the ordination of those who are not faithful in marriage or chaste in singleness (G-6.0106b). This paragraph was added in 1997 and is commonly referred to by its pre-ratification designation, "Amendment B" Several attempts have been made to remove this from the Book of Order but no attempt has received both the necessary votes at the General Assembly and approval of enough presbyteries.

Now, PCUSA is obviously up to speed, "relevant," politically-correct, and (at long last!) out of the Dark Ages of puritanical, traditional Christian sexual morality. Progress!

Isn't it interesting how issues of sexuality always seem to be at the forefront of the "official" descent into wholesale immorality of entire denominations? Why would that be, I wonder? Could it possibly be a confirmation of the old saying, "all heresy begins below the belt"?

Scholarly Use of the Term Anti-Catholicism in Precisely the Way I Habitually Use It (the Theological or Doctrinal Sense)

Sociologists Claire Mitchell and John D. Brewer

(1) . . . theological anti-Catholicism or anti-'Romanism' remains an important part of Irish Protestant identity.

(Irish Society: Sociological Perspectives, edited by Patrick Clancy; this section ["Nation Unequally: Sectarianism in Ireland"] by R McVeigh, 1995, 637)

(2) Brewer (1998) also argues that theological anti-Catholicism does not necessarily lead to a strong unionist position and, in fact, that some evangelicals are . . .

("The Moral Minority: Evangelical Protestants in Northern Ireland and Their Political Behaviour," Claire Mitchell and James Tilley, Political Studies, Volume 52, Number 3, October 2004 , pp. 585-602(18) )

(3) . . . of an increasing number of Irish and German immigrants that seemed to confirm the fears of Morse and Beecher, theological anti-Catholicism and political . . .

("'Religion without Restriction': Anti-Catholicism, All Mexico, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo," John C. Pinheiro, Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Spring, 2003), pp. 69-96)

(4) Scholars have drawn a distinction between theological and cultural anti-Catholicism. Theological anti-Catholicism is as old as the Reformation; it emphasizes the theological distinctives that separate Catholicism and Protestantism, In America, it can be traced to the influence of the Puritans on the development of America's Protestant identity. . . .

Cultural anti-Catholicism locates its roots in the belief that the Roman Catholic Church's institutional presence and hierarchy threatened American democracy and the autonomy of the individual. . . .

For southern Protestants, . . . cultural and religious anti-Catholicism persisted much longer.

(The South's tolerable alien: Roman Catholics in Alabama and Georgia, 1945-1970, Andrew S. Moore, LSU Press, 2007, 12)

(5) Brewer (1998) and Brewer and Higgins’ (1999) work on religious anti-Catholicism amongst Protestants might also be characterized as ethnic support. Brewer asserts that anti-Catholicism must be understood as sociological process. It provides the resources to mark out boundaries, rationalize and justify Protestants’ political position and to provide unity in times of threat. Brewer’s work by no means ignores theology as he outlines how each variant of anti-
Catholicism intertwines specific theological positions with political ideas and (lack of) relationships with Catholics. He teases out the how the substance of religious anti-Catholicism relates to social and political power.

("The Religious Content of Ethnic Identities," Claire Mitchell, Sociology, Vol. 40, No. 6, 1135-1152 (2006) )

(6) The claim that anti-Catholicism is Scriptural is rooted in sixteenth-century theological debates . . . the belief that anti-Catholicism is Scriptural is part of the self-defining identity of certain Protestants . . . divisions are immutably upheld by theological doctrine. . . . anti-Catholicism in some settings is, indeed, much more than doctrinal differences, but a sociological account is needed to distinguish these situations from settings where the differences remain theological. . . .

Anti-Catholicism can be defined as the determination of actions, attitudes, and practices by negative beliefs about individual Catholics, the Catholic Church as an institution, or Catholic doctrine.

("Understanding Anti-Catholicism in Northern Ireland," John D. Brewer and Gareth I. Higgins, Sociology, 33(2), (1999), 235-255)

(7) . . . a 'theological' anti-Catholicism grounded in historic Protestantism . . .

(Classes and Cultures: England 1918-1951, Ross McKibbin, Oxford University Press, 1998, 293)

(8) Brewer (1998) outlines three active modes of anti-Catholicism that he sees as prevalent in contemporary Northern Ireland: covenantal, Pharisaic, and secular. The first two are based in theological teachings . . . the covenantal mode of anti-Catholicism is based in prophetic Old Testament ideas of God, land and a 'chosen people' . . . Conflict is interpreted as a battle between good and evil, truth and error . . .

It is important, however, not to over-simplify the social and political consequences of theological anti-Catholicism. It is inaccurate to say that people's theological problems with Catholicism and a desire to convert inevitably lead to bad social relationships.

(Religion, Identity, and Politics in Northern Ireland, Claire Mitchell, Ashgate Publishing, 2005, 120-121)

(9) Much anti-Catholicism involved theological argument that could quickly become mental mud-wrestling between defenders of particular faiths.

(American Mobbing, 1828-1861: Toward Civil War, David Grimsted, Oxford University Press, 1998, 222)

(10) Puritan anti-Catholicism, despite some sympathies with later kinds of bias, was deeply different from them. Far from being anti-theological, like Jefferson, it was super-theological. It was central to the whole structure of Puritanical thought.

(Head and Heart: American Christianities, Garry Wills, Penguin, 2007, 51)

(11) Already in much of Latin America, Protestant-Catholic conflicts often involve traditional religious anti-Catholicism of a sort that went out of fashion among Anglo-Americans half a century since.

(The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Philip Jenkins, Oxford University Press, 2003, 213)

(12) . . . in the mid-nineteenth century we can begin to disentangle two strands of anti-Catholicism in the United States. The first is an intensely religious anti-Catholicism derived from the Reformation era-polemics that shaped American cultural life . . . Here Catholics believe in self-evidently ludicrous doctrines such as purgatory and transubstantiation.

(John T. McGreevy, in American Catholics, American Culture: Tradition and Resistance, edited by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, 156)

(13) The evidence strongly suggests that there were two types of anti-Catholicism in 1960. The lower-class nonurban kind is the religious anti-Catholicism of American history, tied to a lack of education, strong commitment to one's own Protestant

(Revolution and Counterrevolution: Change and Persistence in Social Structures, Seymour Martin Lipset, Transaction Publishers, 1988, 356)

See also my paper:

Use of the Term Anti-Catholic in Protestant and Secular Scholarly Works of History and Sociology (Dave Armstrong vs. "Romans 45")

Anti-Catholic TAO Compounds His "Category Absurdities" in Touting Catholic Dinesh D'Souza as Champion of Christianity (!)

This is a classic ironic juxtaposition and wacky farce. The Anonymous One ("TAO") had, in his immediately preceding blog entry, bashed Catholicism in the following ways (space indicates break in the text):

[T]he Vatican does not preach the Gospel, and . . . faithful devotion to the religion taught by the Vatican does not lead to salvation.

The problem, of course, is that it is not the case that the Church of Rome is the true church.

There are those who reject the Church of Rome because of its emphasis on works righteousness, . . . rejection of the legalism of the Vatican is Biblical and proper. It's not hatred, but judgment.

. . . the false doctrine and counterfeit gospel of Rome.

This is standard (worthless and witless) anti-Catholic fare, of course, and can be found all over TAO's blog, not just in this post. But it's funny that in the very next post, TAO applauds well-known political conservative and devout Catholic Dinesh D'Souza as a representative of Christianity in debate with an atheist:

I recently enjoyed listening to a debate between Dinesh D'Souza (representing the Christian point of view) and Christopher Hitchens (representing the non-Christian point of view) on the topic: Is Christianity the Problem? . . . Dinesh . . . made some good points that Professor Hitchens had trouble addressing. . . . If you have interest, consider blocking off an hour and forty minutes to listen to the debate in its entirety. (link)

Since TAO obviously thinks that this one Catholic did a great job "representing" and defending "the Christian point of view" then I'm sure he'll also start enthusiastically recommending my book, Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism, that takes on atheism and agnosticism, and contains no Catholic distinctives (my usual practice when dealing with atheists: as seems to be the case with D'Souza also). I'm sure he'll also praise and advertise my Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism web page. I guess it is the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" routine. Catholics magically acquire the ability to defend Christianity when faced with an atheist, but not when one of their Protestant overlords is on the other end of the debate.

Is this not hilariously precious? We'll keep the humorous and entertaining anti-Catholic anecdotes coming, per the express wishes of my readers in a recent poll (by a 66% - 34% margin).

The Anonymous One's (TAO's) Use of the Pejorative Terms Papist and Romanist & Terminological Double Standards & Hypocrisy

The Anonymous One (TAO): an active anti-Catholic Calvinist polemicist, has been using these terms (long considered insulting and inappropriate in gentlemanly theological discourse, and certainly not "scholarly") for some time. I thought it would be interesting to document it:

Dave Armstrong is himself a papist . . .
( 7-7-08 )

My papist colleague's rebuttal is due August 1, 2008.

( 7-2-08 )

Wycliffe received martyrdom for his troubles, and the papist authorities sought to destroy the copies of the Bible that he printed. . . . the papists dug up Wycliffe's bones and burnt them . . .

( 6-3-08 )

Thus, without animosity or without intent to disparage, you may find reference in the debate to the church that confesses, as its earthly head, Benedict XVI, variously as the “Roman Catholic” (RC) church, the Romanist church, or the papists. I don’t mean to use those terms jeeringly, and I hope no unnecessary offense will be taken at them. I recognize that papists prefer the term “Catholic,” but that term is misleading and inaccurate – and putting it in quotation marks in every instance would seem to be at least as much a distraction as using the descriptive term “papist” to describe those who hold to the supposed infallibility of the Roman pontiff, or “Romanist” to describe those who view Rome as being the seat of government of the entire Church of God. In any event, I trust that the learned reader who is himself a Roman Catholic, whether of Latin rite, Byzantine rite, or Chaldean rite, will look past the labels involved and search the Scriptures to see whether their church is in error.

( 6-1-08 )

The fact that it has come to be accepted by the papists doesn't make Purgatory any more orthodox than the idea of successful intercession on behalf of souls in hell.

( 5-20-08 )

Even the papists recognize that the command was not absolute.

( 5-17-08 )

. . . the papist notion that Mary, as "Queen of Heaven," is the queen of Mercy . . .

( 5-14-08 )

Now doubtless those advocating the papist position today might argue that there is no better advocate before Jesus than Mary - and not simply no better advocate than Mary.

( 5-13-08 )

I have to be consistent, using the same arguments defending the faith against Muslims as against Mormons and Papists.

( 5-5-08 )

Dave's demonstration of his ignorance of Reformed theology or the valid objections to Romanist soteriology . . .

( 3-27-08 )

Please keep the author of this post in your prayers, that he may be set free from the bondage of papist superstition by the light of the gospel!

( 12-9-07 )

Here's some sermon audio as to some reasons why it may be honoring to God to abstain from celebrating Christmas this year. (link) But, if you are going to celebrate it, do so to the Lord, without (as the papists attempt) making it an obligation on your Christian brethren.

( 12-8-07 )

Guy Fawkes Day is a great chance to commemorate the defeat of a treacherous Roman Catholic plot to kill King James and much of Parliament. Proposed mode of celebration: 1) The traditional fireworks in mockery of the papist explosive and incendiary plot; . . .

( 11-5-07 )

Here's a great example of why I am not an Evidentialist, Quasi-Evidentialist, or - for that matter - Romanist: . . .

( 9-19-07 )

Polemical Papist, Dave Armstrong, took personal offense today, at the critique of his recently released book, "One Minute Apologist."

( 6-14-07 )

Romanist Apologist - Sippo Lampoons Self [title]

( 6-9-07 )

Contrary to your assertion, the Papist view of works is quite different from the Reformed perspective on works, . . .

( 5-28-07 )

Comments by a Romanist, "Fred," Responded To [title]

( 5-28-07 )

There are arguments against independency, but the idea that Independents are outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is pseudo-papist propoganda, and nothing more.

(