The Bryan Cross Method Alert

There is another long, long post going on at Greenbaggins. Bryan Cross and the usual gang from Called to Communion have shown up to try and to take advantage of some of the less theologically astute brothers and sisters over there.

I've made several long posts, including what follows below, in slightly edited form:

**************************
Bryan Cross Method Alert
**************************

I know that Bryan Cross has said that it's unkind to speak about him in the third person, and no doubt the words argumentum ad hominem will escape from his keyboard coming up here.

But for you Reformed folks who are trying to figure him out, what I'm about to say may seem unkind precisely until the moment when one of your children, or one of your church members, or even a Westminster-trained pastor that you may know, becomes enamored with and traipses off to Rome. At that point, then, ask, what is the real unkindness?

What I'm about to do is to look not at Bryan Cross the person, but rather, the method he uses.

Since I’ve written this, I see that Ron Henzel, in post #238, has provided a brilliant response to Bryan, in which he untangles all of the assumptions that Bryan throws out without an ounce of warning that he is, indeed, making assumptions. I'm convinced that Bryan's method of argumentation is inherently dishonest, and I say why below. But again, Ron Henzel in #238 has done a brilliant job of untangling Bryan's assumptions, and I’d very much encourage that everyone read that comment as an example of how really to have a discussion with Catholics.


Let me start by asking, do any of you play chess, at any serious level? If you do, and if you've come across Jeremy Silman's work, which talks about the need to look for "imbalances" in the position.

An imbalance is an opportunity within a position that one can use to create an advantage for oneself, on a particular area of the board, even though the second player may have advantages in other areas of the board. This is why a Queen sacrifice might work to enable a person to achieve a checkmate. While the opponent's Queen is off on another part of the board -- and still very powerful there -- the first player is enabled, by a sacrifice, to destroy a key defender or deflect a defensive piece away, enabling his own pieces to enjoy a temporary and in some cases, an overwhelming superiority in the more crucial part of the board, and thus, to Checkmate the King.


There are incredible imbalances in the Catholic vs. Protestant discussions, and Bryan Cross and his allies try to take advantage of this in discussions just like this one.

Francis Turretin noticed just such an imbalance in all of these discussions of Catholic vs. Protestant. Here is how he described it:

Thus this day the Romanists (although they are anything but the true church of Christ) still boast of their having alone the name of church and do not blush to display the standard of that which they oppose. In this manner, hiding themselves under the specious title of the antiquity and infallibility of the Catholic church, they think they can, as with one blow, beat down and settle the controversy waged against them concerning the various most destructive errors introduced into the heavenly doctrine. (Vol 3 pg 2)

John Henry Newman, too, gave Catholics some advice, which is easily used in conjunction that imbalance that Turretin wrote about. At its heart, Newman's "theory of development of doctrine" is itself founded on that very assumption. As Newman says:

Till positive reasons grounded on facts are adduced to the contrary, the most natural hypotheses, the most agreeable to our mode of proceeding in parallel cases, and that which takes precedence of all others, is to consider that the society of Christians, which the Apostles left on earth, were of that religion to which the Apostles had converted them; that the external continuity of name, profession, and communion, argues a real continuity of doctrine; that, as Christianity began by manifesting itself as of a certain shape and bearing to all mankind, therefore it went on so to manifest itself; and that the more, considering that prophecy had already determined that it was to be a power visible in the world and sovereign over it, characters which are accurately fulfilled in that historical Christianity to which we commonly give the name. It is not a violent assumption, then, but rather mere abstinence from the wanton admission of a principle which would necessarily lead to the most vexatious and preposterous scepticism, to take it for granted, before proof to the contrary, that the Christianity of the second, fourth, seventh, twelfth, sixteenth, and intermediate centuries is in its substance the very religion which Christ and His Apostles taught in the first, whatever may be the modifications for good or for evil which lapse of years, or the vicissitudes of human affairs, have impressed upon it.

In short, what this long couple of sentences says, is that The Roman Catholic Church itself was the promise of the Old Testament -- itself is the fulfillment of the very promises of God to provide a kingdom -- and that it has all the power and authority that one would expect. And further, "we don't have to prove this," he says. “We merely assume continuity,” and leave it to “positive reasons grounded on facts [that] are adduced to the contrary” to be able to persuade us that our assumptions are not valid.

That very thing comes up all the time in this thread. Notice the phrase, "the Church that Christ founded," first used by Bryan in comment #42 (used again in 74 and in various places by some of the others from “Called to Communion”). Several of the Protestant writers have commented on it, but they have not provided an explanation of it.

Here is a sense of its use:

So we need a way of distinguishing confessions of the Church that Christ founded, from confessions made by the equivalent of mere theological clubs …

So when Bryan Cross uses the word "church," he intends it to mean "The Roman Catholic Church and the Visible Hierarchy." Notice how this works in Bryan Cross's statement from Comment #232:

Regarding John 16:13, the unanimous tradition of the Church has been to understand that Christ’s promise (regarding the Spirit guiding into all truth) was not limited to the Apostles but also applied (through them and their successors) to the whole Church.

There is implicit in this statement that "the Church" in this statement was, and continues to be, "The Roman Catholic Church and the Visible Hierarchy." But Bryan doesn't tell you that's his definition of "the Church". He merely assumes that to be the case.

But what's worse, Bryan doesn't care if you misunderstand. He is relying on a technique known as "mental reservation," by which he may say things in such a way that his readers may draw false conclusions from them. But if they do draw false conclusions, that's not his fault.

This principle is clearly articulated by a Roman Catholic Cardinal within the context of an offical investigation document, which shows clearly how the Roman Church dealt with sexual abuse victims. I've written about it:

Mental reservation is a concept developed and much discussed over the centuries, which permits a churchman knowingly to convey a misleading impression to another person without being guilty of lying.

Now, let me give an application of this, because Jason Stellman, a participant in that discussion, and someone that I've interacted with much in the past, has fallen hook, line, and sinker for it. It is something that I’ve noticed and written about in the past, and for it, I’ve been accused of being “uncharitable.” But take a look at what he himself has written:

Often Protestants fear that unless they can poke holes in the Catholic’s claim that Benedict XVI is a literal, historical successor of Peter, then we’ve lost the argument and have to start praying to Mary and abstaining from meat on Fridays. Now I’ll probably take some heat for this concession, but I will come out and admit that I think apostolic succession is more plausible than not. I mean, whether or not the early church invested the practice with as much significance as Catholics today do, my guess is that the church in Rome was at one time led by Peter, and it has had a leader from then to now, which means that the historical claim is actually true …

This is an incredibly naïve statement, coming especially from someone who ought to understand what he is saying here. Others, in cluding Andrew McCallum, have argued against this notion in these comments, not only from the early church, but during medieval times when the worst offenders of popes were still a part of the “official succession.”

In truth, “Apostolic Succsssion” is chock full of holes, and an honest assessment of that practice will show this to be the case. This is not only my view that this view is “incredibly naïve” – note the comment in Francis Sullivan, S.J., “From Apostles to Bishops:

Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are the successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish. It is unfortunate, I believe, that some presentations of Catholic belief in this matter have given a very different impression… (Sullivan, 13)

Referring to the ARCIC I document, (an ecumenical dialog between Rome and the Anglican church), he said,

To speak of “an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles” suggests that Christ ordained the apostles as bishops, and that the apostles in turn ordained a bishop for each of the churches they founded, so that by the time the apostles died, each Christian church was being led by a bishop s successor to an apostle. There are serious problems with such a theory of a link between apostles and bishops.” (13)

Sullivan goes on to outline some of these “serious problems.” One of these problems was articulated very succinctly by Raymond Brown in “Priest and Bishop”:

The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rom to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense—a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Pauline type of apostleship, not the Twelve. (Fn 53, pg 72)

In the end, the Newmanesque assumption that Sullivan makes – the “unproved assumption” where he stakes his ground, is further back but still there:

Although development of the church structure reflects sociological necessity, in the Christian self-understanding the Hoy Spirit given by the risen Christ guides the church in such a way that allows basic lstructural development to be seen as embodying Jesus Christ’s will for his church.”

This is what I meant in my comment above to Andrew McCallum, that he “leaves too much money on the table.” Bryan Cross assumes far too much. But Sullivan here articulates the official Roman Catholic fallback position.

Historical study has passed Newman by. The ground of this fight IS no longer on Roman assumptions of its own “divine institution.” I’m doing a series on Joseph Ratzinger’s “Called to Communion,” and he himself can only say that the papacy was “faithfully developed” during the first five centuries of the church. He himself yields far away from what Newman intended. I believe he has been forced to do so by the sheer weight of the historical evidence.

The Protestant/Catholic discussion IS AND MUST BE, in Newman’s words, “on positive reasons grounded on [historical] facts” that absolutely fly in the face of the pure, ungrounded assumption that Bryan Cross makes and that Jason Stellman has freely conceded to them.

We cannot yield this assumption to Bryan Cross and his gang. We must force them to argue on level ground. We must make them come out from behind their unproven assumption and stand on historical ground. As Sullivan has made clear, and as Ratzinger has made clear, Rome itself is forced to kick the “assumption” can further down the road.

Since I’ve written this, I see that Ron Henzel, in post #238, has provided a brilliant response to Bryan, in which he untangles all of the assumptions that Bryan throws out without an ounce of warning that he is, indeed, making assumptions. This method of argumentation is inherently dishonest. But again, Ron Henzel in #238 has done a brilliant job of untangling these assumptions, and I’d very much encourage that everyone read that comment.

Introducing myself ... John Bugay

Hi all. I'm honored and delighted that James Swan has invited me to be a contributor here on Beggars All.

Some of you may remember me from the old NTRMin discussion board. That's where I first met James Swan, as one of the adelphoi -- Eric Svendsen created a wonderful community there, and I am very grateful to have made some long-term, lasting friendships there.

I'm a former Catholic -- I was born in 1960 and raised in the Catholic Church by a devout family. But by the time I was in high school, I had also heard the Gospel from some friends -- and I just could not comprehend why this "Gospel" was not what "the one true Church" was teaching, especially not if it was in the Bible. Needless to say, it created a great deal of turmoil in my spirit, and it set off a struggle that would consume me for a long time. In fact, that question -- an overwhelming desire to find "the reason why," motivates me today. My story is here. But the issues I investigated in leaving Roman Catholicism continued to tug at my heart and mind. How could such a big, authoritative and seemingly wonderful thing have gone so wrong?

My final break with Rome came in the late 1990's, thanks largely to the writings of James White, available for the first time on a broad scale via the Internet. It is said that the Reformation owes its tremendous influence to the invention of the printing press, and the ability to disseminate information far and wide in a very short period of time. I believe the Internet has created a similar opportunity for believers today.

During the 16th century, the message of the Reformation spread far and wide, because it was the message that people craved to hear. Rome didn't stop the path of the Reformation by presenting better ideas or a better gospel. They stopped the march of the Reformation with lies and trickery, with the burning of books, threats of imprisonment, such deceit and murder as that found in the St. Bartholemew's Day Massacre.

Here's one example that I've given, of Rome's tactics in the wake of the Reformation:

In 1543 a little book was published in Venice with the title Trattato utilissimo del beneficio di Giesu Christo crocifisso i cristiani (A Most Useful Treatise on the Merits of Jesus Christ Crucified for Christians), written by an elusive Benedictine monk called Benedetto da Mantova with some help from the humanist and poet Marcantonio Flaminio (1498-1550), a popular work of piety that was translated into several languages including Croat. At first sight this may appear to be a piece of native Italian Christocentrism, part of a Pauline and Augustinian renaissance known to have been nourished by a Spanish humanist and biblicist, Juan de Valdes (1500-1541), whose pious circle in Naples had included Flaminio. But the Beneficio can be read in more than one way. It proves to have been made up from a number of transalpine Protestant texts, and especially the 1539 edition of Calvin’s Institutes. Whether or not Benedetto had come across Calvin in his monastery on the slopes of Mount Etna, which seems unlikely, the Institutes was known to Flaminio.

It is hard to distinguish between the theology of the Beneficio and Protestantism. “Man can never do good works unless he first know himself to be justified by faith.” Other scholars insist, however, that the Beneficio is an expression of Evangelism, a movement that was not generated by Protestantism and should be distingueshed from it. What is certain is that the Beneficio was placed on the Index and so successfuly repressed by the Roman Inquisition that of the many thousands of copies of the Italian edition that were once in existence only one is known to survive, discovered in the library of a Cambridge college in the nineteenth century. That sort of successful repression was the Counter-Reformation. (The Reformation, a History, Patrick Collinson, (c)2003, pgs 105-106.)

I'm not a theologian, but as the old Abraham Lincoln commercial said, "I've done a lot of reading and studying, sort of on my own." My interests continue to lie in areas that describe "reasons why": Reasons why the Reformation needed to occur; reasons why "the Church" had gotten so far off the rails in the first place.

Recently, my blog posts have centered on a few areas:

The "development" of the early papacy:

Christian Foundations

A timeline of the early papacy

Historical literature in the earliest papacy

The first, and greatest "schism" in the early church:

Claims of "church unity" [in the first millennium] are a lie

See the section on Nestorius and the Council of Ephesus

The Effects of the Reformation:

The Reformation and "The One True Church"

A.G. Dickens on Luther's Success

Luther's Program and Justification by Faith

The [need for] the Reformation Today

How Roman Catholicism Continues to Proceed Today

Newman's Theory of Development "Shattered"

The Catholic Historical Method

Rome's institutionally sanction method of lying

The Official Roman Catholic Policy of Obstruction of Justice

I'm grateful to James Swan for the opportunity to share what I've learned about the history of the one true church, the "development" of the Roman Catholic Church," and the need for the Reformation, in the 16th century and today. I'm grateful for this opportunity to become a part of the "Beggars All" community, and I'm looking forward to opportunities to share in the ongoing efforts of the Reformation today.

Chucking Madrid under the bus

A while ago, I came across this post by Patrick Madrid: Some Advice for Catholics Who Want to Study Scripture More Deeply. Of course, his advice was limited to his own books and audio presentations. In other words, it was a sales pitch. By the way, you're not going to go "deeply" into Scripture by reading Where is That in the Bible? (Source, emphasis mine)

All that to say, it's not just us anti-Catholic vermin who hold and express a lack of -ahem- respect for the way these popapologists self-market.
Our advice for those who want to go deeply into Scripture is to start off by not making it the target of all your dislike of "disunity" within the Body of Christ. Next, we fully endorse the Waltzian approach of drop-kicking the idea of papal infallibility. From there, first star on the left, straight on till morning.

Code message: This post is actually all about Dave Armstrong. Like all of my posts.

I got myself banned

So in this I guess I stand in the footsteps of many better men before me.
I've been putting in some time at Mark Shea's blog, and I guess I made it as long as I did before the ban is because he was out of town the last 4 days of last week. I thought he'd be happy to have me, since I drove his combox to just under 160 comments. That kind of pub don't come easy, you know. But it all started to crumble when I compared his behavior and unnecessarily insulting language (in fact, I was just agreeing, as did another commenter, with a different commenter) to that of Art Sippo and Tim Staples. Although, he's probably right to censure me for that. I mean, with such irenic comments as:

Liar. You intend war on Holy Church.

what other conclusion would anyone (like Ben Douglass - thanks for trying, Ben) draw?

(BTW, hopefully Mark appreciates the traffic I'm thus driving to his site. One can only wish he'd present arguments worthy thereof.)
(It's also very interesting that Mark got all bent out of shape by my comparisons of him to Art Sippo and Tim Staples. One can only wonder why that is...)

Anyway, the long combox for the primary conversation I was engaged in might be worth the read, at least somewhat. Let me draw out two of the primary points I was making, the former of which never saw a rebuttal and the latter of which I was, amazingly, dealing with the entire time.

1) Mark Shea had said in the OP:

The whole "Scripture is perspicuous" thing is a classic case of elevating human tradition to the level of equality with the word of God. It works like this: the enthusiast for the doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripure" reasons "God always does what is best. Having a Bible that is perspicuous is best. Therefore, God has done that."

(You can play that game with anything you like, by the way: "God always does what is best. Having the gift of tongues is best. Therefore, God grants all believers the gift of tongues." "God always does what is best. Health and wealth are best. Therefore, God will all believers to be healthy and wealthy.")

I kicked it off with:

Y'all in the RCC argue that way, though, all the time for the Marian dogmas. Come now, don't forget your own legacy, where you've been. You're ripping your own strategy now.

I got one irrelevant rebuttal, then a request for specifics, which I provided:

Specifically, here are a few:
One
Two (here citing Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus in the 7th century)
Matatics vs White on the Marian Dogmas

Then, later:

My point is that this exact argument was lambasted by Mark Shea when used to support the perspicuity of Scr. I point out that RCs use it for one of Shea's pet doctrines, and people get all upset.

And finally:

In fact, on his own Catechism, interestingly:

1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"209 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us,210 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love...

Not to mention the fact that I don't know of anyone who's ever used that type of argumentation, as TurretinFan also pointed out.


2) People and their agreement as standard of truth.
I suppose it's what one should expect from a man-centered religion like Rome's, but it gets a little tiresome after a while. For example, from commenters sympathetic to the Roman side of things, with my responses below them:

-Of course, this begs the question of how a former Protestant like myself became convinced that the RC church does possess apostolic authority and hence a valid magesterium.
and
-If it's so simple, why do you disagree with so many people?

There's that fallacy again! Why do you keep trying to make PEOPLE the standard of truth? You think Jesus did that or sthg?

From Vatican Council I (1870), on the primacy of Peter and Papal Infallibility:

"This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church....To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction."

Yet many ppl, even RCs, don't hold to this. If it's so simple, so ancient, unchanging, absolutely manifest, always understood by the catholic church, and if the opposition is distorted opinions, why do you disagree with so many people?
The answer is clear - people's agreement is not the standard of truth. Remember what Jesus said about the narrow and wide gates?

-Why do so many people disagree about Calvinism if its supposedly the truest form of Christianity, based solely on perspicuous Sacred Scripture?

Why do so many people disagree about RC dogma if it's supposedly the truest form of Christianity, based on the living-voice infallible Magisterial authority, who can step in and clear up doctrine disputes?
How many times do I have to say this? People are not the standard of truth. Wide gate vs narrow gate. I came not to bring peace, but a sword. Let me add to that 1 Cor 11:
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.

-Whereas both you and the United Methodists (who ordained my friend) think you're entirely right and fully Christian with no consciousness of rebellion to God or his church.

Same goes for the women priests. THEY think THEY'RE right. They think they're rightfully dissenting from the oppressive patriarchal structure of RCC, but they are the heirs to the true church.
Once again, you're trying to make people the standard of truth.

All in all, a very satisfying excursion across the Tiber. It's often comforting to know things haven't changed over yonder.

My Five Year Catholic Answers Anniversary

This month marks my five year anniversary as a member of the Catholic Answers Forums!

To date, I've posted under 500 times, with an average of 0.25 posts per day. I'd like to thank the staff of Catholic Answers for not banning me. Recall, Mr. Madrid banned me from Envoy because I posted a link to Alpha and Omega Ministries. Mr. Armstrong banned me from the Coming Home Network forums during the registration process.

To celebrate five years of wonderful dialog, I found a recent post in which it was claimed,

I have interacted with a large percentage of these anti-Catholic types over the years, and they all say exactly what you said about "moving on" when certain facts about Luther or Calvin are mentioned. They simply do not want to hear the truth. This is truly tragic, though, because like Luther and Calvin, such people deceive and continue to deceive so many unsuspecting souls. And quite frankly, I believe there is a moral duty, a moral obligation to expose such false teachers. They would find it far more difficult to seduce their followers if the truth about the corrupt reformers were better known.

So, as a representative of "The Organization of anti-Catholic Types" I joined in this discussion and I've been responding not as I usually do, but with the chosen method of some Catholic apologists. I've been going line-for-line, responding to virtually everything this person posts.

The discussion can be found here: Sin boldly?

I also saved a copy of the dialog. Given my past track record, I can't guarantee there will be a sixth year of wonderful dialog with the Catholic Answers folks.

Assertio Septem Sacramentorum: An Idea To Help Catholic Apologists Sell Books...

I'm sure Catholic apologetic enterprises are experiencing economic grief because of the struggling economy. Here's an idea that came to me while reading Henry VIII and Luther by Erwin Doernberg (California: Stanford University Press, 1961) pp. 17-19.

In 1521 Henry VIII wrote a book against Luther entitled, Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, a book specifically against Luther's Babylonian Captivity of the Church. On October 2, 1521, the Pope had a book party celebration so to speak, or rather, a ceremony announcing the book.

The ceremony began with Henry's representative Dr. Clerk referring to Luther's Babylonian Captivity of the Church,

"...in which, good God! what and how prodigious poison, what deadly bain, how much consuming and mortal venom this poisonous serpent has spewed out... Here the bond of chastity is broken, holy fasts, religious vows, rites, ceremonies, worship of God, solemnity of the Mass etc. are abolished and exterminated, by the strangest perfidiousness that ever was heard of. This man institutes sacraments after his own fancy, reducing them to three, to two, to one, and that one he handles so pitifully that he seems about to reducing it at last to nothing at all... When dreading punishment (which he well deserved) fled, with a mischief, into his perpetual lurking holes in Bohemia, the mother and nurse of his heresies..."

The Pope's response in the ceremony included praise for Henry VIII that he,

"having the knowledge, will and ability of composing this book against this terrible monster, has rendered himself no less admirable to the whole world by eloquence of his style and by his great wisdom. We render immortal thanks to our creator who has raised such a prince to defend His Holy Church and this Holy See..."

The Pope also granted an indulgence of ten years and ten quadragenes to those who would read Henry VIII's Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. The overleaf advertised this Papal indulgence to the reader.

So, I was thinking, if the Pope wanted to financially help out all those in the United States that spend their lives hoping to have the title Defensor Fidei given to them, perhaps he should similarly hold book ceremonies and offer a Papal indulgence for particular outstanding Catholic apologetic books. Which Catholic concerned for their soul, sanctification, and eventual justification wouldn't want to do everything in their power for the sake of their salvation, and at the same time, help out Catholic apologetics? This seems like a win win situation to me.

Pigs are flying and cows have sprouted wings.

Results Validate an Authority?

I realize many times on this blog we post about things which seem to contradict a standard Catholic apologetic argument. The problem is, if you are unaware of those arguments you will be someone confused by our posts. I am hoping over time I can begin to document some of the standard Catholic apologetic methods for easy reference.

Recently, James posted about a disagreement between Dave Armstrong and Robert Sungenis. These types of disagreements between Catholics are amusing because of the old Catholic argument against sola scriptura - that the existence of multiple Protestant denominations invalidates sola sciptura because God would not allow disagreement.

I think this particular argument is actually quite old (I seem to remember seeing it in much older sources), but while looking for something else, I happened upon a quote from Karl Keating that illustrates the point so I thought I would share it.

"[speaking to sola scriptura]...By default, the interpretation of the Bible would be left to the individual, as guided by the Holy Spirit.

In theory this may sound fine, but it has not worked well in practice, and that argues against the truth of the theory. Actually, both reason and experience tell us the Bible could not have been intended as each man's private guide to truth. If individual guidance by the Holy Spirit were a reality, each Christian would understand the same thing from any particular verse since God cannot teach error. Yet Christians have understood contradictory things from Scripture - even Christians whose "born-again" experiences cannot be doubted. Indeed, fundamentalists often differ among themselves on what the Bible means. They may agree on most major points, but the frequency and the vehemence of their squabbles on lesser matters, which should be just as clear if the Holy Spirit is enlightening them, prove the sacred text cannot explain itself."

Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pg 141

So when we see, say, Dave Armstrong and Robert Sungenis "squabbling on lesser matters", we have to wonder - do these squabbles invalidate the infallible authority of the magisterium or do they just invalidate classic Catholic apologetic arguments?

Catholic Quotes on the Bible

When I first start interacting with online Catholics a few years ago, I was surprised by their low view of scripture. In fact, some Catholics I have met have an almost hostile stance towards the bible. For people confessing to be Christians, this was a red flag (among many).

Nowadays, this low view of scripture from so many Catholics is easier to understand. I see the issue as a problem of two masters. In this case, Catholics can’t serve both the scriptures and the magisterium.

Sure, most Catholics will give lip service to the authority of scripture. But that authority is soon subjugated to a secondary role when the topic of sola scriptura comes up.

As I said, the low view of scripture amongst Catholics was a red flag for me from the beginning. And for this reason, “Catholics Quotes on the Bible” has been a favorite series of mine.

With that, I leave you with a new quote:

"If Almighty God had in the Bible or elsewhere told us that this book contained the whole of Christianity, we should be on good ground. If Christ Himself had written the book and set it forth as a text-book, so to speak, of His religion, we could rest securely in it, and have no need to inquire farther. That the Bible is not a book, like the Koran for instance, set forth by the founder of the religion as its authoritative exposition, is in fact the fundamental weakness of Bible Protestantism. If Christ had intended His religion to be propagated and preserved by means of a book, can any conceivable reason be urged why He should not have written one? Of His ability to do so there can, for the Christian, be no question."

-Plain Facts for Fair Minds (1895)
(with imprimatur)

My Condolences for the Champion of Catholicism

[source] Robert Sungenis gives Matthew Bellisario the bad news.... I feel kinda bad for him, and have considered sending him an E-Card expressing my condolences...all that time he spent on this blog, only to have it mean....nothing. Or, he could write a few more Catholic apologists. Perhaps he'll find someone that will say what he wants. Anything is possible with Roman Catholicism. By the way, if anyone can tell me why the response from Sungenis ended with, "God be with you, James," I'd be much obliged. I didn't sift through the Sungenis blog to determine if Robert has a blogging team including someone named "James," or if he made a mistake calling Matthew "James," or if he was asking God to be with either myself or Dr. White.

For background, see my post: Luther's 'Epistle of Straw' Comment, and the discussion that ensued.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Question 83 - Question for you on the Biblical CanonQuestion 83 - Question for you on the Biblical Canon

HI Robert, I've been reading your latest commentary on Romans and James and I am enjoying the wealth of information you have provided in it. Lately in my apologetics works I have been dealing with the likes of James White and James Swan. They seem to think that if something has not been, "officially" declared "infallible" then a Catholic does not have to believe it. For example they excuse Luther's attack on the Sacred Scriptures by saying that it was perfectly OK since the Church did not declare the canon infallibly by then. It is my understanding that the Church universally held the canon since around 405, although she never closed it officially until Trent. It is my understanding that those in the Church would have had to adhere to these universal consistent teachings whether they were declared or not. Where can I find more information on doctrine, dogma and infallibility? It seems that these people want a list of everything that is infallible, which is quite absurd. Also, why was the Council of Florence not the final list since it was a general Council? As a side note, I never knew that Luther held himself in such a high light, scoffing at Saints Jerome, Chrysostom and Basil. At what lengths will these people go to defend such arrogant, pompous and heretical characters? it seems that no matter what you present to these guys at Beggars All and White's website they will always find a way to dismiss God and and His Church. Anyways, sorry for the rant. Thanks for your work, and I look forward to your future commentaries. Keep them coming. Yours in Christ..

Matthew J Bellisario

www.catholicchampion.com


Matthew, I gave up on James White a long time ago. Only God could change a hard head like him. I don't say that in a derogatory manner, since James White has many good qualities. I only say it as I would say of Saul of Taursus before Jesus himself had to knock him off his horse and convert him to Paul the Apostle. As for the canon, infallibility is a tricky thing. I agree with our Protestant opponents -- the Church should be more clear when something is infallible and when it is not, and they should give us a list of what is infallible. This would clear up a lot of confusion. As regards infallibility, it is true that only at the council of Trent did the canon finally become infallible and irreformable, and that is because Trent made it crystal clear it was doing so. The Council of Florence did not use the key words in its formulation that Trent finally used. Granted, Catholics during the time of Florence had to give their assent to what Florence decreed, but this did not mean, for sake of conscience, that a Catholic could not contest what Florence said about the canon. This is why even Cardinal Cajetan contested Florence's canon list. So yes, Luther could contest the canon prior to Trent and do so quite legitimately. But this would only force the Church to make the final decision, and it did so in 1563, after which Luther would have been bound to obey it. If not, he would have been excommunicated, just as he was in 1520. I'm glad you're enjoying the Romans commentary! Genesis 1-11 and 1 Corinthians are right around the corner. God be with you, James.

I can say this about the CA Forums, I haven't been banned from participating yet, though I haven't actively participated for quite some time. The forums are user friendly and easy to navigate.

On the other hand, Catholic Answers is not a "mom and pop" store. They are a multi-million dollar organization . If they can't figure out how to budget the few million they take in every year, well...goodbye Catholic Answers Forums.

On the Futility of arguing with zealous Catholics -This is a CARM post that I found interesting in this thread. I'm not sure you can view it without being a member of CARM. I wouldn't say I agree with everything, though this point is quite right:

Attack Martin Luther Technique: This can be used as a companion apologetic to the Attack Sola Scriptura technique. Always refer to your opponent as a Protestant to imply that Biblical Christianity began with the "Reformation." Always insist your opponent is a follower of Martin Luther, or one of the other Reformers,Do not accept any denials of this. Rubber-stamp him as a follower of Heresy.

The Hypocrisy of Catholic Answers

I had to break my hiatus to share two interesting campaigns by Catholic Answers.

It appears from the two campaigns that the Catholic Church has a problem: the majority of Catholics are ignorant of their faith and susceptible to a variety of prey including Mormons, liberal Catholics, homosexuals and the dreaded “anti-Catholics”. In fact, according to Catholic Answers, the Mormons have been quite successful in gaining Catholic converts:

“Many people have been doing just that—especially Catholics. In fact, in recent years the majority of converts to Mormonism have been Catholics.

It makes sense, when you think about it.

Catholics are targeted by Mormons because many Catholics can be swayed easily by Mormon arguments. That’s because many Catholics don’t know their own faith.”

...With all the talk in the media about Mormonism, more and more people are curious about Mormonism and are visiting Mormon web sites.

But these web sites are deceptive. They do not explain the true beliefs of Mormonism. They try to convince readers that Mormonism is a Christian faith—in fact, the true Christian faith!

As one Mormon web site put it, “Mormonism is the religion most consistent with biblical Christianity. We do not apologize for our beliefs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only true Christian church on the face of the earth.”

The problem is … people fall for it—especially Catholics.

In fact, Mormons count Catholics as their main target.

Over half of the current converts to Mormonism are Catholics.

Mormons target Catholics who don’t know their faith.

Sadly, that’s the majority of our fellow Catholics. They’ve been nearly defenseless against Mormon propaganda.

...With our new special report on Mormonism, we can “inoculate” Catholics from the half-truths and skewed history presented by Mormon missionaries.

By getting this report into the hands of Catholics all across America, we can bolster the faith of Catholics and keep them from leaving the Church."

-Why Catholics are easy targetsfor Mormon evangelists

Toward the end of the article, some interesting facts are mentioned:

“FACT: Each year, the Mormon church baptizes 300,000 converts. (That’s 800 a day—or another million every three years.) Half are former Catholics.”

...P.S. The Mormon religion is not what is styles itself to be. Even our Protestant brethren agree that Mormonism is non-Christian. And yet, Mormonism is flourishing in America.

Mormons especially target poorly-catechized Catholics. (Worldwide, Catholics make up half the converts to Mormonism.)”

If those facts are true, that’s a loss of half a million Catholics over three years. I’m too busy right now to look up membership statistics, but that seems like a pretty good bleed just to Mormonism alone. And it must be a concerning loss, for Catholic Answers is willing to appeal to the opinion of their “Protestant brethren” for support against Mormonism while throwing this same “brethren” under the bus in the next campaign.

The next threat to the ignorant Catholic masses (and the second need for an “inoculation”) is the “one-two punch” of homosexual activists and “radical anti-Catholics” at World Youth Day:

“And it’s what our Catholic youth will be facing when they go to see the Pope at World Youth Day in July.

In fact, our Catholic youth are facing a “one-two punch.”

On one hand, there will be the homosexual activists promoting the “gay rights” agenda, and then there will be the radical anti-Catholics—who always descend upon World Youth Day like birds of prey.

...How do I know this?

Because this is exactly what the anti-Catholics have done at every World Youth Day for fifteen years now—since 1993.

They print slick propaganda pieces designed to look like Catholic literature, if you judge by the covers. They hand these pamphlets out by the thousands to unsuspecting Catholic youth.

But inside is the worst anti-Catholic propaganda you’ve ever seen.

Using clever but deceptive arguments for which the anti-Catholics are famous, these slick propaganda pieces get the reader to doubt many of our most important Catholic beliefs and practices,”

...This started in 1993, in Denver, Colorado. We were there—and we created a special little booklet about the Catholic faith, designed to inoculate our Catholic youth against anti-Catholic propaganda.

...Any time you have swarms of Catholic students in one place, there are bound to be tens-of- thousands that aren’t well-catechized and don’t have a proper understanding of the issues.

Thus, they’re highly vulnerable to slick propaganda—not only from anti-Catholic Protestants and dissident Catholics, but this time from the radical homosexual activists too.

...P.S. With your help, we can thwart the anti-Catholics and the homosexual activists at World Youth Day—and help make this event a glorious one for the Church and for the salvation of souls.”

-Sydney or Sodom?

Note the hypocrisy of Catholic Answers when comparing the two “P.S.”s of the two campaigns. In the first campaign Protestants are brethren whose opinion is consulted, in the second they are “anti-Catholics” with “slick propaganda” that must be thwarted. I have seen this conflicting attitude many times so it is worth pointing out.

In both articles, Catholic Answers is looking for donations as they “simply don’t have that much money right now. In fact, we don’t really have any of it”. So the issues for Catholic Answers and the Church seem to be manifold: an large population of Catholics ignorant of their faith, a slow bleed of Catholics to Mormonism, the continued threat of homosexuals, liberals, and Protestants, and a lack of funds to do much about any of it. While I do lament Catholic youth being duped by people with liberal sexual agendas and Catholics falling into the further apostasy of Mormonism, I am glad to see Catholic Answers reveal their hypocritical motivations in sometimes calling Protestants their brethren. Protestants who are sympathetic to Catholicism should be paying attention to this.

Addition: I highlighted another Catholic Answer's campaign against "zealous anti-Catholics" a few months back.

(back to obscurity)

The Dead Letter of Scripture

Following on a discussion in this combox, I shared a few quotes from Catholics on the Bible. I think my use of the quotes wasn’t quite understood, so I thought I would break the quotes down here.

"It is the Church, the holder of Tradition, that gives life to the dead letter of Scripture. Experience shows that it is only in the life of the Church, the Bride of Christ, that Scripture, divinely inspired as it is, becomes 'living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword' (Heb 4:12)"
-A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1951 (pg 2)
with imprimatur and acknowledgment of Pope Pius XII

SUMMARY
1. Scripture is a dead letter in need of life.
2. Only the Roman Catholic Church gives life to Scripture.
3. Therefore, without the RCC, Scripture is dead and ineffectual.

"In regard to these truth [faith and morals] the authority of Tradition and of the Bible is equal...Nevertheless, as we shall see later, the Church is superior to the Bible in the sense that she is the Living Voice of Christ, and therefore the sole infallible interpreter of the inspired Word, whenever an authoritative interpretation is required."
-A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1951 (pg 2)
with imprimatur and acknowledgment of Pope Pius XII

SUMMARY
1. The Roman Catholic Church “is superior to the Bible".
2. Therefore, the Bible is inferior to the Church.

"A competent religious guide must be clear and intelligible to all, so that everyone may fully understand the true meaning of the instructions it contains. Is the Bible a book intelligible to all? Far from it; it is full of obscurities and difficulties not only for the illiterate, but even for the learned...The Fathers of the Church, though many of them spent their whole lives in the study of the Scriptures, are unanimous in pronouncing the Bible a book full of knotty difficulties."
-The Faith of Our Fathers

SUMMARY
1. A competent religious guide must be clear to all.
2. The Bible is not clear to all.
3. Therefore, the Bible is incompetent.
(this one is directly related to the previous combox discussion - lack of clarity equals incompetence.)

"We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation."
-The Faith of Our Fathers

SUMMARY
1. Scripture is not accessible to all.
2. Scripture is not clear, even in very important matters.
3. Scripture does not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.
4. Therefore, Scripture alone is an insufficient rule of faith.


FINAL SUMMARY: God's breathed-out revelation to his creation is dead, ineffectual, unclear, incompetent, insufficient, incomplete with regards to salvation and inferior to the Roman Catholic Church.

What does that say about God?


In contrast, what God's Word says about itself:

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. Isa 55:10-11

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." Ps 119:105

"And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." Deut 8:3

"The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple." Ps 119:130

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers." 1 Thess 2:13

"Is not my word like fire," declares the LORD, "and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?" Jer 23:29

"and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:15-16

Great Apologetic Resources

Saint & Sinner has had some excellent posts on his blog lately. I wanted to quickly highlight a few:

The Infallible Knowledge Argument
The Doctrinal Chaos Argument
The Argument from Apostolic Tradition and Succession
The Argument from Canon Certainty

S&S; also has a great apologetic website with lots of great material. I highly recommend his Roman Catholicism page which contains many well-researched articles.

Popes in Hell

So, Catholics confirm that there are likely some Popes in Hell.

I am still wondering why God would attribute such high responsibility and honors to a man who would end up in hell for eternity. This does not sound like an understandable spiritual end for the visible leader of the flock of whom the following has been said said:

Catechism of St. Pius X

50 Q: Who is the Pope?
A: The Pope, who is also called the Sovereign Pontiff, or the Roman Pontiff, is the Successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, and the visible Head of the Church.
52 Q: Why is the Roman Pontiff the Vicar of Jesus Christ?
A: The Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Jesus Christ because He represents Him on earth and acts in His stead in the government of the Church.
53 Q: Why is the Roman Pontiff the Visible Head of the Church?
A: The Roman Pontiff is the Visible Head of the Church because he visibly governs her with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, who is her invisible Head.
54 Q: What, then, is the dignity of the Pope?
A: The dignity of the Pope is the greatest of all dignities on earth, and gives him supreme and immediate power over all and each of the Pastors and of the faithful.
55 Q: Can the Pope err when teaching the Church?
A: The Pope cannot err, that is, he is infallible, in definitions regarding faith and morals.
58 Q: What sin would a man commit who should refuse to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope?
A: He who refuses to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope, or who even doubts them, sins against faith; and should he remain obstinate in this unbelief, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.
62 Q: How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?
A: Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.


Catechism of Trent

"Above all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church."

If I were a Catholic I would feel a bit discouraged that Popes, with all their "graces" and honors, may not make it to heaven. I would have to have a great deal of confidence in myself to "merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed" when some Vicars of Christ have failed.

Did He Make It?

This story from Catholic News got me thinking:

“The office in charge of promoting Pope John Paul II's sainthood cause is looking for English speakers who have a story to tell about their meeting with the late pope, their prayers for his intercession or graces received after asking for his help.

In a March 17 statement, the Rome diocesan office for the sainthood cause said English submissions to the cause's Web site were seriously falling behind those in Italian, Polish and French.

…A spokeswoman for the office said: "It does not have to be a miracle or something extraordinary. We would like to hear and share stories about an encounter or a grace received or a hope.”

First, I find it interesting that there is an “office” devoted to promoting JPII’s sainthood. What is in this for people?

Second, I have to wonder why Popes, the great “Vicars of Christ”, wouldn’t be fast-tracked to sainthood. Do Catholics believe that God would send his number one representative on earth to hell, or is time in purgatory the wild card?

My questions are rhetorical, I am not looking for answers – just sharing my thoughts on the inconsistency and futility of it all.

Widening the Road with Monotheism

Online Roman Catholics often quote Newman in their discussions with Protestants: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” After some recent combox discussions here and here, I was reminded of one of my own renderings of the Newman quote, “to be deep in the Book of Romans is to cease to be Roman Catholic”.

The discussion in the last few posts have centered around some quotes by Pope John Paul II and three associated paragraphs from the catechism:

#841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

#847 “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

#1260 “"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

Some Roman Catholics seem to maintain that it is possible for some people to be saved without explicit faith in Christ. It’s a “mystery” that is somehow through Christ, but without knowledge of Christ. Unfortunately for their argument, this idea goes against the basic truths of God's revelation.

In discussing these ideas and related to the RCC’s courting of Muslims, the assertion has been made by some RCs that monotheism is a sign of God’s grace working in a person’s life. As best as I can follow the argument, a monotheist has a better chance at salvation than, say, a polytheist. From the RC point of view, the fact that someone is a monotheist means they are seeking God, and since no one seeks God without his grace, anyone outwardly seeking a single god must be doing so by God's graces.

In my mind, this sounds like a Roman Catholic version of “many roads lead to heaven” with God drawing people by his grace primarily, but not necessarily, to Christ. Religious people, especially monotheists, are such because they are responding to God's universal drawing and "doing the will of God in accordance with their understanding of it". In defense of some of these ideas, some RC commenters have been relying heavily on two prooftexts: Acts 17:27 and Romans 10:2. I would like to address the Romans verse briefly, I hope I can find time eventually to address the Acts citation also.

Opening with the latest framing of Romans 10:2 by an RC commenter:

How is it possible that they had zeal for the true God? By grace,
right?

I am still baffled at what this verse proves in the RC's mind. Looking at it in context:

"Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:1-4

Their zeal is not based on knowledge. They do not know Christ and they are not submitting to Him.

The Judaizers were monotheists and “zealous” also. Was their zealousness, condemned by Paul, by God’s grace?

“Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them. It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good,” Gal 4:17-18

“Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.” Gal 6:12

Paul was “zealous” in his persecution of the church prior to his conversion. Was his “zealousness for God” (by persecuting Christ) by grace?

“Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless… For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.” Phil 3:2-5, 18-19

“Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today. I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison,” Acts 22:2-4

Considering what Paul said to Timothy about his life pre-Christ, his "zeal for God" as a Jew hardly sounds consistent with positive movement towards God:

"I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." 1 Tim 1:12-14

Likewise, most of the Pharisees would have been considered “zealous for God” (as Paul was as a Pharisee) but it was without knowledge.

Here is what Jesus said to the Pharisees about their rejection of him:

“Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." John 8:42-47

Were the Pharisees children of the devil by grace? They certainly were outwardly “zealous for God”.

Now, I think the RC usage of "grace" here is a bit different than mine, but even using their broad definition, I think their prooftexts fail to show what they think they show. It has not been shown that anyone who is seeking "a god" is doing so by God's grace. If it were grace, then grace is doing some weird things. There also seems to be a misunderstanding on the RC's part around the difference of “knowing of God” and “knowing God”. Romans 1 addresses this:

“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” Romans 1: 20-25

Vatican on Mortal Sins

From FoxNews:

After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalization. The list, published yesterday in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “secularized world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.

…The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell.”

…Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican body which oversees confessions and plenary indulgences, said after a week-long Lenten seminar for priests that surveys showed 60 percent of Catholics in Italy no longer went to confession.

He said that priests must take account of “new sins which have appeared on the horizon of humanity as a corollary of the unstoppable process of globalization.” Whereas sin in the past was thought of as being an individual matter, it now has “social resonance.”

“You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbor’s wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos,” he said.

Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or “the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few.”

Update: It looks like this story was misreported by most News agencies. For a Catholic perspective see here and here. The original source of the material (L’Osservatore Romano) should be available online in the next day or two.

Catholic E-pologetic Methodology #3

This is a personal favorite of mine, of Catholic apologetics in action.


II Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work."

James White: "But, finally, we remember Mr. Madrid's challenge to show him a verse that teaches sufficiency. Mr. Madrid, I would like to direct you to the Scriptural standard, "by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a fact be established." I first refer you to Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon, where we encounter the definition given for the semantic domain of ejxartivzw, I quote, 'To make someone completely adequate, or sufficient for something; to make adequate, to furnish completely, to cause to be fully qualified; adequacy." They translate our passage as, "completely qualified for every good deed.' While Louw and Nida give us two witnesses, I wish to direct you as well to the well-known scholarly resource by Fritz Reinecker and Cleon Rogers, entitled Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament. Here, we find the following, in regards to both terms, here in verse 17: 'a[rtios': fit, complete, capable, sufficient, i.e., able to meet all demands; ejxartivzw: completely outfitted, fully furnished, fully equipped, fully supplied.' "


Patrick Madrid: "Mr. White is resting his case on the say-so of a few Protestant Greek scholars. That to me is not an infallible source of authority, Mr. White, the Bible is. Now, I didn't mean to denigrate the Biblical language, and I'm sorry that you took it that way, when I said that your argument was irrelevant. What I meant was, that you can use all the Protestant Biblical scholars' citations that you want to show that a word means something, but, notice that the word "sufficient" came as the third or fourth definition, or the third or fourth meaning, that was assigned to this word. It was not the primary meaning. I am not going to debate what this Protestant Greek scholar may or may not have said. First of all, they're Protestant, so they're naturally going to give a spin to something that a Catholic scholar might see something different in. Now Mr. White might respond by saying that, "Well, Greek is Greek, Mr. Madrid, you can't argue on the basis of ideology or politics." I'm going to save that for some future point, simply because we don't have the time to go into what the Catholic scholars say on that issue. So I'm not going to go into that now."

Source