Reminding Patrick Madrid of Rome's Blueprints

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 8/13/09

As far as I know, it was Patrick Madrid who popularized the description "blueprint for anarchy" in describing sola scriptura. Recently, Madrid posted Techno Apologetics: The "Sola Scriptura" Baptists-Can't-Dance Mix. He includes a mocking video against Dr. White. He also links to his oft-refuted article,The White Man's Burden. Yes, it's professional Catholic apologetics at its best, a dance mix video, and an article that was entirely dismantled by Dr. White.

In his recent blog article, Madrid states,

"By the way, the 'Sola Scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy!' line that Mr. White quotes contemptuously in this montage (actually, I think he may have quoted it contemptuously in our 1993 Sola Scriptura debate in Chula Vista, CA) is something I have been saying for years."

Contemptuously? The audio recording speaks for itself as to who responded and interacted politely, and who did not. It was actually Mr. Madrid in the 1993 sola scriptura debate who said in closing,

There is confusion reigning among Protestantism, all of them claiming to go by the Bible alone and none of them being able to meet entirely on what the Bible means. Now Jesus, pardon me, Paul said in I Corinthians 1:10, "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." Sola scriptura has been a blueprint for anarchy, folks. Just trace the historical record back to the time of the Reformation and look at all the competing sects that have arisen.

Remember, if the argument you're using works just as well against your own position, it's best not to use that argument. Over on my own blog, I have my own occasional feature called, Blueprint for Anarchy. What I've been doing is simply keeping track of all the times I come across Rome's zealous defenders disagreeing with each other, or pointing out the lack of clarity within Roman Catholicism as well as the confusion.

Robert Sungenis recently stated Rome's scholars are worse than Protestant liberals. Jimmy Akin recently chastised the interpretation of his priest saying, "This isn't exegetical rocket science." Steve Ray had some similar problems with a priest and concludes the church is "Always reforming, always in need of reform." Mark Shea accuses Robert Sungenis of lying. Sungenis says Scott Hahn misunderstands of the whole issue of justification. Over on the Catholic Answers forum, they recently had a heated discussion as to whether Scott Hahn teaches "prima scriptura." Tim Staples says he went to a mass in which the priest led the church in "the wave." Jimmy Akin says you can pray to whoever you want to, even if they aren't saints. Art Sippo says Mary should be Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. Patrick Madrid disagreed with him. Karl Keating states, "Many Catholics are confused because some priests tell them contracepting is immoral, while others tell them the practice is morally neutral; some priests speak as though Mary had only one child, while others imply that she was the mother of the 'brethren of the Lord', some priests correctly explain the meaning of the Real Presence, while others refer to the Eucharist as only a symbol. Priests are authority figures, and lay people expect them to know and teach the faith accurately- not a safe assumption nowadays." Jim Burnham stated on Catholic Answers that Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist.

I could go on and on. I didn't even mention any of my "We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary " posts. In those posts, you can see that Catholic apologists disagree with each other when they interpret the Bible. Then there are the big issues, like evolution. If you want to see diversity of opinion, simply try and nail down a Catholic apologist or a Catholic theologian on it. You would think Catholic theologians could at least be unified on Luther and the Reformation. Some say Luther was sent by Satan, others think he wasn't such a bad guy.

Shall we conclude that an infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture = harmony? The facts speak for themselves. I've got to believe by this point that Mr. Madrid is aware that this is a false argument. The misuse of a sufficient source does not negate the clarity of that sufficient source. If he wants to argue differences among Protestants means anarchy, he should be willing to first clean up his own house before pointing any fingers, or posting dance mix videos.

The Perspicuity of 2 Maccabees 12 on Purgatory?

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 03/03/2009

Recently Dr. White pointed out the gulf between Catholic scholarship and popular Catholic apologists. I recently read a Roman Catholic explanation of purgatory by Zachary Hayes ("a noted Franciscan theologian and Bonaventure scholar, OFM, of the Sacred Heart Province, is a retired professor of systematic theology at the Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, where he taught for thirty-seven years" [source]). Reading Hayes was far different than reading the usual suspects that have taken it upon themselves to interpret Rome. Many of the current Catholic apologists look at Biblical texts and simply assume they clearly prove purgatory. Hayes argues quite differently.

Let's leave the apocrypha debate aside for a moment and look at the verse Catholic apologists say unambiguously teaches purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12: 41-46. The argument goes, if Luther didn't throw 2 Maccabees out of the Bible, Protestants would have to admit the passage clearly teaches purgatory.

When Karl Keating addresses this text in Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), he first asserts "Scripture teaches that purgatory exists" (p. 193) and then among a few proof texts, he bolsters his claim with: "Then there is the Bible's approbation of prayers for the dead: 'It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins' (2 Macc 12:46)." In his book What Catholics Really Believe he states, "Unless it refers to Purgatory, 2 Maccabees 12:46 makes no sense" (p. 90). In his book, Answer Me This! (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003), Patrick Madrid states, "The doctrine [of purgatory] is expressed clearly in the Old Testament book of 2 Maccabees 12" (p. 204). The New Catholic Answer Bible [Wichita: Fireside Catholic Publishing, 2005] insert answers the question "Is Purgatory in the Bible?" by stating, "The writer of 2 Maccabees praises the offering of prayers and sacrifices for the dead (see 12:38-46). Why do the departed need such assistance from us? So that their sins 'might be blotted out' (12:42)" (Insert H2). In the book, A Biblical Defense Of Catholicism [MS Word Version, 2001] the author has a section entitled "Scriptural Evidence for Purgatory." The account described in 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 44-45 is said to "presuppose purgatory" (p.128).

On the other hand, Zachary Hayes states the Council of Trent maintained the passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" [Four Views On Hell (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996), p. 103]. He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and these see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Modern Catholic exegetes conclude:"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).

These statements must not be construed to imply Hayes denies the relevance of these passages for purgatory. He argues for purgatory from tradition, and uses the classic acorn and oak tree analogy. "Is there some basis in the Scriptures for the doctrine of purgatory, or is there not? If we are looking for clear and unambiguous statements of the doctrine, we will look in vain... we might better ask if anything in Scripture initiated the development that eventually led to the doctrine of purgatory" (p.104). Hayes says of current Catholic scholarship,"Thus, Roman Catholic exegetes and theologians at the present time would be inclined to say that although there is no clear textual basis in Scripture for the later doctrine of purgatory, neither is there anything that is clearly contrary to that doctrine" (p.107).

In their zeal to win converts, current Catholic apologists think that simply citing a verse will be enough to win converts. When they're challenged to exegete a passage, texts like 2 Maccabees 12 become minefields. For instance, an alleged "Biblical Defense of Catholicism" of this text boils down to saying Jewish people prayed for the dead and Jesus never corrected this belief as an error of the Jews, nor did he deny a "third state" in the afterlife (p.128). When faced with the fact that those being prayed for in 2 Maccabees were idolaters, therefore dying in mortal sin, Catholic Answers states (via This Rock [this link works!]),

"They died fighting in a battle to defend Israel from pagans. Thus it seems that they were fundamentally doing the right thing (defending Israel from paganism) even though they were somewhat tainted with it themselves. In this mixed state they may well have been guilty of venial rather than mortal sin, like the case of a Christian who wears a good-luck charm while still having a fundamental commitment to following God."

I'm reminded of a certain Biblical story in which a certain "ark of God'' was about to fall, and a person "reached out toward the ark of God to take hold of it," and God struck him down, and how someone at Catholic Answers would explain this. Regardless, 2 Maccabees says their idolatry caused the loss of their lives (2 Macc. 12:40). The text says nothing about prayers for these soldiers to exit purgatory, rather it had to do with resurrection (12:43-45). Further, Catholic apologists have to struggle with historical studies like Jacques Le Goff's The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981] in which he points out that "at the time of Judas Maccabeus- around 170 B.C., a surprisingly innovative period- prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews (p. 45).

Overall, even though disagreeing with Hayes as to the positive origin and affirming development of Purgatory, there was something fundamentally more honest in reading his analysis as compared to the Catholic apologists cited above. Hayes seems to realize that simply assuming the conclusion of what one wants to prove Biblically becomes tenuous in light of history. For Hayes, elements of Purgatory are found in 2 Maccabees 12, but as to purgatory proper, it was the result of development begun at the level of popular piety. For Catholic apologists, the text simply means purgatory.These are two very different approaches.

Interpreting the Actions of a Pope... Even Popes Make Mistakes

...and exactly who in the Papacy allows her apologists to make judgements like the following:

For my part, I freely, if reluctantly, grant that there were some seriously problematic things the late Holy Father did that I dearly wish he had not done (e.g., kissing a Koran, the Assisi inter-religious prayer events, allowing altar girls), as well as one thing in particular that I dearly wish he had done but didn’t: namely, to have sacked at least a few of those notoriously malfeasant, corrupt, and publicly heterodox bishops who did such tremendous damage to the church during the wasting years of their devouring regimes.

But that’s just me.

For the record, I love and esteem Pope John Paul II and am convinced of his heroic personal sanctity. And yet, I also recognize that the variegated aspects of his pontificate are a needed reminder of the hard lesson that even good and holy and courageous popes like him, are imperfect and can make mistakes in how they govern the Church. [source]

Note the use of the word "mistakes." Kissing the Koran was simply a mistake. Not "sacking" "a few of those notoriously malfeasant, corrupt, and publicly heterodox bishops who did such tremendous damage to the church during the wasting years of their devouring regimes" was a mistake. "Inter-religious prayer events" were a mistake.

Roman Catholic Harry Potter Fans

Patrick Madrid says....

Among the odd things I’ve seen in the Catholic world, one of the oddest is the capacity of some Catholic Harry Potter fans to go zero-to-60 on the manic meter instantaneously at the mere suggestion that there might be something spiritually deleterious about HP.

Yeah well Patrick, try talking with a Roman Catholic convinced Mary is making appearances. I spent about 3 hours talking with a woman who was convinced Mary appeared in the sky above her, so when she looked into the sun, she was not blinded but protected by Mary. She went zero-to-60 when I suggested such an experience might be something spiritually deleterious.

Helping Pat Madrid's Envoy Website

I was searching Patrick Madrid's Envoy website and found the following curiousity. Note the search, and the sponsored links from Google. Talk about sending mixed messages!

Did Martin Luther believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?

Did Martin Luther believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary? According to Rome's defenders Patrick Madrid and Taylor Marshall, he did. Madrid says this question will "likely raise a few eyebrows, pique a few sensitivities, and elicit a few comments around Christian blogdom, from both sides of the Tiber." It appears Madrid thinks Taylor Marshall posted some new controversial tidbit of historical research finally making its way to the Internet. Actually, Marshall's alleged information has been surfing around for over ten years, cut, pasted, and rehashed, taken from one specific defender of Rome with a blog.

Contrary to Marshall's blog entry, it is not a clear cut case as to what Luther's view was. Rome's defenders typically ignore anything about Mary that doesn't support Rome's Mariology. The same goes for Luther's Mariology: when Rome's defenders find a Luther tidbit about Mary seeming to support their version of Mary, they run with it, even if other evidence contradicts what they're using. So, here's a closer look at Taylor Marshall's facts about Luther and the Immaculate Conception.


1.The eminent Lutheran scholar Arthur Carl Piepkorn

The first tidbit used by Marshall is that "The eminent Lutheran scholar Arthur Carl Piepkorn (1907-73) has also confirmed that Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception even as a Protestant." No quote, research finding, or documentation from Piepkorn are presented by either Marshall or Madrid. That doesn't surprise me, because the only material from Piepkorn on this subject that I know of comes from The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn, (New York: ALPB Books, 1993). This is typically the source Rome's defenders use.

Piepkorn makes a comment in passing on page 275, leaving the discussion at Luther “seems” to have had a lifelong belief in the Immaculate Conception. He neither discusses the content of Luther’s opinion, nor does he offer any indication if something similar to the 1854 dogma is in question. Then on page 289 Piepkorn states:

Yet three years before his death [Luther] was still affirming in print the opinion that he had worked out in detail with considerable theological ingenuity twenty five years earlier [#12], namely that through the merits of her Son -to-be the Blessed Virgin was marvelously preserved from the taint of sin from the first moment of her existence as a human being [#13].

footnote #12. Sermon on the Gospel for the Feast of the Conception of the B.V.M. (1517), Weimar edition 17/2, 288.

footnote #13. Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlect Christi, 1543, Weimar edition, 53,640. compare for the year 1553, 37, 231, where he describes the B.V.M. as an sund (i.e. ohne Sünde, "without sin").

Footnote #12 is actually an error. The sermon Piepkorn's referenced was published in 1527, so it was
preached some time before it was published, but not in 1517. Even the reference Piepkorn cites says 1527. The sermon begins on page 280 in WA 17.2 (here is page 288). This sermon will be discussed below in point #2, because later printed copies of the sermon (from Luther's lifetime) delete the sole passing comment to Mary's Immaculate Conception, and the editors of Luther's Works (LW) do not even believe Luther wrote the comment affirming the Immaculate Conception on page 288. The error makes Piepkorn's "twenty five year" comment inaccurate. That is, the sermon he based his comment on was probably preached nine or ten years later.

Footnote #13 refers to one of Luther's later anti-Jewish writings, not a treatise on Mariology. Luther does not launch into any full discussion of Mary's Immaculate Conception. Luther does state, only in passing that it was necessary for Mary to be a young holy virgin freed of original sin and cleansed by the Holy Ghost to be the mother of Jesus Christ. This statement comes after argumentation for Mary's perpetual virginity. What the statement from Luther doesn't say, one way or the other, is if Mary lived a completely sinless life. I've documented a number of times in which Luther says the cleansing of Mary by the Holy Spirit happened at the conception of Christ, not at Mary's conception.

Piepkorn presents no argumentation or analysis. Why would Piepkorn takes vague statements and put forth strong conclusions? I can only speculate, but Piepkorn had interest in ecumenical dialog with Rome. He was involved for multiple years with Lutheran-Catholic dialogue. Roman scholar Raymond Brown praised Piepkorn and commented that it would be preposterous to doubt the validity of his priestly orders. Piepkorn's romance with Rome seems to have molded his interpretation of Luther's Mariology.


2. On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God, 1527
The next tidbit offered by Marshall is the following Luther quote:

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" - Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.

This quote made its way into a cyber space when a defender of Rome about 10 years ago began posting it after he took it from Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar's book, Luther Vol. IV (St Louis: B. Herder, 1913). Grisar uses this quote, but what Rome's defenders typically leave out is Grisar's analysis:

The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear (p.238)

The reason for their disappearance is that as Luther’s Christocentric theology developed, aspects of Luther’s Mariology were abandoned. Grisar also recognizes the development in Luther's theology. In regards to the Luther quote in question, Grisar also says:

As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.

The most one can conclude from this Luther quote is that Luther held to some form of Mary's sinlessness in 1527. According to Grisar, the comment was stricken from the sermon, and Luther abandoned his earlier view. To read a detailed account of this quote, see my entry here.

3. Martin Luther's Little Prayer Book, 1522

Marshall then uses another Luther quote to prove his case:

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. - Martin Luther's Little Prayer Book, 1522

"Martin Luther's Little Prayer Book" refers to the Personal Prayer Book of 1522. Here Luther does treat the subject of Mary. He states, "In the first place, she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin—something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil" (LW 43:39).

This quote indeed appears to treat Mary as entirely sinless. This statement was made in 1522. If Grisar is correct, Luther's later view does not reflect such sentiment. Even in this early Reformation writing, Luther began changing the emphasis on Mary, and de-emphasizing the importance of her attributes:

“Take note of this: no one should put his trust or confidence in the Mother of God or in her merits, for such trust is worthy of God alone and is the lofty service due only to him. Rather praise and thank God through Mary and the grace given her. Laud and love her simply as the one who, without merit, obtained such blessings from God, sheerly out of his mercy, as she herself testifies in the Magnificat.” (LW 43:39)

“Therefore we should make the Hail Mary neither a prayer nor an invocation because it is improper to interpret the words beyond what they mean in themselves and beyond the meaning given them by the Holy Spirit.” (LW 43:39)

“…her giving birth is blessed in that it was spared the curse upon all children of Eve who are conceived in sin and born to deserve death and damnation. Only the fruit of her body is blessed, and through this birth we are all blessed.” (LW 43:40)

“…in the present no one speaks evil of this Mother and her Fruit as much as those who bless her with many rosaries and constantly mouth the Hail Mary. These, more than any others, speak evil against Christ’s word and faith in the worst way." (LW 43:40)

“Therefore, notice that this Mother and her Fruit are blessed in a twofold way—bodily and spiritually. Bodily with lips and the words of the Hail Mary; such persons blaspheme and speak evil of her most dangerously. And spiritually [one blesses her] in one’s heart by praise and benediction for her child, Christ—for all his words, deeds, and sufferings. And no one does this except he who has the true Christian faith because without such faith no heart is good but is by nature stuffed full of evil speech and blasphemy against God and all his saints.” (LW 43:40)

It makes sense that by 1530 or so, Luther's views on Mary would shift even more away from those espoused by the Roman church.


Luther's view?
Luther's later view appears to be that at Christ's conception the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-sinful flesh and blood. For an example of Luther's argumentation, see: Luther and the Immaculate Conception? The 1540 Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ. There are many other statements about Mary from Luther that Rome's defenders ignore. Most of these are post-1527. In this sermon Luther states, " although she had been sanctified by the Holy Spirit; yet he permitted her at times to err, even in the important matters of faith." He says elsewhere:

Be they called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or any other name, even though they were Mary, Joseph and all the saints it does not follow that they could not have erred and made mistakes. For here you learn that the mother of Christ though she possessed great intelligence and enlightenment, showed great ignorance in that she did not know where to find Christ, and in consequence was censured by him because she did not know what she should have known. If she failed and through her ignorance was brought to such anxiety and sorrow that she thought she had lost Christ, is it a wonder that other saints should often have erred and stumbled, when they followed their own notions, without the guidance of Scripture, or put their own notions into Scripture [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.48].

See also selections from this blog entry, documenting the same position from Luther. Rather than discussing Mary’s sinlessness, Luther's later writings insist Christ’s sinlessness was due entirely to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit during his conception. In 1532 he preached:

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person [Martin Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, ed. John Nicholas Lenker. ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 291].

In 1534 Luther explained that Christ was “born of a young maiden, as you and I are born of our mothers. The only difference is that the Holy Spirit engineered this conception and birth, while in contrast we mortals are conceived and born in sin.”[Ibid., 294.]. With the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, there is a clear change in Luther’s thought. The theologian, who had at one time praised both mother and child for their purity, now praised only the Son.

Conclusion
This is only a brief look at a subject I've spent considerable time on over the years. I would never be dogmatic (for lack of a better word), but I've never found any conclusive quotes from Luther (with a context!) after 1527 that reflect his earlier position on the Immaculate Conception.

There's one defender of Rome who thinks simply doing a scholarly head count on this issue (which scholars think Luther believed in the immaculate Conception, and which do not) is the means of determining Luther's view. This isn't my way of determining truth. I like to look at quotes and look up contexts, especially on an issue that has some uncertainty about it. Simply consider the errors I located in Piepkorn's view detailed here, and also in this previous entry. Those who think simply counting heads determines truth are typically those who really don't care about the truth. It's probable Patrick Madrid could care less about the nuts and bolts of Luther's view. I don't know anything about Taylor Marshall. Perhaps he's a guy interested in history and truth and will revise his blog entry. Marshall concludes his article stating,

Far be it from me to approve of Luther. I only list these quotes to show how far Protestantism has come from it's quasi-Catholic origin. If only Lutherans would return to this single doctrine of their founder; how quickly our Lady would turn them into true Catholics! Queen conceived without original sin, pray for us!

Even if Martin Luther believed in Mary's Immaculate Conception, the Reformation does not suffer loss. Neither myself nor the Lutheran church considers Luther to be an infallible source of either interpretation or revelation. However, the defenders of Rome need to do a little better at proving Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Warning signs of a diabolical spirit and how to recognize them...from a Roman Catholic Perspective

Here's a recent tidbit from Patrick Madrid's blog: Warning signs of a diabolical spirit and how to recognize them. Some of the list makes sense, here though are two to ponder:

14. Lack of deep devotion to Jesus and Mary.

15. Scrupulous adherence to the letter of the law and fanatical zeal in promoting a cause. This characteristic readily opens the door to diabolical influence in reformers and demagogues.

OK, let's see, I'm not really devoted to Mary, and I enjoy the writings of certain reformers.... But then again, this isn't an official infallible list, but rather "the teaching on this subject by the late Dominican theologian, Fr. Jordan Aumann, O.P." Never mind.

Patrick Madrid on Zwingli's Bible and the Removal of the Apocrypha

Here's a tidbit from Patrick Madrid's book Answer Me This! (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 2003) p.176.

The Catholic Church did not add [the Apocryphal books] at the Council of Trent. Rather, it was the early Protestant reformer Ulrich Zwingli who most notably deleted the Deuterocanonical books from his edition of the Bible.

I wasn't aware Zwingli actually single-handily produced a translation of the Bible. I assume Mr. Madrid is referring to The Zürich Bible, which was a project Zwingli was involved with, though by no means the mastermind behind it (like Luther was his German Bible). Leo Jud is typically the man credited for the majority of the project. As far as I know, Zwingli wasn't responsible for any of the translation, though a preface is attributed to him with reservations.

Did the Zürich Bible delete the Apocrypha? No.

The first edition of the Swiss-German Bible was published in six volumes (Zurich, 1527-29), the fifth of which contains the Apocrypha. The title page of this volume states, "These are the books which are not reckoned as biblical by the ancients, nor are found among the Hebrews." A one-volume edition of the Zurich Bible, which appeared in 1530, contains the apocryphal books grouped together after the New Testament [source]

Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta says this about the Zürich Bible:

The Alsatian Zwinglite, Leo Jud, produced a translation of Scripture known as the Zurich Bible (1531). The Deuterocanon is included in an appendix titled "Apocryphi." Jud justifies his inclusion of the appendix so that those who read them and like them will not complain about their absence. He claims to have followed the Fathers in that they did not include the Deuterocanon among the Holy Scripture. However, Jud states,

... [Y]et they [the Deuterocanon] contain much which in no way contradicts the biblical writings, faith and love, and some things which are founded in God's word.

Completed in 1531, three years before the publication of Luther's bible, the Zurich Bible matches Luther's translation in contents and order. Another preface of the Zurich Bible, commonly ascribed to Zwingli, states that the Apocrypha is not highly esteemed, being less clear and accurate that the Protocanon, although the books contain much that is true and useful. Zwingli leaves it up to the reader to divide the good from the bad. Like Jud's preface, Zwingli states that the Apocrypha has been included in the Zurich Bible "so that no one may complain of lacking anything, and each may find what is to his taste.

-snip-

In the 1543 edition of the Latin Zurich Bible, the title of the Apocryphi appendix was changed to "Church Books" (Ecclesiastici Libri). The preface states:

Church Books which the Church always held to be holy books, worthy for the pious to read. Yet they were not given equal authority with the canonical writings. Our forefathers wanted them to be read in the churches, but not drawn on to confirm the authority of faith (articles of faith). So they were called apocrypha, a word which is not in every respect appropriate or suitable for them. They had no validity among the Hebrews, but were brought to light again among the Greeks." [Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p.257-258].

Evangelization as a Sales Pitch & Clash of the Titans Update

Here's a person who thinks the "I swam the Tiber" apologetic method is troubling:

Evangelization as a Sales Pitch
Of course, there's another side of the story:

Patrick Madrid is Evil

Without any guidelines from Rome, I guess they'll just have to fight it out.

Here's an update on the Sungenis vs. Shea struggle for apologetic dominion- The Catholic Answers folks are weighing in:

"I like Sungenis. I think that it's become something of the "in" thing to do to make swipes at more conservative members of the faith such as him. But then who's the first person everybody turns to when the next James White debate comes up?"

"Dr. Robert Sungenis is the best Catholic apologist by far. We need more like him."

"I like Mark Shea and Robert Sunngenis. They've both done good work for the church. I think they both have their character flaws (who doesn't?) that show up every so often. I'm disappointed in both of them that they can't conduct this discussion in a charitable way without resorting to fifth-grade antics."

"Sungenis is a crackpot who never paid the money he owed to all the people who whipped his bottom in his "geocentrism challenge" years ago. He had actual, for-real NASA guys wiping the floor with his ignorant self. We all watched it go down. He's a weirdo. Ally yourself with weirdoes and crackpots at your own risk."

Dr. Robert Sungenis is the best Catholic apologist by far. We need more like him.- Good Lord, you're serious, aren't you? We need MORE geocentrist, crackpot apologists? Just exactly what do you think the mission of an apologist is? To bring derision upon the Church by confirming the most outlandish suspicions and worst prejudices of non-Catholics in secular society?

"People don't take swipes at [Sungenis]because it's the "in" thing. They take swipes at him because they think he's wrong, or even crazy, or even (in my admittedly non-Catholic perspective) the proponent of revoltingly evil beliefs (no, I'm not talking about geocentrism--that's somewhere between wrong and crazy!)."

But then who's the first person everybody turns to when the next James White debate comes up?- "The fact that he doesn't have anything better to do than argue with a self-important, cold-hearted Reformed pontificator is hardly to his credit. (Just as the fact that I spend so much time on this website is not exactly to mine--though there are many people on this website much more worth spending time with than either White or Sungenis.)"

"If Mark Shea tempts [Sungenis] to sin, he should not be reading or responding to his blogs."

Patrick Madrid: Here's Why You Shouldn't Trust the Pope

Why should anyone care what the Pope says without using the charism of papal infallibility? Patrick Madrid's latest blog article explains why one should be cautious using a Pope's opinion for proof of truth:

It is a well known fact that Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, was a stalwart supporter of Fr. Marcial Maciel, the disgraced, recently deceased founder of the Legionaries of Christ religious order and its lay arm, Regnum Christi. I can only assume that John Paul was truly ignorant of the many frauds Fr. Maciel had perpetrated for decades. How it is that the pope did not know the truth about that dastardly man is beyond me, but I'm not focusing on that question here. It's sufficient to remind ourselves that the charism of papal infallibility does not extend to the pope's private, personal opinions about people and things.

As we now know, Pope John Paul II was utterly wrong about Fr. Maciel. He had completely misjudged him. Like a whole lot of other people, including a few popes who came before him, John Paul was conned by a consummate con-man. His approval of the vaunted Mexican priest was in complete error. The gestures of honor and confidence with which he generously betokened Fr. Maciel over many years were completely undeserved. His famous comment that Maciel was "an efficacious guide to youth" could not have been more hideously incorrect.

We know that now. We know now the sordid details of many of the enormous frauds and crimes and sins which Fr. Maciel perpetrated over his lifetime. Since his demise, they have continued to belch forth from the grave like a sulfurous semi-dormant volcano that will emit its noxious fumes for a long time to come.

-snip-

Remember: Pope John Paul II was convinced that Fr. Maciel was a holy priest, an exemplary and faithful Catholic, and "an efficacious guide to youth." He could not have been more wrong about that.

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.

The Helpful Apologetics of Patrick Madrid

Here's a few firecrackers tossed over at John Mark to see if he'll jump:

"... it seems to the untutored mind that if one claims that the Bible is the standard by which all doctrine is assessed (sola scriptura) and the doctrine of sola scriptura itself is not taught in Scripture, then the doctrine of sola scriptura is self-refuting."

And also:

Bro Mark, I did not make an objection to Sola Scriptura but to show the end result of Sola Scriptura wherein it is up to a person to decide which is Biblically correct interpretation according to his will, intellect and rationality.

We believed the authority of the Pope comes from Jesus Our Lord and God given to Peter and to his successors (Matt. 16:18). Faith is made know to all through the Church (Ephesians 3:4-6). Its as simple as that.Jesus appointed specific people, 12 to be exact, to carry out his mission. Even though Jesus has many, many followers, he called out 12 specific individuals to guide his flock. Even in Heaven there is a structured hierarchy where God is the Head, where Archangels and angels follow their rank, position and dominions also in the early church is very very hierachical as Paul described it as having Bishops, presbyters (priest) and deacons. In fact the church could not exist if Jesus had not been around to start it himself and he did, but he left it in the hands of Peter (Mt 16:13-19).So, we see that there was a church, with a specific structure of leaders that were called by God to lead the church. with all believing members. This is the Catholic (Universal) definition of church.

Typical firecrackers.

First, this person needs to simply demonstrate that God has given special revelation elsewhere. The burden of proof is on those claiming God has spoken infallibly elsewhere. If they can't produce God's voice elsewhere, then it follows, there is only one record of God's voice. That's why it's called "SOLA" Scriptura.

Second, the striking irony is that Bible verses were put forth to prove the Romanist position, as if those verses have been infallibly interpreted by Rome. But as far as I know, Rome has never given an infallible interpretation of any of the verses used above. What Rome says, is "we declare X, and here are some Bible verses that help us out...but keep in mind, the Bible verses may not actually support X..."

Patrick Madrid: …the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.

Thanks Patrick. Well done.

Advice For Angry Roman Catholics From Saint Jerome

It's so easy to lose our tempers over those subjects that we're passionate about. Sure, I've gotten heated up over the years. Sometimes it's necessary to be angry. On the other hand, sometimes we're right, but yet the way we express it is... less than charitable.

Because of some of the angry or mean comments left on this blog by those zealous for their beliefs, I've often thought of turning the comment section off. I don't babysit the comments. But I think I've come up with another solution, thanks to a tip from a professional Roman Catholic apologist. The solution actually will be more painful for angry Romanists if they take their faith seriously.

Recently I went to see a lecture by Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid. At the end, he took audience questions. One person asked for advice on how to remain calm when people either attack Roman Catholicism or the basic tenets of Christian morality. As part of his answer, Madrid told a brief story about how Saint Jerome sought to control his personality. You can hear an mp3 of Madrid telling the story here. According to Madrid, Jerome would beat himself with a rock to subdue his mean personality.

Now before anyone accuses me of... anything, it was Madrid who gave the advice, not me. Of course, Madrid went on to mention prayer, but the example of Jerome was presented as positive advice.

Trip Details: Madrid Pilgrimage (Updated)

I'm planning a short trip to Madrid on Saturday. I'm about 65% sure I'm going. It should be very interesting.

Update: I'm headed out the door for my pilgrimage... It should knock plenty of years off my stay in purgatory by visiting the Madrid Oracle...

Update:
So, yes I did go to see Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid. I only had a small window of opportunity to hear him speak. I chose the 2:15- 4:00 P.M. session, "Where is That in the Bible?"

The church was easy enough to locate, though they had no sign as to the event. They didn't even let you know which door to go in. The lecture was held in what appeared to be the basement hall of the church, and it was a nondescript side door that one entered by. We entered to an almost empty room about 10 minutes before the start, leaving one with the "Is this the place?" quizzical lost look.... nothing like being not only the only Protestants, but the only people present. The room was very cold. My wife ended up with her gloves on about 20 minutes in. I would guess there were around fifty people there once everyone showed up. Many (if not most) were 20-40, with a toddler or two running around. I appeared to be the only one with a Bible.

The lecture turned out to not be "Where is That in the Bible." Instead, the lecture was "Is everything up for grabs? A Catholic critique of moral relativism." They must've decided to chang the schedule for some reason. This was quite a disappointment for me, as I've read Patrick's book "Where is that in the Bible", and obviously, the subject matter of the regularly scheduled lecture interested me me more. I thought of simply leaving to find a nice restaurant.

But I stuck it out. In terms of speaking ability, Madrid (from where I was sitting) appeared not to use notes, spoke clearly, without any "um's...". In other words, in terms of speaking ability, he has mastered his craft.

As to the lecture itself, he began with a story that I've heard him tell before. He told the story that had nothing really to do with the subject. He told the story of the couple who came to see him debate in which the wife was Protestant and the husband Catholic. The debate was the straw that turned the wife to Romanism. If I recall from other broadcasts, it was his debate with Dr. White on sola scriptura. Here's a clip from today's lecture of this story. Ah yes, these are the stories to rally the troops by! I would love to get a hold of that couple and sit down and re-listen to the debate. Dr. White went through it again last year as well, and Madrid did not do as well as he claims. In fact, he lost that debate.

As to the meat of the lecture, there wasn't a lot I disagreed with Madrid on. In fact, other than a few isolated points, one would be hard pressed to even identify the lecture as Roman Catholic. In fact, one of the main sources that appears to have inspired Madrid's lecture was a Protestant book on relativism which he quoted.

My wife asked me if I was going to introduce myself to Madrid. I decided not to. Had the lecture been on "Where's That in the Bible" and I had a chance to get a question in, then perhaps I would've said hello afterward. I hold no animosity toward Mr. Madrid personally. I am though, committed to the Gospel, and will continue to critique his arguments as I come across them.

I'm only about an hour away from this event. It is possible I may attend.

A note of thanks from Patrick Madrid:

"I almost didn't bother checking the link to Swan's page to see what his comments were. I haven't been there in quite a long time, but it's obvious that nothing has changed. A quick scan of his recent posts reveals Swan's obsession with this forum. Apparently, he's still smarting from being banned from posting here. Who knows? In any case, judging from his seeming fixation on what happens over here on this forum, it really does seem to be time for him to get over it and move on. He'll no doubt soon compose a "rebuttal" to this post of mine -- which will supply additional, if unnecessary, evidence that he follows this forum very, very, very closely. He's clearly far more interested in what I and others say over here than I am in what he says over there (or anywhere else, for that matter). Anyway, his attempt to portray this thread about an interesting and well-produced short film as somehow entailing a connection with purgatory is laughable. The film, as I pointed out above, has nothing to do with purgatory, at least not in the sense that the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine (for an overview of the teaching, see here: http://www.envoymagazine.com/PlanetEnvoy/Special-PurgatoryEmergencyRoom1.htm). The statement in the film by the devil character about it being purgatory is, as I pointed out, wrong. The fictitious incident portrayed in the clip has nothing to do with purgatory nor, in fact, does it reflect Catholic teaching in general about the afterlife. Of course, Swan can say whatever he wants about purgatory on his own weblog (although he can't do so anymore here on this forum, after being deported), but you'd think the guy would at least try to make a meaningful, pertinent comment, as opposed to the foolishness there now. And that goes also for the foolishness contained in several of the posts in his comments' section. Oh, and though I probably won't bother to check, whoever does read Swan's weblog with any regularity will no doubt soon see him post a "rebuttal" to my article on purgatory, linked above. Whatever. Talk about Pavlov's dogs. I tinkle the bell over here and, as sure as night follows day, you know exactly what's going to happen over there. Swan must have a truly incredible amount of free time on his hands to spend so much time obsessing about and commenting on what people say on this forum.The phrase "get a life" comes to mind."

I don't think I've mentioned Envoy since they wrote about my aomin entries on Michuta's book back in May, so I'm not sure exactly what Madrid is talking about. Yes, I read Envoy. Big deal.

I really don't have anything to add to this, other than what I've stated. The video, posted by Madrid (earlier without qualification) on Purgatory was awful. But, more offensive was watching the Simpsons bounce Jesus Christ on a mock-trampoline. If Roman Catholics like this stuff, fine. I do not.

Madrid's Video Picks On Purgatory And The Simpsons

Do you have about eight minutes to endure something awful? Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid has posted a YouTube clip he described thus:

"This is good. Really good. You'll want to watch it all the way to the end."

It was awful, but really puts a belief in perspective. Purgatory is not simply a theoretical doctrine for Catholic apologists, it is a reality they believe in. Madrid's approval of the clip shows this clearly. Here is a link to the clip. Pray for those who believe in such non-biblical doctrines.

Madrid has anchored the purgatory video post over on Envoy, along with this post:

VIDEO: THE SIMPONS' CATHOLIC VS. PROTESTANT HEAVEN

I do find the Simpsons funny, even this clip is funny. However, call me humorless if you want, but toward the end of this video clip Bart and Homer in "Catholic Heaven" are bouncing Jesus on a mock-trampoline. I find this highly offensive, but perhaps I should just lighten up and view the clip as the difference between the way I understand Jesus, and the way some Roman Catholics understand Jesus. I'm actually stunned that even Madrid would want to post something that puts a caricature of Christ on a trampoline bouncing him up and down, as he yells out "Stop it, guys I'm serious!" Some things simply are not funny.

Hey Patrick, which Bible are you reading?

Protestants, Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid...

The Envoy boards provided this newsbreaker from Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid:

"My new book on the subject of sola scriptura, which I'm finishing up this summer, responds directly and in detail to these claims made by King and Webster.The book, published by Servant Books, will appear in early 2008."

Oh boy, I shake in fear even thinking about this... Looking forward to this one. Thanks Patrick.

Blast From the Past: White vs. Madrid on Canon Certainty

Here is one of those great moments in debate. Learn this question. Learn the counter response given by Dr. White.

Second Question from James White to Patrick Madrid:

White: Mr. Madrid, I've asked you this before. How did the Jewish man 50 years before Jesus Christ know that the books of 2 Chronicles and Isaiah were Scripture? Would you like me to repeat that?

Madrid: No, I think I got that. Thank you. The Jewish man of the 50 year period before Christ knew that that Scripture, 1 and 2 Chronicles, was inspired because the Old Testament church, the Old Testament people of God, regarded it as Scripture. It had the official pedigree of coming from a prophet and it had always been regarded that way. So he would draw not only on what his internal testimony was of what those books say, but he would also base what his position was on what the constant teaching of the Old Testament people was as well. As you remember, they regarded 1 and 2 Chronicles as Scripture. What I'd like to ask you, though, is, and whether we do it now or later, is your choice, later in the debate tonight—is you keep going back to this issue of how does he know, how does he know? Well, that's what I want to throw back at you. How do you know? Let's take it out of the Old Testament, Mr. White, and bring it back to the New Testament. And let's settle once and for all how you know that those 27 books belong in Scripture. How do you know that they are inspired? How do you know Matthew wrote Matthew? What is your authority to know that? If you reject the Catholic Church that's fine, that's your choice. I think you do so at your own peril. But if you reject the Catholic Church you have to furnish us with some other source upon which you base your testimony that those words in that Bible—in that 27 books of the Bible—are God's words.

Now, I don't want to give anyone the false impression as I think you were trying to do earlier that I believe that the Catholic Church rendered the Bible as inspired. You know that that is not the Catholic position. You know Mr. White that the Catholic Church does not claim to have made the Scriptures canonical simply because she chose those books. That is a red herring. It's false. The Catholic Church recognized the canon of Scripture. The Catholic Church received the word that was given to her by her husband, Jesus Christ, and as you well know, the Church hears and recognizes the voice of her husband. So it is the Church, Mr. White, I assert, who recognized [Moderator: "Time."] I have 24 seconds left...the Church recognizes her husband's voice and she preaches that to the world. You, if you reject the Church, have to fall back on something else. What'll it be? The Muratorian Fragment? The Church Fathers? This or that Greek scholar, perhaps? Your own personal interpretation? You have to tell us tonight what your authority is, Mr. White.

White: First of all, in sticking to the actual question that I asked, we are told that the Old Testament Church told the man that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were Scripture. Now that's interesting, because, does that mean the Old Testament Church was infallible? That is the same Old Testament Church that taught the Korban rule, I think, yes, the same Old Testament Church. Oh, that's the same Old Testament Church that rejected the Apocryphal books and never believed they were Scripture but you say that they are Scripture and place someone under the anathema that doesn't believe those things. So I guess the Old Testament Church was fallible which means that you can have a fallible authority to tell you that something is Scripture, because it's very plain that the Lord Jesus held everyone responsible for reading Scripture. In fact, in Matthew chapter 22, he said to the Sadducees, "But about the resurrection of the dead, have you not read God said to you?" And Mr. Madrid keeps saying, "What's your authority?" Listen to what Jesus says. He says to these men, "Have you not read what God said to you?" If God speaks to you, you do not ask Him for His business card. God's Word is theopneustos, it's His speaking.

Madrid: Mr. White the only thing worse than beating a [White joins Madrid in finishing the sentence in unison] dead horse is beating the wrong dead horse. And I've used that line before [White: "Yeah."], and I wish you had learned from it. You keep going around in circles. You are not giving us an answer. You keep saying that when God speaks to us we know His voice. Well that's what I said about the Church. And you'd have to show me where the Bible teaches that every individual Christian is going to know and recognize Scripture in all its parts. You talked earlier about the Mormon. Now the Mormon claims that God is witnessing to him. So, Mr. White, this is Mormonism that you are putting forth here. You are asserting that it is your burning in the bosom, perhaps, if you like that phraseology, it's what you think should be in Scripture. I think ultimately you are like a ship cut adrift—you have no anchor—you have no way of knowing, other than the fact that you accept the Church's teaching but won't admit it.

Source:http://aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura? James White vs. Patrick Madrid September 28, 1993 Bayview Orthodox Presbyterian Church Chula Vista, California.
***************

I found this snippet from the old White/Madrid debate rather timely. Recently, I posted the Sola Scriptura in Daniel 9 argument. I presented a very similarly point as made by James White- that is, Daniel knew Jeremiah was canonical without an infallible declaration from the Roman Catholic Church. I just knew eventually someone would stop by and say something like this:

“Complete silliness here. Daniel is in the OLD testement. Think about that. The new covenant began at Pentecost. Before that the old covenenat applied. Scripture was determined by the tradition of that day. There were priests in Isreal and there was a hierarchy that could resolve disputes.”

Ok, is this person saying these priests in Israel (the Old Testament Church) were capable of infalliblity? They must have been to determine canonicity according to RCC paradigms. But... they can’t be capable of infalliblity, because these are the same people who taught the Korban rule. These same people rejected the Apocryphal books. How do you determine when they pronounced infallibly and when they did not? Oh, I know- When Trent declared the contents of the canon in the 16th Century!