March 25, 2020

Biblical Refutation of “Hyperfaith” / “Name-It-Claim-It” Teaching

[Bible verses: New American Standard Bible (NASB) unless otherwise indicated]

* * * * *

1) Jesus: Illness Not Necessarily Due to Sin

John 9:2-3 His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” Jesus answered “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents, but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.”

2) Enduring Sickness and God Smiting With Disease

Proverbs 18:14 The spirit of a man can endure his sickness.

Why endure if God intended for us never to be sick? The Hebrew is machaleh, defined by Strong’s Concordance as “sickness, disease, infirmity” (word 4245), and by Gesenius’ Lexicon as “disease” also (word 4245). It occurs in 2 Chronicles 21:15, 18: “and you will suffer sickness, a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the sickness, day by day . . . So after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable sickness.”

Here God gives a man a disease, which isn’t supposed to happen, according to this false teaching; only the devil is supposed to do that. But God is Judge: he can certainly give an illness to someone, just as He can kill them, if He should so choose, as He is our Creator, and life and death is in His hands.

3) The Apostle Paul Recommends Wine Instead of Healing

1 Timothy 5:23 Use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and frequent ailments.

Why didn’t Paul heal Timothy, or tell him he must be in sin, or that he lacks faith for healing?

4) No biblical passage teaches that Christians should never have illness.

5) Apostle Paul Again Unable to Heal

2 Timothy 4:20 Trophimus I left sick at Miletus.

Why couldn’t Paul heal Trophimus (or Timothy) if Jesus said His disciples would have the power to heal? Two reasons. There is a limitation on our powers, and God sometimes chooses not to heal, for reasons above our understanding.

6) No Death?

Consistent, so-called “faith” doctrine would mean that followers would never have to die! The person with enough “faith” could theoretically heal himself indefinitely. Yet, we know that this is obviously absurd. Everyone dies; and most people have some sickness from which they will die. Thus, for most people, there is one sickness of which they will never be healed — their last one. Death and sickness came about in the first place as a result of the fall. God decides ultimately when someone dies, and He decides whether to heal or not. But perfect health will not be achieved until the Kingdom arrives.

7) Prophet Daniel’s Lack of “Faith”

Daniel 8:27 Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days . . .

Another example of a saint without enough faith to be healed.

8) Prophet Elisha Also Succumbs to Faithlessness?

2 Kings 13:14 Elisha became sick with the illness of which he was to die.

This destroys the notion of the righteous (Elisha was God’s prophet) always dying of old age.

Exodus 4:11 And the Lord said to him, “who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?”

This verse simply should not exist if “faith” teachers are correct. They say that Satan produces all physical abnormalities, and that God wills for no one to have these defects. The above verse renders this belief biblically absurd and false.

10) Aging

Aging is itself a degenerative disease which is irreversible, constantly occurring and ultimately fatal. This is a medical and scientific fact, and one which contradicts the “faith” doctrine, which teaches attainable perfect health. Such a state is not possible for fallen man and fallen creation.

11) Mentioning False Teachers by Name

This finds biblical sanction in Paul’s writings. In 1 Timothy 1:20, he mentions Hymenaeus and Alexander in an unfavorable light. In 2 Timothy 2:17-18, he names Hymenaeus and Philetus, “men who have gone astray from the truth” . . . And in 2 Timothy 4:14, he writes, “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.” Thus, one can rightly name false teachers such as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, for the sake of orthodoxy and true doctrine, and to prevent injury to souls.

12) Church History

No key figure in the history of the Church and Christianity has ever taught freedom from all disease as a result of the atonement, God being “bound,” our positive confession, etc.

13) Relation of Healing to Faith

We find that healing is sometimes related to faith and sometimes not, in the NT. Many scriptures can be found where Jesus says “Your faith has made you well” or some other similar phrase. But other passages don’t mention faith at all. Thus we cannot establish an absolute relation between faith and healing (or, conversely, a correlation between sin and sickness). These beliefs are not biblical, and are constructed by illogically reading into Holy Scripture what is not there. Let’s examine a few passages in this regard.

In Matthew 8:13, the centurion’s servant was healed with no mention of his faith whatsoever. Now, if one believes that the centurion’s faith brought about the healing and goes on to set up an ironclad rule or principle that faithful people can heal others with perhaps little or no faith, then Paul’s difficulty with Timothy and Trophimus needs to be explained (see numbers 3 and 5 above).

This is a strange dilemma indeed! In order to salvage the false doctrine, one is forced to conclude that Paul lacked adequate faith. In Matthew 8:14-15, Peter’s mother-in-law is healed with no mention of faith. When Jesus healed whole crowds of sick and disabled people, are we to believe that every single one of them had faith? Matthew 9:25: Jesus raises a girl from the dead (obviously it wasn’t her faith). Matthew 12:13: a man with a withered hand is healed, with no mention of faith. John 11:43-44: Lazarus is raised from the dead (clearly his faith had nothing to do with it, either). Numerous other examples could be cited.

14) Our Prayers and God’s Will

1 John 5:14 If we ask anything according to His will, he hears us.

1 John 3:22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.

James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

We see, then, that our prayers are qualified by God’s will. He is sovereign; He knows what’s best for us. We cannot have whatever we ask, with no limitation. That is obviously not what verses saying “whatsoever you ask” mean. I cannot ask God to let me murder someone, because this is not His will. Therefore, we should pray whether a healing is in God’s will or not. It isn’t always His will: as has been shown above, and will be further substantiated below. Unlimited positive confession would lead to unmitigated personal selfishness. Thank God that He often refuses us!

15) St. Paul Can’t Heal One More Time! (Seems to be a Pattern)

Philippians 2:25-27 I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier . . . because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.

Paul again is unable to heal one of his associates. Why?

16) St. Paul’s Sufferings and Example for Us

Colossians 1:24 I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

The Greek for “afflictions” is thlipsis, which Strong’s Concordance (word 2347) defines as “pressure (literal or figurative).” W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary states under “affliction-thlipsis” for Colossians 1:24, “Afflictions of Christ from which his followers must not shrink, whether sufferings of body or mind.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the NT reiterates the same thing (p. 291 — word 2347). The same word is used referring to the distress of a woman in childbirth in John 16:21.

Paul’s mention of “flesh” would seem to indicate he is referring to physical distress. The Greek for “flesh” is “sarx”, and concerning its use in this verse, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states, “the physical nature of man as subject to suffering” (word 456, p. 570). As a cross-reference, 1 Peter 4:1 is cited: “Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin.” Such physical suffering as part of God’s will is a constant theme in Paul’s writings:

2 Corinthians 4:10 (RSV) Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.

2 Corinthians 1:5-7 . . . the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance . . . if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation . . . patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer . . . as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort.

Philippians 2:17 (RSV) Even if I am to be poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all (cf. 2 Cor 6:4-10, 11:23-30).

Philippians 3:10 That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death. (cf. Gal 2:20).

The Greek word for “fellowship” is koinonia, which means (as in the familiar usage), “participation, or sharing in something” (word 2842 – Strong and Thayer).

2 Timothy 4:6 (RSV) For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come (cf. Romans 12:1).

In 2 Timothy 4:6 and in Philippians 2:17, the Greek word for libation and sacrifice is spendomai. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was the Bible of the early Christians, this term is used with reference to the Messiah, Jesus, in Isaiah 53:12 (RSV) “. . . he poured out his soul to death . . .” It appears, then, that St. Paul is stressing a mystical, profound identification with Jesus even in His death — as also in 2 Corinthians 4:10 and Philippians 3:10 above, and Galatians 6:17: “. . . I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.”

The “faith” teacher rather desperately retorts that this suffering was God’s will only for Paul and (especially) Jesus. Apart from the fact that this notion is clearly refuted already in the verses directly above and in #17 below, Paul himself directly contradicts it by urging us to imitate him, and in turn, imitate Christ (Whom he is imitating):

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.

The word for “following” is summimetes, which means “co-imitator” (Strong’s, Thayer, and Vine).

2 Thessalonians 3:7, 9 . . . you ought to follow our example . . . [we] offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word with much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit (cf. Heb 6:12, James 5:10-11).

Galatians 4:12 I beg of you brethren, become as I am.

Philippians 4:9 The things you-have learned end received and heard and seen, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you.

1 Corinthians 4:11-16 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now. I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me.

2 Timothy 1:8 Join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God.

2 Timothy 2:3 Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

The Greek word for “imitator” here is mimetes (usually “follower” in KJV). Greek scholar W. E. Vine stresses that the tense of the verb in many instances of this word, is a continuous tense, meaning that “what we became at conversion we must diligently continue to be thereafter.”

17) Suffering (including sickness) is God’s Will for the Christian

Matthew 10:38 (RSV) And he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:24 (RSV) Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (cf. Mark 8:34-35).

The disciple of Christ is called to suffer (Matthew 10:22, Mark 10:37-39, Luke 6:22, Acts 14:22, Romans 5:3-5, 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, Philippians 1:29, 1 Thessalonians 3:3, 2 Timothy 1:8, 2:3, 3:12, Hebrews 5:8, James 1:2-4,12, 1 Peter 1:6-7, 2:20-21, 4:12-19, Revelation 1:9). No biblically-informed Christian would dispute that. Controversy only arises over whether such sufferings can improve one’s estate vis-a-vis salvation, or help anyone else in the Body of Christ (see, e.g., Romans 15:1 and 1 Corinthians 12:24-26).

Romans 8:13, 17 (RSV) For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live . . . and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:31, 2 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Peter 4:1,13).

Furthermore, the Bible often stresses the painful experience of being corrected by God, as parents discipline their children (Leviticus 26:23-24, Deuteronomy 8:2, 5, 2 Samuel 7:14, Job 5:17-18, Psalm 89:30-34, 94:12, 103:9, 118:18, 119:67,71,75, Proverbs 3:11-12, Isaiah 48:10, Jeremiah 10:24, 30:11, 31:18, Zechariah 13:9, Malachi 3:3, 1 Corinthians 11:32, Hebrews 12:5-11, Revelation 3:19).

18) Chronically Ill Apostle Paul

2 Corinthians 1:8-10 . . . our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life, indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves in order that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a peril of death.

The Greek for “affliction” is thlipsis, discussed in #16. Whether the meaning here is physical or not is debatable, but either way, the “faith” teachers would have a difficult time fitting this passage into their doctrine, which maintains that “good” Christians (i.e., faithful and righteous ones, according to their warped definition of what “faith” is) don’t have afflictions of any sort.

19) St. Paul’s “Illness” or “Condition”

Galatians 4:12-14 I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time, and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.

The Greek for “bodily illness” is astheneiaStrong’s Concordance (word 769) defines it as “feebleness (of body or mind): by implication, malady, frailty, disease, infirmity, sickness, weakness.” As for its use in this passage, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon: “feebleness of health, sickness” (word 769, p. 80). And indeed that meaning is quite abvious in all English translations. Here are some of these and their translations of both bolded phrases (20 total):

KJV / Wuest “infirmity of the flesh”
NIV / Moffatt / Williams “illness . . . illness”
RSV “bodily ailment . . . condition”
TEV (GNB) “sick . . . physical condition”
NEB “bodily illness . . . state of my poor body”
Phillips “physical illness . . . disease”
Living Bible “sick . . . sickness”
Jerusalem “illness . . . disease”
MLB “physical infirmity . . . physical condition”
Amplified “bodily ailment . . . physical condition”
New American Bible “bodily ailment . . . physical condition”
Barclay “illness . . . physical illness”
NKJV “physical infirmity”
Beck “sick . . . sick body”
NRSV “physical infirmity . . . condition”
REB “bodily illness . . . pjysical condition”
CEV “sick . . . illness”

Thus, Paul’s condition is beyond dispute. Its impossible to say his problem was not physical. Of course, the implication of all this is that Paul (again) could not heal himself. Yet his sickness didn’t hinder him from preaching the gospel. If we are supposed to “live above sickness,” then we have more faith than Paul, and perhaps should rewrite his books since we know so much more than he did.

Most “faith” churches would turn Paul from their door, reviling him for his lack of faith and appearance. There is some dispute as to the exact nature of Paul’s infirmity, but virtually all conservative biblical scholars agree that he suffered from some physical condition (and chronic at that). Let’s look at a sampling:

i) New Bible Commentary: either a recurrent illness (2 Cor 12:7) or a weakening disability, or malaria (Acts 13:13).
ii) New Catholic Commentary: possibly malaria; possible connection to Acts 13:13.

iii) New Layman’s Bible Commentary: some ailment.
iv) Matthew Henry’s Commentary: some infirmity.
v) Peake’s Commentary: connected with 2 Cor 12:7-10; possibly malaria, or eye disease.
vi) Pulpit Commentary: chronic sharp physical distress (2 Cor 12).
vii) Barne’s Notes: some bodily infimity (2 Cor 12).
viii) Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles: R.C.H. Lenski: illness, possibly malaria.
ix) Ramsay: malaria with severe headaches.
x) Daily Study Bible Series, William Barclay: likely malaria with severe headaches, same as 2 Cor 12.
xi) Tyndale NT Commentaries, Galatians (Alan Cole): “Paul was constantly plagued by ill health . . . Most scholars have taken ‘trial’ (v. 15) as being synonymous with Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’.”
xii) Zondervan Commentary, Galatians: J.B. Lightfoot: bodily ailment of some sort.
xiii) Expository Messages on Galatians, H.A. Ironside: “Paul was used of God to heal many sick people, but he never healed himself . . . He was a sick man for years as he preached the gospel.” Probably an affliction of the eyes.
xiv) The Gospel in Galatians, C. Norman Bartlett: Either ophthalmia or malaria. “It was probably the thorn in the flesh alluded to in 2 Cor 12.”
xv) Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary: Some bodily sickness. Probably the same as his “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12).
xvi) Word Studies in the New Testament, Marvin R. Vincent: “Paul, in his first journey, was compelled by sickness to remain in Galatia . . . bodily infirmity.”
xvii) Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson: “. . . sickness of some kind whether it was eye trouble (4:15) which was a trial to them or . . . the thorn in the flesh (II Cor. 12:7) we do not know . . . illness and repulsive appearance . . . “

Note how many of these commentators connect this sickness with Paul’s “thorn in the flesh.” We will consider this passage next and seek the most reasonable interpretation of it.

20) St. Paul’s “Thorn in the Flesh”

2 Corinthians 12:7-10 To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me – to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this, I entrusted the Lord three times that it might depart from me and He said, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I am will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore, I am well content with weaknesses, insults, distresses, persecutions, with difficulties,for Christ’s sake, for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Lets look at the original Greek and try to determine exactly what Paul is teaching. The word for “thorn” is skolops, and this is the only time it is used in the NT. Concerning it, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states. “a pointed piece of wood, a pale, a stake; appears to indicate some constant bodily ailment or infirmity, which, even when Paul had been caught up in a trance to the third heaven, sternly admonished him that he still dwelt in a frail and mortal body” (word 4647, p. 579).

Vine’s Expository Dictionary states. “His language indicates that it was physical, painful, humiliating; it was also the effect of Divinely permitted Satanic antagonism; the verbs rendered “that I should (not) be exalted overmuch” and ‘to buffet’ are in the present tense, signifying recurrent action. Indicating a constantly repeated attack . . . What is stressed is not the metaphorical size, but acuteness of the suffering and its effects.” (see #2).

Furthermore, the “flesh” (Gk. sarx) is said to refer to the physical body in this context, according to Thayer: “The body . . . signifying the material or substance of the living body . . . 2 Cor 12:7″ (word 4561, p. 570). A.T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, writes: “Certainly it was some physical malady that persisted.

All sorts of theories are held (malaria, eye-trouble, epilepsy, insomnia, migraine or sick-headache, etc.) . . . Each of us has some such splinter or thorn in the flesh, perhaps several at once . . . The messenger of Satan kept slapping Paul in the face and Paul now sees that it was God’s will for it to be so.” Marvin R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) concurs: “It was probably a bodily malady . . . Very plausible reasons are given in favor of both epilepsy and ophthalmia.”

The Greek word translated “weakness” three times is astheneia (see #19). Vine mentions the use of this Greek term in this passage, and defines its meaning as “weakness of the body . . . (2 Cor 12:4-10)” (listed under “Weakness”). It may be argued that Paul’s use of the word here is in a larger sense (i.e., taking in non-physical weakness also).

But it is quite often used in an obviously physical sense elsewhere in Scripture. Since “thorn in the flesh” (especially after examining the Greek) would appear to be a graphic description of physical pain, it is very likely that “weakness” includes physical suffering. Also, the equation of power with weakness in verses 9 and 10 would make more sense if the “weakness” was physical. Let’s look at some other uses of astheneia in Scripture:

Luke 1:11 A woman had a sickness caused by a spirit and she was bent double and could not straighten up at all.

John 5:5 A man who had been thirty-eight years in his sickness (vs. 8-9 indicate that he couldn’t
walk).

Luke 5:15 Great multitudes were . . . healed of their sicknesses.

Luke 8:2 Some women-who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses.

John 11:4 This sickness . . . (referring to Lazarus’ sickness).

Acts 28:9 The people who had diseases were coming to him and getting cured.

Luke 10:9 . . . heal those . . . who are sick . . .

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick . . .

Matthew 6:2 . . . those who were sick.

Also, a closely related word, astheneo, from the same root, is very often used in Scripture referring to obviously physical infirmities. In John 5:3 it is translated in various Bible versions as “sick,” “impotent,” “invalids,” disabled,” “ailing,” or “infirm” (see also Mt 10:8, 25:36, Mk 6:56, John 4:46, 5:7, 6:2, 11:1-3,6, Acts 9:37, Phil 2:26-27, 2 Tim 4:20, James 5:14). A third related word, asthenes, is used in a physical sense in Mt 25:31, 43:44, Lk 10:9, Acts 4:9, 5:15-16.

Finally with regard to Paul’s “thorn,” we have the consensus of the overwhelming majority of conservative biblical scholars that it was some physical disease. Although they may disagree on the exact nature of the infirmity, there is a consensus that it was a physical infirmity:

i) New Bible Commentary: possibly malaria.
ii) New Laymans Bible Commentary: most probably ophthalmia or malaria. Possible connection to Gal 4:13-15, 6:11, Acts 13:3 and 23:5.
iii) Barne’s Notes: “Some infirmity of the flesh, some bodily affliction or calamity.” Connection to Gal 4:13-15.
iv) New Catholic Commentary: possibly a “chronic humiliating malady,” such as marsh fever (connection with 2 Cor 1:8 ff. and Gal 4:13-14).
v) Corinthian Letters of St. Paul, G. Campbell Morgan: Some type of physical affliction, for
sure.
vi) Daily Study Bible, 1 & 2 Corinthians, William Barclay: chronic attacks of a certain virulent malarial fever which was common in the eastern Mediterranean area. “By far the most likely thing.”
vii) Interpretation of 1 & 2 Corinthians, R.C.H. Lenski: some physical infirmity.
viii) Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary: some affliction causing acute pain (as “thorn” implies). Connection with Gal 4:13-14.
ix) Ramsay: recurring malarial fever.
x) Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary: Some physical ailment, which was painful and disfiguring; possibly ophthalmia.

The implications of all this for the “faith” adherent are (as is always the case with occurrence of disease in Scripture), are obvious: why couldn’t Paul heal himself if he could heal others (but not always: see #’s 3, 5 and 15)? The answer is obvious and occurs right in the passage. God didn’t will to heal him (“My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness”).

We have seen how the Greek word for “weakness, which God uses here, is used in Scripture and the overwhelming evidence is that Paul suffered from disease, with God’s approval. This destroys one of the “faith” doctrine’s chief beliefs: namely, that it is always God’s will to heal at all times.

21) The Case Of Job

The book of Job, rightly understood and interpreted, reads almost like a parable of the “faith movement”, and its refutation, for we find much here that cannot be explained by “faith” proponents. Some of the worst arguments in the “faith” literature are put forth in attempts to explain away Job and his sufferings. Lets look at some key verses of Job:

In verse 1:1, Job is described as “blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil.” In verse 1:8, the Lord Himself repeats these same words, in conversation with Satan, adding the phrase, “there is no one like him on the Earth.” After Job is afflicted with all the calamities described in 1:13-22, God still says the same thing about him that He said in 1:8, in verse 2:3 (adding, “And he still holds fast his integrity”). Note how God says in the same verse, “You incited me against him, to ruin him without cause.”

This is very important, because faith teachers would have us believe that Satan was solely responsible for Job’s troubles, while the Bible, on the other hand, tells us explicitly that God afflicted Job, using Satan as His agent (i.e., allowing him to do evil to Job). Note also, how God proclaims that even though Satan cited Him against Job, there was no cause for it. This wasn’t allowed to come upon Job because of some secret sin, or lack of faith, etc.

In this vein, Job 42:11 is quite instructive: “. . . all the evil that the Lord had brought on him.” What are “faith” teachers to do with this verse, and also Job 2:3? Thus, two false doctrines are exposed. “Faith” teachers tell us that the righteous should not suffer and be afflicted physically, and that Satan is the author of all diseases, which afflict believers only through lack of faith. Thus, they attribute Job’s problems to lack of faith, secret sin, and allowing Satan to “get in.” But the Bible tells us otherwise. Job was righteous because God said so (1:8 and 2:3) in no uncertain terms.

And his afflictions (both bodily and otherwise) were ultimately caused by God (Job 2:3 and 42:11. See also Exodus 4:11, under #9). They were God’s will. There is no indication that Job’s sufferings were a result of his shortcomings or lack of faith. That is pure speculative desperation on the “faith” teachers part, with no biblical basis. James even commends Job for his endurance (James 5:11; see also #28). This is strange indeed if we are to regard Job as an example of a lack of faith!

Job shows his understanding of God’s ways in verse 2:10: “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” Now we will look at Job’s ‘comforters.’ We will see how they asserted that the righteous do not suffer, and that therefore, Job must have some sin which is causing his problems. They are exactly, uncannily, like “faith” followers today, who exude a decided lack of compassion toward the suffering because they regard them as second-class spiritual citizens (this is the strong tendency anyway, and the logical outcome of the doctrine).

But we will also see how God severely rebukes these “friends” at the end of the book, and asserts His sovereignty (i.e., “trust Me even though you may not understand some things such as adversity befalling the righteous.”).

Bildad says in verse 8:6: “If you are pure and upright, surely now He would rouse Himself for you and restore your righteous estate,” implying that Job was not righteous because God didn’t move immediately. Job, however, although the most righteous man on the earth, recognizes mans inherently sinful nature by saying: “How can a man be in the right before God?” (9:2). He is arguing that since no man is righteous, God’s dealings with men are based totally on His mercy, and not our supposed faith or righteousness.

The hyperfaith doctrine tends to make the Christian walk depend far more on our power and knowledge than on God’s mercy, sovereignty, and grace. Job’s comforters continue to make insinuations about Job’s supposed great sinfulness as the book goes on, getting worse as they go. “Is not your wickedness great, and your iniquities without end?” (22:5) And so it goes throughout the book.

Of course we know that these “friends” are dead wrong, because of God’s proclamations of Job’s righteousness at the beginning of the book, and His responses to them at the end of the book. Lets look now at God’s opinion of the discourse which is documented in the book of Job. “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right as my servant Job has” (42:7). In verse 42:8, God refers to the friends’ “folly”.

God tells the three “comforters” that Job will pray for them after they offer up burnt offerings, thus vindicating Job and severely rebuking his self-righteous, supposedly “wise” friends. We find in conclusion, then, that the whole of the book of Job is contrary to the “faith” doctrine, and fatally destroys it. Many other biblical verses teach the same thing about God’s relation to evil and affliction:

Exodus 15:26 And He said, “If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the LORD, am your healer.”

Leviticus 26:15-16 if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up.

Deuteronomy 7:15 And the LORD will remove from you all sickness . . . He will lay them on all who hate you.

Deuteronomy 28:61 Also every sickness and every plague which, not written in the book of this law, the LORD will bring on you until you are destroyed.

Judges 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Schechem; and the men of Schechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech. (cf. Isaiah 19:1-4)

1 Samuel 16:14, 23 Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him . . . the evil spirit from God came to Saul . . .

1 Samuel 18:10-11 . . . an evil spirit from God came mightily upon Saul, and he raved in the midst of the house, while David was playing the harp with his hand, as usual; and a spear was in Saul’s hand. And Saul hurled the spear for he thought, “I will pin David to the wall.” . . . (cf. 19:9-10: “evil spirit from the LORD”)

22) Jesus and the “Curse of the Law”

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”

“Faith” teachers tell us that the “curse” referred to here is the curse of physical disease, but the context, and the examination of similar Pauline teachings elsewhere point to other conclusions. The whole context of Galatians 3:13 (all of chapter 3) is concerned with faith leading to righteousness, rather than works of the Law. Paul actually defines the “curse” being spoken of, in verse 3:10: “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written – ‘Cursed is every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.’”

He goes on to assert, in verse 11, that no one is justified by the law. Thus, the curse of the Law is the fact that no one could ever get to heaven by means of it. Physical infirmities are nowhere spoken of. We are redeemed from hell by the work of Christ on the cross, as the profound statement of Galatians 3:13 tells us (see also Rom 7:6 and 8:1-3).

“Faith” teachers cross-reference Galatians 3:13 with Deuteronomy 28:15 ff. and tell us that Jesus Christ took upon Himself all the curses described there (so that we would never have them again). Beyond the considerations examined in #16, a simple examination of Deuteronomy 28 quickly reveals that this belief is totally absurd: The passage is a warning directed against the Jews alone. It doesn’t even apply to Gentiles!

But even if we did grant that the “curse” might apply to believers today, and that Christ took upon Himself all the curses mentioned, let’s follow this logic for the sake of argument and see what happens: Christ bore our mildew (v. 22), our droughts (v. 24), our battles (v. 25), our madness (v. 28), our adultery (v. 30), our bad crops (v. 39), our being scattered among all peoples (obviously referring to the Jews alone — v. 64), etc., etc.

There is no connection between Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 28, and nothing in Galatians 3 to make us believe that we would be delivered from physical disease. Disease cannot cease yet, because we are still under the curse of the Fall. Thus, Paul says, “We ourselves grown within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Rom 8:23) after speaking of the travail of all creation in the previous three verses.

This curse continues until the time of the New Heaven and Earth, because in Revelation 22:3, we are informed, “There shall no longer be any curse.” Pain and suffering will end at that time (Rev 21:4), not in the present age, as “faith” teachers would like to believe. For now, we are to suffer with Christ, rather than seek to avoid suffering in some ersatz notion of “faith”: 1 Peter 4:12-13: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you, but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation or His glory, you may rejoice with exultation.”

23) Jesus Didn’t Heal Everybody All The Time

At the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-9), John mentioned “a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered” (v. 3). Yet when Jesus passed by, he only healed just one lame man (5:5-9). In Mark 1:32-34, we are informed that people “began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed,” but it doesn’t say that all were healed; rather, “He healed many . . . and cast out many demons.” If Jesus wanted to heal absolutely everyone in the whole country, He could have easily done so, just as He healed the centurion’s servant at a distance (Mt 8:13).

All He had to do was say the word. And again, these healings are not (as far as we can determine from the text, at any rate) tied to faith, so that those who lacked faith did not get healed (as hyperfaith doctrine holds). So if folks like Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland are indeed gifted with the marvelous power to heal everyone, what in the world stops them from visiting every hospital in the world and clearing them out? After all, they think it is God’s will that no one should be sick, and that they have the power to heal by their own supposed extraordinary “faith.”

24) The Gift Of Healing

1 Corinthians 12:9 mentions the “gifts of healing,” among the listing of many spiritual gifts. Then 1 Corinthians 12:11 states, “one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” Thus we see that healings are not earned by our faith (a doctrine of works, or the ancient heresy of Pelagianism), but rather, bestowed upon us by God as a giftwhen and as He wills. This is distinctly different from having a divine “right” or “privilege” to be healed by God.

25) Is Healing Part of the Atonement (Isaiah 53)?

Isaiah 53:4-5 (4a and 5b) Surely our griefs (or, sicknesses) He bore, and our sorrows He carried . . . By His scourging we are healed.

As for Isaiah 53:5, the Hebrew word for “healed” is rapha. This word is by no means restricted to physical healing of our bodies. Here are some examples of its use in different senses:

2 Kings 2:21 I have purified these waters.

Jeremiah 51:9 We applied healing to Babylon.

Jeremiah 6:14 They have healed the wound of my people. (figurative)

Hosea 7:1 When I would heal Israel . . .

2 Chronicles 7:14 I will . . . heal their land.

2 Chronicles 30:20 The Lord heard Hezekiah and hea1ed the people. (used in the sense of “pardon” — see verses 18 and 19)

Jeremiah 3:22 I will heal your faithlessness.

Further uses of this word can be found with the aid of a concordance. Because the word can mean different things, it is essential to arrive at its meaning through context. We cannot lift it out of its surrounding passage, as if each verse (in this case, one-fourth of a verse) exists in a vacuum. And the context (53:5-6 in particular) is undeniably directed toward the atonement for sin, not toward a doctrine of physical healing per se. Verse 5 mentions our “transgressions, iniquities,” and “well-being” — all non-physical concepts.

Verse 6, right after the phrase in question reads, “All of us like sheep have gone astray,” and mentions our “iniquity” falling on Jesus. Verse 8 mentions our “transgression”, verse 11 mentions our justification and “iniquities,” and verse 12 (the last in the chapter) states, “He Himself bore the sin of many.”

Thus, since the whole passage concentrates on the atonement for sin, and since the word for “healed” can mean “pardon” or spiritual transformation, it is logical to interpret the phrase in question as “by His stripes we are saved.” This is more natural than forcing “heal” to be restricted to physical healing. In any case, there is no place for dogmatism on the part of “faith” teachers as to the meaning of rapha here. Furthermore, the chapter makes use of poetic synonymous parallelism.

For instance, Christ is compared to a “tender shoot” in verse 2, and to a “lamb” and a “sheep” in verse 7, while we are referred to as “sheep gone astray” in verse 6. Similarly, “healed” in this passage may simply be a poetic way of saying that our sins are forgiven (such as in 2 Chronicles 30:20 above). And the great Hebrew scholars agree that the meaning intended is indeed as I have argued. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, a standard reference source, notes concerning Isaiah 53:5: “There was healing to us, i.e. God pardoned us” (word 7495, p. 776).

Moreover, the “faith” exegesis of this passage flies in the face of other biblical admonitions to suffer along with Jesus: 1 Peter 2:21: “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.” Ephesians 5:1: “Be imitators of God.” The doctrine of Christ suffering so that we would not nave to is simply not biblical, as these verses demonstrate. The only thing we don’t have to go through as a result of Christ’s death for us is a life of despair on earth without God and an eternity in hell apart from Him.

26) New Testament Interpretation of the “Healing” of Isaiah 53

1 Peter 2:24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by His wounds you were healed.

The Greek word for “healed” is iaomai, which, like its Hebrew counterpart, rapha, is not restricted to physical healing of the body in Scripture. For instance, both Matthew 13:15, John 12:40, and Acts 28:27 all quote from Isaiah 6:10. John reads, “He has blinded their eyes, and He hardened their hearts, lest they . . . be converted and I heal them.” Rapha is used for “heal” in Isaiah 6:10. And in all three of these NT quotations of that verse, iaomai is used.

Thus, it can mean spiritual transformation as well as physical healing, since the Isaiah passage is referring to a spiritual, not physical, change. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states about these passages, as well as 1 Pet 2.24, “To make whole, i.e., — to free from errors and sins, to bring about one’s salvation” (word 2390, p. 296). W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words agrees: “Figuratively, of spiritual healing . . . 1 Pet 2:24” (and the other three passages, listed under “Heal”, #2).

As for the context, we find, just as in Isaiah 53, that it is most surely dealing with salvation. The larger passage encourages believers to endure hardship and persecution. Verse 21 exhorts us to suffer like Christ, who is our example, while verses 19 and 20 commend those who patiently endure unjust suffering. If physical healing was referred to, it is in a strange place, since the the emphasis of the passage is not deliverance from trials, but the endurance of them.

The first part of 1 Peter 2:24 is quite obviously talking about Jesus bearing our sins, not our diseases. Note the connecting word “for.” And immediately after the phrase about healing, Peter mentions (like Isaiah) our straying like sheep, and our return to our “Shepherd” and “Guardian” of our souls. Again, since the whole surrounding context is indisputably concerned with salvation, and since the Greek word for “heal” is not restricted to a physical sense, it is much more reasonable to interpret the phrase as referring to salvation, and not to physical healing.

Even the tense (“you were healed”) makes more sense if it refers to salvation. since healing (even among “faith” proponents) is still taking place in the present. Why would Peter quote a phrase having to do with physical healing, if it had nothing to do with the rest of the passage he was writing? His use of the quote leads one to strongly believe that the original Hebrew in Isaiah was dealing with the solution for sin, not disease.

Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel, in his standard, highly-regarded work Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, takes the same view of the use of iaomai in these verses: “The figurative use . . . occurs in the NT only in OT quotations (except in Heb. 12:13). Thus the warning of Acts 28:27 quotes Is. 6:10 and 1 Peter quotes Is. 53:5. In both instances the reference is to restoration through forgiveness and the resultant saving benefits” (abridged, one-volume edition: p. 348).

27) Excesses and Harmful Logical Outcomes Of The Faith Doctrine

Many are the problems brought on by the unbiblical hyperfaith doctrine. We shall now examine how deadly and dangerous this false doctrine is (like all false teachings). If left unchecked, it will destroy the spiritual well-being of many in the Body of Christ. Therefore, it should concern Christians that such a doctrine is gaining ground and stifling the joyful lives of Christians. We must speak out with gentleness, love and forcefulness, lest more lives get caught in this clever web of deceptive teaching.

There are at least seven distinct dangers of this movement, all of which make perfect logical sense (a reductio ad absurdum) once one has accepted the teachings. All have already been manifested, and likely will increase in the days ahead unless we speak out now, with compassion and concern,

i) “Enough Faith” Paradox When physical healing is considered as part of the atonement right along with salvation, and both are attained through “mustering” enough faith, then we must logically assume that the one who “hasn’t got enough faith to be healed” (even a “faith” proponent, though they will deny it) must be in an overall lousy spiritual state and not right with God. This breeds an unhealthy and unethical judgmentalism, and on grounds which are themselves false and unbiblical.

ii) Disenchantment Inevitably, sooner or later, even the so-called “faith” follower will not be healed of something, because this is simply how God operates. He doesn’t always heal miraculously (in fact, He does so rarely). Now when this happens, the person may choose to blame God and fall away from the Lord, out of disenchantment (for the Christian walk didn’t turn out to be all peaches and cream, as they had been told). When this happens, those who taught him or her the false “faith” principles are directly responsible for that persons soul (and of course this is a very serious thing – not to be taken lightly — see James 3:1).

Or, the person may continue on in the Christian life, but with excessive self-condemnation. This person considers himself or herself a spiritual failure and second-class Christian because he or she couldn’t even have enough faith to receive what is supposedly every Christian’s right and privilege: perfect health at all times. This person will never have a victorious and joyful walk with the Lord until he or she is informed of the falsity of the “faith” doctrine. Then, liberation occurs because blame and guilt disappear.

iii) Spiritual Arrogance and Self-Righteousness Directly tied to the last problem is the one of spiritual arrogance. Those who have supposedly attained this wonderful “knowledge” of God’s principles, etc. (dangerously similar to the ancient heresy of Gnosticism) will inevitably look down on those who are having problems in their life, such as the theoretical person just mentioned. Thus, we will have a “distinction” between the “spiritual elite” (who “have it”) and the less fortunate who have not “arrived” yet (due, of course, we are told, to “secret sin” in every case).

Indeed, anyone who does not accept the “faith” teaching is looked down on, and, in extreme cases, despised. Such attitudes, are extremely disruptive of unity in the Body of Christ, in addition to being sinful and wrong in and of themselves. The more one stays in the “faith” movement, the more one tends to develop (or will be pressured to develop) a self-righteous, superiority complex much like that of the Pharisees. It all follows logically from the doctrine.

iv) Lack of Compassion For The Suffering Along with arrogance comes a related lack of compassion. Since blame must be attached to the person who isn’t “prosperous” and/or “healthy,” it is much easier to avoid having any concern, compassion or love for the suffering, than it would be if their suffering was seen not to be their fault. Thus, we witness heartbreaking scenes of those suffering (whether from cancer or emotional hurt or whatever) being accused coldly of “not having enough faith” rather than being consoled and comforted.

Surely the wrongness of this callousness is apparent. Aside from countless commands that we love one another, we are also told by God to “weep with those who weep.” “Faith” doctrine (logically) is diametrically opposed to that end, because it counters the action of love by always placing the blame on the sufferer.

Since time began, the poor, for instance, have always been considered lazy, sinful, or in some other way responsible for their condition, so that compassionate action to help them could be avoided and rationalized away. Now, the “faith” doctrine extends this cold unconcern to those who suffer in any way (financially, emotionally, spiritually, or physically).

I’m not claiming that all followers of the “prosperity” doctrine act this way (I know myself from firsthand experience that this is not true), just that such behavior is entirely consistent with and tends to flow in a diabolical consistent logic from the doctrine, since people are sinners and often succumb to judgmentalism and spiritual arrogance.

The follower of the “faith” movement may, for example, assist another follower (i.e. financially) while he is yet trying to mature into the teachings. The attitude remains that this is a necessary situation only because the newer or less mature follower hasn’t come to a real knowledge of “faith” yet. However, it is always thought that this will not be necessary when the less mature follower “grows” in the Lord and is able to rely on Him in all situations.

v) Self-Delusions One might wonder how a “faith” follower explains away his own disease, broken bone, infection, or any other abnormality. Incredible as it may seem, when such a problem strikes the faithful, he or she simply “claims” their God-given right to be healed, and maintains that the healing has occurred, whether or not the symptoms are present! I once met a girl who said her broken leg was healed even though she couldn’t walk normally across the room!

This type of ultra-irrational thinking is no different than a member of the Christian Science sect claiming that disease is nonexistent. Such behavior, however, laughable as it might be in many cases, could easily lead to tragedy. Envision a person who has fainting spells, for example, denying this, then driving a car, fainting, and killing a carload of people as a result; or a person with a heart condition denying that and over-exerting himself to the point of a fatal heart attack.

We need to condemn absolutely such delusion as this as extremely dangerous. Not only is it harmful to the person who believes it, but also possibly, to others as well, as we’ve seen. Then there is the aspect of “positive confession. versus negative confession — presumably where this delusion stems from, Because “faith” followers are taught that words can create realities, they are discouraged from saying anything negative.

This takes in emotional and spiritual elements as well as physical. Obviously the denial of all negative aspects in our lives will lead to lying, which, of course, can never be condoned if the Bible is to be followed seriously. Any doctrine leading to sin must be false.

Perhaps confessing sins to one another, or to a priest, or to God, is also a “negative confession” (following this mentality). Are we to go against the biblical command to confess sins? Of course, the more this unbiblical and arrogant, silly mindset manifests itself, the more the world will laugh at and dismiss Christians as utter fools (with good reason).

Perhaps this is one of the greatest tragedies, since Christians are called to be Christ’s ambassadors, and we are to reflect the nature of God. We need to show the world that Christianity is not self-delusion and self-righteousness, but rather, a balanced walk with Jesus, including difficult as well
as joyful times.

vi) Death Due To Ignorance The denial of the existence of a physical problem and/or the “certainty” of a healing, can cause, tragically, the unnecessary death of children. Everyone has read in the newspapers about parents “standing in faith” and refusing medication for their children, which, in some cases will lead to the death of a child. This is the ultimate tragedy of a perverted doctrine of faith and healing.

Whether the parents love the child or not (and they usually do, which is the irony), they, will be no less accountable for his or her death than someone who has an abortion. We are called to understand what the Bible teaches, and it does not teach a view of faith which can lead to such events as these.

vii) The Bondage Of Works-Legalism Nearly everything which is false in the “faith” doctrine is oriented towards a legalistic walk of works, in opposition to the biblical teaching of Grace Alone (which, by the way, Catholics adhere to as much as Protestants, over against the ancient heresy of Pelagianism). Healings and blessings are approached on the basis of how much faith we can generate of our own accord. If a person doesn’t live up to what he or she is “supposed to,” they condemn themselves, and are blamed, condemned, and looked down on by other “faith” proponents.

Thus, followers are in a bondage of trying to earn everything God gives to us, the same bondage which Jesus broke by dying for us, and enabling God to freely bestow blessings upon us according to His grace. If God didn’t heal someone, it wasn’t His will, and there is no reason to blame the person who wasn’t healed. Fear is produced in both the successful and unsuccessful followers. The prosperous fear they may fail to live up to prosperity standard in the future, and the unsuccessful fear the condemnation of the spiritual elite.

For the “faith” proponent, everything is black and white, and easily explained. If someone prospers, it’s because they have attained the secret knowledge, unlocked from its mysteriousness by Copeland and Hagin — they have earned it, while those who struggle are being penalized for their lack of faith and secret sin. How vastly different from the biblical picture of the Apostle Paul and a righteous man like Job! The Bible teaches that we’re all sinners and that all good things are undeserved gifts from God (see 1 Corinthians 4:6-8).

28) The Suffering of a Christian (Or, Bible Verses We Like To Forget)

Acts 5:41 They went on their way from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name.

Acts 14:22 Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

The Greek for “tribulation” is thlipsis. See #16 & #18.

Romans 5:3-5 We also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance . . . proven character . . . hope, and hope does not disappoint . . .

Philippians 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake.

The Greek for “suffer” is pascho, and, concerning its appearance in this verse, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon states: “In a bad sense, of misfortunes, to suffer, to undergo evils, to be afflicted.” (word 3952, p. 494).

Philippians 3:8 I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ.

1 Thessalonians 3:3 . . . so that no man may be disturbed by these afflictions for you yourselves know that we have been destined for this.

Hebrews 5:8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

Hebrews 12:6, 11 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son who He receives. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful, yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

James 1:2-4 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete lacking nothing.

James 5:10-11 As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we count those blessed who endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lords dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful.

2 Timothy 3:12 All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

1 Peter 4:16, 19 If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God. Let those also who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful creator in doing what is right.

29) God’s Opinion of the Hyperfaith / “Name-it-and-Claim-it” Doctrine

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine leading to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing, but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.

Romans 16:17-18 Keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites, and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

Ephesians 4:14 We are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.

Colossians 2:4, 8 I say this in order that no one may delude you with persuasive argument . . . see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (cf. Titus 1:8-16, 1 Tim 4:11-15, and Gal 1:8)

30) Afterword

Although my application of the above Pauline condemnations to the so-called “faith” teaching may sound harsh and condemning, I do not wish to condemn individual persons, and this is not my intention. I do intend, however, to condemn the doctrine of which this paper is a refutation. God tells us to speak out against false doctrine, but not to condemn people. I can’t judge the hearts of anyone embroiled in this movement, and chances are my heart is as full of evil as theirs (Jeremiah 17:9). But I do strongly believe that the “faith” doctrine is false, and I’ve just given 30 major biblically saturated arguments (and numerous sub-arguments) against it.

And I absolutely believe in divine healing myself (I mention this because this accusation is almost always brought against any critic of the “faith” teaching), and I was healed of chronic depression in 1977. I believe in divine healing because 1) The Bible teaches it, and, 2) I’ve seen it many times. But God heals when and if He so desires. We have seen enough biblical evidence above to place that fact, and many other related facts, beyond dispute.

***

(originally written in 1982 and somewhat revised and expanded on 5 July 2002)

Photo credit: God the Father: woodcut by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794-1872) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

March 19, 2020

This is an exchange on my Facebook page with Timothy Flanders, who appeared in the videos with Taylor Marshall, that I critiqued in my paper, Taylor Marshall: Pachamama “Idolatry” Judged by Coronavirus (Yet “Antichrist” Pope Francis Walks the Streets of Pandemic-Ravaged Rome Free of the Virus . . .) [3-17-20]. His words will be in blue. Any further replies from him will be added to this paper.

*****

If I understand you correctly here, you have selectively quoted the OT, making your argument lack force, and sound more like a hit piece, with due respect. David asks God your exact question in the OT passage from II Kings that we discussed in this video.

24:17 And David said to the Lord, when he saw the angel striking the people: It is I; I am he that have sinned, I have done wickedly: these that are the sheep, what have they done? let thy hand, I beseech thee, be turned against me, and against my father’s house.

Again, if I’ve understood your argument correctly, this verse alone disproves your entire argumentation in this article. You contend that Marshall and myself have to explain why the Holy Father is not stricken with the virus but Alexander is, yet David himself asks this very question in the context of God’s wrath.

With respect,

Timothy

As I noted, these observations are only a tiny portion of my entire writing on the topic of both God’s judgment and disease. I’ve written many articles on both. I also stated that “the overall picture: taking all of the Bible into account, is far more complex and multi-faceted” and “I want to highlight one particular aspect of Marshall’s claims” [bolding presently]. I also cited you [from the videos], to be totally fair about this, saying, “This falls on many innocent souls who had nothing to do with any of this stuff.”

So I understand that. The main disagreement here is between you and Marshall and myself, along with all who believe in biblical inspiration, over against the modernist and liberal so-called Bible scholars.

My case here remains utterly unaffected by this critique, because it is of a particular nature. I think I explained it well enough (of course I always think that!). But to concisely summarize:

1) Taylor Marshall appealed to the OT teaching on judgment (mocking those who dismiss it), to explain and interpret the coronavirus.

2) He specifically applied it to the current situation as a judgment against the alleged “Pachamama” idolatry.

[claiming it is divine wrath, and that it’s because of the Vatican ceremony, are both sheer speculations]

3) I agree with this OT teaching on divine wrath, as one article of mine in particular, proves.

4) A key part of this judgment motif is that God (typically, but not always) judges individuals and groups for the sins that they themselves have committed. He “singles them out,” in other words.

5) #4 doesn’t fit the current state of affairs, under Marshall’s hypothesis (#2), insofar as the ones guilty of the alleged idolatry that is supposedly the initiating cause of the alleged divine judgment and wrath (especially Pope Francis) seem to be undergoing no great suffering.

6) On the other hand, the person most known for opposing the alleged idolatry (which in fact did not take place, as shown ad infinitum), Alexander Tschugguel, has himself contacted the virus.

This makes no sense under the paradigm you have set up. In effect, God would be judging the “Jeremiah” that He Himself has sent to warn about the coming judgment. Marshall mentioned in the video about the Jews being judged via the Babylonians, and losing their temple. Who was warning them about it? That was Jeremiah the prophet. And who is warning us today? Supposedly, the heroic Alexander Tschugguel, who fearlessly (after committing an act of theft) disposed of the alleged idols, Boniface-and Elijah-like.

Scripture teaches that in particular judgments, the ones committing the sins are judged; not the ones warning about the sins.

7) Therefore, the hypothesis of #2 (taking into account #4, which is entailed by #1), appears to be falsified, by Marshall’s own OT criterion.

8) Moreover, you two have argued that the cessation of Masses in Rome is part of God’s judgment for “Pachamama”. Thus, you yourself make a particular application of judgment in that case, yet you want to make an exception or create an “anomaly” when it comes to Alexander over against Pope Francis and all the other alleged wicked, apostate, heretical bishops.

Why? Extreme presumption and internal incoherence and inconsistency rule the day. I think you have to go back and reconsider your several false premises to see where your reasoning has gone awry.

I’m glad you brought up King David. In this instance, he did not suffer, and his people did. Sometimes that is how it is in Scripture. But of course, in the case of David’s murder and adultery, he did suffer terribly. One son died and another led a rebellion against him. Many other kings were struck down by God because of their sins.

So why wouldn’t God do this with Pope Francis, if he is so terrible?

I won’t even get into how utterly ridiculous it is to classify the temporary shutting-down of churches in a country [Italy] which currently has 35,713 coronavirus cases (the second-highest figure after China), with 2,978 dead so far (475 more since yesterday), in order to stop the spread of a super-infectious virus, as “God’s wrath.”

In fact, this is simply following biblical injunctions from the Mosaic Law, which indeed stopped the spread of infectious diseases 3000 years before modern science figured out germ theory and the laws of contagion.

If they didn’t do this during the Black Death, it was because they had no idea of how it was spread. It wasn’t necessarily heroic faith, but it had to do far more with massive ignorance.

A reasonable interpretation of the alarming spread in Italy is to note the fact that it has the third oldest average age in Europe, after Monaco and Germany (which is presently fifth in the world in numbers of infections), and the sixth-oldest population in the entire world.

We know that Coronavirus attacks older people exponentially more than young (virtually every one of the now 100+ victims in the US are over 50: most over 60, and the bulk of those 70 and older).

So the sensible and obvious thing to do is to stop public gatherings as much as possible, and that includes Masses. That’s not God’s wrath or “self-interdiction.” It’s a straightforward application of loving our neighbor, so that they won’t die from viral infection.

How is Alexander doing now? Have you heard news of any improvement yet?

[ received no reply, so I inquired on the Internet:

Alexander Tschugguel, 26, of Vienna, Austria, . . . has been hospitalized today due to having contracted the coronavirus.

Alexander has been at home in bed with fever for nine days and is very weak. He texted me yesterday only to say he was too weak to speak. Today, he was admitted to hospital, and first reports suggest that his life is not in danger. [3-18-20 on a reactionary site]

I had asked my readers to pray for him in my previous paper, and added: “Let’s continue praying. It sounds like he has some serious immune deficiency problems.” Then I found a message straight from Alexander himself:

After so many of you already know about my state of health I wanted to thank you all deeply for all the prayers and support I get.

It is now day 11 with the virus and up until now it did not get any better. After I have been in home quarantine until yesterday morning my wife and I decided that it got worse and that I have to go to the hospital. Now I am here and they take good care of me. Please continue to pray! Especially for the ones who got hit by the Virus as hard as me or even harder but who can not have all this help and this support. Let us always pray for the sick and old, for the ones who do not have families or friends which take care of them.

As soon as I am healthy again, God willing, I will write another update here.

Yours,

Alexander

Christ will win!

Ps:

I am sorry that I can not answer your private messages right now. It is too much.

Please continue to keep him in prayer]

***

Here is some more data about how God judges. According to Taylor Marshall and Timothy Flanders, coronavirus is His wrath for supposed idolatry in the Vatican, in the tree-planting ceremony. It would be very difficult to prove such a thing, but let’s accept it for a moment, for the sake of argument. It would mean that our loving God, Who became a man and died on the cross on our behalf, decided in His wrath to afflict (as of the latest statistics), over 222,000 people; 9,115 of them fatally, because of one ceremony in the Vatican (which I strongly believe — and have proven by fact and reason, many times –, was wildly and wrongly misinterpreted, and lied about by reactionaries, in violation of the Ten Commandments).

These figures include 8,154 cases in China, including 3,249 deaths, or 36% of all fatalities. Yet what would China have to do with a ceremony in the Vatican? That is not how God’s judgment works! I’ve already noted above the current figure for Italy, which has 33% of all fatalities. We now know that, according to a Bloomberg article (3-18-20):

More than 99% of Italy’s coronavirus fatalities were people who suffered from previous medical conditions, according to a study by the country’s national health authority. . . .

The Rome-based institute has examined medical records of about 18% of the country’s coronavirus fatalities, finding that just three victims, or 0.8% of the total, had no previous pathology. Almost half of the victims suffered from at least three prior illnesses and about a fourth had either one or two previous conditions.

More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease.

The median age of the infected is 63 but most of those who die are older . . . The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5. As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.

So, please note what this entails: we’re told that God is judging via the coronavirus. The biggest sin and alleged precipitating cause for this occurred in Italy. But did God go after the very ones who allegedly committed it (the pope, cardinals, bishops, and those who agreed with their acts?). No, not at all. Instead (in Taylor Marshall’s absurd scenario), God looked around for elderly people (average age of the dead: 79.5 years), and particularly those who already had two or three other diseases (high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease), and killed them, up to the tune of 33% of all worldwide fatalities. These are the people God in His omnipotence and providence decided to judge and kill by His wrath. That is supposedly just and loving.

Another of Taylor Marshall’s blasphemous theories is that God is also judging because the pope (so he pontificates) abandoned Chinese Christians. So who does God go after in retribution for that? Not Pope Francis, the alleged perpetrator, but . . . the Chinese (!): most of whom, no doubt (i.e., among the victims), are not even Christians: 3,249 deaths there, and 36% of all fatalities. That’s God’s judgment and wrath, you see! Does that make any sense? Of course not. It’s equal parts outrageous and absurd. It’s certainly not consistent with the God revealed in the inspired revelation of the Bible.

This is not only outrageously false and unbiblical, but literally blasphemous (how ironic, in the midst of a false charge that the pope and bishops were supposedly committing sacrilegious idolatry). If this is the nature of the God Whom Christians serve, count me out. I’m gone yesterday. Thankfully, it is not the God I know and the true God revealed in the Bible. He is fair and just in His judgments: terrible though they may sometimes seem from our perspective. If He judges a nation, it’s because most of the entire nation has gone astray, and are ripe for judgment, as part of the collective.

God used the Babylonians to judge even the Jews, the chosen people, after they massively engaged in idolatry and other sins and abandoned Him (Jeremiah chapters 49-52). But He also judged Babylon:

Isaiah 14:22-23 (RSV) “I will rise up against them,” says the LORD of hosts, “and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, offspring and posterity, says the LORD. [23] And I will make it a possession of the hedgehog, and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, says the LORD of hosts.”

Nations who opposed Israel became incorrigibly wicked, and God judged them:

Isaiah 19:17 And the land of Judah will become a terror to the Egyptians; every one to whom it is mentioned will fear because of the purpose which the LORD of hosts has purposed against them.

Isaiah 30:31 The Assyrians will be terror-stricken at the voice of the LORD, when he smites with his rod.

Isaiah 34:5, 9 For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; behold, it descends for judgment upon Edom, upon the people I have doomed. . . . [9] And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into brimstone; her land shall become burning pitch.

Jeremiah 47:1, 4  The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the Philistines, before Pharaoh smote Gaza.. . . [4] because of the day that is coming to destroy all the Philistines, to cut off from Tyre and Sidon every helper that remains. For the LORD is destroying the Philistines, the remnant of the coastland of Caphtor.

Ezekiel 25:2-3  “Son of man, set your face toward the Ammonites, and prophesy against them. [3] Say to the Ammonites, Hear the word of the Lord GOD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Because you said, `Aha!’ over my sanctuary when it was profaned, and over the land of Israel when it was made desolate, and over the house of Judah when it went into exile;

This is what God does: He judges wicked nations (including His own chosen people, several times). When virtually the whole world became wicked in the time of Noah, He judged it, too. What He doesn’t do, on the other hand, is judge people who had nothing to do with one alleged sin, for that sin. He judges individuals or relatively smaller groups for their own sins, as I documented last time. Here are a few more examples:

2 Kings 9:33-37 He said, “Throw her down.” So they threw her down; and some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her. [34] Then he went in and ate and drank; and he said, “See now to this cursed woman, and bury her; for she is a king’s daughter.” [35] But when they went to bury her, they found no more of her than the skull and the feet and the palms of her hands. [36] When they came back and told him, he said, “This is the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servant Eli’jah the Tishbite, `In the territory of Jezreel the dogs shall eat the flesh of Jez’ebel; [37] and the corpse of Jez’ebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the territory of Jezreel, so that no one can say, This is Jez’ebel.'”

Jeremiah 29:21-22 `Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning Ahab the son of Kola’iah and Zedeki’ah the son of Ma-asei’ah, who are prophesying a lie to you in my name: Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadrez’zar king of Babylon, and he shall slay them before your eyes. [22] Because of them this curse shall be used by all the exiles from Judah in Babylon: “The LORD make you like Zedeki’ah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire,”

Acts 5:1-10 But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property, [2] and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. [3] But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? [4] While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” [5] When Anani’as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. [6] The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him. [7] After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. [8] And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” [9] But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” [10] Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

1 Corinthians 11:27-30 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. [30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Revelation 2:12-16 “And to the angel of the church in Per’gamum write: `The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword. [13] “`I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; you hold fast my name and you did not deny my faith even in the days of An’tipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. [14] But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. [15] So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicola’itans. [16] Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.

I simply can’t find in the Bible a “judgement” or “wrath” such as Taylor Marshall and Timothy Flanders posit in the present case. There are plenty of very widespread sins that God might conceivably judge (and on a very wide scale): abortion, homosexual acts, economic exploitation, making riches or power into an idol, pornography, sexual trafficking, drug dealing, sexual abuse, terrorism, racial and ethnic prejudice, sexism, on and on and on. He could incinerate the United States to ashes in the next hour and we could say nothing in our defense: due to abortion alone; not even getting into many other serious sins we commit and even sanction by unjust, immoral laws. It would be perfectly just for Him to do so.

But none of that is mentioned when Marshall and Flanders talk about God’s wrath: only one ceremony which they (along with legions of reactionaries) never understood in the first place; which was a Catholic ceremony, without any idolatry at all. See my many articles regarding it. Such are so many falsehoods currently being spread about Pope Francis. May God open the eyes and have mercy on the souls of those who broadcast them, unwillingly or willingly.

Ecclesiastes 10:20 Even in your thought, do not curse the king, . . .

Titus 3:1-2 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work, [2] to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men.

Acts 23:1-5 And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.” [2] And the high priest Anani’as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. [3] Then Paul said to him, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” [4] Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” [5] And Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, `You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

***

Related Reading

US Coronavirus Deaths: Elderly with Preconditions [3-13-20]

Taylor Marshall: Pachamama “Idolatry” Judged by Coronavirus (Yet “Antichrist” Pope Francis Walks the Streets of Pandemic-Ravaged Rome Free of the Virus . . .) [3-17-20]

My Outlook & Goals During This Coronavirus Crisis [3-24-20]

Explanation of Coronavirus Statistics (Dr. JD Donovan) [3-26-20]

“Black Death” Mentality On Display at Patheos Catholic [3-26-20]

Dialogue: [Irrational?] Leftish Reactions to Coronavirus [3-27-20]

Dialogue on Leftish Reactions to Coronavirus, Part II [3-27-20]

Why Has Italy Suffered the Most from Coronavirus? (+ Reflections on the Propriety of Using the Term, “Chinese Flu” / Condemnation of Anti-Chinese Prejudice) [3-28-20]

Reply to Unfair Criticisms of Trump Re Coronavirus [4-4-20]

Mini-Debate on Laying Blame for Lack of Knowledge of Coronavirus, and Irresponsibility (vs. Jon Curry) [Facebook, 4-5-20]

Coronavirus: Chris Ferrara vs. Science & Historical Precedent (Social Distancing Was Used in the 1918 Flu Pandemic and Has Been Shown Again and Again to be Highly Effective) [4-7-20]

Will US Coronavirus Deaths Be Far Less than Predicted? [4-7-20]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

***

Photo credit: Queen Jezebel Being Punished by Jehu, by Andrea Celesti (1637-1712) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

March 15, 2020

Sources I will be critiquing:

“Did the Church Fathers Practice Communion in the Hand? (Not Exactly)” (Dr. Taylor Marshall, TaylorMarshall.com, 1-7-11) [green font]

“Debunking the myth that today’s Communion in the hand revives an ancient custom” (Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Lifesite News, 11-26-19) [blue]

“The Great Deception about Holy Communion in the hand: St. Cyril of Jerusalem and Communion in the hand” (Rev. Father. Giuseppe Pace, S.D.B., Chiesa Viva, January 1990; translated by Francesca Romana and reprinted at Rorate Caeli, 10-26-11) [purple]
 *
“Communion in the Hand and similar Frauds” (Michael Davies [unknown date; he died in 2004]; reprinted at SSPX.org) [brown]
*****

21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

22. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ.  And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem [c. 313-386], Catechetical Lectures, 23:21-22)

I. Agreement that the Text is Crucial in the Dispute Over the Historic and Current Liturgical Practice
*
A quotation attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem is the text most often used to justify the innovation. This text has been carefully edited in a number of the propaganda tracts, articles, and editorials intended to brainwash the faithful.
*
Let us now turn to the most controversial quote regarding Holy Communion in the hand. It comes from one of the five mystagogical (i.e. post-Easter) lectures ascribed to Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in about the year AD 350. . . . the classic “Communion in the Hand” passage . . . This is the passage on which the Patristic argument for Communion in the Hand stands or falls.
*
But what about the famous passage from St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Mystagogical Catecheses, used again and again to persuade Catholics that Communion in the hand is an ancient practice legitimately restored by the Church after the Second Vatican Council?
*
The pseudo-liturgists love to pull out the following piece from the Mystagogical Catecheses attributed to Saint Cyril of Jerusalem . . . 
*
II. Claims that the Passage Was Not Actually Written by St. Cyril
 *
The description of such a bizarre Communion Rite, which concludes with the exhortation to receive Holy Communion even if you are defiled by sins, was most certainly not preached by St. Cyril in the Church of Jerusalem, neither would it have been licit whatsoever in any other Church. What we have here is a rite which is a product of the imagination, oscillating between fanaticism and sacrilege, by the author of the Apostolic Constitutions: an anonymous Syrian, a devourer of books, an indefatigable writer who poured into his writings,  indigested and contaminated figments of own his imagination. In the book VIII of the aforementioned Apostolic Constitutions, he adds 85 Canons of the Apostles, attributing them to Pope St. Clement, canons that Pope Gelasius I, at the Council of Rome in 494, declared apocryphal: «Liber qui appellatur Canones Apostolorum, apocryfus (P. L., LIX, col. 163). The description of that bizarre rite, even if not always necessarily sacrilegious, became part of the Mystagogical Catechesis through the work of a successor of St. Cyril, who most (scholars) retain was “Bishop John,” a crypto-Arian, influenced by Origen and Pelagius and thus, contested by St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome and St. Augustine.
*
Now the five follow-up lectures are highly debated and may not be authentic. In other words, they may have may been added by someone other than Saint Cyril. In fact, there exist manuscripts that do not attribute these five lectures to Saint Cyril. Hence, it is not entirely responsible to quote these last five lectures as a valid authority. The five later lectures are questionable. . . . this ONE alleged quote from St Cyril (the one just above from the disputed Catechesis mystagogica), . . . why take the dubious quote when there are others to go by? . . . alleged Saint Cyril of Jerusalem passage . . . Even if this passage is authentic (and I don’t think that it is), . . . 
*
[M]anuscripts variously assign the Mystagogical Catecheses to authors other than St. Cyril; later writers simply append them to the earlier collection of lectures and regard them as authentic. Modern scholars are divided on their authenticity. [A good summary of the present state of opinion can be found In Quasten, Patrology III, 364/5.] In any case, it is one of the doubtful lectures which is so frequently cited today to justify Communion in the hand.
*
The person who translated the Catechetical Lectures for the famous 38-volume Church Fathers set, edited by Philip Schaff (uploaded at the Catholic New Advent site), and wrote the introduction (which I shall cite below), was Edwin Hamilton Gifford (1820-1905), author or translator of many theological works:
§ 2.  Authenticity of the Lectures.  The internal evidence of the time and place at which the Lectures were delivered has been already discussed in chapters viii. and ix., and proves beyond doubt that they must have been composed at Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century.  At that date Cyril was the only person living in Jerusalem who is mentioned by the Ecclesiastical Historians as an author of Catechetical Lectures:  and S. Jerome, a younger contemporary of Cyril, expressly mentions the Lectures which Cyril had written in his youth.  In fact their authenticity seems never to have been doubted before the seventeenth century, when it was attacked with more zeal than success by two French Protestant Theologians of strongly Calvinistic opinions, Andrew Rivet (Critic. Sacr. Lib. iii. cap. 8, Genev. 1640), and Edmund Aubertin (De Sacramento Eucharistiæ, Lib. ii. p. 422, Ed. Davent., 1654).  Their objections, which were reprinted at full length by Milles at the end of his Edition, were directed chiefly against the Mystagogic Lectures, and rested on dogmatic rather than on critical grounds. . . .
*
That John, Cyril’s successor, did deliver Catechetical Lectures, we know from his own correspondence with Jerome:  and this very circumstance may account for his name having been associated with, or substituted for that of Cyril.

*

To Rivet’s objection Milles makes answer that if the mistakes of a transcriber or the stumbling of an ignorant Librarian (imperiti Librarii cæspitationes) have in one or two MSS. ascribed the Lectures to John or any one else, this cannot be set against the testimony of those who lived nearest to the time when the Lectures were composed, as Jerome and Theodoret.  Also the internal evidence proves that the Lectures could not have been delivered later than the middle of the fourth century, whereas John succeeded Cyril about 386.

Moreover it is quite impossible to assign the two sets of Lectures to different authors. In Cat. xviii. § 33 the author promises, as we have seen, that he will fully explain the Sacramental Mysteries in other Lectures to be given in Easter week, in the Holy Sepulchre itself, and describes the subject of each Lecture; to which description the Mystagogic Lectures correspond in all particulars.  Other promises of future explanations are given in Cat. xiii. § 19, and xvi. § 26, and fulfilled in Myst. iv. § 3, and ii. § 6, and iii. § i.  On the other hand the author of Myst. i. § 9, after quoting the words, “I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one Baptism of repentance,” adds, “Of which things I spoke to thee at length in the former Lectures.”

By these and many other arguments drawn from internal evidence Touttée has shewn convincingly that all the Lectures must have had the same author, and that he could be no other than Cyril.

§ 3.  Early Testimony.  Under the title “Veterum Testimonia de S. Cyrillo Hierosolymitano ejusque Scriptis,” Milles collected a large number of passages bearing on the life and writings of S. Cyril, of which it will be sufficient to quote a few which refer expressly to his Lectures.

S. Jerome, in his Book of Illustrious Men, or Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, composed at Bethlehem about six years after Cyril’s death, writes in Chapter 112:  “Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, having been often driven out from the Church, afterwards in the reign of Theodosius held his Bishopric undisturbed for eight years:  by whom there are Catechetical Lectures, which he composed in his youth.”

Theodoret, born six or seven years after the death of Cyril, in his Dialogues (p. 211 in this Series) gives the “Testimony of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, from his fourth Catechetical Oration concerning the ten dogmas.  Of the birth from a virgin, “Believe thou this, &c.” . . .

Gelasius, Pope 492, De duabus in Christo naturis, quotes as from Gregory Nazianzen the words of Cyril, Cat. iv. § 9:  Διπλοῦς ἦν ὁ Χριστός, κ.τ.λ.

Leontius Byzantinus (610 circ.) Contra Nestor. et Eutychem, Lib. 1. quotes the same passage expressly as taken “From the 4th Catechetical Oration of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem.”

Many other references to the Catecheses as the work of Cyril are given by Touttée, pp. 306–315.

Now, even if we grant the skeptical view (held apparently by a considerable number of scholars) that the last five lectures were actually written by Cyril’s successor, St. John, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 356-417), where does that get the critics of communion in the hand: most of whom claim it has no ancient pedigree to speak of? Exactly nowhere . . . we still have a reputable witness to the practice, just a few years after St. Cyril. He describes the ritual.

So how — pray tell — does that help the reactionary “anti-hand” case? It doesn’t at all. They would somehow have to question his authenticity, too, or besmirch his character and trustworthiness as a witness. That would be a stretch, seeing that he is venerated by a saint, both by Catholics and Orthodox. Either way we look at it, the description of the actual liturgical practice is beyond dispute. And it documents what reactionaries want to fight against tooth and nail (as seen in the intense hostility of the titles of the four article above, that I am critiquing).

III. The Argument from Additional Elements in Cyril’s Description that Are Not Followed in Holy Communion Today

The “make your hand a throne” passage goes on to say that the faithful should touch the Holy Body of Christ to their eyes before consuming it. Then it also says that the faithful should touch their lips still moist with the precious Blood of Christ and touch the Blood to their eyes. . . . Yet who wants to argue for this custom?! I think that every Catholic would find this abhorrent. It is an aberration from holy tradition.

Who could possibly sustain that a similar rite was more or less the custom of the universal Church for more or less a thousand years? And how  to reconcile such a rite, (when even those defiled with sin are admitted to Communion), in accordance with what was certainly the universal custom from the beginnings of the Church which forbade Holy Communion to those who were not holy?
*
Michael Davies, however, takes a far more subtle and fair-minded approach, as to this additional communion ritual noted by St. Cyril:
*
The practice of touching the sensory organs with the Host and smearing them with the precious Blood might be thought harmless, if a trifle odd, but it clearly had inherent dangers. It could lead to an extravagant, perhaps superstitious, devotion to the particular Host received by the communicant and to further extravagant piety. This was indeed what did happen, and the practice of actually kissing the Host became widespread. St. Cyril compared the smearing of the sensory organs with the Blood of the Lamb immolated in the Eucharist, to the smearing of the doorposts of the captive Jews in Egypt with the blood of a slaughtered lamb. He considered that just as this practice protected the Jews, so the smearing of the sensory organs would prevent the destructive evil of sensory temptation entering through them. Further evidence of the wide geographical extension of this strange practice is provided by another bishop of the first half of the fifth century. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus in Syria, who confirms that the excess of kissing the Host was already in use:
One should consider how during the sacred mysteries we take the limbs of the Spouse, kiss them, embrace them and apply them to our eyes.
This was no isolated extravagance. The practice of kissing the Host, made possible by its reception in the hand and leading to a distorted theology of the Real Presence, persisted at least down to the end of the 8th century. Our witness is St. John of Damascus [675-749]:
Let us receive the Body of the crucified, and applying it to our eyes, our lips, and forehead, let us partake of the Divine burning coal.
It is hardly surprising that, in view of such excesses, the Holy Ghost should have prompted a change, i.e., the placing of the Blessed Sacrament upon the tongue, to ensure proper reverence and decorum.
*
Note how this ritual: obviously intrinsically connected with communion in the hand, was still present, according to Davies, “at least down to the end of the 8th century.”
*
I shall now respond to this reasoning, which basically runs (logically) as follows:
1) We are examining whether Church fathers bear witness to the practice of x [x being communion in the hand].
*
2) We find some evidence of x [in fact, the evidence most cited] in St. Cyril of Jerusalem [or his successor, as the case may be].
*
3) But, x in this instance is also accompanied by currently non-observed liturgical ritual y.
*
4) Therefore, St. Cyril’s “testimony” of the existence of x is questionable or perhaps invalid (or a non sequitur) altogether, since y is also present.
I submit that just a few moments of reflection will reveal how this conclusion doesn’t follow. One can think of several analogies:
1) In the early Church, even adult catechumens were baptized in the nude.
*
2) There was also a widespread practice of waiting until near death to be baptized.
*
3) Assigned penances were far more strict than they are today.
*
4) People often received Holy Communion far less frequently than today.
Now, the essence, or substance of these instances is the necessity of trinitarian-formula sacramental water baptism for regeneration (1, 2), penance as part and parcel of the sacrament of penance / reconciliation (confession, absolution, and penance) (3), and God’s will for Catholics [not in mortal sin] to receive Holy Communion (sacrament of the Holy Eucharist) as often as possible, as a component of salvation (weekly being the virtual requirement today, as part and parcel of the weekly Mass obligation).

Other “secondary” or “accidental” or “non-required / non-essential” elements were also present (nude baptisms, baptisms delayed in the extreme, excessively harsh assignments of penance, and non-frequent communion). These external or secondary elements, however, do not wipe out or nullify the essence of the three sacraments.

In the same way, the presence of this additional Communion ritual, described by St. Cyril, doesn’t nullify or somehow make less relevant the part of the ritual that we follow today (receiving Holy Communion in the hand). Perhaps some analogies from sports will help explain:

1) Baseball banned the spitball after the 1920 season (with the exception of 17 existing spitball pitchers, who played all the way till 1934). This pitch had been thrown along with the standard fastball and curveball and other pitches (screwball, knuckleball, etc.).
*
2) Therefore, the fastball and curveball are not part of legitimate baseball “tradition”, since the spitball no longer is.
*
3) Therefore, baseball is essentially a different game than it was before 1921.
Huh?! It’s plainly illogical, because the essence of baseball is not the spitball, but successfully hitting the ball, causing one’s own team to score more runs than the other team. We can also apply the analogy in the opposite fashion, in terms of chronology:

1) The three-point field goal was introduced to the NBA in 1979.

2) Therefore, the NBA was not actually the NBA, nor basketball the same game, up to the year 1978.

Again, the conclusion doesn’t follow logically, because we acknowledge that sports can develop and change without affecting their essence. The essence of the game of basketball is getting the basketball through the hoop, to score points (more than the other team does). That was always there. A three-point shot (like the spitball) is merely a secondary, non-essential development.

By analogy, then, the fact that further Communion rituals were noted by St. Cyril, has no bearing whatsoever on his testimony to the essential, central ancient liturgical tradition that we still follow today. Assuredly, there were also simultaneous traditions of Holy Communion in the mouth (that, for example, Pope St. Leo the Great and Pope St. Gregory the Great bore witness to). But it doesn’t follow that the practice of communion in the hand was not legitimate liturgical tradition, or not followed by many. These can vary to some extent: as seen, for instance, in the 23 liturgical rites of the Eastern Catholic churches (where Holy Communion is received standing, not kneeling). The essence of all of them (including what St. Cyril described) is receiving Our Lord Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in Holy Communion.

IV. Dr. Kwasniewski’s Argument from a Different Form of Communion in the Hand in the Early Church
 *
This is — in the final analysis — merely a variation of the flawed and illogical analysis of III, as I shall explain.
*

[I]f we look more carefully at what Cyril describes, and combine this passage with other hints from antiquity, we can see that even when Communion in the hand was practiced, it involved marks of reverence that (curiously?) never accompanied its re-invention in the late 1960s. In a forthcoming book, professor of Patristics Michael Fiedrowicz observes, concerning this passage:

It is significant that the Eucharist, laid on the right hand, is not then received by means of the less-valued left hand, but rather directly by the mouth. What appears at first glance to be communion in the hand reveals itself on closer examination to be communion in the mouth, with the right hand serving as a sort of paten. Bishop Cyril’s description shows that the attitude of the communicant is, then, not one of taking and capturing, but rather of reverent and humble reception, accompanied by a sign of adoration.

In his bestselling interview Christus Vincit: Christ’s Triumph over the Darkness of the Age, Bishop Athanasius Schneider — who, like Fiedrowicz, is a specialist in Patrology — goes into greater detail about the ancient ritual:

[T]he practice had a different form in ancient times than it does today: the Holy Eucharist was received on the palm of the right hand and the faithful were not allowed to touch the Holy Host with their fingers, but they had to bow down their head to the palm of the hand and take the Sacrament directly with their mouth, thus, in a position of a profound bow and not standing upright. The common practice today is to receive the Eucharist standing upright, taking it with the left hand. 

Again (to reiterate), the essence of Holy Communion is to sacramentally receive Our Lord Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, into our bodies. Whether by mouth or hand (or considering secondary variations thereof), the essence remains the same.
*
Moreover, the hand is still involved in the above ritual. The difference from today doesn’t change that fact. The whole dispute is whether it is intrinsically less reverent to receive Our Lord in the hand. Arguments are made that we don’t have consecrated hands like the priest; therefore should receive on the tongue (but then our tongues are hardly consecrated either — even less than our hands, according to the Bible –, which leads to an entirely different form of argument . . . ).
*
Kwasniewski seems to think the above method is intrinsically more reverent (“marks of reverence”) than what we practice now. I don’t see how the argument could be made. The host still touches a hand. Why involve the hand at all, if that fact alone (according to reactionaries) is supposedly so scandalous and sacrilegious? Furthermore, one could argue that there are at least as many risks — I would say, more — of particles becoming separated from the consecrated host in this method than ours today.
*
If the host is sitting on the palm of our hand and we have to bow down and partake of it with our mouth, without the aid of fingers, any number of things could happen (since it is flat on our hand and not perfectly easy to eat). It could break, while we try to grip it with our lips and/or teeth. It could slip away and fall as we try to eat it. I don’t see how that method is at all an improvement over picking up an unleavened consecrated wafer with our hands (precisely what God designed a hand to do: grasp) and placing it in our mouths. After all, we are doing basically the same motion as the priest does in communion on the tongue.
*
The bottom line is that a hand was involved (albeit not involving fingers) in what St. Cyril describes, and the method then was no more intrinsically reverent than the method today. Reverence, solemnity, and piety, according to Holy Scripture and Holy Mother Church, are heart and soul matters. It is what is on the inside that counts, and will determine our outward behavior and demeanor and disposition.
*
V. Dr. Taylor Marshall’s Ignorance as to the Patristic Tradition of Communion in the Hand
 *
Let me just add that I am by no means a Patristic expert and I’m very open to being corrected. I’m even more interested in any passages in the Church Fathers that support Communion in the hand as normative. So far, I’ve not encountered any such passages. The only evidence given is the quote quote from Saint Cyril about making your hand into a throne – and from what has been argued above, that argument is not convincing.
*
Dr. Marshall may have been willing to be corrected in 2011 when he wrote that. He shows few signs of it now. I was banned from his Twitter page within 24 hours of daring to critique his disgraceful book, Infiltration. And that was after a years-long history of praising my work as an apologist and hosting an ad for my books on his site. In any event, I have collected these evidences in my paper, Holy Communion in the Hand (Norm till 500-900 AD). I’ll cite highlights:

The elements were placed in the hands (not in the mouth) of each communicant by the clergy who were present, or, according to Justin, by the deacons alone, amid singing of psalms by the congregation (Psalm 34), with the words: “The body of Christ;” “The blood of Christ, the cup of life;” to each of which the recipient responded “Amen.” (eminent Church historian Philip SchaffHistory of the Christian Church: Ante-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 100-325 [Vol. II], Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1976, from fifth edition of 1889, Chapter Five: “Christian Worship”: § 68. Celebration of the Eucharist, 238-239)

That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. . . . St. Dionysius of Alexandria [d. 265], writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of “one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food” (Eusebius [263-339], Hist. Eccl., VII, ix). The custom of placing the Sacred Particle in the mouth, rather than in the hand of the communicant, dates in Rome from the sixth, and in Gaul from the ninth century (Van der Stappen, IV, 227; cf. St. Greg., Dial., I, III, c. iii). (Catholic Encyclopedia: “Genuflexion”)

*
Tell me, would you choose to come to the Sacrifice with unwashen hands? No, I suppose, not. . . . And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into the soul it is dissolved entirely. (St. John Chrysostom [c. 349-407], Homily 3 on Ephesians)
*

Distribution of the bread and wine took place at the chancel rail, where the people came forward to stand and receive from the hands of the bishop and/or deacons. Bread was placed into the joined hands with the words, ‘The Body of Christ,’ to which the recipient responded: ‘Amen’ . . . The cup was offered to each by another minister, with a similar exchange. (from Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, general editor: Allan D. Fitzgerald, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1999; “Eucharistic Liturgy,” p. 338; this article written by Robin M. Jensen and J. Patout Burns)

. . . in whose hands you placed the Eucharist, to whom in turn you extended your hands to receive it . . . (St. Augustine [354-430], Against Petilian the Donatist book 2 ch 23 par 53)

And although the men are not one who take in hand the sacrament of God worthily or unworthily, yet that which is taken in hand, whether worthily or unworthily, is the same; so that it does not become better or worse in itself, but only turns to the life or death of those who handle it in either case. (St. AugustineAgainst Petilian the Donatist book 2 par 88)

*

St. Caesarius of Arles (c. 470-542), in his Sermon 227, noted that men received Holy Communion on the hand, and women, on their hand covered with a veil (Omnes viri, quando communicare desiderant, lavant manus suas; et omnes mulieres nitida exhibeant linteamina, ubi corpus Christi accipiant). Synods in Gaul in the 6th-7th centuries confirm the same practice.

*

Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. (Council of Constantinople, Trullo Canon 101, [692 AD] )
*
“Nevertheless,” said he, “bring me the Eucharist.” Having received It into his hand, . . .  (Venerable Bede [672-735], Ecclesiastical History of England, Book 4, ch 24)
*
Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: . . . (St. John Damascene [676-749], An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 13)
*
Such vessels in the first centuries were used in the service of the altar, and probably served to collect the offerings of bread made by the faithful and also to distribute the consecrated fragments which, after the loaf had been broken by the celebrant, were brought down to the communicants, who in their own hands received each a portion from the patina. . . .When towards the ninth century the zeal of the faithful regarding the frequent reception of Holy Communion very much declined, the system of consecrating the bread offered by the faithful and of distributing Communion from the patinæ seems gradually to have changed, . . . (Catholic Encyclopedia, [Herbert Thurston], “Paten”)
VI. Michael Davies — Almost Despite Himself — Can’t Help Acknowledging the Early Tradition of Communion in the Hand
 *
Those concerned to uphold the traditional practice should concentrate on exposing the fallacy of this argument and not be sidetracked into discussions of whether the practice of Communion in the hand was once universal, how long it lasted, how genuine the texts brought forward to prove that it was once the custom are, or even the reasons why it was abandoned in favor of Communion on the tongue for the laity. . . . 
*
The key issue of the debate concerning the escalating imposition of Communion in the hand is not whether it was once widespread in the early Church, but whether it should be introduced in the present day. In order to simplify the debate, let it be conceded, for the sake of argument, that for some centuries it was considered acceptable for the priest to place the host in the hand of the communicant. There is, however, definite evidence that, in at least some regions, the laity were receiving Communion on the tongue by the end of the sixth century. . . . The Synod of Rouen in the year 650 condemned the reception of Communion in the hand by the laity as an abuse. 
*
Scholars are not clear why the transition took place . . . 
*
The discussion so far can be summarized as follows: it is accepted, for the sake of argument, that a form of Communion in the hand, though not the present form, did exist in the Church for the first seven or eight-hundred years of her history, although the practice of placing the Host on the tongue was known at least as early as the sixth century. [my bolding and italics]
*
***
*
Photo credit: Saint Cyril of  Jerusalem, by Francesco Bartolozzi (1725-1815) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
***
February 25, 2020

+ the Ecclesiological Absurdity of Anti-Catholic-Type Eastern Orthodox Arguments Against Roman Primacy & Apostolicity

[this is a slightly abridged and revised version of a paper that was originally written and posted online in 1997, and was also part of the older version of my book on Eastern Orthodoxy. See the greatly expanded and modified revised version, co-written by Byzantine Catholic Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier]

*****

Orthodox Anti-Catholicism

A vocal Orthodox minority nowadays expresses itself in an alarming fashion, which might be described as “anti-ecumenical,” or, in some instances, “anti-Catholic.” This group is too often drawn from converts from evangelical Protestantism or from Catholicism (Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, is experiencing a wave of conversions of late). From this highly polemical perspective, the Catholic Church is regarded as a radically corrupt church which has departed from the apostolic “mainstream,” so to speak, rather than as a “sister Church,” or as one of the “two lungs” of the Body of Christ, as in the Catholic and mainstream ecumenical Orthodox outlook.

According to some of these critics, even the validity of Catholic sacraments (including baptism) is denied: an extremely serious charge reminiscent of ancient schism of Donatism. The time has come for Catholics to respond to at least some of these severe criticisms (1 Peter 3:15), and in so doing there is always the risk of appearing “unecumenical” or uncharitable. But what follows presupposes what the Second Vatican Council and Pope St. John Paul II have taught about respect for Orthodoxy and ecumenism. Such a reply is especially necessary with regard to certain fairly indisputable historical facts which sorely need to be recounted, as a sort of “Church history refresher course.”

An ecumenical Catholic (and we are all called to be that) finds it difficult to respond in the magnificent spirit of Orientale Lumen to a polemical statement such as the following , from a book by Fr. Peter E. Gillquist (former staff member of the Protestant evangelistic group Campus Crusade): Becoming Orthodox (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989, pp. 71-72):

Rome stepped away from apostolic tradition in 1054. She left one thousand years of unity in the Church behind. No, she’s not all wrong – not for a moment. But she is saddled with a papacy and a collection of dogmas that simply do not square with holy tradition. And my opinion is that she is moving further away from Orthodox Christianity, not closer . . . It’s time for Rome to come back home to the unity of the Church and the faith of the Apostles and holy fathers which she once held so dear. It’s time to come back to the fullness of holy tradition!

Elsewhere (p. 57) Fr. Gillquist exclaims:

[T]he whole Roman Church ended up dividing itself from the New Testament Church . . . the Roman Church drifted farther and farther from its historic roots. There are inevitable consequences to deviation from the Church. The breaking away of the Roman Church from the historic Church would prove no exception.

The Christian Activist, a free newspaper edited by Frank Schaeffer, Orthodox convert and son of the revered evangelical evangelist and author Francis Schaeffer, is perhaps the leading purveyor (among the laity) of the thought of the anti-ecumenical wing of Orthodoxy. In any given issue, one can expect to find at least a dozen highly derogatory (and sometimes factually incorrect) references to Catholicism, scattered throughout articles and letters to the editor.

One article that sadly typifies the “anti-Catholic” material which regularly appears in this paper, was written by Fr. Alexey Young, and entitled “Florence 2000?: An Open Letter to All Roman Catholics and Orthodox on the State of Rome and Orthodoxy” (The Christian Activist, vol. 7, October 1995, pp. 16-20, 47-51). This article is itself an excerpt from Fr. Young’s book The Rush to Embrace (Redding, California: Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society, 1995). Remarkable — almost unbelievable — assertions about the Catholic Church abound in this article:

Why is Catholicism a radically different Church than the Orthodox Church? . . . some Orthodox leaders . . . are either shockingly naive about the reality of Rome, or are hoping that no one will notice the dangerous circus to which they are trying to hitch the Orthodox Church, the very Ark of Salvation. (p. 17)

The Latin or Western Church, known today as the Roman Catholic Church, was once part of the Universal Church. (p. 17)

Orthodox patriarchs, bishops, priests, and theologians – all you who actively pursue a policy of rapprochement with Rome: Beware. You are trying to bring the Orthodox Church into a lion’s den of unbelievable malignancy. You cannot save the Catholic Church; but the Catholic Church can and will contaminate and then destroy you. (p. 47)

Like a branch that has been cut from a living tree, Rome had the outward appearance of life for many centuries after the Schism, even though lifegiving sap had really ceased to flow in her. Today, however, even the outward appearance testifies that this branch is indeed dead. (p. 48)

The Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church, in the full and true meaning of the word. She has never departed from the revealed Faith and never compromised the Truth. (p. 48)

Pope John Paul II . . . must somehow shore up his Church, his papacy. He is now turning in the direction of the east and the ancient, historic Patriarchates of Orthodoxy. He is looking for a blood transfusion for his dying Church. (p. 48)

Many have passively tolerated this dangerous and false ecumenism . . . We are . . . filled with self-infatuation and self-importance. And this has become a substitute for real spiritual life. It is precisely this – the soul-numbing and worldly subjectivity of the Roman Catholic Church – that we find so attractive, so enticing. (p. 51)

The Church of the First Millennium

In the Catholic view, the Church was institutionally united (allowing for some temporary schisms) up to 1054, under the supreme ecclesiological jurisdiction of the papacy (a complex issue which cannot be explored within the purview of this article).

In the ecumenical Orthodox perspective, the Church of the first millennium is also regarded as one and united, but under a system of conciliarism, in which all bishops — including the pope — were ultimately equal in authority. The pope was and is granted a primacy of honor (“first among equals”), but not of universal jurisdiction, or headship. The Catholic Church is accepted as part of the universal Church today in this framework, notwithstanding (according to them) aberrations and various heretical tenets (e.g., the Filioque, which has to do with the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, as expressed in the Nicene Creed).

For the unecumenical Orthodox, on the other hand, the Catholic Church ceased to be part of the universal Church after 1054, and has lost — according to the most severe faction — apostolic succession and valid sacraments, as evidenced by the above quotes.

The Necessity of the Roman See for the Preservation of Doctrinal Orthodoxy

The Catholic response to the latter position is a demonstration that the Roman See and the papacy — irregardless of their ultimate status vis-a-vis the government of the Universal Church (it doesn’t affect the validity of the argument) — were absolutely necessary for the purpose of upholding Christian orthodoxy (literally, correct doctrine), and preserving apostolic tradition. A view that the East was always “primary” and orthodox, was the apostolic “mainline” (over against Roman and Western orthodoxy), and never forsook the apostolic tradition, is incoherent and self-defeating. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox ecumenical outlooks entail this logical conundrum. Only the “anti-Catholic” Orthodox view does, based on the following historical facts:

Schisms Prior to 1054

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

    • The Arian schisms (343-398)
    • The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
    • The Acacian schism (484-519)
    • Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
    • Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

Final Court of Appeal

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (430), and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

Many of these venerable saints (particularly St. John Chysostom), and other Eastern saints such as (most notably) St. Ephraim, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Theodore of Studios, also explicitly affirmed papal supremacy. The popes functioned as the “supreme court” of the Church, and they presided over (personally or through papal legates) and ratified the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. One may argue that this was mere custom or a particularly “pragmatic,” “governmental” aspect of the primacy of honor, but whatever view one takes, the historical facts of the papacy as “final court of appeal” are undeniable.

Rome and the New Testament Canon

Moreover, the Church of Rome was central in the development of the New Testament canon, as Protestant scholar Adolf Harnack notes:

The New Testament canon . . . is primarily traceable to the Church of Rome. It has now been proved that the whole series of New Testament books in their canonical and universally accepted versions were derived from Rome. Finally, new evidence of the greatest value indicates that from the third century the versions of the West, i.e. the Roman texts of the New Testament, entered into the texts of the Oriental biblical manuscripts. These data clearly prove that the Eastern Churches corrected their own versions by comparison with the New Testament received from Rome in those days. It was with special reference to Rome that an authentic list of Bishops extending back to the Apostles was prepared. (History of Dogma [1899], German edition, vol. 1, p.443, cited in Asmussen, Hans, et al, The Unfinished Reformation, translated by  Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Association, 1961, 87-88)

An Overview of Early Eastern and Western Dealings with Various Heresies

Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d. c. 160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Montanism was an apocalyptic sect which denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (199-217).

Docetism was the belief that Jesus Christ was not a real man, but only appeared to be so. The origins of Docetism derive from Hellenistic, Gnostic, and oriental notions that matter is essentially evil, which came out of Alexandria. Later christological heresies emanating from this school (such as Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, and Monophysitism) were influenced by Docetism.

Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c. 189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c. 235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d. 258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope”. His views were approved at Antioch.

Donatism held that sacraments administered by unworthy priests were invalid, and practiced re-baptism. The sect flourished in Africa, around Carthage. It began in 311 and was condemned by Pope Miltiades (311-14), who also came from Africa, in 313.

Arianism held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c. 256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 347 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism.

Pelagianism is the heretical doctrine that man can make steps toward salvation by his own efforts, without Divine Grace. Pelagius cleared himself at a Synod at Jerusalem around 416, but was condemned at Carthage and Milevis in 416 and excommunicated by Pope Innocent I in the same year. Pope Zosimus reaffirmed this judgment in 418, as did the ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

Nestorianism contends that there are two persons in Christ (Divine and human) and the denies that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate. Orthodox, Catholic Christianity holds to one Divine Person: a God-man. Nestorius ( d. c. 451) studied at a monastery at Antioch and became Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, having been condemned by Pope Celestine I in the Council at Rome in 430 (after both sides of the controversy appealed to Rome). The ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 repeated the Roman condemnation, after which Eastern bishops predominantly from Syria, Persia and Assyria withdrew from the Catholic Church.

Monophysitism was a heresy which held that Christ had one Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two Natures (Divine and human). The Henoticon, a semi-Monophysite document was widely acknowledged in the East, but never at Rome. The co-writers of the Henoticon are thought to be Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria (477-90). Both were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology. Pope Leo the Great dominated the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which repudiated Monophysitism.

Monothelitism is the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine), whereas in orthodox, Catholic Christian dogma, Christ has both Divine and human wills. Sergius (d. 638), Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, was the most influential exponent of Monotheletism. The Ecthesis, a Monothelite statement issued by Emperor Heraclius, was accepted by Councils at Constantinople in 638 and 639, but was finally rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680, which confirmed the decisions of Pope Agatho and the Synod at Rome in 679.

The Iconoclastic Controversy, a great upheaval of the 8th and 9th centuries, was spurred on notably by Monophysitism and influenced by Islam. This heresy held that images in worship were idolatrous and evil. It was initiated by Eastern Emperors Leo II (717-41), who deposed Germanus (c. 634-c. 733), Patriarch of Constantinople (715-30) – who appealed to Pope Gregory III. Gregory held two Synods at Rome condemning Leo’s supporters in 731. In 784 Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, initiated negotiations with Pope Hadrian I. The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 condemned the Iconoclasts. The Iconoclast Controversy was a major contributor towards the enduring schism between East and West.

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
 
    • Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
    • Antioch Eulalius c. 322 Arian
    • Antioch Euphronius c. 327-c. 329 Arian
    • Constantinople Eusebius 341-42 Arian
    • Constantinople Macedonius 342-60 Semi-Arian
    • Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
    • Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
    • Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
    • Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
    • Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
    • Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
    • Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
    • Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
    • Antioch Peter the Fuller 470, 475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
    • Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
    • Antioch John Codonatus 477, 488 Monophysite
    • Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
    • Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
    • Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
    • Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
    • Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
    • Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
    • Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
    • Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
    • Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
    • Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
    • Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
    • Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
    • Antioch Sergius c. 542-c. 557 Monophysite
    • Antioch Paul “the Black” c. 557-578 Monophysite
    • Alexandria Damianus 570-c. 605 Monophysite
    • Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
    • Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
    • Antioch Anthanasius c. 621-629 Monothelite
    • Alexandria Cyrus c. 630-642 Monothelite
    • Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
    • Antioch Macedonius 640-c. 655 Monothelite
    • Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
    • Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
    • Antioch Macarius c. 655-681 Monothelite
    • Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642. At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively. Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

Roman Steadfastness

No such scandal occurred in Rome, where, as we have seen, heresy was vigilantly attacked by the popes and local Synods, and never took hold of the papacy (not even in the ubiquitous “hard cases” of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius — none having defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe). Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the Protestant Revolt, the “Enlightenment,” Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself.

The papacy continues unabated to this day, with venerable power and prestige — the oldest continuing institution in the world. Thus, Rome has far and away the most plausible claim for apostolic faithfulness, and its history is a striking confirmation of the Catholic claims. An Orthodox position of papal primacy (not supremacy) can be synthesized fairly plausibly with these facts, but the anti-ecumenical / anti-Catholic Orthodox stance assuredly cannot.

The Robber Synod (449) and the Henoticon (482)

Furthermore, essentially the entire Eastern Church seriously missed the mark doctrinally on at least two occasions: the “Robber Synod” at Ephesus in 449, and in the signing of the Monophysite Henoticon of Emperor Zeno in 482. The record of heresy in the East, then, could scarcely be more sobering for those Orthodox polemicists who are deliberately and proudly anti-ecumenical and anti-Catholic. For those who hold to the Universal Church, which has always included both East and West, this poses no difficulty, because Rome, the popes, and the West were there all along to maintain and champion orthodoxy.

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Analysis of 5th Century Eastern Apostasy

John Henry Cardinal Newman commented on these two (thankfully temporary) massive Eastern apostasies, in a striking and eloquent passage from his famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1878 edition, Part II, chap. 6, sec. 3; my italics):

Eutyches [a Monophysite] was supported by the Imperial Court, and by Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria . . . A general Council was summoned for the ensuing summer at Ephesus [in 449] . . . It was attended by sixty metropolitans, ten from each of the great divisions of the East; the whole number of bishops assembled amounted to one hundred and thirty-five . . . St. Leo [the Great, Pope], dissatisfied with the measure altogether, nevertheless sent his legates, but with the object . . . of “condemning the heresy, and reinstating Eutyches if he retracted” . . .

The proceedings which followed were of so violent a character, that the Council has gone down to posterity under the name of the Latrocinium or “Gang of Robbers.” Eutyches was honourably acquitted, and his doctrine received . . . which seems to have been the spontaneous act of the assembled Fathers. The proceedings ended by Dioscorus excommunicating the Pope, and the Emperor issuing an edict in approval of the decision of the Council . . .

The Council seems to have been unanimous, with the exception of the Pope’s legates, in the restoration of Eutyches; a more complete decision can hardly be imagined. It is true the whole number of signatures now extant, one hundred and eight, may seem small out of a thousand, the number of Sees in the East; but the attendance of Councils always bore a representative character. The whole number of East and West was about eighteen hundred, yet the second Ecumenical Council was attended by only one hundred and fifty, which is but a twelfth part of the whole number; the Third Council by about two hundred, or a ninth; the Council of Nicaea itself numbered only three hundred and eighteen Bishops.

Moreover, when we look through the names subscribed to the Synodal decision, we find that the misbelief, or misapprehension, or weakness, to which this great offence must be attributed, was no local phenomenon, but the unanimous sin of Bishops in every patriarchate and of every school of the East. Three out of the four patriarchs were in favour of the heresiarch, the fourth being on his trial. Of these Domnus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem acquitted him, on the ground of his confessing the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus . . . Dioscorus . . . was on this occasion supported by those Churches which had so nobly stood by their patriarch Athanasius in the great Arian conflict. These three Patriarchs were supported by the Exarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea in Cappadocia; and both of these as well as Domnus and Juvenal, were supported in turn by their subordinate Metropolitans. Even the Sees under the influence of Constantinople, which was the remaining sixth division of the East, took part with Eutyches . . .

Such was the state of Eastern Christendom in the year 449; a heresy, appealing to the Fathers, to the Creed, and, above all, to Scripture, was by a general Council, professing to be Ecumenical, received as true in the person of its promulgator. If the East could determine a matter of faith independently of the West, certainly the Monophysite heresy was established as Apostolic truth in all its provinces from Macedonia to Egypt . . .

At length the Imperial Government, . . . came to the conclusion that the only way of restoring peace to the Church was to abandon the Council of Chalcedon. In the year 482 was published the famous Henoticon or Pacification of Zeno, in which the Emperor took upon himself to determine a matter of faith. The Henoticon declared that no symbol of faith but that of the Nicene Creed, commonly so called, should be received in the Churches; it anathematized the opposite heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches, and it was silent on the question of the “One” or “Two Natures” after the Incarnation . . . All the Eastern Bishops signed this Imperial formulary. But this unanimity of the East was purchased by a breach with the West; for the Popes cut off the communication between Greeks and Latins for thirty-five years . . .

Dreary and waste was the condition of the Church, and forlorn her prospects, at the period which we have been reviewing . . . There was but one spot in the whole of Christendom, one voice in the whole Episcopate, to which the faithful turned in hope in that miserable day. In the year 493, in the Pontificate of Gelasius, the whole of the East was in the hands of traitors to Chalcedon, and the whole of the West under the tyranny of the open enemies of Nicaea . . .

A formula which the Creed did not contain [Leo’s Tome at the Council of Chalcedon in 451], which the Fathers did not unanimously witness, and which some eminent Saints had almost in set terms opposed, which the whole East refused as a symbol, not once, but twice, patriarch by patriarch, metropolitan by metropolitan, first by the mouth of above a hundred, then by the mouth of above six hundred of its Bishops, and refused upon the grounds of its being an addition to the Creed, was forced upon the Council . . . by the resolution of the Pope of the day, acting through his Legates and supported by the civil power.

Afterword

Despite this overwhelming evidence, an anti-ecumenist such as Fr. Alexey Young manages to make statements articulating the minority Orthodox view, such as: “The Orthodox Church alone has been completely faithful to Christ and the Apostolic Church” (Young, ibid., p. 16).

The perspective of the Catholic Church, the pope, and our highly esteemed ecumenical (mainstream) Orthodox brethren is much more refreshing and optimistic, as exemplified by the hopeful words of Pope St. John Paul II, with which we shall conclude:

The method to be followed towards full communion is the dialogue of truth, fostered and sustained by the dialogue of love. . . the Catholic Church desires nothing less than full communion between East and West. (Ut Unum Sint – That They May Be One; [60-61], May 25, 1995)

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
Photo credit: Dean Strelau; uploaded by Randam (8-6-11): Hagia Sophia: the largest Christian church ever built: constructed in Constantinople (Istanbul): constructed 532-537 [Wikimedia CommonsCreative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license]
***
February 25, 2020

Timothy S. Flanders is the author of Introduction to the Holy Bible for Traditional Catholics. In 2019 he founded The Meaning of Catholic, a lay apostolate. He holds a degree in classical languages from Grand Valley State University and has done graduate work with the Catholic University of Ukraine. He lives in the Midwest with his wife and four children, and is a regular columnist at the One Peter Five website. Previously, I engaged in two good dialogues with him:

Reply to Timothy Flanders’ Defense of Taylor Marshall [7-8-19]

Dialogue w Ally of Taylor Marshall, Timothy Flanders [7-17-19]

On 1-31-20, he sent me a letter seeking further friendly dialogue and stating that he was “interested in trying to cut through the lack of charity that is dividing faithful Catholics right now” by means of “just a good conversation among brothers.” I responded by writing, “I think it’s a great and commendable idea . . . [to] simply talk like mature adults, minus all the silly insults.” We decided to write articles back and forth: much as we already have. The ones on his end would be published either at One Peter Five or his own website. He wrote: “I’d like to focus the discussion on the issues that have created the divide between “Trads” and “conservatives”, mainly Vatican II and the New Mass.”

Our first installment of this current round of dialogues was entitled, Dialogue w 1P5 Writer Timothy Flanders: Introduction [2-1-20] After further private correspondence, Timothy responded with his post, “Reply to Dave Armstrong 1: Public Rebuke and the State of Emergency” (2-21-20). I now reply to that.

Timothy’s words will be in blue throughout.

*****

Editor’s note: this post is part 1 of a dialogue with Catholic author and blogger Dave Armstrong concerning the crisis in the Church following the Second Vatican Council.

Note that we mustn’t fall into the informal logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: “after this, therefore because of this”). Whether Vatican II caused the problems we see remains to be proven; not merely assumed. Traditionalists and reactionaries usually casually (and increasingly) assume that Vatican II is the big bad boogeyman. I just as vehemently disagree, and have provided reasons why in many many papers of mine. It’s an ecumenical council, under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit (just as the Jerusalem Council was, as described in Acts 15), and is, as such, a manifestation of the extraordinary magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

Our hope is to pursue charity and truth on these difficult issues, without avoiding the necessary debate among brothers. Dave Armstrong is one of the few Catholic voices who critique the traditionalist view point in print (the other being, to my knowledge, the Likoudis book The Pope, The Mass, and the Council [link).

One ought also to mention in this regard, More Catholic Than The Pope: An Inside Look At Extreme Traditionalism (2004), by my friends Patrick Madrid and canon lawyer Pete Vere. It’s primarily about SSPX (whereas my two — dated 2002 and 2012 — are not), but it touches on all the usual familiar issues in play.

The mission of Meaning of Catholic is to unite Catholics against the enemies of Holy Church. This includes forming alliances with every Catholic who sincerely adheres to the faith, even when, in times of crisis, we come to different conclusions in certain areas. As I have written elsewhere, even the saints disagreed during times like these. Therefore we pursue this dialogue with Mr. Armstrong in an attempt to fulfill that mission. May this be for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls. 

Amen! A worthy goal and a worthy dialogue partner, which is why I am happy to take part in this endeavor.

Dear Dave,

I was pleased to read your post entitled “Definitions: Radical Catholic Reactionaries vs. Mainstream “Traditionalists”, and especially pleased that you used the word “transmogrified” ;).

Glad you liked that and my eccentric word! I was curious, how I used that word. Here is the context from my above article:

13) As for “neo-Catholic” (it is claimed that this term was first used in a radical Catholic reactionary book in 2002): if someone foolishly insists on using the title, then it must be (logically speaking) because it is being used to distinguish oneself from the likes of “[orthodox] Catholics” like me, who have supposedly transmogrified into somehow becoming simultaneously “liberal” and “orthodox” (by the application of this truly silly and nonsensical term). One is either a Catholic or not. A truly “new” (“neo”) Catholic (as if the term and concept can be redefined, willy-nilly) is a dissident or liberal “Catholic”: a new kind of Catholic. But this is an oxymoron, according to the nature of Catholicism.

As we discussed privately, you and I both agree on the Meaning of Catholic confession of faith, except in regards to my post about submitting to Pope Francis with caution. I’m sure we will get into that topic eventually. I’m going to write these responses to you as a letter which appears to me to be the easiest way to progress toward a productive dialogue between us. As I also said, my wife is about to give birth so I make no promises in regards to my own frequency of posting.

Fair enough. Congrats to you and your wife.

Privately, I also took issue with the Immutable Truths about Matrimony of His Excellency Bishop Schneider et al (part of the Meaning of Catholic Confession of Faith):

As for Bp. Schneider’s opposition to Amoris Laetitia, I disagree. From all I have read about it, I think it is harmonious with previous existing tradition.

It seems to be assumed that rare, extraordinary exceptions for people who are not [repeat, not!] “living in sin” are in outright opposition to Catholic moral tradition, and that this is a “foot in the door” of massive planned implementation (much like what is thought of rare exceptions to priestly celibacy). It appears to be a paranoid, conspiratorial-type outlook.

As I usually do in cases of fine distinctions having to do with canon law, etc., I leave the arguments to canon lawyers and theologians to pick through. I’m not qualified. In my collection of defenses of Pope Francis, a search for “Amoris” yields 29 hits. Those articles, taken collectively, would be my “reply”. One article shows how Cardinal Müller believes Amoris Laetitia is in line with previous tradition.

See also two articles by Dr. Robert Fastiggi & Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein [one / two]. Dr. Fastiggi, if you don’t know much about him, is an orthodox systematic theologian, who was an editor / translator of the latest (43rd) version of Denzinger (2012) and also of the revised version of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (2018).

Timothy then asked me:

You disagree with Schneider’s critique of AL, but do you agree with his affirmation of the positive doctrine of Marriage? If I understand you correctly, you do.

My answer was “yes.” And I clarified:

As always, my critique of what I call “radical Catholic reactionaries” amounts to the following:

1) perpetual bashing of popes (or of Francis in particular, or of all the popes after Pius XII).

2) Bashing of Vatican II as non-binding and somehow fundamentally inferior to other ecumenical councils.

3) Bashing of the Pauline Mass as “objectively inferior” to the Old Mass (directly contrary to Summorum Pontificum); rejection of the “reform of the reform” a la Peter Kwasniewski.

4) Rejection of ecumenism and collapsing of all genuine Catholic ecumenism into relativistic indifferentism.

That’s basically it. The debate is not so much about orthodoxy, as it is about a certain mindset or mentality of “quasi-schism”: which is not formally, canonically schismatic, but constantly “pushes the edges” and gets closer and closer to an SSPX-type of schism.

Thus, by analogy, the debate is a lot more like Augustine’s struggle with the schismatic Donatists rather than with the Pelagians or the Church’s opposition to Arianism or Monophysitism.

Then he asked me to define “bashing”:

Continual negativity; “Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome.” Putting a negative, cynical slant on everything he does, etc. Not being charitable and fair-minded, not giving the benefit of the doubt or attributing good faith.

This he found “reasonable.” So now back to the present dialogue:

As regards dialogue, I normally proceed by asking a lot of questions in order to understand what my interlocutor is saying.

Excellent methodology. I generally do that, too. I’m a socratic at heart.

Instead of posting short questions I’m going to restate what you said and you can clarify if I have misunderstood in some way.

I’m happy to do so; thanks.

First and foremost again, you stated firmly this definition of a Catholic:

Those who accept all the dogmas and doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches are Catholics: period!

I wholeheartedly agree with this. As I said you and I both agree on the aforementioned Confession of Faith.

For the most part: minus aspects I have noted above.

Taking this definition as a starting point, we can add another labeled group to the three you identify in your post, namely, the Modernists. I agree with you that “modernism is the greatest crisis in the history of the Church.” I would identify a Modernist as any Catholic who seeks to overturn any note of doctrine above Sententia Communis and seeks to transform it into something of a different substance. In other words, they do not accept all the dogmas and doctrines but refuse some or all, and then promote heresies or errors against the faith, to their own eternal peril and that of others.

I agree 100%. It’s disgraceful and outrageous. I despised the modernist outlook even in my Protestant days (i.e., within that paradigm; many of the dynamics are the same). I’ve written along these lines:

*
*
Catholics Accept All of the Church’s Dogmatic Teaching [National Catholic Register, 9-18-18]
*
*
Orthodoxy: The ‘Equilibrium’ That Sets Us Free [National Catholic Register, 3-29-19]
*
Rightly understood, I would identify the Modernists as the primary “enemies of Holy Church” within the Church itself. Catholics (including bishops) have become Modernists and are promoting Modernism—the synthesis of all heresies—within the Catholic Church. This essentially sums up the crisis in the Catholic Church. Would you agree with this summation?
*
Yes, but I would add (and here is where we may differ, I think): Satan is now attacking the Church — as he often has in the past — with the spirit of schism (quasi-schism) as well as with heresy: from the theological “right” as well as the “left.” Thus we see increasing numbers who act in important regards like modernists do: they exercise excessive private judgment (also like Protestants) in talking about popes and councils, and they pick and choose what they don’t personally care for in the Church (also very much like Luther and the modernists): the “cafeteria Catholic” mentality.
*
As an apologist and observer of all three kinds of errors, as a former avid evangelical Protestant, and as a great proponent of analogical argumentation (just as my hero St. Cdl. Newman was, thus you quote him on the analogy of the Arian crisis), I see these patterns all the time and they are very troubling to me. And so I oppose them in writing.
*
Coming to your general point in the post, I respect and agree with your effort to distinguish between “Catholic” (in the broad sense defined above) and “traditionalist” as opposed to “radical reactionary.” It would seem that what distinguishes the latter group is first a lack of charity for their brethren and piety for the hierarchy.
*
It’s nice for a change that someone appreciates the thought and work I put into this distinction (it has hardly ever happened). Thanks! I did it precisely so that traditionalists wouldn’t be tarred with a brush that they don’t deserve, and because (as an old sociology major), I think it’s important to differentiate distinct social groups. So I had motives of charity and also a more “academic” sort of intention to properly and constructively analyze different sub-groups within Catholicism.
*
If I understand you correctly, I agree, but with qualifications (which I will return to below). From my view as I have stated elsewhere, traditionalists do suffer from these vices (turning them into the radical reactionaries) and it is on full display on the internet. One of the most prominent traditionalist priests, Fr. Chad Ripperger, often condemns this lack of virtue as harmful to souls and undermining the cause of Tradition.
*
I’m glad that you agree. Even Steve Skojec: whom I consider undeniably a radical Catholic reactionary, candidly admitted on his Twitter page, in two tweets on 1-31-20:
After nearly 3 decades online, I’m absolutely convinced that online Catholic behavior is often the worst representation of our faith, & online trads may be worst . . .  People who treat you this way without ever engaging you like a human being are infuriating.
I won’t get into certain ironies of his admitting this . . .
*

The second characteristic that you identify is a disordered reliance on private judgment. You compare this to the type of thing that passes for authority among Protestants. You provide a quote from St. John Henry Newman describing the Ecclesia Discens as sharply distinguished from the Ecclesia Docens.

There was no room [in the early Church] for private tastes and fancies, no room for private judgment. . . . In the Apostles’ days the peculiarity of faith was submission to a living authority; this is what made it so distinctive; this is what made it an act of submission at all; this is what destroyed private judgment in matters of religion. If you will not look out for a living authority, and will bargain for private judgment, then say at once that you have not Apostolic faith.

Again, I certainly agree with the basic distinction. Taking the first characteristic with the second, it seems that you do allow for a degree of respectful critique for the “big four” (popes, Vatican II, the New Mass, and ecumenism) which presupposes some degree of private judgment.

What many (most?) trads as well as reactionaries habitually, aggravatingly don’t get about me is that I have always (since at least 1997, online) allowed for a small degree of respectful criticism. See, for example:

On Rebuking Popes & Catholic Obedience to Popes (see also, accompanying constructive Facebook discussion) [12-27-17]

Pope-Criticism: Vigorous Exchanges w Karl Keating [3-27-18]

Do I Think Popes Can Never be Criticized for Any Reason? Nope. (I Respectfully Criticize the Prudence of Pope Francis’ Repeated Interviews with an Atheist Who Lies About Him [Eugenio Scalfari]) [3-31-18]

Are Pope-Critics Evil? Reply to Karl Keating [4-13-18]

In summary, my view was perhaps best summarized in this statement of mine from a paper on the topic in 2000:

My point is not that a pope can never be rebuked, nor that they could never be “bad” (a ludicrous opinion), but that an instance of rebuking them ought to be quite rare, exercised with the greatest prudence, and preferably by one who has some significant credentials, which is why I mentioned saints. Many make their excoriating judgments of popes as if they had no more importance or gravity than reeling off a laundry or grocery list.

I reiterated on 1-29-15:

My position is that popes should be accorded the proper respect of their office and criticized rarely, by the right people, in the right spirit, preferably in private Catholic venues, and for the right (and super-important) reasons. Virtually none of those characteristics hold for most of the people moaning about the pope day and night these days.

I’ve lived to see an age where an orthodox Catholic apologist defending the pope (for the right reasons) is regarded as some sort of novelty or alien from another galaxy. Truth is stranger than fiction!

You state that traditionalists accept the validity of the big four but with certain reservations. For my part, I do not identify as a traditionalist as I see the movement having certain issues, but I do generally agree with their critique of the big four.

Duly noted.

The question then becomes, to what degree are reservations or critiques of the big four permissible to remain Catholic, and at what point do they become radical reactionary? 

In my opinion, it’s pretty clear where the line of propriety that I described in my words above from 2000 and 2015 is clearly crossed (and constantly) by radical reactionaries today. It’s not rocket science to see and to confirm that. And we’re not talking mere criticisms of the New Mass and Vatican II, but flat-out rejection (Peter Kwasniewski would be a prime example of this outlook: almost indistinguishable in many ways from SSPX) and now, conspiratorialism in full tilt, with Taylor Marshall’s book and others of similar grave shortcomings.

I don’t have to work very hard (as an observer and critic of these tendencies for now over 20 years), sitting around figuring out who is in which category. The reactionaries, in their ever-increasing extremity, almost always make it very easy for me. There are some people who exhibit less than all four trademarks (e.g., Janet Smith, Karl Keating, Phil Lawler, likely yourself, from what I know so far), but I wouldn’t classify them as reactionaries, anyway; rather, I would say they have tendencies in that direction, or that they are approaching the position, and possibly will embrace it in the future, if they keep moving further right, etc. (because many in the past have undergone the very same trajectory to the ecclesiological right).

I’m here to convey a warning on the dangers of these positions. Very few listen and heed my advice, but what else is new in apologetics?! We’re like baseball umpires: always ticking someone off, and never totally pleasing anyone.

Taking Newman again as a common authority here, he wrote concerning the Arian crisis that the Church experienced a “temporary suspense of the functions of the teaching church” [The Arians of the Fourth Century, Wipf and Stock Publishers: 1996, 254ff]. Despite the indefectibility of the Church, Newman observed that during this crisis the Magisterium was in some way obscured as the majority of bishops (and arguably even the pope) failed to fulfill their duty as the Ecclesia Docens. As a result the Ecclesia Discens was forced to defend the faith and rebuke the bishops in order that the crisis could be overcome.

Yes; I’m very familiar with this historical scenario, as a student of Newman and author of three books of his quotations [one / two / three]. His analogical arguments in his Essay on Development are the biggest reason why I am a Catholic. Right off the bat, I would say that the situation then was incomparably more serious than what we have today: even considering the rot from modernism. That was a Christological heresy in full swing, whereas now we are talking about subtleties of one footnote in Amoris Laetitia and things of that sort. The magnitude of essential difference (using good Newman categories) is exponential.

Moreover, it appears that Newman himself wished to “withdraw” this very statement that you cite. I shall have to treat this at some length (sorry!). Nothing is ever easy and simple with Newman . . .

If we go, then, to Note 5 of the Appendix, which Newman intended to clarify his arguments and intent (38 years later, in 1871), we see that it is entitled, “The Orthodoxy of the Body of the Faithful during the Supremacy of Arianism.” This portion, by the way, is actually a later revision of Newman’s famous 1859 article, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine. And here he treats the sentence you cite (and related ones) — which were actually from 1859 and not 1833, in the first edition of the book — at length, to show exactly what he meant and expressed imperfectly (hence was misunderstood):

In drawing out this comparison between the conduct of the Catholic Bishops and that of their flocks during the Arian troubles, I must not be understood as intending any conclusion inconsistent with the infallibility of the Ecclesia docens, (that is, the Church when teaching) and with the claim of the Pope and the Bishops to constitute the Church in that aspect. I am led to give this caution, because, for the want of it, I was seriously misunderstood in some quarters on my first writing on the above subject in the Rambler Magazine of May, 1859. But on that occasion I was writing simply historically, not doctrinally, and, while it is historically true, it is in no sense doctrinally false, that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian formula at Sirmium, and the mass of Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedrâ decisions.

The reason of my being misunderstood arose from two or three clauses or expressions which occurred in the course of my remarks, which I should not have used had I anticipated how they would be taken, and which I avail myself of this opportunity to explain and withdraw. First, I will quote the passage which bore a meaning which I certainly did not intend, and then I will note the phrases which seem to have given this meaning to it. It will be seen how little, when those phrases are withdrawn, the sense of the passage, as I intended it, is affected by the withdrawal. I said then:—”It is not a little remarkable, that, though, historically speaking, the fourth century is the age of doctors, illustrated, as it is, by the Saints Athanasius, Hilary, the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, (and all those saints bishops also), except one, nevertheless in that very day the Divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the Episcopate.

“Here of course I must explain:—in saying this then, undoubtedly I am not denying that the great body of the Bishops were in their internal belief orthodox; nor that there were numbers of clergy who stood by the laity and acted as their centres and guides; nor that the laity actually received their faith, in the first instance, from the Bishops and clergy; nor that some portions of the laity were ignorant, and other portions were at length corrupted by the Arian teachers, who got possession of the sees, and ordained an heretical clergy:—but I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the “Ecclesia docta” than by the “Ecclesia docens;” that the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great see, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellæ, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them …

“On the one hand, then, I say, that there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the ‘Ecclesia docens.’ The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicæa, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years …

“We come secondly to the proofs of the fidelity of the laity, and the effectiveness of that fidelity, during that domination of Imperial heresy, to which the foregoing passages have related.”

The three clauses which furnished matter of objection were these:—I said, (1), that “there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the ‘Ecclesia docens;'” (2), that “the body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith.” (3), that “general councils, &c., said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth.”

(1). That “there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens” is not true, if by saying so is meant that the Council of Nicæa held in 325 did not sufficiently define and promulgate for all times and all places the dogma of our Lord’s divinity, and that the notoriety of that Council and the voices of its great supporters and maintainers, as Athanasius, Hilary, &c., did not bring home the dogma to the intelligence of the faithful in all parts of Christendom. But what I meant by “suspense” (I did not say “suspension,” purposely,) was only this, that there was no authoritative utterance of the Church’s infallible voice in matter of fact between the Nicene Council, A.D. 325, and the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, or, in the words which I actually used, “there was nothing after Nicæa of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony for nearly sixty years.” As writing before the Vatican Definition of 1870, I did not lay stress upon the Roman Councils under Popes Julius and Damasus [Note 3].

(2). That “the body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith,” p. 17. Here, if the word “body” is used in the sense of the Latin “corpus,” as “corpus” is used in theological treatises, and as it doubtless would be translated for the benefit of readers ignorant of the English language, certainly this would be a heretical statement. But I meant nothing of the kind. I used it in the vague, familiar, genuine sense of which Johnson gives instances in his dictionary, as meaning “the great preponderance,” or, “the mass” of Bishops, viewing them in the main or the gross, as a cumulus of individuals. . . .

(3). That “general councils said what they should not have said, and did what obscured and compromised revealed truth.” Here again the question to be determined is what is meant by the word “general.” If I meant by “general” ecumenical, I should have spoken as no Catholic can speak; but ecumenical Councils there were none between 325 and 381, and so I could not be referring to any; and in matter of fact I used the word “general” in contrast to “ecumenical,” as I had used it in Tract No. 90, and as Bellarmine uses the word. He makes a fourfold division of “general Councils,” viz., those which are approbata; reprobata; partim confirmata, partim reprobata; and nec manifeste probata nec manifeste reprobata. Among the “reprobata” he placed the Arian Councils. They were quite large enough to be called “generalia;” the twin Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum numbering as many as 540 Bishops. When I spoke then of “general councils compromising revealed truth,” I spoke of the Arian or Eusebian Councils, not of the Catholic.

I hope this is enough to observe on this subject.

[Note 3] A distinguished theologian infers from my words that I deny that “the Church is in every time the activum instrumentum docendi.” But I do not admit the fairness of this inference. Distinguo: activum instrumentum docendi virtuale, C. Actuale, N. The Ecumenical Council of 325 was an effective authority in 341, 351, and 359, though at those dates the Arians were in the seats of teaching. Fr. Perrone agrees with me. 1. He reckons the “fidelium sensus” among the “instrumenta traditionis.” (Immac. Concept. p. 139.) 2. He contemplates, nay he instances, the case in which the “sensus fidelium” supplies, as the “instrumentum,” the absence of the other instruments, the magisterium of the Church, as exercised at Nicæa, being always supposed. One of his instances is that of the dogma de visione Dei beatificâ. [my bolding]

All was well at Rome throughout this period; orthodoxy never faltered. In a 1997 paper of mine, I summarized how Rome and western Catholicism dealt with Arianism, compared to the East:

Arianism held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c. 256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 347 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy.

A Catholic website noted of the Council of Sardica in 347:

As the Arians still remained obstinate, Pope Julius convinced the Emperors Constans and Constantius to convoke a Council at Sardica in Illiricum. It began in May, 347, and confirmed the decrees of Nicaea, of which it is regarded as an appendix or continuation. It declared St. Athanasius orthodox, and deposed certain Arian Bishops.

The situation was arguably even more dire in the 5th century: when eastern heresy was rampant, while Roman orthodoxy held firm as always. Nothing remotely as bad as this situation is occurring today. St. Cardinal Newman wrote famously about it in his same treatise on development of doctrine:

How was an individual inquirer, or a private Christian to keep the Truth, amid so many rival teachers? . . .

[In the fifth and sixth centuries] the Monophysites had almost the possession of Egypt, and at times of the whole Eastern Church . . .

The divisions at Antioch had thrown the Catholic Church into a remarkable position; there were two Bishops in the See, one in connexion with the East, the other with Egypt and the West with which then was ‘Catholic Communion’? St. Jerome has no doubt on the subject:

Writing to St. [Pope] Damasus, he says,

Since the East tears into pieces the Lord’s coat . . . therefore by me is the chair of Peter to be consulted, and that faith which is praised by the Apostle’s mouth . . . From the Priest I ask the salvation of the victim, from the Shepherd the protection of the sheep . . . I court not the Roman height: I speak with the successor of the Fisherman and the disciple of the Cross. I, who follow none as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion with thy blessedness, that is, with the See of Peter. On that rock the Church is built, I know. [Epistle 15] . . .

Eutyches [a Monophysite] was supported by the Imperial Court, and by Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria . . . A general Council was summoned for the ensuing summer at Ephesus [in 449] . . . It was attended by sixty metropolitans, ten from each of the great divisions of the East; the whole number of bishops assembled amounted to one hundred and thirty-five . . . St. Leo [the Great, Pope], dissatisfied with the measure altogether, nevertheless sent his legates, but with the object . . . of ‘condemning the heresy, and reinstating Eutyches if he retracted’ . . .

The proceedings which followed were of so violent a character, that the Council has gone down to posterity under the name of the Latrocinium or ‘Gang of Robbers.’ Eutyches was honourably acquitted, and his doctrine received . . . which seems to have been the spontaneous act of the assembled Fathers. The proceedings ended by Dioscorus excommunicating the Pope, and the Emperor issuing an edict in approval of the decision of the Council . . .

The Council seems to have been unanimous, with the exception of the Pope’s legates, in the restoration of Eutyches; a more complete decision can hardly be imagined.

It is true the whole number of signatures now extant, one hundred and eight, may seem small out of a thousand, the number of Sees in the East; but the attendance of Councils always bore a representative character. The whole number of East and West was about eighteen hundred, yet the second Ecumenical Council was attended by only one hundred and fifty, which is but a twelfth part of the whole number; the Third Council by about two hundred, or a ninth; the Council of Nicaea itself numbered only three hundred and eighteen Bishops. Moreover, when we look through the names subscribed to the Synodal decision, we find that the misbelief, or misapprehension, or weakness, to which this great offence must be attributed, was no local phenomenon, but the unanimous sin of Bishops in every patriarchate and of every school of the East. Three out of the four patriarchs were in favour of the heresiarch, the fourth being on his trial. Of these Domnus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem acquitted him, on the ground of his confessing the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus . . . Dioscorus . . . was on this occasion supported by those Churches which had so nobly stood by their patriarch Athanasius in the great Arian conflict. These three Patriarchs were supported by the Exarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea in Cappadocia; and both of these as well as Domnus and Juvenal, were supported in turn by their subordinate Metropolitans. Even the Sees under the influence of Constantinople, which was the remaining sixth division of the East,took part with Eutyches . . .

Such was the state of Eastern Christendom in the year 449; a heresy, appealing to the Fathers, to the Creed, and, above all, to Scripture, was by a general Council, professing to be Ecumenical, received as true in the person of its promulgator. If the East could determine a matter of faith independently of the West, certainly the Monophysite heresy was established as Apostolic truth in all its provinces from Macedonia to Egypt . . .

At length the Imperial Government, . . . came to the conclusion that the only way of restoring peace to the Church was to abandon the Council of Chalcedon. In the year 482 was published the famous ‘Henoticon’ or Pacification of Zeno, in which the Emperor took upon himself to determine a matter of faith. The Henoticon declared that no symbol of faith but that of the Nicene Creed, commonly so called, should be received in the Churches; it anathematized the opposite heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches, and it was silent on the question of the ‘One’ or ‘Two Natures’ after the Incarnation . . . All the Eastern Bishops signed this Imperial formulary. But this unanimity of the East was purchased by a breach with the West; for the Popes cut off the communication between Greeks and Latins for thirty-five years . . .

Dreary and waste was the condition of the Church, and forlorn her prospects, at the period which we have been reviewing . . . There was but one spot in the whole of Christendom, one voice in the whole Episcopate, to which the faithful turned in hope in that miserable day. In the year 493, in the Pontificate of Gelasius, the whole of the East was in the hands of traitors to Chalcedon, and the whole of the West under the tyranny of the open enemies of Nicaea . . .

A formula which the Creed did not contain [Leo’s Tome at the Council of Chalcedon in 451], which the Fathers did not unanimously witness, and which some eminent Saints had almost in set terms opposed, which the whole East refused as a symbol, not once, but twice, patriarch by patriarch, metropolitan by metropolitan, first by the mouth of above a hundred, then by the mouth of above six hundred of its Bishops, and refused upon the grounds of its being an addition to the Creed, was forced upon the Council . . . by the resolution of the Pope of the day . . . (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 6th edition, 1878, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1989, 251, 274, 282-3, 285-6, 299-300, 305-6, 319-20, 322, 312)

So I don’t think that this quotation from Newman that you submit (combined with mine) supports your point at all. It has to be interpreted correctly, and then we still have the question of a plausible comparison of today to those trouble times in the 4th century. Even Phil Lawler, no Pope Francis advocate, to be sure, argued quite strongly that it’s not possible to establish heresy in Pope Francis’ teachings, and did so over against the Easter Letter:

To their credit, the authors of the Easter Letter recognize the need for an authoritative statement, for a judgment by the world’s bishops. But if that is their goal, should they not have approached sympathetic bishops privately, quietly, to make their case? Because by taking their arguments to the mass media, they have made it less likely that bishops would support them.

Peter Kwasniewski, one of the principal authors of the letter, now says that the document lists “instances of heresy that cannot be denied.” This, I’m afraid, is a demonstrably false statement. The “instances of heresy” mentioned in the letter have been denied, and repeatedly. The authors of the letter are convinced of their own arguments, but they have not convinced others. In fact they have not convinced me, and if they cannot persuade a sympathetic reader, they are very unlikely to convince a skeptical world. (“Is the Pope a heretic? The danger of asking the wrong question”, Catholic Culture, 5-3-19)

So if even such a major papal critic as Phil Lawler is entirely unconvinced that any heresy is present in Pope Francis at all, does it really make sense to seek to draw a direct analogy to the Arian crisis of the 4th century? Bad analogies will badly backfire. Reactionary Lifesite News noted other critics of the charge of papal heresy:

Canon lawyer Edward Peters makes reference to the “principle of benignity” regarding the interpretation of Pope Francis’ statements, arguing that “if an orthodox interpretation exists for an ambiguous theological assertion, that benign interpretation must be ascribed to the words of the accused.” Others, such as Fr. Thomas Weinandy, a theologian who has suffered much for the cause of protecting the faith during the Francis papacy, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, a prelate who has worked to correct the confusion caused by Francis’ statements, argue similarly that the pope’s statements are merely ambiguous and may be understood in an orthodox sense.

For more on this issue, see:

Can a Pope Be a Heretic? (Jacob W. Wood,  Crisis Magazine, 3-4-15)

Not heretical: Pope Francis’ approval of the Argentine bishops’ policy on invalid marriages (Dr. Jeff Mirus, Catholic Culture, 9-15-16)

Is Pope Francis a Heretic? (+ Part II) (Tim Staples, Catholic Answers blog, October 3-4, 2016)

Is Pope Francis a Heretic?: Options and Respectful Speculations on the Synod on the Family, Amoris Laetitia and Practical Applications (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 12-13-16)

The Heretical Pope Fallacy (Emmet O’Regan, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 11-12-17)

On Charging a Pope with Heresy (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 5-2-19)
*
Some Clarifications Regarding the Open Letter (Jimmy Akin, JimmyAkin.com, 5-3-19)
*
A Response to Peter Kwasniewski (Jimmy Akin, JimmyAkin.com, 5-4-19)
*
A Second Response to Peter Kwasniewski (Jimmy Akin, JimmyAkin.com, 5-5-19)
*
Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 5-10-19)
*

Against the rabid impiety of the radical reactionaries, a rebuke of a superior by an inferior can only be undertaken as an act of charity in the manner and circumstances outlined by St. Thomas:

It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.” (II-II q33 a4).

St. Thomas stresses that piety must be observed for superiors, and thus normally a private rebuke is preferred. But in a state of emergency (“if the faith were endangered”) even a public rebuke is necessary because of the “imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith.” Elsewhere Thomas defines scandal as the words or actions which are the occasion of your brother’s spiritual ruin (II-II q43 a1). Thus we may define such a state of emergency as when a Catholic (particularly a cleric) is doing or saying things which become the cause of other Catholics believing heresies in faith or morals, to their own spiritual ruin. In such a case a Catholic “ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly” as an act of charity.

Yes (I would add the examples of St. Dominic, St. Francis of Assisi, and especially St. Catherine of Siena); I rarely disagree with St. Thomas, and edited an abridged Summa, too. But I disagree as to whether we are in such a time. That’s perhaps the fundamental disagreement. Why do I disagree? Well, I would have to appeal to my defenses of Pope Francis (now numbering 162 as of this writing), of Vatican II (probably more than 25 by now), of the New Mass, the “reform of the reform,” and of legitimate, authentic Catholic ecumenism.

In this case the possibility for scandal regarding piety—by a subject rebuking a prelate—is subordinated to a greater scandal regarding the faith. In other words, even though a subject ought not rebuke a prelate in order to avoid leading others into impiety and irreverence for clerics, it is more necessary that the faith be preserved, and so the risk of the lesser scandal is necessary in this case. We might draw an analogy to the Church’s Just War Theory, wherein there is great risk for individual soldiers committing mortal sin, but the overall cause is just because it seeks to avoid a greater evil.

From my view, Newman’s “temporary suspense of the functions of the teaching church” is precisely the case of Thomas’ “imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith.”

If things were so terrible, don’t you think at least one clear, undeniable instance of papal heresy could be proven and agreed upon by all reactionaries and traditionalists and even some plain old “orthodox” types like myself? Instead, we have Phil Lawler writing articles arguing that accusing the pope of heresy is not only factually wrong, but even strategically and tactically dumb in terms of traditionalist / reactionary aims and goals.

So my questions for you are the following:

  1. Do you agree with St. Thomas that a subject ought to rebuke his prelate publicly in a case of imminent scandal to the faith?

Under the very limited conditions I outlined above, yes. I’ve never held an absolute view against such a thing. But almost all of the instances I see today are far, far from those requirements, and what they object to is either non-existent, or something not involving heresy or anti-traditional teaching in the first place. Most of these these endless “corrections” are just reactionary-dominated complaint-fests. I have proven several times now that reactionaries are dominant:

Peter Kwasniewski, Fr. Thomas Kocik and a Growing Chorus Disagree with Pope Benedict XVI Regarding the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass (Or, Reports of the Death of the Reform of the Reform are Greatly Exaggerated)  [+ Part Two] [2-24-14]

Radical Reactionary Affinities in “Filial Correction” Signatories [9-28-17]

Reactionary Influence: Correctio & June 2016 Criticism of the Pope [1-24-18]

Reactionary Signees of Easter “Heresy” Letter (13 of 19) [5-6-19]

Ecclesiological Errors of “Easter Letter” Reactionaries Summed Up (That is, Ones Not Specifically Related to Pope Francis: Especially Vatican II as the Big Bad Wolf) [5-9-19]

Anti-“Pachamama” Doc: “Usual Suspect” Reactionaries Sign [11-14-19]

The dubia were the best of a bad lot. I don’t think there was anything raised there as to indisputable error, but my stated position was that it would have been good for the pope to answer and clarify:

Papal Answers Would Only Help Resolve the Growing Crisis [9-26-17]

I Hope the Pope Will Provide Some Much-Needed Clarity (Re: Answering the Dubia) [National Catholic Register, 9-30-17]

I think clarification is a generally good thing. I know that when I am misunderstood as an apologist, I will clarify ASAP and blow any unfair accusations out of the water. The pope doesn’t look at it that way, which is his right. But in my opinion it would be better and a “net gain” to answer rather than not do so. Dr. Fastiggi has argued that the five dubia are actually answered within Amoris Laetitia itself.

Nor does it help the reactionary / anti-Francis crusade at all, to see Abp. Viganò ranting and raving like a madman: completely unhinged when discussing the Holy Father, nor to see him and Bp. Schneider make frontal attacks on the sublime magisterial authority of Vatican II [see also a second treatment of mine on this topic].

2. Do you agree with St. Newman that in the Arian crisis the Ecclesia Docens was temporarily suspended, and thus this is possible without the Church defecting?

He clarified that in the lengthy excerpts I provided above, from 1871. I don’t think he meant it in the sense that you think he meant, which you consider analogous to the present situation. Nor do I think (whatever Newman meant in that instance) that there is remotely any analogy of today to that time.

3. Do you agree that the “suspension of the Ecclesia Docens” is the “imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith,” thus necessitating extraordinary action on the part of the Ecclesia Discens?

The magisterium is the primary, normative way to deal with such extraordinary circumstances (a few stray bishops aligned with reactionary professors are not that; sorry), but I don’t think we are in such a time in the first place. If you disagree, then show me what heresy the pope has espoused, and show me any sort of consensus agreement as to its existence. Failing that, it seems to me that you have a very weak case.

At its best, the traditionalist movement asserts that such a state of emergency exists. The Magisterium is in some way in suspense regarding the Modernist crisis, necessitating a public rebuke from the laity in order that, like the Arian crisis, the bishops and the pope may eventually set the Church back on track. Then the laity can get back to their lives as Ecclesia Discens and the bishops as Ecclesia Docens. But before we discuss these concrete assertions I think it best that we see if we agree on the three questions above in the abstract.

I’ve answered to the best of my ability. I wish we could agree more than we do, but unfortunately, we will have to work through a lot of details to attain to further agreement in particulars.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not ExistIf you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
Photo credit: geralt (11-18-14) [Pixabay / Pixabay license]
***
February 20, 2020

From my book, Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Topics (Oct. 2013; also available in Spanish and French), pp. 33-39. Bible passages are taken from the KJV.

*****

  1. Doctrine of the Church (Ecclesiology) 
  1. Oneness / Unity of

12-1. Is the Church “one body”?

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. [13] For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

12-2. Is the Church “one faith”?

Ephesians 4:3-5 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

12-3. Is there “one fold”?

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

12-4. Does God want His Church to be “one” just as the Father and the Son are one?

John 17:20-23 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; [21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: [23] I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

12-5. Did God discourage a “divided kingdom”?

Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

12-6. Was the early Church of one heart and soul?

Acts 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

  1. Holiness / Teacher of Righteousness

13-1. Does God sanctify and cleanse His Church?

Ephesians 5:25-27 . . . Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; [26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, [27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

13-2. Did Jesus promise that His followers could do great works as He had done?

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13-3. Did Jesus command His followers (and by implication, the later Church) to perform miracles by God’s grace?

Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

13-4. Is the Church a “holy, royal priesthood” and “holy nation”?

1 Peter 2:5, 9 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. . . . [9] But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

13-5. Do those in the Church constitute God’s “temple”?

1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

13-6. Is the Church a “holy temple”?

Ephesians 2:19, 21 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; . . . [21] In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

  1. Catholic (Universal)

14-1. Did the first Pentecost suggest the catholicity of the Church?

Acts 2:4-11 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. [5] And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. [6] Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. [7] And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? [8] And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? [9] Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, [10] Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, [11] Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

14-2. Is the Church called to evangelize the world?

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, . . .

14-3. Is the gospel to be universally available and fruitful?

Colossians 1:5-6 . . . the word of the truth of the gospel; [6] Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, . . .

14-4. Is the Church to spread to the “uttermost parts of the earth”?

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

14-5. Was the predicted messianic kingdom universal?

Isaiah 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

14-6. Does God’s salvation incorporate the whole world?

Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

14-7. Is the catholicity of the Church like a “high cedar” tree?

Ezekiel 17:22-23 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent: [23] In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.

14-8. Is the gospel to be preached everywhere?

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

14-9. Are repentance and forgiveness to be preached everywhere?

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

14-10. Are all nations called to be obedient to the faith?

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 

  1. Apostolic Succession

15-1. Is there an example of succession of office during the old covenant?

1 Chronicles 27:33-34 And Ahithophel was the king’s counseller: and Hushai the Archite was the king’s companion: [34] And after Ahithophel was Jehoiada the son of Benaiah, and Abiathar: . . .

15-2. Did the apostles speak truth?

1 Corinthians 2:7, 12-13 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: . . . [12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

15-3. Were the apostles eyewitnesses of Jesus, with a “prophetic word”?

2 Peter 1:16, 19 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. . . . [19] We have also a more sure word of prophecy; . . .

15-4. Is there an example of an apostle actually succeeding another, in terms of office?

Acts 1:20-26 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. [21] Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, [22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. [23] And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. [24] And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, [25] That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. [26] And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

15-5. Does St. Paul pass on his office in any sense, to another?

2 Timothy 4:1-2, 5-6 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; [2] Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. . . . [5] But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. [6] For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.

***

See many more articles about ecclesiology and the doctrine of the Church on my [Catholic] Church and Ecclesiology web page.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

***

February 12, 2020

Debate with Five Atheists. Are Christian Women Abused as “Sheep”?

This is an exchange I had on a semi-private discussion list (starting on 31 August 2010), connected with an atheist group that I was invited to (I’ve attended in-person, twice) and one I have been interacting with in writing. A thread began, where negative comments were made about the Bible and Christian women. I chimed in, and of course it was off to the dog races, then. Very little actual dialogue occurred, and I vociferously complain about that later in the dialogue. But assuredly there is a lot of substance and food for thought.

I don’t name any names, provide no link to the original thread, and have asked permission to post this, stating that if anyone didn’t want their words to be part of this, to just say so and that I would be glad to comply. But this amazing exchange is not to be missed.

Color Code:

Woman #1: words in orange

Woman #2: red

Woman #3: blue

Man #1 (head of the group): green

Man #2: purple

Me: black

* * * * *

I also had an idea you could also present (if you had not already). I know its a mostly men group, but it amazes me so many women are Christians but are treated so badly in the bible…Just an idea to do a study on how women are treated in the Bible.
* * *
Women are always second class citizens in the bible. It is probably one of the reasons many educated women steer clear of it. I have not studied religion to a great degree other than being raised Catholic. The old time nuns cured me of any religious interest ;-) Fear, punishment, retribution are things I try to avoid. I suppose one of the reasons women are viewed in such a lowly position is a sign of the times the bible was written in. Women only received the right to vote in the good old USA less than 100 years ago. I used to be viewed as property of my husband’s…..can’t even imagine that. Thank god/allah/buddha for the fearless women that went before me!!!!
* * *

Women are always second class citizens in the bible.

Really? Funny, I hadn’t noticed that after 33 years of intense Bible study. The Bible I read has Paul stating that there is no male or female in Christ. Husbands are to honor their wives and love them like Christ loved the Church (i.e., He died for us). The Bible I read shows women with great courage, being at the crucifixion, while all the male disciples except for John, were a bunch of wimps and cowards, and fled in terror (Peter having denied that he even knew Christ). Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ, and several women were in the forefront of that event, too, while the men were slow to believe. Jesus saved a woman from being stoned for adultery, on the grounds that her sin was not — in the final analysis — greater than anyone else’s. Even Rahab the harlot is honored, because she helped the Israelite spies. Jesus greatly honored the woman who wiped His feet with her tears and rebuked his male host.

Mary the mother of Jesus is, in fact, the very highest of all God’s creatures: far higher than any man. We Catholics believe she is sinless and immaculate (preserved from original sin from the moment of her conception; Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, actually believed the same thing, too). She is so exalted that Catholics are falsely accused of worshiping her all the time (we venerate her, which is essentially a high honor, but not worship). I am working on a book about Mary this very day. Catholics believe that God even channels the grace of salvation through Mary. Many other women are treated with great dignity and honor (e.g., Judith, Esther).

“Liberated” women have really come a long way recently, haven’t they? They learned to smoke like men, and started dying of lung cancer at the same rate that men died. Real liberation there. Now they have accepted men’s selfish lies about abortion and have learned to slaughter their own offspring before they can even get out of the womb, and call that outrage a “choice” and a “right.” Real progress there too.

The Bible, in elevating marriage to a lifelong commitment and a sacrament, protected women from much abuse. But now we have gone beyond all that. Now we are liberated and see women as sex objects and mere playthings that can be jettisoned if they are too old or undesirable. That is what our wonderful sexual revolution has brought us. Generally, it is women who suffer to a much greater extent economically after divorce (along with children). We know that; there is no question about it. It is the “puritanical” Christians who are in the forefront of the fight against pornography: the very thing that promotes these views. But the secular society thinks pornography is great: everyone has a right to indulge in it. Anyone who protests is a prude and opposed to “free speech.”

I’ll take the biblical and Christian view of women any day, thank you.

I have not studied religion to a great degree

Yeah, I can see that. Why, then, do you feel confident making uninformed statements about the supposed low biblical view of women? That is what I find quite odd and curious: the simultaneous admission of profound ignorance with, nevertheless, confident statements about what the Bible (that one has never studied much) teaches.

I used to be viewed as property of my husband’s…..can’t even imagine that.

That’s not what the Bible teaches. A lot of stupid, selfish men may have thought that, but it isn’t biblical teaching. You object to that (biblical) myth; why not also object to women regarding their own preborn children as their property, to dispose of as they wish? It’s gotten so absurd that the child is even thought to be part of the woman’s body, despite having separate DNA and (in the case of a male child) a penis. The father has no legal say at all in the life of his own child. And that is because in our mentality today, the mother “owns” the child as property: precisely as slavery functioned. The child has no rights whatever. It is even denied that he or she is a person. So the outrages and the genocide of our time are ignored, while we war against a mythical straw man “Christianity” of our own making.

You wanna go after the Bible and Christianity? There is plenty in our own secularized, “enlightened” time to critique also. But I have told the truth about that. I didn’t have to distort the facts. They are all around us: broken homes and broken women and children, and men (equally broken) reaping the dire consequences insofar as they reject traditional teachings on marriage, sexuality, and childrearing.

You wanna go down in inner-city Detroit (where I grew up) and see what the sexual revolution and the “Great Society” has done to families down there? Is that to be blamed on Christianity, too: that illegitimacy is now 75% or so and single-parent families are the overwhelming norm? We’re the ones who promoted marriage and waiting to have sex till marriage. Society wanted to reject that; so check out what is going on in the cities now to see how well secular ideas and the rejection of traditional religious morality have worked out. That’s the cutting edge.

* * *

Religion and holy books were created by MEN to control various sections of the population including women. It’s very amusing to see religious women act like sheep even in this day and age. Here are some priceless Bible quotes regarding women:

“And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)

“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.” (Leviticus 12:2)

“But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.” (Leviticus 12:5)

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (I Corinthians 11:3)

“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

“Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2:22-23)

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” (Exodus 22:18-20)

“Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.” (Judges 19:24-25)

“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11-14)

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;” (Deuteronomy 22:22)

“Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.” (Deuteronomy 22:24)

“Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16)

“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” (Hosea 13:16)

“Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman.” (Eccles. 25:13)

“Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.” (Eccles. 25:22)

“If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go.” (Eccles. 25: 26)

“The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty.” (Eccles. 26:9-10)

“A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued.” (Eccles. 26:14-15)

“A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord.” (Eccles.26:25)

“For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach.” (Eccles. 42:13-14)

* * *

Thank god/allah/buddha for the fearless women that went before me!!!!

And, of course, the early feminists, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (just like most of the abolitionists), were Christians of some sort, and pro-lifers also. Ironically, though, Stanton, while campaigning for woman’s suffrage, early on wanted to oppose black men having the right to vote. Everyone has their blind spots . . . But Stanton made the same general analogy to abortion that I made above:

When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.

(Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe’s diary at Harvard University Library)

Susan B. Anthony referred to abortion as “child murder.”

* * *

Well, Dave it is your lucky day! I am one of the few atheists out there that are going to agree with you on the Pro-life issue, although for a slightly different set of reasons. Abortion is not a matter of “choice” and it is indeed child murder and the worst form of violence a human can commit . A woman has choice in weather or not she has unprotected sex and if she makes a ‘choice’ at that point she should be ready for the consequences such as pregnancy.

The arguments such as ‘it is not life unless it can survive on its own’ do not make any logical sense because fetuses can not protect themselves especially from their own mothers. And abortion is against evolution/nature. You don’t eat/kill your own and still expect your genes to survive and flourish.

I am not talking about the extreme cases of mother’s life in danger, rape and incest type of situations but the more general use of abortion that liberals intend to use it for…….. as a method of contraception. One thing that puzzles me the most is why and how this issue became a Left or Right and heavily politicized aspect of American life.

* * *

Bravo, [name]. That was a magnificent statement about abortion. I remember you and [name; group leader] saying you were pro-life, and I was delighted to hear it.

Generally, when I argue against abortion, I don’t quote the Bible, and use reasoning much as you have done. In fact, I actually did that in a courtroom once when I and many others were on trial for blocking abortion clinic doors. In my little speech I appealed to ancient pagan Greek ethics and Hippocrates (the father of medicine) and said that the debate goes far beyond religion and Christian views.

I spent one night in a nice jail . . . . we were sentenced to a week, but they let me out in the morning. That was my entire punishment for five arrests and about 25 times breaking the law in civil disobedience.

* * *

To take one example from the laundry list (and unfortunately I have to get back to my regular work at the moment):

“Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.” (Eccles. 25:22)

But whoever came up with this chart forgot to include these passages also:

Romans 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

And we Catholics believe that Mary was the means for the incarnation to be possible, which made salvation possible, and that God channels the grace of salvation through her. If that is “anti-woman” then let me proudly be part of that thinking!

At some point when I have time I’d love to explore the other passages and comment on them. It takes a ton of work and labor to interpret things properly in context and in light of overall biblical teaching (which also develops over time as well). It’s a lot like the alleged biblical contradictions thing. A million passages are thrown out: copied from some atheist (or otherwise skeptical) source. It takes ten times more labor and time to refute them (and to no avail anyway; the atheist generally disdains any such effort and simply moves on to other arguments). But I’ve done it in the past and will do so again. Only so many hours in a day . . .

Many turn out like the “prooftext” above did. By selectively citing the passage above about Eve and neglecting cross-references about Adam, a distorted picture is given. I knew this immediately, because I know the Bible, and I know this was not the whole picture.

And by the way, the very reference was incorrect. It is Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach) 25:24, not 25:22. The same book (typical of Jewish proverbial literature) also praises “the good wife” starting three verses later (26:1-4, 13-16).

* * *

Just one more before I go (couldn’t resist):

“And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (Leviticus 21:9)

Nice try. Of course, men get burnt, too. Here are examples:

Leviticus 20:14 If a man takes a wife and her mother also, it is wickedness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. [this one occurred just 22 verses earlier than the one above, but damn the context . . . ]

Joshua 7:15, 24-25 And he who is taken with the devoted things shall be burned with fire, he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he has done a shameful thing in Israel. . . . And Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver and the mantle and the bar of gold, and his sons and daughters, and his oxen and asses and sheep, and his tent, and all that he had; and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor. [25] And Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? The LORD brings trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him with stones; they burned them with fire, and stoned them with stones.

Stoning was also an “equal opportunity” punishment.

The only burning females in “Christian” society today (with full consent of the law and the people) are the preborn female children (about one in two) who are scalded to death by saline abortions. But we would rather talk selectively about ancient punishments . . .

* * *

Getting back to some of the “shock-quotes” from the Bible:

“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

An odd passage to be sure. But the claim above (now made by three women) is that the Bible is anti-woman through and through. If that is so, then why is the law against adultery and fornication (when men commit it) so strict? If it was really about letting men do whatever they want and only punishing women for free sex (the old double standard) then why is there a Leviticus chapter 18 at all? It’s almost solely devoted to blasting men who want to have sex with everyone under the sun except their wives:

1) Mother (18:7-8).
2) Sister (18:9, 11).
3) Granddaughter (18:10).
4) Aunt (18:12-14).
5) Daughter-in-law (18:15).
6) Sister-in-law (18:16, 18: “rival wife to her sister”).
7) Any kinswoman and her daughter (18:17).
8) Kinswomen’s granddaughters (18:17).
9) Neighbor’s wife (18:20).
10) Male homosexual sex (18:22).
11) Bestiality (of a man or a woman: 18:23).

The punishment for any of these transgressions is stated in 18:29: “For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people.”

* * *

“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.” (Leviticus 12:2)

“But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.” (Leviticus 12:5)

This was a matter of ritual cleanliness or purification, or the ceremonial law. Why was there a difference for the period of “uncleanness” with regard to bearing male and female children? One explanation is that the male children were circumcised on the eighth day (Gen 17:12): another matter of purification and the ritual of the law. The female children were not; therefore, the mother underwent purification longer than for the birth of a male child.

Purification does not directly or intrinsically have to do with sin. Jesus Himself underwent ritual purification when He went to the temple, and He was also baptized, even though He was without sin and had no need of it whatever. He did it because it was an accepted ritual according to Jewish Law. Mary did various ceremonies, too, even though we Catholics believe she never sinned, either and was preserved even from original sin.

* * *

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (I Corinthians 11:3)

Headship is not a matter of inequality but of differential roles. Jesus was subject to His father in a sense (“the head of Christ is God”: meaning God the Father, since Jesus is also presented as God in the NT), yet they were equal: both were God. He was even subject to Joseph and Mary as a child: yet they were creatures and He was God. There is no basis for inequality in this, let alone domination or subjugation. The entire teaching is a very beautiful thing:

Ephesians 5:25, 28-30 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, . . . [28] Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, [30] because we are members of his body.

A friend of mine has a cute saying with reference to men who are stupid and dense enough to say something to their wives like “submit, woman!” He says that, according to the Bible, the wife is completely within her rights to say back to him, “get crucified, buddy!”

The wife is told simply to respect the husband and be in a certain submission to him. But the husband has to love his wife like Christ loved the Church, meaning that he has to die for her and cherish her as he does himself. This is far more difficult and more of a burden and responsibility. Inequality? I don’t see it, but if there was any present here, I submit that it is more plausible to say that the man is being treated “unfairly” since he is given a far greater burden in marriage, and a sublime goal to attain.

* * *

“Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” (Revelation 2:22-23)

This is simply dumb exegesis, if it is supposedly some proof of chauvinism and oppression of women, because the passage is metaphorical in the first place, or an instance of personification. Jezebel had been dead for centuries. Her name was used because the Jews understood her sort of sin. The warnings were for the the church in Thyati’ra. The judgment is not solely for women (I highly doubt that this church consisted solely of women), but men and women who sin in this fashion. Hence, even the passage itself indicates this in 2:23: “I will give to each of you as your works deserve” (RSV).

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.” (Exodus 22:18-20)

Bestiality and idolatry here applied to both sexes, so we are left with the death penalty against witches (females). But this is no big deal because lots of categories were subject to death or severe penalties (necromancers, sorcerers, [mostly male] false prophets, etc.): not just women, by any means:

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, [11] or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. [12] For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD; and because of these abominable practices the LORD your God is driving them out before you.

Malachi 3:5 Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.

Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.

Revelation 22:15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

In fact, four verses later, the death penalty is applied to men only:

Exodus 22:22-24 You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. [23] If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry; [24] and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.

And elsewhere in the law, mediums and wizards, whether male or female, were to be stoned:

Leviticus 20:27 A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death; they shall be stoned with stones, their blood shall be upon them.

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;” (Deuteronomy 22:22)

“Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.” (Deuteronomy 22:24)

How is this “against women,” since both the man and the woman are stoned for the adultery? This is a married woman, so the woman is expected to scream for help. Her not doing so implied consent; therefore she was deemed guilty of adultery.

* * *

The Bible is not particularly sexist against women—it is a product of its times. When the prevailing Israelites took 32,000 female virgins as booty [pun definitely intended] in a war (Numbers 31) —this was not a slam against women per se…it was simply recognition of how things were done.

Captured people became slaves.

When the author of 1 Timothy was prohibiting women from wearing gold, it was a reflection of what it meant for a woman to wear gold in that culture. 1 Tim. 2:9. Similarly, when Paul (1 Cor. 14:34-35) indicated he didn’t want women to speak in church, this reflected his Roman preference of a woman’s place in assembly.

The problem, of course, is when someone holds these writings as providing some prescription on our society, some 2000 years later, that we see conflict appear. Unfortunately there have been many, many people who have successfully utilized these ancient cultural norms to exert power over other people—including females.

* * *
There is another humorous irony here that I can’t resist pointing out. Note that this thread began with three women bashing not only the Bible as a supposedly chauvinist, misogynist, sexist, anti-female set of documents, but (far beyond that) also bashing some one billion or so Christian women, in the most sweeping terms:

“it amazes me so many women are Christians but are treated so badly in the bible”

“Women are always second class citizens in the bible. It is probably one of the reasons many educated women steer clear of it.”

“Religion and holy books were created by MEN to control various sections of the population including women. It’s very amusing to see religious women act like sheep even in this day and age.”

[Name] even made the accusation far more broad, and extended it to virtually all religious women of any sort (so that the total number of women being criticized is in the several billions). At least [name] made some sort of qualification (but not much of one in context).

So we have the amazing spectacle and irony of toleration and equality being touted in the name of intolerance and looking down female noses at one billion (or several billion) women! In falsely condemning Christianity on an altogether flimsy basis, y’all end up committing the same exact shortcoming that you condemn: you look down on a billion (or billions) of women at the same time you excoriate religion for supposedly doing so.

Thus, here I am, a male practitioner and follower of one such holy book (the Bible) that is unjustly accused of being so anti-female, defending a billion (or billions) of women from the outlandish charges being leveled against them by three “enlightened” women: that they are gullible dumbbells who don’t know any better; sheep, mindless followers of patriarchal religion; too dense and clueless to even know that they are doing so (and educated women know better and so avoid being religious). Yet my religion — and I as a follower of it — are supposed to be the ones who are anti-women?

Huh???!!!!!

* * *

Your passion on this subject is very much appreciated.

Cool! There is something to be said about that, but I’m much more interested in truth than passion for its own sake. If I’m passionately wrong (or if you are), it does little good.

However, it would be useful if it is directed towards the very religious system that you defend so vehemently and improve the lives of the billions of women that you seem to be concerned about rather than direct it at us who merely made observations of your system abusing those women for centuries.

This is a circular argument. You haven’t proven anything of the sort. The original claim was that the Bible itself is the cause of such abuse. You brought out a laundry list (and I’d love to learn the original source of it) to try to “prove” that. I have been a vocal critic of men who abuse Christian teachings in order to abuse women, for many years now. But note that I don’t think that Christianity itself or the Bible is the cause of it. It has to be distorted. Anything can be distorted or misunderstood, but we have to make the necessary distinctions. Case in point: I have already shown with several of the passages that you brought forth, that they were being taken out of context and poorly understood.

“committing the same exact shortcoming that you condemn”? “look down on a billion (or billions) of women”? “outlandish charges being leveled against them by three “enlightened” women”. Anyone can use caustic language to deflect the evils committed by the religion they believe in.

You have it exactly backwards. I’m using (what I sincerely believe to be) truthful language to defend the religion I believe in, that is not the way you are portraying it. If you want to oppose sin or abuse or neglect or cruelty or any number of unsavory things along those lines (including abortion, in your case), I’m right along with you. But I don’t agree that Christianity itself causes any of the things you detest (as I do). You seem to see the root cause as institutional religion. I see it as the sin that is present in each and every human being’s heart. The only difference is in degree.

It remains true that all three of you took a very low view of the integrity of Christian women, and (for you) religious women, period. I think this is most unfair, and a sort of prejudice. Sorry; that is how I sincerely see it. It doesn’t mean I think you are “bad” people. I’ve met you, and I think you’re very friendly. I have nothing against you. I’m referring solely to the statements made at the beginning of the thread.

Imagine, for example, my wife (or even [name’s] Christian wife) reading the things that were written about Christian women. Do you think they would offend her? It’s not even necessary to make these kinds of statements in the first place, about gigantic groups of people, as if they can apply to that many as a generalization. It’s absurd. Then when I object to them and defend millions upon millions of Christian women you say I am trying to “deflect the [supposed] evils” of Christianity? You see nothing wrong whatever with the sort of sweeping language that you three used?

But this type of counter allegation is totally new and extremely entertaining to me :-)

I’m glad I made you smile. I love it when people can take criticism graciously. That reflects well on you.

So you put our “enlightened” criticism on the same level as the oppression of women by religion?

No; I think secularism and so-called “enlightened” thought is far worse than what you think religion does. I’m defending Christianity. I’m not defending Hinduism or Islam or any other religion. So whatever goes on there is not my task to defend. If you want to go after the Untouchables and the caste system of Hinduism, then we are in agreement. Gandhi did the same. If you want to detest and abhor women being stoned when they refuse to abide by a prearranged marriage, as in some Islamic societies, then I am as outraged at that as you are. But I’m not defending that. I can even agree that many religious systems literally enshrine or institutionalize evil. But I disagree that Christianity is one of those.

Very clever strategy

That’s odd. I didn’t see it as a “strategy” at all, let alone “clever.” I simply spoke what I feel is the truth.

but it doesn’t follow logic because our criticism did not result in millions of deaths and starvation and bodily injury where as religion did and still does.

On what basis do you make these claims? What religion did this? Starvation in the present time usually results from political despots who are quite secularized. We know that Stalin starved ten million Ukrainians in the 1930s. That didn’t flow from “Christianity” but from personal evil and Communism. Mao wasn’t acting in the name of religion when he murdered 60 million. We agree on abortion. That is upward of 100 million worldwide. Those are actual documented figures. Where are yours?

Yes, I can speak in ‘broader’ terms than most Americans because I have lived amidst more than a billion (seems to be your favorite number) people and been exposed to many more religions besides Christianity. I have seen the tears of religious women that were frequently abused by their spouses and in-laws physically and mentally but would not divorce because their religion would not approve of it.

Christianity teaches that any woman in such an abusive situation is not obliged to stay there. That’s what we teach. If Hinduism or something else teaches differently, then let them defend that. I think it stinks. You claimed that the Bible taught this . . .

I heard the agony of the women who had to undergo a forced abortion of a female fetus because her family and religion considered the birth of that child a bad omen.

And you claim that that is somehow Christian and biblical teaching, too? You seem to be forgetting what the original claims were, that I am objecting to. You’re switching horses in mid-stream.

I keep hearing from women that have husbands that cheat on them and even indulge in incest but are too afraid to change the situation for fear of religious consequences.

And how does that have anything to do with what I as a Christian and Catholic believe? How is that extrapolated to the entire class of Christian and other religious women, because you have seen these horrid cases?

You don’t have to be an expert on religion and its texts to see how it is affecting the lives of people following it.

I wish you would meet some Christian women who are very happy and fulfilled in their lives. I’d love for you to meet my own wife sometime, so we can start changing these negative stereotypes that you appear to be laboring under. But she is pretty shy. I don’t know if I could convince her to attend a meeting. Maybe sometime just us three could meet, and have a good heart-to-heart conversation. If you think Christianity is so terrible for women, you need to talk to someone like her. And I know scores and scores of women friends and acquaintances who are as fulfilled in their Christianity as she is. You need to meet some of them. It’s not good to believe inaccurate things about folks.

Even the most well-intentioned religious text can be misinterpreted and misused by people for their own advantage.

Exactly. Then you fight the abuse, and don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, as you three did. We can agree on most things that are bad or evil or undesirable, and agree in opposing them and doing something about them. And we can do so without blasting entire groups of human beings. I don’t see what good comes of that. It creates ill will and discord. People have to be approached on an individual basis.

It is self destructive if you allow yourself to be a victim of such a system by continuing to follow it even after experiencing the negative effects first hand.

The thing in dispute is what the “system” is in the first place. You say Christianity is institutionally responsible for much of this, and I am denying that and giving reasons and providing facts for why I do.

To point this aspect of the lives of religious women out doesn’t make it an outlandish charge.

The outlandishness wasn’t in decrying bad stuff but in wrongly identifying the cause and in characterizing religious women in sweeping terms. No one deserves to be treated like that. It’s just as wrong as when black people are negatively characterized, or Jews or Arabs or Mexicans, or Chinese: this kind of thing does no good at all. It’s as silly as it is destructive of good relations and good will.

* * *

A couple of thoughts, Dave, with regards to your claims about “looking down noses” and intolerance.

Okay, shoot.

A person can honestly believe that religion is crafted in a way to serve the interests of those in power without being snooty or intolerant. You can debate whether IN FACT the Christian religion was crafted by powerful people to serve powerful interests (largely male dominated societies). But I see no point in talking about the internal mind states of anybody that might hold to that view. It’s a legitimate opinion. Challenge it, but what does being snooty have to do with it?

Okay, so when [name] writes, “It’s very amusing to see religious women act like sheep even in this day and age” or “your system abusing those women for centuries” or about “religion” causing “millions of deaths and starvation and bodily injury” (undocumented), you don’t see that as the slightest bit prejudicial language? You . . . see nothing whatever objectionable in that sort of language?

You don’t comprehend that a Christian (especially a Christian woman) would see these as somewhat bigoted statements? This goes far beyond a reasoned critique of a thought-system. She is judging millions of people who accept the system and charging them with profound mindlessness. Even the touch of noting that it was “amusing” adds to the condescension. Go ahead and defend what was written, then. I’d love to see what you come up with.

I’m not saying that [name] or the other two women are bigots! NO! I’m saying they are better than this, and ought to admit that the statements were extreme and unreasonable. We all make statements that are too extreme. I made some, you called me on it, and I admitted it and apologized. They don’t have to stoop to that level to engage in critiques of Christianity or other religions: by attacking the women in them en masse as gullible dumbbells.

I wrote about this weeks ago when the notorious former member was saying that no scientist could possibly be a theist, and then putting up comics saying that most or all Catholics are child molesters. You agreed and asked him to leave. So I know you are open to considering these issues of perception and relationship with theists. It’s part of what your group is about. That’s one reason I was invited, and why you are also having a Muslim apologist be a guest speaker.

And I wrote around that time, that Christians tend to see atheists as evil people, and atheists tend to see Christians as dummies. The former member even said what I wrote almost made him cry. Both are wrong; both are unreasonable and prejudiced attitudes. Reality is not nearly that simple. And people from the two groups won’t even be able to be friends (the only way anything good will ever be accomplished) as long as these stereotypes and prejudices prevail on both sides. It’s always tough to admit that we may have a part in some of those, but that’s the only way progress can be made.

I asked my wife at dinner how these statements made her feel, and whether they were examples of “prejudice.” She immediately laughed and agreed. She laughed (rather than becoming angry) precisely because the statements are so ridiculous. We Christians hear these things all the time, and Christian and pro-life and conservative women are routinely mocked by the media and academia. Look, for example, how Sarah Palin is treated. It’s old news, and we get used to it and laugh it off, but that doesn’t make it any less wrong.

I genuinely do not feel superior to religious people as a result of my lack of religion because I recognize as a person that fully embraced religious beliefs until only recently, that smart well-meaning people can be persuaded of religious claims.

I know you believe that, and I commend you for it. It’s common sense and self-evident, too (“I used to be religious and I wasn’t an imbecile and a dummy when I was; therefore, it stands to reason that there are many Christians and religious people who are as I was just a few years ago”). But then on the same grounds you should object to the characterizations that were made of Christian and religious women en masse.

This despite what some might consider to be transparent errors or backwards thinking reflected in the Bible. I also understand how there are a number of causes which can compel a person to believe a proposition that perhaps is irrational. Emotional pressures, conditioning, societal pressures, etc.

You have to explain it somehow. I view almost all of these matters as primarily defects of worldview and the reasoning process somewhere along the line. You think that of Christianity; I think it is the atheist system of thought. But I try to avoid personal stuff, and I would never dream of making a statement like:

“It’s very amusing to see atheist women act like sheep [or, alternately, “like evil witches”] even in this day and age.”

That would go over real big in this group, wouldn’t it? Try to imagine for just a second how it would have been if I had stated that. But instead, Christian women are the recipients, and so here we are arguing about whether that should be said in that way or not.

I do feel fortunate that I’ve managed to extract myself from that, but I know that in a parallel universe I’m continuing on with religious thinking, and I’m not a moron. So to those that do regard themselves as superior in their lack of religion I look at them as people that do lack understanding in the human condition. If they understood humanity better they would recognize that they are not really so different.

But you see nothing in any of the statements that began this thread that are remotely of that nature, that you and I can agree is unhelpful? If there were some vocal Christian women who were part of this group, you could see what they thought of it. Instead, I have to defend them from the foolish accusations.

But calling the Bible the way that you see it is not intolerant.

It wasn’t just the Bible: it was the women who follow biblical teaching and Christianity. It was made personal and prejudicial in that fashion. The very fact that one gender was singled out and pilloried is classic prejudicial behavior. It’s as absurd as it is irrational and unfactual. One can never make a sensible generalization about a group so huge. We’re talking about maybe 40-45% of all the people in the world, if we go after “religious women” as a class, as amusing “sheep,” etc. How absurd is that?

To tolerate means to allow for views with which you disagree.

And we don’t do that by making fun of one billion Christian women and a couple more billion religious women of other faiths, do we?

So disagreement is a necessary prerequisite to tolerance. We absolutely tolerate the Bible. You do not.

No, I tolerate atheism.

You agree with the Bible, so you cannot be tolerant toward the Bible. That’s like saying I tolerate the sight of a beautiful woman or I tolerate bacon cheeseburgers. No, I think they’re both great, so tolerance does not enter the picture.

* * *

Dave, let me start by quoting George Salmon, who wrote the following in the intro a famous book that you well know:

These lectures were not written for Roman Catholics and I do not expect them to fall into the hands of any except of those who deal in controversy and who perhaps may take up the volume in order to see if it contains anything that needs to be answered. If any such there should be I beg of them to remember that they are overhearing what members of another communion say when they are quite by themselves and therefore that they must not be offended if they meet the proverbial fate of listeners in hearing some things not complimentary.

Now, I know you’re not a fan of Salmon, but let me tell you something. Leaving aside the validity of his basic arguments he makes a number of points that show simply that he understands what humans are like and what they do. When people think they are amongst themselves they might talk about those outside the group in a way that, if those outside were to hear it, would be regarded as very rude. It’s important to be gracious if you find that you overhear such a statement. The fact of the matter is we don’t always recognize that Christians are present. When I’m talking amongst liberals and/or Muslims I talk in a way that makes fun of right wing war mongers. That’s just having fun. When I’m face to face with a right winger I would speak differently. They do the same thing when talking to me, and that’s fine. I’m sure when you are amongst your Catholic apologetics friends you make fun of Protestants and atheists in a way you wouldn’t to their face. No problem. We all do it.

* * *

That is true as a “rule” of human nature. The trouble is that no one made this point when the language was objected to. They dug in (including yourself) and defended it even further. Certain things are simply wrong. I think this is one of them. If classifying 40-45% or more of the human race in a most uncomplimentary fashion is not an example of a prejudicial remark, I swear I don’t know what one is at all. And I think I do.

Moreover, [name] made her first comments after I commented, so she knew full well I was “there” and interacting with the sentiments. She even upped the ante: extending the criticisms to all religious women as a class of people, not just Christians. Thus, the notion of talking differently when not in the presence of an “outsider” wouldn’t apply there. She’s a straight shooter just as I am. This is her opinion.

Nice, job, by the way of skirting all of my direct questions.

Like I said, I like [name]. I’ll always appreciate her courtesy and graciousness at that first meeting at her house (and yours, and that of others, too. I was very impressed with the group). I don’t see this as a character issue at all, or a judgment of her as a person. I’m simply saying that such sweeping language is inappropriate and false and ought to be reconsidered. We all do it at times. I do it; you probably do, too. Everyone does at one time or another. But it doesn’t do anyone any good. Just because we all fall into it at times doesn’t make it right.

If my wife were to attend a meeting in the future, she now knows what is thought of Christian women. Is that any way to start out? It’s just bad human relations policy and bad logic, too. Christians and atheists have got to get past the stereotypes about each other if there is any hope of any mutual understanding to be achieved at all. I’m the eternal optimist and idealist. I think we can do better. I believe it is possible, with communication and friendship and mutual respect built up. But at times I do despair of it ever happening.

* * *

Can a woman administer communion in a Catholic Church?

Yes; happens every week in most Catholic churches (and there are altar girls and female readers, too). It’s called “extraordinary minister of holy communion.” Some of these ministers also give holy communion to the sick in hospitals, etc. I saw one of them when my late father was in the hospital. Women (and non-ordained men) can also administer baptism in emergency situations. And the sacrament of marriage is regarded as self-administered, so the wife-to-be participates in that as well.

Can a woman become a bishop, cardinal or pope?

No. But they can become doctors of the Church (those considered to be preeminent teachers of the faith): St. Teresa of Ávila, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Thérèse de Lisieux; and saints. Mary is God’s highest creature, and venerated and honored above all human beings. Bishops and popes will be kissing her feet when they get to heaven. She is infinitely above them in the hierarchy. But no one cares about that, and its implications for the Catholic view of women. I already mentioned Mary early on in this thread.

What is the basis for your answers to those questions?

For the first answer, it is the fact of what happens at Masses. Simple enough . . . The second is based on difference of gender roles, but not inequality, as I have already shown. Ordained offices are not the only things for anyone to do in the Church. I’m not ordained; I’m a lay apologist. I have a different role. But it is one that the Church encourages and considers important. Women have roles that are distinct from priests, bishops, and popes.

The dumb, illogical conclusion is to arrive at the notion that role differentiation must necessarily be inequality and subjugation of women. That is the casual “deduction” of radical feminism, but it’s ludicrous. Why would we place the three doctors of the Church and Mary in the positions they are in (along with many venerated female saints) if that were the case?

When 1 Peter 3:1 says, “Wives, likewise be submissive to your husbands…”—what does ”likewise” refer to? Like….what? (The Greek is homoios meaning, “likewise, equally, in the same way.”)

Obviously, it has to refer to what came before (I know context might be a novel concept to atheist exegetes, who routinely ignore it). And that was the “example” (2:21) of Christ suffering without returning the favor. And so Peter applies the analogy to the wife who is unfortunate to find herself married to a husband who does “not obey the word,” who can positively affect him by “reverent and chaste behavior” (3:2), to “be won without a word” (3:1).

It’s like [name’s] wife! If she practices her faith and follows the example of Christ, maybe [name] can be won back one day. If she puts up with his atheism, doesn’t make a fuss, is longsuffering, prays for him, maybe one day [name] will be moved and touched by that and come back to the faith. It’s entirely possible. Stranger things have happened. I know many former atheists myself. I’m a former “practical atheist” (one who lives as if God didn’t exist or make any difference in life).

Suffering and persevering like Christ is not, of course, confined to females or wives, but is highly recommended for all Christians. Hence in 3:9 it states, “Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless . . .” (cf. 3:14; 4:1). There are many more passages elsewhere along these lines (e.g., Rom 8:16-18).

Now, since I was courteous enough to reply to your questions, maybe someone will interact with the ton of counter-replies I made. That would be nice, wouldn’t it? If we did that we would actually be in danger of falling into dialogue (!!!), rather than mutual monologue. Or is it supposed to be a one-way thing: with me answering all the questions, and mine being summarily ignored? That seems to be the fashionable thing to do these days. Just talk right past the other guy . . .

But I don’t have time (at least not today) to play Bible hopscotch and ring-around-the-rosey, by going through 7000 supposed “Bible difficulties.” There is rarely if ever any serious discussion of either single passages or the biblical teaching as a whole (systematic theology). And that is because most atheists (the ones I’ve encountered anyway) aren’t interested in that. It doesn’t go with the plan. It ain’t part of the game. They merely want to poke holes and mock and scorn the Bible and Christianity. They approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog.

It’s self-justification and rationalization: “I reject the Bible (and along with it, Christianity) because the Bible is so patently ridiculous. It is because of passages a, b, c, d, ad infinitum, ad nauseum . . .” And then if a Christian dares to suggest and demonstrate that said passages were misinterpreted, context butchered, idioms or meanings of words vastly misunderstood, rudimentary, elementary exegetical and hermeneutical principles spat upon and and scornfully dismissed, the atheist wants no part of that conversation . . . they always know more about the Bible than the Christian who has intensely studied it for years (33, in my case).

We see that in this thread by the fact that no one gave a damn about all the counter-exegesis I provided concerning the supposed sexist texts in the Bible. That’s not according to the plan. We mustn’t learn what the Bible actually teaches. It’s more fun to proof-text and quote out of context. If one passage says that sin came from Eve, the game is to ignore the two that said that all sin came from Adam. It’s much more fun to selectively present and provide half-truths, to keep people ignorant and complacent. The goal is to prove sexism, so if I disprove supposed examples of that, it has to be ignored, because the truth of what the passage actually means in context might be revealed, and that is a naughty no-no. Then Christianity might start making sense to those who now despise it.

Then Christians might not be regarded in the following fashion (quoting an atheist blog I happened to run across):

Look, we think theism is wrong. As wrong as a geocentric solar system. As wrong as a 6000-year-old, flat earth, global-flood, demon-possessing, Mary-in-a-Grilled-Cheese, geocentric solar system. Which, like people wearing tin-foil hats to protect themselves from government rays, we would normally laugh off and let live their lives in peace.

That’s me! My theism is the equivalent of flat-earth, young earth, geocentrism, and Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich. Be gone with nuance, all fine and necessary distinctions. Just like what was said about Christian women in this thread!

The issue still remains that there were prejudicial sentiments expressed in this thread. I would like to see them either defended or retracted.

* * *

It’s been a while, huh? [we used to engage in debates some years ago now]

While I agree people may take portions of the Bible out of context, and apply it incorrectly, resulting in sexism, we cannot ignore portions that do not treat women so favorably.

This is the closest to an acknowledgment that fanatically cynical Bible citation has occurred in this thread. I’ll take it! It looks like it is the best I can hope to expect.

Again, this is applying a 1st Century Roman & Judean social system upon our modern cultural norms, and sometimes the pieces don’t fit. The Bible was written in the sexism of its time;

The time was certainly sexist; on that we agree. We disagree on whether the Bible literally adopted the immoral sexism that was prevalent.

only when we try to apply it to 21st Century do the incongruities arise. It doesn’t make the Bible itself sexist (any more than the Iliad, or King Arthur or Acts of Paul sexist)—just a human work written within its time.

Right and wrong are not culturally or time-relative. But at least you offer some refreshing nuance in a thread where there has been absolutely none, where the Bible and women are concerned.

I asked those questions to show how the Bible does list prescriptions that appear sexist to our culture.

“Appear” is the operative word.

As to my first question (who administers communion in the Catholic church)—I did not know women could do so. I thought (obviously incorrectly) only priests could. Thank you for that information. I had a different experience in my Protestant upbringing.

Protestant churches would generally not do that if they didn’t allow female pastors.

However, as to my second question (can a woman be a bishop, cardinal or pope) you gave a synonymonic (just made the word up on the spot!) argument that women aren’t bishops, cardinals and popes because they don’t have the “role” of bishop, cardinal or pope.

Right. I don’t have the role of a breast-feeding mother or a child-bearing mother. Should I go around protesting that I am deprived and unequal because I can’t do those things? My oldest son couldn’t be a priest (or join the military) because he has Asperger’s Syndrome. The same would apply to my second son because he is bipolar. Overweight or deaf people or those with bad vision cannot be in combat. There are lots of things people can’t do. And there are some things that are gender-exclusive. Why that is regarded automatically as oppression and inequality is one of the mysteries and comic farces of our peculiar age.

I was looking for something a bit deeper—why don’t they have the role? The problem here is rooted in the Bible, in that it only provides such offices to males. Women need not apply—they are not allowed.

Great. So you actually want to learn about why we believe as we do instead of just putting it down and condemning it. That’s a start. Good for you.

Worse, if (as you appear to argue) they have the intellectual chops to perform the roles—what is it specifically about being female bars them from the role?

See the resources listed in the paper above.

If Mary is venerated higher than the Pope, what prevents a female from filling the pope’s role?

The nutshell answer is that Christ was a male, and the priest literally represents Christ in the Mass (at the consecration he is like Christ at the Last Supper). That’s the main reason. To use a rough analogy, if they were to do a movie biography of you, would they get Angelina Jolie to play you, or would they get a guy? And would Angelina have a basis to complain that she didn’t land the role, and cry about how unfair and unjust that is?

1 Peter 3:1 is a particularly troubling verse.

Although spouse abuse was technically forbidden by Roman law, there are hints it occurred with little prohibition unless it was extreme. Augustine mentions seeing bruises on the mothers of his childhood friends. Herodes Atticus had his freedman kick his wife to death, and when prosecuted, got off partially because he claimed he didn’t mean the beating to be that violent. Of course, we know of Nero kicking his own pregnant wife to death.

Wife abuse was not viewed with the same social anathema as today.

That’s right, but such monstrosities were not sanctioned by Christianity.

The verse states, “Wives, in the same way, be submissive (hypotasso) to your husbands…” I agree with you—to understand why it says “in the same way” we need to look to the previous verses. Look for where the author previously talked about a person being hypotasso. (submissive).

Uh-oh. In looking a few verses earlier, we see the author telling slaves to be submissive to their masters. 1 Peter 2:18. Even if they beat the slave when the slave was “doing well.” (agathopieo) 1 Peter 2:20. (Note also, there is no honor for taking a beating if the slave “deserved it.”) Notice that in 1 Peter 3:6, the author equally tells the wife to “do well.” (agathopieo)

Christians don’t like the obvious connection…but there it is. Wives submit to husbands, just like slaves submit to masters. Even when they beat you unjustly for doing well. Nothing about leaving an abusive husband.

Not in that text, but elsewhere, it is clear that the “master” has no New Testament grounds for beating and cruelty:

Ephesians 6:8-9 knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. [9] Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Colossians 4:1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

The wife is an equal, not a slave. Submissiveness is a notion that goes beyond the master-slave relationship. We know that because, as I mentioned before, even Jesus was submissive to his earthly parents and God the Father.

Jesus’ subjection to the Father is seen in such verses as John 14:28: “. . . for my Father is greater than I,” 1 Corinthians 11:3: “. . .the head of Christ {is} God,” and 1 Corinthians 15:28: “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” When the Father is called the “head” of the Son (1 Cor 11:3), this also does not entail any lessening of the equality between the Son and the Father. The Bible also talks about wives being subject to their husbands (1 Pet 3:1,5), even while the two are equals (Gal 3:28, Eph 5:21-22), and indeed, “one flesh” (Matt 19:5-6).

Likewise, one Person of the Godhead can be in subjection to another Person and remain God in essence and substance (Phil 2:6-8). Luke 2:51 says that Jesus was “subject” to Mary and Joseph. Yet no orthodox Christian of any stripe would hold that Jesus was lesser in essence than His earthly parents! The same Greek word for “subject” in Luke 2:51 (hupotasso) is used in 1 Corinthians 15:28, and in 1 Peter 2:18.

I know some apologists attempt to tie 1 Peter 3:1 back to the bit about Jesus, to avoid the problem of the Master/slave comparison, but that doesn’t help, because the verses are discussing Jesus physically suffering unjustly, but still doing his duty. It is the same problem. (and amplifying the extent of the author’s meaning by how much one should submit under how much unjust suffering.)

No; that parallel is more apt because it is immediately prior, and that is how language and syntax works. Moreover, the analogy is more exact and corresponding point-by-point. 1 Peter 2:20 (suffering unjustly) is tied into the next verse, about Jesus:

1 Peter 2:21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

Then the parallelism is to:

1) a person suffering heroically and unjustly,

2) bearing witness to others,

3) so that they can start to live a righteous life and be saved in the end:


1 Peter 2:23-24
When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly. [24] He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

1 Peter 3:1-2 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, [2] when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.

If Christ is the example, and the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church (Ephesians), then there are no grounds for thinking that a husband can beat his wife, based on the New Testament. I don’t see Jesus going around beating anyone up. Do you?

The analogy you try to make is incomplete, because it doesn’t have element #3 above. The servant who suffers unjustly is “approved” (2:19) and has “God’s approval” (2:20). There is nothing about the master being won over. The parallel there is between Christ in 2:24 and the wife in 3:1. Therefore, the “likewise” applies more to the excerpt about Jesus Christ by virtue of proximity and also the more exact analogy.

Paul expresses the same scenario of the wife helping to save the husband, but he makes it reciprocal: it could be the husband helping to save the unbelieving wife, too:

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. [13] If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. [14] For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. [15] But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. [16] Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

So, nice try, but no cigar.

If the Christian wants to claim sexism is a result of people applying the Bible improperly, I point out 1 Pet. 3:1 and wonder if they are claiming it should be applied “properly.”

I do. I just showed you how.

As to the rest of your fuss, to the extent it applied to me (awww…you quoted a portion of my blog…how sweet of you! :-),

That was you!? What a coincidence!

all I can say is, “Welcome to the Internet!”

Like I said before, I am an idealist who thinks that things can be done better. I think atheists and Christians share rudimentary ethics in common. Logic works the same for both of us. Love of facts and truth need not be different. I refuse to accept the hogwash that passes for “dialogue” on the Internet. I don’t care what the medium is. That is not a sufficient excuse. I’m a writer; an author, and write for a living. Obviously, I think people ought to be able to intelligently express themselves in writing, to be cordial with those who disagree, and to give them the courtesy of addressing their arguments. You ignored my earlier exegetical arguments (as did everyone else) and started in with something entirely different but at least we have some semblance of interaction now (for which I shall be eternally grateful).

You can’t say I didn’t directly address your argument. You may not like my answer (I predict that you won’t!) but you can’t deny that I made one, and that it had substance to it; agree or disagree.

Sometimes people don’t answer all your questions. Sometimes they present information in ways you don’t like. Sometimes you may present information in ways they don’t appreciate.

Yeah, and sometimes one who desires, as I do, a true socratic dialogue (which is as rare as a tax-cutting Democrat) gets sick and tired of that, and can therefore choose to do something else. You came the closest. This latest exchange was actually a fairly decent dialogue. You presented your case and I gave my reply, which I think is adequate to dispose of the charge.

Human differences…they sure make it fascinating.

Yep. My emphasis is on what we have in common, though. That’s why I think Christian-atheist dialogue is actually possible, by agreeing on what we do agree on and proceeding from there, as in all constructive dialogue. Dialogue is a bit more difficult when one enters into it thinking that many (all?) theists are as dumb as flat-earthers, ain’t it? You say that is “the Internet”. I say it is plain dumb and stupid. I don’t care if it is written online or in the sand at the ocean, or in braille or with spray paint. The medium is irrelevant. The opinion is stupid and untrue. That’s “harsh”? It should be. The more silly and foolish and outrageous a statement is, the more appropriate it is to harshly rebuke and refute it.

* * *

For some excellent, in-depth reading on related topics, see:

Good question…did/does God order wives to ‘obey’ their husbands? (Glenn Miller; includes exegesis of 1 Peter 3:1)

Women in the Bible (Glenn Miller, of the superbly helpful Christian Thinktank website)

Good question…Does God condone slavery in the Bible? [Old Testament] (Glenn Miller)

Good question…Does God condone slavery in the Bible? [New Testament] (Glenn Miller)

Also of note is the fact that “servants” in 1 Peter 2:18 is the word oiketes (Strong’s word #3610), or “house-servant” or “domestic” rather than “servant” with the more literal meaning of “slave” (doulos: Strong’s word #1401; translated as “servant” 120 times in the KJV, and often as “slave” in the RSV and NRSV). Oiketes appears only here and in Luke 16:13; Acts 10:7; and Romans 14:4. It is related to oikonomos, from which we get the word “economy” (the root term oikos meaning “home” or “house”). It’s not too much of a stretch to think of oiketes, therefore, as akin to “housewife.”

As Glenn Miller noted, it is never said of the oiketes that he or she “obey” (masters). Wives are not commanded to do that. The word used is “submit.” Since Jesus submits (hupotasso) to Joseph and Mary (creatures that He created) and submits to His Father (with Whom He is equal, in the Bible and Christian theology), obviously that is not a matter of inequality.

Thus, the attempted analogy (slave wife) is already greatly weakened, since it is a house-servant being referred to, rather than an outright slave. Even the latter was not the same in the ancient near east, as it was in the South in the 17th-19th centuries (i.e., chattel slavery). So a one-to-one comparison is not apt or accurate, for this and several other reasons I have noted. Marriage is not a master-slave relationship in Christianity. Miller goes into this in great detail in the two papers listed above.

And I have already shown that the analogy is not just to the oiketes but also to Christ in the section immediately preceding 1 Peter 3:1.

* * *
It’s also instructive to view the entire section of 1 Peter 2-3, in order to see the symmetrical teaching about submission and servanthood. It’s not just about wives, but about everyone (including even Jesus Himself):

1 Peter 2:13-14 (Governments and Institutions) Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, [14] or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.

1 Peter 2:16 (God) . . . live as servants of God.

1 Peter 2:17 (All Men, God, Emperor) Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

1 Peter 2:18 (Servants [i.e., domestics] and Masters) Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing.

1 Peter 2:21, 23-24 (Jesus Serves Mankind and Submits to God the Father) For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. . . . [23] When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly. [24] He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

1 Peter 3:1-2 (Wives to Husbands) Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, [2] when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.

1 Peter 3:6 (Sarah to Abraham) as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. . . .

1 Peter 3:7 (Husbands “Honor” Wives, the “Joint Heirs”) Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.

1 Peter 3:8-9, 14 (All Towards All) Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind. [9] Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing. . . . [14] But even if you do suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,

1 Peter 3:15 (Believers to Christ) but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. . . .

1 Peter 3:16-17 (Suffering for the Sake of Others; Turning the Other Cheek) and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. [17] For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God’s will, than for doing wrong.

1 Peter 3:18 (Christ’s Dying for Mankind was the Supreme Example of Service) For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit;

1 Peter 3:21-22 (Jesus Submits to the Father; Angels and “Powers” are Subject to Him) . . . Jesus Christ, [22] who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

The feminists want to have a cow about the terminology of “weaker sex” (“weaker” = asthenees: Strong’s word #772)? Is this yet more biblical male chauvinism and sexism? Hardly. It’s nothing that is not applied to men and masses of people, or even to apostles and to God Himself (!). Like the character trait of servanthood it is also widely extolled, as a positive, not a negative thing. The apostle Paul repeatedly uses it:

Applied to God

1 Corinthians 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Applied Humble Origins Used by God for His Purposes

1 Corinthians 1:26-27 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; [27] but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong,

Applied to Paul Himself (Using Sarcasm) as a Laudable Trait

1 Corinthians 4:9-13 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men. [10] We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. [11] To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are ill-clad and buffeted and homeless, [12] and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; [13] when slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become, and are now, as the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things.

Paul uses the cognates astheneo (Strong’s word #770 — in blue below) and asthenia (Strong’s word #769 — in red below) similarly:

1 Corinthians 2:2-5 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. [3] And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; [4] and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, [5] that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

2 Corinthians 12:9-10 but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. [10] For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

2 Corinthians 13:3-4, 9 since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful in you. [4] For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we shall live with him by the power of God. . . . [9] For we are glad when we are weak and you are strong. What we pray for is your improvement.

The author of Hebrews expresses the typically Hebraic and biblical paradox of being strong via weakness (similar to the servant of all being the greatest):

Hebrews 11:32-34 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets — [33] who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions, [34] quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

Ephesians, chapters 5 and 6 offers a similar pericope devoted to universal and particular servanthood:

Ephesians 5:1 (Imitate God, as Children) Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.

Ephesians 5:2 (Imitate Christ, Who is God, in Love) And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Ephesians 5:10 (Please the Lord) and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:17 (Do God’s Will) Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Ephesians 5:21a (Subject to One Another . . . ) Be subject to one another . . .

Ephesians 5:21b (. . . Because of Reverence for Christ) . . . out of reverence for Christ.

Ephesians 5:22-23a, 24b, 33b (Wives to Husbands) Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife . . . [24] . . . so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. . . . [33] . . . and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Ephesians 5:23b-24a (Church to Christ) . . . as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. [24] As the church is subject to Christ, . . .

Ephesians 5:25 (Husbands to Love Wives as Christ Loved the Church, Dying for Her) Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Ephesians 5:28-29a, 33a (Husbands to Love Wives as Their Own Bodies) Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, . . . [33] however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, . . .

Ephesians 5:29b-5:30, 32 (Analogy: Christ Loves the Church, His Body) . . . as Christ does the church, [30] because we are members of his body. . . . [32] This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;

Ephesians 5:31 (Husband and Wife Are One Flesh) “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

Ephesians 6:1-3 (Children to Obey and Honor Parents) Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. [2] “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), [3] “that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth.”

Ephesians 6:4 (Fathers Shouldn’t Provoke Children to Anger) Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Ephesians 6:5 (Slaves and Masters) Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ;

Ephesians 6:6-8 (Analogy: Serving Christ) not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, [7] rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to men, [8] knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

Ephesians 6:9 (Masters Not to Abuse Slaves / Servants, Because of God’s Love) Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

* * *

Quick review for our studio audience.

The Bible is a product of books reflecting the cultural norms of their times. Those standards are antiquated and no longer applicable to our current culture. The Bible’s books are neither the demon decried by many skeptics, nor the angel ascribed by many believers. They are simply human works of their time. Unfortunately, some people hold these cultural norms continue to be applicable to our current society, causing some clashes.

We have been discussing one of those clashes—the treatment of women. Specifically, I have focused on women being denied positions in the Catholic Church, and the prescription of 1 Peter 3 not allowing an abused woman to leave her husband.

Pressing on…

Women can’t be bishops, cardinals or popes.

Dave Armstrong,

I asked what prevents women from obtaining these positions. You indicated genders have different roles; something that doesn’t really progress the conversation, leaving us with the question, what prevents women from have the role of bishop, cardinal or pope.

You indicated you were prevented from the role of breast-feeding or child birth by your “role” as a male—but the difference is obvious. You are physically limited from performing those roles. Are you saying there is a physical limitation of women preventing them from being a bishop, cardinal or pope?

[Humorously, the only limitation I could think of was the production of sperm—something women cannot do. Yet because your religion requires bishops, cardinals and popes to be celibate, you take away that possibility by your own mandates!]

I appreciated the articles you linked to—I wondered if you understood it only made your position worse. Look, I was willing to argue the reason these roles were denied women was due to an outdated adherence to the misogyny of authors who wrote almost 2000 years ago. Instead, the articles linked indicated not only was it the misogyny of the Bible, additionally the Church (through Early Church Fathers, traditions and papal declarations) has continually re-affirmed that misogyny over and over and over for the past 2000 years, up to as recently as 1994!

In other words, I was willing to leave it at the Bible, these articles say, “Oh, no—it is much more. We have introduced numerous other ways in addition, and continue to do so to prevent women from being in these roles.”

I didn’t see any physical limitation listed in these articles. However as I read through them quickly, I may have missed it. If I did, please feel free to point it out.

1 Peter 3

As you recently pointed out, the author of 1 Peter is going through a number of prescriptions for the recipients, and from 1 Pet 2:13 – 3:7 is discussing submission to authorities. He starts off talking about submission to governments (2:13-17), then talks about slaves to masters (2:18-20), gives a parenthetical statement about why one should submit—namely Jesus as an example—and concludes with wives submitting to husbands (3:1-7).

[Quick aside. Whether 2:18 is referring to slaves, servants, maids, butlers, groomsmen, landscapers, etc. is quite beside the point. It is clear whatever they are, the master can beat them, even unjustly, and they are to still submit to the master. This curious rabbit trail as to whether they were “servants” or “slaves” misses the forest for the trees—it is NOT about whether they were slaves or servants—it is about their being beaten and remaining submissive.]

The problem, of course, is the author saying, “In the same way, wives need to submit to their husbands, even if they don’t obey the word’ implying even if wives are being beaten (like the slave) they are to submit (like the slave) to their husband (like the master.)

You originally indicated (typical apologetic trick) that “in the same way” was referring to the parenthetical statement on Jesus. This doesn’t help, of course, as Jesus also was beaten and still submitted. So we have the same problem.

But then you point out the article by Glenn Miller that says…EXACTLY WHAT I SAID! He relates 1 Peter 3:1 back to the master/slave situation of 2:18! Exactly what I said. (Otherwise we wouldn’t need this whole discussion about slaves, now would we?)

Thanks for finding an article you apparently subscribe to that supports what I said.

[Another aside. The idea the woman situation correlates to Jesus as compared to Master/slave because of three correlations rather than two is another apologetic trick. Why pick only those correlations? And who says the author is even intending to have whatever has “more” numbers as to what he intends to correlate? ]

Curiously, Glenn Miller attempts to avoid this situation by stating this did not apply to “abusive situations” yet provides no support for this assertion. There is no evidence for me to address, as none is presented. (Note, he does refer to a situation where a woman divorced her husband for repeated infidelities, and correctly states women were technically allowed, under the law, to divorce their husbands for almost any reason, including abuse. But there are numerous situations where biblical books give greater restrictions than those actions allowed by law, and Glenn Miller fails to make any demonstration why this, too, couldn’t be the same.)

Dave Armstrong—there really isn’t anything more to say. I think its pretty clear; doesn’t mean it will persuade someone set against it. That’s fine—what makes horse races.

You are welcome to have the last word. Unless you say something new or that lurkers are interested in a response, I am done.

[Name]’s final post (that [name] loved and lauded to the skies) left me the choice between being an advocate of wife-beating in practice and in the Bible, or being a dishonest, special pleading sophist, because I vehemently deny that what [name] claims is clear biblical teaching is what the Bible teaches at all. When those are the choices one is given (the two cages or rubber rooms they are forced into), constructive discussion has long since ceased to exist, because the opponent in effect “demands” that one be an evil or at the least, deliberately dishonest person.

True discussion becomes literally impossible under those loaded conditions. I refuse the choice and deny and reject both things. [Name] thinks I can’t do that. Great; then [name] has exploded any possible discussion. His choice (and [name]’s), not mine. I think even he knew that because he said he was done in the thread, and that insinuates that he believes I can’t possibly give any reply that would be worth any more of his time, because, well, I’m either violently evil or dishonest, and his position is self-evidently true (or at least infallible after he states and argues it). Makes perfect sense if one adopts the absurd and fact-torturing premises involved . . . But the inconvenient fact is that I don’t accept them.

I have to argue with the teenagers I teach everyday as I try to teach them reliable vs. unreliable sources in science discussions. I was not going to do it with a grown man, supposedly educated, in my leisure time.

I often get egotistical students who like to monopolize in the classroom. I have to restrict them to a response/question limit of 3/class period. It works well. Organizers can we have a “Dave Armstrong free” thread or at least a limited one?

And no, I don’t want to tell any member not to post. Dave is welcome to post here. Dave also is courteous enough that if you tell him you’d prefer he not participate in a thread that you start I know he’d respect that.

***

Related Reading

Is Catholic Male-Only Priesthood Inherently Sexist? [2007]

Woman-Hating Catholic Church?: Reply to an Atheist [10-1-15]

*
*
Dialogue with a Traditionalist Regarding Deaconesses (vs. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski) [5-13-16]
*
*

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not ExistIf you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

***

(originally posted on 9-20-10; abridged a bit on 2-12-20)

Photo credit: St. Thérèse of Lisieux (1873-1897): Doctor of the Catholic Church [public domain]

***

January 7, 2020

A Catholic on my blog first brought this issue up in a combox thread. To his credit he later retracted the line of inquiry and accusation after I presented the material presented below (“let me say you did great job of getting to the truth of this matter. You’ve convinced me that there is nothing to this old and unfounded slander against Calvin. . . . congratulations on a job well done.”).

But first he had cited a judgment: “both the character and morals of Calvin were infamous” — from Catholic historian Johann Baptist Alzog (1808-1878), appearing in both his books, History of the Church (1912) and Manual of Universal Church History (1878).

Before I looked into the question a bit to see what I could find, I had asked: “Who is saying that Calvin had ‘bad character and loose morals’, and what evidence does he produce for this claim? I would take broad accusations like that with a huge grain of salt.”

To answer my question, the article, “What are we to Think of John Calvin?” by a Rev. Fr. Philippe Marcille was produced, as well as The History of the Protestant Reformation, Vol. 1, by Archbishop Martin Spalding (1810-1872; see also volume 2).

* * *
I responded again:
*

!!!!! I don’t know the first source. It could be some goofy “reactionary” Catholic. They love to “find” spectacular dirt on Protestants (and popes as well). Yes, sure enough: my suspicion was dramatically confirmed. This priest has written at least two articles for what appears to be an SSPX magazine (Lefebvrite schismatics): The Angelus.

That’s quite sufficient in my mind to totally discredit the man as any sort of credible expert on anything to do with the Church, let alone writing about the Protestant founders. I found his name: “Abbot Philippe Marcille FSSPX”. FFSPX stands for “Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie X”; see this schismatic group’s website.

Archbishop Spalding is an old source. Catholic writing on Protestants was quite biased for a long time. A lot of the more negative assertions have been discarded with more objective and ecumenical scholarship. Abp. Spalding was not a professional historian.

Unless this can be backed up by someone of impeccable historiographical credentials, I wouldn’t accept it as factual at all, let alone spread it around. Now, of course, you have me curious (having never heard this before), and I will look to see what I can find, but it strikes me as the kind of sensationalistic charge that someone would drum up if they wanted to utterly discredit someone. I don’t know who would have started it (if it is untrue), but it likely began during Calvin’s lifetime.

* * *
I found some more material on this “Calvin and sodomy” business:

Jerome Bolsec, an ex-Carmelite friar who embraced the reformed faith in Paris, settled in Geneva and served as a physician. He publicly attacked Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, was banished from Geneva, and eventually returned to catholicism. His “revenge was to publish in 1577 a scurrilous biography of Calvin, accusing him among other things of sodomy, which continued to be an arsenal for anti-Calvinist polemics for the next two centuries” (Lindberg, 266).

The article on Bolsec in Wikipedia confirms that his book was not exactly a neutral biographical source. Actually, it was taken right from The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), which states:

published biographies of the two Genevan reformers, Calvin and Beza (1519-1605). These works are violent in tone, and find little favour with protestant writers. Their historical statements cannot always be relied on. They are “Histoire de la view, des moeurs . . . de Jean Calvin

Williston Walker (who was an actual historian at Yale), in his book, John Calvin (New York: Schocken Books, 1906; rep. 1969) writes about Bolsec on pp. 116-119, 315-320. Some excerpts:

The more specific charge, to which reference is now made, was formulated thirteen years after Calvin’s death, by Jerome Hermes Bolsec . . . that Calvin had been convicted of heinous moral turpitude . . . No evidence has ever been produced of the existence of such a document as Bolsec alleges. Jacques Desmay, the earnest Catholic writer who used his stay as Advent and Lenten preacher at Noyon in 1614 and 1615 to learn all he could of Calvin’s life there by records and tradition, found nothing of it. An equally determined Roman historian of Noyon, Jacques Le Vasseur, in his Annales of 1633, expressly repudiated it; and careful modern Roman Catholic scholars, such as Kampschulte and Paulus, reject it as “unworthy of serious refutation.

. . . The whole calumny would be unworthy of discussion had the accusation not been repeatedly renewed by a certain class of controversialists during the last century — in one instance as recently as 1898. (pp. 116-119)

More from Protestant historian Philip Schaff:

5. Philibert Berthelier (or Bertelier, Bertellier), an unworthy son of the distinguished patriot who, in 1519, had been beheaded for his part in the war of independence, belonged to the most malignant enemies of Calvin. He had gone to Noyon, if we are to believe the assertion of Bolsec, to bring back scandalous reports concerning the early life of the Reformer, which the same Bolsec published thirteen years after Calvin’s death, but without any evidence.768 If the Libertines had been in possession of such information, they would have made use of it. Berthelier is characterized by Beza as “a man of the most consummate impudence” and “guilty of many iniquities.” He was excommunicated by the Consistory in 1551 for abusing Calvin, for not going to church, and other offences, and for refusing to make any apology.

768 See above, p. 302 sq. That abominable slander about sodomy, which even Galiffe rejects, Audin and Spalding are not ashamed to repeat.

“Additional Notes” to a Life of Calvin, refute the disputed charge as well:

The life of Calvin was also charged with immoralities. But this was done principally by the famous Bolsec, of whom Beza gives some account.

After he had been banished from Geneva, through the influence of Calvin and Farel, for sedition and Pelagianism, he wrote a life of Calvin, with a view to destroy the reputation of that great and good man.

The great Dr. Moulin observes, that not one of Calvin’s innumerable enemies ever carped at the purity of his life, but this profligate physician, whom Calvin had procured to be banished from Geneva, for his wickedness and impieties. The reproach of such a man, says Middleton, was an honor to Calvin, and especially upon such an account, for as Milton truly says, “Of some to be dispraised, is no small praise.” The calumnies of Bolsec, however, were reiterated by other enemies, and are sometimes, even in this age, raked from the filth where truth has long since consigned them. “One of the greatest uses,” says Middleton, “which may be drawn from reading, is to learn the weaknesses of the heart of man, and the ill effects of prejudices in points of religion. No less a person than the great cardinal Richelieu, has produced all accusation against Calvin, on the credit of Bertelier, than which none was ever worse contrived, and worse proved; though it has been adopted, and conveyed from book to book. Bertelier pretended, that the republic of Geneva had sent him to Noyon, with orders to make an exact inquiry there into Calvin’s life and character; and that he found Calvin had been convicted of sodomy; but that, at the bishop’s request, the punishment of fire was commuted into that of being branded with the Flower-de-luce. He boasted to have an act, signed by a notary, which certified the truth of the process and condemnation. Bolsec affirms, that he had seen this act; and this is the ground of that horrid accusation. Neither Bertelier, nor Bolsec, are to be credited. If Bertelier’s act had not been suppositious, there would have been at Noyon, authentic and public testimonies of the trial and punishment in question; and they would have been published as soon as the Romish religion began to suffer by Calvin’s means. Bertelier had no party against him in Geneva more inexorable than Calvin, who held him in abhorrence, on account of his vices. Bertelier was accused of sedition and conspiracy against the state and church: but he ran away, and, not appearing to answer for himself, was condemned, as being attainted and convicted of those crimes, to lose his head, by a sentence pronounced against him, the sixth of August, 1555. No envoy or deputy was ever sent from Geneva on public business, who was not in a higher station than that of Bertelier; besides, there were some considerable persons at Noyon, who retired to Geneva, as well as Calvin: by whose means it was very easy to receive all the information which could have been desired, without going farther.

If what Bertelier said was true, he would have had his paper when he fled from Geneva: but it is plain he had not the commission he boasted of, after that time. But can any one believe, that, before the year 1555, when those who were called heretics durst not show themselves for fear of being burnt, a deputy from Geneva should go boldly to Noyon, to inform himself of Calvin’s life? Who will believeth that if Betrelier had an authentic act of Calvin’s infamy in 1554, he would have kept it so close, that the public should have no knowledge of it before 1557? Was it not a piece which the clergy of France would have bought for its weight in gold? ‘But why (says Bayle), do I lose time in confuting such a ridiculous romance? Nothing surprises me more than to see so great a person as cardinal de Richelieu, depend on this piece of Bertelier; and allege as his principal reason that the republic of Geneva did not undertake to show the falsehood of this piece.’ The truth is, this cardinal made all imaginable inquiry into the pretended proceedings against Calvin at Noyon, and that he discovered nothing; yet he maintained the affirmative on the credit of Jerom Bolsec, whose testimony is of no weight in things which are laid to Calvin’s charge. Bolsec would have been altogether buried in oblivion, if he had not been taken notice of by the monks and missionaries for writing some satirical books against the Reformation. He was convicted of sedition and Pelagianism at Geneva, in 1551, and banished the territory of the republic. He was also banished from Bern: after which he went to France, where he assisted in persecuting the Protestants, an even prostituted his wife to the canons of Autun. He was an infamous man, who forsook his order, had been banished thrice, and changed his religion four times; and who, after having aspersed the dead and the living, died in despair.

Varillas thought Bolsec a discredited author: Maimbourg rejected the infamy that was thrown upon Calvin: and Florimond de Remond owns, they have defamed him horribly. Papyrius Masso spoke very ill of Calvin, but would not venture to mention the story of the Flower-de-luce: and he called those, mean wretched scribblers, who reproached that minister with lewdness. It is not strange that cardinal de Richelieu, in one of the best books of controversy that has been published on the part of the church of Rome, should be less scrupulous and nice than Remond, Masso, and Romuald; and that he should give out, as a true matter of fact, the story of Bolsec, which began then to be laid aside by the missionaries? Richelieu intended to have reconciled both religions in France, but was prevented by death; and there was not one story which people did not believe, when it defamed him or cardinal Mazarin.

* * *

Protestant regular on my blog “Grubb” wrote: ” Thanks for getting to the truth about Calvin’s character regarding sodomy.” And a Calvinist, Robert Fisher, was nice enough to comment on my blog: “I disagree with you about Calvinism, but I saw how you weren’t drawn in to disparaging Calvin personally, and actually defended him — you are a class act.”

Whatever the truth is, is my concern and goal. It is irrelevant in this regard whether I disagree with someone’s theology or ethics or have some personal beef, etc. My responsibility as an apologist (and a published, somewhat known one, in the public eye) is to seek truth and present it to the best of my ability, in fairness and charity, in all my writings.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

***

(originally 4-23-07)

Photo credit: Portrait of John Calvin (1509–1564); anonymous, 1854 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * * * *

 

December 6, 2019

Compilation of 324 articles of mine for the National Catholic Register (29 September 2016 to 21 May 2024): enough material for five 227-page books (about 3 1/2 pages for each 1000-word article).

Catholicism Explained

(the material below constitutes a free online multi-volume “book” [1134 + pages]: first presented on 18 June 2023. This is a complete catechetical and apologetical explanation of the Catholic faith)

I consider this collection to be a virtual book, even though I don’t intend to make an actual published book out of it. But in terms of presenting the wide scope and broad range of Catholic and general apologetics arguments that can be brought to bear, it has strong similarities to, and the main components of books like my One-Minute Apologist (2007; which had 61 two-page chapters in a Summa-like format), Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical (2015; 80 short chapters — usually 1000 words or less — covering many topics), and The Catholic Answer Bible (2002): forty apologetics inserts: each one page long.

These articles for National Catholic Register are all a standard length of 1000 words: give or take a very few. A thousand words usually run about 3 1/2 single-spaced pages, including spaces between paragraphs. It’s not very long at all. And it is a nice length (perhaps the ideal one?) to summarize the usual apologetics and exegetical / historical arguments involved in any given theological issue. I’ve gotten very comfortable this length of article, after doing this “gig” for over three years now, and two earlier ones that were similar (Seton Magazine and Michigan Catholic). I have found that most of the important points that need to be made, can fairly easily be presented within this length.

These articles also essentially constitute my “mature” opinions on each topic I tackle, since all of these were written (or revised) in the last five years or so. I keep learning things all the time (my thought is always developing), so in some cases, I would have slightly changed my mind (where permitted, in light of dogma), or added new arguments (that I’ve either seen, or came up with myself) not present in my earlier writings.

With these articles close at hand, categorized alphabetically by topic and conveniently linked, the reader has a quick and easy resource that may come in handy when the usual objections to the Catholic faith arise. Each article is easy to read (so I’ve been told many times), and can probably be completed in less than five minutes (if even that), and, I submit, contains enough substance and content to provide ample food for thought and further reflection or study. It’s my privilege to have been allowed to write and publish them in such a prestigious venue. Enjoy!

*****

Abortion

On Being a So-Called “Single-Issue” Pro-Lifer [1-25-18]

Do Democratic Presidents Cause Fewer Abortions to Occur? [2-28-18]

Apologetics and Evangelism

Apologetics Doesn’t Mean Being Sorry for Your Faith [6-6-17]

“The Harvest is Ready”: 14 Tips for Catholic Evangelism [7-12-17]

Swearing and Sharing the Faith Don’t Mix Very Well! [7-16-18]

Some Thoughts on Evangelism and Being “Hated by All” [7-20-18]

Apostolic Succession

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [1-15-17]

Answers to Questions About Apostolic Succession [7-25-20]

A New Biblical Argument for Apostolic Succession [4-23-21]

Archaeology, Biblical

15 Archaeological Proofs of Old Testament Accuracy (short summary points from the book, The Word Set in Stone) [3-23-23]

15 Archaeological Proofs of New Testament Accuracy (short summary points from the book, The Word Set in Stone) [3-30-23]

Atheism

Atheists Seem to Have Almost a Childlike Faith in the Omnipotence of Atoms [10-16-16]

Yes, Virginia, Atheists Have a Worldview [3-23-21]

Why Should We Bother Defending the Bible Against Atheists? [4-1-21]

Babel, Tower of

Linguistic Confusion and the Tower of Babel [6-21-22]

Baptism

What the New Testament’s Baptisms Teach Us About the Magisterium: Christians remain bound to Church doctrine through its development [1-29-17]

What the Bible Reveals About Infant Baptism [7-27-17]

14 Bible Verses That Show We’re Saved Through Baptism [11-30-21]

Explicit Biblical Instruction on Saving Souls [2-28-22]

In the New Testament, ‘Household’ Baptism Includes Infant Baptism [10-28-22]

Bible (and Catholicism)

*
*
*
*
*
*
Bible, Canon of
*
*
*
*
Bible, General
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Camels, Domestication of (and the Bible)

Camels Help Bible Readers Get Over the Hump of Bible Skepticism [7-21-21]

Celibacy (in Priests and Religious)

Priestly Celibacy: Ancient, Biblical and Pauline [9-18-17]

*
*
*
Charismatic (Catholic) Renewal 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Church (Catholic): Authority of
*

C. S. Lewis vs. St. Paul on Future Binding Church Authority [1-22-17]

The Analogy of an Infallible Bible to an Infallible Church [6-16-17]

Why Do Protestants Reject the Notion of “One True Church”? [6-22-17]

Catholicism is True and Denominationalism is Anti-Biblical [6-27-17]

Is the One True Church a Visible or Invisible Entity? [9-12-18]

Catholics Accept All of the Church’s Dogmatic Teaching [9-18-18]

Orthodoxy: The ‘Equilibrium’ That Sets Us Free [3-29-19]

Were the Jerusalem Council Decrees Universally Binding? [12-4-19]

Church, Sinners in / Scandals

Were 50 Million People Really Killed in the Inquisition? [5-30-18]

The Sex Scandals Are Not a Reason to Reject Catholicism [8-24-18]

Some Nagging Questions About Scorsese’s Silence [2-19-17]

Are Abuse Scandals a Reason to Leave the Church? [3-31-19]

The Inquisition, as Medieval Catholics Would View It [7-31-19]

Confession and Absolution

Confession and Absolution Are Biblical [7-31-17]

Contraception

Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment [5-30-17]

Luther and Calvin Opposed Contraception and “Fewer Children is Better” Thinking [9-13-17]

Contraception and “Anti-Procreation” vs. Scripture [6-6-18]

A Defense of Natural Family Planning [5-25-19]

Conversion, Catholic

Here’s What I Discovered That Made Me Become Catholic [9-29-16]

Why C. S. Lewis Never Became a Catholic [3-5-17]

Daniel

Is There Any Archaeological Support for the Prophet Daniel? [4-25-22]

David, King

Was King David Mythical or Historical? [7-24-23]

Deuterocanonical Books (So-Called “Apocrypha”)

How to Defend the Deuterocanon (or ‘Apocrypha’) [3-12-17]

Divorce and Annulments

Annulments are Fundamentally Different from Divorce [4-6-17]

Doctrinal Development

Development of Catholic Doctrine: A Primer [1-5-18]

Ecumenism and Comparative Religion

Biblical Evidence for Ecumenism (“A Biblical Approach to Other Religions”) [8-9-17]

Ethics and Social Teaching, Catholic

Atheist “Refutes” Sermon on the Mount (Or Does He?) [7-23-17]

What Proverbs 31 Says About Alcohol [9-22-17]

Borders and the Bible [1-14-19]

What Does “Turn the Other Cheek” Mean? [7-20-19]

Biblical and Catholic Teaching on the Use of Alcohol [3-26-20]

Eucharist, Holy

Transubstantiation, John 6, Faith and Rebellion [12-3-17]

The Holy Eucharist and the Treachery of Judas [4-6-18]

Transubstantiation is No More Inscrutable Than Many Doctrines [9-26-18]

Why Are Non-Catholics Excluded from Holy Communion? [7-3-19]

The Host and Chalice Both Contain Christ’s Body and Blood [12-10-19]

If You Believe in Miracles, You Should Believe in the Real Presence [12-31-21]

Refuting the “Real Absence” Anti-Transubstantiation Argument [1-10-22]

Was Jesus Unclear in John Chapter 6? [1-25-22]

Evil and Pain: Problem of

God, the Natural World and Pain [9-19-20]

Is God Mostly to Blame for the Holocaust? [5-31-21]

Faith and Works / “Faith Alone” / Discipleship

Final Judgment is Not a Matter of “Faith Alone” At All [10-7-16]

How Are We Saved? Faith Alone? Or the Way Jesus Taught? [5-11-17]

“The Lord Helps Those Who Help Themselves” [7-19-17]

“Personal Relationship with Jesus” — A Catholic Concept? [2-19-18]

Did Jesus Teach His Disciples to Hate Their Families? [8-17-19]

First John, Faith and Works, and Falling Away [11-24-19]

Lessons in Reconciliation from Kobe Bryant and Magic Johnson [2-10-20]

Good Works and Men, God’s Grace, and Regeneration (vs. John Calvin) [8-6-20]

Why the Apostles Would Have Flunked Out of Protestant Seminary (my original title: “Meritorious and Salvific Works According to Jesus”) [9-28-23]

Fathers of the Church

Did St. Augustine Accept All Seven Sacraments? [11-15-17]

22 Reminders That St. Augustine Was 100% Catholic [4-23-20]

14 Proofs That St. Athanasius Was 100% Catholic [6-4-20]

St. Athanasius Was Catholic — He Knew Sola Scriptura Was False [10-20-22]

St. Polycarp, Who Learned the Faith From an Apostle, Did Not Believe in ‘Faith Alone’ [2-26-23]

16 Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [4-23-24]

14 More Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [4-30-24]

God, Attributes of

Does God Punish to the Fourth Generation? [10-1-18]

If God Needs Nothing, Why Does He Ask For So Much? (Is God “Narcissistic” or “Love-Starved?) [8-22-19]

Does God Ever Actively Prevent Repentance? [9-1-19]

Who Caused Job to Suffer — God or Satan? [6-28-20]

The Bible Teaches That Other “Gods” are Imaginary [7-10-20]

Does God Have Any Need of Praise? [9-24-20]

God in Heaven and in His Temple: Biblical Difficulty? [12-10-20]

Goliath

How Tall Was Goliath? [8-30-21]

Heaven

Salvation and Immortality Are Not Just New Testament Ideas [9-23-19]

Hell, Satan, and Demons

Screwtape on the Neutralization of Effective Apologetics and Divine Callings [2-5-17]

How to Annihilate Three Skeptical Fallacies Regarding Hell [6-10-17]

Satan is Highly Intelligent—and an Arrogant Idiot   [11-27-17]

Is Abortion a Biblical Metaphor for Hell? [10-20-18]

7 Takes on Satan’s Persecutions and the Balanced Christian Life [11-24-18]

Universalism is Annihilated by the Book of Revelation [6-23-19]

The Bible Teaches that Hell is Eternal [4-16-20]

Holy Places and Items / Relics

The Biblical Understanding of Holy Places and Things [4-11-17]

Biblical Proofs and Evidence for Relics [3-13-20]

Relics Are a Biblical Concept — Here Are Some Examples [5-31-22]

Homosexuality

History of the False Ideas Leading to Same-Sex “Marriage” [11-2-16]

How Did Jesus View Active Homosexuality? [9-16-19]

Icons, Images, and Statues

Worshiping God Through Images is Entirely Biblical [12-23-16]

How Protestant Nativity Scenes Proclaim Catholic Doctrine [12-17-17]

Crucifixes: Devotional Aids or Wicked Idols? [1-15-20]

Was Moses’ Bronze Serpent an Idolatrous “Graven Image?” [2-17-20]

Golden Calf Idolatry vs. Carved Cherubim on Ark of the Covenant [1-7-21]

Indulgences

The Biblical Roots and History of Indulgences [5-25-18]

Inquisition[s]

How to Understand Past Attitudes Toward Violence (past Catholic and Protestant religious persecution) [2-16-24]

Jesus

50 Biblical Proofs That Jesus is God [2-12-17]

Did Jesus Descend to Hell, Sheol, or Paradise After His Death? [4-17-17]

Visiting Golgotha in Jerusalem is a Sublime Experience [3-21-18]

Are the Two Genealogies of Christ Contradictory? [1-5-19]

Did Jesus Use “Socratic Method” in His Teaching? [4-29-19]

Can the Prayers of Jesus Go Unanswered? [6-10-19]

Why Jesus Opposed the Moneychangers in the Temple [9-26-19]

Jesus’ Agony in Gethsemane: Was it “Anxiety”? [10-29-19]

On Whether Jesus’ “Brothers” Were “Unbelievers” [6-11-20]

Did Jesus Heal and Preach to Only Jews? No! [7-19-20]

The Bible is Clear — Jesus is True God and True Man [9-12-20]

9 Ways Jesus Tells Us He is God in the Synoptic Gospels [10-28-20]

12 Alleged Resurrection “Contradictions” That Aren’t Really Contradictions [4-7-21]

11 More Resurrection “Contradictions” That Aren’t Really Contradictions [5-8-21]

Darkness at Jesus’ Crucifixion — Solar Eclipse or Sandstorm? [4-15-22]

What We Know About Nazareth at the Time of Jesus [11-24-23]

Jonah

Did God Raise Jonah from the Dead? [4-20-23]

Joshua

What Archaeology Tells Us About Joshua’s Conquest [7-8-21]

Jericho and Archaeology — Disproof of the Bible? (Here is one possible explanation for the high level of erosion in Jericho) [9-26-21]


Liberalism, Theological (Modernism / Dissent / Heterodoxy)

Silent Night: A “Progressive” and “Enlightened” Reinterpretation [12-21-17]

Liturgy, Formal / Rosary

Ritualistic, Formal Worship is a Good and Biblical Practice [12-4-16]

The Rosary: ‘Vain Repetition’ or Biblical Prayer? [3-16-18]

Luther, Martin

50 Reasons Why Martin Luther Was Excommunicated [11-23-16]

Luther’s Disgust Over Protestant Sectarianism and Radical Heresies [9-8-17]

10 Remarkably “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [10-6-17]

Luther Favored Death, Not Religious Freedom, For ‘Heretics’ [10-25-17]

Busting a Myth About Martin Luther (Did Luther Call the Justified Man a “Snow-Covered Dunghill”?) [1-13-23]

How Martin Luther Invented Sola Scriptura [5-21-24]

Mary, Apparitions of

Biblical Evidence for Marian Apparitions [5-21-17]

Mary, Bodily Assumption of

Biblical Arguments in Support of Mary’s Assumption [8-15-18]

Mary, General

Did Mary Know That Jesus Was God? [4-29-18]

The Exalted Blessed Virgin Mary and Theosis [11-28-18]

Martin Luther’s Exceptionally “Catholic” Devotion to Mary [4-16-19]

St. John Henry Newman’s High Mariology [10-18-19]

The Biblical Basis of Catholic ‘Fittingness’ [10-11-23]

Mary, Immaculate Conception of

Martin Luther’s “Immaculate Purification” View of Mary [12-31-16]

Scripture, Through an Angel, Reveals That Mary Was Sinless [4-30-17]

Was Mary’s Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary? [12-8-17]

“All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [12-11-17]

Amazing Parallels Between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant [2-13-18]

Biblical Support for Mary’s Immaculate Conception [10-29-18]

Mary and Jesus / Mary a Sinner and Doubter of Jesus?

Did Jesus Denigrate Calling Mary “Blessed?” [12-24-19]

“Who is My Mother?” — Jesus and the “Familial Church” [1-21-20]

Immaculate Mary and the Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple [8-31-22]

Was Our Lady Among Those Who Accused Our Lord of Being ‘Beside Himself?’ [9-28-22]

Mary, Invocation and Intercession of

Why Do We Ask Mary to Pray for Us? [5-24-22]

How Can a Human Like Mary Hear Millions of Prayers? The Answer Is in the Bible [2-18-23]

Mary Mediatrix

Mary Mediatrix: Close Biblical Analogies [8-14-17]

Mary, Mother of God (Theotokos)

How to Correct Some Misunderstandings About Mary [2-20-19]

Mary, Perpetual Virginity of

Biblical Evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [4-13-18]

More Biblical Evidence for Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [4-25-18]

Perpetual Virginity of Mary: “Holy Ground” [5-8-18]

Jesus’ “Brothers” Always “Hanging Around”: Siblings? [5-11-18]

Biblical and Patristic Evidence for Mary’s “In Partu” Virginity [11-14-19]

The Early Protestants Believed in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity [11-19-19]

Were Sts. Simon and Jude the Cousins of Jesus? [12-24-21]

Calvin Believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary — So Should Calvinists [6-22-22]

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and Biblical Language [1-20-23]

Mary, Queen Mother

Mary is Queen Mother and Queen of Heaven [6-6-19]

Is Our Lady the Woman of Revelation 12? [11-27-19]

Mary, Veneration of

St. Louis de Montfort’s Marian Devotion: Idolatry or Christocentric? [12-18-16]

The Blessed Virgin Mary is Our Role Model [4-20-17]

Did the Angel Gabriel Venerate Mary When He Said “Hail?” [3-14-19]

50 Biblical Reasons to Honor Jesus Through Mary [7-24-19]

The Earliest Veneration of Mary Can Be Found in the Bible Itself [1-31-23]

Catholics Don’t Worship Mary — We Love and Honor Her [7-31-23]

Mass, Sacrifice of

Is Jesus “Re-Sacrificed” at Every Mass? [8-19-17]

Why is Melchizedek So Important? [1-15-18]

Time-Transcending Mass and the Hebrew “Remember” [8-3-18]

Reasons for the Sunday Mass Obligation [11-14-18]

Intriguing Biblical Analogies to Eucharistic Adoration [2-13-19]

The Absurdity of Claiming That the Mass is Idolatrous [6-17-19]

Miracles

Biblical and Historical Evidences for Raising the Dead [2-8-19]

Reflections on Joshua and “the Sun Stood Still” [10-22-20]

Moses and the Exodus

A Bible Puzzle About the Staff of Moses and Aaron [1-14-21]

Using the Bible to Debunk the Bible Debunkers (Is the Mention of ‘Pitch’ in Exodus an Anachronism?) [6-30-21]

Science, Hebrews and a Bevy of Quail [11-14-21]

Fascinating Biblical Considerations About Mount Sinai [11-23-22]

Why Did God Get Angry at Moses for Striking the Rock? [2-3-24]

Nehemiah

Archaeology Supports the Book of Nehemiah [11-30-23]

Papacy and Petrine Primacy

50 Biblical Indications of Petrine Primacy and the Papacy [11-20-16]

Papal Succession: Biblical and Logical Arguments [5-26-17]

I Hope the Pope Will Provide Some Much-Needed Clarity (Re: Answering the Dubia) [9-30-17]

Top 20 Biblical Evidences for the Primacy of St. Peter [1-8-18]

Does Paul’s Rebuke of Peter Disprove Papal Infallibility? [3-31-18]

A Brief History of Papal Infallibility [5-21-18]

Protestant Objections to Papal Infallibility [2-29-20]

Is Peter’s Primacy Disproved by His Personality? [11-30-20]

Which Has More Authority: A Pope or an Ecumenical Council? [5-19-21]

Christians Have Always Recognized the Pope’s Authority — Here’s Proof From the 1st Century (Pope St. Clement of Rome) [9-18-21]

Jesus Christ and St. Peter — Are Both Rocks? [6-29-22]

The Meaning of the Keys of St. Peter [8-25-22]

Why Are Popes Called Popes? [3-27-24]

What the Bible Says About the Pope [3-31-24]

Penance / Mortification / Asceticism / Lent / Monasticism

Where are Lenten Practices in the Bible? [2-23-19]

Bodily Mortification is Quite Scriptural [2-28-19]

More Biblical Support for Bodily Mortification [3-5-19]

Why God Loves Monasticism So Much [3-5-20]

John Calvin vs. Lent and the Bible [2-20-21]

15 Times Martin Luther Sounded Surprisingly Catholic When Talking About Suffering [2-25-21]

Prayer 

Biblical Prayer is Conditional, Not Solely Based on Faith [10-9-18]

5 Replies to Questions About Catholic (and Biblical) Prayer [11-30-22]

Priests

Was the Apostle Paul a Priest? [4-2-17]

“Call No Man Father” vs. Priests Addressed as “Father”? [8-9-18]

The Biblical Basis for the Priesthood [11-2-18] *

Purgatory and Prayer for the Dead

50 Biblical Indications That Purgatory is Real [10-24-16]

Does Matthew 12:32 Suggest or Disprove Purgatory? [2-26-17]

St. Paul Prayed for Onesiphorus, Who Was Dead [3-19-17]

25 Descriptive and Clear Bible Passages About Purgatory [5-7-17]

Reflections on Interceding for the Lost Souls [6-26-18]

Jesus, Peter, Elijah and Elisha All Prayed for the Dead [2-23-20]

“Religion”

The Bible Makes It Clear: Religion Means Relationship With God [6-18-21]

Sacramentalism

Biblical Evidence for Sacramentalism [8-29-17]

Sacraments and Our Moral Responsibility [1-7-20]

Saints

The Holy Collaboration of Mother Teresa and Malcom Muggeridge [6-20-18]

Saints and Angels, Invocation of

Why Would Anyone Pray to Saints Rather Than to God? [1-8-17]

4 Biblical Proofs for Prayers to Saints and for the Dead [6-16-18]

Angelic Intercession is Totally Biblical [7-1-18]

Why the Bible Says the Prayers of Holy People Are More Powerful [3-19-19]

The Saints in Heaven are Quite Aware of Events on Earth (featuring a defense of patron saints) [3-21-20]

Prayer to Abraham and Dead People in Scripture [6-20-20]

What Christ’s Words on the Cross Tell Us About Elijah and the Saints [8-2-20]

How Can a Saint Hear the Prayers of Millions at Once? [10-7-20]

Origen and the Intercession of Saints [11-19-20]

Here’s What the Bible Says About Asking Saints to Pray For Us [1-22-24]

Saints and Angels, Veneration of

The Veneration of Angels and Men is Biblical [8-24-17]

Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints and Images [10-23-18]

True ‘Bible Christians’ Imitate and Venerate the Saints [10-25-23]

Salvation and Justification / Grace / Sanctification / Merit

“Why Desire Salvation?”: Reply to a Non-Christian Inquirer [7-7-17]

Biblical Evidence for Salvation as a Process [8-4-17] 

Biblical Evidence for Catholic Justification [11-2-17]

Is Grace Alone (Sola Gratia) Also Catholic Teaching? [2-5-18]

‘Doers of the Law’ Are Justified, Says St. Paul [5-22-19]

Jesus on Salvation: Works, Merit and Sacrifice [7-28-19]

The Bible is Clear: ‘Eternal Security’ is a Manmade Doctrine [8-17-20]

Eternal Security vs. the Bible [8-23-20]

There Never Will Be a Single Human Being for Whom Christ Did Not Suffer [4-28-21]

Biblical Reasons Why Catholics Don’t Believe in ‘Limited Atonement’ [10-27-21]

More Biblical Reasons Why Catholics Don’t Believe in ‘Limited Atonement’ [10-30-21]

What the Bible Says About Justification by Faith and Works [7-27-22]

Ongoing Justification and the Indwelling Holy Spirit [8-1-22]

The Bible Is Clear: Some Holy People Are Holier Than Others [9-19-22]

The Prophet Jeremiah Explains the Catholic Teaching on Salvation [8-17-23]

The Prophet Isaiah Explains How God Saves Us [8-30-23]

Abraham and Ongoing Justification by Faith and Works [9-19-23]

We Desire That All Be Saved — But Only in the Way God Desires It [2-28-24]

Samson

Did Samson Really Destroy the Philistine Temple With His Bare Hands? [4-28-23]

Science, the Bible, and Christianity

The Bible and Mythical Animals [10-9-19]

The Bible is Not “Anti-Scientific,” as Skeptics Claim [10-23-19]

Galileo and Fellow Astronomers’ Erroneous Scientific Beliefs [4-30-20]

Modern Science is Built on a Christian Foundation [5-6-20]

The ‘Enlightenment’ Inquisition Against Great Scientists [5-13-20]

Embarrassing Errors of Historical Science [5-20-20]

Scientism — the Myth of Science as the Sum of Knowledge [5-28-20]

Creation Ex Nihilo is in the Bible [10-1-20]

Medieval Christian Medicine Was the Forerunner of Modern Medicine [11-13-20]

Quantum Mechanics and the “Upholding” Power of God [11-24-20]

Dark Energy, Dark Matter and the Light of the World [2-17-21]

What Made the Walls of Jericho Fall? [National Catholic Register, 5-20-23]

Sexuality

Sex and Catholics: Our Views Briefly Explained [2-2-18]

More Proof That ‘Heresy Begins Below the Belt’ (Even for Young C. S. Lewis) [8-30-20]

The Bible on Why Premarital Sex Is Wrong [5-26-21]

Sin: Mortal and Venial

What the Bible Says on Degrees of Sin and Mortal Sin [7-6-18]

“Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner” — Quite Biblical! [1-29-20]

Solomon, King

Archaeology, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba [6-2-23]

Archaeology and King Solomon’s Mines [6-29-23]

Suffering / Redemptive Suffering

Suffering With Christ is a Biblical Teaching [3-27-18]

The Bible Says Your Suffering Can Help Save Others [1-31-19]

Biblical Hope and Encouragement in Your Times of Suffering [4-22-19]

Tradition (Apostolic / Sacred)

Tradition is Not a Dirty Word — It’s a Great Gift [4-24-17]

In the Bible, “Word of God” Usually Means Oral Proclamation [12-17-19]

The Bible Alone? That’s Not What the Bible Says [3-5-21]

The One-Legged Stool Called ‘Inscripturation’ is Not Taught in the Bible [3-15-21]

How Did the Gospel Writers Know About ‘Hidden’ Events? [3-31-22]

Trinity, Holy

50 Biblical Evidences for the Holy Trinity [11-14-16]

Wealth / Capitalism / Catholic Social Teaching

Who Must Renounce All Possessions to Follow Jesus? [1-21-21]

***

Last updated on 22 May 2024

 

November 26, 2019

[all the words below — unless indicated otherwise — are Pope Francis’ own; blue highlighting and bolding are my own]

132. Proclaiming the Gospel message to different cultures also involves proclaiming it to professional, scientific and academic circles. This means an encounter between faith, reason and the sciences with a view to developing new approaches and arguments on the issue of credibility, a creative apologetics which would encourage greater openness to the Gospel on the part of all. When certain categories of reason and the sciences are taken up into the proclamation of the message, these categories then become tools of evangelization; water is changed into wine. Whatever is taken up is not just redeemed, but becomes an instrument of the Spirit for enlightening and renewing the world.

133. It is not enough that evangelizers be concerned to reach each person, or that the Gospel be proclaimed to the cultures as a whole. A theology – and not simply a pastoral theology – which is in dialogue with other sciences and human experiences is most important for our discernment on how best to bring the Gospel message to different cultural contexts and groups. The Church, in her commitment to evangelization, appreciates and encourages the charism of theologians and their scholarly efforts to advance dialogue with the world of cultures and sciences. I call on theologians to carry out this service as part of the Church’s saving mission. In doing so, however, they must always remember that the Church and theology exist to evangelize, and not be content with a desk-bound theology.

134. Universities are outstanding environments for articulating and developing this evangelizing commitment in an interdisciplinary and integrated way. Catholic schools, which always strive to join their work of education with the explicit proclamation of the Gospel, are a most valuable resource for the evangelization of culture, even in those countries and cities where hostile situations challenge us to greater creativity in our search for suitable methods. (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, 11-24-13; evangelism and proclamation of the gospel are discussed in sections 110-131 as well)

*****

The word “Confirmation” then reminds us that this Sacrament brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace: it unites us more firmly to Christ, it renders our bond with the Church more perfect, and it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith, … to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of his Cross (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1303). (General Audience, 1-29-14)

*****

Dialogue is so important, but to dialogue two things are necessary: one’s identity as a starting point and empathy toward others. If I am not sure of my identity and I go to speak, I end up bartering my faith. You cannot dialogue without starting from your own identity, and empathy, which is a priori not condemning. Every man, every woman has something of their own to give us; every man, every woman has their own story, their own situation and we have to listen to it. Then the prudence of the Holy Spirit will tell us how to respond. Start from your own identity in order to dialogue, but a dialogue is not doing apologetics, although sometimes you must do so, when we are asked questions that require an explanation. Dialogue is a human thing. It is hearts and souls that dialogue, and this is so important! Do not be afraid to dialogue with anyone. It was said of a saint, joking somewhat — I do not remember, I think it was St Philip Neri, but I’m not sure — that he was able to dialogue even with the devil. Why? Because he had that freedom to listen to all people, but starting from his own identity. He was so sure, but being sure of one’s identity does not mean proselytizing. Proselytism is a trap, which even Jesus condemns a little, en passant, when he speaks to the Pharisees and the Sadducees: “You who go around the world to find a proselyte and then you remember that…”. But, it’s a trap. And Pope Benedict has a beautiful expression. He said it in Aparecida but I believe he repeated it elsewhere: “The Church grows not by proselytism, but by attraction”. And what’s the attraction? It is this human empathy, which is then guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, what will be the profile of the priest of this century, which is so secularized? A man of creativity, who follows God’s commandment — “to create things”; a man of transcendence, both with God in prayer and with others always; a man who is approachable and who is close to the people. To distance people is not priestly and people are tired of this attitude, and yet they still come to us. But he who welcomes the people and is close to them and dialogues with them does so because he feels certain of his identity, which leads him to have a heart open to empathy. (Meeting with the Clergy: Palatine Chapel in the Royal Palace of Caserta, 7-26-14)

*****

How many of you pray for Christians who are being persecuted? How many? Everyone respond in you heart. Do I pray for my brother, for my sister who is in difficulty because they confess and defend their faith? It is important to look beyond our own boundaries, to feel that we are Church, one family in God! (General Audience, 1-25-13)

*****

It is to research conducted in ecclesiastical universities, faculties and institutes that I primarily entrust the task of developing that “creative apologetics which I called for in Evangelii Gaudium, in order to “encourage greater openness to the Gospel on the part of all”. (Apostolic Constitution Veritatis Gaudium, section 5; 1-29-18)

*****

The Pope recalled that both Paul and Jesus seem “a little angry, and annoyed, one might say”. Where did Paul’s malaise come from? Francis said the answer was that the Apostle “defended the doctrine, he was a great defender of the doctrine, and the annoyance came from these people who did not tolerate the doctrine”. Which doctrine? “The gratuitousness of salvation”. . . . This, Pope explained, was “the struggle that both Jesus and Paul faced in order to defend the doctrine”. (Morning Meditation, 10-15-15)

*****

St. Vincent of Lerins makes a comparison between the biological development of man and the transmission from one era to another of the deposit of faith, which grows and is strengthened with time. Here, human self-understanding changes with time and so also human consciousness deepens. . . . we grow in the understanding of the truth. Exegetes and theologians help the church to mature in her own judgment. Even the other sciences and their development help the church in its growth in understanding. There are ecclesiastical rules and precepts that were once effective, but now they have lost value or meaning. The view of the church’s teaching as a monolith to defend without nuance or different understandings is wrong. (Interview with Fr. Antonio Spadaro, September 2013)

*****

[Dave: many mistakenly think that when Pope Francis condemns “proselytizing” he is condemning all apologetics and/or evangelism. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is rejecting (as Pope Benedict XVI also did) a certain limited, flawed methodology, and distortion of what evangelism should be; with the wrong attitude, as the following excerpts clearly illustrate. I, as an apologist, completely agree with him on this score. He’s not condemning what we apologists do, or should seek to be doing (if we are doing it wrongly, or with flawed intentions)]

* * * * *

The Apostle Paul said that he felt in his heart:  “Woe to me if I do not proclaim the Gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16). We want the Gospel to be lived as a grace, a treasure, which we have received freely.  We need to ask the Lord to give us the grace to feel as Paul did: to feel that fire, that burning in our hearts, to evangelize.  This has nothing to do with proselytizing, not at all.  The Church, the Kingdom of God, does not grow by proselytizing.  She grows by witness.  That means showing by our words and our lives the treasure we have received.  That is what it means to evangelizeI live this way, I live this word, and may others see this; but that is not to proselytize. (unprepared remarks before meeting with the Bishops of Bangladesh, 12-1-17)

***

“The apostle Paul explains to the Corinthians what it means to evangelize”, the Pope affirmed, referring to the first reading in the day’s liturgy (1 Cor 9:16-19, 22-27). “We too can reflect today upon what it means to evangelize”, he said, “because we Christians are called to evangelize, to convey the Gospel, which means bearing witness to Jesus Christ”.

And Paul, addressing the Christians of Corinth, begins his reasoning by pointing out what evangelization does not consist of: “To me, proclaiming the Gospel is not boasting”. Therefore, you should certainly not boast “of going to evangelize: I am going to do this, I am going to do that”, as if evangelizing was like “taking a stroll”. This would be “reducing evangelization to a task: I have this task”. And “I am speaking about things that happen in parishes around the world”, the Pope said, “when a parish priest always has his door closed”.

It can also happen, Pope Francis continued, that you meet “lay people who say: ‘I teach this catechism class, I do this, this and this…”. In doing so, they reduce “what they call evangelization to a task”. Perhaps they even boast, saying: “I perform this task, I am a catechist official, I am an official of this, of this or that”.

This is precisely the attitude of those who boast, the Pope insisted, and “it is reducing the Gospel to a task or even a source of pride: ‘I go and evangelize and I have brought many people to Church’”. In this way, he said, “even proselytizing is boasting”. However, “evangelization is not proselytism”. It is more: evangelization is never “taking a stroll; reducing the Gospel to a task; proselytizing”.

St Paul emphatically repeats what evangelization means, the Pope explained: preaching the Gospel “is not boasting. It is a necessity imposed upon me”. Indeed, the Pope said, referring to an expression of Paul, “a Christian is obligated, but with this force, as a necessity, to convey the name of Jesus, but from one’s own heart”. Repeating the Apostle’s clear words, the Pontiff said: “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!”.

A reprimand — “Woe to you!” — that reaches those Catholics who think: “I go to Mass, I do this and then nothing more”. However, Pope Francis cautioned, “if you say that you are Catholic, that you have been baptized, that you have been confirmed, you must go further, to convey the name of Jesus: this is an obligation!”.

Paul’s precise indications, the Pope continued, lead us to question what our “style of evangelization” should be. In short, “how can I be sure that I am not taking a stroll, that I am neither proselytizing nor reducing evangelization to a task? How can I understand what the right style is?”.

The answer Paul always gives is: “The style is to be all things to everyone”. In fact, the Apostle writes: “I have become all things to all men”. In essence it means “to go and share the lives of others, to accompany them on the journey of faith, to help them grow on the journey of faith”. (Morning Meditation: “A matter of style”: 9-9-16)

***

The example given by the Pope was from the Apostle Paul in the Areopagus (Acts 17:15-22, 18-1) proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ among the worshipers of idols. It is the way in which he did this, said the Pope, that is so important: “He did not say: Idolaters! You will go to hell… ”. No, he “tried to reach their hearts”; he did not condemn from the outset but sought dialogue. “Paul is a Pope, a builder of bridges. He did not want to become a builder of walls”. Building bridges to proclaim the Gospel, “this was the Paul’s outlook in Athens: build a bridge to their hearts, and then take a step further and proclaim Jesus Christ”. Paul followed the attitude of Jesus, who spoke to everyone, “he heard the Samaritan woman… ate with the Pharisees, with sinners, with publicans, with doctors of the law. Jesus listened to everyone and when he said a word of condemnation, it was at the end, when there was nothing left to do”. But Paul, too, was “aware that he must evangelize, not proselytize”. The Church “does not grow by proselytizing, as Benedict XVI has told us, but grows by attracting people, by its witness, and by its preaching”. Ultimately, “Paul acted because he was sure, sure of Jesus Christ. He had no doubt of his Lord”. (Morning Meditation: “Jesus excludes no one”: 5-8-13)

***

A first distinction: evangelizing is not proselytizing. The Church grows not through proselytizing but through attraction, that is, through witness. Pope Benedict XVI said this. What is evangelization? It is living the Gospel; it is witnessing to how one lives the Gospel: witnessing to the Beatitudes, witnessing to Matthew 25, witnessing to the Good Samaritan, witnessing to forgiveness seventy times seven. And in this witnessing, the Holy Spirit works and there are conversions. But we are not very enthusiastic about bringing about conversions straight away. If they come, they wait: you speak …, your tradition…, you make sure that a conversion is the response to something that the Holy Spirit has moved in my heart before the testimony of a Christian. (Press conference on the return flight from Bangladesh, 12-2-17)

***

Evangelization does not consist in proselytizing, for proselytizing is a caricature of evangelization, but rather evangelizing entails attracting by our witness those who are far off, it means humbly drawing near to those who feel distant from God in the Church, drawing near to those who feel judged and condemned outright by those who consider themselves to be perfect and pure. We are to draw near to those who are fearful or indifferent, and say to them: “The Lord, with great respect and love, is also calling you to be a part of your people” (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 113). Because our God respects us even in our lowliness and in our sinfulness. This calling of the Lord is expressed with such humility and respect in the text from the Book of Revelation: “Look, I am at the door and I am calling; do you want to open the door?” He does not use force, he does not break the lock, but instead, quite simply, he presses the doorbell, knocks gently on the door and then waits. This is our God! (Homily at Parque Bicentenario, Quito, Ecuador, 7-7-15)

***

Related Reading: 

Did Pope Francis just say that evangelization is “nonsense”? 8 things to know and share  (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 10-1-13)

Pope Francis on “Proselytism” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers, 10-21-13)

Did Pope Francis just diss apologists? 9 things to know and share (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 3-9-14)

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
***
Photo credit: three apologists (all converts): Scott Hahn, yours truly, and Steve Ray: July 1999 at the Franciscan University of Steubenville.
***

Browse Our Archives