Dialogue on St. John Chrysostom & Sola Scriptura

Last updated on: February 24, 2021 at 11:17 pm By Dave Armstrong

— Includes a Discussion of the Proper Definition of Sola Scriptura

Matt Hedges is a Reformed Protestant apologist. He took issue with my paper, St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) vs. Sola Scriptura as the Rule of Faith (8-1-03), in his counter-reply: St. John Chrysostom and Sola Scriptura (2-22-21). His words will be in blue:

*****

He presents for his readers two of my citations of St. John Chrysostom:

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, “whether by word or our Epistle” (2 Thess. ii. 15.), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.” (Homily III on 2 Timothy – on 2 Tim 1:13-18)

If one thinks these quotes somehow “debunk” Sola Scriptura, it is quite clear that they did not grasp a clear definition of what Sola Scriptura actually is!

Sola Scriptura simply says that everything that is needed for salvation is contained in the written Word.

I fully agree that one must have a firm grasp of the definition of anything, in order to refute it (or defend it). Unfortunately, Matt falls short in this respect — thus immediately putting himself in a very precarious position in our little debate. The “definition” he provides is actually the definition of “material sufficiency of Scripture.” The latter is defined as follows:

The actual definition of sola Scriptura, as held by historic Protestantism is: “Holy Scripture is the only final and infallible and binding authority for the Christian.” Expanding upon that, the converse is also true: “No Church or council or tradition or single figure in Christianity (be he the pope or anyone else) can lay claim to this level of sublime authority in Christianity”.

Hence, Joel Beeke, whom Matt himself cites, notes in a different article:

Sola Scriptura at its heart was an assertion of the sufficiency of the Bible for the faith and practice of the church. In the Smalcald Articles, Luther wrote, “The Word of God—and no one else, not even an angel—should establish articles of faith” (Part 2, Art. 2, Sec. 15). The Geneva Confession (1536/37) declares in its first article, “For the rule of our faith and religion, we wish to follow the Scripture alone, without mixing with it any other thing which might be fabricated by the interpretation of men apart from the Word of God; and we do not pretend to receive any other doctrine for our spiritual government than that which is taught us by the same Word, without addition or reduction, according to the command of our Lord.” . . .

As God’s Word, the Bible is the only book characterized by infallibility and inerrancy. Every word of every sentence is there by God’s determination (2 Tim. 3:16–17). As the Word of God, the Scripture is pure truth without any assertions of error (Prov. 30:5). Thus, Luther said, quoting Augustine, “I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture inerrant” (What Luther Says: An Anthology, ed. Ewald M. Plass [St. Louis: Concordia, 1959], 1:87). . . .

This authority is not dependent upon the testimony of mere men, or the judgment of the church, but arises from the certainty produced by the Spirit who bears witness to the Word (1 Thess. 1:5). . . .

The Reformation brought a renewed emphasis upon the Bible’s sufficiency as special revelation in opposition to Roman Catholic claims to supplement the Bible with additional revelation passed down in tradition. Calvin said, “All our wisdom is contained in the Scriptures, and neither ought we to learn, nor teachers to draw their instructions, from any other source” (Commentary on 2 Tim. 4:1). The Westminster Confession of Faith (1.6) offers a helpful summary of the doctrine: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.” . . .

[T]he sola of sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the fountain and touchstone for all authoritative teaching and tradition. . . .

Nor is it right to appeal to the decisions of the church’s synods and councils as if they were as authoritative as Scripture. In Roman Catholicism, much is made of the decrees of the “Ecumenical Councils” of the ancient church, as though the authority of such assemblies were infallible and absolute. The Westminster divine did not reject the decisions of these bodies outright, but sounded a warning: “All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both” (21.4). . . .

[T]he Bible does contain all things that God willed to function as the rule of faith and obedience for His people. (“The Sufficiency of the Bible Contra Rome”, Reformation21, 10-5-17)

Beeke has done a very good job of definition and clarification. There are plenty of Protestants who don’t understand the subtleties involved here, just as (unfortunately) even more Catholics do not. I’m not among them. I fully accept that this is the definition of sola Scriptura, a thing I used to firmly believe but now (upon much further study) reject as unbiblical, and this is the definition I have used in my three books on the topic (one / two / three). In the first, I cited in the Introduction James R. White and Keith A. Mathison (both Reformed), providing the same essential definition of sola Scriptura. I also cited the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler (not Reformed) who agreed.

Beeke also correctly defines and clarifies biblical [material] “sufficiency”:

Biblical Sufficiency Defined

The doctrine of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures teaches that “the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary” for saving faith and the Christian life is revealed in the Bible. Therefore, the preaching, teaching, and counseling ministries of God’s church are the ministry of the Word of God. There is no need or warrant to base our doctrine or directives on anything else, even if enshrined in church tradition.

Most Catholics (including myself) agree with the notion of material sufficiency of Scripture. It’s not identical to sola Scriptura, but rather, one of several premises behind it that many (if not most or nearly all) non-Protestant Christians also accept. As Matt put it: “everything that is needed for salvation is contained in the written Word.” Yes! Absolutely! I would only add John MacArthur’s further elaboration, cited by Matt: “all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture” [my italics]. I believed that as a Protestant and do now as a Catholic, these past thirty years. So this is not at issue.

At least half of my fifty books use a methodology whereby I set out to prove Catholic doctrines by recourse to the Bible only (which was oftentimes the method of the Church fathers, without denying the authority of Church, councils, and tradition, or apostolic succession). What we dispute is the formal sufficiency of Scripture as the rule of faith in Christianity, which is basically the same as sola Scriptura: that is, that an authoritative, infallible Church and tradition are ruled out, and only Scripture functions as the final authority. No one ever believed that in the first 1500 years of Christianity.

So now that we’re on the same page as to definitions (or should be), I proceed. In light of the above, the quotations of Beeke and John MacArthur produced by Matt, preceded by: “This common Roman Catholic misunderstanding has been addressed multiple times” are non sequiturs in our discussion. Joel Beeke writes about tradition as a useful but not infallible or final authority in Protestantism (yep; already knew that, and believed it when I was an evangelical Protestant). Matt echoes this aspect by writing: ” ‘tradition’ is not a dirty word (to use Dave’s own language) as long as it is not elevated to or above the authority of the Bible.” This is included in the definition of sola Scriptura: rightly understood.

But John MacArthur repeats the same error that Matt parrots: a false equivalency of material sufficiency with sola Scriptura. Both Matt and Pastor MacArthur (whose books I used to read and radio talks I enjoyed) need to read Beeke more closely and work out their internal confusion on this matter. Matt also cites the Westminster Confession of Faith, but concerning a different aspect of sola Scriptura: perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture. That’s a different discussion and not related to what St. John Chrysostom has to say about tradition, so I bypass it, too.

Not all of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are contained in the Bible (John 21:25). That is all that Chrysostom is saying here. This is not an issue at all for those who are committed to Sola Scriptura.

Well, this is untrue, as I will now show. What St. John Chrysostom in the first quotation above is in conflict with the correct definition of sola Scriptura and causes massive self-contradiction for the Protestant if he or she attempts to “co-opt” it. The second one, I grant, is not “definitive” enough in and of itself (I grant) to prove that he denied sola Scriptura, but the first one is, because of the clause: “let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther” (my bolding and italics).

In saying this, the great Church father (who was also very pro-papal and pro-Rome, but I digress) proves that he thought (very much like St. Augustine, who thought this about, e.g., infant baptism) that tradition was sufficient in and of itself as an indicator of true, orthodox doctrine, precisely because he says no one need seek any more to verify it. If he had believed in sola Scriptura, he would have had to qualify with “provided it is verified by Sacred Scripture” or some such. It would have to be shown as qualitatively inferior to Scripture, according to sola Scriptura. Thus it contradicts Matt’s own statement: ” ‘tradition’ is not a dirty word . . . as long as it is not elevated to or above the authority of the Bible” (my italics and bolding).

By saying “seek no farther” Chrysostom makes tradition authoritative, binding, and sufficient (in effect, infallible) in a way that is utterly anathema to sola Scriptura and Protestantism. Matt says he doesn’t contradict sola Scriptura, but he clearly does. He also contradicts many statements made by Joel Beeke in his excellent clarification of the nature of sola Scriptura:

The Word of God—and no one else, not even an angel—should establish articles of faith (Martin Luther)

[W]e do not pretend to receive any other doctrine . . . than that which is taught us by the same Word (Geneva Confession)

[T]he Bible is the only book characterized by infallibility and inerrancy. (Beeke)

I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture inerrant (Martin Luther)

All our wisdom is contained in the Scriptures, and neither ought we to learn, nor teachers to draw their instructions, from any other source (John Calvin)

[T]he Bible alone is the fountain and touchstone for all authoritative teaching and tradition (Beeke)

All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice (Westminster Confession)

[T]he Bible does contain all things that God willed to function as the rule of faith (Beeke)

All of that expressly contradicts St. John Chrysostom’s “It is a tradition, seek no farther”. Therefore, Matt’s argument collapses through the weight and burden of its own vicious incoherence and internal contradictoriness.

Conclusion: St. John Chrysostom rejected sola Scriptura and held to the Catholic rule of faith: the “three-legged stool” of Bible-Tradition-Church: all harmonious with each other and all protected by the Holy Spirit as infallible and therefore capable of producing binding “decrees” for all Christian believers, just as the infallible Jerusalem Council did (see Acts 16:4).

***

Matt made a “Counter-Counter Response”. In this, the gist of his argument was to claim that the “tradition” St. John Chrysostom referred to in the passage I highlighted was only practice and not doctrine. This was his way of trying to escape my argument. He contended:

This quote is insufficient to argue against Sola Scriptura, since it never mentions any sort of infallible magisterium that we must have for interpreting Scripture, much less defining new articles of faith . . .

This is completely irrelevant to our discussion: being an entirely distinct topic. All we have to do to prove that St. John Chrysostom rejected sola Scriptura is to show that he accepted any teaching not itself the Bible as authoritative and binding for the believer. He did so in saying that if one had “the tradition of the Church” which is “also worthy of credit” on any given topic, they need “seek no farther.” That defeats sola Scriptura because it doesn’t say that such a tradition must immediately be weighed by Scripture (though I would argue that the Catholic and patristic view holds tradition, Church, and Scripture in self-consistent harmony with each other).

Another thing . . . is what Chrysostom means by “tradition” in the first place. Take a look at his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (which also uses the word “tradition”):

Ver. 6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly and not after the tradition which they received of us.

That is, it is not we that say these things, but Christ, for that is the meaning of in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; equivalent to through Christ. Showing the fearfulness of the message, he says, through Christ. Christ therefore commanded us in no case to be idle. That you withdraw yourselves, he says, from every brother. Tell me not of the rich, tell me not of the poor, tell me not of the holy. This is disorder. That walks, he says, that is, lives. And not after the tradition which they received from me. Tradition, he says, which is through works. And this he always calls properly tradition. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily 5, source)

Here, Chrysostom clearly views “tradition” as being a part of the way in which one lives, rather than some sort of new doctrine (like the Bodily Assumption of Mary, as I mentioned above). Thus, the very idea of “tradition” at all in this quote from Chrysostom is primarily with the Apostle Paul. . . .

I am not in any way “contradicting” Sola Scriptura and neither is Chrysostom. I have shown from his commentary on 2 Thess. 3:6 that he views “tradition” more in the sense of a way of life rather than ongoing, infallible, tradition in the way that Roman Catholics think of it today (whether or not this is the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is another issue somewhat). Either that, or Chrysostom is too ambiguous on the meaning of “tradition” for either me or Dave to get anywhere in this discussion.

The traditions, which Chrysostom speaks of as being “worthy of credit”, are the oral discourses of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, not some infallible magisterium. . . .

So, based off of Chrysostom’s comment on 2 Thessalonians 3:6, “tradition” simply refers to one’s way of living, rather than to doctrine. Or, it is indeed referring to doctrine. But the point remains that this isn’t referring to anything other than the teaching of Paul in Thessalonica,

I spent some time trying to find something else in St. John Chrysostom relating to the rule of faith and authority and found nothing; only to discover what I think is a solid reply to this line of argument, right under my nose: in the other citation that I produced and that Matt replied to:

Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, “whether by word or our Epistle” (2 Thess. ii. 15.), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.” (Homily III on 2 Timothy – on 2 Tim 1:13-18)

Note two things in particular here: the corresponding relationship of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (which the other citation was a comment upon) and the reference to “anything relating to doctrine.” This shows that he regarded 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (by direct reference: no speculation on our part) as dealing with doctrine and not just practice. And that is the key unlocking the question of what sort of tradition he was referring to in the other citation under examination. To me that settles the argument: St. John Chrysostom did not believe in sola Scriptura. Further contextual factors strengthen this conclusion.
*
First, let’s dispose of Matt’s attempted connection to 2 Thessalonians 3:6 as his own “key” to interpreting what Chrysostom is referring to in 2:15. It’s true that it’s only eight verses later than 2:15, but Paul makes a break in the subject matter. The original New Testament didn’t have chapters or verses. Chapters for the New Testament were first created in 1205 and not used in Bibles until the 16th century. Verse numbers began in 1551 (1571 in the Old Testament). St. Paul seems to be writing either a “sub-letter” or a portion of a larger one in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17 (the whole chapter) through to 3:1-5, where he wraps up his thoughts.

Then he starts on another topic in 3:6, commanding that the recipients of his letter “keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (RSV, as I use throughout). This topic (Catholic Bible exegetes would readily agree, I think) does indeed have to do with behavior, as Matt argues. His only mistake is arguing that in 2:15 the same sort of “tradition” referred to (i.e., behavior, not doctrine). 3:6 forward is clearly all about behavior. 3:7 has “imitate us” and “we were not idle when we were with you.” 3:8 is about Paul paying for food, toiling and laboring so as not to be a “burden.” 3:9 is about Paul and his companion(s) providing “in our conduct an example to imitate.” 3:10 is the famous injunction that if anyone doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat. 3:11 refers to laziness. 3:12 is about earning a proper living, 3:13 about “well-doing.” So this is all behavior. No one disagrees.

This is not the case in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and its context. It’s talking about doctrine, as St. John Chrysostom alludes to. In 2:10 Paul says that “they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” This is doctrine; not behavior. In 2:11 the non-elect “believe what is false.” In 2:12 they “did not believe the truth.” In 2:13 the elect are “saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” 2:14 mentions “our gospel.” Then we have the verse in question: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

Now, when St. John Chrysostom refers back to this passage as dealing with “doctrine”, he is commenting on 2 Timothy 1:13-18, which is about doctrine and oral tradition. In 1:13-14 Paul is talking about the deposit of faith, which was passed on both orally and in writing:

Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

Then he moves onto another topic: people who “turned away” form him, and a good man Onesiphorus, who appears to be dead: whom he prays for (along with his household). I’ve written about that many times. Chrysostom (right after the quotation I produced from him) writes about the deposit of faith (or “apostles’ teaching”: Acts 2:42) — which is, of course, primarily doctrinal and theological — in relation to this passage:

After the manner of artists, I have impressed on you the image of virtue, fixing in your soul a sort of rule, and model, and outline of all things pleasing to God. These things then hold fast, and whether you are meditating any matter of faith or love, or of a sound mind, form from hence your ideas of them. It will not be necessary to have recourse to others for examples, when all has been deposited within yourself.

That good thing which was committed unto you keep,— how?— by the Holy Ghost which dwells in us. For it is not in the power of a human soul, when instructed with things so great, to be sufficient for the keeping of them. And why? Because there are many robbers, and thick darkness, and the devil still at hand to plot against us; and we know not what is the hour, what the occasion for him to set upon us. How then, he means, shall we be sufficient for the keeping of them? By the Holy Ghost; that is if we have the Spirit with us, if we do not expel grace, He will stand by us. For, Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain. Psalm 127:1 This is our wall, this our castle, this our refuge. If therefore It dwells in us, and is Itself our guard, what need of the commandment? That we may hold It fast, may keep It, and not banish It by our evil deeds.

We need to take a step back and first inquire about the meaning of “tradition” in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. I find Gordon D. Fee’s comments on this passage helpful here:

“That Paul intends the “traditions” in this case to refer to his own teaching is made certain by his twofold reference to its source: “whether by word of mouth,” thus referring to his own teaching when he was among them, “or by letter,” now referring to our 1 Thessalonians.” (Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians)

If Dave provides a counter-counter reply to this article (and I am somewhat certain that he will) , I would be interested in knowing if he agrees with what Gordon D. Fee says here. . . .

The traditions, which Chrysostom speaks of as being “worthy of credit”, are the oral discourses of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, not some infallible magisterium. Gordon D. Fee, a New Testament scholar, agrees with me on this point in his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

. . . the point remains that this isn’t referring to anything other than the teaching of Paul in Thessalonica, which Gordon Fee agrees with me upon.

I think that there is no unquestionable information in the actual text that would require us to believe that Paul is referring only to his teachings to the Thessalonians, as opposed to his entire “gospel” or “tradition” or “deposit of faith” that he passes on to all who follow his teachings. I’d like to see what arguments Dr. Fee provides (if any) for making such a conclusion. In a sense, I agree, what they received from Paul was both his two letters and his oral preaching, and they wouldn’t necessarily know about any other of his letters. But that doesn’t make his message somehow unique to them and essentially different from what he delivers to all who listen to him. And what they learned from him is partly — indeed likely mostly — oral (2 Thess 2:15; cf. 1 Thess 2:9, 13).

In St. Paul’s epistles (I noted in my first book in 1996), tradition, gospel, and word of God are synonymous concepts. They’re all predominantly oral, not written, and are referred to as being “delivered” and “received”:

1 Corinthians 11:2 . . . maintain the traditions . . . . even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 . . . hold to the traditions . . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 . . . the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 15:1 . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

Galatians 1:9 . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

1 Thessalonians 2:9 . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . . (cf. Acts 8:14)

In RSV, Paul uses the terminology “my gospel” in writing to the Romans (2:16; 16:25) and also to Timothy (2 Tim 2:8). He uses “our gospel” in writing to the Corinthians (2 Cor 4:3) and the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:5; 2 Thess 2:14). He uses “the gospel” many times. He also uses a term like, for example, “the faith” (referring to the apostolic deposit: i.e., Christianity) many times, as he also does by using the term “the truth” in many instances. He also uses terms like “the commandment” (1 Tim 6:14) and “the doctrine” (Rom 16:17; 1 Tim 4:6; Titus 2:10) and “teaching” (Rom 6:17; 1 Tim 4:16; 6:1) and “message” (1 Cor 2:4; 2 Cor 5:19; 2 Tim 4:15, 17) and “covenant” (2 Cor 3:6). It all amounts to the same thing. These terms (with “tradition” and “word of God”) are essentially interchangeable. They certainly don’t refer to one particular message he delivered to only one local church / congregation.

***

Matt made another counter-reply. I didn’t think it accomplished anything and so wrote in his combox: “There’s nowhere else to go with this. I thought I hit a grand slam and you think I proved absolutely nothing. LOL We’re pretty much talking past each other. So, time to move on from this one.”

Summary: Matt Hedges: a Reformed Protestant apologist , attempts to show that St. John Chrysostom believed in sola Scriptura. But beyond that falsehood, he didn’t even get the definition right in the first place.

***

My Earliest Catholic Apologetics Writings (1990-1995)

Last updated on: February 21, 2021 at 3:18 pm By Dave Armstrong

. . . Including the Original (Much Longer) 1994 Version of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism

I became convinced of Catholicism in October 1990 (see several versions of my conversion story on the Conversion and Converts web page). Having been a Protestant apologist for the previous nine years (and a full-time campus missionary in the 1985-1989 period), it was only natural for me to start sharing with friends the reasons for my shocking change of affiliation and belief.

Many of those initial papers (done on a typewriter from October 1990 through to early 1992), before I had a computer and 4-6 years before I was on the Internet) became chapters of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. They were not intended to be so at first. As time went on, my Catholic friends started urging me to try to get the collection published as a book. The first draft (a much longer, 750-page version) was done by 1994. I then decided to greatly shorten it and (taking my friend Al Kresta’s advice) add references to the new Catechism, and this draft (the present book) was completed by May 1996.

I then went through the usual nonsense of rejection by about seven publishers (most of them — bless their hearts — never even giving me a reason for rejection), and published it on my own in 2001. In 2003 I persuaded Sophia Institute Press to publish it (they have since put out five more of my books). In December 2001 I also became a full-time Catholic apologist and have been busily pursuing that vocation and profession ever since.

The original title of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was The Credibility of Catholicism: A Scriptural and Historical Apologetic. I think I also considered Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, but decided that this would be the name for my website instead (people often confuse the two). At length I decided to edit out much of the historical analysis, and concentrate more on the biblical arguments (which has since become my trademark and one of my big apologetics emphases), and the book became much less “polemical” in terms of critiquing Protestantism (that is more characteristic of my second “officially published” book, The Catholic Verses). Here is the original outline of chapters, with links to what is available online:

I. PREMISES, PRESUPPOSITIONS, AND PROTESTANTISM

Introduction: The Unthinkable Inquiry [developed into the present Introduction (link) ]

1. Anti-Catholicism: The Curse of “Papists” [originally 25 January 1991, with three later slight revisions; now included in two papers: Classic Anti-Catholic Polemicists (Chick, Boettner, & Hislop) / Anti-Catholicism: Classic Catholic Replies and Retorts] [see the original chapter]

2. Sola Scriptura: Is Christian Tradition Irrelevant? [developed into the present Chapter One; 14 September 1992; now partially included in the papers: Classic Reflections on Tradition, Sola Scriptura, & the Canon / The New Testament Canon & Historical Processes [rev. 1996] / “Apocrypha”: Why It’s Part of the Bible [rev. 1996] ] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]

3. Protestantism: Conceptual and Developmental Errors [online paper; originally 20 June 1991; now broken up into many papers: The Dichotomous Nature of Protestant Thought [Facebook] / Protestantism as the Root Cause of Secularization [Facebook] / Protestantism: Compromising & Liberalizing Tendency / Pragmatism: Protestant Self-Critique Number One / Worldliness & Compromise: Protestant Self-Critique #2 / Materialism & Narcissism: Protestant Self-Critique #3 / Catholicism is the Ultimate Fulfillment of Protestantism (Bouyer and Chesterton) [Facebook] ] [see the original chapter]

4. Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact [14 January 1991; was once posted as an online paper, but eventually taken down, as I learned more and more about Luther and honed or revised several of my opinions; portions of it in some form made it into various other later papers]

5. The Protestant Revolt: Its Tragedy and Initial Impact [originally 11 June 1991; broken up into these present papers: Protestant Revolt Was Largely Politically Motivated / Early Protestant Antipathy Towards Art (+ Iconoclasm) / Astonishing Hostility to Higher Education in Early Protestantism / Early Protestant Hostility Towards Science [rev. 7-9-04] ] [see the original chapter]

6. Intolerance and Persecution: The “Reformation” Record [originally 3 June 1991; now online as: Protestant Inquisitions: “Reformation” Intolerance & Persecution [rev. 10-31-03, 3-7-07, 9-14-17] ]

II. MAJOR CATHOLIC “CONTROVERSIAL” DOCTRINES

7. The Development of Doctrine: From Acorn to Oak Tree [present Chapter Three; originally 17 February 1991; see “Reflections” portion] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]

8. The Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass: “This is My Body” [present Chapters Four and Five; originally 8 March 1992; see: Reflections on the Holy Eucharist & Transubstantiation / The Eucharist, Incarnation, and Reason: Reflections / The Sacrifice of the Mass: Classic Catholic Reflections / Transubstantiation: A Philosophical & Rational Defense [1996 revision] ] [see complete Eucharist chapter: 1996 version] [see complete Sacrifice of the Mass chapter: 1996 version]

9. Sola Fide: Is Luther’s Justification Justifiable? [present Chapter Two; 4 April 1994; see: Justification: Classic Catholic & Protestant Reflections / Luther and the Origin & Nature of “Instant” Salvation / Salvation and Justification in the Gospels and Acts [1996 version] / St. Paul on Justification, Sanctification, & Salvation [1996 version] ] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]

10. Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences: “Saved As By Fire” [present Chapters Seven and Eight; 21 April 1994; see: Classic Catholic Reflections on Purgatory / Classic Catholic Reflections on Penance / Classic Catholic Reflections on Indulgences / 25 Bible Passages on Purgatory [1996 version] / Biblical Evidence for Indulgences [1996 version] / Lenten Meditation: NT Teaching on Suffering with Christ [1996 version] ] [see complete Purgatory chapter: 1996 version] [see complete Penance chapter: 1996 version]

11. The Communion of Saints: “. . . All Who Are in Christ” [present Chapter Six; originally 17 February 1991; revised and expanded in Dec. 1993; see Classic Reflections on the Communion of Saints] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]

12. The Blessed Virgin Mary: “Hail Mary, Full of Grace” [present Chapter Nine; 10 April 1993, after the first version was completely wiped out on my computer; see: Reflections on Mary: Preliminaries & Devotional Excesses / Immaculate Conception of Mary (Classic Catholic Commentary) / Reflections on the Spiritual Motherhood & Mediation of Mary / Blessed Virgin Mary & God’s Special Presence in Scripture / Bodily Assumption of Mary (John Saward: Protestant) [Facebook] / Cardinal Newman on the Bodily Assumption of Mary / Ven. Fulton Sheen on the Bodily Assumption of Mary / Mary Mediatrix (Fr. William G. Most) [Facebook] ] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]

13. The Papacy and Infallibility: “The Keys of the Kingdom” [present Chapter Ten; 16 September 1993; see: 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy / Papacy & Papal Infallibility: Classic Catholic Reflections / Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars ] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]

APPENDIX ONE: My Conversion: Confessions of a 1980s “Jesus Freak” [published in Surprised by Truth in 1994 in similar form (see my original manuscript) and removed from the book: originally 9 December 1990; revised and expanded in 1992 and 1993]

APPENDIX TWO: Catholic Converts: The Many Roads to Rome [(11 February 1991; revised 1993); see my general observations and: Catholic Conversion: Classic Analyses (Chesterton, Belloc, Pelikan) and the brief conversion stories of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, G. K. Chesterton, Fr. Ronald Knox, and Malcolm Muggeridge: all from 1991]

The original book was about two-and-a-half times larger than the currently published one, with much more historical documentation and citations from great Catholic apologists. The historical background behind each doctrine was eventually compiled into one huge Internet paper: The Witness of the Church Fathers With Regard to Catholic Distinctives (With Examples of Protestant Corroboration of Catholic Doctrines or Clear Contradiction of Patristic Consensus). Many quotes from others were compiled in various “Reflections on . . .” papers (noted above).

See the outline of the book as it is now, and was after the 1996 revision at the book info-page.

Chronology of Early Apologetic Papers (and Later Book Chapters)

[everything below was completed before I ever went online (March 1996) or began a website (February 1997). Several were published in Catholic magazines, as noted, or eventually in my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (first edition, 1994; revised in May 1996; self-published in 2001; published mostly intact by Sophia Institute Press in 2003]

***

“My Conversion: Confessions of a 1980s ‘Jesus Freak'” [9 December 1990; published in different versions in This Rock (September 1993: sadly “edited” beyond recognition) and the book Surprised by Truth (slightly edited by Patrick Madrid) in 1994. I include the link to my original manuscript ]

“Martin Luther: Beyond Mythology to Historical Fact” [14 January 1991; in the first 1994 version of my book but withdrawn from online due to some errors and my revised opinions and presentation of Luther]

“Anti-Catholicism: The Curse of ‘Papists'” [from the book above, 25 January 1991]

“Catholic Converts: The Many Roads to Rome” [from the book above, 11 February 1991] [see partial links above]

“The Communion of Saints: ‘. . . All Who Are in Christ'” [17 February 1991; book chapter] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]

“The Development of Doctrine: From Acorn to Oak Tree” [17 February 1991; book chapter] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]
*

“The Protestant Inquisition (“Reformation” Intolerance and Persecution)” [book chapter above, 3 June 1991]

“The Protestant Revolt: Its Tragedy and Initial Impact” [book chapter above, 11 June 1991]

“Protestantism: Conceptual and Developmental Errors” [book chapter above, 20 June 1991]

“The Sarxon Fallacy, Refuted (Counter-Satire of an Evangelical Spoof of Catholic Eucharistic Beliefs)” [6 September 1991: commentary added on ]

“St. Thomas More: Noble Heroism Amidst Treachery” [1991]

“Henry VIII’s Revolt and Suppression of the Bishops” [1991]

“Henry VIII’s Wholesale Plunder of Catholic Church Properties” [1991]

“The Early Protestant Attitude Towards Art and Strong Iconoclastic Tendency” [1991]

“Early Protestant Hostility Towards Science” [1991; rev. 7-9-04]

St. John Henry Cardinal Newman conversion story [1991; published in The Coming Home Newsletter, Nov/Dec 1996, 4-5; from book above]

“Cardinal Newman’s Importance and Influence” [1991]

G. K. Chesterton conversion story [1991; published in The Coming Home Newsletter, Sep/Oct 1996, 5-7; from book above]

Ronald Knox conversion story [1991; published in The Coming Home Newsletter, Jan/Feb 1997, 9; from book above]

Malcolm Muggeridge conversion story [1991; published in The Coming Home Newsletter, March/April 1997, 6-7; from book above]

“John Wesley’s Ecumenical Letter to Catholics in Dublin” [1991]

“The Origin and Historical Development of Sola Scriptura“ [1991]

“The Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass: ‘This is My Body'” [8 March 1992; two book chapters] [see complete Eucharist chapter: 1996 version] [see complete Sacrifice of the Mass chapter: 1996 version]

“The Orthodox vs. the Heterodox Luther” [July 1992; published as “The Real Martin Luther,” The Catholic Answer, Jan/Feb 1993, 32-37]

“Sola Scriptura: Is Christian Tradition Irrelevant?” [14 September 1992; book chapter] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]

“The Blessed Virgin Mary: ‘Hail Mary, Full of Grace'” [10 April 1993; book chapter] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]

“The Papacy and Infallibility: ‘The Keys of the Kingdom'” [16 September 1993; book chapter] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]
*

“Sola Fide: Is Luther’s Justification Justifiable?” [4 April 1994; book chapter] [see complete chapter: 1996 version]

“Penance, Purgatory, and Indulgences: ‘Saved As By Fire'” [21 April 1994; originally one, now two book chapters] [see complete Purgatory chapter: 1996 version] [see complete Penance chapter: 1996 version]
*

“Martin Luther’s Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary,” [26 April 1994; published in The Coming Home Journal, January-March 1998, 12-13]

“The Ecclesiological Credentials of Orthodoxy and Catholicism” [6 August 1994; later developed into two papers: Catholicism and Orthodoxy: A Comparison and A Response to Orthodox Critiques of Catholic Apostolicity, and published in similar form as “To Orthodox Critics of Catholic Apostolicity: Unity Still Sought,” The Catholic Answer, Nov/Dec 1997, 32-35, 38-39, 62]

“150 Reasons Why I Am a Catholic” [6 August 1994; revised 9-28-05]

“Tradition is Not a Dirty Word,” [Dec. 1994; published in Hands On Apologetics, Mar/April 1995, 30-32, 34; slightly revised on 8-16-16]

“50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy” [in book above; 1994; published as “The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs,” The Catholic Answer, Jan/Feb 1997, 32-35]

“Is Catholicism Christian?: My Debate With James White” [April/May 1995]

“Critique of Ankerberg and Weldon’s Protestants and Catholics: Do They Now Agree?“ [March, May, and August 1995]

“The Communion of Saints” [July 1995; published in The Catholic Answer (Nov / Dec 1998) ]

“The ‘Perspicuity’ (Clearness) of Scripture” [19 August 1995]

“Is Development of Doctrine a Corruption of Biblical Teaching?,” The Catholic Answer, Sep/Oct 1995, 8-11.

“Problems With the Proof Texts for ‘The Bible Alone,’ ” Hands On Apologetics, Nov/Dec 1995, 12-13, 34.

“A Fictional Dialogue on the Real Presence in the Eucharist” [1995]

“A Fictional Dialogue on Justification and Salvation” [1995]

“Catholic Marian Doctrines: A Brief Biblical Primer” [1995]

“A Fictional Dialogue on Penance” [1995]

“A Fictional Dialogue on Purgatory” [1995]

“Cloud of Witnesses: A Biblical Primer on the Communion of Saints” [1995]

“A Fictional Dialogue on Infant Baptism” [1995]

“A Fictional Dialogue on “Vain Repetition,” the Mass, and the Liturgy” [1995]

“An Open Letter to Anti-Catholics” [1995]

Cartoon tract (art by Dan Grajek): The Cloud of Witnesses [mid-1990s]

Cartoon tract (art by Dan Grajek): Mary: Do Catholics Have a Biblical View? [mid-1990s]

Cartoon tract (art by Dan Grajek): Joe Hardhat, the Quintessential Catholic: On Justification [mid-1990s]

***

(originally 1-5-11; greatly revised, with updated links on 2-19-21)

Photo credit: original self-published cover of my first book (2001). The book was completed in May 1996.

***

Summary: Documentation of my earliest forays into Catholic apologetics after 1990: including the original 1994 much longer (750-page) version of my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism.

Groundless Gospel of Mark Bashing Systematically Refuted

Last updated on: February 9, 2021 at 11:23 am By Dave Armstrong

I just finished yesterday an exhaustive (over 8,000-word) point-by-point refutation of a wholesale attack on the Gospel of Mark, written by atheist Steven Carr: Pearce’s Potshots #15: Gospel of Matthew vs. Gospel of Mark?. That piece was actually part of a longer diatribe, entitled The Gospel According to Saint Mark: written by another atheist: Vexen Crabtree in 2006. Now I will examine his piece, too, to see if it is any more worthy of belief than Carr’s relentlessly erroneous analysis. Vexen’s words will be in blue.

*****

This anonymous gospel was the first to be written, around 80 CE, by an unknown Roman convert to Christianity.

Many early Christian writers state that Mark (or John Mark) is the author. The most important “witness” is Papias, a bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (Turkey) until about 130 AD. His statement is recorded in in Eusebius’ History of the Church, written in 325:

14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. “This also the presbyter ⁹⁶⁰ said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. ⁹⁶¹For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, ⁹⁶² so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. (Book III, 39:15)

The “presbyter John” referred to may be the apostle John himself. If so, the identification of Mark as the author goes back (via oral transmission) to the first Christians. Other early witnesses to Mark’s authorship include Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 202), Clement of Alexandria (150-c. 215), Tertullian (c. 155-c. 240), and Origen (c. 184-c. 253). No one can be found in the early Church who dissents from this opinion of authorship.

That this Mark referred to by these early Christians is also the same as “(John) Mark” (mentioned in Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37; Col 4:10; Philem 24; 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Pet 5:13) is almost certain.

The author of Mark was not an eyewitnesses of Jesus, and wasn’t friends with any of the disciples nor any other witnesses who could have easily corrected many of his mistakes.

Papias states otherwise: that he drew from Peter, and we have no compelling reason to doubt his report.

The evidence is that (1) the author uses a lot of existing stories (both Hebrew and Greek) and wrote them into the text with Jesus as the centre of the story, instead of the original characters.

A common theme in atheist biblical skepticism is to simply assert these sorts of wild claims, while not presenting any evidence why anyone should accept them. Joe Blow atheist asserting x, y, z skeptical claims about supposed Gospel “fictions and fairy tales” — provided by no evidence whatsoever — has exactly no plausibility or ability to persuade any fair-minded, objective thinking person. Why should we believe them (even before getting into the question of the unreliability of “hostile witnesses”)? But the early Christian tradition is agreed that the author was Mark and that he drew from an eyewitness, Peter.

(2) He didn’t speak Aramaic (Jesus’ language)

How does he know this? The Gospel of Mark came down to us in Greek, but there is no proof that Mark didn’t speak Aramaic. Professor of New Testament Language Larry Hurtado wrote that “Mark has more Semitic words/expressions (mainly Aramaic) than any of the other Gospels.” As to whether Mark spoke Aramaic, see “Aramaic in Mark” by Dr. Benjamin Shaw (who earned a Th.M. from Princeton Theological Seminary, with an emphasis in biblical languages: Greek, Hebrew, Old Testament and Targumic Aramaic, as well as Ugaritic), 2021.

Ben Witherington in The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (pp. 18-9) documents a number of stylistic traits of Mark’s Gospel:

Historical present tense verbs

Repetition of phrases

Impersonal plural verb followed by a singular verb

First-person plural narrative

Parenthetical clarifications

γάρ–clauses

Anacoluthon

Paratactic καί

Aramaic phrases

Unusual words or constructions

Chreia

In sum, these traits point to an author who struggles to express himself in the language he is writing. . . . So the text itself suggests the author of Mark was, in fact, an Aramaic speaker. [source]

Kenneth Kuziej, in his article, “The Aramaic Logic of Jesus in Mark and Matthew,” Consensus: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 , Article 5 (1976) provides very helpful information:

Mark’s Greek is rough, strongly Aramaic, and not surprisingly, full of grammatical errors. At the same time, however, it is language which is lively and appealing, like that of an enthusiastic young immigrant. . . . Luke’s Gospel preserves no Aramaic words of Jesus. Neither does the Gospel of John, which, though accented with Aramaic, has such a simple vocabulary it almost seems as if this evangelist chooses not to make his work hard to understand for readers who understood no Aramaic.

The question is why did Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels preserve those Aramaic words and phrases of Jesus? It’s only a guess, but perhaps, like many people who are new to a language, when stumped, fall back on their native words. This almost could be the explanation for the word Mammon (loosely translated “money” but meaning all material things) and Raka (which is an obscure term of abuse loosely translated “you fool”).

and wrote in Greek, not Hebrew,

The manuscript came down to us in Greek. No one disagrees with that. So why mention it? But the evidence presented above strongly suggests that Greek was not his first language; Aramaic very likely was.

even having Jesus quote a Greek mistranslation of the Old Testament. . . .

All of his quotes from the Old Testament are from the faulty Septuagint translation, in Greek.

Catholic apologist Jason Evert explains the New Testament use of the Septuagint: Greek translation of the Old Testament:

Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).

For those who may not know, the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The common abbreviation for it—LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70—come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.

By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.

But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.

Some details such as what Jesus said in his personal prayers is made-up. . . .

How did Mark know what Jesus said in his private prayer in Mark 14:32-36? Jesus specifically goes out of his way to leave the disciples behind, taking only James, John and Peter with him. Then, he departs from them for such a distance that they are asleep by the time he returns – and this happens twice. The occasional academic is not afraid to voice the obvious truth: “So how did Mark know? He ‘knew’ because he made it up” – Price.

On what basis is this to be believed? It’s simply the usual irrational, hostile atheist skepticism. Jesus could have simply communicated what He was praying to Peter, who passed it on to Mark. The Bible doesn’t claim to be absolutely exhaustive, as to what Jesus taught His followers. Indeed, one long conversation in one evening by Jesus would contain far more words, by far, than all of His words recorded in Scripture. And that’s just one night. He was constantly with the disciples for three years, day and night. Mark 6:34 notes in one instance, even with the crowds, not just the disciples: “he began to teach them many things” (RSV, as throughout my reply) None of them are recorded. Mark 4:34 adds: “privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”

So some of this “everything” could have easily been what Jesus prayed. All Jesus had to do was tell Peter, “last night I prayed [so-and-so]” (maybe in response to the ever-zealous Peter asking Him) just as we have cases where He revealed what He prayed in Scripture: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32; spoken to Peter). Then Peter could tell Mark about one of these prayers, and that’s how Mark could have “known” about Jesus’ private prayers. It’s not rocket science to envision such a scenario. It’s absolutely not impossible.

He included multiple copies of the same story (but often with different details – evidence that he was using passed-on stories that had diverged over time). This often results in internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

Another bald claim. Mr. Crabtree has to provide more specifics, then the Christian can respond to the accusation (just as I did with Steven Carr’s hit-piece: systematically refuting every “anti-Mark” argument that he made). Christian apologists don’t have time to chase vague phantoms of anti-theist atheists’ unbridled imaginations.

The unfamiliarity with Jewish ways of life. There was no-one to correct his blunders such as misquoting the 10 commandments, attributing God’s words to Moses, and having Jews buy things on the Sabbath.

I thoroughly refuted all of these bogus charges last time, along with many others. They are born of rank ignorance, and it’s embarrassing to see how woefully inadequate and downright silly they are, once scrutinized.

Many of the Gospel of Mark’s mistakes were edited and corrections were attempted by Matthew and Luke when they made their own copies of Mark (together there are only about 30 verses that they didn’t copy).

Once again, specifics would have to be given, for me to reply. When such alleged “corrections” of Matthew were posited by Mr. Carr, I showed in every instance that they were groundless.

Because of its influence, some historians have argued that Mark’s text it the primary material that created the legend of Jesus: “Bruno Bauer believed Mark had invented Jesus, just as Mark Twain created Huck Finn”.

Saying that a real Jesus didn’t exist at all, or if He did, it was nothing like the Gospel portrayal, is intellectual suicide (hence, I spend little time with it, just as I rarely waste my time wrangling about a flat earth or a 10,000-year-old earth. See: Seidensticker Folly #4: Jesus Never Existed, Huh? [8-14-18]

Mr. Crabtree cites Robert M. Price stating about the time of Jesus: “there is no evidence for synagogues in Galilee.” Nonsense. The text Price was dealing with (Mark 3:1-5) was about an incident in Capernaum (see Mk 2:1 for the context regarding place). Capernaum had a synagogue. It’s located in Galilee on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. I visited it myself in 2014, and it was noted that the present one was built on top of an older one, whose foundation could still be seen at the bottom of the structure (much darker basalt rocks). Where do people like Price get off saying stupid things like this? A UNESCO page: “Early Synagogues in the Galilee” gives the real story:

The remains of as many as 50 different synagogues were identified in the Galilee, one of the most concentrated sites for synagogues in the world at that time. These early synagogues included Meron, Gush Halav, Navorin, Bar Am and Bet Alfa and Korazim, and Capernaum by the Sea of Galilee. The earliest synagogue remains in Palestine date to the late first century BCE, or by the early first century CE. By this time the synagogue was a developed central institution throughout the Jewish world.

Len Ritmeyer noted in his article, “The Synagogue of Capernaum in which Jesus taught” (3-15-18):

Digging deeper down in 1981, walls made of basalt stones and a basalt floor turned up 4 feet below the surface. These walls were located underneath the walls of the white synagogue and also under the stylobates (low walls that support a row of columns). It was initially thought that these walls were foundation walls, but when 1^st century material was found on and below the basalt floor, it became evident that these basalt walls belonged to a synagogue of the 1^st century, i.e, the synagogue in which Jesus taught.

Some of the trenches have been left open and the remains of this early synagogue can be seen today. [the article has a photo of that]

The Times of Israel reported on 8-19-16 about another synagogue in Galilee from Jesus’ time, that He very well may have visited:

Israeli archaeologists in northern Israel have uncovered the ruins of a rural synagogue that dates back some 2,000 years.

The remains of the synagogue were found during an archaeological dig at Tel Rekhesh, near Mount Tabor in the lower Galilee, in what was an ancient Jewish village.

The find could lend weight to the New Testament narrative that Jesus visited villages in the area to preach.

Mordechai Aviam, an archaeologist at Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee who led the dig, estimated the synagogue was built between 20-40 AD and was used for a hundred years. . . .

“The site is 17 km (10 miles) as crow flies east of Nazareth, and 12 km from Nin (Naim), and although we don’t have its name in the New Testament, it is in the area in which Jesus acted,” said Aviam.

Mark 1:30 And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues . . .

Mark 6:6 And he went about among the villages teaching. [i.e., “villages” near Nazareth: see 6:1]

I could easily find more about this, but these counter-examples suffice. So goes “bust” another atheist myth: disproven by archaeology and historiography . . .

We have seen already that Mark was not known as a Gospel of ‘Mark’ for over a hundred years.

That’s of no relevance. All that matters is whether there were reliable oral traditions, based ultimately on eyewitness testimony. These eventually made their way into the written accounts.

When Christians came to name the Gospels, they picked ‘Mark’, who they thought should be a disciple of Peter, who in Greek mythology was associated with the Egyptian god Petra, the gate guardian of Heaven. Nowadays, Christians nowadays consider ‘Peter’ to be a genuine historical person, but it seems that even if he was real, Mark didn’t know him.

This is simply groundless, arbitrary, downright stupid speculation from atheists: as usual backed up with nothing substantial at all, let alone scholarly. Readers can see, on the other hand, how my replies consistently have scholarly backing. Mr. Crabtree is ridiculous enough to start doubting the historicity of Peter as well.

Peter certainly could have corrected any of Mark’s errors in Jewish knowledge, and it is ludicrous to assume that Mark wrote this text without showing Peter (or any other Jew).

Again, I think I disposed of many of the supposed examples of Mark’s “lack of Jewishness” in my previous reply along these lines. I flatly deny the premise.

It is clear that Mark didn’t know any Jews.

This is an extraordinary claim. What’s the evidence for it?

All three other gospels refer to Peter (Matthew 16:17-20, Luke 22:28-32 and John 21:15-17) and give him authority, whereas Mark doesn’t.

Mark mentions “Peter” 19 times. Matthew mentions him 23 times, with 12 more chapters to do so. So, proportionately, Mark has more emphasis on Peter. Luke mentions him 18 times, with eight more chapters than Mark. But then we have to add the use also of “Simon”: his earlier name. That’s ten more times in Mark for a total of references to Peter of 29 times. Matthew adds five more references with “Simon” for 28 total. Luke adds 14, for a total of 32. So the grand totals are:

Mark: 29 in 15 chapters (average of 1.9 times per chapter).

Matthew: 28 in 28 chapters (average of one time per chapter).

Luke: 32 in 24 chapters (average of 1.3 times per chapter).

So Mark mentions Peter (“Peter” or “Simon”) almost twice as much per chapter as Matthew does and almost three times to every two times that Luke does. That’s hardly an underemphasis on Peter.

Moreover, Mark shows him as preeminent, just as the others do, by showing that he is the most mentioned of the disciples and their leader. Peter’s name invariably occurs first in all lists of apostles, including in Mark (3:16). Mark implies that he is the leader, in citing an angel stating, “tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee” (16:7). Singling him out in such a way, over against the rest of the disciples, is clearly expressing his leadership. This occurs again in Mark 1:36 (“And Simon and those who were with him pursued him,”). He’s a spokesman for the other disciples (Mk 8:29). He’s listed first of the “inner circle” of disciples: Peter, James, and John (Mk 5:37; 14:37). He’s the central figure in dramatic stories: for instance, Jesus walking on the water (Mk 10:28).

I think Mark knew Peter was not real; but merely a piece of Roman mythology used symbolically in a way all Romans would have understood. Later authors (such as the Jewish author of the Gospel of Matthew), who copied Mark’s text, did not know this, therefore they elevated him.

This is just manifestly ridiculous, and not worthy of any attention. It’s self-refuting.

Sandals and Staff: Jesus sends his disciples out to preach, but in Mark [6:8-9] they are told to wear sandals (contradicting Matthew [10:9-10] ), and are told to take a staff (contradicting Luke [9:3]). Only one of these three authors could have really been there (if any).

At least this appears at first glance to be a real contradiction (unlike virtually all atheist proposed ones I’ve ever seen: and I’ve dealt with several hundred). So it deserves a serious treatment. Protestant apologists Eric Lyons and Brad Harrub (on a site that specializes in alleged biblical contradictions) grant the difficulty of interpreting these passages harmoniously in writing that they were “Perhaps the most difficult alleged Bible contradiction that we have been asked to ‘tackle’ . . . A cursory reading of the above passages admittedly is somewhat confusing.” Then they proceed to explain the apparent discrepancies:

The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verbs to express different meanings. In Matthew, the word “provide” (NKJV) is an English translation of the Greek word ktesthe. According to Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon, the root word comes from ktaomai, which means to “procure for oneself, acquire, get” (1979, p. 455). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb “acquire” in Matthew 10:9 (“Do not acquire….”), instead of “provide” or “take.” In Matthew, Jesus is saying: “Do not acquire anything in addition to what you already have that may tempt you or stand in your way. Just go as you are.” As Mark indicated, the apostles were to “take” (airo) what they had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies (extra apparel, staffs, shoes, etc.) or making preparations for their trip, but instead were instructed to trust in God’s providence for additional needs. Jesus did not mean for the apostles to discard the staffs and sandals they already had; rather, they were not to go and acquire more.

They continue by tackling the additional information from Luke:

As is obvious from a comparison of the verses in Matthew and Luke, they are recording the same truth—that the apostles were not to spend valuable time gathering extra staffs—only they are using different words to do so.

“Provide (Greek ktaomi) neither gold nor silver…nor staffs” (Matthew 10:9-10, emp. added).

“Take (Greek airo) nothing for the journey, neither staffs” (Luke 9:3, emp. added).

Luke did not use ktaomi in his account because he nearly always used ktaomi in a different sense than Matthew did. In Matthew’s account, the word ktaomai is used to mean “provide” or “acquire,” whereas in the books of Luke and Acts, Luke used this word to mean “purchase, buy, or earn.” Notice the following examples of how Luke used this word.

“I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get” (ktaomai) [Luke 18:12, emp. added, NAS]

“Now this man purchased (ktaomai) a field with the wages of iniquity (Acts 1:18, emp. added).

“Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased (ktaomai) with money!” (Acts 8:20, emp. added).

The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained (ktaomai) this citizenship” (Acts 22:28, emp. added).

*

[Luke 21:19 is the only place one could argue where Luke may have used ktaomai to mean something other than “purchase, buy, or earn,” but even here there is a transactional notion in it (Miller, 1997)].When Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14), used the word ktaomai, he meant something different than when Matthew, the tax collector, used the same word. Whereas Luke used ktaomai to refer to purchasing or buying something, Matthew used the Greek verb agorazo (cf. Matthew 14:15; 25:9-10; 27:6-7). Matthew used ktaomai only in the sense of acquiring something (not purchasing something). As such, it would make absolutely no sense for Luke to use ktaomai in his account of Jesus sending out the apostles (9:3). If he did, then he would have Jesus forbidding the apostles to “purchase” or “buy” money [“Buy nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money….”]. Thus, Luke used the more general Greek verb (airo) in order to convey the same idea that Matthew did when using the Greek verb ktaomai.

Just as ktaomai did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew, the Greek word airo (translated “take” in both Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3) often did not mean the same for Luke and Mark (see Miller, 1997). [Understanding this simple fact eliminates the “contradiction” completely, for unless the skeptic can be certain that Mark and Luke were using the word in the same sense, he cannot prove that the accounts contradict each other.] Mark consistently used airo in other passages throughout his gospel to mean simply “take” or “pick up and carry” (2:9; 6:29; 11:23; 13:16). That Luke (in 9:3) did not mean the same sense of airo as Mark did (in 6:8) is suggested by the fact that in Luke 19:21-22 he used this same verb to mean “acquire.” [see also the visual chart in the article that is very helpful]

Now, the anti-theist atheists (who love bringing up things like this) typically respond that “well, see how hard you had to work to solve the contradiction?! It shouldn’t have to be that hard!” We agree that it shouldn’t be so hard, if one understood Greek in the first place. But for those of us who don’t know Greek, it appears contradictory, because the difference hinges upon different Greek words and even different meanings of the same Greek words (in context): just as English words usually have several definitions.

Therefore, it takes a considerable bit of explaining to clarify for the non-Greek speaker. Once that key difference is understood, the so-called “contradiction” is shown to not be one at all, because the writers are using different Greek words and meaning different things. And there are many alleged “biblical contradictions” that are resolved in this same fashion.

Making Up Details on How Many Were Fed: The scribes who put together the Gospel of Mark included two versions of the same story of Jesus feeding crowds of people with only a small number of loaves of bread and fish. The two copies are at Mark 6:32-44 and Mark 8:1-10. “They are essentially the same in every detail except the precise numbers of people present and food left over. Such figures are, of course, the easiest details to lose and confuse” as the stories were passed on from person to person. This is more proof that Mark wasn’t an eye-witness (or even close to one).

This is untrue, and easily shown to be so. The two events took place in two entirely different locations, as the text states. The feeding of the 5,000 was near Bethsaida, which was on the north side of the Sea of Galilee (Mk 6:45; cf. Lk 9:10-17). The feeding of the 4,000, however, was a completely different story that occurred in a different place, as opposed to the fairy-tale of “essentially the same in every detail except the precise numbers of people present and food left over“ that the foolish skeptic Robert Price invented, and Mr. Crabtree accepts uncritically.

It occurred in “the region of the Decapolis” (Mk 7:31), which was east of the Sea of Galilee, and included the town of Hippos, which was literally on a hill overlooking it. Immediately after the miracle, Jesus “immediately . . . got into the boat with his disciples, and went to the district of Dalmanu’tha” (Mk 8:10). Matthew 15:39, the parallel verse, states: “he got into the boat and went to the region of Mag’adan.” That would have been directly across the Sea of Galilee, and some archaeologists believe that Dalmanutha has been found, very close to Magadan, or Magdala, as I recently wrote about at length. There is evidence that the place where the feeding of the 4,000 occurred was near the archaeological site of Kursi. In any event, it’s clearly an entirely different place being described in the two feedings.

The two copies certainly do not represent two different events, as the disciples are surprised all-over-again in the second copy.

The disciples were continually surprised by any miracle Jesus did. This is a more-or-less common theme in every Gospel story of a miracle. They lacked faith and thought “carnally’ as Christians say, because they didn’t yet have the grace of the Holy Spirit dwelling with them (that came after Jesus’ death on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

It seems that the story didn’t start out as a story about Jesus anyway, as it looks like a Greek rewrite of 2 Kings 4:42-44, where Elisha also multiplies food.

Similarity to something else doesn’t prove that the second event is merely fictitious.

Mark 7’s Long Story About Unclean Food Practices Contradicts Book of Acts. Mark 7 has Jesus teach the disciples at length that the Jewish laws on food go too far. The obsession with washing hands before eating, and many other precise rules and regulations about cleanliness and uncleanliness, are not actually important. And yet, in Acts 10:14, the Disciples have forgotten the entire thing. Mark might have made-up these stories or (more likely) copied them from stories about other prophets, and rewritten them as with Jesus at their centre instead.

I dealt with this last time too:

Jesus indeed declared the principle that Peter would later publicly declare (after receiving a revelation) that all foods were clean (Acts 10:9-16): a thing shortly afterwards codified at the Jerusalem Council as applicable to all Gentile Christians (Acts 15:19-20). The difference is that Jesus did it only with His disciples (Mark 7:17-23). He wasn’t Himself proclaiming “all foods clean” in so many words (let alone publicly). He simply taught the principle underlying that thought, and Mark made his “theological” comment about it.

I would add now that the disciples didn’t (as far as the text informs us) hear Jesus specifically say in this incident recorded by Mark: “all foods are clean.” It was simply the narrator (Mark) making note of the broader point Jesus had made, summarizing it as “Thus he declared all foods clean.” This would explain why Peter was surprised to hear it more explicitly taught, in Acts 10:14. He was probably unaware that what Jesus had said in the earlier incident had the implication of changing Jewish food laws. So there is no contradiction here.

Galilee or Judea? The gospels describe where Jesus taught. Mark contradicts both Luke’s and John’s accounts:

The different Gospels simply emphasize different things and omit some things others include. There is no inexorable contradictions here. Harmonies of the Gospels (here’s an online version by A. T. Robertson) show how a non-contradictory scenario can be constructed of all of Jesus’ journeys.

Mark contradicts Luke and John on the issue of how Jesus was sentenced:

“According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus was both tried and sentenced by the Jewish priests of the Sanhedrin. Luke has it that Jesus was [not] sentenced by them. Yet according to John, Jesus does not appear before the Sanhedrin at all.” [“The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999) ]

The ultimate sentence of crucifixion could not have been made by the Jews in any event. Only the Romans could put a man to death in that place at that time (see Jn 18:31). So Matthew records that the Sanhedrin concluded that Jesus “deserves death” (26:66), but they couldn’t sentence him. That’s why they had to send him to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate (Mt 27:1-2), who “delivered him to be crucified” (27:26). So Freke and Gandy are dead wrong in their assessment of what Matthew taught in this regard. The story in Mark is precisely the same. The Sanhedrin unanimously “condemned him as deserving death” (14:64), sent him to Pilate (15:1), who alone could sentence Him, and Pilate “delivered him to be crucified” (15:15). So the “interpretation” (to be charitable) above is dead wrong again.

Luke is no different. The Sanhedrin judged Him (as supposedly a blasphemer) in effect by saying, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips” (22:71). They “brought him before Pilate” (23:1), and we see them still trying to get Him killed (23:2, 5, 10, 14, 18, 21, 23). But Pilate decided (23:24-25). No essential difference whatsoever, and no contradiction. So the atheists, undaunted, and unconcerned with mere reason and never dissuaded from their aim of tearing down the Bible, simply move on to the Gospel of John, in their never-ending mocking crusade to find yet another biblical “contradiction.” What do we find there?

John reports that Jesus was first questioned by Annas: “the father-in-law of Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year” (Jn 18:13), who “questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching ” (Jn 18:19). Annas “Annas then sent him bound to Ca’iaphas the high priest” (18:24). Then “they [implied: the Sanhedrin] led Jesus from the house of Ca’iaphas to the praetorium [where Pilate was]” (18:28). And “They answered him, “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over” (18:30). Note that Caiaphas was present at the judgment and “monkey trial” of the Sanhedrin, as indicated by Matthew 26:57, 62, Mark (not named, but mentioned as the “high priest”: 14:53-54, 60, 63, 66), and Luke (“high priest”: 22:54).

So it’s all the same overall story, told by four storytellers, with the expected differences in detail and emphases that we would expect in any four different accounts of the same incident. Matthew and John refer directly to Caiphas the high priest as being involved (Matthew mentions also the assembly, whereas John doesn’t (directly), but still indicates their presence by the two uses of “they” in describing the Jewish leaders leading Jesus to Pilate. Mark and Luke don’t name him, but note that the “high priest” was involved, which is no contradiction.

So we see that Freke and Gandy have misrepresented the nature of all four Gospels in this regard. It’s nothing new, folks. It happens all the time, and I am demonstrating it over and over in this paper. Atheists don’t care what the biblical accounts state, because they think they are a pack of lies written by liars and propagandists, and they approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. There’s no rhyme or reason in any of it; only irrational hostility: which alone can explain how they can consistently be factually and logically wrong, every time.

This is my fourth lengthy paper in the last seven days (links: one, two, three), exhaustively demonstrating that they get everything wrong when they attempt to do biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. Their efforts may look mighty impressive and convincing at first: until a biblical scholar or apologist like myself (who specializes in dealing with anti-theist / anti-biblical polemics) examines what they write and provides another side.

The gospel of Mark does not describe the history of Jesus or his virgin birth.

It doesn’t have to. Mark simply decided to start the story with John the Baptist, whom the Old Testament predicted (as a prototype of Elijah) as the forerunner of the Messiah. In other words, Mark presents the story as most people at that place and time would have witnessed or experienced it: Jesus suddenly appearing out of nowhere at His baptism and commencing His three-year ministry.

These parts of the New Testament’s stories were added by Matthew, 30 years later, who assimilated other myths into the legends.

It’s simply an atheist fairy-tale, with no basis. If they want to make ludicrous claims like this, the burden of proof is on them. But they have nothing. It’s just wild skeptical speculation.

“The accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke contradict each other, even on the parts of Christian mythology which Christians consider to be the most important: The crucifixion and resurrection. They give different sets of final words, confusingly different accounts of the empty tomb (one of them including an earthquake), and wildly different accounts of the resurrection. They’re all making it up!” [“The Crucifixion Facade” by Vexen Crabtree (2002) ]

The final words of Jesus on the cross are completely harmonious and non-contradictory, as A. T. Robertson shows in his Harmony and as many others have demonstrated. It’s not difficult to synthesize them. It just take s a little work on the chronology.

I just demonstrated in two lengthy papers that all the accusations about contradictory accounts of the empty tomb and Jesus’ resurrection are bogus and a bunch of hot air.

Mr. Crabtree then tries to establish a contradiction between Matthew 20:29-34, where it is said that Jesus healed two blind men, and Mark 10:46-52, where He is said to heal one. Gleason Archer in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1982, p. 333) wrote:

Matthew was concerned to mention all who were involved in this episode . . . Matthew is content to record that actual scene of healing, whereas Luke gives particular attention to the entire proceedings, from the moment that Bartimaeus first heard about Jesus’ arrival — a feature only cursorily suggested by Mark 10:46 — because he is interested in the beggar’s persistence in request before the cure was actually performed on him. As for the second blind beggar, neither Mark nor Luke find him significant enough to mention; presumably he was the more colorless personality of the two.

No contradiction; no problem at all. Mark and Luke decide to focus on one blind man, whereas Matthew mentions a second as well. So what?

Mr. Crabtree produced a few more challenges, but I replied to 95% of his paper, and I am out of both energy and patience with tomfoolery at this point, having worked on this all day, so I will leave it here.

***

Photo credit: Saint Mark (1450), by Andrea Mantegna (1431-1506) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Steve Skojec’s De Facto Schism is Complete: By His Own Report

Last updated on: January 11, 2021 at 8:30 pm By Dave Armstrong

All of the following verbal diarrhea took place on his Twitter page, on 1-11-21:

*****

Steve Skojec says that he doesn’t “profess the same faith as Francis” and that if a Catholic must profess the same faith as the supreme head of the Church, then, by golly, he’s “not in communion with him.” And he’s not because the pope is not “in communion with the Church.”

He thinks the pope is “a heretic.”

He pontificates that the pope “doesn’t adhere to the same religious beliefs” that Catholics have and is “arguably not really Catholic.” And he expresses this rotgut even while knowing full well that “The Church says things like this can’t happen.” Yet they do, anyway. Yeah, I can’t figure it out, either. Maybe I should stop trying . . .

He complains that we poor, put-upon Catholics are burdened by having to believe in the quaint doctrine of the indefectibility of Church and pope “rather than our eyes and minds.” At least he has wits enough to acknowledge that this is “a problem.”

He believes it’s so bad in the One True Church established by Christ by His commissio0ning of St. Peter as pope that “everything that matters” has “changed. “

He is frustrated in not being “allowed to think” that indefectibility is not a true and required doctrine for all Catholics to adhere to.

He’s starting to seriously question the old-fashioned notion that “the Church can’t be wrong” in its proclaimed doctrines.

* * * * * * * *

You heard it here first, folks (and in many previous posts of mine about Skojec and his dangerous foolishness). I’ve seen this outcome for at least two years now. He’s headed for SSPX or sedevacantism or Anglicanism. He can’t survive with this extreme amount of internal contradiction and cognitive dissonance.

Yes, the Church requires belief in indefectibility of the Church and the pope (for the latter, see Vatican I, “Pastor aeternus”). He clearly doesn’t believe in either. He has outright stated it as regards the pope and Vatican II, and is just a hair away from saying it about the Church as well.

Radical Catholic reactionaries like Skojec are always on the edge of denying ecclesial indefectibility (I have noted this for over 20 years).

Steve Skojec: Mini-Pope & Oracle of Doom & Despair [4-20-20]

Apocalypse! Steve Skojec’s Pontifications vs. Vatican II [4-22-20]

Pseudo-Pope Skojo III Rebukes Real Pope Benedict XVI [5-9-20]

Pope Francis vs. the Gospel? Outrageous & Absurd Lies! (Anti-Catholic Protestant James White and Catholic Reactionary Steve Skojec Echo Each Other’s Gigantic Whoppers) [5-26-20]

Steve Skojec vs. Pope Francis: “Evil, the Devil’s Own, Deceiver, Destroyer, Monster, Heretic, Blasphemer, the Enemy Within, Bad Man, Hypocrite, Attacker of the Faithful, Pretender, Insincere, Unconverted” [6-23-20]

Pope Francis Accusers Reject Magisterial Teaching on Popes (The pope’s teaching is indefectible and cannot be judged or “overruled” by any man: or even an ecumenical council) [7-23-20]
*

Pastor Aeternus (1870): Can a Pope Ever Make Heresy Binding? (Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Ron Conte; edited by Dave Armstrong, in Response to Timothy Flanders) [12-1-20]

Indefectibility of Holy Mother Church: Believe It Or Not [2002]

Quasi-Defectibility and Phil Lawler vs. Pope Francis (see also more documentation of Lawler’s reactionary leanings, on the Facebook thread) [12-28-17]

*
***

Photo credit: roegger (12-2-14) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Christmas: Theological (Reformed / Calvinist) Opposition

Last updated on: December 16, 2020 at 12:59 pm By Dave Armstrong

. . . With My Biblical and Historical Refutations

I have always been fascinated and revolted by this sort of thinking, which is simultaneously so unbiblical and anti-historical in nature, whereas ironically the same opponents of Christmas have viewed themselves as exceptionally “biblical” and “Christian” in a way that we lowly, pagan Christmas celebrants allegedly are not. Much of this thinking was at root, anti-Catholic as well, or even anti-Anglican or anti-Lutheran (anti- any Christians group other than extreme Calvinism / Puritanism).

There was also a strain of opposition that made perfect sense from a Christian and biblical perspective: in cases where the celebration of Christmas had become truly raucous, drunken, and even sexualized, and had little or nothing to do with the true meaning of Christmas (sort of like what New Year’s Eve has become). I’m not interested in documenting that because I agree with it. Nor do I have any interest in purely personal / emotional Scrooge-like opposition.

I deal here with purely theological opposition. It’s good and worthwhile to address such a topic as an apologist, even though this fringe view is held today by a miniscule number of Christians. Sources are listed at the end by number, so they can be referred to for each excerpt. All citations will be indented. I have removed the over-abundance of bolding.

*****

I. Antipathy to Holy Days

The regulative principle of worship has clear implications for those who want to promote the celebration of Christmas. The Regulative Principle forces those who celebrate Christmas to prove from Scripture that God has authorized the celebrating of such a day. This, in fact, is impossible. [2]

The reason that Christmas became a church holy day has nothing to do with the Bible. [2]

[C]oncerning festival days findeth that in the explication of the first head of the first book of discipline it was thought good that the feasts of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, with the feasts of the Apostles, Martyrs, and Virgin Mary be utterly abolished because they are neither commanded nor warranted by Scripture and that such as observe them be punished by Civil Magistrates. Here utter abolition is craved and not reformation of abuses only and that because the observation of such feasts have no warrant from the word of God. [5]

I would to God that every holy day whatsoever besides the Lord’s day were abolished. [7]

The Bible teaches both about holy days and the veneration of saints, including certainly a much-higher worship and adoration of our Lord Jesus (which I need not even defend):

Biblical Evidences and Arguments Regarding Holy Days [9-21-09]

The Imitation of St. Paul & the Veneration of Saints [2004]

Bible on Veneration of Saints & Angels: John Calvin’s Antipathy to Veneration of Saints and Angels vs. Explicit Biblical Evidences of Same [10-1-12]

Biblical Evidence for Veneration of Saints [2013]

Bible on the Veneration of Angels & Men [9-10-15]

Veneration of Human Beings: Seven Biblical Examples (Apostles Paul and Silas, Kings David and Saul, Prophets Daniel and Samuel, Patriarch Joseph) [3-4-19]

Angel Gabriel’s “Hail” (Lk 1:28): Veneration of Mary? [3-8-19]

II. Supposed Late Historical Arrival and Purely Pagan Origin (Saturnalia and Sol Invictus)

[T]he day was first set apart for this purpose by the authority of the bishop at Rome, toward the close of the fourth century, or early in the fifth. [3]

It is also noted that Scripture never commands the celebration of this day and that there is no evidence that Christ and the Apostles ever celebrated this day — in fact, this sycretism of paganism and “Babylonian” Christianity was not first celebrated until 354 A.D. (when December 25 was chosen, in accord with the Pagan feast of Saturnalia, as the day of “celebration”). [6]

Not true: we have records of Christian celebrations of Christmas on December 25th, from Pope St. Telesphorus (c. 125-136), the seventh bishop of Rome, St. Theophilus (AD 115-181), bishop of Caesarea, and St. Hippolytus (170-240). The Roman feast of Saturnalia was celebrated from December 17-23, not the 25th. Sol Invictus was instituted by the Roman emperor Aurelian on Christmas Day, 274 AD, 138-149 years after Christians are documented to have celebrated Christmas on December 25th. The first historical evidence of the Christian Church “Christianizing” pagan festivals is in a letter of Pope St. Gregory the Great from 601 AD. The first suggestion that the date of Christmas was deliberately determined to be the same as pagan feasts occurred in the 12th century AD in a marginal note in the writings of the Syriac bishop Dionysius bar-Salibi.

III. Supposedly Ignorant and Non-Biblical Determination of the Date of Jesus’ Birth

The truth is, the day of Christ’s nativity has been irrecoverably lost. Had this date been designed for special religious veneration, its date would have been preserved in the Holy Record, and a divine command given for its proper observance. The absence both of the date and command, makes it as clear to us as a sunbeam, that the natal day of our Saviour, even were it known, should not be honored by any religious observance whatsoever. [4]

The Bible does not give the date of Christ’s birth. [2]

Moreover, who knows when, in what month, He was born? The Bible is silent thereon. [10]

This is manifestly and demonstrably false. The Bible states that Jesus was six months younger than John the Baptist (Lk 1:36). So all we need to know is the date of the conception of John, which was revealed to his father Zechariah by the archangel Gabriel (Lk 1:5-24). Zechariah was a priest from the class of Abijah (Lk 1:5). These classes served for a week in the temple, two times a year (see 1 Chr 24:10; cf. 24:1-19). German Catholic theologian Josef Heinrich Friedlieb (1810-1900) documented that Zechariah’s class would have been serving in the temple in the second week of the Jewish month Tishri (late September). That was simply an inquiry directly stimulated or inspired by the biblical information.

While thus serving, the Archangel Gabriel revealed to Zechariah that his wife Elizabeth was to bear a son (Lk 1:5-24). That means that John the Baptist was conceived in late September, with his birth arriving at the end of June, 3 BC. Thus, the Church celebrates the Nativity of St. John the Baptist on June 24th. These dates aren’t just pulled out of hats with rabbits, too. Since Scripture tells us that Jesus was six months younger, then he was conceived in late March and born c. 25 December. Therefore, we do know at least the month and approximate date from Holy Scripture.

We don’t need an express command to “worship Jesus on his birthday.” The Bible never states that it must give explicit indications of everything we are permitted to believe. God expects us to use our brains and reason. But since holy days are quite biblical (derived from the Jewish feasts and also the Sabbath and Sunday as the Lord’s day), all we need is permission to worship Jesus, which is certainly in the Bible:

Matthew 14:33 (RSV) And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (cf. 2:2; 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20)

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. (cf. 28:17; Mk 5:6; Lk 24:52; Jn 5:23; 9:38)

Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, [10] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (cf. 7:26; Acts 2:33; 5:31; Rev 5:11-14; 7:9-12)

IV. Is it Wrong to Celebrate and “Make Merry” About the Birth of Jesus and God Becoming Man? No! Clear Biblical Models

[T]he natal day of our Saviour, even were it known, should not be honored by any religious observance whatsoever. [4]

Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to celebrate Christmas. [2]

But, says someone, Christmas is the time when we commemorate the Savior’s birth. It is? And WHO authorized such commemoration? Certainly God did not. The Redeemer bade His disciples “remember” Him in His death, but there is not a word in scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, which tells us to celebrate His birth. . . . It is without reason that the only “birthday” commemorations mentioned in God’s Word are Pharaoh’s (Gen. 40:20) and Herod’s (Matt. 14:6)? . . . State plainly that you have been brought to see that “Christmas merrymaking” is entirely a thing OF THE WORLD, devoid of any Scriptural warrant; that it is a Romish institution, and now that you see this, you dare no longer have any fellowship with it (Eph. 5:11) [10]

How are we taught to act with regard to Jesus’ birth and Christmas, according to Scriptural models? We do definitely have those. An angel of the Lord told the shepherds in the field near Bethlehem: “I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Lk 2:10-11). Then a “multitude” of angels were “praising God and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest'” because of the birth of Jesus (Lk 2:13-14). The shepherds, after finding Jesus and worshiping Him, were “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them” (Lk 2:20). Likewise, the wise men, along with their worship, “rejoiced exceedingly with great joy” (Mt 2:10).

Se we see all of that: showing how both angels and men reacted to the birth of Jesus, but now the oh-so-pious Calvinists (well, an extreme fringe of them) want to come and tell us that it’s wrong and unbiblical and immoral — against God’s will — to celebrate the birth of Jesus our Lord and Savior and Redeemer? It’s not only ridiculous in the highest degree, but wicked and blasphemous to believe such a thing. These are natural human emotions, and we can and should express them on holidays, with celebrations and happiness and joy and merriment. This is how King David acted before the ark of the covenant, which contained God’s special presence:

2 Samuel 6:5, 14-16, 21 And David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the LORD with all their might, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. . . . [14] And David danced before the LORD with all his might; . . . [15] So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn. [16] . . . King David leaping and dancing before the LORD . . . [21] And David said to Michal, “. . . I will make merry before the LORD.”

How much more do we and should we show joy and “make merry” and dance and play music to celebrate God becoming man? If we can’t be joyful and demonstrative about that (the Good News!), then we should about nothing at all.

V. Christmas Trees as Idols

“Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. ” (Jer. 10:2-4). [1]

See:

Christmas Trees as Idols?: Silly Biblical “Arguments” [12-12-10]

VI. Antipathy to Celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass on Christmas, as Indicated by its Name / Supposed Idolatry

The word Christ-mass is enough to cause such as are studious of reformation to dislike what shall be known by a name so superstitious. Why should Protestants own any thing which has the name of Mass in it? How unsuitable is it to join Christ and Mass together? i.e., Christ and Antichrist. But what Communion has light with Darkness, and what concord hath Christ with Belial? [8]

By communicating with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we ourselves become guilty of idolatry; even as Ahaz, 2 Kings 16:10, was an idolater, eo ipso, that he took the pattern of an altar from idolaters. [9]

See:

Sacrifice of the Mass: A Biblical Overview [1994]

Is the Mass Equivalent to OT Golden Calf Worship? [1996]

Why Transubstantiation Isn’t Idolatry At All [11-22-96]

Sacrifice of the Mass & Hebrews 8 (vs. James White) [3-31-04]

Dialogue: Is the Mass Similar to Jeroboam’s Idolatry? [8-7-04]

Catholic Mass: Can’t Possibly be Idolatrous [12-15-08]

Passover in Judaism & a Mass that Transcends Time (“Past Events Become Present Today”/ Survey of “Remember” in Scripture) [7-7-09]

The Timeless Crucifixion & the Sacrifice of the Mass [9-25-09]

Sacrifice of the Mass and NT Altars (vs. Calvin #49) [12-9-09]

Anti-Catholics & Alleged Catholic Idol-Worship at Mass [4-11-11]

Mass: Re-Sacrifice? (vs. Lutheran Pastor Ken Howes) [4-2-12]

Biblical Idolatry: Authentic & Counterfeit Conceptions [2015]

Biblical Evidence for the Continuation of Priests as an Office [9-13-15]

St. Paul Was a Priest [9-15-15]

Luther Espoused Eucharistic Adoration [9-17-15]

Catholic Mass: “Re-Sacrifice” of Jesus? [11-19-15]

Newsflash!: Catholicism Utterly Opposes Idolatry, Too [1-18-17]

Eucharistic Adoration: Explicit & Undeniable Biblical Analogies [2-1-19]

VII. No Worship or Christian Celebration That Isn’t Explicitly Sanctioned and Mentioned in Scripture is Permitted?

The scriptures, both by precept and example, forbid the use of any form of worship which is not ordained by God. Since Christmas has no biblical warrant, it should be rejected, even if there were no other reason to question it. [11]

Well, it does in fact have quite a bit of biblical warrant and indication, as shown in sections I, II, and IV above. But why does anyone think that the Bible teaches that everything must be explicit in the Bible to be believed by Christians in the first place? This is itself an unbiblical doctrine. I wrote in my article, “Explicit” Bible Proofs and Protestant Double Standards (2-12-16):

[T]he New Testament never mentions an “altar call”. It never has the typical “sinner’s prayer” of evangelicals. It doesn’t mention church buildings. It never uses the word “Trinity.” It never uses the frequently mentioned evangelical terminology of “personal relationship with Jesus.” It never lists its own books (the biblical canon comes from the authority and proclamations of the Catholic Church and tradition). It never teaches sola Scriptura, or the concept that the Bible is the only infallible source of authority. Yet –oddly enough and passing strange — this is one of the very “pillars” of the Protestant worldview.

Other beliefs or practices not explicitly mentioned in the Bible are Bible studies, separating young people during church services, and grape juice as an element to be consecrated for communion (rather than wine), “asking Jesus into one’s heart,” a “body of believers,” Scripture interpreting Scripture (the more clear helping to understand the less clear), agreeing on “essential” or “primary” doctrines and permitted relativism regarding “non-essential” or “secondary” doctrines, denominations (vs. the biblical “one Church”). Of course, this very idea that one must find explicit biblical proof for every doctrine or it can’t / mustn’t be believed (even with high selectivity or rank inconsistency) is not found in the Bible anywhere, either. It’s (irony of all ironies!) a mere tradition of men.

Some popular Protestant (and also often Catholic) words or phrases that do not appear in the Bible are rapture, invisible church, incarnation, virgin birth, holy communion, Lord’s prayer, Bible, original sin, fall of man, theology, go[ing] to church, grace alone, [total] depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, spirituality, Scripture alone, pray for guidance, pray for direction, spiritual warfare, and sin nature. Faith alone only appears once:

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Protestants manage to believe all these things (or use these words) with no problem whatever. Why? Or, more specifically, why do they believe these things, which are absent from or non-explicit in the Bible, while giving Catholics misery for similar things, or else doctrines and practices with far more indication of various sorts than the things above, that Protestants accept? Why the double standard?

VIII. The Evil of Manger Scenes, Which Foster Idolatry?

Moreover, during the Christmas season numerous manger scenes and religious images are erected in public places, church buildings and homes. This multiplication of graven images is a blatant violation of the second commandment, which explicitly forbids making or using any pictorial representations of God. The second commandment prohibits the making of any images of God, including “pictures of Christ” in the manger. [11]

This is sheer nonsense. In fact, images of God Himself appear many times in Scripture, even in conjunction with worship, and crucifixes are in effect sanctioned:

Veneration of Images, Iconoclasm, and Idolatry (An Exposition) [11-15-02]

Martin Luther on Crucifixes, Images and Statues of Saints, and the Sign of the Cross [4-15-08]

Dialogue on Sacramentalism, Holy Objects, and Relics [2-26-09]

Bible on Physical Objects as Aids in Worship [4-7-09]

Calvin, Zwingli, and Bullinger vs. Statues of Christ, Crucifixes, & Crosses [9-19-09]

Crucifixes: Abominable Idols or Devotional Aids? [11-10-09]

Biblical Evidence for Worship of God Via an Image [6-24-11]

The Bronze Serpent: Example of Proper Use of Images [Feb. 2012]

“Graven Images”: Unbiblical Iconoclasm (vs. John Calvin) [Oct. 2012]

Biblical Idolatry: Authentic & Counterfeit Conceptions [2015]

Should God the Father be Visually Depicted in Paintings? [2015]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #9: Images & Relics [3-2-17]

Statues in Relation to Bowing, Prayer, & Worship in Scripture [12-26-17]

Crucifixes & Worship Images: “New” (?) Biblical Arguments [1-18-20]

St. Newman vs. Inconsistent Protestant Iconoclasts [3-21-20]

“Turretinfan” Calls a Statue of Jesus Christ an “Idol” (While His Buddy Bishop James White Praises the Statues of “Reformers” Calvin, Farel, Beza, and Knox) [6-8-10; rev. 6-24-20]

Is Worship of God Through an Image Biblical? (vs. Luke Wayne) [11-10-20]

Sources

1) Classic Reformation (Puritan & Reformed) Teaching On Christmas and Other Holy Days (Or Christmas, and All Man-Made Holy Days, Condemned By Christ)

2) The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas (book by Brian Schwertley, 1996).

3) “Christmas,” from The Reformed Presbyterian magazine, January, 1851.

4) “Christmas,” from The Associate Presbyterian Magazine, February, 1879.

5) The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, December 10, Session 17, 1638, pp. 37-38.

6) Pastor Greg L. Price, sermon: “Christmas Condemned by Christ.”

7) Martin Bucer, cited in William Ames, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship (1633) , pp. 359-60.

8) Increase Mather’s Testimony Against that Prophane and Superstitious Custom of Christ-mass Keeping.

9) A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies, in Gillespie’s Works volume one, p. 80.

10) “Xmas (Christmas)”, by A. W. Pink.

11) Christmas: An Historical Survey Regarding Its Origins and Opposition to It, by Kevin Reed, 1995.

***

Photo credit: Kfoulk (4-4-13): Bethlehem, Church of the Nativity in Manger Square; where Jesus was born [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

Futility: Explaining Anti-Catholicism to an Anti-Catholic

Last updated on: September 24, 2020 at 12:54 pm By Dave Armstrong

Peter Pike is a Presbyterian. He has been a Reformed Christian since 1995. Some of his favorite theologians are John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, R. C. Sproul, John Piper, James White, Greg Bahnsen, and A. W. Pink. His words will be in blue.

*****

Since everyone who disagrees with you is automatically an “anti-Catholic” can I just call you an “anti-Calvinist” from now on?

Jason Cebalo, a Catholic, replied:

sigh If you’d bother to read what Dave actually writes, he doesn’t call everyone who disagrees with him anti-Catholic. He quite frequently debates Protestants of various stripes without calling them anti-Catholic. The reason he calls Steve Hays an anti-Catholic is because Hays does not recognise Catholics as Christians. By this logic you can’t call Dave anti-Calvinist [because] he accepts Calvinists as brothers in Christ. You can however, call certain extreme-trads anti-Calvinist or anti-Protestant, but Dave is (rightly) very critical of their attitude.

I made a clear distinction between anti-Catholic and Protestant in a recent comment on Triablogue (as I’ve done probably 300 times by now in many many papers). I also did in the post under which these comments were written: “. . . your anti-Catholic view (not Protestantism per se, but only the fringe anti-Catholic aspect of a tiny group of Protestants) . . .” — italics in original.

So you say that Steve is anti-Catholic because he thinks that Roman Catholics are not Christian. And yet Steve has said:

Still, it is possible for a Catholic to be saved, unlike a Muslim or Mormon or other suchlike.

And:

Unlike the other three, it is possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved.

And . . .:

But this doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for a Roman Catholic to be saved.

So it’s obviously the case that Steve does think there are some saved Catholics. He does not believe all Catholics are damned.

How then does he fit the charge that he’s an anti-Catholic, based on your own definition?

That’s got nothing to do with it, because anti-Catholicism is the belief that the Catholic system is not Christian: the theology, not the individual person. He says that is “apostate.”

If an individual Catholic is saved (in this mentality), it is despite Catholic teachings, not because of them (that’s precisely why he has to play games with my own case and make out that I am either ignorant or opposed to teachings of my own Church). That’s classic anti-Catholic belief: most anti-Catholic apologists I’m aware of (e.g., White, Svendsen) think this way.

Would you not agree that any Calvinists who are saved are saved despite Calvinism?

We don’t think that way of Protestants. We think that they have errors and lack the “fullness,” but that saving grace is possible to obtain within Protestantism through baptism, Bible study, prayer, etc. We even believe that Protestant marriage is a sacrament. We say trinitarian Protestants are fully deserving of the title “Christian” and are members of the Body of Christ just as they are.

It’s a matter of “very good” and “best” rather than “bad” vs. “good”.

[responding to someone else] I doubt that it is any less offensive for you to call me an anti-Catholic than it is for me to say you might possibly be saved in Catholicism.

The term anti-Catholic is extremely loaded and prejudicial. You speak as if the Protestant side is equating it to a racial comment; but that is exactly what you do with your anti-Catholic terms too.

I can just as easily say that anyone who uses the term anti-Catholic deserves no more of a hearing than a KKK member too.

* * *

You are correct that you have not called me such; Dave Armstrong, however, has called me an anti-Catholic before (although I doubt he remembers it — we had a discussion on Kerry Gillard’s e-mail list back in 1998 or 1999).

In any case, the Council of Trent anathematized me when it said in Canon 9 (among others, which need not be quoted at this point):

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

I do believe in justification by faith alone based on God’s eternal election. Indeed, this is the very heart of Calvinism. So am I to suppose you consider me to be an anathematized Christian? (How, exactly, would that work?) Or do you disagree that the Council of Trent was authoritatively binding?

But here is the thing to consider. I believe Justification is the heart of the Gospel. Furthermore, Trent has anathematized my position. Therefore, Catholicism has pronounced a curse on what I believe is the heart of the Gospel. In what way could I consider an institution that curses the heart of the Gospel to be Christian?

Does this make me an anti-Catholic, or does it just make me a consistent Protestant?

* * *

Dave, after all, cannot answer my specific question: “Would you not agree that any Calvinists who are saved are saved despite Calvinism?” He knows that if he says “Yes” to it, then he must by his own definition be an anti-Calvinist; but if he answers “No” to it then he is agreeing that Calvinism is true.

But Layne, you typify the problem with using the term “anti-Catholic.” It’s a convenient label that lets you avoid all discourse. It’s like saying, “Oh, you don’t have to listen to CalvinDude. He’s an anti-Catholic. Why bother answering his questions? He’s a blinded bigot.”

If it makes it easier for you, go for it. It’s not going to ruin my day any.

* * *

All I have said is that the point that I consider to be the heart of the Gospel, Justification by Faith Alone, is specifically cursed by the Council of Trent.

Apparently, you consider adherence to the Trinity and baptism in Christ to be the heart of the Gospel.

At this point, I can say we disagree; yet I have not anathematized your position, like Trent has mine. At this point, the furthest I would go is to say that not knowing your view of Justification, I would have to be agnostic towards whether you are saved or not. I would not necessarily conclude you are damned.

Trent, on the other hand, doesn’t give me this option.

I do wonder why you guys don’t follow Trent here if you consider it an authoritative Council.

You said:

Dave makes it a point not to argue with people who do not accept the Catholic Church as a Christian Institution, and that’s why he has not answered you.

That might be the excuse he uses, but the bottom line is that answering the question in either way is bad for him (as I demonstrated above), so the only thing he can do is ignore it.

The truth of the matter is that I didn’t, of course, ignore it at all. Pike seemed to have thought there was too long of a gap in my answering, so he concluded that I either couldn’t answer or was too scared to, or both. He asked the question at 1:45 PM, by the time in the comments. It so happened that this day a very good friend came by, who lives out of town (Protestant, by the way), and we always play chess, so I was delayed a bit.

Pike stated twice in the interim that I couldn’t answer his question and so had to ignore it. But nevertheless, despite the company, I did reply to the question by 7:43 PM, a little under six hours later (when my friend was playing chess with my youngest son). So much for Pike’s prognostications. Nor was this supposedly tremendously difficult question all that hard to answer.

* * *

Would you not agree that any Calvinists who are saved are saved despite Calvinism?

Whoever is saved is saved by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on his behalf. The dispute here is: what is Christian and what isn’t, and on what basis?

Trent condemned the absolute separation of faith and works. I don’t see that even John Calvin did that. He thought (and so do most Calvinists) that one is saved by “faith alone” but not a faith that is alone and that any saving faith will necessarily show forth the works that will inevitably flow from it if indeed it is true saving faith. [see: John Calvin: Good Works Manifest True Saving Faith (9-4-08) ]

So there is your cooperation with God; hence that aspect of Calvinism was not, I believe, condemned by Trent. I think what is condemned there is more like the extreme faith alone position that John MacArthur opposed in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus (i.e., the opposite of Lordship salvation). But that is not classic “Reformation” teaching: it is Anabaptistic or Baptist thinking (even then, one must look at the particular strain of Baptist theology).

For the 753rd time: “anti-Catholic” is currently in use by hundreds of scholars: by historians and sociologists and various religious scholars. If you don’t like my use of it, take it up with them. My use is entirely consistent, but it is James White and Eric Svendsen who apply double standards, since they object to “anti-Catholic” while they freely use “anti-Calvinist” and “anti-Reformed.”

“Why bother answering his questions? He’s a blinded bigot.”

My use does not necessarily imply any such thing at all. It simply means “one who denies that the Catholic theological system, or the Church, is a Christian institution.” Period.

Now, it does seem that many who are anti-Catholics do have a personally bigoted view of Catholics (from my long experience and how I myself have been treated by such folks), but the word itself does not include bigotry as part of its definition at all.

I am anti-abortion, anti-homosexual “marriage”, anti-feminism, anti-liberalism, anti-terrorist. I’m not bigoted against any of the people who advocate these things. The homosexual activists, for example, would like to make out that being opposed to their lifestyle on moral grounds is bigotry, but of course you and I both know it is not.

The anti-Catholic’s main problem is colossal ignorance and a blind spot a mile wide. He starts with false assumptions, relentlessly builds upon them, and will accept no correction, no matter how minor. And his view is viciously self-defeating.

I wouldn’t compare anti-Catholics (not most of them today) to the KKK at all; my comparison would be to those who believe in a flat earth or the man in the moon. It’s not a matter of intelligence, but of gullibility and acceptance of false premises through environment, denominational requirement, etc.

The leading anti-Catholics are not unintelligent men. White, Svendsen, Hays, are all very intelligent. But intelligence itself is no particular indicator of a person holding a true or cogent position or not.

Here is one example from a scholar. James Davison Hunter, who is one of the leading Protestant sociologists of religion of our time, from his book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, New York: HarperCollins, 1991:

[A]lthough much of the anti-Catholic hostility was born out of economic rivalry and ethnic distrust, it took expression primarily as religious hostility — as a quarrel over religious doctrine, practice, and authority. (p. 71)

That is the extent of the exchange on my blog (at least as of the time of writing). Pike later made a post on his blog. It looks like it was probably written before my responses were made, so he’ll get cut slack for that. But after he reads my comments on the blog and these present ones, I expect to see a modification of his blog post or else the refusal to modify it according to the facts of the matter shall be duly noted here:

Ad Hominem and Other Various Catholic Things

I had almost forgotten the joy that is internet Catholic apologists. Then, I asked one simple question and get the full wrath of them brought upon me.

“Wrath”? “Full wrath” at that? There may have been a little friction, but hardly anything this melodramatic. You came in with guns blazing away, and asked a question that I have answered many times on my website, so a few people (including myself) pointed that out and expressed frustration. But I carefully answered your questions, after this blog post of yours was written.

And it wasn’t even a doctrinal issue.

It is doctrinal, insofar as the definition of anti-Catholic is inherently a doctrinal issue.

Dave Armstrong has this interesting habit of labeling everyone who disagrees with his view of Catholicism as an “anti-Catholic.”

This is wrong, and stupidly, ridiculously, ultra-frustratingly so. You said you had interacted with me as long as seven or eight years ago. Am I to believe that you have never seen my website, and that you are unable to seek out my answer to this question there, to spare us all the aggravation of going over the ABC’s? Others had already explained carefully to you that this is not the case; so did I in a line in the post about Steve Hays that you were commenting under.

So you have no excuse for this idiotic comment even on that basis alone. But if you would trouble himself to learn the slightest thing about someone you want to go after on his own blog, you could travel to my Anti-Catholicism page (one mouse click away from my blog on the top right sidebar), hit the link in the index for ” ‘Anti-Catholic’: Definitional and Terminological Controversies” and see that I have many papers on this general topic alone.

If you navigated my blog much at all, you could and certainly would quickly discover that anti-Catholics by no means make up all the Protestants that I dialogue with: not by a long shot.

All of this massive evidence is readily observable. The anti-Catholics I know show no more signs of understanding this rather simple distinction now than they did eleven years ago, when I had my long postal debate with James White, even before I went online.

So I asked: “Since everyone who disagrees with you is automatically an ‘anti-Catholic’ can I just call you an ‘anti-Calvinist’ from now on?”

Dave decided to first ignore that,

This question I didn’t intend to answer at first (I did later), and the reason was as I explained above: I have answered it so many times on my website, that it is almost an insult to even be asked it again. So someone else offered an answer. Big wow.

leaving it to Jason Cebalo to charge me with not reading anything Dave writes (yeah, that must be why I see how many people he calls anti-Catholic; because I’m not reading anything he writes).

Is it not reasonable to conclude that you have not done so, seeing that on the exact topic you asked me about, I have written seventeen papers, all listed together in their own category, on my Anti-Catholicism page? In fact, six of those are even on the topic of the terms anti-Calvinist, anti-Reformed, etc. So I had already explained this. You claim you have read my stuff, you interacted with me as long as seven years ago, but you couldn’t locate any of those papers?What is so difficult about it, pray tell?

He claimed that Dave calls Steve Hays an anti-Catholic because Hays supposedly says Catholics aren’t Christian.

This despite Steve’s direct statements to the opposite that he does, indeed, view salvation as possible within Roman Catholicism.

I clarified exactly what I meant, so I expect this to be modified by you after having read my perfectly reasonable explanations (agree or disagree).

Thanks for showing so much consideration for my time and efforts that you couldn’t figure out my views on a topic after I reiterated them again, or by consulting any of my seventeen papers on the subject. But I’m a rude scoundrel (possibly expressing “full wrath” — as you described our replies) because I get fed up with repeating myself till I am blue in the face. I answered again anyway despite this frustration.

Armstrong continues:

I made a clear distinction between anti-Catholic and Protestant in a recent post on Triablogue (as I’ve done probably 300 times by now in many many papers).

Yet Dave’s “distinction” is this:

This distorts what I wrote, which was that Steve might reason himself out of anti-Catholicism, not Protestantism. The two are not identical. The vast majority of Protestants are not anti-Catholics.

But this doesn’t show us how Dave is distinguishing between the two. He is only mentioning that he does do so.

First of all, my many papers explain more in-depth. Go read them. Secondly, that remark alone is sufficient (no matter how much “distinguishing” it does) to put the lie to your claim that: “everyone who disagrees with you is automatically an “anti-Catholic”. To show that that is false, all I had to do was show that I don’t consider anti-Catholic a synonym of Protestant. In other words, plenty of Protestants “disagree” with me and I don’t label them “anti-Catholic” at all.

Therefore, this statement on Steve’s blog was more than adequate to refute your dumb claim about what I supposedly do and believe. I didn’t have to write a dissertation on it for you to know this. But if you want an in-depth examination, I offer plenty of that in my papers.

But we don’t know the inner workings of Dave Armstrong’s mind. How are we to know how he distinguishes between anti-Catholics and Protestants in general? The only thing we have are his words.

Indeed: hundreds of thousands of them out there on the Internet. So why are we discussing this at all? I’ve written on it literally for over ten years online. No one who knows how to read, knows the least thing about searching or clicking a mouse, or who knows the alphabet (to select in my list of topical pages on my sidebar), should be in the dark as to what I believe about this. If you had read anything on the topic that I wrote, you wouldn’t have asked the question; therefore, since you asked it, I concluded that you hadn’t read the stuff!

Based on other things he has written, it seems to boil down to this: if you object to anything Dave Armstrong says about Catholicism, you are an anti-Catholic; if you don’t say anything, you can still be a Protestant.

Is that so? I’d love to find out, then, what in the world of mine that you have read, to come to this asinine, ridiculous conclusion? Please, don’t keep us in suspense for a moment longer.

True Prots will just shut up and stay on the sidelines and not meddle with important folks, such as Dave Armstrong.

Is that why I have probably over a hundred dialogues with Protestants who aren’t anti-Catholics on the Internet? That really fits in with this downright stupid cardboard caricature of my alleged attitudes, doesn’t it?

What Armstrong and his followers don’t realize is that the term “anti-Catholic” is a very specifically designed term. It is their attempt to impute irrational bias onto the Protestant such that the Protestant is just a hate-filled, bitter person who is incapable of seeing the truth of Catholicism. Thus, he is forced to rage in his anti-Catholic pride, unable to see the light of reason.

That is not how I use it, as explained; this is not how many (Protestant) scholars use it, either.

[but remember, Pike’s comments here were written before I explained; again, let’s see if he modifies them; I’ll be monitoring his blog to see if he does or not. If he does, I’ll be happy to post any clarifying statements or retractions that he wants to make, alongside his original comments].

Armstrong never considers that maybe there are people who just disagree with him.

No kidding? Who’s the mind-reader now? You objected to someone doing that to you on my blog, and here you are making the most idiotic, ludicrous statements, that only make you look like an utter fool. I currently have 355 dialogues posted online! But it never occurred to me that people may disagree with me?! What planet do you live on?

No, if you disagree you must be disagreeing out of hateful spite. It must be because you’re an anti-Catholic, not because you’re confident of your own position.

Already dealt with above . . . Anti-Catholics are quite confident, just like anyone else. Ecumenical Protestants are quite confident. Of course; no big revelation there.

Calling someone an anti-Catholic is like calling someone an anti-Semite. The connotations are the same, and Armstrong fully knows that.

This is absolutely untrue.

Nor is Armstrong alone. He has much company in the internet realm of Catholic apologists.

And in the realm of Protestant historians and sociologists (per my papers linked above) . . .

If someone argues in a lousy way, that has nothing directly to do with me. There are plenty of people who use “anti-Catholic” in a wrong manner. I have written about that, too, and have those comments in my papers. I detest ad hominem attacks. I have written about this on many occasions. I criticize other Catholics when they need to be criticized. I have even specifically condemned personal attacks on Eric Svendsen and James White (I’ve done the latter several times and have paid him many compliments).

This is all a matter of public record. I even have a page devoted to links from James White that I agree with. Try to get him to link to anything I write, in a commendatory fashion, though!

Given recent history, the first Catholic response to this will be to say that I’m just a James White sycophant.

I don’t know who you are from Adam, so how would I know your history. I have no objection to your speaking out against personal attacks on White, because chances are I would agree with what you are saying myself. I’ve seen some of them and they are stupid and uncalled-for. There is a mountain of things wrong on White’s writings; why bother with personal stuff?

This despite the fact that White and I disagree on some very important issues (I, after all, am a Presbyterian, not a Reformed Baptist). No, I must be one of his mindless #pros drones (after all, I once was a constant feature in #prosapologian!). Thus, I am obviously just another one of those anti-Catholic, hate-mongerers . . . dismissed out of hand by the application of a stereotype that exists only in the minds of rabid anti-Calvinists, such as Dave Armstrong and his sycophants.

Think what you will. I think you are dead-wrong on this issue, but I make no accusations of hatred towards anyone.

I find it sad on both sides, actually. I would love to live in the idealistic dream-world where everyone listened to the strengths of the arguments instead of focusing on the personality of the proponent of the argument.

That would be nice, wouldn’t it?

Sometimes I think James White goes a little too far; but he’s downright restrained compared to the folks that write about him.

Perhaps, but he has a ton to account for as well in this regard. He gives out his share of personal attacks. I was accused of “hating” him myself simply because a friend of mine did a take-off on one of the caricatures of him that is on his blog. Have you seen all the bilge that anti-Catholics have written about me? White thinks he is attacked a lot? I’ll guarantee I can match his attacks. I’ve been called everything under the sun (and he himself is one of my most vicious, slanderous critics; utterly obstinate despite countless corrections of his errors of fact).

And White, at least, doesn’t say something without the ability to back it up with examples (thus, even when he engages in ad hominem (which is nowhere near as often as folks like Armstrong claim), his statements are still factually true). This is not the case in reverse.

I think many of the criticisms of him are ridiculous, but White has guilt in a different sense, because he knows better when he goes after people. He knows (judging by his condemnations when others do it) it isn’t right, but does it anyway.

Frankly, the state of internet Roman Catholic apologists is one of the best arguments against their position that I can think of.

You can make general statements (that are impossible to disprove by their nature) if you like. I have shown that the specific statements about my views that you have made are inaccurate, and inexcusably, outrageously so. If you are honest, and are reading this paper, your responsibility under God is to make the necessary corrections, in light of my explanations. If you don’t, then I’ll have no choice but to conclude that you wish to deliberately misrepresent me, and why anyone would want to do such a thing is for them to analyze and ponder in their own mind.

***

(originally posted on 9-21-06)

Photo credit: Cubmundo (10-7-11) [Flickr / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]

***

Mary’s Assumption: Patristic Analogy to Protestant Distinctives

Last updated on: August 16, 2020 at 9:20 am By Dave Armstrong

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer wrote the post, “Early Ignorance Of The Assumption Of Mary” (8-15-20). His words will be in blue below. Then I will make two arguments from analogy.

*****

Today is the Feast of the Assumption, commemorating Mary’s alleged bodily assumption to heaven. There’s a significant line of evidence that’s seldom discussed that suggests the early Christians had no concept of an assumption of Mary. Many early patristic sources cite Enoch, Elijah, and Paul as examples of people who didn’t die, were translated to heaven, etc., yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example [extensive patristic citations then provided] . . . Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were “assumed” and “translated”, but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5). How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning Mary’s assumption, even though they knew of it? They’re sometimes describing Christian beliefs in general, not just their own, which makes their failure to mention Mary even more significant. If these early Christians held as high a view of Mary as Roman Catholicism does, or even close to so high a view, you’d expect them to cite her more than anybody else. Instead, they don’t cite her at all.

Many patristic sources highly praise Scripture as God’s Word and provide extensive biblical texts in favor of the Christian doctrines that they defend. But no early patristic source says anything about the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura as the rule of faith [as provided by, e.g., James White, Normal Geisler, and Keith Mathison*]. Yet this is the Protestant rule of faith, and entire basis of its self-understood authority. How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura as the rule of faith, even though they [so we are told, supposedly] knew of it, and believed it? If these early Christians held to sola Scriptura as the rule of faith as present-day Protestants do, or even close to so high a view, you’d expect them to cite its definition quite prominently. Instead, they don’t mention it at all.

[* Jason provides a slightly different and more succinct definition of sola Scriptura in a Facebook post from 5-12-20: “Sola scriptura could be explained in summary form by saying that scripture alone is our rule of faith. Or you could expand upon it by saying that scripture is the only special, public revelation that’s extant.”]

No early patristic source provides the complete list of the New Testament biblical canon until St. Athanasius in 367. Yet this is part and parcel of the Protestant rule of faith, sola Scriptura, [one can’t grant the Bible alone sole infallible authority unless one knows exactly what it is] and entire basis of its self-understood authority. How likely is it that all of these sources, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain [prior to 367] from mentioning the exact parameters of the canon of the New Testament, even though they [so we are told, supposedly] knew of it? If these early Christians held to the 27-book New Testament canon, as present-day Protestants do, or even close to such a view, you’d expect them to mention this quite prominently. Instead, they don’t mention it at all. And several of these fathers included books in the New Testament canon that no Christian today includes.

I made further such analogical arguments in a long article explaining my conversion to Catholicism, citing Cardinal Newman and his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine:

Newman proceeded to make brilliant specific analogies in order to bring home his point. The first had to do with the doctrine of purgatory, vis-a-vis the doctrine of original sin, which is, of course, accepted by Protestants as well:

*

Some notion of suffering, or disadvantage, or punishment after this life, in the case of the faithful departed, or other vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory, has in its favour almost a consensus of the first four ages of the Church. (16)

Newman then recounts no less than sixteen Fathers who hold the view in some form. But in comparing this consensus to the doctrine of original sin, we find a disjunction:

*

No one will say that there is a testimony of the Fathers, equally strong, for the doctrine of Original Sin. (17) In spite of the forcible teaching of St. Paul on the subject, the doctrine of Original Sin appears neither in the Apostles’ nor the Nicene Creed. (18)

This is a crucial distinction. It is a serious problem for Protestantism that it by and large inconsistently rejects doctrines which have a consensus in the early Church, such as purgatory, the (still developing) papacy, bishops, the Real Presence, regenerative infant baptism, apostolic succession, and intercession of the saints, while accepting others with far less explicit early sanction, such as original sin. Even many of their own foundational and distinctive doctrines, such as the notion of Faith Alone (sola fide), or imputed, extrinsic, forensic justification, are well-nigh nonexistent all through Church history until Luther’s arrival on the scene, as, for example, prominent Protestant apologist Norman Geisler recently freely admitted:

*

[T]hese valuable insights into the doctrine of justification had been largely lost throughout much of Christian history, and it was the Reformers who recovered this biblical truth . . .During the patristic, and especially the later medieval periods, forensic justification was largely lost . . . Still, the theological formulations of such figures as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas did not preclude a rediscovery of this judicial element in the Pauline doctrine of justification . . .

[O]ne can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! (19)

On the other hand, Protestants clearly accept developing doctrine on several fronts: the Canon of the New Testament is a clear example of such a (technically “non-biblical”) doctrine It wasn’t finalized until 397 A.D. The divinity of Christ was dogmatically proclaimed only at the “late” date of 325, the fully worked-out doctrine of the Holy Trinity in 381, and the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) in 451, all in Ecumenical Councils which are accepted by most Protestants. So development is an unavoidable fact for both Protestants and Catholics.

*

The trick for Protestants (granting Church history an important and legitimate role, whether it is considered normative and authoritative or not), is to determine a non-arbitrary rationale for accepting some doctrines while rejecting others. It will not do to simply say that certain doctrines are “unbiblical” and thus unworthy of Protestant allegiance, since it must immediately be explained why the majority of early Christians believed in them, and why beliefs such as the Canon of the New Testament and Scripture Alone are adopted despite the absence of biblical rationale, or why (chances are) many other strands of Protestantism disagree with the one making the claim, when Scripture is allegedly so “clear” and able to be interpreted in the main without difficulty by the layman.

*

Newman writes, regarding the New Testament Canon:

*

As regards the New Testament, Catholics and Protestants receive the same books as canonical and inspired; yet . . . the degrees of evidence are very various for one book and another . . . For instance, as to the Epistle of St. James . . . Origen, in the third century, is the first writer who distinctly mentions it among the Greeks and it is not quoted by name by any Latin till the fourth . . . Again: The Epistle to the Hebrews, though received in the East, was not received in the Latin Churches till St. Jerome’s time . . . Again, St. Jerome tells us, that in his day, towards A.D. 400, the Greek Church rejected the Apocalypse, but the Latin received it. Again: The New Testament consists of twenty-seven books . . . Of these, fourteen are not mentioned at all till from eighty to one hundred years after St. John’s death, in which number are the Acts, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and James. Of the other thirteen, five, viz. St. John’s Gospel, Philippians, 1st Timothy, Hebrews, and 1st John, are quoted but by one writer during the same period. On what ground, then, do we receive the Canon as it comes to us, but on the authority of the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries? . . . The fifth century acts as a comment on the obscure text of the centuries before it. (20)

FOOTNOTES

16. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine: edition published by the University of Notre Dame Press, 1989, with a foreword by Ian Ker, from the 1878 edition of the original work of 1845; p. 21.
17. Ibid., p. 21.
18. Ibid., p. 23.
19. Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, pp. 247-248, 503.
20. Newman, Essay, pp. 123-126.

In another paper of mine, I deal with many such instances of Protestant distinctives (as well as both Protestant and Catholic terminology) that never appear in the Bible:

[T]he New Testament never mentions an “altar call”. It never has the typical “sinner’s prayer” of evangelicals. It doesn’t mention church buildings. It never uses the word “Trinity.” It never uses the frequently mentioned evangelical terminology of “personal relationship with Jesus.” . . .

Other beliefs or practices not explicitly mentioned in the Bible are Bible studies, separating young people during church services, and grape juice as an element to be consecrated for communion (rather than wine), “asking Jesus into one’s heart,” a “body of believers,” Scripture interpreting Scripture (the more clear helping to understand the less clear), agreeing on “essential” or “primary” doctrines and permitted relativism regarding “non-essential” or “secondary” doctrines, denominations (vs. the biblical “one Church”). Of course, this very idea that one must find explicit biblical proof for every doctrine or it can’t / mustn’t be believed (even with high selectivity or rank inconsistency) is not found in the Bible anywhere, either. It’s (irony of all ironies!) a mere tradition of men.

Some popular Protestant (and also often Catholic) words or phrases that do not appear in the Bible are rapture, invisible church, incarnation, virgin birth, holy communion, Lord’s prayer, Bible, original sin, fall of man, theology, go[ing] to church, grace alone, [total] depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, spirituality, Scripture alone, pray for guidance, pray for direction, spiritual warfare, and sin nature. Faith alone only appears once:

James 2:24 [RSV] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Protestants manage to believe all these things (or use these words) with no problem whatever. Why? Or, more specifically, why do they believe these things, which are absent from or non-explicit in the Bible, while giving Catholics misery for similar things, or else doctrines and practices with far more indication of various sorts than the things above, that Protestants accept? Why the double standard? Or is it just that the Protestants who sling these sorts of “arguments” about never think about them very deeply, or have never met a Catholic who can show that they are very weak arguments indeed?

That noted, I provide many articles that deal with the question of the alleged total “absence” of the Assumption of Mary from Holy Scripture. Again, I reiterate that there is more about Mary’s Assumption in Scripture than there is about the biblical canon and the definition and exact nature of sola Scriptura: that is, nothing at all in both cases; zip, zero, zilch.

Assumption & Immaculate Conception: Part of Apostolic Tradition (vs. James White) [June 1996]

Mary’s Assumption: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant [1-21-02]

Bodily Assumption of Mary: Harmonious with the Bible? [2002]

Mary’s Assumption: Brief Explanation, with a New (?) Biblical Parallel [3-1-07]

Mary’s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture? [4-22-07]

Mary’s Bodily Assumption: Eleven Related Bible Passages [2009]

Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption) [5-28-12]

Is Mary’s Assumption Able to be Inferred from Scripture Alone? [8-14-15]

Bible on Mary’s Assumption [2015]

“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #7: Mary’s Assumption [3-1-17]

Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux [10-19-17]

Biblical Arguments in Support of Mary’s Assumption [National Catholic Register, 8-15-18]

Mary’s Assumption & Death (?): Debunking James Swan [11-23-19]

***

I don’t think the Assumption is biblically implausible in the least. All it’s saying is that Mary received her resurrected body first among the saints (all of whom will eventually do the same thing). The mother of Jesus our Lord and Savior didn’t have to undergo the decay of death.

The dogma doesn’t even require us to believe that she didn’t die (and I personally believe that she did, and this seems to be the consensus position). What in the world is implausible or objectionable about that? It’s not explicit in the Bible, but neither are many doctrines (as I argued and explained in many ways above), so that is not a “dealbreaker” at all.

***

I posted notice of this reply on Triablogue, where Jason’s article was posted, but I am banned there, so it was deleted. Then I went over to his Facebook page and let him know I wrote it (which in most circles is regarded as rudimentary courtesy), along with a notice of my previous reply to one of his papers and mention of nine such replies altogether since May. Here was his reply there:

Dave Armstrong posted a couple of links here. I’ve deleted both. One wasn’t relevant to the thread, and the other article links some posts he wrote on the assumption of Mary, but doesn’t interact with my argument . . . He does respond to some views held by Protestants on everything from the canon of scripture to imputed righteousness to altar calls to whether grape juice should be used in communion. Some of the beliefs he brings up are ones that I don’t hold, which makes his discussion even more irrelevant to my position.

Do you not want to be informed anymore when I respond to one of your articles? That’s what the second one was. I would say it is Christian courtesy. Many Protestants have a very dim understanding of how analogical argument works. I’m truly surprised that you are among them.

You’ve sometimes informed me when you’ve written a response to me and sometimes haven’t. Lately, until today, you had been sending me emails, but you posted a link in a Facebook thread on another topic this time. You don’t need to inform me when you write a response.

I won’t bother anymore, then. Thanks for clarifying.

[Gene Bridges: an anti-Catholic polemicist I hadn’t heard from in a long time, then chimed in]

Still incapable of making a biblical argument for the Assumption of Mary, I see.

Of course, in the paper I linked to no less than nine papers regarding the Assumption and the Bible. I have always said there wasn’t much in the Bible about it (though there is some), but no biggie. The Bible never claims that this is a requirement, and sola Scriptura is completely absent from it, as is the canon, and almost (excepting just a very few passages), also the virgin birth and original sin.

Glad to hear you are still alive!

In other words, there is no biblical foundation for your heresy that doesn’t require supplemental material from you. I hope your sins find you out. You really are a second rate [sic]. May the efficacy of your baptism not be recognized in heaven. Seriously, you are admitting to working with an arbitrary epistemic warrant now. Well done! May Steve Hays [recently deceased colleague of his] laugh when you are in the judgment. Psalm 2 says God mocks His enemies. You know that, right?

You are a rare specimen of saintly Christian love, Gene.

All I hear when you write is false piety. Loving your enemies does not require irenic behavior. The Bible is full of taunt songs directed at people like you.

All I hear when you write is the loveless, blind Pharisees.

I am not the one putting traditions of men over the Scriptures themselves like the Pharisees. You are the Pharisee here. 9 papers full of unbiblical Rigamorole to justify heresy. All I hear is witchcraft when you speak, Hymaneus Alexander ben apostasy ben heresy ben Revelation 17 ben dry bones ben picayune.

You always were a very colorful writer. Thanks for the entertainment.

You were always a hypocrite and heretic. This is hilarious. It’s been over a decade, and all I have to do to mock you is goad you into a reply.

The Lord is laughing at you, having seen this day coming. It won’t be long until Kim Jong Un here goes on another angry rant. Maybe he will sit down and churn out some Rigamorole to add to his grimoire – I mean apologetics page.

1 Timothy 2:1-4 (RSV) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, [2] for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. [3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!”

1 Peter 2:17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Matthew 5:11-12 “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. [12] Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Thanks for the abundant blessings, Gene! May God bless you with all good things, and open your eyes. He will, if you allow Him to.

***

Photo credit: St. John Henry Cardinal Newman in 1879 [public domain]

***

Reply to Protestant Challenges Re Eternal Security

Last updated on: July 26, 2020 at 9:15 pm By Dave Armstrong

vs. Anti-Catholic Apologist Jason Engwer

This is my answer to the questions posed in the paper, A Challenge to Those Who Deny Eternal Security (aka, “Why Christians Cannot Lose Their Salvation”). It was written, c. December 1998. Jason’s words will be in blue. I will cite his entire paper in replying to it. Jason is notorious for picking and choosing what he will reply to in opponents’ material (sometimes even ignoring the vast majority of material). Not me; I generally offer a point-by-point refutation. When I cite Scripture, I will use the RSV.

*****

Why were the apostles sure that they would go to Heaven, even though they still had time to sin (2 Timothy 4:18, 1 Peter 5:1, 2 John 2-3)?

2 Timothy 4:18 is from St. Paul, who also offers many passages in which he appears quite unsure that he (or any given Christian) will be eschatologically saved (i.e., will go to heaven), and states that believers (including himself: 1 Cor 9:27; Phil 3:8-14) must remain vigilant to do so (1 Cor 10:12; Gal 5:1). Thus, the two types of passages need to be harmonized with each other somehow. Calvinists and eternal security advocates think they can answer our “counter-verses” and we believe that we can answer their alleged prooftexts. Paul specifically states that some believers have “fallen away from grace” (Gal 5:4), and in his first letter to Timothy proclaims:

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.

Likewise, St. Peter writes in his other epistle:

2 Peter 2:15, 20-22 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Be’or, who loved gain from wrongdoing, . . . [20] For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. [21] For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. [22] It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.

It seems to me that Paul and Peter in the passages Jason cites are thinking in terms of present possession of salvation and being in God’s good grace, provided they examine themselves and are not in mortal sin that can separate them from God. But that’s just it: that situation can possibly change in the future.

As for St. John, he often speaks in a proverbial or idealistic genre. So, for example, he writes:

1 John 3:6 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.

1 John 3:9 No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.

But then he also writes (in a much more practical and “realistic” vein):

1 John 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10] If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Why did the apostles want the believers to whom they wrote to be sure of their future in Heaven (Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 1:8, Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 5:4, 1 John 5:13, 2 John 2-3)?

The Pauline passages have to be synthesized and understood in the context of this passage:

Colossians 1:22-23 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, [23] provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, . . .

Paul warns the Corinthians against falling away twice in the same book (1 Cor 9:27; 10:12). Pete likewise warns in the same chapter 1 of his first epistle:

1 Peter 1:14, 17 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, . . . [17] And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile.

The context of 1 Peter 5:4 is a number of conditional promises (very common in Scripture): “if you do x, then you will receive y“. These, of course, involved works, or merit (which are always grace-enabled, yet we must agree in our will to do them):

1 Peter 5:2-4, 6, 8-10 Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, [3] not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. [4] And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory. . . . [6] Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you. . . . [8] Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. [9] Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world. [10] And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen you.

I devoted an article to 1 John 5:13: “Certainty” of Eternal Life? (1 Jn 5:13 & Jn 5:24). 2 John 2-3 was already dealt with above.

It’s obvious, then, that if we are required to do certain things in order to be saved in the end (Matthew 25 — about the judgment — affirms this over and over), then if we don’t do them, we could lose the salvation and good standing in God’s grace that we have. See also my paper, Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages.

Critics of eternal security argue that salvation depends on our present faith and our present behavior. Why, then, do the scriptures refer to people having salvation, or something associated with salvation, in the present because of a past faith or a past justification (Luke 7:50, Acts 19:2, Romans 5:1)?

Because at that time they do have it: meaning that if they died at that instant, they would go to heaven. What’s not certain is that they will never reject God or fall away in the future. The same Gospel of Luke contains the parable of the sower (Lk 8:5-8). Jesus’ explanation of it includes the notion of believers falling away:

Luke 8:13-14 And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. [14] And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.

Acts 19:2 refers to receiving the Holy Spirit. But in Hebrews it’s revealed that we can lose the Holy Spirit:

Hebrews 6:4-8 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, [5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, [6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. [7] For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. [8] But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

How is this possible if there isn’t a moment of faith in the past that results in our future salvation?

We don’t deny that. We only deny that such a moment is good for all time or that it cannot be reversed by our free will decision to forsake God and salvation.

Why do the scriptures say that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace (Romans 3:24, 5:17, 6:23, Revelation 22:17)?

No one denies that. To do so is the heresy Pelagianism.

If attaining salvation through works would contradict grace (Romans 4:4, 11:6), then how can maintaining salvation through works be consistent with grace? If I give you a car, and tell you that it’s a “free gift”, but then I send you monthly bills for it thereafter, was the car really a “free gift”?

We don’t attain it through works. But works are the inevitable fruit of genuine faith (as both Luther and Calvin affirmed) and show that the faith isn’t dead, per the book of James:

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? (James 2:14; RSV)

So faith itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:17; cf. 2:20, 2:26)

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

Therefore, if we don’t see such works, we know that saving faith is not present, either. That’s why works play such a prominent role in 50 passages that refer to God’s judgment and decision regarding who is saved and who is damned. Strikingly, faith is only mentioned in three of those 50 passages, as being central in salvation and even then it is in conjunction with works, not by itself:

2 Thessalonians 1:7-12 . . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 20-21 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

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.

Why does Paul write, “where there is no law, neither is there violation…For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace” (Romans 4:15, 6:14), as well as emphasizing elsewhere that once a person becomes a Christian he is no longer under any law of works (Romans 5:13, 10:4, 1 Corinthians 6:12, Galatians 3:11-25)?

What is the “liberty” to which Paul and James refer (Galatians 2:4, Galatians 5:1, James 2:12)? If Christians are still in bondage to a law of works, and the sting of eternal death still remains in some sins, then how can a Christian have “liberty”, and how can “all things be lawful” to him (1 Corinthians 6:12)? Don’t Paul’s and James’ comments in these passages require that the Christian be free from all bondage of the law, not just some?

All that has to do with observing the works of the law; i.e., following Mosaic law, not all works whatever, which Paul repeatedly commands us to perform. See Theopedia, “New Perspective on Paul.”

If some “really bad” sins cause the loss of salvation, while other sins don’t, as critics of eternal security tend to believe, then why do Paul and James say that a person would have to maintain a law of works perfectly in order to be saved by it, and that any violation of any aspect of that law makes a person guilty of violating the entire law (Galatians 3:10, James 2:8-10)?

To show that the Mosaic law never saved anyone; only justification by grace through faith and the finished work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on the cross did that.

If perfection is the standard that must be met in order to be righteous before God, as we know it is (Matthew 5:48), then how can anybody hope to attain to that standard through their own behavior (Romans 3:23)? If Christ’s perfect righteousness is imputed to us through faith (Romans 3:21-22, 4:5-6, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Philippians 3:9), then why would we need our own imperfect righteousness to be added to His perfect righteousness in order to have eternal life?

This is now morphing into a standard / stock Protestant apologetic for justification by faith alone, which is a different topic. I’m dealing (and so was Jason at first) with the possibility of apostasy or falling away from grace and salvation. I’ve dealt with this other stuff in many other papers of mine.

If assuring believers of their future in Heaven is wrong, because it encourages them to sin, as critics of eternal security suggest, then why did Jesus and the apostles repeatedly assure believers of their future in Heaven (Matthew 26:29, Luke 23:39-43, John 11:25, Romans 5:9, 1 Corinthians 1:8, Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 5:4, 1 John 5:13, 2 John 2-3)?

Most of these are simply repeating passages already addressed above. I’ll reply to the three new ones. Matthew 26:29 was addressed to the eleven disciples (minus Judas). Jesus knew they were to be saved. But of course the passage doesn’t apply to every believer. Likewise, Luke 23:39-43 applies only to the thief on the cross. John 11:25 simply states that Jesus is the sole way to attain salvation, not who will be saved.

Aren’t there motivations for keeping our faith, and for not sinning, aside from loss of salvation (Proverbs 22:5, John 14:23-24, Acts 17:31, Romans 5:5, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, 2 Corinthians 5:14-17)?

Yes, but that’s not a disagreement between Catholics and Protestants.

If passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 are lists of sins that cause the loss of salvation, as many critics of eternal security claim, then why do we see examples in scripture of people committing those sins, yet remaining saved (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 11:17-32)?

Because they repented of them. The lists have to do with habitual sins and cases where people never repent of them. In Catholic and biblical theology, they are mortal sins that cause loss of grace and salvation if one persists in them.

Don’t the examples of people committing these sins, yet remaining saved, necessitate that we acknowledge that passages like 1 Corinthians 6 and Galatians 5 are not about how Christians can lose salvation? Instead, aren’t they telling believers not to behave like the unregenerate, who prove that they won’t inherit eternal life by continually living in sin (1 Corinthians 6:11-12)?

They may be partially about that aspect, too. Both / and . . .

In other words, aren’t the unregenerate the ones who will not inherit eternal life, as opposed to believers who sometimes commit one of these sins not inheriting eternal life?

They will not, but also those who willfully fall into these serious sins will not, either. Hebrews and Revelation provide unarguable, irrefutable evidence that believers can fall away:

Hebrews 3:12-14 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

Hebrews 6:11-12 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, [12] so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Hebrews 10:26-29, 36, 39 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. [28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? . . . [36] For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. . . . [39] But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

Hebrews 12:15 See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled;

Revelation 2:4-5 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. [5] Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Doesn’t the man in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, whose works are entirely bad, yet he’s saved, prove that what’s at stake as far as the Christian’s behavior is concerned is rewards in Heaven, not entrance to Heaven?

The passage talks about differential works (“the fire will test what sort of work each one has done: 3:13). Some of the good work “survives” (3:14), and others had little or no additional merit, and that “work is burned up” (3:15). The overall passage is about merit, rewards, and purgatory.

When passages like Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 2:13-14 place no limits on which sins are forgiven, and tell us instead that Christ’s sacrifice covered all sins,

Yes, of course. Any and all sins can be forgiven if one repents. The one unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (basically calling evil good and total unbelief).

on what basis can the critic of eternal security maintain that those who have trusted Christ are actually only forgiven of past sins and some future sins that “aren’t real bad”, while the “really bad” future sins remain uncovered?

By the biblical distinction between mortal and venial sins. The Bible taught it (1 Jn 5:16-17; cf. James 1:14-15). We didn’t make it up. And based on all the passages I have brought to bear on falling away . . .

If Jesus is the Intercessor for and Advocate of the believer only when the believer commits sins that “aren’t real bad”, as the critic of eternal security must maintain, then why do Hebrews 7:25 and 1 John 2:1 suggest no such limits? Why do these passages suggest instead that Christ is forever the Intercessor for and Advocate of the believer, no matter what sin has been committed?

The Bible teaches that our sins are judged in part based on how much we know (degrees of culpability, just as in civil law; see Lk 12:47-48; 23:34; Jn 19:11 [“greater sin”]; 1 Tim 1:12-13). All Hebrews 7:25 states is that Jesus can save all who seek Him, and we know that even the greatest sinners can be saved if they repent. 1 John 2:1 says the same. These aspects are not controversial.

If salvation could be lost, it couldn’t be regained (Hebrews 6:4-6).

How is this passage admitted to be talking about salvation being lost, when supposedly this is impossible in the first place? Jason deftly and decisively refutes himself here, and appears not to realize it. But I suppose he would try to force-fit and eisegete the passage into a mere hypothetical that can’t actually happen. But Hebrews 6 is referring to the most extreme cases: those who “crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.” That doesn’t cover all cases of apostasy and is essentially the same as the unpardonable sin.

How, then, were people like David and Peter saved after committing sins such as adultery and denying Christ?

Obviously, because they repented.

If such sins aren’t bad enough to cause the loss of salvation, what would be?

David acknowledged — in his famous Psalm of repentance — that if he hadn’t repented, the Holy Spirit could indeed have left him, as well as salvation:

Psalm 51:11-12 Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me. [12] Restore to me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit.

They would have lost their salvation if they hadn’t repented. The Bible describes in King Saul’s case that “the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul” (1 Sam 16:14).

Why does the book of the Bible that most often refers to salvation as a gift (Romans 3:24, 5:15, 5:16, 6:23, etc.) also tell us that the gifts of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29)?

I imagine the answer would have something to do with the many related strains of argument that I have been presenting above. Why would the same book of Romans contain the following passage, too?:

Romans 2:5-13 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Even the great chapter of Romans 8 (beloved by one and all Protestants and Catholics too!) contains a conditional for salvation beyond faith:

Romans 8:14-17 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. [15] For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” [16] it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, [17] 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.

***

Photo credit: Piotr Siedlecki, “Heaven Gates” [public domain / PublicDomainPictures.Net]

***

Abp. Viganò: Fanaticism, Extremism, and Conspiratorialism

Last updated on: July 13, 2020 at 11:02 am By Dave Armstrong

Summary from August 2019 Until July 2020 (Alarming, Increasingly Quasi-Schismatic Spirit)

For background, see my previous related articles and those of my friend, 100% orthodox Catholic theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi:

Bishops Viganò & Schneider Reject Authority of Vatican II [11-22-19]

Viganò, Schneider, Pachamama, & VCII (vs. Janet E. Smith) [11-25-19]

Abp. Vigan ò Descends into Fanatical Reactionary Nuthood (. . . Declares Pope Francis a Heretical Narcissist Who “Desacralized” & “Impugned” & “Attack[ed]” Mary) [12-20-19]

Dr. Fastiggi: Open Letter Re Abp. Viganò, Pope Francis, & Mary [2-22-20]

Abp. Viganò, the Pope, & the “Vicar of Christ” Nothingburger (with Catholic Theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi and Apologist Karl Keating) [4-6-20]

Is Archbishop Viganò in Schism? [Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Where Peter Is, 6-13-20]

Archbishop Viganò On the Brink of Schism. The Unheeded Lesson of Benedict XVI (Sandro Magister, L’Espresso, 6-29-20)

All words following will be Archbishop Viganò’s own (linked to the documents where they are found, so context can be consulted), with the exception of my headings and links to related material in brackets, and the occasional textual clarification, also in brackets:

*****

Church, Catholic: Apostasy / Defectibility of

In fact, the figure of Christ is absent. The [Amazon] Synod working document testifies to the emergence of a post-Christian Catholic theology, now, in this moment. (8-2-19)

Pope Bergoglio thus proceeds to further implement the apostasy of Abu Dhabi, . . . (Letter #62, November 2019)

For more than six years now we have been poisoned by a false magisterium . . . Thus, over these last decades, the Mystical Body has been slowly drained of its lifeblood through unstoppable bleeding: the Sacred Deposit of Faith has gradually been squandered, dogmas denatured, . . . Now the Church is lifeless, covered with metastases and devastated. The people of God are groping, illiterate and robbed of their Faith, in the darkness of chaos and division. In these last decades, the enemies of God have progressively made scorched earth of two thousand years of Tradition. With unprecedented acceleration, thanks to the subversive drive of this pontificate, supported by the powerful Jesuit apparatus, a deadly coup de grace is being delivered to the Church. . . . The result of this abuse is what we now have before our eyes: a Catholic Church that is no longer Catholic; a container emptied of its authentic content and filled with borrowed goods. . . . The Church is shrouded in the darkness of modernism . . . (12-20-19)

. . . the darkening of the faith that has struck the heights of the Church. (3-14-20)

The Pope, the Hierarchy, and all Bishops, Priests and Religious must immediately and absolutely convert. This is something the laity are calling for, as they suffer because they have no firm and faithful guides. We cannot allow the flock which Our Divine Lord has entrusted to our care be scattered by faithless mercenaries. (3-29-20)

It is disconcerting that few people are aware of this race towards the abyss, and that few realize the responsibility of the highest levels of the Church in supporting these anti-Christian ideologies, . . .

It is no accident: what these men affirm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the efforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the first confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry. (6-9-20)

. . . the disastrous situation in which the Church finds herself and the many evils that afflict her, long discourses among “specialists” appear inadequate and inconclusive. There is an urgent need to restore the Bride of Christ to her two-thousand-year Tradition . . . (6-14-20)

No one could have believed that, right under the vaults of the Vatican Basilica, the estates-general could be convoked that would decree the abdication of the Catholic Church and the inauguration of the Revolution. (As I have already mentioned in a previous article, Cardinal Suenens called Vatican II “the 1789 of the Church”).

. . . recognizing the infiltration of the enemy into the heart of the Church, the systematic occupation of key posts in the Roman Curia, seminaries, and ecclesiastical schools, the conspiracy of a group of rebels—including, in the front line, the deviated Society of Jesus—which has succeeded in giving the appearance of legitimacy and legality to a subversive and revolutionary act. . . . It will be for one of his Successors, the Vicar of Christ, in the fullness of his apostolic power, to rejoin the thread of Tradition there where it was cut off. (6-26-20)

. . . the crisis that has afflicted the Church since Vatican II and has now reached the point of devastation. (7-3-20)

[for the refutation, see:

“Could the Catholic Church Go Off the Rails?” (Indefectibility) [1997]

Indefectibility of Holy Mother Church: Believe It Or Not [2002]

Indefectibility: Does God Protect His Church from Doctrinal Error? [11-1-05; abridged and reformulated a bit on 2-14-17]

“The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail” Against the Church [11-11-08]

Indefectibility of the One True Church (vs. Calvin #9) [5-16-09]

Indefectibility & Apostolic Succession (vs. Calvin #10) [5-18-09]

Dialogue with a Lutheran on Ecclesiology & Old Testament Indefectibility Analogies [11-22-11]

St. Francis de Sales: Bible vs. Total Depravity (+ Biblical Evidence for the Indefectibility of the Church, from the Psalms) [11-24-11]

The Bible on the Indefectibility of the Church [2013]

Michael Voris’ Ultra-Pessimistic Views Regarding the Church [7-3-13]

Critique of Three Michael Voris Statements Regarding the State of the Church [7-3-13]

Indefectibility, Fear, & the Synod on the Family [9-30-15]

Salesian Apologetics #1: Indefectibility of the Church [2-4-20] ]

Catholic Church, Conspiracies to Overthrow (Masonic and Otherwise)

What leaves one truly scandalized is seeing how the top levels of the Hierarchy are openly placing themselves at the service of the Prince of this world, adopting the demands made by the United Nations for the globalist agenda, Masonic brotherhood, Malthusian ecologism, immigrationism… What is being created is a single world religion without dogmas or morals, according to the wishes of Freemasonry . . . (5-29-20)

That the Masonic octopus clutches the Catholic Church in its tentacles is neither a rumor nor a secret. Right in the Vatican, the very stronghold of the Catholic Church, Masonry has armed itself with diabolical patience and waited until it reached the levers of power and command. The heart of Catholicity, which by divine mandate must be a beacon, has long been home to a pomp and pretention that decays it. (6-2-20)

What the world wants, at the instigation of Masonry and its infernal tentacles, is to create a universal religion that is humanitarian and ecumenical, from which the jealous God whom we adore is banished. And if this is what the world wants, any step in the same direction by the Church is an unfortunate choice which will turn against those who believe that they can jeer at God. The hopes of the Tower of Babel cannot be brought back to life by a globalist plan that has as its goal the cancellation of the Catholic Church, in order to replace it with a confederation of idolaters and heretics united by environmentalism and universal brotherhood. . . .

[O]n March 13, 2013, the mask fell from the conspirators, who were finally free of the inconvenient presence of Benedict XVI and brazenly proud of having finally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church . . . (6-9-20)

Mass: Ordinary Form Mass (of St. Paul VI) is a Bad Thing

[T]he conciliar disaster of the Novus Ordo Missae is undergoing further modernization . . . This is a further step in the direction of regression towards the naturalization and immanentization of Catholic worship, towards a pantheistic and idolatrous Novissimus Ordo. The “Dew,” an entity present in the “theological place” of the Amazonian tropics — as we learned from the synodal fathers — becomes the new immanent principle of fertilization of the Earth, which “transubstantiates” it into a pantheistically connected Whole to which men are assimilated and subjugated, to the glory of Pachamama. And here we are plunged back into the darkness of a new globalist and eco-tribal paganism, with its demons and perversions. From this latest liturgical upheaval, divine Revelation decays from fullness to archaism; from the hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit we slide towards the symbolic and metaphorical evanescence proper to dew which masonic gnosis has long made its own. . . . worship secularized and gradually profaned, morality sabotaged, the priesthood vilified, the Eucharistic Sacrifice protestantized and transformed into a convivial Banquet . . . (12-20-19)

If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. (6-9-20)

. . . the Holy Mass – horribly disfigured in the name of ecumenism . . . (7-1-20)

[for the refutation, see:

“New” / Ordinary Form / Pauline Mass: a Traditional Defense (with Massive Historical Documentation, + Summary of Vatican II on Liturgical Reform) [6-18-08]

Reactionary & Traditionalist Reaction to Summorum Pontificum [6-23-08]

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] [2-26-14]

Who’s Defending Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum Now? [2-26-14]

You Prefer the Tridentine / EF Mass? Great! You Prefer Novus Ordo / OF (like me)? Great! [8-14-15]

Two Forms of One Rite (Pope Benedict XVI) [11-4-15]

Critique of Criticisms of the New Mass [11-5-15]

Worshiping the TLM vs. Worshiping God Through It [12-16-15]

Traditionalist Misuse of Ratzinger “Banal” Quote [12-17-15]

Chris Ferrara vs. Pope Benedict XVI (New Mass) [12-18-15]

Vs. Pasqualucci Re Vatican II #12: Sacrosanctum Concilium & Liturgical “Creativity” [7-22-19] ]

Pope Francis: Deceiver & Liar / Deliberately Ambiguous

His action seeks to violate the Sacred Deposit of Faith and to disfigure the Catholic Face of the Bride of Christ by word and action, through duplicity and lies, through those theatrical gestures of his that flaunt spontaneity but are meticulously conceived and planned . . . His action makes use of magisterial improvisation, of that off the cuff and fluid magisterium that is as insidious as quicksand . . . that seeming and ostentatious devotion . . . Once again, the Pope’s words have the scent of a colossal lie . . . it is impossible to seek clarity [with Pope Francis], since the distinctive mark of the modernist heresy is dissimulation. Masters of error and experts in the art of deception, . . . And so the lie, obstinately and obsessively repeated, ends up becoming “true” and accepted by the majority. Also typically modernist is the tactic of affirming what you want to destroy, using vague and imprecise terms, and promoting error without ever formulating it clearly. This is exactly what Pope Bergoglio does, with his dissolving amorphism of the Mysteries of the Faith, with his doctrinal approximation . . . (12-20-19)

And it should be said that what the innovators [in Vatican II] succeeded in obtaining by means of deception, cunning and blackmail was the result of a vision that we have found later applied in the maximum degree in the Bergoglian “magisterium” of Amoris Laetitia. (7-3-20)

Pope Francis: Evangelism and Missionary Work (Alleged Antipathy to)

[T]he current Papacy has completely eliminated any form of apostolate, and says the Church must not perform any missionary activity, which it calls proselytism. (3-29-20)

[for the refutation, see:

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 blog, 10-21-13)

Did Pope Francis just diss apologists? 9 things to know and share (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 3-9-14)

When Pope Francis rips ‘proselytism,’ who’s he talking about? He really may not be talking about, or to, Catholics at all (John L. Allen, Jr., Crux, 1-27-15)

Dialogue: Pope Francis Doesn’t Evangelize? [4-29-16]

Pope Francis Condemns Evangelism? Absolutely Not! [10-17-16]

Is Pope Francis Against Apologetics & Defending the Faith? [11-26-19]

Debate: Pope Francis on Doctrine, Truth, & Evangelizing (vs. Dr. Eduardo Echeverria) [12-16-19]

Francis: Evangelize by Example, not Pushing Your Faith on Others (Fr. Matthew P. Schneider, Through Catholic Lenses, 12-23-19)

Dialogue: Pope Francis vs. Gospel Preaching & Converts? No! (vs. Eric Giunta) [1-3-20]

Abp. Viganò Whopper #289: Pope Forbids All Evangelism (?) [4-8-20]

Pope Francis vs. the Gospel? Outrageous & Absurd Lies! (Anti-Catholic Protestant James White and Catholic Reactionary Steve Skojec Echo Each Other’s Gigantic Whoppers) [5-26-20] ]

Pope Francis: Heretic / Modernist

Christians expect a clear answer from the Pope himself. The thing is too important; it is essential: Yes, I believe that Christ is the Son of God made Man, the only Savior and Lord. . . . All Christians await this clarification from him, not from others, and by virtue of their baptism have the right to have this response. (10-10-19)

[Jimmy Akin refuted this outrageous ludicrosity: Clarity is Next to Godliness (Catholic Answers Magazine, 10-10-19) ]

Pope Bergoglio thus proceeds to further implement the apostasy of Abu Dhabi, the fruit of pantheistic and agnostic neo-modernism that tyrannizes the Roman Church, . . . (Letter #62, November 2019)

The tragic story of this failed pontificate advances with a pressing succession of twists and turns. Not a day passes: from the most exalted throne the Supreme Pontiff proceeds to dismantle the See of Peter, using and abusing its supreme authority, not to confess but to deny; not to confirm but to mislead; not to unite but to divide; not to build but to demolish. Material heresies, formal heresies, idolatry, superficiality of every kind . . . “demythologizing” the papacy . . . With Pope Bergoglio — as with all modernists . . . he . . . demolishes the most sacred dogmas, . . . (12-20-19)

In his Abu Dhabi declaration, Pope Francis said that God wants all religions. Not only is this a blatant heresy, it is also a very serious apostasy and a terrible blasphemy. Saying that God wants to be worshipped as something other than how He revealed Himself means that the Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection of our Savior are completely meaningless. It means that the reason for founding the Church, the reason for which millions of holy Martyrs gave their lives, for which the Sacraments were instituted, along with the Priesthood and the Papacy itself, are all meaningless. The Pope, . . . must immediately and absolutely convert. (3-29-20)

[the pope has clarified (on 4-3-20) that he referred to God’s permissive will (“why does God allow many religions? God wanted to allow this: Scolastica theologians used to refer to God’s voluntas permissiva.“), not perfect will. See further clarification]

[I]t is obvious that Bergoglio, along with those who are behind him and support him, aspires to preside over this infernal parody of the Church of Christ. (5-29-20)

[for the refutation, see:

Documentation: Pope Francis is Orthodox, Pro-Tradition and Against Modernism (Dan Marcum, Catholic Answers Forum, 1-9-15)

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

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 [12-13-16]

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

Pope Francis On . . . [31 different issues] (Mark Mallett, The Now Word, 4-24-18)

Papal Critics Concede: No Proof of Canonical Papal Heresy [5-10-19] ]

Pope Francis: Idolater (So-Called “Pachamama”)

The enthronement of that Amazonian idol, even at the altar of the confession in St. Peter’s Basilica, . . . the synodal event, which marked the investiture of pachamama in the heart of Catholicity . . . idolatrous statues of rare ugliness, . . . (12-20-19)

They have even committed acts of unprecedented gravity, such as we saw with the adoration of the pachamama idol in the Vatican itself. . . . What we must do is ask forgiveness for the sacrilege perpetrated in the Basilica of Saint Peter’s, and reconsecrate it before the Holy Sacrifice of Mass can be said there. . . . he himself brought off a terrible sacrilege before the eyes and ears of the whole world, before the very Altar of the Confession of Saint Peter, a real profanation, an act of pure apostasy, with those filthy and satanic images of pachamama. (3-29-20)

. . . Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood. . . . the image of an infernal divinity was able to enter into Saint Peter’s . . . we see an idol of wood adored by religious sisters and brothers, . . . If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. (6-9-20)

[for the refutation, see:

Biblical Idolatry: Authentic & Counterfeit Conceptions (2015)

Our Lady of the Amazon – 2018 Video Footage Emerges (Dr. Pedro Gabriel, Where Peter Is, 10-17-19)

“Pachamama” [?] Statues: Marian Veneration or Blasphemous Idolatry? [11-5-19]

“Pachamama” Fiasco: Hysterical Reactionaryism, as Usual [11-8-19]

Pachamama – the missing piece of the puzzle (Dr. Pedro Gabriel, Where Peter Is, 11-10-19)

“Pachamama” Confusion: Fault of Vatican or Catholic Media? [11-12-19]

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

It was clearly idolatry! [“Pachamama” controversy] (Dr. Pedro Gabriel, Where Peter Is, 12-1-19)

Pope St. John Paul II Respectfully Referred to Pachamama (+ Orthodox Catholic References to “Mother Earth” and Similar Biblical Motifs) [12-13-19]

Fr. Pacwa and divine signs [“Pachamama” controversy] (Dr. Pedro Gabriel, Where Peter Is, 12-16-19)

Is “Mother Earth” a Catholic Concept (Church Fathers)? (Rosemarie Scott, hosted at Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 12-17-19)

“Pachamama” Redux (vs. Peter Kwasniewski & Janet Smith) [12-17-19]

Dialogue: “Pachamama” (?) Statues & Marian Iconography [12-24-19]

Dr. Fastiggi Defends Pope Francis Re “Pachamama Idolatry” (hosted at Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 3-3-20) ]

Pope Francis: Mary & Catholic Mariology (Alleged Antipathy to)

Pope Bergoglio once again gave vent to his evident Marian intolerance . . . The Pontiff’s intolerance is a manifest aggression . . . After having downgraded her to the “next door neighbor” or a runaway migrant, or a simple lay woman with the defects and crises of any woman marked by sin, or a disciple who obviously has nothing to teach us; after having trivialized and desacralized her, like those feminists who are gaining ground in Germany with their “Mary 2.0” movement which seeks to modernize Our Lady and make her a simulacrum in their image and likeness, Pope Bergoglio has further impugned the August Queen and Immaculate Mother of God, who “became mestiza with humanity… and made God mestizo.” With a couple of jokes, he struck at the heart of the Marian dogma and the Christological dogma connected to it. . . .

To attack Mary is to venture against Christ himself; to attack the Mother is to rise up against her Son and to rebel against the very mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. . . . Pope Bergoglio no longer seems to contain his impatience with the Immaculate . . . [he] deserts the solemn celebration of the Assumption and the recitation of the Rosary with the faithful . . . nothing less than a declaration of war on the Lady and Patroness of all the Americas, . . . he . . . demolishes the most sacred dogmas, as he did with the Marian dogmas of the Ever-Virgin Mother of God. (12-20-19)

[He makes] doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. (6-9-20)

[for the refutation, see:

Is Pope Francis Guilty of Blasphemy and Departure from All Catholic Mariological Tradition in His Comments on the Possible Momentary Temptation of Mary at the Cross? [1-19-14]

Yes, Virginia, the Pope Believes Mary is Immaculate [12-29-18]

Pope Francis vs. the Marian Title “Co-Redemptrix”? (+ Documentation of Pope Francis’ and Other Popes’ Use of the Mariological Title of Veneration: “Mother of All”) [12-16-19]

Abp. Vigan ò Descends into Fanatical Reactionary Nuthood (. . . Declares Pope Francis a Heretical Narcissist Who “Desacralized” & “Impugned” & “Attack[ed]” Mary) [12-20-19]

Pope Francis’ Deep Devotion to Mary (Esp. Mary Mediatrix) [12-23-19]

Pope Francis and Mary Co-Redemptrix (Robert Fastiggi, Where Peter Is, 12-27-19)

Pope Francis and the coredemptive role of Mary, the “Woman of salvation” (Mark Miravalle & Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa, 1-8-20)

Dr. Fastiggi: Open Letter Re Abp. Viganò, Pope Francis, & Mary [2-22-20] ]

Pope Francis: Mentally Ill / Delusions of Grandeur

. . . in those ethereal spaces that can highlight a pathological delirium of illusory omnipotence, . . . (12-20-19)

Pope Francis: Narcissist

. . . through which he exalts himself in a continuous narcissistic self-celebration, while the figure of the Roman Pontiff is humiliated and the Sweet Christ on earth is obscured. . . . always in the spotlight of the cameras . . . (12-20-19)

. . . in his umpteenth interview. (3-29-20)

Pope Francis: Pantheist

Pope Bergoglio thus proceeds to further implement the apostasy of Abu Dhabi, the fruit of pantheistic and agnostic neo-modernism that tyrannizes the Roman Church, . . . (Letter #62, November 2019)

Vatican II: Heretical / Modernist / Apostate

. . . pantheistic and agnostic neo-modernism that tyrannizes the Roman Church, germinated by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate. We are compelled to recognize it: the poisoned fruits of the “Conciliar springtime” are before the eyes of anyone . . . the teachings that preceded Vatican II have been thrown to the winds, as intolerant and obsolete. The comparison between the pre-conciliar Magisterium and the new teachings of Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae — to mention only those — manifest a terrible discontinuity, . . . (Letter #62, November 2019)

. . . a sort of extreme synthesis of all the conciliar misconceptions and post-conciliar errors that have been relentlessly propagated, without most of us noticing. Yes, because the Second Vatican Council opened not only Pandora’s Box but also Overton’s Window, and so gradually that we did not realize the upheavals that had been carried out, the real nature of the reforms and their dramatic consequences, nor did we suspect who was really at the helm of that gigantic subversive operation, which the modernist Cardinal Suenens called “the 1789 of the Catholic Church.” (12-20-19)

The religious relativism which was brought in with Vatican II led many people to believe that the Catholic Faith was no longer the only means to salvation, or that the Blessed Trinity was the Only True God. (3-29-20)

I believe that the essential point for effectively conducting a spiritual, doctrinal and moral battle against the enemies of the Church is the persuasion that the present crisis is the metastasis of the conciliar cancer: If we have not understood the causal relationship between Vatican II and its logical and necessary consequences over the course of the last sixty years, it will not be possible to steer the rudder of the Church back to the direction given it by her Divine Helmsman, the course that it maintained for two thousand years. (5-29-20)

. . . the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both. . . . causal link between the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II and their logical consequent effect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary deviations that have arisen and progressively developed to the present day. . . . Attempts to correct the conciliar excesses – invoking the hermeneutic of continuity – have proven unsuccessful: . . . from the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecumenism was configured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium. . . . the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to offend the interlocutor (assuming that is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to use the half-error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. . . . And it is surprising that people persist in not wanting to investigate the root causes of the present crisis, limiting themselves to deploring the present excesses as if they were not the logical and inevitable consequence of a plan orchestrated decades ago. If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. . . .

The Council was used to legitimize the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations, and the most unscrupulous abuses, all while Authority remained silent. This Council was so exalted that it was presented as the only legitimate reference for Catholics, clergy, and bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and prohibiting the perennial liturgy that for millennia had nourished the faith of an uninterrupted line of faithful, martyrs, and saints. Among other things, this Council has proven to be the only one that has caused so many interpretative problems and so many contradictions with respect to the preceding Magisterium, while there is not one other council – from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I – that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs so much interpretation.

. . . a form of pan-ecumenism that reduces the Truth of the One Triune God to the level of idolatries and the most infernal superstitions; the acceptance of an interreligious dialogue that presupposes religious relativism and excludes missionary proclamation; the demythologization of the Papacy, pursued by Bergoglio as a theme of his pontificate; the progressive legitimization of all that is politically correct: gender theory, sodomy, homosexual marriage, Malthusian doctrines, ecologism, immigrationism… If we do not recognize that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to find a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy. (6-9-20)

Regarding the possibility of making a correction to the acts of the Second Vatican Council, I think that we can agree: the heretical propositions or those which favor heresy should be condemned, and we can only hope that this will happen as soon as possible. . . . From a legal point of view, the most suitable solution may perhaps be found; but from the pastoral point of view – that is, as regards the Council’s usefulness for the edification of the faithful – it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten. . . . The mere fact that Vatican II is susceptible to correction ought to be sufficient to declare its oblivion as soon as its most obvious errors are seen with clarity. (6-14-20)

I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the Council represents a problem: the simple fact that we are raising this question about Vatican II and not about Trent or Vatican I seems to me to confirm a fact that is obvious and recognized by everyone. In reality, even those who defend the Council with swords drawn find themselves doing so apart from all the other previous ecumenical councils, . . . It is painful to recognize that the practice of having recourse to an equivocal lexicon, using Catholic terms understood in an improper way, invaded the Church starting with Vatican II, . . .

[W]hen we commonly speak of the spirit of an event, we mean precisely that it constitutes the soul, the essence of that event. We can thus affirm that the spirit of the Council is the Council itself, that the errors of the post-conciliar period were contained in nuce in the Conciliar Acts . . . And again: if Vatican II truly did not represent a point of rupture, what is the reason for speaking of a pre-conciliar Church and a post-conciliar church, as if these were two different entities, defined in their essence by the Council itself? (6-26-20)

I have never thought and even less have I affirmed that Vatican II was an invalid Ecumenical Council: in fact it was convoked by the supreme authority, by the Supreme Pontiff, and all of the Bishops of the world took part in it. Vatican II is a valid Council, supported by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. However, as I have already written, from its origin it was made the object of a grave manipulation by a fifth column that penetrated into the very heart of the Church that perverted its purposes, as confirmed by the disastrous results that are before everyone’s eyes. Let us remember that in the French Revolution, the fact that the Estates-General were legitimately convoked on May 5, 1789, by Louis XVI did not prevent things from escalating into the Revolution and the Terror (the comparison is not out of place, since Cardinal Suenens called the conciliar event “the 1789 of the Church”). . . .

As I pointed out in the analogous case of the Synod of Pistoia, the presence of orthodox content does not exclude the presence of other heretical propositions nor does it mitigate their gravity, nor can the truth be used to hide even only one single error. On the contrary, the numerous citations of other Councils, of magisterial acts or of the Fathers of the Church can precisely serve to conceal, with a malicious intent, the controversial points. . . . we can no longer deny the evidence and pretend that Vatican II was not something qualitatively different from Vatican I, despite the numerous heroic and documented efforts, even by the highest authority, to interpret it by force as a normal Ecumenical Council. (7-1-20)

I am aware that having dared to express an opinion strongly critical of the Council is sufficient to awaken the inquisitorial spirit that in other cases is the object of execration by right-thinking people. . . .

I do not find anything reprehensible in suggesting that we should forget Vatican II: its proponents knew how to confidently exercise this damnatio memoriae not just with a Council but with everything, even to the point of affirming that their council was the first of the new church, and that beginning with their council the old religion and the old Mass was finished. You will say to me that these are the positions of extremists, and that virtue stands in the middle, that is, among those who consider that Vatican II is only the latest of an uninterrupted series of events in which the Holy Spirit speaks through the mouth of the one and only infallible Magisterium. If so, it should be explained why the conciliar church was given a new liturgy and a new calendar, and consequently a new doctrine – nova lex orandi, nova lex credendi – distancing itself from its own past with disdain.

The mere idea of setting the Council aside causes scandal even in those, like you, who recognize the crisis of recent years, but who persist in not wanting to recognize the causal link between Vatican II and its logical and inevitable effects. . . . I do not hesitate to say that that assembly should be forgotten “as such and en bloc,” and I claim the right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church. (7-3-20)

[for the refutation, see:

Dialogue: Vatican II & Other Religions (Nostra Aetate) [8-1-99]

Cdl Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI): Vatican II Authority = Trent [5-20-05]

Dialogue on Vatican II: Its Relative Worth, Interpretation, and Application (with Patti Sheffield vs. Traditionalist David Palm) [9-15-13]

Vatican II Defended Against Reactionary (and Some Traditionalist) Charges [4-25-14; expanded and re-edited: 1-23-17]

Apologia for Vatican II / Misguided Reactionary Criticisms [8-17-15]

“Novelties” of Vatican II (Religious Liberty & Ecumenism)? [2-10-17]

Debate on Ross Douthat’s Critical Views of Vatican II [3-26-18]

Is VCII’s Nostra Aetate “Religiously Pluralistic” & Indifferentist? [6-7-19]

Defense of Vatican II (vs. Paolo Pasqualucci): Master List (12 separate articles) [7-23-19]

“Ambiguity”: Classic Reactionary Talking Point & Mantra [12-5-19]

Dignitatis Humanae & Religious Liberty [7-18-19]

Vatican II Upheld Biblical Inerrancy (vs. David Palm) [4-23-20]

Phil Lawler vs. Vatican II? (“Troublesome” / “Ambiguities”) [5-5-20] ]

***

Photo credit: Ordercrazy (12-28-13) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

***

Have Heterodox Catholics Overthrown Official Doctrine?

Last updated on: June 25, 2020 at 3:09 pm By Dave Armstrong

Dialogue with anti-Catholics James White (words in green), Eric Svendsen (blue), Andrew Webb (brown), and Phillip Johnson (purple). This series of exchanges took place on Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White’s sola Scriptura discussion list (which was by invitation only). It occurred between 23 May and 3 June 1996.

***

The Catholic unity of belief is itself a myth. Catholic apologists would like to paint the Catholic church as a monolithic organization where everyone agrees on every point of dogma. Nothing could be further from the truth. Protestants, they will argue, disagree on essential points of doctrine (this is my body is a favorite), which is the result of the private interpretations of the magisterium of one. Catholics everywhere all believe the same thing, which is the result of following an infallible interpreter. Is there such monolithic belief in Catholicism?

No, not Catholics, but the Catholic Church. We have the books, the dogmas, the decrees, the Councils, the current Catechism, the uniform, developed doctrinal history and Tradition. Everyone knows what the Catholic Church believes on any major topic. You know what we believe about Mary. You know our views on contraception, purgatory, the saints, the papacy, the Eucharist, etc. Everyone knows.

But if Küng, Curran, McBrien and their ilk can’t bring themselves to be honest with themselves and accept that this is what their Church holds, how is that a disproof of the oneness of Catholicism? It is none at all. They are simply straying sheep, heretical in spirit. We can say they are not Catholic theologians if we so choose. But you guys can only fight, disagree, and form a new sect when (inevitably) no resolution can be achieved. Is this not obvious? Why is it necessary to keep reiterating it? That is why I’ve called this argument “desperate,” and will continue to, as I’ve seen nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.

We can agree that any kind of division among Christians is unfortunate–I for one abhor denominationalism, primarily because of the pride associated with it. I have been writing against this kind of thing for over five years now.

Amen! Glory to God! Here is some transparent honesty I called for in my last post. Unfortunately you don’t go far enough:

Where does [apologist Geisler] get his authority? And who’s to decide what qualifies as a “secondary issue”?

And your proposed solution is to submit to Rome? All that would do is push the question back one more step–where does Rome get its authority–certainly not the Bible!

Yes. From Jesus and the Apostles, who in turn produced the Bible, which was canonized by the Catholic Church and preserved for 1120 years (from the Council of Carthage) before the first Protestant ever laid eyes or hands on it (unless you want to claim, with Dave Hunt, that the Albigensi and Cathari were evangelical Protestants). My new book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism has hundreds of biblical proofs of the Catholic position, whereas I’ve yet to hear a decent Protestant response to many verses I bring up, such as: what does “binding” and “loosing” and “retaining” sins mean, and what is Paul’s “baptisms for the dead”? Not to mention the divisions which we’ve been talking about. And sola Scriptura itself.

I’ll grant you that there is (very broadly speaking) a “mere Christianity” type of unity, but why should anyone accept this “lowest common denominator” unity? I want all the truth and nothing but the truth. Why should any Christian tolerate error (which we know from logical necessity is rampant within Protestantism), when all lies come from the father of lies (you know who)?

The sword cuts both ways here. I am completely certain that the Bible is without error, that Adam really lived, and that Jonah was really swallowed by a large sea creature. You on the other hand cannot claim certainty in these areas because your infallible interpreter has not clarified them for you.

Oh really?: “The Church . . . teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original ‘state of holiness and justice.'” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #375). Hard to have original sin without original parents, ain’t it? Fr. John Hardon, for example, of impeccable orthodoxy, friend of Pope Paul VI and catechist of Mother Teresa’s nuns, believes in Jonah and the whale:

An Israelite prophet . . . he lived in the 8th century B.C. . . . swallowed by a huge fish . . . (Pocket Catholic Dictionary, 208)

I’m sure I could find more official sources but I have neither the time, energy, desire, nor (probably) the proper books to do so right now. We have our liberals just like you do (after all, Protestantism produced liberalism in the first place, and now we are suffering for it, too. Gee, thanks for the favor).

Everyone knows what the Catholic Church believes on any major topic.

Oh really? What does the Catholic church believe about inerrancy, Dave? :)

According to Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today, in his book The Battle for the Bible, our view can stand up to the most rigorous of the Protestant denominations who uphold inerrancy (I had one of his quotes but I can’t find it right now). You can trot out your Catholic liberals if it makes you feel better, but this will not change the fact of what the Church believes.

I haven’t mentioned Kung or the others–I mentioned Brown (MacKenzie will also do). Let’s put the red herrings aside and talk about Brown’s view of inerrancy vs. your view. How does that difference display oneness in Catholicism? Which one of you is the straying sheep and heretic–Brown or you?

McKenzie is a borderline liberal. Brown is a liberal. I am not bound to his opinions. I am bound to the dogma of the Catholic Church. Where he differs from that he is being an unfaithful Catholic. You forget that we do not have a priesthood of theologians, commentators, and radio and TV preachers, as you do. We have higher authorities than that, so that we are not beholden to every fad, whim, fancy, and craze which happens to be current in theology. Individual theologians may be – but not the Church. And the new Catechism has spectacularly confirmed that once again. The liberals gave it everything they had to subvert the Church, but they are losing.

The tide has turned, and they will go the way of all heretical movements in history — either disappear or fight each other to either death or irrelevance and inconsequence. Fr. Stravinskas had a great line, saying that meetings of Catholic liberals are like “conferences in the gerontology ward.” That says it all, I think. Religious liberalism (like political) is going the way of the dinosaur. They had their day, and hour, and their fun. But God is not mocked, so they are becoming extinct, by the comet of John Paul II and a movement for orthodoxy which gains momentum by the hour.

This is exceedingly curious to me. You forget that [Bob Sungenis] is still a Catholic, and that is the whole point, whereas if I move from Calvinism to Arminianism, I am no longer a bona fide, “true,” “real,” “Reformation” Protestant, according to those who pride themselves as same. I swear you guys have blinders on when it comes to this “there are many factions in the Catholic Church, too” business.”

I find it curious that you don’t find it curious that you are violating the same principle of which you accuse us when you say that Raymond Brown is no longer a bona fide, “true,” “real” Catholic!

I don’t recall saying he wasn’t a Catholic, but that wherever he contradicts our dogmatic teaching, he is an inconsistent one, not in good faith, and intellectually dishonest to boot. You guys can only make that judgment within a denomination, but then cannot enforce it, and who’s to say that your denomination is right and the others wrong? This is not to say, either, that Brown has forsaken the Christian faith altogether.

That’s the difference. We acknowledge Protestants as Christian brothers, but you guys can’t even extend the same courtesy amongst yourselves, often reading us and your fellow “dissidents” (from us!) out of the faith altogether, as Luther did with Zwingli, and as my anonymous Calvinist “friend” did with me (judging my former allegiance in that case).

That’s the point I was trying to make, and you still haven’t told me what group Sungenis has joined which supposedly is the equivalent of forming a new sect (!!! absurd). This would only be true if it renounced Vatican II, the present pope, etc., in which case it would cease to be Catholic by definition, just as a person denouncing TULIP would, ipso facto, cease being a Calvinist.

David J. Palm [a Catholic apologist] writes:

We are getting a lot of mileage in this group out of what my friend Al Kresta calls the “So’s your Old Man,” argument. But, like the so-called “argument by assertion” it’s really no argument at all, just a way to try to shift burden.

This frankly appears to be nothing more than a ploy on your part to dodge the fact that these favorite Catholic arguments actually work against the Roman Catholic position.

I thought this was a group whose purpose was to discuss sola Scriptura! Answer our critiques of your position, and I promise I myself or one of my Catholic friends will start up a similar group in the future where all you guys can critique us. It seems, however, that the only Protestant answer to so many of our objections is simply to parrot, “but the Catholic Church . . .,” “but all those ignorant Catholics . . .”, etc. Sheer silliness. Keep these comments for another time, I say, and have the guts to defend your own deepest-held beliefs.

Don’t be like political liberals who are ashamed to label themselves accurately, and can only attack the Republicans rather than offer their own pro-active agenda. If your view(s) is (are) so superior to ours, why do we have to beg and plead on bended knee for you to spell it (them) out with theological and logical rigor and detail?!

I’ve heard recently that even John Stott and F. F. Bruce have questioned the existence of eternal hellfire. And they’re supposed to be “evangelicals”?!

Now, many examples could be cited (and have already been cited) to show that this particular “glass house” is marred with too many broken panes to be much of a refuge for Catholics. My personal favorite is this, from Karl Keating, writing in This Rock:

. . . on January 28, Mr. [Gerry] Matatics was asked, “Is there a current pope?” His answer: “I honestly can’t say.”

“There you go again,” as Reagan used to say. Here is a prime example of what I am talking about — and simply answered as usual, too. If Matatics denies there is a pope (he has denied this charge in a phone conversation to me), he is no longer a Catholic, by definition. It’s as simple as that. Now, on the other hand, if Stott or Bruce goes liberal on the doctrine of hell, who’s to say they are no longer “evangelical”?

I’ll grant you that 90% (?) of evangelicals believe in hell, but when all’s said and done, how do you guys determine orthodoxy? In this instance, it is a doctrine which you inherited from us, so it is a long-running, apostolic Tradition. But what of, say, contraception? Luther and Calvin thought it murder, and all Christians opposed it until 1930, but now it is a perfectly moral “choice” in the opinion of the vast majority of Protestant sects.

Thus, “orthodoxy” changed, and on the flimsiest of grounds (faddism and moral compromise). But virtually everything Protestants agree on are doctrines which are held in common with Catholics and Orthodox (Nicene Creed-type doctrines). Even sola fide is disbelieved in the strict sense within Methodism, Anglicanism, and some Lutherans. So “perspicuity” fails even there.

Our argument isn’t: “your liberals are worse than our liberals” (“your dad’s uglier than my dad . . .”), but rather: we have a self-consistent mechanism to determine orthodoxy and “bind and loose,” but you don’t. Thus, every Protestant becomes his own pope, in the final analysis. This is what your radical individualism reduces to. You have 600 million popes, but we acknowledge one, and everyone knows who he is.

It would seem to me that if this argument is damaging at all, it damages only the Roman Catholic position, because Protestants have said all along that the Scriptures alone are infallible.

Then why is James White so reluctant to tell me what it teaches on all the innumerable issues upon which Protestants disagree? If even your champion won’t (or can’t) do it, how can you expect me to be hoodwinked into believing that a “plowboy” can?!

Meanwhile, unless you’re prepared to defend all the dissident Roman Catholics, you really ought to drop this particular set of arguments against Protestantism.

I never have. I say, boot them all out, personally. But there is wisdom in a more cautious, patient approach. Look what happened when we were more stern: whole countries left the faith. Henry VIII falls into uncontrollable lust and bloodthirsty power politics; we censure him, and so lose England. I think the Catholic Church learned from experiences such as those (but just my own speculation, mind you). I said:

Why not boldly tell us, then, James [White], precisely what “the Apostles taught”? [he never did]

We have a sufficient and infallible record of the essentials of the apostolic message in Scripture. Precisely what they taught is recorded there.

Yeah? What is it then? I wait with baited breath for the answer . . .

But what you really seem to be seeking is an infallible interpretation of it in every point and every particular. And again, as has been pointed out before, even Roman Catholicism does not claim to be able to provide that.

At this point, I’d accept any interpretation. Again, I reiterate: at least Luther and Calvin had the strength of their convictions to excommunicate other Protestants for dissidence, because they truly believed in their own brand of Christianity. There is something to be said for that. In those days, Lutherans and Calvinists drowned Anabaptists for believing in adult baptism (not that it was right!), but now, baptism is winked at as “not central,” thus relegated to the dust-bin of relativism.

Thus, you guys went from one extreme to the other: baptism once meant everything; now it means virtually nothing (how could it, since you are divided into five camps?). So your sinful divisions lead to compromise on doctrine. This is the very essence of theological liberalism, I think.

On the other hand, Pope Paul VI stood up to almost the whole world in heroically reaffirming the ban on contraception in 1968, at the very height of both the sexual revolution, and the attempt of liberals within the Catholic Church to subvert it and remake it in their own image. Even Karl Barth praised him for that, shortly before his death.

What in Protestantism even remotely resembles such a courageous defiance of modernism?: Sproul, MacArthur and Ankerberg quixotically railing against the ECT statement? Today on the radio I heard Sproul and Ankerberg publicly discussing private meetings they had with Chuck Colson and J .I. Packer. This is not only atrocious ethics, but illustrates the absurdity of rampant evangelical chaos and in-fighting.

What in Protestantism even remotely resembles such a courageous defiance of modernism?

One might interpret the pope’s actions as arrogance, not courage. But how about the courage of Martin Luther and John Calvin to stand up against a highly corrupt ecclesial institution?

This would be a much more credible claim — all things being equal — if their own lives and churches weren’t so corrupt themselves.

We as evangelicals do hold to a certain set of beliefs. But we do not agree on all points–we freely admit that. So, what is your point?

That this is relativism, and indifferentism to far too many biblical doctrines.

That sola scriptura is impoverished in its ability to create dogmatic unity in every point? Granted. That sola scriptura creates chaos and anarchy? Not granted, because it’s not true.

Very well, then, I ask you again: how many sects does it take for you to question sola Scriptura? If there are no grounds whatsoever for falsifiability, then the belief itself is based on irrationality and blind faith, and thus unworthy of allegiance (besides its being unbiblical and self-defeating).

And what is your underlying assumption (and motivation) in asking this question? That if we simply abandon sola scriptura and embrace the Roman church, all of our disagreements will then suddenly disintegrate? . . . The only thing that we will have accomplished is the complete loss of the apostolic gospel!

“Complete loss”? Please elaborate on 1) the nature of this “apostolic gospel” and 2) How and when the Catholic Church “completely” lost it. Sad, Eric. Very sad.

Either demonstrate this abstract, ethereal notion of perspicuity concretely and practically, or cease using it if it has no content, and if it is only useful as a content-less slogan to bash Catholics with.

Again, Dave, I have to say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. You want us to demonstrate perspicuity? Demonstrate your own first.

Ditto. The “old man” again. Double shame on you. You’re smarter than this.

You want us to drop the issue of Catholic division? Then drop your issue of Protestant division.

Oh how you wish I would do that! Wouldn’t that be nice, and convenient for you?

Actually, Dave, I have repeatedly asked you what the Catholic Church believes about biblical inerrancy, and you keep evading the issue.

Absolutely not. We believe it. Is that direct enough?

Others have asked you what the Catholic church officially teaches about the material sufficiency of Scripture and you keep evading that issue too. You want us to go to the official teaching of the Catholic magisterium to find out its teachings? Alright, we have done that; and they won’t tell us what to believe in these areas.

If both Trent and Vatican II opt for material sufficiency, isn’t that sufficient for you? Even James White can only refer to the “first draft” of Trent in his attempt to obfuscate the issue. First drafts don’t count for diddly squat. The whole purpose of a Council is to work through and hammer out issues. The final proclamations are the bottom line. Isn’t that obvious? But I am no expert in this particular area. I myself see it as largely a moot point, as I stated in a very early post. It is just another instance of the desperate Protestant utilization of picayune minutiae in order to justify its own inadequacies.

As I have maintained from the outset, sola scriptura did not develop in a vacuum, nor can it be debated in one. The reason sola scriptura emerged in the first place was because the Roman system was deficient.

Rather, it was that Luther refused to recant his heresy (which goes back to at least 1515, two years before his fabled 95 Theses and the resultant controversy). Having become intransigent, he had little choice. Once one jettisons the unbroken Tradition of the Christian (Catholic) Church, there is no other real alternative but “Bible Alone,” hence sola Scriptura arose. In effect Luther made himself an infallible “Super-Pope,” as did Calvin and Zwingli, and so forth . . .

So infallibility simply moved from Councils, the Church, the pope, and Tradition, to individual men who were heretics according to all previous Christian precedent. Self-proclaimed and self-anointed “Reformers,” most of whom broke solemn vows to God, which, biblically, is a very serious sin. Why should they have been believed rather than the other alternative at that time? And then you start to examine their lives, too . . . :-(, and if you’re Protestant this ought to give you big-time pause.

I’m still waiting for you to tell us what this mysterious “apostolic message” is. According to this curious illogic, one can “know” what the message is, without the Catholic Church, but they can’t tell me what it is, what it consists of!

Here is at least part of the apostolic message. “Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day according to tradition” (oops, I mean the Scriptures :). He is our “great God and Savior,” and “whoever believes in him is not condemned but has passed from death to life.” “Having been justified by his grace we have peace with God.” “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son does not have life.”

All that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus, and he will certainly not drive them away. In fact, they cannot even drive themselves away since of all the Father has given Him he shall lose none. Is this perspicuous enough for you, or shall we have Rome interpret it for us?

We agree with all this, excepting eternal security. This is a start, though. Why then don’t you tell me what the Apostles believed concerning my 18 points?

You guys need to defend your own position without recourse to Catholics at all.

Actually, we don’t need to defend it at all until someone attacks it. But the minute someone attacks it then that person had better be able to supply us with a superior system.

We have, and we can.

Ah, there we go. Let’s try to put this one to bed. You have a mechanism to determine orthodoxy. I’ll leave self-consistent out at the moment, since historically that’s not the case.

Even if I were to grant that we have been inconsistent (which ain’t likely), our record on consistency is sure a heck of a lot better than yers! As for liberals, there are “formal” Catholics, who have forsaken the teachings of the Catholic Church; hence they are no longer “Catholics” in essence, since the system is defined in large part by the willingness to submit oneself to the Church and its Tradition and dogmas and disciplinary regulations (Lent, etc.).

If you insist, I could use the terms “good” Catholic, “observant” Catholic, “orthodox” Catholic, Catholic in good standing, “magisterial” Catholic. I think you know how I am defining the term by now. But in any event, what a Catholic should believe is abundantly clear, no matter what McBrien et al say.

A person denying the Trinity, or the resurrection, or even eternal punishment in hell, would not be a member of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, I can assure you.

You can be proud that your particular congregation cares about doctrine, but don’t try to say that this is common in evangelicalism. I know personally of two churches — Lutheran and Baptist, where a person who denied the Trinity was either accepted as a member, or would have been, if he had tried, on the basis of (in effect): “he’s following Jesus, who cares about the technicalities.”

If “the narrower = better” is true, then, as Eric Svendsen and I pointed out earlier, the JW’s have you beaten by a long shot. The list of “musts” they can put up makes yours look pretty weak in comparison. Is it a valid argument for them to compare the wideness of theological views in Rome with the pencil-thin spectrum amongst JW’s? I’d say it isn’t, but I don’t see how you can be consistent in your position and yet disagree.

If you think an irrationalist, deliberately dishonest, Arian heresy has a theological and historical pedigree and rationale to match that of the Catholic Church, I’d love to see you make that case. It’s not the number of requirements that is the key, but the fact that they can be backed up by apostolic Tradition and the history of doctrine, which is the crucial distinction (St. Vincent’s famous dictum).

I and David Palm have explained the qualitative difference between the two scenarios many times, & so I desist. Again I ask: how many sects are necessary before you start to question your system (no ones’ answered this yet, either)? I’ve thrown out the figure 240,000 to no avail. What about 2,400,000 then? Would that be enough? As many sects as there are people in Philadelphia?

Respectfully Dave, your argument only holds water if we presuppose that Catholicism is a universally homogeneous body.

Yes, I do presuppose this, because it is true. Why? Because our “books” (Councils, Catechisms, papal encyclicals, and in a derivative sense, apologetics works) are clear as to what the Catholic Church believes, as are yours within particular denominations (e.g., Westminster Confession, Augsburg Confession, or perhaps Calvin’s Institutes). This is the only reasonable way we can judge any religious belief-system. Even Norman Geisler knows what the Catholic Church believes, in his new book comparing our two outlooks. Why can’t you?

No one has yet answered my plea as to what would constitute falsifiability of your system of sola Scriptura (particularly the perspicuity aspect). You are now added to that list, since you are silent as well.

I have had the privilege of bopping around the world a few times and seen differences between Catholic churches that make the differences between most orthodox Protestant Churches pale to insignificance. For instance, one only need compare how Catholicism is practiced in Ann Arbor, Manila, San Francisco, San Salvador, and Mexico City to realize that Catholicism is splintered into countless sub-divisions that divide along cultural, liberal, charismatic, conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist, Marxist, (etc. ad infinitum).

I couldn’t care less. Liberals are the scourge of the earth, and we are now plagued with them thanks to Protestant liberalism which bequeathed them to us. Why you think this disproves the validity of our system I have not the slightest idea. For example, theological liberalism has been condemned very strongly, especially in some papal encyclicals. Likewise liberation theology, whereas the charismatic movement has been blessed by popes.

There is no conflict in the system, only in the hypocritical practice of individuals. Liberals wreak havoc on the Church that they profess to be a part of (most are in mortal sin and in danger of hell-fire by that same Church’s stated criteria). But things are improving slowly in this regard. The Church has seen very rough periods many times before, but it always recovers. That is the cogent point, and is one of innumerable reasons why I think the Catholic Church is uniquely the Church which Christ founded, and why I converted to it in 1991.

Catholicism has grown increasingly accustomed to the pretense that people who espouse liberation theology, charismatic evangelism, modified process theology, feminist theology, or open Mariolatry are all members of the same confessional body (provided, of course, they don’t get too public about their particular “spin”).

What do you mean by “Catholicism”? Again, liberation theology, process theology, feminism, Mariolatry have all been condemned, and the charismatic movement accepted. The only problem are liberal priests and bishops who tolerate such clear divergences from Catholic thought and official, dogmatic Catholicism. Protestants, on the other hand, institutionalize differences (read, relativism, and hence error) and end up calling evil good (I need not name the myriad instances of that yet again). This is why I maintain that this whole line of argument is a false and desperate analogy, and I’ve seen nothing to change my opinion.

How is this qualitatively different from having denominations?

Just explained that! :-)

If adherence to the New Catechism is the standard, when are you going to start the ‘weeding’ process?

It proceeds. One example is the bishop in Nebraska. But the Catechism itself is an excellent case in point. Anyone who can read, and anyone who trusts the pope for the purpose of defining the Catholic faith, can scarcely have any excuse for not knowing what the Catholic Church teaches anymore. Nor any excuse for rebelling against it and attempting to subvert it.

(you might want to start with people with those irritating “Let the Lasses Serve Masses!” bumper stickers and the move on to “Another Pro-Choice Catholic”)?

Sounds great! Off with their heads! :-) Here again, the teaching is clear. Everybody (“Catholic” liberals, above all) knows that the Catholic Church is firmly against abortion and women priests. There is no mystery to that whatsoever. Here we have pure intellectual dishonesty, deceit, rebelliousness, and sin, pure and simple. But what do you guys do, in contrast? Practically every liberal denomination espouses abortion, some evangelical ones waffle on it, and even Billy Graham accepts the “rape and incest” exceptions. I was involved in the Rescue movement, and evangelicals couldn’t even agree to that, while the Catholic Church accepted it, and bishops, such as Austin Vaughan of New York, even participated in it (I sat next to him once at a rally – I was still Protestant at the time).

Of course, the Anglicans have women priests and even sodomite priests now, and several denominations accept women pastors. So you institutionalize and rationalize sin, whereas all we have are renegade individuals who violate the clear teaching of their own Church. This is a world of difference, and I can’t comprehend how anyone of whatever belief could fail to see the distinction. So my argument holds, very much so.

Here I am not appealing to a “so’s yer old man” argument but rather pointing out that your own uniformity of focus is highly illusory.

I disagree, based on the above reasoning.

For me to leap to the conclusion that because thousands of Catholic churches get their own doctrine wrong that no Catholic churches get it right is as patently illogical as assuming that because so many Protestants have deviated from scripture that none of them have stayed the course.

Precisely. This is exactly why we can only judge any group by examining their official doctrines. I won’t define my Church by the deviants and neither should you.

Reformed Christians do not claim that any mere man is infallible and even Calvin stated that the best of theologians is only right 80% of the time. Only scripture is an inerrant rule and guide, and a Church’s doctrinal “correctness” should be measured by it’s adherence to this final absolute standard.

Yes, but if you can’t figure out what that standard is amongst yourselves, what good is it? You can’t replace papal infallibility with paper infallibility.

***

Photo credit: Hans Küng (1-27-11; UNED Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license]

***