Bogus Charges of Catholic Eisegesis; Biblical Types & Symbols; Mystical Church; “Full of Grace”; Protestant False Dichotomies

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 2: Exposition]

Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of Fantasia

In this post I’ll comment on some representative passages in Robert Barron’s Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith (2011). [p. 59]

I won’t get into defending Bp. Barron’s words (that’s for him to do), but I’ll comment on some of Hays’ rejoinders.

. . . theological vacuum in the hierarchy. So few bishops seem to be believers, even by Catholic standards. [p. 59]

Really? What’s his evidence for that? Hays wrongheadedly claimed that I wasn’t a bona fide orthodox Catholic, either, but rather, a weird, artificial “hybrid” of evangelicalism + Catholicism. This was one of his most annoying claims sent my way. So I’m not inclined at all to accept his report, prima facie, about “few bishops” being good Catholics. Of course, his burden would be to demonstrate this, and — almost needless to say —  he didn’t. That wasn’t part of the game, the way he played it.

Barron is an eloquent, seductive mythmaker. [p. 59]

That’s “anti-Catholic-speak” for “he makes good arguments, that I can’t answer, so I’ll immediately start in with the ad hominem name-calling and poisoning of the well.”

His biblical prooftexts for Catholicism detach the text from the original meaning, and reattachment it to “development”. [p. 59]

This is the usual boogeyman of development of doctrine, that anti-Catholics, virtually to a person, can’t bring themselves to understand. They invariably claim that it’s a rationalization, after the fact, of “distinctive Catholic” doctrines.

Once theology is cut off from the sacred text, it takes on a life of its own, in ever-bolder flights of fantasy. . . . No longer constrained by the reality of revelation, it goes wherever imagination takes it. [p. 59]

I couldn’t agree more; but I think this is rampant among Protestants, not Catholics. These are the folks whose two “pillars” of belief are sola Scriptura and sola fide: neither of which is taught in the Bible at all. The more honest among them are now openly admitting, particularly, that sola Scriptura isn’t taught in the Bible, but that it doesn’t matter; they will accept it anyway as one of their primary premises. In other words, it’s one of many extrabiblical Protestant traditions of men. So for Hays to project this shortcoming onto Bp. Barron and Catholics generally, is the height of irony.

The exercise has a snowball effect, as seminal errors accumulate and magnify. [p. 59]

Indeed it does, and this sort of effect is one of the reasons that Protestants keep dividing and forming yet more denominations, into the many thousands. Catholics have a magisterium and system of authority that makes it clear what the Catholic Church believes, and what every Catholic is duty-bound to accept.

In some ways, Barron’s book is a throwback to Chateaubriand’s The Genius of Christianity. An apologetic heavy on aesthetics. Catholicism is too pretty not to be true! [p. 59]

A clever demeaning insult . . .

“Icon” is a loaded word that’s acquired connotations it didn’t have in Pauline usage. So Barron’s rendering is anachronistic. [p. 60]

It simply means “image.” Hays himself had written a little bit before: “St. Paul referred to Jesus as “the icon of the invisible God.” That’s Colossians 1:15. Most translations render the Greek eikon there as “image.”

“Sacramental” is another loaded word that’s foreign to Paul’s statement. [p. 61]

Not at all. The broadest meaning of “sacrament” is “grace conveyed by matter.” The incarnation is clearly a means of that. God in becoming flesh brought about the possibility of salvation for all men. The physicality of that is sacramental. Protestants themselves talk about being “saved by His blood,” etc. That’s profoundly sacramental: akin to talking about His sacred heart or the immaculate heart of Mary. The New Testament refers to “an expiation by his blood” (Rom 3:25), “justified by his blood” (Rom 5:9), “redemption through his blood, . . . according to the riches of his grace” (Eph 1:7), and “him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood” (Rev 1:5). That’s sacramentalism, folks.

Bp. Barron wrote eloquently (and quite biblically) about the Annunciation. Hays shot back:

Instead of Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces, we now have The Heroine with a Thousand Faces. Why not go full Hindu and declare Mary the White Goddess with multiple avatars? Why not throw in Tinker Bell and Glenda the Good Witch while he’s at it? [p. 60]

This is too ridiculous and asinine to reply to at all. But it’s classic Hays mockery and deliberate straw-manning and caricature. It’s also blasphemous, which can apply to persons and things beside God. Hays doesn’t address the points that Bp. Barron makes. He simply dismisses them with a smirk and a deluded anti-Catholicism that is relentlessly and willfully blind. This was, sad to say, a constant feature of his anti-Catholic apologetics or unreasonable facsimile thereof, as I will note throughout this series.

As long as he’s going to indulge in unbridged allegory, why stop there? What about the six stone water pots? Let’s tease out their numerological import. And the composition of the water pots. The stone must have some emblematic significance. And the third day. [p. 61]

There are all sorts of symbolism and non-literal multiple meanings in Holy Scripture. Protestants hold to this just as Catholics do; they simply ignore or underemphasize it when it applies to Mary. The Protestant Meyer’s NT Commentary, for example, noted:

Not stated as explanatory of the Jewish custom, but as vividly describing the exact circumstances, yet not with any symbolic significance (six, Lange thinks, was the number of poverty and labour).

Maybe Hays would mock that observation (were he here to respond and willing to do so)? Is that indulging in “unbridled allegory” and outrageously “cut off from the sacred text” too? Ian Paul, adjunct professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, noted that “many readers interpret the six stone water jars symbolically.” These included St. Augustine, whom he cites, observing, “Now the six water-pots signify the six ages, which were not without prophecy. And those six periods, divided and separated as it were by joints, would be as empty vessels unless they were filled by Christ. Why did I say, the periods which would run fruitlessly on, unless the Lord Jesus were preached in them? Prophecies are fulfilled, the water-pots are full; but that the water may be turned into wine, Christ must be understood in that whole prophecy” (Tractates on John 9.6).

The 1939 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has an article on “Type”, which states:

The Bible furnishes abundant evidence of the presence of types and of typical instruction in the Sacred Word. The New Testament attests this fact. It takes up a large number of persons and things and events of former dispensations, and it treats them as adumbrations and prophecies of the future.

The article cited the Dutch Reformed theologian Jan Jacob van Oosterzee (1817 – 1882):

That the Old Testament is rich in types, or rather forms in its totality one type, of the New Testament, follows necessarily from the entirely unique position which belongs to Christ as the center of the history of the world and of revelation. As we constantly see the principle embodied in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, that the higher species are already typified in a lower stage of development, so do we find, in the domain of saving revelation, the highest not only prepared for, but also shadowed forth, by that which precedes in the lower spheres.

Of course, the reason Barron resorts to allegory, absent any textual clues, is because there’s not nearly enough at the “literal level” of the Gospels to justify Catholic Mariology. [p. 61]

So he claims; but he does not argue and demonstrate, per his usual modus operandi. I provide tons of biblical arguments for Catholic Mariology. And I wrote a book that gave a hundred biblical arguments illustrating the utter absence of sola Scriptura in the Bible. Hays was aware of my apologetics work, but he couldn’t trouble himself to try to systematically refute it. He only had time for caricaturing my Catholic belief and then launching a hundred childish personal attacks my way.

Throughout the book he says the church is the “mystical” body of Christ. What does that mean? Where does he get that from Scripture–or does he? [p. 61]

It comes from the Scriptural use of “Body of Christ”: “you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (1 Cor 12:27), “He is the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18), “the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all” (Eph 1:22-23), “the church, his body” (Eph 5:23), “we are members of his body” (Eph 5:30), “his body, that is, the church” (Col 1:24). That’s a mystery, or non-literal, or mystical, if you will. “Mystical” isn’t a biblical word, but it comes from the same root as “mystery,” which is a biblical word, mysterion (Strong’s word #3466). It appears 27 times in the NT. Catholics, by the way, regard Protestants as part of this Body of Christ, by virtue of their regeneration in the sacrament of baptism. That’s not just ne saying this, or Vatican II. The Council of Trent taught it in the 16th century.

Even if we wish to play along with the maternal metaphor, children outgrow their parents, so “in a very real sense,” the church should outgrow Mary. [p. 61]

Right. By the same token,  God is called our Father, so are we supposed to outgrow Him, too (following the paternal metaphor?).

Once again, notice the wild leaps of logic. Does kecharitomene actually mean “full of grace”? or is that reading the Vulgate back into the Greek? This is substituting tradition for what the text actually says. [p. 61]

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson thought it did:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer). (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. II, 13)

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol., II, 171). Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (The Roman Catholic Controversy [1996], 201).

In context, Mary is favored by God to be messiah’s mother. Gabriel can’t refer to someone as the object of divine favor unless they were immaculately conceived? Because Catholic Mariology is so underdetermined by Scripture, Catholic theologians must inflate the few references to Mary in the NT. [p. 61]

Here is the relevant biblical argument:

For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

Romans 6:14: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (cf. Rom 5:17, 20-21; 2 Cor 1:12; 2 Timothy 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (cf. Acts 15:11; Rom 3:24; 11:5; Eph 2:5; Titus 2:11; 3:7; 1 Pet 1:10)

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.

In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.

The Bible never says Mary is the ark of the covenant. That’s another example of Catholics building on a false premise. [p. 62]

It does, in effect, through several analogies.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus is the true temple. But in Catholic Mariology, Mary replaces Jesus. [p. 62]

She does no such thing, according to our teaching. This is simply Hays’ emotional anti-Marianism and unbiblical “either/or” dichotomies. Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid wrote, against this false notion:

Jesus shares his other unique roles in lesser ways with Christians.

1) Jesus is the Creator of all things (John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, Heb 1:1-2), yet when it comes to creating human life Jesus shares this role with men and women, mediating his creatorship through us via sexual intercourse . . . [making] his role as Creator dependent in a way on human action.

2) Jesus is the shepherd of his flock the Church (Jn 10:16), yet he shares his shepherdhood in a subordinate way with others, beginning with Peter (Jn 21:15-17) and extending it later to others (Eph 4:11) . . . Jesus says he’s the only shepherd (Jn 10:11-16), yet this seemingly exclusive statement doesn’t conflict with him making Peter shepherd . . . or with his calling others to be shepherds as well (Eph 4:11). Peter emphasizes that Jesus shares his role as shepherd with others by calling Jesus the chief shepherd . . . (1 Pet 5:4). Note also that the Greek construction of John 10:16 . . . is the same as 1 Timothy 2:5 (. . . one mediator . . .). The apostles and their successors the bishops, are truly shepherds also.

3) Jesus is the high priest of the New Covenant . . . (Heb 3:1, 4:14-15, 5:5-10, 7:15-26, 8:1, 9:11). But the Bible also says Christians are called to share in Christ’s priesthood (1 Pet 2:5-9; Rev 1:6, 5:10, 20:6).

4) Jesus is the supreme judge (Jn 5:27, 9:39; Rom 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10; 2 Tim 4:1), yet Christians are called to share in Christ’s judgeship. They will be judges in heaven, even judging the angels (Matt 19:28; Lk 22:30; 1 Cor 6:2-3; Rev 20:4).

5) Jesus is the sovereign king of the universe (Mk 15:32; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 15:3, 17:14, 19:16), but he shares his kingship with all Christians, who in heaven will wear crowns, sit on thrones, and reign as kings alongside Jesus – but always subordinate to him . . . (see also Matt 19:23; Lk 22:30; Rev 1:6, 3:21, 5:10).

6) Jesus forgives our sins and reconciles us to the Father (2 Cor 5:18-21), but he calls us to share in various ways in his ministry of forgiveness and reconciliation (Matt 9:5-8, 18:18; Jn 20:21-2; Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 5:18-20; James 5:14-15) . . .

Each Christian is called to share in these roles in subordinate ways. The principle of sharing in Christ’s roles extends, in the form of intercessory prayer, to Christ’s mediatorship as well.” (“Any Friend of God’s is a Friend of Mine”, This Rock [now Catholic Answers Magazine], Sep. 1992, 7-13; quote from 10-12; numbers added)

This is true even regarding salvation and distribution of grace, according to many biblical passages: particularly from St. Paul. Mary can help distribute God’s grace and salvation? No problem at all, teaches Paul in many passages. Paul conveys not the slightest inkling or hint that any of this usurps God’s sole prerogatives.

***

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

Catholic Miracles Unfairly Criticized & Biblically Defended; St. Padre Pio; St. Joseph Cupertino

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — a collection of articles from his site — has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, knowing full well my history of being condemned and vilified by other anti-Catholics (and his buddies) like James White, Eric Svendsen, and James Swan, Hays was quite — almost extraordinarily — charitable towards me. He wrote then:

I don’t think I’ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don’t dislike him. . . . I don’t think there’s anything malicious about Armstrong—unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it’s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind. . . . The term “apostasy” carries with it a heavy presumption that the apostate is a hell-bound reprobate. I think it’s unwarranted to assume that all Catholics or converts to Catholicism are damned.

Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have “an evil character,” am “actually evil,” “ego-maniac, narcissist,” “idolater,” “self-idolater,” “hack who pretends to be a professional apologist,” given to “chicanery,” one who doesn’t “do any real research,” “a stalwart enemy of the faith . . .  no better than [the atheists] Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,” with an intent to “destroy faith in God’s word,” “schizophrenic,” “emotionally unhinged,” one who “doesn’t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,” “has no peace of mind,” “a bipolar solipsist,” “split-personality,” and a “bad” man. He wasn’t one to mince words! See more gory details.

I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I’ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That’s what I’m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It’s a theological discussion. This is one of many planned critiques of his book (see my reasons why I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 1: Miracles]

Parsing Catholic miracles

[T]e Martyrdom of Polycarp says he was fireproof when the Romans tried to burn him alive. Assuming that’s true, should that be classified as a Catholic miracle? [p. 16]

Yes.

Was Polycarp Roman Catholic? [p. 16]

Yes, of course.

Or is that an anachronistic designation? [p. 16]

Not at all. He was a member of the one true Church begun by Jesus, under the initial human leadership of St. Peter, and then under his successors to the papal office. That Church is demonstrably historically continuous to this day. Polycarp rejected sola Scriptura and sola fide (faith alone): the two “pillars” of the Protestant Revolution. He regarded Tobit, the Didache, and Ecclesiasticus as Holy Scripture. That’s either being simply a “Catholic” (as I would contend) or (as it seems anyone is obliged to hold) at the very least more Catholic than proto-“Protestant”, since he denied the two pillars which supposedly sum up the main tenets and distinctives of the Protestant revolt, which had to wait until 1362 years after his death.

He wasn’t Catholic in the sense that Ignatius Loyola was Catholic, or Matthias Joseph Scheeben–much less Joseph Ratzinger. [p. 16]

Of course he wasn’t. He lived in the first and second centuries. I could turn it around and say that “Hays wasn’t a Calvinist in the sense that John Calvin was a Calvinist.” But he was still a Calvinist! All those hundreds of years since Polycarp saw much development of doctrine and practice. That’s why he is different from the later figures, but it’s not an essential difference. It’s the difference between an acorn and an oak tree: the former develops inexorably into the latter, and the DNA was the same all along. The acorn is an oak tree in the making, or a “very young” oak tree, as it were.

Consider the cult of Padre Pio. There’s evidence that he used carbonic acid. If so, his stigmata might be the result of self-mutilation. [p. 17]

Prove it, then! Put your money where your mouth is! This is the constant unethical method of anti-Catholic polemicists: to throw out a serious charge but not to take enough time to document it and make the case on the grounds of factuality and plausibility: just as in any other form of honest research. Failing that, it’s simply gossip and rumormongering, which is clearly unethical. Some people will read something like this and never forget it, and never look into it to verify or disprove it. And if it’s false, it was bearing false witness on Hays’ part: a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

Readers may wish to read a favorable report of St. Pio’s stigmata, and when they began. The date was September 20, 1918. The scurrilous claim is that St. Pio asked for the acid in the “summer of 1919,” some 9-10 months after his stigmata began. The acid could hardly have caused [what would then merely mimic] the stigmata, let alone promulgate a complete fakery. False accusations against St. Padre Pio (like those against Jesus and Paul) are nothing new.

Saints are often persecuted not only by anti-Catholics, but (sadly) by those in the Church. The Holy See in 1931 ordered St. Padre Pio to cease public ministry and offering Mass in public, cease hearing confessions, and to not make any public appearances. He was also accused by some of insanity and fraud. In 1960, the Vatican again restricted his public ministry based on the notion that his popularity had gotten out of control. In that year, one Fr. Carlo Maccari accused the 73-year-old Padre Pio of having sex with female penitents “twice a week.” Fr. Maccari later admitted that he had lied and asked for forgiveness in a public recantation on his deathbed in 1961. St. Pio’s stigmata wounds completely vanished three days before he died.

In principle, some eucharistic miracles might be staged. A homemade communion wafer with ingredients designed to have a chemical reaction that simulates blood when immersed in wine. Or actual human blood could be one of the ingredients. [p. 17]

Yes, maybe so. But this proves absolutely nothing with regard to purported miracles of this sort that produced verified human blood and had strict controls against manipulation by unscrupulous folks. The presence of a counterfeit dollar bill doesn’t disprove all genuine dollar bills. This is not an argument. It’s simply a statement of the obvious truism that there are people out there who may try to fake miracles for a thrill or money or anti-Catholic motives; on a dare, whatever!

The miracles attributed to St. Joseph Copertino include levitation, psychokinesis, poltergeist activity, and materialization of objects. Even if genuine, there’s nothing specifically Christian about that phenomena. . . . there’s nothing specifically divine about such phenomena. If genuine, it’s more like a supernatural stunt. They fail to exhibit divine wisdom, justice, mercy, holiness, and truth. We’d expect a divine miracle to have a certain dignity or fittingness. Not just be something weird or frivolous. From what I’ve read, there’s a connection between possession and levitation. [pp. 17-18]

This is a rather bizarre argument. How is “materialization of objects” different in essence from Jesus multiplying the loaves and the fish? Did not Jesus materialize those two things, in abundance? Was that miracle not “specifically Christian”? Was it not “divine”: having been done by the express will of Jesus, Who is God? Should it be properly described as a “supernatural stunt”? What in the world was Hays thinking here? Or was he not thinking at all when he made the charges, in his ever-present prejudice against Catholicism? Did the feeding of the five and four thousand not “exhibit divine wisdom, justice, mercy, holiness, and truth”? Did it lack “dignity” and “fittingness”? Was it “weird or frivolous”? Talk about rhetorical overkill! We’re gonna see it a lot, believe me, folks, as I go through this book. All of these terms, by direct analogy, would apply to the two feeding miracle-events. Thus, Hay’s argument collapses in a spectacular reductio ad absurdum.

The same reductio amply applies to his bashing of “levitation” as well (which he associates — obviously “poisoning the well” — with “possession”: a nice touch there). That involves a person going up into the air in a supernatural fashion. Elijah did that (with the extra spectacle of a chariot and fire). Our Lord Jesus ascended (I visited the spot in 2014). At the Second Coming, millions of the elect will be “caught up . . . in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess 4:17). The “two witnesses” of Revelation (11:3) were dead, but then “a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, ‘Come up hither!’ And in the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud” (Revelation 11:11-12).

That’s four scriptural instances of “ascensions” of one sort or another. Certainly these events were more lacking in “dignity” and “fittingness” and “weird or frivolous” than mere levitation, which is a very small analogy to an ascension. Therefore, if instances of levitation are regarded in this hostile fashion, how is it that the four biblical ascensions are not? What is the big difference? Well, the only one that is worth mentioning is that the one thing is said to be specifically “Catholic” and the others aren’t. Therefore, the scorn and derision is heaped on the Catholic miracle, with complete hypocrisy and a double standard (certainly not utilizing reason). When severe bias is always in the picture, this is the sort of incoherent “reasoning” we see. It’s equal parts pitiful and pathetic.

Moreover, “psychokinesis” is the moving of objects by mental activity alone. We have no problem finding many biblical parallels to this, too: Jesus calming the waves and the storm, and causing Lazarus to be raised and to walk out of his tomb, and legs suddenly being able to walk, the stone in front of Jesus’ tomb moving away from the entrance, etc. This means that all the name-calling that Hays made about this and the other “Catholic” miracles should consistently be applied to the analogous biblical events that are even more dramatic and unusual.

As for “poltergeist activity” (noisy or frivolous ghosts), Scripture is filled with that, too, or at least things highly akin or similar. We have Samuel the prophet (not an impersonating demon!, as some claim) appearing to Saul, Moses and Elijah appearing and talking to Jesus at His transfiguration, the two witnesses of Revelation 11, “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep” who “were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (Mt 27:52-53). We have Jesus in effect walking through a wall to appear to His disciples after His resurrection. He eats fish with them. He closes the eyes of witnesses Mary Magdalene and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, then reveals to them His identity. We have an angel wrestling with Jacob. Are all these phenomena “weird or frivolous” and all the other nonsense that Hays spews about Catholic miracles?

I have provided biblical analogies for all four things he brought up. His rather weak and insubstantial “argument” has now been utterly demolished and pulverized, if I do say so.

***

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.

6-10,000-Year-Old Universe (?); “Myths” in Genesis; Straw Men; Protestant Scholarly “Authorities”; Exorcism; Symbolic Interpretation of Scripture

The late Steve Hays (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) writer, who was very active on his blog, called Triablogue (now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book, Catholicism — which appears to simply be a collection of his articles on his site — has graciously been made available there for free. This is one of many planned critiques of that book. Rather than list them all in individual sections, interested readers are directed to the “Steve Hays” section of my Anti-Catholicism web page, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve’s words will be in blue.

*****

[Chapter 1: Miracles]

Speaking for myself, I rarely attended Sunday school as a kid. I wasn’t raised on a cartoon version of the flood narrative. Likewise, many people come to the Christian faith as adults. They had no Christian upbringing. [p. 5]

It should be noted, however (speaking of “cartoon” versions of things), that Hays was a young-earther: typically a position held by biblical fundamentalists. In a post called “Dawkins Postmortem” (10-22-06), he wrote: “The universe is between 6000-10,000 years old, give or take.” He noted that he held this view “with certain qualifications” but they are not such as to change the essential position. Note that I am not asserting that he himself was a fundamentalist, based on this consideration alone; only that it is in fact held mostly by biblical fundamentalists, who interpret the Bible much more literally than most reputable Bible scholars among all the various sorts of Christians. Hays was operating within a certain paradigm, at any rate — whatever it was –, as we all do.

The origin of Jericho as an established city has been dated to 8,000 BC (many scholars regard it as the oldest city in the world): at which time it already had “a massive stone wall around the settlement, strengthened at one point at least by a massive stone tower” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Jericho”). That would mean that it was in place at about the same time that Hays thinks (if we adopt his older date) the entire universe began. And there were developments of the city (“a long period of settlement”) up to a thousand years before the universe began, according to Hays: quite a feat!

Catholic Cognitive Dissonance [p. 5: subtitle]

Citing a Catholic who referred to “biblical literalists,” Hays polemically shot back with, “Well, Catholics are literalists when it comes to the Bread of Life discourse (John 6).” [p. 5] Yes, quite true. The issue in such matters is whether it is warranted to interpret a text literally or symbolically, allegorically, or as an example of hyperbole and many other non-literal forms of expression that are found throughout the Bible. The exegete needs to determine the literary nature of any given biblical text. I’ve written at length about how there are insuperable exegetical problems if one interprets John 6 (i.e., the second part of it) non-literally. See, for example: John 6: Literal Eucharist Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments) [8-15-09].

Hays noted the words of Ven. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis [1950], about the book of Genesis, and immediately set out to caricature the pope’s words and to distort his actual thoughts and intentions (something, sadly, that he habitually did in his apologetics, as I will show time and again in this series):

i) To say Gen 1-11 is metaphorical rather than historical is a rearguard action. That reflects the triumph of modernism in contemporary Catholicism. It’s certainly not the traditional view of Gen 1-11. [p. 7]

But of course, Pius XII didn’t express this heretical notion in the first place (one notes that Hays didn’t document him actually doing this). Pius XII and the Church herself are very clear about this: the early chapters of Genesis are historical in nature, but expressed in a semi-mythical, very primitive literary form, that we know little about. Pope Pius XII wrote in this Encyclical:

[T]he first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, . . . (38; my italics and bolding)

Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers. (39; my italics and bolding)

So we have what a pope actually expressed, then we see how Hays twisted and distorted it, so that he could set forth a straw man mythical version (here’s where the true myth lies!) of what the Catholic Church teaches. The first task of the honest researcher, on the other hand, is to accurately document what his or her opponent’s position is. The above distortions of our beliefs are simply not honest. Hays was too sharp of a guy to be that ignorant. This was deliberate distortion. A sentient being with brain cells and a rudimentary understanding of logic and grammar (and a sense of fair play and intellectual honesty) can’t possibly read Pius XII’s words in Humani Generis and summarize them as expressing the notion that “Gen[esis] 1-11 is metaphorical rather than historical.”

ii) Scholars who deny the historicity of Gen 1-11, or treat it as metaphorical, don’t suddenly view the rest of the Pentateuch as historical. Scholars who take that view of Gen 1-11 don’t think the patriarchal narratives, or Exodus, or wilderness account, constitute a record of human experiences in living memory, based directly on eyewitness testimony, interviews with eyewitnesses. [p. 7]

I agree. These are the liberal dissidents and dissenters that all Christian communions are “blessed” with. The difference in the Catholic Church is that we have an authoritative magisterium (pope and ecumenical councils) that can resolve theological issues and controversies once and for all. Protestants (and even Orthodox) have no such thing. All they can do is take head count of scholars, which accomplishes nothing and is a form of the ad populum fallacy (“lots of folks — and the smart people — believe x, therefore x must be true”).

Hays, quite often, trots out names of the “usual suspect” Catholic liberal dissidents and presents their views, as if they reflect actual Catholic defined, magisterial teaching. They do not. Catholic scholars are not our authorities in the way that Protestant scholars function, as an ersatz “authority” in Protestantism. And the latter do that because they have to “fill” the void left by the Protestant institutional and theological rejection of ecumenical councils and the papacy and authoritative apostolic tradition and apostolic succession, and they can’t possibly do so. The strong Protestant tendency (easily demonstrated from the sad history of their endless denominations) is for these scholars to keep getting more and more anti-traditional and theologically liberal (even in the Protestant sense) and for entire denominations to follow their lead and walk right over the cliff.

Hays at this point switched on a dime and started discussing Catholic Mariology (anti-Catholics generally are notorious for irrational and/or deliberately evasive topic-switching), exorcism and Catholic belief in the Real, Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Why not interpret “Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth” as mythical or metaphorical language? [p. 8]

Because it was part and parcel of the miracle of the virgin birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We believe that He was so special (as God the Son and God Incarnate that even the birth process itself was miraculous in a unique way. When God the Son is being born, that is an event unique in the history of the world: a one-time event that will never happen again. And we believe that this was entirely proper and “fitting.”
Recently I made a biblical study of the latter concept, that is often mocked by Protestants.

Why not interpret demonic possession and exorcism as an archaic way of expressing a deeper content? [p. 8]

Simply because demons are very real and harmful creatures, just as the devil is. Catholics believe in these things, which is why we are virtually the only Christians to take exorcism seriously: something that inexorably follows from Jesus actually commanding the disciples to “cast out demons” (Mt 10:8; Mk 3:15; 16:17). After following Jesus’ orders, the disciples exclaimed like good little exorcists: “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” (Lk 10:17). Yes they are.

But Hays (on p. 41) calls his own view “semicessationist”: meaning that “God now works miracles directly or individually, rather than working through an official intermediary (e.g. apostle, prophet, healer).” It follows logically that no Christian today can exercise the prerogative that Catholic exorcists do: to cast out demons. Only God can do that. The problem is that this novel idea is a mere “Protestant tradition of men” that isn’t found in the Bible anywhere, which explains why Hays never attempts to defend it from the Bible, in his discussion of it on pages 40-42.

Instead, he disagrees with another Protestant tradition of men from a fellow Calvinist: good ol’ Benjamin Warfield’s even more extreme complete cessationism. And so he continues the proud Protestant tradition of never-ending internal dissension (that can never be decisively resolved within their rule of faith and worldview), while we seek to follow our Lord’s express injunctions in Holy Scripture and help poor souls to be freed from horrific demonic possession. Which is more biblical: dissensions that are roundly condemned by Paul ten times or more, or liberating human beings from oppressing and possessing demons? Which pleases God more? Which is more loving and Christlike?

Why not interpret the claim that “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” in a wafer as mythical or metaphorical? [p. 8]

Because the exegesis of John 6 doesn’t logically or theologically permit such an interpretation, as I explained in an article linked above. The symbolic standpoint is utterly incoherent and self-defeating.

Why not treat the Assumption of Mary as a metaphor? [p. 8]

Because if in fact the Blessed Virgin Mary was granted an entirely unmerited, gratuitous gift by God of being without original sin, then the absence of bodily decay after death (which came from original sin) leads logically to an immediate bodily resurrection, graphically expressed by her being bodily assumed into heaven.

Why not treat Marian apparitions like Fatima as mythical or metaphorical? [p. 8]

Because there were eyewitnesses of the apparitions, and associated miracles (like the miracle of the sun), and healings: none of which are merely mythical or metaphorical; they’re quite real, just as witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection experienced real, tangible events (with Thomas even touching Jesus’ physical wounds), and Jesus eating fish after His resurrection.

Devout Catholic intellectuals are by turns skeptical and superstitious. Rationalistic and fideistic. [p. 8]

This is sheer nonsense (complete with one of Hays’ trademark incomplete sentences), as just shown. The orthodox Catholic exercises faith, as all Christians do and must, but it’s a rational faith, based in part on evidences from reason, not a blind faith.

***

Photo credit: The Whore of Babylon (workshop of Lucas Cranach): colorized illustration from Martin Luther’s 1534 translation of the Bible [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: The late Steve Hays was a Calvinist and anti-Catholic writer and apologist. This is one of my many critiques of Hays’ “Catholicism”: a 695-page self-published volume.